Author Topic: Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design (Read 33077 times)

HoHun · « **Reply #390 on:** January 02, 2005, 12:19:49 PM »

Hi Kurfürst,

>This was given early February 1945.

>"...General (Engineer) Paul critized in this meeting, that the Sondernotleistung with 1.98ata on behalf The Company [Daimler Benz] was handed over directly to General Galland, before a through test was completed. He was also extremely critical about on behalf of the Technischen Aussenddienst, this power setting was given directly to the troops/units, and the engines were set to it..."

"Apart from the individual men the Chief Engineer has suggested, it is possible to set single fighter-recons with 1.98ata. Decision has not been taken on this yet. Delayed ignition is to be used with engines at 1.9ata and 1.98ata setups, as a result of the termal load that had been observed with them. Therefore all engines, that are flwon with the abovementioned Sondernotleistungs, are to be set with delayed ignition."

>Daimler Benz DB 605 DB/DC manual issued on Dec 5 1944 notes the use of 1.98ata as possible.

From Priller's "JG26":

"Me 109G - 1943, first one squadron of II./26 and later the entire III./26 was converted to this type, after the group had flown FW 190 before. High altitude aircraft, engine ca. 1500 - 1600 HP, Daimler-Benz DB605. The engine was boosted by the use of methyl or ethyl alcohol, manifold pressure was boosted to 1.9 ata temporarily. Pressure cabin adjusts conditions in the cockpit at 12000 m altitude to those at about 6000 m altitude. [...]"

I'm not sure what type that was, the pressure cabin seems to suggest G-5.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

MiloMorai · « **Reply #391 on:** January 02, 2005, 12:29:56 PM »

A bit of text quoted from some book is not proof. You need the original document or at least its doc number Barbi.

Crumpp · « **Reply #392 on:** January 02, 2005, 01:01:12 PM »

Quote

S : Crumpp, unless you back up your claims with flight tests or direct comparisons, that`s my last word on the subject. I do not wish to discuss you subjective beliefs, as they are not proven right objectively, and they can`t be proven wrong to you anyways. My points are firmly backed up by the evidence of flight tests and direct comparisons, so I don`t have to prove any further.

You're living in fantasyland, Izzy. The flight graphs have been posted TWICE and clearly show at low altitudes the FW-190 is superior.

You want to use anecdotal evidence when it supports your side but rebuff it when it used against it.

Your blind, just as EVERYONE on the BBS has said in the past. There is no discussion with you because you refuse to see the facts.

Your thrust to weight calculations does not use the power curves or the prop efficiencies so are just crap. They do not reflect the truth as clearly shown in the FLIGHT GRAPHS!

You want to take the flight test of 801C powered FW-190A and attempt to apply it to the entire series. It does not apply.

Crumpp

MANDO · « **Reply #393 on:** January 02, 2005, 02:02:59 PM »

Kurfürst, vertical zoom climb has little or nothing to do with power/weight ratio. That ratio is so insignificant for WW2 planes that we can take it out of the equation for vertical zooms. 450hp/t or 490hp/t mean the same, attach these engines pointing up to a mass of 4000 and 3000 Kg and see what happens: nothing.

Weight (inertia) and initial speed are the primary and only factors for similar draggy planes. Any 109 and btw any spit would be fast vertically outzoomed by 190s (as well as outdived). It doesnt matter that 109 can keep climbing at near stall speed 2 or 3 seconds more doing 50 fpm, the much heavier 190 will stall earlier, but also higher.

Angus · « **Reply #394 on:** January 02, 2005, 03:04:55 PM »

Quite right Mando.
Something with a very good zoom climb could be shaped as a bullet for instance, - just speedxweight minus drag.
But for acceleration, the 109 should be better from low speed, the lines meeting or even crossing along the way.
Wonder if someone has graphed that.
The reason: wing loading, so at lower speed the 109 has lower induced drag.
When it goes to dive, the 190 should also beat the 109.
Induced drag is practically irrelevant, - the formula is parasite drag and mass. So, something with more mass and roughly the same drag should reack terminal velocity quicker, right?

Crumpp · « **Reply #395 on:** January 02, 2005, 04:24:38 PM »

Correct Angus. Same for a zoom climb.

Crumpp

Crumpp · « **Reply #396 on:** January 02, 2005, 04:28:56 PM »

Quote

Top Level speed has nothing to do with top level acceleration. If it would have, even the P-47 would accelerate as well or better than the FW 190. From tests we know the P-47 compared as a pig to the 190 in acceleration.

Yes it does, Izzy. Go read the Spirfire Mk IX vs FW-190A3 tactical trials. This was confirmed in a recent P38 thread as well. Planes do not accellerate at a constant rate throughout the accelleration curve.

Quote

As for high speed control, the 190 was better with lighter controls, but 109 pilots didn`t find it difficult to control the plane either at high speeds.

Not according to Gollob in this same report:

Face it. At low altitudes the FW-190 is the better fighter. The 109 and the FW-190 complemented each other like the Tempest and Spitfire in the RAF.

That is not to say the FW-190 was "helpless" at high altitudes (read the P47D4 tactical trials).
Neither was the 109 helpless at low altitudes.

Crumpp

Angus · « **Reply #397 on:** January 02, 2005, 05:55:14 PM »

When it comes to speed, zoom and roll, I was just wondering if anyone had the performance of the clipped, chopped and cropped Spitfire MkIX's (+25 boost).
I know the roll was very good, the turn rate suffering slightly instead. Now, the power was optimized for lower altitudes, so I wonder where that would leave you. Anyone?

Crumpp · « **Reply #398 on:** January 02, 2005, 08:54:10 PM »

Only thing I have is a survey from Spit IX pilots on the clipped wing spits performance in combat against the FW-190.

It's been posted before but I will be glad to send you a copy.

Crumpp

MiloMorai · « **Reply #399 on:** January 03, 2005, 04:19:23 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
When it comes to speed, zoom and roll, I was just wondering if anyone had the performance of the clipped, chopped and cropped Spitfire MkIX's (+25 boost).

The CCC Spits were Mk Vs Angus. It is not chopped but clapped.

Angus · « **Reply #400 on:** January 03, 2005, 06:41:10 AM »

But the clipped some Mk IX's right?
And altered the turbine?

MiloMorai · « **Reply #401 on:** January 03, 2005, 06:47:57 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
But the clipped some Mk IX's right?
And altered the turbine?

Yes other Spits had clipped wing tips (XII, XIV, XVI). The Merlin 50 series were the only ones that had the dia specifically decreased (cropped) for the supercharger impellor. They had a M suffex.

KurfÃ¼rst · « **Reply #402 on:** January 03, 2005, 08:02:59 AM »

Originally posted by Crumpp
You're living in fantasyland, Izzy. The flight graphs have been posted TWICE and clearly show at low altitudes the FW-190 is superior.

"Superior, superior"... Booooring, Crumpp, booooring.

You want to use anecdotal evidence when it supports your side but rebuff it when it used against it.

And you claim it`s me who lives in fantasyland...?
The PROBLEM IS, Crumpp, you have no evidence.

Your blind, just as EVERYONE on the BBS has said in the past. There is no discussion with you because you refuse to see the facts.

You behave like a child. Crying like a baby and calling the opponent names in your frustration will just strenghten this perception of you in other. "the facts"? I have been asking for those all along the way, Crumpp, and you could provide nothing except your generalized theories of how thing should be...
The only thing you can achive with that is that I will add you to the list of clowns too. You and Milo will be neighbours, lol. You tell a bird from it`s feathers, a man from his friends, or so the saying goes around here. If angie and milomoron are the people who`s words have a weight for you.. it also gives an idea how much you can be taken seriously.

Your thrust to weight calculations does not use the power curves or the prop efficiencies so are just crap. They do not reflect the truth as clearly shown in the FLIGHT GRAPHS!

So what is that Great Truth Shown on Flight Graphs ?
Oh I forgot... "190 is superior"-mantra? :rolf

As for the calculations, they were kindly prepeared by Greg Shaw, and you don`t have the f. idea how they were calculated, so shut up and put up.

You want to take the flight test of 801C powered FW-190A and attempt to apply it to the entire series. It does not apply.

I asked for other flight tests, in fact I showed later flight tests concerning 801D powered FW 190s and they prove you wrong. You claimed the existence of flight tests that would support you, yet there`s silence about those ever since... they are made up only in a fanboys private reality!

Cheeers crumpp.

KurfÃ¼rst · « **Reply #403 on:** January 03, 2005, 08:14:19 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MANDO
Kurfürst, vertical zoom climb has little or nothing to do with power/weight ratio. That ratio is so insignificant for WW2 planes that we can take it out of the equation for vertical zooms. 450hp/t or 490hp/t mean the same, attach these engines pointing up to a mass of 4000 and 3000 Kg and see what happens: nothing.

Interesting, then there must be another reason why the 109 was better in zoom climbs than the 190.

Weight (inertia) and initial speed are the primary and only factors for similar draggy planes.

Really? Two factors only? Oh, it`s THAT simple! Then why are those stories of P-51`s stalling out behind Bf 109s in zoom climb, being attributed to the latter`s ability to literally hang on it`s propellor...? Why is that in real life tests, despite your theory gives all advantage to the 190, it actually looses out in zoom climb?

Any 109 and btw any spit would be fast vertically outzoomed by 190s (as well as outdived).

The Spit probably. It was both draggy and lightweight, neither being good for zoom climb or dives...
On the other hand, real life tests (facts, mando, FACTS) show the 109 had no problem with either dive or zooming.

It doesnt matter that 109 can keep climbing at near stall speed 2 or 3 seconds more doing 50 fpm, the much heavier 190 will stall earlier, but also higher.

Interesting theory on the 190`s alleged relative zoom abilties, Mando. Not that I don`t respect the opinion but.... if the theory does not match the practice, then you should change the theory, or at least check it for flaws...

For as it stands, the AFDU tests clearly showed the P-51 and Tempest markedly superior to the FW 190A.
And guess what, the 109 fared better against those, it could match the P-51`s zoom climb (the 190 could not) and the Tempest had only slight advantage against it.

If your theory doesn`t match the facts, change the theory.

Crumpp · « **Reply #404 on:** January 03, 2005, 08:42:58 AM »

Shaw's book has a great example of the P51 not being able to zoom with an FW-190A.

Let me post the flight test a THIRD TIME!!!

Here the 109 is FAR behind the FW-190 at low altitudes:

Here we have-

560kph at Sea Level using Max Emergency power for the Bf-109G14

568 kph for the Bf-109G14/U3

580 Kph for the Bf-109K4.

Now lets look at the FW-190A8:

Lets see 578kph is DEFINATELY faster than 560kph or 568kph for the Bf-109G14. The Bf-109G14 came out in JULY '44. The SAME month the FW-190A8, which was already substantially faster than even the NEW Bf-109G14, was being re-engined to FW-190A9 standards!

So in reality, FW-190A8's are leaving Bf-109G6's in the dust at low altitudes with such a speed difference 109 Gruppes are complaining!!

About the time they close the speed gap somewhat with the G14, the FW-190A gets a new engine!

FW-190A9 does 595kph on the deck at 1.82ata@2700U/min. Much faster than the Bf-109K4 does until the last month of the war were it was able to equal the speed. By then however, the FW-190A was replaced by the FW-190D9. The hard facts are the 109 never got it's moment in the sun after the BMW 801C powered 190A's.

Crumpp