Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: BnZs on January 14, 2014, 01:11:52 PM
-
I think there is a fair amount of evidence that the current deck speed for the 190A5 (339mph) is 8-12mph too slow.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a5.html (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a5.html)
-
Correct, & the same also applies to the Typhoon..
-
The F6F is too slow at its FTH by almost 20 mph.
-
What octane rating fuel did they use for those tests?
You have to make sure they are not using the higher grade fuels that HTC has not modeled. 100/130 Octane is the highest modeled. 150 Octane would give many Mid/Late war a big boost.
During 1942 and 1943 the British were testing aviation fuels that allowed for higher engine powers in their fighter aircraft than was possible using the standard 100/130 grade aviation fuel then in use.
Testing of a Spitfire IX by Rolls Royce, Hucknall in October 1943 determined:
The increase of boost pressure to 25 lbs/sq.inch provides a considerable improvement in the low altitude performance of the Spitfire IX aircraft, the necessary modifications to achieve this being comparitively simple. 1
The same aircraft was tested by the Aircraft and Armament Experimental Establishment (A.& A.E.E.), Boscombe Down in November 1943, the conclusion being:
An increase of about 950 ft/min in rate of climb and about 30 mph in all-out level speed is achieved by the increase of boost from +18 lb/sq.in. to +25 lb/sq.in. 2
The Germans and US had similar fuels to allow higher boost. Japan I think suffered from poor quality fuels for the whole war*.
*99% sure.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html
-
150 PN/Grade avgas was introduced in the ETO for the invasion/V1 assault defence in mid `44..
Enabling Merlin Mustangs to run +25lbs/72in boost..
-
Fw 190A's ran on C3 fuel, the best fuel the Luftwaffe got, equal to 100/130 octane in mid-war, and 100/150 octane late in the war. The BMW 801 D-2 engine couldn't use the lower grade B4 fuel that the 109's were using.
-
Air cooled radial mills were less able to tolerate/reject heat than liquid-cooled types..
Nor could they utilize efficient liquid cooled inter/after-cooling for their superchargers,
& so ran lower boost levels..
The BMW powered 190s injected extra C3 into the supercharger as charge coolant too..
-
Air cooled radial mills were less able to tolerate/reject heat than liquid-cooled types..
Nor could they utilize efficient liquid cooled inter/after-cooling for their superchargers,
& so ran lower boost levels..
The BMW powered 190s injected extra C3 into the supercharger as charge coolant too..
I'm not sure how that's relevant to the discussion?
-
Relevance?
Gives technical background for BMW/FW 190 need for C3..
-
Fw 190A's ran on C3 fuel, the best fuel the Luftwaffe got, equal to 100/130 octane in mid-war, and 100/150 octane late in the war. The BMW 801 D-2 engine couldn't use the lower grade B4 fuel that the 109's were using.
Wouldn't say it was equal - octane rating at rich mixture was identical, as the mix leaned out C3's octane rating fell away considerably.
-
Wouldn't say it was equal - octane rating at rich mixture was identical, as the mix leaned out C3's octane rating fell away considerably.
Ok. However the reason the Germans ran larger displacements with lower boosts was their use of fuel injection. This is also why Rolls Royce chose to continue with carburetors. Which was the right choice is a technical debate not suited for this thread.
-
Its true, & its another reason the BMW needed extra for high power loadings..
-
Wouldn't say it was equal - octane rating at rich mixture was identical, as the mix leaned out C3's octane rating fell away considerably.
Rich is the only thing that matters for max power (anti-knocking). Lean is important for cruise performance. What was important for the German interceptors? What was important for the Allied escort fighters? (Rhetorical questions.) Each side engineered their fuels to better suit their needs.
-
The maximum speed for the 190-A5 is spot on in agreement with these figures per the AH performance charts. So that would seem to suggest that no, these tests weren't "hotrodding" with fuel not modeled in AHII
What octane rating fuel did they use for those tests?
You have to make sure they are not using the higher grade fuels that HTC has not modeled. 100/130 Octane is the highest modeled. 150 Octane would give many Mid/Late war a big boost.
The Germans and US had similar fuels to allow higher boost. Japan I think suffered from poor quality fuels for the whole war*.
*99% sure.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html
-
The maximum speed is limited by the supercharger at full pressure height. An increase in allowed boost would only affect speed below FPH. The 190A-5 had increased boost at WEP later in the war, but I guess HTC models an early A-5. AH's A-5 matches the performance at ~1.35 ATA boost.
-
AFAIR, 190s on JABO duties were authorised to use higher boost levels first, on cross channel strikes,
& they could out-run Spitfires on the deck, but 'came a cropper' when Typhoons turned up..
-
AFAIR, 190s on JABO duties were authorised to use higher boost levels first, on cross channel strikes,
& they could out-run Spitfires on the deck, but 'came a cropper' when Typhoons turned up..
And later Spit XIIs.
-
Yeah Spit 12s, a day late & a $ short,
- they were R-R & Supermarine's bid to get the Sabre/Typhoon cancelled, but thankfully, that attempt failed..
-
Yeah Spit 12s, a day late & a $ short,
- they were R-R & Supermarine's bid to get the Sabre/Typhoon cancelled, but thankfully, that attempt failed..
Not exactly. Talk to Dan/Guppy.
They were better at Fw190 raider killing that Tiffies were.
-
Incorrect on every level there Knak..
1, Performance-wise, Typhoon beats Spit 12 for speed.. ..based on both published sources & pilots views..
2, Guns, 4 cannon beats 2 cannon +4 .303s..
3, Victory credits, Typhoons shot down many more JABOs than Spit 12s did..
-
Incorrect on every level there Knak..
1, Performance-wise, Typhoon beats Spit 12 for speed.. ..based on both published sources & pilots views..
2, Guns, 4 cannon beats 2 cannon +4 .303s..
3, Victory credits, Typhoons shot down many more JABOs than Spit 12s did..
1) Yes, Tiffie is faster than Spit XII, but both are faster than Fw190A. Spit XII is a much better fighter and much more suited to actually fighting the Fw190s.
2) Moot point. Two 20mm cannons are more than adequate to destroy a single engined fighter.
3) As a whole yes, but accounting for squadrons using them, no. 91 Squadron with Spit XIIs was the most successful RAF squadron during the time that 91 had Spitfire XIIs. Only 100 XIIs were built so using a nonsense, simplistic "Tiffies shot down more than Mk XIIs" is misleading as a comparison data point.
-
Knak, - you wrote.. that Spit 12s "were better at FW 190 raider killing than Tiffies"
Well, they weren't, so you were wrong.. nothing misleading there at all, just the facts..
4 cannon can do twice as much damage as 2, or the same damage in 1/2 the time..
& Typhoons carried more ammo..
Typhoons essentially made the German JABO attacks on Britain unprofitable, & they ceased..
Something Spits could not & did not achieve..
JABO pilots generally tried to avoid A2A, but they could not out-run Typhoons on the deck..
-
Knak, - you wrote.. that Spit 12s "were better at FW 190 raider killing than Tiffies"
Well, they weren't, so you were wrong.. nothing misleading there at all, just the facts..
4 cannon can do twice as much damage as 2, or the same damage in 1/2 the time..
& Typhoons carried more ammo..
Typhoons essentially made the German JABO attacks on Britain unprofitable, & they ceased..
Something Spits could not & did not achieve..
JABO pilots generally tried to avoid A2A, but they could not out-run Typhoons on the deck..
Your reasoning/thinking is extremely simplistic and you ignore any inconvenient facts that call into question your desired conclusions. You seem to create narratives in your head and then lock onto them as absolutely true. If this requires you to make things up, such as headwinds increasing climb rates or four 20mm cannons being significantly better for fighter killing than two 20mm cannons then you will do so, damn any data that says otherwise.
You are aware, I trust, that the Typhoon was intended to replace the Spitfire as the RAF's frontline fighter, yes? It never did so for a number of reasons and was almost canceled due to persistent teething problems and general failure to perform as expected. The fact that it was found to be able to run down the Fw190 raiders was all that saved it and it later proved to be a good attack aircraft. The Spitfire Mk XII was never intended to get the Typhoon canceled, it was simply the first production Griffon engined Spitfire, something that Rolls-Royce and Supermarine had been working on for years. The fact that it also could run down Fw190 raiders, and was a superior fighter to the Typhoon, enabled it to thrive in that roll despite the limited production. The fact is that the Typhoon, nor Tempest, ever managed to supplant the Spitfire. The Spitfire fell to the Meteor and Vampire.
-
I think Spit XII's carried the 2x20mm, 2x.50cal gun package, not the 4x.303's.
Spitfires served in many nations into the '50's. Where were the Typhoons then?
-
I think Spit XII's carried the 2x20mm, 2x.50cal gun package, not the 4x.303's.
Spitfires served in many nations into the '50's. Where were the Typhoons then?
No, he is quite correct about the two 20mm and four .303s for the XII. Even the first Mk XIVs were thus armed.
-
Knak, ironyman, irony..
That 1st sentence - in your 2nd last post here - so applies to you..
How can you straight-faced deny that 4 cannon are better than 2? Incredible!
& more homework needed there too, Knak..
Here is what really went down..
The unexpectedly good development potential of the Merlin Spitfire combination was serendipitous.
The unexpectedly poor performance of the thick-winged Typhoon at higher altitude, & production related
difficulties with its Sabre mill were as (unpleasantly) unexpected..
R-R had to cancel their failed Sabre rival (the Vulture) & wanted the Griffon to replace both..
The Spit 12 was supposed to show that the Typhoon was unnecessary, but it was no substitute, in reality..
-
& Baldy, Tempests replaced Typhoons, & were still flying in the RAF through to the mid `50s..
-
Four cannon do not significantly enhance the ability to destroy small, single seat aircraft as compared to two cannons. They do, however, weigh twice as much and thus impose an unnecessary performance penalty for a marginally useful increase in firepower. For fighter vs fighter combat the increase in firepower is simply not worth the loss of performance.
For shooting down two and four engined bombers four 20mm cannons are, without doubt, superior to two 20mm cannons.
& Baldy, Tempests replaced Typhoons, & were still flying in the RAF through to the mid `50s..
Tempest is not a Typhoon.
-
JAW,
While I'll grant you that the tiffy was a great plane you neglect to mention any of the many problems it had in developement while focussing in on any failures or problems the compatition had.
My father taught me not to argue with people like you for 2 very good reasons!
:salute
-
No denial of problems in Sabre/Typhoon development, it was rushed & somewhat 1/2 arsed too..
But it did finally prove its worth..
-
No denial of problems in Sabre/Typhoon development, it was rushed & somewhat 1/2 arsed too..
But it did finally prove its worth..
And had a massive, fundamental design error that required a major redesign of the aircraft to fix. The miscalculation of the appropriate airfoil for a high speed fighter resulted in the extremely thick wings the Tiffie had, and made it unsuitable as a higher speed fighter.
-
Yes, & redesign it they did.. Typhoon II became the 'laminar flow' winged Tempest, in fact..
P-38 needed a redesign for its poor aero too, but dipped out..
( FYI, thick wing or no, Typhoon still had the highest placarded Vne of any fighter - 'til the Tempest..)
-
& Baldy, Tempests replaced Typhoons, & were still flying in the RAF through to the mid `50s..
Not in RAF service.
The last RAF unit to use the Tempest II in the Far East was No 33 Squadron, which brought its aircraft to Changi, Singapore (from Germany) to support Operation FIREDOG, the RAF's anti-guerilla campaign against the communists in Malaya. Establishing its base at Butterworth, Malaya, the squadron began operations on 16 Aug 1947. It flew rocket and cannon strikes against communist lines of communications, villages, supply dumps and camps until 6 June 1951. On that date, the last combat sortie by a Tempest in RAF service was flown.
By March 1950, the Tempest VI had been replaced by Vampire jet fighters and had been withdrawn from RAF service.
-
More research needed there m.m.,
Since in fact the last Tempest was retired from RAF service in `55..
See the RAF museum, they've got one suspended from the ceiling, & its a TT5..
-
The Tempest fell to the same things the Spitfire did, Meteor and Vampire. The Spitfire was not replaced by Tempests.
You can make am effective argument that the Seafire was replaced by the Sea Fury though.
-
The Spitfire replacement for the RAF, the Spiteful, along with the Tempest replacement Fury..
..were not wanted by the jet-bent post-war RAF..
There were over 20,000 Spitfires built, fewer than 5,000 Typhoon/Tempests..
-
More research needed there m.m.,
Since in fact the last Tempest was retired from RAF service in `55..
See the RAF museum, they've got one suspended from the ceiling, & its a TT5..
In a secondary role only.
The Spitfire was used by the RAF until 1957.
-
In service, never-the-less..
Was the Spitfire still an RAF front-line fighter in `57?
No it was not, but so what?
-
In service, never-the-less..
Was the Spitfire still an RAF front-line fighter in `57?
No it was not, but so what?
It was still 2 years longer than the Tempest. :D
-
Again so what, I didn't make any claim about which was in service longer anyhow..
& it was you m.m. - who got it wrong ( happens a fair bit, actually) but cant admit it..
-
P-38 needed a redesign for its poor aero too, but dipped out..
What redesign did the P-38 undergo to cure the supposed poor aerodynamics you claim it had?
ack-ack
-
The P-38 badly needed redesign due to its piss-poor critical Mach performance..
& it belately got a Band-Aid 'fix' by the way of add on 'dive-flaps' which, while helping
prevent terminal dive, fatal fox-hole digging duty for its pilots,
- did not make it good enough for the "Mighty 8th" to keep in bomber escort service..
-
Again so what, I didn't make any claim about which was in service longer anyhow..
& it was you m.m. - who got it wrong ( happens a fair bit, actually) but cant admit it..
I didn't get it wrong for front line service. ;)
Just pointing out the Spitfire was in RAF service longer. :D
-
P-38 needed a redesign for its poor aero too, but dipped out..
And the P-38 has what to do with the Typhoon's failure to replace the Spitfire or the Spitfire's superior wing as compared to the Typhoon's wing?
-
The P-38 badly needed redesign due to its piss-poor critical Mach performance..
& it belately got a Band-Aid 'fix' by the way of add on 'dive-flaps' which, while helping
prevent terminal dive, fatal fox-hole digging duty for its pilots,
- did not make it good enough for the "Mighty 8th" to keep in bomber escort service..
You failed to state what redesign it had to undergo. As for the 'band-aid' fix, the dive flaps did cure the issue of nose tuck in dives due to compressibility but that is hardly a redesign of the Lightning.
So, once more I ask, what redesign (and when) did the P-38 undergo to fix the "poor aerodynamics"? I would be shocked if you could answer my question with facts instead of straw man responses but I fear that is an impossible thing to hope for.
ack-ack
-
And the P-38 has what to do with the Typhoon's failure to replace the Spitfire or the Spitfire's superior wing as compared to the Typhoon's wing?
Just another straw man he threw out because he has no real argument to back up his claims. Just like he dismissed your fact that Spitfires were in service with the RAF longer than the Typhoon or Tempest. Makes me wonder if he's related to Schlowy.
ack-ack
-
Again m.m. so what? The RAF chose the duties for its aircraft as best suited their needs, obviously..
& m.m., you were wrong about Tempest service - period.
Just admit it..
Knak, the P-38 & Typhoon were both examples of ist gen 400mph fighters, 'going where no man " etc..
& longest service periods Spit vs Tempest were never in dispute, so what's your point there?
Just an excuse to go ad-hominem again?
Both Typhoon & P-38 had high-speed aero-issues but only the Typhoon's were properly addressed, when it morphed into
the Tempest..
A-A, the P-38 needed something, but never really got it, - 'cept the boot, from the 8thAF..
Poor P-38 critical Mach performance was one fundamental reason for being dumped..
Got that, finally?
-
Just another straw man he threw out because he has no real argument to back up his claims. Just like he dismissed your fact that Spitfires were in service with the RAF longer than the Typhoon or Tempest. Makes me wonder if he's related to Schlowy.
ack-ack
Which is exactly why I find it all so funny as this thread was about the FW 190A5 SL speed...... :rolleyes:
:salute
-
& why is/was FW 190 speed important?
So it could use it in combat, & having more to use is an advantage, possibly?
-
Again m.m. so what? The RAF chose the duties for its aircraft as best suited their needs, obviously..
& m.m., you were wrong about Tempest service - period.
Just admit it..
Knak, the P-38 & Typhoon were both examples of ist gen 400mph fighters, 'going where no man " etc..
& longest service periods Spit vs Tempest were never in dispute, so what's your point there?
Just an excuse to go ad-hominem again?
Both Typhoon & P-38 had high-speed aero-issues but only the Typhoon's were properly addressed, when it morphed into
the Tempest..
A-A, the P-38 needed something, but never really got it, - 'cept the boot, from the 8thAF..
Poor P-38 critical Mach performance was one fundamental reason for being dumped..
Got that, finally?
Just like I thought...you claim it under went a redesign of the airframe but yet you're unable to show any proof that it did other than toss out a straw man. I'll ask one more time, what redesign did the P-38 under go and when did it happen? It should be a real easy question to answer if you had any fact to back up your claim or are you gonna report this post to Skuzzy because I've got you against the wall and the firing squad is getting ready?
ack-ack
-
Do some basic research if you knowledge base is so lacking A.A., even m.m. can look things up..
If you don't know that the Tempest was in fact a modified Typhoon ( new flying surfaces & fuselage stretch),
you'd best catch up..
As I wrote, ( & do you actually read the posts?)
The P-38 NEEDED redesign but only got band-aids..
-
& why is/was FW 190 speed important?
So it could use it in combat, & having more to use is an advantage, possibly?
Why dont you tell me,or was that a retorical question?
I didnt ask the question to begin with,the OP was asking if the AH speeds match the speed found on the williams site.
:salute
-
& why do you think Mf, that the O.P. feels the need for (more) speed - in his 190?
-
Once again, what does the P-38 have to do with the conversation? You inserted it as a needless and irrelevant distraction.
The Bf109, P-38 and Spitfire were all sub 400mph fighters when introduced. The Fw190 and Typhoon could both break 400mph in level flight by about 10mph. All of these aircraft, or their decedents, could do well over 400mph by the time their development had reached its climax. All of them had their own specific problems as their speeds increased because they were reaching speeds that had never been encountered before. Of all of them, the Spitfire's wing shape was most suitable to extreme speeds, but it was insufficiently rigid as implemented in the Spitfire, leading to things like aileron reversal.
-
Not irrelevant - as you amply show by your next paragraph Knak,
& it serves as comparison to improvements needed but not made..
You will note that Supermarine redesigned the Spitfire wing for the 20 series,
& again for the Spiteful..
& the Spitfires high Mach wing was fine, but the Spitfire was out-dived in combat by 190 & 109,
but the Typhoon & Tempest were not..
-
Once again, what does the P-38 have to do with the conversation? You inserted it as a needless and irrelevant distraction.
It's his modus operandi, when he can't use facts he uses irrelevant distractions to try and shore up his argument. It's the Schlowy Theory of Advanced Debate.
ack-ack
-
Not irrelevant - as you amply show by your next paragraph Knak,
& it serves as comparison to improvements needed but not made..
You will note that Supermarine redesigned the Spitfire wing for the 20 series,
& again for the Spiteful..
& the Spitfires high Mach wing was fine, but the Spitfire was out-dived in combat by 190 & 109,
but the Typhoon & Tempest were not..
Spitfire reached higher dive speeds than any other piston engined aircraft. Not just WWII fighter.
The Bf109 and Fw190 had better dive acceleration, but not higher maximum dive speeds.
The redesigned Spitfire wing for the 20 series retained the dive advantages. The Spiteful's new wing was inferior.
-
It's his modus operandi, when he can't use facts he uses irrelevant distractions to try and shore up his argument. It's the Schlowy Theory of Advanced Debate.
ack-ack
Oh the irony,
Since A.A. resorts to spurious references as ad-hominem substitute for non-knowledge & absence of facts..
-
Spitfire reached higher dive speeds than any other piston engined aircraft. Not just WWII fighter.
The Bf109 and Fw190 had better dive acceleration, but not higher maximum dive speeds.
The redesigned Spitfire wing for the 20 series retained the dive advantages. The Spiteful's new wing was inferior.
But Spitfire critical Mach was not so useful in combat, & not approved in the pilots notes..
-
The P-38 NEEDED redesign but only got band-aids..
What needed to be redesigned for an a/c that had a top speed of 435-440mph?
No jaw I was not wrong about the Tempest as a front line a/c.
-
What needed to be redesigned for an a/c that had a top speed of 435-440mph?
No jaw I was not wrong about the Tempest as a front line a/c.
m.m., that P-38 Vne is 'bout ~100mph slower than the Tempest's & too slow to effectively counter 109/190s too,
That is one of the reasons the 8th AF dumped it..
& making up ex-postfacto qualifying nonsense about front-line or not - as a face-saver, is just sad - I.M.O...
-
But Spitfire critical Mach was not so useful in combat, & not approved in the pilots notes..
Carrying 2,000lbs of bombs isn't approved in the pilots notes for the Mossie VI either. It still did it many times.
You'll find that many of the things not approved in the pilots notes end up being peace time bans, not hard rules that can't be pushed or bent or ignored.
-
True, there are official combat reports by Tempest pilots going off the end of their ASI readings @ 600+ mph
in dives, but as long as they were nailing a Nazi turbo-jet or long-nose or something, I guess it could be over-looked.
Does not alter the fact though - that the high critical Mach speeds the Spitfire was capable of,
were of not much practical combat use against 109/190s..
-
but as long as they were nailing a Nazi turbo-jet or long-nose or something, I guess it could be over-looked.
Spitfires of the LF.Mk IX, Mk XIV and Mk XVI varieties also bagged those things.
-
Spitfires of the LF.Mk IX, Mk XIV and Mk XVI varieties also bagged those things.
Even Typhoons did, but alas not P-38s (Nazi turbo-jets)..
& Tempests did bag the full set, inc He 162, & Ta 152, don't think any other allied plane did..
-
Even Typhoons did, but alas not P-38s (Nazi turbo-jets)..
& Tempests did bag the full set, inc He 162, & Ta 152, don't think any other allied plane did..
How many 162s were bagged though? One? Two? Can't recall off hand.
Tempest missed out on the Do335. Saw one at least. Well, at least if Closterman is to be believed.
-
Even Typhoons did, but alas not P-38s (Nazi turbo-jets)..
& Tempests did bag the full set, inc He 162, & Ta 152, don't think any other allied plane did..
As I pointed out in another thread, a P-38 pilot from the 479th FG shot down a Me 163, which was faster than a Me 262 and the P-38 exceeded 500mph in the dive to make the kill. The P-38 pilot safely pulled out of the dive (without the aid of dive flaps, he was in an early P-38J-15) as he was able to avoid going into compressibility when he started his dive at high altitude.
ack-ack
Oh the irony,
Since A.A. resorts to spurious references as ad-hominem substitute for non-knowledge & absence of facts..
Everything I've posted on the Lightning can be backed up by the historical record and other data, however, none of your straw man arguments can.
ack-ack
-
& as I pointed out in reply A.A., that P-38 ASI must have out-of-whack,
since the P-38 was beyond control at those speeds.. ..or it is propaganda/B.S..
Was there any gun-camera footage?
Care to post the combat report?
& ,
So - he bagged a glider, ( un-powered Me 163) good effort.. is that it?
As to your failure to understand what 'strawman' actually means, that too is ironic..
-
m.m., that P-38 Vne is 'bout ~100mph slower than the Tempest's & too slow to effectively counter 109/190s too,
That is one of the reasons the 8th AF dumped it..
& making up ex-postfacto qualifying nonsense about front-line or not - as a face-saver, is just sad - I.M.O...
So a Tempest could do ~540mph in level flight. :eek:
What is sad is someone who continually gets vacations on BBS's. :D
-
Back to the studies m.m., & look up the difference between Vmax & Vne..
The P-38 never made 440mph in level flight according to USAAF official testing..
& kindly cease the provocation, or I will report every example of it to Skuzzy..
-
Knak, here is a USAAF P-51 encounter with He 162 report , too bad it didn't have 4 Hisso cannon, might've got 'im..
http://www.spitfirevsbf109.com/files/He162encounteredinCombat.pdf
-
Knak, here is a USAAF P-51 encounter with He 162 report , too bad it didn't have 4 Hisso cannon, might've got 'im..
http://www.spitfirevsbf109.com/files/He162encounteredinCombat.pdf
Or any cannons. One Wing Commander who hadn't flown much since the Battle of Britain nailed a Bf109's wing from a 60-90 degree deflection and was very surprised to see his Spitfire's rounds simply blow the wing off. He was used to the .303s.
-
See Rule #4
-
Sad thing about that link JAW gives, the P51 pilot reported in debriefing, his manifold pressure was 72 inches, not 67 inches like both our ponies.
-
Exactly..
& @ T-A, I'm yet to find a single Typhoon/Tempest pilot who wanted to reduce his cannon count..
(Tempests in the 2nd TAF were toting the fast-firing H-S Mk V cannon too, does the A-H Tempest?)
You surely must've heard the old adage.. "Nothing kills - like over-kill.."
-
P-51s and P-47s did quite well only using .5" guns making ~10,000 claims in Europe vs ~500 claims for the Typhoon/Tempest.
The highest claiming Allied a/c, the F6F had .5" guns.
-
More research required m.m., the USN were unsatisfied with mere M.G.s,
& rated one Hisso as worth 3 .50cals, further they had started to fit them to late-war Hellcats too..
What did that C designation in F4U-1C indicate again m.m.?
F6F 'highest claiming Allied a/c '? You mean it wasn't the B-17..
Yeah right, tell that to the RAF..
-
In the Pacfic jaw where the Spitfire was owned the A6M.
-
In the Pacfic jaw where the Spitfire was owned the A6M.
That was only in the initial fights between them, just as the A6M did so to the P-40 and F4F and anything else it encountered when those pilots didn't know how to exploit its weaknesses. Once the Spits knew not to turn with the A6M they handled it just fine.
-
Exactly..
& @ T-A, I'm yet to find a single Typhoon/Tempest pilot who wanted to reduce his cannon count..
(Tempests in the 2nd TAF were toting the fast-firing H-S Mk V cannon too, does the A-H Tempest?)
You surely must've heard the old adage.. "Nothing kills - like over-kill.."
Well, when a Typhoon pilot comes anywhere close to breaking even the 75 kill mark, let me know. Even then, it will be less than 1/4th what Hartmann managed.
-
Yes, Tempest in AH has the Hispano Mk Vs.
Well, when a Typhoon pilot comes anywhere close to breaking even the 75 kill mark, let me know. Even then, it will be less than 1/4th what Hartmann managed.
Comparing aces as a means of comparing fighter capabilities is stupid. The opportunity simply wasn't there for Allied fighter pilots to score as many kills and you know it.
You know as well as I do that if you magically switched the UK and Germany or the US and Germany there would have been Spitfire pilots with hundreds of kills in the first case and P-51, or some other American fighter, pilots with hundreds of kills in the second case.
-
Indeed, the Americans simply didn't send their pilots out for enough missions for anyone to rank up hundreds of kills. Bob Johnson had 25 kills in 28 sorties, IIRC. If Hartmann had killed at anywhere near that rate, he would have had over 1000 kills.
Now if everyone here would delete all the posts that have nothing to do with Fw-190 A5 speed performance, that would be great.... :mad:
-
The maximum speed is limited by the supercharger at full pressure height. An increase in allowed boost would only affect speed below FPH. The 190A-5 had increased boost at WEP later in the war, but I guess HTC models an early A-5. AH's A-5 matches the performance at ~1.35 ATA boost.
I can't get on the game right now...does the gauge in the 190A5 cockpit only go up to 1.35 ATA on WEP?
-
I don't know. I do not have AH installed at the moment. Regardless of what the instrument says the A-5's performance matches the documented performance at ~1.35 ata.
-
This chart for the 190-A5 operating at 1.42 ATA
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a5-level.jpg)
And this is the chart for the 190-A5 in AHII
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=9&p2=23&pw=1>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
These two appear to be in agreement, except below 5K.
-
I don't know. I do not have AH installed at the moment. Regardless of what the instrument says the A-5's performance matches the documented performance at ~1.35 ata.
I *THINK* it goes up to 1.42, but I wouldn't swear to it. In any case, *most* of the AHII chart seems to be depicting performance consistent with the posted chart for 1.42 ATA, which is odd wouldn't you say?
-
Here is the original document...
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/190a5-level-20-10-43.jpg)
At 1.42 ATA it shows 568 kph at sea level and 655-680 kph at best altitude. That's 352 mph at sea level and 407-422 mph at best altitude. We seem to have some sort of hybrid performance...
-
Yes, Tempest in AH has the Hispano Mk Vs.
Comparing aces as a means of comparing fighter capabilities is stupid. The opportunity simply wasn't there for Allied fighter pilots to score as many kills and you know it.
You know as well as I do that if you magically switched the UK and Germany or the US and Germany there would have been Spitfire pilots with hundreds of kills in the first case and P-51, or some other American fighter, pilots with hundreds of kills in the second case.
You miss my point; the single cannon of the 109 or the two cannons on the 190 were obviously not a large enough detriment to affect the lethality of the fighters in combat. Despite not having the 4 cannons that JAW seems to hold as sacrosanct, they were still VERY dangerous aircraft.
-
Here is the original document...
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/190a5-level-20-10-43.jpg)
We seem to have some sort of hybrid performance...
Well, I think the LW MA could use the best-performing 190A possible...cause...it is a cool iconic plane and all, wouldn't be uber, just competitive. The EW arena can get the A-4 or something...more models kind of like what was done with the P-40s. I mean, look how many variations on the theme of P-47 we have right now, including the M. There have been no changes to the 190 lineup since the F8 arrived, how long ago?
-
You miss my point; the single cannon of the 109 or the two cannons on the 190 were obviously not a large enough detriment to affect the lethality of the fighters in combat. Despite not having the 4 cannons that JAW seems to hold as sacrosanct, they were still VERY dangerous aircraft.
Yes, as I pointed out to him earlier when he was touting his simplistic "more is better" argument for the Typhoon's guns. Against single engined fighters the Fw190's or Spitfire's two 20mm cannons are more than adequate.
Well, I think the LW MA could use the best-performing 190A possible...cause...it is a cool iconic plane and all, wouldn't be uber, just competitive. The EW arena can get the A-4 or something...more models kind of like what was done with the P-40s. I mean, look how many variations on the theme of P-47 we have right now, including the M. There have been no changes to the 190 lineup since the F8 arrived, how long ago?
Would the best way to do that be to get a 1.42ata A-5 or would an A-6 or A-9 be better? Certainly an A-2 or A-4 would be nice for earlier stuff.
-
Sorry, must have missed that; was on my phone, which currently needs a new screen.
-
Yes, as I pointed out to him earlier when he was touting his simplistic "more is better" argument for the Typhoon's guns. Against single engined fighters the Fw190's or Spitfire's two 20mm cannons are more than adequate.
Would the best way to do that be to get a 1.42ata A-5 or would an A-6 or A-9 be better? Certainly an A-2 or A-4 would be nice for earlier stuff.
Or all of the above :-)
-
The best-performing MW 190 would be the 1.57 ata 190A-5.
EW would be the A-3, from what I can tell.
Best PERFORMING 190, in terms of pure engine performance, and not overall combat ability would be the A-9.
So we could add the A-3, change the A-5 to either a 1.42 or a 1.57 version (still not sure if the 1.57 ata was exclusive to JABO units), update the A-8 so it doesn't suck, and add the A-9.
-
It isn't always the goal to get the best performing version of an aircraft. Most representative is generally the best target. It is nice when the most representative is also the best though.
So, looking at it from that perspective, what is the most representative way to get Fw190s covered?
-
A-3, two A-5's (1.37 and 1.42 version, since IIRC, the change was universal and somewhere within shouting distance of midway through the production run), A-6, update the A-8 make it represent a standard late model instead of a bomber hunter, add the A-9.
At least if we want to do full coverage.
We could get by with an A-3, a 1.42 ata 190A-5, and two A-8's (split into early and late production models).
-
I've never seen HTC do two versions of a single, diverse airframe. Look at the Spitfire Mk V, Spitfire Mk IX and Bf109G-6 as examples of aircraft that could be divided like that, but aren't. Anything that includes two A-5s or two A-8s I think is DOA as an option.
-
I wonder why they don't?
-
This chart for the 190-A5 operating at 1.42 ATA
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a5-level.jpg)
And this is the chart for the 190-A5 in AHII
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/components/com_ahplaneperf/genchart.php?p1=9&p2=23&pw=1>ype=0&gui=localhost&itemsel=GameData)
These two appear to be in agreement, except below 5K.
Hi BnZs:
Have a look at the following report which appears to be a good match with your AH chart:
PERFORMANCE AND HANDLING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FW-190 AIRPLANE AAF NO. EB-104 (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/eb-104.html)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/eb104-fig2.jpg)
-
... I mean, look how many variations on the theme of P-47 we have right now, including the M. There have been no changes to the 190 lineup since the F8 arrived, how long ago?
I count 5 versions of the P-47 and 5 versions of the 190 (TA152 included). Also, we are missing the most representative P-47s that handled most of the air combat - razorbacks equipped with paddle blade props. All razorbacks were retrofitted with that prop and our D11 and even earlier models did most of their career equipped with it. Our D-11 can be downgraded to an earlier model, perhaps even lose its WEP, and make room for a late razorback with all the bells and whistles. D-23 would be the ultimate razorback with a paddle blade, aux fuel tank, and wing mount points for DT/bombs. An earlier D with a paddle blade prop and no wing shackles would be the best performing D and best Jug overall on MIL power.
The D25 and D40 are somewhat redundant through the D25 has cooler paint schemes and a nicer cockpit. The most significant performance difference is the lack of HVAR rockets on the D25 that makes it a little less of a bomb truck than the D40 (for MA use).
That does not mean that there is no room for another radial 190.
-
I wonder why they don't?
I think to make it easier on the non-grognards to understand what is what.
Spitfire Mk VIII
Spitfire Mk IX
Spitfire Mk XVI
and
Bf109G-6
Bf109G-14
vs
Spitfire F.Mk IX
Spitfire LF.Mk IX
Spitfire LF.Mk IXe
and
Bf109G-6
Bf109G-6/AS
The first makes the progression seemingly a bit clearer. It isn't because of other things, but at least a Spit IX is a Spit IX is a Spit IX.
-
I count 5 versions of the P-47 and 5 versions of the 190 (TA152 included). Also, we are missing the most representative P-47s that handled most of the air combat - razorbacks equipped with paddle blade props. All razorbacks were retrofitted with that prop and our D11 and even earlier models did most of their career equipped with it. Our D-11 can be downgraded to an earlier model, perhaps even lose its WEP, and make room for a late razorback with all the bells and whistles. D-23 would be the ultimate razorback with a paddle blade, aux fuel tank, and wing mount points for DT/bombs. An earlier D with a paddle blade prop and no wing shackles would be the best performing D and best Jug overall on MIL power.
The D25 and D40 are somewhat redundant through the D25 has cooler paint schemes and a nicer cockpit. The most significant performance difference is the lack of HVAR rockets on the D25 that makes it a little less of a bomb truck than the D40 (for MA use).
That does not mean that there is no room for another radial 190.
bozon,
P-47s are currently the most represented aircraft in the game as far as density vs service time goes. While there are more Bf109s and Spitfires and as many Fw190s, those models have to cover a significantly greater span of time.
-
Captured airframe. Tend to think the aggregate of the original tests for the 190A5 are more accurate.
Hi BnZs:
Have a look at the following report which appears to be a good match with your AH chart:
PERFORMANCE AND HANDLING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FW-190 AIRPLANE AAF NO. EB-104 (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/eb-104.html)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/eb104-fig2.jpg)
-
The best-performing MW 190 would be the 1.57 ata 190A-5.
Performance for the A-5 matching 1.42 ATA charts would be enough.
-
Yes, as I pointed out to him earlier when he was touting his simplistic "more is better" argument for the Typhoon's guns. Against single engined fighters the Fw190's or Spitfire's two 20mm cannons are more than adequate.
Would the best way to do that be to get a 1.42ata A-5 or would an A-6 or A-9 be better? Certainly an A-2 or A-4 would be nice for earlier stuff.
If you are suggesting that less is better cannon-wise Knak, that might apply to a lightweight like a Spit or 109,
for fighter vs fighter A2A, or for 190 JABOs for ordnance reasons - but def' not to Typhoon/Tempest/Beaufighter/Mosquito
& any suggestion to that effect in the actual combat setting would have been described as ludicrous..
I recall reading in Johnny Johnson's memoir about the relative fear of impact of the light 109 armament vs the 4 cannon,
190 fit-out, & when Spitfires finally got beefy enough, in the 20 series, they too standardised on the 4 cannon that the Hawker fighters had toted since 1940..
-
Hi BnZs:
Have a look at the following report which appears to be a good match with your AH chart:
PERFORMANCE AND HANDLING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FW-190 AIRPLANE AAF NO. EB-104 (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/eb-104.html)
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/eb104-fig2.jpg)
It would be a travesty if they modeled the A-5 on the performance of a G-3...
-
Well - it was in the 'ball-park'..
-
If you are suggesting that less is better cannon-wise Knak, that might apply to a lightweight like a Spit or 109,
for fighter vs fighter A2A, or for 190 JABOs for ordnance reasons - but def' not to Typhoon/Tempest/Beaufighter/Mosquito
& any suggestion to that effect in the actual combat setting would have been described as ludicrous..
I recall reading in Johnny Johnson's memoir about the relative fear of impact of the light 109 armament vs the 4 cannon,
190 fit-out, & when Spitfires finally got beefy enough, in the 20 series, they too standardised on the 4 cannon that the Hawker fighters had toted since 1940..
Okay, so for a fighter that intends to do any real fighting, fewer cannons is better. Glad we established that.
-
Not if its a real fighter, that can easily tote 4 cannon - & not a puny sport-plane
-
If you are suggesting that less is better cannon-wise Knak, that might apply to a lightweight like a Spit or 109,
for fighter vs fighter A2A, or for 190 JABOs for ordnance reasons - but def' not to Typhoon/Tempest/Beaufighter/Mosquito
& any suggestion to that effect in the actual combat setting would have been described as ludicrous..
When shooting down single engined fighters once you have effective firepower to do it additional firepower isn't as useful as reduced weight. Obviously this is more relevant to a light fighter, but the Typhoon isn't heavy enough to fall into the Mosquito's category. The Typhoon would gain more lethality against Fw190s by losing the weight of two Hispano Mk IIs and their related installation/support weight than it does from the extra firepower.
I recall an American fighter pilot's comment about the eight .50s in the P-47 as compared to the four in the P-51B that went something like:
"If you aren't going to hit with four guns you aren't going to hit with eight either."
That is what it comes down to. If you hit with the Spitfire's two guns the Fw190 is toast and it won't be more toast if you hit it with four. Toast is toast.
I suspect you are underestimating how much damage 20mm cannons do.
-
Karnak, he's underestimating what a couple of .50's can do.
Especially in real life, where pilots wouldn't try to coax a severely damaged plane back to base, and would instead bail.
-
When shooting down single engined fighters once you have effective firepower to do it additional firepower isn't as useful as reduced weight. Obviously this is more relevant to a light fighter, but the Typhoon isn't heavy enough to fall into the Mosquito's category. The Typhoon would gain more lethality against Fw190s by losing the weight of two Hispano Mk IIs and their related installation/support weight than it does from the extra firepower.
I recall an American fighter pilot's comment about the eight .50s in the P-47 as compared to the four in the P-51B that went something like:
"If you aren't going to hit with four guns you aren't going to hit with eight either."
That is what it comes down to. If you hit with the Spitfire's two guns the Fw190 is toast and it won't be more toast if you hit it with four. Toast is toast.
I suspect you are underestimating how much damage 20mm cannons do.
What you apparently fail to realize with such 'simplistic' ideas is that if you have a fleeting-split second target shot,
then 4 cannon are gonna do much more effective damage in that time-frame than any lesser armament.
Why do you imagine the RAF standardised on 4 cannon, even for the lightweight Vampire..
-
Because jet engines are better able to handle the weight of cannons. Duh.
If cannons are so necessary, why is it that the F-86 Saber still used .50 caliber machine guns, and is still regarded as one of the best fighters of that era?
-
Yeah, that is a classic example, the USAF realized they'd made a big mistake there..
Since - when it came to combat in Korea, they had to belatedly go through a cannon program for the F-86..
Mind you - the USN had gone to 4 cannons in time for that conflict..
-
Think of what the Vampire's intended/expected target was and the target we are talking about here.
We are not talking about stopping inbound bombers. Were talking about fighter vs fighter combat.
-
Think of what the Vampire's intended/expected target was and the target we are talking about here.
We are not talking about stopping inbound bombers. Were talking about fighter vs fighter combat.
RAF fighters were expected to deal with all targets as expeditiously as possible, that's why 4 cannon
were the standard fit for all new designs from 1940..
-
If cannons are so necessary, why is it that the F-86 Saber still used .50 caliber machine guns, and is still regarded as one of the best fighters of that era?
When the Sabre was being developed, North American decided that the higher rate of fire from the machine guns was preferable over the slower rate of fire of 20mm cannons. During the Korean War, many DPRK and ChiCom pilots reported having difficulty hitting Sabres because of the slower rate of fire of the 23mm cannon on the MiG 15, while a lot of Sabre pilots complained that their machine guns only inflicted light damage and allowing bandits to escape north of the Yalu.
Because of Sabre pilot complaints, the USAAF modified a few F-86s with M39 20mm cannons (F-86F-2) and another batch with 20mm Oerlikon cannons (F-86F-3) and tested them in the Korean War (Project Gun Val). During Project Gun Val, it was found if the modified Sabres fired all four cannons at the same time, the exhaust gases sometimes caused compressor stalls in the engine and the turbojet flamed out. Modifications were further made to only allow one pair to fire at a time to prevent flaming out the engine. Project Gun Val lasted for 16 weeks and in that time the cannon Sabres were credited with six confirmed MiG-15 kills and 3 probables (supposedly all honcho pilots but no records to confirm). The results of the test eventually led to the F-86H being equipped with 20mm cannons.
ack-ack
-
Huh... Learn something new every day.
-
The Australian built Sabre-jets got R-R Avon power & 30mm Aden cannon..