190A5 vs 190A8

[BnZs]

i don't suppose you noted which stalled easier or first did you, since that is what we are discussing, it is also funny that you did not use the examples i put forward either.  
i'm wondering, did you need to look around for a while to find something you could try and use as a contradiction?  or did you immediately run out and test a plane i never mentioned in this thread for something i did not bring up as an issue.

i.e. i fail to see where i brought up recovery time at all in this thread, or the spit 16 for that matter.

The are equally easy to stall...all you have to do is haul all the way back on the stick below corner velocity. The 190 can be made to stall at higher speed because of a much higher wingloading of course. But the Spit, once you honk the stick back seems to do at least one complete snaproll even if you relax stick pressure instantly, while the 190 merely does a half-roll if you release stick pressure soon enough.

I think what you are really complaining about is the fact that the 190 does not match the turn performance of X plane you would like it to beat.

I tested Spit16 because it is called "easy mode noob plane"

[thorsim]

i assure i am "complaining" about what i have clearly stated in my observations ...

well you keep thinking, it is your time to waste after all ...

btw the problem is stalling while trying not to, i am pretty sure you used the opposite approach in your "testing" and that sort of makes your "findings" useless in this discussion ...

The are equally easy to stall...all you have to do is haul all the way back on the stick below corner velocity. The 190 can be made to stall at higher speed because of a much higher wingloading of course. But the Spit, once you honk the stick back seems to do at least one complete snaproll even if you relax stick pressure instantly, while the 190 merely does a half-roll if you release stick pressure soon enough.

I think what you are really complaining about is the fact that the 190 does not match the turn performance of X plane you would like it to beat.

[BnZs]

Okay, to put it succinctly: You say 190 behaves badly when pressed to it's limits, I say 190 does *not* behave particularly badly when pressed to its limit, albeit that limit comes at higher speed than with most planes.

P-51: Flips on its back when you honk it into the stall in AHII.

[thorsim]

no sir i have repeatedly said that the types behavior and limits mostly resemble one particular test done by the USN which is not in agreement with the vast majority of other tests done on the type and that the USN test admits to all sorts of anomalies that should exclude it from any serious consideration in regards to at least the 190 series data that test produced. 

personally a test that flawed should be completely ignored as it is on most serious BBS. 

i find it disturbing that the behavior of the 190s makes me think that that test is in fact the source of the performance/behavior code for the 190s in the games. 

btw what you are looking for i would think is the speeds and Gs at the stalls and rudder/stick work required to postpone the departure as long as possible.  not what the code tells the plane to do after a departure is initiated ...

does AH have a "HUDRECORD" command or something like it as WBs does?

not that you really need it, take any plane you want and you will clearly see the workload and performance differences, it is pretty obvious after all.   

Okay, to put it succinctly: You say 190 behaves badly when pressed to it's limits, I say 190 does *not* behave particularly badly when pressed to its limit, albeit that limit comes at higher speed than with most planes.

P-51: Flips on its back when you honk it into the stall in AHII.

[Krusty]

BnZs, you're comparing the P-51 to the 190 in snap stall capability? Almost every plane in the game can snap stall to some degree or another. That's not an issue, nor is it really a comparison, IMO.

In a level stall, or in a banking turn pulling a few Gs, the stalls are night and day. P51 mushes a lot more, 190 just drops a wing.

There really is a marked stall issue at play in the 190s. It's currently intentional on HTCs part.

I wouldn't mind seeing it "fixed" a bit, personally.

[WMLute]

i find it disturbing that the behavior of the 190s makes me think that that test is in fact the source of the performance/behavior code for the 190s in the games. 

you really need to get with someone that has a clue how to fly a FW to see what they are capable of.

what you can do in a FW vs. what someone that really knows that bird in AH are two totally diff. things.

give it another 6 months you will be amazed at what you can make that bird do.

[Die Hard]

The 190s were known to have bad departure characteristics. So was the P-51. The Spit and 109 were known to have benign departure characteristics and "float" in a stall. I'd say the game reflects these differences. I also don't think anyone alive today really knows for sure.

[Krusty]

You do realize that WW2 combat pilots are still alive today, right?

And that many planes were flown after the war for some time? And that some warbirds still exist today?

And that thousands of hours were spent on multiple planes testing every minute aspect of them, back in WW2 with expert pilots of the time, and that these pages of tests remain in existence to this day, right?


Just askin'....

[thorsim]

i thought the pony had a bad departure and some CSF issues but not a super abrupt one, also some serious lateral stability issues depending on the fuel state ...

the 190 had a quicker stall with less warning than the 109/spit but not a particularly bad stall characterized mostly by a wing drop ...
(my point is that there were warnings, less than the airframes that it was compared to, but certainly enough for pilots with experience in type to get used to and be able to manage, predict, and avoid not the "no warning stall" brown describes as that was his perception and others with more experience in type dispute his observation)

the 109 because of its slats had a very delayed and benign stall characterized by a nose drop until the speed came up again, by all accounts not much drama at all ...

the spitfire gave a lot of stall warning with tons of shudder before the stall which could be uneventful however it did have a very bad spin and that could be quite a problem if not corrected very early ...

that is what i have understood for a long time, feel free to correct or interject ...

and krusty is right there is a lot of stuff still to be learned about these things, you should all take the time to gather as much info as you are able, i am off to see Bill Gordon again tomorrow USN TBF ATO pilot ...

[thorsim]

definitely still getting the ins and outs of the game, but i can still tell which planes are more work than the others, the 190s are quite capable but they are a comparative handful as well, that does not correspond to most real world opinions of the type imo. 

you really need to get with someone that has a clue how to fly a FW to see what they are capable of.

what you can do in a FW vs. what someone that really knows that bird in AH are two totally diff. things.

give it another 6 months you will be amazed at what you can make that bird do.

[Die Hard]

You do realize that WW2 combat pilots are still alive today, right?

How many of them have flown both the Fw190 and P-51 so they can make an informed comparison? I know of one, but he didn't fly any of them operationally.

[Krusty]

A number flew both, but the point is that there are ample reports from each side's respective experts.

No need to find merely 1 expert who was skilled in both a P-51 and a Fw190, when you have mulitple experts' reports specific to only the 190 or only the p-51. You compare what they say, rather than relying on THEM to compare the planes for you.


Besides, we're not even really comparing those two planes. This more a discussion of the Fw190 and that was just an example thrown out.

[BaldEagl]

Too bad I wasted so much time reading this thread.

thorism, post some flight DATA to back up your claims.  Anecdotes (which are also absent from your posts) and your feelings about a plane just don't do it.  Do you really think AH is sitting in his office thinking "thorism must be right.  He's a 190 expert.  Pyro, change the 190 flight models ASAP."?

[Saurdaukar]

Wow did this thread take on a different direction.

[mtnman]

Too bad I wasted so much time reading this thread.

thorism, post some flight DATA to back up your claims.  Anecdotes (which are also absent from your posts) and your feelings about a plane just don't do it.  Do you really think AH is sitting in his office thinking "thorism must be right.  He's a 190 expert.  Pyro, change the 190 flight models ASAP."?

He doesn't work that way...

He expects you to prove him wrong, so he doesn't need to prove himself right.  If you can't (or don't feel like spending the time to) prove him wrong, then he must be right, right?

It's all opinions about opinions at this point.  And to back those opinions about opinions up, toss in an occasional plane "nickname" if it fits (notice the F4U was referred to as the "Ensign Eliminator" rather than the "Sweetheart of Okinawa").  If needed, refer to the pilots who didn't get the desired flight results as inexperienced in that type (but don't mention that the nickname used referred to inexperienced pilots not getting the desired results...)

The weight issue sounds like it may be valid, and proven.  I'm interested in that...