Author Topic: found interesting article on the net.....  (Read 775 times)

Offline hazed-

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
      • http://combatarena.users.btopenworld.com
found interesting article on the net.....
« on: January 15, 2003, 07:22:41 PM »
heres a copy of it:

'The Best of the Breed
by Col. "Kit" Carson
Airpower, July 1976
Vol. 6 No. 4

Fw 190A
General Characteristics:
A superb airplane, every inch a fighter. It could do a half roll at cruising speed in one second. Taking this in conjunction with the airplane's high top speed and rate of climb one expected its pilots to exploit its high speed qualities to the fullest without staying in there to "mix it up" in a low speed, flaps down full throttle, gut-wrenching dog fight.
They did. The 190 pilots had a good airplane and some good advice. Nearly all of my encounters with the 190 were at high speeds. On at least two occasions when I met them, my Mustang started porposing, which means I was into compressibility, probably around 550 mph. I don't know what my air speed indicator was reading, I wasn't watching it.
On another occasion, I jumped one directly over the city of Paris and fired all my ammo, but he was only smoking heavily after a long chase over the town. Assuming I was getting 10 percent hits, that airplane must have had 200 holes in it. It was a rugged machine.


Mean weight 8580
Engine BMW 801D
Horsepower 1600
Power loading, lbs./HP 5.36
Wing loading, lbs./sq.ft. 41.7
Prop diameter, ft. 10.86
Wing Geometry:
Area, sq.ft. 205
Span, ft. 34.5
Mean chord, ft. 5.95
Aspect Ratio 5.8
Dihedral, degrees 5
Sweepback, degrees 5.5
Root chord, ft. 7.45
Tip chord, ft. 4.05
Thickness Ratio, percent 12
Maximum thickness location Between 25 and 30 percent
Top speed, mph 408/20,600 ft.

Engine and Propeller:
The BMW 801D was a 14 cylinder, twin-row radial with direct fuel injection. A 10.9 foot diameter, 3-bladed VDM prop was used and was provided with hand lever or automatic pitch control. The 801D radial air-cooled engine first appeared on the Dornier Do 217 and the Fw 190. Its most novel feature was the oil cooler system which was a number of finned tubes shaped into a ring of tubes a little larger in diameter than the cooling fan. This ring was fitted into the rounded front portion of the cowling just aft of the fan.
I don't think this was a good idea. For example, my principal aiming point was always the forward portion of an enemy ship; the engine, cockpit, wing root section. If you get any hits at all, even only a few, you're bound to put one or two slugs into the engine compartment. Having a couple of bullets riccochet off the engine block and tear up some ignition harness is not too bad at all, at least not fatal. But to have all those thin-walled oil cooling tubes ahead of the engine is bad news. Any hits or riccochets in the engine section are bound to puncture the oil tubes. Then the whole engine is immersed in oil spray, and sometimes it would flash over into a fire. All of the 12 Focke-Wulfs that I shot down sent off a trail of dense, boiling oil smoke heavy enough to fog up my gun camera lens and windshield if I were so close.
Wings and Controls:
Again, as in the case of the Me 109, no trim tabs adjustable in flight from the cockpit were provided for the aileron and rudder. European designers seem to have acquired the notion that this was a nuisance or unnecessary. Not at all; when going into a dive, it's very easy for the pilot to reach down with his left hand and flick in a couple of half turns of rudder trim. It's not only desireable, but necessary to eliminate side slip for good gunnery. The Fw 190, however, did have electric trim tabs for the elevators.
Performance Evaluation:
The Fw 190's handling qualities were generally excellent. The most impressive feature was the aileron control at high speeds. Stick force per "g" was about 9 pounds upto 300 mph rising to 12 pounds at 400 mph as compared to over 20 pounds for the Me-109.
High speed stalls under "g" load were a little vicious and could be a fatal handicap in combat. If the airplane was pulled in tight and stalled at high speed at 2 "gs" or more with the power on, turning right or left, the left wing would drop violently without warning and the airplane would flick onto its back from a left turn. I scored against a 190 under such circumstances. The message was clear, don't stall it. Our own Bell P-39 Aircobra would do the same thing.
Fighting Qualities:
Excellent high speed, with exceptional maneuverability at those speeds. Range and endurance were markedly improved over the 109. The Focke-Wulf would go 3 hours plus. Visibility with the full view canopy was superb, as it was in the Mustang.

Summary:
Bad points:
(1) Oil cooling tubes at the front of the engines was a poor choice of location. A puncture due to combat damage, or to simple failure covered the engine section with an oil spray.
(2) Lack of aileron and rudder trim controls in the cockpit.
(3) Vicious high speed snap rolls if stalled under significant "g" load.
(4) Poor turning radius due to high wing loading.
Good points:
Everything else was good. In the hands of a competent pilot the 190 was a formidable opponent. The landing approach speed was high and this shakes some pilots up a bit, but I don't think it's anything it's anything to complain about.'


heres the website i found it on:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/

Interesting mention of the damage to oil lines on 190.Perhaps it is right how AH has the oil hit so regularly.I certainly wont think its so wrong after reading this will you? :)

theres also stuff on the 109 but it was too long to post it up in here

Offline eddiek

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1442
Hehehe, hazed.......
« Reply #1 on: January 15, 2003, 07:37:55 PM »
Sir, with all due respect..........

That EXACT article was posted a year or two ago by me in response to a debate about the 190's "engine oil" being so easily damaged.  
Glad to see ya reread it and thought it over.   Back then you were adamnant that it was wrong.
!

Offline bigUC

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 438
Re: found interesting article on the net.....
« Reply #2 on: January 16, 2003, 03:49:40 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by hazed-
(2) Lack of aileron and rudder trim controls in the cockpit.
(

This was deemed unecessary as the plane didn't need trimming for the various conditions of flight. (i.e. not a drawback).  It had tailplane incidence adjustment trough an electric motor, enabling a correction for the small change in pitch between low speed/high speed flight.
Kurt is winking at U!

Offline milnko

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 995
      • http://www.cameltoe.org
found interesting article on the net.....
« Reply #3 on: January 16, 2003, 01:03:23 PM »
Yeah, I posted same article a while back too.  

Here's another 'bout the 109. Titled The Best of the Breed Airpower, July, 1976 Vol. 6 No. 4
by Col. "Kit" Carson

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
found interesting article on the net.....
« Reply #4 on: January 16, 2003, 02:33:26 PM »
Hi Milnko,

>re's another 'bout the 109. Titled The Best of the Breed Airpower, July, 1976 Vol. 6 No. 4 by Col. "Kit" Carson

Carson's article on the Me 109 is so inaccurate that I recommend ignoring it entirely.

Fortunately, his article on the Fw 190 is much better :-)

The only thing I'd add would be that the Fw 190's oil cooler was protected by an armour ring that was integral part of the cowling (which might explain why Carson missed it).

USAAF gunners mention that they could see their 0.50" bullets bounce of the Focke-Wulfs' cowling, much like the German fighter pilots described their bullets bouncing off the Sturmoviks' armour.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
found interesting article on the net.....
« Reply #5 on: January 16, 2003, 03:21:02 PM »
Hi again,

Here's some food for thought regarding the Me 109:

P-51B: 450 mph @ 29100 ft
Me 109K-4: 451 mph @ 19700 ft

Break-even in speed: 432 mph @ 25800 ft

P-51B power: ca. 1250 HP @ 25800 ft
Me 109K-4 power: ca. 1170 HP @ 25800 ft

So the Me 109K-4 is actually achieving the same speed as the P-51B at less power.

With this comparison I suprrised myself :-)

The exact values may be worthy of discussion (P-51B source: F4U comparison report posted on this board, Me 109K-4 source: Tsagi speed data, Daimler-Benz engine data), but my point merely is that the Me 109's aerodynamics were a lot better than "common wisdom" would lead us to believe.

Even if we should find out that it used 100 HP more than I thought and the P-51B used 100 HP less, the Me 109K still would be very close to the USAAF's finest fighter. It's not the flying barn door with an oversized engine some writers seem to mistake it for!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Offline hazed-

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
      • http://combatarena.users.btopenworld.com
Re: Hehehe, hazed.......
« Reply #6 on: January 16, 2003, 06:56:47 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by eddiek
Sir, with all due respect..........

That EXACT article was posted a year or two ago by me in response to a debate about the 190's "engine oil" being so easily damaged.  
Glad to see ya reread it and thought it over.   Back then you were adamnant that it was wrong.
!


with all due respect it wasnt me who was adamnant that it was wrong because this is the first time ive ever read it.Was probably RAM or someone like that.
As i personally think pilots written accounts are worthy of attention, had i read this before i would never have said someone was wrong for agreeing with it.

However, I have also got an article about how amazingly durable the 190 engine was and a story of how one had a total cylinder head shot away in a ground attack and managed to fly some 100 miles back to base.
Basically if you take both accounts into consideration you may end up with the idea that although the 190 may well have had exposed oil lines and they could be damaged rather too easily this doesnt mean the aircraft immediately ceased to function.Losing an entire cylinder and continuing to run suggests even with massive oil loss the engine still worked amazingly well for a while.
I have also read of the P47 losing ALL of its oil and continuing to run.Sounds like these two machines had a similar high durability and could both take a lot of punishment.Pilots dont become confident of their machines without good reason and both p47 and 190 pilots are often quoted as saying they were.

Perhaps we should see oil damage commonly in 190s but not necessarily lose engines in the few seconds after its hit?. :)

anyhow as the AH model is now for 190a's I think its very well done.You tend to damage oil in HO's in 190s and often the engine is hit from rear quarter shots but the engine does seem to last a little longer than it once did and im very happy with the change HTC made.It still takes hits there regularly just as this article would suggest and after reading it I came to the conclusion HTC have made it right as it is.Also the description of the 109 in the same article comes damn close to AH's 109s too.

anyhow plz dont  post stuff like I was somehow purposefully  ignoring info as I certainly dont if i read it and agree the source is real.kinda bugged me a bit :)

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
found interesting article on the net.....
« Reply #7 on: January 20, 2003, 02:44:15 AM »
Well, the Dora still has that annoying radiator hit bug. One would almost expect the entire nose of the Dora to be a huge radiator considering how easily it is hit.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline J_A_B

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3012
found interesting article on the net.....
« Reply #8 on: January 20, 2003, 03:17:29 AM »
How exactly are Carsons's comments on the Bf-109 wrong?

The important facts (the parts where he discusses performance) are accurate and match well with, say, the AH version of the Bf-109G-6 (which BTW is what he was flying).  

The mistakes he makes aren't really related to the performance evaluation.

J_A_B

Offline Griego

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 223
found interesting article on the net.....
« Reply #9 on: January 20, 2003, 03:51:49 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi again,

Here's some food for thought regarding the Me 109:

P-51B: 450 mph @ 29100 ft
Me 109K-4: 451 mph @ 19700 ft

Break-even in speed: 432 mph @ 25800 ft

P-51B power: ca. 1250 HP @ 25800 ft
Me 109K-4 power: ca. 1170 HP @ 25800 ft

So the Me 109K-4 is actually achieving the same speed as the P-51B at less power.

With this comparison I suprrised myself :-)

The exact values may be worthy of discussion (P-51B source: F4U comparison report posted on this board, Me 109K-4 source: Tsagi speed data, Daimler-Benz engine data), but my point merely is that the Me 109's aerodynamics were a lot better than "common wisdom" would lead us to believe.

Even if we should find out that it used 100 HP more than I thought and the P-51B used 100 HP less, the Me 109K still would be very close to the USAAF's finest fighter. It's not the flying barn door with an oversized engine some writers seem to mistake it for!

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)



  If this is true then why does AH's 109g-10 compress at 400mph.
since all that I've read in these bbs is that AH's 109g-10 is about as close to a 109k-4 as it could be.

 which is kinda funny since the 109g models doesnt compress at that speed.

 things that make you go hmmmmmm.

Offline J_A_B

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3012
found interesting article on the net.....
« Reply #10 on: January 20, 2003, 07:07:42 AM »
It's not compressability, it's simply a case of really heavy controls.  You can use trim to compensate.

J_A_B

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
found interesting article on the net.....
« Reply #11 on: January 20, 2003, 03:33:32 PM »
Hi Jab,

>How exactly are Carsons's comments on the Bf-109 wrong?

Just one example:

"The Spitfire was an aerodynamically clean airplane to start with, having a total drag coefficient of .021 at cruise. The Me-109 had a coefficient of .036; drag coefficiency and of the horsepower required to haul 'em around. Like golf scores, the lower the better, and no fudging. "

Fact is that the Me 109 always achieved similar top speeds as the Spitfire on similar power. It might have been small and ugly and not big and beautiful, but drag doesn't care for looks.

The lower the better? Sure, but only if you look at absolute power numbers, not if you divide it by the size of your wing as done to arrive at the drag coefficient.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Offline hazed-

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
      • http://combatarena.users.btopenworld.com
found interesting article on the net.....
« Reply #12 on: January 20, 2003, 08:11:38 PM »
I thought his description of the behaviour of the 109 closely matched the AH one myself.

He may have been wrong about the drag coef. but its hardly a wrong statement when you consider what he says is right concerning modern fighters.

All fighters of today try for the lowest drag possible dont they?

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
found interesting article on the net.....
« Reply #13 on: January 20, 2003, 11:07:28 PM »
Hi Hazed,

>I thought his description of the behaviour of the 109 closely matched the AH one myself.

Carson gets so many facts wrong that his conclusions are entirely worthless.

>All fighters of today try for the lowest drag possible dont they?

The point is, the Me 109K-4 has just as little drag as the P-51B.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Offline J_A_B

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3012
found interesting article on the net.....
« Reply #14 on: January 20, 2003, 11:23:31 PM »
You see Hazed, what HoHun is doing is nitpicking at some irrelevant details.  

The "meat" of the report--the performance evaluation--is completely accurate.    You can read this and have a good idea of how the Bf-109G-6 will fly, what it does well and what its limitations are.  

J_A_B