Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Urchin on August 19, 2004, 11:03:13 PM
-
I've been flying both of em this tour, and I think it is pretty safe to say that the Spit 14 is by far a better fighter.
But one thing does puzzle me- if you go back through the "detailed" scoring page, you can see two things. One, the Ta-152 sees more use, and two, it has always had a higher K/D.
I find this puzzling because the Spit 14 IS the better fighter. Both of em are pretty much el gay 7 bait in the MA, but the Spit 14 should be able to handle itself alright provided the pilot is careful.
So why's the Ta-152 have a higher K/D? Is it just flown by much more timid people?
-
Spit14: Flown by Spitdweebs who don't know how to fly it right.
Ta152: Flown by altmonkeying Luftwabbles ... who know how to fly it right.
Spit14 is way superior up til 25K. Ta152 is really a very high alt fighter that has no real purpose in the MA.
-
Having never flown the Spit 14, I can't comment on it other than to confirm that in fighting it I find that many pilots try to fly it as a "Super Spit IX".
I have flown the 152, I sometimes use it to hunt bombers, and if I run out of fuel before I find bombers, I'll usually be pretty successful in getting kills and surviving as I RTB. Wrecking the wings is the actual cause of most of my losses of the 152.
-
Whats with all the complaints about the 152? I find it to be a rather fun plane to fly. Awesome firepower for vulching, okay climb rate and speed, lots of fuel, and a totally unmatched diving ability. A question: If the problem with the 152 a flight model problem, or just that the plane lacked the low altitude performance?
The 152 doesn't seem to attract the same perk-killing hordes that 'big' icons like SPIT14 and F4U4 do.
-
because it is flown so high. one time me and Wilbuz flew em together. We climbed to 25k before turning to engage, and we ran into a flight of like 5 jugs and just slaughtered them. Course i got all the Sist and he got the kills. once the %1 gets high it is fast, and that is what did the jugs in was speed. Lazerus is crazy hehe, flying it at12k "One of a Kind"
(runs for Cover)
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
because it is flown so high. one time me and Wilbuz flew em together. We climbed to 25k before turning to engage, and we ran into a flight of like 5 jugs and just slaughtered them. Course i got all the Sist and he got the kills. once the %1 gets high it is fast, and that is what did the jugs in was speed. Lazerus is crazy hehe, flying it at12k "One of a Kind"
(runs for Cover)
Most of the guys you encounter flying Jugs in a gaggle at 20K+ are your typical field porkers. Long on dorkiness, short on flying skills. Easy kills for just about anything. Especialy if you catch them climbing with a full load of ordnance.
That said, had you run into the old 56th FG (Ammo, Frenchy, Nomde and the rest), your 152s would have been nursing hind tit in short order. Those guys hoped for that kind of opportunity. A clean, fast moving P-47 at altitude is trouble. 6 to 8 of them, flown by guys who know how to use them, are extremely lethal.
Maybe we'll get the P-47M someday, considering that twice as many of these monsters saw combat as did the Ta 152H.
My regards,
Widewing
-
"Maybe we'll get the P-47M someday..."
Here! Here!
No aircraft addition (to AH) gives me as warm a fuzzy as the thought of this one does :)
-
I agree with Urchin that the Spifire Mk.XIV is superior to the Ta 152 below 25k.
We frequently see guys posting about how poor the Spit14 is... Well, if they were to actually spend enough time in it, they would see that it is probably the best pure fighter in the plane set. It was designed for middle altitudes, between 12k and 25K. At those heights, it is without peer.
Yeah, it has tons of torque, and if you constantly fly it with throttle full forward the torque becomes a factor, albeit a mild factor. It's turning performance is not far behind the Spit9, and it climbs better than anything else, save the 109G-10.
My only issues with the Spit14 are its price and the perk tag.
My regards,
Widewing
-
in a book on LW fighters i have at home (written by americans i believe) there is an account of a ta152 in a dogfight with a tempest (yeha i know not a spit 14)
the fight was at tree top level, both pilots were scared of clipping a wing on high pines.
the ta152 owned the tempest supposedly in every manuever, flat turn, roll, climb, speed, everything.
IIRC the tempest pilot was a good stick, some veteran with a bunch of kills, but got caught.
just ym thoughts
-
When I fly the Spit XIV I do fly it like a super Spit IX, which is correct. The problem is most people fly the Spit IX like an A6M, which is incorrect. Both the Spit IX and Spit XIV are E fighters and should be flown in a manner that takes advantage of the climb rate and E retention.
That said, I die in it nearly every time. My oponents seem to be ver timid once I start to gain angles on them and typically just use their superior speed to dive to the deck and run. If the Spit XIV follows it is as good as dead because once you are at low alt in a contested sector your icon pretty much ensures you will be mobbed until dead. Spit XIV is too slow.
-
Spit 14 is the most dynamic fighter in AH.
-
in a book on LW fighters i have at home (written by americans i believe) there is an account of a ta152 in a dogfight with a tempest (yeha i know not a spit 14)
the fight was at tree top level, both pilots were scared of clipping a wing on high pines.
the ta152 owned the tempest supposedly in every manuever, flat turn, roll, climb, speed, everything.
IIRC the tempest pilot was a good stick, some veteran with a bunch of kills, but got caught.
Never heard of that one.
The only account of a Tempest/Ta 152 fight I know is Willi Reschke's.
Reschke and two others were scrambled to intercept a couple of Tempests straffing trains.
Reschke and his two wingmen dived on the Tempests. One of the Tempest pilots, Short, claimed to have fired on one of the Ta 152s, which crashed. The German aaccounts say the crash had nothing to do with the Tempest, but was pilot error/mechanical failure.
The 2 surviving Ta 152s attacked the Tempests. Reschke, (27 kills), got involved in a turning fight with Owen Mitchell in one of the Tempests. I believe Mitchell was an instructor, who had only begun combat flying 2 months earlier.
Reschke's account:
So now it was two against two as the ground level dogfight began. We knew the Tempest to be a very fast fighter, used by the British to chase and shoot down our V-1's/ But here, in a fight which was never to climb above 50 metres, speed would not play a big part. The machines ability to turn would be all important.
Pulling ever-tighter turns I got closer and closer to the Tempest, never once feeling I was even approaching the limit of the Ta's capabilities. And in order to keep out of my sights the Tempest pilot was being forced to take increasingly dangerous evasive action. When he flicked over onto the opposite wing I knew his last attempt to turn inside me had failed.
The first burst of fire from my Ta-152 caught the Tempest in the tail and rear fuselage. The enemy aircraft shuddered noticeably and, probably as an instinctive reaction, the Tempest pilot immediately yoked into a starboard turn, giving me an even greater advantage.
Now there was no escape for the Tempest. I pressed my gun buttons a second time, but after a few rounds my weapons fell silent, and despite all my efforts to clear them, refused to fire another shot. I can no longer remember just who and what I didn't curse. But fortunately the Tempest pilot did not recognise my predicament as he'd already taken hits.
Instead he continued desperately to twist and turn and I positioned myself so that I was always just within his field of vision. Eventually - inevitably he stalled. The Tempest's left wing dropped and he crashed into the woods immediately below us."
-
Widewing, Wilbuz ist de 152 Masta!
-
Yea, the Spit 14 pretty much IS a super Spit 9, its just people tend to fly the Spit 9 more as a angles fighter than an energy fighter. The Spit 9 is one of the best (if not the best) energy fighters in the game.
-
I have the answer Kurt Tank built the 152 and the spit he didn't. :D
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
Widewing, Wilbuz ist de 152 Masta!
Maybe, but I'd put my money on Urchin in the Spit14 vs Wilbuz in the 152.
My regards,
Widewing
-
But one thing does puzzle me- if you go back through the "detailed" scoring page, you can see two things. One, the Ta-152 sees more use, and two, it has always had a higher K/D.
I find this puzzling because the Spit 14 IS the better fighter. Both of em are pretty much el gay 7 bait in the MA, but the Spit 14 should be able to handle itself alright provided the pilot is careful.
So why's the Ta-152 have a higher K/D? Is it just flown by much more timid people?
As a pure fighting machine, no one would ever doubt that the Spit14 better than the 152. But the Ta152 sees more use.
Then it's a very simple analogy - the cost-efficiency of the 152 is higher than the Spit14. Simply put, the Spit14 is vastly overpriced. It means people may risk 20 points in a Ta152 in dangerous MA conditions from time to time, but much less people are willing to risk 50 points for the Spit14 in the same conditions.
The higher K/D is also not surprising. As much as people loathe and despise it, being able to fly faster does mean better survivability.
Why do so many veterans hate the speed-demon planes, or the 'timid' flying of its pilots? Well, to stab a knife into the heart of veteranship( :D ), despite all the superiority in skill and experience, the veterans still cannot shoot down a total n00b in his superplane, if he chooses to just run away. Ah, the classic case of "It's the machine, not the man."
Oops, went a bit too far there. But at any rate, considering the same hazardous conditions all planes must face in the MA, having a 50 point plane which can fight better but cannot run away easily, is considered to be worse than having a 20 point plane which is hard to manage, but still can run away easily.
If there's any one advantage the Ta152 holds over other planes, its the monster dive. Empirically, its the only plane I know that can catch a Mustang or a Typhoon trying to dive and run. Its dive acceleration is like none. It can actually outpace a Typhoon or a Mustang for a lengthy time before finally the difference in max speed takes over.
So, all the reason more, to either unperk the Spit14, or at least perk it very lightly. It's worth no more than 5 points IMO.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
The higher K/D is also not surprising. As much as people loathe and despise it, being able to fly faster does mean better survivability.
That's a common misconception. The Spit14 is actually faster at all altitudes below 25k except on the deck where they are equal in speed.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
So, all the reason more, to either unperk the Spit14, or at least perk it very lightly. It's worth no more than 5 points IMO.
Not a chance. The Spit14 is invulnerable if flown right; it absolutely dominates any fight it is in. I have never lost a Spit14 to enemy fighters, only a couple to bomber gunners. For MA fights the Spit14 is the best plane in the planeset bar none ... even the 262.
-
IMO the XIV is the better e fighter of the two (by a fairly narrow margin), accelerates in level flight slightly better and has a better roll rate - significant factors in a fight. Ta-152 v. SpitXIV, if both drivers have their stuff together, the XIV should win below 25k but it will never be an easy fight.
K/D ratio is pretty easy to explain: more people fly the Ta152 than the XIV, consequently when people do chose to fly the XIV they've generally not got much experience in it. Badly flown, the SpitXIV isn't that hard to kill.
Cost/benefit ratio on the XIV just makes it not worth flying in the MA. I've flown in the AH1 MA and I've landed kills in it but getting chased by every la7, pony and typhoon in a 10-mile radius gets old quick. I haven't flown it in the current MA and likely won't.
I'd say get rid of the perk tag and drop the price.
-
Below 25K the Spit14 will win (at least) 9 out of 10 fights against a 152 with equally skilled pilots.
-
That's a common misconception. The Spit14 is actually faster at all altitudes below 25k except on the deck where they are equal in speed.
Except the Ta152H is 3mph faster according to Whels' OTD speeds, and has WEP that lasts more than twice the time of the Spit14
Not a chance. The Spit14 is invulnerable if flown right; it absolutely dominates any fight it is in. I have never lost a Spit14 to enemy fighters, only a couple to bomber gunners. For MA fights the Spit14 is the best plane in the planeset bar none ... even the 262.
Flying "right" or "wrong" is not of any issue here. Or rather, it's the "fly wrong" factor which is more important.
For a plane that costs 50 points, its not anything that can survive when "flown wrong".
Compare that to the P-51D, Bf109G-10, Fw190D-9 or the La-7 - which, are planes that usually allow you to survive even when you "fly it wrong"(provided as long as there is enough alt to dive and run, or enough juice left in the WEP).
These planes, which allow people to stay alive despite flimsy skill, which, veterans despise for their "timid flying" and "bore and zoom", are all free.
So, when they're all free, how come only the Spit14 is perked? And so heavily?
The Chog was seeing 20%+ usage in the arena, when it was perked at 8 points. Does that mean HTC thinks the Spit14 will dominate the arena even more than the Chog?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Not a chance. The Spit14 is invulnerable if flown right; it absolutely dominates any fight it is in. I have never lost a Spit14 to enemy fighters, only a couple to bomber gunners. For MA fights the Spit14 is the best plane in the planeset bar none ... even the 262.
Please explain how because I almost never am able to land them and rarely manage to get kills in it.
Frankly, the Mossie is much easier to get kills in than the Spit XIV is, in my experience.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
The Chog was seeing 20%+ usage in the arena, when it was perked at 8 points. Does that mean HTC thinks the Spit14 will dominate the arena even more than the Chog?
Yes, and agree with HTC.
I first realized how capable the SPit14 is in a 3-on-1 fight I had in AH1 against two F6Fs and one F4U. I had already shot down two F6Fs and was on the deck. It was a mixed turnfight/E-fight against the turning F6Fs while I was being B&Z'ed by the F4U. I got two of them, but had to run from the last remaining F6F because of fuel was running low. The Spit14 is an awesome fighter and any comparison with the 152H-1 below 25k is completely out of context. The 152H-1 was never intended to operate at those altitudes, that was to be the job for the 152C which would have dominated the Spit14 below 25k.
The Ta152 needs no perk, the 190D-9 is much better for MA purposes. The SPit14 would seriously unbalance plane usage if left unperked.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Please explain how because I almost never am able to land them and rarely manage to get kills in it.
Frankly, the Mossie is much easier to get kills in than the Spit XIV is, in my experience.
You must be flying it wrong. The Spit14 needs to be flown like a 109. And if your SA is lacking even a 262 will not help you survive.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
You must be flying it wrong. The Spit14 needs to be flown like a 109. And if your SA is lacking even a 262 will not help you survive.
I fly it as an E fighter, using it's climb rate. However multiple cons seem impossible to manage. The con I am after will just dive for the deck and most things that you meet in the MA easily out dive the Spit XIV. If you do follow it down that just ensures that all the other enemies are above you. My experience is that I dive, they dive, I pull up repeat again and again until either I get aggressive and let them gradually pull me down whereupon I die or I run low on fuel and have to leave. The last four flights I've done it it have resulted in two one kill and land missions and two no kill and die missions.
262s are incredibly easy to survive in. I've never lost one to enemy fire. I do have trouble killing in it though as I am not used to the low muzzle velocity of the guns. Couple that with the speed of the 262 and I don't hit much.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
You must be flying it wrong. The Spit14 needs to be flown like a 109. And if your SA is lacking even a 262 will not help you survive.
The point is that all the SA of the world is useless when everyone jumps you because you bear the mark of the beast (the icon of a 50 perk points plane). The free runners in the game (lala,pony,hunstang..) have a reasonable chance to outdistance the TnB crowd enough for them to lose interest. Fat chance they'll do this when the scent of a "14" icon is in the air... and even such an extremely powerfull fighter like the MkXIV will lose a 10on1.
-
Yes the 262 is very easy to survive in, but if your SA is bad you can still get shot down, that was my point. In the Spit14 you must never dive after a fleeing enemy unless he flies a slower plane AND there are no other cons that can effect an intercept on you. Your gang-bang icon will see to it that every enemy in sight will try to kill you, so your only option is to stay high where you are faster that almost all other prop fighters. If you engage a faster (on the deck) fighter in a 1-on-1 and the bogey dives and runs, follow him at altitude where you are faster than he is on the deck. Once his speed has dropped off to max SL speed you will catch up AND be above him ... no escape (standard 109G-10 procedure against faster-on-the-deck planes). Of course this takes time, and if he reaches his friends, or your SA tells you you will be in danger of interception if you fight him and end up low ... you will simply have to let him go. That's the disadvantage of not being spectacularly fast on the deck.
Know the performance of your plane at various altitudes, use your SA and common sense with regard to your own safety and you will be untouchable in the Spit14.
-
Let me just make one thing clear: All my experience with the Spit14 is from AH1. I do not know if the FM change has significantly changed its performance in relation to this discussion.
-
Not too much. More torque, less climb, less acceleration.
-
Less climb? How much?
-
They didn't say. It is under 5,000ft initial climb now. I think it is about 4,700 or 4,800ft initial climb. Still very fast, but not as much as it was.
-
cc, thx.
-
...and ,and, and Don't forget El Kurto Tanque
-
Yes the 262 is very easy to survive in, but if your SA is bad you can still get shot down, that was my point. In the Spit14 you must never dive after a fleeing enemy unless he flies a slower plane AND there are no other cons that can effect an intercept on you.
With no disrespect, to sum it up you're flying it "timidly". If you ever have any kind of success with it is because of your own management skills, which, would essentially be same with all aircraft types.
A lil' joke, but it's like Widewing, always saying how dangerous a SBD Dauntless is.. always saying how much fighters he kills with it. So, Widewing himself can manage something like a 10 K/D with the SBD. So is the SBD a perk material?
The whole point is, the Spit14 requiring THAT MUCH SA in the first place, evidently means its no perk material.
Take that 3vs1 situation you mentioned. You met a F6F or a F4U, which is by no means a "mainstream" MA fighter. If you met a La-7 and a N1K2 on deck, and another La-7 doing BnZ passes, honestly dude, do you think you could you have survived?
Are you that confident? Because, in most of average cases of average people that make up 80% of the arena, they'd say the odds of survival is quite unlikely.
Now, in that situation another La-7 could survive. A Bf109G-10 might survive. A Fw190D-9 or a P-51D would be harder to survive in if it loses E in the first place, but it would rarely get into that condition in the first place.
...
The problem is not about whether a plane is used "right" or "wrong". In that simple analogy, practically the MA is full of people who don't/can't use planes the right way. They are the norm, the mass, and the basis which "overuse" is to be determined upon.
Remember - it's because most average flyers don't have enough skill to stay alive in other planes, is why the "BigFour" planes are overused in the first place!
So, likewise, the Spit14 as an MA plane, should also be assumed that a more or less average pilot is at control.
And in that case, would it be a more popular plane than the La-7?
I don't think so.
....
Now, in turn, look at the Bf109G-10 or the P-51D, or the La-7. Those are very powerful planes. If everybody flew these free planes the way you did Scholz, people would want it perked.
I am willing to bet, that if the Bf109G-10 was a perk plane from the beginning, you would test it out and say the same thing about it as the Spit14, and comment that it deserves a perk.
But they're not perked. They're free. Some fly it timidly, but others who venture and risk more in the MA environment, also die a lot in it. And despite all that, the La-7 or the P-51D is more likely to survive dangerous situations than the Spit14, due to its raw speed.
...
Again, basically, if a plane like the La-7 is in the arena unperked, then there's no justification in perking a Spit14. And that's the alpha and omega of this discussion.
-
The La-7 is unperked because of its severe range limitations and poor high alt performance.
It is true that the 109G-10 and Spit14 are very close performers, but only in a set multiple plane engagement, say squadron vs. squadron. The simple fact is that the Spit14 is a much better MA plane than the 109G-10. It turns better, can dive faster without compressing, and has a much better gun package for fighter vs. fighter combat.
About flying timidly (I prefer calling it "flying smart" ;)). I enjoy both types of game play, furball and "Survivor MA", which is why I have neither a stellar K/D nor Score (for which I couldn't care less). However in a perk plane you have to fly smart because of the gang-icon, even in the 262. Furball in a perk plane and you'll most likely lose the perks. And if I've understood Hitech right, that's the purpose of the gang-tags.
Against three La-7s I doubt I would survive long in any prop fighter on the deck.
Btw. I'm an advocate for the "Perk Agenda" of perking almost every aircraft in the game with small perk costs.
-
I think that the bottom line is that any plane that can fly at 450mph, almost turns with a Spit9, has twin Hizookas and .50 cals, great high-speed control, climbs better than a 109G-10 and carries a DT ... must be perked.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Against three La-7s I doubt I would survive long in any prop fighter on the deck.
Weak! ;)
-
Haha ;) I can always cherry pick you instead Grun. :D
-
Originally posted by Widewing
That said, had you run into the old 56th FG (Ammo, Frenchy, Nomde and the rest), your 152s would have been nursing hind tit in short order. Those guys hoped for that kind of opportunity. A clean, fast moving P-47 at altitude is trouble. 6 to 8 of them, flown by guys who know how to use them, are extremely lethal.
hehe
Ammo would know something about that hypothetical situation.
Frenchy might remember a 1:1 spit14-152 bout where I would come inches from a kill only to lose advantage over and over.
-
From Scholzie:
"I think that the bottom line is that any plane that can fly at 450mph, almost turns with a Spit9, has twin Hizookas and .50 cals, great high-speed control, climbs better than a 109G-10 and carries a DT ... must be perked."
Yes, that is the Performance of the Spit XIV in WW2, with an exception of AH Spit XIV.
It does not turn with a Mk IX. It basically should.
It does not (As far as I know) climb with the G10. It climbs with the G2. It climbs to 20K in more than the stated 5 minutes from WW2.
Many of its enemies are Spit IX's
It's not the best performing Spit variant of WW2.
It's expensive and carries a death tag. Perk it? Yes, IMHO, for it is still a very good aircraft, and you don't want to make Aces High into "Spitties High". But it should not carry a different tag, and it's too expensive.
But that means that all high performing Spitties should be perked, or rather every fighter the British supplied after the autumn of 1943 is a perk plane except the Tiffie?
If any of the following came around:
Spit VIII or IX LF+25 would probably have to be perked as well, as well as XII (low gear), and later XIV's including clipped ones and ones with teardrop canopy.
A funny paradox on the threads, - "Spits were no good", and then "perk most spits cos they are too uber"
:D
-
Oh, look at my signature, - Rall's quote.
That applies to the Spit I vs the 109E. Maybe I should add it?
-
It does not (As far as I know) climb with the G10. It climbs with the G2. It climbs to 20K in more than the stated 5 minutes from WW2.
The prototype, with lower FTH, took 5 mins to 20K. That's the plane that had a low alt climb rate of over 5000 ft/min.
AH's Spit XIV is modelled on the production data, which had higher FTH, climbed at a max of 4700 ft/min, but could sustain it to a greater height.
That had a time to 20k of 4 mins 45 sec.
According to a quick test, the AH Spit XIV averages 230 ft/min less to 20,000ft than the production aircraft.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Yes, that is the Performance of the Spit XIV in WW2, with an exception of AH Spit XIV.
It does not turn with a Mk IX. It basically should.
I wonder how could a XIV turn with a Mk IX, when the XIV weights 8500 lbs, the IX weights only 7400 lbs, and their power-to-weight ratio is very similiar, plus the XIV has more drag...?
Kinda like saying that IX turns just the same with 1100 lbs bombs attached and without. :lol
-
A funny paradox on the threads, - "Spits were no good", and then "perk most spits cos they are too uber"
That is because there is a HUGE difference in the performance's of the Merlin Spits vs Spitfire Mk XIV.
Spit VIII or IX LF+25 would probably have to be perked as well, as well as XII (low gear),
The Spitfire Mk XII maybe. The Spit VIII and the IX LF (+25) I have to disagree. Only reason the Spits have such an advantage in AH is because of the climb physics modeling. Their zoom climbs are way too good and they don't pay "rent" in the sustained climb like they should. With the exception of the Spitfire Mk XII/XIV, all of the Merlin powered spits sustained climb was steep and slow.
Pitch attitude is not the same as angle of attack. Angle of attack is what really matters.
http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/aoa.html#sec-power-attitude-performance
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
http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/energy.html
This lends all Aircraft in AH an artificial increase in roll rate. Adding rudder in a roll is a bad thing. This helps the spits out tremendously with their rather poor roll rate. Yawing in a roll is a bad thing. At a minimum you increase your roll times and mush your speed.
Here’s what had happened: her right foot had gotten tired, so she just removed it from the pedal --- all at once. This produced a sudden yaw to the left. Naturally the left wing dropped, so she applied full right aileron. The nose was dropping, too, so she pulled back sharply on the yoke. The next thing anybody knew, we were upside down.
I took the controls and rolled the plane right-side-up. We lost about 500 feet of altitude during the maneuver. The student asked “What was THAT?” and I said “That was a pretty nice snap roll”.
http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/snaps.html
Crumpp
-
Only reason the Spits have such an advantage in AH is because of the climb physics modeling. Their zoom climbs are way too good and they don't pay "rent" in the sustained climb like they should. With the exception of the Spitfire Mk XII/XIV, all of the Merlin powered spits sustained climb was steep and slow.
Steep climb angles are an advantage, not a disadvantage.
If you have a shallow fast climb, it's fairly easy for another fighter to follow, with a nice long shooting opportunity.
If you have a steep climb angle, it's hard for other fighters to follow, and if they try, they stall.
In a sustained climb, a Spit will have a long time of shooting at a 190, the 190 will have a brief snapshot before he stalls.
The Spitfire Mk XII maybe. The Spit VIII and the IX LF (+25) I have to disagree.
Crumpp, you are the only person I can recall who has ever suggested extra weight in a fighter is a good thing.
At low altitudes, the Spit IX at 25 lbs and the Spit XIV at 18 lbs put out similar power, yet you maintian the XIV is better because it's 1,000 lbs heavier.
I wonder how could a XIV turn with a Mk IX, when the XIV weights 8500 lbs, the IX weights only 7400 lbs, and their power-to-weight ratio is very similiar, plus the XIV has more drag...?
Much more thrust.
The XIV had the thrust to lift it's extra 1000 lbs at the same rate as the IX. That thrust produces much more lift over the wing. Note the differences between power on and power off stall. You get much more lift with power on.
-
Much more thrust.
The XIV had the thrust to lift it's extra 1000 lbs at the same rate as the IX. That thrust produces much more lift over the wing. Note the differences between power on and power off stall. You get much more lift with power on.
That explains why the has XIV sustained climbs as good as the IX at low levels, but not why it would it allegedly turn as well as the IX. Climb rate isn`t an indicator of turn rate. If it would, the FW 190 would have been excellent turners.
Turn rate is determined by liftloading and powerloading. With lower liftloading, the aircraft has to maintain higher speed, with lower powerloading, it can make up less well for decelerating in the turn.
In the former, the XIV is worser than the IX, and in the latter, it ain`t any better. You are the only person who suggest extra weight has no effect on manouveribility.
Physics and even common sense tell that the XIV couldn`t turn with the MkIXs, unless we speak of a sustained turn.
-
Steep climb angles are an advantage, not a disadvantage.
A steep climb angle is an advantage. A slow climb speed is not.
A Spitfire will out climb a 190 no problem. It just can't do it by pointing it's nose at the 190. IF it does the spitfire will soon find itself left behind with the 190 above it. That's how the physics work. Angle for angle the spitfire pays more rent up until the 190 reaches best climb speed. Without an increase in power speed drops, as speed drops angle of attack has to be increased to maintain angle of pitch. As the angle of attack increases, speed drops, so on and so forth until the forces balance out in the rent free zone or best climb speed. If you did not have to maintain that angle of pitch then of course you climb at a shallower angle and faster speed in the Spitfire. In order to get a shot at the 190 though, you have to maintain that angle of pitch. To adjust for the angle of attack increase the spitfire has to sink below the 190 even further.
In reality no airplane with a slower best climb speed can follow a faster best climbing speed A/C directly. Now if your climb speed is the same or greater then you pay less/same rent angle for angle and can directly follow.
At low altitudes, the Spit IX at 25 lbs and the Spit XIV at 18 lbs put out similar power, yet you maintian the XIV is better because it's 1,000 lbs heavier.
It has a lot more potential energy at the same speed as the Spit IX. That potential energy is easy to convert to kinetic Energy by a zoom climb. All with the same manuerability.
Physics...
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.
http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/energy.html
Crumpp
-
The heavy P-47 should not be able to out turn a Spit either but the mock combat between a P-47 and a Spit had the P-47 out turning the Spit. There is more than one way to make a turn. The P-47, and the P-51, used the same manuever against the 109.
-
Crumpp:
"they don't pay "rent" in the sustained climb like they should"
Our Spit XIV does not climb either as well as it should. While banking, Spits don't climb as well as they should either.
What exactly do you mean with paying rent?
Izzy:
"I wonder how could a XIV turn with a Mk IX, when the XIV weights 8500 lbs, the IX weights only 7400 lbs, and their power-to-weight ratio is very similiar, plus the XIV has more drag...?
Kinda like saying that IX turns just the same with 1100 lbs bombs attached and without. "
Flight tests state that the Turn ability was the same.Ok, like the IX with the bomb attached, but you forget 400 Hp of power to compensate. Of course you do......
-
A steep climb angle is an advantage. A slow climb speed is not.
If you have the same climb rate, but a lower climb speed, then the angle will be steeper.
Low climb speed is a function of steep climb angle.
A Spitfire will out climb a 190 no problem. It just can't do it by pointing it's nose at the 190. IF it does the spitfire will soon find itself left behind with the 190 above it.
Depends on the Spitfire.
Any altitude where the Spitfire is as fast or faster, it will be able to climb at the same angle as the 190, as well as outclimb it at a steeper angle.
There are certainly altitudes where the 190 will be able to pull away from the Spitfire in a climb, but gradually. OTOH, the Spit will be able to climb away from the 190 at a steeper angle that the 190 cannot follow for more than a few seconds without stalling.
In reality no airplane with a slower best climb speed can follow a faster best climbing speed A/C directly.
You've got that the wrong way around.
A shallow climber like the 190 cannot climb with a steep climber, because it has to increase it's angle of climb to a rate it cannot sustain.
A steep climber can always reduce it's angle of climb, it's just at the same angle it's speed may not be as high, allowing the faster aircraft to climb away.
But the difference in climb speed will not be great, and how long do you think it will take to open a gap at less than 10 mph difference?
Now if your climb speed is the same or greater then you pay less/same rent angle for angle and can directly follow.
Not at all.
If the Spit climbs at 160 mph, and 4700 ft/min, it's obviosuly got a very steep angle.
In comparison, the 190 climbs at say 180 mph, and at say 4000 ft/min (these are guesses for the 190).
The 190 is going a faster speed, but in the same time travelling less vertical distance. It's angle is much less.
To stay with the Spit in climb, the 190 has to steepen the angle to the Spiit's.
If the 190 climbs best at 180, say 4000 ft/min, it will climb somewhat worse at 170, so by matching the Spitfire's angle, it is reducing it's climb rate below best. That means the 700 ft/min advantage the Spit has becomes greater, and the Spitfire can always increase the angle untill the 190 cannot follow, and stalls.
OTOH, the Spit to climb with the 190 has to reduce it's angle, and increase it's speed. That means it has to climb at say 180 mph, like the 190. Obviously, the Spit will have a lower climb rate than it did, but not necessarily lower than the 190, because it has a large climb advantage over the 190 to begin with.
It has a lot more potential energy at the same speed as the Spit IX. That potential energy is easy to convert to kinetic Energy by a zoom climb.
Look at it the other way. If you have more potential energy, you have to put more potential energy in. IE you need extra power. If you have the same power, higher weight you suffer in acceleration.
WW2 fighters were built as light as practical. Any fighter could easily have been made heavier, with the simple addition of extra armour. Yet normal fighters didn't carry extra armour, beyond the bare minimum for the pilot/ fuel tanks.
Adding weight to a fighter makes it worse, not better. It might dive and zoom a bit better, but in all other performance parameters it will be worse.
-
Nashwan, right on:aok
Watch out top speeds at alt though. A faster aircraft will be able to climb shallowly at another aircrafts top speed. I.e. P38 vs A6m.
That, the 190 could do with many models of Spitties at certain alts.
-
The problem with climbing steep/at low speed is that it will present you as a target long enough for the enemy to shread you. He won`t stall at the moment when he points his nose up. He has quite a few seconds to aim before that happens, and that`s more than enough for any experienced pilot to get a kill. He will pull the nose up, fire, shred the plane to pieces, and yes, stall after all that happened.
Between good climbing planes the climb difference is marginal, 1-2 m/sec. Yep, after ten seconds, you maybe gain 120m altitude, and the other guy 100m altitude. 20m altitude difference is next to nothing, but they guy also came closer to you in the horizontal plane, as his climb speed is higher.
This is especially true at higher altitudes, where the vertical climb speeds are marginal, but the horizontal speeds at the climb is performed are quite large, ca. 350-400 km/h TAS. At high alts, thus trying to climb away is BAD idea, because you will be catched with his greater speed well before you outclimb him.
I always prefer to climb ~30 km/h faster than my best climb speed, for it makes me to extend faster at the critical initial phase of the climb, and also I am not so much compromized to make a manouver if neccesary at those very low speeds.
-
"they don't pay "rent" in the sustained climb like they should"
The forces of flight must always be at equilibrium in order to maintain a constant position. The best climb speed is where those forces are at balance. Above or below that speed you pay a penalty for maintaining a constant position.
Beginning a sustained climb in combat when you are WEP means you have no more power to pay into when you are in the power zone. So you pay it in airspeed. As the Airspeed drops the angle of attack must increase to maintain the same angle of pitch. As you increase the angle of attack you pay even more penalties so your airspeed drops further attempting to maintain a constant angle of pitch. In the end your plane ends up at equilibrium climbing at a sharper angle but slower speed below the other A/C.
This is because at shallow angles of attack the higher best climb speed pays less rent. Angle for angle he is closer to his equilibrium point.
In order to out climb a 190 the spit driver has to crank his nose up and climb at his equilibrium point, which is slower but much steeper. He will lose sight of the 190 under his nose but will soon be above it.
Now the opposite is true if the 190 attempts to follow the Spit in a sustained climb. The 190 cannot maintain that angle of pitch and drops off into the mushing realm of the curve. Stalling out in the end.
If you have the same climb rate, but a lower climb speed, then the angle will be steeper.
That is correct Nashwan. Nobody is saying the FW-190 has a higher climb rate than the spitfire. When both A/C are at their best climb speed/angle, the Spitfire has a much higher climb rate.
A Merlin Powered Spit just cannot DIRECTLY follow a 190 for any length of time and either shoot OR get above the 190.
Low climb speed is a function of steep climb angle.
Low climb speed is a function of mass. Look at the Spit XIV. It climbs at both a steeper angle and a faster speed. The higher the mass the faster the speed. Add more thrust the steeper the angle raises.
Any altitude where the Spitfire is as fast or faster, it will be able to climb at the same angle as the 190, as well as outclimb it at a steeper angle.
We have to assume a co-energy situation otherwise all bets are off. If the spit has altitude or is faster then it has more energy. Consequently if the 190 has altitude then its advantages are amplified accordingly. IN a co-energy state the Spitfire cannot directly follow a 190 that is at his best climb speed or higher.
A steep climber can always reduce it's angle of climb, it's just at the same angle it's speed may not be as high, allowing the faster aircraft to climb away.
You're absolutely right BUT he cannot maintain the same angle of pitch. If he matches the angle of pitch then his angle of attack will be different and his sights are not on the 190. Trying to keep his sights on the 190 and maintaining that constant angle of pitch is what keeps the forces from reaching equilibrium. His angle of attack to maintain the same angle of pitch will be very different.
So he cannot get a gun solution.
Now the 190 is climbing at a faster speed and is leaving the spitfire behind. The horizontal separation is becoming much larger and the vertical separation is slowly increasing due to the fact the planes are traveling the same angle of pitch but at different speeds.
Make sense now.
OTOH, the Spit to climb with the 190 has to reduce it's angle, and increase it's speed. That means it has to climb at say 180 mph, like the 190. Obviously, the Spit will have a lower climb rate than it did, but not necessarily lower than the 190, because it has a large climb advantage over the 190 to begin with.
See above AND:
As the website says. This is one of the hardest concepts to get across to pilots because it seems like it should work exactly as you say. It does not though. The A/C wants to move to equilibrium. That equilibrium is it's best climb speed and angle. If it is outside of that point then it pays the price in airspeed until it reaches equilibrium. That Airspeed is much lower than the 190's.
People get confused cause the top of the power curve is pretty flat and there is a wide range of angles. That doesn't mean you will catch a faster climbing speed plane. It just means a change of angle has little to no effect on speed. You're not going any faster but you have a wider selection of angles to go the same speed. The top of the power curve is much slower for the spit than the 190.
Climbing without adding power is a different set of rules from having the ability to raise the power curve. If you at WEP then you have no more power to pay.
This is also why you will find pilot anecdotes supporting both positions. It all depends on merging energy and initial throttle settings.
There are other factors which go into the equation like drag ratios and aspect ratios. Both of which favor the FW-190.
http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/energy.html
Crumpp
-
Look at it the other way. If you have more potential energy, you have to put more potential energy in. IE you need extra power. If you have the same power, higher weight you suffer in acceleration.
That is not how it works.
If that is the case then the FW-190A3 should have been handily outaccellerated by the Spit V. It's not.
At the same speed more weight = more potential energy. Accelleration also considers DRAG. Which favours the 190. That is why a 190 handily outzooms a Spit in co-energy state, it has more mass and less drag.
Again:
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.
Crumpp
-
Adding weight to a fighter makes it worse, not better. It might dive and zoom a bit better, but in all other performance parameters it will be worse.
If you just add weight you are correct. This is why the FW-190A5 is IMO the worst of the FW-190's. It simply adds weight.
If you add weight and power, the equation changes. Just look at the Spit XIV. Not a whole lot of power in the Griffen 65(+18) compared to the Merlin 66 (+25) was added but a substantitial amount of weight. Not a big loss of manuverability for a substantial gain in wingloading.
Weight by itself is bad, weight and power is not.
Same thing happenend in the FW-190A8. It added power and weight at the same rate as the Merlin powered spits (V-IX). It also added less wingloading overall because it's lifetime weightgain was less.
Crumpp
-
A Merlin Powered Spit just cannot DIRECTLY follow a 190 for any length of time and either shoot OR get above the 190.
IN a co-energy state the Spitfire cannot directly follow a 190 that is at his best climb speed or higher.
Not strictly true. At any altitude where the Spit is as faster, or faster, than the 190, the Spit can match both the climb speed and angle of the 190. Even for altitudes where the Spitfire is slightly slower.
Look at it this way. At an altitude where the Spit and 190 have exactly the same top speed, for any given speed they will have similar percentages of excess power.
The Spitfire, being lighter, will have a higher climb rate.
That means the Spit can maintain the same climb speed as the 190, the same climb angle, with a lower throttle setting, or can maintain the same angle, and an increased speed, to climb faster than the 190 and thus overhaul it.
The best climb speed is where those forces are at balance.
The best climb speed is where the total of induced drag and parasitic drag are lowest. (afaik)
Low climb speed is a function of mass. Look at the Spit XIV. It climbs at both a steeper angle and a faster speed.
That what? Not than the Spit IX, depending on altitude. The climb rates were similar at lower alts, so if the speed is higher, the angle must be lower to maintain the same rate.
The Spit IX @25 lbs would have a considerably steeper climb rate than the Spit XIV at 18 lbs. Slightly slower speed, greater rate of climb (again at lower altitudes)
You're absolutely right BUT he cannot maintain the same angle of pitch. If he matches the angle of pitch then his angle of attack will be different and his sights are not on the 190.
His angle of attack for the same climb angle will be very similar. That's like saying in level flight the angle of attack will be different, so he can't keep the target in his sights. Any minor changes needed will be lost amongst the changes the pilot needs to make to keep control.
So he cannot get a gun solution.
Only in the same way he cannot get a guns solution in level flight. The angle of attack difference at the same cimb angle will need minor adjustments to correct.
In level flight or climb the trailing fighter always has to make such minor adjustments to bring his target under the sight.
Now the 190 is climbing at a faster speed and is leaving the spitfire behind.
Depends on the speeds at that altitude. At any altitude where the speeds are similar, or the Spit has an advantage, the Spit is not being left behind. If he is faster at that alt, he is actually reeling the 190 in whilst maintaining the same climb angle.
The horizontal separation is becoming much larger and the vertical separation is slowly increasing due to the fact the planes are traveling the same angle of pitch but at different speeds.
Yes, at those altitudes where the 190 has a speed advantage it can gain seperation from the Spit by maintaining a high speed climb. That's true for any fighter that is faster than it's opponent, providing the speed difference is great enough.
But that gives you minor seperation.
Look at it another way. If the Spit can climb at 170 mph at a much greater angle than the 190, then by reducing the angle to the same as the 190s, the Spit can certainly increase it's speed.
If it's can't maintain quite the same speed as the 190, it can still maintain a faster speed than it did before.
So if the 190 climbs at 180 mph, and the Spit at 170, then reducing the climb angle of the Spit will at least reduce the gap in climb speed between it and the 190.
What was the best climb speed of the 190? The LF IX was 170 IAS. If we assume 190 mph for the 190, then the gap is 20 mph, but the Spit can reduce climb angle and increase climb speed, so that gap is going to shrink rapidly.
Basically, if two planes have the same max climb rate, and one has a higher climb speed, then the slower cannot match it's angle and speed.
But if the slower has a much better rate , then by reducing angle it may still be able to match the faster's speed and angle.
In other words, the Spit has got an advantage to squander by climbing at the conditions that suit the 190, rather than the conditions that suit it.
As the website says. This is one of the hardest concepts to get across to pilots because it seems like it should work exactly as you say. It does not though. The A/C wants to move to equilibrium. That equilibrium is it's best climb speed and angle. If it is outside of that point then it pays the price in airspeed until it reaches equilibrium. That Airspeed is much lower than the 190's.
That assumes identical rates. You can always lower you climb angle, which means you use less power fighting gravity, and more into increasing airspeed. If you fly faster than your ideal climb speed, your ROC will go down, but if you have a large ROC advantage you can afford to do that.
There are other factors which go into the equation like drag ratios and aspect ratios. Both of which favor the FW-190.
Drag ratio doesn't, really. The RAE give figures for profile drag as 65 lbs (at 100 fps) for the 190, 66 for the Spit IX. Induced drag will favour the Spitfire because of weight and wingloading, far more so than the tiny advantage for the 190 due to it's marginally higher aspect ratio. In a climb you get more induced drag.
Short summary: The Spit can trade it's advantage in climb rate into matching higher climbing speeds, at a reduction in rate, and still match the 190 under most conditions.
The problem with climbing steep/at low speed is that it will present you as a target long enough for the enemy to shread you.
Depends on the enemy's speed as well. If you are both in a sustained climb, he cannot increase the angle for long without stalling. If he has plenty of speed, of course it won't work as a tactic. Then you need something to get an angles advatange.
But a sustained climb at higher speed leaves you vulnerable for longer, because you are only pulling away at 10 mph or less. It takes a long long time to get clear at a 10 mph advantage.
A fighter with a high angle of climb, like the Spit or 109, can steepen the angle to a degree that other fighters cannot maintain for more than a few seconds at most, and at those speeds they are going to have difficulty getting enough control authority to bring the sights to bear anyway.
-
Crumpp:
The climb trial data available is mostly from takeoff, so it has no zoom in it right.
Anyway, something from Izzy:
"The problem with climbing steep/at low speed is that it will present you as a target long enough for the enemy to shread you. He won`t stall at the moment when he points his nose up. He has quite a few seconds to aim before that happens, and that`s more than enough for any experienced pilot to get a kill. He will pull the nose up, fire, shred the plane to pieces, and yes, stall after all that happened. "
Now the best climbing speed of the 190 is not that much more than of many allied planes, and late war, some of the Spitties would easily be able to give the 190 a bad headache.
Imagine the 190 trying to use his high speed climb to climb away from a spitty,spitty countermaneuvers by climbing steeper and slower, but however more.
190 will draw away, Spitty will gain alt.
For the Merlin Powered ones, and I presume Crumpp refers to the 190A series.
"A Merlin Powered Spit just cannot DIRECTLY follow a 190 for any length of time and either shoot OR get above the 190. "
I'd love to see time-to-alts, like 10K, 15K, 20K.
In a big band of say 0-20K a good Spitty (boosted IX or VIII) will be some thousand feets above. The 190 will be ahead with its 10 mph higher climbing speed. Spit will be above.
With a 10 mph speed difference (190 = 160 mph?) and a 1000 fpm (is that so unbelievable, VIII and IX w. 25 boost climb like our AH XIV?) that leaves the Spitty either 3000-5000 feet above and almost 2 Km behind,or at same altitude with 1 minute to speed up and close the gap of roughly a mile. (That is easyly done, even at 160 mph)
These are rough numbers so I won't be hurt if they get bounced around a bit, but I hope you see the point.
We have a lack of data, for we do not know enough about the Spit climb rate at 190's optimal speed. We also need the 190's times to alt, - anybody?
I'd love to put this into an excel graph showing position pr minute of climb. If I had the 190's time to alt, I could also find out the NM to alt.
Anyway, very interesting stuff and points.
Does anyone posess the P38 high speed climb data. Somehow I have 1500 fpm at 300 miles in my head.
-
That is not how it works.
That's exactly how it works. A fighter at rest on the runway has zero energy (relative to the earth). It will expend energy throughout the flight.
To accelerate it, the heavier fighter needs more energy.
If that is the case then the FW-190A3 should have been handily outaccellerated by the Spit V. It's not.
At lower speed the Spit V should easily accelerate better than the 190. Depending on boost, of course.
At the same speed more weight = more potential energy.
Where does the energy come from?
Which favours the 190. That is why a 190 handily outzooms a Spit in co-energy state, it has more mass and less drag.
No, the Spit V has less drag. According to the RAE, 63 lbs for the Spit V, 65 for the 190.
The 190 has a lower mass/drag ratio, which is what helps it dive.
If you add weight and power, the equation changes. Just look at the Spit XIV. Not a whole lot of power in the Griffen 65(+18) compared to the Merlin 66 (+25) was added but a substantitial amount of weight. Not a big loss of manuverability for a substantial gain in wingloading.
Weight by itself is bad, weight and power is not.
That still means extra weight is bad. If you can add the power without the weight, that's beneficial, yes?
The Spit @25 lbs had as much power low down as the Spit XIV< without the extra 1000 lbs weight. That's good, not bad. The extra weight is bad. IT might confer a dive/zoom advantage, but again any air force could do that simply by adding more armour. And they'd get a more damage resistant plane as well.
But they didn't. Whatever the advantages were in damage resistance and dive/zoom, the disadvantages still outweighed the advantages.
-
Angus
From one of those links Crummp likes us to see.
2400rpm, 1.32 ata
6km - 9.1min
7km - 11.4min
8km - 14.4min
2700rpm, 1.42 ata
6km - 7.5min
7km - 9.2min
8km - 11.4min
2700rpm, 1.58/1.65 ata
6km - 6.8min
7km - 8.6min
8km - 10.7min
-
To accelerate it, the heavier fighter needs more energy.
Yes, but DRAG is also a factor. That is why the heavier FW-190A3 had the same, better, or worse accelleration at a given altitude as the Spit IX. The FW-190's wieght AND power increased accordingly.
It actually gained less weight over it's lifecycle than the Spit V to Spit IX did.
At the same SPEED a 190 has more energy than a Spitfire.
At lower speed the Spit V should easily accelerate better than the 190. Depending on boost, of course.
In fact the tactical trials show a completely different story. The FW-190A3 outaccellerated the Spit V under all flight conditions.
Where does the energy come from?
In physics mass in motion converts to kinetic energy and is called inertia.
No, the Spit V has less drag. According to the RAE, 63 lbs for the Spit V, 65 for the 190.
The spit has more drag. I have posted the analysis by an aeronautical engineer several times. I have to run some errands when I get back I will dig it up and post it again.
If you can add the power without the weight, that's beneficial, yes?
Yes but not in the same way. It's not only apples and oranges but a diminishing return effect with prop fighters. That is why you will never see a modern turboprop fighter. You have to dump huge amounts of horsepower into a prop fighter to get small gains in performance. World War II fighters were reaching the apex of prop fighter limitations.
The Spit @25 lbs had as much power low down as the Spit XIV< without the extra 1000 lbs weight. That's good, not bad.
For the Angle fight, Yes. Going up against an energy fighter than already possessed verticle fight advantages it did nothing to close that performance gap. It did increase the low altitude ability of the Spitfire somewhat as was it's goal.
the disadvantages still outweighed the advantages
No they don't. That is why Aeronautical engineers have always been willing to add some weight and power to fighter designs.
Crumpp
-
Now the best climbing speed of the 190 is not that much more than of many allied planes, and late war, some of the Spitties would easily be able to give the 190 a bad headache.
Actually that is not true, Angus. It is significantly off in AH.
Crumpp
-
If the Spit V was so good why were the Brits so desperate that they were willing to risk the lives of dozens of commados to steal an FW190 from a german airbase in France...
The fact is FW190 scared the crap out of the RAF, the Spit V was horribly inferior in every way except the flat turn - and you guys know what RAF pilots said about turn performance and winning fights...
:lol
-
aaargh! a perfectly good thread turned into a horribly geeky one. The thread was decent when it was about the AH spit 14 and ta152.
I used to show threads like these to my ex gf to prove i'm not as geeky as she says i am.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
That's exactly how it works. A fighter at rest on the runway has zero energy (relative to the earth). It will expend energy throughout the flight.
To accelerate it, the heavier fighter needs more energy.
Originally posted by Nashwan
At lower speed the Spit V should easily accelerate better than the 190. Depending on boost, of course.
Yeah, in Nashwanworld. :D
Quote from: "How to make full use of the Spitfire V, VI and IX" - Air Tactics, Air Ministry, Aug 1942 :
"2, At the present stage of war, the enemy in France is equipped with the FW 190, a fighter with an excellent rate of climb and good acceleration. (...)
5, The acceleration of the Spitfire is relatively poor. It is therefore dangeours to cruise at, say, +2 boost and 1900 rpm, when the Hun is about, because the time taken in acceleration to maximum speed will allow him quickly to draw into firing range."
And, AFDU trials, FW 190A-3 vs. Mk V:
"52, Manouveribility : (...) The FW 190 has better acceleration under all conditions of flight, and this must obviously be an advantage in combat."
NashwanWorld, and the Real World, two completely different things. In NashwanWorld, the D-9 was rushed into production, because the LW was so impressed by the Mark V Spitfire`s record vs. the Fw 190. :lol
Originally posted by Nashwan
No, the Spit V has less drag. According to the RAE, 63 lbs for the Spit V, 65 for the 190.
Probably that`s why the Spitfire V is a good deal slower than the Fw 190 on the same power.
Probably that`s why Spitfires always had relatively low max. cruise speeds, and FW 190s very high ones.
In fact, the FW 190A`s drag is very impressive: on 1800PS it does only a few km/h less speed than the sleeker inline engined 109G-14 at the same power!
-
"late war, some of the Spitties would easily be able to give the 190 a bad headache."
For sure.;)
Fw190A-8 (4300kg) / Spitfire JL165
2400rpm, 1.32 ata
6km - 9.1min
7km - 11.4min
8km - 14.4min
2700rpm, 1.42 ata
6km - 7.5min / 4.97min, +17.1lb
7km - 9.2min / 6.0min, +13lb
8km - 11.4min / 7.2min, +8.6lb
2700rpm, 1.58/1.65 ata
6km - 6.8min
7km - 8.6min
8km - 10.7min
Spitfire JL165
Maximum rate of climb in M.S. gear (radiator flaps open) = 5080 ft/min up to 500 feet
Maximum rate of climb in F.S. gear (radiator flaps open) = 4335 ft/min at 11,400 feet
Maximum rate of climb in F.S. gear (radiator flaps shut) = 4750 ft/min at 11,400 feet
Even at 1.58/1.65 used by the 190, the Spit was faster to altitude. At SL the best RoC(Fw190A-8) was only 3405ft/m.
-
Uh huh... I went WOW, look at all the debate about the Ta-152 vs Spit 14. Now I come in here and there is all this egg-head **** splattered everywhere about the RL Spit 5 vs 190A-3.
BTW, I'm no scientist... and I just took Physics last fall and got a C so that probably means I'm not real good at it, but Nashwan's argument seems to make a hell of a lot more sense than Crumpps.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The La-7 is unperked because of its severe range limitations and poor high alt performance.
If one considers 420 mph at 21,000 feet poor performance. Let's face it, 95% of all engagements in AH2 are below 20,000 feet.
The answer to the La-7 is the P-63A Kingcobra. Similar climb and low-level speed, but the P-63 is nearly as maneuverable as the FM-2. Add four .50 cal MGs and a 37mm cannon.
These two fighters would be very equal except that the La-7 could not afford to turn-fight with the P-63, and the P-63 has a big range advantage, plus the ability to haul a 500 pound bomb (or a drop tank).
So, how fast does the P-63A climb? Well, for comparison, let's look at the F6F-5. It requires 7.7 minutes to climb to 15,000 feet. In contrast, the P-63A can get to 25,000 feet in 7.3 minutes! The P-51D requires near twice as long (13 minutes) to reach 30,000 feet.
When the Soviets first began flying the P-63, they found the tail to be weaker than that of the P-39. Bell developed a kit for strengthening the tail and Bell technicians made field modifications to those planes in service. That change was immediately incorporated into the production line as well.
Pilots who flew the P-63, and had time in the other major U.S. types, generally agreed that the P-63 was far and away the best performer at low to medium altitudes. Not surprising, the pilots flying it at the Joint Fighter Conference differed from rave reviews to outright dislike (the only thing the JFC ever proved was that every monkey prefers his own banana).
Since more than 3,300 P-63s were built, and it saw combat (with the Free French and Soviets) in far greater numbers than the F4U-1C or Ta 152H, I think it would be an excellent candidate for inclusion in the AH2 plane-set someday.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Uh huh... I went WOW, look at all the debate about the Ta-152 vs Spit 14. Now I come in here and there is all this egg-head **** splattered everywhere about the RL Spit 5 vs 190A-3.
We done been hijacked.
-
Dont think P63 saw much combat. IIRC the soviets only used them in the last few days of the war in asia.. And the French never used them in ww2 combat.
-
Hmmm, this thread was originally about the Ta & the 14.
Ok, typically, Spits vs 190's
Grunherz hit a point, why were the RAF pilots so scared of the 190 when it appeared?
Well, it was an unknown aircraft with an unknown performance, it's pilots however knew the Spitties performance. The Spit V we have in AH is the final and finest of that mark while actually the fine 190's appearing in 1941, usually under favourable conditons in combat, were facing earlier mk V's (less power, worse roll) and even Mk II's. The British understandably were ready for anything to learn about that new foe.
BTW when Göring heard about single engine and fast fighters deep inside Germany for the first time he first banned the news, - later he commented "It's lost". Those were P51's.
Widewing commented about the Kingcobra. Now that would be something for the AH planeset, - A p39 on steroids basically.!!
:aok
Then on to the climbing debate.
From these numbers for the 190 (the finest ones of the set):
"2700rpm, 1.58/1.65 ata
6km - 6.8min
7km - 8.6min
8km - 10.7min"
This is very much inferior to even some Merlin powered Spits. In fact more inferior than the numbers I grabbed for my comparison here before. Fact remains that in sustained climb the 190 was no match for 1943 onwards spitties.
Now where is that Spitfire performance thread again ???
-
"BTW when Göring heard about single engine and fast fighters deep inside Germany for the first time he first banned the news, - later he commented "It's lost"."
He also said he could be called Meyer if Allied a/c flew over Berlin.
Angus, read the Osprey "No 91 'Nigeria' Squadron book. Chap 2 is about the introduction of the Fw190. There was no problem with the 109F for the Spit V but the 190 was a real headache.
2cd week of Jan 1942
FltLt Fletcher, 'B' Flight OC, was flying a recce mission between Paris and Boulogne when he spotted a fighter. He gave chase, but dispite full throttle could not gain on the a/c. He boke off and returned to Hawkinge.
-
Originally posted by Angus
"2700rpm, 1.58/1.65 ata
6km - 6.8min
7km - 8.6min
8km - 10.7min"
Even an early Tempest (JN731, the 3rd produced) could better these Fw190A-8 numbers:
6km - 6.8min > 6.6min
7km - 8.6min > 8.2min
8km - 10.7min > 10.2min
http://home.epix.net/~cap14/tp.html
And, that is with an early model of the Sabre.
http://user.tninet.se/~ytm843e/engines.htm
-
Then on to the climbing debate.
From these numbers for the 190 (the finest ones of the set):
"2700rpm, 1.58/1.65 ata
6km - 6.8min
7km - 8.6min
8km - 10.7min"
The Spitfire Vc with 4 20 mm cannon could reach 6km in about 6 mins 5 sec.
8km took about 9 min 30 secs.
That's for a 1942 Spit with 4 Hispanos.
Reducing that to 2 cannon increased the climb rate by about 8%.
That would mean 6km in about 5 mins 40, 8km in 8 min 45 sec.
-
Nashwan,
It's spelled out in black and white here:
http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/energy.html
Read about the physics and forces of climbing here:
http://www.av8n.com/how/
Nobody is saying that the Spit Mk IX did not have a faster climb rate. That is a fact.
Let me explain it ONE MORE TIME and PLEASE READ THE SCIENCE!
If we all flew gliders you could all understand this. Nobody is used to watching a “total energy variometer”, if we had TE Variometers this would make perfect sense to you.
The Spit does have a much slower best climb speed. That is a fact. The FW-190A8's best climb speed is around 182 mph. The Spit IX LF is 170 at best dropping quickly with altitude.
At a shallower angle and faster speed the than the spit the FW-190 reaches it's "rent free" zone in a sustained climb. If a spit points it's nose DIRECTLY at the FW-190 it will be out climbed because it cannot maintain the same VSI at the same AOA. It has to climb at a different AoA to get the same VSI.
If the spit cannot add any more power to the climb then he will pay the price in Airspeed. The TOP of the any A/C's power curve IS its best climb speed. That means the Spit wants to be going 170mph in the climb! The point where the maximum angle of climb and the top of the power curve meet is the best climb rate! Because the power curve is flat at the top, he will quickly find himself climbing at a shallower angle at 170mph.
So we have no gun solution and at the same VSI and the FW-190 is moving faster along the same vector. The spit gets out climbed.
Only way to reach the same VSI and angle is that both A/C are at the same point on the power curve. This would occur in a bounce when the FW-190 is climb at 1.32ata (climb and combat power) and the Spit comes in at full boost underneath it.
The ONLY way a Spit will be out climbed by an FW-190 is if he points his directly at the 190 and tries to follow him up.
If the Spit driver immediately goes for his best climb angle and speed he will readily out climb the 190.
Excellent example of how thrust effects climb:
From one of those links Crummp likes us to see.
Fw190A-8 (4300kg) / Spitfire JL165
2400rpm, 1.32 ata
6km - 9.1min
7km - 11.4min
8km - 14.4min
2700rpm, 1.42 ata
6km - 7.5min / 4.97min, +17.1lb
7km - 9.2min / 6.0min, +13lb
8km - 11.4min / 7.2min, +8.6lb
2700rpm, 1.58/1.65 ata
6km - 6.8min
7km - 8.6min
8km - 10.7min
When the FW-190 received more thrust it's angle of climb increased BUT it's Best climb speed stayed the same.
Check out the spitfires best climb speeds:
Spit V Merlin XLV - 170mph IAS - 6,450lb TO wt
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/x4922.html
Spit V Merlin 45 (+16) - 170mph IAS- 6,945lb TO wt
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/aa878.html
Spit Mk IX Merlin 66 (+25) - 170mph IAS 7400 lbs TO wt.
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/jl165.html
Last post on the subject in this thread. If you reply Nashwan please start a new thread.
Crumpp
-
Well, now I am gonna hijack my own post. Thats ok, since it IS my post.
I'd LOVE to have a P-39 and a P-63 introduced. Could have an early war P-39D, a later-war P-39Q, and the uber monster P-63.
The early P-39 would be great for Pac setups in the CT, assuming we ever get the Japanese planeset filled in.
The P-39Q could be east front, mediterrainien , and I think even West front, but maybe not.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
The Spitfire Vc with 4 20 mm cannon could reach 6km in about 6 mins 5 sec.
8km took about 9 min 30 secs.
That's for a 1942 Spit with 4 Hispanos.
Reducing that to 2 cannon increased the climb rate by about 8%.
That would mean 6km in about 5 mins 40, 8km in 8 min 45 sec.
The numbers Milo grabbed are hardly for anything else than to incite flames as usual. He grabbed to A-8`s figures at maximum weight, full load with bombrack, the outer 20mm cannon (normally removed for fighter missions), and rear tank. However this hardly appeared until late 1944, and was more like a bomber interceptor.
Perhaps it`s more valid to compare like with like, ie. FW 190A-4 figures at maximum climb (1.42ata).
1.02 min -> 4000 ft
1.911 - > 10500 ft
3.10 min - > 20000 ft
-----------------------------
6.03 min from SL to 20 000 ft at 1.42ata. Very comparable to Spit Vs in their late 1942 +16lbs boost, ie. Nashwan`s numbers.
These number don`t include C-3 boost, that was added to the A-5 and boosted the ROC to 4600 fpm, or about 15%, as per UK sources.
However as Angus said, "Fact remains that in sustained climb the 190 was no match for 1943 onwards spitties. " That`s true. Also the FW 190 was no match for the Spits turning ability.
It`s also true however that Spits were never a match for the FW 190s level and dive acceleration, roll rate, a zooming capabilities and firepower or range.
In fact no Spitfire could match the FW 190`s level speed either until mid-1944 at all the practical flight altitudes up to ca.7000m, when 150 grade fuel was introduced. There was no Spitfire until then that could produce 351mph at SL, and 415 mph at altitude. And the Spit V, the typical British fighter well into 1943, was some 40 mph or even more slower than this... it`s quite understandable why they felt outclassed. It was almost like props vs. jets for them. 190s zooming up and down at speeds they could follow, shooting down unaware Spit pilots from the mass with their ultra-heavy firepower..
It`s strenght versus weaknesses, and I think the FW 190`s strenghts were more favourible - speed is life - under the typical larger scale air battles than solo engagements.
-
You guys had a perfectly nice Spit V and Spit IX thread. Why'd ya move all that blather to this thread?
Go take your RAFanatic and Luftwobble blather back to those threads.
-
I would love to see the P39Q come to AH. It would be great for several different countries and theaters.
Totally Agree Urchin.
Crumpp
-
From Isengrim:
"3.10 min - > 20000 ft "
So the 190 series climbed to 20K in 3 minutes 6 second?
Izzie? you Ok?
Bottom line is, there is little data of sustained climb of the 190's. They were climbing favourably at high speed, ok.
10-20 miles faster than a nice spitty, but the same amount less upwards.
-
Angus,
He was saying 3.1 minutes to 20k from 10k, not from SL.
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
The numbers Milo grabbed are hardly for anything else than to incite flames as usual. He grabbed to A-8`s figures at maximum weight, full load with bombrack, the outer 20mm cannon (normally removed for fighter missions), and rear tank. However this hardly appeared until late 1944, and was more like a bomber interceptor.
If you want to use a different time period, Barbi, be my guest.:) It was a comparison to a late war Mk IX and a late war A-8.
So now that you stuck your foot in your mouth, :) here is the Fw graph. Now read it VERY VERY carefully. Make up all the excussssses you want to make up the ~1700f/m difference.
(http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190-1.jpg)
Notice the flying weight Fw listed for the A-8.
Notice it says WITHOUT ETC501 fitted.
Notice it says u/c wheel doors fitted.
Notice it says external surfaces filled and polished.
A late war A-8, dispite what Crumpp says, has a TO weight of 4400kg as stated on a Fw document. When has 4300kg been greater than 4400kg?
You should really do something about your truly autrocious English comprehension.
Now the A-5.
These number don`t include C-3 boost, that was added to the A-5 and boosted the ROC to 4600 fpm, or about 15%
(http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190_A5_climb_s.gif)
Barbi, 15% increase of 15m/s (from the Fw graph) gives 17.25m/s or 3400f/m.
The only one around here is you Barbi/Isegrim/Kurfurst that incites flames because of your uber is German mentality.
Btw, the Tempest V was doing 415mph IAS at 500ft on 150 grade fuel in July 1944 while in operation with Roland Beamont's Wing.
-
Another thread ruined by dick-waving morons. Why don't you all go pray at your altars and leave threads like this alone.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Another thread ruined by dick-waving morons. Why don't you all go pray at your altars and leave threads like this alone.
But, but the Spit Mk.FW190 has 13.756% more efficent prop airfol than the Bf109 G-Tempest V at 3,000 meters when flying in 3 degree celsus air temperatyureat night over Dover englend . DAMMIT THE WORLD MUST KNOW!!!
-
Milo, sorry to disturb, but this:
"A late war A-8, dispite what Crumpp says, has a TO weight of 4400kg as stated on a Fw document. When has 4300kg been greater than 4400kg? "
This is not so much, and life is too short to make a hell of an argument over 100 kg out of 4400 which is a mere weight difference of 2% or so. Ok, right is right, but......
What is right is that the 190 had a spectacularly good climb rate in a NARROW alt band. It could not live with the Spitties so nicely in a climb rate at other alt bands. It could run with the best, it could shoot like a battleship, it could roll better than anything produced in WW2, it could zoom very well, it could dive quite nicely.
However, caught up in a tight one with a late war Spitty or Mustang could still leave it with little option.
If the 190 would fight a Spit IXbooster for instance, it might find itself at stall, 5K, with no possibility to get away, be it upwards or downwards. With a turning circle of 200 metres or so, the max distance between circling dogfighters would be 300 yards. the 190 hits the climb. the Spitty is 300 metres behind on it's dead 6. The 190 is pulling away at 20 km/hr. It's a long shot already, but it's the maximum in this case. In a certain alt band the 190 has a chance, sometimes, - sometimes not.
Had the 190 broken engagement when the Spitty is closing to 9/3 o'clock, it leaves merely 150 yards between them. You have a 190 climbing at stalling speed with a Spitty 150 yards behind, pulling away with the same speed difference as my fastest and slowest tractor, - i.e. TOOO SLOW.
So, you see, the 190 is better off not mixing it too tightly. An evasive climb is profitable only when the distance is still enough. And that is how they were used with great success.
Hit & Run.
But late war.....the 190A series is outclassed. No more outdiving when P51's are around. Suddenly Spitties stay uncomfortably close in the dive and make a catch when it levels out. That ### P51 climbs too well, is it overmodelled or light on fuel? Etc etc.
BTW, My first climbing trial 190A vs P51B 12 to 22K lead to P51 being superior. 190 was heavier on fuel (75%)and had empty rocket tubes (forgot to take them off) and the lightest gunload, P51 had 50% fuel. 190 had a 1000 feet extra.
At 22K the P51 had the 190 in its gunrange.
So, could that have happened in real life?
-
How did this turn into the FW-190A outclimbs the Spitfire??
That is not what I said nor what happenend in reality.
It could not directly follow the 190 but without a shred of doubt it the Spitfire outclimbed it.
Big Difference.
Crumpp
-
But late war.....the 190A series is outclassed. No more outdiving when P51's are around. Suddenly Spitties stay uncomfortably close in the dive and make a catch when it levels out. That ### P51 climbs too well, is it overmodelled or light on fuel? Etc etc.
Exactly,
When the Spit XIV, Tempest, and P51 have become common the 190A is outclassed.
The P51 and the Tempest were both rough customers. You might have a chance at a turn fight with them if you are lucky.
Against the Spit XIV the 190A is meat on the table. It can only dive as a temporary get away.
Against any Merlin Spit vs. its 190A contemporary the fight is about as even odds as you can get in a WWII fighter match up. The 190A can afford to saddle up in a close quarters energy fight as long as it doesn't turn.
Of the pre-Spit XIV models, down low in the 190A's element, IMO the Spit XII holds the best chance because of it roll rate and ability to directly follow in the climb.
Crumpp
-
MiloMorai, your 190A5 graph is for military power only.
-
From Izzie:
"In fact no Spitfire could match the FW 190`s level speed either until mid-1944 at all the practical flight altitudes up to ca.7000m, when 150 grade fuel was introduced. There was no Spitfire until then that could produce 351mph at SL, and 415 mph at altitude."
More or less correct, vs the bulk of Spits untill that time when the Griffon Spits arrived.
However, the Mk VIII introduced in 1943 has 363 miles on the deck and some 405 at 20K, top speed at alt being 409. Tome to 20K being 5 minutes.
Spit IX LF is as fast down low while the IX HF is faster up very high. So it all depends really.
But the 190 is truly formidable in a certain altitude band, and the LW command utilized that in their normal professional way. No wonder that the first Spit pilots hated the 190's
-
The La-7 is unperked because of its severe range limitations and poor high alt performance.
common misconception. La7's 20k preformance is good. just not as overwhelming as down in the weeds relatively to other planes.
At a shallower angle and faster speed the than the spit the FW-190 reaches it's "rent free" zone in a sustained climb. If a spit points it's nose DIRECTLY at the FW-190 it will be out climbed because it cannot maintain the same VSI at the same AOA. It has to climb at a different AoA to get the same VSI.
Crumpp, you completly confuse climb angle and AoA, which has nothing to do with each other.
If you add weight and power, the equation changes. Just look at the Spit XIV. Not a whole lot of power in the Griffen 65(+18) compared to the Merlin 66 (+25) was added but a substantitial amount of weight. Not a big loss of manuverability for a substantial gain in wingloading.
The RAF needed speed and more speed. adding HP will give you more speed. adding weight will have very little effect on max speed, therefor putting bigger heavier engine gave you a faster plane but with the same power loading and worse wing loading. All WWII pilots wanted was speed - the rest came in second.
Spit 14 is arguably the best fighter in AH. but since monsters like G10 and La7 are running around free, it should be lightly perked. The perk tag is bad enough.
Ta152 dive ability leaves me wondering about the P47. The 152 is also heavy with no so good level acceleration but superb in a dive. The Jug is nothing to write home about.
Bozon
-
Crumpp, you completly confuse climb angle and AoA, which has nothing to do with each other.
No I haven't bozon. I very well know the difference.
http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/aoa.html#fig-incidence
Some people think:
You may have heard the assertion that “Power plus Attitude equals Performance”. Well, that assertion is not quite right, and has caused all sorts of unnecessary confusion.
http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/aoa.html#sec-power-attitude-performance
Crumpp
-
However, caught up in a tight one with a late war Spitty or Mustang could still leave it with little option.
If the 190 would fight a Spit IXbooster for instance, it might find itself at stall, 5K, with no possibility to get away, be it upwards or downwards. With a turning circle of 200 metres or so, the max distance between circling dogfighters would be 300 yards. the 190 hits the climb. the Spitty is 300 metres behind on it's dead 6. The 190 is pulling away at 20 km/hr.
Angus M8,
Don't forget the first part of ANY climb above Best Climb Speed is the zoom climb. Traveling the same speed the FW-190 will handily out zoom the spit.
So in the initial part of the any climb the rate of extension will heavily favor the 190. Then if the climb angle is at best climb angle or below for the 190 it will slow down to best climb. If the Spitfire is directly following still, then it will left at the difference between best climb speeds.
Some other tiny details that are important to that scenario too.
Roll rate - It takes the FW-190 of the time to roll out of the turning circle. At 400mph it takes a 190A .78 seconds to roll 45 degrees. It takes a Spit 1.85 seconds at that speed to roll 45 degrees. So the 190 has a head start out of the circle. At that speed the FW-190 travels 170 meters per second. That is a significant head start. At Low Speeds the disparity is even more dramatic between the roll rates. Factor in the stick forces and the pilots ability to apply them, as is measured in the Roll Rate Report, and it is easy to see why Spit pilots were in awe of the 190's roll rate. BTW M8, Do Spitfires normally have metal covered ailerons? They make a big deal about it in the report. Seems like an experimental thing.
Level/Dive Acceleration - Just as Johnson used his P47's strengths. A very shallow dive of a couple of degrees to gain an even larger zoom parity.
So until the Spit XIV arrives, the Spitfire was an equal to the FW-190A.
Crumpp
-
"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crumpp, you completly confuse climb angle and AoA, which has nothing to do with each other.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"
How so? I think he has it right. Well, A of A for the aircraft = Angle of climb, at least that's how I understand his meaning.
Of course total A of A is always a tad more than the angle of climb, just a question of understanding his point.
-
climb angle is set by the ratio of forward speed and climb speed (what you see on the air-speed and rate-of-climb indicators, and yes, there is an insignificant correction for AoA).
It is not how high the nose is pointing over the horison.
Spits are very good at climbing angle since their best climbing speed is low and they have a good climb rate at that speed.
American pilots in Korea belived the mig 15 had superb climb properties. It turned out the Sabres actually out climbed the mig but at a much shallower angle (better ROC but at higher speed), so they couldn't follow the migs up in a sustained manuver (nothing to do with zoom).
Don't forget the first part of ANY climb above Best Climb Speed is the zoom climb.
not true. perhaps you mean the sustained climb speed at that climb angle (see above).
Bozon
-
Crumpp, I think this thead is beyond saving, may as well continue it here.
Nobody is saying that the Spit Mk IX did not have a faster climb rate. That is a fact.
Yes, I think we can both agree on that.
The Spit does have a much slower best climb speed. That is a fact.
I think we can both accept that as well, although "much" might need some defining.
The FW-190A8's best climb speed is around 182 mph. The Spit IX LF is 170 at best dropping quickly with altitude.
The 190's will drop with altitude too.
But I'll happily agree the 190 climbed at 182, the Spit at 170.
If a spit points it's nose DIRECTLY at the FW-190 it will be out climbed because it cannot maintain the same VSI at the same AOA.
Again, that's like saying the Spit couldn't point it's nose at the 109 in level flight because the AOA will be wrong.
It will take very minor adjustments to get the AOA right for the 190 to be in the Spit's sights.
If the spit cannot add any more power to the climb then he will pay the price in Airspeed. The TOP of the any A/C's power curve IS its best climb speed. That means the Spit wants to be going 170mph in the climb! The point where the maximum angle of climb and the top of the power curve meet is the best climb rate!
Yes. But we've already established that the Spit's climb rate is much higher than the 190's.
The Spit doesn't need to maintain it's maximum climb rate to keep up with the 190.
If the Spit climbs at say 4700 ft/min at 170 IAS, then it will climb more slowly at 182 IAS, but it will still climb. What you need to show is that the gain of 12 mph in it's speed will reduce it's climb rate to the same level as the 190's.
Remeber, any plane that's flying at less than it's max speed can still climb. A spit IX can still climb at some altitudes when it's doing 400 mph, although very slowly.
Any altitude where the Spit is almost as fast, or faster, than the 190 and the Spit should be able to climb at the same rate and speed as the 190, and even at altitudes where the Spit's speed is some way below the 190's.
Because the power curve is flat at the top, he will quickly find himself climbing at a shallower angle at 170mph.
We know that the 190 climbs at a shallower angle than the Spit. It has too, because at a higher speed and the same angle it will climb better, and we know it actually climbs much worse.
So the 190's best climb rate is achieved at a much shallower angle than the Spit's.
So we have no gun solution and at the same VSI and the FW-190 is moving faster along the same vector. The spit gets out climbed.
But you do have a guns solution. You have the same guns solution the Spit would have on a 190 in level flight.
You will always need an AoA adjustment to bring a target under your guns. The tiny AoA adjustment will be lost in the far larger adjusments of aim needed.
Only way to reach the same VSI and angle is that both A/C are at the same point on the power curve.
Yes. Of course, if one has more power, he can throttle back to get on the same vsi/angle climb.
When the FW-190 received more thrust it's angle of climb increased BUT it's Best climb speed stayed the same.
Yes. Best climb speed is achieved when you have minimum drag, and that's achieved at a point where you have the minimum induced drag and profile drag.
Going slower increases induced drag, profile drag reduces but not as much as induced drag increase. NEt effect is an increase in drag, more power used, less available for climbing.
Going faster reduces induced drag, but increases profile drag, net effect less power available for climbing.
Now we know that at 170 mph, the Spit can easily outclimb the 190. That means that at 182, the Spit will be using more power, and will have less available for climbing.
But that doesn't mean that the reduced climb rate for the Spit will not still be as high, or higher, than the 190's.
These number don`t include C-3 boost, that was added to the A-5 and boosted the ROC to 4600 fpm, or about 15%, as per UK sources.
Any chance of a source for that?
No they don't. That is why Aeronautical engineers have always been willing to add some weight and power to fighter designs.
Adding weight and power is helpful, but the weight is an unwanted side effect of adding more power, not a goal.
If you can add the power without the weight, that is preferable.
You seem to be suggesting that the Spit XIV is superior to a 25 lbs Spit IX, even at low altitude, because it has more weight.
BTW M8, Do Spitfires normally have metal covered ailerons? They make a big deal about it in the report. Seems like an experimental thing.
Metal ailerons were introduced on the Spit V, and used in all subsequent marks (that I'm aware of)
Later mark Spits also had stiffer wings which would have gone some way to improving roll rate, as iirc the V suffered a lot from wing twisting reducing the effectiveness of the ailerons at high speed.
So until the Spit XIV arrives, the Spitfire was an equal to the FW-190A.
I'd go with that as well, but excluding the use of 150 octane fuel. At 25 lbs, the Spit was superior to the 190 A series.
-
Ok,
There seems to be some confusion as to what are A/C "numbers" mean.
Here:
Suppose we wish to achieve the best rate of climb:
A) You could try to control the airplane by reference to the “rate of climb” number shown on the vertical speed indicator. This is not recommended!
B) It would be better to maintain VY, the nominal best-rate-of-climb speed, as shown on the airspeed indicator, and accept whatever rate of climb results. This is almost exactly the right idea.
C) It would be even better to realize that the best rate of climb is achieved at a particular angle of attack. In particular, if the airplane is lightly loaded compared to what was anticipated in the handbook, the best rate of climb will be achieved at a lower speed than is reflected in the handbook’s VY value.
This is not an isolated example. Many of the airplane’s critical performance numbers are really angle of attack numbers:
Þ The stall occurs at a particular angle of attack.
Þ The smallest power-off descent rate occurs at a particular angle of attack.
Þ The best power-off glide ratio occurs at a particular angle of attack.
Þ The recommended “approach speed” is really an angle of attack recommendation.
Þ The best rate of climb occurs at a particular angle of attack.
Þ The best angle of climb occurs at a particular angle of attack.1, 2
http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/aoa.html
An Airplane achieves it's best performance when flown by it's numbers. It makes sense to non-pilots that "Power plus attitude = performance" but that is not the case.
Lets examine the power curve:
Life would be simpler if manufacturers would explicitly show the power curve somewhere in the POH, but they don’t. You have to figure it out for yourself. Fortunately, the general shape of the power curve is more-or-less9 the same for all airplanes, so the concepts discussed here are very widely applicable.
http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/energy.html#fig-power-curve-regimes
That means all Airplanes have a FLAT power curve. The TOP of that curve is the BEST CLIMB Speed:
Let’s start by comparing figure 7.5 to figure 7.6. As shown in figure 7.5, the highest point on the power curve represents the best rate of climb. The corresponding airspeed is denoted VY.
http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/power.html#sec-best-angle-climb
Not lets look at BEST CLIMB ANGLE:
We see that the power curve is rather flat on top. That means that if you fly a couple of knots faster than VY, your rate of climb will hardly be affected at all. You will reach your destination a percent or two sooner, so this sort of “cruise climb” is generally a sensible thing to do.
http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/power.html#sec-best-angle-climb
But don’t get carried away; the power curve tells you that if you slow down enough, you will degrade the climb performance to the point where further reductions in airspeed don’t pay.
Both A/C can do this and the 190 is faster.
Since the top of the Power Curve is flat there is a wide variety of angles the plane can fly that have No effect on Airspeed. Your still going 170 mph at a shallower angle.
Now any climb which is started ABOVE Best Climb speed is a ZOOM CLIMB which ends, provided the Angle of attack is not ABOVE best climb angle in a sustained climb at Best Climbing speed. That is the point of equilibrium the plane wants to be at to balance the forces of flight.
If the 190A and a Spit begin a climb at the same speed:
1. In the initial zoom the 190 will leave the spit.
a. The 190 has more mass
b. The 190 has less drag
2. At the end of the zoom, both A/C will slow to Best Climb Speed.
a. The 190's Best climb speed is faster
b. IF the spit maintains the 190's shallower angle he will be left behind.
I will continue later. Got a family function to go to now.
-
Crumpp:
Looking at the fact that the best merlin Spits climb up too 1000 fpm better than the 190 A series while the 190 climbs 12 mph faster, those spits MUST be able to follow the 190. Why? well, the Spitty is gaining upwards altitude at it's best climb rate at the same rate as the 190 is gaining forward distance.
Otherwise, the Spitfire would always be able to outclimb behind, level out and catch the 190 while still climbing.
Zooming is another issue, and will only make a difference until both aircraft are again at climbing speed. Zooming will of course help with departure.
Nashwan, IMHO, at some alt bands, only the best Merlin spits could compete with the 190's on any level (190 outrolling always). The death and dread being the IX LF and VIII with 25+ boost.
I'd say that the VIII +25 would indeed rank as the best dogfighter AND multi-purpose fighter of WW2 ;)
-
I think FW190 series development was very very poor during the war. Spits and did much better.
FW was ready to produce a 450mph+ DB603 engined, 5 cannon 2 mg armed 190 by late 1942 but the autorities didnt want any part of that so it wasnt for lack of trying. Conclusion: Thankfully Teh nazi R dumb..
-
I've drawn a quick (and very dirty) graph of what I'm trying to say.
We know the climb rate of these aircraft at 2 speeds. The best climb speed, ie 170 mph for the Spit, 182 mph for the 190, and their maximum speeds.
Obviously, at maximum speed climb rate will be zero, as all the available power is going to maintain forward momentum, and none is available to climb.
Note that this graph assumes a linear fall off of climb rate with speed, which I doubt is accurate. Someone like HoHun, GWShaw etc would probably be able to do a much better job.
However, the purpose of this is just to explain a point I'm having difficulty conveying with words.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1093216393_rocspeedspit190.gif)
Edit: The vertical scale is climb rate in ft/min, the horizontal speed in mph. All values are at sea level. I've used Isegrim's figures for the 190 (If I understand them correctly)
As you can see, climb rate drops with a speed increase past best climbing speed, but the Spit has a climb rate advantage and can afford to fly outside it's best climb speed and still exceed the 190s rate of climb.
Now any climb which is started ABOVE Best Climb speed is a ZOOM CLIMB which ends, provided the Angle of attack is not ABOVE best climb angle in a sustained climb at Best Climbing speed. That is the point of equilibrium the plane wants to be at to balance the forces of flight.
No, the excess speed will only drop off if you keep the angle high enough. Any plane can climb at any speed up to it's maximum speed, because at anything less than maximum speed it still has excess power.
You can climb at 300 mph at sea level in the Spit, just at a very shallow angle. You can hold a 300 mph climb in the Spit all the way up to 30,000ft or more. (TAS)
Only if you keep the angle too high will the climb speed begin to drop.
2. At the end of the zoom, both A/C will slow to Best Climb Speed.
Only if the angle is great enough. If the Spit tries to maintain the same angle at 200 mph that it can maintain at 170, speed will drop, but you can raise and lower climb speed by increasing or lowering the angle.
Try climbing in AH without using auto climb. Watch the ASI, and try to keep 170 IAS. You puch the stick forward when the speed drops below 170, pull back when it goes above 170.
You are adjusting the climb angle to keep a desired speed.
Now do the same at 180, or 200, or even 300 mph. You can maintain a climb at any speed below maximum simply by adjusting the angle.
a. The 190's Best climb speed is faster
b. IF the spit maintains the 190's shallower angle he will be left behind.
No, see the graph above. Obviously if the climb rates were identical to begin with, the Spit would start to fall behind the 190 at anything other than it's optimum climb. But if the Spit has a large initial advantage, it can afford to climb at less than optimum speed and still be better than the 190.
-
Nashwan, bro.
I am not trying to sound like an arrogant know it all, so please don't think I am in this reply.
No, the excess speed will only drop off if you keep the angle high enough. Any plane can climb at any speed up to it's maximum speed, because at anything less than maximum speed it still has excess power.
Look at the Power Curve again and see what happens as soon as you raise the angle of attack above Zero.
The speed begins to drop. When your zoom climb is finished, your plane drops to sustained climb speed. Your speed will balance out along that power curve. Angle for angle the 190 is faster. The end of the power curve is level flight.
But ONLY at angles below the 190's Best Climb angle.
Obviously, at maximum speed climb rate will be zero, as all the available power is going to maintain forward momentum, and none is available to climb.
Yes because the end of the power curve is level flight.
Note that this graph assumes a linear fall off of climb rate with speed, which I doubt is accurate. Someone like HoHun, GWShaw etc would probably be able to do a much better job.
Not sure exactly what you are showing with this chart, bro. If you are trying to say the Spitfire had a large enough angle advantage it could directly follow the spit it did not. It seems that way but when you understand the physics it could not catch it just because it's angle was better by following it directly.
I will say though the light bulb came on with this. I am not about to say that at high altitudes where the Spitfire performs its best and the 190 it's worst, that a Spitfire could not directly follow a 190. As long as the 190's best climb speed is faster. When it becomes the same then the Spitfire can directly follow.
Here is what the angle advantage will get the Spitfire:
Otherwise, the Spitfire would always be able to outclimb behind, level out and catch the 190 while still climbing.
Angus, bro, that is exactly what will happen IF the spit pilot abandons the direct chase and goes for his best angle of climb.
At that point a smart 190 pilot will level out and gain speed.
The Spitfire will end up above the 190 with more horizontal separation.
You can climb at 300 mph at sea level in the Spit, just at a very shallow angle. You can hold a 300 mph climb in the Spit all the way up to 30,000ft or more. (TAS)
And the reverse is true for the 190. Remember that degree of angle FOR degree of angle the 190 moves closer to its rent free zone in the shallow climb than the Spitfire. The Spitfires angle is steeper but is power curve height is much lower.
You are adjusting the climb angle to keep a desired speed.
Only until your angle reaches the top of the power curve which is flat. From there you have a wide range of angle that produce little change in airspeed.
But if the Spit has a large initial advantage, it can afford to climb at less than optimum speed and still be better than the 190.
The Spit has a large climb advantage but due to his lower best climb speed he cannot point his nose directly at the 190.
If he does the 190 will soon be above him. The Spitfire pilot has to point his nose up and use his greater climb angle advantage to out climb the 190.
Try climbing in AH without using auto climb. Watch the ASI, and try to keep 170 IAS. You puch the stick forward when the speed drops below 170, pull back when it goes above 170.
As it should. Your moving along the power band AND your on the "mushing" end of the curve so speed increases are more dramatic.
http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/power.html#fig-vx
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
After this we can discuss why the spitfire would not be able to get a gun solution in the climb without totally mushing his zoom.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nashwan, IMHO, at some alt bands, only the best Merlin spits could compete with the 190's on any level (190 outrolling always). The death and dread being the IX LF and VIII with 25+ boost.
Looking at the power/weight increases of both types I don't think the Spitfire Mk IX (+25) would be much different from the FW-190A3 vs Spitfire Merlin 61 (+12) tactical trials.
There was nothing to choose between either aircraft as regards turning circles at any height; whether on offensive or defensive manoeuvres neither could make any impression on the other. In rate of roll, however, the Spitfire IX was considerably better especially at low altitude. A number of full rolls through 360 degrees were timed by the same pilot flying each aircraft in turn and although quanitative tests are difficult to produce, it appeared that there was often more than 1.5 seconds superiority for the Mark IX over the Mark VIII. The Mark VIII feels fairly light on the ailerons but at high speeds it becomes very heavy, and so this new combination of extended wing and small aileron cannot be considered satisfactory.
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit8tac.html
At altitude the Spit VIII would be nightmare but it's roll rate would severely hamper it.
Now the Spit XII clipped wing would be a tough fight for the 190 or for that matter any clipped wing spit would go along way towards reducing the 190's odds. Wonder how the turning circle of the clipped wings is effected.
I think FW190 series development was very very poor during the war. Spits and did much better.
Actually, that is a myth, if you study both series the FW-190A gained less weight and just as much power over it's lifecycle as the Merlin Spits.
Remember the Luftwaffe had it's own enemy test flight. The BMW-801 was "de-rated" while had a huge performance advantage. It increased in power/weight just enough to keep its traditional advantages. And like the Spit it received a much better armament package over it's lifecycle. Both the Merlin 66 (+25) and the BMW 801D2 (1.58ata/1.65ata) are 2000hp (+) motors. In fact they are almost exactly equal in power, just as the FW-190A3 and the Merlin 61(+12) Spit IX were in 1942.
Just as the RAF abandoned development of the Merlin Spits in favour of the Spit XIV, the Luftwaffe abandoned development of the 190A in favour of the Dora.
Now this only applies to jagd-einsatz's. The FW-190A became the Luftwaffe's "jeep" of the air. Comparing a jabo-einsatz's or a R7/R8 "Sturmjager" is apples and oranges to the Spit.
Crumpp
-
Looking at the power/weight increases of both types I don't think the Spitfire Mk IX (+25) would be much different from the FW-190A3 vs Spitfire Merlin 61 (+12) tactical trials.
I mean FW-190A8 (1.58ata/1.65ata) vs Merlin 66 (+25).
Crumpp