Well, it was a capture Japanese technician that apparently fixed the capured A6M2 so it didn't suffer negative G engine cutouts, so you never know.
Hi,Karnak,
No you don't but I am sure it would have been noted had a prisoner been cooperative. Instead the reports simply notes it is understood from POW's has confirmed the engine runs rough.
Implying they were cooperating, while possible, is not the most likely explanation IMHO.
Additionally we do not know the experience of the POW. He could be very well speaking the truth from his point of view but referring to the time before his capture and experience in the BMW801C powered versions.
Facts are the BMW801D2 did not run rough in Luftwaffe service when properly set up or maintained.
What caught my non-engineer's eye in these reports was the qualitative sense of stall difference highlighted in the US paper, since their description pretty well matches the AH experience of having to fight stall harder and earlier in the 190s compared with the US rides.
That is because the FW-190's flying characteristics in AH are modeled from Allied reports.
WNr 313, RAE?
WerkNummer 313 = Serial Number of Oberstleutnant Arnim Faber, Gruppen-Adjutant III/JG2 FW-190A3.
RAE = Royal Aircraft Establishment = Organization responsible for the testing captured enemy aircraft.
With Crumpps suggetions, I'm wondering if its airelon trim was off, while the British example was trimmed at time of capture.
That is pretty much what I think. I have found no evidence or mention of the harsh stalling in the RAE reports on WNr. 313.
Aileron adjustment was off in some of the US aircraft. On several captured FW-190's flown I can prove the ailerons were out of adjustment.
The Luftwaffe had a difficult time keeping the ailerons adjusted. IMHO the design of the adjusting blocks was not one of Focke Wulf’s highpoints. Why they did not add teeth to the mated surfaces is unknown. Instead they left them smooth with the tension of two bolts to hold them at the adjusted point. The adjusting block bolt rides in a long oval groove with only the flanges of the bolt making contact with the block.
I am sure that just taxing around a bumpy field would cause the ailerons to come out a adjustment in a short period of time. This aspect of FW-190 maintenance and it's importance to the flight characteristics of the aircraft is very much emphasized in the maintenance instructions.
For the low speed stall:
The "no warning stall" in the FW-190 is not correct. The ailerons would vibrate just before the stall when properly adjusted. They would not reverse, however. Oscar Boesch has told me that you had to pay attention, however. If your mind was on anything other than flying the plane or you were not relaxed you could miss it. Once you got used to it though, it became second nature to him. So it was not a huge amount of warning. When you felt the bumping and your stick forces disappeared, relax the backpressure immediately.
Properly adjusted recovery was immediate with a relaxing of the stick. Left unchecked the wing would dip and develop into a spin. Which is pretty much most single engine fighters.
For the high speed stall:
It is a fact that the FW-190 can enter an aggravated stall at high speed. All aircraft with the ability to change AoA fast enough and at high enough speeds can do this. Many WWII fighters have too high a Stick Force Per G to do this or lack the elevator authority under G to change the AoA fast enough to create the stall conditions.
Oscar also has related you pretty much had to be crass to do this unintentionally. As the US pilot relates, it required trimming the nose down and a rather violent yank of the stick. Aero elasticity would remove the twist in the wing. The twist was put there to reduce the harsh stall of the NACA 230XX airfoils. This would shift the load outboard of the wing and bring the CL to nearly equal alone the span. If the wing was then stalled in this configuration it would stall alone most of the span at the same time causing the wing to rapidly drop. Left unchecked the aircraft would invert and spin. This characteristic was actually used by many Focke Wulf pilots as an escape manuver.
Wingloading(or more accurately, liftloading) is the primary factor in determining turn radius.
Good post Justin.
It takes a significant increase in liftloading. A moderate increase can easily be overcome with powerloading and thrust.
With increased thrust, the Spitfire Mk XIV was able to overcome a 1000lb weight increase and a 5lb sq ft wingloading increase. It simply was able to pull a larger angle of bank at the same speed than the Spitfire Mk IX. This reduced the turn radius, increased the turn rate, and allowed it to match the much lower wingloading of the Spitfire Mk IX.
The tactical differences are caused chiefly by the fact that the Spitfire XIV has an engine of greater capacity and is the heavier aircraft (weighing 8,400 lbs. against 7,480 lbs. of Spitfire IX).
The all-round performance of the Spitfire XIV is better than the Spitfire IX at all heights. In level flight it is 25-35 m.p.h. faster and has a correspondingly greater rate of climb. Its manoeuvrability is as good as a Spitfire IX. It is easy to fly but should be handled with care when taxying and taking off.
The turning circles of both aircraft are identical.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14afdu.htmlAll the best,
Crumpp
