190A5 vs 190A8

[Angus]

Gaston read my lips.

Sustained turn rate decreases with less power. You are saying less power increases climb rate.

Ill tell you what, ill play teacher , please show your work.

Because lift causes drag power over comes drag around the corner you go. Less power means you can not have as much drag hence can not sustain as much less lift , hence slower around the corner you go.

I do not know how to convince you of this, but you are stating perpetual motion exists.

LOL, this is really the punch. For ROC and turn are closely bound within WW2 power and airframes, - before the time of insane power and such.
Try chopping the throttle in a climb.....


HiTech

[Badboy]

Here's the approximate sustained turn rate performance of a P-51D that is downthrottled vs non-downthrottled

Gaston, it doesn't matter how you try to justify it, the idea that sustained turn performance improves by reducing throttle is wrong. So any conclusions you reach based on that idea will also be wrong.

Just to be clear, allow me to spell it out:

If you consider any aircraft at any speed, in otherwords across the entire envelope, the sustained turning performance will always be maximised at full power. Reduce throttle and the sustained turning performance will also reduce.

Saying that it works the other way around, will never make it so, regardless of how many anecdotes you misinterpret.

Badboy

[Charge]

Maybe it would be more clear with an example of a typical initiation of a turn fight?

Two planes, A and B have a head-on merge at "combat speed".

Plane A goes into 3 G turn to preserve some E watching what the other guy starts doing
Plane B knows he turns slightly better and goes straight into 5 G turn to gain on A

A notices the high G turn of B and tightens his turn to 5G too
B notices that he is not gaining on A and cuts throttle to ease some Gs and cut into A's turn

A holds a maximum 5G turn at full throttle and decelerates steadily fighting black-out
B has decelerated to his best corner speed and is slowly gaining angles on A and pushes full throttle to maintain a, say, 3G turn for as long as possible steadily turning inside A's turn because A's better turn rate is not compensating for the angle gain of B's now smaller turn radius

A has now two options: ease to 0G and extend leaving B with less energy and decide to do something else e.g. go into climb or simply run, or continue his 5G turn with full throttle until his max allowable thrust cannot maintain that G anymore and he has bled all his E and while doing it he has given lot of time for B to gain angles and free snap shots and even after that ending in front of B without any energy to spare.

Basically the same options as Badboy already explained but in practice.

-C+

[save]

HT - thanks for looking into 190a8 !
.

[Delirium]

deleted

(arguing with some of the Luftwaffe guys is pointless)

[hammer]

deleted

(arguing with some of the Luftwaffe guys is pointless)

no it's not.     

[Badboy]

Hanseman does not say anything about his initial speed????? He describes several 360° turns on the deck, with AA firing on him whenever he got close to the airfield... He "gradually" worked the 109 away from the airfield 360 by 360...

Nope, not only did Hanseman not say he did it "360 by 360" but it also isn't possible. You can't move away from a fixed point by turning in circles, by definition, turning in a circle means moving around its centre point. Your interpretation is obviously wrong. When Hanseman said a "dog fight developed" he was clearly referring to a more dynamic sequence of maneuvers and not just 360 degree turns.   

Do you really think that means his speed is still above 350 MPH on-the-deck!!!???

Of course not, I never mentioned 350mph, you have used a logical fallacy known as the straw man argument. What I said was that the only way throttling back would help, would be if they were above corner velocity, otherwise it would not be helpful. Since Hanseman claims it was helping, that is the only possible conclusion, because the alternative you have suggested is aerodynamically impossible.

I guess you must, otherwise your whole argument against downthrottling being a low-speed tactic falls apart...

Nope, I'm simply explaining well known and well understood aerodynamic facts. Your interpretation is in conflict with the laws of physics.

As for the argument against the obvious interpretation of the Johnson account, I don't know where to begin...: IF it was downward spiral, they would then NOT be on opposite sides "of an ever decreasing circle"... NOT a FLAT turn????

Firstly, Johnson never used the term "Flat turn" that's another misinterpretation and two pilots in a descending spiral turn could certainly remain on opposite sides, the point being that during the time they were on "opposite sides" the fight was obviously neutral.     

I love the omission of Johnson's quote: "He was gaining on me (in the same ever decreasing circle, remember?):

Nope, when Johnson noticed that the 190 was gaining on him it was while he was doing "the tightest of vertical turns" during the time they were whirling round on opposite sides of the circle, the fight was neutral. You are confusing the chronological sequence in Johnson's description.

(how could "an ever diminishing circle" be a bunch of vertical loops?)

They were clearly different phases of the fight one followed after the other.

WWII terminology: "Vertical turn" is WWII short-hand for a "Wings vertical turn", a diminutive in effect, for a 90° bank turn, which means, by definition, a fairly flat turn...

Absolutely not, if an aircraft banks so that the wings are vertical, the aircraft will be accelerating towards the ground at 32.2ft/s^2 and would lose at least 10,000ft of altitude in the first 30 seconds, since you claim they were only at 5000ft that phase of the fight could only have lasted for a few seconds if Johnson still needed room for his near vertical dive. So regardless if it was a vertical turn, or a turn with wings vertical, it still wasn't a sustained turn, which by definition occurs with no loss of altitude. If it was a turn with wings vertical, then it would have lasted just a few seconds, and certainly for less time than it would take for them to make it around the circle even once. So if you are right about the wings being vertical, there wasn't time for a sustained turn, or much turning of any kind. Either way, your interpretation does not fit the description, and is obviously wrong.

More importantly, it doesn't matter how you interpret that anecdote, you still can't use it to justify the idea that reducing throttle improves sustained turns, because you maximise sustained turns at full power.

Badboy

[Zeagle]

Absolutely not, if an aircraft banks so that the wings are vertical, the aircraft will be accelerating towards the ground at 32.2ft/s^2 and would lose at least 10,000ft of altitude in the first 30 seconds, since you claim they were only at 5000ft that phase of the fight could only have lasted for a few seconds if Johnson still needed room for his near vertical dive.

Uh, No.    There is more than lift just from the wings.  I can attest that the lowly C-152 will in fact make a knife edge pass at 135kt (don't try this at home kids). And, if the bank angle is anything less than 90, you got some lift there from the wings too. Lift can be generated from any part of the ship, depending on speed and angle. And no, Virginia, you will not get 20k fpm (10k feet in 30 secs = 20k fpm) just from racking the ship over on its side.

[Ardy123]

Before more people get PNG'd, lets go back to the original focus, 190A5 vs 190 A8 performance. I still have not heard any confirmation on the engine output of the -A8 as its modeled in AH.

Is it...

 1× BMW 801 D-2 radial engine, 1,730 hp, 2,000 hp with boost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_190)

or is it the

'I thought it was 1800PS'(1775.37594207hp)

that others have stated in the forum?

Also, I have read differing reports on the output of the BMW 801-D2 engine some even stating that some had supercharger gear ratios tuned to higher altitudes which improved the power at cruse by about 150 hp. Furthermore, I've read a little about a
BMW 801F which had 2,400 PS (2,367 hp, 1,765 kW), don't know if these made it to the A-8, it might have only been attempted in A-9s.

Do you guys like to argue in circles? wasn't 28 pages enough? I'm trying to save some of you from getting PNGd, etc... so please lets get back to the original topic and not your wrong, FM is porked, etc....


so back to the original question, What is the power output of the engine modeled in AH for the the 190-A8?

Thanks

[Ack-Ack]

I'm trying to save some of you from getting PNGd, etc... so please lets get back to the original topic and not your wrong, FM is porked, etc....

Thanks

the problem is that some people keep on insisting the FM is wrong and posting incorrect data to prove their point and this has the potential of harming AH.  How?  Because potential customers see these posts and will believe the flight model is porked and don't bother trying the game and tell others how "porked the AH FM is".  That's what ultimately led to thorsim's demise and will also lead to Gaston's eventually.  The bottom line is, inaccurate statements about the core feature this game is built on can hurt HTC.


ack-ack

[Ardy123]

the problem is that some people keep on insisting the FM is wrong and posting incorrect data to prove their point and this has the potential of harming AH.  How?  Because potential customers see these posts and will believe the flight model is porked and don't bother trying the game and tell others how "porked the AH FM is".  That's what ultimately led to thorsim's demise and will also lead to Gaston's eventually.  The bottom line is, inaccurate statements about the core feature this game is built on can hurt HTC.

ack-ack

I completely agree but I would like to get the thread back on its original track, its been totally hijacked by all this 'poop'.

[PJ_Godzilla]

And, not to highjack (this is related) over to D-9 but I read today that 426 mph at ~19k is top speed for a D-9 w/o the MW50 injection. The source cited 438 as top speed for the D-9 with...

I recall reading the early A-series had problems with overheating under boost and that the D-9's Jumo's suffered from scarcity of MW-50 systems.

So, I think the power issue would be a good one for the HTC boys to illuminate.

Besides, as you note, it beats trying to illuminate outer space.

[Baumer]

Ardy, looking at the charts I have for the Fw190A-8 I believe what we have is close to the 1800 Ps figures. But only someone from HTC can state with certainty what it is.

[Krusty]

no it's not.     

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

[Wmaker]

What is the power output of the engine modeled in AH for the the 190-A8?

The highest power setting AH's A-8 uses is 1.58ata@2700rpm. A source which I consider very reliable is Mr. Dietmar Hermann who has done a lot of research on Fw190 and written recent works about the subject. He lists the output to be 2050ps with the 1.58@2700rpm power setting on the deck in an article handling the BMW 801D engine in Flugzeug Classic's 12/2004 issue.

Wheather or not this is the output that AH models I off course cannot say for sure.