Karl Heidenreich wrote:yellowtail,
I do not understand this last post of yours, it is completely unnecesary and disputes nothing. You make an assertion without any support nor can refute anything I post: typical argumentative in nature breaking down some other guy's post and dissect it out of context. I do believe you need to upgrade your cultural level.
The 190D was better, but very few and still somewhat inferior to the -47 and -51 at altitude... Rough parity, maybe, using a generous perspective.
Gee, Karl, if you do not want me to ref your posts, just say so. But re-read mine: I wrote that the 190 was a very good a/c. Since the thread is about COMPARISON, I note it was deficient in high altitude performance relative to competition. Perhaps you disagree? If so, make yer case and quit with the complaints & whining about my 'culture'.... Talking about a/c should be fun!
To thread subj... In your view, in what areas was the 190D superior to, say, a P-51D? How did they compare in cruise speed, top speed, dive speed, controlability at high speed, armament and persistence/range?
oh... I was talking about aircraft, not 'operational records' - if i was doing that, I'd say the that 190s had a poor record, as they were unable to stop the bomber offensive.I made my case pretty clear yesterday demostrating that FW 190 had a much better operational record than the US fighters. In order to do it I came forth with evidence on that regard.
in that case, areas of superiority for -51 over 190 include higher cruise speed, vastly better fuel fraction, more efficient engine, better dive speed, better top speed (and sped was what mattered, those days). I think the 190 generally has better armament. And, I think it was probably a little cheaper to produce tha -51, definitely less expensive that the relatively complex P-47 (ESP if one were using slave labor... Not sure if FW did that or not)You have to prove me that the FW 190 performed worse in COMPARISON with the P 51 or P 47 when I already prove you that german pilots in FW 190 had much better kill ratios than any US european theatre pilot.
well... If you postin Latin and call someone a troll... That must be some kind of trump?Karl Heidenreich wrote:
Cogito ergo sum
Perhaps it might be fairer to say that it was the shear weight of numbers of P51's that eventually overcame the German fighter defence?
paul.mercer wrote: Perhaps it might be fairer to say that it was the shear weight of numbers of P51's that eventually overcame the German fighter defence?
yellowtail3 wrote:I think the 190 was a very, very good fighter, flexible and adaptable. It suffered at altitude, which is where it was needed when the bombing campaign got cranked up. The 190D was better, but very few and still somewhat inferior to the -47 and -51 at altitude... Rough parity, maybe, using a generous perspective. And by the time the 190D was I squadron service, rough parity wasn't near enough for the Nazis.
Last year at Chino I saw a new production 190 with an R2800... Very cool.
Fw-190 D-9 Statistics:
Engine: Junkers Jumo 213A1 with MW-50 boost.
Power: 2,240 HP.
Max. Speed: 704 km/h. (438 mph.)
Max. Climb: 1110 m/min (3,642 ft/min.)
Empty Weight: 3,490 kg. (7,694 lbs.)
Loaded Weight *Clean*: 4,293 kg. (9,464 lbs.)
Max. Weight: 4,839 kg. (10,670 lbs.)
Wing-Span: 10.50 m. (34.4 ft.)
Wing-Area: 18.3 sq.m. (197 sq.ft.)
Armament: 2x 13mm HMG's (MG 131) & 2x 20mm cannons (MG 151/20).
Fw-190 D-9 Aerodynamic statistics:
Wing-loading *Loaded*: 234.59 kg/sq.m. (48 lbs/sq.ft.)
Wing Aspect-Ratio: 6.02.
Airfoil: NACA 23015.3 - NACA 23009.
Airfoil Thickness Ratio: Root= 15.3% Tip= 9% .
Wing CL-max *Freeflow*: 1.52 .
Lift-loading *Loaded*: 154.33 kg/sq.m. (31.5 lbs/sq.ft.)
Power-loading *Loaded*: 1.91 kg/hp. (4.22 lbs/hp.)
Fw-190 D-9 Additional features:
-Bubble-canopy & Flettner Tabs.
-Inclined seat position for better G-load resistance & "Kommandogerat".
P-51D Mustang Statistics:
Engine: Packard Merlin V-1650-7.
Power: 1,790 HP.
Max.Speed: 703 km/h (437mph).
Max. Climb: 1011 m/min. (3,320 ft/min)
Empty Weight: 3,466 kg. (7,641 lbs.)
Loaded Weight *Clean*: 5,034 kg. (11,100 lbs.)
Max. Weight: 5,489 kg. (12,100 lbs.)
Wing-Span: 11.3 m. (37.07 ft.)
Wing-Area: 21.64 sq.m. (233 sq.ft.)
Armament: 6x .50 cal HMG's (M2).
P-51D Mustang Aerodynamic statistics:
Wing-Loading *Loaded*: 232.62 kg/sq.m. (47.6 lbs/sq.ft.)
Wing Aspect-Ratio: 5.81 .
Airfoil: "Laminar" NAA/NACA 45-100 - NAA/NACA 45-100.
Airfoil Thickness Ratio: Root= 14.8 or 15% Tip= 12%.
Wing CL-max: 1.28 .
Lift-loading *Loaded*: 181.73 kg/sq.m. (37.18 lbs/sq.ft.)
Power-loading *Loaded*: 2.81 kg/hp. (6.2 lbs/hp.)
P-51D Mustang Additional features:
-Laminar wing & Tear-shaped canopy.
Airfoil Thickness Ratio - Higher is better.
Airfoil CL-max - Higher is better.
Wing Aspect Ratio - Higher is better.
Lift-loading - Lower is better.
Power-loading - Lower is better.
Wing Aspect ratio info:
High aspect ratio wings have long spans (like high performance gliders), while low aspect ratio wings have either short spans (like the F-16 fighter) or thick chords (like the Space Shuttle). There is a component of the drag of an aircraft called induced drag which depends inversely on the aspect ratio. A higher aspect ratio wing has a lower drag and a higher lift than a lower aspect ratio wing. All else being equal, the higher the wing aspect ratio, the higher the wing Cl-max is also going to be.
Mostlyharmless wrote:The new build Fw 190s are powered by a derivative of the Shvetsov ASh-82 http://www.flugwerk.de/html/page.php?GID=19&SID=4. I very much doubt if a bigger engine such as a R-2800 would fit.
It is clear that between a Fw 190 D has better statistics than the P 51: more powerfull engine, no great difference in speed and climbing
yellowtail3 wrote:Mostlyharmless wrote:The new build Fw 190s are powered by a derivative of the Shvetsov ASh-82 http://www.flugwerk.de/html/page.php?GID=19&SID=4. I very much doubt if a bigger engine such as a R-2800 would fit.
I don't see why it shouldn't fit; the R2800 is only an inch or two larger in diameter. It made more power per inch (specific power) and displaced a little more. But here is how I know that the 190 at Chino has a Pratt: I peeked into the cowling! (no cooling fan in there)
Here it that aircraft starting up - does that sound like a Pratt, or what? I saw it fly a couple weeks after this video was made
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests