Fw190 Speed Testings for AH2

[Crumpp]

FW-190A8 should be hitting between 565kph and 595kph depending on what varient they model.

I think Pyro is redoing the FM soon.  Last word I got was no real changes to the FM until all the artwork is completed.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Naudet]

Crumpp, 351mph translate into ~564 km/h, so the speed of the current A8 pretty exactly matches that of an A8 with BMW801D and 1,65/1,58 ata boost.

I don't think HTC will model an A-Series FW190 with a BMW801F and boost pressure of around 1.85 ata (not sure how much, but you are the expert here).

Atleast for the D9 i can assure anybody that the AH Dora's speeds represents a good performing plane using MW50 injection.

Only bug/mistake i see so far are the E6B powersettings.

For a D9 with MW50 it should be this:

Special EP (10 Min Limit -> translates into AH WEP speed)
2100PS@3250rpm@1.8ata

Take-off/Emergency (substainable 30 mins, as profen by TAM reports from September 44 and JUMO213A Handbook -> translates into AHs max speed without WEP)
1750PS@3250rpm@ 1.5ata

Climb&Combat (not limited)
1620PS@3000rpm@1,4ata


P.S.: And if anybody comes up again with 620km/h and/or 640km/h on the deck for a Dora or says that ~375mph should be with ETC rack, those points have been discussed to death. Those threads can be found here and in the Luftwaffen Experten Message Boards. I will not discuss that again.

[MANDO]

Can you point out where in the LEMB has been "discussed to death" the deck speed of B4 + MW50 D9 with or without ETC?

The only links I remember are the following:

http://p069.ezboard.com/fluftwaffeexperten71774frm9.showMessage?topicID=357.topic
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=146949

Just to point out some comments:
"It doesn't matter that the power settings did exist (in case for curve 1, 3 & 5) or where a proposal or may have existed.

I draw a very straight line between documented facts and "wishful thinking".
"

But now we are talking only about curve 4.

As far as I remember, here the only comment related to curve 4 was that it was calculated (as most of the performance curves you will find for any aircraft, quite more representative than any individual test with a particular plane, with a particular engine, with a particular pilot and with a particular wheather contitions, as long as the calculation formulaes and parameters are right).

[GScholz]

Originally posted by Bodhi
wrong.

GS, some minimal aoa's that are negative still produce minimal lift... ie enough to maintain straight and level flight.

They would have to be pretty darn "minimal".

[Naudet]

Mando this link should help you http://p069.ezboard.com/fluftwaffeexperten71774frm9.showMessage?topicID=372.topic

This is basicly the current endpoint of the long lasting D9 performance discussions. I will not do the work for you and search all post from the past years and link them here.

[bunch]

Originally posted by GScholz
They would have to be pretty darn "minimal".

-4 degrees for zero lift Ao'A on an airfoil is the lowest number I've seen.  In general, as camber increases, the zero lift angle of attack goes down.  I have a textbook, Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators that explains it in depth.

[Seeker]

Originally posted by GScholz
No it does not matter much, but you can't add weight and not have it affect performance. If that was true it wouldn't matter how much weight you add.

I know that seems logical; but I know also that gliders often carry (dumpable) water ballast which improves performance in some regimes.

I don't pretend to know enough about aerodynamics to explain it.

[MANDO]

Originally posted by Naudet
Mando this link should help you http://p069.ezboard.com/fluftwaffeexperten71774frm9.showMessage?topicID=372.topic

This is basicly the current endpoint of the long lasting D9 performance discussions. I will not do the work for you and search all post from the past years and link them here.

That link shows 3 real plane tests. As pointed by Hohun, none of them representative of any B4/MW50 D9:

002 test showed defective engine. 006 too draggy, without MW50 (115l tank used for fuel), with 4350 Kg, incorrect propellor and what is described as "untuned" (new) engine. 043 is described as even more conflictive (no time to dig into it).

Finally, Hohun tried to extrapolate speed curve for the 002 airframe with a working engine without information about 002 drag neither weather conditions of the 002 test.

Without considering these tests, Hohun reached the following coclussion:
"According to my calculations,

578 km/h @ 0 km with 1780 PS (shaft equivalent power ca. 2100 PS)

leads to

613 km/h @ 0 km with 2100 PS (shaft equivalent power ca. 2460 PS)
"

And extrapolating test 002, Hohun reached the following conclusion for 002 airframe and working engine:

"This gives the following performance compared to curve 4:

0.0 km 596 km/h 606 km/h
2.2 km 634 km/h 646 km/h
3.6 km 633 km/h 646 km/h
6.4 km 689 km/h 694 km/h
8.0 km 660 km/h 665 km/h
"

I'm still missing any determining prove against the FW chart curve 4.

Naudet, dont think I'm expecting any new comment/reply from you, but comments from Hohun would be welcome, as always
 

[bunch]

Originally posted by Seeker
I know that seems logical; but I know also that gliders often carry (dumpable) water ballast which improves performance in some regimes.

I don't pretend to know enough about aerodynamics to explain it.

Denser objects have higher terminal velocity than less dense.  
Maybe glider pilots take advatage of this?

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Flyboy
thats interesting... i just did an offline test for the P51b and i was suprised to discover that the DT rack of the pony doesnt hurt its speed at all.

It shouldn't hurt speed as the pylons were installed as basic equipment. Take them off and you would see an increase in speed.

My regards,

Widewing

[Tails]

Originally posted by bunch
Denser objects have higher terminal velocity than less dense.  
Maybe glider pilots take advatage of this?

I thought terminal velocity was a function air density and frontal area/drag? Object density should have no factor.

Kind of like a sky-diver. Body flat, arms out, falls slower. Arms flush with the body, legs together, head down, falls faster.

EDIT: Water ballast is probably used to control CG for various flight regimes.

[Tails]

double post -.-

[bunch]

Yeah, i wasnt very clear.
2 objects of the same shape & size, the denser has a higher teminal velocity.
leavine the medium out of the question, terminal velocity is a function of density & shape coeffiecient

[Tails]

Originally posted by bunch
Yeah, i wasnt very clear.
2 objects of the same shape & size, the denser has a higher teminal velocity.
leavine the medium out of the question, terminal velocity is a function of density & shape coeffiecient

I'd love to argue,  but I did a little checking to see if I was right, and I wasn't wholely...

Anyways, density of the object does play into terminal velocity. BUT the density of the medium (IE Air) does also play into it.  Lower altitude, denser air, lower terminal velocity. Higher altitude, less dense air, higher terminal velocity. Vacuum, no terminal velocity.

EDIT and here I am trying to argue through a typo...you meant 'leaving' instead of 'leave' in that post, didn't you?

[Shane]

According to this document all of HTC's LW modeling is spot-on.


http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/150_1116386659_lw_data_nasm.gif