Author Topic: 109 Flaps (Read 9586 times)

Crumpp · « **Reply #225 on:** February 05, 2006, 01:49:08 PM »

Quote

All I see that you use fully calculated Fw data on Fw 190A-5 and A-8

Gripen, prove it.

gripen · « **Reply #226 on:** February 05, 2006, 01:58:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp
Gripen, prove it.

Easy, basicly allways when the dated engine power chart is given in the Fw charts, it's a calculation based on that power chart.

Besides, It's actually up to you to prove that those are flight tested.

gripen

Crumpp · « **Reply #227 on:** February 05, 2006, 02:24:07 PM »

Quote

Easy, basicly allways when the dated engine power chart is given in the Fw charts, it's a calculation based on that power chart.

Refers to a program began in July 1942 on increased performance for the BMW801 series.

That particular chart is transcribed or at least exactly matches data from earlier flights and is found in TD 284 reprinted.

I can prove it's a flight test as I have the flight reports.

You however cannot as you do not have them and can only throw out speculation.

All the best,

Crumpp

gripen · « **Reply #228 on:** February 05, 2006, 02:32:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp

I can prove it's a flight test as I have the flight reports.

So please prove it. It's up to you to prove and not up to me to disprove.

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp

You however cannot as you do not have them and can only throw out speculation.

I have several hundred pages on microfilms from NASM on Fw 190 performance calculations and I know exactly how these are done.

gripen

Crumpp · « **Reply #229 on:** February 05, 2006, 03:03:20 PM »

Good if you have calculation reports then you know the calculated data is pessimistic not optimistic.

It should be easy to see these are flight test's and do not match up to calculations which are easy to spot from curve alone.

Unless of course your just completely intellectually dishonest as you've shown in the past.

gripen · « **Reply #230 on:** February 05, 2006, 03:32:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp
Good if you have calculation reports then you know the calculated data is pessimistic not optimistic.

Actually calculations seem to be quite optimistic; as an example (calculated) Cd0 for the A-5 seem to be around 10% lower than wind tunnel tested. Notable thing is that the calculations for the later models became some what more realistic; there is a good story behind that but it really is an another story.

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp

It should be easy to see these are flight test's and do not match up to calculations which are easy to spot from curve alone.

Actually these (Fw charts for A-5 and A-8) miss typical features of flight tested data; test dates, data points etc. and of course "Erfolg" claim.

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp

Unless of course your just completely intellectually dishonest as you've shown in the past.

Oh well, I let readers decide...

gripen

Crumpp · « **Reply #231 on:** February 05, 2006, 03:40:15 PM »

Simple fix, post them.

gripen · « **Reply #232 on:** February 05, 2006, 03:45:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp
Simple fix, post them.

What should I post, charts are here if some one is interested.

gripen

Crumpp · « **Reply #233 on:** February 05, 2006, 03:54:14 PM »

That is what I thought, Gripen. Your just running your mouth.

gripen · « **Reply #234 on:** February 05, 2006, 03:59:55 PM »

Or did you mean this:

There is hundreds of pages this kind of stuff, if some one is interested, contact NASM.

gripen

Crumpp · « **Reply #235 on:** February 05, 2006, 04:14:03 PM »

No I meant this:

For a normal finish FW-190A for the time period selected. Polishing only gets you a 5-8kph increase in the FW-190A series however.

This is not even optimistic performance. It is just average guaranteed performance.

So much for your calcs are optimistic theory Gripen.

I got tons of these flight test's, want some more?

gripen · « **Reply #236 on:** February 05, 2006, 04:29:08 PM »

Hm...

"Kompressibilität der Luft ist dabei noch nicht berücksichtigt!"

These are not corrected for compressibility.

And yes, post more please.

gripen

Crumpp · « **Reply #237 on:** February 05, 2006, 04:32:45 PM »

Quote

"Kompressibilität der Luft ist dabei noch nicht berücksichtigt!"

Wow, Work on your German. The numbers in parenthesis are indicated airspeeds. The Focke Wulf had a forward correction.

Kind of laughable at this point. Let me here your other theories!!

Quote

And yes, post more please.

You can find them scattered in Archives around the world. Good Luck and Happy Hunting.

All the best,

Crumpp

gripen · « **Reply #238 on:** February 05, 2006, 04:42:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp
Wow, Work on your German. The numbers in parenthesis are indicated airspeeds. The Focke Wulf had a forward correction.

Kind of laughable at this point. Let here your other theories!!

Well, actually numbers in the parenthesis are for 3850kg. Someone need to work on his German but it's not me.

BTW below is a large scale test in Rechlin.

gripen

Angus · « **Reply #239 on:** February 05, 2006, 05:54:14 PM »

Crumpp. Come on M8 please ignore the ivory tower.
I was not referring to the "laughable RAE tests" or the "laughable aerodynamic calculations of Gripen", nor for that sake "Guppy's recent laughable" input in this thread. Not the "laughable" solid/unsolid 190 spar, nor my own "laughable" snide remarks that present you with the challenge of unworthy and unnessecary reasearches nor the laughable "go look for yourselves".
In my mind I rather had your remarks on the BoB-envolving thread, where you were ready to defend utter boulderdash to the death. Then I recalled your scruffle with Widewing even with Guppy, and of course Milo, Gripen, Nashwan, even Izzy (well, ok) and me, the "not military person". Well, that's that, but my mind tends to work in the way that if you have a scruffle with everybody, you may be wrong.
And, I have seen you slip. Slipping is ok. But fighting the slip to the death is not.
And boy, going through your slips in the "BoB" thread left me with a thousand questions. Ok, I am not an angel - in many of my remarks I provoke a question. But that's because I am nor sure, or simply searching.
The questions you provoke are usually of another nature. You stick to a statement, and you'll defend it in a most arrogant manner.
I really mean this, and this has become more apparent in the last days. So please breath deeply and consider this already "unworthy" text will you ?!?!?!