Author Topic: AH Spitfire Mk V vs AH 190 A5 Tests (Read 5554 times)

Staga · « **Reply #90 on:** October 03, 2002, 01:31:11 PM »

Montezuma it really looks like something is wrong in FWs and IF thats true HTC should fix it ASAP and I believe that will happen with or without your comments.
If you have something to add to this conversation please do so but leave those childish remarks out.

Nashwan · « **Reply #91 on:** October 03, 2002, 02:10:39 PM »

Quote

By the way, an "operational" HF IX would have been slower, and not quite as fast in the climb, thats a given for AFDU tests I would think.

No, the ADFU tests were similar to results from service machines.

The AH SPit IX comes nowhere near HF figures, at least according to the HTC charts.

ROC

AH 3700 ft/min SL
HF 4400 ft/min SL
F 3650 ft/min SL

AH 2300 ft/min 30k
HF 2600 ft/min 30k
F 2300 ft/min 30k

Quote

As well, remember the post Normandy 1944 SpitIXs (LF and HF) had the larger oil cooler under the nose (like we have in the AH version), and would have caused, lets say 5mph extra drag? take that into account and the #s are even closer what we have in the AH SpitIX.

All the Spits were tested with their rear view mirrors, the early ones unfaired. AH doesn't model them, so add a couple of mph.

Quote

Fact of the matter is, when all is said and done, it does match a Merlin 61 model as well as it does a Merlin 70.

Speed figures are harder to tell, because at most altitudes there is a difference of only 10 mph, or less. The climb figures make it very clear, however.

Quote

As well, remember the post Normandy 1944 SpitIXs (LF and HF) had the larger oil cooler under the nose (like we have in the AH version), and would have caused, lets say 5mph extra drag? take that into account and the #s are even closer what we have in the AH SpitIX.

Post Normandy, all the Spit IXs in the UK were running 150 octane, and had much better performance figures (approx 360 mph at sea level). From Jan 45, all the Spit IXs in NW Europe were running 150 octane.

Wilbus · « **Reply #92 on:** October 03, 2002, 02:21:39 PM »

Squire, I love the A5, it WOULD indeed (and does) kick ass, and it wins over Spit 5's in scenarios etc BUT like BigUC said, I think you're missing the point.

The 190 A5 is faster, it is even a bit faster then the Spit 9 in level speed BUT the acceleration and climb rate/zoom capebility is clearly porked. Noone can say anything against that. Leave out the Spitfire 5 and instead comapare our A5 to the Spit 9.

Spit 9 in AH is more or less equal to the Spit 9 that was used in the tests. merlin 61 early spit. Performance numbers indicate this so don't mix in boost pressure. The Spitfire 9 out accelerates the 190 with EAS, and I mean extreemly much superior and faster acceleration.

In R/L the 190 was the better accelerating plane, this was specialy noticable in dives and zooms. Level flight wasn't so noticable but it outaccelerated it.

So tell me this, does a 52 second time from 200-300mph compared to Spit 9 37 second seem true to any of you guys as the 190 was the one accelerating faster? 15 second difference.

AS for the 190 dominating the spit 5 yes, but as soon as the 190 would possibly get slow the Spit 5 would catch it in a dive or zoom without trouble thanks to its much better acceleration in AH. This was not the case in R/L where the 190's totally ruled the fight.

Nashwan · « **Reply #93 on:** October 03, 2002, 02:38:05 PM »

Quote

In R/L the 190 was the better accelerating plane, this was specialy noticable in dives and zooms. Level flight wasn't so noticable but it outaccelerated it.

So tell me this, does a 52 second time from 200-300mph compared to Spit 9 37 second seem true to any of you guys as the 190 was the one accelerating faster? 15 second difference.

Did you test at 10,000ft?

The FW 190 accelerated faster "except at those altitudes where the Spitfire had a speed advantage"

10,000ft was about the best altitude for the Spit v the 190, the place where it had it's biggest speed advantage.

It should at least equal the Fw 190 at that that.

You are also testing an A5 vs an A3 (more weight) at 1.3 ata instead of 1.35 ata. (less power)

In short, you are testing a heavier plane at less power, at altitudes where the Spit should be marginally better anyway.

Wilbus · « **Reply #94 on:** October 03, 2002, 02:49:14 PM »

Nashwan, maybe you haven't read the test report. The 190 A3 was faster at ALL altitudes up to 25k. It climbed better at ALL altitudes up to 25k. It accelerated better at ALL altitudes.

And without sounding too rude, the thing about Spitfire 5 having its best altitude at 10k, is pure BS. Check AH charts your self, both Military and WEP bet alt is about 18-19k.

The 190 A5 was only some KG heavier, 15cm longer nose doesn't do much in weight, specially not so much difference so that it would be outaccelerated. Remeber, the reason the update planes is to make them better, not worse.

The A5 might have had slightly worse acceleration due to a few extra KG but not that much and it wouldn't be outaccelerated by a 1941/42 spit.

As for my last post, my point being, that in a scenario, the ONLY thing the 190 has on its side is roll rate and Maximum level speed. Same situation in R/L it had roll rate, acceleration in all ways (dive level climb etc) high speed handeling etc. Everything except turn rate.

Urchin · « **Reply #95 on:** October 03, 2002, 02:54:18 PM »

IIRC correctly, and I may not be, there wasn't a weight difference between the 190A-3 and the 190A-5 of any significance. The only difference between the models was the 190A-5 had a slightly longer nose to shift the CG forward some.

Wilbus · « **Reply #96 on:** October 03, 2002, 03:01:04 PM »

One more thing, my tests were made with a 2 gunned 190 A5. You can take away bout 100kg there if you like, improve acceleration some over the A3 they used.

Wilbus · « **Reply #97 on:** October 03, 2002, 03:03:56 PM »

Just tested the Spitfire Mk V at 12 lbs boost as so many of you wanted. Only did acceleration test at 10,3k.

Time from 200 to 300mph being 57 seconds. Only 4 seconds behind. With 12 lbs boost the spitfire 5 outclimbs the 190 A5 above 6k or so.

main reason the spit 5 was 4 seconds worse with 12 lbs boost is that its max speed is decreased from 320 at 10 k to maybe 310 or so. Thus, the closer you get to max speed the slower acceleration. It was in the last 15-20 mph the Spit 5 with 12lbs lost, before that it was still as fast/faster then the A5.

You all still think everything is right here?

Nashwan · « **Reply #98 on:** October 03, 2002, 03:08:28 PM »

Quote

Nashwan, maybe you haven't read the test report. The 190 A3 was faster at ALL altitudes up to 25k. It climbed better at ALL altitudes up to 25k. It accelerated better at ALL altitudes.

Sorry, I was refering to your tests, which were between the Spit IX and the 190.

Quote

And without sounding too rude, the thing about Spitfire 5 having its best altitude at 10k, is pure BS. Check AH charts your self, both Military and WEP bet alt is about 18-19k.

I meant best altitude v the 190. ie, the altitude where it had it's biggest advantage over the 190 (apart from very high up)

In fact, you seem to have picked just about the worst possible altitude to test the 190 at, what with that performance dip just over 10,000ft...

Quote

Just tested the Spitfire Mk V at 12 lbs boost as so many of you wanted. Only did acceleration test at 10,3k.

Read Gripens post. The Spit V was tested at 12lbs max (ie wep), only 9lbs for the other tests.

Test the Spit V at 12lbs v the 190 at 1.42ata, or the Spit V at 9lbs v the 190 at 1.35 ata.

bigUC · « **Reply #99 on:** October 03, 2002, 04:08:37 PM »

@ 10k and slightly above the A5 is about 25mph faster than spit V according to AH charts. Wilbus test was with Spit V, not Spit IX.

Nashwan · « **Reply #100 on:** October 03, 2002, 04:52:20 PM »

No, Wilbus tested the Spit IX:

Quote

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?

Wilbus · « **Reply #101 on:** October 03, 2002, 05:46:51 PM »

Nashwan, that doesn't change acceleration much, the Spitfire 5 is much better in acceleration. While infact, the 190 A3 accelerated better then the Spit 9 we have in AH. I will make tests above 10k aswell but won't change accel too much I believe.

Wilbus · « **Reply #102 on:** October 03, 2002, 05:47:29 PM »

My appologize Nash, I missunderstood your first post

bigUC · « **Reply #103 on:** October 04, 2002, 12:45:44 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nashwan
No, Wilbus tested the Spit IX:

I apologize - I read this in his first post:

Level acceleration at 10,3k.
Time from 200mph to 300mph.

Spitfire Mk V: 46 seconds.

Fw 190 A5: 52 seconds.

Wilbus · « **Reply #104 on:** October 04, 2002, 04:07:37 AM »

I've tested both the Spit 9 and the Spit 5 as my first post shows.

I've also done climb tests vs the Hurricane II C and even that fargin plane outclimbs the 190 A5 (no wep for any of them) above 8k.

I'll do initial acceleration test between different planes today, will messure acceleration at 5k between 200 and 220 and 200 and 240.