190A vs SpitVB

[Ecke-109-]

Thanks again to HT for creating the term luftwhiner.
Good reason for all snails to broaden the slimy path.

I am out of this thread. I only published some links because of a request.
Obviously, its not possible here, to discuss certain aspects of ww2 planes on a serious level. Unless they are RAF or USAF.

Ecke

[MANDOBLE]

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
In a situation where surviving matters, I'd choose the 190 over the Spit V.

I may agree with that only while 190s have some thousands of feet to dive. I suppose you have enganged 190A5/A8 a lot of times. Just like I've have enganged SpitV flying 190A5/A8/D9 a lot of times also. Now tell me, are your SpitV massively outclimbed by 190A5/A8 from a co E situation at any alt? Do these 190s climb clearly steeper than your SpitV? Do these 190s outaccelerate your SpitV at low speeds (not diving, of course)?

And now, for these that cant read, my question was: what 190A was that of the test? IMO it cant be our A8 nor our A5, may be A4?

[Nashwan]

And now, for these that cant read, my question was: what 190A was that of the test? IMO it cant be our A8 nor our A5, may be A4?

It was a 190A3.

For the speed tests, the 190 used 1.42 ata, 2700 rpm,  the Spit V 12lbs boost, 3000 rpm.

For the climb tests, the 190 used 1.35 ata, 2450 rpm,  the Spit 9lbs boost, 2850 rpm.

[Sable]

You might also wonder what kind of Spit V they were comparing it to, and what we have here.

See the climb rates listed here and compare them to the ones you see here.

[funkedup]

Sable you are repeating the mistake I explained above.  The Spit V in Mando's quote was only using +12 psi boost.  X.4922 was only using +8-3/4 psi.  AH Spitfire is using +16 psi with WEP.

AA878 test used +16 psi:   http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/aa878.html

[F4UDOA]

I don't really see how this is at all related to AH considering we don't even know what version of 190A we are talking about.

As far as boost goes the 190A had cooling problems in climb that meant taking boost down right up until the A5. The A5 was the first to really overcome this problem. Many of the captured FW190A's could not meet stated performance criteria until the A5.

BTW the reduction from 1.42 to 1.35 was just a reduction to max continous power. This does not mean the engine was derated for max power climb. The MAP for max climb of American fighters is listed the same way.

Give this one up before you embarrass yourself further.

I wonder what I could do to embarrass myself further:D

[Batz]

talk about beating a dead horse........

They are talking about the a3  F4

The scanned docs can be foung on the below site. The website mand refers to just paraphrases rather poorly from these docs.

http://www.geocities.com/spades53.geo/prodocs.htm

They can be found else where in better condition.

This particular topic has had it arse whooped about a million times.

Not only on this board but all over the net.

[Sable]

Originally posted by funkedup
Sable you are repeating the mistake I explained above.  The Spit V in Mando's quote was only using +12 psi boost.  X.4922 was only using +8-3/4 psi.  AH Spitfire is using +16 psi with WEP.

AA878 test used +16 psi:   http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/aa878.html

Well, that answers the question right there.  If we had an earlier Spit V using only +9 - +12psi it would climb much worse, and the FW190 would be that much better in comparison.  Thanks for clearing that up funkedup.

[funkedup]

No problem sir.

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by MANDOBLE


What 190A was that? 190A9?? 190A10??

It was a captured 190A-3, with it`s engine limited to 1.35ata and 2450 RPM, ie. it`s German operational limits of that 190A-3 subtype.

The 1.42ata boost mentioned in one of the report is most likely a mistake, as the plane was WAY OFF from what 1.42ata speed specs should look like (415mph) Probably the Brits used full throttle, and didn`t realized at first they are using the derated powers and not 1.42ata.During the trials, they were using around 1400 HP perhaps at 1.35ata.

In the A-5 that came in early 1943, they were no longer restricted and the full 1800PS could be used with 1.42ata/2700RPM.
With A-8 and Erhohte Notleistung, it raised to 2100PS (but it was a lot heavier, whereas the A-5 was about the same weight as A-3).
A-9 was between 2000-2400PS, depending on variant.

In a US trial with an A-4, they runned the engine at 1.42ata and 2700 RPM (i.e. A-5 service limits in a similiar airframe), and achieved a maximum of 4000 fpm climb rate and 415 mph maxspeed, which agreed well with FW`s specs for A-5 at 1.42ata.

Here`s a doc on the issue:

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fw%20190%201[1]%20AIR%2016-658.jpg

[funkedup]

V0101 there's no need to speculate.  The A-3 had a boost gauge, and the AFDU used it.  Here are the power settings used for the Fw 190 in the comparison test that Mandoble's text is taken from:
http://www.geocities.com/spades53.geo/pro_190_survey_c_1.jpg
This was an AFDU report, not RAE.


Edit:  I think that site does not like direct links.  You can go here:  http://www.geocities.com/spades53.geo/prodocs.htm
Look for "VARIOUS FW190 TEST REPORTS (AIR 16/658)."
It's section D, Page 8.
You can find the text quoted by Mandoble on section C, Pages 1 and 2.

[Replicant]

Perk the 190A5!!!!!!!!!  

Backward firing Typhoon... that brings back memories eh?!  That was a classic!

[MANDOBLE]

Originally posted by Replicant
Backward firing Typhoon... that brings back memories eh?!  That was a classic!

Only that I was not involved into that classic.

[Replicant]

No, it was RAM if I remember correctly.

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by funkedup
V0101 there's no need to speculate.  The A-3 had a boost gauge, and the AFDU used it.  Here are the power settings used for the Fw 190 in the comparison test that Mandoble's text is taken from:

 

Yes I know that page and I have the test on my HDD. The actual ata that was used is in question, but either it was some much lower ata rating, or the plane itself was in very bad shape and was considerably slower than a normal plane should be at 1.42ata power.

If you go through the test, it says that the speeds are approx. the same as with Spit MkIXF at +15lbs at 21 000 ft. At this alt and this boost rate, the Spit9F could do 378 mph or so, according to trials with the similiarry boosted BF274 here :

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/bf274.html

Now if you compare that with 1.42ata tests with 190A-4 and A-5s, they should be a lot faster than 378mph.

For example, US test of FW 190A-4 EB104 at 1.42 gives 410mph at 21k ft, and Focke-Wulf`s own specs for the A-5 at 1.42ata at 6400m give 655kph (406mph).
Also, the USN`s test vs. Corsair and Hellcat give the A-5 running at 1.42 ata 401mph at 20k ft, and 410mph at 25k ft, after 2 minutes of acceleration only.


So altough I am not sure wheter it is because ADFU`s 190 was really running on 1.35ata and not 1.42 as they believe, or because it was in bad aerodynamic shape, it was definietely worser than other 190s at 1.42ata. Perhaps it carried bomb rack(s)..?


But to your question, it`s definietely an A-3 (though mind you, in later tactical trials they used a fighter-bomber A-4)