PDA

View Full Version : Hypothetical Hellcat vs Fw 190 A4 tactics



mynameisroland
08-13-2006, 12:07 PM
Im more interested in a real match up using figures and pilot accounts than a purely IL2 based discussion but feel free to compare with what we have in game too.

What I have noticed when reading our forums and also reading books on the PTO and USN pilot interviews is that the Hellcat proved superior to most Japanese planes due to better pilot training tactics and performance attributes. Looking at the Hellcats performance attributes and the performance of likely opponents like the Zero you see how the Hellcat held an advantage in speed, dive, structural strength and medium and high speed manuverability advantage. The Zero on the other hand had a better rate of climb and much better low speed manuverability - traditional dogfighter attributes.

It is well known however that flown using energy tactics and maintaining its speed the Hellcat dictated the fight against its slower more manuverable opponent.

Im asking those who are interested in the Hellcat, the things that make the Hellcat superior to the Zero are essentially the same set of attributes that the Fw 190 A4 possess over the Hellcat.

If in WW2 a large scale operation occured where the Hellcat came face to face with the Fw 190 A4 would the Hellcat prove to be to slow to fight with the same success it fought with in the PTO? Rather than use Enery tactics USN pilots conversely would have to rely on the superior turning circle of their Hellcats over the Fw 190. This apart from greater range and more robust construction are the only significant advantages the Hellcat possessed.

The Hellcats formidable reputation was built on the destruction of the IJN and IJA fighter forces. I think that in circumstances where the Hellcat came in to contact with more formidable land based types ie if the USN had to force the MTO using large carrier groups the Hellcat would have been at a severe peformance disadvantage.
I know that the Hellcat was a carrier type and that its forte was safe handling and good servicibility ect but as a fighter how would it have meausured up to better opposition>

MEGILE
08-13-2006, 12:15 PM
AFAIK, FAA Hellcats did engage and shoot down German planes in Scandanavia... during later Tirpitz raids, and that era.

Don't know if they were messers, or focke wulfs however.

mynameisroland
08-13-2006, 12:23 PM
IIRC FAA Wildcats also shot down a few Bf 109 G6s yet these are isolated incidents like the RN Hellcat encounters. In a prolonged campaign I think the Wildcat would suffer flying against 1943 types http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

MEGILE
08-13-2006, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
IIRC FAA Wildcats also shot down a few Bf 109 G6s yet these are isolated incidents like the RN Hellcat encounters. In a prolonged campaign I think the Wildcat would suffer flying against 1943 types http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I can only say what did happen, not what I hoped would happen. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

R_Target
08-13-2006, 12:51 PM
The Hellcat would probably have a rough time against later German types (mid-'44 on). XF6F-6 was in development (675kph @ 6600m), but shelved because of R-2800-18w production earmarked for F4U-4. With the Hellcat holding the line in the Pacific throughout '44 and into '45, the USN brass finally clearing the Corsair for carrier work, and Bearcat production ramping up, there just wasn't any need for an improved Hellcat.

JtD
08-13-2006, 12:56 PM
Pretty much the same style as P-40 vs. FW 190A-4, but the gap is closer.

Some folks here claim the F6-F irl had better performance than in game, but so did the FW. So I figure the relations of the game mirror the reality quite well.

mynameisroland
08-13-2006, 01:36 PM
somebody said to me once that the Hellats instruments always misread the true airspeed of the aircraft and that even the bogstandard Hellcats could exced 400 mph in level flight.

Megile what do you mean ? What you know happened and what would have wanted to happen?

horseback
08-13-2006, 01:36 PM
If you think of the USN operated Hellcat as a much more maneuverable version of the P-47 below 20,000 ft, with significantly better trained pilots, you will come close to a realistic idea of the matchup, at least with the F6F-3. Hellcats and Corsairs would regularly win medium to low level mock dogfights with USAAF pilots, but their mounts (at least 'til the definitive F4U-4 arrived) got a bit 'winded' above 21kft/7000m.

The F6F-5 models were significantly improved in terms of maneuverability and I believe (can't be positive, on travel, away from my personal library), accelleration. I suspect that in most non-surprise encounters (wherein both pilots are aware of each other at about the same time), the edge would go to the Hellcat driver if the FW driver chooses to engage.

In-game, however, the Hellcat would have significant problems with the FW that did not occur in RL. Pilot range of vision to the rear quarters, effectiveness of the .50s (with the added gunshake effect), glass jawed R-2800 and oddball handling issues (it still feels too wobbly to me compared to the Soviet and German planes) make it a poor bet against the less handicapped Forgotten Battles FW 190A.

cheers

horseback

RCAF_Irish_403
08-13-2006, 01:44 PM
The Hellcat was an impressive turn fighter as well

R_Target
08-13-2006, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
somebody said to me once that the Hellats instruments always misread the true airspeed of the aircraft and that even the bogstandard Hellcats could exced 400 mph in level flight.


Yeah, folks have said that, but the jury is still out on that one. I'll post the page from the F6F pilot's manual that shows the corrections for accurate indicated airspeed. I think part of the 400+mph top speed contention comes from an informal test that Grumman test pilot Corky Meyer did between a Hellcat and a Corsair. With the two planes flying side by side at top speed they were pacing each other, with one alternately pulling ahead briefly before being overtaken by the other. So they modified the pitot similar to the Corair's, and indeed it read just like the Corsair's speeds. The article was in Flight Journal, and is available free. I'll try to find the link.

As for the PF Hellcat, "F6F-3 Late" means we only really have one Hellcat- the F6F-5. Both have about the same unimpressive (but correct) roll rate (around 70?/sec), and both hold that rate through a wide range of speeds due to the spring-tab ailerons introduced on F6F-5 and retrofitted to F6F-3's. The water injection would be the other major difference between the two, but this was retrofitted also, so they're the pretty much the same plane. The problem with the PF Hellcat is the top speeds don't even meet conservative performance figures between 2000-12,000 ft. At higher altitudes the speeds are more or less on the mark.

Asgeir_Strips
08-13-2006, 02:25 PM
In a Flight Journal Article, US test pilots compared the Hellcat F6F-3 F4U-1A Corsair and FW190-A4 , and they found out that the Corsair and Hellcat could easily outmanuever the FW190 in a turn fight. The A4 wasn't faster than the F4U-1A either, so personally i'd Fly a Hellcat or Corsair anyday over a FW190A4 because both US fighters are just as good as the Würger in Boom n' Zoom, and outclass it in a turning fight.

ICDP
08-13-2006, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by Asgeir_Strips:
In a Flight Journal Article, US test pilots compared the Hellcat F6F-3 F4U-1A Corsair and FW190-A4 , and they found out that the Corsair and Hellcat could easily outmanuever the FW190 in a turn fight. The A4 wasn't faster than the F4U-1A either, so personally i'd Fly a Hellcat or Corsair anyday over a FW190A4 because both US fighters are just as good as the Würger in Boom n' Zoom, and outclass it in a turning fight.

That test was actually made against an Fw190 fighter bomber converted to an A5 spec (as noted in the report), or so the Allies thought. The 190G had a different power egg (geared for different alts) than the Jabo Antons. Also throw in the fact that the 190A they used had very badly adjusted ailerons that serioulsy hampered manouverablility and you have what ammounts to an Fw190A that was in no way performing at its best. The report even mentions the fact that the Fw190A engine was running rough due to fouled spark plugs. Despite this the 190A they tested still had a comparable top speed to the USN fighters. The Fw190 according to LW sources had very sensitive ailerons that required correct calibration. Ailerons on captured aircraft were badly out of adjustment exhibiting aileron flutter and reversal leading to premature stalling in the turn

This is noted in this translation from Hauptmann Gollob´s report for Rechlin on the tactical trials of an FW-190A2 and a Bf-109F4.

http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/aleirons.jpg

The very same symptoms are mentioned in the UN test of the Fw190.

As far as the F6F in PF goes it is slightly too slow by about 10mph at alt but spot on at SL. I also wifh they wouild fix the asymetrical recoil on it and other USN fighters.

HuninMunin
08-13-2006, 02:43 PM
Its hard to say anything "out-game".

But for in-game its:

Speed:
At sealevel

Focke Wulf A-4 = ca. 540 km/h
Hellcat F-3 = ca. 510 km/h

Up at 6000 m

Focke = ca. 650
Cat = ca. 620

Wingloading:

Focke = 212,3 kg / squaremeter
Cat = 183,1 kg / squaremeter

Powerloading:

Focke = 78,5 hp / sq.m.
Cat = 64,45 hp / sq.m.

Thrust to weight:

Focke = 0,37 hp / kg
Cat = 0,35 hp / kg


So. I think it's a very close match, with the Cat having a slight advantage in turning ( wich is kind of equaled by the 190s powerloading and
rollrate), and the Focke beeing slightly ahead in the Energy department because of it's power to weight ratio.

Of course the things look better if you compare the Cat to the A-5,6 or later.
Then I think the overall advantage would fall to the Focke (also because of its guns and the human-maschiene interface).

mynameisroland
08-13-2006, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by Asgeir_Strips:
In a Flight Journal Article, US test pilots compared the Hellcat F6F-3 F4U-1A Corsair and FW190-A4 , and they found out that the Corsair and Hellcat could easily outmanuever the FW190 in a turn fight. The A4 wasn't faster than the F4U-1A either, so personally i'd Fly a Hellcat or Corsair anyday over a FW190A4 because both US fighters are just as good as the Würger in Boom n' Zoom, and outclass it in a turning fight.

This is the response I was fishing for. I have read this combat test report it was discected in PF forums long ago. It stated that the Fw 190 G (bomber version imitating fighter btw) outclimbed out rolled and outsped the Corsair and the Hellcat at all altitudes.

If you bear in mind that the Fw 190 A4 was capable of 416/421 mph and the Hellcat was capable of 376/380 mph and the Fw 190 A4 climbed better, had better acceleration and was better at rolling how can you draw the conclusion that the Hellcat could possibly be a better Energy fighter?

Its my favourite Hellcat fans argument.

1: Hellcat is faster, heavier, faster in dive, lesser rate of climb but is a better Energy fighter than Zero therefore Hellcat>Zero using Energy tactics

2: Fw 190 is faster, better climber, better diver, superior acceleration by AT LEAST the same margin over the Hellcat as the Hellcat possessed over the Zero yet using the same 'energy' tactics somehow fails and Hellcat>Fw 190.

Using same laws of physics what gives?

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/index1.html

link to test report, not whow the F4U-1A and Hellcat both used full boost, the Fw 190 A5 did not have its boost system functioning so was not capable of max speed it was also flown in the mock combat at 1.35 ATA and therefore was not representative of a fighter version.

So an unboosted hardly pristine condition Fw 190 A5 Jabo was faster than the Hellcat - at all altitudes and faster than the Corsair at some.

A Fw 190 A4 fighter version would be superior by an increased margin.

HuninMunin
08-13-2006, 02:56 PM
With someone like Priller on the stick?
A Hellcat running for home.

edit
Yes I know about the A-4 issue.
Just wanted to be as fair as possible.

mynameisroland
08-13-2006, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Its hard to say anything "out-game".


The Fw 190 in game is a bollocked Fw 190 A4 quoting Oleg vebatum - If you want Fw 190 A4 fighter specs in IL2 use Fw 190 A5.

So as you say Hunin, if you supplant the A5 ie Realistic Fw 190 A4 specs things begin to look undoubtedly unrosy for the Hellcat .

ICDP
08-13-2006, 03:03 PM
Actually the Hellcat was good for slightly short of 400mph, not 380mph. The speed of 380mph was obtained using military power. The Hellcat in the test reached 391mph, 20mph less than the admitedly not 100% Fw190. The best I can get in the F6F is 387mph at its rated altitude. This is about 10mph short but IMHO well within acceptable figures. There are many other aircraft such as the Ki62 and A6M5 that also suffer this problem.

Snuffy Smith
08-13-2006, 03:09 PM
F6F-5's did fly in Operation Dragoon and the Western Med in 44 and had some success. One from VOF-1 off the USS Tulagi got 4 kills against He 111's and Ju 88's. Actually, from that time on in the war most US fighter pilots never encountered an enemy fighter.

mynameisroland
08-13-2006, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
With someone like Priller on the stick?
A Hellcat running for home.

edit
Yes I know about the A-4 issue.
Just wanted to be as fair as possible.

I edited my longer post Hunin and linked to the test report. It shows that the Fw 190 tested there was flown at 1.35 ATA and therefore was reprasentative of the Fw 190 A4 we have in game. Just goes to show that IL2 pretty closely mirrors the test reports figures.

HuninMunin
08-13-2006, 03:16 PM
So we can justify 1941 A-3 missions http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

Great link, thanks for posting

ImpStarDuece
08-13-2006, 03:19 PM
There seem to be three sets of figures floating about for the Hellcat.

The first is the decalssified USN post-war data sheets for the -3 and -5 which have them doing 370 and 380 mph respectively

The second is a graph, entitled "Graph 71, F6F- Speed and Performance", from an unknown source (help here would be good) which displays the -3 top speed as 379.5 mph and the top speed of the -5 as 398 mph.

A 10 and 18 mph difference, repectively.

There is also a series of tests done comparing USN and USAF WW2 fighters. These tests have the -5 doing 399 mph.

Againt the very high 390s speed shows up.

I have yet to find a single DOCUMENTED test of the Hellcat doing more than 400mph. There are some anecdotal accounts, but nothing more than that (at least that I have seen).

In terms of speed, in the documentation I have seen at least, the F4U-1 is relaibly 25 to 15 mph faster at all heights than the Hellcat.

Currently, in game, both Hellcats seem to top out at about 378 mph. Which means the -3 is either 10 mph to fast or 1-2 mph too slow. Similarly, it means the -5 is either 1 mph to slow or about 20 mph tooo slow.

Until more documantation is brought foward (such as Grumman testing, Marine Corps testing, FAA testing [which is reputed to back up the 370/380 figures]) then its an unresolved issue.

R_Target
08-13-2006, 03:23 PM
There's a "Graph 71" in America's 100,000 showing the various Hellcat speeds. They're not too far off the 1950 tests.

As for the FW190A, I don't put much stock in captured plane tests, favorable or unfavorable.

CUJO_1970
08-13-2006, 04:22 PM
To make a long story short, without typing everything out:

The FW190 is faster than the Hellcat, can outclimb it - especially in a high speed climb -and can quite easily out roll the Hellcat.

The FW190 has superior acceleration.

The Hellcat can out-turn and out-loop the FW190.

The only real advantage I see for the Hellcat is the classic turn advantage(but to a lesser extent) the FW190 was already successfully dealing with against the Spitfire.

ICDP
08-13-2006, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by R_Target:
There's a "Graph 71" in America's 100,000 showing the various Hellcat speeds. They're not too far off the 1950 tests.

As for the FW190A, I don't put much stock in captured plane tests, favorable or unfavorable.

I agree with this statement. Too many people will read captured fighter reports and state them as gospel. They can be usefull but the figures from them should be taking with a large grain of salt.

strider1
08-13-2006, 05:56 PM
Some excellent and informative posts above. Thanks to you all. Hardball's Viewer gives the advantage to the FW-190 A-4 and the FW-190 D-9 respectively as Speed at sea level (512 and 607 km/hr) and Speed at 6000m (645 and 728 km/hr) against the F6F-5 Hellcat. The Hellcat gets the nod in Power, TurnTime, Power to weight, Climb , Service Ceiling and Range. Thanks again Hardball for all your effort!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif Strider1

p1ngu666
08-13-2006, 05:59 PM
bit pointless to have 2 f6f's with same performance imo, the japanease planes are mostly so dire it doesnt matter.

nearly 90% of the time i feel sorry when i shoot a japanease plane flier down http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

and imo the comments about the bmw engine, it probably ran abit rough to start with, but the major allied radial engine makers of that time, pw and bristol, there engines where smooth. the bristol is *very* smooth, sounds really modern. even the one on the gladiator.

190 alirons could aprently be moved with just the weight of a coin, just put it on the aliron and they would slowly move.

oh and 190 holds the vast majority of cards, whatever way u cut it

faustnik
08-13-2006, 06:24 PM
Cpt. Brown, the only person to fly both types extensively, concluded that in a fight between the F6F-3 and Fw190A4: This was a contest so finely balanced that the skill of the pilot would be the deciding factor.

So, there's your answer. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

SkyChimp
08-13-2006, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
I have yet to find a single DOCUMENTED test of the Hellcat doing more than 400mph. There are some anecdotal accounts, but nothing more than that (at least that I have seen).



The USN comparison between the F6F-5 and A6M-5 "Zeke 52" perfomed by TAIC at NAS Patuxent River showed a top speed for the F6F-5 of 409 mph. A verbatim transcript of the test report is in the book F6F hellcat by barret Tillman.

These numbers that get bandied about are difficult to decipher because the numbers are rarely accompanied by a description of the plane's condition (clean, w/ racks, etc).

With respect to the Fw-190 vs F6F debate, there isn't enough disparity between performance figures to say the same advantage exists for the FW over the Hellcat as the Hellcat had over the A6M. The performance figures are much closer.

In the F6F vs A6M case, the Hellcat had a 41-75 mph speed advantage over the Zero - depending on altitude. Those sorts of advvantages don't exist for the FW even if it were in "good running order." And while one can say the Hhellcat speeds were low, a close read of the Fw vs F6F vs F4U report shows the planes were only run at full throotle for 2 minutes. Top speed runs were usually for 5 minutes or more.

The F6F and Fw-190 seem very close in performance. Much closer than the F6F and Zero.

Jaws2002
08-13-2006, 06:27 PM
About the navy tests on that so called FW-190A5
There was something very wrong with that machine. Check this:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/<FA>Jaws/29103_FW190_roll_rate_vs_Corsair-1.jpg

faustnik
08-13-2006, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
AFAIK, FAA Hellcats did engage and shoot down German planes in Scandanavia... during later Tirpitz raids, and that era.

Don't know if they were messers, or focke wulfs however.

FAA 800 Squadron Hellcats claimed one Fw190 and two Bf109s on one of those raids.

R_Target
08-13-2006, 07:21 PM
Does anyone have details of the LW side of this? All I have is "mixed unit" of 109's and 190's.

berg417448
08-13-2006, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by R_Target:
Does anyone have details of the LW side of this? All I have is "mixed unit" of 109's and 190's.

Another version of events:
On 8 May, F6F's from the Fleet Air Arm's No. 800 Squadron (Lieut. Comdr. SJ Hall, DSC, RN), off HMS Emperor, while escorting a flight of Barracudas was attacked by a mixed group of Me-109's and FW-190's. Two F6F's were lost, one, probably, to anti-aircraft fire (one source indicates that both F6Fs were lost in a mid-air collision, not to any German fire of any kind); the Germans lost 2 Me-109's and one FW-190. The FW-190 was claimed by Sub-Lieut. Ritchie. Available Luftwaffe loss listings show three Me-109Gs lost in this action, werk# 14697 (Ofw. Kurt), 10347 (Uffz. Brettin), and unknown # (Fw. Horst). On the Luftwaffe side, Uffz. Hallstick claimed two F6Fs and Lieut. Prenzler claimed one.

VW-IceFire
08-13-2006, 07:51 PM
I think there would be a few things to put the ball in the Hellcats court.

1) Unlike the Spitfire and others during this time period, the Hellcat could definately dive with confidence with a FW190. Hellcats were well built and well able to sustain high G pullouts and high speed dives. Probably moreso than the FW190 (despite it being quite well built as well)

2) Range of the Hellcat is quite a bit better than that of the FW190 so the Hellcat could be farther ranging OR able to pursue or continue the fight for a longer period of time.

3) Later model Hellcats of both the F6F-3 and F6F-5 types had aileron boosters giving them a high roll rate throughout the speed range making the FW190s roll rate advantage only minorly better. This sim doesn't model a F6F-3 without aileron boosters so its hard to say for me how things would be without them.

I feel the Hellcats plus USN pilot training would be a good match for the FW190 pilots. I'd have a hard time saying that the Hellcat is overall better than the FW190, also considering that the FW190 had much more development potential but straight F6F-3 vs FW190A-4/A-5...interesting matchup.

R_Target
08-13-2006, 07:58 PM
Another version of events:
On 8 May, F6F's from the Fleet Air Arm's No. 800 Squadron (Lieut. Comdr. SJ Hall, DSC, RN), off HMS Emperor, while escorting a flight of Barracudas was attacked by a mixed group of Me-109's and FW-190's. Two F6F's were lost, one, probably, to anti-aircraft fire (one source indicates that both F6Fs were lost in a mid-air collision, not to any German fire of any kind); the Germans lost 2 Me-109's and one FW-190. The FW-190 was claimed by Sub-Lieut. Ritchie. Available Luftwaffe loss listings show three Me-109Gs lost in this action, werk# 14697 (Ofw. Kurt), 10347 (Uffz. Brettin), and unknown # (Fw. Horst). On the Luftwaffe side, Uffz. Hallstick claimed two F6Fs and Lieut. Prenzler claimed one.

Thanks for the info. Tillman's Hellcat book has the two missing Hellcats being bounced and shot down. I hadn't heard about a possible collision.

R_Target
08-13-2006, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

Later model Hellcats of both the F6F-3 and F6F-5 types had aileron boosters giving them a high roll rate throughout the speed range making the FW190s roll rate advantage only minorly better. This sim doesn't model a F6F-3 without aileron boosters so its hard to say for me how things would be without them.


Not fast, just consistent. FW190 roll rate is much faster than Hellcat at all speeds. With spring-tab ailerons (which is how it appears in the game judging by F6F roll) best roll is about 70? at 275 mph, but stays above 60? past 350mph. 50lb. stick force extends the range a little further, but never the rate. Apparently the dihedral effect of the wings acts against the roll-i.e. it doesn't want to roll.

CUJO_1970
08-13-2006, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by R_Target:
Not fast, just consistent. FW190 roll rate is much faster than Hellcat at all speeds. With spring-tab ailerons (which is how it appears in the game judging by F6F roll) best roll is about 70? at 275 mph, but stays above 60? past 350mph. 50lb. stick force extends the range a little further, but never the rate. Apparently the dihedral effect of the wings acts against the roll-i.e. it doesn't want to roll.


+1

Good info on the spring-tab equipped F6F-3/5 in AHT. They allowed the roll rate to maintain just under 70 deg/sec peak at higher speeds - e.g. the F6F-5 could roll at 60-64 deg/sec at 360mph IAS depending on stick force.

At this speed the FW190 rolls at 90-95 deg/sec.

dugong
08-13-2006, 08:23 PM
Every once in a while I have the occasion to mention this.

I read a book that featured both hyptohetical and both real-world and staged encounters between a variety of WWII planes. I wish for the life of me I could remember the title of that book. I have posted in the past to no avail. Unfortunte, as I am pretty sure those two were vs. each other were included.

If memory serves me correctly, regardless of the planes, in most instances the better pilot often won the duels. Those are set-piece encounters though. In real war, most battles occured with one flight being surprised. I thought I read a statistic once that something like %90 of the fighter pilots shot down never saw the plane that shot them down. So, surprise is everything. If that is true, I would want a machine I could escape with easy as opposed one that could dogfight well.

I will try again - Does anyone have an idea what that book could be?

CUJO_1970
08-13-2006, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
in a fight between the F6F-3 and Fw190A4:



The contemporary for the F6F-3 would be the FW190A-5 and FW190A-6.

The -3 first flew combat with the RN and VF-9 in July-August 1943, well after the FW190A-5 and very close to the introduction of the FW190A-6.

CUJO_1970
08-13-2006, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by dugong:
I will try again - Does anyone have an idea what that book could be?


Yes - it's likely one of Eric Brown's "Wings" series, probably "Wings of the Navy" or "Wings of the Weird and Wonderful".

faustnik
08-13-2006, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:

The -3 first flew combat with the RN and VF-9 in July-August 1943, well after the FW190A-5 and very close to the introduction of the FW190A-6.

Yeah, but, the A4 was still the hot fighter version at the time. Through '43 the A4 had the same power and less weight, especially the common "no outer MgFF" configuration.

Xiolablu3
08-13-2006, 09:26 PM
I think any prop carrier aircraft in WW2 has to make concessions against being an all out fighter. We all know how bad the Seafire turned out when they tried to use a Spitfire for a carrier plane.

I really like the ingame 'cats', although when compared to contemporary land based planes like the FW190/Spitfire/109/La5, I think they obviously suffer a little, but thats to be expected. There are more important things to consider than high speed when you have to land on a carrier - low speed handling, safety, view etc.

VW-IceFire
08-13-2006, 09:32 PM
Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

Later model Hellcats of both the F6F-3 and F6F-5 types had aileron boosters giving them a high roll rate throughout the speed range making the FW190s roll rate advantage only minorly better. This sim doesn't model a F6F-3 without aileron boosters so its hard to say for me how things would be without them.


Not fast, just consistent. FW190 roll rate is much faster than Hellcat at all speeds. With spring-tab ailerons (which is how it appears in the game judging by F6F roll) best roll is about 70? at 275 mph, but stays above 60? past 350mph. 50lb. stick force extends the range a little further, but never the rate. Apparently the dihedral effect of the wings acts against the roll-i.e. it doesn't want to roll. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Good information.

The consistency is what I was going for. With the modified ailerons the Hellcat rolls decently well at all speeds. A FW190 could execute a quick Split S...but not as effectively as against the Spitfire and then there's the dive.

HellToupee
08-13-2006, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
We all know how bad the Seafire turned out when they tried to use a Spitfire for a carrier plane.


http://www.ezellaviation.com/Photos/Seafire/Full/9315%20%20SEAFIRE_jpg.jpg

how very bad :P

however i dont think its fair comparing carrier fighters to land based planes, the hellcat not much better than a spitfire V performance wise and much worse than the mk9.

Xiolablu3
08-13-2006, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
We all know how bad the Seafire turned out when they tried to use a Spitfire for a carrier plane.


http://www.ezellaviation.com/Photos/Seafire/Full/9315%20%20SEAFIRE_jpg.jpg

how very bad :P

however i dont think its fair comparing carrier fighters to land based planes, the hellcat not much better than a spitfire V performance wise and much worse than the mk9. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I meant the earlier Seafires for safety/range etc not performance, which were basically land planes used on carriers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

'The first Seafires were just straight adaptions of Spitfires with arrester hooks and catapult spools for use on aircraft carriers. However the landing gear had to be strengthened on later models to survive the rough landings found in carrier work. The narrow track undercarriage was always a disadvantage on the Seafire. If the landing was not spot-on the Seafire had a tendency to tip to one side or another and dig its wing into the deck. Much is made of the Seafires poor deck landing record, however the real shortcoming of the Seafire as a naval fighter was its poor endurance of only 90 minutes. To keep 12 hours of fighter cover airbourne over a fleet would take at least 8 launches and recoveries per aircraft kept airbourne. This compares with only 3 launches and recoveries needed to keep a Fulmar or Wildcat (with drop tanks) in the air for 12 hours and only 2 for the Japanese Zero with drop tank.'

'A naval version of the Spitfire, called the Seafire, was specially adapted for operation from aircraft carriers. Additions included an arrester hook, folding wings and other specialized equipment. However, like the Spitfire, the Seafire had a narrow undercarriage track, which meant that it was not well suited to deck operations. Due to the addition of heavy carrier equipment, it suffered from an aft centre-of-gravity position that made low-speed control difficult, and its gradual stall characteristics meant that it was difficult to land accurately on the carrier. These characteristics resulted in a very high accident rate for the Seafire'

CUJO_1970
08-13-2006, 11:46 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Yeah, but, the A4 was still the hot fighter version at the time. Through '43 the A4 had the same power and less weight, especially the common "no outer MgFF" configuration.


Actually, by the time the F6F-3 began to see service in any kind of numbers in the summer of 1943, there were more FW190A-5s and (early fall 1943) FW190A-6s in service on the channel front than there were A-4s.

Look here (http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bjagd.htm)

The main operators in the west were I and II/JG26 along with I and III/JG2.

JtD
08-14-2006, 12:52 AM
A-4, A-5, A-6 - does it matter? They were close enough in performance so it doesn't.

Thanks for educating me a little on the F6-F speeds. May I push my luck by asking for a speed chart?

ImpStarDuece
08-14-2006, 03:11 AM
Hmmm speed chart.

I have one, but the question is "What is correct"?

So far I have a fairly broad range of top speeds;

370 mph: F6F-3 from USN data sheet
379.5 mph: F6F-3 from America's 100 thousand Graph 71
380 mph: F6F-5 from USN data sheet
391 mph: F6F-3 from Mar-1944 USN comparative testing of F6F-3, F4U-1D and FW-190A5/U4
398 mph: F6F-5 from America's 100 thousand Graph 71
399 mph: F6F-5 from Vought comparative testing data
409 mph: F6F-5 from TAIC testing of "Zeke 52"

So, what do we draw from this information?

1. As a historian I HATE it when primary sources and secondary sources don't line up http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif .

2. Speed ranges across 21mph (370-391 mph) for the F6F-3 and across 29 mph (380-409) for the F6F-5. I'd consider this a fairly broad variance in testing, enough to be significant.

3. There are GOOD sources (both secondary and primary) that the F6F-5 could do AT LEAST 398 mph, and potentially up to 409 mph.

4. The diffence in -3 speeds may be explained by models with and without water injected engines, although I consider an extra 100 hp generating an extra 20mph difference somewhat unlikely, unless there was a change of supercharger gearing.

Personally, I consider the 370 mph speed too low for the Hellcat, and consider the 377-379 speeds more realistic for a version without WEP. In my uneducated opinion, the ~390 speed should be for a F6F-3 with a water injection capable R2800-10W.

The F6F-5, with water injection and some minor aerodynamic improvements, should be capable of around ~400 mph, although, to me at least, the 409 mph figure just feels a little high.

If I was to have my way in PF I would break them down like this;

F6F-3 Early: 377-379 mph
F6F-3 Late: 390 mph
F6F-5: 398-399 mph

JtD
08-14-2006, 04:36 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:

1. As a historian I HATE it when primary sources and secondary sources don't line up http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif .


I feel with you. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Is that graph 71 from AHT a speed over alt - chart?

KIMURA
08-14-2006, 04:54 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
FAA 800 Squadron Hellcats claimed one Fw190 and two Bf109s on one of those raids.

The FW190 was claimed by FAA CDR.Orr(IIRC) but proved later as wrong claim. The melée started when 2-4 BF109G ran into a section of FAA Hellcats. During the first pass(IIRC head on) one Hellcat was destroyed by one the BF109. As another section of Cats entered the scene 2 BF109 went down claimed by the Hellcats. For details I have to search my sources, so no guarantee of 100% correctness.

mynameisroland
08-14-2006, 06:20 AM
Some good posts thanks for the figures guys. Maybe the disparity in speeds of different Models of the Hellcat could also be put down to the quality of the fuel that was available. Does anyone know what octane the USN had in 1943/44 and 45 ?

mynameisroland
08-14-2006, 06:28 AM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
I have yet to find a single DOCUMENTED test of the Hellcat doing more than 400mph. There are some anecdotal accounts, but nothing more than that (at least that I have seen).



The USN comparison between the F6F-5 and A6M-5 "Zeke 52" perfomed by TAIC at NAS Patuxent River showed a top speed for the F6F-5 of 409 mph. A verbatim transcript of the test report is in the book F6F hellcat by barret Tillman.

These numbers that get bandied about are difficult to decipher because the numbers are rarely accompanied by a description of the plane's condition (clean, w/ racks, etc).

With respect to the Fw-190 vs F6F debate, there isn't enough disparity between performance figures to say the same advantage exists for the FW over the Hellcat as the Hellcat had over the A6M. The performance figures are much closer.

In the F6F vs A6M case, the Hellcat had a 41-75 mph speed advantage over the Zero - depending on altitude. Those sorts of advvantages don't exist for the FW even if it were in "good running order." And while one can say the Hhellcat speeds were low, a close read of the Fw vs F6F vs F4U report shows the planes were only run at full throotle for 2 minutes. Top speed runs were usually for 5 minutes or more.

The F6F and Fw-190 seem very close in performance. Much closer than the F6F and Zero. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If we take the USN tests as a guide and acknowledge that the Fw 190 A5 tested was ran at 1.35 ATA ( not 1.42 ATA a 1942/43 fighter would be ran at ) and also take in to account some surface damage would have occured to the aircraft in its captured state so it would not be offering factory specs - it was a recovered crash landed A5 wasnt it ? Then we accept the part of the test that says it was areound 20 mph faster than the Hellcat at most altitudes. We can see that a service condition Fw 190 A4 would hold even more substantial speed, rate of climb and acceleration advantage over the Hellcat.

Fw 190 at 1.32 ATA was only just exceeding 400 mph ~ maybe up to 408 mph ~ at this rating it was 20 mph or so faster. Fw 190 at 1.42 ATA was pushing 420 mph - therefore the significantly faster than the USN tests.

However you dress up the figures I dont see how you can draw the conclusion "The F6F and Fw-190 seem very close in performance. Much closer than the F6F and Zero." I still see a minimum 25 mph gap that grows depending on height.

Kernow
08-14-2006, 07:02 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Im more interested in a real match up using figures and pilot accounts than a purely IL2 based discussion but feel free to compare with what we have in game too.

...

If in WW2 a large scale operation occured where the Hellcat came face to face with the Fw 190 A4 would the Hellcat prove to be to slow to fight with the same success it fought with in the PTO? Rather than use Enery tactics USN pilots conversely would have to rely on the superior turning circle of their Hellcats over the Fw 190. This apart from greater range and more robust construction are the only significant advantages the Hellcat possessed.

...ie if the USN had to force the MTO using large carrier groups the Hellcat would have been at a severe peformance disadvantage.
I know that the Hellcat was a carrier type and that its forte was safe handling and good servicibility ect but as a fighter how would it have meausured up to better opposition>

The Hellcat had to sacrifice some performance for the ability to operate from carriers, as you point out. However, that gives it some advantages when it comes to looking at any likely operation where the F6F could come into contact with the 190. You mention the MTO, and Norway is probably the other likely area.

Likely types of operation could be anything from a straight 'raid' by carrier based aircraft, through cover for a short (24 hr) 'Commando' raid, up to cover for a full amphibious landing lasting days or long-term. The carrier group would have the advantage of choosing the time and place, probably ensuring numerical superiority, at least for the first day; fighter escorts could be stacked up to whatever height they liked, while the interceptors would have to climb to meet them, although standing patrols at alt could meet later waves - if not a 'hit and run raid' and if the fighters for these patrols aren't bombed on the ground by the first wave.

The point is being a carrier aircraft carries certain performance penalties, but gives some tactical and operational advantages. These advantages could outweigh the slight performance disadvantage, especially in the short-term. Longer term, when the enemy has chance to recover from the surprise and fly in reinforcements, the 'normal' rules would be more applicable.

Interesting idea though: an RN/USN 'island hopping' campaign through the Aegean. Maybe a DCG one day?

R_Target
08-14-2006, 08:35 AM
Here's the chart from the USN tests.

http://img485.imageshack.us/img485/5820/f6frealspeedau4.jpg

This was an F6F-5 with 2x20mm + 4x.50 cal. Weight is about 300lbs more than F6F-5 fighter load (full internal tanks, full ammo load) and 450 lbs more than F6F-3 load. Dean lists this same report in his sources in AHT. In graph 71 Dean also shows Grumman testing at 12,483 lbs reaching significantly higher speeds. He also notes that the discrepancy probably can't be solely attributed to the weight difference.

JtD
08-14-2006, 09:15 AM
Thanks for that chart, R_Target.

I hate to admit, but it is a little confusing...

The (2) chart is for the F6-F5 at combat power, not wep? The (2) line matches the (3) line at higher alts? What are the (1) and the (3) lines?

JG53Frankyboy
08-14-2006, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
...........

If I was to have my way in PF I would break them down like this;

F6F-3 Early: 377-379 mph
F6F-3 Late: 390 mph
F6F-5: 398-399 mph

oh yes !

R_Target
08-14-2006, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
Thanks for that chart, R_Target.

I hate to admit, but it is a little confusing...

The (2) chart is for the F6-F5 at combat power, not wep? The (2) line matches the (3) line at higher alts? What are the (1) and the (3) lines?

Heh, sorry. Combat power is WEP.

Here we go:

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/4914/f6fperfzv1.gif

JtD
08-14-2006, 11:01 AM
Thanks for the additional info. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I am still not sure about the difference between (2) and (3). They need to have a different charger... you cannot increase full throttle height by several thousand feet just like that...

Anyway, it seems that we got (3) in game, matches pretty well. See below.

In the meantime, I tested the F6-F3 speed in game and put it next to the speeds of the A-4:
http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/a4vsf6f3.JPG

R_Target
08-14-2006, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
I am still not sure about the difference between (2) and (3).


Heh heh. I was scratching my head for a while on that one too. #2 is at Combat (WEP) power, #3 is at Military power. If you look at the lines for #2 and #3, you can see the lines almost converge around 15,000 ft. The PF Hellcat meets the numbers at that altitude, but the numbers from about 12,000-13,000 ft down to 1000 ft are more in line with Military power than Combat power. SL speed is right on the money though.

HayateAce
08-14-2006, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:

This is the response I was fishing for.

I feel badly for tortured little fellas like you. One day, when you meet the maker you will have to come to grips with the fact that your LW lost.

Horrido.

JtD
08-14-2006, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by R_Target:

Heh heh. I was scratching my head for a while on that one too. #2 is at Combat (WEP) power, #3 is at Military power. If you look at the lines for #2 and #3, you can see the lines almost converge around 15,000 ft. The PF Hellcat meets the numbers at that altitude, but the numbers from about 12,000-13,000 ft down to 1000 ft are more in line with Military power than Combat power. SL speed is right on the money though.

But why is the full throttle height for the low blower so different in these two curves? What do "combat" settings change? Possibly engine rpm?
It looks like different charger gear ratios to me.

-------------
HayateAce, if you got nothing to say, why don't you remain silent?

mynameisroland
08-14-2006, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:

This is the response I was fishing for.

I feel badly for tortured little fellas like you. One day, when you meet the maker you will have to come to grips with the fact that your LW lost.

Horrido. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shools Out ! the Kindergarten Cop is here! Woo Hoo

Thats funny Hayatenoob because I kinda feel sorry for you too, but its not an IL2 thing ...

US Mustang ROXORSSSSSS

fighter_966
08-14-2006, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by HayateAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:

This is the response I was fishing for.

I feel badly for tortured little fellas like you. One day, when you meet the maker you will have to come to grips with the fact that your LW lost.

Horrido. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
But not because Fw190 was bad or Bf109 or their pilots but..their leaders G¶ring as number uno http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gifSo Horrido! with Honor

Viper2005_
08-14-2006, 12:36 PM
My money would be on the Fw-190 (assuming it's a real A4 and not Oleg's version). It should have a speed advantage at most heights. It has excellent all-round visibility, good ergonomics and a relatively low cockpit workload. As such, its pilot is likely to be in a position to decide when and where to fight which is an extremely useful advantage. If it gets into a firing position, its heavy fire power should make short work of even the tough Hellcat.

If the 190 gets defensive, its roll rate advantage can make it extremely difficult for a fighter armed with wing guns to stay in plane and score hits.

R_Target
08-14-2006, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by JtD:

But why is the full throttle height for the low blower so different in these two curves? What do "combat" settings change? Possibly engine rpm?
It looks like different charger gear ratios to me.


Just so I know we're on the same page, are these highlighted areas the two differences you're referring to?

http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/6914/f6fperflilwc7.gif

SkyChimp
08-14-2006, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
If we take the USN tests as a guide and acknowledge that the Fw 190 A5 tested was ran at 1.35 ATA ( not 1.42 ATA a 1942/43 fighter would be ran at )


Page 5 of the report shows the various power settings used for each plane for each portion of the test €" Power Settings for Comparative Tests.

For the Fw-190, the plane was apparently tested at 1.32 ata for climb and combat. But it was tested at 1.42 ata for take-off and vmax.

The F6F-3 was tested at Combat power for take-off and vmax, and Normal power for climb.

So it appears both were tested at full power for vmax, and less than full power for climb.





and also take in to account some surface damage would have occured to the aircraft in its captured state so it would not be offering factory specs - it was a recovered crash landed A5 wasnt it ? Then we accept the part of the test that says it was areound 20 mph faster than the Hellcat at most altitudes. We can see that a service condition Fw 190 A4 would hold even more substantial speed, rate of climb and acceleration advantage over the Hellcat.


Why can€t this plane be regarded as €œservice condition plane?€ The report says it was stripped and refinished, repairs were made, and the plane was weighted to its normal gross weight.

Additionally, it was not a recovered crash-landed plane. The A-5 in the test was apparently not an A-5, but rather an A-4, W Nr 160057 captured on the airfield at Gerbini, Sicily €" according to the book €œWar Prizes.€ Some with a list can look up that W Nr and tell us exactly what the plane was.




Fw 190 at 1.32 ATA was only just exceeding 400 mph ~ maybe up to 408 mph ~ at this rating it was 20 mph or so faster. Fw 190 at 1.42 ATA was pushing 420 mph - therefore the significantly faster than the USN tests.


Not according to the report. The Fw€s vmax was reached using 14.2 ata. At 1.42 ata it was just exceeding 400 mph, which is consistent with published top speeds for the plane. Additionally, the report states the Hellcat was run at WEP for only 2 minutes so top speed was probably not developed.

SkyChimp
08-14-2006, 07:28 PM
The speed and climb curves on the NAVAIR data sheet for the F6F are confusing and deserve some explantion.

http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/speed.JPG

I've posted the original, then a color coded version for comparison.

#2 represents COMBAT power. #3 represents MILITARY power.

On the #2 curves, low blower is used from sea level up to around 15,000 feet, where it is switched to high blower. Had the curve been drawn appropriately, you would see the speed is actually lower at COMBAT power at high altitudes than it is at MILITARY power. Technicaly, COMBAT power wasn't achievable above a certain altitude, when Military power was. Lower rpms allowed for better efficiency, thus higher speeds.

On the #3 curve, neutral blower is used from SL up to 6,000 feet where it is switched to low blower. Low blower is used up to 20,000 feet where it is switched to high blower.

The climb chart, which it didn't post, shows combat power using only low and high blower, but military power using neutral, low and high.

At combat power, critical altitude in neutral blower was below sea level, so using neutral blower would have done nothing and resulted in poorer performance.

JtD
08-15-2006, 12:34 AM
R_Target, yes, that's what I meant.

But I think I can live with Skychimps explanation, thanks for this.

Fork-N-spoon
08-15-2006, 01:41 AM
"Get-em" Chimp!

mynameisroland
08-15-2006, 05:34 AM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:

Not according to the report. The Fw€s vmax was reached using 14.2 ata. At 1.42 ata it was just exceeding 400 mph, which is consistent with published top speeds for the plane. Additionally, the report states the Hellcat was run at WEP for only 2 minutes so top speed was probably not developed.

If this was the case Chimp, and as you say the Fw 190 A5 was not infact a jabo variant but a fighter variant in pristine servicable condition then why did the Germans manage to achieve aprox 420 mph or so with the Fw 190 A4 rated at 1.42 ATA ?

The Fw 190 running at 1.32 ATA just broke 400 mph dont you think its a coincidence that the US tests show max speed that max German 1.32 ATA settings yet fall almost 20 mph short of the German 1.42 settings ?

Maybe the tests made a mistake or maybe it was not an Fw 190 A4 running at 1.42 ATA.

mynameisroland
08-15-2006, 05:35 AM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
"Get-em" Chimp!

SMOKE EM LUFT VARMENTS OUT THEIR HOLES YEAAAA HAUGHHH !! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

Fork-N-spoon
08-15-2006, 09:30 AM
Pulls out "mynameisroland" voodoo doll and lights foot on fire...

SkyChimp
08-15-2006, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:

Not according to the report. The Fw€s vmax was reached using 14.2 ata. At 1.42 ata it was just exceeding 400 mph, which is consistent with published top speeds for the plane. Additionally, the report states the Hellcat was run at WEP for only 2 minutes so top speed was probably not developed.

If this was the case Chimp, and as you say the Fw 190 A5 was not infact a jabo variant but a fighter variant in pristine servicable condition then why did the Germans manage to achieve aprox 420 mph or so with the Fw 190 A4 rated at 1.42 ATA ?

The Fw 190 running at 1.32 ATA just broke 400 mph dont you think its a coincidence that the US tests show max speed that max German 1.32 ATA settings yet fall almost 20 mph short of the German 1.42 settings ?

Maybe the tests made a mistake or maybe it was not an Fw 190 A4 running at 1.42 ATA. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just tellin' ya what the report says. And a little history on the plane.

Draw your own conclusion.

Xiolablu3
08-15-2006, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
Pulls out "mynameisroland" voodoo doll and lights foot on fire...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

mynameisroland
08-16-2006, 07:54 AM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:

Not according to the report. The Fw€s vmax was reached using 14.2 ata. At 1.42 ata it was just exceeding 400 mph, which is consistent with published top speeds for the plane. Additionally, the report states the Hellcat was run at WEP for only 2 minutes so top speed was probably not developed.

If this was the case Chimp, and as you say the Fw 190 A5 was not infact a jabo variant but a fighter variant in pristine servicable condition then why did the Germans manage to achieve aprox 420 mph or so with the Fw 190 A4 rated at 1.42 ATA ?

The Fw 190 running at 1.32 ATA just broke 400 mph dont you think its a coincidence that the US tests show max speed that max German 1.32 ATA settings yet fall almost 20 mph short of the German 1.42 settings ?

Maybe the tests made a mistake or maybe it was not an Fw 190 A4 running at 1.42 ATA. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just tellin' ya what the report says. And a little history on the plane.

Draw your own conclusion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The reposts Fw 190 figures dont match up. Thats what I have taken from the USN test. the only way they do match up to other performance data is if the Fw 190 was flying at 1.32 ATA for level speed and not 1.42 ATA.

Thanks for your input Chimp its been good reading. What was Hellcats roc at various alts and what was its vmax altitude ? For lets say a 1943 model. Then looking at the figures we can have a closer comparison.

VW-IceFire
08-16-2006, 04:05 PM
So to summarize the FW190A-5 that the USN tested is basically a crapped out version and its not going to be anywhere near representative with the real FW190 in combat.

I still feel that the relative advantage F6F versus Zero and FW190A-4/A-5 versus F6F isn't quite the same. The Hellcat can at least dive and is robustly constructed unlike the Zero which has little chance of escape from combat once engaged.

In my experience online the F6F against the A-5/A-6 is that the F6F is a good competitor. Possibly this is because the pilots I've flown against in the F6F weren't aware of its capabilities and assumed too much? On paper the A-5 looks like it should dominate the F6F in all but turn. Much like the Spitfire V. The Spit has the advantage of being small and more able to manuever out of the way.

mynameisroland
08-16-2006, 04:48 PM
The qualities that would allow the Fw 190 A4 to dominate over the Hellcat are similar to the advantages and tactics used against the Spitfire Vb.

Speed advantage at all altitudes, rate of climb advantage, manuverability advantage ( change of direction ) fire power advantage and acceleration advantage.

Added to these would be superior performance at height also.

Using tactics which kept their speed advantage the Fw 190 should dominate the fight in a similar way it would do over other slower more manuverable opponents.

SkyChimp
08-16-2006, 08:47 PM
The reposts Fw 190 figures dont match up. Thats what I have taken from the USN test. the only way they do match up to other performance data is if the Fw 190 was flying at 1.32 ATA for level speed and not 1.42 ATA.


OK, but that's not what the report says. Like I said, on page 6, the Vmax was achieved at 1.42 ata.

You've mentioned that this Fw should have gone 20 mph faster than it did if it were actually flown at 1.42 ata. That would have placed its top speed at 430 mph TAS. That's about 22 mph faster than any published numbers I've ever seen. Do you have a source document that shows the Fw-190A-4's top speed as 430 mph, as well as the condition of the plane that produced that speed? I'm not saying you're wrong, but that seems awfully high not to be published any book I have.




Thanks for your input Chimp its been good reading. What was Hellcats roc at various alts and what was its vmax altitude ? For lets say a 1943 model. Then looking at the figures we can have a closer comparison.


The only Hellcat model in service in 1943 was the F6F-3. I have climb charts on military and normal power, but not combat power. Some F6F-3s had water injected engines, some did not. Those that did not didn€t have combat power ratings. But many of those that didn€t were retro-fitted with water.

On normal power, initial climb was under 3,000 fpm. And just at 3,000 fpm on military power. Other numbers I have seen are as follows (F6F-3):

3,650 fpm (Hellcat: The F6F in WWII, Barrett Tillman)
3,500 fpm (Grumman Aircraft: Since 1929, Rene Francillon)
3,100 fpm (The American Fighter, Angelucci and Bowers)

The 3,500 and 3,650 numbers are probably combat power numbers with water injection.

I would conclude that at normal power initial roc was around 2,700 fpm. At military power around 3,000 fpm, and at combat power around 3,500 fpm (for planes with combat power ratings). The F6F-5 seemed to climb a little slower.

With respect to speed, there is a NAVAIR data sheet floating around this thread. That NAVAIR data sheet was published as part of an article in Naval Aviation News. Naval Aviation News is the official journal of BuAer/NAVAIR, and is about as "official" as it gets. That article states the F6F-3 and F6F-5 had top speeds of 370 mph and 380 mph respectively at MILITARY power. At COMBAT Power, speed would have been considerably higher. I don't think 390-400 mph is anywhere out of the question. As stated earlier, the USN compared the F6F-5 to the Zeke 52 and it was able to do 409 mph.




The qualities that would allow the Fw 190 A4 to dominate over the Hellcat are similar to the advantages and tactics used against the Spitfire Vb.


And that would be? Again, the performance numbers appear much closer than you would have them.




Speed advantage at all altitudes, rate of climb advantage, manuverability advantage ( change of direction ) fire power advantage and acceleration advantage.

Added to these would be superior performance at height also.


There certainly was no maneuverability advantage. Rate of roll was better, but turning and looping ability simply didn't stack up. The Fw stacked up astonishingly poorly against the Hellcat in this area.

As far as "firepower advantage" goes, I'm not sure just how important that is. Whatever the Fw-190 was ever able to achieve against Mustangs would have been harder with the Hellcat because the plane was much more robust. The Mustang proved time and time again that 6 .50s were perfectly adequate against the Fw, and the Hellcat had the same guns. The Fw would have faced a tougher plane than the Mustang, with the same guns.

With respect to "superior performance at height," it doesn't appear the Fw had a very significant speed advantage at any altitude. Combat speeds would have been very similar. In terms of maneuverability, the advantage would have gone to the Hellcat. I believe the handling advantage for the Hellcat would have been even more pronounced at high altitudes. The Hellcat had better wing loading and maintained engine power very well due to its very good 2 stage supercharger. The Fw-190A was somewhat known for poor handling at high altitude, in part due to its servo-oil engine control system which, above 24,000 feet, began to lose pressure and effective control of the engine. NACA tests of the Fw€s engine control system showed that at 32,000 feet the servo-oil system had lost all of its pressure and control was no longer possible. Interestingly, in the USN test, the FW lost all power at 33,000 feet, for some mysterious reason. It was almost certainly due to the engine control system€s loss of servo-oil pressure due to increasing altitude. The Fw was not a high altitude plane. IMO, the Hellcat has the advantage at higher altitudes.

All in all, these planes seem to stack up very well against each other. Close enough that it would probably come down to which plane started with a tactical advantage, or pilot quality. And US Navy pilots were probably the best fighter pilots anywhere in the world at this time, and probably the best at aerial gunnery.

faustnik
08-16-2006, 09:45 PM
The same Fw190A4/U8 was tested by the USAAF for speed and climb.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/EB-104WITHSPITFIRES.gif

The U8 was a long range fighter version, the precursor to the G series. In those tests however, it certainly performed well, definitely within the standard +/- 4% range. At close to 420mph, that's pretty good for a 1942 fighter!

I agree with SkyChimp, and Cpt. Brown, that the fight would be evenly matched. The Fw190 having a slight edge in performance but, the Hellcat having some advantages in maneuverability.

WOLFMondo
08-17-2006, 03:23 AM
Originally posted by Asgeir_Strips:
In a Flight Journal Article, US test pilots compared the Hellcat F6F-3 F4U-1A Corsair and FW190-A4 , and they found out that the Corsair and Hellcat could easily outmanuever the FW190 in a turn fight. The A4 wasn't faster than the F4U-1A either, so personally i'd Fly a Hellcat or Corsair anyday over a FW190A4 because both US fighters are just as good as the Würger in Boom n' Zoom, and outclass it in a turning fight.


Its like comparing the Tempest V in tactical trials to a 109 G6. Not exactly a fair comparison as the Tempest would face late G and K models. A factory fresh A5 or A6 vs a Hellcat or F4U-1A I think would be a different story. Although the A4 in those trials did beat both USN aircraft in several areas.

I think these sorts of tests need to be taken in perspective, as they probably were by the guys who carried them out or commissioned them.

Melrakki_USA
08-24-2006, 11:18 PM
I know this was pointed out by the OP, but it really needs to be repeated regardless.

The Hellcat is superior the the Anton in all aspects of:

Ease of Make
Reliability
Carrier/Long Range capabilities
Naval actions.

Purely as a fighter, I would have to give the edge to the A4 as well (assuming equal numbers and pilot skill). However, when push comes to shove, the Hellcat is a far superior plane in terms of flexibility and ease of logistics.

-Edit- In all fairness, when push comes to shove, both planes were designed to fulfill specific functions. Those functions were not similiar in an accurate tactical sense.

fordfan25
08-24-2006, 11:50 PM
hellcat was the better plane because it had the cooler name.

Xiolablu3
08-25-2006, 05:49 AM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
And US Navy pilots were probably the best fighter pilots anywhere in the world at this time, and probably the best at aerial gunnery.

Ahem, cough, cough RAF, cough cough.

MAybe 'One of the best in the world?' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

SkyChimp
08-25-2006, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
And US Navy pilots were probably the best fighter pilots anywhere in the world at this time, and probably the best at aerial gunnery.

Ahem, cough, cough RAF, cough cough.

MAybe 'One of the best in the world?' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The reason I said that was because the USN and USMC were the only airforces to teach their pilots full deflection shooting. The only exception was the IJN which taught it to a somewhat lesser degree. Neither the USAF, RAF, Luftwaffe nor VVS taught there pilots how to make full deflection shots, though some pilots taught themselves through trial-and-error. For those air forces, stern and head-on, with minimal deflection approaches were preferred. Only in the USN and USMC were full 90 degree deflection shooting considered an equal manner of attack. In fact, for many USN/USMC pilots, the high-side-run was the preferred method of attack.

The other advantage that USN/USMC pilots had over the other airforces was that they flew planes with sloping noses (Corsair excepted) that allowed for full deflection shooting.

Lastly, USN/USMC pilots learned to shoot instictively because they didn't have gunsights that were useful for full deflection shooting. Often times, in a full deflection shot, the target was outside of the gunsight and the pilot used the sight only as a reference point, relying on his insticts to hit the target.

USN and USMC pilot training and deflection shooting is thoroughly discussed in the book "The First Team" by John Lundstrom, and it is from that work that most of my information comes.

Xiolablu3
08-25-2006, 09:23 PM
I was only joking mate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I know everyone loves their own Airforce.

Funny story about RAF training :-

Watching 'Battle Stations : The Spitfire' last night and it had the RAF BAttle OF Britain Ace, Bob Doe talking about his experiences.

http://cache.zoominfo.com/cachedpage/?archive_id=0&page...ame=Bob&lastName=Doe (http://cache.zoominfo.com/cachedpage/?archive_id=0&page_id=1471903557&page_url=%2f%2fwww.battle-of-britain.com%2fBoB2%2fBattle_personnel%2fProfiles%2 fRAF%2fdoe.htm&page_last_updated=3%2f13%2f2006+4%3a33%3a11+PM&firstName=Bob&lastName=Doe)

Hes such a modest bloke, so humble, you wouldnt beleive he was a RAF fighter Ace. A few quotes from his intereviews :-

'We had no gunnery training whatsoever before we went into battle, I had only ever fired my guns once...SOmeone gave us all 30 rounds and told us to go and fire them into the North Sea, well you couldnt miss the north sea, could you?'

'It was sheer luck I wasnt killed on my first sortie. There was mayhem all around us and I suddenly , found myself on the tail of a Me110...so I gave him a quick burst of my guns. I was absolutely astonished whren this plane turned over and went down into the sea. Then I realised I was being shot at from behind, luckily he missed and another Me110 overshot me, so I settled onto his tail and shot him down too. I shot down 2 planes in my first sortie without having any idea what was going on around me. I dont know how I did it, it certainly wasnt any skill on my part'

He returned from his first sortie with 2 confirmed Me110 kills.

There were more good interviews, one with 'Bam' Bamburger another BOB ace on his first sortie :-

'Suddenly a group of 109s flashed past, with their bright yellow noses. They looked killers. They looked proffesional. And I felt very much an amatuer'


Sort of gives you the impression that the winning of the battle was complete luck, doesnt it!>?! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

fordfan25
08-25-2006, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
And US Navy pilots were probably the best fighter pilots anywhere in the world at this time, and probably the best at aerial gunnery.

Ahem, cough, cough RAF, cough cough.

MAybe 'One of the best in the world?' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>you might want to get something for that cold. USN owns RAF. RAF would have been lucky to be aloud to mop the bathroom floor on the Enterprise http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif j/k.

Xiolablu3
08-26-2006, 03:01 AM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
And US Navy pilots were probably the best fighter pilots anywhere in the world at this time, and probably the best at aerial gunnery.

Ahem, cough, cough RAF, cough cough.

MAybe 'One of the best in the world?' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>you might want to get something for that cold. USN owns RAF. RAF would have been lucky to be aloud to mop the bathroom floor on the Enterprise http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You'd better watch out or I'll give you a bunch 'o' fives, you grotty little man.

How dare you say that about our chaps. Best in the world you know.

Yank pilots should drink more tea and they might be a bit better.

Sorry I have to go, my handlebar moustache is getting blown out of shape.

Sintubin
08-26-2006, 04:22 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I was only joking mate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I know everyone loves their own Airforce.

Funny story about RAF training :-

Watching 'Battle Stations : The Spitfire' last night and it had the RAF BAttle OF Britain Ace, Bob Doe talking about his experiences.

http://cache.zoominfo.com/cachedpage/?archive_id=0&page...ame=Bob&lastName=Doe (http://cache.zoominfo.com/cachedpage/?archive_id=0&page_id=1471903557&page_url=%2f%2fwww.battle-of-britain.com%2fBoB2%2fBattle_personnel%2fProfiles%2 fRAF%2fdoe.htm&page_last_updated=3%2f13%2f2006+4%3a33%3a11+PM&firstName=Bob&lastName=Doe)

Hes such a modest bloke, so humble, you wouldnt beleive he was a RAF fighter Ace. A few quotes from his intereviews :-

'We had no gunnery training whatsoever before we went into battle, I had only ever fired my guns once...SOmeone gave us all 30 rounds and told us to go and fire them into the North Sea, well you couldnt miss the north sea, could you?'

'It was sheer luck I wasnt killed on my first sortie. There was mayhem all around us and I suddenly , found myself on the tail of a Me110...so I gave him a quick burst of my guns. I was absolutely astonished whren this plane turned over and went down into the sea. Then I realised I was being shot at from behind, luckily he missed and another Me110 overshot me, so I settled onto his tail and shot him down too. I shot down 2 planes in my first sortie without having any idea what was going on around me. I dont know how I did it, it certainly wasnt any skill on my part'

He returned from his first sortie with 2 confirmed Me110 kills.

There were more good interviews, one with 'Bam' Bamburger another BOB ace on his first sortie :-

'Suddenly a group of 109s flashed past, with their bright yellow noses. They looked killers. They looked proffesional. And I felt very much an amatuer'


Sort of gives you the impression that the winning of the battle was complete luck, doesnt it!>?! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


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

Manu-6S
08-26-2006, 06:43 AM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
And US Navy pilots were probably the best fighter pilots anywhere in the world at this time, and probably the best at aerial gunnery.

Ahem, cough, cough RAF, cough cough.

MAybe 'One of the best in the world?' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The reason I said that was because the USN and USMC were the only airforces to teach their pilots full deflection shooting. The only exception was the IJN which taught it to a somewhat lesser degree. Neither the USAF, RAF, Luftwaffe nor VVS taught there pilots how to make full deflection shots, though some pilots taught themselves through trial-and-error. For those air forces, stern and head-on, with minimal deflection approaches were preferred. Only in the USN and USMC were full 90 degree deflection shooting considered an equal manner of attack. In fact, for many USN/USMC pilots, the high-side-run was the preferred method of attack.

The other advantage that USN/USMC pilots had over the other airforces was that they flew planes with sloping noses (Corsair excepted) that allowed for full deflection shooting.

Lastly, USN/USMC pilots learned to shoot instictively because they didn't have gunsights that were useful for full deflection shooting. Often times, in a full deflection shot, the target was outside of the gunsight and the pilot used the sight only as a reference point, relying on his insticts to hit the target.

USN and USMC pilot training and deflection shooting is thoroughly discussed in the book "The First Team" by John Lundstrom, and it is from that work that most of my information comes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My opinions:

.50cal MG have flatter trajectory than cannons and, of course, an higher ROF.

So deflection shot are easier to do with this kind of armament. USN did the right thing teaching how to make use of these advantages.

csThor
08-26-2006, 08:27 AM
The US armament was a great equalizer. If you set it in the pattern that was used even the greatest idiot with the worst eyesight could hit something. That was the idea behind it - to have vastly different people from vastly different backgrounds "function" in their new role as fighter pilot.

BTW the Luftwaffe had a rather thorough gunnery course in the training program, too. Even if the famous "Schiessfibel" of Hannes Trautloft was a product of 1944 gunnery and deflection shooting were integral parts of the curriculum. After all the fighter schools taught its trainees to use high-side gunnery runs as preferable tactics (at least from 1940 on).

The VVS on the other hand was rather inflexible in pretty much every aspect. Sasha Prokrishkin remembers his first gunnery attempts and his amazement when hitting ... nada. Then he took a pencil and paper, calculated a lot of hot air and found out that the gunnery principles of the VVS weren't worth the paper they were printed on. The next time he got close to the target (a sack towed by another aircraft) and hit well ... and got a decent dressing down by the towing pilot http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Ratsack
08-26-2006, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
... And US Navy pilots were probably the best fighter pilots anywhere in the world at this time, and probably the best at aerial gunnery.

Training in deflection shooting does not make the best pilots in the world (or should that be 'best pilots in teh world!').

If we're talking about pilot quality, what about Marmaduke Pattle? He got a minimum of 41 kills, flying Gladiators and Hurricanes. His squadron records were lost during the retreat from Greece, so his final full tally is unknown, but it is not less than 41. His colleagues put it at 60 or more. So perhaps the South Africans made 'teh best pilots in the world.' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Then there are the pilots of this other obscure fighter force that did some work for the German army. You may have heard of them: the Jagdwaffe.

I'm sure the USN produced some very fine pilots, but where on Earth do you get off with this 'probably the best fighter pilots anywhere in the world' view?

cheers,
Ratsack

Kettenhunde
08-26-2006, 08:49 PM
Skychimp wrote:
A-4, W Nr 160057


Focke-Wulf 190 G-3
Block
160 001 - 160 950

http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/werkn.htm


Fw 190A-5/U13 - three prototypes (V42, W.Nr. 151083, GC+LA; V43, W.Nr 150817, BH+CG and V44, W.Nr. 150855) built, long range fighterbomber with two underwing V.Fw Trg. (Verkleideter Focke-Wulf Trager) bomb racks, adapted for carriage of 300 litre capacity fuel tank or 250 kg bomb. The plane was equipped with an automated pilot device and application of knifes for barrage balloons lines cutting on the wing leading edge was considered; one plane was experimentally equipped with a lacunar exhaust flame damper (GC+LA?). Armament consisted of two MG 151/20 E mounted in the wing roots. Plane was later produced under designation Fw 190G-3.

http://ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2004/11/stuff_eng_fw190_01.htm

The FW190G3 production also incorporated components of the FW190A6 during it's production cycle. So you can find them with both. As WNr 160057 is very early in the production block it most likely is constructed using FW190A5 components.

The USN did not even know which variant of Focke Wulf they were flying. They did know it was not a standard fighter variant and used the best source they had available to try and convert it to a fighter. I find it hard to believe the USN had the specific detailed design technical knowledge to repair the aircraft and fly it on par with Focke Wulf trained technicians or Luftwaffe pilots. They certainly did not have the resources to convert it to a fighter.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1156645709_typeandengineproblems.jpg

To convert a G series back to an Anton is a major undertaking. It was a conversion which could only be done at the factory. Not only are the engines different but the design CG limits are different as well.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1156461466_differentmotors.jpg

All the best,

Crumpp

SkyChimp
08-26-2006, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by Ratsack:

Training in deflection shooting does not make the best pilots in the world (or should that be 'best pilots in teh world!').

If we're talking about pilot quality, what about Marmaduke Pattle? He got a minimum of 41 kills, flying Gladiators and Hurricanes. His squadron records were lost during the retreat from Greece, so his final full tally is unknown, but it is not less than 41. His colleagues put it at 60 or more. So perhaps the South Africans made 'teh best pilots in the world.' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Then there are the pilots of this other obscure fighter force that did some work for the German army. You may have heard of them: the Jagdwaffe.

I'm sure the USN produced some very fine pilots, but where on Earth do you get off with this 'probably the best fighter pilots anywhere in the world' view?

cheers,
Ratsack

All air forces had their stars - individuals with high kill counts. But that doesn't give an accurate picture of the average over-all competency of the pilots in that force.

Of all the air forces in the world, the USN/USMC had the longest training periods and most comprehensive training. In the mid '30s, the USN's one year basic course (7 months after 1941) involved 465 hours of ground school and 300 hours of flight training. Up until 1941, carrier pilots were trained on all types - fighter, dive-bomber and torpedo planes (1941 and after they were trained on their one primary type). Additionally they trained in night, blind, and formation flying, aerobatics, and simulated carrier landings.

After graduation, and the earning of their wings, USN/MC pilots went to Operational Training units where they were trained in advanced gunnery and tactics for fighter pilots, as well as carrier qualifications. This involved 100 or more hours of flight training.

After that, they went to Advanced Carrier Training Groups where they trained in day and night carrier landings, and unit tactics. This involved 75 - 100 more hours of flying time.

Only after all this training was the USN/MC pilot considered combat ready. To get to this point, that pilot went though around 500 flight training hours.

Even after being assigned to an operational squadron, that squadron would be periodically sent ashore for more intense unit training.

From the start of 1939 to around mid 1942, USN/MC pilots had as many as 200-250 more flight training hours than RAF or Luftwaffe fighter pilots. In 1945, they had around 350 more flight training hours than Luftwaffe pilots, and 100 more than RAF pilots.

During all that training, the Navy taught full deflection shooting. Apparently, the USN, and to a lesser degree the IJNAF, were the only air forces to thoroughly train their pilots in that form gunnery. History shows the USN/USMC used high deflection attacks regularly and to great effect.

The USN thoroughly taught and vigorously emphasized team tactics. They rotated experienced pilots into training units to mentor new pilots.

All that is the basis for my statement.

SkyChimp
08-26-2006, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
[QUOTE]Skychimp wrote:
A-4, W Nr 160057

Yes, I said that. But it's not all I said. I also said, "Someone with a list can look up that W Nr and tell us exactly what the plane was."




The USN did not even know which variant of Focke Wulf they were flying. They did know it was not a standard fighter variant and used the best source they had available to try and convert it to a fighter. I find it hard to believe the USN had the specific detailed design technical knowledge to repair the aircraft and fly it on par with Focke Wulf trained technicians or Luftwaffe pilots. They certainly did not have the resources to convert it to a fighter.


How could they know? They didn't have the luxury of after-war knowledge we have now.

Additionally, for the folks that think somehow the Fw in that test was underperforming, I'd ask in EXACTLY what categories did the plane perform more poorly than expected? The only thing I can determine is that it may not have rolled as fast as some would have it - but then again we don't know the speeds at which these planes were compared. It very well could be that at the tested speeds the Corsair and Fw did roll about equally. Other than that, it seems to have performed as expected.

Crumpp underlined the part about loosing power at 33,000 feet. Frankly, from the documents and accounts I've seen, that's higher than expected. Given what we know today about the Fw's engine control unit, derived from NACA testing that showed a virtual complete loss of servo-oil pressure at 32,000 feet, it's not hard to understand why that happened.

Ratsack
08-26-2006, 09:54 PM
We know that if the ailerons were not adjusted properly, not only was the rate of roll adversely affected, but the turn performance was also badly degraded. As was posted by somebody back towards the beginning of this thread, this was pointed out by Gollob in his report to the OKL in Nov 1941. Translations of this are all over the net, but if you can€t find one, head over to the Focke-Wulf Consortium. It€s definitely over there.

Secondly, the poor rolling performance was noted in the report itself, where the better figures attained by the Brits are mentioned.

Thirdly, unless they were running that engine on captured C3 fuel, they were not getting full power. The BMW 801 D-2 engine required the C3 fuel - reformulated in mind 1942 €" to run reliably at 1.42 ATA. The report mentions rough running, as does the test done on this plane in Italy against a P-47D-5. The rough running was attributed to plug fouling, but was probably due to knocking.

In an earlier post you asked about published figures for the FW 190A-4. I don€t have those handy, but I a facsimile of the Rechlin tests for the A-3, which is very similar to the A-4, with the same engine, just a different radio. Rechlin say they got it up to 680 km/h at 6,500 m using start und notleistung power (1.42 ATA @ 2,700 rpm). That€s 424 mph. There are detail changes to the engines fitted to later A-4s, but these Rechlin tests are roughly indicative of the performance of the A-3, A-4, A-5 and the A-6, all of which used the same basic power egg in their fighter forms.

If the engine was not producing full power €" and by the indications in that report it probably wasn€t €" then this would adversely affect the plane€s:

1. top speed;
2. rate of climb;
3. rate of turn;
4. radius of turn; and
5. acceleration.

That€s just about every combat parameter of interest in a comparative test.

cheers,
Ratsack

Ratsack
08-26-2006, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:

Training in deflection shooting does not make the best pilots in the world (or should that be 'best pilots in teh world!').

If we're talking about pilot quality, what about Marmaduke Pattle? He got a minimum of 41 kills, flying Gladiators and Hurricanes. His squadron records were lost during the retreat from Greece, so his final full tally is unknown, but it is not less than 41. His colleagues put it at 60 or more. So perhaps the South Africans made 'teh best pilots in the world.' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Then there are the pilots of this other obscure fighter force that did some work for the German army. You may have heard of them: the Jagdwaffe.

I'm sure the USN produced some very fine pilots, but where on Earth do you get off with this 'probably the best fighter pilots anywhere in the world' view?

cheers,
Ratsack

All air forces had their stars - individuals with high kill counts. But that doesn't give an accurate picture of the average over-all competency of the pilots in that force.

Of all the air forces in the world, the USN/USMC had the longest training periods and most comprehensive training. In the mid '30s, the USN's one year basic course (7 months after 1941) involved 465 hours of ground school and 300 hours of flight training. Up until 1941, carrier pilots were trained on all types - fighter, dive-bomber and torpedo planes (1941 and after they were trained on their one primary type). Additionally they trained in night, blind, and formation flying, aerobatics, and simulated carrier landings.

After graduation, and the earning of their wings, USN/MC pilots went to Operational Training units where they were trained in advanced gunnery and tactics for fighter pilots, as well as carrier qualifications. This involved 100 or more hours of flight training.

After that, they went to Advanced Carrier Training Groups where they trained in day and night carrier landings, and unit tactics. This involved 75 - 100 more hours of flying time.

Only after all this training was the USN/MC pilot considered combat ready. To get to this point, that pilot went though around 500 flight training hours.

Even after being assigned to an operational squadron, that squadron would be periodically sent ashore for more intense unit training.

From the start of 1939 to around mid 1942, USN/MC pilots had as many as 200-250 more flight training hours than RAF or Luftwaffe fighter pilots. In 1945, they had around 350 more flight training hours than Luftwaffe pilots, and 100 more than RAF pilots.

During all that training, the Navy taught full deflection shooting. Apparently, the USN, and to a lesser degree the IJNAF, were the only air forces to thoroughly train their pilots in that form gunnery. History shows the USN/USMC used high deflection attacks regularly and to great effect.

The USN thoroughly taught and vigorously emphasized team tactics. They rotated experienced pilots into training units to mentor new pilots.

All that is the basis for my statement. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My point is that you're drawing too large a conclusion from your training data. For instance, the pre-war IJN required pilots to have 700 hours before they'd be considered for carrier training. By your lights, these guys would've been teh best in teh world at the time, but it didn't stop them incurring losses at a rate that destroyed the quality of their air arm by 1943.

cheers,
Ratsack

SkyChimp
08-26-2006, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
We know that if the ailerons were not adjusted properly, not only was the rate of roll adversely affected, but the turn performance was also badly degraded. As was posted by somebody back towards the beginning of this thread, this was pointed out by Gollob in his report to the OKL in Nov 1941. Translations of this are all over the net, but if you can€t find one, head over to the Focke-Wulf Consortium. It€s definitely over there.


But with respect to this test, you DON€T know if the ailerons were properly adjusted or not. The opinion that they weren€t is based solely on the statement that the Corsair and Fw rolled about equally. You don€t know the speed at which the roll tests were carried out. It very well could be that they were tested up to a point where the roll rate of the Corsair and Fw converged. The British report is irrelevant to the USN test. It fails, to take into account the speed at which the planes were tested and the conclusion drawn. I have no doubt the Fw rolled much faster than the Corsair €" at certain speeds. As certain speeds, they were probably pretty close €" like the report says.





Secondly, the poor rolling performance was noted in the report itself, where the better figures attained by the Brits are mentioned.


The USN test doesn€t say the Fw had €œpoor€ rolling performance. The Fw fan-base on this board and others simply assumes that since the Fw didn€t roll to the degree they would have it. But they assume it without knowing all the facts.




Thirdly, unless they were running that engine on captured C3 fuel, they were not getting full power. The BMW 801 D-2 engine required the C3 fuel - reformulated in mind 1942 €" to run reliably at 1.42 ATA. The report mentions rough running, as does the test done on this plane in Italy against a P-47D-5. The rough running was attributed to plug fouling, but was probably due to knocking.

In an earlier post you asked about published figures for the FW 190A-4. I don€t have those handy, but I a facsimile of the Rechlin tests for the A-3, which is very similar to the A-4, with the same engine, just a different radio. Rechlin say they got it up to 680 km/h at 6,500 m using start und notleistung power (1.42 ATA @ 2,700 rpm). That€s 424 mph. There are detail changes to the engines fitted to later A-4s, but these Rechlin tests are roughly indicative of the performance of the A-3, A-4, A-5 and the A-6, all of which used the same basic power egg in their fighter forms.

If the engine was not producing full power €" and by the indications in that report it probably wasn€t €" then this would adversely affect the plane€s:

1. top speed;
2. rate of climb;
3. rate of turn;
4. radius of turn; and
5. acceleration.

That€s just about every combat parameter of interest in a comparative test.

cheers,
Ratsack

A Rechlin test may have produced a speed of 422 mph for the A-3. €œA€ USN test of the Corsair (versus the P-51) produced higher speeds than those produced in the F4U/F6F v. Fw test, too. €œA€ USN test of the F6F vs the A6M5 produced higher speeds than the F4U/F6F v. Fw test as well. So may we assume that there was also something wrong with the Corsair and Hellcat since they didn€t produce the highest number we€re able to dig up? Or for that matter can we say the test favored the Fw since the Corsair and Hellcat were only run at max power for 2 minutes when top speed was usually produced by running up to the maximum allowable time at that power setting €" in this case 5 minutes?

All in all, the test produced expected numbers. The Fw fan-base doesn€t think the margin is wide enough so €œfoul€ is cried, without evidence to back it up €" just speculation.

SkyChimp
08-26-2006, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
My point is that you're drawing too large a conclusion from your training data. For instance, the pre-war IJN required pilots to have 700 hours before they'd be considered for carrier training. By your lights, these guys would've been teh best in teh world at the time, but it didn't stop them incurring losses at a rate that destroyed the quality of their air arm by 1943.

cheers,
Ratsack

Your argument fails because you do not take into consideration that the IJNAF suffered horrendous fighter pilot losses for reasons that had nothing to do with their skill. A huge quantity were lost when they sank with their ships, or crashed into the sea because they had no place to land. The principal portion of experienced IJNAF pilots were lost at Midway to these reasons. The number shot down pales compared to the number lost to loosing their carriers.

Training probably has more to do with the competency of the average pilot more than anything else. The USN/MC maintained their extremely high standards throughout the war. The Luftwaffe and the IJNAF didn€t (because they couldn€t). But even in those days when the IJNAF did maintain extremely high standards, the USN taught tactics that were simply better then theirs €" team tactics that proved better than the individualism of IJNAF pilots. Its not just training hours, it the content of the teachings that count, too.

Frequent_Flyer
08-26-2006, 10:52 PM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
... And US Navy pilots were probably the best fighter pilots anywhere in the world at this time, and probably the best at aerial gunnery.

Training in deflection shooting does not make the best pilots in the world (or should that be 'best pilots in teh world!').

If we're talking about pilot quality, what about Marmaduke Pattle? He got a minimum of 41 kills, flying Gladiators and Hurricanes. His squadron records were lost during the retreat from Greece, so his final full tally is unknown, but it is not less than 41. His colleagues put it at 60 or more. So perhaps the South Africans made 'teh best pilots in the world.' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Then there are the pilots of this other obscure fighter force that did some work for the German army. You may have heard of them: the Jagdwaffe.

I'm sure the USN produced some very fine pilots, but where on Earth do you get off with this 'probably the best fighter pilots anywhere in the world' view?

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Two reasons really the Hellcat produced more aces than any other US aircraft. It certainly was'nt the best aircraft the US produced. Second, they did did something no Luftwaffe or VVS pilot every did. They landed on a small flat top that was rolling and undulating on an ocean many times at dusk or latter. With battle damage low on fuel and injuried. The Russian front could not have challanged all the attributes of a fighter pilot as the Pacific did.

Ratsack
08-26-2006, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
We know that if the ailerons were not adjusted properly, not only was the rate of roll adversely affected, but the turn performance was also badly degraded. As was posted by somebody back towards the beginning of this thread, this was pointed out by Gollob in his report to the OKL in Nov 1941. Translations of this are all over the net, but if you can€t find one, head over to the Focke-Wulf Consortium. It€s definitely over there.


But with respect to this test, you DON€T know if the ailerons were properly adjusted or not. The opinion that they weren€t is based solely on the statement that the Corsair and Fw rolled about equally. You don€t know the speed at which the roll tests were carried out. It very well could be that they were tested up to a point where the roll rate of the Corsair and Fw converged. The British report is irrelevant to the USN test. It fails, to take into account the speed at which the planes were tested and the conclusion drawn. I have no doubt the Fw rolled much faster than the Corsair €" at certain speeds. As certain speeds, they were probably pretty close €" like the report says.





Secondly, the poor rolling performance was noted in the report itself, where the better figures attained by the Brits are mentioned.


The USN test doesn€t say the Fw had €œpoor€ rolling performance. The Fw fan-base on this board and others simply assumes that since the Fw didn€t roll to the degree they would have it. But they assume it without knowing all the facts.




Thirdly, unless they were running that engine on captured C3 fuel, they were not getting full power. The BMW 801 D-2 engine required the C3 fuel - reformulated in mind 1942 €" to run reliably at 1.42 ATA. The report mentions rough running, as does the test done on this plane in Italy against a P-47D-5. The rough running was attributed to plug fouling, but was probably due to knocking.

In an earlier post you asked about published figures for the FW 190A-4. I don€t have those handy, but I a facsimile of the Rechlin tests for the A-3, which is very similar to the A-4, with the same engine, just a different radio. Rechlin say they got it up to 680 km/h at 6,500 m using start und notleistung power (1.42 ATA @ 2,700 rpm). That€s 424 mph. There are detail changes to the engines fitted to later A-4s, but these Rechlin tests are roughly indicative of the performance of the A-3, A-4, A-5 and the A-6, all of which used the same basic power egg in their fighter forms.

If the engine was not producing full power €" and by the indications in that report it probably wasn€t €" then this would adversely affect the plane€s:

1. top speed;
2. rate of climb;
3. rate of turn;
4. radius of turn; and
5. acceleration.

That€s just about every combat parameter of interest in a comparative test.

cheers,
Ratsack

A Rechlin test may have produced a speed of 422 mph for the A-3. €œA€ USN test of the Corsair (versus the P-51) produced higher speeds than those produced in the F4U/F6F v. Fw test, too. €œA€ USN test of the F6F vs the A6M5 produced higher speeds than the F4U/F6F v. Fw test as well. So may we assume that there was also something wrong with the Corsair and Hellcat since they didn€t produce the highest number we€re able to dig up? Or for that matter can we say the test favored the Fw since the Corsair and Hellcat were only run at max power for 2 minutes when top speed was usually produced by running up to the maximum allowable time at that power setting €" in this case 5 minutes?

All in all, the test produced expected numbers. The Fw fan-base doesn€t think the margin is wide enough so €œfoul€ is cried, without evidence to back it up €" just speculation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, there's no question of a 'Focke-Wulf fan base', or of any 'assumption'. On the contrary, there is a reasoned argument for which you've produced no counter except the baseless contention that people are 'assuming' something.

The test report itself notes that the roll rate figures they achieved were significantly worse than the rates achieved by the Brits with their captured A-3. By implicitly questioning his own results, the author of that US report was showing more intellectual honesty than some of the people replying in this thread.

On the subject of the Rechlin tests, I don't know where to begin. It was just a standard test of a standard type (normaljaeger), as it appeared in service in November 1942 (date of the document). It's what the customer thought of the product Focke-Wulf Flugzeugbau was selling them. The Rechlin figure is well within the 3% variance FW stipulated. (BTW, 680 km/h is 424 mph, not 422 mph. Check your coefficient.) And by the way, the FW performance figues are averages, so there's no question of particular examples exhibiting special performance.

Your business of one-off tests of US types is just a red herring.

So, rather than just speculation, there's actually quite a bit of evidence that's already been presented - in this thread and elsewhere - that the FW 190A-5 the US tested was under performing. It's a far cry from mere speculation.

cheers,
Ratsack

SkyChimp
08-27-2006, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
Actually, there's no question of a 'Focke-Wulf fan base', or of any 'assumption'. On the contrary, there is a reasoned argument for which you've produced no counter except the baseless contention that people are 'assuming' something.

The test report itself notes that the roll rate figures they achieved were significantly worse than the rates achieved by the Brits with their captured A-3. By implicitly questioning his own results, the author of that US report was showing more intellectual honesty than some of the people replying in this thread.


What you said doesn€t make any sense.

The report that €œquestions€ the results isn€t a US report, and it isn€t a report by the €œauthor€ of the US Navy F4U/F6F/FW-190 test report. It€s a British document, a separate evaluation, and is nothing more than their own conclusions. That report is nothing more that a document that shows Vought€s roll figures for the Corsair versus the Fw-190€s roll figures as supplied by the British.

Whatever conclusion it draws fails to consider the context of the USN statement that the Corsair€s roll rate and the Fw€s roll rate were about equal. The USN report does not give the test speed(s). Again, the USN test may well have been conducted at a speed where the Corsair€s roll and the Fw€s roll rates converged (say 350 mph IAS), in which case the statement by the USN would be absolutely accurate.

It€s clear the Fw fan-base is making assumption about the condition of the Fw in the USN test. And now it€s clear that, at least with you, those assumptions are based on a misunderstanding of the documents presented thus far on the subject.





On the subject of the Rechlin tests, I don't know where to begin. It was just a standard test of a standard type (normaljaeger), as it appeared in service in November 1942 (date of the document). It's what the customer thought of the product Focke-Wulf Flugzeugbau was selling them. The Rechlin figure is well within the 3% variance FW stipulated. (BTW, 680 km/h is 424 mph, not 422 mph. Check your coefficient.) And by the way, the FW performance figues are averages, so there's no question of particular examples exhibiting special performance.

Your business of one-off tests of US types is just a red herring.


So one of the planes flew 680 kph. Most published sources show a top speed of 660 km/h, which is what the USN test confirmed. BTW, my calculations she 680 km/h is 422.5 mph. So does this source which I use for quick conversions: http://www.sciencemadesimple.net/speed.php

Your €œred herring€ comment has no substance and is nothing more than an attempt to divert attention away from the simple fact that different valid tests can yield valid different speeds for the same model of aircraft. The tests I mentioned produced speeds in excess of normally published speeds. So does your Rechlin test. And the tests to which I refer are just as valid. What€s curious about the USN test is that the navy planes were only run at full throttle for 2 minutes, or 2/5ths the amount of time usually taken to test top speed. But that fact goes unacknowledged by the Fw fans.





So, rather than just speculation, there's actually quite a bit of evidence that's already been presented - in this thread and elsewhere - that the FW 190A-5 the US tested was under performing. It's a far cry from mere speculation.

cheers,
Ratsack

You€ve produced nothing but speculation. You€ve misinterpreted the source and nature of the British document posted earlier in this thread. You€ve produced no evidence at all that the Fw in the USN test was under performing in any way.

JtD
08-27-2006, 12:22 AM
From what I found recently, the 680 kph were not corrected for compressability of air. If you do, the speed was 665 kph or 413 mph.

Ratsack
08-27-2006, 12:43 AM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
Actually, there's no question of a 'Focke-Wulf fan base', or of any 'assumption'. On the contrary, there is a reasoned argument for which you've produced no counter except the baseless contention that people are 'assuming' something.

The test report itself notes that the roll rate figures they achieved were significantly worse than the rates achieved by the Brits with their captured A-3. By implicitly questioning his own results, the author of that US report was showing more intellectual honesty than some of the people replying in this thread.


What you said doesn€t make any sense.

The report that €œquestions€ the results isn€t a US report, and it isn€t a report by the €œauthor€ of the US Navy F4U/F6F/FW-190 test report. It€s a British document, a separate evaluation, and is nothing more than their own conclusions. That report is nothing more that a document that shows Vought€s roll figures for the Corsair versus the Fw-190€s roll figures as supplied by the British.

Whatever conclusion it draws fails to consider the context of the USN statement that the Corsair€s roll rate and the Fw€s roll rate were about equal. The USN report does not give the test speed(s). Again, the USN test may well have been conducted at a speed where the Corsair€s roll and the Fw€s roll rates converged (say 350 mph IAS), in which case the statement by the USN would be absolutely accurate.

It€s clear the Fw fan-base is making assumption about the condition of the Fw in the USN test. And now it€s clear that, at least with you, those assumptions are based on a misunderstanding of the documents presented thus far on the subject.





On the subject of the Rechlin tests, I don't know where to begin. It was just a standard test of a standard type (normaljaeger), as it appeared in service in November 1942 (date of the document). It's what the customer thought of the product Focke-Wulf Flugzeugbau was selling them. The Rechlin figure is well within the 3% variance FW stipulated. (BTW, 680 km/h is 424 mph, not 422 mph. Check your coefficient.) And by the way, the FW performance figues are averages, so there's no question of particular examples exhibiting special performance.

Your business of one-off tests of US types is just a red herring.


So one of the planes flew 680 kph. Most published sources show a top speed of 660 km/h, which is what the USN test confirmed. BTW, my calculations she 680 km/h is 422.5 mph. So does this source which I use for quick conversions: http://www.sciencemadesimple.net/speed.php

Your €œred herring€ comment has no substance and is nothing more than an attempt to divert attention away from the simple fact that different valid tests can yield valid different speeds for the same model of aircraft. The tests I mentioned produced speeds in excess of normally published speeds. So does your Rechlin test. And the tests to which I refer are just as valid. What€s curious about the USN test is that the navy planes were only run at full throttle for 2 minutes, or 2/5ths the amount of time usually taken to test top speed. But that fact goes unacknowledged by the Fw fans.





So, rather than just speculation, there's actually quite a bit of evidence that's already been presented - in this thread and elsewhere - that the FW 190A-5 the US tested was under performing. It's a far cry from mere speculation.

cheers,
Ratsack

You€ve produced nothing but speculation. You€ve misinterpreted the source and nature of the British document posted earlier in this thread. You€ve produced no evidence at all that the Fw in the USN test was under performing in any way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've misinterpreted nothing: you need to brush up on your reading comprehension. You simply don't wish to hear the evidence.

All you have is one test, and you're trying desperately to convince yourself that it's representative. Sorry, Skychimp, it's not. Too bad.

You've not addressed any of the salient points, such as the rough-running engine, and the poorly adjusted ailerons. You merely repeat your assertion that the figures are good. Good for you.

There's clearly no point in discussing this with you. Consider yourself ignored until you produce something more substantial than your own opinion. Have a good one.

cheers,
Ratsack

SkyChimp
08-27-2006, 01:10 AM
You've as much as said that the British document posted earlier is actually a follow-on to the US report, by the same author no less, that acknowledges incorrect findings. I can't figure out how you managed to come to that conclusion, as preposterous as it is.

Never mind, then, since you no longer care to discuss it. If I'd done the same, I'd retreat, too, to reassess my take on things.

Kettenhunde
08-27-2006, 09:08 AM
Skychimp,


Skychimp wrote:
Yes, I said that. But it's not all I said. I also said, "Someone with a list can look up that W Nr and tell us exactly what the plane was."

Exactly, I did this for you and instead of a "Thanks" I get defensiveness.


Crumpp underlined the part about loosing power at 33,000 feet. Frankly, from the documents and accounts I've seen, that's higher than expected. Given what we know today about the Fw's engine control unit, derived from NACA testing that showed a virtual complete loss of servo-oil pressure at 32,000 feet, it's not hard to understand why that happened.

FW-190A5 average guaranteed ceiling is 10.8KM:

http://img17.imagevenue.com/loc488/th_87907_Performance_Fw190A5_01b_122_488lo.jpg (http://img17.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=87907_Performance_Fw190A5_01b_122_48 8lo.jpg)

Now there could be a plethora of reasons why the USN did not reach rated altitude. Most likely is the use of natural petroleum fuels and erroneous settings on the engine. It could also be due to the fact bombenflugzeug triebwerks did not come equipped with a pressurized fuel system like the Jagdflugzeugen. Point is there are numerous technical details which could have lead to the behavior the USN experienced. Without more research it is impossible to pinpoint the exact cause.

I also suspect the NACA for example trys to use a Flugzeug Handbuch which is out of developmental sequence for the Kommandoger¤t they tested. Simply put their intitial settings are most likely wrong. Even they allude to this in the beginning of the report. The reference material the NACA used was an Air Ministry Translation of the FW-190A1,A2, and A3 Flugzeug Handbuch dated 7 June 1943. The report does not state if the translated report is from Jun 43 or if the Flugzeug Handbuch is from that date.

However if you read Teil 06 and Teil 07 which deal with the motor, there is very little information on actual set up of the Kommandoger¤t and the manual directs the operator to refer to BMW documentation which the RAE did not posses. The Flugzeug Handbuch does caution that correct summer and winter oil additives must be used which the NACA did not posses.

All of this confirms that using testing of foreign designs under wartime conditions cannot be taken as absolute performance. It is €œat least€ performance at best.

Your point does however confirm that was something definitely wrong with the motor the USN tested. In order for the BMW801 to reach FTH it must receive the benefits of ram effect.

The aircraft must be traveling at its rated speed for that altitude. At climb speeds it is the Lufterrad which provides this ram effect. It is designed to maintain a specific minimum pressure inside the engine compartment. If the aircraft is not able to maintain best climb speed then it will never reach FTH.

Here is the BMW801C2 at Steig u Kampfleistung:
http://img124.imagevenue.com/loc387/th_87915_801CClimb1_122_387lo.jpg (http://img124.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=87915_801CClimb1_122_387lo.jpg)

The definitive facts are:

1. The aircraft did not reach rated altitude as noted by the USN. It is also a fact that Focke Wulf, Rechlin, and Luftwaffe could reach the rated altitude.

2. The engine as noted by the USN was not running correctly. Not surprising given the scarcity of their reference material and unfamiliarity with the design.

3. The aircraft exhibits specific behaviors Luftwaffe technical orders warn about as specific symptoms of ailerons in need of adjustment. The same order notes the adverse effect on turn performance as well as the behaviors at the stall of correctly adjusted ailerons.

Also you commented on the 2 minute level speed runs adversely affecting the F6F in the USN test. Since all the speed runs for all aircraft in the test where done for 2 minutes could you explain how the F6F was so severely handicapped by the USN itself?

All the best,

Crumpp

SkyChimp
08-27-2006, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Exactly, I did this for you and instead of a "Thanks" I get defensiveness.


Sorry, but that€s to be expected. I€m all too familiar with you, Crumpp, and your past attitude that€s gotten you banned from at least one other forum, and the label of a zealot on others. I hope that attitude€s improved.




FW-190A5 average guaranteed ceiling is 10.8KM:


Is that a money back guarantee?





Now there could be a plethora of reasons why the USN did not reach rated altitude. Most likely is the use of natural petroleum fuels and erroneous settings on the engine. It could also be due to the fact bombenflugzeug triebwerks did not come equipped with a pressurized fuel system like the Jagdflugzeugen. Point is there are numerous technical details which could have lead to the behavior the USN experienced. Without more research it is impossible to pinpoint the exact cause.

I also suspect the NACA for example trys to use a Flugzeug Handbuch which is out of developmental sequence for the Kommandoger¤t they tested. Simply put their intitial settings are most likely wrong. Even they allude to this in the beginning of the report. The reference material the NACA used was an Air Ministry Translation of the FW-190A1,A2, and A3 Flugzeug Handbuch dated 7 June 1943. The report does not state if the translated report is from Jun 43 or if the Flugzeug Handbuch is from that date.

However if you read Teil 06 and Teil 07 which deal with the motor, there is very little information on actual set up of the Kommandoger¤t and the manual directs the operator to refer to BMW documentation which the RAE did not posses. The Flugzeug Handbuch does caution that correct summer and winter oil additives must be used which the NACA did not posses.

All of this confirms that using testing of foreign designs under wartime conditions cannot be taken as absolute performance. It is €œat least€ performance at best.


What it confirms is that we have a test conducted by the USN that is, at best, vague, but which produced speed results that are not significantly different than should be expected for the Fw, and somewhat slower than expected for the F6F and F4U. Instead of taking it at face value, assumptions are read into that test to try and justify someone€s position that the Fw should have performed better. So far it€s been assumed the ailerons were misadjusted €" accounting for poorer than desired rolling. It€s been assumed the weights and CoG were wrong €" resulting in poorer than desired maneuverability. It€s been assumed the wrong fuels were used. It€s been assumed the wrong engine settings were used. Now it€s been assumed the NACA used the wrong manuals, the wrong settings, and the wrong additives.





1. The aircraft did not reach rated altitude as noted by the USN. It is also a fact that Focke Wulf, Rechlin, and Luftwaffe could reach the rated altitude.


Just about any aircraft can reach very high altitudes. But the Fw-190A was no high altitude aircraft. 33,000 feet is well above the normal operational altitude of that aircraft. It€s not surprising it performed poorly at that altitude.




2. The engine as noted by the USN was not running correctly. Not surprising given the scarcity of their reference material and unfamiliarity with the design.


The report says the Fw experienced €œsome€ rough running. The report does not state when, in the course of that test, the cause was discovered or corrected. You€ve simply assumed the Fw was tested with a rough running engine. That€s not likely. Surely the USN testers would have known enough to correct the problem in order to achieve usable results. In short, the plane was test for speed at rated power €" 1.42 ata.




3. The aircraft exhibits specific behaviors Luftwaffe technical orders warn about as specific symptoms of ailerons in need of adjustment. The same order notes the adverse effect on turn performance as well as the behaviors at the stall of correctly adjusted ailerons.


Behaviors? The only behavior exhibited was a slight aileron reversal during tight turns to the left at near stall speed. From that small thing alone, it€s been deduced that the Fw, as tested, has misadjusted ailerons that prohibited it from being competitive in maneuverability?






Also you commented on the 2 minute level speed runs adversely affecting the F6F in the USN test. Since all the speed runs for all aircraft in the test where done for 2 minutes could you explain how the F6F was so severely handicapped by the USN itself?

All the best,

Crumpp

Wait a minute now. I hear loud cries of foul when some attribute of the Fw wasn€t tested exactly the way it was tested a Rechlin.

The simple fact is that in this case the USN report is clear that the top speed runs didn€t develop top speed. The F6F and F4U had five minute time limitations at Combat Power. Checks for top speed were usually performed using the whole to that time. Not in this case. The report states top speeds were probably not obtained. Given the slower acceleration of the F6F and F4U, running at less that half the permissible time probably had a significant effect on top speed. Given the F4U and F6F conditions (apparently clean), the speeds obtained in the USN test are about 20mph slower than published speeds for both planes

Kettenhunde
08-27-2006, 11:37 AM
Behaviors? The only behavior exhibited was a slight aileron reversal during tight turns to the left at near stall speed. From that small thing alone, it€s been deduced that the Fw, as tested, has misadjusted ailerons that prohibited it from being competitive in maneuverability?


There is no such thing as a slight aileron reversal. Aileron reversal means just that, the direction of roll is reversed from the direction of input.

You can take that as a personal attack, Skychimp if you wish. It is not and just a statement of fact.

Properly adjusted the ailerons will vibrate and attempt to increase the roll in the direction of input just before stall. They do not reverse. The forces which the pilot must counteract to maintain the turn are not great when properly adjusted either.
http://img156.imagevenue.com/loc505/th_98850_aileron_adjusted_properly1_122_505lo.JPG (http://img156.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=98850_aileron_adjusted_properly1_122 _505lo.JPG)

http://img127.imagevenue.com/loc570/th_98856_aileron_adjusted_properly2_122_570lo.JPG (http://img127.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=98856_aileron_adjusted_properly2_122 _570lo.JPG)


The simple fact is that in this case the USN report is clear that the top speed runs didn€t develop top speed.

Which holds true for all fighters involved in the test as stated by the USN.

Rechlin records 422mph in production trials out of the FW190A5 in level speed runs out of a similar weight FW190A5:

http://img151.imagevenue.com/loc546/th_00262_FW190APerformance_122_546lo.jpg (http://img151.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=00262_FW190APerformance_122_546lo.jp g)

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
08-27-2006, 11:59 AM
Here Skychimp,

To help you out and increase your understanding of the science behind these planes:


Aileron Reversal During a Stall

If the section of the wing which contains the ailerons stalls the ailerons will begin to work in reverse. They will also aggravate the stall situation and can very easily pull the aircraft into a spin. Stall spin characteristics are covered in detail in Module 13.

http://selair.selkirk.bc.ca/aerodynamics1/Drag/Stall_Pattern.html

All the best,

Crumpp

SkyChimp
08-27-2006, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
There is no such thing as a slight aileron reversal. Aileron reversal means just that, the direction of roll is reversed from the direction of input.

You can take that as a personal attack, Skychimp if you wish. It is not and just a statement of fact.

Properly adjusted the ailerons will vibrate and attempt to increase the roll in the direction of input just before stall. They do not reverse. The forces which the pilot must counteract to maintain the turn are not great when properly adjusted either.


The fact is that the ailerons behaved normally in all atittudes, except in tight turns to the left at near stalling speed. The plane stalled with little warning. I don't think those things are any too different than pilot anecdotal accounts of the same thing. In fact, it seems very representative of a service aircraft.

I simply cannot understand the unmitigated angst over this report, and the findings that the Corsair and Hellcat were more manueverable - by a large margin. Volumes have been written in forums about the nearness of manueverability between the Fw-190 and P-51, yet the Corsair was everywhere more manueverable than the Mustang in USN tests as well, and the Hellcat more so than the Corsair. It's no srprise that the Fw was inferior in this regard. And its taken a lot of assuming and a lot of stretching by the Fw fan-base to try to narrow that gap.





Which holds true for all fighters involved in the test as stated by the USN.

Rechlin got 422mph out of the FW190A5 in level speed runs out of a similar weight FW190A5:

All the best,

Crumpp

422 mph, that may be. But the published figures in the A5 maual show 660 km/h, or 410mph, at 1.42 ata - which is what the USN got.

NAVAIR's published top speed for a clean F4U-1D is 434mph. And USN testing of water equipped Hellcats showed speeds over 400, and up to 409 mph.

SkyChimp
08-27-2006, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Here Skychimp,

To help you out and increase your understanding of the science behind these planes:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Aileron Reversal During a Stall

If the section of the wing which contains the ailerons stalls the ailerons will begin to work in reverse. They will also aggravate the stall situation and can very easily pull the aircraft into a spin. Stall spin characteristics are covered in detail in Module 13.

http://selair.selkirk.bc.ca/aerodynamics1/Drag/Stall_Pattern.html

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You needn't patronize me, Crumpp. I'm well aware of the nature of reversal and other terms you've used.

faustnik
08-27-2006, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Corsair and Hellcat were more manueverable - by a large margin.

Maybe people are bothered by your blanket use of the term "maneuverable"? The Fw190 in question was clearly under-performing in roll rate, which is an essential element of maneuverability, wouldn't you agree? I would certainly expect both carrier plane to turn better, and have better control at lower speeds, they would have to. The Fw190, in perfect condition, would have an advantage in roll rate. All three planes had great acceleration. Maybe the carrier plane would be superior at low speed, with the advantage shifting to the Fw190 as speed increases???

Anyway, trying to draw a broad conclusion from one isolated test seems a little narrow-minded. It is a really interesting test however, especially because these aircraft are similar in many ways. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

JtD
08-27-2006, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

Rechlin records 422mph in production trials out of the FW190A5 in level speed runs out of a similar weight FW190A5

And says on the bottom of the page:

* Compressability of air has not been taken into account.

Do it, and you will get 665 kph. That's what I said in the first post on this page.

Kettenhunde
08-27-2006, 01:26 PM
* Compressability of air has not been taken into account.


Exactly and the Focke Wulf has a forward correction at those speeds.

All the best,

Crumpp

JtD
08-27-2006, 01:34 PM
Care to explain that to me? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

Kettenhunde
08-27-2006, 01:36 PM
except in tight turns to the left at near stalling speed.

But the published figures in the A5 maual show 660 km/h, or 410mph,


Yes as the pilot reads it before corrections.

All the best,

Crumpp

Frequent_Flyer
08-27-2006, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Corsair and Hellcat were more manueverable - by a large margin.

Maybe people are bothered by your blanket use of the term "maneuverable"? The Fw190 in question was clearly under-performing in roll rate, which is an essential element of maneuverability, wouldn't you agree? I would certainly expect both carrier plane to turn better, and have better control at lower speeds, they would have to. The Fw190, in perfect condition, would have an advantage in roll rate. All three planes had great acceleration. Maybe the carrier plane would be superior at low speed, with the advantage shifting to the Fw190 as speed increases???

Anyway, trying to draw a broad conclusion from one isolated test seems a little narrow-minded. It is a really interesting test however, especially because these aircraft are similar in many ways. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE> In the absence of a single universally accepted source, this will never happen, each side chooses information that will buttress and/or advance their agenda. The opposing view will discredit this source on cross examination, citing their most accurate sources. To my way of keeping score, the few engagements between the RN Hellcat and the 190 and 109 the Hellcat shot them down-Advantage Hellcat. The Corsair I don't beleive ever engaged the Luftwaffe. They would'nt come up and play while the RN was sinking the Tirpitz.

R_Target
08-27-2006, 01:54 PM
I've heard several different versions of this engagement. Despite the different versions, the LW gave as good as they good as they got. Most likely it was two losses on each side.

JtD
08-27-2006, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

Yes as the pilot reads it before corrections.

The pilot reads IAS. That's usually not corrected for the lesser air densitiy up high and not corrected for compressability of air. In fact, the latter had barely been discovered and I really wonder how FW managed to install forward corrections.

SkyChimp
08-27-2006, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Maybe people are bothered by your blanket use of the term "maneuverable"? The Fw190 in question was clearly under-performing in roll rate, which is an essential element of maneuverability, wouldn't you agree?


No, I wouldn't. Because there isn't enough information provided in the USN test to draw the conclusion that it was underperforming. The Fw fan-base has essentially declared that the there was something wrong with that Fw based on the simple and vague statement that the Fw and the Corsair rolled about equally. Ok, equally at what speed? I don't know, and neither do you, because the report doesn't say. Was it at all speeds, or just one tested speed? If you look at the British document, at 350 mph IAS they did, indeed, roll about equally.

I just find it astonishing that so many of the Fw fan-base has declared the Fw in poor working order because the report wasn't written in the manner they would like it.





Anyway, trying to draw a broad conclusion from one isolated test seems a little narrow-minded.


I agree. But the "narrow-minded" "broad conclusion" seems to be that the Fw wasn't what it should be when there isn't enough information to draw that conclusion.

BfHeFwMe
08-27-2006, 02:28 PM
Back to Japanese Naval pilots, yeah, they were good flyers, but how do you win having no radios against another team. Radios were viewed the same as chutes and armor, for sissies by the high command.

Imagine your scrambled as a CAP over your fleet, their radar picks up incomming contacts, and they can't tell you your on the opposite side of the fleet. Or your strike package returns to the recovery spot to find no fleet in sight, they had to change route due to enemy action but couldn't contact the air arm.

Not even to mention how do you fly anything but a set piece air battle, but what happens when the enemy doesn't play it's part?

Sounds crazy, but that's exactly what was going on in the IJN. They were bled white over the radio issue. By the time it was fixed, the Naval Air Arm was pretty much gone.

Jaws2002
08-27-2006, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:

Because there isn't enough information provided in the USN test to draw the conclusion that it was underperforming.


If there's so little information given in the report why would someone take it as the ultimate proof of the navy planes superiority over the 190?

As you said there's too little iformation to draw conclusions.

Frequent_Flyer
08-27-2006, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Back to Japanese Naval pilots, yeah, they were good flyers, but how do you win having no radios against another team. Radios were viewed the same as chutes and armor, for sissies by the high command.

Imagine your scrambled as a CAP over your fleet, their radar picks up incomming contacts, and they can't tell you your on the opposite side of the fleet. Or your strike package returns to the recovery spot to find no fleet in sight, they had to change route due to enemy action but couldn't contact the air arm.

Not even to mention how do you fly anything but a set piece air battle, but what happens when the enemy doesn't play it's part?

Sounds crazy, but that's exactly what was going on in the IJN. They were bled white over the radio issue. By the time it was fixed, the Naval Air Arm was pretty much gone. You can't outlaw stupidity. Poorly equiped, poorly trained and moronic ideological belief all lead to an early exit from the gene pool.

SkyChimp
08-27-2006, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:

Because there isn't enough information provided in the USN test to draw the conclusion that it was underperforming.


If there's so little information given in the report why would someone take it as the ultimate proof of the navy planes superiority over the 190?

As you said there's too little iformation to draw conclusions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who did that? Not me. While the report is lacking in some areas, it gives enough to draw some conclusions. I never stated the Hellcat was superior, though it did have some superior characterisitcs, as did the Fw.

What I've stated was that there isn't enough information prsented in the report to support the Fw fan-base position that the Fw would have walked away from the Hellcat in every category if it weren't for there being so much wrong with the Fw.

Frequent_Flyer
08-27-2006, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by R_Target:
I've heard several different versions of this engagement. Despite the different versions, the LW gave as good as they good as they got. Most likely it was two losses on each side. '8 May 1944 Emperor's FAA Hellcats engage Fw-190s and Bf 109Gs from JG 5 over Norway, two 109's and a 190 were destroyed. The 190 was credited to Lt. Blyth Ritchie' No losses for the Hellcats.

ICDP
08-27-2006, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:Because there isn't enough information provided in the USN test to draw the conclusion that it was underperforming.

Three words, "element of doubt". While we can't dismiss this report out of hand we can cast doubts as to the condition of the captured aircraft. There have been many times such "second hand test" results contradicted actual official tests. When these contradictions arrise then the test results are rendered mostly or comlpetely useless. Look at the NACA report on the Spitifre which contradicts most official RAF tests in many areas. It turned out the Spitfire they tested was in a poor state of repair and was not performing to its best.

Many of these captured aircraft reports (from all sides) are full of incidences of poor maintencence or downright incompetence. The captured Aleutian A6M2 Zero was incorrectly rebuilt and the US report wrongly concluded that the Zero engine would cut out under negative G.

The point I am making is that there were many captured aircraft form all sides that were rebuilt damaged versions or incorrectly maintained. Captured test results can give helpfull information but should not be taken as fact when compared to actual official tests.

Frequent_Flyer
08-27-2006, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by ICDP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:Because there isn't enough information provided in the USN test to draw the conclusion that it was underperforming.

Three words, "element of doubt". While we can't dismiss this report out of hand we can cast doubts as to the condition of the captured aircraft. There have been many times such "second hand test" results contradicted actual official tests. When these contradictions arrise then the test results are rendered mostly or comlpetely useless. Look at the NACA report on the Spitifre which contradicts most official RAF tests in many areas. It turned out the Spitfire they tested was in a poor state of repair and was not performing to its best.

Many of these captured aircraft reports (from all sides) are full of incidences of poor maintencence or downright incompetence. The captured Aleutian A6M2 Zero was incorrectly rebuilt and the US report wrongly concluded that the Zero engine would cut out under negative G.

The point I am making is that there were many captured aircraft form all sides that were rebuilt damaged versions or incorrectly maintained. Captured test results can give helpfull information but should not be taken as fact when compared to actual official tests. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Whose "actual offical tests"? If you examine most test data it is biased no matter who produced it. Manufactures on all sides of the conflict, assured optimal conditions for the most optimistic result to be obtained. This to satisfy contractual language or some political agenda. Hell in Russia if advertised results were not met, engineers wound up in prison. That might move a decimal point or two.

Kettenhunde
08-27-2006, 03:59 PM
The fact is that the ailerons behaved normally in all atittudes, except in tight turns to the left at near stalling speed.

Correct. However it is the behavior at the edge for the stall that is important. Aileron reversal is simply not a characteristic of a Focke Wulf with properly adjusted ailerons.

Ailerons in need of adjustment will perform normally in the middle of the envelope. The only characteristic is stick forces which are out of tolerances in the middle of the envelope. The Focke Wulfs tolerances though were light enough that even out of adjustment, the forces would not be considered excessive and be comparable to most fighter designs.

The published limits:
http://img156.imagevenue.com/loc567/th_07258_LWstickforces_122_567lo.jpg (http://img156.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=07258_LWstickforces_122_567lo.jpg)


Care to explain that to me?

Certainly! Let me be clear though, the Focke Wulf does have a forward correction. I believe both speeds listed on the document are corrected to TAS. The Rechlin speeds are corrected and show TAS for the aircraft. The Focke Wulf speeds are also TAS as well. That notation at the bottom tells the reader that Rechlin measured the speed on the Luftwaffe's CAS airspeed indicator not the IAS indicator. Why are both TAS on this document? It does not make sense to compare uncorrected speeds with corrected ones. It would tell the reader nothing.

Here we can see the speeds "without" consideration for the influence of compressibility of the air...in other words speeds which have a correction applied so that compressibility is no longer a factor. If it was corrected then compressibility influence would be "considered".

Here we see a single layer of correction just for compressibility effects applied:

http://img130.imagevenue.com/loc431/th_09921_V34_correction_curve_122_431lo.jpg (http://img130.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=09921_V34_correction_curve_122_431lo .jpg)

We go from Va or Indicated Airspeed to Vawk or Indicated Airspeed with compressibility corrections applied.

The terminology can be very confusing.

Here is a correction curve showing multiple layers of corrections going from Indicated to True Airspeed for the FW190A5:
http://img16.imagevenue.com/loc538/th_10775_mach_calib_122_538lo.JPG (http://img16.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=10775_mach_calib_122_538lo.JPG)

Lastly, allow me to add even more confusion to the mix. Notice the formulation in the side notes on the speed curve listed below for both curves yields Vw or True Airspeed!

This is because the Luftwaffe used two different types of airspeed indicators, both CAS and IAS. So our plane is traveling the exact same speed through the air in this case, only our yardstick for measuring it has changed.

http://img140.imagevenue.com/loc501/th_15265_Airspeed_Indicators_122_501lo.JPG (http://img140.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=15265_Airspeed_Indicators_122_501lo. JPG)
http://img155.imagevenue.com/loc315/th_12378_fw190_A5_speed_122_315lo.JPG (http://img155.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=12378_fw190_A5_speed_122_315lo.JPG)

This is something Skychimp fails to realize and what makes these discussion extremely silly and I am guilty of jerking his chain somewhat in this one.

Just because a data sheet says a plane can fly a certain speed through the air does not mean it is an absolute measurement or that the plane is actually moving at that speed.

That is not even taking account normal production variations for plane performance. Generally speaking, "normal" variation is within 3% in level speed for any given airframe off the production line. This means aircraft can normally vary in performance a considerable amount and still be a good airframe. This can be seen in the myriad of performance figures quoted for the F6F in this thread.

The USN test gives good agreement on the FW190 for level speed. While it is pessimistic and below the guaranteed performance averages Focke Wulf publishes for the type, it is less than 1% pessimistic. That good agreement was never in dispute.

Assuming of course the USN applied the correct corrections!

The ailerons are certainly out of adjustment and the power production is also in question in that test. The slightly pessimistic level speeds measured by the USN are most likely a result of the power production problems as well but that is not a certainty. What is a certainty is that because of the problems, the aircraft could not reach its rated altitude.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
08-27-2006, 04:09 PM
Whose "actual offical tests"? If you examine most test data it is biased no matter who produced it. Manufactures on all sides of the conflict, assured optimal conditions for the most optimistic result to be obtained. This to satisfy contractual language or some political agenda. Hell in Russia if advertised results were not met, engineers wound up in prison. That might move a decimal point or two.


Actually all manufactuerers provide base line averages for the aircraft to perform. They will not guarentee absolute performance but will guarentee performance with a range of percentage variatiion. If the airframe does not fall within this range then it can be rejected by the acquiring service at the factory by contract in most systems. Generally the airframe is reworked by the factory at this point until it does fall within those specifications. All factory acceptance flights and ferry pilots had a checklist they were supposed to perform before an airframe was accepted for service use.

Here is Focke Wulf tolerences:
http://img105.imagevenue.com/loc306/th_16353_Focke_Wulf_tolerences_122_306lo.jpg (http://img105.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=16353_Focke_Wulf_tolerences_122_306l o.jpg)

Here is an RAF memo explaining percentage variations:

http://img125.imagevenue.com/loc361/th_16364_RAF_test_flight_standards_122_361lo.jpg (http://img125.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=16364_RAF_test_flight_standards_122_ 361lo.jpg)

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
08-27-2006, 04:29 PM
422 mph, that may be. But the published figures in the A5 maual show 660 km/h, or 410mph, at 1.42 ata - which is what the USN got.

You do realize that all speeds listed in the Flugzeug Handbuch are indicated airspeeds. They are what the pilot will read on his airspeed indicator.

For reasons Focke Wulf kept to themselves only certain speeds are listed in CAS. Most notably the dive limits and when CAS speeds are listed the manual clearly states as such. Since dive speeds are critical and level speeds not so much so. I imagine they would receive few complaints from pilots seeing themselves going faster than what the POH says they should be going.

Cockpit placards will always differentiate between CAS and IAS after the Luftwaffe adopted the CAS airspeed indicators. These are placed individually in each aircraft and are based on the airspeed indicator mounted in that airframe.

All the best,

Crumpp

ICDP
08-27-2006, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ICDP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:Because there isn't enough information provided in the USN test to draw the conclusion that it was underperforming.

Three words, "element of doubt". While we can't dismiss this report out of hand we can cast doubts as to the condition of the captured aircraft. There have been many times such "second hand test" results contradicted actual official tests. When these contradictions arrise then the test results are rendered mostly or comlpetely useless. Look at the NACA report on the Spitifre which contradicts most official RAF tests in many areas. It turned out the Spitfire they tested was in a poor state of repair and was not performing to its best.

Many of these captured aircraft reports (from all sides) are full of incidences of poor maintencence or downright incompetence. The captured Aleutian A6M2 Zero was incorrectly rebuilt and the US report wrongly concluded that the Zero engine would cut out under negative G.

The point I am making is that there were many captured aircraft form all sides that were rebuilt damaged versions or incorrectly maintained. Captured test results can give helpfull information but should not be taken as fact when compared to actual official tests. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Whose "actual offical tests"? If you examine most test data it is biased no matter who produced it. Manufactures on all sides of the conflict, assured optimal conditions for the most optimistic result to be obtained. This to satisfy contractual language or some political agenda. Hell in Russia if advertised results were not met, engineers wound up in prison. That might move a decimal point or two. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tests carried out by the respective airforces. The LW official tests would not be biased towards showing any fighter to be overperforming for any reason. The same goes for the USN, USAAF, VVS and RAF. The respective airforces have absolutely no reason to "cook results" to show fighters better than they really are. These airforces were sending up men to fight and die in these machines. It is in their best interest to be sure the aircraft are tested thoroughly and correctly.

Also you state that "in Russia if advertised results were not met, engineers wound up in prison. That might move a decimal point or two.". Well the counter argument to this is the consequences that many designers suffered when the figures they published were unobtainable by the TSAGI institute. That is why official military test centres exist. To ensure the aircraft they were getting worked as advertised.

Frequent_Flyer
08-27-2006, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by ICDP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ICDP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:Because there isn't enough information provided in the USN test to draw the conclusion that it was underperforming.

Three words, "element of doubt". While we can't dismiss this report out of hand we can cast doubts as to the condition of the captured aircraft. There have been many times such "second hand test" results contradicted actual official tests. When these contradictions arrise then the test results are rendered mostly or comlpetely useless. Look at the NACA report on the Spitifre which contradicts most official RAF tests in many areas. It turned out the Spitfire they tested was in a poor state of repair and was not performing to its best.

Many of these captured aircraft reports (from all sides) are full of incidences of poor maintencence or downright incompetence. The captured Aleutian A6M2 Zero was incorrectly rebuilt and the US report wrongly concluded that the Zero engine would cut out under negative G.

The point I am making is that there were many captured aircraft form all sides that were rebuilt damaged versions or incorrectly maintained. Captured test results can give helpfull information but should not be taken as fact when compared to actual official tests. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Whose "actual offical tests"? If you examine most test data it is biased no matter who produced it. Manufactures on all sides of the conflict, assured optimal conditions for the most optimistic result to be obtained. This to satisfy contractual language or some political agenda. Hell in Russia if advertised results were not met, engineers wound up in prison. That might move a decimal point or two. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tests carried out by the respective airforces. The LW official tests would not be biased towards showing any fighter to be overperforming for any reason. The same goes for the USN, USAAF, VVS and RAF. The respective airforces have absolutely no reason to "cook results" to show fighters better than they really are. These airforces were sending up men to fight and die in these machines. It is in their best interest to be sure the aircraft are tested thoroughly and correctly.

Also you state that "in Russia if advertised results were not met, engineers wound up in prison. That might move a decimal point or two.". Well the counter argument to this is the consequences that many designers suffered when the figures they published were unobtainable by the TSAGI institute. That is why official military test centres exist. To ensure the aircraft they were getting worked as advertised. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Politics and Budget considerations always produce biased test results. No matter the country. Results of tests were hidden and covered up by all combatants. As far as the Soviets they were the biggest offenders.

Kettenhunde
08-27-2006, 05:58 PM
Results of tests were hidden and covered up by all combatants.

Tests carried out by the respective airforces. The LW official tests would not be biased towards showing any fighter to be overperforming for any reason. The same goes for the USN, USAAF, VVS and RAF. The respective airforces have absolutely no reason to "cook results" to show fighters better than they really are. These airforces were sending up men to fight and die in these machines. It is in their best interest to be sure the aircraft are tested thoroughly and correctly.

Also you state that "in Russia if advertised results were not met, engineers wound up in prison. That might move a decimal point or two.". Well the counter argument to this is the consequences that many designers suffered when the figures they published were unobtainable by the TSAGI institute. That is why official military test centres exist. To ensure the aircraft they were getting worked as advertised.


I agree. IMHO, the "pointy tin foil hat theories" just do not pan out in reality.

All the best,

Crumpp

Frequent_Flyer
08-27-2006, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Results of tests were hidden and covered up by all combatants.

Tests carried out by the respective airforces. The LW official tests would not be biased towards showing any fighter to be overperforming for any reason. The same goes for the USN, USAAF, VVS and RAF. The respective airforces have absolutely no reason to "cook results" to show fighters better than they really are. These airforces were sending up men to fight and die in these machines. It is in their best interest to be sure the aircraft are tested thoroughly and correctly.

Also you state that "in Russia if advertised results were not met, engineers wound up in prison. That might move a decimal point or two.". Well the counter argument to this is the consequences that many designers suffered when the figures they published were unobtainable by the TSAGI institute. That is why official military test centres exist. To ensure the aircraft they were getting worked as advertised.


I agree. IMHO, the "pointy tin foil hat theories" just do not pan out in reality.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE> You mean like scandals and cover ups in the military.No such reality ? There are meds that may help you with your break from reality.

Kettenhunde
08-27-2006, 07:36 PM
You mean like scandals and cover ups in the military.


I think to classify scandal and cover up as the "normal" way of military or Government operations is not correct.

So, yes, if your definition of normal Government business includes scandal and cover up we do have a break in our realities.

All the best,

Crumpp

SkyChimp
08-27-2006, 08:34 PM
This is something Skychimp fails to realize and what makes these discussion extremely silly and I am guilty of jerking his chain somewhat in this one.


You needn€t flatter yourself, Crumpp. Though I do agree you €œpull chains€ in most or your posts. My memory harkens back to the time you claimed Fws regularly dive bombed at speeds in excess of 1,000 km/h.



Assuming of course the USN applied the correct corrections!


In hindsight, I wonder how the USN was able to even take to the air with another country€s aircraft.



The ailerons are certainly out of adjustment and the power production is also in question in that test. The slightly pessimistic level speeds measured by the USN are most likely a result of the power production problems as well but that is not a certainty. What is a certainty is that because of the problems, the aircraft could not reach its rated altitude.


Or not.

Perhaps the speeds reached were representative of a production, in-service aircraft. Again, they aren€t off by all that much, as compared to the most favorable report thus far dug up.

And the bit about the engine problem is speculation. As stated earlier, we have no idea when the problem was uncovered and how it was mitigated, or even when in the course of the test. I seriously doubt the engine was tested in its rough-running condition.

We also don€t know the context of the statement that power was lost at about 33,000 feet. Did that mean the engine cut out? Did it mean an uncontrollable power reduction? How was power restored? In short, the only description we have seems most consistent with the NACA report on the engine control unit that found servo-oil pressure was lost at about that altitude which would have resulted in failure of the engine control unit allowing for only limited manual throttle control at cruising power. Failure of the engine control unit will result in the throttle position setting itself to 0 degrees to 23 degrees from the closed position. €" essentially closed to of the full range of throttle position. Therefore, a failure of the engine control unit due to loss of servo-oil pressure could essentially close the throttle.



You do realize that all speeds listed in the Flugzeug Handbuch are indicated airspeeds. They are what the pilot will read on his airspeed indicator.


I said that in the context of the published top speed in the A-5 handbook. The handbook for the Fw-190A-5 shows a top speed of 660 km/h at 6,300 meters (410mph at 20,669 feet). So that€s an indicated air speed? You understand, then, what the TAS would be at that altitude if the IAS is 660 km/h? It€s approximately 544 mph TAS.

Kettenhunde
08-27-2006, 10:22 PM
My memory harkens back to the time you claimed Fws regularly dive bombed at speeds in excess of 1,000 km/h.

Since your memory is rather bad....

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1156722152_divestory.jpg

I don't see my name anywhere on that anecdote.

Remember too the context it was posted in was your ridiculous claims on P51 diving abilities. IIRC the P51 regularly dived to the speeds the test airframe was damaged to the point of being written off. Anything for your gameshape to gain advantage huh?


Perhaps the speeds reached were representative of a production, in-service aircraft. Again, they aren€t off by all that much, as compared to the most favorable report thus far dug up.

Wow. Do you not read what others post??


Crump wrote:
The USN test gives good agreement on the FW190 for level speed. While it is pessimistic and below the guaranteed performance averages Focke Wulf publishes for the type, it is less than 1% pessimistic. That good agreement was never in dispute.

Nowhere has any claim been made on the level speeds on the USN test. As stated they are pessimistic but within limits.

The subject of level speeds came up when you were asked how in your mind, the 2 minute limit set by the USN unfairly handicapped the F6F and F4U.

Can you repeat that beautiful explaination on why the USN so hamstrung their own fighters again? They conducted the test and set the parameters after all.


I seriously doubt the engine was tested in its rough-running condition.

Well it only states it was running rough in the report. It states the cause was probably fouled plugs at idle.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1156735676_roughrunning801.jpg

However in Skychimps version of the report it says that the Focke Wulf was in pristine condition serviced by Kurt Tank himself when he crossed over on the Mayflower.

The F6F Hellcat and F4U Corsair were only mahogany models made in the Philippines. The carver only had one eye. The Hellcat model had no propeller.


We also don€t know the context of the statement that power was lost at about 33,000 feet. Did that mean the engine cut out? Did it mean an uncontrollable power reduction? How was power restored? In short, the only description we have seems most consistent with the NACA report on the engine control unit that found servo-oil pressure was lost at about that altitude which would have resulted in failure of the engine control unit allowing for only limited manual throttle control at cruising power. Failure of the engine control unit will result in the throttle position setting itself to 0 degrees to 23 degrees from the closed position. €" essentially closed to of the full range of throttle position. Therefore, a failure of the engine control unit due to loss of servo-oil pressure could essentially close the throttle.

No that is just the explanation you would like to believe, Skychimp. The facts are the aircraft was rated and tested to a height of 10.8Km by Focke Wulf and Rechlin.

All that matters is the USN could not achieve the rated height due to engine difficulties. Some thing the Luftwaffe did not experience.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1156736905_ratedaltitude.jpg

Certainly it can't be that BMW and Focke Wulf know more about their own designs than the US of A. The NACA was the noted authority on Focke Wulf during WWII. Kurt Tank composed several pages of questions for them on the Focke Wulf during his trip over on the Mayflower.


So that€s an indicated air speed? You understand, then, what the TAS would be at that altitude if the IAS is 660 km/h? It€s approximately 544 mph TAS.

This statement speaks volumes about your lack of understanding.

Here is an excerpt from the FW190A5 Flugzeug-Handbuch:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1156737601_fw190pohspeeds.jpg

Does that handbuch say the FW190A5 is still climbing at .5 Meters/Sec at 10.3 Km€s? Certainly not, the NACA says that is impossible. Who is Focke Wulf to publish instructions on their own design without consulting the NACA!!

I guess it is flying at 544MPH too! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

All the best,

Crumpp

Frequent_Flyer
08-27-2006, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">My memory harkens back to the time you claimed Fws regularly dive bombed at speeds in excess of 1,000 km/h.

Since your memory is rather bad....

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1156722152_divestory.jpg

I don't see my name anywhere on that anecdote.

Remember too the context it was posted in was your ridiculous claims on P51 diving abilities. IIRC the P51 regularly dived to the speeds the test airframe was damaged to the point of being written off. Anything for your gameshape to gain advantage huh?


Perhaps the speeds reached were representative of a production, in-service aircraft. Again, they aren€t off by all that much, as compared to the most favorable report thus far dug up.

Wow. Do you not read what others post??


Crump wrote:
The USN test gives good agreement on the FW190 for level speed. While it is pessimistic and below the guaranteed performance averages Focke Wulf publishes for the type, it is less than 1% pessimistic. That good agreement was never in dispute.

Nowhere has any claim been made on the level speeds on the USN test. As stated they are pessimistic but within limits.

The subject of level speeds came up when you were asked how in your mind, the 2 minute limit set by the USN unfairly handicapped the F6F and F4U.

Can you repeat that beautiful explaination on why the USN so hamstrung their own fighters again? They conducted the test and set the parameters after all.


I seriously doubt the engine was tested in its rough-running condition.

Well it only states it was running rough in the report. It states the cause was probably fouled plugs at idle.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1156735676_roughrunning801.jpg

However in Skychimps version of the report it says that the Focke Wulf was in pristine condition serviced by Kurt Tank himself when he crossed over on the Mayflower.

The F6F Hellcat and F4U Corsair were only mahogany models made in the Philippines. The carver only had one eye. The Hellcat model had no propeller.


We also don€t know the context of the statement that power was lost at about 33,000 feet. Did that mean the engine cut out? Did it mean an uncontrollable power reduction? How was power restored? In short, the only description we have seems most consistent with the NACA report on the engine control unit that found servo-oil pressure was lost at about that altitude which would have resulted in failure of the engine control unit allowing for only limited manual throttle control at cruising power. Failure of the engine control unit will result in the throttle position setting itself to 0 degrees to 23 degrees from the closed position. €" essentially closed to of the full range of throttle position. Therefore, a failure of the engine control unit due to loss of servo-oil pressure could essentially close the throttle.

No that is just the explanation you would like to believe, Skychimp. The facts are the aircraft was rated and tested to 0 climb height of 10.8Km by Focke Wulf and Rechlin.

All that matters is the USN could not achieve the rated height due to engine difficulties. Some thing the Luftwaffe did not experience.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1156736905_ratedaltitude.jpg

Certainly it can't be that BMW and Focke Wulf know more about their own designs than the US of A. The NACA was the noted authority on Focke Wulf during WWII. Kurt Tank composed several pages of questions for them on the Focke Wulf during his trip over on the Mayflower.


So that€s an indicated air speed? You understand, then, what the TAS would be at that altitude if the IAS is 660 km/h? It€s approximately 544 mph TAS.

This statement speaks volumes about your lack of understanding.

Here is an excerpt from the FW190A5 Flugzeug-Handbuch:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1156737601_fw190pohspeeds.jpg

Does that handbuch say the FW190A5 is still climbing at 5 Meters/Sec at 10.3 Km€s? Certainly not, the NACA says that is impossible. Who is Focke Wulf to publish instructions on their own design without consulting the NACA!!

I guess it is flying at 544MPH too! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE> You left out the best part -When the Hellcat and Fw-190 met in combat the FAA Hellcat shot it down over Norway.

Frequent_Flyer
08-27-2006, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You mean like scandals and cover ups in the military.


I think to classify scandal and cover up as the "normal" way of military or Government operations is not correct.

So, yes, if your definition of normal Government business includes scandal and cover up we do have a break in our realities.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Who knows what normal is? Corruption is part of every goverment and military organization on the planet.

R_Target
08-27-2006, 11:02 PM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
I've heard several different versions of this engagement. Despite the different versions, the LW gave as good as they good as they got. Most likely it was two losses on each side. '8 May 1944 Emperor's FAA Hellcats engage Fw-190s and Bf 109Gs from JG 5 over Norway, two 109's and a 190 were destroyed. The 190 was credited to Lt. Blyth Ritchie' No losses for the Hellcats. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like I said, there are several versions. Here's the one at the Fleet Air Arm Archive:
"Some of the 800 squadron Hellcats from HMS Emperor went to attack the German aircraft and shot down 1 Fw-190 and two Bf-109G fighters. The Hellcats suffered one loss to the Luftwaffe and another to anti-aircraft fire. Sub Lt. B. Richie claimed the Focke-Wulf and went on to claim a total of 6 kills, becoming one of only a few Royal Navy Hellcat aces."

SkyChimp
08-27-2006, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
I don't see my name anywhere on that anecdote.

Remember too the context it was posted in was your ridiculous claims on P51 diving abilities. IIRC the P51 regularly dived to the speeds the test airframe was damaged to the point of being written off. Anything for your gameshape to gain advantage huh?


You did say that Fw-190s dive bombed at 1,000 km/h, and vehemently defended that absurdity. BTW, 1,000 km/h €" was that IAS or TAS ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

With respect to the dive abilities of the P-51D, I simply posted an excerpt from a British Dive Test document (not an anecdote scanned from a book) that states the Mustang could be dived to mach .83 in an extreme emergency as long a gentle pull out was used. The Mustang didn't sustain damage in tests until it exceeded mach .84.




Nowhere has any claim been made on the level speeds on the USN test. As stated they are pessimistic but within limits.

The subject of level speeds came up when you were asked how in your mind, the 2 minute limit set by the USN unfairly handicapped the F6F and F4U.

Can you repeat that beautiful explaination on why the USN so hamstrung their own fighters again? They conducted the test and set the parameters after all.


This thread is replete with references to the Fw underperforming in just about every category €" including speed.

And if you disagree with my opinion regarding the time limitation on the speed run, then tell me why. After all, according to you, the Fw€s speed was €œpessimistic€ but within that percentage margin of error. However, the F6F and F4U speeds were not within your same standard. While the Fw's speeds was too low by a few percentage points versus your best Rechlin case, the F6F and F4U were low by 9.2% and 9.5% over the Navy€s best numbers.

I guess your sense of fairness ends when it doesn€t suit your agenda.



However in Skychimps version of the report it says that the Focke Wulf was in pristine condition serviced by Kurt Tank himself when he crossed over on the Mayflower.

The F6F Hellcat and F4U Corsair were only mahogany models made in the Philippines. The carver only had one eye. The Hellcat model had no propeller.


Yeah baby, now that€s the Crumpp I know.



No that is just the explanation you would like to believe, Skychimp. The facts are the aircraft was rated and tested to a height of 10.8Km by Focke Wulf and Rechlin.

All that matters is the USN could not achieve the rated height due to engine difficulties. Some thing the Luftwaffe did not experience.

Certainly it can't be that BMW and Focke Wulf know more about their own designs than the US of A. The NACA was the noted authority on Focke Wulf during WWII. Kurt Tank composed several pages of questions for them on the Focke Wulf during his trip over on the Mayflower.


I€ve offered a viable explanation. You can€t accept it since it doesn€t fit the Crumpp agenda. And as for the high altitude capabilities of the Fw, and since you are fond of pilot anecdotes scanned from books, perhaps you€ll scan some from pilots of the Fw regarding their high altitude adventures? You can find some in the JG26 War Diaries, and other sources.




Does that handbuch say the FW190A5 is still climbing at .5 Meters/Sec at 10.3 Km€s? Certainly not, the NACA says that is impossible. Who is Focke Wulf to publish instructions on their own design without consulting the NACA!!

I guess it is flying at 544MPH too!


You are the one that said it was IAS, not me. I think you would have stuck to that had I not pointed that out. I should have just let you roll with it.

Kettenhunde
08-28-2006, 06:20 AM
You are the one that said it was IAS, not me. I think you would have stuck to that had I not pointed that out. I should have just let you roll with it.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1156737601_fw190pohspeeds.jpg


Die angegebenen flugleistungen gelten für ein fluggewicht von 4100kg......

Let me give you a hint, Skychimp. Since your not sharp enough to pick up on the underlined portion.

German speed notation:

Vw = True Air Speed
Va = Indicated Air Speed

Now I will make it even easier for you. Just cut and paste, select "German to English"...

http://babelfish.altavista.com/


You can€t accept it since it doesn€t fit the Crumpp agenda.

Who is on the agenda, again?

The guy who ignores what that manufacturer and end user documented data say for the sake of second hand information?

No go fight those 544mph Focke Wulf€s in your gameshape. What is even funnier is the fact I posted some correction curves in this thread. It is actually about 428mph in Vwcina or True Airspeed in Internationale Normatmosph¤re.

All the best,

Crumpp

Manu-6S
08-28-2006, 07:15 AM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer: You left out the best part -When the Hellcat and Fw-190 met in combat the FAA Hellcat shot it down over Norway.

OH MY GOD!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Manu-6S
08-28-2006, 07:19 AM
Crumpp, leave the discussion... it's easier to reason with a brick than these guys, and you are not patient as Xiola.

Yes, US is the best. Good night and have beautiful dreams.

SkyChimp
08-28-2006, 09:42 AM
Crumpp, granted I don€t speak German, but I do know the difference between Indicated Air Speed, Corrected Air Speed and True Air Speed. According to the manual those are maximum speeds. Are they dive speed limitations, or maximum level speeds? If they are dive limitations, then IAS would make sense, though they would be extremely low limitations. And I can€t for the life of me understand why a dive speed limitation would be given for sea level.

If they are maximum level speeds, then I€ve told you what 660 km/h (410 mph) IAS at 6,300 meters (20,669 feet) is in TAS. It€s approximately 544mph (NOT 428 mph). Now if that€s a maximum level speed, that€s either a corrected figure (which isn€t IAS), or its true air speed. Otherwise, the manual is claiming the plane flew a good 120 mph faster than it could at that altitude, or the terms are being used in non-traditional manners.

Here is a simple IAS to TAS converter.

http://www.csgnetwork.com/tasinfocalc.html

410 mph IAS at 20,669 feet is NOT 428 mph TAS. There are better converters on the net, but this one is simple enough for the purposes of this discussion. You've stated that figure is an Indicated Air Speed. (You do realize that all speeds listed in the Flugzeug Handbuch are indicated airspeeds) The term IAS is key here.

Xiolablu3
08-28-2006, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
...and you are not patient as Xiola.



I am honoured. 'Most patient' board member http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

JtD
08-28-2006, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Care to explain that to me?

Certainly! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks. However, your documents only show that FW knew the theory. They don't actually say that the cockpit dial would be corrected.


That notation at the bottom tells the reader that Rechlin measured the speed on the Luftwaffe's CAS airspeed indicator not the IAS indicator.

In an almost word for word translation it says:

The numbers in brackets are performance figures for FW 190A-3 to A-5 as flown. (see Rechlin trial No. 1661)
(Indication error of airspeed indicator due to compressability of air has not yet been considered for them.)

or, to make a more clear translation, as clear as the German version:

The numbers in brackets are results of flight tests for the Fw 190 A-3 to A-5. (see Rechlin trial No. 1661)
(The blokes over at Rechlin didn't correct these numbers for compressability and the numbers are still wrong.)

That's what it says. If they had wanted to say they used a different indicator, they would have said so. Well, imho. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kettenhunde
08-28-2006, 10:53 AM
Thanks. However, your documents only show that FW knew the theory. They don't actually say that the cockpit dial would be corrected.


Sorry but those are correction curves. Although I am glad you think Focke Wulf might have been competent to design an airplane.


The numbers in brackets are results of flight tests for the Fw 190 A-3 to A-5. (see Rechlin trial No. 1661)

Correct translation.


(The blokes over at Rechlin didn't correct these numbers for compressability and the numbers are still wrong.)

Not correct however. Although I thought this at first myself minus the €œblokes€ portion. It was only after learning specific jargon that it became clear.

Fehlanzeige des fahrtmessers infolge kompressibilit¤t der luft is dabei nach nicht berücksichtigt

Literal translation is:

"Nil return of the airspeed indicator due to compressibility of air is not considered"

You can see that when the speed is run through a correction curve it becomes "Kompressibilit¤t berücksichtigt" or "Compressibility considered".

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1156782446_v34correctioncurve.jpg

Which in english better translates too:

Airspeed is corrected for compressibility.

If compressibility was not correct then our statement would read, "Kompressibilit¤t berücksichtigt" instead of "nicht berücksichtigt"

Again with specific jargon, the word "angegebenen" or any of its roots does not appear anywhere in that sentence. It is not discussing Indicated Airspeeds.

Vw or "wahr" is the notation for True Airspeed.

Va or "angezeigt" is the notation for Indicated airspeeds.

You can see from the FW190A5 graph posted earlier that the formulation in the sidebar corrects for both types of airspeed indicators used by the Luftwaffe. Both formulas produce Vw or TAS.

Understand this is not some idle speculation. Getting these speeds correct is vital to the safe operation of our aircraft.

All the best,

Crumpp

faustnik
08-28-2006, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

"Nil return of the airspeed indicator due to compressibility of air is not considered"



Now I'm confused again on the compressibility issue. Does "nil return" mean that the reading is too low? I was told before (not by a member of this discussion) to use the lower speed reading on the Fw190A5 chart that has the compressibility adjustment on it.

http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?set_al...clude=view_photo.php (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?set_albumName=Fw190_Graphs&id=fw190_A5_speed&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_photo.php)

Is that incorrect? Which one should I use?

I also saw this correction:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/EB_104correction.jpg

for this chart:

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/EB_104_Speed.jpg

This says "correction to be added".

I might have some graph corrections to do. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Kettenhunde
08-28-2006, 12:17 PM
Now I'm confused again on the compressibility issue.


Hey Faustnik!

Notice the forumulation in the sidebar of the FW-190A5 graph. It returns True Airspeed or Vw for both formulas and both lines of the graph. That is what makes it so unusual and negates the graph showing a simple correction for compressibility speeds. That would be Vawk speeds.

http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?full=1...clude=view_photo.php (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?full=1&set_albumName=Fw190_Graphs&id=fw190_A5_speed&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_photo.php)

The graph shows the difference in readings for IAS and CAS airspeed indicators as they are converted to TAS. Here is the kicker, both speeds represent the aircraft traveling through the air at the same rate. Only the scale is slipped. One's airspeed indicator compensates for compressibility as part of its normal function and the other does not.

For example here is the dive limitations using the two airspeed indicators. Both scales represent the aircraft traveling exactly the same speed.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1156788797_airspeedindicators.jpg


Here is a pretty decent primer for airspeeds:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspeed#True_airspeed

EB104 curve is a position error curve. A totally different layer of corrections.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
08-28-2006, 12:18 PM
Does "nil return" mean that the reading is too low?


No it is more like "small correction".

All the best,

Crumpp

faustnik
08-28-2006, 12:21 PM
OK, thanks. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

JtD
08-28-2006, 12:46 PM
Do you happen to have the graph sheet as a full page, with header and legend?

It's a calibration chart for the pitot tube of the FW 190 V34?
What's the dashed line?
What facility was used for the calibration?
I can see three dots on both lines, and I assume these are three values that were measured for one line and, based on that, calculated for the other line. Question would: Which ones were measured? My bet is on the dashed line.
Compressibility correction depends on altitude, so what altitude is that chart for?

I would also like to point out that there is no Vw on that chart, just an Vawk, which could be an indicated airspeed of the wind tunnel they used. If they used a wind tunnel. So what does Vawk stand for in this chart?

WRT to that A-5 chart with the two different formulas:

I am sure we agree on the fact that there was only ONE tas. One curve shows 655 kph max, the other 670 kph max. What's the correct tas max?

nicht berücksichtigt = not considered = not corrected
berücksichtigt = considered = corrected

The specific jargon aside, you don't need to teach me German. I am a native speaker (and professional test engineer). If lives depend on what you say, I'd double check if I were you.

Thanks for taking your time. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

edit:
Well, a lot seems to have been answered in the meantime. But a new question arises: How do you know they used two different airspeed indicators on the A-5?

faustnik
08-28-2006, 12:51 PM
JtD,

Do you have this one?

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/Fw190A5_Bf109G1_p6.jpg

JtD
08-28-2006, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
JtD,

Do you have this one?

Now I do, thanks. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The FW data seems identical to the A-3 data of November 42?

JtD
08-28-2006, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

For example here is the dive limitations using the two airspeed indicators. Both scales represent the aircraft traveling exactly the same speed.

Crumpp, the 22231's scale was limited to 750 kph, whilest the 22234's scale was going to 900 kph. This is the reason the have differences. At speeds below 750, they are exactly the same.

faustnik
08-28-2006, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by JtD:

The FW data seems identical to the A-3 data of November 42?

Yeah, it does look similar. The a/c is listed as an A5 W.Nr.7368. ??????????? Whatever it was, looks pretty fast. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JtD
08-28-2006, 02:00 PM
Probably not corrected for compressibilty. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

What do the labels read? I can only make out "Focke Wulf Messung", but what are the "Notleistung" and the third FW curve? What Rechlin trial number is that data taken from?

Do you have this diagramm (and all the others) in a paper copy? If so, where did you get all this stuff from?

faustnik
08-28-2006, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by JtD:

What do the labels read?

I can't read them, the copy quality I have is poor. Maybe Crumpp has a cleaner copy?

Kettenhunde
08-28-2006, 02:26 PM
It's a calibration chart for the pitot tube of the FW 190 V34?

No it is not a positional error correction. It is compressibility only as the Vawk confirms.

quoted from the report:

Erstmalig ist im kurvenblatt 1 die œber der messtrecke ermittelte staudruck eichung unter berücksichtigung der kompressibilit¤t der luft aufgetragen. In zukunft werden mittelten Geschwindigkeitsleistungen mit berücksichtigung der kompressibilit¤t bekanntgegeben. Bei den flugzeugen mit 801D motoren entf¤llt diese umrechnung auch weiterhin, um die vergleichsm¶glichkeiten mit früher ermittelten werten zu erleichtern.


What facility was used for calibration?

It is an original Wartime report from Focke Wulf, Bremen and represents flight testing of the FW-190A9 prototype. There is no windtunnel.

As stated the Vawk is indicated airspeed with compressibility corrections. Another positional error curve is provided in the report to correct this speed to Vwck.


I am sure we agree on the fact that there was only ONE tas. One curve shows 655 kph max, the other 670 kph max. What's the correct tas max?

You would think. The only explaination we can derive is fact the Luftwaffe used both IAS and EAS airspeed indicators. The 22231 indicator would require a seperate correction for compressibility. The 22234 indicator includes compressibility as part of the reading. We can clearly see:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1156794715_fw190a5withcompressibility.jpg

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1156794733_fw190a5withoutcompressibility.gif

That both formulas yield Vw or True Airspeed.

As for your translation prowness we have professional translators who argue over this stuff. If you get three native speaker in the room they will come up with three different translations. I will group you with the minority so far as they have examined a lot more evidence than what is in this thread. Fortunately this particular report has no bearing on the operation and safety of our aircraft. It has proved itself to rather intriguing.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
08-28-2006, 02:39 PM
Crumpp, the 22231's scale was limited to 750 kph, whilest the 22234's scale was going to 900 kph. This is the reason the have differences. At speeds below 750, they are exactly the same.


Look we have both airspeed indicators, manuals, and calibration instructions. This is not conjecture.

Your claim would mean the aerodynamic limits of the design changed and the dive limit was raised. It was not AFAIK.

Lets look at some dive speeds measured with 22231:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1156798377_05e43_p2.jpg

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
08-28-2006, 03:24 PM
Maybe Crumpp has a cleaner copy?


I have whole report in my office at work. I will look it over for you Fausnik.


"Notleistung"

Sure you are a native speaker?? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Notleistung is Emergency Power and stands for "Start u Notleistung". The Focke Wulf measurements were done at "Stieg u Kampfleistung" which is lower throttle setting.


Probably not corrected for compressibilty.

As they are corrected for comparison I imagine it is exactly what they thought the Vwcina was for the Focke Wulf. That is Rechlin's measurements too and not the companies. In general Focke Wulf was conservative on their estimates. It is much better to have everyone pleasantly surprised than disappointed expectations.

The FW190 is not the only aircraft to have experienced correction difficulties. It is much more common than you think.

All the best,

Crumpp

JtD
08-29-2006, 09:35 AM
Maybe we should take this to private area, I don't think there are more than few interested in this...

WRT the A-5 chart:
It uses one set of data, indicated airspeed va, as indicated by the airspeed indicator, but two different correction methods to find out true airspeed Vw, formulas for both are given next to the line. The old one, and the new one with compressibility correction that makes for lesser speeds than previously thought. If they used two sets of data they would tell this instead of giving two different correction formulas relating to the same quantity Va.

The quote from the test report is interesting, as it clearly says the V-34 is the first Fw to recieve compressibility correction and that older BMW 801D driven FW will not be corrected even in the future to allow comparism with the old, uncorrected data.
So we got two seperate sources that tell us that early FW data was not corrected for compressibility. Obviously, the above A-5 chart was one of the first that was. And from A-6 on, correction was used.

I'd apprechiate to see more of that FW report because I still do not quite understand the graph.

How many of your professional translators are professional engineers? If you got "Fehlanzeige" = "nil return" = "small correction" from them, you need a forth professional. "Error of indication" comes way closer. "Nil return" is a way different meaning of the same word.

If you got the 22231, why don't you look at it's scale? It's limited to 750. The dive figures you posted from the just take this into account, you can hardly tell someone to dive to 850 IAS if the dial quits at 750. This does not mean the actual properties of the plane have to change.

The dive chart of the 109 gives a IAS of 737, within the scales limit, but a TAS of 906. I do not quite understand what this has to do with the 750 kph limit of the 22231, as the highest ias is below that limit?

I wasn't asking for what Notleistung means, but what the label reads below the line of the "FW mit Notleistung" label. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Please don't take the probalby harsh style of this post personally, my computer crashed just when I was about to complete a very smooth, nice and informative post on this subject. Only took me half an hour. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Kettenhunde
08-29-2006, 12:41 PM
If you got the 22231, why don't you look at it's scale? It's limited to 750. T

The scale is different but so is how it measures the speed Jtd.

If your an engineer then you know diving limits are set by the design engineering of the airframe. It is not by magic nor is it arbitrary. The dive limits were not raised in the FW190A5 where that manual exerpt comes from. However the Luftwaffe did transition to a CAS indicator. Both Luftwaffe fighters maintained a limit of around mach .80 until very late in the war. The limits were raised with the Dora 9 and the Bf-109K AFAIK.

Even late war bulletins advise the FW190A not to exceed 900kph TAS.


So we got two seperate sources that tell us that early FW data was not corrected for compressibility.

No you have taken that passage out of context with other reports and the remainder of this one. It says that curve one shows uncorrected speeds. In the future all speed measurements have to run through this compressibility correction. The BMW801D equipped variants have an even larger correction that must be applied if you want to compare speeds with older reports.

It refers to the fact they moved the pitot tube location outside of the influence of the propeller disc in the FW190A8 and above. The older variants have to take into account the interference of the disc in their compressibilty corrections and cannot use this curve.


If you got "Fehlanzeige" = "nil return" = "small correction" from them, you need a forth professional.

As stated in my post that was literal translation and not a corrected one. I provided the correct translation.


The dive chart of the 109 gives a IAS of 737, within the scales limit, but a TAS of 906. I do not quite understand what this has to do with the 750 kph limit of the 22231, as the highest ias is below that limit?

It has to do with the fact the 22234 indicator scale is moved up because it includes the corrections as part of the dial reading.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
08-29-2006, 12:41 PM
Maybe we should take this to private area, I don't think there are more than few interested in this...


PM me if you want.

R_Target
08-29-2006, 12:58 PM
I'm still interested, if you guys don't mind continuing.

mgoyat
08-29-2006, 01:27 PM
Ditto, and you guys at the FW Consortium really ought to put a website (wiki?) about the FW190. You're an amazing source of info. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Ratsack
08-30-2006, 01:40 AM
Definitely interested.

cheers,
Ratsack

BigKahuna_GS
08-30-2006, 05:52 AM
S!

F4U-1D, F6F-3, and FW190-A5 Comparison Report
http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/id88.htm

A couple of things that are often overlooked in this comparison test is that the Corsair
was running at the wrong fuel mixture and had the wrong propeller.

1.Fuel mixture (too lean) causing premature overheating and less engine performance than auto-rich would have given during flight tests.

2.Propeller 6501A-0 blades "would improve the comparitive performance of the Corsair over that which was obtained in these tests."

See bottom of Pg.4
http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/20060b00.jpg
http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/20660b00.jpg

F4U-1 & F4U-1A Horsepower & Speed Tests
The IL2 Corsair is at least 10mph too slow at sea level.
http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/23d60700.jpg
http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/24360700.jpg

JtD
08-30-2006, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

The dive limits were not raised in the FW190A5 where that manual exerpt comes from. However the Luftwaffe did transition to a CAS indicator.


The dive speeds in the table are only different for low altitudes, where compressibilty does not matter much. Both allow 600 kph at 7000 meters and one only gauge corrects for compressibilty, so the plane with CAS indicator goes a lot faster at that altitude.

Is this what you are trying to say?

But they didn't raise the dive limit, as we know. So there must be something wrong with that reasoning.

ICDP
08-30-2006, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!

F4U-1D, F6F-3, and FW190-A5 Comparison Report
http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/id88.htm

A couple of things that are often overlooked in this comparison test is that the Corsair
was running at the wrong fuel mixture and had the wrong propeller.

1.Fuel mixture (too lean) causing premature overheating and less engine performance than auto-rich would have given during flight tests.

2.Propeller 6501A-0 blades "would improve the comparitive performance of the Corsair over that which was obtained in these tests."

See bottom of Pg.4
http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/20060b00.jpg
http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/20660b00.jpg

F4U-1 & F4U-1A Horsepower & Speed Tests
The IL2 Corsair is at least 10mph too slow at sea level.
http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/23d60700.jpg
http://us.geocities.com/slakergmb/24360700.jpg

Kahuna that report is irrelevant for F4U1 speeds. As you say the F4U1 was using the wrong type of propellor, it also had the arrestor hook removed which would decrease drag slightly. So it is not representative of a STANDARD F4U1. If you can produce a higher than normal top speed result for the F4U in standard USN service condition then please post it. The official USN reports and other tests I have show the STANDARD F4U1 with a top SL speed of 355-359mph. AHT shows it with a top speed of 359mph at SL. The F4U1 in the sim reaches 357-358mph so it is perfect according to USN tests and other official sources with STANDARD F4U1 aircraft. No ammount of posting or re-posting of that test will make it any more relevant. I would say the same thing (and have done in the past) to anyone who posted over optimistic results for "altered" aircraft from any nation.

Granted there are some errors with certain aircraft tops speeds (F6F and P38, A6M2 and Ki61 spring to mind). The fact is that the F4U1 top speeds are pretty much spot on according to official USN sources for STANDARD condition F4U1's.

lrrp22
08-30-2006, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Maybe we should take this to private area, I don't think there are more than few interested in this...

Please don't. I'm sure many will agree that this discussion has been very informative.

LRRP

R_Target
08-30-2006, 12:12 PM
Yeah, the Hellcat speeds are pretty far off in PF. Top speeds at SL and 23,000 ft. hit the mark for the post-war NAVAER test (the one Dean uses in AHT, October 1950), but in between it's badly off.
Wartime tests show better results, as can be seen in the Fw190 test, and in the TAIC 1944 report using F6F-5 #58992.

http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/8458/taicspeedsrr3.gif

Ratsack
08-30-2006, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!

F4U-1D, F6F-3, and FW190-A5 Comparison Report


A couple of things that are often overlooked in this comparison test is that the Corsair
was running at the wrong fuel mixture and had the wrong propeller.

1.Fuel mixture (too lean) causing premature overheating and less engine performance than auto-rich would have given during flight tests.

2.Propeller 6501A-0 blades "would improve the comparitive performance of the Corsair over that which was obtained in these tests."

See bottom of Pg.4


F4U-1 & F4U-1A Horsepower & Speed Tests
The IL2 Corsair is at least 10mph too slow at sea level.


G'day Kahuna,

The USN comparative test of the F4U-4 from Oct 1944 gives the top speed of the F4U-1 as 415 mph at 20,000 ft, and 355 mph at sea level. It gives the critical altitude as 20,000 feet, also.

It gives the same data for the F6F-5 as 330 mph at sea level, and 398 mph at 20,000 ft. It shows top speed of 399 mph at critical alt of 20,1?? ft (the facsimile is not legible, I think it's 20,100 ft).

cheers,
Ratsack

ICDP
08-30-2006, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
S!

F4U-1D, F6F-3, and FW190-A5 Comparison Report


A couple of things that are often overlooked in this comparison test is that the Corsair
was running at the wrong fuel mixture and had the wrong propeller.

1.Fuel mixture (too lean) causing premature overheating and less engine performance than auto-rich would have given during flight tests.

2.Propeller 6501A-0 blades "would improve the comparitive performance of the Corsair over that which was obtained in these tests."

See bottom of Pg.4


F4U-1 & F4U-1A Horsepower & Speed Tests
The IL2 Corsair is at least 10mph too slow at sea level.


G'day Kahuna,

The USN comparative test of the F4U-4 from Oct 1944 gives the top speed of the F4U-1 as 415 mph at 20,000 ft, and 355 mph at sea level. It gives the critical altitude as 20,000 feet, also.

It gives the same data for the F6F-5 as 330 mph at sea level, and 398 mph at 20,000 ft. It shows top speed of 399 mph at critical alt of 20,1?? ft (the facsimile is not legible, I think it's 20,100 ft).

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would love to see the F6F top speed increased by 10-12mph at critical alt. It migh not sound like much but it makes a difference when other contempory aircraft are modelled at the more optimistic end of their official speed range. For example the Fw190A5 and Fw190A6 can reach 420mph which is correct but this is at the top end of accepted speeds. The F6F on the other hand is modelled at 387mph rather than the higher test results of 399mph. So one aircraft is modelled at the higher end of the scale while another is modelled at the low-mod end of the scale.

Now don't get me wrong here, this is not a whine about the Fw's being overmodelled. They are reaching accepted top speeds. I am merely using them as a contempory example to demonstrate my point.

faustnik
08-30-2006, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by ICDP:
The F6F on the other hand is modelled at 387mph rather than the higher test results of 399mph.

That is a significant difference! It would be great to see it adjusted, especially with some later IJN fighters arriving in 4.06. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Sergio_101
08-30-2006, 05:05 PM
Wow, this thread has degenerated into a Luftwhining slug fest
of EPIC proportions!

F6F-5 against Fw-190.... pick a model.

Close match.

Not similar to the Hellcat vs Zero match.
A F6F-5 could EASILY out perform any version of the A6M
except in climb and turn circle, depending on speed and altitude.

Very close match for a radial engined Fw-190.

I see the small difference in speed to be insignifigant.

Firepower advantage goes to the Fw.
Turning easily goes to the Hellcat.
Fw was also had the edge in diving, not by a small amount.

The F6F-5 had a two stage two speed supercharger and water ADI
injection. This was a very fast aircraft and an excellent
performer at all altitudes.

As I said, very close, Fw-190 is close in speed and climb
with a slight edge to the Fw in speed.

As I see it the Hellcat driver had to try and hold the
altitude edge or force a turn fight.

Given a choice, I'll take the Hellcat in real life.

But if it's a Dora vs Hellcat, I'll take the Dora.
Speed rules.

Sergio

R_Target
08-30-2006, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
That is a significant difference! It would be great to see it adjusted, especially with some later IJN fighters arriving in 4.06. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

It would be nice. The other issue is medium and low altitude speeds. At 10,000 ft, PF Hellcat is 20kph slower than the Fw/F6F/F4U test, and about 35kph slower than the 1950 test.

p1ngu666
08-30-2006, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
That is a significant difference! It would be great to see it adjusted, especially with some later IJN fighters arriving in 4.06. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

It would be nice. The other issue is medium and low altitude speeds. At 10,000 ft, PF Hellcat is 20kph slower than the Fw/F6F/F4U test, and about 35kph slower than the 1950 test. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the only decent japanease plane ingame is the ki84 last time i czeched.

the rest arent that great, slow, lose energy quickly, just a general feeling of http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

i think they wont correct f6f etc cos then they would pretty much haveto redo all the japanease stuff.

SkyChimp
08-30-2006, 06:53 PM
The test is hard to interpret for a variety of reasons. Not the least of which is the nature and condition of the F4U tested.

The F4U in the test is identified as an F4U-1D. But it started out as a F4U-1A, not a 1D. BuNo 49832 was in the second production block of F4U-1As. That block didn€t have water injection. The plane, with water added, was most probably upgraded to early F4U-1D specifications(at least in part). It apparently retained the Hamilton Standard 13€4€ prop and had yet to be upgraded to the Hamilton Standard 13€1€ prop.

The test report indicates that the plane was flown at 11,988 lbs. It was loaded with guns and full ammo. It apparently had no bomb racks or rocket tabs. The 11,988 lb weight is very close (within a few pounds) of F4U-1D clean weight.

That being said, it€s difficult to tell just how close the F4U in the test was performing to BuAer standards published on their F4U-1D Aircraft Performance and Characteristics sheet (1 October 1944), but it looks like it was definitely off at higher altitudes.

According to BuAer, a clean F4U-1D would do 367 mph at sea level, and max out at 434 mph at 23,100 feet.

At sea level (actually 200 feet), the F4U tested produced a speed that appears pretty close to spot-on 363 mph.

The maximum speed specified in the test was 403 mph at 25,000 feet. But it€s unclear if that was the top speed obtained (or obtainable) by this plane at any altitude, or just the top speed obtained by this plane at that altitude (I suspect the latter - the altitudes are too nice and round. *)

The BuAer data sheet shows the F4U-1D was capable of 434 mph in clean condition at 23,100 feet. So, whether or not the 403 mph figure at 25,000 feet in the test is the top speed obtained or just the top speed at 25,000 feet, either way it appears lower than should be expected, by anywhere from 25-30 mph. Top speed should not have dropped off that much in just 1,900 feet. Just from rough comparisons, it looks like the F4U tested was definitely underperforming at altitude.

Additionally, plotting out the F4U€s speeds at altitudes (as given in the test) produces a very weird curve. I just can€t seem to make it look anything like should be expected, even by playing with supercharger shift points.

There is something curious about the F4U in this test.

R_Target
08-30-2006, 07:21 PM
Skychimp, what do you make of the F6F in that test?

Jaws2002
08-30-2006, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by Sergio_101:


Given a choice, I'll take the Hellcat in real life.

But if it's a Dora vs Hellcat, I'll take the Dora.
Speed rules.

Sergio


Eric Brown said he would take a Foke Wulf over the navy planes any day.

SkyChimp
08-30-2006, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
Eric Brown said he would take a Foke Wulf over the navy planes any day.


He said it was superior to the Corsair. Eric Brown was a, some say paid, spokesperson for Grumman in Britian. His dislike of the Corsair may have been contractual http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

SkyChimp
08-30-2006, 08:28 PM
Originally posted by R_Target:
Skychimp, what do you make of the F6F in that test?

The F6F-3, BuNo 42150, was from the 4th production block of Hellcats. It did not come from the factory with water injection, it was retrofitted (if it actually had it in the test). This should have brought the F6F-3 in the test up to virtual F6F-5 performance standards.

According to the USN test that produced a top speed for the F6F-5 of 409 mph at 21,600, the top speed obtained in the Hellcat v Fw-190 test of 381 at 20,000 feet seems very low €" since there shouldn€t be 28 mph difference in 1,600 feet. It appear to me the speed is lower than expected by about 20-25 mph.

In short, there€s not enough information to draw any sure conclusions about the conditions of any of the planes in this test. But there is enough to suspect each of the planes were off to some degree. It could be the F6F and F4U were war-weary planes kept about for comparisons or testing. And who really knows about the Fw-190.

Jaws2002
08-30-2006, 08:38 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:

He said it was superior to the Corsair.


That's good enough for me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

VW-IceFire
08-30-2006, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
That is a significant difference! It would be great to see it adjusted, especially with some later IJN fighters arriving in 4.06. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

It would be nice. The other issue is medium and low altitude speeds. At 10,000 ft, PF Hellcat is 20kph slower than the Fw/F6F/F4U test, and about 35kph slower than the 1950 test. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the only decent japanease plane ingame is the ki84 last time i czeched.

the rest arent that great, slow, lose energy quickly, just a general feeling of http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

i think they wont correct f6f etc cos then they would pretty much haveto redo all the japanease stuff. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
J2M3 is murder to most of the USN birds and some of the USAAF ones as well.

Jaws2002
08-30-2006, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
Eric Brown said he would take a Foke Wulf over the navy planes any day.


He said it was superior to the Corsair. Eric Brown was a, some say paid, spokesperson for Grumman in Britian. His dislike of the Corsair may have been contractual http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He did like the F4U-4.

Kettenhunde
08-30-2006, 09:40 PM
Is this what you are trying to say?

No. Dive limits are set by the design of the aircraft. The largest factor is the dynamic pressure at lower altitudes.

q=1/2 x p x V2 (p = atmospheric density, V@ is velocity squared)

At high altitude your biggest limiting factor is the Mach number for compression.

Here is a good film of q-limits being exceeded:

http://www.aero.polimi.it/~ricci/bacheca/downloads/A-6Flutter.mov (http://www.aero.polimi.it/%7Ericci/bacheca/downloads/A-6Flutter.mov)

As there was no change in the aircraft design and subsequently no change in the dive limits you can rule out a dive speed increase.

Understand now how your assumption that 22234 is a dive limit increase is highly implausiable from an engineering standpoint?

All the best,

Crumpp

JtD
08-30-2006, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Understand now how your assumption that 22234 is a dive limit increase is highly implausiable from an engineering standpoint?

It is not my assumption, this is what you are saying (from my understanding, that is).

You say:
a) 22231 reading wasn't corrected for compressibility.
b) 22234 reading was.
c) The table shows the valid dive speeds as read on the indicator in flight.

If this is what you say, this means the plane goes faster with 22234 at high alt, as the table shows the same numbers for both indicators.
As you keep also saying the dive speeds were not increased, I must have misunderstood you with a, b or c. I just want to know where. Or do you question the logic?

ImpStarDuece
08-30-2006, 10:57 PM
Originally posted by R_Target:
Yeah, the Hellcat speeds are pretty far off in PF. Top speeds at SL and 23,000 ft. hit the mark for the post-war NAVAER test (the one Dean uses in AHT, October 1950), but in between it's badly off.
Wartime tests show better results, as can be seen in the Fw190 test, and in the TAIC 1944 report using F6F-5 #58992.

http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/8458/taicspeedsrr3.gif

Remember that the A6M5 in theses tests seems to be about 15-25 mph down on top speed and the F6F-5 is going significantly quicker than most other testing (MSFW testing, AHT data, USN data sheets)

My ideal Hellcat set-up in the game would be:

F6F-3: 374-6 mph top speed (R2800-10)
F6F-3 Late: 385-7 mph top speed (R2800-10W)
F6F-5: 397-399 mph top speed (R2800-10W w/ new cowling, flat windscreen, wing pylons)
F6F-5 Late: 405-409 mph (R2800-10W, no wing pylons [more speed], no rear cockpit panels, 4 x .50 cal and 2 x 20mm - this would be my favourite for any 1945-1946 scenarios)

Ratsack
08-31-2006, 02:54 AM
Yes, the A6M5 model 52 should manage 351 mph at 20,000 feet. The one in the test is definitely slow by 16 mph or more at critical altitude.

For those who care about such things, that's well outside a 3% variance. There was something wrong with the bird.

cheers,
Ratsack

Kettenhunde
08-31-2006, 06:22 AM
If this is what you say, this means the plane goes faster with 22234 at high alt, as the table shows the same numbers for both indicators.

Not necessarily.

The size of the error changes with altitude and speed.

All the best,

Crumpp

R_Target
08-31-2006, 07:20 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
Yes, the A6M5 model 52 should manage 351 mph at 20,000 feet. The one in the test is definitely slow by 16 mph or more at critical altitude.

For those who care about such things, that's well outside a 3% variance. There was something wrong with the bird.


Ideed, it looked a little slow to me too. However, the intent of posting that section of the test was to show the top speed of a typical production F6F-5 (409mph).

Ratsack
08-31-2006, 08:00 AM
Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
Yes, the A6M5 model 52 should manage 351 mph at 20,000 feet. The one in the test is definitely slow by 16 mph or more at critical altitude.

For those who care about such things, that's well outside a 3% variance. There was something wrong with the bird.


Ideed, it looked a little slow to me too. However, the intent of posting that section of the test was to show the top speed of a typical production F6F-5 (409mph). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Given that the figure usually quoted is lower, and that the USN gave it as 399 mph in Oct 44, I'd say that while 409 mph is reasonable, it's toward the upper end of the usual variance you could expect.

cheers,
Ratsack

SkyChimp
08-31-2006, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Remember that the A6M5 in theses tests seems to be about 15-25 mph down on top speed and the F6F-5 is going significantly quicker than most other testing (MSFW testing, AHT data, USN data sheets)



The BuAer data sheet on the F6F-5 available on the internet is dated January 1949 (and the charts 1950). It states that the F6F was a second-line and trainer aircraft. The figures contained therein are almost certainly based on a derated engine.

AHT has a speed chart with two curves, one mirroring the BuAer data sheet, and one reflecting manufacturer's data. The latter shows a top speed of 400 mph. The USN got 409 out of the F6F-5. I think its safe to say the Hellcat with water injection was a 400 + mph aircraft.

JtD
08-31-2006, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Not necessarily.

The size of the error changes with altitude and speed.

So what are the errors for 600kph@7000 meters for the 22231 and for the 22234? Could you dig 'em out?

SkyChimp
08-31-2006, 09:33 AM
BTW, the F6F-5 vs A6M5 test doesn't describe the condition of the F6F-5. We don't know if it was clean or had rocket tabs. If it had rocket tabs, it it would have been a little faster without. If it didn't have rocket tabs, it would have been a little slower with.

Sergio_101
08-31-2006, 04:23 PM
F6F-5, P&W R-2800-10W, propeller gea ratio, .5:1 (2 engine turns for one prop turn)
F4U-1C, P&W R-2800-8W, propeller gear ratio, .35:1 (2.86 engine turns for one prop turn)

Both were rated the same, lower gear ratio for
the 8W is better for high speeds.

Reason is the prop tips go supersonic eariler
with the faster turning prop.

Contrary to what you might think it's better
to turn the prop slow especially at high speeds.

This may have been a factor in the speed
difference.

With ADI injection activated the power increase
is about 200-300hp depending on altitude.

Sergio