more radial fans like fw190?

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/air...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...b/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/ea...pit109turn.gif

and

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/ea...t109turn18.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/ea...pit9v109g.html

and also he

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

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

"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message

Guy Alcala wrote in message ...

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

I wouldn't even be sure of that.

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

At combat power, the picture is more complex.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

It didn't.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guy Alcala wrote in message ...

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

Guy

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

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

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