and a bit of "I read your post and found no data there for what you're talking about, I ned some data bla data blabla data data..." (c) (WTG) rgreat
You are right: mass -> lower, mass displacement -> cant say much about it except it probalby was a couse of some roll rate decrease in dora and is not influential on sustained turn rate, fuselage aerodynamics -> lower drag becouse of smaller couling of the JUMO inline engine, tail section moved further to the back -> overall 10% change in plane length, it certainly was made to bring stability back becouse of the new engine, but this certainly does not influence turn performance, if so it should make it better becouse fucelage area would be bigger and add bit to lift, You forgot: more powerfull engine -> increases turn performac too. So most of this factors make HUGE influence as U say, probably not so huge, but most of them make the dora a better turner. I know that wb players are so acustomed with the planes in WB that whole their view of WWII aviation is based on what they are used to at WB. The part of this view is that: "all the late war versions of fighters are: faster, hevier, turn worse, and are better armed". But dora escapes this schema. All succesive A versions of 190 were developed to counter bombers, but dora was made to counter fighters. The armmament was reduced, it was made lighter, it received inline engine and it certainly turned better. So devs please fix it.
@ Henning (HoHun) Sorry for the missunderstending. I think we both agree that dora is broken. You concentrate on the engine power and clibm rate. I just point out that one of the end results is the turn performance. I think that dora climb was increased lately, but if you think it is still too low please post your sources here. Regards.
Hi Q, >Sorry for the missunderstending. Already forgotten, happens easily online! Flight test results (from 1.64R2) compared to WW2 data: http://hometown.aol.de/HoHunKhan/Fw190D-9climb.gif Test method: Level flight at ca. 300 km/h / 100 m, pull up to climb angle, engage auto pilot. Start stop watch at 500 m, note time at 1 km, 2 km, ... From Fw 190 data: WEP: 4:17 min 100%: 5:04 min Source: http://hometown.aol.de/HoHunKhan/D9climb3web.jpg According to the 1.65 changes.htm, the Fw 190D-9 climb rate was increased to: WEP: 4:42 min 100%: 5:36 min That seems to indicate the D-9 in 1.65 has only 90% of the power available of the D-9 tested by Focke-Wulf. (Provided weight and aerodynamics are correct.) Here's another Focke-Wulf chart also suggesting a higher climb speed: http://hometown.aol.de/HoHunKhan/190da8ta154climb.jpg This is equivalent to: WEP: 4:01 min 100%: 5:46 min Note that this particular Dora weighs in at 4350 kg compared to the standard weight of 4250 kg, and that at "100%", it uses a boost pressure of just 1.30 ata while climb & combat power was actually 1.44 ata when the type was introduced. Regards, Henning (HoHun)
Hi Gunther, >These charts didn't help you? Unfortunately not! They all list 1770 HP (at sea level) for the D-9, which is not the highest power possible for the Jumo 213A. In fact, the engine chart from November 1944 clears 1770 HP for 30 min, which is equivalent to 100% power in Warbirds. Early Doras were fitted with the "Rüstsatz für Ladedruck-Erhöhung" (increased boost kit, also known as Oldenburg kit) which yielded 1900 HP (at sea level) for 10 min. Fully developed Doras had MW50 injection that gave 2100 HP (at sea level) for 10 min, usable up to 40 min per flight (limited by the amount of MW50 liquid carried), with 5 min cooling periods at normal power in between. (All from the engine chart I mentioned.) The Fw 190A-8 had increased boost, too, so 1730 HP was not its top-end power either, but it didn't reach the 2100 HP of the Dora. Regards, Henning (HoHun)
Hi again, >In fact, the engine chart from November 1944 clears 1770 HP for 30 min, which is equivalent to 100% power in Warbirds. http://hometown.aol.de/HoHunKhan/Jumo213_Nov44.tif Regards, Henning (HoHun)
Hi Strafe, >Hi HoHun, I can't open links posted in your posts Try right-click on the link, save as, then double-click the saved file. If you have Windows, the Windows Fax and Picture Viewer should be able to view a multi-page TIFF just fine. Good luck! Regards, Henning (HoHun)
Lets keep beating dead horse: "SPITFIRE IX VERSUS FW 190A TheFW190 was compared with a fully operational Spitfire IX for speed and manoeuvrability at heights up to 25,000 feet [7620 metres]. At most heights the Spitfire IX is slightly superior in speed to the FW190 - the approximate differences in speed are as follows: At 2,000 ft [610 m] the FW 190 is 7-8 mph [11-13 km/hr] faster than the Spitfire At 5,000 ft [1524 m] the FW 190 and the Spitfire are approximately the same At 8,000 ft [2440 m] the Spitfire IX is 8 mph [13 km/hr] faster than the FW 190 At 15,000 ft [4573 m] the Spitfire IX is 5 mph [8 km/hr] faster than the FW 190 At 18,000 ft [5488 m] the FW 190 is 3 mph [5 km/hr] faster than the Spitfire IX At 21,000 ft [6400 m] the FW 190 and the Spitfire are approximately the same At 25,000 ft [7622 m] the Spitfire IX is 5-7 mph [8-11 km/hr] faster than the FW 190 Climburing comparative climbs at various heights up to 23,000 feet [7012 metres], with both aircraft flying under maximum continuous climbing conditions, little difference was found between the two aircraft although on the whole the Spitfire was slightly better. Above 22,000 feet [6707 m] the climb of the FW 190 is falling off rapidly, whereas the climb of the Spitfire IX is increasing. Dive: The FW 190 is faster than the Spitfire IX in a dive, particularly during the initial stage. This superiority is not as marked as with the Spitfire VB. Manoeuvrability: The FW 190 is more manoeuvrable than the Spitfire IX except in turning circles. The superior rate of roll of the FW 190 enabled it to avoid the Spitfire IX by turning over into a diving turn in the opposite direction. The Spitfire IX's worst heights for fighting the FW 190 were between 18,000 and 22,000 feet [5486-6707m] and also below 3,000 feet [914m]. The initial acceleration of the FW 190 is better than that of the Spitfire IX under all conditions of flight, except in level flight at altitudes where the Spitfire has a speed advantage. The general impression of the pilots involved in the trials is that the Spitfire Mark IX compares well with the FW 190. Providing the Spitfire IX has the initiative, it undoubtedly stands a good chance of shooting down the FW 190."
I like this too: "Inearly 1942 RAF fighters first encountered the Focke-Wulf 190 in numbers, and it became evident that the formidable German fighter was overwhelmingly superior in performance to the then current variant of Spitfire, the Mk VB. The Mark IX Spitfire was developed as an emergency response to this crisis. SPITFIRE VB VERSUS FW 190A Theaccount below is taken from the comparative trial of the Spitfire VB with the [captured] Focke-Wulf 190, flown by the Air Fighting Development Unit at Duxford in July 1942. TheFW190 was compared with a Spitfire VB from an operational squadron, for speed and all-round manoeuvrability at heights up to 25,000 feet. The FW 190 is superior in speed at all heights, and the approximate differences are as follows - At 1,000 ft the FW 190 is 25-30 mph faster than the Spitfire VB At 3,000 ft the FW 190 is 30-35 mph faster than the Spitfire VB At 5,000 ft the FW 190 is 25 mph faster than the Spitfire VB At 9,000 ft the FW 190 is 25-30 mph faster than the Spitfire VB At 15,000 ft the FW 190 is 20 mph faster than the Spitfire VB At 18,000 ft the FW 190 is 20 mph faster than the Spitfire VB At 21,000 ft the FW 190 is 20-25 mph faster than the Spitfire VB Climb:The climb of the FW 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the FW 190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the FW 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000'. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the FW 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the FW 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it. Dive: Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the FW 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages. Manoeuvrability. The manoeuvrability of the FW 190 is better than that of the Spitfire VB except in turning circles, when the Spitfire can quite easily out-turn it. The FW 190 has better acceleration under all conditions of flight and this must obviously be most useful during combat. When the FW 190 was in a turn and was attacked by the Spitfire, the superior rate of roll enabled it to flick into a diving turn in the opposite direction. The pilot of the Spitfire found great difficulty in following this manoeuvre and even when prepared for it, was seldom able to allow the correct deflection. A dive from this manoeuvre enabled the FW 190 to draw away from the Spitfire which was then forced to break off the attack. Several flights were carried out to ascertain the best evasive manoeuvres to adopt if 'bounced'. It was found that if the Spitfire was cruising at low speed and was 'bounced' by the FW 190, it was easily caught even if the FW 190 was sighted when well out of range, and the Spitfire was then forced to take avoiding action by using its superiority in turning circles. If on the other hand the Spitfire was flying at maximum continuous cruising and was 'bounced' under the same conditions, it had a reasonable chance of avoiding being caught by opening the throttle and going into a shallow dive, providing the FW 190 was seen in time. This forced the FW 190 into a stern chase, and although it eventually caught the Spitfire, it took some time and as a result was drawn a considerable distance away from its base. This is a particularly useful method of evasion for the Spitfire if it is 'bounced' when returning from a sweep. This manoeuvre has been carried out during recent operations and has been successful on several occasions. Ifthe Spitfire VB is 'bounced' it is thought unwise to evade by diving steeply, as the FW 190 will have little difficulty in catching up owing to its superiority in the dive. The above trials have shown that the Spitfire VB must cruise at high speed when in an area where enemy fighters can be expected. It will then, in addition to lessening the chances of being successfully 'bounced', have a better chance of catching the FW 190, particularly if it has the advantage of surprise. " http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/Spitfire9v190.htm
LOL, so the Spitfire IX is supposed to be SLIGHTLY superior (with just a slightly better climb rate) to a Fw-190 ... a Fw-190 A, mind you! Yet here on FH the Spit is second to none when it comes to acceleration and climb rate, and its superiority over the Fw series in these areas is certainly not a slight one by any stretch of imagination!
Hi HoHun. I think you will enjoy reading this links: http://www.fockewulf190.net/fr/fockewf/equipfr/bmw801.htm http://www.fockewulf190.net/fr/fockewf/equipfr/jumo213.htm
Here go more more links: http://www.simcentrum.com/files/190D.pdf These reports are great: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/wright-field-fw190d-9.pdf http://www.spitfireperformance.com/fw190/fw190d9test.html
You are kidding aren't you???? Every time I have ever flown a Spit IX or even XIV for that matter, even at full power + WEP in a straight line, dive, or climb, I see FW190 a/c zooming past me at d1.0 per 1-2 seconds. What REALLY needs to happen is have the devs look at non-German/Russian sources for their info on ALL US/Brit a/c (eg. Manufacturers Handbooks, POH's, Approved Flight Manuals, etc). The last time I checked, Spitfires were made in Great Britain, not Germany or USSR. Use the appropriate flight data fron the appropriate country of origin. That'll make for happier ppl and more players
