Verm, I hate to do this but...

[Fishu]

 

Originally posted by Wisk-=VF-101=-:
Fishu, you chose only the first sentence, somehow you ommited the whole explanation of criteria of similarities analysis. But that'snot the point - you are mixing up what TsAGI folks say and what I say. If you lost your credibility to TsAGI research lab based on that sentence - well, that's pretty strong-headed.

so... you did say that what I quoted eh?

[Wisk-=VF-101=-]

If you guys are gonna show up at the conn - I'll show you this work. I can't imagine a dozen of world-class caliber scientists wasting time on 437 pages of work and producing crap - it's not their style.

I don't like on-line flamewars - so if you are gonna show up at the conn - let's meet face to face and settle the differences in RL.

[Wisk-=VF-101=-]

Yes I did say that about WB thikning that for WB crowd it would be "closer" so to speak. I am as much of a fan of military aviation (for the past 17 years or so) as you are and helped out with some publications myself and real life software prototypes for aviaonics.

I spent effort and money on getting the data from NII after I heard that they tested those ACs - that's what they have.
 
As CPU's speeds are still going up according to Moor's law the time will come when we'll be able to model the airflows on the shapes of ACs not only on Cray's - it will put to rest all the similar debates.

Heck, when somone else lands on the moon we'll even know if it was all a US conspiracy  

[flakbait]

Some info from a third party to this....uhh, discussion is it?


 

There were a small number of Fw 190D-0 and D-1 aircraft built for service evaluation and delivered during the spring and summer of 1943. For some odd reason, the designations Fw 190D-2 thru 8 were skipped, and the first production version of the "Dora" was the Fw 190D-9, which attained production status in the early summer of 1944. It was powered by a
Jumo 213A-1 engine rated at 1776 hp for takeoff and 1600 at 18,000 feet. However, with MW 50 (water/methanol) injection, it could give 2240 hp at sea level and 2000 hp at 11,150 feet. The boost could not be used longer than ten minutes at a time, but there was sufficient MW 50 fuel for a maximum of 40 minutes use. Armament was two 20-mm MG 151 cannon in the wing roots with 200 rpg and two 13-mm MG 131 machine guns with 475 rpg mounted in the upper fuselage deck. A 1102-pound bomb could be carried on an underwing rack. Maximum speed was 357 mph at sea level, 397 mph at 10,830 feet, 426 mph at 21,650 feet, and 397 mph at 32,800 feet. An altitude of 6560 feet could be reached
in 2.1 minutes, and 32,801 feet could be attained in 16.8 minutes. Range was 520 miles at 18,500 feet on internal fuel. Weights were 7694 lbs empty, 9840 lbs normal loaded, and 10,670 lbs maximum. The aircraft was well-armored, having a 14-mm plate for the pilot's head and shoulders, and an 8-mm plate for the seat back and surrounding area. The engine was protected by armor rings around the cowling.

I borrowed that from William Green's book Joe Baugher kindly reprinted on his site:
 http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/fw190d.html#RTFToC1


The 357mph figure I've seen in books, read on the web, and I've now seen it from the original documents. If this piece of data is propaganda, someone REALLY put their bellybutton in gear to fool the entire planet. I doubt that; a lot. Now drop the childish crap will you? We know the Dora weighed 9,480 lbs loaded, we know it was some 300 lbs lighter than the A8, we know it did 357mph on the deck, and we know it turned a smidge better than an A8. We also know that pilots wore stripped underwear complete with skid marks that were 6 months old and had to be removed with a chisel. In short; we're right you're wrong now can it!

Will our new Dora have MW 50? I don't give a rip.

Will our new Dora turn better than an A8? Yep.

Will our new Dora weigh less than a 190 A8? Yep.

Another thing I've noticed as being fact. Russian history hardly puts in a footnote where a US-built plane did well, yet the over-blow their own historical aircraft performance. They got pissed off when the US and Britain stopped convoys until winter after comvoy PQ-17 was sunk. They accused Britain and the US of holding out on them for supplies when the convoy went down. Then they never mentioned Lend Lease as being a major factor in why they kicked Germany's ass.

Another pointless argument ladies. Numbers; not tempers, not superstitions, not personal preference, and certianly not pilot's stories run the game. RAM posted original FW documents, which are taken as FACT until such time someone gets off their butt and builds a Dora to test.


Jeezes am I tired of this.

-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta 6's Flight School
Put the P-61B in Aces High
"With all due respect Chaplian, I don't think God wants to hear from me right now.
I'm gonna go out there and remove one of His creations from this universe.
And when I get back I'm gonna drink a bottle of Scotch like it was Chiggy von
Richthofen's blood and celebrate his death."
Col. McQueen, Space: Above and Beyond
 

[Wisk-=VF-101=-]

You don't need a real life Dora - the folks at National Labs have packages that can get all the data you want from the iarframe descriptions. I mentioned I've been to National Labs and saw how they did some calcualtions of the X-38 - it also looks spectacular - they have a room they call a "cave" - you put on goggles and you can watch the airflow over the simulated the surfaces in 3-D and walk around it or inside, make it slower, freeze it: whatever - you can measure whatever you want and do all kinds of simulations. The work on methods of comparative analysis of AC airframes has been
going on for a long time.

One thing though - all these comparisons just using specific loadings etc are not nearly as complex as they use, they can only show TENDENCIES", they are not enough to say that beacuse one AC has lower wing loading it will always be more maneuverable in the whole envelope at any part of the globe. It's much more difficult than that and I only gave a short description of how it's done in one of my previous posts.

If some research organization would buy enough time on those Cray's and got a team of scientists who could run the experiments you could get all that now. So it's not just numbers - it's methods of modeling, computational power, and accurate algorthms - these produce numbers for any set of parameters - (example: you want to know how fast an AC do a horizontal turn over the top of Mountain Rushmore with heavy winds and lightinning, certain temperature, humidity etc. - you plug all those params in and get your number)



[This message has been edited by Wisk-=VF-101=- (edited 03-06-2001).]

[Wisk-=VF-101=-]

DAmn it folks, once again you are giving pure numbers and saying that one number is right the other is wrong. Hell, let me throw a brick of tungsten in one car and rip all the non-essential insides from another car of the type and run the first one on the cheapest gas I can find and the other one on some super+ and one will be run on an Autobahn in Germany and the ther on some serpantine road in Alps adn then let's compare their avergae speed in like one hour.

Do you think they'll match ??? Can you say that the first car driver measured his speed wrong and was inaccurate 'cause with all that cheap fuel, trunk full of tungsten and serpantine road ?? And it is the second one who's right ??

Do you see my point ?? You cannot compare two numbers if you don't know how they were obtained. You cannot say I'm right and you are wrong based on end-numbers alone!! If my boss tells me to buy a computer for some heavy numerical analysis simulations and I go by some manufactures data (say, SUn Micorsystems) - I'll be freaking SCREWED, cause they rig their data big time - and not because they mess with numbers, know they choose such conditions and such things to rn on it that it performs better that it will on user's data !!! Now they are not lying, but I'm not lying either it's just that one CANNOT compare data without knowing HOW they were obtained.

And folks, there are only two ways in this world how you can prove someting is a fact : mathematically formal proof or sound empirical studies - nothing else does, everything else is hearsay. That's how science evlolved and thanks to scientists who followed these methods that we now have things like computers, reliable airplanes, and other wonders of a technological civilization.

Geez folks.

 

[This message has been edited by Wisk-=VF-101=- (edited 03-06-2001).]

[juzz]

NII-VVS Fw 190D-9 s/l speed: 530km/h
FW Fw 190D-9 s/l speed: 549km/h

Difference = 3.5%

NII-VVS La-7 s/l speed: 579km/h
Oleg Maddox La-7 s/l speed: 597km/h

Difference = 3.1%

Point: YOU MUST CONSIDER HOW THE DATA WAS COLLECTED!!!

[sky_bax]

None of it is fact, and it all has to be taken with a grain or salt.

Interesting though.

If you personally talk to guys who flew them and were actually there, the charts go out the window.

Would 4 P-51s survive against 40 FWs in AH or WB? LOL hell no!

But in RL some did. Here is a post of mine on a P-51 Vet experence I talked with.

 http://agw.dogfighter.com/agw//Forum3/HTML/018201.html

Official charts are nice, but different "official" charts from different "official" sources say different things.



------------------

[R4M]

 

Originally posted by sky_bax:
Would 4 P-51s survive against 40 FWs in AH or WB? LOL hell no!

But in RL some did. Here is a post of mine on a P-51 Vet experence I talked with.

 http://agw.dogfighter.com/agw//Forum3/HTML/018201.html

In real life you dont have an icon on the top of your plane that is yelling "fire at me" to any nearby enemy...in WBs and AH you have it  Plus, in 1945 the average quality of the german pilot was very low.

Anyway, there are accounts of rotten of German fighters swarming across dozens,even hundreds, of soviet formations, and getting out alive and even with some kills. two vs one hundred  

Just remember that if you come with enough advantage and you fly smart, you will survive regardless of the odds  

Also, that story tells about a chase at 33000 feet (alt monkey dweebs  ). Over 23-24K altitudes the P51D gets a significant speed advantage compared with any Fw190D9,MW50 or not, Special WEP or not. So that the fact that the P51D wasnt caught doenst mean anything against the charts avobe posted, because at 33K those charts say that the D9 will be slower than a P51  

I dont say they are 100% accurate, but the story of those P51Ds doesnt show anything against them either...If that chase had happened at 10000 feet, the P51Ds would've been surely chewed up  .

[sky_bax]

u missed the point

<S>

[-lynx-]

 

Another thing I've noticed as being fact. Russian history hardly puts in a footnote where a US-built plane did well, yet the over-blow their own historical aircraft performance.

Bollocks Flak - read the books (as rear as they are), they all show the test data of front line delivered aircraft. That is - the data of the aicraft actually delivered to the front, from factories with all manufacturing inadequacies and imperfections.

 

They got pissed off when the US and Britain stopped convoys until winter after comvoy PQ-17 was sunk. They accused Britain and the US of holding out on them for supplies when the convoy went down. Then they never mentioned Lend Lease as being a major factor in why they kicked Germany's ass.

This is a complete and utter roadkill. The combat quality of the arms was substandard - you do know why most of P39s were shipped to Russia? I tell you - it wasn't because it was the latest and greates US could come up with... Workers on tractor factory in Stalingrad were making better fighting machines out of converted tractors than tanks supplied under lend-lease. And that with no roof over their heads and with german shells falling .

If you try learning history not from History channel you'll see how big a factor lend-lease actually was. It was a big help (paid for in gold by the way - for every tin of food, tank, whatever - even those that didn't make it to Murmansk) - but major factor? Oh please...

p.s. bummer this thread has detiriorated into this

[Oleg Maddox]

 

Originally posted by juzz:
NII-VVS Fw 190D-9 s/l speed: 530km/h
FW Fw 190D-9 s/l speed: 549km/h

Difference = 3.5%

NII-VVS La-7 s/l speed: 579km/h
Oleg Maddox La-7 s/l speed: 597km/h

Difference = 3.1%

Point: YOU MUST CONSIDER HOW THE DATA WAS COLLECTED!!!

Juzz,

Where you got NII VVS speed for FW-190D-9?
I didn't post it anywhere. NII VVS test show almost SIMILAR TO WHAT GERMANS DECLARED in manufacture docs!!! Differs are minimal!
Sometime NII VVS got BETTER RESULT (For 109G-2 for example).  And data of Finnish airforce tests of similar German planes is SIMILAR TO NII VVS tests.


And where you got that I posted speed of La-7 at sea level = 597km/h

I posted here the MIDDLE CALCULATION OF SEVERAL TRIAL TESTS MADE BY PERSONNEL OF TWO DIFFERENT ORGANISATIONS 'LII' (Letniy Ispitatelniy Institut) and NII VVS

The top speed WITHOUT 10 min BOOST of LA-7 MANUFACTURE DATA is 605 km/h at Sea level
With 10 min boost = 640 km/h at Sea level

Real tests made with delivered in troops planes shown above in the link I gave.

596-598 without boost at sea level
630-637 with the boost at seal level

Somewhere at dogfighter.com I already posted why in a couple of squadrons La-7 were slowly then should be. Sorry don't remember the direct link. If someone will find, please let me know (I will copy my text there that to post later with such treads...)

[Fishu]

Wisk,

I'll claim that spitfire was a brick, hurricane was zeke with spit XIV's speed and what claims anything else, is just matter of "different testing methods".
So, can we now model spitfire to fly like rock?

mm'kay?

[Jochen]

 

Fw190A8 was 500kg heavier than A5, more or less. Even with a 200kg overweight, A5 will be a lighter plane than the A8. So this assumption is wrong. If the Fw190F2 is 200kg heavier than the Fw190A5, it still should have a lower wingloading and better turning than the Fw190A8.

A-5 and A-8 are basically the same plane, only changeable equipment like cannons and armour plating is different and I bet A-5 can be heavier than A-8 if A-5 is actually F-3 with armour plating and A-8 is light version.

 

so frankly if he is nitpicking to ensure that we know that it is the light Fw190A5, without outboard cannons, then I doubt that it is a F2.

Surely you must know none of the F series planes did have outer cannons fitted, making this A-5 a possible F model? And maybe the russians didn't open up the belly of the A-5, missing the presence of armour plates that actually made the plane F-2 or F-3?

 

Jochen,a Fw190A5 is a Fw190A5. If is a Fw190F2 is a Fw190F2. If you post data here that a Fw190A5 turns worse than a Fw190A8, then I have to assume that it is an A5, not a F2. Or do we have to play the riddle game to sort out where does that data come from, or belongs to?.

I diddlying know A-5 is A-5 and F-2 is F-2 but that is not the question. The question is did the soviets actually know it was A-5, not heavier F-2 which was tested as being A-5? I just pointed out that is a possiblity.

------------------
jochen Gefechtsverband Kowalewski

Units: I. and II./KG 51, II. and III./KG 76, NSGr 1, NSGr 2, NSGr 20.
Planes: Do 17Z, Ju 87D, Ju 88A, He 111H, Ar 234A, Me 410A, Me 262A, Fw 190A, Fw 190F, Fw 190G.

Sieg oder bolsevismus!

[R4M]

 

Originally posted by Oleg Maddox:
Juzz,

Where you got NII VVS speed for FW-190D-9?
I didn't post it anywhere.

Oleg, methinks that Juzz is refering to "this":

 

Originally posted by Wisk-=VF-101=-:

FW190-D9:
Engine: Jumo-213A, 1780hp at take-off, 1480hp at alt (1600 in combat mode)
Take-off weight: 4197kg
Specific wing loading: 228 kgs/m^2
Specific power loading: 2.84kgs/h.p. (2.62 in combat mode)
Top speeds: sea lvl - 530km/h(543 in combat mode), at alt - 631km/h at 6150m (642 at 6100m)
Time of climb to 5000m: 5.6min
Time of 360 turn at 1000m: 22-23sec
Gain of altitude in a combat turn: 1000m
Landing speed: 158km/h

Ahem...  


 

NII VVS test show almost SIMILAR TO WHAT GERMANS DECLARED in manufacture docs!!! Differs are minimal!

Oleg, Wisk claims that the performance numbers I quoted above come from the NII VVS tests; and,well I think you will notice that 543km/hour@S.L. and 631km/h@6300m (338mph@SL, 392mph@21000feet aprox) are light years away from the manufacture docs of the Focke-Wulf factory I have posted in this thread.

 

Originally posted by Jochen:
A-5 and A-8 are basically the same plane, only changeable equipment like cannons and armour plating is different and I bet A-5 can be heavier than A-8 if A-5 is actually F-3 with armour plating and A-8 is light version.

FIrst this is not true:

1-A5 had light MGs, A8 had heavy MGs
2-A8 had worse areodinamics because the MG bulges
3-A8 had more powerful engine at certain altitudes because the petrol injection system
4-A8 had a slightly different wing than A5; the wing was redesigned in the A6.

Second of all, I bet that if you test a fully loaded Spitfire against an empty Fw190A5 the A5 will easily outmaneouver,outaccelerate, outclimb,etc the spitfire. Comparative tests on different planes should be done in comparative loadouts and relative weights. So this is yet another reason for me to say that wisk's data is faulty.

And, Jochen, I said already I'm in this thread to discuss things, not to start a flamewar. My answer to you was intended to make a point: if the soviets confused a F2 with an A5, then their whole studies can be completely wrong (maybe they confused the landing gear lever with the flaps one, and they did the test with the gear down   <J.K., but you get the idea?> )

I gave you what intended to be a civil answer, and you had to answer in a harsh way with no motive and cussing words...well, sorry but this is my last answer to you in this thread.


[This message has been edited by R4M (edited 03-07-2001).]