Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: gatt on April 15, 2000, 05:53:00 AM
-
Here we go again.
Aces High C.202 climbs to 19,700ft in about 7'10" with WEP (wep cuts out at 16K), 160mph IAS climb speed, 100% fuel and 100% ammo, 2x7,7mm + 2x12,7mm. At 18,300ft the max speed is about 350mph TAS.
The real C.202 climbed to 19,700ft in 5'55" and her max speed was 373mph at 18,300ft. Data from C.202 official manual CA 670/1 Air Ministry (yes, guess what, we had also an Air Ministry (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif))
[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 04-15-2000).]
-
I thought it was underpowered too when 1.02 came out, but I was waiting for you to say it first. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Does it at least out-turn the Spitfire Mk V?
-
Yep Juzz, she does. I wonder why the 109F-4 and the C.202 are undermodeled.
-
Why should it out-turn the Spitfire Mk. V? The 202's wingloading is 40% higher!
-
Juzz-
I too found the 202 to turn inside the SpitV. Imagine the surprised look on his face! Of course you have to keep that Spit jock in your sights a lot longer than he does you (weak guns), but it makes an interesting fight.
I don't know anything about the climb performance of the 202 (I will try to find info). I do find it very light on the controls at mid to low speed. It most closely reminds me of the WB Zero (bear in mind, it has been a loooong time since I flew a WB Zero!).
-
I checked-
Speed 372
Climb to 19,735 feet in 5 minutes, 55 seconds
Takeoff weight 6,400lbs
Funked-
The loaded weights of the Spit V and c202 are virtually identical. Does the Spit V really have that much more wing area? 40% seems like a quite a bit.
-
The information I have comes from here:
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/gustin_military/db/ital/MC202FOL.html (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/gustin_military/db/ital/MC202FOL.html)
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/gustin_military/db/br/SPITFIRE.html (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/gustin_military/db/br/SPITFIRE.html)
Spitfire Mk. V was a lighter plane with a bigger wing. If the Macchi is out-turning it, I think Pyro has been eating too much spaghetti. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 04-15-2000).]
-
Empty Weight Wingloading
o C.202 - 30.6lbs/sqft
o Spitfire V - 21.1lbs/sqft
Loaded Weight Wingloading
o C.202 - 37.4lbs/sqft
o Spitfire V - 228.0lbs/sqft
Aspect Ratio
o C.202 - 6.65
o Spitfire V - 5.61
These figures are only based off one source so may vary from other figures, but should be in the 'ballpark'. Looking at wingloading the Spitfire has it down solid. However, looking at aspect ratio (ratio of wingspan to wing area) one sees that the C.202 has quite a high figure. In fact, its aspect ratio is very high among WWII fighters. Another well known fighter with an even higher aspect ratio is the P-38. This might be the reason why the C.202 can outturn the Spitfire V, even though its wingloading is higher.
------------------
leonid, Komandir
5 GIAP VVS RKKA (http://www.adamfive.com/guerrero)
"Our cause is just. The enemy will be crushed. Victory will be ours."
-
While not the best sources of info, both books I have give the c202 and Spit V virtually identical loaded weights. That the Spit's wing has more area is a given; I was questioning the high disparity in wingloading percentage you quoted.
I think Leonid is on the right track with the aspect ratio. Isn't a high aspect ratio wing more efficient at slow speed? (thinking of gliders here) This might account for the difference in performance. Further, I don't know what type airfoil is used on the c202. That can matter, too (of course you know this, funked (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)).
[This message has been edited by Kieren (edited 04-15-2000).]
-
Yeah I know aspect ratio helps, but is 18% aspect ratio advantage enough to overcome 33% wingloading advantage?
(per Leonid's numbers, I didn't have a loaded weight for the 202)
I guess Pyro's calcs say it is enough, and I'm not in a position to second-guess him on this kind of thing. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 04-15-2000).]
-
Leonid seems to have a point here...
Spitfire has all armament in wings, when C.202 has only those small machineguns in the wing and bigger, 12.7mm are in the nose..
So it can't have bigger wing loading against armed Spitfire, or either it would have partly full steel wings... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Unless you wan't to fight without weapons in spitfrie...
-
Turn radius or turn rate?
Turn radius should definitely be in the Spitfire's favour. Rate? Dunno...
The higher aspect ratio does make for less induced drag and maybe a higher sustained turning speed, but is it enough to overcome the Spitfire's turn rate? I would think not quite, but maybe pretty close. The Italian fighters really aren't much different from a 109, regarding wing area, weight and aspect ratio...the engine's the same.
-
err Fishu.. wing loading has nothing to do with what is actually IN the wings.
It's a measure of the total weight of the whole aircraft divided by the wing area.
So an aircraft with all its armament in the wings is not disadvantaged vis-a-vis an aircraft with all armament in the fuselage. (except perhaps in the area of rolling moment of inertia)
------------------
C.O. Phoenix Squadron
http://www.users.bigpond.com/afinlayson/index.htm
'feel the heat .......'
-
Apparently the C.202 could outturn the Spit 5 in RL. Maybe the fact that those Spit 5's would have had the Vokes filter fitted made a difference somehow(drag?).
-
FYI, the C.202 had:
Empty weight: 5,490 lbs
T/O weight: 6,459 lbs
Wing Area: 180,4 sq.ft
Wingspan: 34,710 ft
We dont know if in RL the "Folgore" out turned the MkV, all we know is that she was considered fast and with an excellent climb rate, something like the Bf109F-4.
IMHO the C.202 should not out turn the MkV. You should use same 109 tactics with her, hit & run that is.
Heck, 373mph TAS at 18,370ft is a very good speed. The kite was not light so (I am not an engineer) I dont think she was a real turn & burn'er.
[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 04-16-2000).]
-
warning: following is technical
about aspect ratio,
well the difference would really not be big enough to warrant the difference. Using finite wing theory, CL varies with AR in the following manner:
slope of CL vs alpha(finite wing) = slope of Cl(infinite)/((1+57.4*Cl(infinite)/(Pi*e*AR))
where e is an efficiency factor dependant on the wing (typical values of .65 to .9
this is in terms of degrees aloha where the slope of the CL-alpha line is .1097 for an infinite wing.
e is dependant on taper ratio etcera, and would depend on if there was twist in te wing and the planform area distribution. I dont know anything about the macchi wing reaally (if it had wash out) but the spitfire wing was one of the best in terms of WW2 planes because of its elliptcal shape (which leads to less vortex induced drag)
-
Does somebody know the disadvantages of a high aspect ratio for a fighter?? I mean, there MUST be some disadvantes. When a AR of ~8 like in a P38 has only advantages, why have all other top ww2 fighter AR of ~6 or even lower(109: 6, 190:6, P51: 5.85, La5: 5.5 ...)
niklas
-
ok, I admit it...I dont know what is aspect ratio (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/redface.gif)
can someone explain it to me?
thks
-
Gatt wrote:
The real C.202 climbed to 19,700ft in 5'55" and her max speed was 373mph at 18,300ft. Data from C.202 official manual CA 670/1 Air Ministry (yes, guess what, we had also an Air Ministry )
-----------------------------------------
Gatt wrote:
The real C.202 climbed to 19,700ft in 5'55" and her max speed was 373mph at 18,300ft. Data from C.202 official manual CA 670/1 Air Ministry (yes, guess what, we had also an Air Ministry )
-------------------------------
I've seen the official specs from the Air Ministry, and as I alluded to before, they don't add up. For example, they cite a time to climb to 3280 feet of 39 seconds or an average of 5046 feet per minute. This performance is cited at a weight of 6459 pounds.
Let's examine those numbers in detail. It takes about 988 excess THP(thrust horsepower) to attain that performance at that weight. They cite brake horsepower ratings of 1040 and 1075 for climb and emergency power settings respectively. Let's go with the high figure and say 1075 BHP. In order to make the 202 climb like they claim, you need a completely dragless airframe and airfoil, and a propeller capable of 92% efficiency. Both of these are outside the realm of reality, and therefore the data is invalid no matter how official and accurate the source appears.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
Perfect plans, aren't.
-
Ram-
Aspect ratio is the comparison of wingspan to its chord (width). Most WWII aircraft incorporate some taper, so figuring the exact aspect ratio involves some math.
The disadvantage to high aspect ratio is drag. You have a lot of wing exposed to the direct airstream, more than a low aspect ratio wing. Add to that the lack of sweep on WWII wings and you can see how air might pile up quickly. Airfoil selection would be critical.
Planes like the P38 pull this off because they were designed for higher, thinner air. There the high aspect ratio is an advantage (look at the Ta152H, or U2).
-
well actually, there is no drag penalty in having a higher aspect ratio compared to a low aspect ratio wing as long as both have the same area, actually high aspect ratio is better almost all around. The thing that limits aspect ratio is structural mechanics, ie wings of high aspect ratio are harder to build and support in flight.
-
Once again, I defer to those with more expertise!
-
PYRO, thx for the reply. You should consider that data are from 202's of IV-VIII series, so I think they probably must be referred to the normal C.202, the one with only 2x12,7mm that is. This one weighted some 70-80Kg less than the "more armed" one. But I dont think this is enuff for you.
However, what makes me thinking about the C.202's FM is the final result: IMHO, 7'15" to get to 19,700ft with WEP is definitely too much for a light fighter with a good wing and a good engine like the DB601Aa. Moreover, the max speed is so different from the official one .... In other words we have no one of the famous features of the "Folgore", we have only her light armament to deal with.
Regards,
GATT
4°Stormo CT
-
Hi Pyro!
I have some doubts that is possible to determine the real performances of an aircraft doing simulations starting from knowed parameters, whatever they are.
I work 4 a truck-factory and my job is to simulate the performances & the behaviour of the future vehicles.
I noticed that I can put all the possible and most accurated parameters in the sim-softwares, but when we test the vehicle, the results are always different than the predicted results of the sim, because it is impossible to consider all the variables wich affect the behaviour of a truck.
Ok, planes ar *different* from trucks, even if a 190 is quite similar... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif), but the idea remains.
I have the official Macchi 202 Service Manual, wich is the ONLY official manual written by Macchi (a flight manual never existed), and this manual reports absolutely NOTHING about performances, only weights, dimensions, service & maintenance instructions etc.
I never saw the manual of the Air Ministry, but it seems reasonable to me that the data on this manual comes from the tests performed by the Air Ministry, because AFAIK the results of the Air Ministry tests were the only valid 4 the evaluation of an aircraft and the resulting data were the only accepted and ratified as official data (4 example the official max speed of the Mc 205 Veltro is 642km/h because this was the lowest max speed obtained during the test).
I think that is reasonable that official data of whatever plane have to come first than the simulations.
v-twin
ps: I apologize 4 my bad english, hope I was able to explain my thougts
-
I do think it fair to say that actual performance figures are almost always less than the design figure for exactly the reasons you state. It is impossible to take into account everything that relates to performance. The unknown usually degrades, rather than enhances, performance.
-
"I have some doubts that is possible to determine the real performances of an aircraft doing simulations starting from knowed parameters, whatever they are."
V-Twin, I agree that it is difficult (working on such a project right now) but the people who build airplanes can do this quite accurately.
-
To funked
Sorry, I couldn't explain well: with no doubt people who build AC can simulate very well the behaviour, I ment that maybe the few data available 4 the 202 aren't enough to obtain a good simulations of the AC.
But I work on trucks, not on planes (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) , so maybe I'm wrong...
Anyway, if I simulate a truck and the sim says it should do 100km/h and I find it running 120km/h, the real speed is 120km/h not 100km/h.
I think the same can be applied to planes too.
v-twin
[This message has been edited by v-twin (edited 04-17-2000).]
-
V-twin, you have a good point, I understand what you mean. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I am currently trying to design a robot controller in the same fashion. I find the only successful technique is to combine the direct parameter measurements (mass, inertia, etc.) with estimates of the parameters based on experimental performance. It's hardly scientific, but I get good results if I use both sets of information. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
But if I get one set of experimental data that is distant from direct measurements and other experimental data, I am inclined to ignore it, and I think Pyro is doing the same.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 04-17-2000).]
-
Yes funked, but I think Pyro is ignoring the direct measurements... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I'm quite sure that the data on that manual are measured performances of the AC, but at the moment I don't know how to verify this.
AFAIK the ratified data of the ACs didn't come from the factories, but were given by the Air Force after the evaluation tests.
v-twin
-
Hey V-Twin,
I understand what you're saying. When I first started doing this I'd see one report and think I knew how precisely how an airplane performed. But then I'd see more reports and all the sudden I no longer knew. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) What I'm saying though is that in this case, it's not a little bit here, a little bit there, it's completely out of what I can make happen. I can't make a dragless plane with a propeller that has a 92% efficiency. I can only bend things to make them fit, I can't break them.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
Perfect plans, aren't.
-
THX all for the replies. I for one will not fly with a kite some 20-25mph slower than the real thing and that climbs at 2,700ft/min (average), like a brick that is. I mean both in main arena and during scenarios. She has not her historical strenhgts against Spitfire Vb and P40. I dunno what other squaddies will do, I know for sure which hint I'll give them.
From a sad Macchi driver
4°Stormo CT
"F.Baracca"
[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 04-18-2000).]
-
Hi Pyro, something is not clear to me: you can't make the "real" 202 because the FM doesn't work with that set of data or because calculations gives different results that don't match the data?
v-twin
-
Maybe I can add to the confusion:
We're not dealing with "pure" engineering data representing some Platonic ideal plane, but rather with historical data gathered (or not) from a determinate existing aircraft. That means that they are subject to all kinds of possible perversions. It also means that no two sets of tests are going to agree completely. The end result is that building an appropriate FM becomes a matter of interpretation and, yes, guesswork. So anyone who claims a 100% faithful FM doesn't know what they're talking about.
Some of these corruptions of the data come from the equipment tested (say, a captured 109 with seriously degraded engine performance), the pilot (an inexperienced jockey or a seasoned professional), the conditions on a given day (ok, who went testing the thing in the eye of a hurricane), the purpose of the test (to sell the product, to find out about its capabilities), and simple manuscript errors (ever read the story in Primo Levi's The Periodical Table about how a flunky chemist in WWII's careless mistake in copying resulted in a change in the paint plant's chemical formula that lasted 25 years?).
That being said, the 202 climbs like a DOG! Clearly the 39 seconds is a minor error -- they meant 49! Some of those manual numbers gotta make sense! Fix it ASAP!
-
If you look at Green's data for the type, (apparently from the same source) you will see a 1400 hp figure (not mentioned in the Air Mininstry source). If somehow, the engine was producing 1400 hp at sea level, then the climb performance noted makes good sense (Perhaps a prototype for the 205?). Otherwise, no more than 17.5 m/s could be expected from 1100 hp.
-
Wells,
Green mistook the C.205 for the C.202. A lot of books written by UK-US writers do it. Moreover Macchi's never mounted a 1,400hp engine. What can I say?: that 2,700ft/min (average) to climb to 19,700ft is clearly wrong.
We have seen the same thing in the AH C.205 for a couple of months. The first C.205 never exceeded 3,000ft/min during her climb, a real dog. Then she had a very good 3,500ft/min average climb rate, no-no-no said all the people. And then she was tweaked down above 15,000ft.
Does it tell anything to you about the need of continuous FM fine tuning? Anyway we wait with faith, at least for some months more (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Gatt,
Green did not mistake the 202, he has the same data as your Air Ministry data for the 202. If he did mistake it, there is a good reason...cause the numbers make no sense for an engine that only put out 1100 hp or so. What data do you have on the 205? How does it compare for climb and weight? Does it make sense when compared with the 202 data?
-
On the C.205 there are no performance data around. Not even our best historians have anything. I sent the only data tables (about C.202 and C.205) I have ever seen to PYRO.
They have data, about the C.202, very similar to those I posted above.
Again, a 1,400hp engine had never been mounted on a C.202. Yes, the first C.205 ever tested (and a lot of others, due to C.202 parts already built) was a C.202 with a DB605A1. But it was tested as a C.205.
I dunno if the data tables we provided make sense, I dunno if the FM used by PYRO always do the right work.
All I know is that the C.202 we have is no way similar to the real one (and we italians have red tons of books about the Folgore). But again, what do we know? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
yeah, I haven't seen too much on the 205, except a 399 mph top speed and that it used the 1475 hp DB605A engine. What I think we really need to do here, is compare to a similarly powered 109. They really should be very similar, especially in climb.
The similarly powered 109E could manage 17-18 m/s and it weighed 1000 lbs less, albeit a tad draggier. The 109F is closer for weight and speed but it needs 1350 hp to achieve the kind of climb rate that you are talking about. Could it be possible that the 202 in question used a modified engine to bring it up to 601E standard? There *has* to be a reason for it's good climb...
[This message has been edited by wells (edited 04-19-2000).]
-
I know this is late, but high aspect ratio means long, thin wings, and the longer they get the slower they roll. That's one disadvantage, niklas.
------------------
leonid, Komandir
5 GIAP VVS RKKA (http://www.adamfive.com/guerrero)
"Our cause is just. The enemy will be crushed. Victory will be ours."
-
Also a high aspect wratio wing does not provide the General maneuverabilty and and tight turning radius that a low aspect ratio will. Aerodynamics are a trade off. Go with a long thin wing and you get a lot of lift and long range IE. the Voyager one man vehicle that tried to fly across the earth a couple of years ago. But you sacrafice tight turning ability and rate of roll, as well as the ability to pull up from high speed dives into compressabilty because of structural weakness and the way shock waves build up on a narrower wing. A wider wing buys you more times to deal with the loss of control. Just look at the contrasting performance of the F4U vrs the P-38. One of the lowest vrs one of the Highest. The P-38 needed range and the F4U needed maneuverabilty. Any flight test data from WW2 would bear this out.
Thanks
F4UDOA
-
From what I read, it seems the resons 4 the excellent perf in climbing and maneuverability of the Macchis were the perfect aerodynamic and first of all the wing.
Dont'know exactly wich was the "secret" of the Macchi's wing, unfortunatly I never was able to find a anything with a deep descritpion of the wing.
It seems that the profile and his developement in the lenght of the wing were something particular.
Probably the result of all this was a really low drag and therefore better performances by same engine power.
The Luftwaffe did a test comparing Bf109G4, Fw190A5, Fiat G55, Mc205, Reggiane Re2005 and found the 205 climbing with the 109 and maneuvering better (among other things, LW said the 205 required less power in the turns than the 109, dunno exactly what that means).
Jg77 used the 205 in winter '43, judging it as excellent.
It must be said that Mario Castoldi, the designer of Macchi, was an excellent engineer, he had a long experience in designing race planes (the Macchi M39 which won the Schneider Trophy in 1926 and the superb seaplane Mc72, wich reached 711km/h, world record 4 seaplanes) and knew very well how to deal with aerodynamic, wing profiles, drag etc.
The Mc20x serie were the masterpieces of Castoldi.
v-twin
-
Hehe, V-Twin ... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
The MC72 Speed World Record is still unbeaten:
The sky is covered and the weather begins to change only after 1:00 P.M. At 1:50 P.M. everybody takes his place and the pilot gets into his plane. At 1:56 P.M. He takes off after an interminable run up. Visibility is far from excellent. For turnnig Agello takes the Montichiari church dome as orientation point. With a baffing speed of 709 km/h he makes four passes and establishes a record that will never be beaten by any seaplane with piston engine. One has to wait August 7, 1961 before the Russian Nicolaï Andrievski does better with a jet seaplane...
(http://www.atinternet.com/benjamin/images/macchi.jpg)
-
I don't know what you mean by it being too slow. Give me some numbers.
On the climb stuff, let's put the shoe on the other foot. Make me a climb chart and let me analyze mathematically what you think it should be.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
Perfect plans, aren't.
-
Gatt: is it possible you are falling into the "propoganda" trap?
One of the things that is odd in AH is that planes tend more to "realistic" than "historic" performance. My example would be the La-5FN. Historically she was claimed by almost all publications as a 400 mph fighter.
However that is almost ALL based on test flight data submitted to the war ministry. Often this data is manipulated for political reasons and is in the end only a rough guide to the actual plane. In the La-5FN's case I think pyro ignored that info and averaged the results of the extensive quality check information done in the field for his information. thus our fighter only does about 390-95 mph instead of it's touted 400.
In this case his figures on the .202 must be suspect, he has said so MANY times now. This leads me to believe there is a great deal of misinformation on the plane. Pyro has always been pretty reasonable about these things and giving explanations, it is my belief that if you supply quality information to him he will work those results into the FM.
One thing that DOES pester me though, is that while the italian pilots never complained much about the .202's performance if it DID accomplish the feats your claiming it did why didn't the spit pilots on malta remark more about it? Buerling is one of my favorite topics and so is malta, especially the early stages of it. Nowhere have I read that the spit pilots in MkV's considered the .202 to be comparable to their planes. In fact in his diaries Buerling recorded 2 instances of being able to outloop one trying to escape from him. Is there a possibility that some of the information your basing your hopes for this fighter on are suspect? I think if the .202 climbed like your asking for Spit pilots would have had much more respect for it than they did.
-
Pyro,
Correct me if I am wrong but the calculation for climb is mapped on a graph in two curves. One representing the horsepower required to fly a certain speed in mph and the second curve being the total horsepower available at that altitude in feet required to fly at that speed. The space between those two curves is maximum climb in ft. All other factors are accounted for secondarily in the horsepower required for speed curve.
Which brings me to my question when these factors are calculated how does prop efficiency get represented? Since usually you just assume they are working at 80% efficiency. Explain how this would work for the P-47D before and after the paddle blade prop if you don't take into account the activity level of the airscrew?
Bewildered
F4UDOA
-
PYRO,
I say the C.202 is slow becouse last time I checked her performance she was barely able to reach 350mph at 18,300ft (with no WEP). Just 8mph more than an Hurricane MkII.
Again, my only reference are the data you already know. As far as the climb rate is concerned I'll send you something.
SORROW,
my Lavochin data tables (from Gordon-Khazanov book) say that the production La5-FN get 385mph at about 20,000ft. This an old topic: we should not have prototype data.
About C.202 real performance, our pilots found her superior to Hurricanes MkII and P40s (armament apart). Very similar to the SpitMkV in speed and climb rate, not in turning abulity. IMHO the C.202 should not out turn the Spitfire, due to Macchi's good speed, heavy weight and wing load. But again, I'm not an engineer so I can be probably wrong.
About Buerling .... yes, he was an outstanding ace. We all know how he considered his italian and german foes: like meat to butcher. So I am not going to comment his memories at all. An old friend of my family fell in battle under his cannons over Malta. When I red what "Screwball" had written about it, well ... I felt sick.
[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 04-20-2000).]
-
my Lavochin data tables (from Gordon-Khazanov book) say that the production La5-FN get 385mph at about 20,000ft. This an old topic: we should not have prototype data.
- GATT
The problem is that no other country besides the USSR kept such scrupulous data on their production aircraft! All the data you see in book and used in flight models for USA, UK, Italian, Japanese, and German aircraft is prototype data!!!
------------------
leonid, Komandir
5 GIAP VVS RKKA (http://www.adamfive.com/guerrero)
"Our cause is just. The enemy will be crushed. Victory will be ours."
[This message has been edited by leonid (edited 04-20-2000).]
-
Exactly Leonid, this has been my contention for a long time.
We don't see performance for war weary P-51's, P-47's, Spitfire's etc. The numbers we see for them are either the prototypes, or specially maintained test aircraft.
But the Japanese aircraft (especially late war planes) are perpetually hampered by 85 Octane avgas, with pine tree oil boost additive.
The Germans, by FM's based on captured intentionally de-tuned war rated engines (for longer in-service periods I guess), or just plain worn out war weary aircraft.
And the Russians with "average" aircraft from the productions lines, because they actually kept such records, instead of the pristine highly tuned test aircraft.
I think it would be great if we got an even basis for what kind of tests on what condition aircraft are used for the FM's.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
Carpe Jugulum
"Real Men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires"
-
Dont get me wrong Leonid, I'm happy with your La-5FN.
For some good italian fighters, like the G.55 "Centauro" and the Re 2005 "Sagittario", we have both prototypes and production variants data.
What I cannot understand is why official data (the data shown are from production C.202 models, IV-VIII series that is) and AH FM can differ so much.
-
SORROW:
The italian Army was (and is more or less still today) accustomed to reveal NOTHING about the equipment, techical data were absolutely secret.
The fascist propaganda never cared about technical data (it would have been self-defeating! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) ), used more spectacular means.
LEONID:
hey! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) no reason to become angry
AFAIK all the available data comes from the evaluation test of the Air Ministry.
If you check, every source reports the same data.
Moreover, it could be possible that that data are a little conservative: consider for example the Mc205, his ratified max speed is 642km/h, wich was the worster max speed reached during the test.
It seems therefore that the Air Ministry used to consider not the best value obtained but when not the worster, at least an average value, maybe in order to have a kinda of "minimal guaranteed performance" of that AC.
But this is only a thought.
v-twin
-
V-twin:
Yes, I did not mean propoganda for others, I referred rather too the fact that often the tests are skewed for political reasons by the producers. In the case of the La, the odds are high that prototype stats were bumped and massaged to make it look as good as possible against the Yak, whose maker had more political connections. The data for the "standard of 1944 La-5FN" is ridiculous. The plane was never a production and never fought, yet it satisfied the stats required to produce the La-7 and so were submitted. Odds are high that in the struggle between Fiat and Macchi figures on both sides would be massaged to make the RA want their fighter produced instead.
Leo: Preach on comrade, I hope the La-7 reflects the stated numbers closer than the La-5FN does.
Gatt: yep, Buerling was a sweetheart. We breed them like that in Quebec <runs and ducks for cover>. But my point here is what you STATED YOURSELF. The .202 should behave remarkbly close to a Mk V spit, the stats you want are waaay out of line with that. Your stats would get it rocketing at lower alts and outrunning it like mad. This is out of line, perhaps the plane needs tweaks in climb and especially speed (I agree she is dreadfull slow) but I cannot see the .202 behaving like your stats rate her. Climbing at 5000 FPM??? Everything I read indicates she was lacking in power thus the .205 upgrade to the german motor.
I really do agree she shouldn't be spinning circles about spit's tho (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) I didn't know she could, I never do anything but yo'yos in her.
[This message has been edited by Sorrow[S=A] (edited 04-20-2000).]
-
Yes SORROW,
if you read what I posted you can see that from the official data we have and how the AH C.202 behaves theres TOO MUCH difference.
Is 6 minutes to get to 20,000ft a ludicrous figure? Well, IMHO, 7'15" is unreasonable as well. Are 373mph at 18,300ft ludicrous? I dont think.
I have digged out the official manual of the Reggiane Re 2001, a nice fighter that fought over Malta side by side with the C.202. She mounted the same license built DB601A of the C.202 and weighted some 680 lb more. Well, her time to altutude are the following:
Time to 13.120ft: 4'10"
Time to 19,685ft: 6'30"
Ludicrous data? Who knows. The official B17 flight manual data allow our AcesHigh B17 to turn fight at 30,000ft+ with fighters. Does it tell anything to you?
-
gatt & v-twin,
I'm not really angry, just a little frustrated (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
So many people have seen the books where two sets of data are printed for VVS aircraft: prototype and production. In most books for aircraft from other countries like Germany, USA, or Japan, you will usually see only one set of data. I think many people assume that this data is production data when it is actually prototype/test data.
I almost wish that these new books on VVS aircraft never put out the production data, just to prevent all the misunderstanding.
But, no, I'm not really angry. See? -> (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
leonid, Komandir
5 GIAP VVS RKKA (http://www.adamfive.com/guerrero)
"Our cause is just. The enemy will be crushed. Victory will be ours."
-
SORROW:
Fiat & Macchi couldn't do absolutely nothing to let RA choosing their fighters.
They could give the RA all the possible data, but only the results of the evaluations test of the Air Ministry (on production AC, not on prototypes) were valid for the choice.
But that was not a big problem and the factories knew that: in fact all the three fighters, Fiat G55, Macchi Mc205, Reggiane Re2005 were accepted 4 the production (even if in different numbers), because all the three factories had "contacts" in the RA...
As for the performances, nobody here said the 202 outmaneuvered the Spit V: the performances were almost equal (same speed, same maneuverability) but with a clear advantage 4 the 202 in climb ability and maybe acceleration.
LEONID:
The problem is that the data of the Air Ministry aren't of prototypes: the test 4 the choice were led, as usual, on AC which were ready 4 the series production and combat ready (full fuel & ammo).
The only data of a prototype I know is the climbing time of a "prototype" of the 205, wich I assume was a 205 whitout armamament or at least only with the 2x12.7mm in the cowling: 4'40" (more or less, don't remember exactly) up to 6000m, where the production 205 climbed in 5'30".
In general, I think we trust too much the mathematical calculations.
The behaviour of an AC is affected by a huge amount of variables and only few of them are knowed.
We can't say too much about an AC only knowing weight, power, dimensions and so on.
Who knows the exact position of the CG of an AC (remember the WB 190...), what do we know about the wing contour, the aerodynamic drag, the inertia etc etc etc...
Yes we can roughly estimate some parameters, but we can't get an accurate sim only starting from the available data, regardless of the AC we are speaking about.
Therefore if the sim can't match the available data of an AC, I think we have to ignore what the sim says and put the data in the FM.
v-twin
-
So you are saying, make the 202 weigh 5000 lbs fully loaded, give it 1400 hp and do not calculate induced drag and ignore any drag that the propellor makes, just so it matches some performance figures? There are laws in physics. It's highly more probable that the performance figures cited are not correct, rather than the physics being wrong. Personally, I believe those figures came from 'somewhere' and there is a reason why it climbed so well. I think it has to do with engine power! The engine was putting out much more than 1100 hp in that flight test, but only the 'official' rating for the engine is given. Whether it was a conversion to DB601E or it was a 605A engine or some super high octane blend fuel was used, or the flight took place on a nice cold day and the results were not corrected for 'standard' atmosphere, I don't know, but it's not impossible for that to be the case.
-
Physics?? Damn... you actually believe that crap Wells ? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
Carpe Jugulum
"Real Men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires"
-
v-twin
The problem with selective application of physics is that it removes the one standard we can rely on for high-fidelity flight models.
You may or may not be right on the 202. I wish it climbed the way my book says it should (and I do fly the thing). I am however satisfied that, even though my bird du jour doesn't perform the way my data says it should, it is for the greater good not to tweak it without hard physics to back up the adjustment. The ramification is that you would have anecdotal data as the basis of fm, and that shouldn't happen IMHO.
-
I didn't want to be the only one not posting to this thread.
-
Again: we are not talking about "anedoctal data", we are talking about tests performed by the Regia Aeronautica on first serie's machines.
A simulation, as the name says, simulates the behaviour of a certain *thing* taking in account a set of data and relationships which we say are sufficient to explain this behaviour. So the output of a simulation in general won't match 1 to 1 the reality, it will come as close to reality as much as the data and relationships taken in account are sufficient to fully explain the behaviour we are investigating.
Measured data say that the MC202 had a certain kind of climb performance given the DB601A (same as BF109E). The simulated performances are far away. IMHO in such case, when RL data and simulation are different, we should take the RL data. I don't say that the FM is crap: I just say that, since it is a simulation, by definition it is an approximation to RL and IMHO it cannot substitue RL if test data are available (doing my job I often have to deal with this kind of problem). I don't know that much about relevant variables involved in AC-simulation, but till now we only discussed about engine power, weight, aspect ratio and wing area.
Maybe there are other relevant variables such as aerodinamical aspects of the frame and/or wing profile a.s.o. which are too complicated to take in account and/or unknown, but which could make the difference.
IMHO in front of such a difference between simulation and RL data we have to investigate why there is this difference. In this case I personally think that the Regia Aeronautica had the means to perform correct test the same as other airforces could do at that time, so it is not that easy IMHO to simply say "the data are wrong" without going any deeper.
This is obviously valid in general: if RL data are available they should come first than the simulated one.
v-twin
-
v-twin,
I agree with you that we should find out why there is a difference (in fact, it's really bugging me now!), but I don't necessarily agree that flight test data should take priority. Take the Navy data for the F6f and F4u-4 as classic examples. The F4u-4 climbed at 4700 fpm in that test, when other sources say about 3900 fpm. So why the discrepency? In the test, they point to the use of 115/140 grade fuel, which allows the R-2800 to produce some 2800 hp. So should every F4u-4 modelled use 115/140 grade fuel because of that one test flight? In the case of the F6f-5...It climbed at only 2950 fpm, when other sources point to 3400-3600 fpm climb. In that particular test, the engine was deemed to be producing only 2030 hp for combat (only 30 hp more than the MIL rating and the official rating is 2250 hp for the engine) and the plane was carrying 20mm weapons, making it a few hundred pounds heavier, but some sources don't say that! I fully agree that the numbers for the 202 came from somewhere and look to be very legitimate, but not all is known about that flight. There is a discrepency somewhere...either in HP rating for the engine or loaded weight of the aircraft or octane rating of the fuel or something else that is not mentioned at all. Until that missing link is known, the data should *not* be used to make the model. The theoretical model is probably better for 'simulating' the average aircraft, where some may have performed better, some worse.
-
I think most of you have looked past my explanation and are trying to attribute it to things in our flight model or the way data is interpreted. It's not a matter of prototype vs production, it's a matter of what is physically possible. V-Twin, if you saw specs on a car that had 80HP and weighed 1000 kg yet claimed it could accelerate to 100 km/h in 4 seconds, what would you think?
In the case of prototype vs production, it really doesn't matter here. Both are beyond what is possible and the prototype data is even worse.
At a test weight of 6206 lbs, the 202 prototype specs allege a time to climb to 3280 feet of 34 seconds. An average climb rate of 5788 feet per minute.
One horsepower is defined as 550 foot-pounds of work per second, or viewed another way, the amount of work it takes to raise 33,000 lbs one foot in one minute. Therefore, to raise 6206 pounds at 5788 feet per minute would take 1088 horsepower. (6206*5788/33000) Even without considering the power losses due to the propeller and the power required to fly at climb speed, both of which are very significant, this is an impossibility for a 1075 HP engine.
It's not a matter of interpretation because that data is not even in the ballpark. It's not even in the same sport as Jules would say.
If anyone can mathematically show how a machine can output more work than its input, not only will they convince me of my error, they'll win the Nobel prize for physics and provide the world with a clean unlimited power supply. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
-
Pyro I think it has one of those "Mr. Fusion" devices from "Back to the Future"...
-
In the case of prototype vs production...
Pyro, I can guarantee that the C.202 was not the focus of my other topic I started.
I honestly know nothing on this aircraft, and have been trying to stay outta this one (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Mr Fusion... hehehe I like that (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
Carpe Jugulum
"Real Men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires"
-
JULES
E**** a b**** out, and givin' a b**** a foot massage ain't even the same f***** thing.
VINCENT
Not the same thing, the same ballpark.
JULES
It ain't no ballpark either. Look
maybe your method of massage
differs from mine, but touchin' his
lady's feet, and stickin' your
tongue in her holiest of holies,
ain't the same ballpark, ain't the
same league, ain't even the same
f***** sport. Foot massages don't mean s***.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 04-24-2000).]
-
Hi all,
was not my intention to participate in this tread cause i'm working (whit some friends) in the researc of data about the Italian WW2 aircraft and our work is not finished.
I read the post of Pyro and i think that the data about the 3280ft/34sec. is refered to a c202 whit the Daimler-Benz DB-601E-1 1350 HP.
I know that in a c202 Serie XII (MM.91831) in summer 1944 was installed a DB-601E-1, i dont know if this is the only c202 whit the "new" engine but probably that can give us an answer.
The c202 (MM.91831) whit the DB-601E-1 crashed 21 January 1946.
Anyway the data about the "Alfa Romeo RA.1000 RC.41I Monsone" (standard engine on the c202) are:
0m 2500rpm for 1' 1175HP <take off>
0m 2400rpm for 5' 1015HP <climb power>
0m 2300rpm for 30' 950HP <normal power>
0m 2200rpm for unlimited 860HP <cruising power>
3700m 2400rpm for 5' 1100HP <max power>
3700m 2250rpm for unlimited 970HP <cruising power>
4100m 2400rpm for 30' 1050HP <normal power>
4500m 2400rpm for unlimited 1000HP <cruising power>
We can see that for about 1 min the c202 is capable to perform 1175HP that give at the plane the possibility to climb at 3280ft in 34sec.
This is only my opinion, hope to see more input in the following days.
Regards VISCONTI
[This message has been edited by VISCONTI (edited 04-24-2000).]
-
Visconti,
I agree, I think that the data with 601E would make alot more sense. 1175 hp still isn't enough though...
-
YEAH! WHAT FUN ked s a i d....
*what the heck DID funked say?*
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Kieren, I couldn't resist posting the conversation in Pulp Fiction that Pyro alluded to. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Sorry for some of you, but data of the official manual are NOT from a DB601E powered C.202. They are from a Series IV-VIII model. That means from November 1941 to July 1942. So, it was probably a light C.202 with only the 2x12,7mm (as most of the C.202 were till the end of the war).
Again, if you take a look at the table you can see that up to 5,000mt (16,400ft) the average climb rate is 3,519ft/min and up to 6,000mt (19,700ft) is 3,280ft/min.
The AcesHigh C.202 has an average climb rate up to 6,000mt of 2,720ft/min (with WEP). I find very strange the 1,075hp shown on the table, whereas the same engine on the 109E-3 shows 1,175hp and the same Alfa-Romeo license built engine of the Re-2001 shows again 1,175hp for t/o power (PYRO has that Re-2001 power table). How 100hp+ as t/o power could help to understand those data?
Moreover the offical Re-2001 performance data show that the kite got to 19,700ft in 6'30". Her t/o weight was 3,240Kg (some 310Kg more than the C.202).
Do I have to think that the C.202 didnt climb to altitude with a 109E-3 or an Hurricane I or II? From all the books I have red about North African and Malta theatres I know she was superior to those 2 fighters and pretty similar to the Spit MkV (probably with Vokes filters).
Anyway, no flames from me here. I just wont fly that Macchi, even if I am a dedicated Macchi driver. Well, not really a big issue ... hummm
[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 04-25-2000).]
-
Gatt have right, the data are from an Alfa Romeo RA.1000 RC.41I Monsone and not from a German build engine.
We have found some data about the c202 whit the 1075HP engine:
5000m <16404ft> 5'30"
6000m <19685ft> 6'10"
7000m <22966ft> 8'16"
8000m <26247ft> 9'54"
These data regard the c202 before serie IV i think.
We are still working on these data to have a confirmation.
Anyway i agree whit Gatt when he say that the actual AH c202 performance are undermodelled, i think that the turn rate of the c202 is a little overmodelled but we dont have data till now. We hare working on his turn performance too but is a long job.
-
But pyro and wells saying that its physically not possible to match those numbers, why not address that issue first. If the numbers cant possibly match those given from the "official" source then the source needs to be questioned, think thats the whole point.
------------------
Dnil
JG-2
Part time aircraft restorer. www.kingwoodcable.com/jheuer (http://www.kingwoodcable.com/jheuer)
-
Well, Dnil, as I see them, the arguments are these:
A. The manual gives an obviously impossible figure for the initial climb to 1000 meters. Therefore, they are entirely unreliable and should be discarded.
B. The manual gives a figure for the climb to 6000 meters that is not implausible, and is considerably better than the one the currently modelled 202 has.
The question is: how big is the corruption of the data? How did that figure for A. get in there?
Now Visconti comes along and posts some different numbers. It might help the case if he could post his source.
-
I agree, an interesting subject. I would love to know why the different numbers and if AH is way off which I suspect it might be a little then lets fix it, but only after we have definite proof that confines to the laws of physics (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
p.s. I fly the 202 and love it, even though it has a weak punch.
------------------
Dnil
JG-2
Part time aircraft restorer. www.kingwoodcable.com/jheuer (http://www.kingwoodcable.com/jheuer)
-
whats wrong with the 202?
(ducks,runs, slips and falls) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
LOL Citabria ... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
5000m in 5.5min, average 15.15m/s.
6000m in 6.17min, average 16.21m/s.
7000m in 8.27min, average 14.11m/s.
8000m in 9.9min, average 13.46m/s.
In between the 5000m and 6000m times, climbrate averages 25.00m/s.
In between the 6000m and 7000m times, 7.9m/s.
In between the 7000m and 8000m times, 10.22m/s.
Anyone got a bag of salt?
-
<edited> my mistake
[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 04-25-2000).]
-
Pyro, with numbers we can do lotta things.
Don't misunderstand me, I fully respect physics and your calculations are fully right.
Your calculations in metric units: 2930kg * 9.81m/s^2 * 1000m/ 34s = 845391 Watt, which are 1148 hp (roughly, don't have at the moment exact weight of 202 and conversion factor lbs/kg).
But, on the other hand, we can also consider the power to raise 2930kg up to 6000m in 5'55":
2930kg * 9.81m/s^2 * 6000m / 355s = 485802 Watt, which are 660 hp.
What's now???
From the strict physical point of view all these calculations are correct, but can we apply these formulas as they are to a climbing AC?
I'm not an aeronautical engineer, so maybe it would be wiser for me to be silent (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) , but I think we have to consider other factors: considering the total energy of the AC we cannot obviously ignorate the kynetic energy it has, which comes in the energy balance (Hey, I'm not making a physics lesson!!! Are just thoughts, probably fully wrong!!! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) ).
The above formulas calculate simply the power required to raise a weight from 0 to x meters in a given time, starting from 0 speed and 0 meters (like a lift).
But the AC is flying at a certain speed, which probably will be higher than the minimum speed imposed by maximal climb: in that case the AC will "burn" in the first part of the climb the speed excess in form of climb rate until the speed permitted by the engine power and climb rate is reached (We can think as an example of a car driving through a road wich starts to climb).
Just my 2c...
V-twin
P.S. Remember...Only 660hp needed... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Maybe I'm speaking nonsense...but I guess pyro is looking at the climbrates at CONSTANT speed, so Kinetic energy doesnt change at all...
Of course, if you go at 400mph and pull vertical, you can climb REALLY fast. But if you keep speed as a constant, then the only Energy change is the result of the altitude change.
Only my guess...
------------------
Ram, out
Fw190D9? Ta152H1? The truth is out there
JG2 "Richthofen" (http://www.busprod.com/weazel2/)
(http://nottosc.tripod.com/ram190.gif)
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 04-25-2000).]
-
The data i have posted on a c202 whit a 1075HP engine come from a book called "Le macchine e la storia" 1974.
juzz, i was surprised too when i have done your calculation and the answer is that (at least i think):
The engine have a compensator of power <compensatore di potenza> that start his work from 4100m.
We have 2 different power curve cause we have "2 different engine" one that work till 4100 and the other start to work from 4100.
I dont have the complete data of the engine and i dont know the efficasy of that compensator, but i think is a reasonable opinion.
Anyway without the engine data is impossible to verify the ROC of an AC, we are looking for these data but at the moment we have little info and is impossible to calculate the extimated climb rate whit these data.
The only data we have are "time/to altitude" that cant be refused or appruved cause we dont have the complete engine data.
PS: if someone have the complete power chart of the RA.1000 RC.41I Monsone plz send it to me asap (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) or contact me by e-mail.
-
I dont know much about physics, but why c202 shoud climb faster then 109g6.
109g6 weight few kg more but engine output is 1800HP with WEP.
------------------
(http://home.cfl.rr.com/sr20534/sr2053.gif)
JG2 "Richthofen" (http://www.busprod.com/weazel2/)
No.310 squadron RAF "Czechoslovakia"
[This message has been edited by sr2053 (edited 04-25-2000).]
-
Guys, I've spent about half my life learning, teaching, and applying Newtonian mechanics, and Pyro's method for determining the maximum theoretical climb rate at a constant speed is correct, assuming 100% efficiency of the system.
-
all humans make mistakes especially in stuff as complex as digital flight modelling, but HTC and company find these mistakes and fix them quick.
now I'm sure pyro has gone over the 202 FM with a fine tooth comb with all the attention its getting and found nothing to be out of the ordinary, or found the best compromise between the laws of physics and what 50 year old flight data documents suggest.
unless the 202 had flubber in its engine in ww2, the AH 202 is by all guesses an accurate repesentation of its performance.
"ya cannut cheeenge tha laws ef phyeesics " - Mr. Scott
------------------
"There are no born fighter pilots. Some are a little better than others, thats about it. But I would say time, training, training, training and more training are the key... to any success." -Francis Gabreski
Citabria
=357th Pony Express=
-
Sr2053,
the AH 109G-6 has no MW50 and no GM-1. Without MW50 the real 109G-6 reached 6,000mt in about 6 minutes.
Again, probably 5'55" is a strange time to altitude for a 1,150hp kite, but 7'15" with WEP (like war weary 109E or Hurricane or Zeke) is too much as well.
And there is the max speed at altitude problem. Is the FM model able to calculate how streamlined was the fuselage and how good was the wing at 18,500ft? Why 350mph TAS and not the official 370mph+?
-
I hope we wont have the same problem with the incoming Fw190A-5 .... really. I think there is a real inconsistency between Luftwaffe data/reports, RAF tests and how the A-4/5 is usually modeled. GATT seats down, takes a beer and wait for the incoming 190A-5 ....
[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 04-26-2000).]
-
Probably not, my friend, gatt. Data for Fw190A-5 is much more comprehensive (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
leonid, Komandir
5 GIAP VVS RKKA (http://www.adamfive.com/guerrero)
"Our cause is just. The enemy will be crushed. Victory will be ours."
-
Yes Leonid,
we have tons of books with official charts about FW max speeds and climb at different altitudes, even with MW50.
Then we have reports from RAF pilots, LW pilots and official RAF tests that state that the 190A-3/4 was way superior to the Spitfire MkV as far as speed, climb, istantaneous turn rate and roll rate are concerned, up to 20,000ft.
The only problem for LW pilots was the sustained turn rate.
And if the 190A-4 was way superior than the MkV, how the hell can it be such a dog against the MkIX?
Well, take a look at how all the 190's have been modeled in brand W. The A4 is a good fighter but nothing like the real one. The A8 is a coffin, both in WB and in AH. The 190D-9 is the brick you all know. And I dont talk about Sturm or Slacht variant, I talk about the light (ehm) fighter version. How could they fight the way they did with such bricks?
The 190A-5 was operational since the beginning of 1943. She fought against Spit MkIX (and not only early variant). Had all 190A-5 equipped JG's been butchered by Spitfire IX? Not at all. Did they have always to run away if they found themselves without 4,000ft of alt and 100mph of speed advantage? I dont think so.
I'm talking about consistency and inconsistencies we find between FM results and the real things. IMHO we should try to recreate (or get close to) the real balance/unbalance between fighters without changing history. Thats why I am a bit skeptic about B17 ultra-high alt performance (if they are weak, give them OTTO, AND a reasonable FM above 25K), about the F4U1-C role in AH (stats considered), about the 109F-4 and Spit MkV comparison, about the lack of additional injection in the FW190A-8. Can we change/rewrite history or good air war books with the results of some FM math equations? I dont think this is the right way to give people the feeling to be "there".
Again, no flames, the problem is very complex and this thread is very interesting, even excluding the C.202 topic.
[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 04-26-2000).]
-
I get 364mph TAS at 18k for AH's C.202.
What's wrong with the Me 109F-4? It is faster and climbs better than the Spitfire Mk V.
What's wrong with the B-17 FM - ever looked at the B-17 manual?
-
Juzz,
last time I checked the C.202 (maybe 1.02 or 1.02r1) at 18,500ft she didnt exceed 350mph TAS. I'll check again.
Manuals? Oh MY, they are valid only for USAAF aircraft? I have red tons of reports of USAAF crews and they usually flew from 18,000ft to 25,000ft. I understand we have to balance buff weakness in the arena and that the real problem is bombing accuracy from 30,000ft+ .... but actually I'd prefer fine tuned damage model and OTTO (accuracy, burst lenght, etc.etc) and realistic ceiling for buffs.
As far as 109F/MkV are concerned I'll check better. I havent flown the 109F in this TOD and your probably right.
-
Gatt-
I did fly the 109F- a lot. Against a Spit V it wasn't bad at all, even if you turned a bit with it. Of course the best tactic was to climb right up and over him, then slap the back of his head.
Right now, assuming I am headed to A2A, I take the 202. I am liking it very much (weak ammo aside). I wish it did climb better, but it is a fun ride nonetheless (and it does turn with a Spit V!).
I'm glad it's included. Perhaps I need to start the G55 crusade... yeah... not all that dissimilar to the 205 in appearance... 3 cannons... hmmmmmm.... Italian birds are fun to fly... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Kieren,
I dont start the G.55 crusade becouse I think that 2 italian fighters are enuff in our plane set, so far. I dont want to begin a dweeb hunt on myself. But I cant resist (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif).
PYRO has very good references, the original flight manual and the february 1943 tests performed by Luftwaffe and RA on the G.55, the 109G-4 and the 190A-5. Luftwaffe test pilots queued to pilot the G.55.
The manual shows acceptable performance data for max speed (about 630mph TAS at 7000mt)and climb rates:
- 1000mt: 0'55"
- 2000mt: 1'53"
- 3000mt: 3'11"
- 4000mt: 4'31"
- 5000mt: 5'53"
- 6000mt: 7'12"
- 7000mt: 8'34"
Yes, 2x12,7mm and 3x20mm are more than enuff. She had some 5 sq mt of wing area more than the C.205V. T/O weight was about 3,700Kg (with full armament).
(http://www.fly-net.org/aeromedia/lb100.gif)
And take a look at one of the most famous squadron's (IIo Gruppo ANR, IIa Squadriglia "Diavoli Rossi") nose art:
(http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8780/reference/italy/6stormo.gif)
[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 04-26-2000).]