more radial fans like fw190?

[jt]

The fw190 had a relatively compact, streamlined housing
for its radial engine, apparently due to an extra fan
at the cooling air intake. If this was so successful
why hasn't it been done more often? I may have noticed
that in more recent aerobatic models from east europe...

[Stephen FPilot Bierce]

(jt) wrote:

>The fw190 had a relatively compact, streamlined housing
>for its radial engine, apparently due to an extra fan
>at the cooling air intake. If this was so successful
>why hasn't it been done more often? I may have noticed
>that in more recent aerobatic models from east europe...

The Skyraider also had the extra cooling fans, IIRC. But most of the radial
engine applications after the war were for transport planes (which could afford
to have larger cowlings), cropdusters (which could go without cowls) and some
helicopters (which had different cooling systems).

Stephen "FPilot" Bierce/IPMS #35922
{Sig Quotes Removed on Request}

[frank may]

I think the Sea Fury & some other tightly cowled Centaurus powered a/c
used fans. Didn't the Constellation use fans too?


(Stephen "FPilot" Bierce) wrote in message >...
> (jt) wrote:
>
> >The fw190 had a relatively compact, streamlined housing
> >for its radial engine, apparently due to an extra fan
> >at the cooling air intake. If this was so successful
> >why hasn't it been done more often? I may have noticed
> >that in more recent aerobatic models from east europe...
>
> The Skyraider also had the extra cooling fans, IIRC. But most of the radial
> engine applications after the war were for transport planes (which could afford
> to have larger cowlings), cropdusters (which could go without cowls) and some
> helicopters (which had different cooling systems).
>
> Stephen "FPilot" Bierce/IPMS #35922
> {Sig Quotes Removed on Request}

[The Enlightenment]

"frank may" > wrote in message
om...
> I think the Sea Fury & some other tightly cowled Centaurus powered a/c
> used fans. Didn't the Constellation use fans too?

I think the FW 190 installation was well studied. It was excellent. A few
of the Typhoon/Tempest dervatives also used Germanic style radiators a'la
FW190D series and also achieved a speed improvement.

The 490mph XP72 which was a P47 derivative had a fan.

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/xp72.html




>
>
> (Stephen "FPilot" Bierce) wrote in message
>...
> > (jt) wrote:
> >
> > >The fw190 had a relatively compact, streamlined housing
> > >for its radial engine, apparently due to an extra fan
> > >at the cooling air intake. If this was so successful
> > >why hasn't it been done more often? I may have noticed
> > >that in more recent aerobatic models from east europe...
> >
> > The Skyraider also had the extra cooling fans, IIRC. But most of the
radial
> > engine applications after the war were for transport planes (which could
afford
> > to have larger cowlings), cropdusters (which could go without cowls) and
some
> > helicopters (which had different cooling systems).
> >
> > Stephen "FPilot" Bierce/IPMS #35922
> > {Sig Quotes Removed on Request}

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: more radial fans like fw190?
>From: "The Enlightenment"
>Date: 8/19/2004 6:36 AM Pacific

>I think the FW 190 installation was well studied. It was excellent. A few
>of the Typhoon/Tempest dervatives also used Germanic style radiators a'la
>FW190D series and also achieved a speed improvement.

The radial on the FW 190 was built on license from Pratt & Whitney.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Jukka O. Kauppinen]

> The radial on the FW 190 was built on license from Pratt & Whitney.

No.

FW had built Pratt and Whitney engines under license in the earlier
1930s but BMW 139 and the latter BMW 801 used in the FW 190s were BMW's
own designs, not licensed.

Cross licensed were not that uncommon, though. Both sides used things
lisenced from the other and after the war paid the licensed in full.
Allies to Germany, as well as Germany to Britain and US.

Though I'm not sure if Soviets ever paid for their licenses or copies...

jok

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: more radial fans like fw190?
>From: "Jukka O. Kauppinen"
>Date: 8/19/2004 7:35 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>> The radial on the FW 190 was built on license from Pratt & Whitney.
>
>No.
>
>FW had built Pratt and Whitney engines under license in the earlier
>1930s but BMW 139 and the latter BMW 801 used in the FW 190s were BMW's
>own designs, not licensed.
>

Own designs based on what they learned from the P&W license.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Ken Duffey]

ArtKramr wrote:
>>Subject: Re: more radial fans like fw190?
>>From: "Jukka O. Kauppinen"
>>Date: 8/19/2004 7:35 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>>The radial on the FW 190 was built on license from Pratt & Whitney.
>>
>>No.
>>
>>FW had built Pratt and Whitney engines under license in the earlier
>>1930s but BMW 139 and the latter BMW 801 used in the FW 190s were BMW's
>>own designs, not licensed.
>>
>
>
> Own designs based on what they learned from the P&W license.


As was the US Space program - and most of the advanced aerodynamics -
based on what you learned from Nazi Germany.

Ken

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: more radial fans like fw190?
>From: Ken Duffey
>Date: 8/19/2004 7:57 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>ArtKramr wrote:
>>>Subject: Re: more radial fans like fw190?
>>>From: "Jukka O. Kauppinen"
>>>Date: 8/19/2004 7:35 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: >
>>>
>>>>The radial on the FW 190 was built on license from Pratt & Whitney.
>>>
>>>No.
>>>
>>>FW had built Pratt and Whitney engines under license in the earlier
>>>1930s but BMW 139 and the latter BMW 801 used in the FW 190s were BMW's
>>>own designs, not licensed.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Own designs based on what they learned from the P&W license.
>
>
>As was the US Space program - and most of the advanced aerodynamics -
>based on what you learned from Nazi Germany.
>
>Ken
>

Fine.Let's just keep everything honest.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[The Enlightenment]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: more radial fans like fw190?
> >From: "Jukka O. Kauppinen"
> >Date: 8/19/2004 7:35 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >> The radial on the FW 190 was built on license from Pratt & Whitney.
> >
> >No.
> >
> >FW had built Pratt and Whitney engines under license in the earlier
> >1930s but BMW 139 and the latter BMW 801 used in the FW 190s were BMW's
> >own designs, not licensed.
> >
>
> Own designs based on what they learned from the P&W license.
>

The BMW801 was pure BMW Engineering however they no doubt did learn
something from their earlier liscensed production of PW radials. I did
think that the 139 was a PW derivative though I think through the Bramo
company with which BMW united.

The 801 had a innovations such as a multipoint direct in cylinder injection
of the fuel and completely automatic control of mixture and boost. The
pilot only had a throttle to opperate. It's installation in the 190 was
excellent: the engine was tightly cowled to improve aerodynamics with
airflow being provided by a geared fan opperating at about 3:1 to provide
cooling. The exhausts were beautifully installed and provided an ejector
effect to induce cooling and thrust. I believe that only one Soviet fighter
is regarded to have achieved this level of perfection. Around the cowl was a
circular oil tank that was armoured and thus protected the cylinder heads.
It was thus a very tough battle damage resistent engine that provided the
pilot with a massive piece of armour when going in head on against an
american bombers 50s.

The much loved US Gruman Bearcat for instance was inspired and the P47 was
built specifically to deal with the 190.

It's weakness was that its performance dropped of at altitude. The answer
to this was the BMW801T which was turbo supercharged version. Focke-Wulf
built some 190s with the turbo supercharger built into the belly as a bulge
(unlike the P47 it wouldn't fit in the compact fueselage) but they did not
persue the idea perhaps it was inelegant and the turbo metals were in short
supply for such as massively produced aircraft. About 600 of these engines
with a very neat intercooler installation ended up on the Ju388L high
altitude reconaisence bomber where they were very neatly installed with the
intercooler as 5 segments behind the engine. (The Ju388 also had a night
fighter version built to deal with B29s attacking at night)

(The Ju 388 seems to have had the same type of periscopic sighting system as
used on the A26 invader only it had twin 13.1mm MG in a remote tail turret)

However Fock-Wulf decided to install water cooled V12s into the Fw 190 to
get high altitude performance. The 432 mph Fw 190D9 had a jumo 213A
enigine but the Fw190D11 and Fw190D12 (only 70 entered service) had a Jumo
213E engine with the same two stage intercooler arrangement as the Merlin in
the Mustang and could manage 460mph. Oddly for such an engine seems to have
been heavily armoured for ground attack and torpedo bombing (they were used
by the Soviets after the war for this) Apparently the annular radiators of
the German V12s were quite battle damage tollerant as well as aerodynanic.

The same type of engine jumo 213E with more performance ended up in the
475mph TA 152 H0 and TA 152H1 (H-1 had wet fuel tanks in its wooden wings
for greater range) as this had very large wings it could not only fly
extremely high it could out turn any Allied fighter.

You can tell a Fw 190D9 from a Fw 190D11/D12/D13 by the latter lacking cowl
guns and having an oval air intage instead of round and using a cannon
firing through the propeller boss. One of these (The Fw 190 D13 I think)
was to end up with a long barreled Mk 103 30mm cannon as a tank buster. It
was this aircraft that I guess would have finaly replaced the Stuka.




>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

The Enlightenment wrote in message >...

>I think the FW 190 installation was well studied. It was excellent. A few
>of the Typhoon/Tempest dervatives also used Germanic style radiators a'la
>FW190D series and also achieved a speed improvement.

The Typhoon always used the chin radiator. It first flew about
9 months after the Fw190

The Typhoon "derivative", the Tempest used wing radiators in the
mark I, the fastest, a radial engine in the mark II, a chin radiator
in the mark V and a combination of chin and wing radiators for the
mark VI.

The Fury, the Tempest "derivative" used a radial engine.
Hawkers had a good look at the FW190 before the Fury
was designed.

Nothing like the radiator arrangement used in the FW190D series.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

The Enlightenment wrote in message ...

>The 801 had a innovations such as a multipoint direct in cylinder injection
>of the fuel and completely automatic control of mixture and boost. The
>pilot only had a throttle to opperate. It's installation in the 190 was
>excellent: the engine was tightly cowled to improve aerodynamics with
>airflow being provided by a geared fan opperating at about 3:1 to provide
>cooling. The exhausts were beautifully installed and provided an ejector
>effect to induce cooling and thrust. I believe that only one Soviet fighter
>is regarded to have achieved this level of perfection. Around the cowl was a
>circular oil tank that was armoured and thus protected the cylinder heads.
>It was thus a very tough battle damage resistent engine that provided the
>pilot with a massive piece of armour when going in head on against an
>american bombers 50s.

The trouble is the initial trials were very bad thanks to engine
over heating, at one point this threatened to have the entire
program cancelled. It also seems the engineers in JG26
did most of the work in coming up with a good fix.

Note the oil tank in radials was often armoured, since the oil
also acted as a coolant, and a bullet through the oil tank was
almost as bad as a bullet through the radiator of an inline engine.

>The much loved US Gruman Bearcat for instance was inspired and the P47 was
>built specifically to deal with the 190.

The design brief for the Bearcat was heavily into fast climb, to
intercept the incoming strikes, using the advances in ship's radar
to quickly intercept hostiles. It was the response of the USN to
carrier warfare in the Pacific not the FW190.

The P-47B was ordered in September 1940 and first flew on
6 May 1941. This was before the RAF encountered the FW190
on 27 September 1941 and over a year before one was captured,
in July 1942. The first production P-47B was in December
1941. Rather hard to see the P-47 as built specifically unless
the US was given all the information in 1940, and knew despite
the major engine cooling problems the FW190A had that the
program would be continued.

Also note the P-47B was optimised to fight above 20,000 feet,
the FW190A below 20,000 feet.

>It's weakness was that its performance dropped of at altitude. The answer
>to this was the BMW801T which was turbo supercharged version. Focke-Wulf
>built some 190s with the turbo supercharger built into the belly as a bulge
>(unlike the P47 it wouldn't fit in the compact fueselage) but they did not
>persue the idea perhaps it was inelegant and the turbo metals were in short
>supply for such as massively produced aircraft.

The FW190B was the pressure cabin version of the FW190A, with
the BMW801D-2, and a longer span wing, giving around 20% more
wing area, this was not turbo supercharged.

The FW190C used the DB600 series engines in various combinations,
with the turbo supercharger, when fitted, being in a ventral housing, the
so called Kangaruh or Kangaroo look. Longer span wings and pressure
cabins were also fitted.

>About 600 of these engines
>with a very neat intercooler installation ended up on the Ju388L high
>altitude reconaisence bomber where they were very neatly installed with the
>intercooler as 5 segments behind the engine. (The Ju388 also had a night
>fighter version built to deal with B29s attacking at night)

The Ju388L was in production for around 6 months in 1944, with
around 10 converted from Ju188 and 60 built new. Those 600
engines must have had a very short lifetime if all they did was power
the Ju388L. The night fighter version appears to be more prototypes
than production.

>(The Ju 388 seems to have had the same type of periscopic sighting system as
>used on the A26 invader only it had twin 13.1mm MG in a remote tail turret)
>
>However Fock-Wulf decided to install water cooled V12s into the Fw 190 to
>get high altitude performance. The 432 mph Fw 190D9 had a jumo 213A
>enigine but the Fw190D11 and Fw190D12 (only 70 entered service) had a Jumo
>213E engine with the same two stage intercooler arrangement as the Merlin in
>the Mustang and could manage 460mph.

Be careful here, the later versions of the D series are mainly paper
projects or prototypes. And the WWII engines used a water glycol
cooling mixture, rather like many modern motor vehicles, hence
liquid cooled, not water cooled.

The D-10 replaced the fuselage machine guns with a 30mm cannon
firing through the propeller spinner. Couple of prototypes

The D-11 was a D-9 with the Jumo213F with MW-50, several prototypes
built.

The D-12 was the ground attack version, the D-10 armament, with
an armoured installation of the Jumo 213F, production began in
March 1945. It is doubtful any actually entered service. Fw190A/D
production in March 1945 is said to be 204, and zero in April.

The D-13 with the Jumo213EB and 2 20 mm cannon, 2 prototypes
built.

The D-14 with the DB603A engine, 2 built.

The D-15 with the DB603EB engine, paper project.

>Oddly for such an engine seems to have
>been heavily armoured for ground attack and torpedo bombing (they were used
>by the Soviets after the war for this) Apparently the annular radiators of
>the German V12s were quite battle damage tollerant as well as aerodynanic.

It seems unlikely the designers would put lots of high altitude
features into a ground attack version.

>The same type of engine jumo 213E with more performance ended up in the
>475mph TA 152 H0 and TA 152H1 (H-1 had wet fuel tanks in its wooden wings
>for greater range) as this had very large wings it could not only fly
>extremely high it could out turn any Allied fighter.

The Ta152H-1 had an empty weight of around 8,900 pounds supported
by a wing area of 251 square feet, The Spitfire XIV had an empty weight
of around 6,600 pounds and wing area of 242 square feet. I doubt the
TA152H with its long wings would win a turning contest with a Spitfire
XIV except at very high altitudes.

Most sources rate the Ta152H series top speed in the 460 to 470mph
range, the using MW-50 and GM-1. What is the source that claims the
wings were wooden as opposed to metal?

>You can tell a Fw 190D9 from a Fw 190D11/D12/D13 by the latter lacking cowl
>guns and having an oval air intage instead of round and using a cannon
>firing through the propeller boss. One of these (The Fw 190 D13 I think)
>was to end up with a long barreled Mk 103 30mm cannon as a tank buster. It
>was this aircraft that I guess would have finaly replaced the Stuka.


The D-12 would be the replacement for the G model.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

[Cub Driver]

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 17:35:38 +0300, "Jukka O. Kauppinen"
> wrote:

>Cross licensed were not that uncommon,

Japan's major transport planes during WWII were license-built DC-2s,
DC-3s, and Lockheed Electras.

If you've ever seen the combat footage of the Japanese airborne assult
on the Dutch oilfields in the Indies (Indonesia), the planes they are
jumping from are "Type LO" Electras, built I think by Kawasaki.

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

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

[Cub Driver]

>>The much loved US Gruman Bearcat for instance was inspired and the P47 was
>>built specifically to deal with the 190.

I would say that the Bearcat was inspired by the Hellcat, which was
inspired by the Wildcat. As for the P-47, it was an outgrowth of the
P-43 which was an outgrowth of the P-35.

The XP-47 was ordered in 1939, and the XP-47B with a PW 2800 engine in
January 1940. Did the USAAC even know about the FW-190 in January
1940?

I would say that the two American fighters were sui generis: The
Bigger the Better.


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

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

[The Enlightenment]

"Geoffrey Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
> The Enlightenment wrote in message
>...
>
> >I think the FW 190 installation was well studied. It was excellent. A
few
> >of the Typhoon/Tempest dervatives also used Germanic style radiators a'la
> >FW190D series and also achieved a speed improvement.
>
> The Typhoon always used the chin radiator. It first flew about
> 9 months after the Fw190
>
> The Typhoon "derivative", the Tempest used wing radiators in the
> mark I, the fastest, a radial engine in the mark II, a chin radiator
> in the mark V and a combination of chin and wing radiators for the
> mark VI.
>
> The Fury, the Tempest "derivative" used a radial engine.
> Hawkers had a good look at the FW190 before the Fury
> was designed.
>
> Nothing like the radiator arrangement used in the FW190D series.

After the war Tempests were built, flown and tested with Germanic anular
radiators. This gave about a 20mph speed advantage over the chin
installation with the same sabre engine.


>
> Geoffrey Sinclair
> Remove the nb for email.
>
>

[The Enlightenment]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >>The much loved US Gruman Bearcat for instance was inspired and the P47
was
> >>built specifically to deal with the 190.
>
> I would say that the Bearcat was inspired by the Hellcat, which was
> inspired by the Wildcat. As for the P-47, it was an outgrowth of the
> P-43 which was an outgrowth of the P-35.

The designers of the Bearcat flew to england and inspected (and flew) a
captured FW190 and they were inspired by the concept of a small aircraft
with a high power to weight ratio and were inspired to do better. Bearcat
was a break with the Hellcat concept it was small and powerfull.

Watched it on televison and the designers actualy related the story
themsleves. Can't remember what program now.


>
> The XP-47 was ordered in 1939, and the XP-47B with a PW 2800 engine in
> January 1940. Did the USAAC even know about the FW-190 in January
> 1940?
>
> I would say that the two American fighters were sui generis: The
> Bigger the Better.

There was some influence of the FW 190 on the P47. Perhaps I am thinking of
the P47D. Untill the P47 got water injection a FW190 could outrun it at
low altitude.


>
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
> The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
> Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Greg Hennessy]

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 06:55:50 -0400, Cub Driver >
wrote:


>The XP-47 was ordered in 1939, and the XP-47B with a PW 2800 engine in
>January 1940. Did the USAAC even know about the FW-190 in January
>1940?
>

I'd consider that unlikely, but facts like that have never stopped our nazi
loving BS merchant here.

>I would say that the two American fighters were sui generis: The
>Bigger the Better.

I once read an article where the XP-72 was described as something which
would have given AS Yakovlev a massive coronary.



greg

--
Es ist mein Teil - nein
Mein Teil - nein
Denn das ist mein Teil - nein
Mein Teil - nein

[Mailman]

The Enlightenment wrote:
> After the war Tempests were built, flown and tested with Germanic anular

Not to pick too many nits, but would you mind dropping the silly "Germanic"?
Hint: it is NOT the same as "German" - actually quite different.
--
Mailman


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Keith Willshaw]

"The Enlightenment" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Geoffrey Sinclair" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The Enlightenment wrote in message
> >...
> >
> > >I think the FW 190 installation was well studied. It was excellent.
A
> few
> > >of the Typhoon/Tempest dervatives also used Germanic style radiators
a'la
> > >FW190D series and also achieved a speed improvement.
> >
> > The Typhoon always used the chin radiator. It first flew about
> > 9 months after the Fw190
> >
> > The Typhoon "derivative", the Tempest used wing radiators in the
> > mark I, the fastest, a radial engine in the mark II, a chin radiator
> > in the mark V and a combination of chin and wing radiators for the
> > mark VI.
> >
> > The Fury, the Tempest "derivative" used a radial engine.
> > Hawkers had a good look at the FW190 before the Fury
> > was designed.
> >
> > Nothing like the radiator arrangement used in the FW190D series.
>
> After the war Tempests were built, flown and tested with Germanic anular
> radiators. This gave about a 20mph speed advantage over the chin
> installation with the same sabre engine.
>
>

As I recall Napier's designed and tested several different types of annular
radiator annular radiator for the Sabre and tested it on a Typhoon IB
and a Tempest V

None were chosen for production.

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[frank may]

I'm pretty sure there's aphoto in one of Wm. Green's books showing a
test version of the Typhoon using an annular radiator.


"Geoffrey Sinclair" > wrote in message >...
> The Enlightenment wrote in message >...
>
> >I think the FW 190 installation was well studied. It was excellent. A few
> >of the Typhoon/Tempest dervatives also used Germanic style radiators a'la
> >FW190D series and also achieved a speed improvement.
>
> The Typhoon always used the chin radiator. It first flew about
> 9 months after the Fw190
>
> The Typhoon "derivative", the Tempest used wing radiators in the
> mark I, the fastest, a radial engine in the mark II, a chin radiator
> in the mark V and a combination of chin and wing radiators for the
> mark VI.
>
> The Fury, the Tempest "derivative" used a radial engine.
> Hawkers had a good look at the FW190 before the Fury
> was designed.
>
> Nothing like the radiator arrangement used in the FW190D series.
>
> Geoffrey Sinclair
> Remove the nb for email.

[The Enlightenment]

"Geoffrey Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
> The Enlightenment wrote in message ...
>
> >The 801 had a innovations such as a multipoint direct in cylinder
injection
> >of the fuel and completely automatic control of mixture and boost. The
> >pilot only had a throttle to opperate. It's installation in the 190
was
> >excellent: the engine was tightly cowled to improve aerodynamics with
> >airflow being provided by a geared fan opperating at about 3:1 to provide
> >cooling. The exhausts were beautifully installed and provided an
ejector
> >effect to induce cooling and thrust. I believe that only one Soviet
fighter
> >is regarded to have achieved this level of perfection. Around the cowl
was a
> >circular oil tank that was armoured and thus protected the cylinder
heads.
> >It was thus a very tough battle damage resistent engine that provided the
> >pilot with a massive piece of armour when going in head on against an
> >american bombers 50s.
>
> The trouble is the initial trials were very bad thanks to engine
> over heating, at one point this threatened to have the entire
> program cancelled. It also seems the engineers in JG26
> did most of the work in coming up with a good fix.

The problem of this ambitious and effective installation were solved somehow
then. The original had the cooling intake through a hollow of an enlarged
propeller boss while the pilot suffered hot foot. The solution was to
lenghten the nose and compromise by using a gear driven fan to reduce
cowling inlet area to a minimum.


>
> Note the oil tank in radials was often armoured, since the oil
> also acted as a coolant, and a bullet through the oil tank was
> almost as bad as a bullet through the radiator of an inline engine.
>
> >The much loved US Gruman Bearcat for instance was inspired and the P47
was
> >built specifically to deal with the 190.
>
> The design brief for the Bearcat was heavily into fast climb, to
> intercept the incoming strikes, using the advances in ship's radar
> to quickly intercept hostiles. It was the response of the USN to
> carrier warfare in the Pacific not the FW190.

The designers certainly inspected and flew a captured FW190 and were
inspired to improve upon it. Yes there may have been a tactical reason for
developing a high power to weight ratio aircraft but the FW190 demonstrated
the concept of having excess power.


>
> The P-47B was ordered in September 1940 and first flew on
> 6 May 1941. This was before the RAF encountered the FW190
> on 27 September 1941 and over a year before one was captured,
> in July 1942. The first production P-47B was in December
> 1941. Rather hard to see the P-47 as built specifically unless
> the US was given all the information in 1940, and knew despite
> the major engine cooling problems the FW190A had that the
> program would be continued.
>
> Also note the P-47B was optimised to fight above 20,000 feet,
> the FW190A below 20,000 feet.

Water injection was needed to cope with the FW at low altitude and perhaps
this is what I am thinking of.


>
> >It's weakness was that its performance dropped of at altitude. The
answer
> >to this was the BMW801T which was turbo supercharged version.
Focke-Wulf
> >built some 190s with the turbo supercharger built into the belly as a
bulge
> >(unlike the P47 it wouldn't fit in the compact fueselage) but they did
not
> >persue the idea perhaps it was inelegant and the turbo metals were in
short
> >supply for such as massively produced aircraft.
>
> The FW190B was the pressure cabin version of the FW190A, with
> the BMW801D-2, and a longer span wing, giving around 20% more
> wing area, this was not turbo supercharged.
>
> The FW190C used the DB600 series engines in various combinations,
> with the turbo supercharger, when fitted, being in a ventral housing, the
> so called Kangaruh or Kangaroo look. Longer span wings and pressure
> cabins were also fitted.
>
> >About 600 of these engines
> >with a very neat intercooler installation ended up on the Ju388L high
> >altitude reconaisence bomber where they were very neatly installed with
the
> >intercooler as 5 segments behind the engine. (The Ju388 also had a
night
> >fighter version built to deal with B29s attacking at night)
>
> The Ju388L was in production for around 6 months in 1944, with
> around 10 converted from Ju188 and 60 built new. Those 600
> engines must have had a very short lifetime if all they did was power
> the Ju388L. The night fighter version appears to be more prototypes
> than production.

Not all aircraft entered service. All the sources i have seen credit it
with a production run of 300.

The night fighter did not enter service as the BMW801T version was no faster
than a standard Ju 88G7 with BMW801D at the altitudes British bombers could
fly at. It was an iron in the fire should the B29 appear.

>
> >(The Ju 388 seems to have had the same type of periscopic sighting system
as
> >used on the A26 invader only it had twin 13.1mm MG in a remote tail
turret)
> >
> >However Fock-Wulf decided to install water cooled V12s into the Fw 190 to
> >get high altitude performance. The 432 mph Fw 190D9 had a jumo 213A
> >enigine but the Fw190D11 and Fw190D12 (only 70 entered service) had a
Jumo
> >213E engine with the same two stage intercooler arrangement as the Merlin
in
> >the Mustang and could manage 460mph.
>
> Be careful here, the later versions of the D series are mainly paper
> projects or prototypes. And the WWII engines used a water glycol
> cooling mixture, rather like many modern motor vehicles, hence
> liquid cooled, not water cooled.

A few dozen of the FW190D-12 entered service. Deliveries started in Feb
1945 so there is little record of them. Even less entered service than the
Ta 152H


>
> The D-10 replaced the fuselage machine guns with a 30mm cannon
> firing through the propeller spinner. Couple of prototypes
>
> The D-11 was a D-9 with the Jumo213F with MW-50, several prototypes
> built.
>
> The D-12 was the ground attack version, the D-10 armament, with
> an armoured installation of the Jumo 213F, production began in
> March 1945. It is doubtful any actually entered service. Fw190A/D
> production in March 1945 is said to be 204, and zero in April.
>
> The D-13 with the Jumo213EB and 2 20 mm cannon, 2 prototypes
> built.

3 x 20mm canon. Models after the D9 series dropped the cowling guns but
added a propellor hub guns either 20mm, 30mm.

>
> The D-14 with the DB603A engine, 2 built.

Jumo 213 and DB603 engines had interchangeable mounts and were available as
'power eggs' complete with integrated anular radiators.

>
> The D-15 with the DB603EB engine, paper project.
>
> >Oddly for such an engine seems to have
> >been heavily armoured for ground attack and torpedo bombing (they were
used
> >by the Soviets after the war for this) Apparently the annular radiators
of
> >the German V12s were quite battle damage tollerant as well as
aerodynanic.
>
> It seems unlikely the designers would put lots of high altitude
> features into a ground attack version.

It seems to have been intended to be a multirole combat aircraft.


>
> >The same type of engine jumo 213E with more performance ended up in the
> >475mph TA 152 H0 and TA 152H1 (H-1 had wet fuel tanks in its wooden
wings
> >for greater range) as this had very large wings it could not only fly
> >extremely high it could out turn any Allied fighter.
>
> The Ta152H-1 had an empty weight of around 8,900 pounds supported
> by a wing area of 251 square feet, The Spitfire XIV had an empty weight
> of around 6,600 pounds and wing area of 242 square feet. I doubt the
> TA152H with its long wings would win a turning contest with a Spitfire
> XIV except at very high altitudes.

When comparing "empty weights", you have to be careful about what is
included in the figures. Depending on the definition, weapons, radio gear
and other operational equipment might be included or not. I'd only seriously
compare empty weights if I have a complete weight break-down where every
item is listed seperately. Unfortunately, for some types such data is hard
to find.

The long wings of the Ta 152H reduced the fantastic roll rate compared to
the Fw 190A and Fw 190D.

Assuming that the wing loading of the TA 152H was higher than the Spit XIV
(assuming Griffon 65 variant to allow the spit half a chance to match speed)
then the higher aspect ratio wings of the TA152 might still be more
efficient. Because of the higher aspect ratio they would be more efficient
and probably have less induced drag so the aircraft would wash of less
airspeed.

Turning circle is usually measured at sustained speed without loosing
altitude. For instance a Spit might turn inside a Me 109F but the 109
pilot could pull G, use his automatic slats to warn him of incipient stall
and bleed of speed faster to turn inside the spit anyway. Of course you
don't get to play this trick indefinetly.




>
> Most sources rate the Ta152H series top speed in the 460 to 470mph
> range, the using MW-50 and GM-1. What is the source that claims the
> wings were wooden as opposed to metal?
>
> >You can tell a Fw 190D9 from a Fw 190D11/D12/D13 by the latter lacking
cowl
> >guns and having an oval air intage instead of round and using a cannon
> >firing through the propeller boss. One of these (The Fw 190 D13 I
think)
> >was to end up with a long barreled Mk 103 30mm cannon as a tank buster.
It
> >was this aircraft that I guess would have finaly replaced the Stuka.
>
>
> The D-12 would be the replacement for the G model.
>
> Geoffrey Sinclair
> Remove the nb for email.
>
>

[The Enlightenment]

"Mailman" > wrote in message
...
> The Enlightenment wrote:
> > After the war Tempests were built, flown and tested with Germanic anular
>
> Not to pick too many nits, but would you mind dropping the silly
"Germanic"?
> Hint: it is NOT the same as "German" - actually quite different.

They did not use German radiators, they used German style annular radiators.
Presumably there was something special about the way they recovered waste
heat effectively.

That was the term used in what I think was an issue of Air-International on
the history of the type. So F you.




> --
> Mailman
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[The Enlightenment]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "The Enlightenment" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Geoffrey Sinclair" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > The Enlightenment wrote in message
> > >...
> > >
> > > >I think the FW 190 installation was well studied. It was excellent.
> A
> > few
> > > >of the Typhoon/Tempest dervatives also used Germanic style radiators
> a'la
> > > >FW190D series and also achieved a speed improvement.
> > >
> > > The Typhoon always used the chin radiator. It first flew about
> > > 9 months after the Fw190
> > >
> > > The Typhoon "derivative", the Tempest used wing radiators in the
> > > mark I, the fastest, a radial engine in the mark II, a chin radiator
> > > in the mark V and a combination of chin and wing radiators for the
> > > mark VI.
> > >
> > > The Fury, the Tempest "derivative" used a radial engine.
> > > Hawkers had a good look at the FW190 before the Fury
> > > was designed.
> > >
> > > Nothing like the radiator arrangement used in the FW190D series.
> >
> > After the war Tempests were built, flown and tested with Germanic anular
> > radiators. This gave about a 20mph speed advantage over the chin
> > installation with the same sabre engine.
> >
> >
>
> As I recall Napier's designed and tested several different types of
annular
> radiator annular radiator for the Sabre and tested it on a Typhoon IB
> and a Tempest V
>
> None were chosen for production.
>
> Keith
>

That's because production of the entire typhoon tempest line ceased after
the war.

Some Photos here:
http://user.tninet.se/~ytm843e/annular.htm

[Keith Willshaw]

"The Enlightenment" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mailman" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The Enlightenment wrote:
> > > After the war Tempests were built, flown and tested with Germanic
anular
> >
> > Not to pick too many nits, but would you mind dropping the silly
> "Germanic"?
> > Hint: it is NOT the same as "German" - actually quite different.
>
> They did not use German radiators, they used German style annular
radiators.
> Presumably there was something special about the way they recovered waste
> heat effectively.
>

They used them BEFORE they knew the Germans used them
and radiators are designed to get rid of heat, not recover it.
The reason for the testing was simply to try and reduce drag.
Annular radiators werent exctly a new idea. They hd been used
on numerous aircraft including the Ju-88 and Fiat CR-32

Keith





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[The Enlightenment]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "The Enlightenment" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Mailman" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > The Enlightenment wrote:
> > > > After the war Tempests were built, flown and tested with Germanic
> anular
> > >
> > > Not to pick too many nits, but would you mind dropping the silly
> > "Germanic"?
> > > Hint: it is NOT the same as "German" - actually quite different.
> >
> > They did not use German radiators, they used German style annular
> radiators.
> > Presumably there was something special about the way they recovered
waste
> > heat effectively.
> >
>
> They used them BEFORE they knew the Germans used them

Perhaps on the Typhoon IB. The article I alluded to talked of tests with
"Germanic style radiators" and I had the distinct impression this was late
or post war. Perhaps they were inspired to look at them again becuase they
restarted testing on the latest model from this series the Tempest V to see
if they could improve upon the chin intake. (The whole chronology of the
Tornado, Tempest,Typphoon series is extremely confusingly enumerated).
Perhaps they were inspired to review their work becuase of the success of
the German implementation.

Perhaps not.

Most engineering developement did not occur in a vacuum of theory but was
reactive to what the enemy was achieving. Though suprisingly arrogance was
such that both sides sometimes ignored each others better ideas. I can see
that tendancy in these NG in fact.

> and radiators are designed to get rid of heat, not recover it.
> The reason for the testing was simply to try and reduce drag.
> Annular radiators werent exctly a new idea. They hd been used
> on numerous aircraft including the Ju-88 and Fiat CR-32

Specifically I ostensibly mean't to say that the "German" annular radiators
recovered waste energy (in the form of engine heat) very effectively and
converted it to kinetic energy to obtain a small amount of thrust: usually
sufficient enough to overcome the drag of the installation.

The air enters the inlet, the area is increased which has the effect of
increasing pressure and slowing the air down, the air is then heated by the
radiator which has the effect of expanding it and accelerating it, the cross
sectional area is then decreased slightly usualy by some type of adjustable
flap arrangement so that it is ejected slightly faster than it entered.
This produces thrust according to the formmula: mass flow x (exhaust
velocity - inlet velocity)

It isn't the annular radiator that does this but the combination of inlet,
interanl cowling and the hot air exhaust. The annular arrangement simply
allows this to be implemented very effectively.

The Spitfire, Me 109 also did this quite well but not so effectively. The
P51 had a famous installation that was reputedly very effective but also
very vulnerable due to the long plumbing runs. It is very difficult to get
this correct: the japanese had great difficulty with their liscence produced
Daimler Benz engines despite help from the Germans.

The advantage of the annular installation was that the engine eg Jumo 213,
DB603 etc could be produced in a 'power egg' that was easy to manufacture
and exchange on aircraft even with radials . The German engines had common
mounting points. British engines also did this which is why you sometimes
saw Merlins and Bristol radials exchanged on Beaufighters, Lancasters etc.

The minimised plumbing and the ease of armouring also gave advantages to the
annular arrangement in battle damage tollerance.

The radial installations were not regarded as anywhere near as effective as
liquid cooled ones. The NACA cowling introduced over radials in the late
1920s reduced drag by minimising turbulence over the cylinder heads.

On the BMW801 installation on the FW190A the ram effect as used on liquid
cooled engines was used with great effect for the first time on a radial
engine; the necessary small inlet being obtained by a geared fan. In
addition the exhausts were piped in such a way that they gave not only gaved
jet thrust but and an ejector induction effect and helped increase airflow
through the engine.

Thus the BMW/FW190 installation shattered illusions that water cooled
engines were always going to be faster. (they seem to have been about 15mph
in the 470mph region when P47M was compared to Spitefull and P51H)

So to clarity. It wasn't so much the annular intake but the way the air was
handelled before and after this annular intake. The annular arrangement
seems to have been more effective than the chin arrangement in neatly
integrating into the airframe and taking advantage of this ram effect becaue
Napiers tests showed such an improvement. The annular radiators had been
tested after work had already comenced on the standard chin installation.

What few images I have seem to show that there seens to have been a
significant geometrical change or refinement in inlet Geometry seen on the
Jumo 211 of the Ju 88 and the Jumo 213 of late model Ju 88s, Ta 152s.



>
> Keith
>
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

The Enlightenment wrote in message ...

>"Geoffrey Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
>> The Enlightenment wrote in message
>...
>>
>> >I think the FW 190 installation was well studied. It was excellent. A
>few
>> >of the Typhoon/Tempest dervatives also used Germanic style radiators a'la
>> >FW190D series and also achieved a speed improvement.
>>
>> The Typhoon always used the chin radiator. It first flew about
>> 9 months after the Fw190
>>
>> The Typhoon "derivative", the Tempest used wing radiators in the
>> mark I, the fastest, a radial engine in the mark II, a chin radiator
>> in the mark V and a combination of chin and wing radiators for the
>> mark VI.
>>
>> The Fury, the Tempest "derivative" used a radial engine.
>> Hawkers had a good look at the FW190 before the Fury
>> was designed.
>>
>> Nothing like the radiator arrangement used in the FW190D series.
>
>After the war Tempests were built, flown and tested with Germanic anular
>radiators. This gave about a 20mph speed advantage over the chin
>installation with the same sabre engine.

By the way Germanic is usually defined in historical terms,
the confederation and empire and earlier.

It seems you need to provide some facts as opposed to simply
trying to state the preferred conclusions. So we go from the
fighters using the technique to some experiments were run,
can we note the Fw190 used the "Mustang" radiator system
the C models? Perhaps the "Thunderbolt" supercharging
system as well? Or the "Hurricane" or "Fury" radiator system?

The Bf109 used the "Spitfire" radiator system, given the E
model prototype flew after the Spitfire? And so on.

Napiers investigated annular cooling systems during the war, which
in effect meant bolting the radiator onto the front of the engine. This
caused centre of gravity problems. You would hope the reduction
in frontal area would improve top speed.

For example Tempest EJ518 from May 1944 for a few months, it
ended up in 3 squadron in late 1944, apparently back to standard
configuration.

Typhoon R8694 was another modification, main testing was
apparently done with Tempest NV768.

So this all started well before the Fw190D appeared. The British
had been exposed to the Jumo's idea of radiators from the JU88A
in 1940. The Tempest I had the "Britannic", radiators in the
wing, arrangement shown so well to advantage by the Mosquito, it
was around 30 mph faster than the Tempest V.

Oh yes, the Germans were using "Americanic" systems, given the
credit for the first powered flight. Oh yes, the "Italianic" system
also contributed given Da Vinci's glider design appears to have
been airworthy when a modern team built a replica.

Personally I blame it all on the insects and then things like the
Pterosaurs, like Pterodactylus, which brings the "Antarticans"
into the picture.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

The Enlightenment wrote in message ...
>
>"Geoffrey Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
>> The Enlightenment wrote in message ...
>>
>> >The 801 had a innovations such as a multipoint direct in cylinder
>injection
>> >of the fuel and completely automatic control of mixture and boost. The
>> >pilot only had a throttle to opperate. It's installation in the 190
>was
>> >excellent: the engine was tightly cowled to improve aerodynamics with
>> >airflow being provided by a geared fan opperating at about 3:1 to provide
>> >cooling. The exhausts were beautifully installed and provided an
>ejector
>> >effect to induce cooling and thrust. I believe that only one Soviet
>fighter
>> >is regarded to have achieved this level of perfection. Around the cowl
>was a
>> >circular oil tank that was armoured and thus protected the cylinder
>heads.
>> >It was thus a very tough battle damage resistent engine that provided the
>> >pilot with a massive piece of armour when going in head on against an
>> >american bombers 50s.
>>
>> The trouble is the initial trials were very bad thanks to engine
>> over heating, at one point this threatened to have the entire
>> program cancelled. It also seems the engineers in JG26
>> did most of the work in coming up with a good fix.
>
>The problem of this ambitious and effective installation were solved somehow
>then. The original had the cooling intake through a hollow of an enlarged
>propeller boss while the pilot suffered hot foot. The solution was to
>lenghten the nose and compromise by using a gear driven fan to reduce
>cowling inlet area to a minimum.

You really are lacking in knowledge of the Fw190 development,
the original prototype pilot landed complaining he felt he had
his feet in the fire. Then came the cancellation of the preferred
engine, the resultant redesign moved the cockpit further away from
the engine. The extra weight caused a deterioration of handling
characteristics, solved by increasing the wing area, the V5k and
V5g prototypes. The larger wings were standardised in the
tenth Fw190A-0 pre production model. Things like ducted
spinners were tried early as well, the first prototype and then
discarded.

By the time JG26 had received Fw190s the "lengthening" of
the nose had been done (which was actually moving the cockpit
further aft) and the increase in wing size was being done.

>> Note the oil tank in radials was often armoured, since the oil
>> also acted as a coolant, and a bullet through the oil tank was
>> almost as bad as a bullet through the radiator of an inline engine.
>>
>> >The much loved US Gruman Bearcat for instance was inspired and the P47
>was
>> >built specifically to deal with the 190.
>>
>> The design brief for the Bearcat was heavily into fast climb, to
>> intercept the incoming strikes, using the advances in ship's radar
>> to quickly intercept hostiles. It was the response of the USN to
>> carrier warfare in the Pacific not the FW190.
>
>The designers certainly inspected and flew a captured FW190 and were
>inspired to improve upon it. Yes there may have been a tactical reason for
>developing a high power to weight ratio aircraft but the FW190 demonstrated
>the concept of having excess power.

I know this is really silly but the designers, if they did make a
trip to Europe, saw more than the Fw190, they would have
been exposed to other captured aircraft and the latest in
British designs. North American was interested for example
to design a lighter weight P-51, which emerged as the H model.
But somehow it all comes back to the Fw190 alone.

I like the "excess power" claim, the Fw190A had 1,600 HP
pulling around 7,500 pounds empty weight, the Spitfire V
had around 1,500 HP pulling around 5,100 pounds of empty
weight. The Fw190 was faster thanks to better aerodynamics,
the sort of thing that made the Spitfire 30 to 40 mph faster than
the Hurricane with the same engine and the P-51B around the
same speed faster than the Spitfire with effectively the same
engine. On the other hand the Spitfire could beat the Fw190
to 20,000 feet. Like all aircraft you had your trade offs.

The Bearcat, as it appeared, was very much in the Spitfire
sort of arrangement, with a very high climb rate. It was
designed to fight the war in the Pacific, largely below 20,000
feet, with characteristics optimised to defend its base willing
to sacrifice range for example.

>> The P-47B was ordered in September 1940 and first flew on
>> 6 May 1941. This was before the RAF encountered the FW190
>> on 27 September 1941 and over a year before one was captured,
>> in July 1942. The first production P-47B was in December
>> 1941. Rather hard to see the P-47 as built specifically unless
>> the US was given all the information in 1940, and knew despite
>> the major engine cooling problems the FW190A had that the
>> program would be continued.
>>
>> Also note the P-47B was optimised to fight above 20,000 feet,
>> the FW190A below 20,000 feet.
>
>Water injection was needed to cope with the FW at low altitude and perhaps
>this is what I am thinking of.

As far as I can tell what is being thought of is an idealised view
of the Fw190 which then becomes a benchmark with everyone
else altering to fight it, but the Fw190 continually leading the way,
despite being out performed.

Presumably the introduction of paddle bladed propellers to the
P-47 was a reaction to the outstanding rate of climb of the Fw190,
particularly above 20,000 feet, correct?

>> >It's weakness was that its performance dropped of at altitude. The
>answer
>> >to this was the BMW801T which was turbo supercharged version.
>Focke-Wulf
>> >built some 190s with the turbo supercharger built into the belly as a
>bulge
>> >(unlike the P47 it wouldn't fit in the compact fueselage) but they did
>not
>> >persue the idea perhaps it was inelegant and the turbo metals were in
>short
>> >supply for such as massively produced aircraft.
>>
>> The FW190B was the pressure cabin version of the FW190A, with
>> the BMW801D-2, and a longer span wing, giving around 20% more
>> wing area, this was not turbo supercharged.
>>
>> The FW190C used the DB600 series engines in various combinations,
>> with the turbo supercharger, when fitted, being in a ventral housing, the
>> so called Kangaruh or Kangaroo look. Longer span wings and pressure
>> cabins were also fitted.
>>
>> >About 600 of these engines
>> >with a very neat intercooler installation ended up on the Ju388L high
>> >altitude reconaisence bomber where they were very neatly installed with
>the
>> >intercooler as 5 segments behind the engine. (The Ju388 also had a
>night
>> >fighter version built to deal with B29s attacking at night)
>>
>> The Ju388L was in production for around 6 months in 1944, with
>> around 10 converted from Ju188 and 60 built new. Those 600
>> engines must have had a very short lifetime if all they did was power
>> the Ju388L. The night fighter version appears to be more prototypes
>> than production.
>
>Not all aircraft entered service. All the sources i have seen credit it
>with a production run of 300.

I note none of the "sources" are provided, only the claim of
multiple sources, the Ju388L was not a high priority item in
1944, the need was for fighters, the jets could take over
reconnaissance, production numbers were of the order of
60 to 70.

>The night fighter did not enter service as the BMW801T version was no faster
>than a standard Ju 88G7 with BMW801D at the altitudes British bombers could
>fly at. It was an iron in the fire should the B29 appear.

The US could have deployed hundreds of B-29s in Europe
in 1944, given what appeared in the Pacific. The JU388J
prototype did not fly until early 1944 and needed a new type
of pressure cabin given the radar being fitted. The Germans
had considerable problems designing good pressure cabins,
and work was slow. The J version was not an iron in the fire,
more like the metal to make the axe to chop down the tree to
build the fire to put the iron in.


>> >(The Ju 388 seems to have had the same type of periscopic sighting system
>as
>> >used on the A26 invader only it had twin 13.1mm MG in a remote tail
>turret)
>> >
>> >However Fock-Wulf decided to install water cooled V12s into the Fw 190 to
>> >get high altitude performance. The 432 mph Fw 190D9 had a jumo 213A
>> >enigine but the Fw190D11 and Fw190D12 (only 70 entered service) had a
>Jumo
>> >213E engine with the same two stage intercooler arrangement as the Merlin
>in
>> >the Mustang and could manage 460mph.
>>
>> Be careful here, the later versions of the D series are mainly paper
>> projects or prototypes. And the WWII engines used a water glycol
>> cooling mixture, rather like many modern motor vehicles, hence
>> liquid cooled, not water cooled.
>
>A few dozen of the FW190D-12 entered service. Deliveries started in Feb
>1945 so there is little record of them. Even less entered service than the
>Ta 152H

It would be good to actually back this up, the information I
have is they were first made in March 1945 which means
they missed service.

>> The D-10 replaced the fuselage machine guns with a 30mm cannon
>> firing through the propeller spinner. Couple of prototypes
>>
>> The D-11 was a D-9 with the Jumo213F with MW-50, several prototypes
>> built.

It apparently had 2 20mm and 2 30 mm cannon.

>> The D-12 was the ground attack version, the D-10 armament, with
>> an armoured installation of the Jumo 213F, production began in
>> March 1945. It is doubtful any actually entered service. Fw190A/D
>> production in March 1945 is said to be 204, and zero in April.
>>
>> The D-13 with the Jumo213EB and 2 20 mm cannon, 2 prototypes
>> built.
>
>3 x 20mm canon. Models after the D9 series dropped the cowling guns but
>added a propellor hub guns either 20mm, 30mm.

Sorry, typo the 2 should have been a 3 20 mm cannon.

>> The D-14 with the DB603A engine, 2 built.
>
>Jumo 213 and DB603 engines had interchangeable mounts and were available as
>'power eggs' complete with integrated anular radiators.
>
>>
>> The D-15 with the DB603EB engine, paper project.
>>
>> >Oddly for such an engine seems to have
>> >been heavily armoured for ground attack and torpedo bombing (they were
>used
>> >by the Soviets after the war for this) Apparently the annular radiators
>of
>> >the German V12s were quite battle damage tollerant as well as
>aerodynanic.
>>
>> It seems unlikely the designers would put lots of high altitude
>> features into a ground attack version.
>
>It seems to have been intended to be a multirole combat aircraft.

Alternatively the information being presented is faulty.

>> >The same type of engine jumo 213E with more performance ended up in the
>> >475mph TA 152 H0 and TA 152H1 (H-1 had wet fuel tanks in its wooden
>wings
>> >for greater range) as this had very large wings it could not only fly
>> >extremely high it could out turn any Allied fighter.
>>
>> The Ta152H-1 had an empty weight of around 8,900 pounds supported
>> by a wing area of 251 square feet, The Spitfire XIV had an empty weight
>> of around 6,600 pounds and wing area of 242 square feet. I doubt the
>> TA152H with its long wings would win a turning contest with a Spitfire
>> XIV except at very high altitudes.
>
>When comparing "empty weights", you have to be careful about what is
>included in the figures. Depending on the definition, weapons, radio gear
>and other operational equipment might be included or not. I'd only seriously
>compare empty weights if I have a complete weight break-down where every
>item is listed seperately. Unfortunately, for some types such data is hard
>to find.

In other words rather than note it the Ta152H-1 had an empty
weight around a ton lower than the Spitfire and indeed around
the loaded weight of the Spitfire XIV you will announce that shock
horror, the Spitfire could have weighed a little more empty. Anything
but actually confront the problems with the "best turning" claim.

>The long wings of the Ta 152H reduced the fantastic roll rate compared to
>the Fw 190A and Fw 190D.

To put it mildly, given the inevitable effects of long wings and the
need to watch wing loadings.

>Assuming that the wing loading of the TA 152H was higher than the Spit XIV
>(assuming Griffon 65 variant to allow the spit half a chance to match speed)
>then the higher aspect ratio wings of the TA152 might still be more
>efficient. Because of the higher aspect ratio they would be more efficient
>and probably have less induced drag so the aircraft would wash of less
>airspeed.

Ah I see, the claim of always is now "might" no real information
just a whole lot of I hopes.

By the way just how much faster was the Ta152 after it had used
it MW-50 and GM-1, say compared to the Spitfire HF IX? Or for
that matter the Spitfire VII?

>Turning circle is usually measured at sustained speed without loosing
>altitude. For instance a Spit might turn inside a Me 109F but the 109
>pilot could pull G, use his automatic slats to warn him of incipient stall
>and bleed of speed faster to turn inside the spit anyway. Of course you
>don't get to play this trick indefinetly.

I like this, please show all those Bf109 pilots that survived turning
contests with a Spitfire. How many did so regularly. The Bf109
was easily out turned by the Spitfire, unless the Bf109 was moving
much slower, end of story. The Spitfire had the further advantage
of a much better signalled stall than either the Fw190 of Bf109.
The Bf109 wing slats had a habit of deploying asymmetrically,
which caused aiming problems and was a fun effect near the stall.

By the way what is stopping the Spitfire pulling G as well?

>> Most sources rate the Ta152H series top speed in the 460 to 470mph
>> range, the using MW-50 and GM-1. What is the source that claims the
>> wings were wooden as opposed to metal?
>>
>> >You can tell a Fw 190D9 from a Fw 190D11/D12/D13 by the latter lacking
>cowl
>> >guns and having an oval air intage instead of round and using a cannon
>> >firing through the propeller boss. One of these (The Fw 190 D13 I
>think)
>> >was to end up with a long barreled Mk 103 30mm cannon as a tank buster.
>It
>> >was this aircraft that I guess would have finaly replaced the Stuka.
>>
>>
>> The D-12 would be the replacement for the G model.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

[Presidente Alcazar]

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 17:34:17 +1000, "Geoffrey Sinclair"
> wrote:

>By the way what is stopping the Spitfire pulling G as well?

The emotional need to have a Nazi superweapon beat the degenerate
allies by means of the customary subjective distortion.

Gavin Bailey

--

Apply three phase AC 415V direct to MB. This work real good. How you know, you
ask? Simple, chip get real HOT. System not work, but no can tell from this.
Exactly same as before. Do it now. - Bart Kwan En

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

>>>>> "Presidente" == Presidente Alcazar > writes:

El Presidente> On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 17:34:17 +1000, "Geoffrey
Presidente> Sinclair"
El Presidente> > wrote:

>> By the way what is stopping the Spitfire pulling G as well?

El Presidente> The emotional need to have a Nazi superweapon beat the
El Presidente> degenerate allies by means of the customary subjective
El Presidente> distortion.

El Presidente> Gavin Bailey

Noooo! <gasp>

Nice sig. <salutes, and falls off chair backward pulling notepad
and tangled earphones and cup of tea along>

El Presidente> Apply three phase AC 415V direct to MB. This work
El Presidente> real good. How you know, you ask? Simple, chip get
El Presidente> real HOT. System not work, but no can tell from this.
El Presidente> Exactly same as before. Do it now. - Bart Kwan En

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

[The Enlightenment]

"Geoffrey Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
> The Enlightenment wrote in message ...
>
..
>
> The P-47B was ordered in September 1940 and first flew on
> 6 May 1941. This was before the RAF encountered the FW190
> on 27 September 1941 and over a year before one was captured,
> in July 1942. The first production P-47B was in December
> 1941. Rather hard to see the P-47 as built specifically unless
> the US was given all the information in 1940, and knew despite
> the major engine cooling problems the FW190A had that the
> program would be continued.

First combat was 10 March 1943. This was the P47C. The P47B models appear
to have only been used for training.

[The Enlightenment]

"Geoffrey Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
> The Enlightenment wrote in message ...
> >
> >"Geoffrey Sinclair" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> The Enlightenment wrote in message ...
> >>
> >> >The 801 had a innovations such as a multipoint direct in cylinder
> >injection
> >> >of the fuel and completely automatic control of mixture and boost.
The
> >> >pilot only had a throttle to opperate. It's installation in the
190
> >was
> >> >excellent: the engine was tightly cowled to improve aerodynamics with
> >> >airflow being provided by a geared fan opperating at about 3:1 to
provide
> >> >cooling. The exhausts were beautifully installed and provided an
> >ejector
> >> >effect to induce cooling and thrust. I believe that only one Soviet
> >fighter
> >> >is regarded to have achieved this level of perfection. Around the cowl
> >was a
> >> >circular oil tank that was armoured and thus protected the cylinder
> >heads.
> >> >It was thus a very tough battle damage resistent engine that provided
the
> >> >pilot with a massive piece of armour when going in head on against an
> >> >american bombers 50s.
> >>
> >> The trouble is the initial trials were very bad thanks to engine
> >> over heating, at one point this threatened to have the entire
> >> program cancelled. It also seems the engineers in JG26
> >> did most of the work in coming up with a good fix.
> >
> >The problem of this ambitious and effective installation were solved
somehow
> >then. The original had the cooling intake through a hollow of an
enlarged
> >propeller boss while the pilot suffered hot foot. The solution was to
> >lenghten the nose and compromise by using a gear driven fan to reduce
> >cowling inlet area to a minimum.
>
> You really are lacking in knowledge of the Fw190 development,
> the original prototype pilot landed complaining he felt he had
> his feet in the fire. Then came the cancellation of the preferred
> engine, the resultant redesign moved the cockpit further away from
> the engine. The extra weight caused a deterioration of handling
> characteristics, solved by increasing the wing area, the V5k and
> V5g prototypes. The larger wings were standardised in the
> tenth Fw190A-0 pre production model. Things like ducted
> spinners were tried early as well, the first prototype and then
> discarded.

It sounds like you are not aware of the development cycle or you are not
being clear. The FW190 had a number of heating problems with both its BMW
139 and 801 engines because of the aerodynamically ambitious installation.
How am I to know which ones you are refering to becuase the ones associated
with the BMW139 are the best known.

The FW190 was originaly specified with a DB601 V12 or what was essentialy an
enlarged version of a Pratt and Whitney designe known as the BMW 139. The
DB601 option was cancelled due to anticipated shortages and the 139 was so
troublesome it was decided to start all over again: the result was the
BMW801 which was reliable. When the 801 was to be substituted the aircraft
was redesigned to overcome C of G issues with the new engine while the
cockpit was also moved to overcome the cabin heating issues.

http://www.aviation-history.com/focke-wulf/fw190.html

This sounds like the typical development cycle: note the exceptional
problems the typhoon tempest series had, and I am and was quite aware of
it. The cockpit was moved rewards to reduce the cabin heat problem.

>
> By the time JG26 had received Fw190s the "lengthening" of
> the nose had been done (which was actually moving the cockpit
> further aft) and the increase in wing size was being done.

The cooling problems were overcome through the improvement of the cooling
fan itself and the addition of removable cooling vents.

>
> >> Note the oil tank in radials was often armoured, since the oil
> >> also acted as a coolant, and a bullet through the oil tank was
> >> almost as bad as a bullet through the radiator of an inline engine.
> >>
> >> >The much loved US Gruman Bearcat for instance was inspired and the P47
> >was
> >> >built specifically to deal with the 190.
> >>
> >> The design brief for the Bearcat was heavily into fast climb, to
> >> intercept the incoming strikes, using the advances in ship's radar
> >> to quickly intercept hostiles. It was the response of the USN to
> >> carrier warfare in the Pacific not the FW190.
> >
> >The designers certainly inspected and flew a captured FW190 and were
> >inspired to improve upon it. Yes there may have been a tactical reason
for
> >developing a high power to weight ratio aircraft but the FW190
demonstrated
> >the concept of having excess power.
>
> I know this is really silly but the designers, if they did make a
> trip to Europe, saw more than the Fw190, they would have
> been exposed to other captured aircraft and the latest in
> British designs. North American was interested for example
> to design a lighter weight P-51, which emerged as the H model.
> But somehow it all comes back to the Fw190 alone.

Irrelevant. I didn't bring up the P51 or its lightening program you just
did then for whatever rhetorical reason.

I heard the designer talking on one of those discovery channel things and he
refered to the FW190.

I merely stated that the P47 was designed to specifically deal with the
FW190. I have read this reference made more than once and it must clarly
refer to the P47C/D/D-25 version. I am looking for the reference again.



>
> I like the "excess power" claim, the Fw190A had 1,600 HP
> pulling around 7,500 pounds empty weight, the Spitfire V
> had around 1,500 HP pulling around 5,100 pounds of empty
> weight. The Fw190 was faster thanks to better aerodynamics,
> the sort of thing that made the Spitfire 30 to 40 mph faster than
> the Hurricane with the same engine and the P-51B around the
> same speed faster than the Spitfire with effectively the same
> engine. On the other hand the Spitfire could beat the Fw190
> to 20,000 feet. Like all aircraft you had your trade offs.

There is no such thing as a FW 190A. There is a FW 190A-1, FW190A-2 all
the way through to A-14 I believe.

Much of your data seems wrong or chronologically irrelevent.

You fail to take into account differences in equiped weight as opposed to
empty weight, the differences in what consitutes empty, loaded and equiped
between aircaft of different nationalities and manufacture. Spitfire VB
with Merlin 45 is given as producing 1440 hp and its empty weight as 5100
but its loaded weight 6650 so your figures for both spitfire and Fw190 are
dubious.

AFAIKS loaded weight has nothing to do with opperational weight! Was the
FW 190 equiped with its home defense electronics for instance?

The comparisons involving weight just can not be made without more time and
caution.

The FW190A-3 had an empty weight of 6400 and a maximum of 8300 with a power
of either 1600 or 1700 depending on whether the BMW801 C or D was fitted.

http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/a-3.htm

You've given data for a FW190A-8 equiped with an FW190A-2 engine from a
dodgy web page.
http://www.aviation-history.com/focke-wulf/fw190.html


>
> The Bearcat, as it appeared, was very much in the Spitfire
> sort of arrangement, with a very high climb rate. It was
> designed to fight the war in the Pacific, largely below 20,000
> feet, with characteristics optimised to defend its base willing
> to sacrifice range for example.

The FW190 outclimbed the Spitfire V by 450 feet per minute.



>
> >> The P-47B was ordered in September 1940 and first flew on
> >> 6 May 1941. This was before the RAF encountered the FW190
> >> on 27 September 1941 and over a year before one was captured,
> >> in July 1942. The first production P-47B was in December
> >> 1941. Rather hard to see the P-47 as built specifically unless
> >> the US was given all the information in 1940, and knew despite
> >> the major engine cooling problems the FW190A had that the
> >> program would be continued.
> >>
> >> Also note the P-47B was optimised to fight above 20,000 feet,
> >> the FW190A below 20,000 feet.
> >
> >Water injection was needed to cope with the FW at low altitude and
perhaps
> >this is what I am thinking of.
>
> As far as I can tell what is being thought of is an idealised view
> of the Fw190 which then becomes a benchmark with everyone
> else altering to fight it, but the Fw190 continually leading the way,
> despite being out performed.

It was hardly outperformed for quite some time. It was never outperformed
in roll rate though the P47C onwards and FW190A series were probably matched
in this area.

The P47B (of which only 170 were built an which never seemed to have seen
service at all ) was a dramatically weaker aricraft in terms of roll rate
and manouverability to the P47C/P47D which first flew an inconclusive combat
in March 43 and entered service with Zemke in Jan 43.

Thus there was ample time for RAF combate expereience to have been fed into
the P47C program.

It would be odd if there was not such a system in place at all.


>
> Presumably the introduction of paddle bladed propellers to the
> P-47 was a reaction to the outstanding rate of climb of the Fw190,
> particularly above 20,000 feet, correct?

Both water injection and paddle bladed propellors with cooling cuffs were
needed to improve low altitude perfomance where the P47 was initialy at a
speed disadvantage.

P-47B. This was the first production model, and 171 were built. Deliveries
started late in 1942, and some went into action in Europe on April 8, 1943.
In combat, the P-47B-RE had inadequate climbing and maneuverability, but it
had plenty of speed and firepower. It also had excellent diving capability,
and its heavy structure could absorb terrific punishment. Its wingspan was
40 feet, 9 inches; area, 300 square feet; gross weight, 13,360 pounds; top
speed, 429mph at 27,800 feet.


The P47C and P47D made dramatic improvements over the B model that relate to
an 13 inch extension to the engine position. I have seen references more
than once that some P47 development preceded on the basis of besting the FW
190A (roll rate I believe). The 13 inch extension was credited with a
major improvement in manouverabillity and entered production for the P47C
although some P47B airframes were modiefied with an 8 inch extension for
maintenance reasons.


SNIP
> >> The Ju388L was in production for around 6 months in 1944, with
> >> around 10 converted from Ju188 and 60 built new. Those 600
> >> engines must have had a very short lifetime if all they did was power
> >> the Ju388L. The night fighter version appears to be more prototypes
> >> than production.
> >
> >Not all aircraft entered service. All the sources i have seen credit it
> >with a production run of 300.
>
> I note none of the "sources" are provided, only the claim of
> multiple sources, the Ju388L was not a high priority item in
> 1944, the need was for fighters, the jets could take over
> reconnaissance, production numbers were of the order of
> 60 to 70.

Where are your sources?

According to this source we are both wrong.

http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/junkers_388.htm
Under the "Hubertus" program of 1944, plans called for production of 300-400
Ju-388s a month at seven different manufacturers. But only 176 were
completed by the war's end, mostly at Allgemeine Transportanlagen
Gesellschaft in the Leipzig suburb of Mockau


>
> >The night fighter did not enter service as the BMW801T version was no
faster
> >than a standard Ju 88G7 with BMW801D at the altitudes British bombers
could
> >fly at. It was an iron in the fire should the B29 appear.
>
> The US could have deployed hundreds of B-29s in Europe
> in 1944, given what appeared in the Pacific. The JU388J
> prototype did not fly until early 1944 and needed a new type
> of pressure cabin given the radar being fitted. The Germans
> had considerable problems designing good pressure cabins,
> and work was slow. The J version was not an iron in the fire,
> more like the metal to make the axe to chop down the tree to
> build the fire to put the iron in.

There were plenty of pressure cabine aircraft produced. They were simply
reduced in number for economcy reasons.

The Me109G-5 was produced in large numbers but not as large numbers as its
unpressurised version the Me 109G6. The TA 152 was ofcourse pressurised as
was the Me 262.

Presumably any problems ecountered during development of German aircraft is
proof to you of the failure of the type. Thus if a prototype leaked air
due to faulty sealing foam then that is all the proof you need?

Finally the Ju 388 was not needed. There were no B29s in Europe. The Me
262B with radar would have dealt with it in anycase. The Jumo 004D with
duplex injectors (overcoming high altitude thin air flameouts) were also
entering production and this would have pushed the aircrafts opperational
altitude well above the B29s service ceiling. Even without this it was
capable of reaching the B29.


>
>
> >> >(The Ju 388 seems to have had the same type of periscopic sighting
system
> >as
> >> >used on the A26 invader only it had twin 13.1mm MG in a remote tail
> >turret)
> >> >
> >> >However Fock-Wulf decided to install water cooled V12s into the Fw 190
to
> >> >get high altitude performance. The 432 mph Fw 190D9 had a jumo 213A
> >> >enigine but the Fw190D11 and Fw190D12 (only 70 entered service) had a
> >Jumo
> >> >213E engine with the same two stage intercooler arrangement as the
Merlin
> >in
> >> >the Mustang and could manage 460mph.
> >>
> >> Be careful here, the later versions of the D series are mainly paper
> >> projects or prototypes. And the WWII engines used a water glycol
> >> cooling mixture, rather like many modern motor vehicles, hence
> >> liquid cooled, not water cooled.
> >
> >A few dozen of the FW190D-12 entered service. Deliveries started in Feb
> >1945 so there is little record of them. Even less entered service than
the
> >Ta 152H
>
> It would be good to actually back this up, the information I
> have is they were first made in March 1945 which means
> they missed service.
>
> >> The D-10 replaced the fuselage machine guns with a 30mm cannon
> >> firing through the propeller spinner. Couple of prototypes
> >>
> >> The D-11 was a D-9 with the Jumo213F with MW-50, several prototypes
> >> built.
>
> It apparently had 2 20mm and 2 30 mm cannon.
>
> >> The D-12 was the ground attack version, the D-10 armament, with
> >> an armoured installation of the Jumo 213F, production began in
> >> March 1945. It is doubtful any actually entered service. Fw190A/D
> >> production in March 1945 is said to be 204, and zero in April.
> >>
> >> The D-13 with the Jumo213EB and 2 20 mm cannon, 2 prototypes
> >> built.
> >
> >3 x 20mm canon. Models after the D9 series dropped the cowling guns but
> >added a propellor hub guns either 20mm, 30mm.
>
> Sorry, typo the 2 should have been a 3 20 mm cannon.
>
> >> The D-14 with the DB603A engine, 2 built.
> >
> >Jumo 213 and DB603 engines had interchangeable mounts and were available
as
> >'power eggs' complete with integrated anular radiators.
> >
> >>
> >> The D-15 with the DB603EB engine, paper project.
> >>
> >> >Oddly for such an engine seems to have
> >> >been heavily armoured for ground attack and torpedo bombing (they were
> >used
> >> >by the Soviets after the war for this) Apparently the annular
radiators
> >of
> >> >the German V12s were quite battle damage tollerant as well as
> >aerodynanic.
> >>
> >> It seems unlikely the designers would put lots of high altitude
> >> features into a ground attack version.
> >
> >It seems to have been intended to be a multirole combat aircraft.
>
> Alternatively the information being presented is faulty.
>
> >> >The same type of engine jumo 213E with more performance ended up in
the
> >> >475mph TA 152 H0 and TA 152H1 (H-1 had wet fuel tanks in its wooden
> >wings
> >> >for greater range) as this had very large wings it could not only fly
> >> >extremely high it could out turn any Allied fighter.
> >>
> >> The Ta152H-1 had an empty weight of around 8,900 pounds supported
> >> by a wing area of 251 square feet, The Spitfire XIV had an empty weight
> >> of around 6,600 pounds and wing area of 242 square feet. I doubt the
> >> TA152H with its long wings would win a turning contest with a Spitfire
> >> XIV except at very high altitudes.
> >
> >When comparing "empty weights", you have to be careful about what is
> >included in the figures. Depending on the definition, weapons, radio gear
> >and other operational equipment might be included or not. I'd only
seriously
> >compare empty weights if I have a complete weight break-down where every
> >item is listed seperately. Unfortunately, for some types such data is
hard
> >to find.
>
> In other words rather than note it the Ta152H-1 had an empty
> weight around a ton lower than the Spitfire and indeed around
> the loaded weight of the Spitfire XIV you will announce that shock
> horror, the Spitfire could have weighed a little more empty. Anything
> but actually confront the problems with the "best turning" claim.

What does empty mean? Does it include all radios, guns, dingies etc that
can add up to hundreds of pounds?



>
> >The long wings of the Ta 152H reduced the fantastic roll rate compared to
> >the Fw 190A and Fw 190D.
>
> To put it mildly, given the inevitable effects of long wings and the
> need to watch wing loadings.
>
> >Assuming that the wing loading of the TA 152H was higher than the Spit
XIV
> >(assuming Griffon 65 variant to allow the spit half a chance to match
speed)
> >then the higher aspect ratio wings of the TA152 might still be more
> >efficient. Because of the higher aspect ratio they would be more
efficient
> >and probably have less induced drag so the aircraft would wash of less
> >airspeed.
>
> Ah I see, the claim of always is now "might" no real information
> just a whole lot of I hopes.

Find a test that proves that the Spit could out turn the Ta 152H.

>
> By the way just how much faster was the Ta152 after it had used
> it MW-50 and GM-1, say compared to the Spitfire HF IX? Or for
> that matter the Spitfire VII?

GM-1 in particular was an excellent compensation for the lower octane fuels
available to the Luftwaffe and MW-50 to an lessor extent. GM1 added a lot
of weight but it was the only way to get around the octan lag the Germans
suffered. Allies simply loaded up with 150 octane and found that the
slight improvement that GM-1 would have offered with fuel this good was not
worth the weightmof adding things such as GM1. There was some 10 minutes
of GM-1 available as I recall.


>
> >Turning circle is usually measured at sustained speed without loosing
> >altitude. For instance a Spit might turn inside a Me 109F but the 109
> >pilot could pull G, use his automatic slats to warn him of incipient
stall
> >and bleed of speed faster to turn inside the spit anyway. Of course you
> >don't get to play this trick indefinetly.
>
> I like this, please show all those Bf109 pilots that survived turning
> contests with a Spitfire. How many did so regularly. The Bf109
> was easily out turned by the Spitfire, unless the Bf109 was moving
> much slower, end of story. The Spitfire had the further advantage
> of a much better signalled stall than either the Fw190 of Bf109.
> The Bf109 wing slats had a habit of deploying asymmetrically,
> which caused aiming problems and was a fun effect near the stall.

I think that might be incorrect. A 109 might turn inside a Spitfire using
this techniqe but he presumably had only 1 turn or less to do it since he
would loose energy and speed and thus allow the spitfire to regain the upper
hand.

The Me 109 might have had a shakey stall due to its slats but this also
warning of incipient stall. Furthermore the spitfire had a nasty stall and
could spin away. The spits advantage was its big wing, made possible by
high octane fuel restoring the power to weight ratio it would otherwise have
losts with its small discplacement light weight merlin engine. The wing
had a habbit of twisting and increasing the washout angle thus warning the
pilot.


****************
PS most links work.

http://www.jg53.com/html/history/aircraft/axis-bf109.htm

I dispute your claim that the Spit could outturn a 109. The reason being,
any test that showed the Spit could outturn a 109 was done at a constant
speed (Minimum radius of turn without loss of height) . This is a flawed
test because in combat the 109 pilot used the tactic of dumping speed
rapidly and making a slower and sharper turn than the Spit was capable of.
Remember the 109 had those leading edge slats? That's what they were for!

Quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
The Spitfire had a lower wing loading than the Bf 109 and this would
normally give the better turning circle. However the 109 had help with it's
leading edge slats which gave a lower stalling speed, and thus was able to
turn tighter than a simple comparison of wing areas might suggest
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


Two very different appraisals of the turning circles of the Spitfire and
Bf109 can be found in the books "Fighter" by Len Deighton and "The Most
Dangerous Enemy" by Stephen Bungay. The former has a diagram showing the
Bf109s turning circle to be inside that of the Spitfire (750 feet and 880
feet respectively) while the latter has a diagram showing the opposite (850
feet and 700 feet respectively). Crucially all the tests of mock combats
between captured Bf109s and Spitfires always give the Spitfire the edge.


http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/spitcom.htm

Quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
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/guilmartin.1/62502wb/6252ls13.htm

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.



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


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.


5. As for the 109G-2 vs the Mk IX just look at the performance graphs, the
109G-2 is faster than the MK IX right up to 23000 ft. The 109 also outclimbs
the Spit below 10000 ft and they are roughly equal between 10000 ft and
18000 ft. Once again the Spit doesn't dominate until the higher altitudes.

>
> By the way what is stopping the Spitfire pulling G as well?

1 probably can't wash of speed as fast
2 It isn't as manouverable at low speed.

Note this would refer to the Me 109F series.


>
> >> Most sources rate the Ta152H series top speed in the 460 to 470mph
> >> range, the using MW-50 and GM-1. What is the source that claims the
> >> wings were wooden as opposed to metal?
> >>
> >> >You can tell a Fw 190D9 from a Fw 190D11/D12/D13 by the latter lacking
> >cowl
> >> >guns and having an oval air intage instead of round and using a cannon
> >> >firing through the propeller boss. One of these (The Fw 190 D13 I
> >think)
> >> >was to end up with a long barreled Mk 103 30mm cannon as a tank
buster.
> >It
> >> >was this aircraft that I guess would have finaly replaced the Stuka.
> >>
> >>
> >> The D-12 would be the replacement for the G model.
>
> Geoffrey Sinclair
> Remove the nb for email.
>
>

[The Enlightenment]

"Presidente Alcazar" > wrote in
message ...
> On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 17:34:17 +1000, "Geoffrey Sinclair"
> > wrote:
>
> >By the way what is stopping the Spitfire pulling G as well?
>
> The emotional need to have a Nazi superweapon beat the degenerate
> allies by means of the customary subjective distortion.

No, the fact that the Me 109 can turn inside a Spitfire at low speed due to
its lower stalling speed.

[The Enlightenment]

"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 06:55:50 -0400, Cub Driver >
> wrote:
>
>
> >The XP-47 was ordered in 1939, and the XP-47B with a PW 2800 engine in
> >January 1940. Did the USAAC even know about the FW-190 in January
> >1940?

As the P47 did not enter combat service till March 10 1943 as the P47C
perhaps they did by then.

> >
>
> I'd consider that unlikely, but facts like that have never stopped our
nazi
> loving BS merchant here.

Please appologise:

"Originally designed to defeat the FW-190 series fighters, the XP-47J
certainly would have exceeded this requirement. In point of fact, with its
critical Mach of .83, it had the potential to chase down Me-262's by
utilizing a shallow dive, taking advantage of its superior service ceiling."

The XP47J entered service as the P47M.
http://home.att.net/~Historyzone/Seversky-Republic7.html



>
> >I would say that the two American fighters were sui generis: The
> >Bigger the Better.
>
> I once read an article where the XP-72 was described as something which
> would have given AS Yakovlev a massive coronary.
>
>
>
> greg
>
> --
> Es ist mein Teil - nein
> Mein Teil - nein
> Denn das ist mein Teil - nein
> Mein Teil - nein

[Guy Alcala]

The Enlightenment wrote:

> "Geoffrey Sinclair" > wrote in message

<snip>

> > The Bearcat, as it appeared, was very much in the Spitfire
> > sort of arrangement, with a very high climb rate. It was
> > designed to fight the war in the Pacific, largely below 20,000
> > feet, with characteristics optimised to defend its base willing
> > to sacrifice range for example.
>
> The FW190 outclimbed the Spitfire V by 450 feet per minute.

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. 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.


> > In other words rather than note it the Ta152H-1 had an empty
> > weight around a ton lower than the Spitfire and indeed around
> > the loaded weight of the Spitfire XIV you will announce that shock
> > horror, the Spitfire could have weighed a little more empty. Anything
> > but actually confront the problems with the "best turning" claim.
>
> What does empty mean? Does it include all radios, guns, dingies etc that
> can add up to hundreds of pounds?

Well, let's see. In the case of a Spit 21, tare weight is 6,923 lb, "Total
Typical Removable Military Load" (4 x 20mm guns, ammo, sight, radio, IFF
receiver & detonator, clock, incendiary bomb, crowbar, gun camera, oxygen
clinder, dinghy, first aid kit, pilot and parachute) amounts to 1,321.5 lb.,
then there's 857 lb. of internal fuel plus 81 lb. of engine oil, for a normal
combat take-off weight of 9,182.5 lb. The last is the most useful value. Spit
XIVscame in around 8,400 - 8,500 lb., Spit IXs came in around 7,500 lb,. and
Spit Vs about 6,500 lb. respectively.

> > >Turning circle is usually measured at sustained speed without loosing
> > >altitude. For instance a Spit might turn inside a Me 109F but the 109
> > >pilot could pull G, use his automatic slats to warn him of incipient
> stall
> > >and bleed of speed faster to turn inside the spit anyway. Of course you
> > >don't get to play this trick indefinetly.
> >
> > I like this, please show all those Bf109 pilots that survived turning
> > contests with a Spitfire. How many did so regularly. The Bf109
> > was easily out turned by the Spitfire, unless the Bf109 was moving
> > much slower, end of story. The Spitfire had the further advantage
> > of a much better signalled stall than either the Fw190 of Bf109.
> > The Bf109 wing slats had a habit of deploying asymmetrically,
> > which caused aiming problems and was a fun effect near the stall.
>
> I think that might be incorrect. A 109 might turn inside a Spitfire using
> this techniqe but he presumably had only 1 turn or less to do it since he
> would loose energy and speed and thus allow the spitfire to regain the upper
> hand.
>
> The Me 109 might have had a shakey stall due to its slats but this also
> warning of incipient stall. Furthermore the spitfire had a nasty stall and
> could spin away.

I've never seen any source claim that the Spit had a nasty stall. You certainly
can find no mention of it in A&AEE or AFDU handling tests.

> The spits advantage was its big wing, made possible by
> high octane fuel restoring the power to weight ratio it would otherwise have
> losts with its small discplacement light weight merlin engine. The wing
> had a habbit of twisting and increasing the washout angle thus warning the
> pilot.
>
> ****************
> PS most links work.
>
> http://www.jg53.com/html/history/aircraft/axis-bf109.htm
>
> I dispute your claim that the Spit could outturn a 109. The reason being,
> any test that showed the Spit could outturn a 109 was done at a constant
> speed (Minimum radius of turn without loss of height) . This is a flawed
> test because in combat the 109 pilot used the tactic of dumping speed
> rapidly and making a slower and sharper turn than the Spit was capable of.
> Remember the 109 had those leading edge slats? That's what they were for!
>
> Quote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> The Spitfire had a lower wing loading than the Bf 109 and this would
> normally give the better turning circle. However the 109 had help with it's
> leading edge slats which gave a lower stalling speed, and thus was able to
> turn tighter than a simple comparison of wing areas might suggest
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
> Two very different appraisals of the turning circles of the Spitfire and
> Bf109 can be found in the books "Fighter" by Len Deighton and "The Most
> Dangerous Enemy" by Stephen Bungay. The former has a diagram showing the
> Bf109s turning circle to be inside that of the Spitfire (750 feet and 880
> feet respectively) while the latter has a diagram showing the opposite (850
> feet and 700 feet respectively). Crucially all the tests of mock combats
> between captured Bf109s and Spitfires always give the Spitfire the edge.
>
> http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/spitcom.htm
>
> Quote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> 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/guilmartin.1/62502wb/6252ls13.htm
>
> 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.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
> 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.

Not according to the following charts:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit109turn.gif

and

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit109turn18.gif

Obviously, this applies only to the Spit I and Me-109E-3, and to an altitude of
12,000 feet, but since we're concerned with stall speeds, the Spit is superior
there as well - see the "radius of turn at stall", as well as the stall boundary
of the first chart.

>
>
> 5. As for the 109G-2 vs the Mk IX just look at the performance graphs, the
> 109G-2 is faster than the MK IX right up to 23000 ft. The 109 also outclimbs
> the Spit below 10000 ft and they are roughly equal between 10000 ft and
> 18000 ft. Once again the Spit doesn't dominate until the higher altitudes.

Lets look at those performance graphs:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9v109g.html

and also here:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/109gtac.html

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

[Presidente Alcazar]

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 00:36:23 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug >
wrote:

> Nice sig. <salutes, and falls off chair backward pulling notepad
> and tangled earphones and cup of tea along>

Ah, Bart, truly the king of all the pentium overclockers.

Gavin Bailey

--

But, first, want speed. Bart not greedy as all know. 250MHz enough.
I attempt use SGI chip in MB. But chip not fit, then I bend pins. Shove in MB hard.
Now apply hammer. Yeah, sit down, ****er! Power on, go BEEEEEP! - Bart Kwan En

[Presidente Alcazar]

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 17:54:46 GMT, "The Enlightenment"
> wrote:

>No, the fact that the Me 109 can turn inside a Spitfire at low speed due to
>its lower stalling speed.

The balance of surviving test reports (e.g. the 109 E3 tested in 1940,
varoius AFDU reports throughout the war years) and aircrew memoir
directly contradicts this. You should be aware that the statements on
the web page you quote on the effect of the 109's leading-edge slats
on improving turning performance for inexperienced pilots are directly
contradicted by Bf109 pilot's statements, e.g. Erwin Leykauf - and
while he states he could out-turn Spitfires, he makes it clear that
this was not done by sustained maximal rate turns, but by cutting
across the turn for fractions of the radius while alternatively easing
back to avoid the stall.

Meanwhile, I'm well aware of your particular bias on such subjects.
Shame the Nazis lost, eh?

Gavin Bailey

--

But, first, want speed. Bart not greedy as all know. 250MHz enough.
I attempt use SGI chip in MB. But chip not fit, then I bend pins. Shove in MB hard.
Now apply hammer. Yeah, sit down, ****er! Power on, go BEEEEEP! - Bart Kwan En

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

The Enlightenment wrote in message ...

>"Geoffrey Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
>> The Enlightenment wrote in message ...

>> The P-47B was ordered in September 1940 and first flew on
>> 6 May 1941. This was before the RAF encountered the FW190
>> on 27 September 1941 and over a year before one was captured,
>> in July 1942. The first production P-47B was in December
>> 1941. Rather hard to see the P-47 as built specifically unless
>> the US was given all the information in 1940, and knew despite
>> the major engine cooling problems the FW190A had that the
>> program would be continued.
>
>First combat was 10 March 1943. This was the P47C. The P47B
>models appear to have only been used for training.

So please tell us all the major changes in the P-47 series after
1940, new wing?, new fuselage? The fundamental reality is the
P-47 was designed without any input from Focke Wulf. Then
came the inevitable wartime improvements, which all fighters
went through, or is the claim the FW190A-1 is the same as
the FW190A-14?


Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

The Enlightenment wrote in message ...
>"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 06:55:50 -0400, Cub Driver >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The XP-47 was ordered in 1939, and the XP-47B with a PW 2800 engine in
>> >January 1940. Did the USAAC even know about the FW-190 in January
>> >1940?
>
>As the P47 did not enter combat service till March 10 1943 as the P47C
>perhaps they did by then.

Of course the idea the US could redesign (defined as something
as significant as water injection, most others define it as major
changes) a fighter and place it into production within a month is
the cornerstone of the claim. The wonder US production engineers
(swamped Germany with numbers claims) versus the wonder
German aircraft engineers (always a head in quality claims).
Cliche central returns, the P-47 was designed without input from
Germany.

>> I'd consider that unlikely, but facts like that have never stopped our
>>nazi loving BS merchant here.
>
>Please appologise:

Ok we apologise that despite all our efforts you are going to
continually ignore reality.

>"Originally designed to defeat the FW-190 series fighters, the XP-47J
>certainly would have exceeded this requirement. In point of fact, with its
>critical Mach of .83, it had the potential to chase down Me-262's by
>utilizing a shallow dive, taking advantage of its superior service ceiling."
>
>The XP47J entered service as the P47M.
>http://home.att.net/~Historyzone/Seversky-Republic7.html

Ah yes we now go from the P-47B and C models to the whole one,
1, single, only, XP-47J model. Backed by one person's opinion
since they mention the wonder Fw190.

J model approved in June 1943 as a lightweight version, only 6 guns
fitted with reduced ammunition for example, less fuel tankage, used
the sprint, 2,800 HP, engine, cooling fan fitted, flew in November
1943 and managed to do over 500 mph in Republic's hands in trials
in August 1944. A 70% retooling needed to put it into production.

Meantime the standard P-47D was modified to take the bigger
engine, with130 were built as P-47Ms, with minimal modifications,
in the final quarter of 1944.

So of course the XP-47J was not the prototype of the P-47M.

Oh yes the Spitfire had a higher limiting mach number, but rather
poor initial acceleration in a dive, for when it comes to diving onto
Me262s.



Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

The Enlightenment wrote in message >...
>
>"Geoffrey Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
>> The Enlightenment wrote in message ...
>> >
>> >"Geoffrey Sinclair" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> The Enlightenment wrote in message ...
>> >>
>> >> >The 801 had a innovations such as a multipoint direct in cylinder
>> >injection
>> >> >of the fuel and completely automatic control of mixture and boost.
>The
>> >> >pilot only had a throttle to opperate. It's installation in the
>190
>> >was
>> >> >excellent: the engine was tightly cowled to improve aerodynamics with
>> >> >airflow being provided by a geared fan opperating at about 3:1 to
>provide
>> >> >cooling. The exhausts were beautifully installed and provided an
>> >ejector
>> >> >effect to induce cooling and thrust. I believe that only one Soviet
>> >fighter
>> >> >is regarded to have achieved this level of perfection. Around the cowl
>> >was a
>> >> >circular oil tank that was armoured and thus protected the cylinder
>> >heads.
>> >> >It was thus a very tough battle damage resistent engine that provided
>the
>> >> >pilot with a massive piece of armour when going in head on against an
>> >> >american bombers 50s.
>> >>
>> >> The trouble is the initial trials were very bad thanks to engine
>> >> over heating, at one point this threatened to have the entire
>> >> program cancelled. It also seems the engineers in JG26
>> >> did most of the work in coming up with a good fix.
>> >
>> >The problem of this ambitious and effective installation were solved
>somehow
>> >then. The original had the cooling intake through a hollow of an
>enlarged
>> >propeller boss while the pilot suffered hot foot. The solution was to
>> >lenghten the nose and compromise by using a gear driven fan to reduce
>> >cowling inlet area to a minimum.
>>
>> You really are lacking in knowledge of the Fw190 development,
>> the original prototype pilot landed complaining he felt he had
>> his feet in the fire. Then came the cancellation of the preferred
>> engine, the resultant redesign moved the cockpit further away from
>> the engine. The extra weight caused a deterioration of handling
>> characteristics, solved by increasing the wing area, the V5k and
>> V5g prototypes. The larger wings were standardised in the
>> tenth Fw190A-0 pre production model. Things like ducted
>> spinners were tried early as well, the first prototype and then
>> discarded.
>
>It sounds like you are not aware of the development cycle or you are not
>being clear. The FW190 had a number of heating problems with both its BMW
>139 and 801 engines because of the aerodynamically ambitious installation.
>How am I to know which ones you are refering to becuase the ones associated
>with the BMW139 are the best known.

Let us see now, we are talking about the versions that ended up
with JG26 in mid 1941, but you are unclear about which engine
was powering them is this the latest claim? The fact the service
engineer officers had to do much of the work sorting out the
over heating problems?


So instead we drop back to the V1 and V2 prototypes of 1939.

>The FW190 was originaly specified with a DB601 V12 or what was essentialy an
>enlarged version of a Pratt and Whitney designe known as the BMW 139. The
>DB601 option was cancelled due to anticipated shortages and the 139 was so
>troublesome it was decided to start all over again: the result was the
>BMW801 which was reliable. When the 801 was to be substituted the aircraft
>was redesigned to overcome C of G issues with the new engine while the
>cockpit was also moved to overcome the cabin heating issues.
>
>http://www.aviation-history.com/focke-wulf/fw190.html
>
>This sounds like the typical development cycle: note the exceptional
>problems the typhoon tempest series had, and I am and was quite aware of
>it. The cockpit was moved rewards to reduce the cabin heat problem.

Ah yes, the need to rewrite history to cope with the problems with
overclaiming. The original FW190 prototypes used the lighter
engine, the BMW139, when it was cancelled this left the BMW801,
which was heavier, moving the cockpit aft was a major component
in restoring centre of gravity, with the added bonus of reducing cockpit
heating, and for that matter exhaust fumes. See for example the URL
you posted but apparently chose not to read.

The Fw190 program came close to cancellation because of the
heating problems, the Typhoon program came close to cancellation
because of engine and airframe problems, the Tempest program
was not in danger of cancellation.

Check out the difference in fuselage length between the FW190V1 and
FW190A-1 for an idea of the "lengthening".


>> By the time JG26 had received Fw190s the "lengthening" of
>> the nose had been done (which was actually moving the cockpit
>> further aft) and the increase in wing size was being done.
>
>The cooling problems were overcome through the improvement of the cooling
>fan itself and the addition of removable cooling vents.

Try and stay on topic, the fundamental reality is JG26 initially
received the BMW801 version with a mixture of small and large
wing designs, before the large wing design was standardised.
They then had to make a major effort to solve engine heating
problems.

>> >> Note the oil tank in radials was often armoured, since the oil
>> >> also acted as a coolant, and a bullet through the oil tank was
>> >> almost as bad as a bullet through the radiator of an inline engine.
>> >>
>> >> >The much loved US Gruman Bearcat for instance was inspired and the P47
>> >was
>> >> >built specifically to deal with the 190.
>> >>
>> >> The design brief for the Bearcat was heavily into fast climb, to
>> >> intercept the incoming strikes, using the advances in ship's radar
>> >> to quickly intercept hostiles. It was the response of the USN to
>> >> carrier warfare in the Pacific not the FW190.
>> >
>> >The designers certainly inspected and flew a captured FW190 and were
>> >inspired to improve upon it. Yes there may have been a tactical reason
>for
>> >developing a high power to weight ratio aircraft but the FW190
>demonstrated
>> >the concept of having excess power.
>>
>> I know this is really silly but the designers, if they did make a
>> trip to Europe, saw more than the Fw190, they would have
>> been exposed to other captured aircraft and the latest in
>> British designs. North American was interested for example
>> to design a lighter weight P-51, which emerged as the H model.
>> But somehow it all comes back to the Fw190 alone.
>
>Irrelevant. I didn't bring up the P51 or its lightening program you just
>did then for whatever rhetorical reason.

Yes change the subject, just ignore the idea there were other influences
out there.

>I heard the designer talking on one of those discovery channel things and he
>refered to the FW190.

Ah yes, the discovery channel, heard it on the internet as well,
and, of course, the idea "the designer", all one of him apparently
might have mentioned other designs is discarded. Only the Fw190
is allowed to be mentioned, the idea other designers were involved
and looking at other aircraft is ignored.

>I merely stated that the P47 was designed to specifically deal with the
>FW190. I have read this reference made more than once and it must clarly
>refer to the P47C/D/D-25 version. I am looking for the reference again.

Let us understand this, the P-47 design is apparently the option
to add water injection into the engine, if this is the case then the
Fw190A series was clearly designed to cope with the P-47, like
mounting the engine 15cm further forward in the A-5 version of
early 1943, the lighter wing of the A-6 version, with 2 20 mm
MG151 cannon in each wing, the upgrading to 13mm machine
guns in the A-7 in late 1943, the use of GM-1 in the A-8 version,
clearly designed to combat the P-47's high altitude performance,
agreed?

This is very amusing, I wonder if the various paint jobs, the all
metal affairs, will be classified as "designed". Basic rule,
any change to an allied fighter is because of the FW190, just
ignore reality, it is just a "mere" point.

>> I like the "excess power" claim, the Fw190A had 1,600 HP
>> pulling around 7,500 pounds empty weight, the Spitfire V
>> had around 1,500 HP pulling around 5,100 pounds of empty
>> weight. The Fw190 was faster thanks to better aerodynamics,
>> the sort of thing that made the Spitfire 30 to 40 mph faster than
>> the Hurricane with the same engine and the P-51B around the
>> same speed faster than the Spitfire with effectively the same
>> engine. On the other hand the Spitfire could beat the Fw190
>> to 20,000 feet. Like all aircraft you had your trade offs.
>
>There is no such thing as a FW 190A. There is a FW 190A-1, FW190A-2 all
>the way through to A-14 I believe.

Ok, noted, in future I will expect you to quote the designs to
the accuracy you have decided here, so when quoting claims
remember it is the Fw190A-7/R6 sort of things. Assuming
the same standards are to be applied to you.

I used the generic Fw190 just like I used the generic Spitfire V,
given the V came in all sorts of versions, including clipped wings.
I note that the Fw190 starts significantly heavier than the Spitfire,
and no amount of "they weighed different things" is going to wave
away over a ton difference in less than 4 tons.

>Much of your data seems wrong or chronologically irrelevent.

In other words you cannot answer it so need to ignore it.

>You fail to take into account differences in equiped weight as opposed to
>empty weight, the differences in what consitutes empty, loaded and equiped
>between aircaft of different nationalities and manufacture. Spitfire VB
>with Merlin 45 is given as producing 1440 hp and its empty weight as 5100
>but its loaded weight 6650 so your figures for both spitfire and Fw190 are
>dubious.

Yes folks, the great claim is the Fw190 had excess power, whatever
that means, supersonic in level flight perhaps, or at least unable to
use full engine power, after all it is in "excess", instead we rush off
into semantics, unless the weights are to the ounce they are going to
be ignored, note there were no weights produced for the Fw190A.

By the way the Merlin output varied with height, for example, 1,470 HP
at 9,250 feet, 1,585 at 2,750 feet, 1,415 at 14,000 feet for one version.
Given the obvious desire for absolute correctness you demand of others
please tell us the altitude you are referring to.

The BMW 801C-0 used in the FW190V5 prototypes was rated at
1,660 HP, as was the 801C-1 in the FW190A-0 series.

>AFAIKS loaded weight has nothing to do with opperational weight! Was the
>FW 190 equiped with its home defense electronics for instance?

Ah yes, I await the claim the Fw190 had problems say because
it was carrying 2 parachutes.

>The comparisons involving weight just can not be made without more time and
>caution.

By the way, the decision to claim "excess power" has to take into
account weight, but this is going to be ignored for the FW190,
Funny isn't it?

>The FW190A-3 had an empty weight of 6400 and a maximum of 8300 with a >power of either 1600 or 1700 depending on whether the BMW801
C or D
>was fitted.
>http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/a-3.htm

By the way I presume you have noted the way I left the types
being compared as generic and also the use of "around"
to tell people I am making broad comparisons, not the
FW190A-5/U9 versus the temperate climate Spitfire LF VC
with clipped wings using a rotol propeller (40 pounds lighter
than a de Haviland propeller)?

Spitfire VA weights, tare 4,981 pounds, take off 6,416, max
permissible 6,700 pounds, or in other words the best part of
a ton lighter than the Fw190A-4, something like 20% less
weight with around 10% less power. So the Spitfire wins the
"excess power" game, this is becoming quite funny.

The heavyweight of the Spitfire V series was the VC, tare 5,081
pounds, take of 7,106.5 pounds, max permissible 7,300 pounds.

Given the addition of water injection in the P-47 means the fighter
was designed to specifically deal with the Fw190 do we add the
extra horsepower in the BMW engine means the Fw190 was
specifically designed to match the P-47, or Spitfire or whatever?

>You've given data for a FW190A-8 equiped with an FW190A-2 engine from a
>dodgy web page.
>http://www.aviation-history.com/focke-wulf/fw190.html


Ah I like this, further above the URL is given is good, now it is
said to be dodgy.

Simply put I used generic figures, given the range of variants
in the FW190A series and the Spitfires. Even using the more
specific weights they consistently show the Spitfire had a better
power to weight ratio, the "excess power" idea. Live with it
instead of trying to change the subject.

>> The Bearcat, as it appeared, was very much in the Spitfire
>> sort of arrangement, with a very high climb rate. It was
>> designed to fight the war in the Pacific, largely below 20,000
>> feet, with characteristics optimised to defend its base willing
>> to sacrifice range for example.
>
>The FW190 outclimbed the Spitfire V by 450 feet per minute.

I like this, at zero feet, 10,000 feet, 20,000 feet, 30,000 feet,
40,000 feet, 100,000 feet, must be specific after all, is it the
D version of the Fw190 versus the Spitfire I for example?

I am quite comfortable that there were areas of the flight envelope
where the FW190 could out climb the Spitfire, the trouble for the
FW190 was 20,000 feet and above, so the Spitfire could usually
out climb it to 20,000 feet.

Live with the reality the Bearcat was designed to defend radar
equipped aircraft carriers, intercepting incoming strikes under
control from the carrier.

>> >> The P-47B was ordered in September 1940 and first flew on
>> >> 6 May 1941. This was before the RAF encountered the FW190
>> >> on 27 September 1941 and over a year before one was captured,
>> >> in July 1942. The first production P-47B was in December
>> >> 1941. Rather hard to see the P-47 as built specifically unless
>> >> the US was given all the information in 1940, and knew despite
>> >> the major engine cooling problems the FW190A had that the
>> >> program would be continued.
>> >>
>> >> Also note the P-47B was optimised to fight above 20,000 feet,
>> >> the FW190A below 20,000 feet.
>> >
>> >Water injection was needed to cope with the FW at low altitude and
>perhaps
>> >this is what I am thinking of.
>>
>> As far as I can tell what is being thought of is an idealised view
>> of the Fw190 which then becomes a benchmark with everyone
>> else altering to fight it, but the Fw190 continually leading the way,
>> despite being out performed.
>
>It was hardly outperformed for quite some time. It was never outperformed
>in roll rate though the P47C onwards and FW190A series were probably
>matched in this area.

Ah yes, the generic attempts to try and inflate the time scale, the
Fw190A was probably the best all round fighter in 1941, when it
worked, and assuming you did not want things like carrier operations,
long range escort or high altitude interceptions. It spent the 1942
to mid 1943 period in this best category, the Spitfire IX was the
equivalent, the P-47 slightly "better", the P-51B and Spitfire XIV
decidedly better by the end of the year, and the P-47 was improving.

By the way the earlier P-51As were faster at low altitude than the
Fw190s, so I guess they are the "superior" fighter in 1942.

Meantime, since it is known the FW190 had an outstanding roll rate,
we will announce how important that was, you know, if you can out
roll your opponent you always win, and of course, ignore the way rolling
rates varied with speed.

So tell us all what speeds and stick forces are you talking about, with
50 pounds stick force and 250 mph the P-47C-1 rolled at 85 degrees
per second, the P-47D-30, with 30 pounds stick force and 220 mph
rolled at 60 degrees per second.

By the way the P-40 managed around 130 degrees per second at
360 mph, on 50 pounds stick force, see how that compares to the
FW190.

As far as I can tell what is being thought of is an idealised view
of the Fw190 which then becomes a benchmark with everyone
else altering to fight it, but the Fw190 continually leading the way,
despite being out performed.

>The P47B (of which only 170 were built an which never seemed to have seen
>service at all ) was a dramatically weaker aricraft in terms of roll rate
>and manouverability to the P47C/P47D which first flew an inconclusive combat
>in March 43 and entered service with Zemke in Jan 43.
>
>Thus there was ample time for RAF combate expereience to have been fed into
>the P47C program.
>
>It would be odd if there was not such a system in place at all.

Yes folks, the flat "P-47 was designed" statement is now reduced to
hey they might have, could have, should have sent data to the USA,
well after the design had been finalised.

Of course the P-47C was being delivered in August 1942, around 1
month after the British captured an FW190, but we know the US
supermen only need that sort of time to redesign an aircraft and
have it in production, of course the German supermen still produce
better aircraft, and the rest of us fall around laughing.

>> Presumably the introduction of paddle bladed propellers to the
>> P-47 was a reaction to the outstanding rate of climb of the Fw190,
>> particularly above 20,000 feet, correct?
>
>Both water injection and paddle bladed propellors with cooling cuffs were
>needed to improve low altitude perfomance where the P47 was initialy at a
>speed disadvantage.

Yes folks, fitting a new propeller and water injection is a "design",
meantime the Fw190 remained in its original configuration, no
additional power or armament and so on, with the allies unable
to match it apparently. The fact the FW190A series went through
a series of improvements means by this absurd definition that the
Fw190 was designed to take on the Spitfire, P-47, P-51, Tempest
etc. as their performance was revealed to the Germans. As opposed
to all types were modified to improve performance.

>P-47B. This was the first production model, and 171 were built. Deliveries
>started late in 1942, and some went into action in Europe on April 8, 1943.
>In combat, the P-47B-RE had inadequate climbing and maneuverability, but it
>had plenty of speed and firepower. It also had excellent diving capability,
>and its heavy structure could absorb terrific punishment. Its wingspan was
>40 feet, 9 inches; area, 300 square feet; gross weight, 13,360 pounds; top
>speed, 429mph at 27,800 feet.

The P-47 had been designed to operate well in the 20,000 feet plus
area, all that effort to incorporate a supercharger, and so sacrificed
climbing ability.

>The P47C and P47D made dramatic improvements over the B model that
>relate to
>an 13 inch extension to the engine position. I have seen references more
>than once that some P47 development preceded on the basis of besting the FW
>190A (roll rate I believe). The 13 inch extension was credited with a
>major improvement in manoeuvrability and entered production for the P47C
>although some P47B airframes were modified with an 8 inch extension for
>maintenance reasons.

Yes folks, note how the memories are all about what the FW190
is supposed to have done, no other design apparently had anything
at all to do with P-47 improvements.

The P-47B was 35 feet long, the C and D models 36 feet 1 inch.

>SNIP
>> >> The Ju388L was in production for around 6 months in 1944, with
>> >> around 10 converted from Ju188 and 60 built new. Those 600
>> >> engines must have had a very short lifetime if all they did was power
>> >> the Ju388L. The night fighter version appears to be more prototypes
>> >> than production.
>> >
>> >Not all aircraft entered service. All the sources i have seen credit it
>> >with a production run of 300.
>>
>> I note none of the "sources" are provided, only the claim of
>> multiple sources, the Ju388L was not a high priority item in
>> 1944, the need was for fighters, the jets could take over
>> reconnaissance, production numbers were of the order of
>> 60 to 70.
>
>Where are your sources?

Translation, none of the "sources" are provided, you would have
thought at he very least one could have been done so. Instead
the only source provided says the original claim is wrong which
is a new one, the only data posted shoots down the original claim.

>According to this source we are both wrong.

I have no problems with the fact the 1945 German aircraft production
figures are debatable, as are some of the 1944 figures. So I do
not expect any source to be accurate to say the 10s, but the claim
is hundreds of extra aircraft.

>http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/junkers_388.htm
>Under the "Hubertus" program of 1944, plans called for production of 300-400
>Ju-388s a month at seven different manufacturers. But only 176 were
>completed by the war's end, mostly at Allgemeine Transportanlagen
>Gesellschaft in the Leipzig suburb of Mockau

Sigh, I suppose it is worthwhile pointing out the original claim was
for 300 reconnaissance versions, this is now down to 176 of all
versions, bomber and night fighter included. Does not change the
point that even if there were 176 reconnaissance versions going though
600 engines is a major problem.

>> >The night fighter did not enter service as the BMW801T version was no
>faster
>> >than a standard Ju 88G7 with BMW801D at the altitudes British bombers
>could
>> >fly at. It was an iron in the fire should the B29 appear.
>>
>> The US could have deployed hundreds of B-29s in Europe
>> in 1944, given what appeared in the Pacific. The JU388J
>> prototype did not fly until early 1944 and needed a new type
>> of pressure cabin given the radar being fitted. The Germans
>> had considerable problems designing good pressure cabins,
>> and work was slow. The J version was not an iron in the fire,
>> more like the metal to make the axe to chop down the tree to
>> build the fire to put the iron in.
>
>There were plenty of pressure cabine aircraft produced. They were simply
>reduced in number for economcy reasons.

Yes folks, the reality is the Germans had continual problems with
pressure cabin designs, but hey, let us just assume it was all
economic reasons, not design problems plus requirements.

Everyone had their moments with pressure cabins, hence the
way they were a minority.

>The Me109G-5 was produced in large numbers but not as large numbers as its
>unpressurised version the Me 109G6. The TA 152 was ofcourse pressurised as
>was the Me 262.

The TA152C versions were not pressurised.
What exactly is large numbers for the G-5?
Please give the reference for Me262 pressurisation.

>Presumably any problems ecountered during development of German aircraft is
>proof to you of the failure of the type. Thus if a prototype leaked air
>due to faulty sealing foam then that is all the proof you need?

Yes folks, when in doubt try and rewrite history, go and take a
look at the problems the Ju3988 pressure cabin had, given the
need to fit radar. This delayed the program, hence the way it
lagged the other two versions and never entered production.

>Finally the Ju 388 was not needed.

Yes folks, the Ju388 goes from being the B-29 killer all ready to
go to not needed, after the facts have been presented about the
Ju388. After all it was going to be a stretch to have it in production
in 1944 and the Ju388 versus the P-51 for example is not a good move.

So switch to the standard wonder Luftwaffe aircraft, the Me262.

>There were no B29s in Europe. The Me
>262B with radar would have dealt with it in anycase. The Jumo 004D with
>duplex injectors (overcoming high altitude thin air flameouts) were also
>entering production and this would have pushed the aircrafts opperational
>altitude well above the B29s service ceiling. Even without this it was
>capable of reaching the B29.

Yes folks, just ignore the fact the USAAF deployed B-29s in
bombing raids in June 1944 from India. Just announce the
Me262 as equipped in May or June 1945 would have dealt
with all those raids from June 1944 onwards. Just like they
dealt with all those B-17 and B-24 raids.

Oh yes, the equipment that never saw service was the answer.

(snip) Fw190D information,

>> >> The Ta152H-1 had an empty weight of around 8,900 pounds supported
>> >> by a wing area of 251 square feet, The Spitfire XIV had an empty weight
>> >> of around 6,600 pounds and wing area of 242 square feet. I doubt the
>> >> TA152H with its long wings would win a turning contest with a Spitfire
>> >> XIV except at very high altitudes.
>> >
>> >When comparing "empty weights", you have to be careful about what is
>> >included in the figures. Depending on the definition, weapons, radio gear
>> >and other operational equipment might be included or not. I'd only
>seriously
>> >compare empty weights if I have a complete weight break-down where every
>> >item is listed seperately. Unfortunately, for some types such data is
>hard
>> >to find.
>>
>> In other words rather than note it the Ta152H-1 had an empty
>> weight around a ton lower than the Spitfire and indeed around
>> the loaded weight of the Spitfire XIV you will announce that shock
>> horror, the Spitfire could have weighed a little more empty. Anything
>> but actually confront the problems with the "best turning" claim.
>
>What does empty mean? Does it include all radios, guns, dingies etc that
>can add up to hundreds of pounds?

yes folks, apparently semantics rules, try and cope with the
fact the Ta152 was heavier than the Spitfire, after all look
at the loaded weight of one and the empty weight of the other.
Then cope with the fact they had similar wing area.

>> >The long wings of the Ta 152H reduced the fantastic roll rate compared to
>> >the Fw 190A and Fw 190D.
>>
>> To put it mildly, given the inevitable effects of long wings and the
>> need to watch wing loadings.
>>
>> >Assuming that the wing loading of the TA 152H was higher than the Spit
>XIV
>> >(assuming Griffon 65 variant to allow the spit half a chance to match
>speed)
>> >then the higher aspect ratio wings of the TA152 might still be more
>> >efficient. Because of the higher aspect ratio they would be more
>efficient
>> >and probably have less induced drag so the aircraft would wash of less
>> >airspeed.
>>
>> Ah I see, the claim of always is now "might" no real information
>> just a whole lot of I hopes.
>
>Find a test that proves that the Spit could out turn the Ta 152H.

This is becoming hysterical, apparently there must be a test
somewhere about turning abilities, presumably carefully matched
by weight and altitude, but the claim is the Ta152H can out turn
the Spitfire end of story, and when asked for proof the answer
comes back, I have none, go disprove it. Thanks for such a
wonderful example of how the claims are made up, not factual.

Heard of Captain Eric Brown,

"In so far as manoeuvrability was concerned the story was mutch
the same, the Spitfire was certainly the better of the two below
30,000 feet, there being little to choose between British and German
fighters between that altitude and 35,000 feet, but above the latter
altitude the Ta152H-1 enjoyed a decided edge."

You see the blanket claim about Ta152 having better turning ability
is simply wrong, as expected at high altitude it had an edge but it
was designed for such a thing.

>> By the way just how much faster was the Ta152 after it had used
>> it MW-50 and GM-1, say compared to the Spitfire HF IX? Or for
>> that matter the Spitfire VII?
>
>GM-1 in particular was an excellent compensation for the lower octane fuels
>available to the Luftwaffe and MW-50 to an lessor extent. GM1 added a lot
>of weight but it was the only way to get around the octan lag the Germans
>suffered. Allies simply loaded up with 150 octane and found that the
>slight improvement that GM-1 would have offered with fuel this good was not
>worth the weightmof adding things such as GM1. There was some 10 minutes
>of GM-1 available as I recall.

Yes folks, note how my question is not being answered, we have
a wonderful technical description of the system but no mention of
what happens if the system is out of fuel or not working. Captain
Brown thinks the Ta152H-1 speed was 425 mph at 35,000 feet
without the boosting. The HF Spitfire IX could do around 416 mph
at 27,000 feet, the HF mark VII 424 mph at 29,400 feet. Both of
these types were around in 1942.

Finally when the RAF fitted a liquid oxygen supply to the HF VII
engine they achieved around a 40 mph speed increase, only used
in trials though.

>> >Turning circle is usually measured at sustained speed without loosing
>> >altitude. For instance a Spit might turn inside a Me 109F but the 109
>> >pilot could pull G, use his automatic slats to warn him of incipient
>stall
>> >and bleed of speed faster to turn inside the spit anyway. Of course you
>> >don't get to play this trick indefinetly.
>>
>> I like this, please show all those Bf109 pilots that survived turning
>> contests with a Spitfire. How many did so regularly. The Bf109
>> was easily out turned by the Spitfire, unless the Bf109 was moving
>> much slower, end of story. The Spitfire had the further advantage
>> of a much better signalled stall than either the Fw190 of Bf109.
>> The Bf109 wing slats had a habit of deploying asymmetrically,
>> which caused aiming problems and was a fun effect near the stall.
>
>I think that might be incorrect. A 109 might turn inside a Spitfire using
>this techniqe but he presumably had only 1 turn or less to do it since he
>would loose energy and speed and thus allow the spitfire to regain the upper
>hand.

Ah yes, the "mights" have appeared, what was definite is now
a might, by the way the Bf109E had a turning circle around 20%
more than the Spitfire I.

It seems we have a new concept of turning fight, bleed speed until
near stall and hope you do not get shot, that way you can out turn
your faster opponent, this of course being a 1 on 1 fight, without
anyone else to indulge themselves against such slow targets. By
the way the IJAAF Oscar fighters used this tactic with combat flaps
to help the slow speed turn rate, presumably there was an interchange
between the Luftwaffe and the IJAAF.

Again show all the Luftwaffe pilots who were doing this. The
preferred tactics were to fight in the vertical plane.

>The Me 109 might have had a shakey stall due to its slats but this also
>warning of incipient stall. Furthermore the spitfire had a nasty stall and
>could spin away.

Funny about that, all the pilots reports are that the Bf109 and
Fw190 stall performance was worse than that of the Spitfire,
but hey, when in doubt make something up to say the opposite,
presumably the Spitfire report is on the web somewhere and is
therefore claimed true.

>The spits advantage was its big wing, made possible by
>high octane fuel restoring the power to weight ratio it would otherwise have
>losts with its small discplacement light weight Merlin engine. The wing
>had a habbit of twisting and increasing the washout angle thus warning the
>pilot.

By the way the Spitfire I empty was around 4,341 pounds, take off
6,200 pounds. The Bf109E-3 empty weight was around 4,421
pounds, loaded weight around 5,532 pounds. The Spitfire had
242 square feet of wing area, the Bf109E-3 174 square feet.

This is very funny, apparently if the Spitfire did not have 100
octane fuel it would have needed to have a smaller wing.
What next, if not lighter parachutes then a smaller tail?

In other words folks, just invent some sort of irrelevant point,
the Spitfire must not be allowed to out turn the Bf109, so
have the Spitfire at say 500 mph and the Bf109 near stall and
use those figures. Oh yes, the Spitfire cannot do anything
except continue the turn, despite what the German fighter does.

>****************
>PS most links work.

Pity you do not take the time to read them then.

>http://www.jg53.com/html/history/aircraft/axis-bf109.htm
>
>I dispute your claim that the Spit could outturn a 109. The reason being,
>any test that showed the Spit could outturn a 109 was done at a constant
>speed (Minimum radius of turn without loss of height) . This is a flawed
>test because in combat the 109 pilot used the tactic of dumping speed
>rapidly and making a slower and sharper turn than the Spit was capable of.
>Remember the 109 had those leading edge slats? That's what they were for!

The slats were automatic, the pilot did not have control over them,
and I like the idea of pilots deliberately dumping speed in a fight.

Stalling speed of Bf109G-6/U2 in "landing configuration" 99 mph,
in clean condition with half fuel load and the engine throttled back
105 mph, the slats opened around 20 mph above the stall, so
we are talking about those wonder slats opening at 130 mph, or
WWI fighter speeds, I can just see many Bf109 pilots doing this.

The Spitfire IX stall flaps and undercarriage up 84 mph, down 70 mph
Spitfire V stall flaps and undercarriage up 71 mph, down 68 mph
Spitfire XIV stall flaps and undercarriage up 87 mph, down 75 mph

>Quote:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----
>The Spitfire had a lower wing loading than the Bf 109 and this would
>normally give the better turning circle. However the 109 had help with it's
>leading edge slats which gave a lower stalling speed, and thus was able to
>turn tighter than a simple comparison of wing areas might suggest
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------

So in other words the fact the Bf109 had a significantly higher
wing loading than the Spitfire could be partially negated by
slats, of course this then becomes totally negated in dream land.


>Two very different appraisals of the turning circles of the Spitfire and
>Bf109 can be found in the books "Fighter" by Len Deighton and "The Most
>Dangerous Enemy" by Stephen Bungay. The former has a diagram showing the
>Bf109s turning circle to be inside that of the Spitfire (750 feet and 880
>feet respectively) while the latter has a diagram showing the opposite (850
>feet and 700 feet respectively). Crucially all the tests of mock combats
>between captured Bf109s and Spitfires always give the Spitfire the edge.

So "Fighter" probably has the graph marked incorrectly.

>http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/spitcom.htm
>
>Quote:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----
>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.

We will ignore the Spitfire also had a well signalled stall by design,
we will just pretend the Bf109 alone had this feature and then overclaim
the warning. We will ignore the opening of the Bf109 slats caused
aileron snatching for example. We will invent poor Spitfire stalling
characteristics.

>http://people.history.ohio-state.edu/guilmartin.1/62502wb/6252ls13.htm
>
>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.

Yes folks, presumably we are talking about something like the
Bf109B versus a later Spitfire, I note yet again no attempt to
qualify the models being discussed. And the actual results from
combat evaluations are ignored in favour of an opinion on the web.

>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.

>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!

And reality will tell you the combats were rarely joined with both sides
at the same speed and altitude, so tuning inside becomes possible
for the slower flying types.

>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.

My, how about that, slip in a British intelligence error, is it time to
roll out the official Luftwaffe appreciations of the Spitfire in 1940?

>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.

Translation the facts will not interfere with the preferred conclusions.
It seems the Spitfire I in take off weight condition stalled at around
73 mph, the Bf109E-4, weight unknown, at 75 mph.

see for trials results,

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

3. The Spitfire then allowed the Me 109 to get on to his tail and attempted
to shake him off this he found quite easy owing to the superior
manoeuvrability of his aircraft, particularly in the looping plane and at low
speeds between 100 and 140 mph. By executing a steep turn just above
stalling speed, he ultimately got back into a position on the tail of the Me 109.

>5. As for the 109G-2 vs the Mk IX just look at the performance graphs, the
>109G-2 is faster than the MK IX right up to 23000 ft. The 109 also outclimbs
>the Spit below 10000 ft and they are roughly equal between 10000 ft and
>18000 ft. Once again the Spit doesn't dominate until the higher altitudes.

The above quote is not from the URL listed above.

I have no problems that the Bf109, and Fw190 held performance
advantages at times, depending on versions, altitude and so forth,
I am not the one making the "always superior" claims.

>> By the way what is stopping the Spitfire pulling G as well?
>
>1 probably can't wash of speed as fast
>2 It isn't as manouverable at low speed.

Translation, such techniques can only be done by the favoured
design. "Probably" is considered definite, followed by the
unsupported opinion about low speed handling.

>Note this would refer to the Me 109F series.

Ah yes, the Bf109F series, the lightest of all the wartime types,
is used as the "typical" case, in service for around a year in the
west. Which F series, the F-0 which had the Bf109E engine or
the later F-4, the highest performer in the series? It makes a
difference.

(snip) Fw190 D model information.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

[Greg Hennessy]

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 18:34:15 +1000, "Geoffrey Sinclair"
> wrote:


>Meantime the standard P-47D was modified to take the bigger
>engine, with130 were built as P-47Ms, with minimal modifications,
>in the final quarter of 1944.
>
>So of course the XP-47J was not the prototype of the P-47M.


I just love how our bull****ting chum here manages to hoist himself upon
his own hakenkreuz.


greg




--
Es ist mein Teil - nein
Mein Teil - nein
Denn das ist mein Teil - nein
Mein Teil - nein

[Cub Driver]

>"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

[Hildegrin]

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/guilmartin.1/62502wb/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.

[Hildegrin]

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.

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

>>>>> "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

[Peter Stickney]

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

[Guy Alcala]

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

[Guy Alcala]

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/eagles/spit109turn.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

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

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/eagles/spit109turn.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.

[Nele VII]

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/eagles/spit109turn.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]

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

[Nele VII]

Guy Alcala wrote in message
>...
>
>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
>
>

I don't know-but it really doesn't matter since it is comparative test, and
the 28ft difference is neglible-it is -factory- rating (add Your calculation
error, RaE lack of maintenance procedures knowledge for control surfaces
regulation, slight difference between aircraft and You got it) .

One thing that RaE mispresented is the stated 1,200 hp power;
Bf-109E3(export) with DB-601 cannot produce more than 1,100hp 5min power at
12,100ft (nominal power). The -ultimate- DB601/E-3 power is "takeoff power"
1,175hp/0ft for 1 min, but it so off-chart that no mainfold pressure nor
other details such other temperatures or pressures haven't been listed for
this regime in the manual.

For those that look for factory rating of the "Battle of Britain" Bf-109
E-3, here are some other information from the manual (in metric);

Top speed
altitude (m) speed (km/h)
0 500
1000 510
2000 530
3000 540
4000 555
5000 570 (note: top speed, graph is linear to 5,000m then
declines)
6000 565
7000 560
Tolerance +-5%. Standard atmosphere.

Time to height:
Altitude Time (min)
1000 1
2000 1.9
3000 3
4000 3.8
5000 4.9
6000 6.3
Tolerance +-8%, standard atmosphere.

Speed Limitations:
Max allowed speed:
For dropping ailerons........................250 km/h
With dropped ailerons.......................250 km/h
With landing gear extended..............350 km/h
Landing gear extension/retraction...220 km/h
Max dive speed....................................750 km/h

Best climb speed
At altitude (m) At speed(km/h)
0 250
1000 243
2000 236
3000 229
4000 222
5000 215
6000 208
7000 200

Flight time
Full throttle (i.e. max cruising power) at 6000m 1.1h. At other altitudes
and reduced throttle according to engine fuel consumption.

Max altitude
11,000 m at max takeoff weight (+-10%tolerance)

Landing speed: 150km/h

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA

[WaltBJ]

Comments;
1. One of the major improvements on the P47 (D25 on, I believe) was
the paddle blade prop. made a marked differnce in climb and
accleration and some in top speed.
2. The P51 from the start used energy revovery - engine heat
'energized' the cooling air which was efficiently exhausted from the
ventral radiator and thus recovery thrust just about canceled radiator
drag. About a year ago 'Air&Space' mag had an article by one of the
designers on this subject. Odd not many other designers (Republic
Rainbow - F12; Convair 240/440/T29) went this route.
Walt BJ