FW190D-9 Dora Performance figures -Official FW numbers!

[Widewing]

 

Originally posted by StSanta:
Post them anyway. Will be interesting reading.

Brown lists the top five piston engine fighters as the P-51D, Spitfire XIV, Fw 190D-9, Sea Fury (strictly a post war aircraft) and the F8F-1 Bearcat.

The performance he cites for the Fw 190D-9 is as follows.

Initial Climb: 3,500 fpm
Max Speed, Sea Level: 357 mph
Max Speed at Altitude: 426 mph @ 21,500 ft
Max Speed with MW-50: 453 mph
Service Ceiling: 40,000 ft

His comments on the Fw 190A4 are extensive, and all may be found in the October issue of Flight Journal magazine, which is available in back-issue from:
 https://www.flightjournal.com/store/bissue.asp

If you have an interest in the Focke Wulf 190 series, you might want to have this issue.

My regards,

Widewing

[niklas]

[/quote]
Initial Climb: 3,500 fpm
Max Speed, Sea Level: 357 mph
Max Speed at Altitude: 426 mph @ 21,500 ft
Max Speed with MW-50: 453 mph
Service Ceiling: 40,000 ft
[/QUOTE]


hmm the official performance of focke wulf was indeed "only" 437mph with mw50. Looks like german engineers were a little bit more careful with their performance claims or calculations than others... . Same with the me262, according to their calculations it would have been 800kmh fast at sealevel, a multi-plane test showed that it averaged at  ~845kmh.

[funked]

The stuff in Flight Journal is right out of Brown's book "Duels in the Sky".  Along with those performance figures, Brown also says the D-9 has a spinner cannon...  He mixed up the data with a D-12 or D-13 folks.

A better Brown read for 190 fans is "Wings of the Luftwaffe".

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 01-30-2001).]

[F4UDOA]

Danish,

I have Eric Browns book.

He has so much incorrect data on different A/C, particularly the F4U it is amazing that he actually flew these birds at all.

He has the F4U-1 climbing at 2250FPM instead of 3k fpm and the F4U-1C as having a top speed of 446MPH. Even with that he says that the FW-190 is the clear winner of the two saying "It's like comparing a shire horse to a polo pony". What the hell is talking about?? In every other A/C comparison he gives detail. In that one he uses a horse analogy. In any case his lack of specifics throughout the book made it unreadable for me. If you want to read an actual evaluation between the two A/C read this.

Note: There was no harm caused to any animals during these test.

 http://members.home.net/markw4/FW190_F4U.html

[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 01-30-2001).]

[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 01-30-2001).]

[niklas]

 

Along with those performance figures, Brown also says the D-9 has a spinner cannon...  He mixed up the data with a D-12 or D-13 folks.

Really? Thatīs interesting, because a grandpa of someone who i know from online playing in germany was flying the D9 in the war, and he said his D9 had 3 cannons, 2 in the wingroots and one fireing through the spinner!

btw 21k altitude for topspeed is clearly a jumo213A engine, not the E of the D12 or D13

niklas

[This message has been edited by niklas (edited 01-30-2001).]

[LJK Raubvogel]

F4UDOA, your data is comparing a 190A-5.....completely different animal.

[danish]

F4UDOA

Greetings ;=)

First several paragrafs argueing that this and similar games are number dependent by will, and also (more serously IMO) by will denies the lessons from actual air to air combat.
Last paragraf sums up my view of Eric Brown - you can jump down there if you wish ;=)

I have a great deal of respect of you guys digging in numbers, calculating.Especially because of the attitude towards tales and encounters of pilots displayed by the creators of this game - and also by the current profiles of WB.Unfortunatly this attitude has been adobted by a large part of the communities of these games.Either you have hard numbers or you have nothing seems to be the slogan.

This is practical for a couple of reasons.

Firstly it will stop the can of worms opened by the large number of apparantly conflicting tales.When seeing the mudslinging that is taking place in regards to the numbers, imagine if you can the kaos that will emerge when people presents a few selectet tales, to justify their claim of uber or under.Insisting on numbers leaves this whole segment out.

Secondly the sole basis of this virtual world is numbers.If you get new numbers you might be able to insert them into your Flight Model(Tm) without too much hassle and get a reasonable result.On the other hand if you collect a string of combat encounters - well defined and trustworthy as some of them are - the problem of transforming actual *new* knowledge to numbers is still immense.You might even have to redefine your (expensive?) Flight Model(Tm) every time you transform.

Without going into details I think that the shortcommings of a purly theoretical Flight Model(Tm) will allways be evident.AH problems around stalls, spinns, torque, E-retention ect have been discussed in the past.Of course in RL there is a reason why new planes are not rolled directly out from the assembly line into service.

All because of this the people of these communities who have the talent, education and time to collect new numbers have my respect.Without you these games would stall: indeed AH seems to be the only one where new numbers have a possibility of being incorporated - at least for the time being.

But thinking that we presantly have a Flight Model(Tm) that is an actual simulator is a mistake IMO.
This is why I dont stress Eric Brown confusing numbers or doing horses comparisons as gravly as you - but rather put emphasis on his enourmus experience.That is why the duel Lovel v. Galland is interesting, and why the fact that Galland flew Fw A8 is important.

regards

danish

[F4UDOA]

Raubvogel,

I know this is a D-9 thread. I was just addressing Danishes comments about Eric Browns observations based on a FW190-A4.

Danish,

When I came to AH I too put more into the opinions of pilots than the theory of engineers. In fact I still do. Engineers have killed allot of test pilots with what seemed to work on paper. Eventually some country boy like Chuck Yeager comes along and says "hey, why don't we use a flying tail" and bamo, Mach 1. But when I started in the AH beta and said the F4U should climb better, Hitech and Pyro said prove it. Then I proved it in theory with calculations and they said where is the test data? And I said sh*t!! Well it took me long enough but I found it. The bottom line is I know how the F4U climbs, why it climbs that way and now I have the data. Then I read an Autobiography of a test pilot who may or may not like a certain A/C for some reason and he says that plane is a dog. And I say he is biased, check the data.

So when I evaluate any A/C I look in three parts.

1. Pilot commentary and combat record
2. Physics model
3. Flight test data

From that I think you can gauge how an A/C flew. But any one piece does not make an A/C IMHO.

Anyway I'm not trying to hijack the thread so please return to your normal posting.

[This message has been edited by F4UDOA (edited 01-30-2001).]

[funked]

Those pilots comments are neat.  Some things I have read pilots saying:

P-51D would outclimb anything the Germans had.
P-47D could out turn the Me 109.
Me 109 could out turn the P-38.
P-38 could out turn the A6M.
Does that mean the P-47D could out turn the A6M?

[Buzzbait]

S! all

The two sets of figures being presented for the FW190 are the two ends of the spectrum.  The one which shows a top speed of 390mph at Sea Level is taken from a test done on April 15th of 1945 with an experimental, non-standard supercharger and does not reflect the normal FW190D-9 performance.  The Test figures which show a 357 mph top speed at Sea Level are done without MW-50 and therefore once again do not reflect real performance.  It is true the FW190D-9 models did not generally receive MW-50 kits until January 1945, due to supply difficulties from the factory, but after that date, most were equipped.

Performance figures I have from Focke-Wulf documents show the following for a FW190D-9 equipped with a Jumo 213A and MW-50.  It had the standard ETC 504 bombrack.

606kph at S.L.  (378 mph)

Top speed:  705kph at 4200metres  (440mph)