Fw190A8's speed/climb

[RRAM]

First of all, and before anything. I beg all of you to **please** keep this civil. I don't want nor mean to start one of the traditional LW fanboys vs Allied fanboys flamefest. I just want to start an honest, informative and civil thread about something I've wondered about the Fw190A8 for some time. I'm going to stick to the facts, and let any feelings out.

And also before anything else: You all know the Fw190 is my favorite plane of choice, but I'm not trying to get any changes to the FM of any Fw190 in the game unless the facts back up the need for said changes. I insist, please don't turn this thread into a flamefest. And this goes for those posters who are on the LW side, as those who dislike their planes. PLease, keep this civil.

I also want to say beforehand that I'm not trying to put any pressure on HTC with this information and thread, and, I'll say it clearly, I do not think any Luftwaffe planes are unfairly treated or modelled into the game. I just have some information that doesn't match the game data, and I want to share it so it can be discussed and, if it's enough information and proof for HTC/Pyro to change the FM of a certain plane (which I openly say it's THEIR Decision, data or not data ) maybe included into Aces High.

First of all I'll present you this data:




which is a standard Fw190A8 graph showing the speed curves and climbrates at several altitudes. As you might see in the chart header the top-performance curves are listed for a Fw190A8 under 1.42 ata and 2700rpm and a standard load of weapons/ammo. This kinds of charts are done for normal takeoff weight (100% fuel, and all the other weights taken in account), meaning it's graphs should be directly comparable to those of HTC (unless I'm told otherwise I think the graphs are for full fuel/weapon&ammo loads)

No ETC rack is listed so the graphs are for clean A8s.


now I'll put here the official Fw190A8's chart from HTC's website:



The curves themselves show also the plane performances with the standard erhohte notleistung (C3 injection) fitted into all serial production Fw190A8 and present in ACes High (1.58ata/2700rp with low blower, 1.65ata/2700rpm with high blower).

I'm going to write only about the Sea Level performances for now. Mostly because I want to see how the thread develops. If a flamefest ensues (by any side), I won't bother writting more about this.


So, let's start with the climbrate. With the standard emergency power (1.42 ata) the plane climbs 16m/s@SL, which tranlated into fpm it's 3150fpm. With erhohte notleistung, it's 18m/s, translated into fmp it's 3540fpm.

The in-game chart shows around 3400fpm. This seems to point out a loss of 140fpm climb performance from the Fw charts. Lose of climbrate means also a lower acceleration, so we should assume the in-game Fw190A8 has a slighly worse acceleration than the Fw190 listed in the Fw chart. It's not a big impact in game (is a slight difference at least), but it's there.


About speeds we can also compare both graphics. The Fw's chart shows a speed of around 578km/h at sea level, which translated into mph it's 359mph.

As we can see AH's Fw190A8's top speed is listed as 350mph at sea level. So 9mph lower than what the Fw's chart shows. Unlike the climbrate performance, this 9mph can be enough to save your life or not when in game.

I would like to hear from anybody if there is any reason why AH's Fw190A8 has this different performance from what the historic charts show that escapes my mind .

Thanks for reading, and please keep it civil.

[Lumpy]

I don't know what data HTC has used for the A-8, but it flies like a "Sturm" 190 loaded down with armor. Even without the wing guns it is just like flying a brick, unlike the A-5. Subjective I know, but there it is.

[RRAM]

I fly the A-8 a lot, and got to disagree. It feels fine, and compared with the one in AH1 I think it has a better speed retention and overall a better "Feeling"..

I do not agree it flies like a brick. As long as you keep the plane over 230-240mph, it's very maneouverable. And packs quite a punch.

All I wonder about is why the difference between the real life data, and the AH's one, nothing else.

[DarkglamJG52]

Hola RAMona :-) 190 dweeb.

[passssao]

all in all, I don't think a small diference as 130fpm can be a decisive point, in fact, if you load the external mg151 you will loose about 250 fpm.
Watching at the graphicals, almost the shape of the curve is in very high fidelity.
190s are a very good plane in a multiplane engagement, with several planes in each side, and a poor plane in an one Vs one fight.
AH planes are very near to reality in perfomance, perhaps not the most, but they don't differ from much, talking about a 3% in speed is not much, in a real plane, engine tolerances and usage can do this diference in perfomance much bigger.

as someone stated before, you have asked many times to improve the 190,� are you from bilbao?

Salute all, Pasao

[Charge]

"I would like to hear from anybody if there is any reason why AH's Fw190A8 has this different performance from what the historic charts show that escapes my mind."

Because HTC has different data?

Strange that the weight is listed 4300kg and the same chart but without GM1 lists the same weight as does the one with R2 configuration (also listing a very minor drag penalty).

I thought the GM1 would add at least 100kg to weight and the R2 (2xMK108) even more yet the performance only reduces by 2-3mph for R2?

According to chart I have (190.801-132 date 25.10 -44) the deck speed for A8 fighter is 350mph.

So it seems that in HTC has used the latest data, not the best. I'm sure that policy is same with all the planes.

***

What I have wondered is the energy retention of 190 -or rather the lack of it. I have read one analysis which stated that "with its small wing the 190 like to go fast and stay there" referring to good maneuverability and low drag in high speed when compared to planes with larger wings. I have understood that it could also be G loaded more due to this feature. In AH it feels there is no aerodynamic advantage of the small wing. It seems that even in high speed you need to compensate the size of the wings with more AoA than the opposing plane thus creating more drag and slowing you down more rapidly.

If you observe the engine installation of LA-5 and FW190 you may notice that there is no similar exit for the hot cooling air in 190 as there is for LA-5 which has big gills on the sides of engine. The cooling louvers in later models are still very small and they do not seem to have any controllable surfaces. It seems that in general when radiators are closed the air deflects away from the front opening so opening the radiator increases the drag, so it makes me wonder what is it on 190's design that is considered draggy, or more draggy than any other a/c? I'm not sure if the radials actually have the advantage of having the propeller distracting the air flow before it enters the cooling stage? Lednicher article does not help much with this because it leaves out the effects of cooling entrance and propeller effects.

-C+

[Stoney]

What I have wondered is the energy retention of 190 -or rather the lack of it. I have read one analysis which stated that "with its small wing the 190 like to go fast and stay there" referring to good maneuverability and low drag in high speed when compared to planes with larger wings. I have understood that it could also be G loaded more due to this feature. In AH it feels there is no aerodynamic advantage of the small wing. It seems that even in high speed you need to compensate the size of the wings with more AoA than the opposing plane thus creating more drag and slowing you down more rapidly.
-C+

What aerodynamic advantage would you expect with the smaller wing?

[RRAM]

"I would like to hear from anybody if there is any reason why AH's Fw190A8 has this different performance from what the historic charts show that escapes my mind."

Because HTC has different data?

Strange that the weight is listed 4300kg and the same chart but without GM1 lists the same weight as does the one with R2 configuration (also listing a very minor drag penalty).

I thought the GM1 would add at least 100kg to weight and the R2 (2xMK108) even more yet the performance only reduces by 2-3mph for R2?

According to chart I have (190.801-132 date 25.10 -44) the deck speed for A8 fighter is 350mph.

Charge, does that last chart you're speaking of list the plane with the ETC centerline rack mounted on?

I ask because after looking at further information I think that the "clean" Fw190A8's performance in AH matches that of a Fw190A8 with ETC501 rack on - the ETC caused some 7.5mph speed loss@Sea Level. May it be that the Fw190A8 even when not loaded with DT or a Bomb does take in account the drag of the bomb rack?. I know it was not strange for the Fw190A8 fleet to fly with the ETC rack even in those sorties where it was not used, because the rack had a positive effect on the CoG of the plane...so maybe AH models the rack as "always on" no matter the loadout selected in hangar.

That could explain the performance loss from the chart I posted. But if that's the case, then IMO, the graphics of the plane in-game should show the rack always mounted...

It's just a theory, but this can be it.

[Karnak]

Selecting performance data for most WWII aircraft is difficult.  There is often contradictory data, missing data and, often, language barriers.  Getting something as tested as a P-51 or Spitfire seems very hard to me, things like C.205s and Ki-84s nigh unfathomable.

I did a lot of work trying to gather data for the Mosquito VI performance and I'll tell you, it is a very frusterating, quite expensive endeavor.  For example, for the longest time I could not find a single chart or test that had the Mosquito VI's initial climb at anything over 2,000fpm, let alone HTC's Mossie VI's ~3,500fpm.  Now the wieght and powerloading strongly suggested HTC was right, but no test I have a hardcopy of listed anything near that.  Eventually I came across a single document of combat tests of the FB.VI Series 2 in which that climb rate was described, just as we have it in AH, but for years I was playing with a Mossie I suspected climbed like a fighter when it should have climbed like a Ki-67.  HTC was right, I just hadn't found the document.  Another Mossie example: roll rate.  I have never found anything other than pilot anecdotes about the Mossie's roll rate.  The best data I have ever found for roll rate have simply been videos and films of Mossies in flight, particularly at airshows.


As HTC keeps their sources to themselves, it is very hard to know which dataset they are using, or why.  I know Pyro has a copy of the best Mossie book in my library only because he said he'd ordered a copy, but I have no idea what other resources they have for Mosquitoes.

(I am not trying to turn an Fw190A-8 thread into a Mossie thread, I simply have more experience in Mossie research than I do for any other aircraft vis-a-vis flight performance, so I used it as my example)

[DPQ5]

lol the 190A8 could out turn a mustang, in this game it cant out turn a rock

just saying

[RRAM]

lol the 190A8 could out turn a mustang, in this game it cant out turn a rock

just saying

This is exactly the kind of answers I was NOT looking to get. Firstly because the thread is not discussing Fw190's turn-rate, secondly because what you said is highly debatable because it depended on airspeed and situation.

And anyway if you are trying to out-turn anything in the Fw190 you're flying the plane the wrong way.

Said that, please keep the thread in topic.



Karnak, I know there is a lot of performance data on WWII planes, but that graph I posted is not the only one listing a speed of around 580km/h at SL for the Fw190...just wondering about the speed loss seen in the game, not putting HTC's numbers in doubt. There must be a reason why the 190 is slower at sea level than what the charts I talk about say, and I'd want to know it, nothing else.

I've flown the mossie in the MA, BTW. Pretty nice plane for attack sorties .

[BnZ]

I saw the episode of "Dogfights" where they said the 190A8 could out-turn a P-51 too .

The writers must have gotten "roll" confused with "turn" somwhere along the line. The planes relative wingloading would seem to say "no" and testing done at the time bears this out.

[DPQ5]

This is exactly the kind of answers I was NOT looking to get. Firstly because the thread is not discussing Fw190's turn-rate, secondly because what you said is highly debatable because it depended on airspeed and situation.

And anyway if you are trying to out-turn anything in the Fw190 you're flying the plane the wrong way.

Said that, please keep the thread in topic.



Karnak, I know there is a lot of performance data on WWII planes, but that graph I posted is not the only one listing a speed of around 580km/h at SL for the Fw190...just wondering about the speed loss seen in the game, not putting HTC's numbers in doubt. There must be a reason why the 190 is slower at sea level than what the charts I talk about say, and I'd want to know it, nothing else.

I've flown the mossie in the MA, BTW. Pretty nice plane for attack sorties .

need to just accept blabbering idiots such a me making posts, at lest i kept the 190a8 part right

[Charge]

"Charge, does that last chart you're speaking of list the plane with the ETC centerline rack mounted on?"

The chart I have says "without ETC 501" (a translated one). Also another chart I have suggests 556km/h on the deck with 2700 rpm.

"What aerodynamic advantage would you expect with the smaller wing?"

Lower drag, lower drag in turns with high speed, better structural G tolerance (lower span-wise loads on wings), good roll rate.

"I saw the episode of "Dogfights" where they said the 190A8 could out-turn a P-51 too"

Since some of you people seem to be very interested in relative turn performance there are some anecdotal evidence that suggest that FW was indeed a competitive turner in certain circumstances. Of course "a turn" and "turn performance testing" is a very relative term and usually in flight tests of FW it is not defined exactly "how" the turn performance is tested.

Luftwaffe guncams: In one famous compilation there is an alleged A7 handily out-turning a P-47 which pulls so hard that contrails come out of its wings.
At 06:10 time, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZOb0vx9y9I&feature=related, you notice that FW is even able to pull lead (now if it even IS FW190...).

Russian report of LA5 vs Fw190:

"If a frontal attack of an FW-190 should fail the pilot usually attempts to change the attacks into a turning engagement. Being very stable and having a large range of speeds, the FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed. Our Lavochkin-5 may freely take up the challenge, if the pilot uses the elevator tabs correctly. By using your foot to hold the plane from falling into a tail spin you can turn the La-5 at an exceedingly low speed, thus keeping the FW from getting on your tail."

Now is this WTF or what? "keeping the FW from getting on your tail" Not "handily out turning" but "keep from getting to your tail". Considering other BS on that report I put little value on that statement but it is interesting anyway.

Italian testing of 205 vs other planes IIRC they concluded that FW is as manuverable as 205 where as 109 is worse.

A story of a Spitfire pilot who's flight gets scattered by 190s and finds himself pulling so many Gs that he is blacking out and finds a 190 "gaining" on him (catching, pulling lead?). Considering the worse pilot position in Spit it is possible that the pilot experienced the G effects earlier than the FW jock. So that situation does not have much to do with relative turning performance other than the FW could turn with Spitty on that one. I saw the story years ago but I haven't found it since. I'm not sure if it was a story by Brown or Johnson but IIRC it was one of those famous Spit pilots.

"The writers must have gotten "roll" confused with "turn" somwhere along the line. The planes relative wingloading would seem to say "no" and testing done at the time bears this out."

You also need to consider wing profile effects on AoA and drag/lift. FW and Pony have different NACA profiles which affect their turning ability in certain situations. You could also point me to location where to find tests between FW190 and P51.

I'm not claiming that 190 should be a stellar turner but there are anecdotes telling that in some situations it could compete.

***

There was a strange situation when I was trailing a fast LA7 and not able to gain on him when he starts a pull to the right low. We go so fast that while I try to follow him I black out almost instantly and commence the lag turn just keeping him in sight through tunnel vision in a high G turn. Well the bugger turns much more sharply than me 180 degrees and heads back to where he came from leaving me handily behind and I can't catch him anymore. Assuming my story to be accurate enough he could pull more Gs than I could with same speed and while I could, and had to, keep my energy because I could not pull any more in fear of G-lock he made a sharper turn and still came out of it with more energy to get away. That was a "WTF" situation for me. That LA was not experiencing the same G loading that I was and that should have been the deciding factor, not the turn perfomance. Now if I "fall through" a turn I'm actually experiencing less Gs than the one not "falling through" so in any way the LA should not be able to pull more Gs and not got away if he cut the throttle and I held my energy through that turn. I've played this game for 6-7 years now and I can tell when people fly their planes so that I cannot and I can give credit that many do, but I also think that I can tell when planes fly in a "strange" manner. I'm not sure of what actually happened in that situation but it seemed very strange.

-C+

[Stoney]

Lower drag, lower drag in turns with high speed, better structural G tolerance (lower span-wise loads on wings), good roll rate.

Given the higher wingloading, it should have to turn at a higher Coefficient of Lift than a plane of similar weight with more wing area, thus, more profile drag as a result.  Furthermore, induced drag due to low aspect ratio would also be higher than a comparison aircraft.  G-tolerance is a structural advantage .  Agreed on lower friction drag due to smaller wing, and roll rate with the shorter aileron moment arm.  Only the lower friction drag would be an "aerodynamic" advantage, if I've done my reading right.  Lednicer has a good report that compares the 190A and D with the P-51 and Spit, and has a lot of interesting aerodynamic information.  PM your email and I'll send it to you.