Fw 190D-9 'Dora'

[jmccaul]

Verm
i got it off the web and saved it but i can't remember the address. Here's the whole thing make of it what you will.

==================================
Boscombe Down September 1943 Spitfire XIV JF 319
Griffon 61
Standard C-type full span wing, 36 ft 10 in
Two 20 mm cannon and four .303 in Browning guns
Fully loaded weight 8,400 pounds, wingloading 34.7 lbs per sq ft

Performance test Spitfire XIV

 Height  Top Speed  Time to climb mins  Rate of Climb ft/min
Sea Level  363  .  5,110
4,000  385  0 m 48 s  4,640
5,050  391  .  .
8,000  389  1 m 45 s  3,830
12,000  388  2 m 51 s  3,600
16,000  405  3 m 57 s  3,600
20,000  423  5 m 06 s  3,600
25,400  446  .  .
30,000  443  8 m 21 s  2,390
34,000  436  10 m 15 s  1,800
39,000  421  .  .
42,000  .  18 m 15 s  460

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

Tactical Trials Spitfire XIV RB 179

Tactical comparison against the Spitfire IX

Speeds - At all heights the Mk XIV is 30-35 mph faster in level flight. The best performance heights are similar, being just below 15,000 and between 25,000 and 32,000 ft.

Turning Circle - The turning circles of both aircraft are identical. The Mk XIV appears to turn slightly better to port than it does to starbord. The warning of the approaching high speed stall is less pronounced in the case of the Mk XIV.

Rate of Roll - Rate of roll is very much the same.

Conclusions - All-round performance of the Mk XIV is better than the Mk IX at all heights. Its manoeuvrability is as good as a Mik IX. It is easy to fly but should be handled with care when taxying and taking off.


Combat trial against the FW 190 (BMW 801D)

Max Speeds - From 0-5000 ft and and 15,000-20,000 ft the Mk XIV is only 20 mph faster; at all other heights it is up to 60 mph faster than the Fw 190A. It is estaimated to have about the same maximum speed as the new Fw 190 (DB603) at all heights

Max Climb - The Mk XIV has a considerably greater rate of climb than the FW 190A or (estimated) the new Fw 190 (DB603) at all heights.

Dive - The FW 190 gains slightly initialy, but overall the Mk XIV has a slight advantage.

Turning Circle - MK XIV can easily turn inside the FW 190, though in the case of a right-hand turn, this difference is not so quite pronounced.

Rate of Roll - The FW 190 is very much better.


Combat trial against the Me 109G

Max speed - Mk XIV is 40 mph faster at all heights except 16,000 ft, where it is only 10 mph faster.

Max Climb - Same result: at 16,000 ft both aircraft are indenticl, otherwise the Mk XIV outclimbs the Me 109G. Zoom climb is practically identical when made without opening the throttle. At full throttle, the Mk XIV draws away from the Me 109G easily.

Dive - During the initial part of the dive, the 109G pulls away slightly, but when a speed of 380 mph is reached, the Mk XIV gains on the 109G.

Turning Circle - Mk XIV out turns the ME 109G.

Rate of Roll - Mk XIV rolls much more quickly.

Conclusion - The Spitfire XIV is superior to the ME 109G in every respect.
================================
 

[funked]

Juzz - Keep in mind those are D-9 figures you quote are for takeoff/emergency power without MW 50.

[Vermillion]

Ok Juzz here is what I pulled from America's Hundred Thousand, which I believe is a standard performance of the F4U-4 on 100 octane fuel.

F4U-4
Mil Power at SL, Max speed = 360 mph
WEP Power at SL, Max speed = 380 mph
Mil Power at 25k, Max speed = 420 mph
WEP Power at 25k, Max speed = 445 mph

Mil Climb at SL = 3400 fpm
WEP  Climb at SL = 3900 fpm

Depending on power setting, climb to 20,000ft is between 6 to 7 mins.

Now compare that to your Data on the Pony, and the 190D.

Yes its going to be faster than either. But its climb will fall between the two. Its powerloading will be the worst (about equal to Pony) so it will accelerate the slowest too, but not by much. Its firepower, while equal to Pony, would be less than the Dora.

Direct comparison
Speed: Hog, Dora, Pony
Climb: Dora, Hog, Pony
Accel: Dora, Pony, Hog
Turn: Hog, Pony, Dora
Firepower: Dora, Hog=Pony

So basicly it would be a very capable aircraft, but not dominate in all category's. The real loser would be the Pony.

IMO it wouldnt' unbalance the planeset either, and would actually give the Navy (Big BLOOOO boys) some competitive iron, in the late war arena.

So I say, give us both the Dora and the -4 Corsair.


------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure,
Dicta Verm: "Never give the suckers an even break!" or translated "Never engage without an advantage"

[juzz]

 

So I say, give us both the Dora and the -4 Corsair.

AH HA! I knew it! What next, Bearcat?!  

One small thing - in the AH arena, how much fuel do people fly the Pony/Hog with? The Dora would likely need full fuel to have a good endurance, while the Pony/Hog can make do with ½ tanks...

Funked: I got the Dora climb figure from a somewhat iffy source for a/c info, Mike Spick's Luftwaffe Fighter Aces, and worse yet it was a "calculated" figure.   So very likely it's wrong anyway.

[Vermillion]

Nahhh.... no Bearcat. It didn't see any combat. The other two did, and meet the overall same criteria that the rest of the AH planeset does.

The Hog is a thirsty beast on fuel. Depending on whether you use droptanks for the climbout or internals, you typically take either 75% or 100% for those extended E style hunt and kill mission.

The Pony is alot better, its actually a tea toatler (sp?) by comparison. With this ride, I typicall take drop tanks (drop one immediately, use second to climbout then drop) and then take 50% fuel which will last a long time.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure,
Dicta Verm: "Never give the suckers an even break!" or translated "Never engage without an advantage"

[Lephturn]

In the Pony you can do with 50% to 75% fuel.  Not so with the Hawg.

The Hawg has a really SAD climb rate, so you need more fuel to climb to alt. than most other planes.  The Hawg's engine chews up gas quickly at full throttle, especially using WEP.  I take 75% fuel in the Hawg as a minimum.  Normally I will take 100%, which burns down to 75% by the time I climb to alt and get to the target area.  If I know I have a long way to go, I'll take 75% and one drop tank instead, but that chomps because the Hawg is a brick with the drop tank on and climbs so much slower.

BTW, I run out of gas long before I run out of ammo normally.  A bigger gas tank would be the first thing I'd put in if I was building my own Hog.  

------------------
Lephturn
The Flying Pigs

[juzz]

I'm guessing range will improve with the new fuel economy modelling, if you use cruise settings and don't just WEP everywhere.  

[spinny]

"The Dora would likely need full fuel to have a good endurance, while the Pony/Hog can make do with ½ tanks..."

Takes the Hog about 1/3 of a tank to get to
20-22k at 135 knts (155 mph).

------------------
Spinny, VF-17, The Jolly Rogers 8X

[fd ski]

I like the turn comparison's between 190D9 and 190A8  

So 190D9 turns better then 190A8 which is probably one of the worst turn fighters EVER build   Great.

if you are turnfighting in 190D9 - you already made a serious mistake  

WHERE IS MY SPIT 14 !!!  


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


Bartlomiej Rajewski
S/L fd-ski Sq. 303 (Polish) "Kosciuszko" RAF
   www.raf303.org  

[Vermillion]

Hey Ski, what was the final word from over on AGW about the never ending Spit XIV should turn as well as a Spit IX, controversy, that comes from that document that jmmcaul posted?

Everything I know about Engineering and Aeronautics, says that you take two planes with exact same wing, one weighs alot more but has more power, and they turn exactly the same is a highly unlikely occurence.

True they may have the same turn time, with one turning thru a larger radius but faster, but how could it have identical turn radius?

Did the Spitfire experten ever come to a concensus??


------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure,
Dicta Verm: "Never give the suckers an even break!" or translated "Never engage without an advantage"

[This message has been edited by Vermillion (edited 02-10-2000).]

[wells]

Verm,

If the propwash velocity over the wings is that much greater than on the Spit IX, it might be possible to increase the lift enough to make up for any difference in weight.  The manuals for each plane give about the same clean stall speeds, so it could also be that the XIV was less stable in pitch, meaning less of a download from the stabilizer, which takes away from the overall lift and increases stall speed.  Otherwise, the Spit XIV should stall 5 mph faster just due to the increased weight.  The difference in turn radii being about 20m.  Whether or not that's measurable while flying, who knows?  

Like you said, what does 'turning circle' really mean?  Radius?  Rate?  It's not really all that clear.  I suspect it's a combination of all the above factors.

[SnakeEyes]

Hey... someone said Bearcat!  

I'd actually consider getting an AH account if they did something interesting like that.

PS - The 51D would most likely outturn the F4U-4.

------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=

[funked]

I dunno SnakeEyes, the F4U-4 should actually turn as well or better than the F4U-1 which turns as well or better than the P-51D.  The weight increase between -1 and -4 was very small, and the thrust increase was signficant.

[MANDOBLE]

 

Originally posted by fd ski:
So 190D9 turns better then 190A8 which is probably one of the worst turn fighters EVER build   Great.

190A8 is anything but a bad turner. It
depends on the speed. That beast can turn
brutally at speeds where any other plane
simply disintegrates. Just try the next.
Pick up P51D or F4U and climb to 5000, then
dive in vertical until you reach 410 mph and
make a hard left turn, your wings will
blow up. Repeat this with the 190A8 and
rethink about wich one is the turner and
wich one is the brick.

[juzz]

MANDOBLE, go and get in a turnfight with a P-51D or F4U while flying the Fw190A-8 and see how it "turns" out...