Author Topic: Hey Crumpp... (Read 938 times)

Grits · « **on:** March 01, 2005, 08:42:56 AM »

What are the empty and combat weights of the 190A series along with the HP? Just the main versions like the A-3, A-5, and A-8, or any other version you think should be added.

Crumpp · « **Reply #1 on:** March 02, 2005, 11:48:45 AM »

Hi Grits!

Been rather busy lately.
Give me your email Grits and I will send you the documents.

All the best,

Crumpp

MiloMorai · « **Reply #2 on:** March 02, 2005, 11:57:34 AM »

Crumpp,

do you have any info on the wing of the Ta 152H? What I am looking for is the 'twist' from root to tip. If you have it for the 190A, it would be also appreciated.

thanks.

Grits · « **Reply #3 on:** March 02, 2005, 01:04:21 PM »

bnkirby at bellsouth dot net

Crumpp · « **Reply #4 on:** March 02, 2005, 05:20:23 PM »

Quote

What I am looking for is the 'twist' from root to tip. If you have it for the 190A, it would be also appreciated.

Hi Milo. Hope things are going well. I don't have much on the Ta-152 for the moment. We have found some engineering drawing's in one of the Archives. When our copy comes in I will check on the twist.

The FW-190A series had a 2 degree twist from 81.5% semispan to the root.

All the best,

Crumpp

Wotan · « **Reply #5 on:** March 02, 2005, 05:55:11 PM »

According to the 190 manual:

A-5 (fighter)

empty: 2960 kg

equipped: 3310 kg

take-off: 4106 kg

without the MGFF = 135 kg off take-off weight

A-6 (fighter)

empty: 3000 kg

equipped: 3365 kg

take-off: 4186 kg

MiloMorai · « **Reply #6 on:** March 02, 2005, 08:05:40 PM »

Whenever you get the info.

thanks:)

Charge · « **Reply #7 on:** March 03, 2005, 04:03:47 AM »

"The FW-190A series had a 2 degree twist from 81.5% semispan to the root."

I'd need a picture to understad this...

I'm interested because Im building a Brian Taylor RC of FW190A and I intend to build the wing as accurately as possible.

Didn't Lednicher state that it was 2 deg evenly distributed from tip to root?

-C+

MiloMorai · « **Reply #8 on:** March 03, 2005, 04:47:42 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Charge
"The FW-190A series had a 2 degree twist from 81.5% semispan to the root."

I'd need a picture to understad this...

I'm interested because Im building a Brian Taylor RC of FW190A and I intend to build the wing as accurately as possible.

Didn't Lednicher state that it was 2 deg evenly distributed from tip to root?

-C+

charge,

draw the datum line for the 'root' chord and another for the 'tip' chord over top of the 'root' rotating the 'tip' chord 2 deg about the 50% chord position. Now join the 0% chord positions with a line. At the mid point between the 'root' and 'tip' it will be 1 deg. (this is simplistic but will help, I hope)

Beware, models usually make concessions to that of rl.

Charge · « **Reply #9 on:** March 03, 2005, 05:21:50 AM »

"Beware, models usually make concessions to that of rl."

Yeah, I'm having trouble to determine the scale weight in relation to air density as the weight cannot be scaled down so straightforward as other measurements. Anyway, it will never fly just like the original but its fun to try. If it gets too heavy it will have to fly too fast to look real in its scale and if its too light it will probably be too agile...

-C+

MiloMorai · « **Reply #10 on:** March 03, 2005, 06:09:39 AM »

A long time ago I read an article on scaling. Iirc, the scale weight was the cube root of the full size weight.

Grits · « **Reply #11 on:** March 03, 2005, 06:02:03 PM »

Thanks for the info Crumpp. I have a question though, what are these documents from? I ask because the weights I see on websites all list the A-8 much heavier than those documents.

Crumpp · « **Reply #12 on:** March 03, 2005, 06:28:40 PM »

My pleasure Grits.

Those documents come straight from the Flugzueg-Handbuch for the varients. Think of it like a Pilots Operating Handbook and basic Maintenance Manual rolled into one.

Quote

Didn't Lednicher state that it was 2 deg evenly distributed from tip to root?

Hey Charge! David Lednicer says the same thing I did. The wingtip of the FW-190 is left straight as this put's it closer to elliptical lift distribution and optimizes the induced drag production of the wing.

The wingtip characteristics are the most important factor for induced drag production.

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Theories_of_Flight/Reducing_Induced_Drag/TH16G6.htm

Quote

An elliptical planform is hard to manufacture and is costly. From the point of view of construction, the best type of wing is the untapered, untwisted wing. This is often used by light plane manufacturers. Surprisingly, data indicates that a square-tipped rectangular wing is very nearly as efficient as the elliptic wing, so that the gains in reduced induced drag may be insignificant. This result may be traced to the fact that, for a real wing, the lift distribution falls off to zero at the wing tips and approximates an elliptical distribution.
The wing-tip shape, being at the point where the tip vortices are produced, appears to be of more importance in minimizing tip vortex formation and thus minimizing induced drag. Taper and twist are perhaps of greater importance in dealing with the problem of stalling.

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Theories_of_Flight/Reducing_Induced_Drag/TH16.htm

All the best,

Crumpp

Grits · « **Reply #13 on:** March 03, 2005, 06:52:06 PM »

So the weight that you typically see listed as "gross" or "maximum" takeoff weight on websites (10,800lbs) is different (higher) than the weights listed in those documents? Would the higher weight be with bombs or droptanks while these weights are "clean" fighter config with full internal fuel?

I'm not questioning the validity of your source, I'm just trying to understand why the differences in the weights. I'd guess it is from a different system for listing weights, IE the US listed their planes as absolute max takeoff weight, while the weights listed in your documents are max clean fighter weight (no droptanks or bombs/rockets), so that "max takeoff weight" could be significantly higher which is were the 10,800lbs figure comes from. This could be confused and could incorrectly give the "clean" fighter weight for the A-8 as much more than it should be. Your doc listed the A-8 as 4272kg/9418lbs, thats a 625kg/1382lb difference which I can only guess is from a different loadout.

Crumpp · « **Reply #14 on:** March 03, 2005, 07:02:42 PM »

Quote

I'm not questioning the validity of your source, I'm just trying to understand why the differences in the weights. I'd guess it is from a different system for listing weights, IE the US listed their planes as absolute max takeoff weight, while the weights listed in your documents are max clean fighter weight (no droptanks or bombs/rockets), so that "max takeoff weight" could be significantly higher which is were the 10,800lbs figure comes from. This could be confused and could incorrectly give the "clean" fighter weight for the A-8 as much more than it should be. Your doc listed the A-8 as 4272kg/9418lbs, thats a 625kg/1382lb difference which I can only guess is from a different loadout.

You are correct

Those are maximum weights of the FW-190A series as it sits on the runway. The different Jagd-einsatz's / Jabo-einsatz's are for different configurations. Usually adding the ETC 501 rack with drop tank, bomb, etc...

There are some additional weights at the bottom for optional configurations. Rockets, 115 liter Auxillery tank, etc...

They are not the maximum weight the FW-190 could lift.

All the best,

Crumpp