Author Topic: Fw190D9 and Fw190A8 R1, weights and handling (Read 2311 times)

Crumpp · « **Reply #15 on:** March 15, 2005, 04:38:34 PM »

Nice reply funked1. Thanks but already know the information.

Your "premise" that the fuselage lengthening canceled out the thrust gains and wingloading decrease is not correct by either the science or the pilots that flew both types.

For further reading I will direct you to:

http://www.enotalone.com/books/047168046X.html

The information is found in several locations in the book. Page 202 at the bottom explains it best.

In a nutshell, Minimum level turn radius occurs at CLmax provided Pa = > Pr.

If you require further information I am sure any good flight mechanics textbook can answer your questions.

Quote

Longitudinal stability margin and maneuverability are also inversely related.

Yes very true. Your implying a "degree" of stability that did not exist. The FW-190 was a fighter, not a trainer. Compare it to the Spitfires longitudinal stability and then come back.

All the best,

Crumpp

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #16 on:** March 15, 2005, 04:45:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp
Your "premise" that the fuselage lengthening canceled out the thrust gains and wingloading decrease is not correct by either the science or the pilots that flew both types.

That's not my premise. I just wanted to refute Mando's oft-stated claim that a longer tail will make an airplane more maneuverable due to some sort of leverage.

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #17 on:** March 15, 2005, 05:11:01 PM »

Oh yeah and CLmax, Pr = Pa, good times, that will work.

Crumpp · « **Reply #18 on:** March 15, 2005, 07:10:51 PM »

Quote

That's not my premise. I just wanted to refute Mando's oft-stated claim that a longer tail will make an airplane more maneuverable due to some sort of leverage.

Np!

All the best.

Crumpp

MiloMorai · « **Reply #19 on:** March 20, 2005, 03:07:31 AM »

came across some weights in Hermann's Dora book.

DD603E - 1644.75kg
Jumo 213 - 1642kg.

Heinz Lange IV./JG51 on the Dora

The 190A was slightly better in a turn, but had an outstanding RoC.

BUG_EAF322 · « **Reply #20 on:** March 20, 2005, 03:29:17 AM »

There can only be one Dora

MANDO · « **Reply #21 on:** March 20, 2005, 04:24:03 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MiloMorai
came across some weights in Hermann's Dora book.

DD603E - 1644.75kg
Jumo 213 - 1642kg.

Heinz Lange IV./JG51 on the Dora

The 190A was slightly better in a turn, but had an outstanding RoC.

These weights are wet, right? I think 1228Kg is for dry 801D2 weight, no idea about wet.

Is Heinz referring to 190A8 R1 (no way IMO)?

HoHun · « **Reply #22 on:** March 20, 2005, 06:44:27 AM »

Hi Mando,

I've prepared a turn rate comparison between the Fw 190D-9 (4250 kg, 2100 HP @ 0 km) and the Fw 190A-8 (4270 kg, 1800 HP @ 0 km), and that's what I came up with:

D-9 vs. A-8 turn rate:

0 km: 109%
1 km: 110%
2 km: 113%
3 km: 115%
4 km: 115%
5 km: 112%
6 km: 107%
7 km: 106%
8 km: 105%
9 km: 105%

So the D-9's turn rate should be superior to the A-8's at all altitudes - quite obvious, considering it has more power at virtually the same weight.

The elevator effectiveness certainly is sufficient to achieve the necessary angle-of-attack in a sustained turn, so the different fuselage length makes no difference.

(Fuselage lift, which I haven't figured in, might make a slight difference. I'd suspect in favour of the Dora with its larger fuselage, but that's only a guess.)

If the Fw 190A-8 is allowed to use Erhöhte Notleistung, it might catch up a little, but I don't have good data on the resulting power curve.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Crumpp · « **Reply #23 on:** March 20, 2005, 08:22:42 AM »

Nice Work Hohun!

Thanks for the calculations.

Milo, check out Ossenkop's evaluation in the same reference in comparision to the FW-190A8.

Thanks for digging out the engine weights.

Looks like it depends on the Dora and FW-190A being tested. Early Dora vs FW-190A8/A9 would have different results vs Mid/Late Dora.

All the best,

Crumpp

Angus · « **Reply #24 on:** March 20, 2005, 09:38:47 AM »

Isn't the Dora with a slightly more span also?
(Silly question, could of course look it up somewhere)

MANDO · « **Reply #25 on:** March 20, 2005, 10:40:21 AM »

No Angus (at least for D9, no idea about D11 or D12).

Thanks for your calculations HoHun.

Charge · « **Reply #26 on:** March 21, 2005, 05:24:27 AM »

For some reason I'd think the A to be slightly better in turns and in roll.

Maybe it is how I figure out the drag vector component location of the radial versus liquid cooled. According to my reasoning the D would be even worse if it did not have the radiators in the nose but under the wings...

I don't believe in leverage theory as the A version already was fully able to pull into an accelerated stall. The wing profile tolerates only so much AoA no matter how far the tail is from the main wing.

-C+

Crumpp · « **Reply #27 on:** March 21, 2005, 09:50:39 AM »

Quote

For some reason I'd think the A to be slightly better in turns and in roll.

It all depends on which Dora and which Anton your comparing.

All the best,

Crumpp

Glasses · « **Reply #28 on:** March 22, 2005, 11:05:56 PM »

Bring your Dora
Bring your Dora to the slaughter let her go let her go let her go Let Her go!< Drum solo!>

Naudet · « **Reply #29 on:** March 25, 2005, 07:13:03 AM »

If you just look at the latest books and veteran statements, it can be said that the D9 had in general a slightly better and tighter turn.

Lt. Crumpp flew a comparison flight in his D9 against and A9 from JG2 and could slowly gain in a low alt turning contest.

Lt. Ossenkop mentions both the better longitudinal stabiliy as the D9 had less tendency to swing on take off. He also mentions that the D9 could be turned harder because flow seperation accured later than on the A-Series. And he points to lower elevator forces in the D9 due to the extended fuselage.

Oblt. Romm tells us he could maintain a higher speed in turns with the D9 to follow Yaks and LAs that required him to slow do minimum turning speed in his A8. Indicating that the D9 had a slightly better turn radius and speed of turn.

At all no wonder, if we just compare a very early D9 with ca. 1750PS and 4250kg takeoff weight to the contemporay A8 with ca. 1800PS and 4270kg, take into account that the D9 airframe is less dragy and that the D9 in this case would benefit from the VS111 airscrew compared to the metal VDM prop of the A8.

Now as Crumpp mentioned it depends on which D9 you compare to which A8/A9, but in general you can say the D9 will be slightly better, cause when the A9 got increased boost pressure and benefits from more engine power the D9 also got this for its JUMO213 engine.

About the roll rate its a bit more difficult. Basicly they should be almost identical because wing design on D9 & A8/9 is identical and this has the greatest impact on roll rate.
Engine torque might have influeced the roll a bit, but not so much to get a clear winner here. Same goes for wing guns. Planes with them would have slightly reduced initial roll rate, but else no difference.
The statements in Caldwells JG26 book about the loss in roll rate of the D9 are no pilot quotes, it seems they were taken from books written in the 60s and 70s were this fact was simply quoted again and again without any real evidence.