Author Topic: 190 superior to 109? (Read 1269 times)

niklas · « **Reply #45 on:** July 31, 2002, 05:21:43 AM »

Just happened to read that the DB608 engine had a Dralldrossel already in '39. It was also planned to be a high altitude engine, like the 605L which was equipped with a Dralldrossel too.

So the knowledge was alredy available in germany before the war, but it was obviously a little known principle.

niklas

gripen · « **Reply #46 on:** July 31, 2002, 03:23:54 PM »

Niklas,
Whats the source? Von Gersdorff's and Grasmann's book does not mention the DB 608 (or I can't find it). Seems that people at the DVL did not know that there was a similar device developed in Germany when they studied the AM-35/38 couple years later.

Anyway, there certainly was the "dralldrossel" in the DB 603L but that was a later engine. Interestingly the DB 603L version of the device had 12 vanes just like the AM-35/38 while the Jumo 213 appear to had just 6 vanes.

gripen

niklas · « **Reply #47 on:** July 31, 2002, 04:12:59 PM »

Page 118

Either the dralldrossel was the result of a public but rather unknown research topic (like the swept back wing, first presented 35 on a public congress but found few attention outside germany) or the russians maybe spotted it when they toured through germany in 39.

niklas

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #48 on:** July 31, 2002, 04:28:59 PM »

So, this may not shine so well through in AH, but that's just life.

Hmmm..... FW190 consitently have the highest or among the highest KD for non perk fighters. Though this could also be due to superior pilots who fly them.

gripen · « **Reply #49 on:** August 01, 2002, 03:23:13 AM »

Niklas,
I found it, it is mentioned later than I thought. It might be possible that the Russians saw the system, seems that the Germans showed pretty much all they had during 1939-40 (like the He 100 and Ju 88).

gripen

niklas · « **Reply #50 on:** August 01, 2002, 03:41:51 AM »

And do you know what Yakovlev wrote in his book? He recommended to buy nothing from the germans, because he thought there was nothing worth to buy. Well at least this is what he wrote after the war, along some other nice comments about the babarics

. The Me262? uhh no interest.... saw only serivice in very few numbers.... instable.... i really had a good laugh reading through his book, especially when he wrote about the development of "superior" russian air tactics lol.

niklas

HoHun · « **Reply #51 on:** August 04, 2002, 09:54:02 AM »

Hi Gripen,

>In the case of the AM-35/AM-38 we can see the from the curves that the swirl throttle certainly have a more effect than constant air flow mass at sea level.

Actually, it seems like both of the Russian engines were regulated to a constant boost pressure. However, I admit that in the case of the AM-38, the drop of air flow mass at sea level was only very slight (2%). The AM-35A actually had a higher air flow mass at sea level than at full pressure altitude, so it doesn't seem to make much of a difference indeed.

>Anyway, the swirl throttle increased the efficiency of the engine by reducing supercharge driving power and temperature rise in the charger while the constant airflow mass system was just a different way to adjust MAP.

Yes, but with modern-day experience, we shouldn't be suprised that improved engine software gives better engine power ;-) However, I previously thought that the new way of adjusting MAP was responsible for all of the power gain the Jumo 213 experienced, now it seems like it can only claim part of it.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Glasses · « **Reply #52 on:** August 04, 2002, 10:19:18 AM »

I agree it might be do to some of those Superior 190 pilots

Yeh and Grunnie look at the K/d ration of the Ta152 against the P51 "I vander vy"

gripen · « **Reply #53 on:** August 04, 2002, 03:00:47 PM »

HoHun,
Yes, the AM-35/38 used normal constant pressure system, no one has argued otherwise. In the case of the Jumo 213 I don't know if the constant airflow mass system gave any real performance increase at any given MAP but it certainly gave somewhat smoother power curve.

gripen

Virage · « **Reply #54 on:** August 05, 2002, 09:43:26 PM »

109 gets my vote.

senna · « **Reply #55 on:** August 06, 2002, 01:57:15 AM »

in a 1vs1 I would take a 109 but in a many vs many I would rather be in the 190.

illo · « **Reply #56 on:** August 06, 2002, 04:37:23 AM »

What can touch good pilot in the plane that rolls 190degrees per second?

190 is by far superior used en mass. With correct roll it would be real handful to anything against it.

Last time I tried AH 190a8 rolled about 150-160degrees/sec. Im just waiting for online sim that could model 190 roll correctly.