Whats the stats of a FW190-A5?

[Hristo]

Nashwan, one particular plane shows that German plane industry was at higher technology level than Allied.

Hint: swept wings  

[milnko]

To add a little gas to the fire.........

Fuel for the Few reprinted from Areospace Magazine 1990

Remember please that I fly the 190, and love shootin' Spits.

BUT the higher octane gas the Brits used SIGNIFICANTLY contributed to the Spitfires' remarkable performance.

As a side note, a couple of years ago, when I played AW3, they modeled this particular feature, in that when fuel was hit at a base, the Allied type planes had reduced performance where as the German Iron was uneffected when taking off from a fuel porked field.
That would add some more strat to AH if the copied this feature.

 

------------------
<< MILENKO >>
<===THE ASSASSINS===>Webpage

««You can kill me, Can't ya?»»

[sr2053]

I newer flew any 190 in real life.  
But what i know it was considered as great and very dangerous plane by Polish and Czechoslovak pilots in RAF.
BTW 1st 190 was captuped by Czechoslovak pilot who forced one to land.

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

[This message has been edited by sr2053 (edited 04-30-2000).]

[Jekyll]

 

Danish, I make my living partially by simulating things. I've yet to see a modeling package that accepts anectdotes as input.

Ahh funked, but when you are finished coding your simulation, wouldn't it be prudent to compare your results with such things as Eric Brown's flight analysis, just to be sure YOUR inputs were correct?

Fw190 Spit IX whatever.

At the end of the day the situation is this:  

By 1943 the British had flown a captured 190.  They had compared it with a Spitfire IX.  In the OPINION of the test pilot, the 190 had superior acceleration, climb between 15k and 23k, roll, dive and zoom climb.  The Spit had by far the better horizontal turning circle.

And if the output of your simulation, 60 years after the fact, don't match the results from flying the REAL AIRCRAFT... then plainly something is wrong with your simulation  

Remember, according to the numbers, a bumblebee cannot fly either  


------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
http://www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm
'feel the heat .......'

[wells]

Jekyll,

I have some anecdotes of a P-47 vs 190 test flights.  The 190 pilot had NO combat experience but had alot more flying time in more types than the P-47 pilot.  Is that a fair test?  Not in my opinion.  NO amount of general flying experience can make up for even a little ACM knowledge and experience in a mock dogfight.  Look at all of us who've been flying sims since 1980 or so and thought we knew how to fly when we first signed up for AW or WB or whatever and got our tulips shot off!  hehehe

Most anecdotes don't give enough information like the loadouts, weights, power settings, climb speeds and stuff that is essential if one is to test things out in a simulation.  

I like the one where the 190 is compared to the Spit VB and the climb speeds used are the same?  Hello?  What speed was that?  The Fw-190's best speed?  The Spit's best speed?  Some other speed?  The FW-190 was superior?  So I guess the speed was somewhere around 250 mph then, right?  

It's like, give me some numbers so I test it out in the simulation!!!

[Jekyll]

 

yeah and the a6m zero looks like the 190 too lol
judging book by cover are we?

Sorry citabria, but I don't quite understand what you're getting at here.  Are you saying the F8F Bearcat was NOT a direct outgrowth of the Fw190A series?

Tell you what, I like a little wager at times.  What's say the loser agrees to fly for two hours in an unescorted C47 at say, 2000 feet near an enemy field, broadcasting his position every 5 minutes on common channel?  

But be real careful my friend.  The evidence I have is pretty damn convincing  

FWIW, I happen to think that the Spitfire was THE design of the war.  With minimal modifications, here was a plane which went from 300mph in 1939, to 450 mph by war's end.  Climb rate went from mid 2000fpm to over 5000fpm.  If it had had longer 'legs' it would have been a world-beater!

And it STILL has the record for the fastest true speed ever reached by a piston-engined airplane (0.91 Mach).

But I think the 190 was competitive.

And wells, where did I say anything about mock combat?  I was talking about the kinds of things test pilots get paid to test!

Climb rate, zoom climb, acceleration, dive speed, roll rate.  Nothing at all to do with ACM.

Hehe, maybe Eric Brown was an agent for Hawker-DeHavilland  

[ra]

<<Are you saying the F8F Bearcat was NOT a direct outgrowth of the Fw190A series?>>

Saying the F8F was a 'direct outgrowth' of the 190 is a stretch IMHO.  'Inspiration' would probably be a better word to describe the effect of the 190 on the Grumman designers.  They knew how to design fighters, the 190 just led them to a new approach.  Most designs do not happen in a vacuum, they are derived from other successful designs.  IMHO the F8F was a more ambitious design than the 190, it had much greater bombload and range, and could operate from a carrier.  Whipped together in 10 months!

ra

[funked]

The only thing the Fw 190 showed the Grumman people was how small an airplane one could build around a big radial.  As far as detail design there are few similarities.

[funked]

"And if the output of your simulation, 60 years after the fact, don't match the results from flying the REAL AIRCRAFT... then plainly something is wrong with your simulation."

Sorry, no.

It's also quite possible (in fact common) that the experiments of 60 years ago were flawed.  You have to consider both possiblities.

Also, you have to be sure to compare the same planes in simulation that were compared in the experiment.  Comparing an Fw 190A-3 with a 1942 Spitfire F Mk. IX is not the same as comparing an Fw 190A-5 with a 1944 Spitfire HF or LF Mk. IX.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 05-01-2000).]

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 05-01-2000).]

[Jekyll]

OK, lets take these one at a time  

"I couldn't have cared less about the human attendees; I was interested only in the number of new fighters I would be able to evaluate.  A Focke-Wulf 190 was supposed to have been present, but it was held up at Wright Field for maintenance.  I regretted that because both Bob Hall and Bud Gillies had flown it in England in 1943, and the Grumman XF8F-1 Bearcat was a direct outgrowth of their flights.  They were greatly impressed by this German fighter."

Quot from Corky Meyer, Chief Test Pilot for Grumman, regarding the 1944 Fighter Conference held at the Naval Test Centre, Patuxent River, 16-23 October 1944.  BTW, Bob Hall was Grumman's assistant chief engineer for experimental flight, and also a test pilot.  Bud Gillies was vice-president of flight operations for Grumman, and likewise a test pilot.

OK, next:  

 

It's also quite possible (in fact common) that the experiments of 60 years ago were flawed. You have to consider both possiblities.

I love this quote of your funked.  What you are in effect saying is "Forget about any test data from 60 years ago... they could have been wrong, in fact, they commonly WERE wrong."  Sorry funked, that that statement smells of an almost 'generational' form of arrogance.  The test pilots of 50 years ago were not dummies, they knew their job, didn't they?  Disregarding this evidence, anecdotal though it may be, leads us to the conclusion that the 190 was an overweight pig which couldn't climb, couldn't zoom, bled E like a stuck pig if you turned it more than 30 degrees, and whose only option when faced with a co-e Spit V was to run like hell!

And that, my friend, is to disregard every single historical statement ever made re the Spit V/190 matchup.

Ya know, I sometimes wonder whether in 5 years time or so, some flight sim programmer (perhaps even HT or Pyro) will look at the code for the 190 in WB and AH and suddenly say, "Hey, what is THAT decimal point doing there?"  

And funked, please take a look at your climb chart for the A5, as modified below:

   

What do the read and blue lines represent in the climb rate data?  Your original copy may be easier to read.

And as my final (I promise) word on the subject.. can anyone point me in the direction of a reference which states that the 190 bled energy in a turn as much as it does in AH and WB?  I mean, at the end of the day, its the 190's e-bleed which is the major cause of its uncompetitiveness.  I'd just like to know why it bleeds so much speed off in a turn.  I've sure never seen any such references in my reading.

Jekyll
Who wonders why the RAF ever bothered with upgrading the Spit V, when it could PLAINLY whip the pants off the 190.

After all, funked says so  



[This message has been edited by Jekyll (edited 05-01-2000).]

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by Jekyll:
Who wonders why the RAF ever bothered with upgrading the Spit V, when it could PLAINLY whip the pants off the 190.

HEhehe Jekyll...I love that last quote...but lets face it, we'll never have nothing near a competitive Fw190 in AH. Its as simple as that, We'll have to be stuck in bricks that cant climb, zoom, and the only things that can do well is bleed E like crazy...Man, even the Mg151 is porked compared with Hispanos!

I wont say a word more in this matter. I'm tired of this. But I stand agan that If I cant fly my favorite plane because it isnt modelled as it was (a feared and competitive E-fighter), then I'll leave. I'm tired of flying Me109 and P51, they are good planes and I have quite good numbers in them (especially in P51) but I simply dont feel as comfortable as in my Fw190. I've let the P51...and Me109 isnt my plane,is as simple as that.I love Fw190. I want to fly Fw190. but if it cant fight even a cow, then this isnt my sim.

<PUNT>


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

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

   

[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 05-01-2000).]

[funked]

Jekyll:

First, please retract the following statement:

     

Who wonders why the RAF ever bothered with upgrading the Spit V, when it could PLAINLY whip the pants off the 190.

After all, funked says so

I've never said anything remotely resembling that.  You are thinking of someone else maybe?  Either way, the statement is false.  Please do not put words in my mouth, that is the shortest and most direct path to my toejam list.

Second:
     

What you are in effect saying is "Forget about any test data from 60 years ago... they could have been wrong, in fact, they commonly WERE wrong."

NO!
Stop misquoting me.  

!!!

I am saying be careful of test results, especially qualitative findings.  Why?  Because these results are often contradictory.

If you look at a broad spectrum of pilot anectdotes and head-to-head comparisons, you will find they often contradict eachother, even when the same planes are used.

I'm not trying be a snob here but I have read way too many technical books on WW2 airplanes, and the rate of contradiction is amazing.

If you don't trust me, just ask someone with way more experience than me, like Pyro, about this.  Sometimes it's hilarious - two pilots fly the same plane and give exactly opposite reports.  Their descriptions of control feel, trim behavior, stall speeds, you name it will be different.  Sometimes they will report IAS and convert to TAS with standard atmosphere data, but forget that most planes need a calibration factor that is dependent on the pitot installation.  So on and so forth.

Here's some anectdotes I've read:  P-38 could out turn a Zeke.  Me 109 could out turn a P-38.  P-47 could out turn an Me 109.  Now if we believe all of these, and accept them without examining them carefully, we get a P-47 that out turns a Zeke.  The laws of physics, and common sense, should tell you that is not true!
 
If two sources contradict each other, it's pretty obvious that one of them is wrong.

Or maybe they are both right, but some little detail made the plane behave differently than when the other guy flew it.

But looking at the rate of contradictory information in WW2 era test data and in-flight comparisons, you'd have to be a fool to rely on just one source.

That's all I'm saying.  And that is a general statement - I am not attacking the AFDU flyoff results.

Third:
The lines on the climb chart:

The red line is the "Emergency and Takeoff" power setting, 2700 rpm @ 41.1" Hg., which was sustainable for 3 minutes.  This power setting corresponds to our flight sim "WEP"

The blue line is the "Climb" power setting, 2400 rpm @ 38" Hg., which was sustainable for 30 minutes.  This power setting corresponds to 100% throttle in our sim.

P.S.  I was farting around last night with a 2-cannon Fw 190A-8 in the training arena with 25% fuel.  I got almost identical climb numbers to the chart above.  Needless to say the plane flew GREAT with this light load, and I hope that's what the A-5 is like.  Now imagine an A-5 on 25% fuel MUAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA.  I think Northolt Wing may "capture" some Fw 190's.      


P.S.  If you are having trouble reading the speed chart, it says 415 mph @ 22k.   And yes this is a calibrated reading.      


[This message has been edited by funked (edited 05-01-2000).]

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 05-01-2000).]

[funked]

A couple of good threads that cover Fw 190A emergency power:
 http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum9/HTML/000019.html

 http://agw.dogfighter.com/agw/Forum3/HTML/007681-2.html

[Lugnut]

AAaaaaaagh! Its AGW all over again! Run Away! Run Away!

Lugnut

[SnakeEyes]

I think Godfrey was on crack.  The 190D had barely gone into production when he was shot down and captured in August 1944.

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