What happened to LW?

[MANDO]

Originally posted by Wilbus
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.

This is pretty important and has been posted here several times in the past. What kind of weird explanation may justify the constant and exagerated re-trim needs of AH 190s? As far as I remember, 190s were the planes that most elevator re-trim need for all their flight envelop.

[J_A_B]

Karnak--I agree that the issue is larger than any *single* cause.  The dedicated LW fliers are probably so used to those guns that they forget just how crappy they are compared to some other options--they're a real handicap.  Guns aside, there's no denying that the 190A-8 in particular handles more like a dumptruck than a fighter plane.  That seems rather odd since it was the most-produced version of the 190.  I'm just trying to keep people thinking about all possibilities.


Wilbus--The 190, more than any other plane in the game, might be an example of why I don't like having trim at all in these kinds of games.  There's just no point in modeling it when our *real* stick forces don't change anyway.  It only adds tedious busywork (proven by the fact that most fighters couldn't even trim all 3 axis in flight).


milian--are you saying the REAL 190's airspeed indicator wasn't accurate?  Certainly other planes have suffered from that sort of problem (the F6F was known for this).  Or, are you saying something else?

J_A_B

[DoKGonZo]

I dunno ... I stumbled across this while looking for data:

    http://www.anycities.com/user/j22/j22/aero.htm

It's about a Swedish fighter developed in WW2 - but what's interesting was that they did comparisons of it with all the planes we're discussing and they were a neutral power in WW2.

It states the stall for the P51D was 100mph, and the 190A was 110mph. There's an interesting graph near the end for instantaneous and sustained turns - the 190A came out a sliver behind the P51 and the 190D had a sustained turn closer to a Spit IX. Gander at their results for the 109G compared to the Spit9 in sustained turn.

At the very end is a chart for relative acceleration. The 190D hauls .. it should leave a P51 in the dust. The 190's and P51's had a slight level-flight acceleration edge over the Spit. This was tested for the 200 to 300 mph range - which is on the high side for typical AH fights.

There's other comparisons of all them fizzicks variables and jazz you guys have been tossing around - flat plate wet cd's ... yeah.

There's also a link to a cool article on fighter aerodynamics:

    http://www.geocities.com/hlangebro/J22/EAAjanuary1999.pdf

I won't pretend to understand half of what they heck they're talking about, but it explains how there are two conflicting reports of the 190's stall characteristic. (If I understand it right, the RAF testers hauled on the stick like it was a Spit which caused wing deformity which accelerated the abrupt stall we've come to know and loathe. When flown with more restraint, the stall was gentle as experienced in landing trials.)

Interesting stuff ...

    -DoK

[Karnak]

What engine at what boost was in that Spit IX?

(The site doesn't work for me here at work.)

[hitech]

Wilbus: What milian is refering to is CAS, i.e. calibrated air speed. Btw that is also modled in AH's air speed indicator. It is do to the fact that as the  plane changes AOA, the pitot tube is no longer square with the air stream, and hence induces an error.  Normaly it actualy works the other way at very high AOA's (I.E. your real speed is faster than what your air speed indicator is showing) but that is not always the case.

CAS to IAS is not a simple caculation , it realy requires a table per airplane type.


And finaly unlike milian claims, we do not simply take a given stall speed and use it as he claims, We use many different methods for comming up with a CLMax that we use in game. And btw in AH the FW's CLMax is higher than the spitfires, once again exatly the oposit of what milian claims.

And finaly, do not take what I am saying that I belive the FW or any other model is absolutly accurate, and can not be improved. As with any of our planes, they are what data we have, the more data we have the more precise we can model an aircraft. But the model data , has absolutly nothing to do with how we model things.

CRUMPP:
It apears you took a statement of mine different than it was intended.
I do not belive you cheary pick data you send us. We apreaciate any data your or other people took the time to dig up, Enthisam for the game and aiplanes is an assest to us.

But I do belive it is the normal for people who love a paticular airplane to view data with an unintended bias.


HiTech

[DoKGonZo]

Originally posted by Karnak
What engine at what boost was in that Spit IX?

(The site doesn't work for me here at work.)

It's a GeoCities site ... ain't surprised if its blocked by a corp firewall (I had to work around ours).

It doesn't give specs on the planes being compared, so the data is suspect in that regard. I think some interpolation would be needed based on known "good" data ... if such a thing exists.

[MANDO]

DoKGonZo, if these graphs were correct, our current 190s would be so deviated from the real ones that certainly they should be redone.

A D9 with almost same substained turn performance as SpitIX and clearly superior in turn to P51D and B? Remarkably superior also in acceleration between 200 and 300 mph TAS to P51D/B and SpitIX.

[1K3]

Originally posted by hitech
CRUMPP:
It apears you took a statement of mine different than it was intended.
I do not belive you cheary pick data you send us. We apreaciate any data your or other people took the time to dig up, Enthisam for the game and aiplanes is an assest to us.

But I do belive it is the normal for people who love a paticular airplane to view data with an unintended bias.


HiTech

whew, does it mean HTC will re-check and tune the 190 FM soooner or later?

some of us are just impatient:p

[DoKGonZo]

They have other pages on the site with climb v. alt and speed v. alt as well.

Again, I can't vouch for the accuracy. But what is interesting is that the only bias the testers might have is to have their own design show well. So no Axis v. Allied bias, and all planes would be maintained by people from the neutral country. Their analysis of their own design lends some credibility to whatever testing methodology they used.


As someone else has mentioned, with ToD on the near horizon, getting the Axis v. Allied match ups where they should be gets more important.

    -DoK

[Crumpp]

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

Unlike other RAE reports I cannot find anything in Faber's Tactical Trials that is a symptom of ailerons out of adjustment.

The Luftwaffe certainly had problems keeping the sensitive ailerons adjusted and it is silly to think the allies would not have experienced the same thing.  The condition does have specific symptoms that are not present when adjusted within tolerances.

The largest factor in the Faber’s "at least" performance is the lack of proper fuel or engine settings.  This would greatly effect power production due to knock-limited performance.

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.

You can expect the stall speed to be high in the early FW-190A's as the CoG was farther back than originally intended.  The CoG was adjusted in the FW-190A5 and FW-190A8 moving it forward and lowering the stall speed to around 95mph (150 kph).  This is also the biggest reason for the unpopularity of the Zustatzkraftstoffbehälter im Rumpf.  Just like the P51's fuselage tank and many similar tanks that were tried or used on WWII fighters, it moved the CG rearward to the point of instability.  This was helped some by moving the ETC 501 rack forward in the FW-190A8 and corrected in the FW-190A9 by increasing the weight of the motor.  Niether C3-Einspritzung nor Erhöhte Notleistung required the Zusatzkraftstoffbehälter im Rumpf.

But I do belive it is the normal for people who love a paticular airplane to view data with an unintended bias.

Sure I would agree with that.  That is why if I were designing a WWII fighter simulation, I would only use manufacturers guaranteed production specifications for performance.  These could then be adjusted within their tolerances only to balance the game with the sole purpose of increasing everyone's fun.  In the end you are left with very realistic performance data that is essentially irrefutable.

It is when people pass off data at the upper end of these percentages as the "average" that destroys the balance.  

Only a few quantum leaps in aviation technology occurred during WWII.  Neither the FW-190 series nor any Spitfire Mark is among them.   In fact there is not a single propeller driven fighter that can make that claim IMHO.


All the best,

Crumpp

[Angus]

Where is this .....Spit vs 190 going.
Okay, this, from Kuffie:
"Wingloading comparisons a rather meaningless things"
No. you may have a chance making it looking irrelevant with CL numbers which will be rather embarrasing when the whole thing gets calculated, - since the Spit wing is that vastly bigger. The liftloading is still good
Go ahead and calculate the Spitfire climb into Newtons. Then divide with the power vs the power of the 190. You see, the 190 has a LOT of power, already the A series have the equal of a Griffon, while the Griffon Spit will create more lift. Oh, a whine, the Spit XIV should handle better
And surface area will ALWAYS matter a lot when you're whipping near the stall. (if not beyond it). The lower wingloading, especially marked at lower speeds will (as well as the fact of higher ROC) make the Spittie, oh yes, - accelerate faster from the stall to a certain point than the 190.
The 190 has the downhill opportunity though
oh me bad....trolling, well if you can call it trolling, that basically I think the HTC flight model is pretty pretty good. The 190 might turn a tad better in the initial break and the Spit XIV might be a tad less of a pig, but otherwise....good good and always getting better..

Extra bonus.

Harry Broadhurst's best ride was the Spit IX LF, clipped and all Merlin 66.
(I'll face any AH 190 in that one hehe)
Quill said the VIII was the finest.
Another whine, - does our VIII roll like the long winged one?

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Angus
Another whine, - does our VIII roll like the long winged one?

It might.  See the thread regarding the Spit VIII's roll rate further down in this forum.  I was the topic starter.

[Crumpp]

Where is this .....Spit vs 190 going.

I don't see anyone claiming the FW-190 should outturn a Spitfire in the sustained turn.

The performance differences though are not as great as people tend to think.

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

Yes.  Our FW-190's gain almost as much weight as the entire series.  Going from FW-190A2 "light fighter" variant with only two wing root cannon to FW-190A8 air superiority fighter with full wing armament, the series only gains 914 lbs.  Sounds like quite a bit until you begin to examine the weight gain of other fighter designs.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Sable]

Originally posted by Crumpp

Yes.  Our FW-190's gain almost as much weight as the entire series.

What evidence is this statement based on?  Did you test something in the game to come to this conclusion?  Or did HT and Pyro post the "AH weight" of the 190s in a thread somewhere?

[MANDO]

Originally posted by Sable
Or did HT and Pyro post the "AH weight" of the 190s in a thread somewhere?

AH 190A8 - Planes and vehicles