Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Knegel on November 21, 2005, 02:19:30 AM
-
Hi,
i just wonder how much it have, i guess 1750hp (WEP), this would explain the bad behaviour vs the La7 and Spit16, but on the other side then the 190A5 should be the way better dogfighter, or the 190A´s use the BMW801Dg also with max 1750hp.
Greetings,
-
AH 190D-9
Jumo 213A
full throttle: ~1776hp @ 1.50 ata
WEP (MW-50): ~2240hp @ 1.80 ata
right on spot:)
-
The Fw190s need a flight model review. I understand that several of them are modeled significantly overweight.
The Fw190D-9 does have a 36mph deck speed advantage over the Spitfire Mk XVI. It really suffers other than that though. Well, it has a great roll rate of course.
-
Originally posted by Knegel
Hi,
i just wonder how much it have, i guess 1750hp (WEP), this would explain the bad behaviour vs the La7 and Spit16.
Greetings,
u mean manuvering/dogfighting capabilities?
heh i dunno much about aerodynamics and CoG's of 190s but it is said that 190D9 has same control qualities as 190As but the Dora has poor sustained manuverability
-
Historical evidence suggests that Fw-190A's were perfect match-ups for Spit IX's. There is even a widely known RAF report comparing a captured 190 to a Spit IX, people here will dig it up in no time.
Of course the variation in what actually is a Fw-190A or a Spit IX is considerable... but even a Spit V will murder the A5 or A8 given pilots of equal skill. The only thing the 190A can do is run co-Alt or co-E.
I consider the Spit XVI the premier fighter in AH now and that's basically still only a late IX with an American Merlin...
-
I think the 16 will be the top fighter, though myself I find the Ki-84 to be the better plane. Though it lacks the high speed diving ability it makes up for this is ultra low speed turn rate, very high AOA ability and a good roll rate, the spit16 has all the above but the only one I think is better then the Ki is the roll rate. The 16 has a very powerful engine but still can't stay in the vertical as long as the Ki.
Edward
-
190a5 does pretty well in the MA! I don't now why, but just since 2.06 I can't outrun spit9s anymore.... They accelerate way too fast and I way too slow. I used to pull ahead easily in a shallow dive then level out. Now I'm steady and never gaining until after 3 minutes I gain 200d on the range icon (not that I visually saw the plane get further away!).
Still, though, the 190a5 is a great plane in AH. Hope it doesn't get porked like the 109E4 did when they redo the FM :P
-
im getting a feeling that 190a-4 and 190a-6 will replace 190a-5 in ah:p
-
heh i dunno much about aerodynamics and CoG's of 190s but it is said that 190D9 has same control qualities as 190As but the Dora has poor sustained manuverability
The CG was adjusted forward in the Dora. This has the effect of lowering the stall speed. Add in the increased leverage for tail, increased power thru a more efficient prop/Horsepower, and less drag should combine to make the Dora the premier Luftwaffe late war dogfighter at medium to low altitudes.
Check out this thread for more on Focke Wulf CG's:
http://www.luftwaffe-experten.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=810&st=0
All the best,
Crumpp
-
The Fw's in AH are overweight compared to what we have in here. It drastically effects acceleration and corner rate, both are quite poor from other sims I have played with Fw aircraft. The Fw should be accelerating like a M5 on roids on a straightaway.
SDOE, IL-2, and other high-fidelity sims always have the Fw as fast accelerators (lot of engine torque) but AH for some reason they're quite pokey but get to speed eventually.
I think the areodynamics are correct (hence it's correct top speed), but the weight and engine torque are off. I wish there was a good reference for aircraft accleration rates.
-
The question I ask myself when it comes to plane performance is how well would these planes perform against one another in a scenario? Traditionally the 190s and 109s have fared rather well against the Spits in situations that dictate more historically-accurate tactics. It's not all about dogfighting, kids.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
The question I ask myself when it comes to plane performance is how well would these planes perform against one another in a scenario? Traditionally the 190s and 109s have fared rather well against the Spits in situations that dictate more historically-accurate tactics. It's not all about dogfighting, kids.
Generally speaking you cannot tell a thing about individual plane performance based of the results of scenario's. Flawwed logic that has no place in determining FM's.
We can just chaulk it up to whining, LW pilots suck, "no dogfights just ambush tactics" blah blah blah blah....
All are just plain silly arguments if the modeling does not fit the facts of the design.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
The question I ask myself when it comes to plane performance is how well would these planes perform against one another in a scenario? Traditionally the 190s and 109s have fared rather well against the Spits in situations that dictate more historically-accurate tactics. It's not all about dogfighting, kids.
-- Todd/Leviathn
Exactly.....
I'd imagine there were alot of differences betweem what folks in AH consider "Dogfighting" and the actual combat experiences and plane match ups that happened in real life. Im fairly sure not many pilots wanted to get into a knife fight low and slow....
-
How can explain this SPITFIRE KILLERS (http://www.luftwaffe.cz/spit.html) , if the FWs were soo bad ?! Tactics only?! :(
-
I'd imagine there were alot of differences betweem what folks in AH consider "Dogfighting" and the actual combat experiences and plane match ups that happened in real life.
Hey Waffle,
Based on what? First hand accounts from pilots in combat dogfighting?
Sorry but Luftwaffe pilots did the traditional dogfighting. Talking with Oscar and Heinz it was pretty close to what AH is trying to simulate.
While getting into a "dogfight" was not the ideal situation for any pilot of any nationality, facts are they did occur. Most Luftwaffe Aces were very successful dogfighters when they had to be. Some like, Krupinski, were noted for their almost suicidal aggressiveness. Taking on any all-enemy aircraft no matter what the numbers or position.
Note the fighter kills:
http://www.luftwaffe.cz/krupinski.html
All the best,
Crumpp
-
key word "imagine"...
Most fights in ah are under 10k or on top of someones base....
alot of people dont fly their "computer" planes in the zone they 'perform' the best....or in the envioronment that the majority saw usage in ww2, granted there are exceptions to everything.
also alot of factors that people don't seem to comprehend... or dont want to accept....
"NO fluff'n way a hurricane could catch my 190D9!" what they fail to realize is that hurri probably was higher, and had speed to catch a 190d9, especially if the d9 was coming out of a fight... or manuevering.
then you get the typical.."FM porked" comments....
BTW - anyone have stick force data on the 190s and spits?
Curious if it took more muscle to lug a 190 around than it did a spitfire.
-
BTW - anyone have stick force data on the 190s and spits?
Yes I have stick force data on both and the P51D.
There is very little difference between the P51 and Bf-109G for stick force per G except at speeds over 650kph were the P51 has an advantage depending on the CG location.
The FW-190 stick forces are very slight up until around 700kph. It was a true one handed dogfighter and if anything seems to have forces that were almost too light.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
what about the spits?
-
Everything I have says harmonization was poor and forces ran from heavy to very light depending on the axis.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Do you have charts for the 51 / spits? If so, could you post them or email to me?
Thanks,
Waffle
-
Most fights in ah are under 10k or on top of someones base....
Well if the allies were worried abuot the increasing low altitude superiority of Luftwaffe fighters during the war, you would think they would be pretty good in AH.
Your argument is valid if the FM fits the facts of the design. They do not in AH. In the FW-190 for example, the model does not reach it's rated speeds, weight issues, flap deployment, engine operation issues, etc...
Not a single FW-190 could lower 5 settings of flap. It only had three, up, take off, and landing.
That speaks volumes about the knowedge of the design when the FM was made.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
They do not in AH. In the FW-190 for example, the model does not reach it's rated speeds, weight issues, flap deployment, engine operation issues, etc...
Just out of curiosity, but what specific evidence are the speed and weight criticism's based on? I.e. how are you testing, and what evidence are you using to determine it should be different? I ask because all the speed and climb data I've been able to find for the FW190 matches the performance we see in AH.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Flawwed logic that has no place in determining FM's.
I'm curious where you find this flawed logic. The fact remains that while 190s and 109s do not "dogfight" well with Spits and other Allied aircraft, they perform quite well in situations constructed to simulate historical accuracy via altitudes, numbers, and tactics. In those situations, the 109s and 190s perform quite capably versus anything the Allies field.
Which plane would win a dogfight in AH? A Spit V? Or a 190A5? Or a 109F? I've flown the former against both Luftwaffe types in scenarios and Friday Night Squad Ops, and the 190s/109s eat the Spit V for lunch. No contest.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
While getting into a "dogfight" was not the ideal situation for any pilot of any nationality, facts are they did occur. Most Luftwaffe Aces were very successful dogfighters when they had to be. Some like, Krupinski, were noted for their almost suicidal aggressiveness. Taking on any all-enemy aircraft no matter what the numbers or position.
Dogfighting occurs in scenarios too, just not with the regularity that you find in an MA environment. Also, note the absurdity of your position. You're using Luftwaffe aces to make your point about how 109s and 190s should be capable dogfighters? Even you can see that you're making a spurious relationship between dogfighting combat success and plane type.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
I have to add that in a 190a5 I fear no spitV. I fear the spit9 (seeing more use now) and respect the 16 as it's around so much, but I can still fight them. I haven't had much flight time, but I've got about 35+ 190a5 kills, and that comes to about 80% of all my kills, so I've seen quite a few spitties.
The issue is that the spit9 has almost the same top speed as the V but they are chasing me down in my (faster!) 190a5... makes no sense. I don't think the modeling is spot-on for the spits yet, but I chalk this up to "new modeling bugs" and hope it all gets smoothed out in a patch or two. I'm patient enough to wait.
-
Well I think you find that regularly those of us that preffer to fly in our virtual LW planes do so with the knowledge that there are certain thing the flight modeling doesn't allow us to do. Therefore some will need to relly on the way they themselves perform and use tactics to counteract the ability other aircraft have. So of course in the scenario types you'll see the LW perform well, the allied types have much more of the people that believe their aircraft could go sub orbital, travel the milky way, milk a goat,bring starving children in Africa food and still get home in time for supper . :D
So when they complain sometimes that LW perform well enough, they have to keep in mind that when they get beaten to a bunch of confetti,blood and guts(virtually of coruse) it's the dude inside (or on the other side of the screen) that did most of the work .
I'm not gloating about this fact it's the truth, the Leviathan types in the Allied side are few and far in between.
-
In SDOE, when I made the Dora D-9, I recall setting the HP to ~1770 and the WEP to 2240 but I also had to put in the engine Torque which I had to research long and hard. It had little effect on top speed but it sure impacted how fast it took to get here. It also had a large impact on take-off and cruising - you had to adjust your trim to ensure it flew straight and level if you changed your engine. I also recall setting the weight
I also had to search on weight: the armament in the 'D' was lightened compared to that of the earlier Fw aircraft. I'll see if I can dig up my research data.
However, in the end, I had a fast accelerating, amazing aircraft that was nimble compared to earlier variants, yet had the balls to engage any P series American fighter or Spitfire. While it's corner rate wasn't anything to brag about, it's engine often got it out of trouble in a hurry.
-
Hi Knegel,
>i just wonder how much it have, i guess 1750hp (WEP), this would explain the bad behaviour vs the La7 and Spit16, but on the other side then the 190A5 should be the way better dogfighter, or the 190A´s use the BMW801Dg also with max 1750hp.
Have a look at this graph:
http://hometown.aol.de/HoHunKhan/Fw190D-9Analysis.gif
The blue curve is extrapolated from flight tests, combining the drag factor of a Fw 190D-9 tested in a close to finalized configuration with a sub-standard engine with the power curve from a standard engine.
(It's conservative as the substandard engine is assumed to give full power albeit at a lower full throttle height.)
So the blue curve is a pretty realistic estimate of minimum Fw 190D-9 performance with a 2100 PS (MW50 injection) engine without bomb rack.
Curve 4 is the Focke-Wulf estimate for a Fw 190D-9 with a bomb rack. That's quite a bit faster than my extrapolation, but it makes sense as the Focke-Wulf estimate probably includes the engine compartment seal that the aircraft I based the blue curve on didn't have. I believe Naudet could find no documentation on whether this seal was ever fitted to operational aircraft.
(Based on curve 4 and my rendition of it (note slight deviation at low altitude), I have tried to match curve 3 by increasing engine output. I arrived at 2400 HP, but when I posted this curve on this board for the first time, we arrived at the conclusion that the drop in high-level speed compared to curve 4 is not due to higher drag, but rather due to a lower compression. Accordingly, curve 3 is actually achieved at a slightly lower power rating than these 2400 HP.)
Anyway, you could measure the Aces High Dora's speeds at different altitudes and compare it to this graph. That would probably give you a good idea of what power Hitech used for the Dora, and maybe even whether he included the effect of the engine seal or not.
(Note that Naudet by some time-consuming and very thorough reasearch found out that the Dora was really running at 2100 HP maximum, not at the 2240 HP mentioned in many places, including Mister Fork's post - and a lot of my own :-) I had used the 2240 HP data, too, and it took Naudet quite some effort to convince me I was wrong! :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Also, note the absurdity of your position. You're using Luftwaffe aces to make your point about how 109s and 190s should be capable dogfighters? Even you can see that you're making a spurious relationship between dogfighting combat success and plane type.
Absurdity of my position??
Your claiming:
1. Luftwaffe fighters were not successful dogfighters and got the majority of their kills by bouncing.
2. You can judge the ability of a FM from a scenario
Looking at individuals who had numerous successful dogfights is not even in the same league as trying to determine individual FM accuracy from the results of scenario.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Scenarios don't prove anything about a flight model other than very basic flight modeling areas such as greater speed or climb rate. Pilot skill is also a factor. I would attribute such success of the LW against Spitfires in scenarios to greater speed and climb rate of the LW birds. Obviously this allows them to choose and pick the fight and employ energy tactics. The detailed aspects of the FMs, such as weight, flap deployments, cockpit modeling. etc can only been evaluated with research and data. Yeah maybe the LW flight models are loosely correct and give them the things they need to defeat SpitVs in scenarios but I think there are many holes that need to be filled in.
-
I believe Naudet could find no documentation on whether this seal was ever fitted to operational aircraft.
Hey Hohun,
AFAIK it was not ever fitted to operational aircraft.
It is interesting that in Dora the seal was never fitted due to a shortage of latex, a strateagic material.
However, the FW-190A series fighter variant did have a sealed cowling:
http://white1foundation.org/parts/cowlweatherstrip.jpg
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Crump -
can you post the data / charts for the stick forces for the spit / 190 and 51s?
-
can you post the data / charts for the stick forces for the spit / 190 and 51s?
Give me your email and I will send them to you. You can PM me.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
wafflesounds@hotmail.com
Thanks!
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Your claiming:
1. Luftwaffe fighters were not successful dogfighters and got the majority of their kills by bouncing.
[/b]
Wrong again. I make no such claim.
2. You can judge the ability of a FM from a scenario
I make the claim that when you create an environment that more closely approximates reality, then the outcomes between two planesets more closely approximate reality. Thus claims that the planes do not match up well do not necessarily meet the historical burden of proof.
The fact that you would use the success of aces to generalize to an entire population already tells me that you cannot make an intellectually honest argument in this thread. Shocker.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Hey Crump - thanks for the info and good luck on you book.
Did you have the spitfire / p51 stick data avail? I was kinda more curious to compare the stick data between the rides.
I'm pretty sure HTC models in stick force, so I was thinking if the 190s had more force as compared to the 51s / spits - that might be one thing that makes the plane seem "heavier" based on the amount of joystick input.
-
I'm pretty sure HTC models in stick force, so I was thinking if the 190s had more force as compared to the 51s / spits - that might be one thing that makes the plane seem "heavier" based on the amount of joystick input.
I have some data on the Spitfire, yes.
That was the stick force information on the elevator forces. The FW-190 has light forces throughout most of envelope except at very high speed. The flosse remains effective however and becomes overly effective if 750kph is exceeded.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
I remember of a test Report done By Eric Brown after he flew a captured Allied refitted 190A that he noted the controls remained very light up to 800km or so Km,that he didn't want to push it further,since it was a captured airframe.
Proving that even by allied standards the stick forces of the 190 at highspeed were lighter than a Spitfire at high speed. They compared mainly to other allied rides.
I'll try to dig it up.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
190a5 does pretty well in the MA! I don't now why, but just since 2.06 I can't outrun spit9s anymore.... They accelerate way too fast and I way too slow.
when was the last time you flew one in the MA?
-
Thanks for the replys!
Hohun, i will do some Vmax tests and compare them with your curves.
Crump, thanks for the infos!
btw, as far as i know the 109D9 wasnt more light than the clean 190A8 or A9, if this had the same armament. I have the clean A8 listed with 4230kg and 2050HP(short period), is that wrong?
Greetings, Knegel
-
What was SDOE Mister Fork and what did you work on there?
How did the planes compare when tourqe was changed?
Top speed didn't change much if I understood your last post correct but acceleration did?
-
Originally posted by Furball
when was the last time you flew one in the MA?
When was the last time YOU did? I've been flying them for a while now.
-
if this had the same armament. I have the clean A8 listed with 4230kg and 2050HP(short period), is that wrong?
No you’re not wrong but neither does the FW-190A outturn the Dora except for the early version without augmented power.
Removing the outboard cannon had no noticeable effect on performance whatsoever.
From the FW-190A5 and later, all fighter variants are produced with full wing armament. Certain Rustsätz kits required removal of the outboard wing armament, however. This was done for technical reasons not a performance increase.
You will find a few "old hares" that in the beginning removed them at the Geschwader level. This practice dies quickly as confidence in gained. It simply is not worth the trade in firepower for an unperceivable performance gain.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Hi,
whats about the early D9, w/o MW50, so max 1750hp(sea level), wouldnt the A´s perform at least the same regarding turning?? They had more power then, dont they?
Greetings, Knegel
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
What was SDOE Mister Fork and what did you work on there?
How did the planes compare when tourqe was changed?
Top speed didn't change much if I understood your last post correct but acceleration did?
Wilbus, answers below:
What was SDOE Mister Fork and what did you work on there?
SDOE was Fighter Squadron: Screaming Demons Over Europe, and came out 1999 . Made by ummm... I forget who, but it was/is an amazing game. Still a large following at http://www.openplanesim.com. I did a lot of work on LuftWaffe aircraft (FW 190A-4, FW 190D-9), and A6M2, sound improvments, and also put together a compilation of all the add-ons available on CD for about a year.
How did the planes compare when tourqe was changed?
The single impact of torque was acceleration. Climb rate and top speed were not affected a whole lot. Your maximum climb rate was achieved quicker, but accleration was the biggest piece - how fast your aircraft could chew through the air to her top speed. The Dora was a beast. From 200mph at 7500ft, you could hit top speed of 400mph in around 2 minutes. Down low turning and burning energy, got into trouble? Hit WEP and bug out - watching your opponents slip away quickly. Torque is more noticable when your flying slower at a low RPM. Sort of like the difference between a high-end Honda Civic Si-R and a Ford Mustang GT. You got to rev the engine high on a Civic to get the torque/hp but on a Mustang, at low RPM's, she'll pull away quicker because the higher torque/hp at a lower rpm.
Let's consider weight to HP ratio (the lower the better). The FW190D-9's ratio is 4.41, and the P-51D is 7.3 (a 35% difference). In theory, the Dora should be able to outrun the P51-D like it's no ones business. But my accleration data is telling another tale - the Dora is only 22% faster. Other considerations include aeroframe aerodynamics (drag) may impact that design but the Dora weighs less than a P-51D, and has a 35% higher horsepower engine. Still, FW 190D-9 is not accelerating to my expecations, neither is the Mustang considering her sleek design.
Top speed didn't change much if I understood your last post correct but acceleration did? You are absolutely correct. Larger torque meant the engine had more grunt. I'll check to see what the torque settings are for both and compare that against my acceleration data.
-
Originally posted by Mister Fork
SDOE was Fighter Squadron
What an excelent sim, only problem was the small terrain. D9 there was a Tempest killer ;)
-
whats about the early D9, w/o MW50, so max 1750hp(sea level), wouldnt the A´s perform at least the same regarding turning?? They had more power then, dont they?
Yes. The very first Dora's recieved a rather chilly reception in the JG's as it was not felt to be an improvement in performance over the FW-190A8.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Found my numbers and they explain a lot...
FW 190D-9: 3620lbs/ft at 3250rpm.
Tempest MkV: 3566lbs/ft at 3850rpm
P-51D: 2877lb/ft at 2920rpm,
The P-51D is just 20% less than the Dora - which might explain the acceleration factor difference of 22%. While the P51-D engine doesn't have as much HP as the Dora, she sure packs a lot of torque into that Merlin which explains while the Dora has 35% more horsepower, she only has a 20% edge on engine torque at a higher RPM.
This of course goes back to my point about engine torque and acceleration. Horsepower numbers can be deceptive because RPM is always constant for aircraft. FYI Engine torque = (HP * 5252) / RPM.
Since aircraft aerodynamic design limits top speed (which is why the super sleek P-51D can be a 400mph bird with much less hp), HP is never a factor in combat. It's acceleration that should be measured when comparing aircraft vs aircraft since most of us usually don't go tearing around at top speed 99.9% of the time. It's all about acceleration! :D
Looking at top speed, however, horsepower wins, in the sense that making more torque at a set rpm means you can have more effective power on the prop at a constant rate where having gobs of engine torque at a low speed means it'll get you out of harms way quickly but you'll probably be chased down... ;)
-
Rgr thanks! Like I said in another thread, the top speed/climb rate is not the issue IMO. But acceleration is.
Maybe a tourqe issue...
We'll see i any progress is made :)
Never played that game but I remember looking at screenshot of it when it came out and I wanted it quite bad, never got around to it though.
-
I don't care about this thread but Naudet posted he received actual flight test data for the D-9 from NASM:
But for those that are interested in the FW190D documents from the NASM here are their designations:
1. FW/Fb/FW190-210001 (1-2)
Reel: 8069 Frame: 1153
2. FW/Fb/FW/210001/(3)
Reel: 2861 Frame: 989
3. FW/Fb/FW190-210002 (1,2,3)
Reel: 3996 Frame: 343
4. FW/FW190/Sch/16/3/45
Reel 2731 Frame: 797
Those four together will be exactly 50 pages, so if you order them, you won't exceed the limit per order.
-
Originally posted by ghi
How can explain this SPITFIRE KILLERS (http://www.luftwaffe.cz/spit.html) , if the FWs were soo bad ?! Tactics only?! :(
Look at Priller's kill list and the time frame as an example. The majority of his Spit kills were vs Spit Vb with many of those kills being made in the 190 which clearly outclassed the Spit Vb.
If anything this speaks to what Lev is talking about regarding scenario results for 190s vs Spits. The roles they are in, along with the tactics used makes a difference.
I flew a Snapshot a couple weeks ago where we were in the new Spit IXs escorting B26s to "France" with the LW in 109G6s and 190A5s.
It was tough being tied to the bombers and watching the 190s and 109s come screaming in from on high. The 190s that died were the ones that stuck around to try and turn fight with the Spits. Those that hit and ran, regained their alt and came back down to hit again, knew what they were doing and scored big on the bombers.
-
Mister Fork: Your HP / torque assesment is not the way things work. You are looking at engine torque only. And not considering the big transmition called a propeler that a plane has.
If engine torque was so importent, why would you not want to drag race starting in high gear at realy low engine rpms? It is all about the torque/ thrust delivered to the pavement at the wheel in a cars case, and propeler thrust in an airplanes case.
HiTech
-
Hey HT!
Thanks for responding! I am aware of that issue of comparing this to automobiles.
Question is, when I engage WEP, the RPM's increase which actually decreases engine torque. Is it possible to keep engine RPM's the same when engaging WEP? I'm curious to the impact on aircraft performance. I know I might be using the classing 'splitting hairs on the same issue', but I do know that HP and engine Torque are very relevant - sort of like the Voltage, Resistance, Amps relationship.
What I'm talking about is the amount of pressure the engine can place on the prop - or prop torque. HP impacts top speed and Torque impacts aircraft acceleration.
When I engage WEP on the P-51D, by keeping RPM's the same, it's actually has a very positive impact her accleration rate. Engaging WEP on any aircraft where RPM's increase by 200-500rpms, it actually reduces performance. This is why the P-51D can perform so well - the engine can provide a lot more prop torque without compromising horsepower.
Question is, what will keeping the RPM's on the Dora, or any aircraft the same when WEP is engaged? Mathmatically speaking, it should increase prop torque.
-
Mister Fork,
I don't understand why that would produce more thrust. A constant speed propellor should increase the angle of attack of the blades to absorb all of the power that reaches it. Higher or lower RPMs shouldn't change that transfer of power.
-
I think I'm understanding Hitech's point of view.
Lets look closely at Power - from a website I like on aircraft performane:
(http://142.26.194.131/aerodynamics1/Performance/Graphics/DragToPower.GIF)
The above diagram of power makes it clear how thrust and engine shaft velocity combine to represent the power required to move our aircraft in Aces High. How does this relate to the rpm gauges in aircraft or the manifold pressure and rpm gauges in a piston aircraft? The RPM change does have an impact as does engine torque. They all relate to Shaft Horsepower (SHP) - more on that in a bit.
To set power on an any aircraft in Aces High, the pilot can adjust the throttle (fuel flow) and and engine rpm. Let's use the Dora's maximum torque is 3620 ft lb and a maximum propeller rpm of 3250(WEP on).
Based on the definition of power:
P = F x V [force times velocity]
The easiest way to visualize the calculation is to imagine the engine winding up a weight by rotating a pulley attached to it's output shaft. The velocity of the rising weight would equal 2 x pi x r x rpm, where r is the radius of the pulley.
But torque equals W x r, where W is the weight and r is the diameter of the engine pulley again. (The greater r is the less the weight, but the torque would not change.)
P = W x 2 x pi x r x rpm (units must be consistent)
which is the same as saying:
P = torque x 2 x pi x rpm
Finally we add the unit conversion factor and the equation becomes:
SHP = torque x 2 x pi x rpm / 33,000 (torque is ft lb and SHP is horsepower.)
SHP = 3620 x 2 x 3.14 x 3250 / 33,000 = 2240 SHP
The maximum power is 2239 SHP and this occurs at an rpm 3250 and 3620 ft lb or torque.
If we use my suggested RPM of 3000, and the new engine torque of 3921, the SHP actually doesn't change.
SHP = 3921 x 2 x 3.14 x 3000 / 33,000 = 2240 SHP. :o
Shaft Horsepower reminds us that the power was measured on the output shaft of the engine. The same calculation can be used for most aircraft in Aces High, but we don't have torque gauges for us to refer to.
Ok HT, I understand your point of view. If we did increase the engine torque, it would actually increase the SHP of the engine - which is something we don't want. I'll keep quiet and in my corner like a good boy. :D
-
Look at Priller's kill list and the time frame as an example. The majority of his Spit kills were vs Spit Vb with many of those kills being made in the 190 which clearly outclassed the Spit Vb.
I don't know that you can make that conclusion. I see the majority of Prillers Spitfire kills made during a time when the RAF was "leaning" forward into France. During this time the Luftwaffe was on even terms numerically or had the advantage locally and had positional advantage often as not.
The number of fighter kills is reduced when the daylight bombing campaign begins in earnest and the Jadgkorps was forbidden to purse or tangle with allied fighters except in self defense. Remember, the Luftwaffe did their best to attack after the escort turned back and the number of fighter to fighter engagements was severly curtailed.
In early 1944 when the USAAF does have the ability to begin sending fighters deep in Europe, they arrive in overwhelming force. Spitfires take a back seat in the fighter to fighter engagements to the USAAF Fighters and are no longer the statistically most likely allied fighter the Jadgwaffe encounters.
Not to say there contribution was not important or that they did not get into fights, either. From the allied perspective there simply were not many targets due to the small size of the Luftwaffe. From the Luftwaffe point of view there were only a few Spitfires compared to the many USAAF fighter types. The Spitfires were rarely encountered escorting daylight formations of USAAF bombers, the main target of the Luftwaffe.
Once again position and numbers makes much more of a difference than plane type in the outcome of air battles.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Fork: I assume you are saying by this statement.
If we use my suggested RPM of 3000, and the new engine torque of 3921, the SHP actually doesn't change.
Does not work, in reality lowing the RPM would lower HP ,and and the torque should still be in the 3620 or slightly more range. That change is totaly dependent on the engines torque curve.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
I don't know that you can make that conclusion. I see the majority of Prillers Spitfire kills made during a time when the RAF was "leaning" forward into France. During this time the Luftwaffe was on even terms numerically or had the advantage locally and had positional advantage often as not.
The number of fighter kills is reduced when the daylight bombing campaign begins in earnest and the Jadgkorps was forbidden to purse or tangle with allied fighters except in self defense. Remember, the Luftwaffe did their best to attack after the escort turned back and the number of fighter to fighter engagements was severly curtailed.
In early 1944 when the USAAF does have the ability to begin sending fighters deep in Europe, they arrive in overwhelming force. Spitfires take a back seat in the fighter to fighter engagements to the USAAF Fighters and are no longer the statistically most likely allied fighter the Jadgwaffe encounters.
Not to say there contribution was not important or that they did not get into fights, either. From the allied perspective there simply were not many targets due to the small size of the Luftwaffe. From the Luftwaffe point of view there were only a few Spitfires compared to the many USAAF fighter types. The Spitfires were rarely encountered escorting daylight formations of USAAF bombers, the main target of the Luftwaffe.
Once again position and numbers makes much more of a difference than plane type in the outcome of air battles.
All the best,
Crumpp
I seem to recall that the time frame was referred to as the "happy time" for the Luftwaffe, much the same as the U-Boat guys had theirs. As you say, the RAF was leaning in, with a few bombers covered by swarms of Spits. The Luftwaffe was still numerically close, fighting over their own turf and had the technical superiority that went with the 190 v Spit Vb. And it wasn't until late 42-early 43 that the Allies were back on something of an equal level of aircraft quality with the advent of the Spit IXs.
It's kind of why I've always wished there was a 1943 Channel Front game as it was essentially equal terms for a time in the summer of 43 before the overwhelming numerical force and war of attrition really swung things the Allies way. Of course it's prime time for the Spit XII drivers too, but that's just coincidence in my wishing :)
-
Hi Guppy,
>The Luftwaffe was still numerically close, fighting over their own turf and had the technical superiority that went with the 190 v Spit Vb.
I recently found some victory to pilot loss ratio figures quoted from Butler/Caldwell for the JG26, broken down by year. To my surprise, the best ratio was achieved in 1941, with 1942 being second-best only - by a considerable margin.
(Interestingly, the 1940 figure was quite good, too, if you take into account that the other years look better because pilots bailed out over France would not be lost, while pilots bailed on during the Battle of Britain would.)
So apparently, the success of the JG26 was not dependend on the Fw 190. One might say that the Fw 190 was overrated by the RAF - or that the Me 109F was underrated!
(Of course, this would have to be crosschecked with RAF figures before drawing conclusions, I'm just describing my spontaneous thoughts here :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Guppy,
>The Luftwaffe was still numerically close, fighting over their own turf and had the technical superiority that went with the 190 v Spit Vb.
I recently found some victory to pilot loss ratio figures quoted from Butler/Caldwell for the JG26, broken down by year. To my surprise, the best ratio was achieved in 1941, with 1942 being second-best only - by a considerable margin.
(Interestingly, the 1940 figure was quite good, too, if you take into account that the other years look better because pilots bailed out over France would not be lost, while pilots bailed on during the Battle of Britain would.)
So apparently, the success of the JG26 was not dependend on the Fw 190. One might say that the Fw 190 was overrated by the RAF - or that the Me 109F was underrated!
(Of course, this would have to be crosschecked with RAF figures before drawing conclusions, I'm just describing my spontaneous thoughts here :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
I don't know that this would be a huge surprise. The RAF was learning the ropes over France, still using Hurris and early mark Spits without DTs etc. Numbers would still have been similar I would think, and the experience factor of some of those JG pilots also a factor as the RAF built up its fighter force and introduced lots of new pilots into the game.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not claiming the 190 v Spit V was the only reason for the JGs success at that time in the war. The build up of experienced combat vet RAF pilots along with the parity or close to it of the equipment in late 42-early 43 clearly had an impact.
-
Hi Guppy,
>I don't know that this would be a huge surprise. The RAF was learning the ropes over France, still using Hurris and early mark Spits without DTs etc. Numbers would still have been similar I would think, and the experience factor of some of those JG pilots also a factor as the RAF built up its fighter force and introduced lots of new pilots into the game.
You're right, that's a plausible explanation.
Additionally, I'd say that over the older aircraft you mentioned, the Me 109E/N and Me 109F-2 of the JG26 even held a performance advantage, which probably was a contributing factor.
>Don't misunderstand me. I'm not claiming the 190 v Spit V was the only reason for the JGs success at that time in the war.
Neither am I, even if it might have seemed like it for a moment! :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
I seem to recall that the time frame was referred to as the "happy time" for the Luftwaffe, much the same as the U-Boat guys had theirs. As you say, the RAF was leaning in, with a few bombers covered by swarms of Spits. The Luftwaffe was still numerically close, fighting over their own turf and had the technical superiority that went with the 190 v Spit Vb.
True. Although numerically on paper the Luftwaffe was smaller, they like the RAF, used radar and the "home turf" advantage to create numerical parity in the air.
Individual plane performance is almost impossible to judge from strategic views. However, the Jagdwaffe had a clear advantage in both pilot experience and tactics at this time.
So apparently, the success of the JG26 was not dependend on the Fw 190. One might say that the Fw 190 was overrated by the RAF - or that the Me 109F was underrated!
I would certainly agree with that. The FW-190 had it's strengths and maintained them pretty well throughout the war when compared to it's contemprary opponent in some degree. While the "performance gap" narrowed and widenend depending on the time frame/variant, it remained. Other fighters had similar experiences. The vast majority of WWII fighters were pre-war designs and continually upgraded throughout the conflict to remain competative.
The FW-190 was "overrated" IMHO due to the shock effect of a completely unknown fighter with some definate advantages suddenly appearing on the front. Once the RAF became familiar with the design and it's capabilities that mystique diminishes. Like the Spitfire and 109, it remains a foe to be respected but not unbeatable.
And it wasn't until late 42-early 43 that the Allies were back on something of an equal level of aircraft quality with the advent of the Spit IXs.
That is my favourite time period as well!
I would love to see HTC model the FW-190G3 or FW-190F3 IIRC, the Spitfire XII drivers were specifically assigned to stopping these raids.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Guppy,
>The Luftwaffe was still numerically close, fighting over their own turf and had the technical superiority that went with the 190 v Spit Vb.
I recently found some victory to pilot loss ratio figures quoted from Butler/Caldwell for the JG26, broken down by year. To my surprise, the best ratio was achieved in 1941, with 1942 being second-best only - by a considerable margin.
(Interestingly, the 1940 figure was quite good, too, if you take into account that the other years look better because pilots bailed out over France would not be lost, while pilots bailed on during the Battle of Britain would.)
So apparently, the success of the JG26 was not dependend on the Fw 190. One might say that the Fw 190 was overrated by the RAF - or that the Me 109F was underrated!
(Of course, this would have to be crosschecked with RAF figures before drawing conclusions, I'm just describing my spontaneous thoughts here :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
There are some cicumstances to consider in comparing JG26's record between 1941 and 1942. If we take these into account, I think it's clear that the FW190 was generally more sucessful.
First, Adolf Galland left the Geschwader on Dec 5 1941. He had scored 37 victories over the course of the year. If we look at the difference between the Geschwader Stab scores from 1941 to 1942 it drops by about 40 victories! On top of this, it's hard to estimate what effect the loss of a leader the caliber of Galland had.
Second, Hans-Joachim Muncheberg's 7th staffel spent around 6 months of 1941 in the Mediterranean fighting Hurricanes over Malta. Their score alone for this period was 52 victories for 0 losses!
Also if we look at the losses between 1941 and 1942, the older part of the geschwader to show a signifcant difference were the losses of the Jabo staffel (formed in 1942, they were sent on many low level bombing raids over england in small numbers - their losses alone almost account for the difference in losses between '41 and '42) and the Hoehen staffel (equipped with 109Gs) in '42. The Hoehen staffel was transfered to Tunisia at the end of 1942, where half of the pilots were killed on the ground in a bombing attack and the unit had to be disbanded!
One should keep in mind that the RAF used a lot of older Spitfire Mk. IIs and Hurricanes during their early 1941 circuses, while in 1942 they faced Spitfire Mk V and the newer Mk IXs almost exclusively. Also, the second gruppe transitioned to the FW190 in Sept of 1941, so a substantial number of the 1941 kills were actually scored by FW's. All of JG26 had converted to the 190 by spring of 1942. Keep in mind that the 8th Air Force's B-17s replaced the RAF's Bostons and Bleheims midway through 1942 so the bombers that they faced were much more difficult to destroy.
Finally we should consider that throughout 1941 the luftwaffe forces had the luxury of engaging the RAF circuses on their own terms, largely due to the lack of effect from the few bombers sent out in these missions. The German pilots could climb up above the escorting Spits and Hurricanes, make what attacks they could that had the best chance for sucess, and if they didn't manage to get to the bombers or didn't make contact it wasn't a big problem. In 1942 they were tied up in big low altitude air battles against much larger RAF fighter forces on two occasions (the channel dash, and the dieppe raid) but the 190's aquited themselves quite well in these circumstances. Also the larger B-17s packed a lot more punch and made it more critical for the Luftwaffe to try and intercept every raid and put a stop to the bombing.
Taking all this into consideration, I think Caldwell's figure speak quite well for the effectiveness of the FW190.
1941 Kills vs. Casualties: 446 - 66
1942 Kills vs. Casualties: 399 - 79
-
btw the Soviets actually captured and used the 190D in very late war. I wonder what's their impression about the 190D
-
Hi Sable,
>There are some cicumstances to consider in comparing JG26's record between 1941 and 1942. If we take these into account, I think it's clear that the FW190 was generally more sucessful.
Thanks a lot for the detailed analysis! :-)
You provided interesting background information, confirmed and reinforced Guppy's analysis and showed that the development of the loss ratios was not just random fluctuation but corresponds closely with the complex unit history. Damn good post! :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Sable,
Thanks a lot for the detailed analysis! :-)
You provided interesting background information, confirmed and reinforced Guppy's analysis and showed that the development of the loss ratios was not just random fluctuation but corresponds closely with the complex unit history. Damn good post! :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Thanks for the kind words - I think most of the credit has to be given to Donald Caldwell in this case. His work is just an incredible resource for us amatuer historians - and somehow he managed to write it so that it reads like a novel!
-
OH Get a room you two! :D
-
Hi,
Fork, the WEP power increasement only was possible with higher rpm(engine)!
Which rpm is most effective with the available propeller, depends to the propeller and the speed and altitude of the plane(presure around the blades). As faster a plane fly, as less air presure is in front of the blades(into moving direction), as more AoA the blades need to keep same rpm.
Since a propeller work somehwat like a wing, it have only one most effective AoA(at the speed of smalest drag).
So the most effective rpm(propeller) vary with the speed(IAS) of the plane. Since most planes(maybe all??) only had one gear between engine and propeller and cause its difficult to define the currently most effective propeller rpm, its of course more important to let the engine run in its best rpm, to produce as most HP as possible.
They used constant speed propellers to get most HP out of it, that this dont bring always the the best results, we can see, if we compare the Spit1a with old propeller, with the constand speed propeller Spit1a.
While the Spit1a with constant speed propeller did climb and accelerate much better, the old propeller brought a better Vmax in altitude.
Probably at Vmax (high alt) the constant speed prop did rotate with to much rpm, above its most effective rpm(maybe the balde tips got supersonic problems), therfor it did produce to much drag and so the thrust wasnt optimal.
Somewhere i did read that experienced german pilots did dissable the constant speed thingi, to gain a better climb ratio.
Regarding the FW190 in comparison to the SpitfireV and IXc, i believe that the FW had a better vertical behaviour, while the Spit had a better horizontal behaviour. The FW had a outstanding initial dive acceleration and much inertia and power to keep this advantage in a upzoom, while the SpitV only had a better liftload, therfor it could turn more tight and slow. The SpitIXc got a better powerload and dragload, therfor it got a better all over performence in relation to the SpitV, but british tests show that the FW190 still did outdive and outzoom it by easy, but now the different wasnt that extreme anymore and the SpitIXc was able to disengage. Actually this was the biggest problem of the SpitV, they could evade by turning, but it was to slow to disengage and to slow to follow.
The tests at Rechlin show that the 109F had, next to the roll ratio, a better flight performence than the 190A3, but the 190 simply had a much better firepower(at least 1 more 20mm), therfor the 190 pilots had a much better hit and kill probability. What the 190 would have been with only 1 x 20mm or the SpitIX with only 8 x .30cal?
Greetings, Knegel
-
The tests at Rechlin show that the 109F had, next to the roll ratio, a better flight performence than the 190A3,
That is a BF-109F4 and a an FW-190A2 with a BMW801C motor. Not an FW-190A3.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Hi Knegel,
>Since most planes(maybe all??) only had one gear between engine and propeller ...
The Dornier Do 14 flying boat had two engines in the fuselage, driving one large fixed-pitch propeller mounted on struts high above the fuselage. The Do 14 had two gears to drive the propeller in order to get satisfactory take-off performance.
>The SpitIXc got a better powerload and dragload, therfor it got a better all over performence in relation to the SpitV
Well, the Spitfire mark directly following the V was the Spitfire IX with Merlin 61, and this was actually a dedicated high-altitude aircraft that would be outperformed by a contemporary Spitfire V at low to medium altitude. However, as the fights at that time took place at medium to high altitude, it obviously was a great advance for the RAF.
>but the 190 simply had a much better firepower(at least 1 more 20mm), therfor the 190 pilots had a much better hit and kill probability.
Roger on that - JAB made a similar point in the "LW" thread, and I agree that firepower definitely creates respect with your enemies ;-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi,
even vs the 190A3 with BMW801D the F4 show a better climb and a better Vmax in almost all atitudes and the A3 still had problems with the WEP(overheating), while the 109 was a well known good working plane.
Interesting information regarding the Do 14!!
The SpitIXc had 400kg more inertia and a more powerfull engine in almost all altitudes. It maybe couldnt turn as tight anymore, but still good enough in comparison to the 190 and the more inertia and power did decrease the vertical advantage of the 190´s.
As far as i know the SpitIXc Merlin61 had a advantage above 1000m alt to 5000m and then above 6500m, no?
Greetings, Knegel
-
even vs the 190A3 with BMW801D the F4 show a better climb and a better Vmax in almost all atitudes and the A3 still had problems with the WEP(overheating), while the 109 was a well known good working plane.
No it does not. The FW-190A3 has definate performance advantages at low to medium altitudes over the Bf-109F4. The sustained climb was always better in the 109 except at very low altitude but the manuverabiliy and speed of the FW-190 was superior at low to med altitudes. The handling was always better in the Focke Wulf. Oscar Boesch flew both. He greatly preferred the FW-190 as it was a true one handed aircraft for dogfighting.
The FW-190A2 with around 100 PS less power at the same settings equalled the Bf-109F4 in most performance aspects. It developed much less at 1.27ata Steig u Kampfleistung than the FW-190A3. The BMW801C's Start u Notleistung was the BMW801D2's Steig u Kampfleistung.
http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=23&L=1
http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=24&L=1
http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=25&L=1
That test is also very early in FW-190A development. The aircraft was still in the very problematic and the major reliablity issue of the exhaust reroute had not been incorporated into production machines.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Hi Knegel,
>As far as i know the SpitIXc Merlin61 had a advantage above 1000m alt to 5000m and then above 6500m, no?
Depending on the data sets one quotes, it's a bit more complex.
Here is a three-way comparison between:
- Spitfire V (+16 lbs/sqin)
- Spitfire IX (Merlin 61, +15 lbs/sqin)
- Fw 190A (Notleistung)
Top Speed:
0 to 3 km: Fw 190A, Spitfire V, Spitfire IX
3 to 4 km: Spitfire V, Fw 190A, Spitfire IX (Spitfire V's Triumph :-)
4 to 8.4 km: Fw 190A, Spitfire IX, Spitfire V
8.4 km up: Spitfire X, Fw 190A, Spitfire V
Except for its gear change altitude, the Fw 190A holds a substantial speed advantage at low to medium altitude. (It's barely slower than the Spitfire V even there.)
The Spitfire IX is faster than the Spitfire V from 4.5 km up, but substantially faster only from 6.8 km up.
With regard to climb rate, I have compared data for the 30 min power setting:
- Spitfire V (+9 lbs/sqin)
- Spitfire IX (Merlin 61, +12 lbs/sqin)
- Fw 190A (Steig- und Kampfleistung)
0 to 1.3 km: Fw 190A, Spitfire V, Spitfire IX
1.3 km to 6 km: Spitfire V, Spitfire IX, Fw 190A
6 km up: Spitfire IX, Spitfire V, Fw 190A
So except for s small band near sea level, the Fw 190A has the worst climb rate of the three fighters. Above 5.5 km, the superiority of the Spitfire V is just 1 - 2 m/s, though, which is not much considering that meeting co-alt, the Fw 190A would be able to gain as much as 400 m in a zoom before being co-speed.
(I picked the most favourable altitude for the Fw 190A to illustrate the Spitfire pilot's problem - it will take him about 4 min of climbing to get from co-altitude to co-energy.)
The Spitfire IX on the other hand has a climb rate advantage of 5 - 6 m/s above 6 km, which makes it much more competetive than the Spitfire V.
To make the strengths of the Spitfire IX tell, you'd want to be above 7 km against the Fw 190A, and if possible above 8.4 km because you'll be holding all the advantages up there :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
The FW-190A3 has definate performance advantages at low to medium altitudes over the Bf-109F4.
The BF-109 series in general maintains sustained climb rate, sustained, and High altitude performance over the FW-190A. These two maintain a very similar relationship to the late marque Spitfire and the Tempest. They very well compliment one another.
The Bf-109 series was IMHO every bit the equal of the Spitfires as well. I have no doubt the RAF loss rates in the Summer of 1942 would have been similar with or without the FW190. The loss rates have much more to do with tactics, pilot training, and good ground control than with individual aircraft performance.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Hi,
this calculated comparison show a very similar fast 109F4 in low/med alt.
(http://www.raf-roy.com/share/knegel/Screenes/German Fighters.jpg)
That the 190 had better controlls(more easy usable, smal need of trimm) is well known and as long as the fight was fast the inertia + power advantage was probably not smal, but same i would say regarding thwe SpitIXc vs SpitV.
Althought the SpitV maybe was a bit faster in low alt and had a bit better climb, the IXc had 400kg and some HP energy advantage, if they did meet up at same speed and alt. Therfor i guess the SpitIX had a much better divespeed(acceleration) and upzoom than the SpitV and was the better fighter in all altitudes and therfor more dangerus in all altitudes.
Greetings, Knegel
-
Hi Knegel,
>this calculated comparison show a very similar fast 109F4 in low/med alt.
The Me 109F-4 was actually tested. However, it was apparently run at 2700 rpm/1.42 ata, which might not have been cleared all of the time.
Using a slightly slower Me 109F-4 test as basis, the Me 109F-4 running at 2500 rpm/1.35 ata would outrun and outclimb the Spitfire IX with Merlin 61 easily below 7 km, but above that, the Spitfire would be superior.
The Spitfire V would actually hold a slight speed advantage at sea level, breaking even at 2 km. Otherwise, it's completely outclassed by the Me 109F-4.
The Me 109F-4 would be slower than the Fw 190A through the entire altitude range, except around the Fw 190A's gear change altitude. It would of course outclimb the Fw 190A by a generous margin.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
this calculated comparison show a very similar fast 109F4 in low/med alt.
That is true for flight testing on the BMW801D and BMW801D halb.
I have flight test's from 1941 and the BMW801D is not faster than the BMW801C 2.
Now the BMW801D2 is a different story, especially after June 1942 when the knock limited performance is greatly improved.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Anyone have the engine torque curve chart for the Fw190D-9?
-
Hi Crumpp,
>That is true for flight testing on the BMW801D and BMW801D halb.
Since the BMW 801 history continues to confuse me, what was the BMW 801D halb?
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Since the BMW 801 history continues to confuse me, what was the BMW 801D halb?
Well for BMW801C series we find the BMW801C0, BMW801C1, and BMW801C2. The BMW801C2 being the major production variant with a few C0's/C1's to be found.
The BMW801D halbneu is one of several sub types of the D series but only the BMW801D2 entered large-scale production. From what I see, BMW developed the BMW801D halbneu by placing the new supercharger gearing of the D series on a BMW 801C2motor instead of the 3 stage originally envisioned. It becomes the BMW801D which did enter production for a short KB run and equips a handful FW-190A2's and the FW-190Aa3. The BMW801D1 never entered production AFAIK and the improved cylinders and higher compression ratio becomes the BMW801D2.
By 1943 the individual motor designations drop off the Luftwaffe supply reference codes. By then you cannot order anything but a BMW801C2 or BMW801D motor.
(http://img43.potato.com/loc295/th_dd4_801dhalbneu.jpg) (http://img43.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc295&image=dd4_801dhalbneu.jpg)
BMW has a very confusing system of designating engines. The BMW801E/F series often appear to change designations interchangeably at times. I have several reports that refer to the BMW801F but are actually testing either the H series or S series. Eventually the E/F series becomes just the F-series which splits into the H-1, S-1, and S-2 motors. The BMW801E series becomes coupled with the all hydraulic FW-190A10. The war ends before it's production date is reached.
It becomes even more confusing when you add the Luftwaffe supply codes. An F66 is not the same motor as an F602, yet both have a BMW801D2 as the base motor.
All the best,
Crumpp