Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Wilbus on September 28, 2002, 11:11:49 AM
-
Did some tests, climb from 0-10k. Acceleration from 200-300mph at 10,3k. Zoom after 5k dive test.
Still have zoom after level flight and dive acceleration test do to, trying to figure out a good way to do the dive test good.
All tests were made without WEP, as the RAF test report as done on "maximum continuous climbing conditions". Meaning without WEP.
The acceleration test was also done without WEP.
RAF test report was made with a captured 190 A3. The A5 had a stronger engine.
RAF test report on Climb: "The climb of the Fw 190 is superior that of the Spitfire Mk VB at all heights. The bets speeds for the climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum contineus climbing continuous climbing conditions the climb of the Fw 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000 feet. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and pulling up into a lcimb, the superior climb of the Fw 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled into a climb from a dive, the Fw 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.
My tests were all done with 50% fuel in both planes.
0-10k without WEP.
Spitfire Mk V time to 10k. 3 Minutes and 5 seconds. The Spitfire started climbing faster and faster then higher up it got. However, the climb didn't increase all that much as stayed at about 3.3k/min during the whole test up to 10k.
The Fw 190 time to 10k. 3 minutes 15 seconds. At 5k the first decrease in the engine became noticable, decreasing the climb with about 200 feet/min. At 6.5 to 7k the next engine decrease came, this one was much more apparent, decreasing the climb with about 500 feet/min.
From 6.5k and up, the spitfire have no problem outclimbing a 190 A5 in AH.
Level acceleration at 10,3k.
Time from 200mph to 300mph.
Spitfire Mk V: 46 seconds.
Fw 190 A5: 52 seconds.
Dive from 10k flying in 300mph followed by a 90 degree zoom from 5k
Both planes had reached a speed of about 470mph at the time of the zoom. More tests will be made when it comes to dive acceleration.
Spitfire Mk V reached an altitude of 11,5k before stalling out.
The Fw 190 reached an altitude of 11,8k before stalling out.
More test will be done when it comes to diveing acceleration and normal (not a 90 degree zoom) climb after high speed dive.
Test will also be made between the 190 A5 and the Spitfire Mk IX.
An intersting factor in the report, is that several times, it's pointed out that the Fw 190 has better acceleration both over the Spitfire Mk V and the Spitfire Mk IX.
Short about the acceleration vs Spitfire Mk IX: "When both aircraft were flying at high cruising speed and were pulled up into a climb from level flight, the Fw 190 had a slight advantage in the initial stages of the climb due to its better acceleration. The superiority was slightly increased when both aircraft were pulled up into the climb from the dive."
Also, before that is written the report states that there was little difference between climb rate overall, the Spitfire Mk IX was slightly better up to 22,000 feet. Above 22,000 feet the Spitfire MK IX climb rate increased and it was superior to the Fw 190.
-
Nice reading Wilbus.What source,,Alfred Price?.
-
Ahaa, yes, forgot that.
It is Alfred Price yes, the test report found in the book "Focke Wulf FW 190 in Combat".
-
RAF test report was made with a captured 190 A3. The A5 had a stronger engine.
The RAF were running the A3 beyond accepted German boost limits.
The RAF tested the 190A3 at 1.42 ata for speed runs, and 1.35 ata for climbs.
The AH 190 A5 shows 1.47 ata at wep, 1.30 ata at max normal throttle.
The RAF tested the Spit V at 12lbs boost max, and noted that since those tests it had been re rated to allow 16lbs boost max. They don't say what boost was used for climbs.
AH shows the Spit V at 14lbs boost max continuous, 16lbs boost at wep.
I don't know if the AH boost gauges are accurate (I know the Spit IX one isn't, showing 18lbs boost but giving 15lbs performance).
-
AFAIK I know the planes were run on their max contineus power, the A3 wasn't overboosted. The tests made with 1.42 boost were only done in level flight speed, not in climb or zoom.
In the climb and zoom aswell as dive the test was made with 1.35 ata. That was the maximum contineus power (military power) and could be maintained a long time. That was how my tests were made aswell.
-
what always wondered my was the climb rate number of the captured A3:
3050 ft/min @ 4000ft
3280ft/min @ 17500ft
Why is climbrate higher in high altitude? 4000ft, this is usually the 1st gear which offers more power than the 2nd
It´s also remakable that the AH fw190 starts at IAS 450 wild shaking, while the old light spit dives smoothly at those speeds. 750km/h ias was a factory guarantee speed, not the absolute dive limit where problems occured imo.
niklas
-
hmm small correction , shaking seems to be a function of mach number rather than ias - my fault sry
niklas
-
RAF tested that same A3 to 580mph True airspeed at 16,000 feet. They described the controls as "...at this speed the controls, although slightly heavier, are still remarkably light. One good feuture is that no alteration of trim from level flight is requiered either during the entry or during the pull-out."
Ok, already there you can see the AH 190 is quite wrong.
-
Thanks Wilbus!
-
Pleasure :)
Now I know something isn't quite right.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Now I know something isn't quite right.
Now?. I pointed some of those problems (the most notable one ,the trim issue) already 2 years ago.
2 years later we're still discussing it.
(not to mention the Fw190A5 SL speed, wich is wrong as I already posted 1 year ago...and so on).
Is good to see someone is still fighting for the Fw190 to have its historic performance, Wilbus. I already stopped trying a long time ago.
-
What I mean with that comment Ram is that I know something is wrong with the climb rate and zoom/acceleration. Never really tested it.
As for the Trim thing I've been fighting about it since I started flying 190's a long time ago!
Yeah, we still discuss it, which is really sad as nothing has happaned, nor will happen I think. Will keep trying, both for the 190's and for the Ta152.
-
So, is the Spitfire that accelerates too quickly or the Fw190 that doesn't accelerate fast enough?
I'm hoping the Fw190 should accelerate faster.
-
Considering the AH Fw190A5 is some 20mph too slow at SL it would make sense it's not accelerating fast enough.
-
GRUNHERZ,
That 20mph too slow thing was demonstrated to be false. The Fw190A-5 is doing fine at sea level.
-
How so?
-
The chart that was showing the faster speed was a mathmatical calculation using a system that the German's used, one that invariably gave significantly higher low altitude speeds that the aircraft actually obtained. The chart was a paper calculation and not based on flight data at all.
The charts based on flight data matched the sea level speed of the AH Fw190A-5.
-
Show me the thread please.
-
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=63656
Reading over it agian I recalled it as stonger evidence. At the very least it shows that the case is not open and closed.
-
Thanks Karnak!
Hey but either way the Fw190A5 is 10mph too slow at 22K. :D So I bet there is something funny still in her speed or engine modeling, especially with the poor acceleration figures.
-
Yep. The 190 was supposed to be a great accelerator. Given its small size and large engine that would make sense, especially in the 190s that were not loaded down with extra armor.
-
Karnak, I am guessing the 190 is the one that accelerates too slow. I think noone will argue with the 190, like you said, was a great accelerator, both in level flight and in dives. The Spitfire was also good but not that good so I doubt the spitfire should accelerate any slower.
Not sure if you read the test report where they also mention the A3 having better acceleration then the Spitfire Mk 9 (THINK it was one of the faster spit 9's, not the one we have judging from the speeds it reached. Spit 9 was a few MPH faster at all heights).
-
I think it's obvious to anyone who has flown the 190 in AH and knows anything about it that it does not perform the way it should. Now, the question is, after two years of questioning, will something be done about it. To have perhaps one of the greatest series of fighters ever built modeled the way they are, especially in the case of the 152, is almost outrageous. I like the quote that "the 152 was my life insurance policy at the end of the war." Now, think of the 152 in AH... is it a plane that matches up with this statement? The answer is an emphatic no. But what do I know...
-
Originally posted by mustang
I like the quote that "the 152 was my life insurance policy at the end of the war." Now, think of the 152 in AH... is it a plane that matches up with this statement? The answer is an emphatic no. But what do I know...
Bah, take a 152 up to 45k, and nobody will ever touch ya. :D
-
Nashwan is referring to the actual reports, not Price's account of them. The reports (posted by Spades a while back on www, I'll see if I still have a bookmark) show that the A-3 was run with full WEP while the Spits (V and IX) didn't run WEP and in some cases not even full MIL power. And the Spit IX used Merlin 61, the crappiest possible version. It's almost as if AFDU wanted to make the 190 look better than it really was, in order to motivate the brass to improve the Spits more rapidly. I can't blame them.
-
Thats real interesting Funked. Try to find the link if you can, I'd love to try to make sense of the original study :). It is kinda weird that they would run the 190 up to full power but not the Spitfires.
-
Funked, the 190 was run on 1.42 boost when they tested level flight speed ONLY. And it was run for 2 minutes ONLY.
In dive performance, climb rate, zoom climb from level flight and zoom climb from dive NO wep was used. ALl those tests were made with Maximum SUSTAINED climb/zoom/dive boost, which was 1.35 ata.
As for the Spitfires not running on maximum boost, I've heard it before and it makes me laugh every time.
"Ok, let's compare these planes, fly theirs on full power,, fly ours on like 80% instead and see how much better theirs is, then write in the report how much more superior their plane is." Just plane silly.
As for the spitfire using the Merlin 61, it's the same Spitfire we have in AH as you know Funked. We have the crappiest spitfire and even the 190 A3 outaccelerated this Spitfire Mk 9 in dives, level flight and zoom climbs. You can ask Karnak about what Spitfire version we have if you don't believe me. (Perosnally I think we have the worst of them modelled when it was also the one produced in lowest numbers, another story thouhg).
What the spit 9 did better was turn rate, level flight speed at all alts (bout 2-8 mph faster at all alts bellow 22k) sustained climb up to 22k was a little bit better and climb above 22k was alot better.
Note, the Spitfire Mk V that was tested was a VB, same as we have in AH I believe.
-
sorry I thought the link was common, and didn't bother to post it.
http://www.geocities.com/spades53.geo/prodocs.htm
-
The Spit V was tested on 12lbs boost for speed runs, something less for climbing.
The Spit V was later rerated (it mentions it in the tests) at 16lbs boost.
The AH Spit V runs at 16lbs boost, with 14 (or 15) at mil power.
In other words, at mil power in AH, the Spit V runs at higher boost, and develops more power, than the Spit V in those tests did at wep .
The AH 190 shows 1.30 ata in mil power. The RAF tested the captured A3 at 1.35 ata for the climbs, again higher than the AH version. What I don't know is the correct boost for the 190A3 (and5) in mil power. Was it 1.3ata, 1.35ata, or something else?
If it should be 1.3 ata, AH is right, and the RAF had mil power set too high.
If it should be 1.35ata, the RAF were right, and AH models mil power too low.
To sum up, the Spit V was rerated after those tests, and AH models that rerated version, which has a lot more power. Also, either the RAF ran the 190 at too high a mil power setting, or the AH A5 runs at too low a mil setting, or the A5 really ran at a lower mil power rating than the A3. Either way, the AH A5 has less power in mil power than the A3 the RAF tested.
Wasn't the A5 heavier than the A3 anyway?
Ignore the part about the A5 having a stronger engine, you know that, I know that, the RAF didn't know that, and ran the A3 at settings higher than those approved by the Luftwaffe.
-
After reading up on the 190+Ta-!52-3 development, which to me is an underrated plane, I feel AH has shortchanged it. The TA-152 doesnt have Mw-50 Spit 5s out performing a5s etc etc need to be fixed. If they spent time on getting these planes tweaked instead of working on CT arenas and servers maybe we wouldnt be posting this.:D
-
Thx Nashwan, I had lost the link.
-
Wilbus, here's the engine settings for the comparative testing:
http://www.geocities.com/spades53.geo/pro_190_survey_c_1.jpg
Test the AH planes at those settings and see what you get. I suspect it will be closer to the subjective comparisons in the text of the report.
"Ok, let's compare these planes, fly theirs on full power,, fly ours on like 80% instead and see how much better theirs is, then write in the report how much more superior their plane is." Just plane silly.
Yes it seems silly, but it's what they did. See my earlier post for a possible motive.
-
AH TA152 is modelled with MW 50 but not GM1, which makes it SUCKS at high alt compared to what it should do.
-
That page shows that all planes were run with WEP for 3 minutes. Not just the 190. It does also show the spitfire 5 was modified after and could be run higher.
This does not take away the fact that the 190 A3 still outaccelerated the Spitfire 9 in the test in dive, climb from level flight and climb/zoom climb from dives. The spit 5 was made better but was not as good as the Spit 9 in the tests.
These test (the full test reoprt) reports teh 190 to haveing a much better acceleration then the Spitfire. And a better acceleration, qute much better in zooms then the Spit 9.
It doesn't anywhere say the allied planes were tested with lower throttle except the Spitfire V that was later modified to handle more but was, during the tests, run at full.
Can somebody give me the difference/convert between ata, boost and the US meassuring?
-
From Capt. Eric Browns "Wings of the luftwaffe":
" The AFDU comparisons between the Focke-Wulf and the Spitfire Mk IX - with the former's BMW 801 at 2700 rpm and 20.8 lb (1.42 atas) boost and the latter's Merlin 61 at 3000 rpm and 15 lbs (1.00 ata) - had revealed that the German fighter was 7-8 mph faster than its British counterpart at 2000 ft but that the speeds of the two fighters were virtually the same at 5000 ft. Above this altitude the Spitfire began to display a marginal superiority, bein about 8 mph faster at 8000 ft and 5 mph faster at 15000 ft. the pendulum then swung once more in favour of the Focke-Wulf which proved itself some 3 mph faster at 18000 ft, the two fighters level pegging once more at 21000 ft and the Spitfire then taking the lead until, at 25000 ft it showed a 5-7 mph superiority.
In climbing, little difference was found between the Fw 190 and the spitfire Mk IX up to 23000ft, above which altitude the climb of the German fighter began to fall off and the difference between the two aircraft widened rapidly."
The next few sentences are the most interesting:
" From high-speed cruise, a pull up into a climb gave the Fw 190 an initial advantage owing to its superior acceleration and the superiority of the German fighter was even more noticeable when both aircraft were pulled up into a zoom climb from a dive. In the dive, the Fw 190 could leave the Spitfire Mk IX without difficulty and there was no gainsaying that in so far as manĉuvrability was concerned, the German fighter was markedly the superior of the two in in all save the tight turn - the Spitfire could not follow in aileron turns and reversals at high speeds and the worst heights for its pilot to engage the Fw 190 in combat were between 18000 and 22000 ft, and at altitudes below 3000 ft."
Hope this is enlightening....
-
LOL funkedup, that page actually shows that Wilbus statement was right.
FW190 speed run with 2700 rpm 1.42 ata
all other test FW190 run at 2450 rpm 1.35 ata
maybe you should read the explanation and not just read the listings.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Level acceleration at 10,3k.
Time from 200mph to 300mph.
Spitfire Mk V: 46 seconds.
Fw 190 A5: 52 seconds.
Dive from 10k flying in 300mph followed by a 90 degree zoom from 5k
Both planes had reached a speed of about 470mph at the time of the zoom. More tests will be made when it comes to dive acceleration.
Spitfire Mk V reached an altitude of 11,5k before stalling out.
The Fw 190 reached an altitude of 11,8k before stalling out.
B]
I cannot see how the errors in the flight model could be stated any clearer?
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
It doesn't anywhere say the allied planes were tested with lower throttle except the Spitfire V that was later modified to handle more but was, during the tests, run at full.
Wilbus, compare the power settings for the Spits on that page, with what we have in the game.
-
Originally posted by Naudet
LOL funkedup, that page actually shows that Wilbus statement was right.
FW190 speed run with 2700 rpm 1.42 ata
all other test FW190 run at 2450 rpm 1.35 ata
maybe you should read the explanation and not just read the listings.
Naudet he's right about the 190s but not the Spits.
-
All the 190's (including the 152) in AH have acceleration problems. It's all related to engine torque but I'm not sure if it's adjustable in this game engine.
The 109 is dead on (somewhat), but the 190's are slow pigs to accelerate when in real life they were flying engines.
-
Just compared it to AH Funked, now it looks even more badly modelled. As teh chart there says, all speed runs were made with WEP for 3 minutes, that included ALL PLANES not just the 190.
For the comparative performance trials between the F.W.190 and various British and American fighter aircraft shown in this report (pares(?). 47 to 87), all level speed runs were fpr two minutes and maximum emergency (3 minute) ratings...)
For some reason, in some mysterious way, you all seem to think that this: ALL LEVEL SPEED RUNS aswell as the various BRITTISH and AMERICAN fighter aircraft... means the 190 was run at WEP but the Brittish and American planes were not. Which is WRONG.
As for AH, running alot above what these tests say the US and Brittish planes did, I think it is AH that has modelled it wrong and not the test reoports that are wrong.
Quite obviously, 15lbs in the Spit 9 tested against the 190 (the worst spit 9, same as we're suposed to have in AH although it is a bit porked) was indeed WITH WEP as stated by the document.
How you all can possibly make the VERY clear text to "the 190 was tested with War Emergency power, but as we didn't quite want our spits to outperform it we didn't use WEP for those".
Another quite insteresting thing is that the 190 A3 engine became in worse and worse condition during the trails.
So please, with chance of sounding rude... stop the BS about the Allied planes being flown on less throttle and no WEP. Because that is all it is... BS.
-
Wilbus, no reason to get grumpy.
The fact remains that AFDU tested the Spits V and IX at power levels below what are considered WEP (maximum emergency rating) and MIL (maximum continuous climbing rating) in AH, while the Fw 190A-3 was tested at power levels approximately equal to WEP and MIL in AH. And this is likely the cause of the discrepancies you pointed out in your initial post.
The question of why the boost levels are different, is a separate matter. I think my conspiracy theory about AFDU is probably wrong. It seems that the boost limits for those Spits were later revised upwards, and AFDU was just using the boost limits which were in effect at the time. AH is using the later, higher boost limits, hence the difference between AFDU findings and AH findings. I'll post some of the pages from the Pilot's Notes which support this.
-
OK I found the manual information. You can find the full text of the Pilot's Notes at Snafu's excellent website (http://www.btinternet.com/~snaffers/).
Here's the Spit V ratings. It seems that in order to match the AFDU climb results, you will need to climb the Spit V at +9 boost.
-
And here are the Spit 9 ratings.
-
So if you want to get the same results as AFDU, you need to use these power settings:
Climb
Fw 190: 1.35 ata, 2450 rpm
Spit V: +9 psi, 2850 rpm
Spit IX: +12 psi, 2850 rpm
Level Speed
Fw 190: 1.42 ata, 2700 rpm
Spit V: +12 psi, 3000 rpm
Spit IX: +15 psi, 3000 rpm
-
I hardly believe Capt. Brown would quote those numbers if the differences was not comparable to reality. Remember, he flew both aircraft.
I do not think boost as measured in AH's instruments correctly reflect r/l engine perfomance and its impact on flight model. If possible, boost in IX AH should reflect the AFDU performance figures.
The AFDU figures are sound and reflects actual performance. If there is suspicion that they're not, I cannot understand why this isn't mentioned somewhere else. Clearly, running the Spit w. reduced perfomance engine settings would be totally moronic in a flight comparison trial.
Besides, after wading trough all this, Wilbus still showed us that the Spit V has superior acceleration over the Fw 190 in AH. No boost setting can alter that.
-
Originally posted by bigUC
Clearly, running the Spit w. reduced perfomance engine settings would be totally moronic in a flight comparison trial.
Well, the historical documents prove that this was the case, so deal with it.
Besides, after wading trough all this, Wilbus still showed us that the Spit V has superior acceleration over the Fw 190 in AH. No boost setting can alter that.
[/b]
Do you even know what the word "boost" means? More boost -> more power -> more acceleration.
Please. :rolleyes:
-
What is considered WEP in AH is obviously higher then what was considerd WEP in WW2 for the Spits. As I told you before, The Spit 9 was the "bad" version, same as we have in AH. The FW 190 A3 accelerated better then it did, this was specially clear in zoom climbs. The chart says nothing about the Spit 9 later getting higher boost which clearly states I DID NOT GET HIGHER BOOST. Which gives us two options. #1, the spitfire 9 is actually not the Merlin 61 spitfire it is suposed to be and #2 the Spitfire 9 in AH is overmodelled when it comes to boost pressure.
And when a Spitfire V out accelerates a 190 A3, which was Superior to the Spitifre in combat situations, in EVERYTHING but turn radius in low speeds (this was stated by all pilot who flew spitfire 5, and they all said the 190 was a MUCH SUPERIOR PLANE then the Spitfire 5, little or much boost) I KNOW something is seriously WRONG. Nothing you say can change that.
The Tests clearly state that ALL PLANES were run on WEP (something you all tried to say they weren't and been proved wrong). The spitfire 5 was the ONLY that was later boosted more, the Spitfire 9 was not. The Spitfire 9 had several better versions though.
So once again, quit the BS about the Spitfire 9, tiffie, P38 and P51 not running WEP.
The 190 is porked as is the Ta152. To me it seems like a general problem with the Focke Wulf types.
-
ROFL
I clearly demonstrated that your comparison was invalid. Historical facts staring you straight in the face, but you ignore them.
I thought maybe we were just having a communication problem, but it seems you're just an *edited* idiot.
I'm sure HTC will read your BS and feel the same.
I hope you and your nazi-loving brethren continue to be dissatisfied with this game. Maybe you will finally go away.
Bye.
-
ROFL
I clearly demonstrated that your comparison was invalid. Historical facts staring you straight in the face, but you ignore them.
I thought maybe we were just having a communication problem, but it seems you're just an *edited* idiot.
I'm sure HTC will read your BS and feel the same.
I hope you and your nazi-loving brethren continue to be dissatisfied with this game. Maybe you will finally go away.
Bye.
Doesn't matter how hot a discussion gets, who is right or who is wrong, I will NEVER tolerate being called a nazi lover and I will NEVER tolerate being humilated in public nor in private. I do not take lightly on what you said and what personal attacks you just did.
I really did expect a more mature manner from you, I've always respected you until just now, when you show your true self, uncapeble of disussion without bringing up personal attacks. Personal attacks, with out any kind of back up for anything of what you say and personals attacks that more then just humiliate. A personal attack that goes into the bones of the person it is direct to for being called a thing which the person hates more then anything in this world. Last time I was called a racist (was due to my name almost riming on racist) the guy who said it got hurt. And being called a racist, is nowehere near as bad as being called a Nazi, specially not since the racist was ment to be a joke.
I won't stand this, I won't stand being called a nazi and I won't take any more personal attacks from you or anyone else.
I want an appology Funked.
-
Sorry, I am really frustrated.
Please email me: funkedup@raf303.org
-
Originally posted by funkedup
Do you even know what the word "boost" means? More boost -> more power -> more acceleration.
Please. :rolleyes: [/B]
So the Spit V should outaccelerate the Fw 190? And please spare me the comments about "nazi-loving brethren". It's uncalled for - my family did suffer during the nazi-occupation. We're all educated people here, right? :mad:
This thread has nothing to do with being dissatisifed with the game- It's a simple discussion about flight models, esp. between two important adversaries (Spit and FW) during the middle years of WWII. HT might or might not find Wilbus' testfindings correct and implement changes - no tears whatever they decide. I'll happily enjoy AH whatever. :)
-
Funked, that was a little uncalled for.
Wilbus- He said the Spit V and Spit IX were running at LESS BOOST than they run at in AH.
The Spit V I understand, if it was running at 12 boost and was later rerated (after the test) to take 16 boost, that would be a very plausible explanation of why the Spit V in AH out accelerates and out climbs the 190A5.
I don't know why the Spit IX would be running at less boost in real life than in runs in Aces High, I've never paid attention to the boost meter in the Spit in AH.
-
I know he is saying that Urchin, but even the Spitfire 9 the version we have in AH got outaccelerated by the A3. We have A5.
I also know the Spitfire 9 runs at higher boost in AH then the one on the chart, which I don't know why as the chart says nothing about the 9 later being modified to give out higher pressure. Yet again, brings me to the 9 in AH, either being modelled wrong as it gives out too much pressure, or it is a later 9 then it is actually ment to be.
-
When was the AFDU test run? If it was run before the Spitfire IX entered service (using an early production model or prototype of the Spit IX) that might explain why the boost settings were lower.
As I understand it, the boost settings should look like this:
Merlin 61 had a max boost of 16psi.
Merlin 66 with 100 octane had a max boost of 18psi
Merlin 66 with 150 octane had a max boost of 25psi
(Funked, that was really tasteless and uncalled for)
-
Yes Karnak, merlin 61 should have 16 boost, our Spit 9 should be a Merlin 61, am I right? Atleast, if I remember correct, you've said we have the worst possible spit, shoudl be merlin 61, right?
The RAF report that "...the Focke Wulf 190 was compared to a fully operational Spitfire Mk IX." Which means it must have been the worst of the Spit 9's, thus the Merlin 61.
Karnak, I just check the Spitfire Mk IX in AH, Military power it runs a little bit higher then 16, with WEP it runs at 18 which would indicate the Merlin 66 with 100 octane, right? What's up with that????
Another thing, the Spitfire IX in the test, was afully operational Spitfire 9, judging from WEP boost of 16, it was a Mrlin 61, and it was outaccelerated by the Focke Wulf 190 A3. The Spitfire 5 with upped boost pressure was quite clearly far from as good as the worst Spit 9 (why would they change to the 9 otherwise if the 16 Boost SPit 5 was better) and thus it would be easily outaccelerated by the A3. Yet, both the 5 and 9 easily outaccelerate the A5 in AH.
Following me? I am very bad at explaining so hope I have expressed my self clearly.
In Short, 16 boost Spit 5 was worse then Merlin 61 Spitfire 9. Merlin 61 Spitfire 9 had worse acceleration then FW 190 A3 thus the improved Spitfire Mk V had quite much worse acceleration then the 190 A3, yet the Spit V outaccelerates our A5.
-
Wilbus can you send me your email?
-
The AH 190 runs at 1.3 ata, the AFDU tested theirs at 1.35 ata. That means the ADFU 190 will be faster. (assuming acceleration test were carried out at 1.35, and not WEP)
Is the A5 heavier than he A3? If so, the AFDU 190 will accelerate faster than the AH 190.
Another thing, the Spitfire IX in the test, was afully operational Spitfire 9, judging from WEP boost of 16, it was a Mrlin 61, and it was outaccelerated by the Focke Wulf 190 A3.
The report points out the 190 accelerates marginally better "except at those altitudes where the Spitfire is faster", which is anywhere about 5 - 6000ft.
The 190 and Spit in the ADFU tests seem to have accelerated almost the same. In AH, the 190 uses 1.3 ata for military power (is this correct?) and is probably heavier than the ADFU 190. It probably should perform worse than the Spit IX.
In Short, 16 boost Spit 5 was worse then Merlin 61 Spitfire 9.
Probably depends on altitude.
-
Wilbus,
The AH Spit IX does indicate 18psi on its boost guage. However, the AH Spitfire Mk IX performs like a 16psi Merlin 61 and Pyro has stated that it has a Merlin 61.
My conclusion is simply that the boost gauge in the AH Spitfire Mk IX misreports the boost level. It should be reading 16psi, no 18psi.
-
CC Karnak, which means the 190 in AH accelerates far too slow as it outaccelerated the Spit 9 both in level flight, dive and zoom climbs. As the Spit 9 we have in AH, and the one used in the tests. Were the same Spit 9 it is quite clear the 190 in AH accelerates too slow.
Nash, only real weight differnce would be made up of the engine and some lbs for the slightly lengthened nose. Not sure how much more HP, if any the A5 had then the A3 but acceleration would definatly not be worse.
In zoom climb the 190 A3 in the tests was described as pulling away quite good from the Spit 9 in the initial stages. This was most noticable when pulled up into a zoom from a high speed dive.
-
Wilbus, I apologize for posting that. We are having a communication problem and instead of fixing it, I lost my temper and started throwing random insults like a little brat. Sorry to Wilbus and all who had to read it. I hope to have further discussion of the real issue (AFDU comparison test) with you on email.
-
Appology accepted from my side Funked and will work on forgetting it as it is nothing I wanna remember.
Looking forward to discussing it on e-mail with you, and hope that I am able to explain what I mean better next time.
-
I have been under impression that the early Spitfire IX with the Merlin 61 was rated just for +15 lbs (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/bf274.html)?
gripen
-
The one used in the test had 16 lbs on WEP, could be a different Spit though.
-
Karnak, Funked, do you agree with me on this:
Pyro has said the Spit 9 in AH is a merlin 61, it has teh performance of a 16 boost Spit 9 which indicates it being a Merlin 61, meaning the same type that was used in the test. The one used in the test was not a prototype, it is clearly stated in the test that it is a fully operational Spitfire Mk IX running at 16 boost. Same as our Spit IX although the gauge in AH is showing wrong.
Everything speaks for this being right, the spit being correctly modelled (I know there are some amament and wing things with the spit 9 in AH that needs fixing) except for the gauge missreading.
Agree?
If yes, you can also agree that the 190 in the test, which was tested against this Spitfire Mk 9, was better inthe acceleration, specially the initial stages as reported in the test. This was specialyl noticable in zoom climb from level flight and even more noticable from zoom climb from a high speed dive, once again, as stated by the test.
In the dive, the test report says "The FW 190 is faster then the Spitfire IX in a dive, particulary during initial stage. This superiority is not so marked as with the Spitfie VB" This means overall, the 190 had MUCH better acceleration then the Spitfire VB in the test, and quite much better acceleration then the Spitfire 9 in the test, same spit as we have in AH.
The Spitfire 5 in AH, is the one running at 16 boost, it is still nowhere near as good as the Spitfire 9 in AH indicating that although it was improved, it was still nowhere near the Fw 190 or Spitfire IX performance, agree?
Not sure if I posted this before, the test results for the AH Spitfire IX, tests were made the same way as with the Spitfire V and Fw 190 A5 Can compare in my previous posts.
Spitfire IX climb to 10k: 2 minutes 59 seconds compared to 190 A5 3 minutes 15 seconds. Acording to the test report, the difference in climb rate up to 22,000 feet was very little, Spitfire IX being only slightly better. Climb to 20k hasn't been tested but I expect the Spitfire IX to reach the alt atleast 1 minute faster, which is alot superior, not just a little faster.
Spitfire IX acceleration at 10,3k. 200-300mph: 37 seconds. 190 A5 took 52 seconds. Again, the 190 was said to accelerate better, not much in level flight however still better. 35 seconds for the 190 in AH might be a resonable acceleration?
After a 5k dive, about 45-50 degree angle, the Spitfire IX in AH reaches 11,8k. Exact same altitude that the 190 A5 reaches. The 190 A3 was quite superior in zoom climbs, specially from high speed dives.
Have explained it pretty good I think, and with the proof of AH having the same Spit that was in the test, (merlin 61 @ 16 lbs boost) it is quite clear to me that something is wrong with the A5 and, most lilkely the other 190's and Ta152 aswell when it comes to acceleration and possibly some other things. However, acceleration is what is most noticable as it affects zoom climbs aswell as dive.
Let's not bring in the other 190's and the Ta152 here, not yet anyway. That the A8 should accelerate worse then the other 190's is nothing that needs to be discussed I think as it was quite clearly a much heavier plane, thus worse acceleration, atleast in level flight.
Have you understood what I am saying or is there something I need to explain better? Like I said before, I am lousy at explaining.
-
Well, so far I have not ever heard about +16 lbs rating for the Merlin 61 powered Spitfire during war. AFAIK only the Spitfire V with single stage Merlins (45 or what ever) were rated for +16 lbs. AH is a game, not real life.
gripen
-
Gripen, Karnak is THE spit freak in AH. He just posted that info about the Merlin running at 16lbs, which is also indicated by the Spitfire IX performance in AH. Most likely the boost gauge is showing wrong.
-
I am just wondering if the AH boost gauges are "working"
if i remember correctly, sometime back it was stated that the boost pressure gauges do not give the "real" boost pressure an AH plane uses.
It would help a lot if HTC just would list which power settings (rpm, boost pressure and anticipated HP) they use for max throttle and WEP in all planes.
Cause if the MAN gauges are wrong, the whole discussion would stand on sand, as noone knows on which base the tests were made.
for this case it would really help if HTC gives us the boost setting informations for FW190A5. Spit5 and Spit9.
-
Wilbus and Karnak, please check manual or AFDU comparison or what ever war time source: The Merlin 61 in the Spitfire F Mk IX was rated at +15 lbs. Actually I have not seen a comparison between the Spitfire (V or IX) and Fw 190 where the Spitfire's MAP was more than +15 lbs.
gripen
-
Roger Gripen, atleast it wasn't more then 16 we know that, meaning that whatever, the Merlin 61 spitfire will not have better acceleration, specially not the way it has in AH.
The one tested against the 190 A3, was running at 16 boost. It was the early Spit 9, using Merlin 61.
Could it be 15 lbs military and those 16 lbs WEP?
-
Max rating (WEP if you want to call it that way) for the Merlin 61 was +15 lbs.
The Spitfire IX in the AFDU test used +15 lbs @ 3000rpm for the speed runs. For the climb test (and all other tests) the Spitfire IX used +9 lbs @ 2850rpm (one source says 2650rpm), early aircraft; later rating was raised to +12 lbs.
The Spitfire V in the AFDU test used +12 lbs @ 3000rpm for the speed runs and +9 lbs @ 2850rpm for other tests.
gripen
-
For the climb test (and all other tests) the Spitfire IX used +9 lbs @ 2850rpm (one source says 2650rpm), early aircraft; later rating was raised to +12 lbs.
Do you mean the Merlin 61 was later run at 12lbs 30 min rating, or one of the later Merlins in the Spit IX (eg, 63, 66 etc)?
-
Here's the manual.
Mk. V
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=611273)
Mk. IX
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=611276)
Note that for the Merlin 61, climb power is +12 boost.
Gripen, where do you get +9 boost from?
-
I have attached a document which tells us the power settings used by the AFDU in their tests. (Full text available here) (http://www.geocities.com/spades53.geo/prodocs.htm)
It clearly states the level speed test settings. The settings for all of the other tests are not given explicitly, but they are referenced as "maximum continuous climbing" settings. Fortunately, the manuals (see my previous post) contain the "maximum continuous climbing" settings for the Spitfires Mk. Vb (Merlin 45) and F. Mk. IX (Merlin 61) which were used in the tests.
We can therefore reconstruct the power settings used by the AFDU in their tests, as follows:
Level Speed Tests
Fw 190: 1.42 ata, 2700 rpm
Spit V: +12 psi, 3000 rpm
Spit IX: +15 psi, 3000 rpm
Climb and All Other Tests
Fw 190: 1.35 ata, 2450 rpm
Spit V: +9 psi, 2850 rpm
Spit IX: +12 psi, 2850 rpm
These are the settings used by the AFDU. They are easily achieved using the controls in AH. Any investigator who wishes to duplicate in AH the tests of the AFDU needs to use these settings. Otherwise any comparison to the AFDU tests is invalid.
-
However, in the case of the Spitfire F. IX in AH, which Pyro claims has a Merlin 61, we have an aircraft which uses boost limits which do not match those in the manual or those in the AFDU test.
I do not understand how Pyro has modeled the Spit IX engine. Is he using data for a Merlin 66? Is it a Merlin 61 and he made a mistake on the boost figures? Is it test data for a plane with a Merlin 61 which was actually run at +18 boost? I have no idea. Therefore I am not sure what boost settings should be used by an AH investigator who wishes to duplicate the AFDU trials.
One last thing: Fw 190A-5 had a fuselage extension which should have made it heavier than the Fw 190A-3. So it seems that our A-5 would climb and accelerate a bit slower than the one tested by the AFDU. But I don't have any weight data from a primary source for either variant. So I don't know if this factor is worthy of consideration or not.
-
The thread was about duplicating the AFDU tests in AH. I had studied this very subject way back when Spades originally posted the AFDU documents, and remembered the discrepancy in the power settings, as pointed out by Nashwan.
I only posted here to make sure everybody was aware of the difference in ratings between the early Spits flown by the AFDU and the ones in AH. I just wanted to make sure that the tests were done as realistically as possible, so that the findings would be useful to the community. I saw something that probably invalidated the tests, so I pointed it out.
I really don't care what the results are, if the 190 is overmodeled or the Spits are overmodeled. We have plenty of quantitative performance data for these aircraft, and the AH planes match the data quite well. There might be some small errors in performance, but nothing major. In any case I can't play AH due to the "UDP Lost" porkage caused by one of the recent patches. I was just trying to help a fellow flight test nerd to make his measurements as realistic as possible. That's all I have to say on the subject.
-
Funked, so we agree on the Spitfire 9 running WEP at 15 or possibly 16 boost. The A3 outaccelerated this spit, specially in zoom climbs.
The Spit 9 in AH has the gauge showing 18 lbs BUT the performance of teh Spit matches that of the actual Spit 9 which proves that the boost gauge in AH is showing wrong. I is actually running at 16 but showing 18.
The Spitfire Mk 5, which was later improved to the version we have, was still quite inferior to the worst of the Spitfire 9's, (the one we have) as also indicated and modelled in AH. And that Spit 9 was outaccelerated by the 190 A3.
Which means. The Spitfire 9 we have was outaccelerated by the A3. The A5 had a slightly lenghtened fuselage, weight difference was minimal. The engine was improved. Speed was improved somewhat aswell. As the Spitfire 9 we have was outaccelerated by the A3, meaning that even the improved spitfire 5 was also outaccelerated by it. The Improved Spitfire Mk 5 is the same we have in AH, it is inferior to our 16 lbs Spit 9, thus it should be inferior to the 190 A5.
The A5 had the fuselage lenghtened by 15,5 cm (about 6 inches). Weight difference hardly noticable.
Spit 9 accelerates from 200-300mph in 37 seconds in AH (once again, performance matches the Merlin 61 spit 9). 190 A5 accelerates from 200-300mph in 52 seconds. Asume the extra weight would actually decrease the acceleration in a way that can even be measured, it was DEFINATLY not decreased with 15 seconds for 100mph.
Not sure how I can make this any clearer, the spit 9 used in the test had the same performance as the spit 9 in AH. Spit 5 in AH is better then the one in the tests but still inferior to the spit 9 thus inferior to the 190 aswell.
Never been any clearer for me that the 190 is modelled in a wrong way. The Spit 5 DID NOT outaccelerate the 190 A5 in level flight or anything else. The Merlin 61 spit 9 did NOT outaccelerate the 190 A5 (once again, performance of A3 and A5 is very little, if any, the A5 has better), specially not in zoom climbs.
Can't argue against this and these tests prove pretty much that the AH 190 is wrong.
-
Funkedup,
You can find additional data about AFDU tests from "The Captive Luftwaffe" by K. S. West, +9 lbs is claimed there (actually you can find same information from other books too). +12 lbs @ 2850 rpm is the 1 hour settiing claimed in manual and also in several other sources. Anyway, if we look climb rates and speeds in A&AEE (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/bf274.html) test, we can see that AFDU climb test used +12 lbs @ 2850rpm. The sources are contradictory in this case.
Wilbus,
We certainly know that at +18 lbs boost (Merlin 66 and other two stage Merlins) the Spitfire IX outclimbed the Fw 190 with large margin and therefore atleast initially outaccelerated too. The problem is that we don't really know what data HTC staff used. As said before, AH is a game.
gripen
-
Wilbus,
No, the Spit IX in the tests was running at +12, well below its maximum.
Looking through my books I found a reference to a Merlin 61 being run at +25 boost and producing 2,100hp at 10,000ft.
Clearly this was never used in operational Spits.
Due to the screwy boost guage in the AH Spit IX it is impossible to run comparitive tests to the AFDU tests. Pyro has stated outright that the Spitfire Mk IX in AH is a Merlin 61 powered Spitfire. That would make it an early Spit IX, one of only about 300 built with the Merlin 61.
-
Karnak 12 lbs on no WEP yes. 15-16 lbs on WEP.
I ran no WEP on all my tests. As the performance the Spitfire 9 in AH, matches the performance (more or less) of the Spitfire with Merlin 61, the boost in Military will be the same as the boost they used in military. Meaning 12 lbs.
-
I hate to throw a wrench into the works here... but I actually believe the Spitfire IX we have in AH is a Spitfire H.F. IX with a Merlin 70.
Ya, ya "but Pyro said..." well, I have seen nothing where Pyro claims its a Merlin 61 ***with a 100 percent accurate model***, have you?
You guys are basing arguements on a LOT of assumptions.
Here are my own:
I have heard that the Spitfire IX in Warbirds was actually modelled after a HF IX, and I also think (this is also my conjecture) that Pyro got the SAME data , but plugged it into his new sim...Aces High. Proof? I have none, but the IX we have is closest to a Merlin 70, which did have a max boost of 18.
Data:
Spitfire IX Merlin 70
Rate of climb at Sea level 4390 ft/min.
Rate of climb @ 30,000 ft. 2600 ft/min.
Time to 10,000 ft 2.25 mins.
Time to 20,000 ft 4.85 mins.
Time to 30,000 ft 8.05 mins.
Height at which rate of climb is 1000 ft/min. 38,000 ft.
Time to reach above height (30k) 12.6 mins.
Service ceiling (100ft/min) 41,000 ft.
Estimated absolute ceiling 41,300 ft.
Rate of climb corrected to 18.0 lb/sq.in. boost
Level speeds
Maximum level speed at sea level 329 m.p.h.
Maximum level speed at M.S. gear full throttle height 396 m.p.h. at 15,900 ft.
Maximum level speed at F.S. gear full throttle height 407 m.p.h. at 27,800 ft.
Level Speed at 30,000 f.t 413 m.p.h.
The data does not match exactly but NO a/c in AH matches their RL #s perfect. You will find the AH Spitfire IX is as close to the above numbers as the "Merlin 61" #s are.
I beleive the boost guage is accurate, on a merlin 70, 18 pounds with full boost.
Fact of the matter is, when all is said and done, it does match a Merlin 61 model as well as it does a Merlin 70. Also, a HF IX has standard wing tips, armament, ect. (despite popular myth to the contrary). You cant tell it from a standard LF IX.
This "proves" nothing, no, but food for thought I think is all. Maybe the guage works just fine?
Regards.
-
Thanks Squire :)
Still doesn't explain why a Spit 5, which was reported, not only in tests but in combat, to be inferior to the 190. I mean inferior as in don't stand a single chance unless they surprised the 190. The Superiority of the 190 was so great over the Spit 5 that the small/medium attacks against france by blenheims + Spitfire and Hurricane escort were infact almost stopped completely.
Spitfire 5 pilots reported this aswell, Jonny Johnson (however it is spelled) came back from his first encounter with one astonished and amazed by the new plane, the answer by the air ministry to his question what it was kind of plane it was "we believe it is some old Curtis planes got prior to WW2", Jonny's answer to that was "well if they've got some old Curtis planes as good as that can we have some?". That alone clearly proves the superiorty which the 190 had in R/L, which it doesn't in any way have in AH.
-
Give it up luftwhiner.
-
Wilbus my friend, please, you are not telling me in a Snapshot or a TOD setup that a Spitfire V squad would not be completely dominated by a Fw190A-5 squad?
You are not serious. Look at the speed #s. They would slash and escape at will, with twice the firepower of a Spitfire V. I have fought 190s in the CT in SpitVs to know enough of what I speak.
They dominate the SpitV like the F4U dominates the A6M5 (only when flown properly...mind you).
Sea level: 340 to 305
5k: 370 to 325
10K: 365 to 345
20K: 405 to 375
Approximations, but I mean really. Unless the LW get into "MA style" TBing, they would kick a**.
And the 190 rolls on a whim as well as having 4 x 20mm cannon and a radial engine that cant be killed by a coolant hit.
Try escorting a flight of Bostons, with Spit Vs, and have an opposing squad attack with 190A5s. See how many Bostons make it back.
Regards.
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
Give it up luftwhiner.
Grow up kid, you're not in AW anymore.
-
In any environment approaching "reality" in AH (i.e. scenarios, TODs, etc.), the 190A5 clearly dominates the Spit V.
Anyone arguing otherwise is deluding himself. The A5 holds just about all the cards when it comes to survivability/escapability. It can almost always dictate the terms of the fight unless found in an extremely disadvantageous position.
If I had my choice in a scenario, I'd choose the A5 over the Spit V in a heartbeat.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Squire,
Thanks, your explanation sounds pretty logical.
Wilbus,
AFAIK the AH Spitfire V uses +16 lbs (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/aa878.html) rating.
gripen
-
Originally posted by Staga
Grow up kid, you're not in AW anymore.
Do you think if Dilbus keeps on whining and crying that HTC will change the A5?
I don't.
-
By the way, an "operational" HF IX would have been slower, and not quite as fast in the climb, thats a given for AFDU tests I would think.
As well, remember the post Normandy 1944 SpitIXs (LF and HF) had the larger oil cooler under the nose (like we have in the AH version), and would have caused, lets say 5mph extra drag? take that into account and the #s are even closer what we have in the AH SpitIX.
I will also say for all the talk of the "1942 Spit fighting 1944 LW" I really dont buy that either Spit fans.
The main LW fighter types in most of the 1944 JGs were the 109G-6 and the FW190A-8, and a Spitfire IX can fight either. 190D-9 and 109G-10s are mid-late 44+ to be fair, and yes, either of the latter will outclass it, as they did. I would like to see a LF IX at some point, but they gave the XIV instead I guess .
-
Originally posted by Squire
Wilbus my friend, please, you are not telling me in a Snapshot or a TOD setup that a Spitfire V squad would not be completely dominated by a Fw190A-5 squad?
I think you are missing the point here... ;)
This is from the first post in the thread:
Level acceleration at 10,3k.
Time from 200mph to 300mph.
Spitfire Mk V: 46 seconds.
Fw 190 A5: 52 seconds.
Should this not be corrected if it's true?
-
Montezuma it really looks like something is wrong in FWs and IF thats true HTC should fix it ASAP and I believe that will happen with or without your comments.
If you have something to add to this conversation please do so but leave those childish remarks out.
-
By the way, an "operational" HF IX would have been slower, and not quite as fast in the climb, thats a given for AFDU tests I would think.
No, the ADFU tests were similar to results from service machines.
The AH SPit IX comes nowhere near HF figures, at least according to the HTC charts.
ROC
AH 3700 ft/min SL
HF 4400 ft/min SL
F 3650 ft/min SL
AH 2300 ft/min 30k
HF 2600 ft/min 30k
F 2300 ft/min 30k
As well, remember the post Normandy 1944 SpitIXs (LF and HF) had the larger oil cooler under the nose (like we have in the AH version), and would have caused, lets say 5mph extra drag? take that into account and the #s are even closer what we have in the AH SpitIX.
All the Spits were tested with their rear view mirrors, the early ones unfaired. AH doesn't model them, so add a couple of mph.
Fact of the matter is, when all is said and done, it does match a Merlin 61 model as well as it does a Merlin 70.
Speed figures are harder to tell, because at most altitudes there is a difference of only 10 mph, or less. The climb figures make it very clear, however.
As well, remember the post Normandy 1944 SpitIXs (LF and HF) had the larger oil cooler under the nose (like we have in the AH version), and would have caused, lets say 5mph extra drag? take that into account and the #s are even closer what we have in the AH SpitIX.
Post Normandy, all the Spit IXs in the UK were running 150 octane, and had much better performance figures (approx 360 mph at sea level). From Jan 45, all the Spit IXs in NW Europe were running 150 octane.
-
Squire, I love the A5, it WOULD indeed (and does) kick ass, and it wins over Spit 5's in scenarios etc BUT like BigUC said, I think you're missing the point.
The 190 A5 is faster, it is even a bit faster then the Spit 9 in level speed BUT the acceleration and climb rate/zoom capebility is clearly porked. Noone can say anything against that. Leave out the Spitfire 5 and instead comapare our A5 to the Spit 9.
Spit 9 in AH is more or less equal to the Spit 9 that was used in the tests. merlin 61 early spit. Performance numbers indicate this so don't mix in boost pressure. The Spitfire 9 out accelerates the 190 with EAS, and I mean extreemly much superior and faster acceleration.
In R/L the 190 was the better accelerating plane, this was specialy noticable in dives and zooms. Level flight wasn't so noticable but it outaccelerated it.
So tell me this, does a 52 second time from 200-300mph compared to Spit 9 37 second seem true to any of you guys as the 190 was the one accelerating faster? 15 second difference.
AS for the 190 dominating the spit 5 yes, but as soon as the 190 would possibly get slow the Spit 5 would catch it in a dive or zoom without trouble thanks to its much better acceleration in AH. This was not the case in R/L where the 190's totally ruled the fight.
-
In R/L the 190 was the better accelerating plane, this was specialy noticable in dives and zooms. Level flight wasn't so noticable but it outaccelerated it.
So tell me this, does a 52 second time from 200-300mph compared to Spit 9 37 second seem true to any of you guys as the 190 was the one accelerating faster? 15 second difference.
Did you test at 10,000ft?
The FW 190 accelerated faster "except at those altitudes where the Spitfire had a speed advantage"
10,000ft was about the best altitude for the Spit v the 190, the place where it had it's biggest speed advantage.
It should at least equal the Fw 190 at that that.
You are also testing an A5 vs an A3 (more weight) at 1.3 ata instead of 1.35 ata. (less power)
In short, you are testing a heavier plane at less power, at altitudes where the Spit should be marginally better anyway.
-
Nashwan, maybe you haven't read the test report. The 190 A3 was faster at ALL altitudes up to 25k. It climbed better at ALL altitudes up to 25k. It accelerated better at ALL altitudes.
And without sounding too rude, the thing about Spitfire 5 having its best altitude at 10k, is pure BS. Check AH charts your self, both Military and WEP bet alt is about 18-19k.
The 190 A5 was only some KG heavier, 15cm longer nose doesn't do much in weight, specially not so much difference so that it would be outaccelerated. Remeber, the reason the update planes is to make them better, not worse.
The A5 might have had slightly worse acceleration due to a few extra KG but not that much and it wouldn't be outaccelerated by a 1941/42 spit.
As for my last post, my point being, that in a scenario, the ONLY thing the 190 has on its side is roll rate and Maximum level speed. Same situation in R/L it had roll rate, acceleration in all ways (dive level climb etc) high speed handeling etc. Everything except turn rate.
-
IIRC correctly, and I may not be, there wasn't a weight difference between the 190A-3 and the 190A-5 of any significance. The only difference between the models was the 190A-5 had a slightly longer nose to shift the CG forward some.
-
One more thing, my tests were made with a 2 gunned 190 A5. You can take away bout 100kg there if you like, improve acceleration some over the A3 they used.
-
Just tested the Spitfire Mk V at 12 lbs boost as so many of you wanted. Only did acceleration test at 10,3k.
Time from 200 to 300mph being 57 seconds. Only 4 seconds behind. With 12 lbs boost the spitfire 5 outclimbs the 190 A5 above 6k or so.
main reason the spit 5 was 4 seconds worse with 12 lbs boost is that its max speed is decreased from 320 at 10 k to maybe 310 or so. Thus, the closer you get to max speed the slower acceleration. It was in the last 15-20 mph the Spit 5 with 12lbs lost, before that it was still as fast/faster then the A5.
You all still think everything is right here?
-
Nashwan, maybe you haven't read the test report. The 190 A3 was faster at ALL altitudes up to 25k. It climbed better at ALL altitudes up to 25k. It accelerated better at ALL altitudes.
Sorry, I was refering to your tests, which were between the Spit IX and the 190.
And without sounding too rude, the thing about Spitfire 5 having its best altitude at 10k, is pure BS. Check AH charts your self, both Military and WEP bet alt is about 18-19k.
I meant best altitude v the 190. ie, the altitude where it had it's biggest advantage over the 190 (apart from very high up)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/models/charts/190a5speed.gif)
In fact, you seem to have picked just about the worst possible altitude to test the 190 at, what with that performance dip just over 10,000ft...
Just tested the Spitfire Mk V at 12 lbs boost as so many of you wanted. Only did acceleration test at 10,3k.
Read Gripens post. The Spit V was tested at 12lbs max (ie wep), only 9lbs for the other tests.
Test the Spit V at 12lbs v the 190 at 1.42ata, or the Spit V at 9lbs v the 190 at 1.35 ata.
-
@ 10k and slightly above the A5 is about 25mph faster than spit V according to AH charts. Wilbus test was with Spit V, not Spit IX. :rolleyes:
-
No, Wilbus tested the Spit IX:
Spitfire IX acceleration at 10,3k. 200-300mph: 37 seconds. 190 A5 took 52 seconds. Again, the 190 was said to accelerate better, not much in level flight however still better. 35 seconds for the 190 in AH might be a resonable acceleration?
-
Nashwan, that doesn't change acceleration much, the Spitfire 5 is much better in acceleration. While infact, the 190 A3 accelerated better then the Spit 9 we have in AH. I will make tests above 10k aswell but won't change accel too much I believe.
-
My appologize Nash, I missunderstood your first post :)
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
No, Wilbus tested the Spit IX:
I apologize - I read this in his first post:
Level acceleration at 10,3k.
Time from 200mph to 300mph.
Spitfire Mk V: 46 seconds.
Fw 190 A5: 52 seconds.
-
I've tested both the Spit 9 and the Spit 5 as my first post shows.
I've also done climb tests vs the Hurricane II C and even that fargin plane outclimbs the 190 A5 (no wep for any of them) above 8k.
I'll do initial acceleration test between different planes today, will messure acceleration at 5k between 200 and 220 and 200 and 240.
-
Wilbus, you might be interested in this post on Butch2k's board:
http://pub131.ezboard.com/fallboutwarfarefrm31.showMessage?topicID=779.topic
Apologies if it's stuff you've already got.
-
Exelent Nash! Thanks!
Also note that the 190 Outaccelerates both the Spit 9 and P38 F in dives without trouble.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
http://pub131.ezboard.com/fallboutwarfarefrm31.showMessage?topicID=779.topic
Is that link Scifi? Or is AH Scifi?
-
I found this today.
-
1,35 ata = 4,5 lbs/sq.inch???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
-
The British way of measuring boost pressure was to give the figure above sea level air pressure.
So to convert ata to lbs boost, subtract 1 from the ata, then multiply.
The 18lbs boost talked of in Spits was actually almost 33 lbs in absolute pressure, 18lbs above sea level atmospheric pressure.
18lbs in British terminology = 33 lbs in absolute pressure = 66 in hg = 2.22 ata (all approx)
Mandoble, what do you mean?
-
Good info Neil. Wasn't the Spit V rated at at least 12lbs by the time of this test? Are the Spit figures simply old A&AEE figures, rather than a new test alongside the 190?
-
Nashwan, the Spit 5 had 12 lbs with WEP. The Speed tests were made with WEP and the climb tests were made with military, 9 lbs for the spit they had at the time.
Nash, check the chart, it says the 190 A3 was tested at 1.35 ata. It also says that "Note: 1,35 ata = 4,5 lb./sq.in. Boost"
If this is correct, and as they write nothing else about it. It means the 190 was infact used at 4,5 lb/sq.in and the Spit at 9 lb/sq.in.
WHat have I missunderstood here?
-
On the bottom chart in the link, there is a column with the weights of the various models.
Next to 190A-5, the weight is listed as 9,480 pounds.
Next to the 190A-3 (the one tested in the test Wilbuz is quoting), the weight is listed as 8,377.
What would cause the difference in weight of 1,100 pounds? That could very well be why our 190A-5 doesn't accelerate as well as that 190A-3 did in the test.
Of course, in the AH help file it gives the 190A-5's weight as 8,583... now I'm rather confused.
-
Urchin that 9xxx lbs for the A5 is fully loaded weight, including external ordance.
from my sources the weight differences between A3 and A5 are "nonexistant", to my own surprise i also found some data giving the A5 a lower "empty weight" than the A3.
-
Nash, check the chart, it says the 190 A3 was tested at 1.35 ata. It also says that "Note: 1,35 ata = 4,5 lb./sq.in. Boost"
If this is correct, and as they write nothing else about it. It means the 190 was infact used at 4,5 lb/sq.in and the Spit at 9 lb/sq.in.
WHat have I missunderstood here?
As I understand it, the 190 A3 was designed to run at 1.42 ata max. In service, it caused trouble, and they were restricted to 1.35 ata max (possibly 1.3 ata, I am not 100% sure)
All the other ratings were lowered as well (eg, max continuous from 1.35 to 1.28 or 1.3, again I am not 100% sure)
So, when the RAE tested the captured 190 at 1.42 ata it caused engine trouble. At the time, the RAE knew the plane had been derated, but ran it at the higher rating anyway. I remember seeing an old story, where it was claimed the 190s had been derated because their margin of superiority over the Spit V was so great, they could be run at lower settings to preserve engine life, and still not be under threat. Perhaps that was the thinking at the time, and so they ran the 190 at 1.42 ata, thinking derating would be reversed when the Spit IX came along.
Anyway, back to the point.
The RAF ran the 190 at 1.42 ata. According to this report, they also tested it at the derated figures, 1.35 ata max, 1.28 climbing power.
However, they have compared it to a Spit V at 9lbs boost, which is climbing power, but not WEP. I just wondered why.
-
CC but the chart says that 1,35 ata = 4,5 lbs boost which means that the climb test against spit 5 was done with the 190 flying with HALF the boost of the Spit. :confused:
-
Different planes, different boost.
The 109 used anywhere up to 1.8 ata with 97 octane fuel, with MW 50 as well it could go up to 1.98 ata.
The Spitfire used up to 2.25 ata on 100 octane fuel, with 100/150, which was comparable to 97 octane + MW50, the Spit could go up to 2.7 ata.
The Tempest could go to 1.76 ata on 100 octane, 1.9 on 150 octane.
Why such differences I don't know. I don't know much about engines.
I'd like an explanation on why such huge diffferences in manifold pressure. Why would a Sabre suffer detonation above 11lbs boost, whilst a Merlin or Griffon could run 18lbs boost without detonation?
BTW, 4.5 lbs boost is half the boost increase of 9lbs boost, but not half the actual manifold pressure.
4.5lbs + standard sea level air pressure is about 19lbs manifold pressure. 9lbs + sea level pressure is about 23.5lbs manifold pressure, which no longer looks such a huge difference.
The 190 A3 could run a maximum of 4.5lbs boost pressure safely, and that's what this doc from Neil shows. The Spitfire V could run 12lbs safely, possibly as much as 16lbs, so it's strange that the Spit was tested at less than max boost, with the 190 at max boost.
-
The Spit 5 had WEP at 12 boost. It was tested at 12 boost during speed runs only, speed runs for 190 was tested at 1,42 ata.
However, this 19lbs vs 23,5 lbs throws new light over this. All spit people seem to think the Spit was run at much less boost then the 190 which in that case is very wrong.
-
Nash, the Spit V was able to use +12lbs boost from the date of its entry into service, this was intially used for take off. Boost was increased to +16lbs in mid 1942.
Neil.
-
The 12 boost was for WEP, and was like Neil says later raised to 16 lbs. But 12 was initally WEP and then 16 was WEP. We have the later version.
-
Spitfire V speed using +16lbs boost,http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit12afduspeed.gif
Neil.
-
Spifire V climb using +16lbs boost. http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit12afduclimb.gif
-
Forget what the AH boost guage shows, the AH Spit V has the same speed (under WEP) as a Spit running 9lbs boost, and the same climb as a Spit V running 12lbs boost.
It is about 10 - 12mph too slow below 12,000ft to be running 16lbs boost, and the rate of climb is about 300 ft/min too low to be running 16lbs boost.
Nash, the Spit V was able to use +12lbs boost from the date of its entry into service, this was intially used for take off.
All the test reports seem to be done at 9lbs max. Was 12lbs limited to take off only, not emergeny combat power, at least until some time in 1942?
However, this 19lbs vs 23,5 lbs throws new light over this. All spit people seem to think the Spit was run at much less boost then the 190 which in that case is very wrong.
I don't think anyone has meant the Spit was run at least boost than the 190, simply that the 190 was run at its maximum, whilst the Spits were run below their maximum.
If a 190 is run at 4.5lbs boost, it's running it's maximum emergency power, ie WEP. If the Spit V were to be run at 4.5lbs boos, it would be at cruising power.
-
No Nash, 4,5 lbs (1.35 ata) was NOT wep, WEP was quite a bit above that, atleast 1,42 ata.
The spitfires were run at WEP (12lbs) for speed trails. This was the MAX boost they could put out at the time untill they were improved. So that the Spit was run on less boost then it could it wrong, it run at max boost it could. Upgraded versions arived later.
9 lbs boost was maximum contineus climbing power, all tests except 3 minute speed trails were 9 lbs vs the 4.5 lbs in the 190. The 190 speed trails were at 1.42 ata (whatever that is in lbs). Spit 5 speed trails were at 12 lbs. Spit 9 speed trails were at 16lbs and it still got outaccelerated by the 190. Meening the spit 5 would be too.
-
The 190 engine during the tests was troublesome aswell, it gave rough running and had be repaired using He111 engine parts. Against the spit 14 and tiffie the trails were abondoned due to the 190 engine being too bad.
-
No Nash, 4,5 lbs (1.35 ata) was NOT wep, WEP was quite a bit above that, atleast 1,42 ata.
Not until the A5.
1.42 was the designed max, but it caused probems, and in service the aircraft were derated, with 1.35 becoming WEP, 1.28 max continuous.
-
Not in the test Nash, 1,42 was used as WEP for the 3 minute speed trails. The problems were fixed in the A4. A4 and A5 uses the same BMW 801D2 engine with possibility for MW50.
-
I'm curious... the P-38F had 1,325 hp engines, didn't it? In the test report, it's stated that maximum power was 2,800 rpm, 42" manifold pressure. I don't have a P-38F manual, but the P-38J/L ratings for grade 91/96 fuel show 1,325 hp corresponding to 3,000 rpm and 47" MP.
I'd estimate 2,800 rpm / 42" MP as about 1,150 hp, which matches the P-38E's engines. Was someone using an old manual, or is there another reason? :confused:
-
Whats the difference between 'ata', manifold pressure, and boost? All this stuff makes my brain hurt. I noticed that our 190 runs at like 39 manifold pressure. What is that in 'ata' and boost? How do you know what it is?
-
Nash,
" All the test reports seem to be done at 9lbs max. Was 12lbs limited to take off only, not emergeny combat power, at least until some time in 1942? "
all the tests I have seen are either at +9lbs or +16lbs boost, I do have a performance estimate for +12lbs.
Plus 12lbs boost was initially and officially used for take off only, however I don't think there was any way of preventing its use during combat.
The height at which the aircraft acheives its max speed indicates what boost pressure is being used, hence the big difference between +9lbs and +16lbs.
Neil.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
The AH 190 runs at 1.3 ata, the AFDU tested theirs at 1.35 ata. That means the ADFU 190 will be faster. (assuming acceleration test were carried out at 1.35, and not WEP)
Is the A5 heavier than he A3? If so, the AFDU 190 will accelerate faster than the AH 190.
Probably depends on altitude.
AH 190A-5 should run at 1.42ata. (Start und Notleistung)
ADFU 190 was run at 1.42ata.
Performance should be almost identical.
However operatinal 190As until 190A-5 were usually restricted to 1.32ata to extend engine life. A-5 and later A-variants had 1.42ata maximum boost.
-
Wilbus, you should try your acceleration tests at something other than 10,000 feet. The Spit V was faster and better climbing than the 190 at that altitude; of course it would out-accelerate it.
-
Bombjack, read the RAF tests?
The A3 outaccelerated both the Spit 5 (slower then our Spit 5) and the Spit 9 (same as teh Spit 9 we have). The Spit 9 didn't out-accelerate it at any alt. Specially not in dives and in zoom climbs.
-
Wilbus,
Yes I am quite familiar with the AFDU tactical trials. However as a courtesy to you I went back and re-read them. I saw nothing to make me change my assertion.
You should realise that the tactical trials were intentionally broad in scope. They did not go into such detail as "at 10,000 feet the FW-190 has greatly reduced power since it is still well above critical altitude for the first blower stage, yet below that for the second; by comparison the Spitfire MkV is at critical altitude for its single stage blower, and (at this altitude only) enjoys a slight performance advantage." - but this would be exactly right, as evidenced by Neil Stirling's post on this page.
So, I repeat, conduct your level acceleration tests at a height other than 10,000 feet if you wish to replicate the AFDU comparisons.
-
Yeah I will redo the, however the A3 almost kept up with the Spit 9 in climb up to 22k and outclimbed the Spit 5. It outaccelerated both.
-
I'm just curious here, but why does it seem like every time someone questions the performance of a LW plane in AH there is an immediate backlash by others who seem to want to not even touch the subject. Every time an Allied plane is in question, it seems people are much more willing to listen and something ends up being done (i.e. the p38). It especially seems as though the spit jocks are in utter fear of the 190's performing the way they should. As in the real war the 190a5 should easily outperform the spit5. But as we all know this simply is not the case in AH. All I want is for every plane to be modeled as closely as possible to the real thing. And that certainly should mean some kind of adjustments to the 190's and ta-152. I think Wilbus has made the case for the 190's to be re-evaluated here, and to not do anything about it after all that has been revealed would be rediculous.
-
I'm just curious here, but why does it seem like every time someone questions the performance of a LW plane in AH there is an immediate backlash by others who seem to want to not even touch the subject. Every time an Allied plane is in question, it seems people are much more willing to listen and something ends up being done (i.e. the p38). It especially seems as though the spit jocks are in utter fear of the 190's performing the way they should. As in the real war the 190a5 should easily outperform the spit5. But as we all know this simply is not the case in AH. All I want is for every plane to be modeled as closely as possible to the real thing. And that certainly should mean some kind of adjustments to the 190's and ta-152. I think Wilbus has made the case for the 190's to be re-evaluated here, and to not do anything about it after all that has been revealed would be rediculous.
Right on! Thank you and ! Agree to 100%.
-
Wilbus or "mustang", I invite you to list what has been 'revealed' to be incorrect about the modelling of the FW190A5 in Aces High, in this thread. Be specific, and list sources. (5 marks)
-
Big thanks to Wilbus for all his work. Clearly something is wrong, either with the Spit V or Fw 190. I hardly think Wilbus is the person who has to document anything further here...
-
Bombjack, why should Wilbuz try to list anything?
There are a couple of "Luftwhiners" (as some like to call em) that have brough up several issues (most often very well investigated) that are atleast worth an answer by HTC (which is not the case) and Wilbuz has just brought up one new topic (FW190 accel contro Spit accel).
Again he has done a great job in testing and comparing AH data to real data, and what happens every result he post is questioned right away.
So what would a list help here? All topics he could give would we questioned right away, without a discussion or even the try to consider that those topics might really need a re-evalutation by HTC.
It still wonders me that Wilbuz has not given up yet. I have so, couple of month ago.
-
I've posted what's wrong with it about 50 times in this thread now. If it's not clear enough then I am sorry but not gonna spend more time posting another 10 times just as I had to do in the Ta152 thread where I proved the Ta152 to be wrong above 35k.
Sorry.
-
Wilbus, I think the power settings confused the issue. Comparing it to the Spits threw in too many variables, and confused it even more.
The Spit V just about matches the climb figures in the chart Neil Stirling posted (the AH Spit is a lower than the real Spit)
If you want a clear example of a problem with the A5, look at the climb figures in the chart Neil posted. It shows 3500 ft/min between 10 - 17,000ft, at 1.35 ata. AH shows about 2400 ft/min at 1.35 or 1.3 ata, and only around 3000ft/min at 1.42 ata.
-
Announcer: "AXIS VS. ALLIES, ROUND 300,000,000!"
*ding*
-
Bombjack, why should Wilbuz try to list anything?
So that the cogent, documented, argument can be carried to Pyro to try and fix what's wrong, instead of making him piece it together from the blizzard of discussion on this thread? Never mind, Nashwan did it instead.
-
It is not only a question of HPs, propelor has also a big part here, drag, weight, even structural limits.
Our actual spits keep with even a D9 in a vertical dive without problems, they outzoom the D9 with ease, and can keep climbing steady while spraying 20mm bullets in impossible angles for any 190 at any altitude. Curiously, the spits are almost no affected by trim while any 190 is very dependant of it.
-
-
punt
-
bump for a worthy cause :D
-
Posted by nashwan.
If you want a clear example of a problem with the A5, look at the climb figures in the chart Neil posted. It shows 3500 ft/min between 10 - 17,000ft, at 1.35 ata. AH shows about 2400 ft/min at 1.35 or 1.3 ata, and only around 3000ft/min at 1.42 ata.
I will check 190A-5 factory chart for how it compares.
-
AH data matches this dead on. (1.32ata)
Note climb speeds. I think difference to british tests might be due to different climb angle. Could it explain the difference?
As example finns got much better climb rate (25m/s) out of their 109g-2s than factory data would indicate (21m/s) by climbing at more optimal speed IIRC.
Btw. Anyone knows if this chart is calculated data?
-
punt
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
The RAF ran the 190 at 1.42 ata. According to this report, they also tested it at the derated figures, 1.35 ata max, 1.28 climbing power.
However, they have compared it to a Spit V at 9lbs boost, which is climbing power, but not WEP. I just wondered why.
This is not so.
The British runned the A-3 at 1.35 ata only, that refers to something like ~1400 HP at, while 1730 HP would be avialable at 1.42 ata.
The British only belived that they runned the plane at 1.42 aa, but the fact is that they simply couldn`t do that... the plane was LIMITED to 1.42 ata.
There is proof that the British misunderstood the 190`s limits...
there`s another British curve that lists a Fw190A "at 1.42ata", but if you compare it`s speed performance to the German charts, you can see that what the British believed to be 1.42ata matches the 1.35 ata curve in the German chart.. that`s because what the Brtiish believed to be 1.42 was really only 1.35.. possibly they believed they reached the max. power that was stated in manual when they pushed forward the throttle fully.
That story about the the Spit would have been run at non-WEP power, while the A-3 was runinng at full power makes no sense at all... first thing that the A-3 couldn`t run at 1.42 ata. The second: what use would be for the British making such test? They wanted to know what the two planes could achieve when pushed to their limits; why would then they would run the enemy plane at full power, while running their own at non-maximum powers...?
Fact is that during the tests both planes were running at their achievable maximums: The 190A-3 at 1.35 ata, the Spit V at +9lbs. Neil`s docs show this as well.