Myth or fact > F8F

[Crumpp]

the lack of credit given to Sir Sidney Camm as an aircraft designer.

I agree.  Hopefully history will not marginalize his achievements.

Only the main spar on the 190 was full length.

That is what we are discussing, right?

All the best,

Crumpp

[straffo]

Originally posted by Crumpp
I agree.  Hopefully history will not marginalize his achievements.



That is what we are discussing, right?

All the best,

Crumpp

I dunno , I still don't have understand fully what do you mean.
If you mean monospar , it was used 1st (if I'm not mistaken) in 1922 by Dewoitine.

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Crumpp
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only the main spar on the 190 was full length.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is what we are discussing, right?

Was just adding that both wing spars of Zeke were full length.

[justin_g]

Didn't the Bearcat have break-away wingtips?

[Neil Stirling1]

Hi Crump, the original data you posted is I think, company calculated, that is why I compared it with USN calculated data. V34 is a prototype


And this is why I did not include the prototype V34.



Neil.

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by straffo
All Yakovlev fighters !

But Yaks had wooden/composite spars, also the skin was wooden (except some varinats with metal skin). That would explain it, wooden units are more difficult to maintain strenght if they are multi-piece ones.

BTW, isn't the notes regarding aircraft performance specs relate to BRITISH aircraft only ? The US might have had different tolerances, and in any case, Neil doesn't have a problem showing prototype Spitfires trials or calculations in his comparison articles, why US, German, Russian prototypes/calculations are treated differently? Are these less reliable than British ones..? I mean, just because British production quality tolerance was different than in other countries, it can't be applied as a general rule without knowing the tolerances elsewhere.

[Crumpp]

Hi Crump, the original data you posted is I think, company calculated, that is why I compared it with USN calculated data. V34 is a prototype

Yes it is would you like other FW-190A9 data?

I have 7 or 8 different flight tested reports from different machines.  For example FW-190A9 flight test's run from 580kph to 595 kph at 1.65ata.

Focke Wulf calculations generally run about 1-3% below flight tested performance and are conservative.  Please post your proof these are calculations?  Every curve you have ever looked at, Neil from Focke Wulf you say the EXACT same claim.....calculations. I have too many full flight tested reports to buy into that one so I have to call BS.  Have you seen a full calculation report from Focke Wulf on the Antons?

I have several of those too and if you can recieve 500 pages and I felt like scanning that many I could send it to you.  The curves are easy to spot as drag is generally a conservative figure.

Those are not calculations for the FW190A curves but rather transcribed from flight tested data. While no flight was performed for that specific report, the curves of the FW-190A8 and FW-190A9 come from flight test's.

This report is a comparision of Focke Wulf fighter performance for the Ta-152 program.  Some of the Ta-152 curves are calculated for comparision.  Focke Wulf will generally conduct a flight test report.  That data will show up in other reports as well rather than clutter up a testing scheduale for routine performance data that has already been confirmed.  

What has probably been confusing you in your search for FW190A performance is the correct corrections.  Focke Wulf had a similar error problem as the Grumman did on the Bearcat.  One of V34's flight testing regimes was done to find fix the calibration error from earlier data.  

All the best,

Crumpp

[Kurfürst]

I dunno why this 'calculations' thing keeps popping out. And it always does in the same context, if something is desired to be dismissed, it's a good excuse, and rarely proved.

I think 'too good for my taste' is the real problem with these data, and it doesn't matter if it's flight test either, you can always find excuses : the Russian and Finnish 109G datasets are coming from flight tests curves were also 'dismissed as abberant', simply because the data they are good results. If the 'calculations' excuse doesn't work, dismiss them because 'they are abberant'. It's very simple to show this way whatever you want with a few tests, if you are showing only the ones that you like and dismiss all the rest. Curiously, wheter it's a calculation or not is never an issue with poor/low results.

There are no such reservations when it comes to british calculations either, see the calculated MkXIV specs, but you can't see a 3-paragraph whining how these figures were unlikely to be reached by serial production planes, and with how much reserve they must be treated.

So when I see someone talk about 'calculations', I take it as an excuse. Companies wouldn't do calculations if they would not spare them money with similiar results as prototypes and tests. Companies do not forward overly optimistic specs to Air Ministries , only to make their poorer performing planes not reaching those specs of their own turned down on delivery, and loose profit. The company is interested to be conservative in it's specifications, it can't have trouble from that.

[HoHun]

Hi Furball,

>everyone knows the best aircraft to be inspired by the 190 were the Fury/Sea Fury/Tempest II.

Hm, the Tempest line certainly consisted of first-class fighters, but I don't believe the Fw 190 influence was all that big there :-) The cowl design perhaps might be inspired by the Focke-Wulf, but the rest of the aircraft seems to be quite different, and apparently evolved in stages from the rather conservative Typhoon construction to the state-of-art design of the Sea Fury. Not that I'm a Hawker expert! :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[storch]

Originally posted by Furball
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

 yes sidney camm.  he also devised the camm shaft, a knobbed metallic instrument utilized by the queen's subjects for some form of erotic pleasure.  I believe he was knighted for that.  brilliant man.

[Crumpp]

Was just adding that both wing spars of Zeke were full length.

I think you need to reread the design analysis, Milo.  It does not say the spars were solid spars.

It says:

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)

http://rwebs.net/avhistory/history/Zeke32.htm#Wing

They were spliced unlike the FW-190.

All the best,

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

And so was the 190s Crumpp or have you forgotten what you wrote?.

The main wing spar on the FW-190 extends throughout 3/4's of the entire wing, not just the center section.

The main spar runs from outboard the gun bays thru the center. It is one solid piece and not bolted together.

It is more like 1/2 than 3/4. The joint being at the outer kink.

One can see where the spices are on the drawings of the Zeke. They are outboard of the outer cannons between ribs 10 and 11. LOL, at a simular place as on the 190, with respect to the guns. Rib 10 is at the inner end of the aileron.

If the wing was damaged, the whole wing had to be replaced, just like on the 190.


So nice of you to repost the link I gave.

[justin_g]

Originally posted by HoHun
Hm, the Tempest line certainly consisted of first-class fighters, but I don't believe the Fw 190 influence was all that big there :-) The cowl design perhaps might be inspired by the Focke-Wulf, but the rest of the aircraft seems to be quite different, and apparently evolved in stages from the rather conservative Typhoon construction to the state-of-art design of the Sea Fury. Not that I'm a Hawker expert! :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

The cowl design was most certainly "inspired" by the Fw 190. Quote from http://www.hawkertempest.se/markii.htm

The Tempest Mk II had been intended to be powered by the 2,250hp Sabre Mk IVA in-line liquid cooled engine. Sir Sydney Camm however felt that the radial engined Tempest Mk II would offer the ultimate in performance for the Typhoon/Tempest line and, as a result, considerable effort was made to improve the efficiency of the 2,210 hp Centaurus air cooled radial engine.
During the test flight of the engine in a Tornado prototype (HG641) the engine and oil temperatures remained constantly near the maximum allowable and there was a high amount of carbon monoxide gas in the cockpit.

The RAF technicians, studying a captured Fw 190, found that the Germans had solved the problem of cooling a closely cowled radial engine. They used an annular oil cooler which was built into the leading edge of the cowling and cooled by an engine driven fan. The engine exhaust system avoided the use of a collector ring and gases were discharged through individual exhaust pipes mounted in front of exit louvres on each side of the fuselage. Hawker engineers redesigned the Tempest II with a modified Centaurus IV, which incorporated much of the German technology.

If you look at photos of the Tempest II, it does look alot like a Fw 190A cowling was just bolted straight onto the nose!(also looks alot like the La-7 cowling, hmmm...)

[Crumpp]

Read what I wrote Milo:

The main spar runs from outboard the gun bays thru the center. It is one solid piece and not bolted together.

The FW-190 main wingspar is solid and does not have splices.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by justin_g
If you look at photos of the Tempest II, it does look alot like a Fw 190A cowling was just bolted straight onto the nose!(also looks alot like the La-7 cowling, hmmm...)

I am not certain, but I think Oleg Maddox said it too the Russian designers certainly looked at the FW 190's cowling when designing the radial Lavockhin nose. There's nothing wrong in that, the FW 190 had probably the finest cowling design at the time for mounting a radial engine neatly, why reinvent the wheel...? That doesn't say others were just 1:1 copies of it, but they took some of the good ideas.