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

[Crumpp]

is your idea of CLmax include the area of the wing or is it unitless?

Just to clarify,

These equations are 2D.  3D is even more accurate.

As you did not refer to these equations I thought you were asking my personal preference for data.

David Lednicer did a nice 3D analysis of the Spitfire, Mustang, and FW-190.  If you need a copy of it let me know.

Here is a good idea of the variation:

http://www.risoe.dk/rispubl/VEA/veapdf/ris-r-1376.pdf

So it adds some interesting insight 2D calcs cannot give.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Crumpp]

They should be very entertaining.

Let's here your explaination for the Spitfire Mk XIV and the VVS testing.  

Also could you run the following through your spreadsheet.

Taking a base weight and angle of bank.

Increase weight by 3.11% adding no power.

Now increase weight by 6.8% from the original weight (not added too the 3.11% increase) and add 22.75 % power to check the results.


On last set of problems for the spread sheet.

Increase the weight by 11.9% and increase the power by 24%

Could you post the relative results.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Crumpp]

Starting conditions:

Given a plane with a max turn of 2.3 g at 160 mph . (In the realm of a lot of war birds)

Would create a turn radius of 825 ft and a time around turn of 22.1 secs. I.E. Bank angle of 64.22.

No increase in weight, 30% increase in power.

Turn Radius 798 circle time rate 19.5 and a speed of 174. Bank Angle 68.59

They should be very entertaining.

Here is the first joke.  P & H specifies constant Speed to see the results of added thrust.

All the best,

Crumpp

[gripen]

Originally posted by Crumpp
I meant your calculations Gripen.  Not the answers.  You cannot retrace the steps without them posted.

Nonsense, anyone can follow the link and read your claims (and your errorneous calculation as well). Cl is a dimensionless factor it does not matter at all which unit system (metric, english or what ever) is used to calculate it.

Originally posted by Crumpp
These equations are 2D. 3D is even more accurate.

This is truly entertaining.

gripen

[Angus]

Oh Crumpp:
"It is what the allies got off a recovered crash of a Bomber version"

The thread opens with what? Quotes from several airframes, yes?

Anyway, HiTech gave numbers, and there is a formula, you're about to say you know better in a moment or what?

[Charge]

"The thread opens with what? Quotes from several airframes, yes?"

What do you mean? What quotes? I don't see them.

"Look at the second page with the red underlining. The stall instability was described as "extremely bad" in turns, and then separately the report says that even at high speed you can get "straight down spins" if "trimmed and pulled hard enough".

I'd take that to mean that trimmed right the stalls were a big problem, but even at the planes optimal speed you could still get the spins if you were heavy handed trimming or controlling."

Trimmed? Trimmed for turning or trimmed for straight flying? The Spitfire could enter an uncontrollable spin by simply a slight pull. Of course an aircraft with strong eleveator will enter a spin if "pulled hard enough".

What the heck is "fore and aft control" anyway?

To me it seems that that paragraph describes the characteristics of 190s wing pretty much as I see it too: It does stall in sudden heavy turns but should give ample warning if the turn is increased gradually. Isn't it strange that it is described as an abrupt stalled with no mention of blackouts in high speeds but in another paragraph the 190 pilot blacks out in it. How the hell he does that if the plane flips uncontrollably when pulled into a hard turn?

Also I would't draw any conclusions of the relative maneuvering performance of those aircraft in that document because the considerable differences in combat experience between the pilots. The other has 17 months of combat experience and the other has none. If the inexperienced pilot is able to beat the more experienced one then what does that tell about the a/cs?

Well, in the end you see what you wish to see in those documents...

-C+


PS.

"Thumbs up for HiTech.
Or HTC rather  "

"Anyway, HiTech gave numbers, and there is a formula, you're about to say you know better in a moment or what?"

Thumbs up for Angus, you'll surely get a cookie soon.

[justin_g]

Some ideas, gathered from the text Crumpp has posted.

1. Radius can be calculated in relation to speed and angle of bank. "From equation (4-62)" on Pg 203. For minimum radius; it can be seen that it would be desirable to have a combination of high angle of bank, and low airspeed.

However:

2. The stalling speed at any given angle of bank, which can be calculated using equation (4-59) on Pg 201, increases at a rate "inversely proportional to the square root of the cosine of the angle of bank". IOW, speed and bank are tied together - you can't freely choose any combination you want.

This equation allows you to calculate the minimum speed for any given angle of bank.

So simply by knowing the stalling speed of the aircraft, it would appear that we can calculate the radius of turns at CLmax for any angle of bank & the corresponding airspeed.

Example: Aircraft with stalling speed of 100mph at sea level.

Angle = speed, radius, 360º time, G
15º = 102mph, 2578ft, 1.8m, 1.04G
30º = 107mph, 1334ft, 53s, 1.15G
45º = 119mph, 944ft, 34s, 1.41G
60º = 141mph, 770ft, 23s, 2.00G
65º = 154mph, 736ft, 21s, 2.37G
70º = 171mph, 710ft, 18s, 2.92G
75º = 197mph, 691ft, 15s, 3.86G
80º = 240mph, 678ft, 12s, 5.76G
85º = 339mph, 670ft, 8.5s, 11.5G

Graphically, this is the left boundary of an Energy-Maneuverability diagram.

Now as you can see, if you had an aircraft that had enough power to sustain at best a bank angle of 60º, corresponding stalling speed 141mph and a radius of 770ft - to reduce radius by about 10% to 691ft would require an increase in bank angle of 15º - which requires a speed increase of about 40% - the increase in power necessary to acheive this would probably be in the region of 100% !!! For a 10% improvement in turn radius...

Now if you could reduce the stalling speed by just 5mph, a 60º bank would only require a speed of 134mph, and have a radius of 695ft...

[Angus]

Charge, I was refferring to Crumpp mentioning a single airframe, but the thread opens with documents of more. There seem to have been more 190's tested than we think.
See what you like from it, but is seems at least that the text in those old dock give ze LW crowd a wee of a chestburn.

[justin_g]

Basically, my point is:

Wingloading(more accurately liftloading, eg: high CLmax airfoil, flaps/slats etc) is the primary factor in determining turn RADIUS.

Powerloading(thrust:drag) is the primary factor in determining turn RATE.

[Crumpp]

This is truly entertaining.

Read the paper Gripen.  Or Read Lednicer's article.

Your implication that I don't understand the difference between a unitless CL and a finite span wing is what is entertaining.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Crumpp]

See what you like from it, but is seems at least that the text in those old dock give ze LW crowd a wee of a chestburn.

I really don't understand why it would Angus?

At low speed the FW-190 easily outturned the P47.  In dives the FW-190 outaccellerated the P47 by a wide margin.  In level accelleration, the FW-190 left the P47 behind for a good while.  

It pretty much is what you want to see.  I see some very combat useful traits for the FW190.

This is the P47 using water injection and the paddle blade prop too.  It's the best it gets for the P47.    The FW-190 still has not added in a major power increase nor recieved a more efficient propeller.

Of course not considering it is G series captured in Sicily they are testing and not a fighter variant.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Simaril]

Originally posted by Crumpp
.....
At low speed the FW-190 easily outturned the P47.  In dives the FW-190 outaccellerated the P47 by a wide margin.  In level accelleration, the FW-190 left the P47 behind for a good while.  

It pretty much is what you want to see.  I see some very combat useful traits for the FW190.

This is the P47 using water injection and the paddle blade prop too.  It's the best it gets for the P47.    The FW-190 still has not added in a major power increase nor recieved a more efficient propeller.

Of course not considering it is G series captured in Sicily they are testing and not a fighter variant.

All the best,

Crumpp

Crumpp,

I gotta say you're losing a little credibilty here. Please read the documents including all the words....

The Fw-190 gained 200 yards during its acceleration advantage, limited to "up to" 275mph. So, during its advantage it had minimal separation and (at least in AH) would remain in guns range during its entire advantage.

When speed did pick up (thats the point of acceleration!) the P-47 gained 2000yards rapidly. I wouldnt consider this balance a combat advantage, and only bias could make it seem so.

As to diving, the FW held its advantage only for 3000 feet altitude change. In AH, this is an adjustment, not a dive. After that, the p47 held great advantages in both dive speed and recovery angle -- either of which would likely mean a kill if the FW tried to get away by diving. ALso, not an advantage.




Charge,

High speed blackouts. Low speed turn advantage and stalling. Am I missing something? I dont see the contradiction.




All,

Just to throw another fish in the pirhanna pond, I found it interesting that the cockpit seemed cramped. Could we consider that HTC's modelling of the views for 190s might be a game equivalent of that limitation?

With Regards (and backing up rapidly to clear the combat zone),


Simaril

[Crumpp]

As to diving, the FW held its advantage only for 3000 feet altitude change.

I think your reading that backwards.  The P47 gained in the last 3000 feet.

The Dive was from 10,000 feet to 3000 feet.  At 3000 feet the P47 passed the FW-190.

I found it interesting that the cockpit seemed cramped. Could we consider that HTC's modelling of the views for 190s might be a game equivalent of that limitation?

I wouldn't say so.  We just mounted the armoured glass in Black 3.  HTC's cockpit does not account for refraction.  You cannot see the armoured glass frame from the inside from the sighting view.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Crumpp]

When speed did pick up (thats the point of acceleration!) the P-47 gained 2000yards rapidly. I wouldnt consider this balance a combat advantage, and only bias could make it seem so.

In a dogfight it sure is an advantage.  The FW-190 would want to force the low slow fight where the ability to turn and accellerate would make a decisive difference.

Of course these findings do not include a substantial power increase to the FW-190 nor the more efficient propellers.

[bozon]

Originally posted by Crumpp
is your idea of CLmax include the area of the wing or is it unitless?
It's 3D.

Sorry, bad translation to english on my part. I meant 'dimentionless'.

I completly do not under stand what 3D has to do with it. The reason I saked is that we appear to be speaking in different terms and do not understand each other. CL is normaly taken to be a pure number (no units, therefore the same in every units system and do not depend on the scale of the wing). For the lift it should be multiplied by the wing area which adds the scale. CLmax alone tell you nothing about the value of the lift produced and this is why I asked.

Bozon