109K vs. Yak3, which climbs better?

Everybody will say now 109K was bester climber in WW2 and is best in FH, but look at this (settings: 50% fuel, cs 168, WEP):

Download track

You see, Yak is a bit faster than 109K under 2.5km and just over 4km 109K starts to run away the Yak3.

Is 109K undermodelled, Yak3 overmodelled or is this real? Pls post some technical facts on this.

 

Yak-3 is very good climber at low altitudes no doubt.

Considering our (nicaes) tests there seems to be some problems with 109k4. We have to test it more and get repeatedly identical results to be sure. To me it seems to miss about 1.5-2m/s of it's climb all the way up.

I couldn't find any 109k-4 climb charts. Heres Yak-3, 109K-4, Spit IX, La-7, P-51d speed comparison. (and much more) I got bit excited about this so ill go Off Topic.

http://pub47.ezboard.com/fallboutwarfarefrm27.showMessage?topicID=282.topic

Btw. It's good to notice MW-50 pushes up top speed about 80kmh. 109K was quite a rocket. (top speed 730kmh in this chart)

Dora speed on another chart is definetely misleading (top 650kmh). Should be around 690-710kmh with MW-50. Also 190a-4 seems suprisingly slow(610kmh) and very different from german data.(664kmh) When 109s in soviet charts seem about 10-20kmh faster (109g2 665kmh, 109k-4 730kmh) than german data would indicate. I think reason is that same variants were running engines at higher ata later in the war. As german charts are mostly for early production planes. Also fuel, maintenance and lack of knowledge how to use different systems can be problems with captured planes.(in case of these low performing 190s)

 

Don't you remember our tests on 109F-4, 109G-2 and 109K-4 and beeing 12641m high in TA?

 

Yes but both 109f4 and 109g2 are screwed up with way too good climb. So it's bad for comparison.

 

Hi guys,

How are FW190A4 and A8 compared in speeds in all your sources, and how are they in current FH?
I read in some sources that A4 is about 610km/h and A8 is 640km/h, is that correct?

 

my tests, 100%, WEP, took 109K to ~21m/s. cs 155, the 'official' FH climb for her.

but great got 26m/s (?!?!?!?), concluding that its correct.
but he never gave any test specs. rgreat?

 

26m/s with mw50

 

mw50 is in 1.42?
100% fuel?
cs?

 

mw50 always was installed at 109k in WB
cs 155

 

Here some numbers posted by nicae from our tests.

Source for "RL" numbers is Focke Wulf flugzeugbau charts for 190a5 and BMW 801D-2 rated to 1.42ata. As soviet test (link above) with about 610kmh is 190a4 BMW801D-2 at 1.30 ata. 190a4 was restricted mostly at 1.30 ata to extend engine life. FW factory tests are done with 1.42ata also western allied tests for captured 190a-4 and 190a-3 were done at 1.42ata which gave 660-670kmh top speed.

For A-8 source is again FW charts.
Both fully loaded.

FH(RL) comparison

FW190A-4, tested by illo
km - MIL kmh - WEP kmh
0.0 - 530(540) - 560(565)
6.6 - 643(635) - 661(665)

FW190A-8 (* Vmax altitude WEP), tested by nicae
km - MIL kmh - WEP kmh
0.0 - 530(548) - 562(578)
6.3/*5.5 - 624(644) - 640(652)

FW190D-9, tested by nicae
km - MIL kmh - WEP kmh
0.0 - 570(576) - 609(612)
6.6/*5.7 - 670(685) - 702(702)

quoting myself:

 

fuel load?

 

I can't confirm 26m/s for 109K, I tried it several times and I don't get more than 25m/s.
But I get 26.8m/s for Yak3 between 1.5-2km.

Settings: 50% fuel cs 155.

Can a good climber be better than the best?

 

ask rgreat for 'official' yak3 CS.
and use 100% for both, with WEP.
for 109, use cs155

and check the CS at hi alts too

 

What I know is that Yak3 is better climber than 109K at 1.5-2km. That's a fact. Above 109K is better and gets better with every kilometer against Yak3.

Rgreat, pls what are the "official" climbspeeds for 109K and Yak3 in which alts?

 

155 109k
170 yak3