Author Topic: How many power the AH FW190D9 have?? (Read 2751 times)

Crumpp · « **Reply #30 on:** November 22, 2005, 05:58:02 PM »

Quote

I believe Naudet could find no documentation on whether this seal was ever fitted to operational aircraft.

Hey Hohun,

AFAIK it was not ever fitted to operational aircraft.

It is interesting that in Dora the seal was never fitted due to a shortage of latex, a strateagic material.

However, the FW-190A series fighter variant did have a sealed cowling:

http://white1foundation.org/parts/cowlweatherstrip.jpg

All the best,

Crumpp

Waffle · « **Reply #31 on:** November 22, 2005, 08:56:04 PM »

Crump -

can you post the data / charts for the stick forces for the spit / 190 and 51s?

Crumpp · « **Reply #32 on:** November 22, 2005, 09:37:28 PM »

Quote

can you post the data / charts for the stick forces for the spit / 190 and 51s?

Give me your email and I will send them to you. You can PM me.

All the best,

Crumpp

Waffle · « **Reply #33 on:** November 22, 2005, 09:40:36 PM »

wafflesounds@hotmail.com

Thanks!

Dead Man Flying · « **Reply #34 on:** November 23, 2005, 12:07:36 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp
Your claiming:

1. Luftwaffe fighters were not successful dogfighters and got the majority of their kills by bouncing.

[/b]

Wrong again. I make no such claim.

Quote

2. You can judge the ability of a FM from a scenario

I make the claim that when you create an environment that more closely approximates reality, then the outcomes between two planesets more closely approximate reality. Thus claims that the planes do not match up well do not necessarily meet the historical burden of proof.

The fact that you would use the success of aces to generalize to an entire population already tells me that you cannot make an intellectually honest argument in this thread. Shocker.

-- Todd/Leviathn

Waffle · « **Reply #35 on:** November 23, 2005, 10:09:49 AM »

Hey Crump - thanks for the info and good luck on you book.
Did you have the spitfire / p51 stick data avail? I was kinda more curious to compare the stick data between the rides.

I'm pretty sure HTC models in stick force, so I was thinking if the 190s had more force as compared to the 51s / spits - that might be one thing that makes the plane seem "heavier" based on the amount of joystick input.

Crumpp · « **Reply #36 on:** November 23, 2005, 10:30:54 AM »

Quote

I'm pretty sure HTC models in stick force, so I was thinking if the 190s had more force as compared to the 51s / spits - that might be one thing that makes the plane seem "heavier" based on the amount of joystick input.

I have some data on the Spitfire, yes.

That was the stick force information on the elevator forces. The FW-190 has light forces throughout most of envelope except at very high speed. The flosse remains effective however and becomes overly effective if 750kph is exceeded.

All the best,

Crumpp

Glasses · « **Reply #37 on:** November 26, 2005, 10:29:06 AM »

I remember of a test Report done By Eric Brown after he flew a captured Allied refitted 190A that he noted the controls remained very light up to 800km or so Km,that he didn't want to push it further,since it was a captured airframe.

Proving that even by allied standards the stick forces of the 190 at highspeed were lighter than a Spitfire at high speed. They compared mainly to other allied rides.

I'll try to dig it up.

Furball · « **Reply #38 on:** November 26, 2005, 11:10:46 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Krusty
190a5 does pretty well in the MA! I don't now why, but just since 2.06 I can't outrun spit9s anymore.... They accelerate way too fast and I way too slow.

when was the last time you flew one in the MA?

Knegel · « **Reply #39 on:** November 27, 2005, 04:28:38 AM »

Thanks for the replys!

Hohun, i will do some Vmax tests and compare them with your curves.

Crump, thanks for the infos!

btw, as far as i know the 109D9 wasnt more light than the clean 190A8 or A9, if this had the same armament. I have the clean A8 listed with 4230kg and 2050HP(short period), is that wrong?

Greetings, Knegel

Wilbus · « **Reply #40 on:** November 27, 2005, 06:05:20 AM »

What was SDOE Mister Fork and what did you work on there?

How did the planes compare when tourqe was changed?

Top speed didn't change much if I understood your last post correct but acceleration did?

Krusty · « **Reply #41 on:** November 27, 2005, 10:57:08 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Furball
when was the last time you flew one in the MA?

When was the last time YOU did? I've been flying them for a while now.

Crumpp · « **Reply #42 on:** November 27, 2005, 11:04:39 AM »

Quote

if this had the same armament. I have the clean A8 listed with 4230kg and 2050HP(short period), is that wrong?

No you’re not wrong but neither does the FW-190A outturn the Dora except for the early version without augmented power.

Removing the outboard cannon had no noticeable effect on performance whatsoever.

From the FW-190A5 and later, all fighter variants are produced with full wing armament. Certain Rustsätz kits required removal of the outboard wing armament, however. This was done for technical reasons not a performance increase.

You will find a few "old hares" that in the beginning removed them at the Geschwader level. This practice dies quickly as confidence in gained. It simply is not worth the trade in firepower for an unperceivable performance gain.

All the best,

Crumpp

Knegel · « **Reply #43 on:** November 28, 2005, 01:05:11 AM »

Hi,

whats about the early D9, w/o MW50, so max 1750hp(sea level), wouldnt the A´s perform at least the same regarding turning?? They had more power then, dont they?

Greetings, Knegel

Mister Fork · « **Reply #44 on:** November 28, 2005, 03:42:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Wilbus
What was SDOE Mister Fork and what did you work on there?

How did the planes compare when tourqe was changed?

Top speed didn't change much if I understood your last post correct but acceleration did?

Wilbus, answers below:

What was SDOE Mister Fork and what did you work on there?
SDOE was Fighter Squadron: Screaming Demons Over Europe, and came out 1999 . Made by ummm... I forget who, but it was/is an amazing game. Still a large following at http://www.openplanesim.com. I did a lot of work on LuftWaffe aircraft (FW 190A-4, FW 190D-9), and A6M2, sound improvments, and also put together a compilation of all the add-ons available on CD for about a year.

How did the planes compare when tourqe was changed?
The single impact of torque was acceleration. Climb rate and top speed were not affected a whole lot. Your maximum climb rate was achieved quicker, but accleration was the biggest piece - how fast your aircraft could chew through the air to her top speed. The Dora was a beast. From 200mph at 7500ft, you could hit top speed of 400mph in around 2 minutes. Down low turning and burning energy, got into trouble? Hit WEP and bug out - watching your opponents slip away quickly. Torque is more noticable when your flying slower at a low RPM. Sort of like the difference between a high-end Honda Civic Si-R and a Ford Mustang GT. You got to rev the engine high on a Civic to get the torque/hp but on a Mustang, at low RPM's, she'll pull away quicker because the higher torque/hp at a lower rpm.

Let's consider weight to HP ratio (the lower the better). The FW190D-9's ratio is 4.41, and the P-51D is 7.3 (a 35% difference). In theory, the Dora should be able to outrun the P51-D like it's no ones business. But my accleration data is telling another tale - the Dora is only 22% faster. Other considerations include aeroframe aerodynamics (drag) may impact that design but the Dora weighs less than a P-51D, and has a 35% higher horsepower engine. Still, FW 190D-9 is not accelerating to my expecations, neither is the Mustang considering her sleek design.

Top speed didn't change much if I understood your last post correct but acceleration did? You are absolutely correct. Larger torque meant the engine had more grunt. I'll check to see what the torque settings are for both and compare that against my acceleration data.