Author Topic: Draining E in turns  (Read 13009 times)

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Draining E in turns
« Reply #255 on: September 14, 2004, 10:29:48 PM »
A nice story:

Savagely I hauled my reluctant Spitfire around to meet this new attack and the next moment I was engulfed in enemy fighters-above, below and on both sides, they crowded in on my section. Ahead and above, I caught a glimpse of a FW 190 as it poured cannon shells into the belly of an unsuspecting Spitfire. For a brief second the Spitfire seemed to stop in mid-air, and the next instant it folded inwards and broke in two, the two pieces plummeting earthwards; a terrifying demonstration of the punch of the FW 190s, four cannons and two machine-guns.

I twisted and turned my aircraft in an endeavour to avoid being jumped and at the same time to get myself into a favourable position for attack. Never had I seen the Huns stay and fight it out as these Focke-Wulf pilots were doing. In Messerschmitt 109s the Hun tactics had always followed the same pattern-a quick pass and away, sound tactics against Spitfires with their superior turning circle. Not so these FW 190 pilots, they were full of confidence.

There was no lack of targets, but precious few Spitfires to take them on. I could see my number two, Sergeant Murphy, still hanging grimly to my tail but it was impossible to tell how many Spitfires were in the area, or how many had survived the unexpected onslaught which had developed from both sides as the squadron turned to meet the threat from the rear. Break followed attack, attack followed break, and all the time the determined Murphy hung to my tail until finally, when I was just about short of ammunition and pumping what was left at a FW 190, I heard him call:

"Break right, Red One; I'll get him."

As I broke, I saw Murphy pull up after a FW 190 as it veered away from me, thwarted in its attack by his prompt action. My ammunition expended, I sought a means of retreat from a sky still generously sprinkled with hostile enemy fighters, but no Spitfires that I could see. In a series of turns and dives I made my way out until I was clear of the coast, and diving full throttle I headed for home.

Sometime after Alan Deere took over as a Biggen Hill squadron leader in late 1942 or early 1943.

Crumpp

Offline gripen

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
Draining E in turns
« Reply #256 on: November 08, 2004, 08:45:38 AM »
Well, Crumpp wanted to continue this discussion in the another so  I  post it here:

Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp
You have to look at the evolution of Gripen's flat plate calculations in the thread I linked too. If you don't do the math you won't see it. I don't make those accusations lightly.

Compare his values to the values calculated for ALL the Spitfire Mk IX's for flat plate area. NONE of the Mk IX's have less flat plate area than the FW-190. That was when I realized what was going on.

However the Spitfire Mk VIII does. If you look at Gripens calculations then it becomes clear.


Let's look at the flat plate areas again:

BF274: 5,21
BS428: 4,93
BS534: 4,91
BS551: 5,04
EN524: 5,06
BS310: 5,22
MA648: 4,88
JF275: 4,92
JL165: 5,34

The numbers do not support Crumpp 's story,  two Spitfire IX had lower flat plate area than the Spitfire VIII JF275.

gripen

Offline VO101_Isegrim

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 577
Draining E in turns
« Reply #257 on: November 08, 2004, 09:46:39 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by gripen
Now the link should work.

Regarding US Navy data, it's the best one I know for the Fw 190 which I certainly know to be flight tested.

gripen



Hmm, if you are talking about the same USN test what I have seen, that report clearly states the level speed runs were done for only 2 minutes time, during which the maximal speed may have been not fully developed...

So using those 537 km/h numbers as "max. level speed at SL" values is more than just flawed. Obviously the IAS is the highest at SL, and it takes the longest to achieve the maximum speeds. Ignoring the official German dataset (on what basis, the Germans didnt know the specs of their very own fighters?!!) and replacing it with a lower flight tested result which admittedly by its testers probably do not show the maximum values is curious, to say at least.

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Draining E in turns
« Reply #258 on: November 08, 2004, 12:09:42 PM »
From Izzie:
"Hmm, if you are talking about the same USN test what I have seen, that report clearly states the level speed runs were done for only 2 minutes time, during which the maximal speed may have been not fully developed... "
Not sure which test you are referring to, is it the comparison with the US aircraft?

Anyway, why is there so much difference between the Spit IX flat plate areas? Are some of them clipped?

Regards

Angus.
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Draining E in turns
« Reply #259 on: November 08, 2004, 12:57:14 PM »
Quote
The numbers do not support Crumpp 's story, two Spitfire IX had lower flat plate area than the Spitfire VIII JF275.


According to your calculations.   You insist on using flawed data from the USN test.  How about I post a 4000 feet a minute climb test performed by a captured FW-190A4? We could use EB-104.  It was a rated motor but did develop around 100 hp less than the German BMW-801D2 of that time frame.  Probably the USAvgas and Spark Plugs.  

According to zigrat's spread sheet with YOUR changes you requested.  All of the Spitfire Mk IX's have more form drag.  


Quote
Anyway, why is there so much difference between the Spit IX flat plate areas? Are some of them clipped?


There is going to be some varience in each aircraft just due to manufacturing tolerences, finish, etc.

In fact they are close enough I would say a sloppy FW-190 probably as much or a little more form drag than a well assembled Spitfire.

If you ever get a copy of the evaluation of Faber FW-190A3 (not the tactical trials) read the paragraph about the overall finish and the test pilots comments.  Interesting stuff.  I may post it.

Crumpp
« Last Edit: November 08, 2004, 01:16:24 PM by Crumpp »

Offline gripen

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
Draining E in turns
« Reply #260 on: November 08, 2004, 03:37:37 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Hmm, if you are talking about the same USN test what I have seen, that report clearly states the level speed runs were done for only 2 minutes time, during which the maximal speed may have been not fully developed...


The US Navy data seems to be supported by FW data on Fw 190A-8, given the special finish of the later.

Anyway you are most wellcome to bring better tested data in.

Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp
According to your calculations.


You are most wellcome  to proof my calculations wrong if you can.

Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp
You insist on using flawed data from the USN test.  How about I post a 4000 feet a minute climb test performed by a captured FW-190A4?


So why don't you just bring the data in if you can? Besides as noted several times US NAVY data and FW data on Fw 190 A-8 seems to support each other very well.


Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp
According to zigrat's spread sheet with YOUR changes you requested.  All of the Spitfire Mk IX's have more form drag.  


Oh well, again a statement without anykind of proof. Couple tested Spitfire IX had lower drag than a filled and polished Fw 190A-8 as pointed out above (even your own calculations prove this).

Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp
If you ever get a copy of the evaluation of Faber FW-190A3


Actually the speeds of Faber's Fw 190 at 1,42 ata are lower than the in the US navy evaluation (about 520 km/h at sea level and  627 km/h at FTH). Maybe I should run Fw  data again with these values.

gripen

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Draining E in turns
« Reply #261 on: November 08, 2004, 05:13:27 PM »
Quote
You are most wellcome to proof my calculations wrong if you can.


Already done.

Look above.  You need me to repost them??

Remember the ones you claimed were too detailed?

Quote
Oh well, again a statement without anykind of proof. Couple tested Spitfire IX had lower drag than a filled and polished Fw 190A-8 as pointed out above (even your own calculations prove this).


The finish has been covered ad-nauseaum.  It's not filled and polished Gripen.


Crumpp

Offline gripen

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
Draining E in turns
« Reply #262 on: November 08, 2004, 05:47:54 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp
Already done.

Look above.  You need me to repost them??

Remember the ones you claimed were too detailed?


Please repost.
 
Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp
The finish has been covered ad-nauseaum.  It's not filled and polished Gripen.


The report says " External surfaces: Filled + polished " and so far you have not provided anything which proves otherwise.

gripen

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Draining E in turns
« Reply #263 on: November 08, 2004, 06:09:56 PM »
Why YES it does Gripen!!!

You ARE Correct.  Gosh to think I just missed that leapin out at me in english and all.

Crumpp

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Draining E in turns
« Reply #264 on: November 08, 2004, 06:13:40 PM »
Lets see and compare total drag @ 440fps at the Spitfires FTH altitude:

BF 274 - 795.641828 @ 440 fps
Total Drag FW-190A5 -718.2845242@ 440 fps

BS354 - No data listed except the A/C was 7 mph slower w/50 bhp more output than the Merlin 66 @ (+18)

BS543 - 810.863789
FW-190A5 - 705.7484202

BS551 - 758.4823884
FW-190A5 - 704.890256

EN524 with 4 bladed prop - 765.4635575
FW-190A5 - 702.4712376

BS310 with 4-bladed prop - 793.0539968
FW-190A5 - 751.8834689

BS310 with 5 bladed prop - 794.0663191
FW-190A5 - 749.7161496

JL165 - done to death

MA 648 Merlin 66 (+18) SU Pump - 838.0549776
FW-190A5 - 804.8037275


BS310 - 792.6552588 Parasitic drag - 691.672177

FW-190A8 - 794.3964059 Parasitic drag - 606.4158622

At 315mph the total drag situation changes completely in the FW-190A8 favor.

JL165 vs FW-190A8 has been done to death, again in the FW-190A8's favor.

MA 648 is the ONLY Spitfire Mk IX to beat the FW-190A8 for drag and here is why:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
External equipment of the above four aircraft was similar with the exception that MA.648 had the new pattern of air intake.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MA648 - 837.1701001 parasitic drag - 751.6212076
FW-190A8 - 869.2121249 parasitic drag - 709.9624067

The parasitic drag is always in the FW-190's favor but the total drag drops to within a few pounds of each other at 315 Mph but never swings in the FW-190's favor.

So ONE example of the Spitfire Mk IX with an experimental air intake beats the FW-190A8 in total drag. The others are behind their FW-190A contemporary the whole way.

That about covers the Spitfire Mk IX's vs. their contemporary FW-190 adversary.

Crumpp

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Draining E in turns
« Reply #265 on: November 08, 2004, 07:49:14 PM »
So how would your 190 rack up against a filled and polished Spit VIII?
My point is that the total drag is short apart.
The Spitfire wins at lower speed because of lower wingloading resulting in lower A.o.A. in level flight, lowering drag.
The curves cross at high speed where the flight goes more level and the parasite drag is a dominat factor.

Am I right?

Anyway, this gets screwed up as soon as the aircraft banks a bit.....
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline gripen

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
Draining E in turns
« Reply #266 on: November 08, 2004, 11:20:48 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp

Total Drag FW-190A5 -718.2845242@ 440 fps


Well, here you use the unrealistic Fw 190 data again (20-30 km/h faster than values than real life tested). But let's look at the flat plate areas (for Cd) calculated from the realistic values again:

BF274: 5,21
BS428: 4,93
BS534: 4,91
BS551: 5,04
EN524: 5,06
BS310: 5,22
MA648: 4,88
JF275: 4,92
JL165: 5,34

And then comparable values for the Fw 190A-8 and the US Navy tested Fw

US NAVY Fw 190A-5: 5,2 (a bit rough estimate)
Fw 190A-8: 5,14

We can see that actually most of the Spitfires had lower drag than a filled and polished Fw 190A-8.

gripen

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Draining E in turns
« Reply #267 on: November 09, 2004, 04:09:30 AM »
The Data is correct Gripen.

I can trace the speed and climb development of the FW-190 from the FW-190V5g to the FW-190A9 all with Focke Wulf data.  It works out.

If you talk to a BMW mechanic you will find the 801 series was a very fickle motor.  

I could post the  horsepower development charts from 1942 thru 1945 so you could see for yourself the development.

I could even post the barometric pressure plate for some of the tests.

Lets see and compare total drag @ 440fps at the Spitfires FTH altitude with the correct data:

BF 274 - 795.641828 @ 440 fps
Total Drag FW-190A5 -718.2845242@ 440 fps

BS354 - No data listed except the A/C was 7 mph slower w/50 bhp more output than the Merlin 66 @ (+18)

BS543 - 810.863789
FW-190A5 - 705.7484202

BS551 - 758.4823884
FW-190A5 - 704.890256

EN524 with 4 bladed prop - 765.4635575
FW-190A5 - 702.4712376

BS310 with 4-bladed prop - 793.0539968
FW-190A5 - 751.8834689

BS310 with 5 bladed prop - 794.0663191
FW-190A5 - 749.7161496

JL165 - done to death

MA 648 Merlin 66 (+18) SU Pump - 838.0549776
FW-190A5 - 804.8037275


BS310 - 792.6552588 Parasitic drag - 691.672177

FW-190A8 - 794.3964059 Parasitic drag - 606.4158622

At 315mph the total drag situation changes completely in the FW-190A8 favor.

JL165 vs FW-190A8 has been done to death, again in the FW-190A8's favor.

MA 648 is the ONLY Spitfire Mk IX to beat the FW-190A8 for drag and here is why:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
External equipment of the above four aircraft was similar with the exception that MA.648 had the new pattern of air intake.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MA648 - 837.1701001 parasitic drag - 751.6212076
FW-190A8 - 869.2121249 parasitic drag - 709.9624067

The parasitic drag is always in the FW-190's favor but the total drag drops to within a few pounds of each other at 315 Mph but never swings in the FW-190's favor.

So ONE example of the Spitfire Mk IX with an experimental air intake beats the FW-190A8 in total drag. The others are behind their FW-190A contemporary the whole way.

That about covers the Spitfire Mk IX's vs. their contemporary FW-190 adversary.

Crumpp

Offline gripen

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
Draining E in turns
« Reply #268 on: November 09, 2004, 05:25:08 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp
The Data is correct Gripen.
 


Well, there is no physical reason why a standard Fw 190A-5 should be a 20-30 km/h faster at same power setting than US Navy tested Fw 190 or a filled and polished Fw 190A-8.

Basicly you found out that you could not support your agenda with the realistic data, so you changed to the unrealistic.

If you have data to support your claims, please post.

gripen

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Draining E in turns
« Reply #269 on: November 09, 2004, 05:48:50 AM »
Quote
Well, there is no physical reason why a standard Fw 190A-5 should be a 20-30 km/h faster at same power setting than US Navy tested Fw 190 or a filled and polished Fw 190A-8.


Yeah Gripen,

It called "NOT the same power setting".  In the USN test the BMW801 develops over 100 hp less than the 801 in the Luftwaffe test's.  Got the Horsepower graphs to prove it.

Reason:

1.  Wrong Spark plugs-Listed in the maintenance logs.

2.  Wrong Gasoline- Listed in the maintenance logs.

That is why the engine fouled plugs at low rpm and simply quit at altitude as is noted several times in the test.

Crumpp