Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: agent 009 on May 28, 2005, 06:55:05 PM
-
What was this done? what effect on maneuverability-control would this have?
-
no effect, because rudder pedals were enlarged proportionally
-
LMAO
funny shyte :)
No, the bigger tailplane was to counter the ever-increasing torque from more and more powerful engines (consider the airframe was designed for the DB600, and the DB605 was just strapped to the same mounts). Also at alt I think it helped provide more surface area in the thinner air.
-
IIRC the bigger tail was introduced after the dive trials with the 109F...so I guess was meant to improve stability at high speed.
-
Yep, to improve directional stability, especially with growing max. speed of the 109, and it`s low directional stability, this was neccesary.
For manouveribility, the enlarged rudder was certainly more powerful, and iirc niklas? said something about how the enlarged rudder improves roll rate under circumstances.
-
While the tall tail improved directional stability the main reason for it was the to decrease the dutch roll phenomena at high altitudes and at high speed (dives as Meyer noted). Here in Finland all Bf 109Gs were standardized to the short tail after war despite some planes had metal tall tail.
BTW new "Suomen Ilmailuhistoriallinen lehti" 2/2005 contains the propeller efficiency and level speed part of the Jukka Raunio's article serie on performance of the Bf 109G. Interesting read for all finish speaking people interested about performance of the piston engined fighters.
gripen
-
Thanx all. I had guessed the taller tail was for better directional stability. The tailplane though was what had got my curiosity.
Using wood was done as metals were getting scarce so the story goes. The wood tail weighed more & was reported to be more stable. Less vibration I surmise.
Dora had wider tail. Perhaps to counter flick over problem? Or simply for better directional stability?
Some Dora's got the 152 tail near the end.
Back to tailplane. Krusty torque & more surface area comments make most sense. Now with bigger tailplane, one would assume bigger elevators as well correct? If so, this would also to a small degree effect turn rate. Thoughts?
-
The FW-190 never had a "flick over problem" and the Dora was the slowest roller of the series.
The tall tail was leftover from the "hohenjager 2" testing. It was necessary for the altered CG with the longer engine, centrally mounted (motorkanone) weapons, and improved the very high altitude yaw stability of the Ta-152 series.
It is not a serial modification of the FW-190D9. It is found only on the Ta-152 series and later mark Dora's (D-11 for example) which have the characteristic longer motor with hub mounted weapons requiring the modified tail.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Dora had same wing as A series. Have not as yet seen any real data to suggest it was slowest roller. Should be the same. Same wing, same controls, same roll. Unless wider tail somehow affected roll.
-
here is the "flick over" problem described.
Hermann Krafft’s I./JG.51 pilots learned about the airplanes vicious stall characteristics. Below 200 kilometers per hour (127 MPH), the port wing would abruptly fall off. In a tight turn, it could flick over and go into a spin. Properly controlled and with sufficient altitude, a spin could even offer an escape; no Soviet plane could match it.
From this site.
Focke-Wulf Fw 190
... But when the engine did fail, the Fw 190 had the gliding ability of a brick ... In a tight turn, it could flick over and go into a spin ...
http://www.acepilots.com/german/fw190.html - More from this site
_____________________________ _____________________
-
Yes Agent it had the same wing. It had a different CG however and the pilots who flew it tell me it did not roll as well as the FW-190A.
The Dora 9 did not have a taller tail. At least not any serial production Dora 9's.
Tail on the Dora was the same as the FW-190A series.
Your talking about the aggrevated stall characteristics which were about the same as the P 51D.
According to both Oscar Boesch, Heinz Orlowski, and the FW-190 aileron adjustment regulations, a properly adjusted FW-190A will give you some warning. Recovery was immediate which is actually better than the P51D which took between 5-6 turns to recover.
Dora had wider tail. Perhaps to counter flick over problem? Or simply for better directional stability?
Tied to yaw wise stability it seems you were implying a roll stability problem which did not exist. The FW-190A's and FW-190D9 roll was fast and stable. The Dora's was just a tad slower than the Antons.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Wider, not taller tail. It was made a few inches wider, or perhaps longer is the word.
I have seen a photo of Dora's with the 152 tail in a book. very few got these it did say.
Yes Dora had diferent cg. Don't get how this affects roll. How many Dora pilots have you spoken to?
-
I have spoken with three.
I spent this past weekend going thru crates of FW-190 parts in Norfolk Va for the Foundation and Gosshawk. Google "Yellow 10".
You can find all kinds of pictures of "Doras'" with the taller or wider tail or however you want to split the hair.
They are not Dora 9's. They are rare pictures of a few prototype 152/Dora's or some of the few D-13/R11's and D-12/R11's that made it to the Geschwaders in the last weeks of the war.
According to Focke Wulf, no Dora 9's were serial produced with the Ta-152 series tail.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
"Back to tailplane. Krusty torque & more surface area comments make most sense. Now with bigger tailplane, one would assume bigger elevators as well correct? If so, this would also to a small degree effect turn rate. Thoughts?"
Actually, the PORT stabilizer/elevator (I believe it was port) is thicker than the STARBOARD one. Why? Increase lift (in which direction I can't remember) to help counter torque. There were lots of little things like that. I think the spitfire's off-sides radiator may have been for a similar reason (wild guess)
-
There are pictures of D9s with Ta152 tails. They were extremely rare but 3 are known to exist, the most famous being W.Nr. 500647 and it is cerainly a D9. Another is 500645.
And I have never seen a D11/12/13 with a Ta152 tail, except once in a model. I'd love to see this because IMO it would be the best looking 190D.
-
Port & starboard eh. Um is that left & right? on tailplane?
Krusty. I have only one non book report from a Dora pilot. He said it was much quieter than radial. Hit 370 mph on deck,( no boost I would guess as these were 1st ones to arrive). New canopy gave much better rear view. Better in turns cause had more shaft horsepower. Forget rest. He mentioned dive & turn compared to other fighters, but without the text in front of me, I'd rather not go there.
-
All serial produced Fw 190Ds had wider tail vertical surface than Fw 190A. The widening can be seen easily from the profiles as an extension at front of the rudder. Ta 152s had even wider tail as well as some Fw 190Ds. And both had lenghtened fuselage, again the extension can be seen in the front of the horizontal tail.
gripen
(http://www.hsgalleries.com/gallery04/images/Fw-190D-JG6-Weisse-10.jpg)
(http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/dan1.jpg)
(http://hem.passagen.se/galland/KG27.gif)
(http://www.rlm.at/profil/05/fw190.jpg)
-
Tail on the Dora was the same as the FW-190A series.
Actually not, the Dora had an extra section inserted in the tail to enlarge vertical stab area, compared to the A-Series.
And also some D9s were delivered with the TA152 tailplane, which was all done to ease serial production of the entire FW190-TA152 by using standarized parts.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Actually, the PORT stabilizer/elevator (I believe it was port) is thicker than the STARBOARD one. Why? Increase lift (in which direction I can't remember) to help counter torque. There were lots of little things like that. I think the spitfire's off-sides radiator may have been for a similar reason (wild guess)
You mean the port elevator was also thicker on the 109? I know the vertical fin had an assymetric profile, much like normal wings, to counter torque.
Another nice solution to counter torque (in this case, effectively neutralize) was found on the Yakovlev fighters, which had assymeteric wing area.
AFAIK the assymetric, single wing radiator on early Spits caused some yawing in dives due to it`s air resistance - that ceased when they started to use two radiators with the MkIX.
RE : on the the reduced roll rate of the 190D, the only reason I can think of is the replacement of the engine with the Jumo 213. Perhaps the symmetric shape of the radial engines come with less initial inertia, and rolls can be started quicker, altough maximal rate of roll may be similiar. I have seen some German source though that the Dora`s roll rate was much lower - about half of the Antons, ie. 360 degree roll in ca 4 seconds.
-
And also some D9s were delivered with the TA152 tailplane, which was all done to ease serial production of the entire FW190-TA152 by using standarized parts.
Hi Naudet!
Glad to see you. We were not talking about the .5M extension in the fuselage but rather the 1.77M tail.
On the production orders you are correct but it is not serial production of the FW-190D9 with the new tail. The Focke Wulf factory intention was never to produce large numbers one after the other of the Dora 9 with a Ta-152 tail. The Dora 9 simply does not meet the aerodynamic properties requiring the 1.77M tail. It was not necessary.
The final few months of the war are a tangled mess from the factory point of view.
There is correspondence indicating the FW-190D11, D12, and D13 were on the verge of production. In fact it is likely that some quantities were produced before the end of hostilities.
As I understand FW's production orders for the Dora series it was to receive the Ta-152 series tail when the current contracted factories began producing
FW-190D11 (+) series.
The factories and subcontractors producing the Dora 9 are also the ones contracted for D11 (+) production. I have original documentation listing those subcontractors from Focke Wulf along with production instructions and major design changes.
During the changeover they would simply produce hybrids that month until the Jumo 213A's ran out.
This was production expediency for the late marques D11, D12, D13 and not design change to the Dora 9. In other words it was done to get the last 213A's out the door of the factory without having to retool the factory.
Now if JG26's Kommanduer was flying a an FW-190D13 and much of JV 44's protection staffle was flying late marque Dora's it is likely that a tiny number of Dora 9's made it out the door with a Ta-152 series tail.
This is not the same thing as serial production. No order is given to retool the factories to implement a design change in the Dora 9. The Dora 9 can simply use available parts on it's way to end of it's production lifecycle to expedite production of the next series.
Here is a FW factory drawing of the D13:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1117463980_190d13.jpg)
As per FW factory instructions any Dora marques with hub firing weapons required the modified tail of 1.77m.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
All serial produced Fw 190Ds had wider tail vertical surface than Fw 190A.
Wrong Gripen.
The tail shown on your JG6 Dora 9 was implemented in the FW-190A/F series.
It was a serial production part of that series.
Your middle plate is the 1.77M tail on a Ta 152H.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Wrong Gripen.
The tail shown on your JG6 Dora 9 was implemented in the FW-190A/F series.
Dear Crumpp,
Why don't you read what Naudet wrote:
"Actually not, the Dora had an extra section inserted in the tail to enlarge vertical stab area, compared to the A-Series. "
And that is exactly same I'm saying above, a good picture of the tail extension can be seen below (from Flugwerke site (http://www.flugwerk.com/new/fw190/bild4.shtm)). The vertical tail extension (extra section) can be seen in the right and the fuselage extension in the left.
gripen
(http://www.flugwerk.com/new/images/diary/109-0907_IMG.jpg)
-
Gripen,
What part of that extentsion was part of the FW-190A/F series production is confusing to you?
It first appears on FW-190A5 and is used throughout FW-190A/F/G production on different varients.
It is not specific for the Dora 9 and as the Focke Wulf factory directs:
"Existing tail surfaces from FW-190A8 series will be used."
The fuselage extentsion of .5 meters is mandatory in the Dora 9 and was serially produced.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1117469223_r15tail.jpg)
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Crummp,
The standard Fw190D9 v-stab was wider than the standard Fw190A series v-stab. A short extension, maybe 10-15cm was added just ahead of the rudder control surface. This was in addition to the longer plug in front of the tail assembly.
Your drawing of the A5/U14 prototype does not show the D9 type tail which was imply an extended A series tail with a plug before the moving rudder surface. The A5-U14 tails fins are extended at the front by cahning the size and shape of the laediong edge of the v-stab - hence the odd panel on th le and the standard position of the triangle access hatch. The D9 tail was extended at the rear, so the ledaing edge shape is teh same but the access hatch appears to be farther forward.
-
Crumpp,
standard A/F/G 190s did not have the rear extention peice added to the fin.
Notice the piece in front of the rudder of the D-9.
(http://www.albentley-drawings.com/images/FW190D9F.jpg)
Now compare to the A/F/G (A-5 shown)
(http://www.albentley-drawings.com/images/FW190A5F.jpg)
To back up Grunherz, notice that there is a larger distance between the fin access hatch on the D-9 compared to the A/F/G a/c.
Bentley drawings
-
You are correct Grunhertz. You posted before I could delete the post.
Looking in Rodieke's "Jagdflugzeug FW-190" the extentsion is listed for the Dora.
I found the Focke Wulf documentation specifying a tail extentsion will be implaced "when available" in the minutes of another factory meeting.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
What part of that extentsion was part of the FW-190A/F series production is confusing to you?
Well, I'm not confused here but someone else is. Generally I wonder why it is so hard for you to accept what I say? This is not the first time and probably not the last.
gripen
-
Why am I not surprised you would take the opportunity to get in a personal dig after your last fiasco?
Those in glass houses should not throw rocks. Wonder why you are not any serious research forums?
Not my fault you made yourself look stupid last thread we were in together. Awfully big of you to grab the chance to gouge.
Generally I wonder why it is so hard for you to accept what I say?
Several reasons starting with your crediability maybe? Remember the math we did together? I find it hard to believe you are this dense as to wonder why. Others in this thread may not know you but I do.
Not the subject of this thread.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Why am I not surprised you would take the opportunity to get in a personal dig after your last fiasco.
Please don't take things too personally, if you don't like my postings just ignore them. I did not reply to your post above but just pointed out that agent 009 is correct regarding the tail widening. After that Naudet replied to you post with same content and after that you replied to my post above and announced that I'm wrong and so on.
Basicly same thing happened when I posted the evidence that the German measurements in the Chalais-Meudon contain systematical error; when I posted the stuff you started the flame war, when Butch2k posted the same stuff you thanked him. And there is several other examples...
I wonder what "fiasco" you are talking about?
gripen
-
Nothing personal
Gripen. Don't ask if you do not want a reply.
You took the opportunity to dig not me.
Basicly same thing happened when I posted the evidence that the German measurements in the Chalais-Meudon contain systematical error; when I posted the stuff you started the flame war, when Butch2k posted the same stuff you thanked him. And there is several other examples...
Your version of events. What Butch posted was far from what you claimed. You posted partial information in an attempt to decieve others into thinking you are correct. Nothing more, Gripen. I pointed it out and others pointed out that it is scientifically impossible to draw the conclusion's you do even based on your partial information. That's when I left the thread.
And I will not draw this one off topic anymore.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Nothing personal
Gripen. Don't ask if you do not want a reply.
You took the opportunity to dig not me.
Hm... I was in this thread before you and I posted same information as Naudet (and before him). And I did not reply to your post while Naudet actually did. So why you announced that I'm wrong and confused and you posted nothing like that to Naudet? Besides, anyone can check your attitude above; it's nothing else than personal.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Your version of events. What Butch posted was far from what you claimed. You posted partial information in an attempt to decieve others into thinking you are correct. Nothing more, Gripen. I pointed it out and others pointed out that it is scientifically impossible to draw the conclusion's you do even based on your partial information. That's when I left the thread.
Well, Butch posted an english translation of the text I quoted earlier. And text as well as translation says clearly that they had used wrong correction factors for earlier measurements due to wrong value for the inclication of the jet. Or do you still have somekind of other version of the quote? What other posters actually posted to that issue was that you did not understand the german text...
Originally posted by Crumpp
And I will not draw this one off topic anymore.
I won't bet for that.
Originally posted by Crumpp
All the best,
Yeah sure...
gripen