Author Topic: true FW190 rollrate (Read 3186 times)

senna · « **Reply #45 on:** June 20, 2002, 04:53:58 PM »

Otherwise another graph of max possible aileron deflection per speed is required.

senna · « **Reply #46 on:** June 20, 2002, 05:22:19 PM »

And lets not forget altitude and how it would also play into the affect of roll rate. I suspect that the roll rate would differ at various ranges of alt.

-ammo- · « **Reply #47 on:** June 20, 2002, 07:32:29 PM »

First, my apologies. I know I am interupting a great discussion about one of my passions too, airplanes. Neither do I intend to insult anyone

Mandoble and Ram--

In the USA, the word scandelous indicates treachery, deceit, dishonesty. The propreiters of HTC are American and could very well feel insulted by that post. Just wanting to point that out.

Back to the discussion, sorry again!!

Glasses · « **Reply #48 on:** June 21, 2002, 12:41:34 AM »

Yes ammo and not everyone's from the USA so not everyone's accostumed or familiar to the actual meaning of words or idioms in that country, so like Ram said, Mandoble didn't imply anything of HTC he just thought the 190 roll rate was better than he originally understood it was.

So probably now mr Mandoble will be more careful with his choice of words and being more "PC" so no one will imply anything. Then I would hate him with every inch(cm, DR evil Pinkie) of my heart for that .

achoo!

whgates3 · « **Reply #49 on:** June 21, 2002, 01:09:19 AM »

anyone know what altitude that data was measured at?

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #50 on:** June 21, 2002, 03:20:40 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by -ammo-
In the USA, the word scandelous indicates treachery, deceit, dishonesty. The propreiters of HTC are American and could very well feel insulted by that post. Just wanting to point that out.

Ups, thats is not the meaning it was intended for. Sorry then. Substitute scandalous by huge.

Glasses, it is clear the best we can do is just to post in spanish, words meaning deviations are minimized to the extreme compared with english

BTW, whgates3, my test was done at 5k with maximum allowable by structure aileron deflection.

Staga · « **Reply #51 on:** June 21, 2002, 05:02:52 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by -ammo-
First, my apologies. I know I am interupting a great discussion about one of my passions too, airplanes.....

Who are you and what have you done to Ammo ?

Apar · « **Reply #52 on:** June 21, 2002, 05:05:48 AM »

Right on Glasses.

I'm not surprised at all why HT doesn't reply at all to these kind of posts. RAM and Mandoble should lower there tone and try to bring things a bit more easy going (even if it takes for ever to get things changed!!). I'm for one getting really tired of reading these stupid flame fest posts. It started off as a serious post by niklas and ends up as a flame fest. (And yes I pinch in on that as well now, because I'm sick of it).

And that is from a fellow LW pilot!!

Apar

OUT

RRAM · « **Reply #53 on:** June 21, 2002, 09:13:01 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Apar

I'm not surprised at all why HT doesn't reply at all to these kind of posts. RAM and Mandoble should lower there tone and try to bring things a bit more easy going (even if it takes for ever to get things changed!!). I'm for one getting really tired of reading these stupid flame fest posts.

EXCUSE ME!.

Quote a single line in this thread where I do flame someone ,or where my tone is out of place. Or stop doing some out of place remarks. My tone has been perfectly respectful (except for the bait I set for funked, wich was tongue in cheek and kind of a joke between him and I).

So Please?. What are you talking about?.

Kratzer · « **Reply #54 on:** June 21, 2002, 10:53:58 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dux
Not taking sides, and not knowing anything about anything...
I find it hard to believe that "deg/sec/deg of deflection" is a purely linear function. I would think that may be an optimum roll rate, but it would trail off at very slight or very extreme deflections. I mean, do the math for a 150-degree deflection at whatever speed... the formula would give you an extremely fast roll, but logic tells you that, at this point, you no longer have an aileron, but instead an airbrake. Yes I know this is a ridiculous example, but I think it makes my point about it being a nonlinear function.

Yeah, I am wondering about this too - but I'm also wondering how much of that is taken into account in the 'measured' curve, which does start to fall off at high speed. I'm not savvy enough to say if that is completely accounted for by the curve, but that certainly must have something to do with it (in addition to the rigidity of the wing.) I think the real question remains what was the maximum aileron deflection at a given speed, as noted ad nauseum in this thread - without that specific data, I don't think we can draw any concrete conclusions from the chart.

niklas · « **Reply #55 on:** June 21, 2002, 11:53:01 AM »

Funny what people write, really funny. I bet noone would have so much doubts when this curve would have been for a allied fighter.

People asked where this chart comes from. Did they ask where the charts for the P51, P38 or spitfire comes from? Not at all.

I bet few if any people knew about the deflection angles of a P39, P47, P38 and so on. But how quickly they write down their doubts about the 190...

The best joke is the following what someone wrote:"I find it hard to believe that "deg/sec/deg of deflection" is a purely linear function"

Let´s quote the "Naca Requirements for Satifactory Flying Qualities of Aircraft" :
"At any given speed, the maximum rolling velocity obatained by abrupt use of ailerons should vary smootlhly with the aileron deflection and should be aproximately proportional to the aileron defelction"
A 100% linear function? no, but close enough. Just look at the polor charts of a wing, in a reasonable area around zero lift, the lift is a linear function of AoA.

Basis of the curve is 18° deflection, for all speeds. The elasticity of the ailerons is already included in the drop of the curve. Presentign rollrate like this isn´t unusual when you have a good linear function of rollrate to deflection
Don´t forget that P38 rollchart shows a linear increase of rollrate up to 450mph, and noone had doubts so far whether the ailerons could be deflected fully at such high speeds (what isn´t a question of force alone, but also of elasticity)

The 190 was quite heavy for the compact seize. They invested a lot in the stiffness of the frame and wing. It shouldn´t surprise you that the peak was at a high speed compared to other designs.

The reaction of some of you is even more interesting than the chart lol. I should have edited the footnote and put P51 into it, that would have been a fun to read your enthusiastic reactions lol.

niklas

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #56 on:** June 21, 2002, 12:01:43 PM »

Funnier yet, most people who are questioning this chart happen to fly Fws or other LW planes.

Funked and Daff excluded.

But of course, when you go on ahead and incorrectly assume that it's because it's a LW plane that people are scrutinizing it... then you lose any potentially sane argument and worthwhile data you could ever concieve. "Of course because it's not allied, then it's not going to get fixed or be extensively scrutinized" You of course choose to ignore that many things asked for by Allied pilots for the allied planes is also ignored... but you guys just don't pay attention to that... if it isn't beneficial to your precious LuftWannabe planes, then you just ignore it and naturally assume that what was requested for an allied aircraft will be implemented/fixed.

And on top of all that, you poor LuftWannabes are gonna have a helluva time finding any game, apparently, that models the Fw correctly. Check out Il2 sturmovik, Oleg had to model the Fw using IDEAL numbers rather than test reports just to shut people up. Yet they still complain about it.

And you say the basis for this curve is 18deg deflection... HOW do they manage that at all speeds? What stick forces are required for it to get 18deg deflection at 400MPH?
-SW

Glasses · « **Reply #57 on:** June 21, 2002, 12:17:49 PM »

Well Seawulfe my pot headed friend

that's not entirely true, he did use exact numbers, exact numbers for the de- rated FWs used in the Eastern front with B4 fuel, because in the Eastern Front the Fws although used as fighters came in as mostly Jabo aircraft,not only that, but C3 fuel was hard to come by as it was reserved for some of the 109 units in the EF and units in the WF.

Kratzer · « **Reply #58 on:** June 21, 2002, 12:39:15 PM »

I don't see anything on that chart that indicates they were using 18 degrees of deflection - is there a document that we are not seeing that accompanies this chart?

niklas, while you have obviously brought up an interesting chart for discussion, it unfortunately seems to be incomplete, which is why we can't draw any concrete conclusions from the data. This has nothing to do with whether or not someone likes LW planes, or USAAF planes, or RAF planes.

As for the non-linear equation...
Dux just brought up a point, and a valid one, and asserted that he wasn't an expert, it was just an observation. I then, asserting again that I wasn't an expert either, commented that I had wondered the same thing, but thought maybe the curve on the chart accounted for the effect he mentioned. It was a civil exchange of observations, and the data that you mentioned (being an expert, it seems) would've added to the discussion had it not been accompanied by a heft dose of venom.

Imagining an anti-LW conspiracy, and throwing what amounts to a text-based tantrum undermines rather than supports your claims, and contributes to the feeling that anyone who flies a LW plane must be a luftwhiner or a nazi. It's a friggin' game, lose the attitude and try to have some fun. If you don't want something to be discussed, don't post it on a discussion board.

niklas · « **Reply #59 on:** June 21, 2002, 12:42:27 PM »

Quote

Check out Il2 sturmovik, Oleg had to model the Fw using IDEAL numbers rather than test reports just to shut people up. Yet they still complain about it.

And you say the basis for this curve is 18deg deflection... HOW do they manage that at all speeds? What stick forces are required for it to get 18deg deflection at 400MPH?
-SW [/B]

Well if russians did vastly exaggerate their performance claims then it doesn´t automatically mean that germans exaggerated too. At the end, if you look at german factory claims and test data, you ll see that german factory claims are very very reasonable.
IDEAL lol. The russians claim 580km/h - 600km/h for a La-5FN near ground with 1850PS, the germans 565km/h with 1800 PS. Who exaggerated?
German factory claim for a 109F2 515km/h near ground with 1250PS, the russian claim 570-580km/h near ground with same power for a yak3, and this for approval tests, imagine what russian factory claim must have been. Again: who exaggerated?

Why shouldn´t they be able to deflect the ailerons all the way up to 400mph? In the naca rollchart there are several fighters who don´t reach 50lb at all, so why shouldn´t this be able for a 190 too? It´s only a question of aileron balance.

niklas