What happened to LW?

[Larry]

Originally posted by storch
back to the original question and it's relevence to ingame play.  last night in the CT I was goaded by a player of more or less (more to the more than to the less) equal skill to a "duel".  Now, generally I do not accept such challenges, much preferring to spar on the text buffer than in a cartoon "duel".  This time however I rose to the challenge and stipulated that I would "choose the weapons".  The "challenger"  accepted and I selected that he fly any LW aircraft and I would fly the spit of my choosing.  the fight is on.  I'm cruising along at 3k heading to the appointed dueling grounds in Weehawken NJ to meet mr hamilton when I'm pounced!!!! frantically calling for my wife to remove my granddaughter from my lap (she came laughing her head off at my distress and relieved me of my burden thus lightening my spit of 26 extra pounds) in the interim we had done three turns me guessing where he is by sound alone, (I'm missing half of my right thumb so my views are under my left thumb on the X45 throttle, my left hand up to this moment suspending my delighted granddaughter, chicks dig fighter pilots) and I had yet to identify this "threat".  Behold!!! before me was a sleek and deadly MC205.  He was in a sharp starboard bank while slighly nose up (I estimate 45 degrees) come back on the throttle just a bit, apply a little right rudder while increasing my angle, pull the nose a little ahead, cross control with a little left rudder pressure, he disappears beneath my nose, lightly tap the "fire both" trigger.  the next thing I see on the text buffer is a accusation of being a HO'r from my non LW flying "challenger".  any idiot can win in an AH spit.  that's the reason they are here.  something has to keep the US$14.95 rolling in every month.  The spits do it for the new guy that needs to get kills while they climb the steep learning curve or low skill and self esteem crowd.  Once again, I say leave it as it is, my skills have improved and killing spittards is fun and all the more rewarding when you know you start every fight with the deck stacked against you.  Perhaps in another life I was a pacific salmon.  anyway HTC has a good though not "balanced" formula which allows us all to participate in as close as possible to the long ago but hopefully never to be forgotten event that was aerial combat in WWII.  having said all that, go and fix the damn 190 already.

LOL I wish I was in the CT last night (stupid dial up) who was the "challenger"??

[Mister Fork]

Questions guys on the RPM settings for WEP.  

1. The P51 for example, when you engage WEP, only  the manifold pressure increases which means the Mustang's engine torque shoots up.

2. In the Dora, when you engage WEP, RPM increases, which robs the engine of torque. Why not keep the RPM's at 3000!?!?!

Data:

P-51D with Packard V-1650 "Merlin" Engine
- Merlin produces 1490hp at 3000rpm
- 1,720hp at WEP RPM with 3000 rpm
- engine torque is 2609lb/ft for 100% throttle
- engine torque is 3012lb/ft at WEP (15% jump)

Dora with Junkers Jumo 213A Inline
- Jumo engine is 1720hp at 3000rpm
- 2240hp at WEP at 3250rpm
- engine torque is 3012lb/ft at 3000rpm
- engine torque is 3620lb/ft at 3250rpm (16% jump)


QUESTION: Why the jump in RPM's for the DORA?? It robs engine torque! If HTC leaves the RPM at 3000, it means that engine torque would jump to 3921 from the current 3620! It robs acceleration on the Dora.

[Mister Fork]

I will also point out that all LW fighters RPM increases for WEP. Shouldn't engine RPM should remain constant? why the jump? All it does is rob extra engine torque.

[Bruno]

Yup I am spamming the boards, if you missed the other naudet received from NASM actual flight test data for the D-9.

But for those that are interested in the FW190D documents from the NASM here are their designations:

1. FW/Fb/FW190-210001 (1-2)
Reel: 8069 Frame: 1153

2. FW/Fb/FW/210001/(3)
Reel: 2861 Frame: 989

3. FW/Fb/FW190-210002 (1,2,3)
Reel: 3996 Frame: 343

4. FW/FW190/Sch/16/3/45
Reel 2731 Frame: 797

Those four together will be exactly 50 pages, so if you order them, you won't exceed the limit per order.

[hitech]

Mister Fork: Your assesment of torque is incorect.

Torque by itself can not be translated into thrust , and thrust is what accelerates an airplane.

Thrust is generated both by rpm and torque, I.E. by total HP output.

HiTech

[Angus]

I think Fork means that the only noticable difference is increased torque.
But that's just me

[gripen]

Originally posted by Crumpp

The data I posted earlier is based on over 100 flight tests and represents the numbers given to the RLM for production Focke Wulf single engine performance.

I can't find such data on the A-5 or A-8 from this thread.

Originally posted by Crumpp

This is the kind of statement that smacks of aircraft performance ignorance. Where do you even begin to see enough information on the graph you took from Shockwaves site to draw any conclusion about average production performance of the FW-190A8? Facts are your are ignorant of this test's background or set up.

Something as simple as the intake set up can have huge effect on recorded performance.

Hm... it can be easily seen from the FTH that that the tested A-8 had a normal intake system.

Otherwise the data you posted seem to be from BMW 801F or TS powered models ie not for the A-5 or A-8. And where is the documentation about the configuration?

BTW is that flight test data from the tests of the V34?

gripen

[HoHun]

Hi Widewing,

>I seem to recall that field tests performed by TAIC in the war zone relied on aircraft instrumentation for speed data. However, my memory is vague on this. Do you have any info on test methodology?

To avoid more off-topic posts here, I have summarized the current state of my A6M analysis in the original A6M thread:

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=154320

I'd love to hear your opinion on the Sakae engines! :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Crumpp]

And where is the documentation about the configuration?

It was posted earlier.  Guess you missed it.

Otherwise the data you posted seem to be from BMW 801F or TS powered models ie not for the A-5 or A-8.

It is from an BMW801E series aircraft.  No claims about the FW-190A8, FW- 190A5 or any FW-190 performance are made in my post.  

Facts are Focke Wulf average performance numbers are flight tested and easily achieved for a normal finish fighter.  The performance estimates are conservative as well.  I could post flight-tested data of FW-190A's hitting 595kph on the deck.  It would not be representative of anything but the extreme upper end of Focke Wulf guaranteed performance numbers just as your shows the lower end of the scale.  In other words, cherry picking data.

Focke Wulf guarantee performance range for in-flight figures:

http://img19.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc43&image=cd7_Focke_Wulf_tolerences.jpg

That snippet was simply to show what a flight test report has from Focke Wulf and the variation in performance.  The set-up portion of the aircraft is multiple pages in length and extremely detailed.

Hm... it can be easily seen from the FTH that that the tested A-8 had a normal intake system.

You will have to point out where it says that.  Lufterrad and supercharger gearing change FTH as well.  The FTH on that report is actually low.

Other than FTH due to supercharger gearing changes there is no difference in power production the BMW801 series.  At the same manifold pressure the motors produce the same amount of power.  In fact the BMW801D2 received the pistons of the E series during its lifecycle.

And where is the documentation about the configuration?

That is all the documentation you’re going to get from me, Gripen.  

All the best,

Crumpp

[Crumpp]

That is not a test schedule but a flight log. No indication of how many a/c either.

It is a log of test flights, Milo.

All the best,

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Crumpp
It is a log of test flights, Milo.

All the best,

Crumpp

Of coarse it is test flights since the operative word you used was 'test' in your original statement. Glad you know the difference between a test schedule and a (test) flight log, now.

[gripen]

Originally posted by Crumpp
It was posted earlier.  Guess you missed it.

...

That is all the documentation you’re going to get from me, Gripen.

Hm... I can't find such documentation from this thread.
 

Originally posted by Crumpp

No claims about the FW-190A8, FW- 190A5 or any FW-190 performance are made in my post.  

Your post 11-29-2005 01:27 PM:

"The data I posted earlier is based on over 100 flight tests and represents the numbers given to the RLM for production Focke Wulf single engine performance."

So where it is if it's posted here?

Originally posted by Crumpp

Focke Wulf guarantee performance range for in-flight figures:

http://img19.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc43&image=cd7_Focke_Wulf_tolerences.jpg

That seem to be from Fw 190Aa-3 spec sheet (for Turkey) and the speeds claimed appear to be without compressibility correction.

Originally posted by Crumpp

You will have to point out where it says that.  Lufterrad and supercharger gearing change FTH as well.  The FTH on that report is actually low.

I'm merely linking the data from Shockwave productions site, if you have questions, you should ask them.

Anyway, it's the only flight tested data on the A-8 posted to this thread so far.

gripen

[Crumpp]

That seem to be from Fw 190Aa-3 spec sheet (for Turkey) and the speeds claimed appear to be without compressibility correction.

What does that have to with the factory guaranteed percentages for performance??

So where it is if it's posted here?

They have been posted.  Search the BBS.  Gripen, your dishonesty in the past, stubborn inability to admit when your wrong, and nasty disposition make it very unlikely I will ever share any documentation with you intentionally.   You’re like the little boy who cried, "WOLF". I really don't have much else to say on this to you.  

I'm merely linking the data from Shockwave productions site, if you have questions, you should ask them.

As I stated earlier, Gripen if you would read my post's:

It is within specifications for production FW-190A8 performance.  Lower end of the scale but within specifications.

Crumpp says:

I just checked it with the production trial data and it does have good agreement.

It is below the average for an FW-190A8 Jabo-einsatz at 1.42ata @ 2700U/min with ETC 501 rack mounted but within 3% guarantee performance for level speed.

You've posted this graph before.

Of coarse it is test flights since the operative word you used was 'test' in your original statement. Glad you know the difference between a test schedule and a (test) flight log, now.

Yes and to the reader it becomes a schedule of the test flights.  Your attempt to argue about this is just plain silly semantics.


All the best,

Crumpp

[Charge]

Crumpp, you should make an ignore list.

-C+

[moot]

Before that he should make that ultimate 190 thread.