PDA

View Full Version : <<>>



Pages : [1] 2

PapaFly
09-20-2004, 03:36 PM
Aim of my testing was to compare the inflight acceleration of late-war Fw190 series.
Tested planes:

Fw190-A8-R2 (with the MK108 wing cannons)
Fw190-A9-R2
Fw190-D9 Late (default weapon configuration)

Plane configuration, power settings:
50% fuel, 110% power + WEP/MW50, radiators closed, prop on auto pitch.

ALL SPEEDS ARE TRUE AIR SPEED; ALL ALTITUDES ARE TRUE ALT ABOVE GROUND

Map: Crimea, at 12:00

= = = M E T H O D = = =

I took the plane down to 5-10m above the sea and let the speed settle somewhere well below
250kph. Then I applied wep and 110% power and kept the initial altitude while the plane was
accelerating up to topspeed. While viewing the track at 1/4 speed I started my stopwatch as
the plane reached 250kph. At this point the plane - which had starded accelerating at slower
speed - was already in maximum acceleration mode. Different times for winding up the engine
have no effect on this test.
I noted the time needed to reach 300, 350, 400, 450, 500 and 550kph. I also noted the
reached topspeed.
The test was flown twice. Raw data was compiled in MS exel.

= = = R E S U L T S = = =

Following pic shows my exel-sheet with all recorded data.

http://www.black-crusade.de/hellhounds/papafly/Fw190_inflight_acceleration.jpg

The mean calculated from the 2 independent tests is in orange, the standard deviation in yellow.
The times indicated have been "backtranslated" from the times recorded with my stopwatch -
so we have the "true" times here: e.g. the A8 takes 67.6 seconds to accelerate from 250 to 550kph.
You can clearly see that the test - when flown properly - gives very similar results with
very low standard deviations.

Top speeds:
A8 - 588kph
A9 - 597kph
D9 - 610kph

The recorded data has been compiled into an acceleration graph:

http://www.black-crusade.de/hellhounds/papafly/Inflight_acceleration_250-550.jpg

In this graph, the plane with the best acceleration has the flattest curve.
-You clearly see that the D9late is leaving the A9 and A8 standing: it needs 55.3 seconds to
reach 550kph, while the A9 and A8 take 66.7 and 67.6, respectively.
-The puzzling thing is that the curves of the A9 and A8 are nearly identical.
-The A8 accelerates better than the A9 up to 450kph
-From 450kph on, the A9 curve is slightly flatter - meaning that it accelerates a bit better

Following diagram shows how much time each plane takes to accelerate from 250-350, 350-450
and 450-550kph.

http://www.black-crusade.de/hellhounds/papafly/Inflight_acceleration_intervals.jpg


= = = C O N C L U S I O N S = = =

Well...all I can say is that the A9 is absolutely PATHETIC.

Let me remind you about the thrust/weight ratios of these planes:

190A8
4250kg/2050hp---Thrust/weight = 2.1kg/hp

190A9
4410kg/2300hp---Thrust/weight = 1.92kg/hp

190D9 late
4350kg/2240hp---Thrust/weight = 1.94kg/hp

Now we have the plane with the best thrust/weight ratio having the slowest acceleration.
Also check the results of my previous test where I accelerated the planes on the runway:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=709007307

As you see the inflight data is absolutely in line with the data recorded while accelerating
on the runway.

To summarize:
-The A9 accelerates S L O W E R than the A8 between 0-450kph, and THIS is the
most relevant and important acceleration range.
-Above 450kph, the A9 has only a very marginal advantage over the A8.
-This is a slap in the face of every Fw lover, it's not fair, it's silly, AND IT SHOULD BE CHANGED.
-And yes I heard that BS about a high-alt prop being modeled on the A9, but this is just a lame excuse,
nothing more.


Here are the tracks and my exel-sheet:

http://www.black-crusade.de/hellhounds/papafly/Inflight_accelerationt%20_Fw190.xls


http://www.black-crusade.de/hellhounds/papafly/190A8_inflight_acceleration_01.TRK
http://www.black-crusade.de/hellhounds/papafly/190A8_inflight_acceleration_02.TRK
http://www.black-crusade.de/hellhounds/papafly/190A9_inflight_acceleration.TRK
http://www.black-crusade.de/hellhounds/papafly/190A9_inflight_acceleration_01.TRK
http://www.black-crusade.de/hellhounds/papafly/190D9late_inflight_acceleration.TRK
http://www.black-crusade.de/hellhounds/papafly/190D9late_inflight_acceleration_01.TRK

Someone in this forum said that the A9 offers enough over the A8....well all it offers is a marginal advantage in a zoomclimb (check my other thread), and 9kph in topspeed.

===If YOU find this unfair and worth a change, than keep this thread up!===

S!

PapaFly
09-20-2004, 03:36 PM
Aim of my testing was to compare the inflight acceleration of late-war Fw190 series.
Tested planes:

Fw190-A8-R2 (with the MK108 wing cannons)
Fw190-A9-R2
Fw190-D9 Late (default weapon configuration)

Plane configuration, power settings:
50% fuel, 110% power + WEP/MW50, radiators closed, prop on auto pitch.

ALL SPEEDS ARE TRUE AIR SPEED; ALL ALTITUDES ARE TRUE ALT ABOVE GROUND

Map: Crimea, at 12:00

= = = M E T H O D = = =

I took the plane down to 5-10m above the sea and let the speed settle somewhere well below
250kph. Then I applied wep and 110% power and kept the initial altitude while the plane was
accelerating up to topspeed. While viewing the track at 1/4 speed I started my stopwatch as
the plane reached 250kph. At this point the plane - which had starded accelerating at slower
speed - was already in maximum acceleration mode. Different times for winding up the engine
have no effect on this test.
I noted the time needed to reach 300, 350, 400, 450, 500 and 550kph. I also noted the
reached topspeed.
The test was flown twice. Raw data was compiled in MS exel.

= = = R E S U L T S = = =

Following pic shows my exel-sheet with all recorded data.

http://www.black-crusade.de/hellhounds/papafly/Fw190_inflight_acceleration.jpg

The mean calculated from the 2 independent tests is in orange, the standard deviation in yellow.
The times indicated have been "backtranslated" from the times recorded with my stopwatch -
so we have the "true" times here: e.g. the A8 takes 67.6 seconds to accelerate from 250 to 550kph.
You can clearly see that the test - when flown properly - gives very similar results with
very low standard deviations.

Top speeds:
A8 - 588kph
A9 - 597kph
D9 - 610kph

The recorded data has been compiled into an acceleration graph:

http://www.black-crusade.de/hellhounds/papafly/Inflight_acceleration_250-550.jpg

In this graph, the plane with the best acceleration has the flattest curve.
-You clearly see that the D9late is leaving the A9 and A8 standing: it needs 55.3 seconds to
reach 550kph, while the A9 and A8 take 66.7 and 67.6, respectively.
-The puzzling thing is that the curves of the A9 and A8 are nearly identical.
-The A8 accelerates better than the A9 up to 450kph
-From 450kph on, the A9 curve is slightly flatter - meaning that it accelerates a bit better

Following diagram shows how much time each plane takes to accelerate from 250-350, 350-450
and 450-550kph.

http://www.black-crusade.de/hellhounds/papafly/Inflight_acceleration_intervals.jpg


= = = C O N C L U S I O N S = = =

Well...all I can say is that the A9 is absolutely PATHETIC.

Let me remind you about the thrust/weight ratios of these planes:

190A8
4250kg/2050hp---Thrust/weight = 2.1kg/hp

190A9
4410kg/2300hp---Thrust/weight = 1.92kg/hp

190D9 late
4350kg/2240hp---Thrust/weight = 1.94kg/hp

Now we have the plane with the best thrust/weight ratio having the slowest acceleration.
Also check the results of my previous test where I accelerated the planes on the runway:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=709007307

As you see the inflight data is absolutely in line with the data recorded while accelerating
on the runway.

To summarize:
-The A9 accelerates S L O W E R than the A8 between 0-450kph, and THIS is the
most relevant and important acceleration range.
-Above 450kph, the A9 has only a very marginal advantage over the A8.
-This is a slap in the face of every Fw lover, it's not fair, it's silly, AND IT SHOULD BE CHANGED.
-And yes I heard that BS about a high-alt prop being modeled on the A9, but this is just a lame excuse,
nothing more.


Here are the tracks and my exel-sheet:

http://www.black-crusade.de/hellhounds/papafly/Inflight_accelerationt%20_Fw190.xls


http://www.black-crusade.de/hellhounds/papafly/190A8_inflight_acceleration_01.TRK
http://www.black-crusade.de/hellhounds/papafly/190A8_inflight_acceleration_02.TRK
http://www.black-crusade.de/hellhounds/papafly/190A9_inflight_acceleration.TRK
http://www.black-crusade.de/hellhounds/papafly/190A9_inflight_acceleration_01.TRK
http://www.black-crusade.de/hellhounds/papafly/190D9late_inflight_acceleration.TRK
http://www.black-crusade.de/hellhounds/papafly/190D9late_inflight_acceleration_01.TRK

Someone in this forum said that the A9 offers enough over the A8....well all it offers is a marginal advantage in a zoomclimb (check my other thread), and 9kph in topspeed.

===If YOU find this unfair and worth a change, than keep this thread up!===

S!

Zen--
09-20-2004, 03:58 PM
Nice work Papafly.

The fact that the D9 out accelerates the Antons is not a surprise to me, I believe this to be the case in real life IIRC, but the A8 is a little surprising compared to the A9. I would have thought it would have been the other way around personally.

Interesting tests. I notice you tested on auto prop pitch which is fair since all were done the same, but did you or have you also considered testing them with 100% manual pitch? Perhaps its a myth but the general consensus of 190 pilots is that the Antons get better performance on manual pitch and this performance may be considered more realistic.



Also, I see that you started the stopwatch when the plane hit 250kph but do you think there might be any deviation because of the differences in actual start speed, and that this might account for the A8/A9 results? Not challenging, just asking a question.


Lastly, thanks for taking the time to make your tests.

&lt;S&gt;

-Zen-

PriK
09-20-2004, 03:58 PM
I wonder where that pic is of the chart titled "Official Looking Chart I Made That Is Supposed To Prove Something"? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

*Grabs the popcorn and settles back for the show...*

-------------------
A-Cat CharveL

CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

moksha
09-20-2004, 04:04 PM
edited out...Zen asked already...

PapaFly
09-20-2004, 04:06 PM
Here's another one - MAXIMUM SUSTAINED TURN PERFORMANCE http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

THE THEORY:
When comparing two planes with identical aerodynamic properties, very similar weight and differences in power, than the plane with a better thrust/weight ratio should be able to keep up higher speeds in maximum sustained turns.
So they both turn with maximum angle of attack, very very near to a stall.
The plane with more engine power can sustain a higher speed, closer to corner speed which results in better turning performance.
Don't get me wrong here: the corner speed is not affected by engine power, but the maximum sustained turn rate is.

Having this theory in mind I tested the same planes again:
I turned and turned at sealevel (right above the base) until speed stabilized. while viewing the track i took 4-5 consecutive turns and calculated the time needed for each 360‚? turn.

Fw190 A8:
22.2s/turn =&gt; 16.2‚?/s angle speed
speed while turning: around 333kph TAS

Fw190 A9:
22.76s/turn =&gt; 15.8‚?/s
speed while turning: around 330kph TAS

Fw190 D9late
20.5s/turn =&gt; 17.56‚?/s
speed while turning: around 367kph TAS

So the theory works well for the D9late, but not for the A9, which is only 60kg heavier than the D9late.....strange huh???
Again, the A9 flight modes shows its flaws....the plane is unable to sustain higher speeds than the A8 which results in the worst turnrate.

Tracks:
http://www.black-crusade.de/hellhounds/papafly/190A8_max_sustained_turn.TRK
http://www.black-crusade.de/hellhounds/papafly/190A9_max_sustained_turn.TRK
http://www.black-crusade.de/hellhounds/papafly/190D9late_max_sustained_turn.TRK

To show you that not only the angle speeds are different, but also the circle diameters, I took several screenshots from a fixed camera 1200m above the base. Using Photoshop, I could easily superpose circles corresponding to the flown circles.

Here you see the relative size of the MAXIMUM SUSTAINED CIRCLE DIAMETERS:

http://www.black-crusade.de/hellhounds/papafly/Max_sustained_turnrate.jpg
As you see, not only is the A9 worst in terms of angle speed (degs/sec), but its circles have the greatest diameter.

THEY tell us that this is one of the supreme performers among the late war planes, but the
ingame reality tells a whole different story which I summarize:
-accelerates slower than the A8 up to 450kph - DESPITE BEST THRUST/WEIGHT RATIO
-worst maximum sustained turn rate - DESPITE BEST THRUST/WEIGHT RATIO
-only marginal advantage over the A8 in a zoomclimb - DESPITE BEST THRUST/WEIGHT RATIO
-worst overall handling, resulting from slower acceleration + higher weight - DESPITE BEST THRUST/WEIGHT RATIO

If you ask me, the A9 behaves like a A8 with increased weight and missing the bombrack (9kph gain in top speed.

S!

PapaFly
09-20-2004, 04:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zen--:
Interesting tests. I notice you tested on auto prop pitch which is fair since all were done the same, but did you or have you also considered testing them with 100% manual pitch? Perhaps its a myth but the general consensus of 190 pilots is that the Antons get better performance on manual pitch and this performance may be considered more realistic.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Zen, welcome http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Well I once tested the runway acceleration performance for the A5, and i found NO differences between auto and manual pitch- the plane reached the same speeds at exactly the same locations. I think the manual performance increase is largely a myth - unless of course somebody proves me wrong.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zen--:
Also, I see that you started the stopwatch when the plane hit 250kph but do you think there might be any deviation because of the differences in actual start speed, and that this might account for the A8/A9 results? Not challenging, just asking a question.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, there is no deviation: you must make sure to be well below 250kph when starting your test. That way, when the plane reaches 250kph it has maximum rpm and maximum manifold pressure. Test it yourself, there are no differences. Actually this way of testing is more reliable. When people try to fly a CERTAIN speed and then accelerate they get larger deviations. You never keep EXACTLY the same speed, you have different times needed for winding up the engine and reaching maximum engine performance. If you view my tracks, you'll see that my starting speeds for a certain plane ARE DIFFERENT, but the outcome of the test is the same.

Zen--
09-20-2004, 04:40 PM
Papa:

Fair enough on the less than 250kph start speed...I figured thats what you meant but wanted to ask anyway, just for clarities sake. Thank you for clarifying http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Subjective opinion here based on in game experience, but I believe there is a significant difference in all FW acceleration on manual pitch vs auto and use manual primarily in two situations:

Climbing in the any of the Antons /F8

B@lls to the wall level acceleration in the D9 when I feel that I simply must use everything possible to outrun the other guy and achieve topspeed as fast as possible.

Having flown the game for years and through all of the various patches, I feel pretty confident that manual pitch will make a difference, though on a straight takeoff from 0-180kph I would agree with you that there is probably no noticable difference. In flight at over 250kph however, I do feel it's noticable but again thats a purely subjective thinking on my part and is game related only, not historical.

It would be interesting to see if there is any actual difference between auto and manual in game, other than a shift in the RPM gauge in the cockpit. I would like to see your testing on this if you don't mind, but I will also try to use your method later on and see what I get.


&lt;S&gt;

-Zen-

p1ngu666
09-20-2004, 05:02 PM
hm
i get higher top speeds on manual
http://www.uploadit.org/gallery/11470

i think i get better acceloration too
maybe im wrong on accel, but i dont think i am
it COULD just feel faster cos engine sound goes quicker

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt;NO SPAM!
&lt;badsight&gt;my name is tracy and pingu is the Antichrist of Combat Flight Simmers
&lt;lexx_luthor&gt;flowers across the land in BoB
&lt;stiglr&gt; Ctrl+F1. I'm not gonna whine about it

carguy_
09-20-2004, 05:42 PM
Thank you for doing the tests Papafly.

Kinda weird figures cuz I definitely feel A9 is superior to A8 and D9 is a whole light year away from A9...and here A8 looks like the best of`em LOL

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

Self-proclaimed dedicated Willywhiner since July 2002

Vrabac
09-20-2004, 05:53 PM
I have a REALLY nasty feeling they will butcher dora to the very end now. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Jaws2002
09-20-2004, 08:08 PM
I think the drag makes the difference. Just look at the frontal area.
Dora was a much better machine.

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v258/&lt;FA&gt;Jaws/Uber2sm.jpg

DangerForward
09-20-2004, 08:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zen--:
Papa:

Fair enough on the less than 250kph start speed...I figured thats what you meant but wanted to ask anyway, just for clarities sake. Thank you for clarifying http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Subjective opinion here based on in game experience, but I believe there is a significant difference in all FW acceleration on manual pitch vs auto and use manual primarily in two situations:

Climbing in the any of the Antons /F8

B@lls to the wall level acceleration in the D9 when I feel that I simply must use everything possible to outrun the other guy and achieve topspeed as fast as possible.

Having flown the game for years and through all of the various patches, I feel pretty confident that manual pitch will make a difference, though on a straight takeoff from 0-180kph I would agree with you that there is probably no noticable difference. In flight at over 250kph however, I do feel it's noticable but again thats a purely subjective thinking on my part and is game related only, not historical.

It would be interesting to see if there is any actual difference between auto and manual in game, other than a shift in the RPM gauge in the cockpit. I would like to see your testing on this if you don't mind, but I will also try to use your method later on and see what I get.


&lt;S&gt;

-Zen-
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've done tests myself and found manual to be much better than auto in climbing. I got something like 2 or 3 more meters/sec with the 190A4. I always figured the Komgradwhatever would be better than a pilot on manual in real life, but it's not that way in the game.

I got no advantage using manual while climbing with the D9.

DangerForward

TAGERT.
09-20-2004, 10:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PapaFly:
= = = M E T H O D = = =

I took the plane down to 5-10m above the sea and let the speed settle somewhere well below 250kph. Then I applied wep and 110% power and kept the initial altitude while the plane was accelerating up to topspeed. While viewing the track at 1/4 speed I started my stopwatch as the plane reached 250kph.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First things first.. NICE WORK! But.. correct me if Im wrong but you collected this speed data visually? I dont know if this maters much.. But I found it did seem to mater in a few of the level tests I was doing.. the altitude roundoff is at 50meters.. I know it doesnt sound like much but you could be bouncing around as much as 100meters in what looks like level flight and the alt gauge would not move.

You really should use UPDSpeed or one of the other programs to collect data.. Makes for beter and FASTER testing.. If you need any help setting it up let me know.

Next question.. What real world data are you relating this to.. if any? Or are you just basing it on the thrust to weight ratios?

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/UBI_FORUMS/MyUbiSig.jpg
TAGERT

faustnik
09-20-2004, 10:47 PM
Panelboy clued me in on this question when I asked his opinion on this some time ago. The A8 and A9 are modeled with different props. The A9 is modeled with the late version high altitude prop. You can't do direct acceleration comparisons because of that. Many, if not most A9s, flew with the same prop as the A8 as I understand it. In FB, it would be very beneficial to have the A9 modeled with the standard prop so that it would have superior low and medium altitude performance. Maybe that is what we should be asking for?

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

robban75
09-20-2004, 11:36 PM
Excellent test PapaFly! Very thorough! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

I'd just like to add that there was a comparison flight between a D-9 and an A-9(published in "Green Hearts, first in combat wih the Dora-9"), and the results showed that the D-9 had an overall speed, acceleration, and turn ability advantage, but it was very marginal.

What bugs me the most on the A-9 is its undermodelled climbrate, it should climb almost like a D-9. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

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

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

WUAF_Badsight
09-20-2004, 11:59 PM
didnt A9s get up too 2400 Hp during the war ?

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
want some Flight sim advice ? look here ~~~~&gt; complete user guide for flight sims (http://www.airwarfare.com/tech/tech_lbguide.htm#001%20Security%20Issues)

faustnik
09-21-2004, 12:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
didnt A9s get up too 2400 Hp during the war ?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Close to it with Mw50. Serious horsepower!

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

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
09-21-2004, 02:11 AM
If I recall correctly than before AEP came out Oleg commented that in order to solve some missing-physics features of the game he had to increase the weight if the LA-7 (because it climbed like a rocket , still does though.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ), I recall that THIS in some way affected the A9 as well as it's weight was increased to a heigher amount than it was in RL.

MAybe the Trhead is still somewhere... BUt let'ss take it as a myth.

In general the A9 should be a very good accelarator since it added lots of HP for a relative low exchange of weight. Also they added a wide-blade prop for the a9 to give it better climb-capabilities in the lower altitudes which resulted in the A9 having similar climbing performance than the D9 up to 3500m or so..

As about the Prop-Pitch: It's no myth. There countless "Game-the-Game" articles about the FW190 here and in general it's like this:
1) if you climb or need speed set Prop pitch to 100%
2) if you fly level (fast travel etc) you switch to Proppitch 90% (A5 or higher) and in some instances (when trimmed good) you can set it even lower (80%)
3) when trying not to be left behind by a Spit IXhf (no joke here...) you have to set proppitch 100% until you have 2500rpm and then engage Proppitch automatic

Golden Rules:
- Thou shalt never fly on Automatic when your nose is pointing up even 1 degree...
- Thou shalt never dive without PP-Automatic
- Thou shalt never get slower than 380km/h in order to survive
- Thou shalt always be prepared to RUN because you wont find any gain in turning or climbing.
- Thou shalt not forget to map SPACE as your radiator key... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
- Thou shalt never complain about some limited foreward view...

I fly the plane since 1.01 and it improved, yes, but it's now the experience and the firepower which makes me survive and not the planes dogfight capabilities, where you get outturned by everything in IL2FB.....

!S!

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/gotcha.jpg

Kwiatos
09-21-2004, 04:55 AM
D-9 - 20 sec /360' - nice result . Fw 190 D-9 is nice turn fighter from all Fw-190 like Bf 109 G-2 from all Bf in turn rate http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif))

OldMan____
09-21-2004, 06:02 AM
Unless all rpm and ata indications are just eye candy stuff.. manual pitch increases eprformance. Just look at numbers on your pit. Even the A4 get a nice extra power (think is only way to reach the stated emergency power for 1 minute)

And You can diev with it in manual.. just bring thort down quite a bit. Rpm get stick to torth even with manual prop.

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

p1ngu666
09-21-2004, 07:02 AM
does the dora actully have a smaller frontal area? looked similer to me *shrug*

just wonderin why the d9 is better by the ammount it is down low up high it produced plenty of power where the bmw didnt so much, i know that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

could ask for a 190A9 LF http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt;NO SPAM!
&lt;badsight&gt;my name is tracy and pingu is the Antichrist of Combat Flight Simmers
&lt;lexx_luthor&gt;flowers across the land in BoB
&lt;stiglr&gt; Ctrl+F1. I'm not gonna whine about it

DangerForward
09-21-2004, 08:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
does the dora actully have a smaller frontal area? looked similer to me *shrug*

just wonderin why the d9 is better by the ammount it is down low up high it produced plenty of power where the bmw didnt so much, i know that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

could ask for a 190A9 LF http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt;NO SPAM!
&lt;badsight&gt;my name is tracy and pingu is the Antichrist of Combat Flight Simmers
&lt;lexx_luthor&gt;flowers across the land in BoB
&lt;stiglr&gt; Ctrl+F1. I'm not gonna whine about it<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The D9's engine does have a smaller frontal area.

"The BMW 801 radial engine used previously gave the the Fw190 a rather beefy Appearance. The true aerodynamics of the Fw190 first became apparent with the new Jumo 213." - Focke-Wulf 190 "Long Nose", Dietmar Hermann

DangerForward

CTO88
09-21-2004, 09:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PapaFly:

Well...all I can say is that the A9 is absolutely PATHETIC.

Let me remind you about the thrust/weight ratios of these planes:

190A8
4250kg/2050hp---Thrust/weight = 2.1kg/hp

190A9
4410kg/2300hp---Thrust/weight = 1.92kg/hp

190D9 late
4350kg/2240hp---Thrust/weight = 1.94kg/hp

Now we have the plane with the best thrust/weight ratio having the slowest acceleration.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

according to Luftwaffe sources fw190a9 in 1944 had only bmw801f or s engine. this engine produced only 2000PS. it runs 560km/h @ SL and 666km/h @ 6400m. a9 climbed with 11,7m/s. 190a8 climbed 14m/s @ "erh√¬∂hter ladedruck"!
so for 1944 a9 is overmodeled, for 1945 it's undermodeled, if the 801 was indeed produced in january 1945.
d9 runs in game nearly 610km/h, in reality d9 runs 612km/h with 2140PS (mw-50 usage). 2240 wasn't used cause for this you need jumo213AG. but less than 10 jumo213ag were built. according to luftwaffe sources fw190d9 climbed only 18,5m/s with mw-50.
in my opinion, datas in objectviewer doesn't show datas oleg used. sometimes there are real big mistakes, i.e. wingarea of some 109s.

so if you take 2000PS for a9 and 2140PS for d9 it's clear that relations in game are somehow correct.
a8 = 2,1kg/PS
a9 = 2.2kg/PS
d9 = 2,03kg/PS

in my opinion oleg used the real datas not those from viewer.

but anyway, nice test. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

faustnik
09-21-2004, 09:53 AM
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/page154chart.jpg

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

NorrisMcWhirter
09-21-2004, 09:54 AM
Hi,

Nice work.
BUMP

I'd fly the A8 more often if it weren't for the ridiculous fuel bug.

Cheers,
Norris

================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

'Bugs? What bugs?'
'AAA steals online kills, crash landing if good landing but out of fuel, muzzle flashes, kill given for planes that have landed OK, AI steals offline kills, gauges not working, Spitfire never overheats, FW190 view, P63 damage model, weird collision modelling...'
'Yeah, but look on the bright side - at least the 0.50s are fixed!'
Moral: $$$ + whining = anything is possible

DangerForward
09-21-2004, 10:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CTO88:
according to Luftwaffe sources fw190a9 in 1944 had only bmw801f or s engine. this engine produced only 2000PS. it runs 560km/h @ SL and 666km/h @ 6400m. a9 climbed with 11,7m/s. 190a8 climbed 14m/s @ "erh√¬∂hter ladedruck"!
so for 1944 a9 is overmodeled, for 1945 it's undermodeled, if the 801 was indeed produced in january 1945.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the 11.7 m/s climbrate you quote is for less than 110% throttle, while the rate Oleg said he reached was using 110% full boost. Many of the climb tests you see charts of in books are at less than full power, you can tell by the rpm and ata readings they quote.

It's true though that the object viewer data is not what we have for the A9. I really wish the web people would set that right.

DangerForward

PapaFly
09-24-2004, 08:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
First things first.. NICE WORK! But.. correct me if Im wrong but you collected this speed data visually? I dont know if this maters much.. But I found it did seem to mater in a few of the level tests I was doing.. the altitude roundoff is at 50meters.. I know it doesnt sound like much but you could be bouncing around as much as 100meters in what looks like level flight and the alt gauge would not move.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I collected the data visually, but in wonderwoman view: there you read True Air Speed, and the resolution of the altimeter is 1m....check the tracks and you'll see that I keep the alt QUITE nicely. As a further control, just compare the 2 acceleration tests and have an eye on the standard deviation.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Next question.. What real world data are you relating this to.. if any? Or are you just basing it on the thrust to weight ratios?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't have much real world data, I compare the planes and post...there are enough guys around which have the rl data, so they can post and we see. The point is that the A9 accelerating slower than the A8 is scandalous.

Note to all guys guessing about performance on manual: I also fly manual most of the time, and always when climbing... So you fly the A8 in manual and get better performance, you fly the A9 in manual and also get a better performance, but is the relation changed then?

&lt;&lt;&lt;Can the A9 outaccelerate the A8 on manual?&gt;&gt;&gt;

The A9 should be better than the A8 in auto also, I think everyone will agree on this one. Cause as things are right now, you have to fiddle much more with the prop pitch when flying axis planes (which all have the autoprop systems, but which don't perform well with them). On most red planes, you leave the pitch on 100% and never have any trouble. Isn't this stupid? Imagine a car running from 0-700kph in the first gear.

PapaFly
09-24-2004, 09:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
Excellent test PapaFly! Very thorough! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

I'd just like to add that there was a comparison flight between a D-9 and an A-9(published in "Green Hearts, first in combat wih the Dora-9"), and the results showed that the D-9 had an overall speed, acceleration, and turn ability advantage, but it was very marginal.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Marginal...well I wouldn't mind if the D9 had a marginal advantage over the A9, but as it is now the advantage is brutal, and it makes the A9 look like a heavier A8 with a different paintjob.

robban75
09-24-2004, 10:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PapaFly:
I wouldn't mind if the D9 had a marginal advantage over the A9, but as it is now the advantage is brutal, and it makes the A9 look like a heavier A8 with a different paintjob. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed, the A-9 is a joke. I recently received a new computer, and when I installed FB I took the A-9 for a spin before I installed the AEP. What can I say, the A-9 is a shadow of its former self. In its original form it reminded me of the D-9, as it should be IMHO.

k5054
09-24-2004, 10:51 AM
Some doubt was expressed a few posts back about the relative drag of the D-9 and A-9. I happen to have the factory figures for flat plate area of the following 190 models, the units are sq ft. (And originally supplied to six decimal places, which I've truncated). The D-9 does indeed have nearly 10% advantage.


Focke Wulf Fw 190A-8 5.22 Focke Wulf Data
Focke Wulf Fw 190D-9 4.77 Focke Wulf Data
Focke Wulf Ta 152C-1 5.42 Focke Wulf Data
Focke Wulf Ta 152E-1 5.24 Focke Wulf Data
Focke Wulf Ta 152H-1 5.4 Focke Wulf Data

JG26_Red
09-24-2004, 10:53 AM
I wish we had a D model 190 with 30mm in the wings for my poor marksmenship...

i can take a D9 up and usually survie the entire flight, but dont get many kills as i cant shot worth a crap..

A9, i can get a few kills, but normally get killed... so.. ummm ya.. lol..

BBB_Hyperion
09-24-2004, 12:09 PM
Here is a Drag Table . Who can read it can use it.

http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/Fw190DragTable.jpg

k5054
09-24-2004, 12:17 PM
That table would be so useful, if only...
I think it is probably the original source of the drag data I quoted above, the types seem to be the same. I got it from a drag expert, one of the international drag estimating community. What, you didn't know there was a community?

JG14_Josf
09-24-2004, 12:45 PM
If only...

What does 'u' mean? Is it a drag coefficient number?

A-8/A-9/D-9

u 0.395/0.357/0.382(0.315)

There is a big difference in the D9 no parrenthesis and the D-9 in parrenthesis numbers.

Why does the FW190DragTable.jpg list the bomb load? Capacity? Does that indicate that these drag tables include bomb rack (racks) drag measurements?

PapaFly
09-24-2004, 01:17 PM
Drag is surely not the main factor leading to the advantage of the D9....and as sure as H_E_L_L it's not the answer to the question why the A9 is so weak compared to the A8.
We know for sure that the D9 accelerates MUCH faster than both of them...from 0 to 450kph. Now, at least at low speeds, the slightly reduced drag of the D9 would not have such an impact. In fact, the D9 leaves them both standing and needs about 60% of the way they need to get to 200kph.
And what about the A8? If they modeled the high-alt prop on the A9, then someone should repeat my test at 6000m. I'm sure it wouldn't have an advantage over its underpowered sister, but then the developers will say that high-alt modeling is not good enough. No matter how you take it, the A9 looses, it's a true deathtrap.

A while ago, we were troubled by the crappy simplified DM of the 190s....I think it's time to add a TRUE Fw190A9 FLIGHT MODEL to the TRUE DAMAGE MODEL we got, what'ya think of that?

And this is not the end of the story....the A9 has a marginal advantage over the A8 in a vertical zoom....I think this advantage would be 0 if we were to test their zoomclimb abilities starting from level flight at the same speed: the A9 is heavier, it can't keep up higher speeds (see max sustained turn test) and as a consequence it would bleed more energy while pulling up into the vertical.

faustnik
09-24-2004, 01:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Here is a Drag Table . Who can read it can use it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is interesting that they use the BMW801F for the A9 in that chart instead of the TS. I wonder if any A9s flew in combat with the F?

JG26_Red
09-24-2004, 01:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CTO88:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PapaFly:

Well...all I can say is that the A9 is absolutely PATHETIC.

Let me remind you about the thrust/weight ratios of these planes:

190A8
4250kg/2050hp---Thrust/weight = 2.1kg/hp

190A9
4410kg/2300hp---Thrust/weight = 1.92kg/hp

190D9 late
4350kg/2240hp---Thrust/weight = 1.94kg/hp

Now we have the plane with the best thrust/weight ratio having the slowest acceleration.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

according to Luftwaffe sources fw190a9 in 1944 had only bmw801f or s engine. this engine produced only 2000PS. it runs 560km/h @ SL and 666km/h @ 6400m. a9 climbed with 11,7m/s. 190a8 climbed 14m/s @ "erh√¬∂hter ladedruck"!
so for 1944 a9 is overmodeled, for 1945 it's undermodeled, if the 801 was indeed produced in january 1945.
d9 runs in game nearly 610km/h, in reality d9 runs 612km/h with 2140PS (mw-50 usage). 2240 wasn't used cause for this you need jumo213AG. but less than 10 jumo213ag were built. according to luftwaffe sources fw190d9 climbed only 18,5m/s with mw-50.
in my opinion, datas in objectviewer doesn't show datas oleg used. sometimes there are real big mistakes, i.e. wingarea of some 109s.

so if you take 2000PS for a9 and 2140PS for d9 it's clear that relations in game are somehow correct.
a8 = 2,1kg/PS
a9 = 2.2kg/PS
d9 = 2,03kg/PS

in my opinion oleg used the real datas not those from viewer.

but anyway, nice test. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


confused on this one... thought the A8 had the D and the A9 had the TS... A9 wasnt built as much since they had to wait at times for TS engines... the A9 should be a tad bit higher than the A8 and closer to D9... i venture to say a 801F powered A10 would outperform and D9...

k5054
09-24-2004, 02:17 PM
I finally managed to see the table.

The drag flat plate area is the way to compare drag for different a/c, it is in the line headed Schnellflug, the 10th line. The 0.485 there is the sq m equivalent of 5.22 in sq ft from my previous post. This is the figure for drag at high speeds and the best way to compare drag. The figure below is drag at best climb speed. i have no idea what the K figure is.
The lines below that, starting from widerstandanteile, is the drag of each part of the a/c, expressed as both flat plate and as a percentage of the total. The D saves most drag from cooling and from the fewer guns.
I don't know what the u figure is, but this is a powerplant section, not drag related. If anybody can describe all the listed parameters I'd love to see it, I can work out the words but not math symbols.

Sorry if this doesn't help with the A-9 in the game, but this doesn't seem to be a well-described aircraft in RL either.

The chart mentions auslandische flugzeuge. Is there a page for them ?

PapaFly
09-25-2004, 04:32 AM
bump

CTO88
09-25-2004, 05:47 AM
@ faustnik

http://piloten.88-iap.de/cto/fw.gif

1.10.44!

the paper you posted is not a 44er paper, its the theoretical figure for SONDERNOTLEISTUNG! in 1945 not a valid figure for a normal 44er fw190. most of these variants weren't availible in the whole war.

if you can read german and not only figures, you would read : WEITERENTWICKLUNG for fw190d9.

also look at the ata-figure, 190a8 has 1,58 ata or 1,65. normally a fw190a had 1,42 ata WEP. a 190a9 runs with 1,82 ata in that paper.

for a9 engines:
German factories continued to produce FW-190s as best they could, but the A-8 turned out to be the last production Anton. The "FW-190A-9" was an A-8 with a BMW-801F engine with 1,490 kW (2,000 HP).

http://www.vectorsite.net/avfw190.html#m3

Jippo01
09-25-2004, 08:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CTO88:
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

May I just make a note of your table so that everyone will talk about the same thing:

FW 190 A-8:
top speed 644km/h at 6,3km altitude
climb speed 9,6m/s at 5,5km altitude

FW 190 A-8 with MW 50:
top speed 652km/h at 5,5km altitude
climb speed 14,0m/s at 4,9km altitude

FW 190 A-9:
top speed 666km/h at 6,4km altitude
climb speed 11,7m/s at 5,75km altitude

FW 190 D-9:
top speed 685km/h at 6,6km altitude
climb speed 12,7m/s at 5,8km altitude


So in conclusion, at 6km altitude:

A-9 was 25% better climber than A-8.

D-9 was 32% better climber than A-8, and 9% better climber than A-9.


Do we all agree on these figures?


-jippo

p1ngu666
09-25-2004, 04:37 PM
thanks for the info http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif
10% less frontal is a fair amount at high speed, but to the eye with ingame gfx too, it isnt much http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif.
on the ground drag races, it shouldnt matter much about drag, iirec till 60mph isnt not a biggy, depending on the power u got.
only reason i can think of atm is that A series prop at low airspeeds is in a non effiecent area of its envolope, but thats guessing a reason, im going from whats here and making a reason...
i should go into politics http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


heres il2compair
http://premium.uploadit.org/pingu666/a8vsa9.jpg

BBB_Hyperion
09-25-2004, 09:10 PM
Hmmm look here russian a8 test . Il2 compare is wrong dont use its data ! Well russian climbtest is also wrong but who cares .)

http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/russianclimbrates.jpg

CTO88
09-26-2004, 10:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jippo01:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CTO88:
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

May I just make a note of your table so that everyone will talk about the same thing:

FW 190 A-8:
top speed 644km/h at 6,3km altitude
climb speed 9,6m/s at 5,5km altitude

FW 190 A-8 with MW 50:
top speed 652km/h at 5,5km altitude
climb speed 14,0m/s at 4,9km altitude

FW 190 A-9:
top speed 666km/h at 6,4km altitude
climb speed 11,7m/s at 5,75km altitude

FW 190 D-9:
top speed 685km/h at 6,6km altitude
climb speed 12,7m/s at 5,8km altitude


So in conclusion, at 6km altitude:

A-9 was 25% better climber than A-8.

D-9 was 32% better climber than A-8, and 9% better climber than A-9.


Do we all agree on these figures?


-jippo <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

wrong cause a8 has not mw-50 but "Notleistung mit erh√¬∂hten Ladedruck."
so in 1944 a8 is faster @ SL and climbs better with maximal wep. due the better height-performance of 801f a9 is faster at height.

Jippo01
09-26-2004, 11:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CTO88:
wrong cause a8 has not mw-50 but "Notleistung mit erh√¬∂hten Ladedruck."
so in 1944 a8 is faster @ SL and climbs better with maximal wep. due the better height-performance of 801f a9 is faster at height. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, you are right, I read it too fast.


But what does it mean? Was the test aircraft altered from normal or what???


-jippo

robban75
09-26-2004, 11:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CTO88:

so in 1944 a8 is faster @ SL and climbs better with maximal wep. due the better height-performance of 801f a9 is faster at height. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you trying to say that the A-8 outperformed tha A-9? If so, the A-8 should outperform the D-9 aswell.

The A-9 and D-9 were tested flying next to eachother, the D-9 was slightly better, and the D-9 was much better than the A-8.

PapaFly
09-26-2004, 12:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CTO88:

German factories continued to produce FW-190s as best they could, but the A-8 turned out to be the last production Anton. The "FW-190A-9" was an A-8 with a BMW-801F engine with 1,490 kW (2,000 HP).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for that picture...if you look at the start roll on a concrete runway (which means a roll from 0 to around 190kph) you see that the A8 needed 430m, while the BMW801F powered A9 needed only 390m...just imagine what advantage a BMW801 TS powered A9 should have!

Now what's the deal, which engine did they model?
If they model the 801F powered A9, with a high-alt prop, then, please, take it back, delete it, dump it!

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
09-26-2004, 12:57 PM
just to keep it simple:

the inGame A8 should have 1800HP@110% and 2000HP@110%+WEP. the A9 will have 2000 with 110% and 2300 with WEP+110%.

so easy isn't it ?
ad 60kg in weight and 300hp in Maximum power...well it isn't performing this way in FB.

CTO88
09-26-2004, 05:18 PM
yes indeed i try to say that a8 outperfom a9 in practical use. the cause is located in the engine for a9. a9 was planned as bomber destroyer with a higher critical altitude and 2400PS. but this engine wasn't availible at least in 1944. so a9 flew with only 2000PS.
on the other side a8 got "erh√¬∂hter ladedruck" and had more power.
with that power a8 of course has more perfomance. not every a8 in 1944 had this option, but if they were better than 1944 a9.
fw190a5/6 runs 560km/h with normal wep.
a8 is slightly slower with the same power 548km/h (13 mm bulges?).

the paper in 10/44 show that. the question to me is which variants oleg modelled in fb. if i take this german document
a5 560
a8 548 or 578
a9 560)
d9 576 or 612
and compare it with fb
a5 570
a8 580
a9 590
d9 595 or 605

you see oleg not simply undermodelled a9 or other planes, but uses a mixture of variants. unfortunality the information-politics of oleg is opened as it should be. if you say a9 has 2400 PS of course it is undermodelled in fb. but in reality a huge amount of 900 a9's only had 2000PS and than a9 is indeed partly overmodelled. so oleg take an average figure, a9 runs 590 but climbs only with 2000PS.

same about k4, climbs like 2000PS but runs like 1800 @ SL.

btw: according to jg-51 chronicle la-5fn is 50km/h faster than 190a5, but this is an other story.

BBB_Hyperion
09-26-2004, 08:15 PM
A7 to A9 had the same system for erh√¬∂hte Notleistung even without injection.
http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/notleistungfw.JPG

Btw

For La5fn production standard after year

1943 0 m 573 km/h
6300 m 620 km/h

1944 0 m 597 km/h
6000 m 680 km/h

Limitation of la5fn boost system .

http://www.btinternet.com/~fulltilt/wep.html

There is some contradiction with first hand Czech pilot accounts of flying the La5FN during May 1944. These quite clearly state that augmented power derived from reving over 2400rpm to 2500 rpm was only available from take off and only sustainable for a period of upto 2 minutes immediately after take off.

Later these same accounts referred to the need to watch cylinder head temperatures to safe guard form over heating. Further speculation would offer that the improved cowl design and rerouting of the exhaust pipes on the La7 over the La5FN allowed for better engine cooling.

Also test reports on the La5FN "March 1944 Model"(an La7 prototype) indicate no separate performance curve for the La5FN under augmented power (shows normal power/speed curve only for the La5FN), whereas it is clearly shown on other air craft including the production La7.

We know that the La5FN was under continuous development and would have benefited where possible from advances made in the La7. I would speculate therefore that earlier1943 and early 1944 La5FN models did not have a useful level of augmented power beyond take off (and any extreme measures undertaken by the pilot) but that this capacity would have been improved upon in later models upto November 1944 when the La5FN ceased production.

Start and Notleistung 3 minutes limit from Fw190 A5 flight manual August 43.

Fw190 A5 0 m at 560 km/h
6300 m at 660 km/h


So where is the 50 km/h difference ?

43 -13 km/h
+40 km/h FW is faster.

44 -37 km/h
-20 km/h

I dont see it. Once in a time there maybe a plane that runs faster and a other one runs slower but it isnt standard then. We dont know about the condition of the fw bombracks and such reduce performance derated engine , unpolished surface too.

I find it only funny to compare 1944 standard planes to 1943 ones .

CTO88
09-27-2004, 12:03 PM
hey i can't anything for jg-51 chronicle!

they state it for 7/1943 kursk. notleistung for 190a5 is up to 3 minutes, so 2min of la-5fn is the same way. but according to la-5fn manual wep is 5 min possible. russians stated that 190a had only 1min wep.

same about 109, manual says 10min wep with mw-50, but according to pilots (stiglr) only 2-5min were possible.

but i can imagine why germans means that la5 is ~50km/h faster. maybe russians datas are without polished surface...

after 10min use of special-wep 801-engine had to be changed, so this is really special.

BBB_Hyperion
09-27-2004, 02:37 PM
The reason for la5fn speed difference is production quality and continous improvements on the plane.43 La5fn was not compareable to 44 la5fn. Other engines did improve performance the La5 M71 for example had a speed of 612 km/h at 0 m and 685 at 5500 m. La5 with M82Fn had a topspeed of 630 km/h at sea level and 684 km/h at 6150 m. So identing a plane that look very similar can lead fast to wrong plane type. So Pilot accounts even those of stigler (on the boost system where it isnt clear if he is talking about mw or gm system or mixed it at all) or/and special chronicals have to be taken with a grain of salt.

For the A9 i think what is modeled here is 2000 ps or 2200 ps engine not the 2400 ps one that makes the a9 almost similar to a8 with a little improvement in speed and alt performance.

LBR_Rommel
09-27-2004, 08:41 PM
S!

Great job Papafly

CTO88
09-29-2004, 05:09 AM
why is la-5fn faster with m-82fn as with m71?

which la-5fn runs 630km/h, i think this factory data for la-7, like 560km/h for a5.

the state is: in 43 la-5fn was 50km/h faster than a5. so this can't be in 44. i also don't believe that it was really 50km/h. maybe only 30km/h or so. but pilots felt it like 50?

as it can be seen in the document i've posted, a9 is worse than a8. our a9 shouldn't have wep-button.

DangerForward
09-29-2004, 09:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CTO88:
as it can be seen in the document i've posted, a9 is worse than a8. our a9 shouldn't have wep-button. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As far as the A9 goes I think that table shows that the maker of the table didn't have data for a boosted(wep) A9. It doesn't say that A9 doesn't have WEP, more likely they didn't test the WEP on the A9 for this table.

robban75
09-29-2004, 10:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CTO88:
why is la-5fn faster with m-82fn as with m71?

which la-5fn runs 630km/h, i think this factory data for la-7, like 560km/h for a5.

the state is: in 43 la-5fn was 50km/h faster than a5. so this can't be in 44. i also don't believe that it was really 50km/h. maybe only 30km/h or so. but pilots felt it like 50?

as it can be seen in the document i've posted, a9 is worse than a8. our a9 shouldn't have wep-button. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The prototype La-5FN might have been 50km/h faster than an(unboosted)Fw 190A-5. It managed 595km/h at SL with augmented power and 648km/h at 6300m.
The serial produced machines could not match the performance of the prototype. Speed at SL dropped to 530km/h and 610km/h at 5800m(620km/h @ 6150m), it's important to know that augmented power could not be used because tearing of the fabric covering from the control surfaces prevented it.
Mass production began in the autumn of 1943.

In November 1943 La-5FN No.39210495 was thoroughly tested after improvements had been made. Performance increased to 542km/h at SL(573km/h with augmented power) and 607km/h at 3500m and 620km/h at 6150m.

A prototype for the La-5 reached 630km/h at SL, but that was more than 40km/h faster than what was attainable for production La-5's.

The unboosted speeds for the Fw 190A-8 and A-9 on the chart posted on page two shows that the A-9 is some 20km/h faster than the A-8. A boosted A-9 would probably touch 600km/h at SL and close to 700km/h at 5500m.

CTO88
09-30-2004, 03:08 PM
our a9 already "touches" 600km/h, it runs 590km/h.
the subsscriber of the table is same as for the "boost" - document in 1945.

you set fw-190 factory data against la-5fn test data. according to russian test fw-190a5 runs 510km/h, but a8 is tested with 548km/h.

BSS_Vidar
09-30-2004, 03:25 PM
Cheese-n-crackers... another chart monster! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif Your precious 190 series out climbs, out accelerates, and out runs everything "in-game" that has a prop on it. Be happy with what you have, or call for the correction of inaccuracies of every plane in the plane set.

lbhskier37
09-30-2004, 05:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
Cheese-n-crackers... another chart monster! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif Your precious 190 series out climbs, out accelerates, and out runs everything "in-game" that has a prop on it. Be happy with what you have, or call for the correction of inaccuracies of every plane in the plane set. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif do you have a different game then we do? The 190 is the only plane in game that climbs correctly, well accept the A9

robban75
10-01-2004, 02:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CTO88:
our a9 already "touches" 600km/h, it runs 590km/h.
the subsscriber of the table is same as for the "boost" - document in 1945.

you set fw-190 factory data against la-5fn test data. according to russian test fw-190a5 runs 510km/h, but a8 is tested with 548km/h. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was responding to the chart, not the speed of the A-9 in FB, which seems fairly correct. Acceleration and climbrate can't be considered as correct however.
About the Russian speed reports. For example, their opinion on the Fw 190D-9 was that it had only fair performance. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Show me a VVS fighter that would outperform the D-9 in anything else than in turningability.

robban75
10-01-2004, 02:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
Cheese-n-crackers... another chart monster! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif Your precious 190 series out climbs, out accelerates, and out runs everything "in-game" that has a prop on it. Be happy with what you have, or call for the correction of inaccuracies of every plane in the plane set. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a speedy bird no doubt, but the only fighters it can outclimb is the P-40 and P-47. In acceleration it's(A-4) pretty much on par with a fully fueled P-47.

Below you can see how well the Fw 190 compares in a 40 degree dive against the opposition. The Fw 190A-4 was supposed to be a good diver right? It's outdived by the Yak-3, La-7, and even the Spitfire MkIXc, the only fighter it can best is the Bf 109G-6(late). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


Type - 109 - P47 - 190 - P51 - Yak - La7 - IXc

5000 - 310 - 310 - 310 - 310 - 310 - 310 - 310
4500 - 488 - 488 - 487 - 480 - 481 - 495 - 486
4000 - 612 - 613 - 610 - 610 - 613 - 619 - 613
3500 - 699 - 707 - 701 - 710 - 708 - 710 - 706
3000 - 766 - 779 - 770 - 787 - 780 - 780 - 774
2500 - 818 - 837 - 827 - 851 - 838 - 841 - 828
2000 - 857 - 884 - 871 - 902 - 885 - 890 - 869
1500 - 887 - 922 - 907 - 946 - 925 - N/A - 901
1000 - 910 - 953 - 935 - 981 - 951 - N/A - 926
500 - 927 - 978 - 958 - 1012 - N/A - N/A - 936

More info here. http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=9141003422

CTO88
10-01-2004, 04:36 AM
190d9 is only fast with mw50. russians tested d9 correct with 1780PS ~550km/h. german sources doesn't state a higher figure. i have even an german test 1900PS figure states d9 doesn't run more than 560km/h.

la-7 outturns and outclimbs d9 in every way, and is as fast as d9(2140PS) in sealevel and ~10-20km/h @ altitude.

NN_EnigmuS
10-01-2004, 05:06 AM
you speack about nose shake of p38 men have you ever try turning in a 190 between 300km/h and 400km/h,the fw shake as hell

and don't forget that the fw is one of th most E bleeder of the game too,it turn not that bad with speed(more than 400km/h)but one turn at 500km/h and you'll fall to 300km/h and after that the plane won't turn despite the mustang not bleed E that much so that still turning well because of good speed

VMF513_Sandman
10-01-2004, 05:57 AM
all i hear is piss/moan/whine about these uber 190's. they outrun/climb dam near anything once they get the speed up. if u really want to whine about something, i dare u to fly either model of p-38 as it is now; engine power is seriously off, climb rate/acceleration seriously porked, snapstalls in left turns, obvious torque in a no-torque bird, nose shakes worse than a rat engaged by a cat....then compare that to a bird that never once saw action and currently flies like the 38 should...109-z. 4x30mm cannon and it dont shake period. primary reason why the 109z is blacklisted from my maps. i know u wont fly the 38 since u have no guts.

robban75
10-01-2004, 06:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CTO88:
190d9 is only fast with mw50. russians tested d9 correct with 1780PS ~550km/h. german sources doesn't state a higher figure. i have even an german test 1900PS figure states d9 doesn't run more than 560km/h.

la-7 outturns and outclimbs d9 in every way, and is as fast as d9(2140PS) in sealevel and ~10-20km/h @ altitude. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most German speed are with the ETC rack attached, so adding a some 6km/h isn't all too unrealistic.

Sealevel topspeed(without rack) for the D-9 without MW50 was 574km/h @ 1900PS(555km/h @ 1680PS), and with MW50 it was 612km/h. At 6600m without MW50 the topspeed was 688km/h and with MW50 it was 698-702km/h at 5500m.

Even the Russian managed to get the D-9 above 600km/h at sealevel. And they didn't have MW50 for it. They probably used higher octane fuel though.

A Fw 190D-9('44 version in FB) with C3 fuel and C3 injection was even faster, managing 621km/h at sealevel. Topspeed at 5500m was 711km/h.

La-7 max climbrate was 24m/sec. The MW50 powered D-9 managed 22.5m/sec, which is insignificantly lower than the La-7. The C3 fueled D-9 would probably be on par with the La-7 for the first 2000m, then the D-9 should rapidly pull away.

So as you can see, the D-9 climbs slightly worse or equal to the La-7 at low altitudes, at higher altitudes the D-9 should be superior.

In terms of topspeed, very much the same, equal at low altitudes and a marked superiority at the higher alts for the D-9.

robban75
10-01-2004, 06:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF513_Sandman:
all i hear is piss/moan/whine about these uber 190's. they outrun/climb dam near anything once they get the speed up. if u really want to whine about something, i dare u to fly either model of p-38 as it is now; engine power is seriously off, climb rate/acceleration seriously porked, snapstalls in left turns, obvious torque in a no-torque bird, nose shakes worse than a rat engaged by a cat....then compare that to a bird that never once saw action and currently flies like the 38 should...109-z. 4x30mm cannon and it dont shake period. primary reason why the 109z is blacklisted from my maps. i know u wont fly the 38 since u have no guts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, the P-38 isn't modelled correctly, and this is what, the Fw 190's fault? I suggest you make a thread all on your own, make some thorough testings and compare the results to what the charts says. I personaly find the P-38 quite easy to fly compared to the Fw 190 and with a gentle hand at low speeds it's an exceptional turner. I do believe however that the locking up of the elevator at "medium" divespeeds should be looked into. With this fixed it's pretty much like driving a Wurger IMO. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

So, let's see some testing! I'm very much prepared to agree with your statements if you can back them up. This is excactly what we've been trying to do with the Fw 190 ever since the dawn of IL2, and were still working on it! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

GR142_Astro
10-01-2004, 09:05 AM
Although Robban is an obvious 190 freak, as usual he is even and fair-minded about it. To put this very simply, take some performance away from the 109 and give it to the 190. These two aircraft are NOT matching up with real life history.

Fb109 turns way too easily and suffers NO effects from its wing slats. You can hop in this thing and yank and yank and yank. Fb109 is now some silly arcade helicopter with super turning.

As Zen and others have pointed out, for the Luftwaffe to have only fielded 2 fighter types during the entire war, it is stupid that these planes aren't just about perfect in every way in regards to DM and FM.

190 DM is still wrong. A few plinks and it flies like a turd, but then it continues to take an idiotic amount of hits to finish it off.

Not to further hijack the thread, but yes Sandman the P38 is about the saddest excuse for a fighter in the game.

P38 FIX: Nose shake and elevators apparently covered with toilet paper that lose effectiveness at anything over 20mph.

CTO88
10-02-2004, 04:11 AM
robban you forget: only one! jumo-213 engine was built, that used c3. all d9 flew with b4.

2140PS d9 climbs in 4,5 min @ 4200m, la-7 reaches ~ 4min @ 4000m. climb rate @ sl is 21 m/s. 22,5 is with a-lader jumo213ag.
between 2500m and 4500m d9 climbs slightly better as la-7, but above they are equal.

whats your souce for russian 600km/h test?

PapaFly
10-02-2004, 07:23 AM
To BSS_Vidar and Sandman: guys this is a serious FACTS-thread, so don't hyjack it with some irrelevant BS. Vidar its so pathetic having you in here, placing some embarrasingly dumb statement and just making clear that you have absolutely no frecking idea about any Fw or about flying in general. Better go and make some homework.

Sandmann, I haven't tested the p38 yet so no idea if its right or not, anyway this is a 190 thread. If it really sucks that bad you better start testing it thoroughly and open an own thread.

S!

VW-IceFire
10-02-2004, 08:05 AM
Quick question...anyone able to establish how the A-4 that we have should compair to those tested...say the British tests that were done?

I did a quick Spitfire Vb VS FW190A-4 climb test. I feel confident in both planes so I attempted to get maximum climb from both to see how they fell.

Procedure:
Engine off, takeoff from close to sea level airbase in Crimea, throttle as far as it will go. Radiator closed and only opened when necessary. Full fuel and ammo. Used a stopwatch and climbed to 5000 meters.

Spitfire (Vb normal wing so called 1941 version which is actually a 1942 version) climbed to 5000 meters in 5:17.

FW190A-4 climbed to 5000 meters in 6:58.

The Spitfire I used WEP on. The FW190A-4 has no WEP so I just maxed it out...but left prop pitch on auto.

I'm mostly interested in getting maximum performance out of the FW190. The Vb we have isn't the same one that is often compaired by pilots and notes so I'm not sure if the stats for the 1942 Vb mean that it was able to outclimb the FW190A-3/4 or what. I know the LF Vb had a different low alt climb rate.

Definately I was under the assumption that the FW190 did outclimb the Spitfire Vb (the IX is another story) and that and its superior dive and roll rate gave it a manuverability edge. This is present in any scenario where a FW190 pilot attacks from an altitude advantage...the FW190's manuverability and superiority of his machine becomes clear. But in a even alt fight it is not so readily apparent.

robban75
10-02-2004, 08:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CTO88:
robban you forget: only one! jumo-213 engine was built, that used c3. all d9 flew with b4.

2140PS d9 climbs in 4,5 min @ 4200m, la-7 reaches ~ 4min @ 4000m. climb rate @ sl is 21 m/s. 22,5 is with a-lader jumo213ag.
between 2500m and 4500m d9 climbs slightly better as la-7, but above they are equal.

whats your souce for russian 600km/h test? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's no source that I know of that says that only 1 Jumo was built using C3. Although there's no doubt in my mind that most of the Dora's that were produced used B4 fuel as it was clearly easier to get a hold of late in the war.

I believe you might be confusing this with the Jumo that had Sonder - Notleistung mit A Lader als Bodenmotor(646km/h at SL). Although there's no documents that says how many Dora's were equipped with this special low alt engine. As I've said earlier, the Germans even fielded prototypes, I thinks it's safer to believe that these engines were used rather than that they weren't. This is all my opinion of course. Either way, the Jumo was an extremly adaptable engine no doubt.

Look at the graph below, do the math, with Sonder - Notleistung mit Ladedruckerhoehung mit MW50(2100PS) the D-9 climbs to 5000m in 4 minutes.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/robban75/190da8ta154climb.jpg

In FB the La-7 outclimbs the D-9 from sealevel up to 9000m.

The 600km/h for russian captured D-9's is from Oleg.

Karl Heinz Ossenkop managed to get his(production)D-9 to reach 605km/h IAS with ETC 504 rack fitted.

hop2002
10-02-2004, 12:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Engine off, takeoff from close to sea level airbase in Crimea, throttle as far as it will go. Radiator closed and only opened when necessary. Full fuel and ammo. Used a stopwatch and climbed to 5000 meters.

Spitfire (Vb normal wing so called 1941 version which is actually a 1942 version) climbed to 5000 meters in 5:17.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A real Spit Vc with 4 20 mm cannon and 480 rounds of 20 mm (ie several hundred pounds heavier than the one we have in game) reached 5,000m in 4 mins 45 secs, with radiator fully open, when using 16 lbs boost (1942 configuration)

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

A real Spit Vb, in the same configuration as in game, reached 5,000m in 5 mins 6 secs at 9 lbs, 2850 rpm, ie it's 30 minute climb rating. That's a 1941 configuration.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/w3134.html

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>FW190A-4 climbed to 5000 meters in 6:58.

The Spitfire I used WEP on. The FW190A-4 has no WEP so I just maxed it out...but left prop pitch on auto. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Focke Wulfe figures for the 190A5, at 1.32 ata, give about 6 mins 25 secs to 5,000m. The A4 should use 1.35 ata if it's derated, and is slightly lighter, so the time should be a bit lower, closer to 6 mins.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Definately I was under the assumption that the FW190 did outclimb the Spitfire Vb <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anecdotes will tell you it should. The first test the British conducted will tell you it should, but they wrongly ran the 190 at WEP, the rest of the planes at 30 min rating.

If you compare German tests of the 190 with British tests of the Spit V, in the same time frame the Spit V should climb better.

JG14_Josf
10-02-2004, 04:03 PM
The Fw190 werk #5313 did outclimb the Spitfire VB in July 1942.

The British ADFU document states:

"Climb:
The climb of the Fw190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, the the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably steeper."

The British boosted their engines after finding out the FW190 (running rough do to fouled spark plugs) was superior in climb and climb angle.

If someone can shed some light on what exactly constitutes a "Derated" BMW engine (suggested operating range or mechanical restriction) and how typical this limit was, or how many 'rated' Fw190s were in combat compared to 'derated' Fw190s then please enlighten those of us who are curious.

The game currently has a Spitfire tagged as being a 1941 plane. If it outclimbs the games Fw190A4 then something is wrong.

Does the game model a 'derated' Fw190A-4 with bad spark plugs and a 1941 Spitfire overboosted to late 1942 standards?

What would really be nice to know is what actually did the pilots have to do in order to control boost pressure in these planes.

Did the pilots have to watch the boost gauge and make sure they did not open the throttle too far or did the mechanic have to change something under the hood?

In the British comparative tests between the captured Fw190A-3 (werk #5313) the climb tests were conducted side by side so that the pilots could see for themselves which plane had the better climb rate and climb angle. They didn't have to rely upon charts.

If anyone can shed some light on the engine controls it may help in determining what really happened in combat when one pilot was trying to outclimb another pilot.

For example:

Did the ADFU tests pilots actually race each other to get the most out of their planes or did they fly on instruments? Did they have to listen for engine RPM or did they have a buzzer that told them when RPM and manifold pressure was past the red-line?

I does not make sense that a Spitfire pilot in early 1942 would be concerned too much about manifold pressure and RPM if an FW190 was following in a climb.

How would the thinking go:

"Let's see now; I can back off on the throttle or I can let those 4 20mm cannons tear me a new one. Hmmmmmm what a quandary. Let me consult the placard! It says right here: "Derated". I guess that is it then."

More information would be welcome on this subject.

One chart says this, another chart says that, real combat test trials say something else, and in the game we have something completely different.

DangerForward
10-02-2004, 04:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
If you compare German tests of the 190 with British tests of the Spit V, in the same time frame the Spit V should climb better. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In "Focke-Wulf 190A", by Hermann they have the time for a 190A3 to 6000M as 7.2 minutes. For various Spit Vs to 20000 feet(~6000 meters) I have

July 1941(Boscombe Down W3134) = 7.6 min
June to October 1942(Boscombe Down AA878) = 7.85 min
Nomber 1942(Boscombe Down AA937) = 7.4 min

That might be more what they're talking about when they say the 190 outclimbs the Spit V.

hop2002
10-02-2004, 05:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In "Focke-Wulf 190A", by Hermann they have the time for a 190A3 to 6000M as 7.2 minutes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That looks like WEP for the A3. The A5 climb chart I have shows a shade over 8 mins to 6,000m at 2450 rpm, 1.32 ata.
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1095679818_fw190a5-climbfaber.jpg
(Ignore the red line, that's what the RAE claim to have got with Faber's 190)

WEP on the A3 was 1.35 ata, 2450 rpm, so the power would have been slightly higher, and weight slightly lower, which could have reduced the time to 7.2 mins.

Does the book give more details, like climb rate at different altitudes, or a graph?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> For various Spit Vs to 20000 feet(~6000 meters) I have

July 1941(Boscombe Down W3134) = 7.6 min <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you mind if I ask what the source is? Does it give the engine settings?

The Boscombe down tests of many Spits can be found at http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spittest.html

W3134's test is at http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/w3134.html

It's dated 18th June 1941.

At climbing power, 9 lbs, 2850 rpm, W3134 took 6.38 mins to 20,000ft (adjusted to 6.4 mins because boost was running marginally high, at 9.1 instead of 9 lbs)

The climb graph is at http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/w3134climb.gif
That's at climbing power, WEP would be somewhat faster again. 7.6 mins must be either at a much lower power setting again (perhaps max continuous, 7 lbs, 2650 rpm)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>June to October 1942(Boscombe Down AA878) = 7.85 min <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AA878 is at http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/aa878.html

The test is dated July - September 1942.

There are 2 figures for AA878 because it was tested at climb power and WEP.

At climb power the figure is 7.9 mins, at WEP it's 6.15 mins.

Note that AA878 was ballasted with the weight of 4 20 mm cannon and 480 rounds of 20mm, which is over 400 lbs heavier than the Spit Vb (which is what is modelled in IL2)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>That might be more what they're talking about when they say the 190 outclimbs the Spit V. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Possibly, but bear in mind it requires a 190 A3 running at WEP and a Spit V with 4 20mm cannon and running at climbing power for the 190 to win.

Here's the time to 20,000 ft for various configurations:
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
190A3 WEP 7.2 mins
Spit Vb climb 6.38 mins
Spit Vb WEP 5.82 mins

190A3 WEP 7.2 mins
Spit Vc climb 7.9 mins
Spit Vc WEP 6.15 mins

190A5 climb 8.1 mins
Spit Vc climb 7.9 mins
Spit Vb climb 6.38 mins
</pre>

As you can see, only when the 190 A3 is at WEP, the Spit is at climb power AND carrying 4 cannon does the 190 win.

JG14_Josf
10-02-2004, 06:16 PM
Hop2002,

Do you or do you not know anything about the 'derating' of BMW engines?

The engine rating of 1.32 ata manifold pressure is not WEP. That is your 'spin'.

What is the purpose of your propagandizing?

Is it a hobby?

It would serve the people interested in this subject to know how many 'derated' Focke Wulfs were used during the war and how many Focke Wulfs were not 'derated'.

Your dubious inference concerning FW-190 power settings is unsupported. If you claim that all Fw-190A-3s were limited to 1.32 ata manifold pressure then please back this up with evidence.

The facts are written down that the Fw190A-3 did out climb the Spitfire VB. An Fw190A-3 was actually tested for the expressed purpose of finding out which plane had a better rate of climb. The Fw190A-3 climbed at a higher rate and a higher angle than the Spitfire VB.

The comparative climb test was conducted at 1.32 ata manifold pressure for the FW which was assumed to be derated. What exactly is 'derating'?

Is it a suggested throttle setting?

Is it a mechanical limitation?

The Spitfires were also not running at the highest boost possible during the ADFU tests. They were limited in some manner before the tests and they were upgraded to higher boosts after the ADFU combat trial tests.

What actually was done to the Spitfires?

Did the Spitfire pilots have a new target manifold pressure that they could try to achieve during combat or was something mechanical done to the Spitfires so that they could rev the Merlin engines higher with higher boost pressures?

Your refutation of the ADFU tests is based upon your simplistic claim that all FW190A-3s could not rev higher than 1.32 ata. You insist upon calling 1.32 ata - WEP.


If some 190A-3s were derated and if these 190s did only run at 1.32 in combat it is still a fact that at 1.32 ata the FW190A-3 outclimbed the Spitfire VB in july 1942. Much of what happened after that remains subjective (opinion).

Boost pressures were raised for the Spitfires.

What about FW190s? What is the climb rate at 1.42 ata for an FW190A3? What is the climb rate for an FW190A-3 that isn't running rough with fouled spark plugs?

The fact remains even if you choose to ignore it: The FW190A-3 outclimbed the Spitfire VB in July 1942.

This fact was known by the British as shown on their own combat test trial reports.

Your opinion is based upon comparing climb charts for what; a radiator cooling test and a one page German climb test?

Is there any history on the Fw190A-5 in that climb test?

Was that Fw190A-5 also derated; was it too running on your so called WEP?

It stands to reason that after the ADFU tests the British were trying everything possible to get their Spitfires to climb as good as the derated Focke Wulf that had bad spark plugs.

The British obviously made progress in that regard after july 1942.

The game has a Spitfire listed as 1941.

If the 1941 Spitfire in the game can outclimb the FW190A-4 in the game then something is wrong.

DangerForward
10-02-2004, 06:54 PM
The source for the Spit data I use is "Spitfire, The History" by Eric Morgan.

That test on w3134 is strange since it means that either my book or the website you linked to is wrong. Since your figures for the climb setting are faster than mine(9 lbs boost). The book doesn't say much about the Spit in this test other than the engine types(I took the better of the Merlin 45, 46). The Spitfire book also lists the takeoff weight of the standard Spit Vb as 6622 lbs. versus the 6525 lbs. for W3134. Although there's so many kinds of Spit Vb there's probably several weights.

Also the Hermann book I have on the 190A says the WEP(or takeoff) power is 1.42 ata for the A3. They lists the times to alt as...

2000m - 2.0 min
4000m - 4.6 min
6000m - 7.2 min
8000m - 11.3 min
9000m - 15 min

They don't say whether it's at WEP or climb, but I didn't think the the 190 had enough wep to last 7.2 minutes muchless the 15 minutes for the end of the table.

hop2002
10-02-2004, 08:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Do you or do you not know anything about the 'derating' of BMW engines? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know they were derated. At least, people I trust, who know far more about the subject than I do, say they were derated. Faber's 190 was also derated, it says so on the tests, and the RAE report done afterwards makes it clear that 1.32 ata is a 3 minute rating.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The engine rating of 1.32 ata manifold pressure is not WEP. That is your 'spin' <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's actually 1.35 ata, and yes it was WEP.

WEP is just a term to indicate an emergency short term rating. 1.35 ata was a 3 minute rating on the 190 A3, and you can't get more short term than that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What is the purpose of your propagandizing? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm not propogandizing. As I understand it, all the 190A3s and at least early production A4s were derated to 1.35 ata because of severe overheating when run at 1.42 ata. (This might have been changed on A3s later on in late 42/early 43, but I don't think it was, the older aircraft were simply replaced)

Just to get things clear, do you accept that the A3 was derated to 1.35 ata, or are you claiming 190 A3s could run at 1.42 ata?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It would serve the people interested in this subject to know how many 'derated' Focke Wulfs were used during the war and how many Focke Wulfs were not 'derated'. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I haven't got a production breakdown, but again as I understand it, the A3 and early A4 were derated to 1.35 ata, the late A4 and subsequent models were not derated and ran at 1.42 ata, then 1.65, then even higher in 1944.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Your dubious inference concerning FW-190 power settings is unsupported. If you claim that all Fw-190A-3s were limited to 1.32 ata manifold pressure then please back this up with evidence. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't give evidence I don't have.

I can give you some references.

Firstly, Faber's 190 was derated. Both the AFDU report and the RAE say so.

Secondly, Butch, who I think most people on this board trust:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The A4 as modeled in game is the derated version, it is normal to get only 1.35ata@2450rpm. The BMW 801 as mounted until mid 1942 did not have chromed exhaust pipe and suffered from excessive overheating especialy in the short nosed A3-A4.
When the A5 was introduced with a slighter better airflow and modified 801D-2, the ban on 1.42ata@2700rpm was lifted.
Yet on the A4 the 1.35ata@2450rpm was only authorized for 3 minutes maximum, same goes for the 1.42ata@2700rpm on the A5 and up.

Butch

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=88310543&r=93410543#93410543 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note Butch seems to be suggesting all the A4s were derated, which I am not sure of, and there seem to be different opinions on the A4 amongst different people.

All the serious researchers agree the A3 was derated, however.

There are more from Butch along the same lines:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=484109953&r=163105763#163105763

Also see this on AGW, pay particular attention to Phillipe Willaume, who is one of the experts on the 190.

http://agw.bombs-away.net/showthread.php?t=22560&highlight=chromed

Now, as I said, I can't offer much in the way of evidence because I don't have it, beyond pointing out that Faber's 190 was derated, and the opinions of some good researchers that the A3 was derated.

However, can you offer any evidence that they weren't? We know one A3 in detail, Faber's, and that was derated. Do you know for sure any which weren't?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The facts are written down that the Fw190A-3 did out climb the Spitfire VB. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. AN A3 outclimbed A spit V in ONE test. (And that was when the A3 ran at WEP, the Spit at climb power).

You will find several tests that contradict others, for all sorts of aircraft. You can't rely on a single example when there are several contradictory tests around, especially an example that's as far off expected as Faber's.

Look at that climb chart I posted above. The line in red is Faber's 190 at the RAE. Have you ever seen a climb graph like that, where climb rate increases in high gear, instead of decreasing? Note it decrease as expected, as all 2 speed charts do, in the Focke Wulfe tests.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>An Fw190A-3 was actually tested for the expressed purpose of finding out which plane had a better rate of climb. The Fw190A-3 climbed at a higher rate and a higher angle than the Spitfire VB. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. In ONE test, of a just captured plane, at the wrong boost settings, by people who had little idea of the plane they were testing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The comparative climb test was conducted at 1.32 ata manifold pressure for the FW which was assumed to be derated. What exactly is 'derating'?

Is it a suggested throttle setting?

Is it a mechanical limitation? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's usually a mechanical limitation.

Note that the report on Faber's 190 says:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>There are indications that 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 PoWs. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If it were just a suggested limitation, then it would not be "supported" by the pilot's data card, that would be all there was, ie an instruction not to exceed 1.35 ata.

So, there was clearly some mechanical restriction.

Isegrim thinks it was an adjustment of the throttle, which can be acomplished by adjust the throttle travel so that pushing the throttle fully forward no longer opens the throttle fully.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Spitfires were also not running at the highest boost possible during the ADFU tests. They were limited in some manner before the tests and they were upgraded to higher boosts after the ADFU combat trial tests.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, the limit was 12 lbs on the Spitfire V during the test, increased to 16 lbs around the same time.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What actually was done to the Spitfires?

Did the Spitfire pilots have a new target manifold pressure that they could try to achieve during combat or was something mechanical done to the Spitfires so that they could rev the Merlin engines higher with higher boost pressures? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not a question of revs, the rpm limit stayed the same at 3000. The allowed manifold pressure was increased. On the Spitfire the manifold pressure was controlled by the automatic boost control. The pilot advanced the throttle (the throttle controls manifold pressure (boost), not the rpm), the ABC made sure the throttle didn't open too much to exceed the manifold pressure limit.

So if a Spit pilot in a Spit V pushed the throttle all the way forward, he would get the maximum boost allowed, 12 lbs, or 16 lbs later on when the modifications had been made (of course, at high altitude he couldn't get that much pressure, as the air became too thin).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Your refutation of the ADFU tests is based upon your simplistic claim that all FW190A-3s could not rev higher than 1.32 ata. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's nothing to do with revs, manifold pressure is seperate.

I am claiming that they could not allow greater than 1.35 ata, however.

And whilst we're on the subject of revs, there was a different rev limit on the derated machines as well, 2450 rpm instead of 2700 rpm.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If some 190A-3s were derated and if these 190s did only run at 1.32 in combat it is still a fact that at 1.32 ata the FW190A-3 outclimbed the Spitfire VB in july 1942. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In ONE test. And again, that's an A3 on WEP, the Spit V on climb power.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What about FW190s? What is the climb rate at 1.42 ata for an FW190A3? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know. There were probably some done early on before the engines were derated, so there should be one out there

DangerForward has quoted a time to climb above, and I've asked him if there are more details in Harman's book (which I don't have).

However, we can try an estimate.

The figure in Harman's book is 12.5% better than the 190 A5 chart I posted above. If you add 12.5% to that chart, you get a peak climb rate of about 17.3 m/s.

I'd expect something close to that. I suspect that might have been done in some of the RAE tests, particularly the second gear ones.

Note that I don't believe the A3 was ever able to use this rating in service.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What is the climb rate for an FW190A-3 that isn't running rough with fouled spark plugs? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No idea. I also don't know if the RAF actually had fouled plugs, because at the time they reported them they were also running the engine way beyond it's limits. Fouled plugs might just have been their initial diagnosis.

That's the problem with pining everything on the Faber test. There's so much we don't know about the actual state of the aircraft.

It seems slow, for example, but has a higher climb rate than expected.

Would you be willing to campaign for it's speed in the game to be adjusted to meet the tests of Faber's 190? The RAE got only 490 km/h at sea level, the A4 in game does over 540 km/h. Do you think the speed in game should be adjusted downwards?

The AFDU test say "at 1000 ft the Fw 190 is 25 - 30 mph faster than the Spit V".

In game, the 190 A4 is 35 - 40 mph faster than the Spit V, do you want the 190 slowed down by 16 km/h?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The fact remains even if you choose to ignore it: The FW190A-3 outclimbed the Spitfire VB in July 1942. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the fact remains in ONE test ONE Fw 190 running WEP outclimbed ONE Spitfire V running climbing power.

To try to generalise the results of tests of a single, poorly understood aircraft, into applying to all aircraft of it's type, is pushing things too far.

The Faber tests are ONE item of information that has to be measured against a lot of other information, like factory tests of the 190, A&AEE tests of multiple Spit Vs, etc.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Your opinion is based upon comparing climb charts for what; a radiator cooling test and a one page German climb test?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nothing whatsoever to do with a radiator cooling test.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Is there any history on the Fw190A-5 in that climb test? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. Note in low gear it fits quite nicely with RAE tests of Faber's A3, in high gear the RAE tests don't fit with it, but then they don't match the laws of physics, either.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Was that Fw190A-5 also derated; was it too running on your so called WEP?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That A5 is quite clearly labelled, 1.32 ata 2400 rpm. That's climb and combat power on the A5. The A3 used 1.35 ata, 2450 rpm, as WEP. That means the A3 had slightly more power at WEP than the A5 did at climb and combat.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It stands to reason that after the ADFU tests the British were trying everything possible to get their Spitfires to climb as good as the derated Focke Wulf that had bad spark plugs. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thing is, they already had their Spit Vs climbing better. Here's the RAE chart Butch posted earlier:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1096770083_fw190-doc3.jpg

Now this is Faber's plane, tested by the RAE, who did proper performance trials (the AFDU did not).

Note that at the 3 min limit, Faber's A3 is almost identical to the Spit V at it's climb rating low down, and slightly superior above, and when both aircraft are at their climb rating, the Spit is superior at low alt, almost identical at higher alts (and the A3's figures don't conform to the laws of physics at high alt)

To elaborate futher on that point, here's the A3 figures at climb rating and wep:

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
Rating 4000ft 15,000ft
WEP 3250 ft/min 3500 ft/min
Climb 2900 ft/min 2800 ft/min
</pre>

Note how at climb rating the climb rate goes down at high alt in high gear, which is what you'd expect (though not as much as you'd expect), but in WEP the climb rate actually goes up at high alt in high gear, which is unique amongst all the 2 speed engines I have ever seen.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If the 1941 Spitfire in the game can outclimb the FW190A-4 in the game then something is wrong. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, if the 1941 Spitfire V can outclimb the 190 A3 then it conforms to all the tests but the AFDU test of Faber's aircrat. IE it conforms to A&AEE and Focke Wulfe testing, and conforms to the RAE's tests of Faber's 190. It just doesn't conform to the AFDU's test of Faber's 190. But the AFDU were a unit responsible for developing tactics, not testing performance, the RAE were a unit responsible for testing performance.

BBB_Hyperion
10-02-2004, 10:32 PM
So the 190 A3 did run the climbtest in talk on 3 minute limit for derated 1.35 ata for 6 Minutes and that on a rough engine cause of sparx plugs and it still climbed faster than a spit v

Well according to this report from 22th August 42 it was the max climbing power not max boost.

http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/fw190raftest.JPG http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/fw190raftest2.JPG

JG14_Josf
10-02-2004, 11:01 PM
Hop2002,

Clearly you are mistaken. I am not the one campaigning for anything other than information.

I am not the one claiming that one test represents absolute performance values. My statements are and were showing the facts concerning what is recorded in documentation concerning side by side performance tests. That is it.

You on the other hand are the one stating absolute nonsense like this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As you can see, only when the 190 A3 is at WEP, the Spit is at climb power AND carrying 4 cannon does the 190 win. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note the word 'only'.

As if someone sitting behind a desk in 2004 knows more about relative climb performance than pilots who flew the planes in 1942.

So here you are making these absolute claims and then you accuse me of making these claims.

Here is an example of my claims:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If the 1941 Spitfire in the game can outclimb the FW190A-4 in the game then something is wrong. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here you go:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>To try to generalise the results of tests of a single, poorly understood aircraft, into applying to all aircraft of it's type, is pushing things too far. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you mean to apply the above opinion to this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As you can see, only when the 190 A3 is at WEP, the Spit is at climb power AND carrying 4 cannon does the 190 win. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then you have the audacity to say things like this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A real Spit Vb, in the same configuration as in game, reached 5,000m in 5 mins 6 secs at 9 lbs, 2850 rpm, ie it's 30 minute climb rating. That's a 1941 configuration.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do you know which verson of Spitfire is modeled in the game?

And more of the same:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A real Spit Vc with 4 20 mm cannon and 480 rounds of 20 mm (ie several hundred pounds heavier than the one we have in game) reached 5,000m in 4 mins 45 secs, with radiator fully open, when using 16 lbs boost (1942 configuration) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which Spitfire do we have in the game?

Repeating, because it needs to be done, you accuse me of doing what you do with these baseless claims of so called knowledge that can 'only' happen as you claim.

How many models of Spitfire were made in WWII, how many different configurations, how many different capabilities of performance between models and even between one plane and the next?

You are the one claiming these absolute plane performance capabilities. For you to accuse me of this idiocy is insulting but expected.

The link to Butch2K's opinions that cannot be backed with actual data is unfortunate.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'm unfortunately not authorized to post the data i have, it has have been given to me some time ago, but i sweared not to publish it.
Butch
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you read Alfred Price's book (FW190 in Combat)you may be inclinded to think that one person's opinion based upon his private collection of data may not be the whole story. You may be less inclined to make absolute statements of authority on relative performance and you may be less likely to accuse others of having your tendency to over generalize.

"During the spring of 1942 all six Gruppen of Jagdgeschwader 2 and 26 had re-equipped with the Fw 190. Between them these units mustered about 260 of these formidable fighters. By then the earlier engine troubles had been cured, allowing the pilots to exploit to the full the capabilites of the Fw 190." (Fw190 in Combat, Alfred Price)

Look up Alfred Price on the net. See his credentials. Perhaps he also has information that was not for public consumption. Perhaps he was just a hack. I don't know. I'm not the one making absolute claims of authority.

That is one Historians opinion.

Take the Spitfire in the game with the label 1941 and try climbing it against the FW190A-4 in the game and reconcile that with the Farber tests.

You will form your opinion concerning the games ability to model accurate relative performance.
It will be your opinion.

You can choose to take information available that backs your opinion and you can choose to refute information that does not back your opinion.

I choose to keep my mind open.

Something is wrong if the Spitfire 1941 outclimbs the FW190A-4 in the game. This is fact. Perhaps what is wrong is that the Farber tests were wrong, the ADFU conclusions were wrong, Alfred Price is wrong, Eric Brown is wrong, W.S. Douglas and the Air Chief Marshal's pilots are wrong.

You may be right sitting behind your desk. You may be the final authority on this subject and you may be able to make these absolute claims of fact.

Example:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>All the serious researchers agree the A3 was derated, however.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


What you cannot be, however, is right in insinuating my intentions:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Would you be willing to campaign for it's speed in the game to be adjusted to meet the tests of Faber's 190? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What a load of ****. I do not campaign to have the game adjusted in any manner. Oleg can do whatever he wants with his product as far as I am concerned. My concern is to be able to identify accuracy. This is a catch 22 situation, an unatainable ideal, it is subject to adjustment based upon the available evidence.

There is much more to the Farber tests than what you call "one" test. This is again your spin. That one Fw190 was tested extensively. It may or may not have been representative of what the Germans were flying. What is certain however is that the British considered it to be representative enough for them to make the conclusions that do in fact contradict what is found in the game.

Moving on to the important stuff:

Which Spitfires had the ABC throttle controls and what did the pilots control in order to maintain manifold pressure on Spitfires without the ABC throttle control?

More absolute knowledge?:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It's not a question of revs, the rpm limit stayed the same at 3000. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why does the chart you posted list 2850 R.P.M. at altitudes below 25,000 ft and 3000 above that altitude?

Information is much more valuable than opinion.

What did the pilots actually need to do to get these performances? Can you stop and think for a moment? Is it possible that the ADFU did more than just fill out reports. Is it possible they formed their opinions based upon comparision testing? Could the fighter pilots testing this captured plane have actually used it like a fighter plane instead of like a test subject? Could it be that fighter pilots conducting climb tests for tactical considerations might get more out of a plane because it is their business to do so and therefore they would want to get the most out of both planes being tested? It make no sense at all for fighter pilots to rig the tests to make the Spitfire climb less than it really could at that time and make the FW190 climb more than what they considered representative.

I am not on the crusade you imply. I want to know about fighter planes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If it were just a suggested limitation, then it would not be "supported" by the pilot's data card, that would be all there was, ie an instruction not to exceed 1.35 ata.

So, there was clearly some mechanical restriction.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is clearly just opinion.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Isegrim thinks it was an adjustment of the throttle, which can be acomplished by adjust the throttle travel so that pushing the throttle fully forward no longer opens the throttle fully. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is more opinion. Did the pilot control the throttle adjustment or was this an 'under the hood' adjustment?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I am claiming that they could not allow greater than 1.35 ata, however. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please support this with something more than opinion.

Butch 2K certainly thinks that you are right but why does he post this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>There has been a lot of confusion about the British test results of the early Fw190's they had in their possession. From what I have been able to determine a fully armed(4 cannon)/rated and normally loaded A-3 or A-4 would do just about 390 to 400mph at best altitude. There is a British test document of a A-4/U8 that was reconfigured to a fighter standard ( No wing drop tank fairings or ETC rack and only 2 cannon ) that achieved a top speed ,with Combat&CLimb power, of right about 400mph at 19,500feet and a speed of about 420mph at 20,700mph with Takeoff/Emergency power. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note:

"A lot of confusion"

"From what I have been able to determine"

More from Butch:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As far as i know the A3 and A4 were always rigged when in German hands at 1.3ata max. Now the US and British tested the aircraft at 1.42ata, but as precised in the test they were not able to sustain it for long just one or two minutes.
Keep in mind that while the German engine were designed to be overhauled frequently (some were at least 6 or 7 times, possibly even more...), changing the engine every couple of days is not very practical for a front line unit.
Running at 1.42 had particularly nasty side effect from spark plug fouling to much catastrophic results, so i think it's correct to model the A4 as it was in reality not as FW charts shows it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note:
"As far as I know"

"so i think"

Butch is not making absolute claims. He has information that we do not and perhaps Alfred Price has information that Butch does not.

What remains is the fact that a German fighter pilot landed at the wrong base after shooting down a Spitfire and the British tested this plane extensively to conclude things that do not happen in the game, not even close.

k5054
10-03-2004, 04:29 AM
While I'm a bit trepid about getting into this, the AFDU report carries a whole lot of baggage about the position Fighter Command found itself in mid-1942. Until the 190 came along, FC thought they were holding their own against the 109F. In fact, they were not, they were on the wrong end of up to 4-1 loss ratio. When the 190 joined, that got worse, and everybody knew. They stopped getting even claims against LW a/c, and overclaiming was what had kept them believing they were still in the game in '41. The reason had to be a massive superiority of the 190, didn't it? It could not be bad tactics, traing and strategy by the RAF. In fact, the FW was a bit better than the Spit V as flown in 41/2. But it was built up as a massively superior a/c when the real reason for the disparity WAS bad tactics, trainig and strategy. The result of the AFDU tests was the early release of the 16lb boost for Spit V, which made a difference low down, and the fast intro of the Mk9. But it's my speculation that the real differences made to FCs survivability were made by various tactical changes. Fast cruise by formations reducing the chances of a bounce and allowing better reaction to the bounce. Adoption of better tactical formations, namely the finger four, which was done only on a squadron or wing basis and became the most usual formation in late 42 (I think). Most inportantly of all bombers with a real threat to German forces/facilities in France. Previously the LW had the luxury of choosing where to fight. When there were heavy bombers doing serious damage they had to be opposed. This forced engagements not necessarily on LW terms. Note the RAF only had a 2-1 loss ratio over Dieppe, whereas it was around 6-1 up to that time in 1942. This led into the period where the LW fighter force went onto the defensive, despite still having better fighters than the Allies. And allied numbers had little to do with it.

lbhskier37
10-03-2004, 06:54 AM
when did this thread become about the A4 vs. Spit? I thought we were talking about our fun A9.

k5054
10-03-2004, 10:38 AM
Well, there didn't seem to be a lot of agreement on exactly what we mean by an A-9. Did it have 2000hp or 2400? Was it a true series production a/c, or a A-8 with a different powerplant? What emergency boost systems did it have? Basically, if there is an agreed power/height chart it's not too hard to work out how its performance would differ form the similar A-8.

faustnik
10-03-2004, 11:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:

No, if the 1941 Spitfire V can outclimb the 190 A3 then it conforms to all the tests but the AFDU test of Faber's aircrat. IE it conforms to A&AEE and Focke Wulfe testing, and conforms to the RAE's tests of Faber's 190. It just doesn't conform to the AFDU's test of Faber's 190. But the AFDU were a unit responsible for developing tactics, not testing performance, the RAE were a unit responsible for testing performance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How about the RAE test you just posted Hop? It shows the Fw190A3 outclimbing the Spit at 1.35 ata. I don't understand your post. You are condradicting the data you posted. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

A direct comparison under the same conditions using the same test methods would be superior to a comparison of tests made at different facilites under different conditions using different methods.

It honestly does not sound like you are looking for the truth here, just trying to find ways to deny it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

p1ngu666
10-03-2004, 12:42 PM
i think isgram is the new kurfy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

imo the a9 should have a diff powerplant to the a8, otherwise no point in it being in the game?

hop2002
10-03-2004, 12:43 PM
Just a quick reply, I'll respond to Josf later.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>How about the RAE test you just posted Hop? It shows the Fw190A3 outclimbing the Spit at 1.35 ata. I don't understand your post. You are condradicting the data you posted. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the RAE data in a graph:
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1096827712_raefaber.gif

Only when the 190A3 is at WEP, the Spit at climbing power, does the 190A3 outclimb the Spit, and then only over part of the altitude range.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A direct comparison under the same conditions using the same test methods would be superior to a comparison of tests made at different facilites under different conditions using different methods.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you can be sure it's being tested properly and there aren't any faults.

But I don't understand what you mean by "different testing methods". A climb test is fairly simple, you just climb as fast as you can.

The only complicating factors are the engine settings, condition of the aircraft etc. All the major testing establishments corrected for standard atmosphere.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It honestly does not sound like you are looking for the truth here, just trying to find ways to deny it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. The AFDU test of Faber's 190 against the Spit V doesn't fit with any other tests, not even the RAE's tests of Faber's 190.

Again, look at the speed figures they quote for the 190 vs Spit V.

The speed differences according to the AFDU followed by the game:
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
Alt AFDU Game
1,000ft 40 - 48km/h 92 km/h
3,000ft 48 - 56km/h 90 km/h
5,000ft 40 km/h 88 km/h
9,000ft 40 - 48km/h 67 km/h
15,000ft 32 km/h 53 km/h
18,000ft 32 km/h 60 km/h
21,000ft 32 km/h 52 km/h
25,000ft 32 - 40km/h 26 km/h
</pre>

My position is the AFDU test was flawed, and contradicts everything else. That means I don't hold much store by it's climb or speed figures.

Your position, and Josfs, seems to be the climb figures are right, but let's forget about the speed figures.

JG14_Josf
10-03-2004, 01:42 PM
hop2002,

Please stop propagandizing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Your position, and Josfs, seems to be the climb figures are right, but let's forget about the speed figures. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are insulting and politicizing an otherwise useful exchange of information.

I can speak for myself.

Your version:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>climb figures are right <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My version:

"Climb.
The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all hieghts."

Note your version is your opinons and it is wrong.

Note my version is the expresses opinon of British pilots flying the FW190 right next to a Spitfire in July 1942

Your version: (All knowing)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A climb test is fairly simple, you just climb as fast as you can.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My version:

"The best spees for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably steeper."

Your version is a home made chart based upon tests that have not undergone anything close to the scrutiny that is being applied to the Farber ADFU tests.

My version:

"Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the Fw 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000 feet [7,620m]. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled into a climb from a dive, the Fw190 draws away rapidly and the piolt of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it."

My version is to report documented opinions of pilots who actually flew an Fw190 against an actual Spitfire and many other Allied planes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Your position, and Josfs, seems to be the climb figures are right, but let's forget about the speed figures. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ad hominem (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=ad+hominem)

1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made


You continue to be the politician. Why?

Is your contention concerning 'derated' Fw190s falling apart for lack of evidence?

Please offer something substantial that supports the claim that all 190A-4s were 'derated' and therefore incapable of running at 1.35 ata.

Please explain how Fw190A-3 werk # 5313 managed to conduct all those combat test trials at 1.35 ata and keep on running and out climbing, out accelerating, out diving, and generally kicking serious booty if it couldn't. It did according to the 1942 British ADFU report.

So far all I see is opinion.

My opinion is that every source of information should be subjected to the same level of inspection.

faustnik
10-03-2004, 01:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:

Your position, and Josfs, seems to be the climb figures are right, but let's forget about the speed figures. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I said absolutely nothing about speed figures. Why would you say I did?

Hop, honestly, I always read what you post with interest, but, lately your posts are not even making sense. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif You post a graph that clearly shows your previous statement is false as a justification for your false statement???

Once again, your claims are in oppostion of those who actually flew, tested and compared these aircraft.

Jippo01
10-03-2004, 02:34 PM
For some reason I get the same exact feeling as Faustnik.


-jippo

robban75
10-03-2004, 03:00 PM
Here's a Fw 190A-5 speed chart. http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190_A5_speed.gif

I find it interesting since 1.42 ata is described as Start - u Notleistung (Takeoff & Emergency) and 1.32 ata is Steig - u Kampfleistung (Climb & Combat).

Sonder - Notleistung(Special Emergency) boost by C3 injection, or Erh√¬∂hte Notleistung, is not shown on this chart.

Interesting BMW output discussion here. http://p069.ezboard.com/fluftwaffeexperten71774frm9.showMessage?topicID=29 1.topic

Also, click on this link aswell http://p069.ezboard.com/fluftwaffeexperten71774frm9.showMessage?topicID=26 6.topic , very interesting discussion here also! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

hop2002
10-03-2004, 03:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I said absolutely nothing about speed figures. Why would you say I did? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You didn't say anything about the speed.

That's just the point, isn't it?

How many times has Faber's 190 been raised on this board? Always the climb rate, nobody who's calling for an increase in the climb rate based on Faber's 190 ever mentions the speed, which is much worse on Faber's 190.

I infer you don't want to talk about the speed by the fact that you never talk about the speed, as far as I can see.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Hop, honestly, I always read what you post with interest, but, lately your posts are not even making sense. Sad You post a graph that clearly shows your previous statement is false as a justification for your false statement??? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How does it? It seems to me it shows the Spit at climb power outclimbing the 190 at climb power all the way up to 25,000ft, at which point the fw 190 graph ends.

It shows the 190 at WEP outclimbing the Spit V at climb power at certain altitudes, but how can you say one plane outclimbs another when it only does so at maximum power and the other plane runnning reduced power?

Using that sort of logic, I can say the Spit V outclimbs the 109 K4 (which it does when the Spit runs at WEP, the K4 at climb and combat power)

IT's not just me saying this. To quote Butch (when he posted the A5 climb chart I've reposted)

"At similar boost setting, 30 minutes rating for instance, the Spit V clearly outclimbed the 190A5. If we consider that the 1942 Mk V 30 minutes rating was 9 lb, and the A5 30 minutes was 1.32ata there is absolutly no doubt on the outcome."

The RAE figures for the A3 are quite clear as well, as are the A&AEE figures for the Spit, FW figures for the 190.

See what DangerForward posted for the climb rate of the A3.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Once again, your claims are in oppostion of those who actually flew, tested and compared these aircraft. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've reposted the RAE tests, which agree with me. The A&AEE and Focke Wulfe figures agree with me. The only thing that doesn't is the AFDU test, and they were running their 190 on WEP and thinking it was climb power.

JG14_Josf
10-03-2004, 07:49 PM
Hop2002,

Did you ever hear the quote:

There are three kinds of lies:
Lies, **** lies, and statistics.

When you say that tests agree with you it is an implication that everything you say is then confirmed, or that your opinion is proven.

Like this opinion:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>My position is the AFDU test was flawed <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You take a test report and compare it to another test report and you form an opinion.

Kind of like this opinion:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Your position, and Josfs, seems to be the climb figures are right, but let's forget about the speed figures. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Opinions stated as opinions are fine even if they are wrong.

Opinions stated as facts fall under the three catagories of lies.

Like this one:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>No. The AFDU test of Faber's 190 against the Spit V doesn't fit with any other tests, not even the RAE's tests of Faber's 190. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note:
"Any other tests" is an absolute statement of fact, yet there is 'only' one way that such a statement can be true and that is if every other tests has been examined.

Your opinion is being stated as fact.

Like this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I've reposted the RAE tests, which agree with me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In fact your conclusions are your opinion based upon a climb test report. The climb test report proves that a climb test was reported.

Here is the written words of W.S. Douglas Air Cheif Marshal in his "Most Secret" leter to RAF HQ Fighter Command:

"There is however no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the Fw 190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today. It is no answer to say that the position will be reversed when the Spitfire IX comes into general use,. In the first place I have only fourteen Spitfire IXs, whereas the enemy has between two and three hundred Fw 190s. IN serveral respects the Fw 190 is superior to the Spitfire IX, e.g. in climb and acceleration at certain critical altitudes and in negative G carburation."

The above is also (reported to be) the opinion of someone possibly sitting behind a desk looking at the ADFU Farber tests. Note how this persons opinion is dfferent than yours.

Here is another opinion:

"Within six or seven months of its operational debut, the Fw 190 was causing widespread consternation among RAF fighter squadrons based in the south of England. The Tank-designed fighter could out-perform the contemporary Spitfire on every count with the exception of the turning circle - one leading RAF pilot is recorded as having commented acidly when this attribute of his mount was stressed during a pre-operation briefing. "Turning doesn't win battles!"" (Wings of the Luftwaffe, Eric Brown)

And then there is Alfred Prices opinion (a noted and well published Historian)

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

So above we have 4 opinions concerning the relative abilities of the Spitfire vs the Fw190 and direct opinon concerning the ADFU Farber test documents:
1. Air Cheif Marshal (and his pilots) RAF 1942
2. Eric Brown fighter test pilot 1942
3. Leading RAF pilot fighting the FW in 1942
4. Published historian

Those opinions expressed above are taken from documents that can only prove that documents exist recording their opinions. Just like the documents that can only prove climb tests were documented.

On the one hand we have Hop's opinion of the Farber test:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>My position is the AFDU test was flawed, and contradicts everything else. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"everthing else" is another absolute statement of authority that is simply not true.

Call it lies, **** lies or statistics it remains false.

Back to the politician:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You didn't say anything about the speed.

That's just the point, isn't it?

How many times has Faber's 190 been raised on this board? Always the climb rate, nobody who's calling for an increase in the climb rate based on Faber's 190 ever mentions the speed, which is much worse on Faber's 190. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong again.

Here:

Farber test topic (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=495105506&p=1)

Also do a search for acceleration on this board.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You didn't say anything about the speed.

That's just the point, isn't it?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"The Point" or your point. "The Point" or your misdirection, obfuscation, and ad hominem attack.
Call it lies, **** lies, or statistics; it remains false.

Why?

JG14_Josf
10-03-2004, 08:15 PM
Robban,

Good reading thanks for the links and getting back on focus and on topic.

I really like the observation based upon a BMW power chart that engines can differ considerably even under the same designation.

This is why, in my opinion, that it is wrong to make absolute claims of authority based upon any one test or even one plane.

This is not to say that one plane or a series of tests cannot lead to a reasonable conclusion or opinion. In fact there is a huge difference between making absolute claims of authority and forming a reasonably informed conclusion or opinion such as those opinions expressed in history books.

faustnik
10-03-2004, 08:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:


I infer you don't want to talk about the speed by the fact that you never talk about the speed, as far as I can see.

_____________________

You are "infering" what I am thinking. Simply rediculous. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
_____________________


How does it? It seems to me it shows the Spit at climb power outclimbing the 190 at climb power all the way up to 25,000ft, at which point the fw 190 graph ends.

___________________________

Wrong. You said:

"No, if the 1941 Spitfire V can outclimb the 190 A3 then it conforms to all the tests but the AFDU test of Faber's aircrat. IE it conforms to A&AEE and Focke Wulfe testing, and conforms to the RAE's tests of Faber's 190. It just doesn't conform to the AFDU's test of Faber's 190. But the AFDU were a unit responsible for developing tactics, not testing performance, the RAE were a unit responsible for testing performance."

The RAE chart you posted shows the Spit V climb at +9 boost which is full WEP for 1941.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hop2002
10-04-2004, 02:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You are "infering" what I am thinking. Simply rediculous. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can only speak of the impressions I get from reading this board. It seems to me a great many 190 threads end up arguing about the climb rate, based on the tests of Faber's aircraft by the AFDU. I don't recall many cases where the fact that the 190 A4 in game is far faster than the AFDU test of Faber's 190 found is raised.

Like I said, just my impression. Perhaps you point to me where the speed issue is repeatedly raised?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Wrong. You said:

"No, if the 1941 Spitfire V can outclimb the 190 A3 then it conforms to all the tests but the AFDU test of Faber's aircrat. IE it conforms to A&AEE and Focke Wulfe testing, and conforms to the RAE's tests of Faber's 190. It just doesn't conform to the AFDU's test of Faber's 190. But the AFDU were a unit responsible for developing tactics, not testing performance, the RAE were a unit responsible for testing performance."

The RAE chart you posted shows the Spit V climb at +9 boost which is full WEP for 1941.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it most certainly isn't.

Full WEP for the Spit V was at least 9 lbs, 3000 rpm.

The chart I posted gives the Spit climb at 9 lbs, 2850 rpm.

It's not a huge difference, but will still add 150 - 200 ft/min to the climb rate below FTH, more above.

And that's the absolute minimum for Spit V WEP. 12 lbs was authorised from the very begining for takeoff power, and to clarify for Josf, that means there was nothing to stop a Spit V pilot running at 12 lbs, 3000 rpm from the very begining, apart from instructions to pilots. (I don't agree with comparing un-authorised settings to authorised ones)

faustnik
10-04-2004, 02:09 PM
Wow, its getting deep in here.

Good luck with agenda.

p1ngu666
10-04-2004, 03:36 PM
well imo, if you look at it, uve got a test done that gets a way better climb rate than factory figures, and goes in a different way from factory figures also.
ok so assuming this test is correct, factory data is wrong, surely other stuff from the report is more correct than factory figures?

OR u could say lets use the best figures from a types various tests.
ok, so ill have my spit modeled with the PR types top speed, and a emputy PR's climb, with low fuel ofcourse. pilot can glide back, as a parashoot weighs to much http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif. plus landing in a field nakid isnt good.

or ill have my i153 with rockets http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

anyways, it could be in combat the 190 pilots kept it fast, attacked from advantage thus seemed to climb better. cos they zoom climbed.
spits best climb is at slow speed, do that in combat and its not good http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

faustnik, check robbans above links, sorry i got it abit wrong in other thread http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

JG14_Josf
10-04-2004, 03:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>(I don't agree with comparing un-authorised settings to authorised ones) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Opinion

It is difficult for me to imagine a situation where a fighter pilot has the choice of getting shot at or disobeying authorized settings.

Was the ABC throttle control system available in all Spitfires?

Practical applications of engine controls in combat may have something to do with the differences between the data placed on a climb chart through regimented instruction in test proceedure done by test pilots and the opinons of fighter pilots conducting side by side combat test trials.

Test pilots follow instructions to get the data they have been told to get and how to get it.

Fighter pilots want to find out which plane is better in combat.


"The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the Fw190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb fo the Fw190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000 feet [7,620]. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled into a climb from a dive, the Fw190 draws away rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it."

"During comparative climbs at various heights up to 23,000 ft, with both aricraft flying under maximum continuous climbing conditions, little difference was found between the two aircraft although on the whole the Spitfire IX was slightly better. Above 22,000 ft the climb of the Fw190 is falling off rapidly, whereas the climb of hte Spitfire IX is increasing. When both aircraft were flying at a high cruising speed and were pulled up into a climb from level flight, the Fw190 had a slight advantage in the intial stages of the climb due to its better acceleration. This superiority was slightly increased when both aircraft were pulled up into the climb from the dive.
It must be appreciated that the differences between the two aircraft are only slight and that in acutal combat the advantage in climb will be with the aircraft that has the initiative."

Any virtual fighter pilot can conduct the same type of tests done by the ADFU in 1942.

Any virtual test pilot can conduct climb tests to a standard that may or may not be the actual standard used during the historical climb tests.

Look at the FW190A-4 manifold pressure gauge in the game and try to keep it at 1.32 ata.

See if your combat test trials resemble anything close to what the ADFU pilots determined as facts.

Sure those pilots in 1942 may have simply been wrong. Hop may also be wrong.

I'm going to try to keep my mind open but it sure is telling when the real pilots write up their opinions in such clear language.

Like this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Tank-designed fighter could out-perform the contemporary Spitfire on every count with the exception of the turning circle - one leading RAF pilot is recorded as having commented acidly when this attribute of his mount was stressed during a pre-operation briefing. "Turning doesn't win battles!" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

VW-IceFire
10-06-2004, 07:20 AM
So does this mean that the A-4 that we have in-game is actually not going to have superior climb VS the Spitfire V?

Does this mean that the pilots perceptions of the FW190's superior climb rate have more to do with the FW190's pilots superior tactics, attacking from above, and using speed to their advantage to zoom climb away?

I can understand some of this indeed. The FW190A's do zoom climb fairly well at higher speeds if you know what to do (don't go into a high AoA, don't push too hard on the stick, don't mush out at the end of the manuver).

But this is interesting.

I guess we also consider that our Vb is a 1942 model. Definately tactics has something to do with it too. Spitfire pilots tend to use tactics that were found to work rather than going by procedures at times in the war when maybe they would not work.

JG14_Josf
10-06-2004, 09:29 AM
VW-IceFire wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Does this mean that the pilots perceptions of the FW190's superior climb rate have more to do with the FW190's pilots superior tactics, attacking from above, and using speed to their advantage to zoom climb away?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hit and Run tactics?

Mike Spick a noted Historian wrote: (http://www.greenhillbooks.com/authors/spick_mike.htm)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>With the Advent of the FW 190A, this was not as critical as it once had been. The Aircraft was a superb dogfighter, and its pilots used it as such. The previous summer, faced with slashing attacks by the 109s, the constant complaint of RAF pilots was that 'Jerry' didn't stay and fight, totally ignoring the fact that in the 109 this was tactically correct. Now they were repaid in spades: in his new FW 190A, 'Jerry' stayed and fought as never before. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

VW-IceFire wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The FW190A's do zoom climb fairly well at higher speeds if you know what to do (don't go into a high AoA, don't push too hard on the stick, don't mush out at the end of the manuver).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Any plane 747, Beechcraft bonanza, F-16 will zoom fairly well at higher speeds. The Fw190 going fast in the game will zoom climb well relative to what; a Spitfire going slow?

Zoom climb is determined by many variables including thrust, weight, drag, and speed. Is it
possible to compare two fighters for relative zoom climb ability by comparing climb charts, or is it better to fly the actual planes side by side and visualy note the actual zoom climbing differences?

ADFU pilots wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled into a climb from a dive, the Fw190 draws away rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note in the above that the Fw190 gains relative energy or Ps in the dive. This is due to:

ADFU:

"The manoeuvrability of the Fw 190 is better than that of the Spitfire VB except in turning circles, when the Spitifre can quite easily out-turn it. The Fw 190 has better acceleration under all conditions of flight and this must obviously be useful during combat"

Useful during combat?

Robert Shaw:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A fighters T/W is a fairly good indicator of its energy performance. This ratio is usually stated in terms of static sea-level thrust and a representative combat weight. For piston-engine aircraft a parameter known as "power loading," the ratio of aircraft weight to brake horsepower (normally maximum seal-level power), is used rather than T/W. Both of these measures may be misleading, however, since operation conditions of altitude and airspeed can affect two fighters in different ways...

...A fighter's aerodynamic efficiency, in particular its lift-to-drag ratio, is also vitally important to energy performance, especially at high G or high speed. In order to simplify this discussion, however, the term high T/W infers greater climb rate, faster acceleration, and higher maximum speed capability relative to the opponent. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

VW-IceFire wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Definately tactics has something to do with it too. Spitfire pilots tend to use tactics that were found to work rather than going by procedures at times in the war when maybe they would not work.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Robert Shaw wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Development of effective tactics against dissimilar aircraft is, however, highly dependent on intimate knowledge of all aspects of relative fighter performance and design, as well as total familiarity by the pilot with his own aircraft and weapons system. Comparison testing, in which enemy aircraft are flown against friendly fighters, is undeniably the best method of gathering this crucial information <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Robert Shaw on Hit and Run tactics:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In the steril, one-versus-one engagement, the pilot of the superior fighter normally should attempt to keep his speed the same as, or slightly below, that of his opponent.
The pilot of the inferior fighter in this scenario has real problems. He may not be able to avoid engagement, and he may not be able to escape once he is engaged. These problems may be alleviated, however, by a very thorough aircraft preflight inspection, followed by a decision to spend the day in the bar. If this luxury is not available, high-speed hit-and-run tactics or multiple-aircraft engagements may offer some relief; otherwise the pilot of the inferior fighter must be very good or very lucky. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ADFU on Spitfire VB vs FW 190 tactics:

Hit:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The above trials have shown that the Spitfire VB must cruise at high speed when in an area where enemy fighters can be expected. It will, then, in addition to lessening the chances of being successfully 'bounced', have a better chance of catching the Fw 190, particularly if it has the advantage of surprise." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

and

ADFU:

"Several flights were carried out to ascertain the best evasive manoeuvres to adopt if 'bounced'. It was found that if the Spitfire was cruising at low speed and was 'bounced' by the Fw 190, it was then force to take avoiding action by using its superiority in turning circles. If on the other hand the Spitfire was flying at maximum continuous cruising and was 'bounced' under the same conditions, it has a reasonable chance of avoiding being caught by opening the throttle and going into a shallow dive, provided the Fw 190 was seen in time."

Run

Eric Brown on Spitfire vs Fw190 tactics:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It was concluded that the Fw 190 pilot trying to "mix it" with a Spitfire in the classic fashion of steep turning was doomed, for at any speed - even below the German fighter's stalling speed - it woud be out-turned by its British opponent. Of course, the Luftwaffe was aware of this fact and a somewhat odd style of dogfighting evolved in which the Fw 190 pilots endeavored to keep on the vertical plane by zooms and dives, while their Spitfire-mounted antagonists tried everything in the book to draw them on to the horizontal. If the German pilot lost his head and failed to resist the temptation to try a horizontal pursuit curve on a Spitfire, as likely as not, before he could recover the speed lost in a steep turn he would find another Spitfire turning inside him! On the other hand, the German pilot who kept zooming up and down was usually the recipient of only diffiuclt deflection shots of more than 30 deg. The Fw 190 had tremendous initial acceleration in a dive but it was extremely vulnerable during a pull-out, recovery having to be quite progressive with care not to kill the speed by "sinking". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Robert Shaw on tactics:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In deriving tactics for use against a similar aircraft, two basic approaches are available: the "angles" fight and the "energy" fight. These labels refer to the first objective of the engagement. In the angles fight the tactician first seeks to gain a position advantage (angles), even at the expense of relative energy, and then he attempts to maintain or improve on this advantage until he achieves his required firing parameters. The purpose of the energy fight is to gain an energy advantage over the opponent while not yielding a decisive position advantage. Once a sufficient energy advantage has been attained, it must be converted to a lethal possition advantage, usually without surrendering the entire energy margin. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Fw190 recorded in history clearly used energy tactics against the Spitfire because the Fw190 in history had the advantages described by the ADFU reports and those same advantages described by Robert Shaw:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In order to simplify this discussion, however, the term high T/W infers greater climb rate, faster acceleration, and higher maximum speed capability relative to the opponent. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hop2002
10-06-2004, 12:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So does this mean that the A-4 that we have in-game is actually not going to have superior climb VS the Spitfire V? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Basically, yes.

For a start, the Spit V we have in game seems to be a 1942 model, which has a far higher climb rate, better acceleration, and much more speed at low altitudes than the one tested by the AFDU.

Secondly, the A3 the AFDU tested was derated, but the AFDU modified it to run at it's full ratings. That's why their conclusions have to be taken with caution.

There's no doubt Faber's 190 was derated, and no doubt the engine was run beyond those permitted ratings by the British.

Apart from the report saying so, there's a clue in the 1.35 ata, 2450 rating. That was only ever used as WEP on derated 190s, according to Isegrim, and 1.32 ata 2400 rpm was climbing power on fully rated 190s. (Isegrim clarified that, but it seems to be borne out by the rest of the documentation out there as well)

The AFDU used the higher figure, 1.35 ata, 2450 rpm, as a climbing rating. That means their 190 had more power at climb and combat than a 190A5.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Does this mean that the pilots perceptions of the FW190's superior climb rate have more to do with the FW190's pilots superior tactics, attacking from above, and using speed to their advantage to zoom climb away?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but also the tactical situation (the RAF were usually flying escort for small numbers of bombers, and the Luftwaffe could chose to engage or not).

There's another point as well, in that the 190, being faster, had a higher climb rate at high speed than the Spit, even if it had a worse maximum climb rate.

If a 190 climbed away at 250 mph, he would outclimb the Spit V quite easily. The proper tactic for the Spit V pilot would have been to go for a maximum rate climb, but I suspect they usually tried to follow the 190s.

Someone claimed that in Lucky 13, by Hugh Godefroy, the Spit pilot in the Faber test, Godefroy said that that was how he'd tried to climb with the 190 on the test, which would of course explain a lot (particularly the comment about climb angle).

I don't have Lucky 13, though, and I can't even find a copy for sale anywhere.

JG14_Josf
10-06-2004, 01:12 PM
Hop's opinion stated as fact again:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>That means their 190 had more power at climb and combat than a 190A5. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Information contrary to Hop's opinion (http://p069.ezboard.com/fluftwaffeexperten71774frm9.showMessage?topicID=26 6.topic)



Here is a curious bit of deductive reasoning based upon a vauge reference:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Someone claimed that in Lucky 13, by Hugh Godefroy, the Spit pilot in the Faber test, Godefroy said that that was how he'd tried to climb with the 190 on the test, which would of course explain a lot (particularly the comment about climb angle). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess what is being suggested is that the British pilot purposefully flew at a shallow climb angle to go as fast as the Fw190 in a climb. Here is the actual ADFU quote again:


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"Climb:
The climb of the Fw190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, the the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably steeper." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The above is the actual words in the ADFU report.

To suggest that the best speeds for climbing can be anything other than the best speeds for climbing is wanting specific explanation such as a specific quote using the actual words reported by the actual pilot doing the actual test instead of someone's intepretation of those words.

I can't resist posting this series of pictures. I had a great energy fight a few nights ago.

Some planes are capable of employing energy tactics.

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/51B.jpg

hop2002
10-06-2004, 01:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> (I don't agree with comparing un-authorised settings to authorised ones)



Opinion

It is difficult for me to imagine a situation where a fighter pilot has the choice of getting shot at or disobeying authorized settings. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then you are arguing that the Spitfire V used 12 lbs from the start, whatever was officially approved.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Was the ABC throttle control system available in all Spitfires? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes.

I can't speak for prototypes, and special test aircraft, but the instructions on modifying the Spitfire I to run on 100 octane fuel, in late 1939, talk of the changes to the ABC. The Spitfire II manual mentions it in the engine controls, as does the Spit V manual, the Spit VII/IX/XVI manual, and the Spit XIV/XIX manual.

Those are all the ones I have, and cover almost all the major marks.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Practical applications of engine controls in combat may have something to do with the differences between the data placed on a climb chart through regimented instruction in test proceedure done by test pilots and the opinons of fighter pilots conducting side by side combat test trials. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the AFDU tests, they physically modified their 190 to run at a higher boost setting than the pilot was capable of selecting in German use.

They ran the climb tests at the maximum the 190A4 pilot was normally capable of selecting (1.35 ata), and ran the Spitfire at well below the level the pilot was capable of selecting (they used 2850 rpm, 9 lbs, the pilot was capable of selecting 3000 rpm, 12 lbs).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Test pilots follow instructions to get the data they have been told to get and how to get it.

Fighter pilots want to find out which plane is better in combat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. The AFDU pilots were test pilots, told to climb the planes at "maximum continuous climbing conditions", 1.35 ata, 2450 rpm in the A‚£ (actually a 3 min WEP rating), and 9 lbs 2850 rpm in the Spitfire V (a 30 min or 1 hour climb rating).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the Fw190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb fo the Fw190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000 feet [7,620]. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled into a climb from a dive, the Fw190 draws away rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's what they got when the tested the 190 at WEP against the Spitfire V at climb power.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"During comparative climbs at various heights up to 23,000 ft, with both aricraft flying under maximum continuous climbing conditions, little difference was found between the two aircraft although on the whole the Spitfire IX was slightly better. Above 22,000 ft the climb of the Fw190 is falling off rapidly, whereas the climb of hte Spitfire IX is increasing. When both aircraft were flying at a high cruising speed and were pulled up into a climb from level flight, the Fw190 had a slight advantage in the intial stages of the climb due to its better acceleration. This superiority was slightly increased when both aircraft were pulled up into the climb from the dive.
It must be appreciated that the differences between the two aircraft are only slight and that in acutal combat the advantage in climb will be with the aircraft that has the initiative." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, 190 at WEP, Spitfire IX at climb power.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Any virtual fighter pilot can conduct the same type of tests done by the ADFU in 1942.

Any virtual test pilot can conduct climb tests to a standard that may or may not be the actual standard used during the historical climb tests.

Look at the FW190A-4 manifold pressure gauge in the game and try to keep it at 1.32 ata. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would be worthwile to test this, although the AFDU used 1.35 ata, not 1.32. The RPM is important as well, it should be kpt to 2450.

For the Spitfire V, it should be kept to 9 lbs, 2850 rpm.

For the Spit IX, there's no real point as we don't have a Spit IX with the same engine as the AFDU used.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Sure those pilots in 1942 may have simply been wrong. Hop may also be wrong <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Those AFDU pilots were using the wrong engine settings on the 190.

hop2002
10-06-2004, 01:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Hop's opinion stated as fact again:

quote:That means their 190 had more power at climb and combat than a 190A5. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No Josf, it's fact.

Here's what the AFDU report actually says:
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1097090285_pro_190_survey_c_1.jpg
Note the climb rating "was taken to be" 1.35 ata, 2450 rpm.

Note that the link you posted shows 1.32 ata, as does this BMW engine chart:
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1092787859_bmw801d.jpg

See where it says "climb and combat 1.32 ata, 2400 rpm"?

Also this climb chart for the 190A5:

Steig und Kampfleistung 1.32 ata, 2400 rpm.

See, it's not my opinion, it's what the reports all agree on. The German sources all say climb and combat was 1.32 ata 2400 rpm, the AFDU assumed it was 1.35 ata 2450 rpm.

The reason they assumed that is because WEP on a derated 190 was 1.35 ata, 2450 rpm, and they had a derated 190, which they modified to get the full ratings on.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I guess what is being suggested is that the British pilot purposefully flew at a shallow climb angle to go as fast as the Fw190 in a climb. Here is the actual ADFU quote again:


quote:"Climb:
The climb of the Fw190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, the the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably steeper."



The above is the actual words in the ADFU report. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, I had forgotten that.

The two aircraft did not climb best at the same speeds, of course, although there wasn't a huge difference.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>To suggest that the best speeds for climbing can be anything other than the best speeds for climbing is wanting specific explanation such as a specific quote using the actual words reported by the actual pilot doing the actual test instead of someone's intepretation of those words. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If that means what I think it does, yes I am trying to find the specific information from the pilots involved, rather than the report they were compiled into.

As an example, this is what the report says about dives vs the Spitfire IX:

"The FW 190 is faster in the dive, particularly during the initial stages".

Here is wha Hugh Godefroy, pilot of the Spitfire says in his book:

"If Jamie followed the favourite German technique of flicking over on his back and going straight down, he would pull away from me in the first two or three thousand feet. After that the Spitfire IXB could gradually catch him."

The two show quite significant differences.

VW-IceFire
10-06-2004, 02:41 PM
"If Jamie followed the favourite German technique of flicking over on his back and going straight down, he would pull away from me in the first two or three thousand feet. After that the Spitfire IXB could gradually catch him."

That sounds like what happens to me alot. Probably explains it.

If I dive away, it gives me a few seconds repreive but he catches me in the end. Not all is wrong that appears to be wrong http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

It'd be nice if Oleg had modeled a 1941 Spitfire Mark V. I wonder if the Russian VVS versions were 1942 specd and thats why he did it as such. Essentially the Spitfire V that we have is the type that would have saw alot of service around the Dieppe landings. Despite the appauling losses...it sounds like strategy rather than total superiority of the FW190 is the case for the outcome.

I would say that the unique dogfighting style of the FW190 is represented in game. I do use that sort of thing when going after Spitfires and other types...I find it works better with the A-5 or others with WEP on.

What constitudes WEP on an A-4? Is it something that needs to be enabled in-game to get it to function? I don't think I fully understand that bit...(or is it simply not possible)

Jippo01
10-06-2004, 03:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can NOT use a captured derated plane for an example of planetypes actual performance!

I mean, how stupid is that???

Pilot in a strange plane, without any type training, without a manual... in a plane that has not been serviced with factory spares by mechanics trained for the type... I mean really, you can't be serious...

Especially since you do not know why Fabers engine was derated in the first place. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Absolute performance of 190 my a***!

I mean, wouldn't there be any realistic ways to argue over this. Say factory specs (more than one sheet, complete with test conditions please!)


-jippo

faustnik
10-06-2004, 03:10 PM
IceFire,

Since other are freely expressing opinion here's mine:

The situation in FB does not resemble the situation described by the RAF or LW pilots over the channel in the summer of '42. By any chart I have seen the Spit Vb climb is high in FB even at +16 boost.

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

The Fw190A4 climb is slightly low by LW tests and very low by RAF (RAE) tests.

If you combine these two, a few hundred fpm climb too high on the Spit Vb side and a couple hundred low fpm climb too low on the 190 side, the historical situation is hard to recreate. Steep vertical climb tactics will certainly work for the 190 against AI, but, against other humans it is very dangerous and difficult. What has evolved in FB is a situation where the 190s must extend horizontally and climb very gradually to regain position. This method definately works, but, does not match historical description.

The solution would be to close the climb gap between the 190A4 and the Spit Vb.

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

In 1943 and later versions the pitcure becomes much as described historically. The Spit IX achieves superiority to the 190A in climb and approaches equality in dive an speed.

hop2002
10-06-2004, 03:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You can NOT use a captured derated plane for an example of planetypes actual performance!

I mean, how stupid is that???
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jippo, that's what I've been saying all along.

I don't think the tests of Faber's 190 are an accurate guide to the performance of the 190.

That's been my position throughout.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Pilot in a strange plane, without any type training, without a manual... in a plane that has not been serviced with factory spares by mechanics trained for the type... I mean really, you can't be serious...

Especially since you do not know why Fabers engine was derated in the first place. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've got a pretty good idea why Faber's engine was derated; until they chromed the exhaust and made some other changes the 190 suffered from severe overheating at high rpm/boost.

But your other points I have repeatedly raised, and your remarks would be better addressed to Josf and Faustnik.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Absolute performance of 190 my a***!

I mean, wouldn't there be any realistic ways to argue over this. Say factory specs (more than one sheet, complete with test conditions please!) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, that's what I prefer.

Just to point out my previous posts in this thread:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>My position is the AFDU test was flawed, and contradicts everything else. That means I don't hold much store by it's climb or speed figures.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hop2002
10-06-2004, 03:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>he situation in FB does not resemble the situation described by the RAF or LW pilots over the channel in the summer of '42. By any chart I have seen the Spit Vb climb is high in FB even at +16 boost.
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/SpitVbClimb.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This chart at 16 lbs shows a Spit Vc with 4 20 mm cannon and 480 rounds of ammo, which weighs over 400 lbs more than the Spit V we have in game. At the same weight as we have in game, the Spit V actually goes off the right of your chart, though only just.

You've also got the critical altitudes for the Spits too low in each case, by around 2,000ft.

hop2002
10-06-2004, 03:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It'd be nice if Oleg had modeled a 1941 Spitfire Mark V. I wonder if the Russian VVS versions were 1942 specd and thats why he did it as such. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He's actually split the difference.

We have the climb rate of a 1942 Spitfire (although it's too high at high alt, too low at low alt), but the speed is for the earliest 1941 Spitfire, assuming it couldn't use 12 lbs boost (takeoff power).

In other words, it's the slowest possible Spit V. It's about 40 - 50 km/h too slow at low altitude, iirc.

faustnik
10-06-2004, 03:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>he situation in FB does not resemble the situation described by the RAF or LW pilots over the channel in the summer of '42. By any chart I have seen the Spit Vb climb is high in FB even at +16 boost.
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/SpitVbClimb.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This chart at 16 lbs shows a Spit Vc with 4 20 mm cannon and 480 rounds of ammo, which weighs over 400 lbs more than the Spit V we have in game. At the same weight as we have in game, the Spit V actually goes off the right of your chart, though only just.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have it labeled as a Vc. Is there a point you are trying to make, or are you just trying to make it appear that my post in in error? I'm catching on to the whole politics thing. Took me a while. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

VW-IceFire
10-06-2004, 04:36 PM
I see your point faustnik. I understand the relative nature of it too but I see the point.

Its a very difficult discussion to wrap my mind around too. Alot of variables to take into account. Don't know how the rest of you cope http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
10-06-2004, 04:36 PM
think hes just pointing out the meaning of the C http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
many would think its like the one ingame, or similer. or something.

faustnik
10-06-2004, 04:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I see your point faustnik. I understand the relative nature of it too but I see the point.

Its a very difficult discussion to wrap my mind around too. Alot of variables to take into account. Don't know how the rest of you cope http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think 1C has done a great job with FB don't get me wrong. I just think this historically important matchup might need some tweakage. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

hop2002
10-06-2004, 05:05 PM
Yes, I was pointing out the difference between the B and C. I doub't everyone knows there's a 400 lbs+ weight difference.

If you notice in earlier posts, where I was comparing the A3 to the A5, I pointed out the A5 was heavier, and had slightly less power. Same reasons.

Faustnik, I have no "agenda".

All along I've said I don't think the tests of Faber's A3 are accurate. I've been perfectly upfront about that, and I've gone to great lengths to explain why I don't think they're accurate.

An agenda would be if I was claiming the speed figures were correct, and denying the climb figures. I'm not, I don't think the figures were correct at all.

I'm sorry if you think that me thinking a particular test is flawed is some sort of political agenda. As I said, I've been pretty up front in saying why I think it's wrong.

There are fundamental flaws in the tests of Faber's 190.

The AFDU ran it at the wrong boost levels.

The RAE got a higher climb rate in high gear than they did in low, which doesn't fit with any other plane I've ever seen.

Both those indicate fundamental flaws in the tests. Given the confusion over boost and rpm settings, the automated nature of the 190s engine controls, and the fact that the British modified them to increase the rating, it's easy to see where gross errors could have come about.

Throughout I've tried to argue about the tests themselves, and brought forward whatever other evidence I can find. Sadly it's now become a question of why I am arguing, rather than the arguments themselves.

JG14_Josf
10-06-2004, 05:32 PM
Faustnik,

I am having a great time with the game also, but when flying the FWs in the game one either has to dismiss history or at least imagine that the FW modeled in the game is a derated version with bad spark plugs.

OOOps that can't be true because history records that such an Fw190 outclimbed the mid 1942 Spitfire.

So in the game a player familiar with history will have to resolve him or herself to the fact that the FW is a worn out derated version with very bad spark plugs.

I can deal with a plane relegated to double inferior status and it is still possible to employ hit and run tactics in the game. The FW190 in the game does have that excessive speed advantage.

Simulating the history described by numerous sources for that time period of the FW190s dominance will have to wait for a less biased game.

Regardless of how the current or even the next best flight sim game modeles relative performance the facts of history remain unspecified concering the ratings of BMW engines.

LEMB message board (http://p069.ezboard.com/fluftwaffeexperten71774frm9.showMessage?topicID=26 6.topic)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Let me clarify the boost settings on the 190A as I get them from the manual along with the Weights. All wieghts include full load of ammo, fuel, lox, winterization kit, and a 100kg pilot onboard.

All are Normaljager with full wing armament.

FW-190A3 - 3978kg

3 min @ 1.42ata

30 min @ 1.32ata

FW-190A5 - 4106kg

same as the A-3 when not equipped with C3

With C3 - 10-15 min @1.65ata <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Finding out the real situation concerning the rating practices of BMW engines is imperative in making any reasonable conclusions concerning relative performance between later models of FW190s and Spitfires.

As to the FW190A-3 vs the Spitfire there is already ample evidence supporting relative performance in the ADFU tests, unless someone can come up with specific evidence that confirms tampering by the British on their captured FW190 that did in fact boost performance over and above that which the FW190 was capable of performing in German hands.

To infer that the British overboosted the FW by mechanical manipulation is begging for confirmation and explanation. Without such information the conclusion is opinion based upon opinion.

The fact remains that those ADFU documents report that a FW190 outclimbed a Spitfire VB in a test made specifically to determine that specific relative performance capability.

If the British tampered with the engine and controls to push the engine beyond safe operating range then why did the plane continue to be used in flight tests against the Spitfire VB, The Spitfire IX, the Mustang 1A, the P-38F, the 4-CAnnon Typhoon, and Griffon Spitfire?

Tampering with the engine or the controls to overboost the engine beyond the capabilities that typical FW190s flown by German pilots could achieve has not been proven.

Even if that one FW190 was altered and was still able to outclimb the Spitfire VB, climb equal to the Spitfire IX, climb 'superior to that of the Mustang 1A at all heights', cimb better than the P-38 under 20,000 feet, out climb the Typoon 'quite easily' and finally, according to the ADFU test report that same 'overboosted' FW that couldn't complete the tests against he Griffon Spitfire 'Owing to adverse weather conditions' managed to hold together for all those tests.

If the British tampered with the engine or the controls (not proven) then what was the reasoning behind this test? If they tampered with the engine and or controls they must have had a reason. Was it a political alteration done to decieve the public? Such political nonsense is not likely to be done by people who's lives are on the line.

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/Delayed.jpg

hop2002
10-06-2004, 05:47 PM
Crumpp from the Aces High forums has just posted a 190 A3 climb and speed chart, at http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=131996

No labels on the start and emergency and climb and combat lines, but I'd say it's for a fully rated A3, 1.42 ata 2700 rpm start and emergency, 1.32 ata 2400 rpm climb and combat.

If that's the case, it's interesting to compare the figures with the RAE's results at 1.35 ata, 2450 rpm, which should provide about 4.5% more power than 1.32 ata, 2400 rpm.

At low alt, the figures are pretty close, at medium alt there's 1,000 ft/min difference.

faustnik
10-06-2004, 05:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:

No labels on the start and emergency and climb and combat lines, but I'd say it's for a fully rated A3, 1.42 ata 2700 rpm start and emergency, 1.32 ata 2400 rpm climb and combat.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why?

faustnik
10-06-2004, 06:01 PM
Do we have any LW tests of catured spitfires? It would be interesting to see those climb rates. Perhaps the British and German test facilities got such different results because of some difference in their methods of testing or methods of calculating results?

The Farnborough tests are unique because the aircraft were tested using the same methods and results were calculated in the same manner.

hop2002
10-06-2004, 06:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Even if that one FW190 was altered and was still able to outclimb the Spitfire VB, climb equal to the Spitfire IX, climb 'superior to that of the Mustang 1A at all heights', cimb better than the P-38 under 20,000 feet, out climb the Typoon 'quite easily' and finally, according to the ADFU test report that same 'overboosted' FW that couldn't complete the tests against he Griffon Spitfire 'Owing to adverse weather conditions' managed to hold together for all those tests. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It didn't. Not only does the report note the engine running roughly throughout, the RAE report says:

"The trials eventually had to be abandoned owing to continuous engine trouble and this unfourtunately prevented the completion of the trials against the Typhoon"

The AFDU report says:

"Owing to the unsatisfactory condition of the engine of the Fw 190 which caused the trials to be abandoned, only brief tests against the Typhoon could be carried out.

Arrangements have been made with the RAE to complete the trials as soon as the engine of the FW 190 has been overhauled and passed fit for further flights."

and

"Owing to the trials being abandoned, it was not possible to compare the Spitfire Vb using 16 lbs boost"

hop2002
10-06-2004, 06:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Why? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because they would then fit the other data I have seen.

At 1.32 ata I'd expect the A3 to be a bit better than the A5 because it's a bit lighter. The A5 chart I've seen at 1.32 ata shows a shade over 15 m/s at sea level, rising to around 15.5 m/s. The chart Crumpp posted shows about 16.5 m/s at sea level, rising to 17 m/s. That's in line with what I'd expect if they both had similar engine power.

Also, 1.42 ata, 2700 rpm and 1.32 ata, 2400 rpm were the ratings the A3 was supposed to use, so it's fairly natural for them to be used in tests early on at least.

faustnik
10-06-2004, 06:53 PM
So, that would still put it above the climb rates we see in FB.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/SpitVvsFw190A4.jpg

Don't the climb rates for the 1942 +16 Spit Vb look somewhat high also?

As I said, the combination of the Fw 190 climb being somewhat low and the Spit Vb climb being somewhat high, has a large effect on the relative matchup of these two a/c.

Copperhead310th
10-06-2004, 07:02 PM
<span class="ev_code_RED">HERE YOU GO & WELL DESERVED I MIGHT ADD.</span>
http://www.sdplastics.com/dedhorse.gif

faustnik
10-06-2004, 07:14 PM
This is a discussion between adults Copperhead, please go sit at the other table. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG14_Josf
10-06-2004, 07:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Arrangements have been made with the RAE to complete the trials as soon as the engine of the FW 190 has been overhauled and passed fit for further flights <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The above is news.

What is curious about this report is that it mentions arrangements being made with RAE. Why then is it an RAE report?

I have not read the above quote in any of the documents previously available on Ring's page nor is the above quote listed in Alfred Price's book.

Is it possible to have this report posted for verification? Who determined that the engine needed overhaul? Was the engine overhauled?

Alfred Prices wrote:

"Later it was discovered that the roughness was due to fouling of the Bosch sparking plugs after a short period of running. The fault was cured by fitting Siemens type plugs taken from the BMW 801A engine of a crashed Do 217." (after the ADFU test trials)

The evidence that someone during that time concluded that FW190A-3 Werk # 5313 needed an engine overhaul (please confirm this) after the ADFU test trials is serious evidence supporting the conclusion that the engine was damaged.

This does not alter the fact that the FW190 outclimbed the Spitfire VB according to those tests.

It does not confirm any opinion that the 'derated' engines represented the normal or median engines used by the Luftwaffe at that time.

It does not prove that the British altered the engine or the controls and it does not explain why the British would knowingly spoil the function of the tests.

That quote could be an opinion formed previous to or after the realization that sparking plugs 'cured' the problem.

Who really knows?

Opinions are fine.
I tend to put more weight in the opinions of people who really were involved with these planes during the war.
If that document suggesting that the BMW engine was damaged can be verified then it lends much support to the conclusion that the BMW was damaged during the tests when the FW190 outclimbed the Spitfire VB, climbed as good as the Spitfire IX (early model), climbed better than the P-51A1, climbed better below 20,000 feet than the P-38F, and climbed better than the Typhoon 'quite easily'.

It would be nice to have more information. Why did Alfred Price make his statment concerning the Spark Plugs? Which documents are still missing concerning this ADFU tests.

Did the ABC throttle controls on the Spitfires allow the pilots to overboost their engines during combat or was their control over manifold pressure limited mechanically to the current 'approved' rating?

This may be a dead horse to some but I am moving my opinion more toward scepticism concerning the Farber plane tests based upon that mention of engine overhaul.

I am however not going to make the leap, jump, or hop to conclude that the tests are invalid.

Confirmation on the actual condition of the FW190A-3 engine is in order.

Confirmation on the amount of 'derated' and 'rated' FW190s during that time period is in order.

We already know what a derated version will do relative to the Spitfire VB, the early Spitfire IX, the P-51A1, the P-38F, and the Typhoon (early)(planes tested against the FW by the ADFU in July 1942).

Confirmation on the British actually changing the engine or the controls on the Farber plane is in order.

Confirmation on what actually was done by the Germans to 'derate' their engines is in order. Did they remove the possibility of overboost from the pilots control?

Leaping to conclusions leads to gross errors in judgement.

hop2002
10-06-2004, 08:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Arrangements have been made with the RAE to complete the trials as soon as the engine of the FW 190 has been overhauled and passed fit for further flights



The above is news.

What is curious about this report is that it mentions arrangements being made with RAE. Why then is it an RAE report? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not an RAE report, it's from the AFDU report.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I have not read the above quote in any of the documents previously available on Ring's page nor is the above quote listed in Alfred Price's book.

Is it possible to have this report posted for verification? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's part of the report on Ring's site, I think, although parts of the report were on a different website before that, and it may be from there.

It's at the start of the section dealing with the Tphoon, the page name should be pro_190_survey_b_8.jpg

If you haven't got it, I can post it tomorrow.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Who determined that the engine needed overhaul? Was the engine overhauled? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've no idea, that's just what it says in the report.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It does not confirm any opinion that the 'derated' engines represented the normal or median engines used by the Luftwaffe at that time.

Confirmation on the actual condition of the FW190A-3 engine is in order.

Confirmation on the amount of 'derated' and 'rated' FW190s during that time period is in order. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why not try asking over at the Luftwaffe Experten site you've linked to? BBury should be able to provide some answers, as will Phillipe Willaume if he still visits.

hop2002
10-06-2004, 08:12 PM
As Ring's site seems to be down, here's the page in question:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/282_1097115125_pro_190_survey_b_8.jpg

Looking at the date, I must have got it from Ring's site, not the old one.

JG14_Josf
10-06-2004, 08:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Why not try asking over at the Luftwaffe Experten site you've linked to? BBury should be able to provide some answers, as will Phillipe Willaume if he still visits. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hop2002,

I see no reason to conclude that the ADFU tests are invalid.

There is too much evidence backing up the dominance of the FW190 in that time period to question this source of data in this much detail.

If each piece of information withstood this much scrutiny there would be little reason to use any data in forming an opinion.

My concern is your statements of fact that are not proven to be fact at all. Your opinion could be factual but it is as yet very weakly supported.

My concern does not begin and end with data. My concern is WWII fighter combat. The FW is recorded in history to be a good dog fighter. The tactics used by the FW190 are recorded as being very much the same tactics described by Robert Shaw as energy tactics.
Robert Shaw describes the same performance advantages listed in the ADFU tests attributed to the FW190 as the right stuff to conduct effective energy tactics.

You can conclude what you want based upon what you consider to be important and your opinion is welcome and valuable even to me, however, when you state your opinion as fact then I tend to question that error.

You cannot or will not realize this about me but I understand that the truth is more important than the ego.

If your opinion is fact then back it up, please, or please stop claiming things 'as fact' that are 'in fact' only your opinion.

Please do post the ADFU document that suggests a need to overhaul the Farber plane engine, and any information that supports the conclusion that the engine didn't simply need a new set of spark plugs.

Please post any information you have that supports the conclusion that 'derated' engines were the only engines used by the Luftwaffe or any information supporting the claim that 'derated' engines were x or y percent of the total number of FW engines used in combat at that time.

Why is this important information?

Because it is necessary in supporting your claim that the Farber tests are invalid.

What remains is that the FW190 flown in combat test trials did generate the ADFU reports at 1.3 whatever ata which is a 30min rating for 'rated' engines according to some sources.

If 'rated' engines were flying in combat during that time period then the Farber tests are valid as being representative of what a 'rated' engine could do except possibly less so since it was a 'derated' engine with bad spark plugs.

faustnik
10-06-2004, 11:11 PM
Here's a simple 1942 rodeo intercept for fun (it's an old mission but, kind of fun):

Rodeo Intercept (http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_files/RodeoIntercept.zip)

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG14_Josf
10-07-2004, 01:27 AM
Faustnik,

Is that an off-line mission?

I've been spending my flying time in Warclouds or Greatergreen mostly.

Can anyone confirm the ratio usage of 'rated' vs 'derated' FWs in July 1942?

Example:

No 'rated' version used in this time period.

50 percent 'rated' and 50 percent 'derated' in this time period.

Only one 'derated' FW and it was flown by Farber and captured by the British.

Can you see the importance in confirming this information?

If the British thought that the Germans had 'rated' version then they would tend to want to push the Farber plane toward their assumed worse case.



Hop2002,

Thanks for posting that doc.

That does lend support to the conclusion that Farbers FW was in need of an overhaul.

It would take a big leap however to conclude that an overhaul was needed and or done based only on that document considering the comments made in Alfred Prices book.

The possibility exists that the FW was 'cured' as Alfred Price states by changing spark plugs.

Note: The engine that needed an overhaul managed to outclimb the Typhoon or both Typhoons.

I really think you are sharpening a double edged sword with this refutation of the Farber test. If it turns out that the Germans did have a significant number of 'rated' FWs capable of flying for over 30 minutes at 1.35 or 2 ata then the Farber tests are more not less valid.

The Farber plane is still outclimbing the Spitfire VB in those documents and the games FW is still coughing, wheezing, and struggling to climb anywhere near the Spitfire VB 1941 climb rate.

Oleg_Maddox
10-07-2004, 01:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
So, that would still put it above the climb rates we see in FB.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/SpitVvsFw190A4.jpg

Don't the climb rates for the 1942 +16 Spit Vb look somewhat high also?

As I said, the combination of the Fw 190 climb being somewhat low and the Spit Vb climb being somewhat high, has a large effect on the relative matchup of these two a/c. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Better to look original charts and compare with what we have. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Constant climb and climb from some speed is way different things. We already posted it and all tested. And they got exactly the same result of British test.

JG14_Josf
10-07-2004, 01:48 AM
Hop2002,

I have one more angle on this topic that I wish to share.

Imagine if you will a hypothetical situation as follows:

The ADFU conducted a test of a captured FW that was 'derated' and the British ignored the warning. The British conduct side by side test trials by running this capture plane at boost pressure that they considered to be normal and representative of what they thought they actually had to face in typical combat situations.

The tests they conducted put a strain on the captured planes engine and it ran roughly. It was concluded that the engine needed an overhaul however they continued with the tests.

The captured FW190 performed exactly the same climb profile as the worst ones shown on the IL2compare chart posted by Faustnik.

Do you think I would try to discredit the test results conducted by the British based upon the documents stating how the engine ran roughly and needed an overhaul?

That is assuming that Alfred Price didn't write his book and Eric Brown didn't write his book of course, because those two books were based upon the actual results of the tests and not the hypothetical ones.

Oleg_Maddox
10-07-2004, 02:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PapaFly:
Aim of my testing was to compare the inflight acceleration of late-war Fw190 series.
Tested planes:

Fw190-A8-R2 (with the MK108 wing cannons)
Fw190-A9-R2
Fw190-D9 Late (default weapon configuration)

Plane configuration, power settings:
50% fuel, 110% power + WEP/MW50, radiators closed, prop on auto pitch.

ALL SPEEDS ARE TRUE AIR SPEED; ALL ALTITUDES ARE TRUE ALT ABOVE GROUND

Map: Crimea, at 12:00

= = = M E T H O D = = =

I took the plane down to 5-10m above the sea and let the speed settle somewhere well below
250kph. Then I applied wep and 110% power and kept the initial altitude while the plane was
accelerating up to topspeed. While viewing the track at 1/4 speed I started my stopwatch as
the plane reached 250kph. At this point the plane - which had starded accelerating at slower
speed - was already in maximum acceleration mode. Different times for winding up the engine
have no effect on this test.
I noted the time needed to reach 300, 350, 400, 450, 500 and 550kph. I also noted the
reached topspeed.
The test was flown twice. Raw data was compiled in MS exel.

= = = R E S U L T S = = =

Following pic shows my exel-sheet with all recorded data.

http://www.black-crusade.de/hellhounds/papafly/Fw190_inflight_acceleration.jpg

The mean calculated from the 2 independent tests is in orange, the standard deviation in yellow.
The times indicated have been "backtranslated" from the times recorded with my stopwatch -
so we have the "true" times here: e.g. the A8 takes 67.6 seconds to accelerate from 250 to 550kph.
You can clearly see that the test - when flown properly - gives very similar results with
very low standard deviations.

Top speeds:
A8 - 588kph
A9 - 597kph
D9 - 610kph

The recorded data has been compiled into an acceleration graph:

http://www.black-crusade.de/hellhounds/papafly/Inflight_acceleration_250-550.jpg

In this graph, the plane with the best acceleration has the flattest curve.
-You clearly see that the D9late is leaving the A9 and A8 standing: it needs 55.3 seconds to
reach 550kph, while the A9 and A8 take 66.7 and 67.6, respectively.
-The puzzling thing is that the curves of the A9 and A8 are nearly identical.
-The A8 accelerates better than the A9 up to 450kph
-From 450kph on, the A9 curve is slightly flatter - meaning that it accelerates a bit better

Following diagram shows how much time each plane takes to accelerate from 250-350, 350-450
and 450-550kph.

http://www.black-crusade.de/hellhounds/papafly/Inflight_acceleration_intervals.jpg


= = = C O N C L U S I O N S = = =

Well...all I can say is that the A9 is absolutely PATHETIC.

Let me remind you about the thrust/weight ratios of these planes:

190A8
4250kg/2050hp---Thrust/weight = 2.1kg/hp

190A9
4410kg/2300hp---Thrust/weight = 1.92kg/hp

190D9 late
4350kg/2240hp---Thrust/weight = 1.94kg/hp

Now we have the plane with the best thrust/weight ratio having the slowest acceleration.
Also check the results of my previous test where I accelerated the planes on the runway:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=709007307

As you see the inflight data is absolutely in line with the data recorded while accelerating
on the runway.

To summarize:
-The A9 accelerates S L O W E R than the A8 between 0-450kph, and THIS is the
most relevant and important acceleration range.
-Above 450kph, the A9 has only a very marginal advantage over the A8.
-This is a slap in the face of every Fw lover, it's not fair, it's silly, AND IT SHOULD BE CHANGED.
-And yes I heard that BS about a high-alt prop being modeled on the A9, but this is just a lame excuse,
nothing more.


Here are the tracks and my exel-sheet:

http://www.black-crusade.de/hellhounds/papafly/Inflight_accelerationt%20_Fw190.xls


http://www.black-crusade.de/hellhounds/papafly/190A8_inflight_acceleration_01.TRK
http://www.black-crusade.de/hellhounds/papafly/190A8_inflight_acceleration_02.TRK
http://www.black-crusade.de/hellhounds/papafly/190A9_inflight_acceleration.TRK
http://www.black-crusade.de/hellhounds/papafly/190A9_inflight_acceleration_01.TRK
http://www.black-crusade.de/hellhounds/papafly/190D9late_inflight_acceleration.TRK
http://www.black-crusade.de/hellhounds/papafly/190D9late_inflight_acceleration_01.TRK

Someone in this forum said that the A9 offers enough over the A8....well all it offers is a marginal advantage in a zoomclimb (check my other thread), and 9kph in topspeed.

===If YOU find this unfair and worth a change, than keep this thread up!===

S! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


have no time to comment,

But you do not take in account different system of automatic pitch D9/A series, different and _optimized for different purpose(altitudes and speeds)_ blades of propellers on all of them, and of course - aerodynamics.

Second: Due to different propellers and mechnisms of prop pitch the maximal accelerations achived on different speeds for these planes.
Usually in real trials take in account for measurements with only acceleration from 0,7 Vmax to 0,95 Vmax and take them on diffeent altitudes.
Due to different effiency of prop blades/autopitch on different speeds and altitudes we may get _very_ different result even for one the same plane with just different blades of propeller.

So you operation with just the relative power (but not the thrust!) to the weight ratio of the plane is like to implement simple physical force to the stone and then compare them with different input of digits. For the plane dynamics and performance calculations its really very far from enough!

Oleg_Maddox
10-07-2004, 02:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Hop2002,

I have one more angle on this topic that I wish to share.

Imagine if you will a hypothetical situation as follows:

The ADFU conducted a test of a captured FW that was 'derated' and the British ignored the warning. The British conduct side by side test trials by running this capture plane at boost pressure that they considered to be normal and representative of what they thought they actually had to face in typical combat situations.

The tests they conducted put a strain on the captured planes engine and it ran roughly. It was concluded that the engine needed an overhaul however they continued with the tests.

The captured FW190 performed exactly the same climb profile as the worst ones shown on the IL2compare chart posted by Faustnik.

Do you think I would try to discredit the test results conducted by the British based upon the documents stating how the engine ran roughly and needed an overhaul?

That is assuming that Alfred Price didn't write his book and Eric Brown didn't write his book of course, because those two books were based upon the actual results of the tests and not the hypothetical ones. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In British original documents is written that all manufacture limits were removed and also pointed which fule was used!. Its why engine was damages very soon after the first such trials. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

However even in this case our modeling just confirm the test.

Climbs (and it isn't constant climb, but zoom climb) comparison in these text above were taken for FW190A on ~80 km highter then on Spitfire. In this case FW really otclimb easy Spitfire V. You may check it yourselves. Others already did it long time ago and got it confirmed 100%.

Then you need simply to look for original British and original German test for optimal sustained climb for both aircraft. It will looks exactly like it is shown in IL2compare. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Why not to look for this? Both these original charts are widely distributed in internet. If you can't find for A3/A4/A5 climb rates, then look for A8 original German tests.... it will be still worse than the same Spitfire Mk.V!

Also I recommend to read tests of FW-190 vs Corsairs.... and even vs SBD.... Interesting to read... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWMaxGunz
10-07-2004, 03:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
In British original documents is written that all manufacture limits were removed and also pointed which fule was used!. Its why engine was damages very soon after the first such trials. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I remember the documents posted from before but can't find them.

Can you tell just how the manufacture limits were removed?
Was it removal of a restriction plate in the air intake?
Not just tell the pilot it is okay to use full throttle?


Neal

BBB_Hyperion
10-07-2004, 05:24 AM
http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/fwa3enginetrouble.JPG

Can someone post the mentioned later report of this engine examination.

CHDT
10-07-2004, 05:54 AM
All the docs available here:

http://www.pbase.com/chrisdnt

Make you an idea by yourself http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BBB_Hyperion
10-07-2004, 06:07 AM
Already have these but others might need some reading too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But cant find the engine examination report mentioned here where is it ?.

JG14_Josf
10-07-2004, 09:31 AM
Oleg,

The ADFU report posted by CHDT states:

"49. Climbs.
"Under maximum continuous climbing conditionss the climb of the FW. 190 is about 450 ft/min. better up to 25,000 feet"

The above clearly has a specific meaning.

It does not mean 'zoom climb'.

This is an example of what zoom climb means:

"50. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then puled up into a climb, the superior climb of the FW.190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up onto a climb from a dive, the FW.190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it."

Please consider that some of your customers not only want accuracy but they also want solid evidence in support of accuracy when contradictions exist.

Note: I did say 'some' of your customers.

I am certain that there are those among this community that would like to know more information on this topic.

For example:

1. Did the Germans run 'rated' versions of the FW190 in 1942 and if so how many?

2. What manufacture limits were removed from the FW 190 werk # 5313 and did this adjustment bring that plane up to 'rated' specifications?

faustnik
10-07-2004, 09:51 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 faustnik:
So, that would still put it above the climb rates we see in FB.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/SpitVvsFw190A4.jpg

Don't the climb rates for the 1942 +16 Spit Vb look somewhat high also?

As I said, the combination of the Fw 190 climb being somewhat low and the Spit Vb climb being somewhat high, has a large effect on the relative matchup of these two a/c. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Better to look original charts and compare with what we have. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Constant climb and climb from some speed is way different things. We already posted it and all tested. And they got exactly the same result of British test. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thank you for the reply Oleg. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I will of course continue to look at all the information available, so, as always, expect more questions. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

p1ngu666
10-07-2004, 10:01 AM
id say the vast majority of a4s and earlier where derated, due to what happens if there not..
maybe some pilots vetoed the derateing, prefering to have OMGIMGONNADIEINTHEFACEIFIDONTHHAVEMOREPOWER WEP http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif ofcourse that wep may blow the engine or something. anyways its iirec they where all derated, from stuff butch2k posted awhile ago. later cleared for proper ata/rev's once problems solved?

oleg nice too see u about, look out for a new topic by me in a hour or so http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
10-07-2004, 10:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Oleg,

The ADFU report posted by CHDT states:

"49. Climbs.
"Under maximum continuous climbing conditionss the climb of the FW. 190 is about 450 ft/min. better up to 25,000 feet"

The above clearly has a specific meaning.

It does not mean 'zoom climb'.

This is an example of what zoom climb means:

"50. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then puled up into a climb, the superior climb of the FW.190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up onto a climb from a dive, the FW.190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it."

Please consider that some of your customers not only want accuracy but they also want solid evidence in support of accuracy when contradictions exist.

Note: I did say 'some' of your customers.

I am certain that there are those among this community that would like to know more information on this topic.

For example:

1. Did the Germans run 'rated' versions of the FW190 in 1942 and if so how many?

2. What manufacture limits were removed from the FW 190 werk # 5313 and did this adjustment bring that plane up to 'rated' specifications? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi,

I'd like an answer to this one, too.

I read it the same way that you do; the report makes a clear distinction between zoom and continuous climb and states that the 190 is superior in both respects. Logically, that makes Il-2 compare and the FMs incorrect.

The report also says that the 190 best climb should be at a steeper angle than the Spitfire but, in the game, the 190 climbs best at 350-400kmh which amounts to a shallow climb.

Something isn't quite right.

Ta,
Norris

DarthBane_
10-07-2004, 10:39 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Oleg,

The ADFU report posted by CHDT states:

"49. Climbs.
"Under maximum continuous climbing conditionss the climb of the FW. 190 is about 450 ft/min. better up to 25,000 feet"

The above clearly has a specific meaning.

It does not mean 'zoom climb'.

This is an example of what zoom climb means:

"50. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then puled up into a climb, the superior climb of the FW.190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up onto a climb from a dive, the FW.190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it."

________________________________________________

The text above states how it was in RL, Olegs answer is from FB perspective, were things about FW series are seriously messed up, once again it is OK to say: This is my game, i dont like FW and it will be porked regardles of RL tests http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif, but it is not OK to twist written facts http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif, and draw out parts that are OK in FB, and ignore parts that are WRONG http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif. FW has advantage over spitV in climb acording to tests http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif, and has imense advantage in zoom climb http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif. This comunication looks like all of us are talking about different text and tests http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif. It is written above under 49. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif and 50. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif What is not clear about that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif??? And what do we have in FB http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif??? The only posible way to continue this is to claim that people writing RL tests were drunk or something else http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif, and 1c knows the real truth about ac performance http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif. Lets burn the books and tests http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif. People writing tham were halucinating http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif.

faustnik
10-07-2004, 10:43 AM
Great, here we go right down the crapper. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
10-07-2004, 10:54 AM
Hi,

Just skimmed back over a few pages....

So, just to summarise:

a. We are now saying that the popularly publicised 190A3 vs Vb test, used by experts in the field such as Dr Alfred Price, is not applicable because it was incorrect in the first place?

b. We are saying that the Vb is a 1942 version which is better than the 1941 version and should outclimb an 190A3 (or 190A4) even though the RAF actually introduced the IX to deal with the threat from the 190As (albeit not entirely with respect to climb)?

c. On the other hand, we are saying that the 190A should be a little slower but climb better than it does in the game?

Cheers,
Norris

JG14_Josf
10-07-2004, 11:21 AM
p1ngu666,

Do you have any more information on 'stuff butch2k posted'?

Please don't assume my intentions are anything more than an interest in historical fact. I can do just fine with the planes in the game.

If the ADFU tests were not conducted or if the results of those tests did not generate the comments reported by them then there would be less evidence pointing to a contradiction between what is in the game and what is recorded in history by actual pilots, RAF commanders, and historians.

Historians are concerned with history otherwise they would be called enthusiasts or perhaps amature historians.

Alfred Price is a historian. He holds a PhD in history from loughborough University according to this web page:

Fellow of the Royal Historical Society (http://www.ospreypublishing.com/author_detail.php?author=A2463)

Alfred Price wrote:

"During the spring of 1942 all six Gruppen of Jagdgeschwader 2 and 26 had re-equipped with the Fw 190. Between them these units mustered about 260 of these formidable fighters. By then the earlier engine troubles had been cured, allowing the pilots to exploit to the full the capabilities of the Fw 190."

Alfred Price goes on to report:

"For RAF Fighter Command this was the most difficult period since the end of the Battle of Britain. For example, during Circus Operation No. 178 on 1 June, eight bomb-carrying Hurricanes attacked a target in northern Belgium. Seven squadrons of Spitfire Vs from the Hornchurch and Biggin Hill Wings provided close escort and four squadrons for the Debden Wing provided target support. Positioned by radar, the fighter ace Hauptmann 'Pips' Priller led some fourty Fw 190s of Ist and IIIrd Gruppen of Jagdeschwader 26 to 'bounce' the raiding force from out of the sun. The Debden Wing took the force of the attack and suffered the loss of eight Spitfires, including that flown by its commander. Five more Spitfires returned with battle damage. No Focke Wulf suffered serious damage during the encounter."

Now, before jumping to conclusions regarding the above quote please consider that my intention for that reference is to note the date: June 1 1942. The following paragraph continues Alfred Prices authorship.

"The following day was another bad one for the RAF. Two wings of Spitfires flew a 'Rodeo' operation, a large scale fighter sweep, through the St Omer area. The Luftwaffe usually ignored such incursions, but not this time. Focke Wulfs of Ist and IInd Gruppen of JG 26 delivered a massed attack concentrating on No. 403 (Canadian) Squadron led by the redoubtable Squadron Leader Alan Deere. There followed a desperate seven-minute brawl, in which seven Spitfires were shot down and two suffered serious damage. Again, no Focke Wulf suffered serious damage." (Focke Wulf, Alfred Price)

Please, again, don't jump to conclusions as to my motives. The above is meant to reference the duration of the fight at 7 minutes and then to return to Eric Browns assesment of conditions during this time frame:

"The RAF took advantage of its windfall (the captured Farber FW190) of 23 June 1942...The AFDU trials confirmed what he RAF already knew..."

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It was concluded that the Fw 190 pilot trying to "mix it" with a Spitfire in the classic fashion of steep turning was doomed, for at any speed - even below the German fighter's stalling speed - it woud be out-turned by its British opponent. Of course, the Luftwaffe was aware of this fact and a somewhat odd style of dogfighting evolved in which the Fw 190 pilots endeavored to keep on the vertical plane by zooms and dives, while their Spitfire-mounted antagonists tried everything in the book to draw them on to the horizontal. If the German pilot lost his head and failed to resist the temptation to try a horizontal pursuit curve on a Spitfire, as likely as not, before he could recover the speed lost in a steep turn he would find another Spitfire turning inside him! On the other hand, the German pilot who kept zooming up and down was usually the recipient of only diffiuclt deflection shots of more than 30 deg. The Fw 190 had tremendous initial acceleration in a dive but it was extremely vulnerable during a pull-out, recovery having to be quite progressive with care not to kill the speed by "sinking". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Based upon the above information it seems reasonable enough to ask how many FW190s were 'rated' and how many were 'derated'.

Alfred Price's comment concerning the FW190's engine trouble being cured is an acknowledgement of difficulties that were overcome; allowing, as he put it, to 'explot to the full the capabilities of the Fw 190'.

If a 7 minute 'brawl' occured between two plane types where one plane had both an energy and an angles advantage over the opponent (such as is the case with the game and or possibly a 'derated' Fw190 vs a 16psi boosted Sptifire) then the 7 minute fighting would not likely resemble the situation described by Eric Brown. The possibility that Fw190 pilots could last a 7 minute brawl with a double inferior fighter is difficult to rationalize because Eric Brown, Alfred Price, and the ADFU reports suggest otherwise. The situation makes sense only if the Fw190 holds a performance advantage in energy maneuverabiliy as described by Eric Brown and the ADFU reports.

Double inferior planes (planes lacking both turn and energy performance advantages) cannot stay and fight. They must hit and run or suffer losses. If they turn the better turning planes gain the advantage. If they climb the better climbing planes gain the advantage. Angles tactics are not an option. Energy tactics are not an option. Hit and run tactics are the only options left to a fighter with a significant disadvantage in both turn and energy performance.

Back to Shaw on energy maneuverability:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>...A fighter's aerodynamic efficiency, in particular its lift-to-drag ratio, is also vitally important to energy performance, especially at high G or high speed. In order to simplify this discussion, however, the term high T/W infers greater climb rate, faster acceleration, and higher maximum speed capability relative to the opponent. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The subject of 'rated' vs 'derated' engine performance appears to be a very signifiant factor in the contradiction existing between Alfred Prices - Eric Browns interpretation of the ADFU documents validity and what is occuring in the game.

More information would be nice.

p1ngu666
10-07-2004, 08:38 PM
friad not :\
imagine a huge cloth, now imagine a hurri with 12 mgs blazing away at it. the cloth is my memory, and the holes are missing memories or currupt. its bloody awful http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif. its from over the counter anti depressents, if your wondering http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif. maybe search the forum, but thats as useless as me aswell http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

the engine problems could be described as cured, if u dont push them so hard, they wouldnt lunch themselves at derated spec, well thats the plan anyways.

also we dont have the spit from the test, i dont know if u could fake it, running less throttle or pitch, as one of the climbing tests are. also i dont think we can overboost/rev the a4, u could try with manual pitch i guess.

WWMaxGunz
10-07-2004, 09:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CHDT:
All the docs available here:

http://www.pbase.com/chrisdnt

Make you an idea by yourself http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You don't know where the 1st 4 pages of the 190 report might be found?


Neal

k5054
10-08-2004, 05:45 AM
Josf quote Eric Brown...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Please, again, don't jump to conclusions as to my motives. The above is meant to reference the duration of the fight at 7 minutes and then to return to Eric Browns assesment of conditions during this time frame:

"The RAF took advantage of its windfall (the captured Farber FW190) of 23 June 1942...The AFDU trials confirmed what he RAF already knew..."

quote:It was concluded that the Fw 190 pilot trying to "mix it" with a Spitfire in the classic fashion of steep turning was doomed, for at any speed - even below the German fighter's stalling speed - it woud be out-turned by its British opponent. Of course, the Luftwaffe was aware of this fact and a somewhat odd style of dogfighting evolved in which the Fw 190 pilots endeavored to keep on the vertical plane by zooms and dives, while their Spitfire-mounted antagonists tried everything in the book to draw them on to the horizontal. If the German pilot lost his head and failed to resist the temptation to try a horizontal pursuit curve on a Spitfire, as likely as not, before he could recover the speed lost in a steep turn he would find another Spitfire turning inside him! On the other hand, the German pilot who kept zooming up and down was usually the recipient of only diffiuclt deflection shots of more than 30 deg. The Fw 190 had tremendous initial acceleration in a dive but it was extremely vulnerable during a pull-out, recovery having to be quite progressive with care not to kill the speed by "sinking".



Based upon the above information it seems reasonable enough to ask how many FW190s were 'rated' and how many were 'derated'.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But that sequence, in almost exactly the same words, is found in "The Focke Wulf 190", Green and Swanborough, 1976. The Brown book is dated 1977, edited by....Green and Swanborough. From the style alone I suspect that much of what we are given as Eric Brown's opinions is in fact written by Green. Probably the actual 'there I was' stuff is Brown, the rest is Green. I wouldn't over-analyze the words for that reason.

Did you ever find a reason whereby the 190 in the test would climb faster in high gear? This isn't really possible you know, unless there is something we aren't being told.. The 190 in the AFDU/RAE tests was also slower than we expect. The chart given earlier in this thread had the 190A-5 at 680kph at 6km, that's 418mph, whereas the best RAE figure was 391mph IIRC, at 1.42/2700rpm.

My tentative conclusions ;
The AEP spit V is not modelled consistently, its too slow and climbs too well.
The AFDU test is not entirely satisfactory, and the report is slanted for RAF political reasons, eg to get Spit IX into service faster. Notice the way performance over 25000ft is not mentioned, because the Mk V was not so bad up there. In RL, all reports/summaries/press releases want the audience to reach the conclusion intended by the writer.
RAF tactics up to mid-42 were the real reason for poor performance by its fighters.
The FW really was superior to the Spit V. So was the 109F/G. This doesn't apply to LF spits at low levels.
The AEP FW A-4 doesn't really show this superiority so much, the carefree handling at high speeds relative to the spit does not come out. Also the view is suspect.

PapaFly
10-08-2004, 06:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:

have no time to comment,

But you do not take in account different system of automatic pitch D9/A series, different and _optimized for different purpose(altitudes and speeds)_ blades of propellers on all of them, and of course - aerodynamics.

Second: Due to different propellers and mechnisms of prop pitch the maximal accelerations achived on different speeds for these planes.
Usually in real trials take in account for measurements with only acceleration from 0,7 Vmax to 0,95 Vmax and take them on diffeent altitudes.
Due to different effiency of prop blades/autopitch on different speeds and altitudes we may get _very_ different result even for one the same plane with just different blades of propeller.

So you operation with just the relative power (but not the thrust!) to the weight ratio of the plane is like to implement simple physical force to the stone and then compare them with different input of digits. For the plane dynamics and performance calculations its really very far from enough! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry Oleg but I really don't get your point: why do you put work in such a weak performing plane? I mean the current A9 really doesn't offer much over the A8, and this is FACT. I tested both planes, I've posted absolutely clear data, and all experienced 190 online pilots know it. As it is now, it's a deathtrap.
Why don't you just take it back? I really suggest you delete it. By doing this the amount of unexperienced, unknowing blue pilots flying the A9, thinking it's an ultimate performer and getting killed very soon after, will be cut to zero.
In my eyes it's nothing but a big hoax. Any regular A8 without that bombrack would perform better.
Plus I don't buy that argument with the different autopitch mechanisms and different propellers.

Does anybody have time to repeat my acceleration test on manual pitch, just to show that its not an autopitch issue?

S!

JG14_Josf
10-08-2004, 10:59 AM
k5054,

Thanks for the reasoning. I think you have some good possible conclusions, but please consider that if a test is suspect of being wrong based upon 'political reasons' then all tests should be equally questioned in this manner.

Because we know so much concerning the ADFU tests on FW # 5313 our ability to scrutinize the motivations, proceedures, results, etc. are increased.

So; 'political' tampering with test results must be equally considered as possible causes for all test results based upon principle, proceedure and the scientific method.

I am certain that you understand the need to apply the scientific method to every and all forms of fact gathering.

The absense of a blind 'unbiased' eye is 'politics' according to my understanding of terms.

I am not the one saying that the ADFU tests are gospel. My point is that a report exists that is made by pilots reported to be conducting side by side comparisions tests for the specific purpose of finding relative performance capabilities.

They may very well be doing something other than what they say they are doing.

If instead of flying the planes in comparative tests to find out relative performance they simply cooked up the desired results for a purpose other than finding relative performance then those tests are virtually worthless.

What can be said about any other test?

Is it possible that any factory or government department could change their numbers to suit a specific agenda?

If the British are known for cooking the books then does this suggest a need to be more suspicious of any numbers generated by the British?

Do you see my point?

If there is evidence supporting the idea that the ADFU numbers are fabricated then please produce this evidence. Please also consider the need to check for the same possible errors in every source of information used to form a conclusion.

I have also reached your same 'tentative' conclusion. It makes possible sense. It can be applied to every form of information leading one to conclude that test information is unreliable and not absolutely factual, not 100 percent correct.

Note: Eric Brown was living during the ADFU tests. Is it possible that he wrote the tactical analysis written in his book "Wings of the Luftwaffe" during WWII?

Here again the source is being scrutinized for validity where my point is the actual information contained in the words.

Many sources of information combine to form my conclusion concerning the relative performance of the FW190 and the Spitfire in July 1942. Eric Brown's quote (regardless of who wrote it) describes the tactical application of specific relative performance capabilities.

Imagine if the report quoted in Eric Browns book or Green and Swanborough's book read:

"Of course, the Luftwaffe was aware of this fact and a somewhat familiar style of hit and run tactics were used by the German because their new Fw190 would consistantly lose relative energy in any comparable maneuver against our Sptifires. If the FW190 pilot lost his head and tried to maneuver in any way the Sptifire pilot would gain relative energy and close the gap. The Germans attacked as a team using the element of suprise and then extended to a safe distance before reversing to set up another attack because this was their only option in combat. The Germans found in their Fw190 a similar tactical situation as they already had with their 109s except that the Fw190 could not climb as good and it turned even worse."

If the above were the words used to describe the tactical situation in "Wings of the Luftwaffe" or "The Focke Wulf 190" then my 'tentative' conclusion would be different.

I would not have a bridge or link between the "historical" reference (Brown's and Green's) and the contemporary references noted by Robert Shaw. The tactical analysis by Eric Brown (or whoever wrote it) and Shaw's description of energy tactics is strikingly similar if not verifyably the same.

This is not to say that a plane must use the correct tactics to be succesfull, however, the notion that the British were incompetent is a bit of a jump or leap for me to entertain. It is not supported with evidence to say that the British were simply propagandized into deluding themselves that the FW190 was a better fighter plane than the 109 at that time.

So a description of the usage of energy tactics exists (the Eric Brown quote)describing the very planes being tested by the ADFU.

This alone would be an indication that maybe the FW190 was a capable energy fighter against the Spitfire.

Now add to this hypothesis or 'tentatve' conclusion the description by Robert Shaw as to what specific performance advantages lend themselves toward energy tactics and compare those attributes to the ADFU tests.

Robert Shaw:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>...A fighter's aerodynamic efficiency, in particular its lift-to-drag ratio, is also vitally important to energy performance, especially at high G or high speed. In order to simplify this discussion, however, the term high T/W infers greater climb rate, faster acceleration, and higher maximum speed capability relative to the opponent. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ADFU tests:

Climb:
"The climb of the FW190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights."

Acceleration:
"The FW has better acceleration under all conditions of flight and this must obviously be useful durinjg combat."

Speed:
"The Fw 190 is superior in speed at all heights, and the approximate differences are as follows:"

Repeat:

A source (Eric Brown, Green) describe tactics employed by the FWs against Spitfires.

A source (Robert Shaw) describes these same tactics as Energy tactics and indentifies the relative performance capabilities that enable effective energy tactics.

A source (ADFU Farber tests) report that the FW 190 holds the same relaive performance capabilities described by Robert Shaw as being those suitible for the effective employment of energy tactics.

Now add this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>With the Advent of the FW 190A, this was not as critical as it once had been. The Aircraft was a superb dogfighter, and its pilots used it as such. The previous summer, faced with slashing attacks by the 109s, the constant complaint of RAF pilots was that 'Jerry' didn't stay and fight, totally ignoring the fact that in the 109 this was tactically correct. Now they were repaid in spades: in his new FW 190A, 'Jerry' stayed and fought as never before. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From this source:

Same title but the cover looks different from my edition (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1853675601/qid=1092520737/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-7583074-1923052?v=glance&s=books)

Mike Spick is an aviation historian (http://www.greenhillbooks.com/authors/spick_mike.htm)

Note: The Fw 190 was, in fact, a change in the combat situation. Much is written concerning how significant the Fw 190 changed the combat situation. The quote from Mike Spick is a drop in the bucket of information that records how significant the Fw190 changed the combat situation, but for my 'tentative conclusion' the quote by Mike Spick adds to the mounting evidence in support of the observation that the Fw190 in history held an energy maneuverability advantage over the Spitfire, in reality.

Does my argument fall appart if the ADFU tests are found to be complete fabrications?

Does my argument fall appart if the Eric Brown tactical analysis turns out to also be a complete fabrication?

Does my argument fall appart if Robert Shaw's tactical analysis turns out to be 'only' useful for Jet fighter planes?

Does my argument fall appart if it is found that Mike Spick was actually a French chef instead of a Historian?

Does my argument fall appart if Alfred Price turns out to be a double double secret agent working for the KGB?

Sure it does, but what remains is the ADFU report. It does exist in reality. It won't simply go away because I refuse to see it.

I do see the German climb charts and I really would like to know more about them.

I do see the British climb charts and these too could be inspected with greater scrutiny.

As to the gear changes and boost; it occurs to me that much in not known, and more knowledge is better.

Meanwhile, the game is a whole lot of fun thanks to everyone involved in producing it, including the customers who support the market with their hard earned money.

I consider my investment to be well worth it.

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/Concentrated%20Fire.jpg

k5054
10-08-2004, 12:56 PM
I make a distinction between the tests and the report. I have no doubt that the figures in the report were those obtained by testing. There are many reasons why they may not be representative of FWs, or even Spitfires, a month or two later.
I am sure that everybody, of whatever nationality or trade, who writes a report shades it, intentionally or not, to make the conclusions suit his purpose. Perhaps you are not aware of weapons which are accepted into peacetime service and turn out to be useless after war breaks out. It happens all the time, and the reason is that 'reports' said they were OK and user voices were ignored.
We haven't mentioned the 109 much, but in RL, over France in 1941, the 109s did as much damage as the 190s. There was no great fuss from the RAF, they were largely unaware of any problem. The arrival of the 190 did not in fact change the victory/loss ratio of Fighter Command much.
Indeed the LW fighter arm was not all that keen on the 190, observe the results of comparison tests vs the F-4 and remarks by Gordon Gollob, quoted in Herrman's book. (Which I don't have, perhaps someone can help with a quote). Both types were equally capable of BnZing Spitfires which cruised at 180mphIAS in the combat area, in line-astern fours. That's why I think, with hindsight, that politics were involved in the conclusions of the AFDU report. Not the RAE part, not the test results.

JG14_Josf
10-08-2004, 02:23 PM
k5054,

I don't know what you mean by BnZ.

Do you mean to say 'Hit and Run' or are you trying to say 'energy tactics'?

My 'tentative conclusion' is based upon specific tactics applied to specific relative performance capabilities. The tactics described by Eric Brown (or whomever wrote that tactical analysis)did not describe "Hit and Run" tactics.

If you do not or will not acknowledge the differences between "angles", "Energy", and "Hit and Run" tactics then my 'tentative conclusions' will also fail to be acknowledged.

From Fighter Combat by Robert Shaw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"Encounters between a low-wing-loaded fighter and an enemy fighter with greater T/W are quite common. In this case each fighter has performance advantages and disadvantages relative to its opponent. The engagement stategy is for the pilot to exploit the opponent's most serious weaknesses while taking full advantage of his own fighter's greatest strengths."
"The low-wing-loaded fighter's greatest performance advantages are assumed to be good instantaneous turn performance, slow minimum speed, and tight sustained turn radius. In some cases this aircraft also might have a significant sutained-turn-rate advantage. Its weaknesses include inferior climb and acceleration performance under low-G conditions, and slower "top-end" speed."
"These characteristics are ideally suited to the use of angles tactics..."

"On the other hand, the pilot of a high-T/W fighter should concentrate on energy tactics when he is engaging a low-wing-loaded opponent." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As far as I know the term BnZ is made up by people playing games. It is used to describe a way to play a game. BnZ as far as I my understanding goes; means:
Anything other than pointing the lift vector at the opponent and pulling on the stick.

Therefore I have no idea what your use of the word is intended to mean.

Aren't you at least a little bit curious as to why a fighter plane like the 109 was reported by Mike Spick as being suited for "hit and run" tactics while the Fw190 was capable of more against the Spitfires at that time?

Sure Mike Spick might be all wet.

Sure Eric Brown may be simply making things up.

Robert Shaw may be a real dreamer too.

The ADFU, Douglas, and his pilots may have all been part of a big conspiracy to fool the RAF command into giving them a better plane sooner. (Why would they need one?)

The RAE may have been more accurate in their reporting of the facts because they were the ones with proffesional integrity or whatever.

My sense of judgment leaves me thinking that there is something common in all this information. The FW190s were kicking butt, the British no longer held the advantage in dog fighting because the Fw190s were more capable in employing energy tactics, more than the Spitfires and more than the 109s, and not until the British lifted engine rating limitations, made more energy efficient fighters, and adjusted their tactics (from angles tactics to hit and run tactics) did the British manage to catch up on equal terms.

It makes sense to me that the Spitfire pilots had enough turn performance advantage to beat both the 109 and 190 in the use of angles tactics.
The 109s lacked the acceleration, roll rate, and lacked a significant edge in high speed and therefore high g turn performance to employ energy tactics (Corner and vertical maneuvering speed velocities).
The 109s lacked the significant avantage in acceleration, high speed energy addition rate, and they tended to decelerate at a faster rate in the zoom climb.
The 109s were on par or only slightly better in the energy fight against the Spitfires due to a better climb rate.
The 109s were better suited toward hit and run tactics involving attacks from altitude and extensions going up. To turn against the Spitfires was giving up too much advantage for little return in relative energy.

On the other hand it seems clear enough to me that the evidence at least suggests that the Fw190 pilots were armed with the ability to incorporate tactics that employ both the high speed energy addition rate in a diving extension followed by a zoom climbs once higher speeds were gained during the increased energy gains made in the dive.
The Fw190s had a zoom deceleration advantage due to higher density and greater thrust not neccessarily higher thrust to weight.
The Fw190s had the advantage in energy maneuverability over the Spitfires and 109s.
Greater capacity to gain energy with acceleration.
Greater capacity to retain energy in unloaded flight.
Ease in control at the higher speeds required for energy tactics (corner speed and vertical maneuvering speed).
The Fw190s could hit and then run only just enough to gain the energy to reverse (gravity assisted turn rate on top of a zoom climb pitch back maneuver) and hit again quickly.

Yes, I can most certainly be wrong. I am not the one claiming that reality is the way I see it. These are my 'tentative conclusions' based upon the information presented.

JG14_Josf
10-08-2004, 02:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Perhaps you are not aware of weapons which are accepted into peacetime service and turn out to be useless after war breaks out. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here is a quote from the book titled "Boyd" by Robert Coram.

"The briefing was winding down, but Sweeney had one more question. "Major, yesterday you said you had run the numbers on all U.S. aircraft. But nowhere did you mention the F-111. Did your research cover this aircraft? If so, what conclusions did you draw?"
Boyd clicked the slide projector. His final slide was an E-M diagram of the F-111. Boyd did not speak. The General and his staff had seen enough E-M diagrams in the past two days to grasp the implications of the F-111 display. Even so, they stidied the solid-red slide and then looked at Boyd in disbelief.
Boyd gave them the numbers that showed how at any altitude, any speed, any G-load, any part of the flight-performance envelope, the F-111 was inferior to the Soviet threat. If the F-111 faced a MiG, it would be shot down. Period. End of story. The F-111 was, in the traditional phrase of fighter pilots, a dog.
The general thought for a moment. Maybe there was something the charts did not reveal, something he could salvage. "Major, based on your extensive research, do you have any recommendations regarding this aircraft?"
Boyd did not miss a beat. "General, I'd pull the wings off, install benches in the bomb bay, paint the god**** thing yellow, and turn it into a high-speed taxi."

k5054
10-08-2004, 02:51 PM
I don't think we're disagreeing much except for the usefulness of the AFDU report in comparing the a/c. I apologize for the term BnZ, it's what they use round this board when they mean hit and run, dive and recover (what the 56th FG called it), energy tactics (a more recent term for an old concept). The fact is those tactics work better than dogfighting, if your aircraft type can sustain it against the enemy. The first Fokker Eindekkers did it in 1915. When Robert Shaw writes about this, he is in a more modern context. By which I mean his terms and explanations are more applicable to his own jet experience. Not that the principles don't apply to WW2 aircraft, but that the differences between types like the MiG-17 and the F-4, the F-8 and the A-4 are more pronounced than between the 109F, 190A and Spitfire V and IX. It's interesting that Shaw was the first person to really explain air combat tactics in an understandable way despite many Ace autobiographies which failed completely to put into words what the flyers knew instinctively. What I mean about his work is that compared to modern air combat WW2 combat has far less vertical in it, limited dive speeds, no real corner speed, shorter ranges in general (to be 600m+ away is to be almost immune from gunfire).

Another way to look at all this type comparison stuff is to simplify it to say if your a/c has 20mph in top speed over the enemy at engagement height (in WW2) then that is an advantage, if extended over the two engaged fighter forces, which will result in superiority, other things being equal. 10mph will result in an edge.

I think almost all fighter campaigns of WW2 will conform to this rule of thumb. Except where Finns are involved. Or the MiG-3. To examine performance further is an interesting pursuit, but maybe won't show different results.

VW-IceFire
10-08-2004, 03:25 PM
For anyone who is in doubt...dive and recover, boom and zoom, whatever you want to call it...works quite sucessfully. It requires that you have superior altitude at the beginning of the fight.

Infact, the best fights are where multiple planes are involved and you all have superior altitude against your opponent. Using the FW190 you can initiate an attack VERY rapidly due to roll rate...you dive straight at your opponent and use roll rate to follow him. You slowly pull up...as the target passes through the gunsight you spray him with as much firepower as you've got and you climb back up. On the way up, if the situation is clear...I go back down and hit him some more on the way down.

Its a one two punch. It does work, regardless of the modeling of the plane VS reality. So historically...in-game performance of these sorts of manuvers is not impossible. In case anyone was in doubt.

faustnik
10-08-2004, 03:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
For anyone who is in doubt...dive and recover, boom and zoom, whatever you want to call it...works quite sucessfully. It requires that you have superior altitude at the beginning of the fight.

Infact, the best fights are where multiple planes are involved and you all have superior altitude against your opponent. Using the FW190 you can initiate an attack VERY rapidly due to roll rate...you dive straight at your opponent and use roll rate to follow him. You slowly pull up...as the target passes through the gunsight you spray him with as much firepower as you've got and you climb back up. On the way up, if the situation is clear...I go back down and hit him some more on the way down.

Its a one two punch. It does work, regardless of the modeling of the plane VS reality. So historically...in-game performance of these sorts of manuvers is not impossible. In case anyone was in doubt. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

100% Fact! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

JG14_Josf
10-08-2004, 05:18 PM
k5054,

I am still confused as to what meaning you intend to convey with the term BnZ. You list hit and run and energy fighting as both being BnZ tactics.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I don't think we're disagreeing much except for the usefulness of the AFDU report in comparing the a/c. I apologize for the term BnZ, it's what they use round this board when they mean hit and run, dive and recover (what the 56th FG called it), energy tactics (a more recent term for an old concept). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It may help to define just what you mean by hit and run and just what you mean by Energy tactics.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The fact is those tactics work better than dogfighting, if your aircraft type can sustain it against the enemy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The above confirms my need to clarify the distinction beteen Hit and Run and Energy tactics.

A plane with superior energy maneuverability (acceleration and or climb, and or speed) can employ Energy tactics and be able to sustain an energy advantage against an inferior energy maneuverability opponent in a dog fight.

A plane that does not hold an energy maneuverability advantage cannot sustain an energy advantage in a dog fight. It must instead rely upon hit and run tactics as the energy advantage is inevitably lost.

Shaw's book reports a very good example of this concept:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Actual combat accounts of the successful use of energy tactics are rather rare, but the following example is a beauty. Here John Godfrey's P-51B Mustang has probably 20 percent lower wing loading than the German Focke-Wulf 190D-9 opponent, and Godfrey increases his turn advantage further by skillful use of flaps. The Focke-Wulf, however, may have 20 percent better power loading. Here are two masters at work:" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A plane was approaching, and because of its long nose I thought it was a Mustang. Turning into it I received a shock; it was neither a Mustang nor an ME-109, but a new Focke-Wulf; its long nose was the latest improvement of the famed FW. These planes with the longer noses were rumored to have more horespower than their predecessors, and were capable of giving a Mustang a rough time. We met practically head-on and both of us banked our planes in preparation for a dogfight.
Around and around we went. Sometimes the FW got in close, and other times, when I'd drop my flap to tighten my turn, I was in a position to fire - but the German, sensing my superior position, kept swinging down in his turn, gaining speed and quickly pulling up, and with the advantage in height he would then pour down on my tail. Time was in his favor, he could fight that way for an hour and still have enough fuel to land anywhere below him. I still had 400 miles of enemy territory to fly over before I could land. Something had to be done. Throwing caution to the wind I lifted a flap, dove and pulled up in a steep turn, at the same time dropping a little flap. The G was terrrific, but it worked, and I had the Jerry nailed for sure. Pressing the tit I waited, but nothing happened, not a ****ed thing. My guns weren't firing."
"By taking this last gamble I had lost altitude but had been able to bring my guns to bear while flying below the FW. With his advantage of height he came down, pulled up sharp, and was smack-dab on my tail again. The 20mm. cannons belched and I could see what looked like golf balls streaming by me. A little less deflection and those seemingly harmless golf balls would have exploded instantly upon contact with my plane. "Never turn your back on an enemy" was a byword with us, but I had no choice. Turning the plane over on its back I yanked the stick to my gut. My throttle was wide open and I left it there as I dove. The needle stopped at 600 miles per-that was as far as it could go on the dial. Pulling out I expected at any minute to have the wings rip off, the plane was bucking so much. The last part of my pull-up brought me up into clouds. I was thankful to have eveaded the long-nose FW. for that pilot was undoubtedly the best that I had ever met <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note: Time was in his favor, he could fight that way for an hour and still have enough fuel to land..."

WWMaxGunz
10-08-2004, 06:08 PM
In the thread NEW CLIMB RATE TEST FOR SOME PLANES AEP 2.04 !!!, Kwiatos posts a full
test documet of comparison of FW-190A-3 and Spit VB with the A-3 running max 1.35 ATA
and the Spit at 9 lbs boost.

In the Rates of Climb they are about even up to 4000 ft. From 4000 to 8000 the Spit VB
at 9 lbs boost outclimbs the FW running 1.35ATA, the 3 minute rating, however they were
both flown. Note there is no time limit for the Spit at 9 lbs boost. 8000 ft up, the
190 climbs better only at 1.35ATA while the Spit boost has been dropping off and is
6.6 lbs at 17,500 ft.

Some people may whizz themselves ranting that the 190A-3 should be run at 1.42ATA for
whatever reasons they can pose but they should also take into account that the Spit VB's
in FB are later models that run at higher boost than 9 lbs. If the A-3 had a 3 minute
time limit at 1.35ATA then how long at 1.42ATA anyway?

Given that chart for the time and planes used, I can't buy conclusions that that FW could
outclimb that Spit at all alts in normal combat operations in those months. It's BS no
matter who typed that up.

Given that the planes in FB differ and especially the Spit VB LF... dragging that report
out goes beyond misleading, it does not apply so why as why the sim doesn't work the same?

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

BnZ -- Boom and Zoom -- as in come booming down firing and then zoom climbing up over a
target that doesn't have the speed to come up after you. FW-190 requires a very smooth
transition as noted by wasn't it Eric Brown, to keep from losing speed by 'sinking'? So
trying to transition fast, pulling up without regard for how the plane is flying (it does
have a VSI) is not a valid method to get realistic results unless you want to realistically
show what a poor pilot would get in a 190, something they trained to do right. With a team
you can recover your speed at the high alt while your mates keep the target(s) busy bleeding
with no chance to recover let alone climb up after any of you.

BnZ you start with an energy advantage or you don't attack. You must start at higher alt
and have the ability to commit when you desire. You must keep the advantage which is
possible even though you bleed by forcing the target to also bleed in defensive maneuvers.

Erich Hartmann practiced hit and run and was very successful. He ran at a high angle to
the target going off behind and to the side of the target. Even the wingmates flying in
the same general direction as the target would not be able to get onto him as he approached
with much greater speed and they would have to turn and fly back just to get on his trail
at all.


Neal

WWMaxGunz
10-08-2004, 06:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Around and around we went. Sometimes the FW got in close, and other times, when I'd drop my flap to tighten my turn, I was in a position to fire - but the German, sensing my superior position, kept swinging down in his turn, gaining speed and quickly pulling up, and with the advantage in height he would then pour down on my tail. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note that right there the FW pilot was using the vertical and moderate energy fighting
methods. If Godfrey was staying in a flat circle pattern then hey, he was screwing up
and being rodeoed by the other pilot. That he could escape at all does attest to him
not being a bad pilot and also possessing some solid steel cojones.


Neal

WUAF_Badsight
10-08-2004, 07:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PapaFly:
Plus I don't buy that argument with the different autopitch mechanisms and different propellers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the A9 did indeed get fitted with a different propeller , 'optimised" for high alt flight

not all did & IIRC , A9's were also fitted with the propeller that the A8's were fitted with also

karost
10-09-2004, 12:39 AM
Hi, JG14_Josf
Wow ... your writing about a history of FW190 very cool and good read S~


I have know nothing much about bob history over 60 year ago , just read some book like JG26 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I just wonder why JG26 use FW190A shooted many spitfire down in 1941-1942 , but after 1943 the scroe was drop...( but 1941-1942 in FB not the same http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ) http://www.luftwaffe.cz/spit.html

btw
game is a game ( fun and fun )
history is history ( man and machine )

S!

WWMaxGunz
10-09-2004, 02:50 AM
Brit planes changed to higher boost mid-42.
They also adapted to the new tactics of the "new" planes, the 190's.
Doesn't mean they weren't getting losses, just less.

Same thing happened in WWI only easier to see, the shifts were clearer
as there were less planes overall and things moved slower. Read about
'Bloody April' sometime. IMO that's why WWI air combat sims have more
attraction to a lot of the community.


Neal

k5054
10-09-2004, 03:31 AM
John T Godfrey was in prison camp some months before the combat debut of the 190D. Whatever conclusions may be reached from that combat, Shaw's comparison of the two aircraft's power/weight and wing loading don't apply. It was a 190A or a 109G. Be sure.

Josf, I don't think 1960s energy tactics apply to well to WW2 fighters. The principles apply, but in fact the energy retention and power for WW2 aircraft is so reduced compared to jets that everything happens on a flatter plane. Energy tactics are therefore mostly dive and zoom. The more complex things in Shaw's illustrations must have been much rarer. My observation is that most fighter losses occurred as a result of a squadron on squadron bounce, a surprise attack using dive and zoom. The FW pilots of JG2 and JG26 were masters of this, often co-ordinating these attacks so a second surprise group would hit the spitfires if they saw the first attack coming. The spits were flying slow, so it didn't take much closure time. They flew in line-astern, so the last poor guy could never break in time. and the FW guys could always go home if the situation didn't suit them. A few m/sec of climb rate didn't make any difference.

WWMaxGunz
10-09-2004, 05:26 AM
Any time you keep your energy, generally by going out of plane instead of
blowing it slowing down, generally for longer and tighter turns, then you
are using energy tactics.
If your plane is more suited than the other then you have an edge over even
an equal pilot. Against a worse pilot in combat terms with a better suited
plane you can still win whereas a better pilot may beat you in the 'better'
plane. Throw in a starting energy advantage and it's even a wider gap.

All of what Shaw wrote applies if you use real sense in understanding. Well
okay the radar, IR, guided missiles and mach+ tactics don't apply and the
specific energy exploits in climb speed are nowhere near as much -- and ditto
where thrust increases with speed but then that's where real sense comes in.
As I was first taught, you can apply a lot of what Shaw wrote (half?) even
to WWI planes and tactics.


Neal

p1ngu666
10-09-2004, 09:15 AM
i think the 190 was abit more potent, but in tatics it was clear what todo. u couldnt turn with a spit so u bnz, a 109 u can nearly can, which will tempt u to tnb...

JG14_Josf
10-09-2004, 10:02 AM
k5054,

Excuse my skepticism concerning your absolute statements of fact. I prefer to take evidence and weight it out rather than discard it based upon additional evidence to the contrary.

This practice of eliminating information based upon chronological order or some form of preferential hierarchy is wishful thinking, bias, emotional, and counterproductive if the goal is to know. I though that you understood the scientific method. I will try not to make the same mistake again.

If you choose to discard the ADFU tests, Robert Shaw's energy fighting examples, the application of energy tactics in WWII combat or any possible information based upon conclusive contrary evidence that is one thing. To expect me or anyone else to do the same based upon your expressed opinion here is to expect that you are able to communicate blind faith.

It didn't work on me.

Karost,

I cannot take credit for the writing; I am just the messenger boy. The words come from the people who actually fly the planes and fight in combat.

If you are considering getting another book then Robert Shaw's "Fighter Combat" is my highest suggested and most valuable recommendation.

WWMaxGunz,

I would just like to add to your clear and concise description of energy tactics that a plane with greater acceleration and or greater climb performance, and or higher top speed or any combination of those three energy maneuverability performance advantages has an edge against a plane with better turn performance even when the 'angles' fighter has an initial speed and altitude advantage. The energy fighter with the greater energy maneuverability can maneuver using energy tactics (as you describe) to gain relative energy (higher altitude and or higher speed) over the opponent. The energy fighter can make up the initial energy deficit and maneuver into an equal energy state and as long as no mistakes are made the energy fighter can build the energy margin to a point where the energy fighter has enough advantage to enable an effective attack.

The simplest form of energy fighting being the hit and run. (Hit and run as a tactic utilizing an energy advantage not hit and run as a stratagem or last resort when no performance advantage is present). Running can only be possible if the running plane has an energy advantage or ability to gain speed or altitude over the opponent.

Energy fighting is the balance between defense and offense that stresses specific performance advantages i.e. Climb, acceleration, and speed.

Angles fighting is the balance between defense and offense that stresses specific performance advantages i.e. turn rate, radius, both sustained and instantaneous.

Angles fighting tends to push the balance between offense and defense more toward offensive maneuvering.

Energy fighting tends to be more defensive.

It is easy to see this concept when pitting two fighters that are on the extremes of energy maneuverability and turn performance like the P-47 vs the Zero or the Me262 vs the I-16 or the F-16 vs the Fokker tri plane.

Dissimilarities between planes that are in the order of 10 percent or more make the demarcation of effective tactics more obvious. Example:
Turn fighting a Fokker tri plane with an F-16 or energy fighting a P-47 with a Zero.

Dissimilarities between planes where the differences are less than 10 percent or where the angles fighter has one or two of the energy maneuverability advantages (climb, acceleration, and speed) create a tactical situation where the effective use of specific tactics is less obvious.
In combat where two planes are more similar than different the demarcation of effective tactics becomes superfluous.

Example: Spitfire IX vs Spitfire IX

Here is a plane that is so well balance in performance that it has almost all the relative performance capabilities that make for a good angles fighter and a good energy fighter. The Spitfire IX has relatively equal or superior in turn, climb, and speed. It may only be relatively inferior in acceleration.

In a dog fight where time is a significant factor the angles fight is better because it tends to be more aggressive.
Fights tend to be over quickly when two fighters are utilizing Angles tactics.
Angles tactics tend to cause the fight to get anchored in one spot and they tend to get slower and lower quickly.

In a dog fight were time is not as significant the use of energy tactics is more viable. Energy fights tend to move around more and they tend to get higher and faster.

A clear example if this concept involves the sustained turn fight.

The angles fight involves two fighters maximizing turn performance to get inside the turn of the other plane and these fights tend to spiral down.

The energy fight involves two fighters in a climbing turn. As soon as it is clear which fighter can gain altitude and gain position over the other as the turn progresses around the circle the winning plane becomes the aggressor and the losing plane must then go defensive while defense is still an option.

Here is where climb performance and turn performance show up as significant relative performance parameters.

As the two planes turn in a climbing turn the heavier plane with less power tends to gain less altitude and or position (angular advantage). If the heavier plane has an unloaded power to weight or power to drag ratio advantage then the heavier plane must realize the need to exit the climbing turn as soon as the energy gaining disadvantage in a turn is obvious.
If the plane with the climbing turn disadvantage does have an unloaded power to weight or power to drag ratio advantage (acceleration, speed, or climb advantage) then the energy fight continues.

If the plane with the climbing turn disadvantage has a level climb advantage then the energy fight continues to go up. The plane with the climbing turn advantage follows the better climbing plane after the level climbing turn is aborted and after the better energy fighter goes into defense mode with a climbing extension.

If the plane with the climbing turn disadvantage has a significant acceleration advantage and in particular if the plane with the turn disadvantage has a significant dive acceleration advantage (usually a relatively heavy plane with relatively high density and relatively high thrust) then the energy fight may move to lower altitudes momentarily. The plane with the acceleration and dive advantage can gain relative energy by unloading. The plane gaining angles and therefore range in the climbing turn will gain angles but lose range as the fight transitions into a race for the energy of speed.

If the energy tactics employing plane with the climbing turn disadvantage has to dive to gain enough separation (range) then altitude (energy) will be lost. Here is where the better energy fighter is made obvious. The plane gaining more total energy is the winner.
If the plane diving for an extension has a higher T/W and or higher T/D (ability to gain more total energy) and if the plane diving for an extension has a significant advantage in this regard then the better energy fighter (the plane diving) will gain enough total energy over the opponent to allow a reversing maneuver.

Since the better energy fighter already knows that the opponent has better loaded energy performance (climbs better in a turn) the reversal should minimize g loaded turn time.
A minimum G loaded pull up (takes a long time to change directions) may or may not be better than a maximum rate pull up (less time to change direction) depending upon g loaded deceleration or loaded drag factors.

The zoom climb and pitch back is an energy fighting offensive maneuver. It is an energy fighting angles gaining reversal that minimizes the disadvantage of g load disadvantages by utilizing gravity to assist in gaining angles.

The energy fight may actually go higher.

The energy fighter may zoom to a higher altitude because total energy is gained during the diving extension.

If the total energy margin is significant because the total relative unloaded energy gaining performance of the energy fighter is significantly greater; then the zoom climb can be used to gain the required range to afford a reversal. The lesser relative unloaded energy fighter must be significantly inferior in gaining relative total energy during the diving extension that it cannot maintain the range required to shoot at the opponent employing the zoom climb and pitch back.

If the energy fighter does not have a significant unloaded relative energy gaining advantage it must then remain defensive and call off the fight. It must employ the run part of hit and run tactics. If the energy fighter does not have a significant unloaded relative energy gaining advantage it is not an energy fighter, instead it is a poor angles fighter (lost the climbing turn bout) and it is equal or only slightly superior in the required energy performance capabilities (speed, acceleration, climb).

Re-read the battle between the long nose FW and the P-51 and see why Robert Shaw says:

‚‚ā¨ŇďActual combat accounts of the successful use of energy tactics are rather rare, but the following example is a beauty‚‚ā¨¬Ě


Please excuse the edit job (spell checking and additions)

k5054
10-09-2004, 11:14 AM
I don't know what you are talking about. I don't discard the AFDU tests, I find it hard to relate the report's conclusions with other known facts from elsewhere. Like the 9lb spitfire. Spitfires were cleared to 12lb for takeoff and emergency in 1940 with the Mk1, provided they had 100 octane fuel. Why worry about the climb rate at 9lb? As you pointed out yourself, no pilot in a combat situation is going to use 30min power and watch the enemy out-climb him when he can use emergency power.

Scientific method here would be to take all the known facts and test results and fit them into a theory. They don't all fit with the AFDU conclusions. The AFDU test result which shows the FW climbing faster at high gear FTH than at low gear FTH is contrary to pretty much every other flight test of any two-speed supercharged aircraft. I can't make a theory fit that result.
I also think the FW tested was a bit slow. Maybe that's the engine trouble. I don't know why the tests don't mention flight above 25,000ft, when combat took place over 30,000 in this campaign. Thus my theory, speculation, whatever, that the report (not the tests) contains a bias for political purposes. One day someone may write a book about the Fighter Command offensive strategy in 1941-2 and examine the whys and wherefores in a wider context.

I don't discount Shaw's energy fighting examples. I'm sure they are correct, and I have great respect for Shaw in explaining air combat better than anyone else. But I also have read many many pilot accounts and they don't refer to it at all. Air combat maneouvring as described by Shaw did not take place in many air combats in WW2, in my opinion. (There arew well-known exception, Robert Johnson, H-J Marseille etc) Maybe the pilots aren't expressing it correctly, not knowing the modern terminology and flying by instinct.
However, these are my opinions, I think informed opinions, and presented as such. If I state something as fact, that's another thing.
The report is biased...speculation
A test giving higher climb in high gear, same boost is flawed....fact.
Did the FW190s of JG2 and JG26 employ Shaw/Boyd energy tactics (beyond dive and zoom) against Spitfires in 1942? I have no idea, but there isn't much evidence to hand either.

JG14_Josf
10-09-2004, 12:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Did the FW190s of JG2 and JG26 employ Shaw/Boyd energy tactics (beyond dive and zoom) against Spitfires in 1942? I have no idea, but there isn't much evidence to hand either. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

k5054,

This is evidence:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It was concluded that the Fw 190 pilot trying to "mix it" with a Spitfire in the classic fashion of steep turning was doomed, for at any speed - even below the German fighter's stalling speed - it would be out-turned by its British opponent. Of course, the Luftwaffe was aware of this fact and a somewhat odd style of dogfighting evolved in which the Fw 190 pilots endeavoured to keep on the vertical plane by zooms and dives, while their Spitfire-mounted antagonists tried everything in the book to draw them on to the horizontal. If the German pilot lost his head and failed to resist the temptation to try a horizontal pursuit curve on a Spitfire, as likely as not, before he could recover the speed lost in a steep turn he would find another Spitfire turning inside him! On the other hand, the German pilot who kept zooming up and down was usually the recipient of only difficult deflection shots of more than 30 deg. The Fw 190 had tremendous initial acceleration in a dive but it was extremely vulnerable during a pull-out, recovery having to be quite progressive with care not to kill the speed by "sinking"
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The words above may or may not be biased, fabricated inaccurate lies. The fact is that they exist. The words were written and they are attributed to the situation that occured previous to the capture of FW190 Wrk# 5313.

The above words do not describe the tactic known as hit and run.
The above specifically discounts the tactics known as 'angles' tactics.
What remains is the applicatoin of energy tactics or the application of specific relative performance advantages such as 'tremendous initial acceleration in a dive' or the same specific relative performance advantages that Robert Shaw attributes as sepcifically being applicable to a specific energy tactic maneuver i.e. 'diving extension/pitch-back'

Example:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"I opened the throttle full and the Thunderbolt forged ahead. A moment later exhaust smoke poured from the Spit as the pilot came after me. He couldn't make it; the big Jug had a definite speed advantage. I grinned happily; I'd heard so much about this airplane that I really wanted to show the Thunderbolt to her pilot. The Jug kept pulling away from the Spitfire; suddenly I hauled back on the stick and lifted the nose. The Thunderbolt zoomed upward, soaring into the cloud-flecked sky. I looked out and back; the Spit was straining to match me, and barely able to hold his position.

"But my advantage was only the zoom--once in steady climb, he had me. I gaped as smoke poured from the exhausts and the Spitfire shot past me as if I were standing still. Could that plane CLIMB! He tore upward in a climb I couldn't match with the Jug. Now it was his turn; the broad elliptical wings rolled, swung around, and the Spit screamed in, hell-bent on chewing me up.

"This was going to be fun. I knew he could turn inside the heavy Thunderbolt; if I attempted to hold a tight turn, the Spitfire would slip right inside me. I knew also, that he could easily outclimb my fighter. I stayed out of those sucker traps. First rule in this kind of fight: don't fight the way your opponent fights best. No sharp turns; don't climb; keep him at your own level.

"We were at 5,000 feet, the Spitfire skidding around hard and coming in on my tail. No use turning; he'd whip right inside me as if I were a truck loaded with cement, and snap out in firing position. Well, I had a few tricks too. The P-47 was faster, and I threw the ship into a roll. Right here I had him. The Jug could outroll any plane in the air, bar none. With my speed, roll was my only advantage, and I made full use of the manner in which the Thunderbolt could roll. I kicked the Jug into a wicked left roll, horizon spinning crazily, once, twice, into a third. As he turned to the left to follow, I tramped down on the right rudder, banged the stick over to the right. Around and around we went, left, right, left, right. I could whip through better than two rolls before the Spitfire even completed his first. And this killed his ability to turn inside me. I refused to turn. Every time he tried to follow me in a roll, I flashed away to the opposite side, opening the gap between our planes.

"Then I played the trump. The Spitfire was clawing wildly through the air, trying to follow me in a roll, when I dropped the nose. The Thunderbolt howled and ran for earth. Barely had the Spitfire started to follow--and I was a long way ahead of him by now--when I jerked back on the stick and threw the Jug into a zoom climb. In a straight or climbing turn, the British ship had the advantage. But coming out of a dive, there's not a British or German fighter than can come close to a Thunderbolt rushing upward in a zoom. Before the Spit pilot knew what had happened, I was high above him, and the Thunderbolt hammering around. And that was it--in the next few moments the Spitfire flier was amazed to see a less-maneuverable slower-climbing Thunderbolt rushing straight at him, eight guns pointing at his cockpit."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't write the above. It was written by a fighter pilot. That alone may or may not be significant. The above account may or may not be a wild fantasy. The above may or may not tend to prove anything concerning energy fighting, relative energy maneuverabiliy, tactics, or actual performance of real fighter planes.

What the above is, as a matter of fact, is something Robert Shaw thinks is a good example of how to use a specific performance advantage in a specific manner:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The following episode, found in Thunderbolt! by the World War II USAAF ace Robert S. Johnson, is one of the best examples available of the use of energy tactics (diving extension/pitch-back) to defeat a double-superior opponent. The encounter described is a mock combat engagement over England between Johnson (P-47C) and an unidentified RAF pilot in a new Spitfire IX. the Spitfire had about a 25 percent better power loading and nearly a 25 percent lower wing loading. The Thunderbolt's only performance advantages were faster top speed, greater acceleration in a dive (because of the P-47's heavier weight and higher density), and better roll performance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just in case anyone is actually reading this stuff and following along with the thinking expressed by Robert Shaw and by my pathetic attempts to convey the idea here is the third example of energy tactics being used in WWII fighter combat:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Actual combat accounts of the successful use of energy tactics are rather rare, but the following example is a beauty. Here John Godfrey's P-51B Mustang has probably 20 percent lower wing loading than the German Focke-Wulf 190D-9 opponent, and Godfrey increases his turn advantage further by skillful use of flaps. The Focke-Wulf, however, may have 20 percent better power loading. Here are two masters at work:" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A plane was approaching, and because of its long nose I thought it was a Mustang. Turning into it I received a shock; it was neither a Mustang nor an ME-109, but a new Focke-Wulf; its long nose was the latest improvement of the famed FW. These planes with the longer noses were rumored to have more horespower than their predecessors, and were capable of giving a Mustang a rough time. We met practically head-on and both of us banked our planes in preparation for a dogfight.
Around and around we went. Sometimes the FW got in close, and other times, when I'd drop my flap to tighten my turn, I was in a position to fire - but the German, sensing my superior position, kept swinging down in his turn, gaining speed and quickly pulling up, and with the advantage in height he would then pour down on my tail. Time was in his favor, he could fight that way for an hour and still have enough fuel to land anywhere below him. I still had 400 miles of enemy territory to fly over before I could land. Something had to be done. Throwing caution to the wind I lifted a flap, dove and pulled up in a steep turn, at the same time dropping a little flap. The G was terrrific, but it worked, and I had the Jerry nailed for sure. Pressing the tit I waited, but nothing happened, not a ****ed thing. My guns weren't firing."
"By taking this last gamble I had lost altitude but had been able to bring my guns to bear while flying below the FW. With his advantage of height he came down, pulled up sharp, and was smack-dab on my tail again. The 20mm. cannons belched and I could see what looked like golf balls streaming by me. A little less deflection and those seemingly harmless golf balls would have exploded instantly upon contact with my plane. "Never turn your back on an enemy" was a byword with us, but I had no choice. Turning the plane over on its back I yanked the stick to my gut. My throttle was wide open and I left it there as I dove. The needle stopped at 600 miles per-that was as far as it could go on the dial. Pulling out I expected at any minute to have the wings rip off, the plane was bucking so much. The last part of my pull-up brought me up into clouds. I was thankful to have eveaded the long-nose FW. for that pilot was undoubtedly the best that I had ever met <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

JG14_Josf
10-09-2004, 02:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>With the Advent of the FW 190A, this was not as critical as it once had been. The Aircraft was a superb dogfighter, and its pilots used it as such. The previous summer, faced with slashing attacks by the 109s, the constant complaint of RAF pilots was that 'Jerry' didn't stay and fight, totally ignoring the fact that in the 109 this was tactically correct. Now they were repaid in spades: in his new FW 190A, 'Jerry' stayed and fought as never before. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The above also points directly toward a specific form of combat that is expressly not hit and run tactics and unless one is willing to believe that the FW190 can out turn a Spitfire the above eludes to a form of combat that is not either hit and run nor angles tactics.

The above does leave open the possibility that the Germans used team tactics, however, that possiblity applies to any combat at any time between any number or kind of airplane.

The above applies specifically to a specfic time frame. i.e 1942

Mike Spicks book continues the above account to describe the Rodeo conducted in June 1942.

"Deere later wrote of this encounter:"

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Al Deere
I twisted and turned in an endeavor to avoid being jumped and at the same time to get myself into a favourable position for attack. Never had I seen the Huns stay and fight it out as these Focke-Wulfs were doing.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mike Spick's book Luftwaffe Fighter Aces also describes how during that encounter the Germans used team tactics effectively. There is much cause to step back and take an objective approach to any information.

I think it is vital to weight each piece of information and maintain equitable scepticism.

The words "stay and fight" suggest something different than hit and run. The suggestion is that the Fw190 contributed to the change of tactics from hitting and running to staying and fighting.

My intepretation is that the possibility exists that 'staying and fighting' was made possible 'in part' because the Fw190 had performance advantages that allowed for the use of energy tactics.

The above Mike Spick and Al Deere quotes combined with the quote from Eric Brown piece together a familiar concept. 'Stay and fight' and 'tremendous initial acceleration in a dive' are quotes used by people who are intimately familiar with the situation we can only simulate and or read about.

Combine the above concept of what is being described as the situation in early to mid 1942 with Robert Shaw's specific descriptions of tactics and manuevering and Robert Shaw's specific examples between specific WWII planes having specific performance characteristics and the picture is made even more clear.

'Tremendous initial acceleration in a dive' is a phrase used by Eric Brown to describe the FW190s performance advantage over the Spitfire VB and Robert Shaw uses a very similar phrase ('greater acceleration in a dive') to describe how the P-47c employs the 'diving extension/pitch-back' energy tactic maneuver to defeat a Spitfire IX in mock combat.

Eric Brown describes how the Germans edeavored to 'keep on the vertical plane by zooms and dives' against the Spitfire VBs (previous to July 1942). The diving extension and pitch back manuever is a vertical plane dive and zoom maneuver.

Eric Brown describes how this type of fighing was a 'somewhat odd style of dogfighting'.
Odd comapred to what? Angles fighting?

Robert Shaw clearly defines dives and zooms or diving extensions and pitch backs as 'energy' fighting.

Moving on to the other example Robert Shaw describes in the form of a long nose FW that the pilot states 'was neither a Mustang nor an ME-109' against a P-51B the encounter is clearly an example of one plane trying to employ a turn performance advantage against an energy performance advantage. 'Around and around we went. Sometimes the FW got in close, and other times, when I'd drop my flap the tighten my turn, I was in a position to fire - but the German, sensing my superior position, kept swinging down in his turn, gaining speed and quickly pulling up, and with the advantage in height he would then pour down on my tail.'

How can a plane gain enough total energy in a dive to be able to then climb above the apponent unless there exists a significant acceleration or speed gaining advantage?

Sure, this stuff may be applied imagination.

In the game the ideas become reality to some extent. The planes may not exibit the same performance characteristics attributable to the historical records but the tactics do work when the planes do have specific significant performance advantages.

This is made quite obvious to those who fly the game enough and learn how to use specific performance advantages effectively. This becomes even more obvious when the game undergoes a patch where those same tactics either work much better or don't work at all because the flight models have changed enough on one direction for one plane or when one plane moves one way and the other plane goes the opposite way making the aggregate difference a significant change.

The applications of tactics; angles, energy, hit and run, and or combinations of all three tactics change as the flight models change.

The notion that everything is accurate and cannot be questioned based upon anecdotal mock combat, actual combat, or actual comparative flight testing is ludicrous based upon the fact that form patch to patch the game swings from a tactical situation very similar to the historical examples and then very contradictory to those same examples.

Energy fighters are made or broken depending upon the current form of the game, as are angles fighters, as are those planes that seem to remain hopelessly relegated to the role of 'hit and run' dogs.

The Fw190s and the P-47s were known in history as 'energy' fighters based upon the evidence gathered in my amateurish gathering of information. It is significant in my opinion that these planes tend to suffer the largest swing in effective relative performance capabilities. Energy fighting is highly dependent upon relative energy gaining capabilites i.e. climb, acceleration, and speed. If the current modeling of the game leaves one or many of these performance abilities lacking then the effective tactics available for these planes diminishes.
The P-47 and the Fw190 at times during the modeling of the game have swung from one extreme to the other, it seems, when actually it takes only minor changes in the FM to make these planes effective or not effective in fighter combat. These planes are not turn fighters, they do not apply themselves well to the more effective, more aggressive, and less time consuming angles tactics.
These two planes must use either energy fighting or be satified with the surprise attack 'hit' and the 'run' before the inevitable energy margin is lost.

A speed advantage is an energy advantage but for the application of tactics it alone is usefull in 'hit and run' tactics. Energy fighting requires either an acceleration advantage or a climb advantage or some other way in which to gain relative 'total' energy. Otherwise the fight can only deteriorate during maneuvering leaving the option of running while running remains an option.

In the above examples the planes being described as having energy maneuverability advantages used those advantages during specific maneuvers that fall under the catagory of energy fighting. If those planes did not have the capacity to gain relative total energy then those manuevers would not work.

I know that the guys (if there are any) reading this who have consistantly played this game (from patch to patch) and have consistantly flown the P-47 and or Fw190 effectively during the entire progress from patch to patch understand what I am writing even if they don't understand my writing. I know that those players notice how the P-47 has moved from a dog to an effective energy fighter and I know the Fw190 players notice how the Fw190 swings from one extreme to the other, from being an effective energy fighter back to a dog and back again to an effective energy fighter.

Specific relative performance dictates the effective available tactics.
When turn performance is not one of those advantages, when turn performance remains severely lacking in relative ability then the other, remaining performance abilities become that much more important.
When relative climb performance is minimized then the remaining relative performance abilities become that much more imporatant.
When relative acceleration performance is minimized then all the reamining preative performance abilites become that much more important.

These obvious performance abilites only touch the surface of total relative performance capabilites. Energy maneuverability includes more factors and more complicated relationships involved in the total capacity to compete.

The end result remains obvious however to those who know what works and what doesn't work in combat.
I suspect that my read on things is somewhat less valuable than:
Robert Shaw
Eric Brown
Al Deere
Robert S, Johnson
John Godfrey
W.S. Douglas
The pilots conducting the ADFU tests
Mike Spick
Alfred Price

and all the other people who's words help me form my opinion, right or wrong.

k5054
10-09-2004, 03:57 PM
John Godfrey still didn't meet a 190D in summer '44.

If the FWs kept their speed up, they could fight the Spitfires on any terms. if you have a g limit of 4,5,even 6g, then an FW can turn as tight as a spit, provided it keeps the speed. It can roll better, as one will find in any source. It can dogfight with a spit V, and dive out if it gets in trouble. Maybe that's what they did when they 'stayed to fight' against the 180mph cruise spitfire. If you're bounced at 180mph, and have to turn to evade, you can't increase speed at all without diving or flying straight. That's what happened to Al Deere. If by keeping their speed up you say the FW s are employing classic energy tactics, then you are right. To me this falls short of the 'energy fighter' role in Shaw's book, but maybe that's just me. It would be nice to find this from the other side. Maybe there's something in the JG26 top guns series.
I'd still claim the spifire casualties were more due to tactics and other factors than the superiority of the FW, although that was what forced the change in tactics which led to rough parity in 1943 when FC had enough IXs with 18lb merlin 66 engines to catch up.
I also reiterate that a 20mph speed advantage, given adequacy in other qualities, will give a fighter force superiority, in a WW2 setting. You don't have to worry about climb rates, power/weight ratios, wing loading etc etc. The FW had that over the Spit V, and it was enough. but the advent of the FW only caused FC's exchange ratio to go from 4-1 to 6-1, they were losing the fight already to the 109s. I'll try to find the actual figures to support this statement, which is from memory only.

I make no claims about aircraft in the game, I don't think flight combat sims/games represent real life at all, and if they do in certain situations it's a bonus. I only fight dumb AI, and I lose when I make a mistake, usually target fixation. The AI don't fly right at any setting right now, but I understand they will learn to deflection-shoot in PF, which may give me problems.

JG14_Josf
10-09-2004, 05:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>John Godfrey still didn't meet a 190D in summer '44. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

According the the reference John Godfrey didn't say he met a 190D. His words were quoted as:
"A plane was approaching, and because of its long nose I thought it was a Mustang. Turning into it I received a shock; it was neither a Mustang nor an ME-109, but a new Focke-Wulf; its long nose was the latest improvement of the famed FW."

Robert Shaw described the plane as being a Focke-Wulf 190D.

Your statement of absolute fact concerning which plane John Godfrey actual fought in that encounter is beyond my abillity to confirm or deny. I cannot even confirm that John Godfrey actually flew airplanes.

The specific reference concerns a specific amount of advantage (20 percent) of a specific performance advantage (better power loading) and a specific maneuver that allows one pilot to use that specific performance advantage in combat (swinging down in his turn, gaining speed and quickly pulling up, and with the advantage in height he would then pour down on my tail.)

So your absolute statement of fact:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>John Godfrey still didn't meet a 190D in summer '44.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Base upon this:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>John T Godfrey was in prison camp some months before the combat debut of the 190D. Whatever conclusions may be reached from that combat, Shaw's comparison of the two aircraft's power/weight and wing loading don't apply. It was a 190A or a 109G. Be sure. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, am I supposed to believe as you apparently do that there is no possibility that the date of John Godfrey's internment and the 'combat debut of the 190D' could be wrong according to your sources (unspecified and therefore unverifiable to me or anyone else trying to evaluate this absolute statement of fact).

The words actually comming out of the guys mouth or rather the words actually attributed to the actual person writting onto a piece of paper say it was a 'long nose' FW and it was not a 'Me 109'.

The words written by someone who apparently went to the trouble to write a book on fighter combat and went through the trouble to crunch the numbers or find the relative power ratings of those two planes did confirm (possible flippantly) that the planes in question where a P-51B and an FW190D.

Can you see the difficulty in following your absolute confirmation of fact based upon what you have presented?

I'm not so sure either Robert Shaw nor John Godfrey cares which 'long nosed' airplane fought on that day and I certainly could care less. The reason this is being presented is to point out the tactical usage of an energy performance advantage and the maneuvers that work or should work according to people who should know.

If the idea is to refute any conclusions being drawn from that combat example and refute the application of specific maneuvers and tactics based upon specific measured performance advantages because some dates don't line up according to some unverafiable sources then I am really having a problem following this line of thinking.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>if you have a g limit of 4,5,even 6g, then an FW can turn as tight as a spit, provided it keeps the speed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This statment is only true due to the ambiguity of the words. The Spitfire should be able to pull 6g at slower speeds and therefore at a higher rate and a lower radius.
The above is only true if the Spitfire goes the same speed as the FW190.
In actual combat while turning from high speeds and decelerating the FW would reach the lift limit sooner as the speeds dropped lower in the turn.
Once speeds dropped to the lift limit or that corner speed; the FW190 would either stall out or the pilot would have to relax on the stick. Either way the G force and therefore the turn rate and radius increase for the FW.
The Spitfire meanwhile can keep on pulling 6G (or the pilots g endurance limit) until the Spitfire reaches the lift limit.

At any speed below the FW190's corner speed the Spitfire holds a turn advantage.

At any speed above the FW190s corner speed (dictated by pilot g limit not aircraft structural limitations) both planes have the same turn rate and the same turn radius because both planes are flying the same speed and pulling the same g force (if both pilots are limited to the same g tolerance such as what is modeled into the game).

The A.I. does not represent relative performance modeling to the same values as the game models relative performance modeling on-line.

When I desribed how changes in the flight model from patch to patch effects tactics it was done in reference to on-line game play.

I think A.I. routines effect tactics off-line more than changes in the flight models.

WWMaxGunz
10-09-2004, 11:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:

WWMaxGunz,

I would just like to add to your clear and concise description of energy tactics that a plane with greater acceleration and or greater climb performance, and or higher top speed or any combination of those three energy maneuverability performance advantages has an edge against a plane with better turn performance even when the 'angles' fighter has an initial speed and altitude advantage. The energy fighter with the greater energy maneuverability can maneuver using energy tactics (as you describe) to gain relative energy (higher altitude and or higher speed) over the opponent. The energy fighter can make up the initial energy deficit and maneuver into an equal energy state and as long as no mistakes are made the energy fighter can build the energy margin to a point where the energy fighter has enough advantage to enable an effective attack.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wasn't making any complete description of energy tactics, just saying that any time you
conserve your energy, you are using energy fighting techniques. It doesn't matter what your
plane is compared to the other, especially if the other pilot doesn't conserve his energy
as well.

I don't agree that a better energy fighter in any 1 year set of planes in IL2/FB will beat
an angles fighter with an energy advantage even given equal pilots with full awareness of
the situation simply because with enough energy advantage to the turn fighter, the fight
will probably be over before the energy fighter can gain an advantage. These planes don't
have so much margin. With enough smash, the turn fighter can rise to match a better climber
and still turn for a killing shot even starting from lower alt. Then the loser can come on
the forum and start a whine thread because he couldn't or shouldn't have lost in his better
plane. It takes time to reverse an advantage and the one at the disadvantage may not have
the time and should just run for it if possible.

"If the total energy margin is significant"... just stop there. Given a good energy advantage,
the angles fighter is going to have far more advantage than unloading the energy fighter can
get it any time soon. Only if the angles fighter screws up can it lose. And no matter the
fight, either plane can lose.

You take what Shaw wrote and you work up some maneuvers to use against different matches then
you stop right there. What happens depends too much more on start conditions and pilot
differences to try and be fine pointing about margins in deciding who should win. If you
know you can do this or that better and the other guy should do something else better then
just fly to your advantages and don't get caught in his. Shaw describes situations where
certain things are played out -- but that don't always happen. There's probable. There's
using strengths against weaknesses. But it ain't no chess match by any means. If I knew
my opponent was going to fight by the book, any book, then hey... my advantage right there
unless he wises up.

And if Godfrey was in a prison camp before the 190D's were out, I'd take his opinion that
his opponent was in a Dora with a lot of salt. And the Doras are the long-nose 190's, no?

I was only writing about the use of saving energy by using the vertical because I felt
that K5054 missed that much when he wrote tha energy tactics belong to jets and not WWII
planes. But really, the nitty gritty that you bring up does come into its own with the
jets. The margins of speed, power and capabilities are wider in the extreme with fighter
jets. In any case, it's only factors not deciders.

BTW: I think you are about right on the money concerning the FW's vs the Spits and how
they used the dive/pitchback technique to stay in the fight. Also about the energy loss
if the FW tried to stay behind the Spit in a turn, it would be a mistake. In a 6 G turn
I would expect the higher wingloaded plane =in general= (but not always) to lose more
energy. With the FW's the better tactics would be to keep the Spits who don't have the
initiative to keep turning at higher G's while minimizing G moves and or time at G's in
the FW's which if I understand energy fighting is the way to do it. I'm guessing maybe
that's some of what you describe. I do have the Shaw book but I don't keep going back
for details after getting the basic picture down, over 6 years ago now. Once I had that,
I saw what all I could put into practice and recheck only on occasion like changing sims.


Neal

k5054
10-10-2004, 04:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I was only writing about the use of saving energy by using the vertical because I felt
that K5054 missed that much when he wrote tha energy tactics belong to jets and not WWII
planes. But really, the nitty gritty that you bring up does come into its own with the
jets. The margins of speed, power and capabilities are wider in the extreme with fighter
jets. In any case, it's only factors not deciders.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I gave the impression that energy tactics only apply to jets, that's not what I meant. Reference to energy tactics may be found in the earliest accounts, I think they are in Dicta Boelcke. It's just that the ACM decribed in Shaw applies better to jets than to WW2 aircraft, where total energy is smaller, where a small spedd difference doesn't translate to so much altitude, where SEP is always negative in any kind of a turn over 2-3g. Dive and zoom always worked though, was always superior to the dogfight/furball if you could get position in the first place. Remember Shaw's angles fighter/energy fighter differential is decided by the pilot's approach, not necessarily the aircraft's characteristics. Although if you have a F-104 or 101 that can't safely pull 2gs without departing you might have the choice decided for you.


John Godfrey was captured in August 1944. Prototype Jumo powered 190s were flying then. They first went into service with JG54 in October 1944. The date of the longnose/Godfrey fight is not stated in Shaw. It is not likely in my opinion that Godfrey met a D-9, as Shaw claims. Shaw goes on to quantify the T/W and WL differences between the P-51B and the D-9. This is the problem with his account, if the a/c was not a D-9 his estimated numbers do not apply. Was the a/c a 109 or a 190A which Godfrey misidentified? I don't know. Allied pilots often reported longnose 190s in 1944, probably because they had seen intel reports of the new type. The reports came out long before the D-9 as allied intel was expecting a DB603 FW. They knew the 603 fitted where the BMW would fit because of captured Do217Ms from early 44, and from POW accounts. It's no big deal what a/c it was unless it's used to prove a point which relies on the specific performance qualities of the type. But it is an illustration of how you have to be sceptical reading all these accounts from pilots, because they are not always free from error, or bias, or self-serving misinformation, just like anything else from the pen or keyboard of a human being. Yes, that includes what you have just read.

JG14_Josf
10-10-2004, 05:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I don't agree that a better energy fighter in any 1 year set of planes in IL2/FB will... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I also don't agree.

There is a big difference between the meanings of the words 'will' and 'can'.

A fighter with relative energy gaining performance abilites (climb, acceleration, and speed) 'can' regain the energy advantage even when facing an opponent with an intitial higher energy margin. This is because the fighter with the relative energy gaining performance abilities 'can' gain relative energy by climbing, accelerating, or simply going faster that the lesser energy gaining performance abilites.

The most obvious example of this working in the game or most certainly in reality is in a fight where the opponents merge head-on (assuming neither pilot has a shot during the merge) and the energy fighter goes straight while the angles fighter burns his excess energy in the turn. From that moment the energy fighter is gaining relative energy because it has better energy maneuverability. If the better energy maneuverability fighter has a better climb rate, and better dive acceleration or high speed energy addition rate (Shaw's term) then the energy fighter simply has to put the nose down until enough total energy is gained over the angles fighter to allow for a zoom climb and pitch back.

Of course if the initial energy margin is so significanlty in favor of the angles fighter at the time of the merge (enough smash) then the angles fighter may have enough excess energy to burn during the 180 degree turn and still have enough excess energy to be able to close on the extending energy fighter for a shot before the energy fighter with the avantages in gaining energy is allowed to get away.

This is why I used the word 'can' instead of the word 'will'.

I disagree with a statment that says the energy fighter 'will' do anything every time, all the time, absolutely.

The energy fighter 'can' beat an angles fighter even if the angles fighter has an initial energy advantage. This is a true statement. The energy fighter need only maneuver in such a manner as to utilize the energy gaining performance advantages such as better acceleration, better climb, or faster speed.

The energy fighter has the performance capabilities to disengage. The angles fighter does not, if the angles fighter doesn't have any energy gaining performance advantages i.e. inferior climb, inferior acceleration, and inferior speed.

This may be why the 109s didn't stay and fight while the Fw190s did stay and fight.

Perhaps the 109s only had the option of climbing away since the advantage of acceleration between the 109 and the Spitfire was marginal instead of significant or tremendous like the FW190s.

Perhaps the 109s also didn't have as great a speed advantage over the Spitfire.

Perhaps the 190s did dominate in the energy gaining performance characteristics just as the ADFU concluded.

Then again maybe not, I am not the one qualified to make that absolute determination of fact.

WWMaxGunz
10-10-2004, 09:45 AM
I used 'can' a lot up there. Also that either plane can win.

So much discussion about energy fighters doing this and that as has been presented
without a lot of qualifiers thrown in certainly appears as if a definite thing
when as I say it is far from that.

Since you EDITED your post that I replied to after I made my post, I don't spot
the part where you didn't agree that a turn fighter could win with an initial
energy advantage. And you didn't agree which is why I posted the paragraph you
quoted the first line of.

"I don't agree ..... will" is not the same as "will" alone in my case either.

I made an express example of and statement that the energy fighter could still
reverse the angles fighters' advantage if the angles fighter blew his advantage.
Given a good pilot who is not a poor shot in the angles fighter that is unlikely.
Even if he blows the first shot he can still retain enough advantage to make one
or two more given a decent bounce and him going out of plane.

Consider this: in a classic energy vs angles fight, the tactics and roles have
more to do with relative speed in the merge than the relative acceleration, climb
and turn capabilities of the planes given co-energy conditions. So the way to
use your 'angles fighter' are so far from set that detailed discussion based on
base performance figures is moot until the angles fighter has lost enough of his
speed advantage that they even matter. Until then, the so-called angles fighter
is better used in out of plane maneuvers that conserve his initial advantage
while the energy fighter is reduced to dodging until he can run or the the other
has made a stupid mistake... ie the roles are reversed for a time with the
'angles fighter' having it very, very good.

Having an energy advantage that well exceeds the differences between the planes
performance figures gives that one the initiative and sets the roles right then
if the pilot with the advantage presses it and uses energy tactics.

A Spit VB bouncing a FW190 of any variant with the Spit having a large energy
advantage can and should be playing the energy role since he is the one with
the most energy, at least for a time. If he fails to kill or cripple the FW
then the roles reverse again, but not until then. The FW isn't restricted to
flat turns but he would be poorly served trying to gain any advantage using
much climb or dive as he is flying defensive and needs to try and widen the
angle between paths so as to make the best escape if he is smart.

I've done those things online in 3 different sims from both sides. It played
out ilke that time and time again both win and lose. Energy tactics belong
most first to the plane with the smash and next to the one with the performance.

Can... will... whatever. Another word is if as in if you have the time and if
you or the other don't make a mistake. As K5054 and I both point out, the
base performance margins as compared to initial conditions are too small to
base a fight over performance differences. Performance differences between
contemporary year fighters don't dominate, they give an edge to play on in
the right situations. You fly your plane the best you can keeping your speed,
alt, engine state and the like in mind first and then work out your edges.
Why bother with a load of quotes presented as if that were the important part?


Neal

JG14_Josf
10-10-2004, 01:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Why bother with a load of quotes presented as if that were the important part?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because it is the important part. The quotes are from the guys who should know what is fact and what is merely opinion.

Like this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Performance differences between
contemporary year fighters don't dominate, they give an edge to play on in
the right situations. You fly your plane the best you can keeping your speed,
alt, engine state and the like in mind first and then work out your edges.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wonder if k5054 appreciates having you speak for him. Quotes work pretty good for letting people speak for themselves.

example:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Development of effective tactics against dissimilar aircraft is, however, highly dependent on intimate knowledge of all aspects of relative fighter performance and design, as well as total familiarity by the pilot with his own aircraft and weapons system. Comparison testing, in which enemy aircraft are flown against friendly fighters, is undeniably the best method of gathering this crucial information <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

and

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"Encounters between a low-wing-loaded fighter and an enemy fighter with greater T/W are quite common. In this case each fighter has performance advantages and disadvantages relative to its opponent. The engagement stategy is for the pilot to exploit the opponent's most serious weaknesses while taking full advantage of his own fighter's greatest strengths."
"The low-wing-loaded fighter's greatest performance advantages are assumed to be good instantaneous turn performance, slow minimum speed, and tight sustained turn radius. In some cases this aircraft also might have a significant sutained-turn-rate advantage. Its weaknesses include inferior climb and acceleration performance under low-G conditions, and slower "top-end" speed."
"These characteristics are ideally suited to the use of angles tactics..."

"On the other hand, the pilot of a high-T/W fighter should concentrate on energy tactics when he is engaging a low-wing-loaded opponent." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note the differences between your opinion and the opinion of Robert Shaw. They are not the same. I find Robert Shaw's opinion to be more useful in conveying meaning. That is why I use quotes from Robert Shaw.

Note the differences of opinion:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Performance differences between
contemporary year fighters don't dominate, they give an edge to play on in
the right situations. You fly your plane the best you can keeping your speed,
alt, engine state and the like in mind first and then work out your edges. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Specifically note:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Performance differences between
contemporary year fighters don't dominate <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"don't dominate"

Compare that to this:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>These characteristics are ideally suited to the use of angles tactics..." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Specifically note:
"ideally suited"

or this:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"On the other hand, the pilot of a high-T/W fighter should concentrate on energy tactics when he is engaging a low-wing-loaded opponent." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Specifically note the word:

"Should"

on the one hand a gamer says "don't dominate"

on the other hand a fighter pilot who has authored one of the most important books on the subject of fighter combat uses words like:

"should concentrate on energy tactics"

One uses language to convey a message of absolute fact i.e. "Don't".
One says that 'performance differences' 'don't dominate'.

Robert Shaw says:

A "high T/W fighter" "should" "concentrate on energy tactics when he is engaging a low-wing-loaded fighter".

Absolute fact vs suggested doctrine.

Person playing a game vs real fighter pilot with a masters degree in aeronautical engnineering.

Ones says that; performance differences between contemporary year fighters don't dominate, that they give an edge to play on in the right situations.

The other defines those 'edges' in a manner that is practicable in the game.

One says "the base performance margins as compared to initial conditions" ARE "too small to base a fight over performance differences".

The other defines specific conditions and specific relative performance values to SUGGEST the correct tactic to be employed in the correct situation.

"don't dominate"

"are to small"

vs

"High T/W fighter should concentrate on energy tactics"

and

"these characteristics (inferior climb and acceleration performance under low-G conditions and slower top-end speed) are ideally suited to the use of angles tactics"

Shaw even defines what constitutes a significant advantage.

"For purposes of this work, similar aircraft denotes fighters having essentially equal performance capabilities in all areas. Because of the human influence on the performance of manned fighters, similar aircraft are not necessarily exactly equivalent in performance, since on any given day, even with the same pilot, and aircraft is unlikely to duplicate consistantly a given maneuver so that all parameters are within tolerances much closer than 5 or 10 percent. For this reason it is logical to consider performance within 10 percent to be similar in most cases. Howver, considering the multitude of possible design variations and the influences of each variation on the many performance parameters, obtaining similarity in all performance areas almost requires that the aircraft be of the same type. Even among fighters of the same type, fuel loads and ordnance loads and configurations can alter weight and drag enough to create performance variations well in excess of 10 percent"

Note: "Logical to consider performance within 10 percen to be similar in most cases"

and

"Fuel loads...create performance variations well in excess of 10 percent"

Possible game situation illustrating this concept:

A. P-51B full of fuel vs 190D-9 with less than 25 percent fuel.

B. P-51B with less than 25 percent fuel vs 190D-9 full of fuel.

Is the suggested tactic for the P-51B always 'turn and burn' or is the suggested tactic for a P-51 full of fuel tending to be more defensive minded i.e. more ideally suited for energy tactics?

The idea or strategem to always be higher and faster is a good general practice but when things do not work out ideally there is a need to do as Shaw suggests:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>exploit the opponent's most serious weaknesses while taking full advantage of his own fighter's greatest strengths <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why use quotes?

Because the source of the quotes is reliable and the words quoted contain useful information.

Example:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In the steril, one-versus-one engagement, the pilot of the superior fighter normally should attempt to keep his speed the same as, or slightly below, that of his opponent. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I were to come up with the above words of wisdom by myself the gamers who populate these boards may find reason to dispute my claim, off hand, without any contrary evidence in dispute of the contention because they can.

The fact is that the quote comes right out of Robert Shaw's book on page 183.

Note: "the superior fighter normally should attempt to keep his speed the same as, or slightly below, that of his opponent."

Some guys reading this will find the following to be a familiar scenario in the game nd on-line:
(think LA7, Yak3, P-63, or Spitfire IX vs 190A-8)

"Double superiority is a condition for which a fighter pilot would gladly trade several semi-essential parts of his anatomy. A double-superior fighter has the speed and acceleration to force an opponent to fight, and the maneuverability to win the fight. In such a situation the superior fighter generally should choose angles tactics, for a variety of reasons. This method is generally quicker and easier, it facilitates maintaining sight, and allows the opponent fewer weapons-firing opportunities and less chance of escape. The pilot of the superior fighter can be quite aggressive in this scenario, using his turn performance to gain advantage and relying on his power to keep him out of trouble. Lower minimum vertical-maneuvering speed and higher Ps provide a measure of safety against the bogey's possible energy tactics, but the angles fighter pilot can still lose this fight if he tries hard enough. If he races around with fangs out and hair on fire, with total discregard for energy, he may allow even an inferior opponent to gain a substantial energy advantage and convert this to a temporary but lethal position advantage. This usually can be avoided by allowing the superior aircraft to do the job at its own pace, which normally will be fast enough. Aside from overaggressiveness on the part of the pilot, speed control is the superior fighter's greatest problem. Excess power often results in excess speed and a tendency to overrun or overshoot the adversary. Under the best of circumstances such overshoots prolong the fight, which, particularly when missles are involved, may be fatal. Judicious use of power is the key here. In the sterile, one-verses-one engagement, the pilot of the superior fighter normally should attempt to keep his speed the same as, or slightly below, that of his opponent."

I use quotes to convey meaning because often the quotes convey more meaning than what I can manage to write myself.

k5054
10-10-2004, 02:13 PM
A Spitfire Vb weighing 6700lb has 1230 HP WEP with +12lb at 18,000ft.
A FW190A-3 weighs 8580 loaded (AFDU/RAE) and had 1565HP WEP with 1.42 at 2700 (RAE tests on a later BMW801D-2) also at 18,000ft.

Spitfire power/wt 5.447 lb/hp
FW190A-3 power/wt 5.482 lb/hp

I think there is no doubt that the Spitfire has a far lower wing loading.

This makes the Spit, at least at these weights and height, double superior, according to Shaw's definitions. What tactics should he use vs the FW? And if the FW is de-rated to 1360HP (1.35/2450)?

hop2002
10-10-2004, 02:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Perhaps the 109s only had the option of climbing away since the advantage of acceleration between the 109 and the Spitfire was marginal instead of significant or tremendous like the FW190s. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Climb and acceleration are the same thing. Both are functions of excess thrust.

If, at any particular speed, you have a climb advantage, you also have an acceleration advantage.

JG14_Josf
10-10-2004, 03:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What tactics should he use vs the FW? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The ones that work.

k5054,

I noticed that you chose to use the Spitfire VB at 12lb boost pressure. Is that a fair representation of the Spitfires used during the ADFU tests or the Spitfires used during combat previous to July 1942? If not then it isn't representative of the relative performance capabilities of the planes fighting and therefore the tactics that worked previous to July 1942.

Also:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A fighters T/W is a fairly good indicator of its energy performance. This ratio is usually stated in terms of static sea-level thrust and a representative combat weight. For piston-engine aircraft a parameter known as "power loading," the ratio of aircraft weight to brake horsepower (normally maximum seal-level power), is used rather than T/W. Both of these measures may be misleading, however, since operation conditions of altitude and airspeed can affect two fighters in different ways...

...A fighter's aerodynamic efficiency, in particular its lift-to-drag ratio, is also vitally important to energy performance, especially at high G or high speed. In order to simplify this discussion, however, the term high T/W infers greater climb rate, faster acceleration, and higher maximum speed capability relative to the opponent. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is it coincidental that ADFU reports describe exactly what Robert Shaw terms to be 'high T/W'?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>ADFU tests:

Climb:
"The climb of the FW190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights."

Acceleration:
"The FW has better acceleration under all conditions of flight and this must obviously be useful during combat."

Speed:
"The Fw 190 is superior in speed at all heights, and the approximate differences are as follows:" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"power loading," the ratio of aircraft weight to brake horsepower (normally maximum seal-level power), is used rather than T/W. Both of these measures may be misleading, however, since operation conditions of altitude and airspeed can affect two fighters in different ways <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are unknown factors involved in determining total thrust and total drag including serious considerations like 'prop efficency' in addition to Shaw's stated variables.

Al Deere seemed to think that the Fw190s were able to stay and fight which is an indication that the tactics being used were not 'hit and run'.

More information would be better to aquire an informed determination of the facts rather than jumping to conclusions as to which plane actually had a higher climb rate, higher rate of acceleration and higher top speed and therefore an energy maneuverability advantage and therefore a capacity to employ energy tactics in a 'stay and fight' dog fight.

Air Chief Marshal and his pilots certainly suggested (despite the possibility that they may have been lying) that the Fw190 was the better fighter plane and specifically superior in climb.

The 'leading RAF pilot' in Eric Browns described pre-briefing who stated that 'turning doesn't wing battles!' supports Eric Brown's assesment that the Fw190 'could out-perform the contemporary Spitfire on every count with the exception of turning circle'.

These sources must be wieghted against those climb charts of course. One of which is a test done in Germany under unknown conditions with a plane that has an unknown history unlike the known history of the ADFU captured plane which had just shot down a Spitfire before being captured. Unfortunatley there is no known report on the tactics that Armin Farber used to shoot down the Spitfire.

Perhaps it was a suprise attack. But then again the Spitfires were scrambled to intercept the known presence of the Fw.

Perhaps the Fw190 pilot was simply better and he used angles tactics to defeat the Spitfire pilot. But then again the Spitfire has such a huge advantage in wing loading and therefore such a huge advantage in turn peformance that as Eric Brown tactial asssesment confirms the Fw190 pilot would have to have 'lost his head' to try a horizontal pursuit curve on a Spitfire.

Perhaps the Fw190 pilot used energy tactics. Perhaps the Fw190 pilot used a sustained turn technique. Maybe the Fw190 pilot used two circle or nose to tail geometry followed by diving extension and pitch back.

Who knows?

I can't say based upon the few numbers and the few performance charts as to what is or is not the tactical performance facts, but Eric Brown, Mike Spick, Alfred Price, Air Chief Marshal Douglas, His pilots, A Leading RAF pilot, and the ADFU did record their opinions on the matter.

JG14_Josf
10-10-2004, 03:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If, at any particular speed, you have a climb advantage, you also have an acceleration advantage. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hop2002,

In the mathemantical calculation of total thrust, total drag, weight, and velocity a number can be identified that measures specific excess power or Ps.
This number can be expressed in distance per unit of time such as feet per minute or meters per second.
At any speed and altitude a fighter with a higher Ps 'can' use this excess power to travel farther in a shorter period of time.

This does not necessarily mean that the plane with the higher Ps 'will' always accelerate faster or climb at a higher rate under all conditions of flight.

What about realative roll rates, mass, deceleration resulting from G load, unloading, Pitch performance, agility (roll acceleration and pitch acceleration), and other factors like:

"During World War II fuel-injected German aircraft often used steep unloaded climbs and dives to escape from carbureted Allied Fighters." (Fighter Combat, Robert Shaw, page 406)
?

WWMaxGunz
10-10-2004, 10:50 PM
I really have to laugh.....

In the preface to his book, Robert Shaw says specifically how NOT to use the material.
Please read that and try to understand, his examples don't cover everything. Examples.

"In a steril, one-vs-one engagemant...." &lt;== got any real idea what that means? Or is
the answer just another load of quotes?

Why when I give an agreeing opinion with K5054 does that make me restating his view?
BS. At least I have an opinion and can put ideas in my own words, provide my own
examples with stated conditions and explain how they apply.

I like this one:

"the superior fighter normally should attempt to keep his speed the same as, or slightly
below, that of his opponent."

How does that apply to FW's vs Spit VB's and the FW's staying to fight? What would happen
to the FW's if they were to slow down to the same or less speed than the Spits? That means
just what about the FW's in your opinion Josf? If you lack an opinion then what quote or
six can you apply there? If so then how does the quote above apply as an answer to the
post you threw it at? In your opinion, how would the Spits rate and stand in a fight
against FW's given the above quote that you threw in? Why use a quote that doesn't apply
to a whole situation but only to part of a reply?
It only demonstrates the uselessness of relying solely on quotes because... which plane is
superior of the ones discussed to the point where it should slow down to the same or less
speed than the other? A Spit with an speed advantage at the start? Should he slow right
down and blow that advantage? What would result if he failed to kill or cripple the FW
soon? So, which plane is superior in your opinion that the above quote should be applied?
What use is page 183 of Robert Shaws' book in this matchup?

Maybe there is such a situation described in that book and maybe there isn't. As he wrote
right at the start, every situation is not covered and there's always exceptions so don't
go quoting him absolutely since he ain't writing absolutely. Of course you can go for his
exact wording, throw that in and say the meaning is different but I don't expect anything
about how or why, just another verbatim quote that's expected to stand on its' own with
no application or explanation of meaning unless it's more direct quotes.

If you can't find a quote that covers a situation, just use another one. If you don't
understand the material in any whole sense, just quote as if that's all there is to any
explanation. If you can dazzle them with brilliance then baffle them with bu!!$#!+, or
in some cases just bury them with an avalanche of snow.

Try again... Spits bouncing FW's, who should do what? Don't quote unless it applies in
a direct manner that you can back up or at least explain by yourself how it applies.


Neal

clint-ruin
10-10-2004, 10:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I really have to laugh.....

In the preface to his book, Robert Shaw says specifically how NOT to use the material.
Please read that and try to understand, his examples don't cover everything.
Neal <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This would have to be at least the 10th time you've said this in this exact same discussion with the exact same person. I don't know how else you are really going to get it across, myself.

WWMaxGunz
10-10-2004, 11:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What tactics should he use vs the FW? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The ones that work. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, that shows a true understanding doesn't it? How about... a quote?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>k5054,

I noticed that you chose to use the Spitfire VB at 12lb boost pressure. Is that a fair representation of the Spitfires used during the ADFU tests or the Spitfires used during combat previous to July 1942? If not then it isn't representative of the relative performance capabilities of the planes fighting and therefore the tactics that worked previous to July 1942.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Given that the FW had a placard in the cockpit not to exceed 1.35ATA and the pilot was trained
not to exceed 1.35ATA and all other Brit intel placed the limit at 1.35ATA for 3 minutes only
and Butch has also stated the derating period of those planes being past the date of the test
the WHY is it a fair representation of the FW's to use test data made at 1.42ATA?

A comprehensive chart comparing the Spit at 9lbs boost steady versus the same FW at 1.35ATA
which it could only maintain for three minutes regardless of anything else does not have
the FW in a totally superior climb all the time. In fact, there's whole alt regions where
the Spit climbed better at 9lbs boost while it could run 12lbs for a limited time.

But you are worried about 'fair' and that must be served by running the FW all out and the
Spit at reduced power.

Or maybe you fail to understand that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Also:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A fighters T/W is a fairly good indicator of its energy performance. This ratio is usually stated in terms of static sea-level thrust and a representative combat weight. For piston-engine aircraft a parameter known as "power loading," the ratio of aircraft weight to brake horsepower (normally maximum seal-level power), is used rather than T/W. Both of these measures may be misleading, however, since operation conditions of altitude and airspeed can affect two fighters in different ways...

...A fighter's aerodynamic efficiency, in particular its lift-to-drag ratio, is also vitally important to energy performance, especially at high G or high speed. In order to simplify this discussion, however, the term high T/W infers greater climb rate, faster acceleration, and higher maximum speed capability relative to the opponent. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is it coincidental that ADFU reports describe exactly what Robert Shaw terms to be 'high T/W'?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>ADFU tests:

Climb:
"The climb of the FW190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights."

Acceleration:
"The FW has better acceleration under all conditions of flight and this must obviously be useful during combat."

Speed:
"The Fw 190 is superior in speed at all heights, and the approximate differences are as follows:" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What a shame the ADFU tests didn't actually test the planes evenly.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I can't say based upon the few numbers and the few performance charts as to what is or is not the tactical performance facts, but Eric Brown, Mike Spick, Alfred Price, Air Chief Marshal Douglas, His pilots, A Leading RAF pilot, and the ADFU did record their opinions on the matter. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't let any facts get in the way then.


Neal

JG14_Josf
10-11-2004, 12:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I really have to laugh.....
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

That is so nice to hear.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"In a steril, one-vs-one engagemant...." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like this:

Track file (http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/il2guide/downloads/tracks/Energy_game.zip)

Or the John Godfrey P-51B vs long nose 190.

Neal,

If you can't find the specific applications of tactics found in "Fighter Combat" then there is no need to be so jealous, all you have to do is read and use your brain. It really isn't that tough. I guess the first step is to consider the possibility that you can actually learn something. Then, who knows, you may actually learn something.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>How does that apply to FW's vs Spit VB's and the FW's staying to fight? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you actually read words instead of leaping to conclusions you would have found that my example application of Shaw's double superior speed control piece did not apply to the FW Spit VB.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So, which plane is superior in your opinion that the above quote should be applied?
What use is page 183 of Robert Shaws' book in this matchup?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can save you the trouble of going back and actaully reading the stuff I wrote (not that it matters since you will most certainly continue to twist my words around to suit whatever purpose you happen to make up. Any way here is the example plane set I intended to reference with Shaw's (very applicable) double superior angles tactics and speed control:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Some guys reading this will find the following to be a familiar scenario in the game nd on-line:
(think LA7, Yak3, P-63, or Spitfire IX vs 190A-8) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some guys won't find Shaw's description a familiar scenario. I know the guys I have managed to nail after an overshoot understand the need to control speed. Like this:

Forced overshoot (http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/il2guide/downloads/tracks/Scissors.zip)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>so don't
go quoting him absolutely since he ain't writing absolutely. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, for confirming my main concern. Absolute statements of authority and fact concerning this topic is assinine. Oppps I mispelled that word.

Example of an asinine statement of absolute fact:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>and all other Brit intel placed the limit at 1.35ATA <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, I guess you have seen 'all' the Brit intel.

Example of distortion:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But you are worried about 'fair' <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not worried at all.

I wrote a question followed by a deduction in reasoning.

The question was:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Is that a fair representation of the Spitfires used during the ADFU tests or the Spitfires used during combat previous to July 1942? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note the useage of he word 'fair' is not meant in the childish usage of the word analogous to 'even steven'. The word is meant to be analagous with 'accurate'.

Try putting 'even steven' in context. Then try 'accurate'.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What a shame the ADFU tests didn't actually test the planes evenly.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you feel a need to make things 'even steven'?

I don't understand your fixation. It has nothing to do with me or what I have tried to communicate. Either you refuse to open you mind or I am unable to communicate effectively, or a combination of both.

My concern is accuracy. Please produce 'all' the British documents and 'all' the German ones while you are at it. It sure would be informative to find out how may 'rated' FW190s were flying around in early and mid 1942.

Clint-ruin,

If your contribution to this disscusion is to point out that Robert Shaw's book has limitations then please understand that your opinion and WWMaxGunz's opinion just may be self imposed limitations.

I do just fine. Check out the track files if you....

Never mind. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWMaxGunz
10-11-2004, 09:37 AM
Even Steven???

Somebody who keeps bringing up the conclusion of a test conducted with one plane at
full out beyond the rated power it used at the time which even later was only for a
limited time vs another at lower than rated power usable for very long periods --
and then the same person who keeps bringing up the conclusion states as usual that
the sim should work as that conclusion and is wrong because it doesn't.

Don't blow smoke at me. The Spit from the ADFU "test" (really an impromptu compare)
is far less than the Spits in the sim. The FW-190A-3 is lighter than the A-4 we have
in the sim. The A-4 in the sim is by many people with loads of data, a derated A-4.

And yet YOU keep pushing SLANTED results of one comparison as how the sim should be.

Cut it any way you want, it still stinks.
Now go back and edit what you wrote before, CYA and tracks.


Neal

JG14_Josf
10-11-2004, 10:27 AM
WWMaxGunz,

Lies are useful for you, I think, and it is for this reason that my participation in this thread continues, in addition to a general desire to learn how better to communiate.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>CYA and tracks <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The above lie is probably useful to you because you failed to read before jumping to conclusions. Rather than realize this fact you choose to blame someone else for your mistake. I can understand this type of behavior comming from someone who uses language for the purposes of manipulation, rather than simply to communicate.

I edit because it serves my purpose to edit i.e. to communicate. If this Forum had a spell checking and preview feature then my need to edit would be less obvious to anyone trying to read my words (something you fail to do before jumping to conclusions).

Note: If a poster goes back after some time to edit there is a automated message placed on the bottom of the post that looks like this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Please excuse the edit job (spell checking and additions)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: JG14_Josf, Sat October 09 2004 11:11 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The following is opinion:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>full out beyond the rated power <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"full out" is an exaggeration used to manipulate the reader into thinking something other than the actual engine settings were used during the test. The words suggest that the engine was not capable of running over what is 'full' or 'out'.

Based upon some of the responses to this thread it is clear that propagandizing works. Propaganda or the use of language to manipulate someone's thinking toward a specific desired and false idea is obvious to me. Perhaps I am special. Some people things so, they don't use the word special, but I know what they mean. I understand.

Thanks for your continued attention. It means a lot to me. I think that you are special too, just not very honest.

(I just added a 'p' in the word resonses so it reads responses rather than resonses) I may get this edit in before the automated "edit message" triggers)

faustnik
10-11-2004, 11:16 AM
It is very difficult to reproduce the Fw190's historical ability to outmaneuver the Spit Vb in sustained vertical maneuvers in FB. Oleg had stated that the sustained climb rates for both aircraft are correct. Therefore, it has to be some other factor that is resulting in a historically inaccurate representation. There could be several reasons, but, my best guess would be relative zoom climb and dive.

Other factors that could contribute:

- the majority of the Spit Vbs in the summer of 1942 might have run at +9 boost maximum.

- The majority of the Fw190A3s might have flown without outer cannon.

- A large number of the Fw190A3s were running at higher boost pressures in combat.

Despite what a few here might claim (those who think the Spitfire was superior every other aircraft in WW2 redardless of history) the Spit Vb was at a serious disadvantage to the Fw190A3 in sustained vertical dogfighting in the summer of 1942. If the continuous climb of the Fw190A3 was not superior to the Spit Vb, we have to look somewhere else for the missing ingredient. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

k5054
10-11-2004, 12:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Other factors that could contribute:

- the majority of the Spit Vbs in the summer of 1942 might have run at +9 boost maximum.

- The majority of the Fw190A3s might have flown without outer cannon.

- A large number of the Fw190A3s were running at higher boost pressures in combat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spit 1s and 2s were cleared to 12lb in 1940, given 100 octane fuel. 12.5 in fact. In 1941 some early Spit 5 tests were done with 9lb only, maybe the merlin 45 was not yet cleared higher. But by mid-42 it was.

The FWs did carry the cannon. I think, not enough evidence to be sure.

While we cannot be sure whether the 190s had the higher boost limits, some reports say they did not need it.


Let's not beat about the bush, the FW was superior to the Spit 5 in this period. You'd have to be more of a Spit fanboy than I am to deny that. It had more speed, better high speed manouverability, better armament, better pilots, better tactics and a better tactical situation.

By mid 43 some kind of parity had been achieved by the RAF. The Spit IXb, or LF as it was later known, had more speed, better armament, better tactics than the Mk V.

By 1945 the same LF IX was the most successful RAF fighter air/air in 2nd TAF. (Not Tempest, Typhoon or Mk 14). It had better pilots and a (far) better tactical situation than in 1943.

faustnik
10-11-2004, 12:39 PM
k5054,

I should have made it more clear in my post. I was not making claims, just proposing possibilities.

JG14_Josf
10-11-2004, 01:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Let's not beat about the bush <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is an interesting idea.

If 'not beating about the bush' can be identified then it may actually be accomplished.

Unresolved questions hindering the goal of 'not beating about the bush':

1. What is the goal that is being avoided with this bush beating?

If the goal is to identify accurate relative performance capabilities then:

2. What represents the normal, median, average or best general performance capabilites of the planes being considered?

If the planes being considered are the Fw190-A9, D-9 and A-8 then how much information is available on these planes performance capabilities and does the available information constitute sufficient evidence to represent the whole in order to get a true representative average, median, general value or values?

The same question applies to the planes involved in the ADFU tests.

The ideal situation would be to have performance tests done on every plane flying in combat in that time period.

Statistics is a science. It can also be a political tool. Statistics can be made (by the scientific method) into an objective tool. Statistics can be made into a subjective and deceptive instrument too.

The more data that is used in the computation of statistics the greater is the potential for accurate statistical analysis.

It is not possible to use statistics objectively absent critical available information.

For example:

100 planes were built.
1 plane was tested.
Statistical analysis of the whole based upon the tests done with one plane leaves out the possiblity that 99 percent of the planes built were different than the one tested.

100 planes were built.
2 planes were tested.
The possible statistical error has been improved. Now instead of having 99 possible changes made to the calculation there are 98 possible plane tests that can change the statistical analysis.

Here is why I find much cause to be sceptical with the use of charts when considering how one plane was able to perform relative to another.

How many Fw190A-3s were flying in the summer of 1942?

W.S. Douglas:
"the enemy has between two and three hundred Fw190s"

How many were tested?

How many were rated?

How many were de-rated?

How many were built on a monday after the Reichmarshals birthday?

So what can be done to 'stop beating about the bush'?

How can we possibly calculate with any reasonably accurate statistical analysis the actual relative performance capabilites between the planes in question?

Why not stop beating around the statistical analysis bush? Why not put those charts where they belong into the 'subjective' catagory where they belong right next to anecdotal evidence.

Repeat:

Which plane is being considered for performance evaluation?

How many planes of this type were built?

How many planes of this type was tested?

What is the margin for error?

How subjective is the statistical analysis?

Now, add to the above possible statistical errors; the possible reasons why a 'test' would include error within the test.

Example:

The test pilot had a bad day.

The factory wanted to adjust the actual numbers and paid the test pilot to accomplish this desired task.

The government wanted to adjust the numbers and threatened to pull funds if the numbers didn't show the desired results.

The military wanted to adjust the numbers and ordered the numbers adjusted to the desired results.


Subjectivity and the introduction of variables exists in any form of recorded information.

What would be ideal?

What if we had these planes in front of us so we can test them ourselves.

That isn't so good though because it has been over 50 years since these planes were made and to expect to get a perfectly preserved example of one or to expect that a new one would be made exactly the same as the ones flown in history is a bit of a stretch. Also we would have only one plane that pretends to represent many. We would have the same statistical accuracy problem.

Besides that who could we find to pilot these planes so that they would be flown to the planes maximum performance abilities?

What options do we have to evaluate relative performance variables?

We could get a time machine and go back to that date and fly the actual planes, but again who would we get to fly them?

We could go back in time and ask the German pilots to fly on over to Britain to test these planes or we could ask the British pilots to fly on over to Germany to test these planes.

Then we could have the actual planes being tested side by side in mock combat during the actual time period and in the same place.

Maybe the British pilots could meet the German pilots somewhere in the middle.

We could attach flight recorders to the planes during the mock combat tests and record track files.

If you are reading this far it may have sunk in as to why Robert Shaw wrote what he wrote concerning the value of comparative testing when trying to evaluate relative performance capabilities.

Statistics can be an objective measure to find out this information if enough data is available. But the statistics that are available (the ones posted or linked here)cannot show which plane has greater agility, greater roll and pitch acceleration, and other maneuverability factors.

Where does that leave us as we beat our way around this bush?

Some of us put stock in the opinions of the people who actaully did meet in the skies between Britain and Germany.

Their opinions are written down.

Here is a good example:

"The Tank-designed fighter could out-perform the contermporary Spitire on every count with the exception of the turning circle - one leading RAF pilot is recorded as having commented acidly when this attribute of his mount was stressed during a pre-operation briefing, "Turning doesn't wing battles!". By April 1942, RAF combat attrition on the Channel Front reached prohibitive levels pirmarily as a result of the activities of its redoubtable German adversary - more than a hundred Spitfires being lost on the offensive opperations over Occupied Europe during teh course of a month - and the Merlin 61 - engined Spitire IX was still two or three months away. But while going a ong way towards redressing the balance and even offering an edge in climb and performance above 26,000 feet (7 925m), the Spitfire IX was still to be left standing bythe Focke-Wulf's half-roll and dive!" (Eric Brown, Wings of the Luftwaffe)

Neal,
I am going to hit the Post Now button, after which I will preview the post and then edit as I wish based upon my own sense of propriety.

WWMaxGunz
10-11-2004, 03:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
WWMaxGunz,

Lies are useful for you, I think, and it is for this reason that my participation in this thread continues, in addition to a general desire to learn how better to communiate.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please -- show WTF you're going on about. AFAIC, you are one playing with lies.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>CYA and tracks <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The above lie is probably useful to you because you failed to read before jumping to conclusions. Rather than realize this fact you choose to blame someone else for your mistake. I can understand this type of behavior comming from someone who uses language for the purposes of manipulation, rather than simply to communicate.

I edit because it serves my purpose to edit i.e. to communicate. If this Forum had a spell checking and preview feature then my need to edit would be less obvious to anyone trying to read my words (something you fail to do before jumping to conclusions).

Note: If a poster goes back after some time to edit there is a automated message placed on the bottom of the post that looks like this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Please excuse the edit job (spell checking and additions)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: JG14_Josf, Sat October 09 2004 11:11 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong. I replied to one of your posts and then you countered. I went back up to grab
the part that you had just posted as you don't make and surprise-suprise, it's not there!
Then I see you've edited the 1st post and when. After my reply of course and soon before
your counter. Now you accuse me of lieing. Yeah... riiight.

Well if you can't answer points, if you have no freaking answer then blow smoke AS USUAL!
Another thing you can do is get some buddies to help out.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The following is opinion:

[QUOTE]full out beyond the rated power <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"full out" is an exaggeration used to manipulate the reader into thinking something other than the actual engine settings were used during the test. The words suggest that the engine was not capable of running over what is 'full' or 'out'. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have the nerve to say I twist your words?

Full out -- they ran the engine at 1.42ATA.
The engine was rated only to 1.35ATA -- PLACARDED IN THE COCKPIT. You know what that is?
At 1.35ATA the engine could only be run for 3 minutes.
The engine was run beyond manufacturers limits, to the max, full out.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Based upon some of the responses to this thread it is clear that propagandizing works. Propaganda or the use of language to manipulate someone's thinking toward a specific desired and false idea is obvious to me. Perhaps I am special. Some people things so, they don't use the word special, but I know what they mean. I understand. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dude, you are either.... well I can't say on this forum but go get help either with
reading comprehension or something more serious.

You just played your freaking word game with my text, but me, I use SPECIAL WORDS.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Thanks for your continued attention. It means a lot to me. I think that you are special too, just not very honest. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

More Josf head-games.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>(I just added a 'p' in the word resonses so it reads responses rather than resonses) I may get this edit in before the automated "edit message" triggers) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I mark my edits where they are. I don't delete content or make changes AFTER a post of
mine has been replied to. On most forums, that is VERY BAD FORM. But then that's how
it is with HONEST MEMBERS.

BTW, if calling my use of the words full-out opinion and propaganda is the best you can
do to refute what I wrote, then I guess you have run out of valid answers. You and I
both know that not long from now you will continue to make your usual claims anyway as
if nothing was ever posted refuting them, as if by not making answers your little trick
of applying one set of historic conclusions to something very different in the sims is
still valid -- which it ain't in more than one place but hey that's just propaganda,
right?
Somehow the historicity of the ADFU comparison report is supposed to rub off onto
different models of planes in the game (but... it's ADFU, and they were there!) and to
how the 190A-4 in the sim should outclimb 'the' (I never see which one specified) Spit VB
in the sim on the basis of that report. Never mind that the planes (ADFU used the first
serial produced Spit VB from 1941, the sim models an improved Spit VB LF) and conditions
(when an unspecified Spit VB in the sim outclimbs a 190A-4 in the sim, is that Spit VB
limited to 9 lbs boost? I've seen the full chart posted, it's at 9 lbs boost.) DON'T
NEARLY MATCH THE REPORT -- just keep quoting the conclusion and asking why the sim is
different. After all, you did USE history so that makes your arguement right and I am
A BAD GUY LIAR for pointing out your blatant misapplication of history and quotes.

Sure. All the time.
And I care so much of your opinion of me.
Now go mortgage your home and spend all the money on lottery tickets. The magic number is......


Neal

faustnik
10-11-2004, 03:40 PM
Comon guys take it easy please. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

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

Josf,

Neal questions a lot of posts, and can certainly be aggrevating at times http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif , but, he's not a liar. Neal just requires a lot to be conviced. He has some good ideas, listen to them.

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

Neal,

Josf has legitimate gripes, he is trying to find the missing ingrediant to make the Spit/Fw190 matchup more historical. Josf is like a pitbull with an idea, it's very hard for him to let go. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif He has done his homework on this subject and his posts are worthwhile.

WWMaxGunz
10-11-2004, 03:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
It is very difficult to reproduce the Fw190's historical ability to outmaneuver the Spit Vb in sustained vertical maneuvers in FB. Oleg had stated that the sustained climb rates for both aircraft are correct. Therefore, it has to be some other factor that is resulting in a historically inaccurate representation. There could be several reasons, but, my best _guess_ would be relative zoom climb and dive.

Other factors that could contribute:

- the majority of the Spit Vbs in the summer of 1942 might have run at +9 boost maximum.

- The majority of the Fw190A3s might have flown without outer cannon.

- A large number of the Fw190A3s were running at higher boost pressures in combat.

Despite what a few here might claim (those who think the Spitfire was superior every other aircraft in WW2 redardless of history) the Spit Vb was at a serious disadvantage to the Fw190A3 in sustained vertical dogfighting in the summer of 1942. If the continuous climb of the Fw190A3 was not superior to the Spit Vb, we have to look somewhere else for the missing ingredient. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anybody who wants to claim the Spitfire as being superior over (yes, I added a word) every
aircraft in WW2 is in for a lot of refutation. That kind of claim can only be from ignorance.

You miss somethings real;

- at the speed of combat, the FW outclimbed the Spit easily.

- most of the sustained climbing is done before the fight.

- who was bouncing who? Easy to guess since the FW ran a good bit faster than the Spit.
- the faster planes have the initiative if they spot the others first or at the same time.
- if the Spits have a real alt advantage then they probably will have the initiative at
least until they lose it or the FW's are downed. That is an exception to "FW's Rulez".

- the LW pilots and commanders were very sharp about tactics.

Past that, you have to take it on a per-fight basis. What accounts of the RAF taking losses
don't start with them getting bounced? The form of the fight as was posted here by Josf has
the FW's diving down, firing, and then zooming back up to repeat the attack. This in groups
against groups. How do you see something like that starting out? Spits and FW's co-E????

Please. Reason.

Oleg stated clearly that the FW will outclimb the Spit at the right speed.
There was on the SimHQ forum posted a full account by the pilot who flew the Spitfire in
that test. He stated that in the climb, his friend who flew the FW kept the speed up and
he was unable to keep up and climb to match, the FW rose above him. He stated that his
friend was the right guy to fly the FW (it was supposed to be him) because he flew it
that way, just as the German pilots did out over the Channel. What I did not see in that
text was what boosts they were running. The speed was about 240mph or over.

If you want the results to match what was historic combat then the planes have to be used
in historic combat tactics. And DF is no measure of history.

The LW did not need radar to know when and where the RAF flew over Europe. They had people
to spot and phone or radio the information to LW HQ. Maneuvering interceptors to bounce ---
well please convince me that they didn't have the capability or brains to do such a basic
and simple thing. What military, when, has not gathered battlefield intel to the full of
its capabilities? Really, I wish the sim would have that kind of information available
for players near or over their own lines.


Neal

JG14_Josf
10-11-2004, 04:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I don't delete content or make changes AFTER a post of
mine has been replied to. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Neal,

If you wish to accuse me of deleting content then either accuse me of deleting content or don't accuse me of deleting content.

When you actually acuse me of something:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>CYA and tracks <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is a lie.

Editing occurs and when this is done the forum posts a note that it was done.

To suggest that someone would go back and edit a post to 'cover their tracks' is really paranoid. This is a discussion of ideas. I have mine and I express them to the best of my ability.

Yours seems to be wholy contrary, conspiratorial, paranoid, and abusive.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Please -- show WTF you're going on about. AFAIC, you are one playing with lies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The accusation that I 'CYA' is a bold faced unsupported lie. If you bothered to read then you would already have known the answer to that question.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>as
if nothing was ever posted refuting them <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Refutation requires more than just opinion.

When you or anyone else can show how many 'rated' and how many 'derated' Fw190A-3s were flying around previous to July 1942 (ADFU test dates) then something a little closer to 'refutation' and a little better than opinion can be measured against the ADFU results.

Meanwhile the facts are missing and your opinion is no better than mine, except that my opinion remains uncertain while yours is:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>After all, you did USE history so that makes your arguement right <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My argument is an opinion based upon the data presented. I think through the years that my presentations are getting better but not right.

That is your spin, as usual.

Over the years I have learned how to deal with you and your kind.

When reading your posts now I can comfortably:

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

faustnik
10-11-2004, 04:14 PM
I agree with your last statement on many counts Neal. One I do not agree with is that the RAF only took losses when they were bounced. The 190 brought a new problem to the RAF. They were suffering losses in sustained dogfights with the 190, something they had not previously had to deal with when they faced on 109s. The 109s used hit and run tactics, the 190s did not need to.

The reason I keep coming back to this issue is that I keep reading about it. The more I read about it, the more aspects of the Fw190/SpitVb matchup in FB do seem historical. I think you might be going to far in trying to justify the current modeling and not considering the possibility that there is some error in the modeling. You can either alter the sim to match history or try to alter history to match the sim.

Again, I'll say that differences in dive and zoom climb seem more likely as a cause for the historic superiority of the 190A3/A4 in 1942. As you have stated, the Fw190A4 at either 1.35 or 1.42 atas boost would not beat a +12 or +16 boost Spit Vb in a sustained climb. The "slashing attacks" used by the 190 certainly sound like rapid dives and zooms to me.

WWMaxGunz
10-11-2004, 05:05 PM
The 190's don't have to be bouncing the Spits to attack from above or with a higher
energy state. They are faster and I am not sure, but heavier? The one good result
of the ADFU trials was to get the Spit pilots to keep up for them, high speed? That
to narrow the gap some, also reported, right?

In the right circumstances of both planes, the Spit was better. The account says
that the Spit pilots did all they could to get the FW pilots to fight on their terms
while the FW pilots fought their way.

And then there is the sim. It works by trying to make the planes match the data.
After that, if players flying them don't get the same results as history what do
you do? The data is not just historic but historic recorded with instruments and
the most expert pilots they have. Since there's NUMBERS involved, does that make
such data invalid? Is it somehow less history? Less accurate? Sure, they only
tested SOME of the planes while Pete the Pilot knew them all.

How does one compare performance tests done under stated and rigid conditions with
combat reports and moreso with result statistics? In the combat reports and statistics
we all know that exact performance is only part of the reality, where many other
factors are involved. Whoever said it's the pilot, not the plane? Is that historic?
To match combat reports or comparison reports with a sim, you have to match the
conditions of the combat or comparison in the sim. When the match is poor or bad,
I am far from convinced.

How should one compare historic combat to what goes on online in FB or any other
combat flight sim ever made? Should plane performance be tweaked so one group or
another of players experience what they believe was true?

Just from me, the view from the FW cockpits explains a lot and the 20mm explosive
damage effects covers more of the downside, period. The lack of feel in the sim that
a real pilot has is another problem that may hurt flying the FW during transitions
(what Eric Brown called "sinking" that had to be avoided, he could feel and we can't)
or any large pitch changes -- but with the right sim technique it can be avoided,
and I do read from people who don't think the FW's have such big problems.

In the final practical sense though:

Oleg and team have done their best to make the sim accurate. Then somebody doesn't
have the experience in the sim they feel they should, based on reading. It is up
to that person to make the proof, not ask to be proved wrong. Cart behind horse.


Neal

WWMaxGunz
10-11-2004, 05:08 PM
Oh Faustnik, I forgot. I did not mean to seem to be saying that the RAF only took
losses when bounced. What I mean is that I think on average they got bounced more
than not and that would affect the general overall outcome and impressions of then.


Neal

faustnik
10-11-2004, 05:21 PM
I agree with you again Neal. I don't have "problems" with the Fw190A4/Spit Vb matchups in the sim as far as outcome. Horizontal extansion can be traded for vertical extension and speed is king. I am just asking questions based on my research of the subject, not demanding "fixes" of the sim.

Ufortunatley I have not been able to come up with concrete data on dive and zoom climb seperation. If I ever do, you will be of the the first people that I ask to check the data for me. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWMaxGunz
10-11-2004, 05:52 PM
Yeah, I might spot a flaw but for good confirmation it would be better to have
Blottog, Oryx, Ugly Kid, K5054 or if he had the time then Oleg to ask.

If you come up with something really good, it will probably be news to me as I
have presented all I can on the subjects and still the above named drop pieces
here and there that seem just to show me/us that there's more, much more to it
all. When I was shown that the dive speed differences were a lot smaller than
they __sounded__ like and then started finding reasons, I stopped a lot of my
doubt.

It would be very good to have real dive speed data, max speeds at altitudes.
It would be very good to have whatever kept pilots from maxing out dives the
way it's done in the sim. More shake or control loss?

At this point, I have to figure that A) the PC can't make full reality and
B) trust that 1C has done the best they can.

So far, I don't see enough to make me believe the sim is so far off. Every so
often I thought I had only to find that I had the wrong idea. Interpretation
of data is tough enough but stories....

How I feel about some methods of analysis:
The application of one thing to another and on to another to reach a conclusion,
well it's a good way of compounding mistakes. I think the term is "ladder of
abstraction". The idea is to check and re-check every stage so you don't end
up climbing out on nothing but abstraction. Someone else wants to climb out,
that's up to them but don't ask me to buy it without solid connection at every
step.


Neal

hop2002
10-11-2004, 07:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Despite what a few here might claim (those who think the Spitfire was superior every other aircraft in WW2 redardless of history) the Spit Vb was at a serious disadvantage to the Fw190A3 in sustained vertical dogfighting in the summer of 1942. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is that aimed at me?

I've never once suggested the Spit V was on par with the Fw 190, let alone superior to it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If the continuous climb of the Fw190A3 was not superior to the Spit Vb, we have to look somewhere else for the missing ingredient. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You could start with the speed. The 190 was much, much faster than the Spit V. That means it can not only run away, it can outclimb the Spit V at higher speeds.

All I've ever suggested is that the Spit V could outclimb the 190. So far, I've only seen the AFDU report which contradicts that, and we know that was being ovreboosted. (And for Josf, yes we do know that, the test report says so. They ran sustained climbs at 1.35 ata 2450 rpm, which was WEP on derated 190s, and slightly above the climb power on fully rated 190s)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>There was on the SimHQ forum posted a full account by the pilot who flew the Spitfire in
that test. He stated that in the climb, his friend who flew the FW kept the speed up and
he was unable to keep up and climb to match, the FW rose above him. He stated that his
friend was the right guy to fly the FW (it was supposed to be him) because he flew it
that way, just as the German pilots did out over the Channel. What I did not see in that
text was what boosts they were running. The speed was about 240mph or over. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you have a copy of that saved? I'm fairly sure the thread was deleted.

I've been trying to find a copy of Godefroy's book for ages.

If he was trying to follow a 190 in a high speed climb, it would not only explain the 190s higher climb rate, but also the steeper angle reported by the AFDU.

(the correct tactic of course is not to try to follow the faster fighter, but fly to your own max climb rate, which should leave you above your opponent with an energy advantage when he reverses, if he chooses to do so)

WWMaxGunz
10-11-2004, 08:21 PM
Sorry Hop, probably lost in the last drive upgrade if I saved it.
I know I had linked to it here, months ago.
Best I can say is make a request on SimHQ, at least one member there does have it.

I wonder if Butch will show up and what he'll say?


Neal

Obi_Kwiet
10-11-2004, 08:31 PM
Ok, every one, listen up: So what! Quit whining about how "x" is ever so slightly off, and get a life. Most games give you one patch and say "see ya!". Give Oleg a break. It dosen't matter at all if something is a tenth of a percent off. Get a life.

JG14_Josf
10-11-2004, 09:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>(And for Josf, yes we do know that, the test report says so. They ran sustained climbs at 1.35 ata 2450 rpm, which was WEP on derated 190s, and slightly above the climb power on fully rated 190s)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hop2002,

Do you know if the Germans used fully rated 190s in that first half of 1942 and if so how many were rated compared to unrated?

So far the ADFU tests have been questioned on political grounds, on contrary RAE tests, and on the grounds that the Armin Farber plane was not representative of actual Fw190 performance because it was ran at 'rated' boost pressures.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>ADFU tests:

Climb:
"The climb of the FW190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights."

Acceleration:
"The FW has better acceleration under all conditions of flight and this must obviously be useful during combat."

Speed:
"The Fw 190 is superior in speed at all heights, and the approximate differences are as follows:" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The above ADFU comparison flight test summary is false because:

A. The British purposefully wrote false data to leverage the politicians into providing a better fighter plane sooner.

B. The ADFU tests are false because the RAE tests contradict the ADFU tests.

C. The ADFU tests are false because the Arnim Farber FW190A-3 was a 'derated' engine that was run at 'rated' power settings.

The above reasons conclude that the ADFU tests are false.

Anyone not realizing this fact is wrong.

How am I doing so far?

Now what happens if tommorrow someone comes up with a test report of 10 Spitfire VBs tested in late 1941 that ran 25 percent more power than any test so far seen by anyone here and these tests were personally verified by pope.

And those Spitfires ran at 5 psi boost.

What does that do to all the claims of absolute fact that has been determined so far and what happens if the very next day God shows up with 200 Fw190A-3 tests of rated planes flown in 1942 reporting the exact same conclusions made by the ADFU?

In the real world it would be a good idea to confirm how many 'rated' Fw190s were flying around during the time the ADFU conducted their tests.

Another good piece of information would be the actual speed of the ADFU climb tests.

"The best speeds for climbing are approximatly the same, but the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably steeper."


A. Politics are going to be tough to prove and absent any proof the same logic can be applied to disprove the RAE tests.

B. Because the RAE tests say one thing and the ADFU tests say something else doesn't mean all the error is attributable to one or the other source.

C. How many 'rated' Fw190s were flying around in 1942? The 'derated' one outclimbed the Spitfire VB according to the ADFU.

D. Eric Brown concluded and stated his opinion on the matter. How is his opinion refuted as being false? Wasn't he was involved with both the RAE and the ADFU?

More information is better if the truth rather than absolute opinions of fact is the goal.



Hop2002,

Do you know if the Germans used fully rated 190s in that first half of 1942 and if so how many were rated compared to unrated?

So far the ADFU tests have been questioned on political grounds, on contrary RAE tests, and on the grounds that the Armin Farber plane was not representative of actual Fw190 performance because it was ran at 'rated' boost pressures.

Please correct any errors:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>ADFU tests:

Climb:
"The climb of the FW190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights."

Acceleration:
"The FW has better acceleration under all conditions of flight and this must obviously be useful during combat."

Speed:
"The Fw 190 is superior in speed at all heights, and the approximate differences are as follows:" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The above ADFU comparison flight test summary is false because:

A. The British purposefully wrote false data to leverage the politicians into providing a better fighter plane sooner.

B. The ADFU tests are false because the RAE tests contradict the ADFU tests.

C. The ADFU tests are false because the Arnim Farber FW190A-3 was a 'derated' engine that was run at 'rated' power settings.

The above reasons conclude that the ADFU tests are false.

Anyone not realizing this fact is wrong.

How am I doing so far?

Now what happens if tommorrow someone comes up with a test report of 10 Spitfire VBs tested in late 1941 that ran 25 percent more power than any test so far seen by anyone here and these tests were personally verified by pope.

And those Spitfires ran at 5 psi boost.

What does that do to all the claims of absolute fact that has been determined so far and what happens if the very next day God shows up with 200 Fw190A-3 tests of rated planes flown in 1942 reporting the exact same conclusions made by the ADFU?

In the real world it would be a good idea to confirm how many 'rated' Fw190s were flying around during the time the ADFU conducted their tests.

Another good piece of information would be the actual speed of the ADFU climb tests.

"The best speeds for climbing are approximatly the same, but the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably steeper."


A. Politics are going to be tough to prove and absent any proof the same logic can be applied to disprove the RAE tests.

B. Because the RAE tests say one thing and the ADFU tests say something else doesn't mean all the error is attributable to one or the other source.

C. How many 'rated' Fw190s were flying around in 1942? The 'derated' one outclimbed the Spitfire VB according to the ADFU.

D. Eric Brown concluded and stated his opinion on the matter. How is his opinion refuted as being false? Wasn't he was involved with both the RAE and the ADFU?

More information is better if the truth rather than absolute opinions of fact is the goal.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>[QUOTE](And for Josf, yes we do know that, the test report says so. They ran sustained climbs at 1.35 ata 2450 rpm, which was WEP on derated 190s, and slightly above the climb power on fully rated 190s)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hop2002,

Do you know if the Germans used fully rated 190s in that first half of 1942 and if so how many were rated compared to unrated?

So far the ADFU tests have been questioned on political grounds, on contrary RAE tests, and on the grounds that the Armin Farber plane was not representative of actual Fw190 performance because it was ran at 'rated' boost pressures.

Please correct any errors:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>ADFU tests:

Climb:
"The climb of the FW190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights."

Acceleration:
"The FW has better acceleration under all conditions of flight and this must obviously be useful during combat."

Speed:
"The Fw 190 is superior in speed at all heights, and the approximate differences are as follows:" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The above ADFU comparison flight test summary is false because:

A. The British purposefully wrote false data to leverage the politicians into providing a better fighter plane sooner.

B. The ADFU tests are false because the RAE tests contradict the ADFU tests.

C. The ADFU tests are false because the Arnim Farber FW190A-3 was a 'derated' engine that was run at 'rated' power settings.

The above reasons conclude that the ADFU tests are false.

Anyone not realizing this fact is wrong.

How am I doing so far?

Now what happens if tommorrow someone comes up with a test report of 10 Spitfire VBs tested in late 1941 that ran 25 percent more power than any test so far seen by anyone here and these tests were personally verified by pope.

And those Spitfires ran at 5 psi boost.

What does that do to all the claims of absolute fact that has been determined so far and what happens if the very next day God shows up with 200 Fw190A-3 tests of rated planes flown in 1942 reporting the exact same conclusions made by the ADFU?

In the real world it would be a good idea to confirm how many 'rated' Fw190s were flying around during the time the ADFU conducted their tests.

Another good piece of information would be the actual speed of the ADFU climb tests.

"The best speeds for climbing are approximatly the same, but the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably steeper."


A. Politics are going to be tough to prove and absent any proof the same logic can be applied to disprove the RAE tests.

B. Because the RAE tests say one thing and the ADFU tests say something else doesn't mean all the error is attributable to one or the other source.

C. How many 'rated' Fw190s were flying around in 1942? The 'derated' one outclimbed the Spitfire VB according to the ADFU.

D. Eric Brown concluded and stated his opinion on the matter. How is his opinion refuted as being false? Wasn't he was involved with both the RAE and the ADFU?

More information is better if the truth rather than absolute opinions of fact is the goal.

P.S. Faustnik why do you keep going back an editing your posts after I reply to them?

Seriously, Faustnik I think you are one of the more reasonable people trying to communicate on these boards but please understand I've been dealing with Neal for some time and if his lies are not nipped in the bud then they get worse.

hop2002
10-12-2004, 07:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Do you know if the Germans used fully rated 190s in that first half of 1942 and if so how many were rated compared to unrated? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As far as I know, in service they were all derated at that time.

The engines suffered from severe overheating. They not only chromed the exhaust, in the A5 they lengthened the forward fuselage, which allowed better cooling.

Faber's 190 was derated. There's no getting around that, as Max said the engine card in the cockpit showed it was derated, and the report says that was "in addition" to other indications.

So we know, for a fact, about 1 Fw 190 A3, and it was derated. I've yet to see comprehensive evidence that a single A3 was fully rated.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So far the ADFU tests have been questioned on political grounds, on contrary RAE tests, and on the grounds that the Armin Farber plane was not representative of actual Fw190 performance because it was ran at 'rated' boost pressures.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All 3 are a t least partly true, but I think the real problem is the British at that early stage did not understand what they had. The climb figures from the RAE, with an increase in climb rate in high gear, indicate to me that they ran at least that test at the wrong engine rating.

The only way I know of to get an increase in climb rate in high supercharger gear over low gear is to increase the revs/boost.

I'm perfectly willing to be proved wrong, of course, all I've asked for is another aircraft where the climb rate went up in high gear, at the same rpm/boost. I've yet to see one.

I've yet to see anyone offer an explanation of how the RAE got that increase in high gear.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The above ADFU comparison flight test summary is false because:

A. The British purposefully wrote false data to leverage the politicians into providing a better fighter plane sooner. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't believe they wrote false data. I believe their perceptions were slanted, and so were their conclusions. There were certainly "political" considerations involved, Godefroy, the Spit pilot, described a "gaggle" of Group Captains, Air Vice Marshalls, US Generals and a Russian colonel all turning up to observe the tests.

But slanted descriptions and perceptions do not account for the difference they noted in climb rate between the Spit and 190.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>B. The ADFU tests are false because the RAE tests contradict the ADFU tests. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They're not false because of that, that's what indicates there are errors involved.

Just to point out one inconsistency that hasn't been raised recently; the AFDU note that at maximum continuous climbing conditions, the Spit V was 450 ft/min worse than the 190, but the Spit IX was slightly better than the 190.

However, the Spit Vb had approx the same climb rate at maximum continuous climbing conditions as the Spit IX.

The AFDU test not only doesn't fit other tests I have seen, parts of it are incosistent with other parts.

I can see 3 possible causes for that incosistency.

1, they tested a Spit V that had a much lower climb rate, eg it was heavy (around the same time the AFDU was testing to see the performance difference of 2 20mm and 4 20mm, which cost several hundred ft/min from the climb rate.

2, they used the wrong boost/rpm in the test against one of the Spitfires, either on the Spitfire or on the 190

3, they ran the climb test at a speed that was not optimum for the Spit V. According to Max, they did exactly that, and it would certainly fit. The Spit IX, having a similar speed to Faber's 190, would match it in climb rates at higher speeds. The Spit V, being much slower, would not come close at higher speeds.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>C. The ADFU tests are false because the Arnim Farber FW190A-3 was a 'derated' engine that was run at 'rated' power settings.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is certainly true. Even if you use the figures to show what a fully rated 190 could do, the fully rated 190 used 1.32 ata, 2400 rpm as climb and combat power, the derated 190 used 1.35 ata, 2450 rpm. That's about 5%, 150 ft/min difference.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Now what happens if tommorrow someone comes up with a test report of 10 Spitfire VBs tested in late 1941 that ran 25 percent more power than any test so far seen by anyone here and these tests were personally verified by pope.

And those Spitfires ran at 5 psi boost. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. IF they used 5 lbs boost, they cannot be running 25% more power, unless they have a totaly different engine (ie not a Merlin).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What does that do to all the claims of absolute fact that has been determined so far and what happens if the very next day God shows up with 200 Fw190A-3 tests of rated planes flown in 1942 reporting the exact same conclusions made by the ADFU? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It means we have to reevaluate. But I've yet to see any other test validating the AFDU findings on climb rate, in fact everything else I've seen counters it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Another good piece of information would be the actual speed of the ADFU climb tests.

"The best speeds for climbing are approximatly the same, but the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably steeper." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is another problem I have. Again it fits more with the idea the climb tests were run at higher speed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A. Politics are going to be tough to prove and absent any proof the same logic can be applied to disprove the RAE tests. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I said, I don't think politics caused the different results, but I dispute the logic that the same could be said of RAE results.

The RAE carried out measurements, which produce hard numbers. It's hard to slant hard numbers, you have to deliberately falsify them.

The AFDU carried out evaluations, like a test report on a car. They gave opinions, not measurements.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>B. Because the RAE tests say one thing and the ADFU tests say something else doesn't mean all the error is attributable to one or the other source. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, but The A&AEE test contradict the AFDU tests, and the tests of Faber's plane by both the RAE and AFDU are inconsistent.

Again, the RAE climb figures seem to be inconsistent with the laws of physics.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>C. How many 'rated' Fw190s were flying around in 1942? The 'derated' one outclimbed the Spitfire VB according to the ADFU. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just to make this absolutely clear, the AFDU had a derated 190 and ran it at the full rating. That's what they report outclimbed the Spit V.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>D. Eric Brown concluded and stated his opinion on the matter. How is his opinion refuted as being false? Wasn't he was involved with both the RAE and the ADFU?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think he was at that stage. He certainly wasn't involved with the tests. In his report of the AFDU test of Faber's plane, he says it was delivered to Duxford (where the AFDU was based). The AFDU report Butch posted says because time was short, the AFDU conducted the test at Farborough, where the RAE was based.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Sorry Hop, probably lost in the last drive upgrade if I saved it.
I know I had linked to it here, months ago.
Best I can say is make a request on SimHQ, at least one member there does have it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, I think I'll do that.

VMF513_Sandman
10-12-2004, 07:33 AM
by default, the 190 is set to automatic pitch. word is that if u go to manual pitch, the prop locks into an intermediate setting that cant be reverse. could it be that the climb rate isnt up to par using manual pitch vs auto, and could ata have something to do with it.

JG14_Josf
10-12-2004, 11:38 AM
hop2002,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As far as I know, in service they were all derated at that time.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The above is an opinion based upon opinion (where is there any information confirming this opinion?)

Alfred Price:

"During the spring of 1942 all six Gruppen of Jagdgeschwader 2 and 26 had re-equipped with the Fw 190. Between them these units mustered about 260 of these formidable fighters. By then the earlier engine troubles had been cured, allowing the pilots to exploit to the full the capabilities of the Fw 190."

Fw 190 Manual? (http://p069.ezboard.com/fluftwaffeexperten71774frm9.showMessageRange?topic ID=266.topic&start=21&stop=21)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Let me clarify the boost settings on the 190A as I get them from the manual along with the Weights. All wieghts include full load of ammo, fuel, lox, winterization kit, and a 100kg pilot onboard.

All are Normaljager with full wing armament.

FW-190A3 - 3978kg

3 min @ 1.42ata

30 min @ 1.32ata <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The above two sources suggest that your opinion concerning the number and ratio of 'rated' Fw190 to 'derated' Fw190s is in error.

This is a very important point concerning the ADFU tests because it could answer two of the claims purporting to refute the validity of the ADFU tests.

1. If the Fw190 was derated (a placard in the cockpit doesn't explain if the pilot could or could not run the engine in combat at higher boosts) than the ADFU correctly ran the Fw190 at 'rated' climb settings to arrive at their conclusions i.e. 450ft/min better climb at @ the same speed, at a higher angle. (a visual measurement, not opinion)

2. The political reasoning for running the plane with the 'derated' placard at 'rated' climb settings may not be political. If the British knew what Alfred Price seems to know and if the British knew what was (possibly) written in the German manuals then they may have actually done the best job of representing the actual threat they faced in the Fw190 by running it at the actual settings that most of or a good portion of the Fw190s were capable of running. i.e. 1.32 ata. (1.35 may have also been a compromise due to fouled spark plugs, who knows?) This is the dangers involved in making absolute statements of fact based upon incomplete information.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I've yet to see comprehensive evidence that a single A3 was fully rated.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just because you don't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Finding out this information concerning engine ratings should be a concern for someone seriously postulating these refutations of a primary source concerning relative performance.

A primary source is a test done between two planes side by side for the expressed purpose of finding relative performance. A secondary source is a climb test done on one day for one plane and then comparing the results written on paper with a climb test done on another plane on another day (or another continent). A primary source of information to determine relative performance is to test for relative performance.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The engines suffered from severe overheating. They not only chromed the exhaust, in the A5 they lengthened the forward fuselage, which allowed better cooling. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Alfred Price describes the engine overheating problems in his book previous to his statement that ended:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>By then the earlier engine troubles had been cured, allowing the pilots to exploit to the full the capabilities of the Fw 190 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Alfred Price may have skimmed over the available information; however he may have been very thorough. Alfred Price was not an armature historian.

The ADFU tests constitute a primary source and therefore should have considerably greater value than secondary sources. Real pilots flew the real planes side by side and they visually measured the differences in performance. To say that they formed opinions of relative climb performance instead of measurable differences is idiotic.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>showing complete lack of thought or common sense <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The ADFU tests should not be discarded without convincing information to the contrary.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Just to point out one inconsistency that hasn't been raised recently; the AFDU note that at maximum continuous climbing conditions, the Spit V was 450 ft/min worse than the 190, but the Spit IX was slightly better than the 190.

However, the Spit Vb had approx the same climb rate at maximum continuous climbing conditions as the Spit IX. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note: ADFU conclusions concerning relative performance say one thing and Hop says something else. A primary source or comparison test concluded specific measurable performance differences and Hop compares charts 50 years later. The ADFU make statements of fact concerning what they saw in 1942 flying real planes. And Hop makes statements of fact concerning his opinion based on the very limited information available to him:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the Spit Vb had approx the same climb rate at maximum continuous climbing conditions as the Spit IX <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

'the' and 'had' are the operative words that purport to expresses fact, knowledge, and absolute authority.

No, I am not nit picking. The facts should be separated from the opinions if the idea is to get closer toward the truth. What are the facts? What is merely opinion?

The Spitfire VB in the ADFU tests had less continuous climb rate at a less angle than the Fw 190A-3 according to their observed side by side comparative flight tests.

The Spitfire IX in the ADFU tests had:

"During comparative climbs at various heights up to 23,000 ft, with both aircraft flying under maximum continuous climbing conditions, little difference was found between the two aircraft although on the whole the Spitfire IX was slightly better."

If (as Hop states to be a fact) 'the' (which one?) Spitfire VB did in fact climb approx as good as 'the' Spitfire IX then that fact does not mean 'all' Spitfire VBs climbed as good as 'all' Spitfire IXs. What is important to some is to find what constitutes a representative performance value for a particular plane production model. The importance, for some, is to get a good idea as to what relative performance capabilities existed between planes in real and simulated combat. Exactly what the ADFU were reported to be testing. The question remains: Did the planes tested by the ADFU serve to represent the typical combat examples?

If the refutation of the ADFU tests are 'concluded' based upon contradictory tests then those tests that contradict the ADFU tests should be inspected with the same level of scrutiny as the ADFU tests.
What was the purpose of the contradictory tests?
What conditions existed during the tests?
What conditions were the planes in during the tests?
Did politics cause error in the tests?
How well did the planes being tested represent the average, normal, or typical combat example of the plane being tested?
etc.

These things are needed if the idea is to know the truth. If on the other hand the idea is to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion then it stands to reason that any bit of information will do to cast a blind eye on undesired information that contradicts the desired conclusion.

The accusation that my intent is to push forward an agenda is false, a lie. The ADFU tests exist, they report specific findings, and so far the evidence that purports to render their findings invalid is far from convincing. Too much information is missing. Too much subjective opinion is bantered about as being fact.

I could state it a million times but like the ADFU tests my words will be continually ignored over and over again. I am simply reporting an opinion concerning relative performance and my opinions are backed by the ADFU test, Eric Browns evaluation, Alfred Prices evaluation, Mike Spicks evaluation, Air Chief Marshals evaluation, a leading RAF pilot‚‚ā¨ôs evaluation, and Robert Shaw's excellent descriptions of how specific tactics are employed based upon specific performance advantages and disadvantages.

I am not claiming absolute authority. My opinion is based upon evidence. The ADFU tests fit into the hypothesis very well because they show the exact same relative performance characteristics that Robert Shaw describes as those which apply to energy tactics. The ADFU tests confirm Eric Browns stated tactical analysis of what constitutes energy maneuvering i.e. dives and zooms and the relative performance advantage of acceleration.

If the ADFU tests are in error then my opinion is less well supported. So it stands to reason that the ADFU tests are important to my viewpoint. It stands to reason that it is important to either confirm or deny those test results conclusively before moving on.
So far the evidence refuting the ADFU tests remains subjective.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The AFDU carried out evaluations, like a test report on a car. They gave opinions, not measurements. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Flying a plane and looking out the window at another plane passing is a measurement and a primary measurement of relative performance at that, one plane goes faster than the other. To suggest that observing this fact is an opinion is either completely biased or idiotic. See webster's.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Again, the RAE climb figures seem to be inconsistent with the laws of physics.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The above logic is interesting. Let me know if I get this right:

The RAE climb test figures defy the laws of physics and for this reason the ADFU tests are deemed unreliable.

Let me try this again:

The ADFU tests say one thing.
The RAE tests say something else.
The RAE tests defy the laws of physics.
The RAE tests are therefore deemed more reliable than the ADFU tests.

One more time:

The ADFU tests are done to find specific relative performance values by flying the planes in question side by side and they conclude the following:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Climb:
"The climb of the FW190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The RAE tests were done some time later or before the ADFU tests using the same Fw190 and their results defy the laws of physics, therefore the ADFU tests are invalid.

Did I get the ladders of logic in the proper order?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Just to make this absolutely clear, the AFDU had a derated 190 and ran it at the full rating. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The above is another one of those absolute statements of fact. Note the word 'absolutely' is actually being used.

ezboard LW forum (http://p069.ezboard.com/fluftwaffeexperten71774frm9.showMessageRange?topic ID=266.topic&start=1&stop=20)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>FW-190A3 - 3978kg

3 min @ 1.42ata

30 min @ 1.32ata <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The climb tests were reported in the ADFU document as being conducted at less than 1.42ata therefore the ADFU reported that the climb tests were conducted at less than the full rating. (according to the sources listed)

Note: I am not saying anything is absolutely positively true other than that Hop is absolutely and positively wrong in his absolutely clear statement based upon the information available to me:
The ADFU ran the Armin Farber plane comparative climb tests at engine settings that were less than the settings documented as full rated settings for fully rated Fw190s.
Can you see the importance of finding out if any Fw190s actually were running at fully rated settings in combat?

Please note: I am not the one making absolute statements of fact. My hypothesis is stated as such. The facts are contained within the documentation. I do not have hundreds of Fw190s and hundreds of Spitfires to test. I know better than to make absolute statements of fact concerning these planes relative performance capabilities.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The climb figures from the RAE, with an increase in climb rate in high gear, indicate to me that they ran at least that test at the wrong engine rating. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why is it concluded that the performance at high gear is in error and not the performance at low gear? Is this another baseless assumption?


One of the written documents supporting my opinion concerns Eric Brown's stated opinion which goes like this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"The Tank-designed fighter could out-perform the contemporary Spitfire on every count with the exception of the turning circle - one leading RAF pilot is recorded as having commented acidly when this attribute of his mount was stressed during a pre-operation briefing, "Turning doesn't wing battles!". By April 1942, RAF combat attrition on the Channel Front reached prohibitive levels primarily as a result of the activities of its redoubtable German adversary - more than a hundred Spitfires being lost on the offensive operations over Occupied Europe during the course of a month - and the Merlin 61 - engined Spitfire IX was still two or three months away. But while going a long way towards redressing the balance and even offering an edge in climb and performance above 26,000 feet (7 925m), the Spitfire IX was still to be left standing by the Focke-Wulf's half-roll and dive!" (Eric Brown, Wings of the Luftwaffe)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eric Brown also wrote this:

"By the time I arrived at Farnborough, the Fw190A-3 that had been delivered to Pembrey had served its purpose and been finally grounded - the last flight having taken place on 29 January 1943" (7 months after its capture and an unknown duration of hours on this planes engine in German hands previous to the capture)

In the Forward section of Eric Browns book "Wings of the Luftwaffe":

"I was to be doubly fortunate - both to have the experience of aerial combat and to survive it. Fate was to be even kinder to me when I moved into the world of test flying, eventually, in January 1944, to become the Royal Navy's Chief Test Pilot at the famous Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough, where I was to serve for six years and command the elite Aerodynamics Flight, always regarded as the top job in experimental test flying in Britain. During my first year at Farnborough, I built up a considerable amount of experience in flying different types of aircraft, including a half-dozen captured Germany types..."

Eric Brown's opinion:

"The Tank-designed fighter could out-perform the contemporary Spitfire on every count with the exception of the turning circle...‚‚ā¨¬Ě

How is Eric Brown's opinion being refuted, by what evidence and by whom?

Eric Brown is wrong because RAE tests don't match up?

Eric Brown is wrong because his opinion is based only upon the ADFU tests, which have been proven beyond any doubt to be wrong?

Eric Brown:

"I checked out the maximum level speed of my Fw190A-4/U8 - which, incidentally, had had its external stores carriers removed by this time - and clocked 394 mph (634 km/h) at 18,500 ft (5 640 m), and I ascertained that the service ceiling was around 35,000 ft (10,670 m) so it match the Spitfire Mk IX almost mile per hour and foot per foot of ceiling. Here were apparently two aircraft that were so evenly matched that the skill of the pilot became the vital factor in combat supremacy."

Eric Brown's opinion includes, possibly, a little more than picking up pieces of paper and comparing the numbers.

Eric Brown's book includes the tactical aspects of employing specific performance advantages. His opinion goes well beyond the simple relevance of test reports. He was a fighter pilot first, a test pilot afterwards. He flew in WWII and his opinion holds a little more weight than mine or yours.

What are the facts?


The following are relevant quotes taken from that ezboard discussion:

The following quotes are not meant to prove anything, instead they are meant to move the discussion along toward a greater understanding on the topic of relative performance.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I understood a "de-rated" motor was simply one in which artificial power restrictions were placed on it. The BMW-801D2 was capable of 1.58ata/1.65ata from the 190A3 on up. The Luftwaffe just did not allow the pilots to use it in order to:

1. Increase engine life while the plane maintained a level of superiority over its opponents.

2. Maintain growth potential in the design while it had superiority of its opponents.

I am very interested in the information you presented. If you have documentation or a source for this I would be glad to exchange. I have quite a large collection of Luftwaffe documentation on the FW-190 and it is growing constantly.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I own all the Flugzueg-Handbuch's myself. I missed the special markings though. I understand 1.58 ata was the maximum manifold pressure the first supercharger gear was capable of attaining. 1.65ata represents the second supercharger gear AFAIK.

Interesting because many of the Allied Tactical trials I have copies of specifically say "de-rated" motor in the Aircraft set up section.

I wonder if they used the "rated" motors in the Fighter units and when they reached replacement time, removed them, rebuilt them, and installed them in ground attack versions.

I don't think 1.58ata/1.65ata was a "normal" rating until the motor was tested by BMW at those ratings and shown it did not damage it.

I have some great original sources that just recently lined up for me including an FW-190A pilot who scored many victories in it. In his words "In my FW, I feared no enemy I could see." I intend to find out what the deal is with the engine ratings. The Luftwaffe and the Focke Wulf design team constantly updated the design throughout it's lifecycle. There were over 8 different manuals printed for the Kommandgerat during the FW-190A8's lifecycle! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WWMaxGunz
10-12-2004, 12:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
I've been dealing with Neal for some time and if his lies are not nipped in the bud then they get worse. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are so FULL OF IT that I can smell you from here.

You can go argue with Butch2k over FW ATA ratings as he has the historic documents
and say that at that time, they were derated. All you do is ask how many when you
don't know squat -- he has the docs, he knows, he is the one that stated derated.

Now, go say Butch makes lies if you dare -- your sympathy support will go away.

Read the reports again, the cockpit had a placard not to exceed 1.35ATA.
Read what they learned from the pilot, Farber or Faber, which is correct spelling?
Naturally since I have to ask, I know nothing?

Of course it was only a very few A-3's derated, the rest were not and the derated
ones were not fixed but rather sent into combat, if I am to believe you. Never
mind what the whole report says (I'm still waiting for those 1st 4 pages to show
up on CHDT's site) you just keep picking out only the parts you want and that is
not lies, you are not full of it. And pigs fly.

Now we wait for the Pope and God to come and verify your fantasies. Do you write
that because you are absolutely convinced that you are right? You only need them
to show those of us who don't agree of the holy truth of your word?


Neal

JG14_Josf
10-12-2004, 01:36 PM
Neal,

Instead of out right lies you resort to implication.

example:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Of course it was only a very few A-3's derated, the rest were not and the derated
ones were not fixed but rather sent into combat, if I am to believe you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you are to believe me based upon what I wrote instead of on what you imagine or concoct then you would understand that the question remains open, unclear, and subject to verification as far as I am concerned.

If you were actaully sincere in finding out what my thinking is; you would know that the question concerning how many, if any, Fw190s were flying in combat using rated engine settings is not only unknown, and unconfirmed by any source available to me, you would also know that this information is important to me.

If you were honest instead of dishonest or if you could comprehend written words instead of distorting them then you would be a reasonable
person with which to exchange information. Unfortunately that is not the case.

Here:Clearence for 1.42ata (http://p069.ezboard.com/fluftwaffeexperten71774frm9.showMessage?topicID=32 1.topic)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I am also interested in documentation concerning boost pressures for FWs.

1.What actually limited boost pressures?
a. A mechanical 'under the hood' limitation.
b. Pilot manipulation of the controls.

2. How many FW190s were configured in this manner by model and year?
Example:
a. All 190A3s were mechanically 'derated' previous to july 1942.
or
b. 50% of the Luftwaffe's 190A-3s in the 1942 were mechanically 'deratred' and 50% of the Luftwaffe's 190A-3s were not 'derated' in 1942.

3. If 'derating' was not a mechanical adjustment then how common was the practice of maintaining the derating limitations in combat?

In other words:

Could German pilots run their derated BMW engines at boosts higher than what they were rated for and did this occur often?

or

Did the Germans have FW190A-3s or FW190A-4s that could and did run with boost pressures at or above 1.42 ata?

P.S. What is the conversion rate from ata to psi? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Butch2k responded but not to my questions.

Note the dates:

My questions 10/8/04 6:21 pm
butch2k's response: 10/8/04 8:56 pm

Perhaps he will respond sooner or later.

It would be nice to have more light shed on this subject.

Reasonable debate is good, in my opinion.
The abusive lies, inuendo, and distortion is sufferable and perhaps even useful but certainly not welcome. It is also against the forum rules.

Honest and polite conduct sure is a welcome change when people (inluding me) manage to accomplish that monumental task.

WWMaxGunz
10-12-2004, 02:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Neal,

Instead of out right lies you resort to implication.

example:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Of course it was only a very few A-3's derated, the rest were not and the derated
ones were not fixed but rather sent into combat, if I am to believe you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you are to believe me based upon what I wrote instead of on what you imagine or concoct then you would understand that the question remains open, unclear, and subject to verification as far as I am concerned.

If you were actaully sincere in finding out what my thinking is; you would know that the question concerning how many, if any, Fw190s were flying in combat using rated engine settings is not only unknown, and unconfirmed by any source available to me, you would also know that this information is important to me.

If you were honest instead of dishonest or if you could comprehend written words instead of distorting them then you would be a reasonable
person with which to exchange information. Unfortunately that is not the case.

Here:http://p069.ezboard.com/fluftwaffeexperten71774frm9.showMessage?topicID=32 1.topic

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I am also interested in documentation concerning boost pressures for FWs.

1.What actually limited boost pressures?
a. A mechanical 'under the hood' limitation.
b. Pilot manipulation of the controls.

2. How many FW190s were configured in this manner by model and year?
Example:
a. All 190A3s were mechanically 'derated' previous to july 1942.
or
b. 50% of the Luftwaffe's 190A-3s in the 1942 were mechanically 'deratred' and 50% of the Luftwaffe's 190A-3s were not 'derated' in 1942.

3. If 'derating' was not a mechanical adjustment then how common was the practice of maintaining the derating limitations in combat?

In other words:

Could German pilots run their derated BMW engines at boosts higher than what they were rated for and did this occur often?

or

Did the Germans have FW190A-3s or FW190A-4s that could and did run with boost pressures at or above 1.42 ata?

P.S. What is the conversion rate from ata to psi? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Butch2k responded but not to my questions.

Note the dates:

My questions 10/8/04 6:21 pm
butch2k's response: 10/8/04 8:56 pm

Perhaps he will respond sooner or later.

It would be nice to have more light shed on this subject.

Reasonable debate is good, in my opinion.
The abusive lies, inuendo, and distortion is sufferable and perhaps even useful but certainly not welcome. It is also against the forum rules.

Honest and polite conduct sure is a welcome change when people (inluding me) manage to accomplish that monumental task. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yopu keep going on about lies. Show where.

Handbooks are printed to what the manufacturer specs are supposed to be.
Ever heard of lead time in publishing?

Understand the term 'derated'? That's when in the field after the serial planes
are received, they are found unsuited to use to the full manufacturer specs.

You are way too fast to accept "proofs". Ask Butch about LW directives.
The cockpit was placarded as to maximum boost 1.35ATA. That FW was derated.

YOU say the sim is wrong, that means YOU show proof.

FW used in the comparison is not the FW in the sim, but supposedly very close.
Spit VB used in the comparison is not any Spit in the sim, markedly less boost.

So how does that come out to the Spits in the sim being overmodelled because
the FW in the sim doesn't outclimb them as described by the conclusions of the
report?

Oh, yes, I am of course writing lies here. Anyone can see.


Neal

JG14_Josf
10-12-2004, 03:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Yopu keep going on about lies. Show where. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Neal,

You provide me with your next lie.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>YOU say the sim is wrong <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where is it that I say the sim is wrong?

Your spin is your lie.

What I have said and continue to think is this:

If the game called IL2 has a plane that purports to simulate a representative sample of a Spitfire VB in 1941 and if the game has a plane that purports to simulated a representative sample of an Fw190A-4 then either the sim is wrong or my opinion of what the data presented by me is wrong and only if the FW190 in the game is incapable of using energy tactics such as the diving extension and pitch back.

If you read my words then you would know what I mean. If you refrain from imagining, fabricating and diseminating lies about what you think I say and presenting that concoction as fact then there would be no reason for me to defend myself by exposing your lies.

If I were to make an absolute conclusion such as what you accuse me of making then I would be wrong.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>YOU say the sim is wrong <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The game is a game how can it be wrong?

k5054
10-12-2004, 04:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> P.S. What is the conversion rate from ata to psi? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think I can help with this, it sometimes isn't explained correctly even in historical accounts.

1 ata = 14.7 psi = 0 lb boost = 30 in hg
= 760 mm hg for russians or japanese a/c

Note that the boost in british a/c is 1 ata plus (or minus) the lb figure.

9lb boost is about 1.6 ata
1.35 ata is about 5 lb boost
16 lb boost is 2.1 ata

an extra 1 lb boost for a R-R Merlin is about 50hp
an extra 1 in hg for a Packard merlin is 25 hp

Apologies to those for whom this is well-known.

JG14_Josf
10-12-2004, 05:32 PM
k5054,

Thanks for the information.

That is a significant difference.

9lb/1.6ata boost being a relatively low pressure for the Merlin and 9lb/1.6 being a relatively high pressure for the BMW.

Why did the Spitfires have such higher boost pressure ratings?

Note from the ezboard web page:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I own all the Flugzueg-Handbuch's myself. I missed the special markings though. I understand 1.58 ata was the maximum manifold pressure the first supercharger gear was capable of attaining. 1.65ata represents the second supercharger gear AFAIK.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can anyone confirm how the ABC system worked?

If the pilot pushed the throttle all the way forward would the engine maintain the rated manifold pressure under all conditions under the altitude where the engine could generate that pressure? Assuming that the engine could also maitain the governed R.P.M.

Same question for the B.M.W.

I've noticed that in the game that the manifold pressure changes at different altitudes for the BMW. Compressor gear changes?

I went back to AVweb to do some reading and found this for anyone interested:

Hurricane Part 2 (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/185849-1.html)

faustnik
10-12-2004, 05:38 PM
Wasn't the rear engine block overheating issue solved with the introduction of the cooling vents in the A2 series?

p1ngu666
10-12-2004, 07:11 PM
faustnik, i think u maybe right, but i cant confirm that.
teh higher boost would cause higher temps (everywhere) which may cause more problems. chromed exhausts are stated as teh fix, so it could be they burnt before, and with a multi row radial, that will cause more problems because of routing the hot gases. could lead to burning out other parts etc.

spits had better fuel josf. iirec octane rating is basicaly how much pressure/heat u can use before it explodes by itself. higher is genrally better.

btw, a honda engineer said that boost is cheaper than revs, this was about f1 engines in the early 90s, but i think its true with most engines.
merlin had around 1000hp at the start, ended with 2000hp, but revs remained 3000 (ish?) but boost whent up alot.
btw current honda f1 has a reputed 960hp, from a 3 litre v10, revs to around 18-19 000rpm.
i do mean 000 btw http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif. oh and its naturaly asperated, but does have a airbox for ramair. and itll weigh around 100kg aswell http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif AND be tiny http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

JG14_Josf
10-12-2004, 08:19 PM
Please understand that according to my understanding of fact finding it is important to remain objective, to have a healthy bit of scepticism for all information.

The following links suggest that the fuel used in the Fw190s was C3 fuel and the octane rating of C3 fuel was 'remarkably good'.

Link from virtual pilots (http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/tech_rpt_145_45/rpt_145_45_sec2.htm)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The C-3 grade corresponded roughly to the U. S. grade 130 gasoline, although the octane number of C-3 was specified to be only 95 and its lean mixture performance was somewhat poorer. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Virtual pilots (http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/109myths/)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/MofFP/ger_syn_ind/mof-secth.pdf
http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/tech_rpt_145_45/rpt_145_45_sec2.htm
Based on these reports it seems that C3 was by octane rating about 100/130 PN fuel and by aromatic content close 100/150 PN. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


LEMB (http://p069.ezboard.com/fluftwaffeexperten71774frm9.showMessage?topicID=26 6.topic)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>All 190's did use C3. That was the fuel type they burned.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

faustnik
10-12-2004, 08:33 PM
Was the chromed exhaust more of a part life issue than a combat overheat issue?

The A5 was lengthened due to COG issues not overheat.

Hunde_3.JG51
10-12-2004, 08:37 PM
Without reading the whole thread.

Faustnik, the cooling slots were used on the A-3, the gills on the A-4. According to JG-26 book the technical officers could solve the overheating problem with a simple re-rerouting of the exhaust that could be done in their own shops, this may have been during A-2 run.

Also:

"The BMW 801 engine still had a tendency to overheat, especially the back bank of cylinders. Overheating occurred generally on the ground during long runs at low power when the flow of cooling air was reduced to a minimum."

JG14_Josf
10-12-2004, 08:38 PM
Here is some interesting stuff:


"The German supply of aviation fuels was based on the hydrogenation of coal, and this fact cused them to follow a different path from that of the Allies to high engine performance. At the start of the war they had standardsed on an 870N grade (known as B4) of leaded hydropetrol from brown coal, and which contained 5-15% aromatics. In 1940 an improved fuel (C2) of

950N (CFR-Motor Method) was introduced having a higher aromatic content of 35-38%, and giving a performance equivalent to the Allied 100 ON grade of that time. At the end of 1942 a different kind of C3 began to come into service with a still higher performance, and was equivalent to Allied 150 grade..."

Note the dates:
C2 1940 equivalent to 100 ON
C3 the end of 1942 equivalent to 150 ON

Link from virtualpilots (http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/MofFP/ger_syn_ind/mof-secth.pdf)

OFF TOPIC:

Does anyone in the world today produce synthetic gasoline, and if not, why not?

JG14_Josf
10-12-2004, 08:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>chromed exhausts are stated as teh fix, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excuse, please, my scepticism again. What is the source of this 'chromed exhausts' fix?

Look at this:

"The problem of lead attack had been largely solved by stelliting and chromium plating exhaust valves and, in addition, an unleaded running-out fuel was introduced on which the engine was shut down, to avoid cold corrosion."

Was the exhaust valves also chromium plated for overheating problems or is another source able to confirm exhaust pipes being chromed?

Hunde_3.JG51,

What book is the 'JG26 book' and what is the date of the fixing being done to which model Fw190?

ECV56_Rolf
10-12-2004, 09:22 PM
Hey guys... aren‚¬īt you stealing the original thread for a long run allready? If you don‚¬īt remember well it was about the 190A9 in comparison to it‚¬īs 190 counterparts.

p1ngu666
10-12-2004, 09:33 PM
u can get "sythetic" oil asin lubricant for cars, i dont know if its made from coal tho.

its better than your average oil, sports cars often ask for it, and it maybe used in gearboxes.

ive seen chromed exhausts banded around this forum before.

loosing a exhaust on a radial engine like teh 190 could be serious, depending on where the exhaust gasses go, could do alot of damage etc.

in a mag i got at duxford, theres a thing on lanc, and a caption says something like please note the missing exhaust stub. pic was taken after the war, few years ago i think, and u know that they dont push the planes at all now, so for inlines its not a big deal, but a hot jet of exhaust in the tight confines of the 190 is.

and if the german fuels where equal, why did they run less boost pressure etc?

equal with mw50 or 190 fuel injection system imo. mw50 did something odd to engine, with the 10mins on, 5 mins off for some reason, and teh fuel injection on the 190 was 14 litres a minute or something (perhaps in addition to ordinary fuel, not sure). so both systems have more issues than just higher boost ah la most allied planes, added complexity aswell.

btw, synthetic fuel the germans made takes longer and is a more costly process than crude oil to fuel allies had.

a odd twist tho is iran sided with the germans, and if the germans could have linked up with iran then they would have had oil. iran aparently means arayen (spellin:\) in arabic http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

JG14_Josf
10-12-2004, 10:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>and if the german fuels where equal, why did they run less boost pressure etc? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

p1ngu666,

I thought you knew.

The link is just a bunch of 1s and 0s arranged to project text on a monitor. It doesn't answer any questions. It seems to ask more questions.

As to stealing the original thread:

I'd like to think of it as recycling.

Who is the victim of this theft?

WWMaxGunz
10-12-2004, 10:31 PM
Boost is the air pressure at the intake. It's a measure of how much air you can feed
the engine with. More air allows more fuel at the same mixture. The leaner the mix,
the hotter the engine runs until the mix is leaned very far, it will run cooler but at
very low power. Check Richard Deakin Pelicans' Perch for search words if you don't
believe that.

Engines can overheat, over-rev, over-pressure. Any of those is bad news. Overheat, I'd
worry about the valves as much as the exhaust pipes. Over-pressure and the seals blow.
Over-rev and pieces inside come apart.

Don't mix up boost pressure with engine compression. The engine compression is where the
octane matters. More boost on the same engine allows for more fuel and air to burn and
make more compression but different engines at the same boost can get different compression.
My last bike, just changing to a thinner head gasket upped the compression noticeably. For
an old bike, it really kicked harder and quicker.


Neal

k5054
10-13-2004, 02:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> and if the german fuels where equal, why did they run less boost pressure etc? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The linmiting factor is what's called detonation. it's when the fuel/air mixture in the cylinder ignites before the spark in a hot-spot part of the cylinder, but not like the slow (relatvely) controlled flame front of the sparkplug ignition but a harsh shocking detonation which is uncontrolled and damages the engine. You get detonation if the cyl is too hot or too high pressured for the mixture. Detonation can be avoided by using less boost, higher octane fuel, richer mixture or water injection.

Merlin engines had a relatively low compression ratio in the engine, and were able to use higher boost because the resulting cylinder pressure was the same. This gives the advantage of allowing a greater mass of mixture per stroke than the BMX/DB way of using lower boost and higher cylinder compression. Merlin's CR was 6, all versions. The DB605 went to 8.5 in later version. Merlin was rated at up to 2.7 ata, =25 boost, the DB was at 2 ata in 1945.
2.7 X 6 = 16.2, 2 x 8.5 = 17, about the same.

DB605 needed MW to run 2 ata AFAIK, Merlin needed 150oct fuel at wayyyy rich mixture for 2.7 ata.

Remember Merlin was a smaller engine than the DB or the BMW in terms of capacity. This doesn't count for much in a fighter, extra cubes don't cost much in size or weight. But its 27 litres were filled with mixture at 2.7 ata, giving a mass flow of 294 lb/min where the DB605 at 2 ata gets 267. The BMW 801 got 230 at 1.42/2700. This mass flow figure is an indicator of horse power, but then you have to take some off for mechanical and supercharger loss. RR used a working figure of 10.5 HP per lb/min. The mech/supe losses are in 100s of HP, but very variable between engines.
For jug fans, R2800 at 70 in hg, 2800HP, P-47M/N, mass flow is 404lb/min

For those who don't like numbers, I'm not trying to show off here, this is hard-won knowledge that you can't find written all in one place.

Even if it is rather more than was asked!

k5054
10-13-2004, 02:48 PM
http://www.ww2.dk/air/jagd/jg2.htm

This page, and the JG26 pages on the site, contains all the strength info for LW fighter units in France. It's a fantastic resource, and from it we can see that (if anyone remembers the Spit/190 thing) the A-3 was in fact outnumbered by the A-2 until aug/sep 42, so although the Faber a/c was a ganz neu A-3 the majority of FWs giving the RAF a hard time were not.

JG14_Josf
10-13-2004, 05:50 PM
k5054,

Thanks for the info on compression ratios. That makes a lot of sense. Higher compression with less boost or lower compression with more boost equals similar combustion pressures.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You get detonation if the cyl is too hot or too high pressured for the mixture. Detonation can be avoided by using less boost, higher octane fuel, richer mixture or water injection.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really don't want to nit pick (punish a good deed) but I remember one of my Dad's lectures concerning the difference between pre-ignition and detonation. Rather than use my own recollection on this I did a simple search and sure enough the mistake is not uncommon.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Whoever said, "No good deed goes unpunished" must have been a writer. I know 1 always chuckled at the letters to car magazine editors pointing out errors in print. Now the shoe is on the other foot. In the first installment (November '94) 1 referred to pre-ignition as another term for detonation. Boy did I hear about that! Let me make this very clear. While they are similar in some respects, in many important ways, detonation and pre-ignition are very different. Both are very destructive conditions and both are the result of combustion initiated by some force or condition other than the firing of the spark plug.

Pre-ignition is the ignition of the fuel/air mixture in the cylinder, prior to the firing of the plug, most often by a "hot spot" in the cylinder, the head, on the piston assembly or on the plug itself. It can be a carbon buildup, an overheated spark plug electrode, or a sharp bit of metal, like you might get in the head if the engine "swallowed" something and dinged up the top of the piston and the head.

This premature ignition generates intense heat, not only from the combustion itself, but because the combustion happens earlier in the compression stroke than it should and the rapidly expanding hot gasses are subjected to additional compression, generating more heat. The only good news here is that pre-ignition generally shows up pretty quickly as rapidly climbing cylinder head temperature. You may not always be able to hear pre-ignition, but, if you run a cylinder head temp it's hard to miss the warning signs.

Detonation, as so many of you correctly pointed out, is an entirely different animal. Detonation occurs when the fuel/air mixture ignites from the combination of heat and pressure within the cylinder during compression. Like pre-ignition, this ignition occurs independent of the spark plug firing, but, unlike pre-ignition, it can and does occur after the plug has fired. The existing heat in the cylinder and head, combined with the rapidly rising pressure as the fuel/air charge expands from the spark ignition, exceeds the fuel's ability to resist spontaneous combustion, and it explodes. The result is the collision of two independent flame fronts and the results are violent!

You've probably heard your car or truck "ping" on a hard pull when its in too high gear. Well, that's detonation. Just as thunder is the collision of two air masses after a bolt of lightning separates them, detonation is the collision of two expanding gas masses. This is thunder in your cylinder, so to speak, but much more destructive. If you can't hear it over the noise of your engine, and it goes on for very long, the results will be expensive. Often there is no significant rise in head temperature, but if you use an exhaust gauge, you may see a drop in EGT. Detonation exerts tremendous physical forces, as well as thermal ones, and it can break pistons, destroy ring lands, break rings and even lead to bearing failure.

Detonation is of particular interest here because it is directly related to fuel quality. As we discussed before, octane rating is a measure of how well a particular gasoline will resist detonation. It is measured as a comparative figure to iso-octane, which is defined as having a 100 octane rating. While most engines in popular use in karting have relatively low compression, there are still conditions under which detonation may occur and that means you'd better fuel up with enough octane to resist that detonation. However, remember from our earlier discussion, higher octane generally means slower flame speed, and that's not particularly good in our application.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The ww2.dk site is very impressive as a source of providing service dates for model numbers. I have not found anything showing any difference between the Fw190A-2 and Fw190A-3. Specifically I could find no more information on that site or anywhere else that can show if the Armin Faber FW190A-3 does or does not serve to represent the LW's typical, average, or median fighter plane during that time period in which it was tested by the British.

Rather than completely discount a primary source that measures specific values for relative performance it sure would be good to either dispute this source as completely false or find a way to calculate its actual value as a primary source of information.

I guess some people prefer not to see this type of primary source of information. Some people prefer to label the ADFU tests as 'opinion' or perhaps they might categorize the ADFU tests as 'anecdotal' evidence or "pilot accounts". The fact remains that the ADFU set out to test relative combat performance capabilities by flying the actual planes being tested on the same day, in the same place, and side by side. This is a primary source for finding out relative combat performance capabilities because it is a tests for relative combat performance capabilities. There is one better way to test for combat performance capabilities. i.e. Combat.

If a chart on a piece of paper can be deemed reliable then it must be assumed that the pilot conducting the test and writing down the numbers is reliable.

Did they use flight recorders in WWII?

If the chart was made without a flight recorder than the pilot writing down the numbers is reporting a 'pilot account' of the flight. He uses numbers to document his 'account' of the flight and he is a 'pilot'.

The ADFU recorded relative combat performance i.e. relative climb capabilities, relative dive and zoom climb capabilities, relative turn performance etc.

Combat pilots record combat.

Any and all information concerning an aircraft's flight performance that is not recorded by a flight recorder or data collecting device is a 'pilot account' of the flight if a 'pilot' had to fly the plane.

WWMaxGunz
10-13-2004, 08:47 PM
Beginning in the spring of 1942, series production of a more powerful engine version
BMW 801D-2 that replaced previous versions in the FW 190 Fighter created a new plane
version designated as FW 190A-3. The increase in the BMW 801D-2 engine power (to 1730
kW) was due to a higher compression ratio and higher pressure two-speed compressor.
A higher compression ratio and charging pressure made it necessary to use high-octane
(96 octane) C# fuel in place of B4 (87 octane) fuel. Armament of standard FW 190A-3
planes was the same as in the previous version.

--- then there's more text about the Umrustbausatz kits and programs to find the optimum
armament and equipment mix for the 190's.

k5054
10-14-2004, 12:06 PM
Josf, you are right about the distinction between pre-ignition and detonation.

In my previous post I proposed mass flow numbers as actual, in fact they are notional, as they don't result from measures of actual engines, just the product of the rpm, capacity and boost, not taking into account duct losses and more importantly mixture temperature. To get high boost like the Merlin and R2800 you need an intercooler to cool the mix. In fact the mixture is pretty hot when it enters the cylinder and thus less dense, reducing the true mass flow from the figures I gave, by the proportion of the absolute temperature, IIRC.

The FW 190 A-2 which was giving the RAF a hard time had the 801C-2 engine, which had less compression and lower supercharger gearing and apparently 1600hp, which corresponds to the 1.32/2400 figure, I think, but I haven't found a good ref yet.
As Faber's a/c was only a few days old, you'd think it should be a good one, but maybe it was not representative. The a/c on a squadron have individual characters, some are just better, nicer, more reliable than others. I don't think we want that in the game though, we should work on a best possible standard, as indeed Oleg does.

I doubt the AFDU had data recorders, but they would be in use at RAE and A&AE Boscombe Down.

faustnik
10-14-2004, 12:27 PM
I did find that some A2s had the 801D. You can tell visually by the vent slots. The 801C equipped A2s have no vent slots the 801D A2s do.

JG14_Josf
10-14-2004, 01:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>on a best possible standard, as indeed Oleg does. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

k5054,

I have had two exchanges with Oleg so far, and the first one is no longer archived on this forum. It concerned the very first indication that Oleg deviated from the accuracy standard.

My post was titled:
An Open Letter to Oleg.

I cautioned against the increase in the Fw190s top speed performance change from an average calculation to a best case factory data value.

My argument was that if the door is open (camel sticking nose into the tent) it will be tough to shut.

Oleg was offended by my post. He mistook me for someone trying to rationalize and support the change.

Now we can't have things both ways. Either the game is biased or it is accurate. Either the game uses and calculates data objectively or it is calculated based upon subjective considerations.

Please don't go off and accuse me of some wild conspiracy. Oleg is the one claiming that the game is doctored up to please a certain agenda. Either it is or it is not and that is not my call. I have no idea why Oleg makes his judgment calls other than
his word on the matter. As far as I know and I can't reproduce the thread because it no longer is available to me; Oleg changed the Fw190 because he was tired of listening to the whinning. I warned against that in my thread.

So, if the game is a 'best possible standard' then the 'best' includes; how much whinning Oleg can stand. Unless things have changed since the Fw190 speed increase.

I am not making any absolute statements of authority concerning what is or is not being done to judge how the game is produced. I can only report what I know based upon what Oleg said in the thread that is now gone.

In this thread is my second exchange that I can recall with Oleg (he quotes me and then responded)in the 3 years or so that I've participated on this forum.



Here is Oleg's post:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Hop2002,

I have one more angle on this topic that I wish to share.

Imagine if you will a hypothetical situation as follows:

The ADFU conducted a test of a captured FW that was 'derated' and the British ignored the warning. The British conduct side by side test trials by running this capture plane at boost pressure that they considered to be normal and representative of what they thought they actually had to face in typical combat situations.

The tests they conducted put a strain on the captured planes engine and it ran roughly. It was concluded that the engine needed an overhaul however they continued with the tests.

The captured FW190 performed exactly the same climb profile as the worst ones shown on the IL2compare chart posted by Faustnik.

Do you think I would try to discredit the test results conducted by the British based upon the documents stating how the engine ran roughly and needed an overhaul?

That is assuming that Alfred Price didn't write his book and Eric Brown didn't write his book of course, because those two books were based upon the actual results of the tests and not the hypothetical ones.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



In British original documents is written that all manufacture limits were removed and also pointed which fule was used!. Its why engine was damages very soon after the first such trials.

However even in this case our modeling just confirm the test.

Climbs (and it isn't constant climb, but zoom climb) comparison in these text above were taken for FW190A on ~80 km highter then on Spitfire. In this case FW really otclimb easy Spitfire V. You may check it yourselves. Others already did it long time ago and got it confirmed 100%.

Then you need simply to look for original British and original German test for optimal sustained climb for both aircraft. It will looks exactly like it is shown in IL2compare. Why not to look for this? Both these original charts are widely distributed in internet. If you can't find for A3/A4/A5 climb rates, then look for A8 original German tests.... it will be still worse than the same Spitfire Mk.V!

Also I recommend to read tests of FW-190 vs Corsairs.... and even vs SBD.... Interesting to read... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here is my response:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Oleg,

The ADFU report posted by CHDT states:

"49. Climbs.
"Under maximum continuous climbing conditionss the climb of the FW. 190 is about 450 ft/min. better up to 25,000 feet"

The above clearly has a specific meaning.

It does not mean 'zoom climb'.

This is an example of what zoom climb means:

"50. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then puled up into a climb, the superior climb of the FW.190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up onto a climb from a dive, the FW.190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it."

Please consider that some of your customers not only want accuracy but they also want solid evidence in support of accuracy when contradictions exist.

Note: I did say 'some' of your customers.

I am certain that there are those among this community that would like to know more information on this topic.

For example:

1. Did the Germans run 'rated' versions of the FW190 in 1942 and if so how many?

2. What manufacture limits were removed from the FW 190 werk # 5313 and did this adjustment bring that plane up to 'rated' specifications? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do not expect a response nor do I wish that one is given if Oleg or anyone does not want to respond to my posts for any reason.

In fact if anyone does not want me to post on this board then contact me privately and I will move on.

josf.kelley@verizon.net.

I really like the game. It is a lot of fun. It inspires me to think, study, learn, communicate and above all: have fun.

I can have fun pretty much no matter what I do so it really dosn't make a whole lot of difference to me if I'm posting here or reading and writting about other things. It certainly isn't worth the effort just to piss people off.

Let me know. Please

zugfuhrer
10-14-2004, 04:04 PM
Wery good science.
I am flabbergasted of how many hours of tests and evaluation is done to prove that some aircrafts are not as good in this game as they where in real life.

You know the drop doesnt make a hole in the limestone because of it weight, it is because it is persistant.
I salute you.

WWMaxGunz
10-15-2004, 01:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
I did find that some A2s had the 801D. You can tell visually by the vent slots. The 801C equipped A2s have no vent slots the 801D A2s do. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

from http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/fw190.html

The Fw 190A-2 was the second series variant and was powered by the modified BMW 801C-2 engine.
In this model, problems with the rear bank of cylinders overheating were finally solved by the
simple introduction of a ventillation slot on the two sides of the engine cowling. The same
slots were also introduced in the Fw 190A-1 in service.

I guess what was what depends on the sources, back up that link one step and he lists sources;
Joe Baugher (most), Emmanuel Gustin, Ruud Deurenberg, Steven Jacobs, Jason Hodgkiss and
Maury Markowitz.

There's a lot of AC development histories on that site.

Fabers' 190 was only a few days old? Not derated from being worn out then?


Neal

WWMaxGunz
10-15-2004, 02:25 AM
"I cautioned against the increase in the Fw190s top speed performance change from an average calculation to a best case factory data value.

My argument was that if the door is open (camel sticking nose into the tent) it will be tough to shut."

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


Oleg:

In British original documents is written that all manufacture limits were removed and also pointed which fule was used!. Its why engine was damages very soon after the first such trials.

However even in this case our modeling just confirm the test.

Climbs (and it isn't constant climb, but zoom climb) comparison in these text above were taken for FW190A on ~80 km highter then on Spitfire. In this case FW really otclimb easy Spitfire V. You may check it yourselves. Others already did it long time ago and got it confirmed 100%.

Then you need simply to look for original British and original German test for optimal sustained climb for both aircraft. It will looks exactly like it is shown in IL2compare. Why not to look for this? Both these original charts are widely distributed in internet. If you can't find for A3/A4/A5 climb rates, then look for A8 original German tests.... it will be still worse than the same Spitfire Mk.V!

Also I recommend to read tests of FW-190 vs Corsairs.... and even vs SBD.... Interesting to read...

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

Note that the constant climb charts that look exactly like IL2compare have the 190's at
30 min power, not 3 min power. The ADFU or AFDU or whatever trials ran the 190 at higher boost.

With the trials FW 190A-3 running beyond rated power and the in-sim FW 190A-4 running derated
then the trials results don't exactly apply to the sim, do they?

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


The ADFU report posted by CHDT states:

"49. Climbs.
"Under maximum continuous climbing conditionss the climb of the FW. 190 is about 450 ft/min. better up to 25,000 feet"

The above clearly has a specific meaning.

It does not mean 'zoom climb'.

This is an example of what zoom climb means:

"50. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then puled up into a climb, the superior climb of the FW.190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up onto a climb from a dive, the FW.190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it."

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

Is #49 what Oleg was referring to, given he has the document?

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

Please consider that some of your customers not only want accuracy but they also want solid evidence in support of accuracy when contradictions exist.

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

Nice, coming from someone who later posted he is not saying anything is wrong with the sim.
IMO that sequence came from someone with a DEFINITE point in mind.

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

Note: I did say 'some' of your customers.

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

Is that opinion or innuendo? Or some new redefinition?
Not at all like some customers don't see contradictions in relating ADFU trials to the sim.
Just ignore them, they don't count.

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

I am certain that there are those among this community that would like to know more information on this topic.

For example:

1. Did the Germans run 'rated' versions of the FW190 in 1942 and if so how many?

2. What manufacture limits were removed from the FW 190 werk # 5313 and did this adjustment bring that plane up to 'rated' specifications?

I do not expect a response nor do I wish that one is given if Oleg or anyone does not want to respond to my posts for any reason.

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

I certainly agree with that part!

Wish I could remember just when Butch said the planes were un-derated.
But without the proof, I'd just be called a liar anyway unless I said that maybe most of
the A-3's were not derated but I forget the source, then I'd be telling the truth.

So it is up to Oleg to prove there were no A-3's not derated. Prove a negative... no way
to really do that is there?

Which neatly takes us back to the first lines at the top of this post, if the door is open
it will be tough to shut. Well, it does seem shut now who wants it open for a maybe?

Oleg shuts the door but is not unreasonable for those with good and thorough data. Then
he makes a change and the door is not left open, thankfully.

Sorry ALL, but this mess has gone around more times than a headcold in a gradeschool.


Neal

k5054
10-15-2004, 03:10 AM
This may not be all that relevant to the game, but while looking for stuff about the spit/190 comparison I stumbled across this , from Norman Franks, a historian of equal rank to Price in my estimation...

1941 LW operating 109 E,F, 190A-1 & 2 after Sept

RAF fighter losses 849
RAF claims 909
LW fighter losses 183 (all causes)

1942 LW operating 190A, few 109Gs

RAF fighter losses 900
RAF claims 500
LW losses 272

So, apparently, against the 190 the RAF were claiming less kills but scoring more?
So they thought they were now losing 2:1 whereas it was really 4:1, but in 1941 it was 5:1 against the same LW units in 109Fs, but that was OK because they thought they were doing OK?

Is it because the LW mixed it in their 190s?

I see no mention of tactics other than dive and zoom for 190 or 109, in pilot or unit accounts. Omission proves nothing, of course. From a reading of 'JG26 top guns of the Luftwaffe', Caldwell, the kills the LW achieved were in two phase. One the bounce itself, where three or four Spitfires out of a squadron might be shot down, and two, after the dogfight and disengagement by the FWs, kills inflicted on separated or straggling spits on the way home out of formation. If there were extended dogfights, that doesn't seem to be where the kills happened. That's presented here as an impression, not evidence.
Is there such a thing as a staffel/squadron bounce in FB? Online or off? Can this be duplicated? I think it's beyond what's possible in a sim where the player's motivation is not that of a real-life pilot whose main object is to survive this day...

Hunde_3.JG51
10-15-2004, 09:11 AM
"Also I recommend to read tests of FW-190 vs Corsairs.... and even vs SBD.... Interesting to read..."

Prior to this he speaks about climb rates, I thought in the test vs. Corsair the FW-190 actually out-climbed the Hellcat at all speeds and the Corsair at all but the slowest of speeds? And that it was written in test that the FW-190 was a fighter-bomber variant which was modified in an attempt to simulate fighter. Does anybody have the link to that test to save me time?

faustnik
10-15-2004, 09:33 AM
Here Hunde:

http://web.cetlink.net/~howardds/id88.htm

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

GregSM
10-15-2004, 09:33 AM
Hi K5054,


Suggesting that the broader RAF impression of the early FW is better explained by tactical considerations than by relatively subtle performance disparity sounds plausible to me. I can imagine too that the increase in FW firepower alone might have helped inform the conclusion that Luftwaffe units became suddenly "willing to fight". Destructive potential and novelty aside, a single volley of fire from a flight of FW types would even have looked more menacing than a volley from 109 F types, wouldn't it? Either way, I can see concluding they'd become abruptly more aggressive - "The sky was alight with tracer! Our Spits were shredded!" It might be useful to check if any articles have been published surveying the diction specifically, in accounts of the time.


Cheers,


Greg

faustnik
10-15-2004, 09:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GregSM:
Hi K5054,


Suggesting that the broader RAF impression of the early FW is better explained by tactical considerations than by relatively subtle performance disparity sounds plausible to me. I can imagine too that the increase in FW firepower alone might have helped inform the conclusion that Luftwaffe units became suddenly "willing to fight". Destructive potential and novelty aside, a single volley of fire from a flight of FW types would even have looked more menacing than a volley from 109 F types, wouldn't it? Either way, I can see concluding they'd become abruptly more aggressive - "The sky was alight with tracer! Our Spits were shredded!" It might be useful to check if any articles have been published surveying the diction specifically, in accounts of the time.


Cheers,


Greg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Greg,

I find it a little strange that you are looking for ways to discount the RAF pilot's claims that the Spit V was technically inferior to the Fw190. The speed advantage of the Fw190 was far from "subtle". I'm not sure what you are looking for?

DangerForward
10-15-2004, 09:54 AM
I think part of the problem with the AFDU test is the test might not have been a test of who can reach 20000 feet first, but more a "can the fw190 climb away from a Spit Vb". At higher speeds(say 300+), the A4 we have can climb away from the SpitVb. On another note, in the Jeff Quill book he states that after the RAF upped the boost to 18lbs from 16lbs, and introduced the Spit LF IX the gap was closed against the FW190. Sorry if someone already said this...

JG14_Josf
10-15-2004, 10:07 AM
The above link posted by WWMaxGunz says this about the A9:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Next and last production series of the A version aircraft was the Fw 190A-9. Previously, it was thought this plane would have been powered by a 1765 kW (2400 hp) BMW 801 F engine. But the BMW factory had not started production of these engines in time and, as a replacement, the 1470 kW (2000 hp) BMW 801 S engine was used with a more efficient, 14 blade fan. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Recycling can dig up on-topic information.

The above link is not a primary source to prove or disprove relative performance between the A-9, A-8, and or D-9 FWs.

The AFDU test is a primary source that can confirm relative combat performance as well as any other possible source (besides actual combat) subject of course to verification of authenticity.

The AFDU climb test report between an Fw190A-3 and at least one Spitfire VB is a primary source document that reports the results of a test done by British pilots who's purpose was reported as:
"Following initial flight trials at Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough in July 1942, the captured Focke Wulf 190 flew to the Air Fighting Development Unit at Duxford for tactical trials. The resultant report, issued in August 1942 and reproduced below almost in its entirety, is a model of what such an intelligence document should contain. In places the language was complimentary in the extreme. The reader should bear in mind that these are not the words of Focke Wulf salesman trying to boost his firm's product, but those of an enemy forced to give an opponent grudging admiration in time of war." [I added the bold type]

The British pilots in July of 1942 concluded that the Fw190A-3 that they flew during their test against the Spitfire VB that they also flew in these tactical trials did this:

"The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the Fw 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000 feet [7,620 m]. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled into a climb from a dive, the Fw 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it."

If anyone ever did or ever will find out the comparative performance capabilities of a particular plane match-up they can do no better than to actually fly those planes in comparative side by side testing and or actual combat using weapons.

Take the original posters concerns for this thread:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Aim of my testing was to compare the inflight acceleration of late-war Fw190 series.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How much value would a comparative flight test like those done by the AFDU be in comparing in-flight acceleration of late-war Fw190 series' planes?

Imagine the value of a primary source document that was conducted during the war that documented comparative tests done on combat examples of an Fw 190A-8, Fw 190A-9, and Fw 190D-9.

If the information desired is to know how well one plane accelerated compared to another plane during the war then how can there ever be a better way to evaluate the truth of this relative performance capability than to find documents that were conducted specifically to find this relative performance capability during the war?

How can it possibly be any more valid?

If the question is:
How well did plane A stack up against plane B during the war?

How is it possible to get a better source of information to answer that question than to find a document reporting an answer to that question?
The British wanted to know: How well did plane A stack up against plane B during the war?

The British conducted side by side comparison tests so that they could answer the question:
How well did plane A stack up against plane B?

The British conducted their tactical trials in July 1942.

Here is another interesting quote taken from the ADFU tactical trial report: (quoted from Alfred Prices book)

"Climb
The rate of climb up to 18,000 ft [5,488 m] under maximum continuous climbing conditions at 1.35 atmospheres boost 2,450 r.p.m, 165 m.p.h. is between 3,000 and 32,000 ft/min [15.24 to 16.51 m/sec]. The initial rate of climb when pulling up form level flight at fast cruising speed is high and the angle steep, and from a dive is phenomenal. It is considered that the de-rated version of the Fw 190 is unlikely to be met above 25,000 ft [7,622 m] as the power of the engine starts falling off at 22,000 ft and by 25,000 ft has fallen off considerably. It is not possible to give the rate of climb at this altitude."

Note: The British knew more than I know about what 'de-rating' means in real terms. They were actually flying the plane. They were fighting it. Their lives were on the line. They had to know what happens when the throttle was pushed forward. I can only imagine what happens. They actually did find out how well plane A stacked up against plane B. I can only read what they wrote and then form my opinion based upon their historical documentation.

karost
10-15-2004, 10:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Here Hunde:
http://web.cetlink.net/~howardds/id88.htm
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh... I have to save this link in my memo , because I can smell that we may have to use this link after PF release ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Thanks faustnik

S!

faustnik
10-15-2004, 10:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by karost:

Oh... I have to save this link in my memo , because I can smell that we may have to use this link after PF release ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Thanks faustnik

S! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My Corsair climbs worse than my Focke Wulf! DOH! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FightinFatbacksSM.jpg

GregSM
10-15-2004, 10:42 AM
Hi Faustnic,


"I find it a little strange that you are looking for ways to discount the RAF pilot's claims that the Spit V was technically inferior to the Fw190."

I find it a little strange that you imagine I'm looking for ways to discount anything! My understanding is that the early FW was generally superior to the Spitfire V, and that pilot accounts generally support this. Perhaps I didn't say clearly enough that I'm interested in the broader history of this, which surely involves more than performance disparity.


"The speed advantage of the Fw190 was far from "subtle"."

But how far is it from, as I said, "relatively" subtle? In the Polish campaign, for instance, the Germans confronted planes they wouldn't even have considered modern, in that they were high-wing, fixed gear, open cockpit designs. Similar mismatches occurred throughout the war, while the Spitfire V and FW A are "relatively" akin technologically.


"I'm not sure what you are looking for?"


I'm not sure you've not already decided, but as I said already - a comprehensive understanding of the RAF impression of the early engagements with the FW.


Cheers,


Greg

faustnik
10-15-2004, 10:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GregSM:

I'm not sure you've not already decided, but as I said already - a comprehensive understanding of the RAF impression of the early engagements with the FW.


Cheers,


Greg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I had decided I would not have asked. Thanks for making it clear Greg.

GregSM
10-15-2004, 10:55 AM
But of course - happy to clarify.


Cheers,


Greg

Hunde_3.JG51
10-15-2004, 12:31 PM
Thanks Faustnik, looks like my memory was correct with the FW-190 outclimbing both with "marked superiority" at higher speeds. What is 160 knots converted into km/h? Sorry for the dumb question.

I don't understand Oleg's comment then, it seems to me that he was implying that even the Corsair and Dauntless outclimbed the FW-190. The only thing I can think of is that he is pointing out that the FW-190 climbed best at higher speeds unless he is referring to another test concerning 190 vs. Corsair.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see how Hellcat and Corsair climb vs. FW-190, but I still prefer historical stuff so I don't plan to fly against one while piloting the other, besides that would be blasphemy (see below).

Hey Faustnik, my favorite aircraft behind the FW-190 is the Corsair. Am I to take it you have the same taste judging by your pics?

I just recieved my 1/18th scale Boyington Corsair and the Dora is on the way. Tough to beat those two aircraft IMHO (fast, versatile, and tough). My favorite bomber/attack aircraft is the B-25, not that anyone cares. I have seen them numerous times and always came away impressed by their construction and maneuverability. Can't wait to try it out in PF.

WWMaxGunz
10-15-2004, 12:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
The above link posted by WWMaxGunz says this about the A9:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Next and last production series of the A version aircraft was the Fw 190A-9. Previously, it was thought this plane would have been powered by a 1765 kW (2400 hp) BMW 801 F engine. But the BMW factory had not started production of these engines in time and, as a replacement, the 1470 kW (2000 hp) BMW 801 S engine was used with a more efficient, 14 blade fan. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Recycling can dig up on-topic information.

The above link is not a primary source to prove or disprove relative performance between the A-9, A-8, and or D-9 FWs. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The post showed the names of the sources given by the site author.
I made no claims as to the site being from primary sources -- perhaps email the site author
and ask what texts he used and the sources they used which would be in the bibliographies.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The AFDU test is a primary source that can confirm relative combat performance as well as any other possible source (besides actual combat) subject of course to verification of authenticity.

The AFDU climb test report between an Fw190A-3 and at least one Spitfire VB is a primary source document that reports the results of a test done by British pilots who's purpose was reported as:
"_Following_ initial flight trials at Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough in July 1942, the captured Focke Wulf 190 flew to the Air Fighting Development Unit at Duxford for tactical trials. The resultant report, issued in August 1942 and reproduced below almost in its entirety, is a model of what such an intelligence document should contain. In places the language was complimentary in the extreme. The reader should bear in mind that these are not the words of Focke Wulf salesman trying to boost his firm's product, but those of an enemy forced to give an opponent grudging admiration in time of war." [I added the bold type]

The British pilots in July of 1942 concluded that the Fw190A-3 that they flew during their test against the Spitfire VB that they also flew in these tactical trials did this:

"The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the Fw 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000 feet [7,620 m]. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled into a climb from a dive, the Fw 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Once again, the "primary source" in partial completely ignoring the conditions of the trial
especially the preparation of the FW used as has been pointed out time and time again. it is
dismissed by a maybe and request to know how many FW's of the time were derated.

When you misuse a primary source by taking it past what it is, the use is not valid regardless
of the historicity or validity of the source itself. The site linked to is at least as good.

I note at the bottom of the post this replies to that the zoom climb is noted and exactly in
line with what Oleg stated.

Is it any wonder Oleg does not continue giving us information when he is HOUNDED with little
or no regard even after he answers questions and assertions? The material is brought up
again and again no matter what answers anyone gives, including Oleg.

Customers want to know about the contradictions... just call the man incompetent in his field
or an outright liar unless you want to admit that you support the contradictions you note.

I for one would like to see more information from Oleg on the sim instead of seeing him
chased off the board within a few posts, if we're lucky, every time. The plane was run past
its rating as he noted. Had the counter been only to ask how and about if there were FW's
run at full rating without the additional restatement of text based on what had been answered
as not applicable due to running at overboost proven by events noted, and ... well innuendo
about customers and contraditions of the sim also based on the same conclusions which amounts
to a rude and ignorant waste of time then MAYBE we would have seen an answer. But it wasn't
and faced with such in person, I'd not stand for it either.

Oleg has better sources, they just don't say what Josf wants them to. I'd like to know more
about them and/or the sim.


Neal

JG14_Josf
10-15-2004, 12:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Here Hunde:

http://web.cetlink.net/~howardds/id88.htm

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was a very interesting read.
The FW 190-5/U4 W.No.160057

Max.Emerg. both high and low Gear is listed as:
2700 RPM 1.42

Climb (30min.) is listed:
2450/1.35

Site linked by WWMaxGunz: (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/fw190.html)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Fw 190A-5/U4 - reconnaissance fighter fitted with two Rb 12.5/7x9 mm cameras and reduced armament (2x1 MG 17 and 2x1 MG 151/20 E); produced also in a desert variant designated A-5/U4/tp. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is no mention of 'erhohte Notleistung' or whatever the Germans used for WEP on the FW190A5 vs Corsiar and Hellcat tests.

There is:
"The speed runs were made at each altitude for periods of two minutes at full power. The corsair and Hellcat using War Emergency Power (Water injection)."

Another interesting quote from those documents:
"It should be noted that applying full power in the FW 190 was much easier than in the other two planes, due to the fact that it was necessary to use only throttle control."

Did the Spitfire's ABC system also give the pilot this automated control?