Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: STEELE on February 23, 2011, 06:09:35 PM
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz8QsBxcOMw
The fight at 0:30 between a 190 A7 (basically an A8 with less boost) and a 47Dxx
Notice how the 190 follows the Tbolt thru several tight turns, pulling lead several times, even after several rotations, the Tbolt simply cant turn tight enough to shake the 190.
Thoughts?
edit the 47 looks to be a razorback model, which is the best turning jug
-
The 190 pilot probably been flying for years with many kills under his belt. The 47 pilot was probably in his first fight.
Air combat all about controlling your aircraft better than the other guy. I good pilot in a crappy plane will have a big advantage over a noob in a great plane. You see that fact every day in AH.
-
Seems like the Jug pilot was able to foil a few guns solutions by using ailron input, also I think a n00b pilot would have stalled out by the 2nd or 3rd rotation. I tried to duplicate this fight in a 190A8 vs a D11, guess what happened? :(
-
dont know about the 190 but did you use flaps in the P-47 when you tried to re enact?
-
A looooong looooong time ago the 190a5 used to be able to beat up on the P-47s in a knife fight.
Then the code governing airflow and flaps were changed, and all the 190s went from being merely unmanuverable to being awful. The P-51s got hit with the nerf bat even harder... the P-51D went from being a roughly even match for a 109G-10 (todays K-4) to an easy kill for pretty much anything in a fight. I think the P-47 benefited from the change, but that may just be vis a vis the P-51 and 190 series. The F4Us and 109s were obvious winners - both series vaulted up to somewhere near the Spitfires in terms of 'turnyness'. Granted, the F4Us (with the exception of the -4) are still not hard to kill if you are in a Spit. They can turn with you, but you can get them turning and then go vertical and they won't have the power to keep up.
The 109s on the other hand.... a 109F4 can hang with a pretty decent spit driver. The Spit 16 is still a better plane, but it isn't a blowout.
Now, things may have changed in the years since I stopped playing, but I'm pretty sure the flaps thing was the last major revision to the FMs.
-
Seems like the Jug pilot was able to foil a few guns solutions by using ailron input, also I think a n00b pilot would have stalled out by the 2nd or 3rd rotation. I tried to duplicate this fight in a 190A8 vs a D11, guess what happened? :(
How'd you duplicate this fight?
It's gun camera footage. You don't know their altitude, fuel states, speed, angles, G load, experience...NOTHING!
These guys were in a fight for their lives FOR REAL!! When it's real you only get one chance to do it right. That day the German was in the right spot at the right time and the 47 couldn't change the outcome. It doesn't matter what you can do here. All you can do is speculate. That's it. Nothing else. The conditions you are under aren't in any way similar to theirs, that day, many years ago in a real war fighting for their real lives.
-
The thing I noticed with the Fw 109 A7 vs P-47D match-up was the apparent low altitude of the dogfight. Admittedly, I could be wrong, as its hard to judge just how high or low they were.
The USAAF assessments of the P-47 vs the Fw 190 give the edge to the FW 190 below 10,000 ft and below 250 mph.
From the USAAF report:
4) Turning
(a) Turning and handling in excess of 250mph. The two airplanes alternately turned on each other's tail, holding in the turns as tightly as possible and alternating the turns first left then right. The P-47 easily outturned the Fw190 at 10,000ft and had to throttle back in order to keep from overrunning the FW190. The superiority of the P-47 in turning increased with altitude. The FW190 was very heavy in fore and aft control, vibrated excessively and tended to blackout the pilot.
(b) Turning and handling below 250mph. Turns were made so rapidly that it was impossible for the aircraft to accelerate. In making the usual rather flat turns in a horizontal plane, the FW190 was able to hang onto its propellor and turn inside the P-47. The FW190 was also able to accelerate suddenly and change to a more favourable position during the turn. However it was found the P-47 could get on the tail of the Fw190 by making a figure 8 in a vertical plane.
The P-47 used was a D-5 with ADI but no paddle bladed prop. The FW 190 was a A5/U8 pr possibly a G-2, there are conflicting reports with no cowling MGs and no outer wing cannon.
As usual: draw your own conclusions
-
In making the usual rather flat turns in a horizontal plane, the FW190 was able to hang onto its propellor and turn inside the P-47.
Real professional language there. This is a perfect example of why this type of claim (anecdotal) cannot be taken into consideration... or at least carries very little weight.
-
Blooz I might be wrong, but I think the ZLVA in your sig stands for Ze LuftVhiners Association :aok
This is not anecdotal evidence, but rather filmed proof of the late 190A's superiority or at least equality with the Razorback Jug's turning ability. From the look of the ground, they seem to be passing through 10k (rough guess) in a slightly downward spiral. That's the scenario we tried to recreate. Pilot ability aside, I think the film proves late 190A's were not the bricks that they're portayed to be. :noid The footage seems to support the test report quoted by Jabbewock
-
This video contains content from Sony Music Entertainment. It is not available in your country.
-- ban youtube.
From what I understand the film shows a 190 shotting down a P-47. If that is true, then it is a clear evidence that in a dogfight, a P47 will loose to the 190 unless the Jug pilot is a haxxor. HTC please fix your modeling. :rolleyes:
-
-- ban youtube.
Almost every YT video posted here is unavailable to me because of the music used in it. I'm harldy even trying to click the links anymore.
-
I dont see anything in that film that disagrees with AH. I think you guys are reading too much into it.
-
Lusche its the German gun camera footage of FW190A? versus Lagg 5 P47D-11 and Mustang that you have seen before.
At the time of this posting there is no derogatory comment posted:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq7MRXPSqr0
Not going to look through the rest of them but you can search for "Fw 190A-7 x P-47 Thunderbolt" (its a D-11) for the Jug video.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz8QsBxcOMw
The fight at 0:30 between a 190 A7 (basically an A8 with less boost) and a 47Dxx
Notice how the 190 follows the Tbolt thru several tight turns, pulling lead several times, even after several rotations, the Tbolt simply cant turn tight enough to shake the 190.
Thoughts?
edit the 47 looks to be a razorback model, which is the best turning jug
Its hard to tell what kind of speed all this is happening at, it could be the jug doesn't have the E to turn but has to keep bleeding E to stay out of the guns of the FW, it might be the cut of the film? but it seems as if the jug IS turning tighter at the start and the FW is flying looser. Even if your oppenent is in a great turning plane and you in a bad turning plane with position on him if you have the E to turn and he doesn't you will get guns on him.
-
Real professional language there. This is a perfect example of why this type of claim (anecdotal) cannot be taken into consideration... or at least carries very little weight.
Good call. Ignore the people who actually flew the real planes against each other.
- oldman
-
Here is gun camera showing the P47 easily out turning 190s and 109s at low alt. The P-47 in AH is clearly undermodeled.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8b2_1188211209&p=1
(notice: this is not from youtube. This is how you do it)
-
lol a 15000lbs p47 should outturn the 6500lbs 109? duuuude...
-
Blooz I might be wrong, but I think the ZLVA in your sig stands for Ze LuftVhiners Association :aok
This is not anecdotal evidence, but rather filmed proof of the late 190A's superiority or at least equality with the Razorback Jug's turning ability. From the look of the ground, they seem to be passing through 10k (rough guess) in a slightly downward spiral. That's the scenario we tried to recreate. Pilot ability aside, I think the film proves late 190A's were not the bricks that they're portayed to be. :noid The footage seems to support the test report quoted by Jabbewock
Here's filmed proof that all rigid airships explode on landing (according to your logic).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFptgQ8GA_U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFptgQ8GA_U)
-
lol a 15000lbs p47 should outturn the 6500lbs 109? duuuude...
I was ridiculing the derivation of conclusions about turning performance from a gun camera, but your hinted statement is just about as flawed. Please explain what am I supposed to conclude from the absolute weights of the planes regarding turning?
-
I don't think anyone can infer anything from these gun cameras. 99% of the time, the film only shows after the enemy's six has been acquired. You never see what transpired before that point and how that position was gained. I think that if a very experienced pilot acquires the six of the enemy, there really isn't much you can do to shake him if the planes in the battle are on somewhat equal ground and abilities.
As far as the 190 v Jug footage, it appears that the Jug did a pretty good job lasting as long as he did and the 190 pilot really had to work for that lead shot. In this case, I would say that the 190 pilot was far more experienced than the Jug pilot and really knew how to work that 190 for all it was worth.
-
Blooz I might be wrong, but I think the ZLVA in your sig stands for Ze LuftVhiners Association :aok
This is not anecdotal evidence, but rather filmed proof of the late 190A's superiority or at least equality with the Razorback Jug's turning ability. From the look of the ground, they seem to be passing through 10k (rough guess) in a slightly downward spiral. That's the scenario we tried to recreate. Pilot ability aside, I think the film proves late 190A's were not the bricks that they're portayed to be. :noid The footage seems to support the test report quoted by Jabbewock
That film is nearly pure anecdotal evidence. We don't know what the altitude was, we don't know what the fuel state/relative weight between the two planes. We don't know which pilot was better/more experienced, how many G's were being pulled and at what speed. It also seems that in nearly all the cases that eventually the P-47 heads up and out of the top of the frame which you could interpret as either the 190 either relaxing his turn or not being able to maintain the turn in a lead pursuit position, but you'd be guessing either way.
-
Compare known stall speeds in various configurations. That will tell you which one should have the better instantaneous turn, at the very least.
-
Good call. Ignore the people who actually flew the real planes against each other.
- oldman
I think "horizontal" and "hanging it on the prop" dont belong together. Thanks for being so dense you missed it. :bhead
-
That film is nearly pure anecdotal evidence. We don't know what the altitude was, we don't know what the fuel state/relative weight between the two planes. We don't know which pilot was better/more experienced, how many G's were being pulled and at what speed. It also seems that in nearly all the cases that eventually the P-47 heads up and out of the top of the frame which you could interpret as either the 190 either relaxing his turn or not being able to maintain the turn in a lead pursuit position, but you'd be guessing either way.
And agreement...
-
I think "horizontal" and "hanging it on the prop" dont belong together. Thanks for being so dense you missed it.
I think that if you don't realize he meant that the FW was turning in a horizontal plane at a very high angle of attack, in order to maintain both his altitude and his turn radius, that you haven't learned much about flying.
- oldman
-
No... its clearly unclear. The FW in a high angle of attack is going to be losing control and killing the pilot (or at least losing a lot of alt). If you dont realize that you dont know diddly about 190s IRL. Thats how Spits would get the upper hand on them getting them in exactly that situation.
-
One thing is for sure , if the 190a8 flew like it does in AH, Luftwaffe would never accept it as a replacement superiority fighter for earlier models.
-
Bozon,
if you have a more than two times heavier airframe, you have to produce more than two times more lift also more than two times more thrust to get the same flight performance. More than two is rather close to three in this case.
Is the jug more than two times heavyer that the 109?
Is the jug more than two times powerfuller that the 109?
Can the jugs wing produce more than two times much lift than the 109s aka was its wingtwo times bigger?
Also... the 190s were considered as the age's best figter, from numerous sources. I dont think that the 190 should be an όber turnfighter, but if it was a brick in the real life, then how could it be the Luftwaffe's best fighter?
-
A lot of sources consider the P-51 to be the best fighter of the age. Apparently slow speed turn performance wasn't high on the list of requirements for either side after the war started.
-
FLS,
we are talking about different ages. The pony was in the european front in 1943 i think (not sure), the 190 was in front service in 1941. The pony is a high altitude fighter, and was the best becouse was WAY more cheaper than the p47, and still was a monster at high altitudes.
-
No... its clearly unclear. The FW in a high angle of attack is going to be losing control and killing the pilot (or at least losing a lot of alt). If you dont realize that you dont know diddly about 190s IRL. Thats how Spits would get the upper hand on them getting them in exactly that situation.
I forgot that you were a FW190 pilot IRL. You have forgotten much. Any plane can fly at a high angle of attack - so long as it is not too high an angle - and maintain its altitude. It's one of the first things new pilots learn. Physics being what they are, I imagine that both the P-47 and the FW190 could do this, even back then. The FW was simply able to do it better at low speeds according to the report of the test pilots.
- oldman
-
My point was that neither fighter is what we would call a turn fighter. They were valued for being good high speed fighters.
If you have questions about the 190 flight model post your data. :D
The Spitfire pilots in England told the Jug pilots of the 56th that the P-47 was too big and heavy to turn with the 109s and 190s. The 56th proved them wrong. The size and weight of an aircraft is not an issue when it has sufficient power.
-
where is Gaston when you need him ? :D
-
I forgot that you were a FW190 pilot IRL. You have forgotten much. Any plane can fly at a high angle of attack - so long as it is not too high an angle - and maintain its altitude. It's one of the first things new pilots learn. Physics being what they are, I imagine that both the P-47 and the FW190 could do this, even back then. The FW was simply able to do it better at low speeds according to the report of the test pilots.
- oldman
Your missing the point (besides using ridiculous comments). Both stories are poor evidence because they leave out far too much detail and the same goes for any video. The videos intent is to prove the number of hits and position during firing. Relative performance of the airplanes is difficult to impossible to derive from the videos.
-
Your missing the point (besides using ridiculous comments). Both stories are poor evidence because they leave out far too much detail and the same goes for any video. The videos intent is to prove the number of hits and position during firing. Relative performance of the airplanes is difficult to impossible to derive from the videos.
Heh, look who's talking. Pay attention, we were discussing the written pilot report, not the videos. The written pilot report says that, as tested, the P47 outturned the FW at higher speeds and the FW outturned the 47 at lower speeds. You promptly pooh-poohed it as unprofessional and unworthy of consideration. It isn't. It is a description of multiple mock combats, flown by real pilots in the real airplanes, which I, at least, was able to grasp.
- oldman
-
Its poorly written and anecdotal in content. I pooh-poohed it just like I did you and your opinion.
-
Bozon,
if you have a more than two times heavier airframe, you have to produce more than two times more lift also more than two times more thrust to get the same flight performance. More than two is rather close to three in this case.
Is the jug more than two times heavyer that the 109?
Is the jug more than two times powerfuller that the 109?
Can the jugs wing produce more than two times much lift than the 109s aka was its wingtwo times bigger?
At combat weights, a typical 190A model was about 2/3rds as light as a P47D. Ironically, it had 2/3rds the wing area. It had about 3/4's the power at Sea Level. At those same weights, it possessed almost equivalent wing-loading (if slightly worse). None of these relationships I've listed, in this context, can be used in isolation to create any sort of relative performance comparison between the two aircraft.
-
Stoney, Bozon mentioned the 109 too, and i dont think the jug could outturn the 109 except at very high altitudes. But thats what im saying, those characteristics (and a lot more) all together result the flight performance. Are you talking about the a-8? I found the 190 a-8 a brick even with only 2 cannons while a jug can handle very nicely when it has less than 50% fuel. But again, true, at higher altitude the jug should eat the 190 alive with its monster engine, helluva flaps and big wings. Its the low altitude performance when the 190 should win, in my dumb opinion.
-
Stoney, Bozon mentioned the 109 too, and i dont think the jug could outturn the 109 except at very high altitudes. But thats what im saying, those characteristics (and a lot more) all together result the flight performance. Are you talking about the a-8? I found the 190 a-8 a brick even with only 2 cannons while a jug can handle very nicely when it has less than 50% fuel. But again, true, at higher altitude the jug should eat the 190 alive with its monster engine, helluva flaps and big wings. Its the low altitude performance when the 190 should win, in my dumb opinion.
I'm just saying that those metrics are easily misused when taken in isolation. Wing loading, by itself, doesn't create any type of performance predictor--it merely shows the ratio of weight to wing area.
And, as usual, the term "out turn" is dubious at best. But no, I can't imagine a flight regime where the Jug has a better sea-level,sustained turning radius compared to a late-model 109.
Gun camera footage, test flight reports (with anecdotal comparisons of performance characteristics), anecdotes from fighter or test pilots, etc. should only be considered for what they are--context, and not proof of a specific performance comparison.
-
Also... the 190s were considered as the age's best figter, from numerous sources. I dont think that the 190 should be an όber turnfighter, but if it was a brick in the real life, then how could it be the Luftwaffe's best fighter?
The 190 was considered superior to its main adversary when it appeared - the spit 5. This is in spite of the fact the the spit could easily out-turn it. As said many times before, turning does not win air combat. In particular at high altitude, the most valued attributes were speed, roll rate and dive ability. This because 90% of the defensive ACM was a split S and screaming dive to the clouds. The 190 dominated spits in that maneuver. P-47 beat the 190 in its own game.
Back to weights, if you check the empty weights, the wing-loading of a P47 is similar and even slightly superior to the 190, depending on the specific models compared. For non sustained turns, high wingloading was not a problem because the plane was limited to about 6G either by structural limitations or pilot endurance, not by the maximum lift the wing can provide. High wingload planes usually allow higher max speed which was valued much more than sustained turning ability. The typical wing load of planes kept increasing throughout the war period.
Sustained turning is also much about excess power. The P47 had more excess power than any 109 or 190 it faced - at high altitude. People tend to compare maximum climb-rate numbers and don't understand how People like Johnson claimed their Jugs out climbed and out turned the 109 and 190. They were not fighting them on the deck, they were fighting at 30k. Carrying that heavy and complex turbo-supercharger around does pay off at some point.
Finally, if you are also considering non sustained turns, which are more typical for normal combat than sustained turns, the picture is much more complicated. One of the better traits of the P47 in that respect is that it is very stable into the stall and can safely pull high G at high speed and shed a lot of speed fast to make a smaller circle. The 190 was famous for snap-stalling at such conditions and the 109 could not cut a 90 deg corner like the jug. At high speeds in particular, the 109 elevator was hard to operate while the jug had good response all the way till compression kicked in. If they went round and round the 109 will probably eventually come around on the jug, but in cutting one high speed turn to get/evade a shot, the jug was better.
-
Almost every YT video posted here is unavailable to me because of the music used in it. I'm harldy even trying to click the links anymore.
:headscratch: Do they ban music in Germany or what?
-
Commercial rights to video and/or audio. E.G. you can't watch Euronews or Eurosport web feed from North America/USA.
-
The 190 was considered superior to its main adversary when it appeared - the spit 5. This is in spite of the fact the the spit could easily out-turn it. As said many times before, turning does not win air combat. In particular at high altitude, the most valued attributes were speed, roll rate and dive ability. This because 90% of the defensive ACM was a split S and screaming dive to the clouds. The 190 dominated spits in that maneuver. P-47 beat the 190 in its own game.
Back to weights, if you check the empty weights, the wing-loading of a P47 is similar and even slightly superior to the 190, depending on the specific models compared. For non sustained turns, high wingloading was not a problem because the plane was limited to about 6G either by structural limitations or pilot endurance, not by the maximum lift the wing can provide. High wingload planes usually allow higher max speed which was valued much more than sustained turning ability. The typical wing load of planes kept increasing throughout the war period.
Sustained turning is also much about excess power. The P47 had more excess power than any 109 or 190 it faced - at high altitude. People tend to compare maximum climb-rate numbers and don't understand how People like Johnson claimed their Jugs out climbed and out turned the 109 and 190. They were not fighting them on the deck, they were fighting at 30k. Carrying that heavy and complex turbo-supercharger around does pay off at some point.
Finally, if you are also considering non sustained turns, which are more typical for normal combat than sustained turns, the picture is much more complicated. One of the better traits of the P47 in that respect is that it is very stable into the stall and can safely pull high G at high speed and shed a lot of speed fast to make a smaller circle. The 190 was famous for snap-stalling at such conditions and the 109 could not cut a 90 deg corner like the jug. At high speeds in particular, the 109 elevator was hard to operate while the jug had good response all the way till compression kicked in. If they went round and round the 109 will probably eventually come around on the jug, but in cutting one high speed turn to get/evade a shot, the jug was better.
:aok In addition, Johnson continually stated that the jug couldn't outturn it's quarry, but it could most certainly outROLL them, which helped accomplish the same objective, without bleeding as much E --(I don't think he saw a D9, as he rotated home before D-Day?) At any rate, my absolute favorite fights in AH are jug vs 190
-
Lusche its the German gun camera footage of FW190A? versus Lagg 5 P47D-11 and Mustang that you have seen before.
At the time of this posting there is no derogatory comment posted:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq7MRXPSqr0
Not going to look through the rest of them but you can search for "Fw 190A-7 x P-47 Thunderbolt" (its a D-11) for the Jug video.
A D-11 should have the paddle blade prop and water injection. A lot of P-47D-11's between Jan 44 and April 44. Nobody in the 8th AF was thinking Fw 190A6-A7 was 'easy' and tended to avoid turning fights if at all possible below 15,000.
I see a lot of references about dropping flaps (not from you) and 'easily out turning (pick one)..When you drop flaps you will get things for sure - 1.) a slight to significant reduction in turning radius, and 2.) a huge loss in energy leaving fewer options to win if your short term turn advantage doesn't work out for you.
-
I'm thinking dropping flaps happens a LOT more in here than happened in WW2
-
I'm thinking dropping flaps happens a LOT more in here than happened in WW2
agreed, and It was brought up before...
If your life was on the line would you try and turn fight?
-
agreed, and It was brought up before...
If your life was on the line would you try and turn fight?
I think I'd poo myself then put the poo on my top lip like a moustache. :salute
-
I think I'd poo myself then put the poo on my top lip like a moustache. :salute
oh thats sexy... nothing like a 'perverted' Dirty Sanchez. :rofl :rofl
-
agreed, and It was brought up before...
If your life was on the line would you try and turn fight?
That's not the best way to make use of the plane
-
A D-11 should have the paddle blade prop and water injection. A lot of P-47D-11's between Jan 44 and April 44. Nobody in the 8th AF was thinking Fw 190A6-A7 was 'easy' and tended to avoid turning fights if at all possible below 15,000.
I see a lot of references about dropping flaps (not from you) and 'easily out turning (pick one)..When you drop flaps you will get things for sure - 1.) a slight to significant reduction in turning radius, and 2.) a huge loss in energy leaving fewer options to win if your short term turn advantage doesn't work out for you.
When you look at that video do you see a Razorback or do you see a later model? Does anyone think they know for sure the entire story behind the video? I can tell you after considerable time in online flying that what you see in a limited aspect video doesnt tell the entire story ever. Yet some people look at the video and are lead to envision a turn fight while it could simply be a Jug firing at a distant airplane and a 190 pilot 'picking' an involved Jug. Just as likely are a hundred other scenarios yet a turn fight seems to make more sense to people for some reason. Must be all those MA hours they have racked up doing the same thing over and over...
:bhead
-
When you look at that video do you see a Razorback or do you see a later model?
Razorback, and given the paint scheme (OD with white stripes on the tail), probably an early model at that. C or early D model.
-
Don't bother Steele. The know it all types will chime in with a condescending diatribe imperiously informing you that it's all about wing loading and to shut the hell up cause you don't know what your talking about. That is, unless your talking about a Brewster, then it's not so much about wing loading. :headscratch:
-
Razorback, and given the paint scheme (OD with white stripes on the tail), probably an early model at that. C or early D model.
Stoney, except for 56th FG, IIRC all the 8th AF Jugs carried the 18 inch white bands through March, 1944 which would mean that most of the groups were upgraded to the D-11RE and RA.
-
Stoney, except for 56th FG, IIRC all the 8th AF Jugs carried the 18 inch white bands through March, 1944 which would mean that most of the groups were upgraded to the D-11RE and RA.
Roger that... I generally consider the D-11 to be the back end of the "early" D models since the step up to the D-15 standard is what got them legs for going deep.
-
Don't bother Steele. The know it all types will chime in with a condescending diatribe imperiously informing you that it's all about wing loading and to shut the hell up cause you don't know what your talking about. That is, unless your talking about a Brewster, then it's not so much about wing loading. :headscratch:
Its never about wing loading. Its about power available versus power required. That requires some pretty extensive math, which most are not interested in either (1) learning about or (2) taking the time to perform. This is the main reason that a 190 is much more competitive with a Jug at low altitude than at high altitudes.
-
Stoney , do you think Fw190a8 have a correct flight model right now ?
If not ,please write the adjustments you think is neccesary to the FM.
So far I have read in Baumers presented documents its overweight now, do you agree with that ?
-
Stoney , do you think Fw190a8 have a correct flight model right now ?
If not ,please write the adjustments you think is neccesary to the FM.
So far I have read in Baumers presented documents its overweight now, do you agree with that ?
I believe that the FW-190 as modeled in-game matches the modeling of all the other aircraft. Is there 100% fidelity--I have no idea--that's beyond my level of expertise. If there are any discrepancies, I believe they are consistent with the discrepancies that exist for all of the aircraft in-game, i.e. the playing field is level and the relative performance is accurate. I believe HTC has modeled as accurately as they can, based on the historical resources available to them. Every performance aspect of the aircraft in-game is based on accepted aerodynamic and physics equations and represent the best estimates of performance of all the aircraft they have included in the game.
Now, whether or not the 190A8 is heavier than it should be is a different question, and one I'm not qualified to answer. Baumer has access to some really good resources, has stick time in some of the aircraft of the era, and is extremely rational when he makes an argument on these boards. If he thinks its too heavy, there's a chance it may be. But, I also believe that if HTC receives credible information that contradicts their current modeling, they will make a change in order to keep Aces High the game that has the best fidelity to real-life that a game can.
With respect to the FW-190 in general, it was a very good design. With a quick roll rate, good instantaneous turn performance, and firepower, it was a very capable aircraft, and one that was very much suited to WWII air combat. The only thing it lacked later on was the high-altitude performance that the allies stumbled into earlier in the war. If imitation is the highest form of flattery, then Kurt Tank should have been proud, as Grumman felt the design so efficient for the task, that they designed their "next generation" F8F to conform to the same performance characteristics. Had Seversky not had the idea of designing the Jug for excellent high-altitude performance, it would have been late into 1943 or early 1944 before the Allies would have even had a fighter that could be manufactured in quantity, and could compete with the FW-190.
If it doesn't perform as well in the furball, knife-fights we have in Aces High, that's no reflection on its abilities in real-life. Just like the FW-190, the Jug doesn't compete well in this environment either, and its real-life, wartime combat record is excellent and well documented. So take heart you 190 lovers! Its a good plane. Just because it can't maintain a tight sustained turning radius doesn't mean it wasn't competitive. And there's nothing, in my opinion, in the historical record of its flight performance that contradicts its relative performance in-game. As long as the context of the historical anecdotes is considered, I think its relative performance is spot on (except perhaps, the questionable weight issue of the A8). And, if there is an issue with its weight, I'm sure HTC will make a change sometime in the future if they get access to reliable data.
-
In-game A8 to me feels like its fighting with a 500kg bomb under its belly.
Since I don't know much about flight science at all , but do fly IRL since 20 year, even though I give the A8 some time each month, every time I wonder, why is the A5 better in every single aspect ( i normally fly with 2*20mm) , yet its 1,5 year earlier design.Admittedly you get some few more minutes of flighttime with aux fuel.
I havent noticed its more durable to compensate ( got insta-pk'ed killed from a 110g2 rear gun (!)), nor have I felt any big difference killing buff with 4*20 in a5 vs the A8. Do we have minengeschoss modelled ?
To me , the A8 just dont compensate with anything else but nice skins. Ive heard they are faster than the A5 down low, but that cant be more than a few mph since every single move away from flying straight give you ultimate E-retention penalty in this bird.
After dogfighting a BIG twin engine A20 bomber, you fly home talking to yourself, with whats left of youf plane shot both from rear gunners at 3,5g and then out-turned , and after a while Im out of E with almost 2k HP, that darn plane keep on turning like an crazy ivan.
-
Its not so much the lack of turn, but in my experience its a whole host of things that make 190a8 challenging..
1) Little warning on wingtip stalls
2) does not have the power-to-weight ratio that its 109 cousin has and thus can not as easily rely on vert maneuvers when slow, iw the nose doesn't pull up as fast...
3) its not nearly as fast as many of the MA planes that have similar turn characteristics... (the 190D9, p51, most p47s, ta-152, yaks... all are much faster).
4) it doesn't dump its 'e' as fast as a 109s...
5) in steep vert rolling scissors with tighter turning planes, I almost always overshoot after several turns.... grrrr :furious
-
2) does not have the power-to-weight ratio that its 109 cousin has and thus can not as easily rely on vert maneuvers when slow, iw the nose doesn't pull up as fast...
Empty weight is significantly too high, that would help a tad if corrected.
4) it doesn't dump its 'e' as fast as a 109s...
LOL! Really? Dude... it's got a massive radial speed brake up front. Chop throttle and you lose E like mad. It's the overshoot king.
-
4) it doesn't dump its 'e' as fast as a 109s...
LOL! Really? Dude... it's got a massive radial speed brake up front. Chop throttle and you lose E like mad. It's the overshoot king.
Both the the FW 190A and D airframe have less parasite drag than the Spit IX and Me 109G - significantly less. Only the 51 has less than the Fw 190. So, why would the 'speedbrake effect' be more, or even equal, to the Spit and 109?
-
Because of the practical aerodynamics. Probably not unrelated to spitfires' better sustained turn performance than 109s' and 190s'
-
Its never about wing loading. Its about power available versus power required. That requires some pretty extensive math, which most are not interested in either (1) learning about or (2) taking the time to perform. This is the main reason that a 190 is much more competitive with a Jug at low altitude than at high altitudes.
Stoney W/S is important in all manuever performance equations, specifically in turn rates and radius and climb performance. All other factors equal it is the deciding factor.
Rmin is direcly proportional to W/S, OMEGAmin (turn radius) is inversely proportional to W/S, Corner Speed is proportional to SQRT(W/S), Max N is inversely proportional to W/S (independent of actual structural integrity as an a/c could have a CLmax which would combine to push it over the edge - stress wise)
-
Because of the practical aerodynamics. Probably not unrelated to spitfires' better sustained turn performance than 109s' and 190s'
Can you help me out by explaining why 'practical aerodynamics' over rules real aerodynamics?
The Fw 190 simply has less drag - meaning it requires less thrust to maintain a velocity state of equilibrium.
I don't think the 190 Has 'better sustained turn performance' than the Spit or 109.. apparently the Luftwaffe test team at Rechlin didn't believe it did either.
-
You misread it. He said the Spitfire has the better sustained turn.
-
Drgondog I don't know if you're right or even looking at it the right/wrong way. I would simply suggest "Try it out for yourself" and leave it at that.
I of course speak from in-game experience, not real-world math.
-
Can you help me out by explaining why 'practical aerodynamics' over rules real aerodynamics?
Sure:
I might've been totally wrong (shooting from the hip) but not for reason you think
1) I didn't say practical aerodynamics overrules real aerodynamics, and wouldn't have in the sense you think
1b) Practical aero does overrule real because AH is not real.
1c) I meant that in practice the 190 aerodynamics are such that they airbrake about as easily (if not more, it depends on specific circumstances) as spitfires and 109s, as was the context you replied to (Krusty's point relative to overshooting IE maneuverability in dogfights' the context), even if admittedly sloppily (harder to hold on departure). That said, this assertion (which doesn't follow the strict sense Krusty seems to have been arguing : strictly air braking with throttle off in coordinated flight
2) All it takes is to go in game and compare 190 versus 109/spitfire (for air braking in the sense I meant), all canted as far sideways (yaw and/or pitch) as they'll go at various speeds/alts. The 190s, the 152 esp., should airbrake competitively with spits and 109s; although now that I think about it I'm not so sure.
-
Can you help me out by explaining why 'practical aerodynamics' over rules real aerodynamics?
The Fw 190 simply has less drag - meaning it requires less thrust to maintain a velocity state of equilibrium.
I don't think the 190 Has 'better sustained turn performance' than the Spit or 109.. apparently the Luftwaffe test team at Rechlin didn't believe it did either.
Drgondog, I think he's talking about the fact that the 190, when introduced into very high alpha maneuvers, bleeds its airspeed very quickly--quicker than most aircraft in the game. My in-game experience is that if maneuvers are restricted to very low alpha, it retains its energy very well, which would be consistent with an aircraft that has very low zero-lift drag, and very high wing loading.
-
Stoney W/S is important in all manuever performance equations, specifically in turn rates and radius and climb performance. All other factors equal it is the deciding factor.
Rmin is direcly proportional to W/S, OMEGAmin (turn radius) is inversely proportional to W/S, Corner Speed is proportional to SQRT(W/S), Max N is inversely proportional to W/S (independent of actual structural integrity as an a/c could have a CLmax which would combine to push it over the edge - stress wise)
I'm not discounting the effects of low wing loading on those performance examples you mention. I'm merely saying that wing-loading, by itself, is not the best way to compare two aircraft and their relative performance, without taking into account all the other variables. On this board, a lot of folks that are not as well-read as others, quickly jump on wing-loading as the number one performance metric, and then have a hard time understanding why a 109 could theoretically have a larger sustained turning radius at 30,000 feet than a Jug, for example.
[EDIT] At sea level, standard conditions, the Power Available/Power Required math is more simple, and ultimately, this is what controls performance, not merely the aircraft's wing loading.
[EDIT2] Also, climb performance is maximized with excess power. The aircraft with the most excess power will climb faster. Now, low wing-load helps because it reduces the amount of power required, but if a heavily wing-loaded aircraft has more excess power than a low wing-loaded aircraft, the aircraft with the higher excess power climbs faster. Just another example of why wing-loading by itself is a poor performance characteristic to compare aircraft with. Again, this is illustrated by the heavier, more highly wing-loaded Jug having better climb than say the lighter wing-loaded 109G at high altitudes, for example.
-
Stoney, continuing the in-a-nutshell take on it, does wing loading have a performance aspect where it's the leading factor the way power loading is for climb perf?
-
Drgondog I don't know if you're right or even looking at it the right/wrong way. I would simply suggest "Try it out for yourself" and leave it at that.
I of course speak from in-game experience, not real-world math.
Krusty, the 190 A8 weights more and thus its momentum carries it further than a 109. Furthermore, as others pointed out, it has less drag than a 109. I don't know about your flying style, by my fav for dealing with spits, is to blow my e in a barrel roll and force an overshoot with a snap shot. Something the 109s are good at due to their ability to change e states faster than most other planes, faster than spits and 190s.
I have pulled it off in 190s, but if it dissolves into a sustained rolling scissors, due to item #2 in my original post... Making it so you can't get as slow, as the other guy, because you wont be able to bring your nose up as quickly and you will loose the fight...
-
Stoney, continuing the in-a-nutshell take on it, does wing loading have a performance aspect where it's the leading factor the way power loading is for climb perf?
No, not directly. Wing-loading can be a huge component of some of the performance equations, but the end result of the equation is what matters, not an individual variable. And, it would be imprecise to say that power-loading is the leading factor for climb performance. Excess power is what determines climb performance. Most highly power-loaded aircraft will have "good" climb performance, but just as wing-loading isolated by itself is a poor performance metric, so too is power-loading.
-
Sorry, excess power is what I meant in the above where I wrote power loading. Thanks.
-
I still cant understand one thing. Why was the later model a8 better than the a5, except that little speed advantage on the deck? The a5 eats the a8 in a turnfight, also performs way better at every altitude above 5k.
-
I still cant understand one thing. Why was the later model a8 better than the a5, except that little speed advantage on the deck? The a5 eats the a8 in a turnfight, also performs way better at every altitude above 5k.
yeah, the A9 had a bigger engine.. Don't know that much about it, other than the bigger engine.
-
Not 190 vs 47 but as regards 190A having less drag.... Compare the F4U-1 and
Fw190A-8. The power is practically the same, 2000hp on the deck (F4U mil pwr
and 190 Special Emergency). The 190 is only about 10mph faster on the deck
but the F4U-1 has some 60% more wing area and 20% more weight.
Doesn't speak well for the 190 being sleek :)
-
A8 in game is about 260+ lbs too heavy in clean configuration. That's going to royally screw with power to weight and weight to wing ratios and all that stuff.
A8 was supposedly the best turner of the antons and the Dora better still. (anecdotal)
-
A8 in game is about 260+ lbs too heavy in clean configuration. That's going to royally screw with power to weight and weight to wing ratios and all that stuff.
:aok :aok I agree with krusty on this. Krusty you wouldn't happen to have the docs that support this, maybe we can get HTC to take a look.
-
Posted many a time by many a folk.
Should still be on the forum, let me dig up a link.....
-
Not 190 vs 47 but as regards 190A having less drag.... Compare the F4U-1 and
Fw190A-8. The power is practically the same, 2000hp on the deck (F4U mil pwr
and 190 Special Emergency). The 190 is only about 10mph faster on the deck
but the F4U-1 has some 60% more wing area and 20% more weight.
Doesn't speak well for the 190 being sleek :)
1st question - what are your sources for speed, horsepower and gross weight for both ships?
2nd question - altitude?
Comment - Thrust = Drag: Same thrust but a velocity difference says the slower ship has more drag.
-
From the ill-fated thorsim thread:
Just going to compile a little list of different tests and different airframes on different dates (including the untranslated version of the 2 images I linked earlier in this thread), all listing weights and loadouts for the test.
These are not meant to really debate what performance we have or should have, but are only used as examples of historic weights in wartime testing (battle loaded) airframes. Also note dates are day/month/year, NOT the normal month/day/year.
New links:
serial no.: 801-048
date: 13.11.1943
chart link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-level-speed-13nov43.jpg
Lists 4300kg for fully loaded 4x20mm
Lists 4350kg for fully loaded 2x20/2x30
serial no. 801-051
date: 13.11.1943
chart link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-climb-13nov43.jpg
Lists 4300kg for fully loaded 4x20mm
Lists 4350kg for fully loaded 2x20/2x30
serial no. 801-132
date: 25.10.1944
chart link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-25oct44.jpg
Already previously listed, but translated chart:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-25oct44.jpg
Lists 4300kg for fully loaded 4x20mm
serial no. (A-8 not listed, ta152 comparison)
date: 3.1.1945
chart link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-3jan45.jpg
Lists 4300kg for fully loaded 4x20mm.
serial no. (A-8 not listed, anothe rta152 comparison)
date: 12.1.1945
chart link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-12jan45.jpg
Lists 4300kg for fully loaded 4x20mm
serial no. (A-8 not listed, compares multiple variants)
date: 1.10.1944
chart link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/leistungsdaten-1-10-44.jpg
already previously listed, but translated chart:
http://www.vermin.net/fw190/translated-fwchart.jpg
Lists 4300kg for fully loaded 4x20mm
from 2009:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,258131.0.html
From 2008 (ignore the trolls):
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,228970.0.html
Just as reference...
-
From the ill-fated thorsim thread:
from 2009:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,258131.0.html
From 2008 (ignore the trolls):
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,228970.0.html
Just as reference...
Krusty - thanks. The only reason I asked is that to have a legitimate set of facts to deal with in performance discussions is to establish a credible source for at least the weights, altitudes, Hp rating and the velocities as recorded by that test pilot and published. Obviously multiple runs and dates are better as specific engine conditions, boost differences, etc will drive a spread of data. You know that and I know that. When the discussion dives into the weeds.
The question I was seeking an answer to was whether the "2000 Hp equivalency between a "p-47" and an Fw 190" had any basis for enabling a comparision of relative speeds? Which P-47, what dash number, did the pilot report any issues with the engine, was the data reduced to STP values? Was the Hp referenced from a standard published set of data as a function of altitude, etc, etc. I like Mike Williams' site and frequently use data extracted from his site but rarely ever reference a source there unless the test reports are detailed and concise.
-
That was more in response to Ardy's request than directly pertaining to the jug/FW debate. Other than the weight issue in-game affecting handling, it probably won't help your discussion.
-
Not 190 vs 47 but as regards 190A having less drag.... Compare the F4U-1 and
Fw190A-8. The power is practically the same, 2000hp on the deck (F4U mil pwr
and 190 Special Emergency). The 190 is only about 10mph faster on the deck
but the F4U-1 has some 60% more wing area and 20% more weight.
Doesn't speak well for the 190 being sleek :)
"Sleek" is usually consistent with a low coefficient of zero-lift drag, not necessarily just a big difference in speed. A FW-190 will out accelerate an F4U-1 very quickly, so not only does it go 10 mph faster (which is a big enough sea-level difference to matter), it gets up to that top speed faster.
Again, the acceleration and top speed are functions of power available and power required. When power available = power required, an aircraft is either not accelerating and level (top speed at that amount of power), decelerating and climbing, or accelerating and descending. In order to accelerate while staying level, there must be excess power available. If we consider thrust to both aircraft equal, then the F4U-1, with its higher weight and Cd, has a higher power required to accelerate compared to the FW-190. So, both the difference in acceleration and the difference in top speed demonstrates that indeed the FW-190 could be considered more "sleek" than the F4U-1, assuming thrust is equal.
Of course, assuming thrust is equal, just because the horsepower of both aircraft is equal, is another assumption that can get you in trouble. Differences in the propeller efficiency and exhaust thrust realized by either aircraft can introduce another difference which should be considered in a comparison. It could be that Kurt Tank optimized the FW-190 prop for one flight regime and Vought optimized the F4U-1 prop for another flight regime.
TL;DR: Thorough aircraft performance comparisons demand very detailed analysis. Cherry-picking one performance metric and basing an entire comparison on that metric can lead to false conclusions...
-
That was more in response to Ardy's request than directly pertaining to the jug/FW debate. Other than the weight issue in-game affecting handling, it probably won't help your discussion.
Krusty,
should I or you star a wish list item for HTC to look at this?
-
Ardy this has been debated enough that I'm sure HTC is aware of it.
-
One thing is for sure , if the 190a8 flew like it does in AH, Luftwaffe would never accept it as a replacement superiority fighter for earlier models.
Well being that I fly the 190a8 98% of the time in AH it is not a plane to take lightly, even in the game. In the hands of an experienced pilot it can hold it's own against any plane in the game. I hear hear alot that the A8 doesn't turn. Well I have to disagree. Over time I have learned to turn this plane pretty good and I always fly with the second gun pkg. I have turn fought, and won against ponies 80% of the time. Same with jugs n spit16's. As in all things it takes alot of practice. Most take one up and see how "bad" it performs and never fly it again hence forth it's bad reputation. Flying it really good doesn't happen overnight, it takes months of dedicated practice with it. I'm still not done learning it's tricks and such and I have been flying it for over 2 years!!!! :airplane: :salute
-
Well being that I fly the 190a8 98% of the time in AH it is not a plane to take lightly, even in the game. In the hands of an experienced pilot it can hold it's own against any plane in the game. I hear hear alot that the A8 doesn't turn. Well I have to disagree. Over time I have learned to turn this plane pretty good and I always fly with the second gun pkg. I have turn fought, and won against ponies 80% of the time. Same with jugs n spit16's. As in all things it takes alot of practice. Most take one up and see how "bad" it performs and never fly it again hence forth it's bad reputation. Flying it really good doesn't happen overnight, it takes months of dedicated practice with it. I'm still not done learning it's tricks and such and I have been flying it for over 2 years!!!! :airplane: :salute
Icedragon,
would you care to duel me in it?
I was flying it last night in the DA against people and was getting owned....
Then I picked up my trusty ol k$ and dished ownage, only to go back to the 190 a8 to try and figure it out.
-
Im flying FWs from time to time, but only once could have an epic turnfight. Was against DREAM, he was in a full tank la-7, me in an almost empty a-8. Even though i tryed everything, i was owned at the end. So chanceless, the a-8 only can turnfight with jugs, with any chance of win. So sad, its a brick.
-
you cannot turnfight a p47 with a fw190a8 in here. you cannot even turnfight an 20 000 lb A-20 .
you can use instantaneous turn to get a snapshot or hope he is a noob.
-
The 190 was not an awesome plane because it was good in duels. We have the completely wrong perspective based on MA experience. I don't remember many cases of A8 events, but every AH scenario or TOD event that had large scale engagements between Doras vs. spits, the spits got owned. This is because in such engagements the altitude is typically high enough to allow a lot of vertical maneuvering, SA is saturated - speed, roll rate and firepower win the day.
-
The 190 was not an awesome plane because it was good in duels. We have the completely wrong perspective based on MA experience. I don't remember many cases of A8 events, but every AH scenario or TOD event that had large scale engagements between Doras vs. spits, the spits got owned. This is because in such engagements the altitude is typically high enough to allow a lot of vertical maneuvering, SA is saturated - speed, roll rate and firepower win the day.
+1 on that WWII didn't have to win duels Co-e every day. the 190 is marvellous to fly with wingmen. It doesn't change the fact that the A8 is unter compared to the A5 in aces high
-
Bozon 1vs1 you will lose because slightest move will render you blow your E,in an Au coE fights is just a loss vs 47d11, because of 47s can keep e in manoeuvres whereas fw190a8 have to rely on snapshots to win the game. Most of my A8 kills are snapshots at 400-800 yards. Gunnery is more important in this plane than most others.
-
The 190 was not an awesome plane because it was good in duels. We have the completely wrong perspective based on MA experience. I don't remember many cases of A8 events
The A8 was a very important plane in Der Groίe Schlag Scenario and had good success, even though - on paper - the performance of it's adversaries (47, 38, 51) was way superior, especially at that high altitude. But the fight was totally different from the standard MA brawl.
-
It's also quite competitive against 1944 soviet craft as well. Many LW v VVS FSOs and the like have had the Fw vs the La5 or yak9t, against p-39Qs and lend-lease bombers.
As a fan of the 190 (among other rides) I would be the first to say it's not without merits. It's quite lethal.... (if you don't try turn fighting spitfires with it!)
-
Bozon 1vs1 you will lose because slightest move will render you blow your E,in an Au coE fights is just a loss vs 47d11, because of 47s can keep e in manoeuvres whereas fw190a8 have to rely on snapshots to win the game. Most of my A8 kills are snapshots at 400-800 yards. Gunnery is more important in this plane than most others.
P47 is one of the worst planes in keeping E in a turn. Try this: up a D11, fly 350 mph, hold the stick firmly and caugh. You lost 100 mph.
OK the above was a joke, but the D11 blows its E with the slightest G load. The difference from the A8 is that the jug has a very docile stall (elliptical wings and heavy weight does help sometime) while the 190 will behave like a ferret in a bath of cold water, which match the anecdotal historical reports about how it stalls. The Jug does not turn - it wallows. This combined with the instantaneous loss of speed give people the impression of a turn, but the real turn rate drops immediately. The A8 will start the same but then hit the near stall control difficulties much sooner - and harder.
Those that remember the old 109 FM stability issues know what I am talking about. Potentially it could turn just as good as it can today, but very few players were able to bring it there without loosing control. Most others just stayed clear from this limit and claimed that "it cannot turn".
-
for whatever reason the Fw 190 wing was unusual in that it had the customary twist on the leadng edge of the wing - but the twist stopped at ~ 80% span - and was straight thereafter. I suspect but can not prove that this was an issue re: tip control at high AoA/CL. This would tend to viscous departure characteristics in high G turns.
Gene Lednicer discussed the issues and referenced LW Tech reports on the problem, when he modeled Fw 190, P-51B/D and Spit IX using VSAERO.
-
You mean the same twist as the 152, only lesser? The 152 was explicitly designed that way to keep some authority after the rest of the wing stalled.
-
The 23XXX airfoil has really vicious stall characteristics, and given the combination of both planform and airfoil thickness taper, and the high wingloading, the FW190 was doomed to have pretty bad accelerated stall characteristics, and thanks to the design aspects above, the tips would always stall first, despite the aerodynamic twist. I'm sure Kurt Tank never envisioned his aircraft being used in a stall fight.
-
The 23XXX airfoil has really vicious stall characteristics, and given the combination of both planform and airfoil thickness taper, and the high wingloading, the FW190 was doomed to have pretty bad accelerated stall characteristics, and thanks to the design aspects above, the tips would always stall first, despite the aerodynamic twist. I'm sure Kurt Tank never envisioned his aircraft being used in a stall fight.
Stoney,
could you please tell me more about the differences between the y-clark airfoil and the NACA23015 airfoils? The 109 is a y-clark, where the fw 190 is a NACA 23015. What properties do they exhibit, etc..
-
Starting with the 190A6, the wing structure was redesigned to maintain the 190's record of High Combat Survivability. The modified wing incorporated standardized armament of 20mm MG/151 instead of the FF/20's in the outboard position.
Additional armor was added to cockpit, cowling,(elsewhere?) Wingloading with the new wing was Reduced to to 226 kg/m^2 and provided increased handling response over previous models (A1-A-5 wingloading=227kg/m^2)
The 190A7, same as A6 but replaced MG-17 cowl guns with MG-131 13mm.
190 A8 similar to A7 but with option for GM-1 nitrous oxide boost or additional internal fuel tank (AUX)
On paper it looks as though the A5 and A8 would have the same (or darn close) wingloading, Especially with the outboard cannons deleted.
That said, I would expect the A8 to handle as well as the A5, considering the HP went up as well.
-
The wing was not redesigned. The plane form was not changed. They simply moved some internal frames to other locations to make room for the new MG151/20 and the accompanying ammo trays. Performance was identical to previous versions, except where there was heavier loadouts in use (no changes to lift or airflow, though).
Just in case you were trying to suggest the wing changed how the plane flew...
EDIT: Also the GM-1 is very high alt boost only and will damage the engine below FTH. You may be thinking of MW50, which was intended to use what became the AUX tank.
-
Like I said before it takes alot of dedicated practice months of it. I've flown it for 2 years and I still have a lot to learn about it!!!! :salute
-
Like I said before it takes alot of dedicated practice months of it. I've flown it for 2 years and I still have a lot to learn about it!!!! :salute
So lets duel and I can learn from you.
-
Stoney,
could you please tell me more about the differences between the y-clark airfoil and the NACA23015 airfoils? The 109 is a y-clark, where the fw 190 is a NACA 23015. What properties do they exhibit, etc..
Well, I don't know so much about the Clark Y and I've never been able to find a lot of data about it. The 23000 series NACA airfoils, on the other hand, were the most prevalent and widely used airfoil in the history of aviation probably. Many of the WWII fighter aircraft in-game shared the 23000 series airfoils, or close variations.
The development of the 23000 series airfoil came out of the initial research of NACA (later to be known as NASA) and a lot of their wind tunnel testing in the 20's and 30's. As more and more planes switched from fabric (which didn't hold a true airfoil form in flight necessarily) to metal (which did), designers began to realize certain performance aspects of the airfoils could be improved. Now, remember that the Wright brothers had only flown 27 years prior to 1930, and a ton of the stuff we now know about aerodynamics was then still unknown. One aspect of airfoils that designers did know a lot about was the effect of increased camber on the pitching moment of airfoils. Camber is used to increase the Clmax of an airfoil, i.e. more camber = more lift given everything else the same. When camber goes up, the airfoil has a nose down pitching moment. When camber of some airfoils gets high enough to make the airfoil a very attractive choice from a lift perspective, it becomes a problem because a high enough nose-down pitching moment is introduced to create other problems.
This other problem is trim drag, or the drag created by the horizontal stabilizer counter-acting the nose down pitching moment of the wing. When the pitching moment goes up, the trim drag goes up. During this early period of airfoil design, minimizing pitching moment was seen as one of the most important characteristics of the airfoil chosen. NACA decided that if the airfoil was designed properly, pitching moment could be minimized. Their best result was the 23000 series of airfoils. It had very low profile drag, and a very low pitching moment compared to some of the other airfoils that had been used previously. As a result, it rapidly became the flavor of the month for airfoils, so-to-speak, and was widely accepted as a high-performance airfoil. As a result, it was used in almost all of the later model WWII fighter aircraft like the F4U, F6F, P-47, FW-190, (Lednicer also lists the Ki-48 and N1K2 and some of the Russian fighters like the La-5/7). The 23000 series can still be seen today in the Beechcraft Bonanza, and even in HiTech's RV-8, among others.
The problem is that (according to Harry Riblett) in changing the airfoil shape to minimize the pitching moment, NACA gave the 23000 series a very sharp leading edge profile on the top of the airfoil, and flattened the lower leading edge of the airfoil. This characteristic created a condition where, at the stall, airflow is disrupted further forward along the top edge of the airfoil than when compared to its contemporary airfoils. This created very sharp stall characteristics, which were even more pronounced when airfoil thicknesses were thinner (see graph below).
Now, typically, the Clmax of an airfoil increases with thickness. It also increases as the Reynolds number (a number that represents a relationship to the velocity X chord length of an airfoil) increases. These two images are plots I made on XFoil a few years ago. On the 23000 series comparison, you can see the impact of thickness on Clmax, and on the comparison of the 2200 series, you can see the impact of Reynolds number on Clmax.
(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p61/stonewall74/ClComparison.jpg)
(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p61/stonewall74/SpitfireWingtipExample.jpg)
Most WWII fighter aircraft used both planform taper (meaning that the wingtip had a shorter chord than the wing root) and also used thickness taper (meaning the wingtip had a thinner airfoil than the wing root). Given the graphs I posted above, you can see that they basically designed wings that were going to have a tendency to tip stall at high Angle of Attack conditions, i.e. the wing tip stalls while the wing root is still producing lift. At the same airspeed, the wing tip's thinner airfoil stalls sooner and more sharply, and the wing tip's lower reynold's number (since the wing tip chord is shorter than the wing root) is lower. The problem is that the ailerons, which control roll, are located on the wing tip. If you get into a tip stall condition, there will be insufficient flow over the ailerons to continue to control the aircraft in the roll axis. This is why when we stall fight aircraft in AH2, the planes want to roll over on their backs when we stall them, regardless of aileron input. All of the other resultant roll moments (engine torque being a large one since we're almost always at full power in a stall fight) have more force than what the ailerons can counteract.
Now, why would they design the wings this way? Lower drag, primarily, as profile drag decreases with airfoil thickness. Ignorance would be another reason. These guys were designing aircraft with nothing more than a plotting board and a slide rule. Much of what we no know from CFD analysis was unknown then. Also, they all thought, and many designers today still do think, that they could counteract all these tip stall tendencies with twist. Unfortunately, most of the time, all the twist did was add more drag, while still not providing enough of a difference to counteract the tip stall tendencies they designed in with their combination of airfoil thickness and planform taper. Ironically, the Me109, having been designed much earlier than some of its wartime counterparts, used leading edge slats to combat these tendencies, and were largely successful at controlling them. While I've not done the analysis in XFoil, I would assume that the Clark Y airfoil also had better stall characteristics than the 23000 series.
So, I don't know if I answered your question entirely, but hopefully this gives you a start on understanding some of the issues.
-
What is the "camber on the pitching moment of airfoils?" I'm trying to picture what a wing with more camber looks like vs. one with less.
-
What is the "camber on the pitching moment of airfoils?" I'm trying to picture what a wing with more camber looks like vs. one with less.
Try this: http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Theories_of_Flight/Airfoils/TH13G2.htm
-
Stoney,
That was very informative, thank you.
So if I understand the diagrams correctly, the 2300 should allow for a higher angle of attack (~17 degrees) over the ~15 on the 2200 series, correct?
This would suggest that then that a FW 190 should be able to pull a bit steeper than clark-y which is roughly a 2200 ( NACA 2R1 14.2). Stoney, Also, the 109s clark Y airfoil was added in ~1941, previous 109s had NACA 2314 air foils, aka f-k models had clark-y.
-
Stoney Maybe a stupid question, but hopefully simple enough to answer - is both increased camber (all else being equal) and low wing flaps causing nose pitch down a coincidence?
-
Stoney,
That was very informative, thank you.
So if I understand the diagrams correctly, the 2300 should allow for a higher angle of attack (~17 degrees) over the ~15 on the 2200 series, correct?
This would suggest that then that a FW 190 should be able to pull a bit steeper than clark-y which is roughly a 2200 ( NACA 2R1 14.2). Stoney, Also, the 109s clark Y airfoil was added in ~1941, previous 109s had NACA 2314 air foils, aka f-k models had clark-y.
No, don't make that assumption based purely on those graphs. Those graphs are snapshots of certain flight regimes built to demonstrate my argument. First, the chart with the 23000 series on it is showing the same airfoil at two different thicknesses (9% and 15% which were common tip/root thicknesses used on most designs that used the 23000 series) using the same Reynold's number. The 2200 series chart shows the same 9% thickness airfoil at two different Reynold's Numbers. To do an accurate comparison between the two different airfoils, you would need to use the same thicknesses and same Reynold's number.
Thanks for the correction on the Clark Y/109...
-
Stoney Maybe a stupid question, but hopefully simple enough to answer - is both increased camber (all else being equal) and low wing flaps causing nose pitch down a coincidence?
No it is not. Whenever flaps are dropped, you increase the camber of flapped portion of the wing considerably. It increases the Clmax of that portion of the wing as a result, which allows for slower landing speeds. Now, some aircraft experience differences in the amount of nose-down pitching moment with flap use, based on all the other moments on the aircraft, but to make a general, simplistic statement, dropping flaps will make the nose pitch down.
Just be careful not to expect this to apply to all aircraft. I don't have a lot of time in Cessna 172's, so I can't remember, but the last time we debated this, someone that does stated that the 172 exhibits a nose-up pitching moment with flaps. I know in my Grumman, your hand goes directly from the flap switch to the trim wheel to introduce a ton of nose-up trim to counteract the increase in pitching moment. The Grumman is low-winged, and has a 64415 airfoil that has a very high pitching moment anyway. So, pitching moment of the aircraft with flap use is up for debate. Increasing the nose-down pitching moment of the airfoil with increased camber is not.
-
Thanks again Stoney.
-
Try this: http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Theories_of_Flight/Airfoils/TH13G2.htm
Thanks much, all makes sense.
-
Well, I don't know so much about the Clark Y and I've never been able to find a lot of data about it. The 23000 series NACA airfoils, on the other hand, were the most prevalent and widely used airfoil in the history of aviation probably. Many of the WWII fighter aircraft in-game shared the 23000 series airfoils, or close variations.
Stoney the Clark Y and the Gottingen 398 were early efficient airfoils. When the two were compared it was found that when camber was removed both airfoils exhibited the same characteristics were observed for similar maximum thicckness. IIRCthe four digit NACA series sprang from these two airfoils
The development of the 23000 series airfoil came out of the initial research of NACA (later to be known as NASA) and a lot of their wind tunnel testing in the 20's and 30's. As more and more planes switched from fabric (which didn't hold a true airfoil form in flight necessarily) to metal (which did), designers began to realize certain performance aspects of the airfoils could be improved. Now, remember that the Wright brothers had only flown 27 years prior to 1930, and a ton of the stuff we now know about aerodynamics was then still unknown. One aspect of airfoils that designers did know a lot about was the effect of increased camber on the pitching moment of airfoils. Camber is used to increase the Clmax of an airfoil, i.e. more camber = more lift given everything else the same. When camber goes up, the airfoil has a nose down pitching moment. When camber of some airfoils gets high enough to make the airfoil a very attractive choice from a lift perspective, it becomes a problem because a high enough nose-down pitching moment is introduced to create other problems.
This other problem is trim drag, or the drag created by the horizontal stabilizer counter-acting the nose down pitching moment of the wing. When the pitching moment goes up, the trim drag goes up.
The Trim Drag increase occurs becaue the chord line angle between the leading edge of the horizontal stabilizer to the trailing edge of the elevator changes with the deflection of the elevator to assist in change of pitching moment of the aircraft - simialr ro deplpoying flaps. With 'increase in relative AoA comes an associated increase in drag - both Induced and parasite, of the horizontal stabilizer/elevator system'
During this early period of airfoil design, minimizing pitching moment was seen as one of the most important characteristics of the airfoil chosen. NACA decided that if the airfoil was designed properly, pitching moment could be minimized. Their best result was the 23000 series of airfoils. It had very low profile drag, and a very low pitching moment compared to some of the other airfoils that had been used previously. As a result, it rapidly became the flavor of the month for airfoils, so-to-speak, and was widely accepted as a high-performance airfoil. As a result, it was used in almost all of the later model WWII fighter aircraft like the F4U, F6F, P-47, FW-190, (Lednicer also lists the Ki-48 and N1K2 and some of the Russian fighters like the La-5/7). The 23000 series can still be seen today in the Beechcraft Bonanza, and even in HiTech's RV-8, among others.
The problem is that (according to Harry Riblett) in changing the airfoil shape to minimize the pitching moment, NACA gave the 23000 series a very sharp leading edge profile on the top of the airfoil, and flattened the lower leading edge of the airfoil.
Stoney I am confused on this one. by definition the 23000 series has a .02 radius (of chord), perfectly round at LE - why 'flat on bottom, particularly on a symmetrical aircfoils
This characteristic created a condition where, at the stall, airflow is disrupted further forward along the top edge of the airfoil than when compared to its contemporary airfoils. This created very sharp stall characteristics, which were even more pronounced when airfoil thicknesses were thinner (see graph below).
Now, typically, the Clmax of an airfoil increases with thickness. It also increases as the Reynolds number (a number that represents a relationship to the velocity X chord length of an airfoil) increases. These two images are plots I made on XFoil a few years ago. On the 23000 series comparison, you can see the impact of thickness on Clmax, and on the comparison of the 2200 series, you can see the impact of Reynolds number on Clmax.
(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p61/stonewall74/ClComparison.jpg)
(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p61/stonewall74/SpitfireWingtipExample.jpg)
Most WWII fighter aircraft used both planform taper (meaning that the wingtip had a shorter chord than the wing root) and also used thickness taper (meaning the wingtip had a thinner airfoil than the wing root). Given the graphs I posted above, you can see that they basically designed wings that were going to have a tendency to tip stall at high Angle of Attack conditions, i.e. the wing tip stalls while the wing root is still producing lift. At the same airspeed, the wing tip's thinner airfoil stalls sooner and more sharply, and the wing tip's lower reynold's number (since the wing tip chord is shorter than the wing root) is lower. The problem is that the ailerons, which control roll, are located on the wing tip. If you get into a tip stall condition, there will be insufficient flow over the ailerons to continue to control the aircraft in the roll axis. This is why when we stall fight aircraft in AH2, the planes want to roll over on their backs when we stall them, regardless of aileron input. All of the other resultant roll moments (engine torque being a large one since we're almost always at full power in a stall fight) have more force than what the ailerons can counteract.
Now, why would they design the wings this way? Lower drag, primarily, as profile drag decreases with airfoil thickness. Ignorance would be another reason. These guys were designing aircraft with nothing more than a plotting board and a slide rule. Much of what we no know from CFD analysis was unknown then. Also, they all thought, and many designers today still do think, that they could counteract all these tip stall tendencies with twist. Unfortunately, most of the time, all the twist did was add more drag, while still not providing enough of a difference to counteract the tip stall tendencies they designed in with their combination of airfoil thickness and planform taper.
Stoney - one reason for both leading edge twist and a planform taper was to drive the lift distribution inboard to more closely approximate an elliptical lift distribution. With twist however, you also increased drag due to lift as one of the penalties. Both the 51 and the Spit had twist all the way out to the tip - the 190 only to about 80% span - why? who knows?
Ironically, the Me109, having been designed much earlier than some of its wartime counterparts, used leading edge slats to combat these tendencies, and were largely successful at controlling them. While I've not done the analysis in XFoil, I would assume that the Clark Y airfoil also had better stall characteristics than the 23000 series.
So, I don't know if I answered your question entirely, but hopefully this gives you a start on understanding some of the issues.
/quote]
That was an excellent summary
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz8QsBxcOMw
The fight at 0:30 between a 190 A7 (basically an A8 with less boost) and a 47Dxx
Notice how the 190 follows the Tbolt thru several tight turns, pulling lead several times, even after several rotations, the Tbolt simply cant turn tight enough to shake the 190.
Thoughts?
edit the 47 looks to be a razorback model, which is the best turning jug
"Data is not the plural of anecdote." - Randy Pausch
:aok
-
Thank you Stoney :salute
-
Stoney the Clark Y and the Gottingen 398 were early efficient airfoils. When the two were compared it was found that when camber was removed both airfoils exhibited the same characteristics were observed for similar maximum thicckness. IIRCthe four digit NACA series sprang from these two airfoils
Perhaps. I'd have to dig through my copy of Abbot and Doenhoff to check this, but good enough for me. Like I said, I don't know much about the Clark Y...
The Trim Drag increase occurs becaue the chord line angle between the leading edge of the horizontal stabilizer to the trailing edge of the elevator changes with the deflection of the elevator to assist in change of pitching moment of the aircraft - simialr ro deplpoying flaps. With 'increase in relative AoA comes an associated increase in drag - both Induced and parasite, of the horizontal stabilizer/elevator system'
Yes. I sort of skimmed the wave tops on the trim drag issue to keep from getting bogged down in the theory.
Stoney I am confused on this one. by definition the 23000 series has a .02 radius (of chord), perfectly round at LE - why 'flat on bottom, particularly on a symmetrical aircfoils
I was probably a little too vague with this. I didn't have my copy of Ribblet's book at hand--its packed up--so I sort of swagged the description of this. In the interest of full disclosure, Lednicer disagrees with some of Ribblet's conclusions in a response he wrote criticizing Ribblet's work, but given the well documented stall behavior of the 23000 series airfoil, they did something to it. I don't understand it all myself, but what Ribblet postulated was the method with which they minimized the pitching moment of the airfoil modified the forward part of the bottom airfoil surface. Not necessarily changing the leading edge radius, but the leading edge profile beyond the radius portion. Something about how they flattened the area directly behind the radius on the bottom of the airfoil interferes with normal flow at very high AoA. I'll see if I can't find the book and post an excerpt straight from the book.
In the meantime, looking at the top image on this page of a 23015, you can see the "flattened" portion of the airfoil lower surface, directly behind the leading edge out to about 25% chord.
http://www.laboratoridenvol.com/info/tech/perfils.en.html
This is the portion of the airfoil that Ribblet argues "decambers" the forward portion of the airfoil, thus causing the very sharp stall characteristics that are exacerbated in the thinner 23000 series airfoils. The 23015 doesn't have a very sharp stall, but if you look at the 23009 (which was the thickness used on the wing tips of most 23000 airfoil aircraft, it gets very severe. I can't imagine a worse place to have a portion of the wing stall with very little warning.
Stoney - one reason for both leading edge twist and a planform taper was to drive the lift distribution inboard to more closely approximate an elliptical lift distribution. With twist however, you also increased drag due to lift as one of the penalties. Both the 51 and the Spit had twist all the way out to the tip - the 190 only to about 80% span - why? who knows?
Again, I kind of skimmed the wave tops to avoid some of the complexities of planform taper, its advantages and disadvantages, etc. For the most part now, designers use twist to combat tip stall tendencies, as they've determined that elliptical lift distribution can be most easily achieved through planform taper only. Obviously some still disagree today. On my Formula 1 design, I was using zero twist, and a 45% taper ratio to get close. I planned to use a 15% thickness airfoil through the whole wing to avoid thickness taper. I even considered using a 17% thickness at the wingtip before I decided to just keep the same thickness for construction simplicity. Further, I was using a lower aspect ratio wing (for a lot of reasons), which made the chord at the wingtip long enough to have a decent Reynold's Number at landing speeds. Another part of this I didn't touch on was that several WWII fighter planforms, especially the Russians', introduced sweep into the wing as well, which reduces Clmax, but again, I didn't want to get into that.
[/quote]
-
Stoney - We are pretty much in violent agreement. One thing I would pose is the original concept of CMac (IIRC from 45 years ago of 'theory of Aero). I don't have a picture but if we were to plot out the pressure distribution 360 degrees around an airfoil in lift, then integrate the top surface chord-wise, from the LE stagnation point to the trailing edge we would get our force vector on the top surface. Perform the same integration on the lower surface to obtain the similar - but not same magnitude nor the focal point of action- for the bottom surface.
IIRC, the resolution of the two force vectors about the leading edge is CMle. We then resolve the 'moment obtained thusly' and transpose both the resultant force vector and the Moment to the aerodynamic center of the wing (e.g. the 1/4 chord point) to obtain L and CMac.
So, futzing with the leading edge geometry of say a 23012 airfoil should result in two things. A dash number to explain the difference in the 'new 23012' airfoil geometry like a leading edge radius or sharpness distinction, and a new and different set of wind tunnel data to plot the differences in Cl, Cd and CMac as well as notes to alert the designer to nasty departure characteristics (hmm that would be three things?)
I dropped into another site on a discussion and noticed that the Do 335 had this airfoil with a three digit post series and I had not seen that before
For a two digit modification after the dash number - the first digit represents deviation from 'normal' leading edge radius (where 6=normal, 0=sharp) and the second indicates the position of the maximum thickness in percent chord. So the 23018-63 would be same as 23018 except the max t/c moved aft from 15 % to 30% of chord - more closely approaching 65 series laminar flow wings which were in the 40% range.
Having said this I have never seen any dash number after the Fw 190 airfoild series so I really don't know.
-
A looooong looooong time ago the 190a5 used to be able to beat up on the P-47s in a knife fight.
Then the code governing airflow and flaps were changed, and all the 190s went from being merely unmanuverable to being awful. The P-51s got hit with the nerf bat even harder... the P-51D went from being a roughly even match for a 109G-10 (todays K-4) to an easy kill for pretty much anything in a fight. I think the P-47 benefited from the change, but that may just be vis a vis the P-51 and 190 series. The F4Us and 109s were obvious winners - both series vaulted up to somewhere near the Spitfires in terms of 'turnyness'. Granted, the F4Us (with the exception of the -4) are still not hard to kill if you are in a Spit. They can turn with you, but you can get them turning and then go vertical and they won't have the power to keep up.
The 109s on the other hand.... a 109F4 can hang with a pretty decent spit driver. The Spit 16 is still a better plane, but it isn't a blowout.
Now, things may have changed in the years since I stopped playing, but I'm pretty sure the flaps thing was the last major revision to the FMs.
i locve that song what should it be called? "the day the 190s died"?
-
Could just as easily be titled the day the runstangs died :). If anything they took a bigger hit than the 190s. There weren't too many people who liked to knife fight in the 190s anyway (maybe 4-5). The P-51 going from a pretty good all-round fighter to being bait in any sort of turning fight made a much bigger difference in the grand scheme of things. You are talking about one of the most popular planes in the game here. I mean, the P-47s (any of them) absolutely eat the P-51s up in a turn fight.
-
The internal wing structure is what was changed, made lighter, stronger, and with provisions to mount various cannon configs. They flexed less during high-G maneuvers. IDK how the new wings were made, but A1-A5 wing spars were made in a special rolling process (spars got thinner with increasing wingspan)
One main reason that the redesign was pushed through (besides the need for different cannon mounts) was that the factory that made 190 wings-Junkers in Schonebeck- was hit very hard by buffs, causing a major backup in wing production. -info from Focke Wulf FW190-Ta152 Entwicklung/Tecknik/Einsatz by Heinz Nowarro, Motorbuch Verlag
The weight had started to creep up in the 190 series, and the lighter wing brought wingloading down 1kg/m^2 from the A6 as compared to the A5 -(from Robert Grisnell's book) If anyone has the metric wingloading of the A8, please post it (standard combat config.) ^( 226kg/m^2 , down from 227kg/m^2)
-
No, there was no weight savings. The exact same wing was on the A5 and A6, except the only changes they made were to the way you could carry guns in the outboard position. They made it accept MG151/20s and Mk108s.
It was not lighter, nor stronger (funny how they could make it lighter AND stonger when almost no other plane in WW2 could?). Plus wing flexing was never a major problem with the 190 series, unlike the spitfires. Given the single long span and the second forward half span, it was really one of the strongest wings on any plane of the war IMO. Maybe not the best design, but definitely strong.
The A-6 wing redesign is an urban myth (and later Internet myth) that's been propogated for a long long time. It stems from one of the early prototypes having a slight wing redesign, and has been misinterpreted based on that. It is quite possible some part of the production process changed (no doubt many things did on many planes) but the end result was the same wing with the same capabilities.
-
The prototype 190V5 or V6 is when the wingspan was increased about a foot, that was before the 190A even went into service. The changes my sources (both German and American authors) are speaking of are internal changes, using lighter but stronger alloys. They realized the need to cut weight to keep the 190's excellent survivability record, Fockewulf engineers weren't like Klink and Schultz, "Hey let's just make the wurger heavy as hell and who gives a dam if all the pilots get shot to hades". Yes they added the proper sockets to house the better cannons, but at the same time figured out a way to build the wings lighter and stronger, after all the type had been in service for a few years by then and was improved like all the other warbirds of the era.
I see where some people may get 190A5 and 190V5 (prototype) confused though :bhead
-
Lighter vs. stronger is usually not possible I would think.
Kind of a trade-off, like armor vs weight.
-
The prototype 190V5 or V6 is when the wingspan was increased about a foot, that was before the 190A even went into service. The changes my sources (both German and American authors) are speaking of are internal changes, using lighter but stronger alloys. They realized the need to cut weight to keep the 190's excellent survivability record, Yes they added the proper sockets to house the better cannons, but at the same time figured out a way to build the wings lighter and stronger, after all the type had been in service for a few years by then and was improved like all the other warbirds of the era.
Curious about two things. 1.) what 'lighter but stronger" alloys were used? The airframe industry was pretty well settled into using aluminum and steel - both of which remained same weights respectively although the strengths (and brittleness) increased as 20224-T4 improved over Alclad 17ST but AFAIK there were no material/alloy changes made to the Fw 190 wing thoughout the war.
2.) what 'redesign' of either main spar or torque box was made to increase stiffness of the Fw 190 wing.
Essentially you have to either increase the depth of a spar, increase the beam cap area of the beam or increase the surface skin thickness on top and bottom side of the wing in the spar area to increase bending stiffness.
-
Curious about two things. 1.) what 'lighter but stronger" alloys were used? The airframe industry was pretty well settled into using aluminum and steel - both of which remained same weights respectively although the strengths (and brittleness) increased as 20224-T4 improved over Alclad 17ST but AFAIK there were no material/alloy changes made to the Fw 190 wing thoughout the war.
2.) what 'redesign' of either main spar or torque box was made to increase stiffness of the Fw 190 wing.
Essentially you have to either increase the depth of a spar, increase the beam cap area of the beam or increase the surface skin thickness on top and bottom side of the wing in the spar area to increase bending stiffness.
Thats not true, you don't have to add metal to increase the stiffness... The simplest example....
Take a metal rod that is solid, try and bend it, then take a metal rod that is hollow on the inside (a tube), try and bend it, you will find that the tube/hollow one is harder to bend, so in that regard, it is 'stiffer'. Now what changes they might have made to the 190, I have no idea, but the idea that more metal is required to increase stiffness/strength in regards to a particular force is bogus.
Keep in mind it was not just the wing that was redesigned in the A6, they also streamlined the bomb/external fuel tank fitting to be stronger and more streamlined. Also, they changed the shape of the storage port and improved the radio system too. The A6 was not an A5 with more guns, it had substantial changes.
A general list of changes..
Fw 190 V1 Prototype Model; fitted with BMW 139 engine of 1,550 horsepower.
Fw 190 A Base production model
Fw 190 A-0 Preproduction Model Designation; 28 examples produced.
Fw 190 A-1 Role specific optimized variant; appeared in June 1941; fitted with BMW 801C-1 engines of 1,560 horsepower; longer propeller; 4 x 7.92mm machine guns (2 in fuselage and 2 in wing roots) and 2 x 20mm cannons in outboard wings; bulged engine cowlings.
Fw 190 A-2 Role specific optimized variant; appeared in October 1941; fitted with BMW 801 C-2 engine of 1,600 horsepower; redesigned exhaust system; upgraded gun sight; 2 x 7.92mm machine guns in fuselage and 4 x 20mm cannons (2 replaced original 7.92mm machine guns) in wings.
Fw 190 A-3 Role specific optimized variant; appearing in spring of 1942; fitted with BMW 801 D-2 engines of 1,754 horsepower; centerline bomb rack.
Fw 190 A-3a First appearing in fall of 1942; Turkish export versions; fitted with 4 x 7.92mm machine guns and 2 x 20mm cannons (same as A-1 model).
Fw 190 A-4 Role specific optimized variant; appeared in July 1942; improved radio equipment; similar to A-3 in most respects (armament/engine).
Fw 190 A-4/U1 Centerline bomb rack fitted; MG 151 cannons retained but all other machine gun armament removed.
Fw 190 A-4/U3 Similar to U1 model; some converted to nightfighter duty; served as basis for Fw 190 F-1 ?assault? fighter version.
Fw 190 A-4/U4 Dedicated Reconnaissance Platform; fitted with photographic cameras; armament of machine gun and cannons fuselage mounted.
Fw 190 A-4/U7 High-Altitude Variant; compressor intakes implemented on side cowlings.
Fw 190 A-4/U8 Would later serve as basis for Fw 190 G-1 model.
Fw 190 A-4/R6 Fitted with underwing rocket mortar weaponry
Fw 190 A-5 Role specific optimized variant; revised engine placement; fitted with BMW 801 D-2 engine of 1,700 horsepower; MW 50 power boost capable.
Fw 190 A-5/U2 Dedicated Nightfighter; 2 x 20mm MG151 cannons.
Fw 190 A-5/U3 Nightfighter with provision for fuel tanks and bombs; 2 x 20mm MG151 cannons.
Fw 190 A-5/U4 Dedicated Reconnaissance Fighter; fitted with cameras.
Fw 190 A-5/U8 Nightfighter fitted with underwing racks for centerline bombs and underwing fuel drop tanks; 2 x 20mm MG151 cannons; later to become the Fw 190 G-2 model series.
Fw 190 A-5/U12 Bomber Interceptor Variant; fitted with two underwing gun pods for array of 2 x 7.92mm machine guns and 6 x 20mm MG151 cannons.
Fw 190 A-5/U12 Prototype Model
Fw 190 A-5R11 Nightfighter Conversion Model; fitted with radar.
Fw 190 A-6 Role specific optimized variant; new wing design; extra ammunition for 2 x 7.92mm fuselage machine guns and 4 x 20mm wing-mounted cannons; improved radio navigation system; streamlined centerline bomb/fuel rack fitting.
Fw 190 A-7 Role specific optimized variant; based on the Fw 190 A-5/U9 prototype; fitted with BMW 801 D-2 engine of 1,700 horsepower; 2 x 20mm MG 131 cannons replacing standard MG17 7.92mm fuselage machine guns; upgraded gun sight.
Fw 190 A-8 Role specific optimized variant; improved bubble canopy.
Fw 190 A-9 Final A-Series Production Models; fitted with BMW 801S engines of 1,973 horsepower; improved engine armor protection; improved radiator system.
Fw 190 A-10 High-Altitude Prototype Development
Fw 190 B Wider wing span; higher altitude capability; pressurized cockpit; turbocharged BMW 801 engine.
Fw 190 C High altitude capability; turbocharged Daimler-Benz DB 603 powerplant.
Fw 190 D Dora Main service model by 1944; fitted with Junkers Jumo 213 supercharged engine.
Fw 190 D-0 Developmental Prototype; fitted with Jumo 213a engine.
Fw 190 D-1 Developmental Prototype
Fw 190 D-2 Developmental Prototype
Fw 190 D-9 Role specific optimized variant
Fw 190 D-10 Role specific optimized variant
Fw 190 D-11 Role specific optimized variant; fitted with uprated Jumo 213E engines; 17 examples produced.
Fw 190 D-12 Role specific optimized variant; based on D-11 model; Mk 108 30mm cannon in propeller hub.
Fw 190 D-13 Role specific optimized variant; based on D-11 model; Mk 151/20 20mm cannon in propeller hub.
Fw 190 D-13/R11 All-Weather Development
Fw 190 E - Proposed reconnaissance fighter
Fw 190 F Ground attack model based on Fw 190 A-4 powerplant.
Fw 190 F-1 Improved under-fuselage armor; centerline and wing bomb racks.
Fw 190 F-2 Based on Fw 190 A-5/U3; replaced F-1 series on production lines.
Fw 190 F-3 Based on Fw 190 A-5/U17; 432 examples produced.
Fw 190 F-4 Abandoned Strafing Design Variant
Fw 190 F-5 Abandoned Strafing Design Variant
Fw 190 F-6 Abandoned Strafing Design Variant
Fw 190 F-7 Abandoned Strafing Design Variant
Fw 190 F-8 Improved radio equipment; redesigned compressor for low-altitude boost in performance; 2 x 20mm MG151/20 cannons in wing roots and 2 x 7.92mm MG131 machine guns above engine housing; 3,400 examples produced.
Fw 190 F-8/U1 Long-Range Nightfighter; underwing and centerline provision for fuel tanks and/or bombs.
Fw 190 F-8/U2 Torpedo Bomber
Fw 190 F-8/U3 Heavy Torpedo Bomber
Fw 190 F-8/U4 Nightfighter
Fw 190 F-9 Based on the Fw 190 A-9; redesigned empennage as found on the Ta 152 development; 147 examples produced.
Fw 190 G Long-Range Attack Model; based on the Fw 190 A-5 powerplant.
Fw 190 G-1 Based on the Fw 190 A-4/U8
Fw 190 G-2 Based on the Fw 190 A-5/U8
Fw 190 G-3 Based on the Fw 190 A-6
Fw 190 G-8 Based on the Fw 190 A-8
Fw 190 A8-U1 Original Designation for Trainer Fw 190?s.
Fw 190 S-5 Trainer Variant
Fw 190 S-8 Trainer Variant
Ra-2 High Altitude Development
Ra-3 High Altitude Development
Ta 152 Ultra-high altitude fighter; Wider wing span; Jumo 213E powerplant; based on the Ra-3 development model.
Ta 152C Low-Altitude Developmental Ta 152 Model; fitted with DB 603 engine; only two examples produced.
Ta 152H Improved Ta 152; Only operational variant of the Ta 152.
-
Dragondog,
there were plenty of wing variants of the 190 series during the war, Kurt Tank was always trying to improve his machines. BUT... only a few were in mass-production. Just the ta-152, for example, that plane existed with 3 wing variants, the firts model was simmilar to the dora (but with the lenghtened fuselage tho), the ta 152 C had a lil bit longer and robust wing to hold the heavy arnament, and the H had the high altitude wing with he huge wingspan. There were simmilar attempts to modify the 190A too. They built several types of 'hφhenjagern" from it.
-
Thats not true, you don't have to add metal to increase the stiffness... The simplest example....
Take a metal rod that is solid, try and bend it, then take a metal rod that is hollow on the inside (a tube), try and bend it, you will find that the tube/hollow one is harder to bend, so in that regard, it is 'stiffer'. Now what changes they might have made to the 190, I have no idea, but the idea that more metal is required to increase stiffness/strength in regards to a particular force is bogus.
Steele - as a former airframes structures engineer I agree what you say - but that isn't what happened in the Fw 190A series to my knowledge and I was reacting to the comment made with a question? Further I offered the simpler path to alter wing stiffness without stepping up the materials to a much higher yield while maintaining same or better strength to weight ratio?
Having said that, you now have the floor. Fw had a manufacturing process, tools and materials brought to fabrication centers for the A- series. I have seen examples of the wing and the upper skin of the wing of both prototypes and production A4s and A6's. I detected no difference (not that my discernment would extract a difference between an .032 or .040 skin - ditto beams and stringers... so the question of 'lighter and stronger alloys' was intriguing
Keep in mind it was not just the wing that was redesigned in the A6, they also streamlined the bomb/external fuel tank fitting to be stronger
So, given your exhaustive knowledge of the variants, tell me what Tank did to alter the wing, the tooling and the materials to make the 'wing stonger'?
-
Take a metal rod that is solid, try and bend it, then take a metal rod that is hollow on the inside (a tube), try and bend it, you will find that the tube/hollow one is harder to bend, so in that regard, it is 'stiffer'.
Solid bar vs tubing with the same diameter and same material.... Solid bar will be the stronger of the two, as it has a lower overall shear stress. Strength is also a function of the wall thickness to tube diameter ratio. In short, you will have to increase the diameter of the tube, and pay close attention to the wall thickness. Another issue is the need to bend the tubing over a mandrel, or it will buckle and collapse. Solid bar will not do this. Tubing provides a greater strength to weight ratio, but is not stronger for an equal outside diameter.
A good example is anti-sway bars. Some years ago, I replaced a solid bar with a hollow bar. To maintain the same strength, the bar was about 50% larger in diameter, but still provided a weight savings and adequate strength.
-
Solid bar vs tubing with the same diameter and same material.... Solid bar will be the stronger of the two, as it has a lower overall shear stress. Strength is also a function of the wall thickness to tube diameter ratio. In short, you will have to increase the diameter of the tube, and pay close attention to the wall thickness. Another issue is the need to bend the tubing over a mandrel, or it will buckle and collapse. Solid bar will not do this. Tubing provides a greater strength to weight ratio, but is not stronger for an equal outside diameter.
A good example is anti-sway bars. Some years ago, I replaced a solid bar with a hollow bar. To maintain the same strength, the bar was about 50% larger in diameter, but still provided a weight savings and adequate strength.
Thank you for the clarification, and your example of the anti-sway bars is a better example than mine as it still proves the same point, more metal isn't needed to keep adequate strength, ie the end result was still lighter, thus it is possible to 'redesign' a wing to be lighter.
If I read drgondog comment correctly that was embedded in his quote of my statement, are you claiming to have...
I have seen examples of the wing and the upper skin of the wing of both prototypes and production A4s and A6's. I detected no difference (not that my discernment would extract a difference between an .032 or .040 skin - ditto beams and stringers... so the question of 'lighter and stronger alloys' was intriguing
As to my knowledge there almost no 190s in existence, maybe less than 25 total, what gave you the opportunity to inspect the wings of prototype & production 190 A5 and A6?
As for the 190 wing design, although I am still digging, what I have found so far was that by making the outer cannon housings in the wing part of the 'standard' wing instead of something that was done in the field, they were able to lessen the weight (compared to the field modified wings) and they were stronger than the (field modified wings). Still digging though... The best way would be if someone had a copy of the wing plans of both the A-5 and the A-6, maybe if someone knows someone over at Flugwerk? I know they built a FW 190 -A8\N from scratch. http://www.flugwerk.de/html/page.php?GID=19&SID=4 (http://www.flugwerk.de/html/page.php?GID=19&SID=4)
-
If the wing planform and thickness didn't change, then the spar was the same size, regardless of a change in material.
-
So, futzing with the leading edge geometry of say a 23012 airfoil should result in two things. A dash number to explain the difference in the 'new 23012' airfoil geometry like a leading edge radius or sharpness distinction, and a new and different set of wind tunnel data to plot the differences in Cl, Cd and CMac as well as notes to alert the designer to nasty departure characteristics (hmm that would be three things?)
I dropped into another site on a discussion and noticed that the Do 335 had this airfoil with a three digit post series and I had not seen that before
For a two digit modification after the dash number - the first digit represents deviation from 'normal' leading edge radius (where 6=normal, 0=sharp) and the second indicates the position of the maximum thickness in percent chord. So the 23018-63 would be same as 23018 except the max t/c moved aft from 15 % to 30% of chord - more closely approaching 65 series laminar flow wings which were in the 40% range.
Having said this I have never seen any dash number after the Fw 190 airfoild series so I really don't know.
Well, the 23000 series has the mean line that creates that "flattened" bottom portion. It wasn't a different airfoil that was modified--the finished product, complete with the flattened portion, was called the 23000. So, there wouldn't be any modification numbers associated with an aircraft that used a stock NACA 23000 airfoil--it was designed that way from the get-go. Now, if someone else modified it, then it would need the mod numbers, but all those fighters I listed use the stock 23000 mean line. When I say NACA "modified" the airfoil, I meant the modifications they made in order to design the airfoil behavior they desired--not that they took another airfoil and modified it. If you have a copy of Abbot and Doenhoff, or access to NACA Report 824, look at the stall characteristics of the 23000 airfoils. The thinner sections have some very nasty stalls.
-
Stoney,
FYI, according to document from the university of Illinois UIUC applied aerodynamics group
to be exact...
root :NACA 23015.3
tip: NACA 23009
http://www.ae.illinois.edu/m-selig/ads/aircraft.html (http://www.ae.illinois.edu/m-selig/ads/aircraft.html)
-
Did you guys see the segment following the Jug vs 190? It's a 190 vs a Mustang....Looks like they pulled an HO on each other.
-
I don't know the origin of this text but it seems to be the source for many quotes:
Modifications of the type to date had caused the weight of the aircraft to creep up. To combat this and to allow better weapons to be installed in the wings, a structurally redesigned and lighter wing was introduced with the A-6. The normal armament was increased to two MG 17 fuselage machine guns and four 20 mm MG 151/20E wing-root and outer wing cannon with larger ammunition boxes. New electrical sockets and reinforced weapon-mounts were fitted internally in the wings to allow the installation of either 20 mm or 30 mm (1.18 in) ammunition boxes and for under-wing armament. Because the outer wing MG 151s were mounted lower than the MG/FFs new larger hatches, incorporating bulges and cartridge discharge chutes, were incorporated into the wing lower surfaces.
It does not say anything about strengthening of the structure.
http://www.albentley-drawings.com/images/FW190A6W.jpg
http://www.albentley-drawings.com/images/FW190A5W.jpg
No other changes but the weapon bay change is evident from these schematics.
-C+
-
Thank you for the clarification, and your example of the anti-sway bars is a better example than mine as it still proves the same point, more metal isn't needed to keep adequate strength, ie the end result was still lighter, thus it is possible to 'redesign' a wing to be lighter.
To keep the same 'vertical dimensions' of the beam you would have to modify the original spar design as I suggested to reasonable maintain existing tooling - beyond that concept the sky is the limit.
As to my knowledge there almost no 190s in existence, maybe less than 25 total, what gave you the opportunity to inspect the wings of prototype & production 190 A5 and A6?
I said 'seen' not inspect. Don Lopez was a very good friend of my father and I had unlimited access to Silver Hill. The Smithsonian had a 190A8, 190D-9 and Ta 152 in various stages of distress back in the early 70's. I was able to research their collection of airframe drawings and actually looked at the Fw 190A series as well as the 109G. I have to say I mispoke about 'prototype' as I can only assume that was in the collection. What I can say is that I did not perceive any distinction across the A series in main wing structure but confess I wasn't looking them either.
As for the 190 wing design, although I am still digging, what I have found so far was that by making the outer cannon housings in the wing part of the 'standard' wing instead of something that was done in the field, they were able to lessen the weight (compared to the field modified wings) and they were stronger than the (field modified wings). Still digging though... The best way would be if someone had a copy of the wing plans of both the A-5 and the A-6, maybe if someone knows someone over at Flugwerk? I know they built a FW 190 -A8\N from scratch. http://www.flugwerk.de/html/page.php?GID=19&SID=4 (http://www.flugwerk.de/html/page.php?GID=19&SID=4)
Back to fundamental question - what do you think Tank did to 'lessen the weight and make it stronger'? By implication, making cannon recoils structure an integral part of the wing implies a.) more material, and b. designing load paths to absorb the recoil
-
Well, the 23000 series has the mean line that creates that "flattened" bottom portion. It wasn't a different airfoil that was modified--the finished product, complete with the flattened portion, was called the 23000. So, there wouldn't be any modification numbers associated with an aircraft that used a stock NACA 23000 airfoil--it was designed that way from the get-go. Now, if someone else modified it, then it would need the mod numbers, but all those fighters I listed use the stock 23000 mean line. When I say NACA "modified" the airfoil, I meant the modifications they made in order to design the airfoil behavior they desired--not that they took another airfoil and modified it. If you have a copy of Abbot and Doenhoff, or access to NACA Report 824, look at the stall characteristics of the 23000 airfoils. The thinner sections have some very nasty stalls.
Agreed.
I did look at A&D page 413 for the sta/ordinate plot. The LE radius is 1.58 which is less than half (3.56) of the 23018 which would give more of an impression of a flattened bottom portion but the airfoil does have camber and that may convey as sense of 'flattening' without actually changing the LE from a true radius?
-
Agreed.
I did look at A&D page 413 for the sta/ordinate plot. The LE radius is 1.58 which is less than half (3.56) of the 23018 which would give more of an impression of a flattened bottom portion but the airfoil does have camber and that may convey as sense of 'flattening' without actually changing the LE from a true radius?
Let me find Ribblet's book, and I'll post the excerpt in a different thread.
-
Stoney,
FYI, according to document from the university of Illinois UIUC applied aerodynamics group
to be exact...
root :NACA 23015.3
tip: NACA 23009
http://www.ae.illinois.edu/m-selig/ads/aircraft.html (http://www.ae.illinois.edu/m-selig/ads/aircraft.html)
So what did I say? Generally speaking, on airfoils, you "round off" the thicknesses to the nearest whole percentage.
-
So what did I say? Generally speaking, on airfoils, you "round off" the thicknesses to the nearest whole percentage.
I wasn't disagreeing with you, I was just giving the exact numbers.
-
Pull back stick, ground get smaller......push stick forward, ground get bigger...very fast
-
Back to fundamental question - what do you think Tank did to 'lessen the weight and make it stronger'? By implication, making cannon recoils structure an integral part of the wing implies a.) more material, and b. designing load paths to absorb the recoil
I have no idea, again, I'll ask, does anyone know anyone who is at Flegkwerk?
They recently build a 190 A8.
-
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/V2-Blueprints-Fw190-Ta152-Fw-190-Plans-Aircraft-Manuals-_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQhashZitem3360493cd5QQitemZ220658744533QQptZMotorsQ5fAviationQ5fPartsQ5fGear#ht_2409wt_939
I have no idea how good these are..
-
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/V2-Blueprints-Fw190-Ta152-Fw-190-Plans-Aircraft-Manuals-_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQhashZitem3360493cd5QQitemZ220658744533QQptZMotorsQ5fAviationQ5fPartsQ5fGear#ht_2409wt_939
I have no idea how good these are..
Cool!!! what better timing. As far as the a models, it only has the Fw 190A8 not the A6.
-
Cool!!! what better timing. As far as the a models, it only has the Fw 190A8 not the A6.
So far there are no facts to imply significant re-design of any A wing..
-
So far there are no facts to imply significant re-design of any A wing..
I'm not convinced, just because we have not found it doesn't mean it didn't happen, to believe otherwise is to imply you have seen every document ever available about the 190, which I have not.
-
I'm not convinced, just because we have not found it doesn't mean it didn't happen, to believe otherwise is to imply you have seen every document ever available about the 190, which I have not.
Sigh - NO Ardy - it means I have a clue regarding the cost of changes to manufacturing processes, tooling, materials (Castings forgings extrusions) lead time for new castings forgings and exttrusions, re-training your assy team for the changes, re-costing (and submitting to Der Fuhrer), etc, etc.
Changes in major sub assemblies don't happen because 'it seems like a nify idea'.. and even much more emphasis must be applied to the hardhead German engineering mentality.
Just out of curioisity how much time do you have slaving in the 'airframe biz'?
-
Sigh - NO Ardy - it means I have a clue regarding the cost of changes to manufacturing processes, tooling, materials (Castings forgings extrusions) lead time for new castings forgings and exttrusions, re-training your assy team for the changes, re-costing (and submitting to Der Fuhrer), etc, etc.
Changes in major sub assemblies don't happen because 'it seems like a nify idea'.. and even much more emphasis must be applied to the hardhead German engineering mentality.
Just out of curioisity how much time do you have slaving in the 'airframe biz'?
I'm not trying to discredit your skills or your profession, I have read numerous times from multiple sources that it was redesigned. Having not verified their sources, nor have the time to do so, I am willing to consider it as a reasonable possibility and unwilling to completely discredit it, just because I cannot find any specifics. Furthermore, to believe that everyone else is wrong, including the people who stated it would be arrogant unless I could prove otherwise, which I am unable too and so far neither have you.
All I have is you claiming that it never happened against various other sources that state that it did and so far the facts to support either have been inconclusive.
-
The Spitfire pilots in England told the Jug pilots of the 56th that the P-47 was too big and heavy to turn with the 109s and 190s. The 56th proved them wrong. The size and weight of an aircraft is not an issue when it has sufficient power.
The Soviets after evaluating the Jug didn't consider it to be a dogfighter and unsuitable for use on the Eastern Front because most combat took place at low and medium altitudes.
ack-ack
-
The Soviets after evaluating the Jug didn't consider it to be a dogfighter and unsuitable for use on the Eastern Front because most combat took place at low and medium altitudes.
Well, if you want to fight at 3 meter high and 20 miles from your airfield, the P47 is not really the plane for you...
-
The Soviets after evaluating the Jug didn't consider it to be a dogfighter and unsuitable for use on the Eastern Front because most combat took place at low and medium altitudes.
ack-ack
The point is that size, weight, and maneuverability are not mutually exclusive. Look at the F6F. The Jugs couldn't match a sustained turn with the 109's but they could maneuver and shoot them down at any altitude. It also helped that the German tactic of diving out of trouble favored the Jug.
-
I'm not trying to discredit your skills or your profession, I have read numerous times from multiple sources that it was redesigned. All I have is you claiming that it never happened against various other sources that state that it did and so far the facts to support either have been inconclusive.
Ardy - I haven't claimed that it didn't happen. Please read what a say versus what you think I said.
I have stated that I have seen the design drawings of the Fw 190 that were on file at Smithsonian, at Silver Hill refurbish/storage center. I have stated that I did not discern any changes to wing load bearing structures but also noted I wasn't seeking info on that.
I have supplied logical reasons to Not change the structure but equally there may have been compelling reasons to do so - I simply am unaware of them. I am unaware of structural failures during normal 'envelope' manuevers like say, the Me 109F experienced in the early stages of deployment.
-
The point is that size, weight, and maneuverability are not mutually exclusive. Look at the F6F. The Jugs couldn't match a sustained turn with the 109's but they could maneuver and shoot them down at any altitude. It also helped that the German tactic of diving out of trouble favored the Jug.
Don't forget that when we compare AH to real life, real pilots didn't have perfect radar that told them exactly where the enemy was from their 'clip boards' as they flew around, nor did they have icons over aircraft marking them with friend or foe, etc... The first to see is often the first to kill, and in that regard the jug is perfect, it can dive fast and it has big guns with good ballistics. Think about how the f4f wildcat did against the "much better and more maneuverable" zero, f4f could dive and it hag good guns?
-
Remember, it's not so much the shape or size that was redesigned (if at all), but the spars, and other internal supports. The sources I posted are 1. Robert Grisnell, who researched the types thoroughly, and 2. Heinz Nowarro , who worked for FW. For example, they could have went with an I-beam shape instead of rolled steel spars, lessened and modified the other supports for strength, FW engineers haz lotsa branez :)
-
oops one of my previous posts got arranged funnily, the figure of 226kg/m^2 is the A6 wingloading with 4 mg151/20, still looking to find the metric 190A8 wingloading for comparison
-
Remember, it's not so much the shape or size that was redesigned (if at all), but the spars, and other internal supports. The sources I posted are 1. Robert Grisnell, who researched the types thoroughly, and 2. Heinz Nowarro , who worked for FW. For example, they could have went with an I-beam shape instead of rolled steel spars, lessened and modified the other supports for strength, FW engineers haz lotsa branez :)
It literally is first about the Moment of Inertia of the cross section when considering stress due to Bending loads (I.e Pressure Distribution span wise on the wing). It IS all about a.) shape (area distribution about the centroid, b.) stability under axial loads or bending loads, and c.) relative strength to weight ratio of the structural member
Stress = M*c/I where I = Moment of Inertia
As an example - For a given height of an I beam, you will increase the Moment of Intertia by increasing 'cap area' and maintain weight by decreasing the web thickness (after checking for shear stresses in the web). For the same geometry you will have the same Moment of Inertia if you change the material from 2024 aluminum to 4130 Steel and dramatically increase the allowable stress - but also pay a penalty of additional weight per linear foot.
A Rolled 'Hat Section' extrusion can give significant strength benefits but it has cost and logistics considerations - such as a.) it is not replaceable with conventional spar design without extensive re-design, and b.) as it does not use conventional and easy to source common extrusions or combinations of extrusion caps ("T" or "L" for example and riveted shear webs) the the air strike on your souece of specialized shapes may put you out of the wing business for awhile.
-
Remember, it's not so much the shape or size that was redesigned (if at all), but the spars, and other internal supports. The sources I posted are 1. Robert Grisnell, who researched the types thoroughly, and 2. Heinz Nowarro , who worked for FW. For example, they could have went with an I-beam shape instead of rolled steel spars, lessened and modified the other supports for strength, FW engineers haz lotsa branez :)
I have a 190/152 book by Nowarra and there is much he writes that is wrong. Ditto for Grisnell. Remember these books were written many many years ago when info was not that readily available.
The main spar of the 190 was from day 1 was an I-beam.
(http://www.albentley-drawings.com/images/FW190A5W.jpg)
(http://www.albentley-drawings.com/images/FW190A6W.jpg)
(http://www.albentley-drawings.com/images/FW190A7W.jpg)
(http://www.albentley-drawings.com/images/FW190A8W.jpg)
-
U still got that wing spar construction scan Milo? Would be interesting to see that again.
-C+
-
U still got that wing spar construction scan Milo? Would be interesting to see that again.
-C+
Someplace. Let me look and if I find it will post later this PM.
-
These drawings are from a manual on the Fw190A. Please compare the Part Numbers.
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/Fw%20190%20a%20kg%205_014-1.jpg)
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/Fw%20190%20a%20kg%205_013-1.jpg)
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/FW%20190%20A%20KG%205_011.JPG)
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/Fw%20190%20a%20kg%205_005-1.jpg)
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/Fw%20190%20a%20kg%205_003-1.jpg)
-
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/5de21_main_wing_spar.jpg)
-
wow, thats pretty convincing... they all have the same part number etc...
Thats cool that you have found this information.
What does the untere schale section mean? there there are different numbers for the A5 and the A6...
A5:502
A6:540
-
'lower shell' according to an on-line translator.
All kind of manual, http://www.luftfahrt-archiv-hafner.de/
-
so there are some different parts...
obere-beplankung L(left upper planking) A5:501-01 A6:540-01
obere-beplankung R(Right upper planking) A5:502-02 A6:540-02
So it looks like the outer planking and the under shell was changed between the A5 and A6 on the wing.
I guess that means it was redesigned, I still don't know 'how' it was changed, just that the part numbers are different.
Interestingly enough, the main spar doesn't look like it changed only the shells.
Maybe they used a different thickness on the skin or different material?
-
so there are some different parts...
obere-beplankung L(left upper planking) A5:501-01 A6:540-01
obere-beplankung R(Right upper planking) A5:502-02 A6:540-02
So it looks like the outer planking and the under shell was changed between the A5 and A6 on the wing.
I guess that means it was redesigned, I still don't know 'how' it was changed, just that the part numbers are different.
Interestingly enough, the main spar doesn't look like it changed only the shells.
Maybe they used a different thickness on the skin or different material?
As per the wing plan drawings (post 156) there was an outer wing position weapon change.
-
When you look at that video do you see a Razorback or do you see a later model? Does anyone think they know for sure the entire story behind the video? I can tell you after considerable time in online flying that what you see in a limited aspect video doesnt tell the entire story ever. Yet some people look at the video and are lead to envision a turn fight while it could simply be a Jug firing at a distant airplane and a 190 pilot 'picking' an involved Jug. Just as likely are a hundred other scenarios yet a turn fight seems to make more sense to people for some reason. Must be all those MA hours they have racked up doing the same thing over and over...
:bhead
Fw-190 (Kurvenkampf)vs P-47 (saved by self Sealing Fuel Tanks) in a long vertical turning fight<><><>
That title is with the film, surely it would not be that hard to figure out when it happened just check his records and flight dates, as well as what jugs were in use at that time,, it also says the jug survived!