Author Topic: 190A vs 190D (Read 597 times)

FLS · « **Reply #15 on:** April 05, 2002, 03:06:08 PM »

It's been pointed out in another thread that AH IAS can't be directly compared to historical IAS data. I think it would help this discussion if the speeds at which the various FW-190's compressed or lost pitch authority was posted rather than just a general statement that it happens. I haven't noticed a big discrepancy so maybe some numbers would help me see what I've missed.

If anybody has any information on the effect of the longer nose and fuselage of the D9 on it's drag and compression speeds compared to the A8 please post it.

When I tested the tiffi it lost it's wings when the FW190's kept theirs so I don't see where the relative modeling is incorrect. With the limits on the speedometer it's also difficult to compare the compression speeds.

--)-FLS----
Musketeers

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #16 on:** April 05, 2002, 04:00:10 PM »

FLS, you are one, we were first five and the last time three. D9 augering and Typh recovering without using trims. If any doubt, look for my at MA and we may redo the tests in DA.

And I repeat once more, this is not about when these planes get compressed, but about the loose of control well below comopression speed. If you want a mock combat using D9 vs Typh at hi speed look for me also in MA, D9 has just 0 chances to keep alive except if it try to extend by speed (not maneuvering) for almost an entire quadrant. Combat up to 20k.

Of course more numbers will help, but critical machs of both planes have brrn already posted several times, having D9 almost 100 mph of advantage before total compression.

Naudet · « **Reply #17 on:** April 06, 2002, 02:56:23 AM »

FLS, the speed for all FW190 were those. i gave in the "D9 compresses to early thread".

And about the compression difference in AH. Its about 25-30 mph IAS.
The FW190A dives like i would expect it to dive (numbers given in that other thread), but D9 compresses earlier. But it should not.

And about Hitech comments. It would in many cases just help when Hitech comes in and gives a comment, which sources might be wrong (and those he refers to are in a F8 thread not with D9 dive performance). A short explanation would help everyone.
But the way it is now, we dont even know if our thoughts reach HT, we don't know if he looks in the new sources.

They always say, give us numbers, sources and tests. I have given such things, but i didnt get a response - negative or positive. And cause of that i am tired of posting such things. Why should i spent time testing something, reading endlessly through my books, searching for original factory data when the result is nothing?

Sikboy · « **Reply #18 on:** April 06, 2002, 01:09:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Naudet
A short explanation would help everyone.

No it wouldn't. Just look at the torque thread. HTC came out and said "I have no doubt of my numbers" but that wasn't enough. They were still questioned. All a short explanation does in these threads is open up a larger argument. It also opens the door for future arguments, and claims of dissproportionate response from various people chasing after various improvements.

-Sikboy

FLS · « **Reply #19 on:** April 06, 2002, 01:10:19 PM »

I haven't found any high speed control issues with the D9. I really don't understand what the problem is.

--)-FLS----
Musketeers

Naudet · « **Reply #20 on:** April 06, 2002, 05:12:11 PM »

FLS compare it to the A8.

I dunno how, but you couldnt even copy the dive test results all others got in the "d9 compresses to early" thread. Maybe you have a different D9, who knows. But for people that often switch between fw190A and D the problem is obvious.
I am a pure D9 driver, but after Mandoble mentioned the difference, i did some test, and without difficulties the differences could be recognized.

@sikboy: That is not what i call a short explanation. It was just the statement of Hitech that he doesnt doubt his numbers. And in the explanation he didnt mention if his numbers contain all torque effects. He just explained that you get pure engine torque by hp/rpm or anything like that. He didnt even described all elements that influence torque in AH.

I am still waiting for an explanation why D9 should have worse dive characteristics than the A-Series. All sources i have state the same or better dive characteristics for the D9, i now want to know why thats the exact opposite in AH. There must be a reason. If not, its a fault and should be fixed.

Dr Zhivago · « **Reply #21 on:** April 06, 2002, 05:22:39 PM »

Delivery of the Fw 190D-9 began in August 1944. The first Gruppe to convert to the "Dora-9" was III/JG 54. Their initial assignment was to fly "top cover" for Me 262 jet fighters during takeoff when the jet fighters were specially vulnerable because of their poor acceleration. At first, Luftwaffe pilots were somewhat suspicious of their new fighter, since the Jumo 213 was thought to be only a "bomber" engine. However, it soon became apparent that they had a winner on their hands. The "Dora" could out-climb and out-dive its BMW 801-powered predecessor with ease, and it possessed an excellent turning rate at speed. An experienced pilot could pull a tighter turn in a D-9 than he could with the BMW-powered FW-190A. The general opinion of the pilots who flew the FW 190D-9 was that it was the finest propeller-driven fighter available to the Luftwaffe during the entire war. In fact, many of its pilots considered it more than a match for the redoubtable P-51D Mustang.

FLS · « **Reply #22 on:** April 06, 2002, 05:59:33 PM »

Naudet

I compared the A8 and D9 and I don't see the problem. As you pointed out, we get different results testing the same conditions. Maybe you could post specific performance differences that are obvious to you instead of general statements about your opinions so I'll know what to look for.

--)-FLS----
Musketeers

Sikboy · « **Reply #23 on:** April 06, 2002, 06:24:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Naudet
That is not what i call a short explanation. It was just the statement of Hitech that he doesnt doubt his numbers. And in the explanation he didnt mention if his numbers contain all torque effects. He just explained that you get pure engine torque by hp/rpm or anything like that. He didnt even described all elements that influence torque in AH.

So it wasn't satisfactory. And I don't think it ever would be satisfactory. that's my whole point.

-Sikboy

Naudet · « **Reply #24 on:** April 07, 2002, 07:21:44 AM »

FLS i posted the numbers back in another thread, but here what i found out in a comparative dive test with an FW190A8 and a D9.

D9 starts to shake @475mph IAS @ 9.5K
A8 starts to shake @495-500 mph IAS @9.5k

that a difference of 20-25mph as you can see.

And as i said, i filmed those things, but what i didnt knew was, that you cant see compression in films.
Both planes were at 100% fuel.

Edit: Just to be sure i repeated the dive test with an A8, but this time the bird started to shake at 475 mph IAS @9.5k. So there is no difference in compression! The only question i now have why both tests (the other one ist about 4 weeks ago, still with 1.08) gave different results. The films don't help much here cause they dont show any compression at all.
So far i can only conclude i made a mistake in the 1st test. Dunno how as i never changed the procedure, but somewhere there must have been a fault.

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #25 on:** April 07, 2002, 09:33:35 AM »

Back to the topic. No matter whether both planes compressed at 457mph or not. My question was about handling at med/hi speeds not about the speed where both planes get compressed.

lord dolf vader · « **Reply #26 on:** April 07, 2002, 12:31:14 PM »

off topic a little

once in th ma i asked ht why the nikis torque was screwed , he responded in what way ?. i said at edge of a stall you can instantly firwall with wep ( full power) with almost no change to the ac as far as torque effects. he said that was correct

i ask you is it ? methinks ht hates to be wrong.

Mino · « **Reply #27 on:** April 07, 2002, 02:45:39 PM »

Is Lord Dolt Vader the next biggest LW jerk?

lord dolf vader · « **Reply #28 on:** April 07, 2002, 02:58:02 PM »

ahh nice insult . you also believe the niki torque effects or lack there of are correct?

lord dolf vader · « **Reply #29 on:** June 17, 2002, 12:12:32 AM »

bump for chime in thread