posted 03-29- 10:44 PM               

By some miracle I was able to dig up the ratio for the gear and plunk it in.. after a few hours of recalibrating the 190 I think we have a much better aircraft.

It's on the OPP forum under flight models. Here's my test results. The real life test results appeared to vary by 10 to 15 mph and a couple hundred fpm climb rate so I think we are in the right range.

TS

--

Real 190a4 Tested speed against spitVb vs FW190 published flight tests:
1,000 feet 25-30 mph faster than spit
3,000 feet 30-35 faster
5,000 feet 25 mph faster
9,000 feet 25-30 mph faster
15,000 feet 20mph faster
18,000 feet 20mph faster
21,000 feet 20-25mph faster
nb 30 k seems to be the operating celling

Real Spit V speeds:
Height.top spd..time to climb....rofc
2,000..-------..00m36s...........3,240ft/min
5,000..-------..01m30s...........3,240
10,000...331....03m06s...........3,250
15,000...351....04m36s...........3,250
20,000...371....06m24s...........2,440
25,000...359....08m24s...........1,750
30,000...---....12m12s...........1,170

This means real 190A4 was approx
325mph at sea level SDOE tested at 323mph
356mph at 10,000 feet
371mph at 15,000 feet
380mph at 25,000 feet SDOE tested at 390mph
Ceiling 30,000 feet SDOE tested at 28,500 feet

Real 190A4
time to 5k: 01:40 mn SDOE tested at 1.5 min
time to 10k 03:30 SDOE tested at 3:45 min
time to 15k 05:15 SDOE tested at 5:00 min
time to 20k 07:25
time to 25k 11:40
time to 30k 15:30

------------------
TS Aircombat

posted 03-30- 12:42 AM            

The USN tests of a Fw 190G-3(A-5) figures:

Speed:
340mph at sea level
374mph at 5k(max)
370mph at 10k
380mph at 15k
405mph at 20k
415mph at 22k(max)
410mph at 25k

Climb:
3900fpm at sea level
4000fpm at 4k(max)
2800fpm at 10k
2900fpm at 15k
3000fpm at 18k(max)
2000fpm at 25k
Service ceiling at 36k(100fpm)

5k in ~1.5 minutes
10k in 2.8 minutes
15k in ~4.5 minutes
20k in 6.3 minutes
25k in 8.0 minutes
30k in ~11.5 minutes

BTW: A book with more complete details of that RAE test of Fw 190A-3 vs Spitfire Mk V and IX is at my Uni library, I'll post the numbers here tomorrow sometime hopefully.

posted 03-30- 01:15 AM               

I've been leery of using any data from this report since I've read the engines were mounted in a different position from the A4 and presumably are a different weight also I can't be sure other things like elevator travel weren't also adjusted to compensate for the shifted weight.

TS

posted 03-31- 01:14 AM            

From the A-5 onward the engine was mounted 15cm further forward to help maintain proper CoG when heavier guns were added in the future versions. The rudder was only changed on some late F/G versions. I can't see any reason why moving the engine forward would change speed and climb. If anything the extra 15cm of cowl would add a little more drag.

The "water injection" - must mean MW 50. Which wasn't used until the A-8, even then there is some doubt that it saw widespread use with operational units.

posted 03-31- 08:48 AM               

How many used the de-rated or rated engines?

TS

posted 03-31- 09:01 AM               

TS

posted 03-31- 10:25 AM               

for a fully rated BMW 801 D2
the max speed is WEP 2700 rmp sustainable for 3 minutes
418 @ 21 k
(420 mph @ 21 k, if the external gun removed

posted 04-01- 12:54 AM               

FW190a Mods - 5.4 beta 4
--------------------------------
-Changed cylinder drag to be at right angles on nose to simulate drag from un-aerodynamic front end
-Changed root incidence from -1 to 0
-Calibrated per forum discussion to

333mph sea level
400mph at 25,000 feet
ceiling is 30,000 feet possibly higher

Climb rate: 3 min to 10,000 feet

------------------
TS Aircombat

posted 04-04- 03:47 PM               

my book gives a max speed for the 190A3 as 389 mph at altitude and the caption next to it says max hp engine boost over ride disabled. so they were making all the hp the BMW radial could make with out the addition of water injection. rate of climb at altitude was around 3,000 to 3,200 fpm again at max hp and the altitude was around 20,000 ft.

the sea level speeds and rates of climb were while the A3 was not making max hp so I would imagine these speeds were higher. I believe the 420 mph speed of any 190A was for an early model fitted with water injection. Since they were much lighter than latter models I can believe they were faster than the 405-410 mph of the A6-A8 were with water injection.

Now here is my problem none of the A1-A4 models were ever producted nor fitted with the water injection except from what I have read a few experimental models. The A4 was made to accept the water injection, but it was never added.

posted 04-04- 06:58 PM               

TS

posted 04-05- 04:59 AM            

The "water injection" you refer to is called MW 50 - its a methanol/water mixture that is injected into the supercharger to cool it down, allowing higher boost/MAP levels to be run for up to ten minutes at a time. It is more effective at heights below the engine's critical altitude(since above that the supercharger can't maintain boost anyway). I think the earliest operational use was with the A-8 model from July '44, and those planes could do 420mph. Without it they only did around 400mph.
(The Me 109K-4 used MW 50 to reach a top speed of 452mph at 20k.)

Some of the F/G models had an extra fuel injector that would spray fuel into the supercharger for a similar effect to MW 50, but it was only for use at altitudes below 1000m. Apparently some A-8's might have had this.

Another power boosting is GM 1 injection, which is N2O or "nitrous oxide" gas, injected into the engine to improve high altitude performance. Logically N2O could be used at any altitude(car engines can use it!), but for some reason it was only used at high altitudes in WW2 aircraft. Again I think it was only used by operational units with the A-8 model.
(This is the stuff that made the Ta 152H go 470mph+ at 41,000ft, with a ceiling of 48,000ft.)

The 420mph figure for the Fw 190A(-3?) comes from the RAE as Tailslide has posted above. Any plane the RAE had was almost certainly a captured, operational aircraft.

The engine in the Fw 190A-3 the RAE tested was "derated" and during testing the spark plugs were found to be fouling at high power settings, causing the comparitive part(Fw 109A-3 vs Typhoon, P-51, P-38F, Spitfire XII etc.) of those tests to be cut short. The report also mentions the engine running roughly at cruise settings, so it was probably sick to begin with.

I'm not sure, but I think "derating" an engine basically involves making combustion go "bang" a little less hard to preserve engine life. Ask a mechanic about it.

IMO:
Fw 190A-3(1941, derated): 390mph.
Fw 190A-3/4(1942, full power): 410-420mph.
Fw 190A-8(1944): 400mph, 420mph with MW 50.

Disclaimer: Of course, I could be wrong...

posted 04-05- 10:09 AM               

You need to either agree on a standard (America's Hundred Thousand MAY be accurate for US planes, but not worth the paper it's written on for the Axis ones IMO) or simply accept that almost ANY documentation somebody finds is at least "close enough" for the time being. You show me a test in AHT or Janes, I'll find you an official US Navy or RAF test that contradicts it, given enough time. Show me a test of a captured Luftwaffe fighter, taken as gospel by your average bookworm expert, I'll find you the actual German factory test that beats it by 10 percent.

IMO there's a good reason why NONE of the respected online sims like Warbirds or Aces High uses "survey sources" like AHT to base their flight models on, but instead require "primary source data" such as official service test establishment reports.

However, that said, if we all AGREED to use a couple of common sources like AHT, at least there wouldn't be much room for argument. IMO the tactics you use in a fight will make more of a difference than a 5 percent error in aircraft performance, and I'm sure AHT is good to within 5%. After all, not EVERY airplane on the line performed up to specs

posted 04-05- 11:41 AM               

Thanks to this thread we have a much better idea of what condition the planes were in when they were tested, who tested them and what the results were. Everyone brought a piece of the puzzle with them.

The two tests were done on planes from opposite ends of the spectrum.. a finely tuned prototype for the A5 and a battle worn A3 that ran roughly.

There's a lot of factors that can affect a planes performance including temperature, wind, etc.. the more data you gather the closer you get to a full profile of how the plane performed in battle.

posted 04-06- 09:50 PM               

I have read quite a bit and these were quotes from both german and american pilots. the 190A was faster at low altitudes 10 or 15K than both a P-47 or a P-38, but above that altitude both american planes had a speed advantage over the 190As

as for the 109G6 from all I have read this plane never had any speed advantage nor was equal in speed to either of the american fighters I have listed above except maybe at altitudes below 5K.

I do not know as much about the 47 as I do the 38, but the 414 figure has to be based on either laim plane or one with the rocket launching x-mas trees. a 38H did 405 mph at around 25K on 2,200 hp (1,100x2) it couldnt make any more hp due to inner coolers for the turbos not working and carb air temp went up causing pre detination. the J soleved this problem and could make 3,200 hp (1,600x2) up to 28,700 ft. so I find it very hard to believe only 8 mph was gained from a plane that made 1,000 more hp on the same airframe with improved props at nearly 4,000 ft greater altitude where wind resistance was lower. most books that specialize on this plane give it a speed of 425-430 mph at 25-30K.

I have seen some unheard of speeds and hp settings for the 38J/L making 3,450 hp, 425 mph military power, and 440 mph wep. go figure. this was out of a book not a web site. so do we model a P-38J/L to the above specs? or do we go on what is accepted as normal for a 38? I know you could over boost the H and earlier modeles (65" or more manifold pressure at altitudes below 10K) but the J/L had automatic controls on the turbos that would limit the pressure to 60 or 61 inches, unless they were adjusted by mechanics in the field to give it more boost. I really dont know?