Fw190A8's speed/climb

[BnZ]

Charge:

Things we must take into account:

1. These guys were generally taught that "Speed is Life".

2. When the planes are above corner speed, assuming neither airplane has control issues at high speeds, the pilot who can stand the most Gs is the one who can turn tightest. And they didn't have G suits.

3. We don't mind pulling Gs at all except for the narrowing of our views, but the threshold where they start to become highly uncomfortable (I've heard) is around 4.  If we were to call 4 or 5 Gs our "corner speed" instead of 6, that lowers the speed threshold where a Pony, La5 or FW190 all turn about the same even further.

"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 think the famous turning circle drawing derived from British tests can be found somewhere at Spitfireperformance.com. It places the 109, Jug, and 190 in roughly the same range, with the Pony turning tighter than all 3. You can also find there a report comparing the F6F and F4U to the FW190 and concluding the former turn much tighter.

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

Fascinating. British testing concludes that the 109 and FW are about equal and the Pony is better than either. Italian testing concludes the 190 is a better turner than the 109. German testing concludes the opposite. I can't help but wonder just what the heck is going on here...

[Charge]

Stoney, in case you did not read the whole thread, I wrote earlier: "Lednicher article does not help much with this because it leaves out the effects of cooling entrance and propeller effects."

So I do have it.    While a very interesting article it still lacks detail and some wrong pictures do not really help.

"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."

This is the feature I'm very interested of. Does it really happen that way in high speed or does it happen so that a plane with a bigger wing, while pulling less AoA to achieve same Gs, actually still creates more drag area and thus slowing it down more quickly than a plane with a smaller wing with more AoA would?

"In aviation, induced drag tends to be greater at lower speeds because a high angle of attack is required to maintain lift, creating more drag. However, as speed increases the induced drag becomes much less, but parasitic drag increases because the fluid is flowing faster around protruding objects increasing friction or drag."

IE. the more wing area the more parasitic drag (among other forms of drag), and in high speed any AoA will add to that.

It may well be that FW with its weight/power/wingloading ran out of the usable speed range in which it still could maneuver efficiently but I'm not very convinced that it did happen. We could claim that the first versions of FW were designed with just enough wing-area to make it competitive (or slightly inferior) to contemporary fighters in 1939 and that in five years it ran out of its potential due to increased weight, BUT why did they keep such a small wing with Ta152C? (NOTE: FW190 196.5 sqf vs Ta152C 210.9 sqf and 250.7 sqf H-models.) 

***

BnZ, your G summary is interesting but I do not see how it would give answer to my "G-story" in which I pointed out that there is something odd with either 190 or LA7, considering that my observation was correct. On the other hand it may well be caused by simply lag in my end, but that was not the only time it has happened.

"I think the famous turning circle drawing derived from British tests can be found somewhere at Spitfireperformance .com. It places the 109, Jug, and 190 in roughly the same range, with the Pony turning tighter than all 3. You can also find there a report comparing the F6F and F4U to the FW190 and concluding the former turn much tighter."

I have seen them both. The picture and report is so general that it probably has more propaganda value than scientific value. The US test of F4U, F6F and FW190 does not tell you exactly how the turning comparison was made so I assume that it favored the US planes too much ie. slow speed stall turns.

"I can't help but wonder just what the heck is going on here..."

Well, I agree. Most people have made up their minds and decided what is fact and what is not. I haven't. This is a very interesting and complicated subject IMO.

-C+

[RRAM]

All first accounts I've read of pilots who flew the 190 say the plane was very maneouverable, an exceptional dogfighter and a superb fighter plane overall. Keeping in mind its high Corner Velocity (around 220mph) compared with other planes, the turning at speeds at, or a bit over that speed could be better than other fighters with much lower CV. The 190 posessed a very good initial turnrate according to all accounts. The fact that the plane could bank and start turning almost instantly (while other planes spent more time banking into the turn), combined with the avobe-mentioned initial turnrate could also compensate for the high wingloading and make the plane a much better close quarters fighter ,compared with other lower wingloaded fighters, than what one would expect initially. I'm not surprised about account of both the Fw190 outturning 109s, while other accounts say otherwise. It all should depend on the speeds involved.

The key here is that those attributes lasted as long as the speed was near the corner velocity. Under it the 190's high wingloading prevailed, giving the Fw the bad traits most pilots of AH hate on it. One of the things I've always wondered about the 190 was not its turning ability, but it's E-retention, and it is because I have no real life data to base on. So, having nothing to compare it with, as it is in AH, I'm happy with it right now.

From my own limited experience in the plane in AH I find the plane very maneouverable at speeds over 200mph. I love it's abilities and I find that as long as I stay at or over those speeds bassically nothing will catch me unless I do something very stupid. Conversely if I'm in someone's six I know he won't be able to shake me off unless he manages to stay alive until he has bled me of most of my speed (and usually I break off earlier than that). When at under 200mph its a whole different world, and I don't know if that's very accurate or not. I, personally, think it is accurate.

Regarding turn-rates ,etc,and to discuss them we would need real life data, and not just subjective accounts, of the fw190's turning performances at different speeds...or even better an EM chart made out of real life reports. Until we don't have as a base to compare the plane with,  I trust 100% HTC's representation of the plane's turning performances in game.


BTW, and back to the topic...any more info regarding the 190A8's top speed is still welcome . I'll add a bit myself with this chart:

http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/albums/Fw190_Graphs/fw190g8_climb.jpg

Fw190G8's top speed with center and wing racks: 566km/h or 351,6mph@SL. Even without the nose mounted weapons, the wing racks should add a decent deal of drag, yet the plane has even a better top speed than a Fw190A8 in Aces High with the same engine settings. Which again, points out a higher SL speed for the Fw190A8 and validates even more the chart I posted first.

[BaDkaRmA158Th]

Drain the rear tank, and she will become that fighter you seek.

[Xasthur]

I have always thought that the 190s are seriously porked in AH. The stalling behaviour seems over sensitive and the lack of ability to turn is over done. The 190 was no turn fighter, I know that and don't want it to be. It just seems that it is not the feared and much praised aircraft that it was.

Thanks for posting this information, guys, perhaps we can have them looked at.

[DoNKeY]

Drain the rear tank, and she will become that fighter you seek.

Does that help a lot, or just enough to be noticeable?

donkey

[Stoney]

Stoney, in case you did not read the whole thread, I wrote earlier: "Lednicher article does not help much with this because it leaves out the effects of cooling entrance and propeller effects."

I did read it from the beginning, but apparently forgot you wrote that.  I do have 2 separate Lednicer articles, both of which include the 190.  You may have both.

So I do have it.    While a very interesting article it still lacks detail and some wrong pictures do not really help.

  Well, it talks about the wingloading, wing geometry, coefficients of lift, etc.  What would engine cooling and prop effects have to do with the aerodynamic advantages of the smaller wing?

"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."

This is the feature I'm very interested of. Does it really happen that way in high speed or does it happen so that a plane with a bigger wing, while pulling less AoA to achieve same Gs, actually still creates more drag area and thus slowing it down more quickly than a plane with a smaller wing with more AoA would?

I've got some equations for instantaneous and sustained turn rates.  They're fairly complicated and would take some time, but would not be impossible to complete.  I don't know if we have the data required for them, but I could take a look.  If hard turning isn't a requirement, using a small wing would be ideal, but there are more issues out there.  Prop efficiency, power curves for the engine, etc. if you're talking about why isn't it faster, etc.

It may well be that FW with its weight/power/wingloading ran out of the usable speed range in which it still could maneuver efficiently but I'm not very convinced that it did happen. We could claim that the first versions of FW were designed with just enough wing-area to make it competitive (or slightly inferior) to contemporary fighters in 1939 and that in five years it ran out of its potential due to increased weight, BUT why did they keep such a small wing with Ta152C? (NOTE: FW190 196.5 sqf vs Ta152C 210.9 sqf and 250.7 sqf H-models.)

An excellent question.  Surely there's some resource that can speak to this? 
[/quote]

[Stoney]

It just seems that it is not the feared and much praised aircraft that it was.

That may depend on whether or not its the 1942 fear and praise or the 1945 fear and praise.

[mg1942]

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+

ummm didn't Fw 190s had Formula-1 car style seating position?

I guess that might explain why FW pilots do not experience black outs earlier compare to other planes

[Motherland]

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

The 190 has much better high speed handling than the 109 and handily out rolls both, which earned it the description of 'nimble'. The handily out-rolling part that is.

BTW, I find myself often out-turning spitfires at medium to high speeds, only once it gets slow do I seem to have trouble.

[Hajo]

RAM   in Air Warrior and when I started in Aces High somehwere around 8 to 9 years ago I always flew the 190.

RAM....if you would (this is my opinion of FM)  try the A8 with the 4x20mm option and then try the 2X30mm and 2X20mm.

I feel that when flying the 2X30mm and 2X20mm option the ingame FM appears to be a 190A8/R8 FM.

When I fly the 4X20mm configuration it handles better and is more nimble.
Anyone else of that opinion?

[RRAM]

Since I came back to AH, I've never flown a Fw190A8 with anything other than 4x20mms...so I can't say anything about the differences between configurations.

[Xasthur]

I always take the Mk 108 load-out because I feel that the 4 x 20mm load-out is severely underpowered.

The Mk 108 load-out allows me to get snapshots from 400+ which result in instant disabling of the target aircraft, thus I can stay faster and not blow my E saddling for that extra firing time I seem to need with the 4 x 20 mm

The difference between the C-hog's cannons and the 190 A8's 4 x 20mm load is out of sight.

[Serenity]

I always take the Mk 108 load-out because I feel that the 4 x 20mm load-out is severely underpowered.

Xasthur... welcome to the world of Bf-109 pilots. How do you think I feel in my Bf-109G6? Keep in mind, I NEVER take Gondolas.

[straffo]

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.

you wrote that or your lawyer ?