Fw 190 A-6 and G-3 top speeds

[Bremspropeller]

4 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

@Bremspropeller

Some numbers in game:

clean A-5 with four wing guns, 1.42 ata: 559 km/h

clean A-5 with two wing guns, 1.42 ata: 567 km/h

A-5/U17 with central pylon and wing racks, 1.42 ata: 538 km/h (-29 km/h compared to two wing guns, -21 km/h compared to four wing guns).

A-5/U17 with central pylon and wing racks, 1.59 ata: 560 km/h (+22 km/h compared to 1.42 ata).



clean A-5 with two wing guns, 1.32 ata: 541 km/h

clean G-3 with central pylon and 250 kg wing racks, 1.32 ata: 512 km/h (-29 km/h).



clean A-6 four wing guns, 1.42 ata: 569 km/h

clean A-6 two wing guns, 1.42 ata: 568 km/h

clean G-3 with central pylon and 250 Kg wing racks, 1.42 ata: 539 km/h (-30 km/h)

clean G-3 with central pylon and 250 Kg wing racks, 1.59 ata: 561 km/h (+22 km/h).

The behaviour is consistent compared to the A-5 and A-5/U17, so I don't think drag is the issue, more the lower boost overall.


Are there real tests of a plane with 1.65 ata and the bomb pylons?

 

The A-5/U8 Wnr. 1428 (a G-2) was tested at 1.65 and with racks - it shows, that the speed-increase by using C3 is pretty consistent. No matter whether you're in a clean or racked-up aircraft.

 

I also think the issue really lies with the underperforming supercharger here.

 

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

9 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

The A-5/U8 Wnr. 1428 (a G-2) was tested at 1.65 and with racks - it shows, that the speed-increase by using C3 is pretty consistent. No matter whether you're in a clean or racked-up aircraft.

 

I also think the issue really lies with the underperforming supercharger here.

 

Do you have a link for that G-2 report?

[Bremspropeller]

Nope, unfortunately it's not on Mike William's site.

It's excerpted in Dietmar Hermann's book, though.

[JG1_Wittmann]

So if you calculate the difference in pressure @ 15C corrected to 0C  the difference is .014%      Multiply  760 mmHG   X  .9986   you get a pressure of 758.936 mmHG.   Now that .14 % is rounded up  from 0.1376462%   but it's close enough .  99.8623538% is the actual # for any sticklers out there, or 758.95388888 mmHG  So if the map can't be set up using decimals in the pressure #  use 759 or 758,   Then run the test and see what the #'s are,  using 0C  as the reference temp as a test has been posted  from documents using that temp

Edited March 6, 2021 by JG1_Wittmann

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Just now, JG1_Wittmann said:

So if you calculate the difference in pressure @ 15C corrected to 0C  the difference is .014%      Multiply  760 mmHG   X  .9986   you get a pressure of 758.936 mmHG.   No that .14 % is rounded up  from 0.1376462%   but it's close enough .  99.8623538% is the actual # for any sticklers out there, or 758.95388888 mmHG  So if the map can't be set up using decimals in the pressure #  use 759 or 758,   Then run the test and see what the #'s are,  using 0C  as the reference temp as a test has been posted  from documents using that temp

But the speeds in the real reports are standarized to 15ºC and 760mmHg already. I wouldn't get that useful data from it, the relationship between the different configurations should be the same.

[JG1_Wittmann]

Well  the report on the boost capability of the supercharger in the 5 190's tested with C3 system  was done  for the most part at 0C  .  Now that will affect speed for the strike aircraft negatively  on the deck if the boost is simply a cut and paste of the A8's boost.   It seems as if the boost on the Strike FW190's  is much lower than IRL as tested,  and that test was conducted  at 0 C  for most of the AC in it.  The test you ran  only shows boost up to 1.59 ?   So a test should be run, sea level, kuban at  0C  759 inMG  to see if the boost of 1.65 can be achieved   like it was in the test document.  The argument on speed  would then follow that if the boost is incorrect, like it seems to be, then the speed of the AC is too slow on the deck also.  The only A5  in that test of 5 AC  achieved 1.63 ATA boost for a speed of 575 KPH  at -1C so that # can then be calculated.  The difference in pressure if @ .07%   So use 758 inHG  instead of 759  and see if you can get 1.63 ATA boost and 575 KPH

Edited March 6, 2021 by JG1_Wittmann

[CUJO_1970]

They should be doing about 360 mph on the the return leg.

[CountZero]

There is onother strange thing.

 

If i select just 190A6 with G3 modification (#49) i get no bombs with 3 bomb pilons, and speed penalty of -27kmh as expected.

 

But if i select that G3 modification and aditionaly add any of Bomb load modification, and i drop bombs, it seams i get some extra speed penalty compared to just G3 mod, but visualy they look same when bombs are droped.

 

Why would there be more drag but nothing is differant when i drop bombs from no bomb G3 mod only ? 

 

On Kuban autumn 300m, 50% fuel, default trims i get (didnt use boost so i can see what is speed penalty for racks):

1. 562kmh emergancy only,  no mods
2. 535kmh emergancy only, 190G3 #49 mod
3. 523kmh emergancy only, 190G3 + Bomb load mod (#51-52-53, #55), when droped bombs

 

Why is there 12kmh differance betwen 2 and 3 when they are same when bombs are droped ?

To me it looks like they add -12kmh drag penalty for central bomb rack 2 times by mistake when that two mods are paired.

 

 

 

Edited March 6, 2021 by CountZero