Focke Wulf 190 A 3

[JtD]

I was talking about FMs, not the GUI

 

ROF already has "toggles" for field mods that either are added to the stock plane or replace other field mods so I am pretty sure we will see a similar approach in BOS.

In the FM, you just need to add a bit of drag, you don't do drag per loadout, but by aircraft condition. You just go *whateverthedragis* + *whateverwheelcoveris* = *newtotaldrag*. It can't be much simpler.

Edited December 12, 2013 by JtD

[bivalov]

...and in total now we have - some early rare tests without 1.42 ata, calculated performances and tests of fws with note "a-3 bis a-5" (567 kph at sl with 1.42/15 mps at sl with 3978 kg and combat power, etc), and reasonable theory what in performances of early or all a-3/early a-4 need minus loss due to no adjustable louvres (if closed - no air flow inside and little external resistance)? if no any serious changes in engine besides confirming of 1.42, if i'm not mistaken...

sorry, i mean some test of some planes without 1.42...

 

but Aa-3 with 1.42, right? by 2700 revs and power at high alt, like and just a-3 and this is why RW_1 about exactly REAL 520/540 from this test, instead calculations...

 

ie looks like Aa-3/a-3 is really confirmation of "kiemenspaltenbleche vs. adjustable louvres" theory, because no changes in engine, but plane slower, although 20 km and more it's not too much? it's could be because extra 15 cm? or something like these little changes'43, + ~50 PS etc...

 

well, thx for opinions, info and confirmations, and looks like we have one opinion? or not? and sorry for my slowpoke, too much languages... and my wack english without rules...

[303_Kwiatek]

There were some BWM 801 D modification - some data says 1700 PS and later types 1730 Ps power output. Probably all modification give some more kph -  30 Ps more, adjustable engine cowls, maby longer nose all these could give about 20-30 kph more for later types of Fw 190 A with BMW 801D.

[bivalov]

There were some BWM 801 D modification - some data says 1700 PS and later types 1730 Ps power output.

exactly, but you know, i think 1700 instead 1730 PS it's because last number in manuals at 600-700 meters above SL, with using of official BMW table for 801 (end'42) which you easy can found in search, and with page from plane manual, i calculated for 0 m power around 1700-1715 PS...

 

but, of course, it's just questionable manipulation with numbers... and from Crumpp etc i saw other hints about little more power in 43, due with tests of 1.65 ata... and just in one of manuals have numbers like "for a 1-6 power 1770 PS at sl"... 

 

well, this is my next question, in fact, REAL outputs of 801s by all periods, before 1.58/1.65 for a-8 in 44...

 

Probably all modification give some more kph -  30 Ps more, adjustable engine cowls, maby longer nose all these could give about 20-30 kph more for later types of Fw 190 A with BMW 801D.

yep...

[303_Kwiatek]

From my power chart for 801 D ( from 10.07.42) there is 1730Ps from sea level.

[bivalov]

From my power chart for 801 D ( from 10.07.42) there is 1730Ps from sea level.

yes, i mean exactly this table, i just calculated power between this and number at 600 m, from manual of plane... looks like wacky...

 

BUT, thx for motivation, i understood why in "kennblatt fuer das flugzeugmuster fw 190 a-1 bis a-5, blatt 3" for a-3 bis a-5 power are 1770 PS "am boden" - it's exactly power at 600-700 meters! instead old and maybe wrong data...

 

see for yourself... sadly what no full document and date... and what i cant post here this list, because rights and other things in this forum section, although i found this in search, free...

[bivalov]

hmmm... at first, all saw this very interesting and promising topic, huh? but i look exactly at this - it's a-3 (antenna for radio) with CLOSED gills or flaps, or i mistake?

[bivalov]

From my power chart for 801 D ( from 10.07.42) there is 1730Ps from sea level.

ok, i saw many many numbers, next just fast summary at this moment for bmw 801d-2 at end'42 and later - 1730 PS (1800 - 70 for fan)/2700 revs at sl, 1.42 ata, 1 and 3 min. later or 1 min. exactly for "take off" and 3 for combat... hmm, in table 1490-1500/2400, 1.32 ata, 30 min? although, have numbers 1560 (need - for fan?) and 1530 (in HP?), or here some error and 1.35 not for high altitude like in manual...

 

or...

 

russian fw 190 a-4 (for interest, as allways, a bit of confusion) - 1530 л. с. при 2700 об/мин. (Pk=970 мм рт. ст.) at sl, and 1760, or 1580 on next page...

 

for example, m-82fn of 3 series (ie june'44) for la-7 - 1545 most likely HP, 2400 revs, 1002 mm rt st...

 

from "some" article, you know (i typed text now itself and think it's NOT illegal, huh?) - "mit beginn der focke-wulf fw 190 baureihe a-3 wurde serienmassig erst, als der verbesserte bmw 801 d-2 in die zelle der fw 190 eingebaut. durch die hoehere verdichtung und hoehere ubersetzung war jetzt generell c3-kraftstoff erforderlich. ausserdem erhielt der motor weitere verbesserungen im schmierstoffsystem. mit c3-kraftstoff lag die hochleistung des motors jetz bei 1750 ps. diese auch als notleistung bezeichnete motorleistung wurde bei 2700 u/min und einem ladedruck von 1.42 ata erzielt. die leistungen der fw 190 genuegten damit noch den anforderungen eines jagdflugzeuges in den jahren 1942 und 1943. trotztem war absehbar, dass die leistungen des motors zumindest mittelfristig verbessert werden mussten.

 

bereits anfang 1942 wurde bei bmw durch untersuchungen festgestellt, dass die beim bmw 801 verwendeten zwei abgasdoppeldusen gut 80 ps leistung kosteten und zudem den motor zu einem unruhigen lauf brachten. in vielen schilderungen empfanden jagdpiloten den unruhigen lauf des bmw-motors als unangenehm. problematischer aber war, dass es dadurch zu zusatzlichen ausfallen von zundkerzen und einspritzdusen kam. die von der e'stelle rechlin am 16. marz 1943 genehmigte fw-anderungsanweisung sah zunachst nur die beseitigung einer der beiden doppelduse vor. obwohl sehr gute ergebnisse im truppenversuch durch die umstellung der zweiten doppelduse auf einzeldusen erzielt worden sind, gab es bei focke-wulf umstellungsschwierigkeit.

 

daher wurde von vornherein festgelegt, dass beim geplanten nachfolgemotor BMW 801 e nur einzeldusen verwendet werden sollten."

 

could 801 get 50 PS by something like new crankshaft or something like this (compressor, fuel pump, exhaust system etc, for example, with bad exhaust m-82a/f lost around 60 hp), sorry my guesses, in 43? ie, i mean, early 1750 PS - 70 for fan = 1680 + around 50 without 1.65 ata in 43 = exactly 1730 PS for a-3 bis a-5,6 in 43... well, just search of true, "the true is out there, Scully"... looks like a bit wacky again, although...

 

in fact, of course i tried to search before and long time ago, just don't want to confuse our research, but here and here similar topics, and maybe someone can post other opinions? if this not illegal...

 

in total, little more of power + adjustable flaps + 15 cm etc give around 20-30 kph at sl for a-5 (for a-6 little less by weapon, antenna etc), athough "fw 190 a3 datasheet 29.11.42" gives 1700 PS at 300 m and peformance like a-5/6 in mid'43... very good smile here...

[Redwulf__1]

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 ).

Edited December 13, 2013 by Redwulf__1

[bivalov]

 

 

 

 

The attachemnet i loaded up in a post before mentioned that these A3- A5 results were flown , not calculated.-

ok, exactly this i understood...

 

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.

i noted what i calculated by several reasons and what exactly, i know main powers of 801s, but thx for confirming...

 

Personally I dont trust forgeign tests not that much,i.e. sometimes they didnt use the right fuel, props etc.

thx, this is good reminder, but personally i not sure, especially because too much rumors about little more PSs later, by several different reasons...

 

where is "ordnung"? 

 

I remember the russian A 8 Test that was once in discussion with Oleg Maddox a few years ago. (you are wrong...)

sorry me, but which test? at least, we captured and tested 2 a-8, normaljager with mk-108 and "lightweight" a-8 with boost (weight around 3985 kg, 21-22 sec at 1000 m etc, i have good original quote from document, looks like it's F of G with 1.65, speed with boost around 582 kph at sl)...

 

and what you mean i'm wrong?

 

 

btw, i saw next in one description of boost tests - "von focke-wulf wurde fur seehohe = 0 m ein erreichter ladedruck von 1,7 ata und eine erreichte geschwindigkeit von 608 km im vergleich serienladedruck von 1,42 ata und einer zugehorigen geschwindigkeit von ca. 550 km/h fur = 2700 u/min. angegeben." - although, according to all explantations, it's could be old plane for tests etc, but test of Messerschmitt with 519 kph at 1.32 at sl etc...

 

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.

this is just discussion about very promising addon for game, about Velikiye Luki, with similar planeset including bf 109 f-2 and fw 190 a-3, page from some english book about, and personally i see opened flaps or something like this, but i have not so much experience with these type of photo...

 

maybe, it's what talks JtD...

 

 

as you want, performance, engine etc in spoiler... although, i think it's very reasonable that i write exactly here, but if you want...

 

[JtD]

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 ).

I don't know who told you this, but unrealistic stalling behaviour in Il-2 is due to limitations of the engine, not particular polars. Wing twist is generally unaccountable for in Il-2, and changed polars can only do a very little bit to limit the shortcomings of the engine. HSFX polars are not much different from stock polars anyway, both of which happen to have done what's possible to simulate the effects of wing twist as close as possible.

 

As real polars don't necessarily have to work within the simulation, the better question would probably be if the engine supports wing twist and other means of stall behaviour influence. I think the question is if the wing root can stall before the wing tip does in game.

Edited December 14, 2013 by JtD

[Redwulf__1]

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

[JtD]

The stock 190 drops a wing at about 90% the landing speed for that weight.

 

At any rate, a too high stall speed is an indication for a too low maximum lift coefficient, not for missing wing twist. What we should get is more of a nose drop instead of a wing drop, but this doesn't even exist on P-38 or other symmetrical, torque free aircraft, because the Il-2 engine does not simulate this behaviour to a sufficiently accurate level. You cannot stall an aircraft and maintain aileron control, no matter which polar you use.

[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.

resonably, very resonable note... , although, i focused exactly on engines for fighters and hope on german "ordnung", and that need to follow depends on developers and this is why i'm try to understand full picture of development before 1.58/1.65 in 44...

 

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

ok, i know these numbers and book, thx...

 

 

[PauloHirth]

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/

[Redwulf__1]

1. @Paulo

What 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

Edited December 24, 2013 by Redwulf__1

[bivalov]

 

 

hmm, looks like and here a-3 with adjustable flaps? maybe, even all planes, theoretically, of jg26?...

 

[Crump]

Redwulf 1 and JtD,

 

You are talking past each other on the polar discussion.  The polar is our Coefficient of Lift the airfoil produces in relation to Angle of Attack.

 

 

Because if the 2 degree wingtwist  is not adopted in this game we will have an unrealistic airflow over the wings.

 

 

If the model does wing sections, the twist will naturally be simulated in the mechanics as the AoA changes along the wing.   IIRC, BOS does wing section theory.

Edited December 28, 2013 by Crump

[Redwulf__1]

Thanks Crump

 

Thats all I wanted to know. With your words....BoS will have a calculated wing polar....?

[bivalov]

guys, sorry me, i have question just about fw 190s and looks like i can ask here...

well, it's finding from discussion about bulletproof glasses for il-2 - here i see solid bulletproof glass.. by my memory, like in all photos... but here i see line in middle, looks like many soviet bulletproof glasses of several parts...

what is this really? some technical features, of some period or of some plant etc?

[JtD]

This could be anything. I've seen many good close ups of the Fw 190 windshield and it always looked like one piece. There's also nothing indicating a multi piece windshield in the Fw 190 handbooks/documentation. Why can't we see through that windshield?

[bivalov]

This could be anything. I've seen many good close ups of the Fw 190 windshield and it always looked like one piece. There's also nothing indicating a multi piece windshield in the Fw 190 handbooks/documentation. Why can't we see through that windshield?

i think this is some technology and just rare case (unfortunately, forgot original post in blog)... ok, and i understood about official documentation, thx, but i not understood end of your post? you want more photos of plane?

 

btw, searching now and found this, looking a bit strange, maybe it's "covered grills"? although, looks like i mistake...

[bivalov]

looks like, someone read this topic, because recently was posted lot of amazing Flight Test Reports of Fw 190 A-4/A-5...

 

and what's especially good, it's originals plus translation, although, personally for me, it's still not enough for absolutely clear understanding - so, if someone can read and explain what he found, it's will be great like and these docs...

 

and however, during fast reading, now i see very interesting test of fw 190 with "east front changes", many tests of planes with split cooling flaps, including very needful loss of speed with opened flaps, if i not mistaken, jabo with various racks etc...

 

plus, besides reading of russian modelling forums, in text have interesting confirmation about flaps and performances of a-3/4 - "Consequently the (early) A-4 was very close to the A-3 in terms of performance. With the A-4 occured the transition from the gills to the split cooling flaps and the multi-purpose use (various U kits)."

 

well, maybe, it's some of most interesting and useful documents, which i seen for a last time, and about fw 190s personally for me...

 

 

PS and btw, a bit strange, i periodically see on site many changes, but without notification on main page, like page about a-2 some time ago, interesting page about a-9 etc... but it's not matter, in fact, of course...

[Crump]

 

The original Kennblatt of the BMW 801 D2 engine gives us 1700 PS

 

Keep in mind the engine was on a constant upgrade program by BMW from conception to end of the war. It was a 2200 PS engine by war's end.

 

Before some reader gets emotional over the "constant upgrade"......all combatants sought improvement in an effort to gain advantage, so it should come as no surprised BMW did so too.

[MiloMorai]

What BMW801 version?

[Crump]

 

I had to learn as well that the available Focke Wulf sheets showing us calculated results. Most but not all.....

 

 

All aircraft performance sheets show calculated results from a few data points that are converted from actual conditions to standard conditions.  The curve is then filled in connecting the dots on the few data points.  All aircraft performance is a percentage variation over a mean.

 

I had to learn as well that the available Focke Wulf sheets showing us calculated results. Most but not all.....

 

 

All aircraft performance sheets show calculated results from a few data points that are converted from actual conditions to standard conditions.  The curve is then filled in connecting the dots on the few data points.  All aircraft performance is a percentage variation over a mean.

[Crump]

It is easy and accurate for the engineer to take a few known data points and calculate configuration changes and power adjustments.  It is much cheaper.

 

The general guidelines for accuracy are 6% for an initial prototype that has never flown.  As the program matures and the design is familiar to the engineers, that accuracy drops to 2% or less.

 

In other words, when FW-190V1 flew for the first time, prediction accuracy was ~6% for the first flight as there were no measured data points.  When the FW-190A3 flew, prediction accuracy was 2% or less.

[Tab]

Some Fw-190 A3 WiP pictures as seen on a TV - straight from the 1c studio:

http://imgur.com/a/5Bemi

[JtD]

PS and btw, a bit strange, i periodically see on site many changes, but without notification on main page, like page about a-2 some time ago, interesting page about a-9 etc... but it's not matter, in fact, of course...

The pages are being uploaded when they are ready, preferably translated. Piece by piece, sometimes daily, sometimes weekly, sometimes monthly. And when a chapter or part is complete, there'll be a note on the front page. Currently Mike Williams has acquired a lot of Fw 190 material, so expect further updates.

[DB605]

Some Fw-190 A3 WiP pictures as seen on a TV - straight from the 1c studio:

http://imgur.com/a/5Bemi

 

Looks good! Let's hope they use more accurate drawings than with F4.