Author Topic: P47 vs 190  (Read 18726 times)

Offline bozon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6037
Re: P47 vs 190
« Reply #90 on: March 04, 2011, 06:38:25 AM »
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.
Mosquito VI - twice the spitfire, four times the ENY.

Click!>> "So, you want to fly the wooden wonder" - <<click!
the almost incomplete and not entirely inaccurate guide to the AH Mosquito.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGOWswdzGQs

Offline Noir

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5961
Re: P47 vs 190
« Reply #91 on: March 04, 2011, 06:53:29 AM »
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
now posting as SirNuke

Offline save

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2824
Re: P47 vs 190
« Reply #92 on: March 04, 2011, 10:01:04 AM »
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.
My ammo last for 6 Lancasters, or one Yak3.
"And the Yak 3 ,aka the "flying Yamato"..."
-Caldera

Offline Lusche

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23828
      • Last.FM Profile
Re: P47 vs 190
« Reply #93 on: March 04, 2011, 10:12:09 AM »
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 Große 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.
Steam: DrKalv
Elite:Dangerous: Snailman

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: P47 vs 190
« Reply #94 on: March 04, 2011, 10:28:28 AM »
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!)

Offline bozon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6037
Re: P47 vs 190
« Reply #95 on: March 04, 2011, 10:52:59 AM »
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".
Mosquito VI - twice the spitfire, four times the ENY.

Click!>> "So, you want to fly the wooden wonder" - <<click!
the almost incomplete and not entirely inaccurate guide to the AH Mosquito.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGOWswdzGQs

Offline drgondog

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 326
Re: P47 vs 190
« Reply #96 on: March 04, 2011, 12:05:45 PM »
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.
Nicholas Boileau "Honor is like an island, rugged and without shores; once we have left it, we can never return"

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16330
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: P47 vs 190
« Reply #97 on: March 04, 2011, 01:16:39 PM »
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.
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline Stoney

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
Re: P47 vs 190
« Reply #98 on: March 04, 2011, 02:41:29 PM »
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.
"Can we be incorrect at times, absolutely, but I do believe 15 years of experience does deserve a little more credence and respect than you have given from your very first post."

HiTech

Offline Ardy123

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3417
Re: P47 vs 190
« Reply #99 on: March 04, 2011, 03:07:23 PM »
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..


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 #100 on: March 04, 2011, 03:18:34 PM »
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 Kanonenvogel had 6 rounds per pod, this is not even close to being open for debate.

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: P47 vs 190
« Reply #101 on: March 04, 2011, 03:20:55 PM »
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.

Offline icedragn

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: P47 vs 190
« Reply #102 on: March 04, 2011, 03:31:19 PM »
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
I/JG 301

Offline Ardy123

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3417
Re: P47 vs 190
« Reply #103 on: March 04, 2011, 03:32:11 PM »
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.
Yeah, that's right, you just got your rear handed to you by a fuggly puppet!
==Army of Muppets==
(Bunnies)

Offline Stoney

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
Re: P47 vs 190
« Reply #104 on: March 04, 2011, 03:55:43 PM »
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.





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.



« Last Edit: March 04, 2011, 03:58:38 PM by Stoney »
"Can we be incorrect at times, absolutely, but I do believe 15 years of experience does deserve a little more credence and respect than you have given from your very first post."

HiTech