190A vs SpitVB

[funkedup]

V0101 You make a good case.  Remember that the Spit 9 in the AFDU comparison test was only using +12 boost for level speed tests.  So it should have been even slower than BF274 was at +15.  Seems like the 190 should have been faster.

Yes I'm aware that the AFDU trial used a Fw 190A-3.

FYI EB-104 was a Fw 190G-3 which had all bomb racks and armament removed, and ballast added to simulate Fw 190A-5 armament.  I have the complete text of the USAAF report and manual for EB-104, got it from the USAF Museum before they closed their archives.  

I believe the USN Fw 190 trial vs. the F6F and F4U was also done with EB-104, although I can't find out for sure.

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by funkedup


FYI EB-104 was a Fw 190G-3 which had all bomb racks and armament removed, and ballast added to simulate Fw 190A-5 armament.  I have the complete text of the USAAF report and manual for EB-104, got it from the USAF Museum before they closed their archives.  

I believe the USN Fw 190 trial vs. the F6F and F4U was also done with EB-104, although I can't find out for sure.

Checked it, you are right. It`s the same aircraft in the USAAF and USN trials, I wasn`t aware of that until now, it can be confirmed by the painting and the  W.Nr.160057 :

 http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/ce2900.html

You can see it`s the same as in the USN trial docs.

It seems that during the USN, the G-3 style bombracks and inner guns were removed/missing, though their weight was emulated with ballast as an A-5 fighter. The cannons tubes hardly effected aerodynamics anyway, and if they did, the missing wheel covers probably made up for their drag.

I would be most intested with the USAAF`s full trial docs with EB-104, I only have the speed/climbs curves of the report. Could you pass it by email or post it, I will see what I might have in return, what you dont have yet (which is unlikely).

[funkedup]

I haven't scanned the report yet.  It will be quite a task.  When I scan it I will post it here.
I also have similar manuals for the Me 262 and A6M3.  Those ones do not include performance information.  They were intended to be manuals for maintenance and operation of the airplanes by USAAF personnel.

[Nashwan]

The Spit IX was tested at 15lbs boost for speed runs.

The problem with the A3 seems to be speed at altitude, not speed across the range.  The speeds the British obtained were approx 330mph at sea level, rising to around 390 at just over 17,000ft. However, I think they found a critical altitiude of less than 20,000ft.

Those figures, certainly the sea level speed, match well with most of the other tests, as far as I am aware (though the FW factory figures are very different)

Bear in mind that the 190 was being run at 1.42 ata for multiple performance runs, so the engine may have suffered towards the end.

[Karnak]

MANDOBLE,

I spent a Tour in the Spitfire Mk V a long time ago, back before you idiotic Spitfire whiners made it too frusterating to fly Spitfires anymore.

I take the Fw190A-5 up every now and then as it is a fun fighter to fly.  The thing is a brawling monster and you'd probably realize that if you stopped whining so much and just used it.

I have never dedicated a Tour to the Fw190A-5 though.  I don't really do that anymore, but the Fw190A-5 is one of my favorite fighters in AH and will go on my short favorites list in AH2.

[Urchin]

I don't think there's anything wrong with the A5, it matches up pretty well with the Spit V.  The spit IX just absolutely dominates an A5 though.

[funkedup]

Originally posted by 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

Just click "profile" and "add to ignore list".  Works great to keep down the noise.  

[Karnak]

Urchin,

I have read a quote from a Fw190 pilot who stated that the only thing his Fw190 did better than the Spitfire Mk IX was roll.  In every other way he felt the Spitfire Mk IX was better.

Now, we know that isn't precisely true and can name other things the Fw190 is better at, but it was how at least one 1943 Fw190 driver felt.


FWIW, my biggest area of suspicion in the AH flight modeling (and this is true of many aircraft, but wonderfully illustrated by these two) is dive acceleration performance.  In a dive the Fw190 should pull away from Spitfire Mk IX much more markedly than it does (does it even pull away in AH?).  So should the Bf109.

The Spitfire had a very high (for a WWII fighter) absolute dive speed, but it feels like AH has modeled this as very good dive acceleration as well and the Spitfire should not accelerate that well in a dive.  Even the Mk XIV shouldn't accelerate that well in the initial moments of the dive.

The relative dive performance of certain aircraft just feels wrong to me.

[Karnak]

Ecke-109-,

You were not being debated, nor was your link.  It was MANDOBLE's forced interpitation of it.

You see, MANDOBLE hates Spitfires and has actively tried to get them removed from the game for a long, long time.  So, anything he says on the subject is, to put it bluntly, dismissed.

There have been many detailed discussions of German aircraft.  In fact, outside of the P-47, P-38 and F4U, there are no non-German aircraft that I can think of that have had detailed discussions.

I do agree that it is too bad that the good threads about German aircraft attract those who automatically slam anybody who likes German aircraft as a "whiner" or some other derogatory term, but this thread was never going to be a good thread simply due to the proven agenda of the thread originator.

[Neil Stirling1]

AIR 40/151, contains a chart comparing the speed results obtained by the R.A.E (from tests with the A3) with makers upper and lower limits, the speeds obtained by the R.A.E fall within these limits.

Neil.

[Furball]

Originally posted by funkedup
I believe the USN Fw 190 trial vs. the F6F and F4U was also done with EB-104, although I can't find out for sure.

hi funked, just out of interest how did the f4u compare to the 190? if you have seen the test reports of course.

And, all you spit whiners are just jealous

[Batz]

There maybe an accelleration problem with the 190s (ask Fork). This maybe where most guys get in trouble. The Spit 9 will catch a 190 in a dive and then holds its E longer after pulling out. Then level accelleration in ah its just slam throttle forward. No rpm or prop adjustments. The constant speed prop in ah is an instant speed prop.

But this goes to the eng model. Theres no over revving the eng, (so theres no need to reduce rpm or throttle in these dives) We just fly around at max boost. Theres no need to manage heat (rad flaps) etc. So all planes go vert, full throttle, straight at the ground.

I took an a6m2 above 600mph and pulled out. I am testing niki dive speeds and pull outs now for a scenario. Unless you pull real hard most planes will make these high speed pull outs.

As has been pointed out to recreate whats in these test then you need to fly the ah planes in the same way they did in the tests. Running the planes at max boost then crying that your data doesnt match will get you mocked and laughed at. Especially this beaten to death, buried, dug up and beaten again horse. This discussion started 30 sec after ah got the a5.

Next we will see the roll charts and the infamous "the a5 is 12 mph to slow, thats scandalous".

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by Nashwan
The Spit IX was tested at 15lbs boost for speed runs.

The problem with the A3 seems to be speed at altitude, not speed across the range.  The speeds the British obtained were approx 330mph at sea level, rising to around 390 at just over 17,000ft. However, I think they found a critical altitiude of less than 20,000ft.

Certainly not. The British found the A-3 7-8mph faster than the Spit MkIXF at +15lbs, which could do 312mph at 2000ft.

That would give apprx. 320mph at 2000ft for the A-3, and probably around 310-315mph at SL for the A-3.
Which is 507kph, and is just ridiculusly slow for 1.42ata and a plane with good condition.

As for my part, I haven`t seen any test that would give it so slow at 1.42 at SL.

FW Factory chart for the A-5 at 1.42ata give 352 mph at SL, and 362mph at 2000ft.

The trials with EB-104 of A-5 standard give 341 at SL, and 352 at 2000ft, which is rather close to the FW factory data, as I assume that in the EB-104 test wing racks were still present.

The USN tests with A-5 at 1.42ata give 334mph at 200ft with the same plane, however those test were only made with 2minutes of acceleration, which was  not enough to develop full speed according to the report.

So, it seems that the ADFU`s A-3 was 20-30 mph slower on the whole altitude range when running at the same (?) 1.42ata setting, whatever the reason to that be. But it`s seems either some VERY wornout engine, or airframe, or both.

[Ecke-109-]

Karnak,

Better climb up to 25000 feet?
Steeper climb?
Better zoom climb?
Better dive particulary during initial stages?
Better acceleration under all conditions?
What 190A was that? 190A9?? 190A10??

With all respect, but that was all what Mandoble asked in his post.
I cant see any forced interpretation in it. Might be, i would ask the same.
Although i know Mandoble loves the FW190, i dont know much about his relationship to the spitfire.
I only see a couple of question marks in his post. And that should be allowed without any forced interpretation.


I am far away of beeing an expert in flight datas and planes subtypes. But i am very interested in reading about that.
I am very impressed how deep some of you guys knowledge is.
I know about the difficulties to compare e.g. spit vs FW190 just 60 jears after they were in active service.
And as long as HT dont talk about his sources of datas, its almost impossible to compare any planes in AH.
But anyway i enjoy disscussions about that.

The only point that pisses me off is the fact that whenever a LW lover have some questions or critics, he becomes stigmatized as a LuftWhiner.

And at last:

@Pei

De ja vu.
I'm sure we have been here before.....

You should learn to live with that.
Lots of vets are leaving and are replaced by a great amout of newbies.
So, whats a De ja vu for you, is a completely new fact for others.
So swallow your boredom and let them live.

Ecke

[hazed-]

MAIN POINT MISSED HERE::::


The 190 in that test was the 190A-3 which was some (from memory) 400 lbs lighter than the 190a5. This would account for the much less of a difference we see now but im not sure to what degree this would be so I cannot assk for change only for a rechecking of figures to be sure its right as it is now. Personally i think it seems to be too sluggish in acceleration and a bit useless in the zoom as it is now. This doesnt match up to descriptions ive seen by allied and axis pilots alike.

the 190A-8 is a whole different ball game to the 190a-5. Its almost a thousand lbs(190a8 normal gross weight 9,660lbs) heavier than the 190a-3(190a-3 is 8,770 lbs)

More armour and heavier wing, SAME engine (BMW 801 D-2) so not enough to counteract the added weights.

If there is something wrong with our 190A-5 i would look into the powerloading of the 190s. To me they seem as though they are carrying more weight than other aircraft.Just my 'feeling'.

for instance the power loading on a 190A-6 for instance is 5.3lb /hp. Thats 5.3lbs of weight for every hp the engine produces.The lower this weight the better usually the acceleration. (As a general rule)

the power loading for a TEMPEST V for instance is 4.5lb /hp
for a YaK-9 4.5lb/hp

basically if you look at this figure you will notice the lower this number the better acclerator the aircraft is. It at least gives you a clue as to which aircraft should be quick. If your aircraft has a bad score here expect it to accelerate in a flat trajectory slowly. This doesnt factor in the dive/power dive or include the figures for induced drag which make some perform worse than they appear the should.I think some in here perfer to dismiss anything concerning 190 questions because its more fun to wind up those asking than it is to actually listen.If you flew the 190s you would know that sometimes it seems to behave like its hitting a head wind as you manouver!. while in other aircraft you suddenly feel like you are floating more at the top of flip over stalls etc.Its hard for anyone to pinpoint where this 'feel' comes from but its definately there.I think you have to be much more gentle on the stick with LW stuff. If i fly LW like I fly P51s I lose all my speed yet the p51 seems to hold onto its speed even in tight reversals. Try to follow a P51 in a 190-9 and you will come out of the turn 100 mph slower. the p51 will look like its a rocket ship! same for the ever popular LA7. it holds onto speed where it should have lost a lot to 'mushing' through the air It should i would guess still lose a lot of speed in very tight turns, it would just reaquire that soeed faster than others due to its acceleration. well thats my latest theory hehe.