Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Ohio330 on August 04, 2004, 07:02:55 AM
-
Well, being new to this game, and hearing the Spits were
the dweeb rides-such as I am- I regularly took the Spit 9
out..getting my arse beat down alot. Someone sugested to take the Spit 5 out so I did. I was trying to find something about the
5 that was weaker than the 9, but I couldn't tell. I felt the
5 turned better, which I was already told it would, and also
felt the WEP was more powerful. What's better about the 9?
-
Spit 9 has more power as in more top speed and better climb.
And if you take the 2 .50 instead of the 4 .303 you get more firepower.
Spit 9 has the ability to take a drop tank for long range missions and can carry more bomb load.
Spits are slow and turning, so if you want save rtb after a mission might want something faster.
-
Ya, I was using the 5 for base defense, so it seemed good in
that role. Ok, thanks for the info.
-
We have a weak 1942 Merlin 61 powered Spit IX, not the much more common and more powerful 1943 Merlin 66 powered Spit IX.
On the other hand we have an overboosted Spitfire Mk V as was done in an attempt to make it more capable of fighting Fw190s.
The only place in AH that the Spit IX will be decisively better is anywhere over 20,000ft.
-
yep, the major unperked RAF fighter in the MA is a 1942 plane and the worst possible IX model ...
Bozon
-
http://www.netaces.org
How to Compare Planes
Soda's Aircraft Evaluations
Plane Performance Data
Aircraft Weapon Performance
great cite for plane comparisons
-
We have a weak 1942 Merlin 61 powered Spit IX, not the much more common and more powerful 1943 Merlin 66 powered Spit IX.
I am pretty sure we have the Merlin 66 (+25) Spitfire Mk IX. If it is the Merlin 61 (+15) then some things are really porked.
Anybody know for sure??
Crumpp
-
We definately have the Merlin 61 engined Spit F IX.
You could try a couple of quick tests, speed at sea level should be around 320 with a Merlin 61, 335 with Merlin 66. Climb rate should be 3700 - 3800 ft/min below say 8,000ft with a Merlin 61, 4700 ft/min or so for a Merlin 66.
Edit: Just saw the +25 lbs bit. The Spit IX with Merlin 66 at 25 lbs should do about 360 mph at sea level, and have a climb rate of well over 5000 ft/min at low level.
-
Just checked out NetAces charts.
If that data is correct then we have a Merlin 66 (+25) Spitfire MkIX for level speed.
For climb it seems to correspond with the Merlin 61 (+18) Spitfire Mk IX. :confused:
IMO after researching the FW190 extensively. An FW-190A8 would dominate a Spitfire MkIX Merlin 61 (+18). The Merlin 61's main FW190 opponent was the FW-190A4 thru FW-190A6.
The correct rival for the FW-190A8 was the Spitfire Mk IX Merlin 66(+25). They should be a very even match in a dogfight with pilot skill determining the winner.
I read somewhere that HTC will be looking at the Flight Models here soon to correct them. There has been quite a bit of data on WWII fighters that has surfaced in the last 5 years. I am sure it will be corrected.
If it means anything IMO it certainly should be corrected.
Crumpp
-
Crump,
The AH Spit IX tops out at 321mph at SL. The Merlin 61 Spit IX did as well, The Merlin 66 Spit at +18lbs boost topped out at 336mph at SL. At +25lbs boost it hit about 350mph at SL.
Where are you getting the Merlin 66 Spit IX as being that slow?
The Spitfire LF.Mk IX and Fw190A-5 were introduced at the same time.
Only 300 Merlin 61 Spitfire Mk IX's were built.
I doubt the Fw190A-8 would dominate any Spitfire that was aware of it. All that extra armor is too much of a handicap. The Fw190A-8 is for bomber killing.
-
Just checked out NetAces charts.
If that data is correct then we have a Merlin 66 (+25) Spitfire MkIX for level speed.
I can't see this either.
The AH Spit IX does 320 mph at sea level, which is what you'd expect from a Merlin 61 at 15 lbs.
Where are you getting that this speed should be for a Merlin 66 at 25 lbs boost?
If you're looking at top speed at altitude, then you won't see much difference between the Merlin 61, 66 or 66 at 25 lbs boost. The increased boost only functioned at lower levels, 25 lbs would simply decline to 18 lbs at critical altitude.
There may be a minor speed increase with 25 lbs, but because the extra power was developed low down, it had little effect on maximum speed.
For climb it seems to correspond with the Merlin 61 (+18) Spitfire Mk IX.
The Merlin 61 never ran at 18 lbs, the limit was 15 lbs. The AH Spit climbs like a Merlin 61 engined Spit at 15 lbs.
I read somewhere that HTC will be looking at the Flight Models here soon to correct them. There has been quite a bit of data on WWII fighters that has surfaced in the last 5 years. I am sure it will be corrected.
If it means anything IMO it certainly should be corrected.
The in game Spit IX is a Merlin 61 F IX. Pyro has said as much in the past.
Whilst it's possible they may introduce a Merlin 66 engined Spit VIII or IX, they won't model it with 25 lbs boost, unless it's heavily perked.
At low altitudes, a Spitfire LF IX with 25 lbs would be as fast as the in game Spit XIV, and climb much better, as well as turning better than the existing Spit IX in game.
-
The Spits are *not* dweeb rides. People complain because they turn very well at low speeds, and have excellent lift due to the shape of their wings.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with the Spit 9 we have in the game right now. It has very good performance. If we had the Merlin 66, it would have to be very heavily perked, almost to the level of the Spit 14.
The high-powered Spit model we have is the Mk. V. The added boost really drains your fuel, but it helps you in a pinch.
Learn to fly the Spit 5. It's easy to use, and is very forgiveable.
-
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9.html
Got the info from this website. Unless I read it wrong, then If we have a Merlin 61 (+15) then it's alittle fast at altitude judging from the Netaces chart and what the Spit could actually do.
I doubt the Fw190A-8 would dominate any Spitfire that was aware of it. All that extra armor is too much of a handicap. The Fw190A-8 is for bomber killing.
Common misconception Karnak. I would be glad to share the weight charts from the Luftwaffe Flugzeug-handbuch provided you give me a good contact number and a written declaration (email) they will not post it or publish it. I will also share the BMW801D2 power charts. The stuff is copyrighted even against posting on the web. Pyro already has the information.
Comparing the Spitfire Mk V thru Mk IX to the 190A3 thru 190A8.
The 190 gained half the wieght/wingloading and an equal amount of Horsepower. The Hp-Wt ratio of the FW-190A8 jagd-einsatz is slightly worse than the A3. The difference is in the the HUNDRETHS. The extra weight would have translated into better dive accelleration, zoom climb and the same level accelleration. the level speed would have dropped, which it did, but it was still enough to maintain a level speed advantage over the Spit Mk IX at the altitudes the 190 had the advanatge. All in All a performance improvement in the 190's traditional strengths. The 190's climb speed is also much higher than the Spits but it's climb angle is shallower.
Not to sound arrogant. I appologize if it comes across that way on this BBS. Please don't start posting a bunch of weight comparisions. The ONLY published material I have seen on the 190A which lists the correct weights is:
http://www.schifferbooks.com/newschiffer/book_template.php?isbn=076431940X
Here is a great scientific comparision of some of the A/C kind of illustrate what I am talking about. The charts are down at the bottom.
http://www.anycities.com/user/j22/j22/aero.htm
The A8 being more heavily armoured is also a Myth. In the jadg-einsatz's ONLY the R7/R8 rustsatz kits added any armour. They were the "Sturm" fighters especially armoured to get close and destroy Allied bombers. I would love to have them as an option for the FW-190A8.
The FW-190A8 "normaljager" had the same armour as the FW-190A3 with the exception of the pilots head armour. In the FW-190A4 the headrest armour was widenend and made 5 mm thicker. It added only a few kilo's to the weight. The next armour upgrade occurred in the FW-190A9 which had a slightly thicker oil cooler ring armour. In the RAF test of Fabers 190A3 is a hand-drawn diagram of the FW-190A's armour for a fighter version. You can read the test here:
http://prodocs.netfirms.com/
Crumpp
-
Ah. It would seem then that the AH Fw190A-8 is an Fw190A-8/R7 or R8 because it is truely a pig in climb and manuvering.
It is this Fw190A-8 that I was basing my coments on.
I think the Fw190A-5 is a great handling aircraft and a delight to fly as modeled in AH. The Fw190A-8 is a hopeless pig as modeled in AH.
But keep in mind that the Fw190A-8 was introduced in early 1944. The Spitfire LF.Mk IX was introduced in March, 1943.
-
Got the info from this website. Unless I read it wrong, then If we have a Merlin 61 (+15) then it's alittle fast at altitude judging from the Netaces chart and what the Spit could actually do.
That's the right website :)
BF274 (the Spit in that test) did 403 mph at 27,400 ft. I just tested the AH Spit now, and got 411 mph at 27,400ft. That's within what you could expect in natural variation between aircraft, but the AH Spit IX is also cleaner than BF274.
BF274 had an external mirror without fairing, AH doesn't have the mirror at all, BF274 had the extended bulges for twin cannon in each wing (even though it only had single cannons), the AH Spit has the single bulges.
Allowing for the reduced drag, the AH Spit IX looks spot on for a Merlin 61.
Same is true for low altitude. I got 318 mph just above sea level, BF274 312 mph at sea level, which again is correct when you look at the drag difference.
A Merlin 66 Spit IX should get around 335, (Inc mirror), at 25 lbs it should be close to 360 mph.
-
Your correct Karnak!
I didn't realize it until I started researching the 190 that the Luftwaffe had an "enemy test flight" as well. Over the course of the war they managed to acquire a rather large collection of allied Aircraft. I am convinced they derated the BMW-801 "as needed" to maintain it's advantages over the Merlin Spit.
http://p069.ezboard.com/fluftwaffeexperten71774frm59
Crumpp
-
Here is another link on captured allied A/C:
http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Aircraft/FAACapturedAircraftHomepage.html
So you can say the problem is we have a Merlin 61 (+15) that is a little too fast.
Well If it's speed is corrected then it should be a great opponent for the FW-190A5.
The FW-190A8 should need the Spitfire Mk IX (+25lbs) to have a level field in the air over the channel. :)
I am hoping AH will eventually model the FW-190A1 or A2. We need an early 190 for TD to go against the Spit Vb (+12).
Crumpp
-
So you can say the problem is we have a Merlin 61 (+15) that is a little too fast.
Darn it no bites....
Actually the Spit IX is modeled fine. When Pyro gets around to redoing the FW's the FW-190A5 should be a great opponent for it.
For Tour of Duty we need to lobby for the Spit IX (+25)!
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
For Tour of Duty we need to lobby for the Spit IX (+25)!
I'd be happy for any Merlin 66 Spit.
Given that not even the perked Mk XIV runs +25lbs boost I'd say there is pretty much a 0% chance of getting a LF.Mk IX at +25lbs boost.
-
IMO based on the following facts and science:
The Merlin 66 (+25) developed, depending on the source, a few more Horsepower, the same, or a few less. The BMW-801D2 developed anywhere from 1970hp - 2050hp at 1.58ata/1.62ata.
Check out the weight and Horsepower between the FW-190A3 and the Spitfire Mk IX Merlin 61 (+15).
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
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.
The RAF should need the Merlin 66 (+25) to stay competitive in the Air War. The RAF needed it in 1943!
Crumpp
-
The Merlin 66 (+25) developed, depending on the source, a few more Horsepower, the same, or a few less.
Mike Williams Spit site has a Merlin 66 power graph. Go to http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9.html and it's right down the bottom.
It shows power for 18, 25 and 28 lbs (28lbs may have been used on some Mosquitos)
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.
The same is true for the other aircraft in that test. The Spit IX, for example, used 3000 rpm 15 lbs for speed runs. It doesn't say the exact power rating for the other tests, other than saying it's 30 minutes climb power, but the manual defines the 30 minute rating as 2850 rpm, 12 lbs.
The RAF should need the Merlin 66 (+25) to stay competitive in the Air War.
I don't know much about Fw 190 speeds. Judging by what the charts on the HTC page show, the Spit IX with 25 lbs boost would be faster all the way up to 20,000ft, at most altitudes considerably faster. That's just going on what the HTC charts show for the A5 and A8, however, and I'd apreciate any different figures.
The Spit would also have a huge climb advantage, as well as turn rate, acceleration (a 7,400 lbs plane with 2000 hp that can climb at 5500 ft/min accelerates well).
I think the Merlin 66 at 18 lbs was more than enough to make the Spit IX competitive with the 190 A series in 1943.
-
Nashwan,
The same is true for the other aircraft in that test. The Spit IX, for example, used 3000 rpm 15 lbs for speed runs. It doesn't say the exact power rating for the other tests, other than saying it's 30 minutes climb power, but the manual defines the 30 minute rating as 2850 rpm, 12 lbs.
Yes and the Horsepower were still fairly even. The FW-190 used 1.32ata @ 2400U/min for the rest of the tests. Point is the FW190 did NOT have the huge horsepower advantage over the Spitfire Mk IX many think it did. Its performance was not based on a huge power advantage. It got its performance from aerodynamics.
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.
Check out the climb speed of the Merlin 66 Spit. 411 Mph is only 3 Mph faster than the FW-190A8. The altitudes the FW-190A3 had advantages over the Spitfire Mk IX Merlin 61 (+15) are pretty much the same ones the FW-190A8 has over the Merlin 66 (+25).
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/jl165.html
The Merlin 66 (+25) only had a best climb speed 10 mph faster than the Merlin 61. It climbed at a much steeper angle but even with a Hp increase in available power over the Merlin 61 it still could not overcome the induced drag of the Spitfires wing. Now this same wing gave it excellent low speed handling but the lift it generated worked against it at high speed. Induced drag has an inverse relationship to Aspect ratio. The lower the ratio the higher the drag. In other words, at high speeds it put the breaks on. The faster you went, the more the drag increased. This is why even at altitudes were Spitfire had a faster top dive speed and (higher mach number) took so long to accelerate and would be left by the 190. The 190's weight and level acceleration advantage would leave it behind. If the 190 kept his dive at those altitudes the Spit would eventually catch him. This is also why the 190 a much higher dive speed in the thicker lower atmosphere.
The Spit XIV Griffin 65 was able to dominate the 190A. The horsepower gains of the Griffon 65 were not that phenomenal over the Merlin 66 (+25). However the weight gain and keeping a similar Power to Weight ratio of the Spitfire XIV gave it the inertia to overcome the induced drag and catch the 190A in the zoom. The Spitfire Mk XIV could zoom up with 190A and stick with it in the dive. Things no other Spit was capable of doing.
Check out the FW-190A8 at 1.58ata/1.65ata @ 2700U/min. Also check out the FW-190A5. Keep in mind the A5 was rated for 1.58ata/1.65ata when equipped with C3 "Boost".
http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190.htm
Compare them and verify my conclusions, Please.
I think the RAF will need the Spitfire Mk IX Merlin 66 (+25) in Tour of Duty.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Actually the Spit IX is modeled fine.
:rofl
Dive with them.
-
I think the Spit's dive speed is model correctly for all the varifiable data available. Some of what we see has got to be net lag. Offline has completely characteristics than online.
If the dive speed limits are adhered to according to the pilots manual then the Spit is roughly 30 mph faster in the dive above 10,000 feet. However, It's drag co-efficient AND induced drag from it's lower aspect ratio should severly hamper it's dive accelleration. This matchs not only the science but the tactical trial experience. Below 10,000 feet the FW-190 is significantly faster both in dive accelleration and top diving speed. Up to 70 mph faster.
You can verify this by comparing the dive speeds in the manuals.
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9v109g.html
For the Spit IX:
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
For the FW-190A:
0-2 km - 850 kph
3 km - 800 kph
5 km - 700 kph
7 km - 600 kph
9 km - 500 kph
I do have to add that these speeds add up to NOTHING close to either A/C mach limit.
I sent Pyro a whole bunch of data out of the FW-190 manuals. He is going to sort through it when he gets the chance. Redoing the FW-190's FM is on the agenda. It's just not the priority right now.
My scanner is fixed and I owe you the graphs on the 190A3. Here is a copy of the tactical trials with Faber's FW-190A3.
http://prodocs.netfirms.com/
Crumpp
-
Thanks for the 190 docs, I hadn't seen most of those before.
The altitudes the FW-190A3 had advantages over the Spitfire Mk IX Merlin 61 (+15) are pretty much the same ones the FW-190A8 has over the Merlin 66 (+25).
Based on the figures you've linked to, the Spit IX on 25 lbs will have a speed advantage at all altitudes.
Bear in mind JL 165 was running extremely poorly when the A&AEE got their hands on it, it had already been used for extensive tests by RR.
Here's a graph showing the performance the A&AEE estimated for JL 165 at 18lbs, compared to other tested Spits at 18lbs:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1082729993_spitixspeeds4.gif)
The 190's weight and level acceleration advantage would leave it behind.
I don't believe the 190 had a level acceleration advantage under most circumstances.
The AFDU found no advantage for the 190 except at altitudes where it had a speed advantage. That's against a Spit F IX, with much lower horsepower, and a much worse climb rate, than the Spit LF IX.
When you'[re talking about a Spit LF IX at 25 lbs, you have no weight gain, and up to 500 hp more than the plane tested against Faber's 190.
The 190's weight and level acceleration advantage would leave it behind. If the 190 kept his dive at those altitudes the Spit would eventually catch him.
According to the Spit pilot in the test against Faber's 190, the Spit would begin to catch the 190 after a dive of 3000 ft.
This is also why the 190 a much higher dive speed in the thicker lower atmosphere.
The Spitfire was limited because of iupfloat of the ailerons, nothing to do with drag per se.
The Spit XIV Griffin 65 was able to dominate the 190A. The horsepower gains of the Griffon 65 were not that phenomenal over the Merlin 66 (+25)
At lower altitudes, the Merlin at 25 lbs actually put out more horsepower than the Griffon at 18 lbs. And that in an airframe with no extra weight.
However the weight gain and keeping a similar Power to Weight ratio of the Spitfire XIV gave it the inertia to overcome the induced drag and catch the 190A in the zoom.
Extra weight isn't really an advantage for a fighter. It would be quite easy to make any WW2 fighter heavier with the addition of extra armour, for example, but the work all went the other way, on keeping them as light as possible.
You might lose in zooms and dives, but you gain in level acceleration, climb rate, turn rate, low speed handling, and increased g limits.
The Spit LF IX with 25 lbs boost would dominate any of the 190s up to the A9 at most altitudes. I can quarantee that you won't see a Spit at 25 lbs unless it's a highly priced perk.
I think the RAF will need the Spitfire Mk IX Merlin 66 (+25) in Tour of Duty.
I'd be very suprised if the RAF gets anything more than a Merlin66 at 18 lbs in tour of duty, unless it's to combat the very late war aircraft like the Dora and 109 G10/K4.
Mind you, I don't know how they are going to manage perks/limited availability in ToD. But I don't expect to see the Merlin 66 at 25lbs up against the 190A in anything like similar numbers.
-
Well, someone is creating new theories on induced drag in this thread but I leave that for others ;)
gripen
-
Here's a graph showing the performance the A&AEE estimated for JL 165 at 18lbs, compared to other tested Spits at 18lbs:
That is a nice chart. Notice it starts at 340mph and the FW 190A8 bottoms out at 350mph at Sea Level.
According to the Spit pilot in the test against Faber's 190, the Spit would begin to catch the 190 after a dive of 3000 ft.
Only at Higher alititudes which is what the rest of the test says. The Spit just had too much drag and not enough weight to have a better dive accelleration. Down in the lower atmosphere the Spits top dive speed was 70 mph slower than the 190's. That info is right out of the pilots manual dive restriction speeds.
The AFDU found no advantage for the 190 except at altitudes where it had a speed advantage.
Yes, at 8000-15,000 Ft ASL and Above 25,000 Ft. Seems the sky is pretty evenly divided with each plane getting a big chunk. Very similar circumstances exist for the Spitfire Mk IX Merlin 66 vs FW-190A8.
When you'[re talking about a Spit LF IX at 25 lbs, you have no weight gain, and up to 500 hp more than the plane tested against Faber's 190.
1. The Horsepower increase in the Merlin 66 is right on par with Horsepower increase of the BMW 801D2. Both engines increase the same amount in available power. Check out the chart on the website I provided. 1800 hp @ 1.42ata at 2700U/min. Most sources quote between 1950 hp and 2050 hp at 1.58ata/1.65ata. HoHun has a Luftwaffe chart showing this. I am trying to get a copy of it. Anyway, It is a linear progression so you can figure it out.
2. Zoom climb is a function of Power to weight ratio, wingloading (higher the better in general), and inertia. The extra weight increases your inertia and helps to launch the plane up. Since the 190A8 maintained almost the exact same Power to weight ratio as the FW190A3. The FW-190A8 had a better zoom climb than the 190A3.
Extra weight isn't really an advantage for a fighter. It would be quite easy to make any WW2 fighter heavier with the addition of extra armour, for example, but the work all went the other way, on keeping them as light as possible.
See number 2 above. Actually Aircraft designers have always been willing to add a few pounds based on other factors (Power, Airfoil design, etc..). Aerodynamics is all about balancing the forces of flight. You cannot rob Peter to pay Paul in it. Make an A/C too good in one aspect and it will suffer in others. This is also why aircraft as so specialized and "jack of all trades" designs are masters of none. Which brings me too:
You might lose in zooms and dives, but you gain in level acceleration, climb rate, turn rate, low speed handling, and increased g limits.
Your absolutely right in Climb rate, Turn rate and low speed handling. The tremendous lift of the Spitfire's wing made it outstanding in those catagories.
Accelleration is a fight between Power to weight and drag. The Spitfire not only had a higher drag coefficient when you do a wet plate comparison, that wonderful high lift wing generated more induced drag the faster you went. It needed a much bigger Power to weight ratio to overcome it's drag. A good indicator of Level accelleration is dive accelleration. The 190 left the spitfire behind in Dive accelleration. Even the Spit XIV couldn't keep up with the 190's dive accelleration.
That is not to say that the Spit's level accelleration did not improve greatly in the Merlin 66.
G-limits have to do with A/C construction and airframe stress. Nothing adding a few more horsepower will effect. Except to get you to the pilots G limits faster.
The Merlin 66 (+25) is an even match for the FW190A8.
Since I mainly fly Luftwaffe though I will concede the point.:D
Great discussion Nashwan!
Crumpp
-
Gripen,
Drag
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/factord.html
Induced Drag
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/dragco.html
The drag coefficient equation will apply to any object if we properly match flow conditions. If we are considering an aircraft, we can think of the drag coefficient as being composed of two main components; a basic drag coefficient which includes the effects of skin friction and shape (form), and an additional drag coefficient related to the lift of the aircraft. This additional source of drag is called the induced drag and it is produced at the wing tips due to aircraft lift.
I did not specify BASIC Drag Co-efficient, so it was confusing. My Mistiake.
Crumpp
-
Crumpp,
I see you understand my point. If you look drag coefficient calculation in your second link (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/dragco.html), you see that lift coefficient for given lift decreases when the speed increases. Therefore it's easy to understand that induced drag decreases when the speed increases (note relation between speed, angle of attack, lift coefficient and induced drag).
The aspect ratio difference between Spitfire and Fw 190 is quite small and due to lighter weight the Spitfire needs less lift to fly. Therefore it can be seen that induced drag does not cause differences in zoom climb. More likely difference is caused by larger airframe of the Spitfire (more wet area) and higher weight of the Fw 190 ("stores" more energy in dive). In fact drag rise of the Spitfire when entering compressibility speeds were relatively low, this explains why the Spitfire could catch Fw 190 in the prolonged dive.
gripen
-
The aspect ratio difference between Spitfire and Fw 190 is quite small and due to lighter weight the Spitfire needs less lift to fly.
That is your opinion. Do the math and they are a significant factor.
Therefore it's easy to understand that induced drag decreases when the speed increases (note relation between speed, angle of attack, lift coefficient and induced drag).
It does NOT decrease with speed. If it did WWI biplanes would have broken the sound barrier long ago.
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/vel.html
doubling the velocity will quadruple the lift and drag.
Now the Spitfires designers were not stupid by any means. By using the eliptical wingtips they reduced the penalties for the high lift wing as much as possible within the limits of engineering.
You cannot argue though with the science. The numbers don't lie.
The Spitfire was a wonderful fighter. It has been very much romanticized over the years. Both the Science and the history tell us though that any Merlin Powered Spit that fought in the vertical would soon find themselves shot down by A/C designed for the vertical fight.
Just as any A/C designed for the vertical would be shot down trying to angle fight against a fighter optimized for angles.
Crumpp
-
Crumpp,
Just study your own links above. Skin friction drag and form drag increase when the speed increases.Therefore WWI fighters could not reach Mach 1 (among other reasons).
In the case of the induced drag the situation is more complex. Certainly at given angle of attack the lift (roughly) quadruples when the speed doubles. But to fly a plane needs constant amount lift so angle of attack (note relation to lift coefficient) can be decreased when the speed increases. Therefore induced drag decreases when the speed increases. Just look drag calculation and how lift coefficient affects induced drag.
gripen
-
That is a nice chart. Notice it starts at 340mph and the FW 190A8 bottoms out at 350mph at Sea Level.
These Spits are all running at 18 lbs boost, at 25 lbs they have an extra 300 hp or so, pushing the sea level speed up to almost 360 mph.
Yes, at 8000-15,000 Ft ASL and Above 25,000 Ft. Seems the sky is pretty evenly divided with each plane getting a big chunk. Very similar circumstances exist for the Spitfire Mk IX Merlin 66 vs FW-190A8.
At 18 lbs yes. At 18 lbs, the Spit LF IX and 190 are nicely matched, though I'd still prefer the Spit.
At 25 lbs, the Spit is overmatched against these 190s. (Note, I don't know about the A9 and the possible performance gains that had)
1. The Horsepower increase in the Merlin 66 is right on par with Horsepower increase of the BMW 801D2. Both engines increase the same amount in available power. Check out the chart on the website I provided. 1800 hp @ 1.42ata at 2700U/min. Most sources quote between 1950 hp and 2050 hp at 1.58ata/1.65ata.
As I said, I'm not sure on 190s, so to try to get this straight:
1.42 ata = 1800 hp
1.65 ata = 2000 hp approx
Faber's 190 was run at 1.42 ata against a Spit F IX putting out about 1580 hp, the LF IX at 18 lbs puts out about 1780hp, and the LF IX at 25 lbs puts out just over 2000 hp.
You're looking at the 190 gaining 200 hp after that test, the LF IX gaining 200 hp, the LF IX at 25 lbs gaining nearly 500 hp.
As a percentage increase, it's even better for the Spit. 1800 - 2000 hp isn't going to make as much difference as 1580 - 1780 hp.
It does NOT decrease with speed. If it did WWI biplanes would have broken the sound barrier long ago.
Induced drag decreases with speed. Remember, the lift required reamins the same, so as speed decreases angle of attack decreases, and induced drag decreases sharply.
-
Speaking of Faber`s 190A, I doubt it performed anywhere near it should have. Of all flight test performed, Faber`s plane is the slowest of them all.
Flight test at Rechlin showed 525 km/h at SL, and 650 km/h at 6.4km for BMW 801C powered 190As. Yet AFDU trials show little difference between between the F. MkIX and his 190A. The Brit tested performance is nowhere near of performance obtained in US tests in 1.42ata either, or FW`s own specification for the similiar A-5 at 1.42ata.
I can only guess the reasons for this, but Faber`s plane was probably in rather poor conditions. It was taken apart to the last screw for inspections, that put together, and was serviced by a groundcrew who had no idea of the FW 190 itself. The engine was running rough all the time, and there was trouble with the spark plugs. The latter makes me think the Brits didn`t feed it with good enough fuel. They only had Brit 100 grade fuel, which was quite a bit worser than the German C-3 the BMW 801D required, C-3 being more of an equivalent of Allied 150 grade fuel than 100 grade at rich mixture due to it`s high aromatic content.
-
Faber's 190 was run at 1.42 ata for 3 mins, and 1.35 ata for 30 minutes.
The correct ratings for it were 1.35 ata for 3 mins, and 1.42 ata shouldn't have been used at all.
It's little wonder it ran roughly.
-
This is what Butch had to say about German fuel
"the B4 was roughly equivalent to 92okt and the C3 to the 100/130 US fuel. The German chose to increase CR rather than the boost, the C3 being able to sustain very high pressure (around 20atm and more with MW-50).
The result where a capability to preserve a medium boost (1.7ata) at quite a high altitude. But when a need for high boost pressure arose the German superchargers (as fitted in the DB605D) proved not up to par with Allied ones."
-
Gripen,
It is black and white. NASA says different. Your looking at the formula for computing Induced drag. What you don't seem to realize is that basic drag, The "D" in that formula is function of velocity and is computing by multiplying "velocity squared".
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/vel.html
So you double the velocity you quadruple the drag.
You seem to think I am basing this off of INDUCED drag alone? The BASIC drag coefficient was higher in the Spitfire. The wing aspect ratio was higher in the 190. Therefore it suffers less from induced drag exponentially. The Spitfire wing generated a ton of excess lift AND drag. With velocity the drag quadruples, Therefore it took more thrust to overcome that drag. Therefore the spitfire was NOT a great zoom climber nor did it accelerate quickly. Again both Science and History back this up.
The FW-190 has a higher wing aspect ratio and a lower drag co-efficient.
The Spitfire has a lower wing aspect ratio and a higher drag co-efficient.
Do the math. There is no way to get around it. It took more than an improvement in power to weight for the Spitfire to dominate the 190A. The added weight of the Mk XIV added the inertia the Spit needed to overcome it's drag and zoom/dive with a 190. The Merlin powered spits simply did not have it.
These Spits are all running at 18 lbs boost, at 25 lbs they have an extra 300 hp or so, pushing the sea level speed up to almost 360 mph.
According to the HP chart for the Merlin 66 (+25) only gives a 200 hp boost for the Spit AT FULL THROTTLE HEIGHT.
Which is right on par with the BMW-801D2 @ 1.65ata.
Please compare them yourself:
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/jl165.html
http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190.htm
Make sure you use a straight edge and take some time to get the units correct for the graph squares. The figures are that close.
Your looking at the AVERAGE increases in speed not the actual increase in speed. The Spitfire needed that boost to stay competitive with the 190A5 and later variants able to run 1.58/1.65ata.
Only a few altitudes are they using (+18) boost. I used the (+25) boost in my comparison. The FW-190A8 and the Merlin 66 (+25) trade off speed advantages depending on altitude on about the same level as Faber 190A3 vs. Merlin 61 Spit. The speed differences are also on par with the 1942 test. None of them are over a few miles an hour. Make sure you are comparing proper altitude and speed. Don't compare IAS to TAS for example or a speed at 2000 ft with one at sea level.
All in all the results are the same. The FW-190A8 and the Spitfire Mk IX Merlin 66 (+25) are about as evenly matched as planes can get. Each would retain its traditional advantages over the other.
Crumpp
-
BTW:
The efficiency factor of the ellipitical wingtip of the Spitfire was 1.0.
The effciency factor of a square (least efficient) is 0.7.
NACA 23009, the FW-190 wingtip, was not square.
The formula is:
The derivation of the equation for the induced drag is fairly tedious and relies on some theoretical ideas which are beyond the scope of the Beginner's Guide. The induced drag coefficient Cdi is equal to the square of the lift coefficient Cl divided by the quantity: pi (3.14159) times the aspect ratio AR times an efficiency factor e.
Cdi = (Cl^2) / (pi * AR * e)
The efficiency can effect the outcome however I do not see where it would make a huge difference. Especially given the Aspect ratio. I will bet the FW-190 and the Spit have very similar induced drag. Infact Mathmatically taking a worst case and the efficiency is .7, the FW-190 still comes out ahead with it's better aspect ratio.
Crumpp
-
Crumpp,
Actually it's fairly easy to calculate induced drag coefficients (Cdi) for the Spitfire and the Fw 190. First we need lift coefficients (Cl) for couple speeds as described here (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/liftco.html). For demonstration purposes I use 200km/h (55,56m/s) and 600km/h (166,67m/s) at sea level (density 1,229kg/m3). Other values for calculation are here:
Spitfire IX
Wing area: 22,48m2
Wing span: 11,23m
Aspect ratio: 5,61
Weight: 3400kg
Lift: 33354N
=>
200km/h Cl=0,782
600km/h Cl=0,086
Fw 190A-5
Wing area: 18,50m2
Wing span: 10,50m
Aspect ratio: 5,96
Weight: 3850kg
Lift: 37768,5N
=>
200km/h Cl=1,076
600km/h Cl=0,120
Induced drag coefficients can be easily calculated by using the formula from your link (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/induced.html) above, note that I use same efficiency factor 0,9 for both planes despite Spitfire apparently was better in that area:
Spitfire IX
200km/h Cl=0,782 Cdi=0,0386
600km/h Cl=0,086 Cdi=0,000476
Fw 190A-5
200km/h Cl=1,076 Cdi=0,0688
600km/h Cl=0,120 Cdi=0,000849
Results are clear; the induced drag decreases when the speed increases and the Spitfire actually has clearly lower induced drag than the Fw 190. Shortly your theory on zoom climb differences is total nonsense.
Regarding the total drag, there is not much difference between these planes; at about same output the speed of the planes is about same.
gripen
-
According to the calculations here:
http://www.aa.nps.navy.mil/~jones/online_tools/panel2/
Simply input the NACA airfoils for the wing.
FW-190A
Root - NACA 23015
Tip - NACA 23009
Spitfire
Root - NACA 2213
tip - NACA 2209
Wing aspect ratio for the FW-190A8 is 6.0 not 5.96. This will figure out the CL at different angles of attack.
In the wing tips there is a .0003 difference in favor of the Spitfire. Increase the angle of attack and the difference becomes even smaller favoring the Focke Wulf.
However If you compare the wing roots, you find the opposite is true. Increase the angle of attack and the Spitfire has large disadvantage in drag.
That .0003 is not quite enough to overcome the Basic Drag disadvantages of the Spitfire.
Again you seem to think induced drag and basic drag are the same thing. You cannot get around the fact the Spitfire has more BASIC DRAG which quadruples with velocity.
The wing tips where the most efficient design to reduce induced drag. They are a great attempt to overcome the drag problem. Without them I believe the spitfire would have found itself in the same situation as the Zeke in the Pacific.
Regarding the total drag, there is not much difference between these planes; at about same output the speed of the planes is about same.
There is very large gap in relation to the one you are trying to claim at the wingtips!
Flat Plate comparison:
FW-190 - 5.22
Spitfire - 5.4
And that difference quadruples in relationship to velocity.
All in all, while I appreciate your calculator work it's not factual. I don't think there is any intent to deceive, you just got the wrong inputs on some things. It shows nothing other than the Spitfire had efficient wingtips. I said that 3 post's down, bro.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Wing aspect ratio for the FW-190A8 is 6.0 not 5.96. This will figure out the CL at different angles of attack.
Ah, I had a typo in the spread sheet; 18,5m2 instead 18,3m2 so the aspect ratio of the Fw 190 is actually 6,02. Lower wing area also affects lift coefficient which actually increases induced drag of the Fw 190. So the corrected results for the Fw 190 are:
200km/h Cl=1,088 Cdi=0,0695
600km/h Cl=0,121 Cdi=0,000858
Originally posted by Crumpp
However If you compare the wing roots, you find the opposite is true. Increase the angle of attack and the Spitfire has large disadvantage in drag.
Nonsense, the Spitfire had lower induced drag at any reachable angle of attack, here is numbers for 3g at 300km/h and 600Km/h.
Spitfire IX
300km/h Cl=1,043 Cdi=0,0686
600km/h Cl=0,261 Cdi=0,00429
Fw 190A-5
300km/h Cl=1,451 Cdi=0,124
600km/h Cl=0,363 Cdi=0,00772
Originally posted by Crumpp
Again you seem to think induced drag and basic drag are the same thing.
I wonder where I have said so; I have merely pointed out that the Spitfire had lower induced drag than the Fw 190 and that there can't be big differences in the total drag.
Originally posted by Crumpp
There is very large gap in relation to the one you are trying to claim at the wingtips!
Nonsense, the induced drag affects all over wing area, from NASA site (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/induced.html):
"Downwash causes a local induced angle of attack with additional induced drag on a finite wing."
Originally posted by Crumpp
Flat Plate comparison:
FW-190 - 5.22
Spitfire - 5.4
And that difference quadruples in relationship to velocity.[/B]
Why the Spitfire and Fw 190 are about as fast at about same output if the Spitfire produced much more drag. If your theory is true then the Fw 190 had extremely unefficient propeller.
Originally posted by Crumpp
All in all, while I appreciate your calculator work it's not factual. I don't think there is any intent to deceive, you just got the wrong inputs on some things. It shows nothing other than the Spitfire had efficient wingtips. I said that 3 post's down, bro.
The calculation shows two things:
1. The induced drag decreases when the speed increases. This is exactly opposite you claimed above.
2. The Spitfire had lower induced drag than the Fw 190. The induced drag has nothing to do with differences in zoom climb and dive acceleration. This is exactly opposite you claimed above.
In addition speed comparison show that there can't be big differences in the total drag.
gripen
-
In fact,
Let just nip this in the bud and break it down to Barney Level.
In Aerodynamics what is the Force diametrically opposed to Thrust?
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/forces.html
DRAG opposes Thrust, correct?
In going from the Spitfire Mk IX Merlin 61 to the Spitfire Mk IX Merlin 66 we see NO appreciable wieght gain.
We do see an appreciable gain in available Horsepower. Around 485 hp. Some want to claim 700 hp however I believe that is a little steep.
Merlin 61 (+18) @ 3000 rpm Full throttle hieght = 1565hp
Merlin 66 (+25) @3000rpm Full throttle height = 2050hp
Top Speed - 411 mph
FW-190A8 - 408 mph
A difference that is hardly noticable in the air.
Same Airframe and a 485 hp increase only yields an average of 30 mph speed increase??
And that top speed equals the FW-190A8 but not at all altitudes but is slower than the FW-190A5??
You still want to claim the spitfire had less drag and could zoom on equal footing with a 190?
In the Entire FW-190A jagd-einsatz we see less weight gain than the going from the Spit Mk V to the Spit Mk IX. This comes with a similar horsepower increase.
Spitfire mkVb - 6525lbs Take off wt (2 x 20mm, 4 x .303)
WL - 28lbs/sq. ft
Merlin 45 - 1470Hp@3000 rpm Full throttle height (one we have in AH I think)
Spitfire Mk IX - 7,480lbs Take off wt
WL - 30.9lbs/sq. ft
Merlin 66 (+25) - 2050 hp @ 3000 rpm Full throttle height
Horsepower increase - 580hp.
Weight increase - 955lbs
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. Top Horsepower equals the Spit Mk IX just as the Top Horsepower of the Merlin 61 equalled the FW-190A3. The FW-190 gained less weight and almost as much Horsepower.
Bottom line - The "weight gain" killed performance theory is a crock unless the Spitfire operates under a different set of physics.
Any claims of it NOT having lots of drag are just plain fantasy.
I will be glad to mail you the docs I am using for the 190 weight's. Give me your email.
Crumpp
-
Nobody is claiming the Spitfire couldn't zoom well because of it's INDUCED drag Gripen.
It couldn't zoom well because of its Drag period.
Are you trying to say that is suddenly gains thrust when the Spit points it's nose up?
Are you saying it has NO induced drag? The induced drag, no matter how small, only ADDS to the total drag already present, which is appreciably higher than the 190's.
Without the inertia gained in the weight increase of the Spit XIV the Spit IX was unable to follow a 190 in the zoom. Especially when the FW-190A8 was an improvement in zoom climb and dive accelleration. Two key components of an energy dogfighters performance.
It is just like Robert Johnson's encounter with a Spitfire in 1943 while flying a P47. The P47 was clearly outmatched in turn performance and sustained climb. Johnson however could leave the spit behind in the zoom as long as he did not hold the climb when he slowed down. Using a superior dive accelleration to gain speed followed by a zoom climb to gain height, he was able to come barrelling down on the Spits six and get a gun solution. Exactly the same manner in which 190's fought. Infact read the tactical trials, the 190 outzooms the P47. A FW-190 @ 1.35ata can outzoom a P47. You can read the tactical trials here:
http://prodocs.netfirms.com/
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
We do see an appreciable gain in available Horsepower. Around 485 hp. Some want to claim 700 hp however I believe that is a little steep.
Merlin 61 (+18) @ 3000 rpm Full throttle hieght = 1565hp
Merlin 66 (+25) @3000rpm Full throttle height = 2050hp
Top Speed - 411 mph
FW-190A8 - 408 mph
A difference that is hardly noticable in the air.
Same Airframe and a 485 hp increase only yields an average of 30 mph speed increase??
The FTH of the Merlin 66 at MS gear and at +25lbs was a bit less than 3k so lets compare speeds around this altitude:
JL165 Merlin 66 (+25) 364mph
JF275 Merlin 66 (+25) 374mph
BF274 Merlin 66 (+15) 327mph (aproximated, results end to 6k)
Average for Merlin 66 (+18) 350mph (from MA648 graph)
In practice this means that the Spitfire gained around 60-70km/h with about 500hp increase (+25) and around 40km/h with 150hp (+18) increase. Note that there was no +18lbs Merlin 61.
As for comparison the Fw 190A-5 gained about 50km/h (550-600km/h) with about 230ps (from 1,32 and 2400rpm to 1,42ata and 2700rpm) increase at about same altitude and Fw 190A-8 gained about 20km/h (560->580km/h) from 1,42ata to 1,58/1,65ata (from your source page). These is no practical difference between planes if we compare speed gains at given output increase nor big differences in the speed.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Bottom line - The "weight gain" killed performance theory is a crock unless the Spitfire operates under a different set of physics.
Any claims of it NOT having lots of drag are just plain fantasy.
Someone is creating plain fantasy here and it's not me. The evidence is above.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Nobody is claiming the Spitfire couldn't zoom well because of it's INDUCED drag Gripen.
You above:
"Now this same wing gave it excellent low speed handling but the lift it generated worked against it at high speed. Induced drag has an inverse relationship to Aspect ratio. The lower the ratio the higher the drag."
"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."
Originally posted by Crumpp
Are you saying it has NO induced drag? The induced drag, no matter how small, only ADDS to the total drag already present, which is appreciably higher than the 190's.
The induced drag calcultions are above, the Spitfire had lower induced drag than the Fw 190. There seems to be no big differences in the total drag even according to your own sources.
gripen
-
As for comparison the Fw 190A-5 gained about 50km/h (550-600km/h) with about 230ps (from 1,32 and 2400rpm to 1,42ata and 2700rpm) increase at about same altitude and Fw 190A-8 gained about 20km/h (560->580km/h) from 1,42ata to 1,58/1,65ata (from your source page). These is no practical difference between planes if we compare speed gains at given output increase nor big differences in the speed.
No the speed didn't change that much however the weight did increase. What we see in the FW-190 is an appropriate increase in power along with it. It already had a speed advantage over it's main rival. Same power to weight with more weight = better zoom climb and better dive accelleration. This is easily verifiable by examining the Manifold restrictions, weight gain, and the Luftwaffe's "derating" of the BMW-801D2 in 1942.
You forget that the Luftwaffe had an enemy test flight too.
In practice this means that the Spitfire gained around 60-70km/h with about 500hp increase (+25) and around 40km/h with 150hp (+18) increase. Note that there was no +18lbs Merlin 61.
Your right I meant Merlin 61 (+15), typo. So It increased
60Km = 37 miles per hour to 70 km = 43mph for a 500 hp increase and recieved an additional 40 km = 24mph for adding another 150hp.
Total gain; 750 hp = 61mph - 67mph
1. 750 Hp in 1939 was the total power of many of the worlds frontline fighters. The Spitfire added a huge amount of additional power for tiny gains in speed. Why? It had to fight to overcome the great lift it's wing provided. You so badly want to have you cake and eat it too. Doesn't work that way. The Spitfire was one of the worlds great fighters
Now lets look at verifiable facts on the Spitfire:
Merlin 61
Maximum true air speed in M.S. supercharger 380 1/2 m.p.h. at 15,400 ft.
Maximum true air speed in F.S. supercharger 403 m.p.h. at 27,400 ft.
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9.html
For the Merlin 66 (+25)
Maximum true air speed in M.S. gear 364 mph at 2,800 feet
Maximum true air speed in F.S. gear 389 mph at 13,800 feet
Estimated increase in speed below full throttle heights due to
increase in boost from +18 to +25 lb/sq.in. 30 mph.
:eek: That's the 500 hp gain right?? No gain in weight either??
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/jl165.html
Here it does a little better in this one When the testing was completed in Feburary of 1944:
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/jl165.html
Max. speed at F.T. height (9,400 ft.) in M.S. gear = 379 mph
Max. speed at F.T. height (21,000 ft.) in F.S. gear = 411 mph
Lets say it is Early to Mid 1944, when (+25) was approved, and we have the new SU pump tested in Feburary '44 then we can add 30 mph on average (according to the RAF) and bump the top speed up too 441 mph in F.S. gear.
So for 750 hp gain (which you claim) we see a top speed increase from the Merlin 61 to the Merlin 66 (+25) OF:
Merlin 61 - 403 mph
Merlin 66 - 441 mph (based on speculation since we have no speed test or hard data at these conditions)
Merlin 66(+25) - 389mph (the one we do have hard data on. It did gain 9 mph over the Merlin 61 at the same height.)
38 mph gain for 750hp input.
Thrust is opposed by drag right??
Crumpp
-
By your calculations the difference in induced drag is:
Spitfire IX
300km/h Cl=1,043 Cdi=0,0686
600km/h Cl=0,261 Cdi=0,00429
Fw 190A-5
300km/h Cl=1,451 Cdi=0,124
600km/h Cl=0,363 Cdi=0,00772
Which BTW your numbers in now way match the calculator from the US Naval Academy Post Graduate.
I would apreciate it if you would list all the values you are using.
E factor etc...
Since they don't match and drag calculations can very easily be manipulated I think the huge thrust gain for very little speed gain pretty much illustrates the point.
Crumpp
-
38 mph gain (based on speculation) for 750hp input.
9 mph gain (based on verifiable data) for 750 hp input with NO WEIGHT GAIN.
Thrust is opposed by drag right??
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Your right I meant Merlin 61 (+15), typo. So It increased
60Km = 37 miles per hour to 70 km = 43mph for a 500 hp increase and recieved an additional 40 km = 24mph for adding another 150hp.
Total gain; 750 hp = 61mph - 67mph
Nonsense, you apparently can't calculate nor understand what we are talking about. The output at 3k increased roughly following amount:
Merlin 61 (+15) about 1550 hp
Merlin 66 (+18) about 1700 hp => 150 hp gain over Merlin 61 and 40 km/h increase in speed.
Merlin 66 (+25) 2050 hp => 500 hp gain over Merlin 61 and 60-70 km/h increase in speed.
BTW you might be suprised to know that 500 + 150 = 650 but I wonder why you are making such calculation?
Originally posted by Crumpp
The Spitfire added a huge amount of additional power for tiny gains in speed. Why? It had to fight to overcome the great lift it's wing provided.
Nonsense, you apparently still can't understand the induced drag despite all the sources. At any given speed the Fw 190 had more drag due to lift than the Spitfire. The numbers are clear.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Now lets look at verifiable facts on the Spitfire:
No need to comment, you are comparing planes at different altitudes, FTHs and ratings without sense. BTW JL 165 performed below average as Nashwan noted, see this (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/ma648speed.gif).
Originally posted by Crumpp
So for 750 hp gain (which you claim) we see a top speed increase from the Merlin 61 to the Merlin 66 (+25) OF:
Merlin 61 - 403 mph
Merlin 66 - 441 mph (based on speculation since we have no speed test or hard data at these conditions)
Merlin 66(+25) - 389mph (the one we do have hard data on. It did gain 9 mph over the Merlin 61 at the same height.)
38 mph gain for 750hp input.
This part is so laughable that I had to quote it anyway. Shortly total nonsense.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Which BTW your numbers in now way match the calculator from the US Naval Academy Post Graduate.
I would apreciate it if you would list all the values you are using.
E factor etc...
All the needed values are listed allready above including E (efficiency) factor. As noted above, I used same E factor 0,9 for both planes. But as NASA site (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/induced.html) notes, the Spitfire had near ideal shape of the wing, so here are the values at 3g load using E factor 0,95 for the Spitfire and 0,8 for the Fw 190:
Spitfire IX
300km/h Cl=1,043 Cdi=0,0650
600km/h Cl=0,261 Cdi=0,0041
Fw 190A-5
300km/h Cl=1,451 Cdi=0,139
600km/h Cl=0,363 Cdi=0,00869
BTW the calculator in your link (http://www.aa.nps.navy.mil/~jones/online_tools/panel2/)does not calculate Cdi nor Cl at given load, use formulas from NASA links above. Remember your own words:
"You cannot argue though with the science. The numbers don't lie."
gripen
-
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9.html
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/jl165.html
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/jl165.html
Please find were the spitfire received the huge speed benefits for the HUGE amounts of Horsepower gains it made with out a weight gain?
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/forces.html
Since Drag is the force which opposes thrust. The Spitfire, being of so little drag as you claim, should make some big gains for a small amount of Horsepower. It should flat out leave the 190 in the dust. Please show it with verifiable data because at full throttle height (the different altitudes you claim I was trying to manipulate the data) the gains are rather tiny.
The derivation of the equation for the induced drag is fairly tedious and relies on some theoretical ideas which are beyond the scope of the Beginner's Guide. The induced drag coefficient Cdi is equal to the square of the lift coefficient Cl divided by the quantity: pi (3.14159) times the aspect ratio AR times an efficiency factor e.
Cdi = (Cl^2) / (pi * AR * e)
What are the values you are using for "e"?
How are you figuring Cl - The link I provided figured Cl out for you.
Since you have already messed up the AR several times, who is to say but YOU if you have the other values correct? Your calculator manipulation is but smoke and mirrors.
This equation gives us a way to determine a value for the drag coefficient. In a controlled environment (wind tunnel) we can set the velocity, density, and area and measure the drag produced. Through division we arrive at a value for the drag coefficient. As pointed out on the drag equation slide, the choice of reference area (wing area, frontal area, surface area...) will affect the actual numerical value of the drag coefficient that is calculated. When reporting drag coefficient values, it is important to specify the reference area that is used to determine the coefficient. We can predict the drag that will be produced under a different set of velocity, density (altitude), and area conditions using the drag equation.
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/dragco.html
Your string of numbers in reality means nothing without the stated parameters. If you were the aeronautical genius slide rule cowboy you claim to be you would have known that and posted the parameters and values.
So lets get back to basics and please show me the huge speed increase's the Spitfire IX received for the amount of horsepower dumped into it. Even some pilot anecdotes of Spit IX's fighting in the vertical against 190's would help your case out.
I tend to believe Science and History over smoke and mirrors. Capt. Brown had it right when he said the FW-190 and Spitfire where like "Blondes vs. Brunettes" neither one was better than the other. They are about as evenly matched as tow fighters can be. The Spitfire Merlin 66 (+25) is the correct opponent for the FW-190A8. Otherwise the FW-190A will have a larger advantage than it should have in 1944.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/jl165.html
Please find were the spitfire received the huge speed benefits for the HUGE amounts of Horsepower gains it made with out a weight gain?
Here Crumpp purposedly selects the worst available data set for the Spitfire as noted twice above.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Since Drag is the force which opposes thrust. The Spitfire, being of so little drag as you claim, should make some big gains for a small amount of Horsepower. It should flat out leave the 190 in the dust.
Here Crumpp purposedly mixes up induced drag and total drag. I have pointed out above that the Spitfire had lower induced drag than the Fw 190 at any given speed and g load, and there was no large differences in the total drag. At same output both planes were about as fast, even Crumpp's own data supports this.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Please show it with verifiable data because at full throttle height (the different altitudes you claim I was trying to manipulate the data) the gains are rather tiny.
Above I have showed twice the speed gains at the MS gear FTH (about 3k) of the Merlin 66 (+25), that's the only altitude where the 2050 hp output is relevant. As for comparison Crumpp came up with nonsense comparison by summing up the hp increase of the +18 and +25 Merlin 66 at 3k and using this for comparison at the FS gear FTH of different rated engines.
Originally posted by Crumpp
The derivation of the equation for the induced drag is fairly tedious and relies on some theoretical ideas which are beyond the scope of the Beginner's Guide.
Actually the calculation is very easy by using the formulas from the NASA site (links are above). It's not my problem if this is beyond Crumpp's capabilities.
Originally posted by Crumpp
The induced drag coefficient Cdi is equal to the square of the lift coefficient Cl divided by the quantity: pi (3.14159) times the aspect ratio AR times an efficiency factor e.
Cdi = (Cl^2) / (pi * AR * e)
What are the values you are using for "e"?
The values for "e" are mentioned twice above.
Originally posted by Crumpp
How are you figuring Cl
The NASA site gives needed formula, the link is above.
Originally posted by Crumpp
The link I provided figured Cl out for you.
Crumpp's link gives Cl just at the given angle of attack. The formula in the NASA site gives Cl at any given speed, altitude and g load combination for any given wing area and weight combination.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Since you have already messed up the AR several times, who is to say but YOU if you have the other values correct? Your calculator manipulation is but smoke and mirrors.
I have listed all the needed values above. Crumpp is free to do his own calculations if he can.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Your string of numbers in reality means nothing without the stated parameters. If you were the aeronautical genius slide rule cowboy you claim to be you would have known that and posted the parameters and values.
I have listed all the needed parameters above. It's not my problem if Crumpp can't use them.
Originally posted by Crumpp
I tend to believe Science and History over smoke and mirrors.
Well, we have seen above Crumpp creating his own version of Science and History.
gripen
-
Quite avoiding the issue and simply point out the huge speed gains the Spitfire recieved for the large amount of horsepower dumped into it with no weight gain.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by gripen
Here Crumpp purposedly selects the worst available data set for the Spitfire as noted twice above.
gripen
Actually Crummp only choosed the very best data available for a serially produced Spitfire LF IX. All the rest IXLF data on that site refer to prototypes and experimental planes with propellers that were never put onto mass produced Spitfires, or injection pumps that were toyed with on single prototype airplane.
Like it or not, the JL 165 test report is the ONLY performance data referring to a serial production Mk IX LF on the highly biased 4th FG site. There`s simply no other to choose from.
-
Dear Isegrim,
There is data on the Spitfire VIII JF 275. The main aerodynamic difference if compared to the Spitfire IX is taillwheel. Besides even you self have admited in past that the JL 165 performed below average and the mentioned site is not the only source of the available data.
gripen
-
Quite avoiding the issue and simply point out the huge speed gains the Spitfire recieved for the large amount of horsepower dumped into it with no weight gain.
Crumpp
-
Actually the calculation is very easy by using the formulas from the NASA site (links are above). It's not my problem if this is beyond Crumpp's capabilities.
Really? NASA says the Cl is rather complicated and is usually solved for experimentally in a wind tunnel. That's why I provided a program that calculated it for you. It changes with velocity, density, and angle of attack.
It's the FIRST sentence, right underneath the formula.
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/liftco.html
You need it to solve for the induced drag WHICH you claim to have done.
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/induced.html
Please tell us and scientific community how you have been calculating Cl at the house. I am sure there is prize money it somewhere for you!
The values for "e" are mentioned twice above.
No the value for "e" is the efficiency factor and you do not mention what you are using. The shape of the airfoil determines it.
Here Crumpp purposedly mixes up induced drag and total drag.
No I have not confused induced drag and total drag. I simply state that the Spitfire had more BASIC drag and ANY induced drag just adds to it. You have confused my explanation of this with an advancement of a theory and induced drag was the lynchpin.
Sounds to me like you are trying to make a case that the Spitfires wing generated NO induced drag. The combination of the two is the reason the Spitfire is not an energy fighter but rather an angle fighter. That's why Merlin powered spits didn't follow 190's in the vertical.
[Above I have showed twice the speed gains at the MS gear FTH (about 3k) of the Merlin 66 (+25), that's the only altitude where the 2050 hp output is relevant. As for comparison Crumpp came up with nonsense comparison by summing up the hp increase of the +18 and +25 Merlin 66 at 3k and using this for comparison at the FS gear FTH of different rated engines.
No you have shown obvious data manipulation. Fortunately the speed values are already determined and all anyone has to do is simply look for them. What is NOT apparent or readily shown on that website is the huge amount Horsepower dumped into the Spitfire with very little speed increase and no weight gain. The reader has to dig a little harder to see that and realize the penalty the Spitfire pays for it's wonderful high lift wing characteristics.
Please Gripen, before you make yourself look like even more of a butthead:
Quite avoiding the issue and simply point out the huge speed gains the Spitfire received for the large amount of horsepower dumped into it with no weight gain.
Crumpp
-
Quite avoiding the issue and simply point out the huge speed gains the Spitfire recieved for the large amount of horsepower dumped into it with no weight gain.
The test on JL 165 makes it quite clear the speed gains to be expected:
..4.41. An increase of about 950 ft/min in rate of climb and about 30 mph in all-out level speed is achieved by the increase of boost from +18 lb/sq.in. to +25 lb/sq.in.
If you look at the speed graph for JL 165, you'll see that in each gear, the speed increase from 18 lbs to 25 lbs was about 30 mph.
You can also look at the data for JF 275 http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit8.html
As you can see, speed increase was about 25 - 30 mph at altitudes where 25 lbs boost could be used.
-
Originally posted by gripen
Dear Isegrim,
There is data on the Spitfire VIII JF 275. The main aerodynamic difference if compared to the Spitfire IX is taillwheel. Besides even you self have admited in past that the JL 165 performed below average and the mentioned site is not the only source of the available data.
gripen
What are the conditions of JF 275? Only the data is posted on the site, nothing about the condtions.
However, a complete report is known for the Mk VIII JF. 934F. It shows 391 mph obtained at FTH. Compares very well to the JL 165`s 389 mph, and it`s quite reasonable relative to the Mk VIII performance. Considering such speeds were obtained with no less than 1700 HP available, it tells quite a bit about the Spit`s aerodynamic "effiency".
Even though I`d willing to accept there may be better performing serially produced Mk IXs and Mk VIIIs (other than Mike`s favourite prototypes for the show), the fact is there`s no single report with known conditions that would show higher performance than 389mph for the serial Mk IX, and 391mph for the Mk VIII. Any FW 190A is faster than that by a large margin, ie. the A-5s max. level speed being 415mph in multiple measured tests. It would be faster even with the optimum ca. 400mph figures used for the Mk IXLF, too.
-
. wip
-
JF275 came off the production line Nov 21 1942. It was one of 70 Spitfires (VII, VIII, IX, XI, XII) on test in May and June 1943. JF275 was 6-7 months old at the time. It had had 2 engines changes, Merlin 61 > 66 > 61.
Tests done with the new tropical filter in JF275 had a FTH (26800') speed of 397mph and with a backing plate installed 402mph at FTH (27700'). pg 281 Spitfire: The History
The Fw190A-8 could only manage 375mph at 26800' and 365mph at 27700'. The Spitfire VIII JF275 with a Merlin 61 was 22mph and 37mph faster and that is with a tropical filter fitted.:eek:
-
So in other words, JF 275 was just another experimental plane (as Milo pointed out). Kinda expected that, Mike usually holds back information on the planes if he wants to sell them with good performance - see 25lbs MkXIVs that never were. :)
On the other hand, I don`t really see what the `44 A-8 has to do with it, it was in the A-5s timeframe. 190As never had impressive altitude performance, everybody knows that, the point being they were quite a bit faster at the normal combat altitudes than LF Spitfires up to around 7000m.
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
So in other words, JF 275 was just another experimental plane (as Milo pointed out).
Only in your mind Barbi was it an experimental a/c. It was a production a/c that was used for testing.
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Kinda expected that, Mike usually holds back information on the planes if he wants to sell them with good performance
And you don't?:rofl :rofl :rofl
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Any FW 190A is faster than that by a large margin
Now the excuses come when he was shown he was wrong..
According to Crumpp, the A-8 had better performer than the A-5.:eek:
-
The Fw190A-8 could only manage 375mph at 26800' and 365mph at 27700'. The Spitfire VIII JF275 with a Merlin 61 was 22mph and 37mph faster and that is with a tropical filter fitted.
That is true. No one is claiming the 190A was a great High Altitude performer. Nor are they claiming it could doing anything more than what is documented. Only in 1942 did the 190 have a commanding advantage over the Spit Mk V. The Mk IX series and the 190A stayed as equals.
http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190.htm
190's fought spits in the vertical because they couldn't turn with them. Spits fought 190's in the Horizontal because they could not hang with them in the vertical. The first model of Spitfire that could was the Spitfire Mk XIV. It increased the spit airframe both in power AND weight.
Taken plane for plane the Spitfire IS a more aerodynamic design. This is evident from the following:
http://www.anycities.com/user/j22/j22/aero.htm
But when you factor in the physical size difference, the 190 comes out ahead simply because it has less surface area total. Even it's radial engine drag approximates the surface area of the Spits radiator openings. I instead of two square openings under the wing, you have one circle opening in the front.
The difference IS only POINT TWO (.2). However drag quadruples with velocity. Example, 1 mile and hour = .8 difference, 2 miles and hour = 1.6 difference, 3 miles per hour = 3.2 difference. You can see how quickly that small difference builds up.
Induced drag, no matter how small, adds to the Spits overall drag.
Now some people will claim they can pick up a calculator and figure out the lift Co-efficient for these Airfoils. I myself have to rely on Foilsim or other programs that do a pretty poor job of simulating the atmosphere. Best we got without access to a wind tunnel.
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/liftco.html
In regards to the Spitfire Speed. We have a test done at a Merlin 66 (+25). The speed increase in it IS an AVERAGE of 30 mph. It makes some gains.
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/merlin66_18_25.jpg
However at it's full throttle height, It overall speed gain is not very spectacular over the Merlin 61.
Merlin 61 top speed at Full throttle height:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum true air speed in F.S. supercharger 403 m.p.h. at
27,400 ft.
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/bf274.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Merlin 66 (+25)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum true air speed in F.S. gear = 389 mph at 13,800 feet
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/jl165.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adding a new fuel pump increased it's Full Throttle height speed.
However it is very misleading to quote "30 mph gain". Since no data exists on this website on Merlin (+18) performance without the new pump NOR is there any data for a Merlin (+25) with the new pump the reader is left to speculate.
Judging from comparing speeds approximating (+18) on Table IV and altitudes:
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/jl165.html
And comparing them with Table I here:
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/ma648.html
I don't think the Spitfire gained all that much speed from this fuel pump. Around 15 mph at some speeds, ranging down to none at others. Again, it is only speculation since no hard data exists. You certainly cannot claim a 30 mph increase over all, at least not at low altitudes. Remember the Merlin 61 has faster top speed than the Merlin 66 (+25).
The Merlin powered spits just didn't have enough inertia or Horsepower gain to overcome the drag of that same high lift wing which gave them such excellent low speed performance.
Looking at the Speeds I have to conclude the Merlin 66 (+25) is the correct Spit IX to fight the FW-190A8. The contest would be close.
Crumpp
-
In regards to the Spitfire Speed. We have a test done at a Merlin 66 (+25). The speed increase in it IS an AVERAGE of 30 mph. It makes some gains.
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/e...lin66_18_25.jpg
However at it's full throttle height, It overall speed gain is not very spectacular over the Merlin 61.
There is no difference at full throttle height because there is no extra power at full throttle height.
In fact, at the FTH for the Merlin 61, the Merlin 66 puts out less power, if anything.
At the altitudes where you have a large power increase, you have a large speed increase.
At the altitudes where there is no power increase, there is no speed increase.
However it is very misleading to quote "30 mph gain". Since no data exists on this website on Merlin (+18) performance without the new pump NOR is there any data for a Merlin (+25) with the new pump the reader is left to speculate.
Forget the SU fuel pump. There's only one aircraft on that page with the pump, and it's performance is only slightly different to a normal Spit.
From the tests of the Spit VIII and IX, the speed increase is pretty clear.
The difference between the Merlin at 18 lbs and 25 lbs is up to 400 hp. At some altitudes you get the full 400 hp increase, ie at the FTH height when run at 25 lbs you get 400 hp more. That declines until at the FTH at 18 lbs, you get no extra HP, and thus no extra speed.
Look at the boost figures for JL 165 on the speed chart. At altitudes where 25 lbs can be maintained, it's about 30 mph faster than at 18 lbs. However, that 25 lbs boost can't be maintained at all altitudes, and as it declines to 1 8lbs, the speed increase declines as well.
I don't think the Spitfire gained all that much speed from this fuel pump. Around 15 mph at some speeds, ranging down to none at others.
The speed increase from the fuel pump would be less than that, I think, but no-one is claiming a 30 mph speed increase from a fuel pump. What people are claiming, and the trials show, is a 30 mph increase from increasing the boost from 18 lbs to 25 lbs.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
NASA says the Cl is rather complicated and is usually solved for experimentally in a wind tunnel.
Here Crumpp can't understand that we just calculate what lift coefficient is needed to produce certain amount of lift at given conditions. The Formula in the NASA page (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/liftco.html) is fairly simple:
Cl=L/(r x (V^2/2) x A)
Where:
Cl=lift coefficient
L=lift
r=density
V=speed
A=wing area
As an example we can calculate what lift coefficient is needed for the Spitfire flying level 200km/h near sea level, all the needed parameters are easy to find:
L=33354 N
r=1,229kg/m3
V=55,56m/s
A=22,48m2
=> Cl=0,782
Originally posted by Crumpp
No the value for "e" is the efficiency factor and you do not mention what you are using.
My post 08-07-2004 09:59 PM:
"Induced drag coefficients can be easily calculated by using the formula from your link above, note that I use same efficiency factor 0,9 for both planes despite Spitfire apparently was better in that area"
My post 08-08-2004 09:38 PM:
"All the needed values are listed allready above including E (efficiency) factor. As noted above, I used same E factor 0,9 for both planes. But as NASA site notes, the Spitfire had near ideal shape of the wing, so here are the values at 3g load using E factor 0,95 for the Spitfire and 0,8 for the Fw 190"
In later post I used capital E just like Crumpp in his post 08-08-2004 12:45 PM
Originally posted by Crumpp
No I have not confused induced drag and total drag. I simply state that the Spitfire had more BASIC drag and ANY induced drag just adds to it.
Here Crumpp tries change his argument, but the funny thing is that his post ends as following:
Originally posted by Crumpp
The reader has to dig a little harder to see that and realize the penalty the Spitfire pays for it's wonderful high lift wing characteristics.
Shortly Crumpp can't understand induced drag nor lift coefficient.
gripen
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
That is true. No one is claiming the 190A was a great High Altitude performer. Nor are they claiming it could doing anything more than what is documented. Only in 1942 did the 190 have a commanding advantage over the Spit Mk V. The Mk IX series and the 190A stayed as equals.
Barbi was claiming otherwise.:) He then, when shown his error, changes his story.
the fact is there`s no single report with known conditions that would show higher performance than 389mph for the serial Mk IX, and 391mph for the Mk VIII. Any FW 190A is faster than that by a large margin
Spitfire VIII, JL163, with a tropical air filter did 367mph and 372mph(with blanking plate) at 8300' while an A-8 using 1.65ata could just do 360mph. (Fw data from graph dated 25.10.44)
-
He needs a girlfriend. :D
-
However, a complete report is known for the Mk VIII JF. 934F. It shows 391 mph obtained at FTH.
Yes, but note it was tropicalised, as was Jl 165.
Note that the tropical equipment always reduced speed. These from the Australian archives:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1092089770_normalspitviii.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1092089824_tropicalspitviii.jpg)
Maximum speed due to tropicalisation drops from 405 to 386 mph. These are speeds are with the Merlin 61.
I believe later tropical intakes had less effect on speed.
Like it or not, the JL 165 test report is the ONLY performance data referring to a serial production Mk IX LF on the highly biased 4th FG site.
How is Jl 165 a serial production plane? It was built as a Spit V with Merlin 45, had a Merlin 66 fitted, which Spit the history notes was a special engine for development of SU injection pump. After that, it was presumably modified back to a standard engine, had a "new type" tropical intake fitted, and was used by RR for trials, before being passed to A&AEE who used it for trials. How is this "normal"?
Also on p281 Spitfire: The History, Jl 163 372 mph @ 9550 ft, Jl707 370 mph @8100 ft, both in MS gear with tropical intakes.
-
Gripen says
r=1,229kg/m3
R = Density of the AIR. You got some pretty dense Atmosphere there Gripen! Twelve hundred and twenty nine Kilograms a cubic meter! Where we flying? Venus? The Earths core?
Here is the Correct value for R:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/atmos.html
Let me once again repeat what NASA says:
Here is a way to determine a value for the lift coefficient. In a controlled environment (wind tunnel) we can set the velocity, density, and area and measure the lift produced. Through division, we arrive at a value for the lift coefficient. We can then predict the lift that will be produced under a different set of velocity, density (altitude), and area conditions using the lift equation.
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/liftco.html
Using a wind tunnel under controlled conditions they can measure "L" and solve the equation from there.
Keep trying. I am sure there will be a big financial windfall from all the money the scientific community will save when you make wind tunnels obsolete.
You might want to stick to what you know.
CrumppBarbi was claiming otherwise. He then, when shown his error, changes his story.
At the same time, there are altitudes in which the 190 is faster than the Spit Mk IX.
Nashwan,
400 hp input for only 30 mph speed gain with NO wieght input is definately a lot of work for a small amount return.
Examining the data, It is just like the RAF says. There is a huge speed variation amoung Spitfires OF the same type WITH the same engine.
Here we can see in Table IV the one tested until Janurary of 1944. The Aircraft set up is a known factor in this test.
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/jl165.html
And a completely different speeds at the SAME altitude using another Merlin 66 (+25).
Aircraft set up is an unknown factor in this one.
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/merlin66_18_25.jpg
Seems that all the known setups have the worst performance. No conspiracy suspected. It would be nice if they did so we could get some answers.
Spitfire VIII, JL163, with a tropical air filter did 367mph and 372mph(with blanking plate) at 8300' while an A-8 using 1.65ata could just do 360mph. (Fw data from graph dated 25.10.44)
They are pretty close, Milo. I get about 364. Use a straight edge. Anyway according to the tactical trials the Spit VIII is just a very crappy rolling Spit Mk IX. Again though we see the trails with a different engine from the data tables.
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit8tac.html
Crumpp
-
That`s quite a good point about tropicalized aircraft. I wonder how more common was that on Spits, iirc Guppy said something it was added in Normandy as the low mounted carb intake took all the dust. Same thing in Russia.
How is Jl 165 a serial production plane? It was built as a Spit V with Merlin 45, had a Merlin 66 fitted, which Spit the history notes was a special engine for development of SU injection pump.
I suppose by the same logic which considers Werk.Nr.14 026 a representative serial plane, and Werk.Nr.14 513 not.
After that, it was presumably modified back to a standard engine, had a "new type" tropical intake fitted, and was used by RR for trials, before being passed to A&AEE who used it for trials. How is this "normal"?
You say just because the engine is swapped a few times in the same airframe, then it`s no longer representative of serial plane?
In any case, a large number of Mk IXs were just converted Mk Vs, nothing uncommon in that with WW2 fighters.
In any case, JL 165 was a modified Mk V airframe; this was common. It was tropicalized, that was common, too. Plus the report says it`s "a standard Spitfire IX with Merlin 66 engine, adjusted for maximum boost of +25 lb/sq.inch". I am sure w/o tropical equipment it would fare better, but doesn`t make it any less representative for the Mk IX series.
-
Gripen says
r=1,229kg/m3
R = Density of the AIR. You got some pretty dense Atmosphere there Gripen! Twelve hundred and twenty nine Kilograms a cubic meter! Where we flying? Venus? The Earths core? The measurement is in slugs/cu. ft. Not Meters cubed. Your number makes no sense. Unless of course you were calculating the density of the Airplane itself?
Here is the Correct value for R:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/atmos.html
Let me once again repeat what NASA says:
Here is a way to determine a value for the lift coefficient. In a controlled environment (wind tunnel) we can set the velocity, density, and area and measure the lift produced. Through division, we arrive at a value for the lift coefficient. We can then predict the lift that will be produced under a different set of velocity, density (altitude), and area conditions using the lift equation.
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/liftco.html
Using a wind tunnel under controlled conditions they can measure "L" and solve the equation from there.
Keep trying. I am sure there will be a big financial windfall from all the money the scientific community will save when you make wind tunnels obsolete.
You might want to stick to what you know.
CrumppBarbi was claiming otherwise. He then, when shown his error, changes his story.
At the same time, there are altitudes in which the 190 is faster than the Spit Mk IX.
Nashwan,
400 hp input for only 30 mph speed gain with NO weight gain is definitely a lot of work for a small amount return.
Examining the data, It is just like the RAF says. There is a huge speed variation among Spitfires OF the same type WITH the same engine.
Here we can see in Table IV the one tested until January of 1944. The Aircraft set up is a known factor in this test.
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/jl165.html
And a completely different speeds at the SAME altitude using another Merlin 66 (+25).
Aircraft set up is an unknown factor in this one.
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/merlin66_18_25.jpg
Seems that all the known setups have the worst performance. No conspiracy suspected. It would be nice if they did include some set up data so we could get some answers.
Spitfire VIII, JL163, with a tropical air filter did 367mph and 372mph(with blanking plate) at 8300' while an A-8 using 1.65ata could just do 360mph. (Fw data from graph dated 25.10.44)
They are pretty close, Milo. I get about 364. Use a straight edge. Anyway according to the tactical trials the Spit VIII is just a very crappy rolling Spit Mk IX. Again though we see the trails with a different engine from the data tables.
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit8tac.html
Crumpp
-
extra 400 hp which is lets say 25% increase for a ~1600hp engine will not give you 25% increase in thrust. Props are inefficient and their efficiency / inefficiency changes with airspeed / density.
Props are optimized for certain conditions. outside of those, most of the added power will just go to stirring up the air. If the air speed gets really high - as in dives, the props will start acting as a break even if it has 400hp more. You have to trade-off low speed preformance (acceleration, climb) with high speed (max speed cruise). I suppose this is the reason for the 5 blades used on the XIV, they needed a different preformance envelop.
zoom climb (as vertical dives) has nothing to do with induced drag. The lift generated is close to zero (zero G) and you have just inertia (mass), drag (viscos), and prop pull. when the initial speed is high, you'll find the most important term to be m/d (mass over drag co-eff), so being heavy actually helps.
Bozon
-
Thanks Bozon!
Crumpp
-
Ohhh, another Spitty vs whatever thread, yummy.
(Wish I wasn't in the middle of harvesting, otherwise I'd have the time to read up a tad better)
Anyway, I see some vital point missing, possibly due to lack of some people's knowledge of the true meaning of some parameters being used.
What is induced drag?
Answer, LIFT INDUCED DRAG. in other words, drag induced by the creation of lift. A function of lift. It is influenced a tad bit by wing shape. A square wing is the worst, while an elliptical one is the best. Tapered goes between. Aspect ratio will also influence this.
A nice elliptical wing beats all others in the lift vs drag by 5 - 10%
The "other" drag is mostly referred to as parasite drag. Drag which has no relation with the generation of lift.
Something from Crumpp that also made my eyes roll a bit. That's where he was wondering about how little speed the spittie gained by a big increase in Hp.
Well, for the record, the thumb rule is that to double the speed, one needs to quadruple the power. What does 15-20% power bring at the best?
All depends. Some airscrew will bring better speed while other bring better climb. And climb efficiency also means acceleration.
Pretty much what bozon said actually.
Anyway, goodnight gentlemen!
:)
-
Seems that all the known setups have the worst performance. No conspiracy suspected.
I don't know about all, just JL 165. The other Spit tests are fairly well documented, and accepted by most people (Isegrim excluded) as being accurate.
JL 165 simply ran much worse than other tested Spit IXs, and the fact that it had a long record as a trials aircraft probably had something to do with it.
-
Note that there is a note saying: External surfaces filled and polished. Not your normal condition of a Fw assigned to a JG.
Your ruler is crooked. 8300' = 2530m. At 2600m on one graph it could not reach 360mph. On the other 2 graphs, with very straight edges (drafting type), 362.5mph.
Not bad compared to the used and abused JL163.
At the same time, there are altitudes in which the 190 is faster than the Spit Mk IX.
Never said it wasn't. Barbi in one of his usual generalized statements claimed that the Fw was faster than the Spit.
-
Great stuff Nashwan, thanks for sharing :)
-
Note that there is a note saying: External surfaces filled and polished. Not your normal condition of a Fw assigned to a JG.
Nothing is abnormal about that Milo. Plenty of pilots on both sides had their planes polished by the ground crew.
This 190A is equipped with almost 200kg of optional equipment and a GM-1 kit with tanks.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
I don't know about all, just JL 165. The other Spit tests are fairly well documented, and accepted by most people (Isegrim excluded) as being accurate.
JL 165 simply ran much worse than other tested Spit IXs, and the fact that it had a long record as a trials aircraft probably had something to do with it.
Accpeted by whom exactly? That would be, you, and Mike?
Sorry, te injection pump Spit is a Prototype, and so is BS 543 with the XH aircrscrew, and most likely with an engine under development.
None of them ever appeared in service in this form. That`s the point. You are throwing in prototypes into a discussion of serially produced planes.
I wonder what your reaction would be if I `d throw in 109Ks into the comparison with 4-bladed or swpet-back propellors. You wouldn`t like a 740km/h+ Kurfurst, and would crying the place all over about it.
The simply reason for your troubles with JL 165 is that it`s 389mph topspeed, is, kmhh, a bit not impressive for an late 1944/45 aircraft. Compares nicely with the 1940 109F, or the Me 410 though. :p
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
R = Density of the AIR. You got some pretty dense Atmosphere there Gripen! Twelve hundred and twenty nine Kilograms a cubic meter!
Here Crumpp purposedly understands my european notation wrong; 1,229kg/m3 means one kilogram and two hundred twenty nine grams. All other values I gave are with similar notation so there is no reason to mix up notation. The density 1,229kg/m3 is a standard density of air at sea level static conditions for a standard day as seen in this (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/airprop.html) NASA page.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Using a wind tunnel under controlled conditions they can measure "L" and solve the equation from there.
Here Crumpp purposedly understand NASA site wrong, we know the value of the "L" (lift) because we know weight of the aircraft so It's easy to determine needed value of lift coefficient.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Thanks Bozon!
Here Crumpp can't understand what Bozon said:
"zoom climb (as vertical dives) has nothing to do with induced drag. The lift generated is close to zero (zero G)"
This is fully opposite if compared what Crumpp wrote above:
"The Spitfire added a huge amount of additional power for tiny gains in speed. Why? It had to fight to overcome the great lift it's wing provided."
Basicly Bozon said that Crumpp is completely wrong in his self made theories.
gripen
-
zoom climb (as vertical dives) has nothing to do with induced drag. The lift generated is close to zero (zero G) and you have just inertia (mass), drag (viscos), and prop pull. when the initial speed is high, you'll find the most important term to be m/d (mass over drag co-eff), so being heavy actually helps
There you have it. The heavier plane with the least amount of drag wins. The FW-190 had less DRAG.
Not talking about induced drag which only adds to the Spitfires overall drag when it occurs.
The FW-190A8 was heavier than the Spitfire Mk IX Merlin 66 (+25) and had less drag. Since the available Horsepower went up in the FW-190A8 along with it's weight it should out zoom the FW-190A5 and have better dive acceleration. Wing loading only gained 3 pounds so the turn would suffer but not that greatly.
Nashwan,
Sorry I missed this:
Faber's 190 was run at 1.42 ata against a Spit F IX putting out about 1580 hp, the LF IX at 18 lbs puts out about 1780hp, and the LF IX at 25 lbs puts out just over 2000 hp.
It was a Merlin 61 (+15) boost for the speed runs.
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
Yes and the BMW-801D2 put out as much as 2100PS or 2050hp @ 1.65ata. It's output matches the Merlin 66 (+25).
Altitude is NOT full throttle height. I matched the altitudes as closely as possible with the Horsepower ratings I had available.
Horsepower varies not only with altitude but seems to vary from engine to engine within the same type.
Crumpp
-
Here Crumpp purposedly understand NASA site wrong, we know the value of the "L" (lift) because we know weight of the aircraft so It's easy to determine needed value of lift coefficient.
Not according to the NASA site Gripen. To many variables to accurately compute it on a calculator. I have already posted it 3 times. If you can't get it, sorry.
I apologize for not recognizing your very different way of writing numbers. Never seen that before. 1.229kg in every place I have traveled = 1 KG 229 grams. 1,229kg = One Thousand two hundred and twenty nine kilograms. You learn something everyday.
If I input NACA 23009 into foilsim.
I get totally different values for Cl than what you posted. And frankly I'll trust NASA over chuckleheads on a BBS anyday.
Crumpp
-
Yes Crumpp, in most "metric nations" the comma and period have switched meanings when used in numerals.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Not according to the NASA site Gripen. To many variables to accurately compute it on a calculator. I have already posted it 3 times. If you can't get it, sorry.
Here Crumpp still can't understand that we don't need to determine what Cl the wing produces at given angle of attack. We need just to know what Cl is required to produce certain amount of lift with given wing area at given conditions and that can be easily calculated with the formula from the NASA site as pointed out several times above.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Not talking about induced drag which only adds to the Spitfires overall drag when it occurs.
Here Crumpp can't understand that induced drag adds more drag for the Fw 190 than for the Spitfire.
gripen
-
In fact Gripen,
If you read the notes on Foilsim and the airfoil program from the Naval Post Graduate they both say the same thing!
Calculations for lift and drag vary based on the theory behind the formula used to simulate fluid dynamics.
In other words, it does not mean SQUAT without air flowing over it. Just like NASA says.
So crunch away on your calculator if you want. It's your time to waste.
Crumpp
-
Gripen, at high speed induced drag only accounts for a small part of the total drag. That is why large aircraft like the Mosquito could be so fast despite having a lower power to weight ratio and a higher wing loading than most single engined fighters.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Calculations for lift and drag vary based on the theory behind the formula used to simulate fluid dynamics.
Here Crumpp can't understand that if a plane has a certain weight and a certain wing area and the conditions ie speed and air density are known, then there is just one exact lift coefficient which is required to produce needed amount of lift. And this can be easily calculated.
Originally posted by GScholz
Gripen, at high speed induced drag only accounts for a small part of the total drag.
That's actually what I have been saying right from the beginning:
My post 08-07-2004 02:32 PM:
"If you look drag coefficient calculation in your second link, you see that lift coefficient for given lift decreases when the speed increases. Therefore it's easy to understand that induced drag decreases when the speed increases (note relation between speed, angle of attack, lift coefficient and induced drag)."
And here is what Crumpp replied in his next post:
"It does NOT decrease with speed. If it did WWI biplanes would have broken the sound barrier long ago."
And that is completely wrong. I wonder why you did not enter discussion then?
gripen
-
Crumpp is right Gripen. The induced drag does not decrease (much) with speed, it remains fairly stable. A constant amount of lift is needed to keep a plane in level flight. The weight of the plane is fairly constant, and weight = lift = induced drag. However the parasitic drag increases with speed by a factor of four, so at high speed the induced drag (while still being approximately the same as at low speed) accounts for a much smaller part of the total drag.
-
To make myself clearer: As speed increase the induced drag does not go down. The parasitic drag goes up.
(Note: At very high AoA aproaching the stall limit the induced drag increases due to the deterioration of laminar airflow over the wing, and you must remember that the fuselage changes AoA too, so you get an increase in both form drag and interference drag as well.)
Edit: Oh and the drag created by the wingtip vortex' also increase at high angles of attack.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Nothing is abnormal about that Milo. Plenty of pilots on both sides had their planes polished by the ground crew.
This 190A is equipped with almost 200kg of optional equipment and a GM-1 kit with tanks.
Crumpp
Normal wear and tear on service a/c. There would be the odd ding and paint flaking off. No matter how hard the 'black men' tried they could not duplicate a factory fresh a/c. LW ground crew did not have time to give an a/c the 'spit (excuse the pun) and polish' of the test a/c. Clean yes.
But if you insist, next time Barbi does his 'song and dance' about Spits being cleaned up, I hope you will say what you just did.:)
The 3 speed graphs have the a/c weight as 4300kg. That is 120lb lighter than what you claim. NO GM1 fitted. Neither was an ETC 501, which cost 7.5 to 10mph depending on the altitude, and wheel doors fitted. Not your standard LW 190A.
Now what is "this" 190A you mentioned?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The induced drag does not decrease (much) with speed, it remains fairly stable. A constant amount of lift is needed to keep a plane in level flight.
Partially right but because needed Cl for constant lift drops when the speed is increased, the Cdi drops too:
As an example the Spitfire (3400kg) flying level 200km/h and 400km/h near sea level:
200km/h Cl=0,782 => Cdi=0,0366
400km/h Cl=0,196 => Cdi=0,00229
In other words, when the speed douples the Cdi drops to one sixteenth.
If we look formula for the Cdi, this is pretty easy to understand:
Cdi = (Cl^2) / (pi * AR * e)
Value of the Cl is squared.
gripen
-
The 3 speed graphs have the a/c weight as 4300kg. That is 120lb lighter than what you claim. NO GM1 fitted. Neither was an ETC 501, which cost 7.5 to 10mph depending on the altitude, and wheel doors fitted. Not your standard LW 190A.
It is a standard FW-190A8, Milo. It just is outfitted with the 115 liter internal tank kits and GM-1. GM-1 uses LNOX.
Clamshell doors are standard.
It's in the Pilots Manual and I sent Pyro a copy along with several other things from the Flugzeug-Handbook.
It is clearly labeled in the top right hand corner of tests.
http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So it doesn't get lost in the Minutia of Gripen's Tantrum:
zoom climb (as vertical dives) has nothing to do with induced drag. The lift generated is close to zero (zero G) and you have just inertia (mass), drag (viscos), and prop pull. when the initial speed is high, you'll find the most important term to be m/d (mass over drag co-eff), so being heavy actually helps
There you have it. The heavier plane with the least amount of drag wins. The FW-190 had less DRAG.
Not talking about induced drag, which only adds to the Spitfires overall drag when it occurs.
The FW-190A8 was heavier than the Spitfire Mk IX Merlin 66 (+25) and had less drag. Since the available Horsepower went up in the FW-190A8 along with it's weight it should out zoom the FW-190A5 and have better dive acceleration. Wing loading only gained 3 pounds so the turn would suffer but not that greatly.
When a Merlin powered Spit pointed its nose up to zoom climb, it's lighter weight and drag worked against it. It quickly slowed down to its best climb speed and began a low speed climb.
That is why Spitfires did not follow 190's in the vertical until the heavier Spitfire XIV came out.
Crumpp
-
The FW-190 had less DRAG.
Maybe some experts about aero-engineering could chime in on this, but what I know is that drag (viscos / parasitic - not induced drag) is a tricky business. with increase of the speed certain parts of the plane change from laminar to turbulant flow and change the drag behaviour. Also, the radiator is a big mystery. Engineers built a beautiful smooth airframe with minimal drag and then had to stick this thing in the airstream... ALOT of high speed drag can be reduced by a good design of the radiator (or radial's intake and tubing).
This makes the drag (NOT the induced drag) a very difficult problem.
Compressible, viscos, non-adiabatic, driven air flow on an irregular shape... I want to see this solved analyticaly...:eek:
bottom line - better zoom doesn't mean less drag overall. It could mean less drag at high speeds and/OR better mass/drag ratio.
take for example the P47 - it's twice as heavy as the spit V but not twice as draggie.
Bozon
-
The FW-190 had less DRAG.
I'd say the drag on the 190 and Spit IX is pretty similar.
With 1580 hp at sea level, the Spit IX did 335 mph.
With 1710 hp at sea level (1.42 ata), the Fw 190 A8 did 337 mph, according to the chart you linked to earlier. I've seen other docs that put the 190 as up to 350 at sea level on 1.42 ata.
Overall, those figures are pretty similar, and don't indicate much of a drag advantage for either aircraft.
The 190, being heavier, would have had a drag to weight ratio advantage.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
It is a standard FW-190A8, Milo. It just is outfitted with the 115 liter internal tank kits and GM-1. GM-1 uses LNOX.
Clamshell doors are standard.
Only one of the graphs says GM1 fitted with no 115l tank. Very few, if any, A-8s had GM1 installed. GM1 was a high altitude booster.
"GM-1 uses LNOX." No kidding. :rolleyes: Another word is laughing gas.:)
The ETC 501 was standard fit on the A-8. This meant the removal of the wheel doors.
It's in the Pilots Manual and I sent Pyro a copy along with several other things from the Flugzeug-Handbook.[/b]
How many times do you have to say this?:rolleyes:
It is clearly labeled in the top right hand corner of tests.
[/B]
Bloody metric.:mad: That should be 63lb heavier than what your 'bible', the pilot handbook claims.
To suppliment your 'bibles' you should buy, Focke-Wulf FW 190a: An Illustrated History of the Luftwaffes Legendary Fighter Aircraft, ISBN: 076431940X.
-
Originally posted by gripen
Partially right but because needed Cl for constant lift drops when the speed is increased, the Cdi drops too:
As an example the Spitfire (3400kg) flying level 200km/h and 400km/h near sea level:
200km/h Cl=0,782 => Cdi=0,0366
400km/h Cl=0,196 => Cdi=0,00229
In other words, when the speed douples the Cdi drops to one sixteenth.
If we look formula for the Cdi, this is pretty easy to understand:
Cdi = (Cl^2) / (pi * AR * e)
Value of the Cl is squared.
gripen
Now you've done it! You've confused me! ;)
Your formula is not correct though.
The correct formula is: CDi = CL^2 / pi*AR
The "e" in your formula is the Oswald's efficiency factor, which is a constant. pi and AR are also constants (for a given aircraft with fixed wing geometry).
The total drag formulae use the "e", not the lift dependent drag formulae.
CD = CDmin + (CL^2 / pi*AR*e)
In this formulae the constants (for a given airplane) are CDmin, pi, AR and e.
Speed is not a factor in any of these formulae.
CL = CIa*(AR/(AR+2))*a
Where "a" is AoA, AR is wing aspect ratio, CL is the 3D wing lift coefficient, and the CIa is the 2D wing coefficient slope.
So you see that CL increases with AoA at a constant airspeed, this is obvious. However to stay in level flight you need to decrease speed as you increase AoA. So as you increase AoA both lift and induced drag increases, however because you reduce speed to stay in level flight both lift and induced drag remains fairly constant.
-
"GM-1 uses LNOX." No kidding. Another word is laughing gas.
Point is Milo it is in Liquid form not a compressed gas. It's heavy.
The ETC 501 was standard fit on the A-8. This meant the removal of the wheel doors.
The ETC 501 rack was delivered with FW-190 as standard equipment as were the clamshell doors. Only one jagd-einsatz includes it to mount the 300 liter drop tank. It could be mounted and dismounted in just a few minutes mission dependant. Just like many allied aircraft could mount and dismount stores.
Crumpp
-
Liquid gas is compressed gas. If released it to the air at normal pressure the liquid gas will revert to gaseous form. Just like in a butane gas lighter.
-
Yes Gscholz you are correct. By the time it is fed into the engine it is back in gasous form.
However it is loaded into the Aircraft as a liquid and stored in the tank as a liquid. The Luftwaffe did the same thing with Oxygen. One reason their O2 systems were the best in the world for the time period.
It allowed them to carry more gas in a smaller container but was much more vunerable to attack.
The Allies used compressed gas in a high pressure cylinder.
Got some great pics of the "black men" refilling LNOX and LOX in Me-109's. Extremely dangerous time for them.
Crumpp
-
Or extremely funny time for them. ;)
-
Got that book Milo sitting on my shelf.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Now you've done it! You've confused me! ;)
Your formula is not correct though.
The correct formula is: CDi = CL^2 / pi*AR
The "e" in your formula is the Oswald's efficiency factor, which is a constant. pi and AR are also constants (for a given aircraft with fixed wing geometry).
Well, the formula is correct see here (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/induced.html).
Your version of the formula is true only for the planes with ideal elliptic shape of the wing.
Originally posted by GScholz
Speed is not a factor in any of these formulae.
The speed is factor for the lift coefficient (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/liftco.html) which must be solved first for wanted speeds:
Cl=L/(r * (V^2/2) * A)
Where:
Cl=lift coefficient
L=lift
r=density
V=speed
A=wing area
So in the case of my example we solve Cl values first with above formula for 200km/h and 400km/h, after that Cdi values can be easily solved.
BTW all this is told several times above.
gripen
-
Don't you see by those formulas that both the lift and drag quadruples with the doubling of speed? I.e. if you double the speed you quadruple the lift the wing generates, and quadruples the induced drag. To keep in level flight you would have to lower the AoA to lower the lift ... thereby equally lowering the drag.
I hate this ... HATE THIS! Gripen, promise me we will never do this again, NEVER! :)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Don't you see by those formulas that both the lift and drag quadruples with the doubling of speed?
Yes, at given AoA. But the calculation I use does not use AoA at all. We just calculate what Cl is needed for level flight at wanted speeds with known parameters (density, weight, speed and wing area). This calculation is very accurate if we have the right value for the efficiency factor and in the case of the Spitfire it's probably close to 0,9 due to elliptic wing.
gripen
-
This calculation is very accurate if we have the right value for the efficiency factor and in the case of the Spitfire it's probably close to 0,9 due to elliptic wing.
No it is not. NASA says without experimentation in a windtunnel it's just number that is meaningless. Your attempting to find the prediction without anything real data to back it up.
The real data is out there probably on the Spitfire and maybe on the FW-190A. One thing is for sure, you smokin that Texas Instrument's finest is only going to make YOU feel smart.
It's the same thing as If I just though up some numbers and said "well my caluclations are this BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. I started working the formulas myself and checking them against Foilsim. Yes I have had Calculus I and II. These Formulas though are basic Algebra and nothing more. Then I read Foilsims fine print. Without a windtunnel to verify your figures they are meaningless. So what is the point?
I've told you that like 4 times already Gripen. Read what NASA says right under the cool little diagram explaining the formula.
You keep focusing on the mathmatical part that determines a "prediction". The word "prediction" in English means "GUESS".
Here is a way to determine a value for the lift coefficient. In a controlled environment (wind tunnel) we can set the velocity, density, and area and measure the lift produced. Through division, we arrive at a value for the lift coefficient. We can then predict the lift that will be produced under a different set of velocity, density (altitude), and area conditions using the lift equation.
The lift coefficient contains the complex dependencies of object shape on lift. For three dimensional wings, the downwash generated near the wing tips reduces the overall lift coefficient of the wing. The lift coefficient also contains the effects of air viscosity and compressibility. To correctly use the lift coefficient, we must be sure that the viscosity and compressibility effects are the same between our measured case and the predicted case. Otherwise, the prediction will be inaccurate.
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/liftco.html
Crumpp
-
http://www.anycities.com/user/j22/j22/aero.htm
This is one source for the Drag information. The charts are down at the bottom of the page.
This is who calculated those figures posted on that website:
http://www.anycities.com/user/j22/j22/lednicer.htm
Crumpp
-
Well, Crumpp still can't understand that the value of the Cl needed for flight is very easy to calculate for known plane and conditions. No wonder he sounds so angry...
gripen
-
I simply cannot understand why you don't get that a plane needs the same amount of lift to stay in level flight ... regardless of speed. The weight of the plane still needs to be held up by the same force, or how else can the plane fly?
-
And please drop the MiloMoron attitude. We don't need two of you.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I simply cannot understand why you don't get that a plane needs the same amount of lift to stay in level flight ... regardless of speed. The weight of the plane still needs to be held up by the same force, or how else can the plane fly?
OK, lets do this from the ground up.
For the Cdi calculation we need Cl values at the speeds we are interested.
In the case of the Spitfire the weight of the plane is 3400kg so the amount of lift it need for level flight at all flyable speeds is:
9,81 m/s2 * 3400 kg = 33354 N
The plane flys at near sea level so the density of the air is 1,229 kg/m3.
The speeds we are studying are:
200 km/h => 55,56 m/s
400 km/h => 111,11 m/s
And the wing area is 22,48 m2
Next we just put values to the Cl formula:
Cl=L/(r * (V^2/2) * A)
200 km/h => 33354/(1,229 * (55,56^2/2) * 22,48 = 0,782
400 km/h => 33354/(1,229 * (111,11^2/2) * 22,48 = 0,196
Now we know that the plane the must have exactly these Cl values to produce lift of 33354 N at unknown AoAs, no wind tunnels or simulations needed. As noted above, this calculation does not need AoA values because we concentrate to the lift only; the entire induced drag is due to lift.
Now you can see that to produce constant amount of lift, the needed Cl value at 400 km/h drops to quarter of the needed Cl value at 200 km/h. In practice this means that the plane flys at lower AoA at 400 km/h than at 200 km/h but again we are not interested.
Now we can simply put Cl values to the Cdi formula, here I use efficiency factor 0,95 and the aspect ratio is 5,61:
Cdi = (Cl^2) / (pi * AR * e)
200 km/h => (0,782^2)/(pi * 5,61 * 0,95) = 0,0366
400 km/h => (0,196^2)/(pi * 5,61 * 0,95) = 0,00229
So here we are, these values are exact if the efficiency factor is right. Here we can also see that the induced drag for constant amount of lift drops to one sixteenth when the speed doubles.
gripen
-
Bear in mind that lift induced drag is always a factor while heading into airstream, be it vertical or nor.
A Spittie with its creation of lift above most planes will still be creating lift while zooming, in excess of most planes. It may be a liability, for the only thing it does above say 80 degrees is tilt the nose upwards, which needs to be compensated. Also, wings do count as parasite drag partially.
Look at the zoomers of AH. I think it's all rather correct. The zoomers are hevy planes with heavy wingloading.
Just picture this. A wingless projectile weigting 5 tonnes gets launced upwards at 500 kts together with a similar projectile with a 15 yards wingspan. The wingless one flies further, no doubt, before tipping over.
Change this to 45 degrees, and the winged one goes further...
You get the picture, I hope. :)
-
List your source please for the efficiency factor for both planes please.
Don't you understand you have all the data that the engineers have BEFORE they take it the wind tunnel?
The wind tunnel is used to confirm or deny that data. The actual numbers for both planes could be completely different based on boundary layer dynamics and a host of other incalculable factors.
How many planes have made it all the way to the runway before it was discovered they did not perform as the "data" said they should. Come on Gripen, your obviously a smart guy, be smarter than this.
Crumpp
-
MiloMorai,
When there is no lift needed ie at zero g, then the induced drag is also zero because needed lift coefficient is also zero. In fact you can calculate needed lift coefficient for any wanted speed, altitude and g load combination but you don't know if the plane can reach that high Cl, for that you need tested data.
As and example at 2 g load lift would be:
2 * 33354 N = 66708 N
And at 0 g load:
0 * 33354 N = 0 N
Regarding efficiency factor, we don't know what would be the exact value but for comparison purposes we can use same efficiency factor for both planes, the Fw 190 and Spitfire IX, despite we know that the Spitfire has better, near ideal shape of the wing. Then we can be certain that the calculation does not favor the Spitfire
As an example here are the Cl and Cdi values for both planes at 300 and 600 km/h assuming 3 g load and efficiency factor 0,9:
Spitfire IX:
300 km/h => Cl=1,043 Cdi=0,0686
600 km/h => Cl=0,261 Cdi=0,004287
Fw 190:
300 km/h => Cl=1,451 Cdi=0,1236
600 km/h => Cl=0,363 Cdi=0,007724
So now we can see that even by using numbers which favor Fw 190, the Spitfire IX has clearly lower Cdi (nearly half) than the Fw 190 at any reachable g load except at 0 g load when there is no induced drag and Cdi for both planes is therefore also zero.
gripen
-
"we know that the Spitfire has better, near ideal shape of the wing"
I'd like to remind you that to counter the stall characteristics of the elliptical wing there is washout in the wings which places the outer portion of the wing into more liftless angle when the mainpart of the wing (the root) is in position where it does the lifting job, so to me it seems that when determining the lift for Spit's wing only part of the wing can be considered effective depending on the speed and AoI of the main part of the wing. So when determining the AoI of the wing the washout and its effects to overall lift capabilities of the wing should not be forgotten.
;)
-C+
-
Well, when it comes to total lift, the Spitty definately beats the 190. But that's not the same as zoom.
BTW, give me a weight, wing area+loading, and time to 10K and 20K (with starting run) and I'll calculate it to Newtons if you like :)
-
Gripen
Regarding efficiency factor, we don't know what would be the exact value but for comparison purposes we can use same efficiency factor for both planes, the Fw 190 and Spitfire IX,
Now your numbers don't make ANY sense at all.
The Spitfires wing generates more lift because it has more lifting surface.
Look at the formula. The larger the Cl the more induced drag. The lower the Aspect, the higher the induced drag.
Using the same efficiency factor, which is the main advantage of the spitfires wing in induced drag, should clearly yield more favourable results to the Higher aspect ratio and lower lifting wing. After all, induced drag is a byproduct of lift.
Angus,
I'll look the info up for you or you can give me you email and I will send you the FW-190 wt charts. There are in this thread too somewhere. Don't have time now, headin to work. :(
Crumpp
-
Look at the formula. The larger the Cl the more induced drag.
The higher the wingloading, the higher the CL you need to maintain.
Lower wingloading means you need a lower CL.
Under comparable conditions, the Spitfire will need a lower CL than the 190.
Using the same efficiency factor, which is the main advantage of the spitfires wing in induced drag, should clearly yield more favourable results to the Higher aspect ratio and lower lifting wing. After all, induced drag is a byproduct of lift.
The heavier the plane, the more lift you need. The higher the wing loading, the higher the CL you need.
Low wingloading = lower induced drag.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Don't you understand you have all the data that the engineers have BEFORE they take it the wind tunnel?
The wind tunnel is used to confirm or deny that data. The actual numbers for both planes could be completely different based on boundary layer dynamics and a host of other incalculable factors.
Crumpp, he's calculating the Cl of a level flying plane at a given speed - this is the same as putting it in the wind tunnel. The engineers want to know this BEFORE they build the actual plane and risk some dumb bellybutton pilot to fly it. But for an actual flying plane the calculation must apply.
the "e" factor debated here, is a "fuzz" factor, determined empirically (though it can be estimated), to the effective area of the wing. This area is reduced by wing-tip turbulance and I belive it is not really constant in AoA. In order raise this value, you can change the shape of the wing-tip (eliptical) or change the aspect ratio of the wing (long thin wings are more efficient).
this wing-tip turbulance and efficiency of the wing will effect high AoA preformance mainly and almost non to max speed. This is why spits bleed less energy when manuvering. The induced drag (optimizing wing efficiency) adds peanuts to the total drag comparing with the parasitic drag at high speed, level cruising. If you are building a speedster, use small wings - you'll have more induced drag, but much less parasitic drag at very high speeds - see the F104 example.
(http://home.hetnet.nl/~fap5/images/f104/4_12_2.jpg)
(http://www.todo-aviones.com.ar/usa/f104/f104.jpg)
Bozon
-
Wingloading alone does not defines the amount of lift the wing generates. Let me remind you, the Spit had thin profile wings, which produce less lift proportinally than thick profiled wings on other a/c, such as the FW 190A`s.
The Spitfire`s Max. Lift Coefficient was 1.12. That`s ultra-low, and means the Spit`s huge wing area only produce a relatively tiny amount of lift. It`s not effective for lift generating purposes, also for the reasons Crummp mentioned, re: washout.
In fact, liftloading of the MkIX was already slightly worser than the 109G, despite having a 41% larger wing area a lower 'wingloading'.
So sorry, the "Low wingloading = lower induced drag" theme is just wishful thinking. Just look at how much power the Spit required to haul itself around compared to it`s nemesis.
The FW 190A-5 could reach 542 km/h with 1560 PS (static) at SL (1.3ata).
The Spit IXLF required 1680 HP (static) to reach 539 km/h at SL (+18lbs).
That pretty much summerizes the relative drag differences between the two.
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
The FW 190A-5 could reach 542 km/h with 1560 PS (static) at SL (1.3ata).
The Spit IXLF required 1680 HP (static) to reach 539 km/h at SL (+18lbs).
It would be nice to see hp to hp or ps to ps numbers.
Using the power graph for the BMW801D in the A-8 handbook, 1560ps is ~1540hp.
How does one get a hp number greater than the less than 1600hp(ram) as seen in this Merlin 66 graph at SL?
(http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/merlin66hpchart.jpg)
How is that the A-8 could only manage between 325 and 330mph(523 - 531kph) at 1.32ata, SL?
-
Thanks Bozon
Right I understand exactly what you are saying but in viewing the formulas I concluded that there is lots of wiggle room to support both sides of the debate. The "induced drag" element can be manipulated to seem larger or smaller than it is in the air and still be "factual".
Combining this with the fact AH is a computer program and we don't know how it models induced drag, entering the "number" debate is rather pointless. Beyond of course establishing whether or not induced drag is a factor in why spits did not enter the vertical fight with 190's.
The "induced drag" debate, following the formula, pretty much comes down to the 190's better aspect ratio vs. the "e" factor of the Spitfires wingtip. HTC and the "computer environment" in the end determine the variables we would be squabbling over.
Since induced drag is not a factor in zoom climbing. It's even more pointless. We can say that in a co-energy state the facts point to Merlin Power Spits never developing the ability to effectively fight 190's in a similar arena. The fight was always dissimilar, energy vs. angles or as Capt. Eric Brown put it "Blondes and Brunettes". Only when the Spitfire gained weight was it able to follow a zooming 190 with a chance of catching it without a large energy advantage. The Spitfire Mk XIV developed the ability to fight the similar fight and it was able to dominate the 190A.
This is confirmed by following the power and weight gains of both the 190 and the spit. Cross-referenced with performance charts and tactical trials.
Additionally, the extra weight and Horsepower the FW-190A8 gained improved it's zoom climb and dive acceleration. All traditional strengths of the 190. With a 3 lb increase to wing loading over the 190A5, CG adjustment, and a difference of HP-WT ratio in the 100th's, other performance areas suffered little or not at all. All in a much better armament package than the 190A5.
Crumpp
-
So sorry, the "Low wingloading = lower induced drag" theme is just wishful thinking.
Isegrim, look at the equations again. The lower the CL, the lower the induced drag.
CDi = CL^2 / pi*AR *e
-
Milo,
I bet you wish you could erase that last post!
Crumpp
-
If you study Horsepower, it changes considerably not only with altitude but even among the same engine type.
Other than drawing general conclusions, cross referenced by multiple sources. The Horsepower of the Merlin 66, 61, and the BMW-801D2 were extremely close.
Least that is what I discoved after chasing Hp figures on the BMW801 and Merlin engines.
I don't even think HP figures into AH modeling.
Crumpp
-
The "induced drag" debate, following the formula, pretty much comes down to the 190's better aspect ratio vs. the "e" factor of the Spitfires wingtip. HTC and the "computer environment" in the end determine the variables we would be squabbling over.
In level flight, a plane has to generate as much lift as it's mass.
The 190 is heavier, it has to generate more lift.
The amount of lift, as Isegrim has said, is dependent not only on the wingloading, but on the CL. Multiply the CL by the wing area to get the lift.
The Spitfire had a much larger wing area, and a fair bit less weight. That means it needs a much lower CL .
The higher the CL, the higher the induced drag.
Big wings and low weight produce less induced drag.
So of the 3 factors in the equation, the aspect ratio favours the 190, the Oswald efficiency probably favours the Spit, the CL favours the Spit by a large margin.
-
So of the 3 factors in the equation, the aspect ratio favours the 190, the Oswald efficiency probably favours the Spit, the CL favours the Spit by a large margin.
Again, not according to some of the online aerodynamic programs where you can program in the NACA code for airfoil and it calculates the lift.
Crumpp
-
Let me add though since Area is factored in both in figuring out Lift and the lift coefficient is squared, I tend to agree Nashwan.
Fluid mechanic modeling though determines how large or small the effects.
And all of this has little effect on the zoom climb of the 190A vs Merlin Spit.
Isegrim, If you have any official data please share it. Thanks.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
If you study Horsepower, it changes considerably not only with altitude but even among the same engine type.
Other than drawing general conclusions, cross referenced by multiple sources. The Horsepower of the Merlin 66, 61, and the BMW-801D2 were extremely close.
Least that is what I discoved after chasing Hp figures on the BMW801 and Merlin engines.
Was your other post to be included with this post of yours? Why would I want to erase my post? It is my understanding that 'ram' increased hp, among other things. Correction awaited. Indulge me and answer the questions asked in the post, since you are so smart?
How close is close? Is a 160ps difference extremely close? (1680hp = ~1700ps)
-
Nashwan,
Remember though the Spitfires Cd is greater than the FW-190's.
No matter how small amount of Cdi the Spitfire's wing generates it still adds to the total drag forces. Same goes for any A/C in flight.
I think that in adding the Cd + Cdi the FW-190 will still come out ahead overall.
Charge,
Is this what you are refering too?
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/downwash.html
Cl = Clo / (1 + Clo /[pi * AR])
So we see the higher aspect ratio factored in twice.
This makes the drag (NOT the induced drag) a very difficult problem.
Compressible, viscos, non-adiabatic, driven air flow on an irregular shape... I want to see this solved analyticaly...
Yes it is a very sticky problem. My source is an article written for "Sport Aviation" magazine. The man who wrote it is an aeronautical engineer and works for a firm which does computer simulations of A/C for the defense industry.
http://www.anycities.com/user/j22/j22/lednicer.htm
http://www.am-inc.com/
Crumpp
-
QUOTE]It is my understanding that 'ram' increased hp, among other things. Correction awaited. Indulge me and answer the questions asked in the post, since you are so smart? [/QUOTE]
By "RAM" I assume you talking about adjust the Hp for velocity at speed. This has the net effect of lowering the Hp output. It raises full throttle height and lowers Hp output some. It's the "dynamic air pressure gains at equivalent level speeds".
Examine the BMD801D graph on this website. It includes Hp adjust for velocity at speed.
http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190.htm
Isegrims figures seem to be for static Hp and are not adjusted for RAM. I did not take the time to confirm the boost pressure he is using to make sure both A/C are using the equivalent throttle setting.
To truly compare the charts you have to use the RAM line on the BMW-801D chart for 1.32ata @ 2400U/min. I get around 1480hp - 1490hp for the FW-190. I believe he is using the FW-190A5 Speed graph from the same website.
The Horsepower figures are close. The gap widens based on your source and different sources say different things for the same engine for both Aircraft. The Spit and FW-190 seem to trade off with altitude but never greatly outdistance each other in the power available arena.
Don't confuse PS with Hp either. They are close but Hp is just a little less because the unit of measure is larger.
Example - 2100PS is approx. 2050hp.
Crumpp
-
No Crumpp, thats not what I meant. The Spits wing has a sort of "torsional twist" which is there to counter the bad features of elliptical wing in high AoA. The tip has some negative angle when compared to the root of the wing so that when the root exceeds its AoA limit and stall,s the tip of the wing still provides lift. This is why Spitfire could be flown in overly stalled condition where the heavy buffeting indicated that the root part of the wing had already stalled but the a/c still flew well under control.
What I tried to point out was that while being a good feature this "washout" it could have a drawback which was that while the root of the wing provided lift at optimum angle the tip was in position where its angle was not so optimal to airflow considering lift creation. Thus the suggestion that when calculating the lift of the wing profile at certain speed the other part of the wing is not in the same AoA and thus does not provide the lift its profile suggests to.
But in turn in certain speeds while it was in "no lift angle" it didn't create much lift related drag either but merely some "plate area drag" which is related to its frontal area.
In high speed I'd imagine that the wing cannot be in optimal angle from almost any part of it as the root forces the fuselage upwards and the tip of the wing downwards. I'd imagine such situation to result in quite a spectacular vortex behind the wing.
But why the washout is there? As far as I've understood the elliptical wing is optimal in terms of providing lift when given a certain wing area minimizing the drag effects. So in that wing plan profile all surface that is not creating lift in level flight is simply left off thus giving that unique elliptic form and thus maximum area with minimum drag. However, in high AoA the elliptical wing is not working on its optimal area where the only thing it has is that very wing area it is designed to provide, and in this region the wing shapes of 109 and 190 work better.
Of course this is not something that is easily accessible via a few generic equations with calculator. :)
-C+
-
Well Charge the downwash on NASA's site goes a long way toward explaining why the Cl calculated by the computer porgrams is very different from Gripens.
Crumpp
-
In fact,
This formula IS the raw Cl.
For three dimensional wings, the downwash generated near the wing tips reduces the overall lift coefficient of the wing.
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/liftco.html
So When you factor in downwash, the higher aspect ratio of the FW-190's wing becomes important.
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/downwash.html
Crumpp
-
I understood the downwash so that it decreases the lift and that mostly near wing tips so Spitfire's wing's long pointy tip takes the vortex inducing component quite far from that part of wing that actually does the lifting in level flight and it also does not suffer from negative lift as badly as a square tipped wing because the vortice induced by the leading edge of the wing does not "hit" the trailing edge, thus not producing a strong down lift component, as there is no trailing edge (from the vortex's point of view).
But higher aspect ratio is considered better in rectangular wings as the vortex has smaller effect because of the lower angle of the vortex versus wingform. So the AoI of the wing tip in Spitfire is to the wrong direction when countering the bad effects of the downwash but the shape manages to counter those effects (but how much?).
SO a bad choice would be a rectangular wing with low AoI?
-C+
-
Efficiency factor of the wingtip is only used when calculating CDi not the downwash. The "raw" Cl is converted to the true Cl and that is used in all other calculations. Gripen has taken the "raw" Cl and used it without factoring in the downwash. The Cl will be much more evenly matched when entered into the Cdi formula.
According to everything I have read, the higher the Aspect ratio the better for manuverability.
Looks to me like the designers of the FW-190 and the Spitfire took different approachs to try and solve the same problem.
Everybody wants a fighter that is fast and manuverable.
High Aspect ratio's usually generate lots of lift and are found on aircraft like gliders. Low aspect ratio wings are found on speedsters like the F-104 pictured in Bozon's reply.
The FW-190 went with a High Aspect ratio and smaller wing area.
The Spitfire went with a lower aspect ratio and a large wing area.
In lift game, usually the higher aspect ratio wins. However, the Spitfire has a large amount of wing area.
Crumpp
-
From Izzy:
"the Spit`s huge wing area only produce a relatively tiny amount of lift. It`s not effective for lift generating purposes, also for the reasons Crummp mentioned, re: washout.
In fact, liftloading of the MkIX was already slightly worser than the 109G, despite having a 41% larger wing area a lower 'wingloading'. "
The Spit wing generates less lift pr sq/ft than i.e. the wing of a 109. However, the whole wing makes it up as a whole, so a Spitty hauling itself upwards with the same power as i.e. a 109 will generate more Newtons in the same time.
The wingloading factor and the shape of the Spitties wing actually start shining under angles and in hard maneuvers. The wingform and loading has the key to the Spitties insane escape maneuver of corkscrewing upwards! The same explains it's ability to turn so well.
An aerobatic wing....
Crumpp: Those chart would be welcomed. Try burns@isholf.is
-
Thanks Crumpp.:)
I didn't confuse hp and ps. That is why I asked for hp > hp or ps > ps.
You might find this interesting. Notice the weight > 4395kg for the A-8(normaljagar)
(http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/files/uploads20/10905814338yb0.jpg)
-
Can't follow the link Milo.
Your welcome. I did not think you did confuse PS and Hp in this case but it is easy to do, especially when you are scanning through mounds of data. I have done it before. I had to go back and redo the entire comparison.
It is extremely easy to get confused on the FW-190 Rustsatz, Umsatzrustaz, and einsatz's variants. It is no wonder there is a huge weight variance.
There are two basic fighter versions and two basic jabo versions.
These two basic fighter versions can be outfitted with 9 different kits to perform different tasks. This does not include other "accessories" like the 115-liter aux tank, GM-1, and Nachtjagd kits. Additionally the plane saw lots of Geschwader level modification, like removing the outboard MG151's. It is probably the correct weight, but for what version and mission is it equipped?
An FW-190A8 "fighter" can weigh anywhere from just over 4000kg's to almost 4900 kgs all in what mission it is equipped to perform.
It was kind of the "Jeep" of Luftwaffe fighters. IMO, to properly model it, the hanger menu will need to offer a few more choices.
One thing is certain. The performance has a wide variation based on the "accessories". All the way from very good maneuverability to "it barely flys". The choices you make in the hanger will probably reflect this fact.
Crumpp
-
Try this then,
w^3.allaboutwarfare.com/files/uploads20/10905814338yb0.jpg
w^3 = www
I know very well what 'kits' were used on the 190. Not all the /U and /R were fitted to 'combat' a/c. There was even two /R1s.
/R1 - FuG16Z- E for A-4, -5
/R1 - WB151/20 for A-6, -7, -8
There is also two meanings for the 'R'. which does not help either.
-
Originally posted by Charge
I'd like to remind you that to counter the stall characteristics of the elliptical wing there is washout in the wings which places the outer portion of the wing into more liftless angle when the mainpart of the wing (the root) is in position where it does the lifting job, so to me it seems that when determining the lift for Spit's wing only part of the wing can be considered effective depending on the speed and AoI of the main part of the wing. So when determining the AoI of the wing the washout and its effects to overall lift capabilities of the wing should not be forgotten.
Well, even with washout it's still entire wing which does the lift. However washout will effect on distribution of the lift (ie towards center section) so it will reduce efficiency factor if compared to ideal elliptic form, but unlikely very much. Otherwise the washout will ad some amount of form drag as you pointed out in your later post.
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
The Spitfire`s Max. Lift Coefficient was 1.12.
This value is from NACA test on Spitfire V. The RAE got different results and critisized NACA tests on this (RAE TN No. 1106):
(http://personal.inet.fi/koti/soon.moro/spitcl.jpg)
Originally posted by Crumpp
Efficiency factor of the wingtip is only used when calculating CDi not the downwash. The "raw" Cl is converted to the true Cl and that is used in all other calculations. Gripen has taken the "raw" Cl and used it without factoring in the downwash. The Cl will be much more evenly matched when entered into the Cdi formula.
Well, as usual Crumpp has no clue what he is talking about. The Cl formula:
Cl=L/(r * (V^2/2) * A)
Gives directly the true Cl of the plane, if Crumpp can prove otherwise he is most welcome to do so.
The downwash effect formula:
Cl = Clo / (1 + Clo /[pi * AR])
Is a formula to convert the 2D (infinite, ie no downwash effect) wing profile Clo value on given AoA for the 3D (finite) wing of known aspect ratio.
Originally posted by Crumpp
According to everything I have read, the higher the Aspect ratio the better for manuverability.
It's well known that (true) high aspect ratio has bad effect on roll performance as well as inertia effects might be serious. As an example Ta 152H much worse rate of roll than the Fw 190, another well know example is the P-38.
Originally posted by Crumpp
The FW-190 went with a High Aspect ratio and smaller wing area.
There is very little difference between aspect ratio of the Fw 190 and the Spitfire. And so far no one else has said that the Fw 190 had high aspect ratio, actually around 6 was quite normal. Here is a little list:
Fw 190 6,02
Ta 152H 8,95
P-38 8,24
Bf 109F 6,13
Bf 109H 8,05
Spitfire VII 6,50
P-51 5,88
Ki-61 7,20
P-47 5,53
D.520 6,50
MC.202 6,65
Hurricane 6,21
gripen
-
Gripen
Please feel free to show us the 2D formula. It is not listed on NASA's website. All it says is that if you want to use a 3D wing then you must factor in the downwash to the Cl from the only formula to calculate Cl provided. That's the one you used, right?
Third paragraph from the top:
For three dimensional wings, the downwash generated near the wing tips reduces the overall lift coefficient of the wing.
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/liftco.html
Reduced lift coefficient is a three dimensional effect related to the wing tips.
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/downwash.html
This value is from NACA test on Spitfire V. The RAE got different results and criticized NACA tests on this (RAE TN No. 1106):
Ok, so there are two completely conflicting tested results. The RAE says they don't agree with the NACA test results and their method is more accurate.
I'm not surprised. If Israel tested the F16 and said it's not as good as you say I am sure the both General Dynamics and the USAF would refute it with sensible engineering arguments. However two conflicting test results is not definitive proof.
It's well known that (true) high aspect ratio has bad effect on roll performance as well as inertia effects might be serious.
Is there something untrue about the 190A's Aspect Ratio? Are you trying to imply that the 190 did not have a great roll rate?
I am certainly not attempting to prove the Spitfire couldn't climb well, turn well, or had excellent aerobatic performance. It's a fact though that Merlin Powered Spits could not zoom with a 190 and have any hope of catching it from a co-energy state. The 190 got its performance edge from aerodynamics not raw horsepower as many published books allude. Simply check the SL speeds and Horsepower of a Merlin 66 (+18) and the FW-190A5 at 1.32ata @ 2400U/min. You have the websites and it is listed below although Isegrim did not adjust the BMW801D's Hp for RAM as the Merlin 66 chart is adjust for RAM.
Spitfire VII 6,50
And please print the Aspect Ratio of the Spit Mk IX please. Not a special High Altitude Spit Version.
http://www.btinternet.com/~lee_mail/spitfire2.html
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Please feel free to show us the 2D formula. It is not listed on NASA's website. All it says is that if you want to use a 3D wing then you must factor in the downwash to the Cl from the only formula to calculate Cl provided.
Here Crumpp purposedly understands NASA site wrong. NASA site gives two formulas to calculate lift coefficient (clearly printed as Cl not Clo) on different conditions.
The first one (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/liftco.html) can be used when the wing area , lift , air density and speed are known:
Cl = L / (A * .5 * r * V^2)
Note that the result of the formula is Cl (not Clo) ie this formula gives true lift coefficient. If a plane can fly at certain speed at certain altitude and it's weight and wing area is known, then this formula gives true Cl which includes all factors.
The second one (http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/downwash.html) can be used when the Clo (ie the 2D Cl of a profile at certain angle of attack and Reynolds number) and aspect ratio of the planned wing is known:
Cl = Clo / (1 + Clo /[pi * AR])
There is no formula for the Clo because it has to be determined experimentally, with the wind tunnel or with the simulation. As an example the Panel code solver (http://www.aa.nps.navy.mil/~jones/online_tools/panel2/), which Crumpp linked earlier in this thread, is an utility to determine 2D slow speed Clo for some profiles.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Is there something untrue about the 190A's Aspect Ratio? Are you trying to imply that the 190 did not have a great roll rate?
Crumpp's argument that:
" The FW-190 went with a High Aspect ratio"
Is pretty much untrue because the Fw 190 did not have high aspect ratio but a very typical AR for a WWII fighter.
Originally posted by Crumpp
The 190 got its performance edge from aerodynamics not raw horsepower as many published books allude.
It has been pointed out several times in this thread that the differences in the dive and zoom were mainly due to weight differences, not due to aerodynamic differences.
Originally posted by Crumpp
And please print the Aspect Ratio of the Spit Mk IX please. Not a special High Altitude Spit Version.
I have printed the AR of the Spitfire IX with standard wing tips (5,61) twice above.
Shortly there is nothing special in the AR of the Fw 190 and it can't be used to explain differences in the dive and zoom. Infact the P-51B had a lower AR but it dived and zoomed better than the Fw 190A.
gripen
-
Crumpp did you get the chart?
If not,
http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/
> forums > ww2 > 'thread' "Lift and drag coefficients" by Sokol.
post by gabbys near the end.
Willl need your translater though.
-
No I didn't Milo.
The link still is not working.
Crumpp
-
Is pretty much untrue because the Fw 190 did not have high aspect ratio but a very typical AR for a WWII fighter.
It was HIGHER than the Spits. That was the point Gripen
There is no formula for the Clo because it has to be determined experimentally, with the wind tunnel or with the simulation.
You would think that the site would explain it better. What you are saying is NOT how it reads. First the site says the Cl is best determined by using a Wind tunnel, which you contend is not necessary. Then it gives the formula. If you follow the link from this page:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/liftco.html
It clearly says for a 3D wing factor in the downstream effect and links to this page:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/downwash.html
Which talks about the basic free stream lift coefficient Clo. Your right it does not say HOW to calculate the Clo anywhere on the page.
Now YOUR SAYING WE NEED A WIND TUNNEL TO CALCULATE Clo!
I have one question. If we need to factor in downstream effect to figure out a 3D wing…
How do we fit our 2D wing into the Wind Tunnel? Won't our paper blow away?
I think your full of crap. I think that formula determines the 2D Cl and to convert it to 3D you have to factor in the downstream. Just like the first page says. Just to make sure I will email the guys that run that site and confirm it.
It has been pointed out several times in this thread that the differences in the dive and zoom were mainly due to weight differences, not due to aerodynamic differences.
Yes, never by you though. Don't steal another mans laurels, bozon offered the first informed explanation. In fact when the subject started it was on the FW-190A8 vs Merlin (+25) Spit Mk IX. I stated in my first post that the weight gain of the FW-190A8 improved it's zoom climb and dive acceleration. Your original contention was that the Spitfire Mk IX Merlin 66 (+25) performed just like the Spit XIV and would handily outperform the FW-190A8. I said they were equals each with it's own strengths and weaknesses.
I have printed the AR of the Spitfire IX with standard wing tips (5,61) twice above.
Yep I gave it to you.
Spitfire Mk IX - 5.61
FW-190A8 - 6.01 (which is .01 higher than what I posted)
Looks like a pretty good spread.
Shortly there is nothing special in the AR of the Fw 190 and it can't be used to explain differences in the dive and zoom. In fact the P-51B had a lower AR but it dived and zoomed better than the FW-190A.
Absolutely, the P51B was a MUCH more dangerous opponent for the FW190 than the Spitfire.
If you read the tactical trials it out zoomed it for two reasons:
1. It less DRAG and it had weight 9245lbs.
2. It had a 50 mph speed advantage advancing to 70 mph at altitude.
The FW-190 has less drag than the spitfire.
It doesn't list which FW-190 variant the RAF tested. Based on the time period it was either Faber's FW-190A3 or one of several FW-190A4 Jabo-einsatz's the RAF repaired and flew.
Or it could be the FW-190A5/U4 Aufklarer tested by the USAAF in Jan '44. This one needed quite a bit of work and the engine cut out at altitude. You can read about the tactical trials against a Corsair and a Hellcat here:
http://prodocs.netfirms.com/
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
It was HIGHER than the Spits. That was the point Gripen
Untrue, the high altituide Spitfires had higher aspect ratio than the Fw 190A. And no one else is calling the Fw 190A as high aspect ratio plane.
Originally posted by Crumpp
You would think that the site would explain it better. What you are saying is NOT how it reads. First the site says the Cl is best determined by using a Wind tunnel, which you contend is not necessary.
Here Crumpp behave really childish, the NASA site says first:
" Cl contains all the complex dependenciesand is usually determined experimentally"
And that is exactly what I have been doing when I use data from the real plane. Just Like Bozon wrote above:
" Crumpp, he's calculating the Cl of a level flying plane at a given speed - this is the same as putting it in the wind tunnel. The engineers want to know this BEFORE they build the actual plane and risk some dumb bellybutton pilot to fly it. But for an actual flying plane the calculation must apply. "
Originally posted by Crumpp
Now YOUR SAYING WE NEED A WIND TUNNEL TO CALCULATE Clo!
The Cl can be determined easily from the flight data. The Clo must be determined in wind tunnel or simulation. Crumpp is plain childish here.
Originally posted by Crumpp
How do we fit our 2D wing into the Wind Tunnel? Won't our paper blow away?
It's pretty simple, all what is needed is a wing plate going through wind tunnel so there is no downwash effect.
Originally posted by Crumpp
FW-190A8 - 6.01 (which is .01 higher than what I posted)
Actually:
10, 5^2/18,3=6,0245901639344
gripen
-
Here (http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Theories_of_Flight/Two_dimensional_coef/TH14.htm) is a good explanation of the wind tunnel testing on 2D lift coefficient.
"The data obtained by wind-tunnel testing of NACA families of airfoil sections is two-dimensional data. This means that since the airfoil was suspended in the wind tunnel from wall to wall, it essentially had no wingtips and simulated a section of a wing of infinite span. The data obtained is associated with just the airfoil and has no association with the span of the wing. "
gripen
-
Originally posted by GScholz
To make myself clearer: As speed increase the induced drag does not go down. The parasitic drag goes up.
(Note: At very high AoA aproaching the stall limit the induced drag increases due to the deterioration of laminar airflow over the wing, and you must remember that the fuselage changes AoA too, so you get an increase in both form drag and interference drag as well.)
Edit: Oh and the drag created by the wingtip vortex' also increase at high angles of attack.
Sorry GScholz, wrong on several points. Induced drag is caused by angle of attack, as is the creation of lift. As the Cl goes up, so does the angle of attack and the resulting induced drag. Induced drag varies directly with angle of attack. In level flight, as speed increases, the AoA decreases, therefore induced drag decreases. Wingtip vortices are caused by the same forces that cause induced drag and actually are the largest component of induced drag in the equation. Induced drag does vary with the inverse of variation in speed.
It's easy to see the relationship between AoA and airspeed: take any airplane in Aces High (the FM is very good) and fly it at 150mph in level flight and note where the horizon is in relation to some easily referenced fixed point in the cockpit. The increase your airspeed to 300mph in level flight and check that same fixed reference point and see where the horizon is in relation to it. You'll see a difference: at higher speeds the horizon is higher relative to that fixed point, which means the nose of the airplane is lower. This isn't exactly AoA but it's a very good reference for beginning to understand how AoA works.
You are correct on parasitic drag. Parasitic drag increases with the square of the increase in speed - double your speed, quadruple your parasitic drag and also increases with the AoA of the fuselage. BTW interference drag is a component of parasitic drag.
Re: "Note: At very high AoA..." At very high AoA the total drag increases beyond the capacity of the wing to lift along with the weight of the airplane. This total drag is mostly made up of induced drag, but form drag is a component of it. Once total drag + weight is more than the wings can lift the airplane starts to drop vertically, which rapidly increases AoA (and induced drag) and causes airflow to seperate on the top surface of the wing. This is a wing is in a stalled condition - i.e producing next to no lift.
Earlier in this thread someone (can't remember who) said something confused about Cl, AoA, airspeed and the generation of lift. Here's a great reference for understanding lift generation, lift coefficients and angles of attacks: how it flies (http://www.av8n.com/how/)
Cheers,
-
Untrue, the high altituide Spitfires had higher aspect ratio than the Fw 190A. And no one else is calling the Fw 190A as high aspect ratio plane.
Yeah they were great. That's why they made so many.
http://www.btinternet.com/~lee_mail/spitfire2.html
The Cl can be determined easily from the flight data. The Clo must be determined in wind tunnel or simulation. Crumpp is plain childish here.
Really, Gripen?
Well running your numbers for the FW-190 at 300Km through the downwash formula matches the computer similation almost exactly.
Cl (your calculation run through downwash effect) = .1296
Cl (as computed by the computer simulation) = .1295
This is for NACA 23009 at 0 degrees and 300km.
"The data obtained by wind-tunnel testing of NACA families of airfoil sections is two-dimensional data. This means that since the airfoil was suspended in the wind tunnel from wall to wall, it essentially had no wingtips and simulated a section of a wing of infinite span. The data obtained is associated with just the airfoil and has no association with the span of the wing. "
The aspect ratio is the square of the span s divided by the wing area A.
Show me were the span is factored in anywhere else except AR.
Area is not the same as span.
Again I think your full of crap. I am waiting on the answer from the engineers who run the site.
Crumpp
-
From Crumpp:
" It's a fact though that Merlin Powered Spits could not zoom with a 190 and have any hope of catching it from a co-energy state."
True, for almost all variants, I'd however not make a bet on a 190A vs a Mk VIII or a IF w. 25 boost. Truly the 190 will presumably outzoom them, but after zoom comes climb you see, and at some altitudes the difference can be up to 1500 feet a minute in the Spits favour.
And some couple of words on A of A.
Detch01 basically has it perfect.
Lower wingloading (as well as the shape) basically gives you a lower A of A at low speeds, hence less drag at low speeds, hence better acceleration at lower speed bands. Explains the Spitties as well as Zekes perormance in a stallfight.
-
True, for almost all variants, I'd however not make a bet on a 190A vs a Mk VIII or a IF w. 25 boost. Truly the 190 will presumably outzoom them, but after zoom comes climb you see, and at some altitudes the difference can be up to 1500 feet a minute in the Spits favour.
No doubt in a sustained climb that 190A will lose. Good example is Robert Johnson's mock dogfight with a Spitfire in his P47C.
If he zoomed, he left the spit behind. If he held the climb after he slowed down the spit caught up with him and quickly left him behind. I think he described it as "Shot by him". He had to enter a shallow dive, gain speed, and then zoom overhead. While the spit was struggling to follow him in the dive/zoom, he reversed and came down in a classic hammerhead on top of him.
Read the P47 vs FW-190 tactical trials. For Dive accelleration and zoom the FW-190 was better than the P47D4. It took 7000 feet in a 65 degree dive for the much heavier P47 to catch the 190 due to it's accelleration. Up to about 300 mph the 190 was a dragster. After that it was unremarkable.
That pretty much follows the classic Spitfire Mk IX 66 (+25) vs FW-190A8 fight.
Wasn't the Mk VIII a Griffen powered model? Have to check it out but If I remember the specifics on this one right, I think your right.
Crumpp
-
The Spit VII and VIII were Merlin powered.
The Griffon powered the XII, XIV, XVIII, XIX, 21, 22, 24.
Can anyone see that Fw data sheet I posted. If yes please post again so crumpp can see it.
-
Are the tactical trials (190 vs P47) on this thread?
I'd love to get my hands on them
Yes the Mk VIII was a Merlin powered one, somewhat more developed than the IX (Stiffer wing, better roll) and it had sub-variants depending for alt work. It was also tropically equipped, hence it was mostly sent to the med or mid east.
Some saw service in the Italian campaign in 1943.
Probably the finest there was of the Merlin powered series. I don't know if they boosted it to 25 though.
Performance is just a shade inferior to the XIV. i.e. 5000 feet initial climb, good roll, high top speed, and it was still lighter than the Griffon series, so basically it turned very well.
Oh, BTW, Crumpp, do you have any climb data for the 190?
And secondly, do you have any Zoom data, i.e. how high does the zoom take you from a given speed (say 350 mph) to another given speed (say 160) ???
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Well running your numbers for the FW-190 at 300Km through the downwash formula matches the computer similation almost exactly.
Cl (your calculation run through downwash effect) = .1296
Cl (as computed by the computer simulation) = .1295
This is for NACA 23009 at 0 degrees and 300km.
As usual Crumpp has no idea what he is doing, the Fw 190 can't fly 300km/h near sea level with AoA of 0 degrees.
First it should be noted that the profiles of the Fw 190 were NACA 23009 in the tip and the 23015 in the root, therefore the profile to use for analysis is 23012.
In the level flight 300 km/h near sea level, a 3850kg Fw 190 required Cl value 0,483636703 to fly (this is true and exact Cl). With the Panel code solver we can reach about same value by AoA of about 3 degrees and making downwash correction with aspect ratio 6,02.
gripen
-
As usual Crumpp has no idea what he is doing, the Fw 190 can't fly 300km/h near sea level with AoA of 0 degrees.
That's not what the performance graphs say. I think your full of it. Your simply trying to throw up smoke screen.
I did not know that about using NACA 23012. I will run it through. The Cl at the root was larger and that may account for the slight difference in values.
Angus,
The speed and climb graphs for the FW-190 are here:
http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190.htm
I have on for the FW-190A3 which I will email you.
Here is the tactical trials between an FW-190, Spitfire, and P47C/D4:
http://prodocs.netfirms.com/
I thought the tactical trials for the FW-190 vs Hellcat, Corsair were on there. They are not. I will send you a copy.
Here is what the NASA Aeronautical Engineer says about the lift equation:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey XXXX,
The lift coefficient equation (and the whole idea of lift coefficients)
works for both 2D and 3D. The idea was developed many years ago .. before the Wright brothers. In fact, lift coefficients were defined a little bit differently in the days of the Wright brothers than they are today:
http://wright.nasa.gov/airplane/liftold.html
http://wright.nasa.gov/airplane/lifteq.html
but the idea is the same: we relate the lift force to some other known or measurable force, with the lift coefficient just being a factor .. a ratio ..between the lift and some known or measurable force. In the old days, before computers, people would measure the lift of an object .. and knowing the reference force, would generate tables or graphs of lift coefficients for all kinds of shapes, sizes, designs .. etc. The measurements were made on
models in wind tunnels .. and then applied to full scale airplane designs.
As computers came along, we figured out how to calculate the flow around a shape to get the lift coefficient. It's obviously easier to calculate a 2D shape than a 3D shape .. but the idea works for either one. Now, equally obvious .. the value of the lift coefficient for a 2D shape is different
than the value for a 3D wing. So an engineer has to be very careful when using lift coefficients. You have to find out how the particular value was generated (2D or 3D model) .. and there some other aerodynamics effects (like boundary layers and shock waves) which can effect the value as well. You can only apply the lift coefficient to a real case which is similar to how the original model was tested. Check out:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/airsim.html
for some more details.
Tom
-
Gripen,
near sea level with AoA of 0 degrees.
I would be surprised to see any fighter in WWII that could hold an AoA at 0 degrees at that speed.
Point is the Cl were calculated under the same conditions.
0 degree AoA
300 km/h airspeed
Read above what a real aeronautical engineer has to say about the "Lift Co-efficient equation".
And compare it to your comments:
Gripen Says:
Well, as usual Crumpp has no clue what he is talking about.
Gripen Says:
Note that the result of the formula is Cl (not Clo) ie this formula gives true lift coefficient. If a plane can fly at certain speed at certain altitude and it's weight and wing area is known, then this formula gives true Cl which includes all factors.
Well the Real Engineer says the equation can be used for both 2D and 3D data. And it DOES NOT factor all things into it.
Got anymore snippets of disinformation?
It's ok, Gripen. You're correct about 50 percent of the time. About the same as the rest of us.
Crumpp
-
Well, it's very simple:
Using the Cl formula it's easy to determine that the 3850kg plane with a 18,3m2 wing needs a lift coefficient 0,483636703 to fly level 300km/h at near sea level. There is no other results despite what ever is the aspect ratio or the wing profile.
Certainly whole thing can be calculated backwards. As an example we can use Crumpp's values on the NACA 23009.
The Panel Code solver gives the Clo 0,1295 for the NACA 23009 at zero degrees AoA. Next we calculate the Cl for the the wing with the aspect ratio 6,02 with downwash formula and the result is 0,12862. Now we can simply use lift formula:
L = .5 * Cl * r * V^2 * A
Which results that with Crumpp's parameters the plane produces about 5022,14 N of lift which means that weight of the plane should be about 512 kg to do level flight at 300 km/h at near sea level.
gripen
-
:(
Did you read what the NASA engineer said?
Let me get this right,
Since you talked all kinds of smack and acted like this. (http://www.coolquiz.com/trivia/explain/docs/donkey.asp)
When you realize your wrong, you so shrewedly plant the "AoA ambush".
:eek:
and now want to debate the parameters I calculated the Cl from which I took from YOUR calculations of the "real" Cl. :cool:
In order to compare Cl conditions have to be the same.
You have to find out how the particular
value was generated (2D or 3D model) .. and there some other aerodynamics effects (like boundary layers and shock waves) which can effect the value as well. You can only apply the lift coefficient to a real case which is similar to how the original model was tested.
Your a piece of work.
You gotta be a Lawyer. If not then you sure have missed your calling in life. I sure hope your not learning to be an aeronautical engineer. If you are could you let us know what company hires you?
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Did you read what the NASA engineer said?
The right question is if Crumpp understood what a NASA engineer said.
gripen
-
So inspite of your sidetrack, which you were wrong in the end.
We can say that in a co-energy state the facts point to Merlin Power Spits never developing the ability to effectively fight 190's in a similar arena. The fight was always dissimilar, energy vs. angles or as Capt. Eric Brown put it "Blondes and Brunettes". Only when the Spitfire gained weight was it able to follow a zooming 190 with a chance of catching it without a large energy advantage. The Spitfire Mk XIV developed the ability to fight the similar fight and it was able to dominate the 190A.
This is confirmed by following the power and weight gains of both the 190 and the spit. Cross-referenced with performance charts and tactical trials.
Additionally, the extra weight and Horsepower the FW-190A8 gained improved it's zoom climb and dive acceleration. All traditional strengths of the 190. With a 3 lb increase to wing loading over the 190A5, CG adjustment, and a difference of HP-WT ratio in the 100th's, other performance areas suffered little or not at all. All in a much better armament package than the 190A5.
Crumpp
-
Gripen and Crumpp
How abou a truce? A little less heat.
Anyway, from a brief read-up, I must disagree with Crumpp last sttatement
"We can say that in a co-energy state the facts point to Merlin Power Spits never developing the ability to effectively fight 190's in a similar arena. The fight was always dissimilar, energy vs. angles or as Capt. Eric Brown put it "Blondes and Brunettes". Only when the Spitfire gained weight was it able to follow a zooming 190 with a chance of catching it without a large energy advantage."
Ok.
I'll give you a little essay, if you don't mind :)
The 190's best time was while meeting the earlier Spit V's (there were even Spit II's in service at the time). LW tactics at the time were in the general direction of engaging only under favourable cirkumstances (sun, cloud, superiour alt, speed, pos, dikta Boelce basically). At the time, the Spitfire's flying characteristics were fairly well known by the LW, while the 190's characteristics were completely unknown by the RAF.
(This actually went as far as a commando raid being planned to steal a 190 from a french field. This was abandoned when a 190 landed in the UK by accident. By then the only thing the RAF pilots knew (from gritty experience)was that at least their Spits would out-turn the 190)
A typical 190-Spit encounter in,say spring 1942 would definately NOT be on co-alt, co-E terms.
Usually the 190 was the attacker with a vastly superior E state. So was, often, the 109.
But the 190 held a card more, or rather 3.
In no particular order:
Firstly, A killing Firepower, typically double of the 109.
Secondly, As a heavier plane with even more speed, it carried more E (and due to aeodynamic shape, more zoom also) into the fray, hence an enhanced ability to finish a pass and make another one.
Thirdly, A phenomenal roll rate which enabled it to roll out of almost anything at very high speeds.
Crumpp: I honestly belive that a Co-alt, Co-E, head-on-merge could really cope with a Spit, 1 vs 1. C0-model, of course.
This would all depend on alt and exact speed, but with say 20 setups, I'd put my money on the Spit.
Spit V early vs 190 A5....bad for Spittie
Spit VII or IX LF booster vs 190A... bad for 190
And everything between, varying with alts.
Anyway, it would really be nice to have some zoom figures.
Without any knowledge of how much each plane zoomed at some given speed, it is tough to estimate if the zoom difference would count enough to make a reasonable difference.
Definately, a 190 bouncing a Spit at 200 miles more speed will be able to zoom away easily amd make another pass.
But Co-E, I am not so sure, unless the speed is really high.
Data on climb an zoom??
:)
-
I haven't got data on the zoom climb, but the RAF trial of Faber's 190 vs Spit F IX (Merlin 61, not 66) said:
When both aircraft were flying at high cruising speed and pulled up into the climb from level flight, the Fw 190 had a slight advantage in the initial stages due to it's better acceleration. This superiority was slightly increased when both aircraft were pulled up into a climb from a dive
Note the use of the words slight, and slightly increased.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
So inspite of your sidetrack, which you were wrong in the end.
Crumpp is most wellcome to prove his words with the calculations, if he can.
gripen
-
A typical 190-Spit encounter in,say spring 1942 would definately NOT be on co-alt, co-E terms.
Absolutely. That was due to the Ground Controllers reading Radar and vectoring the units to intercept. Not due to a lack of performance on the Luftwaffe Fighters. The allies did the same thing.
Between the FW-190A8, FW-190A5, and FW-190A3, the A3 will have the worst zoom of all. It had less weight.
Between the FW-190A5 and the FW-190A8 the zoom IMO will slightly favor the A8. All three gained some weight at each varient and gained Horsepower.
None of the test list's a true zoom climb test. The climb test with the P47 goes something like this; The FW-190A3 outdistanced the P47 in the first 1500 feet below 10,000 ft. Above 10,000 it outdistanced it in the first 1000 feet. So it's initial momentum was pretty good.
I was rather glad to find the P47 dive test listed both angle, altitude, entering speed and throttle setting.
Keep in mind the Zeke tactical trails F4UO posted. In it, when the planes were side by side the "advantages" were very small. When the planes actually conducted Mock combats those "small" advantages became useful ones. Read the distances and then read the mock combat results.
I don't think it should zoom to the moon by any means. It should be able to zoom well enough to be useful in combat. In a co-energy state the FW-190 should be able to zoom above the spit. Given the much better but still unrealistic gunnery in AH, a 190 probably wouldn't be able to get out of AH gunnery range. If the gunnery was realistic then the 190 would benefit more.
I also think it should be harder to fight than it is now. Little better performance in the areas listed below but harder to fight. Based on control force quirks, stall characteristics, trim changes under certain conditions, and the touchy elevator of the 190.
I think the Piggyness of the 190A8 comes from:
1. Lack of the ability to reverse quickly - Gollob comments that the FW-190A2 could reverse quicker than the Bf-109F4. Not turning, Rudder authority and roll rate.
2. Roll mechanics in AH. In Ah if you roll and give it a little rudder, you will increase your rate of roll. Buddy of mine has a 1938 Luscombe which is aerobatic rated. We go flying together. Putting rudder input when rolling is a bad thing in real life. Your nose will yaw through the horizon and slow your rate of roll. Too much rudder and you snaproll. Many planes experience nose yaw without any rudder input. In AH rolls are artificially stable. That takes away the Fast And Stable advantage of the 190. Because the 190's roll was stable, A pilot could change his entire lift vector at speeds up to 164 degrees/second (NACA roll rate max). This is why the FW-190 is listed as "very manuverable".
3. Acceleration advantage below 275 mph- Dive acceleration is a good indicator of level acceleration. Maybe it was prop efficiency, drag, or something but for some reason the 190 was a great accelerating fighter thru 275-330 mph, P47 trials actually list the acceleration differences. Even the Spit XIV had trouble if the 190 dove due to it's acceleration. Above that it is rather unremarkable and even slow. It is interesting that 350mph was the speed both the control forces became heavier suddenly and a trim change occurred.
4. Zoom climb - Some of this is net lag lag but the 190 should have a combat useful zoom. Nobody is going to care how great it zooms offline.
5. Level speeds, dive speed, climb speed, and climb rate should come exactly off the LW graphs and out of the pilot's manual.
Flaps should be modeled to their actual settings and tolerances as per pilots manual.
6. 115 liter Aux tank, which both the FW-190A5 and FW-190A8 have in AH should be an option in the hanger. Only the A8 should have the option of taking the Aux tank. Taking the Aux tank would equip the A8 with C3 "Emergency Power" and add 120kg to the weight.
7. Winterization kits should be removed from the FW-190 weights unless it’s a Russian or Finnish winter scenario. It was a kit used in sub-artic conditions in Russia and Norway. I lived in Germany for 3 years and never had a problem with my oil freezing solid in my car. 30Kg of extra oil and 25Kg off extra capacity oil pan and pump to pump gas into the oil system.
8. The Mg 131 ammo hoppers would be reduced to the 400 round capacity of the jagd-einsatz's listed in the Pilots manual.
9. Wgr. 21 rocket tubes should be jettisonable as they were in real life.
That is my thoughts. No real major changes. Just some tweaks that will make the plane more realistic IMO.
You guys examine the trials. I made a matrix to keep track of the different planes. If you are missing any of them let me know.
You guys tell me what you think it should be after reviewing the tactical trials. Thanks BTW for you input.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Angus
Gripen and Crumpp
How abou a truce? A little less heat.
Anyway, from a brief read-up, I must disagree with Crumpp last sttatement
"We can say that in a co-energy state the facts point to Merlin Power Spits never developing the ability to effectively fight 190's in a similar arena. The fight was always dissimilar, energy vs. angles or as Capt. Eric Brown put it "Blondes and Brunettes". Only when the Spitfire gained weight was it able to follow a zooming 190 with a chance of catching it without a large energy advantage."
Ok.
I'll give you a little essay, if you don't mind :)
The 190's best time was while meeting the earlier Spit V's (there were even Spit II's in service at the time). LW tactics at the time were in the general direction of engaging only under favourable cirkumstances (sun, cloud, superiour alt, speed, pos, dikta Boelce basically). At the time, the Spitfire's flying characteristics were fairly well known by the LW, while the 190's characteristics were completely unknown by the RAF.
(This actually went as far as a commando raid being planned to steal a 190 from a french field. This was abandoned when a 190 landed in the UK by accident. By then the only thing the RAF pilots knew (from gritty experience)was that at least their Spits would out-turn the 190)
A typical 190-Spit encounter in,say spring 1942 would definately NOT be on co-alt, co-E terms.
Usually the 190 was the attacker with a vastly superior E state. So was, often, the 109.
But the 190 held a card more, or rather 3.
In no particular order:
Firstly, A killing Firepower, typically double of the 109.
Secondly, As a heavier plane with even more speed, it carried more E (and due to aeodynamic shape, more zoom also) into the fray, hence an enhanced ability to finish a pass and make another one.
Thirdly, A phenomenal roll rate which enabled it to roll out of almost anything at very high speeds.
Crumpp: I honestly belive that a Co-alt, Co-E, head-on-merge could really cope with a Spit, 1 vs 1. C0-model, of course.
This would all depend on alt and exact speed, but with say 20 setups, I'd put my money on the Spit.
Spit V early vs 190 A5....bad for Spittie
Spit VII or IX LF booster vs 190A... bad for 190
And everything between, varying with alts.
Anyway, it would really be nice to have some zoom figures.
Without any knowledge of how much each plane zoomed at some given speed, it is tough to estimate if the zoom difference would count enough to make a reasonable difference.
Definately, a 190 bouncing a Spit at 200 miles more speed will be able to zoom away easily amd make another pass.
But Co-E, I am not so sure, unless the speed is really high.
Data on climb an zoom??
:)
Can't forget about standard tactics for the Spit XII. Those guys flew along below the 190s and 109s hoping they'd come down as the XII would then turn into them and was good enough or better then the 109 and 190 at those medium to low alts. The XIIs expected to get bounced.
And they were the high scoring Spit Squadrons in the fall of 43 with their best day October 20, 1943 when they claimed 9 for no loss.
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Well running your numbers for the FW-190 at 300Km through the downwash formula matches the computer similation almost exactly.
Cl (your calculation run through downwash effect) = .1296
This number has nothing to do with my calculations. The only Cl value for the Fw 190 at 300km/h I had posted before Crumpp's post is Cl 1,451 at 3 g load. If converted from 3D to 2D ie downwash effect of aspect ratio 6,02 is removed then the Clo is 1,5715.
Crumpp is making up numbers here.
gripen
-
Guppy:
Do you have more data on these Spit XII missions?
I remember Johnny Johnsson mentioning this tactics. He flew a mission with Harris (the ace). This was the tactic Harris used. He would let the 190's bounce his flight, and high break at the right moment. After that, the chase was downhill, and not too far, I think they were cruising at like 12000 feet.
It was a trap. I think they used Spit XIV's which outperformed the 190's in every aspect except roll at that alt. They just needed them to get down there.
I'll try to dig up more.
-
This number has nothing to do with my calculations. The only Cl value for the Fw 190 at 300km/h I had posted before Crumpp's post is Cl 1,451 at 3 g load. If converted from 3D to 2D ie downwash effect of aspect ratio 6,02 is removed then the Clo is 1,5715.
Just stop it Gripen. Nobody is making anything up.
Anyone can run your numbers throught the formulas here:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/downwash.html
You have already shown an understanding of aerodynamics that is not as complete as you present your knowledge to be.
The prudent man would just drop it. I sent some more questions to the NASA engineer. When the answers come back I will post them.
"It is better to keep you mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."
Guppy35,
While I do not doubt the sincerity of those pilots flying the Spitfire XII and I enjoyed reading it, it is like trying to gain performance insights from the fact Adi Glunz used to volunteer to fly the morning recon (2 ship element) flight over Dover in 1943 until it was stopped in 1944 so he could shoot down spits or the number of high scoring aces the type produced.
Here is an excellent book to read on this subject:
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/bookrev/spick.html
The Me-109 had a three year head start in combat over the FW-190 and was produced in much greater numbers. Yet the FW-190 produced many top scoring Aces.
http://www.luftwaffe-experten.com/pilots_day/O_Kittel.html
http://www.luftwaffe-experten.com/pilots_day/W_Nowotny.html
http://www.luftwaffe-experten.com/pilots_day/E_Rudorffer.html
http://www.luftwaffe-experten.com/pilots_day/H-Bar.html
http://www.luftwaffe-experten.com/pilots_day/J_Brendel.html
These are just guys who flew mainly the FW-190 and scored OVER 100 victories in it. It does not include names like Pips Priller and Adi Glunz.
Crumpp
-
I remember Johnny Johnsson mentioning this tactics. He flew a mission with Harris (the ace). This was the tactic Harris used. He would let the 190's bounce his flight, and high break at the right moment. After that, the chase was downhill, and not too far, I think they were cruising at like 12000 feet.
Classic "rope a dope". Both sides used these tactics. What is most important is spotting the enemy first.
There is no question either that the Spit XIV dominated the FW-190A.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Just stop it Gripen. Nobody is making anything up.
Anyone can run your numbers throught the formulas here:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/downwash.html
Please, show us how did you reach 0,1296.
If I put my value, Cl 1,451 for 300 km/h at 3 g, to the formula, I got following result (from 3D to 2D):
Cl = Clo / (1 + Clo /[pi * AR])
=> 1,451= 1,5715/(1+1,5715/[PI *6,02])
=> Clo = 1,5715
Even if I use formula wrong way (2D to 3D), I got Clo 1,348.
gripen
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Between the FW-190A8, FW-190A5, and FW-190A3, the A3 will have the worst zoom of all. It had less weight.
I agree that the A8 zooms better. But a minor point of clarification. All else equal, more weight = less zoom. The reason the A8 zooms better is that it has both more weight and more power, thus drag is a smaller percentage of total force on the aircraft.
-
Gripen,
Please, show us how did you reach 0,1296.
I actually sat down and started workin your numbers Gripen. Then I realized that you are using different numbers for Cl and factoring in what you say is the "Clo".
Bottom line is what the NASA engineer said about a formula YOU SAID COULD BE NOT BE USED for 2D data but ONLY CALCULATES 3D!!
You THINK you know what the formulas are used for AND everything that has to be factored in but the FACTS are you don't. Neither do I know everything, I am not an aeronautical engineer.
Therefore it is totally pointless to argue numbers at our level especially when those number ONLY apply to a specific flight condition with all other parameters being equal.
Leave that to the folks who do know. HTC will figure out the data they need.
In practical terms it's a stupid debate. Please either join the discussion or you can go start a new thread and rant about your calculations.
Phookat,
That is the whole point. The FW-190A gained Horsepower and weight accordingly to increase performance over its lifespan. . By tracking the weight gain and motor derating we can see this.
Why would anyone produce a version of the same fighter when they have a better performing version already in service, factories already tooled, and workers already producing a better performing product? It does not make sense.
Sticking to what we can prove.
1. The popular notion the FW-190 gained tons of weight and lost lots of performance is not true.
Just look at the FW-190A5 level speed chart that has been adjusted for air density differences.
The FW-190A8 level speed chart is not adjusted so we don't know the exact conditions it occurred. It gives us an idea and falls within the 190A5 density corrections.
http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190.htm
2. We know for a fact level speed, climb rates, climb speeds, and many of the performance parameters of the Aircraft. However these facts only come from a few sources. Since Allied A/C have much data available on each type it is easier to pick and choose the best data. Example - 4th Fighter group Spitfire site notes the wide variation in performance amoung the fighters of the same type in many of its test.
Another example is the test pilots at Rechlin testing the FW-190D9 produced different results with each test flight based on Engine condition, prop maintenance, air density, etc. all from the same plane/engine type. Their results varied as much as 15km/hour at full throttle height.
3. Performances factors we don't know for a fact can be deducted by analyzing the tactical trails and thru deductive reasoning produce a fairly accurate approximation of those parameters.
Tactical trials out there are:
P47
F4U
Hellcat
Spitfire Mk V
Spitfire Mk IX Merlin 61
If anyone is missing one of them please let me know.
The Zeke tactical trials give a great reference for how much or little makes a difference in combat.
I have that one too if it is needed.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Angus
Guppy:
Do you have more data on these Spit XII missions?
I remember Johnny Johnsson mentioning this tactics. He flew a mission with Harris (the ace). This was the tactic Harris used. He would let the 190's bounce his flight, and high break at the right moment. After that, the chase was downhill, and not too far, I think they were cruising at like 12000 feet.
It was a trap. I think they used Spit XIV's which outperformed the 190's in every aspect except roll at that alt. They just needed them to get down there.
I'll try to dig up more.
Johnnie Johnson's mention of this in his book was a November 17, 1943 flight with the Tangmere Spit XII Wing, led by Wing Commancer Ray Harries. I have a photo copy of the page from JEJ's logbook that he sent me regarding that flight. He was flying Ray Harrie's Spit XII that day too.
I have the combat reports for the Spit XII kills from that time as well.
Since the Spit XII was a single stage Griffon, it wasn't meant to perform at high alt, so they needed to entice the 109s and 190s down to them.
They were often used to escort the Medium bombers of the RAF or USAAF and since they usually flew at 18-20K the LW fighters would have the height then too.
On the October 20,1943 mission where they claimed 9 for no loss they were sweeping at 8000 feet when the 190s decided to come down and play.
Dan/Slack
-
Dunno, but to me such tactics seem to be extremely dangerous, letting enemy fighters to bounce them from above. The 190s get the first shots anyway, and if they have a little bit of tactical sense, they will zoom up after the attack pass was made, ie. their most common RL tactics.
Not that I am saying it wasn`t possible, but to me, it`s sounds like a rather bad idea...
-
What wing was on the Spit XII Guppy?
Looking over the speed data it does not seem all that much faster at lower altitudes than the Spit IX Merlin 66. The FW-190A8 is a little faster level speed wise. What struck me though was the best climb speed equals the FW-190's and the angle is steeper.
I think this is the key to the Spit XII's performance vs 190. It wouldn't mush it's speed as bad when it pulled the nose up and could get up above the 190 without as much horizontal seperation. This would make it a rougher customer to deal with than a normal Spit Mk IX Merlin 66 (+25).
The Spitfire Mk XII did not gain weight so I don't think it's zoom would be much better than the Mk IX. It's sustained climb though seems much better suited for combating the 190.
In the Spitfire Mk IX the best climb speed is well below the FW-190.
On the October 20,1943 mission where they claimed 9 for no loss they were sweeping at 8000 feet when the 190s decided to come down and play.
Grab a copy of:
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj00/fal00/caldwell.html
Here is one from 03 October 1943:
"The Second Gruppe scrambled from Epinoy and was vectored to the east of Beauvais to intercept a formation that proved to contain only Spitfires. This was No. 127 Wing (RCAF), on a diversion to the Roye airfield. A large air battle ensued in which Fw. Crump's victory was not confirmed. S/L Robert "Buck" McNair, whose sixteen victories made him one of the top-scoring RCAF pilots, ditched in the Channel. He was rescued, but suffered imparied vision that prevented him for returning to combat. The Spitfire pilots recieved credit for 5 FW-190's shot down. No Second Gruppe fighter sustained any reportable damage, and there is no evidence for the presence of any other Focke-Wulf combat unit in the area."
Great Stories though!
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Dunno, but to me such tactics seem to be extremely dangerous, letting enemy fighters to bounce them from above. The 190s get the first shots anyway, and if they have a little bit of tactical sense, they will zoom up after the attack pass was made, ie. their most common RL tactics.
Not that I am saying it wasn`t possible, but to me, it`s sounds like a rather bad idea...
Think about it for a minute though. The LW was going to have the advantage regardless as their radar would have allowed them to get up and get the alt advantage.
As the Spit XII leader, at least he was setting it up to have the encounter take place at the alts where his aircraft performed best if, and it was a big if, the 109s and 190s came down.
They often didn't unless the bombers were present.
Of course in 43 you'd have the IXs involved with the high alt specialists VI or VIIs on top cover with the Spit Vs as close cover to the bombers. A 109 or 190 driver could potentially encouter 5 different Spit variants on a mission.
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
What wing was on the Spit XII Guppy?
Looking over the speed data it does not seem all that much faster at lower altitudes than the Spit IX Merlin 66. The FW-190A8 is a little faster level speed wise. What struck me though was the best climb speed equals the FW-190's and the angle is steeper.
I think this is the key to the Spit XII's performance vs 190. It wouldn't mush it's speed as bad when it pulled the nose up and could get up above the 190 without as much horizontal seperation. This would make it a rougher customer to deal with than a normal Spit Mk IX Merlin 66 (+25).
The Spitfire Mk XII did not gain weight so I don't think it's zoom would be much better than the Mk IX. It's sustained climb though seems much better suited for combating the 190.
In the Spitfire Mk IX the best climb speed is well below the FW-190.
Grab a copy of:
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj00/fal00/caldwell.html
Here is one from 03 October 1943:
"The Second Gruppe scrambled from Epinoy and was vectored to the east of Beauvais to intercept a formation that proved to contain only Spitfires. This was No. 127 Wing (RCAF), on a diversion to the Roye airfield. A large air battle ensued in which Fw. Crump's victory was not confirmed. S/L Robert "Buck" McNair, whose sixteen victories made him one of the top-scoring RCAF pilots, ditched in the Channel. He was rescued, but suffered imparied vision that prevented him for returning to combat. The Spitfire pilots recieved credit for 5 FW-190's shot down. No Second Gruppe fighter sustained any reportable damage, and there is no evidence for the presence of any other Focke-Wulf combat unit in the area."
Great Stories though!
Crumpp
The XII had the clipped Universal Wing with the 2 20mm and 4 303's. It also had the earlier underwing set up with the smaller Spit V type oil cooler under one wing and the larger box radiator under the other like the V.
You'll also note I wrote 'claimed" on those 9 kills :) Everyone over claimed. Not wanting to start the argument over who did it more btw :)
Interestingly enough, at least to me, is one of the combat reports on the 10/20 mission that wasn't initially submitted by the pilot for a claim as he hadn't fired at the 109. The were locked up right on the deck and the 109 stalled out and augered in.
Dan/Slack
-
The XII had the clipped Universal Wing with the 2 20mm and 4 303's. It also had the earlier underwing set up with the smaller Spit V type oil cooler under one wing and the larger box radiator under the other like the V.
That explains it!
Interestingly enough, at least to me, is one of the combat reports on the 10/20 mission that wasn't initially submitted by the pilot for a claim as he hadn't fired at the 109. The were locked up right on the deck and the 109 stalled out and augered in.
Doah!! Wonder if his last words were " OH SH_TZ!"
BTW that is a smart tactic to stay at the best altitude for you fighter. Peter Crump relates a story in JG War Diaries about being caught at "bad altitude" for your kite.
He says their FW-190s hung like "fat bloated sausages" in the air while he watched P47's dive in on them. He used the stall of the 190 to snap into a spin and recovered it below the clouds.
Crumpp
-
You'll also note I wrote 'claimed" on those 9 kills
I've got a description in my notes (no idea where it's from now) of the encounter on 20th Oct 43, it says German losses were 9, as per the claims (I've got 9-0-1 for the claims). Losses were 109G6s and 190s from JG2, inc Friedrich May, (29 kills).
It claims the kills "included kills by"Harries, Doll, Kynaston, Bulmer and Nash
I don't know how accurate it is though, because I didn't note the source.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
I actually sat down and started workin your numbers Gripen. Then I realized that you are using different numbers for Cl and factoring in what you say is the "Clo".
Before your Cl calculation on my numbers, I had claimed just one Cl value (Cl 1,451) for the Fw 190 at 300 km/h so there should be no confusion. Why don't you just tell how did you reach that Cl 0,1296? Should be easy.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Bottom line is what the NASA engineer said about a formula YOU SAID COULD BE NOT BE USED for 2D data but ONLY CALCULATES 3D!!
In practice there is no way to determine 2D lift coefficient data of a certain profile accurately from the flight test data, therefore the Clo of the wing profiles are determined in the wind tunnel. Of course we can calculate Clo for a plane with varying wing profile like the Fw 190 but it's pretty much meaning less number. Your source says:
"So an engineer has to be very careful when using lift coefficients. You have to find out how the particular value was generated (2D or 3D model) .. and there some other aerodynamics effects (like boundary layers and shock waves) which can effect the value as well. You can only apply the lift coefficient to a real case which is similar to how the original model was tested."
What I'm asking here is you to tell how "the particular value was generated".
gripen
-
JG26 lost 31 a/c due to enemy action in Oct 43.
I - 10 > 190A-4 (3 out of 6), -5 (2 out of 6), -6 (5 out of 33)
II - 16 > 190A-4 (0 out of 2), -5 (2 out of 7), -6 (14 out of 36)
III - 5 > 109 G-3 (1 out of 6), -4 (10 out of 6), -6 (3 out of 36)
according to http://www.ww2.dk/
II./JG26 had a hard time vs the RAF/USAAF in Oct. 43 suffering 35.6% action casulties (A-6 (the latest and greatest), 38.9% of strength) compared to I. with 22.2% and III. with 10%.
-
Your Right Nashwan!
20 Oct '43
It was big rodeo that day with several bomber formations and lots of fighters in the air.
The 8th AF conducted the Duren raid.
II/JG26 mission was a fiasco. There was a thick layer of rain clouds covering France that day. II Gruppe got broken up climbing through the clouds and broke out of them as scattered individuals right underneath an escorting squadron of P47's.
The scattered pilots attempted to fight off the P47's and intercept the bombers.
The FW-190A6's paid the price with 3 casualties from the P47's and 1 from the B17's.
III/JG26 flying a mix of Bf-109G3's, G4's, and G6's lost 2 pilots to B17's and 2 to P47's.
The Mk XII's are mentioned in the Diaries though:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The day as a whole was a minor disaster for the German Defenses. Only nine B-17's were shot down, for the loss of nineteen German pilots killed or injured. The losses of JG2 were about equal to JG26's. The Richthofen fighters approach was broken up completely by the Spitfire Mk XII's of the Hawkinge Wing, which shot down 10 Messerschmitt's and FW-190's without loss.
JG 26 lost six pilots killed, and two injured. And nine of it's aircraft wrecked. All of the casualties of the Schlatager Geschwader were 1943 replacements, boding ill for the future; it is certain none of the five pilots shot down by P47's had the skill or experience Peter Crump needed to survive after being bounced at 34,000 feet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JG26 claimed 5 Spitfires (not Mk XII), 2 P47's, and 4 B17's.
Looks to me like the Spitfire Mk XII's were at worst co-alt and probably above as the main Luftwaffe Objective was the bombers.
Crumpp
-
From Issie:
"Dunno, but to me such tactics seem to be extremely dangerous, letting enemy fighters to bounce them from above. "
It's not a dunno. It was done, it happened, it worked.
Fact was, at that alt, neither the 109's nor the 190's could afford a serious co-number mix.
-
I disagree Angus.
JG 26 War Diaries is pretty unique in that it includes the Ground controller element as well as cross-referencing Axis and Allied records.
What that shows is that:
When the Luftwaffe had altitude they came out on top with little to no casualties.
When the Allies had Altitude the Allies came out on top with little to no casualties.
When the Altitude was even, both sides took casualties at a fairly even rate until mid-1944. As the number of replacement pilots grow so does the number of Luftwaffe casualties. This is also born out by the book "Six Months to Oblivion".
Both Luftwaffe fighters required a seasoned hand to fight effectively. The 190 was much easier to fly but IMO hard to fight. Not due to performance but rather the plane had some nasty quirks.
Crumpp
-
http://tonywood.cjb.net/
You can check out the casualties for the whole war in JG26 by Gruppe.
I and II Gruppe flew FW-190's from their introduction into the Jagdwaffe to the end of the war.
III Gruppe flew a mix of A/C. 109's, then 190's, back to 109's, then back to 190's. Mietusch makes some rather enlighting remarks about the Bf-109's on 17 June 1944.
1. The speed differential between 109's and 190's causes problems in mixed formations. In such cases the 109's must be given the better tactical position - i.e. the greater altitude (they can fly faster to match the 190's speed and fight better)
2. Bf-109 Operations at low level and low cloud are to be avoided.
3. Bf-109's have the best chance of success in dives from above.
4. The Mk-108 3 cm cannon has proved it's worth; the slight adverse effect on flight performance is bearable.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Your Right Nashwan!
20 Oct '43
It was big rodeo that day with several bomber formations and lots of fighters in the air.
The 8th AF conducted the Duren raid.
II/JG26 mission was a fiasco. There was a thick layer of rain clouds covering France that day. II Gruppe got broken up climbing through the clouds and broke out of them as scattered individuals right underneath an escorting squadron of P47's.
The scattered pilots attempted to fight off the P47's and intercept the bombers.
The FW-190A6's paid the price with 3 casualties from the P47's and 1 from the B17's.
III/JG26 flying a mix of Bf-109G3's, G4's, and G6's lost 2 pilots to B17's and 2 to P47's.
The Mk XII's are mentioned in the Diaries though:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The day as a whole was a minor disaster for the German Defenses. Only nine B-17's were shot down, for the loss of nineteen German pilots killed or injured. The losses of JG2 were about equal to JG26's. The Richthofen fighters approach was broken up completely by the Spitfire Mk XII's of the Hawkinge Wing, which shot down 10 Messerschmitt's and FW-190's without loss.
JG 26 lost six pilots killed, and two injured. And nine of it's aircraft wrecked. All of the casualties of the Schlatager Geschwader were 1943 replacements, boding ill for the future; it is certain none of the five pilots shot down by P47's had the skill or experience Peter Crump needed to survive after being bounced at 34,000 feet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JG26 claimed 5 Spitfires (not Mk XII), 2 P47's, and 4 B17's.
Looks to me like the Spitfire Mk XII's were at worst co-alt and probably above as the main Luftwaffe Objective was the bombers.
Crumpp
Hmmm, interesting info. I imagine the 10th is that one that wasn't initially claimed because the pilot didn't fire at him but he augered in.
The Spits were at 8K and according to combat reports the 109s etc came out of the sun from 13K. The Spits turned to port climbing while the E/A opened fire from extreme range. The E/A dove away and the Spits gave chase.
Claims were by:
WingCo Ray Harries-2
F/O Barney Newman RAAF(41) -1
F/O Ron Collis (41)-1
F/O Peter Cowell (41)-1
S/L Norm Kynaston(91)-1
F/O Ray Nash (91) -1
F/L Chris Doll (91)-1
F/S Red Blumer RAAF -1
And the one auger kill by a B Flight pilot of 41 Squadron. Jackie Fisher I believe but the signature is hard to make out on the combat report.
Interestingly enough, back in the mid 80s I corresponded with Barney Newman's family, Ron Collis, Ray Nash, Chris Doll and Peter Cowell, and at the 41 reunion in 85 stayed at Peter Cowell's home and was given the grand tour of their old airfields by Peter.
Helluva guy.
While the Spit XIIs had no losses, they did not return unscathed as a number of them were damaged, and Ron Collis 'broke the back of his Spit XII pulling out of a dive in the combat where he made the claim. His radio broke free and was bouncing around inside the fuselage. MB850 was in the shop for a while before being put back in service with 41 :)
Dan/Slack
BTW Crumpp, I've always assumed the name came from Peter Crump of JG26 and 190s
Naturally Slack comes from Tom Slack of 41 Squadron and Spit XIIs :)
-
Apparentlly Crumpp can't tell how did he reach that 2D Clo value 0,1296 which, according to him, is based to my calculated 3D Cl value 1,451 for the Fw 190 (AR 6,02) at 300km/h and 3 g load. The formula he claims to have been used is:
Cl = Clo / (1 + Clo /[pi * AR])
There is no way we can reach Crumpp's Cl value with this formula.
This leaves two possibilities:
1. Crumpp can't calculate.
2. Crumpp has made up his value.
gripen
-
BTW Crumpp, I've always assumed the name came from Peter Crump of JG26 and 190s
LOL Yeah I liked his attitude, the fact he never left his wingman, and he just manage to have a knack for the doing the right thing.
Interesting read on the Spit XII's. Your sure about the date on that, 20 October 1943 and not 17 November 1943?
Thanks for sharing it Guppy!
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
LOL Yeah I liked his attitude, the fact he never left his wingman, and he just manage to have a knack for the doing the right thing.
Interesting read on the Spit XII's. Your sure about the date on that, 20 October 1943 and not 17 November 1943?
Thanks for sharing it Guppy!
IT was definately October 20, 1943. The Spit XIIs didn't score much after that. There was a single kill in November and a couple in January 44. Nothing after that until the V-1s of the Summer of 44. They finished out with 2 190s claimed by 41 on September 3, 1944 over Holland.
Image is of the Tangmere Spit XII Wing, taken on October 30, 1943 shortly after their most successful day.
Ray Harries is center with the CO of 41 on his right, Bernard Ingham and the CO of 91 on his left, Norman Kynaston. I won't bore ya with the names of the others
Dan/Slack
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1092544835_tangmere-wing.jpg)
-
http://tonywood.cjb.net/
Don't know what is up with this link. Hit the JG26 Site then click on the Combat claims and losses graph. There you can see the claims and casualties broken down by Gruppe.
I hope they bring the Spit XII to AH, Guppy35.
Crumpp
-
20th october is the date from "Aces high".
Harries had some other nice sporting days as well.
18th of July he bagged 3 109's. 25 th of may he bagged 2 190's.
In dec 1944 he damaged a 262 while flying in a Spit IX as well.
I have quite some info about Mustangs of 65th sqn RAF vs 190's.
On the 24th of June 1944 for instance, several 190's were bagged by the squadron with little or no losses.
Wigco Johnstone got 2, and my fellow countryman Tony Jonsson got 2 as well. Both his victims hit the silk and survived, while at least 1 of the Wingco's victims was killed (I saw the guncam film)
Any Idea where I can find info about LW losses that day?
I'll bring some more stuff about it later.
Oh, wasn't Spit XII very similarly performing as the XIV?
I'd say we should get Spit VIII to AH! Imagine the whines :D
-
From JG 26 War Diaries:
24 June 1944.
The early mission of the first Gruppe was another uncontrolled jabojagd to the beachhead. Soon after takeoff, Lt. Xaver Ellenrieder's Schwarm sighted a squadron of approaching P47's and shadowed them west of Paris before attacking. Ellenrieder downed a 362nd Fighter Group Thunderbolt in the successful bounce.
The second and Third Gruppen and III/JG54 were scrambled at 0700 and directed toward a large Allied force headed for Paris. The formations collided between Evreux and Dreux. The Allied aircraft were 2nd TAF Mustangs from Nos. 19 and 65 Squadrons. Four No. 65 Squadron aircraft went down in the subsequent dogfights, claimed by Oblt. Werner Stoll, Lt Hofmann, and six Greenheart pilots. Hptm. Matoni who was once again leading most Second Gruppe missions, claimed a Spitfire, but lacked a witness. Uffz. Hermann Ayerle of the 12th Staffel was shot down, and was fired at in his parachute. He was not hit, but his parachute was, and Ayerle was injured in a hard landing after a swift descent. A second third Gruppe Messerschmitt was shot down, possibly in this combat; it's pilot was uninjured. Oblt Werner Stoll was shot down by "three Thunderbolts", according to his loss report, and bailed out with burns. No P47 claimed an FW-190 today, and Stoll was probably another victim of the RAF Mustang pilots, who claimed a total of 7-0-1 FW-190's and one Bf109. III/JG54 losses on this mission are unknown.
JG 26 lost 2 pilots WIA - 1 FW-190A8 and 1 Bf-109G6.
RAF claimed 8 A/C destroyed. LW claimed 7 A/C destroyed.
Side note: Pips Priller removed III/JG 54 from operational status. They had arrived from the Eastern Front. After training exercise's Priller felt they were not up to Western Front Combat standards. It is entirely possible the other A/C came from III/JG54.
Crumpp
-
Let me add some stats too for the Normandy Beachhead Air Battles:
Odds in the Air rose as high as 40 to 1 in the Allies favour.
For every pre - 1943 trained pilot lost over Normandy the Luftwaffe by Osprey books estimation - 30-40 post - 1943 trained pilots.
1 to 30-40 ratio between the "old hares" and the "nachtwuchs".
Opsrey Avaition Elite #6 - Jagdgeschwader 54 "Grunherz" mentions no entry on that date. III/JG54 was flying FW-190A8's.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Angus
20th october is the date from "Aces high".
Harries had some other nice sporting days as well.
18th of July he bagged 3 109's. 25 th of may he bagged 2 190's.
In dec 1944 he damaged a 262 while flying in a Spit IX as well.
I have quite some info about Mustangs of 65th sqn RAF vs 190's.
On the 24th of June 1944 for instance, several 190's were bagged by the squadron with little or no losses.
Wigco Johnstone got 2, and my fellow countryman Tony Jonsson got 2 as well. Both his victims hit the silk and survived, while at least 1 of the Wingco's victims was killed (I saw the guncam film)
Any Idea where I can find info about LW losses that day?
I'll bring some more stuff about it later.
Oh, wasn't Spit XII very similarly performing as the XIV?
I'd say we should get Spit VIII to AH! Imagine the whines :D
Spit XII essentially was a response to the low level FW190s that were doing hit and run raids on the south coast of England. The May 25, 1943 raid where Harries and 91 Squadron claimed a number of 190s was an interception of one of those raids.
41 claimed a 190 on June, 6, 1943 intercepting another of those raids.
The July 18, 1943 mission was a sweep where Harries claimed 2 109s downed and one damaged. It was also the day Tom Slack was shot down, only to walk back through Spain.
Spit XII to the Spit XIV was essentially like the Spit V to the IX. Single stage supercharger vs two stage etc.
Fast and able to turn with the 190s and 109s down low
Dan/Slack
-
The guncam film I saw was a low 6 o clock attack on a 190, the 190 crashing into the ground. That was wingco Johnston.
He claims a 190 SE of Dreux.
I was looking for another guncam film when I came across this, that was FO Jonsson filming his 1st victim after he landed on the ground and was rolling up his chute. This film sadly exists no more.
Jonsson's 1st victim was a tough one. That was treetop maneuvers, eventually the German zoomed and bailed out as he was stalling. He came down allright. This was somewhere in the >Dreux/Evreux area.
The second one was further north, since Jonsson was low on fuel and was RTB. He came across 2 190's, and fired at them from a 90 degrees angle!!! He did not hit anything as far as he knew, but the second pilot apparently panicked and immediately bailed out!
What I had dug up so far was this (Germans shot down):
Muders
Horthen, Rudolf
Wienrich, Rudolf
from JG 26:
Ayerle, Hermann. He was shot down by a P51. I wonder if he was the one shot by Jonsson, He was in the P51's sights when he bailed. However Jonsson was no chute-killer (He had a very hot opinion on those matters!)
He also was reported as WIA (from the source I had, anyone shot down is a WIA) on the 17th of July and on the 25th of September.
Any more info on that guy?
Anything welcome.
-
However Jonsson was no chute-killer (He had a very hot opinion on those matters!)
May not have been him.
From the accounts each German had more than one Allied fighter attacking them.
For the post-1943 pilots it is no wonder they bailed. They recieved no training whatsoever in air to air combat only in bomber interception. Their Aircraft were not gentle and forgiving either. So hard manuvering was beyond many of their abilities.
Statistically most of them died before the completion of their sixth mission. If they survived the sixth their chances went up astronomically.
Mietusch comments on how hard it was to control his unit. He had faith in all of his pilots "except the new ones".
The nachtwuchs would get into combat and drown out the radio with their screams.
He also was reported as WIA (from the source I had, anyone shot down is a WIA) on the 17th of July and on the 25th of September.
Ayerle, Hermann. 17 July '44 He just got back from the Hospital. He got shot down again with injuries. They got into a "large battle" with allied fighters near Caen. Mietusch claimed 1 spitfire in his 109G6, but III Gruppe lost 4 109's. Only 190 lost that day was a FW-190A8 whose engine quit on a transfer flight. III Gruppe lost a total of 7 109's that day.
He was shot down again on 27 Sept. '44 with injuries by a Spitfire again in a 109G6.
I'll do some checking on the other names.
Crumpp
-
WOW
You have some nice archive Crumpp.
BTW, Jonsson's engagements were 1vs1 and then 1vs2
No other planes around.
Both planes are listed in the Dreux area, however, he was homebound on cruise when he ran into the second engagement.
In any case, these were "solo" engagements from his side.
I could try to approach his logs, however that would be quite a task. I shall, none the less, try to do so in the future.
-
In any case, these were "solo" engagements from his side.
Thank you Angus. I have quite a bit of time on my hands in my job so I spend it reading. Big History buff!
I am sure from his point of view they were Solo Engagements. Pilots called it the "empty" sky syndrome. One second the sky would be full of planes and the next you were alone. Eric Hartmann completed 13 missions before he spotted his first enemy aircraft. He made contact on the previous 12 sorties but never saw the enemy except for a split second as they flew by him.
We call it "tunnel vision" in the infantry. It is just one of those things that occur in combat. It takes absolutely nothing away from Jonsson's bravery, intelligence, and it does not question his integrity or ability as a combat pilot.
Mietusch, III Gruppenkommanduer JG26 and 75 victory Experten, described it as:
"When the situation becomes critical, there is usually only one correct reaction out of a hundred possibilities. Then you fight as though in a trance. The lightning swiftness of the necessary reactions does not permit calm deliberation. The situation requires immediate action. You grasp only fragments of the swirling, lightning-swift images. Later you can sometimes remember one thing or another; these are painful recollections if the situation was not grasped properly, and happier if you did the one and only correct thing."
There were 3 Luftwaffe Gruppen and 2 Allied Squadrons that collided in the sky over Dreux in that engagement. The second engagement I can't comment on, but the first one I would say in all likelyhood, Jonsson was not as alone as he thought.
Have you checked out the Tactical trials of the FW-190A?
Crumpp
-
I'll send you a more detailed account of Jonsson's day, - i.e. THAT day..
BTW, He was no newbie at the time, Already on his second tour of duty with some 250 combat hours behind him.
He already had departed from his wingman on the first engagement. Alone, RTB, low on fuel in the second.
190's as well as 109's were often operating in big gaggles at the time. I remember an account where he got involved in a 12 vs 50 fight, where after the scruffle, the losses were roughly the same.
The Mustangs would absolutely engage the 190's uphill, BTW.
-
Angus M8,
The entire JG 26 only had 47 serviceable A/C in March of '44.
On 30 June of '44 they had 35 serviceable A/C of all types.
That stays about average. 50 Aircraft in the air at once is an entire Fighter Wing.
Crumpp
-
I would love to see the accounts Angus. Thanks for the offer!
Crumpp
-
After reviewing all the tactical trials and performance data.
The Mustangs would absolutely engage the 190's uphill, BTW.
There is no doubt that the Mustang was a much rougher customer for the 190 to deal with than the Spitfire until the advent of the Spitfire Mk XIV.
Crumpp
-
Well, it could do anything the 190 could, mostly better.
The Spitty in that time would typically be IX or XIV, boosted to the limit.
Not much an easier foe than the P51.....
Jonsson was actually very disappointed getting a P51 instead of a Spit IX............
-
Yeah the Spit XIV gained both weight and horsepower. It dominated the FW-190A.
The Spitfire IX Merlin 66 (+25) would be about the same fight as the FW-190A3 vs Merlin 61. Equal but niether dominating the other.
Crumpp
-
Regarding Speed climb and zoom, you mean?
After all, the 190 couldn't turn with any (!?) of the allied fighters, the sole possibility being the Ta152 with the heaviest allied planes.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Regarding Speed climb and zoom, you mean?
After all, the 190 couldn't turn with any (!?) of the allied fighters, the sole possibility being the Ta152 with the heaviest allied planes.
I think this is a bit too much to state. The 190 wasn`t a good turner, but from the tests, it could certainly turn with the P-51, Tyhpoon/Tempest, and outturn the P-47 and P-38.
Of course, quite worser than the nimble ones, Spits, 109s, Yaks, Laggs...
Leave out very high speed, combat flaps whatever special condition, I mean generally the 190 had a turn advantage over them.
-
Read the comparison tests with the american fighters Issy and say again.
How much was it for the Hellcat to reverse the situation? 3 turns?
Even the F4u easily outturned the 190. A P51 turns with the F4U.
The only 190's I've seen reported as turning with the Tempest were Ta152's. That would be understandable because of their great span.
A 190 outturning the P38? NO WAY.
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
I think this is a bit too much to state. The 190 wasn`t a good turner, but from the tests, it could certainly turn with the P-51, Tyhpoon/Tempest, and outturn the P-47 and P-38.
Er, the P-51 and P-38 out turn the Spitfire.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Read the comparison tests with the american fighters Issy and say again.
How much was it for the Hellcat to reverse the situation? 3 turns?
Hellcat was a very good turner with very low wingloading, so what?
Even the F4u easily outturned the 190. A P51 turns with the F4U.
Wrong.
P-51C vs. F-4U trials : "The F4U is everywhere superior in manouveribility and response."
The only 190's I've seen reported as turning with the Tempest were Ta152's. That would be understandable because of their great span.
"Turning Circles
There is very little difference in turning circles between the two aircraft. If anything a very slight advantage lies with the Tempest. "
A 190 outturning the P38? NO WAY.
Yet it happened : "The manouverbility of the FW 190 is superior to the P-38F, part. in the rolling plane. Altough at high speed the FW 190 is superior in turning circles, it can be outturned if the P-38F reduces it`s speed to about 140 mph at which it can carry out a very tight turn the FW 190 cannot follow."
Hmm. A fighter at 140 mph. That`s barely over 200 km/h, near the landing speed of most planes. Yeah, you are right, it could outturn it unless speed is higher than 140mph. ;)
-
"Er, the P-51 and P-38 out turn the Spitfire."
Nashwan will be mad, he isn`t in a good mood or stance anyway around now for some reason. :rofl
-
Issie, you're nuts. Did I maybe say that before?
A P51 and a F4U are very close in the turning business. Depends on model. You quote an unknown F4U vs a P51C. I'd like to see that. With or without a notch of flaps?
What I've seen so far (as well as tried in AH) the F4U and the P51 have a rather similar turning capability, while the 190 is VASTLY INFERIOR to the F4U.
About a P38 being a bad turner, I'm clueless. This is something I never heard before, so in AH it must be incredibly wrongly modelled, at least according to you.
So, for all our sake, as well as for HTC, please provide some complete info on that .
-
Read the comparison tests with the american fighters Issy and say again.
Yes,
In those test's the FW-190 turn EXTREMELY badly. In fact there are only TWO tests' that mention aileron problems when turning. The USAAF tactical trails with an FW-190A5/U4 and the Luftwaffe Tactical trials of an FW-190A2 vs. Bf-109F4.
A P51 does turn with an F4U. An FW-190A turns with a P51B with the P51B having a "slight" advantage. Certainly not outturning it in a couple of turns. Yet the F4U and the Hellcat in these tactical trials easily outturned the FW-190.
In the FW-190A2 vs. Bf-109F4 tactical trials, it is specifically mentioned that the ailerons must be properly adjusted and the grip proof tips properly positioned. This has an adverse effect on low speed handling and causes premature stalling in the turns.
Check out the aileron comments on this website:
http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190.htm
Now cross-reference that with the FW-190A5 condition on the USAAF tactical trials. Fairly extensive repairs were done to this A/C. It was a crashed and recovered A/C. I think the ailerons were out of adjustment.
Again, these two trials are the only mention of a problem with stalling in the turns.
Crumpp
-
Angus,
That is not to say that a 190 will outturn a Spitfire or turn with anything it could not turn with in reality. It could and did turn with all of the USAAF fighters. Depending on speed and altitude determined it ability.
Crumpp
-
So, a paradoxical info?
F4U easily outturns a 190. P51 turns with F4U. P51 outturns 190 with a slight advantage?
I read life accounts of turnfights between 190's and 51's. The 51's did not have to worry that much, however, they would at times need to pop out a notch of flaps.
I am referring to co-E of course. However, the 190's frequently being the "bouncer", could afford a few turns and thereby sometimes cutting in nicely before loosing it's E.
And where does the 38 fit into the rack?
I always thought that a P38L would outturn both the Mustang and the F4U, sitting somewhere near the hellcat.
-
Originally posted by Angus
A P51 and a F4U are very close in the turning business.
Source?
What I've seen so far (as well as tried in AH) the F4U and the P51 have a rather similar turning capability, while the 190 is VASTLY INFERIOR to the F4U.
[/B]
Aha! "I have seen it AH!"
-
Issie:
"Originally posted by Angus
A P51 and a F4U are very close in the turning business. "
Prove me (and HTC) wrong, how about that?
-
Oh, and Issie, crumpp holds the flight trials between a 190 and an F4U as well as F6F, in which the 190 proved vastly inferior.
-
I am referring to co-E of course. However, the 190's frequently being the "bouncer", could afford a few turns and thereby sometimes cutting in nicely before loosing it's E.
Did you check out the aileron comments? That would explain the paradox.
FW-190's were rarely the "bouncer" after Jan '44. Great read on the time period from Jan. '44 til the end is:
http://www.schifferbooks.com/newschiffer/book_template.php?isbn=0887403484
Once Doolittle release the Allied fighters to "destroy" the Luftwaffe the writing was on the wall. Germany just could not afford a war of attrition.
In fact, after Jan '44, it is usually the Allies doing the bouncing as the Luftwaffe is trying to take-off and form up to attack the bomber stream.
JG26 took to hiding their fighters in the woods. They even went so far as to put cows on their grass field airstrips to fool the prowling Allied fighters so they could take off.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Angus
Oh, and Issie, crumpp holds the flight trials between a 190 and an F4U as well as F6F, in which the 190 proved vastly inferior.
I do have it as well, and so of the F4U vs. P-51C flight trials.
As for the former 'proving the FW 190 vastly inferior'... hmm, the trials actually say the Fw 190 holding the advantage in everything expect turning.
"Prove me (and HTC) wrong, how about that?"[/B]
Not interested. :lol
-
Of course not interested. Because it's a hopeless point?
Ok, refresh your memory. I was referring to turning, but I''ll enter some other subjects as well.
Please don't read manuals while wearing a spotwelding helmet, ok?
TURNING:
QUOTE:
"The Corsair and Hellcat could follow the FW 190 in turns with ease at any speed, but the FW 190 could not follow any of the other two at any speed."
MANEUVERABILITY:
"No maneuver could be done in the FW 190 which could not be followed by both the Corsair and Hellcat."
Comapared to Issie's reading:
"the trials actually say the Fw 190 holding the advantage in everything expect turning. "
So eat that!
For Crumpp:
"JG26 took to hiding their fighters in the woods. They even went so far as to put cows on their grass field airstrips to fool the prowling Allied fighters so they could take off. "
Cattle could prove useful. In the end, having exxessive fuel shortage, some LW squadrons would glide in for landing with a dead engine to save fuel. Oxen would then be used to pull aircraft around on the ground if neccessary.
Nice link
:)
-
Oh, and Issie, crumpp holds the flight trials between a 190 and an F4U as well as F6F, in which the 190 proved vastly inferior.
Absolutely, In that trial both the F4U and the F6F are vastly superior in the turn.
It is an F4U-1D and an F6F-3 vs FW-190A5/U4 Aufklarar.
The test pilot for the FW-190:
1. Complains about aileron reversal and the tendancy to stall in the turns. Only in the Luftwaffe test and this test is any problem with ailerons in the turn. The RAF, which tested several different varients of 190's during the war, never mentions this characteristic. The RAF mentions stalling but never aileron reversal. That simply was not a characteristic of a properly serviced 190.
2. There was obvious engine problems. The motor fouled plugs at low speed and simply quit at altitude on several occasions. Probably did not like US AvGas. Powerloading does effect turn radius but not nearly as much as wingloading.
Do I think the 190 can outturn an F4U-1D? No, I think it would be close and the F4U-1 would be "slightly" superior.
The F6F-3 would have a larger margin of superiority but not as much as in the trials.
Crumpp
-
Don`t know what you are bubbling about Angie. Perhaps you have a bad or something.
Well, let`s see, the report says the Fw 190 outclimbs both the Corsair and Hellcat at all altitudes at it`s favourable climbspeed of 160mph.
Speed trials showed the FW 190 faster than the Hellcat at all altitudes, and superior to the Corsair above 10k ft. Since speed rums were for 2 min only, and judgeing by the speeds at low level, the Fw 190 simply didn`t reach it`s max speed yet.
Acceleration showed the FW 190 is superior to the Hellcat. The corsair was found to be slightly superior to the 190 up to 15 feet, above which the 190 was slightly superior. They note that applying full power is easier in the FW because of the automatic system.
Roll rate shows the FW 190 greatly superior to the Hellcat. They claim the FW 190 and Corsair have ca. equal roll rate, a later British report disproves that (F-4U having 2/3 the roll rate). Considering there was no real measurement..
Turning favoured the Hellcat Corsair as you note by a great margin.
Zooms were about equal.
Forward view better on USN planes, rear view better on FW 190.
Overall the USN staff like the cocpit, engine controls etc.
Compare to Angie`s :
"the flight trials between a 190 and an F4U as well as F6F, in which the 190 proved vastly inferior."
Well as the above shows, that`s a very thick pink sunglass Angie is wearing. ;)
-
160mph.
160 knots - 184.125 Miles (statute) per hour
The FW-190 climbed at a shallow angle but fast speed.
Crumpp
-
Angus M8,
Here is why a 190 should out zoom a Spitfire at ANY co-speed state, It has almost 3 times the potential energy at equal speed:
http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/energy....nergy-conserved
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since we are about to start comparing these mechanical forms of energy with other forms, we must start paying attention to an additional detail: an object’s potential energy depends not only on its altitude but also on its mass. A 300-ton Boeing at any given altitude has 300 times more potential energy than a 1-ton Piper at the same altitude.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And here is why a Spitfire in a co-energy state trying to DIRECTLY follow a 190 in a sustained climb will be left behind. The FW-190 climbs at a much faster speed but much shallower angle.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The dividing line between the mushing regime and the front side of the power curve is the highest point on the power curve. At this point, the airplane can fly with the minimal amount of dissipation; this is the “low-rent district”. The airspeed where this occurs is called the best-rate-of-climb airspeed and denoted VY.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crumpp
-
Nashwan will be mad, he isn`t in a good mood or stance anyway around now for some reason.
I'm in an exellent mood, in the last few days I've seen yet another Spitfire test showing a climb rate similar to BS 543s.
Well, let`s see, the report says the Fw 190 outclimbs both the Corsair and Hellcat at all altitudes at it`s favourable climbspeed of 160mph.
It says the Corsair outclimbed the 190 at it's more favourable climb speed of 140 knots, too.
The best climbing speed of the Corsair, 135 knots, was not used at all.
That doesn't tell us much about which plane will climb best when each flys at their own best climbing speed.
Here is why a 190 should out zoom a Spitfire at ANY co-speed state, It has almost 3 times the potential energy at equal speed:
Why 3 times? Not saying it's wrong, I just don't understand where you get the "3 times" figure.
-
Can't get the link to work Crumpp.
And Izzy:
Even though the 190 outperforms the US fighters at some speeds and some alt bands, that does not apply to all.
And when it comes to maneuvers, the 190 is vastly inferior in ALL aspects except roll.
That I can see through my goggles :D
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
I'm in an exellent mood, in the last few days I've seen yet another Spitfire test showing a climb rate similar to BS 543s.
I am happy you enjoy your role as an entertainer. :D
I wonder about the private life of a man who spends his time at ~3AM in the morning making up jig-jag stories about überspitty climb rates, though. You don`t even have a dog I guess. :lol
It says the Corsair outclimbed the 190 at it's more favourable climb speed of 140 knots, too.
The best climbing speed of the Corsair, 135 knots, was not used at all.
That doesn't tell us much about which plane will climb best when each flys at their own best climbing speed.
Right. We know however from the official performance datasheets that the F4U-1 did 3120 fpm at SL, at 20k ft it did 2120 fpm on WEP.
The FW 190A did 3870 fpm at SL, and 3000 fpm at 20k ft.
That`s on 1.42ata. On 1.65ata, FW 190A could climb up to 4600 fpm.
There`s little doubt about the relative climb abilities of the two, really.
-
I have an account of an uphill chase, P51's vs 190A's
Interested?
Oh, the P51's caught the 190's and shot some down. :D
-
And that would prove....? :confused:
I`d happily be in a 190A-6 vs. any Mustang. Quite a good match, `cept for firepower. But then again, I`d be even more in G-10 or K-4. ;)
-
Here comes:
(Engagement starts with the 190's some reasonable altitude above)
"We were at 12000 feet and the Fw's climbed for all they were worth, but we gradually caught up with them and at 22000 feet we were close enough to open fire."
The 190's performed a Split S and dived. Look what happened:
"I told Yellow 3 and 4 to continue chasing the other planes, then rolled over and followed the Silly fellow who thought he could leave a Mustang behind him in a dive. I told Basil Clapin, my No 2, to follow the Fw on the right and I'd take care of the one on the left. We quickly caught up with them and I was able to direct a long stream of bullets at my adversary before I was forced to pull over to one sid as I was about to pass him."
No testflight of course, but actual combat. That particular P51 outclimbed and outdived the 190. The fight evolved into a treetop level turnfight, where the P51 also outturned the enemy aircraft and eventually the German pilot after suffering damage, bailed out.
So where did the Mustang rack up vs F6F and F4U again??????
-
Originally posted by Angus
No testflight of course, but actual combat. That particular P51 outclimbed and outdived the 190. The fight evolved into a treetop level turnfight, where the P51 also outturned the enemy aircraft and eventually the German pilot after suffering damage, bailed out.
So where did the Mustang rack up vs F6F and F4U again??????
Well I don`t see where your oral story disproved the fact the P-51 wasn`t anywhere near the manouverbility of the F6F or F4U, as told by direct US comparisions between their own planes. Or by British testing between the two.
I can post oral stories of 109s outturning Spitfires with ease, 109Es catching recce Spits etc. They don`t prove much.
Well especially not to our three partisan forum members we have on this board who say no LW plane could do anything good, LOL.
-
"I can post oral stories of 109s outturning Spitfires with ease, 109Es catching recce Spits etc. They don`t prove much. "
Please Post them.
Oh, this was more than an oral Story, it ended with a confirmed kill, and it consisted of several Mustangs going through the same sequence with several 190's.
Full power dive and climb is a rather more reliable thing than the out-turn tales, since in the turning sence there may often be unknown factors, such as typically "E".
But catching 190's uphill in a 10K climb, I found rather interesting.
:D Surprizing, for as you say "the P-51 wasn`t anywhere near the manouverbility of the F6F or F4U" :D :D
-
Angie, nobody is stopping you from believing your own oral stories instead of objective comparison reports.
-
This is NOT AN OWN ORAL STORY.
This occured on the 24th of June 1944.
P51's involved were C's from 65th sqn RAF.
Some kills occured, were filmed, and confirmed. I actually have seen one of those.
But, since it obviously does not suit your hot-belief, you prefer to get it down to another level.
Point is, the 190 was no uber-plane, it had it's pro's and con's like all others. VS the US late war fighters such as P51's it was often in very serious trouble.
The "Oral" story gives you a hint of that. The 190's, presumably the A8 line were at disadvantage in those 3 aspects of performance, Climb, dive, and speed, and in terms of maneuverablility, slightly inferior in turn rate, even against the P51.
In a fight against the Corsair, the difference would perhaps have been even more marked, at least if your words about the P51 being totally inferioe are worth anything.
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Angie, nobody is stopping you from believing your own oral stories instead of objective comparison reports.
I think you are missing the point Isegrim. You seem to want to discount any kind of pilot report that wasn't done in testing.
Yet the reports of pilot's in combat are what will make the rounds of the fighter fields and set the tone for the pilots going into combat.
Think about how the Spit V pilots reacted when they encountered the 190 for the first time. Despite their reports they were told that there was no new German fighter and that radial they saw was probably just old French Hawk 75s. Yet the pilots knew they were up against something they couldn't tangle with on even terms anymore.
Then they get the IX. Offficial testing be damned. The pilots felt like they had an equal or better aircraft to the one that had been kicking them all over the sky while they were in Spit Vs. That boost in confidence made a huge difference.
You can argue til the cows come home about the details of which could do what thing better by how many feet per minute or miles per hour. but in my eyes it was that boost in confidence that made the most difference as the pilots began to fly more aggressively and got the most out of thier planes because they believed it could do the job.
While the details count, so does the attitude and the reports of pilots returning from combat helps to set that attitude.
Dan/Slack
-
Amen to that.
There was always some sense being made out of debriefings. :)
-
Originally posted by Angus
Point is, the 190 was no uber-plane, it had it's pro's and con's like all others. VS the US late war fighters such as P51's it was often in very serious trouble.
The "Oral" story gives you a hint of that. The 190's, presumably the A8 line were at disadvantage in those 3 aspects of performance, Climb, dive, and speed, and in terms of maneuverablility, slightly inferior in turn rate, even against the P51.
Nobody here claimed the 190 was an uberplane; IMHO, most of it`s reputation was really developed by the RAF itself as an excuse for it`s 'performance' against a few LW Gruppen along the channel in 1942. The FW 190 was the Boogeyman, the Secret Überplane, the excuse for everything.
You are repeating that 'inferior in everything' line like a madman ever since you stepped in the thread. Even if the facts, ie. tested climb rates and level speeds, disprove you utterly.
As I said, Angie, you can choose to believe the reality you have created for yourself and live in that.
Originally posted by Angus
In a fight against the Corsair, the difference would perhaps have been even more marked, at least if your words about the P51 being totally inferioe are worth anything.
Funnily enough, as per Erich Brown, who flown them both, considered a 190 a much better fighter, 'a light fighter vs. a heavy one', as he put it. But what can Erich Brown tell about that to you... nothing, really.
-
http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/energy.html
Since we are about to start comparing these mechanical forms of energy with other forms, we must start paying attention to an additional detail: an object’s potential energy depends not only on its altitude but also on its mass. A 300-ton Boeing at any given altitude has 300 times more potential energy than a 1-ton Piper at the same altitude.
The dividing line between the mushing regime and the front side of the power curve is the highest point on the power curve. At this point, the airplane can fly with the minimal amount of dissipation; this is the “low-rent district”. The airspeed where this occurs is called the best-rate-of-climb airspeed and denoted VY.7
This is also why a Spit XII was a deadlier opponent and could follow a 190 directly. Angle for Angle a Spit IX pays more "rent" because it is farther from its point of equilibrium than the 190 which climbs at a shallower angle and faster speed. If the 190 climbed at the same Airspeed as the Spitfire (as AH models it now) but shallower angle THEN the Spit IX would catch it by directly following.
The P51 is an extremely aerodynamic plane. Much more so than either the 190 or the Spit. I suspect it also climbs at a much faster Airspeed and would not have a problem directly following a 190.
Understand, a Spit IX can EASILY get above a 190 and outclimb it. He just has to increase his angle of attack and climb at a steeper angle but slower speed.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
I think you are missing the point Isegrim. You seem to want to discount any kind of pilot report that wasn't done in testing.û
No, but they never weight the same as objective, controlled testing. I can bring you an examples of 109s leaving P-51s behind in dives, yet I am inclined to believe they could not, if everything was equal.
Then they get the IX. Offficial testing be damned. The pilots felt like they had an equal or better aircraft to the one that had been kicking them all over the sky while they were in Spit Vs. That boost in confidence made a huge difference.
[/B]
Sure it makes a difference between the behaviour of pilots, and often that what`s makes the difference.
But here`s an example. Newbie Spit IX pilots chases a FW 190 over the channel. He as an awful lot of confidence. The 190 will still leave him behind. Or a Zero chasing an F4U. He knows he rides his own divine Samurai sword, or something like that. Still he will be left behind with ease.
You can argue til the cows come home about the details of which could do what thing better by how many feet per minute or miles per hour. but in my eyes it was that boost in confidence that made the most difference as the pilots began to fly more aggressively and got the most out of thier planes because they believed it could do the job.
While the details count, so does the attitude and the reports of pilots returning from combat helps to set that attitude.
Dan/Slack [/B]
I can agree with that. Too bad you couldn`t read Tobak`s book, he desribes the same thing. He flew G-6s, G-14s and G-10 from mid44 to the end of the war, and encountered many Soviet types. Now, he said that he could never tell apart the La 5 and La-7, but he always knew when he faced the La-7s, the enemy pilots were much more confident, much more agressive. Previously, it often happened that even large Soviet formation gave up the fight before it commenced, rolled and dived away, if the combat took place at little higher altitude they were used to, `cos they knew the 109s are better at altitude. Not anymore with the La-7.. on the other hand, regardless of what the La pilot believed, he was still outclassed at altitude.. kinda controversial, if you have false confidence, you might end up worser than if you have none.
-
Well, Izzie pop, in my "reality" I accept the possibility that a P51 could out-dive, out-climb, out-run, and out-turn the 190A series.
I guess I have the same reality as most on these boards then.
Just try to live with yours then :D
-
Yeah, the 190 was worthless piece of crap that could do nothing well. Outclassed, in all respects. Like all the LW planes were, after all. You convinced me. Thanks for the enlightening. :rofl
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Sure it makes a difference between the behaviour of pilots, and often that what`s makes the difference.
But here`s an example. Newbie Spit IX pilots chases a FW 190 over the channel. He as an awful lot of confidence. The 190 will still leave him behind.
And the Spit V pilot is saying "thank god the guy is leaving" while the Spit IX pilot is thinking, 'The SOB is running away!"
It's all about perception :)
And of course the Spit XII pilot chasing the 190 over the channel catches him and shoots him down :)
Dan/Slack
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
And of course the Spit XII pilot chasing the 190 over the channel catches him and shoots him down :)
Dan/Slack
LOL ! :lol
-
"Yeah, the 190 was worthless piece of crap that could do nothing well. Outclassed, in all respects. Like all the LW planes were, after all. You convinced me. Thanks for the enlightening."
Wrong again Izzie.
The 190A was a very good interceptor, with quite modern control layout and heavy armament. It was a small profile plane, and durable as well.
An average pilot would soon be extremely deadly intercepting enemy aircraft while flying the 190.
However, it would not shine in a fighter vs fighter situations against the fast and well rolling late war US and RAF planes.
Bite it, what I said about it in a tight dogfight situation against the P51 stands!
-
Well, Izzie pop, in my "reality" I accept the possibility that a P51 could out-dive, out-climb, out-run, and out-turn the 190A series.
That is not entirely true Angus.
The P51B was much faster in level speed and could outzoom the 190.
The 190's sustained climb RATE was the same as the P51's. It was recommended the P51 not even attempt to climb away unless he was going over 250 IAS. The P51D's climb rate was worse than the B's if I remember correctly.
The turn rate was very close. So close in fact that it was recommended P51's NOT turn with 190's as it was dicy proposition. Remember too the USAAF pilot who piloted the 190 was far from an expert pilot in the type. Turning was only recommended as a defense against the bounce. The bouncing 190 would be traveling at a greater speed so the P51 could turn a much tighter circle since he was slower. I remind you too that the P51D had a worse turn than the B model.
The P51B did always outdive the 190. The P51D definately outdove the 190.
The 190 always outrolled the P51B. This allowed the 190 to change lift vector much quicker than the P51 and made it much more manuverable in everything except a tight turn.
Angus m8, Izzy can be abrasive but he does bring up good points.
The test was against an Unknown FW-190A model. I suspect it was against one of the FW-190A4 Jabo-einsatz the RAF test flight recieved after Fabers A3. Due to the time period it was conducted however it certainly was not an FW-190A8 which had a lot more horsepower for very little weight gain by comparison to the Spit V/ Spit IX development.
Izzy,
Angus and Guppy35 both have always been extremely polite. I have found them both to be very reasonable and enjoy the debates. I do understand your frustration. As the vanquished, the Luftwaffe must deal with the History written by the victors. It is reality but a reality from one point of view that may not neccessarily reflect the true nature.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
LOL ! :lol
Ahh you don't believe it do you? :)
Check the encounters from April-May 43 when the Tip and Run A5s of SKG 10 were hitting the South Coast of England.
The Spit XII's were chasing them down while flying on the deck.
Also interestingly noted in the combat reports of some of the early two ship recce flights to the French Coast was that on a few occasions the Spit XIIs were jumped by 190s and were able to extend away while being chased. A couple of pilots forgot to dump their drop tanks and were able to hold their distance from the 190s with neither gaining or losing ground despite the Spit pilot forgetting to lose the slipper tank.
That little Spit XII was a real mover down low.
Dan/Slack
And yeah I'm biased about that particular Spit :)
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Izzy,
Angus and Guppy35 both have always been extremely polite. I have found them both to be very reasonable and enjoy the debates. I do understand your frustration. As the vanquished, the Luftwaffe must deal with the History written by the victors. It is reality but a reality from one point of view that may not neccessarily reflect the true nature.
Crumpp
There ya go being nice Crumpp! Funny you showed up just now as I was looking through my 91 Squadron stuff and it turns out Peter Crump downed a Spit XII on June 16, 43 when he shot down MB835 flown by F/S Mitchell who was killed.
I would agree that this has been one of the more civil discussions around here lately. I prefer it this way as it really is just a sharing of information that everyone should be able to take something from.
As it always was, the development of fighter aircraft during WW2 was punch and counter punch, with each side gaining and losing ground at different times but with neither taking too much of a leap forward until the 262 which based on it's use or lack thereof, was too late to make a difference. I would suggest the other big leap that did have an huge impact was probably the 190 over the Spit V which really drove development of the two stage Merlin, the introduction of the Griffon engine, the Typhoon and others as well.
Just look at the Spit.
Spit I, II -1091-7
109F-Spit Va,b,c
109G, FW190A series -Spit IX VIII, XII
Spit XIV-FW109D
Probably can include the Spit 21 and TA152 as well since both made it in under the wire.
Punch and counter punch all the way through. All great aircraft.
Dan/Slack
-
Exactly! I started researching the 190A series with the notion of writing a book. The more I dig, the more your statement is confirmed to be the truth.
Punch and counter punch all the way through. All great aircraft.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Ahh you don't believe it do you? :)
..
And yeah I'm biased about that particular Spit :)
No, I have no problem with that, at all!
Actually, it was very funny and a good one.. I really enjoyed it. ;)
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Exactly! I started researching the 190A series with the notion of writing a book. The more I dig, the more your statement is confirmed to be the truth.
Crumpp
Crumpp,
why don`t you start a site ? There`s one for the 190D series, I am proceeding slowly with mine on the 109K, I guess a 190A/F/G site wouldn`t hurt either. Performances, development, production...
-
Izzy bro,
Because I am a "tool" when it comes to computer skills. :eek:
why don`t you start a site ? There`s one for the 190D series, I am proceeding slowly with mine on the 109K, I guess a 190A/F/G site wouldn`t hurt either. Performances, development, production...
Any good software for the "computer" challenged out there for building websites?
BTW, The luft-archive just released the Bf-190K manual.
Crumpp
-
I guess you have MS Office, that includes Frontpage, which is quite enough for all conventional purposes. You don`t need to know any HTML code, everyhing can be done with icons etc. Even with it`s basics, you can create a nice site with some creativity. Then all you need is some webspace, and there you go!
Thanks, I have seen the manual LA.de, I might get the other parts I need, though I have some arrangements with another gentleman, too.
But BTW, be sure it`s a hell to collect all the sources the compile them.. especially if some are missing, heh!
-
I have MS Office but not Frontpage. Any other recommendations?
Crumpp
-
Have no idea then, since I am happy with FP, didn`t try the others; I am not a great i-net wiz either. Newer versions of Office have Frontpage included though (ie. Office XP). If you have that version, check that it was maybe not checked to be installed during the installation!
-
I've heard Dreamweaver is a good one.
A book? Nice :)
-
Dreamweaver huh?
Is it pretty easy to use?
Crumpp
-
So I've been told.
A friend of mine is a graphics designer, her recommended it. So did another buddy, he does a lot of vidoe/image - digital work, but I'm not so sure about web-stuff in his case.
Anyway, I'll make a quick check, and that is just my pleasure, for I am looking for the nicest way to make homepage-files.
(I have a homepage, but it was designed in Freehand and then converted to HTML.)
On second thought, we should perhaps make a thread about this in the O'club?
I played with Frontpage for a short while (minutes really) and I did not find it that nice. I had before tried some shareware stuff that was very much easier.
regards
Angus
-
That sounds great, Angus!
Thanks for your efforts, M8. You too Izzy. I will check the O'Club.
Crumpp
-
I'm all ears. Have to get around finishing my homepage anyway (money saving stuff). I'll be all ears, and I'll ask around, for many of my best friends are nicely settled in the computers.
Best regards,
Angus