Author Topic: What happened to LW? (Read 23210 times)

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #405 on:** December 06, 2005, 05:14:35 PM »

Speaking of comparisons, I don't know if anyone has posted thes before:

http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/Spitfire9v190.htm

http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/VBv190.htm

Mister Fork · « **Reply #406 on:** December 06, 2005, 06:06:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Speaking of comparisons, I don't know if anyone has posted thes before:

http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/Spitfire9v190.htm

http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/VBv190.htm

Again, an opinion. We're splitting hairs with comparisons like that. While I do believe the FW is a strong accelerator, as his opinions confirm, but what are we after here?

MANDO · « **Reply #407 on:** December 06, 2005, 06:08:18 PM »

DoKGonZo, these comparisons are about 190A4, and we dont have that variant in AH.

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #408 on:** December 06, 2005, 06:43:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by MANDO
DoKGonZo, these comparisons are about 190A4, and we dont have that variant in AH.

From what I recall the A4 and A5 were pretty similar:

"In April 1943, the production lines began turning out the next subvariant, the "FW-190A-5", which was almost indistinguishable from the A-4 but added a longer engine mounting to increase strength and reduce vibration. The new mounts stretched the aircraft by about 15 centimeters (six inches) and became production standard."

Krusty · « **Reply #409 on:** December 06, 2005, 06:45:56 PM »

The length added to the nose was for heat and exhaust reasons, if I recall. The center of gravity was shifted forward slightly and ETC rack further helped by moving up 6 inches as well.

EDIT: They were mechanically identical, perhaps. The tail and fuselage and etc were almost identical, but it flew differently. It had more weight and a different power rating on the engine.

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #410 on:** December 06, 2005, 07:11:19 PM »

OK ... all my books are still packed, so I'm only going by what I see on the web.

All I'm after is getting as much data in front of HT and Pyro as possible. When ToD launches it'll be pretty important for the 190A and 109G to be competetive.

1K3 · « **Reply #411 on:** December 06, 2005, 07:16:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DoKGonZo
OK ... all my books are still packed, so I'm only going by what I see on the web.

All I'm after is getting as much data in front of HT and Pyro as possible. When ToD launches it'll be pretty important for the 190A and 109G to be competetive.

Fow 1190s i think crumpp sent enough data for 190s, but its sitting in a queue line.

Crumpp · « **Reply #412 on:** December 06, 2005, 07:31:58 PM »

Quote

It had more weight and a different power rating on the engine.

The FW-190A5 had the same power as a post June 1942 FW-190A3. You will find some sources that claim the lengthening was done to improve cooling. That is most likely NOT the case. The problem the BMW801 was experiencing in the FW-190 installation at this time was too much cooling. The front bank of cylinders ran much cooler than they were supposed too creating a temperature imbalance. This was later corrected by the addition of an attenuating ring along with different fuel formulas for summer / winter.

The only changes to the motor between the FW-190A3 and the FW-190A5 are fuel changes improving knock limited performance, change to the Kommandogerät operation of the supercharger gearing, and changes to the mixture regulations for the new fuels.

Now C3 Einspritzung appears on the FW190G and F series along with the zustatzkraftstoffbehälter im rumpf. The tank causes instability when full and is not required for C3 Einspritzung installation. Some FW-190G's reach speeds of 585kph at sea level with empty racks.

That is running like a raped ape at tree top level for a 1943 ground attack platform.

All the best,

Crumpp

Charge · « **Reply #413 on:** December 07, 2005, 04:00:37 AM »

"Was the wall even down then?? Oh wait it had just fallen."

Eh? What friggin wall, and what does it have to do with Geust?

-C+

Crumpp · « **Reply #414 on:** December 07, 2005, 04:48:23 AM »

Quote

Eh? What friggin wall, and what does it have to do with Geust?

Your showing your age. The Berlin Wall.

All the best,

Crumpp

Angus · « **Reply #415 on:** December 07, 2005, 10:02:19 AM »

You're showing your youth. It fell in '91.
October if my memory does not betray me....

Kev367th · « **Reply #416 on:** December 07, 2005, 10:46:19 AM »

Berlin wall fell Nov 1989.
Few days later a few of us hired a minibus and drove to Berlin, still got the piece of the wall I "pick-axed" off at home.

Krusty · « **Reply #417 on:** December 07, 2005, 10:50:00 AM »

I vaguely recall it was 91... Dangit who's got a source here? lol

Crumpp · « **Reply #418 on:** December 07, 2005, 11:03:39 AM »

Quote

You're showing your youth. It fell in '91.

Actually it fell in 1989.

http://www.andreas.com/berlin.html

It took the Soviet Union until Dec. 1991 to collapse where it went into several years of turmoil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_constitutional_crisis_of_1993

I got my dates confused.

Getting senile.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kev367th · « **Reply #419 on:** December 07, 2005, 11:19:33 AM »

Thank Crummp I thought it was 89.

Was also lucky enough to go back July 1990 to see Roger Waters perform 'The Wall'.