PDA

View Full Version : P51 vs TA152 climb



lbhskier37
05-09-2004, 01:35 AM
Who should climb faster? I have a guess, and I am guessing its not that way in the game.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig6.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Due to the unbelievable inadequacy of Oleg's .50s the Germans have a HUGE advantage.
All they do is dive from above and in one pass cripple your plane with three or four mk108 hits." Col_Tibbetts

lbhskier37
05-09-2004, 01:35 AM
Who should climb faster? I have a guess, and I am guessing its not that way in the game.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig6.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Due to the unbelievable inadequacy of Oleg's .50s the Germans have a HUGE advantage.
All they do is dive from above and in one pass cripple your plane with three or four mk108 hits." Col_Tibbetts

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
05-09-2004, 03:08 AM
tank should climb better, but i think the AoA is different.

robban75
05-09-2004, 03:30 AM
Climb comparisons in the links below. It only compares from groundlevel to 5000m. These are full power full boost climbs. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/StigkartaUS-2.JPG

http://members.chello.se/unni/Stigkarta%20Ta%20152.JPG

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

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

NN_EnigmuS
05-09-2004, 03:38 AM
quote from docavia N?15http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif355
talking about TA152H1:
"all must appreciate his outstanding qualities in climb rate,acceleration,stability in turn and his very good handling at very high altitude"
"the best piston engine fighter of WW2"

in this game we have just the capacities at high altitudes but it serve most in WW2 at low altitudes and show how good it was:never a Ta152H was destroyed by ennemy's fighters(russian,british,american),and Ta meet all of them(obfw"jupp"Keil destroyed,the 21nd april 1945,two yak3 over berlin for example).

in this game Ta had a poor climb rate,poor acceleration,and in turn lost quikly stability because of energy losing.
Ta152H1 must have the same climb rate as D9 and be quite as fast as it at low altitudes(Ta max speed at sea level 563km/h with Mw50 and Fwd9 is 575,580km/h for the D9 44 probably)but in this game FwD9 can outrun opponent and outclimb them but Ta152H seems to be the bad Fw in climb and acceleration of the game(and the max speed at sea level is wrong)and can be used just in B&z if you have lot of altitudes advantages because you lost quicly energy with it.

(sorry for my poor english sometimes).

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

BBB_Hyperion
05-09-2004, 03:55 AM
Hmm have little different numbers on d9 standard version.)
http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/FW_DATA.jpg

I agree on the performance issues on the ta however for a plane designed for high alt = low ias a good slow speed and medium speed handling is vital cause of the lift and air density at this alt along with engine output there. This would mean at low alt it couldnt be that bad also 563 at sea level isnt really fast .) . But the H1 is what we have this means additional gm1 system and mw50 system was not fitted on first h0 series planes this could cause instability etc with the cg shift.

Regards,
Hyperion

NN_EnigmuS
05-09-2004, 04:09 AM
thanks for the tab sorry i ve put the non boost speed for D9 my apologize lol

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

robban75
05-09-2004, 04:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NN_EnigmuS:

in this game we have just the capacities at high altitudes but it serve most in WW2 at low altitudes and show how good it was:never a Ta152H was destroyed by ennemy's fighters(russian,british,american),and Ta meet all of them(obfw"jupp"Keil destroyed,the 21nd april 1945,two yak3 over berlin for example).

in this game Ta had a poor climb rate,poor acceleration,and in turn lost quikly stability because of energy losing.
Ta152H1 must have the same climb rate as D9 and be quite as fast as it at low altitudes(Ta max speed at sea level 563km/h with Mw50 and Fwd9 is 575,580km/h for the D9 44 probably)but in this game FwD9 can outrun opponent and outclimb them but Ta152H seems to be the bad Fw in climb and acceleration of the game(and the max speed at sea level is wrong)and can be used just in B&z if you have lot of altitudes advantages because you lost quicly energy with it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From all that I've read on the Ta 152 there's no proof that the Ta 152 was ever shot down in furballs with other planes. However, two unarmed Ta's were bounced and shot down by Spitfires at the end of the war. The Ta's shot down Tempests, P-47's, P-51's and Yak-9's.
At one time the Ta's were attacked by Bf 109's, but much thanks to the outstanding climbing ability of the Ta 152 attack was unsuccessfull.

In FB the Ta 152 is almost 50km/h slower than the Fw 190D-9'45 from sealevel up to 6000m. It's dive acceleration and zoom climb is bettered by almost every other plane. Acceleration is very poor, but this is true for the Fw 190A family aswell and the Fw 190D especially.

The Fw 190's have become very unstable in all of the axis in AEP. The uncontrolable flatspin tendencey was unheard of in real Fw 190's. Spins were use deliberately as an escape manoeuver, and it proved to be very successfull. In FB this guarantees a smoking hole in the ground. Historically it was an outstanding gun platform thanks to its stability. The Ta 152 in FB is even worse. During the development, instability was encountered with the Ta 152H-0 series, but this was pretty much ironed out later on with the Ta 152H-1 and even in service the planes were improved. We appear to have a H-0 in FB. Funny though, even the non MW50 equipped H-0 was faster than the H-1 we have in FB. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

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

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

WUAF_GenSwat
05-09-2004, 05:10 AM
Well I read a book on tank and his ta152h1 was used as high alt protection of me262 bombers it was said to have excellant dive speed climb rat n turn used a 5-8 degree wing twist to get the big winged monster from stlaling and was noted as a comfortable easy flying plane BnZ A+ rating
how ever in most cases in FB some things a little to mild under moddled especially explosive rnds as the MK108

DarthBane_
05-09-2004, 05:40 AM
After long wait for the Ta series, which is in literature represented as the best ww2 plane, we got the **** plane, that can be flown only by THIS game experts to achive some sucess. Sorry but this wasnt the case with real Ta. Not only the **** flight caracteristics, but is also followed with all FW series super **** visibility. It comes out that there is a strong loby of FW haters in dev team. After all issues we have with this series there is no other conclusion. Before anyone acusse me for beeing luft lover i must say that i fly all planes and allways join to smaller team online. FW series modeled in this game have allmost nothing with real ww2 reports. Oposite to this bf109, mustang and p38 are great for fighting, spitfire is also great but i stoped flying it because of ugly textured cockpit. I dont fly Rusian planes because of same reasons. Guys who worked on gladiator cockpit should get payed to rework most of other cockpits. Or give us the possibility to do it ourselves like with skins.

HuninMunin
05-09-2004, 06:14 AM
Well, I agree with a few things you stated.
But please be carefull about the way you state your opinion.
Oleg said a few times that he thinks the FW family
is (from an engeniers point of view) the best, ergo his favorite plane in the set.
And remember, this is a russian game.
And the russians in the war didn`t have that great respect for the Wulf.
Most engagements were low alt T`n B`.
And of course the Emils, Friedrichs and Gustavs
could make a much harder time to the russians then the Focke.
And of course many advantages in the 190 and Ta
pilots in terms of giving the PILOT the best equipment to fly and fight with don`t show so clear in a FlightSim.
About the Ta; I realy don`t understand the FM
in FB-AEP.
Dunno why but thats not the legendary all-in-one-wonder it should be.
Just my 2 cents.

S!

Die Raben Wotans

LeadSpitter_
05-09-2004, 06:28 AM
above 900m with boost the ta152 climbs alot better, lower alt the mustang seems to in the game anyways

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/newsig.jpg

Kurfurst__
05-09-2004, 07:31 AM
http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FvsF/Comparioson.jpg

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

NN_EnigmuS
05-09-2004, 08:12 AM
nice web site for Ta152 history:
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ta152.html

and some accurate data of ta152H1:
http://www.rendersworld.com/Reference/ta152/ta152a.jpg

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

SkyChimp
05-09-2004, 08:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
The Ta's shot down Tempests, P-47's, P-51's and Yak-9's.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1 Tempest (the well known story we always hear about)

1 Thunderbolt on 10 April 1945 (although I've heard of another that crashed ina stall, along with the pursuing Ta-152)

0 Mustangs

and yes, several Yak-9s.

There is no evidence that Ta-152s ever even MET mustangs in combat.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/hellsig.jpg

BBB_Hyperion
05-09-2004, 09:07 AM
Yes this along other Books i have too i come out at a value 560 to 580 at sea level for h1.

Regards,
Hyperion

BBB_Hyperion
05-09-2004, 09:11 AM
Also there is no evidence that you can leave 3 Mustangs behind by openig the throttle on ta152 .)

Regards,
Hyperion

ASM 1
05-09-2004, 09:19 AM
Ha! the fabled Kurt Tank "escape" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif
His machine was unarmed too - so the H1 must have been good! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif
If he of all people can do that,
then why cant we ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif

S!

Andrew

http://home.comcast.net/~nate.r/ta152Hns-2.jpg

SkyChimp
05-09-2004, 09:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Also there is no evidence that you can leave 3 Mustangs behind by openig the throttle on ta152 .)

Regards,
Hyperion<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excuse me, but that's your proof the Ta-152 shot down P-51s?

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/hellsig.jpg

ASM 1
05-09-2004, 09:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Also there is no evidence that you can leave 3 Mustangs behind by openig the throttle on ta152 .)

Regards,
Hyperion<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excuse me, but that's your proof the Ta-152 shot down P-51s?

_Regards,_
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/hellsig.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think he is trying to prove that mustangs were "shot down". BB_Hyperion is merely referring to the episode where Kurt Tank was "bounced" by 3 P51's, I beleive. All KT had to do was open the throttle, and he left them standing http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

S!

Andrew

http://home.comcast.net/~nate.r/ta152Hns-2.jpg

NN_EnigmuS
05-09-2004, 09:26 AM
and what about the story of Kurt Tank who escaped at mustangs with a Ta152H(with gun but no ammo)with putting Mw50 boost:
quote:
"Near the end of 1944, Kurt Tank himself had a narrow escape while flying one of his Ta 152Hs. He was flying from Langenhagen near Hannover to attend a meeting at the Focke-Wulf plant in Cottbus. His plane carried armament, but no ammunition. Shortly after takeoff, he was jumped by four Mustangs. Tank pressed the button which activated his MW 50 boost, opened the throttle wide, and quickly left the Mustangs far behind in a cloud of blue smoke."


and sorry but the 1st march 1945 Josef Keil destroye a P51 too

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

ASM 1
05-09-2004, 09:29 AM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/351.gif Thats the one http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/784.gif

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

S!

Andrew

http://home.comcast.net/~nate.r/ta152Hns-2.jpg

SkyChimp
05-09-2004, 09:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NN_EnigmuS:
and sorry but the 1st march 1945 Josef Keil destroye a P51 too
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really? Never saw that. Not even in the history of JG301. In fact, it states the 1st action against the Americans was to be on 2 March 1945, but 301 was intercepted by Bf-109s and never made contact with the bombers.

Can you give a credible source for this claim?

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/hellsig.jpg

NN_EnigmuS
05-09-2004, 09:50 AM
http://www.luftwaffe.cz/keil.html

just see the last 5 victories he made(that's the one he made with ta152H)

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

ajafoofoo
05-09-2004, 10:00 AM
If a proper ta was modeled there would be too many people angry that it's too uber.

It's better this way.

Vipez-
05-09-2004, 10:06 AM
well i don't think we ever have to worry about fw-190 beeing über, Il-2 has existed now over three years and still we pretty much have the same undermodelled fockewulf..i have gave up hope long time ago http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif


__________________________


http://www.leosk.org/tiedostot/sig-pieni.jpg

Reol86
05-09-2004, 10:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ajafoofoo:
If a proper ta was modeled there would be too many people angry that it's too uber.

It's better this way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don´t agree in this, because i don´t like the idea of people playing this game and getting wrong impressions about aircrafts. They should rather not model the aircaft if they won´t model it correctly.
There though is still a glimmer of hope that someday someone will make a realistic sim not one which is biased towards certain aircraft/s.

robban75
05-09-2004, 11:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
There is no evidence that Ta-152s ever even MET mustangs in combat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi SkyChimp!

Dietmar Hermanns book on the Ta 152 states that Josef Keil shot down the first Mustang with a Ta 152 on 1 March 1945(page 105).
Whether this is correct or not I don't know, just quoting the book.

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

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

Hunde_3.JG51
05-09-2004, 11:17 AM
Alot of people are complaining about the FW-190, and as you know I am a 190 fanatic. I think the 190's in FB are modelled well in many areas; it has excellent firepower (at least after patch it will), excellent roll, it's stable, high speed handling is excellent, its engine is fairly tough, etc. I still think the problem is with what other aircraft are doing, or a problem with the flight modelling physics in general.

I still think lack of energy bleed is one of the biggest problems in FB. After that I think one of the biggest problems is dive/zoom climb modelling. There seems to be no real dive advantage for planes like FW-190, P-47, P-51, etc. And in a zoom climb the FW-190A seems very poor. If you fly straight up after a dive with different planes at the same speed it seems they almost reach the same altitude, as if there is no difference in zoom climb. But if you take different planes and go into a medium angle climb after a dive it seems to only take max climb-rate into account. I don't think there is any real/*useable* advantage in dive and zoom climb for the planes that historically did this very well (FW-190, P-51, etc).

Having said all of this I still think FB is BY FAR the best thing going and you can be quite successful in the 190 if used properly. I think the problems are physics based more than anything, just my opinion though.

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

LEXX_Luthor
05-09-2004, 11:41 AM
Hunde_3.JG51:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If you fly straight up after a dive with different planes at the same speed it seems they almost reach the same altitude, as if there is no difference in zoom climb. But if you take different planes and go into a medium angle climb after a dive it seems to only take max climb-rate into account.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Your first mistake is you don't gain enough seperation by going straight up to notice. Doing that burns all your speed away too fast and you don't get enough vertical seperation as well as the engine thrust cannot contribute as much relative to the initial speed. You may have to think about this for awhile. You should zoom climb at maybe 30 degrees vertical and not 90 degrees straight up. Also, pulling up elevator at high speeds to gain 90 degree vertical attitude is not good for conserving kinetic energy (it takes energy to turn direction). -- maybe 45 degrees up, I dunno, but not 90 degrees.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But if you take different planes and go into a medium angle climb after a dive it seems to only take max climb-rate into account.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So you are saying the initial speed immediately vanishes and the faster plane suddenly moves with the same speed as the slower plane. I have never seen instantaneous jumps in speed except possibly with AI planes....you really need to think this "physics" thing through. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif Again unless you are pulling hard straight up which is a waste of overall mechanical energy. That sounds like the "grab" dogfighter a few weeks ago.

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Hunde_3.JG51
05-09-2004, 12:09 PM
Lexx, I believe you completely mistook my post. I know how to fly, I was not talking about actual combat situations. I know that flying straight up bleeds energy etc. I know about seperation, extending, etc.

What I am saying is that it seems that if two planes (say a FW-190 and a Spitfire for example} both dive to 650km/h, then pull up into a medium angle climb the FW-190 will not hold its speed longer than the Spitifre, the Spitifre will stay right with the FW-190 and then pull away. This is the whole concept of the zoom climb, which the 190, P-51, etc was known to excel at. This is what I am saying, I don't see why I need to "think anything through." Take a 190A and a Spitifre with a friend online, dive them both and zoom as I have said above (or to higher speeds), and tell me if the 190 has any useable advantage in dive and zoom climb. You will find that dive is almost the same and zoom climb is better with Spitifre. I have already done this with squad leader.

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

[This message was edited by Hunde_3.JG51 on Sun May 09 2004 at 11:22 AM.]

LEXX_Luthor
05-09-2004, 12:15 PM
You said "straight up" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Hunde_3.JG51
05-09-2004, 12:19 PM
What I meant with the "straight up" test is that if you dive planes to the same speed and gently pull straight up they will usually climb to the same altitude. But forget this, what I am more concerned with is what I mentioned in my last post as it is much more applicable/noticeable.

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

LEXX_Luthor
05-09-2004, 12:22 PM
Hunde_3.JG51:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>if you dive planes to the same speed and gently pull straight up they will usually climb to the same altitude.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That sounds reasonable, as the zoom climb after a dive depends on initial speed so both planes pulling out at the same speed will gain roughly the same altitude.

In a diving attack the attacker has the higher speed and that is what gives the attacker better zoom climb afterward. The assumption of both planes having the same speed during the BnZ diving pass is wrong, and you know this. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif



__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Hunde_3.JG51
05-09-2004, 12:28 PM
But I thought weight and power were factors in dive/zoom climb as well? Maybe I am wrong. But as I said try the test above and you will see that the FW-190A will not pull away from the Spitfire in a dive, if it does it is very slight. This is starting side by side at the same speed as per Oleg's instructions.

I have to apologize with this, all I was trying to do was to say that the FW-190 was not that bad in FB, I just think there are problems with some physics stuff. I did not want to highjack this thread.

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

LEXX_Luthor
05-09-2004, 12:36 PM
Okay, dive speeds is another story, and a very long one it seems. Don't forget Oleg admitted once that he had crippled Soviet planes' max dive speeds in previous FB versions for play "balance" as historical pilot skill inbalance is not modeled for onwhine players. I remember that episode, and was very astonished I admit. How do you perform reproducible dive tests? I never thought of doing this before.

Threads are made to be Hijacked so stop worrying.

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

lbhskier37
05-09-2004, 01:29 PM
Weight should matter in the zoom climb. Think about when you throw a wiffle ball up and a baseball up. Which goes higher?

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig6.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Due to the unbelievable inadequacy of Oleg's .50s the Germans have a HUGE advantage.
All they do is dive from above and in one pass cripple your plane with three or four mk108 hits." Col_Tibbetts

LEXX_Luthor
05-09-2004, 01:43 PM
lbhskier37:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Weight should matter in the zoom climb. Think about when you throw a wiffle ball up and a baseball up. Which goes higher?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's mass density and surface area to mass in the air you are talking about. Throw a "heavy" cannon ball and a "light" lead musket shot up into the air and they go the same distance up in the same time...of course there will be very slight differences depending on thrown speed as at high enough speed the lead shot's greater surface area per unit mass will cause it to slow down more quickly (decelerate).

Hunde_3.JG51, you may wish to see the data numbers found reported from sinhq by BigKahuna_GS where heavy Dora zoom climbs above all others including light and "fast climber" Fb109K. If you can verify or falsify these results, then we may have something to talk about.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=953109383&r=307109004#307109004


I am beginning to be Happy that Oleg does not come here anymore for input from the hehe FB physics "community". http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif We may get a Better Sim as a result lol. Call it a Xen thing perhaps.


-- wow that's a long thread page, just copy BigKahuna_GS into memory and Word Search for BigKahuna_GS

[This message was edited by LEXX_Luthor on Sun May 09 2004 at 12:52 PM.]

p1ngu666
05-09-2004, 01:59 PM
all aircraft seem to dive the same tho :\

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

LEXX_Luthor
05-09-2004, 02:04 PM
Yes, according to Kahuna. But we switch to dive when we don't want to talk about zoom climb anymore. I can understand totally lol. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

lbhskier37
05-09-2004, 02:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
lbhskier37:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Weight should matter in the zoom climb. Think about when you throw a wiffle ball up and a baseball up. Which goes higher?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's _mass density_ and surface area to mass in the air you are talking about. Throw a "heavy" cannon ball and a "light" lead musket shot up into the air and they go the same distance up in the same time...of course there will be very slight differences depending on thrown speed as at high enough speed the lead shot's greater surface area per unit mass will cause it to slow down more quickly (decelerate).

Hunde_3.JG51, you may wish to see the data numbers found reported from sinhq by BigKahuna_GS where heavy Dora zoom climbs above all others including light and "fast climber" Fb109K. If you can verify or falsify these results, then we may have something to talk about.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=953109383&r=307109004#307109004


I am beginning to be Happy that Oleg does not come here anymore for input from the _hehe_ FB physics "community". http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif We may get a Better Sim as a result lol. Call it a _Xen_ thing perhaps.


-- wow that's a long thread page, just copy _BigKahuna_GS_ into memory and Word Search for _BigKahuna_GS_

[This message was edited by LEXX_Luthor on Sun May 09 2004 at 12:52 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In general most planes have close to the same surface area. Weight varies much more. If you have a heavy plane that is fairly small like a 190, and a light plane that is about the same size like the hurricane, the 190 should go farther up, right? And then factor in the thrust, the heavy plane with greater thrust should be able to go higher, or at least hang on its prop longer.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig6.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Due to the unbelievable inadequacy of Oleg's .50s the Germans have a HUGE advantage.
All they do is dive from above and in one pass cripple your plane with three or four mk108 hits." Col_Tibbetts

LEXX_Luthor
05-09-2004, 04:13 PM
lbhskier37:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In general most planes have close to the same surface area. Weight varies much more. If you have a heavy plane that is fairly small like a 190, and a light plane that is about the same size like the hurricane, the 190 should go farther up, right? And then factor in the thrust, the heavy plane with greater thrust should be able to go higher, or at least hang on its prop longer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Other than the hanging prop time, that makes some sense.

I would imagine Fw190 carried far more armour and carried more equipment than Hurri--Fw was more dense. This is still not weight but mass to surface area, or mass to overall drag I'm not sure which. The problem here is that we are comparing a 1938 plane with a far more modern constructed 1941+ plane. I would love to see Kahuna post results for Hurri along with the A4 cos then we can talk about this.

Interestingly, BigKanhuna's numbers show Dora outzooming Fb109K. This is contradicting Hunde's claim of "weight" not modeled for FB zoom climb. Now the A4 has the worst zoom climb of all that Kahuna posted numbers about, but it should be compared to 1941 plane yes, no? Also the heavy elevator at 800km/hr may artificailly lower the Fb109K zoom climb by increasing the time to go vertical. But then the light Dora elevator (?) may artificially increase its zoom climb--the famous Fw fast instantaneous turn. There are many things effecting zoom than we are willing to talk about or even know about. The only thing we can do is collect game test data for Oleg--not a popular activity Be Sure.

For hanging on prop is low airspeed and means no drag from air hence no function of surface area but just power and mass...massive plane with greater thrust will not give longer prop hanging time unless its power/mass ratio is higher than another plane. Here its power/mass ratio that is important, and maybe lower stall speed too. --- I never thought about this before though...I'm making this up as I go along...


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

[This message was edited by LEXX_Luthor on Sun May 09 2004 at 03:22 PM.]

SkyChimp
05-09-2004, 06:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
Hi SkyChimp!

Dietmar Hermanns book on the Ta 152 states that Josef Keil shot down the first Mustang with a Ta 152 on 1 March 1945(page 105).
Whether this is correct or not I don't know, just quoting the book.

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

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That book also says III/JG301 made it combat debut against American bombers on 2 March 1945 (page 101). But the unit did not make contact with American planes.

Additionally, there is no mention of III/JG301 having any combat with the Americans on 1 March 1945 in Kagero's "JG 301 'WILDE SAU.'"

The book "Six Months To Oblivion" does not mention any combat with III/JG301 on 1 March 1945, or any Gruppe from JG301, but USAAF units did encounter JG301 on 2 March 1945 (but not III Gruppe). JG301 as a whole sustained 17 pilots killed and 6 wounded that day - none from III Gruppe. JG301 lost 43 aircraft that day for 15 claims (from German records).

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/hellsig.jpg

Hunde_3.JG51
05-09-2004, 11:24 PM
Lexx, I'll say it once more. Try it with a friend (assuming you can find one), take a 190 and a contemporary plane (190A-4 & Spitfire V for example), fly at the same speed, both enter a dive and go to max power until speed builds to desired level, and pull into a medium climb. This is what Oleg instructed people to do, there is no way to test it offline it has to be done with two human players online. Then tell me how far you left the Spitfire behind. Instead of typing numerous posts telling me I'm wrong, try it in-game. I don't care about graphs, charts, numbers, theories, etc., all I care about is what I see in-game.

Maybe it not that weight isn't being modelled, maybe there is something else going on, but all I can say is that it doesn't seem right to me. And lastly, I just said that this was all my opinion, I could very well be wrong (which I have said already), but I never claimed anything as fact. You and a few others have a habit of taking someone's opinion and turning it into a proclamation http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. Maybe you just like to argue, whatever, thats just not my thing.

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

LEXX_Luthor
05-10-2004, 12:16 AM
Well, what I'm saying is that anything you do should show up in test data. After all the FM numbers is how we achieve what we do. But you have a point that a track file can give hints to a problem, and could reveal a simmer making a mistake or flying sloppy or faking claims.

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Fehler
05-10-2004, 01:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Try it with a friend (assuming you can find one)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He can fly with the purple or even the green telatubbie... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/FehlerSig.gif
http://webpages.charter.net/cuda70/9JG54.html

BBB_Hyperion
05-10-2004, 03:16 AM
Zoomclimb on 190 wasnt that good btw but the Dive was.
http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/FW190_SPITIX.jpg

Regards,
Hyperion

ASM 1
05-10-2004, 03:50 AM
do you have a page in that book on the TA 152 ?

S!

Andrew

http://home.comcast.net/~nate.r/ta152Hns-2.jpg

dadada1
05-10-2004, 04:44 AM
I think TA s climb ability in game is the most serious floor of the flight model we have. For me it's more problematic than either it's low altitude speed or the way in which it stalls (this would be second on my list.) Even the object viewer states that the TA has a good rate of climb. From all the flying I've done in FB of this bird I have to say that climb is one of it's weakest attributes. It should be addressed but like it has been suggested elsewhere, it would just make this aircraft too competitive.

NN_EnigmuS
05-10-2004, 05:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
That book also says III/JG301 made it combat debut against American bombers on 2 March 1945 (page 101). But the unit did not make contact with American planes.

Additionally, there is no mention of III/JG301 having any combat with the Americans on 1 March 1945 in Kagero's "JG 301 'WILDE SAU.'"

The book "Six Months To Oblivion" does not mention any combat with III/JG301 on 1 March 1945, or any Gruppe from JG301, but USAAF units did encounter JG301 on 2 March 1945 (but not III Gruppe). JG301 as a whole sustained 17 pilots killed and 6 wounded that day - none from III Gruppe. JG301 lost 43 aircraft that day for 15 claims (from German records).

_Regards,_
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/hellsig.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hi skychimp
you are talking of 3/jG301 but josef Keil was in Stabsstaffel/JG 301 lol and sorry but he made a victory in Ta152H against a B17 the 21st february at near 16h30 and the 1st march against a mustang near 11h.
it is said here:http://www.luftwaffe.cz/keil.html
and in all book relating josef keil victories(for day and hours of victories it's quote from docavia N?15 who is the best french book on Fw190.)

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

LEXX_Luthor
05-10-2004, 08:18 AM
BBB_Hyperion:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Zoomclimb on 190 wasnt that good btw but the Dive was.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Article:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>From high speed cruise, a pull up into a climb gave the Fw190 an initial advantage owing to its superior acceleration and the superiority of the German fighter was even more noticeable when both aircraft were pulled up into a zoom climb after a dive.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>mmmm sounds good here.

Just thinking if there is a problem with A4 zoom climb after a dive, and it is low from Kahuna's reported test data from sinhq--relative to 1944+ aircraft--a mere internet dogfight "track" may not isolate the cause of the problem, although it could help indicate there is a problem (but how to "fix?"). Interesting.

Ta outclimbs everything at high altitude, except Me~163 and BI~1.


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Prof.Wizard
05-10-2004, 08:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Ta outclimbs _everything_ at high altitude, except Me~163 and BI~1.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Roger that, especially at extreme heights (from 9000m to operational ceiling) with GM1 engaged. But who flies there in online dogfights is the question?

-----------------------------
http://www.mihailidis.com/images/WizardSig.gif
Me-163's HWK 109-509 Rocket Engine
http://www.mihailidis.com/images/HWK109509.jpg

lbhskier37
05-10-2004, 09:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
BBB_Hyperion:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Zoomclimb on 190 wasnt that good btw but the Dive was.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Article:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>From high speed cruise, a pull up into a climb gave the Fw190 an initial advantage owing to its superior acceleration and the superiority of the German fighter was even more noticeable when both aircraft were pulled up into a zoom climb after a dive.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>mmmm sounds good here.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well we sure don't have the FWs "superior acceleration" modeled in this game. Maybe this is one of the problems. About the TA topic, I was just wondering what it was like in reality. In game it is slow and climbs like a dog at lower altitudes, but if this is how it was in realife thats cool. I will just have to stick to the Dora then(as soon as mg151 is fixed that is)

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig6.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Due to the unbelievable inadequacy of Oleg's .50s the Germans have a HUGE advantage.
All they do is dive from above and in one pass cripple your plane with three or four mk108 hits." Col_Tibbetts

LEXX_Luthor
05-10-2004, 09:36 AM
Actually robban's acceleration tests for I believe Dora *seemed* to indicate faster Dora acceleration than La~7 at higher airspeeds but reverse situation at lower airpseeds. This makes sense given La higher power/mass ratio but better Dora high speed aerodynamics. --just throwing this out and I am prepared to eat these words later.

Acceleration of aircraft over large airspeed ranges is far more complicated than we think.

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Ugly_Kid
05-10-2004, 10:48 AM
Ta has a better climb rate than D-9. Thus it has also a better acceleration at lower speed area. Towards higher speed D-9 will eventually pull away. This is supported also by the needed starting distance for take-off on the previous page...

Ta climbed about 11.7 min to 10 km. This is better than for example BF-109G-2 and much better than Mustang's able to put up.

lrrp22
05-10-2004, 11:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
Ta climbed about 11.7 min to 10 km. This is better than for example BF-109G-2 and much better than Mustang's able to put up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn't this due to the Ta 152's exceptional high altitude climb and not its ability to climb at lower altitudes?

Ugly_Kid
05-10-2004, 11:28 AM
Yeah sure but even in the case of Ta the best climb was obtained at SL. The climbrate at SL is just mediocre (better than D-9 though) but from ~5km there's no competition for it. Noting on the the topic allthough this is "better than that"-stuff which normally does not interest me too greatly. Mustang had also only bad to mediocre climb rate at SL and being only comparative at high alt. On this note Ta should be faster of these two all over the alt.

I just don't get this whole Ta business anyway. Put it in the game with lacking hi-alt model and then even scrounge on the low-alt perf. that according to some sources was there. It's a fantasy toy for DF servers anyway so why being so friggin' rectal about the lousy perf. It's not fast, it does not even turn as it should, it does not really climb and you can't see out of the bloody closet. Really don't see the whole point of Ta (and some other aircraft as well)

robban75
05-10-2004, 12:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Actually robban's acceleration tests for I believe Dora *seemed* to indicate faster Dora acceleration than La~7 at higher airspeeds but reverse situation at lower airpseeds. This makes sense given La higher power/mass ratio but better Dora high speed aerodynamics. --just throwing this out and I am prepared to eat these words later.

Acceleration of aircraft over large airspeed ranges is far more complicated than we think.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, here's a simple test for ya! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Crimea map(of course), 20m altitude. Going full power at 250km/h, allowing engine to spool up. Starting timer at 300km/h.

Here's what I got.

La-7

300 - start timer
350 - 4
400 - 10
450 - 18
500 - 28
550 - 43
600 - 1:31

D-9 ´45

300 - start timer
350 - 5
400 - 12.5
450 - 21
500 - 34
550 - 55
600 - 1:56

Ta 152H(50% fuel)

300 - start timer
350 - 5
400 - 13
450 - 23
500 - 41
550 - 1:23
560 - 1:43
565 - 2:11

P-51D(50% fuel)

300 - start timer
350 - 7
400 - 15
450 - 24
500 - 40
550 - 1:06

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

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

lbhskier37
05-10-2004, 12:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
Mustang had also only bad to mediocre climb rate at SL and being only comparative at high alt. On this note Ta should be faster of these two all over the alt.
well)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does anyone have mustang climb charts? I have been looking for one, but am coming up with nothing. I have heard people say Mustang had poor climb at low altitude, but in game that isn't the case. Did the Mustang really have poor climb, and in that case is off ingame? Or has this whole mustang having poor climb thing just been a tale?

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig6.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Due to the unbelievable inadequacy of Oleg's .50s the Germans have a HUGE advantage.
All they do is dive from above and in one pass cripple your plane with three or four mk108 hits." Col_Tibbetts

lrrp22
05-10-2004, 12:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lbhskier37:
Does anyone have mustang climb charts? I have been looking for one, but am coming up with nothing. I have heard people say Mustang had poor climb at low altitude, but in game that isn't the case. Did the Mustang really have poor climb, and in that case is off ingame? Or has this whole mustang having poor climb thing just been a tale?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ibhskier,

Any P-51 climb charts you find are going to be for the full 269 gallon fuel load. At the FB-typical 25% fuel the Mustang is 1200 pounds lighter than at 100% and is going to climb (and accelerate) *much* better, which is accurate.

Ugly_Kid
05-10-2004, 12:24 PM
I have one in America's Hundred Thousand but can't scan it at the moment.

Anyway T/C Combat power with V-1650-7 with 10100 lbs

5000 ft : 2 min
10000 ft : 3 min
15000 ft : 5.4 min
20000 ft : 7.5 min
25000 ft : 9.5 min
30000 ft : 12.2 min
33000 ft : 16 min

allow maybe 15% improvement with empty fuel...

Hunde_3.JG51
05-10-2004, 12:35 PM
Fehler, http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Hyperion, zoom climb in FW-190 was very good, in Eric Brown's test it was superior to all other planes tested (vs. Spitfire V & IX, Typhoon, P-38F, & P-51A). And in JG26, Top Guns of the Luftwaffe, it says that after the release of the Spitfire IX it was the same old story, with the Spitfire easily out-turning the FW-190, but with the Focke-Wulf being superior in dive and zoom climb. The main difference was that they were now matched in speed. Again, I welcome anyone to try this in-game and tell me the A-4 has a noticable/useable superiority in dive or zoom, its not there.

There are some really interesting quotes from the above mentioned book, I'll have to post some someday.

Great test Robban, I hate to ask but could you do some with the FW-190A-4. I read alot about the 190's great acceleration both in level flight from lower speeds and in initial dive and climb. Would be interesting. And maybe add 190A-9 to your previous list http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_redface.gif. Sorry, had to ask. You should start your own thread on the subject, its great stuff and very useful.

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

robban75
05-10-2004, 01:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Great test Robban, I hate to ask but could you do some with the FW-190A-4. I read alot about the 190's great acceleration both in level flight from lower speeds and in initial dive and climb. Would be interesting. And maybe add 190A-9 to your previous list http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_redface.gif. Sorry, had to ask. You should start your own thread on the subject, its great stuff and very useful.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here you go Hunde! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Hope it comes usefull to you!

A-4

300 - start timer
350 - 7.5
400 - 16
450 - 30
500 - 53
550 - unreachable

A-9

300 - start timer
350 - 6
400 - 13
450 - 24
500 - 37.5
550 - 1:02
570 - 1:19
580 - 1:33
590 - 1:57

Yak-3

300 - start timer
350 - 5
400 - 11
450 - 22
500 - 36
550 - 1:06
560 - 1:20
570 - 1:47

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

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

BigKahuna_GS
05-10-2004, 01:47 PM
S!

__________________________________________________ _____________________
Professor wrote-Roger that, especially at extreme heights (from 9000m to operational ceiling) with GM1 engaged. But who flies there in online dogfights is the question?
__________________________________________________ ____________________


While most dogfights on the lobby are at lower alt, many dogfights still occur at higher altitudes 6000-10,000m. At high alt I have tangled with K4s, D9s, and Ta152s while flying a Pony, Jug or P38L. If the 38 had paddleblade props added to it-oh boy.

I asked Oleg that since the Ta152 was comming in AEP, for sim balance could he add the P47M which could do about 470mph+ @35,000ft. That would have been a great hight alt match up between these two brutes. Well maybe in BoB.

By the way Oleg thought the P47N & M were a "worse" plane not better--hmmm.
But Oleg and the P47 are a whole other story.



__________________________________________________ __________________________
Hunde-Hyperion, zoom climb in FW-190 was very good, in Eric Brown's test it was superior to all other planes tested (vs. Spitfire V & IX, Typhoon, P-38F, & P-51A).
__________________________________________________ ______________________


Both the P38F & P51A were under powered versions of these 2 aircraft. A beter comparison would be the P38H or J model & P51B or C model.


The following is the USAAF test report from a comparison between a Fw190A5 (I believe this was an A5/U8 as it shows no outer wing Cannon or cowling Mg) and a P-47D-4. The A-5 had its two inner wing Cannon removed and equivalent weights substituted. The FW190 was described: "...as in exceptionally good condition for a captured airplane, and developed 42 inches manifold pressure on takeoff." The P-47 was equipped with Water Injection but no paddle blade propeller.

The tests were done between S.L. and 15,000ft. The pilot of the P-47 had 200 hours in P-40's and 5 hours in the P-47. The FW190 Pilot had 300 hours in twin engine, 500 hours in single engine and 5 hours in the FW190. Four separate flights of one hour each were conducted. All speeds were in IAS.


Part of the test-----

3) Diving

(a) 10,000-3,000ft, starting at 250mph diving at an angle of 65 degrees with constant throttle setting. The Fw190 pulled away rapidly at the beginning, but the P-47 passed it at 3,000ft with a much greater speed and had a decidedly better angle of pull out.



(b) Turning and handling below 250mph. Turns were made so rapidly that it was impossible for the aircraft to accelerate. In making the usual rather flat turns in a horizontal plane, the FW190 was able to hang onto its propeller and turn inside the P-47. The FW190 was also able to accelerate suddenly and change to a more favorable position during the turn.



However it was found the P-47 could get on the tail of the Fw190 by making a figure 8 in a vertical plane. In this maneuver, the P-47 , which was being pursued by the Fw190 in level flight attempted to execute as series of climbs, slow turns, and dives which would end up with the positions reversed and the P-47 on the tail of the FW190. The maneuver started with a a steep climbing turn to near stalling point, followed by a falloff and fast dive which ended in a pullout and fast climbing sweep which again carried the plane up to the stall and fall off point. The P-47 built up more speed in the dive than the FW190 with the result that the Thunderbolt also climbed faster than the FW190 and also higher. The P-47 pilot merely waited for the FW190 to reach its stalling point below him and turned very neatly on the tail of the falling away FW190. With its much greater diving acceleration, the P-47 soon caught the FW190 in the second dive of his maneuver.


________________________



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.warplaneswarehouse.com/planes_lg/MS1AOO_LG.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

Hunde_3.JG51
05-10-2004, 02:38 PM
Kahuna, if tests would be better against P-38J and P-51C, then the appropriate FW-190 would be the A-6. I'm not trying to say anything here either way, just pointing out that they are '43 planes while the A-3 (in Eric Brown's test) was a '42 plane going against its contemporaries. As I have said already, the P-51 & P-47 should be planes that really benefit from dive and zoom, but they doesn't seem to.

Also, I have seen this test before and the description would indicate that it is a FW-190G since the outter cannons and (more importantly) the cowl mg's were absent. This model had different performance characteristics than the FW-190A. Just a guess, but elimination of cowl mg's was not very common but standard on FW-190G (long-range ground attack).

Also, there is another test (posted with above test) where the FW-190 pretty much beats the P-47 in almost every catagory. Me and Skychimp had a laugh over this a long time ago. The two reports, both by Americans, pretty much contradicted each-other. Again, I'm not trying to argue, I'm just saying.

Robban, thank you and http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

Not bad for FW-190A-9, but it is ugly for A-4. I wonder how it stacks up against Spitfire, P-40, P-39, La-5, Yak-1b, etc.

Maybe one day when you are feeling frisky, like I said you should start your own thread this is very interesting.

Thanks again.

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

BBB_Hyperion
05-10-2004, 02:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Hyperion, zoom climb in FW-190 was very good,
Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Problem is without numbers the relation of Zoomclimb abilities is hard to determine.
Do you have some ? i have the RAF reports and several other sources but none giving exact numbers on this and none at all to relation of other planes special vvs.

Whatever these strange fighters were, they gave us a hard time of it. They seemed to be faster in a zoom climb than the Me 109, and far more stable in a vertical dive. They also turned better. The first time we saw them we all had our work cut out to shake them off, and we lost several pilots.

Regards,
Hyperion

Hunde_3.JG51
05-10-2004, 02:54 PM
Pilot accounts and testing directly against other aircraft are enough to tell me that zoom climb was good. At least by Western standards. You are right, I have never really heard anything about VVS planes, especially dive and zoom performance.

Johnnie Johnson's complete quote:

"The Focke-Wulf 190 was undoubtedly, the best German fighter. We were puzzled by the unfamiliar silhouette, for these new German fighters seemed to have squarer wingtips and more tapering fuselages than the Messerschmitts we usually encountered. We saw that the new aircraft had radial engines and a mixed armament of cannons and machine-guns, all firing from wing positions.

Whatever these strange fighters were, they gave us a hard time of it. They seemed to be faster in a zoom climb than the Me 109, and far more stable in a vertical dive. They also turned better. The first time we saw them we all had our work cut out to shake them off, and we lost several pilots.

Back at our fighter base and encouraged by our enthusiastic Intelligence Officers, we drew sketches and side views of this strange new aeroplane. We were all agreed that it was superior to the Me 109f and completely outclassed our Spitfire Vs. Our sketches disappeared into mysterious Intelligence channels and we heard no more of the matter,. But from then on, fighter pilots continually reported increasing numbers of these outstanding fighters over northern France."

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

BigKahuna_GS
05-10-2004, 03:16 PM
S!

__________________________________________________ _________________
Hunde wrote---Kahuna, if tests would be better against P-38J and P-51C, then the appropriate FW-190 would be the A-6.
__________________________________________________ ____________________



I said either the P38H or J and P51B or C. So use the H and the B. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



From a JG26 Pilot :


Fw 190D9 pilot Lt Karl Heinz Ossenkop of JG 26 comparing their crate to the opposition.

Spitfire: the D-9 was better in level flight, climb and dive. It was slightly inferior in turns.

Tempest: almost equal in level flight, a lengthy pursuit was usually fruitless. The D-9 climbed and turned better, but was inferior in a dive.

Mustang: the two aircraft were about equal in normal combat maneuvers, which was an advantage to us compared to the A-8. The Mustang was rather faster in a dive.

Thunderbolt: with the Dora-9 we had advantages in level flight, climb and turn. We were hopelessly inferior in a dive.



___________________



CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.warplaneswarehouse.com/planes_lg/MS1AOO_LG.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

Hunde_3.JG51
05-10-2004, 03:37 PM
"I said either the P38H or J and P51B or C. So use the H and the B http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif."


P-38H delivered between March and August of '43. P-51B did not begin combat sorties in Europe until December of '43. FW-190 A-6 began production/service in June '43 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. The A-5 was in service for about 6 months before that. The A-4 from mid '42, and finally the A-3 from the start of '42.

Just having fun.

http://www.militaryartshop.com/prints/bailey/warwolf.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

LEXX_Luthor
05-10-2004, 04:07 PM
Thanks robban. What's wrong with La7 -- only it can reach 600km/hr? I was able to get Dora 44-45 and La7 both to 590km/hr sea level Crimea, overheat off, full "boost" or "blast" whatever you wanna call it.

All I know is that P~51 pilots who flew P~38 earlier hated P~51 climb--both climbing from England with fuel--but they liked P~51 better for other reasons.

SkyChimp
05-10-2004, 06:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NN_EnigmuS:

hi skychimp
you are talking of 3/jG301 but josef Keil was in Stabsstaffel/JG 301 lol and sorry but he made a victory in Ta152H against a B17 the 21st february at near 16h30 and the 1st march against a mustang near 11h.
it is said here:http://www.luftwaffe.cz/keil.html
and in all book relating josef keil victories(for day and hours of victories it's quote from docavia N?15 who is the best french book on Fw190.)

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You didn't read your own source very well. Keil wasn't in Stabsstaffel/JG 301 until April 1945, a full month after the P-51 claim.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/hellsig.jpg

Functio
05-11-2004, 03:00 AM
I hope you guys are remembering that the Ta-152 has two types of boost in AEP. This allows it to outclimb Mustangs from around 2000m to 7000m (perhaps more)...

PzKpfw
05-12-2004, 09:17 AM
For another comparisom of the P-51D vs Fw 190D-9 an quote from I./JG 26's Hans Kukla from his Dec 26th 1944 AA report*:

I engaged in a turning battle with Mustangs at a altitude of about 3,000 meters. In order to not be shotdown, I spun out. I came out of the spin at about 500 meters and saw a Mustang in front of me, in a right bank. I immediately positioned myself behind it and opened fire, but did not hit it. The Mustang pulled up, still in a right turn. I followed it, but it was much faster and escaped.

*See: Parker Danny S. To Win the Winter Sky. p.316

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski: on the Bf 109...
----

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

------
For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business."
--D. W. Brogan, The American Character

NN_EnigmuS
05-12-2004, 09:32 AM
after a spin of 2500m,it's quite easy to understood that he cannot follow a P51 because of loss of energy(the P51 didn't so he probably dive for shoot it or it was in fight at 500m and was full throttle because of the figh the D9 recovering the spin must be at 250km/h so cannot follow his opponent)
in same conditions Fw190D9 is faster at low and middle altitude than mustang.
at low altitude the only plane that can beat in speed the D9 is the tempest.
max speed of FwD9 at 6200m with Mw50 is 732km/h lol and was at sea level more than 600km/h with boost

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

lrrp22
05-12-2004, 10:13 AM
EnigmuS,

Don't confuse FB's Mustang/D-9 speeds with real life performance circa 1945. Contrary to what Isegrim would have you believe, there would have been very little to choose between a 8th AAF P-51D and a Dora 9 at low and mid altitudes. RAF Mustangs would have been substantially faster than any operational D-9 at low altitude.

Your 732 kph speed is for a GM-1 equipped D-13 at well over 30,000 ft, not a D-9 at 20,000 ft.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NN_EnigmuS:
after a spin of 2500m,it's quite easy to understood that he cannot follow a P51 because of loss of energy(the P51 didn't so he probably dive for shoot it or it was in fight at 500m and was full throttle because of the figh the D9 recovering the spin must be at 250km/h so cannot follow his opponent)
in same conditions Fw190D9 is faster at low and middle altitude than mustang.
at low altitude the only plane that can beat in speed the D9 is the tempest.
max speed of FwD9 at 6200m with Mw50 is 732km/h lol and was at sea level more than 600km/h with boost

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

NN_EnigmuS
05-12-2004, 10:40 AM
here what i have from a book drawn by Rikyu Watanabe and written by Robert Grinsell(the first one are from docavia N15 th best french book on fw190):
all charts without boost lol 640km/h at 3300m
575km/h at sea level,686 km/h at 6600m

best speed of mustangD is 700km/h at 7000m and perhaps you can wrote your chart about mustang at sea level lol

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

PzKpfw
05-12-2004, 11:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NN_EnigmuS:
here what i have from a book drawn by Rikyu Watanabe and written by Robert Grinsell(the first one are from docavia N15 th best french book on fw190):
all charts without boost lol 640km/h at 3300m
575km/h at sea level,686 km/h at 6600m

best speed of mustangD is 700km/h at 7000m and perhaps you can wrote your chart about mustang at sea level lol

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have the Grinsell book as well D-9 performance is listed as @ 4300kg (9480lbs) with mw 50 clean is:

575km/h (357mph) @ SL
640km/h (397mph) @ 3300m (10,830ft)
686km/h (426mph) @ 6600m (21,650ft)
640km/h (397mph) @ 10000m (32,810ft)

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski: on the Bf 109...
----

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

------
For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business."
--D. W. Brogan, The American Character

BBB_Hyperion
05-12-2004, 11:28 AM
Here is a more detailed listing of Topspeeds.

http://jagdhund.homestead.com/files/DoraData/horizontalgeschwindigkeiten.htm

Regards,
Hyperion

NN_EnigmuS
05-12-2004, 12:36 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by PzKpfw:
I have the Grinsell book as well D-9 performance is listed as _@ 4300kg (9480lbs) _with mw 50_ clean is_:

575km/h (357mph) @ SL
640km/h (397mph) @ 3300m (10,830ft)
686km/h (426mph) @ 6600m (21,650ft)
640km/h (397mph) @ 10000m (32,810ft)

Regards, John Waters


yeah but the SL speed seems to be without Mw50 because the one with is near 610km/h

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

PzKpfw
05-12-2004, 02:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NN_EnigmuS:


yeah but the SL speed seems to be without Mw50 because the one with is near 610km/h

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes Eni, but you implied Grinsells Fw 190D-9 performancre data was unboosted, when it clearly states in the book that data is with mw 50.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski: on the Bf 109...
----

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

------
For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business."
--D. W. Brogan, The American Character

NN_EnigmuS
05-12-2004, 03:11 PM
in french edition it said with Gm1 lol that's why i said whith no boost because Gm1 must be enabled at very high altitudes.

in my book in frech it not saying Mw50 but Gm1 perhaps a translate mistake.

http://www.nnavirex.com/public/enigmus.gif

Kurfurst__
05-12-2004, 03:20 PM
Grinsell`s data is obviously w/o use of MW 50, because

a, D-9`s performance with it at SL stated as 600+ km/h by 3 separate German spec charts, and also a JG 26 pilot clearly state he could exceed 600 kph in level flight near the ground with MW.

b, Even more convincing is the rated altitude, ie. with MW 50 max. speed was to be reached at lower alt, at 5500m, not 6600m. Topspeed may change from plane to plane, rated altitude is rather more constant, 1100m difference is next to impossible w. the same engine boost.

I believe Grinsel`s data is likely for w/o MW50, but the but the Erhohte Notluistung (Fuel injection into S/C) being utilized.

MW + ENL would give 2240 PS at SL, ENL alone would yield 1900PS.

With MW 50 Dora 9 would do 615 km/h at SL, 705 km/h at 5500m.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

faustnik
05-12-2004, 03:26 PM
How readily available was the MW-50 mixture in Germany '44-'45? I wonder how many of the MW-50 capable a/c actually flew with it?

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

butch2k
05-12-2004, 03:29 PM
Final drawing for the MW-50 equipment in the D-9 were prepared in february 45 (i own copy of the factory drawing for this equipment).

Kurfurst__
05-12-2004, 03:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
How readily available was the MW-50 mixture in Germany '44-'45? I wonder how many of the MW-50 capable a/c actually flew with it?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

MW 50 was basically _distilled water_ injection (49.5% distilled water, 49.5% methanol alcholol, 1% standard lubrication oil).

Methanol`s only role was an an anti freeze at altitudes or during winter, as an alcohol. As replacement, ethanol alcohol could be used as replacement, and in the worst case, planes could fly with just water in the tank.

MW injection was thus basically standard on German fighter a/c in 44/45, but it should be noted D-9s only started to mount it from about late 44/start of 45 on large scale. There were MW kits before that, however. Bf 109s used it from about the start of 1944.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

faustnik
05-12-2004, 03:38 PM
Thanks Kurfurst. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

butch2k
05-12-2004, 03:51 PM
As i said a bit higher the MW-50 installation in serial prodcution aircraft was not validated until mid-february 1945.

Here is the first page of the MW-50 technical description and factory drawings for modification of the D-9 for MW-50 use. Note the date on the bottom left corner (16/02/45).
http://mapage.noos.fr/olefebvre/fw190d9-mw50.jpg

Kurfurst__
05-12-2004, 04:44 PM
In the JG 26 War diary, 12th Jan 1945 date, there`s a note from Lt. Ossenkopf about his D-9, which states 600+ km/h was reached with it above ground level, with use of MW 50. The plane is referred to as "Black 8", and was built in Sorau, with dark green camo paint.

I guess it would be usuful to find out the exact Wrkn of this plane, and it`s BAL acceptance, perhaps it would tell from when onwards MW was used on D-9s the earliest.



Edit/PS: I only noticed your PT now. Check it!


http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/fat-furred%20tigerB.jpg

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".
- Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

"One day a Tiger Royal got within 150 yards of my tanks and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him at ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got 5 or 6 hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like that Tiger, we would all be home today."
- Sgt. Clyde D. Brunson, US Army, Tank Commander, February 1945

[This message was edited by Kurfurst__ on Wed May 12 2004 at 04:14 PM.]

PzKpfw
05-12-2004, 09:44 PM
Looking at the data from Focke-Wulf Flugzeugbau G.M.B.H dated March 11, 1945 on the Fw 190D-9, provided by the link o the D-9 performance with a weight of 4270kg with an ETC 504.

The performance data is listed by 5 types below they are listed with the direct description quote in italics as presented by the site @

http://jagdhund.homestead.com/files/Dora.htm

1)Start -u. Notleistung = Takeoff & Emergency. 1750PS. Emergency power (i.e. take off or emergency). The Jumo 213 A-1 had a normal takeoff power of 1285kw (1750PS). A power output could be achieved, through a conversion kit, of 1395kw (1900PS) with increased boost pressure up to flight altitudes of 5000meters.

The past takeoff performance (1750PS at ground level) could now be used for 30 minutes, and combat performance (1620 HP at ground level) became certified for continuous duty.

This is the first sufficient measure to be corresponded that met the desires of the pilots for increase in output. With the "Ladedruckssteigerungs-Rüstatz" this becomes 1900ps, sustainable for 10 minutes.

2). Sonder - Notleistung - Special Emergency.

I believe this power setting is similar in principle to the Fw190A using "Erh¶hte Notleistung" with C3 injection. That is, bleeding of the airline of the blower to induce a petrol surge and use it as a charge cooler.

The setting was the same as in the A-8. There was a button, or lever, on the control panel to open the valve. To summarize, it was a petrol injection in the eye of the blower.

It had the effect of allowing increased boost by its charge-cooling effect. It could only be used at full speed and 3,250 rpm. It was usable for 10 minutes, This power curve is listed with C3 fuel.

I do not yet have a power curve to verify engine output in this configuration but it would be greater than 2100PS based on the speed and climb curves.

After the use of this Special Emergency power, no form of Emergency power could be used for at least five minutes

3)Sonder - Notleistung mit A Lader als Bodenmotor:

Special Emergency power with compressor as the base-engine I am not really sure what this means.

I have viewed a chart that lists a similar power setting with a Ladergang which I believe is a special low altitude compressor gear.

This appears to be an additional engine/compressor modification. I have no idea how many aircraft actually had this "power egg" or blower gear but the chart lists it's use.

I have speculated that the Dora "Red 13" of JV44 may have had one of these engines/ compressors. I do not have a engine power curve for this setting but based on the numbers it must have produced a significantly higher power than 2100PS at low altitude. This may be the 2240PS power setting?

4) Sonder - Notleistung mit Ladedruckerhoehung mit MW50 u. 1.8 ata.

Special Emergency Power (with MW50) 2100PS at 3,250rpm, MW-50 at 150 l/h and B4 at 800 l/h.

Maximum power with MW50 was 2,100 hp at 3,250 rpm and was not to be used above 16,500ft. (around 5000 meters). In any case, the RAE tested the Jumo 213 A-1 with MW50, and at 21,000ft the engine produced 1680 hp instead of the 1600 hp.

At that altitude the output is the same whether you are using Takeoff & Emergency or Special Emergency power. This power setting was to be used for 10 minutes then 5 minutes at normal power before used again. The Jumo 213A engine power chart also shows a dashed line at 2,240PS.


5) Steig - u. Kampfleistung-Climb & Combat

This could be maintained for 30 minutes with a stock Jumo 213A. With the "Ladedruckssteigerungs-Rüstatz" this power could be maintained indefinitely. Combat and Climb power covers the same principle as in any other plane. This is similar to what the UK documents have found: 1680 ps @ 3000 rpm.

Critical engine altitude on this site is listed @ 6500 meteres (21,325ft) and Grinsells data is covered on the site Ie;

The following values are the most commonly used figures, for maximum speeds, in most publications from western sources and match captured manufacturers "Focke-wulf" test charts of a Fw190D-9 under Takeoff-Emergency power, using B4 / 87octane fuel, with a Jumo 213A-1 in May 1944. I suspect that the below figures are maximum speeds, with MW-50, of U.S.A. testing.

This gave the following speeds:
357 mph / 574 km/h (sea level)
397 mph / 639 km/h (10,830 ft / 3,300 m )
426 mph / 685 km/h (21,650 ft / 6,600 m )
397 mph / 639 km/h (32,800 ft / 10,000 m )


Below are performance examples of the Fw 190D-9 useing all 5 of the critera above from the sites data vs Grinsells:

@ SL:

1)Start -u. Notleistung(B4)

568km/h (353mph)

2)Sonder - Notleistung:

615km/h (382mph)

3)Sonder - Notleistung mit A Lader als Bodenmotor:

640km/h (390mph)

4)Sonder - Notleistung mit Ladedruckerhoehung mit MW50 u. 1.8 ata:

606km/h (377mph)

5)Steig - u Kampfleistung (B4)

549km/h (341mph)


@ 3300m (10,830ft):

1)Start -u. Notleistung(B4)

628km/h (390mph)

2)Sonder - Notleistung:

666km/h (414mph)

3)Sonder - Notleistung mit A Lader als Bodenmotor:

695km/h (432mph)

4)Sonder - Notleistung mit Ladedruckerhoehung mit MW50 u. 1.8 ata:

657kmh (409mph)

5)Steig - u Kampfleistung (B4)

610km/h (379mph)


@ 6600m (21,650ft):

1)Start -u. Notleistung(B4)

678km/h (421mph)

2)Sonder - Notleistung:

690km/h (429mph)

3)Sonder - Notleistung mit A Lader als Bodenmotor:

675km/h (420mph)

4)Sonder - Notleistung mit Ladedruckerhoehung mit MW50 u. 1.8 ata:

680km/h (422mph)

5)Steig - u Kampfleistung (B4)

667km/h (414mph)


@ 10,000m (32,800ft): No data listed for Sonder - Notleistung mit A Lader als Bodenmotor

1)Start -u. Notleistung(B4)

632km/h (393mph)

2)Sonder - Notleistung:

639km/h (397mph)

4)Sonder - Notleistung mit Ladedruckerhoehung mit MW50 u. 1.8 ata:

629km/h (391mph)

5)Steig - u Kampfleistung (B4)

615km/h (382mph).

Isegrem points out that the max speed for the Dora with MW50 was @ 5500m (18,045ft)below is the data for 5500m:


1)Start -u. Notleistung(B4)

659km/h (410mph)

2)Sonder - Notleistung:

705km/h (438mph)

3)Sonder - Notleistung mit A Lader als Bodenmotor:

684km/h (425mph)

4)Sonder - Notleistung mit Ladedruckerhoehung mit MW50 u. 1.8 ata:

691km/h (429mph)

5)Steig - u Kampfleistung (B4)

647km/h (402mph).


Concerning ETC racks the site states:


For speeds without the ETC 501 ordanace rack add 8 km/h (5 mph) below and 12 km/h (7.5 mph) above critical engine (6.5km). Since the ETC 504 had a slightly better drag coefficient I would estimate speed penalty of about 6km/h (3.7mph)to 10km/h(6.2mph).

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

----
The one that gets you is the one that you'll never see.
-----

----

"After 44 we called the new models the 'bumps', because every new model had another bump or hump on the fuselage, which naturally was particularly bad for the flight characteristics of the aircraft."

Walter Krupinski: on the Bf 109...
----

-----
"The damn Jerries have stuck their heads in the meatgrinder, and I've got hold of the handle."

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. December 26, 1944.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

------
For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business."
--D. W. Brogan, The American Character

BBB_Hyperion
05-12-2004, 09:47 PM
On the MW50 use. I though the Methanol shifted ignition point and allowed for higher compression, while the water adds additional cooling to the cylinder. The no freezing effect is only a side effect.

Regards,
Hyperion

butch2k
05-12-2004, 11:56 PM
AFAIK a few dozen aircraft were delivered in december 44/January 45 with an early system, note that not all aircraft delivered were fitted with it.
It was rather a hasty service introduction of a device not yet totaly finished and tested, the definitive instructions were not issued until 02/45.