Serious question about the La7

[hitech]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Flight tested data does exist.  

Since this performance falls within a percentage and not an absolute, it makes for a pretty wide margin of "realistic" performance.

This is a good thing for a Gaming Company and allows them to adjust their computer models, which are an absolute and inherently unrealistic, to balance "gameplay".

When this balance is not achieved or aircraft do not fall with their historical roles players have grounds for complaint.

All the best,

Crumpp

Crumpp we do no such thing. And your acusation is full of dog due due.

Infact I wish all sources on flight data had the exact same values, would make our job much easyier.

HiTech

[Crumpp]

Crumpp we do no such thing. And your accusation is full of dog due due.

What accusation??  

Hitech, My post simply points out that aircraft manufacturers only guarantee performance within a specified percentage.




For Focke Wulf:



This leaves a wide path open for interpretation when a Game has to assign an absolute value to relative performance.

All the best,

Crumpp

[bozon]

Originally posted by Knegel
SpitV vs 109G10 or FW190A5 is another easy visible extreme.  The 190A5 only can run, but even in a smooth dive it have probelms to get away, every turn result in much E-bleed, while the SpitV simply dont lose E. But a much more light plane with very big wings, with much less power simply should lose more energy while turning.

You got it backwards. Usually the plane with the lower wingloading will loose less E in a turn since it requires lower angles of attack to produce the extra lift needed. Again I must note that wingloading is a very rough estimate for this since if you slap two huge barn doors to a plane it will not become a good turner (if it is able to fly at all...).

How much E you loose depend also on power loading (a slighy less biased preformance estimator, but stil...). While you bleed E, your engine pumps in more E - so you can have high wingloading and actually accelerate in the turn (think air 2 air missile - tiny wings, rocket engine).

Now take our spit V - very low wingloading and a wing design famous for it's efficiency in high AoA (long eliptical wings are generally good for this). Add the fact that this is the late , high boot engine version and I believe it has a better powerloading than our spit IX. The 190s of the other hand are the exact opposite. The are not ment to flat turn since this ability was sacrificed for speed. And by the way - this is not always a disadvantage.

Bozon

[Crumpp]

wing design famous for it's efficiency in high AoA

Great Post Bozon.

However, the Spitfire wing is not dramatically more efficient than most wings in WWII.  The difference is negligible in actual performance.  

Designers in the late 1930's were well aware of the benefits of elliptical distribution and the methods of manipulating the wing to achieve it.

Elliptical construction does not mean elliptical distribution when you twist the wing.

The 190s of the other hand are the exact opposite.

FW190's have pretty good power loading and it appears they could hold a decent angle of bank.

The RAF report is long on pilot opinion with very little science.  The pilot is asked to give his opinion on the FW190 vs Spitfire IX after a 30 minute flight in the Focke Wulf.  No comparision flight was done against the Spitfire Mk IX Merlin 66.  However in the air,he meets some Mustang's and procedes first to evade them to save his life, then in mock combat.  Which variant of Mustang we do not know.  Interesting though as the RAE Tactical trials of Fabers FW-190A3 generalized that "the Mustang I is superior in turning performance".



The USAAF report is much better.  It gives us altitude, airspeed, and aircraft set up.



All the best,

Crumpp

[Crumpp]

Well suddenly I cannot post images so Bozon I will have to email you the reports.

You have probably seen them alreadly though.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Angus]

I have a nice account of a P51C turning with a 190
P51 out turned the 190 and shot it down

[Crumpp]

I have a nice account of a P51C turning with a 190

I have plenty of accounts of FW190's outturning P51's and other aircraft.  Big Deal.

Point is these are flight test's and not pilot stories.






Here is one pilot who outurned one, shot it down and then outran 5 P51's at tree top level during the Ardennes Offensive.

All of his fighter victories where from outturning his opponents.

http://www.riveting-images.com/Robert_Bailey_s_Aviation_Art/Robert_Bailey_s__War_Wolf_/robert_bailey_s__war_wolf_.html

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/bosch.html

All the best,

Crumpp

[Knegel]

Originally posted by bozon
You got it backwards. Usually the plane with the lower wingloading will loose less E in a turn since it requires lower angles of attack to produce the extra lift needed. Again I must note that wingloading is a very rough estimate for this since if you slap two huge barn doors to a plane it will not become a good turner (if it is able to fly at all...).

How much E you loose depend also on power loading (a slighy less biased preformance estimator, but stil...). While you bleed E, your engine pumps in more E - so you can have high wingloading and actually accelerate in the turn (think air 2 air missile - tiny wings, rocket engine).

Now take our spit V - very low wingloading and a wing design famous for it's efficiency in high AoA (long eliptical wings are generally good for this). Add the fact that this is the late , high boot engine version and I believe it has a better powerloading than our spit IX. The 190s of the other hand are the exact opposite. The are not ment to flat turn since this ability was sacrificed for speed. And by the way - this is not always a disadvantage.

Bozon

Here you have a misunderstanding!

A better liftload(wingload, aspectratio, airfoil etc) make a plane turning more tight, not turning with less E-bleed!

While turning with same radius the more light plane need less AOA, but it have less inertia at same time!! If the more heavy plane have a more strong engine the more heavy plane will keep more energy.
Most people forget that the weight/inertia also work into flightdirection not only in form of a more heavy wingload.

If both planes turn with max AoA, the light plane for sure will lose more energy, cause missing inertia, the benifit is a more tight turn.
The 190A, same like the P38 and other heavy wingloaded planes simply have a very smal drag in relation to their weight. This enhance the turnradius at slow speed, but while highspeed manouvers they keep energy like mad(at least they should).

Greetings, Knegel

[Angus]

Like swinging a light or heavy bucket

[Angus]

Oh Crumpp:
"I have plenty of accounts of FW190's outturning P51's and other aircraft. Big Deal."

Well there is not a big gap to choose from, so it can go both ways. In my example it was a one-on-one for a long time ending with stallturns at treetop level. The Mustang needed flaps, - 1 notch.

[bozon]

Originally posted by Knegel
If both planes turn with max AoA, the light plane for sure will lose more energy, cause missing inertia, the benifit is a more tight turn.
 

If they are both at max AoA (assuming identical wings only bigger), at the same speed then they are not pulling the same G (assuming the same weight) and still you have the question of engine power (assuming the same prop efficiency). Notice the number or rediculous asumptions needed?

If the more heavy plane have a more strong engine the more heavy plane will keep more energy.
Most people forget that the weight/inertia also work into flightdirection not only in form of a more heavy wingload.

There are too many more in the sentence for me to more understand it, but it's more wrong if I do.

The 190A, same like the P38 and other heavy wingloaded planes simply have a very small drag in relation to their weight. This enhance the turnradius at slow speed, but while highspeed manouvers they keep energy like mad(at least they should).

You are confusing induced drag and parasitic drag.

[Knegel]

Hi,

no, i dont confuse paraside drag and induced drag!

A 190A8 (say 4300kg) and a 190A4 (say 3900kg)  have the same max AoA and so the same induced drag.

If both planes turn with highspeed(much energy) and max AoA, the 190A4 will turn more tight, but the A8 dont will bleed that much energy. Same drag(indueced + zero drag) but more inertia = less E-bleed.
Differnt it will be while a sustained turn, cause here the planes have a constant speed and therfor no inertia into flightdirection. Therfor the A4 can turn more tight with similar speed like the A8.

Thats why the 190A4 was better in all, than the SpitV, but in sustained turn.

A smal wing simply have a much smaler max indued drag than a big wing.

The 190A a smaler zerodrag and a smaler max indued drag than the SpitV but, if highspeed, more inertia and more power.

Cause the same reason the P47D was able to make a B&Z fight vs a Spitfire(They made tests regarding this in wartime).

As more power the planes got and as faster the main combatspeed got as bigger the wingload could be, cause at highspeed even a high wingloaded plane make a turn on the edge of a blackout.  The extreme regarding this probably was the F104.  

Most late war planes had a rather high wighload exact cause this reason.

Next to all this the aspectratio is a often undervalued factor. The aspectratio reduce the relative induced drag and enhance the liftfactor with a given AoA.  Thats why planes like the Ta152H and P38 had much better liftload and (induced)dragload than the wingload and needed AoA would indicate.


Greetings, Knegel

[bozon]

but more inertia = less E-bleed.

By that logic you'd want to load your plane with lead to make it turn better - more inertia. But I see that arguing here is pointless.

Enjoy AH.
Bozon

[hitech]

Hi Knegel.

A smal wing simply have a much smaler max indued drag than a big wing.

While this statment is absolutly true. It is also meaning less when considering turning of any sort.

What you realy want to compare is E loss per G of turn. I.E. When 2 planes are doing the same turn. Who is loosing E the quickest.

In your case you are comparing when 2 planes are both doing there max turns at the same speed. But 1 plane could be a 10g turn and the other 2 Gs.


HiTech

[Wmaker]

Yep,

One HARD way to test the relative E loss would be a method where different planes would maintain constant G and constant speed in a turn from same altitude. Variometer would show the approx. relative difference, right?

I know that kind of state would be hard to maintain accurately but the measurement errors would probably decrease into acceptable levels with practice.