more radial fans like fw190?

"Originally designed to defeat the FW-190 series fighters, the XP-47J
certainly would have exceeded this requirement

J?

The XP-47J never went into service; only one was acquired, in 1944,
having been ordered the previous year.

Is this the basis for your claim that the P-47 was designed in
response to the 190? That one experimental late modification of the
plane had a fan?

You've wasted my time. Control K!


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

Guy Alcala wrote in message ...
The Enlightenment wrote:

"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message

Guy Alcala wrote in message ...

Which FW-190, and which Spit V? The typical FW-190A subtype certainly
outclimbed the typical 1941-42 Spit V with max. boost of +12, but not every Spit
V and not at every altitude, or at every period.

I wouldn't even be sure of that.

Certainly the climb rates done at reduced, climbing power, are pretty
close, but they slightly favour the Spit V. That's at 2850 rpm, 9lbs
for the Spit, 2450 rpm, 1.32 ata for the 190.

At combat power, the picture is more complex.

The Spit V started at 9 lbs, 3000 rpm, but at that rating it would
only have faced 190 A1s and A2s, and max power for those was only 2450
rpm, 1.32 ata, iirc.

The Spit V increased to 12 lbs, 3000 rpm, but would still have only
had to face derated 190 A3s, again running at a max of 1.32 ata, 2450
rpm.

By late summer 1942, the Spitfires had increased to 16 lbs, 3000 rpm,
which increased climb rate to up to 4000 ft/min. Late 1942 the 190s
started to used their full rating, 1.42 ata, 2700 rpm, but even that
shouldn't have enabled them to outclimb the Spit V at that time.

I wouldn't expect the 190 to outclimb the Spit V until 1.65 ata was
authorised on the A5 or A6, some time between mid 43 and mid 44.

A later Mk. V with max. boost
increased to +16 is a different matter, and an LF. V with cropped Mk. 45M or 50M
with max. boost increased to +18 is a very different animal indeed, below
critical altitude. A FW-190A is generally superior to a Spit V, but you need to
be fairly specific.

The main source stating climb superiority for the 190 is the British
test of Faber's 190 A3. Of course, the British ran that at 1.42 ata,
even though it was derated, and used 1.35 ata as it's climbing power,
30 minute limit, even though in German service the A3 was restricted
to 1.32 ata for 3 minutes.

In the report on the test of Faber's plane, they say the 190
outclimbed the Spit Vb by 450 ft/min, and that it was "slightly
inferior" to the Spit IX. All these should be at climb rating (defined
as a 30 min rating in the report)

The problem is, the Spit V at it's 30 min rating, 2850 rpm, 9 lbs,
climbed at almost exactly the same rate as the Spit IX at it's climb
rating, 12 lbs, 2850 rpm.

The RAE report on Faber's 190 is also rather odd, to my eyes at least.

They quote a maximum climb for Faber's 190 of 3250 ft/min at 1.35 ata,
2450 rpm, up to 4000 ft. Incidentally, see
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/w3134.html
and you'll see this matches the Spit V at it's climb rating (even
though this is WEP for the 190 A3). It certainly is nowhere near
450ft/min better.

So, the RAE report 3250 ft/min at up to 4000ft, but at the same wep
rating they quote 3,500ft/min between 10 and 17,500 ft.

It seems very odd to me that the climb rate in high supercharger gear,
at high altitude, should decrease over the climb rate in low
supercharger gear.

It certainly doesn't match the BMW 801D power charts I have seen,
which show about 150 hp less in high gear than in low gear, as you'd
expect. AFAIK, all other 2 speed supercharged engines show the same
drop of power in high gear.

Though the Spitfire had a tighter turn radius, the advantage was more
theoretical than real since the Messerschmitt's automatic wing slats warned
the pilot of impending stalls, enabling average pilots to get the most out
of the machine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

http://people.history.ohio-state.edu...b/6252ls13.htm

The Spitfire was noted for it's onset of buffeting giving warning of
the stall, and for it's benign stalling characteristics. In NACA
tests, they said:

"The good stalling characteristics allowed the airplane to be pulled
rapidly to maximum lift coefficient in accelerated manoeuvers in spite
of it's neutral static longitudinal stability."

"The excellent stall warning made it easy for the pilots to rapidly
approach maximum lift coefficient in a turn so long as the speed was
low enough to avoid undesirably large accelerations at maximum lift
coefficient"

"The Spitfire airplane had the unusual quality that allowed it to be
flown in a partly stalled condition in accelerated flight without
becoming laterally unstable. Violent buffeting occured, but the
control column could be pulled relatively far back after the initial
stall flow breakdown without losing control"


Quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
However the 109 had a distinct advantage in manoeuvrability and turning
circle at low speeds. The design of the 109, with it's leading edge slats
gave a lower stalling speed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

It didn't.

Stalling speeds, flaps and undercarriage up, for the the 109E3 was 83
mph, for the Spit I 73 mph. Falps and gear down, the figures were 62
mph for the 109, 63 mph for the Spit. It's only under those
conditions, not under normal flying/fighting conditions, that the 109
had a (marginaly) lower stall speed.

That's based on the tests conducted by the RAE of a captured 109 E3,
and trials of Spitfires by the A&AEE.

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/jazzitoria/aspit-2.htm

MANOEUVRABILITY
SPITFIRE TURNING DIAMETER = 1,760 feet. BF 109 TURNING DIAMETER = 1,500 ft.
A Spitfire pilot will tell you the Spit could turn inside the 109. A
Messerschmitt pilot will tell you the 109 could turn inside the Spitfire!
The truth is that both designs were capable of turning circles that would
cause the pilot to "black-out" as the blood drained from the head. The pilot
who could force himself to the limits without losing consciousness would
emerge the victor from a turning battle, and the Spitfire pilots had supreme
faith in their machine. The British aeronautical press told them that the
wings came off the 109 in a dive or in tight turns, untrue but based on some
early wing failures in the 109`s predecessor the Bf108.

However the 109 had a distinct advantage in manoeuvrability and turning
circle at low speeds. The design of the 109, with it's leading edge slats
gave a lower stalling speed. The 109 was very forgiving if stalled, with no
tendency for a stall to develop into an uncontrollable spin, something that
the Spitfire was prone to. Thus a Messerschmitt pilot was more at home at
low speeds than his British counterpart.

I'd really like to see the sources this is based on. Their quoted
speed for the Spitfire, 345 mph, is also far too slow, even though
they claim it's correct for a Spit with armour and other added
equipment.

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit1.html

Scroll down, they list performance for a couple of Spit Is with
armour, armoured windscreen etc. 355 and 354 mph.

Guy Alcala wrote in message ...

It's a reall shame that "Fuller's P.R.O. Page" appears to no longer be in
existence, as he had put up the various FW-190A flight tests done by the RAF.

Guy

They can be found now at http://prodocs.netfirms.com/

There's quite a bit of new stuff on there as well.

"Geoffrey" == Geoffrey Sinclair writes:

/good post snipped/

Excess power: the Ki-43 had phenomenal climb rate (up to whatever its
critical altitude was), I suspect this aircraft, with its light
construction, had a _lot_ of excess power (although not a lot of power
per se).

--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

In article ,
Gernot Hassenpflug writes:
"Geoffrey" == Geoffrey Sinclair writes:

/good post snipped/

Excess power: the Ki-43 had phenomenal climb rate (up to whatever its
critical altitude was), I suspect this aircraft, with its light
construction, had a _lot_ of excess power (although not a lot of power
per se).

And in 1941, teh undisputed King of Excess Power had to be the
Curtiss-Wright CW-21B - proof that if we so desired, the USA could
out-Zero the Mitsubishi Zero. It was a fascinating airplane -
basically a Wright Cyclone with a pistol grip, and an initial clomb
rate on the order of 5,500'/minute, and unbeleivable maneiverability.

That didn't do it a damned bit of good, though, as the KNIL CW-21s
were slaughtered as they tried to take off and climb out from their
airfields on Java, since the first warning they received of impending
attack was bombs falling on hte airfield.

SEP is important, but it's not the whole story, by a long shot. It's
properly employing what tools you have to work with.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Hildegrin wrote:

Guy Alcala wrote in message ...

It's a reall shame that "Fuller's P.R.O. Page" appears to no longer be in
existence, as he had put up the various FW-190A flight tests done by the RAF.

Guy

They can be found now at http://prodocs.netfirms.com/

There's quite a bit of new stuff on there as well.

Thanks for the link. I've been hoping they were relocated.

Guy

Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:

The Enlightenment wrote in message ...

snip

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/jazzitoria/aspit-2.htm

MANOEUVRABILITY
SPITFIRE TURNING DIAMETER = 1,760 feet. BF 109 TURNING
DIAMETER = 1,500 ft.

Speed, altitude, weights being used? Oh sorry that is right it is
on the web and the preferred answer therefore it is right. We will
just ignore the turning circle diagrams in the books previously
mentioned, since they give figures of less than half the above,
which means if the above figures are correct we are talking high
speed, where the Bf109 had more aileron problems than the Spitfire,
making them even less believable.

snip

While thoroughly enjoying the spanking you have so professionally administered, I'll just clarify one minor point: the turning
_diameters_ quoted above appear to be very close to twice the turn _radii_ @ 12,000 ft. quoted in the Spit I/Me-109E-3 test, and most
other sources. The odd thing is that, if I'm reading the Spit I chart here

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/ea...pit109turn.gif

correctly, by seeing where the straight climb line crosses the stall boundary, the turn radii should be about 692-693 feet rather than
the 696 given in the report. Using this method on the Me-109E-3chart gives the quoted turn radius of 885 feet. Maybe the 696' was a
typo in the original report. In any case, a few feet either way isn't significant -- the Spit I has a far better turn radius than the
109E.

Guy

Guy Alcala wrote in message .. .
Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:

The Enlightenment wrote in message ...

snip

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/jazzitoria/aspit-2.htm

MANOEUVRABILITY
SPITFIRE TURNING DIAMETER = 1,760 feet. BF 109 TURNING
DIAMETER = 1,500 ft.

Speed, altitude, weights being used? Oh sorry that is right it is
on the web and the preferred answer therefore it is right. We will
just ignore the turning circle diagrams in the books previously
mentioned, since they give figures of less than half the above,
which means if the above figures are correct we are talking high
speed, where the Bf109 had more aileron problems than the Spitfire,
making them even less believable.

snip

While thoroughly enjoying the spanking you have so professionally
administered, I'll just clarify one minor point: the turning
_diameters_ quoted above appear to be very close to twice the
turn _radii_ @ 12,000 ft. quoted in the Spit I/Me-109E-3 test, and most
other sources.

Oh no, it looks like I have fallen for the old radius versus
diameter trick, I may end up in a spin.

The odd thing is that, if I'm reading the Spit I chart here

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/ea...pit109turn.gif

correctly, by seeing where the straight climb line crosses the stall
boundary, the turn radii should be about 692-693 feet rather than
the 696 given in the report. Using this method on the Me-109E-3
chart gives the quoted turn radius of 885 feet. Maybe the 696' was a
typo in the original report. In any case, a few feet either way isn't
significant -- the Spit I has a far better turn radius than the 109E.

Agreed, 4 feet in nearly 700 can be simply accounted for by a slightly
different machine, something not quite perfectly adjusted. Nearly
200 feet in difference is another matter.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

Interestingly, Germans didn't bother to make such a diagram for Bf-109E-3! I
have the manual for Bf-109E-3 (Yugoslav export version) and it reads only
four figures for turning circle:

Smallest circle radiuses:

(with flaps up)
At altitude 0 m-170 meters (0ft-557ft)
At altitude 6,000m-320meters (19,700ft-1,050ft)

(with flaps down)
At altitude 0m-125 meters (0ft-410ft)
At altitude 6,000m-320 meters (19,700ft-1,050ft)

As you can see, no performance gain using flaps at 6,000m.

Note-no speeds indicated, however it seems that all performance are measured
at max takeoff weight of 2,540kg i.e. 5,600lb (same weight in the manual and
of the tested aircraft). However, it seems (per graph) that BaE somehow
"added" some HP-per my manual, nominal HP of "export" Bf-109E-3 was 1,100HP
at 3,700m/12,100ft at 2,400rpm (5min)at 1.30atm/19.1PSI/38.9In/Hg, and the
max HP was 1,175HP, 0ft at takeoff 2,500rpm (1min) is unattainable at
12,000ft. Since my manual states 87octane fuel, maybe RaE used 100 octane
fuel? The difference is not trivial-exactly 100HP!


Now, I didn't do "stretching" to the altitudes listed in the British chart,
but they seem reasonable. Well done, RaE!

OTOH, it seems that Germans were not conducting such scrutinized tests-at
least not with Soviet aircraft. I have been reading an article of comparison
between captured Lavotchkin La-5FN and in-service Fw-190A-8 and Bf-109G-6.
This was done poorly, to say at least. Firstly, they have tested an early,
initial shortly produced FN model (manufactured in September 43, captured
and tested in September 44) that was war-weary and probably hastily repaired
(Germans reported that the engine was producing a lot of black smoke, which
was not the characteristics of fuel-injected M-82FN engine). Then they
overloaded it with ammo. Then they filled it with 87octane instead 100octane
gasoline (La-5FN demanded 100-octane gasoline, but the Germans had
previously
captured La-5F that used 87-octane so filled it accordingly). Result: around
12% of the speed/climb/altitude decrease (and worse at 1,000m). The biggest
resulting mistake was underestimation of WEP that La-5FN could produce up to
6,500 ft and use it up to 10,000ft, making it faster than both
Bf-109G-6/MW-50 and Fw-190A-8 with WEP to up to 12,000 ft. Finally, it seems
that they never compared tested La-5F/FN data, because they would find that
something was wery wrong!

Russians did the similar mistake; in 1941, they tested captured Bf-109F-1
that had a problem with compressor and got "false", reduced characteristics
above 3,000m for DB601N engine.

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA


Guy Alcala wrote in message
.. .
Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:

The Enlightenment wrote in message
...

snip

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/jazzitoria/aspit-2.htm

MANOEUVRABILITY
SPITFIRE TURNING DIAMETER = 1,760 feet. BF 109 TURNING
DIAMETER = 1,500 ft.

Speed, altitude, weights being used? Oh sorry that is right it is
on the web and the preferred answer therefore it is right. We will
just ignore the turning circle diagrams in the books previously
mentioned, since they give figures of less than half the above,
which means if the above figures are correct we are talking high
speed, where the Bf109 had more aileron problems than the Spitfire,
making them even less believable.

snip

While thoroughly enjoying the spanking you have so professionally
administered, I'll just clarify one minor point: the turning
_diameters_ quoted above appear to be very close to twice the turn _radii_
@ 12,000 ft. quoted in the Spit I/Me-109E-3 test, and most
other sources. The odd thing is that, if I'm reading the Spit I chart here

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/ea...pit109turn.gif

correctly, by seeing where the straight climb line crosses the stall
boundary, the turn radii should be about 692-693 feet rather than
the 696 given in the report. Using this method on the Me-109E-3chart gives
the quoted turn radius of 885 feet. Maybe the 696' was a
typo in the original report. In any case, a few feet either way isn't
significant -- the Spit I has a far better turn radius than the
109E.

Guy

Nele VII wrote:

Interestingly, Germans didn't bother to make such a diagram for Bf-109E-3! I
have the manual for Bf-109E-3 (Yugoslav export version) and it reads only
four figures for turning circle:

Smallest circle radiuses:

(with flaps up)
At altitude 0 m-170 meters (0ft-557ft)
At altitude 6,000m-320meters (19,700ft-1,050ft)

snip

If I'm doing this correctly (brain's a bit fuzzy at the moment) taking the ratio
of 12/19.7, multiplying it by (1,050-557) and adding 557, I get 857.3+ feet,
close enough to the British value of 885 feet for government work. I wonder if
the Brits and Germans were using the same standard atmosphere for their calcs?

Guy