Maybe the 190s arent wrong....or how to be really unpopular in 1 step

[Crumpp]

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.

The Focke Wulf specification sheet including the flight tested Rechlin figures are the guarantee performance figures.  All  speeds should fall within Focke Wulf, GmbH guaranteed percentages for performance of this chart until a new specification sheet is issued updating and replacing it .

I picked sea level and used a known FW-190A5 correction curve as an estimate.  It was simple estimation to show the speeds gave good agreement and were well within the realm of guaranteed percentages for performance.

Somewhat conservative numbers as our flight test was only one aircraft and a small number of flights.  The results give great agreement with Focke Wulf reported performance and Rechlin tested results coming within 1%.  While the numbers might change that agreement stays steady within the 3%.

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

Sure.  That's what makes you blatenly dishonest.  

For example, you posted your claims of FW-190 performance with the C3-Einspritzung report in hand.  That chart I posted is from that report.  The one labeled in huge letters indicated airspeeds.

Either your a liar and do not have the whole report as you claim making a mistake of fact with incomplete information.

Or your a liar who is intentionally attempting to misrepresent FW-190 performance as conspiracy theory of unachievable numbers perpetuated by Focke Wulf on the RLM.  And doing so without all the facts in your possession.

All for what Gripen?  An advantage in game shape?  Or are you just trying to provoke me and fishing for documents?

All the best,

Crumpp

[Waffle]

[Crumpp]

Your refering to the BMW801C0 as listed in the specifications of that report.  Yes it was unreliable.

 

And has absolutely no bearing on the BMW801D2.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Waffle]

5th Paragraph.....of the text in my post...read it aloud....slowly

Does ""interim solution" mean anything?


BTW - they were a5s with 801ds at the testing station. Wasn't a flight test facility - weapons testiing.

[Crumpp]

BTW - they were a5s with 801ds at the testing station. Wasn't a flight test facility - weapons testiing.

Covered that one Waffle.

He is certainly entitled to his opinion. It does differ from many of the Focke Wulf pilots whom I correspond with and the findings for Rechlin, BMW, Wright Aero Engine Company, and the RAE. In comparison to other radials the BMW801 properly set up does not vibrate excessively. The motor exhibits normal range of design frequency.

You keep bringing up early developmental problems to prove the engine was unreliable it's whole lifespan.

Do those standards apply to the R-2800 series?  Look up its design history.  Durng it's teething period the motor was just as unreliable.  However like all new motors the kinks were worked out.
 

http://www.enginehistory.org/NoShortDays/Introduction.pdf

If the BMW801 series early developmental problems had occurred in 1937 before the war, they would have been nothing but an obscure footnote in history as well.

The BMW801D2 by comparision to the C series only required operational checks every 200 hours and depot level maintenance at 2000 hours of operation.

Just as the RAE bench test showed much of the 801D2's vibration was caused by the knock limited performance of the fuel used.
 

The plugs the RAE used are German plugs authorized for use in the BMW801.   One of two that the early BMW801D2's used.

They are one of many different types the BMW801 was authorized to use.  Some are only for specific motor installations or set ups.

http://w4.siemens.de/archiv/en/geschichte/index.html

Looking at the Beanstandungen's it is obvious that early on in the BMW801D2 lifecycle some motors did exhibit knock limited performance and were de-rated.  As knock will cause excessive vibration it only makes sense that some motors did vibrate excessively.  To characterize this as a trait of a properly set up motor or a design feature is just not factual.

All the best,

Crumpp

[gripen]

Originally posted by Crumpp
The Focke Wulf specification sheet including the flight tested Rechlin figures are the guarantee performance figures.

Nonsense, as an example A-5 chart is a plain calculation (assuming perfect surface condition) and so called Rechlin tests were not corrected for compressibility (at unknown conditions).

Originally posted by Crumpp

I picked sea level and used a known FW-190A5 correction curve as an estimate.  It was simple estimation to show the speeds gave good agreement and were well within the realm of guaranteed percentages for performance.

You ignored the rest of the sheet showing lower performance and you certainly have other correction curves (the V34 is an A-5 airframe). Besides these values are not corrected for density.
 

Originally posted by Crumpp

Sure.  That's what makes you blatenly dishonest.  

So according to you using real world data makes me blatantly dishonest.

Originally posted by Crumpp

For example, you posted your claims of FW-190 performance with the C3-Einspritzung report in hand.  That chart I posted is from that report.  The one labeled in huge letters indicated airspeeds.

I wonder what you might mean. I have not claimed that those values are something else than indicated airspeeds; the speed marked as Va is indicated airspeed.

Originally posted by Crumpp

Either your a liar and do not have the whole report as you claim making a mistake of fact with incomplete information.

I have not claimed to have an whole report but the article. And it's clear on these issues.

Originally posted by Crumpp

Or your a liar who is intentionally attempting to misrepresent FW-190 performance as conspiracy theory of unachievable numbers perpetuated by Focke Wulf on the RLM.  And doing so without all the facts in your possession.

Anyone can read above who cherry picks data here. Generally I'm interested about  average plane, not the best possible.

Originally posted by Crumpp

All for what Gripen?  An advantage in game shape?  Or are you just trying to provoke me and fishing for documents?

I don't know what you are talking about, I've got enough documentation on Fw 190 for my needs, of course good real world data is allways most welcome.

gripen

[Crumpp]

So according to you using real world data makes me blatantly dishonest.

You have calculation of V34 and parts of C3 endurance test.  Hardly a pool of real world data.

I have not claimed to have an whole report but the article. And it's clear on these issues.

So your making judgements off incomplete data.  figures.

I don't know what you are talking about, I've got enough documentation on Fw 190 for my needs, of course good real world data is allways most welcome.

Exactly, You’re fishing and trying to provoke because you do not have enough data for your agenda.

Generally I'm interested about average plane, not the best possible.

Which is exactly why your refuting Focke Wulf numbers presented to the RLM for guaranteed average performance with 3% for level speed.

Nonsense, as an example A-5 chart is a plain calculation (assuming perfect surface condition) and so called Rechlin tests were not corrected for compressibility (at unknown conditions).

What is so called about the numbers now?   The testing facility whose job it is to independently verify and measure Luftwaffe aircraft performance is not acceptable?  

Proof in point that there is no data for the Focke Wulf your willing to accept unless it fits your agenda.  Even guaranteed average performance.

It’s fine with me if you want to consider the speeds in the brackets IAS.  They will simply be faster.  The speeds will remain within Focke Wulf guaranteed percentages by one percent only move to the optimistic side of the average.

I think you would be wrong in this particular aircraft’s case however.

Nonsense

The only nonsense is your agenda.

All the best,

Crumpp

[gripen]

Originally posted by Crumpp
You have calculation of V34 and parts of C3 endurance test.  Hardly a pool of real world data.

Hm... The V34 data is flight tested.

Originally posted by Crumpp

Which is exactly why your refuting Focke Wulf numbers presented to the RLM for guaranteed average performance with 3% for level speed.

Actuallly nothing proves that those calculations are something quaranteed. Below is something (Aa-3 for Turkey, a bit cleaner airframe than a normal A-3) which actually is quaranteed and fits to data pretty well except the speed seem to be without compressibility correction:

Originally posted by Crumpp

What is so called about the numbers now?

The data should be documented with corrections.

Originally posted by Crumpp

It’s fine with me if you want to consider the speeds in the brackets IAS.  They will simply be faster.

That depends on conditions, near sea level TAS might be even slower at some conditions.

Originally posted by Crumpp

The only nonsense is your agenda.

Well, anyone can draw his/her own conclusions.

gripen

[Crumpp]

Actuallly nothing proves that those calculations are something quaranteed. Below is something (Aa-3 for Turkey, a bit cleaner airframe than a normal A-3) which actually is quaranteed and fits to data pretty well except the speed seem to be without compressibility correction:

LOL get some more data Gripen.  Common piece of Internet documentation that has been floating around for years. Sure it was for that airplane.  And all the FW-190 series as well.  You will find it is repeated on several documents.  Average performance specifications will always be guarenteed over a percentage range and not as an absolute.

Pure smoke though for this particular argument and does not change the outcome.

Hm... The V34 data is flight tested.

Sure part of it is however your using the calculations for the mounting of different weapons effect on speed as the basis for your argument.  

That depends on conditions, near sea level TAS might be even slower at some conditions.

We both know that is not the case with the Focke Wulf.  So generalizations about the behavior of other aircraft are irrelevant.

More Smoke and mirrors.  We are not discussing aircraft in general, we are discussing a specific aircraft.

Well, anyone can draw his/her own conclusions.

Sure can.  Especially since even using your conditions does not lead to your conclusions.

Proof in point that there is no data for the Focke Wulf your willing to accept unless it fits your agenda. Even guaranteed average performance.

It’s fine with me if you want to consider the speeds in the brackets IAS. They will simply be faster. The speeds will remain within Focke Wulf guaranteed percentages by one percent only move to the optimistic side of the average.

I think you would be wrong in this particular aircraft’s case however.

Obviously you are running out of facts again.  

All the best,

Crumpp

[gripen]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Average performance specifications will always be guarenteed over a percentage range and not as an absolute.

None of those calculation sheet contains a mention about quaranteed performance.

Originally posted by Crumpp
Pure smoke though for this particular argument and does not change the outcome.

Hm... It's up to you to prove that something is quaranteed.

 

Originally posted by Crumpp

Sure part of it is however your using the calculations for the mounting of different weapons effect on speed as the basis for your argument.  

Nonsense. I used directly flight tested V34 data to compare with claimed performance for the V5g airframe with  BMW 801J (turbo charged).

Originally posted by Crumpp

We both know that is not the case with the Focke Wulf.  So generalizations about the behavior of other aircraft are irrelevant.

Actually you don't know; it all depends on conditions and corrections even in the case of the Fw 190.

Originally posted by Crumpp

Sure can.  Especially since even using your conditions does not lead to your conclusions.

Again, anyone can draw his/her own conclusions

Originally posted by Crumpp

Obviously you are running out of facts again.  
 

Actually you have not posted anything which support that the V5g with BMW 801J would have reached claimed performance. But I have posted plenty of evidence that it's very unlikely.

gripen

[Crumpp]

None of those calculation sheet contains a mention about quaranteed performance.

Where do you think it comes from?

Hm... It's up to you to prove that something is quaranteed.

Yeah it's up to me to prove everything unless it supports your agenda.  Focke Wulf, Rechlin, even the allied reports are not good enough unless they support your version.  Science and history be damned huh?

it all depends on conditions and corrections even in the case of the Fw 190.

It may vary a few mph Gripen but it will not vary that much.  It certainly will remain a forward correction.

FW-190A3 Captured by the RAE WNr 313:
 
 
FW190G3 EB-104:



 

Nonsense. I used directly flight tested V34 data to compare with claimed performance for the V5g airframe with BMW 801J (turbo charged).

No Gripen.  Your using the calculations for the mounting of different weapons effect on speed as the basis for your argument on the corrections without understanding the design changes between the Anton series.

The very fact you know exactly what I was talking about and will change the argument shows your lack of honesty.

Do I need to link the post?

But I have posted plenty of evidence that it's very unlikely.

 

Where Gripen?  Your comparison of a new type protoype with a completely different motor than what it was flown with to another new type prototype??

Where is the credibility in that?

All the best,

Crumpp

[gripen]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Where do you think it comes from?

I wonder what you might mean; those are simply calculations based on perfect surface condition. There is no anykind claim about quaranteed performance range.
 

Originally posted by Crumpp

Yeah it's up to me to prove everything unless it supports your agenda.  Focke Wulf, Rechlin, even the allied reports are not good enough unless they support your version.  Science and history be damned huh?

You should know that if you claim an argument, you should be able to prove it. There is quite good agreement between the Aa-3 data, Rechlin tests at low altitude and allied tests.

Originally posted by Crumpp

It may vary a few mph Gripen but it will not vary that much.  It certainly will remain a forward correction.

There is three corrections needed to calculate TAS from IAS:

1. Position error correction.
2. Density correction.
3. Compressibility correction.

Your argument is based just on first one, just calculate TAS varying temperature and density and you can easily find 10mph higher TAS than CAS at sea level.

Besides, the RAE correction curve is further evidence that you apparently purposedly posted highest position error curve you could find. There is probably even lower out there some where.

Originally posted by Crumpp

No Gripen.  Your using the calculations for the mounting of different weapons effect on speed as the basis for your argument on the corrections without understanding the design changes between the Anton series.

Nonsense. The V34 data is flight tests of the unarmed and lightened A-5 airframe. It's well documented data with known corrections and known output.

Originally posted by Crumpp

Where Gripen?  

Above.

gripen

[Crumpp]

Gripen says:

Nonsense. The V34 data is flight tests of the unarmed and lightened A-5 airframe. It's well documented data with known corrections and known output.

Your lying again.  Your argument is based off calculations as.

Gripen says in other thread:

The speed marked as x) is TAS calculated from the data (like polar , engine chart etc.) and the speed marked as xx) is calculated TAS without compressibility correction. Might look like a bit backwards system but apparently they needed TAS without compressibility correction for example for specsheets or such things.

It is based off calculations.

There is quite good agreement between the Aa-3 data, Rechlin tests at low altitude and allied tests.

Sure there is for 801D powered aircraft.  FW-190Aa-3 is the export model and does not have a BMW801D2.

There is three corrections needed to calculate TAS from IAS:

1. Position error correction.
2. Density correction.
3. Compressibility correction.

Your argument is based just on first one, just calculate TAS varying temperature and density and you can easily find 10mph higher TAS than CAS at sea level.

NSS

Has nothing to do with the fact a correction was required to compare the new measuring system to the old measuring system.

The system comes with specific instructions for certain aircraft mounting it.

Besides, the RAE correction curve is further evidence that you apparently purposedly posted highest position error curve you could find. There is probably even lower out there some where.

The RAE chart is from an early FW-190A3.  The chart I used is at least the same airframe as the FW-190A5.  

Now it is perfectly OK to contradict the argument you presented:

Gripen says:

The location does not matter, there is allways variation even among similar installations.

Using either measurement does not alter the percentages and still gives good agreement.

So your argument is nonsensical and silly.

All the best,

Crumpp

[gripen]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Your lying again.  Your argument is based off calculations as.

The evidence is above believe or not, I don't care.

Originally posted by Crumpp

It is based off calculations.

Here you are trying mix an another chart to this discussion which I have posted to another thread (with the claim that the chart is a calculation).

Originally posted by Crumpp

Sure there is for 801D powered aircraft.  FW-190Aa-3 is the export model and does not have a BMW801D2.

Claimed output matches well with rammed output of the D2.

Originally posted by Crumpp

Has nothing to do with the fact a correction was required to compare the new measuring system to the old measuring system.

The old and new measuring systems have nothing to with this discussion.

Originally posted by Crumpp

The RAE chart is from an early FW-190A3.  The chart I used is at least the same airframe as the FW-190A5.  

There is 2mph difference, ie there is variation. Another plane would have shown yet another curve.

gripen

[Crumpp]

Here you are trying mix an another chart to this discussion which I have posted to another thread (with the claim that the chart is a calculation).

Cause we are talking about your claim on the corrections.  Your whole argument has been based off assumptions from this test.

Claimed output matches well with rammed output of the D2.

Yeah according to you   According to Focke Wulf it had a different motor and was an export version.  Not one single country, Gripen, sells their very best military hardware to another country.

Why do you think it has a completely different designation?  If it was just like an FW-190A3 it would have been designated an FW-190A3.  Instead it is the FW-190Aa-3.

Once again your lack of knowledge on the design has led you to an erroneous conclusion.

There is 2mph difference, ie there is variation. Another plane would have shown yet another curve.

There is not enough of a variation to change the general conclusion.  I have shown this variation in several threads as a point of fact on why these "my plane is faster than yours" comparisons are silly.

Facts are the general conclusion is the same.  The flight-tested performance in all examined cases of operational aircraft aligns with published Focke Wulf figures within guaranteed percentages.

Actually you have not posted anything which support that the V5g with BMW 801J would have reached claimed performance. But I have posted plenty of evidence that it's very unlikely.

Using the FW-190A5 Rechlin flight test results for a normal finish FW-190A5at an altitude of 6300M:

 
 
Ballpark estimate:

FW-190A5  = 680kph (TAS) or 422mph (TAS)

FW-190V5g = 700kph (TAS) or 435mph (TAS)

We have a difference of 20kph or 13mph (rounding error).

Horsepower development off the sheet is 1430PS assuming it is not rammed for the FW-190V5g.

Using an FW-190A5 engine power development graph we see 1600hp for the BMW801D2.

Loss of speed for the FW-190A5:

2 mph for weight

3 mph for cooling gills

conservatively 14mph for weapon installation

Speed increase for FW-190A5

2 mph

2 + 3 + 14 - 2 = 17mph or 27kph speed decrease for the FW-190A5.

A 3.8% difference in speed which is well within the 5% - 6% range for new type development prototypes.

Thrust analysis:

The FW-190A5 generates 1137lbs of thrust to attain 680kph while the FW-190V5g generates 986lbs of thrust to attain 700kph.

A difference of 151lbs.  

Calculating Cd (tot):

FW-190V5g Cd (tot) = .0177

FW-190A5 Cd (tot) = .024

A difference of .0063 due to design changes.

All the best,

Crumpp