PDA

View Full Version : FW for high alt



JtD
01-29-2007, 11:00 AM
While being an overall excellent plane, the high altitude performance of the Fw 190 was pretty soon considered insufficient. A lot of resources were invested into developing better high altitude performance models, usually with different engines. Now what I don't understand, the Fw was tested with an external air intake as opposed to the standard internal one. Due to the stronger ram effect it had different top speed characteristics. The result is show in the following graph (based on Fw 190A-3 data, most likely flown in Rechlin 1942):
http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/testgraph/fw190aussen.jpg

It clearly shows significant high altitude improvements for overall very little performance costs at lower altitudes. It also illustrates that the Spitfire did speedwise outperform the Fw with air intake inside the cowling, but not the version with the air intake outside. It also seems to have been a very easy modification.

Now I wonder: Why didn't they just equip western front units with this modification?

JG4_Helofly
01-29-2007, 11:39 AM
You should directly ask Crumpp in the fw consortium. He probably knows such specific things about the 190.

HellToupee
01-29-2007, 11:45 AM
i think they tried mounting a turbo or supercharger externally

Manu-6S
01-29-2007, 12:31 PM
http://www.acesofww2.com/germany/190-C.jpg

My book says that the FW190C, the "Kanguruh", was dropped because some technical issues but above all it was powered by DB 603, and the german authorities were contrary...

Jaws2002
01-29-2007, 12:49 PM
What is puzzles me is why Foke wulf did try to install a better more decent supercharger for the BMW801 engine like Meserschmitt did by installing the supercharger from the DB-603 to DB-605 in the G6/14AS.

The BMW-801 was a decent engine all it needed was a decent Supercharger. They went crazy with the DB-603 turbocharged engine, knowing very well they didn't have materials to produce heat resistant parts for the turbochargers.



But if I think about it why they didn't put more resources in the development of the BMW-802 engine. Eighteen cylinders instead of fourteen, 2600HP at low altitude and with the excellent supercharger developed for it was still producing 1600HP at 12000m.
They should have put more resources in this engine to get it in production, instead of the quick fixes they tried with Jumo engines, DB603 engines, with the GM1 boost and a lot of other Half fixes.

That thing installed in the FW-190 would have made a superb fighter for all altitudes, that would have made a difference. With the new FW in production they could have retired the BF-109 with all the mess created by so many variants and versions in development.
Allocate all resources/production capabilities for fighters to two things:
1. one piston engine, one piston engine aircraft (the FW-190 with BMW-802)
2. Jets.

JtD
01-29-2007, 01:01 PM
I don't know Jaws, the 802 sounds quite a bit larger and heavier than the 801 and the Fw would have had a hard time getting this thing mounted.

Btw, the 801 was equipped with better chargers in the TJ, TS or so variants (F-9, A-9). Compared it with the A-8 and you will see it was a real improvement.

But the idea of the external air intake:
- it existed
- it improved high altitude performance
- it did it at no cost (afaik)

Why ignore at free 20 kph boost?

faustnik
01-29-2007, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by JtD:

Why ignore at free 20 kph boost?

Great thread topic JtD! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Priority for improving high altitude performance always seemed low in the Fw190 program. Lots of high altitude test projects were in the works but, none were rushed to the front. Against the RAF, the Fw190 typically fought at favorable altitudes, where it could certainly handle the Spitfires. It wasn't until the USAAF escort fighters increased their range that the issue became pressing. At that point the Fw190 couldn't wait until the escorts turned back to engage the heavies and altitude performance became more critical. Maybe all this added up to a severe case of heel dragging???

Also, maybe there was more testing done which indicated troubles with the external system?

Manu-6S
01-29-2007, 02:58 PM
http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/fw190v18.htm

VW-IceFire
01-29-2007, 03:02 PM
Maybe it was like the RAF and the Tempests which moved the radiator from the chin to the inside leading edge of the wings on either side. The system worked fine once it was tweaked properly but there was "official mistrust" of the system and it wasn't used until later.

JSG72
01-29-2007, 03:36 PM
Think you will find that the reasons for not introducing such modifications was that:

At the times of testing there was a WAR going on on 3 fronts with all available fighters required with No.. slacking.

Performance improvements of this type 190B and C were deemed unsatisfacory considering the 190d was going to be introduced as well as the TA 152H and later C.

There was a plethora of various engine and performance testing experimental types forwarded by German Aircraft manufacturers during the War.

I would suggest this was more in line with keeping their workforces busy and away from the frontline? Just a thought http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

VMF-214_HaVoK
01-29-2007, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
http://www.acesofww2.com/germany/190-C.jpg

My book says that the FW190C, the "Kanguruh", was dropped because some technical issues but above all it was powered by DB 603, and the german authorities were contrary...

I would much rather fly that thing then the Lerche any day!

JtD
01-30-2007, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by JSG72:
Think you will find that the reasons for not introducing such modifications was that:

At the times of testing there was a WAR going on on 3 fronts with all available fighters required with No.. slacking.

Performance improvements of this type 190B and C were deemed unsatisfacory considering the 190d was going to be introduced as well as the TA 152H and later C.

There was a plethora of various engine and performance testing experimental types forwarded by German Aircraft manufacturers during the War.

I would suggest this was more in line with keeping their workforces busy and away from the frontline? Just a thought http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The external air intake was a modification of about one part of the engine cowling. It would have had little to no impact on production. Maybe Manu got you all confused with the C, which is not the thing I am talking about.

What I mean is this little mod:
picture (http://www.afwing.com/intro/fw-190/chyvalries_190a3u7.jpg)

I have not heard much about it, but I never heard of troubles caused by this modification. Now what I'd derive from that, is that a whole lot of history books got it wrong. The Germans weren't really desperately seeking to make the Fw high altitude capable. They had an option, but went for slightly better low alt performance throughout the war. Hm.

Bewolf
01-30-2007, 09:01 AM
No wonder. Germany had to fight 2 very different air wars. High altitude in the west and low altitude in the east, with each enemy airforces concentrating on those levels performance wise. Considering that, I think Germany did a pretty good job in keeping their fighters balanced and still able to compeat in both theaters. A good indicator for that is that german fighters usually were best and often better then enemy AC at medium altitudes.

JSG72
01-30-2007, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSG72:
Think you will find that the reasons for not introducing such modifications was that:

At the times of testing there was a WAR going on on 3 fronts with all available fighters required with No.. slacking.

Performance improvements of this type 190B and C were deemed unsatisfacory considering the 190d was going to be introduced as well as the TA 152H and later C.

There was a plethora of various engine and performance testing experimental types forwarded by German Aircraft manufacturers during the War.

I would suggest this was more in line with keeping their workforces busy and away from the frontline? Just a thought http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The external air intake was a modification of about one part of the engine cowling. It would have had little to no impact on production. Maybe Manu got you all confused with the C, which is not the thing I am talking about.

What I mean is this little mod:
picture (http://www.afwing.com/intro/fw-190/chyvalries_190a3u7.jpg)

I have not heard much about it, but I never heard of troubles caused by this modification. Now what I'd derive from that, is that a whole lot of history books got it wrong. The Germans weren't really desperately seeking to make the Fw high altitude capable. They had an option, but went for slightly better low alt performance throughout the war. Hm. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi JtD

Mmm.. FW 190 A-3/U7.

One of only 3 made. W. Nrs 130528, 138530 and 531.
(Info from Aircraft Monograph 4 FW 190 A/F/G/S by Adam Skupiewski).
Apparently only to be armed with 2x20mm cannon.

Now! My thoughts
At the time of this planes Development Mid 1942? High altitude raids had not yet started and so there was no particular need for such a fighter Least of all one with such a small armament.

Great Britain had did a similar thing with the Spitfire Mk IX To combat the JU86Rs that were being deployed by Germany on single plane nuisance raids Success was acheived 40,000ft was reached and an interception was successful in calling a halt, to the previously immune to interception intruders. (Sourced from Late Marque Spitfire Aces 1942-45 by Dr Alfred Price)

Later developments of both the FW190 and BF 109 were the ones who would bear the brunt of interscepting the vast arial Armadas that were to attack over the North Sea/Channel.

IMHO.(And probably the RLMs).
Such a development of the 190 would be of very limited use. Tactics and Strategies were changing at this point in the War. and the FW 190 was urgently required to perform more on the Eastern Front with its Low altitude All round capabilities where engagements with the enemy were mostly below 6000ft.

JtD
01-31-2007, 01:27 PM
Well, I can see this is getting nowhere...everyone is just guessing like myself. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WRT to 2x20mm cannon armament - this was also used for the other tests, at least for the one I used for comparison with internal air intake.

The idea was ready in 1942. It would have been a really easy way of modifying the Fw on the Western front in 44 - it's not a one way reconstruction. You move a squad from east to west, you get yourself a good dozen engine cowlings and make sure your boys come back home more often. Move the squad back to east next week, reinstall the old cowlings.

Other nations would use completely different engines or even plane types to get a similar amount of optimization for the desired combat role.

BlitzPig_DDT
01-31-2007, 01:53 PM
Guess this just needs to be chalked up as one more "thank god they weren't thinking straight"-type decisions by Germany. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of things they could (and from their perspective, should) have done, and easily, that would have resulted in much more success by them, leaving us to wipe our brow saying "phew! thank god they didn't!". lol

HellToupee
02-01-2007, 12:26 AM
still takes along time to go from prototype jobs to production aircraft, eg first tempest prototype was in 1942.

Xiolablu3
02-01-2007, 01:03 AM
It looks like a cross between the P51 and Dora with that big scoop underneath.

JSG72
02-01-2007, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Well, I can see this is getting nowhere...everyone is just guessing like myself. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WRT to 2x20mm cannon armament - this was also used for the other tests, at least for the one I used for comparison with internal air intake.

The idea was ready in 1942. It would have been a really easy way of modifying the Fw on the Western front in 44 - it's not a one way reconstruction. You move a squad from east to west, you get yourself a good dozen engine cowlings and make sure your boys come back home more often. Move the squad back to east next week, reinstall the old cowlings.

Other nations would use completely different engines or even plane types to get a similar amount of optimization for the desired combat role.

As mentioned earlier. At this stage of the War.
Spitfire MKixs. Were the least of the LW. worries.
Americans were bringing planes over to Britain. Stalingrad was a Costly defeat and the allies were landing in North Africa. It was all hands to the pumps.

Just as an aside. (i'm sure I have Photos/Proof somewhere. But not at this time of night!).

I believe, Herman Graf had one of his "Special" FW 190s modified in such a manner.When he flew with JG 50 (OST.)Possibly on an 190A-5

Will dig out my reference.

JtD
02-02-2007, 11:04 AM
Would be most appreciated.

The impact on production should have been about nil, since it could have been refitted as a field modification. The point that it was available in 1942 does not mean that it wasn't in 1944 - where the air war was focusing on the Western Front high altitude bomber interceptions.

I'm still thinking the Germans weren't as desperate for high alt performance as history books want me to believe.

Unless your source shows the mod to have been ****. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

horseback
02-02-2007, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by JSG72:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Well, I can see this is getting nowhere...everyone is just guessing like myself. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WRT to 2x20mm cannon armament - this was also used for the other tests, at least for the one I used for comparison with internal air intake.

The idea was ready in 1942. It would have been a really easy way of modifying the Fw on the Western front in 44 - it's not a one way reconstruction. You move a squad from east to west, you get yourself a good dozen engine cowlings and make sure your boys come back home more often. Move the squad back to east next week, reinstall the old cowlings.

Other nations would use completely different engines or even plane types to get a similar amount of optimization for the desired combat role.

As mentioned earlier. At this stage of the War.
Spitfire MKixs. Were the least of the LW. worries.
Americans were bringing planes over to Britain. Stalingrad was a Costly defeat and the allies were landing in North Africa. It was all hands to the pumps.

Just as an aside. (i'm sure I have Photos/Proof somewhere. But not at this time of night!).

I believe, Herman Graf had one of his "Special" FW 190s modified in such a manner.When he flew with JG 50 (OST.)Possibly on an 190A-5

Will dig out my reference. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I believe you're right. I built the Dragon 1/48th scale model of the 190 with the side scoops in Graf's JG 50 colors about ten years ago. Wish I still had it now, but I was able to sell it for an obscene profit...

cheers

horseback

Xiolablu3
02-02-2007, 12:52 PM
Maybe they were satisfied with the Bf109 for hi alt work.


After all, the Eastern front was fought at a lower altitude.

And yes, I am only guessing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JSG72
02-02-2007, 02:17 PM
OK. Focke-Wulf FW 190 Aces of the Western Front
by John Weal Pub. Osprey Page 60 Carries a port side colour view of Grafs 190a-5 fitted with intakes for the two stage supercharger.

"Planes of the Luftwaffe Fighter Aces Vol 1" by Bernd Barbas Pub. Kookaburra Carries a large Starboard side profile between pages 82 and 83.

Aircraft and legend Focke-Wulf Fw190 & Ta 152 by Heinz J Nowarra. Pub. Haynes.
Makes mention of the A-3/ U7 prototype with you photo. and includes a chapter dedicated to the Experiment and failure of FW to produce a satisfactory High altitude fighter.

Probably got more info somewhere.

The Bf109 was a better performer at altitude that is why various Squadrons/Staffeln. changed their mounts to suit the situations as the war dictated. The Heavily armed and armoured 190 (with an escort of higher flying BF109s) was more suitable for knocking out Bombers
The 190 as a dogfighting machine against spitfires only came about because of its superiority over the MK Vs.

BTW. Many performance Graphs you may find were based on factory proposals before flight actually took place. They do not in fact reflect the realities of actual operation.

There have been many graphs posted on this forum to try and prove the "My planes better than yours" argument. Are nothing more than Factory propaganda to sell planes. Just as you find with Auto manufacturers of today. Yes they will produce this power/speed/ fuel efficiency under certain conditions but everyday usage by the average customer gets only a percentage of the specification realised http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JtD
02-02-2007, 02:21 PM
Well, thanks to you two for sharing this information. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BlitzPig_DDT
02-02-2007, 02:48 PM
There have been many graphs posted on this forum to try and prove the "My planes better than yours" argument. Are nothing more than Factory propaganda to sell planes. Just as you find with Auto manufacturers of today.

Actually.... many underrate their vehicles. Such as in Japan, for example, where even Skyline GTRs are sold with "276HP" and a wink. Back during the Muscle Car era, once insurance started getting wise, manufacturers started claiming lower power for their cars.

Even today, the 2002 Trans Am and Forumula are claimed as having 305HP. If you buy the WS6 package, they claim 325HP. They are the same engine, it's just a hood. The flat hood produces every bit as much as the WS6. Dyno's and drag strips have demonstrated this.

Not only that, the "325" is actually a low ball figure. It's actually more like 350HP. But the Corvette made that as well (same LS1 engine). Once the Corvette went to the LS2, the GTO (which was then the only LS1 powered non-Corvette performance vehicle from GM) was listed at 350, but they didn't change anything.

JSG72
02-02-2007, 03:43 PM
LOL!

'Tis funny how we get an American quoting from "American source"

I am Scottish1 And as it happens also have an interest in American Muscle cars 1970Plymouth Barracuda AAR being my Fav . Japanese performance saloons. (I once owned the fastest road legal Subaru Impressa in Europe/World probably) and also have an interest in all european performance manufacturers.

The Japanese "Gentlemans agreement " limiting cars to 276bhp was of course written down in specs. but it was "On the streets" that the truth Will out! Thats why you mentioned the Skyline. Subaru, Mitsubushi, Nissan But perhaps not Honda have all produced cars way beyond this figure.

I will not digress from subject though as you are talking of American HP that was/is indeed as you stated. However 450 hp in a car that weighs 2 tons and handles like a barge just doesn't cut it against the same horses in a honed rally proven chassis weighing 1.2 tons.

You may purchase your motor based on manufacturers Specs. I tend to acquire as many road tests as possible before my purchase http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Think there is a great difference between producing a Rubbish modern car and the Wartime machine that could make or break your countries fortunes.

BlitzPig_DDT
02-02-2007, 04:00 PM
What's with the tone dude, what are you getting at?

I'm not quoting any source, and YOU started the analogy with modern car manufacturers. Not my fault it was an incorrect one. lol

As for "rubbish" cars...? Got news for ya, ANY car can be made to do ANYTHING you wish. There are rebuild Chargers and Chevelles that will anihilate R34s. Further, while I like the R34, it doesn't hold a candle, stlying wise, to any of the good Muscle Cars or classic Pony Cars - GTO, 442, Charger, GT500, BOSS 302, 1st and 2nd Gen Firebirds, 'Cuda 440 6-Pack, just to name a few.

And if you mean to imply that a modern car American is "rubbish", bring it on. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif C6 Z06 - 'nuff said. But beyond that, any C5 kicks a$$, and my car (the '02 T/A WS6 - I was speaking from knowledge, not quoting from specs) is on par with a C5 Z51, and nearly so with a C5 Z06, AND.... with a Porsche Cayman S and '04 M3. (performance-wise, it blasts the Euro's styling wise. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

Oh, and I don't buy engines based on "specs", I buy what comes in the car I want, then either rebuild it myself, or build a new one and perform the swap in my garage. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

As for planes - Lying about specs is a good way to get your head on the block w/r/t a combat plane under people like stalin and hitler. This idea that the manufacturers provided nothing more than hopes and dreams is nonsense. It's what the design could do. That isn't going to reflect field examples, or even massive production runs, but it IS what the *design* can do. Manufacturing defects and field maintenance are another issue.

FWIW, there wasn't much in the way of differences from one Hellcat to the next, and a little ol' company churned out an impressive 12,000 or so, along with several thousand other aircraft, in the span of about 2 years.

JSG72
02-02-2007, 04:19 PM
What's with the tone dude, what are you getting at?

Sorry Ma Freend.

As I said. I am a great fan of American autos. But certainly not in the way they perform.
More in an Idealistic kind of way.

12.000 Identical Hellcats. Eh!
Wonder How Identical They would have been? If the factories were being Bombed Day and night. And your country was being threatened with being overun by an Enemy.

This is not an apology for what happened in NAZI Germany.
Just another thought on what, has got to be put into any equasion when referring to production and Specs of any Aircraft under such conditions.

Would I be right, in saying the ZO6 has Leaf Springs? on the rear axle.

Pound for pound it is a worthwhile acheivement. However It Ain't No pinacle.

BlitzPig_DDT
02-02-2007, 07:34 PM
"Tone" meaning you came across rather hostile (and/or sarcastic) for no apparent reason.


Originally fount in Murphy's Laws of Combat:
If it's stupid and it works, it isn't stupid.

The C6 Z06 does use a transverse leaf spring in the back. What does it matter? It's cost effective and it works.

So many "car people" are obsessed with ideals more than performance. They'd rather it have certain features more than the capabilities they claim to seek.

That transverse leaf spring you say "isnt' ideal" trounced everything that you would claim is ideal, this side of the Porsche Carrera GT, which is around $600,000, while the (C6) Z06 is only about 1 10th that price.

Another example is the live axle. Pretty impressive for a live axle car to run with Porsche Cayman S's, M3s, and Corvettes - all newer than it (and apparently R34s too), wouldn't you say?

Style, power, sound, AND performance. The complete package you really can't quite get anywhere else. (not just the 'Vette, American sports and Muscle cars in general)

BTW - did you know the new 599 GTB Fiorano uses a suspension developed by GM and available on the Corvette and Cadillac CTS?


How many Hellcats could Grumman have produced if they didn't have to produce bombers? Everyone is stressed.

I think you missed the point. The point is - if Yakolev went to Uncle Joe and said his new 9 series model would go 750kph at SL and it couldn't even come close, he'd have a LOT of explaining to do, don'cha think?

Those figures could not be pure propaganda (which is to say "BS"), they had to be what the design is actually capable of. And that's why they are valid for FM purposes.

JSG72
02-05-2007, 06:36 PM
(Quote)by BlitzPig-DDT.

Those figures could not be pure propaganda (which is to say "BS"), they had to be what the design is actually capable of. And that's why they are valid for FM purposes.

MMMmmm..... Who said anything about FM. purposes?

I whole heartedly agree that Data, has to come from somewhere.

However! Many many sources have to be accepted before the Manufacturers Data has to be considered "The Truth"

Not all perform as it says "On the Tin". Mig-1/LAGG-3/ Me 210/ Jaguar 220/Supermarine Attacker/Hardley Davidson.Whatever/Yamaha Bulldog?.

Go for it! Once you read of the Rubbish. You can learn to appreciate The promising. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

BlitzPig_DDT
02-05-2007, 06:51 PM
Say what?

JSG72
02-05-2007, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
Say what?

What I am saying is...

Look around you!

The World Doesn't move on if you stick the old Chuck Wagon suspension on your 21st century design.

You may have advanced the "Chuck Wagon".

But it ain't gonna compete in the Monaco GP/Indie 500/Daytona/LM 24hrs.

'twas back in glorious '66 that America Won those races against international competition.

And Boy! have we been reminded of it since!

The Super 8 has been transformed to video then DVD and HD to remind us.

What about those "Forgotten" Porsche/Matra/Rondeau/Jaguar/Mazda/Audi years.

Well I guess they were the "Lucky Years" When the US. Hadn't entered their "World Championship winning NASCAR/IMSA/USAC and Trans AM cars".

AHHH.. Hemmm. Excuse me?

Yeh I know the C06 Whupped the Jags(In Jags first year. Corvettes had been campaigning and getting whupped by Dodge for Umpteen years).

Anyways.

Believe what you like! It's what you like that counts!

BlitzPig_DDT
02-05-2007, 07:24 PM
Oh, so you ARE a blind biggot, just as I suspected. You don't care about what works, you only care about your ignorance (and cherish it, apparently).

Really sad. What's more sad is how common it is.

JSG72
02-05-2007, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
Oh, so you ARE a blind biggot, just as I suspected. You don't care about what works, you only care about your ignorance (and cherish it, apparently).

Really sad. What's more sad is how common it is.

Are you reading My posts? Or indeed the Topic of the Thread?

You would appear to be wrapped up in your own cocoon.
Just as many readers would have expected.
If you are not Happy.

Please. Let me Don the Flame suit.

Perhaps? I may come over UnAmerican. Because I tend to highlight the things you are unaware of.
Or the fact that your Signature would suggest that you have a certain Bias.

I care Not. If you can educate me? Then I will be forever your apostle.

If you are just here to stick up for the misguided illusions of "Grand Old Americee".

Well! I guess you delusions are lost on me. However, Seein' as how I cannot convince you. Then I may as well F**k OFF.

Cheers! and Happy Delusions http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

BTW. Just read OCTANE Mags contribution from Caroll Shelby When he reminises about racing in the late 50s He raced Ferraris and Maseratis then. Winning straight out the gate. (As opposed to in the 60s when things were "Much more professional"(By the Manufacturers book??????)

BlitzPig_DDT
02-05-2007, 09:25 PM
You act like the victim and act like you want to "civilize" things, then out of the other corner of your mouth spew some flamable sh|te. Somehow, I'm not surprised.

You talk like a ricer - It's the results that matter, NOT how you get there.

What's next, griping about OHV? Nevermind that it spins to 7 grand, makes 505hp out of the factory, and gets half decent mileage all at the same time?

See, ricers do the same thing, they get beat, then they start talking about how bad the other car is because it's not the same whiz-bang **** in their cars. See here -
http://www.firebreathingfiats.com/Contribute/contact/images/Ricer-excuse-gaugeweb.jpg

Performance is performance. The Z06 smokes EVERYTHING short of a Porsche Carrera GT. That's Ferarri's, Lamborghini's, Ford GTs, other Porsches, etc. And not just in the usual stat methods, but around the Nürburgring.

Furthermore, again, you kvetch about the US stuff, but blow off the fact that the new Ferrari uses a suspension system developed by GM for the Corvette and Cadillac (and can be bought on both).

I love high end Euro cars. I appreciate Japanese cars. But you are a blind biggot who can not see past country of origin AND your own uneducated ideals of how things "should" be, ignoring performance results and making excuses instead.

You started this by making a claim about auto manufacturers which was likewise incorrect. When this was pointed out, you started spewing BS about how poor US cars are.

No bias on my part. You just wish there was, because the truth is, you are the deluded one.