Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: GODO on July 19, 2004, 05:10:54 PM
-
The following tested planes cant catch them (SpitV, Seafire or Spit IX) until dive ends starting at 150mph: P47D40, 190A5/A8/F8, F4U1D/C. Tests were done from 5, 10, 15 and 20k and leveling at sealevel (diving near vertical), every plane 100% fuel and minimum ammo load. SpitV vs 190D9 ended in a draw.
-
oh boy
-
When running the reverse tests do the Spit's overtake the non-Spits?
Remember, the Spitfire's top dive speed is higher than any other fighter's. If the Spit has enough of a head start it will reach those speeds and then no aircraft in AH (barring the 262 or 163) can catch it. It is just a matter of whether or not the Spit's head start is enough to overcome the initial acceleration deficit and as F4UDOA's "Most over rated flight characteristics" thread pointed out, the differences are not very significant when starting from the same speed.
Put it this way, why would an Fw190D-9 begin a chase of a Spit V at 150mph? The only way that would happen is if the Fw190D-9 pilot had messed up. If the Spit V is cruising at, say, 260mph and is bounced by an Fw190D-9 odds are the Fw190D-9 will have at least a 150mph advantage at the start. Will the Spit V still be able to escape in a dive?
-
Originally posted by GODO
The following tested planes cant catch them (SpitV, Seafire or Spit IX) until dive ends starting at 150mph: P47D40, 190A5/A8/F8, F4U1D/C. Tests were done from 5, 10, 15 and 20k and leveling at sealevel (diving near vertical), every plane 100% fuel and minimum ammo load. SpitV vs 190D9 ended in a draw.
That doesn't surprise me considering that Spitfires were capable of Mach 0.85 without breaking up. P-47s could manage about Mach 0.83, with the F4U and 190 right there too. I'm not talking about Critical Mach, I'm referring to terminal velocity, which means being deep into compressibility.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Huh?
So now the spitfire can outdive any plane too? Come on. Sure their are some pretty high Mach numbers quoted for the Spit.
It was a post war model Griffon from what I heard AND I know the pilot almost did not make it. The plane had to be scrapped after the flight.
FW-190 were only tested to mach .80. At that mach number they could still be flown with "appreciably higher than normal but still acceptable control forces AND recovered without damage to the plane.
The Spitfire's current dive modeling is OFF and does not accurately reflect it's true abilities.
Crumpp
-
I don't think the modelling is off, I think people aren't taking net lag into effect.
I ran these dive tests online with the results that the Spit 5 would run down a 190A5 in a dive from any alt. Then we switched planes... and the 190A5 would run down the Spit 5 from any alt.
So I took it off-line and recorded top speed at the bottom of the dive, the 190A5 had a ~20 mph advantage over the Spit 5 in a dive from 5k. Don't think I tested it from higher than that, the original post might be floating around here somewhere, but it was in one of the AH2 forums so maybe not.
Do the tests offline, record the top speed at the deck when you pull out. Hell, if you have a stopwatch (and a willing assistant), time the seconds it takes for the planes to accelerate through a set speed interval in a 0-G dive (which is how I did my tests).
Basically doing a test side by side with another guy in-game is going to give you screwy results. That is just the way it works, with netlag and all.
-
Karnak,
Found some interesting information when I dug into this. The data just did not match up with common tactics used by the LW against the Spitfire.
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9v109g.html
The 750kph IAS limit found in the pilots manual for the 109 which the RAF based it's limits off of for the Spit/109 dive test is wrong.
After the fatal crash of Dr. Jodlbauer and a near crash by Heinrich Baeuvais in early 1941 in the 109 the RLM abandoned high speed testing and the plane was given back to Messerschmitt to determine the safe diving speed. Messerschmitt shelved the tests and arbitrarily set the "do not exceed" dive limit at 750 kph. After front line experience and a series of accidents, 20 in one month, the investigations had to be resumed in January 1943.
During those trials a Bf-109F2 was dove to 906 IAS kph (563 mph), mach .80 with aileron reversal and elevator reversal. It was safely recovered at 6 g's.
The result of these trails was the increased height of 135mm on the vertical stabilizer. This prevented elevator reversal.
The test Aircraft was a BF-109F-2 WrkN 9228, code TH + TF flown by Lukas Schmid.
The Aircraft could be dove to 890 kph IAS (553 mph) with no ill effects on the controls other than the extremely heavy control forces all Me-109's experienced. This became the new safe diving speed.
During the LW tactical trials of a Bf-109F2 against a FW-190A2, the FW190 out dove the BF-109 and "rapidly pulled away"
Any 109 or 190 pilot with a Spit on his six should be able to push the nose down and leave the Spit setting.
Crumpp
-
Crump,
What has that to do with anything?
In any case, .80 mach is still lower than .85 mach.
-
Facts are Karnak,
The Merlin powered spits didn't have that high a mach number and couldn't outdive either the 109 or the 190.
Crumpp
-
Infact,
20 MPH IAS is way off. The true difference is on the order of 110 mph IAS according to the RAF's dive speed limits of the Spitfire Mk IX with +25 lbs boost for the 109G and even greater for the 190.
It should take a heck of alot of net lag to overcome that difference.
Crumpp
-
(1) The maximum permissible indicated airspeeds in the different heights are not being observed and are widely exceeded. On the basis of evidence which is now available the speed limitations ordered by teleprint message GL/6 No. 2428/41 of 10.6.41 are cancelled and replaced by the following data:
Up to 3 km (9,842 ft.) 750 km/h. (466 m.p.h.)
At 5 km (16,404 ft) 700 km/h. (435 m.p.h.)
At 7 km (22,965 ft) 575 km/h. (357 m.p.h.)
At 9 km (29,527 ft) 450 km/h. (280 m.p.h.)
At 11 km (36,089 ft) 400 km/h. (248 m.p.h.)
.......These limitations are valid for the time being for all building series including the Me 109 G. A corresponding notice is to be placed upon all air-speed indicators in aircraft.
.......These limits are also to be found in Vorläufige Fluggenehmigung BF 109 G-2 and G-6
Flying Limitations of the Spitfire IX (from Pilot's Notes)
Maximum speeds in m.p.h I.A.S.
Diving (without external stores), corresponding to a Mach No. of -85:
Between S.L. and 20,000 ft. - 450
20,000 and 25,000 ft. - 430
25,000 and 30,000 ft. - 390
30,000 and 35,000 ft. - 340
Above ..................35,000 ft. - 310
Only under 10,000ft does the 109 have a greater dive speed.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Infact,
20 MPH IAS is way off. The true difference is on the order of 110 mph IAS according to the RAF's dive speed limits of the Spitfire Mk IX with +25 lbs boost for the 109G and even greater for the 190.
It should take a heck of alot of net lag to overcome that difference.
Crumpp
Where are you getting this? I don't see any data backing that up. You seem to be just arbitrarily stating that Merlin Spits didn't have enough power.
Keep in mind that the Spit that did .89 mach only did so because it's propellor shattered. E.g., it had no power.
-
For the 190 Tactical Trials
http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/Spitfire9v190.htm
For the 109.
max. Mach 0,805@7.0km
max. TAS 906km/h@5.8km
max. IAS 737km/h@4.5km
Even more interesting is the fact that they tried different positions of the trimming. With the wrong trim set - the one for cruising at high altitude it was not possible to pull out of the dive just by using the stick. They needed to use the trim wheel to recover the plane from the dive. This happened in such violent manner that the test pilot had to push the stick foreword to be not blacked out...
If the trim was set to +1.15° it was possible to recover without using the trim wheel - both flight paths, with and without the trim wheel, are very similar. So even with the concrete stick the limiting factor seems to be the pilot.
Also interesting in the dive the canopy iced, also the mechanism of the trim, so it was not possible to set it smooth, but in \"jumps\", but it was still adjustable...
- Source: Hochgeschwindigkeitsversusche mit Me 109, Messerschmitt AG, Augsburg.
http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/techref/structures/tails/109.05e43_report/05e43-p1.htm
You can find the full report of the high speed trials conducted in 1943 in "Messerschmitt Bf-109F-K Development, Testing, Production" by Willy Radinger and Wolfgang Otto. It begins on Page 15.
Crumpp
-
My apologies,
It is not listed as IAS or TAS in the book. I ASSuMEd that it was IAS.
Milo is correct, under 10,000 feet the 109 does outdive the Spit MkIX. I believe the 190 Pilots Handbook has the dive speed listed. ANOTHER thing to check when I get them back from being translated.
Crumpp
-
Sorry but what does the highest Mach numbers achieved in single tests with often modified, unarmed etc. planes matter in dive acceleration ? It might give you some very basic clue about the terminal Mach speed of these airfcraft, with a large margin of error, considering all of these these were measured with instruments prone to a large margin of error.
Similiarly, what does the laid down safety dive limits in the manuals has to do anything with the fighters ability to dive ? It`s a _safety limit_, not an indicator of how fast a fighter will accelerate in dive!
I can only speak for the 109, but those very conservative limits were very often exceeded with no damage to the plane by a considerable margin In the 109`s example, the dive speed limit is 750 km/h IAS (which was increased to 850 km/h or 528mph IAS on the 109K, even with gunpods added) - do you really expect something horrible will happen at 760, 770 km/h IAS? Nope, there`s plenty of built-in safety margin there - for example, in the mentioned Lukas Schmidt test those margins were exceeded by 100 km/h on avarage with no damage to the plane. . I am sure such exceedings could be done on most other planes as well, most of the time it would not cause critical damage. These limits only show how far the manufacturer was willing to give a guarantee. Take WW2 subs for example - manufacturers 'safe depth' limit was 90m. In real life, sub commanders could dove their boat to 340m and did come back from there.
The ability to accelerate in a dive can be determined from the design and the did comparitive dive trials. None of those will tell you the Spit should be something of a great diver - it`s a large drag machine of medium-light weight, with relatively low wingloading. None of these will it in a dive. And this theory is fully supported by all dive tests I have seen with the Spit pitted against other machines - P-47s, P-51s, FW 190s, Bf 109s - DID outdive the Spit all the dive, whatever Mark we speak of. Mk I, Mk V, Mk IX was outdived, even the Mk XIV was outdived initially by the worst matchup 109G-6 with gunpods and reduced engine power.
-
Lednicer, D., "A CFD Evaluation of Three Prominent World War II
Fighter Aircraft," Aeronautical Journal of the Royal Aeronautical
Society, June/July 1995.
Anybody have a copy of this article? Found a couple of broken links to it.
Also does anybody have a credible source on the Merlin powered spits mach numbers?
The Spit you are refering too Karnak, I am pretty sure was a post war Griffen powered model. Besides, breaking the plane automatically disqualifies the mach number. The point is to safely recover the A/C.
Crumpp
-
None of those will tell you the Spit should be something of a great diver - it`s a large drag machine of medium-light weight, with relatively low wingloading
think of wave drag.
-
Here is what the RAF tactical trials between a Spitfire Mk IX (+16 boost) and a FW-190A4/U8 say about dive performance:
In a dive from 23,000 feet the FW-190 could leave the Spitfire without difficulty and their was no gainsaying that in so far as manuverability was concerned, the german fighter was the markly superior of the two in all but the tight turn. The Spitfire could not follow in aileron turns and reversals at high speed. From high speed cruise, a pull up into a climb gave the FW-190 an initial advantage owing to it's superior accelleration and the superiority of the german fighter was even more noticable when both Aircraft were pulled up into a zoom climb from a dive.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Also does anybody have a credible source on the Merlin powered spits mach numbers?
The Spit you are refering too Karnak, I am pretty sure was a post war Griffen powered model. Besides, breaking the plane automatically disqualifies the mach number. The point is to safely recover the A/C.
Crumpp
Those Spits are Mk XIs (PR version of the Mk IX) and the test were done beginning in Jan '44. See "Spitfire, the History"
True if both a/c were at co-speed but the 'bouncing' a/c would be at a greater speed. So much for any accelleration differences.
-
Milo,
I don't think any high speed trials were ever conducted on the FW-190A except by the RAF enemy test flight. There it was dove to mach .80 and still was very controllable, exhibited no adverse effects and was easily recovered. Since the purpose of the test was to test the FW-190 against the Spitfire AND the 190 demonstrated it's superiority in a dive under all flight conditions, No further test were conducted to explore the dive limits of the 190. Mach .80 is in all likelyhood NOT the mach number limit of the FW-190.
Crumpp
-
True if both a/c were at co-speed but the 'bouncing' a/c would be at a greater speed. So much for any accelleration differences.
It is not only a dive accelleration difference, Milo. It is total dive superiority over a Merlin powered spit no matter where you measure the dive.
Crumpp
-
Crumpp, some time ago were posted the results of a Fw190 dive tests piloted by K. Tank. At mach 0.8 there were not even vibrations. Dont remember initial and final altitudes.
-
It is just a matter of whether or not the Spit's head start is enough to overcome the initial acceleration deficit and as F4UDOA's "Most over rated flight characteristics" thread pointed out, the differences are not very significant when starting from the same speed.
Was is most revealing about that test is how BIG a difference they made in combat. Just read the mock combat test conclusions. The Zeke was totally outclassed by all the USAAF fighters and could only fly defensive circles.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
It is not only a dive accelleration difference, Milo. It is total dive superiority over a Merlin powered spit no matter where you measure the dive.
Crumpp
Tank's dive test in an D-9:
7km - ~600kph
6km - 700kph
No speeds given for lower altitudes.
For the A-8, a simular speed of 700kph was reached at 6km.
(from Tank's bio book)
Spit XI was restricted to 690kph @ 7km and 724kph @ 6, and ASIs are inaccurate (said by some members here), what was the true speed of the Fws in Tank's test? Were comb pitots fitted to his a/c? The Spit is easily faster than the Fw.;) (Issy says a/c could be pushed past their restriction speeds)
Now would you like to explain how with, say a 50mph speed advantage (not unrealistic) on a 'bounce', the Fw could 'get away' from a Spit IX
The comparison by the Brits of an A-3 and Spit XII (simular power to the IX) had the Spit accellerating faster than the A-3. Later models of the A, being heavier, would be even slower.
ps Should add that I give my bro a hard time about his 'love' of the Spit.:D Tank's a/c are my favorites, so don't put the fws on a pedistal like Issy does for his 109.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Here is what the RAF tactical trials between a Spitfire Mk IX (+16 boost) and a FW-190A4/U8 say about dive performance:
In a dive from 23,000 feet the FW-190 could leave the Spitfire without difficulty and their was no gainsaying that in so far as manuverability was concerned, the german fighter was the markly superior of the two in all but the tight turn. The Spitfire could not follow in aileron turns and reversals at high speed. From high speed cruise, a pull up into a climb gave the FW-190 an initial advantage owing to it's superior accelleration and the superiority of the german fighter was even more noticable when both Aircraft were pulled up into a zoom climb from a dive.
Crumpp
Which is modelled perfectly in AH2, I tested it.
The 190A5 was faster in the dive than both the Spit V and Spit IX, and zoomed higher than both when zooming at the end of a dive and from level flight.
I firmly believe that the "descrepancy" between what you read in the real life tests, and what you see in testing side by side in game is the result of net lag. There are several good documents about it linked from the BBS, I'm lazy so I'm not going to go digging through to find them.
-
FWIW
I have reference to a Spitfire Mk PR.XI, (EN409) reaching speeds of Mach 0.92 (620MPH)
The pilot, Alan Martindale was later killed in another aircraft, due to prop failure.
Another Spitfire (PL827) carried on the testing reaching Mach 0.85 regulary.
-
Tank's dive test in an D-9:
7km - ~600kph
6km - 700kph
No speeds given for lower altitudes.
For the A-8, a simular speed of 700kph was reached at 6km.
(from Tank's bio book)
I have a copy of the 190A7 bis A9 pilots handbook. Tommorrow I have a meeting with a friend who checking my translations. I will check to see if it has the dive restrictions listed.
You can read about the 190A-3's performance vs Spit Mk IX here.
Please find a tactical trial of the FW-190 vs Spit IX were the Spit out dives the 190. There is not one out there. Even the RAF admits the 190 could dive better than the spit.
http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/Spitfire9v190.htm
The FW 190 outdove BOTH the Spitfire and the 109. Additionally it maintained great manuverability while doing it.
The 190 did have some nasty "habits" that I would like to see modeled when Pyro redoes the Flight Model. The Stick forces were well harmonized and needed about 6-8 pounds of input up to around 400mph. At that speed they suddenly heavied up to about 40 lbs. The elevator was extremely sensitive according to Brown and Beauvais. You very easily induce an aggravated stall at ANY speed. When trimmed for level flight at cruise speed and dove, the 190 developed a marked nose down trim that "must have been scary" when the A/C was fought at low altitudes.
In fact the elevator was so touchy that many transitioning "concrete stick" 109 pilots had trouble. One pilot Beauvais talks about could not loop the 190 at any speed. Everytime he tried the plane would nose straight up and fall off to the side with all of his speed gone. Beauvais took his 190 up and flew a loop just 50 kph above stall speed. They 109 pilot was using too much control input which would instantly kill the 190's speed. Combining the nose down trim, control force's change, and touchy elevator would have made the 190 challenging to fight in effectively IMO. Easy to fly but hard to fight.
The weight increase between the 190A3 and the 190A8 fighter version was NOT that substantial AND the power increase was 200 H.P. The FW 190A8 had a better power to wieght ratio than the FW-190A3. The FW's development paralleled the Spit Mk IX's development. There is a reason the RAF did not tell it's merlin powered spit pilots to "mix it up" with 190A's. There is also a good reason the LW made more FW-190A8's than any other version. A detailed weight chart for all versions of the 190A7 bis A9 is included in the pilots manual. This is also covered in another thread.
I don't put FW's on a pedestal either Milo. I go by the facts. It is easy to see that the FW series in AH is not able to fight in the manner it historically could against the Spitfire. That has been covered in other threads ad nauseum.
Crumpp
-
Corresponds with the legend:
"A rather inexperienced pilot starting with the 190 soon becomes very dangerous, while old 109 hands don't like it"
-
Thanks for the sermon Crumpp.:)
wing loading
A-3 - 212.84kg/m^2
A-6 - 224.43kg/m^2
A-8/R2 - 237.70kg/m^2 (/R2 only 50kg heavier than A-8)
weight/power
A-3 - 3.12kg/kw
A-6 - 3.23kg/kw
A-8/R2 - 3.42kg/kw
from Tank's bio
Now what is this about a better ratio for the A-8 over the A-3? An ~500kg TO increase is NOT substantial?:confused:
"There is also a good reason the LW made more FW-190A8's than any other version."
Yes the A-8 was in production longer than any other model. Besides all German a/c production output increased during its production.
"Even the RAF admits the 190 could dive better than the spit."
When they started the dive at the same speed. Yes the Fw was more manueverable in the dive. Tactical trials and combat are 2 different 'kettles of fish'. "Providing the Spitfire IX has the initiative, it undoubtedly stands a good chance of shooting down the FW 190." Are you only reading what you want to see? According to you, this statement should not be in the link.
-
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
-
When they started the dive at the same speed. Yes the Fw was more manueverable in the dive. Tactical trials and combat are 2 different 'kettles of fish'.
The FW was also faster in the dive. Tactical trials are were the tactics for combat are developed. Notice the RAF advises its pilots not to "mix it up" but rather fly at high speed in areas the 190 operates. If you read the trial of a 190A8 vs Spit Mk IVX it reads "pilots can afford to mix it up". This is an Air Force at war trying to find the best way to defeat an enemy.
"Providing the Spitfire IX has the initiative, it undoubtedly stands a good chance of shooting down the FW 190." Are you only reading what you want to see?
If you think I am arguing that a Spitfire with an altitude advantage shouldn't have a good chance of shooting a FW down you are totally mistaken. Don't try and turn this into a fan rant for the 190. The Spitfire Mk IX (+25lbs) and the FW 190A8 should be extremely well matched. So much so that pilot skill NOT A/C performance determines the outcome. In AH they are not well matched. Pyro says he is going to make some changes to the FM to better align with LW data and fix the best climb speed of the 190's.
-
"In fact the elevator was so touchy..."
As was the case with Spitfire if I may add, and that does not seem to make it a bad dogfighter at all.
Of course it would be a waste of time to model the overly sensitive elevators as people would modify the stick input profiles to counter this etc. etc.
Ooops...
(Runs away in terror)
-C+
-
A fully loaded 190A3 is weighed in at 3850Kg. A fully loaded fighter version of the 190A8 is 4100kg.
from Sta/Bo 8.9.44 (accent missing on 'a')
A-8
empty weight - 3489.7 ~ 3490kg
flying weight - 4391.0 ~ 4400kg
A-8/R2
flying weight - 4454 ~ 4450kg
A-8/R3
flying weight - 4674.5 ~ 4675kg
fighter-bomber
flying weight - 4674.5 ~ 4675kg
This is from 'Technical Description No. 284', a Fw document.
There is a weight increase of 600kg(1323lb) over the A-3 and you are saying a boost increase of 0.23ata (an ~3-4lb boost increase) will overcome this substantial weight increase?:eek:
-
Milo,
I've got the pilot's handbook for the FW-190A7 bis A9 and the Technical manual for the A-1 thru A9. In it lists the weight for all the various versions right down to the exact kilo. The weight break down is actually several pages in the book with about two variants per page.
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 variant and each piece of optional equipment. The Jaeger was the lightest version followed by the Jaegerfuehrer according to pilot's handbook.
So if you want to check out the weight confusion, just look over these docs from the RLM.
http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190.htm
Notice how the weight on the FW-190A8/R2 does not change even though the Mk108's are heavier than the Mg151's? Notice the Weight on the FW-190A8 without the outboard cannons but having the 115-liter tank and ETC 501 rack?
There is a weight increase of 600kg(1323lb) over the A-3 and you are saying a boost increase of 0.23ata (an ~3-4lb boost increase) will overcome this substantial weight increase?
I thought you knew this already? :confused: The Germans used a different design philosophy from the Allies regarding power increased. The Allies used lower cylinder pressure but high boost pressure increase's to gain extra power. The Axis developed high compression engines with small boost pressure increases. Either way horsepower is increased. Check the BMW 801 chart and see for yourself. Remember the 190A5 was not cleared for 1.62ata at 2700U/min. It was only cleared for 1.42ata.
Crumpp
-
I've got the pilot's handbook for the FW-190A7 bis A9 and the Technical manual for the A-1 thru A9. In it lists the weight for all the various versions right down to the exact kilo. The weight break down is actually several pages in the book with about two variants per page.
Whoopy do.:rolleyes:
The weight increase the A8 came mainly from the outboard MG151's, ammo, and the 115-liter tank.
weight difference of MG FF and MG151/20 > +5kg/gun
ammo, 100rnd belt, difference > -1.1kg
Do your own calcs for the correct ammo load.
115l tank > +90kg
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.
So now you bring in modifiers to the standard 'kit'.:rolleyes: See your next statement on 'standard 'kit''.
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 doors would not operate with the ETC501 attached. Fw doc #284 is comprehensive on weights.
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.
Lets see these times, not generalizations. OM(Il-2) will dispute your 501 removal times.
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 variant and each piece of optional equipment. The Jaeger was the lightest version followed by the Jaegerfuehrer according to pilot's handbook.
Dispite your pathetic attempts, the basic A-8 was still 600kg heavier than the A-3.
So if you want to check out the weight confusion, just look over these docs from the RLM.
http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190.htm
I don't need to as I have the Fw A-8 doc with the weight breakdown.
Notice how the weight on the FW-190A8/R2 does not change even though the Mk108's are heavier than the Mg151's? Notice the Weight on the FW-190A8 without the outboard cannons but having the 115-liter tank and ETC 501 rack?
Aaagh??? Notice that in Fw doc #284 it says the 108 increased the flying weight by 50kg. Do you dispute this Fw doc?
from another source
MK108 > 58kg/gun
MG151/20 > 42kg/gun
diff. > +16kg/gun
MK108(100rnd ammo belt) > 59.5kg
MH151/20(100rnd ammo belt) > 19.9kg
diff. > +39.6kg
You can do the calcs yourself for what size ammo belts were fitted.
I thought you knew this already? The Germans used a different design philosophy from the Allies regarding power increased. The Allies used lower cylinder pressure but high boost pressure increase's to gain extra power. The Axis developed high compression engines with small boost pressure increases. Either way horsepower is increased. Check the BMW 801 chart and see for yourself. Remember the 190A5 was not cleared for 1.62ata at 2700U/min. It was only cleared for 1.42ata.
MP is MP. If you want the specific increase in lb, go find the thread that explained what it is. Now what was the CR increases in the BMW801 engine. What is this A-5? You were saying A-3 before. When was the A-3 cleared for 1.42ata since it was restricted to 1.32ata at one time?
-
Buy yourself a handbook since you want to ignore that facts. They are not very expensive.
http://www.luftfahrt-archiv-hafner.de/
All the docs on the page ARE FW docs.
http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190.htm
Except for better armament, their is NO difference between the FW-190A8 and the FW-190A5. They even use the exact same fuselage, armour, and a whole slew of other major components. The only major modification to the A/C was the wing in the A6 model. It was redesigned to be stronger and lighter to accomodate the outboard MG151's.
Now lets talk about that boost. The Luftwaffe adopted the philosophy of "on demand power". Meaning a useful increase in horsepower for the duration of combat. This meant higher cylinder pressure engines with tiny manifold pressure increases to gain power. This induced less stress on the motor while providing needed power. Hence the BMW 801D was cleared for 1.65ata Boost for up to 40 minutes according to the pilot manual.
The Spitfire MkIX was cleared for:
"The engine was cleared for combat operation at +25 lb/sq.in. boost pressure for periods not exceeding 5 minutes."
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/jl165.html
And therein lies the rub. With huge increases in manifold pressure brings spectacular performance, for a few minutes. However your lower cyclinder pressure brings increased engine life in the long haul.
Now they did run the test merlin engine for an Hour and 10 minutes. So what...the RLM ran the test BMW801 for a lot longer than 40 minutes too.
-
Just last night i had a Spit9 i think it was....Out dive me while i was in a 109g-10. I was surprised. But i didnt know if this should be. This happened twice over the same base on 2 different flights. Once it was wd39 that shot me down..the other i cant remember.
I started a dive from 18K towards the target base (Barracks) and a spit was following. I kept bringing the throttle back just enough inlevel flight that we were matched speed.. + then - then + then- ans so forth. I slowly dove to 12K..Then i went into a full out dive staying just in the edge of compression using the Elv. trim for a little help keeping the nose in a safe attitude.
From 12 K all the way to the deck the spit slowly closed to within d400....I had already made my pass on the barracks and was thinking He just kept cranking me in. the ROC was about 2.5 to 3k if i remember right.
Anyhoo...lesson learned.
And ppl wonder why sooo many players choose the Spitfire.
-
When was the A-3 cleared for 1.42ata since it was restricted to 1.32ata at one time?
From the time the BMW 801D2 was put in it?
Least that is the info I have. If you have something restricting it to 1.32 ata operation then by all means post it.
That would mean an even bigger PW ratio increase.:D
Crumpp
-
Well now we all know that you are full off hot air, Crumpp. The A-3 was restricted to 1.32ata for awhile.:aok When the Brits tested the Faber's Fw using 1.42, the Germans had the engine restricted to 1.32.:rolleyes:
All that data in the link for the A-8, I have and more, since it comes from the A-8 handbook. I have had the book since 1974!!!
Preaching again Crumpp? Do you have your Divinity doctorate? :rolleyes:
Now what is this A-5 you keep yapping about? Taking lessons from Barbi, are you? You were originally yapping about the A-3.:p
The wing of the A-6 was 'improved' also because of the escalating weight of the A model and to accomadate the growing number of Rustsatzen kits.
Now stop with the BS and produce some numbers. No more general statements. Lets have some PW numbers.:) What was the CR increases?
That would mean an even bigger PW ratio increase.
Sure, a 600kg weight increase with a 200hp (your number) increase gives an even bigger PW ratio(standard A-3 / standard A-8). OK
Only problem was at 1.65, MW was needed and could only be used for 10 minutes.:eek: So, unlike the Merlin, which could exceed its 5 minute limit, the 801 was finished if the 10 minutes was exceeded. Also remember that the Spit was over enemy territory and the 5 minute limit was meant as a safety measure so the Spit could return to base.
-
Only problem was at 1.65, MW was needed and could only be used for 10 minutes.
MW was not used on any production 190. 190's used C3 boost and 1.65ata could be used for 40 minutes at a wack.
Obviously you did not look at any of the links and just countinue to rant. It's ok because Pyro has already said his peace.
Crumpp
-
Ummm...from Charge:
"In fact the elevator was so touchy..."
As was the case with Spitfire if I may add, and that does not seem to make it a bad dogfighter at all. "
The Spitfires elevator was touchy, however the Spitty would not so easily snap into a vicious spin ...rather the elevator would put you where you would not want to go, like very much upwards.
The 190 when overtouched and without much warning would go into very nasty, evil and vicious out-of-control whatever....
-
Let me get my shovel Crumpp. Nothing but manure coming from you, there is. Better be quiet now unless you can give specifics before you dig that hole even deeper.
:D
Not 'C3 boost' but 'C3 injection'. LOL, and you were preaching to me. :rofl
C3 fuel injection acted the same as MW injection.:rolleyes:
Have you read Tech description #284? Read what it says for Increased emergency power. (their underline) It ends with, " Due to the danger of engine overheating, this system must not be used for more than 10 minutes."
JHC, definately taking lessons from Barbi, you are. :D :D :D
-
The Spitfires elevator was touchy, however the Spitty would not so easily snap into a vicious spin ...rather the elevator would put you where you would not want to go, like very much upwards.
Angus,
Absolutely right. The FW could be stalled at ANY speed. It was so violent the plane would almost invert and then enter a spin. It was nasty and could very well be fatal without sufficient altitude.
What's more the FW stall had no warning due to the heavy vibrations of the BMW 801. I am sure pilots were reluctant to push it to the edge when low to the ground.
It will be interesting to see how HTC redoes the FM.
Have you read Tech description #284? Read what it says for Increased emergency power. (their underline) It ends with, " Due to the danger of engine overheating, this system must not be used for more than 10 minutes."
Milo, take your anger someplace else. In the Luftwaffe manual it talks about not climbing for more than 10 minutes on 1.65ata boost? Is that what you are refering too?
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Let me get my shovel Crumpp. Nothing but manure coming from you, there is. Better be quiet now unless you can give specifics before you dig that hole even deeper.
:D
Not 'C3 boost' but 'C3 injection'. LOL, and you were preaching to me. :rofl
C3 fuel injection acted the same as MW injection.:rolleyes:
Have you read Tech description #284? Read what it says for Increased emergency power. (their underline) It ends with, " Due to the danger of engine overheating, this system must not be used for more than 10 minutes."
JHC, definately taking lessons from Barbi, you are. :D :D :D
The 10 min limit wasnt a hard limit where by if you hit 12 min the eng overheated. Engine heating leads to more eng wear not necessarily an eng malfunction once the limit has been exceded.
Most limits are set with eng life and maintaining servicable aircraft in mind.
MW50 and C3 injection are similiar but not the same. MW50 was a BMW "invention" but was problematic.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Only problem was at 1.65, MW was needed and could only be used for 10 minutes.:eek: So, unlike the Merlin, which could exceed its 5 minute limit, the 801 was finished if the 10 minutes was exceeded. Also remember that the Spit was over enemy territory and the 5 minute limit was meant as a safety measure so the Spit could return to base.
What`s that bullocks again?
Factually wrong in that
a, MW50 was not required to reach 1.65ata manifold pressure on the FW 190A series. In fact, MW50 was never used on the A-8 itself, though possibly it appeared on earlier Jabo versions.
b, 'Could be only used for 10 mins, while the Spit could use it for 5 mins' <-- So the Merlin`s lacking in it`s ability to absorb WEP for more than 5ms whereas the FW 190A could sustain it`s own boosted WEP for 10-15mins (as per my docs) is actually in some odd way, a disadvantage of the BMW 801? What cretinic logic is that ?
Spitfire`s WEP time was restricted to one-half or one-third that of the WEP time of the 1944 German figters, try to live with that. There was no 'running of out special fluid', the BMW 801 used petrol injection, resulting Erhoehte Ladedruck, it`s effect being similiar to MW50.
As long as the petrol tanks were full, and the cylinder temperetures were within limits, 1.65ata could be used - that means 10-15mins in practice without too much strain to the engine.
Similiarly, Spit could use their maximum boosts as long as the petrol tanks were not empty, and the engine temperatures permitted, advisably no longer than 5 mins otherwise drastically shortened engine lifespan and possibility of inflight engine failure may occured. In view of the Spit`s limited internal tankage and range, and the high consumption of the Merlins, I guess that mean rather limited time in their mission profile - every minute the Spit`s pilot spent on high boost took some 20 miles away from it`s (econical!) range on which it had to return to base.
-
"Spitfire`s WEP time was restricted to one-half or one-third that of the WEP time of the 1944 German figters, try to live with that."
True,however not completely. Guaranteed 5 minutes without harming the engine, but nothing to stop you running the it at high WEP until it broke. There are reports of Merlins being run at WEP up to 30 minutes without any damage.
The MW would however gradually eat the engine with the side effect of power loss unless it would be overhauled frequently. That often was a hard task for the German engineers in the heat of war.
-
Originally posted by Angus
"Spitfire`s WEP time was restricted to one-half or one-third that of the WEP time of the 1944 German figters, try to live with that."
True,however not completely. Guaranteed 5 minutes without harming the engine, but nothing to stop you running the it at high WEP until it broke. There are reports of Merlins being run at WEP up to 30 minutes without any damage.
The MW would however gradually eat the engine with the side effect of power loss unless it would be overhauled frequently. That often was a hard task for the German engineers in the heat of war.
What eats engines is the load, and ruining effects of the fuel/mixtures used. The first one is easy to get, ball bearings will give it up sooner or later, pistons crack, crankshafts broke etc.
The other is the additional wear within the pistons from the fuel and mixture. Allied 150 grade was high on aromatics, and so were the German C-3 fuel, which means increased fouling especially of the spark plugs etc. MW had both good and neg effects for maintaince. The good one : it helped to keep the engine internals clean from the leftovers of burning such highly blended fuels, thus reducing the problems associtated with these fuels. The neg one was corrosion - though not that much of a problem, as 99% of these engines were aluminium alloy, but the engines needed to be checked for signs of corrosion more often - every 50 hours as Jane`s says so. But it`s not acid or something that it would eat the engine.. the greatest killer of all these engines was the extreme loads of the parts under their maximum outputs. As for the 'low overhaul time' problem, I doubt German mechanics would change the powerplants any more often than their Allied counterparts of +25lbs etc. Spits. First, statistically, the plane was already written off by the time overhaul was neccesary (ie. loss rate vs. sorties required to reach overhaul time). Second, engine swap was very quick on those German birds, being 30mins or so on the 109, not sure how much it did take on the 190, probably a bit more, given the size and dimensions. Thirdly, by the time those birds with MW engine eating acid ;) arrived, there were so many replacement a/c produced, that they didn`t even bother repairing damaged fighters. 'You broke it? That`s tough, go grab another one.' Literally.
As for the Merlin/30min at WEP/no damage, I am highly sceptical about that. All these prescribed periods are with a safety margin of course, but nothing like 6 times than allowed. And, take note that nothing prevented you from using MW50 as long as you wanted, as long as there was fuel in the tank to burn. Though I bet funny noises would come from the engine after a while. Not something you ask for in the winter, over the Ardennes with no place to land on..
-
QUOTE]The MW would however gradually eat the engine with the side effect of power loss unless it would be overhauled frequently. That often was a hard task for the German engineers in the heat of war.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely right MW30/50 was corrosive and reduced engine life. C3 boost on the other hand was just C3 fuel injected into the supercharger to cool the heads. It had no corrosive effects.
You're correct also on the Spitfire WEP. The test A/C used ran on WEP for an hour and ten minutes straight. Wonder why they returned a recommendation for no more than 5 minutes on WEP operationally.
Basically the pilot's manual lists several times for using boost on the FW-190A8. I have to paraphrase since the manuals are still with my engineer friend.
Basically it goes like this:
Up to 40 minutes in high-speed flight.
10 minutes in a climb or low speed maneuvering
2 minutes or less when on the ground. (Pre-take off checks)
Watch your temperature gauge and don't exceed xxx temperature.
Watch your fuel consumption.
On this website is an allied document explaining C3 boost and it's operation. Notice the time limits given from the captured document.
http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190.htm
Crumpp
-
No anger on my part Crumpp, just total frustration in your lack of providing specifics. All we see from you is generalized 'statements and links'.
It would seem :rolleyes:, with all the documents you claim to have, that you don't have #284 for the A-8. Read it, and you will have your answer.:)
Crumpp, that nasty flick/stall ALWAYS had the a/c departing to port.
................
Wotan, generally agree with you on the time limit. The Germans had trouble gradually increasing the time limit to 10 minutes.
..........
LOL, knew Barbi would show up eventually.:)
As usual, he jumps straight in without reading ALL the posts, it would seem. Being sometimes lazy, I wrote MW, when I should have said 'injection'.:rolleyes: :) Glad you concur that MW and C3 injection had a simular effect. (see a later post than what you quoted)
Being a wee bit melodramatic are we Barbi? 5ms (5 milli seconds).
....is actually in some odd way, a disadvantage of the BMW 801? What cretinic logic is that ?
Aaagh??? I said that. Thanks for the clarification.:)
Now lets see this doc that says 15 minutes was possible.
............
Thanks Angus, saves me some typing.;) The Luft luvers have a hard time distiquishing between theoretical and actual, at times.
Merlins in the Unlimited racers are putting out +3000hp and doing that for much longer than 5 minutes. Granted they are well maintained, but still over a 50% increase from the WW2 hp numbers. And some won't believe that a WW2 Merlin could run for 30 min. on WEP.
-
C3 boost on the other hand was just C3 fuel injected into the supercharger to cool the heads.
Only indirectly, as the injection kept the temperature of the incoming fuel/air mixture down, first.
There you go again giving a link with multiple files/links. Can't you refer to a specific file/link?:rolleyes:
-
There are only a few documents on the page Milo.
Try the one labeled "FW190 Fuel Injection". It's the first one.
Crumpp
-
From Isengrim on the effects of high octane fuel :
" increased fouling especially of the spark plugs etc. "
Spark plugs are easy. Piston corrosion not to mention bearing corrosion is BAD
-
Thanks Angus, saves me some typing. The Luft luvers have a hard time distiquishing between theoretical and actual, at times.
Not at all Milo. However I do have a problem with it when such logic is used for only ONE side. As is the case of the Spit diving speed.
1. There is NO high speed trial data on the FW-190. Heinrich Beauvais, Test pilot for Focke Wulf says they never conducted official trials. Only dive test's conducted were with 300 liter external tanks. At 650 kph the tank would be ripped off. It's mach number is from one recorded dive to mach .80 and the A/C flew with "appreciably higher than normal" but still acceptable control forces AND recovered without damage to the plane. No buffeting, no control reversals, the plane behaved beautifully. Obviously NOT the FW 190's limiting Mach number.
2. Every test of the FW190 against a Merlin Spitfire has the 190 out diving the Spit. Fact and no way to get around it.
So what is the STANDARD? Are we going to go with what is in the book when it is convienant for Spitfires but not make logical assumptions for anything else? You want everyone to make the assumption Spitfire WEP can go for longer than 5 minutes? That is not what the RAF says! The boost for the 190 is in black and white.
Crumpp
-
Right Crumpp, an Allied document written during war.:rolleyes: Now where is a German doc?
:D:D Thanks for the good laughs this AM Crumpp.
Did you not say you would post the Fw A's dive speed limits??? Again just general statements from you - get more specific > ie. what height? Was that 650kph at 1km or 10km or ???km ?
Anyways, always enjoy when the one kettle calls another kettle black.
.......
Angus, Issy has been told many times about fouling spark plugs - why they fouled and how they were cleaned (in flight). It was really no big deal, though he tries continually to make it a major defect/problem.
-
Man you are DENSE Milo. How many times do I have to say my translations are being checked??
Obviously you have never translated a technical document. It's not something you just look at and read if your not a native. It's very easy to miss the nuisances of the language and misinterpret things especially German as they tend to link old words to describe new things which literally translated could have a completely different meaning. I am fortunate to have a native German speaker who is both a pilot and an engineer to check my translations. We met for Lunch yesterday but during the course of the conversation other questions came up so he is checking those out. I'll see him for lunch today.
Additionally it's complicated by the fact I have over 1200 pages of Luftwaffe documents. You can order them yourself from:
http://www.luftfahrt-archiv-hafner.de/
Crumpp
-
19.........Comparitive dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Me.109 can leave the Spitfire without any difficulty.
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/109gtac.html
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Angus
From Isengrim on the effects of high octane fuel :
" increased fouling especially of the spark plugs etc. "
Spark plugs are easy. Piston corrosion not to mention bearing corrosion is BAD
Hmm, look at this way: replace spark plugs every 6-7 hours (=avarage Mustang sortie, in others words, after every sortie) because of fouling, or check for signs of corrosion after every 50 hours, roughly twice the life expancy of an avarage fighter on the front.?
And bearing can`t be corroded by MW injection, think a little bit. MW is injected into the supercharger eye/cumbustion chambers. And it keeps them cool and clean like a baby`s butt. ;)
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Man you are DENSE Milo. How many times do I have to say my translations are being checked??
Tut, tut Crumpp. Such anger.
"I will check to see if it has the dive restrictions listed.
You need a translation for dive speeds? :rolleyes:
Additionally it's complicated by the fact I have over 1200 pages of Luftwaffe documents.
Again, whoopy do.
Stop with the posting of generalizations until you finally get your translations. Until then, you are only posting 'hot air'. NADA proof.
Now about being DENSE. The comment was made because both a/c started the dive at the same speed.:rolleyes: When did LW fighters acquire futuristic 'jump' technoligy?
-
Angus wtf are talking about?
Mw50 = water and methanol
It was injected into the eye of the SC and evaporated cooling the charge.
C3 was injected the same way.
Corrode the cylinders and bearings...lol wtf...
Heres a clue US planes did the same with adi....
-
This is not the first time Angus has mixed up MW-50 and GM-1.
-
Again Milo,
You can check here and see anytime. The docs are already posted. The pilots manual/tech manual simply back up and clarify the data presented.
http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190.htm
Angus, bro, MW30/50 and EW were corrosive but not detrimental to the engine. Luftwaffe engines did have to be replaced more frequently. IMO this has more to do with the fact they were high compression which means more wear and tear.
It is very easy to get LW boost systems confused.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Hmm, look at this way: replace spark plugs every 6-7 hours (=avarage Mustang sortie, in others words, after every sortie) because of fouling, or check for signs of corrosion after every 50 hours, roughly twice the life expancy of an avarage fighter on the front.?
As I said Angus, Issy tries to put any spin he can on spark plug fouling.:)
A 6-7 hr flight, most of the time over enemy territory. Prudence would dictate that the plugs would be changed to ensure that the a/c would return safely. Do race cars change their plugs after practice? Sure they do. Logical practice it is.
German a/c, over 'friendly' territory with a flight time of 1-2 hrs can land if the engine goes 'sour'.
re 109 engine change times
Yes! The 605 installation in the 109 is very good for motor changes! However, 20mins would be an exceptional time . You could only do this with a fully-cowlled and prepared engine, all ready like an F1 pitstop! A normal engine-change with a motor in a crate and equipment available would take 3 men around 8hrs, IMO.
The complete motor can be easily removed. However, it takes alot of time to dress the replacement motor with all the ancillarys from the old motor. So, if you had spare motors and cowlings and ancillarys etc, you could do a quick-change. (my bold)
This, by schwarze man, who has no agenda, unlike a couple of other here, is from a post at http://pub157.ezboard.com/bluftwaffeexperten71774
As usual, Issy give the exception, not the typical/normal, in his attempts to show how uber Germany was.
Recommend you visit there for un-biased facts/data regarding German a/c.
-
Crumpp, :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: .
-
MW50 corrosive? How can it be?
-
Originally posted by GODO
MW50 corrosive? How can it be?
if you drink it perhaps ?
(dunno for sure)
-
Luftwaffe Schnapps Boost system.
-
2. Every test of the FW190 against a Merlin Spitfire has the 190 out diving the Spit. Fact and no way to get around it.
From Lucky 13 by Hugh Godefroy Godefroy was the Spit pilot in the RAF trials against Arnim Faber's 190 ("Jamie" is Jamie Rankin, flying the 190)
If Jamie followed the favourite German technique of flicking over on his back and going straight down, he would pull away from me in the first two or three thousand feet. After that the Spitfire IXB could gradually catch him. Jamie never bothered trying to turn inside me in my Spitfire. Both of us knew that it wasn't possible. That was one advantage that all British fighters enjoyed. At the end of the trials, when I added up the pluses and the minuses, I came to the conclusion that I would still prefer a Spitfire IXB.
-
Maybe AH2`s dive model is based on the pilot story of Hugh and Jamie? ;) Seriously, it`s not really a controlled test.
Spit IXB, could that be = LF / Merlin 66 ?
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Seriously, it`s not really a controlled test.
So we all should disregard all those British comparison trials then. It was during these same trials that Nashwan's pilot quote came from. Was not a dive test one of the tests done?
-
The FW 190 is faster than the Spitfire IX in a dive, particularly during the initial stage. This superiority is not as marked as with the Spitfire VB.
http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/Spitfire9v190.htm
This is Spit XIV which COULD outdive the 190 but only "slightly".
‘In combat the Spitfire XIV should use its remarkable maximum climb and turning circle against any enemy aircraft. In the attack it can afford to mix it but should be aware of the quick roll and dive. If this manoeuvre is used by an enemy Fw190 and the Spitfire XIV follows, it will probably not be able to close the range until the Fw190 has pulled out of the dive’.
http://www.romanbritain.freeserve.co.uk/spitdig.htm
Again the Spit XIV vs FW190A
Dive
40. After the initial part of the dive, during which the FW 190 gains slightly, the Mk XIV has a slight advantage.
And for the Spit XIV vs Spit IX
Dive
17. The Spitfire XIV will pull away from the Spitfire IX in a dive.
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14afdu.html
Obviously therefore, steps had to be taken immediately to counter this new and very dangerous threat. One of the first steps was to clip the wings of the Spitfire V's, thus improving their low-altitude capability enough to be able to rival the Fw-190. This was not however, an adequate upgrade, and it was clear that a new model would be required. This came in the form of the Spitfire Mk IX. The Spitfire IX appeared with all three types of wing; the extended, standard and clipped wing, and also introduced a new armament configuration; a combination of two 20mm Hispano cannon and two .50-inch Browning machine guns. The Mk IX did not solve the problem of the Fw-190, but when combined with new Hawker Typhoon aircraft, did help the situation. The Mk IX was fitted with a higher-powered version of the Merlin, the Merlin 61, rated at 1,660hp. 5,665 Spitfire Mk IX's were produced. The Mk X was powered by a 1,650hp Merlin 77 engine, and the Mk XI was powered by either a 1,760hp Merlin 63, or a Merlin 70 rated at 1,665hp.
http://www.wwiitech.net/main/britain/aircraft/spitfire/
The Spitfire could outdive the FW-190 if it had Mk XIV at the end of it's name. The SPIT XIV could dominate the FW-190A but never a merlin powered version.
Crumpp
-
Just finished meeting with my buddy who is checking my translations. Got my manuals back too.
Here is the deal on FW-190 "boost" and some stuff I learned about the FW.
The BMW 801D-2 in the FW-190A8 was rated for 1.65ata at 2700U/min for 10 minutes WITHOUT any boost.
It was rated for 1.65ata for 40 minutes with C3. Makes sense because the C3 acted to cool the heads and not really increase manifold pressure.
C3 is NOT dependant on the 115 liter tank.
The 190 had 3 flap settings. Take off, landing, and retracted. Take off (10 degrees + or - 3 degrees) flaps could be deployed at 500 kph IAS. Equal to USAAF combat flaps.
Weight for the 190A8 basic fighter version without 115 liter tank, winterizing kit (25 kg), and extra radio's/direction finding equipment of the jagerfuhrer is 3,927 kg. This still retains 4 MG 151's and only has the 400 rd MG 131 hoppers.
My buddy advised me not to post the pages as the stuff is copyrighted. So I emailed Pyro and will sending it to him directly.
Crumpp
-
Dive speed table from the handbook:
It is the same table for all the FW's from the A-1 to the A-9.
0-2 km - 850 kph
3 km - 800 kph
5 km - 700 kph
7 km - 600 kph
9 km - 500 kph
Below 5 KM ASL the FW-190 was faster in a dive up to a max of around 50 mph. At 29,527 feet the Spitfire Mk IX had a 30 mph speed advantage once it overcame the FW's initial dive accelleration.
Crumpp
-
...basically the whole debate has been rendered null and void by the bullsht posturing here.
Did anyone here fly any of the birds in question?
Have any air or military museums tried to do modern day comparisons?
Frankly I don't know about the aircraft in question but I can tell rank amatuers pissing into the wind when I read them. Beggaring thy neighbours arguments through belittlement and assinine, smart bellybutton comments essentially proves one thing - the inadequacy of your arguments.
So someone has an undying devotion to the 190, 109 or the spit?
Let them have it. Basically its a vessle for the truely decisive weapon in the air. The pilot. The combination of reflexes, thinking, conditions etc. etc. The aircraft performance was a factor - doubtless, but you knew what you were flying and you used your advantages as best you could.
the planes in AH are at best aproximations, if a spit dives faster than a 190 in the game, and you're in a 190, guess what? DON'T DIVE! - You're the pilot, besides the scoring doesn't give a damn if historically the spit fire could or could not out accelerate you in a dive. The kill is already credited to the other guy if that's all you can answer with. And it goes the other way too. The modelling will never be right ... all you can answer with is your stick.
OH and stop ruining the forum with personal attacks and rancorous dismissals. It doesn't support your argument.
[edited for spelling]
-
Addog,
If you don't have realistic modeling with in the limits of the computer it is not a sim. Some guys are jerks, some guys like Angus and Guppy35 just have a passion for the history and details.
Crumpp
-
BTW,
Downside to C3 Injection. It cooled the engine while using 1.65 ata but at the expense of fuel consumption.
70 liters/5 min was the rate! So if you loaded up an FW-190A8 with a 300 liter fuel drop tank and the 115 liter auxilery tank you only had enough fuel for 40 minutes of flight time,
So the Luftwaffe had a good reason for mounting the 115 aux tank in C3 boost equipped 190's.
Crumpp
-
Back from a 1000mi mcycle ride.:)
Nice to see finally some real data (ie. details) instead of speculation you where posting.
Crumpp, how can you say the Spit was outdived by the Fw. You own data, and you, say this is not so, at all altitudes.
Injection only cooled the 'heads' indirectly, since the injection kept the f/a mixture temperature down.
I still disagree on the basic weight of the A-8. Fw in #284 gives 4400kg. Removing 'stuff' will naturally bring the weight down but this then is not the 'basic' a/c, but a 'modded' a/c. You also contradict yourself when you say there is a good reason for mounting the aux tank but then give a weight when it is not mounted.
-
Move out Milo,
I think Barbi is posting in another thread.
Crumpp
-
Crumpp take addog's advice.
Frankly I don't know about the aircraft in question but I can tell rank amatuers pissing into the wind when I read them. Beggaring thy neighbours arguments through belittlement and assinine, smart bellybutton comments essentially proves one thing - the inadequacy of your arguments.
I compliment you on supplying 'real' data and ask for some claification, and I get some smarty reply.:rolleyes: We know who addog was refering to now.
-
I compliment you on supplying 'real' data and ask for some claification, and I get some smarty reply. We know who addog was refering to now.
I supplied "real" data the whole thread.
Crumpp, how can you say the Spit was outdived by the Fw. You own data, and you, say this is not so, at all altitudes.
Niether did the spit outdive the 109 OR the 190 at all altitudes. The spits diving "advantage" was not very noticable until it overcame the FW's accelleration advantage. This is evident from your pilot "story". All in All given the FW's large advantage I would rather be in it in a dive.
Don't preach about providing data. Your one of the biggest jerk's on the BB for twisting facts. In fact the "data" you posted was over 100kph off at all altitudes. Your constant attacks on everyone who present's a differing opinion or data are both tiresome and betry your inadequecies.
Have a nice life. I could care less about you and will no longer respond to your post's. You and Barbi need to start your own forum where you can trade insults.
Crumpp
-
I hate to get involved, but one thing I am curious about is how much of a difference there really was.
When this is said "19.........Comparitive dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Me.109 can leave the Spitfire without any difficulty. " and Barbi reads it he'll get something completely different than when MiloMorai reads it. The problem is that it is subjective. It doesn't give times, altitudes or distances.
The 109 could have been 5,000ft in front of the Spit or 500ft and it is likely that the two view it something like that.
I'm curious just how big a difference is being talked about here. The differences in F4UDOA's thread about the A6M5, P-51, P-38 and P-47 were not very pronounced when starting from the same speed. The steeper dives being discussed here would show a greater rate of separation, but I doubt the Bf109 or Fw190 are going to be going 100mph faster than the Spit after 2 seconds.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
I supplied "real" data the whole thread.
??? What ever you say. You might think you did.
Niether did the spit outdive the 109 OR the 190 at all altitudes. The spits diving "advantage" was not very noticable until it overcame the FW's accelleration advantage. This is evident from your pilot "story". All in All given the FW's large advantage I would rather be in it in a dive.
Never it said it did but the Luftluvers said the Spit was always outdived, which is not true, only at specific heights. Gross over generalizing on the Luftluvers part
Don't preach about providing data. Your one of the biggest jerk's on the BB for twisting facts. In fact the "data" you posted was over 100kph off at all altitudes. Your constant attacks on everyone who present's a differing opinion or data are both tiresome and betry your inadequecies.
Was not my data but Kurt Tank's data and said so.:) Up to that point you had supplied NADA. Accept that you are not perfect Crumpp, even though you think you are. You also posted wrong (in your first post even) and deliberate misleading info. Since when is asking for proof or posting alternate data an attack?
Have a nice life. I could care less about you and will no longer respond to your post's. You and Barbi need to start your own forum where you can trade insults.
Still being adversarial when others point out you errors.
.........................
Karnak, these general statements don't cut it with me. The specifics such as the case of the claimed dive speed of 750kph for the 109, are missing. It is finally nice to see Issy post that dive speed chart which shows, and I and others pointed out before, could only be reached at a low altitude. Issy and Crumpp are very myoptic when it suits them. Then they get all upset when someone questions them on their info.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
BTW,
Downside to C3 Injection. It cooled the engine while using 1.65 ata but at the expense of fuel consumption.
70 liters/5 min was the rate! So if you loaded up an FW-190A8 with a 300 liter fuel drop tank and the 115 liter auxilery tank you only had enough fuel for 40 minutes of flight time,
So the Luftwaffe had a good reason for mounting the 115 aux tank in C3 boost equipped 190's.
Crumpp
I suppose the 70 lit/5min (=840lit/h) does refer to the whole fuel consumption of the engine, ie. the amount of C-3 injection into the s/c intake, and the amount being injected into the combustion chamber. I am quite certain former also become a burning fuel after serving the useful purpose of a charge cooler. BTW, 840lit/hour doesn`t seem to me especially high for such a bigbore, high output engine as the 801.
BTW, Crumpp, do you have power output data for 1.58 (low gear) and 1.65ata (high gear) ? From the BMW 801D graphs it`s clear the output was 1800 PS at 1.42ata at SL, but I am looking for something definietive in this subject. I wonder if you have seen soemthing that shows the often mentions 2100 PS special emergency power output of the 801D as valid one. At 1.58ata, I would rather think of something like 2000 PS..
Karnak,
When this is said "19.........Comparitive dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Me.109 can leave the Spitfire without any difficulty. " and Barbi reads it he'll get something completely different than when MiloMorai reads it. The problem is that it is subjective. It doesn't give times, altitudes or distances.
The 109 could have been 5,000ft in front of the Spit or 500ft and it is likely that the two view it something like that.
I'm curious just how big a difference is being talked about here. The differences in F4UDOA's thread about the A6M5, P-51, P-38 and P-47 were not very pronounced when starting from the same speed. The steeper dives being discussed here would show a greater rate of separation, but I doubt the Bf109 or Fw190 are going to be going 100mph faster than the Spit after 2 seconds.
[/b]
I don`t think there was a bug difference, especially in view what F4UDOA posted. Probably the gain was just a few hundred meters. But that was enough.
Diving away was mostly employed an escape manouver, if someone was close behind on your tail, ready to fire. Personally I use it primarly to get out of the worst situation, presenting an easy target when. Somehow I have to increase the range, and get out of his guns envelope quickly before anything else. If I can do that by diving, and quickly, then my aircraft is already superior enough in dives to that be a preferred tactic.
So I guess when speaking about superior diving ability, we should rather think about an advantage being utilized in combat to quickly gain speed/get out of hot tactical situations, rather than some silly dive race lasting 6000m altitude and the winner being the one who reaches .85 Mach first. F4DOA`s post was most enlightening in this respect.
-
I'm curious just how big a difference is being talked about here. The differences in F4UDOA's thread about the A6M5, P-51, P-38 and P-47 were not very pronounced when starting from the same speed. The steeper dives being discussed here would show a greater rate of separation, but I doubt the Bf109 or Fw190 are going to be going 100mph faster than the Spit after 2 seconds.
Don't know. I added it up once. The 109 had only a slight advantage of about 30mph IAS give or take on the deck. You can look and figure it out. The 190 had around a 70 mph advantage on the deck.
Big factor is dive accelleration. I am most familiar with the 190 due to all the research I have done lately since Pyro asked me to determine the best climb speed. It could outdive the P47 in the first 3000 feet and the Spitfire was intially left behind at altitudes that it's max dive speed was greater than the 190's.
Pips Priller describes using alternating short dives and zoom climbs in his 190A8 to break off combat with P51D's in 1944.
What is most important is the conclusions of F4UDOA's posted report. The advantages when the A/C were at low speed and co-alt seemed extremely small. If you read the report, even with a 2000 foot altitude advantage starting right on the 6 on any of the USAAF fighters, the zeke ended up turning in defensive circles. Those "small" advantages seem to add up to big ones in combat.
BTW, Crumpp, do you have power output data for 1.58 (low gear) and 1.65ata (high gear) ? From the BMW 801D graphs it`s clear the output was 1800 PS at 1.42ata at SL, but I am looking for something definietive in this subject. I wonder if you have seen soemthing that shows the often mentions 2100 PS special emergency power output of the 801D as valid one. At 1.58ata, I would rather think of something like 2000 PS..
I recieved in the mail today from the Luft-archive the rest of the 190A series handbooks and the technical manual for the BMW 801MA, ML,C, and D. Haven't had the chance to dig through it yet.
The 70L/5min is the total fuel consumption. The handbook for the A8 read to use it "as long as neccessary". The Technical manual says 40 minutes. The 115 liter aux tank was NOT neccessary to use C3, however, it gave you about 7 1/2 minutes of fuel to burn. Shut down the "C3 boost" and you could run the engine for 10 minutes at 1.65ata without any additional cooling. This meant 17 minutes of extra power. The basic fighter did not included the aux tank. It was generally removed as it added 120kg of weight and is not found on the fighter version weight chart along with the ETC 501 rack.
I think 1870hp is the top output of the BMW801D2. That is achieved at 1.65ata. I will check it out though. You have to remember the BMW801 motor was hundreds of horsepower more powerful than the best inline motors when it first appeared. Inline motors did not begin to develop 1800 hp until late in the war. The Griffon 65 and DB605 were both only 2000hp.
Crumpp
-
Actually,
Having thumbed through the BMW manual I can tell you some pretty neat things about the motor. Not much of it is relevant to AH though.
However Barbi, you are correct in that the BMW801D2 did develop 1870hp at 1.42ata at 2700U/min sea level and generated a maximum of 120Kg of exhaust thrust. At 1.32ata at 2400U/min the BMW 801D2 was a shy under 1600hp.
I don't know what the Hp rating is at 1.62ata or 1.58ata.
I have a USAAF chart on the BMW 801D2 and would be glad to email it. Think I robbed it from the LEMB.
The Merlin 66 developed around 1650 hp without boost. With 150 octane gas and (+25lbs) boost it was around 2000hp for 5 minutes.
http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/meandgr.htm
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/merlin66hpchart.jpg
However not everyone is agreement on the hp rating of the Merlin 66. This is probably due to upgrades just like the 801D.
Guppy35, you have any info on what our Spitfire IX should be developing without boost?
http://www.spitfires.flyer.co.uk/marks.html
Crumpp