Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Duedel on July 24, 2002, 07:17:59 AM
-
Many sources state that the 190 was superior to the 109 (example http://frhewww.physik.uni-freiburg.de/~jaensch/109/s109g.htm (http://frhewww.physik.uni-freiburg.de/~jaensch/109/s109g.htm)).
I'm asking me why?
Let's compare the 109G2 and the 190A5. I fly both of them very often in the MA and have to say that in a 1 vs 1 dogfight the 109G2 is the better one or gives ME a better feeling.
It accelerates, climbes (even with gondolas) and holds its E better than the 190.
OTOH the 190 rolls better and has a better high speed handling (great for B&Z).
So historically seen why does so many german pilots say, that the 109 is inferior to the 190?
-
as a simmer, the 190s guns are alot better.
from my reading, the 190 had a much roomier cockpit and better visibility, wide track landing gear, (the 109 was always an adventure to land), more rugged construction, accelerated quickly in a dive.
-
190 is gay and the 109 is for popsicle pilots (private joke for DD ;))
190 is superior in handling to the 109 has a cockpit more spacious and "user" friendly there is less work charge for the pilot (with commando gerrat (spelling ?))
But for a vet the advantage in climb/acceleration of the 109 are more useable in a knife fight than the roll rate of the 190 that make the 109 more survivable for me :)
-
the keywords are : 1 vs 1 and many vs many
In 1 vs 1, 190 is hopeless, while 109 excels.
In many vs many 190 rules, while 109 loses it.
-
>In many vs many 190 rules, while 109 loses it.
Not wo offend u Hristo but that's only a sentence without proof. Why does the 190 rules in many vs many?
-
so not the way I fly 190's I can make them suck in all areas of flight :D
When i started AH, I started with yaks, went on to 109's. G-10 first then the mighty and f-4 when I got better, then I tried to move into the 190's. First flight in one I got 4 kills i think, but since that very successful first flight I have sucked in them. I've read all the how to fly 190 posts but I suppose they just dont suit my way of thinking.
I do like to take a 152 into outer space and annoy space core buff pilots though :D
-
There are many reasons why the FockeWulf 190s were considered superior to the Bf109s.
For one thing, the Fw190, when it was introduced, was an ultra-modern fighter with about every sort of latest technology in aerodynamics, electronical systems and etc etc implemented. I believe the Fw190 was actually the only fighter that had the "Kommandogerat"(a primitive computer which was incorporated for automatic adjustment of fuel mixture, propeller pitch, and supercharger shifting all in one touch of the throttle lever) style of automatic controls during the time of its introduction. The Americans admitted the innovative usefulness of this technology and commented: "The 'Kommandogerat' or 'master control' units functioned well throughout testing and point up the need for further American development along the automatic control idea." When you look at the layouts of the cockpit, you will notice it has an amazingly "modern touch" when compared to the Bf109, which feels "vintage".
Another thing was, the flight characteristics were simple and easy to understand. Though it was prone to "snap roll" type of stalls, overall it was much easier to fly and control than the Bf109. Also, the control authority was excellent when in high speed maneuvering. There was no "signature quirks" - certain characteristic problems only that type of aircraft has.. for example, the P-51s being unstable with full fuel load, the 109s needing constant rudder input and etc.. - the 190 was as clear as it gets in flight.
The structural integrity was excellent, too. It was a tough and rigid fighter compared to the Bf109s which were usually considered 'fragile'. The landing gears were wide and sturdy. The engines were air-cooled radials and could sustain more damage than liquid-cooled engines on the 109s.
The fire power was about the most powerful amongst fighters when it was introduced. Formiddable armament of four 20mm cannons in the models after the A-1.
It also boasted incredible rate of roll, perhaps the best among all WWII fighters. Only a handfull few could outroll the 190s, and even that was limited to certain conditions(such as extreme high speeds. The boosted ailerons on the P-38 gives a better roll rate than the Fw190s in those speeds).
The only major weakness was that the low-speed maneuverability was severely lacking when compared to even Bf109s, much less a Spitfire. The overall turn rates were poor.
Also, after the introduction of Merlin-engined Spitfires in 1942, the Fw190s were hard pressed in most situations and the condition changed to "at least equal", which was previously "totally superior" when there were SpitVs around.
Compared to the Bf109, the climbing rates were generally inferior throughout most of the series, and it also lacked high alt performance and climb rates fell harshly once over 20000 feet.
....
The 109s are not really "BnZ" type of fighters. Its high speed performance and armament is severely limited for pure BnZ attacks. However, the 109s generally had excellent maneuverability and responded quickly to the pilots wishes. Also the acceleration was marvelous and the great climb rates enabled a pilot to climb away, when other fighters would dive and run. Therefore, the Bf109s have their own "hybrid" style of "semi-BnZ".
Generally, the 109 would dive in with alt advantage and speed in BnZ fashion, then when the enemy maneuvers away, it would track him down instead of going straight up like a P-51. It would tackle the enemy utilizing the built up speed advantage in various maneuvers in a turn fight, and when the advantage in speed and alt is about to dry up, it would disengage and climb away.
This sort of fighting capability greatly appealed to experienced pilots - delicate and dynamic. Compared with this, the tactics for the Fw190 was pretty 'straight-forward' and 'stale'. The 190 would excell in simple BnZ attacks, but it would not be able to engage the enemy in a dynamic manner the 109s can. Thus, experienced pilots were known to prefer the 109 over the new 190s.
....
In here, where we manage the throttle with a button and fly all day with maximum prop pitch and fuel mixture, the advantages of the technical marvel "kommandogerat" system does not shine out over all those planes which had manual control systems.
Flight characteristics of planes are always simple since many people fly with Combat Trim anyway. Landings are super easy, nobody crashes their 109 gears when they touch down at 190mph.
Firepower and durability? Couple of hispanos can damage things just as much as 4x20mms, and that couple can also knock of 190s in a quick slash - the way damage model is done, it neuters the advantages in 'rigidness' there.
Roll rates? Probably the best in AH, but the roll rates are neutralized too - connection and lag issues.
In conclusion, in AH, many of the delicate aspects which compelled people to think so high of the 190s are not modelled.
-
Kweassa and thank u very much for this great explanaition!!!
-
Many vs many:
In 190 you can stay fast and look for target of opportunity. You have great high speed maneuverability (unlike 109) and enough firepower (unlike 109) to capitalize on even briefest of snapshots.
You have the luxury of making kills and staying fast, something very important in many vs many. In 109, you have to get your hands dirty - you have to slow down and follow for few maneuvers. This leaves you open for other enemies.
This has been tested by 9./JG54 here in AH and it proved. I particularly remember 2 vs 2 with Fw 190A-8s vs Bf 109G-2s of renowned 109 AH squad. 190s kept the initiative, always attacking. 109s were going into defensive turns. Even when 109 got behind 190, all 190 had to do was to dive away and drag for his wingman.
General characteristics like firepower, durability, cockpit visibility, range, dive and deck speed also favor 190. Turning in a crowded arena is a no-no.
-
The 190 may be superior to the 109 on paper. Perhaps you guys should read some material by German WW2 pilots on the performance of the 109 and the 190. I recall reading that many German pilots (hartmann, galland, et al) regarded the 109 as being superior to the 190 b/c they could fly it at the razor's edge of the flight envelope...apparently, to these pilots, the 190 was not as 'predictable.'
-
Hristo has got it right.
Also don't forget that the ground handling of the 109 killed a lot of pilots. Fw 190 was much more stable in takeoff/landing/taxi, especially on rough fields.
-
109 and 190 are very different, just as Spit and Jug are. They are all good planes, but made to fly differently. Put different skill levels and styles factor in and you have a mess ;).
When I flew 109, my worst opponent was the Spitfire. I believe I had poorest record against it. I never had a problem vs P51s or F4Us.
When I moved to 190, Spits became no problem. However, P51s and F4Us became a threat now.
If I was to stay and fight in a LW plane, I'd pick 109. It would allow me to stay above enemy all day and stick to close BnZ. The margin of error is small though. Roping someone isn't all that easy anymore, since I have seen quite a lot of clever Spit types lately.
If I was to fly laid back and look for someone to bounce on, I'd pick 190. One or two passes and go away, someone else might come by. If there is a low furball, I'd bust thru it and pad my score (almost impossible in 109, you have to slow down and mix it up). If I was on a vulch sortie, it is 190 again. Same for buff hunting.
P.S.
Personal best was about 90:5 in 109G-10 and about 220:16 in Fw 190A-8. If I had a Dora, it would be even better.
-
I think that in a game alot of factors are negated so some planes with phenominal performance in certain attributes gain an advatage here and there where others loose some of their advatages naturally. I honestly believe that in real life the 190s would be much more potent than they are now. Also mastering the roll axis to a very fine degree along with managing the pitch and yaw is very difficult to do visually without using your inner ear to help which you cant to on a computer, at least to a fine degree. I very seldomly see a 190 flown to its potential including myself in a dogfight. Too much room for mistake where other planes the allow too much room for a mistake because they are phenominal in another area of axis. The roll axis is not a "steady state" axis but rather a preemptive axis so fine judgment is required as it sets your options up where as the pitch axis is a "steady state" axis. Pull your way through and judge as you go along the move is what I mean. If done right though the roll axis would be the ultimate killer. Quick, difficult for an enemy to infer what your up to and sets up your options in advance while hiding them as well. I think in real flying the roll axis is better incorporated into a pilots head wheras in a game its more difficult to coordinate with the other two planes all at once.
-
In AH I consider all the 190s to be superior at killing, but the 109s are better for actually fighting.
-
Let's look at it my way:
Me109s:
* Too little firepower w/o gondola cannons
* Can't maneuver worth a damn w/ gondola cannons
Conclusion: Damned if you do, damned if you don't
FW190s:
* Excellent firepower in form of two 13MM MGs with 4 20MM cannons mounted in wings, or 2 30MM cannons and 2 20MM cannons in wings
* Wing cannons have very little effect on maneuverability
Conclusion: Buffs beware, fighters shoot fast and shoot first
-
You make valid points Admrose... but if a 109 and a 190 get in a fight, the 109 will win 90% of the time, regardless of how 'little' firepower it has.
Part of firepower is being able to put those guns on the target.
That said, the 190 is a pretty potent energy fighter, but energy fighting is a lot tougher to do than angles fighting.
-
The Fw 190D-9 has 8579 kills and has been killed 5349 times. 1.60 kills per death.
The Bf 109G-10 has 9808 kills and has been killed 7723 times. 1.27 kills per death.
'Nuff said.
-
Not really.
urchin has 31 kills and has been killed 2 times in the Bf 109F-4.
K/D of 15.5.
urchin has 16 kills and has been killed 4 times in the Fw 190D-9.
K/D of 4.0.
Does that mean the 109F4 is 4 times more effective than the 190D9 is?
-
That the AH Bf109er is usually superior to the AH FW190 has a couple of reasons, that are computer simulation related.
In WW2 the FW190 had the following advantages over the Bf109 that don't come into play with AH.
1. Low stick forces. In AH you won't get worne out from throwing your 109 around in wild turns and rolls, in WW2 you got it. And cause the FW190 had lower stickforces it was easier to fly, especially at high speeds.
2. FW190 needs no trimming. The FW190 was known for it's lack of trim changes. If the fixed trim tabs (on aileron+ruder) were correctly positioned the plane flew wihout any retriming in all circumstances. The Bf109 on the other hand needed a lot of triming, and cause it also had fixed trim tabs on aileron+rudders, it needed constant stickpressure to stay trimed.
3. Ease of landing and sturdy undercarriage. The FW190 was easy to land an taxi on the ground.
Points 1.-3. can also be sumed up as ease of handling. As many german pilots say, the FW190 were a pure joy to fly, the plane was stable and follows the control inputs at once.
4. View. FW190 has an exellent all around view. And in wild multiple plane melees it is a great advantage if you have a better overview.
5. Ease of maintance. The FW190 fuselage layout made it very easy to access all parts of the plane. Therefor maintance was simplified.
6. Much sturdier. Compared to the Bf109 the FW190 could really take bad punishment and could withstand much higher G-Loads than the Bf109 airframe.
7. Multirole weapons sets called Rüstsätze that let the FW190 fullfil a wide varity of combat roles.
The most important points are 1.-3. They are somewhat offset in AH, cause if you use the standard stick settings the FW190 in AH is one of the nastiest planes to fly. Also the Bf109 can use combat trim and full three axis trim, negating the rudder inputs needed in WW2 to hold it on course in dives and climbs.
Also you won't get tired from the high stick forces a 109er needs compared to a FW190, and so you can yank on the stick forever and keep pulling those bonebreaking forces.
Edit: And about turning circles there a still many sources that state that the FW190D turned tighter than both the FW190A(guess late series A7-A9) and Bf109G&K. Also the later G&K Series 109ers must have had real bad handling. The Bf109er was far beyond its development peek. G10-K14 were just Bf109er that got faster and heavier armed, increasing weight and trim problems due to the torque of high power engines.
The Bf109F4 was a real great fighter, but from the G6 on every new Bf109 version had more and more penalties to handling and turning.
And why still many german Aces stuck to their trusty 109er? It's easy, longtime experience.
It's as with every exellent pilot. He considers his personal ride the best, but what most of them forget is that their skill made em survive (in combination with a good portion of luck) not the plane they flew.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
The Fw 190D-9 has 8579 kills and has been killed 5349 times. 1.60 kills per death.
The Bf 109G-10 has 9808 kills and has been killed 7723 times. 1.27 kills per death.
'Nuff said.
This sums it up. The numbers are big enough that any pilot skill factor or coincidence can be left out.
If you had a duel among those two, G-10 would beat the hell out of D-9 every time. But these are arena stats and show which plane is better suited for arena.
-
If you had a duel among those two, G-10 would beat the hell out of D-9 every time.
Ahh, but the stats board lets you select model vs. model...
Tour 30:
Bf 109G-10 has 179 Kills of Fw 190D-9
Fw 190D-9 has 218 Kills of Bf 109G-10
But, and here is the rub, you can't draw any conclusions from this at this or any other number. The arenas are not controlled tests where we know enough about the conditions under which these encouters occured to draw any useful info from the stats.
For me, it is easier to get kills in a FW190A-8 (I'm not very good but am 22 and 10 this tour in the A-8 so far) than in the Bf109G-10. The 190A-8 has a simple set of rules I can fly and live by:
1) Don't furball.
2) "Extend" if you run into something higher.
3) Pick your target and stay with that one target.
4) Lead turns and snap shots are your friend.
5) A good speed to engage is 400+!
6) Use the 190's roll to turn with the target until you drop to 300. If you don't have the shot by then go to a gentle left turn and climb.
7) Try to keep enough altitude that a snap roll to inverted and then an inverted 1/2 loop will get some distance between you and the inevitable P-51 or LA-7.
8) When to enter the fight, you should already be pointing in the direction you will "extend" to.
The 109 has troubles with 4, 6 and 7 which, since my ACM is very poor, makes its enhanced ability to do 1 moot.
My $.02 worth.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Not really.
urchin has 31 kills and has been killed 2 times in the Bf 109F-4.
K/D of 15.5.
urchin has 16 kills and has been killed 4 times in the Fw 190D-9.
K/D of 4.0.
Does that mean the 109F4 is 4 times more effective than the 190D9 is?
Likewise:
widewing has 67 kills and has been killed 3 times in the Bf 109G-10.
K/D of 22.33/1
widewing has 34 kills and has been killed 3 times in the Fw 190D-9.
K/D of 11.33/1
Does this mean that 109G-10 is twice as effective as the Dora? No, in my case it means that I attack ground targets more with the Dora than the G-10. Hence, more losses per kill.
Either is an excellent platform, but I give the edge to the 109G-10 simply because of its superior climb rate. I can get to altitude faster, meaning I seldom find myself with the enemy above me. Also, that climb rate allows me to disengage by hitting alt X and the WEP button on my throttle. While an La-7 can run down a Dora, it cannot run down the G-10, because I can climb away with relative ease. Once I have enough altitude, its a simple task to make the Lavochkin driver sweat a river.
If I had to select an all-around fighter, it would be the F4U-4 or P-51D (leaning towards the Mustang, 'cause it's free).
widewing has 45 kills and has been killed 5 times in the P-51D.
K/D of 9.0/1, three of those losses to ground fire (some proxy awards to aircraft).
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by HFMudd
Ahh, but the stats board lets you select model vs. model...
Tour 30:
Bf 109G-10 has 179 Kills of Fw 190D-9
Fw 190D-9 has 218 Kills of Bf 109G-10
Duel, I said duel.
Duel is something what starts from same E state and there is no option to disengage. G-10 would win a duel vs D-9.
What you came up with are arena stats. Arena has very little dueling.
-
How about we have an unofficial match in the H2H, 3v3 or 4v4 maybe? I'll take up a 190D-9 and whip anyone's prettythang (Not really, but I do average about 4.5 K/Sortie, which is in the H2H where you mostly fight perk aircraft, cause they free in here)
-
You may beat anyone in a D9 vs 109 duel, but the idea is after enough duels of KevinD9 vs KevinG10 there will be more G10 wins then D9, this assuming you fly both to the max of their performance. The G10 is a better 1Vs1 plane then the Dora.
-
Energy fighting more difficult that angles fighting?
I don't think so.
-
Oh, I do.
-
I think you need to factor in a few factors in which plane is "better".
1st this is a sim, I'm sure HT does everything he can to maximize realism in the FE...but we're comparing our FM's not the real planes.
2nd, who we fight. In real life the main opponent was the spit 1 and 5. Here we fight many different plane sets. In real life the 190 series was a brutal shock for the allies. Both the spit 1 and 5 were markedly inferior to the matching 190 releases. The only advantage the spit had historically was in pure "flat turning" ability. This was of little use in the real enviornment of WW2.
3rd Tactics Here we fly in a number of ways for a number of styles. In WW2 the germans flew a consistant "hit and run" style of combat. They fought on their terms and at the time of their choosing. The 190 excelled in this enviornment, it also minimized any real utilization of the spits best features.
4 Pilot quality here we have a variety of "quality" but overall it's much higher than in real life ww2. At that time the germans had both the best pilots and best fighting doctrine in the world for air combat.
All in all, the 190 was the plane of choice for all but a few of the top scorers during 1942-43. It simply wasn't available in large enough numbers during that time. As the war progressed the increasing bomber pressure forced the 190 to evolve into a bomber interceptor (A8)...only later was the D9 introduced. Truth is the 109 was (and is) a pure squeak to fly. The pilot who filmed the air sequences in saving private ryan died in spain landing a 109 in perfect weather. Hundreds of pilots died landing the 109 in ww2 (almost 10% of all combat losses were takeoff/landind related) mostly 109's (early 190 did tend to catch on fire during takeoff).
-
there's simply no way of measuring "best" of two planes unless one totaly outclasses the other in every way.
the 190 was feared by the allied because fights in WWII were no epic battles of skill and fancy ACM. most of the pilots that were shot down, never knew what had hit them. planes would fly as fast as they could, creep up on somebody's 6 and if he didn't see them coming he'd be shot down. if he did, he'd dive like hell and scream for help.
at least this is what you read in most of the ace's accounts. very few descriptions of complicated fights.
in this style, 190 is king. it allowed a mediocre pilot to preform well and survive.
the 109 on the other hand was built early in WWII, with an obsolite conception that you actually need to out-fly your opponent and do fancy manuvers. for the very skilled pilot it offered many more options in a fight. for the lesser pilots, it's slow roll and problematic dive, just ment a greater chance of being killed.
same applies to the american birds. why did the p-47 was so successfull? it was fast for it's time, dive-escaped better than anything, and was rugged enough to allow some chanse of survival after being bounced. the brits laughed when they saw it because they too still thought they needed a high ACM plane like the spit to win.
Bozon
-
Originally posted by bozon
there's simply no way of measuring "best" of two planes unless one totaly outclasses the other in every way.
the 190 was feared by the allied because fights in WWII were no epic battles of skill and fancy ACM. most of the pilots that were shot down, never knew what had hit them. planes would fly as fast as they could, creep up on somebody's 6 and if he didn't see them coming he'd be shot down. if he did, he'd dive like hell and scream for help.
at least this is what you read in most of the ace's accounts. very few descriptions of complicated fights.
in this style, 190 is king. it allowed a mediocre pilot to preform well and survive.
the 109 on the other hand was built early in WWII, with an obsolite conception that you actually need to out-fly your opponent and do fancy manuvers. for the very skilled pilot it offered many more options in a fight. for the lesser pilots, it's slow roll and problematic dive, just ment a greater chance of being killed.
same applies to the american birds. why did the p-47 was so successfull? it was fast for it's time, dive-escaped better than anything, and was rugged enough to allow some chanse of survival after being bounced. the brits laughed when they saw it because they too still thought they needed a high ACM plane like the spit to win.
Bozon
I agree with you 95%. But you forget an important thing: the pilot and experience. Aces like Heinz Bar, Krupinski, Walter Nowotny, Georg-Peter Eder...achieved victories with both airplanes and the Me 262, three planes very different. some
Some nachtjägers aces flow Bf-110 and Ju 88, Bf-110 and He-219, Fw 190 and Me 262, Ar 234 and ?...
-
FWIW
As General der Jagdflieger Galland wanted to discontinue all Bf109 production in early 1944 and focus only on Fw190 and Me262.
Nonetheless Bf109G6 Rules!!!! :D
-
I think it depend on whos flying them, When Im in 109s I see 190s as easy meat unless they run. When Im in 190s I see 109s as easy. I can use the snapshot in a 109 to good effect,95% of my g6 kills this tour are only the 20mm and the mgs. All are a2a.
-
Hi Kweassa,
>I believe the Fw190 was actually the only fighter that had the "Kommandogerat"(a primitive computer which was incorporated for automatic adjustment of fuel mixture, propeller pitch, and supercharger shifting all in one touch of the throttle lever) style of automatic controls during the time of its introduction.
As an aside, I'd not really call the Kommandogerät primitive :-) It was a mechanical/hydraulical analogue computer with multiple sensors that took account of an amazing numbers of a parameters and control functions.
Since the Kommandogerät was specific to the BMW801, the Focke-Wulf series actually had two different engine control computers as Junkers had developed the Motorbediengerät for the Jumo 213. The Motorbediengerät was an advance over the earlier system (and the common simple regulators) in that it didn't limit the boost pressure at low altitude, but the mass of the charge, i. e. the amount of the oxygen provided to the engine.
This was significant since at low alittudes, the higher air temperatures meant that the charge density was lower, so that power fell off at constant pressure. That's why engines curves usually show that power at ground level is lower than power at low gear critical altitude. For the Jumo, this characteristic low-altitude power drop was absent, and it gained about 10% power by that.
It's interesting to note that the Germans weren't the only ones to implement single-lever engine controls in WW2 - the Dewoitine D.520 seems to have been one of the early examples: "It was powered by a 910 hp Hispano-Suiza 12Y liquid-cooled engine driving a three-bladed Ratier popeller with automatic rpm control for a given power setting, a sluggish system that led to overspeeding in dives" (from Eric Brown's "Testing for Combat").
By the way, the diving problem was solved for the BMW801 with a second control, the dive lever :-) So the Kommandogerät wasn't actually a single-lever control system! ;-)
Later-production Spitfire XIVs with their Griffon engines were also equipped with single-lever control systems, referred to as "interconnected throttle". The way I understand the Pilot's Notes, this gave a certain rpm setting for each boost setting and could only be overridden towards higher rpm by moving the (former) propeller speed lever (now called "override lever") forward. In the fully-back position, rpm were selected entirely automatically. Mixture control was automatic too, as was supercharger gear selection, but the latter was not coupled to the throttle lever. The gear changes were always performed as if the plane was under full combat power, so for economical flying the pilot had to go into override mode and select gears manually.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
HoHun,
IIRC the power curve characters of the Jumo 213 were caused by throttle system which was pretty much copied from the AM-35/AM38. See this (http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-tm-1169/)
gripen
-
Hi Gripen,
>IIRC the power curve characters of the Jumo 213 were caused by throttle system which was pretty much copied from the AM-35/AM38. See this (http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-tm-1169/)
Highly interesting report, thanks for pointing it out! :-)
However, I don't have any direct evidence that the AM38-style swirl throttle is used on the Jumo 213 (it might well be, though), and there are some differences in its characteristics compared to those pointed out in that report:
- The Jumo 213 did not eliminate the low-altitude supercharger gear. In fact, the Jumo 213E actually got a third stage for high-altitude operation. (On the other hand, the 640 km/h sea level speed curve did not use the low-alitude gear.)
- While the AM38's power still drops below critical altitude, for the Jumo 213 it actually rises to a maximum at sea level.
So I'd speculate that the swirl throttle (if it was used) could not have been responsible for the full power gain the Jumo experienced, and that charge mass control was the factor giving it its advantage. On the other hand, the swirl throttle might have been beneficial for charge mass control due to keeping the charge temperature low - perhaps charge mass control actually depended on the swirl throttle.
Do you know for sure what kind of throttle the Jumo 213 used? (Or what the German name for the "swirl throttle" was? :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
HoHun,
Get a book called "Flugmotoren och Strahltriebwerke" by von Gersdorff and Grasman (page 176). It is called "dralldrossel", it is not exactly similar but you can see that the idea is same. The Jumo version is just more complicated and advanced .
gripen
-
Originally posted by Packy
The 190 may be superior to the 109 on paper. Perhaps you guys should read some material by German WW2 pilots on the performance of the 109 and the 190. I recall reading that many German pilots (hartmann, galland, et al) regarded the 109 as being superior to the 190 b/c they could fly it at the razor's edge of the flight envelope...apparently, to these pilots, the 190 was not as 'predictable.'
You seem to forget 190 pilots of JG54, Nowotny and gang.
-
Hi Gripen,
>It is called "dralldrossel", it is not exactly similar but you can see that the idea is same. The Jumo version is just more complicated and advanced .
Thanks, I found it! Apparently the swirl throttle (accurately translated "spin throttle" as "Drall" is the same as the technical term "spin") is indeed a prerequisite for the charge mass control, but you can see that it doesn't effect charge mass control by itself but requires the rather complicated "Füllungsregler" mechanism that operates it.
On the bottom of the page, there is a power diagram for the Jumo 213 that illustrates the effect by comparison to the Jumo 211. The AM38 is right between these curves, with less of a sea level drop than the Jumo 211 but still short of the (slight) rise of the Jumo 213.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Gripen or Henning, can one of you give me the full title and ISBN number of that book?
-
Hi Naudet,
>Gripen or Henning, can one of you give me the full title and ISBN number of that book?
"Deutsche Luftfahrt Band 2 - Flugmotoren und Strahltriebwerke" by Kyrill von Gersdorff, Kurt Grasmann, Helmut Schubert, ISBN 3-7637-6107-1.
(I got it from amazon.de)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
HoHun,
Well, we don't know what part of the power curve characters of the Jumo below full throttle height is caused by the swirl throttle or by constant airflow mass. In the case of the AM-35/AM-38 we can see the from the curves that the swirl throttle certainly have a more effect than constant air flow mass at sea level.
Anyway, the swirl throttle increased the efficiency of the engine by reducing supercharge driving power and temperature rise in the charger while the constant airflow mass system was just a different way to adjust MAP. Certainly the Jumo utilized characters of the swirl throttle better than the AM-35/38 because it could benefit from lower air temperature after charger.
gripen
-
The AM-35 is based on the BMW IV engine btw
-
I heard that the 190 was a pig on the ground, not at all better than the 109. Without the wide undercarriage, it would have been unable to taxi at all.
But apart from that, the 190 was a newer design than the 109.
It was as fast or even faster, rolled fast, had better high speed control authority, mounted a formidable armament, and was more rugged. Control advances and layout made the flights easier as well. A pilot with less training was much more deadly in a 190 than a 109.
The first 190's were significally faster than the Spitfire II's and V's they faces, but after the arrival of the Spit IX, and later the fast American aircraft, it had a hard time. But however, it could be modified into a very good bomber killer, way better than the 109.
So, this may not shine so well through in AH, but that's just life.
-
Niklas,
Yes, the AM-35 had roots in Germany but actually it's based on the BMW VI (M-17).
gripen
-
You´re right gripen, BMW VI. I was not at home at had the wrong order of letters in my brain:)
If someone is interested in AM-35 38 charts and table check
http://members.tripod.de/luftwaffe1/sonstiges/AM-35-38.gif
http://members.tripod.de/luftwaffe1/sonstiges/AM-35-38_Beschreibung.gif
niklas
-
Just happened to read that the DB608 engine had a Dralldrossel already in '39. It was also planned to be a high altitude engine, like the 605L which was equipped with a Dralldrossel too.
So the knowledge was alredy available in germany before the war, but it was obviously a little known principle.
niklas
-
Niklas,
Whats the source? Von Gersdorff's and Grasmann's book does not mention the DB 608 (or I can't find it). Seems that people at the DVL did not know that there was a similar device developed in Germany when they studied the AM-35/38 couple years later.
Anyway, there certainly was the "dralldrossel" in the DB 603L but that was a later engine. Interestingly the DB 603L version of the device had 12 vanes just like the AM-35/38 while the Jumo 213 appear to had just 6 vanes.
gripen
-
Page 118
Either the dralldrossel was the result of a public but rather unknown research topic (like the swept back wing, first presented 35 on a public congress but found few attention outside germany) or the russians maybe spotted it when they toured through germany in 39.
niklas
-
So, this may not shine so well through in AH, but that's just life.
Hmmm..... FW190 consitently have the highest or among the highest KD for non perk fighters. Though this could also be due to superior pilots who fly them. :D
-
Niklas,
I found it, it is mentioned later than I thought. It might be possible that the Russians saw the system, seems that the Germans showed pretty much all they had during 1939-40 (like the He 100 and Ju 88).
gripen
-
And do you know what Yakovlev wrote in his book? He recommended to buy nothing from the germans, because he thought there was nothing worth to buy. Well at least this is what he wrote after the war, along some other nice comments about the babarics :). The Me262? uhh no interest.... saw only serivice in very few numbers.... instable.... i really had a good laugh reading through his book, especially when he wrote about the development of "superior" russian air tactics lol.
niklas
-
Hi Gripen,
>In the case of the AM-35/AM-38 we can see the from the curves that the swirl throttle certainly have a more effect than constant air flow mass at sea level.
Actually, it seems like both of the Russian engines were regulated to a constant boost pressure. However, I admit that in the case of the AM-38, the drop of air flow mass at sea level was only very slight (2%). The AM-35A actually had a higher air flow mass at sea level than at full pressure altitude, so it doesn't seem to make much of a difference indeed.
>Anyway, the swirl throttle increased the efficiency of the engine by reducing supercharge driving power and temperature rise in the charger while the constant airflow mass system was just a different way to adjust MAP.
Yes, but with modern-day experience, we shouldn't be suprised that improved engine software gives better engine power ;-) However, I previously thought that the new way of adjusting MAP was responsible for all of the power gain the Jumo 213 experienced, now it seems like it can only claim part of it.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
I agree it might be do to some of those Superior 190 pilots ;)
Yeh and Grunnie look at the K/d ration of the Ta152 against the P51 "I vander vy"
-
HoHun,
Yes, the AM-35/38 used normal constant pressure system, no one has argued otherwise. In the case of the Jumo 213 I don't know if the constant airflow mass system gave any real performance increase at any given MAP but it certainly gave somewhat smoother power curve.
gripen
-
109 gets my vote.
-
in a 1vs1 I would take a 109 but in a many vs many I would rather be in the 190.
-
What can touch good pilot in the plane that rolls 190degrees per second?
190 is by far superior used en mass. With correct roll it would be real handful to anything against it.
Last time I tried AH 190a8 rolled about 150-160degrees/sec. Im just waiting for online sim that could model 190 roll correctly.