Author Topic: Numbers? Here the nunbers (serious) (Read 626 times)

VISCONTI · « **on:** October 05, 2000, 11:38:00 AM »

Here again the "little kid stomping his feet because it's not getting a lolly" is back.

"My point was that there has been open and intelligent discussion on that aircraft's performance. And Pyro was open to suggestions on the aircraft if it could be backed up with hard data."

These kind of operation are hard extremely hard to perform and u need to verify every number u find. When Pyro asked, I startet to collect data, and belive me is like looking for a needle in straw (dont know if is correctly translated).

In the *.zip file u find the recalculated ROC of the c205V and the c202 compared whit the Spit V in AH.

Is extremely interessant to see that the c205V modelled here in AH is very very close to the results i have obtained. And I was very happy on the way the c205V was finally tuned.

In the same way I have recalculated the ROC of the c202 and is extremely different from the one we have here in AH.

I have prepared the ROC of the G55 (I d'ont have the 1947 document plz check if there hare differences).

I'm working on the c200 but i need more data, till now I have an approximated ROC chart but I need to verify before post.

I'm only a player (an ex player at the moment) this is probably a ridiculous work but plz give at it a little of attention.

http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Arena/8245/ricerca.zip

The *.zip file contains 8 *.doc files.
The *.zip file is about 1.14MB.

juzz · « **Reply #1 on:** October 05, 2000, 12:07:00 PM »

I keep getting 403 errors using that link.

VISCONTI · « **Reply #2 on:** October 05, 2000, 12:30:00 PM »

I'm sorry, I'm working on it

.

VISCONTI · « **Reply #3 on:** October 05, 2000, 01:57:00 PM »

Ok follow these links:

Page1
Page2
Page3
Page4
Page5
Page6
Page7
Page8

juzz · « **Reply #4 on:** October 05, 2000, 02:55:00 PM »

Two points

1. You compare the calculated C.202 at WEP(1175hp) to the AH C.202 at 100%(not WEP), when it also has a known bug which is reducing performance.

2. Here is the HTC chart of how the C.202 in AH should be performing.

gatt · « **Reply #5 on:** October 06, 2000, 05:13:00 AM »

Hi Visc,
can you explain the meaning of "recalculated" rate of climb? In other words wich sources do you have for C.205 and C.202 data?

------------------
GATT
4°Stormo Caccia - Knights

flakbait · « **Reply #6 on:** October 06, 2000, 05:20:00 AM »

[Impression=Funked]

*WHACKS VISCONTI*
Pyro is fixin it after da con is over!

[/Impression]

------------------
Flakbait
Delta 6's Flight School
"My art is the wings of an aircraft through the skies, my music the deep hum of a prop as it slices the air, my thrill the thunder of guns tearing asunder an enemy plane."
Flakbait
19 September 2000

VISCONTI · « **Reply #7 on:** October 06, 2000, 06:25:00 AM »

I have used all the data available that I have found, some data hare from prototipe some others from captured AC. The data comes from books, people on the internet, ex pilots, manuals.

For the c202 we have the maintenance and service manual whit some interestting things about the engine. We have data of the Re2001 that used the same engine.
For the c205V we have the prototipe data whit Orione too and serie tests.

All these data are not certified 100% original, I have not done a research whit that purpose, but the results i have obtained is physically possible for these kind of AC and I have the possibility to verify these data whit pilots that flew these AC.

I have asked to you and your guys to help me in this research but... u know the end.
Anyway the G55 data are close to the 1947 book ???

For juzz: Italians AC have no WEP!! anhoter know bug.

For flakbait: I know, I'm not pushing for speed up the work

. Even whit c202 fixed i will not come back till HTC reach a relative high number of AC (39-43 planeset) or if WW2OL is a stupid game.

After that I start whit the 12.7mm, big surprise

.

cyaux

gatt · « **Reply #8 on:** October 06, 2000, 06:39:00 AM »

Visc,
PYRO has the data tables you are referring to, from N.Arena book that is. And only God knows if Arena is a reliable source. Too bad.

As far as the C.205 is concerned I'm pretty happy with what we have now in AH.

We could not help you with data becouse we dont have any new data about the C.202. The manteinance manual has no performance data, as you know well, while the Reggiane Re.2001 is a completely different kite and has the performance of a 109E. The monography "Ali d'Italia" of the C.202 shows some clearly wrong data about time to altitude.

I agree the WEP is a problem. In italian a/c WEP should model only the maximum allowed time at maximum rpm (combat and climb settings). Fighters with a real WEP (like the 109G-10 or some USAF kites) should have something else/different. I posted many times about it but no one replied, HTC included.

flakbait · « **Reply #9 on:** October 06, 2000, 06:59:00 AM »

Speaking of WEP, have either of you noticed the 190 A5 and A8 manifold pressure is the same? It sits at 40, punch WEP and it jumps to about 45. Kinda odd since nearly every A8 had MW-50 installed. *shrugs* maybe it's just me.

------------------
Flakbait
Delta 6's Flight School
"My art is the wings of an aircraft through the skies, my music the deep hum of a prop as it slices the air, my thrill the thunder of guns tearing asunder an enemy plane."
Flakbait
19 September 2000

gatt · « **Reply #10 on:** October 06, 2000, 07:09:00 AM »

Eheh, watch out Flak, you are awakening a big angry bear

The official 190A-8 manual states that after mid 1944 most of the A-8 had the MW50 system mounted.
However other books and sources say that only a few MW50 kits have been built and, AFAIK, GM-1 systems. I'd like to see the MW50 on the A-8 ... really.
Germans technicians sent a DB605 with MW50 in Italy and it was mounted on a Fiat G.55 "Centauro". Well, the kite reached easily 700km/h at 23,000ft. Here is something to perk!

[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 10-06-2000).]

flakbait · « **Reply #11 on:** October 06, 2000, 07:20:00 AM »

Hmmmm. Something ain't right in Mudsville. Two different Fw-190 models, with different engines, both with the exact same manifold pressure and prop RPMs at full power. A5 had either D-2 or C-2 type BMW 801 radials. A8 ran on a BMW 801 D-2 w/MW-50 or the much rarer [and more effecient] 801 TU engine. Just seems too weird that both A/C have the same engine and prop performance.

heheheheh, dey don't call me Flakbait fer nothin!

[edit] I also noticed the Typhoon only pulls 8 pounds at full power, and 9 w/WEP on. *scratches head*.[edit]

------------------
Flakbait
Delta 6's Flight School
"My art is the wings of an aircraft through the skies, my music the deep hum of a prop as it slices the air, my thrill the thunder of guns tearing asunder an enemy plane."
Flakbait
19 September 2000

[This message has been edited by flakbait (edited 10-06-2000).]

gatt · « **Reply #12 on:** October 06, 2000, 07:26:00 AM »

AcesHigh's 190A-8 has no MW50 on board.

[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 10-06-2000).]

flakbait · « **Reply #13 on:** October 06, 2000, 07:33:00 AM »

[Maybe we should be in a chat room?] It's got WEP of some kind. GM-1 wasn't introduced on the Fw-190 A8, and if there's no MW-50 onboard then we've got a Mystery WEP!

I was right, der's somethin scwewy awound here.

------------------
Flakbait
Delta 6's Flight School
"My art is the wings of an aircraft through the skies, my music the deep hum of a prop as it slices the air, my thrill the thunder of guns tearing asunder an enemy plane."
Flakbait
19 September 2000

[This message has been edited by flakbait (edited 10-06-2000).]

gatt · « **Reply #14 on:** October 06, 2000, 07:42:00 AM »

Its a cloudy early friday afternoon here in Milan ..... well, my working week is over. Dont tell the boss anyway

As I posted above, a/c with a real WEP (MW50, USAF fighters ...) should have sort of "second step" of WEP. I mean, first step should be the maximum time allowed at max rpm settings (climb and combat settings), second step should be the *real* WEP. Sorry for my written english (spoken is worst), I cannot explain it better.