Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: R4M on November 17, 2001, 05:36:00 PM
-
Niklas posted this chart in the other thread, but I think this deserves a thread on its own:
(http://people.freenet.de/nik_mc/fw190_A5_s.gif)
AH's 190A5 with WEP makes (barely) 335mph@SL-that is around 542km/h. The above posted chart shows that with WEP on, the Fw190A5 topped 565km/h at sea level, that is, 350mhp. SL speed is one of the most important assets of AH's planes given the low level nature of the fights.
15mph would be indeed a substantial error. And,given the nature of combat in AH's Main arena is a significant speed loss. The chart posted avobe is from Focke-wulf itself, dated 20-10-1943, so I'd say it is a quite true and trustable source of information.
The SL speed,according to that chart, is lower than what it should.. but I'd mention too that, the A5's top speed at around 4000 feet is 605km/h, that is around 374mph. AH's 190A5, according to help files, makes around 360-365mph at 4K. Still quite slower than the real life plane (and really important in AH's MA :D).
Pyro, please increase the low-level speed of the 190A5 following that table. THe one we have in AH right now seems to be off-target, and is not a minor trouble of a couple of miles per hour.
[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]
-
Yep looks like 12 mph faster on the deck than the AH A-5. Whoever scanned this needs to get in touch with HTC.
However statements like "absolutely off target" and "WAY slower" are hyperbole, and don't help your case. In terms of normally occuring differences in test results between aircraft of the same type, 12 mph is not a huge difference.
[ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
Note also the 4000 kg weight. This is ~300 lb heavier than the AH A-5, which appears to use weight and performance from a USAAF test of a stripped-down Fw 190G-3.
-
Further note that the critical altitudes in each supercharger gear, and the altitude for gear change, match very well with AH/USAAF. This lends creedence to the Fw chart.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/models/charts/190a5speed.gif)
-
One last thing: Looks like the Fw chart shows three power settings, with two speed curves for each setting. The notations are illegible but it looks like the leftmost ones are compensated for instrument errors due to density and speed of sound, and the rightmost are compensated for errors due to density only. Which makes the leftmost curves most accurate I think.
[ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
Originally posted by funkedup:
However statements like "absolutely off target" and "WAY slower" are hyperbole, and don't help your case. In terms of normally occuring differences in test results between aircraft of the same type, 12 mph is not a huge difference.
hehehe funked hyperbole? ;) I'd like to hear what would ppl say if the P51D was modelled with an speed 12mph lower than it should be :).
IMO is off, and is off target...12mph makes a big difference in an arena where a couple of miles per hour will save your head a lot of times :). In AH's MA 12mph is a WORLD :).
Originally posted by funkedup:
One last thing: Looks like the Fw chart shows three power settings, with two speed curves for each setting. The notations are illegible but it looks like the leftmost ones are compensated for instrument errors due to density and speed of sound, and the rightmost are compensated for errors due to density only. Which makes the leftmost curves most accurate I think.
?...dont get your point here. All curves seem to be identical for me. If you are referring to the formulas written over the chart, the arrows link all the curves with the formulas. So if those notes are indeed what you say (I dont have a clue on what they mean :D) I dont know where you see that only the 2 left ones are calculated taking everything in account, as the arrows link them to all curves, not just the 2 leftmost.
[ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]
[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]
-
give us our 15mph......or 12 whatever the case
-
RAM if you look at a lot flight test data like this, you will see that 10-15 mph is not an uncommon difference. Same plane, same fuel, same operating condition. But due to unaccounted-for factors, the number comes out differently.
To answer your question: There are three pairs of curves. Each pair represents the same power condition. In each pair, the right curve is compensated for density only, and the left curve is compensated for density and sound speed - it is the true air speed.
[ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
certainly is good evidence. it is test data of the aircraft in aces high (a real a5) not a g3. now where is the climb data for this?
on the other hand the fw-190 test data for their a8 makes it look like a piece of garbage. according to this data the a5 would be superior to the a8 in nearly every imaginable way other than firepower. kinda sad that in three years they couldnt squeeze a single drop more hp out of their engine.
-
maybe "some" of that weight difference is in ammo. You'll notice that is show's 2x90 for the FF cannons, instead of 2x60. Now that's only 60 rounds difference but that makes up some of that weight.
-
wow good evidence that we should have more mg/ff ammo too?
-
Dunno..i gotta say that's the 1st time I remember at least, seeing 90 rounds listed per FF gun.
I tried to read the text near the weapons listing but zooming in I just can't make out half the letters. Plus the words are older tech terms that my Bad Deutsch can't translate.
-
Hi R4M,
>THe one we have in AH right now is absolutely off-target, and is not a minor trouble of a couple of miles per hour.
I guess AH models the Fw 190A-5 after the on that was captured and evaluated in the USA. It made 340 mph at sea level, compared to the 359 mph from the manufacturer's data.
A 19 mph sea level top speed difference is a major affair, especially when sea level is typical combat altitude. However, the captured Fw 190 outperformed the factory figures by 5 mph at around 7500 ft, and by about 15 mph around 25000 ft.
Since the RAE came up with another different speed curve for the Fw 190A-4 they tested (7 mph slower at sea level, 5 mph faster at optimum altitude), I'd say the variation we see in AH is within the range reasonably to expect.
I admit that a Focke-Wulf that performs according to the factory numbers would be more desirable, though, tactically as well as historically :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by funkedup:
One last thing: Looks like the Fw chart shows three power settings, with two speed curves for each setting. [ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
I don't see exactly where u believe any were corrected funked. Just seems it shows 3 power settings and their related engine powers/speed up thru 10k meters. With any figures applying to all 3 curves.
[ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: Wingnut_0 ]
-
Funked, I dont reach to understand what you mean. All three curves have the same "double" curve...So all three are correct aren't they?
Regarding the assessment of the same plane/loads but different results I'd say that factory charts (the ones wich will eventually find their way into the pilot's manual of the planes) will be the result of multiple tests, in different conditions, done by the manufacturers -the ones who best know their plane-, and so will be the MOST trustable and accurate figures to follow isnt it?.
AH's Fw190A8 is modelled after the charts found into its pilot's manual. You know well that the A8's manual carries a chart very similar to the one posted avobe -as you own a copy ;)-.
I'd say that AH should model the 190A5's performance following the data I linked in my first post, as is the most reliable source possible on the Fw190A5's performance.
Bottom point is: if the manual charts were a source reliable enough to model the Fw190A8's, the A5 should be modelled in a similar fashion, using similar charts.
HoHun:
Originally posted by HoHun:
I admit that a Focke-Wulf that performs according to the factory numbers would be more desirable, though, tactically as well as historically :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-First of all; Aces High's Fw190A8's performance is almost identical to what is shown in the Focke-wulf pilot's manual, wich in turn shows Focke-wulf factory charts very similar to the one I posted avobe (wich are also posted in this forums by verm, some time ago).
IN other words: Fw190A8 is modelled after factory data, but the Fw190A5 not?. If one is modelled after factory data, IMHO, the other should be, too.
-Secondly, I can understand that planes were modified in field to give better performances at certain altitudes at the cost of losing some performance at others. That would explain that the speed of the captured planes varied so much on different altitudes.
But this is not the case. AH's charts in help files tells us that at the best altitude (around 21K), Fw190A5 reaches a topspeed of 410-415mph. The chart I posted above lists best speed as 670km/h@6000m.- in other words, in the chart, at 21K the Fw190A5 reaches, exactly 414mph. Said it briefly; AH's 190A5 speed at 21K matches the factory data almost EXACTLY.
In other words: we have correct and accurate speeds at high altitudes but definitely lower speeds than they should be at low altitudes. I doubt ANY Fw190A5 on the field would get this kind of performance. To sacrifice 15mph at SL to win ,say, 7mph at 20K+ (to intercept allied bombers, for instance) is perfectly understandable for me, but to sacrifice 15mph for NOTHING, not. So this is not an issue of that kind.
The 190A5 speed needs a look, that is for sure. And I can't wait to see if Niklas has any charts on the Fw190A5's climb, too :)
[ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]
-
Originally posted by funkedup:
Yep looks like 12 mph faster on the deck than the AH A-5. Whoever scanned this needs to get in touch with HTC.
However statements like "absolutely off target" and "WAY slower" are hyperbole, and don't help your case. In terms of normally occuring differences in test results between aircraft of the same type, 12 mph is not a huge difference.
[ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
I wouldn't say that describing a difference of 12-15 mph as WAY OFF is hyperbole. I'd say that is pretty much dead on. I'd DEARLY love to see the squeaking and moaning if someone found a chart that said the P-51D could make 385 mph on the deck, while ours *may* reach 370 ( a difference of 4.5%). Bottom line, if these charts are accurate, which would be PROOF that the A-5 is to slow by somewhere between 3.5 to 4.5%, then it is a big deal in my opinion.
It isn't like the 190A5 is suddenly going to be running down La-7s or runstangs on the deck, so I don't quite see what the fuss is over.
-
Urchin:
It isn't like the 190A5 is suddenly going to be running down La-7s or runstangs on the deck, so I don't quite see what the fuss is over.
My thoughts exactly.
Wingnut:
I don't see exactly where u believe any were corrected funked. Just seems it shows 3 power settings and their related engine powers/speed up thru 10k meters. With any figures applying to all 3 curves.
Are we looking at the same chart? There are six (6) curves on the one that RAM posted. I just realized that Niklas (who presumably scanned the chart) has a similar explanation to mine. Maybe you'll find his words more helpful:
the left one is corrected for the error of the speed indicator due to the macheffect, the right one is not. So the left one is indeed TAS, the right one is the value a pilot gets when he uses standard conversion factors from IAS to TAS without mach-correction.
This means, if a pilot reads IAS and uses the standard conversion factor for TAS, the error due to mach effect is ~15MPH in 600m@650km/h.
If this effect is neglected... well, maybe one of many a reason for several high speed claims from pilots, especially when they flew in high altitudes at high mach numbers (or the mach0,93 speed claim for a spit reached in a dive)
[ 11-17-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
If the chart shows it give it to us HTC Ram if you have more charts keep them pumping them out Funkey here wants more info give him more untill he gets overly saturated.
-
Funked, yes I am looking at the same chart as you and yes his words were helpful. But what I was referring to was that the 2 equations noted on the chart are arrowed out to show that they were applied to all 3 power setting lines. That was my point.
So are u saying the left (test #3) is more accurate or are u just referring to the left line of each test aircraft? That's where I didn't follow you, cause the left test is obviously at a much different engine settings than the other 2.
-
<BUMP>
-
Wingnut there are three tests 1, 2, and 3. For each test there are two curves on the graph. The left curve in each pair was converted from ASI readings using the equation on the left. The right curve was converted using the (less accurate) equation on the right.
-
Ram, you are assuming that ambient air temperature for the test in question is the same as that found within AH. We don't even know what temperature HT programmed AH for, but aircraft performance certainly DOES vary by temperature. Further, this report you cite is insignificant, in that it DOES NOT report the temperature in which the tests were conducted (not that I can make out anyway).
In that temperatures range from approximately zero degrees centigrade to forty degrees centigrade (in Europe) you cannot tell under which conditions the tests were conducted.
And that's just one test condition.
I am not at all surprised to see a variation on the order you suggest. It is quite within the norm given the variation possible.
-
Voss at wich tempterature is the AH's P51 performance modelled?. At wich temperature is the AH's Fw190A8 performance modelled?. At wich tempereature is every plane in AH modelled?. Many planes are modelled using factory data, the A8 being the most evident example. Factory charts are the most reliable data you might find about a plane. Much more than tests done on captured planes in foreign nations. Why the A5 can't use that data?.
Any reason not to follow the chart posted is a simple excuse. The plane is 15mph slower at SL than what it should be, and generally slower than what it should be under 9000 feet. Period.
and <BUMP> , BTW :)
[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]
-
Voss I agree that the variation here is within the range of variation we have seen from one test to the other of various other aircraft. However I think the leftmost set of curves related to the equation on the left indicates that there was indeed a temperature correction applied to the data. We need Niklas to give us a bigger scan and some of the other pages from this document but I think I'm right about that.
[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
Urchin:
I'd DEARLY love to see the squeaking and moaning if someone found a chart that said the P-51D could make 385 mph on the deck, while ours *may* reach 370 ( a difference of 4.5%).
Actually there have been data like that for P-38L, F4U-1D, and F4U-4 that have all been presented on this forum in the past. Nothing came of it. It seems that maybe the fastest data aren't always the most accurate.
[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
You're arguing apples against oranges RAM. It's turning into a whine now.
Your factory data, whether from North American, Lockheed, Junkers, Messerschmitt, or Supermarine, must all be substantiated with all variables in consideration. One of these variables is air temperature.
Until, you can provide evidence that the P51D is acting out of accordance with established norms for the AH standard temperature at SL (which should not change given that we have no wind, etc.), then you can't say that X results from NA factory do not match.
Similarly, you can't say under what temperature your test results were conducted, so how can you argue that they disagree with AH's standard temperature (also an unknown)?
Also, I can tell you a few things by what is included upon the chart above. For instance, the date of the report would suggest that the test was conducted in mid-fall, where temperatures in Germany would probably range somewhere between seven degrees Celsius and twenty-three degrees Celsius (let's say - get a weather report today for Germany if you care to). If, we find that the standard SL temperature for AH is intended to be thirty degrees Celsius, then you would have a drop off in performance over the factory reports. How much, exactly, I couldn't say, but I can post examples from General Aviation types of today should it go that far.
Certain aircraft of this type can require an additional one-hundred fifty meters of runway for such a climactic change, so I don't see any deviation from the norm in your figures (as I stated).
Finally, I must add that certain tests results have been invalidated over the years, as they were 'fudged' by factory reps (such as W. Messerschmitt himself) for propaganda reasons. I'm not saying your chart is bogus, but I am saying it is only one small piece of the puzzle.
What would be incredibly interesting, is if Pyro and HT got together, gave us Winter maps, and the performance of these aircraft were pushed up to match those conditions.
Nah.......
-
Funked? Temperature correction? I don't buy it. If, such a 'correction' has indeed taken place, then it invalidates the entire chart.
-
in short voss, if the P51 was 15mph slower than what it should in AH, then you couldn`t say a thing istn it? because you dont know wich is AH's temperature, and the temp of the P51D data, right?.
That's rediculous.
And I'd like to know where have you seen falsified factory data from messerschmitt, please?
[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]
-
Originally posted by R4M:
in short voss, if the P51 was 15mph slower than what it should in AH, then you couldn`t say a thing istn it? because you dont know wich is AH's temperature, and the temp of the P51D data, right?.
That's rediculous.
And I'd like to know where have you seen falsified factory data from messerschmitt, please?
[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]
The one thing I am sure about is that Pyro has modelled the P51D as closely to reality as he could. All other things remaining under like conditions should act accordingly. Your statement, though, is unintelligible as it stands and I can't make out your line of thought. However, if we found that the P51D is indeed 15mph slower then tests conducted at zero degrees Celsius, then I would not be surprised at all.
It is not ridiculous.
As to W. Messerschmitt: Early on in the development of the 109 Wily boosted an engine beyond the point of reasonable care. It was during one of his speed trials for a world record. The engine was specifically designed to perform beyond factory types so as to guarantee a record. This fact was kept from the media and German authorities until after the war.
You can read about it in "The Luftwaffe Diaries."
-
my line of thought is clear: that chart is a factory chart made under X conditions. The P51D charts of North American Aviation were made under Y conditions. Why do you assume that AH's temperature is closer to Y than to X?. I assume that AH's atmosphere is close to what we could call Standard, and that the chart I posted shows the performance of a STANDARD Fw190A5 in normal conditions; because its an official factory chart, signed by a Focke-wulf engineer who knew his plane. Maybe you trust more the tests done by americans who had no clue on the qualities of a captured plane, completely new to them; and a plane they didnt knew if it was tweaked in any way.
I dunno you, but what is me, I tend to trust the data coming from the factory itself, taken from a STANDARD plane, with DETAILED power settings for each performance curve represented.
You don't. After all you dont know the temperatures, right? (lol. is so rediculous I dont know wether to laugh or to take it seriously)
About your affirmation on the "false/faked charts",well is FULL of it. What's the deal, were the allies the only ones knowing how to conduct aircraft tests , voss?. Did the germans had no clue? They tested the planes on extreme conditions to get better (and false) results, right?. So they had no idea on how to make a proper chart and did it on extreme conditions? . And sure, after they completed the test they added a couple of MPH just for the sake of it, for making the plane seem better to their eyes, true?.
Sure.They were so idiots. That chart is not to be taken seriously because no german factory chart is as reliable as an american-made one, true?. Lol. I'm sure that the engineers working for Focke-Wulf were 3rd grade kids, and the ones working at Rechlin had no work to do,nor a clue on HOW to do it. I'm sure they were all day long drinking beer and singing bavarian songs with blonde-haired women. :rolleyes:
The 109 you are talking about was the one wich broke the world speed record for propaganda reasons. BUT WAS NOT AN ACTUAL combat plane wich needed accurate charts for the pilots and engineers. And I'm sure if there were any charts made for that plane,they were accurate anyway (the plane was highly modified, and thus not a standard 109, but the results WERE for real, the plane reached the speed they said it did. Or maybe you say they falsified that record, too?). W. Messerschmitt did not fake ANYTHING. He made a plane, tested it and got a world record. That the RLM chose to say it was a 109 without detailing the extent of the modification is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ISSUE.
Voss,the official factory charts were made,between many other things, to put them in the pilot's manuals. WTF are you saying, they were going to put a wrong chart in a pilot manual?.
I stand on what I said: rediculous.
But, wait...we all know germans didnt know how to do a proper performance chart,right? :rolleyes:
get lost, Voss
[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]
-
Voss there are indeed well accepted methods to correct level speed results to standard conditions. AFAIK this was common knowledge to all the nations building and testing aircraft during the war.
[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
RAM--
Although it wasn't in AH, in Air Warrior the P-51 was about 15 MPH too slow for a VERY long time. Hardly anybody cared at all, because in AW the P-51 wasn't a popular fighter (sort of like the 190's in AH).
I've come to notice that a lot of people don't care if one plane or another is modeled wrong, unless it's "their" plane (unless of course it's modeled "too well", then the whines never stop). I see some of the people arguing against you are those who complain in other threads about how certain planes, such as the spit, are possibly missing small but substantial pieces of their performance. How funny.
I hope the 190A series fighters see some sort of improvement in AH. They are sorely under-represented. Something needs fixing with them, whether its their performance or their weapons.
J_A_B
-
RAM lloron de la LW, marica de terciopelo.
VIVA EL SPITFIRE.
(no te jode)
A este paso te vas a parecer a mi, calla que no conseguiras nada. :D :D :D
Saludos
de supon "lloronpermanentedelaLW" go
-
as you can easily see in the upper left corner, this data (and the 190A8 data too that can be found in the net) comes straight out of the department of flight mechanics. It is calculated data. And for INA-conditions (standard alitutde + temperature)
Of course every calculation uses data from flight tests or wind tunnel tests (drag assumptions), so you could say it is based on flight test data.
There exists also a engine performance chart of the BMW801 somewhere in the net. If you compare the serial numbers (9-801-5401) you can see that they´re identical.
You may ask why the A5 is faster than a A8:
-Installation of MG131 for the A8 resulted in larger bulges, more drag
-Installation of larger MG151 cannons in the outer wing section
-later a slightly modified oil cooler was introduced what caused a bit more drag, but offered better protection
-from the A6 on, for simplifiying the production (safe time, costs) the polishing process of the surface was cancelled
The data is without a bombrack (ETC 501). A better scan can be found here: http://people.freenet.de/nik_mc/fw190_A5.gif (http://people.freenet.de/nik_mc/fw190_A5.gif)
niklas
-
If this data is correct, then I would certainly like to see the speed fixed on the Fw190A-5.
If it is correct, I have no problems with a faster Fw190A-5. That would be silly. I want all aircraft in AH modeled as acurately as possible.
[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: Karnak ]
-
<BUMP> for pyro :)
-
Ram, I did not engage in a personal attack upon you. You have taken it to that level. In that you seem incapable of understanding the point of my reply, I can't help but say there is no point in replying to you.
I am sure there is a perfectly clear reason that the game performance of this aircraft deviates in the manner described. I am also sure that once it is explained Ram will not understand.
-
Guys I missed the other thread, whats the topic or the link? Sorry, been behind on the BBS lately.
Niklas, what was the original source for the chart? Its very interesting data.
I do disagree with Funked in that I think 15mph difference in speed in the game will (IMO) make a difference in how successful the aircraft is in the main arena. However, I do agree with his statement that the 15mph difference is easily with the normal variance of test data seen in just about any engineering endeavor.
-
<PUNT> again :)
Verm, the chart was posted by Niklas a thread called "109G6 and MW50, what the...?" or something like that :)
-
<repunt>
-
Pyro, just please please PLEASE say you'll look into it to shut him up for now! ;)
wow! a whine to get a dev to post something to shut up a whine! This has got to be a first! :D
-
RAM really behaves like a little child that pulls at the skirt of his mama in a supermarket:
"MMAAAAAMMMIII do you see this, they have bigger lollipops than thos you buy me usually. Gimme the bigger lolli gimme gimme PLEASSSEE wäwwhwhwwhwwääääääää ...."
-
hola supongo!!! GOGOGOGOOOGO LW!!!! :D
Great factory data niklas.
Good luck with your quest for even more realistic FMs.
uh...hmmm. wtf im typing? i'd better go for a smoke.
take care.
-
.
-
I want all aircraft in AH modeled as acurately as possible.
And I'd like also to know on the base of which document the planes are modelled in AH.
Showing the source of information will shut down all the questions.
-
Pst... niklas, you forgot to mention that A8 also had increased armor in comparison to A5.
-
Originally posted by niklas:
You may ask why the A5 is faster than a A8:
niklas
In AH A8 is faster than A5 atleast @ SL:
A5: 326/339 mph
A8: 327/349 mph
WEP seems to bring additional speed, why is that?
-vector
--------------------
(http://www.kolumbus.fi/cool/sig_1.jpg)
414 RCAF THE BLACK KNIGHTS
"Totis Viribus-With All Our Might"
-
Hi Vector,
>WEP seems to bring additional speed, why is that?
The BMW801D of the Fw 190A-5 only used 1.42 ata of manifold pressure (as indicated on the above chart), which resulted in a 1740 HP power output for fast flight according to the engine chart the speed chart is referring to.
The BMW801D of the Fw 190A-8 could be run at 1.58 ata at sea level so that it had a higher power output (something like 200 HP more).
That meant the performance incrase from the 1500 HP (fast flight) the BMW801D made at 1.32 ata climb and combat power (at reduced rpm) was greater for the Fw 190A-8 than for the Fw 190A-5, albeit the latter was faster at equal power settings.
By the way, the numbers you posted are the level speeds for the real Fw 190A-8 at 1.32 ata/2400 rpm, 1.42 ata/2700 rpm and 1.58 ata/2700 rpm respectively.
Since the numbers for the real A-5 should be higher at equal power settings, it looks like the A-5 in Aces High doesn't benefit from the aerodynamic advantages Niklas pointed out.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Wingnut,
>Dunno..i gotta say that's the 1st time I remember at least, seeing 90 rounds listed per FF gun.
I've not seen it listed as equipment for the Fw 190 before, either, but there was indeed a 90-round drum magazine for the MG-FF. Exterior dimensions were almost identical to the 60-round drum, so it would have fit into the Focke-Wulf's wings without modification.
(To be precise, it was 5 mm higher and 12 mm longer, but the MG-FF installation had to account for some handling space greater than this difference anyway).
Loaded weight of the 90-round drum was 30.2 kg compared to the 20.3 kg of the 60-round drum, so the combined weight increase was just 19.8 kg.
Geräte-Nr. of the T 90-FF was 102-462 - just in case you'd like to order a pair ;-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi HoHun
Thanks for clarifying the differences between those two.
Btw, I recall you did tests of AH planes turn rates and stated something about you'd been able to do calculations of sustained turn rates too, are you still in the subject?
-vector
-
Hi Vector,
>Btw, I recall you did tests of AH planes turn rates and stated something about you'd been able to do calculations of sustained turn rates too, are you still in the subject?
Mako did the tests, I just tried to help with the evaluation :-)
I'm still working on some calculations, too, using the example of the Fw 190A-8, but I can't get the performance over altitude to match the engine graph properly. Now that I think about it, my calculated graphs match the US test F-TR-1102 better than the Focke-Wulf graphs ...
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
.