PDA

View Full Version : Mr.Oleg,can you explain the 190?



StevenCappu
03-04-2004, 08:07 PM
V1.0: Moster plane
V1.1: Reduced the Diving speed
v1.22: Reduced Structure(1 round of UBS and 1 round of shvak by Yak9,from 800m away,wings cutted off.......)
v2.0: Military power/Radiator Full open/Criusing speed) ==========> Overheat.
Plz Remember,190 is an "Air Cool" Engine fighter.
And the VVS planes as the follow:
P63: Fullpower/Radiator Close,overheat after 4 min,then continue flying and fighting 20+ min before the engine going over.
La7: emergency power 105%+/radiator close,do not overheat for ever...........

StevenCappu
03-04-2004, 08:07 PM
V1.0: Moster plane
V1.1: Reduced the Diving speed
v1.22: Reduced Structure(1 round of UBS and 1 round of shvak by Yak9,from 800m away,wings cutted off.......)
v2.0: Military power/Radiator Full open/Criusing speed) ==========> Overheat.
Plz Remember,190 is an "Air Cool" Engine fighter.
And the VVS planes as the follow:
P63: Fullpower/Radiator Close,overheat after 4 min,then continue flying and fighting 20+ min before the engine going over.
La7: emergency power 105%+/radiator close,do not overheat for ever...........

StevenCappu
03-04-2004, 08:11 PM
Another one:
Spitfire: the most famouse "paper plane" just as the Zero, but now,it can take over 20 rounds of MG151 hits.

Hunde_3.JG51
03-04-2004, 08:21 PM
Please Oleg, look at the FW-190 overheat (and overheating times in general), there seems to be serious problems (especially with the A-4). Overheat is very quick compared to others and engine is hard to cool down.

Please look at this.

And I agree Steven, the Spitifre takes ALOT of punishment. At least the AI does. Also, try to overheat the SPitfire and see how long that takes, even with radiator closed, WEP, and 110% throttle.

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

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

[This message was edited by Hunde_3.JG51 on Thu March 04 2004 at 07:42 PM.]

HQ1
03-04-2004, 08:46 PM
ya overheat very quick why?

p1ngu666
03-04-2004, 08:53 PM
spitfire pretty fragile here http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
yay sigs are back

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

Hunde_3.JG51
03-04-2004, 10:33 PM
Unless there is a serious problem with AI, then Spitifre is tougher than IL-2! I am hitting Spits with 4 and 5 30mm rounds and getting a trickle of smoke. Or I am hitting with 20+ 20MM and getting little result. Engine is vulnerable but wings and fuesalage are damn tough. Maybe when flown by human it is different but offline it is a joke.

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

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

CHDT
03-05-2004, 12:13 AM
"Please Oleg, look at the FW-190 overheat (and overheating times in general), there seems to be serious problems (especially with the A-4). Overheat is very quick compared to others and engine is hard to cool down."

I've just looked at the manuals, an A-5 has a limit of 3 minutes at full power, while a Hurricane has a limit of 5 minutes.

Question: do the dogfights between A-4 and Spit Vb in AEP look like what was told in real life?

Cheers,

WWMaxGunz
03-05-2004, 12:26 AM
Ummmmm. Who against? The AI? <w> <j/k!>

Seriously though, how do you tell? If the Spit is a tank then it'll be obvious to most everyone and if it isn't then... well it's never stopped some people, has it?


Neal

clint-ruin
03-05-2004, 12:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Unless there is a serious problem with AI, then Spitifre is tougher than IL-2! I am hitting Spits with 4 and 5 30mm rounds and getting a trickle of smoke. Or I am hitting with 20+ 20MM and getting little result. Engine is vulnerable but wings and fuesalage are damn tough. Maybe when flown by human it is different but offline it is a joke.
http://www.jg51.com/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I haven't flown 190 vs Spit, but I've flown Spit Vs 190.

Strange things occur :/

It appears that the FW190s engine is actually more vulnerable to .303s than it is to Hispano rounds, speaking in relative terms. It is possible to damage a previously-undamaged FW190 from behind at 200m range with .303 rounds, typically 15-20 rounds in the engine area seem to cause thick black smoke.

On the other hand I have seen the 190 shrug off 4x direct Hispano hits on the engine area.

Not sure what's happening with that.

Need to do some actual test tests rather than just flying QMBs in arcade mode, but that's my impression so far.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

lbhskier37
03-05-2004, 12:29 AM
Aight I dont have AEP yet, so this is just guessing. Wasn't there threads up earlier in the week talking about power in the Antons? They claimed that the A4 on 110% power should be the same as the A5 on 110% power (without boost), but could only use it for a minute. Is this what has happened? Did the A4 get more power but less time to use it? I will look for that thread.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig2.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

lbhskier37
03-05-2004, 12:36 AM
Crap I forgot who posted this, dont get mad at me for stealing it

"Just "fix" her. She does now 1560hp. Let this be 100% thr. 110 would be 1780hp then, like the A-5 has right now.
Difference: A-4 can use it only very shortly, ~1min long. It should overheat much quicker than the A-5 with this power setting.

As for the A-5, either remove the Erh√¬∂hter Ladedruck ( [W] ), or give her the 2050hp she should have with it (just like the A-8).
The A-6 should come with 2050hp.
The A-8 has 2050hp anyway and the A-9 has 2300hp which I can't notice right now in 1.22."

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig2.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

Hunde_3.JG51
03-05-2004, 12:59 AM
Ibhskier, in my speed tests the A-4 did exactly the same as before so I don't think it gained any power.

And I really don't care what anybody says, I flew about 40 consecutive A-4 and A-5 vs. all models of Spits in QMB and it was absorbing ALOT of punishment. When I did take the A-9 up the Spit again absorbed heavy puishment. Like I said, at least the engine seemed vulnerable and it is probably a different story when flown by a human. P-40's, P-39's, etc went down just fine but the Spit was simply too tough.

To answer your question CHDT, no the A-4 vs. Spitfire fights don't look realistic. The Spitfire LF.V '42 easily outclimbs the A-4 and the AI performs ridiculous maneuvers. The Spitfire shrugs off damage which doesn't look too realistic either.

One other note, the P-47 doesn't seem as tough anymore and the P-63 seems to take alot of punishment (particularly 30mm). One cool thing was that I blew one of the wheels out of its housing on the Kingcobra.

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

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

CHDT
03-05-2004, 01:06 AM
"To answer your question CHDT, no the A-4 vs. Spitfire fights don't look realistic. The Spitfire LF.V '42 easily outclimbs the A-4 and the AI performs ridiculous maneuvers. The Spitfire shrugs off damage which doesn't look too realistic either."


Thanks for the info.

Have a look here, the A-4 should have a edge at least over the Vb!

http://www.pbase.com/chrisdnt/190_tests


Look also here, this captured A-4 (and probably with a derrated engine) flew circles around two Allison-Mustangs!

http://www.pbase.com/image/16364663

Will we see one day a A-4 or a A-5 with their legitimate advantages in the horizontal manoeuvers http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers,

CHDT
03-05-2004, 01:12 AM
I couldn't resist http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://gallery.cybertarp.com/albums/userpics/16105/A-4_001.jpg


AEP: "The Spitfire LF.V '42 easily outclimbs the A-4"

Real life: "the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope catching it"

Ahem http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers,

lbhskier37
03-05-2004, 01:16 AM
Lets keep this bumped, I would like to hear input from the man.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig2.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

Hunde_3.JG51
03-05-2004, 01:18 AM
One note CHDT is that the A-4 may outclimb the '41 version of the Spitifre V in a shallow climb. To me, the Spitfire LF.V in '42 is the best Spitifre in the game by far when years/planesets are taken into consideration.

Ibhskier, I would also like to hear about the rapid overheating.

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

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

LEXX_Luthor
03-05-2004, 01:41 AM
Either test it onwhine or test it offwhine AI against AI.

In the one round I tried earlier two AI Fw-190A4 easily defeats two AI Spit~V nonclip,
-- all other variables equal. (but that is one test only but...the first one)


__________________
"You will still have FB , you will lose NOTHING" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
"I don't have the V2 or B25s, so I'm going to reinstall" ~Bearcat99
"If sky chimp is satisfied [P38], then I'm convinced its ok" ~Menthol_moose

Hunde_3.JG51
03-05-2004, 01:52 AM
Lexx, I admit my post may be more of a shot aginst the AI than anything else but the overheat times are a problem regardless. And I am pretty confident that the Spit will outclimb the A-4, offline or online unless in a very shallow climb (which is almost more a test of speed). The opposite was true, the FW-190 climbed well at a steep angle, more so than many planes.

And I have no problem defeating the Spits, nor does the AI, thats not the point. The point is the 190 overheats very fast, especially the A-4, and it is outclimbed by the Spitfire V. I maintain that the Spitifre takes too much damage offline but my main concern is online where it should be better due to crippling effects ignored by AI.

I'll be doing some online testing, hopefully soon, which will be much more definitive. Still, I think the overheat thing is obvious enough to be considered/mentioned now.

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

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

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
03-05-2004, 01:56 AM
Confirm on overheat. Try it and it will overheat real quick. The A4 takes some time to cool down afterwards and I found myself pushing the "R" button really often during the dogfights vs. SPitfires. I cannot comment on the damage absorption since the changed revi-sights are a bit uncommon and I didn't do more than a few flights.

What I observed was a reduced roll-rate (for the A-series). Whether this is "acurate" or just a result of all the lamentations before I don't know. Just an observation.

blabla0001
03-05-2004, 02:30 AM
"Spitfire: the most famouse "paper plane" just as the Zero, but now,it can take over 20 rounds of MG151 hits"

That's odd, here the Spitfires are pretty fragile.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
03-05-2004, 02:46 AM
Salute

That test you are showing is a 190A4 vs a 1941 Mk Vb Spitfire.

The LF model is a whole different kettle of fish.

190A4 climbed around 3800 ft/min, the LF Mk V climbed at 4750 ft/min.

If you want to win vs the LF models, take the fight over 4000 metres. Then the performance of the LF model will tail off dramatically. Otherwise you will have to use your speed and keep a distance. And learn to fight as a team, with your wingman and you taking alternating passes at the Spits.

Oleg_Maddox
03-05-2004, 02:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cappadocian_317:
"Spitfire: the most famouse "paper plane" just as the Zero, but now,it can take over 20 rounds of MG151 hits"

That's odd, here the Spitfires are pretty fragile.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please send a track where Spitfire get 20 hits of 20 mm cannon. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The address is known isn't it?

Oleg_Maddox
03-05-2004, 02:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74BuzzsawXO:
Salute

That test you are showing is a 190A4 vs a 1941 Mk Vb Spitfire.

The LF model is a whole different kettle of fish.

190A4 climbed around 3800 ft/min, the LF Mk V climbed at 4750 ft/min.

If you want to win vs the LF models, take the fight over 4000 metres. Then the performance of the LF model will tail off dramatically. Otherwise you will have to use your speed and keep a distance. And learn to fight as a team, with your wingman and you taking alternating passes at the Spits.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct. But it seems that fans of FW will never listen you... Probably they don't know the differences bewinn normal and LF version....

Oleg_Maddox
03-05-2004, 02:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Please Oleg, look at the FW-190 overheat (and overheating times in general), there seems to be serious problems (especially with the A-4). Overheat is very quick compared to others and engine is hard to cool down.

Please look at this.

And I agree Steven, the Spitifre takes ALOT of punishment. At least the AI does. Also, try to overheat the SPitfire and see how long that takes, even with radiator closed, WEP, and 110% throttle.

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

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

[This message was edited by Hunde_3.JG51 on Thu March 04 2004 at 07:42 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, if you like to tell me that we did changes in that item for FW190 in worse side that you are wrong. in AEP FW engine model is the same asd in 1.22.

FW got new ONLY COMPLEX 3D DAMAGE MODEL. Thats all.

Oleg_Maddox
03-05-2004, 02:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StevenCappu:
V1.0: Moster plane
V1.1: Reduced the Diving speed
v1.22: Reduced Structure(1 round of UBS and 1 round of shvak by Yak9,from 800m away,wings cutted off.......)
v2.0: Military power/Radiator Full open/Criusing speed) ==========&gt; Overheat.
Plz Remember,190 is an "Air Cool" Engine fighter.
And the VVS planes as the follow:
P63: Fullpower/Radiator Close,overheat after 4 min,then continue flying and fighting 20+ min before the engine going over.
La7: emergency power 105%+/radiator close,do not overheat for ever...........<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry could you send the track with FW that will show what you tell completely.
I mean with show the time to overheat message and time for damaged engien as a result of overheating.

Send to beta email address.

PS:

V1.0: Moster plane - correct

V1.1: Reduced the Diving speed - incorrect. Still monster plane due to damage model.

v1.22: Reduced Structure(1 round of UBS and 1 round of shvak by Yak9,from 800m away,wings cutted off.......)

You should me send the track that confirm it in 1.22! Please! I would like to see how you do it! Especially on 800 m distance on realisitic weapon settings. I wait. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Oleg_Maddox
03-05-2004, 02:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
Confirm on overheat. Try it and it will overheat real quick. The A4 takes some time to cool down afterwards and I found myself pushing the "R" button really often during the dogfights vs. SPitfires. I cannot comment on the damage absorption since the changed revi-sights are a bit uncommon and I didn't do more than a few flights.

What I observed was a reduced roll-rate (for the A-series). Whether this is "acurate" or just a result of all the lamentations before I don't know. Just an observation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm interested how all find the "problems"/changes in items that we didn't touch?

CHDT
03-05-2004, 03:00 AM
"The LF model is a whole different kettle of fish.

190A4 climbed around 3800 ft/min, the LF Mk V climbed at 4750 ft/min."


So a question: according to this test report...

http://gallery.cybertarp.com/albums/userpics/16105/vvvvvvvvvvvvv.jpg

... the captured tested A-4 (with a derated engine) was almost equal in climbing than a Spit IX (15lbs), with a small advantage for the British aircraft.

So, if I understand that well, the VB LF was a better climber than the Spit IX (15lbs)?

Btw, anybody has done some testing with this Vb against the A-5? Logically, the A-5 should be superior in horizontal flying, shouldn't it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers,

RAF74_Buzzsaw
03-05-2004, 03:10 AM
Salute

The Spitfire IX in that test is a Spitfire IXF, which again is different from the Spitfire IXLF.

One has the Merlin 61, the other the Merlin 66.

Big difference in power, and climbrate.

Climb for Spitfire IXF was around 3800 ft/min, so close to 190A4, and less than 190A5. On the other hand, the Spitfire IXLF has climbrate of around 4600ft/min with +18 boost, or 5000ft/min with +25 boost.

For complete information on these, go to this site:

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

Look at all the different tests.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

StevenCappu
03-05-2004, 03:17 AM
Dear Sir:
Just look at the VOW records on www.vow-hq.com (http://www.vow-hq.com)
and i believe you can easily find that how many 190 been "cut wings" with only 2 shot.....
http://www.vow-hq.com/index.php?page=mission&action=open&id=4747
on this page,i been shot down by ROSS_a jasta,i was with a bomb at that time,on halo45,IAS 450,after i saw him,i diving to 650kph,then cutted off,he was only have 4 hits in this misson,2 for me,and 2 hit to a 109,my teammate Snow told me that he was hit by him.
but Snow killed him in the dogfight after that.
Not only this time,i was been "Strange cut off" in my 190 for over 10 times.
And we have such a lot of things like this,you can talk about this on the VOW forum,then you can see how many OKL 190 pilots replies you,Sir.

CHDT
03-05-2004, 03:20 AM
Ok, I know already that the late Spit IX's were much more capable than the early variants.

But when I read that a detared A-4 is almost equal than a an early Spit IX, I ask myself if a VB LF is also better than an early Spit IX http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

To say the truth, I would be simply happy to fly the A-4 as tested by the RAF http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://gallery.cybertarp.com/albums/userpics/16105/16364660.pro_190_survey_b_9.jpg

Cheers,

blabla0001
03-05-2004, 03:24 AM
The hit tool thingy used in VOW is your only reference?

Like the man said, record tracks and send them too him.

He is not interested in discussing it on the VOW forums.

CHDT
03-05-2004, 03:24 AM
"and i believe you can easily find that how many 190 been "cut wings" with only 2 shot....."

Yes, it happens easy when touched right in the middle of the wing.

There's also the fact that only one or two small bullets in the wing cut off the performances of the 190 by a large margin.

But I don't have AEP, that has perhaps been changed?

Cheers,

StevenCappu
03-05-2004, 03:45 AM
yes i heard about the Spitfire's climb rate,so i think it's true in FB 2.0
But,the only thing i cared about is the "Strong Structure"!!!last night i have 3 times "washing" a Spitfire with my MG151,from head to tail,from left to right..........
the trk will be send to Mr.oleg soon.

Another thing,for someone said the 190 have only 3 min boost:
not only the 190A4,all of the 190A/D have this problem.
AEP 190A: Overheat after 3:35 with full power/Radiator full open. and can not cool down by reduce power to 100% military power.
you need to reduce power to 90% to cool down it.if the engine overheat about 6 min,ok,it's going over.
P63 could continue use the overheated engine for 20+ mins.
the La7 is more funny,105% throttle,Radiator CLOSE,never overheat...............
BTW,about the British test:
Most of the 190A4 are already have the Boost emergency power.And the British captured 190A used to test did not have the Boost.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
03-05-2004, 03:59 AM
Salute

Important thing to remember:

Spit V LF was developed AFTER Spit IXF came into service.

Spit V LF was used into late '43 and early 1944. It is not an early war aircraft.

RAF74 Buzzsaw

Oleg_Maddox
03-05-2004, 04:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CHDT:
Ok, I know already that the late Spit IX's were much more capable than the early variants.

But when I read that a detared A-4 is almost equal than a an early Spit IX, I ask myself if a VB LF is also better than an early Spit IX http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

To say the truth, I would be simply happy to fly the A-4 as tested by the RAF http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://gallery.cybertarp.com/albums/userpics/16105/16364660.pro_190_survey_b_9.jpg

Cheers,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They are better on low altitude isn't it?
LF designation for Spitfires are low altitude fighters with inclreadible climb, etc....

So if you compare LF with MK then you need compare on different altitudes.

For all of this are RAF reports.

Derated don't means worse. Instead it may means other. UK test for A5 for example were done with removed factory linits for maximal power. Its for sure.

robban75
03-05-2004, 04:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74BuzzsawXO:
Salute

That test you are showing is a 190A4 vs a 1941 Mk Vb Spitfire.

The LF model is a whole different kettle of fish.

190A4 climbed around 3800 ft/min, the LF Mk V climbed at 4750 ft/min.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As far as I can see that is with 150 grade fuel and +25 lb/sq.in boost, with fully closed radiator flaps. Meaning it would probably overheat very fast. Opening the rad flaps effectively took away 400ft/min in climbrate. The Fw 190A-4 with MW50 could most likely also reach this performance. A Fw 190A-5 with 2050PS would have a similar rate of climb aswell. Although it would probably be faster.

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

Magister__Ludi
03-05-2004, 04:21 AM
There was no production Spit in ww2 able to climb at 4700fpm, not even MkXIV climbed that good.

Even for a very light Spit V as the one tested at Boscombe it still needed 1700hp to do that. What happened in that test is that they basically brought a Merlin 50 to Merlin 66 HP rating at sea level (changed the supercharger gear ratio for more boost, it did not cary the much heavier Merlin 66 supercharger) and crammed it into an extremely light Spit V, much ligher than the production version. Those data are not representative for any production Spitfire!

Oleg_Maddox
03-05-2004, 04:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74BuzzsawXO:
Salute

That test you are showing is a 190A4 vs a 1941 Mk Vb Spitfire.

The LF model is a whole different kettle of fish.

190A4 climbed around 3800 ft/min, the LF Mk V climbed at 4750 ft/min.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As far as I can see that is with 150 grade fuel and +25 lb/sq.in boost, with fully closed radiator flaps. Meaning it would probably overheat very fast. Opening the rad flaps effectively took away 400ft/min in climbrate. The Fw 190A-4 with MW50 could most likely also reach this performance. A Fw 190A-5 with 2050PS would have a similar rate of climb aswell. Although it would probably be faster.

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry what are you tell here about FW190A4 and A5?
Engine BMW-801A NEVER HAD MW-50! And A5 never had such a power of 2050PS! What the hell?

Magister__Ludi
03-05-2004, 04:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:

I'm sorry what are you tell here about FW190A4 and A5?
Engine BMW-801A NEVER HAD MW-50! And A5 never had such a power of 2050PS! What the hell?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


True, just like no production Spit Mk V ever run at 18lb boost, not in '42, not during the whole war. That 4700fpm climb MkV was on a very light MkV with 1700HP (18lb boost). Not representative for any production model, therefore not realistic.

Oleg_Maddox
03-05-2004, 04:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StevenCappu:
V1.0: Moster plane
V1.1: Reduced the Diving speed
v1.22: Reduced Structure(1 round of UBS and 1 round of shvak by Yak9,from 800m away,wings cutted off.......)
v2.0: Military power/Radiator Full open/Criusing speed) ==========&gt; Overheat.
Plz Remember,190 is an "Air Cool" Engine fighter.
And the VVS planes as the follow:
P63: Fullpower/Radiator Close,overheat after 4 min,then continue flying and fighting 20+ min before the engine going over.
La7: emergency power 105%+/radiator close,do not overheat for ever...........<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Once more. I wasn't lazy and was flying on 190A4 that to check your post. The result is following with your statement of Military power/Radiator Full open/:

25 min and I didn't get even message of overheating! The I simply stop the test.

Sorry your test isn't valid. probably you missed something.

Oleg_Maddox
03-05-2004, 04:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:

I'm sorry what are you tell here about FW190A4 and A5?
Engine BMW-801A NEVER HAD MW-50! And A5 never had such a power of 2050PS! What the hell?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


True, just like no production Spit Mk V ever run at 18lb boost, not in '42, not during the whole war. That 4700fpm climb MkV was on a very light MkV with 1700HP (18lb boost). Not representative for any production model, therefore not realistic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sory But VVS received such Spits with Merlin 50 and 50a engines.

In RAF docs we may found a lot of contradictions about Spit V models and how they were produced and then modified.
But we may found these models with these engines and with 18 lb boost for 100% sure.

robban75
03-05-2004, 05:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:

I'm sorry what are you tell here about FW190A4 and A5?
Engine BMW-801A NEVER HAD MW-50! And A5 never had such a power of 2050PS! What the hell?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AFAIK, in 1944 the Fw 190A-5 had with erh√¬∂hten ladedruck 1,65ata 2050PS. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

In order to beat the 190's poor high alt performance, the Fw 190A-4's equipped with the BMW 801D-2's used the MW50. In the beginning there were problems with the spark plugs and so the increased boost in power could only be used for short periods of time. Later this was fixed and the system was able to reliably deliver 10 to 20 minutes of performance. Another boosting system that was used was GM-1. Raising the BMW801D-2's output to 2100hp for short periods. It took time for these systems to reach full scale production, and repeated bombing raids made the use of theses systems limited. But they were used at least.

Well, that's what my books says anyways. It could be wrong.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

Gunner_361st
03-05-2004, 05:07 AM
Seems this thread is more of a Spitfire climb and damage model thread than anything else. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But while we are on the topic, I am curious. The Spitfire was largely made of wood, yes? How much armor did it have? The models we have available to us, I mean, V, LF V, etc.

My point is if you shoot the wings and only say, AP rounds of cannon hit, then it would just leave a big hole unless it hit something hard. Things like this are well-modeled on the P-11C, I believe.

We all know the sensitivity to fire of the Merlin engine is well-modeled. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But another good example of this is the Me-109. Sometimes when you shoot the wings, you'll get good hits and leave big holes, but didn't hit enough in one particular area to saw it off. Other times, when you have a good angle and get good shots in one tight area, you can saw a wing off very quickly.

I imagine that the Spitfire is the same way, but I will see later today when I get my copy. I can't wait for all the great planes we are getting. S~ Gents http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

Oleg_Maddox
03-05-2004, 05:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:

I'm sorry what are you tell here about FW190A4 and A5?
Engine BMW-801A NEVER HAD MW-50! And A5 never had such a power of 2050PS! What the hell?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AFAIK, in 1944 the Fw 190A-5 had with erh√¬∂hten ladedruck 1,65ata 2050PS. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

In order to beat the 190's poor high alt performance, the Fw 190A-4's equipped with the BMW 801D-2's used the MW50. In the beginning there were problems with the spark plugs and so the increased boost in power could only be used for short periods of time. Later this was fixed and the system was able to reliably deliver 10 to 20 minutes of performance. Another boosting system that was used was GM-1. Raising the BMW801D-2's output to 2100hp for short periods. It took time for these systems to reach full scale production, and repeated bombing raids made the use of theses systems limited. But they were used at least.

Well, that's what my books says anyways. It could be wrong.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are completely wrong.
And Finally MW-50 has zero effect on high altitude. There Germans used already GM-1 using NO2 injection. It was tested in some of FW-190A and few aircraft were euipped
MW-50 its Methanol-Water injection.

I recommend you to find and to read German original docs in German language.
There is a lot available even online.
And to look for curves of speeds, power plants used on models, etc...

Magister__Ludi
03-05-2004, 05:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:

I'm sorry what are you tell here about FW190A4 and A5?
Engine BMW-801A NEVER HAD MW-50! And A5 never had such a power of 2050PS! What the hell?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


True, just like no production Spit Mk V ever run at 18lb boost, not in '42, not during the whole war. That 4700fpm climb MkV was on a very light MkV with 1700HP (18lb boost). Not representative for any production model, therefore not realistic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sory But VVS received such Spits with Merlin 50 and 50a engines.

In RAF docs we may found a lot of contradictions about Spit V models and how they were produced and then modified.
But we may found these models with these engines and with 18 lb boost for 100% sure.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Oleg, not even field mod Merlins were allowed to use more than 16lb before '43, regardless of model, not even the 60 series, which were concieved for this boost.

Problem is if we bring such modded aircraft that basically made no impact on war, we'll will distort the whole picture of the war. I find it very hard to believe that Soviets used 18lb boost on their Spit Vs, and in general Soviets had a bad opinion about the reliability of those Spitfires and their engines. None of them saw front line service with VVS, this tells a lot about their performance and reliability. How can we forget that and transform them in the best planes in the entire war? Something is wrong here.

In general highly boosted field mods should not be modelled at all for all sides, because they proved very unreliable and made no special impression in combat, basically they went unnoticed. If we will bring them in FB they will rule the skies, which brings the question of historical accuracy.

How about bringing Bf-109G6/U3? they served in important numbers from Autumn of '43. Would that be nice? And this was not a field mod, many new builts had the boost installed directly from factory.

[This message was edited by Magister__Ludi on Fri March 05 2004 at 04:53 AM.]

robban75
03-05-2004, 05:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
You are completely wrong.
And Finally MW-50 has zero effect on high altitude. There Germans used already GM-1 using NO2 injection. It was tested in some of FW-190A and few aircraft were euipped
MW-50 its Methanol-Water injection.

I recommend you to find and to read German original docs in German language.
There is a lot available even online.
And to look for curves of speeds, power plants used on models, etc...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I get most of my info from books, and I guess it's true that everything isn't, well, true. And I mostly post what the books are saying.

Of course the MW50 didn't boost the Fw 190's performance at the extreme altitudes. The Fw 190 would benefit from MW50 up to 5000m at least.
Unfortuantelly for me, I never took German in school. It was a mistake, I realise that. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

But I'm slowly picking up things, many books has real German WW2 charts. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

Oleg_Maddox
03-05-2004, 05:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gunner_361st:
Seems this thread is more of a Spitfire climb and damage model thread than anything else. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But while we are on the topic, I am curious. The Spitfire was largely made of wood, yes? How much armor did it have? The models we have available to us, I mean, V, LF V, etc.

My point is if you shoot the wings and only say, AP rounds of cannon hit, then it would just leave a big hole unless it hit something hard. Things like this are well-modeled on the P-11C, I believe.

We all know the sensitivity to fire of the Merlin engine is well-modeled. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But another good example of this is the Me-109. Sometimes when you shoot the wings, you'll get good hits and leave big holes, but didn't hit enough in one particular area to saw it off. Other times, when you have a good angle and get good shots in one tight area, you can saw a wing off very quickly.

I imagine that the Spitfire is the same way, but I will see later today when I get my copy. I can't wait for all the great planes we are getting. S~ Gents http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood? Close this book forever and don't open anymore!

SeaFireLIV
03-05-2004, 05:36 AM
Oleg quote: "Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood? Close this book forever and don't open anymore!"

You tell `em Oleg! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

SeaFireLIV...

http://img12.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/P47duck.jpg

Lixma
03-05-2004, 05:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood? Close this book forever and don't open anymore!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Classic!

LEXX_Luthor
03-05-2004, 05:48 AM
LOL another to add to my collection....

__________________
"You will still have FB , you will lose NOTHING" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
"I don't have the V2 or B25s, so I'm going to reinstall" ~Bearcat99
"If sky chimp is satisfied, then I'm convinced its ok" ~Menthol_moose
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?" ~Oleg http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Oleg_Maddox
03-05-2004, 06:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:

I'm sorry what are you tell here about FW190A4 and A5?
Engine BMW-801A NEVER HAD MW-50! And A5 never had such a power of 2050PS! What the hell?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


True, just like no production Spit Mk V ever run at 18lb boost, not in '42, not during the whole war. That 4700fpm climb MkV was on a very light MkV with 1700HP (18lb boost). Not representative for any production model, therefore not realistic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sory But VVS received such Spits with Merlin 50 and 50a engines.

In RAF docs we may found a lot of contradictions about Spit V models and how they were produced and then modified.
But we may found these models with these engines and with 18 lb boost for 100% sure.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Oleg, not even field mod Merlins were allowed to use more than 16lb before '43, regardless of model, not even the 60 series, which were concieved for this boost.

Problem is if we bring such modded aircraft that basically made no impact on war, we'll will distort the whole picture of the war. I find it very hard to believe that Soviets used 18lb boost on their Spit Vs, and in general Soviets had a bad opinion about the reliability of those Spitfires and their engines. None of them saw front line service with VVS, this tells a lot about their performance and reliability. How can we forget that and transform them in the best planes in the entire war? Something is wrong here.

In general highly boosted field mods should not be modelled at all for all sides, because they proved very unreliable and made no special impression in combat, basically they went unnoticed. If we will bring them in FB they will rule the skies, which brings the question of historical accuracy.

How about bringing Bf-109G6/U3? they served in important numbers from Autumn of '43. Would that be nice? And this was not a field mod, many new builts had the boost installed directly from factory.

[This message was edited by Magister__Ludi on Fri March 05 2004 at 04:53 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I should disagree with you. I mean Merlin 50. with 18 lb boost.
We use the RAF data that we received from RAF. and we checked it with the books that has similar info for LF.Mk.V Merling 50 (or 50a) version.
And this is really 1943 and we model it as 1943. And VVS received it in 1943...
And VVS recieved the mix of versions for MkV!
By documents it was one model, but in reality it was low altitude engine installed.

What is wrong?

Gunner_361st
03-05-2004, 06:27 AM
Now I just feel downright silly. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Fact is, I didn't read it from a book, I was told that by someone who I thought knew what he was talking about.

Do keep in mind though, that I did say, "The Spitfire was largely made of wood, yes?" Posing it as a question, because I was uncertain. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

It'll take me a while to live this down. Sorry guys. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Captain Gunner of the 361st vFG

http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1039.jpg

Skalgrim
03-05-2004, 06:32 AM
that means not a5 had not use 44 erh√¬∂hten ladedruck, all 190a get 44 1,65ata

and 44 was a5 too use not only a8

a5 with 1,65ata 590-595km/h sealevel had willaume say

give not better performance high altitude but under 6000m

like not ugly sluggish a8 with bombrack,

but a5 with 1,65 ata 2050ps instead now 1750ps, would be nice ride 44 server

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by robban75:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:



AFAIK, in 1944 the Fw 190A-5 had with erh√¬∂hten ladedruck 1,65ata 2050PS.

In order to beat the 190's poor high alt performance, the Fw 190A-4's equipped with the BMW 801D-2's used the MW50. In the beginning there were problems with the spark plugs and so the increased boost in power could only be used for short periods of time. Later this was fixed and the system was able to reliably deliver 10 to 20 minutes of performance. Another boosting system that was used was GM-1. Raising the BMW801D-2's output to 2100hp for short periods. It took time for these systems to reach full scale production, and repeated bombing raids made the use of theses systems limited. But they were used at least.

Well, that's what my books says anyways. It could be wrong.

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You are completely wrong.
And Finally MW-50 has zero effect on high altitude. There Germans used already GM-1 using NO2 injection. It was tested in some of FW-190A and few aircraft were euipped
MW-50 its Methanol-Water injection.

I recommend you to find and to read German original docs in German language.
There is a lot available even online.
And to look for curves of speeds, power plants used on models, etc...

[This message was edited by Skalgrim on Fri March 05 2004 at 06:00 AM.]

Hunde_3.JG51
03-05-2004, 06:37 AM
I'll say it again here real quick. It was also claimed that the 190A-9 was never touched but it is certainly improved in AEP over 1.21. Flying planes back to back makes it obvious that there are huge differences in overheat times. Oleg is getting annoyed so I'll just forget about it, whatever will be will be.

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

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

r0xtilux
03-05-2004, 07:30 AM
Combat Legend: Focke-Wulf Fw190 by Peter Caygill, Airlife Publishing Ltd 2002

page 72: "... late production A-4s were the first Fw 190s to have MW-50 injection which boosted power to 2,100 hp for short periods, allowing a speed of 416 mph to be reached at 20,600 feet."

But this is the only reference I can find to any early A's with MW-50.

Oleg_Maddox
03-05-2004, 07:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by r0xtilux:
Combat Legend: Focke-Wulf Fw190 by Peter Caygill, Airlife Publishing Ltd 2002

page 72: "... late production A-4s were the first Fw 190s to have MW-50 injection which boosted power to 2,100 hp for short periods, allowing a speed of 416 mph to be reached at 20,600 feet."


But this is the only reference I can find to any early A's with MW-50.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is wrong. I would say absolutely wrong.

butch2k
03-05-2004, 07:49 AM
There was no A-4 fitted with MW-50 it's a 30 years old error which keeps on popping up... It was indeed evaluated, BMW owning the patent on MW-50 injection, but it was not fitted on the A-4.

Fehler
03-05-2004, 07:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood? Close this book forever and don't open anymore!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL, Oleg you have a great sense of humor! LOL

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

jurinko
03-05-2004, 08:13 AM
hmm, IL2 compare 2.3 shows that standard Spitfire MkV outclimbs Fw 190 A-4, which should have cca 2m/s better climb rate.. but didn‚¬īt test it in AEP yet.
According to Brtisih tests, A-3 climbed comparatively with Spit MkIX up to some 5km alt, then losing rapidly to the MkIX. A-4 seems still somehow.. hm, exhausted..

----------------------
Letka.13/Liptow @ HL

JG53Harti
03-05-2004, 08:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by r0xtilux:
Combat Legend: Focke-Wulf Fw190 by Peter Caygill, Airlife Publishing Ltd 2002

page 72: "... late production A-4s were the first Fw 190s to have MW-50 injection which boosted power to 2,100 hp for short periods, allowing a speed of 416 mph to be reached at 20,600 feet."


But this is the only reference I can find to any early A's with MW-50.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is wrong. I would say absolutely wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Not completely wrong but never exist in combat mode

in A4 there where made first test with MW50 but never used as an A4 in WWII !


And about manuals. I m lucky to have all manuals of FW190 from A0 until A9.

MfG Frank

&lt;center&gt;&lt;a href=http://www.jagdgeschwader53.de target=_blank&gt;&lt;img src=http://www.jagdgeschwader53.flugzeugwerk.net/diverses/harti.gif alt="III/JG53"&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;&lt;img src=http://harti.equitatura.de/53rdHeader.gif alt="53 TFW"&gt;&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/br&gt;
&lt;/br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;&lt;/br&gt;

Willey
03-05-2004, 08:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:

I'm sorry what are you tell here about FW190A4 and A5?
Engine BMW-801A NEVER HAD MW-50! And A5 never had such a power of 2050PS! What the hell?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AFAIK, in 1944 the Fw 190A-5 had with erh√¬∂hten ladedruck 1,65ata 2050PS. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

In order to beat the 190's poor high alt performance, the Fw 190A-4's equipped with the BMW 801D-2's used the MW50. In the beginning there were problems with the spark plugs and so the increased boost in power could only be used for short periods of time. Later this was fixed and the system was able to reliably deliver 10 to 20 minutes of performance. Another boosting system that was used was GM-1. Raising the BMW801D-2's output to 2100hp for short periods. It took time for these systems to reach full scale production, and repeated bombing raids made the use of theses systems limited. But they were used at least.

Well, that's what my books says anyways. It could be wrong.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are completely wrong.
And Finally MW-50 has zero effect on high altitude. There Germans used already GM-1 using NO2 injection. It was tested in some of FW-190A and few aircraft were euipped
MW-50 its Methanol-Water injection.

I recommend you to find and to read German original docs in German language.
There is a lot available even online.
And to look for curves of speeds, power plants used on models, etc...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There never was MW-50 on BMW-801D-2. There was a similar system that injected C3 fuel to allow higher ata/rpm output. This is what the A-8 has, for example. With this system the engine produces 2050PS. Without it's 1780PS.

Check the other thread about it:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&s=400102&a=tpc&f=63110913&m=401109952&r=965107062#965107062

Someone grabbed out what I wrote there about the ata/rpm/PS values of the 801.

And something is wrong with the A-5. Either/or:
1. It has a "WEP button" (press W to activate Erh√¬∂hter Ladedruck = C3 injection), but it just has 1780PS instead of 2050.
2. It has a "WEP button" although it shouldn't have it (like the A-4).

I might suggest you get rid of that WEP button here (=1780PS - as is, just engine controls like A-4). The A-6 may get it, with 2050PS. You could do 2 A-6es. One 1943 with 1780PS and one 1944 with 2050PS. Don't know if they were fitted with it, though. But I'm sure the A-5es got this system later as upgrade while they were used as JaBos in '44. If I'm right, 88.IAP_Sokol sent you some info about that.



As for the overheat, also check my post in the thread I typed above.



Concerning Spit Vb vs A-4:

http://home.arcor.de/eldur/bilder/spita4.jpg

I know it's AI result. I'd like to know how well it climbs with human pilot.

I think you mixed... Its for LF.Mk.Vb. with low altitude Merlin 50 engine. Please be precise when you name aircraft or people will understand incorrect.
Please be precise when you

[This message was edited by Oleg_Maddox on Fri March 05 2004 at 11:24 AM.]

FW190fan
03-05-2004, 08:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by butch2k:
There was no A-4 fitted with MW-50 it's a 30 years old error which keeps on popping up... It was indeed evaluated, BMW owning the patent on MW-50 injection, but it was not fitted on the A-4.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thank you very much for clearing this up!

This has been a mystery for me for some time now. I had incorrectly thought that some of the Jabo 190s used in attacks on England were equipped with MW-50.

So then, BMW developed and owned the patent for MW-50 injection - evaluated it but it was not put into operational use on the FW190A-4.

Thank you butch2K and Oleg for FINALLY clearing this matter up http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

StevenCappu
03-05-2004, 09:34 AM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by StevenCappu:
V1.0: Moster plane
V1.1: Reduced the Diving speed
v1.22: Reduced Structure(1 round of UBS and 1 round of shvak by Yak9,from 800m away,wings cutted off.......)
v2.0: Military power/Radiator Full open/Criusing speed) ==========&gt; Overheat.
Plz Remember,190 is an "Air Cool" Engine fighter.
And the VVS planes as the follow:
P63: Fullpower/Radiator Close,overheat after 4 min,then continue flying and fighting 20+ min before the engine going over.
La7: emergency power 105%+/radiator close,do not overheat for ever...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Once more. I wasn't lazy and was flying on 190A4 that to check your post. The result is following with your statement of Military power/Radiator Full open/:

25 min and I didn't get even message of overheating! The I simply stop the test.

Sorry your test isn't valid. probably you missed something.

Yeah yeah,that's my fault,maybe my airspeed was too low,and the radiation effect is not enough, but even i keep the criusing speed of 340kph IAS,i still not have the pleasure to use 101% throttle,it will be overheat V~~ery soon,and after the overheat,i just reduce power to 100%,it can not cool down,i need to reduce power at least to 90% throttle and it can work.
BTW,if an Aircraft with Aircool engine and have such a effective radiator as the 190,and the same engine power/RPM etc.i think it have the same overheat abilities.
BUT: the LA5FN/LA7 can not overheat even use the emergency power(maybe 105%) and with the Radiator FULL CLOSE!
Why?
And,the 190's engine only can keep working 6 min after the overheat,but the P39/63's can keep working over 20 min?!?!
Every body knows the Spitfire is a "Paper Plane",as weak as the A6M,the wings/ fueslarge are made of drapery,i just use my 190A4/109G2 flying with CHN_@6 to againest some Spitfires today,we have deadly hits on them,and it's ok,My G2's MG151 have another record: 122 hit on a Spitfire,then the pilot get killed,the plane was still can flying..........
Could you tell me Why?
I just want a Fair game,everybody knows the VVS defeated the OKL by the large number at last,not by the quality.
Dear Sir,you already "emasculate" the FW190 for 3 times,and do you think the v2.0 FW is the most real one?

blabla0001
03-05-2004, 09:51 AM
"Every body knows the Spitfire is a "Paper Plane",as weak as the A6M,the wings/ fueslarge are made of drapery"

LMAO, Spitfires are made with a metal skin, not fabric.

faustnik
03-05-2004, 10:24 AM
I still don't understand.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/SpitVvsFw190A4.jpg This chart matches what I have seen in-sim so far.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

RAF Report from Farnborough, July 1942. Comparing the Spit VB to a captured 190A3:

"The climb of the Fw190 is superior to that of the VB at all heights."

"Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000 ft."


**************

I have not seen an issue with the SpitV DM. They go down fine, very vulnerable in the engine.

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=25)

robban75
03-05-2004, 10:48 AM
Those cimbrates in the graph fit the MkV fitted with the Merlin 45. However these climbrates where achieved as late as 25 November 1942. I don't know when this kind of performance was avaliable for the Squadrons. Perhaps they fit better in 1943?

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

blabla0001
03-05-2004, 10:55 AM
The ones we got here in the game (2 of them) have a Merlin 50 Engine.

faustnik
03-05-2004, 11:03 AM
Which ones Capp?

Can you post Spit Model - Engine for all four Spits.

thanks,

faust

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=25)

blabla0001
03-05-2004, 11:07 AM
Both L.F models. (I think) (one clipped and one non clipped)

Hold on, let me find some info on it.

It's easy to detect in game since the Merlin 50 is the only one that can obtain +18 boost.

blabla0001
03-05-2004, 11:12 AM
Spitfire F. Mk.VB W.3228
(Merlin 50 M)
Climb and level speed performance when fitted with a
Merlin 50 engine with a cropped supercharger impeller

SUMMARY

........Spitfire F. Mk.VB W.3228 has been fitted with a special Merlin 50 engine, on which the supercharger impellor was "cropped" to a diameter of 9.5". On this engine the maximum permitted boost at combat rating was +18 lb/sq.in. instead of +16 lb/sq.in. as on a normal Merlin 50 engine. Climb and level speed measurements have been made at this combat rating and form the subject of this report.

........(a) Climb.


Maximum rate of climb 4270 ft/min. at 3850 ft.
Maximum rate of climb at 10,000 ft. 3800 ft/min.
Maximum rate of climb at 20,000 ft. 2320 ft/min.
Service ceiling 35,700 ft.
Estimated absolute ceiling 36,400 ft.

........(b) Level Speeds.


Max. level true airspeed at 2,000 ft. 334 mph.
Max level true airspeed at 5,900 ft. (FTH) 350 mph.
Max level true airspeed 10,000 ft. 347 mph.
Max level true airspeed 20,000 ft. 336 mph.

Full report here: http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/w3228.html

blabla0001
03-05-2004, 11:13 AM
And here about the Merlin 45/46 engines.

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

faustnik
03-05-2004, 11:32 AM
OK, got it Capp, thanks. I feel better now about the LF climb superiority. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

How about the non-LF (cropped right) model in FB, the 1041 model? What engine does that have?

(That actually is the one I compared to the A4 and the one in the FB compare climb chart shown).

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=25)

BerkshireHunt
03-05-2004, 11:56 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Magister__Ludi:
I find it very hard to believe that Soviets used 18lb boost on their Spit Vs, and in general Soviets had a bad opinion about the reliability of those Spitfires and their engines. None of them saw front line service with VVS, this tells a lot about their performance and reliability.
-----------

Magister Ludi(crous) [Huckebein],
Oleg must have smiled at the depths of your ignorance. I am firmly of the opinion that you make up half of what you write- certainly you and Steven Cappu (another Romanian?) can never have read a book on the Spitfire- otherwise where would you get the notion that Spitfire Vs were not used by the VVS?
Actually, they were used over the Crimea and Kuban bridgehead by the 57th Guards Fighter Unit (which only got the most able fighters) against JG52- and recorded many victories. 109G2s, G6s, He 111s, Ju87s, Ju52s- and the occasional FW190- all fell to the chatter of their hispanos (yes, the gun which you assured us in another thread was pretty useless for air combat). Read Colonel Anatoli Ivanov's account of the fighting there for more information.

As for Cappu's suggestion that the Spitfire was 'a paper aeroplane like the A6M5'- he clearly knows little about the reasons for the Japanese aircraft's vulnerability and nothing about the Spitfire. Compare the Spitfire's mainspar with the wing bolts of a 109 for instance and tell me which you'd rather entrust your life to. Better still, ask the ghost of Wilhelm Balthasar.
Here's a suggestion for you both- instead of buying yet another coffee table book about the 109 or the 190- buy a good book about their opponents- you might then be able to make intelligent contributions.
As you might say, Magister, your post tells us a lot about your 'reliability'.

blabla0001
03-05-2004, 12:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
OK, got it Capp, thanks. I feel better now about the LF climb superiority. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

How about the non-LF (cropped right) model in FB, the 1041 model? What engine does that have?

(That actually is the one I compared to the A4 and the one in the FB compare climb chart shown).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess the other 2 have either a Merlin 45 or 46.
Can't tell since I didn't coded them, but Oleg should know.

blabla0001
03-05-2004, 12:19 PM
Oleg posted the info here:

Spitfire Mk.Vb (Merlin 45) 1941
Spitfire Mk.Vb (Merlin 46) 1942 clipped wings
Spitfire LF.Mk.Vb (Merlin 50) 1943
Spitfire LF.Mk.Vb (Merlin 50) 1944 clipped wings

faustnik
03-05-2004, 12:20 PM
Well, what Merlin version was used in the Spit V's produced in 1941?

Thanks for being patient Capp, I'm starting to understand it. 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=25)

MandMs
03-05-2004, 12:20 PM
RR engines

Merlin 45 - RM 5S
single SC, S speed
.477 prop reduction
boost +16lb
Spit V

Merlin 45M - RM 5S (cropped impellor dia)
single SC, S speed
.477 prop reduction
boost +18lb
Spit LF V

Merlin 46 - RM 6S (increase impellor dia)
single SC, S speed
.477 prop reduction
boost +16
Spit V

Merlin 50 - RM 5S (diaphram controlled fuel feed; later RAE anti-G)
single SC, S speed
.477 prop reduction
boost +16
Spit V

Merlin 50A - RM 6S (carb as M50)
single SC, S speed
.477 prop reduction
boost +16
Spit V

Merlin 50M - RM 5S (cropped impellor dia)
single SC, S speed
.477 prop reduction
boost +18
Spit LF V



I eat the red ones last.

faustnik
03-05-2004, 12:24 PM
Thanks Capp you answered my question before I finished typing it.

So the relative climb between the Spit V (1941) and the 190A4 is wrong but, the realtive climb between the late SpitV and the A4 is correct? Right?

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=25)

faustnik
03-05-2004, 12:24 PM
Thanks Capp you answered my question before I finished typing it.

So the relative climb between the Spit V (1941) and the 190A4 is wrong but, the realtive climb between the late SpitV and the A4 is correct? Right?

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=25)

faustnik
03-05-2004, 12:24 PM
tp

[This message was edited by faustnik on Fri March 05 2004 at 12:20 PM.]

blabla0001
03-05-2004, 12:29 PM
Was the Merlin 45 Spitfire Vb 1941 model used to make that climb graphic chart?

I doesn't say which one was used, it only says Spitfire Vb.

JG26Red
03-05-2004, 12:35 PM
those spits turn rather well, but are rather slow, easy to do a BZ tactics on them, easy to extend so on...

blabla0001
03-05-2004, 12:37 PM
The Spitfire Vb wasn't very good speed wise, but lucky for us Spit drivers we will have 3 variants of the MKIX soon. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

blabla0001
03-05-2004, 12:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG26Red:
those spits turn rather well, but are rather slow, easy to do a BZ tactics on them, easy to extend so on...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just a question, those Spits you B&Z are flying low or something?

That's rather stupid since it's power is way up there.
Even the Vb can put up a pretty good fight at high alt so the IX will make a good impression in the high alt fighting arena.

faustnik
03-05-2004, 01:27 PM
Capp I assumed the standard SpitV in FB was the same model used in the RAF Farnborough test, which may be incorrect.

In Eric Brown's test of an 190A4 with outer guns removed and a Spit IX he said they have almost identical climb rates to 20,000 ft.. If the SpitV is already outclimbing the 190A4 don't you think there could be a problem?

I think the issue needs looking at but, I hate seeing some of the rediculous posts claiming Oleg is biased against the 190. If the discussion goes down hill, I will certainly bow out of it. My only desire is to have things modeled in a historically correct fasion. I won't be part of bashing Oleg and his hard work.

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=25)

StevenCappu
03-05-2004, 01:37 PM
Ok,Dear Sir:
it's my fault,i did not check the readme carefully,if you said the Auto Radiator=Close.
but what the Auto use to be? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Another thing,could you plz do some test on it:
La5FN/La7 Radiator CLOSE! 107~109% throttle,100% propitch High RPM,Any altitude(Stage 1 & 2 Supercharger)
Will not overheat for ever...
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
is that real?

StevenCappu
03-05-2004, 01:41 PM
Will not overheat for ever...
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
is that real?[/QUOTE]

StevenCappu
03-05-2004, 01:42 PM
ok,it's my fault,i did not check the realme carefully,and if you said the Auto Radiator= Close,but what the Auto use to be? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

StevenCappu
03-05-2004, 01:42 PM
lol

StevenCappu
03-05-2004, 01:43 PM
Jesus,can not delete my post -_-!!!
just did some test on the La,it's ok now
i'll take back what i said -_-!!!

Col.Kurtz
03-05-2004, 01:51 PM
I just made some climb tests

Smolensk map 110%Power 100%Fuel (with WEP) Radiator open,Time count from takeoff(lift off of both wheels) at 30m height

Climbtime to 3000m=
109F2
180sec=3min
3281ft/min avg climb

SpitVB 41
189sec=3:09min
3125ft/min avg climb=15,9m/sec

FW190A4 with 100%Proppitch
175sec=2:55min
3374ft/min= avg climb=17.2m/sec

FW190A4 with Auto Proppitch
189sec=3:09min
3125ft/min avg climb
-------------------------------------
Climbtime to 5000m

109F2
302sec=5:02min

SpitVB
305sec=5:05min
3227ft/min avg climb=16,4m/sec

FW190A4 with 100%Proppitch
303sec=5:04min

FW190A4 with Auto Proppitch
333sec=5:33min
2956ft/min avg climb=15m/sec
--------------------------------------

The SpitVB matches exactly the performance of this British Test from 41 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif:
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/w3134.html

So I see there no Problems with Spit performance,its even the oposit! it is perfect!

The real data for 190 i have show:
A5 @4000kg and 1.35ata=1550PS (A4 should be same wheight and power)
3000m in 3:30min 5000m in 6:30min
with initial climb of 15m/sec

The FW190A5/6 Manual gives 5:05min to 4000m@4100Kg wheight (also on Climb and Combat 1.3ata 30min avaible)

The FW190A3 was lighter then the A4/5 with 3855kg and so may have a better climb.
It would be interesting to know wheight of the A3 in that British Test maybe they had 50% Fuel to give realistic combat condition?

In a report from G.Gollob they give the FW190 A2 a climb of 4:50min from 1000-5000m(BMW801C engine)

----------------------------------------
In the Climbtest the Fw190 didnt show any difference to the exactly same test i made in FB 1.22 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
Overheat time,climb and cooldown time are exactly the same in ACE expansion,only difference is Radiator is only manual mode on all FW190-Ta152

I see there no problem in AC modelling in ACE.
Ofcourse the SpitVB never overheated in climb to 7000m and just startet as cooler got closed for some time but apart from this it looks ok.

faustnik
03-05-2004, 02:06 PM
Thanks Col.Kurtz, great test! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

We did some side by side climb comparison of the A4 and Spit V and the Spit pulled ahead. We will test again. Maybe we overlooked some online variable?

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=25)

blabla0001
03-05-2004, 02:41 PM
I think it's better to perform these types of tests offline.

That way you can rule out any online weirdness that can mess up the tests.

hop2002
03-05-2004, 03:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>... the captured tested A-4 (with a derated engine)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The 190 A3 and A4 were supposed to run at 1.42 ata start and emergency, 1.35 ata climb and combat.

They suffered problems, and were derated to 1.35 ata start and emergency, 1.2x (can't remember second decimal) climb and combat.

Arnim Faber's 190 had been derated, but the British ignored the proper ratings and used 1.42 ata start and emergency, 1.35 ata climb and combat.

In the test you're refering to, the Spitfire V was run at 9lbs boost for climbing, which was it's 30 min rating. The 190 was run at 1.35 ata for climbing, which was the start and emergency 5 min limit for a derated 190, and the climb and combat rating for the fully rated 190.

The Spit V was rated first at 12 lbs boost for wep, which went up to 16 lbs (earliest reference to 16 lbs I have seen is early Feb 42) and 18 lbs in the cropped supercharger LF models.

So, a fully rated 190 A4 at climb and combat will outclimb a Spit V at it's 30 minute rating, with both running wep the cSpit V should be similar at 12 lbs boost, significantly better at 16 lbs boost.

I don't know which AEP models for the Spit F Vb, but the sea level speed at 12 lbs should be between 300 and 310 mph (about 480 - 500 km/h) and at 16 lbs it should be around 318 mph (512 km/h). The cropped supercharger LF V should do around 325 mph (523 km/h) at sea level at 18 lbs boost.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> was almost equal in climbing than a Spit IX (15lbs), with a small advantage for the British aircraft.

So, if I understand that well, the VB LF was a better climber than the Spit IX (15lbs)?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. The LF Vb was:

Lighter than the Spit F IX

Ran the same capacity engine at 18lbs boost instead of 15lbs boost in the F IX

Had a supercharger with a much lower full throttle height, meaning it wasted far less energy on the supercharger. Of course, this means that at higher altitudes the Spit F IX would do much better, and it did, being about 80 mph faster at 25,000ft.

PzKpfw
03-05-2004, 03:16 PM
Question has been nagging me on the latest discussion on the Spit climb etc. The data used in Ace is RAF results correct?.

If so were these results not obtained useing RAF high grade AV fuel?. Would not the Soviet model Vb, V LFs be useing lower quality/grade Soviet AV fuel, and suffer similar decreased performance problems as experienced by operational Soviet Hurricane sqadrons?.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

blabla0001
03-05-2004, 04:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:
Question has been nagging me on the latest discussion on the Spit climb etc. The data used in Ace is RAF results correct?.

If so were these results not obtained useing RAF high grade AV fuel?. Would not the Soviet model Vb, V LFs be useing lower quality/grade Soviet AV fuel, and suffer similar decreased performance problems as experienced by operational Soviet Hurricane sqadrons?.

Regards, John Waters<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since the battle has moved to 2 fronts now it would be logical to use the RAF tests rather then the Russian ones or else Oleg has to make 2 planes of every lend/lease plane in the game.

crazyivan1970
03-05-2004, 04:31 PM
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood? Close this book forever and don't open anymore!"

Oleg is it really you??? Priceless hahaha

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

PzKpfw
03-05-2004, 05:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cappadocian_317:
Since the battle has moved to 2 fronts now it would be logical to use the RAF tests rather then the Russian ones or else Oleg has to make 2 planes of every lend/lease plane in the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting observation, but not the point of my question Cap. I wasnt commenting on IL-2 modeling but on an historical performance matter. Ie, documented Soviet low grade AV fuel quality effects on Merlin performance & LL planes in general.

If that should be reflected in IL-2 etc of course is up to Oleg, it's his dime 8P.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

BerkshireHunt
03-05-2004, 05:20 PM
Interesting observation, but not the point of my question Cap. I wasnt commenting on IL-2 modeling but on an historical performance matter. Ie, documented Soviet low grade AV fuel quality effects on Merlin performance & LL planes in general.
----------

Haven't got the reference with me but I remember reading that the British sent a scientific delegation to Murmansk to help develop a fuel catalyst which would raise the octane rating of Soviet AV gas. This was specifically to improve the power output of Merlins in Soviet use. I think this was in 1941.

The catalyst was apparently very successful and is still in use today (and still patented). So it's very difficult to say whether Soviet Merlins would or would not be affected by poor quality fuel.

PzKpfw
03-05-2004, 05:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BerkshireHunt:

Haven't got the reference with me but I remember reading that the British sent a scientific delegation to Murmansk to help develop a fuel catalyst which would raise the octane rating of Soviet AV gas. This was specifically to improve the power output of Merlins in Soviet use. I think this was in 1941.

The catalyst was apparently very successful and is still in use today (and still patented). So it's very difficult to say whether Soviet Merlins would or would not be affected by poor quality fuel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Berk yes that data is from Morgan's "Soviet Aces of World War 2".

Problem is their were still reports of problems with Soviet AV quality on LL planes performannce well into 1944.

uch was also improved by reciept of large qualities of LL AV fuel with 97/99 octaine rateing that was mixed with Soviet AV to increase quality etc.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

p1ngu666
03-05-2004, 05:41 PM
one thing ive noticed is the spit really shakes when you fire, is that correct?
RAF data is probably pretty good, plus theres supermarine too?
major problem with the naming of spits and engines i feel http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
not ingame, but irl http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

and

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood? Close this book forever and don't open anymore!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if only there was a book is wrong, be sure
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
*hugs oleg*

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

WWMaxGunz
03-05-2004, 08:55 PM
Try diving that 41 Spit to about 650kph and see about stability! AT least that's what I think I remember from last nights look at different planes that it shook a bit and I didn't want to push it. It wouldn't shoot so accurate in a dive pursuit or even follow so fast as some go or run away so well. There's limits to the Spits maybe due to the wings that pitch, climb and turn so utterly well.


Neal

faustnik
03-05-2004, 11:03 PM
Comparing apples to apples:

This is the 190A4 climb comparison with the Spit LFVB Merlin 50 1943:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/Fw190A4vsSpitLFVB.jpg

Which seems historically correct according to some of the tests posted here. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


This is the 190A4 climb compared to the older SpitVB Merlin 45 1941:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/SpitVvsFw190A4.jpg

This is the same Spit VB used in the Farnborough test, right. According to that test, the Spit VB had a significantly lower climb rate than the 190A4. So, I still have a problem understanding this one. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

I am still attempting to get the best climb rates in my own test but, so far, the SpitVB 1941 Merlin 45 seems to beat the 190A4 in climb.


Hey, I'm half-way to understanding it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.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=25)

WWMaxGunz
03-06-2004, 01:12 AM
Was the Farnborough 190 actually running better than it was supposed to? Oleg says yes, derated means changed and not always worse, that one ran better.

Was the Farnborough 190 without the outer guns while the sim plane has them?

Where do you do your compares? Online?

Someone here has made offline climb tests and finds the Spit VB climb is right on the mark.


Neal

faustnik
03-06-2004, 01:45 AM
I've been testing both online and offline MaxGunz, but, as I said, I'm still working on it. In pictures of the Farnborough A3 it had outer guns. I'm not sure about the British getting the engine to run better??? I think the testing if that partucilar A3 went on for along time so, it could not have been pushed that hard.

I'm not saying the Spit VB is wrong, just wondering if the 190A4 climb should be better.

Also, I am questioning something, not declaring it "wrong", big difference. 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=25)

CHDT
03-06-2004, 02:21 AM
"Was the Farnborough 190 actually running better than it was supposed to? Oleg says yes, derated means changed and not always worse, that one ran better."

According to these lines...

http://gallery.cybertarp.com/albums/userpics/16105/engine.jpg

... it obviously doesn't seem that the engine of the captured A-4 was in a so good shape http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers,

hop2002
03-06-2004, 06:22 AM
The engine wasn't in a good shape because the British ran it above the specified limits.

All 190 A3s and early A4s were restricted to 1.35 ata in service because the engine had trouble above this, and the time limit for 1.35 ata was 5 minutes.

The British ran their captured 190 A3 at 1.42 ata for 5 minutes, and at 1.35 ata for 30 minutes.

That lead the British to believe the engine had problems because it couldn't sustain 1.42 ata for 5 minutes, but this was substantially above the power setting it was allowed to use.

Likewise, the 1,35 ata setting, which the Germans allowed for only 5 minutes, the British used for 30 minutes at a time, again causing them to believe the engine was faulty.

03-06-2004, 07:31 AM
1,42ata setting was 10 min rating on the BMW 801. The A-3 and A-4 series had overheating problems, with the installation of the more powerful 801D-2 engine (1800 PS instead of 1600 Ps at full boost). These were solved by lenghtening the engine bay for better cooling on A-5.

When it comes the the tactical trials the AFDU performed with their captured A-3, it should be noted that the plane was either in bad shape or was badly serviced : compared to all other tests, it`s performance was sub-par on the same boost settings : The British managed to get 380-390 mph out of it during the tests at 1.42ata, whereas in all other tests it clocked at around 415mph. In fact the British results at 1.42ata were very comparable to other`s test on 1.3ata. It could be the engine being in very bad shape due to bad service, and not putting out the nominal power, or the airframe itself was weary (which is also likely, considering they put out through so many tests).

WWMaxGunz
03-06-2004, 08:00 AM
The Brits had taken a restrictor plate out to get it to run at 1.42ata. Why it was there... either the overheat problems hadn't been solved at the time or the engine was worn and derated for that. I bet Butch knows.

If the latter was the case then it leaves the LW sending planes out beyond their borders in that condition. As in, where was that plane captured? Why send a pilot in a clapped out plane over enemy territory? Hmmmmm? And if there wasn't a problem then why the restrictor plate? Was that NASCAR?


Neal

Magister__Ludi
03-06-2004, 08:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
Likewise, the 1,35 ata setting, which the Germans allowed for only 5 minutes, the British used for 30 minutes at a time, again causing them to believe the engine was faulty.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


BMW-801 and Jumo213 were the only engines in the world at that time that could run at military power for 30min, most of them could be kept there for only 5 min. Both engines had special cooling systems.

It's true that BMW-801D-2 was limited at 3 min (not 5!) at 1.42ata. The engine in the captured plane was already defective were or damaged in test, big deal, what's so unlikely about that?

Neal, many fighters from different airforces had max throttle setting restricted at various moments, mostly because of poor quality fuel or lack of spare parts. Nothing special about that.

hop2002
03-06-2004, 08:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>When it comes the the tactical trials the AFDU performed with their captured A-3, it should be noted that the plane was either in bad shape or was badly serviced : compared to all other tests, it`s performance was sub-par on the same boost settings : The British managed to get 380-390 mph out of it during the tests at 1.42ata, whereas in all other tests it clocked at around 415mph. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the British had problems with it at high altitude, at lower altitudes it was pretty close to what you'd expect for 1.42 ata, bearing in mind it couldn't safely run at 1.42 ata.

I know there was some modificiation to the supercharger at a later date, which presumably improved altitude performance.

The RAF achieved 329 mph at 0 ft with Faber's 190 A3. The US Navy achieved 334 mph with their captured A5 at 1.42 ata, the USAAF got 341 at sea level with a G3 with only 2 cannon, no mgs, and lighter than the A3.

The USN A5 was stripped and repainted before the tests.

The big difference in speed is because the British found a much lower critical altitude on their A3.

the British found peak speed was 392 mph at 17,250 ft. The USN got 386 mph at 15,000ft and 401 at 20,000ft, so the British figure fits in nicely with that. However, the British found the plane slowed down above 18,000ft, tests of later 190s showed critical altitudes of around 22,000ft+ iirc.

Phillipe Willaume, (ask Isegrim http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) said
"so for all intend and purpose the top speed of a FW 190 A in late summer 42 is probably about 390- 400 mph at 6400 m with start und notlesitung."

Now the British test found 392 at about 5,300m, so if the critical alt had increased to Willaume's 6400m, the speed would have been considerably more.

The British figures fit very well up to 18,000ft or so with a fully rated 1.42 ata A4, but not over that. I think that's due mainly to the improved supercharger fitted to later A4s/A5s.

Note that Willaume said based on Reichlin and Messerschimdt tests, a fully rated 190 A4 should do 332 - 335 mph at sea level, the RAF found 329 mph at sea level with their A3, which is all of 3 mph slower than expected.

I believe Butch said even the Rechlin tests found figures bellow those FW had claimed.

hop2002
03-06-2004, 08:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Brits had taken a restrictor plate out to get it to run at 1.42ata. Why it was there... either the overheat problems hadn't been solved at the time or the engine was worn and derated for that. I bet Butch knows.

If the latter was the case then it leaves the LW sending planes out beyond their borders in that condition. As in, where was that plane captured? Why send a pilot in a clapped out plane over enemy territory? Hmmmmm? And if there wasn't a problem then why the restrictor plate? Was that NASCAR?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ALL the 190 A3s were derated. None of the A5s were. Everyone who's researched this in depth agrees with that (Butch especially). There is some dispute about the A4, but I think most agree the early A4s were derated, the later ones not.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>BMW-801 and Jumo213 were the only engines in the world at that time that could run at military power for 30min, most of them could be kept there for only 5 min. Both engines had special cooling systems.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A military power rating is just a rating below wep and above normal power. You can set it close to normal power, in which case it can be maintained for a long time, or close to wep, in which case it's maintained for a short time.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It's true that BMW-801D-2 was limited at 3 min (not 5!) at 1.42ata. The engine in the captured plane was already defective were or damaged in test, big deal, what's so unlikely about that?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, all the A3s were restricted in the same way. The engine simply couldn't run at 1.42 safely without overheating.

1.35 (or 1.3, I'm not 100% sure which) became the start and emergency rating in German use.

Magister__Ludi
03-06-2004, 08:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
ALL the 190 A3s were derated. None of the A5s were. Everyone who's researched this in depth agrees with that (Butch especially). There is some dispute about the A4, but I think most agree the early A4s were derated, the later ones not.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>BMW-801 and Jumo213 were the only engines in the world at that time that could run at military power for 30min, most of them could be kept there for only 5 min. Both engines had special cooling systems.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A military power rating is just a rating below wep and above normal power. You can set it close to normal power, in which case it can be maintained for a long time, or close to wep, in which case it's maintained for a short time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


WOWhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif, great explanation hop http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
1.42ata was emergency rating, 1.32ata military (climb and combat), 1.20 normal rating; apply your magnificent explanation


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It's true that BMW-801D-2 was limited at 3 min (not 5!) at 1.42ata. The engine in the captured plane was already defective were or damaged in test, big deal, what's so unlikely about that?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, all the A3s were restricted in the same way. The engine simply couldn't run at 1.42 safely without overheating.

1.35 (or 1.3, I'm not 100% sure which) became the start and emergency rating in German use.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


You seem very sure about that. How about posting a document stating that all squads imposed such a restriction for A3. I understand that you'll never provide one for A4, so don't bother with it.

FW190fan
03-06-2004, 08:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:

The USN A5 was stripped and repainted before the tests.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The A-5 in the Navy test was damaged (probably from a crash landing) and repaired. It was also "ballasted with load weights" to represent combat loads as indicated in a captured FW manual.

Both the British and the US mentioned problems with the fouling of the Bosch spark plugs which lead to a rough running of the engines at times. Not at all uncommon for captured aircraft.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

03-06-2004, 09:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
I know there was some modificiation to the supercharger at a later date, which presumably improved altitude performance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What modification..? Never heard of a basic 801D sc. mod., unless of you consider experimental turbocharged versions etc..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
-The RAF achieved 329 mph at 0 ft with Faber's 190 A3.
-The US Navy achieved 334 mph with their captured A5 at 1.42 ata,
-the USAAF got 341 at sea level with a G3 with only 2 cannon, no mgs, and lighter than the A3.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Haven`t you forgotten something to add..?

The USAAF/USN plane was the same..
In USN test, they loaded it up to normal A-5 standards, even though a mere 100 kg difference makes next to zero difference in speed below RA. The big difference is, which the report clearly notes, that only 2 min speed runs were done, "during which the maximum level speed was not developed". In other words, the USN did not reach the full max speed.

Personally, I can`t find any reference to British tests at 1.42ata. The AFDU trials state at 2000 ft, the A-3 was 7-8mph faster than the Spit 9F, 1.42ata/+15lbs. The Spit does 330 at that level, so the A-3 was around 338 mph in Brit tests.

So, at same conditions :

Brit record show : ~337
FW record show : 360 mph
USAAF records show : 352 mph

The Brit one is the slowest, by far.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The USN A5 was stripped and repainted before the tests.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably that`s why it`s performance was lower than in Germany. Allies used larger grained paint than Germans..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The big difference in speed is because the British found a much lower critical altitude on their A3.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So then it must be worser drag on Brit A-3. Higher drag slows the plane down, strips it of ram air, hence the lower FTH.
Ie. compare 109G-2 vs. G-6, with same supercharger.. G-6 has 400m lower FTH. Just because drag is higher.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Now the British test found 392 at about 5,300m, so if the critical alt had increased to Willaume's 6400m, the speed would have been considerably more.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would or would not... it`s a lot slower than in any other test, Hop.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The British figures fit very well up to 18,000ft or so with a fully rated 1.42 ata A4, but not over that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nah, since when 329 is the same thing as 350mph ? That`s a whole 20mph difference.

Would you say the same in case of JL 165, heh? Doubt it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I think that's due mainly to the improved supercharger fitted to later A4s/A5s.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pray enlighten me in the details. As for your qoutes... forgive me I don`t take them.. you are qouting.. hm.. in a very flexible manner, sometimes.

hop2002
03-06-2004, 11:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>WOW, great explanation hop
1.42ata was emergency rating, 1.32ata military (climb and combat), 1.20 normal rating; apply your magnificent explanation
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't see what you're getting at. You first claimed:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>BMW-801 and Jumo213 were the only engines in the world at that time that could run at military power for 30min, most of them could be kept there for only 5 min<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It doesn't fit anything in this thread, or in real life.

For most planes, 5 mins is an emergency rating, military power is a lower rating than that. The Spit IX had a "military" rating (called the climb rating) of 12 lbs boost, which could be maintained for 1 hour.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You seem very sure about that. How about posting a document stating that all squads imposed such a restriction for A3. I understand that you'll never provide one for A4, so don't bother with it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't have any of the primary docs, other than to note the British test of the 3 says:

"There are indications the engine of this aircraft is derated, and this is supported by the pilot's instruction card found in the cockpit, and by information obtained from prisoners of war."

Butch says he's seen the technical order banning 1.42 ata, Willaume I should think has the report. Perhaps you could ask them?

Frankly I'm suprised you're even disputing it, it's very common knowledge, even Isegrim admits it. In fact, to quote Isegrim:

"It was a captured 190A-3, with it`s engine limited to 1.35ata and 2450 RPM, ie. it`s German operational limits of that 190A-3 subtype."

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What modification..? Never heard of a basic 801D sc. mod., unless of you consider experimental turbocharged versions etc..
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to Butch it was modified sometime during A4 or A5 production, not sure which. Willaume says the compressor was modified in early 1943.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In USN test, they loaded it up to normal A-5 standards, even though a mere 100 kg difference makes next to zero difference in speed below RA. The big difference is, which the report clearly notes, that only 2 min speed runs were done, "during which the maximum level speed was not developed". In other words, the USN did not reach the full max speed.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe that's true for the tests of Faber's A3 as well. I shouldn't think it makes much difference though, the last couple of minutes add only a few mph. It's worth noting that the tests against Faber's 190 used 2 minutes speed runs for ALL the planes,Spits, Typhoons, Mustangs etc.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Personally, I can`t find any reference to British tests at 1.42ata. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_282_1078596128.jpg

It says 1.42 ata was used quite clearly.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The AFDU trials state at 2000 ft, the A-3 was 7-8mph faster than the Spit 9F, 1.42ata/+15lbs. The Spit does 330 at that level, so the A-3 was around 338 mph in Brit tests<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you Isegrim? I've argued the same thing before with Isegrim, and he refuses to see that AFDU tests are not performance tests, they're comparison tests. They do not give exact performance numbers.

Compare the same report's test of the Typhoon vs Fw 190:

At 2000ft, they found that "there was little to choose between the aircraft in speed, the Typhoon being slightly faster".

The report says the Typhoon was tested at 3700rpm, 7lbs boost.

At 3700rpm,7lbs boost, the A&AEE in 1942 found the Typhoon did 349.5 mph at 2000ft.

http://home.epix.net/~cap14/typhoon.html

That means according to the report, the 190 A3 did around 345 at 2,000ft.

The USN test found 334 at 200ft, 357 at 5,000ft. 345 at 2,000ft fits in pretty well.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So, at same conditions :

Brit record show : ~337
FW record show : 360 mph
USAAF records show : 352 mph
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At what conditions?

British tests done for 2 mins on Faber's A3 show 329 mph at sea level. USN tests done for 2 mins show 334 at 200ft, for a cleaned up A5 with only 2 cannon.

BTW, if you want to argue that with longer speed runs the 190 would gain extra speed, that's true for the Mustang, pits, Typhoon and P-38 it was compared against, which also had 2 min speed runs. Of course, if you want to say the 190 had much slower acceleration than any of the others, you might have a point, but I should think 190 acceleration was pretty average.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So then it must be worser drag on Brit A-3. Higher drag slows the plane down, strips it of ram air, hence the lower FTH.
Ie. compare 109G-2 vs. G-6, with same supercharger.. G-6 has 400m lower FTH. Just because drag is higher.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which wouldn't explain the similar speeds at lower altitudes. Anyway, a diference of 4,000ft or so in FTH simply because of drag is preposterous.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Would or would not... it`s a lot slower than in any other test, Hop.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, at those altitudes the speed is about right. At higher altitudes it's wrong, but the change in the supercharger could easily account for that.

Note that the tests you are comparing Faber's A3 against are later A5s, or even G3s (which I think was based on the A6)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Nah, since when 329 is the same thing as 350mph ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who got 350 in an A3 or A4? AFAIK, 350 refers to Focke Wulfe's own tests of an A5, which had extensive preperation, ie wings filled and polished etc.

The US test of an A5 under similar conditions gave 334 at 200ft, the USAAF test of a G3 with 2 cannon and no mgs gave 341 at 0 ft. Note that the USAAF test used longer speed runs than the British and USN's 2 minutes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> think that's due mainly to the improved supercharger fitted to later A4s/A5s.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Pray enlighten me in the details. As for your qoutes... forgive me I don`t take them.. you are qouting.. hm.. in a very flexible manner, sometimes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isegrim, I quote people. I can't help if you don't like that, and in the recent thread at AH, Butch came along and supported what I'd quoted him saying, and not your interpretations.

Now, the exact quote from Butch:

"Not so sure as there was a change in supercharger design at some time during the A5 production, which did not change the engine designation..."

and from Willaume:

"Then the the compressor was improved and the exhasut modified
(early 43)"

I don't know the nature of the supercharger changes, and wether it would have improved speed across the range, increased critical alt etc, but it certainly could be responsible for the change in critical alt.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
03-06-2004, 01:54 PM
Salute

Actually there are several errors being propounded here:

First of all, the 190A3 Wrk # 313 of Oblt. Anton Faber which was tested initially was not tested higher than 1.31 ata, due to the fact that Faber told them it was not cleared for higher.

That is this aircraft:

http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/jan/Faber-1y.jpg

There were a number of other aircraft captured in perfect condition subsequent to that plane, including A4's and A5's. The main ones were:


FW Otto Bechtold landed this 190A4 Wrk # 7155 at West Malling in perfect condition:

http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/jan/PE882-8y.jpg


190A5 Wrk # 2596 was also landed in perfect condition:

http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/jan/PN999-1y.jpg


These aircraft were tested to 1.42 atas, and the A5 may have been tested to higher. By the time they were tested, this level had been approved by Luftwaffe.

The 'rough' running characteristics of the 190's tested by the British were also noted by the U.S. tested aircraft and this so called 'rough' running did not impair the aircraft's ability to perform and in fact was a standard characteristic of the engine, ie. it vibrated.


The USAAF also captured a number of 190's in perfect condition, including:

Fw190G-3, Wrk # 160057

http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/capt-luft/fw190/fw190a4-cee%20no%202900.jpg

Fw190G-8, Wrk # 181550

http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/capt-luft/bf110/us181550.jpg

There was also an A5 which was tested in the US and whose Wrk # cannot be determined definitely:

http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/capt-luft/bf110/us150051-02.jpg

Another F8 whose number cannot be determined:

http://www.luftwaffe-experten.co.uk/jan/FE-116x.jpg


All of these aircraft were captured in the Mediteranean, and two or three were shipped to the U.S.

---------

There are also quite a few other 190's which were captured by both the British and USAAF in less pritine condition and which were used as parts aircraft and which were not tested.

[This message was edited by RAF74BuzzsawXO on Sat March 06 2004 at 01:03 PM.]

VW-IceFire
03-06-2004, 01:59 PM
Someone said the Spit shakes alot when firing? Thats probably not too far off from the truth. I've read some stuff about how with one cannon jammed the Spitfire becamse difficult to aim at a target because the other cannon would kick it around quite a bit.

I don't think Spitfire's were as stable for gunnery as the Typhoon and Tempest were noted for being.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

hop2002
03-06-2004, 02:13 PM
Buzzsaw, Faber's 190 was tested at 1.42ata, despite being derated. You can see it in the page I posted above, which is from the test of Faber's plane, and the A&AEE did performance tests on it at 1.42 ata, 2700 rpm, and 1.35 ata, 2450 rpm.

The exact text from the report:

35. The allround performance of the Fw.190 is good. Only brief performance trials have been carried out and the figures obtained give a maximum speed of approximately 390 mph true, 1.42 ata boost, 2700 rpm at the maximum power altitude of about 18,000ft. All flights at maximum power were carried out for a duration of 2 minutes only

36. There are indications the engine of this aircraft is derated, and this is supported by the pilot's instruction card found in the cockpit, and by information obtained from prisoners of war. Futher performance tests and engine investigations are to be carried out by the R.A.E and more definite information will then be available.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_282_1078607471.jpg

RAF74_Buzzsaw
03-06-2004, 02:17 PM
Salute

Here's a fairly complete list of the aircraft captured and their eventual fate.

British

AIR FIGHTING DEVELOPMENT UNIT

AE479 - Messerschmitt Bf109E-3 - W.Nr.1304 - "White 1" of JG76 - damaged during forced landing in the US

AW177 - Heinkel He111H-1 - W.Nr.6853 - 1H+EN of II./KG26 - crashed November 1943

AX772 - Messerschmitt Bf110C-5 - W.Nr.2177 - 5F+CM of 4.(F)14 - scrapped November 1947

AX774 - possible Bf110C-5, coded 2N+EP?

AX919 - Junkers Ju88A-1 - W.Nr.7036 - 9K+HL of I./KG51 - used for spares

BV207 - Gotha Go145B - W.Nr.1115 - SM+NQ of Stab/JG27 - SoC April 1942

EE205 - Junkers Ju88A-5 - W.Nr.3457 - 4D+DL of I./KG30 - scrapped early 1948

ES906 - Messerschmitt Bf109F-2 - W.Nr.12764 - ? of 2./JG26 - SoC October 1941

MP499 - Focke-Wulf Fw190A-3 - W.Nr.313 - single chevron of III./JG2 - SoC September 1943

PE822 - Focke-Wulf Fw190A-4/U8 - W.Nr.7155 - H+ of II./SKG10 - crashed October 1944

PJ876 - Junkers Ju88R-1 - W.Nr.360043 - D5+EV of IV./NJG3 - static display RAF Museum @ Hendon

PM679 - Focke-Wulf Fw190A-4/U8 - W.Nr.5843 - "Red 9" of I./SKG10 - used for spares July 1944

PN999 - Focke-Wulf Fw190A-5/U8 - W.Nr.2596 - "White 6" of I./SKG10 - despatched to unknown destination July 1946

TF209 - Messerschmitt Me410A-3 - W.Nr.10259 - F6+OK of 2(F)/122

TP190 - Junkers Ju88G-1 - W.Nr.712273 - 4R+UR of III./NJG2 - scapped at Farnborough after October 1945

TP814 - Messerschmitt Bf109G-6/U2 - W.Nr.412951 - "White 16" of I./JG301 - crashed November 1944

TS439 - Heinkel He177A-5/R6 - W.Nr.550062 - F8+AP of II./KG40 - shipped to US to become FE-2100, fate unknown

unknown - Arado Ar234B - W.Nr.140173 - F1+MT of III./KG76 - fate unknown

SL538 - Gotha Go242 - W.Nr.unknown - unknown - unknown

unknown - Junkers Ju87B-1 - W.Nr.087/5600 - S2+LM of II./St G77 - noted on Farnborough scrap area December 1946


ENEMY AIRCRAFT FLIGHT

DG200 - Messerschmitt Bf109E-3 - W.Nr.4101 - "Black 12" of I./JG51 - on static display at RAF Museum, Hendon

HM509 - Junkers Ju88A-6 - W.Nr.6073 - M2+MK of KuFlGr.106 - damaged in landing accident May 1944

HX360 - Junkers Ju88A-5 - W.Nr.6214 - V4+GS of III./KG1 - used for spares

NF754 - Focke-Wulf Fw190A - W.Nr.unknown - unknown unit - fate unknown

NF755 - Focke-Wulf Fw190A - W.Nr.unknown - unknown unit - fate unknown

NF756 - Henschel Hs129B-1 - W.Nr.0297 - unknown code of I./SG2 - struck of charge August 1947

NN644 - Messerschmitt Bf109F-4 - W.Nr.7232 - "White 11" of IV./JG26 - fate unknown

RN228 - Messerschmitt Bf109G-2/trop - W.Nr.10639 - "Black 6" of III./JG77 - restored to flying condition, but now on static display at RAF Museum, Hendon

RN231 - Messerschmitt Me210 - W.Nr.unknown - unknown unit - possible not shipped to UK

TS472 - Junkers Ju88S-1 - W.Nr.140604 - radio code RF+MT of unknown unit - scrapped post-war

VD364 - Messerschmitt Bf109G-14/U4 - W.Nr.3114 or 2484? - unknown unit - struck of charge after landing accident May 1945

VX101 - Messerschmitt Bf109G-6/trop - W.Nr.unknown - unknown unit - used for spares after landing accident in May 1944

Air Fighting Development Unit (AFDU) & Associated Units
VD358 - Messerschmitt Bf109G-14/U4 - W.Nr.413598 - unknown unit - fate obscure


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance Command Communication Squadron (MCCS)


AW167 - Messerschmitt Bf108B-1 - W.Nr.370114 - former D-IJHW - survives today, was D-ESBH

DK280 - Messerschmitt Bf108B-1 - W.Nr.2039 - former G-AFRN - struck off charge August 1944

ES955 - Messerschmitt Bf108B-1 - W.Nr.1660 - former G-AFZO - crashed September 1980


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Telecommunications Flying Unit (TFU)
DR626 - Bucker Bu131B - W.Nr.4477 - coded GD+EG of Luftdienst - struck off charge November 1941


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Transport Auxillary (ATA)
DX177 - Focke-Wulf Fw200A-02 Condor - W.Nr.2984 - former OY-DAM & G-AGAY - scrapped January 1942


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Norwegian Navy Flight
BV184 - Heinkel He115A-2 - W.Nr.unknown - former 56 of Marinens Flyvevaesens - struck off charge May 1942

BV185 - Heinkel He115A-2 - W.Nr.unknown - former 58 of Marinens Flyvevaesens - struck off charge April 1942

BV186 - Heinkel He115A-2 - W.Nr.unknown - former 52 of Marinens Flyvevaesens - scrapped December 1942

BV187 - Heinkel He115A-2 - W.Nr.unknown - former 64 of Marinens Flyvevaesens - struck off charge April 1942

-------------------------

Sicily & Italy
No.601 Squadron - Messerschmitt Me410A - W.Nr.263 - coded 2N+HT of ZG76 - crashed October 1943


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iraq
HK846 - Messerschmitt Bf110D - W.Nr.4035 - coded in Iraqi markings of II./ZG76 - nicknamed "Belle of Berlin" - damaged beyond repair in belly landing

-----------------


USAF

Wright Field

EB-100 - Messerschmitt Bf109F-4 - W.Nr.7640 - unknown code or unit - fate unknown

EB-101 - Focke-Wulf Fw190A-3 - W.Nr.unknown - unknown code or unit - fate unknown, might have become FE-497

EB-102 - Messerschmitt Bf109G-6/trop - W.Nr.16416 - coded "White 9" of unknown unit - scrapped October 1944

-------------

Anacostia Field

CEE No.2900 - Focke-Wulf Fw190A-4 - W.Nr.160057 - fate unknown

-------------

Tested in NW Europe:


???? - Heinkel He177A-5 - W.Nr.550256 - factory coded GP+RZ - crashed Orly, France en-route to the US.

???? - Fieseler Fi156 Storch - W.Nr.unknown - MS500 licence-built example, presented to Dwight Eisenhower. Fate unknown

???? - Focke-Wulf Fw190F-9/R1 - W.Nr.347763 - flown to the UK in May 1945 by pilots of 56th Fighter Group. Engine seized

???? - Focke-Wulf Fw190F - unknown - coded 1-1-45 on fin and painted overall red with US markings of 404th FG

???? - Focke-Wulf Fw190A-8 - W.Nr.unknown - operated by 356th FS of 354th FG

???? - Messerschmitt Bf108 - W.Nr.unknown - identified GA-2 and may have become FE-4610

C92 - Fieseler Fi156 - W.Nr.unknown - US 8th & 9th AAF after May 1945

C903 - Fieseler Fi156 - W.Nr.unknown - US 8th & 9th AAF after May 1945. Condemned to scrap August 1945

C5904 - Fieseler Fi156 - W.Nr.unknown - US 8th & 9th AAF after May 1945. Excluded from inventory December 1945

C5905 - Fieseler Fi156 - W.Nr.unknown - US 8th & 9th AAF after May 1945. Excluded from inventory December 1945

CA3 - Focke-Wulf Fw190 - W.Nr.unknown - written off November 1945

CA11 - Focke-Wulf Fw190 - W.Nr.unknown - condemned to scrap July 1945

CA45 - Focke-Wulf Fw190 - W.Nr.unknown - condemned to scrap July 1945

C901 - Klemm Kl35 - W.Nr.unknown - condemned to scrap April 1945

???? - Heinkel He111H-20 - W.Nr.701152 - coded HV by 61st Fighter Squadron and shipped to the UK. On static display at RAF Museum, Hendon

-----------

Tested in Med


???? - Messerschmitt Bf109G-2/R2 - W.Nr.14329 or 14629 - coded "14" of 2(H)14 - recoded X8-7 of 87th FS 79th FG. Shipped to US and used for structural tests and then scrapped.

???? - Focke-Wulf Fw190 - W.Nr.160057 - made airworthy by 85th FS, possible shipped to US Navy Anacosta

???? - Focke-Wulf Fw190 - W.Nr.181550 - made airworthy by 85th FS, possible shipped to US Navy Anacosta

???? - Junkers Ju88A-4 - W.Nr.4300227? - made airworthy by 86th FS. Flown to the US to become FE-1599

???? - Messerschmitt Me410A - W.Nr.263 - coded 2N+HT of ZG76 - previous with 601.Squadron RAF. Still in RAF markings during first flight with 12th BG. Crashed

???? - Bucker Bu181 - W.Nr.unknown - US unit unknown

???? - Junkers Ju87B - W.Nr.unknown - US unit unknown

???? - Junkers Ju188A - W.Nr.0590 - coded F8+CM of KG40 - planned shipment to Wright Field, but fate unknown

???? - Messerschmitt Bf108 - W.Nr.2246 - registered in US as N108HP

???? - Messerschmitt Bf109G-6 - W.Nr.166133 - Rumanian AF example, fate unknown

-----------------

Postwar Aircraft:


USA 1 - Messerschmitt Me262A - W.Nr.500443 - coded "Yellow 5" of unknown unit - not taken up by the US, shipped to the UK and then on to South Africa.

USA 2 - Messerschmitt Me262B-1a/U1 - W.Nr.110306 - coded "Red 6" of IV./NJG11 - also allocated 999 in the Watson Whizzer series. Shipped to the US and allocated FE-610

USA 3 - Messerschmitt Me262B-1b - W.Nr.110165 - unknown code and unit - shipped to the US and allocated BuAer.No.121441

USA 4 - Messerschmitt Me262B-1/U1 - W.Nr.110635 - coded "Red 10" of IV./NJG11 - not handed over to Col.Watson

USA 5 - Arado Ar234B - W.Nr.140489 - unknown code and unit - allocated either 202 or 303 and shipped to the US

USA 6 - Arado Ar234B - W.Nr.unknown - unknown code and unit - no further details

USA 7 - Arado Ar234B - W.Nr.unknown - unknown code and unit - no further details

USA 8 - Heinkel He219A-0 - W.Nr.210903 - factory coded SP+CR - shipped to the US and allocated FE-612

USA 9 - Heinkel He219A-2 - W.Nr.290060 - factory coded CS+QG - shipped to the US and allocated FE-613

USA 10 - Heinkel He219A - W.Nr.290202 - unknown code - shipped to the US and allocated FE-614. In storage at NASM Silver Hill

USA 11 - Focke-Wulf Ta152H-0 - W.Nr.150003 - shipped to the US and allocated FE-112. In storage at NASM Silver Hill

USA 12 - Focke-Wulf Fw190D-9 - W.Nr.unknown - shipped to the US and allocated either FE-119 or FE-120

USA 13 - Focke-Wulf Fw190D-9 - W.Nr.401392 - coded "Black 5" of JG26 - shipped to the US and allocated FE-121

USA 14 - Focke-Wulf Fw190D-13 - W.Nr.836017 - coded "Yellow 10" of JG26 - shipped to the US and allocated FE-118. On static display at Fighter Museum, Arizona

USA 15 - Focke-Wulf Fw190D-9 - W.Nr.500618 - shipped to the US and allocated either FE-120 or FE-119

USA 16, USA 17, USA 18, USA 19 - possible allocation to Me410's

USA 20 - untraced

USA 21 - Junkers Ju88G-6 - W.Nr.unknown - shipped to the US and allocated FE-611

USA 022 - Junkers Ju290A-4 - W.Nr.110196 - factory coded PI+PS - shipped to the US and allocated FE-3400

USA 23 to USA 39 - untraced

USA 40 - Arado Ar234B-2 - W.Nr.140311 - unknown code of II./KG76 - allocated Watson Whizzer No.404 and later allocated FE-1011

USA 41 to USA 49 - untraced

USA 50 - Arado Ar234B-2 - W.Nr.140312 - unknown code of II./KG76 - shipped to the US and allocated FE-1010

-------------

Patuxent River, Postwar US trials:

121441 - Messerschmitt Me262B-1b - W.Nr.110165 - possible Watson Whizzer 101. Noted scrapped November 1946

121442 - Messerschmitt Me262A-1a - W.Nr.501232 - previous Watson Whizzer 111 and test flown a number of time. On static display at USAF Museum, Ohio

121443 - Messerschmitt Me262A - W.Nr.unknown - previous Watson Whizzer 222 but crashed on first flight and stricken off

121444 - Messerschmitt Me262A - W.Nr.unknown - previous Watson Whizzer 333. Scrapped circa 1946/47

121445 - Arado Ar234B - W.Nr.unknown - previous Watson Whizzer 202. Not test flown due to lack of spares and scrapped circa 1946/47

121446 - Arado Ar234B - W.Nr.unknown - previous Watson Whizzer 303. Not test flown due to lack of spares and scrapped circa 1946/47

121447 - Dornier Do335A-02 - W.Nr.240102 - coded VG+PH - in storage at NASM Silver Hill

121448 - Messerschmitt Me262B - W.Nr.110639 - previous Watson Whizzer 555. On static display at NAS Willow Grove

=-----------------

Freeman Field Postwar tests:


FE-1/T2-1 - Bachem Ba349B Natter - W.Nr.unknown - on static display at NASM Silver Hill

FE-7/T2-7 - Horten Ho IIIh - W.Nr.unknown - in storage at NASM Silver Hill?

FE-106 - Junkers Ju88 - W.Nr.unknown - possible became FE-1598 or FE-1599

FE-107/T2-107 - Messerschmitt Me262A-1a - W.Nr.unknown - possible engineless example

FE-108 - Messerschmitt Me262 - W.Nr.unknown - allocation only, delivered to US Navy

FE-109 - Messerschmitt Me262 - W.Nr.unknown - allocation only, delivered to US Navy

FE-110/T2-110 - Messerschmitt Me262A-1a - W.Nr.unknown - previous Watson Whizzer 777. Possible W.Nr.113367. Fate unknown

FE-111/T2-111 - Messerschmitt Me262A-1a - W.Nr.500491 - previous Watson Whizzer 888. On static display at NASM Washington DC

FE-112/T2-112 - Focke-Wulf (Tank) Ta152H-0 - W.Nr/150020 - possible "6" of JG301 - under restoration at NASM Silver Hill

FE-113 - Focke-Wulf Fw190F - W.Nr.unknown - coded "10" - damaged in landing accident in the US

FE-114 - Focke-Wulf Fw190F - W.Nr.unknown - fate unknown

FE-115 - Focke-Wulf Fw190F - W.Nr.unknown - fate unknown

FE-116/T2-116 - Focke-Wulf Fw190F-8 - W.Nr.unknown - code & unit unknown - scrapped circa 1946

FE-117 - Focke-Wulf Fw190F-8/R1 - W.Nr.931884 - coded "Yellow 10" of I./SG2 - on static display at NASM Silver Hill

FE-118/T2-118 - Focke-Wulf Fw190D-13 - W.Nr.836017 - coded "Yellow 10" of I./JG26 - on static diaplay at Champlains Fighter Museum, Arizona

FE-119/T2-119 - Focke-Wulf Fw190D-9 - W.Nr.211016 - coded "White 14" of II./JG26 - shipped to the US but crashed September 1945

FE-120/T2-120 - Focke-Wulf Fw190D-9 - W.Nr.601088 - surrendered to the RAF and allocated USA 12 or USA 15. Shipped to the US and test flown anumber of time. On static display at USAF Museum, Wright-Patterson AFB

FE-121/T2-121 - Focke-Wulf Fw190D-9 - W.Nr.401392 - coded "Black 5" of JG26 - surrendered to the RAF abd allocated USA 13. Scrapped circa 1946

FE-122/T2-122 - Messerschmitt Bf109G-10/U4 - W.Nr.unknown - coded "Yellow 13" - on static display at Planes of Fame Museum, Chino

FE-123/T2-123 - Messerschmitt Bf109K-4 - W.Nr.unknown - code & unit unknown - fate unknown

FE-124/T2-124 - Messerschmitt Bf109G-14 - W.Nr.610937 - static display at Evergreen Museum

FE-125/T2-125 - Focke-Wulf Fw190G-3 - W.Nr.160016 - factory coded DN+FP - previous EB-104, fate unknown

FE-489/T2-489 - Heinkel He162A-2 - W.Nr.120077 - static display Palnes of Fame museum

FE-490/T2-490 - Horton Ho229V-3 - W.Nr.unknown - in storage NASM Silver Hill

FE-493/T2-493 - Heinkel He162A-1 - W.Nr.unknown - possible W.Nr.120067 "White 7", fate unknown

FE-494/T2-494 - Heinke He162A-2 - W.Nr.120017 - possible "Yellow 6" of JG1 and used as source of spares for T2-489. Fate unknown

FE-495/T2-495 - Messerschmitt Me163B-1a - W.Nr.unknown - scrapped circa 1950

FE-496/T2-496 - Messerschmitt Bf109G-6 - W.Nr.160163 - code & unit unknown - on static display at NASM, Washington

FE-497/T2-497 - Focke-Wulf Fw190A-3 - W.Nr.unknown - possible EB-101

FE-499/T2-499 - Messerschmitt Me410A-2/U1 - W.Nr.10018 - coded F6+WK of 2(F)./122 - previous EB-103, in storage at NASM Silver Hill

FE-500/T2-500 - Messerschmitt Me163B-1a - W.Nr.191301 - static display NASM Silver Hill

FE-501/T2-501 - Messerschmitt Me163B-1a - W.Nr.unknown - used for spare parts on FE-500

FE-502/T2-502 - Messerschmitt Me163B-1a - W.Nr.unknown - used for spare parts on FE-500

FE-503/T2-503 - Messerschmitt Me163B-1a - W.nr.unknown - fate unknown

FE-504/T2-504 - Heinkel He162A-2 - W.Nr.120230 - on static display NASM Silver Hill

FE-505/T2-505 - Blohm und Voss Bv155V-2 - W.Nr.unknown - in storage NASM Silver Hill

FE-610/T2-610 - Messerschmitt Me262B-1a/U1 - W.nr.110306 - surrendered to RAF and allocated USA 2 then Watson Whizzer 999. Scrapped circa 1950

FE-611/T2-611 - Junkers Ju88G-6 - W.Nr.unknown - surrendered to RAF and allocated USA 21. Fate unknown

FE-612/T2-612 - Heinkel He219A-0 - W.Nr.210913 - surrendered to RAF and allocated USA 8. Shipped to US and scrapped circa 1946/47

FE-613/T2-613 - Heinkel He219A - W.Nr.290060 - factory code CS+QG - surrendered to RAF and allocated USA 9. Shipped to US and scrapped circa 1946/47

FE-614/T2-614 - Heinkel He219A - W.Nr.290202 - surrendered to RAF and allocated USA 10. Shipped to US and in storage at NASM Silver Hill

T2-711 - Messerschmitt Me262A-1a - W.Nr.111711 - crashed August 1946

FE-1010 - Arado Ar234B-2 - W.Nr.140312 - in storage NASM Silver Hill

FE-1011 - Arado Ar234B-2 - W.Nr.140311 - surrendered to RAF and allocated USA 40. Shipped to US and scrapped cira 1946/47

FE-1597/T2-1597 - Junkers Ju188D-2 - W.Nr.150245 - surrendered to RAF and allocated Air Min 35. Shipped to the US and final fate not known

FE-1598 - Junkers Ju88D-1/trop - W.Nr.430650 - ex HK959 of RAF Middle East - on static display in US

FE-1599 - Junkers Ju88A-4 - W.Nr.4300227? - captured at Foggia, Italy, shipped to the US - used for spare parts and scrapped

FE-1600/T2-1600 - Heinkel He111H-16 - W.Nr.8433 - coded 2B+DC and "Red 4" - shipped to the US. Fate ubknown

FE-1948 - Arado Ar234B - possible erroneous report

FE-2000/T2-2000 - Dornier Do17Z - W.Nr.unknown - fate unknown

FE-2100/T2-2100 - Heinkel He177A-5 - W.Nr.550062 - ex-RAF example coded TS439. Shipped to the US and allocated FE-2100. Fate unknown

FE-2600/T2-2600 - DFS108-49 Grunau Baby - W.Nr.031016 - static display NASM Silver Hill

FE-2601/T2-2601 - DFS108-49 Grunau Baby? - W.Nr.unknown - possible W.Nr.030240, registered in US

FE-2700/T2-2700 - Gotha Go242B-4 - W.Nr.unknown - fate unknown

FE-3400/T2-3400 - Junkers Ju290A-4 - W.Nr.110165 - coded A3+HB of KG200 - surrendered to RAF and allocated USA 022, then named "Alles Kaput". Flown to US, scrapped December 1946

FE-4010/T2-4010 - Junkers Ju388L-1 - W.Nr.560049 - unknown code or unit - in storage NASM Silver Hill

FE-4011 - untraced, possibily Me262A-1a/U3, W.Nr.500098

FE-4012 - Messerschmitt Me262A-1a/U3 - W.Nr.unknown - Watson Whizzer 444, static display at Planes of Fame, Chino

FE-4600/T2-4600 - Henschel Hs129B-a/R1 - W.Nr.unknown - earlier EB-105. Nose section survives today

FE-4610/T2-4610 - Messerschmitt Bf108B-1 - W.Nr.8378 - unknown code and unit - owned by Planes of Fame Museum

FE-4611/T2-4611 - Bucker Bu181 - W.Nr.unknown - in storage at NASM Silver Hill

FE-4612/T2-4612 - Bucker Bu181 - W.Nr.unknown - scrapped circa 1946

FE-4613/T2-4613 - Flettner Fl282V-23 - W.Nr.280023 - factory coded CI+TW - fate unknown

FE-4614/T2-4614 - Flettner Fl282V-12 - W.Nr.280008 - factory coded CJ+SF - recorded as sold in 1955

FE-4615/T2-4615 - Doblhoff WNF342V-4 - W.Nr.unknown - fate unknown

FE-4616/T2-4616 - Focke-Achelis Fa330A - W.Nr.unknown - fate unknown

FE-4617/T2-4617 - Focke-Achelis Fa330A - W.Nr.unknown - static display USAF Museum, Wright-Patterson AFB

FE-4618/T2-4618 - Focke-Achelis Fa330A - W.Nr.unknown - crashed and lost at sea

FE-5004/T2-5004 - DFS 108-14 Schulgleiter SG38 - W.Nr.unknown - possible in storage NASM Silver Hill

FE-5005/T2-5005 - DFS 108-12 Schulgleiter SG38 - W.Nr.unknown - possible in storage NASM Silver Hill

FE-5038/T2-5038 - Focke-Achelis Fa330A - W.Nr.unknown - fate unknown

FE-5039/T2-5039 - Horten Ho IIIf - W.Nr.32 - in storage NASM Silver Hill

FE-5040/T2-5040 - Horten Ho VI V2 - W.Nr.34 - in storage NASM Silver Hill

FE-5041/T2-5041 - Horten Ho IIIh - W.Nr.31 - in storage NASM Silver Hill

RAF74_Buzzsaw
03-06-2004, 02:26 PM
Salute

Whether the 190A3 was tested at 1.42 atas or not, the fact is, that it was only briefly, and this aircraft was not the only 190 to be used in comparative tests. In fact the later A4's and A5's were used more often. And they were cleared.

FW190fan
03-06-2004, 04:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74BuzzsawXO:

this so called 'rough' running did not impair the aircraft's ability to perform and in fact was a standard characteristic of the engine, ie. it vibrated.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


"We had found that the BMW almost invariably fired the first time and emitted a smooth purr as it ran, such being the case on this particular morning."

- Eric Brown, commenting on the BMW801 in FW190A-4/U8 PE882.


Lt. Eberhard Burath describes having a cylinder head blown off by return fire from a B-17:

"At least they had provided me with an alibi by a hit in the engine, but the BMW801 continued to run smoothly even on 13 cylinders".

I don't think I would write off rough running and excessive vibration as a normal charachteristic of the engine.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

Koohullin
03-06-2004, 04:56 PM
Comments from soldiers, said they knew what a/c was around even if they could not seem them, for the LW a/c always sounded like they were out of tune, ie running rough.

It is all relative to what one is used to.

FW190fan
03-06-2004, 04:59 PM
My grandfather said the Japanese Zero sounded like an old washing machine.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

faustnik
03-06-2004, 06:27 PM
Buzzsaw,

As you seem to have a good handle on the tested captured aircraft. Do you think that the Spit VB 1941 with Merlin 45 should be able to outclimb the standard production 190A4 from sea level to 5,000 meters?

I still have need seen anything that would support this.

I understand the LF had great low level climb.

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=25)

RAF74_Buzzsaw
03-06-2004, 06:40 PM
Salute Faustnik

The standard Spitfire Vb, 1941 model with a Merlin 45 or 46 should not be able to outclimb a 190A4, or even a 190A3 with its derated engine. (at least not under 25,000 ft)

I have not tested the 190A4 in this sim for this particular patch, but I have the Spitfire.

There is nothing wrong with the Spitfire Vb 1941 climb in this patch.

Whether the 190A4 is off is another question.

My understanding, and I am writing from work so don't have the tests in front of me, is that the following were the approx. max. climbrates for the 190's.

A3 (1.33 ata) 3450 fpm
A4 (1.42 ata) 3800 fpm
A5 (1.65 ata) 4250 fpm

faustnik
03-06-2004, 06:46 PM
Thanks very much Buzzsaw. I think I have a handle on the situation now. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If the 190A4 in FB is not the same as those used on the channel front, I like to know that too. That would explain everything. If that is the case I would love to see a "Channel Front" 190A4 added to FB.

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=25)

[This message was edited by faustnik on Sat March 06 2004 at 06:02 PM.]

LStarosta
06-15-2007, 08:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood? Close this book forever and don't open anymore! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.spitfireaircraftco.com/images/Mvc_001s.jpg

I accept your apology, Mr. Maddox.

XyZspineZyX
06-16-2007, 05:55 AM
Way to dig up a corpse, Luke

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/knob.jpg


You know very well that the photo you provide is a wooden replica, not a Supermarine Spitfire or even a faithful reproduction. Saying the Spitfire was really made of wood is like saying the P-51D was made of wood because it had a plywood floor. I once saw a Statue of Liberty that was made from matchsticks...does this mean that the Statue of Liberty is wooden? You are a very naughty boy, both for the voodoo routine, and for tomfoolery.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/spitfire2.jpg


Nice try, but I accept your apology for trying to hoodwink anyone, you silly billy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif