Author Topic: true FW190 rollrate (Read 3289 times)

Angus · « **Reply #135 on:** June 27, 2002, 11:21:59 AM »

Its not such a big stick, so somehow the controls must have been very light. What made the 190 roll so insanely well anyway?
Here is a picture of the Spitfire stick for comparison. It is quite a bit longer, and also bear in mind that the 190 pilot was tilted backwards in his seat. Comparing those two I think you would be able to get more force through the Spitfire stick, which was absolutely necessary, for the control was heavier.

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #136 on:** June 27, 2002, 11:23:16 AM »

The "frontal" one is not a button, it is just the security cover of the "top" button.
U had two fire (primary and secondary) buttons on the upper side of the stick and the radio button is what you call "pinkie".
In front of the stick (in the upper picture) you can notice the pair of switchers to control the WGr1 rocket launchers, both located between the legs of the pilot in the central column of the control panel.

RRAM · « **Reply #137 on:** June 27, 2002, 11:26:35 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKSWulfe
What are all those buttons on the stick for? I see a pinky button, a button on the front, and two buttons on the top... anyone know?
-SW

AFAIK, pinky button was for radio, front button was primary weapons trigger, button in the top was secondary weapons trigger, button on the top, side, was bomb release button.

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #138 on:** June 27, 2002, 11:33:38 AM »

Ah, thanks guys.
-SW

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #139 on:** June 27, 2002, 11:50:09 AM »

RAM, the frontal one is not a trigger, just a cover.

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #140 on:** June 27, 2002, 11:58:01 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hristo
any more where that came from ?

very interested

190A8 cockpit

The images are clickable to get a more detailed view of each instrument and panel.

Impressive, isnt it?

Compare that "F16" cockpit with the Spit one

Furious · « **Reply #141 on:** June 27, 2002, 12:14:11 PM »

I'd buy a Cougar in a second with that stick on it.

F.

HoHun · « **Reply #142 on:** June 27, 2002, 12:15:33 PM »

Hi Mandoble,

>RAM, the frontal one is not a trigger, just a cover.

You're both right :-)

The trigger ("A-Knopf") covered the pushbutton in "safe" mode.
(The pushbutton was the "B-Knopf", or - with a second button on the contrul column as on the stick in question -, the "B1-Knopf") . To arm, the cover would be flipped into the front position and assume its trigger role.

(The third fire button was called "B2-Knopf", by the way. In the depicted aircraft, which is equipped with the W.Gr 21 control panel, it would be used for firing the rockets. The explanation on the web site unfortunately mistakes the W.Gr 21 launch tube jettison switch for the firing switch, but the German label "Absprengsch." clearly indicates its function.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

RRAM · « **Reply #143 on:** June 27, 2002, 12:19:09 PM »

what hohun said

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #144 on:** June 27, 2002, 12:39:25 PM »

Hohun, there were two versions of the KG13B control stick?
The diagrams I have list only two fire buttons, but doesnt talk at all about releasing bombs with them. The frontal control panel had a control to arm the bombs and a handle to "jettison" them (not sure if jettison is just to drop them or to dissarm them and just jetisson them).

In the other hand, this page show the KG13B indicating that the second fire button was used to release the bombs. But the frontal metal pieze seems a simple cover of the upper main fire button, it is what is referred as cannon trigger safety. If so, it gives us only 3 buttons on the stick, and only two of them to fire "weapons". If the handle in the control panel was used to release bombs, then different combinations of guns might have beet assigned to both main fire buttons. Else, there was only one fire button for cannons and the second one for cannons OR bombs. So, carrying bombs would imply firing always all the cannons/MGs at the same time.

KG13B Control Stick

HoHun · « **Reply #145 on:** June 27, 2002, 03:12:54 PM »

Hi Mandoble,

>Hohun, there were two versions of the KG13B control stick?

I could speculate there was a KG13 with A- and B-Knopf, and the KG13B which added the B2-Knopf. However, that's really not my area of expertise, so I can only guess.

>But the frontal metal pieze seems a simple cover of the upper main fire button, it is what is referred as cannon trigger safety.

It's not as simple as you think :-) The "safety" actually had to separate the electrical connection of the gun circuit, so a plain piece of metal barely covering the cannon button wouldn't have done anyway. It's really absolutely certain that the "safety" is the A-Knopf which was used for firing the machine guns :-)

>If the handle in the control panel was used to release bombs

The handle was a mechanical back-up system for emergency release (probably incapable of arming the stores). It's labeled as "emergency stores release handle" on the referred site.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Naudet · « **Reply #146 on:** June 28, 2002, 04:09:59 AM »

As far as i know it buttons had the following function:

very top button: to fire the guns, which guns were fired could be selected by a switch (think it was somewhere below the ammunition counter) and or by fuzes for the different guns cicuits

left top button: used to trigger ordance, it could be selected on a panel located between the pilots legs, in the picture you can see it directly infront of the stick

button on lower front: radio button

and i think the 13A didnt have the ordance trigger

SOUP · « **Reply #147 on:** June 28, 2002, 08:26:46 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by RRAM
Yep ,Sikboy, and I understand your point. I'm at a point where I don't really mind if they answer or not because I do know all data posted here is looked at, and taken in account by HTC if it is reliable enough. But still I think that some posting won't hurt too much, just an in&out thing to make people know about what HTC thinks on a given issue.

Well, in the interest of trying to have accurate representations of the the aircraft's performance capabilities, why can't HTC post THEIR source material for examination. Then if the community agrees on the validity of the source, it won't matter if another source disagrees. We will have an accepted baseline source to work with. However, I've never seen any of this. (is there some?)

I know this isn't a TA152H thread, but by source material I've found the AH TA152H runs over 30 mph slower than its published topend speed. See the subject under playability issues. Plenty of charts etc. (shrug) Haven't heard any response from HTC yet.

RRAM · « **Reply #148 on:** June 28, 2002, 09:18:46 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by SOUP
Well, in the interest of trying to have accurate representations of the the aircraft's performance capabilities, why can't HTC post THEIR source material for examination. Then if the community agrees on the validity of the source, it won't matter if another source disagrees. We will have an accepted baseline source to work with. However, I've never seen any of this. (is there some?)

HTC runs a business, and they have competence (WB, FA, WWIIOL, boxed sims, etc). The information they use to model the planes is something they don't want to show in public ,because that same information could be used by a direct competitor in their own Flight models.

Also, even today, many of the charts and informations regarding WWII planes are still classified or "licensed" for use under NDA agreements. For instance, Oleg Maddox (the designer of Il2) must have an amazing ammount of information coming from the russian data of late and post WWII tests....yet he can't show it in public because NDA agreements AND (of course) the said reason: you have an information you don't want to share with your competitors.

So don't ask HTC to show their sources. They won't. And they'll do fine in not doing it

Quote

I know this isn't a TA152H thread, but by source material I've found the AH TA152H runs over 30 mph slower than its published topend speed. See the subject under playability issues. Plenty of charts etc. (shrug) Haven't heard any response from HTC yet.

LOL don't get Wilbus started on this...again

. Yeah ,I agree, Ta152H is slower than what it should be at very high altitudes. this was already pointed and (IMO) demonstrated some time ago. I guess is in the fixlist too (but I also guess its very low in that fixlist...the Ta152 is a very low used plane anyway, and not many people go up to 35K, where the speed loss is

)

SOUP · « **Reply #149 on:** June 28, 2002, 06:10:19 PM »

RRAM,
Hmm confused about how you would have a Non-Disclosure Agreement for historical data on "ancient" aircraft.

Not looking for data on how they program the planes.. just the data they say the replicate.

Something akin to... source data for the TA152H came from yada yada yada...

If the source is credible and disagrees with another source by 15 MPH.. big deal... I'm just interested in what source was consulted that results in a difference of over 30MPH. If it was just an oops, missed it in the programing (shrug) ok, put it on a punchlist and fix it sometime. I'm just concerned we have in accurate data from jumpstreet.

Oh and who would go to 35k ? (looks over shoulder warily)
Have you seen how many buffs fly up at 30k?

(drools)