Author Topic: AH Spitfire Mk V vs AH 190 A5 Tests (Read 4148 times)

funkedup · « **Reply #60 on:** October 01, 2002, 08:16:11 PM »

Wilbus, I apologize for posting that. We are having a communication problem and instead of fixing it, I lost my temper and started throwing random insults like a little brat. Sorry to Wilbus and all who had to read it. I hope to have further discussion of the real issue (AFDU comparison test) with you on email.

Wilbus · « **Reply #61 on:** October 01, 2002, 08:30:34 PM »

Appology accepted from my side Funked and will work on forgetting it as it is nothing I wanna remember.

Looking forward to discussing it on e-mail with you, and hope that I am able to explain what I mean better next time.

gripen · « **Reply #62 on:** October 01, 2002, 11:30:11 PM »

I have been under impression that the early Spitfire IX with the Merlin 61 was rated just for +15 lbs?

gripen

Wilbus · « **Reply #63 on:** October 02, 2002, 03:21:16 AM »

The one used in the test had 16 lbs on WEP, could be a different Spit though.

Wilbus · « **Reply #64 on:** October 02, 2002, 06:07:16 AM »

Karnak, Funked, do you agree with me on this:

Pyro has said the Spit 9 in AH is a merlin 61, it has teh performance of a 16 boost Spit 9 which indicates it being a Merlin 61, meaning the same type that was used in the test. The one used in the test was not a prototype, it is clearly stated in the test that it is a fully operational Spitfire Mk IX running at 16 boost. Same as our Spit IX although the gauge in AH is showing wrong.

Everything speaks for this being right, the spit being correctly modelled (I know there are some amament and wing things with the spit 9 in AH that needs fixing) except for the gauge missreading.

Agree?

If yes, you can also agree that the 190 in the test, which was tested against this Spitfire Mk 9, was better inthe acceleration, specially the initial stages as reported in the test. This was specialyl noticable in zoom climb from level flight and even more noticable from zoom climb from a high speed dive, once again, as stated by the test.
In the dive, the test report says "The FW 190 is faster then the Spitfire IX in a dive, particulary during initial stage. This superiority is not so marked as with the Spitfie VB" This means overall, the 190 had MUCH better acceleration then the Spitfire VB in the test, and quite much better acceleration then the Spitfire 9 in the test, same spit as we have in AH.
The Spitfire 5 in AH, is the one running at 16 boost, it is still nowhere near as good as the Spitfire 9 in AH indicating that although it was improved, it was still nowhere near the Fw 190 or Spitfire IX performance, agree?

Not sure if I posted this before, the test results for the AH Spitfire IX, tests were made the same way as with the Spitfire V and Fw 190 A5 Can compare in my previous posts.

Spitfire IX climb to 10k: 2 minutes 59 seconds compared to 190 A5 3 minutes 15 seconds. Acording to the test report, the difference in climb rate up to 22,000 feet was very little, Spitfire IX being only slightly better. Climb to 20k hasn't been tested but I expect the Spitfire IX to reach the alt atleast 1 minute faster, which is alot superior, not just a little faster.

Spitfire IX acceleration at 10,3k. 200-300mph: 37 seconds. 190 A5 took 52 seconds. Again, the 190 was said to accelerate better, not much in level flight however still better. 35 seconds for the 190 in AH might be a resonable acceleration?

After a 5k dive, about 45-50 degree angle, the Spitfire IX in AH reaches 11,8k. Exact same altitude that the 190 A5 reaches. The 190 A3 was quite superior in zoom climbs, specially from high speed dives.

Have explained it pretty good I think, and with the proof of AH having the same Spit that was in the test, (merlin 61 @ 16 lbs boost) it is quite clear to me that something is wrong with the A5 and, most lilkely the other 190's and Ta152 aswell when it comes to acceleration and possibly some other things. However, acceleration is what is most noticable as it affects zoom climbs aswell as dive.
Let's not bring in the other 190's and the Ta152 here, not yet anyway. That the A8 should accelerate worse then the other 190's is nothing that needs to be discussed I think as it was quite clearly a much heavier plane, thus worse acceleration, atleast in level flight.

Have you understood what I am saying or is there something I need to explain better? Like I said before, I am lousy at explaining.

gripen · « **Reply #65 on:** October 02, 2002, 08:43:51 AM »

Well, so far I have not ever heard about +16 lbs rating for the Merlin 61 powered Spitfire during war. AFAIK only the Spitfire V with single stage Merlins (45 or what ever) were rated for +16 lbs. AH is a game, not real life.

gripen

Wilbus · « **Reply #66 on:** October 02, 2002, 09:45:53 AM »

Gripen, Karnak is THE spit freak in AH. He just posted that info about the Merlin running at 16lbs, which is also indicated by the Spitfire IX performance in AH. Most likely the boost gauge is showing wrong.

Naudet · « **Reply #67 on:** October 02, 2002, 10:01:21 AM »

I am just wondering if the AH boost gauges are "working"
if i remember correctly, sometime back it was stated that the boost pressure gauges do not give the "real" boost pressure an AH plane uses.

It would help a lot if HTC just would list which power settings (rpm, boost pressure and anticipated HP) they use for max throttle and WEP in all planes.

Cause if the MAN gauges are wrong, the whole discussion would stand on sand, as noone knows on which base the tests were made.

for this case it would really help if HTC gives us the boost setting informations for FW190A5. Spit5 and Spit9.

gripen · « **Reply #68 on:** October 02, 2002, 03:06:59 PM »

Wilbus and Karnak, please check manual or AFDU comparison or what ever war time source: The Merlin 61 in the Spitfire F Mk IX was rated at +15 lbs. Actually I have not seen a comparison between the Spitfire (V or IX) and Fw 190 where the Spitfire's MAP was more than +15 lbs.

gripen

Wilbus · « **Reply #69 on:** October 02, 2002, 04:35:45 PM »

Roger Gripen, atleast it wasn't more then 16 we know that, meaning that whatever, the Merlin 61 spitfire will not have better acceleration, specially not the way it has in AH.

The one tested against the 190 A3, was running at 16 boost. It was the early Spit 9, using Merlin 61.

Could it be 15 lbs military and those 16 lbs WEP?

gripen · « **Reply #70 on:** October 02, 2002, 05:35:00 PM »

Max rating (WEP if you want to call it that way) for the Merlin 61 was +15 lbs.

The Spitfire IX in the AFDU test used +15 lbs @ 3000rpm for the speed runs. For the climb test (and all other tests) the Spitfire IX used +9 lbs @ 2850rpm (one source says 2650rpm), early aircraft; later rating was raised to +12 lbs.

The Spitfire V in the AFDU test used +12 lbs @ 3000rpm for the speed runs and +9 lbs @ 2850rpm for other tests.

gripen

Nashwan · « **Reply #71 on:** October 02, 2002, 05:48:15 PM »

Quote

For the climb test (and all other tests) the Spitfire IX used +9 lbs @ 2850rpm (one source says 2650rpm), early aircraft; later rating was raised to +12 lbs.

Do you mean the Merlin 61 was later run at 12lbs 30 min rating, or one of the later Merlins in the Spit IX (eg, 63, 66 etc)?

funkedup · « **Reply #72 on:** October 02, 2002, 06:26:20 PM »

Here's the manual.

Mk. V

Mk. IX

Note that for the Merlin 61, climb power is +12 boost.

Gripen, where do you get +9 boost from?

funkedup · « **Reply #73 on:** October 02, 2002, 06:58:27 PM »

I have attached a document which tells us the power settings used by the AFDU in their tests. (Full text available here)

It clearly states the level speed test settings. The settings for all of the other tests are not given explicitly, but they are referenced as "maximum continuous climbing" settings. Fortunately, the manuals (see my previous post) contain the "maximum continuous climbing" settings for the Spitfires Mk. Vb (Merlin 45) and F. Mk. IX (Merlin 61) which were used in the tests.

We can therefore reconstruct the power settings used by the AFDU in their tests, as follows:

Level Speed Tests
Fw 190: 1.42 ata, 2700 rpm
Spit V: +12 psi, 3000 rpm
Spit IX: +15 psi, 3000 rpm

Climb and All Other Tests
Fw 190: 1.35 ata, 2450 rpm
Spit V: +9 psi, 2850 rpm
Spit IX: +12 psi, 2850 rpm

These are the settings used by the AFDU. They are easily achieved using the controls in AH. Any investigator who wishes to duplicate in AH the tests of the AFDU needs to use these settings. Otherwise any comparison to the AFDU tests is invalid.

funkedup · « **Reply #74 on:** October 02, 2002, 06:59:12 PM »

However, in the case of the Spitfire F. IX in AH, which Pyro claims has a Merlin 61, we have an aircraft which uses boost limits which do not match those in the manual or those in the AFDU test.

I do not understand how Pyro has modeled the Spit IX engine. Is he using data for a Merlin 66? Is it a Merlin 61 and he made a mistake on the boost figures? Is it test data for a plane with a Merlin 61 which was actually run at +18 boost? I have no idea. Therefore I am not sure what boost settings should be used by an AH investigator who wishes to duplicate the AFDU trials.

One last thing: Fw 190A-5 had a fuselage extension which should have made it heavier than the Fw 190A-3. So it seems that our A-5 would climb and accelerate a bit slower than the one tested by the AFDU. But I don't have any weight data from a primary source for either variant. So I don't know if this factor is worthy of consideration or not.