PDA

View Full Version : FW190A5 vs P51 Performance



XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 03:50 PM
http://web.cetlink.net/~howardds/id88.htm

The above link reprints declassified flight comparison test data of a captured FW190A5 vs a F4U Corsair and F6F Hellcat and in a second test compares the F4U Corsair to the P51 Mustang. All test were conducted in 1944 by the US Naval Test Center at Patuxent River, MD

The 190 proved superior to the Corsair in rate of climb and accelleration to speed at high altitude and equal at lower altitude. The 190 was superior in most test parameters except level turns where both Navy fighters were superior.

The Corsair was able to out climb and out accellerate the P51 at all altitudes up to 25K ft above which the P51 had a slight advantage, (no more than 15 mph).

In level acelleration tests at 25000 ft, using full power with WEP for 2 minutes the 190 reached 410 mph (660 kph) while the Corsair reached 403 (648). It was noted that the aircraft were still accellerating after 2 minutes and had not likely reached max. velocity.

Both Navy reports concluded that the Corsair was a superior fighter to both the FW190 and the P51. Well after all it was a Navy test, lol.

In a similar test taking the IL2 1.2Beta version of the FW190 starting at 7500 meters approx. (25000ft) and accellerating at full power for 2 min the plane reached a speed of 380 kph and seemed to have stopped accellerating. This was with rads in #2 position. A second run with rads closed produced 390.
The P51 reached 370-380 using the same test procedure.

The Navy test showed the FW190 able to out climb the Corsair at all altitides and the Corsair able to outclimb the P51 at all altitudes under one set of conditions and uo to 20000 ft. under the second set of loading/drag conditions. The Navy showed the 190 to out accellerate the Corsair and the Corsair able to out accellerate the P51 in level flight. It was noted that the FW190 was running rough due to fouled plugs.

The obvious question is based upon this test data of a well worn FW190A5 vs a pair of new US fighters one would be able to at least conclude in theory the FW190 should be able to out climb the P51 at least up to 25000 ft and should out accellerate it up to at least the same altitudes, yet neither seems to be the case in the IL2 beta patch. The planes accellerate at about the same rate and the P51 will out climb the FW190 at all altitudes? Why?

If the test data is true, would one not also expect the 190A8, A9 and D9 each which had more power than the A5 to be able to out perform the P51 in climb and accelleration tests also? I am not complaining as this is the best sim ever, just sharing relevent flight test data.

Irish

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 03:50 PM
http://web.cetlink.net/~howardds/id88.htm

The above link reprints declassified flight comparison test data of a captured FW190A5 vs a F4U Corsair and F6F Hellcat and in a second test compares the F4U Corsair to the P51 Mustang. All test were conducted in 1944 by the US Naval Test Center at Patuxent River, MD

The 190 proved superior to the Corsair in rate of climb and accelleration to speed at high altitude and equal at lower altitude. The 190 was superior in most test parameters except level turns where both Navy fighters were superior.

The Corsair was able to out climb and out accellerate the P51 at all altitudes up to 25K ft above which the P51 had a slight advantage, (no more than 15 mph).

In level acelleration tests at 25000 ft, using full power with WEP for 2 minutes the 190 reached 410 mph (660 kph) while the Corsair reached 403 (648). It was noted that the aircraft were still accellerating after 2 minutes and had not likely reached max. velocity.

Both Navy reports concluded that the Corsair was a superior fighter to both the FW190 and the P51. Well after all it was a Navy test, lol.

In a similar test taking the IL2 1.2Beta version of the FW190 starting at 7500 meters approx. (25000ft) and accellerating at full power for 2 min the plane reached a speed of 380 kph and seemed to have stopped accellerating. This was with rads in #2 position. A second run with rads closed produced 390.
The P51 reached 370-380 using the same test procedure.

The Navy test showed the FW190 able to out climb the Corsair at all altitides and the Corsair able to outclimb the P51 at all altitudes under one set of conditions and uo to 20000 ft. under the second set of loading/drag conditions. The Navy showed the 190 to out accellerate the Corsair and the Corsair able to out accellerate the P51 in level flight. It was noted that the FW190 was running rough due to fouled plugs.

The obvious question is based upon this test data of a well worn FW190A5 vs a pair of new US fighters one would be able to at least conclude in theory the FW190 should be able to out climb the P51 at least up to 25000 ft and should out accellerate it up to at least the same altitudes, yet neither seems to be the case in the IL2 beta patch. The planes accellerate at about the same rate and the P51 will out climb the FW190 at all altitudes? Why?

If the test data is true, would one not also expect the 190A8, A9 and D9 each which had more power than the A5 to be able to out perform the P51 in climb and accelleration tests also? I am not complaining as this is the best sim ever, just sharing relevent flight test data.

Irish

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 04:03 PM
There ya go making sense again.

Please dont you understand that this is an issue doomed to be buried after the anti 190 crowd poohpooh all over it?

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

BOOM

ZG77_Nagual
11-10-2003, 04:06 PM
Alot of factors. One where the mustang is probably superior to both is e retention - which has a huge impact on dogfighting.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/whiner.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 04:15 PM
You don't say what the start speed is for the acceleration tests.

I believe radiator closed is correct for 190 (I think opening radiator is for on the ground, climbing, and maybe for low speed at low altutude), and in any case the new RC patch says it will reduce drag from open radiators. The difference in the quoted test was very small, as was the difference in your test, so it seems about right.

Also note that the quoted test is giving TAS but you gave IAS for your own tests.

Climb rates I have no idea, Oleg had said that high speed supercharger on P51 was not finished in the 1.2b (leaked beta) so perhaps that affected the climbrate and acceleration. Did that Navy test say what engine settings they used for the P51?

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 04:16 PM
I haven't done the tests but I'm pretty certain that with the right settings the A9 (I haven't tried the A5) will outclimb the P-51. Acceleration is probably still in favor of the FW except in shallow dives...the 51 really picks up speed that way.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig.jpg
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." - Winston Churchill

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 04:16 PM
Not to nitpick, but this was a P-51B, not a D5-NT. And they were doing some funky things with fuel loads it seemed. What is typically seen online in IL2 is 25% fuel load, which is a considerable difference. Another thread mentioned (for example) that P-51 climb tests were done with full fuel. This makes a big difference.

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 04:23 PM
We have better climbrate for FW190A5 vs P-51.
This means that A5 climbs better than P-51D.

You may test yourself. As well as turnability, etc...
All corresponds to that subjective test.
But we model it by the technical data, niot by comparison trials and get exactly corresponding things.
This means we get different behaviour of planes.... But not just maximal speeds and climbs....



Irish_JG26 wrote:
- <a href="http://web.cetlink.net/~howardds/id88.htm"
- target=_blank>http://web.cetlink.net/~howardds/id8
- 8.htm</a>
-
- The above link reprints declassified flight
- comparison test data of a captured FW190A5 vs a F4U
- Corsair and F6F Hellcat and in a second test
- compares the F4U Corsair to the P51 Mustang. All
- test were conducted in 1944 by the US Naval Test
- Center at Patuxent River, MD
-
- The 190 proved superior to the Corsair in rate of
- climb and accelleration to speed at high altitude
- and equal at lower altitude. The 190 was superior
- in most test parameters except level turns where
- both Navy fighters were superior.
-
- The Corsair was able to out climb and out
- accellerate the P51 at all altitudes up to 25K ft
- above which the P51 had a slight advantage, (no more
- than 15 mph).
-
- In level acelleration tests at 25000 ft, using full
- power with WEP for 2 minutes the 190 reached 410 mph
- (660 kph) while the Corsair reached 403 (648). It
- was noted that the aircraft were still accellerating
- after 2 minutes and had not likely reached max.
- velocity.
-
- Both Navy reports concluded that the Corsair was a
- superior fighter to both the FW190 and the P51.
- Well after all it was a Navy test, lol.
-
- In a similar test taking the IL2 1.2Beta version of
- the FW190 starting at 7500 meters approx. (25000ft)
- and accellerating at full power for 2 min the plane
- reached a speed of 380 kph and seemed to have
- stopped accellerating. This was with rads in #2
- position. A second run with rads closed produced
- 390.
- The P51 reached 370-380 using the same test
- procedure.
-
- The Navy test showed the FW190 able to out climb the
- Corsair at all altitides and the Corsair able to
- outclimb the P51 at all altitudes under one set of
- conditions and uo to 20000 ft. under the second set
- of loading/drag conditions. The Navy showed the 190
- to out accellerate the Corsair and the Corsair able
- to out accellerate the P51 in level flight. It was
- noted that the FW190 was running rough due to fouled
- plugs.
-
- The obvious question is based upon this test data of
- a well worn FW190A5 vs a pair of new US fighters one
- would be able to at least conclude in theory the
- FW190 should be able to out climb the P51 at least
- up to 25000 ft and should out accellerate it up to
- at least the same altitudes, yet neither seems to be
- the case in the IL2 beta patch. The planes
- accellerate at about the same rate and the P51 will
- out climb the FW190 at all altitudes? Why?
-
- If the test data is true, would one not also expect
- the 190A8, A9 and D9 each which had more power than
- the A5 to be able to out perform the P51 in climb
- and accelleration tests also? I am not complaining
- as this is the best sim ever, just sharing relevent
- flight test data.
-
- Irish
-
-
-
-



Oleg Maddox
1C:Maddox Games

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 04:44 PM
This game is great and all...

but why to people keep trying to point out the german planes are undermodelled... ? do we forget this game was designed by a allied country in WW2 and play enormus favortism to its planes... and of course the P51 is the so called greated fighter of WW2 and will get royal treatment

my question OLEG, how much with the TA152 be porked?

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 04:49 PM
ok Mgallun,now get back to your room and clean it,or mummy will shout at ya /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 04:51 PM
LOL

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 05:27 PM
If the Ta 152 will be any better than the D-9, I think we're home safe!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I actually expect to be alot better.

<center>


http://members.chello.se/unni/rote3.JPG



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

</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 05:30 PM
i doubt it will, even the D9 is porked a bit... 109s are just fat hippos with the armor of zeros with a yugo motor that needs a bigger radiator.

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 05:41 PM
hahahahahahahahahaha. I think not. Anyway, we're talking about a beta. Normal reporting procedures apply. I know one 109 FB jock who thinks K4 is the best plane in the game and I'm half way tempted to agree with him. All a question of perspective.

But really this bias thing is wearing thin.

MGallun wrote:
- 109s are just fat hippos with the armor of zeros with a
- yugo motor that needs a bigger radiator.
-
-





http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif


She turned me into a newt, but I got better.

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 05:48 PM
The planes I fear most online is the any of the late Bf-109 versions, and especially the K-4./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<center>


http://members.chello.se/unni/rote3.JPG



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

</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 08:27 PM
yep
tend to have good pilots in 109's ive found /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


whineingu /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 09:15 PM
Try flying higher than 7000m the P51 and P47 will out perform any LW a/c including the K4. So if you are in either of these two US a/c just keep climbing and you have no problems.


<center><img src= "http://homepage.ntlworld.com/n.bulger/Emil_Bug.jpg">

AKA JG5_Emil

"I wish we all had the courage to confine our defence to three simple words....LICK MY A*S!" Herman Goering

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 09:20 PM
TA152 should outdue anything, espcially up high...

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 10:07 PM
Oh please...

A confirmed 109 pilot. S!

Rudi
II./JG1 Oesau
www.jagdgeschwader1.com (http://www.jagdgeschwader1.com)

XyZspineZyX
11-10-2003, 10:09 PM
My previous reponse has to do with a poster calling the game's 109s "fat hippos", a characterization I take issue with. I love my 109s, every one of them.



Rudi
II./JG1 Oesau
www.jagdgeschwader1.com (http://www.jagdgeschwader1.com)

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 12:46 AM
IIJG1_Rudi wrote:
- My previous reponse has to do with a poster calling
- the game's 109s "fat hippos", a characterization I
- take issue with. I love my 109s, every one of them.
-


Yep,

The 109 is now the most rediculously overmodeled aircraft in the game. The K4 can now turn fight down in the weeds with the Yaks.

Sorry, based on specs it's not happening.



"We will welcome them with bullets and shoes."

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 12:49 AM
ya, thats all the 51s, 47s and las need, a k4 with a 30mm nose gun turning with them... lol...

does the k4 now turn on the deck? wow, i might have to fly one, what about the overheating?????

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 03:43 AM
GR142_Astro wrote:
-
- IIJG1_Rudi wrote:
-- My previous reponse has to do with a poster calling
-- the game's 109s "fat hippos", a characterization I
-- take issue with. I love my 109s, every one of them.
--
-
-
- Yep,
-
- The 109 is now the most rediculously overmodeled
- aircraft in the game. The K4 can now turn fight down
- in the weeds with the Yaks.
-
- Sorry, based on specs it's not happening.
-

I certainly haven't seen that yet. K4 is as much an energy fighter as ever, although you can slow it down vs. a Mustang for a very close fight.



--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-11-2003, 05:31 AM
K4 makes a 360 degree sustained turn in 21 sec (loaded weight) in 1.2, which is correct. Also climb is slightly below specs (something like 100fpm). Since performance is calculated in FB, we can say from climb performance that also acceleration and dive and zoom climb are correct.

What you'll see now happening with Bf-109 is that induced drag error is somewhat corrected. Bf-109 is in every year of war the plane that looses the least speed in turns. This is happening because the difference between thrust and drag (parasite and induced) has the best value for Bf-109.

The way in which induced drag was calculated for 109 was erroneous. Induced drag is the drag produced with lift, very important in maneuvers. 109 looses speed in 1.11 two times faster than most planes, when it should have the best energy retention in maneuvers, similar with La7 at low altitudes.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>