Macchi C.202 performance

[juzz]

5000m in 5.5min, average 15.15m/s.
6000m in 6.17min, average 16.21m/s.
7000m in 8.27min, average 14.11m/s.
8000m in 9.9min, average 13.46m/s.

In between the 5000m and 6000m times, climbrate averages 25.00m/s.

In between the 6000m and 7000m times, 7.9m/s.

In between the 7000m and 8000m times, 10.22m/s.

Anyone got a bag of salt?

[gatt]

<edited> my mistake
 

[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 04-25-2000).]

[v-twin]

Pyro, with numbers we can do lotta things.
Don't misunderstand me, I fully respect physics and your calculations are fully right.
Your calculations in metric units: 2930kg * 9.81m/s^2 * 1000m/ 34s = 845391 Watt, which are 1148 hp (roughly, don't have at the moment exact weight of 202 and conversion factor lbs/kg).
But, on the other hand, we can also consider the power to raise 2930kg up to 6000m in 5'55":
2930kg * 9.81m/s^2 * 6000m / 355s = 485802 Watt, which are 660 hp.
What's now???
From the strict physical point of view all these calculations are correct, but can we apply these formulas as they are to a climbing AC?
I'm not an aeronautical engineer, so maybe it would be wiser for me to be silent   , but I think we have to consider other factors: considering the total energy of the AC we cannot obviously ignorate the kynetic energy it has, which comes in the energy balance (Hey, I'm not making a physics lesson!!! Are just thoughts, probably fully wrong!!!     ).
The above formulas calculate simply the power required to raise a weight from 0 to x meters in a given time, starting from 0 speed and 0 meters (like a lift).
But the AC is flying at a certain speed, which probably will be higher than the minimum speed imposed by maximal climb: in that case the AC will "burn" in the first part of the climb the speed excess in form of climb rate until the speed permitted by the engine power and climb rate is reached (We can think as an example of a car driving through a road wich starts to climb).
Just my 2c...

V-twin


P.S. Remember...Only 660hp needed...

[RAM]

Maybe I'm speaking nonsense...but I guess pyro is looking at the climbrates at CONSTANT speed, so Kinetic energy doesnt change at all...

Of course, if you go at 400mph and pull vertical, you can climb REALLY fast. But if you keep speed as a constant, then the only Energy change is the result of the altitude change.

Only my guess...

------------------
Ram, out

Fw190D9? Ta152H1? The truth is out there
JG2 "Richthofen"

 

[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 04-25-2000).]

[VISCONTI]

The data i have posted on a c202 whit a 1075HP engine come from a book called "Le macchine e la storia" 1974.

juzz, i was surprised too when i have done your calculation and the answer is that (at least i think):
The engine have a compensator of power <compensatore di potenza> that start his work from 4100m.
We have 2 different power curve cause we have "2 different engine" one that work till 4100 and the other start to work from 4100.
I dont have the complete data of the engine and i dont know the efficasy of that compensator, but i think is a reasonable opinion.

Anyway without the engine data is impossible to verify the ROC of an AC, we are looking for these data but at the moment we have little info and is impossible to calculate the extimated climb rate whit these data.
The only data we have are "time/to altitude" that cant be refused or appruved cause we dont have the complete engine data.

PS: if someone have the complete power chart of the RA.1000 RC.41I Monsone plz send it to me asap   or contact me by e-mail.

[sr2053]

I dont know much about physics, but why c202 shoud climb faster then 109g6.
109g6 weight few kg more but engine output is 1800HP with WEP.


------------------
 
JG2 "Richthofen"
No.310 squadron RAF "Czechoslovakia"

[This message has been edited by sr2053 (edited 04-25-2000).]

[funked]

Guys, I've spent about half my life learning, teaching, and applying Newtonian mechanics, and Pyro's method for determining the maximum theoretical climb rate at a constant speed is correct, assuming 100% efficiency of the system.

[Citabria]

all humans make mistakes especially in stuff as complex as digital flight modelling, but HTC and company find these mistakes and fix them quick.

now I'm sure pyro has gone over the 202 FM with a fine tooth comb with all the attention its getting and found nothing to be out of the ordinary, or found the best compromise between the laws of physics and what 50 year old flight data documents suggest.

unless the 202 had flubber in its engine in ww2, the AH 202 is by all guesses an accurate repesentation of its performance.

"ya cannut cheeenge tha laws ef phyeesics " - Mr. Scott



------------------
"There are no born fighter pilots. Some are a little better than others, thats about it. But I would say time, training, training, training and more training are the key... to any success."  -Francis Gabreski

Citabria
=357th Pony Express=

[gatt]

Sr2053,
the AH 109G-6 has no MW50 and no GM-1. Without MW50 the real 109G-6 reached 6,000mt in about 6 minutes.
Again, probably 5'55" is a strange time to altitude for a 1,150hp kite, but 7'15" with WEP (like war weary 109E or Hurricane or Zeke) is too  much as well.
And there is the max speed at altitude problem. Is the FM model able to calculate how streamlined was the fuselage and how good was the wing at 18,500ft? Why 350mph TAS and not the official 370mph+?  

[gatt]

I hope we wont have the same problem with the incoming Fw190A-5 .... really. I think there is a real inconsistency between Luftwaffe data/reports, RAF tests and how the A-4/5 is usually modeled. GATT seats down, takes a beer and wait for the incoming 190A-5 ....


[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 04-26-2000).]

[leonid]

Probably not, my friend, gatt.  Data for Fw190A-5 is much more comprehensive  

------------------
leonid, Komandir
5 GIAP VVS RKKA

"Our cause is just.  The enemy will be crushed.  Victory will be ours."

[gatt]

Yes Leonid,
we have tons of books with official charts about FW max speeds and climb at different altitudes, even with MW50.
Then we have reports from RAF pilots, LW pilots and official RAF tests that state that the 190A-3/4 was way superior to the Spitfire MkV as far as speed, climb, istantaneous turn rate and roll rate are concerned, up to 20,000ft.
The only problem for LW pilots was the sustained turn rate.
And if the 190A-4 was way superior than the MkV, how the hell can it be such a dog against the MkIX?

Well, take a look at how all the 190's have been modeled in brand W. The A4 is a good fighter but nothing like the real one. The A8 is a coffin, both in WB and in AH. The 190D-9 is the brick you all know. And I dont talk about Sturm or Slacht variant, I talk about the light (ehm) fighter version. How could they fight the way they did with such bricks?

The 190A-5 was operational since the beginning of 1943. She fought against Spit MkIX (and not only early variant). Had all 190A-5 equipped JG's been butchered by Spitfire IX? Not at all. Did they have always to run away if they found themselves without 4,000ft of alt and 100mph of speed advantage? I dont think so.

I'm talking about consistency and inconsistencies we find between FM results and the real things. IMHO we should try to recreate (or get close to) the real balance/unbalance between fighters without changing history. Thats why I am a bit skeptic about B17 ultra-high alt performance (if they are weak, give them OTTO, AND a reasonable FM above 25K), about the F4U1-C role in AH (stats considered), about the 109F-4 and Spit MkV comparison, about the lack of additional injection in the FW190A-8. Can we change/rewrite history or good air war books with the results of some FM math equations? I dont think this is the right way to give people the feeling to be "there".

Again, no flames, the problem is very complex and this thread is very interesting, even excluding the C.202 topic.


[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 04-26-2000).]

[juzz]

I get 364mph TAS at 18k for AH's C.202.

What's wrong with the Me 109F-4? It is faster and climbs better than the Spitfire Mk V.

What's wrong with the B-17 FM - ever looked at the B-17 manual?

[gatt]

Juzz,

last time I checked the C.202 (maybe 1.02 or 1.02r1) at 18,500ft she didnt exceed 350mph TAS. I'll check again.

Manuals? Oh MY, they are valid only for USAAF aircraft? I have red tons of reports of USAAF crews and they usually flew from 18,000ft to 25,000ft. I understand we have to balance buff weakness in the arena and that the real problem is bombing accuracy from 30,000ft+ .... but actually I'd prefer fine tuned damage model and OTTO (accuracy, burst lenght, etc.etc) and realistic ceiling for buffs.

As far as 109F/MkV are concerned I'll check better. I havent flown the 109F in this TOD and your probably right.

[Kieren]

Gatt-

I did fly the 109F- a lot. Against a Spit V it wasn't bad at all, even if you turned a bit with it. Of course the best tactic was to climb right up and over him, then slap the back of his head.

Right now, assuming I am headed to A2A, I take the 202. I am liking it very much (weak ammo aside). I wish it did climb better, but it is a fun ride nonetheless (and it does turn with a Spit V!).

I'm glad it's included. Perhaps I need to start the G55 crusade... yeah... not all that dissimilar to the 205 in appearance... 3 cannons... hmmmmmm.... Italian birds are fun to fly...