Fw 190 AoA

[Anaxogoras]

If I load out a 190A-8 to weigh less than a fully-fueled 190A-5, it still seems less capable at pulling high AoA than the 190A-5, whether at slow, medium or fast speeds.  Anyone know why?

[Cthulhu]

If I load out a 190A-8 to weigh less than a fully-fueled 190A-5, it still seems less capable at pulling high AoA than the 190A-5, whether at slow, medium or fast speeds.  Anyone know why?

How are you measuring AoA? By feel?

[Anaxogoras]

How are you measuring AoA? By feel?

Yup, totally imprecise, I know.  What's your experience?

[Cthulhu]

A-8's significantly heavier isn't it?

[Krusty]

Center of Gravity is further aft in the 190a8. Take the DT, drop it (so you get the weight of the ETC rack) and in theory that weight moves the CoG further forward.... Haven't tested this yet since the ETC racks had their weight added properly, but it's what the LW did in real life.

Also the A-8 has weight for the aux tank and piping even if the tank is empty.

[Anaxogoras]

If I load out a 190A-8 to weigh less than a fully-fueled 190A-5

Center of Gravity is further aft in the 190a8. Take the DT, drop it (so you get the weight of the ETC rack) and in theory that weight moves the CoG further forward.... Haven't tested this yet since the ETC racks had their weight added properly, but it's what the LW did in real life.

Also the A-8 has weight for the aux tank and piping even if the tank is empty.

That's a good explanation krusty.  How much would the aux tank and piping weigh?  Or how far aft would it move the cog?

[BaldEagl]

IIRC the rack only adds like 50-75 lbs.  It's not enough of a difference to overcome the parasitic drag.

I think the difference is in the weight of the airframe itself.  The A8 is much better armoured for buff hunting, thus heavier, as is the F8 for ground work.

[Anaxogoras]

Again, please notice that I am not comparing a normally loaded A-5 with a normally loaded A-8.  I stipulated that the A-8 is light, e.g. 25% fuel, and A-5 is fully loaded, so that they weigh about the same.

[BaldEagl]

Let's look closely at the stats posted on the AH web-site:

190A-5

Normal loaded weight: 8583 lbs.
139 gallons

Package 1
2) 20 mm MG-FF 60 rpg
2) 20 mm MG 151/20 250 rpg
2) 7.9 mm MG 17 900 rpg
Package 2
2) 20 mm MG 151/20 250 rpg
2) 7.9 mm MG 17 900 rpg


190A-8

Normal loaded weight: 9682 lbs.
170 gallons

Package 1
2) 20 mm MG 151/20 140 rpg
2) 20 mm MG 151/20 250 rpg
2) 13 mm MG 131 475 rpg
Package 2
2) 30 mm MK 108 55 rpg
2) 20 mm MG 151/20 250 rpg
2) 13 mm MG 131 475 rpg

Package 3
2) 20 mm MG 151/20 250 rpg
2) 13 mm MG 131 475 rpg

Let's assume "Normal Loaded Weight" = 100% fuel.  Normal pump gasoline weights approximately 35 lbs/5 galons.  Aviation fuel may be different but I'll use this number for this excersize.  If you reduce the A8's fuel load to 25% while maintaining the A5's fule load at 100% then you get 75% @ 170 gals @ 35 lbs/5 Gals = 297 lbs weight reduction = 9384 lbs.  This equals an 8.5% weight increase over the A5, even at 25% vs 100% fuel load.

Now lets look at the gun packages.  The lightest load you can put in the A8 is package 3:

2) 20 mm MG 151/20 250 rpg
2) 13 mm MG 131 475 rpg

The heaviest load you can put in the A5 is package 1:

2) 20 mm MG-FF 60 rpg
2) 20 mm MG 151/20 250 rpg
2) 7.9 mm MG 17 900 rpg

I cannot belive that the A5 gun package is 801 lbs heavier than the lightest A8 gun package.  If it were and our initial assumptions were correct, then weights would be equal.

So, we can only assume that the lightest loaded A8 is still heavier than the heaviest loaded A5.  Considering that the wing area is at least similar, then the lower aoa of the A8 is no great mystery.

[Schlowy]

"Its what the luftwaffe did" oh really?
Krusty, pls find some pics of 190s with a fuel tank rack without a fuel tank for us pls.
*Edit good point about the A8's other tank still being there though.


AH Fw190s and AOA
190s have roll rate in here, but the turn rate, instant and sustained, sux terribly. In AW3, it used to be able to do 'few second sharp turns' without much penalty to speed / energy. After the few secs tho, speed/energy dropped off fast. With the instant turn rates, one could get snap shots off, also could throw off trailing planes for a min to get speed back.

In aw3, what you couldn't out run, you needed to try to force to fly past you. This was done by fast rolling and short duration high g turns. Hence: balance three angles, your direction (towards your friends or base) and your angle on horizon (if about to stall, get nose down, if got extra speed, then can nose up) with the angle of the enemy behind you's nose with your plane (to stay out of his front / bullets), all the while looking out back window to see his bullets. Land is very wavy in AH, so ya have to look forward alot also if not over water. In here the acceleration of 190s seems so poor that once ya give up speed, nm trying to out run. And since turn rate is so bad, nm trying to force overshoot. Just bail out! Doomed! SUX!
And peeps yell 'picker' and 'come back skilless dweeb'

Aceshigh A5's are too slow, no acceleration, can turn if leave outer guns at home. Can get peeps mad at you if out turn em, I've had a few aces upset since they couldn't figure out what i was doing... (no outer guns and low gas) lol. IF enemy just flys straight, they out run me in secs, even with my weak amo hitting! SUX!

Aceshigh A8's are too slow, no acceleration, can't turn with or without outer guns. This plane could have won the war if they just put the guns facing backwards, sigh SUX! Aw3 book says they were fast.

Aceshigh D9's are faster than other 190s, but still slow compared to any late war contender - plenty stuff in the sky is still faster, no acceleration, weak amo means you have to give up speed to saddle. So in combat in the MA, a d9 might get a kill, but he lucky if has time to accelerate up to speed again.

Aceshigh Ta152 ... i've seen employed as a ground attack... sigh. Soo fragile that only a fewl would spend an hour getting to 30k just to be downed by a bombers tail gun in first seconds.
Btw, WHY??? do the d9's seem like no springs in the gear at all while the Ta's bounce more than rubber ball.

[Xasthur]

Gun cam footage from British Typhoons that has been posted on here before suggests that the 190As are porked as far as their turning ability goes.

I feel like the whole 190 series is undermodelled, particularly in the initial turn rate and its snap stall is over done. It should still be there and still give little warning before departure but perhaps it should not be so common.

[Schlowy]

I way see Anaxogoras's point tho, he trying to find a better balanced 190. Seems like the combo could totally be made with the available ranges of the existing stats.
I think every 190 flier tried upping in a A8 without the extra guns only to find he in the same plane... and still doomed sux!
I think a d9 with 25 fuel is fun, but ya have to ditch or bail.

Baldeagle, dude, given such limited info, why even try to actually measure stuff?
Weight would be nice, I'd like to see a scale in the hangar that we could weigh the plane with and without extra guns, fuel or bombs. Also a way to test gun convergence in the hangars (like with the targets in the hangar lol)... thinking me aim might improve. Trying to test gun convergence in the air isn't easy because AOA changes with speed.

[Anaxogoras]

So, we can only assume that the lightest loaded A8 is still heavier than the heaviest loaded A5.  Considering that the wing area is at least similar, then the lower aoa of the A8 is no great mystery.

Why not just use e6b?

190A-5 with 100% fuel and extra cannons: 8760 lbs
190A-8 with  25% fuel, only two cannons: 8600 lbs

Btw, everyone, the A-8 has heavier cowl mg's, which makes me rethink the CoG issue.

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

I started wondering about this AoA thing because my squad flew two FSO frames in the 190A-5, and so practiced with it a lot in the main arena, and I was impressed!  Here is a 190 that can pull AoA to place some shots that the 190A or even the 190D would choke on, especially when you dive on some silly Spitfire who enters a high g loop to defend.  Even at 300mph the 190A-8 (or F-8) starts to stall with only moderate amounts of AoA, while the A-5 doesn't even notice.

I normally fly the 190A-5 with the outboard cannons, 100% fuel, and it does just fine.

[Stoney]

To say that the A8 is "less capable at pulling high AoA" compared to the A5 is imprecise terminology.  Furthermore, center of gravity has nothing to do with AoA either.  And, if you want to truly understand the difference, you need to know why... 

(For the purposes of illustrating my point, there are some aerodynamic generalities contained herein...)

IIRC, the A8 shares the same wing area and airfoil as the A5, and therefore, will stall at exactly the same AoA.  Both planes' wings will stall at 18 degrees angle of attack (for example, not precise, just a number for illustrative purposes).  The difference is that if the A8 weighs more than the A5, its coefficient of lift is effectively lower at the same angle of attack--that's the effect of higher wing loading (i.e. higher weight).  So, at the same angle of attack, a lighter A5 will have more lift than a heavier A8 (climbs better, turns better).

Fore and Aft center of gravity (in Krusty's example) affects pitch stability only.  There are some cases where extreme imbalances can create issues with elevator effectiveness, but as long as the aircraft is inside of its approved CG envelope, the elevator can exercise its full range of influence over the aircraft pitch.  A CG that is at the aft end of the envelope will be harder to trim out, and will be harder to recover from a stall, but otherwise, does not effect the ability of the elevator to take the wing all the way to the stall AoA.  Perhaps IRL, the German pilots thought it handled better with the more forward CG position, but it would only have been to affect the pitch stability, and not the turn ability.

Just want to make the point that an A-8, at the same weight, should turn/handle as well as a A-5.  It may not be as stable, but its improper to confuse the two terms.

[Cthulhu]

To say that the A8 is "less capable at pulling high AoA" compared to the A5 is imprecise terminology.  Furthermore, center of gravity has nothing to do with AoA either.  And, if you want to truly understand the difference, you need to know why... 

(For the purposes of illustrating my point, there are some aerodynamic generalities contained herein...)

IIRC, the A8 shares the same wing area and airfoil as the A5, and therefore, will stall at exactly the same AoA.  Both planes' wings will stall at 18 degrees angle of attack (for example, not precise, just a number for illustrative purposes).  The difference is that if the A8 weighs more than the A5, its coefficient of lift is effectively lower at the same angle of attack--that's the effect of higher wing loading (i.e. higher weight).  So, at the same angle of attack, a lighter A5 will have more lift than a heavier A8 (climbs better, turns better).

Fore and Aft center of gravity (in Krusty's example) affects pitch stability only.  There are some cases where extreme imbalances can create issues with elevator effectiveness, but as long as the aircraft is inside of its approved CG envelope, the elevator can exercise its full range of influence over the aircraft pitch.  A CG that is at the aft end of the envelope will be harder to trim out, and will be harder to recover from a stall, but otherwise, does not effect the ability of the elevator to take the wing all the way to the stall AoA.  Perhaps IRL, the German pilots thought it handled better with the more forward CG position, but it would only have been to affect the pitch stability, and not the turn ability.

Just want to make the point that an A-8, at the same weight, should turn/handle as well as a A-5.  It may not be as stable, but its improper to confuse the two terms.

Damn it Stoney. You beat me to it. Aerodynamics 101