Author Topic: 190A5 deck speed (Read 4679 times)

Wilbus · « **Reply #15 on:** June 14, 2004, 09:00:45 AM »

Just saying I don't want to be called names again Crumpp. Like I said before. I don't give a damn anymore.

Fun to read and post from time to time though but as far as discussing things such as performance or anything else I don't bother.

Personal issue? Wrong description I think, let's say they take some people less seriously thus probarly not giving these kind of threads the hard look they might give others. Of course I may be wrong...

Wilbus · « **Reply #16 on:** June 14, 2004, 09:02:11 AM »

Wotan, rgr, I jusy posted the readouts the planes gave me in AH2, be it right or wrong, bug or not.

Crumpp · « **Reply #17 on:** June 14, 2004, 09:22:37 AM »

Looking at the RLM document posted on this web page I do not see anything that say's it is a "gestimate". The three curves are for C3 Boost, Full Military Power, and Cruise. My German is ok but I am by no means fluent. Please point out where you believe this is not an actual flight test.

http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190.html

Crumpp

Wotan · « **Reply #18 on:** June 14, 2004, 09:57:02 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Wilbus
Wotan, rgr, I jusy posted the readouts the planes gave me in AH2, be it right or wrong, bug or not.

VV, I had noticed the other day but forgot to post it in the bug forum...

Your post reminded me...

Crumpp · « **Reply #19 on:** June 14, 2004, 10:38:19 AM »

Think I found were the disconnect is on the "gestimate".

There is no doubt this is an actual flight test. It is done exactly like every flight test was conducted using the technology of the day.

In the book " Messerschmitt Bf-109F-K: Development, Testing, and Production" by Willy Radinger and Wolfgang Otto there is a whole detailed chapter on High speed trials of the 109. It goes in depth on RLM test flight procedures and the scientific insturmentation used to measure flight performance in the '40's.

It consisted of a camera mounted in the cockpit to shoot pictures of the instruments under the prescribed flight conditions. When the A/C lands the film is developed and the data analyzed by the slide rule wielding engineers.

What you see on this graph is the the three points at a specific altitude/engine setting the test pilot was instructed to fly and the data recorded.

The engineers then did extrapolate the data and you see a performance band the 190 will fall into depending on air density (temp and humidity). It is the exact same method used by everyone to test A/C in the '40's.

Unfortunately there was no "blackbox" with which they could download realtime info into their laptops.

That's were the disconnect lays I believe.

Crumpp

Pyro · « **Reply #20 on:** June 14, 2004, 01:46:27 PM »

Well the situation is a bit more sticky than described here and may well end up being one of those times when you better watch what you wish for. I do plan to do quite a bit of work in the performance modeling of planes to try and smooth out inconsistencies. So I'm willing to completely remodel the performance on the A-5. But if I'm going to take the RLM data as the basis of the model, then I'm going to work with all of the RLM data and not just a single data point. Much of the RLM data, particularly in climbing, is inferior to the current AH model. I haven't played with it to discover what inconsistencies exist in it, but it may be a better fit. Of course, that doesn't mean that people will like the overall changes. C'est la vie.

GODO · « **Reply #21 on:** June 14, 2004, 02:09:11 PM »

Pyro, look for the more realistic available data and take also in consideration the year and the front. For example, late A8s were fitted with BMW801 TU as well as A9s (TU/TS). Consider also the usage of GM-1 tank instead of extra fuel for the BMW801D A8s (western front). Its all your choice, just try to model them the more accurately possible for the desired front and year, this will be important for scenaries and TOD.

Crumpp · « **Reply #22 on:** June 14, 2004, 06:27:14 PM »

Pyro,

Thank you for taking a look at this issue. I know you guys have a full plate with the new release. I for one would like to see the RLM data used. I want things as realistic as possible just like most of your customers.

No matter how you slice it. The FW190 was one of the great fighters of WWII. It was not the end all in performance but many experts consider it the main performance rival of the Spitfire. A 190 should excell at the "Energy Knife fight".

As long as a 190 retains it's strengths then 190 pilots should have to deal with it's weaknesses, Bottom Line.

Crumpp

Wilbus · « **Reply #23 on:** June 14, 2004, 07:08:50 PM »

Working after RLM data would be best IMO, be it good or bad for the plane.

Wotan · « **Reply #24 on:** June 14, 2004, 07:31:20 PM »

It’s not just a matter of rlm data, there’s conflicting rlm data as well.

Not only may our A5 end up with a worse climb rate (see mando's current 190a vs. Spit thread) but it may end up slower at alt.

Pyro is saying he will take multiple data points and work through the inconsistencies. That doesn’t mean the A5 he ends up with will match the chart posted here.

If you believe that the AH a5 will match the chart posted you are most likely setting your self up for some disappointment.

Asking for GM1 is a bit ridiculous as well. 1st the alt limit was like 7500m, 2nd do even know how many 190a’s actually had GM1? The 190a8 we need for AH is one that has a use in ToD and events. An 190a8 with GM1 would not be something that would have use outside the main and would be rare even then. I

Crumpp · « **Reply #25 on:** June 14, 2004, 07:48:03 PM »

Wotan,

The FW-190A8 with GM-1 I believe would be no different than the FW-190A8 we have now. The GM-1 equipped A8's still retain the C3 boost and have the GM-1 boost in addition for High altitude work. The GM-1 equipped A8 would be a few KG's lighter since the 115 liter tank is replaced with GM-1 Nitrous tank which is just a tad bit lighter. I got a breakdown of the weights of each system but unfortunately left my books at work where I am scanning the data for Mandoble's website.

Crumpp

GODO · « **Reply #26 on:** June 14, 2004, 09:05:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp
The GM-1 equipped A8's still retain the C3 boost and have the GM-1 boost in addition for High altitude work.

Exactly, performance below 25k is similar to 1.58ata 190A8, above 8Km it gave 500 fpm extras up to 38k and 45Km/h extras at 32k. GM-1 may be configured easily as an hangar option for hi alt cap missions. For common low level fights, aux fuel tank would be the better option, it can be emptied quickly saving that weight. No aux fuel tank would be even a better option.

190D9 equipped with GM-1 got 100 extra PS at 6.5k, and 400 extra PS at 8.5Km.

Any idea about BMW 801 TU and TS power settings?

Wotan · « **Reply #27 on:** June 14, 2004, 09:26:10 PM »

Above 8000m who cares?

No one in flies that high but you. GM1 was not serialized on the a8 or any 190.

We don't need any rare a8 with GM1.

Crumpp · « **Reply #28 on:** June 14, 2004, 09:32:36 PM »

Yeah that graph I'm sending to Mandoble has an FW-190A9 with the BMW-801 TS engine on it.

Not sure but I don't think they got around to mounting the GM-1 on the Dora. It was discussed and planned by the FW design team but none were ever mounted in production A/C that I am aware of. The Dora recieved a "B4" boost (same as the C3, just spraying fuel in the supercharger) during operational trials with III/JG54. In early 1945 the first production Dora's with MW-50 began to arrive in the JG's.

Crumpp

Crumpp · « **Reply #29 on:** June 14, 2004, 09:48:01 PM »

GM-1 was not rare on the 190A8. It was a standard kit that could be installed in place of the 115 liter auxiliary tank.

Crumpp