quote:

Originally posted by p51srule:
WILL THIS THREAD EVER END? before i smash my comp.

*Indiean Jones comes out at midnight *

p51srule

Two weeks, be sure .

quote:

Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

quote:

Then enlighten us as to how it should be done.

Twenty degree dive at 215KEAS:

FW-190A3 at 215KEAS:

(1419.5THP * 325 ) / 215KEAS = 2145lbs

Mass = 8769lbs / 32.2fps^2 = 272.32 slugs

Thrust required = 868lbs

Thrust gain from weight = 8769lbs * Sin 20 = 2999lbs

(2125lbs + 2999lbs – 868lbs)/ 272.32 = 15.6 fps^2


Spitfire Mk IX Merlin 61

(1296THP * 325 ) / 215KEAS = 1959bs

Mass = 7250lbs / 32.2fps^2 = 225.15 slugs

Thrust required = 1062lbs

Thrust gain from weight = 7250lbs * sin 20 = 2480lbs

(1959lbs + 2480lbs – 1062lbs)/ 225.15 = 14.9 fps^2


All the best,

Crumpp

Since Kettenhunde favours snipping things out of context the interested reader can look here to see in what context I originally made the comment "Then enlighten us as to how it should be done".

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/352...191079066#4191079066

Unfortunately this post itself is snipped out of context and I urge the interested reader to go back further in this thread and see what points I was actually trying to make before the cut and pasting began.

For those not so enclined here is a short synopsis:

The question in hand is about dive and zoom performance starting at 7 Km altitude at 400 km/h. The results that I posted shows that the Spitfire Mk9 initially outdives the Fw190 A3. This is not right according to Kettenhunde who claims that I am "confused"

OK, now that the stage is finaly set we can analyse the reply Ketenhunde made above:

Unfortunately Kettenhundes reply turns out to be about apples when the question was about pears.

Looking at the numbers and the spreadsheet Kettenhunde posted earlier it becomes painfully clear that the numbers above are for 0 Km not 7 Km.

So what is the relevancy of this calculation regarding dive performance at 7 km?

Zero.

Also, why on earth anyone would enter a 20 degree dive at 0 km is beyond me but I'm sure that Kettenhunde will enlighten us why it is a good idea.

So can we now look forward to a similar calculation for 7 Km Kettenhunde? Or perhaps you do not want to do that since the results would not support what you claim?

PS: If you are planning to reply to my posts in the future, please do me the courtesy of replying to what I actually say instead of snipping bits out of context.

Josf,

Perhaps my error is things have oved on from discussing pure vertical zoom and I hadn't noticed. My comments may have been irrelevant if it has moved on.

On this point:

quote:

Either way the two different types of zoom climbing maneuvers (straight up and not straight up) involve a change from producing lift to producing less (or no) lift vector acceleration (unless the zoom is a vertical Barrel Roll Attack or Lag Displacement Roll in the vertical).

Is a bit off. The lift does not change just because the plane is climbing, rather the lift vector is no longer vertical and so only a portion is directly offsetting weight. In reality lift may not be perfectly vertical in level flight as it depends a bit on AoA and wing aerodynamics, but will be close.

A note on quoting out of context: sometimes things are out of context, sometimes it is (e.g. my snippet from Josf above) just for brevity. In a linear format like a forum there's always a tension there.

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
A note on quoting out of context: sometimes things are out of context, sometimes it is (e.g. my snippet from Josf above) just for brevity. In a linear format like a forum there's always a tension there.

I totally agree with you since I'm doing it myself to you right now.

However, hopefully you agree that my doing so in this case has not changed the message you were trying to get across?

My comment was not directed at the community. However, there are some bad apples in this forum that have developed it into an art to quote things out of context to serve an agenda. I think you know what I mean. You know them when you see them.

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
The lift does not change just because the plane is climbing, rather the lift vector is no longer vertical and so only a portion is directly offsetting weight. In reality lift may not be perfectly vertical in level flight as it depends a bit on AoA and wing aerodynamics, but will be close.

At zero AOA there is no lift -- covers whole ranges of situations going up and down.

Total force from the wings is lift perpendicular to the chord (maybe to a tangent of the thick
part of the wing or some other place) and the induced drag force that brings the total pull
backwards of "up". From there we get our lift and drag components which change with orientation
to gravity, or at least that's how I read the diagrams and text.

quote:

However, hopefully you agree that my doing so in this case has not changed the message you were trying to get across?

No, it did not, hence the need for care.

M_Gunz - better explained than I managed!

quote:

Originally posted by JG14_Josf:

Is the above a case of you comparing your evaluation of relative performance against the comparison of relative performance recorded by the English military unit charged with the task of measuring relative performance?

I would like that to be known specifically rather than ambiguously.

Like this:

Your math versus English side by side flight tests done by the military unit testing the Fw190A-3 and various other planes.

Like this:

You------------------------------British Pilots
Math-------------------------------Flight tests

Is that how you are basing your opinion concerning relative performance?

Your math?

Did I miss something? I may not have asked specifically before so I’ll ask now, and this applies if the above question is accurate concerning your method of evaluating relative performance in reality during WWII, my next question concerns the data you plug into your math. Where did you get that data?

Then, I am inclined to ask because I am curious, very curious actually, what is the formula you use to predict relative performance?

Three basic questions so far to clear up some of the ambiguity.

1. Your opinion, based upon data and math, is being compared to the British evaluation reports based upon flight tests between their planes and a captured Fw190 (which was in combat before it was captured).
2. Where did you get the data for your math (if question one is accurate)?
3. What formula do you use to compare your evaluation with the British one?

Josf, my simulator is never finished. I keep polishing it all the time. I use all data I can find on the net and exchange with friends. The way I work it is this: I model and make assumptions, I plug in the numbers and compare the results I get with what I know of the airplanes. Gradually I get a better and better correlation with known numbers and this builds my trust in the results more and more. However all we all know this is difficult going, what boost setting was used?, what were the atmospheric conditions when the test was done?, what prop was used?, was the plane sealed and polished? Was the engine running rough? etc. ad naseum.

The thing you are missing in your comparison above is that you assume that you can set my numbers on one side and the British pilots and flight test on the other and make a fair comparison.

The part you left out in your "figure" above is that it is like this:

You-------------------Josf_interpretation---British Pilots
Math------------------Josf_interpretation---Flight tests

Now you may, or you may not be aware that filter function "Josf_interpretation" there. The way you set up the connection implies that you are not. I could turn it around and say that the filter is biased and reading/seeing what it wants so no amount of argument is going to change the way the filter functions.

No ill will intended, we all do it but if you are not even aware that you are doing it you are in the risk zone.

"Plane X can leave plane Y standing in a dive"

"In plane Z, the diving performance over X2 is not as pronounced as it was over plane X1"

So how many meters does it take to be able to say that plane X leaves plane Y standing?

Many such statements cannot even be coupled to a fixed altitude or test conditions.

quote:

Originally posted by Holtzauge:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
A note on quoting out of context: sometimes things are out of context, sometimes it is (e.g. my snippet from Josf above) just for brevity. In a linear format like a forum there's always a tension there.

I totally agree with you since I'm doing it myself to you right now.

However, hopefully you agree that my doing so in this case has not changed the message you were trying to get across?

My comment was not directed at the community. However, there are some bad apples in this forum that have developed it into an art to quote things out of context to serve an agenda. I think you know what I mean. You know them when you see them.

And sometimes you just don't want to quote the whole of what's right above or close and
only show part as a reference point.

It's not like everything everyone posts is totally unambiguous either. Sometimes a little
forebearance is necessary to work out proper communications as opposed to the fourth-plus
(or 20th to 40th after a couple-five years) time the same 'misunderstanding' is cranked
back out goes well beyond the meaning of the word.

quote:

Looking at the numbers and the spreadsheet Kettenhunde posted earlier it becomes painfully clear that the numbers above are for 0 Km not 7 Km.

This is a standard in aerodynamics Holtzauge.

quote:

Twenty degree dive at 215KEAS:

FW-190A3 at 215KEAS:

(1419.5THP * 325 ) / 215KEAS = 2145lbs

Mass = 8769lbs / 32.2fps^2 = 272.32 slugs

Thrust required = 868lbs

Thrust gain from weight = 8769lbs * Sin 20 = 2999lbs

(2125lbs + 2999lbs – 868lbs)/ 272.32 = 15.6 fps^2


Spitfire Mk IX Merlin 61

(1296THP * 325 ) / 215KEAS = 1959bs

Mass = 7250lbs / 32.2fps^2 = 225.15 slugs

Thrust required = 1062lbs

Thrust gain from weight = 7250lbs * sin 20 = 2480lbs

(1959lbs + 2480lbs – 1062lbs)/ 225.15 = 14.9 fps^2


All the best,

Crumpp

We are using EAS as it gives us many advantages in our analysis.

quote:

Also, why on earth anyone would enter a 20 degree dive at 0 km is beyond me but I'm sure that Kettenhunde will enlighten us why it is a good idea.

EAS is used in aerodynamic comparison because it puts the aircraft in the same condition of flight. It normalizes dynamic pressure and removes density effects.

If you want to see specific performance then you simply convert by factoring in the density effects.

However while the specific performance might change due to density effects, the relative performance will not change as long as the aircraft remain under the same conditions.

It is also very useful because it removes all the differences in atmospheric modeling and accounts for compressibility correction differences in use.

All the best,

Crumpp

But will the engine powers be the same, relative?

(1959lbs + 2480lbs – 1062lbs)/ 225.15 = 14.9 fps^2

Thrust produced and thrust required do change with alt, right?
While the weight and mass components do not, do the changes of the other two cancel each other?
Might as well trot 'at alt' calcs out and close arguments either way out now, you know?
Unless there's not enough data..... then it's oh well.

Holtz's test still used at least one different plane though so his results should differ.

quote:

But will the engine powers be the same, relative?

Engine power will change. The analysis works very well up to 1st Gear FTH.

Looking at the power production for 2nd gear FTH the specific numbers would change but not the relative performance.

All the best,

Crumpp

I can see that the gravity assistance would not change nor the slugs, yeah if the thrust
and thrust req'd became less in proportion then the heavier FW should have even more advantage.

quote:

Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Fatcat can you post your power required curve and thrust required curve for the FW190 and Spitfire.

Numbers I posted before are from Il2 . Thrust available and required for A4 and SpitIXc in game is here:
Alt 7000m



I made quick calculation based on FW190A3. Numbers used:
HP= 1200
Prop.effic.= 0,85
Weight= 8769 lb
WingArea=197
WingSpan=34,38
AspectRat=5,999920812
Max.Speed at 7000m=400mph

K=0,061041214
e=0,869123413
AirDens=0,001114
Cdp=0,022031122

Thrust available at 400kmhTAS =1536lb
Thrust required=643lb
Level accel~1m/s

That's close to Holtzauge and game values.

FC

Thanks. I will take a look at it.

All the best,

Crumpp

Watching Dogfights the other day, I got the impression the American pilot (and I'm sorry I can't remember his name atm) represented in this particular engagement made some of the most practical comments concerning his P-51 vs 109 story.

For example, 16 P-51s surprise over 50 109s in November '44. He eventually bags 5 in this fight, but during the engagement he gets himself in a pickle.

This particular 109 was piloted by, what he recalls as, "A good pilot." It outperformed him in EVERY way, though only slightly. After a while he realized he's screwed so he deliberately stalled the 51 into a vertical dive, recovered and got out of dodge losing the German.

According to him, he avoided going after him to re-engage.

I'm sure somebody knows the pilot I'm talking about, since he did kill 5 in one fight.

We all know it's the man not the machine. But there's the counter-argument that the machine limits the man as well and this is true. All the charts and tables in the world don't estimate what the human being is capable of in these kind of extreme and unnatural circumstances. Every individual reacts to these in his or her own way.

But if you are to recount an engagement such as this and be honest, I'd say he was facing a Kurfurst. Both pilots seemed to be equal in skill, so comparing the machines in this case is warranted. I say the K-4 isn't overmodeled, but was simply the better machine. Though only slightly.

quote:

Numbers I posted before are from Il2 . Thrust available and required for A4 and SpitIXc in game is here:

For the most part things look very good.

One small point though is the L/Dmax for the Spitfire is occuring ~490Kph when it should be around ~390kph.

That would explain quite a bit.

All the best,

Crumpp

quote:

Is a bit off. The lift does not change just because the plane is climbing, rather the lift vector is no longer vertical and so only a portion is directly offsetting weight. In reality lift may not be perfectly vertical in level flight as it depends a bit on AoA and wing aerodynamics, but will be close.

Aaron_GT,

The off-ness of your reading of my quote (in or out of context) may be entirely on your end. I see no challenge to my viewpoint in your quote above. In other words; we are on the same page with lift force being what it is and not what we might want to believe it to be, off-ness, or anything other than accurately understood and measured.

The Barrel Roll Attack (Boyd), and/or, Lag Displacement Roll (Shaw) are maneuvers that can be employed with a vertical up (the center of the barrel roll is angled up some because the target is turning a defensive turn with an up angle component).

Example:

Suppose the target is going up, arching over, and then going down. The attacker is much faster than the target so the attacker goes around the target’s trajectory (like many barrel rings connected into one strap and stretched around a barrel like coil). The target could be doing a pull-up into a straight up zoom, followed by a short unloading time going straight up, followed by a use of the wings to accelerate the aircraft mass back to horizontal and then back down going straight down, while the Barrel Roll Attacking plane follows the pitch up into the vertical, notices the overtaking speed, sets up a vector inside the targets turn and begins to roll around that turn (to avoid the over-shoot) and maintain rear-hemisphere position.

As those two fighter planes climb it can be seen that one does unload (stop producing induced drag or lift on the wings) and the other does not stop producing lift, instead the other one continues to aim the lift vector force somewhat upward (aim the air mass thrust by the wings somewhat downward) at a shallow angle during some of the flight upward (at some point the lift vector is aimed down to accelerate the mass of the airplane down) in that example.

So…what is the off bit?

quote:

Either way the two different types of zoom climbing maneuvers (straight up and not straight up) involve a change from producing lift to producing less (or no) lift vector acceleration (unless the zoom is a vertical Barrel Roll Attack or Lag Displacement Roll in the vertical).

What is a bit off with that? One way, in context, is a shallow (sustainable climb angle) zoom and the other way is an un-sustainable climb angle (results in continuous deceleration up to a stall or change of vector before the stall); either way the two types of zoom involve a change from producing lift (pull up from level flight or pull out from a dive) to a less severe angle of attack when the desired angle of zoom is chosen [unless, of course, the zoom is a Barrel Roll Attack (Boyd) or a Lag Displacement Roll (Shaw)].

Am “I” still off?

quote:

You-------------------Josf_interpretation---British Pilots
Math------------------Josf_interpretation---Flight tests

Holtzauge,

If you accuse me of leaving that out as if I was not aware of it or as if I wanted to hide that part, then you assume too much (reading between the lines perhaps). The me part can be factored in as you wish. I was asking for less ambiguity concerning the math versus the historical record.

The historical record is not my construction. The report is published and studied by people other than me; or you.

Example:

Alfred Price's Study

quote:

Following initial flight trials at the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough in July 1942, the captured Focke Wulf 190 flew to the Air Fighting Development Unit at Duxford for tactical trials. The resultant report [the data in question] issued in August 1942 and reproduced below almost in its entirety, is a model of what such an intelligence document should contain. In places the language was complimentary in the extreme. The reader should bear in mind that these are not the words of a Focke Wulf salesman trying to boost his firm’s product, but those of an enemy forced to give an opponent in time of war.

Example:

quote:

The Fw 190 ha a high rate of dive, the initial acceleration being excellent. The maximum speed so far obtained in a dive is 580 m/p/h/ [934 k/m./h.] True at 16,000 ft [4,880 m], and at this speed the controls, although slightly heavier, are still remarkably light. One very good feature is that no alterations of trim form level flight is required either during the entry or during he pull-out. Due to the fuel injection system it is possible to enter the dive by pushing the control column forward without the engine cutting.

Example:

quote:

FW 190 VERSUS SPITFIRE VB

The Fw 190 was compared with the Spitfire VB from an operational squadron for speed and all-round maneuverability at heights up to 25,00 ft. The Fw 190 is superior in speed at all heights, and the approximate differences are as follows:

At 2,000 ft [610 m] the Fw 190 is 25-30 m.p.h. [40-56 k/m./h.] faster than the Spitfire VB.
At 3,000 ft [915 m] the Fw 190 is 30-35 m.p.h. [48-56 k.m./h.] faster than the Spitfire VB.
Etc.

Example:

quote:

The Fw 190 has better acceleration under all conditions of flight and this must obviously be useful in combat.

That was part of the captured combat active Fw190A-3 versus the operational squadron Spitfire VB in July 1942 where the Fw190 accelerated better under all conditions of flight and was faster at all altitudes tests in level flight.

Example:

quote:

The Focke Wulf 190 was compared with a fully operational Spitfire IX for speed and menieuvrability at heights up to 25,000 ft. The Spitfire IX at most heights is slightly superior in speed to the Fw 190 and the approximate differences in speeds at various heights are as follows:

At 2,000 ft [610 m] the Fw 190 is 7-8 m.p.h. [11-13 k.m./h.] faster than the Spitfire IX.
At 5,000 ft [1,524 m] the Fw 190 and the Spitfire IX are approximately the same.

Etc.

Here is the relevant part to what you wrote concerning your conclusions based upon your data and calculations:

quote:

The initial acceleration of the Fw 190 is better than the Spitfire IX under all conditions of flight, except in level flight at such altitudes where the Spitfire has a speed advantage and then, providing the Spitfire is cruising at high speed, there is little to choose between the two aircraft.

My effort can move on to interpret that data above in more detail after finding out if your opposite conclusions relate somehow with that data above. My original interest in your conclusions concerning your choice of comparing the Fw 190A-3 to other planes, since that is the plane model captured by the British and tested extensively by the British in July 1942.

Orange 1 = a real Fw190A-3

Orange 2 = the Fw190A-3 symbols you posted initially in this thread?

Pear 3 = me

We can get to me and my subjective anecdotes after figuring out the data that contends with the British tests.

Example:

quote:

Look at the weights: the Spitfire is lighter than the Fw190. At 7 Km the WEP power output of the two planes is about the same. So at THIS altitude the Spitfire has a better powerloading than the Fw190 and therefore accelerates better as long as the speed is not to great. At higher speeds the Spitfire will as we know suffer from the extra wing area to carry around. So weight is INITIALLY not good since the INITIAL acceleration will suffer due to the extra weight. At higher speeds when drag increases above thrust THEN the extra weight is an advantage but only then.

quote:

So weight is INITIALLY not good since the INITIAL acceleration will suffer due to the extra weight. At higher speeds when drag increases above thrust THEN the extra weight is an advantage but only then.

Compared to this:

quote:

The initial acceleration of the Fw 190 is better than the Spitfire IX under all conditions of flight, except in level flight at such altitudes where the Spitfire has a speed advantage and then, providing the Spitfire is cruising at high speed, there is little to choose between the two aircraft.

And this:

quote:

The Focke Wulf 190 was compared with a fully operational Spitfire IX for speed and menieuvrability at heights up to 25,000 ft. The Spitfire IX at most heights is slightly superior in speed to the Fw 190 and the approximate differences in speeds at various heights are as follows:

At 2,000 ft [610 m] the Fw 190 is 7-8 m.p.h. [11-13 k.m./h.] faster than the Spitfire IX.
At 5,000 ft [1,524 m] the Fw 190 and the Spitfire IX are approximately the same.

Etc.

Your data

British data

I, like anyone else, must rely upon an ability to accurately read.

You posted:



I read in Alfred Price’s book and other sources that the British captured and tested an Fw190A-3 versus the contemporary Spitfire.

Here:

quote:

The initial acceleration of the Fw 190 is better than the Spitfire IX under all conditions of flight, except in level flight at such altitudes where the Spitfire has a speed advantage and then, providing the Spitfire is cruising at high speed, there is little to choose between the two aircraft.

Your chart is opposite that data above.

In context:

quote:

The Focke Wulf 190 was compared with a fully operational Spitfire IX for speed and menieuvrability at heights up to 25,000 ft. The Spitfire IX at most heights is slightly superior in speed to the Fw 190 and the approximate differences in speeds at various heights are as follows:

At 2,000 ft [610 m] the Fw 190 is 7-8 m.p.h. [11-13 k.m./h.] faster than the Spitfire IX.
At 5,000 ft [1,524 m] the Fw 190 and the Spitfire IX are approximately the same.

Etc.

Reading, with care, the words say: “The initial acceleration of the Fw 190 is better than the Spitfire IX under all conditions of flight, except in level flight at such altitudes where the Spitfire has a speed advantage and then, providing the Spitfire is cruising at high speed,” while your words mean whatever your words intend to mean – I suppose.

This:
“The initial acceleration of the Fw 190 is better than the Spitfire IX under all conditions of flight, except in level flight at such altitudes where the Spitfire has a speed advantage and then, providing the Spitfire is cruising at high speed,”

Compared to this:

quote:

Look at the weights: the Spitfire is lighter than the Fw190. At 7 Km the WEP power output of the two planes is about the same. So at THIS altitude the Spitfire has a better powerloading than the Fw190 and therefore accelerates better as long as the speed is not to great. At higher speeds the Spitfire will as we know suffer from the extra wing area to carry around. So weight is INITIALLY not good since the INITIAL acceleration will suffer due to the extra weight. At higher speeds when drag increases above thrust THEN the extra weight is an advantage but only then.

The chart obviously predicts (simulates or calculates) one plane performing better than the other plane at specific speeds for the altitude tested.

How about this:

quote:

At 21,000 ft [6,400 m] the Fw 190 and the Spitfire IX are approximately the same.
At 25,000 ft [7,620 m] the Spitfire IX is 5-7 m.p.h. faster than the Fw 190.

That is level flight tests.

As to diving tests done by the British (not mentioning the altitude at which the dive and zoom climb tests were conducted in the book by Alfred Price):

Fw190A-3 versus Spitfire IX (Merlin 61, 3,000 r.p.m., 15 lb boost operational combat version):

quote:

Dive
The Fw 190 is faster than the Spitfire IX in a dive, particularly during the initial stage. This superiority is not so marked as with the [lighter] Spitfire VB.

And:

quote:

When both aircraft were flying at a 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 [even though it is heavier]. This superiority was slightly increased when both aircraft were pulled up into a climb from a dive.
It must be appreciated that the differences between the two aircraft are only slight and that in actual combat the advantage in climb will be with the aircraft that has the initiative.

“Me” and “I” happen to notice that your data is one way and the data reported during the British tests is anther way. “I” also notice that your tests specify the altitude during the dive and zoom tests. The British tested top speed at 7 km and the Spitfire IX they tested against the Fw190A-3 was slightly faster. According to their data (The British) the Fw190A-3 would hold the initial acceleration advantage and the Spitfire would be able to out-accelerate the Fw190A-3 if the Spitfire IX was already going fast at altitudes where the Spitfire held a Top Speed advantage (such as 7 km).

Where your data predicts the Spitfire IX holding the initial acceleration advantage because it is lighter (perhaps “my” misinterpretation of your words) the actual test results report the opposite initial acceleration advantage ‘under all conditions of fight’.

Perhaps, and this is merely a guess on my part, your data concerns differences in the planes evaluated. I merely saw the Fw190A-3 on your chart and then offered the data that reports that plane model tested against an operational Spitfire IX in July 1942.

I can read the rest of your reply – and other’s as time permits

quote:

"Plane X can leave plane Y standing in a dive"

"In plane Z, the diving performance over X2 is not as pronounced as it was over plane X1"

So how many meters does it take to be able to say that plane X leaves plane Y standing?

Many such statements cannot even be coupled to a fixed altitude or test conditions.

Holtzauge,

If you introduce ambiguity then you introduce ambiguity. If you wish to exemplify my ambiguities, then you can use the quote feature.

The above is an example of you writing original words according to whatever filter you employ in creating those words. To suggest, by innuendo, (if that is what you are doing) that your creation above exemplifies me in some manner (without employing the quote feature), then please consider being more, rather than less, precise.

In other words: Who did you intend to quote above, and if it was not me that you intended to associate with that quote, then please identify the person who you do intend to associate with those quoted words that you quote above.

From my view the filter being applied (perhaps) is called a Straw-Man.

This is precise:

quote:

When both aircraft were flying at a 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 [even though it is heavier]. This superiority was slightly increased when both aircraft were pulled up into a climb from a dive.
It must be appreciated that the differences between the two aircraft are only slight and that in actual combat the advantage in climb will be with the aircraft that has the initiative.

That is precisely the words reported by the British in August 1942 in reference to their side by side tests done between an Fw190A-3 and a Spitfire IX (Merlin 61).

That is not this:

"Plane X can leave plane Y standing in a dive"

That (The British quote not the Straw-Man quote) above is opposite of your chart at the altitude you specify precisely (nice job by the way).

This is precise:

quote:

At 21,000 ft [6,400 m] the Fw 190 and the Spitfire IX are approximately the same.
At 25,000 ft [7,620 m] the Spitfire IX is 5-7 m.p.h. faster than the Fw 190.

This is not ambiguous:

quote:

Dive
The Fw 190 is faster than the Spitfire IX in a dive, particularly during the initial stage. This superiority is not so marked as with the [lighter] Spitfire VB.

This is not ‘my’ filtered words:

quote:

The initial acceleration of the Fw 190 is better than the Spitfire IX under all conditions of flight, except in level flight at such altitudes where the Spitfire has a speed advantage and then, providing the Spitfire is cruising at high speed, there is little to choose between the two aircraft.

My filter is an interest in resolving the obvious contradictions between your tests and the British tests where your tests have the Spitfire holding the initial acceleration advantage while the British tests prove the opposite to be true.

Your tests show the Fw190 gaining the acceleration advantage as speed increases while the British tests show the Spitfire IX gaining the acceleration advantage only when speed increases at altitudes where the Spitfire IX holds a top speed advantage, otherwise, and opposite your data, the Fw 190 accelerates faster under all conditions of flight and specifically conditions such as initial dive, pull up from level flight, and pull-out from a dive into a zoom climb.