Explain this and win the prize!

[gripen]

Originally posted by Crumpp
This entire argument would have never happenend had I known your drag polars came off of 1/6 wooden models and not an actual aircraft.

Well, you have a very short memory, until last days you have been arguing that generalized formulas give accurate results.

Please tell me what's wrong with scale models and why the results should not be comparable the with the full scale model in the wind tunnel.

Besides, as noted above the Fw data seems to be based on  scale models as well. There was no large wind tunnel in the Germany and the document is dated december 1944 as well as plane variants listed. In addition the datasheet gives detailed drag data and
claims that drag data includes interference drag, these are typical things for model testing.

Originally posted by Crumpp
Yeah, OK.  Guess the Luftwaffe just killed trees...

Start a new thread and post your evidence there and also learn to calculate first; you still can't calculate drag...

And most important: Read the forum rules.

Originally posted by Pyro


2- Threads should remain on topic, do not "hijack" topics.

gripen

[gripen]

In addition it should be noted that the Fw datasheet claims:

"Oberflächengüte einschl."

Which means that surface quality is supposed to be as perfect as possible. Another clear indication of wind tunnel data.

gripen

[Angus]

Hello guys.
The drag of those two seems to fall short of each other, the 190 being smaller and cleaner if anything, and note, that in the real world it had a better finish.
What Crumpp said:
"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. "
I think this pretty well spells it out. The 190 has less parasite drag, but more induced drag due to higher A.o.A. in the flight.
Once the Spitfire was "cleaned up" a bit and boosted upwards, it outperformed the 190A.
Such as the Spit VIII.

Am I right?


(Noooo, you're not both gonna say I'm wrong are you )

[Charge]

"Once the Spitfire was "cleaned up" a bit "

What do you mean? Adding another huge radiator under the wing?

The Griffon cowling was more streamlined, though, and the IX had more pointed spinner but still rather high engine profile if we compare those...

-C+

[Angus]

Nonono, not talking about Griffon Spits.
There were modifications withing the Mk IX series, and then there was the superb Mk VIII.....

[Crumpp]

Which means that surface quality is supposed to be as perfect as possible. Another clear indication of wind tunnel data.

 

As opposed to a laquered wooden 1/6th scale Model!!

OMG Gripen.  You have dropped off the deep end in your defense.

Crumpp

[Crumpp]

Please tell me what's wrong with scale models

http://www.hitechcreations.com/htcindex.html


Give em a call,  I am sure Pyro will help you out.

Crumpp

[gripen]

Originally posted by Crumpp
As opposed to a laquered wooden 1/6th scale Model!

The Fw data is probably determined with even smaller model (Ta 152s).

 

Originally posted by Crumpp
Give em a call, I am sure Pyro will help you out.

Pyro is most wellcome to join in discussion anytime.

gripen

[gripen]

Originally posted by Angus
Hello guys.
The drag of those two seems to fall short of each other, the 190 being smaller and cleaner if anything, and note, that in the real world it had a better finish.

I have added flat plate areas for Cd0 to the another thread.

gripen

[Crumpp]

There was no large wind tunnel in the Germany

Totally silly statement.  You need to research the Herman-Goering test facility.

Crumpp

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Angus
Nonono, not talking about Griffon Spits.
There were modifications withing the Mk IX series, and then there was the superb Mk VIII.....

Huh? Charge is right...aerodynamic cleanup on Spitfires during the war? When, what? IMHO that was the greatest failing of the whole series, ABSOLUTELY nothing was done, they started with a nice clean aircraft, then they added cannon bumps up and down, horrific Griffon engine bumps, landing gear bumps, adding another huge and ugly radiator under the wing with the MkIX/VIII, and making them even bigger on the XIV.. I`ll never understand why such a complete lack of improvement in the airframe`s aerodynamics... they could EASILY made the plane 30-40mph faster...

Oh, pardon, I am wrong. They managed to make the the tail wheel retractable on ca. 10% of all Spits produced. Most didn`t even had that...  That added about 4mph...

[gripen]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Totally silly statement.  You need to research the Herman-Goering test facility.

Ah, another new historical fact. Please tell us more.

Generally

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by gripen
Ah, another new historical fact. Please tell us more.

Hmm, indeed the lack of large wind tunnel facilities in Germany DOES sound *strange*. From memory, they used among others the Peenemunde wind tunnels for planes, which were origibuilt for testing the V-2s at high Machs.

[gripen]

AFAIK there were three large wind tunnels around in forties: Tsagi, NACA and Chalais-Meudon.

I'm most interersted to hear about others. There were advanced wind tunnels in the germany but I'm not aware if any of these were big enough to take fighter size aircraft. As and example Chalais-Meudon was 16x8m.

gripen

[Crumpp]

I'm most interersted to hear about others. There were advanced wind tunnels in the germany but I'm not aware if any of these were big enough to take fighter size aircraft. As and example Chalais-Meudon was 16x8m.

I have some good pics of a 109 hanging in the Herman Goering.  I will post it when I get home.  It is definately NOT a model.

Crumpp