Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Its too bad a FAA Hellcat or Corsair never encountered a 109 or 190
There were several encounters with FW 190 and Bf 109 and F6F - Operation Dragoon in Med and IIRC in North Sea area.Its too bad a FAA Hellcat or Corsair never encountered a 109 or 190
Hello Tomo Pauk,
Where did this table come from? Do you read Russian as well?
(My Russian vocabulary is really rather poor.)
Column Headers:
Year of Issue
Airplane
Wing Loading
Power Loading
Speed at Earth (Sea Level)
Speed at Altitude
Landing Speed
Time to 5000 Meters
Ceiling Practical (Service Ceiling)
Duration of Flight
Distance of Flight
Turning Time (Seconds)
As you can tell by the changing wing and power loadings, there is quite a bit more going on than just year of manufacture or fit and finish. As strategic materials became less critical, many parts formerly made of wood were replaced with metal components which were generally lighter and stronger.
- Ivan.
If my math is up for anything, the data from Focke Wulf will point into Cd0 = 0.0265 for the Fw 190A-8 and A-9.
For the the D-9: 0.02426.
If my math is up for anything, the data from Focke Wulf will point into Cd0 = 0.0265 for the Fw 190A-8 and A-9.
For the the D-9: 0.02426.
There are a few reasons for this.We need a thread: paean to FW190.
The Corsair, Hellcat, P-51, P-47, Spitfire, Tempest, Typhoon, Lightning....have well-documented and universally agreed shortcomings; nobody is denying that, nor is anybody denying that they could not be beaten by contemporary aircraft, well-flown.
If neither the FW190 or Bf109 dominated as thoroughly as some posters seem to believe it, by rights, should have, we'd all be saluting to Deutchsland Uber Alles every morning and trying not to get killed by the secret police.
....numbers which are fairly typical or a bit on the high side for single-engined fighters of the day, which tended to run from about 0.022 to about 0.025, with the P-51 an outlier on the low end, at about 0.018, and the Bf109 an outlier on the high end, at about 0.029.
Expect total drag in cruise to be about twice those values.
There's been a discussion between myself and others elsewhere in this forum about the drag coefficients of the FW-190A. I'd like to see data on this and later marks as well, such as the D series. I've relied on the data for the FW-190A-5 provided by Tomo and Ivan in another thread to get a rudimentary figure, using a known formula for calculating the zero-lift drag coefficient of an aircraft and came up with a figure of 0.0242.
Does anyone have actual wind tunnel test data for this or any other FW-190?
Wind tunnel data are not easily compared; in airfoil testing different tunnels show significantly different values (When I was doing aero for a living, I saw a lot of tunnel data)The only way to get a reliable comparison of tunnel data between aircraft is full scale tests in either the same tunnel or in tunnels that have been well-characterized, so that their differences can be compensated for. If we had data for these aircraft, we would still have the micturation contest about how unfair the tests were to the <pick your aircraft>
My take is that fit & finish of Soviet aircrat improved after 1942, and especially after 1943. For example, they measured some 15 km/h improvement for Yak fighters manufactured in 1943 vs. those from 1942, and up to 30 km/h for LaGG-3, all for same engine power.
La-7 was barely faster than La-5 where attention was paid to the fit and finish for both machines.
We have many WWII fighters flying, and the museum flies quite a few, including a real A6M5 and an Fw 190 replica with an R-2800 in it. We have a P-38J (a P-38J-20), several P-51s (two Ds and an A), a TBM, a P-47G, a P-40N, and a Yak-3 flying, as well as a A-1 Skyaider, an SBD (the only REAL one left flying), and have frequent Wildcat, Bearcat and Tigercat visitors and, very soon,will have out own Bearcat. We HAD a Hellcat but it has been years. For many years, we operated Spitfires (a Mk IX and XIV), a Hurricane, and a Martlett.
All the pilots say each has good and not-so-good points. Everyone likes the P-51, the F6F Hellcat, and the F8F Bearcat.
I wish I were one of the pilots, but that takes a pretty flush bucket of money!
That's easy for you to sayCDo data often expressed in the forums is not very relevant at combat speeds for a multitude of reasons:
1.) Minimum Parasite Drag expressed in literature is in RN numbers of 50 mph magnitude barely above laminar flow and is decreasing non-linearly across the RN field.
2.) Such numbers are well below M=0.3 at which point (region) incompressible flow theories degrade with compressibility effects - which are also non linear and show a steep gradient as Mach No>= .6M. In this region, low drag airfoils like the NACA/NAA 45-100 show dramatic reductions of CD=f(M) compared to NACA 230xx airfoils.
3.) at high M range CD is also non-linear increasing as a function of CL
All of the Parasite Drag increments (CDo + CDm + Cd (CL)) are non linear at increasing RN and M numbers.
All are required to develop POWER REQUIRED as Power Available factor in THP plus Power Available Delta's due to Prop Efficiencies and Exhaust Thrust (= f(Boost and mass flow rate)). Additional parasite drag items like bomb racks/bombs and fuel tanks also come into play as 'deltas' to the Base Parasite Drag.
Then another iteration on power required must be developed based on the Pressure drag of the immersed airframe in the prop vortex.
Tea anyone?
CDo data often expressed in the forums is not very relevant at combat speeds for a multitude of reasons:
1.) Minimum Parasite Drag expressed in literature is in RN numbers of 50 mph magnitude barely above laminar flow and is decreasing non-linearly across the RN field.
2.) Such numbers are well below M=0.3 at which point (region) incompressible flow theories degrade with compressibility effects - which are also non linear and show a steep gradient as Mach No>= .6M. In this region, low drag airfoils like the NACA/NAA 45-100 show dramatic reductions of CD=f(M) compared to NACA 230xx airfoils.
3.) at high M range CD is also non-linear increasing as a function of CL
All of the Parasite Drag increments (CDo + CDm + Cd (CL)) are non linear at increasing RN and M numbers.
All are required to develop POWER REQUIRED as Power Available factor in THP plus Power Available Delta's due to Prop Efficiencies and Exhaust Thrust (= f(Boost and mass flow rate)). Additional parasite drag items like bomb racks/bombs and fuel tanks also come into play as 'deltas' to the Base Parasite Drag.
Then another iteration on power required must be developed based on the Pressure drag of the immersed airframe in the prop vortex.
Tea anyone?