190A5 vs 190A8

[thorsim]

typical, resort to "post some data" when it has just been shown that the data is often flawed, in a game where we have undisclosed data "sources" that lead to FMs that are not supported by the vast majority of historic testing and it should be clear that even if the numbers are all known (which in the vast majority of cases is not the situation) that still leaves us with an incomplete "picture" of the flight character of a plane.

just to make a point, i am suspecting that those posts are DATA SOURCES and are part of the RAF's evaluation ...

a typical AH response from you, how about this, tell me the exact data correlation between increased BHP weight and performance in whatever plane you want i.e. i want to know the specific and all of the exact consequences of the changes.  find me some historic data that defines that exactly without using testing and POs. 

when you can't, i want you to ponder how much of the FMs are subjective and therefore how fundamentally important the testing and pilot opinions are to formulating a GOOD FM, as is the ability to judiciously and equitably qualify good sources of all kinds and get them to all agree so you get a clear "picture" of the FM. 

that means seeing through, and wanting to see through all the historic "fan boys" and "haters" for each type.

oh and as far as the weight of the 190 a8 goes that is intentionally impossible just as it is with the p-51D in the game because "for some reason" the specifics of the model is not specified ...

a person as interested in data as you profess to be should know that and never would have asked your question, unless your question is not really a question at all.  is that the case, are you just trying to undermine another persons point without making a point of your own???

Typical...

Post some data or stop luftwhining. Sounds like, feels like, pilot x said... ect... ect.... ect... are not hard DATA. If there is a weight issue, document it (with multiple sources if possible) and HTC will address it. They did so when the p-38g was to LIGHT. This was brought up by a 38 pilot who wanted an accurate model.

[Bronk]

And still more tap dace .... data luftwhiner.. post it.

[thorsim]

he did hater (posts 88-98) deal with it ...

BTW misquoting should be against the TOS, if it isn't already ...

And still more tap dace .... data luftwhiner.. post it.

[Angus]

typical, resort to "post some data" when it has just been shown that the data is often flawed, in a game where we have undisclosed data "sources" that lead to FMs that are not supported by the vast majority of historic testing and it should be clear that even if the numbers are all known (which in the vast majority of cases is not the situation) that still leaves us with an incomplete "picture" of the flight character of a plane.

just to make a point, i am suspecting that those posts are DATA SOURCES and are part of the RAF's evaluation ...

a typical AH response from you, how about this, tell me the exact data correlation between increased BHP weight and performance in whatever plane you want i.e. i want to know the specific and all of the exact consequences of the changes.  find me some historic data that defines that exactly without using testing and POs. 

when you can't, i want you to ponder how much of the FMs are subjective and therefore how fundamentally important the testing and pilot opinions are to formulating a GOOD FM, as is the ability to judiciously and equitably qualify good sources of all kinds and get them to all agree so you get a clear "picture" of the FM. 

that means seeing through, and wanting to see through all the historic "fan boys" and "haters" for each type.

oh and as far as the weight of the 190 a8 goes that is intentionally impossible just as it is with the p-51D in the game because "for some reason" the specifics of the model is not specified ...

a person as interested in data as you profess to be should know that and never would have asked your question, unless your question is not really a question at all.  is that the case, are you just trying to undermine another persons point without making a point of your own???

From what I know, the FM of the aircraft of AH is the closest and least debated with the aircraft with the most data available. Take the Spitfire and its testing for instance, which is very well documented, even online. AH is very close, and if anything, does not overdo the FM in the aircraft's favour.
Getting equal data, such as climb and speed charts for every model of say the 109 and the 190 seems to be much more difficult. I do have a copy of a 109G6 tested in 1944, and unless the AH FM has been changed recently, the AH FM tops the chart, but stays very close. Will have to test again, now won't I
I have no proper chart over the 109F, nor have I ever managed to get one. Nor over the 190.
So, - hence the term "luftwhiner". Just bring a solid test chart of a combat loaded 190A8 and post it and compare to the AH chart. Would save a wall of text....
Something like this:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a5.html

[Charge]

"when you can't, i want you to ponder how much of the FMs are subjective and therefore how fundamentally important the testing and pilot opinions are to formulating a GOOD FM, as is the ability to judiciously and equitably qualify good sources of all kinds and get them to all agree so you get a clear "picture" of the FM. "

Well, I think you have a point there Thor -sort of.

 The problem is that there is no way of knowing if the models in AH match exactly their real life counterparts in all aspects. The anecdotes could give a clue but they have no scientific basis, they are just subjective observations. It could also be that even if the model matches the RL performance figures in climb and level speed without additional fiddling with model properties the maneuverability could still be different to that IRL (uh oh...). I'm quite sure that if you fly 190A8 in various flight sims you may notice that its performance feels different and I'm sure every programmer stands behind his code to be sufficiently accurate in presenting the RL flight model.

It just needs to be accepted that this is the HTC:s view of how those planes actually flew, and most importantly the majority of the player base accepts it too, so nothing is going to be "reviewed" or "changed" in 190A8's case.

***

Interesting that In MA I have noticed that people like to pick them away first in many vs. many since they are easy targets and because of their guns they are too dangerous to be left alive. Does that sound like it's an unmaneuverable steady brick with big guns? 

***

"I do have a copy of a 109G6 tested in 1944, and unless the AH FM has been changed recently, the AH FM tops the chart, but stays very close. Will have to test again, now won't I"

Absolutely, and after you have done it please post your results for us all to see, please. 

-C+

[Motherland]

he did hater (posts 88-98) deal with it ...

Nothing in posts 88-98 is significantly different than our 190. Other than our 190 can take off without flaps.

[Stoney]

typical, resort to "post some data" when it has just been shown that the data is often flawed, in a game where we have undisclosed data "sources" that lead to FMs that are not supported by the vast majority of historic testing and it should be clear that even if the numbers are all known (which in the vast majority of cases is not the situation) that still leaves us with an incomplete "picture" of the flight character of a plane.

just to make a point, i am suspecting that those posts are DATA SOURCES and are part of the RAF's evaluation ...

a typical AH response from you, how about this, tell me the exact data correlation between increased BHP weight and performance in whatever plane you want i.e. i want to know the specific and all of the exact consequences of the changes.  find me some historic data that defines that exactly without using testing and POs. 

when you can't, i want you to ponder how much of the FMs are subjective and therefore how fundamentally important the testing and pilot opinions are to formulating a GOOD FM, as is the ability to judiciously and equitably qualify good sources of all kinds and get them to all agree so you get a clear "picture" of the FM. 

that means seeing through, and wanting to see through all the historic "fan boys" and "haters" for each type.

oh and as far as the weight of the 190 a8 goes that is intentionally impossible just as it is with the p-51D in the game because "for some reason" the specifics of the model is not specified ...

a person as interested in data as you profess to be should know that and never would have asked your question, unless your question is not really a question at all.  is that the case, are you just trying to undermine another persons point without making a point of your own???

First, it seems as though you assume that HTC is playing fast with the numbers.  The performance of these planes is determined by formulas.  These formulas are the same for each aircraft.  So, perhaps there are some things that are not modeled with 100% fidelity, but they affect the entire planeset equally.  Your argument that lack of data to compare to is valid.  But...

A lot of the flight "tests" of the era did not result in "data".  Most of the reason Brown is so often criticized is his use of anecdotal comparisons between aircraft.  "The Spitfire turns better than the 109...etc.".  He doesn't list numbers, just his opinions.  A lot of the fight test documents of the era are similar.  While I think everyone will appreciate Brown's experience flying all those different aircraft, to simply accept his comparisons carte blanche is foolish, from a historical perspective.  

In 1942, when the 190 was introduced, it was an intimidating aircraft to the RAF.  It outclassed the Spits in use at that time in almost every category except turn performance, which was obviously an overrated characteristic anyway.  Just because you can't go 1v1 with a Spit 9 in a low-altitude knife-fight doesn't mean that the 190 performance in game is porked.

[thorsim]

yes but the germans and the soviets both considered the 190 a superior turning aircraft ...

i am not suggesting anything, i am pointing out that in a lot of ways the subjective aspects of the 190 FMs not only do not reflect the majority of tests and opinions but in fact are most in line with the worst example/s of the enemy combatant tests and opinions.  

for example the RAF match up findings posted in this thread significantly different than the set in AH ...

so here again it comes down to subjectivity and once again i am pointing out that the handling (to a very large extent) and the turning ability in the game do not reflect the majority of published tests and opinions on the type.

fyi the flight tests all resulted in data, they just might not be the easily plugged in numbers we all hope for.  hence my point about subjectivity ...

you have reached success with a FM when the vast majority of the best sources that you have deemed quality concur with the FM in the game.  that is not the case with the 190s

First, it seems as though you assume that HTC is playing fast with the numbers.  The performance of these planes is determined by formulas.  These formulas are the same for each aircraft.  So, perhaps there are some things that are not modeled with 100% fidelity, but they affect the entire planeset equally.  Your argument that lack of data to compare to is valid.  But...

A lot of the flight "tests" of the era did not result in "data".  Most of the reason Brown is so often criticized is his use of anecdotal comparisons between aircraft.  "The Spitfire turns better than the 109...etc.".  He doesn't list numbers, just his opinions.  A lot of the fight test documents of the era are similar.  While I think everyone will appreciate Brown's experience flying all those different aircraft, to simply accept his comparisons carte blanche is foolish, from a historical perspective.  

In 1942, when the 190 was introduced, it was an intimidating aircraft to the RAF.  It outclassed the Spits in use at that time in almost every category except turn performance, which was obviously an overrated characteristic anyway.  Just because you can't go 1v1 with a Spit 9 in a low-altitude knife-fight doesn't mean that the 190 performance in game is porked.

take offs are admittedly easier in AH than TRW for playability reasons. 

FYI that test has an at best simplistic view of the flap system of the 190s at worst it is just flat out wrong, hard to tell which from what is there though ...

Nothing in posts 88-98 is significantly different than our 190. Other than our 190 can take off without flaps.

From what I know, the FM of the aircraft of AH is the closest and least debated with the aircraft with the most data available. Take the Spitfire and its testing for instance, which is very well documented, even online. AH is very close, and if anything, does not overdo the FM in the aircraft's favour.
Getting equal data, such as climb and speed charts for every model of say the 109 and the 190 seems to be much more difficult. I do have a copy of a 109G6 tested in 1944, and unless the AH FM has been changed recently, the AH FM tops the chart, but stays very close. Will have to test again, now won't I
I have no proper chart over the 109F, nor have I ever managed to get one. Nor over the 190.
So, - hence the term "luftwhiner". Just bring a solid test chart of a combat loaded 190A8 and post it and compare to the AH chart. Would save a wall of text....
Something like this:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a5.html

  

[Charge]

"Just because you can't go 1v1 with a Spit 9 in a low-altitude knife-fight doesn't mean that the 190 performance in game is porked."

For some strange reason I'd think that that was a rather equal fight IRL...  

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/spit.html

"Other than our 190 can take off without flaps."

It could IRL too. From the video of Flugwerke 190 you can see that it can be pulled airborne from a three pointer with with none or some flaps, so there is plenty of reserve. Does HTC 190 take off from a three pointer with some flaps?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGSxosU9N5c&feature=related

Looks pretty effortless.

-C+

[Bronk]

yes but the germans and the soviets both considered the 190 a superior turning aircraft ...



 

Turning???? Little vague no?
Hi speed.... low speed... instantaneous... sustained.

Specifics boyo.

[thorsim]

germans said any alt any speed of course they included the roll in the process after all they were pragmatic those germans.

Turning???? Little vague no?
Hi speed.... low speed... instantaneous... sustained.

Specifics boyo.

[Bronk]

germans said any alt any speed of course they included the roll in the process after all they were pragmatic those germans.

I'm sure you will now post the DATA to back up this claim. Like you have so often done in the past.
Correct me if I'm wrong and I may be.
The FW 190 a8 is heavier and has less wing area than say a Mk IX spit. Equipped a merlin 66 the Mk IX has about the same HP.  Please explain how a higher wing loaded plane with = HP gets around a circle quicker?

[Charge]

"Equipped a merlin 66 the Mk IX has about the same HP."

Also the altitude affects this since at low alt the 190 has the edge on power output...

-C+

[Bronk]

"Equipped a merlin 66 the Mk IX has about the same HP."

Also the altitude affects this since at low alt the 190 has the edge on power output...

-C+

Charge what's the hp at the alt you are talking about... just so we can nail this down.

Ohh and that is a far cry from "any alt  any speed" no?

[thorsim]

i've posted about data mining and board attitudes before, the information is very public why don't you go find it yourself  ...

or i tell you what, i will post a copy of the quote which includes reference to the source document and you promise to quit harassing me about data from now on and for forever ...

otherwise you will just have to trust me.  

I'm sure you will now post the DATA to back up this claim. Like you have so often done in the past.
Correct me if I'm wrong and I may be.
The FW 190 a8 is heavier and has less wing area than say a Mk IX spit. Equipped a merlin 66 the Mk IX has about the same HP.  Please explain how a higher wing loaded plane with = HP gets around a circle quicker?