What happened to LW?

[Apar]

Bruno and Apar,

it would be interesting to have someone testing the old G-10 and the new K-4 as far as stability, roll rate, turn performance, etc.etc. .... are concerned. When I used the G-10 without the pods it was with the engine mounted 20mm and not the 30mm (anyway, i dont remember if it was available and I dont know whats the difference in term of weight, if any). However, the tactic was pretty different: more speed, deflection shooting, firing even from 400-500yds. A different world.

I really hope the FM hasnt got worst. Togheter with the pig G-14 i't would be too much, really.

Gatt, i flew g10 with 30mm 90% of the time. Only once in a while choose the 20mm when i suffered from "rubber bullet 30mm". I never flew with gondies on. Would be great to test k4 versus g10.

Greetings

Apar

[Apar]

Hey Apar. My AH is still 2.05 patch 3, if you need any test of the G10, tell me.

Mandoble, that would be great. I'll send you a PM.

Thx in advance.

Greatings

Apar

[DoKGonZo]

Looking at the The Complete Aces High 2 Fighter Turn performance thread ... I really have a tough time believing that the Fw190's are the worst-turning propellor planes in the game. Worse than any P47 (except the A5 which sucks the least). Worse than a Mosquito. Worse than a Me110C. And all by a pretty noticable amount. I certainly don't expect Spit-like turning, but come on - I almost want to see the bomber turn rates to see which of them can out-turn a Fw.

[Crumpp]

Here is one RAF pilots experience with an FW-190G1 on his very first check out ride.  He runs into either A-36's or P51A's.  Someone should compare the A-36/P51A turn ability to the P51C/D.  According to Deans AHT, the P51A/A36 was over 1000lbs lighter than the P51B's.  Going from P51A to P51B, the Mustang gains more weight and equal power as the entire FW-190A lineup.

Hardly a scientific test.
 


This one is a little better.  It represents a P47D4 with Water Injection and high activity propeller.  It gives the speeds and altitudes.  Check out paragraph d (2) Turning below 250 mph.
 


All the best,

Crumpp

[Sable]

Does anyone have a test showing the Fw's stall speed?  The only info I have on it is the 127mph number listed in Eric Brown's book, which is obviously wrong (considering that he states right before that that he used a much lower speed at takeoff).  

The climb/speed for the 190A5 in the game perfectly matches the test info on the captured EB-104 (which is slower then a real A5, but also lighter and better climbing, so it would turn better all else being equal).  The A8 in the game perfectly matches the Focke-Wulf performance sheet I have for the A8.  The D9 as well.  So if there is a problem, it doesn't appear to be with power, parasite drag, or weight.  That would leave lift/induced drag.  

As for the 190's turn performance comparative to the competition - I don't have a hard time believing it should be towards the back of the pack.  The British TAIC trials found that the Typhoon was about even with the 190 (but of course we don't have much info on how exactly they tested for this, and with what specific airplanes under what specific load conditions).  Frank Klibbe of the 56th FG has an account published in Hammel's "Aces against Germany" where he describes a situation where a 190A bounces his P-47 at low altitude - they procede to turn for about 5 minutes or so before they both break for home, neither being able to gain an advantage.  Based on stuff like this, the feeling I get is that the 190s should be about on par with the P-47 and Typhoon - i.e. a bit better then they are in AH.  But of course this is all based on subjective accounts - we don't know the energy states or conditions of the aircraft involved.  So I have a hard time saying AH is "wrong" based on them.  And it may also be a case of us having a 190 that is a bit on the pessimistic side and a P-47 a bit on the optimistic side, or what not.

[DoKGonZo]

Back of the pack, sure ... but dead last? And worse by such a wide margin?


A couple things about the 2nd report that Crumpp posted seem odd:

In (b)(1) they say the P47 used water injection and overheated and the Fw did not. Does this mean the Fw didn't use WEP and the 47 did, or that the Fw's WEP just didn't cause an overheat? If the 47 needed WEP to outclimb the Fw at military power that's pretty interesting.

In (c) they say the Fw dove away from the 47 at the beginning. but in (d)(2) they say the Fw accelerates slowly in a dive. What I think they meant in (d)(2) is that the P47 retains energy better at the zoom part of the oblique turn. Right? But even that seems contradictory because they also said the Fw excels at hanging on its prop.

In (d)(3) they say the P47 out-turned the Fw above 250 mph, but that the Fw tended to black out the pilot? I'd think the plane pulling tighter would be pulling more G's and therefore more prone to black-out. Could this be a reflection of cockpit ergonomics?

The "constantly runs rough part" ... would this be due to non-LW ground crews working on the plane?

The description of how they induce the snap-stall is consitent with both the RAF tests and the article I posted a week or so ago which explains how such harsh treatment deforms the wing and accelerate the stall.

[Crumpp]

In (b)(1) they say the P47 used water injection and overheated and the Fw did not. Does this mean the Fw didn't use WEP and the 47 did, or that the Fw's WEP just didn't cause an overheat? If the 47 needed WEP to outclimb the Fw at military power that's pretty interesting.

Yep.  The FW190 was using 1.42ata @ 2700U/min Start u Notleistung.  Erhöhte Notleistung was not in use at this time.
According to the test, this particular aircraft developed 1.45ata which is within normal variation for the Kommandogerät.

What I think they meant in (d)(2) is that the P47 retains energy better at the zoom part of the oblique turn. Right?

That is what I took it mean.  The FW-190 is able to pull a steeper angle of bank than the P47 due to powerloading and has a smaller radius of turn.  The P47 seems to be able to climb better at low speeds as it is much closer to it's best climb speed.  The P47 best climb speed is 140-155IAS.  The FW-190's is around 180 IAS.

I'd think the plane pulling tighter would be pulling more G's and therefore more prone to black-out. Could this be a reflection of cockpit ergonomics?

He would be pulling more G's.  The FW190 pilots almost supine position was ideal for handling G's but without a true G-suit he is not immune.  Even with a G-suit he a pilot is not immune.

One of the largest reasons we see the "P51 can outturn any German fighter"  has more to do with the USAAF adaptation of the G suit than aircraft turn performance.

 

The "constantly runs rough part" ... would this be due to non-LW ground crews working on the plane?

In part, however it is most likely due to the use of allied natural petroleum fuels with German plugs and engine set up optimized for using the synthetic fuels.  With timing adjustments they would be able to eliminate the "rough" running during much of the engines operation.  However at the operating extremes, loss of power would occur due to knock limited performance and fouling of the plugs.  Hence the "rough running".

The description of how they induce the snap-stall is consitent with both the RAF tests and the article I posted a week or so ago which explains how such harsh treatment deforms the wing and accelerate the stall.

I very much agree with David Lednicer's design analysis.  It fits perfectly with what the FW-190 pilots have told me.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Angus]

What I've heard the 190 would get into a turn quickly and keep on well at higher speeds, but as it was prone for snap stalls, it was better not risking too much.
Oh the 110 and P47

"Looking at the The Complete Aces High 2 Fighter Turn performance thread ... I really have a tough time believing that the Fw190's are the worst-turning propellor planes in the game. Worse than any P47 (except the A5 which sucks the least). Worse than a Mosquito. Worse than a Me110C."

I find it difficult to belive that a P47 would out-turn a 190, and definately not a 110 who was known for notorious flat spins.

Maybe just me ....

[Crumpp]

but as it was prone for snap stalls, it was better not risking too much.

You should probably read the article.  It was not prone to snap stalls.  That is a myth come about from allied testing of FW-190's without properly adjusted ailerons.

All the best,

Crumpp

[DoKGonZo]

Here's the article: http://www.geocities.com/hlangebro/J22/EAAjanuary1999.pdf

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). This explained how the Fw didn't have the harsh stall characteristic at the same low speeds for landing approaches (what the USAAF tests reported).

The problem in AH as I see it (assuming the above analysis is right) is that the snap-stall kicks in even under low G's, with smooth control motions, at low speed - probably not enough to have onset the wing deformity, and certainly not an abrupt enough control input to snap the plane around. This could be tough for HT to model as it means that the wing's properties are different for different G loads. Maybe he already has this in there - dunno.

But if this problem could be fixed so the Fw didn't flop around like a spastic pidgeon at low speeds, and the acceleration could be looked at, I think the 190's would be much more competetive - crappy turn rates and all.

[Angus]

How does a stall snap in a flat turn relate to improperly adjusted ailerons?

[EagleDNY]

Originally posted by Widewing
You won't see a critique of that because they don't roll faster than any Fw 190...

Spitfire roll rates in degrees per second, based upon one 360 degree roll.



So, the standard wingspan Spitfires don't come anywhere near the 190s in roll rate. Moreover, while the Spit XVI rolls very fast, it still lags behind the 190s by a noteworthy margin.

My regards,

Widewing

Widewing,
  Appreciate the testing data - how do you measure the exact degree of roll per second?   I used a stopwatch myself during a cannon ROF experiment, but it was easy to see the ammo load and click when it was exhausted.  Are you doing a 360 roll and dividing it out or what?

EagleDNY  

[Widewing]

Originally posted by EagleDNY
Widewing,
  Appreciate the testing data - how do you measure the exact degree of roll per second?   I used a stopwatch myself during a cannon ROF experiment, but it was easy to see the ammo load and click when it was exhausted.  Are you doing a 360 roll and dividing it out or what?

EagleDNY  

I approached this with combat maneuvering in mind. This means that I test over a single 360 degree roll rather that measure sustained roll rate, which has much less meaning in combat. By testing using a single roll, you factor in roll acceleration too.

I would trim the airplane so it would fly straight and level hands-off. I then bang over the stick and time how long it takes completely around to level again. Note that I make no effort to stop the roll until well past level. I then divide 360 degrees by the time to obtain an average for the entire 360 degrees. Some aircraft suffer from a lot of adverse yaw, which tends to bleed speed faster. This will skew the data a bit. This test is best done offline using the F3 outside view.

There will be errors from test to test, which is why I do several tests and then average the results.

My regards,

Widewing

[Crumpp]

How does a stall snap in a flat turn relate to improperly adjusted ailerons?

The symptoms of improperly adjusted ailerons are excessive fluttering and reversal.  The fluttering causes all kinds of extra drag I would guess effectively putting on the brakes.  The reversal would cause the pilot suddenly input controls opposite of what was required to hold the turn.

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.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Debonair]

Originally posted by Crumpp
...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....

Is that all planes or just 190s?