Verm, I hate to do this but...

[Dead Man Flying]

 

Originally posted by Fishu:
Ehm...  D9 flying as fast as 190A8?
and top speed being below 400mph?

The issue here isn't whether or not the D9 is faster than 400mph... it is at its best performance altitude.  The issue is whether or not it's as fast as these charts show it to be at sea level.  According to Verm's and Nath's charts, the D9 with MW-50 can go about 380+ mph on the deck.  That's currently faster than any other plane in AH.

-- Todd/DMF

[Wisk-=VF-101=-]

Oh yeah, the same study gives charts for Spit 14, the P-51D and 109K-4 as compared to the La-7 (all in different kinds of power augmentation).
The P-51D in 15min WEP becomes faster than La-7 at about 3km (9k), Spit 14 in 5min WEP is faster above 6km (18k), 109K-4 in 1-3min MW-50 is faster above 3.1km (9.3k) or so.

Authors claim MW-50 could be engaged only for 1-3min at a time, then the pilot had to let the engine cool so that not to risk a catastrophic failure. So even though the amount of the methanol/water mix was enough for longer the pilot couldn't use all of it in one contiguous time period.
 

[Wisk-=VF-101=-]

This is lightly armed 190A-8, not the four cannon version.

Another thing - the spped info given in table format is tricky to comprehend. Fishu - you got into this trap. I am looking at the charts and 190D-9 is constantly and noticeably faster than 190A-8, but the power curve of Jumo in combat mode goes down earlier than BMW, note the difference in alts of max speeds.
So the speeds of 190A8 and 190D-9 are similar
since 6.3km. Actually the chart shows that 190-D9 is still faster by some 2-3km/h above that.


The authors didn't bother with MW-50 as it could only be used for 1-3min at a time, which wasn't considered good enough for a fight.

This is not a popular-history book for enthusiasts - this is a limited edition (1000 copies) study. It has like 10 authors with maojority of them with PhD in aerospace engineering and abundant with minute technical details of designs and design trade-offs - it's intended for engineers with the corresponding education, not the common folk like us. It reads like a scientific paper, not like some Jane's publication on WWII aircraft.

I wonder where Nath's data came from and how they were obtained.



[This message has been edited by Wisk-=VF-101=- (edited 03-05-2001).]

[Wisk-=VF-101=-]

BTW Fishu, I mentioned that the process of obtaining the data is as important as the data itself and one can make a valid comparison only of thise data that were obtained with a similar process. So, your statement that "190A-5 already gives 400mph" cannot be directly applied to these figures
as you don't mention the source and process (methodology) of how it was obtained. In other words you cannot argue that NII VVS data are inconsistent (i.e. "better" plane has worst speed than earlier, "worse" plane) based on your figure.

Here is NII VVS data for FW 190A-5 (NOTE: 2 20mm and 2 7.92mm variant):

Engine: BMW-801D, 1700h.p. at take-off, 1360 at alt
Take off weight: 4070kg
Specific wing loading: 218kgs/m^2
Specific power loading: 2.99 kgs/h.p.
Top speeds: sea lvl - 510km/h, at alt 604km/h at 6000m
Time of climb to 5000m: 6.8min
Time of 360 turn at 1000m: 22-23sec
Gain of altitude in a combat turn: 850-900m
Landing speed: 154 km/h

As you can see the performance of 190A-8 with 2 cannon and 190-D9 are better than 190A-5 so NII VVS data are consistent in that.

I am just showing you what appears to be a result of a long study and something the russian aerospace community considers valid.

[fscott]

When comparing planes, people see 2 things, climb rate and max speeds.  Obviously if you compare the max speed of the La7 with the D9/P51/109G10/even 190a8, you tend to think the La7 is a non-perk plane. This is a mistake to do.  There are many other elements such as a combat turn which the La7 excels at, and this was important enuff for Gorgon and Khasanov to record among their many tests.

Here's what many people cannot understand - athe decision to perk a plane should not be based upon its performance in WW2, but rather how it will be used in AH. Perked aircraft is something that only belongs to AH.  Most fights tend to digress below 10k and even 5k. This is where the La7 is KING!

As I stated earlier, back in tour 12 I flew the La5 a bit and wasn't even sure how to fly it. I got the most kills of anyone with 165 kills.  Since this discussion started, I have started flying the La5 again. At this point I have 27 kills and 4 deaths. And none of these kills were vulches either.  Two of those deaths were from acks and one was from a bad landing! So I've only been killed 1 time by an enemy plane.  Now tell me this plane isn't really something, and it's not even an La7.

And what is so wrong with making it a 50 or 100 point perk?  And if we get a D9 with MW50, then heck make it a 200 to 300 point perk...and right on down the line.

fscott


[This message has been edited by fscott (edited 03-05-2001).]

[R4M]

 

Originally posted by Wisk-=VF-101=-:

FW190-D9:
Engine: Jumo-213A, 1780hp at take-off, 1480hp at alt (1600 in combat mode)
Take-off weight: 4197kg
Specific wing loading: 228 kgs/m^2
Specific power loading: 2.84kgs/h.p. (2.62 in combat mode)
Top speeds: sea lvl - 530km/h(543 in combat mode), at alt - 631km/h at 6150m (642 at 6100m)
Time of climb to 5000m: 5.6min
Time of 360 turn at 1000m: 22-23sec
Gain of altitude in a combat turn: 1000m
Landing speed: 158km/h

BS. So the Fw190D9 did 401mph@20000feet?.

I dont know where did you read that, but you should know to give credit the sources that deserve it, and to forget about the ones that don't.

First of all, the Fw190D9, without MW50 and rated to 1750hp SL did 357mph at SL and 426mph at 21600feet. This is widely known.

The most common figures for the Fw190D9, fitted with MW50 (2100hp at Sea level) are 380mph at SL and almost 448mph@21000feet...but according to Niklas ,and matching Focke wulf Factory data, this numbers correspond to a Fw190D9 with a special WEP system that allowed for increased Manifold pressure and made the Ju213A-1 deliver 1900hp, BUT with no MW50 system fitted.

the true Fw190D9 fitted with MW50,according to Niklas, did 395mph@SL at a rated engine output of 2100hp.

PLease take a look into this thread for all this info, lots of good stuff there:
 http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum9/HTML/000001.html

 

Originally posted by Wisk-=VF-101=-:

If anyone knows corresponding german documents, including data that are known to be produced by the described process, could you please let me know at least the title, author and who was it published by and when ?

Sure, but you dont need any books listed here, BTW. You have the links in this same boards  .

Funked and vermillion own an original Fw190A8 pilot's handbook wich lists Fw190A8's deck speed at 350mph (not the 340mph you want us to believe). Vermillion has posted several scans of this handbook.

Links to charts:
 http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum9/HTML/001655.html
 http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum9/HTML/001656.html

I have a hard time with those charts because I've kept seeing the 360mph@Sea Level as the real Fw190A8's speed. This data comes from a VVS-dedicated web, and from this chart that lists all the lateste Fw190's and Ta152's speeds:
 http://www.vermin.net/ta152/ta152-4.jpg

As you see, the deck speed of the Fw190A8 in that chart is listed at 578km/hour, exactly 360mph.

Note the date of those charts, those are original Focke-Wulf factory documents. The chart that lists the Fw190A8 with a speed of 360mph@Sea level is dated 1-10-1944 while Vermillion Fw190A8's handbook's dates are march 1945.

 This is original factory data, and no VVS tests in god-knows-in-wich-state captured planes will change that.

Naudet's charts showing 395mph@Sea level for the Mw50 Dora-9 are in:
 http://www.freenet.de/luftwaffeln/213A1.jpg

That is the chart for a Ju213-A1 engine. As niklas noted in the tread I linked above, NOTE that the second stage of the supercharger is kicked in from 0feet!!!!.

Amazing  

There is another chart for a Ju213-E1 in
 http://www.freenet.de/luftwaffeln/213E1.jpg

Of course the latest is not from a Dora-9, as the Fw190D9 had a Ju213-A1 engine.

Personally I'm shocked after Niklas's posts in the thread I linked above. The Fw190D9 he describes, with Mw50, is with no doubt the best fighter of the WWII and by a wide margin.

I am pretty sure that in AH we are getting the increased Manifold pressure Fw190D9 with a 1900hp Ju213A1, not the MW50 fitted one. The Mw50 Fw190D9,according to the data on those charts, would be a perk plane in the range of the Tempest, in fact a bit more expensive.

One doesnt wake up every morning to discover that his favorite plane is the best WWII fighter   . Sweet!  

[This message has been edited by R4M (edited 03-05-2001).]

[Fishu]

 

Originally posted by fscott:
As I stated earlier, back in tour 12 I flew the La5 a bit and wasn't even sure how to fly it. I got the most kills of anyone with 165 kills.  Since this discussion started, I have started flying the La5 again. At this point I have 27 kills and 4 deaths. And none of these kills were vulches either.  Two of those deaths were from acks and one was from a bad landing! So I've only been killed 1 time by an enemy plane.  Now tell me this plane isn't really something, and it's not even an La7.

Does this mean that Fw 190A-8 is ultra super plane since I did 270 streak in it?

[sky_bax]

As far as the 190D9 "official" FW documents go.

"Focke-Wulf Ta 152, Der Weg zum Höhenjäger" by Dieter Hermann, ISBN
3-925505-44-X, published by AVIATIC.

Regarding their test values and the companys specification, you should take these published charts with a grain of salt. But they are for sure the best available in "publications"  


------------------


[This message has been edited by sky_bax (edited 03-05-2001).]

[juzz]

 

Don't even need an F2G... The -4 Corsair was quite common and outperformed all those planes in allmost every way. 380mph plus on the deck and 460 or so at 20k. climb at 4000 + and turn as well or better than the 1D. And... it takes off from carriers.
lazs

Actually, no. Most of those planes have better performance than the F4U-4 below 10,000ft. However; the F4U-4 is almost certainly the best all-purpose fighter. It can do everything well.  

Now, this here is the ultimate in Corsair technology:
 
XF4U-3: 387mph at s/l, 487mph at 27,500ft, 4,850fpm initial climbrate, only 380lbs heavier than the -4  

[Vermillion]

Wisk, do you have any english translations of that document that describes the differences between the procedures between the so called "prototype" and "production" VVS flight tests, as they are called in the Gordon & Khazanov series? I believe you used the term "control" instead of "production". I would be really interested in it, if you did.

Its long been a contention of mine on this board that the terms "prototype and production" are somewhat out of context in regards to comparing Allied Flight testing and the VVS testing.

Fscott, one more time.
 

And what is so wrong with making it a 50 or 100 point perk?

Let me turn it around. Whats so wrong with letting the La7 be the best at low altitude, why does it have to be the P51 or Typhoon? Is it because then you couldn't run away at will in the P51 Mustang, which is one of your top 3 favorite planes in the last couple of tours? You sure you don't have a personal interest in this arguement, in that one of your favorite planes/tactics would not be so easy anymore? Honest questions, not a flame at all. Because every time I try to quantify in a logical way the strengths and weakness of this plane, in comparison to the other planes that are freely available, you only point back that it would be the fastest below 5k and ignore everything else.

Historically the La7 is as important to the VVS as the P-51D is to the Americans, the Spit IX is to the British, and the Fw190A8 is to the Germans. But you would perk it because it would be the fastest in a very narrow range of the combat spectrum.

I'm done with this petty arguement, no matter what I say, or how many hours I put into making charts that prove my point I'm not going to convince you to even consider changing your mind. Because every time I make a point, your "target" or arguement for perking the plane changes. Basically its my opinon that it comes down to the old "But it will be better than my plane!!" complaint and thats the reason you want to see it perked. I'm done. Go ahead and get the last word in now.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

[Jochen]

Huh guys?

I think some of you have false impression that perking means same as excluding or removing which is totally wrong idea. They can perk Fw 190A-5 and Fw 190A-8 too but if the price is only 1 or 2 perk points, what difference does it make? None since everybody still can fly them.

The Real Question (tm) is not perk or not to perk but how much it will cost. This is a difficult one, how to determine cost for Ta 152 and La 7 since they are so different planes.

I think HTC might apply same perk cost to every new perk plane and then see for one tour what perk plane gets most use and then increase its cost.

------------------
jochen Gefechtsverband Kowalewski

Units: I. and II./KG 51, II. and III./KG 76, NSGr 1, NSGr 2, NSGr 20.
Planes: Do 17Z, Ju 87, Ju 88A, He 111H, Ar 234A, Me 410A, Me 262A, Fw 190F, Fw 190G.

Sieg oder bolsevismus!

[This message has been edited by Jochen (edited 03-05-2001).]

[MANDOBLE]

 

Originally posted by Wisk-=VF-101=-:
Here is NII VVS data for FW 190A-5 (NOTE: 2 20mm and 2 7.92mm variant):
Time of 360 turn at 1000m: 22-23sec

Your beloved NII VVS data is telling us the 2x20 190A5 turns worse than 190A8(2x20) and 190D9. Even more, the 190D9 turns worse than 190A8(2x20)...

[Vermillion]

I'm not defending the VVS data on Luftwaffe aircraft (I've never looked at it very carefully), or how well it is comparitively between the different models of 190, but a range of 20-22 seconds for a Fw190's 360 degree turn times is definitely in the correct ballpark.

FYI from the same source, the La5FN is 19.5 seconds, the La7 is 20.5 seconds, and the Yak-9U is 20 seconds.

Given what we know about wingloading and other characteristics, 20-22 seconds for the different 190's is certainly possible.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

[This message has been edited by Vermillion (edited 03-05-2001).]

[llbm_MOL]

I dont know what all you guys are worried about. If the La7 carries the same ammo load and the same fuel load as the La5 then no one is going to be flying it much. If its perked I'm sure hell never gonna fly or waste my few perk points on it. I'll fly it in the TA where it has unlimited fuel and ammo Its really a non-issue.....

LLB OUT!!!!!!!!!

[dolomite]

Fscott-

I can tell you that when I am in a furball, the LAST plane I worry about would be the 202, followed closely by the La5. The 202 doesn't scare me because it has no guns and I can outrun it at will, the La5 because if I can't outrun it I most likely can outturn it (meaning the planes that can't outrun it usually turn better, and vice versa). The La7 wouldn't do much better, it would just make the Mustangs turn around and fight- and the La7 just might be sorry in that event (La7 vs. P-51B? Put the money on the 'stang.    ).



[This message has been edited by dolomite (edited 03-05-2001).]