Author Topic: Maybe the 190s arent wrong....or how to be really unpopular in 1 step (Read 13125 times)

Crumpp · « **Reply #315 on:** February 06, 2006, 05:54:14 PM »

Quote

It's output is known and far above 1430ps (turbo) at 5600m.

But it's drag is totally different Gripen.

All the best,

Crumpp

gripen · « **Reply #316 on:** February 06, 2006, 05:58:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp
But it's drag is totally different Gripen.

Why it should be totally different. The A-5 airframe was one of the cleanest Fw 190s. Infact installation of the turbo probably causes draggier airframe.

gripen

Crumpp · « **Reply #317 on:** February 06, 2006, 06:05:52 PM »

Quote

Why it should be totally different.

This is why you constantly come to erroneous conclusions.

Which planes are we comparing? FW-190A5 to V34 or V34 to V5k?

All the best,

Crumpp

gripen · « **Reply #318 on:** February 06, 2006, 06:12:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp

Which planes are we comparing? FW-190A5 to V34 or V34 to V5k?

The V34 was an A-5 airframe and I'm comparing it to the larger version (V5g) with the BMW 801J in the datasheet.

gripen

Crumpp · « **Reply #319 on:** February 06, 2006, 07:41:32 PM »

Quote

The V34 was an A-5 airframe and I'm comparing it to the larger version (V5g) with the BMW 801J in the datasheet.

In a nutshell,

V34 has much more drag than V5g. V34 has power production difficulties and in all likelyhood is not developing power like it should especially at altitude.

gripen · « **Reply #320 on:** February 06, 2006, 11:26:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp

V34 has much more drag than V5g. V34 has power production difficulties and in all likelyhood is not developing power like it should especially at altitude.

There is no way that the V34 had more drag than a V5g with turbocharged BMW 801J as specified in the spec sheet. The V34 was an unarmed clean prototype while the specified V5g with BMW 801J and the turbo required additional ducting.

Even if the engine of the V34 was not developing full specified power (100ps difference is claimed in the Fw ocumentation) it still had at least 300-400ps more equivalent shaft power over the BMW 801J powered V5g at 5600m.

Edit: Actually the engine of the V34 seem to had same or higher output at 5600m than specification because it's FTH at given setting (6000m with internal intake) was below claimed specification (7000m).

gripen

gripen · « **Reply #321 on:** February 07, 2006, 03:37:20 AM »

Below is a Fw chart showing the performance of the V34 (internal intake) compared to the calculations for the armed plane (internal and external intake).

gripen

Crumpp · « **Reply #322 on:** February 07, 2006, 03:48:01 AM »

FW-190V5g was a clean unarmed plane.

gripen · « **Reply #323 on:** February 07, 2006, 05:16:45 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp
FW-190V5g was a clean unarmed plane.

There is no practical difference in drag between the clean unarmed V5g and the clean unarmed A-5 (as the V34); the A-5 has the fuselage extension and small bulges for the cannons (might had been removed from the V34) which can't have large effect, otherwise the airframes were almost identical.

But I'm comparing the V34 to the V5g type airframe with turbo charged BMW801J as given in the specsheet, which should have additional ducting for the turbo (as an example see Ju 388s with the turbo charged BMW 801s).

gripen

Crumpp · « **Reply #324 on:** February 07, 2006, 06:58:49 PM »

Quote

There is no practical difference in drag between the clean unarmed V5g and the clean unarmed A-5 (as the V34); the A-5 has the fuselage extension and small bulges for the cannons (might had been removed from the V34) which can't have large effect, otherwise the airframes were almost identical.

There is a huge difference in drag between the types.

I sent Pyro some documentation highlighting the differences in performance for various setups a while back. All FW-190's are not created equal.

All the best,

Crumpp

gripen · « **Reply #325 on:** February 08, 2006, 03:56:31 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp
There is a huge difference in drag between the types.

It's up to you prove that that a V5g airframe as specified in the spec sheet (turbo requiring additional ducting) would have a lower drag than a clean unarmed A-5 airframe.

gripen

Crumpp · « **Reply #326 on:** February 08, 2006, 07:04:45 AM »

Quote

It's up to you prove that that a V5g airframe as specified in the spec sheet (turbo requiring additional ducting) would have a lower drag than a clean unarmed A-5 airframe.

What an arrogant statement.

So we have to prove that Kurt Tank design team was wrong and you are right??

That's laughable.

You can easily check the Rechlin flight data I posted in the other thread. An armed production variant FW-190A5 could 680kph.

All the best,

Crumpp

gripen · « **Reply #327 on:** February 08, 2006, 08:12:30 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp
What an arrogant statement.

So we have to prove that Kurt Tank design team was wrong and you are right??

That's laughable.

Facts are your wrong and your just trolling for documents.

Well, the facts are that a clean unarmed A-5 airframe (Fw 190 V34) weighing 3575kg with around 1900ps shaft equivalent output did in flight test about 680km/h (TAS) at 5600m while the spec sheet for the V5g airframe (with additional ducting for turbo) weighing 3400kg with 1430ps output claims calculated speed 700km/h at 5600m.

Anyone can draw his/her own conclusions.

gripen

Crumpp · « **Reply #328 on:** February 08, 2006, 08:29:02 AM »

Quote

Well, the facts are that a clean unarmed A-5 airframe (Fw 190 V34) weighing 3575kg with around 1900ps shaft equivalent output did in flight test about 680km/h (TAS) at 5600m

You have underestimated the FW-190V5 drag and overestimated the BMW801TH output I imagine Gripen. You can take my suggestion to relooking at it or not.

You have been wrong in every assumption you have made about Focke Wulf Performance in the past because you jump to conclusions without understanding the aircraft. Your doing the same thing again.

I noticed you got real quite after posting your sweeping claims about Focke Wulfs not being able to reach stated performance at 1.42ata in the other thread.

You need me to recalculate those FW-190/Spitfire comparisions with the new data?

All the best,

Crumpp

gripen · « **Reply #329 on:** February 08, 2006, 08:44:18 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp
The FW-190V5k has less drag and comparible power output Gripen. You can believe me or not.

I have not claimed anything about the V5k.

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp

You have underestimated the FW-190V5 drag and overestimated the BMW801TH output I imagine Gripen. You can take my suggestion to relooking at it or not.

It's up to you to prove your claims, even a very conservative shaft equivalent output estimate gives 300-400ps advantage for the V34.

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp

You have been wrong in every assumption you have made about Focke Wulf Performance in the past because you jump to conclusions without understanding the aircraft. Your doing the same thing again.

Well, anyone can read these threads and draw his/her own conclusions.

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp

I noticed you got real quite after posting your sweeping claims about Focke Wulfs not being able to reach stated performance in the other thread.

All I see there is that someone picks the highest value (instead average) from the chart containing several values and tries to correct that with highest position error correction he can find.

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp

You need me to recalculate those FW-190/Spitfire comparisions with the new data?

No thanks, I can honestly say than I don't need any kind of calculations because I have real world data in hand.

gripen