Author Topic: 190A5 deck speed (Read 4561 times)

Crumpp · « **Reply #60 on:** June 18, 2004, 09:44:09 AM »

The FW-190A5 used in this test is 58.28 kg's lighter than the test A/C in the data I have. This is probably due to the removal of the outboard MGFF's/ammunition and the addition of the cinecamera and two 12.5 camera's.

I am just taking a guess Pyro, but I'll bet that this 190A5/U4 was also using Military Power.

However If no hard data is available on the actual set up/power settings then I would just use this as a base for the climb on C3 boost.

Crumpp

F4UDOA · « **Reply #61 on:** June 18, 2004, 10:02:09 AM »

No prob.

Crumpp · « **Reply #62 on:** June 18, 2004, 10:14:37 AM »

Thanks Man!!

U guys review this, but if I am correct in reading the conduct of the test AND the power settings they used...

Then the climb rate test was at 1.35 ata which would mean this 190 was either developing a little better Manifold pressure than normal on Military power (1.32 ata) or it's using something else. Maybe the mechanics need to adjust the throttle some...

Either way, there is no doubt the 190's best climb speed was faster than the Spit 9's.

Crumpp

Pyro · « **Reply #63 on:** June 18, 2004, 11:16:41 AM »

CC, Godo. I'll take a good look at that. At some point hopefully soon, I want to redo the entire series.

Crumpp, what do you think the best climb speed should be?

GODO · « **Reply #64 on:** June 18, 2004, 02:29:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pyro
I want to redo the entire series.

It is good to hear that. Take then in consideration the actual trim dependence of current 190s. All of them need to be trimmed constantly for every speed and desired maneouver, mainly elevators. On the other hand, 190s were loved by their pilots just because they were mostly free of trimming issues. If needed for very hi speeds, they had a small lever to actuate an electrical elevator trim. More than probably that lever was very rarely needed.

Looking at the lever, going from full +5 to full -5 degrees should not take more than a second or two. Actually, in AH, it takes long time to go from full nose up to full nose down, and meanwhile 190s are very unstable (CT is by no means the answer).

Crumpp · « **Reply #65 on:** June 18, 2004, 09:13:06 PM »

Thanks Pyro!

Pyro I really can't say an exact figure without seeing all the data. The test I have and the limited altitudes I calculated it for is enough to determine that the best climb speed is faster than 170mph.

Offhand just looking at the charts available:

Again at 1.32 ata and 2400U/min -

285kph Sea level to 3400 meters - Note the curve actually breaks away at around 2700 meters but curvature is so slight that it does not break the next box line until 3400 meters. You could adjust for this.

From 285kph at 3400 meters it steadily drops to 250 kph at 8500 meters,

From there it sharply drops to 233 kph at just below 11,000 meters.

Now the USAAF test uses the higher Manifold pressure and a faster prop rpm to achieve a higher climb speed.

Completely guessing in the dark I would add about 5-8 kph for 1.42ata boost. Maybe even less because 1.46 psi just doesn't strike me as huge boost.

I am not going to pretend I know how to do the math to get the exact figures. You would have to give me some time to work on it! I am sure some knowledgeable players could put together workable realistic figures.

I am sending Mandoble all the the stuff I have including some exerpts from the Luftwaffe test of an FW-190 vs 109F4.

Found some performance charts for the 190A8, 190A9, 190D9, 190D12, Ta-152C, and Ta-152H which I will get Mandoble to post on his website too, for anyone to use.

The trim thing is correct in that in the many pilots comment that it needed "little to no retrimming" throughout it's flight envelope. One exception was high speed flight (400 mph plus) the 190 took on a "marked" nose down trim that many allied test pilots comment "must have been scary in low altitude fights".

Have you guys at HTC thought about asking for player volunteers (that U guys approve) to assist in the FM design. Might help to eliminate the whine's if the players got a say. The players examine the material and have a set time to make their recommendations with HTC reserving the ultimate say. Eliminate a lot of work for you guys and get the planes set up quicker.

Thanks again for taking the time to look this over!

Crumpp

GScholz · « **Reply #66 on:** June 18, 2004, 09:53:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp
Completely guessing in the dark I would add about 5-8 kph for 1.42ata boost. Maybe even less because 1.46 psi just doesn't strike me as huge boost.

1.42 ata is approx. 20.8 psi, and you have to multiply that with the compression ration of the engine to get the real boost. The 190s ran on C3 fuel which was comparable to the allied 100/130 octane avgas, but the Germans still had to use various forms of intake cooling (C3 injection/MW50) to prevent the BMW engine from knocking, so they ran on as high a boost as they could. The Allies favoured high boost with low compression while the Germans favoured low boost with high compression. The end result is pretty much the same.

Crumpp · « **Reply #67 on:** June 18, 2004, 10:29:38 PM »

GScholtz,

Thanks for info.

1.42 ata - 1.32ata = .10ata = 1.46psi total Manifold pressure increase.

Crumpp

Neil Stirling · « **Reply #68 on:** June 19, 2004, 09:38:38 AM »

Boost conversion table from the TAIC Manual.

http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/Boost.jpg

Neil.

Crumpp · « **Reply #69 on:** June 19, 2004, 09:59:27 AM »

Looking at the 190A5 chart and a 190A8 using 1.42ata C3 boost the average increase in level speed over 1.32ata is about 25-30 kph.

We are talking about best climbing speed which is significantly lower than top level speed. I ventured a guess at the increase in best climbing speed with 1.42 ata boost and nothing more. If you have hard math then please present it.

Thanks for your help.

Crumpp

Wotan · « **Reply #70 on:** June 19, 2004, 10:55:52 AM »

If you are looking at the A-5 chart at the top of this thread where it says C3 that isnt C3-injection. Thats just the fuel type.

A C3 injection curve would be "erhöhte Notleistung".

The A-8 chart that Verm posted doesnt have a curve for C3-injection.

Incidentally, C-3-injection wasnt serialized until the A-8. It tested on the a5 in '43 (IIRC) but it wasn't until '44 when it was serialized.

The 1.42 ata setting on the A-5 is "Start - u. Notleistung" (Takeoff & Emergency).

For a quick look check the AH2 A-8 "wep" setting.

2700rpm at 47.3 mp (1.63 or so ata).

GScholz · « **Reply #71 on:** June 19, 2004, 12:25:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp
GScholtz,

Thanks for info.

1.42 ata - 1.32ata = .10ata = 1.46psi total Manifold pressure increase.

Crumpp

Ah, I misunderstood your meaning. My mistake.

Crumpp · « **Reply #72 on:** June 19, 2004, 12:46:38 PM »

Wotan,

Thanks but we know what C3 injection is and how to say it in German.

No problem Gshcoltz.

Thanks for the input.
Crumpp

GODO · « **Reply #73 on:** June 19, 2004, 02:17:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Wotan
The A-8 chart that Verm posted doesnt have a curve for C3-injection.

That chart does have grayed areas for 1.58ata speed and climb rate.

Our 47.2" MAN 190A8 corresponds to 1.58 ata, not to 1.65.
(1 Hg" = 0.03342 atmospheres)

Now, was 1.58 ata C3 injection, or 1.65 ata?

The following document points to 360 mph at sea level for 1.65 ata with C3 injection.

C3 Injection

The same document shows 344 mph as maximum speed at sea level for 1.42ata, and that boost was also achieved by the lighter 190A5.

Crumpp · « **Reply #74 on:** June 19, 2004, 02:37:14 PM »

You are correct Wotan about the naming of C3.
I've got a 190A8 and 190A9 graphs for level speed with 1.65 ata. None of the 190 charts I have seen the boost labeled "erhöhte Notleistung". All are labeled "Start - u. Notleistung" (Takeoff & Emergency) and have the Manifold pressure next to the fuel type.

I think the "Emergency" part covers the "erhöhte Notleistung".

Crumpp