« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 ... 20   Go Down

Author Topic: Myth or fact > F8F  (Read 16213 times)

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Myth or fact > F8F
« Reply #135 on: December 08, 2005, 12:31:48 AM »
Indeed.... Ratio of how wide the gear is to total wingspan?? Say it with me now... "Wtf?!"
Logged

Offline Knegel

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 620
Myth or fact > F8F
« Reply #136 on: December 08, 2005, 02:05:28 AM »
Hi,

shouldnt the Gear width get shown in relation to the planes hight and weight??

The wingspan isnt related to the groundbehaviour, but the weight and the middle hight of this weight is.

So a better indicator probably would be 'gear width / spinner hight from ground x planeweight weight'. (the spinner height cause its the middle of the engine and the engine normaly is the highest and most heavy point of the plane).

This is a more valid indicator for the stability on the ground and afaik only with the spot on the stability on ground it make sence to talk about the wideness of a undercarriage.

Regarding the 'copy' theory i think like most, the F8F got influenced by the 190, probably it was a 'bit' more influence than usual, but a copy is something different(imho).

It absolutly dont make sence to compare the resulting performence to show the relationship, at least not the Vmax and climb, cause this parformences are to much enginerelated. The roll ratio maybe would be a different, but even here we have other airframes that show fast rolls too.

If it was a copy or not depents to the personel meaning of the word 'Copy'.

Since this isnt a language related forum, this discussion turned to be a bit strange.  

Greetings, Knegel
Logged

Offline justin_g

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 260
Myth or fact > F8F
« Reply #137 on: December 08, 2005, 03:52:19 AM »
If you want to see copying of Fw 190, look at Hawker: Tempest Mk II(engine mount and cowling) and Fury/Sea Fury(designed to fit Air Ministry Specification F.6/42, created after captured Fw 190A-3 was evaluated), also Kawasaki examined Fw 190 engine installation(they actually had one "on hand") to modify the Ki-61, creating the Ki-100.

PS: Re: Knegels sig - A New Zealander by the name of Richard Pearse flew an aircraft with tricycle gear and ailerons a distance of about 350 yards on March 31 1902. On May 11 1903 he flew about 1000 yards, making several turns and following a river until his engine overheated and forced him to land.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2005, 04:14:02 AM by justin_g »
Logged

Offline Neil Stirling1

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 105
Myth or fact > F8F
« Reply #138 on: December 08, 2005, 04:15:44 AM »
Hi Crump,

This is the last time I ever screw with someones homemade chart. Using your scale, each tick mark is 5mph. Anything less than that is extrapolated, for example 417mph is shown in the solid read line by spliting the difference between 415 and 420.

Use a steel rule and a calculator.

I believe your chart addition shows V34 Wrk No.410230 is that an Fw 190 A-6 work number?


Neil.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2005, 04:27:21 AM by Neil Stirling1 »
Logged

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Myth or fact > F8F
« Reply #139 on: December 08, 2005, 05:58:55 AM »
I've heard that actually the 190 was a pig on the runway. Or to put it otherwise, - worse than a 109. From looking I wouldn't think so though.
Any comments?
Logged
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6865
Myth or fact > F8F
« Reply #140 on: December 08, 2005, 06:04:05 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp
I can't find anything showing a solid main wingspar.  Plenty of references to the cockpit design reenforcing the wing.  Completely different though from a solid main wingspar.

All the best,

Crumpp


Hamp's full cantilever wing presents several unorthodox features, outstanding of which is the splice on each side between ribs 10 and 11. (There are 24 ribs from fuselage side to the tip.) Since no design or production advantages are gained, use of the splices may be necessary either to limited length of extrusions available, or to limited milling bed lengths. With these splices, both front and rear spars are continuous from tip to tip, like those on the Focke-Wulf 190 (analyzed in AVIATION for October, 1944) so that if either side is damaged, the entire wing-together with integral fore fuselage section-must be replaced.

http://rwebs.net/avhistory/history/Zeke32.htm
Logged

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Myth or fact > F8F
« Reply #141 on: December 08, 2005, 06:04:56 AM »
Quote
I believe your chart addition shows V34 Wrk No.410230 is that an Fw 190 A-6 work number?


Yes.  Many FW-190A9's were converted from older airframes.  All new production of the Anton fuselage was modified in July '44 to accept the BMW801S, H, and U motors.

The NASM FW-190F9 started out as an FW-190A7.

Do you want more data from other FW-190A9's?

Quote
Use a steel rule and a calculator.


The lines are good and the marks correct.  I will not trade drawings of a homemade chart back and forth on the BBS.

All the best,

Crumpp
« Last Edit: December 08, 2005, 06:08:29 AM by Crumpp »
Logged

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
Myth or fact > F8F
« Reply #142 on: December 08, 2005, 06:19:12 AM »
Why is it so hard to believe that the FW190 influenced some of the design of the Bearcat?  



ack-ack
Logged
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Myth or fact > F8F
« Reply #143 on: December 08, 2005, 06:26:35 AM »
Quote
Indeed.... Ratio of how wide the gear is to total wingspan?? Say it with me now... "Wtf?!"


Quote
I hate to be a nattering nabob of negativity, but this thread has taken a dangerously moronic turn


Yes it has taken a dangerous turn due to a couple of factors.  

First we have a few individuals posting about a subject they know absolutely nothing about without even to bother taking a few seconds to Google it.  This is not so bad as we are all learning.

Secondly these posters want to be insulting.  Now this is a bad thing.

Pitch and Roll angles are directly related to landing gear stabilty.  The comparision ratio was never intended to be an exact reference.  It was just a quick way to paint a much clearer picture of landing gear design than simply taking the track measurement.

Intelligent discussion is appreciated and welcomed.  Snide comments born of ignorance are not.
 

All the best,

Crumpp
Logged

Offline Furball

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15781
Myth or fact > F8F
« Reply #144 on: December 08, 2005, 06:36:23 AM »
feh.

doesn't matter anyway.  everyone knows the best aircraft to be inspired by the 190 were the Fury/Sea Fury/Tempest II.



thank you mr. tank.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2005, 06:39:14 AM by Furball »
Logged
I am not ashamed to confess that I am ignorant of what I do not know.
-Cicero

-- The Blue Knights --

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Myth or fact > F8F
« Reply #145 on: December 08, 2005, 06:54:58 AM »
Quote
With these splices, both front and rear spars are continuous from tip to tip, like those on the Focke-Wulf 190


Is it solid?  Reads to me like "with these splices" meaning that with the spliced sections it is one continous spar.

All the best,

Crumpp
« Last Edit: December 08, 2005, 07:05:37 AM by Crumpp »
Logged

Offline Crumpp

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3671
Myth or fact > F8F
« Reply #146 on: December 08, 2005, 06:57:32 AM »
Quote
doesn't matter anyway. everyone knows the best aircraft to be inspired by the 190 were the Fury/Sea Fury/Tempest II.


The Fury is the ultimate prop fighter IMHO.  It should be called the "Spit-Wulf" or the "Focke-Fire"!

:lol

All the best,

Crumpp
Logged

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
Myth or fact > F8F
« Reply #147 on: December 08, 2005, 07:02:15 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp
Name some WWII fighters then that had solid main wingspars.  The reason it was not done was the difficulty in repairing damaged aircraft.  Not something generally desired in a Military aircraft and a departure for Tank from one of the design concepts of the Focke Wulf 190.

All the best,

Crumpp


All Yakovlev fighters !


If I understand correctly your affirmation about spar I can name at least one aircraft builder who used such a design in the 30's : Dewoitine.
Logged

Offline Furball

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15781
Myth or fact > F8F
« Reply #148 on: December 08, 2005, 07:25:33 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Crumpp
The Fury is the ultimate prop fighter IMHO.  It should be called the "Spit-Wulf" or the "Focke-Fire"!


I know Kurt Tank is a legendary designer, but what i do find incredible is, the lack of credit given to Sir Sidney Camm as an aircraft designer.

He went from designing Hawker Harts (30's biplanes) to having an input on the Panavia Tornado..

http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/camm.html
« Last Edit: December 08, 2005, 07:28:28 AM by Furball »
Logged
I am not ashamed to confess that I am ignorant of what I do not know.
-Cicero

-- The Blue Knights --

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6865
Myth or fact > F8F
« Reply #149 on: December 08, 2005, 07:26:24 AM »
The wing still had to be replaced as a whole unit just as with the 190.

Only the main spar on the 190 was full length. The rear spar ended at the fuselage.

The Mossie's wing had to be replaced as a whole unit.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 ... 20   Go Up
« previous next »