|
Luftwaffe and Axis Air Forces Please use this forum to discuss the German Luftwaffe and the Air Forces of its Allies. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Performance of the Fw 190A on the Deck?
Quote:
The difference between mine and your approach is that I calculate the changed induced drag due to weight change (which means that Cl/AoA change is accounted) while the formula you use, assumes constant Cl/AoA which is a wrong approach for this particular case. Last edited by Harri Pihl; 2nd August 2008 at 00:18. Reason: Correcting typos |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Performance of the Fw 190A on the Deck?
Quote:
A 50% increase in weight represents an 83% increase in power required at the same CL. That is far from insignificant. It is not a very large change in velocity but it represents a very significant reduction in the aircrafts envelope. For Gods sake, fly a plane with and without passengers to look at your performance or one with 1/2 fuel as opposed to full tanks. All the best, Crumpp |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Performance of the Fw 190A on the Deck?
Crumpp: There is no point in doing calculations using this equation of simple ratios. It contains no effect of altitude, which is relevant to the effect of weight on speed. It would be true if all the drag was lift-induced, but it is not. It would be more appropriate for addressing the stall speed, if in the inverse sense. There it is induced drag which is the dominant term, and zero-lift drag that can be neglected. I assume that you are working to some derived system of equations, which do not hold true for this case. It is always better to go back to the basic principles of lift, drag and thrust (power).
Your comments on power drop is puzzling, as there would be no power drop. Maximum speed is when thrust = drag: over such small differences (yours or mine), inputs such a propellor efficiency and engine power will not change so thrust is constant. The only change is drag: I repeat that the only component of the drag that changes with weight is the lift-induced drag. The size of the change in the induced drag is of the order of that I quoted. Drag is dependent upon the square of the speed. I think I see what you mean about "power of drag" being to the cube of speed, but it is not a concept I'm familiar with, nor necessary in this case. I think you are trying to say that to regain 8.5 mph (on a Typhoon sl top speed around 300 mph) would take an extra 34% of power - even on a cube law this is overstated as only some 9% would be required (1.03 cubed). Harri: your calculation shows an even smaller change than mine, but given the respective assumptions we are clearly in the same ballpark. My estimate of 15% induced drag may be out by some percent, but equally I don't think that any Typhoon actually achieved 2200hp at its top speed, which I think you may be overstating. Perhaps some of the later Tempests did. Actual performance of the Sabre is not defined very well in the references I have. Nick: the main effect of the loaded case is the additional drag of the bombs and carriers. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Performance of the Fw 190A on the Deck?
Quote:
Basicly you are using the wrong approach for this particular case; we are interested about the speed change due weight change and that also means that the Cl/AoA changes. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Performance of the Fw 190A on the Deck?
Quote:
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Performance of the Fw 190A on the Deck?
Quote:
Baloney. You are arguing that the speed reduction is insignificant but you fail to see the entire picture. The small change in speed represents a very significant reduction in the aircrafts performance envelope. It's all tied together and you cannot separate the affect. That aircraft's entire envelope is reduced. No I am not "wrong". You wish to separate that which cannot be. In fantasy land in a realm with no significance to the real world, weight affects are insignificant because top speed is only reduced a small portion. In reality, weight affects are very significant and the number one concern of most designers. Two wrongs do not make a right. All the best, Crumpp |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Performance of the Fw 190A on the Deck?
Bottom line is the idea we can classify weight affects as insignificant because in a very short sighted manner we only percieve a small velocity change is fundamentally flawed.
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Performance of the Fw 190A on the Deck?
Quote:
Harry PHil, I am very familiar with "your technique" btw. It's not new or original. In fact I use it in a spreadsheet I constructed to predict aircraft performance. I would be glad to share that spreadsheet with you. However you still have to go back and couple the affects of the power reduction. Only this time we have to do it manually. The end results are exactly the same. The standard BGS formulation presented in numerous aerodynamic and engineering text I posted in this thread works just fine at illustrating the affects of weight. The end results are exactly the same. An increase in weight represents a significant reduction in performance. All the best, Crumpp |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Performance of the Fw 190A on the Deck?
Quote:
Your approach assumes constant Cl/AoA which is not a correct approach for this particular case because with given available power the plane can't maintain constant AoA at higher weight. Quote:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/t...6131040055/p/1 You might remember that then you claimed this technique as "misuse of formulas" so I afraid that the sensible discussion is impossible in this case as well. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Performance of the Fw 190A on the Deck?
You are about to be ignored. I know very well what the formula's are for as I am degreed in Aeronautical Science.
Once more I am pilot and aircraft owner so I see these affects first hand every time I fly my family on a trip. It's not some academic exercise. Now go back and find where I said anything about there not being a relatively small top level speed reduction due to weight affects. No one has ever claimed anything but that. Graham is the only one who has tried to narrow the issue to that one subject. Instead of having a nice conversation, we are dealing with your lack of understanding on how a parametric study works to determine the affect of something. Parametric study is the most common and accepted way of determining the cause, effect, and magnitude. My issue has always been that Graham's original post: Quote:
Is not true because one cannot separate the affect as Lift, drag, and Angle of attack all have a fixed by design finite relationship. If the only affect of adding weight was small reduction in top level speed, then we could say it was insignificant. It is not insignificant. That small drop in level speed represents a very significant reduction in the aircrafts entire maneuvering envelope. In no way, shape, or form can we say that weight does not matter and has little affect on the airplane. Quote:
http://www.principalair.ca/article-weight.htm All the best, Crumpp |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Most One Sided Luftwaffe Victory over the 8th Air Force | Rob Romero | Luftwaffe and Axis Air Forces | 22 | 18th August 2010 22:55 |
Fw 190A <III of II./JG 26 | CJE | Luftwaffe and Axis Air Forces | 2 | 25th February 2007 15:36 |
Spitfire losses January 22nd, 1943 | Jochen Prien | Luftwaffe and Axis Air Forces | 5 | 14th September 2006 01:35 |
Aircraft performance curves | Christer Bergström | Luftwaffe and Axis Air Forces | 17 | 19th November 2005 21:49 |
Low altitude tests: P-47 vs. Fw 190 | Six Nifty .50s | Luftwaffe and Axis Air Forces | 4 | 20th April 2005 00:13 |