RAF report on Tempest vs Typhoon, Spit 14, P-51-B, FW-190, Bf-109G,

[Grendel]

That's a well known test, and it is easy to make flawed conclusions from it if you don't know its backgrounds. The thing is, this text omits the needed information about the planes.

When looking at the 109 test, one must take notice that the 109 in case is a NIGHT FIGHTER variant, with wing cannons, night fighter equpment, heavier tail etc. It is not representative of a standard Bf 109 G-6 model, but it is a 109 G-6/U2 if I remember correctly. Night fighter, guys. Its performance is decidedly sub-par when compared to normal daylight fighter versions.

[Crumpp]

When looking at the 109 test, one must take notice that the 109 in case is a NIGHT FIGHTER variant, with wing cannons, night fighter equpment, heavier tail etc. It is not representative of a standard Bf 109 G-6 model, but it is a 109 G-6/U2 if I remember correctly.

Izzy is correct AFAIK.  I thought the same thing until I looked it up.  The Bf-109G6/U2 was captured about a month later.

Nevertheless, comments like "embarrassed by it's slats opening" clearly points to the level of proficiency in the Bf-109 of the RAF pilot.

Crumpp

[pasoleati]

Derating: e.g. the Pilot Mnaul for the P-38H, J and L has an engine chart showing lower limits when operating with grade 91 fuel. So, derating did happen in the States too  though in this case there were no mechanical changes, just lower MAP limits.

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Why don't you go spend the money and the time and do the research?

Instead you would rather sponge off others and act like a spoiled child when things don't go your way.

Crumpp

Why am I not surprised by your answer. Typical Crumpp who gets all snotty and indignant after making a statement that he can't backup with examples.

[Crumpp]

For some reason, pasoleati, the BMW 801 was a finicky engine.    If your interested in learning more I encourage you to join the foundation.  We have the largest collection of FW-190A translated documentation it the world, the largest collection of BMW 801 motors in the world, and probably the largest collection of original Luftwaffe tools, service carts, and field servicing equipment.  The Foundation gets hired by folks all over the world to work on, evaluate, and locate all things FW-190.  Our work flies on some of the biggest name Warbirds in the country as well.

Crumpp

[Crumpp]

Why am I not surprised by your answer. Typical Crumpp who gets all snotty and indignant after making a statement that he can't backup with examples.

Milo,

You constantly act like you have chip on your shoulder with anything I post.  Simply do a search.  You show up in any thread I post in and immediately dispute whatever I write!

Which would be fine, if you were correct.  How many times have you posted something now and been wrong?

I simply suggested a way for you to "get back in the fight" if you so desire.  Looking things up in "Warplanes of the Luftwaffe" or the latest "Barnes and Noble" selection is not going to cut it if you want to bring new information to the discussion.
Most of pulp reference books I have seen are wrong in many ways.  Why?  Either the information just was not available or they were lazy and referenced earlier works.

Crumpp

[Urchin]

One thing that has always made me curious is the different impressions of "turning" ability.  

I've obviously only got experience with AH, but I wouldn't agree with most of those findings based on my AH experience.  

Specifically, in each category.  

Climb rate vs 109 and 190.  

vs 109"g"-

Report: "The Tempest is behind the Bf.109G at all heights, but being almost similar below 5,000 feet. 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. "

AH:  The Tempest is superior to the G-6 up to ~5k, in fact the description matches the AH G-10 (as far as climb rate goes).  

vs 190-

Report: "Except below 5,000 feet the FW.190 (BMW.801D) has a slightly better maximum rate of climb. 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. Against the new FW.190 (DB.603) it is estimated that the Tempest will have a markedly superior climb below 5,000 feet, but a similar maximum climb above that height. "

AH: The Tempest is way superior to the A-5, about a 750 fpm advantage to 5k, where they become similar until about 7.5k, then the gap widens to ~750 fpm again to 14k, where it drops off rapidly and the 190A5 is marginally superior above 15k.  

Turning circle doesn't make any sense either, given AH experience.  

Report: "190-There is very little difference in turning circles between the two aircraft. If anything a very slight advantage lies with the Tempest. "

"109- The Tempest is slightly better, the Bf.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall. "

AH.. the 109 turns markedly better than the 190 does (any version of either).  I'd say the Tempest probably out turns any 190 by a pretty significant margin too.

Also, according to that the Typhoon would out-turn the Tempest (slightly).. how?  Did weight rise a lot more than the boost in engine power, or was the redesigned wing not good for turning?

[Thrawn]

Crumpp, it's your responsiblity to back up your arguements.  To tell somebody else to prove it for you is intellectually dishonest and makes your arguements worthless.

[Crumpp]

Crumpp, it's your responsiblity to back up your arguements. To tell somebody else to prove it for you is intellectually dishonest and makes your arguements worthless.

I made no claims
You need to read the thread.  I simply stated the FW-190 was de rated as it is in the tempest trial.  The RAE only had one rated FW-190.  An FW-190G3 which they sent to the US in 1943 and was undergoing testing.  

The RAF got all of it's FW-190's after Fabers from ground attack units.  Some from the SKG's which attacked England under Hitler's "Terror-bombing" campaign and a few from overran bases in Sicily.

Milo makes the claim only FW-190A3's were de-rated.  

I corrected him that all AF's de rated aircraft.

pasoleati says:
Derating: e.g. the Pilot Mnaul for the P-38H, J and L has an engine chart showing lower limits when operating with grade 91 fuel. So, derating did happen in the States too though in this case there were no mechanical changes, just lower MAP limits.

Was nice enough to chime in as well correcting Milo.

Crumpp

[Kweassa]

AH.. the 109 turns markedly better than the 190 does (any version of either). I'd say the Tempest probably out turns any 190 by a pretty significant margin too.

 Was testing this very stuff out as reference material in addition for my 109 turn performance thread... when my stick decides to go loco and the root ripped off from the base. So the thread and testings are closed for the time being until I get a new stick.

 However the impression I got with the AH Typhoon and Tempest was that both of them decisively outturn any 190 in any situation. Empirically, they'd be about on par with a Bf109G in their turn performance.

 At any rate, one thing for certain would be that the referenced test report in this thread has some explanation to do, and either 109 or the 190 was not performing right.

[Crumpp]

At any rate, one thing for certain would be that the referenced test report in this thread has some explanation to do, and either 109 or the 190 was not performing right.

This same report used to be up on a noted Spitfire website.  It was removed from that sight and I can't help but wonder if it was not done so because they realized this.

[Angus]

Someone asked:
"Did weight rise a lot more than the boost in engine power, or was the redesigned wing not good for turning?"

Well, the airfoil was different, the Tiffy having a thicker wing. Might be better once the speed dropped.

Anyway, curious about all those 109's and 190's that did not give sufficient performance in Allied hands.

Now there was politicsin the testing. I remember Jeffrey Quill mentioning that at a certain race between a Tiffy, 190 and a Spitty, the Spitty was definately expected to come in last.
However, Jeff picked a rather new model for the run and ate them both

[Flyboy]

Originally posted by Urchin
One thing that has always made me curious is the different impressions of "turning" ability.  

I've obviously only got experience with AH, but I wouldn't agree with most of those findings based on my AH experience.  

Specifically, in each category.  

Climb rate vs 109 and 190.  

vs 109"g"-

Report: "The Tempest is behind the Bf.109G at all heights, but being almost similar below 5,000 feet. 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. "

AH:  The Tempest is superior to the G-6 up to ~5k, in fact the description matches the AH G-10 (as far as climb rate goes).  

vs 190-

Report: "Except below 5,000 feet the FW.190 (BMW.801D) has a slightly better maximum rate of climb. 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. Against the new FW.190 (DB.603) it is estimated that the Tempest will have a markedly superior climb below 5,000 feet, but a similar maximum climb above that height. "

AH: The Tempest is way superior to the A-5, about a 750 fpm advantage to 5k, where they become similar until about 7.5k, then the gap widens to ~750 fpm again to 14k, where it drops off rapidly and the 190A5 is marginally superior above 15k.  

Turning circle doesn't make any sense either, given AH experience.  

Report: "190-There is very little difference in turning circles between the two aircraft. If anything a very slight advantage lies with the Tempest. "

"109- The Tempest is slightly better, the Bf.109G being embarrassed by its slots opening near the stall. "

AH.. the 109 turns markedly better than the 190 does (any version of either).  I'd say the Tempest probably out turns any 190 by a pretty significant margin too.

Also, according to that the Typhoon would out-turn the Tempest (slightly).. how?  Did weight rise a lot more than the boost in engine power, or was the redesigned wing not good for turning?

i had agreat fight with sirloin in the MA, he was in a tempest and i in a 190a5.

we both agreed that the tempest turns just a tad batter then the a5.
so the test sounds pretty spot on.

[Crumpp]

Anyway, curious about all those 109's and 190's that did not give sufficient performance in Allied hands.

How does this not make sense?  You would not expect a Chevy mechanic to get  peak performance from a SAAB engine would you?

I have a very interesting report from the RAE wondering why their performance was different from the Rechlin curves on the FW-190.  

A big mystery until I got a hold of EB-104's testing by the USAAF.  They bench tested the engine and their power curve looks nothing like the RAE's or the Luftwaffe's.

Why?  The RAE never actually put the 801 on a bench and measured the power output with their fuel.  They simply calculated it.  So their Bhp curves match the German curves but their performance in the sky does not.  The RAE report directs further testing but none was conducted because the war was won.

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Crumpp

Milo makes the claim only FW-190A3's were de-rated.  

I corrected him that all AF's de rated aircraft.

Was nice enough to chime in as well correcting Milo.

Crumpp

Correcting Crumpp???? I asked for examples but to bad your overly inflated ego got in the way Crumpp. It took someone else to reply with one specific example. Now tell me what was inferior about the 91PN fuel.

Are you sure English is your primary language?

You have yet to to give any examples, only 'hot air', of "It was common practice and allowed the Force to use up inferior grade Aviation fuel without damaging rated engines."

We can now take it with a grain of salt all your claims for the high boost pressures on the 190.

: "How does this not make sense? You would not expect a Chevy mechanic to get peak performance from a SAAB engine would you?[/i]"

I can go to a dozen Chevy mechs and everyone would tune an engine differently than the others. All mechs are not equal, no matter what engine they specialize in. So considering your claim the 801 was a finicky engine, one can expect a variation in their state of 'tune'.