Crump Posted April 3, 2016 Posted April 3, 2016 So to conclude then: The Camax=1.58 for the Fw-190 is with flap deflection and not the no-flap condition Crumpp claims. Wow, If the CLmax is 1.58 at 110mph IAS with flaps down.... What will the clean wing Clmax be at 110mph IAS at the same weight!!! You said you worked at Saab, right?? It will be the exact same Clmax of 1.58. Sure you can work the math?
Holtzauge Posted April 3, 2016 Posted April 3, 2016 If the CLmax is 1.58 at 110mph IAS with flaps down.... Yes, I think JtD and Matt made a pretty solid case BTW you still claim that CaR=1.1 is the Cl for the "Reise" or cruise then? You said you worked at Saab, right?? No you are confused: I have said that I HAVE worked at various defense companies owned by SAAB and Ericsson. More than 10 years actually. Why do you ask? I posted the info here where you were invited to do the same but for some strange reason never did. I wonder why...... Actually my work experience has proven pretty useful here since it makes it so much easier to separate the wheat from the chaff if you get my drift..... 4
1CGS LukeFF Posted April 4, 2016 1CGS Posted April 4, 2016 One more thing, put Turban (he's a troll) on your ignore list, as Hairy 'suggested'. Since I did, the forum is much better to read C'mon, we don't need those sorts of replies. Stay on topic.
Venturi Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 Flew the new FW online for an hour tonight. My opinion is that the FW190 FM model is actually an improvement, with the better climb rate. It's fast and roll is good, but perhaps not good enough initially? Anyways my belief is that it's totally flyable as it stands and far from "the end of the world".
Holtzauge Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 Well, all I can see so far is speculation without any sort of hard evidence and dishing out thinly veiled insults from a too high horse. Well as I see it I'm on the pony and it's Crump on the Clydesdale but seeing you and Crump are old pals I'm not surprised by your comment really.......
Kurfurst Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 (edited) And I am not surprised that you have nothing to add to the discussion other than your blood feud with your old pal Crump. Now how about taking that nonsense to PM? Let us know who had the last word. :D Edited April 4, 2016 by VO101Kurfurst
Turban Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 (edited) It's fast and roll is good, but perhaps not good enough initially? I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case. Edited April 4, 2016 by Turban
Holtzauge Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 And I am not surprised that you have nothing to add to the discussion other than your blood feud with your old pal Crump. Now how about taking that nonsense to PM? Let us know who had the last word. :D On the subject of contributing nothing, nonsense and blood feuds Kurfurst, you may want to consider utilizing the PM system yourself!
Crump Posted April 8, 2016 Posted April 8, 2016 The power ratings listed on the polar measure the power output of the engine at the zero drag setting. It is a time honored technique. In fact, the CAFE foundation holds a patent on being able to measure this in-flight instead of having to use a wind tunnel as they did in the 1940's. https://engineering....A-46372-872.pdf What you do is measure the point at which there is no pull or push force on the propeller shaft. That is the point that thrust = drag. In this case we have two measured points. Focke Wulf used the relationship of Power and Velocity. Once you have a measured point, you can use the physical relationship of force development to figure out what your performance will be at any other point. For example. If we know from flight testing that it takes 1348Hp to achieve 305KEAS then let's run the math to see our velocity at 9hp. Our parasitic component of drag has a direct relationship with velocity and changes at the cube of velocity. Therefore we know: Pr2/Pr1 = (V2/V1)^3 That formulation is right out the book for BGS system aircraft performance calculations using subsonic incompressible flow theory. 9hp/1348hp = (V2/305)^3 9hp/1348hp = V2^3 / 305^3 305^3 * 9/1348 = V2^3 189431 = V2^3 = 57 KEAS = 29 m/s Parasitic drag is the smallest component of drag and least significant at low speeds. Let's see what our induced drag will be at 9 PS. At 305KEAS, our FW-190A3 produces 71.5hp worth of induced drag. Let's see how much power it would take for the aircraft to fly that slowly! The power of Induced drag has an inverse relationship with velocity. 1670bhp * .85 = 1419.5thp 1419.5 - 9 hp = 1410.5 hp 1410.5 Pr1/Pr2 = V2/V1 = 1410.5hp / 71.5hp = 305KEAS / V1 9* V1 = 305 * 71.5 V1 = 21807.5 / 1410.5 V1 = 15.4 knots = 9 m/s.... It is very easy to prove our Focke Wulf was NOT traveling at any speed the aircraft could fly in those polars. Quite simply, the 13m/s and 18m/s represent Focke Wulfs measurement of the drag to establish drag data. That information was used to construct the Drag Data for aircraft sheet posted in that thread and predict the speed changes with various configurations and combat loads. The aircraft cannot fly at power settings of 9hp and 4 hp. The only useful thing we can do is measure the parasitic drag and get an idea of the stall characteristics.
Crump Posted April 8, 2016 Posted April 8, 2016 FW-190A1 thru FW-190A7 mid-chord pitot static system PEC curves... 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. 110mph IAS stall speed in the clean configuration.... A touchdown speed of 110 mph IAS with full flaps..... Using the BGS system and a conversion factor for knots... EAS means sigma (density ratio) = 1 Velocity in KEAS = SQRT{295 (8580lbs) / (1.58 * sigma * 197 ft^2) Velocity equals = 90.2 Knots Equivilent Airspeed 90.2 KEAS * 1.15 = 104 mph EAS. 110 mph IAS - 104 mph EAS = Correction error of 6 mph. 104 mph EAS + .5 mph CEC = 104.5 mph CAS = 104.5 mph CAS + 5.5 mph PEC = 110 mph IAS as recorded by the RAE on WNr 313. CL = Weight/(Dynamic Pressure* Reference Area) q = Dynamic pressure = (Density ratio * Velocity^2 ) / 295 q = 1 * 90.2KEAS^2 / 295 = 27.5lbs/ft^2 CL = 8580lbs / (27.5lbs/ft^2 * 197 ft^2) = 1.58 The only absolute relationship of stall vs angle of attack easily returns a stall speed that is well within the margin of error found in airspeed measurement. A Clmax of 1.58 represents the clean configuration (gear up, flaps up) design CLmax. This can be used to find the correct stall speed for any weight or configuration of the aircraft. Now let's do the math on a touchdown speed of 110mph IAS on the same aircraft and see what the coefficient of lift is going to be... A touchdown speed of 110 mph IAS with full flaps..... Using the BGS system and a conversion factor for knots... EAS means sigma (density ratio) = 1 Velocity in KEAS = SQRT{295 (8580lbs) / (1.58 * sigma * 197 ft^2) Velocity equals = 90.2 Knots Equivilent Airspeed 90.2 KEAS * 1.15 = 104 mph EAS. 110 mph IAS - 104 mph EAS = Correction error of 6 mph. 104 mph EAS + .5 mph CEC = 104.5 mph CAS = 104.5 mph CAS + 5.5 mph PEC = 110 mph IAS as recorded by the RAE on WNr 313. CL = Weight/(Dynamic Pressure* Reference Area) q = Dynamic pressure = (Density ratio * Velocity^2 ) / 295 q = 1 * 90.2KEAS^2 / 295 = 27.5lbs/ft^2 CL = 8580lbs / (27.5lbs/ft^2 * 197 ft^2) = 1.58 The only absolute relationship of stall vs angle of attack easily returns a stall speed that is well within the margin of error found in airspeed measurement. A CL of 1.58 represents the touchdown speed in the configuration (gear down, flaps down). Touchdown speed is NOT stall speed in any aircraft by design. CL = 8377lbs / (26.9lbs/ft^2 * 197 ft^2) = 1.58 A CL of 1.58 represents the Landing speed in the configuration (gear down, flaps down). Landing speed is NOT stall speed by design in any aircraft. CLmax by definition does represent stall speed. The only stall speed that 1.58 corresponds too is the clean aircraft configuration. Reputation given SixthKnight NZTyphoon LukeFF GrapeJam Gee, Holtzauge...never heard of those guys!! 4
JtD Posted April 9, 2016 Posted April 9, 2016 There's a source saying that a stall speed is "approximately 110", without a weight reference, then you take a position error correction that's not showing the speed range in question and happens to be from another aircraft, fill the rest with assumptions and calculate a lift coefficient to the second digit. If you had some decency you'd also state that this is accurate to about ± 0.5 due to vague input data and be done with it. Instead, you keep spamming this topic with huge, repeating posts defending everything to the last digit. Focke Wulf itself is contradicting you by saying that Camax is the Ca they use for flaps down, gear down, landing speed calculation. And you can take my word on this - no matter how many more times you spam this topic, Focke Wulf will not change their statement. 2
Holtzauge Posted April 9, 2016 Posted April 9, 2016 Yes, I don't see any reason to rehash this. There is simply no new info in what Crump posted above so I still think the explanation for the numbers and the abbreviations that JtD and Matt presented are the most plausible. Especially seeing that Crump is still avoiding the elephant in the room, i.e. his claim that "R" in the table stands for "Reise" not "Rollen". I wonder why we are being spammed with all sorts of speculative calculations but have yet to see one that supports Crump's claim that CaR=1.1 "R" stands for "Reise" or cruise? Could it be that "R" actually DOES stand for "Rollen" not "Reise" and Crump is wrong?
Crump Posted April 9, 2016 Posted April 9, 2016 "approximately 110", without a weight reference Negative.. Weight and balance sheet is included in the full report. en you take a position error correction that's not showing the speed range in question Perfectly acceptable. A PEC curve is nothing more than a trend built upon a few data poiints. It gets us in the ballpark. Are you thinking that 110mph IAS should be just read off the airspeed indicator with the absence of any kind of correction when we know the aircraft's airspeed correction trend???? That does not seem right. happens to be from another aircraft, So what? The general PEC curve found in most aircraft manuals is not from the same aircraft. It is just an average of the trend the pitot static system design produces..... You think we should ignore that data trend and go with some thing we know is a fiction?? The math is the math and there is no denying that an aircraft traveling at the same speed and weight will have the same Coefficient of lift no matter what the wings configuration.
Livai Posted May 3, 2016 Posted May 3, 2016 Flew the new FW online for an hour tonight. My opinion is that the FW190 FM model is actually an improvement, with the better climb rate Was this a joke? The 190 lose climb speed even with full power. Climb with the same angle how you climb with a 109. You will see the climb speed from the 190 drop below 300 km/h. Even if you start to climb from 1000m to 4000m. The climb speed should stay between 300-350 km/h and not drop below 300 km/h. A 109 climb with 350-400 km/h and hold this speed even to 6000m. Forget the increase of climb rate what the Devs did because it is trash. A VVS plane will catch you if you start to climb because the climb speed from the 190 falls very fast down to 300 km/h where a VVS plane is able to catch up. I tested it a Yak can follow your climb with a distance of 0.46m. A La-5 maybe closer but both plane reach the range where you can expect some critical hit into your 190.
JtD Posted May 3, 2016 Posted May 3, 2016 I think you possibly misunderstood, he meant the climb rate now is better than it was before, not better than everything else. The new FM does have a performance increase in climb and acceleration over the old one, and it is useful. The 109 still is better, as it historically was.
unreasonable Posted May 3, 2016 Posted May 3, 2016 Was this a joke? The 190 lose climb speed even with full power. Climb with the same angle how you climb with a 109. You will see the climb speed from the 190 drop below 300 km/h. Even if you start to climb from 1000m to 4000m. The climb speed should stay between 300-350 km/h and not drop below 300 km/h. A 109 climb with 350-400 km/h and hold this speed even to 6000m. Forget the increase of climb rate what the Devs did because it is trash. A VVS plane will catch you if you start to climb because the climb speed from the 190 falls very fast down to 300 km/h where a VVS plane is able to catch up. I tested it a Yak can follow your climb with a distance of 0.46m. A La-5 maybe closer but both plane reach the range where you can expect some critical hit into your 190. Climbing with the same angle as a 109 might not be the best way to climb a 190; try climbing at what looks like a shallower angle but the same speed - you may get better results. You might get even better results climbing at a greater speed in the 190. I do not know what the exact best climb speeds of the two types are - in BoX or RL - but I would be surprised if they were the same, given the different designs.
216th_Lucas_From_Hell Posted May 3, 2016 Posted May 3, 2016 If memory doesn't fail me the Fw-190 down low has worse climb rates than the La-5, Yak-1 and I-16. It is a little better than the MiG-3, and far better than the LaGG-3 and particularly the P-40E. In his book Mariinskiy was speaking of the different ways the Luftwaffe employed the Bf-109 and Fw-190 in concert. Usually with one flight of each (but sometimes even a pair of each would do), using its superior level speed, the Fw-190 would come in and box up a Soviet fighter group, making high-speed passes inbetween and closing off the perimeter. Meanwhile the Bf-109 group hung above and attacked the Soviet fighters while they prepared to attack the Fw-190s.
JtD Posted May 3, 2016 Posted May 3, 2016 If memory doesn't fail me the Fw-190 down low has worse climb rates than the La-5, Yak-1 and I-16. It is a little better than the MiG-3, and far better than the LaGG-3 and particularly the P-40E.Between sea level and 1000m, it has a very good climb rate. At emergency power and in game, the only aircraft better are the 109's. At around 2000-3000m it's not so great in relation to the competition. So it depends on what you consider as "down low".
216th_Lucas_From_Hell Posted May 3, 2016 Posted May 3, 2016 I'm going by the DD123 ASL data only, no tests or anything. Of course, the Fw-190 has a huge advantage because in a fight it is more likely to be flying at much higher speeds than its opponents prior to starting a climb, and as you mentioned it's likely that kicking in the emergency power will do you some good. For easier comparison, the devs' ASL climb rate data. Axis fighters Fw-190 - 16.4 m/s Bf-109F-4 - 19.5 m/s Bf-109G-2 - 22.3 m/s C.202 - 17.3 m/s Bf-109E-7 - 14 m/s Bf-109F-2 - 16.4 m/s Bf-110 - 10.3 m/s Allied fighters LaGG-3 - 14.9 m/s Yak-1 - 17 m/s La-5 - 18 m/s I-16 - 16.7 m/s MiG-3 - 15.9 m/s P-40E - 12.5 m/s
Matt Posted May 3, 2016 Posted May 3, 2016 You have to careful with that data. For instance the Fw 190 climb rate is at combat power, that of the La-5 is at boosted power. It's not a good idea to use that data to compare anything (talking about climb rate at least).
Livai Posted May 3, 2016 Posted May 3, 2016 The climb rate difference between A-3 to A-8 is around 1-2 m/s. Climb rate and Climb speed are two different parts but both important. I did some tweaks according to the data that someone told me what I need to change to improve the climb speed and the wonder happend the Focke climb with 330-350 km/h to 5000m. Now it holds this climb speed and never falls down below this than before. Maybe it is not that good as a 109 but a huge step forward for the Focke. All planes are now more happy and climb with higher climb speed..... Never known that a small tweak can do huge wonders.
Willy__ Posted May 3, 2016 Posted May 3, 2016 Honestly, I would rather have the old FM with worse climb rate with the ability of scissor fight if I need to. The current FM has better climb no doubt, but go try scissor fight anything to see how bad it is now... 1
Livai Posted May 8, 2016 Posted May 8, 2016 (edited) Honestly, I would rather have the old FM with worse climb rate with the ability of scissor fight if I need to. The current FM has better climb no doubt, but go try scissor fight anything to see how bad it is now... Lets see what I have for you. Is to climb with 380-400 km/h with only 1.1-1.2 ata with a climb rate of around 15m/s good for you? Or I need to throw this flight record to make you more happier..... http://www6.zippyshare.com/v/zNiPPbEQ/file.html Edited May 8, 2016 by Superghostboy
Crump Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 330-350 km/h to 5000m. That is way too fast and is definitive proof your games aircraft does not match the power, lift, and drag of the actual aircraft. Best Rate of Climb speed is a function of the L/D ratio and the power available. It is the point that CL^3/2 / CD is maximum. If it does not reach the same point then your lift and drag relationship is not an FW-190. FW-190A Handbuch instructions: FW-190A5 best climb speed = 280kph IAS FW-190A6 best climb speed = 280kph IAS FW-190A2 Best climb Speed = 280kph IAS That is aircraft performance 101 and a very basic principle of aircraft performance. If your games FW-190 does not match the Lift to Drag relationship that is fixed by design then it is not the aircraft it is intended to model.
II/JG17_HerrMurf Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 The best rate of climb is way higher than 350. Most are reporting in the 270 to 280 range. I pitch for 300 as it allows me to extend from any Allied AC from co-E or an E advantage.
Crump Posted May 18, 2016 Posted May 18, 2016 HerrMurf' timestamp='1463580573' post='358066'] I pitch for 300 as it allows me to extend from any Allied AC from co-E or an E advantage. All aircraft will climb at a higher velocity than Best Rate. They will not achieve as high a climb rate. The faster best climb speed of the FW-190 does translate to more power available at high speeds than other designs. That does not mean it will have a climb-rate advantage at higher speeds. That does not change the fact if your game is not seeing best climb rate at 280-290kph IAS then it is not an FW-190A.
II/JG17_HerrMurf Posted May 20, 2016 Posted May 20, 2016 (edited) As I stated, most are reporting a best climb of 270-280 which is in line with the data. Tactically I use 300 to extend. I am rarely trying to get into a pure climb test with anyone. I was mostly refuting the 350 figure above. Edited May 20, 2016 by [LBS]HerrMurf
Crump Posted May 24, 2016 Posted May 24, 2016 I found the Fw190D-9 CLMAX on a FW sheet that gives detailed drag data for each aircraft component. 1.58 also matches up well with the general rule of thumb that an aircraft CLMAX = 0.9 cos (leading edge sweep angle) * airfoil CLMAX. https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/fw-190-dora-9-vs-p-51d-mustang.3151/page-3#post-142039 Paul is a friend of mine working in the DC area... Came across this completely by accident but I immediately thought of this thread.
Crump Posted May 24, 2016 Posted May 24, 2016 Can you read German? It also says that CaA means "Abheben" btw, not approach (like JtD already posted). That is referring to the Ca ´1.45 not Ca ´1.58..... Once again... An aircraft at the same weight and speed will have the same Coefficient of Lift. If an aircraft traveling at 110 mph requires a CL of 1.58 and it touches down in landing configuration or stalls in clean configuration at 110 mph.......... then it will still require a CL of 1.58 at 110 mph not matter what.
Crump Posted May 24, 2016 Posted May 24, 2016 Turn performance from VVS testing: 23.2 seconds to turn 360 degrees. The horizontal axis is the quotient of the wing loading and the sea level top speed. (They are extrapolating from EAS) Using the top level speed as measured by the VVS of 510kph: We can do some quick math based on a wing are of 18.3 M^2 to arrive at a weight of 3995Kg for the VVS FW-190A5. That equals a clean configuration full wing weapon FW-190A5 normal fighter variant with natural petroleum AVGAS. The Vmax at sea level of 510kph corresponds to Dauerleistung or maximum continuous power which equals 1.2 ata at 2300 U/min or ~1360hp.
supersqwack Posted May 25, 2016 Posted May 25, 2016 as always, thanks for the contributions Crump! Would you mind further clarification on the charts please... for the top chart: the vertical scale is turn rate, and the horizontal scale is ? corner velocity? for the second chart: vertical scale is ? corner velocity? and the horizontal scale is VNE? much appreciated!
Crump Posted May 25, 2016 Posted May 25, 2016 as always, thanks for the contributions Crump! Would you mind further clarification on the charts please... for the top chart: the vertical scale is turn rate, and the horizontal scale is ? corner velocity? Figure 26: Vertical scale = time to turn 360 degrees. It is not turn rate although you can easily derive turn rate from it. Horizontal scale = quotient of wing loading to Vmax = a scientific method of aligning relative excess power for the second chart: vertical scale is ? corner velocity? and the horizontal scale is VNE? Figure 27: Vertical Scale = quotient of wing loading to Vmax = a scientific method of aligning relative excess power Horizontal Scale = Vmax much appreciated! This aligns with VVS testing of the FW-190A4. The turn testing was performed at 1.2 ata @ 2300U/min and not full power for the BMW801D2. More power means the aircraft can sustain a higher angle of bank. Simply put.. an FW-190 using 1.42ata @ 2700U/min will outturn and FW-190 using 1.2ata @ 2300U/min. Vmax of 510kph IAS = 1360hp and not the 1800hp of 1.42ata@2700U/min. It gives you guys a known point of performance to test. At 1000 meters and 1.2 ata @2300U/min you can expect to complete a 360 degree circle in ~23 seconds if you maintain a constant altitude turn. 1
Crump Posted May 26, 2016 Posted May 26, 2016 You can see the expansion of the envelope. Here is something to gauge that performance increase you should see in the game. Load Factor sustained: Rate of Turn: 1
Irgendjemand Posted May 26, 2016 Posted May 26, 2016 Crump. 777 should definately consider giving YOU a job as FM programmer:)
supersqwack Posted May 26, 2016 Posted May 26, 2016 This aligns with VVS testing of the FW-190A4. The turn testing was performed at 1.2 ata @ 2300U/min and not full power for the BMW801D2. More power means the aircraft can sustain a higher angle of bank. Simply put.. an FW-190 using 1.42ata @ 2700U/min will outturn and FW-190 using 1.2ata @ 2300U/min. Vmax of 510kph IAS = 1360hp and not the 1800hp of 1.42ata@2700U/min. It gives you guys a known point of performance to test. At 1000 meters and 1.2 ata @2300U/min you can expect to complete a 360 degree circle in ~23 seconds if you maintain a constant altitude turn. thx!
JtD Posted May 26, 2016 Posted May 26, 2016 Two hypothesis sold as fact: 1) 510 reached at 1.2@2300 in Soviet tests 2) turn time figures for the same power regime as level speed figures in Soviet tests Please provide evidence.
Crump Posted May 26, 2016 Posted May 26, 2016 Two hypothesis sold as fact: 1) 510 reached at 1.2@2300 in Soviet tests 2) turn time figures for the same power regime as level speed figures in Soviet tests Please provide evidence. LOL 1. Go look at any FW-190A5 level speed chart and see what the power setting required to achieve a Vmax of 510kph. 2. The quotient is the same in both charts. If the quotient was different....the Vmax would be different.....
Crump Posted May 27, 2016 Posted May 27, 2016 Crump. 777 should definately consider giving YOU a job as FM programmer:) LOL.. Thank you!! I already have one though. I do not think they could afford me!
JtD Posted May 27, 2016 Posted May 27, 2016 LOL 1. Go look at any FW-190A5 level speed chart and see what the power setting required to achieve a Vmax of 510kph. A dozen charts out there, with a dozen different speeds. 2. The quotient is the same in both charts. If the quotient was different....the Vmax would be different.....That's true. Unless they were using different weights, but that would make things pointless. I agree with that assumption.
Crump Posted May 27, 2016 Posted May 27, 2016 A dozen charts out there, with a dozen different speeds. Alll within ~1% of 510Kph using 1.2ata @ 2300U/min.... http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a5manual-pg11.jpg At sea level FW-190A5 Handbuch says 505kph IAS at sea level
Recommended Posts