Explain this and win the prize!

[gripen]

Dear Crumpp,
The report says clearly that the correction factors for the earlier measurement were wrong. The difference can be easily seen from the polars, in the earlier measurements the Cd0 is higher but at high Cl the Cd values are lower. In the later meassurements Cd0 is lower but the Cd values at high Cl are higher.

Very simple and very clear, try to live with it.

gripen

[Crumpp]

The difference can be easily seen from the polars, in the earlier measurements the Cd0 is higher but at high Cl the Cd values are lower. In the later meassurements Cd0 is lower but the Cd values at high Cl are higher.

Exactly what I just said Gripen.

Earlier larger values of drag are wrong IN THIS REPORT.  

As stated in the report it has nothing to do with earlier tests.

Might be worth it to get a translated copy.

However it is much more useful to have one on the FW-190A as opposed to the FW-190G.

Look for the reports on the FW-190A8 prototypes as a helpful hint.

Thanks for the amusement though!  I see you have laid awake at night worrying about this discussion.

Have you come across a report on production Spitfires yet?  Maybe plots from a real plane?

All the best,

Crumpp

[Kurfürst]

Soo... this is long, but which one was faster, the Mk IX or the FW 190A? Low altitude, high altitude?

[gripen]

Originally posted by Crumpp

Earlier larger values of drag are wrong IN THIS REPORT.  

Oh well, yestarday Crumpp announced:

"Gripen facts are there is nothing wrong with "other plot"."

Besides the report says directly:

"An der gleichen Maschine waren früher schon einmal Sechskomponenten- und Druckverteilungsmessungen durchg eführt; Bericht Nr. 06006 "Messungen an einer Fw 190 im groben Windkanal von Chalais Meudon bei Paris""

Basicly it is the very same plane in the same condition.

Shortly, Crumpp is creating his usual nonsense here.

Kürfurst can open a new thread if he is interested about plane comparisons.

gripen

[Kurfürst]

I think Crumpp is making some good points here. I was just asking about level speed, as it seems the 190 was faster at the same power than the Spit. Wouldn`t that point to that it was also more aerodynamic (same power, more speed -> less drag).?

Sorry if I interrupted this classy conversation.

[gripen]

Dear Kurfürst,
This thread is about e factor not about comparing planes. Start a new thread if you want such comparison

Regarding "some good points here"; is it a "good point" to change an argument to exactly opposite in one day?

gripen

[Crumpp]

"good point" to change an argument to exactly opposite in one day?

No argument has changed Gripen.  Facts are you do not have the information you think you do.

 

An der gleichen Maschine waren früher schon einmal Sechskomponenten- und Druckverteilungsmessungen durchg eführt; Bericht Nr. 06006 "Messungen an einer Fw 190 im groben Windkanal von Chalais Meudon bei Paris""

All this says Gripen is that they used the same test machine for first six tests of the FW-190G.  There are dozens and dozens of windtunnel test's on the FW-190A.  

So far:

You have tried to claim a mistake in the windtunnel set up caught and corrected during testing invalidates every test conducted but this one!

As stated in the report the UNCORRECTED test's show HIGHER drag values!

Do you think that higher total drag = higher induced drag = less efficient "e" factor? Did you miss the whole conversation with Badboy?  

You have tried to pass an FW-190G off as an FW-190A.  Totally different aircraft with very different drag characterisitics.  

However, using windtunnel data gleaned from a 1/6th scale wooden model of the Spitfire is perfectly acceptable to mirror a production model in your mind!


All the best,

Crumpp

[gripen]

Originally posted by Crumpp
No argument has changed Gripen.  

Nonsense, the simple fact is that Crumpp changed his argument exactly opposite in less than 24 hours.

Originally posted by Crumpp
Facts are you do not have the information you think you do.

Well, here we have Crumpp's word against verifyable documentation (I have given the source information).

Originally posted by Crumpp
All this says Gripen is that they used the same test machine for first six tests of the FW-190G.

Ah, Crumpp is changing his argument again. The tested plane is a clean Fw 190A (without pylons or what ever) as can be verified from the pictures.

Originally posted by Crumpp
You have tried to claim a mistake in the windtunnel set up caught and corrected during testing invalidates every test conducted but this one!

The jet inclination error presented above is well documented, basicly all early tests by the Germans had this problem.

Originally posted by Crumpp
As stated in the report the UNCORRECTED test's show HIGHER drag values!

Plain nonsense, the report is clear on this; correction factors for the early measurements were simply wrong.

Originally posted by Crumpp
Do you think that higher total drag = higher induced drag = less efficient "e" factor? Did you miss the whole conversation with Badboy?  

Well, I have concensus with Badboy but Crumpp still can't understand the relative concept of the e factor.

gripen

[TimRas]

Originally posted by Crumpp
...
All this says Gripen is that they used the same test machine for first six tests of the FW-190G.

Crumpp,
"Sechskomponenten" means that all six force components are measured: 3 orthogonal forces (normal, axial, and side forces) and 3 orthogonal moments (rolling, pitching, and yawing moments).

[Crumpp]

h, Crumpp is changing his argument again. The tested plane is a clean Fw 190A (without pylons or what ever) as can be verified from the pictures.

Look at the picture Gripen.

The racks are clearly visible.  You need to read my post instead of make up what you wish the world to be.

Well, here we have Crumpp's word against verifyable documentation (I have given the source information).

You need to go back through this thread.  I always back up what I say with documentation.  Or do you forget the "filled and polished" episode for example?

Facts are Gripen I am much farther along in my research than I was months ago when this whole thread started.  Actual aeronautical engineers, not folks like you with a tenious grasp of the theory and a obvious game agenda, have done the analysis from multiple sources.  More than one engineer has been nice to enough to lend me a hand with this project.  

 

Well, I have concensus with Badboy

Again.  Not how everyone else would see this but if you need to tell yourself that, ok.  Badboy taught you about "e" factor.  You were not a colleague; you were a student in that conversation.  

Plain nonsense, the report is clear on this; correction factors for the early measurements were simply wrong.

In the context of the report Gripen, it refers to earlier test's in that report. That is clearly stated in the report.

Did you stop to think how wind tunnels are operated?  Do you think they just flip the switch off, turn the lights off, and go home until the next test?  Like any machine they require constant maintenance.

Do you think alarm bells were going off in the Focke Wulf engineering department when the tunnels started returning values that were not even close to the design targets?

The fixing of the wind tunnel IMPROVED the drag over the first few test conducted.  

Or do you think it all just happened in a vacuum, Gripen, and you discovered their flawed analysis.  Silly Germans, can't do anything right...


All the best,

Crumpp

[gripen]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Look at the picture Gripen.

Let's look:


So where are the racks? All we see is parts of the support system. Original picture shows the bottom of the left wing clearly; no racks, pylons or what so ever.

Originally posted by Crumpp
You need to go back through this thread.  I always back up what I say with documentation.

Well, Crumpp has changed his stories several times during this thread.

Originally posted by Crumpp
Again.  Not how everyone else would see this but if you need to tell yourself that, ok.  Badboy taught you about "e" factor.  You were not a colleague; you were a student in that conversation.  

Anyone can look back this thread and find out who was teaching in the case of the so called generic formulas (which actually were not as has been pointed out).

Originally posted by Crumpp
In the context of the report Gripen, it refers to earlier test's in that report. That is clearly stated in the report.

Nonsense, the report simply quotes earlier results from the Fw report and points out that the differences are mainly caused by the wrong correction factors used before the error was discovered while testing symmetrical wing profiles.

gripen

[Crumpp]

Gripen,

The Focke Wulf trager are clearly visible in the photo.

FW Trager:




Photo:



You can clearly see both support rails.  Especially if you use a photo editor program to enlarge the image. The rails are labeled 1 and 2 and the arrow points out the back of the fairing.



The only nonsense here is you trying to pass this off as representative of the FW-190A.

All the best,

Crumpp

[gripen]

Well, Crumpp creates simply fiction, there is no rack nor rails as can be seen from the profile of the right wing, just some kind of cable coming from the support stand (probably unfinished testing equipment assembly). Funny thing is that in the original picture the wire of the lifter in backround is visible through the supposed "trager".

Besides if there is a "trager" it should be closer fuselage. The Document gives the location of the support stand.

gripen

[Crumpp]

Gripen,

You can see the other one as well.  Try enlarging the picture.

Gripen says:
Besides  if there is a "trager"

They are both in the picture and in the correct location, Gripen.  
Focke Wulf conducted dozens of drag studies on the FW-190G trying to reduce it's drag profile while still accomplishing the aircrafts mission.

Your wording very much betray's the fact you know the deception you are attempting to run.

All the best,

Crumpp

[gripen]

After some searching I found out that the tested plane was a Fw 190A-3 (Wnr. 511). It was tested in various configurations depending the purpose of the test, as an example below is one tested configuration (from FWB. Nr. 06006, there is several pics  on other configurations too); profiled pylons and  ETC in the centerline (with wheel doors, not an operational configuration). In the case of the report UM21 1, the drag at Cd0 is lower than in any configuration tested for the FWB.Nr. 06006 so it's certain that that the tested plane was in the clean configuration.

gripen