Author Topic: AH Spitfire Mk V vs AH 190 A5 Tests (Read 4111 times)

bigUC · « **Reply #45 on:** October 01, 2002, 02:48:04 PM »

I hardly believe Capt. Brown would quote those numbers if the differences was not comparable to reality. Remember, he flew both aircraft.

I do not think boost as measured in AH's instruments correctly reflect r/l engine perfomance and its impact on flight model. If possible, boost in IX AH should reflect the AFDU performance figures.

The AFDU figures are sound and reflects actual performance. If there is suspicion that they're not, I cannot understand why this isn't mentioned somewhere else. Clearly, running the Spit w. reduced perfomance engine settings would be totally moronic in a flight comparison trial.

Besides, after wading trough all this, Wilbus still showed us that the Spit V has superior acceleration over the Fw 190 in AH. No boost setting can alter that.

funkedup · « **Reply #46 on:** October 01, 2002, 02:57:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by bigUC
Clearly, running the Spit w. reduced perfomance engine settings would be totally moronic in a flight comparison trial.

Well, the historical documents prove that this was the case, so deal with it.

Quote

Besides, after wading trough all this, Wilbus still showed us that the Spit V has superior acceleration over the Fw 190 in AH. No boost setting can alter that.

[/b]

Do you even know what the word "boost" means? More boost -> more power -> more acceleration.

Please.

Wilbus · « **Reply #47 on:** October 01, 2002, 03:08:53 PM »

What is considered WEP in AH is obviously higher then what was considerd WEP in WW2 for the Spits. As I told you before, The Spit 9 was the "bad" version, same as we have in AH. The FW 190 A3 accelerated better then it did, this was specially clear in zoom climbs. The chart says nothing about the Spit 9 later getting higher boost which clearly states I DID NOT GET HIGHER BOOST. Which gives us two options. #1, the spitfire 9 is actually not the Merlin 61 spitfire it is suposed to be and #2 the Spitfire 9 in AH is overmodelled when it comes to boost pressure.

And when a Spitfire V out accelerates a 190 A3, which was Superior to the Spitifre in combat situations, in EVERYTHING but turn radius in low speeds (this was stated by all pilot who flew spitfire 5, and they all said the 190 was a MUCH SUPERIOR PLANE then the Spitfire 5, little or much boost) I KNOW something is seriously WRONG. Nothing you say can change that.

The Tests clearly state that ALL PLANES were run on WEP (something you all tried to say they weren't and been proved wrong). The spitfire 5 was the ONLY that was later boosted more, the Spitfire 9 was not. The Spitfire 9 had several better versions though.

So once again, quit the BS about the Spitfire 9, tiffie, P38 and P51 not running WEP.

The 190 is porked as is the Ta152. To me it seems like a general problem with the Focke Wulf types.

funkedup · « **Reply #48 on:** October 01, 2002, 03:12:52 PM »

ROFL

I clearly demonstrated that your comparison was invalid. Historical facts staring you straight in the face, but you ignore them.

I thought maybe we were just having a communication problem, but it seems you're just an *edited* idiot.

I'm sure HTC will read your BS and feel the same.

I hope you and your nazi-loving brethren continue to be dissatisfied with this game. Maybe you will finally go away.

Bye.

Wilbus · « **Reply #49 on:** October 01, 2002, 03:19:30 PM »

Quote

ROFL

I clearly demonstrated that your comparison was invalid. Historical facts staring you straight in the face, but you ignore them.

I thought maybe we were just having a communication problem, but it seems you're just an *edited* idiot.

I'm sure HTC will read your BS and feel the same.

I hope you and your nazi-loving brethren continue to be dissatisfied with this game. Maybe you will finally go away.

Bye.

Doesn't matter how hot a discussion gets, who is right or who is wrong, I will NEVER tolerate being called a nazi lover and I will NEVER tolerate being humilated in public nor in private. I do not take lightly on what you said and what personal attacks you just did.

I really did expect a more mature manner from you, I've always respected you until just now, when you show your true self, uncapeble of disussion without bringing up personal attacks. Personal attacks, with out any kind of back up for anything of what you say and personals attacks that more then just humiliate. A personal attack that goes into the bones of the person it is direct to for being called a thing which the person hates more then anything in this world. Last time I was called a racist (was due to my name almost riming on racist) the guy who said it got hurt. And being called a racist, is nowehere near as bad as being called a Nazi, specially not since the racist was ment to be a joke.

I won't stand this, I won't stand being called a nazi and I won't take any more personal attacks from you or anyone else.

I want an appology Funked.

funkedup · « **Reply #50 on:** October 01, 2002, 03:23:32 PM »

Sorry, I am really frustrated.
Please email me: funkedup@raf303.org

bigUC · « **Reply #51 on:** October 01, 2002, 04:36:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by funkedup

Do you even know what the word "boost" means? More boost -> more power -> more acceleration.

Please. [/B]

So the Spit V should outaccelerate the Fw 190? And please spare me the comments about "nazi-loving brethren". It's uncalled for - my family did suffer during the nazi-occupation. We're all educated people here, right?

This thread has nothing to do with being dissatisifed with the game- It's a simple discussion about flight models, esp. between two important adversaries (Spit and FW) during the middle years of WWII. HT might or might not find Wilbus' testfindings correct and implement changes - no tears whatever they decide. I'll happily enjoy AH whatever.

Urchin · « **Reply #52 on:** October 01, 2002, 05:03:43 PM »

Funked, that was a little uncalled for.

Wilbus- He said the Spit V and Spit IX were running at LESS BOOST than they run at in AH.

The Spit V I understand, if it was running at 12 boost and was later rerated (after the test) to take 16 boost, that would be a very plausible explanation of why the Spit V in AH out accelerates and out climbs the 190A5.

I don't know why the Spit IX would be running at less boost in real life than in runs in Aces High, I've never paid attention to the boost meter in the Spit in AH.

Wilbus · « **Reply #53 on:** October 01, 2002, 05:25:01 PM »

I know he is saying that Urchin, but even the Spitfire 9 the version we have in AH got outaccelerated by the A3. We have A5.

I also know the Spitfire 9 runs at higher boost in AH then the one on the chart, which I don't know why as the chart says nothing about the 9 later being modified to give out higher pressure. Yet again, brings me to the 9 in AH, either being modelled wrong as it gives out too much pressure, or it is a later 9 then it is actually ment to be.

Karnak · « **Reply #54 on:** October 01, 2002, 06:20:42 PM »

When was the AFDU test run? If it was run before the Spitfire IX entered service (using an early production model or prototype of the Spit IX) that might explain why the boost settings were lower.

As I understand it, the boost settings should look like this:

Merlin 61 had a max boost of 16psi.

Merlin 66 with 100 octane had a max boost of 18psi

Merlin 66 with 150 octane had a max boost of 25psi

(Funked, that was really tasteless and uncalled for)

Wilbus · « **Reply #55 on:** October 01, 2002, 06:41:33 PM »

Yes Karnak, merlin 61 should have 16 boost, our Spit 9 should be a Merlin 61, am I right? Atleast, if I remember correct, you've said we have the worst possible spit, shoudl be merlin 61, right?

The RAF report that "...the Focke Wulf 190 was compared to a fully operational Spitfire Mk IX." Which means it must have been the worst of the Spit 9's, thus the Merlin 61.

Karnak, I just check the Spitfire Mk IX in AH, Military power it runs a little bit higher then 16, with WEP it runs at 18 which would indicate the Merlin 66 with 100 octane, right? What's up with that????

Another thing, the Spitfire IX in the test, was afully operational Spitfire 9, judging from WEP boost of 16, it was a Mrlin 61, and it was outaccelerated by the Focke Wulf 190 A3. The Spitfire 5 with upped boost pressure was quite clearly far from as good as the worst Spit 9 (why would they change to the 9 otherwise if the 16 Boost SPit 5 was better) and thus it would be easily outaccelerated by the A3. Yet, both the 5 and 9 easily outaccelerate the A5 in AH.

Following me? I am very bad at explaining so hope I have expressed my self clearly.

In Short, 16 boost Spit 5 was worse then Merlin 61 Spitfire 9. Merlin 61 Spitfire 9 had worse acceleration then FW 190 A3 thus the improved Spitfire Mk V had quite much worse acceleration then the 190 A3, yet the Spit V outaccelerates our A5.

funkedup · « **Reply #56 on:** October 01, 2002, 06:43:07 PM »

Wilbus can you send me your email?

Nashwan · « **Reply #57 on:** October 01, 2002, 07:34:15 PM »

The AH 190 runs at 1.3 ata, the AFDU tested theirs at 1.35 ata. That means the ADFU 190 will be faster. (assuming acceleration test were carried out at 1.35, and not WEP)

Is the A5 heavier than he A3? If so, the AFDU 190 will accelerate faster than the AH 190.

Quote

Another thing, the Spitfire IX in the test, was afully operational Spitfire 9, judging from WEP boost of 16, it was a Mrlin 61, and it was outaccelerated by the Focke Wulf 190 A3.

The report points out the 190 accelerates marginally better "except at those altitudes where the Spitfire is faster", which is anywhere about 5 - 6000ft.

The 190 and Spit in the ADFU tests seem to have accelerated almost the same. In AH, the 190 uses 1.3 ata for military power (is this correct?) and is probably heavier than the ADFU 190. It probably should perform worse than the Spit IX.

Quote

In Short, 16 boost Spit 5 was worse then Merlin 61 Spitfire 9.

Probably depends on altitude.

Karnak · « **Reply #58 on:** October 01, 2002, 07:41:58 PM »

Wilbus,

The AH Spit IX does indicate 18psi on its boost guage. However, the AH Spitfire Mk IX performs like a 16psi Merlin 61 and Pyro has stated that it has a Merlin 61.

My conclusion is simply that the boost gauge in the AH Spitfire Mk IX misreports the boost level. It should be reading 16psi, no 18psi.

Wilbus · « **Reply #59 on:** October 01, 2002, 07:59:32 PM »

CC Karnak, which means the 190 in AH accelerates far too slow as it outaccelerated the Spit 9 both in level flight, dive and zoom climbs. As the Spit 9 we have in AH, and the one used in the tests. Were the same Spit 9 it is quite clear the 190 in AH accelerates too slow.

Nash, only real weight differnce would be made up of the engine and some lbs for the slightly lengthened nose. Not sure how much more HP, if any the A5 had then the A3 but acceleration would definatly not be worse.

In zoom climb the 190 A3 in the tests was described as pulling away quite good from the Spit 9 in the initial stages. This was most noticable when pulled up into a zoom from a high speed dive.