II/JG17_HerrMurf Posted April 1, 2016 Posted April 1, 2016 (edited) my own very relevant education and experience Crump, You often seem to have decent arguments but then you always go there. Just state your case. No one cares about how super duper educated you are. It comes off as smarmy and absolutely hampers your ability to communicate. Too bad your uber degrees and mounds of experience haven't taught you how to speak to people or hone your communication skills. And yes, you should probably buy and fly the game. All the technical documents in the world won't tell you how they compare to the simulated aircraft and the feel in the game. You could probably do more good with proper testing of BOS/BOM AC with all of your education and experience. If tech docs were all we need we'd all be able to jump into 1400 hp warbirds and just go. In reality it does not work that way and it does not work in reverse either. Because this has been your approach for a couple of years here, and I understand elsewhere as well, you have some significant hurdles to overcome before many will take you seriously. If these were bar conversations, someone would have broken your pen and dotted your eye by now. Edited April 3, 2016 by [LBS]HerrMurf 6
Crump Posted April 1, 2016 Posted April 1, 2016 HerrMurf' timestamp='1459552804' post='345121'] If these were bar conversations, someone would have broken your pen and dotted your eye by now. My eye might not be dotted so easily. i always go there because it seems some people just get stuck on stupid. They refuse to read any materials or learn a thing about the science. they just keep spouting their opinion like it matters. Oh wait, that is most millenials just like my teenage children!! BTW, I get plenty of PM's that say the exact opposite of a few vocal individuals. 1
Venturi Posted April 1, 2016 Posted April 1, 2016 Basically Crump, your motivations are suspect. You don't actually have an interest in "our game" and only troll here to prove you are superior. Every time you post it proves this point. This is why you have been banned multiple times on multiple flight sim forums, IN SPITE of your contributions. 1
Crump Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 Crump, your motivations are suspect. My motivation is I love World War II aviation. It is just a fascinating time in the engineering and science of flight. I work with state of the art aircraft every time I go to work. It is really quite cool to see the beginnings of some the technology we take for granted and at the same time to realize just how sophisticated they were back then in certain area. That is my motivation...end of story. If weren't being so shortsighted, trying to scheme up some silly agenda for me...I bet I could help you find some answers when you have quesitons about why things are going or not going like you feel they should in your game. I do not have dog in the "my gameshape is better than yours hunt or any agenda outside of love of the science. It is a hobby for me. Some people paint, some people knit.....I hunt, fish, skydive, scuba dive, aviate for both work and play, and I got hooked on digging thru old Aeronautical reports and manuals for World War II airplanes when i had to answer such questions as "who makes the wire and what color was it" or "what is a Waffengeber" for that FW-190. Sorry it "Offends" your generation so much, LOL.
Venturi Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 Just from the last two pages. My eye might not be dotted so easily. i always go there because it seems some people just get stuck on stupid. They refuse to read any materials or learn a thing about the science. they just keep spouting their opinion like it matters. Oh wait, that is most millenials just like my teenage children!! BTW, I get plenty of PM's that say the exact opposite of a few vocal individuals. All the usual suspects are showing up now... That is a clue you are pulling "too fast", lol. No, he simple note the characteristics of the airplane. That his job. You are the one who thinks it is some abnormal behavior and it should be caricatured. No, just trying to get you to read what was written from multiple sources including my own very relevant education and experience! Chill out and relax.
Venturi Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 Sorry it "Offends" your generation so much, LOL. You don't know the first thing about me or my age, Crumpp. You have no idea.
SR-F_Winger Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 If you guys dont like eachother take it to PM please - maybe?
3./JG15_Kampf Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 Flying fw 190 in bos: either you are 1000 meters above the enemy, or 1000m in front of the enemy running like crazy. I still can not lose the vices of fw 190 that flew in il2 1946 lol
Holtzauge Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 As far as I can tell the Fw-190A series does not have a Clmax of 1.58 as Crumpp claims. Crumpp seems to assume that the 1.58 Clmax given in the table ”Widerstandsdaten” he posted here pertains to the aircraft while it looks more plausible that the numbers detail the lift, drag and L/D ratio of the propeller at different loads, i.e. cruise ®, climb (St), takeoff (A) and the propeller Clmax. Note that the Cl at climb (St) is listed as 1.1 in the table which shows that the data cannot be for the aircraft itself since the Cl for a Fw-190A in climb conditions is around half of that, i.e. roughly 0.5 to 0.6. As JtD already pointed out in this post, the low mach Clmax for the Fw-190A is most likely in the region of 1.3 which can be compared to the Spitfire at circa 1.36 and the Me-109 at around 1.4. That the Fw-190A should have a no flap Clmax of 1.58 seems incredible and is more likely due to an erroneous interpretation of the “Widerstanddaten” table IMHO. So what we need is some solid documentation that gives a Clmax figure for the Fw-190A at the correct Reynolds numbers and not some wishful thinking by Crumpp. BTW, I notice that Crummp above yet again brings up the subject of his credentials as well as the ability of others. Since Crumpp seems to think this is relevant to the discussion more info about this can be found here. 5
Matt Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 (edited) Well, either Crump is correct or Focke Wulf is. (this says 1.58 with extended flaps for landing btw, 1.45 on take-off with take-off flaps) Edited April 2, 2016 by Matt 1
Crump Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 As far as I can tell the Fw-190A series does not have a Clmax of 1.58 as Crumpp claims. Crumpp seems to assume that the 1.58 Clmax given in the table ”Widerstandsdaten” he posted here pertains to the aircraft while it looks more plausible that the numbers detail the lift, drag and L/D ratio of the propeller at different loads, i.e. cruise ®, climb (St), takeoff (A) and the propeller Clmax. Note that the Cl at climb (St) is listed as 1.1 in the table which shows that the data cannot be for the aircraft itself since the Cl for a Fw-190A in climb conditions is around half of that, i.e. roughly 0.5 to 0.6. As JtD already pointed out in this post, the low mach Clmax for the Fw-190A is most likely in the region of 1.3 which can be compared to the Spitfire at circa 1.36 and the Me-109 at around 1.4. That the Fw-190A should have a no flap Clmax of 1.58 seems incredible and is more likely due to an erroneous interpretation of the “Widerstanddaten” table IMHO. So what we need is some solid documentation that gives a Clmax figure for the Fw-190A at the correct Reynolds numbers and not some wishful thinking by Crumpp. BTW, I notice that Crummp above yet again brings up the subject of his credentials as well as the ability of others. Since Crumpp seems to think this is relevant to the discussion more info about this can be found here. Wow....beside being clearly labeled as Clmax in the ”Widerstandsdaten” .... Clmax has specific definition in aerodynamics....it is the critical angle of attack that the stall occurs.. it is NOT labeled, landing, cruise, climbing or ANY other thing besides CLmax.... How come you are so qualified but do not know the difference between touchdown speed and stall speed? Yes, they happen to be the same in the FW 190.... You do understand that the lift formula will not tell you the wings configuration. It will ONLY tell you the Coefficient of Lift Required at that condition of fight. In other words, the same weight aircraft at 110mph in the clean configuration stall at 1G will have the same Coefficient of Lift at touchdown. Same Coefficient of lift but two very different performance points. The clean configuration stall speed Coefficient of lift is the Clmax of the design... Touchdown speed is 1.3 to 1.23 above Stall speed in the landing configuration......Look it up.. nevermind I already posted it for you. Run the math..... Your coefficient of lift will be in the 1.9 to 2(+) range which what a split flap design on this wing should deliver. Well, either Crump is correct or Focke Wulf is. Screenshot 2016-04-02 16.48.jpg (this says 1.58 with extended flaps for landing btw, 1.45 on take-off with take-off flaps) CL = Lift / (1/2pV^2S) Nothing in there about flaps up or down......
Matt Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 (edited) Nothing in there about flaps up or down...... Can you read German? It also says that CaA means "Abheben" btw, not approach (like JtD already posted). Edited April 2, 2016 by Matt
Crump Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 Can you read German? Yes, can you read english?? Can you do the math??? How hard is it to understand? It is physically impossible for the airplane to stall in the clean configuration with the PEC curves provided and the weight provided at anything but a Clmax of 1.58.... If the touchdown CL is 1.58 at 110 mph then the same weight airplane in clean configuration that stalls at 110mph will have a CLmax of 1.58... Is that too tough to digest??
Crump Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 You are seeing the same value for coefficient of lift at touchdown speed and the clean configuration stall coefficient of lift and believing it can be only one thing.... That is just not true.
Crump Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 (edited) "Abheben" Ok...1.4 is NOT 1.45.... Ansatz means Approach and a German pilot/engineer friend of mine for work is the one who said Ansatz. More importantly, What does that have to do with an airplane stalling at 110mph Clean configuration will have the same coefficient of lift and at touchdown at 110mph?? All that means is if you retract the landing flaps...the airplane will stall in the clean configuration. It is the design point for most flap designs.... That is how most airplanes work, btw!! That is why you have to be careful on the go around with configuration changes.... The curves which are for the propellor? ????? No, they are polar with propeller at zero drag..... It is a technique use today. Edited April 2, 2016 by Crump
Holtzauge Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 Crumpp, you are conveniently avoiding the mention of Cl=1.2 at climb conditions Cl(St) in the Widerstandsdaten table which proves that the data in the table is NOT for the aircraft. Or are you suggesting that the Fw-190A climbs at a Cl=1.2? What is your explanation for the Cl(St)=1.2 in the table then?
Matt Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 Just mentioning it, because yesterday, math still convinced you, taht it meant approach. CaA = Approach (Vref) or LANDING speed That is how the Landing chart was constructed in the Flugzeug Handbuch...run the math.
Holtzauge Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 (edited) There is actually more in the Widerstandsdaten table that convinces me it concerns propeller data: Above the Ca( R ) value, there are two values given: L/D 0.7 R and d/t 0.7 R. Now the first one is the propeller Lift/Drag relationship and the second one is the relative thickness of the propeller profile. The 0.7 R is the 70% location on the propeller blade from the rotational axis. Time for some moose steak and a glass or two of Bordeaux for me so I'll leave you poor blighters to the unthankful task of talking some sense into Crumpp. Good luck! Edited April 2, 2016 by Holtzauge 1
Crump Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 The basis for the prediction of the maximum lift coefficient of the wing with flap and slat deflection is to compute a change in CLmax caused by the leading and trailing edge devices and add them to the clean wing CLmax. A split flap system is not going to stall at the same speed as the clean wing. That is because touchdown speed is NOT stall speed. Once more, the clean wing CLmax IS the basis for any landing flap design....
Crump Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 There is actually more in the Widerstandsdaten table that convinces me it concerns propeller data: Oh so now the document that Matt posted is now not correct. Or is that talking about propellers too???? And do we just stick our head in the sand about this document??
Crump Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 (edited) Perhaps we wish to say this document represents the stall in landing configuration?? Not likely..... Most likely Focke Wulf did the same most designs do and used the clean configuration CLmax as the design point for the landing configuration. Would not be the first and would nicely fit the facts of our clean configuration stall speed of 110mph IAS matching our touchdown speed of 110mph IAS. Given the shape of the Position Error Curve, That would also make sense with the RAE findings of 105 mph IAS for the landing configuration stall speed..... There is actually more in the Widerstandsdaten table that convinces me it concerns propeller data: That is above it but has nothing to do with the Coefficients of lift published below. It also has data on bombs...perhaps is a secret plan to build a bomb?? You do realize it probably just as the report is labeled.....Drag Data for Aircraft.... Drag has component due to lift, doesn't it...engineer? Wouldn't it make sense to list the lift coefficient so you can use that "drag data"! Seriously, that is the propeller data at the primary thrust production airfoil section. The propeller is designed to produce maximum thrust at the .7 radius. That is is its thickest point. Makes me think of a few folks on another board who wanted to look at tip losses as a basis for thrust production in the propeller. The propeller is not design to produce much thrust at the tip...that is why they are tapered!! Edited April 2, 2016 by Crump
Holtzauge Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 Crumpp: In spite of all the red, green and yellow underlining smokescreens you are blowing, you still have not answered the fundamental question to what is the CaSt=1.2 in the Widerstandsdaten table connected? You yourself have said in Post #375 that "CaSt = Steigflug or climbing flight." So since you claim that the Camax=1.58 value in the table is for the airplane then by the same token you think CaSt=1.2 pertains to the Cl value for the airplane in climbing flight right? And no squirming or smokescreens this time: It's a simple and straightforward question. Simply answer yes or no. 1
Crump Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 Yes it appears to be in vicinity of Best angle of climb...
Holtzauge Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 Yes it appears to be the value used in climbing flight for best rate of climb. Nope. The Cl used in climbing flight is much lower, about 0.5 to 0.6. Why don't you do the math yourself as you are so fond of telling others to do? It's getting late here but if you post your calculations showing a climb Cl of 1.2 then I will post my calculations tomorrow and we can compare.
Crump Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 The Cl used in climbing flight is much lower, about 0.5 to 0.6. That is correct for best rate but not best angle. Best angle is going to be just forward of the bottom of the thrust required curve...right in the vicinity of 188kph that gives us the Cl 1.2 Do the math. Best angle is what is used to climb to 20 meters on Blatt 22......
von_Tom Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 To summarise. The thing stalls too easily. Cool someone dress that up as a fancy report with documents and maths and stuff and let the devs do their thing. von Tom 1
LittleJP Posted April 2, 2016 Posted April 2, 2016 Here's a quick comparison This is before the patch Here's after. Look how quickly the stall kicks in, when I could pull the same split S without issue previously.
Turban Posted April 3, 2016 Posted April 3, 2016 (edited) I don't see the problem in these videos. The excessive forgiveness in the first video is obvious. The (vey minimal) stall in the second video seems legit considering the maneuver. If you wanna convince someone, as Von Tom said, do the maths and all, because it isn't with that kind of video that you're gonna make a case....... on the contrary. Edited April 3, 2016 by Turban
Crump Posted April 3, 2016 Posted April 3, 2016 the maths Go back a few pages.... It is already done for you.
II/JG17_HerrMurf Posted April 3, 2016 Posted April 3, 2016 My eye might not be dotted so easily. Should have known that, besides the smartest, you were also the toughest guy on the internet. How's the supermodel wife at the mansion? I guess I will have to write you off as a nothing more than a troll as so many others have before me. 6
LittleJP Posted April 3, 2016 Posted April 3, 2016 I don't see the problem in these videos. The excessive forgiveness in the first video is obvious. The (vey minimal) stall in the second video seems legit considering the maneuver. If you wanna convince someone, as Von Tom said, do the maths and all, because it isn't with that kind of video that you're gonna make a case....... on the contrary. No need to sound like I slept with your sister and your wife, I merely posted that to get a direct comparison between the two planes.
StG2_Manfred Posted April 3, 2016 Posted April 3, 2016 (edited) Here's a quick comparison This is before the patch Here's after. Look how quickly the stall kicks in, when I could pull the same split S without issue previously. Exactly JP, this patch made this plane almost useless, it's a shame. One more thing, put Turban [Edited] on your ignore list, as Hairy 'suggested'. Since I did, the forum is much better to read Edited April 5, 2016 by Bearcat Persoanl 1
Holtzauge Posted April 3, 2016 Posted April 3, 2016 That is correct for best rate but not best angle. Best angle is going to be just forward of the bottom of the thrust required curve...right in the vicinity of 188kph that gives us the Cl 1.2 Do the math. Best angle is what is used to climb to 20 meters on Blatt 22...... Oh, so now we make a new interpretation of the CaSt do we? It’s no longer the Ca for best climb rate but now it’s for best angle of climb? No matter: Why don’t we look at the Cl at cruise then? How do you explain CaR=1.1 in the Widerstandsdaten table? By your own words the CaR defines the Cl at cruise. Why don’t you run the “math” for that and show us how you come up with a Cl=1.1 at cruise?
JtD Posted April 3, 2016 Posted April 3, 2016 In my interpretation, the entire section listed on the lower part of the Widerstandsdaten-sheet are the figures Fw uses for input into their calculations regarding take off and landing. You have values with the index: r: for "Rollen", i.e. take off roll A: for "Abheben", i.e. for lift off St: for "Steigen", i.e. for initial climb rate max: for "Maximium", i.e. for maximum flaps deflection in landing configuration. All in all, this makes sense if you look at the structure of the document, the calculations performed by Fw, plus the indexes can be found with that use and similar values in other Fw documents. Spelled out just like that. Ca max given there is neither the actual maximum lift coefficient obtainable by the Fw190, nor is it for clean configuration. It's what can be safely assumed in landing configuration (that's what Fw states it is), and is used for the landing speed (Landegeschwindigkeit) part in the calculation. If you look at the first couple of lines you can find drag values for climb (Steigflug) and level flight (Schnellflug), which are given as a product with the 18.3m² wing area. For reference, the Steigflug figure is 0.623, for a cw of 0.034, which is obviously factor five different from the flaps 12° gear down cw of 0.1735 given in the lower section for the initial climb. Please don't let Crump confuse you about this very straightforward and simple data sheet. 5
Holtzauge Posted April 3, 2016 Posted April 3, 2016 (edited) In my interpretation, the entire section listed on the lower part of the Widerstandsdaten-sheet are the figures Fw uses for input into their calculations regarding take off and landing. You have values with the index: r: for "Rollen", i.e. take off roll A: for "Abheben", i.e. for lift off St: for "Steigen", i.e. for initial climb rate max: for "Maximium", i.e. for maximum flaps deflection in landing configuration. All in all, this makes sense if you look at the structure of the document, the calculations performed by Fw, plus the indexes can be found with that use and similar values in other Fw documents. Spelled out just like that. Ca max given there is neither the actual maximum lift coefficient obtainable by the Fw190, nor is it for clean configuration. It's what can be safely assumed in landing configuration (that's what Fw states it is), and is used for the landing speed (Landegeschwindigkeit) part in the calculation. If you look at the first couple of lines you can find drag values for climb (Steigflug) and level flight (Schnellflug), which are given as a product with the 18.3m² wing area. For reference, the Steigflug figure is 0.623, for a cw of 0.034, which is obviously factor five different from the flaps 12° gear down cw of 0.1735 given in the lower section for the initial climb. Please don't let Crump confuse you about this very straightforward and simple data sheet. Well that could be a reasonable interpretation as well, i.e. that the R stands "Rollen" and that the numbers pertain to starting conditions with flap deflected. I did the calculations for the Steigflug conditions with no flap (row 11 from top in the Widerstandsdaten table) and entering a Cl=1.2 into this you get a CwSt=0.034 which is then lower than the cwSt =0.1735 (row 11 from bottom in the Widerstandsdaten) so I knew something was off. That was why is suspected it was the propeller data, especially since a Cl=1.1 for cruise with the "Reiseflug" interpretation is obviously nuts. So to conclude then: The Camax=1.58 for the Fw-190 is with flap deflection and not the no-flap condition Crumpp claims. That makes sense since the Me-109 had a no flap low mach Clmax=1.4 and the Spitfire about 1.36...... Edited April 3, 2016 by Holtzauge
Holtzauge Posted April 3, 2016 Posted April 3, 2016 @Matt: Tried to PM you but your mailbox seems blocked. I was wondering if you could share the document you refer to here?: post#411
JtD Posted April 3, 2016 Posted April 3, 2016 It's available for instance from the avialogs page Venturi has already linked: http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/aircraft/germany/focke-wulf/fw190/focke-wulf-flugzeugmuster-bericht-nr-06011-fw-190-mit-bmw-801d.html A very nice document which contains a fair amount of performance data for the Fw190.
Holtzauge Posted April 3, 2016 Posted April 3, 2016 It's available for instance from the avialogs page Venturi has already linked: http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/aircraft/germany/focke-wulf/fw190/focke-wulf-flugzeugmuster-bericht-nr-06011-fw-190-mit-bmw-801d.html A very nice document which contains a fair amount of performance data for the Fw190. Thanks for that and thanks for clearing up the Clmax=1.58 issue.
Recommended Posts