Author Topic: What happened to LW? (Read 21279 times)

Charge · « **Reply #465 on:** December 14, 2005, 05:03:36 AM »

"It's towards the end that they discuss how under heavy G loading the Fw's wing deforms causing more of the wing to reach its stall limit sooner (what the RAF tests reported)."

What? I didn't see that?

I'd like to have a quote, please.

***

"Properly adjusted ailerons will barely vibrate the moment before the stall but do not reverse at any portion of the slow speed flight envelope. Oscar says you had to be relaxed and have some experience in the aircraft to notice it."

I just read a book where a German ace told that you could easily predict the stall as you could feel it as slight jolts in the ailerons.

-C+

Angus · « **Reply #466 on:** December 14, 2005, 05:56:56 AM »

The jolt could be the ailerons becoming free (not held by air)
yes?

Charge · « **Reply #467 on:** December 14, 2005, 06:24:48 AM »

More like the air popping unevenly in and out on the top of the wing.
So in a way you are correct Angus.

-C+

Angus · « **Reply #468 on:** December 14, 2005, 06:36:33 AM »

nice

DoKGonZo · « **Reply #469 on:** December 14, 2005, 10:23:28 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Charge
"It's towards the end that they discuss how under heavy G loading the Fw's wing deforms causing more of the wing to reach its stall limit sooner (what the RAF tests reported)."

What? I didn't see that?

I'd like to have a quote, please.

Page 5, middle column, half-way down:

"... A wartime Focke Wulf report indicates that at higher loading conditions (i.e. when pulling more G's) elastic deformation of the Fw190 outer wing shifts the load distribution outboard. This would cause even more of the wing to reach its stalling lift coefficient simultaneously. Combined with the sharp stalling features of the NACA 230XX airfoils, this would produce the harsh stall found in by Capt. Brown. A gentle stall would be evidences by a more gradual progression of the 2D stall spanwise."

The paragraphs leading up to that discuss the disparity in the USAAF and RAF reports in re stall characteristics.

This could prove to be pretty crucial in that it means that at lower speeds, where less G's are possible, the Fw still wouldn't turn well but it also wouldn't be so madeningly prone to spinning out. So at least you could use the turn rate you had to capitalize on roll reversals. Couple this with improving acceleration and the Fw suddenly has the means of disengaging from a fight with a better-turning plane its supposed to have. It'd also mean that when pulling over the top of a vertical move (low G, low speed manouever) the Fw190 wouldn't be so prone to snap-stalling as it is now - so the Fw could become more aggressive in the vertical - which it's supposed to be able to do.

And, IMO, fixing the snap-stall and acceleration is probably all that the Fw series needs. They seem to climb about where they should, the turn rates seem kind of low but I don't see that affecting play in the MA much.

I guess I look at the modeling a little different - I'm not as concerned with raw performance numbers. I've known HT and Pyro a long, long time and I trust them to get that stuff as close to right as they can. I'm more interested in "can I use plane A versus plane B the way I'm supposed to be able to?" In other words, does the game reflect the combat dynamics accurately. Two dynamics are keeping the Fw190's from having their historic "skill set".

I think in the case of the 109 its acceleration and the way it bleeds energy and loses sustained turn rate are the culprits, though honestly I haven't looked at it that close.

-DoK

Mr No Name · « **Reply #470 on:** December 15, 2005, 01:32:06 AM »

It seems to me that the LW aircraft FMs and ammunition ballistics are seriously neutered. I have more than one documentary (About 8th AF Bombers) Where pilots and crews complained that German canon outranged their M2s and LW pilots were able to attack them from outside their range... Try that in AH! I have had numerous perpendicular attack runs on bombers where i started receiving pings at 2K!!!

Also, anyone ever notice that almost invariably 1st ping is engine or oil?

I try to fly the G6 whenever possible, but wothout dragging ultra high drag gondolas it is nearly impossible to knock a bomber down (as modeled) in a G6.

I prefer the butcher bird when hunting bombers but the flight characteristics of the plane (As modeled) make it possible to make 1 good pass, IF you have an alt advantage... After that if you find yourself in a lag pursuit of bombers you will be picked to death before you can get back in range. In an A8 the FIRST thing you lose is the engine, usually 1st ping.

I have guncam footage of several different LW aircraft attacking B-17s.. some inside 100 yards! I imagine it was hard for a gunner to be a sniper in an aircraft that was bouncing around being buffeted by wind, gunfire, pilot movement, machine gun recoil couldnt have made it easy either!

I do NOT believe there is an anti-LW conspiracy but we have commie planes that were 'uber' (The modeling data had to come from the kremlin!) We also have NiKs in the arena that can lake a HO Pass at a D9 or Spit16 turn 180 degrees w/o losing E and run down an a/c that should be faster.

I am not trying to beat up on HTC, if I didnt enjoy the game, i really could easily spend it elsewhere, and would. I just believe that these planes must have performed much better than they do in this game. How else would you explain the massive number of kills the LW aces racked up? Were the pilots just that much better? Thats the only alternative solution I can come up with.

DarkglamJG52 · « **Reply #471 on:** December 15, 2005, 10:28:33 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mr No Name

I have guncam footage of several different LW aircraft attacking B-17s.. some inside 100 yards! I imagine it was hard for a gunner to be a sniper in an aircraft that was bouncing around being buffeted by wind, gunfire, pilot movement, machine gun recoil couldnt have made it easy either!

They try to kill rear gunners from 600-800m and then shot more close.

I agree 100% with your opinion.

Bad english here. Sorry.

Crumpp · « **Reply #472 on:** December 15, 2005, 03:34:44 PM »

Quote

Is that all planes or just 190s?

It is only the FW190 that I know of with such sensative aileron adjustment. When you see the design of the adjustment blocks, it is no wonder they had problems keeping them adjusted IMHO.

The FW-190 ushered in many design innovations, aileron adjustment was not one of them.

All the best,

Crumpp

Glasses · « **Reply #473 on:** December 16, 2005, 12:48:17 PM »

Well it could be one of two things either how the planes themselves perform or some of the concessions made to game play like Mr No Name shady account has said, as to how aircraft perform in relation to the Fw.

You have some airplanes that historically could not turn with their counterparts even though they had more power but they had insome instances double the weight of those aircraft they were turning against.

Some planes had historical advantage above 250mph because the stick forces were stronger compared to its contemporaries, but below that because of the acceleration and the relative profile and weight these aircraft performed worse. I truly do not believe as it relates to its Historical counterpart that they gained a benefit for dropping more and more flaps to allow them to decrease their turning circle and increase their turning rate.

Another that is the matter is that if you drop full flaps and try to do a power off approach with full side slip the Fw still picks off speed,it could be either it's not causing drag a la 109 or is it it's not causing any lift, or very little.

I'm sure the aicraft performed well at their most advantagious speeds but some aircraft perform well at any speed, completely throwing out the in game balance and the historical balance which is not accurately represented in game. A fact that older games online flight sims have been able to reproduce to some degree.

Mister Fork · « **Reply #474 on:** December 16, 2005, 01:32:09 PM »

Besides, I think a lot of this discussion we're truely splitting hairs in performance differences. Who knows....

Squire · « **Reply #475 on:** December 16, 2005, 01:32:10 PM »

The problem with the bombers is the slaved guns on 3 a/c at once.

Crumpp · « **Reply #476 on:** December 16, 2005, 02:08:57 PM »

Quote

You have some airplanes that historically could not turn with their counterparts even though they had more power but they had insome instances double the weight of those aircraft they were turning against.

Good points Glasses.

I think in the case of the FW-190 it gains some advantage at low speed. This is evident from both the RAE pilots experience and the USAAF tactical trials with a P47D4 using Water Injection and high activity propeller. Here is the conclusions from the P47 report:

All the best,

Crumpp

F4UDOA · « **Reply #477 on:** December 16, 2005, 03:03:38 PM »

Crumpp,

Did you notice the wingloading of the two aircraft? That 190 should definitely outturn that P-47. However the Jug is carrying enough fuel to fly around the world and back.

I like to use Basic weights as an indicator of wing loading and power loading to get a better picture of "combat weight".

Basic Weight for the P-47D-4
10,128LBS
Wing Area =300SQ ft
Wing Loading= 33.76
Power Loading= 5.64 At 20,000FT according to the report assuming mil power

Basic Weight FW190A-5
6716LBS
Wing Area- 197Sq Ft
Wing Loading= 34.09
Power Loading= 4.38

You can tell these A/C depending on external loadout will be very close in stalling speeds at compraple loadouts.

The 190 will have a power loading advantage based on the powers listed in the report. Depending on model the R-2800 could provide more HP than listed.

Krusty · « **Reply #478 on:** December 16, 2005, 03:26:26 PM »

Let's not only say that they have a similar wing area and weight ratio, but consider that the one with almost 40% more mass is going to react a lot slower in turns, plus it's a draggy-as-hell airframe (the p47)

g00b · « **Reply #479 on:** December 16, 2005, 03:27:00 PM »

Hmmm,

I've always liked the Luftwaffe planes. They are extremely competetive flown to their strengths. I would guess most people complaining about them ae trying to fly them in typical MA furball style. Which is simply not what the 190's are about. The 109's are better at it, but still can't compete with the spitfires and lalas.

But ye' gods, get up a head of steam in a 190 and you are well nigh' invinceable. I have a hard time understanding why anyone who's played this game for a long time would think the LW aircraft are "porked" or otherwise dis-advantaged. They have guns, roll and speed. They make awesome weapons platforms. The only major disadvantage is turn, and if you're trying to compete with, well, just about any other fighter in the turn you are going to lose. So don't play their game, play yours, and you will come out on top.

g00b