Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: MANDO on March 23, 2005, 09:28:54 AM
-
This issue was present in the past spit vs 190 discussions and also now related to 190 vs P51. It seems that 190s were able to keep a very step angle of substained climb, too step to be followed by spits or P51s.
I understand that the resulting climb rate was well lower than best climb rate, but, anyway, how was that possible? Which was that misterious angle, speed and climb rate? Is that 190s were able to almost hang on the prop for prolonged periods?
-
Hi Mando,
>It seems that 190s were able to keep a very step angle of substained climb, too step to be followed by spits or P51s.
Technically, the only explanation I can offer is that the Fw 190As were in fact zooming :-) In a sustained climb, the climb rate difference to a Mustang should be too small to allow such an effect.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
I doubt a 190A can outzoom the P51. Probably it is more related to the minimum speed at which the 190 can keep climbing without stalling, resulting in an angle that would stall quickly the pursuer P51.
-
It wouldnt surprise me to find out that P-51s (weird wing cross-section) & Spitfires (thin cross-section) had a lower critical angle of attack than 190s. It also wouldnt surprise me to find out the 190s were closer to bingo in combat than Mustangs & Spitfires
-
That's interesting. On the History channel the other day, they were interviewing a P-51 pilot who was describing his scarriest dogfight. Only won because the pursuing 190 stalled moments before his pony did. He nailed the 190 as they fell out out of the top of the vertical move.
-
A couple of things.
1. The FW190 was typically climbed at a higher speed than most other fighters. I think this is a result of higher wing loading but the FW190's best climb speed was somewhere around 180MPH IAS. I would think based on this that the climb angle would be shallow not steep.
2. I also thought that the 190 had cooling issues with rear cylinders (common in radials) during a climb to the point of having to install a cooling fan behind the prop. This would also be a reason for higher speed shallow angle climbing.
If you look at the FW190 vrs F4U-1D/F6F-3 test the 190 was superior in climbs above 160MPH and inferior below that speed. I would imagine that the slower speeds relate to higher climb angles. Just my guess.
-
Hi Mando,
>I doubt a 190A can outzoom the P51.
Of course it can - if it brings speed and the P-51 doesn't :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by indy007
That's interesting. On the History channel the other day, they were interviewing a P-51 pilot who was describing his scarriest dogfight. Only won because the pursuing 190 stalled moments before his pony did. He nailed the 190 as they fell out out of the top of the vertical move.
That was a 109 not a 190.
-
F4UDOA, you are talking about climb rate, I'm talking about angle.
Lets say 190D9 can reach 4000 fpm at 180 mph, but it is able to reach 2000 fpm at 120 mph with a very step angle of climb. The F4U1D will exceed 3000 fpm at 150 mph, but will be unable to pursue the D9 doing 1000 fpm less.
-
If the 190 has a higher wing loading, that is hardly possible.
-
I dont know about that.
the back side of the power curve is a weird place
-
f4u the rear cylinder problem if i recall were in the early 190s before they added the flaps on the side exhaust stacks.
-
Originally posted by MANDO
F4UDOA, you are talking about climb rate, I'm talking about angle.
Lets say 190D9 can reach 4000 fpm at 180 mph, but it is able to reach 2000 fpm at 120 mph with a very step angle of climb. The F4U1D will exceed 3000 fpm at 150 mph, but will be unable to pursue the D9 doing 1000 fpm less.
that is a really interesting thought....
i see what you are trying to say, but in AH i would think an allied plane would be able to throw 1/2 flaps or more and keep the nose up enough.
i wonder about reality though, im goint to try that in a fight in AH soon
-
Hi Mando,
>Lets say 190D9 can reach 4000 fpm at 180 mph, but it is able to reach 2000 fpm at 120 mph with a very step angle of climb. The F4U1D will exceed 3000 fpm at 150 mph, but will be unable to pursue the D9 doing 1000 fpm less.
The effect is neglectable and of no tactical value.
Calculating one situation where Fw 190A and P-51 have a similar best climb rate, 15.0 and 14.7 m/s respectively, the Fw 190A can open to gap a bit (13.6 to 13.0 m/s) by flying close to the edge of the stall. The climb angle difference will increase by less than 0.5° that way.
Considering that you'll be wallowing along at the edge of a stall, this doesn't strike me as a good move.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
I believe the pilot is mistakenly remembering the 190 for a 109. The 109 was known for being able to climb at a much steeper angle than the Spitfire, and good climb performance is the 109's speciality, not the 190's.
-
"Hundert neuns" and "hundert neunzigs".
Blasted Deutsche Sprachen! :D
-
hey guys.....i haven't been in the arenas yet, but it sounds like you're confusing best rate of climb(VX) with best angle of climb(VY)
if the FW is boom n zoomin, then there's no way you're gonna climb with him...he was probably at VNE(never exceed speed) when he took his shot, thus will climb like a homesick angel.
If you want to compare them off the ground, or from level flight, best angle of climb(VY) will give you the best alt. gain in the shortest time period. Best rate of climb(VX) will give you the best alt gain in the shortest distance. This will also result in a lower speed and higher angle of attack during the climb.
Or is it the other way around? nuts!! wish i had my POH handy.
anyway, hope this helps!!!!
john
-
Thing is in AH the 190 V speeds are out of whack :D
-
CAP1: you have your VX VY backwards.
-
Where as spit IX pilots reportedly initiated a tight climbing spiral that they thought no german plane could follow.
-
Not sure I understand this climb angle thing...
In AH, if you are zooming, you can climb at any angle until you stall. So it seems to me, in the zoom, it all depends on who can zoom longer, not angle. This would appear to be primarily a function of energy state, rather than plane characteristics.
Again, in AH, in sustained climb, being able to climb at a steeper angle in sustained climb seems tactically useless, unless the other guy can no longer zoom, and is in sustained climb also. Even then, he would need to be basically directly under you at the time, for this to be to your advantage. If he was under with some lateral displacement, he might still be able to get off a shot.
Arranging for this favorable condition to occur in a dogfight would appear to be difficult, given all the variables involved (energy state, etc.).
-
ok....imagine you and your wingman(you DO always fly with a wingman, right?) are cruising along at 18,000 ft. You happen to see an aircraft at your 2 low.......about 3 miles out, on a heading that'll take him directly past your 6. You both turn to intercept his flightpath, noticing that he's approx. 8,000 below you. Now a 1/2 mile out you lower your nose as you continue your turn into him. He has only 2 options........dive away, hoping to outrun you(although you're already near VNE), or attempt to climb directly at you making himself a harder target. Or assume in this instance, he doesn't even see you till you're almost in firing range. As you're about to squeeze the trigger, he sees you, and breaks right hard, causing you to overshoot. No problem though....you gently pull back on the stick, raising your nose to about 45 deg above the horizon. Your intended victem sees this and tries to follow you. Now comes the problem. YOU were doing....ooo..sayyy.....400 KIAS when you puled up. Victem was cruising at 295 KIAS. You have TONS of stored energy from the dive in the form of your speed. Victem has nothing...he firewalls the throttle trying to keep with you, but can't. When he stalls trying to maintain the climb, either you or your wingman now have an easy target. In this scenario, its a matter of who's faster at the outset.
Don't forget......Richtofen didn't score 82 kills in dogfights...Eric Hartman didn't score 352 kills in dogfights......they both waited, picked their targets, dove in, shot, climbed to safety. Richtofen died when he broke his own rule, and followed a sopwith down low, got disoriented, and was shot down by ground fire.
Hartman lived through the war, and only died sometime in the 90's. HE didn't break his rule.
Sorry for the long post, but i hope this helps yas a little bit?
john
-
CAP1/John, what does your explanation have to do with angle of climb???
What you are describing is an attacker with excess energy, who is therefore able to out-zoom the defender (see my 2nd paragraph, above).
BTW, the topic being discussed has nothing to do with multi-plane engagements or wingmen. It has to do with a hypothesized inherent advantage due to angle of climb, presumably in a sustained climb, rather than zoom as in your example.
-
Hi Deacon,
>CAP1/John, what does your explanation have to do with angle of climb???
I'd say it points out that the defender unaware of the energy status of an attacker would get the impression of the (zooming) attacker being able to climb at a steeper angle.
That's the only possible explanation for the effect Mando described. A Fw 190A just can't climb any steeper than a P-51D in a sustained climb.
You get a steep climb at low speeds, and the Fw 190A doesn't have a particularly low stall speed.
>What you are describing is an attacker with excess energy, who is therefore able to out-zoom the defender (see my 2nd paragraph, above).
Exactly :-)
>>>In AH, if you are zooming, you can climb at any angle until you stall.
Hm, if you keep the angle of attack below the stalling angle, you'll reach the top of the zoom ballistically without any stall. Think of a wing-over :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Don't think Mando was discussing the consequences of having an energy advantage. The dynamics of that are fairly obvious.
Instead, I believe he is referring to often-printed quotations from the Air Fighting Development Unit report on a captured FW 190A from 1942, which says in part "... The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the Fw190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions... " etc.
This is obviously not referring to a zoom climb.
Suggest you guys think before posting...
-
Deacon........in the post previous to my last one, he DID mention "zooming". That was what i was replying to.
"Not sure I understand this climb angle thing...
In AH, if you are zooming, you can climb at any angle until you stall"
It seems HoHun has it though.....and BTW HoHun......how've ya been? I remember you from AW3 .
Now if you're talking about sustained climb from an equal start(which won't happen in a fight), then it's simply a matter of more horsepower and a better designed aircraft, or possibly one being lighter than the other, etc.
Anyway, sounded like you were mad about my reply......don't be....it wasn't supposed to do that.
john
-
Originally posted by CAP1
Now if you're talking about sustained climb from an equal start(which won't happen in a fight)
Lets suppose two aircrafts are turning near stall speed, the pursuer is close to a gun solution but the pursued starts to go nose up, the pursuer try to follow but its nose refuses to keep pointing up, so the pursuer level to gain a bit of speed but overshoots in the process.
BTW, this topic has no relation with zooming, may be it has more relation with weight/power ratio and max AOA.
-
Originally posted by TDeacon
Instead, I believe he is referring to often-printed quotations from the Air Fighting Development Unit report on a captured FW 190A from 1942
Check also the second last post of o0Stream140o here related to P51s:
Messerschmitt 109 - myths and facts - article now out (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=145727)
Quoting from there:
"With the 190, it took a lot of punishment, had a high rate of roll, and could climb at a very steep attitude which if we followed brought us down too far below our best climb speed. Four of our guys reported such an incident in which the FW-190s were able to stay ahead of our birds and each time we would raise our nose to take a shot at them, our bird would stall. An interesting tactic."
-
Hi Deacon,
>Suggest you guys think before posting...
I suggest you read my above posts, including the part on the calculations, and then apologize.
A Fw 190A won't outclimb a P-51D in the manner suggested by Mando, full stop.
Your Spitfire quote is for the best climb speed situation while Mando's initial post talks about lower-than-best climb speeds.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Cap,
>It seems HoHun has it though.....and BTW HoHun......how've ya been? I remember you from AW3 .
Hey old warrior! :-) What was your callsign there?
(I have to admit that I'm pretty bad at remembering callsigns, though - I bet you'll embarrass me by telling me it was "CAP" :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Mando,
>BTW, this topic has no relation with zooming, may be it has more relation with weight/power ratio and max AOA.
You will be only able to avoid a firing solution for the attacker with a very, very substantial climb rate advantage. Consider that the attacker has an angle of attack with regard to its flightpath that's in the same magnitude as the angle of climb, and certainly greater than the angle of climb difference.
Between Fw 190A, Spitfire V and P-51D, you'll only get that kind of a climb rate advantage from a zoom.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
A couple of things.
1. The FW190 was typically climbed at a higher speed than most other fighters. I think this is a result of higher wing loading but the FW190's best climb speed was somewhere around 180MPH IAS. I would think based on this that the climb angle would be shallow not steep.
2. I also thought that the 190 had cooling issues with rear cylinders (common in radials) during a climb to the point of having to install a cooling fan behind the prop. This would also be a reason for higher speed shallow angle climbing.
If you look at the FW190 vrs F4U-1D/F6F-3 test the 190 was superior in climbs above 160MPH and inferior below that speed. I would imagine that the slower speeds relate to higher climb angles. Just my guess.
what he said.
-
Originally posted by HoHun
You will be only able to avoid a firing solution for the attacker with a very, very substantial climb rate advantage.
Hohun, disagree with that. If Im able to put my plane above the enemy gunsight while the enemy is not able to raise its nose without speeding up and overshooting, I'll avoid the firing solution. With that attitude, probably I'll be climbing no more than few hundred of feet in few seconds, just enought to avoid being fired at. This kind of move is quite frequent with N1K2 and La7, you are at their six and, surprise, they are able to get these few degrees extra, just enough to ruin your aim.
-
Hi Mando,
>This kind of move is quite frequent with N1K2 and La7, you are at their six and, surprise, they are able to get these few degrees extra, just enough to ruin your aim.
Just set some up some tests, climbing the two aircraft to compare at a couple of different speeds, noting the climb rate in each test.
I predict that you'll find out that you only get a substantially superior climb angle from a substanstially superior climb rate :-)
In lieu of zooming, you can also get the effect you describe from a sustained climb from a higher starting altitude, which of course is just another form of initial energy advantage.
(As Cap mentioned, the spiral climb is another variation because it keeps horizontal distance small, increasing the vertical angle gained from the vertical separation.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Climb can be a funny thing.
Every one knows a Spit IX will out climb a Pony; but if the pony sticks to ROC of 2; he'll climb away from me.
Admittedly; if he's already in guns range; I can lift the nose at the expense of speed and nail him; but if I miss; putting the nose down to gain speed won't bring him closer.
If he keeps to ROC 2.0; he'll get away.
Paradoxicaly; if I'm in the Pony; chasing a Spit IX; trying to out climb him at ROC 2.0 won't work; in as much as after two or three minutes I'll be higher than him; but I'll also be in front of him; which kind of defeats the whole purpose.
I'm not phrasing this well; but try it for your self and see what I mean.
-
CAP1/HoHun,
The irritable tone of my previous 2 posts was probably caused by the breezy, perhaps unintentionally slightly condescending tone of a few of your posts ("... you DO always fly with a wingman, right? ...", "... i hope this helps yas a little bit ...", etc.), especially when I don't think you understand the main point being discussed here.
Sorry for the irritability; I don't want to hurt your feelings. Please note that I am adversely commenting on some of your posts in this thread ONLY, and NOT on your overall expertise or intellect.
-
Hi TDeacon,
You're on my ignore list now.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
"CAP1/HoHun,
The irritable tone of my previous 2 posts was probably caused by the breezy, perhaps unintentionally slightly condescending tone of a few of your posts ("... you DO always fly with a wingman, right? ...", "... i hope this helps yas a little bit ...", etc.), especially when I don't think you understand the main "
Deacon........you didn't hurt my feelings...........the statements you mentioned(above) were said in sarcasm/joking manner. When everyone here gets to know me a little better, you'll all find i have a kinda "dry" sense of humor. Heck.....i'm probably gonna get my butt handed to me by quite a few of you guys......you're all probably already conspiring against me and my P38.
Seriously though....like i said...if any of you guys took offense, i apologise......it wasn't intenede to offend.
HoHun....in AW3, i was FGHT6.......mostly flew RR, only dabbling in FR, and mostly flew the P38. Sometimes you could find me in a 109 or 190......but NEVER a spit(blech!)too easy to fly. :-)
-
""Lets suppose two aircrafts are turning near stall speed, the pursuer is close to a gun solution but the pursued starts to go nose up, the pursuer try to follow but its nose refuses to keep pointing up, so the pursuer level to gain a bit of speed but overshoots in the process. ""
Hi Mando,
This still throws a lot of variables in the mix. but if we assume pony vs fw, then regardless of who's on who's tail, it the pursuer is close to gaining a solution, then he's turning inside of his prey....accordingly, he's probably just a few knots slower.....this would still give the climb advantage to the prey should he choose to do so. for the most part though, in this situation, its got more to do with the design of the aircraft, and the power/weight ratio. Also, whether the pursuer is fighting his fight or if he followed his prey into their fight.
A real life example i guess would be two friends of mine.....one owns a Citbria super Decathalon....the other an RV6. Both have aerobatic capabilities. the decathalon cruises at about 149 KIAS, the Rv at about 160 to 170. the rv weighs about the same as the decathalon, but has about the same power(approx. 160HP) They go up and dogfight(really...its awsome to watch!!)the decathalon can turn incredibly tihgt......so after a few turns, the rv levels his wings, and climbs away.......just as the Decathalon would call guns. It was amazing how fast it accelerated and climbed away.
this was due to the much cleaner design of the RV. the rv is faster, can outclimb, but can't turn. Since in the turnfight, the decathalon was turning inside the rv, he was a couple of knots slower.....btw..the decathalon driver is an ex phantom driver...the rv driver flew in WW2. The rv driver was aware enough to not stay in the slow turn fight, knowing he had more advantage in speed.....he did actually climb a couple thousand feet above the decathalon and try to dive on him...but the decathalon driver simply turned into the attack, giving the attacker a poor shot.
Again, i apologize for the long post, but i think i got it out of my head to the screen right?
i'll try to shorten my posts :-)
john
-
Bad form there Ho
-
Hi Black,
>Bad form there Ho
Explain.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
CAP1: OK, I forgive you.
HoHun: You may ignore me if it makes you feel better.
Continuing on topic (non-zoom climb angle):
OK, thinking out loud here... What if we consider the extreme case. What if there were a plane which could climb vertically (best possible climb angle), for an indefinate period of time, at a typical 3000 ft/min rate. What tactical advantage, if any would this yield?
Assume your opponent is in a non-zoom climb as well, and below you. He has a maximum climb angle. The area of space above his plane which he cannot point (and shoot) at is an inverted cone, with apex at his plane. If you are able to remain in this cone, you would appear to be advantaged. You will be able to remain in this cone so long as you are already in it, and have a steeper climb angle...
This might be considered to be analogous to a sailing ship which can sail closer to the wind, being chased by another sailing ship to leeward (downwind). Because of this characteristic, the first ship can escape. (Sorry; I'm currently into Napoleonic naval miniatures).
Comments?
-
<<<Assume your opponent is in a non-zoom climb as well, and below you. He has a maximum climb angle. The area of space above his plane which he cannot point (and shoot) at is an inverted cone, with apex at his plane. >>>>>
Hi Deacon,
I think that in the above, you partially answered your own question...if i'm understanding you right. In the above example, the lower plane simply couldn't bring his guns to bear on the higher plane(well, he could open his canopy and try his sidearm), leaving the higher plane for the most part "safe". At the same time, assuming the lower plane doesn't induce a stall, he will eventually become a target again when the higher plane gains enough distance....either verticle and or horizontal...he'll simply turn and attack again.
How about this one........did you know that an airplane stalling has absolutly nothing to do with its speed? If the pilot pulls too hard, and raises the wing above the critical angle of attack to the relative wind, the aircraft will stall. Thats how some GA pilots have killed themselves.....diving in a cessna, and at 800ft, doin 140 or more they decide they need to exit the dive......they yank on the yoke, the plane stalls, and mashes itself into the ground.
Back to the subject......another real life example i can think of........most GA aircraft climb out at about 30 degrees nose up. Our cessna 172p 180 hp conversion climbs at about 1k per min at 75KIAS. For short fiels takeoffs, I can increase this for a very short time using best climb angle...this gives me about 57KIAS, but tops 1k climb. The RV6 i belive will climb over 1k at 70 KIAS. It's also lighter, and cleaner.
So i think what i just beat the hell outta the bush to say, is that the climb angle is a matter of aircraft design, and horsepower....probably prop design too. And lastly, it could just be the modeling of the aircraft in AH too. in AW, the spit was WAY overmodeled. too easy to fly.
anyway, did i do good??:D
CYALL soon!!!!!
john