Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Crumpp on July 29, 2004, 09:38:58 AM
-
Any recommendations on some good reference material on the Spitfire?
It seems just as confusing as the LW rides when trying to sort out data.
Just for the MkIX I have encountered a huge variation in weights, Engines, and peformances.
Some list 4306 kg's while others say in the vicinity of 2800kg's!!
Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Crumpp
-
Roughly 2600 kg would be empty weight, 4306 kg would be about right for max takeoff weight, normal takeoff weight (no external stores) would be around 3350 - 3400 kg
For specifications and details on each model you could try Spitfire: The History by Morgan and Shacklady. It has very little on operations etc though.
-
I have the big encyclopedia on them. But its not alot less confusing when you have that.
-
The best technical book on the Spit is, "Spitfire: The History"
http://www.historyofmilitary.com/Spitfire_The_History_0946219486.html
-
Roughly 2600 kg would be empty weight, 4306 kg would be about right for max takeoff weight, normal takeoff weight (no external stores) would be around 3350 - 3400 kg
That is pretty amazing that it could carry 2000lbs of external stores. That's in the same ballpark as the FW-190. Wonder why it never was used as a principal ground attack fighter?
So it was lighter and had just as much power as the 190A3?
Anybody know the wing aspect ratio of the Spit IX, offhand?
Thanks for recommendations. I gonna get it and check it out.
Crumpp
-
I don't think it could carry 2000 lbs external stores. Maximum would probably be 2 250 lbs bombs, and 1 90 gallon drop tank. That's about 650 lbs of fuel plus whatever the tank weighs. Even with the wing bombs, it's still not getting near 2000 lbs.
The 170 gallon drop tank would contain just over 1200 lbs of fuel, plus whatever the tank weighs, but I doubt you could carry wing ordinance with it, though the manual does say when dive bombing the 90 (or 170 gallon) tank must be dropped before begining the dive.
Some of the late production aircraft were fitted with rear fuselage tanks, and it would probably be easier to hit the weight limitation.
-
No books, but I found this interesting site of Spit IX versus Me-109G flight trials.
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9v109g.html
-
Spitfire-The History by EB Morgan and Edward Shacklady.
Probably the best overall resource but be careful with the images as someone did an awful job in misidentifying many of them.
Alfred Price has done numerous works on the Spitfire
Spitfire at War
Spitfire at War 2
Spitfire-The Documentary History
The Spitfire Story
Cheif Test Pilot Jeffrey Quill did a good book on it called Spitfire-a test pilot's story
Probably the my favorite work on the Spit, although out of print, is by Bruce Robertson-Spitfire-The Story of a Famous Fighter.
The list is endless but those would all be good starters.
Dan/Slack
-
Thanks for the suggested reading. Got a copy on order.
Gonna kind of derail my thread here but some things I don't understand cropped up when I started taking a hard look at the RAF's trials against an FW-190.
Main question is HOW DID THE FW HAVE ANY ADVANTAGES AT ALL?
Compare weight and Horsepower between the two.
FW-190A3 - 3978Kg
Horsepower - 1580 HP @ 2700 rpm/1.42 ata at 9186.35 ft ASL
Spitfire Mk IX (Merlin 61) - 3392.87 kg
Horsepower - 1565Hp @ 3000rpm at 11250 ft ASL
At this altitude range the Spitfire is faster in level speed. The advantage is slight though. Ranging from a maximum of 8 mph disappearing to nothing by 14000 ft ASL.
What is amazing is the FW was 586kg (1291 lbs) heavier than the spitfire and the Horsepower was so equal.
Only the speed runs where done at 1.42ata which the 190A3 was rated for only three minutes. The majority of the test was done at 1.32ata @2400U/min. Much lower Output.
So why isn't the Spitfire just destroying the FW-190 performance wise??
Crumpp
-
I imagine those big broad wings will have something to do with it.
-
lift induced drag would be the key.
The performance turns around in banking, climbing etc. But for sheer speed those wings are a tad to big,with an uneccecarily wide chord.
Note that the P51 is faster than the 190 ;)
-
Your are correct. In fact I think the P51B is undermodeled in AH. It had a huge speed advantage over the 190 as was IMO the A series most dangerous opponent until the Tempest/Spitfire Mk XIV came into service.
Crumpp
-
Agreed.
A 190 with a P51 on its 6 could not do to much about it. The lightest 190's could try turning though, but that was usually a dicey deal.
-
Yes it was. The turn radius was very close with the P51 having a "slight" advantage.
Crumpp
-
Yep,
The wing aspect ratio of the 190 is better.
Spitfire - 5.61
FW-190A3 - 6.01
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/geom.html
It also explains why the 190 had a much better zoom climb.
Crumpp
-
The Spitty has a rather unfavourable aspect ratio, - a sacrificial cost of keeping the wing elliptical.
A better aspect ratio will result in relatively less induced drag, while the Ellipse also reduces it somewhat (5-10%)
The result is an aerobatics wing rather than a pure speed wing.
-
Good info, thanks Angus!
Crumpp
-
You're welcome :)
There is one aerobatics aircraft with an elliptical wing, just can't remember the name at the moment. I can try to dig something more up about it if you like.
Anyway, it is told to be absolutely delightful, and is able to go through a series of maneuvers with very little power without loosing altitude.
Although the aspect ratio of an ellipse is rather unfavourable, the ellipse makes up for it in two ways.
1. The shape gives less drag than expected for a wing in any other shape with the same aspect ratio. (tapered, stubby), the difference being in the range of 5 - 10 %
2. A side effect of an ellipse is the wide chord. It will give some pluses at extreme angles. Hence the upwards corkscrew escape maneuver of Spitties.
-
It also exlains why Spit pilots didn't fight in the vertical against 190's.
That elipitical wing was nice. For sustained turns and slow speed climbs it was unbeatable.
At high speed turns and zoom climbs the aspect ratio hurts it.
Crumpp
-
Si si, it creates lift at all possible angles, also when not needed. Lift creates drag in the process.....
-
Angus,
What do you make of this:
Weight gain and wingloading
Spitfire Mk I - 5,935lbs Take off wt
WL-24lbs/sq. ft
Spitfire mkVb - 6525lbs Take off wt (2 x 20mm, 4 x .303)
WL - 28lbs/sq. ft
Spitfire Mk IX - 7,480lbs Take off wt
WL - 30.9lbs/sq. ft
Spitfire Mk XIV - 8,488lbs Take off wt
WL - 35lbs/sq. ft
Total Weight Gain = 2,553lbs
Wingloading increase = 11lbs/sq. ft
This is what I thought was interesting too:
Turning Circle
18. The turning circles of both aircraft are identical. The Spitfire XIV appears to turn slightly better to port than it does to starbord. The warning of an approaching high speed stall is less pronounced in the case of the Spitfire Mk XIV.
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14afdu.html
Hp Increase can be checked with the HP charts on the same website. Spit Mk XIV gains roughly 400 hp over the Mk IX.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weight gain and Wingloading (all varients have full wing armament)
190A3 - 8770lbs Take off wt
WL - 43lbs/sq. ft
FW190A5 - 9052lbs Take off wt
WL - 44lbs/sq. ft
FW-190A8 - 9418 lbs Take off wt
WL - 46lbs/sq. ft
Total Weight gain - 648lbs
WL Increase - 3 lbs/sq. ft
Usable Hp Increase - 350hp to 450hp depending on the source.
Why is the FW-190A8 considered such a Pig?
Why is the FW-190 considered to have gained so much weight?
Crumpp
-
If you used the correct TO weight for the 190A-8 your number would be different.
Technical description No. 284 (for the A-8)
Weight distribution (in kg)
Fuselage - 345.2
Undercarraige - 258.3
Control surfaces - 120.8
Flight controls - 32.3
Wing assembly - 475.0
Powerplant - 1661.3
Standard equipment - 248.1
Permament accessories - 27.4
Additional accessories - 319.3
Paint - 2.0
Empty weight - 3489.7 > 3490
Pilot, parachute, flying gear - 100
Normal fuel - 410
Aux. fuel tank(115l) - 90
Lubricants - 50
Ammo(MG131 - 2x75) - 77
Ammo(MG151 - 2x250) - 110
Ammo(MG151 - 2x140) - 64
Useful load - 901.0
Flying weight - 4391.0 > 4400kg (9682.2 > 9702.0lb)
Your TO weight for the A-3, a tad high?
Empty weight - 2833kg
Fuel - 400kg
Oil - 50kg
Crew - 80kg
Load - 532kg
TO weight - 3895kg (8587lb)
A weight increase of 1115lb from A-3 to A-8.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Weight gain and Wingloading (all varients have full wing armament)
190A3 - 8770lbs Take off wt
WL - 43lbs/sq. ft
8770/197 = 44.5
FW190A5 - 9052lbs Take off wt
WL - 44lbs/sq. ft
9052/197 = 45.8
FW-190A8 - 9418 lbs Take off wt
WL - 46lbs/sq. ft
9418/187 = 47.8
18.3^2m = 196.986^2ft
-
I am using the FULL take off weight Milo. The weight for the full wing armament FIGHTER version. Pyro has a copy of the weight breakdowns. They come right out of the pilots manual and are broken down by varient type.
You can buy a copy from:
http://www.luftfahrt-archiv-hafner.de/
Crumpp
-
Your weights are right on EXCEPT for your empty wieght Milo.
It corresponds closely with the listed empty weight of a 190A8 Jabo-einsatz with 4 MG151's @ 3898kg empty weight.
The weight of the FW-190A3 is the version the RAF tested with outboard MgFF's. The wieght of the other fighter version IS lighter but does not include the outboard cannons.
It was tested against a Spitfire Mk IX with Merlin 61(+15) boost.
Crumpp
-
nc
-
Nope,
Just saying it is not the fighter version as the LUFTWAFFE manual says.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
I am using the FULL take off weight Milo. The weight for the full wing armament FIGHTER version. Pyro has a copy of the weight breakdowns. They come right out of the pilots manual and are broken down by varient type.
You can buy a copy from:
http://www.luftfahrt-archiv-hafner.de/
Crumpp
Well you can go and tell FOCKE-WULF their doc Technical description 284 for the A-8, dated 9.8.44, is a load of dung.
Notice that this is for the FULL fighter version as the weights for the 4 20mm cannon and MG131s are given.
-
post x2 :mad:
-
So my question still stands:
Why is the 190A8 considered to be such a pig? Angus, do you have any insight into this?
1. The FW-190 gained much less weight over it's life span than the Spitfire AND gained the equivilent Horsepower.
2. The wingloading increased only 3 lbs over it's lifespan.
Crumpp
-
Well you can go and tell FOCKE-WULF their doc Technical description 284 for the A-8, dated 9.8.44, is a load of dung.
Your question is answered Milo. The weight on your doc is a jabo-einsatz not a jagd-einsatz.
So the thread doesn't get derailed.
Crumpp
-
The piggyness of teh 190 boggles my mind. The RAF pilots almost all refer to it as a MUCH more dangerous opponent than the 109.
None the less, old 109 pilots were not so fascinated about it.
My assumption on this.
On one hand:
1. 109 masters liked their ride more than this "new" thing. The 190 was a new philosophy.
It's vice would be a very vicious stall, and a poorer turn/climb/stallfighting ability. So, when the going went tough, it really did.
In comparison with the 109, the wingloading was high, I presume.
On the other hand:
2. The 190 had simple controls and a phenomenal roll rate. An average pilot could quickly tear holes in the sky.
The 190 was also fast (well, equal to the 109 at least) and heavily armed.
I have read something about some 190's being able to turn quite nicely, - however Spit and P51 still outturning it. Makes one wonder what happens if it was weighted down a bit. Was it maybe just a wee to heavy for a much nicer performance???
-
I guess in reality, with each air combats involving multiple, cooperating planes, the worser flight characteristics of the 190 did not mean much, on the other hand, in areas where it mattered it was just as fast, MUCH more heavily armed, more rugged, with better visibility, and a more modern-looking (though IMHO not really better) cocpit than the 109.
I always prefer the 109s though. One area the 190 cannot even nearly compete is the extremely friendly, forgiving nature of the 109. Not even in the most thrilling dogfight, with tons of adrenalin can I do something stupid with the 109, rough handling, hard stick use, snap manouvers - it forgives it all ! It always remains under my control. Plus, as soon as we are one on one, the 109 shows it`s ability to be successfull 'lone wolf'. It has a very wide fight envelope, it`s good at both high up and down low, it`s good at both energy fighting and a manouvering fight, very good in the horizontal and phenomenal in the vertical. This ensures that until you do something, really, really, really stupid in series, you always dictate the fight, engage and disengage at will against most enemies. Not in the 190s, with that, you have to follow strict tactics and strictly use your best manouvers with care. You can never rest in 190 because of that, plus, if you got used to how nicely the 109 behaves in manouvers, you can never forgive the 190 that it behaves in the way she does.
-
http://www.anycities.com/user/j22/j22/aero.htm
Came across this site while surfing. It has some good info on WWII fighter comparision. Let me know what you think.
Angus I agree with everything you have said. The 190's strengths of accelleration, roll rate, dive, and zoom climb made a great energy dogfighter.
It was certainly not a turnfighter, high altitude fighter, or great climber above lower altitudes.
Isegrim,
I sent you some of the weight charts but have not heard back from you. Let me know if you go them.
Crumpp
-
Yep, just checked the mail, I got it nice and warm. :) Thanks a lot! Let me know if you need anything !
-
Here is a site that list's the wingloading for Several German Planes.
http://www.stfrancisprep.org/departments/socialstudies/ww2/weapons/germany/aircraft.html
I'm not surprised they got the weight of the 190's wrong. Even Erich Brown lists in "Wings of the Luftwaffe" the weight of a jabo-einsatz's!!
Anyway, the wingloading of the 190 fighter was not that far off of the 109.
That being said though, the 109 would out-turn the 190. Wingloading is a major player in turn radius but not the only factor. The Aspect ratio of the 109 was a little better. The 109 had a 6.1 and the 190 a 6.01.
I have a copy of a test flight between a 109F4 and a FW-190A2 (BMW801C) conducted at Rechlin by Hauptmann Gollab and Heinrich Beauvais.
The 190's is rated as much more manuverable especially at high speeds. It could reverse faster than the 109 in an Energy fight and it's roll rate was a "definate leap in fighter technology that will have positive effects in combat."
I think I told you about the elevator and nose down trim tendancy, Angus. Those characteristics along IMO would have made the 190 hard to fight.
I think the 190A8 vs Spit IX (+25) should be one of the most equal fights in the game. Pilot skill would decide the outcome.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Your question is answered Milo. The weight on your doc is a jabo-einsatz not a jagd-einsatz.
So the thread doesn't get derailed.
Crumpp
Well you started the derailing with the posting of bogus data.
Jabos had some guns removed, so why you are si insistent it is a jabo when ammo for 6 guns is listed.:eek:
It is you that is stating the jabo weight. The 2 outer cannons and ammo weighed ~140kg, which is the difference to arrive at the jagd weight I posted.
jagd = fighter
jabo = fighter-bomber
The Spit I used a Merlin RMII engine of 990hp. The Spit XIV used a Griffon that put out 2035hp. That is an increase of1045hp.
British weights for A-3 W.Nr. 5313 (Arnin Faber's a/c)
Empty weight with all fixed equipment, except weapons - 6544lb
Pilot and chute - 200lb
Fuel(523l) - 860lb
Oil(45l) - 96lb
2 MG151/20 - 1960lb
Ammo for the above - 200lb
2 MF FF - 126lb
Ammo for the above - 90lb
2 MG17 - 65lb
Ammo for the above - 142lb
Radio equipment - 70 lb
Loaded weight - 8580lb
Weight during trials - 8580lb
Now why is your weight ~200lb heavier?
-
MIlo,
I have a copy of the tactical trials from the National Archives. I don't know where your getting that weight. It corresponds to nothing in the 190 pilots manual or the report I have.
If I trusted you not to post the info on the web I would email you a copy. Since I don't, though. You can buy one at:
http://www.luftfahrt-archiv-hafner.de/
It's only a few euros.
The Spit MkI was not a contemprary of the 190. The Spitfire Mk V and Spitfire Mk IX were it's main rivals. The Spitfire XVI came in at the end and dominated the 190A.
The others Mk's came nowhere near dominating it. Equalling, yes for sure. Each A/C had real advantages over the other that in the end added up to pilot skill deciding the outcome. Least that is what the RAF says. Remember it did tell it's Merlin powered spit pilots to "fly at high speed" in areas the 190 operated in and not to "mix it up" with 190's. Spitfire XIV's on the other hand were told they could "mix it up". You can read the tactical trials yourself.
The 190 gained less weight than the Spit did and the same amount of Horsepower. That is a fact.
-
Your empty weight is around 200 lbs too heavy Milo.
Crumpp
-
200 lbs too LIGHT...excuse me!
That is where the decrepency lies. Your starting with the wrong weight.
Crumpp
-
Then why did you include the weight for the Spit I?
If you want the life time weight increase, you have to look at the lifetime of both a/c, which you were doing in your first post(no A-1 data given though).
Spit(I - XIV) - 2500lb and 1000hp
Fw190A(1-8) - 1375lb and 550hp
Both a/c had practically the same ratio increase of weight and hp.
As for the British report, the 'source' goes on and gives speed and climb data from the tests. Included, as well, is a technical description of the a/c.
-
Both a/c had practically the same ratio increase of weight and hp.
Exactly,
So Why is the perception that the 190 became "overwieghted"?
It does not make sense for the fighter version scientifically. The FW-190A8 would have increased the dive speed(& accelleration) and zoom climb of the 190A series at very little sacrifice to the turn radius or top speed.
Now there are plenty of examples of R7/R8 pilots, Schlachtflieger, Schnellkampfgeschwader, and Stukageschwader pilots complaining their FW-190 was overweight and rightly so. They flew a different airplane from most 190 Jagdfliegers.
BTW I am only showing the weight gain from the 190A1 thru A8 as 422kg for the full wing armament fighters.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
BTW I am only showing the weight gain from the 190A1 thru A8 as 422kg for the full wing armament fighters.
That is because you still insist that the weight is with all guns in the A-8. As noted previously, your weight is the weight with 2 cannons and ammo removed.
Some data, whether you agree with it or not, from Tank's bio book
A-3 - 2.29 kg/hp
A-6 - 2.37
A-8/R2 - 2.51
F-2 - 2.72
G-1 - 2.90
D-9 - 2.41
H-1 - 2.65
C-1 - 3.09
Vb - 2.03
IX LF - 2.06
IX HF - 1.94
XII - 2.51
XIV - 1.93 (my calc > 3850/2000)
109E - 2.41
109F-4 - 2.10
109G-1/R2 - 1.95
P-38F - 2.72
P-51A - 3.33
Typhoon Ib - 2.37
btw, the bio has a data sheet on the 801TR, TS, TU and F engines @ 1.65. (pg 145)
-
Umm, something to do with stalling as well is the span loading.
Power loading, Wing loading, Span loading, Aspect ratio.
Bear in mind also, that most figures go for full takeoff weight. The relativity sometimes changes when the tanks are half. Typically in Aces High ;)
Then there is always the C of G.
As an end thing, Control authority. Was the 190 perhaps too easy on being pulled into the stall?
As a comparison, The Spit V had to be modified, it was too easy pulling it into an aft-moving-C-of-G-Lethal-G-load break. What they did was attaching bob weights on the stick so it would no more being so light at higher G's.
Seems that the Spit was the Champion of staying out of Accelerated/high speed stalls.
-
As an end thing, Control authority. Was the 190 perhaps too easy on being pulled into the stall?
Oh yeah, It was really easy to stall at ANY speed.
The 190 had three stalls from what I have read.
1. High Speed stall - Move the angle of attack too fast at any speed and the plane would practically invert. Left unchecked the FW-190 would then enter a spin.
2. Low speed stall - the FW-190 would dip the right wing. Left unchecked it would enter a spin.
3. Low speed stall with flaps/gear deployed - The FW-190 would barely dip the right wing and gently slip to the right. Left unchecked it self recover and continue flight.
Along with this though came great maneuverability at high speed. Heinrich Beauvias says when they first flew the FW-190; no one had ever seen an A/C's entire wing turn white in a high-speed turn.
I think your assessment of the 190 being easy to fly and hard to fight is right on the money. In fact both Luftwaffe fighters were hard to fight with the 109 being a fraction easier to fight but much harder to fly.
Beauvias talks about the difficultly of retraining 109 pilots who were used to the "concrete stick" of the 109. The stick forces of the 190 were very well harmonized and extremely light, around 6-8 pounds, throughout most of the flight envelope. However, at around 350mph IAS, they suddenly heavied up to around 40 pounds. Lighter than most WWII fighters at high speed but 4 times the amount of force the pilot needed just seconds ago.
Combine the stick force changes with the 190's elevator control and you have a hard plane to fight. Beauvias could do a complete loop in a 190 just 50 kph above a low speed stall. Excellent acrobatic ability. However he tells of one 109 pilot who couldn't pull a loop at ANY speed. Every time the pilot pulled the stick up, the plane would nose up and fall to the side. Use too much stick pressure on the elevator and you would mush the speed quickly. It must have been hard not to over correct when the stick forces changed over at speed.
Additionally the FW-190, Beauvias says, when trimmed for forward flight at normal cruise, would adopted a marked nose down trim in a dive. One RAF test pilot comments, "It must have been scary" when fighting close to the ground. The pilot would have to deal with all these forces changing in a vertical fight as well as dealing with the enemy.
At the same time the Spit pilot had to deal with horrible control harmonization but much a more forgiving flight envelope.
It seems to all come down to experience. The Luftwaffe had quite a few pilots rack up some big scores in the 190. Pretty impressive amounts considering the 109 had several more years of combat under it's belt when the 190 appeared.
http://www.acepilots.com/german/ger_aces.html#kittel
Did you check out that website on the Swedish interceptor? I am thinking of starting a thread "Bring the J22 to AH!!":)
Crumpp
-
That is because you still insist that the weight is with all guns in the A-8. As noted previously, your weight is the weight with 2 cannons and ammo removed.
No Milo It is not. It is clearly marked as Jagd-einsatz I (2 x MG131, 4 x MG151/20E).
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
No Milo It is not. It is clearly marked as Jagd-einsatz I (2 x MG131, 4 x MG151/20E).
Crumpp
Well it is an error then. The weight you give plus the weight of 2 Mg151 and ammo equals the weight I give.
-
Well it is an error then. The weight you give plus the weight of 2 Mg151 and ammo equals the weight I give.
Nice figures on the Hp-wt ratios. Now factor in the drag. You will find most of those plans don't outaccellerate the FW-190.
Especially the Merlin Powered spits. Now at certain altitudes they could but for the majority of the sky, especially at lower altitudes
I don't think so, Milo. There is only 2 jagd-einsatz's listed. Both are the same except one includes the ETC 501 rack and a 300 liter droptank. Empty weights are the exact same for both jagd-einsatz.
When you do the math and add up all the listed weights in the chart using their maximum values. It all adds up to the weight the Luftwaffe has listed. The only thing different is the empty weight of the A/C. Your EMPTY weight is much lighter in the FW-190A3 and much heavier in the FW-190A8.
Again though it is a mute point. Pyro has the data from the Flugzeug-Handbuch's and will choose to use it or not.
Crumpp
-
Please don't fight too much over 100 lbs.
Apart from that, lots of nice data :)
-
LOL
Enjoyed the discussion Angus! Thanks for your insight.
Crumpp
-
You welcome M8.
My favourite input persons (In no particular order):
Crumpp
Izzy Pop
Milo Morai
GUPPY
Gripen
Nashwan
HoHun
That is, on this forum.
Generally....also, GScholz (very educated) and Boroda (Ummmm) come to mind.
;)
-
Yeah I have been keeping an eye out for Hohun.
He's got some charts I want to get off of him. I have to admit that Guppy is one of my favourites too. What a Gentleman.
Crumpp
-
Angus: "It's vice would be a very vicious stall" (<-190)
Where did you get that from A?
AFAIK the wing profile of 190 gave it a tendency to snap roll in high speeds if pulled too much but the conrol was recovered immideately after the plane had snapped. This was considered a handicap in low level fights where there was not much time and alt to recover if the plane happened to roll into inverted position. I have never heard that 190 had bad stall or accelerated stall characteristics meaning total loss of control with considerable loss of altitude before recovery. In fact the snap roll tendency could be used to advantage by skilled pilots.
The Spitfires elliptical wing with a washout was, of course, more forgiving in this matter BUT due to its overly sensitive elevator contol (which was probably cured to some degree by adding the counter weight) the a/c could be pulled into an accelerated stall state quite easily and AFAIK the elliptical wing is the one that has the vicious stall caracteristics as the loss of contol is total once a stall is entered.
Too bad the present day sims are unable (or unwilling) to model control harmony features.
Ty guys, a good thread in all!
Edit: What also troubles me on the page on J22 is this: Lack of sufficient torsional rigidity of the wing.
To my knowledge based on NACA 868 and related documents the rigidity of the wing and control surfaces was the strengt of the 190 without which it could not have had such phenomenal roll rate. The clipped wing Spit could get close to it but I cannot understad why removing the wing tips had such great effect as the wing was still quite thin in the tip.
-C+
-
That's good question and I wondered that myself. Reaching here but I know the FW-190A5 the NACA tested was rather worn-out. In the tactical trials it was missing main wing spar bolts that had to be replaced.
You can find the report here:
http://prodocs.netfirms.com/
I have never heard of the 190 wings flexing either. The solid control rods and stiff wing with large ailerons gave it a great instantaneous rate of roll.
Crumpp
-
Just so you did not think I slinked away crumpp. My weight list came from document D.(Luft)T.2190 A-8 which included the Technical Description 284 dated Nov. 30 1944.
You insulted me by saying I would post your scans.;) I do have integrity. You can send them to MiloshMM@hotmail.com.