What happened to LW?

[hitech]

Millan: You are a guest on this BBS and if you wish to remain on this bbs I expect to be treated with some respect. You are free to tell me that something I have posted is incorect and we can debate the phyiscs of it.

But calling HTC or me incompetent is way over the line.

You parse my statements but make assumptions that are not in the statments.

Take my first statement.

And hence the problem, if Top speed, and climbs are correct, then Accelerations. Also must be correct.

I said top speeds and climbs, I.E. note singulare in the Top speed, an the plurral in the climbs. You refered to 2 points Max climb rate, and top speed.  Hence completly changing what I said.

I used the plural becuase I was refrering to the clmib rate/speed curve from max climb to top speed. I.E. the hole point of the post was to make the point that climb and accelerations are identical (I.E. liniar relation ship) at any given speed.

On your AOA discusion of drag,  you conviently left out my NOTE that drag does change slightly from level flight to a steady state climb.

And you even miss the stall speed piece of my post

But if sustained turn, top speed, stall speed,and climb rates are correct. Then accelerations have to be correct, in dive zoom or level.

Note: the specific reference to stall Speed?

Finaly as a quick check try these numbers.

190A5 area 197 weight 8580

Spit 9 area 240 Weight 7400.

And stall speed would not be shown in TAS, but either IAS or CAS depending on what type of document you are reading.

And in your AH testing, note we use a generic IAS - CAS curve of the air speed we show.


HiTech

[Kurfürst]

"Finaly as a quick check try these numbers.

190A5 area 197 weight 8580

Spit 9 area 240 Weight 7400."

Wingloading comparisons a rather meaningless things. They dont take account of the maximum lift coefficient of the airfoil, or how much it can develop at higher AoA. Considering the Spitfire had a rather thin airfoil, and much of the lift was sacrificed on it with the washout, it is very likely that the Lift Coefficient was rather low. This is fact is suggested by Niklas's article which shows the Spit having a Clmax of only 1.12, a very-very low value. Briefly that while the Spit had a rather large wing, it wasn't very good at turning that big area into useful lift.

This quick check also ignores the fact the FW 190 had combat flaps to assist manouvering (by improving Cl), while the Spitfire's flaps were either fully up or fully down, ie. useless in combat. So while I'd generally believe the Spitfire having somewhat better liftloading normally (w. c-flaps on the 190 this is questionable), the difference was surely not as breathtaking as quick checks of WL would suggest.

I seem to recall there was an engagement w. J Johnson being followed in turns by a 190, he was quite surprised. BTW didn't JJ said something like the IX being his favourite, the XIV being just too heavy, and altough powerful, 'not a Spitfire anymore'. Anybody has his words handy?

[milian]

ok then, publish the numbers for induced drag in level flight for several aircraft at a certain speed, weight, and altitude, such as:

Spit 1
Weight 5800 lbs
Speed: 200 mph
Altitude 100 ft
Parasitic drag: 475 lbs
Induced drag : 170 lb


do this for at least 3 aircraft and I think my point will be readily proven that the flight models in AH have a wing efficiency of less than .5

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Kurfürst
I seem to recall there was an engagement w. J Johnson being followed in turns by a 190, he was quite surprised. BTW didn't JJ said something like the IX being his favourite, the XIV being just too heavy, and altough powerful, 'not a Spitfire anymore'. Anybody has his words handy?

That is a common sentiment in regards to the Mk XIV, although sometimes the Mk V is singled out as the most pleasant to fly instead of the Mk IX / Mk VIII / Mk XVI.

FYI, the Mk XIV in AH feels very heavy and to be used effectively must be flown very significantly differently than a Merlin Spit.  It is much like a British Bf109K-4.

[Wilbus]

The word I have heard of the "most pleasant" to fly, has, mostly, been the VIII which was one of the reasons I was happy to see it added in AH.

As for 190 turn radius vs spit I don't think anyone should argue which one would turn best. The Spit should win hands out, as it does, and as it did in the brittish tests. However, was this "superior" turn rate maybe as "superior" as the acceleration and climb rate we previosuly discussed?

Another thing interesting about those tests is the comparison between a P38F and the 190 A3.

Maneuverability
The Fw 190 is superior to that of the P38F, particularly in the rolling plane. Although at high speed the Fw 190 is superior in turning circles, it can be out-turned if the P38F reduces its speed to about 140 mph at which speed it can carry out out a very tight turn which the Fw 190 cannot follow

I feel that Fw 190 vs a P38 in AH, any P38 even the much heavier L let alot the lighter G the 190 is easily outturned way above 140mph.

[J_A_B]

I suspect the "poor performance" of the LW fighters in AH is at least partially a result of their lousy weapons.  In other words, if the FW-190D-9 had Hispanos instead of MG151's, people would see it in a more favorable light.   In my opinion this creates a feeling of the airplane not handling as well as it "should".

Airplane performance serves a purpose.  In the case of a WW2 fighter, that purpose is to get your guns on target.  The weapons available on the 109's and 190's have terrible ballistics relative to some other weapons.  In order for a FW-190 to get its guns on target, that 190 has to pull MORE lead than, say, a Hispano-armed Spitfire would.  Even if the 190 was equally as nimble as the Spit, it'd still "feel" less nimble because of that.  On top of that, you usually have to hold the plane on target longer to get the desired effect.

Replace the FW-190A-8's 4 cannon with Hispanos and I suspect people would rapidly give it respect befitting the "butcher bird".  Maybe the planes aren't the problem, but rather the guns.  


J_A_B

[Karnak]

That may play some part J_A_B, frankly I expect it does, but I also think Crump has posted some fairly convincing evidence that the Fw190s are overweight as well.

[DoKGonZo]

Originally posted by J_A_B
I suspect the "poor performance" of the LW fighters in AH is at least partially a result of their lousy weapons.  In other words, if the FW-190D-9 had Hispanos instead of MG151's, people would see it in a more favorable light.   In my opinion this creates a feeling of the airplane not handling as well as it "should".

Airplane performance serves a purpose.  In the case of a WW2 fighter, that purpose is to get your guns on target.  The weapons available on the 109's and 190's have terrible ballistics relative to some other weapons.  In order for a FW-190 to get its guns on target, that 190 has to pull MORE lead than, say, a Hispano-armed Spitfire would.  Even if the 190 was equally as nimble as the Spit, it'd still "feel" less nimble because of that.  On top of that, you usually have to hold the plane on target longer to get the desired effect.

Replace the FW-190A-8's 4 cannon with Hispanos and I suspect people would rapidly give it respect befitting the "butcher bird".  Maybe the planes aren't the problem, but rather the guns.  


J_A_B

I don't know about everyone else, but the guns aren't what bug me about the Fw. What bugs me is:

1) The low- and mid-range acceleration seems pretty weak so you run out of options very quickly. This also means that you can't roll-reverse, dump the nose a little, and get out of guns range like you used to be able to, and should be able to.

2) The low-speed handling is so vicious that at the top of vertical manouevers I find myself spending more effort fighting to keep the 190 from spinning out than on tracking the enemy I want to shoot down. I don't expect it to turn like a Spit, but having it so prone to spinning out with the slightest pull on the stick at low speeds is really limiting.

And these two syndromes almost seem contradictory. That is, if it has this big torquey engine which causes it to spin out so easy, then it should have gobs of low- and mid-range grunt for acceleration. And if it don't have the grunt, then why is there all this torque spinning me out so bad?

    -DoK

[milian]

And if it don't have the grunt, then why is there all this torque spinning me out so bad?

I've already told you!  It is the high stall speed, well over 100mph!  The 190 should have a stall speed similar to the P-51, but it doesn't.  It stalls at about 110mph whereas it should stall around 95mph.

So HT, you ever gonna pony up on some induced drag numbers or what?

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Sure Guppy and I had some great discussions on this subject.  Managed to run down a couple of the the encounters and match them up with Luftwaffe reports.

In general for WWII airbattles you will find positional advantage means much more than aircraft type.  Whoever has altitude, numbers, or both comes out on top.

The claims of "my aircraft was so superior" just do not turn out to be true when the facts are examined from both sides.

All the best,

Crumpp

And I think that's the key.  We're talking about relatively evenly matched aircraft that made incremental increases in performance as they edged to the far end of piston engined aircraft performance.

The guy with the height and the sun had the advantage.  Just reading through the Spit XII combat reports, it was toughest on the Spits when the 190s were above coming down fast.  If the 190s played into the Spits best qualities the 190s suffered in that case, if not they controlled the fight.

If the XIIs had the bounce it was a similar experience for the 190s.

Again, to expect the 190 to fight the Spits fight is silly just as it's silly to expect the Spit driver to fight the 190 driver's fight.  If either made that mistake they usually paid for it.

Johnnie Johnson's encounter with the turning 190 was over Dieppe and he was in a Spit V.  The 190, which was that much superior to the V was  gaining the edge in a high speed turn.  Johnson lost him by nosing down and risking running through the flak of the Allied ships below.  

Johnson also commented on how turning and turning to avoid the 190s was purely defensive which didn't sit well with an offensive minded fighter pilot.  The Spit IX was the answer for him and he considered the LFIX the best dogfighting Spit of them all.

[1K3]

Originally posted by Karnak
That may play some part J_A_B, frankly I expect it does, but I also think Crump has posted some fairly convincing evidence that the Fw190s are overweight as well.

correct me oif im wrong but AH 190A-5 is a bit underweight too. ~ 200lb less than it should be

[Wilbus]

Originally posted by milian
I've already told you!  It is the high stall speed, well over 100mph!  The 190 should have a stall speed similar to the P-51, but it doesn't.  It stalls at about 110mph whereas it should stall around 95mph.

So HT, you ever gonna pony up on some induced drag numbers or what?

While I respect your knowledge about physics and the numbers/calculations you have posted above I think you may be wrong here...

Also from the Brittish test of the captured Fw 190 A3:

The stalling speed of the aircraft is high, being approximately 110mph with the undercarriage and flaps retracted, and 105 mph with the undercarriage and flaps fully down. All controls are effective up to the stall. One excellent feuture of this aircraft is that it is seldom necessary to retrim under all conditions of flight.

Which leads me to one thing that bugs me alot. The fact that the 190 is one of the planes in AH that is in need of the MOST trimming, constantly trimming both ailerons and elevator when changing speed. I constantly trim it, ailerons are specially noticable when comparing to other planes.

Flew the F4u the other day, a plane notorious for tourqe and I hardly had to trim it at all, I didn't even touch the aileron trim in dive or any other part of the flight, I only trimmed the elevators some.

This is very noticable on top of zooms aswell, the F4u just doesn't seem to have the tourqe described in books/by pilots.

Same thing goes when flying some other planes aswell (quite a few actually although not as noticable as on the F4u). The need to trim just isn't there "as it should" IMO.

Sure you say, use the combat trim, but it shouldn't be needed really.

[Sable]

Originally posted by Karnak
That may play some part J_A_B, frankly I expect it does, but I also think Crump has posted some fairly convincing evidence that the Fw190s are overweight as well.

Got a link by any chance?  I can't find it.

[milian]

The stalling speed of the aircraft is high, being approximately 110mph with the undercarriage and flaps retracted, and 105 mph with the undercarriage and flaps fully down.

That is my whole friggen point!!!!!

110mph of what?  Is it IAS as read off the cockpits airspeed indicator? Is it by a trailing static line?  Is it measured by GPS?  Is it TAS at sea level?  Is uncorrected or corrected?  Is it power on or power off?  

That is my whole POINT!!!!!!!!  AH has taken that to literally mean 110mph IAS which translates down to 110mph at sea level speed but are totally unaware of the position error correction.  As I have said, if you take a 110mph stall speed, and do a CLMax calculation, you can VERY easily see that it is WAY too high.  And you simply can NOT take a power off stall speed and base aircraft performance on that in a power on condition.  That is my whole point!  This is the EXACT reason why the Fw 190 flies like a pig at low altitude.  AH has taken the 110mph stall speed to LITERALLY mean 110mph in their "generic" IAS terms or TAS at SL.  This is NOT the case, and have not taken into any consideration position error correction which they could easily tell they were off the mark if they simply did a CLMax calculation.  But since I have been banned in using the word "incompetent" in here I don't know what else to say.

oh, not to mention Crumpp jumping in here and talking about the ailerons, lol

[Wilbus]

How about posting in a nice manner and keeping the discussion alive in a nice way instead of yelling incompetence? Not gonna do any of us any good really.

So if the airspeed indicator of the 190 in the tests showed 110mph (that would be indicated aswell as true btw since they did it at sea-level, correct?) you mean it wasn't actually 110 but rather 95?