PDA

View Full Version : What Spitfire was tested?



HeinzBar
08-24-2004, 07:39 AM
S!,
After reading Alfred Price's book "Focke Wulf Fw190 in Combat" for the XXth time, I became curious about what model Spitfire IX was used during these tests? It seems clear from the tests that the captured FW 190a3 performs at the same level as the Spitfire IX which is differs greatly from what we see in the current version of AEP. Currently, the Anton series is struggling vs the Spitfire IX at all altitudes even down low. The differences are even greater for the early A models.

For reference, I re-typed the report section of these tests vs the Spitfire IX vs the Fw 190a3. I copied the test word for word so there would be no question about what is being reviewed. See below the Spitfire IX section.


Testing of captured Focke Wulf FW190a3
Focke Wulf FW190 in Combat
By Alfred Price
ISBN: 0-7509-1634-6

Focke Wulf fw190a3 vs Spitfire IX
Pgs. 49-51

The Focke Wulf FW190 was compared with a fully operational Spitfire IX for speed and manoeuvrability 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 2000 ft (610m) the FW 190 is 7-8 mph (11-13 kph) faster than the Spitfire IX.

At 5000 ft (1524m) the FW 190 and the Spitfire IX are approximately the same.

At 8000 ft (2440m) the Spitfire IX is 8 mph faster than the FW 190.

At 15000 ft (4573m) the Spitfire IX is 5 mph (8 kph) faster than the FW 190.

At 18000 ft (5488m) the FW 190 is 3 mph faster than the Spitfire IX.

At 21000 ft (6400m) the FW 190 and the Spitfire IX are approximately the same.

At 25000 ft (7620m) the Spitfire IX is 5-7 mph faster than the FW 190.

Climb
During comparative climbs at various heights up to 23,000 ft, with both aircraft flying under maximum continuous climbing conditions, little difference was found between the two aircraft although on the whole the Spitfire IX was slightly better. Above 22,000 ft the climb of the FW 190 is falling off rapidly, whereas the climb of the Spitfire IX is increasing. When both aircraft were flying at a high cruising speed and were pulled up into a climb from level flight, the Fw190 had a slight advantage in the initial stages of the climb due to its better acceleration. This superiority was slightly increased when both aircraft were pulled up into the climb from the 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.

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 Spitfire VB.

Manoeuverability
The Fw 190 is more maneuverable than the Spitfire IX except in turning circle, when it is out-turned without difficulty.
The superior rate of roll of the Fw 190 enabled it to avoid the Spitfire IX if attacked when in a turn by flicking over into a diving turn in the opposite direction, and as with the Spitfire VB, the Spitfire IX had great difficulty in following this manoeuvre. It would have been easier for the Spitfire IX to follow the Fw 190 in a diving turn if its engine had been fitted with a negative G carburetor, as this type of engine with the ordinary carburetor cuts very easily.

The Spitfire IX's worst heights for fighting the FW 190 are between 18,000 and 22,000 ft (5488 and 6707 m ) and below 3000 ft ( 915 m ). At these heights the Fw 190 is a little faster. Both aircraft bounced on another in order to ascertain the best evasive tactics to adopt. The Spitfire IX could not be caught when bounced if it was cruising at high speed and saw the Fw 190 when well out of range. When the Spitfire IX was cruising at low speed its inferiority in acceleration gave the Fw 190 a reasonable chance of catching it up and the same applied if the position was reversed and the Fw 190 was bounced by the Spitfire IX, except that overtaking too a little longer.

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.

The general impression gained by pilots taking part in the trials is that the Spitfire IX compares favourably with the Fw 190 and that provided the Spitfire has initiative, it has undoubtedly a good chance of shooting the Fw 190 down.


I will finish re-typing the rest of the tests at a later date when the p51a, typhoon, p38f, and Spitfire XIV are introduced into AEP.

HB

http://www.jagdverband44.com/JV44Banner400x75.jpg

[This message was edited by HeinzBar on Tue August 24 2004 at 07:02 AM.]

HeinzBar
08-24-2004, 07:39 AM
S!,
After reading Alfred Price's book "Focke Wulf Fw190 in Combat" for the XXth time, I became curious about what model Spitfire IX was used during these tests? It seems clear from the tests that the captured FW 190a3 performs at the same level as the Spitfire IX which is differs greatly from what we see in the current version of AEP. Currently, the Anton series is struggling vs the Spitfire IX at all altitudes even down low. The differences are even greater for the early A models.

For reference, I re-typed the report section of these tests vs the Spitfire IX vs the Fw 190a3. I copied the test word for word so there would be no question about what is being reviewed. See below the Spitfire IX section.


Testing of captured Focke Wulf FW190a3
Focke Wulf FW190 in Combat
By Alfred Price
ISBN: 0-7509-1634-6

Focke Wulf fw190a3 vs Spitfire IX
Pgs. 49-51

The Focke Wulf FW190 was compared with a fully operational Spitfire IX for speed and manoeuvrability 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 2000 ft (610m) the FW 190 is 7-8 mph (11-13 kph) faster than the Spitfire IX.

At 5000 ft (1524m) the FW 190 and the Spitfire IX are approximately the same.

At 8000 ft (2440m) the Spitfire IX is 8 mph faster than the FW 190.

At 15000 ft (4573m) the Spitfire IX is 5 mph (8 kph) faster than the FW 190.

At 18000 ft (5488m) the FW 190 is 3 mph faster than the Spitfire IX.

At 21000 ft (6400m) the FW 190 and the Spitfire IX are approximately the same.

At 25000 ft (7620m) the Spitfire IX is 5-7 mph faster than the FW 190.

Climb
During comparative climbs at various heights up to 23,000 ft, with both aircraft flying under maximum continuous climbing conditions, little difference was found between the two aircraft although on the whole the Spitfire IX was slightly better. Above 22,000 ft the climb of the FW 190 is falling off rapidly, whereas the climb of the Spitfire IX is increasing. When both aircraft were flying at a high cruising speed and were pulled up into a climb from level flight, the Fw190 had a slight advantage in the initial stages of the climb due to its better acceleration. This superiority was slightly increased when both aircraft were pulled up into the climb from the 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.

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 Spitfire VB.

Manoeuverability
The Fw 190 is more maneuverable than the Spitfire IX except in turning circle, when it is out-turned without difficulty.
The superior rate of roll of the Fw 190 enabled it to avoid the Spitfire IX if attacked when in a turn by flicking over into a diving turn in the opposite direction, and as with the Spitfire VB, the Spitfire IX had great difficulty in following this manoeuvre. It would have been easier for the Spitfire IX to follow the Fw 190 in a diving turn if its engine had been fitted with a negative G carburetor, as this type of engine with the ordinary carburetor cuts very easily.

The Spitfire IX's worst heights for fighting the FW 190 are between 18,000 and 22,000 ft (5488 and 6707 m ) and below 3000 ft ( 915 m ). At these heights the Fw 190 is a little faster. Both aircraft bounced on another in order to ascertain the best evasive tactics to adopt. The Spitfire IX could not be caught when bounced if it was cruising at high speed and saw the Fw 190 when well out of range. When the Spitfire IX was cruising at low speed its inferiority in acceleration gave the Fw 190 a reasonable chance of catching it up and the same applied if the position was reversed and the Fw 190 was bounced by the Spitfire IX, except that overtaking too a little longer.

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.

The general impression gained by pilots taking part in the trials is that the Spitfire IX compares favourably with the Fw 190 and that provided the Spitfire has initiative, it has undoubtedly a good chance of shooting the Fw 190 down.


I will finish re-typing the rest of the tests at a later date when the p51a, typhoon, p38f, and Spitfire XIV are introduced into AEP.

HB

http://www.jagdverband44.com/JV44Banner400x75.jpg

[This message was edited by HeinzBar on Tue August 24 2004 at 07:02 AM.]

LLv34_Stafroty
08-24-2004, 07:41 AM
uh

WOLFMondo
08-24-2004, 08:02 AM
I thought the Spitfires after the MkI had a negative G carburetor, and certainly by the time of the V?1?!? Its even got a silly name given to it during the BoB.

A virtual pint of beer to the person who can remember its name.

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)
Home of WGNDedicated

p1ngu666
08-24-2004, 08:11 AM
hm, possibly a early one, wid merlin 61 but im not sure :\
i think hop does, wait for him to arrive http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
<123_GWood_JG123> NO SPAM!

DarthBane_
08-24-2004, 08:22 AM
Something is seriously wrong with this game, when i said earlier that sides are not matched at all, someone replied that historical acurasy is above all most important, but it is obvious from this read, and Robans climb tests that FM-s are NOT historicaly acurate, and sides are NOT matched. It seems that much better pilots fly LW online so developers are porking axis planes to make things balanced. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif That is wrong way street http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif.

Kwiatos
08-24-2004, 09:04 AM
If i remeber corect that was early SPitfire MK IX with Merlin 61. IN FB we have late Spitfire MK IX with Merlin 66 (LF,F) and Merlin 70 (HF) which are much better then Merlin 61 both in climb rate and maximum speed. Unfortunately as i posted before all modells Spitfire MKIX in FB are overmodelled in maximum speed at high altittude.

hop2002
08-24-2004, 09:26 AM
The Spitfire IX tested was an early Spitfire F IX, with Merlin 61.

It was limited to 15 lbs (2.02 ata).

It had a max climb rate of just over 3800 ft/min

The Spitfire IXs in the game are either LF IXs with Merlin 66, or the HF IX with Merlin 70.

They are both limited to 18 lbs (2.23 ata)

The Merlin 66 puts out up to 300 hp more than the Merlin 61.

At lower altitudes (up to 20,000 ft or so), the Spitfire LF IX, like we have in game, is up to 30 mph faster than the Spitfire F IX they tested, and the climb rate is up to 900 ft/min better.

The Spitfire HF IX is up to 20 mph faster at low alts, and climbs up to 700 ft/min better than the Spitfire F IX that was tested.

HeinzBar
08-24-2004, 09:27 AM
S!,
Just another quick note. I made the same post at SimHQ and got a interesting URL in which the 109G is tested against the Spitfire IX. See link below.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9.html

As one can see, this report also differs greatly from the performance we see for the Spitfire IX found in AEP.

HB

http://www.jagdverband44.com/JV44Banner400x75.jpg

WWMaxGunz
08-24-2004, 09:42 AM
Seeing as how it's a different model than in the sim, it shouldn't be the same.

faustnik
08-24-2004, 10:04 AM
HeinzBar,

Just scroll down the link you posted for the Merlin 66 values. Here is another link to Merlin versions in FB.

FB Merlins (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=29517)

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com) is recruiting
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

p1ngu666
08-24-2004, 10:06 AM
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9v109g.html this? the spitfire seems to handly outperform the 109 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
<123_GWood_JG123> NO SPAM!

Ugly_Kid
08-24-2004, 10:44 AM
I am just wondering why an earth does this game often feature quite uncommon variants ignoring the typical ones completely?

Spitfire had quite a headache with FW and not vice versa, not even lateron. Does the game reproduce this - no it does not, no FW stands a chance in a manouvering fight with a "contemporary" spit as portrayed by game, A-4 or 5 against Vb or later FWs against IX, why? Even with flying straight and escaping, FW is gasping against IX, not to mention outclimb or perhaps manouver those guns in the general direction of the enemy and do some shooting? Where do I rather sit against spit in a Bf or FW? Is this a historical choice? How many feel the same as I do, is the result historical? FW was AFIK generally prefered choice on western front (by margin). Which one do I consider superior dogfighter G-model Bf or F-model, is my choice historical?

We have uncommon I-16 variants where the designations are also not true to the actual stuff modeled. Same for LaGG-3 etc. It's sometimes as if taking G-6 with GM-1 or MW-50 with MK-108 and just simply calling it G-6 -43.

This distorts the perspective quite drastically, particularly in online wars - spit IX is an IX never mind that THE spit we have in the game was hardly encountered in the action.

How about getting the typical/common variants first (armament and performance) and then put the sugar on the top?

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/oksennus_1.jpg

hop2002
08-24-2004, 11:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I am just wondering why an earth does this game often feature quite uncommon variants ignoring the typical ones completely? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>How about getting the typical/common variants first (armament and performance) and then put the sugar on the top?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There were approx 6700 Spitfire IXs and the identical Spitfire XVIs built.

Of those, 350 had the Merlin 61, the like the one in the test report quoted at the start of this thread. The other 6300+ had Merlin 63, 66 or 70, and were similar in performance to the ones in AEP.

The Spitfires we have in game are the most common variants. They lack the increased power they received in 1944 though.

nsu
08-24-2004, 11:40 AM
Oh wow Fw 190A3 is a 1941 Plane BMW 801D engine 1700 PS!!

Gruß NSU

Ugly_Kid
08-24-2004, 11:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
The Spitfires we have in game _are_ the most common variants. They lack the increased power they received in 1944 though.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No doubt and the boost, did they roll that way out of the factory or was it cleared later. What was the likelihood that the Spitfire that came across was IX with 18 lbs/sq in. Correct me if I am wrong, I understood that IX was still a nasty surprise not a common phenomena, maybe I am just mistaken. The spitfire which you typically saw was not 18 lbs/ sq in IX (defenately not our CW with HF performance) but something Vxx stuff?

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/oksennus_1.jpg

Ugly_Kid
08-24-2004, 12:00 PM
And don't take this solemnly as poking at your petspit the stuff is way broader than that. We have allegedly -44 La-5FN posing as -43 since day 1, where is THE La-5FN? If you fly online war do you know what La-5FN you encounter the very year -43, huh?

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/oksennus_1.jpg

hop2002
08-24-2004, 12:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>No doubt and the boost, did they roll that way out of the factory or was it cleared later.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, that's the way they came out of the factory. Many were upgraded to 25 lbs (2.7 ata) in summer 1944.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What was the likelihood that the Spitfire that came across was IX with 18 lbs/sq in.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fa more likelihood that the IX they came across was running at 18 lbs boost than at 15 lbs. Many of the 15 lbs boost were reengined with Merlin 63 in 43 as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Correct me if I am wrong, I understood that IX was still a nasty surprise not a common phenomena, maybe I am just mistaken. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The IX was relatively uncommon in 1942, became dominant in 1943.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The spitfire which you typically saw was not 18 lbs/ sq in IX (defenately not our CW with HF performance) but something Vxx stuff?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends on the date.

Certainly not the case in 43.

I believe the 190 A5 we have uses 1.65 ata, which is mid 1943 at the earliest, and possibly not common until mid 1944.

The 190 A4 and Spit V is a good matchup for 1942, both planes use their historic boost from 1942, although the Spit V speed is greatly undermodelled at lower altitudes (by about 40 km/h at sea level, iirc)

Willey
08-24-2004, 01:06 PM
A-5 and 6 are 1,42ata only. They have a WEP button, but no WEP. With 1,58 (1,65 was from -8 on) it should do some 590+ on the deck...

faustnik
08-24-2004, 01:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:

The 190 A4 and Spit V is a good matchup for 1942, both planes use their historic boost from 1942, although the Spit V speed is greatly undermodelled at lower altitudes (by about 40 km/h at sea level, iirc)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What the Spit Vb lacks is speed is made up for with its very generous climb rate. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

Ugly_Kid
08-24-2004, 01:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
The 190 A4 and Spit V is a good matchup for 1942, both planes use their historic boost from 1942, although the Spit V speed is greatly undermodelled at lower altitudes (by about 40 km/h at sea level, iirc)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Something I could have tried with FW from 1.21 or so...now, yeah right.

Thx for the info by the way. So you mean that there were about 6000+ spits roaming around in -43 with 18 lbs/sq? If we are having an accurate simulation, they practically were eating FWs alive with left hand at -43? That's namely what happens if you mix prolonged time with IX (any alt). Much better is flying straight getting the separation of ~1.5 km turn around go for the head job and note that very likely IX with two Vickers outgun your FW but you still have a ... change? Is this the way it was? The way I've seen IX was a close match with contemporary FW (propably superior to Bf) but by no way "zap 'em all"

I like the way the spit is but it's too embarrasing to fly...just my opinion though...

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/oksennus_1.jpg

VW-IceFire
08-24-2004, 03:09 PM
The Spitfire used in the test as far as I know (and others have pointed it out) was a F IX. Or rather well known as a Spitfire IX. There wasn't a LF IX (with the Merlin 66) until after that version had been introduced into squadron service. Pilots called it the Spitfire IXB. Lead to some confusion.

The LF IX, although with a "low fighter" designation only means that the supercharger kicks in at a lower altitude and it gives it a speed advantage at virtually all altitudes. In terms of climb the LF IX was better or equal to the FW190 in virtually all cases. In-game its not too far off, usually slight advantage to the Spitfire.

As also already mentioned, more versions of the LF IX were in use with squadrons than with the F IX which was a 1942 version essentially.

Also keep in mind that on the Western Front during the period between 1942 to 1944...the vast majority of squadrons were still using the LF Mk V and not the IX. Transition was slow. Even at the time of D-Day, there were plenty of Mark V Spitfires around (although almost all were LF's with improved climb rate over the original F and better low altitude performance). The IX was designed in many ways to be better than the FW190. Although the FW190 still has better roll and better dive and zoom (or should) the IX was faster at virtually all altitudes, had a vastly better turn, and had a better climb rate.

The FW190 that clearly beats the Spitfire IX is the FW190D-9. Those came on strength, according to what I've read, by the very end of 1944 and into 1945. Thats when the Spitfire XIV and the Tempest V became the premier fighters. This is also when the IX and the identical XVI (except the US made engine) became a staple of the 2nd TAF (for tactical missions - dive bombing and ground staffing for instance) and the Mark V was essentially retired.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RAF No 92 Squadron
"Either fight or die"

WWMaxGunz
08-24-2004, 04:40 PM
Did tactics of 1943 make a difference in favor of the LW? Did early warnings and who
had cooler engines and better positions help? Was there a difference in who would win
more fights depending on who was fighting over the other sides' territory?

Pilot not the plane is true, but the situation had to be there to really tip the odds
when one was not strongly superior. I am wondering, what was the odds of a bounce and
where -- did this have more to do with historic results and is not duplicated in the
sim? Bouncing in a FW is handicapped a bit in the sim and the way the graphics work
makes a bounce with icons off very iffy. Icons on... small chance of surprise unless
they are limited to under 1km at most.

What would be nice is having your side able to vector you onto enemy within areas
covered by your spotters and/or radar. Then some advantages could be played that have
nothing to do with the planes themselves. Not having planes that disappear right at
critical range when attacking from above would also be very nice but limited icons at
least make up for some of that.


Neal

LBR_Rommel
08-24-2004, 04:51 PM
SPITFIRES IX WOW

http://christophe.chastanet.free.fr/IMG/jpg/teletubies.jpg

Major LBR=Rommel

http://www.luftwaffebrasil.com
http://www.luftwaffebrasil.hpg.ig.com.br/rommel_ban.jpg

LLv34_Stafroty
08-24-2004, 04:57 PM
would be nice if could make some proper deflection shooting with FW while now its like poll http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ugly_Kid
08-24-2004, 05:00 PM
If you read, for example, stuff from Julius Meimberg you will note that during the BoB and after LW did not posses the radar technology to place units much in a tactically superior position, quite on the contrary. In spite of this FW made quite a difference. Nowhere do you get this idea that the only valid FW tactic was straight flying, separation and h2h passes which is currently the preferred tactic in game. Patches 1.1b-1.22 FW actually posed a serious opponent also in a close distance dogfight - now, well...

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/oksennus_1.jpg

LBR_Rommel
08-24-2004, 05:42 PM
http://www.luftwaffebrasil.com/xfiles.jpg

Major LBR=Rommel

http://www.luftwaffebrasil.com
http://www.luftwaffebrasil.hpg.ig.com.br/rommel_ban.jpg

faustnik
08-24-2004, 05:48 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

That's too funny Rommel, evil, but funny.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

LBR-GuntherRall
08-24-2004, 05:51 PM
S! Guys


auhauhuhauhauhauahauhuhauhauahuhauhauhaah...sorry a can't resist!

I want one.....in Lw!!!

Sorry, but only spit superior at Fw 190 was XIV.

Rommel Traduze a real situation in FB now, for Spitfire and others planes actually!!!

regards!!

BlackSkull7
08-24-2004, 06:00 PM
uhauhauhahuahua Nice Rommel!

Its seems satiric but unfortunatellyits the true!

OLEG and his STAFFEL go home, open some historic WWII books , read em and redo all game..yes GAME!! it was a simulator i remember it one year ago, now it deprived just into a game for bull**** kidshttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)lololol.

Lets roll pacman guys much more fun then FB now!

KGr.HH-Sunburst
08-24-2004, 06:00 PM
LMAO http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
with scully and mulder on the case that spit is going down for sure...remember the truth is out there http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.hell-hounds.de
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v94/sunburst/FW190A6sigHH.jpg
''All your Mustangs are belong to us''

p1ngu666
08-24-2004, 08:25 PM
hm, fighter sweeps was the order of the day in 43 wasnt it?
often at low level, just blow up anything that looks miltary http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
so good chance for the defenders to bounce the attackers.
so a quick list of whats wrong wid spit according to luftwhiners.

topspeed ( http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gifbut at high alt http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif)
climb (at high alt?)
turn, not heard ppl moan about that, apart from high alt http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
the guns (well possibly)
dive (but thats game engine)
overheat (will be fixed, but isnt THAT wrong from hops data)
e rention (possibly)

so, i may have missed stuff, but why do lw boys ALWAYS belive that LW stuff is better, ya sometimes, but not always http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Hunde_3.JG51
08-24-2004, 08:29 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Rommel. If you notice the Spitfire is out-pacing the UFO and ET-flying bike, must be above 6,000m. Either that or the UFO and ET-bike overheated http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

p1ngu666, what does errors with Spitfire IX have to do with "LW boys" thinking their stuff is better?

Now please make a list of what is overmodelled for FW-190. Here, I'll start:

-
-
-

I think that about covers it.

http://www.brooksart.com/Ontheprowl.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

p1ngu666
08-24-2004, 08:35 PM
btw the pics are funny http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

p1ngu666
08-24-2004, 09:01 PM
ah hunde, soz not all LW fliers are "luftwhinners"
and rereading that, its bad grammer and meaning http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
the high alt is off i admit, but ive not ventured that high in IX i think, but on HL ppl will moan tons about it, without putting up facts. there was even some saying that flying a mossie would be cowardly http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif, because it has no guns http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif.
and how they needed the german mosketo thingy (yesiknowispeltitwrong) which was better (it may have been, i dunno) but they didnt make many etc. some LW guys are certainly init for the surpority thing, mainly speed and climb, and the design thing too.

my dad designs things, and in some ways some german stuff is badly designed, and while u may think its better designed than russian stuff, it possibly isnt. russian stuff was made by the unskilled/semi skilled, limited resources, that friendly chap stalin giving encouragement, different criteria aswell, so in that light, there good designs, maximising what they had at the time.

ironicaly german production went that way, db engines and 109s where partly made by slaves, did wonders for quality http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

some ppl seem to think LW MUST be better, because thats what they want to belive, "german engineering" is better, and that they must have the fastest stuff etc.

btw, in 40-42/43ish german high command thought the war was won, and cut research budgets, and then they woke up and panicly shifted funds to tech devlopment.
hence all the made luft 46 stuff
btw i do fly all planes, even started flying G 109s, i do feel the need that u need tobe experten for flying in combat, ordiary flying is easy. same with p38. i think the p38 is the allied 109.

anyway hunde, your a intelligent guy, and i respect u http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. i do get the feeling u are a good guy and pilot, tho i havent flown with u (or forgotten http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif)


190 is overmodeled in
cockpit bar
muzzle flash (thats all planes mind)
prop pitch for some possibly tho u need to manual to get max speeds
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

sorry for the aggresive post too, must have been the eddie izzard ruining my concentration http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
ps this written to the sounds of asian dub foundation http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

VW-IceFire
08-24-2004, 09:15 PM
In The Big Show, you get a pretty good picture of RAF operations in 1943 with the Spitfire. He flew both the LF IXc and the LF Vb. You get the impression that the Luftwaffe attacked generally with superior or equal numbers, and used slashing attacks from above to surprise the Spitfire's.

The impression I got was that all of the sudden the sky would be filled with FW190's...they would make their strike and when they got into trouble they would roll away and dive. Spitfire pilots were told not to dive with them, not because they couldn't necessarily catch them later (although fuel was also a consideration), but because there was probably more of them above waiting for a good opportunity. I also get the feeling that Closterman respected the FW190 and the pilots flying them. Obviously the perspective of "the opposing side" is different but still worth noting.

Whatever the case, it never seemed like they were seriously outmatched. They were fairly even overall in tactics and pilot skill.

The more and more I read, however, the more I think that Oleg got most things right (except maybe that gunsight but I live with it and use it quite effectively) with the FW190. The first is that nasty stall and what I've read indicates its down to wing design. While I have neither the expertise nor the perfect recollection, a comparison that I read suggested that the FW190's wing was not good for turning nor for stalling and thus made the FW190 a poor turn fighter and even worse at holding through a turn because of the instability. So any woes for the FW190 in terms of turn I believe to be fairly off the mark. It does turn better now than it ever has and it seems quite alright in good hands.

The roll rate is quite good, superior to all others, and definately an advantage, but the way the game models things...it doesn't seem to be as much of an advantage as could be. Nonetheless, patch 2.04 redressed some of that instant snap rolls that we used to see with all planes. Unknown to many, the P-39's roll rate is now very average instead of what it used to be. Nobody thanked Oleg for that BTW...despite the whining.

Onto firepower....FW190 is unsurpassed in terms of fighter firepower. Rapid fire guns, moderately hard hitting, splits things into small pieces more often than not. The MG151/20 may be a little weak but thats never stopped me. I even prefer to use 4 MG151/20 instead of any MK108 armament except for bomber hunting missions.

Then we goto speed. Currently in the Dora only a energy superior Mustang or a La-7 seems capable of catching me. If I open the throttle full out, pour on the WEP, and close the rad...I can out climb and out accelerate away from just about anything. The only other fighter that may be close is the Yak-3...and that has more to do with weight, power, and acceleration. Spitfire IX can't catch the Dora in my experience.

The FW190A-9 works quite well down low as well. WEP and maximum throttle for a couple of minutes to build up best speed. Zoom into a combat area either with altitude or surprise from the deck, blast an opponent and head out or climb away. Zoom climb is quite good and useful but too many use it too soon or waste too much energy in the process.

Honestly, not a single thing seems to be overmodeled either. Its a very solid fighter, its fairly tough, it has a few quirks, and possibly a couple of bugs with the DM but then so does everything else. The only thing thats hurting the FW190 right now is the dive and maybe some elements of the climb. Zoom climb is right on, but sometimes the sustained climb is a problem. May be the wings coming into play but the FW was supposed to be good at climb and its a little weak perhaps. Even so, Olegs suggestion to keep speed at 400 kph for as long as possible is dead on. Climb rate is 25m/s to 30m/s (I'm reading that guage right yes?) on the climb guage and you do zoom away.

Dive is pretty much messed for all. It works but it takes a long time to work. It is noted that the Spitfire IX was not superior but had less trouble than the Mark V in terms of diving with FW190's. Technically possible but as I mentioned from Closterman's memoires, tactically stupid.

So when someone comes along and tries to tell me that the FW190 is badly modeled, inferior, and incapable, there are plenty of craters online in all sorts of coops and servers, that say otherwise...scored by myself and by other pilots. I sometimes get annoyed however when one of my other favorite planes, the Spitfire, gets bashed around as much as it does. Its overmodeled at high altitude using WEP...its not at conventional combat alitutude and its quite evenly matched, in what I feel to be relatively historic, against one of its prime opponents.

And what would I know about the FW190? A guy who likes his RAF planes, who likes the Hawker Tempest one of the arch rivals to late war FW190's? Frankly, I've loggged equal or more hours in the FW190 online than I have the Spitfire in a variety of servers and a variety of settings so I have a very good feel for the plane and I think its superior in most ways to the Bf 109.

Finally...is this sim perfect? It's not...but it's very good. Got a problem with something in it, do the research, collect it up, and send it to il2beta@1c.ru. Oleg has replied to me with everything I've ever sent in there. He's a good guy, he may be a bit stubborn or a bit cautious but rightly so...

S! and have yourselves all a good night.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RAF No 92 Squadron
"Either fight or die"

p1ngu666
08-24-2004, 09:23 PM
ice is good in 190, be sure http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

JG7_Rall
08-24-2004, 10:31 PM
LOL Rommel...that was awesome.

http://home.comcast.net/~nate.r5388/16502.jpg
"Son, never ask a man if he is a fighter pilot. If he is, he'll let you know. If he isn't, don't embarrass him."
Badges!? We don't needs no stinkin' badges!
Flying online as Hutch51

Hunde_3.JG51
08-25-2004, 12:39 AM
No problem p1ngu666, no big deal, I respect your opinion as well. And I agree about the P-38, I have alot of respect for anyone who can make that bird sing. Anyway, good on you and it is appreciated.

Icefire, I agree with what you are saying and I don't really have a problem with the FW-190, I have more of a problem with what some other planes do and game engine limitations/aspects. I was just having fun and I admit the Spitfire bashing is a bit over the top. However, it certainly has issues that should be resolved, having a HF.IX fly as fast as Dora and Mustang is just silly. The funny thing is I very rarely ever get shot down by a Spitfire, my toughest enemy by far is the P-51D, nothing else is even close. I think the P-51D is modelled pretty well as it was a superb aircraft IRL.

Btw, since IV/JG51_Dart suggested that I connect by direct ip to greatergreen my kill/death ratio is 11.5 to 1, all in FW-190A http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. So I certainly agree that it can be very effective when used correctly.

I was having so many problems that I almost gave up on gg, numerous lag crashes and warping. Since going to direct ip it plays very well and I am certainly happy about that.

Thanks again IV/JG51_Dart, crooked_bird, etc. for the suggestion.

http://www.brooksart.com/Ontheprowl.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

[This message was edited by Hunde_3.JG51 on Wed August 25 2004 at 12:06 AM.]

Ugly_Kid
08-25-2004, 02:08 AM
VW-Icefire:"The impression I got was that all of the sudden the sky would be filled with FW190's...they would make their strike and when they got into trouble they would roll away and dive. "

If we go all anecdotical, then open Mike Spick. When FW got into action, liberal quote:"For the first time the hun stayed to fight instead of reverting to hit and run tactics that were more habitual to Bf-109". Lots of stuff in Spick's book describe how FW (and also later P-47) was flown effectively with vector rolls etc. quite in the close and comfy with better turning aircraft. Do you know where the quote "turning does noes not win dogfights" comes?

So really, FW was by no means applied passively for when it gets too hot get out of the kitchen. If you and majority believe that too then the liberal interpretation of the history made by the AEP makes another leap in the direction of horsedung. (just like "the truth" that FW had a bad view forward and that it is "a joke" that it flew in nose down attitude)

Meimberg too describes quite an interesting mock dogfight between him in Bf-109 and Egon Meyer in FW-190.

Nothing wrong with nasty stall in FW-190 the point is just where you reach it - oh yes some 10‚? of AoA is not the time nor the place. Now if you really have flown FW or P-47 for that matter you might notice something interesting. Currently P-47 works quite effectively as a pretty manouverable aircraft at high speed, the stall has been given some leaway in AoA (this is a matter of lift curve slope, max. liftfactor and how drastically the turbulence modeling cuts in). Particularly at 1.1b FW had an enormous space in this regard which also lead to quite ridicilous manouvers but it was very good dogfighter at high speed, unless you went into Buck Rogers manouvers the FW performed quite well and IMO more historically than ever before. At 1.21 or 1.22 the elevator went down a bit and IMO it was the most realistic compromise ever, at the same time P-51 went all FW from 1.1b. During this time P-47 had lousy stall modeling any elevator at any speed resulted lasy manouver with tons of buffeting. (with current stress damage modeling part of the ridicilous manouvers would be effectively eliminated too)

Now with AEP 1.0 both FW and P-47 were the silly a$$ cows with nothing but buffeting for any elevator input. At the last patch for the first time P-47 features a heavy but still manouverable fighter that has changes to win a dogfight, FW is better but still no cigar. P-51 lives a similar oscillating stall life as well.

Still all the time nasty stall was there sometimes it came sooner sometimes later. The so called nasty stall also had no warning from buffeting. The way I see it P-51 currently features a more real FWlike departure.

FW still lacks the possibility for quick and sharp manouvers. You notice very well when applying FW tactics that always work. At the very beginning of FB, FW barely made a looping. You needed to get at least 2 km distance before you could reverse for h2h against a pursuer (that's a long time of flying straight and very boring). At the best times you could reverse from 1 km (the fighting was by no means passive anymore). Now we are well over 1.5 km again. (and I mean vertical or inclined looping reversal over the shoulder, not just some dumba$$ turns - yet sustained turn, i.e was never in ridicilous figures.)

When keeping this proud and not even remotely consistent history of right perf specs, climb and speed but totally all over the board manouverability you have no place saying it's correct.

I have my opinion about the spit that I can handle with my left but part of the equation is defenately FW performing like lame cow that has been slaughtered 5 times. Fixing this isn't an issue of top speed 10 km/h here or there or climb time to 5km, it's something much less transparent and additionally quite from the subjective area of FM. It also has little to do with level flight turn time. Note P-47 still turns quite the same sustained turn but it is now quite forgiving to perform that. The famous energy bleed is no minor part of this and simple thing like looping with different patches quite easily demonstrates what this stuff is all about. For your information FW had one of the most effective elevators from that era not just roll (rolling alone does not win fights either).

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/oksennus_1.jpg

WOLFMondo
08-25-2004, 03:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Did tactics of 1943 make a difference in favor of the LW? Did early warnings and who
had cooler engines and better positions help? Was there a difference in who would win
more fights depending on who was fighting over the other sides' territory?

Pilot not the plane is true, but the situation had to be there to really tip the odds
when one was not strongly superior. I am wondering, what was the odds of a bounce and
where -- did this have more to do with historic results and is not duplicated in the
sim? Bouncing in a FW is handicapped a bit in the sim and the way the graphics work
makes a bounce with icons off very iffy. Icons on... small chance of surprise unless
they are limited to under 1km at most.

What would be nice is having your side able to vector you onto enemy within areas
covered by your spotters and/or radar. Then some advantages could be played that have
nothing to do with the planes themselves. Not having planes that disappear right at
critical range when attacking from above would also be very nice but limited icons at
least make up for some of that.


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think fighting over your own territory makes a massive difference. Over southern Britian in 1943 there was obviously radar and probably the most advanced early warning system in exsitence at that time but also thousands of observers on the ground.

I think what Air Vice-Marshal Park did is very overlooked, he created the worlds first analogue intranet, anyone on that chain could talk to anyone else and the information would be kept in a central location. This gave the RAF a huge advantage over the LW within and around the British Isles.

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)
Home of WGNDedicated

VW-IceFire
08-25-2004, 06:08 AM
Ugly_Kid...I understand what you are saying and in many ways I do agree. But let me qualify my interpretation of what I've ready, particularly in The Big Show.

A single plane doesn't always have much to do with the full engagement. Part of what I mention is that while a FW190 may be diving away from being attacked...for instance with a pair of Spitfires on his tail, is that there was usually another group of FW190's above ready to enter the fight. The guy who rolled away, now with the Spitfires haven't broken off and probably busy with more FW190's would regain altitude and attack again. On the whole, FW190's could stay in the fight very effectively. But the tactic that seemed to be used, by both sides really, was that if you were in trouble, you would Split-S and get the heck out of there. While this tactic is somewhat effective in FB, its not as useful as I think it was...the primary reason being dive acceleration.

In terms of handling, the P-47 I agree to be now somewhat of a smoother ride than the FW190. I don't know what the deal is overall...I suspect the P-47 had a better stall than the FW190 and thus is able to ride that edge better anyways.

I do however disagree that sharp manuvers are out of the question. Infact they are the best type of manuver I can make with an FW190. My defensive tactics involve diving for speed, which brings out the best handling on the FW190 (around 450kph and higher), and then using rapid quarter or half rolls followed by sharp elevator. I imagine its probably a rolling scissors but I've never really learned the name of the manuver. It seems to work quite well as most planes cannot follow the manuver exactly. Perhaps I misunderstood what you are saying with regards to this. I do know that careful and precise control on the stick ensures that you stall rarely.

Indeed the handling has changed from patch to patch...and every time I do have to relearn where that grey area between stall and tight manuvering. Nonetheless, I don't think its a lame cow...but I do think it should be modeled with equal respect and detail as any other plane.

A word on the Spitfire HF. I don't fly it very often...because I don't get upto 8000 meters very often either. My prime altitude range between 0 and 4000 meters. Of course in COOP's its a whole different ballgame. But certainly all Spitfire IX's currently have a top speed that is wrong at those high altitudes. Its probably the way the supercharger kicks in and in combination with WEP and full throttle in the modeling that is causing this. At low altitude, it was demonstrated that the top speed was relatively accurate for the Merlin 66 Spitfire IX and this is IMHO, the altitude that most people seem to engage the Spitfire at. I absolutely detest as well the notion that the FW190 or the Bf 109 are immediately superior to all comparitive marks of all Spitfire's (or any fighter for that matter). Plenty of data shows that the IX was dead on, better, or slightly worse than its competitors depending on situation and altitude. It requires different tactics but its deadly comparative and its down to piloting skill that wins battles.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RAF No 92 Squadron
"Either fight or die"

Kwiatos
08-25-2004, 06:45 AM
I flew Virtual Western Front in allied 303 SQN. If someone dont belive see these: http://western.virtual-front.no/?pstat=pilotstat_1214

I fly often Sptifre MK IX. Fights are often at very high alt 6-8 km. In these level overmodelled Spitfire in max speed give me super adventage. I could catch bfs and run out if i only want. These is not accurate, not realistic and not fair. I want Spitfire more realistic than uberplane like these.

Sometimes i fly in LW side to feel pain fight against Spitfire IX. Belive me how frustrated is try to escape in Fw 190 A-8 at seal level from Spitfire MK IX. Fw A-8 has 580 km/h max speed sea level, Spitfire Ix max speed sea level is 540 km/h. Different in max speed at sea level should be 40 km/h but Spitfire MK IX dont overheat at seal level, A-8 overhaet like every normal plane.
Something is not good here.

WOLFMondo
08-25-2004, 07:34 AM
Has anyone got definative overheating times for a spit IXe with the different engines and boosts we have in fb at SL?

The Spit does overheat at sea level, it takes a while but have you checked out the size of those radiators under the wings?!?! If you want to whine about overheating why does no one mention the P38? That takes and age to overheat.

http://bill.nickdafish.com/sig/mondo.jpg
Wolfgaming.net. Where the Gameplay is teamplay (http://www.wolfgaming.net)
Home of WGNDedicated

p1ngu666
08-25-2004, 08:38 AM
190 has a pretty genous overheat too http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9v109g.html
that says u should outrun those early g models anyways. tbh the spit isnt uber in any area in particular.
its got good speed for its time, good(best?) climb and best turn over the axis easly. worse in a dive but thats not in fb. oh its worse in a roll than 190 by alot, a little to 109.

so on paper, if it was plane a,b,c in a blind test, i think everyone would say spit is best overall.

btw the 190 in fb skids, like it should, thus its abit rally car in turns, vs the spits f1 car like in turns http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Kwiatos
08-25-2004, 09:26 AM
But fact is that Spitfire IX in FB is too fast expecially at high alt. These is the FACT. You cant disagree lol.

faustnik
08-25-2004, 09:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
190 has a pretty genous overheat too http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Why are you trying to spread incorrect information? Please check this thread:

Robban's Tests (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=541109106)

You will see that the 190s overheat quickly while the Spit IX does not at all. I tested the Spit IX for overheat when 2.04 can out. It did not overheat even after 20 minutes of full power with WEP at sea level.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

Kwiatos
08-25-2004, 09:47 AM
Faustnik as i remebmer corect you reported before latest patch 2.04 to 1C about wrong maximum speed Spitfire MK IX? I wonder if you had some answer from Oleg M. about these?

Ugly_Kid
08-25-2004, 09:47 AM
IX Spit does not overheat Vb does, if you don't believe I can provide a track.

As for FW being not capable of holding its own - alone...Johnnie Johnson;"Wing Leader"

"I spotted a solitary aircraft over the town. I eased towards him and recognised the enemy fighter as a Focke-Wulf 190. For once I was not harried and I yawed my Spitfire to cover the blind spot behind me. But these movements attracted the attention of the enemy pilot and he snaked towards me, almost head on, and then we both turned hard to the left and whirled around on opposite sides of what seemed to be an ever-decreasing circle.
The 190 bore strange markings on the side of its fuselage just below cockpit. This painted crest looked very similar to the markings of the Italian Air Force, and I thought, This pilot is an Italian! We had not seen them since they had received some severe treatment over the Thames Estuary towards the end of the Battle of Britain. We had been looking for them ever since, for we had little regard for their fighting qualities in the air. He's mine, I thought. He's mine, and I forgot the vulnerability of a lone Spitfire and tightened my turn to get on his tail.
With wide-open throttle I held Spitfire in the tightest of shuddering vertical turns. I was greying-out, and where was this Italian, who should, according to my reckoning , be filling my gunsight? I couldn't see him, and little wonder, for the brute wwas gaining on me and in another couple of turns would have me in his sights. The over-confidence of but a few seconds before had already given way to irritation at losing my opponent, and this was replaced by a sickening apprehension. I asked the SPitfire for all she'd got in the turn, but the 190 hung behind like a leech and it could only be a question of time, and not much of that!
Stick over and well forward and I plunged into a near-vertical dive - a dangerous manouvre, for the 190 was more stable and faster than my Spitfire in such a descent, but I had decided on a possible method of escape. At ground level I pulled into another steep turn, and as I gauged the height and watched the rooftops I caught a glimpse of the promenade, of stationary tanks, of the white casino and a deserted beach. The 190 was still behind and for a few seconds we dodged round the spires and columns of smoke. The I made my bid to throw him off.
A short distance off-shore I could see a destroyer surrounded by a clutter of smaller ships. We had been carefully briefed not to fly below 4000 feet over the shipping, otherwise they would open fire. I rammed the throttle into the emergency position, broke of my turn and at sea.level headed straight at the destroyer. Flak and tracer came straight at me from the destroyer, and more, slower tracer from the 190 passed over the top of the cockpit. At the last moment I pulled over the destroyer, then slammed the nose down and eased out a few feet above the sea. I broke hard to the left and searched for the 190, but he was no longer with me. Either the flak had put him off or, better still, had nailed him. I made off at high speed to West Mailing."

Mmmmmm...this sounds exactly what happens when a lone Spitfire bounces a FW in the game...

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/oksennus_1.jpg

Ugly_Kid
08-25-2004, 09:59 AM
Mike Spick:

"The maschine performed outstandingly in the close combat and the pilots used it accordingly. During the previous summer the British pilots, who had been continously harrashed by the lethal dive attacks of the 109s, had complained that "Jerry" never stayed for the fight, which does not mean that they thought that the Germans were employing false tactics. Now they got their wishes filled: with their new FW 190 A the "Jerry" stayed and fought like never before."

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/oksennus_1.jpg

faustnik
08-25-2004, 10:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Faustnik as i remebmer corect you reported before latest patch 2.04 to 1C about wrong maximum speed Spitfire MK IX? I wonder if you had some answer from Oleg M. about these?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kwiatos,

I sent Oleg a bunch of data (charts, stats, historical anecdote) and tracks to Oleg with the help of some RAF74 members about several questions relating to the Spitfire and Fw190A:

- low speed turn rate of the Spit IX (it was too low below 290kph)

- power of the Hispano is 2.5 times that of the Mg151/20 (should be about 1.5 times greater)

- Climb rate of the Spit Vb is way too high and the Fw190A4 is too low.

- Roll rate of the clipped wing Spits was too low.

- sea level speed of some 190s is too low compared to historical LW data.

All the points in favor of the Spit were fixed but, none of those in favor of the Fw190 were. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif But, at least the Spit IX turn was fixed, that was a wierd error.

( I only asked Oleg to look at these things to see if there was a possible issue with them. Of course, Oleg is the person who should determine if there is a real problem.)

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

[This message was edited by faustnik on Wed August 25 2004 at 09:13 AM.]

faustnik
08-25-2004, 10:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
Mike Spick:

"The maschine performed outstandingly in the close combat and the pilots used it accordingly. During the previous summer the British pilots, who had been continously harrashed by the lethal dive attacks of the 109s, had complained that "Jerry" never stayed for the fight, which does not mean that they thought that the Germans were employing false tactics. Now they got their wishes filled: with their new FW 190 A the "Jerry" stayed and fought like never before."

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


When the RAF pilots describe dogfighting the 190s they are not talking about turn fighting. The RAF pilots tried to get the 190s to turn fight. The 190s used quick vertical maneuvers because the 190A was superior to the Spit Vb in dive and zoom climb, roll rate, speed and in RAF tests, sustained climb. This is difficult to reproduce in FB 2.04 because of the lack of difference in dive and zoom climb and relative overmodeling of the Spit Vb in sustained climb.

I get the impression that any Fw190 that entered a turning dogfight with a Spitfire wasn't going to last very long.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

269GA-Maxmars
08-25-2004, 10:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:

Mmmmmm...this sounds exactly what happens when a lone Spitfire bounces a FW in the game...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

Although, I don't think we italians ever got FWs. It either was not italian, or it was not a FW.. I think.

p1ngu666
08-25-2004, 10:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
190 has a pretty genous overheat too http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Why are you trying to spread incorrect information? Please check this thread:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=541109106

You will see that the 190s overheat quickly while the Spit IX does not at all. I tested the Spit IX for overheat when 2.04 can out. It did not overheat even after 20 minutes of full power with WEP at sea level.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
_http://www.7jg77.com_
_http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

faustnik, when i fly the 190 i dont have overheat problems, back off to 99% or just 103% or sumin throttle and it cools off REALLY quickly, then i can go back to 110% for a while. so if your doing max continuse throttle, then its good/very good, but in actual useage, its not a worry for me, 90% of the time or more.

btw i fly with open rads for every plane, only closing if i need extra speed.

i just tend to of my useage of planes, which is often unconventional http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

and yes the top speed is wrong above 6k or whatever, it is however a moot point if u never up that high

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

Ugly_Kid
08-25-2004, 10:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by maxmars:
Although, I don't think we italians ever got FWs. It either was not italian, or it was not a FW.. I think.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It only said that there was a small crest near the cockpit like pilot's personal mark - it does not mean that the plane itself was not flying under German markings...

faustnik, I am not meaning turn fighting either, I am meaning manouvering close dogfighting, where FW did notcut out badly at all. It is also not an issue of diving or zooming, there was already much better FW in 1-1b-1.22 in this regard so it is not that it could not be done - the P-47 got also quite an handling boost as well, can you imagine a reaction if it took a step towards previous patch at the next update?

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/oksennus_1.jpg

p1ngu666
08-25-2004, 11:10 AM
true about jug http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
it was a challenge tho, i do sorta miss that.
also 190 should do stuff well to start with, then get worse n worse. probably confidence in aircraft ment they pushed the attack more.
im way more confident in 190 than 109, perhaps they where the same.

btw we could always have the IX wid merlin 61 added to the game http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

BlackStar2000
08-25-2004, 01:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Rommel. If you notice the Spitfire is out-pacing the UFO and ET-flying bike, must be above 6,000m. Either that or the UFO and ET-bike overheated http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

p1ngu666, what does errors with Spitfire IX have to do with "LW boys" thinking their stuff is better?

Now please make a list of what is overmodelled for FW-190. Here, I'll start:

-
-
-

I think that about covers it.

http://www.brooksart.com/Ontheprowl.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

S!

have you notice that the UFo is in second place????

VW-IceFire
08-25-2004, 03:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
But fact is that Spitfire IX in FB is too fast expecially at high alt. These is the FACT. You cant disagree lol.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You may or may not believe this but I agree with you. At high altitudes, the Spitfire IX is too fast and is superior to its opponents when it should not be. So I don't disagree at all. Also the overheat system seems to be a bit strange as well...before it had problems and now it still has problems but they are totally different than before and now give it an advantage.

At low altitude, the difference is not felt much at all. Infact its almost dead on at sea level and at lower altitudes. Once again, as soon as the supercharger kicks in, it seems to cause a problem in its top speed. Without WEP it achieves its best speed...with WEP it goes over. Speaking about the LF IX...not sure about the HF IX.

Perhaps its time that some of us gather some reports. I know we have but we need to do it properly. We need detailed information on the speed of the LF and HF Spitfire IX's. Not the F IX which had different supercharger gear ratios and different speeds at different altitudes. Once we've established the official test documents with the right matching type of plane, we will gather a collected document of reported top speeds in TAS and then collect it together and submit it.

Of course, this is suplerflous if its already been done.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RAF No 92 Squadron
"Either fight or die"

faustnik
08-25-2004, 04:10 PM
IceFire,

All that stuff is here:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9.html

There is a lot of confusion on climb issues relating to the 190s and the Spitfires. Here are some graphs outlining the issues:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/SpitVbClimb.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/SpitIXClimb.gif

Of course you can't isolate the Spit as the only a/c with climb rates that don't match historical data. The Spit IX looks in the ball park on climb to me. The SpitVb seems too high. When you throw the Farnborough Fw190A3 test in there, the questions really turn up.

(Disclaimer: These graphs were created by a fat guy with Photoshop and are in no way to be interpereted as completely accurate.)

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

[This message was edited by faustnik on Wed August 25 2004 at 04:18 PM.]

LBR_Rommel
08-25-2004, 04:46 PM
http://www.luftwaffebrasil.com/xfiles2.jpg

Major LBR=Rommel

http://www.luftwaffebrasil.com
http://www.luftwaffebrasil.hpg.ig.com.br/rommel_ban.jpg

p1ngu666
08-25-2004, 05:02 PM
nice pictures http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

LBR_Rommel
08-25-2004, 05:11 PM
S!

Ty Pingu666 thats a beautiful wallpaper!


&lt; http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif_

Major LBR=Rommel

http://www.luftwaffebrasil.com
http://www.luftwaffebrasil.hpg.ig.com.br/rommel_ban.jpg

VW-IceFire
08-25-2004, 06:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
IceFire,

All that stuff is here:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9.html

There is a lot of confusion on climb issues relating to the 190s and the Spitfires. Here are some graphs outlining the issues:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/SpitVbClimb.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/SpitIXClimb.gif

Of course you can't isolate the Spit as the only a/c with climb rates that don't match historical data. The Spit IX looks in the ball park on climb to me. The SpitVb seems too high. When you throw the Farnborough Fw190A3 test in there, the questions really turn up.

(Disclaimer: _These graphs were created by a fat guy with Photoshop and are in no way to be interpereted as completely accurate.)_

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
_http://www.7jg77.com_
_http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31_

[This message was edited by faustnik on Wed August 25 2004 at 04:18 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Right on...now we compair FB data with that data and find the inconsistencies. Then gather the data, and submit the report.

Am I missing something here? Is there a reason why lots of people are complaning but nobody is doing anything?

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RAF No 92 Squadron
"Either fight or die"

WWMaxGunz
08-25-2004, 07:42 PM
Oleg has his information and it's the original sources he uses.
When people write things based on some of the data they found, so do others. Often
the same source of information is used or people use the parts that others took from
there. Sometimes the information is false because parts get left out, like what
version of the plane or was it a prototype or other conditions the data was gotten
from like how the test was done. Sometimes, really mostly by the time the info is
3rd hand or 4th hand copied.
So I can find 10+ "sources" that all come from one actual first hand account and
those "sources" can all or some be different in ways but still "agree".
These things I say because they were discussed in detail back on the Delphi FSF
what was the original Compuserve Flight Sim Forum, the first and oldest, had some
very serious and knowing members.
What Oleg uses and models may differ as much as what people "test" in results or
the methods originally used and then used by testers as instructed by Oleg.

Hope that helps.


Neal

VW-IceFire
08-25-2004, 09:18 PM
Fair enough...the fact that not all documents are created equal crossed my mind a long time ago. That said, the link pointed out seems to be as credible as it gets. Furthermore, the original sources that Oleg has probably have similar performance. I refuse to believe that, with production quality as good with the Spitfires as they were (having read that chief test pilot for Supermarine noted that some Spitfires achieved only slightly higher or lower MPH top speed in accordance with official specifications), that a variance of over 25-45 kph exists in its top speed at high altitude.

So likely there is something of a mistake rather than a problem with data. Either way, submitting what we've got in terms of official data, and then what we've got in terms of game performance is the best way to convince Oleg of two things:

1) We're entirely serious about achieving best accuracy based on test results.
2) We're willing to test the in-game version extensively and produce comparative data that he can evaluate in much greater depth and detail than he or a small Q&A team can generate.

But I understand you point. I asked why and you have an excellent answer.

I appologise if I sound slightly curt as well. We've got lots of people pointing fingers and proclaiming that the poor axis side is undermodeled but are then totally unwilling to go the extra mile to get the necessary test data to either prove they are wrong...or they are right and that it should be changed in the interests of historical accuracy.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RAF No 92 Squadron
"Either fight or die"

WWMaxGunz
08-25-2004, 09:36 PM
Best think I think is to send the track in so they can see what you get and how you
got that. Oleg is honest that I see but still there is a longtime pipeline for all
the changes to get coded, tested, loop till done, add more and goto step one when
something unforeseen changes, etc to death that many people don't get though I am
sure from our time here you certainly do.
Still I bet that if they see a real problem then the change jumps ahead in line!

My reply was only that there may well be reasons for why things are how they are.
That is really all I do mostly. Posts worse than yours by far I give respect as
I see in the posts especially after the umpteenth it seems time the same is repeated.
Maybe it would be nice if some parts of the forum could only be accessed by members
after some real time period? LOL!


Neal

faustnik
08-25-2004, 10:51 PM
IceFire,

We are really far from submitting anything to Oleg. There are just SO many questions that need to be answered first. My graphs were only to show why there are so questions about the Spit FM, not to provide answers.

For instance, the Spit Vb figures that I graphed are for a 1941 +9 boost Merlin 45. The object viewer states that the Spit Vb had +16 boost which is appropriate for late 1942. Climb rates would be much better for the +16 boost Merlin 45. So do we have a climb error, or simply a date error?

The Farnborough Fw190A3 tests showed better climb results than the LWs's tests. Is this because the methods of testing are different? Like I said there are just so many questions. Of course, that is what we are here to discuss. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

Ugly_Kid
08-25-2004, 11:52 PM
This is the actual climb performance, with 100% power and in some cases with WEP. Interestingly the clipped wing matches exactly the non-clipped performance and this goes to the turn department as well, the CWs are clipped only in graphics. (that's why the damn thing also rolls as non-clipped http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/spitclimb.jpg
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/oksennus_1.jpg

[This message was edited by Ugly_Kid on Wed August 25 2004 at 11:11 PM.]

LLv34_Stafroty
08-26-2004, 12:22 AM
same thing with yak9D and yak9B. exactly the same FM, well, B model has nasty stall http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
would like the P39 series to have same kind of stall behaviour. now it forgives really much and pilots can make it stall without fear. at least i do not fear to stall in P39 series, but in yak9b i do, alot http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

hop2002
08-26-2004, 08:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Has anyone got definative overheating times for a spit IXe with the different engines and boosts we have in fb at SL?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've posted it several times, but it gets ignored because people feel the Spitfire should overheat, they want it to overheat.

The fact that the test data doesn't back that up is immaterial to them.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1090694499_climbcropped.jpg

The test is done with the same engine we have in FB, a Merlin 66, but at 25 lbs, we only have 18 lbs in game.

That means this tested plane was running at just over 2000 hp, compared to the just over 1600 hp we have in game.

And at 3000 ft, after 10 mins cruise radiators closed, followed by 5 mins at 2000 hp radiators closed, in tropical summer conditions, it didn't come close to overheating.

Spitfire radiators didn't fully close, even when in the "closed" position. When closed, they had about half the effective surface area they had when open, so there was still a lot of fooling.

This isn't true for many other aircraft, where closed actually meant closed, with little airflow going through the radiators.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But fact is that Spitfire IX in FB is too fast expecially at high alt. These is the FACT. You cant disagree lol.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's too fast at high alt, it's not too fast below 6000m.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Climb rate of the Spit Vb is way too high and the Fw190A4 is too low.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Spit V climb rate is too high at high alt, too low at low alt. Speed is too low at all but the very highest alts, and much too low at that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Without WEP it achieves its best speed...with WEP it goes over. Speaking about the LF IX...not sure about the HF IX.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the Spit is right with WEP. It's just at high altitude, the speed should start dropping, but instead for a short time it keeps increasing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Perhaps its time that some of us gather some reports. I know we have but we need to do it properly. We need detailed information on the speed of the LF and HF Spitfire IX's. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

See http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/ma648.html

The tested plane, MA 648, had a different trype of carb, so isn't fully representitive, but it's only out by a few mph. If you look at the speed graph though (link is at the bottom of the page), it lists several Spitfires with Merlin 66 for comparison.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Of course you can't isolate the Spit as the only a/c with climb rates that don't match historical data. The Spit IX looks in the ball park on climb to me. The SpitVb seems too high. When you throw the Farnborough Fw190A3 test in there, the questions really turn up.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Farnborough Fw 190 test not only contradicts FWs own climb figures, it contradicts the laws of physics.

Look at the climb in the higher supercharger gear. It's higher than the climb in lower gear.

The problem with that is by increasing the supercharger gear ratio, the supercharger requires more power. So you get lower climb rate, not higher. I've never seen any 2 speed supercharger plane for which that doesn't hold true.

The only way to get a higher rate of climb in 2nd gear is to increase the rpm or allowed boost.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>For instance, the Spit Vb figures that I graphed are for a 1941 +9 boost Merlin 45. The object viewer states that the Spit Vb had +16 boost which is appropriate for late 1942. Climb rates would be much better for the +16 boost Merlin 45. So do we have a climb error, or simply a date error?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We have climb rates that are clearly modelled on 9lbs normal rating, 16 lbs wep. That's the rating for a Spit V from summer 42 onwards.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1093526780_spitv190climb.gif

The Fw 190 here is the A5, based on Fw data and AEP.

The Spit V shows 9 lbs normal power, 16 lbs with WEP in AEP, and Oleg has said that the date is in error, it should be 1942 not 1941. Note that the clipped wing is labelled 1943, by which time it would have been running at 16 lbs.

However, the speed data (in IL2 Compare at least) matches a 1941 Spit V with no WEP. In fact, up to 21,000 ft it's substantially slower than a real life Spit V even without WEP.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1080400234_spitvspeeds.gif

OldMan____
08-26-2004, 08:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Fair enough...the fact that not all documents are created equal crossed my mind a long time ago. That said, the link pointed out seems to be as credible as it gets. Furthermore, the original sources that Oleg has probably have similar performance. I refuse to believe that, with production quality as good with the Spitfires as they were (having read that chief test pilot for Supermarine noted that some Spitfires achieved only slightly higher or lower MPH top speed in accordance with official specifications), that a variance of over 25-45 kph exists in its top speed at high altitude.

So likely there is something of a mistake rather than a problem with data. Either way, submitting what we've got in terms of official data, and then what we've got in terms of game performance is the best way to convince Oleg of two things:

1) We're entirely serious about achieving best accuracy based on test results.
2) We're willing to test the in-game version extensively and produce comparative data that he can evaluate in much greater depth and detail than he or a small Q&A team can generate.

But I understand you point. I asked why and you have an excellent answer.

I appologise if I sound slightly curt as well. We've got lots of people pointing fingers and proclaiming that the poor axis side is undermodeled but are then totally unwilling to go the extra mile to get the necessary test data to either prove they are wrong...or they are right and that it should be changed in the interests of historical accuracy.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RAF No 92 Squadron
"Either fight or die"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

one problem is that is quite harder to find sources about LW stuuf than USAAF stuff. We still have tons of american planes lfying.. and USAAF made publcial much more documents...

but if anyone were had a grandfather that was mechanical at LW duing war... ;P

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

faustnik
08-26-2004, 10:03 AM
Hop,

I don't understand your last post.

All you overheat data shows is that the Spit tested did not overheat after 5 minutes WEP. It says nothing about never overheating?
I don't understand how you are making that leap.

Why would you compare Spit Vb climb to an Fw190A5 at 1.35 ata when the Fw190A5 ran over 1.42atas with WEP?

How can you completely discount the RAF Farborough tests of Faber's Fw190A3? If you discount those test maybe you should discount all RAF testing. We need to examine the reasons why the test results are different not simply discount them. Perhaps the LW and RAF used different methods of testing?

Please label the orange Spit Vb line you show in your graph. What boost setting is that? If that is for +16 WEP, where did it come from? Is this data from an F or LF version?

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

p1ngu666
08-26-2004, 11:01 AM
well, if spit dont overheat in climb, (slow airspeed and stuff) should it overheat with faster airspeed? no because u get more cooling http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
overheat is odd tho
p47 high alt no problems, yak at high alt, ooo dear. and the yak would kick out way less power than its cooling system is designed to cope with

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

faustnik
08-26-2004, 11:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
well, if spit dont overheat in climb, (slow airspeed and stuff) should it overheat with faster airspeed? no because u get more cooling http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
overheat is odd tho
p47 high alt no problems, yak at high alt, ooo dear. and the yak would kick out way less power than its cooling system is designed to cope with

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, your opinon is that if a plane does not overheat in a climb test, it should never overheat? Maybe you ought to think that through further, and also think of why they call a particular power setting "Combat" or "Emergency" power.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

p1ngu666
08-26-2004, 11:23 AM
well if your in a low speed turn fight, your more likely to overheat. on max speed runs your doing 300mph plus for most planes. thing is do reports of testing mention overheating on max speed runs?.
its hard tobe sure, do we know how much heat the engines kicked out? nope, or that strange aerodynamic things could happen to certain pplanes, rads might develop there own pocket of air and there cooling might be reduced.

baring oddball stuff, the faster u go, for a given engine setting, the more cooling u get

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

hop2002
08-26-2004, 11:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>All you overheat data show is that the Spit tested did not overheat after 5 minutes WEP. It says nothing about never overheating?
I don't understand how you are making that leap.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I wouldn't say never, but look at the figures.

The cruise figures are stabilised. ie, they have reached their max and levelled off.

The max speed figures are taken at the end of 5 mins at maximum throttle.

Look at the differences:
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
3000ft cruise max
trop 1.12 1.17
temp 1.32 1.36

13500ft
trop 1.16 1.18
temp 1.32 1.32
</pre>

The higher the "radiator suitability" number, the cooler it runs.

The cruise figures are at the maximum they will reach.

Look at the difference between cruise and max at same temp/altitude.

The numbers in maximum flight either go up, or remain the same, at max power.

To work out exactly what theat means, we need to use the equation the RAF used to get the "radiator suitability" figure.

Radiator suitability (RS) = (maximum permissible coolant temperature - standard summer air temp) / (actual coolant temp - actual air temp)

We only know 2 of these values, the radiator suitability and the maximum permissible coolant temp.

The maximum coolant temp was 115c for cruising, 125c for combat (actually 135 for combat, but the report notes the max they allowed for the equation was 125)

We also need to know the actual and standard air temps they used.

Standard atmosphere air temp is 15c at sea level, 9c at 3000ft, -10c at 13,500ft.

We can assume the actual air temps were the same, although it doesn't really matter what they were, because the equation adjusts for them.

So, for cruise at 3000 ft at temperate conditions we get:

1.32 = (115 - 9) / (Tc - 9)

That solves to

1.32 = (115 - 9) / (89 - 9)

So the observed coolant temp (Tc) in cruising flight, temperate conditions at 3000 ft was 89c.

Now for the same conditions, max power:

1.36 = (125 - 9) / (Tc - 9)

That solves to:

1.36 = (125 - 9) / (94 - 9)

Coolant temperature went up to 94c.

So from a stabilised temp of 89c at cruise, after 5 minutes coolant went up to 94c.

1c temp increase per minute.

Note that the temperature would go up less over time, because the hotter the coolant gets, the greater the difference between coolant and air temp, so the coolant transfers more heat to the the air for the same air flow.

Ignoring that, you get a 1c coolant temp rise per minute, from 89c at cruise.

The maximum allowable coolant temp in real life was 135c. That would take 46 minutes to reach, even ignoring the fact that as the temp gets higher, the coolant transfers more heat to the air.

And of course, this is with radiators closed, and at much higher power setting than allowed in game.

Open the rads, you will cool much quicker.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Why would you compare Spit Vb climb to an Fw190A5 at 1.35 ata when the Fw190A5 ran over 1.42atas with WEP?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't have 1.42 ata figures for the Fw 190. I have some for A8, but they are pretty low.

I did actually put the IL2 compare line for the A5 with WEP, but as I didn't have any real life figures, and the chart was already cluttered enough, I removed it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>How can you completely discount the RAF Farborough tests of Faber's Fw190A3? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't completely discount it, but the climb figures they give go against the laws of physics.

It's important to note that they were having trouble with the 190, many of the tests were cancelled. As a general principle, I'd much rather trust a countries own tests than foreign tests of a captured aircraft.

However, if you want to rely on the test of Faber's 190, would you do the same for speed?

I tested the 190 A4 in AEP, and got 342 mph at sea level. The A5, at 1.42 ata in game, gave
361 mph at sea level.

The tests of Faber's 190 gave figures of 305 mph at 1.35 ata, 329 mph at 1.42 ata.

Would you rather the 190 is modelled with these speeds in game?

I've never asked for that, and have pointed out that the climb rate is wrong to the people who want the 190s climb rate modelled after the Faber tests. But strangely I've never seen the call for those tests to be used for the speed of the 190.

Back to why I don't agree with the climb results:

Here's the power output for the BMW 801D.

Note the much lower power in high gear than in low:
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1092787859_bmw801d.jpg

Go to http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9.html

and look at the Merlin power chart right down the bottom.

Go to http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14pt.html

and look at the Griffon chart right down the bottom.

I could show you a Napier Sabre chart as well if you like, again showing the same thing.

In high supercharger gear, the engine always puts out less power than in low. Always.

Now look at the climb rates for the Spits with those Merlins and Griffons. You will see that the climb rate in high gear is always lower than in low gear. Always.

That's the way the physics work. If you spin the supercharger faster, it needs more power to spin it. Engine output goes down. The only way around that is to increase boost or rpm, and the tests of Faber's 190 say they didn't do that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> If you discount those test maybe you should discount all RAF testing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I pretty much do discount all testing of foreign aircraft. None of the Fw 190 tests I know of produced anything like the speed claimed for the 190, but I don't ask it be modelled on those figures.

The Faber tests are amongst the worst, I think, because they were carried out on a plane the RAF had never seen before, knew very little about, and weren't running properly. We know they were overboosting it, but even that can't account for the discrepancies.

How about this for a suggestion. I will believe every word of the Faber test, and campaign for the aircraft to be modelled like that, if you will do the same. Including the 305 mph at sea level, and 327 mph at sea level for the 1.42 ata 190s like the A5.

The tests of Faber's plane don't fit in with the other speed or climb data we have in game. The speeds are much slower, the climb much higher.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>We need to examine the reasons why the test results are different not simply discount them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've tried to in the past, and am still trying to. I was trying to with Josf, but look how that turned out.

Some people, and I don't mean you, will not debate these things rationally, and are interested only in one set of facts, that suit their case.

I haven't called for the 190 A4 in game to be restricted to 305 mph at sea level. I don't accept the climb results from the Faber tests, but I don't accept the speed either, which I would do if I simply wanted to handicap the 190.

Of 5 different 190 tests I know, the fastest are the Fw factory figures for the A5, which were carried out on a plane that had all it's joints filled and polished. Those are the figures used in game. I haven't called that into question, and tried to use allied tests, which show much lower speeds.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Perhaps the LW and RAF used different methods of testing?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't see how, but it's something to bear in mind. It's a point against the Faber tests, because the Fw 190 was new to the RAF. It was the first they'd captured, they had no engineering manuals etc.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Please label the orange Spit Vb line you show in your graph. What boost setting is that? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

16 lbs. I meant to label them all, but ran out of space for the labels, and so reduced the amount of info.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If that is for +16 WEP, where did it come from?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It came from the tests of AA878:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/aa878.html

AA878 was tested ballasted to the weight of a Spit Vc carrying 4 20mm and 480 rounds of ammo, we have 2 20mm and 120 round of amm in game (plus the mgs, of course).

Spitfire The History has a bit about the tests of AA878, which was tested with 4 20mm, 2 20mm and 240 rounds, and 2 20mm and 120 rounds. We have 2 20mm and 120 rounds. The climb rate was increased with the lighter armament by 300 ft/min at normal rating. Combat rating will show a larger increase, but I haven't allowed for that. Because of that, the figures I have given are somewhat conservative. Also, AA 873 was also tested with 4 20mm, and gave somewhat better results than AA 878 at normal rating, which again indicates my figures are conservative.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/aa873.html

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Is this data from an F or LF version?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's an F. The LF would be quite different, hitting 4700 ft/min at low level, which is comparable with the Spit LF IX or 109K4, although only at very low alt (up to about 4000ft)

k5054
08-26-2004, 11:30 AM
Overheating is far more likely in the climb. Cooling was designed to work with no drag penalty (radiator/gills open) at top speed. Mostly aircraft should not overheat at speed even at WEP, although they may in the climb. There are exceptions, such as pre-A5 FWs., which had a serious heat problem, but it got fixed.
Overheat in flight sims is usually a gamey device designed to stop unrealistic use of WEP beyond placard limits, which in RL would reduce engine life or require service such as oil and/or plug change on landing.


The 16lb Spit V in the chart looks slow, its curve should surely join the 9lb curve at 9lb full throttle height, why should it be slower than the 9lb at any height if the only change is throttle rigging?


Lots of people tend to criticize the AFDU and RAE figures when they don't like what they say, but in fact this series is the best we have form any source. No german records survive which have this level of detail, stopwatch climbs, boost recorded at each step height, speed and climb speed at each height. The RAE A-3 test is more detailed than anything from german sources. A recent Fw190A book from germany gives the A-1 700kph!!!

faustnik
08-26-2004, 11:31 AM
Going from "this particular Spit IX tested did not overheat at 5 minutes WEP" to "it is correct that the Spit IX in FB never overheats at low altitudes with constant WEP" is an amazing stretch.
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

faustnik
08-26-2004, 11:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:


Some people, and I don't mean you, will not debate these things rationally, and are interested only in one set of facts, that suit their case.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To be honest, that is exactly what I think is the danger with your Spit IX climb and temp report. You have a test of an a/c with a climb at what settings? Is WEP continuously used or not? For how long is it used? You do not have enough information in that chart to draw the conclusion the the Spit IX will never overheat at WEP.

The methods the LW used in climb test might be very different from the methods that the RAF used in their tests. Skychimp once posted about how complicated these tests can be with variances in throttle and prop pitch settings. The Farnborough test presents a case where 2 aircraft were test by the same testers using the same methods. The experienced RAF pilots who made the test would surely have known how to get the best climb rate out of the Spitfire. The Fw190A3 easily outclimbed the Spit Vb at +12 boost, that is a fact. Ignoring it does not make it go away. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

*****

BTW Hop, from some posts that you have made I am getting the impression that all a/c in FB overheat too easily and the Spitfire IX might the most correct. Whatever standards Oleg applied to the other a/c should be applied to the Spit IX. Having two sets of standards results in the Spit IX having an improper advantage.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

hop2002
08-26-2004, 11:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The 16lb Spit V in the chart looks slow, its curve should surely join the 9lb curve at 9lb full throttle height, why should it be slower than the 9lb at any height if the only change is throttle rigging?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It shouldn't. They are 2 different planes though, the one at 16 lbs had 4 20mm, the one at 9 lbs was in the same configuration as in game.

That shouldn't account for all the difference, though.

The red line represents AA 878, which only managed 359 mph at 20,000ft. AA873, also a 4 cannon Vc, managed 371 mph, W3134 managed 370.

Again the figures for AA878 are conservative, but it's the only test I know of at 16 lbs.
I could have used the increase noted in the report on AA 878, which says speed is increased by 35 mph below FTH, which would put the speed of a Spit Vb, like the one we have in game, at 327 mph at sea level.

It's just easier to copy an existing chart, and it's a valid speed, even if on the slow side.

So it would be equally valid to shift the red line for Spit V speed 1 large square (10 mph) to the right.

KaRaYa-X
08-26-2004, 11:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
I thought the Spitfires after the MkI had a negative G carburetor, and certainly by the time of the V?1?!? Its even got a silly name given to it during the BoB.

A virtual pint of beer to the person who can remember its name.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you are talking about the so-called "Schilling" modification...

--= flying online as JG52&lt;Karaya-X =--

hop2002
08-26-2004, 11:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>To be honest, that is exactly what I think is the danger with your Spit IX climb and temp report. You have a test of an a/c with a climb at what settings? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Full WEP, 25 lbs boost, 3000 rpm.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Is WEP continuously used or not? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. WEP will not function over a certain altitude becase the boost pressure drops with altitude, but that's just a fact of the way the atmosphere works.

This test was conducted, in game terms, at 110% throttle with wep engaged.

Of course, it was at a much higher wep setting than we have in game.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>For how long is it used? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In level speed runs, for 5 minutes. In climbs, until the atmosphere is too thin.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You do not have enough information in that chart to draw the conclusion the the Spit IX will never overheat at WEP. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've never said it will never overheat in WEP. If you fly at full throttle in a continuous very tight turn, keeping airspeed slow, with rads closed, you may well overheat.

But you shouldn't overheat in level flight, and you'd be hard pushed to overheat in a normal climb.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The methods the LW used in climb test might be very different from the methods that the RAF used in their tests.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Possibly, but I doubt it.

In what way different?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Skychimp once posted about how complicated these tests can be with variances in throttle and prop pitch settings.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, you chose prop pitch for best climb, unless you've got a CS prop, which the Spits had. I don't know about the 190.

But I find it bizarre that the RAF, with the first Fw 190 they ever got their hands on, discovered a method of climbing that was so much better than the one the Luftwaffe, or even FW, who made the planes, had worked out.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>he Farnborough test presents a case where 2 aircraft were test by the same testers using the same methods. The experienced RAF pilots who made the test would surely have known how to get the best climb rate out of the Spitfire. The Fw190A3 easily outclimbed the Spit Vb at +12 boost, that is a fact.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, that is most certainly not a fact. They didn't climb the Spit at 12 lbs, they climbed it at "maximum continuous climb". Maximum continuous was 7 lbs, 2650 rpm, max climb was 9 lbs, 2850 rpm. Take your pick of which of those two they climbed the Spit V at, but it was certainly not at 12 lbs.

The Fw 190 A3 was climbed at WEP, because the British mistakenly thought the WEP rating of 1.32 ata was acctaully a 30 minute climb rating.

It's there in black and white in the report.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Ignoring it does not make it go away.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So are you prepared to accept 305 mph at sea level as the max speed for the Fw 190 A4, and 327 mph for the A5 and A6?

hop2002
08-26-2004, 12:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>BTW Hop, from some posts that you have made I am getting the impression that all a/c in FB overheat too easily and the Spitfire IX might the most correct. Whatever standards Oleg applied to the other a/c should be applied to the Spit IX. Having two sets of standards results in the Spit IX having an improper advantage.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I haven't seen cooling reports for most of the others.

But just because the Spit didn't overheat easily, doesn't mean others won't.

The Fw 190 A3 and A4 were supposed to be able to use 1.42 ata 3 mins, 1.32 ata for 30 mins. They suffered badly from overheating, and had to be limited to 1.32 ata for 3 mins. The Spit V at 16 lbs suffered from overheating, for example the test report notes the radiators were suitable for less then 4 mins climb at temperate conditions (suitability 0.985) and reached 0.865 in tropical conditions.

In level flight, they note the radiator is suitable for temperate condtions, not for tropical conditions.

A Mustang report I've seen at 25 lbs said they had to open the radiator to 8.5 inches instead of the normal 7.5 to ensure adequate cooling, and that was under British summer conditions.

Many planes will overheat quite easily. You can't say which without more information, but it would be some help if we knew the radiator duct area when closed and open. Some planes can close the rads totally, and they will certainly overheat quickly under those conditions.

But note in level flight, putting out 400 hp more than the Spit IX we have in game, after 5 mins the coolant temp had risen to about 94c, and it was allowed to reach 135c.

faustnik
08-26-2004, 12:42 PM
Hop,

The Fw190A4 did run at 1.42 atas WEP, not all were derrated correct? The RAF were able to complete their climb tests at 1.35 continous. How does the Farnborough test not aplly to the Fw190A4 and 1941 Spit Vb we have in FB?

The Spit IX overheat data shows that the the Spit IX can run at WEP level for over 5 minutes. It does not show that the Spit IX can maneuver at low altitude on continuous WEP for over 17 minutes like we have in the sim.

You are taking one test and discounting it because it does not support Spit Vb/Fw190 climb matchup in FB 2.0. You are taking another report and reading more into the report than it says to support the unlimited overheat of the Spit IX in FB 2.04.

You know I respect your opinions in all of these matters and highly value your posts but, I think you are leaning a bit to one side here.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

faustnik
08-26-2004, 12:48 PM
Oh IceFire,

See why I don't go rushing into sending charts and stats to Oleg. There is so much conflicting data and so many questions tied to testing. It's very difficult to say "this is wrong because of this data".

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

hop2002
08-26-2004, 12:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Fw190A4 did run at 1.42 atas WEP, not all were derrated correct?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Later on, yes. But don't we have the derated 190 in game?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The RAF were able to complete their climb tests at 1.35 continous. How does the Farnborough test not aplly to the Fw190A4 and 1941 Spit Vb we have in FB?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because by the time the 190 was running at 1.42 ata, the Spit was running at 16 lbs boost.

And I notice you still haven't mentioned the speeds from the Faber tests.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Spit IX overheat data shows that the the Spit IX can run at WEP level for over 5 minutes. It does not show that the Spit IX can maneuver at low altitude on continuous WEP for over 17 minutes like we have in the sim.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it doesn't. I haven't seen that in game either. But bear in mind we have lower power settings, and if the speed is kept up, it's clear the Spit will no overheat in level flight. If it won't overheat in level flight, it's going to take a long time in normal combat, which consists of dives, turns, climbs etc.

Again, it's important to note the Spit has automatic radiators. In combat. The level flight, and some of the climb figures, are done with closed radiators. You will double the cooling capacity by opening the radiators. Are you sure this isn't happening in combat?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You are taking one test and discounting it because it does not support Spit Vb/Fw190 climb matchup in FB 2.0. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the main reason I'm discounting it is because it doesn't conform to the rul;es of physics, at least as I understand them.

Show me another plane that has higher climb rate in high supercharger gear, compared to it in low gear, (at the same boost and rpm), and I'll gladly accept it.

I've never seen another aircraft that does that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You know I respect your opinions in all of these matters and highly value your posts but, I think you are leaning a bit to one side here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You still haven't mentioned speed.

You want to accept the climb rates from Faber's plane, do you want to accept the speed figures as well?

It's the third time I've asked.

I think the test of Faber's 190 is wrong, both on speed and climb. From the way you haven't responded on the speed, I can only think you want to accept the climb figures, ignore the speed figures.

Kurfurst__
08-26-2004, 01:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
But note in level flight, putting out 400 hp more than the Spit IX we have in game, after 5 mins the coolant temp had risen to about 94c, and it was allowed to reach 135c.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That`s false, the report you are quiting from tells inlet temperatures, and not the outlet temperatures.

Furthermore, though you try to tell everyone it was possible to run for ages in climb on +25 lbs WEP on the Spit IX with it`s 'liquid nitorgene' coolers, in fact comparing the climb times with the radiator settings reveals that the plane actually spent only 1-2 minute at max power during climb, as the climb rate with closed radiators was very fast, and the boost dropped off quickly with altitude due to the undersized supercharger of the Merlin, not having enough capability but to keep up +25 lbs between 0-500 ft (litte more than 100m altitude = ~3 secs of climbing!!) and between ~6500-11500ft, which would take about a 1-1.5 minute to climb at closed rads.

Simple to put, though Hop would like us to believe that the Spit was able to climb at +25lbs for 5 mins, actually the report says it only climbed on max. WEP for 1/4 of that time.


In addition, it should be noted that Hop happily uses the cooling trial reports - especially his own subjective interpretation of it - for the plane it was tested on, JL 165, but chooses to ignore and reject both the climb and speed figures as valid that were tested on the same JL 165, as he believes 'they are too low'.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
So are you prepared to accept 305 mph at sea level as the max speed for the Fw 190 A4, and 327 mph for the A5 and A6?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well that may be your goal to reach, but it`s hopeless. Documentation clearly shows the max. SL speed at the allowed 1.42ata for the A-5 as 348 mph, and 415 mph at altitude, w/o special boost employed.

At 1.32ata, it could reach 329mph at SL, and 393mph at rated altitude. But since even the derated A-3/A-4s were running higher than this, at 1.35, the results should be slightly higher, appx. 335 and 400 mph. But then again, by the time the Spit V received +16 lbs boost, FW 190s were running at 1.42ata as well, so the comparison is highly academic.

A partisan fight can be put up to make it -25mph slower than it really was, so that the Spit could counter it in an area it never could in reality.

Quoting from the test report on Faber plane while remaining silent on the fact that the particular plane serious engine troubles during the test, which fact is being stated clearly in the report, makes me wonder on the poster`s true agenda.



http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

faustnik
08-26-2004, 01:10 PM
Hop,

Of course the Farnborough tests should be considered for speed too. All of the tests should be considered, that is my point.

The Spitfire Vb we have in FB is listed as a 1941 plane which would be +9 boost, right?

I don't know if the Fw190A4 we have in FB is derrated. I asked Oleg that and did not get a clear answer. Do you think we have the derrated version?

Exactly why do you think the Farnborough test is wrong, because someone mis-typed a supercharger speed?

As for the Spit IX not overheating at low altitude continous WEP in FB 2.04. I have several tracks of it where I gave up after about 20 minutes. I can send them to you for you to analyze. Maybe you can make sense of them.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

Kwiatos
08-26-2004, 01:31 PM
I see in these topic many tests and graphs about max speed and climb rate Spitfire and fw190. Maby at least someone make clear situation with spitfires and Fw-190 in FB and send to Oleg Maddox good raport about these. We all know that something is wrong with performance Spitfire MK V and IX in FB.

hop2002
08-26-2004, 01:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>That`s false, the report you are quiting from tells inlet temperatures, and not the outlet temperatures.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No Isegrim, it quite clearly says:

"Tc observed coolant temperature at the outlet from the engine"

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Furthermore, though you try to tell everyone it was possible to run for ages in climb on +25 lbs WEP on the Spit IX with it`s 'liquid nitorgene' coolers, in fact comparing the climb times with the radiator settings reveals that the plane actually spent only 1-2 minute at max power during climb, as the climb rate with closed radiators was very fast, and the boost dropped off quickly with altitude due to the undersized supercharger of the Merlin, not having enough capability but to keep up +25 lbs between 0-500 ft (litte more than 100m altitude = ~3 secs of climbing!!) and between ~6500-11500ft, which would take about a 1-1.5 minute to climb at closed rads.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean air gets thinner as you climb. Yes, I've already pointed that out before.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In addition, it should be noted that Hop happily uses the cooling trial reports - especially his own subjective interpretation of it - for the plane it was tested on, JL 165, but chooses to ignore and reject both the climb and speed figures as valid that were tested on the same JL 165, as he believes 'they are too low'.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They don't match other Spit IXs. Note, however, that that makes things worse, as it takes longer to climb, and speeds are lower, producing less airflow.

Regardless, it's still well above what we have in game. JL 165 actually did 364 mph at 3000ft, according to IL 2 compare the Spit IX does 344 at that alt.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> So are you prepared to accept 305 mph at sea level as the max speed for the Fw 190 A4, and 327 mph for the A5 and A6?



Well that may be your goal to reach, but it`s hopeless. Documentation clearly shows the max. SL speed at the allowed 1.42ata for the A-5 as 348 mph, and 415 mph at altitude, w/o special boost employed.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note I'm not suggesting those speeds.

I'm asking Faustnik if he will accept them.

And the A5 in AEP does 362 mph, so your figures make it 14 mph too fast at sea level anyway.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>At 1.32ata, it could reach 329mph at SL<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The A4 does 342 at sea level, supposedly at 1.3 ata.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A partisan fight can be put up to make it -25mph slower than it really was, so that the Spit could counter it in an area it never could in reality.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not asking for it to be made slower.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Spitfire Vb we have in FB is listed as a 1941 plane which would be +9 boost, right?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know. The Spitfire went from 9 to 12 to 16 lbs. All we know for certain is 9 lbs was the initial rating, 12 lbs was used in the tests against Faber's plane, and at that time they were in the process of switching over to 16 lbs.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Of course the Farnborough tests should be considered for speed too. All of the tests should be considered, that is my point. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So do you want to increase the climb rate of the 190 to the level of the tests of Faber's 190? If so, you should also campaign to reduce it's speed to the same level as Faber's 190.

I don't have a problem, because I don't trust either the speed or climb figures.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I don't know if the Fw190A4 we have in FB is derrated. I asked Oleg that and did not get a clear answer. Do you think we have the derrated version?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Speed wise, it's too fast to be derated, slightly too slow to be fully rated, according to Isegrim's figures.

I haven't tested the climb rate, but according to IL 2 Compare it's not derated, I think.

But that means the 190 A5 and A6 have to use 1.65 ata, and God knows what the 190 A8 is using.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Exactly why do you think the Farnborough test is wrong, because someone mis-typed a supercharger speed? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are only 2 supercharger speeds. The climb rate in high gear does not match either the engine chart or the other 190 climb charts. If it had really been in low gear, it would be even futher off.

Someone might have mistyped the engine ratings they were using, for example they might have allowed 2700 rpm, rather than the 2450 rpm they claim, and should have been using.

But that would mean the test isn't valid, because it's for a power rating that couldn't be used.

I suspect that's probably the real reason it doesn't fit the engine chart. There was certainly a lot of confusion over what the correct ratings were, and I suspect the high alt 1.32 ata, 2450 rpm rating was really run at 2700 rpm.

faustnik
08-26-2004, 01:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
So do you want to increase the climb rate of the 190 to the level of the tests of Faber's 190? If so, you should also campaign to reduce it's speed to the same level as Faber's 190.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Campaigning? Uh, I'm trying to figure out the reality of the situation, not campaigning. I am in no way saying that "the climb rate of the Fw190 in FB should be made to exactly match the RAF Farnborough test results".

I also don't understand this:

"But that would mean the test isn't valid, because it's for a power rating that couldn't be used."

How could they fly it with a power setting that can't be used, do you mean not recommended?

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

WWMaxGunz
08-26-2004, 02:01 PM
Faustnik, Oleg already posted months ago that the Spit V we have listed as 1941
has erroneous date and should be shown 1942. Server operators should note this
if they want historic mixes for planesets with Spit V. That revelation came when
climb tests did not match a report that used the 1st serial Spit V made, favorite
with people who want to show them as overmodelled and then Oleg posted about the
error.


neal

p1ngu666
08-26-2004, 02:03 PM
hm
wonder if they used 100 octane fuel
u could run higher boost with that, and not suffer detination. in the faber test thingy
what was the standard octane of the 190 at that time?

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

faustnik
08-26-2004, 02:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Faustnik, Oleg already posted months ago that the Spit V we have listed as 1941
has erroneous date and should be shown 1942. Server operators should note this
if they want historic mixes for planesets with Spit V. That revelation came when
climb tests did not match a report that used the 1st serial Spit V made, favorite
with people who want to show them as overmodelled and then Oleg posted about the
error.


neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Neal, I did not see Oleg's post. Did he state the boost pressure of the Vb model we have in FB?

I wonder why Oleg did not change the date in 2.04? The P-51B is still listed as a '42 plane also.

(Neal, please check PMs, thanks)

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

[This message was edited by faustnik on Thu August 26 2004 at 01:13 PM.]

[This message was edited by faustnik on Thu August 26 2004 at 01:29 PM.]

VW-IceFire
08-26-2004, 03:47 PM
They probably just didn't have time. It sounds simple and it probably is but there were likely other things to do.

Server admins are at prime responsibility to keep up on these things for the scenarios they run.

hop2002, thank you sir for being very concise and providing plenty of data.

faustnik as well for very clearly illustrating on how hard it is to nail the information down. I was perhaps in a slightly more perfect world at the time and you've ruined it for me http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

So I think I'm back at square one as for what I believed to be true after the last time we had a go at this. So I'm back to feeling that the Spitfire IX is just fine except at high alt with WEP. That the Spitfire Vb is a 1942 model and that everything is not too bad afterall.

What we can't seem to get on charts and graphs for the FW190 is how it manuvers. Johnnie Johnson, respected Ace, feels that they turned very well...and to some extent they do...but do we have a good feel for the context?

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RAF No 92 Squadron
"Either fight or die"

Kwiatos
08-26-2004, 04:34 PM
Even when Spitfire MK V 1941 is model 1942 still is climb rate expecially at medium-high alt is too good. According real test at 6-7 km climb rate was 11,5 m/s(http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/aa878.html)
and in FB according to Il2 Compare we have 20 m/s !!!!
Dont know about sea level max speed for Spitfire V because in data from www.fourthfightergroup.com (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com) there is no info about it.

Im wonder if someone from here is going to report these conclusion, test etc. to Oleg M.???

faustnik
08-26-2004, 04:54 PM
Kwaitos,

Here is the Spit Vc added into my cheesy graph:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/SpitVbClimb.gif

I'm not sure if this applies however as the Vc had a altered wing from the Vb, I think. Hop could probably answer that one.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

HeinzBar
08-26-2004, 06:26 PM
S!,
Can anyone post the actual test data from the Faber test? I still haven‚'t seen what model Spitfire IX was being used in comparison to the Fw 190a3. I would be very interested to seeing the top speeds for both planes during the tests. Perhaps, I overlooked it. If that‚'s the case, then I apologize for not being more observant.

I know this may add more smoke to the smoke and mirror debate we‚'re having now. Just another re-type of the report found in Price‚'s book, pg 45-46.

Performance
The all-around performance of the Fw 190 is good. Only brief performance test have been carried out and the figures obtained gave a maximum speed of approximately 390 mph. True at 1.42 atmospheres boost, 2700 rpm at the maximum power altitude of about 18000 ft. All flights at maximum power were carried out for duration of 2 minutes only.

There are indications that the engine of this aircraft is de-rated, this being supported by the pilot‚'s instruction card found in the cockpit. Further performance tests and engine investigations are to be carried out by the RAE and more definite information will then be available.

Throughout the trials the engine has been running very roughly and as a result pilots flying the aircraft have little confidence in its reliability. The cause of this roughness has not yet been ascertained but it is thought that it may be due to a bad period of vibration at certain engine speeds which may also affect the injection system. (Later it was discovered that the roughness was due to fouling of the Bosch sparking plugs after a short period of running. The fault was cured by fitting Siemens type plugs taken from the BMW 801A engine of a crashed Do 217 bomber).


Climb
The rate of climb up to 18000 ft. (5488m) under maximum continuous climbing conditions at 1.35 atmospheres boost 2450 rpm, 165 mph is between 3000 and 3250 ft/mn (15.24 to 16.51 m/sec). The initial rate of climb when pulling up from level flight at fast cruising speed is high and the angle steep and from a dive is phenomenal. It is considered that the de-rated version of the Fw 190 is unlikely to be met above 25000 ft (7622 m) as the power of the engine starts falling off at 22000 ft and by 25000 ft has fallen off considerably. It is not possible to give the rate of climb at this altitude.

Dive
The Fw 190 has a high rate of dive, the initial acceleration being excellent. The maximum so far obtained in a dive is 580 mph (934 kmh). True at 16000 ft (4880 m), and at this speed the controls, although slightly heavier, are still remarkably light. One very good feature is that no alteration of trim form level flight is required either during the entry or during the 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.


Perhaps, this will help the debate some more? Probably not, but I‚'m posting the information found in Price‚'s book.

HB

http://www.jagdverband44.com/JV44Banner400x75.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
08-27-2004, 12:19 AM
WEP in the Spitfire was the supercharger

Superchargers are limited by the atmosphere pressure they are sucking in

we know the Spitfire is too fast over 6.5(?)Kin FB

seems like its high Alt performance (power for climbs & level speed) is very good at the moment & should not be

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WUAF_Badsight
08-27-2004, 12:22 AM
i would also like to add that constantly bringing up Dive performance is largely illrelevant

because FB Favours Turn & Climb Ability

because FB models diving very poorly . . . . with power on all planes in FB basically dive the same

in regards to accelleration , not max speed

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Kurfurst__
08-27-2004, 05:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>That`s false, the report you are quiting from tells inlet temperatures, and not the outlet temperatures.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No Isegrim, it quite clearly says:

"Tc observed coolant temperature at the outlet from the engine"

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, TC is the coolant temperature at the outlet of the radiator.

You on the other hand used values oil inlet temperatures, noted in the chart you have posted.

Hop has used inlet temperatures instead of outlet temperatures,
He used the measured oil temperatures, because they are much lower than the coolant`s, but for some odd reason compared that (the oil temp) to the maximum allowed coolant temperatures, which are much higher (125 degrees vs. 90)instead of correctly comparing like with the like, oil temp with oil limits, coolant temp with coolant limits, for some odd - or just very clear? - reason.

Simple to put, he used incompatible figures in the best way to fit it into his story, ie. the outrageously ridiculus claim of his that a Spitfire IX could climb at WEP for 45!!! minutes at closed!!! radiators.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Furthermore, though you try to tell everyone it was possible to run for ages in climb on +25 lbs WEP on the Spit IX with it`s 'liquid nitorgene' coolers, in fact comparing the climb times with the radiator settings reveals that the plane actually spent only 1-2 minute at max power during climb, as the climb rate with closed radiators was very fast, and the boost dropped off quickly with altitude due to the undersized supercharger of the Merlin, not having enough capability but to keep up +25 lbs between 0-500 ft (litte more than 100m altitude = ~3 secs of climbing!!) and between ~6500-11500ft, which would take about a 1-1.5 minute to climb at closed rads.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean air gets thinner as you climb. Yes, I've already pointed that out before.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, Hop, interesting way to tell. You tell here everyone you have a report where the Spitfire climbed for 5 mins on WEP, which according to you, shows it was impossible to overheat, but in fact the plane didn`t climb on WEP for more than 1.5 mins.

And you say you made that detail clear to everyone by saying "oh yeah, the air gets thinner" ?



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Regardless, it's still well above what we have in game. JL 165 actually did 364 mph at 3000ft, according to IL 2 compare the Spit IX does 344 at that alt.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

JL 165 did 364mph at 3000 ft with +25lbs boost.

The game models the IX with it`s usual +18 lbs boost producing lower powers, and it does 344 mph at the same altitude. It`s nothing surprising, that at lower power it does less speed.

Comparing like with the like (which you don`t like), at +18lbs JL 165 did 334 mph at 3000ft, 10 mph slower than what we have in the game.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Documentation clearly shows the max. SL speed at the allowed 1.42ata for the A-5 as 348 mph, and 415 mph at altitude, w/o special boost employed.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the A5 in AEP does 362 mph, so your figures make it 14 mph too fast at sea level anyway.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>


...and the A-5 in AEP has it`s special boost, and running at higher powers than my figures are for. My data is for 1.42ata, the A-5 is probably using 1.58ata in the game.

[QUOTE]
[QUOTE]At 1.32ata, it could reach 329mph at SL<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The A4 does 342 at sea level, supposedly at 1.3 ata.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, that`s about correct for a early, derated A-4 at 1.32ata, which would run at higher RPM and boost anyway than the figures I posted.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I don't know if the Fw190A4 we have in FB is derrated. I asked Oleg that and did not get a clear answer. Do you think we have the derrated version?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Speed wise, it's too fast to be derated, slightly too slow to be fully rated, according to Isegrim's figures.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not according to Isegrim`s figures.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
But that means the 190 A5 and A6 have to use 1.65 ata, and God knows what the 190 A8 is using.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Both A-5 and A-6 emloyed increased boost in service.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Exactly why do you think the Farnborough test is wrong, because someone mis-typed a supercharger speed? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are only 2 supercharger speeds. The climb rate in high gear does not match either the engine chart or the other 190 climb charts. If it had really been in low gear, it would be even futher off.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Someone might have mistyped the engine ratings they were using, for example they might have allowed 2700 rpm, rather than the 2450 rpm they claim, and should have been using.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I doubt we would have to find an error in the report when it does not match our own thoughts. Rather we should find the error in our own thought. In any case, running higher RPM at the same boost was an alien idea with German fighter`s engine control, where RPM and MAP was linked together (unlike in RAF/US planes where they were seperately set, as well as mixture control).

That`s why the derated A-3/early A-4 has both it`s RPM and MAP limited in an equal percantage, ie. 1.42ata to 1.35, 2700rpm to 2450rpm.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I suspect that's probably the real reason it doesn't fit the engine chart. There was certainly a lot of confusion over what the correct ratings were, and I suspect the high alt 1.32 ata, 2450 rpm rating was really run at 2700 rpm.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That`s hardly possible with the automatic controls of the FW 190, unless they bothered to use manual propellor pitch control during the tests, which i doubt.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

Kurfurst__
08-27-2004, 05:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Even when Spitfire MK V 1941 is model 1942 still is climb rate expecially at medium-high alt is too good. According real test at 6-7 km climb rate was 11,5 m/s(http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/aa878.html)
and in FB according to Il2 Compare we have 20 m/s !!!!
Dont know about sea level max speed for Spitfire V because in data from http://www.fourthfightergroup.com there is no info about it.

Im wonder if someone from here is going to report these conclusion, test etc. to Oleg M.???<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Actually there`s speed data for the +16lbs Spit V what we have in AEP, a late 1942 variant.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/aa878speed.gif

AA 878 was tested at +16lbs. The report don`t show SL speed, but it`s easy to arrive at, as the drop is linear towards the ground.

At 10k ft, it does 357mph.
At 8k ft, it 349 mph.

So by all likelyhood, at 0ft it would do 349-(4x(357-349))= 317 mph or 510 km/h.

I wonder though that if they choosed to model a late 1942 Spit V, why don`t they model it`s counterpart the 109F-4 at it`s early 1942 boost of 1.42ata.. (540 km/h at SL, 670 km/h at 6200m) ?

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

Kwiatos
08-27-2004, 06:56 AM
So someone make order with Spitfire MK V and MK IX in FB??? Someone send good raport with graphs, test and suorces to Oleg M.???

hop2002
08-27-2004, 07:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"But that would mean the test isn't valid, because it's for a power rating that couldn't be used."

How could they fly it with a power setting that can't be used, do you mean not recommended?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps I should have said not authorised.

From my point of view, they couldn't have got the climb results they did using 1.35 at 2450 rpm.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Can anyone post the actual test data from the Faber test? I still haven‚'t seen what model Spitfire IX was being used in comparison to the Fw 190a3.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The report is available online. Go to http://prodocs.netfirms.com/

Axis aircraft tests - VARIOUS FW190 TEST REPORTS (AIR 16/658).

The Spitfire IX was an F IX with Merlin 61, maximum boost pressure 15 lbs.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Yes, TC is the coolant temperature at the outlet of the radiator.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it says coolant temperature at the outlet of the engine:

"Tc observed coolant temperature at the outlet from the engine"

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You on the other hand used values oil inlet temperatures, noted in the chart you have posted.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I didn't mention the oil inlet temperatures. I was using the coolant temperatures only.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Hop has used inlet temperatures instead of outlet temperatures,
He used the measured oil temperatures, because they are much lower than the coolant`s, but for some odd reason compared that (the oil temp) to the maximum allowed coolant temperatures, which are much higher (125 degrees vs. 90)instead of correctly comparing like with the like, oil temp with oil limits, coolant temp with coolant limits, for some odd - or just very clear? - reason.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isegrim, you've got a real comprehension problem here. Go back and read what I wrote.

I spent some effort calculating the coolant temperatures using standard atmosphere temperatures.

To repeat:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>To work out exactly what theat means, we need to use the equation the RAF used to get the "radiator suitability" figure.

Radiator suitability (RS) = (maximum permissible coolant temperature - standard summer air temp) / (actual coolant temp - actual air temp)

We only know 2 of these values, the radiator suitability and the maximum permissible coolant temp.

The maximum coolant temp was 115c for cruising, 125c for combat (actually 135 for combat, but the report notes the max they allowed for the equation was 125)

We also need to know the actual and standard air temps they used.

Standard atmosphere air temp is 15c at sea level, 9c at 3000ft, -10c at 13,500ft.

We can assume the actual air temps were the same, although it doesn't really matter what they were, because the equation adjusts for them.

So, for cruise at 3000 ft at temperate conditions we get:

1.32 = (115 - 9) / (Tc - 9)

That solves to

1.32 = (115 - 9) / (89 - 9)

So the observed coolant temp (Tc) in cruising flight, temperate conditions at 3000 ft was 89c.

Now for the same conditions, max power:

1.36 = (125 - 9) / (Tc - 9)

That solves to:

1.36 = (125 - 9) / (94 - 9)

Coolant temperature went up to 94c.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's my calculated value for coolant temperature, not oil temperature.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Simple to put, he used incompatible figures in the best way to fit it into his story, ie. the outrageously ridiculus claim of his that a Spitfire IX could climb at WEP for 45!!! minutes at closed!!! radiators.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said anything of the sort. I said in level flight.

Now you mention the oil temperature, I've checked and that is more of a limit than the coolant temperature.

The oil temp went up 14 degrees after 5 mins of wep, to 71 and 81 degrees temperate/tropical summer.

The maximum allowed oil temp was 105c, so assuming a linear temperature increase, it would take 13.5 mins to overheat under trop summer conditions, 17 mins under temperate summer conditions.

The increase wouldn't be linear, of course, so it would take somewhat longer, and the difference at 13,500 ft indicates that would only be a problem at low altitude.

And of course, these are with closed radiators, with automaatic radiators they will open when the temperature gets too high, and double the cooling.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Hmm, Hop, interesting way to tell. You tell here everyone you have a report where the Spitfire climbed for 5 mins on WEP, which according to you, shows it was impossible to overheat,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've never said it was impossible.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> but in fact the plane didn`t climb on WEP for more than 1.5 mins.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They climbed from 2000 to 32,000ft.

Boost remained at 25 lbs for almost exactly 2 mins, then began dropping. It remained above 18 lbs (the boost we are limited to in game) for over 3 mins, and it reamained above the normal maximum climb for over 4 mins. Anything over maximum climb is wep.

The rpm remained at 3000 throughout. Are you claiming 3000 rpm wasn't a wep rating on the Spit? It certainly wasn't at high altitude, but it took almost 5 minutes to reach those alts.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And you say you made that detail clear to everyone by saying "oh yeah, the air gets thinner" ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I made that clear in an earlier post. Of course, I used the correct figures, not your "1.5 minutes".

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Because of the rate of climb, I don't think they'd have exceeded the time at wep, before the drop in altitude forced things down to normal ratings.

To expand on that:

The climb was from 2,000ft to 32,000ft.

Go to http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/jl165.html which is the test of a Spit LF IX at 25 lbs.

Look at the FS gear climb.

They reached 2000ft after .42 minutes.

Five minutes after that (ie at 5.42 minutes in to the climb) they were at about 23,000ft, and boost had dropped to under 12 lbs.

12 lbs was the climb rating on the Merlin 66 that could be maintained for 30 mins or 1 hour.

Whilst the RPM would still be at 3,000, on some Merlins (and DB 605s) the higher rpm rating was allowed for extended periods at high altitudes.
(see for example http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/ab320.html )<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>JL 165 did 364mph at 3000 ft with +25lbs boost.

The game models the IX with it`s usual +18 lbs boost producing lower powers, and it does 344 mph at the same altitude. It`s nothing surprising, that at lower power it does less speed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it's not. But the point I was making is that the Spit tested for cooling was running at much higher power than the one we have in game.

400 hp extra is going to produce a lot more heat.

We can get an idea of how much more because they quote cooling figures at cruise, and at full power.

The difference between cruise and 18lbs was 500 hp. Between 18 lbs and 25 lbs, 400 hp.

The 18 lbs power figures, which is what we have in game, are roughly half way between cruise and 25 lbs.

If you apply that to the cooling figures, you effectively halve the rise in temps, for oil and coolant.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Comparing like with the like (which you don`t like), at +18lbs JL 165 did 334 mph at 3000ft, 10 mph slower than what we have in the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is 10 mph slower than any other tested Merlin 66 Spit. (Before you go and check, JF 934, with tropical mods, did 342 mph at 3000ft)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I doubt we would have to find an error in the report when it does not match our own thoughts. Rather we should find the error in our own thought. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isegrim, are you going to claim the 190 should climb better in high gear at 15,000ft than it will in low gear up to 4000 ft?

Can you show me a graph for a plane that did that, at the same boost and rpm setting was used at the lower alt?

Here's the chart for the A5 at 1.32 ata that Butch posted:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1092488785_fw190a5-climb.jpg

Climb in high gear is much lower than climb in low gear. Are you prepared to claim on the A3 climb should be higher in high gear than it was in low gear? (and I mean low gear on the A3, at the same power settings as used in high gear)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In any case, running higher RPM at the same boost was an alien idea with German fighter`s engine control, where RPM and MAP was linked together (unlike in RAF/US planes where they were seperately set, as well as mixture control).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They were in a lot of British planes too, but that's besides the point.

We know that the British re enabled WEP on their 190. They could have run the high gear tests in WEP, which was 2700 rpm. Boost might drop, and may not have reached 1.42 ata, but the extra rpm would improve the climb rate.

It's just speculation though, we don't know why the figure is higher in high gear than low. But as you've said I'm mistaken in believing that <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>(Rather we should find the error in our own thought)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
perhaps you can show me some examples of other 2 speed supercharger engines that did that.

I'm genuinely interested. I don't know of any, but I'd welcome seeing some.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>That`s why the derated A-3/early A-4 has both it`s RPM and MAP limited in an equal percantage, ie. 1.42ata to 1.35, 2700rpm to 2450rpm.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. But that doesn't mean they couldn't select WEP at medium altitude, does it?

And as you point out it's an automatic system, any chance it could have gone wrong and selected 2700 rpm at 1.35 ata at medium altitude?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>AA 878 was tested at +16lbs. The report don`t show SL speed, but it`s easy to arrive at, as the drop is linear towards the ground.

At 10k ft, it does 357mph.
At 8k ft, it 349 mph.

So by all likelyhood, at 0ft it would do 349-(4x(357-349))= 317 mph or 510 km/h.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AA 878 was also somewhat slower than others, like W3134 and AA 873, at the same power.

269GA-Veltro
09-15-2004, 08:17 AM
Also:

http://www.spitfire.dk/chapter3.htm

The earlier mentioned improvement in performance the gap between the Spitfire and FW190 was closed. However, the initial tests of the Mk IX had proved that the Mk. IX still could not follow the FW190 before Rolls-Royce had their hands on the Merlin 61. It was necessary to increase the boost from +12psi to +15psi. Then the 2 fighters had almost identical performance. At level flight the 2 fighters depending of the altitude changed to be 5-6 mph quicker that the other. Generally the Spitfire was quicker but only marginally. During climb up to 22,000ft the Mk. IX was a little faster, however, above 22,000ft the Mk. IX climbed away from the FW190. The FW190 could still dive away from the Mk. IX but not as easy compared to Mk. V. The FW190 had better manoeuvrability than the Mk. IX, but flying in curves the Mk. IX could still turn sharper. An FW190 could get away from an attack from a Spitfire by turning, then rolling to the opposite and dive away in a turn to the opposite direction. The FW190 still accelerated better than the Mk. IX and therefore the Spitfire pilot had to keep his aircraft at high speed and avoid altitudes between 18,000ft and 22,000ft (5500/6700m) where the FW190 had a small advantage over the Mk. IX. In real life it was the best pilot who came out on top.

269GA~Veltro
http://ourworld.cs.com/VeltroF/269GAVeltro.jpg
www.269ga.it (http://www.269ga.it)

gkll
09-18-2004, 12:22 AM
I don't know if the spit IX overheating (lack) is correct or not, but here are a few quick thoughts:

- all these overheating ww2 fighters simply means engineering teams who delibarately went after increased peak performance (smaller rads=faster top end, better acceleration etc) at the expense of adequate full power cooling. It wasn't like they couldn't have put enough rad in a 109 to ensure no overheating under any power setting... you can always do this. Point is - who knows what the spit design team decided, on that balance, for the IX?

- a while back a quiet and thoughtful thread discussing aerodynamic efficiency brought out the idea that spit aerodynamics were very efficient, except for the rads. Partly to do with the placement and lack of boundary layer displacement, but also to do with size.

- the V in the game overheats. When the Brits introduced the IX they doubled the rad area (it would appear - don't know where the oil cooler went though..). Perhaps they were tired of overheating issues, and the extra rad was more than enough for the extra power.

Maybe not either.

JG14_Josf
09-18-2004, 03:47 AM
gkll,

Overheating is a game concern.

Or not.

There are plenty of experts on this board who can correct all my errors.

The Rolls-Royce engine was good, but could not stand up to prolonged operation at maximum output. It broke down. (http://www.airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/golodnikov/part1.htm)

Maximum output is a mechanical term that does not concern itself with the symptom.

Specific limits are exceeded when an engine goes beyond maximum output.

When a life is on the line the tendency is to make mechanical things do what may destroy them.

Heat is the byproduct of friction. Once the engine is pushed beyond the limit; the radiator required to keep it cool would be larger than a barn door.

RAF238thSoak1
09-18-2004, 09:53 PM
"Unfortunately as i posted before all modells Spitfire MKIX in FB are overmodelled in maximum speed at high altittude".
I guess in a perfect world the blue should always be able to shoot down the red at will. Anything that challenges that must be over modelled. and on and on and on.......... with no end in sight.

k5054
09-19-2004, 07:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>- the V in the game overheats. When the Brits introduced the IX they doubled the rad area (it would appear - don't know where the oil cooler went though..). Perhaps they were tired of overheating issues, and the extra rad was more than enough for the extra power.

Maybe not either. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was no extra rad as such, the new rad was for the intercooler, and the oil cooler was incorporated in it. The other rad got a little bigger too, but there was more power. It got bigger again for Mk8 and 16. There was no overheat problem with almost all ww2 fighters at top speed. Many had a heat problem while taxiing, most probably had to open the rads while climbing hard, but not at combat speeds.
Reading memoirs, overheating in combat without cooling system damage is never mentioned, by any pilot of any fighter. Overheating is largely a myth. Fighters were designed to have adequate cooling in combat. Almost all of them did.

hop2002
09-19-2004, 07:10 AM
There was an extra radiator.

The Spit V had a radiator under one wing, oil cooler under the other.

The Spit IX had radiators under both wings, one of the ducts also housed the intercooler, the other also housed the oil cooler.

Kurfurst__
09-19-2004, 08:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gkll:
- all these overheating ww2 fighters simply means engineering teams who delibarately went after increased peak performance (smaller rads=faster top end, better acceleration etc) at the expense of adequate full power cooling. It wasn't like they couldn't have put enough rad in a 109 to ensure no overheating under any power setting... you can always do this. Point is - who knows what the spit design team decided, on that balance, for the IX?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It wasn`t like the designers in the 109 decided for performance over cooling capacity. They decided to use a fully scalable radiator, that could be set infinitevely between minimum drag and less cooling, and maximum drag and maximum cooling capacity, according to the needs, and controlled fully automatically to ease pilot workload, with manual control as an alternative. When fully open, the 109 rads had an exit area about twice of that the MkIX. Also that area served only as coolant radiator, not also as oil and intercooler radiator area (and they used aluminium coolers instead of copper).

With some lag, the Spitfire designers also followed the same way, but it didn`t appear in any Spitfires, only in it`s successor, the Spitful, which employed *very similiar* radiators as the 109s, with small air intakes (quite a few ideas that appeared in the 109s were later used on the Spits, just with some delay), which undoubtfully attributed to it`s increased performance.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

WWMaxGunz
09-20-2004, 01:42 AM
Copper transmits heat better than aluminum.

Kurfurst__
09-20-2004, 03:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Copper transmits heat better than aluminum.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know it transmits electrictity (marginally) better, but don`t know about heat. Do you have some numbers?

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

hop2002
09-20-2004, 04:58 AM
Copper has about 70% better heat transfer than aluminium.

Kurfurst__
09-20-2004, 04:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
Copper has about 70% better heat transfer than aluminium.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That`s very unlikely to be that big difference in that, otherwise certainly everybody would have use copper only... but the fact is, the last cars of which had it`s radiator grills made out of copper were made in the 1920s and 30s, ever since the use of aluminium is 99% dominant for radiators. It wouldn`t be this way if it would be that much worser, and it`s hardly born out by actual testing either, or at least what I have seen.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

hop2002
09-20-2004, 05:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>That`s very unlikely to be that big difference in that, otherwise certainly everybody would have use copper only<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Copper weighs at least 3 times as much as aluminium.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> the fact is, the last cars of which had it`s radiator grills made out of copper were made in the 1920s and 30s<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not at all, some cars made today still have copper radiators. Copper was dominant until the 80s.

Don't forget aluminium is much cheaper that copper (about half the price by weight, a sixth the price by volume).

Kurfurst__
09-20-2004, 05:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
Copper weighs at least 3 times as much as aluminium.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That doesn`t underline it having "70% better heat transition". I`d like to see the basis of that. Not that hard of request to be fullfilled, now is it?
I can underline with through and scientific tests done with aluminium saucepans in the kitchen that this material transmits heat too damn fast. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Not at all, some cars made today still have copper radiators. Copper was dominant until the 80s.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well all I can say I never seen any in the cars I drived. In some oldtimers, maybe. Anyway, I haven`t seen it in any car brand.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Don't forget aluminium is much cheaper that copper (about half the price by weight, a sixth the price by volume).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Today... but back then, it was a new and modern material, a new technology. Actually when aluminium appeared, it`s prize rivalled and even exceeded that of gold and platina.

Why not just post on what this 70% statement is based?

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

WWMaxGunz
09-20-2004, 06:28 PM
At 25C Aluminum conductivity is 2.4 on a scale where Copper is 4.0.
That's from my old college physics book.

There is more to the matter though. If the metal is heat treated, compresed,
annealed, bent, etc, the conductivity of electricity and heat change since the
mechanisms are on the same base of the crystalline structure of the material.
There is also if the metal is pure or alloyed.

In wartime, copper is a strategic material. It's not exactly found just everywhere.
But it's used in so many things. Brass cartridges and copper primers. Wire for
planes, tanks, radios (they'd use silver instead if there was enough! gold is best).
Yeah radiators, the tubes are thin but I wonder how much tin would need to be added
for strength. And were the fins also copper or much more likely aluminum?

In 1943 the US minted pennies made of steel with zinc plating. Pennies were
collected for the war effort just like so much else. In those days recycling was
in full gear, like a blood drive after a major disaster. What it must have gotten
like in Germany that started off with some shortages and not the resources of half
a continent --- no wonder at all substitute of radiator metal might be needed.

How thin you make the tubes and still hold pressure is as important as conductivity.
A copper alloy not even to brass can be as strong as aluminum that can be rolled
into tubing. You get them thin enough and it's not a problem, I am sure, as long
as the pressure don't blow the works out! Also you can solder copper but aluminum
must be welded which requires actual thickness at the weld as would threads or
most fittings I know of. Still it's not a big deal if you run more lines or like
the 109 you have the larger area of radiator and airflow I seem to remember being
posted about a ways back on this board by Kurfurst.


Neal

WWMaxGunz
09-20-2004, 06:43 PM
With the advent of cheap electric power, aluminum got cheap and well known.
It was no wonder metal in the 40's except to the uneducated. Engineers knew
it well. Hydroelectric projects in the US made aluminum affordable in the
30's even while they were still wiring up the country for home power.

You want a time when aluminum was around but not well known, try maybe WWI or
more likely before then.

Yeah in Napoleons time it was that expensive. 1810 or so. And yet he had a suit
of armor made of the stuff. Tempered right it is stronger than ordinary steel
even (6061-T6, aka "aircraft aluminum" for structure not skin) but some drawbacks
in it has a grain like wood and will crack if you try to bend it in a press. You
can pound nails with the stuff. It's also not too friendly to machining, you cut
and then heat treat. I wonder was the little emporers armor heat treated that well?


Neal

hop2002
09-20-2004, 08:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>That doesn`t underline it having "70% better heat transition". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, that's just pointing out one of the disadvantages of copper, to explain why it might not have been used in an aircraft.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I`d like to see the basis of that. Not that hard of request to be fullfilled, now is it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thermal conductivity (W/m K)
Copper 385
Aluminium 205

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/thrcn.html

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I can underline with through and scientific tests done with aluminium saucepans in the kitchen that this material transmits heat too damn fast<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ever noticed that the best saucepans are usually copper bottomed?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Today... but back then, it was a new and modern material, a new technology. Actually when aluminium appeared, it`s prize rivalled and even exceeded that of gold and platina.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The cost is a factor (THE factor) in modern cars, obviously the cost wouldn't have been that important in a WW2 fighter, it would be a tiny proportion of the cost of the aircraft (which were build out of aluminium, of course)

WWMaxGunz
09-21-2004, 04:23 AM
Copper cladding on pots and pans works so well not because of heat transfer of the
outer metal but because a bimetal junction is formed with the electromotive force
bias going from outside to inside, from better conductor to worse. It has to do
with the better conductor having more free electrons which makes more negative
on that side of the junction that pushes electrons across it. The more heat, the
more free electrons and the bigger the difference. It's also what semiconductor
junctions work by. If you could plate aluminum or steel tubes inside with copper
or any better conductor than the tube then you'd get superior performance.

Aside from that it would just be an extra thickness of something better conducting
to pass heat through but not as good as the heat itself. Besides, copper is poison
and cooking acidic food in it will get copper into the food.


Neal

gkll
09-24-2004, 11:42 PM
K5054 said

&lt;There was no extra rad as such, the new rad was for the intercooler, and the oil cooler was incorporated in it. The other rad got a little bigger too, but there was more power. It got bigger again for Mk8 and 16. There was no overheat problem with almost all ww2 fighters at top speed. Many had a heat problem while taxiing, most probably had to open the rads while climbing hard, but not at combat speeds.
Reading memoirs, overheating in combat without cooling system damage is never mentioned, by any pilot of any fighter. Overheating is largely a myth. Fighters were designed to have adequate cooling in combat. Almost all of them did.&gt;

thanks for the civil reply. I'm a real live gearhead of the first order but I couldn't say I have studied the technical details of ww2 fighters much. Just a series of ideas I had from my broad perspective, on the overheat bit.

Kurfurst I could buy what you say pretty much. Double the exit area... hmmm what was the total coolant volume, and rad area? exit area could of course improve flow through, but total rad size and a very wide array of variables would also have bearing on cooling ability. Anyone got any figures coolant gallons, rad frontal area?