Author Topic: AH Spitfire Mk V vs AH 190 A5 Tests (Read 5191 times)

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #15 on:** September 29, 2002, 05:26:23 PM »

How so?

Karnak · « **Reply #16 on:** September 29, 2002, 05:36:10 PM »

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.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #17 on:** September 29, 2002, 05:42:50 PM »

Show me the thread please.

Karnak · « **Reply #18 on:** September 29, 2002, 05:57:34 PM »

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.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #19 on:** September 29, 2002, 06:04:48 PM »

Thanks Karnak!

Hey but either way the Fw190A5 is 10mph too slow at 22K.

So I bet there is something funny still in her speed or engine modeling, especially with the poor acceleration figures.

Karnak · « **Reply #20 on:** September 29, 2002, 06:14:19 PM »

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.

Wilbus · « **Reply #21 on:** September 29, 2002, 06:38:58 PM »

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).

mustang · « **Reply #22 on:** September 29, 2002, 11:23:12 PM »

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...

Innominate · « **Reply #23 on:** September 30, 2002, 12:18:42 AM »

Quote

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.

funkedup · « **Reply #24 on:** September 30, 2002, 12:23:05 AM »

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.

Urchin · « **Reply #25 on:** September 30, 2002, 12:35:23 AM »

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.

Wilbus · « **Reply #26 on:** September 30, 2002, 03:32:35 AM »

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.

Nashwan · « **Reply #27 on:** September 30, 2002, 03:07:03 PM »

sorry I thought the link was common, and didn't bother to post it.

http://www.geocities.com/spades53.geo/prodocs.htm

Nashwan · « **Reply #28 on:** September 30, 2002, 03:18:28 PM »

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.

NJMAW · « **Reply #29 on:** September 30, 2002, 07:08:48 PM »

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.