Wow, four hours to go until the video premiers and already one thumbs down! I seriously enjoy seeing that. It insures me that thumbs down are not really content based, and are often not legit criticisms.
Nobody knows how these downvotes appear - on basically every video that gets at least a thousand views. I guess some men just want to watch the world burn.
@@tedarcher9120 hence the use of the term _needs_ in my comment. The inline engines were being used, or misused more to the point, on the woefully hopeless 210 series of planes. The radial engine factory sitting idle was what this plane was designed and built to keep that from happening.
It was alright, better than a Spitfire V in late 1942, but beaten by Spitfire IX, XII and the Typhoon, and not that useful at altitude.The D9 was better with increased performance at altitude, but really similar in speed to a P51D. A Spitfire XIV had much better performance vs the D9 bar roll rate. The Ta152 was fast, as long as the water/methanol and nitrous oxide injection tanks were full. The strangest thing about the Fw190 was the lack of adjustable trim tabs on the control surfaces. Trim had to be set on the ground by a fitter bending the fixed trim tabs with a mallet and block of wood and trim could not be adjusted in flight as on most allied aircraft. A P51 pilot could adjust trim in flight on all control surfaces. This meant that the Fw190 pilot would have to adjust his aircraft’s trim as the centre of gravity changes with fuel use by corrective pressure on the stick and rudder pedals. That’s fatiguing on a long flight and inefficient.
That’s pretty much the entire “warhorse” philosophy he used. You might WANT a big engine in a small plane, but you NEED something that will bring your pilots home, lest you run out of pilots. You might WANT the lowest drag possible, but you NEED to make sure the plane can be saved when the fields go bad
Greg, I pretty sure you already know this but the community is infinitely grateful for your hard work on these beautiful war birds. I feel like you are doing important preservation of the details and explanation of these planes that the vast majority of the people wouldn’t have a clue about. You really go a step further than even the other best creators on the subject. Thanks again!
J'apprécie grandement le travail de Greg, c'est très instructif. I really do appreciate Greg'swork, it's very informative. Mille mercis, a thousand thanks!
That armored oil cooler arrangement that relies on the pressure differential of the boundary layer and the fan pressure is ridiculous and brilliant. We take if for granted what these engineers had to do without CAM/CAD, and that they made relatively safe high performance aircraft.
Amazing stuff, You could imagine der bickering that went on between the White an blue shirts on the machine floors,, "Nien,, NIEN!!" All the best Dcbadger2.
Late reply, but thank you for this. This is off topic but hopefully close enough. My father was a B-24 pilot in the 15th and regularly encountered 109s and 190s. The 109s bounced the formations, groups, squadrons and forced them to break up. Dad said these were very pro pilots, knew just what they were doing. Even while being attacked, he had to admire their skill and bravery. That alone scared the bejesus out of everyone. Formations broken up, the 190s attacked often head on in lines up to ten or so. My father, a low key man, never one to be dramatic or given to hyperbole, said the 190s chewing thru planes all around him was the scariest part of the war for him. Sorry to prattle!
A lot of good thinking, experimentation, and engineering went into the air-cooled Fw-190 to bring its drag down to an acceptable level. It's quite amazing what the Germans were able to with the limitations they experienced with poor fuel, the need to import metal during wartime, and many other shortages that war brought to Germany. Good upload, Greg.
I remember reading Kurt Tank stating how his feet felt when flight testing the FW-190 for the first time "Like a blow torch set to my feet, beyond that great potential" . Soon after the coned cowling soon disappeared. Obviously this is my favorite Axis AC. Even the "D" and Ta versions. The only in-lines I can stomach. I don't comment much because your work is so in-depth and precise, It's just more of a pleasure to listen and learn. Thanks
Hey Greg, great video. Keep up the good work. But as a German speaker, I have to chime on the translations of the oil cooler system. :D Number 3 "Behaelterpanzer" means reservoirs armor and 4 "Ringoelbehälter" is the ring shaped oil reservoirs, literal ring oil reservoirs. Regarding the external air scoops. There is a german publication with actual pictures of 190s with these scoops. One is an A4 flown by Wilhelm Galland, Commander of the II./JG26 in 1943 in France. According to this publication these where more or less field modifications for the high level interceptors as the RLM did not want to diversify the production more.
Hi madcat, since you seem to enjoy little anecdotes about the -190, you may be happy to hear that there are a couple of concrete training bombs once used by Focke Wulfs hanging the exact place where they were left, in the grass, in what is now the restauration section of the French aerospace museum in le Bourget. The Germans used the French Navy hangars that were sitting opposite the runways, on the Dugny commune, and left some stuff in 1944. There is also a French built Fw-190 (nc-900) in the museum. fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCAC_NC.900
Hi, I’m Cindy’s husband, Dwight. Totally fascinating. When things get “technical” I usually zone out but you are able to keep me riveted and absorbing your content. I really appreciate that, because it is a talent you have to communicate to a less then technical person like me. Good job Greg, IMO. Thanks again.
Just want to take a minute to say that these videos are absolutely fascinating. I don't think there's any other UA-camr who can hold my attention, uninterrupted for over half an hour. Thanks for putting these together Greg!
Watching this again after 3 years 😂 I just love your very VERY detailed reports on this (or all WW II planes) Sidenote: I now drive a Mini F56 Cooper S (192hp turbocharged) a car that has a pseudo inlet in the front of the engine hood which does literally NOTHING, zero zip cause it’s blocked on the inside !! Pseudo-Ram-Air-drag-enhancer for „styling“ or „visual pleasure“ , soooo not my thing… One could add a hilariously expensive eventuri conversion that opens it up and directs the air into the inlet, but then I wonder how much Ram air actually would help a turbo (not a supercharger) even when I do 200-230 km/h on the German autobahn… if I created a cover that shuts that hole I would probably gain more…
Let the haters hate. Your review of this plane shows good aerodynamic design on a engine style that many pre WW2 engineers/ designers thought was obsolete but from out of left field this comes along. Just wow!! Thank you!!
17:04 the full sentence says: below the full-pressure-altitude the performance(s) with the internal air inlets are better. Servus from a German friend aus München!
In a way I hate to say this but by all appearances the Engineers and Physicists had all the fun during the war. The explosion of ideas and development must have been intoxicating. Wonderful focused reporting. I look forward to more.
Greg, great video about a plane I wish I had more knowledge of. However, my father, who worked at Hamilton Standard after the war did say that the German propellers were great. The VS111 used on the TA-152 seemed to be a high point. The VDM 9-12159 and 12199 were good as well. The 159 was used on the Me-109K and 109-G10. Wish my father was still alive to have him give you the particulars. Merry Christmas. I'll join your PATREON channel soon!
I really would love to learn more about German propeller design. My uninformed and uneducated guess has always been that German propellers weren't that great, or that the main focus was on engine performance and other variables that propellers had to be good enough or competitive enough to get the job done. Im not saying they half assed their propeller designs, we're talking about Germans here after all, but it would be incredible to learn anything about this facet of WW2 aviation. The odd 190 C with 4 blade propeller makes me wonder many things I don't have answers for, or even the right questions lol
Your explanations of aerodynamics and engineering have greatly helped someone like me, with no background in them, to understand these aircraft in a way I never could in decades of reading about their history. Thank you for your work and your style of interpretation.
Always a pleasure hear someone so knowledgeable, yet very open about what they do not know. Also enjoyed the vignette of your flying career. Wishing you a great Christmas and a very happy, healthy and prosperous new year.
J-3 Cub owner and former Stearman owner here. You are right about the performance of a 220 horse stock airplane. I like my Cessna 180 much better. Always great stuff on your channel!
@@glenn1035 Yes, your point is well made. In a quick Wikipedia search I found the Fw44, a radial engined biplane designed by Kurt Tank which first flew in 1932. However the US Navy adopted its radial only policy as far back as 1921.
@Richard Tattis True but sometimes you have to use what you are given and Australia was given circa 850 P40 's and circa 650 Spits both inline powered fighter's which served us well and we will be forever grateful for these great fighters.
Well done, Greg - again - as usual. Excellent explanations of technical stuff for those of us who are literate, but don't speak "engineer" or "aeronautical engineer." Look forward to the next one. I'd love to see one in the future on prop design - many of the 190s (and some 109s, as well) I've seen in photos have a big paddle-bladed prop, and I've even seen a few Mustang photos with a 4-paddle prop, but the contemporary U.S. Navy planes never seem to have used them, at least not until we get to the F8F. Anyway, "prop efficiency" and the importance of "supersonic blade tip" are mystery terms to me. And of course, I'm waiting, patiently I hope, for you to do a video on the F6F, since that's what my dad few in combat in 1944.
Honesty and integrity are things of the past. I'm not up to grasping all the information but was impressed by the way you were completely transparent about your experiences and lack of experiences. It's not easy to respect words these days as the people are often scared and insecure about who they are and what they feel they're worth. You have a past worth being prpud of, certainly more than I've ever accomplished.
As a Aircraft Automobile and Motorcycle enthusiasts I’m appreciative of your efforts to drill down into the many technical areas you present and the related history. Thanks again and I look forward to future topics.
Hi Gregg,the FW 90-A has got to be one of the neatest and rugged ww2 aircraft,a brilliant design becoming a Jack of all trades when adapted in the field,it is also one my favourite aircraft of that period.Thank you so much for putting in the research time and effort to produce these videos .cheers Roly🇬🇧.
I really enjoy your videos. Thank you! On this one at 16:00 you mention you haven't seen any image of a plane with the ram scoops. I dug through my collection and found two books with images. (1) "The Luftwaffe Profile Series No. 4", p13, 31, 32 (2) "Profile Publications, The Focke-Wulf Fw 190A, Number 3", p8. I scanned them for you, but I don't see a way to get them to you.
A very interesting video, you can see that the FW190 employs a lot of small ideas to reduce drag. Experience from having captured FW190s led Hawker to design the Hawker Sea Fury using the Bristol Centaurus engine, this is arguably the fastest piston-engined aircraft of WW2 and was fast enough to shoot down Mig 15s in Korea.
Very well done video and commentary. I am always amazed at the ability of WWII era engineers to design such aircraft (whether British, American, German, Russian or Italian) without the present day design tools such as computers and 3D modeling. Slide rules, drafting boards and a lot of test flights, that's it. Extremely impressive. Thanks for these videos.
Man, regarding your feedback to the your F35 request I must say I really like your truthful and respectful answer to your subscribers. That indicates your serious approach to us and the subjects you presents. My full respect sir to your honesty.
I just have this fascination with the FW 190 A lines and proportions, that makes it one of my favourite WWII planes, that perfect balance is broken with the inline engine+circular radiator od the Dora version, just that little bit and the beauty is gone!
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Thx for this chrismasgift Greg About "not found a single Picture" at 15:58 you find pictures in In Adam Skupiewski`s "Monografie Lotnicze Focke-Wulf Fw-190A/F/G) Part one Page 13, a Fw 190 A-3/U7 and Manfreds Griehls "Flugzeug Profile" Focke Wulf 190 Varianten Nr45 Page 10, big picture frontpart of Fw 190 A-3/U7 (maybe same the plane like in Monogr. Lotnicze) captions "Höhenjäger mit aussenliegenden Ladereinläufen" i think its a testaircraft / testbed my eyes are bad even with glasses and some other small Pictures i found are maybe tropical Filters so i removed the source /edited the post but the A-3/U7 intake is like the one in 15:59 looks like the intake oppening is a bit wider/bigger but the intake didnt have the "ribs" like on Trop filters
@Hoa Tattis technically is it right , i am talking about the translation ......i am german and " cooler " is a translation that is a bit " mushy " in my opinion , and here is why 1. most manuals ( not for aircraft only, but in general ) call those things radiators or heat exchangers 2 .cool , cooler , the coolest .....could be a verb 3. if you are not technically fit , and do not know that we are talking about a machine / airplane ...etc and just listen to it , it could also mean that there is another amoured ring .....the hotter one -----the cooler and the hotter ring , because they are the same and the only difference could be the temperature. 4....it was known as the cooler amoured ring you say ......i say it was known as the kühlerpanzer ;-) i allways thinking of how many parts are included in those planes that are totally useless in a civilian sport plane and if you remove all the armour and weapons and would install a modern turboprop ....what a cool sporty , rigid plane it would be......and i dont even have a pilots license
Greg, From what I am hearing about the F-35 is that it is designed to be a stand off long range bomb/missile truck. Never designed to be a knife fighting fighter. Reminds me of when they decided that a fighter did not need a gun. Time will tell.
This is why the F22 is still a thing. SOMEONE needs to a) get close enough to paint targets for the F-35's (because stealth is relative when it comes to distance) and also b) survive within that furball (through manuver) long enough for the inbound ordinance to do its job. (eliminating any enemy numerical advantages) thus saving the 22's comparatively limited (to the 35) payload for dealing with immediate aerial threats to its existence and the occasional bit of anti-radiation work (any close surface based targeting arrays) and then c) cleaning up what is left over
@@susanmaggiora4800 when I was a Kid the Mustang was by far my favorite WW2 warbird. My local airstrip had a gentleman that owned one and he took it out once a month and my entire neighborhood to get excited about. Now as a 40+ year old man the P-47 is easily my favorite WW2 plane. Greg’s video’s have only strengthened my opinion of it. Both of course are Incredible planes.
Greg, I'm happy that I waited for this video. I went out and had dinner and drinks and came home for this masterpiece. My favorite WWII fighter plane and my favorite UA-cam channel.
Hi Greg, As far as the translation (10:29) is concerned: No. 4 should better read „ring oil reservoir“ or „ring oil container“ (not only ring holder). Behälter = container, reservoir, tank Wonderful video !
I love your videos man. Been a fan of WW2 warbirds for over 30 years now, I've collected an extensive library on the subject, and your videos absolutely *never* fail to disappoint. I appreciate (and praise) your dedication to the subject. You would be a *fantastic* flight museum docent if you aren't already.
Just found you / your channel...you did a spectacular job covering this plane and its design features !! As a WW2 aircraft and tank aficionado , I love any person who can understand we love these individual craft SOLELY for their design features , beauty and function...NOT the purposes or beliefs of those who commanded them !! It's such a joy and a relief to share this history with those mature and intelligent enough to realize this is our perspective...thank you for all the research and hard work you do to make these vids possible for us to enjoy.
One more observation: The forward outer portion of the cowling produces a substantial under pressure, a forward suction. The frontal area is a reference area only, The large diameter of the cowling produces lower drag than a gradual conical shape. Like you say the pressure distribution is important and easily demonstrated on a wind tunnel.
Greg, i have watched this video at least five times and learned something every time. Such great content. I can only imagine how much work it takes to produce such amazing content. Thanks for doing the work! The video with David Lednicer is really interesting. Thanks for that tip. Keep up the great work.
I learned to fly when I was stationed at AFCENT at Brunnsum in the Netherlands. My training was done on Cessna 150s and 172s. The flyng club at Beek Airport in Limburg in South Netherlands also had a Piper Cub. I looked over this plane and though that I wouldn't be caught dead in it. After I got my PPL I was asked by the club management if I could ferry a 150 to Beerse in Belgium for maintenance. They reassured me that there would be a flight back, and thatv I wouldn't have to walk the 60 -70 miles back. Thus reassured, I said OK. When I arrived at Beerse I found that the only plane that was returning to Beek was the Piper Cub. So, now I had a choice, climb into the Piper or walk home. Of course I flew home. It was a revelation for me. Flying in the Piper was what I had always imagined flying to be - seat of the pants, and just wonderful. I just wish that everyone who flies or who wants to fly could have that experience. I think your videos are great. It's a pity that you can't do a video on the TSR2, given the dearth of information.
Greg, I think most people don't realise that at high speed, wing area is a BIG component of total drag; often bigger than the improvements due to cleaner fuselage from less bits sticking out. If you do the detailed drag maths, you will find the bigger Spit wing is the main (though not only) culprit for its greater drag compared to the FW190
Der Butcher Bird is the best looking WW11 plane. I love Em all but this has something extra? Great study Greg, the internal an dynamic Ram Air is just so Kraut.Awesomeness.
I'm with the 2nd group regarding the F-35. Worked with some F-35B guys a few years ago who had transitioned from Harriers or F-18s and they were categorically pro-Thunderbolt II for the reasons you mention (or don't mention).
They'd quickly become pro-F-35 in any war against a peer, or near-peer adversary. The A-10 is just not survivable on a modern battleground. It even struggled during the first Gulf War.
@@SpaceGhost1701 It wasn’t really meant to last full enemy air power. It was meant to SURVIVE enemy air power, then the pilot could jump to a new plane back at base Maybe the A-10 itself is outdated, but that doesn’t mean that an airborne tank is.
Stay for the F-35 Post-credit scene, you wont want to miss it Greg I would love to see you do some Vietnam war era stuff (sorry if you already have and I haven't noticed) Personally I'm a big fan of the F-105 Thunderchief
This is a beautiful story and told so well. I can relisten to this and relisten to it. Big fan of the 190, and that makes it more appealing. Thanks Greg.
Your releases are so informative and educational. Favourite channel on aviation👍🏼 I made a report about the 190 ten years ago, during my education as a aircraft mechanic. It was mainly discussing structural integrity of airframe, whether it was fail-safe og safe-life design. And ever since then, ive been in love with this airplane. Simply a beauty and a beast. Like Gina Carano of the skies.
Liked the dialogue on the Cub and Stearman. I just completed my taildragger endorsement in a 1941 J5 Cub, and really enjoyed it. Unlike you, I am also having an absolute blast in the Stearman, and don't have any significant performance regrets, however, the one I am flying has a 275hp engine, so maybe the extra 50 hp is a big differentiator. Seems to fly almost exactly where I intuitively 'think' it should go. It is completely different than the Cub, has much more inertia, and landings dealing with the sight picture and height/function of landing gear (springs vs. oleos) makes for a new challenge. But I am loving it nonetheless, and look forward to moving into some light acro in my next set of instruction.
I love your work! I only wish I could have watched these videos in my early teens (15 years ago), I wanted so badly to have such good information in such a digestible format. Keep it up!
Greg, it's another fascinating video. I don't want to overrun you with long comments, but I cannot help but respond to your brief end comments on the F-35. I hope you will do a video on it as it is a very interesting and important subject. Pierre Sprey said the main mission of the plane is to generate profit and that it would be unlikely to prove to be a great fighting machine. The guy was a genius and the ultimate straight shooter, but his preference for austere fighters first formed in the 1960's that was no doubt true then could become less valid in the face of advancing sensors and electronics. They are usually over-hyped in the beginning for military applications, but due to Moore's Law they eventually get there with higher performance and lower cost, as I have continually witnessed and been involved in during my 40 year career as an electrical engineer. Though a heavy fighter (it's a little heavier than the F-15), the F-35 has the cost and maintenance virtues of being single engine without unnecessary thrust vectoring, and the program has been designed to take maximum advantage of economies of scale. If they can really hold its cost in the $80 mil range, then they have done a great job with that. Its stealth is designed to support the element of surprise (at least at BVR ranges), and its situational awareness to get inside the opponent's OODA loop supports surprise also. In the past whiz bang radar missile fighters like the F-4 and F-14 in their day proved disappointing, partly because of standard heavy fighter failings and partly because the radar missiles had such low Pk in their early years. But, those radar guided missiles have gotten a lot more reliable in the last few decades. Modern AESA radar lets those missiles be used without giving away surprise, so they have become quite practical. So, the F-35 as a relatively efficient heavy fighter has some good things going for it. But it may be that its very long and behind schedule development and fielding lead it to missing the window where it could have been a solution that might possibly have outperformed larger numbers of lower cost modern light fighters like the Gripen. Even if it was fielded earlier, it is not a given the F-35 could outperform the Gripen (or a similar U.S. fighter) per budget, as a Gripen-like fighter could be $50mil in volume production with economy of scale, it has about one quarter the operating cost of the F-35, and apparently it can really fight. As to the networked warfare argument, the Gripen is no slouch on electronics, radar and practical stealth itself--it has sophisticated electronic warfare abilities, data linking to act as its own AWACS, AESA radar, and only has a radar cross section of about 1.5m^2 compared to 20m^2 for the F-15. The Gripen to my knowledge has about a 20-1 victory score over the F-15, F-16, and F-18 in various trials such as Red Flag. This was apparently achieved with the combination of its light fighter virtues (an even better rendition than the F-16), strong electronic networking and situational awareness, which is reportedly at least in the ball park of competitive to the F-35, and outstanding pilots. The Gripen is also far superior in an austere war environment, like the Fw-190 was designed to be. It can disperse to roads wherever 800 meters of straight road exists to serve as a runway, making it much harder to find and kill on the ground. It can maintain a high sortie rate with a ground crew of 5, of which most can be briefly trained conscripts, compared to over twice that needed for the also efficient F-16. So, it makes a great example of spreading the available budget over a larger number of smaller planes designed for low cost as the best strategy to win, as history has generally confirmed. But, whether an efficient heavy or even more efficient light fighter wins out with manned fighters in a BVR networked era, it may be a moot argument. The time is coming fast where drone fighters will outperform any human flown fighter, and for much less cost (likely 50% to 70% the procurement cost per plane, perhaps 10% the operating cost, and no need to train pilots for 4-5 years until they are really ready to fight well). Over the history of air combat, less than 10% of pilots have scored 60% to 80% of the kills. With AI drones, every single drone will have that kind of ace grade "pilot"--even better as each AI pilot will be more aware and able to make decisions in less than 1% of the human "orient and decide" time in the OODA loop. It will make mathematical and statistical decisions in milliseconds on how to best deploy its weapons for maximum effect, and it will very seldom make a mistake. By itself, that increases the combat effectiveness of an Air Force by more than a factor of 10 (maybe a lot more). And, that drone does not have to fly 300 hour a year for its pilot to maintain skill, so the airframe lasts longer (it will become obsolete before it wears out) and maintenance and fuel costs are very low. You just store the thing with periodic software updates and occasional test/maintenance, and maybe one or two modular electronics upgrades over its life, until it's rolled out for action like a super-computing flying version of the Terminator. It will be the end of a great era in aviation. But, in war reality must be faced and a nation has to make the best use of its resources to survive and win. That is the foundation of the light fighter concept, and of drone fighters as well.
You are doing a fantastic work to preserve much of the knowledge which otherwise would have been lost. In the civil life I'm a engineer and I have been working a couple of years in the civil aircraft industry. The fact you discuss with us are very interesting. Thank you!
Back in the 70s I attended a scale model aircraft event and sitting in the grass was a model FW-190 with a 72 inch wing span with incredible detail, including wear and weathering. It looked to have been in its share of battles. It was the most intimidating aircraft I have ever seen. An absolute work of art and I will never will forget it.
This is really fascinating! I love the Focke Wulf 190. It has an long, elegant , stocky look sitting on the ground with its wid landing gear. And with a good paint scheme it looks absolutely fabulous!
Agree. About gear... while, as an ex.Brit, I have a great love for the Spifire, I couid never understand why the gear "folded the wrong way" giving a narrow track and less stability... must be something to do with what had to be fitted in the wing. I know, do the research! Off topic, years ago I had the pleasure of flying a tail-dragger sport plane out of Biggin Hill! Great fun... and I really noticed that the runway had a hump in the middle!
@analogdino1 Yea the 190 shot 4 gun's strait through the blades. Which made plenty room for a wide landing gear. They put the Spitfires gun's out of the blades and farther out on the wing. Which led to a narrow landing gear. Too narrow to fold inward and probably even more narrow so it could fold outward and stay out of the gun bays.
I really appreciate these videos. I love the "engineer" viewpoint (yes...I'm an engineer!) which so complements and illuminates the historian's view of things. But also, I really enjoy the delivery style. Open, natural and extremely well structured. Thank you.
Internal combustion engines all have about the same thermal characteristics for a given fuel. 1/3 power, 1/3 radiator heat, 1/3 exhaust heat. Due to later firing sparks, lower octane fuels put more heat down the exhaust. If we assume RR Merlin 61 and BMW engines make similar power from a given fuel supply the argument about cooling drag really sits on who has the most efficient means of extracting waste heat from the engine. It’s said the Spitfire cooling drag was largely cancelled by Meredith effect. It’s also said the P-51 gained 4mph from the same effect. The question is how much “boost” did FW-190 get from the excepting engine cooling hot air.
Really enjoying the FW190 videos. Hoping in your BMW801 discussion,you talk about fuel quality, and perhaps speculate on that engines potential if 100/130 fuel had been available.
You're exactly right about the "Ram Air" induction on cars, the fact is their real benefit is from being a cool air inlet more than actually having a true ram air effect, that was basically nothing more than marketing.
Cool air is true for production cars, but in race they also use the pressure. As an example, in Pro Stock motorcycles they seal air the box so they can build air pressure, and at 200mph they get about 2psi.
@@SidneyCritic Anybody that has been educated in normally aspirated engines and has any practical experience with them and carburetors knows that applying positive pressure to the inlet of a carburetor on a normally aspirated engine screws up the jetting. Look at any fake scoop for a carburetor on a normally aspirated engine, like a Kuryakyn Hypercharger for motorcycle engines, you'll see that they're rigged up so at throttle the butterflies are closed and there's a hidden slot at the bottom rear of the unit that it draws air through, the butterflies have to be closed so you don't get any positive pressure from foreward motion because it'll screw everything up, the butterflies actually work the opposite as real scoops on a supercharged engine, they're open at an idle and closed at any throttle opening above an idle via a vacuum pull off. Look at pictures of the old normally aspirated Indy cars and F1 cars, you'll notice that they have velocity stacks instead of foreward facing scoops for this very reason, anything that would face in a foreward direction would not be in clean air that could cause any type of positive pressure to the carburetor. Putting 2lbs of pressure to a carburetor on a normally aspirated engine would reverse the fuel flow through the jets and blow bubbles into the fuel bowls. I don't know where you got that BS story from but that's exactly what it is, BS.
@@dukecraig2402 Just put some thought into it, and you'll work it out - lol -. Hint: Ever heard of a blow-through turbo carb setup. The air box is attached to the float bowl by a vent, so it's under the same pressure. You can also put the carbs in the pressurised air box. As for fuel pressure, there is a way bigger fuel line inertia slosh backward problem in a drag car at launch than the measly 2psi, That's why comp pumps run at high pressure and they reg it at the carb. If you look at a HD the carb is behind the forks, so having a forward scoop doesn't work because there is a air bow-wave at the front of the bike. Pro-stock bikes and cars have scoops at the front in clean air, so can utilise actual air pressure. You do realise you just watched a 30min vid showing pressurised ram air working - lol .
@@SidneyCritic First off Pro Stock hasn't run carbs in some years now, since 2015 or so they've run a mandatory EFI system, and back when they did run carbs you weren't allowed to modify them as how you're suggesting, the rules clearly state that they must be "as manufactured", they couldn't be modified like that, only tuned. And look at the new mandatory inlet system's for the EFI, you're not allowed to modify them either, like the carbs they have to be "as manufactured", and the inlet size is so small that some people are suggesting that it's hobbling the cars, they certainly aren't big enough to cause positive pressure. And I know exactly how the different systems work, aside from going to aircraft maintenance school I've been building performance Harley engines for over 30 years for a living including turbo and supercharged engines, and helping friends with the same systems on cars, unlike you who's guessing at this. And you're VERY wrong about your thesis concerning the air flow down the side of a bike like that, that's exactly why those stupid Kuryakyn Hyperchargers have butterflies that snap shut the moment you come off an idle, go down the road on a non fairing Harley and hold your hand just in front of the air cleaner and then try to tell me that a foreward facing scoop won't pick up air, hence the side mounted scoops that they used to sell that bolted to the engines to cool the rear cylinders on the older one's. Yea blow through carbs are set up for forced induction, but the cars that marketed the "ram air" hoods ran regular production carbs, the ram air name was only for people who don't know any better, or think they know what they're talking about but don't. Hint: You do realize that in this 30 minute video he didn't cover anything about normally aspirated engines and carbs don't you? As a matter of fact he mentioned something about them being "a different story" and left it at that, even then he didn't go into the complexities of the fuel systems on those supercharged aircraft engines, they were very complicated system's that work off of pressure both before and after the supercharger with fuel systems that have multiple stages to them, unlike a normally aspirated engine's carburator that has 1 stage, that being the ambient air pressure pushing down on the fuel in the bowl and pushing it through the fuel circuits, or even a blow through carb on a supercharged street gasoline engine which is still just one stage. You can't force air into a naturally aspirated carbureted engine like that, it won't work, already been there and done that proving it to the owner of a bike with a foreward facing air cleaner by removing the air cleaner sock and having him ride it at top speed, or at least he attempted to get it to top speed but he quickly found out that as soon as he built up enough speed to cause an imbalance in the carburetor it hit a wall it wouldn't pass through.
@@dukecraig2402 It doesn't seam you have worked on a Dominator, because the float vent tubes are right next to the barrels within the sealing ring. Most carbs are the same, just Google it. You brought up carbs back blowing jets not me. I work on Nitro fuelers, Nitro Harley, S/C meth rails, bikes, nitros, turbo, drag, circuit, etc, professionally for 30 years, so my knowledge isn't limited by only 1 engine. It sound like you are blaming booster buffeting as an summation that a sealed air box can't build pressure. You need to research pitot tube and stick it out your car window when you are driving, and that will give you the pressure due to speed. How come you don't feel the air pressure increasing with speed when you are on your bike, and what makes you think you can't harness it. Watch the vid again, because he says ram air is 1.6psi at 300mph at the inlet to the S/C multiplied by the S/C 1.5 pressure ratio adding 2.5psi to the boost pressure.12:04 Are you are calling Willy Messerschmitt a liar - lol -.
Greg. I didn't know that it was possible for one man to ubergeek not one but three theaters of aircraft plus the Russians. I Am Impressed. Now I gotta go back and like all your other videos that I've watched. FYI, I've never thumbed down any of your videos.
I guess bumps adds a lot to drag. Tank and team were going for "as smooth as possible" and got some excellent results. I don't know why there are thumbs down for this video. Like all you video's it is very fact based and really explores the engineering of these aircraft. Your insights are great. The 172 performs better than the old Stearman? I now have a new respect for the Cessna. No wonder there are about 1 billion of them around. :-)
You said it. This is based on facts and research and some people hate that others are prepared to put in that much work 'to prove them wrong'. As if Greg cares that they exist!
Hi Greg, being a wwII planes authousiast and working in the plane poworing bizness, I have read much books, watched many videos and talked with as many pilots and mecanics I possibly could. , I just finished watching this video and would like to thank you for the HQ of the content. You work in understanding and presenting in really great. Looking forward to watch other. Well done !
It may be interesting to compare this to the Curtiss XP-42. Curtiss engineers failed at producing an appreciable speed increase by trying to streamline the frontal radial area with many tight cowling configurations with external ram air for the radial engine. Curtiss felt that they could design away the inherent drag of the frontal area of the radial engine. Curtiss never incorporated a fan in 1939, thus insurmountable cooling problems persisted, and even when the airplane could be flown, it’s top speed was only 315 mph. And before any of these modifications were made by various engineers, the first man to think about and help design cowlings to reduce radial engine frontal area drag was Howard Hughes with his 1935 Racer, which smashed all speed records, notably his 1937 dash from Burbank to Newark in 7 hours and 28 minutes. Superb presentation and analysis.
Thank you for the quick biographical notes at the end, it was interesting. I appreciate your careful comments about the F 35 and the circumspection of your comments. Loose lips... I have enjoyed every video of yours about aircraft. I have a total of 37 left seat hours in a Cherokee 140 from 1968, but I still live aircraft. Your videos make it clear how very much I never knew about aircraft and flying, and gives me a glimpse into the actual world of flying and aircraft design compromises. Thank you.
While you sound familiar enough with military aircraft to have been in the service...I believe it is your vast knowledge base and the easy manner in which you describe...to the unschooled masses (such as myself)...your various subjects, which makes your videos both entertaining and enlightening. I love military history, served a stint in the Regular Army and I’m a registered nurse. If I were capable of putting together something half as clever as your videos...then why wouldn’t my opinion of say, The Battle of Okinawa, not be as valid as anyone else who had not fought there? I think that your stuff is brilliant and you ‘splain it so well that I’m often disappointed that I didn’t know some of this stuff years earlier. Please, keep up the good work.
I worked with a pilot who was also an aeronautical engineer who walked me through the calculations regarding radial vs inline horsepower and drag etc. It was very eye opening since most people "assume", as I did, that the more aerodynamic looking inline would be faster but there is much more to it. Then you have to consider ease of manufacturing, number of parts and the supply chain before you can get a clear picture of engine choice.
To date, it's always been so with stealth, that's the trade off, however as a command and control platform for loyal wingman, drones, non stealth packages u start to understand the paradigm.
4:37 that is the only Spitfire in Denmark. RAFs/n MA298. She is on static display at the Danish Vintage Aircraft Museum in Stauning(EKVJ) just 40km north of where I live
As I think Greg points out here, there is more to streamlining than a pointy nose. Radiators, oil coolers, etc, negate much of the advantage of inline liquid cooled engines.
There also where those drag points are on the rings, it could increase the drag on them, reducing the wings ability to use the air as efficiently as possibly while at higher speeds, and placement of cooling intakes on the sides of the aircraft could de-smoothen the bodies aerodynamics. With a big intake in the middle, all the air enters into only one place efficiently and don’t slow down any other part of the body, so as long as the output in strong enough, it can overcome the drags effect.
I would love to hear something more about Kommandogerat than it can be found on the web in the next episode. It was a feature on BMW 801 engines that simply did most of the job of today's FADEC systems, as early as during WWII!!!
NACA has a detailed test and construction paper were you can get almost all Information you'll ever want. Technical drawings, pressures, Timings etc. in about 30 pages. Great read, give it a shot
@@jakubkubicki3969 jep it is www.abbottaerospace.com/wpdm-package/naca-wr-e-192-characteristics-of-the-bmw-d-automatic-engine-control-as-determined-from-bench-tests/ it even has informations about tolerances of the throttle lever. have fun!
I went backwards from the T-6 to the Stearman and I have to agree, it’s very soft feeling. It does pretty much everything gently and at a pace it chooses, still enjoyable to fly though but the SNJ is in every way a more thrilling aircraft. It doesn’t have the speed of a P-51 but it’s a plane you can easily roll and loop and it makes you feel confident as you fly it. I love these videos and can’t wait to see what comes next
johnnypopper 1974 Haha I flew with them twice, one in 2009 and once in 2011. At that same airport there’s a company called Stallion 51 where you can fly in a P-51
Greg: There is only one other UA-cam channel I know of whose content is of a level of quality equivalent to yours: Drachinifel. Very different subjects, but such high production values as to be worthy of the very highest admiration. Thanks for your superb work.
Greg, thank you for this upload. You're a excellent researcher and teacher! I especially like the way you always deliver the therms and information you use for backing up your conclusions.
Wow, four hours to go until the video premiers and already one thumbs down! I seriously enjoy seeing that. It insures me that thumbs down are not really content based, and are often not legit criticisms.
That downvote probably came from a Spitfire Mark 5 lover.
Or tried a thumbs up on a (smart)phone but accidentally pressed the thumbs down.
Nobody knows how these downvotes appear - on basically every video that gets at least a thousand views. I guess some men just want to watch the world burn.
@@darkoneforce2 That`s it!
Whooole lot of illegitimate going around.
An engineering masterpiece designed around needs instead of wants is a testament to the skill of the engineers.
Shame the engine was lackluster
@@tedarcher9120 hence the use of the term _needs_ in my comment.
The inline engines were being used, or misused more to the point, on the woefully hopeless 210 series of planes. The radial engine factory sitting idle was what this plane was designed and built to keep that from happening.
It was alright, better than a Spitfire V in late 1942, but beaten by Spitfire IX, XII and the Typhoon, and not that useful at altitude.The D9 was better with increased performance at altitude, but really similar in speed to a P51D. A Spitfire XIV had much better performance vs the D9 bar roll rate. The Ta152 was fast, as long as the water/methanol and nitrous oxide injection tanks were full. The strangest thing about the Fw190 was the lack of adjustable trim tabs on the control surfaces. Trim had to be set on the ground by a fitter bending the fixed trim tabs with a mallet and block of wood and trim could not be adjusted in flight as on most allied aircraft. A P51 pilot could adjust trim in flight on all control surfaces. This meant that the Fw190 pilot would have to adjust his aircraft’s trim as the centre of gravity changes with fuel use by corrective pressure on the stick and rudder pedals. That’s fatiguing on a long flight and inefficient.
That’s pretty much the entire “warhorse” philosophy he used. You might WANT a big engine in a small plane, but you NEED something that will bring your pilots home, lest you run out of pilots. You might WANT the lowest drag possible, but you NEED to make sure the plane can be saved when the fields go bad
@@tedarcher9120 The FW 190 weren't lackluster. Well at the end yes but the start? no
Greg, I pretty sure you already know this but the community is infinitely grateful for your hard work on these beautiful war birds. I feel like you are doing important preservation of the details and explanation of these planes that the vast majority of the people wouldn’t have a clue about. You really go a step further than even the other best creators on the subject. Thanks again!
Greg has elevated the whole genre.
@@asiftalpur3758 p
Perhaps Greg/Rene will indirectly benefit from his positive notoriety from such videos....
J'apprécie grandement le travail de Greg, c'est très instructif. I really do appreciate Greg'swork, it's very informative. Mille mercis, a thousand thanks!
You're a legend Greg. Seriously love your work!
That armored oil cooler arrangement that relies on the pressure differential of the boundary layer and the fan pressure is ridiculous and brilliant. We take if for granted what these engineers had to do without CAM/CAD, and that they made relatively safe high performance aircraft.
Amazing stuff, You could imagine der bickering that went on between the White an blue shirts on the machine floors,, "Nien,, NIEN!!"
All the best Dcbadger2.
It’s a Tesla design from 1927
Late reply, but thank you for this. This is off topic but hopefully close enough. My father was a B-24 pilot in the 15th and regularly encountered 109s and 190s. The 109s bounced the formations, groups, squadrons and forced them to break up. Dad said these were very pro pilots, knew just what they were doing. Even while being attacked, he had to admire their skill and bravery. That alone scared the bejesus out of everyone. Formations broken up, the 190s attacked often head on in lines up to ten or so. My father, a low key man, never one to be dramatic or given to hyperbole, said the 190s chewing thru planes all around him was the scariest part of the war for him. Sorry to prattle!
Not prattle, but 1st person witness.
A lot of good thinking, experimentation, and engineering went into the air-cooled Fw-190 to bring its drag down to an acceptable level. It's quite amazing what the Germans were able to with the limitations they experienced with poor fuel, the need to import metal during wartime, and many other shortages that war brought to Germany. Good upload, Greg.
I remember reading Kurt Tank stating how his feet felt when flight testing the FW-190 for the first time "Like a blow torch set to my feet, beyond that great potential" . Soon after the coned cowling soon disappeared. Obviously this is my favorite Axis AC. Even the "D" and Ta versions. The only in-lines I can stomach. I don't comment much because your work is so in-depth and precise, It's just more of a pleasure to listen and learn. Thanks
+bob dyer The cockpit was also moved back a bit in the next prototype if I recall.
P-38 pilots would love to have the 190's problem with toasty feet.
If you enjoy these planes, try 'Aces High' air combat simulator. Very much fun, concentrated on the air combat part.
Thanks!
Wow, thanks, I really appreciate this. It also help me explain to my wife why I spend so much time making videos.
Hey Greg, great video. Keep up the good work.
But as a German speaker, I have to chime on the translations of the oil cooler system. :D
Number 3 "Behaelterpanzer" means reservoirs armor and 4 "Ringoelbehälter" is the ring shaped oil reservoirs, literal ring oil reservoirs.
Regarding the external air scoops. There is a german publication with actual pictures of 190s with these scoops. One is an A4 flown by Wilhelm Galland, Commander of the II./JG26 in 1943 in France. According to this publication these where more or less field modifications for the high level interceptors as the RLM did not want to diversify the production more.
Thanks, I have pinned a similar comment by the Sheriff, and I'll clarify all this in the next episode. I appreciate your help here.
Hi madcat, since you seem to enjoy little anecdotes about the -190, you may be happy to hear that there are a couple of concrete training bombs once used by Focke Wulfs hanging the exact place where they were left, in the grass, in what is now the restauration section of the French aerospace museum in le Bourget.
The Germans used the French Navy hangars that were sitting opposite the runways, on the Dugny commune, and left some stuff in 1944.
There is also a French built Fw-190 (nc-900) in the museum.
fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCAC_NC.900
@@jetaddicted Thanks! Le Bourget is a place I alway wanted to visit, but never had a chance to. Maybe when travel is possible again.
Hi, I’m Cindy’s husband, Dwight. Totally fascinating. When things get “technical” I usually zone out but you are able to keep me riveted and absorbing your content. I really appreciate that, because it is a talent you have to communicate to a less then technical person like me. Good job Greg, IMO. Thanks again.
Thanks Dwight.
Just want to take a minute to say that these videos are absolutely fascinating. I don't think there's any other UA-camr who can hold my attention, uninterrupted for over half an hour. Thanks for putting these together Greg!
Try Perun 👍
Watching this again after 3 years 😂 I just love your very VERY detailed reports on this (or all WW II planes)
Sidenote: I now drive a Mini F56 Cooper S (192hp turbocharged) a car that has a pseudo inlet in the front of the engine hood which does literally NOTHING, zero zip cause it’s blocked on the inside !! Pseudo-Ram-Air-drag-enhancer for „styling“ or „visual pleasure“ , soooo not my thing…
One could add a hilariously expensive eventuri conversion that opens it up and directs the air into the inlet, but then I wonder how much Ram air actually would help a turbo (not a supercharger) even when I do 200-230 km/h on the German autobahn… if I created a cover that shuts that hole I would probably gain more…
Thanks for the kind words. I really enjoyed your video and learned a good bit about the Fw 190.
Let the haters hate. Your review of this plane shows good aerodynamic design on a engine style that many pre WW2 engineers/ designers thought was obsolete but from out of left field this comes along. Just wow!! Thank you!!
17:04 the full sentence says: below the full-pressure-altitude the performance(s) with the internal air inlets are better. Servus from a German friend aus München!
Danke.
Ui noch ein Münchner 😅
I think Volldruckhöhe is translated to full throttle height or critical height.
Kurt Tank was a great airplane designer. FW190 mod A or mod D were the best fighter of WW2
In a way I hate to say this but by all appearances the Engineers and Physicists had all the fun during the war. The explosion of ideas and development must have been intoxicating. Wonderful focused reporting. I look forward to more.
B V
Greg, great video about a plane I wish I had more knowledge of. However, my father, who worked at Hamilton Standard after the war did say that the German propellers were great. The VS111 used on the TA-152 seemed to be a high point. The VDM 9-12159 and 12199 were good as well. The 159 was used on the Me-109K and 109-G10. Wish my father was still alive to have him give you the particulars. Merry Christmas. I'll join your PATREON channel soon!
I really would love to learn more about German propeller design. My uninformed and uneducated guess has always been that German propellers weren't that great, or that the main focus was on engine performance and other variables that propellers had to be good enough or competitive enough to get the job done. Im not saying they half assed their propeller designs, we're talking about Germans here after all, but it would be incredible to learn anything about this facet of WW2 aviation. The odd 190 C with 4 blade propeller makes me wonder many things I don't have answers for, or even the right questions lol
Modern big props are hydraulic with narrow blades, reliable and efficient.
The 190 is what made me love warbirds its shape always reminded me of a great white (not the kinda thing you wanna find behind you suddenly as well)
Same here, a lethal shark.
Ditto !
On "Abb. 4" "Figure 4"
Piece 4 "Ringölbehälter" is "Ring oil tank"
Piece 3 "Behälterpanzer" is "Oil tank armor"
Your explanations of aerodynamics and engineering have greatly helped someone like me, with no background in them, to understand these aircraft in a way I never could in decades of reading about their history. Thank you for your work and your style of interpretation.
I wish to reinforce this statement. I have always had a fascination with WW2 aircraft but not the education/experience to understand more.
You're a 757 captain? Excellent! My favorite airliner (as a passenger). Keep 'em flying!
Always a pleasure hear someone so knowledgeable, yet very open about what they do not know. Also enjoyed the vignette of your flying career. Wishing you a great Christmas and a very happy, healthy and prosperous new year.
Thank You So Much Greg for your Honest Tutorial!
Thank you so much for dropping in some metric conversions for those outside the USA. It really helps the rest of us get a perspective on things.
I'm trying to include both systems. A huge portion of my audience is outside of the USA.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles Thank you so much.
Power to you man.
Drawing at 10:17
3 Behaelterpanzer, better translation: container armour
4 Ringoelbehaelter, better translation: ring oil container
Incredibly detailed video!
Another great video,FW190's have got to be the toughest looking aircraft from ww2. Already waiting for the next one,Greg,no pressure,of course.
Typhoon “Hold my beer!!”
J-3 Cub owner and former Stearman owner here. You are right about the performance of a 220 horse stock airplane. I like my Cessna 180 much better. Always great stuff on your channel!
When the P47 appears over Europe:
German pilots: "It's a flying tank!"
Kurt: "They stole my radial concept AND my name!"
That, or: “Ah, I see you are engineers of culture as well”
Or "So they finally saw the advantages of the radial engines of U.S.Navy aircraft" Not that Germany ever finished one aircraft carrier.
The P47 was a real brute with bite and range. Very difficult to top in the right hands.
@@glenn1035 Yes, your point is well made. In a quick Wikipedia search I found the Fw44, a radial engined biplane designed by Kurt Tank which first flew in 1932. However the US Navy adopted its radial only policy as far back as 1921.
@Richard Tattis True but sometimes you have to use what you are given and Australia was given circa 850 P40 's and circa 650 Spits both inline powered fighter's which served us well and we will be forever grateful for these great fighters.
I really love your way of present things, really nice, and the voice. The voice is golden, you could make audiobooks or podcasts without ends!
Well done, Greg - again - as usual. Excellent explanations of technical stuff for those of us who are literate, but don't speak "engineer" or "aeronautical engineer." Look forward to the next one. I'd love to see one in the future on prop design - many of the 190s (and some 109s, as well) I've seen in photos have a big paddle-bladed prop, and I've even seen a few Mustang photos with a 4-paddle prop, but the contemporary U.S. Navy planes never seem to have used them, at least not until we get to the F8F. Anyway, "prop efficiency" and the importance of "supersonic blade tip" are mystery terms to me. And of course, I'm waiting, patiently I hope, for you to do a video on the F6F, since that's what my dad few in combat in 1944.
Captain Greg,thank you for sharing about yourself. I've often wondered!
Honesty and integrity are things of the past. I'm not up to grasping all the information but was impressed by the way you were completely transparent about your experiences and lack of experiences. It's not easy to respect words these days as the people are often scared and insecure about who they are and what they feel they're worth. You have a past worth being prpud of, certainly more than I've ever accomplished.
Amazing video! Again, learned a lot. Your videos truly stand out from all the other warbird talks that are on youtube.
Have a great day Greg!
Thanks Paddy, I know you already knew about the oil cooler because you show it on your excellent channel.
As a Aircraft Automobile and Motorcycle enthusiasts I’m appreciative of your efforts to drill down into the many technical areas
you present and the related history. Thanks again and I look forward to future topics.
The cowling with the scoop was used on the Ta172, or FW190-D9
Hi Gregg,the FW 90-A has got to be one of the neatest and rugged ww2 aircraft,a brilliant design becoming a Jack of all trades when adapted in the field,it is also one my favourite aircraft of that period.Thank you so much for putting in the research time and effort to produce these videos .cheers Roly🇬🇧.
I really enjoy your videos. Thank you! On this one at 16:00 you mention you haven't seen any image of a plane with the ram scoops. I dug through my collection and found two books with images. (1) "The Luftwaffe Profile Series No. 4", p13, 31, 32 (2) "Profile Publications, The Focke-Wulf Fw 190A, Number 3", p8. I scanned them for you, but I don't see a way to get them to you.
A very interesting video, you can see that the FW190 employs a lot of small ideas to reduce drag. Experience from having captured FW190s led Hawker to design the Hawker Sea Fury using the Bristol Centaurus engine, this is arguably the fastest piston-engined aircraft of WW2 and was fast enough to shoot down Mig 15s in Korea.
Very well done video and commentary. I am always amazed at the ability of WWII era engineers to design such aircraft (whether British, American, German, Russian or Italian) without the present day design tools such as computers and 3D modeling. Slide rules, drafting boards and a lot of test flights, that's it. Extremely impressive. Thanks for these videos.
Love these tech videos, thanks. Means alot to me since my uncle flew a P-47 with 9th Air Force in the war.
Man, regarding your feedback to the your F35 request I must say I really like your truthful and respectful answer to your subscribers. That indicates your serious approach to us and the subjects you presents. My full respect sir to your honesty.
I just have this fascination with the FW 190 A lines and proportions, that makes it one of my favourite WWII planes, that perfect balance is broken with the inline engine+circular radiator od the Dora version, just that little bit and the beauty is gone!
I agree with that, the A just looks better.
10:30
3 is tank armor (Behälter means tank (like fuel tank))
4 is the ring(shaped) oil tank
The Sheriff has spoken, comment pinned. Thanks so much for that clarification!
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles
Thx for this chrismasgift Greg
About "not found a single Picture" at 15:58 you find pictures in
In Adam Skupiewski`s "Monografie Lotnicze Focke-Wulf Fw-190A/F/G)
Part one
Page 13, a Fw 190 A-3/U7
and
Manfreds Griehls "Flugzeug Profile" Focke Wulf 190 Varianten Nr45
Page 10, big picture frontpart of Fw 190 A-3/U7 (maybe same the plane like in Monogr. Lotnicze)
captions "Höhenjäger mit aussenliegenden Ladereinläufen" i think its a testaircraft / testbed
my eyes are bad even with glasses and some other small Pictures i found are maybe tropical Filters so i removed the source /edited the post but the A-3/U7 intake is like the one in 15:59 looks like the intake oppening is a bit wider/bigger but the intake didnt have the "ribs" like on Trop filters
and 1 is radiator armor ......cooler is a " literate " translation ....engineers would call it heat exchanger ..etc. ;-)
Oh hi sheriff, didn't expect to see you here
@Hoa Tattis technically is it right , i am talking about the translation ......i am german and " cooler " is a translation that is a bit " mushy " in my opinion , and here is why
1. most manuals ( not for aircraft only, but in general ) call those things radiators or heat exchangers
2 .cool , cooler , the coolest .....could be a verb
3. if you are not technically fit , and do not know that we are talking about a machine / airplane ...etc and just listen to it , it could also mean that there is another amoured ring .....the hotter one -----the cooler and the hotter ring , because they are the same and the only difference could be the temperature.
4....it was known as the cooler amoured ring you say ......i say it was known as the kühlerpanzer ;-)
i allways thinking of how many parts are included in those planes that are totally useless in a civilian sport plane and if you remove all the armour and weapons and would install a modern turboprop ....what a cool sporty , rigid plane it would be......and i dont even have a pilots license
Greg, From what I am hearing about the F-35 is that it is designed to be a stand off long range bomb/missile truck. Never designed to be a knife fighting fighter. Reminds me of when they decided that a fighter did not need a gun. Time will tell.
This is why the F22 is still a thing.
SOMEONE needs to
a) get close enough to paint targets for the F-35's (because stealth is relative when it comes to distance)
and also
b) survive within that furball (through manuver) long enough for the inbound ordinance to do its job. (eliminating any enemy numerical advantages)
thus saving the 22's comparatively limited (to the 35) payload for dealing with immediate aerial threats to its existence and the occasional bit of anti-radiation work (any close surface based targeting arrays)
and then
c) cleaning up what is left over
For some reason growing up I never liked the 190, now it’s one of my favorite planes for some reason over the past year or two.
𝕮𝖚𝖈𝕶 𝕮𝖗𝖚𝖘𝖍𝖊𝖗 Isn’t it funny how those things happen? I used to not like the P-47s & now they’re some of my favorite planes.
@@susanmaggiora4800 when I was a Kid the Mustang was by far my favorite WW2 warbird. My local airstrip had a gentleman that owned one and he took it out once a month and my entire neighborhood to get excited about. Now as a 40+ year old man the P-47 is easily my favorite WW2 plane. Greg’s video’s have only strengthened my opinion of it. Both of course are Incredible planes.
I agree..it grew on me as well ..the 190 is a bad ass fighter
Also the Hawker Sea fury has become my favorite now..grew on me.
Greg, I'm happy that I waited for this video. I went out and had dinner and drinks and came home for this masterpiece. My favorite WWII fighter plane and my favorite UA-cam channel.
Hi Greg,
As far as the translation (10:29) is concerned:
No. 4 should better read „ring oil reservoir“ or „ring oil container“ (not only ring holder).
Behälter = container, reservoir, tank
Wonderful video !
I love your videos man. Been a fan of WW2 warbirds for over 30 years now, I've collected an extensive library on the subject, and your videos absolutely *never* fail to disappoint. I appreciate (and praise) your dedication to the subject.
You would be a *fantastic* flight museum docent if you aren't already.
Just found you / your channel...you did a spectacular job covering this plane and its design features !! As a WW2 aircraft and tank aficionado , I love any person who can understand we love these individual craft SOLELY for their design features , beauty and function...NOT the purposes or beliefs of those who commanded them !! It's such a joy and a relief to share this history with those mature and intelligent enough to realize this is our perspective...thank you for all the research and hard work you do to make these vids possible for us to enjoy.
Amazing report and explanation. The personal final commentary is one of the most sincere I've heard here in YT. Thank you
Translation
1: correct
2: correct
3: Behälter Panzer
Container armour
(tank armour)
4: Ringölbehälter
Ring oil container(tank)
5: correct
6: tie bolt
7: support bracket
Schnitt A-B
Cross section A-B
8: Verschluss cap, not just a cover
I guess that settles that. Thanks.
One more observation:
The forward outer portion of the cowling produces a substantial under pressure, a forward suction.
The frontal area is a reference area only, The large diameter of the cowling produces lower drag than a gradual conical shape.
Like you say the pressure distribution is important and easily demonstrated on a wind tunnel.
Greg, i have watched this video at least five times and learned something every time. Such great content. I can only imagine how much work it takes to produce such amazing content. Thanks for doing the work! The video with David Lednicer is really interesting. Thanks for that tip. Keep up the great work.
Awesome video! Great photos and drawings! Really enjoyed watching.
I learned to fly when I was stationed at AFCENT at Brunnsum in the Netherlands. My training was done on Cessna 150s and 172s. The flyng club at Beek Airport in Limburg in South Netherlands also had a Piper Cub. I looked over this plane and though that I wouldn't be caught dead in it. After I got my PPL I was asked by the club management if I could ferry a 150 to Beerse in Belgium for maintenance. They reassured me that there would be a flight back, and thatv I wouldn't have to walk the 60 -70 miles back. Thus reassured, I said OK. When I arrived at Beerse I found that the only plane that was returning to Beek was the Piper Cub. So, now I had a choice, climb into the Piper or walk home. Of course I flew home. It was a revelation for me. Flying in the Piper was what I had always imagined flying to be - seat of the pants, and just wonderful. I just wish that everyone who flies or who wants to fly could have that experience.
I think your videos are great. It's a pity that you can't do a video on the TSR2, given the dearth of information.
Greg, I think most people don't realise that at high speed, wing area is a BIG component of total drag; often bigger than the improvements due to cleaner fuselage from less bits sticking out. If you do the detailed drag maths, you will find the bigger Spit wing is the main (though not only) culprit for its greater drag compared to the FW190
You monster this is scheduled to release directly on top of my fluid dynamics final, and I would have learned more from this!
The video will be here after your final. Good luck on your exam.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles But how in the world he be able to focus?
@@andytaylor1588 I just pictured a 190 creating the turbulence, it went well. Thanks Gregg!
jake b : The video is only 32 minutes and can be watched at any time. Maybe sarcasm, maybe not.
Der Butcher Bird is the best looking WW11 plane.
I love Em all but this has something extra?
Great study Greg, the internal an dynamic Ram Air is just so Kraut.Awesomeness.
I'm with the 2nd group regarding the F-35. Worked with some F-35B guys a few years ago who had transitioned from Harriers or F-18s and they were categorically pro-Thunderbolt II for the reasons you mention (or don't mention).
They'd quickly become pro-F-35 in any war against a peer, or near-peer adversary. The A-10 is just not survivable on a modern battleground. It even struggled during the first Gulf War.
@@SpaceGhost1701
It wasn’t really meant to last full enemy air power. It was meant to SURVIVE enemy air power, then the pilot could jump to a new plane back at base
Maybe the A-10 itself is outdated, but that doesn’t mean that an airborne tank is.
Damn your videos are so well put together and jammed full of hard to find information. You produce the best aircraft videos.
Stay for the F-35 Post-credit scene, you wont want to miss it
Greg I would love to see you do some Vietnam war era stuff (sorry if you already have and I haven't noticed) Personally I'm a big fan of the F-105 Thunderchief
This is a beautiful story and told so well. I can relisten to this and relisten to it. Big fan of the 190, and that makes it more appealing. Thanks Greg.
Your releases are so informative and educational. Favourite channel on aviation👍🏼
I made a report about the 190 ten years ago, during my education as a aircraft mechanic. It was mainly discussing structural integrity of airframe, whether it was fail-safe og safe-life design. And ever since then, ive been in love with this airplane. Simply a beauty and a beast. Like Gina Carano of the skies.
Well all like Gina Carano.
Liked the dialogue on the Cub and Stearman. I just completed my taildragger endorsement in a 1941 J5 Cub, and really enjoyed it. Unlike you, I am also having an absolute blast in the Stearman, and don't have any significant performance regrets, however, the one I am flying has a 275hp engine, so maybe the extra 50 hp is a big differentiator. Seems to fly almost exactly where I intuitively 'think' it should go. It is completely different than the Cub, has much more inertia, and landings dealing with the sight picture and height/function of landing gear (springs vs. oleos) makes for a new challenge. But I am loving it nonetheless, and look forward to moving into some light acro in my next set of instruction.
I love your work! I only wish I could have watched these videos in my early teens (15 years ago), I wanted so badly to have such good information in such a digestible format. Keep it up!
Greg, it's another fascinating video. I don't want to overrun you with long comments, but I cannot help but respond to your brief end comments on the F-35. I hope you will do a video on it as it is a very interesting and important subject.
Pierre Sprey said the main mission of the plane is to generate profit and that it would be unlikely to prove to be a great fighting machine. The guy was a genius and the ultimate straight shooter, but his preference for austere fighters first formed in the 1960's that was no doubt true then could become less valid in the face of advancing sensors and electronics. They are usually over-hyped in the beginning for military applications, but due to Moore's Law they eventually get there with higher performance and lower cost, as I have continually witnessed and been involved in during my 40 year career as an electrical engineer. Though a heavy fighter (it's a little heavier than the F-15), the F-35 has the cost and maintenance virtues of being single engine without unnecessary thrust vectoring, and the program has been designed to take maximum advantage of economies of scale. If they can really hold its cost in the $80 mil range, then they have done a great job with that. Its stealth is designed to support the element of surprise (at least at BVR ranges), and its situational awareness to get inside the opponent's OODA loop supports surprise also. In the past whiz bang radar missile fighters like the F-4 and F-14 in their day proved disappointing, partly because of standard heavy fighter failings and partly because the radar missiles had such low Pk in their early years. But, those radar guided missiles have gotten a lot more reliable in the last few decades. Modern AESA radar lets those missiles be used without giving away surprise, so they have become quite practical.
So, the F-35 as a relatively efficient heavy fighter has some good things going for it. But it may be that its very long and behind schedule development and fielding lead it to missing the window where it could have been a solution that might possibly have outperformed larger numbers of lower cost modern light fighters like the Gripen. Even if it was fielded earlier, it is not a given the F-35 could outperform the Gripen (or a similar U.S. fighter) per budget, as a Gripen-like fighter could be $50mil in volume production with economy of scale, it has about one quarter the operating cost of the F-35, and apparently it can really fight. As to the networked warfare argument, the Gripen is no slouch on electronics, radar and practical stealth itself--it has sophisticated electronic warfare abilities, data linking to act as its own AWACS, AESA radar, and only has a radar cross section of about 1.5m^2 compared to 20m^2 for the F-15. The Gripen to my knowledge has about a 20-1 victory score over the F-15, F-16, and F-18 in various trials such as Red Flag. This was apparently achieved with the combination of its light fighter virtues (an even better rendition than the F-16), strong electronic networking and situational awareness, which is reportedly at least in the ball park of competitive to the F-35, and outstanding pilots. The Gripen is also far superior in an austere war environment, like the Fw-190 was designed to be. It can disperse to roads wherever 800 meters of straight road exists to serve as a runway, making it much harder to find and kill on the ground. It can maintain a high sortie rate with a ground crew of 5, of which most can be briefly trained conscripts, compared to over twice that needed for the also efficient F-16. So, it makes a great example of spreading the available budget over a larger number of smaller planes designed for low cost as the best strategy to win, as history has generally confirmed.
But, whether an efficient heavy or even more efficient light fighter wins out with manned fighters in a BVR networked era, it may be a moot argument. The time is coming fast where drone fighters will outperform any human flown fighter, and for much less cost (likely 50% to 70% the procurement cost per plane, perhaps 10% the operating cost, and no need to train pilots for 4-5 years until they are really ready to fight well). Over the history of air combat, less than 10% of pilots have scored 60% to 80% of the kills. With AI drones, every single drone will have that kind of ace grade "pilot"--even better as each AI pilot will be more aware and able to make decisions in less than 1% of the human "orient and decide" time in the OODA loop. It will make mathematical and statistical decisions in milliseconds on how to best deploy its weapons for maximum effect, and it will very seldom make a mistake. By itself, that increases the combat effectiveness of an Air Force by more than a factor of 10 (maybe a lot more). And, that drone does not have to fly 300 hour a year for its pilot to maintain skill, so the airframe lasts longer (it will become obsolete before it wears out) and maintenance and fuel costs are very low. You just store the thing with periodic software updates and occasional test/maintenance, and maybe one or two modular electronics upgrades over its life, until it's rolled out for action like a super-computing flying version of the Terminator.
It will be the end of a great era in aviation. But, in war reality must be faced and a nation has to make the best use of its resources to survive and win. That is the foundation of the light fighter concept, and of drone fighters as well.
I always wondered why those bumps were on the FW 190 cowling. Thanks for the education Greg.
You are doing a fantastic work to preserve much of the knowledge which otherwise would have been lost. In the civil life I'm a engineer and I have been working a couple of years in the civil aircraft industry. The fact you discuss with us are very interesting. Thank you!
Back in the 70s I attended a scale model aircraft event and sitting in the grass was a model FW-190 with a 72 inch wing span with incredible detail, including wear and weathering. It looked to have been in its share of battles. It was the most intimidating aircraft I have ever seen. An absolute work of art and I will never will forget it.
This is really fascinating! I love the Focke Wulf 190.
It has an long, elegant , stocky look sitting on the ground with its wid landing gear.
And with a good paint scheme it looks absolutely fabulous!
Agree. About gear... while, as an ex.Brit, I have a great love for the Spifire, I couid never understand why the gear "folded the wrong way" giving a narrow track and less stability... must be something to do with what had to be fitted in the wing. I know, do the research!
Off topic, years ago I had the pleasure of flying a tail-dragger sport plane out of Biggin Hill! Great fun... and I really noticed that the runway had a hump in the middle!
@analogdino1 Yea the 190 shot 4 gun's strait through the blades. Which made plenty room for a wide landing gear.
They put the Spitfires gun's out of the blades and farther out on the wing. Which led to a narrow landing gear. Too narrow to fold inward and probably even more narrow so it could fold outward and stay out of the gun bays.
I really appreciate these videos. I love the "engineer" viewpoint (yes...I'm an engineer!) which so complements and illuminates the historian's view of things. But also, I really enjoy the delivery style. Open, natural and extremely well structured. Thank you.
Internal combustion engines all have about the same thermal characteristics for a given fuel. 1/3 power, 1/3 radiator heat, 1/3 exhaust heat. Due to later firing sparks, lower octane fuels put more heat down the exhaust.
If we assume RR Merlin 61 and BMW engines make similar power from a given fuel supply the argument about cooling drag really sits on who has the most efficient means of extracting waste heat from the engine. It’s said the Spitfire cooling drag was largely cancelled by Meredith effect. It’s also said the P-51 gained 4mph from the same effect.
The question is how much “boost” did FW-190 get from the excepting engine cooling hot air.
Really great historical facts! Even guys who drag race today, and depend on a powerful turbo charger could learn a thing or two from this.
Great presentation on how design and engineering affects desired outcomes
These are so incredibly well made, with such good information in them.
Minute 10.05: No. 4 Ringölbehälter (Ring öl behälter). I think, I would translate it so: Ring oil container (or tank instead of container)
Really enjoying the FW190 videos.
Hoping in your BMW801 discussion,you talk about fuel quality,
and perhaps speculate on that engines potential if 100/130 fuel had been available.
I plan to do exactly that, the 190 engine video is going to be long because there is just so much to cover.
@@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles thanks you Greg you are so important to us! Look forward to that video on fuels
An excellent video! Many thanks for putting this together.
You're exactly right about the "Ram Air" induction on cars, the fact is their real benefit is from being a cool air inlet more than actually having a true ram air effect, that was basically nothing more than marketing.
Cool air is true for production cars, but in race they also use the pressure. As an example, in Pro Stock motorcycles they seal air the box so they can build air pressure, and at 200mph they get about 2psi.
@@SidneyCritic
Anybody that has been educated in normally aspirated engines and has any practical experience with them and carburetors knows that applying positive pressure to the inlet of a carburetor on a normally aspirated engine screws up the jetting.
Look at any fake scoop for a carburetor on a normally aspirated engine, like a Kuryakyn Hypercharger for motorcycle engines, you'll see that they're rigged up so at throttle the butterflies are closed and there's a hidden slot at the bottom rear of the unit that it draws air through, the butterflies have to be closed so you don't get any positive pressure from foreward motion because it'll screw everything up, the butterflies actually work the opposite as real scoops on a supercharged engine, they're open at an idle and closed at any throttle opening above an idle via a vacuum pull off.
Look at pictures of the old normally aspirated Indy cars and F1 cars, you'll notice that they have velocity stacks instead of foreward facing scoops for this very reason, anything that would face in a foreward direction would not be in clean air that could cause any type of positive pressure to the carburetor.
Putting 2lbs of pressure to a carburetor on a normally aspirated engine would reverse the fuel flow through the jets and blow bubbles into the fuel bowls.
I don't know where you got that BS story from but that's exactly what it is, BS.
@@dukecraig2402 Just put some thought into it, and you'll work it out - lol -.
Hint:
Ever heard of a blow-through turbo carb setup.
The air box is attached to the float bowl by a vent, so it's under the same pressure. You can also put the carbs in the pressurised air box.
As for fuel pressure, there is a way bigger fuel line inertia slosh backward problem in a drag car at launch than the measly 2psi, That's why comp pumps run at high pressure and they reg it at the carb.
If you look at a HD the carb is behind the forks, so having a forward scoop doesn't work because there is a air bow-wave at the front of the bike. Pro-stock bikes and cars have scoops at the front in clean air, so can utilise actual air pressure.
You do realise you just watched a 30min vid showing pressurised ram air working - lol .
@@SidneyCritic
First off Pro Stock hasn't run carbs in some years now, since 2015 or so they've run a mandatory EFI system, and back when they did run carbs you weren't allowed to modify them as how you're suggesting, the rules clearly state that they must be "as manufactured", they couldn't be modified like that, only tuned. And look at the new mandatory inlet system's for the EFI, you're not allowed to modify them either, like the carbs they have to be "as manufactured", and the inlet size is so small that some people are suggesting that it's hobbling the cars, they certainly aren't big enough to cause positive pressure.
And I know exactly how the different systems work, aside from going to aircraft maintenance school I've been building performance Harley engines for over 30 years for a living including turbo and supercharged engines, and helping friends with the same systems on cars, unlike you who's guessing at this.
And you're VERY wrong about your thesis concerning the air flow down the side of a bike like that, that's exactly why those stupid Kuryakyn Hyperchargers have butterflies that snap shut the moment you come off an idle, go down the road on a non fairing Harley and hold your hand just in front of the air cleaner and then try to tell me that a foreward facing scoop won't pick up air, hence the side mounted scoops that they used to sell that bolted to the engines to cool the rear cylinders on the older one's.
Yea blow through carbs are set up for forced induction, but the cars that marketed the "ram air" hoods ran regular production carbs, the ram air name was only for people who don't know any better, or think they know what they're talking about but don't.
Hint:
You do realize that in this 30 minute video he didn't cover anything about normally aspirated engines and carbs don't you? As a matter of fact he mentioned something about them being "a different story" and left it at that, even then he didn't go into the complexities of the fuel systems on those supercharged aircraft engines, they were very complicated system's that work off of pressure both before and after the supercharger with fuel systems that have multiple stages to them, unlike a normally aspirated engine's carburator that has 1 stage, that being the ambient air pressure pushing down on the fuel in the bowl and pushing it through the fuel circuits, or even a blow through carb on a supercharged street gasoline engine which is still just one stage.
You can't force air into a naturally aspirated carbureted engine like that, it won't work, already been there and done that proving it to the owner of a bike with a foreward facing air cleaner by removing the air cleaner sock and having him ride it at top speed, or at least he attempted to get it to top speed but he quickly found out that as soon as he built up enough speed to cause an imbalance in the carburetor it hit a wall it wouldn't pass through.
@@dukecraig2402 It doesn't seam you have worked on a Dominator, because the float vent tubes are right next to the barrels within the sealing ring. Most carbs are the same, just Google it.
You brought up carbs back blowing jets not me.
I work on Nitro fuelers, Nitro Harley, S/C meth rails, bikes, nitros, turbo, drag, circuit, etc, professionally for 30 years, so my knowledge isn't limited by only 1 engine.
It sound like you are blaming booster buffeting as an summation that a sealed air box can't build pressure. You need to research pitot tube and stick it out your car window when you are driving, and that will give you the pressure due to speed. How come you don't feel the air pressure increasing with speed when you are on your bike, and what makes you think you can't harness it.
Watch the vid again, because he says ram air is 1.6psi at 300mph at the inlet to the S/C multiplied by the S/C 1.5 pressure ratio adding 2.5psi to the boost pressure.12:04
Are you are calling Willy Messerschmitt a liar - lol -.
Greg. I didn't know that it was possible for one man to ubergeek not one but three theaters of aircraft plus the Russians. I Am Impressed. Now I gotta go back and like all your other videos that I've watched. FYI, I've never thumbed down any of your videos.
I guess bumps adds a lot to drag. Tank and team were going for "as smooth as possible" and got some excellent results. I don't know why there are thumbs down for this video. Like all you video's it is very fact based and really explores the engineering of these aircraft. Your insights are great.
The 172 performs better than the old Stearman? I now have a new respect for the Cessna. No wonder there are about 1 billion of them around. :-)
You said it. This is based on facts and research and some people hate that others are prepared to put in that much work 'to prove them wrong'. As if Greg cares that they exist!
Hi Greg,
being a wwII planes authousiast and working in the plane poworing bizness, I have read much books, watched many videos and talked with as many pilots and mecanics I possibly could. , I just finished watching this video and would like to thank you for the HQ of the content. You work in understanding and presenting in really great. Looking forward to watch other.
Well done !
It may be interesting to compare this to the Curtiss XP-42. Curtiss engineers failed at producing an appreciable speed increase by trying to streamline the frontal radial area with many tight cowling configurations with external ram air for the radial engine. Curtiss felt that they could design away the inherent drag of the frontal area of the radial engine.
Curtiss never incorporated a fan in 1939, thus insurmountable cooling problems persisted, and even when the airplane could be flown, it’s top speed was only 315 mph.
And before any of these modifications were made by various engineers, the first man to think about and help design cowlings to reduce radial engine frontal area drag was Howard Hughes with his 1935 Racer, which smashed all speed records, notably his 1937 dash from Burbank to Newark in 7 hours and 28 minutes.
Superb presentation and analysis.
Thank you for the quick biographical notes at the end, it was interesting. I appreciate your careful comments about the F 35 and the circumspection of your comments. Loose lips...
I have enjoyed every video of yours about aircraft. I have a total of 37 left seat hours in a Cherokee 140 from 1968, but I still live aircraft. Your videos make it clear how very much I never knew about aircraft and flying, and gives me a glimpse into the actual world of flying and aircraft design compromises.
Thank you.
Thank you very much for your research! On of the best videos on the Fw 190 on UA-cam:)
While you sound familiar enough with military aircraft to have been in the service...I believe it is your vast knowledge base and the easy manner in which you describe...to the unschooled masses (such as myself)...your various subjects, which makes your videos both entertaining and enlightening.
I love military history, served a stint in the Regular Army and I’m a registered nurse. If I were capable of putting together something half as clever as your videos...then why wouldn’t my opinion of say, The Battle of Okinawa, not be as valid as anyone else who had not fought there? I think that your stuff is brilliant and you ‘splain it so well that I’m often disappointed that I didn’t know some of this stuff years earlier. Please, keep up the good work.
I worked with a pilot who was also an aeronautical engineer who walked me through the calculations regarding radial vs inline horsepower and drag etc. It was very eye opening since most people "assume", as I did, that the more aerodynamic looking inline would be faster but there is much more to it. Then you have to consider ease of manufacturing, number of parts and the supply chain before you can get a clear picture of engine choice.
Look at how fast the F-4U could go with that big P&W 2800 radial.
This channel is pure quality.
Greg, a great video as always! No.3 „Behälterpanzer“ is the armor for the No.4 „Ringölbehälter“, ring-shaped oil reservoir, at 10:06 in your video.
To date, it's always been so with stealth, that's the trade off, however as a command and control platform for loyal wingman, drones, non stealth packages u start to understand the paradigm.
4:37 that is the only Spitfire in Denmark. RAFs/n MA298. She is on static display at the Danish Vintage Aircraft Museum in Stauning(EKVJ) just 40km north of where I live
I saw the werk nr. 2219 - Fw-190 A-3/U3 at the Norwegian Aviation Museum in Bodø this summer. It was restored and such a beauty.
Top quality video Greg, adds to my appreciation of Kurt Tank as an aircraft designer. Many thanks.
As I think Greg points out here, there is more to streamlining than a pointy nose. Radiators, oil coolers, etc, negate much of the advantage of inline liquid cooled engines.
There also where those drag points are on the rings, it could increase the drag on them, reducing the wings ability to use the air as efficiently as possibly while at higher speeds, and placement of cooling intakes on the sides of the aircraft could de-smoothen the bodies aerodynamics. With a big intake in the middle, all the air enters into only one place efficiently and don’t slow down any other part of the body, so as long as the output in strong enough, it can overcome the drags effect.
I would love to hear something more about Kommandogerat than it can be found on the web in the next episode. It was a feature on BMW 801 engines that simply did most of the job of today's FADEC systems, as early as during WWII!!!
NACA has a detailed test and construction paper were you can get almost all Information you'll ever want. Technical drawings, pressures, Timings etc. in about 30 pages. Great read, give it a shot
@@stefanb5189 Thanks a lot. Is it avb on-line?
@@jakubkubicki3969 jep it is www.abbottaerospace.com/wpdm-package/naca-wr-e-192-characteristics-of-the-bmw-d-automatic-engine-control-as-determined-from-bench-tests/
it even has informations about tolerances of the throttle lever. have fun!
Favorite Radial engine fighter
I went backwards from the T-6 to the Stearman and I have to agree, it’s very soft feeling. It does pretty much everything gently and at a pace it chooses, still enjoyable to fly though but the SNJ is in every way a more thrilling aircraft. It doesn’t have the speed of a P-51 but it’s a plane you can easily roll and loop and it makes you feel confident as you fly it.
I love these videos and can’t wait to see what comes next
I flew a Texan in Florida . I LOVED IT . Great fun to do loops and barrel rolls in !
johnnypopper 1974 By chance was it in Kissimmee? Warbird Adventures maybe?
@@johnbeauvais3159 Bingo !
johnnypopper 1974 Haha I flew with them twice, one in 2009 and once in 2011. At that same airport there’s a company called Stallion 51 where you can fly in a P-51
@@johnbeauvais3159 Really ? I saw three hangars with P-51s when I landed . I thought they were just owned by rich people .
Greg: There is only one other UA-cam channel I know of whose content is of a level of quality equivalent to yours: Drachinifel. Very different subjects, but such high production values as to be worthy of the very highest admiration. Thanks for your superb work.
Greg, thank you for this upload. You're a excellent researcher and teacher! I especially like the way you always deliver the therms and information you use for backing up your conclusions.
When you get into details you get amazed how much details and engineering was put into this plane. Jesus!