Pyro please look at these numbers for the FW-190D9

[Vermillion]

And just for those that don't know, if I remember correctly myself, when Naudet brought this issue up a long time ago Pyro did step in and make a comment in the original thread.

[HoHun]

Hi Naudet,

I'm afraid that you are completely wrong in your assumptions about the Fw 190D-9.

The charts that were available from BBury's web site explicetly indicated:

Schwebeleistung im Schnellflug - 1925 PS - 611 km/h

Equilibrium power in fast flight - 1925 HP - 380 mph

(The scaling of power for relative air density proves this is sea level power.)

That means 1925 HP will get you curve 4 or 2. Curve 3 indicates 640 km/h at sea level, a speed increase of 4.7% requiring a power increase of 15% or from 1925 HP to 2200 HP.

I estimate that 50 HP of these are provided by increased exhaust thrust, leaving 2150 shaft HP. The Jumo 213A engine chart shows a wet WEP of 2140 shaft HP - perfect match.

So, a 2100 HP Dora will yield curve 3.

If you don't get (edit:) 398 mph on the deck, your Dora has less than 2100 HP.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[hazed-]

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Apparently you haven't read the incredibly long thread where the Luftwhining came to a head, and HiTech basically stated that the manner in which Luftwaffe fans frame their complaints really matters.  It's right here, I believe.

Then reread how AGJV44 describes 190D9 pilots as "jipped," and you'll understand.

-- Todd/Leviathn

I have to say lev that if you consider this post a question thats asked in a poor manner youre being incredibly harsh. the word 'jipped' in my country has no meaning at all. I took 'jipped' in 'My question is this how can we have the great climb but get jipped with the same outpout settings for top speed at alt??? as 'stuck with'. Im not having a go i just think maybe youre being a little oversensitive here.personally I cant read german and im no mathematitian so i dont have an opinion here but if AGJ has done his sums and or is correct about what hes found I fail to see where he has been rude or impolite or has in any way implied anything 'against' HTC unless 'jipped' means something really bad!.

Its merely a question with perhaps a little bit of impatience.Pyro i bet has read it and before he answers he'll look it over.We cant expect him to comment without checking it out first and I'd guess he's fairly busy on AH2 atm.I think given time he will answer and i hope he hasnt taken offense here. If he has I for one cannot understand why, give AGJ a break here lev, hes worked hard to find this stuff and he has the same right as anyone to question stuff if he sees discrepencies.

btw what does 'jipped' mean?

[eddiek]

But here in the States "jipped" or "gyped" is used when someone is being dishonest, i.e. a ripoff.  Not exactly a complimentary term, by any means.

[hazed-]

isnt that 'duped' ? 'jipped' has no meaning in any dictionary i can find. nearest word is 'japped' which means 'mockingly'.

ahh well i guess only AGJ could say what he implied. Im only sorry another thread has returned to the age old debates.I think ill steer clear of this topic if a single word can cause so much grief .

[Regurge]

AGJV44's posts are littered with sublteties that shout "luftwhine".

Originally posted by AGJV44_Rot 1
Finally found the problem with the Dora.
What problem? Is there some well known problem with the D9 FM I'm not aware of? Since you dont specify what "the problem" is people will assume its that the Dora doesnt sweep the enemy from the skies effortlessly like you think it should.

Dora’s climb rate and speeds are 2 different sets.  Given the current top speed and climb for the Dora they match up with a different set of power settings...If we were to have the same power setting for climb then why can’t it have the same power setting for performance?
You havent seen what data Pyro uses, yet you proclaim to know what he's done wrong.

My question is this how can we have the great climb but get jipped with the same outpout settings for top speed at alt???
jip - to deny something unfairly, eg. short-change. Also, it sounds like "we" means "LW flyers", as if you're different from the rest of the community. Everyone benefits from accurate FMs regardless of their favorite plane. There's no reason for squad or country affiliations to be involved at all.


[/B]

The whole thing read like a setup. So Pyro could come in here and say "we have data that confirms the current model, but I can't show it to you or say where we got it." And the response would be "See, I proved the D9 FM is wrong but Pyro won't change it! He obviously hates LW!"

Notice how there is no problem with the data, just the way its presented.

All you had to say was something like "Hey Pyro found this data and when I compare it to AH charts, the climb matches power setting x and the speed matches power setting y. Does the AH D9 use different power settings for climb and level flight?"

[GRUNHERZ]

Everyone shut up. This is turninig into another luftwhine witchunt where people jump all over each other. He said what he said, and Pyro can do whatever he wants - he doesnt need people attaking the poster.

[AGJV44_Rot 1]

To answer all before this turns into another LW whine thread, I am asking for a look at the data.  I am sorry If I used the word Jipped, meaning (read my above text's) having 2 seperate power settings.  This is not a whine but a serious inquiry into what I have looked into.  This whole labeling crap has gotten way out of control.  If I were to come in here tomrrow with P-51 data saying it was faster on the deck who would be on the bandwagon?  All I am asking is for checking of the data.  If I am wrong so be it, no more complaints.  I am really tired of this LW whining crap.

I know guys like F4U1D put a lot of time into their research and how many jump on his Arse for submitting data???  I envy him for researching a plane that he has so much passion for.  I apologize for using the word "Jipped" might not have been the best word to choose as I love the dora now and how it is.  But with my ever present mind of seeking knowledge I go back and look things over.  So I proposed this.  If I am wrong well chalk it up as a learning experience but don't contribute it to the LW whine.  I am just seeking answers.

[Seeker]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Everyone shut up. This is turninig into another luftwhine .

[eddiek]

AGJ, I'm not accusing you or anyone else of whining.  Hazed made an inquiry about that word, I merely answered.
If the data is credible, and Pyro thinks it bears inclusion, hey, great.  I like the Dora too, I think it is a very capable plane in it's current form.  Was it even better than we have?  Who knows?
I've said before, and I will say it now...........I don't trust any test flight data from the German side as more credible than similiar test flight data by the Americans or British about their own planes.  Somewhere, somehow, a myth started that the Germans kept impeccable records and that anything authored by them is like being told by God that they make no mistakes.  
Just like American aircraft manufacturers, there was a race to stay alive in the airplane business, and I would not put it past someone to doctor or fudge numbers to impress someone in the aircraft procurement section of the LW.  
Let Pyro plug those numbers into the flight model and see what turns up.  Current technology enables us to plug in HP numbers and other important data and find out just what a plane is really capable of doing.  I trust his system to tell him if performance is really up to par, or if someone somewhere fudged the numbers a tad to make the plane look better.

[Kweassa]

Layman's question:

 I've often wondered.. what's the difference between a 'wet WEP' and 'dry WEP'???

[HoHun]

Hi Kweassa,

>I've often wondered.. what's the difference between a 'wet WEP' and 'dry WEP'???

It's an American slang term for augmented power including resp. excluding injection of power boosting liquid.

I assume it originated with water injection (which was used both with piston and with jet engines), but transferred to afterburners as well, "dry thrust" being engine thrust without afterburner and "wet thrust" with afterburner.

The power boosting liquid in the latter case obvioiusly is jet fuel :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[moot]

top

[wetrat]

yarrrrr! (bump)

[wulfie]

Originally posted by eddiek
Somewhere, somehow, a myth started that the Germans kept impeccable records and that anything authored by them is like being told by God that they make no mistakes

It's not a myth. Apparently you've never had to do any research with wartime test data, and/or have never had a chance to compare non-German WW2 test documents with German test documents. Note here that I'm not saying that North American test data for the P-51 isn't to be trusted - it is. But in general, the Germans were known to be very thorough with their testing of everything. The same can't be said for Allied testing of captured equipment, for example.

At the end of WW2, the U.S. Army found that German test data on captured American weapons (in this case gun performance vs. armor plate) was 'better' than the U.S. data due to German testing procedures, etc.

The data most often seen on LW aircraft is test data dealing with introduction of the aircraft into combat, i.e. very reliable in terms of 'combat use applicability'.

Your comment that 'German aircraft manufacturers were fudging data to stay in business' has no validity. Do you understand how aircraft contracts were awarded in Nazi Germany? No comparison to the U.S.A. during WW2 (which was a good thing for the Allies).

Mike/wulfie