GODO is correct on the flap deployment speeds and settings.
That comes right out of the Flugzeug-Handbuch.
For the FW-190A5 vs P47D4 (P47D11 without the performance robbing hardpoint) see:
http://prodocs.netfirms.com/There is a copy of the RAF tactical trials of Faber's FW-190A3. In it you can view the engine settings and A/C setup vs the Spitfire Mk IX we have in AH.
- GODO, "premature stalling" is not the same as snap rolling. The 190s were notorious for their vicious snap roll.
Correct. The 190 had two distinct stalls. It's low speed stall was fairly gentle with the plane simply dipping one wing. It could be made to stall at any speed however by jerking the controls too hard. In an aggravated stall it the plane would practically invert and left unchecked would enter a spin. It also recovered quickly from that stall. What GODO is referring too is the fact the AH FW-190A5 is modeled after the US Navy tactical trials of an FW-190A5/U4 vs. Corsair/Hellcat. In that test the FW-190 was outturned by an extremely wide margin. Both A/C could outturn it in less than one turning circle. It is noted that the ailerons vibrated, reversed in the turn and stalled before reaching stall speed.
The FW-190A5/U4 was a recovered wreck that required repair work to the wings, engine, and electrical system. The engine would not idle and fouled plugs and the quit running three times on the attempt to climb to altitude. The aircraft never made it anywhere near it's rated service ceiling.
No other tactical trials of the FW-190 mention anything about aileron vibration or reversal except the Luftwaffe tactical trials between an FW-190A2 vs. Bf-109F4 and the US Navy trials.
The Luftwaffe trials warn against improper setting of the grip proof tips will cause vibration and premature stalling in the turns.
The US Navy notes aileron vibration and stalling in the turns.
The FW-190 was not a turn fighter but it was far from "unmanuverable". It couldn't outturn a Spitfire but it certainly could turn better than the US Navy trials showed.
Wing loading is not the only measure of turn performance. Look at the P47D. It's wing loading is around 43 lb/sqft and the FW-190A5's is 45.9lbs. Yet the FW-190 at low speeds easily outturns the Jug.
As far as drag goes:
http://www.thetongsweb.net/AH/EAAjanuary1999.pdfFW-190A8 at 1.42ata@2700U/min
Step A - Enter Aircraft dimension Data
Wing area S (sq. feet) - 196.96
Airplane weight, lbs (as tested) - 9418
Wing span, ft - 34.45
Step B - performance #s at a known altitude
Altitude (feet) - 4500
Maximum speed (at test alt.- mph) - 356
Engine Horsepower (bhp at test alt) - 1745
Stall speed (mph, at test alt) - 110
speed (mph TAS)
300
speed (fps)
440
CL
0.237567
D(p)
935.3667
D(i)
136.9862
CL^2
0.056438
CD(tot)
0.02705
Drag (tot)
1072.3529 @310mph - 1127.045 @315mph - 1155.4773
thrust (lb)
1699.492
excess power (bhp)
627.1391
P.E.
0.779137
Spitfire Mk IX Merlin 66 (+25)
Step A - Enter Aircraft dimension Data
Wing area S (sq. feet) - 242
Airplane weight, lbs (as tested) - 7400
Wing span, ft - 36.1
Step B - performance #s at a known altitude
Altitude (feet) - 4500
Maximum speed (at test alt.- mph) - 366
Engine Horsepower (bhp at test alt) - 1945
Stall speed (mph, at test alt) - 90
speed (mph TAS)
300
speed (fps)
440
CL
0.151922
D(p)
996.2789
D(i)
75.20623
CL^2
0.02308
CD(tot)
0.021998
Drag (tot)
1071.4852 @ 310mph - 1134.2264 @ 315mph - 1166.5965
thrust (lb)
1894.276
excess power (bhp)
822.7911
P.E.
0.779137
All Spitfire data comes from here:
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9.htmlThe faster you go the more the total drag swings in the FW-190A's favor. The parasitic drag always favors the FW-190.
Also seems to me that the FW-190 also has less braking forces per mass acting on it.
So I would say David Lednicer's conclusions were correct.
For the Spitfire Mk IX Merlin 61 we have in AH:
Step A - Enter Aircraft dimension Data
Wing area S (sq. feet) - 242
Airplane weight, lbs (as tested) - 7480
Wing span, ft - 36.1
Step B - performance #s at a known altitude
Altitude (feet) - 15400
Maximum speed (at test alt.- mph) - 380.5
Engine Horsepower (bhp at test alt) - 1565
Stall speed (mph, at test alt) - 90
Total Drag - 795.641828 @ 440 fps
Parasitic drag - 687.4074265
FW-190A5
Step A - Enter Aircraft dimension Data
Wing area S (sq. feet) - 196.96
Airplane weight, lbs (as tested) - 9052
Wing span, ft - 34.45
Step B - performance #s at a known altitude
Altitude (feet) - 15400
Maximum speed (at test alt.- mph) - 394
Engine Horsepower (bhp at test alt) - 1420
Stall speed (mph, at test alt) - 110
Total Drag -718.2845242@ 440 fps
Parasitic drag - 540.0383219
Only JB 275, a Spitfire Mk VIII, and MA 648, a Spitfire Mk IX with an experimental air intake, have less overall drag throughout the flight envelope. The FW 190 always has less parasitic drag. In turns under 4 G's and the faster you go the more the FW-190 gains an overall drag advantage over the Spitfire.
Oswald's efficiency factor was calculated using:
e = 1*1.78*(1-0.0455*AR^0.68)-0.64
The Formula found in "Subsonic Drag Estimation Methods" Cavallo, B., U.S. Naval Air Development Center Rept NADC-AW-6604, 1966.
The 1935 formula from Wood was used at the time these aircraft were designed is:
e = 1/(0.9676+0.033*AR)
And yields the same conclusions.
I have my own concerns about the modeling of the 109 and 190, but that's more of a 3D model issue. Both the 109 and 190 flew in a "nose-down" attitude, which allowed for better view over the nose. The 109's engine was mounted low due to the inverted-V design of the DB, and the 190's wings had a rather large angle of incidence (angle between wings and the length of the fuselage) that made it fly in a nose-down attitude at operational speeds.
Your absolutely right, Gscholz. The FW-190 had a 2-degree angle of incidence and adopted a nose down attitude in "level" flight. The RAF tactical trials noticed a 60% better sighting view than the Spitfire. Included in it is a chart for various angles and speeds.
The FW-190 required a very gentle touch on the controls due to its light stick forces. Couple of points besides it's stall characteristics made it a very difficult aircraft to fight.
1. The stick forces were extremely light (6-8lbs) up until around 350mph where they suddenly heavied up to around 40 lbs. Much lighter than the average WWII fighter but the force changeover was sudden and dramatic. The controls remained well harmonized throughout. So light in fact that Heinrich Beauvias, a FW factory test pilot, had trouble transitioning "concrete stick" 109 pilots. One 109 pilot could not loop the 190 at any speed. He was using too much control input and the plane would simply nose up and fall to the side.
2. The elevator was very "heavy" but very sensitive, in other words hard to get a feel for it and be precise. It was very easy to "mush" your speed on the pull out by giving too much elevator. Combine this with the sudden stick force changes and it requires skill to fight.
3. Lastly the FW-190 developed a "marked nose down attitude" at 220 mph in a dive when trimmed for level flight that "must have been scary" when fighting close to the ground.
One last control note. The rudder on the FW-190 was very effective and it is noted in the Luftwaffe tactical trials that the 190 could reverse much faster than the 109.
Pyro is going to take a look at the FW-190's flight model when things slow down at HTC.
Hope this helps!
Crumpp
