Author Topic: P47 vs 190  (Read 18723 times)

Offline FLS

  • AH Training Corps
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11594
      • Trainer's Website
Re: P47 vs 190
« Reply #150 on: March 08, 2011, 08:58:25 AM »
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.

Offline drgondog

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 326
Re: P47 vs 190
« Reply #151 on: March 08, 2011, 10:16:20 AM »
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.
Nicholas Boileau "Honor is like an island, rugged and without shores; once we have left it, we can never return"

Offline Ardy123

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3417
Re: P47 vs 190
« Reply #152 on: March 08, 2011, 07:31:05 PM »
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?
Yeah, that's right, you just got your rear handed to you by a fuggly puppet!
==Army of Muppets==
(Bunnies)

Offline STEELE

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 541
Re: P47 vs 190
« Reply #153 on: March 08, 2011, 07:37:41 PM »
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  :)
« Last Edit: March 08, 2011, 07:39:33 PM by STEELE »
The Kanonenvogel had 6 rounds per pod, this is not even close to being open for debate.

Offline STEELE

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 541
Re: P47 vs 190
« Reply #154 on: March 08, 2011, 07:41:38 PM »
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
The Kanonenvogel had 6 rounds per pod, this is not even close to being open for debate.

Offline drgondog

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 326
Re: P47 vs 190
« Reply #155 on: March 09, 2011, 07:00:11 AM »
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.
Nicholas Boileau "Honor is like an island, rugged and without shores; once we have left it, we can never return"

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6863
Re: P47 vs 190
« Reply #156 on: March 09, 2011, 08:16:31 AM »
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.





Offline Charge

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
Re: P47 vs 190
« Reply #157 on: March 09, 2011, 08:56:57 AM »
U still got that wing spar construction scan Milo? Would be interesting to see that again.

-C+
"When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams can come true. Unless it's really a giant meteor hurtling to the earth which will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much screwed no matter what you wish for. Unless of course, it's death by meteorite."

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6863
Re: P47 vs 190
« Reply #158 on: March 09, 2011, 10:28:49 AM »
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.

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6863
Re: P47 vs 190
« Reply #159 on: March 09, 2011, 01:39:18 PM »
These drawings are from a manual on the Fw190A. Please compare the Part Numbers.






Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6863
Re: P47 vs 190
« Reply #160 on: March 09, 2011, 01:42:10 PM »

Offline Ardy123

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3417
Re: P47 vs 190
« Reply #161 on: March 09, 2011, 01:45:31 PM »
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
« Last Edit: March 09, 2011, 02:16:55 PM by Ardy123 »
Yeah, that's right, you just got your rear handed to you by a fuggly puppet!
==Army of Muppets==
(Bunnies)

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6863
Re: P47 vs 190
« Reply #162 on: March 09, 2011, 06:36:02 PM »
'lower shell' according to an on-line translator.

All kind of manual, http://www.luftfahrt-archiv-hafner.de/

Offline Ardy123

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3417
Re: P47 vs 190
« Reply #163 on: March 09, 2011, 07:00:16 PM »
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?
Yeah, that's right, you just got your rear handed to you by a fuggly puppet!
==Army of Muppets==
(Bunnies)

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6863
Re: P47 vs 190
« Reply #164 on: March 09, 2011, 08:17:22 PM »
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.