190A5 vs 190A8

[Baumer]

PJ is correct I use it from wiki after comparing it to a couple of aerodynamics books I have. Unlike you guys I don't remember all this stuff and have to look it up frequently!

from wiki link that PJ posted;

"Effect on turning performance"

To turn, an aircraft must roll in the direction of the turn, increasing the aircraft's bank angle. Turning flight lowers the wing's lift component against gravity and hence causes a descent. To compensate, the lift force must be increased by increasing the angle of attack by use of up elevator deflection which increases drag. Turning can be described as 'climbing around a circle' (wing lift is diverted to turning the aircraft) so the increase in wing angle of attack creates even more drag. The tighter the turn radius attempted, the more drag induced, this requires that power (thrust) be added to overcome the drag. The maximum rate of turn possible for a given aircraft design is limited by its wing size and available engine power: the maximum turn the aircraft can achieve and hold is its sustained turn performance. As the bank angle increases so does the g-force applied to the aircraft, this has the effect of increasing the wing loading and also the stalling speed. This effect is also experienced during level pitching manouevers. [8]

Aircraft with low wing loadings tend to have superior sustained turn performance because they can generate more lift for a given quantity of engine thrust. The immediate bank angle an aircraft can achieve before drag seriously bleeds off airspeed is known as its instantaneous turn performance. An aircraft with a small, highly loaded wing may have superior instantaneous turn performance, but poor sustained turn performance: it reacts quickly to control input, but its ability to sustain a tight turn is limited. A classic example is the F-104 Starfighter, which has a very small wing and high wing loading. At the opposite end of the spectrum was the gigantic Convair B-36. Its large wings resulted in a low wing loading, and there are disputed claims that this made the bomber more agile than contemporary jet fighters (the slightly later Hawker Hunter had a similar wing loading of 250 kg/m2) at high altitude. Whatever the truth of that, the delta winged Avro Vulcan bomber, with a wing loading of 260 kg/m2 could certainly be rolled at low altitudes[9].

Like any body in circular motion, an aircraft that is fast and strong enough to maintain level flight at speed v in a circle of radius R accelerates towards the centre at frac{v^2} {R}. That acceleration is caused by the inward horizontal component of the lift,  L sin\theta,  where θ is the banking angle. Then from Newton's second law ,



Tidying up gives

[FLS]

That's all Greek to me Baumer but wouldn't θ be AOA?

[PJ_Godzilla]

That's all Greek to me Baumer but wouldn't θ be AOA?

Bank... and this is why powerloading becomes significant - for it determines max sustained theta.

AofA implicitly appears in the Cl - itself f(alpha).

[FLS]

Thanks PJ, I should have realized AOA was already used to calculate L.

[thorsim]

very misleading, the wings of the luftwaffe link is a section of the show were they are narrating the german 190 assessment and comparison to the 109, it is nothing like what you are suggesting below sir, if you watched it you would know that, and i have to wonder why you chose to misrepresent it.  

the history channel is an example of the common knowlege on this comparison is so much in favor of the 190 that possibly the most bias show on the topic is apparently very comfortable flat out stating what should be obvious to anyone who has looked into this topic even casually, which is that the 190 is easily one of the most if not the most maneuverable fighter of its day and clearly more maneuverable than the p-51d "." i did not present it as proof of anything it was purely an example of the knowlege base on the specific topic.

this is just the same old game, pick some anomalous data and model it, a source that alone in all of history states problems with what was clearly a poorly set up problem airframe.  
however since no other report mentions those "problems" no one can find a source that even mentions the problems much less specifically refutes them so no one can find a source to dispute them.  

this is what page 23, please find me one other report that supports the 190 behaving in the piss poor manner that the a8 does in the game, and find me a german report that complains about any stall character at all.

until you do i will continue to believe that ...

1) the flight model looks nothing like the calculations you do to justify it.

2) the subjective decisions made in selecting the data values used in the flight model of the 190s are based on    
    an anomalous discredited source that in no way reflects the historic reality in the case of the 190s.  

3) that when the vast body of historic data conflicts with the FM then the process of building the FM is flawed not
    the history.

now anybody want to take bets that HTC is either going to divulge it's source data ...

(all of which is public domain BTW and commonly included in FM upgrades in other games when they are proud of their accuracy and market themselves as focusing on reality i.e. they say this is our FM we are proud of it and this is how we came about the goal performance or this is how the plane really flew and here is the proof)

or its FM code to divulge how the values they decide on from above are implemented in the game?  

now here is my problem with you guys.  if i am FOS then just go find some credible historic data that proves it.
look into the 190 as deeply as i have looking for a reason for the way it is in the game/s ...

when you can't maybe you will come to see my points.

OK let's try it this way since you want me to post examples,
Having just reviewed all of your posts in this thread you have managed to post 2 pieces of "evidence". There may be others, but with a clear lack of proper citation it's difficult to differentiate if you paraphrasing from another source.  

One is a link to a "Wings of the Luftwaffe" in reply number 138. This clearly lacks the kind of data that Badboy commented on in relation to anecdotal reports.

The second is in post #38 where you posted a screen shot from a history channel show. That's it, you make mention of your numerous posts of evidence but it is very much lacking in this thread.

Now on to specific posts that I felt warrented my previous response.
 
Here is a sweeping generalization;
Here is an example of the repeated point of using anecdotal information as a data source.
Again a generalization with the continued claim of many sources.
More of the same "many sources" repetitive argument, with no additional clearly documented sources.
Raising suspicion that Hitech has other concerns that may preclude him from addressing the issue. Given the vast amount of data he has contributed to this thread, your documentation pale's in comparison.
Generalizations about the other aircraft vs the 190's.
Again with the "vast majority" of generalizations
Here's a good one of the "as the powers that be and the community" acting against you in a conspiracy to thwart the 190's performance.
So in summation I think your repeated unoriginal generalizations, coupled with a clear lack of any real data (or even properly cited anecdotal reports) warranted my previous post.

[leitwolf]

[..]you all need to come to terms with this stuff, the 190 is described by the Luftwaffe, RAF, VVS as exceptionally easy to fly with impeccable handling, both the germans and the soviets thought its effective turn was better than the 109s a plane the british admit turned as well and some now say better than the spitfire, yet in the games ...
[..]

Apparently, thorsim, you prefer anecdotes over maths. I'm happy to oblige
I'm sure somebody will have a scan of the original report but i suppose you know it since it has often been brought up. The Rechlin test center report issued in December 1941 included the following about relative turn capabilities of a 109F-4 vs a 190A-2:

"It has yet to be determined whether the Fw190 turns tighter than the Bf109."

The two people who did the test, Hptm Gordon Max Gollob (who signed the report) and a civilian, Heinrich Beauvais, took turns in these two aircraft.
Beauvais said:

"[..]First he flew the 109 and was at least superior in turning [..] There was a tendency to disbelieve its inferiority in turning. The report stated that "it has yet to be determined whether the Fw190 turns tighter than the Bf109." In my opinion this should be viewed as misleading. It is true that the turning radii were not measured, but that did not really matter. What did matter was turning times, and in this respect the Bf109 was clearly superior."

You find this quote in Dietmar Hermann's book "Focke-Wulf Fw190A", ISBN 0-7643-1940-X

If you go by pilot report, that's a pretty authoritative one. Both pilots found the 190 to be "better" than the 109 btw.
It also illustrates the problems with these reports. Usually, there is no speed or altitude in it nor any definition of "outturn".
If you fly a 190A8 in this game you can easily produce an overshoot versus a(ny) 109 which will look like "he outturned me!" to him.
All it matters is sufficient speed.. and you can do it only once because you will have lost a good chunk of energy.
But it still is comparing apples and oranges: High speed elevator authority+stick forces, better deceleration favor the 190 (which brings us back to "good handling qualities") but it will be outturned by every 109 in a sustained turn.

[thorsim]

i don't believe that anywhere you will find that i posted in disagreement of anything you relate below,
you also will nowhere find me misrepresenting a source i put forward.

did you happen to note in these 23 pages what my basic problem is with the 190?

it has nothing specifically to do with sustained turn rate.  gaston has a turn rate issue.

i otoh have a matching history, and source data complaint which centers around departure characteristics and overall handling of the 190s which i believe the reports you quote below found to be soo excellent that the 190 project was pushed forward on that ability in spite of some persistent engine overheating issues the type was suffering at that time.

my only support of gaston is that his data is actual data and should be taken into account in a respectful manner as all data should.  what any data actually says and does not say must be considered carefully and i believe i have been clear on that point as well.

EDIT : a good FM will be reflective of the majority of historic testing not in contradiction of it.  there is IMO a problem with the 190s in the game/s
 

Apparently, thorsim, you prefer anecdotes over maths. I'm happy to oblige
I'm sure somebody will have a scan of the original report but i suppose you know it since it has often been brought up. The Rechlin test center report issued in December 1941 included the following about relative turn capabilities of a 109F-4 vs a 190A-2:
The two people who did the test, Hptm Gordon Max Gollob (who signed the report) and a civilian, Heinrich Beauvais, took turns in these two aircraft.
Beauvais said:You find this quote in Dietmar Hermann's book "Focke-Wulf Fw190A", ISBN 0-7643-1940-X

If you go by pilot report, that's a pretty authoritative one. Both pilots found the 190 to be "better" than the 109 btw.
It also illustrates the problems with these reports. Usually, there is no speed or altitude in it nor any definition of "outturn".
If you fly a 190A8 in this game you can easily produce an overshoot versus a(ny) 109 which will look like "he outturned me!" to him.
All it matters is sufficient speed.. and you can do it only once because you will have lost a good chunk of energy.
But it still is comparing apples and oranges: High speed elevator authority+stick forces, better deceleration favor the 190 (which brings us back to "good handling qualities") but it will be outturned by every 109 in a sustained turn.

[Ardy123]

If you go by pilot report, that's a pretty authoritative one. Both pilots found the 190 to be "better" than the 109 btw.

Thats brings up a good question, what where they looking for when they claimed better? As far as I can tell, the 109K4 can out climb, out turn and probably go faster than a 190d9 and a G14 easily 'out performs' a fw 190 A8 in AH. Were they comparing a 109g6 to a 190d9?

[Baumer]

Thorsim you are just to funny, I sometimes think you go on like this for some odd reason just because you think you are actually making a persuasive argument.

You ask me to post examples of your replies in this thread that warranted my post.

I did that.

You've repeatedly made the statement that you have posted sources that contradict the flight model.

You have not.

You have stated that because no one has done a mathematical proof of basic aerodynamic formulas, they can't be accurate.

That's complete nonsense.

If it's even remotely possible, you should step back and take some time for introspection and really ask yourself if you can be objective in your analysis.

If you want to look at my objectivity take a look at Spatulas utility, and look at my stats. I have more kills in the Fw190D-9 then any other plane in Aces High. So you are not the only one who likes the 190 series in this thread. I want them to be modeled as accurately as possible, however I understand that accuracy is based on data, not "I think" or "it's wrong, fix it".

Krusty actually had a very good point way back at the beginning of this thread, he stated something to the effect, "post the data and let HTC figure it out".

[thorsim]

baumer do you really think all they do is put in thrust weight drag and lift etc. values into a formula and the FM pops out ???

there is much more to it and much of that process is subjective and dependent on a data selection process which has also been shown to be subjective.

for example i pointed out that when someone tested the stall speeds and described the departure i pointed out that how the plane stalled is in direct conflict with the vast majority of historic testing.  that sir is a problem.

the same thing was noted in the 109 and i asked another poster to provide historic data and he admitted it was a game issue.  since i am sure you will find that what was described in the game is in that case also in direct conflict with the documented historic and modern testing of the 109 that as well is a problem.

baumer what i find funny is that on the one hand you yourself point out that the numbers used in the game/s are flawed and on the other hand when i point out that the behavior of the FM is contrary to history you try and discredit me using math with numbers you yourself have noted are flawed.

i am not "just thinking" here i assure you i do not have the ability to travel through time and influence other peoples experiences.  i sir am relaying the opinions and tests of people who actually have real world experience in the aircraft in question and it is every bit the data that you profess the numeric values you use are.

once again ...

a good FM will be reflective of the majority of historic testing not in contradiction to it.

Thorsim you are just to funny, I sometimes think you go on like this for some odd reason just because you think you are actually making a persuasive argument.

You ask me to post examples of your replies in this thread that warranted my post.

I did that.

You've repeatedly made the statement that you have posted sources that contradict the flight model.

You have not.

You have stated that because no one has done a mathematical proof of basic aerodynamic formulas, they can't be accurate.

That's complete nonsense.

If it's even remotely possible, you should step back and take some time for introspection and really ask yourself if you can be objective in your analysis.

If you want to look at my objectivity take a look at Spatulas utility, and look at my stats. I have more kills in the Fw190D-9 then any other plane in Aces High. So you are not the only one who likes the 190 series in this thread. I want them to be modeled as accurately as possible, however I understand that accuracy is based on data, not "I think" or "it's wrong, fix it".

Krusty actually had a very good point way back at the beginning of this thread, he stated something to the effect, "post the data and let HTC figure it out".

[Ack-Ack]

Thats brings up a good question, what where they looking for when they claimed better? As far as I can tell, the 109K4 can out climb, out turn and probably go faster than a 190d9 and a G14 easily 'out performs' a fw 190 A8 in AH. Were they comparing a 109g6 to a 190d9?

If you had read the first section, you would have seen this:

The Rechlin test center report issued in December 1941 included the following about relative turn capabilities of a 109F-4 vs a 190A-2

ack-ack

[leitwolf]

Edited, post was obsolete by ack-ack's.

[hitech]

Thor let me try clue you in.

Baumer made a post about a weight problem. He posted the data sheet he worked from (note it was an original document NOT 2nd hand information).

2 he did real analysis of AH's weight as compared to his document.

3. He found a discrepancy.

4. He did real math as to what EXACTLY he thought the discrepancy was.

5. I saw his post walked over to Doug and said what you think of this.

6. We decided to look into it.

Your post.

1. You read this document that the pilot said the FW was not bad in stalls.

2. You think AH is not docile in stalls.

3. You have no real frame of reference of what stalls are like in a plane.

I read your post after all the other BS you have posted and just simply ignore it , because every post you ever make has 1 thing in common.

It wants to make the FW or 109 better then it is currently modeled. And every post shows nothing really concrete to back up you post. You try use stuff like the history channel to back up a claim. At every possible turn you try to flame HTC. You post in a criticizing  manner in every effort you make.When corned you simply change topics and go onto some other item you wish to complain about, and then months later say your 1st issue was not addressed when you were proven wrong. You try to argue physics with people who do this stuff for a living  and then wish to argue that there math means nothing just because you can't do the same.

You show no interest what so every to try gain a working knowledge of the what makes planes fly so you will make statements like a plane is 900lb to heavy with out realizing a discrepancy of that magnitude is almost impossible to happen because it causes conflicts with many other numbers that say something is not correct. We have seen documents of the 205 that say it can climb faster then the HP that the same document said the plane had. If you don't have just the basics of math to be able to do simple analysis you would state we are biased because we don't make the 205 fly like the document said.

Now why would I given even the slightest credibility to your thoughts about the way a plane should fly. When you give us 0 credibility for knowledge of the subject even though we do this stuff for a living.

HiTech

[Baumer]

Yes, I believe that given my understanding of how fluid dynamics are computer modeled, that there is an aerodynamic 3d model within the game. That model interacts with the mathematical equations that then calculate the specific performance as the maneuver is being performed.

I also believe that every 3d model interacts with the same mathematical equations no matter if it's a Dr.1, Spit V, B-17 or RV-8.

I do not believe that there are separate or unique interactions with the math formulas based on it being a P-51 or an Fw 190.

The test you are referring to has been addressed all ready but I'll try again. As badboy pointed out there are numerous ways to encounter a stall and that Stoney's chart may be in error based on his flight precision. If you read the PDF with Badboys calculator you would appreciate how difficult/demanding performing flight testing is.

Having been a member of the CAF and actually flown several WW2 aircraft, I can also judge aircraft anecdotes very well. In 1995 I got to meet several members of the flying tigers during one of their reunions. They spoke of the P-40 in glowing terms, witch differed greatly for the actual performance of the plane. So I have first hand experience in listening to and objectively analyzing pilot statements about an aircraft's performance.

I am not trying to discredit you, I am trying to get you to understand that what you continually state is data, is nothing more than subjective anecdotes.

Reiterating what I stated in the first line of this post, subjectivity plays no part in the 3d model or the mathematical equations.

[thorsim]

See rule #4