Author Topic: What happened to LW? (Read 21247 times)

ghi · « **Reply #180 on:** November 26, 2005, 10:54:35 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Crumpp
The FW-190's need to be reworked. They were modeled during a time when the quantity of data available today was simply not around. Allied testing and obscure performance graphs with little to no background/aircraft set up information are the bases for the modeling.

All the best,

Crumpp

I found websitte with Chuck Yeager"s impresion about Fw190D9,

.........[Twenty years ago, doing an interview with BGEN Chuck Yeager, I asked about his experience at Wright-Patterson in 1945-47, and especially about flying captured Axis aircraft. "Which was best?" I wanted to know. He replied quickly: "That long-nose Focke-Wulf was maybe the best piston-engine fighter I ever flew. As long as you stayed below 25,000 feet."[/URL]

Zwerg · « **Reply #181 on:** November 26, 2005, 11:44:43 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kev367th
Could it be it feels different because the Spit XVI/VIII you are now meeting is a totally different one to the 'old' V and IX?
[...]

No. In the time i mentioned (Start of AH2) we had the Spit1, Spit5 and Spit9 (and the Seafire?).
When it happened I thought by myself:"Wow they finally got it and made the 190 a fighter!"
And of course the difference was not only against Spits but all planes.

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #182 on:** November 26, 2005, 11:57:50 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
And hence the problem, if Top speed, and climbs are correct, then Accelerations. Also must be correct.

You can not seperate the items because they are all directly related.

[...]

I don't know enough about the physics of flight to say you're wrong, but I know that for race car design top speed and accelerration are not so directly coupled. Maybe it's because cars use a wider range of the powerband than we do in AH. I don't know, but the above statement doesn't seem intuitively correct to me. Torque is torque, right? ... whether it's getting applied to wheels on pavement or a prop beating the air or water. Unfortunately, I'm betting that acceleration data is probably pretty hard to come by.

Grits · « **Reply #183 on:** November 26, 2005, 11:58:05 AM »

Just so there is no misunderstanding and I get labled anti-LW, I am not claiming that the LW planes are perfect, they need some work (especially the 190's). I just dont believe they have been porked recently by one of the patches.

Grits · « **Reply #184 on:** November 26, 2005, 12:00:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DoKGonZo
I don't know enough about the physics of flight to say you're wrong, but I know that for race car design top speed and accelerration are not so directly coupled.

Top speed and acceleration are not directly related but climb rate and acceleration are. Climb rate IS acceleration basically.

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #185 on:** November 26, 2005, 12:34:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Grits
Top speed and acceleration are not directly related but climb rate and acceleration are. Climb rate IS acceleration basically.

But isn't climb also related to wing area (lift & drag) and weight?

Put another way, given two planes with equal weight and power, you'd expect the one with more wing area to climb better, right? It has more lift, so it can accelerate vertically better. But you'd also expect the one with less wing area to accelerate better in level flight due to less drag. It has less drag so it can accelerate in the horizontal better.

Again, I am far from an expert, I'm just looking at this from a logical standpoint.

MANDO · « **Reply #186 on:** November 26, 2005, 12:37:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Grits
Top speed and acceleration are not directly related but climb rate and acceleration are. Climb rate IS acceleration basically.

Partially correct. Substained climb rate is related to acceleration at climb speed ONLY and considering that that speed keeps constant. With current substained climb rates at default speeds we may have an idea of how a plane accelerates compared to other at speed ranges from 150 to 169mph more or less.

MANDO · « **Reply #187 on:** November 26, 2005, 12:50:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
And hence the problem, if Top speed, and climbs are correct, then Accelerations. Also must be correct.

Climb rates correct for ALL the speed range, not just for the default climb speed. BTW, as far as I remember, 190s substained climb rates were correct for a climb speed ~8-10 mph slower than correct ones. How would that affect the entire acceleration curve of a 190 for any alt?

JAWS2003 · « **Reply #188 on:** November 26, 2005, 01:06:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by hitech

But if sustained turn, top speed, stall speed,and climb rates are correct. Then accelerations have to be correct, in dive zoom or level.

HiTech

I'm not sure about zoom climb. All the info I found on FW-190A and Spitfire tels me that the 190 had a better zoom climb then all the spits up to MkXIV.
MkXIV was the first spitfire to be able to keep up with the FW in Zoom climb ( more precise to catch up at the top do to much better climb). We know that MKIX and MKVIII had better climb then the FW yet they had worse zoom climb.
I did some testing with a friend two days ago in TA with FW-19A5 and Spit MKVIII. the spit will let you standing in a zoom climb no matter if you pull up from fast cruise or from a high speed dive. This is WRONG.
If a plane climbs better then the other is not necessary better in a zoom.

Zwerg · « **Reply #189 on:** November 26, 2005, 01:31:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Shane
hah! so you're gonna hangar that niki, huh?!?

Btw: Niki is Axis too.

Crumpp · « **Reply #190 on:** November 26, 2005, 03:00:28 PM »

Quote

Top speed and acceleration are not directly related but climb rate and acceleration are. Climb rate IS acceleration basically.

Not necessarily Grits.

That is like saying wingloading is the "end all" of turn performance. It is not.

Power loading and drag effect accelleration. Aircraft accellerate at different rates at different times during the same speed run depending on the drag characteristics. The FW-190 is design engineered to accellerate best in the low to mid range speed realm which is most important for dogfighting. From mid to top speed it is unremarkable.

All the best,

Crumpp

Crumpp · « **Reply #191 on:** November 26, 2005, 03:02:05 PM »

Quote

[Twenty years ago, doing an interview with BGEN Chuck Yeager, I asked about his experience at Wright-Patterson in 1945-47, and especially about flying captured Axis aircraft. "Which was best?" I wanted to know. He replied quickly: "That long-nose Focke-Wulf was maybe the best piston-engine fighter I ever flew. As long as you stayed below 25,000 feet."

Quite a few pilots who flew it say the same thing.

All the best,

Crumpp

hitech · « **Reply #192 on:** November 26, 2005, 03:33:16 PM »

Dok, Think of Climb rate as a car going up hill. The lift is serving just as the tires of the car do, and has no effect on climb rate.

Drag does effect climb rate, just like it would effect acceleration in a car. But for any given speed the drag does not change if your are flying level or going up hill. As long as the speed remains constant so does the drag.

(Side note drag does drop very slightly in a climb (do to less lift required), but for normal purposes you can ignore the change)

Basicly it is exatly the same as a car, the exess power can either pull you up hill, or increase your speed. Climb rate and acceleration are linear functions of each other.

Crumpp:

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top speed and acceleration are not directly related but climb rate and acceleration are. Climb rate IS acceleration basically.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not necessarily Grits.

That is like saying wingloading is the "end all" of turn performance. It is not.

Power loading and drag effect accelleration. Aircraft accellerate at different rates at different times during the same speed run depending on the drag characteristics. The FW-190 is design engineered to accellerate best in the low to mid range speed realm which is most important for dogfighting. From mid to top speed it is unremarkable.

All the best,

Grits statment is 100% correct, and is not at all like your wingloading metaphore.

You are correct about your thoughts on acceleration . But they have nothing to do with grits statment about the releation ship between Acceleration and climb. Gritts is not talking only about max climb rates, but climb rates for any given speed. Infact the relation ship can even been seen and stays true when faster then max flat level speed for any plane.

Think of max speed as when Acceleration = 0;

Now starting a climb will slow the air craft. I.E. trading Climb rate for negative acceleration. Or start a dive and Accleration will be positive. They are directly tradeable in any equation .

HiTech

MANDO · « **Reply #193 on:** November 26, 2005, 03:50:25 PM »

Crummp, do you have any really usefull 190 acceleration numbers? That is time from speed A to speed B for some alts flying level.

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #194 on:** November 26, 2005, 04:37:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
Dok, Think of Climb rate as a car going up hill. The lift is serving just as the tires of the car do, and has no effect on climb rate.

Drag does effect climb rate, just like it would effect acceleration in a car. But for any given speed the drag does not change if your are flying level or going up hill. As long as the speed remains constant so does the drag.

(Side note drag does drop very slightly in a climb (do to less lift required), but for normal purposes you can ignore the change)

Basicly it is exatly the same as a car, the exess power can either pull you up hill, or increase your speed. Climb rate and acceleration are linear functions of each other.

OK ... so what you're saying is that if you took the airframes of a Spit-V and a Fw190A, gave them the exact same power available, and threw some sandbags into the Spit to get it's weight the same as the Fw, that they'd climb and accelerate the exact same?

Physics was my worst subject in school, and it shows, but I just want to be sure I understand this.

-DoK