Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: F4UDOA on July 14, 2004, 09:29:02 PM
-
Just looking through the TAIC report on the P-47D-30, P-38J and P-51D vrs the A6M5 (A broken one at that) and I noticed a couple of things that if they happened in AH people would be whining like the C-Hog was unperked.
1. Dive acceleration- The test was measured by starting at 200MPH IAS at 10,000FT at full power. After the Zeke reached the preset redline of 325MPH IAS the following was noted.
P-51D-5- Had a 200 yard lead after 27 seconds.
P-38J- Had a 200 yard lead after 30 seconds.
P-47-D30- Had 100 Yard lead after 30 seconds. (Surprise!)
2. Zoom climb from level flight starting at 10,000FT 210IAS full power until 130MPH IAS
P-51D-5 had a 300Foot lead. (Not yards).
P-38J- Had a 200Foot lead.
P-47D-30- Had a 400 foot lead.
3. Zoom climb from shallow dive applying full power when the nose passes through the horizon.
P-51D-5- Had a 500 foot lead
P-38J- Had a 300ft lead.
P-47D-30- Had a 600ft lead.
What stood out to me was
1. P-51D had better dive acceleration than either the P-47 or P-38.
2. In no dive or climb did any aircraft get out of guns range of the A6M5 by AH standards.
3. The P-47 was indeed the best zoomer of the bunch.
4. After 30 seconds the P-38J at full power only had a 200yard lead on the malfunctioning A6M5 used in the test. This does not meet the expections of the dive calculations I have seen.
Any thoughts?
FYI I can post the full report if anyone is interested.
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Any thoughts?
I have seen parts of this report in various books earlier. Seems that acceleration of the P-38 is generally over rated as well as ability to maintain energy during maneuvering.
Originally posted by F4UDOA
FYI I can post the full report if anyone is interested.
That would be most interesting. TIA!
gripen
-
It will be cool to read full report or at least to see any details bout zoom climb tests. Any figures about alt gained after zoom there ?
-
FYI I can post the full report if anyone is interested.
I'd love to see it.
4. After 30 seconds the P-38J at full power only had a 200yard lead on the malfunctioning A6M5 used in the test. This does not meet the expections of the dive calculations I have seen.
It seems to me a lot of people have an expectation that their plane should be able to open up a huge gap in a quick dive, but as far as I can see the physics don't allow for it. The report would be most welcome. Does it give the angle of the dives involved?
-
Please post the full test!
BTW as you probably already know, Dive acceleration is a function of level acceleration.
Crumpp
-
1. Dive acceleration- The test was measured by starting at 200MPH IAS at 10,000FT at full power
Starting the test at even speeds gives it the appearance of fairness, but in fact is exactly the opposite as the P-51, P-47 and P-38 would have had to have made critical errors to be co-alt and co-E with an A6M5. In practice the American fighters should always be going much faster than the A6M5 and that, coupled with their higher permitted dive speed, will allow them to pull away easily.
2. Zoom climb from level flight starting at 10,000FT 210IAS full power until 130MPH IAS
The same is true of this test. Starting at 210IAS sets the US aircraft up in a situation they should never be in, as the A6M5 demostrates in the test. The American aircraft are unable to get out of the A6M5's gun range in anything like a fast enough time.
All these tests point out is that if you fight to your oponent's strengths, such as the A6M5's low speed handling, you are setting yourself up for a world of hurt. I suspect that if we did the test in AH using the same rules we'd get very similar results.
I don't think anybody is claiming that these aircraft, or other fast diving or good zooming aircraft, should have a massive advantage if they are starting from a co-E position.
-
Great observation karnak.
-
In AH you will never see a P38/47/51 cruise at anything lower than MIL power.
Redo the comparaison a Zeke with P38/47/51 with this kind of setup.
It wil be completly different.
-
I suppose the test describes a normal situation in combant, not just a "what if" they all were cruising happily in the skies at max speed. For me, that test setup is perfectly valid.
IE. A P47 zooms up to catch a higher slow Zeke, it levels at Zeke's six at 200 mph and the zeke tries to dive, the zeke is in P47 gun range in less than 20 seconds but barrel rolls and the P47 overshoot and zooms up again with the Zeke at its six not being able to keep with it in the zoom.
-
Wow
I thought the difference would have been more.
Pity that there is no roll rate included. The Zeke's notorious roll (slowness) is yet to be found on document. However, those US fighters should have been able to use it as an evasive.
Nevermind, Karnak and Straffo are right, and I just wonder how this would compare a) at cruise speeds and b) in the AH world at those given speeds
-
MANDOBLE,
The point is that the circumstances in which that would occur are very specific and would not normally occur. In your example the P-47 pilot made a mistake in his attack pattern by being overly agressive. He should have taken the time to osition himself correctly so as to utilize his aircraft's superior characteristics.
Also I think you missed the point of the zoom test. The P-47 would not, from a co-E position, be able to zoom away from the A6M5. 200 yards of separation from a malfunctioning A6M5 by the time the zoom climb ended would give the A6M5 plently of effective shooting time.
Also, nobody is talking about cruising around at MIL. The correct tactics for an American aircraft in the Pacific Theater are to fly at a higher alt than the Japanese do. The American fighter should be the attacker and you do not enter combat at cruise power.
-
Sometimes one enters combat when the bullets starts flying into one's butt. Sometimes one enters the visual contact at cruise speeds, whatever the visibility may be....
-
strange because the p38 is simply the better climber.
it does mean nothing
-
Well it took me a while because it is 8meg and I had to empty allot of stuff of my web storage but I got it in there.
Notice it is both the Navy F6F/F4U/FM2 and the AAF P-38,P47,P51 report mixed with the TAIC data in the back. I did not put this report together but it is loaded with good stuff.
FYI, The Zero the Navy used was about 15MPH faster than the one the Army had. Also the test were done about 5 months apart.
Very similar results in Zoom climb and dive acceleration in respect to the F4U/F6F.
A6M5 TAIC/AAF report (http://home.comcast.net/~markw4/TAICzero.pdf)
-
Starting the test at even speeds gives it the appearance of fairness, but in fact is exactly the opposite as the P-51, P-47 and P-38 would have had to have made critical errors to be co-alt and co-E with an A6M5. In practice the American fighters should always be going much faster than the A6M5 and that, coupled with their higher permitted dive speed, will allow them to pull away easily.
Karnak,
I dissagree on the "Pull away easily part".
The test was done at 10K and after 30 seconds the best that was done was a 300 yard lead. That is not out of guns range even by WW2 standards. Surely in a longer protacted dive the result would be different but 30 seconds is an eternity in combat in AH or RL.
Also the long time to reach 325IAS tells me it was a shallow dive (30 degrees maybe) so in a virtical dive the result may have been different.
I will test this to check the result in AH.
-
I would say both dive and zoom were performed with shallow angles. 10k 200mph full power and the zeke needed 30 seconds to reach 325mph ...
AH2 A6M5 needs no more than 8 seconds from 200mph to 325mph in a pronounced dive from 10k.
-
Well it took me a while because it is 8meg and I had to empty allot of stuff of my web storage but I got it in there.
Thanks for the effort, it's much appreciated.
The same is true of this test. Starting at 210IAS sets the US aircraft up in a situation they should never be in, as the A6M5 demostrates in the test. The American aircraft are unable to get out of the A6M5's gun range in anything like a fast enough time.
Agreed, but looking at the report, they ran zoom climbs from a dive, at 310 IAS at 10,000ft and 25,000 ft. That's pretty fast.
And yet under these conditions, stopping the test when 130 IAS is reached (which again penalises the Zeke, which should be able to hang on it's prop better), the P-51 still only opens a 500 ft gap, the P-38 J only 300 feet.
-
Thanks F4UDOA, good stuff!
gripen
-
Originally posted by GODO
I would say both dive and zoom were performed with shallow angles. 10k 200mph full power and the zeke needed 30 seconds to reach 325mph ...
AH2 A6M5 needs no more than 8 seconds from 200mph to 325mph in a pronounced dive from 10k.
I think some of you misunderstand.
Originally posted by F4UDOA
After the Zeke reached the preset redline of 325MPH IAS the following was noted.
P-51D-5- Had a 200 yard lead after 27 seconds.
P-38J- Had a 200 yard lead after 30 seconds.
P-47-D30- Had 100 Yard lead after 30 seconds. (Surprise!)
It took the P-51 27 seconds to pull a 200 yard lead AFTER the Zeke had reached it's redline 325mph IAS (400-420mph TAS?), meaning they didn't start the clock until the Zeke was going as fast as it could (or should).
-
Some information is missing, such as dive angle.
Besides, the last time I saw a P-51 doing 200 mph, it was landing.
My regards,
Widewing
-
P-51 had a cruising speed of 275 mph.
-
Thank you very much F4UDOA !
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Also, nobody is talking about cruising around at MIL. The correct tactics for an American aircraft in the Pacific Theater are to fly at a higher alt than the Japanese do. The American fighter should be the attacker and you do not enter combat at cruise power.
I was just trying to point that the lesson from this test were not necessary applicable in our context.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I think some of you misunderstand.
I interpret that just when Zeke reached 325mph the results were noted and test finished. 325mph probably was considered max top safe speed (described as red line) for that "damaged" Zeke, so substaining the dive and the test beyond that point would have little sense.
-
No, when the Zeke reached 325mph the test started. 27 seconds AFTER that the P-51 had a 200 yard lead over the Zeke which is still doing 325mph IAS. At least that's how I read it.
-
Whatever is speculated, the results of mock combat are found on page 3 of the report.
The P51, P38, and P47 ALL could engage and disengage from a zeke at will.
If there is one flight characteristic that is over-rated in WWII planes, it has to be turning circle.
Crumpp
-
GScholz, the test description is clear enough and easy to read:
"Zeke 52 vs P51D-5
Dive acceleration.
(a) 10000 feet. Dives were begun from level flight line abreast formation at 200 IAS, with full power applied as the dive was entered. The P51D began to pull ahead immediately. The selected redline airspeed (325 IAS) of the zeke was reached after 27 seconds. At this time the P51D had a lead of aproximately 200 yards.
Zeke 52 vs P38J-25
Dive acceleration.
(a) 10000 feet. Dives were begun from leve flight at 200 IAS. The P38J began to accelerate away shortly after the dive was entered. At the end of 30 seconds (when the zeke had reached maximum allowable IAS), the P38J was aproximately 200 yards ahead.
Zeke 52 vs P47D30
Dive acceleration.
(a) 10000 feet. The P47D was aproximately 100 yards ahead 30 seconds after the beginning of the dive."
The test against navy planes also indicates excesive vibrations in the zeke diving at speeds above 250 knots.
-
This is interesting stuff... can you elaborate on just how the A6M was "malfunctioning"?
-
So, lower than 10K in a wild dogfight, the US planes would not be able to pull out? Would be interesting to know a tad more about the acceleration from stall to say 200 mph.
Anyway, under those circumstances, the turning ability is anything but overrated.....
-
AH2 A6M5 reach 531mph in 19 seconds diving vertically from 10k and starting at 200 IAS, 100% fuel, above that, plane disintegrates.
-
Anyway, under those circumstances, the turning ability is anything but overrated.....
Simply check out the bottom of page two and page three. You can see the results of mock combats. The zeke was NEVER able to gain the intitiative and spent every fight being defensive. You might get lucky and win a few dogfights with a great turning but slow fighter. You will NEVER win air superiority.
What is more, the fighter which can maintain an energy advantage and the intitiative will win the dogfight more often than not.
As one Spitfire pilot said when his commander told him to use the Spitfires strength against the FW-190 "Turning does not win Air Battles!".
That is not Aces High, that is actual Air Combat.
Crumpp
-
Bear in mind this is a Zeke, which was slower than the Spit V, and up against 1944 US fighters, which were for the most part much faster than the early 190As the Spit V faced.
-
Our AH aircraft are safe from accidents or structural problems at least upto 550~600mph, but one can't help but think that it would have been a risky business to push a fighter into such a dive in real life.
Perhaps the differences in "diving capability of planes", are actually not about how fast it dives, but how much the pilot feels safe when its subjected to a dive..?
-
Turning does not win air battles, but it sure can get you out of trouble. (dead pilots don't win air battles either). Had the Zeke been able to roll nicely, the setup would have been a lot more dangerous for the US pilots.
As for this:
"As one Spitfire pilot said when his commander told him to use the Spitfires strength against the FW-190 "Turning does not win Air Battles!". "
When the 190 entered the fray, it was a shock to the Spit pilots. It would come in fast, it was well armed and responsive, and could roll like mad at very high speeds. However, they soon found out that it could NOT turn with them. So, turning was not useless, it was actually at the time the only valid escape maneuver.....
-
Turning does not win air battles, but it sure can get you out of trouble. (dead pilots don't win air battles either).
However, they soon found out that it could NOT turn with them. So, turning was not useless, it was actually at the time the only valid escape maneuver.....
Absolutely true.
Crumpp
-
If you read the results of these test's . The "most overrated flight characteristics" stand out as the most important.
Any US fighter tested gained an Energy advantage rather quickly over the Zeke from a co-energy state. EVEN with a substantial ALTITUDE and POSITIONAL advantage the Zeke ends up pulling tight defensive turns and unable to gain the initiative.
By focusing on a few parts of the test it is easy to miss the overall results and conclusions.
Crumpp
-
What surprized me was how slowly the US fighters pulled away.
In most fields apart from turn they outperform the Zero (climb, speed, accel, dive, roll, guns), however I never realized how slow getting away could be. Given a better roll rate the Zeke would have been a very much more dangerous foe.
Looking at all this with all the data in hand is of course also not exactly the boots the WW2 pilots had on. They did not know about the limits of their foe. Hence the 190 shock, - the Spit riders later discovered that they could out-climb it in some alt bands, their roll rate was also being worked on, and at the debut of the Spit IX, clipped IX LF and VIII the 190's the Spits sometimes had most things in their favour.
What makes a good fighter? Lots of things I guess...
-
What surprized me was how slowly the US fighters pulled away.
Yeah I agree.
One thing though you have to consider is the unrealistic gunnery we have in AH. 150 yards is a good distance to shoot a rifle on a flat range. It's even a longer distance when you are talking Aerial Gunnery.
The RLM did a study in 1943 on fighter pilot gunnery. They found it took only a few rounds of 20mm to down a B17. However less than 2 percent of their pilots could land the required number of hits even though the FW-190 carried almost 20 times the amount of 20 mm needed and had 14 seconds of firing time. This is the reason it was dictated to the Geschwaders to assign 2 pilots to every bomber.
A bomber is much larger than a fighter and is not manuvering as violently.
So in order to compensate for the unrealistic gunnery AH has to increase the rate and distance planes manuver relative to one another IF they are going to correctly simulate the fights between A/C as they occurred in WWII.
I personally would like to see AH adopt both a more realistic pilot physiology model and a realistic gunnery model. I thik though too that if AH was inact these changes there would be quite a commotion. The Whine's would be incessant.
and at the debut of the Spit IX, clipped IX LF and VIII the 190's the Spits sometimes had most things in their favour.
All of the Merlin powered spit models at best leveled the playing field with the 190A. The RAF did experiment extensively trying to reduce the threat and with the MkIX brought the contest to the level of pilot skill. The first Spitfire that could dogfight a 190A with confidence was the Griffon powered Spit's. Even then it was only a few months gap between the introduction of the Spit IVX and the 190D9.
Crumpp
-
Ummm:
"The first Spitfire that could dogfight a 190A with confidence was the Griffon powered Spit's. Even then it was only a few months gap between the introduction of the Spit IVX and the 190D9. "
The Spit VIII/IXLF with up to 25 boost introduced....in 42/43 would frequently outperform the 190 A series at the time in almost anything apart from firepower and roll rate. I'd say those were pretty good terms for the Spitty. And how common were the 109D's??
Compare the med, 190A whatever with a wicked Spit VIII.....
Anyway, meeting up high in the skies, the pilots would not always know what they were dealing with. The RAF pilots truly respected the 190 with much more awe then the 109 more or less.....
I wonder how much the acceleration tweak actually is in AH then. If it is somethingto count, I must say that maybe it is nececcary to be able to keep AH from being anything else than a T&B game.....
-
The Spit VIII/IXLF with up to 25 boost introduced....in 42/43 would frequently outperform the 190 A series at the time in almost anything apart from firepower and roll rate. I'd say those were pretty good terms for the Spitty. And how common were the 109D's??
Actually if you study the 190A series and Merlin Spitfire development the planes were very well matched with the exception of the Spit V which was clearly outmatched. The 190A series retained it's advantages in zoom climb, Level speed, acceleration and maneuverability throughout it's life cycle. The Merlin powered spits were able to close the performance gap and at some altitudes eliminate them BUT each A/C only retained commanding performance gaps over the other in one area each. The 190 always retained the option to dive away to lower altitudes where it's advantages where even greater.
You have to remember, if you compare the 190A3 to the 190A8, the 190A8 is in fact the better fighter. I will post the weights when I get my 190 pilots manuals back so you can confirm this. Both the Merlin and the BMW-801D2 were continuously upgraded in performance. The 190A8 increased in weight over the 190A3. It also increased in power to weight and the 190A8 had a significantly better P/W ratio with 1.65ata at 2700 U/min than the 190A-3 at 1.42ata at 2700 U/min.
Even that weight increase though has become greatly exaggerated over the postwar years. Most of the references I have seen are up to 900 KG OFF on the loaded weight of a fighter version of the 190A8 and put it in the neighborhood of 4800-4900Kg. A fully loaded 190A3 is weighed in at 3850Kg. A fully loaded fighter version of the 190A8 is 4100kg. Most of this is in the outer wing MG151's and ammo. The Armour on the fighter version of the 190A8 is the exact same as the 190A4. In fact they carry the same part number. Only difference between it and the 190A3 is the pilots head armour was thicken from 9mm to 12 mm and widened a few inches.
Crumpp
-
Sorry bro,
I forgot to give you an answer on the Doras. There were around 1700 Doras produced. The Dora also increased in power from it's introduction to the final version with boost increases and the installation of MW50. The Majority of the Jagdwaffe 190 Gruppen had converted to 190D9's by the end of Hostilites. The ground attack units still retained the 190A/F/G series.
Crumpp
-
Vodoo, Gripen, Nashwan, ETC.
Thanks!
If there is one flight characteristic that is over-rated in WWII planes, it has to be turning circle.
Crumpp,
I would really disagree. It only become irrelevant when turning circle is at the expense of speed. I this case the Zero was hopelessly outclassed by 1943. However the Ki-84 and Spit XIV have a marked advantage because of turning circle. In AH I luv the F4U because I can outturn what can outrun me and outrun what can outurn me (For the most part).
Besides the reason zoom and dive acceleration are overblown IMHO is because of reasons that have not much to do with the Zero. Despite the obvious drawbacks of the Zero it was on par with the most modern, fastest fighters the US had in those two catagories. And if I would have said that this was true without the proof in the report nobody would have believed me. I would not have belived it myself until reading the report.
The important items however are how the American A/C compare with each other and what we all think is true based on annecdote or otherwise.
Things that stand out to me.
1. The P-47 zoom climb was only marginally superior to the P-51D and P-38J.
2. The P-38J is supposed to accelerate better than all American fighters but when put to the test it was last of three. Granted it was from 200MPH IAS however the P-47 was the best intial accelerator after one minute and the P-51D was best after two minutes. The P-38 was last despite it's vaunted power loading. So much for that theory.
3. Speed results
AAF
10,000FT
A6M5-313MPH
P-51D-393MPH
P-47D-30-383MPH
P-38J-373MPH
25,000FT
A6M5-320MPH
P-51D-415MPH
P-47D-30-410MPH
P-38J-405MPH
Navy
A6M5
13,000FT approx<--Calculated based on given speeds +/- 2MPH.
A6M5-330MPH
F4U-1D-394MPH
F6F-5-388MPH
FM-2-321MPH Actual speed tested.
20,000FT approx.
A6M5-335MPH
F4U-1D-413MPH (20,400FT actual)
F6F-5-409MPH (21,600FT actual)
FM-2- 306MPH
So based on this the AAF fighter were all approximately 10MPH slow at 25K. The P-38 and P-47 were slighter better at 10K with the P-51D being much slower than listed speeds.
The Naval AC were as fast if not faster than the AAF counter parts at all alts. The F4U was almost exact to the charts all the way while the F6F was much faster than advertised the whole way up although it shows a very strange speed curve at low alt.
The A6M5 the navy had was at least 10MPH faster than the AAF Model but still slower than listed performance.
-
Simply check out the bottom of page two and page three. You can see the results of mock combats. The zeke was NEVER able to gain the intitiative and spent every fight being defensive. You might get lucky and win a few dogfights with a great turning but slow fighter. You will NEVER win air superiority.
What is more, the fighter which can maintain an energy advantage and the intitiative will win the dogfight more often than not.
Crumpp
-
The P-38 was last despite it's vaunted power loading.
Powerloading is the dominate factor in accelleration. However there are other characteristics which can effect it. I am sure if you dig into the P38 you will find out why.
Take accelleration of the 190A, only because I am most familiar with it. Dive accelleration is a function of level accelleration. The 190 outaccellerates the P47D in level flight. In a dive the 190 leaves the P47 behind in the first 3000 feet, after that the weight of the Jug takes over and it rapidly overtakes the 190.
A 190A outaccellerates a P51B in level flight BUT in a dive the P51B will stay right with the 190 niether gaining nor losing. Why? Because the P51 was a much cleaner A/C aerodynamically and was fairly heavy. This compensated in a dive for it's accelleration.
Crumpp
-
F4UDOA,
The AAF report lists WEP manifold pressure of the P-51D at 10k as 62,5" but most other sources claim 67" (high speed FTH at 67" with RAM for 1st SC gear of the V-1650-7 should be more than 10k at least according to charts in the AHT). That might partially explain slower speed of the P-51D.
Regarding acceleration, the P-38 might have done relatively better if the level acceleration test had started from slower speed, say 160mph IAS. Above certain speed the faster plane will allways accelerate better.
gripen
-
Originally posted by Angus
The Spit VIII/IXLF with up to 25 boost introduced....in 42/43 would frequently outperform the 190 A series at the time in almost anything apart from firepower and roll rate. I'd say those were pretty good terms for the Spitty. And how common were the 109D's??
Uhm, +25 lbs wasn`t introduced until mid-1944 for the Spitties, and even then it was used on a rather limited scale.
In 1942, there was the Spit IXF, with limited boost to +15 lbs, and was very rare amongst Mk Vs. There were the 190A`s with boost reduced to 1.35ata, and were fairly common. The two were fairly closely matched in most aspects, with advantages over the other - firepower, roll rate, diving, control harmony and vision for the 190A, altitude performance, and turning and handling for Spits.
In 1943, the VIII/IXLFs appeared, at +18lbs increased boost, but again they were not that common - half the force was still MkVs (would you be a Mark V pilot in 1943..?).
Then there was the late A-4s and the new A-5s that appeared the same time, and again become rather common in the Jagdwaffe`s ranks in a short time. With their 1.42ata increased boost, they were faster at most common combat heights, save the high alts, than any Spit then in service.
Then came 1944, and some Spits started using +25lbs. Most did not, however. 190As become heavier, better armored, more heavily armed, and a tad less manouverable and slower. On the other hand, they uniformly had power boost that raised their output to 1.65ata and 2100PS, with the results speaking for themselves.
From the second half of 1944, appeared the 190Ds, and were again numerous, several hundred being in service at the same time (may look it up perhaps if u r interested). So did appear the Mk XIV on the continent doing battles regularly, in very small numbers though.
So, and that`s my general sense of the events, the RAF could always kept up with the 109s/190s technically... but it was always a step or two behind bringing this new technology in numbers to the battlefield, so that would make their presence felt.
-
190As become heavier, better armored, more heavily armed, and a tad less maneuverable and slower.
190A Normaljager's did not become any better armored. The fighter version armour upgrades appeared in the 190A4/190A3 transition period. The headrest armour was thickened and widened. The exact weight is listed in the handbook as well as the Luftwaffe part number which remained the same throughout the war.
The next major armour upgrade for the 190A series fighter version occurred in the FW-190A9 were the armored cowl ring and armored oil cooler were thickened.
The weight increase the A8 came mainly from the outboard MG151's, ammo, and the 115-liter tank.
The 115-liter tank was an optional accessory and commonly removed. Additionally some pilots to improve high altitude performance removed the outboard MG 151's. In the parts manual there is even a kit to replace the outboard ejection chutes and top fairing with smooth plates. Same kit is used on the G/F versions.
Many of the errors occurring in the FW-190 result from confusion of the different models. An FW-190A8 was delivered with clamshell doors (not mounted), ETC 501 rack, 115-liter fuel tank, and FuG16 series radio. Many of the weights listed in publications include ordinance weights on the ETC 501 rack or the Armour of the R7/R8 kits.
The clamshell doors and ETC 501 rack both mounted and dismounted in a few minutes. The 115 liter tank took a few minutes longer but was designed to be removed and reinstalled without an inordinate amount of trouble.
So in fact the weight gained by FW-190A8 was not that substantial. In fact removing the outboard MG151's left the A8 lighter than the MGFF equipped 190A5 and substantially faster. The Luftwaffe had good reasons for making the 190A8 the most numerically produced version of the 190A. I will post the weight charts listed in the Pilot handbook for the A-7 bis A9. It is broken down by varient and each piece of optional equipment. The Jager was the lightest version followed by the Jagerfuehrer according to pilots handbook.
Crumpp
-
25 boost in 1944? Are you sure? In January then?
Anyway, after it enered it was quite common.
BTW, I remember from somewhere that "cleaned up" 190 A8's did operate. What squadrons I do not know. But a Lighter and cleaner 190 would be pretty nasty to deal with :D
-
Oh, just looked. The 25 boost was cleared in feb '44.
None the less, more available than the C3 for instance.
Anyway, a Spit IX or VIII would be nicely on the market in 1943, as noted outperforming the 190A series in many categories.....and in some NOT.
-
None the less, more available than the C3 for instance.
C3 boost was widely available. It was simply a few additional valves and fuel lines. It was very simple and easy to install.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Angus
Oh, just looked. The 25 boost was cleared in feb '44.
None the less, more available than the C3 for instance.
Angus, 96 octane 'C-3' fuel was the only fuel the FW 190A`s BMW 801 accepted.
Now, since we all know that 190As flew quite many sorties, which could be only done while using C-3 fuel, we can conclude it was something EXTREMELY common with FW 190 units. ;)
As for 25lbs/150 grade fuel, it was used by about 20-30 Squadrons of RAF fighters until 1945. That`s roughly 500 planes. I don`t think 500 fighters is a lot. Especially if we consider who many fighters in all the RAF had at that time - 1500,2000, 2500, more ?
Crummp,
So in fact the weight gained by FW-190A8 was not that substantial. In fact removing the outboard MG151's left the A8 lighter than the MGFF equipped 190A5 and substantially faster. The Luftwaffe had good reasons for making the 190A8 the most numerically produced version of the 190A. I will post the weight charts listed in the Pilot handbook for the A-7 bis A9. It is broken down by varient and each piece of optional equipment. The Jager was the lightest version followed by the Jagerfuehrer according to pilots handbook.
Hmm, that would be most interesting. My sources show 4300-4370 kg for a fully equipped A-8 (with all standard equipment mounted) vs. 4000kg for the A-5. It would be appreciated if you would shed more light on this!
-
Isegrim,
Early this next week I should be getting my manuals back from a friend who is checking my translations.
But it is easy to see the weight variations amoung the different versions by checking out the flight test's data on the 190A8.
http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190.html
Notice one is for 4300 kg's and the other for 4150 kg. Check out the FW-190A8 performance charts. On three of them it is listed as 4300 kg with NO variation in weight for the Mk108's which are heavier than the Mg151's or the ETC 501 rack which the aircraft is tested with and without.
Then Check out the 190A8, 190D9, and TA-154 comparision. Notice the weight.
It will be even clearer when I get my manuals back.
Crumpp
-
Actually,
That is kind of bad example. The armament set up for the 190A8 in that chart is without the outboard wing cannons but includes the ETC 501 rack and 115 liter aux tank. Removing those drops the weight some more and adding the clamshell doors improves the aerodynamics over an A8 with the ETC 501 rack.
I wonder too what the deal is with the Mg131 hoppers for our AH varient and the one in this test. The pilot manuals and the tech manuals only list a hopper with the capacity for 450 rds of Mg 131 ammo. I can't find the 475 magazine in the parts list.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190.html
Now it is:http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190.htm (http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190.htm)
The one ending in .html is obsolete.
-
Originally posted by GODO
GScholz, the test description is clear enough and easy to read:
"Zeke 52 vs P51D-5
Dive acceleration.
(a) 10000 feet. Dives were begun from level flight line abreast formation at 200 IAS, with full power applied as the dive was entered. The P51D began to pull ahead immediately. The selected redline airspeed (325 IAS) of the zeke was reached after 27 seconds. At this time the P51D had a lead of aproximately 200 yards.
Zeke 52 vs P38J-25
Dive acceleration.
(a) 10000 feet. Dives were begun from leve flight at 200 IAS. The P38J began to accelerate away shortly after the dive was entered. At the end of 30 seconds (when the zeke had reached maximum allowable IAS), the P38J was aproximately 200 yards ahead.
Zeke 52 vs P47D30
Dive acceleration.
(a) 10000 feet. The P47D was aproximately 100 yards ahead 30 seconds after the beginning of the dive."
The test against navy planes also indicates excesive vibrations in the zeke diving at speeds above 250 knots.
My mistake.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
190A Normaljager's did not become any better armored. The fighter version armour upgrades appeared in the 190A4/190A3 transition period. The headrest armour was thickened and widened. The exact weight is listed in the handbook as well as the Luftwaffe part number which remained the same throughout the war.
The next major armour upgrade for the 190A series fighter version occurred in the FW-190A9 were the armored cowl ring and armored oil cooler were thickened.
The weight increase the A8 came mainly from the outboard MG151's, ammo, and the 115-liter tank.
The 115-liter tank was an optional accessory and commonly removed. Additionally some pilots to improve high altitude performance removed the outboard MG 151's. In the parts manual there is even a kit to replace the outboard ejection chutes and top fairing with smooth plates. Same kit is used on the G/F versions.
Many of the errors occurring in the FW-190 result from confusion of the different models. An FW-190A8 was delivered with clamshell doors (not mounted), ETC 501 rack, 115-liter fuel tank, and FuG16 series radio. Many of the weights listed in publications include ordinance weights on the ETC 501 rack or the Armour of the R7/R8 kits.
The clamshell doors and ETC 501 rack both mounted and dismounted in a few minutes. The 115 liter tank took a few minutes longer but was designed to be removed and reinstalled without an inordinate amount of trouble.
So in fact the weight gained by FW-190A8 was not that substantial. In fact removing the outboard MG151's left the A8 lighter than the MGFF equipped 190A5 and substantially faster. The Luftwaffe had good reasons for making the 190A8 the most numerically produced version of the 190A. I will post the weight charts listed in the Pilot handbook for the A-7 bis A9. It is broken down by varient and each piece of optional equipment. The Jager was the lightest version followed by the Jagerfuehrer according to pilots handbook.
Crumpp
So what you're saying is that a two gun A8 should be almost as nimble as a two gun A5, only faster and with more power? Hurry and get those docs translated and scanned for Pyro!
-
Nice hijack.
Crumpp,
I think you misunderstood my two comments.
1. Turning is only important as long as it is not at the expense of speed. For instance the Spit XIV was deadly because running would be very difficult. In the case of the Zero it was outclassed by 1943.
2. The accelleration test that the P-38 finished third behind the P-51D and P-47D30 was level accleration not dive acceleration. Started at 200MPH IAS it is not the best power curve for the P-38 but it does contradict the dragster myth of the P38.
-
1. Turning is only important as long as it is not at the expense of speed. For instance the Spit XIV was deadly because running would be very difficult. In the case of the Zero it was outclassed by 1943.
Yes I misunderstood you. I agree with your conclusions.
2. The accelleration test that the P-38 finished third behind the P-51D and P-47D30 was level accleration not dive acceleration. Started at 200MPH IAS it is not the best power curve for the P-38 but it does contradict the dragster myth of the P38.
I did not know the P38 was even considered a great accellerating plane. It level speed was good but everything I've read on it the P38 did not do so well against the faster LW plans compared to it's performance in the Pacific.
F4UDOA, And thanks for posting the test! Sorry about the Hijack.
Crumpp
-
P38L has very poor weight/power ratio from lo to med alts compared to 109s, 190s or Spits, but has the better ratio along all US planes. P38J was massively overpowered in the European scenario, but was still adecuate against zekes in the Pacific.