FW190 vs. BF109: Turn Radius (2011)

[Stoney]

Dunno if the paddle propeller would help it, speedwise.  On the Mosquito all it did was increase acceleration at low speeds, top speed was the same with both the paddle bladed and needle bladed props.

Typically broad chord propellers give a bigger boost to climb rate.  They sometimes can even knock a few mph off of top speed.  So, I doubt the paddle-blade would help top speed or turn that much.

[Ardy123]

Typically broad chord propellers give a bigger boost to climb rate. 

Much like a late war 109, right? (huge broad paddle like prop == good climb)

so, big wide paddle props = low speed thrust?
thin props = high speed thrust?

I'm sure someone has a curve somewhere relating the prop width to the optimal speed for max thrust.

[33Vortex]

Stoney & Charge

It's the mark of the 23000 series of airfoils. I'm sure there are other factors, but keeping it on the level of the AH playfield it's a treat unique to the 190 series. The difference in handling between low/hi aspect ratio can be seen in the Ta152. There is a lot of truth in the 3G "magic" limit, it's a matter of conservation of E and if you load the 190 too much it will bleed like no other fighter in AH. The D partly make up for that by adding acceleration (more hp). Most ppl in the game know of experience but few seem to know why the 190 is such a bad turner. It is perfectly possible to B&Z within a 3G limit, I'd argue that most successful 190 jocks do precisely that.

[Stoney]

Stoney & Charge

It's the mark of the 23000 series of airfoils.

Well, the 23000 were used on the F6F, F4U, P-47, FW-190, etc.  It was probably the most widely used airfoil of the period.  I don't think the difference in performance can be attributed to that airfoil.  It has relatively high Clmax, good Cd0 and very low pitching moment.  It does have nasty stall behavior, but that doesn't have much impact on what we're talking about here.

[33Vortex]

I'd wager higher wing loading in combination with the aspect ratio and smaller R numbers than contemporary allied fighters using the "same" airfoil, if it actually was the same.

[dtango]

See, they should put each type in a row and have several rows of differnet types. You, in your "fighter" would move left or right to shoot these rows as they get closer and closer. If they get all the way to your "fighter", you lose that fighter. If you shoot the special flashing fighter, you power up with extra BFG's under your wings - and they'll annihilate all of the enemy "fighters". If you do this, you go to the "next level" where you're now facing rows of "attack aircraft". Now THAT'S historical realism. 

And, oh yeah, you need like a hyperspace button so that the dude with the faygo redpop and the bong and twinkies can hit it if he gets in trouble.

Just half a minute here.  Are you disparaging my Galaxian High???  Don't be hatin'.

[dtango]

What I'm trying to undestand is that is there some amount of turn where the small wing is more efficient than a bigger one. I'm not talking about a break turn of 4-6Gs but something up to 3Gs, highest, as it seems that at those accelerations 190s can still be quite competitive without dumping too much energy. Or is the negative effect of wingloading purely linear to G loading meaning that e.g. the negative effects of high wing loading of A8 is just not that evident in smaller G loads?

Maths are required to know for sure comparing dissimilar aircraft.  As with all things Aerodynamica interdependent variables exist as in this case.  That said, it's possible but not probable that a smaller wing produces less drag in a turn.

First what do we mean by "smaller" wing, smaller span, area or both?  Let's assume both span and area.  While smaller area reduces parasite drag (less surface area for skin friction), reduced span & area play double jeopardy in increasing induced drag. 

1) As messrs. Stoney & Godzilla note, CDi exponentially increases with the square of Cl.  Assuming equal weight, smaller wing area creates greater drag because Cl must be greater to produce the same amount of lift vs. greater wing area.  (Greater Cl also increases viscous drag but that's another topic).

2) Induced drag is strongly a function of wing span, the lower the wing span the greater the induced drag.  This gets magnified with g-load.

There are various other design reasons and trade-offs for smaller wings, e.g. the Fw-190 wouldn't have the fantastic roll rate if Herr Tank stuck bigger wings on them etc.  However lower drag during maneuver is not one of them.

[Stoney]

As messrs. Stoney & Godzilla note, CDi exponentially increases with the square of Cl.  Assuming equal weight, smaller wing area creates greater INDUCED drag because Cl must be greater to produce the same amount of lift vs. greater wing area.  (Greater Cl also increases viscous drag but that's another topic).

Fixed that for you...

Some comparison I did based on in-game testing:

4 Aircraft performing a 3G instantaneous turn at 250 mph IAS

Type		Cdi @ condition
190A5		.037
190A8		.043
Spit 5		.015
P-47N		.040

These numbers were generated with aircraft loaded to 25% fuel and normal ammo loads.  I have the exact weights if you're interested.  Anyway, you can see the impact wing loading has on induced drag coefficient.  The 190 series have over twice, and almost 3 times the Cdi of a Spit 5 performing the same maneuver.  You'll also note that the Jug has similar numbers to the 190s.  So, what does this mean?  Basically, that the 190 and Jug have to work a lot harder to turn than the Spit does (i.e. they have a higher power required number than the Spit).

[pervert]

You can always match the radius of the tightest turn with a roll 

[Ardy123]

You can always match the radius of the tightest turn with a roll 

  are you taking about executing a displacement roll to cut the turn or a high/low yo-yo?

I don't understand, a roll doesn't change your direction, just your lift vector, a turn does.

[dtango]

Fixed that for you...

Ha, score one for "aero-pedantism"!    (Of course I could quibble but no one normal in the peanut gallery would care!)  Yes, of course kettle meet pot here as pedantic aerogeeks go. 

[pervert]

are you taking about executing a displacement roll to cut the turn or a high/low yo-yo?

I don't understand, a roll doesn't change your direction, just your lift vector, a turn does.

Imagine being in a turn and being unable to follow his turn you get the nose up and use a slow roll relative to his circle as he is burning more e he will always stall in this climbing turn.

[Stoney]

Ha, score one for "aero-pedantism"!    (Of course I could quibble but no one normal in the peanut gallery would care!)  Yes, of course kettle meet pot here as pedantic aerogeeks go. 

I didn't want anyone to think that a smaller wing meant more zero-lift drag...   

[PJ_Godzilla]

Fixed that for you...

Some comparison I did based on in-game testing:

4 Aircraft performing a 3G instantaneous turn at 250 mph IAS

Type		Cdi @ condition
190A5		.037
190A8		.043
Spit 5		.015
P-47N		.040

These numbers were generated with aircraft loaded to 25% fuel and normal ammo loads.  I have the exact weights if you're interested.  Anyway, you can see the impact wing loading has on induced drag coefficient.  The 190 series have over twice, and almost 3 times the Cdi of a Spit 5 performing the same maneuver.  You'll also note that the Jug has similar numbers to the 190s.  So, what does this mean?  Basically, that the 190 and Jug have to work a lot harder to turn than the Spit does (i.e. they have a higher power required number than the Spit).

Do you have Cdo for the same four?

[Stoney]

Do you have Cdo for the same four?

No.  I haven't researched them yet...