Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design

[Crumpp]

For as it stands, the AFDU tests clearly showed the P-51 and Tempest markedly superior to the FW 190A.

Figures you would pull this out.  That test also shows the 109 "embarrassed by its slats opening".  

It was a derated FW-190G used by SKG 10 in the night terror bombing campaign that the RAE tested.  Hardly a steller example of an FW-190.  Nowhere near representative of the air superiority fighter version.

Crumpp

[GScholz]

Power to weight ratio is important. Two main factors apply to zoom climbs: Power to weight ratio and weight.

All other factors being equal, the plane with the highest power to weight ratio will have the better zoom climb.

All other factors being equal, the plane with the highest weight will have the better zoom climb.

These two premises is what makes the 109, 190, P-47, P-38, La-7 etc. so good in the zoom. The P-38 perhaps being the zoom star in that line up since it scores big in both factors.

Also note that the higher the initial speed, the more the weight factor becomes dominant. Likewise, the lower the initial speed the more power to weight factor becomes dominant.

Also note that in a match up between a heavy plane with poor power to weight, and a light plane with good power to weigh: All other factors being equal the heavier plane will always pull away from the lighter plane initially in the zoom. The lighter plane however will catch up in the final stages of the climb. Even if both planes can zoom up to the exact same altitude, the heavier plane will always get halfway first. This is because in the initial stage speed is high and so is drag. That means there is little available excess engine power since most of it is countering drag. Inertia is then the only force available to counter gravity in a zoom climb. However as speed falls off, so does drag, and more excess engine power becomes available to counter gravity. This happens just about when the P-47 starts to flounder while its pilot is chanting "stall! stall! stall!" to the 109/Spit/Lala/Niki that is hanging on its propeller behind him slowly climbing closer and closer.

High weight with good zoom climb (like the P-47, P-38, Typhoon, Tempest, 190's (particularly 190D-9) is obviously an advantage since it initially opens the range to any pursuers, and if you have more initial energy it gives your pursuer less time to fire. An example of this situation would be a P-47 diving on a 109G-10 going full throttle at 20K. The P-47 overshoots and zooms back up. Even if the P-47 only had a marginal speed advantage at the bottom of the zoom, the 109 will always lose more speed in the initial stage of the zoom so the P-47 quickly opens the range, buying him more time for his wingman to save his butt before the 109 catches up in the final stage of the zoom climb and lobs 30mm pain at him.

[Crumpp]

Power to weight ratio is important. Two main factors apply to zoom climbs: Power to weight ratio and weight.

Yes it is and the 190/109 were within a few hundreths of pound.

Izzy's PW calculations are deceptive.  The BMW801 reaches FTH at a much lower altitude than the DB.  It simply develops more horsepower at a lower altitude just as the DB develops more horsepower at a higher altitudes.

Whenever the PW comes close the FW-190 wins the zoom.  It's drag is for all purposes equal as is it's PW.  The Primary characteristic, inertia, exceeds the Bf-109 by a wide margin.

Crumpp

[GScholz]

I wouldn't call it a "wide" margin if you're using the Normaljäger 190's for comparison, however I would call the margin "significant".

[Angus]

Don't forget drag

[GScholz]

"All other factors being equal."

[GScholz]

Adding drag to the case complicates it a lot, and unless you are comparing two very different performing aircraft, drag is less important. To be precise; drag itself is irrelevant. It is the power to drag ... to weight ... ratio that is important. I.E. how much spare power the plane has to counter gravity over the speed range. For instance take two planes with identical top speed. One plane achieves this speed by having low drag, but low power. The other plane has high power, but more drag ... and they even out at exactly the same top speed. Both planes will have and equal power to drag ratio at their top speed (I.E. 1 to 1), however as speed drop the drag drops quadrupled, giving the high-power, high-drag plane a significantly higher power to weight ratio after drag ... or power to drag to weight ratio. Practical example: P-51D vs. 109G-10. Both have very similar top speeds, but the P-51 has less drag, and the 109 more power. 109 is superior in climb and acceleration since it has more excess power at low and medium speeds to counter less weight/gravity that the P-51.

*Phew*

[Kurfürst]

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

And real life test have even better example the 190A biting the dust while trying to zoom with the P-51, the 109 easily keeping up with it.



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


LOL, Bf 109G-6 with gunpods, without Methanol, standard in 1944, lololol. Some comparision!

(Image removed from quote.)

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.

(Image removed from quote.)

Now lets look at the FW-190A8:

(Image removed from quote.)

Lets see 578kph is DEFINATELY faster than 560kph or 568kph for the Bf-109G14.

By 10 km/h (wow, now THAT`s an advantage.. 6mph), provided the FW 190A-8`s results don`t take into account compressibility, they don`t have the ETC501 rack installed, the gear flaps are installed, the surface is smoothened and filled....

At 7.5km, the G-14/AS beats the A-8 by 60 km/h, 680kph vs. a miserable 620...Well actually even the G-2 beats it 2 years earlier...No wonder they needed those 109 escorts.


]The Bf-109G14 came out in JULY '44.

Except of course the G-14`s performance was the same as the G-6/AS`s w. MW 50, which appeared 8 months sooner, in December 1943... The G-14 just standardized things.


The SAME month the FW-190A8, which wasalready substantially faster than even the NEW Bf-109G14, was being re-engined to FW-190A9 standards!

"substantially faster". <---He means 10 kph.
I wonder what 60km/h is then... The Millenium Falcon compared to a 3-legged donkey?

TS/TH powerplants were never standard on the A-8, only a handful were so powered.



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!!

In Crumpp`s own private reality, that is...


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.

Considering the K-4 did 593 kph at SL at the lowest boost it and worst configuration according to it`s ORIGINAL documentation, and not prelimanary GLC charts from August 1944, dated 3 months before it`s actual operational service...

So Crumpp`s directory :

"much faster" = +2 km/h
"substantially faster" = +10 kph


The A-9 wasn`t even faster when it run at maximum boost
Naturally the K-4 was much faster (oh no, sorry.."substantially faster" )  when full boost is compared with full boost, at 607 kph, it`s 12km/h faster than the A-9.



By then however, the FW-190A was replaced by the FW-190D9.  

Sadly the D-9 initially had no MW50 to play with until February 1945, and in this state it could do 576 kph only according to the JG 26 war diary, and even according to Crumpp`s own docs... vs. 593 kph of the K-4 at low boost, 607 kph on high boost.


The hard facts are the 109 never got it's moment in the sun after the BMW 801C powered 190A's.

It`s hard BS. No 190 pilot ever came even near that of the achievements of 109 pilots,  No 190 unit ever came even near that of the achievements of 109 units. 109s escorted 190s in the West, 109s were employed as fighters in East.

[MiloMorai]

Except of course the G-14`s performance was the same as the G-6/AS`s w. MW 50, which appeared 8 months sooner, in December 1943... The G-14 just standardized things.

The first G-6ASs was delivered to III./JG 1, I./JG 5 and II./JG 11 in the late Spring of 1944.

ref. Bf 109 F, G, K Series, Prien/Rodeike

Late Spring would be May 1944. One of the first losses of a G-6AS was on May 8 1944 (W.Nr 20629) in combat with P-47s. Considering that other 109s were lost within weeks of their introduction, the Dec. appearance of the G-6AS is questionable.

[MANDO]

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

Easy, you are not talking about pure vertical (or near vertical) zooms. Starting at hi speeds, a 45 degree climb would be labeled as zoom too. In this case, as an example, the 109 certainly will end "out zooming" any P51 or 190. As you aproach 90 degree, the advantage of the weight is more and more important over power/weight.

[Angus]

Ohh, what a twist, shallow zoom.
Shallow enough, and the Spitfire is suddenly a zoomer
Anyway, pure zoom has nothing to do with power, power comes on top of the thing.
The finest zooming thing of WW2 had no power from it's initial start, i.e. probably some caliber of naval gun shooting from 0K to 16Km or so if you get what I mean.
If the shell would have had propulsion, it would have got higher alts, but not so substantially as the sheer shape, weight and speed, - which got it that high in the first place.
I have no doubt, that when steep enough, the 190 outzoomed the 109.
Another renowned zoomer, F4U....

[GScholz]

Originally posted by Angus
Anyway, pure zoom has nothing to do with power, power comes on top of the thing.

Complete and utter BS. The P-51 for example had about 1000 lbs of thrust generated by the prop, and an additional 350 lbs of thrust generated by the radiator at speed. Engine power does have a significant effect on zoom climbs, especially if they are entered at less than maximum level speed.

Originally posted by Angus
The finest zooming thing of WW2 had no power from it's initial start, i.e. probably some caliber of naval gun shooting from 0K to 16Km or so if you get what I mean.

Actually the finest "zooming thing" of WWII was the V-2 rocket. It had no initial speed, only engine power and it out-zoomed any artillery shell by quite some distance. "If you get what I mean."

[gripen]

Wow, this has became truly a hilarious thread. I'm sure Pyro will improve flight models of the Bf 109 and Fw 190 soon because these experts here have so convincing data.

gripen

[Crumpp]

http://www.acepilots.com/german/nowotny.html

Achieved over 150 victories in the FW-190 from 1943!


http://www.acepilots.com/german/ger_aces.html#kittel

http://www.acepilots.com/german/ger_aces.html

http://www.acepilots.com/german/ger_aces.html


The list goes on!

LOL, Bf 109G-6 with gunpods, without Methanol, standard in 1944, lololol. Some comparision!

That is in the report but not on this graph.  Please feel free to post another Bf-109G6 flight test.  This is a clean Bf-109G6.

 

And real life test have even better example the 190A biting the dust while trying to zoom with the P-51, the 109 easily keeping up with it.

No the RAE test is a derated FW-190G and is nowhere near representative of an FW-190A air superiority fighter.  It developed around 150 hp less than the fighter according to the RAF.

By 10 km/h (wow, now THAT`s an advantage.. 6mph), provided the FW 190A-8`s results don`t take into account compressibility, they don`t have the ETC501 rack installed, the gear flaps are installed, the surface is smoothened and filled....

Neither does the 109's have any racks installed...so what is your point?

Your right the 109's will compress quickly.

Surface is a normal Luftwaffe finish.  

How many G14's rolled off the factory in Jul 44 the month it was approved??

Before that the Bf-109G6 managed a whole 520kph at sea level!!

The Bf-109G6/AS could squeeze out a whole 530 KPH.

That's a big difference.  Speaking of that on what planet does the 109 have a 60-kph advantage at any altitude??  Izzy World??

S/TH powerplants were never standard on the A-8, only a handful were so powered.

Bull****.  The 801TS was produced in numbers.  There were more FW-190A with TS motors than their were Bf-109K's produced.  Got the orders and documents in hand.  Heck the Luftwaffe had over 700 TS motors laying around depots unissued at the end of the war!  that is a whole lot more than the 534 documented deliveries of Bf-109K4's!

Main difference between an 801TS and a D2 is the heads.  BMW improved the flow and combustion chamber efficiency.  And there was quite a bit of room to improve!

The same month the conversion of the FW-190A8 to the 801TS begins. The BMW801TS powered FW-190A's were produced in substantial numbers, Izzy.  So much that by November '44 the majority of FW-190A's in service had the TS motor.

Leaving the FW-190A's 15-20kph faster on the deck than the Bf-109K4.

Dora's received a boost system within a month of their introduction.  Before the service trials were complete.  You should read up on it more.

And don't think that is enough for a level acceleration advantage then read the FW-190A3 vs. Spit IX tactical trials.  The Spit IX and FW-190A3 (derated) trade off level speed advantage of only a couple of mph.  Read the comments on level acceleration.

Any altitude the FW-190 is faster than the 109 it will out zoom it.

Any altitude the FW-190 will out dive and out accelerate the 109 in a dive.

Crumpp

[Crumpp]

Wow, this has became truly a hilarious thread. I'm sure Pyro will improve flight models of the Bf 109 and Fw 190 soon because these experts here have so convincing data.

As funny as your aeronautical theories!!


Crumpp