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

[Crumpp]

2D has nothing to with this discussion

OO-K

[Simaril]

Originally posted by KAntti
Hehehe, just out of curiousity I went and tried the p47 at low and slow offline  Not only does it not stall, I could lift the nose up to over 60 degrees (starting speed of about 90 mph or so) and lower the airspeed under 50 mph until the stall indicator stops yelling.
And still the only thing the jug does is slightly lower its nose until the indicator starts yelling again. And for the whole time I've kept the stick in my blls and over 45 degree bank and maintained total control of the plane

I've flown AH since beta but never would I have thought that the stall was left out of the equation when you give full flaps.  HAHAHAHA

This puzzles me....not only because its different that what I've encountered when I fly the 47, but also because it isnt consistant with carefully documented AH2 data.



Kweassa's turn thread


With full flaps, the P-47D25s turn radius was 190 meters at 120mph. I'm not sure what the radius would be at "45 degree bank angle at 50mph" but it has to be a lot smaller than that....so I gotta wonder about your results.

Love to see the film! I'll have to try this when I get home.

No doubt the stall of LW rides is much harder to fight, much more unstable. Just dont know what the truth was. In honesty, my aerodynamically uneducated self has to wonder of the difference should REEALLY be as extreme and sharp as it is in the FW and BF groups.


________________



While I understand the frustration at the underemphasis on german reports, I have to point out -- germany was run by frankly homicidal, unpredictable men who routinely ordered the impossible and expected it done. (I.e. any man who pulls back from the line as it now stands will be shot, etc) In the production system, the Reich was torn by splintered priorities taht shifted (sometimes monthly -- look at the design history of the Pfeil)  Bureaucratic infighting and turf wars, intensified as resources got tighter, certainly could have affected the final reports' towards a desired outcome -- even if the scientists hated it when it happened.  Anybody who's worked in a dysfunctional bureaucraacy can imagine what those pressures would have been like in the mess that was the Reich.

Its hard to be sure, consequently, where things have been buffed and polished ( and maybe stretched) for purrposes of self preservation.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by KAntti
Hehehe, just out of curiousity I went and tried the p47 at low and slow offline  Not only does it not stall, I could lift the nose up to over 60 degrees (starting speed of about 90 mph or so) and lower the airspeed under 50 mph until the stall indicator stops yelling.
And still the only thing the jug does is slightly lower its nose until the indicator starts yelling again. And for the whole time I've kept the stick in my blls and over 45 degree bank and maintained total control of the plane

I've flown AH since beta but never would I have thought that the stall was left out of the equation when you give full flaps.  HAHAHAHA

That's what I'm talking about, too.

Yes, it will stall under rare conditions, but it's never a stall, it's just a "oh, you can't climb any more" type of mush. I've been flying it lately and I've not run into any stall problems, just performance problems (getting myself into stupid situations)

[Crumpp]

Most likely, an FW-190A8, could be an F8(lots of weight similar power) or an A5(3% less weight, 22.75% less power) too:

http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biijg300.html

Long dogfight:
 

 FW-190A8 vs P47(most likely later P47 D series), nice turning fight:



Early FW-190G series vs early Mustang II (less power and a lot less weight) along with a wealth of opinion about the FW-190G series vs. Merlin 66 IX LF after his 30 minute flight by himself:
 

So while the P 51D series gained almost 2000lbs over the allison powered earlier versions and lot less power than the FW-190A series I am very curious to know where the perception comes from that the FW-190A8 was so unmanuverable.

In honesty, my aerodynamically uneducated self has to wonder of the difference should REEALLY be as extreme and sharp as it is in the FW and BF groups.

I think your right.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Angus]

I can also give you an anecdote where mustangs hunted 190's upwards, caught them, caught them on the downward run and level-low.
Takes some typing.

[38ruk]

Originally posted by KAntti
Hehehe, just out of curiousity I went and tried the p47 at low and slow offline  Not only does it not stall, I could lift the nose up to over 60 degrees (starting speed of about 90 mph or so) and lower the airspeed under 50 mph until the stall indicator stops yelling.
And still the only thing the jug does is slightly lower its nose until the indicator starts yelling again. And for the whole time I've kept the stick in my blls and over 45 degree bank and maintained total control of the plane

I've flown AH since beta but never would I have thought that the stall was left out of the equation when you give full flaps.  HAHAHAHA

I just did some tests in a 47N 50% fuel no ord , mine has no problems dipping its left wing and doing a complete stall. do ya all have the stall limiter turned off??  LOL

[bozon]

Originally posted by Crumpp
We sure we want to make these assumptions.  All these forces do come into play and affect the aircraft.

Thrust does contribute to lift.  For example:

Simply fly any plane in level flight and increase the throttle:

I knew that you'd remind me that thrust does contribute to lift, that is why I wrote a long paragraph explaining why I'm going to ignore it. It does not change the results - turn radius does depend on wing area. Not only on it but also on it.

Bozon

[justin_g]

Formula of the Cl (used for turning performance calculations) is simply (from NASA):

Cl = L / (A * .5 * r * V^2)

The area of the wing is used for the calculation so the wing span is finite (3D).

gripen, what I was saying before is that this is not true. This formula is 2d. It assumes an infinite wingspan. To calculate a 3d CL, you can use the equation derived from "lifting line theory", which uses aspect ratio(this accounts for a finite span, ie: AR = b^2/S) to alter the CL to account for losses due to induced drag.

[justin_g]

I am very curious to know where the perception comes from that the FW-190A8 was so unmanuverable.

It could be the "common knowledge" (incorrect) that the Fw 190A-8 was "designed" to combat bombers - same story for 109G. Alot of people believe this was the case. Also the heavier Sturmbock variant(R8?) may be confused with the normal A-8. Same for 109G and gondolas.

[gripen]

Originally posted by justin_g
gripen, what I was saying before is that this is not true. This formula is 2d. It assumes an infinite wingspan. To calculate a 3d CL, you can use the equation derived from "lifting line theory", which uses aspect ratio(this accounts for a finite span, ie: AR = b^2/S) to alter the CL to account for losses due to induced drag.

No, infinite wing span means that wing area is also infinite and if you look formula I posted, you can see that known wing area is used for it so the formula is 3D.

Aspect ratio is not needed to calculate required Cl for any given wing area and lift combination.

gripen

[bozon]

what does it matter how do you calculate CL?
Eventually you can throw all the correction for finit wing, thickness, twist, pigeon poop etc etc into an effective, include-all Cl coefficient and end up with the same formula:
Cl (A * .5 * r * V^2) = L

Why don't engineers include the 0.5 factor in Cl is beyond me. Perhaps they are not as lazy as physicists.

Bozon

P.S.
one needs also to scale the pigeon as the square root of A.

[justin_g]

gripen, read these webpages: Thin Airfoil Theory  and Lifting Line Theory and Finite and Infinite Wing

[gripen]

justin_g
I don't know what is the problem with this. If we wan't to know what Cl is required for known airframe at given 3D conditions (lift, speed, density, wing area), we can calculate it simply with the formula:

Cl = L / (A * .5 * r * V^2)

It gives the Cl which the wing must have at given conditions despite what ever is the geometry of wing. There is no need to know AR, wing twist, profile etc. at this point. If we want go further to induced drag analysis or AoA analysis  then we need additional information.

gripen

[Charge]

"Cl = L / (A * .5 * r * V^2)"

Is that it? The ultimate truth in determining Lift coefficient -> turn performance?

So why do they bother to make all kinds of complicated planforms and profiles if all you need for a fighter is as much area as possible?



-C+

[Simaril]

ummm..............because there's more to being a fighter than turn performance?

(Like speed, energy retention, weight/power.....)


<----not an engineer, but this one looks like cherrypicking!