Author Topic: FW190 Roll Rates and RAE 1231 (Read 1307 times)

Crumpp · « **on:** December 07, 2004, 09:09:25 PM »

RAE 1231 is not the definitive report of the FW-190A's roll rate. The FW-190A's roll rate is much closer to its calculated maximums.

Here is the documentation proving this statement:

RAE 1231 Roll Rate results at 10,000 feet:

RAE 1231 Measured Stick Forces at 10,000 feet:

ADM Standard test results which factor in stick forces up to 50 lbs:

The FW-190 did not make its calculated mark due to stick forces:

RAF test pilots comments in comparison to other FW-190A's he has flown.

Now the FW-190A had three different ailerons which allowed the pilot to "tune" his roll performance to a particular portion of the flight envelope he was most likely to use in combat:

Further complicating the issue.

However, by checking the stick forces calibration chart, we can see that the FW-190A used in RAE 1231 had ailerons that were grossly out of adjustment.

The FW-190A's roll rate was much closer to it's calculated roll than RAE 1231 shows.

Crumpp

xHaMmeRx · « **Reply #1 on:** December 08, 2004, 07:53:39 AM »

Can I have a clipped wing SpitV?

Crumpp · « **Reply #2 on:** December 08, 2004, 07:08:19 PM »

Quote

Can I have a clipped wing SpitV?

If it was up to me, of course!

It does bring another point showing RAE 1231 as being not representative of an FW-190A rolling ability.

Clipped Wing Spit pilots comments:

Crumpp

MiloMorai · « **Reply #3 on:** December 08, 2004, 07:28:44 PM »

The fast roll rate of the 190 did not save 24 of them from the 17 P-38 aces (with 7 or more kills).

Crumpp · « **Reply #4 on:** December 08, 2004, 08:49:14 PM »

Quote

The fast roll rate of the 190 did not save 24 of them from the 17 P-38 aces (with 7 or more kills).

That's impressive.

Crumpp

straffo · « **Reply #5 on:** December 09, 2004, 01:57:20 AM »

Any reason why the results are so different in the case of the Typhoon ?

Naudet · « **Reply #6 on:** December 09, 2004, 03:09:11 AM »

Crumpp, how many degrees of aileron deflection are achieved at 2 or 4 cm stick way?

Staga · « **Reply #7 on:** December 09, 2004, 04:42:04 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MiloMorai
The fast roll rate of the 190 did not save 24 of them from the 17 P-38 aces (with 7 or more kills).

WTF is that having to do with Fw's roll rates?
Congratulations stunninghunk; you just made it to my ignore list.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #8 on:** December 09, 2004, 05:37:12 AM »

Takes one to know one, Staga.

That is no problem for me, as you have been on my list for a long time.

To use your colorerful words, WTF does your post have to do with roll rates?

I can just see a 190 pilot saying to his mech, change my ailerons for I have a low level mission tomorrow. Then at least a couple of test flights to fine "tune". Yah right!!!

Crumpp has been commenting on the roll rate of the P-38 in another thread. A fast roll rate is not a be all, to end all. It was a defensive move that get an a/c out of harms way, but also put it out of the fight. Those 190s must have "tuned" their ailerons in-correctly. Adding, many of those kills were in 1943, using the un-improved P-38. Crumpp can rag on the Brit tests all he wants but would say it would be typical to what would be found on the 190 in LW service.

Crumpp · « **Reply #9 on:** December 09, 2004, 05:50:49 AM »

Quote

Crumpp, how many degrees of aileron deflection are achieved at 2 or 4 cm stick way?

Good question. I was waiting for someone to raise this question and frankly, I don't know. Depends on the adjustment of the control rods.

This is the only reason I did not post this sooner. Then I found documentation that states:

Properly adjust ailerons at high speeds over 500kph will begin to develop an imbalance of stick forces. The Stick forces in the center will drop to as low as 1 kg! The stick forces past this area of exceptionally light forces remain normal. At 500kph this "zone" is very small getting wider the faster you go. If the FW-190 in RAE 1231 had properly adjusted ailerons I am certain this would have been reflected or at least noted in the report. The Luftwaffe explains that the stick does not "buck" as some pilots were complaining, but rather the pilots are inadvertantly moving the control surfaces.

Eric Brown noted this imbalance in some of the evaluations of captured FW-190's he flew.

This is covered in the report you asked for a copy of in the other thread. I will send you it this evening.

Quote

A fast roll rate is not a be all, to end all.

I suggest you pick up a copy of Robert Shaws "Fighter Combat: Tactics and manuvering" and read the section on fighter agility. Roll rate represents the ability of the aircraft to change it's entire lift vector. This is the reason why the FW-190 is noted as "more manuverable" than the Spitfire in the tactical trials.

Only in flight sims where turn radius is overstated does roll rate become less important.

Crumpp

Crumpp · « **Reply #10 on:** December 09, 2004, 06:04:18 AM »

Quote

I can just see a 190 pilot saying to his mech, change my ailerons for I have a low level mission tomorrow. Then at least a couple of test flights to fine "tune". Yah right!!!

It was the pilots call as to which ailerons he used according to the Luftwaffe veterans. Many aircraft have "tunable" features. It is silly to think they were not used for their intended purpose.

As to the P38. That is another thread. I posted flight tested documentation to refute some of the claims made in that thread. So far I am the only one in that thread who has posted flight test documentation with the exception of one roll rate report. Facts are the effectiveness of the P38 as a fighter in the European Theater are a modern creation.

Crumpp

Angus · « **Reply #11 on:** December 09, 2004, 06:18:33 AM »

The reports were made on flyable veteran 190's right?
So one is better than the other, - one is worse than the other.
That would also be the case with planes in squadron service or what?
That was certainly the case with the Spitfire for instance.
Some aircraft were "rogue", so to say.

Crumpp · « **Reply #12 on:** December 09, 2004, 06:47:54 AM »

Yes Angus they were flyable veteran FW-190's and some variation is inherent.

RAE 1231 definately represents the low end of the scale on an out of adjustment aircraft.

Not surprising though. Focke Wulf had a problem with getting the JG's to properly adjust the ailerons, especially at first. It's silly to think the RAF did not.

Crumpp

straffo · « **Reply #13 on:** December 09, 2004, 06:54:01 AM »

I reiterate my question ,do you know the reason why the Typhoon got such low roll rate ?

Naudet · « **Reply #14 on:** December 09, 2004, 07:32:51 AM »

One should note that the FW190 Pilots handbook clearly states that a proper ajustment of the ailerons and the aileron trim tabs is very important for the handling characteristics and the control forces.

Crumpp, as far as i know the control rods in the FW190 were very stiff and could wear out like the control cables in other fighters of that time.
And in the handbook it is described that you can adjust the control forces for the aileron at the ailerons linkings (dunno the right term in english, might add the german term here when i checked the Handbook at home) to the wing, i think the control rods were pretty much the same in all FW190.

So in case you could force someone to correctly ajust the ailerons on either "Yellow 10" or "White 1", you should be able to measure the aileron deflection at 2cm/4cm right.