FW190 vs. BF109: Turn Radius (2011)

[Krupinski]

Being a former 190 dweeb, the 190s will out turn 80% of the planes in AH above 275mph.

[Stoney]

My bet is IF the turning radius was nerfed, it was based on flight testing reports made by US or UK with a rough running or misadjusted-aileron trim tab...

What if it had nothing to do with test flight reports, but had everything to do with nothing more than refinement of the aerodynamics modeling???  Perhaps the older flight model wasn't accounting for some facet of the aerodynamics that control induced drag, for example...  Given most standard aerodynamics analysis, the relative sustained turning performance of both the 190 and the P-51 compared to the rest of the planeset, is consistent with how they should compare in real life.

[dtango]

What if it had nothing to do with test flight reports, but had everything to do with nothing more than refinement of the aerodynamics modeling???  Perhaps the older flight model wasn't accounting for some facet of the aerodynamics that control induced drag, for example...  Given most standard aerodynamics analysis, the relative sustained turning performance of both the 190 and the P-51 compared to the rest of the planeset, is consistent with how they should compare in real life.

  That Stoney is a smart guy.  It's worth paying attention to him.

[Angus]

In RL the 190 was quite nimble at high speeds, and in rough maneuvers. A 109 could have troubles with a very rough turn at the entry. The 190 would enter the turn faster, and do better at high speeds. Then the rest depends on altitude and weight.
A 190 would NEVER be close to turning with a 109 at 25K, but at 10K....well.....

[Krusty]

Depends on your definition of "turn".... and the nature of the turn and the circumstances entering a turn.

[Stoney]

Angus, nimble does not = good sustained turn.  If we follow an aerodynamic definition of maneuverability to mean "the ability to rapidly change direction" , the 190 would be the king of maneuverability among WWII aircraft, due to its practically unequaled roll performance.  Maneuverability, however, does not mean it could "turn" well, as Krusty alluded to.  There are very conspicuous aerodynamic reasons the entire FW-190 family turns like bullets.  The most simple way to express them is to say that Kurt Tank designed them that way.  Just like the P-51 and P-47, the FW-190 was an excellent combat aircraft in the actual war, but is not a great knife fighter for Aces High in our virtual war.  As soon as all FW-190 apologists on this board accept this very important distinction, we can all resume our normal programming.

[Urchin]

Moot, the thread Widewing mentions the other thread in is here - (I'm not very good at this stuff)... http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,199758.0.html.

The link to that thread is http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=185075&perpage=40&pagenumber=3.

I tried replacing the "forums" with "bbs" but it still doesn't find it.

[Wotan]

Moot, the thread Widewing mentions the other thread in is here - (I'm not very good at this stuff)... http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,199758.0.html.

The link to that thread is http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=185075&perpage=40&pagenumber=3.

I tried replacing the "forums" with "bbs" but it still doesn't find it.

This thread..?

I was working with a guy who flies the P-47s as his MA ride.  He's been going through a flat spot (all pilots hit these bumps in the virtual road from time to time) and wanted to work on his ACM. We began flying the P-47D-11. After an few duels, I took a D-25 trying to even out things a bit as he was struggling some. Not even enough. So, I grabbed a P-51D.

If I flew a pure E fight, the P-51D was perfectly adequate. However, if I dumped flaps and maneuvered, the Mustang was badly outclassed by the D-11. I switched to the P-51B and there was little improvement.

This was really bothering me. Flaps out, the P-51s are absolute pigs. Indeed, the P-51B has a turn radius that is nearly 70 feet greater than the P-47D-11.

Consider that a low fuel P-51B (25% gas) weighs right around 9,000 lb and the P-47D-11 (25% gas) weighs about 12,200 lb.

This results in respective wing loadings of:
P-51B: 38.59 lb per sq/ft
P-47D-11: 40.66 lb per sq/ft

Even with flaps up, the P-47D-11 out-turns the P-51B. That simply should not be the case.

P-51s and P-47s have a similar maximum coefficient of lift.
P-51B: 1.89
P-47D: 1.93

If we take the wingloading and divide it by the co-efficient of lift, we have a reference indicator of turning ability.

So, for the P-51B: 38.59/1.89 = 20.42
For the P-47D-11: 40.66/1.93 = 21.07
Thus, the P-47's turn radius should be 103% of that of the P-51B (clean, no flaps).

Unfortunately, in the game it's backwards.
P-51B turn radius, clean: 758.2 feet
P-47D-11 radius, clean: 748.4 feet
Thus, the P-51B's turn radius is 101.3% of that of the P-47D-11.

So, in AH2, the P-47D-11 turns slightly smaller circles than the P-51B. Adding flaps in increments results in the P-47 gradually turning smaller circles until at full flaps, the difference in just short of 70 feet. This results in the P-51B turn radius being 113% of that of the P-47D-11.

From: wwiiaircraftperformance.org
(Image removed from quote.)

BRIEF TACTICAL COMPARISON WITH SPITFIRE XIV

Maximum Endurance
25. By comparison the Spitfire XIV has no endurance.

Maximum speed
26. There is practically nothing to choose in maximum speed.

Maximum climb
27. The Spitfire XIV is very much better.

Dive
28. As for the Spitfire IX. The Mustang pulls away; but less markedly.

Turning Circle
29. The Spitfire XIV is better.

Rate of Roll
30. Advantage tends to be with the Spitfire XIV.

Conclusion
31. With the exception of endurance, no conclusions should be drawn, as these two aircraft should never be enemies. The choice is a matter of taste.

BRIEF TACTICAL COMPARISON WITH TEMPEST V
Maximum endurance
32. By comparison, the Tempest V has no endurance.

Maximum speed
33. The Tempest V is 15-20mph faster up to 15,000ft. There is then no choice until 24,000ft when the Mustang rapidly pulls ahead, being about 30mph faster at 30,000ft.

Maximum climb
34. These compare directly with the results of the speed tests. At similar performance height, the Tempest has the better zoom climb.

Dive
35. The Tempest tends to pull away.

Turning circle
36. The Tempest is not quite as good.

Rate of Roll
37. The Tempest is not so good. This attribute of the Tempest V may be improved upon in later aircraft.

Conclusions
38. The Mustang has endurance and general performance above 24,000ft. Conclusions should not be drawn below this height, but the Tempest has a better speed and climb below 10,000ft.

Note that the AH2 Tempest out-turns both the P-47D-11 and the P-51B...

When the drag model was revised, the P-51s suffered a large hit to their turn radius, especially with flaps out. They went from reasonably capable to absolutely helpless in an instant. Only the Fw 190A-8 and F-8 have  larger turn radii than the P-51D.

This is another thing that needs to be looked at. Our P-51s have lost much of their luster. I'm hoping that HTC looks at them again before Combat Tour debuts.

My regards,

Widewing

[Urchin]

Wotan,
Now there is a blast from the past. How are you? And no that isn't it... there was a thread where he actually had taken film of him turning different planes before and after the patch and compared them.

[Widewing]

That old thread showed me that I had made a mistake... I had stated that the F6F-5 had only two flap positions, up and down. That was incorrect. About a year later, I had unrestricted access to an F6F-5 and it's manuals. What I found was that the F6F pilot could position the fighter's flaps at any position in between up and down. The only down side is that the left and right flaps are not connected mechanically. Thus, it required careful rigging to set the angle equal.

[WING47]

       You have to remember, what 109 and what 190 model as if a A5 were to turn against a G6 with gunpods attached there is a possibility, however the 190 had a higher wing loading so actually turning with a 109 in a 190 is extremely difficult. The 109 had superb low speed handling, however the faster you got the lower the maneuverability of the 109 so I can understand where the idea comes from.

     Ether way the are both superb fighting machines.

[Kovel]

I dunno if now plane performances are now more accurate or not...Logic says they would be...but:

I quit AH1 in 2003 for personal reasons and I've just got back to AH2 2 months ago.

As a purely 190D9 driver all I can see is that FW190-D9 performance has suffered since AH1 vs plane-set.

I'll try to explain the reason as I've been trying to find out all posibles causes through forum:

1. It seems that Fw190 turns worse now at high speeds
2. It seems that box damage are smaller
3. It seems that tracers alpha has changed and It's harder to see them
4. It seems that flashes pings have been removed under nose hits

One style of fiting in a 190 is diving fast to enemy 6 and make a quick devastating solution. Now it is harder because it is more difficult to aim due to the all four reasons above. If you miss the first pass oportunity, then you lost surprise factor. Bad in an 190

Same style is diving on a enemy but when he sees you...then he makes a break turn. Now it is more difficult to get inside his break turn and get the snapshot for reasons 1, 2 and 3

Another style is 1 vs 1 (many) rope and dope: Now it is more dificult because turn speed is worse in 190. So it is harder to gain angles on boggie using vertival movements.

As far as I know, in a 190 you have to make fast kills, because, otherwise....you lose your E-advantage in every turn, and surely another enemy will show up with more energy and you have to change to surviving modus.

If staments 1, 2, 3, 4 are true (i really dunno, as I got them from this forum and personal experience), it seems that global changes in the whole setplane has shifted to a point that grows 190 weakness and diminishes 190 strengths.

It could be also that I,ve been off for 8 years and I have to get the feeling again. Or that, honestly, I am getting really old.

I dunno

(S)

 

[PJ_Godzilla]

Being a former 190 dweeb, the 190s will out turn 80% of the planes in AH above 275mph.

Sure. The 190 is an energy fighter. Those unfamiliar with this should go look at Badboy's EM diagrams.

Anyway, we've had this argument so many times it's tiresome: Sustained turn in the 190 iisn't so good because of the wingloading. High speed turn and instantaneous turn = not so bad, often quite good...

I'm sure Gaston and Thorsim will show up at some point and star tmaking crazy arguments about "close-coupling" and other concepts of torque that don't square with basic sophomore-levle physics.

One thing I'd offer w/r concessions of playability (and I could be wrong): rad flaps... it's like our active grill shutter here at Ford, only, in WWII, they're mostly manual and therefore add to the "busy-ness" of the a/c in question OR you suffer a drag penalty or heating issue for being clueless about your rad flap setting.  How about it?

[Ardy123]

I suspect the huge difference & I'm sure the areo guys will pan me for this, is that in AH, many planes can be held in the buffet and turn quite well while in this situation. Realistically, I'd Imagen that with the air separating at the wings and all the turbulence above the wing (causing the buffet) would cause the plane to just drop and loose even more e, preventing one from maintaining a turn in the buffet for longer than a split second. For example, in a 109 or a spit, I can hold the plane in the buffet for as long as necessary, even climb while its buffeting....

[FLS]

A stall is part of the flight envelope. It's not a very efficient part but you're still flying. The wings don't stall completely all at once, The inner wing with the flaps stalls first, the ends generally stall last. Since this is where the ailerons are they retain roll authority.