PDA

View Full Version : How fast was the Typhoon ?



mynameisroland
06-18-2007, 07:16 AM
How fast was the Typhoon compared to its contemporaries at various altitudes? I have seen a chart compiled by Faustnik but from what I have read the Tyhpoon was faster than the Fw 190s it encountered in 42 and 43 according to RAF pilots accounts of them running them down in a tail chase. Is this a case of RAF pilots attacking with a height advantage or is it that the bomb rack on Fw 190s slowed them down dangeroursly?

Was there anything that was faster than the Typhoon at low altitudes when it was introduced and through 43 ?

mynameisroland
06-18-2007, 07:16 AM
How fast was the Typhoon compared to its contemporaries at various altitudes? I have seen a chart compiled by Faustnik but from what I have read the Tyhpoon was faster than the Fw 190s it encountered in 42 and 43 according to RAF pilots accounts of them running them down in a tail chase. Is this a case of RAF pilots attacking with a height advantage or is it that the bomb rack on Fw 190s slowed them down dangeroursly?

Was there anything that was faster than the Typhoon at low altitudes when it was introduced and through 43 ?

Ratsack
06-18-2007, 07:39 AM
Only the Spitfire XII, and with only about 100 of them built, I don't think it really counts.

However, the 1.65 ATA jabo versions of the FW 190 A-5 must've had a bit of poke below 3,000 feet. The questions are:

1. how much; and
2. when were they actually introduced?

cheers,
Ratsack

mynameisroland
06-18-2007, 07:41 AM
For the Fw 190 1.65 ATA you need to ask the question where were the used when they were introduced too, and when they were introduced wasnt the Typhoon running at 9lb instead or 7lb ?

Questions Questions Questions! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ImpStarDuece
06-18-2007, 07:51 AM
There are lots of reports of Typhoons running down FW 190s, but the raw numbers don't seems to credit it sometimes (with the FW 190 seemingly faster on paper).

As far as I can tell, there were two things that happened.

1. A change in the engine rating, from +6 lbs boost to +7 lbs in 1942 and then to +9 lbs in 1943 and enventually +11 lbs in 1944.

2. Incremental improvements in the Typhoon airframe which added up to 25 mph to top speed between 1942 and 1943.

These include:

Short ejection stacks: +10 mph
Internal rudder mass balance: +5-6 mph
Tail wheel doors: +2 mph
Cannon fairings: +1-2 mph
New walkway paint: +1 mph
Whip aerial: +1-2 mph
Bubble cannopy: +1-2 mph

Despite the fact that there is only one real Mk of Typhoon, the difference between a 1942 Typhoon IB at +7 lbs boost and an early 1943 Typhoon at +9 lbs is startling, both visually and in performance.

At the start of 1942, the Tyffie was doing 345 mph at sea level, 375 mph at 8,500 ft and 395 at 20,000 ft.

By the beginning of 1943, the Tyffie was doing
360 mph at sea level, 390 mph at 9,000 feet and 410 mph at 21,000 ft.

By the end of 1943, the same aircraft would be doing 365 at sea level, 400 mph at 9,000 feet and 417 mph at 21,000 feet.

mynameisroland
06-18-2007, 07:57 AM
How about comparative figures for the contemporary Fw 190 ?

ie would the Typhoon at the start of 43 be fast enought to catch a early 43 Fw 190 and so on.

JtD
06-18-2007, 01:20 PM
Fw was doing 350-355 mph at sea level from 1942 well into 1944.

Basically, the planes were on par speedwise, and it pretty much depended on the individual plane and the situation which one was faster. The tendency has been pointed out by ISD, the later in the war the larger the likelyhood of the Typhoon having the edge.

The Typhoon seems to enjoy a small advantage at FTH of 1st charger gear, which was somewhat higher than in the Fw, while the Fw had a small advantage at higher altitudes.

check this out (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/typhoon/typhoontest.html)

Xiolablu3
06-18-2007, 01:28 PM
Just what was it that made the Typhhon a mediocre fighter comapred to the Tempest and FW190?

I understand roll rate will help, but it cant just be that.

The Typhoon was seen as a mediocre fighter, whereas the FW190 and the Tempest were seen as as excellent fighters.

WHat made the difference?

faustnik
06-18-2007, 01:36 PM
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/1943_Speed_Compare_LowLevel.gif

I added in a jabo configured Fw190 with an Sc250. You can see that with a slight altitude advantage, the Tempest would be able to catch the 190 raider on the deck. It would certainly be in better position than the Spit V LF. Most of the Fw190s that the Typhoon would be intercepting would be jabos, right?

I used the 1942 Tempest because, when the Merlin 66 arrives, you have a Spitfire, and it's maneuvering advantates, that's practically as fast as the Typhoon at low level.

As far as I understand it, the Typhoon's very poor roll rate and high speed instability handicapped it as a fighter.

JtD
06-18-2007, 01:42 PM
The Typhoon lacked overall maneuverability. Combine the worst aspects of an A6M and a Fw 190 and you get the picture. Well, sort of. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

stathem
06-18-2007, 01:52 PM
I think the Typhoon was actually a reasonable turner; not as good as a Spit or 109 but better than a FW. But the appalling roll rate wouldn't actually allow it to get into turns as fast as a FW.

Faust, I know we all agree to discard the importance of the 2 Squadrons of Mk XII, but they were fairly busy against the tip and run raiders. Any chance of you sticking it's figures on your chart?

from JtD's link (http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-XII.html)

Good read that, btw (@ you Xiola)

faustnik
06-18-2007, 02:04 PM
Done. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Xiolablu3
06-18-2007, 02:05 PM
Nice read STathem, thanks mate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I have always wonder just WHY the RAF didnt produce more of the Griffon engined Spitfires?

They seem to be awesome beasts and yet priority was obviously given to the Merlin engined SPits.

Can you guys imagine full fleets of Spitfire XII's and XIV's from 1942 thru to 1945?

Was the Griffon engine much harder to produce? Was the performance gain just not seen as worth the trouble? Was the MkIX seen as 'good enough'?

EDIT: Nice job on the graph Faustnik http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

stathem
06-18-2007, 02:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Nice read STathem, thanks mate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I have always wonder just WHY the RAF didnt produce more of the Griffon engined Spitfires?

They seem to be awesome beasts and yet priority was obviously given to the Merlin engined SPits.

Can you guys imagine full fleets of Spitfire XII's and XIV's from 1942 thru to 1945?

Was the Griffon engine much harder to produce? Was the performance gain just not seen as worth the trouble? Was the MkIX seen as 'good enough'?

EDIT: Nice job on the graph Faustnik http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, it was tricky to produce but mainly it took time to sort it out with a two-stage blower, and without that, the XII was inferior to the MkIX at altitude, and he who has the height etc etc.

Cheers Faust!

luftluuver
06-18-2007, 02:17 PM
Because they were too busy producing Merlin Spits.

Just like the Germans who kept producing 109s when there was better fighters being produced. Quantity over quality.

faustnik
06-18-2007, 02:19 PM
Well, the Merlin 66 was very good at low level (and all altitudes) too. There is very little difference between the IX and the VII.

VW-IceFire
06-18-2007, 03:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Just what was it that made the Typhhon a mediocre fighter comapred to the Tempest and FW190?

I understand roll rate will help, but it cant just be that.

The Typhoon was seen as a mediocre fighter, whereas the FW190 and the Tempest were seen as as excellent fighters.

WHat made the difference? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think most of the mediocre fighter part comes from the poor altitude performance and the reliability issues that the plane had in 1941 and 1942.

Roll rate wasn't terribly good either...actually it was pretty bad...although that was never the strong suit of any of the RAF fighters until the Tempest.

Turn according to a very memorable story I read about a FW190 and a Typhoon pilot on the deck over the channel doing their best in a turn fight favours the Typhoon slightly. They were both going around and around and around at a full range of speeds so its probably the Typhoons big huge thick wings that gave it the edge in such a fight. The FW190 probably turns better at speed.

But they sure did enjoy being able to chase FW190s across the channel and then once they figured out that it was fantastic for hitting ground targets with the cannons they started doing that. Before long it was a full out fighter-bomber and the plane went from obscurity with a few squadrons to a serious contender.

ImpStarDuece
06-18-2007, 03:46 PM
The Typhoon lacked a few qualities to make it a premier fighter:

1. Rate of roll. Very sluggish at all speeds, although it didn't really change that much over its speed range. NACA has the Typhoon peaking at 55 deg a second at 250 mph ASI. RAE data has the Typhoon peaking at 58 deg a second at 300 ASI.

There was also an initial problem with alieron float on early production aircraft, which resulted in the aircraft needing to be flown with 5-10 lbs of permanent stick pressure to one side, to avoid rolling the fighter.


2. Rate of climb. Particularly compared to the Spitfire and when limited to +6lbs in the climb, the Typhoon was a poor climber at anything below about 8,000 feet. Improved later with the introduction of the 4 blade prop and +9lbs rating, which allowed it to climb at almost 4,000 f/t min to 10,000 feet.


3. Low speed stability. Not usually said much about, but the Tyffie was actually quite a nasty bird when near the stall, with a tendency to hunt back and forth and lose lateral stability as it approached stall speed, making low speed deflection shots very difficult.

faustnik
06-18-2007, 03:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
3. Low speed stability. Not usually said much about, but the Tyffie was actually quite a nasty bird when near the stall, with a tendency to hunt back and forth and lose lateral stability as it approached stall speed, making low speed deflection shots very difficult. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did this cause takeoff and landing accidents?

JG4_Helofly
06-18-2007, 03:52 PM
Look at this: http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=F...ile=viewtopic&t=4756 (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=4756)

Was an interesting discussion about fw 190 vs tempest/typhoon. According to that the tempest or typhoon could not out turn a 190A !

faustnik
06-18-2007, 03:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Look at this: http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=F...ile=viewtopic&t=4756 (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=4756)

Was an interesting discussion about fw 190 vs tempest/typhoon. According to that the tempest or typhoon could not out turn a 190A ! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't focus in that thread, I get distracted by XIV's avatar.

luftluuver
06-18-2007, 04:01 PM
Even the Tempest II was not easy to land, "wheeler landings were advisable". Tempest pilot S/L Ambrose, CO 41 Sqd

A GrpCpt from HQ was horrified by this and tried to do a 3 point landing to show them how it should be done. Ground looped and was never seen again. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

mynameisroland
06-18-2007, 04:30 PM
I guess that most planes were dangerous to land after having gained experience in Spitfires and Hurricanes.

WRT the Tempest and the Fw 190s turn radi I think it was too close to call ie the difference in combat was negligibe. On the one hand the Tempest has laminar flow wing and is heavier but on the other hand it has lower wing loading and better powerloading if we assume a fair comparison with SabreII A 9lb boost vs A8 and 11lb Sabre II B vs D9.

VW-IceFire
06-18-2007, 04:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Look at this: http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=F...ile=viewtopic&t=4756 (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=4756)

Was an interesting discussion about fw 190 vs tempest/typhoon. According to that the tempest or typhoon could not out turn a 190A ! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't think we came to that conclusion. There was allot of maybe and might be. Depends on who you ask and what the situation was. Obviously we're talking about aircraft with similar capabilities and features so some similarities are to be present but I wouldn't say what you have just said. Its much more subtle and nuanced.

mynameisroland
06-18-2007, 04:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Look at this: http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=F...ile=viewtopic&t=4756 (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=4756)

Was an interesting discussion about fw 190 vs tempest/typhoon. According to that the tempest or typhoon could not out turn a 190A ! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't think we came to that conclusion. There was allot of maybe and might be. Depends on who you ask and what the situation was. Obviously we're talking about aircraft with similar capabilities and features so some similarities are to be present but I wouldn't say what you have just said. Its much more subtle and nuanced. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

It just depends on what you want to see when you read that - if you draw the conclusion that the Fw 190 easily out turned the Typhoon/Tempest

JG4_Helofly
06-18-2007, 04:53 PM
Did I say that the 190 should out turn a tempest or typhoon?

The report which has been posted showed that a tempest could not realy gain advantage in a turn against a 190 which had a unexperienced pilot on board and which was not running as good as it should.
At least that's what I read in this discussion.

Does anyone have tests about the turn time of a tempest or typhoon?
Russians have one about the 190 which says 22-23 sec for a turn in 1000m and this with a damaged focke-wulf which was 30km/h slow than a standard 190.
Does similar tests exist for the typhoon? In il2 the tempest does a turn in 22 sec, the 190 needs 24 sec according to il2 compare.

VW-IceFire
06-18-2007, 08:26 PM
Not sure if that FW190 was damaged...I had heard that and then heard that contradicted. It did run slower but the turn time was indeed 21-23 seconds using whatever turn test method the Russians were using. The FW190A series in this game is unabashedly too slow in the turn time.

I can't find a good turn time number...not that we could use that to compare without knowing what the test is. Reports seem to indicate that the Tempest and FW190 are generally speaking evenly matched and pilot reports have a sort of see saw effect regardless of FW190 variant or Typhoon/Tempest involved. It'd be good to get numbers.

Xiolablu3
06-18-2007, 11:29 PM
How did the Mustang do on low level speeds vs the FW190 and the Typhoon?

I guess its more made for hi altitude speeds, so it may be lower onthe bottom of the graph but much faster asit gets higher?

I would say possibly, just from instinct, that the FW190 would turn a little better than the Typhoon, however thats just an instinct.

Neither had gadgets like slats which helped the turn, so wing loading and powerloading may give us a good picture of just what outturned what.

Did the massive 3500HP Sabre engine give the Typhoon a good powerloading? Or did its heavy weightcounteract this? It is big and heavy, but it also has very big wings.

FW190 vs Typhoon Wingloading and POwerloading calculations would be an intersting match up. Unfortunatly I have no idea how to do them. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Xiolablu3
06-18-2007, 11:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Even the Tempest II was not easy to land, "wheeler landings were advisable". Tempest pilot S/L Ambrose, CO 41 Sqd

A GrpCpt from HQ was horrified by this and tried to do a 3 point landing to show them how it should be done. Ground looped and was never seen again. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

HAve you read CLostermanns book?

He makes a big deal about belly landing the Tempest and how dangerous it was.

Many of his friends were killed doing just that.

He managed to get his down OK the time he did it, but he writes extensively about it. It seemingly made a big impression on him just how dangerous it was trying to belly land, after the ease and forgiving handling of the SPitfire.

I forget exactly why it was, you would expect the Chin radiator to dig in and tip her over, but I seem to think it was another reason, I have lent the book to a friend, maybe someone else can explain just why it was often fatal .

In an interview he said something to the tune of:-

While the SPitfire was a Graceful Bird, Tempest was a massive powerful beast.

The SPitfire would forgive you all sorts of abuse, it would 'talk' to you. The Tempest would bite you if you abused her and scare you as you flew her. She was just so powerful it was almost frightening to fly.


I guess it shouldnt be surprising, jumping from 1700Hp right up to 3500Hp would be a serious shock. Was the Sabre the most powerful engine in WW2?

alert_1
06-19-2007, 01:59 AM
3500hp? More like 2400 I'd say

Xiolablu3
06-19-2007, 02:26 AM
Sorry, I got HP and RPM mixed up.

It was 3500 RPM. Overboosted to 4000RPM.

Apparantly in Emergency power it reched 3000HP


'
Thanks to its 2,400 h.p. engine it had a considerable margin of excess power and its acceleration was phenomenal. It was pretty tricky to fly, but its Performance more than made up for it: at 3,000 feet, at economical cruising speed on one third power (950 h.p.) with two 45-gallon auxiliary tanks, 310 m.p.h. on the clock, i.e. a true air speed of 320 m.p.h.; at fast cruising speed, at half power (1,425 h.p.) without auxiliary tanks, 350 m.p.h. on the clock, i.e. a true air speed of nearly 400 m.p.h.; maximum speed straight and level with +13 boost and 3,850 revs.: 430 m.p.h. on the clock, i.e. a true air speed of 440 m.p.h.

'In emergencies you could over-boost it up to nearly 3,000 h.p. and 4,000 revs., and the speed went up to 460 m.p.h. In a dive the Tempest was the only aircraft to reach, without interfering with its handling qualities to any marked extent, sub-sonic speeds, i.e. 550-600 m.p.h'

http://www.eagle.ca/~harry/aircraft/tempest/sabre/index.htm (http://www.eagle.ca/%7Eharry/aircraft/tempest/sabre/index.htm)

mynameisroland
06-19-2007, 03:09 AM
It was when the Tempest ws belly landed on a concrete runway xio, I think old Closty landed it on grass and was ok but one of his men landed it on the runway wheels up and was burned to death http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

mynameisroland
06-19-2007, 03:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by alert_1:
3500hp? More like 2400 I'd say </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well the Sabre did knock out over 3500 HP in its later forms. But not in the Tempest V in WW2. Arguably, according to some pilots accounts like Clostermans, it produced around 3000 HP in the very few 13lb boost versions delivered during WW2.

The Sabre engine was like the Merlin in terms of development potential. In its 1st forms it was producing 1800/2000 HP, With a little development it was up to 2500 HP range and that was with minimal funding and resources compared to the Griffon or Merlin. It was bench tested at around 4000HP according to Pingu's book on Napier engines and it was apparantly unofficially ran at over 3000 HP when needed during WW2 - so this backs up Clostermans accounts.

WOLFMondo
06-19-2007, 04:28 AM
That was the Sabre VA. But the Sabre II was l

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

He makes a big deal about belly landing the Tempest and how dangerous it was.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only because they belly landed on a concrete runway, which was dangerous for any metal aircraft because the friction will cause a fire.

Tempests and Typhoons were not actually that bad to belly land and get the aircraft repaired. Roland Beaumont is testament to that. I think he belly landed two Tempests in one day. One Norwiegan Typhoon pilot ditched twice in the channel and survived. The 2nd volume of the 2nd TAF books has a number of pictures of crash landed Typhoons where the pilots got out all right.

Viper2005_
06-19-2007, 05:02 AM
The Typhoon was a bit of a disaster in early life. In addition to the factors already mentioned:

- Its tail had a tendency to fall off with fatal consequences (IIRC due to flutter at high TAS).

- Its tactical Mach number was very low due to its thick wing.

http://www.aviation-history.com/hawker/typhoon.html

In 1941/42 when it first arrived on the scene, the average altitude of combat was going up, and much emphasis was placed upon the need to fight the Luftwaffe at high altitude (Ju-86 at up to FL460 for example). As such the Typhoon's problems at high Mach number and high TAS were crippling, and essentially precluded it from duties as a true front line fighter.

Since it was in production the best was made of a bad job. An ATA girl managed to land a Typhoon after the onset of flutter, and this allowed appropriate modifications to be designed.

The Sabre gradually matured and eventually became reliable.

Most importantly, jobs were found for the aircraft to do at low level where it suffered fewer problems. Initially this centred on the interception of tip & run Fw-190s, but later included ground attack.

It is interesting to note that the P-47 also suffered from a rather low tactical Mach number (at least for the European war), and also ended up having a very successful second career as a ground attack aircraft. It even borrowed the Typhoon's bubble canopy!

Brain32
06-19-2007, 05:20 AM
Well about Typhoon, Tempest, turn with the FW190A, let's look at a mix tactical trials;

First, the TempestV tactical trials:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">FW190(BMW801)
41. There is very little difference in turning circles between the two aircraft. If anything a very slight advantage lies with the Tempest. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note the "little difference" and "very slight advantage" used here. How does this sound in comparision to the game? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">MustangIII
Turning Circle
28. The Tempest is not quite as good as the Mustang III. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here we see that according to AFDU trials, Mustang 3 was better in turning than the Tempest, one would think that Mustang3 would then be noteably better than the FW190, however...

Refrence from MustangIII tactical trials:
vs FW190(BMW801)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Turning circle
42.Again there is not much to choose. The Mustang is slightly better. When evading an enemy aircraft with a steep turn, a pilot will always out-turn the attacking aircraft initially because of the difference in speeds. It is therefore still a worthwhile maneuver with the Mustang III when attacked. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
"Not much to choose" and "slightly better" do not really show that...


What does it say about Typhoon and Tempest? Well:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Turning Circle
18. Very Similar. Any difference appears to be in favour of the Typhoon. This is too slight to alter combat tactics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Looking at all this and the situation in game, where both Mustang and Tempest easily outturn FW190A and D, and can even hang with the clean late 109's(not G6 with gondolas lol) I can only laugh seeing how FW190 was once again sold short, but oh well we are used to that anyway http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

mynameisroland
06-19-2007, 05:29 AM
I wonder how much of the Fw 190s shoddy turn performance is Russian test related and porked Kommandogerat themed engine limitations.

Even 100% PPitch doesnt seem to help the Fw 190 these days at low revs infact Im constantly having to switch to Auto to bring the rpm back up and then hitting 100% - most annoying.

WOLFMondo
06-19-2007, 06:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:

Looking at all this and the situation in game, where both Mustang and Tempest easily outturn FW190A and D, and can even hang with the clean late 109's(not G6 with gondolas lol) I can only laugh seeing how FW190 was once again sold short, but oh well we are used to that anyway http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brain, the 190 in question there was an old model vs a brand new factory fresh Tempest. Of cause its going to loose against a brand new aircraft with a ton more power and several years more development time. Depending on the Tempest it was trailed against it might be loosing out 900HP to it but only a few hundred lbs difference in weight.

Brain32
06-19-2007, 07:27 AM
I'm talking about the in-game situation, there's no old or worn out in il2, all planes are factory fresh, yet 2000HP+, factory fresh 190A8 and A9 are easily outturned by the Tempest, while even late 109's can not hope to evade by turning, I wander how did the dev team came up with that, we were given lowest boost version that was actually rarer than the 11lbs and deleted rear view completely on a bubble canopy plane but heey it turns like mad.
I know I'm ranting here, but I just want a more correct Tempest http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

mynameisroland
06-19-2007, 07:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
I'm talking about the in-game situation, there's no old or worn out in il2, all planes are factory fresh, yet 2000HP+, factory fresh 190A8 and A9 are easily outturned by the Tempest, while even late 109's can not hope to evade by turning, I wander how did the dev team came up with that, we were given lowest boost version that was actually rarer than the 11lbs and deleted rear view completely on a bubble canopy plane but heey it turns like mad.
I know I'm ranting here, but I just want a more correct Tempest http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My thoughts are that the stall speed glbal FM change that occured with PF has not been changed back enough to normal IL2 levels meaning that heavy planes like the P51, Tempest and Fw 190 benefit a great deal.

And the Bf 109 can out turn the Tempest but only at sustained slow speeds and only when flown by a good pilot. This causes 2 problems. Firstly the Tempest has a window of opportunity where it can out turn the Bf 109 thanks to its elevator response before the Bf 109 gets in to its speed regime and secondly the Bf 109 is like the Spitfire - hugely popular and often flown by beginners and poor pilots.

When faced by a good Bf 109 pilot I wont dogfight for long enough to let him beat me because he will beast me if I insist on a turn fight, I will make one or two manuvers and if I havent damaged him I will scoot off at warp speed and go shoot down some other sucker. Against a good Fw 190D9 pilot the same goes.

When faced with a poor Bf 109 pilot I will stay and fight and beat him because he wont understand how to beat the Tempest and we doesnt know where his own planes real strengths lie.

One thing re the turn times of the planes in question. If I have a Bf 109 on my 6 I wont enter a turn fight if I can help it.

WOLFMondo
06-19-2007, 08:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
I'm talking about the in-game situation, there's no old or worn out in il2, all planes are factory fresh, yet 2000HP+, factory fresh 190A8 and A9 are easily outturned by the Tempest, while even late 109's can not hope to evade by turning, I wander how did the dev team came up with that, we were given lowest boost version that was actually rarer than the 11lbs and deleted rear view completely on a bubble canopy plane but heey it turns like mad.
I know I'm ranting here, but I just want a more correct Tempest http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just be thankfull then we don't have the Sabre IIB powered Tempest V! :P

Just a thought though. The Tempest in real tests might not have been flown to its absolute maximum limits because the Tempest had unannounced snap stall and test pilots were weary of that but in a sim, where planes are built on numbers and algorithms alone and there is no fear of death when people fly it and when it comes down to the numbers, because of wing area, power etc, should the Tempest out turn the 190A?

mynameisroland
06-19-2007, 08:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo: when it comes down to the numbers, because of wing area, power etc, should the Tempest out turn the 190A? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the big question. I think that the two should be pretty closely matched with the advantage lying to the Tempest. The P51 was regarded as having superior turn characteristics than the Fw 190 yet it had a laminar flow wing too. The Tempest simply has better powerloading at 50% fuel than a A8 and has lower wingloading too. Against a D9 I think it should be too close to call because the D9 has more power and refined aerodynamics by virtue of its longer nose.

Either way I dont think the Tempest was a slouch in combat. It had good climb, good roll and decent turn all in all a good combination when matched to high speed and great visibility. When Beamont is conducting trials in the Tempest V he said he had the opportunity to intecept and mock fight lots of different aircraft types including the Vampire. He said he had no trouble getting in to a position on the 6 of any of these aircraft.

faustnik
06-19-2007, 09:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Either way I dont think the Tempest was a slouch in combat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a bit of an understatement. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Brain32
06-19-2007, 10:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> And the Bf 109 can out turn the Tempest but only at sustained slow speeds and only when flown by a good pilot. This causes 2 problems. Firstly the Tempest has a window of opportunity where it can out turn the Bf 109 thanks to its elevator response before the Bf 109 gets in to its speed regime and secondly the Bf 109 is like the Spitfire - hugely popular and often flown by beginners and poor pilots. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Good or bad pilot, the in-game situation with the Tempest and ME109 turn I would describe as, if Tempest has 109 on it's six and tries to evade by turning it will eventually get shot down, if 109 has a Tempest on it's six and tries to evade by turning manouver - it will again get shot down, ME109 as in-game has apsolutely 0 turn advantage over the Tempest, regardless of pilot skill, there's nothing to choose between those two in regards to sustained turning, with the fact that Tempest is hugely superiour at speeds above 360kmh. I wander what exactly supports this situation???
As for 109 being hugely popular for beginners and poor pilots, that's pretty strange as I find planes like FW190A8 and P51D noob planes in comparision to the ME109 - the worst plane in the game that barely desevers the fighter designation.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> This is the big question. I think that the two should be pretty closely matched with the advantage lying to the Tempest. The P51 was regarded as having superior turn characteristics than the Fw 190 yet it had a laminar flow wing too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I also wander where was it regarded as having superiour turn, in all tactical trials I saw the situation is described as "nothing to choose", the numbers from Russian TsAGI tests also support that, same pretty much goes for the Tempest in various tactical trials, just read my first post in this thread, those are all snips from ww2aircraftperformance site.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Either way I dont think the Tempest was a slouch in combat. It had good climb, good roll and decent turn all in all a good combination when matched to high speed and great visibility. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ofcourse, you don't have to have everything superiour not to be a slouch in combat. Now imagine TempestV +11lbs, with all bells and whistles, that can catch everything and then match nearly every manouver, darn right it wouldn't be a slouch in combat, it does not need the ability to outturn every single opponent without much sweat to be regarded as no slouch. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

mynameisroland
06-19-2007, 10:19 AM
Brain I never said the Tempest as it is relative to others is correct, I am rationalising that its turn performance in RL wasnt all that bad. Fact remains that in IL2 any Bf 109 lower than a K4 should out turn the Tempest at slow speeds once slow speed turning has been established.

The Bf 109 is a noob plane. I never said it was a good noob plane but it is plainly obvious that beginners and noobs favour this plane above most others same with Spitfire. Being a noob plane you get a much higher percentage of beginner pilots to IL2 and poor IL2 pilots - distorting the online balance of events. Its nothing to do with its survivability - hey the Spitfire isnt often graced with high K/D ratios either.

I have read the tactical trials between the Tempest and Mustang and Fw 190 I also know that the Fw 190s turn is off in IL2 and that the Bf 109 has too stiff an elevator and that in WW2 the Tempest and D9 were pretty close in turn according to pilot accounts. What I am saying is that the issue with the Tempest vs the Bf 109 vs the Fw 190 is more to do with those planes having incorrect FMs than the Tempest being over modeled.

Correct the Fw 190s turn time and give the Bf 109 an elevator that works above 150 mph and you would see a good appraisal of thier relative performance. As it is the Tempest holds no turn advantage over the Bf 109s when the Bf 109 is in an offensive position.

The only German props that I feel confident about out turning would be the A8, A6 and A9 and that again has a lot to do with their problems in IL2.( add the K4 i here too )

All of this supposes that the Bf 109 pilot doesnt have a brain and refuses to use his climb and roll advantage at slow speeds too.

WOLFMondo
06-19-2007, 10:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Tempest in various tactical trials, just read my first post in this thread, those are all snips from ww2aircraftperformance site. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brain, the Tempest in most if not all tactical trials is a Sabre IIA powered variant and most likely running at 9lbs, possibly at 11lbs which is still an inferior engine to the Sabre IIB at 11lbs (the more common engine past the fall of '44). The majority of combat by Tempests was done with Sabre IIB powered Series II's so tactical trials and combat reports/annecdotes won't match up accordingly.

One singularly reliable source is Roland Beaumont as he flew them all.

Brain32
06-19-2007, 11:22 AM
@Roland, I agree completely http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

@Mondo you are correct too, but I am refering to the in-game Tempest that is running at 9lbs.

BTW guys, will we ever find some real 11lbs data? Any news anybody, any interesting books due out on Tempest? Did Beaumont ever wrote a book?

faustnik
06-19-2007, 11:25 AM
Fall 1943 +9 boost speed charted at the bottom of this thread:

http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=F...le=viewtopic&t=14256 (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=14256)

mynameisroland
06-19-2007, 11:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
@Roland, I agree completely http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

@Mondo you are correct too, but I am refering to the in-game Tempest that is running at 9lbs.

BTW guys, will we ever find some real 11lbs data? Any news anybody, any interesting books due out on Tempest? Did Beaumont ever wrote a book? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We need to get some guy round to the National Archive and spend his summer there living amongst the records. I though of maybe contacting the author of Typhoon and Tempest Aces of WW2 to see if he had any reliable contacts with Tempest pilots which may result in data being unearthed.

luftluuver
06-19-2007, 11:41 AM
Chris Thomas who wrote a book with Chris Shores on the Typhoon and Tempest posts on the TOCH board.

An excellent book btw, as is Mason's book.

WOLFMondo
06-19-2007, 11:48 AM
I've thought about going up to the national archives were any data might be held but it will take days to find the information.

The other option is writing to BAe who probably own the information as well.

Brain32
06-19-2007, 12:01 PM
TOCH board? Or better yet, could you ask him if he has any info or atleast were did he find it?