Author Topic: 190A5 vs 190A8  (Read 64921 times)

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #630 on: July 03, 2010, 09:15:22 AM »
"Completely dependent on other design considerations.  Don't confuse span loading with wing-loading.  Span loading is typically a function of wing design.  Wing loading is nothing more than the weight of the aircraft in a specific configuration divided by the wing area.  Ultimately, wing-loading has no impact on the structural qualities of a wing.  It does however, impact the aerodynamic qualities."

A higher span heads to less G-tolerance, while chord at the root does not. Just wondering.....
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Stoney

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #631 on: July 03, 2010, 09:19:30 AM »

A higher span heads to less G-tolerance, while chord at the root does not. Just wondering.....

I'm not sure I understand the question...
"Can we be incorrect at times, absolutely, but I do believe 15 years of experience does deserve a little more credence and respect than you have given from your very first post."

HiTech

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #632 on: July 03, 2010, 01:04:27 PM »
I am thinking of the wing spar. See how wings fluctuate at G if it is a long long wing ;)
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Stoney

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #633 on: July 03, 2010, 03:46:01 PM »
Well, you can make a long span very strong, its just going to increase weight proportionally. 
"Can we be incorrect at times, absolutely, but I do believe 15 years of experience does deserve a little more credence and respect than you have given from your very first post."

HiTech

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #634 on: July 05, 2010, 11:09:56 AM »
Precicly ;)
But weight also "increases" with G, so I wonder where the trade-off with span and chord occures. Which brings you to the form of the wing (tapering and thickness) and all the possibilities for stiffening the wing without making it able to break so easily.
But in general, the wing will take the most G at the root, and flex the more at the tip. Interesting how the trade-offs were done.
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Stoney

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #635 on: July 05, 2010, 01:49:27 PM »
Precicly ;)
But weight also "increases" with G, so I wonder where the trade-off with span and chord occures. Which brings you to the form of the wing (tapering and thickness) and all the possibilities for stiffening the wing without making it able to break so easily.
But in general, the wing will take the most G at the root, and flex the more at the tip. Interesting how the trade-offs were done.


Well, trade studies are conducted that consider aspect ratio, weight, structural strength, etc.  There is some sort of aerodynamic goal the designer has in mind and when doing wing design, for example, they could set up a "carpet plot" to see how changing the various characteristics impacted the design goals.  The design goal may prioritize aerodynamic efficiency or weight, or strength.  I've got some formulas that will take span, aspect ratio, taper ratio, design load, and will give you estimated weights for the wing as a result.  Its pretty interesting to see how those various characteristics affect the theoretical weight.
"Can we be incorrect at times, absolutely, but I do believe 15 years of experience does deserve a little more credence and respect than you have given from your very first post."

HiTech

Offline Charge

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #636 on: July 05, 2010, 02:36:57 PM »
As per topic I remember reading awhile ago that FW's wing weighed 400-450kg and fuselage something like 350kg IIRC. Dunno if that's a normal weight distribution between those two parts (two because FW has a solid spar so the whole wing is in one piece).

-C+
"When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams can come true. Unless it's really a giant meteor hurtling to the earth which will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much screwed no matter what you wish for. Unless of course, it's death by meteorite."

Offline Bronk

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9044
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #637 on: July 05, 2010, 03:06:14 PM »
As per topic I remember reading awhile ago that FW's wing weighed 400-450kg and fuselage something like 350kg IIRC. Dunno if that's a normal weight distribution between those two parts (two because FW has a solid spar so the whole wing is in one piece).

-C+
I thought it was built in 2 halves then bolted together?
  Edit: think this is wing halves ...
« Last Edit: July 05, 2010, 04:20:37 PM by Bronk »
See Rule #4

Offline JOACH1M

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9800
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #638 on: July 06, 2010, 05:28:10 PM »
The Focke Wolfe 190A8 has a bigger and heavy motor then the A5, which makes it slower and less of a climber and the A8 has a way heavyer wing loading then the A5.
FEW ~ BK's ~ AoM
Focke Wulf Me / Last Of The GOATS 🐐
ToC 2013 & 2017 Champ
R.I.P My Brothers <3

Offline STEELE

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 541
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #639 on: July 13, 2010, 06:08:19 AM »
The Focke Wolfe 190A8 has a bigger and heavy motor then the A5, which makes it slower and less of a climber and the A8 has a way heavyer wing loading then the A5.
The last few sites I've visited that deal exclusively with the 190 state that after the A6, subsequent models had an Enlarged and Lightened wing to help offset any weight increases. I have yet to find the square footage of the A5 wing compared to the A8, though. (Or wing weights) :headscratch:
The Kanonenvogel had 6 rounds per pod, this is not even close to being open for debate.