Draining E in turns

[gripen]

Originally posted by Kurfürst

With all the extra drag of the A-8 added into the picture?

The only drag difference between the A-5 and A-8 appear to mg cowlings which is a minor thing. The difference in weight can't explain the speed difference. Besides I don't even know if the A-8 performance is really flight tested.

Originally posted by Crumpp

It clearly states the finish of the aircraft is "Surface primed and Smooth Painted" Smooth painted refers to standard RLM semi-gloss aircraft paints.

Hm... finally you could actually post some sort of evidence but for one reason or another you posted it  to wrong thread. Read the forum rules

"Gespachtelt + Blattanstrich" my German abilities are certainly limited but that appear to mean filled and several coats of paint or laquer. However that's not same as polishing.

At least here in Finland the surface quality of the german planes was not considered to be particularly good and there was large variation depending from which factory the planes came.

I can certainly say that in the case of the Bf 109 some parts around canopy and engine cowling were filled, in addition some joints (wing tips and tail parts) were covered with canvas. Otherwise most joints were visible ie not filled and by looking pictures that appear to be the case with the standard Fw 190 too.

AFAIK the only plane which had large surfaces filled as standard was the P-51 and in that case only the wing surfaces.

gripen

[Crumpp]

The difference in weight can't explain the speed difference.

One thing that might explain it is the Lufterrad.  I have a report showing a average of a 15km speed increase from using a 12 bladed Lufterrad.  In the FW-190A8 they began using a 14 bladed Lufterrad.

Unfortunately this particular report is off being translated.  I looked it over and dropped in with the others and mailed it.  Since then it has become sort of mystery as to why the 14 blade Lufterrad was adopted when it reduced performance.


Crumpp

[Crumpp]

"Gespachtelt + Blattanstrich" my German abilities are certainly limited but that appear to mean filled and several coats of paint or laquer. However that's not same as polishing.

The finish refers to RLM aircraft paint. Literally translated it means "smooth painted".  Ask any aircraft mechanic.  All airplanes are "smooth painted".

At least here in Finland the surface quality of the german planes was not considered to be particularly good and there was large variation depending from which factory the planes came.

That's interesting.  The USAAF studied the technology behind RLM finishes and incorporated them into modern USAF fighter finishes.  The coatings on an F16 today are direct descendants.  All the RLM finishes I have physically touched are very smooth.  Even the 60 year old finishes.  The paint has a very tiny granular base compared to allied paints of the same time period.  There is a very good reason the USAAF went to bare metal finishes.  US aircraft paints were horrible.  

Crumpp

[gripen]

Originally posted by Crumpp
One thing that might explain it is the Lufterrad.  I have a report showing a average of a 15km speed increase from using a 12 bladed Lufterrad.  In the FW-190A8 they began using a 14 bladed Lufterrad.

You mean cooling fan?

Another issue is what's the effect of the ETC 501 and the wheel doors as a standard plane probably had the ETC 501 and no wheel doors?

gripen

[Crumpp]

Another issue is what's the effect of the ETC 501 and the wheel doors as a standard plane probably had the ETC 501 and no wheel doors?

It takes less than 2 minutes to remove the ETC and mount the doors.  The plane would have been set up the night before based on TO input for the missions the next day.  

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Unfortunately this particular report is off being translated.  I looked it over and dropped in with the others and mailed it.  Since then it has become sort of mystery as to why the 14 blade Lufterrad was adopted when it reduced performance.
Crumpp

Possibly because of the need to increase the cooling with the more powerful engines installed. The increase in a/c weight would put more 'work load' on the engine as well.

Crumpp, did the ratio for the fan change when the fan was change?

[Crumpp]

Crumpp, did the ratio for the fan change when the fan was change?

Don't know Milo.  I will let you know when the report gets back.

Crumpp

[Angus]

Emm, Crumpp:
"That's interesting. The USAAF studied the technology behind RLM finishes and incorporated them into modern USAF fighter finishes. The coatings on an F16 today are direct descendants"
This boggles me a bit. A was petting an F15 a couple of years ago, and I was baffled with the finish. I had always thought they were so glossy, but it was quite matt.
Not that it tells much about the granular size, but yet it felt rather matt.
I just thought, well, probably something extremely strong, and now you have so much power that the smoothness or glossyness is maybe not needed.
To bring that into the focus a bit, the aircraft (the Colonels plane) had quite some time on the clock (F15E it was), but the paint was still in perfect condition, - no visible breaks or flakes.

Just a little input.

Regards
Angus

[Crumpp]

but the paint was still in perfect condition, - no visible breaks or flakes.

I have touched 300 Liter drop tanks that the finish is over 60 years old and they are still smooth.  The finish is powdery and leaves a residue much like chaulk on your fingers after so much time.

Gary says he had a hard time getting the mixture right on the RLM paints.  Until he finally got ahold of some ex-Luftwaffe personnel who gave him the "tricks".  Once he got the proper ratio of reducer the RLM paints went on much thinner and in one coat than the USAAF paints he used.  With the proper mixture he said fisheyeing and orange peeling did not happen.

The RLM paint is much more flexible.  The USAAF paints go on and are about 5mm thick with primer and lacquer.  When the skins flexs they have a problem of peeling around the rivets.  This will quickly cut down on your performance.  The RLM paints are around 2-2.5mm thick with primer and sealer.  He never experienced any problems with peeling or flaking from skin flexing.

but it was quite matt.

The RLM paints are matt as well.  The sealer is a semigloss.  The USAF improved the technology so the whole finish is matt.  All the modern fighters I have touched are very smooth with a matt finish.

Angus you should have asked him if he had an anti-radar coating.  There are finishes the US Military has which absorb some of the radar signals.  The early finishes were all black.  They now can make them in other colors and they are rough.  That roughness is part of their absorbtion capability.

Crumpp

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Crumpp
It takes less than 2 minutes to remove the ETC and mount the doors.  The plane would have been set up the night before based on TO input for the missions the next day.  

Crumpp

U R positive on that 2 mins required for the ETC rack mount/unmount? I am asking for confirmation, to be sure not to write BS in an article.

[MiloMorai]

Oleg Maddox, of Il-2 fame, says it was much longer than 2 minutes to remove the ETC501.

[Crumpp]

Oleg Maddox, of Il-2 fame, says it was much longer than 2 minutes to remove the ETC501.

Does Oleg Maddox of Il2 fame have direct access to a 190 or ever taken an ETC 501 rack off an FW-190?


I suggest you join:

http://www.white1foundation.org

We need members and you can find out exactly how long it takes to remove the ETC 501 rack.

U R positive on that 2 mins required for the ETC rack mount/unmount?

Honestly,  I don't think anyone ever put a stopwatch to it to find out.  It does not take very long at all.  I would be surprised if it was much over 1 minute to take the rack off.

The entire cockpit can be completely stripped in just a few minutes.  The side panels are held in place with latchs like a tool box.  The wiring harness is one plug.  In under 5 minutes you can remove the seat, side panels, and insturment panel.

Kurt Tank did his homework in the maintenance department on the FW-190.  

Bob (chief structure technician) says the P38 he worked on was a nightmare to change out the racks.  You actually had to run wiring through the wing to change store types and undo quite a few bolts.  
The FW-190 has a universal wiring harness.  All the plugs are set up to except all the stores it can carry and the plugs are arranged so that it is impossible to fit the plug in the wrong connection.

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Does Oleg Maddox of Il2 fame have direct access to a 190 or ever taken an ETC 501 rack off an FW-190?


I suggest you join:

http://www.white1foundation.org

We need members and you can find out for yourself exactly how long it takes to remove the ETC 501 rack.

Crumpp

Just stating what he said. I called him on the time (iirc 30 min) he said but he never answered.To add, he claims the pilot view in the cockpit of the 190 in his game is the most authentic. He has been shown that it is not so.

The 2 minutes, with how many mechanics. (just a question) I do agree it could be removed in very little time, the 20 bolts holding the fairing in place taking the most time, I bet.

[Crumpp]

The 2 minutes, with how many mechanics. (just a question) I do agree it could be removed in very little time, the 20 bolts holding the fairing in place taking the most time, I bet.

They are quarter turn flush screws IIRC on the fairing.  I am serious about joining the foundation.  We need members and will starting up a newsletter again soon.  

In it I plan to include a section "The Plane Facts" which will detail technical information on the design.  Be lots of original documents, diagrams, and good information for members.

The Museum, library, and shop is open to members by appointment as well.

The 2 minutes, with how many mechanics.  

I was thinking one guy.  Same with the cockpit.  I can find out exactly how long it takes.

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

Bolts (an overkill method )  was the wrong word, should have said screws.

D-zus fasteners sounds logical.