Author Topic: 190 book.... (Read 993 times)

hazed- · « **on:** February 26, 2003, 01:57:04 PM »

This is some stuff from a new book:

Combat Legend Focke-Wulf 190 by Peter Caygill ISBN 1-84037-366-0

I was reading the evaluation stuff that these books invariably refer to (ie spit vs 190a3 RAF stuff) but i saw some stuff id never read before and a mention of a test which id never heard of which Im wondering if it might be something new worth looking for,

'On the night of 16/17 April 1943 no fewer than three Fw190s arrived at west Malling following an attack on London.Oberfeldwebel Otto schultz crashed A-4 / U8 Werke Nr 7152 on the approach, Oberleutnant Fritz Setzer landed A-5/U-8 Werke Nr 2719 on fire(it subsequently exploded) and Feldwebel Otto Bechtold landed A-4/ U8 Werke Nr 7155. Bechtold's machine was the only one of the three that could be used, but two more Fw 190s were aquired soon after when SKG 10 pilots landed in error at Manston on 20 May and 20 June 1943.The first to arrive was Unteroffizier Heinz Ehrhardt in A-4 /U8 Werke Nr 5843, which became PN999 and was used by the RAE before being sent to 1426 (Enemy Aircraft) Flight on 28 September 1943.
During its time at the RAE, PN999 was flown by Squadron Leader Johnny Checketts, DFC who at the time was OC 485 (NewZealand) Squadron at Biggin Hill.His impressins of the fw190 were given in a letter to 11 Group HQ dated 27 August 1943:
- 'This flight was made by me to find the differences in the fw190 and Spitfire IX (merllin 66) aircraft in regard to flying qualities.The Fw190 number PN999 which I flew was not taken highter than 4000 ft so that the experience I gained was very limited in the 30 miutes I flew.
I found the cockpit and control extremely well laid out and every switch and all the flying controls were very convenient and easy to work.Starting was remarkably easy but the toe brakes are strange afer hand brake control and i think that the spitfire is much better for taxying.
The take-off was terrifying and i had considerable difficulty in keeping the aircraft straight in spite of the fact that i held the stick back to lock the tailwheel.I think i opened the throttle too slowly because I saw the same aircraft take off before I flew it in a perfectly normal manner.The electrical undercarraige is very simply raised and the tail trim is quite effective,The machine is beautiful to fly and quite fast at normal cruising revs and boost which i did not exceed.I had been warned about an extremely rough engine but under cruising conditions I found that the engine behaved perfectly and compared with most radials.When i was about eight miles south of base two Mustangs saw me and made attacks, dummy or real i dont know, I did not give these aircraft any chance but owing to their insistance I let them see my RAF markings and the formated on me and then tried to play.In the resulting steep turns at maximum cruising boost and revs I found no difficulty in getting on the tail of these aircraft and could have easily shot them down.I found the revi gunsight very pleasant to use and the gun buttons in a comfortable position on the control column.The rate of climb of the fw190 was greatly superior to the mustangs but inferior to the Spitfire IX (Merlin 66). I should imagine that at lower than 22,000 ft the Fw190 would be slightly better than the spitfire IX (Merlin 61).
When the Mustangs sheered off I tried rolls and general defensive flying.The Fw190 is remarkable and beautiful to aerobat in the rolling plane but in the looping plane it is greatly inferior to the Spitfire.Visibility is exceptionally good all around and is greatly superior to the spitfire. I found the cockpit slightly small for defensive fighting and the back parachute was uncomfortable, which might account for the fact that attacks on the Fw190 from below and behind often catch the pilots unawares.'-

The entire letter would be a good find dont you think>?

anyhow the book is a good one with new and old info (info ive seen in other books), great pics too.

which merlin does our AH spit IX have? 61 or 66?

Nashwan · « **Reply #1 on:** February 26, 2003, 02:42:26 PM »

Merlin 61 in AH Spit IX. As used for approx the first 350 out of 4000+ Spit IXs.

Karnak · « **Reply #2 on:** February 26, 2003, 08:07:07 PM »

As has been stated endlessly, though nobody seems to believe it, we have a 1942 Spitfire F.Mk IX which has a Merlin 61.

J_A_B · « **Reply #3 on:** February 26, 2003, 09:47:43 PM »

At least the engine doesn't cut out like it should (plus you get the E-wing).

Could you make a list of ALL major (300+ built) Spit 9 variants that would include things like engine, sea-level speed, top speed, wing type used, and climbrate?

J_A_B

thrila · « **Reply #4 on:** February 26, 2003, 10:56:12 PM »

I'm sure pyro has stated somewhere that we have a merlin 61. The HTC speed charts for the spitIX have the same performance as a Spit with a merlin 61 too.

Perhaps HTC could remove the .50cal option and model another spitfire- either a Spit XVI or VIII (with clipped wings of course) so us spit dweebs can regain the use of those 2 .50cals.

JAB, I could prob dig up a some stuff for you but i'm off to bed now. If there isn't anything posted when i wakeup i'll have a dig through my books.

Karnak · « **Reply #5 on:** February 26, 2003, 11:57:38 PM »

J_A_B,

Many Merlin 61s didn't suffer from the negative G fuel starvation.

I do agree that the Spitfire F.Mk IX should have the .50 cals removed as an option and the rockets as well.

Here are the versions of the Spitfire Mk IX:

Spitfire F.Mk IX:

Engine: Merlin 61 or Merlin 63
Armament: two Hispano Mk II 20mm cannon and four .303 calibre Browning machine guns
Ordanance: One 500lb bomb and two 250lb bombs

Spitfire LF.Mk IX:

Engine: Merlin 66
Armament: two Hispano Mk II 20mm cannon and four .303 calibre Browning machine guns or two Hispano Mk II 20mm cannon and two .50 calibre Browning machine guns
Ordanance: One 500lb bomb and two 250lb bombs or four rockets (the 500lb bomb and the rockets might be able to be carried at the same time)

Spitfire HF.Mk IX:

Engine: Merlin 70
Armament: two Hispano Mk II 20mm cannon and four .303 calibre Browning machine guns or two Hispano Mk II 20mm cannon and two .50 calibre Browning machine guns
Ordanance: One 500lb bomb and two 250lb bombs or four rockets (the 500lb bomb and the rockets might be able to be carried at the same time)

What it comes down to in any case is that the two .50s don't make it a 1944 Spitfire Mk IX. The increased manuverability and performance of the Merlin 66 powered Spitfire LF.Mk IX is far more important than a slight increase in firepower. After all, the ability to bring your guns into position to shoot the enemy is most important, especially if you've already got the firepower of two Hispano 20mm cannon.

Pyro has stated that the Spitfire Mk IX in AH has a Merlin 61. Approximately 350 Merlin 61 Spitfire Mk IXs were built, compared to 3,000+ Merlin 66 Spitfire LF.Mk IXs.

J_A_B · « **Reply #6 on:** February 27, 2003, 12:23:52 AM »

What was the performance of the Merlin 63 one? I'm aware the Merlin 66 one did about 10-15 MPH more at low levels and about 500 FPM better climbrate. How does the Merlin 63 fit in?

J_A_B

Squire · « **Reply #7 on:** February 27, 2003, 03:47:33 AM »

The later Spitfire F. IXs also had Merlin 63s or 63As. There was not a big difference in performance. I dont have the #s in front of me.

A good Spit link:

http://folk.uio.no/hungnes/avia/spitfire/spitfire.htm

Follow the links, there is some good info there.

As a side note, there was a kit made available in 1944 that could retrofit Spitfire IXs to "E" wing standard, wether any were used on the older F. IXs I really dont know.

Angus · « **Reply #8 on:** February 27, 2003, 05:50:20 AM »

True as it is, we do not have the second most common Spit in WW2.
If AH wanted to fill the Spit gaps, we'd need the MkIX LF, HF (instead of our IX), the low alt XIV, and the Mk21.
however, due to the uber characteristics of the IXLF, low alt XIV and the 21, they'd have to be perked.
The Spitfire Mk VII would be interesting as well

Nashwan · « **Reply #9 on:** February 27, 2003, 06:26:48 AM »

The Merlin 66 improved the speed by about 15 mph at sea level, 25 at 6,000ft - 10,000ft, 20 mph at 20,000ft, 30 mph at 22,000ft, declining to about the same at 25,000ft and slower above that. (compared to the Merlin 61)

The climb rate waas improved by about 1,000ft/min at low levels.

The high alt Merlin 70 was slower than the 66 at lower levels, but still easily outperformed the Merlin 61.

I've seen conflicting information for the Merlin 63, a pilot manual says it's limited to the same 15lbs boost as the Merlin 61, but Rolls Royce say it has a strengthed supercharger to allow boosts of up to 21lbs (although higher than 18lbs would need better fuel)

I'd expect the Merlin 63 to fit in between the Merlin 66 and 70 in performance at altitudes.

Quote

As a side note, there was a kit made available in 1944 that could retrofit Spitfire IXs to "E" wing standard, wether any were used on the older F. IXs I really dont know.

AFAIK, no Merlin 61 engined Spits remained in frontline service in 1944.

hazed- · « **Reply #10 on:** February 28, 2003, 02:36:28 PM »

ok this seems to have become a spitfire thread! lol

GO AWAY!!!

na seriously what i really wanted us to discuss is what is said by this pilot concerning the loops characteristics etc.He seems to feel the 190a4 outperforms the spitfire 61 but not the 66 which i think is very interesting.

What i have also discovered is the 190a5 has increased in weight by some 850lbs over the 190a4 which i think you must agree is a HUGE weight gain.Imagine the reduction in acceleration for one thing.

Another point is later in the book there is a reference to the speed the 190 can dive at and its handling in the pull out. I have to say it doesnt quite match AH's 190s although speeds seem to be VERY near (if not spot on!).here it is:

" The Fw190 has a high rate of dive, the initial acceleration being excellent.The maximum speed so far obtained in a dive is 580mph True at 16,000 ft and at this speed the controls, although slightly heavier, are still remarkably light.One very good feature is that no alteration of trim from level flight is required either during the entry or during the pull-out."

Testing online i saw 580 on the clock and the plane was shaking badly but it wasnt so light on the controls(at least not what id describe as 'remarkably light

). Roll was very laboured and pull out was poor but i cant honestly say this isnt correct as 'remarkably light' has no context does it? this pilot might have forearms like a grizzly bear!!

such a shame these tests dont give us examples of what they think is heavy or light.

one last thing theres a note which reads: " Note: interrogation of Focke-Wulf personnel after the war revealed that the Fw190 had been dived to mach 0.80, a marked nose down trim change occuring at Mach 0.78 for which the variable incidence tailplane was extremely useful in assisting recovery"

anyone out there describe what they mean here? Again its a shame we have no info on height, airpressure, engine settings etc as without them this 'note' is meaningless really.

funkedup · « **Reply #11 on:** February 28, 2003, 02:52:44 PM »

Quote

one last thing theres a note which reads: " Note: interrogation of Focke-Wulf personnel after the war revealed that the Fw190 had been dived to mach 0.80, a marked nose down trim change occuring at Mach 0.78 for which the variable incidence tailplane was extremely useful in assisting recovery"

anyone out there describe what they mean here? Again its a shame we have no info on height, airpressure, engine settings etc as without them this 'note' is meaningless really.

They are saying the critical Mach (onset of compressibility effects) is 0.78. You can calculate TAS & IAS for that Mach at any altitude. Engine settings shouldn't effect the critical Mach very much. I don't think the 0.80 number means they couldn't go any faster, just that they didn't go any faster.

funkedup · « **Reply #12 on:** February 28, 2003, 02:57:52 PM »

Here's a Mach number calculator:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/mach.html

580 mph TAS at 16,000 ft is Mach 0.807. Which means they were diving beyond the 0.80 that the Fw guys achieved and beyond the 0.78 critical Mach where the Fw guys reported trim change.
So either this guy miscalculated his TAS (very common during that era) or his aircraft was different from the one tested by Fw. Weather could also have some effect.

HoHun · « **Reply #13 on:** February 28, 2003, 02:58:13 PM »

Hi Hazed,

>" Note: interrogation of Focke-Wulf personnel after the war revealed that the Fw190 had been dived to mach 0.80, a marked nose down trim change occuring at Mach 0.78 for which the variable incidence tailplane was extremely useful in assisting recovery"

>Again its a shame we have no info on height, airpressure, engine settings etc as without them this 'note' is meaningless really.

Actually, it's perfectly meaningful as the critical speed was a constant Mach number. It translated into different true or indicated airspeeds regardless of altitude but stayed (almost) constant expressed as Mach.

By the way, the Me 109 was prove-dived to Mach 0.79 too. A specially rigged Me 109 even reached Mach 0.80 at 906 km/h true air speed, which means it achieved it at 6.6 km altitude with 645 km/h indicated air speed on the dial (Radinger/Schick: "Me 109").

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #14 on:** February 28, 2003, 03:25:40 PM »

IMO, trim is a main problem with AH 190s. They are far more sensible to trim than any spitfire.