Jump to content

Redwulf__1

Members
  • Content Count

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11 Good

About Redwulf__1

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.Redwulf.de

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Mönchengladbach / Germany
  1. Thanks Crump Thats all I wanted to know. With your words....BoS will have a calculated wing polar....?
  2. @PauloWhat are you refering to ? Are you using the datas that were uploaded at July 2013? If so, you cant use it. These were testflights with a bigger wing ( 20 qm2) not with the standart V5g wing. They tested it also without ammunition and weapons, just with the lafettes. You cant use these as references. A very good reference on the engine is this sheet here http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/bmw801-handbook-pg15.jpg Take a look to the 801 D entries. All other A 3 performance shetts at this websiote are refering to the Aa3 ( turkish airforce ). Foreign tests include dthere as well. The know flown datas from Focke Wulf are already known here. Merry christmas to you all and a happy new year
  3. First of all thank you for the reply JtD. But as you know the V5g wing was mounted with a 2 degree twsit at the root, but then running out to zero at the wingtip. ( I think from rip 13 ). That also means the wingtip with stall first if the wingtwist at the root is not included ( or their calculated polars ). In overall that means the wing itsself has a higher tendecnce to stall, even in high speed turns ( what the original Focke Wulf did too in a violent move ). The stock wing and i say that clear is only my opinion, has a not so realistic stall behavior then the corrected wing in HSFX. You can try it for yourself ( I dunno if you still have the stock IL 2 ) if you try to land the Fockes with its minimum landing speeds ( from original charts ). You will see before you reach that speed it drops the wing to one side. You wont recover if you are to low. The airflow cuts earlier then it should. Just my expirience during the testflights for the HSFX Doras.... @M.K.Bivalov The main problem with the BMW engine is its development. It got also designed as Bomber engine, it had several development stages and more try outs for more PS output in that time. I thin in this we need to follow the dateline. If you are displaying an A 3 for the battle of Stalingrad, you should ignore the later stages in my opinion. The technical specs of the engines as standart are known. These are in german and from original Handbook BMW for 801 A / C / D / from May 1942 Bohrung: 156 mm Hub: 156 mm Hubraum: 41,8 Liter Verdichtungsverhältnis: 7,2:1 Ladedruck: 1,42 bar abs. Laderbauart: einstufig, Zweigang Durchmesser: 1.290 mm Länge: 2.006 mm Trockenmasse: 1.010 kg Startleistung: 1.700 PS (1.250 kW) Startleistung in Meereshöhe bei 2.700 min-1 Propelleruntersetzung: 0,54 Volldruckhöhe: 5.700 m
  4. First of all I have to admitt that I was wrong with my statement about the inner wheel covers. I found the text in my documents that says in original german: "Diese Klappen wurden aufgrund ihrer Störanfälligkeit bei den Einsatzeinheiten häufig wieder entfernt." Free translated These Flaps got often removed from the combatunits because their susceptibility. This was explained in a FW 190 A 3 Document I have here..., so not a standart order to remove them. Sorry for this false statement, I have had it wrong in my mind. @ MK Bivalov: The attachemnet i loaded up in a post before mentioned that these A3- A5 results were flown , not calculated.- Kwiatek is also right, some charts show in the power seeting for the engine 1730 PS. The original Kennblatt of the BMW 801 D2 engine gives us 1700 PS. Personally I dont trust forgeign tests not that much,i.e. sometimes they didnt use the right fuel, props etc. I remember the russian A 8 Test that was once in discussion with Oleg Maddox a few years ago. (you are wrong...) The links you provided: Sorry I cant read russisn, but the A 3 you show us is in my opinion an A 3 with Kiemenspaltenbleche, nothing adjustable. About speeds: The Datenkennblatt from Focke Wulf, dated 29.11.1942 gives more information about speeds: It says: 635 km/h in 6000 Meters in climb and combat setting and 665 km/h in 6500 Meters in takeoff and emergeny setting. As said my focus is on the D Series, but what I know from there is that with mounted ETC 501 rack the inner wheel covers needed to be removed. Why should´nt that be different in the A Series? The hull was the same, D9 for example just got an extended Hull in the aft section because the changed CoG ( Jumo 213 A1 engine ). But as MK said we are a bit out off topic. Please allow me to come back to the wing polars. Iam still interessted in this. Because if the 2 degree wingtwist is not adopted in this game we will have an unrealistic airflow over the wings. That also means you will face the same unrealistic, even high speed, stall behavior like in IL2. If this is not corrected you need to use some different polars that will simulate the wingtwist ( like in the HSFX 7 Series calculated by Aken ).
  5. OK, nice pictures, but are we talking about standart?
  6. I uploaded also in post above a data sheet that shows flown results from A 3 up to A 5 in brakets. Watch the speeds here. It mentioned that these are testflights from Rechlin. I think the Document is from 1944, because the A 8 is present. Iam not sure about copyrights, so be carefull with it. I got it, if Iam right, from the Museum of the Luftwaffe Berlin. They are beside the specs I wrote above in an other post, but you will also see the weight without mounted MG FFM ( 3850 kg ) This document also states: ( free translated ) errors of the airspeed gauge due the compressibility of the air is withhin not included. Maybe thats the reason why we have different speeds.......
  7. @ JtD Youre right, wrong interpretation on my side then, maybe language barrier. I thought we are talking about a standart A 3, beside tests. Unfortunately the A 3 documents are very rare. I studied my original drawings here, date 16.4.1942. The whole drawings of the Standart A 3 showing these gills only... I know that some tests saying something about the adjustable cowling, but Iam not aware of production line aircraft fittet with them. But it can be possible that some got fitted with it for tests. I have to Admit the A Series is not my main research object, Iam focused on the D Series mainly. @ ImPeRaToR. The main gear leg had always on the outside a cover. The inner cover was removed because failtures, it wasnt only a problem because a mounted ETC rack. If the rack was mounted the inner wheel cover was not mounted, because the inner cover would open enough for the gear.. I´ve read it somewhere in my documents, but it will be a hughe search to find this text again, but I will take a look after it. As I said to JtD above, my main focus is on the D Series and Iam aware of Langenhagen and Rechlin Test for the D9 that used the inner wheel covers ( Text in this test flights was " mit Radabdeckung und vesiegeltem Motorspalt ) = inner wheel cover and sealed engine gap. But a standart D9 never used this in combat nor in the field airfields. Never heard about that they disambled the outside wheel cover..
  8. @ JtD it is noticed as Kiemenspaltenbleche. Thats a difference. It may look for you as adjustable Louvres, but it is just a piece of metal around the opening. Some notes of adjustable louvres point on a A 3 AND A 4 sheet. Its a calculated sheet. As said Iam not aware of an A 3 or A 4 with adjustable cooling @MK.Bivalov The turkish Aa3 is showing a use with 100 Oktal fuel, that means C3 fuel. Only the weapon and radio equipment had changed compared with a "german" A 3. The "german" engine got during development a free use of 2700 rpm with C3 fuel and 1.42 ata, that means before that date of the sheet. ( see my post above from October 1942 ). Therefore the performance is nearly equal to an early A 5 you talking about. The FW A3/U1 was a testbed for a 15 cm longer engine adjustment that got later established in the A 5. In my opinion an A 3 without the MG 151 FFM has these perfomances. I know the russian tests and the RAF tests, imo these thest can be guidelines only. My native language is german, what I really dont get is the tolerances notes. With data sheet, dated 29.11.1942 the details are as follows: engine BMW 801 D N= 1730 PS @ 2700 rpm @ 1.42 ata and C3 fuel. Its noted also that the MG 151 FFM is not mounted. This performance sheet is for the A 3 AND A4. In my opinion that means, that these both planes are equal in performances at least. The note adjustable cooling flaps points to me that these datas are calculated. ( Development of A 5 was on its way at that time ) If you compare it now with data sheets of an A 5 ( dated October 1943 ) you will see the same setup in weapons, and the same engine setup, too. 2700 rpms with 1.42 ata; 2400 rpm @ 1,32 ata and 2300 rpm @ 1,20 ata, but a high polished and sealed wingsurface and with adjustable Louvres. This plane has a Vmx of around 670 km/ at around 6400 Meters, so the sheet. ......and to my knowledge the first A Series with adjustable Louvres. Thats much faster then an A 3 and A 4. The weight for this A 5 was named with 4000 kg. The A 3 in this equal configuaration is named with 4070 kg. To mount the MG FFM means a plus of weight of 98 kg ( weapon ) and 37 kg ammunition. . Therefore my thinking is that the Tolerances notes are based on a mounted MG FFM. One last thing. The turkish and german aircraft had the same in wing, performance settings and engine. Just the weapons, radio equipment changed without an effect on flown speeds and climbrates. ( MG FFM and MG 7,92 mm are nearly same in weight ). @ Full wheel covers. I remember that the full wheel covers got canceled because it failed a lot. Since A 2 full wheel covers for the A Series was not mounted anymore. That also means that the test were flown without wheel covers. If they had it mounted they would note it on the sheet, like they did in trials with the D9. In german its called Fahrwerkabdeckung. No proof for that
  9. Well Gentlemen, before we start a discussion about performances. I think we need to concentrate on the developmewnt of the A3. Due my research for the D Series and TA Series I had to learn as well that the available Focke Wulf sheets showing us calculated results. Most but not all..... As a fact the A 3 had Kiemenspaltenbleche, no further info on standart planes with adjustable louvres. A Standart A 3 had 2x MG 17 7,92 mm, each of them 900 rounds above the engine ( Bulk ), also in the wingroot 2 x MG 151 /20E 20 mm with each 250 rounds and at least in the outer wing 2x MG 151/FF-M with each 90 rounds. Maximum Takeoff weight ( without MG 151FF-M ) was 3.850 kg. That makes a calculated climbrate of 1.250 m per minute. The amor had a weight of 109 kg. Original flown datas from Focke Wulf sheets, dated 26.11.1942: ( without MG 151/FFM ) Takeoff and emergency setting SL: 540 km/h 1000 Meters: 570 km/h 6400 Meters: 660 km /h Climb and Combat setting: SL = 520 km/h 1200 m = 555 km/h 3000 m = 560 km/h 4000m = 590 km/h 5700 = 630 km/h 7000 = 620 km/h Climperformance in SL: 16,0 Meter per second Climptimes from SL to: 2000 Meters in 2,3 Minutes 4000 Meters in 4,8 Minutes 6000 Meters in 7,6 Minutes 8000 Meters in 11,5 Minutes Max ceiling 10,500 Meters. Interessting is that Focke wulf made details about tolerances of about 3 % in Speed 10 % for clibtimes to 2000 Meters and 400 Meters for max. ceiling. In my opinion the tolerances WITH built in MG 151 FFM. Some variants were built, mostly prototypes as follows: Fw 190 A-3/U1: engine adjustment 15 cm longer (only one prototype; Werknummer 270, same engine adjustment in A 5 ) Fw 190 A-3/U2: Prototype for RZ-65-rockets, only 1 prototype Werknumber 386 without MG 151/FFM Fw 190 A-3/U3: Recon Prototype for serveral Cameras, only 1 built Werknumber 511 without MG 151 FFM but with rack ETC 501 ( for A 6 ) Fw 190 A-3/U4: recon plane with 2 cameras for high alt flights, only 12 built, no werknumber available. IMO status not realised. Fw 190 A-3/U7: weight reduced high alt fighter, only MG 151 / 20 mm and outside mounted air intake, 3 built Werknumbers 528, 530 and 531 Fw 190 A-3/U8: rebuilt A-3/U1, only 1 built no Werknumber, no further details here 60- 70 FW 190 A 3 were built for Turkey, but these planes had only MG 4 MG 17 and 2 MG FF. This plane was called FW 190 Aa3, you need to look to your sheets very closely. There are some sheets in the Net pointing to that plane. Well at least the wing as once said was a V5g, I still have the question to the developers if the wingtwist of 2 degrees is displayed here or not. ....and Iam still interessted...if not, what polars are they using?
  10. Thank you ImPeRaToR for these pictures. The first two pictures are very interessting for me. I know that JG 5 has flown A 2´s and A 3´s in Norway. They have flown it with " Modifications".Iam not aware of a detailed explaination of these modifications, but maybe one of these modifications is adjustable louver, that can be. Iam not sure about the other pictures. The A 4 had as distintive feature an Antenna on its tail.In special the picture No 4 I cant see this Antenna, nor do I see clearly adjustable Louvres. To me it looks like the Kiemenspalten of an A3. As said Iam not aware of a series production with adjustable Louvres in A 3 and A 4, but it is like you stated, possible that later some modifications were made with these planes.
  11. Edit: On the other hand I found a reference ( Rodeicke ) that states that a few A 4 had ajustable Louvers, but I doubt that this was a series production. I dont have further reference about it
  12. Iam not aware of these. Can you refer to these pictures? On the other hand I have pictures displayed from an A 3 and A 4 without adjustable louvers. It is possible as said that they maybe adjusted some things later. But take a look to the pictures: A 4 ( left ) and A3 ( right picture ) In both you see the gaps only Reference: Book Heinz Nowarra Die deutsche Luftrüstung Band 2 page 76. He referes also that the A 3 got the Kiemenspalten ( = gillcleaves ) No further reference to adjustable louvers for the A 4.
  13. BTW the right german therm for these "gaps" was Kiemenspalten, free translated gillcleaves ( I dont know if an english word like this exists,lol )
  14. @ MK.Bivalov well I hope I can answer some of your questions. The A 3 was a development of an A 2. Both planes had no adjustable Louvers, but 3 cooling slots or as you said gaps behind the exhaust pipes. ( in german they were called Kühlschlitze. ) The difference between the A 2 and A 3 was the engine. The engine BMW 801 D2 was built in until Spring 1942. Because an used compression Loader the takeoff power setting was 1700 PS @ 2700 rpm with 1.42 ata. This engine used C 3 fuel with 96 Oktan ( later 100 ). But Focke Wulf found out that in combat the engine had still cooling problems. With March 1942 the outcome of these engine got limited at the emergeny power setting of 2450 rpms with 1.35 ata. Again after Modifications of the engine ( i..e. cromed Valves, reinforced starter shaft etc ) the full emergency power got approved back to settings above. ( Date was around October 1942 ). The first plane using the adjustable louvers like you call it was the A 5, iam not aware of any A 4 with adjustable Louvers. It might be possible that some A 4 had em during the development process for the A5, but thats my speculation. I dont know the speeds you are reffering to, but to me it looks like you are talking about two planes. The A 4 with cooling gaps and an A 5 with adjustable cooling louvers. Therefore the difference between speeds would make sence. @JtD Iam calling about the original polars of the V5g Wing from Focke Wulf plans, dated 22.01.1940 ( Sheet Nr. 4 conception 5 d ). I dont know if I can display it here because possible copyright, but if you write me an PM I can send you this sheet in a copy if you like. But Iam still interessted to know if the developers did use the wingtwist of 2 degrees ( wingroot ) and what polars they are using
  15. Thats what Iam saying........It was in all specs the same wing.... the V5g ( für gross, i guess you understand german ). In developing the Versions some changes were made ( weapon bulks i.e. ), but the wing specs itself didnt change. ( like 18,3 qm or wingtwist ) BTW Iam researching the Fockes since 15 years now and I own some original sheets from Focke Wulf and got assistance from Flugwerke in my research. So back to my question. Is the wingtwist included and what polars are under use in the displayed FW 190 A3 ?
×
×
  • Create New...