true FW190 rollrate

[AKSWulfe]

With more speed, there would be more resistance against the ailerons... true? So as the speed increases, it would take more stick force to deflect the ailerons to full deflection(18deg in this case), right?

So, how can the ailerons be deflected the full 18 degrees at high speeds where it could easily be deflected at slower speeds?

This is what I want to know.

Glasses- with 1.1 or whatever the latest patch is, Oleg claimed he used (or I read that he claimed it) Fw test factory results.. "IDEAL" means that it's a fresh plane operating at 100%, or maybe more, and using optimistic values rather than true values. So I naturally assumed this would be the best (in terms of performance) data around as opposed to what he had before.

I said nothing about exaggerating at all Niklas, don't exaggerate your point by saying things I didn't.

You LuftWannabes can learn a lot by reading Kratzer's, another virtual LW pilot, last post. If you want your data to be taken seriously, then you need to take the people who make this game seriously rather than throwing at artificial claims you have concocted in your minds about any possibility of an "allied conspiracy". Otherwise, you are damn tootin' straight they are going to ignore your drivel.. it ain't worth their time to read posts about how you THINK the [insert allied plane here] is getting better performance figures than it should while the [insert LW plane here] is getting the shaft.

There are far more people who fly LW that don't use the uber-hauptmann und uber-MightyLuftWannabeSquad monikors... and you guys screw 'em all out of getting good performance in LW planes by throwing in mindless, and unfounded, accusations about allied planes getting everything while the poor LW planes don't get anything except a cold shaft in the butt.

People are questioning this data because it is obviously incomplete, there are no stick forces and relative information regarding aileron deflection other than what is photoshopped on there. So we're supposed to take this graph and believe it without question? No, indeed, it is not us who are questioning this data that are against LW planes... we are trying to get ALL of the data, not just tidbits that can only help a particular plane while it may indeed not be complete.

Dump the allied conspiracy crap and you'll probably get more mileage out of your data.
-SW <---who happens to fly the 190A5 and A8 more than any other plane.

[niklas]

Originally posted by AKSWulfe
With more speed, there would be more resistance against the ailerons... true? So as the speed increases, it would take more stick force to deflect the ailerons to full deflection(18deg in this case), right?

So, how can the ailerons be deflected the full 18 degrees at high speeds where it could easily be deflected at slower speeds?

Of course pressure increases. But you still can build highly balanced ailerons. You can build ailerons where you donīt need any stick force at all and they deflect 18° at 900km/h (not very useful though). Itīs really a matter of aileron design. You could build unstable ailerons which just need to deflect 0.01° and wupp they deflect themselfs completly.

Itīs not a question of which deflection was used, as at slow speeds the chart is not far away from the "naca-190" . So itīs definitly realistic from the amount of maximum rollrate, it just shows the roll characteristics with better balanced ailerons. Thatīs all

niklas

[AKSWulfe]

Okay, now this is getting over my head. I never claimed to be an expert, just wanted an answer to my question.

I got it, I'm satisfied... I'll let the real experts decide if the chart is accurate or not.. I'm sure it is, but for some reason 110deg at 400MPH seems a little high to me.

I dunno, but thanks for the answers to my questions.

I'll argue with you guys on monday, I'm out.
-SW

[fffreeze220]

"only a burning spitfire is a good spitfire"

true true true true AMEN !

sorry to hijack

[funkedup]

Niklas, can you clarify these questions:
1.  Does the supporting documentation for this chart state that the chart was derived from roll rate tests with full aileron deflection at all airspeeds?
2.  If the answer to 1. is "yes", then does the supporting documentation state what stick forces were required to achieve full deflection at each speed?

And I guess I have a rhetorical question:
3.  Why isn't anybody getting excited about the rudder trim data which directly impacts the age-old "not enough torque in AH" whine.  

[senna]

Well the fact that the wing should bend at the speeds shown in the chart implies that (due to polar of moment) that at that range the 190 rolled the best. Enough to cause an instantaneous deflection in the wings structure. It doesnt mean that it requires the full 18 degrees of deflection to roll at those speeds. If you read within the threads somewhere that it states that the mustang had only 10 degrees of aileron deflection then you noticed correctly.  All this from a pony that was meant to perform well at high altitudes and high speeds. Could this be correct? In dealing with science, it sure has to be and especially in dealing with numbers of linear or nonlinear equatins. So I'm suggesting that even with a chart that would show aileron deflection ~ speed, we would not see 18 degrees of aileron deflection except at the lower speeds. Something that Dux's statement was trying to assert.

Off on a tangent, how do you insert this char --> °

I aint go it on my keyboard so do you have a special keyboard?

[Kratzer]

Start->Accessories->System Tools->Character Map

[senna]

Wouldnt the polar of moment for the roll axis essentially stay the same for an airplane until it reached compression speeds where the wing and aileron funtions was locked. It just that the aileron function would change in capacity with speed and altitude but polar of moment shoud remain the same.


G thanks krats

[Naudet]

God this is a long thread to read:

But here a few infos about maximum aileron deflection:

The FW190D9 Handbook states a max aileron deflection of
17  +/-2  degres up and down, which gives a total aileron movement of around 34 degree.

Now about the chart.

The linear line just states the rate of roll per degree of deflection if the wings were rigid, the second line is the rate of roll corrected by the impacts of the wing torsion due to the increasing forces working on the wing structure.

What does this chart than gives us for informations?

1. You can measure the max possible rate of roll with full deflection of 17° at all speeds.

2. Also the charts tells us that the wingsstructure of the FW190 will not collapse even if using full 17° at 400mph, otherwise the chart would have a notification that the measured rate of roll at certain speeds would be lower due to structure limits.
(That corresponds with statements from pilots that you could do aileron turns and rolls with a FW190 that would rip off the wings off other planes)

But what do we not know?

What the maximum REAL rollrate of the FW190 would be over the given speeds. Why do we not know it? Cause we are missing a chart that gives us the stickforce needed per degree of aileron deflection.

Without that chart we are not able to know if at 400mph the pilot of a FW190 could fully deflect the ailerons.

Here we can so far (or does the NACA report contain a stickforce per degree of aileron deflection chart?) just imagine what was possible.
But if you look at the reports from US fighterpilots and RAE test pilots, most stated that a FW190 could perform a half roll in just one second. As they dont state the speed, we can just assume that the FW190 was able to do that over a great range of speed.

I have attached a chart showing the max possible rollrate for the FW190 using 17° of deflection. It pretty much supports this, cause the FW190 would between 250 mph and 400 perform a half roll in a second.
And as control forces were reported to be light even in dives were speeds exeeded 400 mph, i think that the real rollrate of the FW190 lay somewhere close to the max possible line.
But to be sure, i again say we need a stickforce per degree of aileron deflection chart.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Alt+0186 on keypad Senna. š

[Angus]

Hmmmm. Interesting.
So, the point is, that actually the real life 190 rolls better than it does in AH.
I remember a thread about this. If I am correct, the rollrate is limited because of the net lag, - more rolling than the 190 can already do causes it to warp. Never the less the 190 rolls very well in AH, I even think it rolls too well for my taste.
Interesting all the same.
BTW, 50 lbs sideways on a 190 stick is a lot of force to apply. How was the stick in the 190? does anyone have a link to cockpit pictures of it?

[Fishu]

As far as I remember, in AH Fw190 roll rate was long time ago reduced on purpose (!) with reason being "warp rolls"

...when LW becomes too good.

[AKSWulfe]

Originally posted by Fishu
...when LW becomes too good.

Yeah, I'm sure that's the reason....
-SW

[senna]

Warp rolls ? Now I have a vent for some steam. What about all those Spitfear and La-7 and niki break warps. I encounter that  almost everytime like 70% (ok 50%, they break real fast). With the La7 its not really the break but its so fast in a dogfight it's bridging on being in a micro undetected warp or is warpy and sticky at that close of a proximity. It all depends on net connect but basically anything that does anything relatively quickly with a bad net is crossing into that region we know now as "ludicrus speed" or the "warp zone".

[moot]

[...] too good.[...]

It is not the reason but is true. The 262DM is probably another forced decision on HTCs part, it's their game first of all.