Spit 5

[Crumpp]

Note that there is a note saying: External surfaces filled and polished. Not your normal condition of a Fw assigned to a JG.

Nothing is abnormal about that Milo.  Plenty of pilots on both sides had their planes polished by the ground crew.

This 190A is equipped with almost 200kg of optional equipment and a GM-1 kit with tanks.

Crumpp

[VO101_Isegrim]

Originally posted by Nashwan
I don't know about all, just JL 165. The other Spit tests are fairly well documented, and accepted by most people (Isegrim excluded) as being accurate.

JL 165 simply ran much worse than other tested Spit IXs, and the fact that it had a long record as a trials aircraft probably had something to do with it.

Accpeted by whom exactly? That would be, you, and Mike?

Sorry, te injection pump Spit is a Prototype, and so is BS 543 with the XH aircrscrew, and most likely with an engine under development.

None of them ever appeared in service in this form. That`s the point. You are throwing in prototypes into a discussion of serially produced planes.

I wonder what your reaction would be if I `d throw in 109Ks into the comparison with 4-bladed or swpet-back propellors. You wouldn`t like a 740km/h+ Kurfurst, and would crying the place all over about it.

The simply reason for your troubles with JL 165 is that it`s 389mph topspeed, is, kmhh, a bit not impressive for an late 1944/45 aircraft. Compares nicely with the 1940 109F, or the Me 410 though.

[gripen]

Originally posted by Crumpp
R = Density of the AIR.  You got some pretty dense Atmosphere there Gripen!  Twelve hundred and twenty nine Kilograms a cubic meter!

Here Crumpp purposedly understands my european notation wrong; 1,229kg/m3 means one kilogram and two hundred twenty nine grams. All other values I gave are with similar notation so there is no reason to mix up notation. The density 1,229kg/m3 is a standard density of air at sea level static conditions for a standard day as seen in this  NASA page.

Originally posted by Crumpp
Using a wind tunnel under controlled conditions they can measure "L" and solve the equation from there.

Here Crumpp purposedly understand NASA site wrong, we know the value of the "L" (lift) because we know weight of the aircraft so It's easy to determine needed value of lift coefficient.

Originally posted by Crumpp
Thanks Bozon!

Here Crumpp can't understand what Bozon said:

"zoom climb (as vertical dives) has nothing to do with induced drag. The lift generated is close to zero (zero G)"

This is fully opposite if compared what Crumpp wrote above:

"The Spitfire added a huge amount of additional power for tiny gains in speed. Why? It had to fight to overcome the great lift it's wing provided."

Basicly Bozon said that Crumpp is completely wrong in his self made theories.

gripen

[Crumpp]

zoom climb (as vertical dives) has nothing to do with induced drag. The lift generated is close to zero (zero G) and you have just inertia (mass), drag (viscos), and prop pull. when the initial speed is high, you'll find the most important term to be m/d (mass over drag co-eff), so being heavy actually helps

There you have it.  The heavier plane with the least amount of drag wins.  The FW-190 had less DRAG.
Not talking about induced drag which only adds to the Spitfires overall drag when it occurs.  

The FW-190A8 was heavier than the Spitfire Mk IX Merlin 66 (+25) and had less drag.  Since the available Horsepower went up in the FW-190A8 along with it's weight it should out zoom the FW-190A5 and have better dive acceleration.  Wing loading only gained 3 pounds so the turn would suffer but not that greatly.

Nashwan,

Sorry I missed this:

 

Faber's 190 was run at 1.42 ata against a Spit F IX putting out about 1580 hp, the LF IX at 18 lbs puts out about 1780hp, and the LF IX at 25 lbs puts out just over 2000 hp.

It was a Merlin 61 (+15) boost for the speed runs.

Compare weight and Horsepower between the two.

FW-190A3 - 3978Kg
Horsepower - 1580 HP @ 2700 rpm/1.42 ata at 9186.35 ft ASL

Spitfire Mk IX (Merlin 61) - 3392.87 kg
Horsepower - 1565Hp @ 3000rpm at 11250 ft ASL

Yes and the BMW-801D2 put out as much as 2100PS or 2050hp @ 1.65ata.  It's output matches the Merlin 66 (+25).

Altitude is NOT full throttle height.  I matched the altitudes as closely as possible with the Horsepower ratings I had available.

Horsepower varies not only with altitude but seems to vary from engine to engine within the same type.

Crumpp

[Crumpp]

Here Crumpp purposedly understand NASA site wrong, we know the value of the "L" (lift) because we know weight of the aircraft so It's easy to determine needed value of lift coefficient.

Not according to the NASA site Gripen.  To many variables to accurately compute it on a calculator.  I have already posted it 3 times. If you can't  get it, sorry.

I apologize for not recognizing your very different way of writing numbers.  Never seen that before.  1.229kg in every place I have traveled = 1 KG 229 grams.  1,229kg = One Thousand two hundred and twenty nine kilograms.  You learn something everyday.

If I input NACA 23009 into foilsim.

I get totally different values for Cl than what you posted.  And frankly I'll trust NASA over chuckleheads on a BBS anyday.

Crumpp

[GScholz]

Yes Crumpp, in most "metric nations" the comma and period have switched meanings when used in numerals.

[gripen]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Not according to the NASA site Gripen. To many variables to accurately compute it on a calculator. I have already posted it 3 times. If you can't get it, sorry.

Here Crumpp still can't understand that we don't need to determine what Cl the wing produces at given angle of attack. We need just to know what Cl is required to produce certain amount of lift with given wing area at given conditions and that can be easily calculated with the formula from the NASA site as pointed out several times above.

Originally posted by Crumpp
Not talking about induced drag which only adds to the Spitfires overall drag when it occurs.  

Here Crumpp can't understand that induced drag adds more drag for the Fw 190 than for the Spitfire.

gripen

[Crumpp]

In fact Gripen,

If you read the notes on Foilsim and the airfoil program from the Naval Post Graduate they both say the same thing!

Calculations for lift and drag vary based on the theory behind the formula used to simulate fluid dynamics.


In other words, it does not mean SQUAT without air flowing over it.  Just like NASA says.

So crunch away on your calculator if you want.  It's your time to waste.

Crumpp

[GScholz]

Gripen, at high speed induced drag only accounts for a small part of the total drag. That is why large aircraft like the Mosquito could be so fast despite having a lower power to weight ratio and a higher wing loading than most single engined fighters.

[gripen]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Calculations for lift and drag vary based on the theory behind the formula used to simulate fluid dynamics.

Here Crumpp can't understand that if a plane has a certain weight and  a certain wing area and the conditions ie speed and air density are known, then there is just one exact lift coefficient which is required to produce needed amount of lift. And this can be easily calculated.

Originally posted by GScholz
Gripen, at high speed induced drag only accounts for a small part of the total drag.

That's actually what I have been saying right from the beginning:

My post 08-07-2004 02:32 PM:

"If you look drag coefficient calculation in your second link, you see that lift coefficient for given lift decreases when the speed increases. Therefore it's easy to understand that induced drag decreases when the speed increases (note relation between speed, angle of attack, lift coefficient and induced drag)."

And here is what Crumpp replied in his next post:

"It does NOT decrease with speed. If it did WWI biplanes would have broken the sound barrier long ago."

And that is completely wrong. I wonder why you did not enter discussion then?

gripen

[GScholz]

Crumpp is right Gripen. The induced drag does not decrease (much) with speed, it remains fairly stable. A constant amount of lift is needed to keep a plane in level flight. The weight of the plane is fairly constant, and weight = lift = induced drag. However the parasitic drag increases with speed by a factor of four, so at high speed the induced drag (while still being approximately the same as at low speed) accounts for a much smaller part of the total drag.

[GScholz]

To make myself clearer: As speed increase the induced drag does not go down. The parasitic drag goes up.

(Note: At very high AoA aproaching the stall limit the induced drag increases due to the deterioration of laminar airflow over the wing, and you must remember that the fuselage changes AoA too, so you get an increase in both form drag and interference drag as well.)

Edit: Oh and the drag created by the wingtip vortex' also increase at high angles of attack.

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Nothing is abnormal about that Milo.  Plenty of pilots on both sides had their planes polished by the ground crew.

This 190A is equipped with almost 200kg of optional equipment and a GM-1 kit with tanks.

Crumpp

Normal wear and tear on service a/c. There would be the odd ding and paint flaking off. No matter how hard the 'black men' tried they could not duplicate a factory fresh a/c. LW ground crew did not have time to give an a/c the 'spit (excuse the pun) and polish' of the test a/c. Clean yes.

But if you insist, next time Barbi does his 'song and dance' about Spits being cleaned up, I hope you will say what you just did.

The 3 speed graphs have the a/c weight as 4300kg. That is 120lb lighter than what you claim.  NO GM1 fitted. Neither was an ETC 501, which cost 7.5 to 10mph depending on the altitude, and wheel doors fitted. Not your standard LW 190A.

Now what is "this" 190A you mentioned?

[gripen]

Originally posted by GScholz
The induced drag does not decrease (much) with speed, it remains fairly stable. A constant amount of lift is needed to keep a plane in level flight.

Partially right but because needed Cl for constant lift drops when the speed is increased, the Cdi drops too:

As an example the Spitfire (3400kg) flying level 200km/h and 400km/h near sea level:

200km/h Cl=0,782 => Cdi=0,0366
400km/h Cl=0,196 => Cdi=0,00229

In other words, when the speed douples the Cdi drops to one sixteenth.

If we look formula for the Cdi, this is pretty easy to understand:

Cdi = (Cl^2) / (pi * AR * e)

Value of the Cl is squared.

gripen

[Crumpp]

The 3 speed graphs have the a/c weight as 4300kg. That is 120lb lighter than what you claim. NO GM1 fitted. Neither was an ETC 501, which cost 7.5 to 10mph depending on the altitude, and wheel doors fitted. Not your standard LW 190A.

It is a standard FW-190A8, Milo.  It just is outfitted with the 115 liter internal tank kits and GM-1.  GM-1 uses LNOX.  
Clamshell doors are standard.

It's in the Pilots Manual and I sent Pyro a copy along with several other things from the Flugzeug-Handbook.  

It is clearly labeled in the top right hand corner of tests.

http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So it doesn't get lost in the Minutia of Gripen's Tantrum:

zoom climb (as vertical dives) has nothing to do with induced drag. The lift generated is close to zero (zero G) and you have just inertia (mass), drag (viscos), and prop pull. when the initial speed is high, you'll find the most important term to be m/d (mass over drag co-eff), so being heavy actually helps

There you have it. The heavier plane with the least amount of drag wins. The FW-190 had less DRAG.
Not talking about induced drag, which only adds to the Spitfires overall drag when it occurs.

The FW-190A8 was heavier than the Spitfire Mk IX Merlin 66 (+25) and had less drag. Since the available Horsepower went up in the FW-190A8 along with it's weight it should out zoom the FW-190A5 and have better dive acceleration. Wing loading only gained 3 pounds so the turn would suffer but not that greatly.

When a Merlin powered Spit pointed its nose up to zoom climb, it's lighter weight and drag worked against it.  It quickly slowed down to its best climb speed and began a low speed climb.

That is why Spitfires did not follow 190's in the vertical until the heavier Spitfire XIV came out.

Crumpp