P47 vs 190

[drgondog]

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

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

[drgondog]

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?

[Stoney]

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]

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

So what did I say?  Generally speaking, on airfoils, you "round off" the thicknesses to the nearest whole percentage.

[Ardy123]

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.

[bj229r]

Pull back stick, ground get smaller......push stick forward, ground get bigger...very fast

[Ardy123]

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.

[drgondog]

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..

[Ardy123]

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.

[drgondog]

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..

[Ardy123]

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.

[drgondog]

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'?

[Ardy123]

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.

[Ack-Ack]

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

[bozon]

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...