Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
DAVIDICUS said:Go to:
http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/axisair.htm
Scroll down to P-47 vs. FW-190 for an interesting test comparing the two. One comes away with the impression that the P-47 was a much better performer at lower altitudes and speeds than is generally assumed.
Jank said:Interesting tests. Looks like she could do her part in keeping up with Germanys finest. Always thought she was a dead horse when slow at lower levels. Guess that paddle propeler helped a lot.
RG_Lunatic said:DAVIDICUS said:Go to:
http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/axisair.htm
Scroll down to P-47 vs. FW-190 for an interesting test comparing the two. One comes away with the impression that the P-47 was a much better performer at lower altitudes and speeds than is generally assumed.
If you check it out, you will see that pages 1 and 2 concern a FW190A vs. P-47D with ADI but apparently no paddle prop. Pages 3 and 4 are an earlier test of an FW190A vs. P-47C.
The difference is night and day.
=S=
Lunatic
KraziKanuK said:RG_Lunatic said:DAVIDICUS said:Go to:
http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/axisair.htm
Scroll down to P-47 vs. FW-190 for an interesting test comparing the two. One comes away with the impression that the P-47 was a much better performer at lower altitudes and speeds than is generally assumed.
If you check it out, you will see that pages 1 and 2 concern a FW190A vs. P-47D with ADI but apparently no paddle prop. Pages 3 and 4 are an earlier test of an FW190A vs. P-47C.
The difference is night and day.
=S=
Lunatic
What, no tests of the Fw using C3 injection or the 2100ps engine or fitted with paddle bladed props?
A P-47 could climb at 5000f/m which the Spit IX could do? Sure.
DAVIDICUS said:I'm not sure that a mere accounting for weight is sufficient to account for the difference in performance RG.
The "M" at normal loaded weight was 13,275lbs.
The "D" at normal loaded weight was 14,600lbs.
The "M" was outfitted with the R-2800-57(C) with a larger CH-5 turbosupercharger. It had a WEP of 2,800hp. It had an initial climb rate of 3,500fpm.
The "D" was outfitted with the R-2800-59. It could achieve a WEP of 2,535hp. It had an initial climb rate of 2,780fpm.
My point is that based on my understanding, as set out above, there appears to be more than a mere reduction of weight that made the "M" such a hot ship. Otherwise, a stripped down "D" model weighing as much or less than an "M" model would be able to achieve the same performance.
RG_Lunatic said:The comparison was made vs. an early Spit IX with the Merlin 61 engine. And the Spit IX did not have a 5000 fpt climb rate.
German props were rather poor in design, and no such equiped FW's were available. The unit that was available was running at something like 1.5 ata, pretty good for most FW's.
KraziKanuK said:RG_Lunatic said:The comparison was made vs. an early Spit IX with the Merlin 61 engine. And the Spit IX did not have a 5000 fpt climb rate.
German props were rather poor in design, and no such equiped FW's were available. The unit that was available was running at something like 1.5 ata, pretty good for most FW's.
The Spit IX @ 25lb boost certainly could do 5000f/m.
KraziKanuK said:An A-8 @ 1.58/1.65 @ SL had RoC of almost 3400f/m. At 20,000ft it was almost 2200f/m. This is without the wide blades or a 2100ps BMW TS/TU engine. There was no time restriction on 1.65.