A new Focke-Wulf FW190 sub-type, the FW190F-8/R1 fighter bomber

Thanks for checking them.

SC7500 is working with me on the files and I think we are about there. Tweak tweak tweak - eek! eek! eek! Hopefully soon.
 
Reply...

Good morning,

I really appreciate the work you guys have been putting into this. Thanks! :salute:
 
Reply...

Kurt,

Sorry for the slow response...I'll be happy to test this for you. :mixedsmi:
 
Oh, The Trauma.....

... Itz a good thing I'm a Rabid Insomniac....

I've been thrashing away at Kurt's 190 AIR file dilemma for several days & nights now, twisting knobs and cranking wrenches to make a passable combo AIR file.... Seems the closer I get, the further the prize scatters.

Beginning to think that M$'s idea of an AI-ONLY AIR file might be the way to go - with no real Performance middle ground for this A/C, I don't see a viable alternative.

Gonna let it sit on my Brain's Back Burner while driving the tractor today and see if anything cooks out.... will check back here later for additional input.

SC
:kilroy:
 
Rami,

I'm emailing you the latest update. SC7500 is looking at these files as well. I am out of town starting later today and will be back on Tuesday night.

Thank you. :wavey:
 
Hello All,

I build only for CFS 1, but the situation you are describing is very similar to what I encountered. In order to get the very high roll rates for the aircraft, I used very high values for the control effects. To make it User flyable, I tweaked the control response curves to have very little effect with small deflections and increasing effect with greater deflections. AI just could not handle that situation and AI pilots would typicall rock back and forth until they crashed.

- Ivan.
 
Reply...

Captain Kurt said:
Rami,

I'm emailing you the latest update. SC7500 is looking at these files as well. I am out of town starting later today and will be back on Tuesday night.

Thank you. :wavey:
Click to expand...

Kurt,

I'll test them by then, thanks. :salute:
 
Been away for a few days taking care of real life stuff. I've got some catching up to do and then I'll give these a test fight or 10....:ernae:
 
Yep, my weekend was pretty full with work, but I'll give the new FM a try tonight or tomorrow night.

Thanks for the effort on upgrading the Anton's FM. Akemi's planes always are a nice compromise between detail and frame rates so a good FM is most appreciated.
 
Reply...

Kurt,

I found that some of the information you used for the Fw-190 with regard to the BMW 801 was off, causing some real problems. The displacement per cylinder for the BMW 801 was 182.857143 per cylinder, the max rated RPM was 2,700 RPM, and the compression ratio was 6.5:1. Having adjusted those numbers, I could not find a balance that made me even remotely satisfied. At a loss, I decided to take the original Akemi files, and to my delight, the performance numbers weren't all that off, with specific regard to the engine specs.

Having worked to fix them, I negotiated a performance envelope that is much closer to realism, except for climb rate.

Top speed is achieved at 18,065 feet (a bit low, but that's okay with me) of 408.6 mph.
Top speed at sea level is 347.5 mph, again, a number which I think is pretty darn close.

The only negative is that climb rate is still too high, though I can live with 3,300ft/min, rather than the actual 2,360ft/min.

I would strongly advise, if at all possible, to achieve the turning characteristics by adjusting the scalars rather than running the config and airfiles through AirWrench. The danger with that is that you end up putting a lot of FS9 information into the airfile that can cause problems, such as those "altitude oscillations" I've had with bombers.

A "standard" config file should be anywhere from 4-5 kilobytes, on average. If you save an airfile / config file in AirWrench, the config file usually double at least in size. In my experience, it tends to cause more problems than it solves.

I hope these comments have been helpful to you; you should do what you see fit.
 
Yes, but...

Rami, i know your commitment to the small details and i hate to nickpick you again on this my friend, but you've based your engine data on a two-bladed prop config. That can make world of difference in performance.
icon23.gif
 
Reply...

Rami said:
Kurt,

I found that some of the information you used for the Fw-190 with regard to the BMW 801 was off, causing some real problems. The displacement per cylinder for the BMW 801 was 182.857143 per cylinder, the max rated RPM was 2,700 RPM, and the compression ratio was 6.5:1. Having adjusted those numbers, I could not find a balance that made me even remotely satisfied. At a loss, I decided to take the original Akemi files, and to my delight, the performance numbers weren't all that off, with specific regard to the engine specs.

Having worked to fix them, I negotiated a performance envelope that is much closer to realism, except for climb rate.

Top speed is achieved at 18,065 feet (a bit low, but that's okay with me) of 408.6 mph.
Top speed at sea level is 347.5 mph, again, a number which I think is pretty darn close.

The only negative is that climb rate is still too high, though I can live with 3,300ft/min, rather than the actual 2,360ft/min.

I would strongly advise, if at all possible, to achieve the turning characteristics by adjusting the scalars rather than running the config and airfiles through AirWrench. The danger with that is that you end up putting a lot of FS9 information into the airfile that can cause problems, such as those "altitude oscillations" I've had with bombers.

A "standard" config file should be anywhere from 4-5 kilobytes, on average. If you save an airfile / config file in AirWrench, the config file usually double at least in size. In my experience, it tends to cause more problems than it solves.

I hope these comments have been helpful to you; you should do what you see fit.
Click to expand...

Bearcat,

Where is the propeller blade entry in Air Ed? If I knew that, we'd be in business!
 
Rami,

Open the air file in Airwrench and go to the Engine tab. Just above the performance chart is the box for changing this. After you adjust other engine related parameters to match this, save and exit. Then you can go to the cfg and clean up the unwanted FS9 entries, but leave all the engine and prop data intact, especially the prop section. Airwrench defaults all prop engines at two blades, so your final output is flawed if you don't adjust this at the Engine tab for true performance "accuracy". This also has no adverse effect on the AI as far as i can tell, other than they will stop longer on landing due to the thrust scalar. But this can be adjusted also in the brake scalar entry of the air file, section 1101.
 
Reply...

Bearcat,

Thanks, I'll take another crack at it tomorrow. :salute:
 
Thanks Rami, but the specifications you are using are for the BMW 801C engine which powered the FW190A-0 through FW190A-2 versions. The prop specs are off too including the number of blades.

The FW190A-8 used the BMW 801D2 enigne which had a compression ratio of 7.22:1 using C3 100 octane fuel and having an mw50 boost system. It's no wonder you could not get the performance of the FW190A-8 once you changed the engine specs.

Some of my specs are off too though, based on the information below. So I am going to start over on the flight model I am working on.

For everyone who is working on the Wurger flight model, here are the specifications we should be using:


Fw 190A-0 through Fw 190A-2
Model BMW 801C
Type: 14-cyl. air cooled, twin-row radial
Horsepower: 1,539 hp at takeoff
Displacement 2560 cu. in
Compression ratio 6.5:1
Fuel:
Capacity: 115 U.S. Gallons
Type: B4 87 Octane

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fw 190A-4 through Fw 190A-8/F-8:
Model: BMW 801D-2
Type: 14-cyl. air cooled, twin-row radial
Horsepower: 1,700 hp at take-off*
*Fw 190A-8 With MW50 water/Methanol injection could produce 2,100 hp for short periods.
Displacement 2560 cu. in
Compression ratio 7.22:1
Maximum manifold pressure 42 inHg
Airscrew Drive: Epicyclic reduction gear .542:1 ratio

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fw 190A-3 through Fw 190A-7
Fuel:
Capacity: 115 U.S. Gallons
Type: C3 96 Octane

Fw 190A-8
MW50 water/Methanol injection added
Fuel:
Capacity: 140.8 U.S. Gallons (530 liters)
Type: C3 100 Octane fuel injection

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Propeller Unit:
Fw 190A-8/F-8:
Type: VDM 9-12176A three blade, constant speed
Diameter: 3,300mm (10 ft. 11¾ in.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dimensions:
Wing span: 10.5m (34 ft. 5½ in.)
Wing Surface Area: 18.3 sq. m (197 sq. ft.)
Length: 9.00m (29 ft. 6 in.)
Height: 3.96m (13ft.)
Stabilizer Span: 3,650mm (11 ft. 11¾ in.)
Wheel Track: 3,500mm (11 ft. 5¾ in.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Weight
Fw 190A-4
empty: 6,989 lbs
max: 9200lbs

Fw 190A-8
empty: 7255 lbs.
max: 10,800lbs

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Performance:

Maximum Speed:
Fw 190A-8/F-8: 400 mph at 22,000 ft (410 mph w/ mw50 boost)
Range Internal fuel Range: 560 miles
Maximum Fuel- (w/ drop tank): 1,370km (850 miles)
Range (Maximum Bomb Load): 610km (380 miles)
Climb to altitude: 9.35 Minutes to 6,100m (20,000 ft.)
Endurance:2 Hours at 2,000m (6,500 ft.) at 280 mph (450 km/h)
Service Ceiling: 10,360m (34,000 ft.)

Two good internet resources that contain most of these figures (but not all) are:

http://aviationshoppe.com/bmw-801-radial-aircraft-engine-p-217.html

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/fw190af.html
 
Updated and expanded FW190A specifications for flight model development

Further details on specifications and performance numbers to use for those of us working on an acurate flight model for the Akemi FW190 series. (The earlier list is at the end of the New FW190F-8 thread.)

I am starting all over again on my flight model development based on the information contained in this list.

Fw 190A-0 through Fw 190A-2
Model BMW 801C
Type: 14-cyl. air cooled, twin-row radial
Horsepower: 1,539 hp at takeoff
Displacement 2560 cu. in
Compression ratio 6.5:1
Fuel:
Capacity: 115 U.S. Gallons
Type: B4 87 Octane

Fw 190A-4 through Fw 190A-8/F-8:
Model: BMW 801D-2
Type: 14-cyl. air cooled, twin-row radial
Horsepower: 1,700 hp at take-off*
*Fw 190A-8 With MW50 water/Methanol injection could produce 2,100 hp for short periods.
*Fw 190A-4 on - engines were capable of using MW50 injection but production planes were not equipped with it.
Displacement 2560 cu. in
Compression ratio 7.22:1
Maximum manifold pressure 42 inHg

Airscrew Drive: Epicyclic reduction gear .542:1 ratio
Fw 190A-3 through Fw 190A-7
Fuel:
Capacity: 115 U.S. Gallons
Type: C3 96 Octane

Fw 190A-8
MW50 water/Methanol injection added
Fuel:
Capacity: 140.8 U.S. Gallons (530 liters)
Type: C3 injection, 100 Octane

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Propeller Unit:
Fw 190A-8/F-8:
Type: VDM 9-12176A three blade, constant speed
Diameter: 3,300mm (10 ft. 11¾ in.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dimensions:
Wing span: 10.5m (34 ft. 5½ in.)
Wing Surface Area: 18.3 sq. m (197 sq. ft.)
Length:
Fw 190A-1 to Fw190A-4: 8.40m (28ft. 6 in.)
Fw 190A-5 to Fw 190A-8: 9.00m (29 ft. 6 in.)
Height: 3.96m (13ft.)
Stabilizer Span: 3,650mm (11 ft. 11¾ in.)
Wheel Track: 3,500mm (11 ft. 5¾ in.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Weight
Fw 190A-4
empty: 6,989 lbs
max: 9200lbs

Fw 190A-8
empty: 7255 lbs.
max: 10,800lbs.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Performance:

Fw 190A-8/F-8:
Maximum Speed at 22,000 ft: 400 mph (410 mph w/ mw50 boost)
Maximum Speed at sea level: 355 mph
Range Internal fuel Range: 560 miles
Maximum Fuel- (with 300 liter/67 gallon drop tank): 1,370km (850 miles)
Range (Maximum Bomb Load): 610km (380 miles)
Climb to altitude: 9.35 Minutes to 6,100m (20,000 ft.)
Rate of climb: 2350 feet per minute
Endurance:2 Hours at 2,000m (6,500 ft.) at 280 mph (450 km/h)
Service Ceiling: 10,360m (34,000 ft.)

Fw-190A-4:(production aircraft were not fitted with MW50 injectors)
Maximum Speed at 22,000 ft: 382 mph ; at 17,000 feet 395 mph
Maximum Speed at sea level: 312 mph
Range Internal fuel Range: 497 miles
Maximum Fuel- (with 300 liter/67 gallon drop tank): 787 miles
Range (Maximum Bomb Load): 610km (380 miles)
Climb to altitude: 4.25 minutes to 16,500 ft. ; 6.25 Minutes to 18,000 ft.
Best rate of climb: 3480 feet per minute
Service Ceiling: 10,360m (34,000 ft.)
 
These numbers understate the performance of the FW 190A/F/G series. As an example, consider that Arnim Faber's A-3 as tested by the British against a Spitfire Mk.IX was capable of a climb rate pretty close to 4000 ft / minute.

The FW 190A was equipped with either two or three internal fuel tanks. The Aft fuselage tank was installed if MW 50 was not installed because both tanks were in the same location.

Engine power is also a bit understated. Although the designation of the BMW 801D-2 didn't change, there were quite a few developments that increased engine power in the later versions. Check out what can be done with "C3 Einspritzung".

Check out this link for a test of a Ground Attack version. This plane was a bit too light in this test but that should not have significantly affected level speed.

- Ivan.
 
Hello all & Gidday SC7500 :wavey:

I have some additional performance data, let me know if you want it emailed to you. :kilroy:
Performance is also affected by how/what state the engine and airframe is, well or minimal maintained, how much it has been thrashed by the pilot, how much attention it has had from those roving Mustangs-Spitfires-Lavochkins-Thunderbolts-Tempests-Yaks, if that slave labour worker who was involved in the manufacturing process did a few things so that it would not run at optimum performance, not to mention overall skill and abilities of the pilot, etc

Regards SGV
 
Individual planes varied from official specifications. Captured planes sometimes exceeded specs because they were flown without war loads. The climb specs are a "best climb" average to a certain altitude. Initial climb starting at lower altitude would have a higher ROC than later at higher altitude.

My sources for information all state that the MW50 tank could be used for either fuel or MW50, depending on the mission.

These are the specifications from several good sources and we need a base line to develop the flight model from. If you read several sources the numbers can vary a bit - depended on who was performing the measurements or they were taken from different planes flown at different times. Nothing significant and not worth quibbling about. In any case, flight model development is an art and always has compromises. We can get close but never exact, so the spec numbers here are a good place to start from.

Thanks for everyone's input.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top