Author Topic: FW190 Roll Rates and RAE 1231 (Read 1418 times)

Crumpp · « **Reply #15 on:** December 09, 2004, 08:05:23 AM »

That is what I was thinking, Naudet.

I have to call Steve at Gosshawk, anyway. I have a copy of the aileron adjustment regulations (translated). That is where I got the pictures of the different ailerons.

BTW. The members only section is up on the website. You should be getting a password soon.

Quote

reiterate my question ,do you know the reason why the Typhoon got such low roll rate ?

No Straffo, I don't. I can only speculate. Could be wing design, wing warp, wing torsion, aileron suface area, control surface movement, or excessive control forces. Lots of reason for an aircraft to have a bad roll rate.

I will scrub the report when tonight and post any findings on the Tiffie.

RAE 1231 states the Spitfire's was due to small ailerons and the warp of the wing severly reduced the effectiveness.

Crumpp

Angus · « **Reply #16 on:** December 09, 2004, 08:13:23 AM »

The Tempest rolled much betterthan a Tiffie, so I guess the engineers at Hawkers sorted it out in the end.
Wonder if Tiffy variants from the production line differed.

straffo · « **Reply #17 on:** December 09, 2004, 08:20:04 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp
No Straffo, I don't. I can only speculate. Could be wing design, wing warp, wing torsion, aileron suface area, control surface movement, or excessive control forces. Lots of reason for an aircraft to have a bad roll rate.

Thanks,it would be very kind .

Crumpp · « **Reply #18 on:** December 09, 2004, 06:30:16 PM »

Hey Straffo,

Sorry but RAE 1231 is really not a help for the Tiffie. It simply says that the roll rates of the Typhoon matched an earlier roll rate test and that the aileron reversal speed matched the calculated speed.

If you live near the PRO I imagine you could find that roll rate test for the Typhoon. It might hold some answers.

Crumpp

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #19 on:** December 10, 2004, 04:04:38 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Angus
The Tempest rolled much betterthan a Tiffie, so I guess the engineers at Hawkers sorted it out in the end.
Wonder if Tiffy variants from the production line differed.

Having an entirely different new type of wing design might just help that...

straffo · « **Reply #20 on:** December 10, 2004, 05:28:01 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp
Hey Straffo,

Sorry but RAE 1231 is really not a help for the Tiffie. It simply says that the roll rates of the Typhoon matched an earlier roll rate test and that the aileron reversal speed matched the calculated speed.

If you live near the PRO I imagine you could find that roll rate test for the Typhoon. It might hold some answers.

Crumpp

thanks , What is the "PRO" ?

Crumpp · « **Reply #21 on:** December 10, 2004, 06:01:05 AM »

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/

Here is the PRO, PROCAT, or catalog, whatever you want to call it.

http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/default.asp

Be advised. The National Archives are very expensive. It cost me almost 200 US Dollars for a copy of RAE 1231 BEFORE the weak US Dollar. Check the conversion between Euro's and Pounds Sterling.

You can also order reports from the Smithsonian Institute. They are cheap but time consuming to get by mail. 35 US cents a page. You have to write a letter to the Air Technical document section of the Garber Facility, NASM detailing the information your are looking for. Be specific. The more specific the better they can help you. The first time I wrote them about the FW-190A8, they came back with over 1500 documents. Just getting a listing of those documents cost me over 200 bucks at 35 cents a page. The description included is of dubious value as very few of the reports include exactly what you think they do. Once you get the list, fill out the request form, estimate for cost, and sign the release and mail all that in with a check, money order, or credit card. In about 6-8 weeks your report will arrive. All the Axis stuff is untranslated. I just travel to the archives, myself. You get more done and the expense is roughly the same.

Hope that helps!

Crumpp

straffo · « **Reply #22 on:** December 10, 2004, 07:23:25 AM »

Thanks

Look like I've found what I want : Avia 18/709

MiloMorai · « **Reply #23 on:** December 10, 2004, 09:17:39 AM »

straffo, this site supplies many of the PRO docs for free.

http://prodocs.netfirms.com/

Crumpp · « **Reply #24 on:** December 10, 2004, 09:52:52 AM »

I don't think Ring has the roll report your looking for Straffo. Looks like you did find the performance trials that are on Rings site though.

Crumpp

straffo · « **Reply #25 on:** December 10, 2004, 10:24:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MiloMorai
straffo, this site supplies many of the PRO docs for free.

http://prodocs.netfirms.com/

Strange I can't display any Typhoon document ??

Crumpp if you search in this BBS you will see that there was a controversy about the roll rate of the typhoon.

And roll rate was lowered compared to when her was introduced in the game.

Crumpp · « **Reply #26 on:** December 10, 2004, 11:00:39 AM »

I did a search and could not find the exact thread, Straffo. Post a link to it. If I can help I will.

Crumpp

straffo · « **Reply #27 on:** December 10, 2004, 11:13:08 AM »

It's pretty old it was in 2000/2001
The "correction" was in patch 1.07 :
announce by pyro

So far I've been unable to get any source other than your 1st pict.
Granted I don't live in Uk and can't acces the PRO directly .

I perturbed by the difference between measured data and ADM data,can it be because of a bad plane ?

Crumpp · « **Reply #28 on:** December 10, 2004, 05:51:58 PM »

Not necessarily. It could be any number of things including, as was the case of the Spitfire, a design flaw.

When they changed wings in the Tempest the roll rate definately improved.

Crumpp

Crumpp · « **Reply #29 on:** December 10, 2004, 07:09:18 PM »

http://www.airwar.ru/other/bibl/typhoon.zip

Try that link and see if has anything helpful in there, Straffo.

Crumpp