« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 [19] 20   Go Down

Author Topic: FW190 vs. BF109: Turn Radius (2011)  (Read 23370 times)

Offline Scherf

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3409
Re: FW190 vs. BF109: Turn Radius (2011)
« Reply #270 on: September 03, 2011, 04:03:13 AM »
Think some of those CDo numbers are here:

_Book_AVIA_28-3030_.jpg" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/wiki/index.php/File:The_Aircraft_Performance_Data _Book_AVIA_28-3030_.jpg

I believe the reference notes will give a hint re: which 190 was tested.
Logged
... missions were to be met by the commitment of alerted swarms of fighters, composed of Me 109's and Fw 190's, that were strategically based to protect industrial installations. The inferior capabilities of these fighters against the Mosquitoes made this a hopeless and uneconomical effort. 1.JD KTB

Offline Stoney

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
Re: FW190 vs. BF109: Turn Radius (2011)
« Reply #271 on: September 03, 2011, 09:49:25 AM »
Quote from: Stoney on September 03, 2011, 02:17:02 AM
No.  I haven't researched them yet...

Let me restate, I have the Cd0 for the Jug from America's Hundred Thousand.  The rest I don't have.
Logged
"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 Scherf

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3409
Re: FW190 vs. BF109: Turn Radius (2011)
« Reply #272 on: September 03, 2011, 04:26:12 PM »
Fargin linky no worky. Maybe this will:



Should have some CDo stuff for Spit 5 and 190. Will try to find out which 190 in particular.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2011, 04:32:41 PM by Scherf »
Logged
... missions were to be met by the commitment of alerted swarms of fighters, composed of Me 109's and Fw 190's, that were strategically based to protect industrial installations. The inferior capabilities of these fighters against the Mosquitoes made this a hopeless and uneconomical effort. 1.JD KTB

Offline Scherf

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3409
Re: FW190 vs. BF109: Turn Radius (2011)
« Reply #273 on: September 03, 2011, 04:36:21 PM »
Logged
... missions were to be met by the commitment of alerted swarms of fighters, composed of Me 109's and Fw 190's, that were strategically based to protect industrial installations. The inferior capabilities of these fighters against the Mosquitoes made this a hopeless and uneconomical effort. 1.JD KTB

Offline dtango

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1702
Re: FW190 vs. BF109: Turn Radius (2011)
« Reply #274 on: September 03, 2011, 08:52:12 PM »
Quote from: Scherf on September 03, 2011, 04:26:12 PM
Fargin linky no worky. Maybe this will:

(Image removed from quote.)

Should have some CDo stuff for Spit 5 and 190. Will try to find out which 190 in particular.

 :aok  Thanks for posting Scherf!
Logged
Tango / Tango412 412th FS Braunco Mustangs
"At times it seems like people think they can chuck bunch of anecdotes into some converter which comes up with the flight model." (Wmaker)

Offline Scherf

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3409
Re: FW190 vs. BF109: Turn Radius (2011)
« Reply #275 on: September 04, 2011, 03:25:34 AM »
Quote from: dtango on September 03, 2011, 08:52:12 PM
:aok  Thanks for posting Scherf!

No worries, just passing on good karma.

The full document is posted over in the Mosquito VI entry at the AH wiki site.
Logged
... missions were to be met by the commitment of alerted swarms of fighters, composed of Me 109's and Fw 190's, that were strategically based to protect industrial installations. The inferior capabilities of these fighters against the Mosquitoes made this a hopeless and uneconomical effort. 1.JD KTB

Offline Charge

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
Re: FW190 vs. BF109: Turn Radius (2011)
« Reply #276 on: September 06, 2011, 01:32:15 AM »
I don't get it. Compared to Mustang the profile drag is in same class, yet CDo is bigger than in Typhoon or Hurricane?  :headscratch:

-C+
Logged
"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 PJ_Godzilla

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2661
Re: FW190 vs. BF109: Turn Radius (2011)
« Reply #277 on: September 06, 2011, 04:32:18 AM »
Quote from: Charge on September 06, 2011, 01:32:15 AM
I don't get it. Compared to Mustang the profile drag is in same class, yet CDo is bigger than in Typhoon or Hurricane?  :headscratch:

-C+

It's normalized... Think about that denom - Which, based on the remarks, looks to be all over the place.
Logged
Some say revenge is a dish best served cold. I say it's usually best served hot, chunky, and foaming. Eventually, you will all die in my vengeance vomit firestorm.

Offline gripen

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
Re: FW190 vs. BF109: Turn Radius (2011)
« Reply #278 on: September 06, 2011, 01:36:43 PM »
Absolute values for flat plate areas can be easily calculated by multiplying the Cd0 with wing area.
Logged

Offline Charge

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
Re: FW190 vs. BF109: Turn Radius (2011)
« Reply #279 on: September 06, 2011, 02:58:51 PM »
Yeah, sure. But where does the CDo figure come from?

-C+
Logged
"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 Stoney

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
Re: FW190 vs. BF109: Turn Radius (2011)
« Reply #280 on: September 06, 2011, 03:10:38 PM »
Quote from: Charge on September 06, 2011, 02:58:51 PM
Yeah, sure. But where does the CDo figure come from?

-C+


Probably from some sort of component build-up method given the way the chart is broken down.  Or, could be from flight test data that's then plugged into a formula that gives you the component parts. 
Logged
"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 gripen

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
Re: FW190 vs. BF109: Turn Radius (2011)
« Reply #281 on: September 06, 2011, 04:23:53 PM »
AFAIK that chart is calculated from the flight test data, each plane has a test refered in the right side.
Logged

Offline Ardy123

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3417
Re: FW190 vs. BF109: Turn Radius (2011)
« Reply #282 on: September 06, 2011, 05:10:19 PM »
Another thing to notice is that some of the planes are 'prototypes' that my not have the same gun config, different engines, etc... from the final production version.
Logged
Yeah, that's right, you just got your rear handed to you by a fuggly puppet!
==Army of Muppets==
(Bunnies)

Offline PJ_Godzilla

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2661
Re: FW190 vs. BF109: Turn Radius (2011)
« Reply #283 on: September 06, 2011, 05:26:38 PM »
Quote from: Stoney on September 06, 2011, 03:10:38 PM
Probably from some sort of component build-up method given the way the chart is broken down.  Or, could be from flight test data that's then plugged into a formula that gives you the component parts. 

Probably, because if you take the 100fps drag figure and divide it by the dynamic pressure and either ref area, or even if you use the speed cited in the remarks, it doesn't tie out to the CD0. I spent a little time today trying to get a match and was unable to succeed. Best I could do was about a factor of 2, leading me at one point to think they'd dropped the .5. Doubt it, though...
Logged
Some say revenge is a dish best served cold. I say it's usually best served hot, chunky, and foaming. Eventually, you will all die in my vengeance vomit firestorm.

Offline Stoney

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
Re: FW190 vs. BF109: Turn Radius (2011)
« Reply #284 on: September 06, 2011, 10:43:50 PM »
Quote from: PJ_Godzilla on September 06, 2011, 05:26:38 PM
Probably, because if you take the 100fps drag figure and divide it by the dynamic pressure and either ref area, or even if you use the speed cited in the remarks, it doesn't tie out to the CD0. I spent a little time today trying to get a match and was unable to succeed. Best I could do was about a factor of 2, leading me at one point to think they'd dropped the .5. Doubt it, though...

Raymer's Book has a component buildup method that involves some pretty complicated formulas to do estimated drag numbers for each component like leakage and protuberance drag, for example, just like what the chart has broken out.  Could be some of the flight test data gives them some constants with which they can work up the individual component drag contributions.  I wouldn't take those numbers as dead-on, actual numbers, but more like very close estimates.
Logged
"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
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 [19] 20   Go Up
« previous next »