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

"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message

Guy Alcala wrote in message ...

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

I wouldn't even be sure of that.

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

At combat power, the picture is more complex.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

It didn't.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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