Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design

[Crumpp]

Yeah, I'd like to see the 190's redone as well, however I don't think we can expect a game designer to put as many hours into research as you have done. It is not unreasonable for HTC to model the 190 series the way they have done since the current performance is the general impression people have of these planes. Would be nice to see them redone, but I'd expect a lot of whining from Allied fans ignorant of the true nature of the 190.

Yeah Pyro is redoing them soon.  And yes I expect some whining from all sides.  The Allies because the FW-190 will be much more willing to lock horns and dogfight.

From the Luftwaffe guys because the FW-190A5 will change some.

Crumpp

[Kurfürst]

At low altitudes the 109s only real advantage is in SUSTAINED turn.

Why?

Any high speed manuvering the 190 is much better.

Agreed, but depends on the definition of 'high speed'.


Level accelleration, zoom climb, Dive accelleration/Speed, Agility, and level speed belong to the FW-190.

Crumpp that`s boring. Prove it, don`t just talk. I already proved the opposite.

The above graph w. the A-9 is interesting. Do you have the pair for climbs? If so, could you post it? I can make a graph out of it, but not today.

How many A-9`s were made w. TS? What was the SL power of the engine, it doesn`t make much sense compared to the boosted D-2 results... What`s the * for the TS, I can`t read out...

See ya tomorrow.

[Crumpp]

I already proved the opposite.

No you have not Izzy.  

Why?

At low altitudes:

Level accelleration:

While climb does factor into level accelleration an aircrafts top level speed does as well.  At altitudes the FW-190 is faster it accellerates better than the 109.

Zoom climb:

The FW-190 was not a draggy airplane especially for a radial.  With greater mass (more inertia), comparable drag, and better TW (accelleration) it outzooms the 109 at altitudes it is faster.

Dive Accelleration:

The same factors that make it zoom better than the 109 combine with gravity to leave the 109 behind at all altitudes.

Dive Speed:

Just as the FW-190 always had better high speed manuverability it maintained this in the dive.  It was able to achieve higher speeds because it could control the speeds.  Pilot anecdotes claim as high as 1000kph.  Not suprising.  The book limit was 900kph.
The FW-190 could enter a 2 degree dive and gain substantial speed.

Level speed:

Again I would say TW.

Although I have not really examined the Bf-109 performance in relation the to the FW-190's scientifically like I have the Spitfires offhand it seems that:

Unlike the Spitfire the FW-190 vs 109 the FW-190 is superior only when it generates more horsepower.  When they are equal the 109 is superior.

When the FW-190 and spitfire are equal, the FW-190 is superior due to less overall drag.

Might do some calculations and post them.  I will certainly compare the drag polars.

Crumpp

[MANDO]

Originally posted by GScholz
It is not unreasonable for HTC to model the 190 series the way they have done since the current performance is the general impression people have of these planes.

My general impression of Typh is something that cant climb, cant turn, cant roll and breaks with small g loads. Now what? I hope 190s have not been modeled by any general impression of the people. BTW, how many months since Pyro post indicating the intention of remodeling 190 series?

[Crumpp]

He was going to redo them earlier, IIRC.  I asked him to wait until after a research trip I am making in January.

Crumpp

[Crumpp]

How many A-9`s were made w. TS?

I posted the production figures for FW-190A9's.  IIRC, it's 710 FW-190A9's.  This does not include as many FW-190F9's, and the FW-190A8's that were re-engined with the BMW801TS/TU (Jul '44 directive) or the FW-190A8/R11 production.

As for Horsepower.  The chart I have says almost 2300PS at FTH.  The FW-190A was definately hitting the drag wall by this time.

Crumpp

[Angus]

Crumpp:
"I asked him to wait until after a research trip I am making in January.

Crumpp"

If you are hopping over the pond, you're welcome to stop by

[Crumpp]

Wish I was hoping over the pond on this one.  Soon Angus, Soon!

Interesting.

Just check the drag polars.  If I am reading them correctly (double check my P&H) then it looks like:

CDp = .024 for the Bf-109G2

CDp= .025 for the FW-190A4

+ or - 1 margin of error for both due to fuzzy chart.

Anyway looks like the parasitic drag was extremely close.

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

As for 1.98ata, I have seen evidence that DB was supplying the frontline with the engines set to 1.98ata already in 1944.
Dec 5 handbook of the DB/DC notes the use of 1.98ata, and no restrictions mentioned. If you know any evidence to the contrary, please let me know. I haven`t seen any.

Olivier Lefebvre, noted authority on the BF 109, has stated:

    The DB605DM was cleared up to 1.75ata, the DB605DB pushed the limit up to 1.8ata, both could be sustained with use of either B4+MW-50 (as mentionned in various documents, even if it was an afterthought in the DM case) or C3-MW-50. However the DB605DC max boost at 1.98ata could be achieved with use of C3+MW-50 only.

    As for the fuel supply, I own copies showing detailed stockpile status for February-April 1945... But yes the C3 was definitely scarce.

    As of March 1945 only a handful of 109 gruppen were using C3 for their mounts, one of the few being the II/JG11 which were responsible for testing the 605DB/DC over January-March 1945. According to a document dated late January 1945 coming from DB the 1.80 had just been cleared following serious troubles (pre-ignition) reported by the unit testing the 1.80 ata boost. It is also noted that following the clearance of the 1.8ata boost the 1.98ata operational tests could now begin but with concern about the sparkplugs thermal resistance IIRC. C3 was not used by 109 units until the 1.98ata boost was cleared, they relied on B4+MW-50 so that C3 could go to the 190 units. And even after the clearance only few gruppen got it because of shortages due not only to C3 production but also to C3 delivery to the units.

    AFAIK 1.98ata boost was cleared late February but it seems to have been slowly introduced into service, I suspect the adjustments needed on the engine and the change of sparkplugs type (supply problems ???) took longer than expected. From other documents I know that C3 and B4 had severe quality problems beginning in late 1944. While it was not much of a problem with low boost, it had some serious effect on higher boost, so it might also have slowed down the introduction of 1.98ata boost. At least DB documents underlined the need for cleaner fuels than those in use at that time. You can safely assume that by March 1945 1.98 ata boost was being introduced, unfortunately I do not have much details for April 1945, but I doubt it would have changed much, given the situation.

Olivier is Butch2k.


On other boost restrictions for the 109.

   *Flugzeugmuster BF 109 G-1 mit motor DB 605A Kennblatt:

          The figures indicated refer to combat and climbing power. n - 2600 U/min:Plade - 1,3 ata. Take-off and emergency power are not as yet approved for the 605/A. Die angegebenen Leistungen beziehen sich auf kampf und steigleistung. n - 2600 U/min :Plade - 1.3 ata. Start und notleistung ist für 605/A zurzeit noch nicht freigegeben

    *R.L.M. message GL/C-TT No.1374/42 of 12.6.42 as translated by British Air Intellegence.

          A number of cases of breakdown in the DB 605 engine as a result of pistons burning through have occured. The following must therefore be observed.

          The Take-off and emergency output with a boost pressure of 1.42 atm. and 2800 revs. may not at present by used. The climbing and combat output with 1.3 atm. and 2600 revs. may in the case of the older engines (for works numbers see below), be used only when operationally essential.

    *Bf109 G-2 Bedienungsvorschrift-F1 Ausgabe Juli 1942

          *Note! "start and emergency power" is blocked and may not be used. *Achtung! Die "Start und notleistung" darf nicht benutzt werden, sie ist deshalb blockiert.

    *DB 605 Moteren-Karte 9 October 1942

          Take-off and emergency power is closed up to revocation , thus 2650 U/min (2600 U/min +2%) may not be exceeded in any flight attitude. Die Start und Notleistung ist bis auf Widerruf gesperrt, es dürfen somit 2650 U/min (2600 U/min +2%) in keiner Fluglage überschritten werden.

    * From 109 G1, G2 and G6 Meßrief - 1942 and 1943

          Take off and emergency power: Provisionally closed after VT instruction Nr.2206. Start und Notleistung: Vorläufig gesperrt nach VT-Anweisung Nr.2206

    *Bf109 G-2, G-4, G-6 Bedienungsvorschrift-F1 Ausgabe Juni 1943

          "Take-off and emergency power" may not be used; this stage is blocked in order to prevent over pressure. Die Leistungsstufe 'Start -und Notleistung' darf nicht benutzt werden; um Überdrücken zu verhindern, ist diese Stufe blockiert.

[Crumpp]

Good stuff, Milo.

I remember reading that on the LEMB.  Thanks for posting it.

Crumpp

[Kurfürst]

The stuff Milo has posted comes from the Spit Partisan site. It`s hardly relevant. The author produced a number of miserable articles to "prove" the Spitfire is the perfect, flawless airplane, the 109 being only an abolition. Hardly can it be taken seriously, it`s so pathetic as he has to do heavy selective qouting to push the agenda. He also goes hard into rewriting history claiming the one and only fuel used by Spits during BoB was 100 octane, he even gets as low as using white, thin yellow lines on white base for 1.98ata so even by accident one cannot see how much faster the 109K than the MkXIV. For example, some of the restrictions noted for the 605A come from a Rechlin testpaper of the 109G-1; the restriction qouted, but the given performance specs (too good for the agenda) were ignored. The site also claims 1.42ata was not cleared for the "better part of 1943". Than it goes further and it claims that "evidence points to it was not cleared until 1944". The site fails to give any evidence of the either claims...Pathetic is the only word.

So far there`s no real evidence, except of course there are records of meetings which note :

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.

Also:



There are of course some who proceed with the agenda to prove it was "never officially cleared". By coincidence, such claims only show up when it comes to performance comparision with their favourite aircraft...

[Crumpp]

There are of course some who proceed with the agenda to prove it was "never officially cleared". By coincidence, such claims only show up when it comes to performance comparision with their favourite aircraft...

Since flight performance graphs were used in this comparision, nothing changes.  It was just interesting information, Izzy.

At low altitudes:

Level accelleration:

While climb does factor into level accelleration an aircrafts top level speed does as well. At altitudes the FW-190 is faster it accellerates better than the 109.

Zoom climb:

The FW-190 was not a draggy airplane especially for a radial. With greater mass (more inertia), comparable drag, and better TW (accelleration) it outzooms the 109 at altitudes it is faster.

Dive Accelleration:

The same factors that make it zoom better than the 109 combine with gravity to leave the 109 behind at all altitudes.

Dive Speed:

Just as the FW-190 always had better high speed manuverability it maintained this in the dive. It was able to achieve higher speeds because it could control the speeds. Pilot anecdotes claim as high as 1000kph. Not suprising. The book limit was 900kph.
The FW-190 could enter a 2 degree dive and gain substantial speed.

Level speed:

Again I would say TW.

Although I have not really examined the Bf-109 performance in relation the to the FW-190's scientifically like I have the Spitfires offhand it seems that:

Unlike the Spitfire the FW-190 vs 109 the FW-190 is superior only when it generates more horsepower. When they are equal the 109 is superior.

When the FW-190 and spitfire are equal, the FW-190 is superior due to less overall drag.

Might do some calculations and post them. I will certainly compare the drag polars.

The Bf-109G2 and FW-190A4 have a CDp that is within .001 of one another.  With it's higher weight but better aspect ratio my guess is the induced drag of the 190/109 is not that far apart when you measure the forces.  

Crumpp

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Crumpp

Level accelleration:

While climb does factor into level accelleration an aircrafts top level speed does as well. At altitudes the FW-190 is faster it accellerates better than the 109.

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.

The reason for this that it has to do with powerloading and drag.  In both factors, the 109 is superior to the 190, and therefore it accelerated better. :

Powerloading G-2/A-5 :
G-2 1475/3.03t = 487 HP/t
A-5 1800/4t = 450 HP/t

Powerloading K-4/D-9 :

K-4 2000/3.362 = 595 HP/t
D-9 2240/4.250 = 525 HP/t

109s have superior superior thrust/weight ratio.
From the max.speed/power requirements it`s also obvious the 109 had less overall drag.

Acceleration, as calculated by Greg Shaw. At SL, at Full Throttle, from 250mph TAS: (in feet/seconds)

109 K-4 : 6.85
190 D-9 : 6.05
109 G-14: 5.59
109 G-10: 5.50
190 A-8 : 4.97
109 G-2 : 4.62
109 G-6 : 4.22



This is outlined by tests :

German test of LA-5FN notes :

"[the Bf109`s] Acceleration is probably comparable [to the La-5]".

and

"Because of it`s higher weight, the 8-190 accelerates less well [than the La-5]".





Zoom climb:
The FW-190 was not a draggy airplane especially for a radial. With greater mass (more inertia), comparable drag, and better TW (accelleration) it outzooms the 109 at altitudes it is faster.

Since the FW 190 has inferior acceleration, slightly higher drag (evident from the max.speed/power requirements), inferior T/W (shown above), PLUS it`s slow speed characteristics are inferior (it will depart controlled flight much sooner at the top of it`s zoom), it`s clearly inferior to the Bf 109 in that respects, when the zoom is initiated from similiar speed.

As evidenced by actual flight tests :

Tempest Tactical Trials, zoom climb :

vs. FW 190A
"Because of the Tempest V's speed and clean lines however, the Tempest has a markedly better zoom climb, where the speed is kept high. "

vs. Mustang III
"At similar performance height the Tempest has a better zoom climb. "

vs Me 109G
"The Tempest is only slightly better in a zoom climb if the two aircraft start at the same speed, but if the Tempest has an initial advantage, it will hold this advantage easily providing the speed is kept over 250 mph. "


Conclusion :
109G easily outzoomed the FW 190A.


Dive Accelleration:

The same factors that make it zoom better than the 109 combine with gravity to leave the 109 behind at all altitudes.

For the same reasons it doesn`t zoom better (proven by tests), neither it gains speed as quickly in the dives. It looses height faster though, it`s sink rate being higher. For this very reason, it can`t zoom as well. This is again clearly shown in mentioned tests (Rechlin`s FvsA).



Dive Speed:

Just as the FW-190 always had better high speed manuverability it maintained this in the dive. It was able to achieve higher speeds because it could control the speeds. Pilot anecdotes claim as high as 1000kph. Not suprising. The book limit was 900kph.
The FW-190 could enter a 2 degree dive and gain substantial speed.

There are numerous accounts of 109s reaching "1000 km/h" in dives, so this hardly proves anything. Dive limits are just what the manufacturers dare to suggest as safe. 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.



Level speed:

Again I would say TW.

Again the thrust/weight of the 109 was superior, so was it`s cleanness. It`s level speed was superior at all alttiudes in 1941, 1942, superior at high altitudes, inferior in low altitudes in 1943,  superior at high altitudes, equal in low altitudes in 1944/45.


PS : 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.

[MiloMorai]

Crummp, so nice of Barbi to call Butch2k a liar, is it not?

Now if anyone would know the unbiased truth, unlike Barbi, about the 109 it would be Butch(Olivier) who is writing a book that will be the 109 bible.


*Bf109 G-2, G-4, G-6 Bedienungsvorschrift-F1 Ausgabe Juni 1943

"Take-off and emergency power" may not be used; this stage is blocked in order to prevent over pressure. Die Leistungsstufe 'Start -und Notleistung' darf nicht benutzt werden; um Überdrücken zu verhindern, ist diese Stufe blockiert.

From the above, dated June 1943, could one not say that 7 months(June to Dec) is a better part of the year, as in 7/12 = 58%? Or is this the New Math according to Barbi?

[Kurfürst]

from
Willy Radinger / Wolfgang Otto : Messerscmitt Bf 109 F-K - Development, Testing, Production.