Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
davparlr said:I read somewhere that the Fw-190D could generate significant more power than the P-51B which would indicate either the numbers of the P-51B (which seems solid) or the Fw-190D are suspect.
Soren said:Davparlr, I was looking at one from Army Air Forces Proving Ground Command
Eglin Field in Florida dated 7th July 1944, where tail nr. 43-24755, 43-24757 and 43-24775 were tested at 75" MP. - The engines being V-1650-7's using 44-1 fuel.
They are not suspect, the way the testing was carried out was just different. IIRC the German way of measuring Time to Climb was starting the clock already at the start of the take off roll, where'as the US and British way was to start the clock from the point of take off.
It should be quite obvious to you that the engine didn't perform nearly as well as it should have Hop, and this is backed up by the report itself as well as German pilot testimonies
The engine's reliability was never ever questioned by the LW pilots who flew the bird, and it was described as a very nicely running engine which is backed up by a great reliability record.
bviously something went wrong in the translation of the climb rate tests performed by the RAE, cause those figures are just completely unreal, esp. when compared to the speeds achieved
In any case you're better off asking Crumpp about this, as I'm simply not in the mood for a long discussion regarding your assumptions on this subject.
And about the Spit IX pilots confidence when facing the FW190, remember by 42-43 the A-4, A-5 A-6 were serving with the LW, and these gave the RAF fighters a serious beating over the channel.
So its of no use comparing the Spit IX with the A-3, as newer and more powerful 190's had been introduced by the time of the Spit IX's introduction.
uring the period of February to July 1942, the JG 2 26 shot down atleast 335 enemy a/c to the loss of just 85 FW-190 BF-109's.
And on August 19th 1942, the day of the British operation "Jubilee", JG 2 26 despite being heavily outnumbered claimed 96 aerial victories while losing just 21 fighters themselves - the RAF admitted the loss of 103 a/c that day, 88 of which were Spitfires.
As I understand it for operation Jubilee the British had 46 squadrons of spitfires, but only 4 of those had the Spit IX. The others were Mk V which we all admit was at a significant disadvantage over the Fw190.
t must be noted here that when the P-51B arrived in May of 1943 it was similar in performance to the contemporary Spitfire IX in ceiling and rate of climb
I did not get the same P-51B performance numbers you did. From a flight test chart for Tail Number 43-24777, tested 3-31-44, at 75" Hg, 9680 lbs and wing racks (see my referenced site in previous message) I interpreted the following time to climb data.
6,561 ft 1.8 min
13,123 3.2
19,685 5.2
26,246 8.0
32,808 12.5
I read somewhere that the Fw-190D could generate significant more power than the P-51B which would indicate either the numbers of the P-51B (which seems solid) or the Fw-190D are suspect.
I think the Spit IX would be lighter on it feet than the P-51B and is probably a better dogfighter as is the Fw-190D.
Glider said:This is digressing a little but you may be able to help me. I know that later Spit IX's had an extra 75 gallon tank internally in the rear fusulage giving a similar amount of fuel as the P51. What I don't know is what different this made to the range. Can either of you help me?
Finally just a thought re the Spit IX vs 190 debate. Don't forget the other improvement the Spit had which gave it a considerable advantage over the 190 in actual combat and that is the new advanced gunsights. This was I suggest, as least as important as as an extra 100/200 hp from the engine.
Hop said:Well, climb rate was far lower on the P-51 and the ceiling was about 2,000ft lower for similar altitude versions. But more importantly, the first production P-51B flew in May 43, they didn't actually get into action until December 43.
Bear in mind maximum power on the Merlin was developed at 67" MAP on 100/130 octane fuel. The figures for 75" required 100/150 octane fuel, which didn't enter service until the summer of 1944. Even then, in service the 8th AF only used 72", although the RAF used up to 81" in their Merlin engined aircraft (Spitfire IXs mainly, but also Mustangs, Mosquitos)
In short, look at the performance figures for the P-51B at 67" to represent P-51Bs from Dec 1943 to summer 1944, and performance figures at 72" after that.
At 67" MAP the Merlin developed about 1750 hp peak, which is considerably less than the Jumo 213 (1900ps was common, over 2000 possible in some configurations). However, at 81" the Merlin put out over 2000hp, so 75" would be somewhere around 1900hp.
Yes, the P-51B on 67" climbed at a peak rate of 3,450 ft/min with 180 gallons of fuel. The Spitfire LF IX at 67" (18 lbs in British terminology) something around 4,700 ft/min with 102 gallons of fuel, and a much more powerfull armament.
What would have been the equivalent Spitfire in December 1943?
Spitfire configurations always confuse me. What would the equivalent Spitfire version with the Packard Merlin-3 and -7?
Some of the data I have seen indicated a P-51B with a -3 engine had a similar ceiling as the Spit IX, 42,000 ft.
The Spit IX came in a couple of flavours in regards to fuel tankage:
1. 85 gal internal, nose tanks (standard)
2. 95 gal internal, enlarged nose tanks (non-standard, only some small production runs and refits)
3. 85 gal nose tanks + 75 gal rear tanks (standard from mid-late 1944)
4. 95 gal nose tanks + 75 gal rear tanks (non standard)
5. 85 gal nose tanks + 65 gal rear tanks (standard from 1945 onwards)
The effect on range was significant. On plain old internal tankage, the Mk IX had a (one way) range of about 460-475 miles.
Hop said:As late as December 1941 the Luftwaffe was recommending that the 190 not be flown over water because of engine reliability.
Hop said:No, they didn't. By 1943 the RAF very much had the upper hand.
Hop said:And the casualty figure looks a bit low. Caldwell lists at least 40 JG 26 pilots killed during the period. considering pilots usually die half as often as their planes, that would make JG 2 very quiet.
Hop said:About 60 Spitfires lost, according to Tony Wood's lists.
And I hope that when you come to your senses you will realize that the engine certainly at no point ran better than it should, cause that is just a downright silly idea.
Also Faber's A-3 was never run at above recommended settings, and I have no idea what makes you think otherwise.
s written in the report itself: "There are indications that the engine of this aircraft is de-rated, this being supported by the pilot's instruction card found in the cockpit."
The following table, taken from the cockpit, gives the operational limitations of the engine on this aircraft:
Conditions Time Boost RPM
ATA Up to 6km Over 6km
Take off 3 min 1.35 2450 2450
and level
Climbing 30 min 1.28 2350 2450
Continuous 1.14 2250 2450
Speed runs (maximum 3 minutes ratings used)
FW 190 2700 rpm @ 1.42 ata
In the case of the FW 190 the 30 minute rating was taken to be 2450 rpm @ 1/35 ata
At no point did the power setting ever exceed 1.42ata in the British tests with the a/c.
Firstly I'm going to need a source on that,
The BMW-801D engine was an extremely powerful, reliable and nicely running engine with an astonishing service record, and I repeat; never was its reliability ever questioned by the men who flew or maintained the bird.
According to German loss records 85 a/c were lost in that period by JG 2 26, and where you got your "Pilots usually die half of the time" theory I have no idea.
About 60 Spitfires lost, according to Tony Wood's lists.
Tony Wood ? Yes ofcourse
I think I'm going to stick with Caldwell on this one though..
Oh for Christ's sake Hop, you contradict yourself time and again...
The British ran the engine at maximum power for only 2min at a time, and the BMW-801D would normally easily achieve this. But this is irrelevant cause the British ran Faber's A-3 at 2,450rpm @ 1.35ata during the partial climbing tests.
The official operational limitations of the BMW-801D engine:
Start u. Notleistung (3min): 1.42ata
Steig u. Kampfleistung (30min): 1.32ata
Höchstdauerleistung: 1.20 ata
Now looking at this why should the limitations for the engine on Faber's A-3 be any different from this if it wasn't because of the fact that it underperformed quite significantly ?
Quote: It's certainly arguable the 190 wasn't making proper power in the test,
There is little to argue about as it is a documented fact. More than one test of WNr. 313 had to be abandoned due to engine trouble.
As late as December 1941 the Luftwaffe was recommending that the 190 not be flown over water because of engine reliability.
Faber's plane was tested first by the AFDU at higher than permitted settings.
Like all new designs there were problems to be solved. When it first appeared the motor was extremely unreliable. It's life expectancy was measured in a few short hours. On 01 August 1941 Oblt. Otto Behren's Operational Test Squadron, Erprobungsstaffel 190, moved from Rechlin to Le Bourget outside of Paris to begin training the II Gruppe Jadgeschwader 26 on the FW-190A1. Although many minor technical difficulties would be solved over the next few weeks it would not be until the 06 November 1941 that III Gruppes Technical Officer, Rolf Schröder would make the biggest leap forward in reliability for the engine. At BMW's repair shop in Albert during the investigation into engine failures Schröder noticed that a simple exhaust reroute would prevent the back bottom two cylinders from overheating. The design change was immediately implemented and the aircraft modified both at the Geschwader and the Factory. Within a short period of time, the 8th Stafflekaptain, Oblt. Karl Borris received a gold watch from BMW for having the first engine to reach 100 hours of operational flight time. Borris's luck would continue to hold as he later survived a fall from 22,000 feet with a collapsed canopy suffering numerous broken bones. Average reliability would now be measured in triple figures for the BMW 801C2 series motor.
Laut TAGL Nr. 257-42 ist für die zelle die kontrollreihe 200-5 vorgesehen. Das bedeutet, daß nach 200 betreibsstunden eine Teilüberholung und nach 5 teilüberholungsabschnitten eine Grundüberholung durchgeführt werden muß. Für den Motor BMW 801 liegt eine kontrollreihe von 100-1 vor eines jahres keine teilüberholung bei einem flugzeug oder motro vorgenommen, so sind nach einer sonderprüfung die zulassungen zu verlängern. Nach 200 starts muß eine fahrwerkskontrolle eingelegt werd.
Just prior to World War II, engineers at both Pratt Whitney and Curtiss-Wright worked feverishly to produce the first air-cooled engine capable of more than 2,000 horsepower. The efforts of both teams were nearly thwarted by severe vibration from unexpected sources. This is the story of how the Pratt Whitney team, through hard labor and persistence, identified and solved the problems with vibration. The result was one of the most successful engines of all times - the R-2800.
Crumpp said:Hi Everyone,
Here is the order I would rate these fighters:
#1 FW190 if I was Luftwaffe pilot who flew the FW190.
#1 Spitfire if I was an RAF pilot who flew the Spitfire.
#1 P51 if I was a USAAF pilot who flew the P51.
All the best,
Crumpp