Verm, I hate to do this but...

[fscott]

Well if I'm in a zeke I don't worry about any planes, cause I know I can outturn them all. Does this mean that all other planes are worthless when fighting a Zeke? What you do need to worry about is an La5 that is above you while you are furballing with someone else.

Me too Verm. It is worthless. We both have differing opinions on what makes a perk. So I'm finished too.

fscott

[dolomite]

 

Well if I'm in a zeke I don't worry about any planes, cause I know I can outturn them all.

Bad analogy, and you know it. You can turn, turn, turn, but if I'm in a 51 I will kill you every time unless I do something stupid.

Your argument is that the La7 has such high speed down low it should be perked. Other than top speed, it has nothing on the La5, which is hardly an arena killer. The La7 won't have an overall performance advantage great enough to make it much more of a threat than the La5.

[lazs]

what?  you mean there may be some dissagreement as to what should be perked and what not?   Perhaps some cretins will actually feel that some planes enjoy an unfair advantage over others?  
lazs

[Fishu]

 

Originally posted by fscott:
Well if I'm in a zeke I don't worry about any planes, cause I know I can outturn them all. Does this mean that all other planes are worthless when fighting a Zeke? What you do need to worry about is an La5 that is above you while you are furballing with someone else.

Mmmm...  I like killing slow Zekes..
Probably easiest planes to kill after Ju-88 and C.202  

[sling322]

blah blah blah.....why dont we just wait and see what HTC is giving us and what decisions they make?  if ya dont like it, then....let the whining commence.  

[Wisk-=VF-101=-]

Verm, I don't have any English translations - just the originals in Russian. I mentioned the exact names of internal TsAGI publications on the issue in the earlier post. I can try and translate some of it - but it will take a helluva amount of time.
I actually talked to one of the authors of the study suggesting an English translation. He refused - he said he was "burned" by some US magazine that completely misprepresnted what he wrote and he won't let that happen again, so any translation he would allow has to take place in Russia.


Mandoble, if you look at the data you will see that 190A-5 and 190A-8 have the same engine, but 109A-5 weighs noticeable more, so it's not surprising that it turns worse, 190-D9 did turn worse than 190A-8 - actually it is even modeled so in WB.

R4M,

 I think you are being too emotional as a true believer who is shown something that is outside of his perception of this world.

I'll try to carefully respond to your points.


- I dont know where did you read that, but you should know to give credit the sources that deserve it, and to forget about the ones that don't.

I mentioned where I read that. I'll repeat again: "Aircraft construction in the USSR", published by TsAGI (Central Aerhydrodynamic Insitute); Full author list of the study:
Academician G.S. Byushgens (Russian Academy of Sciences)
Gen Lt A.I. Ayupov (VVS),
 
Scientists and engineers of Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute:
Doctor Tech. Sc. A.M. Batkov, Academician R.A. Belyakov (whom western readers might know - he had some western publications), Doctor Tech. Sciences R.V. Sakach, K.Yu. Kosminkov (M.Sc. aerospace eng), N.V. Grogroryev(M.Sc. aerospace eng), G.V. Kostyrchenko(M.Sc. aerospace eng), A.I Makarevsky(M.Sc. aerospace eng), A.D. Mironov(M.Sc. aerospace eng), V.V. Lazarev(M.Sc. aerospace eng), R.D. Irodov(M.Sc. aerospace eng), Yu.A.Egorov(M.Sc. aerospace eng), Yu.V. Zasypkin(M.Sc. aerospace eng)

Internal publication of TsAGI, circulation 1000, Moscow, 1994

Do these guys deserve credit ?? Like at least 50% ?? In case you don't know - TsAGI does state-of-the-art research in the aerospace field - they don't hire mediocre people.

- First of all, the Fw190D9, without MW50 and rated to 1750hp SL did 357mph at SL and 426mph at 21600feet.
- This is widely known.

"Widely known" is not a proof, also where is it widely known? Cause as I can see something completely different is widely known in the aersopcace community of fSU (and I'm only talking about aerospace engineers actively involved in the field, not the hobbyists without proper education)

- god-knows-in-wich-state captured planes

the state of the planes was very well known to the engineers and test-pilots - they were not idiots to claim that some wreck is representable for a series and then feed the data for some wreck to their design buros and military tactitians. They recognize they screwed up big time with 109F-4 - this cost some lives - they made the changes and didn't let it happen again.
Also, it was quite common for the fast advancing Soviet army to capture a lot of german equipment intact. Actually Oleg Maddox of the Il-2 fame claims a whole squadron of virtually new 190D-9s was captured. 109s of all makes and models were captured on fields all the time (with especially abundnant "harvests" in Stalingrad and Kurks, later in the war it was even more plentiful; after the war the NII VVS also got the docs and even german engineers who designed them).

I mentioned that the study reads like a scientific paper, which means - they describe their assumptions, methodlogy of conductiong the experiment, methods of treatment of experimental results and the description of the results themselves including conclusions.

All sources you threw at me only include "end" results - I was asking about description of the process of how they were obtained - i.e. which organization in germany desgined the tests procedures and validated them ? what those procedures are (for instance, in what configuration the plane is flown for speed trials, what method and instruments are used to measure the speed, how the collected results were treated, i.e. how do they calculate erors detected spurious results etc.)

Is there any german/western research organization with an established name in academic aerospace community who do this kind of historical research ? I understand that there are a lot of what I call "popular" publications on the subject.
But I'm not interested in those - they are usually compilations by some enthusiasts or former professionals who have been out of touch with the field for too long time and just want to cash in.

To draw a parallel in computer science area (cause that's my field and I understand there r a lot of computer industry folk here who will understand): I'm looking for something like "IEEE transactions", not "Dr.Dobb's magazine".

Another thing - I am not claiming anything but the fact that those TsAGI guys did their research using scientific method and published a well-written and scientifically literate work (with surprising results for some).

One cannot compare the "end" results of any experiments without knowing the experimental design and assumptions. I want to get the description of that experimental design (german flight test procedures - not just what the pilot does, but how instruments are chosen, positioned, calibrated; how they treated (in empirical study sense) the data they got).

To draw a parallel again - I did comparisons of processors and development methodologies (for research labs, not the internet layman crap) - any valid comparison of results MUST include the process and assumptions of the experiment itself. Sometimes a wrong benchmark can completely skew the results.
If you are comparing results obtained by two different teams in two different compnaies you may be amazed at how different the end-results look, once you take into account the methodology you can actually see why they differ and sometimes you can consistently compensate for the differnce in process and "calibrate" the results from the two teams so that they would become comparable.

Claiming that some figures are "widely known" is like saying nothing. Throwing charts without sources and methodology descriptions is not that far away. Such "reasoning" will not fly in any scientific discourse.
 

And for those wishing to try and get in touch with those guys (you have to write in Russian) TsAGI address is:

Rossijskaya Federatsiya,
140160, g. Zhukovsky, Mosk. obl.
TsAGI


[This message has been edited by Wisk-=VF-101=- (edited 03-05-2001).]

[Vermillion]

Wisk are you in the US ?

If you are, and it wouldn't be too hard for you, is it possible to photocopy the documents and mail them to me?

If so I have a Ukrainian Engineer in my Office that has offered to do any translation work for me, and I know of one other native russian speaker that has offered to do some translation work.

If its difficult for you too do so, don't worry about getting me the documents. Its something that would be nice to have, but not imperative  

Contact me by email if you need my address. Thanks!

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

[MANDOBLE]

 

Originally posted by Wisk-=VF-101=-:
Mandoble, if you look at the data you will see that 190A-5 and 190A-8 have the same engine, but 109A-5 weighs noticeable more, so it's not surprising that it turns worse, 190-D9 did turn worse than 190A-8 - actually it is even modeled so in WB.

I see, and what kind of 190A8 is that being lighter than a 190A5 both with 2x20mm guns?
As a side note, you surelly will notice big differences between AH models and WB models, in almost any plane. What I expect here is a better Hp/W 190D9 than in WB, and having less wingload than "normal" 190A8 I cant understand why it should turn worse.

[Seeker]

Verm,

Regarding the La-7, Tilt (The guy I CM'd AW's Nieman with) sent me this:

..very good book is just published.....
 
I have a copy originally in Czech but now with English subtexts  Lavockin La-7 by Milos Vestik  ISBN 80-902238-7-7.
 
he took many pictures of White 77 in Prague. His are better quality than mine. But his la 7 combat history is very good.
 
btw White 23 (AH's La7) with 2 diagonal grey white tail markings was flown by Maj. V A Orekov for the 32 nd GIAP in lithuania in autumn 44 so had AW had an La-7 the VVs could have replaced one of their units with la-7's as the frames progressed during Niemen.
 
Might be worth a look?
and...get a working Email, will ya ?  :-)

How do I make a link to this thread, I'd like to send it to Tilt?

[This message has been edited by Seeker (edited 03-05-2001).]

[Wisk-=VF-101=-]

Guys you reacting like I called your mother a bad name or something. Direct your indignation at the authors of the study (Academicians Belyakov, Byushgens etc.) and the whole russian aerospace community if you feel the need, I didn't write it I just translated it.

These are production AC tests, the majority of "popular" publications I've seen give FW-190D9s top speed at alt as 685km/h, but those data are for a completely new aircraft, La-7 also is listed as 680km/h for a new one. Their study explicitely stated that they used "a "cumulative" assesment of control tests to reflect capabilities of the whole type with the use of trustworthy foreign test data when warranted".

As for the weight of the 190A-5 - I actually gave the lower figure, they also list 4270kg at take-off for a different configuration - all that weight is armor. Maybe there was a difference between 190A-5 used on Western front and Eastern front. the 190A-5 the authrs describe was a dedicated ground attack aircraft. Also, the 190A-8 they tested was made lighter also because they removed some armor, not just cannon. That's why you are seeing this. As per why 190D-9 turns worse than 190A-8: this is whole another story with some math and the ttheory of airframe comprasion called "criteria of similarities". This theroy creates dependencies between certain ratios of airframe parameters and performance parameters. As more than one paramater can be changed these dependencies are expressed as high-dimensional surfaces (i.e. you can only view one projection of it on the two axes - planar surface). The relative position of function surfaces for different airframes show tendencies of the airframe to be better than the other in a ceratin flight parameter. The authors give the equations and projections of these surfaces they come up with that show where different airframes fit. They plugged in the data for WWII ACs into their modern proprietary software packages for airframe analysis and showed the results. I saw a US version of this kind of package in action at National Labs that are near Chicago - they were doing some calculation for the X-38 (I was just giving a talk there and the hosts show-cased some of their wonders). I can't replicate all that stuff in a post.

Here is what they say, p.98:

"In the 2nd half of 1942 a new german fighter with an air-cooled engine, FW-190, appeared at the front line. This fighter was developed before the war and by the time of its appearance at the front its design was  well-developed and reached high level of maturity. As compared to the Me-109 the new fighter was significantly heavier, had an exceptionally powerful armament and significantly higher weight of the payload. On the Eastern front the 4th modification appeared first - FW-190A-4. ... by the combination of its capabilities the FW-190 could more effectively fight the soviet shturmoviks and bombers, that were arriving at the front in increasingly greater numbers and were inflicting increasingly greater
losses on the german personnel and equipment. Using the FW-190, as the most powerfully armed aircraft with higher survivability, against ground targets, the designers tried to increase the effectiveness of ground assault activities and at least partially offset the lack of a dedicated armored shturmovik of the likes of the Soviet Il-2.
So that to increase the survivability of the aircraft, the designers used armor protection of the most important devices of the aircraft and partially the pilot. The whole weight of the armor was 110kgs. But the experience of combat operations of the FW-190A-4 showed its high vulnerability from below, so the next version - FW-190A-5 had a significantly increased armor protection. Sixteen 5-6mm armor plates with the total weight of 200kgs were added. These plates formed a contiguous armored surface protecting the belly of the aircraft. So that to keep flight characteristics almost the same the designers had to remove two wing cannon. One must note that unlike the Il-2, the armor on the FW-190 was not part of the aircraft's "carrying skeleton" and was essentially a "dead" weight. Because the FW-190A-4 and 190A-5 had worse maneuvering characteristics than the Soviet fighters they were often escorted by the Me-109s..."

[Oleg Maddox]

Hi guys,

Here is right speed curves for SERIAL PRODUCTION La-5, La-5FN and La-7. Units taken in troops after they had some intensive operation there. (Tests made for each 6-10 planes and then calculated middle parameters for summer and winter time. So it is middle parameters - not the best)

 ftp://ftp.bluebyte.com/il2/Las.jpg

Dashed line - with 10 min engine boost before overheating.
Above ~ 3,000 m (3,200 for La-7 in WWII time original flight manual) - there are not a problem with any overheating. You may fly with maximum power as long as you want, but you should remeber that the engine eat the fuel in 1,5 times faster then on 90-92%% of power.

For Yaks - there is almost no limit for maximum power, except limitation of fuel...
Yak-9U with VK-107 engine was able to fly up to 30-40 min on maximum boost, but range in this case was in 2,5-3 times less.

For most German planes the limit of power boost with MW-50 injection was 2 min maximum. Of course you may use such boost many times in flight, but always should remember and see the temperaure indicators, or if you forgot it, and use boost once more after last time in the next 10 minutes - your engine will be damaged.
For most FW-190A, G, F without special injection boost the limit of maximum power use was 8-10 min. With MW-50 - see above.

Why many Russians pilots love P-39 late models? Not only because this bird was not so bad as stated some Western docs for P-400 and early models... it was most advanced plane in auto control. It was like 'Mercedes' comparing to almost any other cockpits of WWII fighter planes. Cockpit was so friendly to pilots...(can't explani in English better)

Some time later in this year I hope to have rights to publish a lot of data which I use in development (sorry not all at the moment possible, because I promissed some authors of new books).



[This message has been edited by Oleg Maddox (edited 03-06-2001).]

[Wisk-=VF-101=-]

Oleg, Thank you for finding time to post this.

That would be awesome to get hands on the data you used for development after they can become available. Also, please, let us know what books those guys are publishing - I'll buy them right away.

Thank you again

[R4M]

   

     

Yes, that tittle number at 0K for the Fw190D9, is a 650. Yes, the Fw190D9 with MW50 line is at 640km/h at 0K. And yes, that it is in Km/hour. Yes, that means 395mph on the deck.

And yes, that is an original Focke-Wulf factory document, dated in March-1945. And yes, it is about serial Fw190D9s with ETC 504 racks.

No VVS documetns about captured Fw190s will change that, I repeat. And much less if you keep on coming here insisnting that the Fw190A5 was heavier and worse turner than the Fw190A8 (lol), because that does nothing but to rest credibility to your source.



[This message has been edited by R4M (edited 03-06-2001).]

[Oleg Maddox]

One book will be about complete FW-190 series with a lot of data.
Couple books about Yaks and story of test in NII VVS of all captured, lend lease (including P-47D, P-51B, Spits, etc)  and Russian WWII planes. There aslo should be present test of captured P-51D(many of them landed on Russian territory of occupation), P-38J and some others (similar situation), B-17 (there were even real battle sorties in the end of the war together with Pe-8, B-25, A-20, IL-4.... I don't mean US B-17 flying from Poltava in 1944). I mean B-17 with red stars).

Ok, no time. Soon beta...

[Oleg Maddox]

R4M,

I don't know about VVS data(yes, there was squadron of captured FW-190D-9 in use by VVS, but I know about trial tests in Russia.
They show even a bit better performace on high alt and a bit worse on SL.  
But in general almost similar. I don't see any contradictions if data diffesrs for 1% (and remember, that tests at winter and summer had some good differences even after use special formulas to complete test data to real things).
We use for our AI(currently) FW-190D-9 the manufacture data. And really it is very good and friendly to pilot plane.