How many power the AH FW190D9 have??

[MANDO]

Originally posted by Mister Fork
SDOE was Fighter Squadron

What an excelent sim, only problem was the small terrain. D9 there was a Tempest killer  

[Crumpp]

whats about the early D9, w/o MW50, so max 1750hp(sea level), wouldnt the A´s perform at least the same regarding turning?? They had more power then, dont they?

Yes.  The very first Dora's recieved a rather chilly reception in the JG's as it was not felt to be an improvement in performance over the FW-190A8.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Mister Fork]

Found my numbers and they explain a lot...

FW 190D-9: 3620lbs/ft at 3250rpm.
Tempest MkV: 3566lbs/ft at 3850rpm
P-51D: 2877lb/ft at 2920rpm,

The P-51D is just 20% less than the Dora - which might explain the acceleration factor difference of 22%.  While the P51-D engine doesn't have as much HP as the Dora, she sure packs a lot of torque into that Merlin which explains while the Dora has 35% more horsepower, she only has a 20% edge on engine torque at a higher RPM.

This of course goes back to my point about engine torque and acceleration. Horsepower numbers can be deceptive because RPM is always constant for aircraft. FYI Engine torque = (HP * 5252) / RPM.  

Since aircraft aerodynamic design limits top speed (which is why the super sleek P-51D can be a 400mph bird with much less hp), HP is never a factor in combat.  It's acceleration that should be measured when comparing aircraft vs aircraft since most of us usually don't go tearing around at top speed 99.9% of the time. It's all about acceleration!

Looking at top speed, however, horsepower wins, in the sense that making more torque at a set rpm means you can have more effective power on the prop at a constant rate where having gobs of engine torque at a low speed means it'll get you out of harms way quickly but you'll probably be chased down...

[Wilbus]

Rgr thanks! Like I said in another thread, the top speed/climb rate is not the issue IMO. But acceleration is.

Maybe a tourqe issue...

We'll see i any progress is made

Never played that game but I remember looking at screenshot of it when it came out and I wanted it quite bad, never got around to it though.

[Bruno]

I don't care about this thread but Naudet posted he received actual flight test data  for the D-9 from NASM:

But for those that are interested in the FW190D documents from the NASM here are their designations:

1. FW/Fb/FW190-210001 (1-2)
Reel: 8069 Frame: 1153

2. FW/Fb/FW/210001/(3)
Reel: 2861 Frame: 989

3. FW/Fb/FW190-210002 (1,2,3)
Reel: 3996 Frame: 343

4. FW/FW190/Sch/16/3/45
Reel 2731 Frame: 797

Those four together will be exactly 50 pages, so if you order them, you won't exceed the limit per order.

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by ghi
How can explain this SPITFIRE KILLERS , if the FWs were soo bad  ?!  Tactics only?!

Look at Priller's kill list and the time frame as an example.  The majority of his Spit kills were vs Spit Vb with many of those kills being  made in the 190 which clearly outclassed the Spit Vb.

If anything this speaks to what Lev is talking about regarding scenario results for 190s vs Spits.  The roles they are in, along with the tactics used makes a difference.

I flew a Snapshot a couple weeks ago where we were in the new Spit IXs escorting B26s to "France" with the LW in 109G6s and 190A5s.

It was tough being tied to the bombers and watching the 190s and 109s come screaming in from on high.  The 190s that died were the ones that stuck around to try and turn fight with the Spits.  Those that hit and ran, regained their alt and came back down to hit again, knew what they were doing and scored big on the bombers.

[hitech]

Mister Fork: Your HP / torque assesment is not the way things work. You are looking at engine torque only. And not considering the big transmition called a propeler that a plane has.

If engine torque was so importent, why would you not want to drag race starting in high gear at realy low engine rpms? It is all about the torque/ thrust delivered to the pavement at the wheel in a cars case, and propeler thrust in an airplanes case.


HiTech

[Mister Fork]

Hey HT!

Thanks for responding! I am aware of that issue of comparing this to automobiles.

Question is, when I engage WEP, the RPM's increase which actually decreases engine torque.   Is it possible to keep engine RPM's the same when engaging WEP?  I'm curious to the impact on aircraft performance.  I know I might be using the classing 'splitting hairs on the same issue', but I do know that HP and engine Torque are very relevant - sort of like the Voltage, Resistance, Amps relationship.  

What I'm talking about is the amount of pressure the engine can place on the prop - or prop torque.  HP impacts top speed and Torque impacts aircraft acceleration.

When I engage WEP on the P-51D, by keeping RPM's the same, it's actually has a very positive impact her accleration rate.  Engaging WEP on any aircraft where RPM's increase by 200-500rpms, it actually reduces performance.  This is why the P-51D can perform so well - the engine can provide a lot more prop torque without compromising horsepower.

Question is, what will keeping the RPM's on the Dora, or any aircraft the same when WEP is engaged? Mathmatically speaking, it should increase prop torque.

[Karnak]

Mister Fork,

I don't understand why that would produce more thrust.  A constant speed propellor should increase the angle of attack of the blades to absorb all of the power that reaches it.  Higher or lower RPMs shouldn't change that transfer of power.

[Mister Fork]

I think I'm understanding Hitech's point of view.

Lets look closely at Power - from a website I like on aircraft performane:


The above diagram of power makes it clear how thrust and engine shaft velocity combine to represent the power required to move our aircraft in Aces High. How does this relate to the rpm gauges in aircraft or the manifold pressure and rpm gauges in a piston aircraft? The RPM change does have an impact as does engine torque. They all relate to Shaft Horsepower (SHP) - more on that in a bit.

To set power on an any aircraft in Aces High, the pilot can adjust the throttle (fuel flow) and and engine rpm.  Let's use the Dora's maximum torque is 3620 ft lb and a maximum propeller rpm of 3250(WEP on).

Based on the definition of power:

P = F x V [force times velocity]

The easiest way to visualize the calculation is to imagine the engine winding up a weight by rotating a pulley attached to it's output shaft. The velocity of the rising weight would equal 2 x pi x r x rpm, where r is the radius of the pulley.

But torque equals W x r, where W is the weight and r is the diameter of the engine pulley again. (The greater r is the less the weight, but the torque would not change.)

P = W x 2 x pi x r x rpm (units must be consistent)

which is the same as saying:

P = torque x 2 x pi x rpm

Finally we add the unit conversion factor and the equation becomes:

SHP = torque x 2 x pi x rpm / 33,000 (torque is ft lb and SHP is horsepower.)

SHP = 3620 x 2 x 3.14 x 3250 / 33,000 = 2240 SHP
The maximum power is 2239 SHP and this occurs at an rpm 3250 and 3620 ft lb or torque.  

If we use my suggested RPM of 3000, and the new engine torque of 3921, the SHP actually doesn't change.
SHP = 3921 x 2 x 3.14 x 3000 / 33,000 = 2240 SHP.

Shaft Horsepower reminds us that the power was measured on the output shaft of the engine. The same calculation can be used for most aircraft in Aces High, but we don't have torque gauges for us to refer to.
 
Ok HT, I understand your point of view.  If we did increase the engine torque, it would actually increase the SHP of the engine - which is something we don't want.  I'll keep quiet and in my corner like a good boy.

[Crumpp]

Look at Priller's kill list and the time frame as an example. The majority of his Spit kills were vs Spit Vb with many of those kills being made in the 190 which clearly outclassed the Spit Vb.

I don't know that you can make that conclusion.  I see the majority of Prillers Spitfire kills made during a time when the RAF was "leaning" forward into France.  During this time the Luftwaffe was on even terms numerically or had the advantage locally and had positional advantage often as not.

The number of fighter kills is reduced when the daylight bombing campaign begins in earnest and the Jadgkorps was forbidden to purse or tangle with allied fighters except in self defense.  Remember, the Luftwaffe did their best to attack after the escort turned back and the number of fighter to fighter engagements was severly curtailed.

In early 1944 when the USAAF does have the ability to begin sending fighters deep in Europe, they arrive in overwhelming force.  Spitfires take a back seat in the fighter to fighter engagements to the USAAF Fighters and are no longer the statistically most likely allied fighter the Jadgwaffe encounters.

Not to say there contribution was not important or that they did not get into fights, either.  From the allied perspective there simply were not many targets due to the small size of the Luftwaffe.  From the Luftwaffe point of view there were only a few Spitfires compared to the many USAAF fighter types.  The Spitfires were rarely encountered escorting daylight formations of USAAF bombers, the main target of the Luftwaffe.

Once again position and numbers makes much more of a difference than plane type in the outcome of air battles.


All the best,

Crumpp

[hitech]

Fork: I assume you are saying by this statement.

If we use my suggested RPM of 3000, and the new engine torque of 3921, the SHP actually doesn't change.

 

Does not work, in reality lowing the RPM would lower HP ,and and the torque should still be in the 3620 or slightly more range. That change is totaly dependent on the engines torque curve.

HiTech

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Crumpp
I don't know that you can make that conclusion.  I see the majority of Prillers Spitfire kills made during a time when the RAF was "leaning" forward into France.  During this time the Luftwaffe was on even terms numerically or had the advantage locally and had positional advantage often as not.

The number of fighter kills is reduced when the daylight bombing campaign begins in earnest and the Jadgkorps was forbidden to purse or tangle with allied fighters except in self defense.  Remember, the Luftwaffe did their best to attack after the escort turned back and the number of fighter to fighter engagements was severly curtailed.

In early 1944 when the USAAF does have the ability to begin sending fighters deep in Europe, they arrive in overwhelming force.  Spitfires take a back seat in the fighter to fighter engagements to the USAAF Fighters and are no longer the statistically most likely allied fighter the Jadgwaffe encounters.

Not to say there contribution was not important or that they did not get into fights, either.  From the allied perspective there simply were not many targets due to the small size of the Luftwaffe.  From the Luftwaffe point of view there were only a few Spitfires compared to the many USAAF fighter types.  The Spitfires were rarely encountered escorting daylight formations of USAAF bombers, the main target of the Luftwaffe.

Once again position and numbers makes much more of a difference than plane type in the outcome of air battles.


All the best,

Crumpp

I seem to recall that the time frame was referred to as the "happy time" for the Luftwaffe, much the same as the U-Boat guys had theirs.  As you say, the RAF was leaning in, with a few bombers covered by swarms of Spits.  The Luftwaffe was still numerically close, fighting over their own turf and had the technical superiority that went with the 190 v Spit Vb.  And it wasn't until late 42-early 43 that the Allies were back on something of an equal level of aircraft quality with the advent of the Spit IXs.

It's kind of why I've always wished there was a 1943 Channel Front game as it was essentially equal terms for a time in the summer of 43 before the overwhelming numerical force and war of attrition really swung things the Allies way.  Of course it's prime time for  the Spit XII drivers too, but that's just coincidence in my wishing

[HoHun]

Hi Guppy,

>The Luftwaffe was still numerically close, fighting over their own turf and had the technical superiority that went with the 190 v Spit Vb.  

I recently found some victory to pilot loss ratio figures quoted from Butler/Caldwell for the JG26, broken down by year. To my surprise, the best ratio was achieved in 1941, with 1942 being second-best only - by a considerable margin.  

(Interestingly, the 1940 figure was quite good, too, if you take into account that the other years look better because pilots bailed out over France would not be lost, while pilots bailed on during the Battle of Britain would.)

So apparently, the success of the JG26 was not dependend on the Fw 190. One might say that the Fw 190 was overrated by the RAF - or that the Me 109F was underrated!

(Of course, this would have to be crosschecked with RAF figures before drawing conclusions, I'm just describing my spontaneous thoughts here :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Guppy,

>The Luftwaffe was still numerically close, fighting over their own turf and had the technical superiority that went with the 190 v Spit Vb.  

I recently found some victory to pilot loss ratio figures quoted from Butler/Caldwell for the JG26, broken down by year. To my surprise, the best ratio was achieved in 1941, with 1942 being second-best only - by a considerable margin.  

(Interestingly, the 1940 figure was quite good, too, if you take into account that the other years look better because pilots bailed out over France would not be lost, while pilots bailed on during the Battle of Britain would.)

So apparently, the success of the JG26 was not dependend on the Fw 190. One might say that the Fw 190 was overrated by the RAF - or that the Me 109F was underrated!

(Of course, this would have to be crosschecked with RAF figures before drawing conclusions, I'm just describing my spontaneous thoughts here :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

I don't know that this would be a huge surprise.  The RAF was learning the ropes over France, still using Hurris and early mark Spits without DTs etc.  Numbers would still have been similar I would think, and the experience factor of some of those JG pilots also a factor as the RAF built up its fighter force and introduced lots of new pilots into the game.

Don't misunderstand me.  I'm not claiming the 190 v Spit V was the only reason for the JGs success at that time in the war.  The build up of experienced combat vet RAF pilots along with the parity or close to it of the equipment in late 42-early 43 clearly had an impact.