Now this is very simple. Dora had the same wing as all the A series, the difference was longer nose because of the engine and longer tail with some other minor changes as airflow is concerned. But when weight is concerned it appears that 190d9 was lighter then a8. This is data from wikipedia fw-190 page: 190A8 normal loaded weight: 4,417kg 190d9 normal loaded weight: 4,350kg The difference is not big, maybe even negligible, but the fact is that the wing loading of dora is bit lower then a8. I have this data from change list of fhl 1.60: FW-190A-8 344 kph 22.5 sec (my test showed 22s) FW-190D-9 352 kph 23.0 sec This indicates that dora has worse turn rate but also greater turning radius on fh. But A8 and d9 had the same wing while d9 had bit lower weight and much more powerful engine so the turn performance should be better then in A8. Please fix the turn performance of FW-190d9 so it is better then A8 version. And another thing. I have posted a tread to check if there is any evidence that 190 series had any compressibility problems. No evidence was supplied, on the contrary there are numerous accouts that 190 had no need for trimming at all speeds. So the FHL 1.66 change in elevator authority is a mistake. Please fix it.
D-9 (1750 or 2100hp) doesn't have much more powerful engine than A-8 (2000hp). Anyway A-8 and D-9 would be probably about equal turners at deck with D-9 being better at altitude (due to higher power there) and A-8 being better at deck compared to 1750hp D-9.
I'm quite tired to use those formulas to calculate performance, but you guys can do it easily. http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/short.html http://www.airfieldmodels.com/infor...t_design/plotting_airfoils/about_airfoils.htm
FW190A series data: FW190D datas: BMW801D-2 performance: 1272kW / 1730hp JUMO213A-1 performance: 1300kW/ 1770hp
It's not quite that simple. For example in 1942 maximum power for BMW801D-2 as fitted in Fw 190 would be 1730hp at 1.42ata /Start- und Notleistung) and in 1944 it would be 2000hp at 1.65ata (Erhöhte Notleistung). Same goes for Jumo213 and almost any other engine. Power limits were lifted up as time progressed.
BMW 801TS has higher FTH compared to BMW 801D-2. A-9 (4370kg) weights 70kg more than A-8 (4300kg). A-8 and A-9 are about equally fast at deck (A-8 at 1.58ata, A-9 1.65ata). From 1 to 3km A-9 is faster (about 30km/h at 2km). From 4-5.5km A-8 is about 5km/h faster (both at 1.65ata), but it reaches FTH sooner and power drops so A-9 takes over. (at 6.5km and above about 20km/h faster). As weights are quite similar I think turning would go like the power output. A-9 being slightly better turner at 2km and maybe above 6km. At 3-6km A-8 would turn better. Both would be about equal at deck as A-9 has slightly more power, but more weight also. i guess this pic explains better than me (red line doesn't belong there): http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b58/ICDP/Fw190A8_PF.jpg
Hi Q, >FW-190D-9 352 kph 23.0 sec Well, from my calculations I get: Fw 190D-9: 4250 kg, Clmax 1.21, 2088 HP @ 1km -> 16.26°/s or 22.14 s/360° If it's 23 s now, I'd consider that accurate enough. Speed and climb were completely screwed up last time I checked them, though. There was already one improvement in climb a while back, but that was not enough in my opinion. Regards, Henning (HoHun)
Hi Red Ant, Flight test results (from 1.64R2) compared to WW2 data: http://hometown.aol.de/HoHunKhan/Fw190D-9climb.gif Test method: Level flight at ca. 300 km/h / 100 m, pull up to climb angle, engage auto pilot. Start stop watch at 500 m, note time at 1 km, 2 km, ... Results: Fw 190D-9 WEP: 0,5 km: 0 s 1 km: 28 s 2 km: 84 s 3 km: 150 s 4 km: 235 s 5 km: 326 s 6 km: 415 s 7 km: 498 s 8 km: 598 s 9 km: 710 s 10 km: 868 s Fw 190D-9 100%: 0,5 km: 0 s 1 km: 33 s 2 km: 100 s 3 km: 184 s 4 km: 279 s 5 km: 382 s 6 km: 485 s 7 km: 595 s 8 km: 727 s 9 km: 884 s 10 km: 1087 s Climb rate graph is derived from times. From Fw 190 data: WEP: 4:17 min 100%: 5:04 min Source: http://hometown.aol.de/HoHunKhan/D9climb3web.jpg I consider this conservative, my calculations from the power graph indicate an even higher climb speed. Here's another Focke-Wulf chart also suggesting a higher climb speed: http://hometown.aol.de/HoHunKhan/190da8ta154climb.jpg Still, 4:17 min/5:04 min would be good enough for me. Regards, Henning (HoHun)
Its not accurate enough. Anyone that has flown 190A8 and 190D9 nows that the planes are completly different at turning. Dora sux in this field compared to A8. Dora's stall horn sounds almost all the time, yet A series and D had the same wing. Dora should be a better turner, its quite obvious
Hi Q, >Its not accurate enough. Oh well. I'm pretty sure we have many important fighters in the plane set that are off realistic turn rate figures by more than +/-1°/s, so I don't really care about the Dora. The lack of climb rate indicates a lack of power, and adding that bit of power might correct the turn rate automatically. >Anyone that has flown 190A8 and 190D9 nows that the planes are completly different at turning. You might have a point there, but "different" in exactly which regard? Warbirds does not only model performance, but it also models handling. Warbirds does not know that the two planes are supposed to have (almost) the same airframe, so there could easily be a difference in handling between the two types that is not justified. The more accurate you could describe the difference, the more useful it would be for an investigation. (With regard to the performance difference, the Fw 190A-8 came in many different version, and the "A-8/light" actually weighed slightly less than 4000 kg compared to the Dora's 4250 kg. Of course, this has to be taken into account when comparing the types.) One thing about aircraft lobbying: It's my impression that "engineering"-style lobbying is less successful than "historical document"-style lobbying. I'm not sure about the reason, but for anyone who is trying to get an aircraft fixed, finding sources, preferably contemporary documents, should be priority number one. Regards, Henning (HoHun)
Its a bit arogant statement. If you dont care about the dora its not a good argument. Its quite simple description. The wing performance was EXACTLY the same because the wing was THE SAME. In my opinion to model dora accurately the A8 model should be taken, then make it lighter, adjust speed, climb and turn rate and roll rate to whatever devs think is correct. Same values to current dora model EXCEPT the turn rate. I dont get your drift. Are you saying that there could be some misterius handling differences between 190 versions? Or are U trying to introduce so much fuzzy logic into the subject to convince evryone that we cant do anything becouse there is no realiable info? NO! NO! NO! On the contrary its as simple as it can be: SAME WING, SAME WING PERFORMANCE. Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla... Gues what ... IT IS STILL THE SAME WING AND THE SAME WING PERFORMANCE.
Same wing but different mass, mass displacement, different fuselage aerodynamics, tail section moved farther to the back. This all has HUGE influence on plane's performance.
Hi Q, Hm, you seem to have misunderstood my intentions. I do actually think you're right with regard to the engineering concerns you pointed out. All I'm saying is that personally, I won't lobby for a change as in my opinion, a turn rate error of less than 1°/s is pretty good accuracy already. As turn rate depends on power, too, and the climb rate deficiency indicates a lack of power for the Dora, the wing might actually be perfectly OK. Changing the wing but not the power might actually yield a less accurate Dora. >The wing performance was EXACTLY the same because the wing was THE SAME. I'm not sure how Warbirds models wing performance. From what I have seen and heard, it might be that it's all rolled up into a three-dimensional table with the parasitic drag of fuselage and airspeed, angle of attack and yaw angle on the three axes. It's difficult to isolate individual factors in such a table, so following your request might be unexpectedly difficult, and that might influence the motivation of the developers. >I dont get your drift. Are you saying that there could be some misterius handling differences between 190 versions? The mysterious thing is the flight model. For example, I don't know what weight the D-9 and the A-8 have in Warbirds, and weight has a major influence on turn rate. Maybe the developers know the true weight, but I certainly don't. And in Warbirds, there certainly could be mysterious and illogical handling differences between the different Fw 190 versions. The parametrization of the aircraft models seems to be very complex, and I assume that the A-8 and D-9 have been "tweaked" independendly over many years, and if you'd tell me that the D-9 has a handling problem the A-8 doesn't share, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised. I merely asked because "good" turning could refer to handling characteristics, too. >Or are U trying to introduce so much fuzzy logic into the subject to convince evryone that we cant do anything becouse there is no realiable info? What the developers consider convincing data might be different from what you consider convincing data. If you plan on lobbying, you should try to find the best data you can get. I stated my observation that historical data is preferred over engineering analyses just to help you - that's how it was in the past, no idea if it's going to be any different in the future. Regards, Henning (HoHun)
