Author Topic: Fw190 D-9 2.03 ata  (Read 6974 times)

Offline LRRP22

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 87
Fw190 D-9 2.03 ata
« Reply #105 on: June 14, 2005, 05:54:29 PM »
Crumpp,

You've posted those links over and over, yet neither provide any support to your claim that Speed performance numbers published by the USAAF and RAF were not attainable by typical production examples or airfrmes in squadron service.  None.

The first says that the production lines of the time couldn't provide the necessary finish tolerances to allow for true laminar flow.  Big deal- no P-51 Mustang that took to the air ever attained actual laminar flow.

The drag report says that under extremely controlled conditions, a stripped, hand polished and unpowered P-51B could closely mimic the bahavior of wind tunnel models.  Even in the wind tunnel, incomplete laminar flow was only achievable for brief periods.  

Quote

In application, the laminar flow airfoil was used during World War II in the design of the wings for the North American P-51 Mustang, as well as some other aircraft. Operationally, the wing did not enhance performance as dramatically as tunnel tests suggested. For the best performance, manufacturing tolerances had to be perfect and maintenance of wing surfaces needed to be thorough. The rush of mass production during the war and the tasks of meticulous maintenance in combat zones never met the standards of NACA laboratories. Still, the work on the laminar flow wing pointed the way to a new family of successful high-speed airfoils. These and other NACA wing sections became the patterns for aircraft around the world.


Your favorite passage only says that a true laminar flow wing was not possible during WWII.  It wasn't present in squadron service and it wasn't present  during Service Performance Trials.  When Mustang III FX953 reached 450 mph at 28,000 ft during the A&AEE Level Speed Performance tests (AVIA 18/732, Boscombe Down, March, '44), it did so without the benefits of laminar flow.  The same applies to P-51B-15-NA 43-24777's 426 mph at 23,800 ft (ENG-57-531-306, Wright Field. May '44).  Both are flight-tested production airplanes, neither of which required "perfect" production tolerances to achieve the listed speeds.  How about the Eglin P-51B test- 435 mph at 27,000 ft, with wing racks.  Again, a production model tested after delivery to the USAAF.  

Why didn't these (and other) tested production examples require perfect wing surfaces to achieve these speeds?  Because the Mustang' speed performance was based on an excellent cooling drag recovery design and a generally slick shape.  Its high quality (not perfect) production standards didn't hurt either.  The primary benefit of the laminar profile wing was its ability to delay the onset of compressibility at high speeds.  In all actuality, the Spitfire's thinner wing was probably slightly more aerodynamically efficient than the Mustang's laminar profile.  Did puttying and sealing the Mustang's wing help?  Of course it did, but it helped any aircraft so treated.

I'm sure you'll repost your two links to 'refute' me again.  Oh well, have at it...



.

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Fw190 D-9 2.03 ata
« Reply #106 on: June 14, 2005, 09:00:40 PM »
LRRP2,

What you seem to be missing is that is a post-war conclusion.

Don't you wonder why the question even came up or are you blinded by your in game desires?

Have we made any progress or do you still believe North American pulled off a manufacturing miracle that should be studied and modeled in modern business programs?

During the war and during testing of the Mustang the NACA conclusions were:

Quote
In order to obtain a correlation of drag data from wind-tunnel and flight tests at high Mach numbers, a typical pursuit airplane, with the propeller removed, was tested in flight at Mach numbers up to 0.755, and the results were compared with wind-tunnel tests of a 1/3-scale model of the airplane. The tests results show that the drag characteristics of the test airplane from tests in the Ames 16-foot high-speed wind tunnel of the Ames Aeronautical Laboratory can be predicted with satisfactory accuracy at both high and low Mach numbers. It is considered that this result is not unique with the airplane.


Windtunnel and flight test's gave good agreement!

After the war it was concluded:

Quote
The rush of mass production during the war and the tasks of meticulous maintenance in combat zones never met the standards of NACA laboratories.


I imagine it came up due to complaints like the report I saw in the archives of the 8th AF.
The resulting investigation most likely concluded the only thing to be done was as the NACA says:

Quote
For the best performance, manufacturing tolerances had to be perfect and maintenance of wing surfaces needed to be thorough.


Quote
LRRP2 says,
I'm sure you'll repost your two links to 'refute' me again. Oh well, have at it...


It's not me that is refuting you, you are refuting the conclusions of the NACA.

All the best,

Crumpp
« Last Edit: June 14, 2005, 09:02:47 PM by Crumpp »

Offline eddiek

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1442
Fw190 D-9 2.03 ata
« Reply #107 on: June 14, 2005, 10:50:37 PM »
Dang......you two are like women arguing over whose dress is the nicest and bestest based on how much they paid for it.....:rolleyes:
All that aside.....far as I know, no NACA squadron was deployed, no NACA member shot down an enemy AC, so I would tend to believe reports from the field.  In short, NACA opinions mean diddly squat.  Not worth the paper they were written on.
NACA, from what has been posted here, were nothing more than government bean counters, putting out paper reports to make themselves feel important.
Bottom line is, did the plane(s) get the job done?
In the case of the Mustang, the answer is a resounding YES.  Must have sucked to be a LW big wig and find out you got your butt shot off by an enemy aircraft that wasn't performing to it's potential.  Kinda makes the ego go a little flat, no?

Offline Kurfürst

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 921
      • http://www.kurfurst.org
Fw190 D-9 2.03 ata
« Reply #108 on: June 15, 2005, 05:09:43 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by LRRP22
Is this all based in an inability to accept that a typical P-51 produced in 1944-45 was of a much higher production quality than a typical Fw 190 produced during the same period?


I`d like to see evidence to that.... 'fact' as you call it.
The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site
http://www.kurfurst.org

Offline LRRP22

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 87
Fw190 D-9 2.03 ata
« Reply #109 on: June 15, 2005, 10:49:49 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp
It's not me that is refuting you, you are refuting the conclusions of the NACA.

All the best,

Crumpp [/B]


No Crumpp, I'm not refuting NACA.  I don't need to, NACA hasn't said anything of real relevance to this argument.  The USAAF, RAF and even U.S. Navy are refuting your assertion that production P-51's were somewhow hamstrung.  

Whether the NACA conclusions were arrived at during the war or after the war; whether the 1/3 scale model agreed with the towed P-51B dive test is irrelevant.    Neither of the conclusions in any way invalidate the numbers generated by numerous service flight tests which, for your claims to be true, they must!  

If the wind tunnel was able to accurately predict performance, then if youFX593 was tested in the wind tunnel, the wind tunnel would have predicted that it was capable of 450 mph at 28,000 ft.  Do you agree?

You've just spent thousands of words telling us that production P-51's were not capable of wind tunnel performance.  Well, what was the wind tunnel performance- you have no idea.  For all you, or anybody, knows a perfect wind tunnel shape may have predicted 480 mph for the Merlin Mustang.  

It's time for you to fish or cut bait- Are you claiming that the USAAF and RAF tests of production aircraft are wrong?  Please don't give a cryptic, lawyerly response like "It is my contention that the NACA was correct in its conclusions:"- just answer the question, yes or no.

Offline LRRP22

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 87
Fw190 D-9 2.03 ata
« Reply #110 on: June 15, 2005, 11:05:51 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Kurfürst
I`d like to see evidence to that.... 'fact' as you call it.


Strategic Bombing Campaign, forced and slave labor, dispersed manufacture, collapsing infrastructure, material quality problems and shortages....

Only in your world was the German aircraft industry producing top quality products in 1945.

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Fw190 D-9 2.03 ata
« Reply #111 on: June 15, 2005, 11:15:50 AM »
Quote
Only in your world was the German aircraft industry producing top quality products in 1945.


It's interesting that comments on the high quality of aircraft coming from Sorau occurred in late 44 early 45 and where made about an FW-190D9.

Manufacturing dispersion does not mean poor quality.  Ask any modern car manufacturer.

I think you should do some more research.  While quality control issues were always a concern the idea that production standards evaporated is a false one.

All the best,

Crumpp
« Last Edit: June 15, 2005, 11:21:39 AM by Crumpp »

Offline Kurfürst

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 921
      • http://www.kurfurst.org
Fw190 D-9 2.03 ata
« Reply #112 on: June 15, 2005, 03:07:23 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by LRRP22
Strategic Bombing Campaign, forced and slave labor, dispersed manufacture, collapsing infrastructure, material quality problems and shortages....


In other words, only naive assumptions that everything in Germany was bad, everything in Alliedland was perfect. Thank you for clarifying.
The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site
http://www.kurfurst.org

Offline LRRP22

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 87
Fw190 D-9 2.03 ata
« Reply #113 on: June 15, 2005, 04:55:25 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Kurfürst
In other words, only naive assumptions that everything in Germany was bad, everything in Alliedland was perfect. Thank you for clarifying.


No Isergrim, obviously everything was just swell in 1945 Germany...:rolleyes:

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20387
Fw190 D-9 2.03 ata
« Reply #114 on: June 15, 2005, 05:05:06 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp
It's interesting that comments on the high quality of aircraft coming from Sorau occurred in late 44 early 45 and where made about an FW-190D9.

Manufacturing dispersion does not mean poor quality.  Ask any modern car manufacturer.

I think you should do some more research.  While quality control issues were always a concern the idea that production standards evaporated is a false one.

All the best,

Crumpp


Just asking as I don't know, but what was the process for accepting an aircraft by the LW in 1945?

Were they still doing like the RAF and USAAF where each aircraft was test flown and had to meet certain performance expectations?  Did they have service test pilots still flying each aircraft before delivery on these flights etc?

I would think that by that time with the pilot shortages the LW was facing that any experienced pilots would have been flying combat if possible.

I've understood it from comments made about the 262 for example that there were shortcuts being taken when it came to strategic metals in the airframe and engine builds.

As mentioned all was not perfect in US production with P47Gs from Curtiss not being up to standards as an example. Brewster built Corsairs another example of poor quality workmenship.

That being said, the aircraft that reached the squadrons were not those birds, but ones that has passed all acceptance tests.

I note mention of Mustangs.  One of the things done with 51s even the natural metal birds, was that the wing was actually filled, smoothed, primed and painted silver to keep the airflow over the wing smooth.  

I have no idea what that process was for the LW by 1945 in production testing and acceptance.

Dan/CorkyJr
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline Kurfürst

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 921
      • http://www.kurfurst.org
Fw190 D-9 2.03 ata
« Reply #115 on: June 15, 2005, 06:13:23 PM »
Certainly there were accaptance flights for each and every aircraft - JaPo 109K has the acceptance flight date for many Werknummers. BAL was responsible for the quality control, but I am not sure what the process was.

On the sidenote, I`ve talked to a hungarian factory test pilot, he said something about checking the airspeeds but we did not get into details.
The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site
http://www.kurfurst.org

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Fw190 D-9 2.03 ata
« Reply #116 on: June 15, 2005, 06:13:56 PM »
Quote
Were they still doing like the RAF and USAAF where each aircraft was test flown and had to meet certain performance expectations? Did they have service test pilots still flying each aircraft before delivery on these flights etc?


Hey Guppy!

You asked to me describe something that is hardly typical.  There was no "one way" things were done and each company had it's own policy.

As I understand Focke Wulf policy was each aircraft was inspected and flown.  

Kurt Tank did an excellent job engineering the Focke Wulf to be maintenance and production friendly.  You can literally strip the entire cockpit in only a few minutes.  Remove the seat, left/right console, upper/lower instrument panel leaving nothing but the empty fuselage.  No tools required.

Subcontractors would build aircraft subcomponents.  Included in this are many subcontractors whose factories were located in neutral countries.

For example, one company might build a wing, while another assembles the cockpit Geratbank and so on and so forth.

These would be shipped to final assembly points, inspected upon arrival, and then they would be assembled into the complete aircraft.  Many of these were underground as in the Berlin Airport.

Inspections were of course done at all stages as standard practice.  Just as in most aircraft manufacturers.

Once assembled, the aircraft would be either be shipped by rail or enter their final stage right there at the factory.

The final stage was either Focke Wulf company pilots or Luftwaffe pilots flew the aircraft to their final destination.  Sometimes this was the Geschwader but in other cases it was a Luftwaffe depot where it received final inspection and became Luftwaffe property.

Certain subcontractor's manufactured complete FW-190's and oversaw their web of subcontractors.  Focke Wulf maintained oversight with these contractors.

These flights included a checklist of function tests.  I don't think they "put the aircraft through its paces" though.    New engines require a break in period so unless the allied companies were only releasing aircraft after they passed the minimum hours required for break in I find it hard to believe they were putting aircraft through full top performance test's either.  

I wonder if USA transatlantic ferry flights had time to break the aircraft in?  

I will dig out some pictures I have of Focke Wulf, Sorau's factory production quality control example.  This aircraft was flown to various subcontractors such as Arado, Dornier, and many others who built FW-190's as an example.  With it came a team of Focke Wulf company employees who would inspect the factory and train personnel to meet company standards.

Now this system did start feeling strain in 1945.  It did maintain and was in place though up until the last few weeks of the war.

All the best,

Crumpp
« Last Edit: June 15, 2005, 06:18:07 PM by Crumpp »

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
Fw190 D-9 2.03 ata
« Reply #117 on: June 15, 2005, 06:42:09 PM »
Hi Guppy,

>Just asking as I don't know, but what was the process for accepting an aircraft by the LW in 1945?

>Were they still doing like the RAF and USAAF where each aircraft was test flown and had to meet certain performance expectations?

Yes. It's documented in the case of the Me 262. However, the case of the Me 109K shows that a lot of defects (some of them actually caused by sabotage) escaped the acceptance pilots and had to be fixed by the front-line units. (These defects weren't necessarily performance-related, though.)

>I've understood it from comments made about the 262 for example that there were shortcuts being taken when it came to strategic metals in the airframe and engine builds.

Hm, it seems to be only the engines that were effected, but the impact was decisive. The Jumo 004A would have been ready for production 12 months ahead of the Jumo 004B, which had to make do without strategic resources.

>As mentioned all was not perfect in US production with P47Gs from Curtiss not being up to standards as an example. Brewster built Corsairs another example of poor quality workmenship.

Another would be the Boeing B-29 - I believe there's a story about the so-called "Battle of Kansas" that was "fought" in order to make the factory-fresh Super Fortresses combat-ready by fixing a great number of defects. "Rosie the Riveter" and her colleagues were not skilled factory workers with years of experience.

But without such quickly trained workers, the enormous expansion of the relatively modest US American pre-war aviation industry would of course have been impossible.

The German industry failed to expand like that, and the Luftwaffe ended up with a certain shortage of aircraft as a result. It was only Speer who exploited the full industrial potential - probably backed by Goebbels "Total War" propaganda, which was really aimed at the "home front" if I understand that correctly.

>I have no idea what that process was for the LW by 1945 in production testing and acceptance.

I'm sure it went downhill as the war progressed. That probably placed the burden of making sure the aircraft were combat-ready with the service units. From a quality management point of view, that's rather inefficient of course.

(By the way, late in the war the production methods were simplified wherever possible - this process was called "Entfeinerung" = 'de-sophistication'. An Orwellian term for sure :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20387
Fw190 D-9 2.03 ata
« Reply #118 on: June 15, 2005, 07:15:33 PM »
Think I posted it before but the image is a scan of a Spitfire production test card that I got from a B of B vet, later production test pilot at Supermarine.

Not real complicated but clearly they were making sure things worked :)

Dan/CorkyJr
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Fw190 D-9 2.03 ata
« Reply #119 on: June 15, 2005, 09:42:07 PM »
Quote
Not real complicated but clearly they were making sure things worked


It's about the same.  I have several reports investigating sabotage.  Focke Wulf implemented additional inspections to prevent or catch it before the aircraft left the factory.  Nothing performance related, just preventive maintenance service checks.

All the best,

Crumpp