Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: C_R_Caldwell on March 05, 2001, 09:59:00 PM
-
This is an excerpt from a reply I gave in another thread ('Dora Charts').Since the thread was very long & I felt that what I wanted to say was important, I started this new thread :-
I have a couple of books devoted solely on the Dora, which have great photos as well colour views of the Doras in question.All the Doras in question were examples fielded during 1945.One of the books is Jerry Crandall's excellent work on the Doras of the "Galland Circus".That book looks at the Doras that flew top cover protection for JV 44's 'turbos' .
Of the 4 Doras depicted in that book, 1 is an early production Dora-9 using an A-8 canopy & central fuselage with the rear fuselage filler.The other 3 Doras are 2 later-model Dora-9s (standard bubble canopy & D-9 fuselage etc), and the 3rd is a D-11.
Of the 4 a/c involved, 3 use MW 50 (it's easy to tell - there is a triangle with MW 50 written within it next to the rear fuse tank filler hole) including the D-11, whilst the 4th example (a later-model D-9) strangely had no MW 50 marking, but had a small yellow circle on the port side of the upper cowl.On closer inspection, it turns out this D-9 did not in fact use MW 50, but was fitted with a 'Laderdrucksteigerungs-Rüstsatz' fiel-modification which was, in Crandall's words, a " 'Supercharger pressure' boosted engine for increased horsepower from the Jumo 213A1 ".
My other Dora stuff shows almost all the D-9's depicted as using MW-50 (some are only port views so I can't tell what fuel they are using).
The point is, if we are going to be historically accurate, we should be flying a boosted D-9.Just because it'll be very fast doesn't mean it should be perked.My God, the late model G-10 modelled in AH can clock at over 450mph TAS, but it's not perked! The boosted D-9 will have excellent performance, but it doesn't have the turn rate of a P-51 (or even a 190A-5).It will be similar to a G-10 in performance, with better roll, but poorer turn.
All this talk about putting restraints on the D-9 so that it can exist happily in AH is ridiculous IMHO.It will fit in nicely with a/c like the P-51 and G-10.Don't forget that whilst the D-9 will have excellent roll at low-med speeds, at hi-speed (>400 IAS) the pony will probably roll much better than the D-9, as well as being *easily* able to out-turn it.The D-9 will be a great match for the P-51, but that's all - a match.
There are issues in having a/c like the D-9, P-51, G-10 etc in AH unperked, but the only way to fix that is to either i9ntroduce an RPS, or make the late-war fighters that are currently unperked as "low perk" a/c.Why should the Dora-9 be treated differently than the P-51 & get its legs chooped off? We should be using the same rules of inclusion for all fighters, either that, or use different rules.
If a boosted D-9 deserves to be perked, I expect the P-51, G-10 as well as that 4 cannoned wank-machine, the Chog to be perked too.Some ppl would like to throw in the N1K2-J as well- leave the Dora-9 alone plz...
PS:-Btw, all the machines in Crandall's book are using 96-octane fuel...
-
I haven't really decided on whether I want the D9 perked or not, but you have to draw the line somewhere. Just comparing a plane to another plane which may be just a tad slower in most altitudes is not good enuff.
Imagine a speed chart where each plane is 5 mph faster then the previous plane for most altitudes. At some point one of the planes will be perked, but then everyone will be saying, Hey! Look at the plane that's just 5 mph slower and it's not perked!
I dunno if the D9 with MW50 has crossed that line yet. That's for HT to decide, and there are many other variables such as climb, roll, maneuverability, combat turn, etc which will decide a plane's fate.
fscott
-
Whether you want the Dora perked or not is irrelevant because it's up to HTC to decide, & I understand it will *not* be perked.The only question is what sort of D-9 will be modelled, not whether it'll be perked.
My point was that some ppl have been bleating about the speed of a boosted D-9 (particularly one with MW 50 & C3 96-octane avgas), yet this machine has a max TAS slightly lower than a G-10 which is not perked.Its climb-rate is also lower (significantly so at some alts).Its turn rate does not compare to a P-51, and neither does its handling at >400mph IAS.It rolls almost as well as an A-8, which puts it as 1 of the best "rollers" in AH, though both the P-51 & F4U will outroll it easily >400mph IAS.
It's going to be a great a/c, sure - no doubt about it.But as Fscott said in his reply, it's the total package that counts.I believe a D-9 with MW 50 should give us an a/c roughly comparable to the P-51 & 109G-10, but it won't compete with the Tempest <20k or the Ta 152 >33k.
As the vast majority of Doras ended up using MW 50 -those earlier models that didn't were modified in the field to use water-methanol injection & new models were built from scratch with MW 50 from late '44 - it seems a little incongruous not to model a D-9 with MW 50.Unfortunately I expect AH's D-9 will probably use B4 + MW 50 (1,900HP) to mollify those who are complaining (even though I am to understand from early '45 the majority of D-9's used C3 + MW 50).
I love the Dora as much as most, but those who are painting it out to be an über über-fighter are doing it a grave misjustice.It appears some ppl are now beginning to think that nothing but an unboosted D-9 should be allowed unperked.That would result in an a/c which would still be very good, but nowhere near the true capacity of most of the operational D-9s that saw service during WW2.
Anyway, as always, this is all IMHO 8?D !!! As usual, most will probably disagree with me!
[This message has been edited by C_R_Caldwell (edited 03-05-2001).]
[This message has been edited by C_R_Caldwell (edited 03-06-2001).]
-
The planes you describe match pretty well the description given by niklas on the Fw190D9 with "special WEP" that allowed the Jumo to deliver 1900hp. That seems to be the plane doing 380mph on the deck and 448mph at 21000 feet
The "problem" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) is that the Fw190D9 with MW50 will be a monster doing almost 400mph on the deck!!!!!.
I am possibly the most hardcore Fw190 fanatic in this board, and I've loved the D9 since I was a little kid. THe Fw190D9 with MW50, described as niklas did, is a perk monster. That plane seems that could outturn easily Me109G6s, so that means that the P51D should be easily outturned too, the tempest too...in fact it should outturn most of the planes here. It was a plane that rolled like in a dream, fast as hell,with good sustained turnrate (not turning radius), great acceleration, great climbrate...
It is a perk monster (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
Originally posted by C_R_Caldwell:
Whether you want the Dora perked or not is irrelevant because it's up to HTC to decide, & I understand it will *not* be perked.The only question is what sort of D-9 will be modelled, not whether it'll be perked.
90% sure it is a 1900hp, special WEP, Fw190D9. THAT is the plane that should NOT be perked, because it is just a match for the P51D. THe D9 wont turn, dive, nor have weapons as good as the P51 has, while the D9 will outroll, outaccelerate and outrun the P51D. Its almost a perfect match, both planes are in the same level.
I would like to see the MW50 as a "perk" option for the Fw190D9...but an expensive perk option. It should cost the same (in fact a bit more) to ride a D9 with MW50 as it costs to ride a Tempest.
That IMHO (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by R4M (edited 03-06-2001).]
-
I am possibly the most hardcore Fw190 fanatic in this board, and I've loved the D9 since I was a little kid. THe Fw190D9 with MW50, described as niklas did, is a perk monster. That plane seems that could outturn easily Me109G6s, so that means that the P51D should be easily outturned too, the tempest too...in fact it should outturn most of the planes here. It was a plane that rolled like in a dream, fast as hell,with good sustained turnrate (not turning radius), great acceleration, great climbrate...
Hm, all I've read regarding wing loading of D9 suggests that it will have an even worse turn performance than the A8, because it has very similar wing loading.
In other words, it won't be able to turn. And climb rate charts Nath provided showed it at 3.5k at sea level, nothing too impressive.
------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"Live to pull, pull to live"
-
Satan, D-9 weights only marginally more than A-8 (about 100 kg if I remember correctly) but it has more engine power. These things combined I think the turn performance will be very similar atleast. There have been quotes saying that D-9 turned better than A-8 but I don't know if scientific analysis support these claims.
One thing I'm quite sure... Dora was not the cement truck it is in Warbirds. I'm sure it will get fair treatment this time around.
------------------
jochen Gefechtsverband Kowalewski
Units: I. and II./KG 51, II. and III./KG 76, NSGr 1, NSGr 2, NSGr 20.
Planes: Do 17Z, Ju 87D, Ju 88A, He 111H, Ar 234A, Me 410A, Me 262A, Fw 190A[/b, Fw 190F, Fw 190G.
Sieg oder bolsevismus!
-
Originally posted by StSanta:
Hm, all I've read regarding wing loading of D9 suggests that it will have an even worse turn performance than the A8, because it has very similar wing loading.
In other words, it won't be able to turn. And climb rate charts Nath provided showed it at 3.5k at sea level, nothing too impressive.
Santa, read the thread about Dora charts, by MANDOBLE. Naudet charts and Niklas posts tell a whole different story.
First of all, the Fw190D9 was 300lbs LIGHTER than Fw190A8, so the wingloading is less in D9 than in A8.
Second, the Fw190D9 we are getting here most probably is the one making 380mph on the deck and 448mph at 21000feet, so, according to Naudet's charts it is a NON-MW50 Fw190D9 developing 1900hp, so having a better acceleration and climbrate than the Fw190A8, but not by much.
the Fw190D9 with MW50, according to those charts, make 395mph at SL, with an engine delivering 2100hp, pulling from an airframe 300lbs lighter than the Fw190A8...you get the idea (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
The Fw190D9 with MW50, if it is as naudet's charts describe, it is a perk plane. Without MW50, and with a 1900hp engine, it should be a non-perk plane.
MOre info on this thread (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum9/HTML/001721.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum9/HTML/001721.html)
-
What I expect from the Dora with MW50 (non MW50 Dora is a nonsense):
1 - A very fast plane, but slower than G10 at medium and hi alts.
2 - A plane with lower climb rate than any 109G at any alt.
3 - The second worst turner in the game (first is the 190A8).
4 - A plane with very good hi speed control, comparable to the P51D.
5 - A plane with pathetic armament (useful for less than 300 yards).
Are we really talking about a perk plane just because the extra speed? Our actual Typhoon will be almost as fast on the deck, and will outturn, outgun and even outclimb the Dora without problems (is our Typhoon correctly modeled?).
Oh! And I want the correct roll rates back for the 190s. Now it is extremely risky to scissor with a Thypoon...
[This message has been edited by MANDOBLE (edited 03-06-2001).]
-
Originally posted by MANDOBLE:
What I expect from the Dora with MW50 (non MW50 Dora is a nonsense)
According to Niklas, and matching Naudet's charts, MW50 Dora is a plane that outturns, outclimbs, outaccelerates, outruns, and outrolls a Hawker Tempest. Wich, BTW is a clear perk plane, an arena beater. Even worse than a SpitXIV if you ask me.
Also according to Niklas and Naudet's charts, Non-MW50, Special WEP Dora is a plane that outruns most of the planes of this planeset (the G10 and P51 are faster over 23K, and the Typhoon is a couple of mph faster at deck level), and outrolls all of them except a Fw190A.
It should accelerate better than the Fw190A8, and a bit worse than the A5. better initial climbrate than the A8, but worse than A5. And unlike both A8 and A5, over 10K the D9 holds its acceleration and climbrate (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif).
It has a bad turning, tho it should have better sustained turnrate than A8. Niklas assevered that it would have a worse initial turning (due increased yaw stability due the longer nose), but a better sustained turning (lower wingloading and better powerloading than A8).
It still wont turn with a P51D, wont dive with it (less still if the dive is a 0g one), and wont have the long range and awesome accurate weapons the P51D has.
And the P51D still will have better hispeed maneouverability.
A pretty even match between both planes (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
[This message has been edited by R4M (edited 03-06-2001).]
-
ehh R4M i said the Dora turns better than a 190A8 - unfortunatly this doesn´t mean that the Dora is a good turnfighter now, because the A8 is indeed one of the worst turnfighter.
An ex-doro pilot told me that the dora turned better than a 109G - this was different for the 190A. On the other hand, he didn´t say whether he speaks about a sustained turn or a initial turn, starting from 350mph.
He also said that his dora was almost equal to a P51 in turning, the first circle he was able to stay with the P51. According to him the P38 turned worse.
Another interesting point: He mentioned another modification kit (Rüstsatz): A third cannon between the gear where usually a bomb is carried.
niklas
-
Originally posted by R4M:
According to Niklas, and matching Naudet's charts, MW50 Dora is a plane that outturns, outclimbs, outaccelerates, outruns, and outrolls a Hawker Tempest.
MW50 will not increase the Dora turning performance, but it will help to loose less E in a 360d turn. Also, IMO, MW50 Dora will be outclimbed by the Tempest at almost any altitude. Tempest will outaccelerate any MW50 Dora in a dive. So, IMO, the only advantages of the MW50 Dora will be the roll rate, the horizontal acceleration at low alt (perhaps also at medium alts), and, perhaps, the top speed at some altitudes.
We'll see, but I think the Dora will be a match for P51 and will be far behind the Tempst overal performance (remember, turning is also a vital key here).
And, a final note, Tempest performance is as is all the time, MW50 Dora performance is as is for less than 10 mins.
-
Originally posted by MANDOBLE:
Oh! And I want the correct roll rates back for the 190s. Now it is extremely risky to scissor with a Thypoon...
Are you sure? 190's seem to outroll the Yak by quite a margin (and the Yak in not exactly a slow roller)
------------------
Graywolfe <tim@flibble.org>
-
Yep Graywolf. Some studies were done and the results were posted in this board. Basically, the results show a 190A with slower roll rate than it should, and, for example, the Thypoon and the SpitIX with higher roll rates than they should. Dont remember the yak numbers.
-
Actually I think you all should be comapring the 190d9 to the 109g10 since it the perkiest non-perk plane we have so far. And then decide does the d9 cross over that cutoff line.
Notice that the Tempest will be heavily perked, yet it begins to lose it's edge beyond 10k. And why is it being perked? Because it is so fast on the deck? Well just about any other current hot-rod plane like the P51, G10, will outperform it above 10k. So I think you should focus on low altitude performance since this is where most fights take plane and it seems HT is also focusing on that too.
In the case of the Ta152, it can do it all even down low. It may not be the fastest down low, but it will be able to turn and climb well.
fscott
-
1st i think the neither the D9 or the Tempest should be perked, they belong into the same power class like the P51, the G-10 or when they will give it to us sometime the Spit XIV.
Now to the D9 vs. tempest. From the info i have yet (Book sources and data posted in the FA NG durin the hot discussion about the D9 modeling there).
The D9 will, Outclimb, outspeed, outturn and outroll the Tempest (it will even outroll the P51 at high speed, cause up to the aileron control off the FW was exellent up to 400mph IAS and only got a little harder beyond that speed, but still it had a wonderful roll), the Tempest may only outdive the D9, and even this isnt sure.
Now all Tempest fans will cry no, but the D9 has a normal loaded weight of 9500 lbs. while the Tempest has 11500lbs., the D9 is driven by an engine with a max hp of 2240HP, and the strongest engine used for the Tempest in WW2 (that i found in my books) was a 2240HP Sabre. So the Tempest actually weights 2000 lbs. more. This gives the D9 better climb, and speed and it can also hold the E better in a turn which compensates for the higher wing loading. The D9 will also outaccelerate the Tempest.
In the post "Dora charts" i refered to a comparison flight between a Tempest and an A3. R4M stated that the A3 was nearly 1100 lbs. lighter than A8, this may be right, but my i refer to the D9 here and my data show 8900 lbs. for A3 normally loaded, and 9500 lbs for D9 (normally loaded) which is only 600 lbs. difference. And the test between the A3 and tempest had to be aboarded cause the engine of the A3 wore out. So i would say it never delivered its 1700HP for the trials, also the GB FW190 pilot was not allowed to bring the A3 to its absolute limit, cause the plane was to valueable to be lost in a crash after a stall.
And last but not least the D9 was able to deliver 2240HP which are 540HP more than the A3 and they for sure more than compensate for the 600 lbs. increase in weight.
This also lead me to the idea that the D9 will totaly outclass the Tempest in climb, the tempest was also beaten by the A3 above 1500 feet, and the D9 climb far better than the A3, especially at higher alt.
And Cpt. Brown of the RAF who flew all WW2 fighter planes, rated the D9 and Spit XIV as the 2 Top fighters in WW2. And he had to admit that the RAF had no MW-50 or GM-1 for the GE fighters, so all tests were flown with the normal 96 Octane fuel, while the Spits were tested with 150 Octane fuel. Now put MW-50 into the D9 and fly the XIC with lower rated fuel (what was usual at the frontline) and u can imagine what a good plane the D9 must have been. Actually the Spit XIV was a better fighter than the Tempest, cause of this i would like HTech to add the XIV as fast as possible.
One word to the TA152, this bird must be perked, cause like the P51H or the Spit MK 22, it was one of the fighters that showed the peak of the evolution of the piston engined planes. 472 mph Top Speed can only be toped by a jetfighter.
-
Originally posted by niklas:
ehh R4M i said the Dora turns better than a 190A8 - unfortunatly this doesn´t mean that the Dora is a good turnfighter now, because the A8 is indeed one of the worst turnfighter.
An ex-doro pilot told me that the dora turned better than a 109G - this was different for the 190A. On the other hand, he didn´t say whether he speaks about a sustained turn or a initial turn, starting from 350mph.
niklas
Well, if the Dora outturned me109G, then it should outturn the P51D, right?. That is what I meant, that is not completely hopeless when you need to turn it a bit, rather different than what the A8 is now (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Maybe I was too optimistic when I said that it outturned the tempest too , that is right (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
MANDOBLE, the Fw190D9 will retain its performance in four 10minute boosts with 5 minute "relax" in the middle of each one. Tempest has a WEP that must be cut after a much shorter use.
The MW50 190D9, with its 395mph at SL, has performance of a perk plane, and it should be perk plane.
The non-Mw50 190D9, with its 380mph at SL, is perfectly matched with the P51d, and it should not be a perk plane.
IMHO (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Fscott, 109G10 is not the mark of the perk/non perk plane. P51D is, it is a way better arena plane than the 109g10 as it has been discussed ad nauseam in this forums.
And ,definitely the Tempest is a perk, whatever the standard is. I say it as loud as I say that the MW50-190D9 is a perk.
-
Originally posted by Naudet:
1st i think the neither the D9 or the Tempest should be perked, they belong into the same power class like the P51, the G-10 or when they will give it to us sometime the Spit XIV.
Disagree. The Tempest is IMO a perk, as the Spit XIV should be (although the spit should be a relatively low cost perkie).
Now to the D9 vs. tempest. From the info i have yet (Book sources and data posted in the FA NG durin the hot discussion about the D9 modeling there).
The D9 will, Outclimb, outspeed, outturn and outroll the Tempest (it will even outroll the P51 at high speed, cause up to the aileron control off the FW was exellent up to 400mph IAS and only got a little harder beyond that speed, but still it had a wonderful roll), the Tempest may only outdive the D9, and even this isnt sure.
Naudet, be sure of one thing: we are getting the 1900hp Fw190D9. Not the 2100hp one. Seems that the 2250hp never were attained in an operational Ju213A1.
The Fw190D9 with the special WEP that allowed its engine to deliver 1900hp, has a marginal better powerloading than the Fw190A8, but not by far the one the tempest has. So the Tempest will easily outaccelerate and outclimb the dora.
As you read above, I was a bit too optimistic regarding the MW50 D9 turnrates compared with the Tempest, but the Non-MW50 D9 is in a worse situation. THe Tempest will easily outturn AH's dora. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif),
Now all Tempest fans will cry no, but the D9 has a normal loaded weight of 9500 lbs. while the Tempest has 11500lbs., the D9 is driven by an engine with a max hp of 2240HP, and the strongest engine used for the Tempest in WW2 (that i found in my books) was a 2240HP Sabre. So the Tempest actually weights 2000 lbs. more. This gives the D9 better climb, and speed and it can also hold the E better in a turn which compensates for the higher wing loading. The D9 will also outaccelerate the Tempest.
Again the D9 we are getting will prolly be the one with a 1900hp engine, not the 2100hp one, and not -by far- the 2240hp engine. So this assumptions are wrong, and all to the other side (to the tempests' (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif))
In the post "Dora charts" i refered to a comparison flight between a Tempest and an A3. R4M stated that the A3 was nearly 1100 lbs. lighter than A8, this may be right, but my i refer to the D9 here and my data show 8900 lbs. for A3 normally loaded, and 9500 lbs for D9 (normally loaded) which is only 600 lbs. difference. And the test between the A3 and tempest had to be aboarded cause the engine of the A3 wore out. So i would say it never delivered its 1700HP for the trials, also the GB FW190 pilot was not allowed to bring the A3 to its absolute limit, cause the plane was to valueable to be lost in a crash after a stall.
First, A3 should be roughtly 1100lbs lighter than an A8 wich is 300lbs heavier than a D9. The 190A3 should be roughly 800lbs lighter in same configuration, but remember that the A3 had four cannons and the D9 had only two, so the normal loadout for the A3 should make the difference a bit lower. 600lbs is about fine for me (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
Second: probably that A3 was tested without ammo, and even possibly without guns, making much lighter than what you assume it was.
Look, I posted in the other thread the comparative wingloadings betweeen the D9 and the Tempest. I could do the same with the A3, but believe me that the Tempest will get lower figures in all configurations.
And last but not least the D9 was able to deliver 2240HP which are 540HP more than the A3 and they for sure more than compensate for the 600 lbs. increase in weight.
No. MW50 D9 was able to deliver 2100hp, but we will getting the 1900hp one. Fw190D9 will turn better than the A8, but still wont be able to beat a P51 in a turning fight, go figure a tempest.
This also lead me to the idea that the D9 will totaly outclass the Tempest in climb, the tempest was also beaten by the A3 above 1500 feet, and the D9 climb far better than the A3, especially at higher alt.
You want me to post powerloadings too? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) ok, I'll do when I have more time, Ill calculate both Tempest's and A3's (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
And Cpt. Brown of the RAF who flew all WW2 fighter planes, rated the D9 and Spit XIV as the 2 Top fighters in WW2. And he had to admit that the RAF had no MW-50 or GM-1 for the GE fighters, so all tests were flown with the normal 96 Octane fuel, while the Spits were tested with 150 Octane fuel. Now put MW-50 into the D9 and fly the XIC with lower rated fuel (what was usual at the frontline) and u can imagine what a good plane the D9 must have been. Actually the Spit XIV was a better fighter than the Tempest, cause of this i would like HTech to add the XIV as fast as possible.
Sure, agree 100%. the MW50 Dora-9 was a far better plane for historic use than the spitfire XIV. It will be better MA plane too...
but then again, the D9 we get IS NOT FITTED WITH MW50...(AFAIK)
One word to the TA152, this bird must be perked, cause like the P51H or the Spit MK 22, it was one of the fighters that showed the peak of the evolution of the piston engined planes. 472 mph Top Speed can only be toped by a jetfighter.[/B]
agreed.
-
S!
Let's get this straight. The RAF/USAAF tests of the D-9 without MW-50 showed a top speed of 357mph at S.L. and 426 at best alt. And the weight of that configuration was 9480lbs.
The FockeWulf tests of the D-9 with MW-50 show a speed of 382 mph at S.L., and 440mph at best alt. These tests were done with B4 fuel. (87 octane)
There are also other FockeWulf documents dated April 15th 1945 (23 days before the war ended) which show other tests done with the "special" supercharger and C3 fuel (93 octane) which give a speed at S.L. of 400mph. The equipment is labelled: "Sonder Notleistung mit A lader als Bodenmoter", which I believe translates to something like 'special compressor'. This equipment was not installed on production D9's and the B4 fuel was not generally available to the D9 Staffels.
-
The equipment is labelled: "Sonder Notleistung mit A lader als Bodenmoter", which I believe translates to something like 'special compressor'
it doesn´t mean "special compressor". it means "special emergency power", which usually indicates the usage of mw50.
The charger is the same standard charger like in every other jumo213A engine
niklas
-
Originally posted by Buzzbait:
S!
The FockeWulf tests of the D-9 with MW-50 show a speed of 382 mph at S.L., and 440mph at best alt. These tests were done with B4 fuel. (87 octane)
uhhmmm no, according to Naudet's charts this performance corrseponds to the "special WEP" Ju-213A delivering 1900hp, not to the Ju213A1 fitted with MW50 wich delivered 2100hp.
[This message has been edited by R4M (edited 03-06-2001).]
-
S!
Sorry Niklas, the test with the "Bodenmoter" did not use MW-50.
There were 5 methods to produce power tested in this April 15th 1945 examination:
(a) Start-u-Notleistung
(b) Sonder-Notleistung
(c) Sonder-Notleistung mit A Lader als Bodenmoter
(d) Sonder-Notleistung mit Ladedruckerhohung mit MW-50
(e) Steig-u-Kampfleisung
Methods (a), (d) and (e) used B4 fuel. (87 octane) Methods (b) and (c) used C3 fuel (93 octane) Since the Dora didn't carry two types of fuel simultaneously, it is obvious the two tests using C3 were experimental in nature.
The following are the results of the speed tests with methods (c) and (d). Generally the tests with (c) yielded faster speeds at lower altitudes, but fell off as height was gained. Tests using (d) showed lower speeds at Sea Level, but higher at altitude.
(c) Sonder-Notleistung mit A Lader als Bodenmoter:
Altitude Speed
in Kilometres
0.0 640kph (400mph)
3.5 698kph (436mph)
5.0 688kph (430mph)
7.0 642kph (401mph)
(d) Sonder-Notleistung mit Ladedruckerhohung mit MW-50
Altitude Speed
0.0 606kph (379mph)
2.2 648kph (405mph)
2.6 646kph (404mph)
5.4 692kph (433mph)
6.0 684kph (428mph)
8.0 662kph (414mph)
10.0 629kph (393mph)
All tests were done with a D-9 equipped with an ETC 504 bombrack. This was standard on frontline Doras in '45. Speed without the bombrack would be greater, depending on altitude would likely yield 3-5 mph more. That would give maximum speeds with MW-50 as 382mph at S.L. and 440mph at 5.4 kilometres.
-
S!
I refer to the figures of 382mph and 440mph because that is what is indicated by the charts posted in the earlier threads. My information confirms that.
-
AH will very likely get the (d)379mph/438mph Fw 190D-9, ala WarBirds' Fw 190D-9 performance. What remains to be seen is how manoueverable it will be in AH.
-
S!
I did some more research into what "Sonder-Notleistung mit A Lader als Bodenmoter" means. My best translation is: "Special emergency power from the 'A' model Supercharger".
Seems they may have been using a supercharger unit from the 190A in this test.
-
I highly doubt that it means A model re: Fw 190. Putting a BMW radial engine part onto a Jumo inline V-12? I don't think so.
-
S!
We're talking about the supercharger. The design of a supercharger does not differ in particular whether the engine it is boosting is a radial or inline.
-
Buzzbait, it says that the second speed of the supercharger is already used near sealvel- that´s all. Just look again at the chart from Naudet. The speed increases with a straight line from sealevel to the critical altitude (~4km). You don´t see this typcial "break" in a speed curve when the supercharger changes the speed or gear.
It basically means something like "second speed of the supercharger used for flight near sealvel" (Boden=ground), A can refer to this second Speed.
And yes, in this performance chart, they don´t mention MW50 for this special case (curve 3). With C3-fuel MW50 was obiously not necessary. If you look again at my engine performance chart, you´ll see that it mentions instead C3 fuel B4+MW50.
Compare in the D9-chart curve 2 and 4 - they´re almost identical, one curve is for C3-fuel the other one for B4-fuel and MW50. So Germans had obviously two options: using high octane fuel without MW50, or low octane fuel with MW50. I don´t want to know what C3+Mw50 would have allowed.... . Well Junkers Motoren planned to get ~2600hp out of the 213 in ´46 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
And 2100hp with the combination B4+MW50 was used during the war, i´m pretty sure myself here.
niklas
-
Originally posted by niklas:
I don´t want to know what C3+Mw50 would have allowed.... . Well Junkers Motoren planned to get ~2600hp out of the 213 in ´46 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
<GLUPS> Oh dear (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
I have no clue on fuels, so I wont say a thing on this one. But is true that I had noticed the C3 and B4 in the chart, and that I had no idea on what was it about (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Guess I still have LOTS to learn about the latewar German planes and stuff (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Buzzbait: If you examine the Jumo 213A engine chart, you will see that on the Sonder-Notleistung curve it says - "1.Ladergang" - pointing to the extension to 2240ps, and on the main 2100ps curve - "2.Ladergang". Ladergang = "loader course" according to crappy web translation, I take it to mean supercharger gear.
Niklas: I can't make it out clearly, but I think it says something like "600l/h(B4)+ 150l/h MW 50" for the Sonder-Notleistung curve? Is that fuel consumption figures or something?
Another question: Any theory on why the critical altitude of ~5.2km for the Steig-u Kampfleistung(1700ps) curve in the engine chart doesn't correspond to the speed charts figure of 678km/h at 6.6km?
RAM: B4 is 87 octane fuel. C3 is 96 octane. Higher octane fuel allows an engine to run higher compression ratio and manifold pressures. Since the Germans only had access to large supplies of a maximum of 96 octane fuel(The US/UK had up to 150 octane fuels), they used MW 50 injection to allow increased manifold pressure.
I have no idea why the Americans used water injection on the R-2800 in the P-47/Corsair/Hellcat etc though, possibly it was cheaper/easier than using higher octane fuels instead.
-
First off, B4 fuel is a *lower* octane avgas than C3 fuel.Secondly, as I mentioned when I started this thread, I have photos & colour views of a D-9 in JV 44's 'Wurgerstaffel' that does not use MW 50 like the other D-9s (& the unit's single D-11).
This Dora-9 has a small yellow circle on the port upper cowl in front & below the windscreen.According to Jerry Crandall this indicated that this Dora-9 was using a motor-rustsatz, or engine field-modification.To be precise, it was a 'Laderdrucksteigerungs-Rüstsatz' which he translated as a "(Supercharger pressure) boosted engine for increased horsepower".
How common were these blower field-mods? I don't know, though I suspect not very. However, they *did* exist operationally, even if only in small numbers.Is the abovementioned mod similar to the SL 2nd-stage mod that have been referred to in the chart?I don't know, but maybe others here do.
Thirdly, the A-8 was slightly *heavier* than the D-9.That accounts for the small difference in wing loading (A-8 roughly 49lb per sq. ft., the D-9 approx 48lb).Although they are in many ways different physically , the A-8 & D-9 would both weigh about the same were it not for the fact that the D-9 does not posess outboard wing MG 151/20s.
Remove those guns & their respective ammo loads & u have an A-8 with roughly the same wing loading as a D-9.In reality, small numbers of A-8's flew with wing-root MG 151s only, so that point is a little moot. As far as AH is concerned, why would you want to fly an A-8 without its outboard MG 151s? You are left with a machine with the same armament as a D-9, without any of the Dora's performance advantages.If one was going to fly an Anton so armed in AH, they'd fly an A-5.At least then you would get the A-5's superior handling (& better performance, though not in the league of the D-9).
The Dora should have a roll-rate similar to the A-8's (slightly lower).That worries me a little because I get the feeling that the A-8 rolls much too poorly in AH.Even with my ammo load gone & fuel levels low, the A-8 still rolls relatively poorly compared to AH's A-5.Now there is no doubt that the A-8 *did* have a lower roll-rate than the A-5, but the question is how much? I was under the impression that the decrease in roll between the A-4/-5 & the A-8 was small, likewise the difference between the A-8 & D-9.
There should be a noticeable drop in roll between the A-5 & D-9 to those who fly the 190 regularly, but the difference between the A-5 & A-8 and the A-8 & D-9 *should* IMHO be relatively small.Of course, as per usual, I'm probably wrong!!!
[This message has been edited by C_R_Caldwell (edited 03-07-2001).]
-
S! Niklas
This will be my last comment on this issue:
First of all in your last post you are defacto admitting that the MW-50 option does not give 400mph at S.L. It is only with this other "field modification/experimental supercharging" that the better performance is attained. Obviously this other option of using C3 fuel with a different supercharger boost had the potential of improving the power output. (although the Germans would STILL have used MW-50, methanol/Water injection to improve power with the 93 octane fuel if this was a finalized production version. U.S. fighters like the P-47 used Water injection and they ran minimum 100 octane fuel, so there is no question that it could have been used. It wasn't.) But C3 was not available in quantity in '45, and what there was available was given over to the DB605DSCM's powering the 109K.
You refer to 2100 horsepower. That is what you get with the MW-50 kitted 190D-9. 1700 is what was produced by the standard Jumo 213 WITHOUT MW-50. As we all know from the U.S. and British tests of the D-9 postwar without MW-50, 1700 hp gives a performance of 357mph at S.L., 426mph at best alt.
On the other hand all the other test info I have seen shows that MW-50 = 2100hp = 379mph/440mph
Which is pretty damn good performance. Trying to jack up the performance figures with last minute unofficial modifications is not entirely credible. If we were to allow those types of performance increases, then why not have all the P-47's run like Bob Johnston's, with 72 inches of manifold pressure? After all, that was ALSO a very common field modification. (probably much more common actually) As were improvements in the P-51D's output through hotrodding.
-
According to the book "JG26 - Top Guns of the Luftwaffe", the FW190D9 used C3 till the end of the war and they were equited with MW50 too. The Dora came of the production line with MW50 installation right from the beginning of its production run.
-
buzzbait i think you´re right and i´m completly wrong
niklas