Maybe the 190s arent wrong....or how to be really unpopular in 1 step

[Crumpp]

Is that a plea to please don't make them correct?

The Flight Model of the FW-190's was never changed and is based on faulty data for service for model fighter variant.

It is what the allies got off a recovered crash of a Bomber version, converted with little knowledge of actual differences to a fighter variant, and serviced by allied personnel untrained in the type.  

The performance of EB-104 looks very good in the climb only because the USAAF did it at USAAF combat weight as opposed to the Luftwaffe data which is generally converted to take off weight.  

All the best,

Crumpp

[wastel1]

lol..funny thing is..that the VVS and the RAF had worser turntimes on the 109E than on any later model.
109E i know 24-25secs..
later ones between 21 and 23 for an turn.

but...the radius of the E could be lower...but the E was the worst turning 109 when looking to and 360 and turntime

wastel

[bozon]

Crumpp
is your idea of CLmax include the area of the wing or is it unitless?

Bozon

[Crumpp]

is your idea of CLmax include the area of the wing or is it unitless?

It's 3D.

[hitech]

The equations you need for this discusion.

[Crumpp]

but...the radius of the E could be lower...but the E was the worst turning 109 when looking to and 360 and turntime

I am not an expert on the 109 so how much weight did the 109F gain over the 109E vs Power gains.

I am willing to bet that each weight gain accompanied a power gain with the probably exception of the early Bf-109G6.

Don't discount props either.  Look at the Spitfire Mk I's increase in performance from prop alone.

I can post the VDM Ersatzteilliste for the 109 if you need it.  It had fewer props than the 190 but did change them several times.

And whether you are talking about radius or rate, the fundamental relationship or power available to power required remains.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Crumpp]

The equations you need for this discusion.

That is another method of estimation.

The problem with that method is your not determining the angle of bank the aircraft is actually able to achieve.  Your simply picking an angle.

Therefore your bypassing the relationship.  So while the formula is correct, the input data could be sheer fantasy.

All the best,

Crumpp

[hitech]

Absolutly not crumpp.  The equations I listed are not estimates, nore fantisies.

The bank angle is not guessed at or picked but is simple high school trig given by the total lift and speed which is known and what this discussion is about.

In fact if you know the max bank angle and speed of any aircraft you could use these equations (along with a little trig) to calc all the values about turn performance. You could determin how a change in the % of wieght would effect turning. You could determin how a change in the % of power effects the turn.

[Tilt]

Sorry for the following but an answer may help my limited understanding.


Whilst the angle of bank adjusts the turn force by vector ratio is not the "Weight" increased by the rudder down force?

So if an approximation of turn rate and radius (at various bank angles)was being derived from climb rate data (to discern lift and thrust characturistics)..........



how would the change in stabalising forces be modelled against bank angle.............?

Given this would such a "stabalising force vector" (against bank angle) be the same for all ac? or modified by such criteria as the stabalising "torque" (eg distance the rear stabalisers are from the C of G and the position of the C of G relative to the wing lift point )

[hitech]

Originally posted by Tilt
[BGiven this would such a "stabalising force vector" (against bank angle) be the same for all ac? or modified by such criteria as the stabalising "torque" (eg distance the rear stabalisers are from the C of G and the position of the C of G relative to the wing lift point ) [/B]

The horizontal stab would not effect the equation, because it all shows up in the net lift caculation.  But obviously a more nose heavy airplane will produce less net lift for any AOA.

Debating about rudder, but my gut feeling is, if you have the ball centered, the rudder effect will be almost none existant.

HiTech

[gripen]

Originally posted by Crumpp
It's 3D.

This reminds me when Mr. Crumpp announced that English unit will give different Cl value than metric units...

gripen

[Crumpp]

The bank angle is not guessed at or picked but is simple high school trig given by the total lift and speed which is known and what this discussion is about.

Sure they are unless your using:

In fact if you know the max bank angle and speed of any aircraft

Which is derived from the fundamental relationship of power available to power required just as Perkins & Hage state.

Which is a KEY piece of information left out of your posting of the formula.

This should come from the measured polars of the aircraft.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Fencer51]

Sigh,  these Luftwaffe threads make my head hurt.  I am sure glad I went Mechanical Engineering rather than Aeronautical Engineering.

[Crumpp]

And post them in English units NOT metric, as mine are in, which you think are wrong.

I meant your calculations Gripen.  Not the answers.  You cannot retrace the steps without them posted.

So please be sure and put quotes in context.  

Turning is a function of the relationship of power required to power available:




All the flight testing and the math confirms an increase in wingloading can be overcome with thrust.

All the best,

Crumpp

[hitech]

Crumpp you are so far off on the discusion of power weight and lift as it applies to turn performance ill just throw out some basic numbers from  spreed sheet I did.

Given a plane with a max turn of 2.3 g at 160 mph . (In the realm of a lot of war birds)

Would create a turn radius of 825 ft and a time around turn of 22.1 secs. I.E. Bank angle of 64.22.

Now lowering the weight of that plane. by 10 % would make a turn raidus of 727 with a circle time of 19.46, Bank Angle 66.96

Increasing power by 30% on the orignal weight would have the following effect.

Turn Radius 798 circle time rate 19.5 and a speed of 174. Bank Angle 68.59

Ill let you draw your own conclusions. They should be very entertaining.

HiTech