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
But at what point did the engine not perform as well as it should have? Before the test, during the test, or after the test? If it's the first, all the figures from the test are wrong. If the second, it might have been performing properly (or even better than normal) before failing, if the last it might have been performing better than normal throughout.
From reading the tests, it's clearly not the last. From looking at the climb performance figurres, its not the first either.
All we know for sure from the assesment of Faber's plane is that the RAF ran it at above the recommended power settings, and the engine didn't run properly for some of the time.
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.
As late as December 1941 the Luftwaffe was recommending that the 190 not be flown over water because of engine reliability.
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
Exactly. Combined with the very low FTH, I suspect there was a problem with the automatic control. The high climb rates at high altitude could only have been achieved by an increase in RPM, or by a mistake in readings.
All in all, the tests of Faber's plane, which were conducted in a hurry on a totally unknown aircraft, don't tell us that much about the real performance. If the speed was too low, and the climb rate too high, what stock can be set in the results of the evaluations?
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.
Soren, we had a discussion some time ago about the performance of the 109K4 at 1.98 ata. Months after you had registered at Butch's forum, I'm still waiting for your response.
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.
No, they didn't. By 1943 the RAF very much had the upper hand.
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.
And newer Spitfire IXs, too. The test against Faber's plane was conducted by a Spitfire F IX with Merlin 61, limited to 18 lbs boost. The Merlin 63, 66 and 70 increased the boost to 18 lbs, adding a few hundred hp, and increased the climb rate at lower levels by up to 1,000 ft/min, and speed by about 20 mph at lower levels.
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.
Which was of course before the introduction of the Spitfire IX.
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.
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.
About 60 Spitfires lost, according to Tony Wood's lists.
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.
The Spitfire IXs were only partially committed to Dieppe, the 8th AF was flying their first major bombing sortie that day, and the Spitfire IXs were tasked with escort for them.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
