Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Mime on November 22, 2005, 04:49:02 AM
-
listen to me for a sec
I have played this game since beta. In the past 2 years or so it seems like all the allied planes have been increasingly made easier to fly (incredible almost anti gravity, turn radius increasing, little drag flaps and cockpits with very little obstructions) while axis planes (specifically the LW fleet) have only become worse. The 190A series flies the same as it always has, like a pig. For example the P47 used to be much more like the 190 in terms of flight model -- they were almost an even match in a 1on1 situation with the P47 being slightly more manueverable. Everything has changed now and the P47 no longer difficult to fly. The P51 also used to be much more difficult to maintain around the stall, but now it flies like it resists gravity. Both the 190 and 109 series haven't changed at all in any FM respects from what I can tell, while the competition has for some reason become a fleet of EZ Mode planes. And to mention the fact that the 190 and 109 cockpits after revision have become so obstructive to render them increasingly harder to aim with, while the older Allied cockpits became slimmer or retained the older cockpit bar dimensions. I don't understand this. How do the Axis planes get worse and the Allied the same or get clearer views?
I admit I do not have any technical tests on how the planes performed in the game from the various updates, but it is just a way I have felt the flight models and cockpit models change (or lack thereof in the case of the LW birds) throughout Aces High.
Has anyone else noticed this too?? Maybe it is just me.
Thx for reading...
NathBDP
-
I agree with much of what you say but there really is no use discussing it anymore.
This is just another thread on list, another one that will be labeled an LW whine thread.
-
I'd like to see the Fw190s and Bf109s get their FMs redone. The Fw190s I understand are way overweight at this point. The Bf109s are draggier than they should be and not all getting the power they should.
-
I think I can anticipate some answers:
-Someone will say that a whine has been recorded
-Someone will say you are not forced to use axis planes
-Someone will say you are conspiring against the community
-Someone will say you are trying to reduce their freedom to make impossible ACM in that planes.... and they pay for that
-Someone will say its a market law......
-Someone will say in RL allied planes were way better than axis....:rolleyes:
-Someone will say this aint RL......couldnt care less of FM, they need only a target and a button....
-Someone ...(guess who?) will ignore you......
As you can see, nothing new under this sun.....
I'll keep on flying 109,190,and 205, with all that follows, trying to fill the gap with ability and experience.......and needless to say I agree completely on your analysis;)
-
A whine has been recorded
You are not forced to use axis planes
You are conspiring against the community (well actually it's the "contraire" :D)
You are trying to reduce my freedom to make impossible ACM in that planes.... and I pay for that
Its a market law......
In RL allied planes were way better than axis.... (sure :p)
This aint RL......couldnt care less of FM, they need only a target and a button....
-Someone ...(guess who?) will ignore you..... me :D
What do I win ?
-
Nothing Straffo as you only copied the text above ;)
Well said Stegor, pretty much said it all.
I too will keep flying axis planes, 190's and 109's mostly and everything that comes with them.
-
Nothing ?
I'm a consultant you can't imagine how much those 5 minutes cost !
-
hehe...Wilbus you anticipated me by five minutes.... but I see we are walking the same direction
for Straffo:
I'm a consultant you can't imagine how much those 5 minutes cost !
hey...didn't you read point n°7 : this aint RL, boy
:aok
-
Ahh someone else has noticed the increased drag!!!
I used to have to input allot of rudder and side slip the 109's as I was coming in for a landing but now it seems about all you need to do is cut throttle.
I don't care much for the 109k4 or the 109g14. IMHO neither are much good!
Hate that 30mm tater gun BIG TIME!
The ponys seem to have gotten faster!! and is it possible that they turn even better ........... well???
Saw a test flight on the g10 in an aviation book. Seems the g10 actually out turned the pony according to the 2 guys testing em. The pony was faster if it dove of course.
If this was for TOD I'm certainly not looking forward to it.
-
Originally posted by wrag
Ahh someone else has noticed the increased drag!!!
I used to have to input allot of rudder and side slip the 109's as I was coming in for a landing but now it seems about all you need to do is cut throttle.
I don't care much for the 109k4 or the 109g14. IMHO neither are much good!
Hate that 30mm tater gun BIG TIME!
The ponys seem to have gotten faster!! and is it possible that they turn even better ........... well???
Saw a test flight on the g10 in an aviation book. Seems the g10 actually out turned the pony according to the 2 guys testing em. The pony was faster if it dove of course.
If this was for TOD I'm certainly not looking forward to it.
The old K4(G10) could out turn the 51D I did it many times in the CT. Dont know about the new one
-
Hmmm...........
I seem to recall if the pony driver knew his pony you couldn't out turn that pony! thinkin the ones you out turned kept their speed and didn't drop flaps!
IMHO now the pony can stall fight a 109 very EZ!
-
I am going to re-do the engine acceleration tests again for the Bf109 series. That will put some facts to your claims about drag.
Vo=200mph
Vf=300mph
a = (vf - vo)/t
and I'll compare those numbers to the old tests I did last year.
-
Originally posted by Larry
The old K4(G10) could out turn the 51D I did it many times in the CT. Dont know about the new one
You never fought Morph, Nomak, WT or others who can "actually" fly it. ;)
-
Hehe yup we're going the same direction
The P51 has always been able to outturn the G10/K4 in AH when flown the right way thanks to combat flaps.
-
If you want a uber LW plane try the 110G with only 4 guns. It turns better then a P51B and the cannons ZOMFG. Only thing bad about it is the stall once you learn how to control it its a beast.
-
Luft-RA-whiners ..., you even got a G-14 thats twice as good the G-6 if math is not an opinion, uhm, ehr :confused:
Stop whining, you got the K-4 as well. Practice with basketball! One 30mm drop into the enemy cockpit and voilà! :rolleyes:
-
The P51 has always been able to outturn the G10/K4 in AH when flown the right way thanks to combat flaps.
The P51 had plain flaps the same as the Bf-109. There is no difference nor anything special about the Mustangs flaps system as far as I can tell.
I am confused as too why it is treated as such??
Can anyone explain it?
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Different or not it usre as hell is different in AH.
The speed is one thing, I have no Data suporting higher flap speeds in the 109 but even when they are dropped they make little difference.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
I too will keep flying axis planes, 190's and 109's mostly and everything that comes with them.
hah! so you're gonna hangar that niki, huh?!? :aok
-
From Crumpp:
"The P51 had plain flaps the same as the Bf-109. There is no difference nor anything special about the Mustangs flaps system as far as I can tell.
I am confused as too why it is treated as such??
Can anyone explain it?"
The 109 had physically deployed flaps (30 secs of left hand action to full?) while the P51 had this little lever to lower. Makes a hell of a difference in combat!
-
The 109 had physically deployed flaps (30 secs of left hand action to full?) while the P51 had this little lever to lower. Makes a hell of a difference in combat!
LOL,
The Bf-109 did not have pilot physically lowered flaps anymore than the P51 had pilot physically lowered flaps!
(http://img44.potato.com/loc24/th_0c2_109_Flap_deploy_speeds.jpg) (http://img44.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=0c2_109_Flap_deploy_speeds.jpg)(http://img106.potato.com/loc24/th_cef_flapturns20.jpg) (http://img106.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=cef_flapturns20.jpg)(http://img104.potato.com/loc24/th_e6b_flap_controls.jpg) (http://img104.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=e6b_flap_controls.jpg)
Both systems took about the same amount of time to deploy. Only difference is the Bf-109 pilot seems to have more control over exactly how much flap he wants to lower.
Start lowering anymore than about 10 degrees of flaps and drag begins to result in diminishing returns for combat usefulness.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
pretty sure the 109 flaps were on a hand cranked wheel, with the second wheel being elevator trim.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
LOL,
The Bf-109 did not have pilot physically lowered flaps anymore than the P51 had pilot physically lowered flaps!
Both systems took about the same amount of time to deploy. Only difference is the Bf-109 pilot seems to have more control over exactly how much flap he wants to lower.
Start lowering anymore than about 10 degrees of flaps and drag begins to result in diminishing returns for combat usefulness.
Agh? The P-51 pilot moves a lever while the 109 pilot had to spin a wheel on the left side of the seat. Read what Waffle has to say real carefully Crumpp. From full up to full down the P-51 took half the time to what the 109 took.
Take a look at this link to help you get it correct, http://www.messerschmitt-bf109.de/php-bf109d/cockpit/cockpit-bf109d.php
The 2 wheels are #16 and #17.
-
I am by no means accomplished in the 109/190 planes but i do fly the g10 exclusively and have discovered that it most likely will perform better in the verticle than a pony.I feel that the k4 has a very stiff feel to it while the g14 seems to be better suited to my flying style.Slow speed handling in the g14 is eccelent if flaps are used but the k4 seems to wallow a lot when enetering into a slower turn fight,as with all the 109's the slats have always caused some wallowing issues although they were used to prevent stall.I have some data that shows that 109's could deploy flaps at a faster speed than we are able to in game.Howbeit with that said I still prefer to fight in the g14 or k4,even if they are porked to some degree and enjoying watching ponys and most any other a/c fall to the ground from a plane that is porked and flown by an inferior pileit.The 109 thta really got the short end of the stick was the 109f4,it used to be great for base defense but basically sucs now,but hey the cockpits look good.Al I can really say is atleast they fixed the superuberflappenverticalrocke tofazeroturnradiusturnfighter ,the spitv hell that flew flew like an tie fighter from starwars.
VIC
-
It looks to me like you guys are talking about the same thing but either missunderstand eachother or don't listen at all.
Question from me: How long did it take for the pony to deply its flaps from fully up to fully down? Show link/data please, not just some text saying "I once read somewhere that it took this and that long".
You're all talking about a wheel instead of a lever which seems to be true from all the above links. Crump's and Milo's links both tell about trim wheels.
However, the 109 did not have physicly lowered flaps (if by "physicly" means that you had to lower them by use of personal "force"). They were hydraulicly lowered BUT with the use of a wheel instead of a lever.
Acording to Crump's links, 4 turns on the wheel was equal to 20 degrees flaps. It took 11-15 seconds for the flaps to go from fully up to fully down (50 degrees).
But what I find very interesting is the 109 flap speed chart Crump posted above. If I understand it correct, then 10 degree of flaps should be possible at 750 Km/h?
14 degrees at about 600 km/h and 20 degrees at about 480 km/h.
That is one hell of a difference to what we have.
-
Agh? The P-51 pilot moves a lever while the 109 pilot had to spin a wheel on the left side of the seat. Read what Waffle has to say real carefully Crumpp. From full up to full down the P-51 took half the time to what the 109 took.
Where do you see that?
Prove it took longer than 11-15 seconds to turn the wheel 8 times?
BS statement not backed up by facts only an assumption based off what? Your experience at the controls of a P51 or 109? Certainly has no basis in fact.
Do you and Waffle really think I don't know the 109's flaps are operated by a wheel??
I posted the Flugzeug-Handbuch exerpt! Read my post before you make a silly assumption and a ridiculus reply.
Could the P51 deploy 10 degrees of flap at 750kph??
NO....Not according to the POH.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
It took 11-15 seconds for the flaps to go from fully up to fully down (50 degrees).
That is an exerpt from the P51D POH. The Bf-109's flaps went down as fast as the pilot turned the wheel.
Both systems have advantages. In the P51 the pilot is just selecting a preset position on a lever. However he does not have as much control nor does he have the ability to drop flaps at the high speeds the 109 pilot can.
The 109 pilot has much more precise control over the amount of flap he chooses to use. He can dial in or out the precise amount needed in the fight quickly and use flaps almost throughout the aircrafts envelope if he chooses.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
The problem with these threads, regardless of which plane you like, is that it always comes down to "those guys planes fly better then the plane I like. Why was mine porked and why is theirs uber?"
That doesn't apply to everyone who contributes, but there are enough folks who beat the subject into the ground that it loses focus.
Nath certainly has the skills in the arena to talk about the planes, but even he throws in-
"In the past 2 years or so it seems like all the allied planes have been increasingly made easier to fly (incredible almost anti gravity, turn radius increasing, little drag flaps and cockpits with very little obstructions) while axis planes (specifically the LW fleet) have only become worse."
It's the old implied Allied conspiracy at work.
Is it possible that HTC have refined the models towards a better representative version of the particular bird?
Think about the Spit whines about the new Vb vs the old Vc. Seems like the 'Luftwhiners" got their way on that one, if you want to believe in conspiracies. I don't buy into that. To me, and I'm a Spit history fan, HTC did the right thing making the one Spit V variant we have a more representative version from 41 instead of a later LF Vc. Just doing a quick count, I could argue forever on the Spit V as there were at least 39 different wing, engine etc combinations that fell under the label Spitfire V.
Probably not realistic to expect HTC to produce all 39 versions though, even thouugh a late 43 clipped LFVc would mop up in the low alt world of AH. And of course they could carry 4 cannon! I love that one. I've yet to find anywhere where a Spit V pilot would have wanted to go into air combat with that much of a weight & performance penalty. The only use was in ground attack in Italy where there was no real threat of air to air. All I see when I see the request for 4 cannon is that guys want the hitting power for easier kills, and aren't thinking at all about the reality of it.
Ultimately it comes down to the game having the best representative version with realistic options. As for performance, I have to believe that Pyro and the guys are using the best info they can get to make it as accurate as possible. It's not like they don't have lots of help whether they want it or not :)
I don't believe they are slanting the game towards the Allies.
It might also come down to adjusting to the FM and getting the best out of the bird you like to fly.
-
I have one question here a bit off topic. Why did they modeled the P-51B with Malcolm Hood?
does anyone know how many P51 B's had this canopy from the total number?
-
Well I look it at this way. The lesser planes that are flown in AH from the LW side when I get to make a kill and gloat to some Star Spangled dweeb uber rider it is so much sweeter, that my skill not the plane made the victory. If I lose then no matter I know I fought well and to the best of my abilities to what the AH FM allows the underperforming aircraft to do. So I do not get sentimental about it anymore.
I have noticed that with the limits the FM has to some aircraft, not in accordance to its real life counterpart. If the plane mentioned had the ability to do certain thing like the real plane could , those fights would play much differently, but they don't. I think mainly due to remaining with the status quo of financial sucess, I don't blame them but t is as such.
The few instances,now that I'm flying on Bish's side I've seen a LW aircraft from the enemy has been mainly K-4s and G-14s. When they see me in a 190A8 I get bounced like flies on excrement. Most of the time I have gone out,some well not that much. Either way not much a 190A8-R8 like the one in AH can do at low altitude compared to its older counterpart the A-5.
Heck even the Dora,my lovely Dorita cannot catch a fleeing Pony OTD anymore and has trouble accelerating away from such deformed being as a F4U-1 Corsair D, for the love of Kurt Tank come on! :O
-
LOL Glasses you made me spit the coffee on the keyboard .... "deformed being" :D
-
Originally posted by JAWS2003
I have one question here a bit off topic. Why did they modeled the P-51B with Malcolm Hood?
does anyone know how many P51 B's had this canopy from the total number?
They were retrofitted to P51B/Cs in the ETO. They didn't make it to the MTO or Pacific.
All the RAF Mustang IIIs in England had them and many USAAF P51B/Cs had them from April/May 44 on. That doesn't mean they weren't being flown with the standard canopy on others at the same time as you can find photos of formations where there are Malcom hood 51B/Cs and regular canopy B/Cs.
Visibility was the big issue. I wish they had both for AH, but I think the Malcom hood is the better trade off as it allows for the RAF birds to be skinned more accurately and there are lots of USAAF birds that can be done with it too.
-
Which is why I have almost completely stoped flying the 190's Glasses. The Dora used to be my main ride aswell but it is FUBAR.
And now it feels as if the 109's are going the same way.
But nothing will change by discussing it really so not sure why I bother.
-
I fly both the A8 and D9 fairly often and have had no problem with them. Obviously you aren't going to win many low slow turnfights on the deck. But the A8 really is faster then any of the free Spits on the deck - hit the boost and wave goodbye. The Dora really is faster then any Spit or the P-51s on the deck. And the FW's have 10 minutes of WEP vs. 5 for most allied rides. If you are getting caught, or can't catch them it's because they started out with a lot more E then you. My K/D ratio with the A8 so far this tour is over 6:1, and with the D9 over 13:1. Both well above my overall K/D of about 4:1 (userid is kneedrgr if anyone wants to call bs).
-
Originally posted by Glasses
Heck even the Dora,my lovely Dorita cannot catch a fleeing Pony OTD anymore and has trouble accelerating away from such deformed being as a F4U-1 Corsair D, for the love of Kurt Tank come on! :O
Eating less burritos will help !
The only "deformed being" I can see is your arse !
-
I think mainly due to remaining with the status quo of financial sucess, I don't blame them but t is as such.
It is always HTC's goal that planes perform like the real thing.
HTC Never modiefies a planes performance based on anything but our best interpitation of the flight data we have availible to us.
We do not have a bias towards any countries planes.
There are generic systems we use that people then try turn into we have a bias.
These include things like flaps.We make generic modeling choices on how to impliment certain systesm Thinks like, do flaps move to any position or do they have preset positions. These have absolutly nothing to do with a bias.We could model all types of flaps systems, but does it realy make much different to the plane.
People who tend to do reaserch on flight data tend to cheary pick the data. This is typicly because the plane they are researching is a plane they have always liked. I.E. on the FW performance being to slow comes from one report, but they wish to use another report with a better climb rate.
People also tend to belive that there is one set of golden /(Compltly real) numbers on the performance of an airplane. This is far from reality.
Finaly It always amazes me, how people clame things changed, with the 109s this version none of there performance changed. The 109k4 perfomes exatly like the 109G10 did.
The F190D9 has not changed since 2.00 was released. So have you ever flown since 2.00 wilbus or are you refering to pre 2.00 dora?
HiTech
-
I am refering to 2.00 190's HT.
Not saying it has changed anymore after 2.00 was released. Just saying I don't fly the 190's because I don't think they perform the way they should. Be it right or wrong HT, much info has been posted and it is often the way you say, people pick the best charts from different planes/types/engines and try to make it look like the same plane.
FYI I said before (long time ago) that I liked the "new" 2.00 190's better then old ones (prior to 2.00) and I loved flying them after 2.00 got out. So YES, I have flown it, and flown it alot since 2.00 was released.
But after flying some more planes, getting out of the 190 and in to some of the US (for example) planes such as the Pony or the P47 the difference is too great to ignore. It really does feel somewhat like easy mode. Is it possible that the US planes were that much better and easier to fly than the German ones?
And NO, I don't think you are biased towards any one country, I don't believe in an LW conspiracy. The LW consipracy is a stupid thing made up by anti-whine-whiners. Don't know why I bothered with one of these threads again, been working to get my Luftwhiner stamp off of me. Look how that worked out.
Thanks for confirming the illusion aspect of the 109 K though, no need to speculate wether it was changed from the G10 or not anymore. Just an illusion as I stated above.
Sable, K/D doesn't really mean anything. It can be achived by vulching or flying in hordes or whatever (not saying that is the way you do it).
People have had 20+ to 1 K/D in 202's. That doesn't mean it is better then all other planes or even close to any other planes in terms of performance.
-
Originally posted by hitech
There are generic systems we use that people then try turn into we have a bias.
These include things like flaps.We make generic modeling choices on how to impliment certain systesm Thinks like, do flaps move to any position or do they have preset positions. These have absolutly nothing to do with a bias.We could model all types of flaps systems, but does it realy make much different to the plane.
That's a half-truth Hitech. The flaps system may be generic, but there are plane specific limitations on flap deployment speeds and low speed stability with flaps. Generally those planes whose flap system had a LABEL that said "combat" somewhere in the cockpit get to deploy flaps at higher speeds than other planes. They also have magic carpet stability at low-speed, even if the flap systems are similar or identical to other not-so-nicely-labeled planes. And since the real-life speed restrictions on many of these planes are known and have been posted here I think it is safe to say that the speed restrictions on flap deployment on most if not all planes in AH has little or no foundation in historical fact.
Can someone please put a "combat" sticker over the "Take-off" label in the 190’s?
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
LOL,
The Bf-109 did not have pilot physically lowered flaps anymore than the P51 had pilot physically lowered flaps!
(http://img44.potato.com/loc24/th_0c2_109_Flap_deploy_speeds.jpg) (http://img44.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=0c2_109_Flap_deploy_speeds.jpg)(http://img106.potato.com/loc24/th_cef_flapturns20.jpg) (http://img106.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=cef_flapturns20.jpg)(http://img104.potato.com/loc24/th_e6b_flap_controls.jpg) (http://img104.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=e6b_flap_controls.jpg)
Both systems took about the same amount of time to deploy. Only difference is the Bf-109 pilot seems to have more control over exactly how much flap he wants to lower.
Start lowering anymore than about 10 degrees of flaps and drag begins to result in diminishing returns for combat usefulness.
All the best,
Crumpp
Crumpp, reading through there...what is a "spark plug cleaner"? Was it done in flight or just something to remember to have the maintenance boys do after the flight?
-
I still wonder whether I'm right or wrong on the 109 AoA issue...
-C+
"Crumpp, reading through there...what is a "spark plug cleaner"? Was it done in flight or just something to remember to have the maintenance boys do after the flight?"
IIRC there was a lever to retard the ingnition timing to clean the spark plugs. This had to be done eg. if the plane had idled on the field for a while.
-
I am not claiming any conspiracy against the LW in favor of Allied planes, only what I have witnessed over time. And I have, along with many other pilots I respect, noticed a salient change in the way Allied planes have become smoother to fly than what they used to be like and the way the 190s and 109s have not changed at all, and even got worse with views. Maybe it is really true that the LW had such poor planes compared to their adversaries -- and the LW pilots must have been just that much better to do so well.
I first started to question the status of the LW birds when the 190 cockpit was revised. I and many others posted numerous pictures that the new cockpit bars were overdone. HTC responded by slightly narrowing these bars, which really made no noticeable difference. Then I see the Spitfire cockpits redone!! I ask myself what is going on -- I look at pictures of a Spitfire cockpit and then a 190 cockpit (real pictures, of entire cockpit) and somehow compared to Aces High the Spitfires obstructions are similar to the picture if not smaller, and the 190 obstructions are much larger. This is what I do not understand. HTC contributes this to the fact that the cockpits are "3D". If that is the case why do the Allied planes not have such a huge 3d effect like the 190 which obstruct views?
Ta 152 FM has sat porked for a year. Many people have posted proven that the FM is wrong. Just fly the thing and feel how bad it is. You don't even need any data. The plane was not that bad in real life. No way. Here we get its real life counterpart, The Tempest, with the most awesome FM ever. Can we at least get a fair remodeled Ta 152??
Flaps on LW birds. It seems like even with these deployed at below 200 mph at ONE Notch they create more drag than in the P51 or P47, p38, etc and they definately do not aid as much as the latter's in turn rate. Was it really true, that the LW could employ the first fighter jet and not put flaps on its 1941 airframes that could help its pilots above a meager 200mph ?
The only LW bird that feels like the rest of the non LW planeset is probably the 110. It's got the laser guns which you can just hold down all day and pray for one hit which will kill anything and its flaps actually do something.
Maybe HTC just has not redone the flight models of teh 109 or 190 yet. I certainly hope they will because I am getting too old and tired of having to use my skilll to offset the easy mode planes my competition is flying. :-)
-
Oh yeah, and I'm still hoping for a review of the FM of the G-14. This patch is ruining our squad fun. We miss the G-10 with his gondolas and 20mm. Those new beautiful Spits make the life of our 190s and 205s in the Main too tough.
Really, many of us are taking a leave or flying less and less. I'm really sad for the squad and this is not a joke.
-
Nath,
As a Spitfire fan I actually think the Spitfire's cockpit views are too generous. I am less familiar with where the Fw190 and Bf109's should be, but as I understand it from hearing veteran's comments the Fw190 should have superior visibility to the Spitfire and the Bf109 inferior visibility to the Spitfire, though it does get progressively better for the Bf109s.
Gatt,
I am hoping for that Bf109G-14 FM revision too. It is on my short "favorites" list and I'd really like to see it get it's full performance.
-
Well I am no expert by far but I test a lot of the planes I like to fly in, mostly 109s. They all seem to check out, at least with in the realm of believability, with the the exception of the G-14 which Pyro said he would look at. There is no definitive document that will 'prove' that every 109, or every 190 should perform as such...
But others have tested their favorites as well. The 190A-8 being of the most early on in the life of AH especially early. It has always matched up well. I haven't bothered to test it in sometime but some one can if they like. Lets look at AHs D-9.
AH forum member Naudet has been researching the D-9 for years. He has stated AHs D-9 was as believable as they come (if not performing slightly better).
He recently found actual flight test for the D-9 at Nasm:
And the day got even better when i quickly read a frist time through the pages, cause they not only contained the performance numbers/curve i expected. No there was testflight data for the FW190D9 Wk.-Nr. 210 002 with both "Erhöhte Not-/Startleistung" and with MW50 injection!
We finally have it, real flight test speeds for a Dora with the Special Emergency power settings.
And as a goodie the documents from the NASM also points me to some of the Junkers reports about engine troubles with the first batch of serial production JUMO213As.
That way we are now able to explain why the flighttests we know and the calculated numbers differ from each others, actually we don't need to explain it, cause the FW engineers already did it back in 1944/45 for us.
Good news first, starting with the 20th of June i will be in work again. Bad news, its supposed to be a more than fulltime job, which will restrict my times for further research somewhat.
But for those that are interested in the FW190D documents from the NASM here are their designations:
1. FW/Fb/FW190-210001 (1-2)
Reel: 8069 Frame: 1153
2. FW/Fb/FW/210001/(3)
Reel: 2861 Frame: 989
3. FW/Fb/FW190-210002 (1,2,3)
Reel: 3996 Frame: 343
4. FW/FW190/Sch/16/3/45
Reel 2731 Frame: 797
Those four together will be exactly 50 pages, so if you order them, you won't exceed the limit per order.
About the Junkers documents, i use my last free week for a while to forward them to the people that supplied me with valuable informantions and documents in the past. That way we should soon have a good base to discuss any questions/issues arising from those docs.
Now folks like Nath and Wilbus have much more time in the AHs LW plane set then me. At least enough to notice any subtle changes between patches. However, with most of these types of complaints there is very little actionable data provide. Mostly just opinions and the inevitable crowd of 'HTC hates / cheats' the LW parrots.
I am no fanboi, but any anyone can run some tests for AHs aircraft and post their results. Opinion stuff just won't get you any where.
'Woe is the Luftwaffe...'
-
People who tend to do reaserch on flight data tend to cheary pick the data. This is typicly because the plane they are researching is a plane they have always liked. I.E. on the FW performance being to slow comes from one report, but they wish to use another report with a better climb rate.
Ah, no and please don't even try and insinuate that.
The data I sent into HTC is actually on the lower end of Focke Wulfs production performance specifications, as I did not have a copy of those trials at the time. It was a flight testing of Rustsatz kits and not production machine performance trials. It is within those specifications but is not "average performance".
Guaranteed performance specs:
(http://img7.potato.com/loc60/th_697_Focke_Wulf_tolerences.jpg) (http://img7.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc60&image=697_Focke_Wulf_tolerences.jpg)
(http://img109.potato.com/loc55/th_06b_Fw190_vergleich_1.jpg) (http://img109.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc55&image=06b_Fw190_vergleich_1.jpg)
I have the production performance trials on the FW190A6 and FW190A8 now.
As for the Dora I helped Naudet with his evaluation and very much agree for top speed and climb. The sustained turn ability is another issue though.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Maybe the LW planeset is accurate, and the Allies planes are wrong.... i see never see any critique of those snap rolling Spit8's and 16s that roll faster than a Fw 190X100.
-
Maybe the LW planeset is accurate, and the Allies planes are wrong....
Could be....
Something is off though.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Bias or not the FW 190 is not treated fair in this game, period. It was a fighter and had a fighting chance until the end of the war. Just look at A8 and TA-152 in this game. They have "target" written allover them.
-
The 190 and 109 canopy bars does seem a little exaggerated in thickness. It is really hard to tell from pictures. I'd be happy if they had a small diet.
Bozon
-
Originally posted by Mime
i see never see any critique of those snap rolling Spit8's and 16s that roll faster than a Fw 190X100.
You won't see a critique of that because they don't roll faster than any Fw 190...
Spitfire roll rates in degrees per second, based upon one 360 degree roll.
Air speed: 300 mph
Altitude: 2,000 feet.
Fuel: 50%
Stopwatch used to measure. Average of three tests.
Mk.VIII
Right = 68 degrees
Left = 74 degrees
Mk.IX
Right = 78 degrees
Left = 81 degrees
Mk.XIV
Right = 78 degrees
Left = 82 degrees
Mk.XVI
Right = 112 degrees
Left = 116 degrees
For comparison:
Fw 190A-5
@300 mph
Right = 125 degrees
Left = 131 degrees
@290 mph
Right: 137 degrees
Left: 140 degrees
@280 mph
Right: 140 degrees
Left: 144 degrees
I tested the Spitfire Mk.VIII for roll at various speeds beginning at 150 mph and in increments of 50 mph up to 400 mph.
2,000 feet, 50% fuel
150 mph:
Right: 65 degrees
Left: 72 degrees
200 mph:
Right: 85 degrees
Left: 93 degrees
250 mph:
Right: 79 degrees
Left: 87 degrees
300 mph:
Right: 68 degrees
Left: 74 degrees
350 mph:
Right: 52 degrees
Left: 54 degrees
400 mph:
Right: 36 degrees
Left: 37 degrees
So, the standard wingspan Spitfires don't come anywhere near the 190s in roll rate. Moreover, while the Spit XVI rolls very fast, it still lags behind the 190s by a noteworthy margin.
My regards,
Widewing
-
noticed i said snap roll. its a little different than just pulling your stick left. that's a standard roll. i'd be glad to show you what i mean in game.
-
What does that roll rate advantage get you in reality?
Agility.
(http://img12.potato.com/loc81/th_425_airplane_roll.jpg) (http://img12.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc81&image=425_airplane_roll.jpg)
That is why you see the FW190 labeled as "more manuverable" in all the tactical trials.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
That is true Crump, however that page neglects to qualify that with the mention that the larger winged aircraft can pull into turns that the shorter winged aircraft cannot match without suffering a flight departure.
Also the diagram presents a rather exagerated difference in roll rate.
I do think you are right about the Fw190s being too heavy and suffering inordinantly in their turning capabilities for it tough.
-
THE absolute worst thing about the new LW planes is the thickness of the cockpit bars. THE absolute best thing about the new 51s and Spits is that HTC did not make the same mistake with the cockpit bars. Thanks HTC!!
Guys, please do not ask that the bars on the 51s and Spits be thickened. Better to ask that the LW bars be made thinner, as they were before. This way, people who want to do deflection shooting can do so (still not that easy, but at least possible).
Because of the AH "fisheye lens" effect (needed because of the restricted field of view of a computer monitor), canopy framing will look thicker than in real life. To compensate, we need to make the model framing a thinner than in real life (as in the 51s, and Spits).
-
Yes part of it is perspective and camera, but I don't see HOW the p51 cockpit can "look" so narrow.. it's like there ISN'T a huge-arse honking engine in a long nose right in front of you, and you can "look out" the side windows forward of the sliding canopy, but still see "ahead" of the plane (when really you'd see more of what the spitfire sees now).
I think they're still perfecting it. It's more there (the angle) on the spits, less so on the p51, and less so (but for opposite end of the spectrum) on the 190s.
I liked the early Ki84. I felt it was a really wide, spacious view, much like the p51s we have now. It got closed up a little, to a more moderate (more accurate, I'd also say) view angle/position.
I think the 190 just needs to be opened, and the p51s closed a lot. The frames themselves aren't too much of an issue. Okay they ARE, but they're a separate issue.
-
As long as we're fixing cockpit bars, for my two cents I think the KI-84 ended up with overly thick bars. It was the first or one of the first planes built to the new standard and thus suffers from first version thick bars.
-
I dont have any problem with the new set of allied planes. They are beautifully modeled and above all allied pilots needed decent mid-late war Spitfires.
I dont have any problem with cockpit frames, I like the 109 cockpit. The 205 cockpit is still awful but finally they'll redo it, I hope.
All considered, this new plane set lowered the LW efficiency.
The G-14 is not and never will be the buff hunter the G-10 was.
The K-4 with the 30mm is not and never will be the dogfighter the G-10 with the 20mm in the nose was.
The final effect is we are less efficient and above all we are enjoying AH2 2.06 much less than before.
I hope HTC will fine tune the LW plane set togheter with the loadout ASAP.
-
This:
"You're all talking about a wheel instead of a lever which seems to be true from all the above links. Crump's and Milo's links both tell about trim wheels."
Yes, the 109's flaps were lowered by turning a wheel. I have not seen any data about it being hydraulic though, always thought it was a gearing issue. Same as the UC of the 109, and the Spitfire Mk I.
Don't know about the Mustang, it was just a lever, so it was definately not physical/geared. Rather electrical/hydraulical/pneumatic. Well, HiTech flew a P51, I am sure he can tell us!
-
"The 190 and 109 canopy bars does seem a little exaggerated in thickness. It is really hard to tell from pictures. I'd be happy if they had a small diet."
The 190 and 109 cockpits do look like that and that is how they should be modelled IMO. For ALL planes. Being a TIR user I understand that this is a bit unfair as for TIR users the frames do not present such obstruction for views as for hat view users. I think that what should be determined is the physical size of the actual windshield for all the planes and a desicion for the common "modelling distance" which guarantees that all aircraft would have their forward views exactly at right proportions. I know its a huge task but again members of this board could help a lot in this.
***
"noticed i said snap roll. its a little different than just pulling your stick left. that's a standard roll."
"however that page neglects to qualify that with the mention that the larger winged aircraft can pull into turns that the shorter winged aircraft cannot match without suffering a flight departure."
That has nothing to do with wingarea but with wing design. The way Spits do this "flick roll" IRL it would make them departure the normal flight totally. Their wing profile cannot handle such sudden and major changes in AoA and the elliptic planform is not stall friendly (I do remember the twist...). IMO in general the Spit can outturn the German counterparts in sustained turn contest and hold its E better due to larger wing but it probably cannot match the sudden high AoA maneuvers of 190 and especially not those of 109 (slat assisted) due to differences in wing profiles and their critical AoAs.
As was mentioned earlier the wing design is a compromise. There is no "jack of all trades" designs that would be optimal for all situations.
-C+
PS. Regarding criticism: I think its good to see that people are interested in this subject as they all aim to improve the gaming experience and improve the balance in game. People who don't give a shat would just troll around awhile, yell "NERF", walk away and play something else. :)
-
So, how do you explain Henshaw's quote if the flick roll is impossible?
-
Henshaw's quote?
Wazzat?
-C+
-
Originally posted by Angus
Yes, the 109's flaps were lowered by turning a wheel. I have not seen any data about it being hydraulic though, always thought it was a gearing issue. Same as the UC of the 109, and the Spitfire Mk I.
Don't know about the Mustang, it was just a lever, so it was definately not physical/geared. Rather electrical/hydraulical/pneumatic. Well, HiTech flew a P51, I am sure he can tell us!
Yep it's correct that the 109 had mechanical gearing to the flaps, operated by the pilots muscles. But you guys miss a point about flap lowering times..
From the data we see it says that full lowering would take ca25 seconds on the 109 and 15 secs on the P-51. But... that's the fully deployed flaps, for landing, 40-60 degrees, which is a LOT; we are talking here about combat flaps, which only mean small deployment, 5-10 degrees only. On the P-51 with hydraulic operation, the deployment was most likely constant speed, ie. say 4 secs (1/4 time) required to deploy combat flaps by pressing the switch. On the 109 the time is less linear, since with more flap deflection, more airflow pushing against it and the forces getting higher towards the end of the path, slowing it down - you can turn less fast the wheel with your muscles. You only put out landing flaps when landing, when the speed is not an issue.
When you lower them only a little, ie. combat flaps, the forces are less and could be applied more quickly.
That's not the whole issue however, with flap deployment you also have to change the trim of the aircraft, which could be done simultaniously on the 2-axe wheel (trim and flaps), whereas on the P-51 you first put the flaps out, and then adjusted the trim with another switch.
All in all it's not a major difference in practice imho.
-
p-51s hydraulic system was charged to around 1050lbs per sq inch....with recharging starting from the engine pump when pressure got to around 850lbs sq in. after use (flaps / gears)
There was also a restrictor valve in the flap hydrualic line which was adjustable depending if the flaps were deploying too quickly or too slowly...
I presume this could mean from flaps slamming down to barely moving...
4 seconds for a 8-11 degree deployment seems pretty slow for a hydraulic system.
Now on the 109 hand cranked system, It would be interesting to see the mechanisms / drawings of the gearing and to see if theres a way to figure out how much force would have to be apllied to move those flaps at speeds in excess of 200kmh.
The 51s I'm sure would have more of a chance to deploy flaps, than the 109s at higher speeds, even if incurring risk to damage
-
Charge:
"Henshaw's quote?
Wazzat?"
My mistake, got mixed with threads.
Anyway, it's about flick rolling the Spitfire, the earlier marks flicking more than the later marks. It's somewhere here in another thread.
My mistake, - me bad ;)
-
Originally posted by Waffle BAS
Now on the 109 hand cranked system, It would be interesting to see the mechanisms / drawings of the gearing and to see if theres a way to figure out how much force would have to be apllied to move those flaps at speeds in excess of 200kmh.
The Messi pilot could only move the wheel ~ 1/4 turn for each arm movement.
here are some images of the cockpit,
http://aircraftresourcecenter.com/Fea1/301-400/Fea398_Bf-109_Mustafa/Fea398.htm
(http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/images/cockpit1091.jpg)
-
The Messi pilot could only move the wheel ~ 1/4 turn for each arm movement.
Where in the world do you get this claim??
Prove it.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Just the ergonomics of the wheel position would dictate that the pilot would grab low rear on the wheel -(say at heading 270 if it were a compass)...then rotate it forwards 0. Prob more like 300 to 30 degrees would be the easiest.
There's no physical way a pilot could rotate that wheel 360 degrees with one arm movement...
180 degress would be pushing it... 90-130 degrees more likely
so if from the translated g6 manual - 4 turns for 20 degress...would be somewhere between 16 and 8 arm movements given a 90 degree rotation of the wheel per arm movement, and a 180 degree rotation respectivly
-
Originally posted by Waffle BAS
The 51s I'm sure would have more of a chance to deploy flaps, than the 109s at higher speeds, even if incurring risk to damage
Question is why you'd want to deploy flaps at high speeds... they'd just bleed your speed quickly. Remember flaps are lift-increasing devices, and you already got plenty of lift at high speeds. Using combat plaps has meaning at low speeds, but then it's fairly easy.
Now going by the data posted in the thread, ie.
10 degrees defined as combat flaps
1 complete turn required for 5 degrees
pilot can turn 1/3 at one time -> 6x1/3 turns required (2 complete turns
and assuming the pilot can do 2x 1/3 turn in 1 sec (forces neglected)
...then a 109 pilot can apply combat flaps pretty quickly, in 3 secs.
-
And how were the 109 flaps deployed? Nobody yet explained that.
And the UC?
-
Just the ergonomics of the wheel position would dictate that the pilot would grab low rear on the wheel -(say at heading 270 if it were a compass)...then rotate it forwards 0. Prob more like 300 to 30 degrees would be the easiest.
Just spoke with some associates who operate a Bf-109E. We have some erroneous assumptions going on here.
1. A "turn" of the wheel is not a 360 degree revolution. It is one complete motion of the wheel in the direction needed using the full range of motion.
So when the Flugzeug-Handbuch instructs "4-turns" the pilot reaches down and in 4 arm movements moves the wheel 4 times.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
FWIW ...
I kind of like the "in the cockpit" feel of the LW planes. Most of the rest feel like you're riding more in an open-topped roadster. Except for the Russian planes where it seems like the cockpit is half the length of the plane.
I do think the framing is too thick as rendered. Not just because of the fish-eye of computer modelling, but also because of the way the human eye and brain work together in real life.
I rarely fly 109's but it seems from my research that the LW were the masters of the bolt-on. Late war 109's should have plenty of add-on packs - gondolas, rockets, you name it. Maybe not the K, but certainly the G.
The Fw's all feel heavy to me. Roll rate is dizzying, of course. But the plane departs if you look at it wrong and I really have trouble accepting that it's low speed handling is as limited as modeled. It just doesn't "feel" like the tight little plane it was. Just an opinion.
Anyone who thinks HT has a bias against LW planes never flew with him in AW. As I recall HT flew the Fw almost exclusively.
-
Anyone who thinks HT has a bias
IMHO lack of data is the problem not bias.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Angus
And how were the 109 flaps deployed? Nobody yet explained that.
And the UC?
Flaps were lowered mechanically, by rotating that double wheel on the left of the cocpit, visible on the 109E cocpit picture (iirc outer one adjusted the tailplane ("Flosse"), the inner one adjusted the flaps, so you could the two at the same time, re-trimming the plane which is neccesary if you deploy flaps)
Undercarriage (and radiator flaps) were operated hydraulically. The prop angle was set by an electric motor.
-
Just checked the 109G Bedienungsvorschrift. It says:
"C. Abflug
...
2. Landeklappen auf 20* stellen.
Ladeklappenverstellrad links, Anzeiger auf linker Landeklappe. 20* Anzeige entrsprechen 4 umdrehungen am Handrad."
Note : This should mean takeoff flaps. I am not sure though what's the precise meaning of 'umdrehungen', though it seems unlikely that they'd instuct pilots to make four 360 degree turns, if that was physically impossible...
-
The 190 and 109 cockpits do look like that and that is how they should be modelled IMO. For ALL planes. Being a TIR user I understand that this is a bit unfair as for TIR users the frames do not present such obstruction for views as for hat view users. I think that what should be determined is the physical size of the actual windshield for all the planes and a desicion for the common "modelling distance" which guarantees that all aircraft would have their forward views exactly at right proportions. I know its a huge task but again members of this board could help a lot in this.
I agree, this red herring argument about canopy bars is silly especially with AHs generous head view movement, this just for 'hat users'. Not to mention trackIR. This is more or less just a 'look at the Allied planes, its unfair' then anything else.
It doesn't even matter about distance from the windscreen because you can set and save whatever distance you want using the arrow keys. I use track IR alone, no hat switch is mapped no keyboard commands for view ect and I don't find the views in LW planes all that 'limiting'.
Flaps are another red herring. As Kurfürst said flaps will just bled your energy faster, especially on LW planes. It's not that big of an issue. Especially on the 109s where their acceleration and climb make them excellent dog fighters. If your claim that HTC hates LW planes is based upon 'flaps' and 'canopy bars' then thats nothing more then whining. Or is it just about gondolas and bombs?
Also, those of you who don't think the Spitfires could fight you need to know that the best of the Spitfires aren't even in AH. Hell, if we use the Spit XVI as a gage then I imagine a simple LF.Vc with CW would be enough to send half of you over the edge. Imagine that Spit XVI with 25lbs boost (it runs 18 max now).
I am still not sure what you all are claiming has changed with the LW planes? 109 speed and climb are about the same (G-14 is the exception and as I said above Pyro said he would look at it), Kweassa did some turn tests and posted in another thread that these haven't changed. Fork is working acceleration tests and I imagine those haven't changed much either.
-
Manual, in German, for the 109E
http://www.bf109.com/acrobat/bf109elowgerman.pdf
includes a diagram of the rim and flap wheels.
-
Originally posted by Bruno
Imagine that Spit XVI with 25lbs boost (it runs 18 max now).
Hmm, a +25 lbs IX or XVI would have almost exactly the same performance as the G-14, mph for mph, fpm for fpm. Perhaps the G-14 is a bit faster, the XVI climbs a little better on high boost, but that's all.
-
Originally posted by Mime
listen to me for a sec
In the past 2 years or so it seems like all the allied planes have been increasingly made easier to fly (incredible almost anti gravity, turn radius increasing, little drag flaps and cockpits with very little obstructions) while axis planes (specifically the LW fleet) have only become worse.
Sad but true. I was expecting the TOD, cuz the MA is kind of childish, but looks like LW is porked worst after this patch,
I wouldn't be surprised to see the P51 outruning the Me262 after next patch.
-
Sounds pretty clear from this post back on page one...lol
Think it's like the hypochnondriac who pulls a muscle in the back....friend says "so and so had a back pain...turned out to be his/her heart had a problem...."
Next thing you know - the hypochondriac is at ER screaming they're dying because they think their having a heart attack.. from psyching themselves up to believe in something that ain't there.
Originally posted by hitech
Finaly It always amazes me, how people clame things changed, with the 109s this version none of there performance changed. The 109k4 perfomes exatly like the 109G10 did.
The F190D9 has not changed since 2.00 was released.
HiTech
-
Well, that and the Mk XVI out rolls and out turns the Bf109G-14. Put it on +25lbs boost and it'll out climb it and out run it too. Right now it out climbs, out rolls and out turns the Bf109G-14.
Frankly I am just not good enough in the Bf109s to know what to do about a Mk XVI that is above me and I ran into that situation last night.
As to the cockpits, I think it is pretty clear that the Spitfire's cockpit at least is overly generous in the view.
Here is a photo Charge posted recently of a Spitfire's cockpit:
(http://members.arstechnica.com/x/karnak/SpitBW.jpg)
And here is an in game shot of a Spitfire's cockpit, cropped to about the same width:
(http://members.arstechnica.com/x/karnak/SpitAH.jpg)
I would be interested in seeing such a comparison for other fighters as well, particularly the P-51D.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Hmm, a +25 lbs IX or XVI would have almost exactly the same performance as the G-14, mph for mph, fpm for fpm. Perhaps the G-14 is a bit faster, the XVI climbs a little better on high boost, but that's all.
I know that, but you don't understand the nature of some of the people that play AH. They are already complaining about how the Spit XVI is 'too good' at 18lbs. It's not about facts, it's about perceptions. If the rumor gets out that XXX plane is porked, or that XXX planes is 'over modeled' then it will get repeated and eventually screamed from the mountain top, facts be damned.
HT himself said:
Finaly It always amazes me, how people clame things changed, with the 109s this version none of there performance changed. The 109k4 perfomes exatly like the 109G10 did.
All the test I have done confirm this, yet you will see any number folks running about claiming that HTC has 'neutered' or 'porked' all LW planes.
It's just silly...
-
I've had no problems with the SpitXVI so far, maybe it could be that those that'd be flying the XVI do not come into the LCD(Least Common denominator) class of pilots so it has been a handful but not so much that they become unmaneageable.
I do agree with Nath thoguh there is something awkward about the snap roll in the Spit series,since at the treshold of the 190's best roll rate I've had Spitfires keep up with me in excessive turn rolls.
-
Well as a newbie Bf109 pilot flying the Bf109G-14, running into Morpheus in a Spitfire Mk XVI was a bad thing. Very, very bad.
If you have any tips I'd love to hear them Glasses.
-
as far as windsheild / canopies go:
(http://www.dangreve.com/1091.jpg)
(http://www.dangreve.com/1092.jpg)
(http://www.dangreve.com/51.jpg)
you can see how cramped the 109 is as compared to the 51
I'll see if I can dig some spit / 190 stuff up.
-
from my perspective, irrespective of HTC assurance that the FMs haven't been altered in any way the fact remains that the 109K-4 does not appear to be anywhere near as fast as the 109G-10 was and it's climb rate has been seriously degraded. so much so that a co-alt co-E P40-E had no problem staying with me in a spiral climb during a lenghty 1 v 1 encounter in the CT last night. The opposing player was one that is considerably less able than myself, judging from past encounters. I would point out that HTC had previously assured us that the FM in the 190 had not been altered yet the tendency to depart in a moderately high AoA bank disaapeared after 2.04. The bf110 now departs into an usually unrecoverable flat spin with even slight rudder input while turning. This is something that didn't occur prior to 2.06. I'm sure other 110 players are experiencing the same issue. certainly my squadmates in the MA have had this experience as the 110 is our principle ride and it sees heavy use in the MA and CT by us. I can't comment on allied aircraft because of how seldomly I play in them but regarding the German aircraft, which I utilize almost exclusively this version of the game is a flop and unpleasant to play.
-
Perk the 110!!
It's the best dogfighter the Luftwaffe has in Aces High.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Perk the 110!!
It's the best dogfighter the Luftwaffe has in Aces High.
All the best,
Crumpp
Now that is damn true though.
-
"Flaps are another red herring. As Kurfürst said flaps will just bled your energy faster"
Not in AH they don't!! In AH the flaps are modeled to = turning uberness. So, for AH reasons, flaps are NOT a red herring. WHen they are "fixed" they will be, but effectively? They're the second most important "easy mode" feature in the game.
Storch I have a theory on this...
They have a data set. Whatever the format is, it says "in these circumstances, the plane does this, at this speed, with this lift" etc. With me so far? Okay, so what if the data set hasn't changed one iota? What if the code that computes the data set is porked? Or what if the thing that reads what the current circumstances are (then applies the data to it) isn't set up properly?
My theory is that HT claims this because the data has not changed, but the REST of the code around it has. Pure speculation, of course, but it's an undeniable fact to those that have flown them that the following changes have taken place.
1.x -> 2.0 190 stall characteristics greatly improved
1.x -> 2.0 109 roll rates and manuverability greatly improved
2.05 -> 2.06 109 roll rates greatly reduced for E and K, F at low speeds
2.05 -> 2.06 G10 (now K4) cannot make simple moves without popping slats
-
I will put the challenge out to anyone. They fly the FW-190A5 and I will take a Spitfire Mk Vb. We start the fight co-alt and I will own them in that Spitfire.
I will fly around on your 6 until I get bored and kill you.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by storch
from my perspective, irrespective of HTC assurance that the FMs haven't been altered in any way the fact remains that the 109K-4 does not appear to be anywhere near as fast as the 109G-10 was and it's climb rate has been seriously degraded.
Appearances can be deceiving. Test them back to back like I did and you will see:
A. K-4 is identical in performance to G-10 in all respects. It is NOT slower, it does NOT climb less well, I tested them, I know for certain I dont just "feel" it to be so.
B. 190's, other than the drag from the rack of you took a bomb or DT were identical in performance. I tested the 190's last time a change was "felt" and it too proved to be false. I know, I tested them.
This is a good example of why you can not put too much stock in anecdotes from even real Ace pilots accounts unless backed up with test data. Humans, in all of their sensory perception are good at feeling relative changes in state, but not absolute values.
Do this experiment to see what I mean. Fill a glass with tap water, and put your finger in it to feel the temperature. Now run your fingers under the hottest water you can stand for a few seconds, then feel the water in the glass again. It feels colder than the first time. Now put your fingers in ice water for a few seconds and feel the water a third time. This time it feels hot.
The water did not change temperature, only your REALATIVE sense of its temperature changed. The same thing happens with these claims of FM changes, folks "feel" they are changed, yet they are not, only the circumstances of the particular moment are different.
-
Grits you can test for top speed, sure, but the issues that have changed with the LW rides (as I listed) are more roll/turn/stability related. Those aspects (especially the stability, but not so much the roll rate) are harder to pin-point, especially if there were no "before" tests done.
-
This is a good example of why you can not put too much stock in anecdotes from even real Ace pilots accounts unless backed up with test data. Humans, in all of their sensory perception are good at feeling relative changes in state, but not absolute values.
It is not putting too much stock in "human" perceptions Grits when the aircraft is modeled off tests performed by nations at war without properly trained maintenance or flight personnel for the type.
The FW190's FM is based off allied test's not Rechlin or Focke Wulf data.
I am sure there would be an uproar if German or Japanese data was used to model any allied aircraft.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Actually - I'm sure it's pretty easy to look at the data tables used for the flight models , then look at them again...then say..."Hey did you change anything on the flight model Pyro?, cause the kids are getting uppity again thinking there's been a change..."
"Nope Hitech, haven't changed a thing"....
"Well I'll go relay the message again to the via the Bulliten board threads, but for some reason they don't believe it.."
-
Grits you can test for top speed, sure, but the issues that have changed with the LW rides (as I listed) are more roll/turn/stability related. Those aspects (especially the stability, but not so much the roll rate) are harder to pin-point, especially if there were no "before" tests done.
Agreed.
I will put the challenge out to anyone. They fly the FW-190A5 and I will take a Spitfire Mk Vb. We start the fight co-alt and I will own them in that Spitfire.
Still stands. Maybe I just suck and do not know how to fly it? I am willing to see if that is the case.
"Well I'll go relay the message again to the via the Bulliten board threads, but for some reason they don't believe it.."
Yes. Because we are playing the game for now.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
First, I said it the other night and I will say it again.
We were talking about LW planes.
The only reason to fly them is because they're harder to fly and be any good in than almost 95% of the other fighters in the hanger.
Can someone tell me how a late war ride like the K4 has flaps that can not be lowered above 200mph? But those same people designing those K4's and building them managed to build the first Jet fighter? ROCKET powered fighter? Im sorry I do not buy it.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
I will put the challenge out to anyone. They fly the FW-190A5 and I will take a Spitfire Mk Vb. We start the fight co-alt and I will own them in that Spitfire.
Crumpp
ok
-
When and what time?
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
It is not putting too much stock in "human" perceptions Grits when the aircraft is modeled off tests performed by nations at war without properly trained maintenance or flight personnel for the type.
The FW190's FM is based off allied test's not Rechlin or Focke Wulf data.
I agree with you Crumpp, I do believe that data commonly used to model LW aircraft, and Axis planes in general, is Allied test data that is not the most accurate. I dont believe that the two main LW rides, the 109 and 190 were as bad in the real world relative to their Allied counterparts as they are in AH or the Germans would have lost the war in 1942.
My only beef is a separate issue with the unfounded claims that HT changes flight models with every patch. It never fails, we get a patch to fix a bug in the hangar menu and someone will claim the 109F-4 doesnt climb as well as it did. When they did the 190's, I even thought they changed the FM, for just a second I thought the 190A-8 was greatly improved then I realized I was in the A-5 not the A-8. That started me testing planes, and now I retest them after every patch where there are claims of different performance. I have yet to find a change.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
When and what time?
Im going over to some friends house for a bit, so maybe later tonight or sometime this weekend. What ever is easiest.
-
I have yet to find a change.
Something changed with the characteristics of the aircraft. With a 1.5KM seperation and a significant altitude advantage, it was impossible to reverse on a Spit Vb. He was able to catch me every time in an FW190A5.
I did not need that much seperation to effectively reverse when AH2 first came out on the Spit Vc!!
HTC should IMHO check it out instead of saying "Nothing has changed" like we are just silly idiots or "Luftwhining".
HTC can "Luftwhine" my check right out their account with that kind of attitude.
I remember when the FW190 cockpits were updated and some folks claimed the FM had changed. I knew it had not and only a couple of people even responded in that thread. The thread died quickly. My response was "nothing has changed" in that thread because it was true.
This is 2 pages long with a much larger number of folks all saying the same thing.
It may very well be that nothing has changed with the FM itself. However something has changed as the fights are not the same and frankly are not much fun at all.
Sounds good Slash, btw. I will be looking for you.
Anyone else that would like to test them out in a "tactical trial" or air to air combat should let me know if you see me online.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
This all reminds me of a story from the days of Air Warrior. Way back when, AW ran on 4 different platforms - Mac, Atari ST, Amiga, and the PC. A version was released and all of a sudden Amiga FW's were handling better that anyone else's Spitfires. You could tell in one turn if the FW you were up against was an Amiga it was so pronounced.
Kesmai checked and re-checked their data and swore on a flock of sheep that the data feeding all four versions was identical. Finally, mercifully, months later, they found the "non existant" problem. They had a logic error in calculating the weight of fuel - it was inverted on the Amiga front end code. So a fully loaded Fw on an Amiga weighed that it weighed dry *minus* the weight of fuel.
So even if the data is right sometimes something else gets changed - sometimes by accident - which messes things up. I ain't saying that has happened here, but as a very wise man once told me: "Different things vary."
As for the low-speed handling on all the LW planes, it's not that I expect them to turn better; I just wish they didn't try to flip over at the slightest pull of the stick if I'm under 150. It just seems odd that 3 very different planes (109, 110, 190) all from the same country exhibit the exact same weird flight characteristic. Of course, I rarely fly the German planes (largely because of this) so maybe with more practice I could compensate. Dunno - just seems bizzah.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
IThis is just another thread on list, another one that will be labeled an LW whine thread.
not without me IN Wilbus ;)
Hey Crummp, what happened with all that 190 info sent to Pyro?
-
Originally posted by MANDO
not without me IN Wilbus ;)
Hey Crummp, what happened with all that 190 info sent to Pyro?
Most of the infos are just about 190's CoG right?
-
Hey Crummp, what happened with all that 190 info sent to Pyro?
Nothing. You notice any changes? Basically I quit doing it. Pyro is not working on the FW190 FM's as other things have priority. When I have talked to him, not much can be "simulated" to make the FW190 more realistic due to code restrictions.
I would say it has about zero priority.
Now it seems HTC attitude is anyone who offers is "cherry picking". Sorry but I am not going to put forth the effort, time, and money to get them the data with that kind of crap.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
did they just forget to add the combat flaps? Or not feel like it? Or not have enough data to model them in? Whats the deal?
Every single thing I've read on the net regarding the 109 talks about even in the breifest of explanations, the use of combat flaps on the 109s.
-
Most of the infos are just about 190's CoG right?
For the German data:
I have all the load datum sheets on the entire Focke Wulf line from FW-190V5g to Ta-152H1, C, and all the types inbetween. Reports on all the engine changes, production information engines/airframes, flight testing, engine/prop manuals, Fluzeug-Handbuchs for the entire series, motor endurance testing, fuel changes, mixture regulations, anti-knock injection testing for all the systems, installation instructions for Alkohol-Einspritzung, GM-1, C3-Einspritzung, Erhörte Notleistung für Jager, the Beanstandungen's from 1942 til the end of the war, Engineering meetings with BMW, experience reports from Focke Wulf/Geschwaders......
and it goes on. I have amassed so many reports now that I forget them. Everytime I dig through my filing cabinet I find reports that I did not know existed!
I emptied Wright Patterson's archives on the FW190 too. If you go to our Museum, about 75 pages of original Focke Wulf documentation with stamps and signatures is on display that is part of my collection. I have about 50 more pages to add to it at the house. Neat stuff, Kurt Tank was a scribbler. Some of them have penciled in changes while others are covered in notes in the margin. One of the other neat documents in our collection is a handwritten BMW801 TS manual. It's a crewchiefs notes. Classes were given at the Geschwaders in the last year of the war. I have a published copy too but those are very rare. We just acquired an original Ta-152H Flugzeug Handbuch too. Very rare an not cheap either!
All the best,
Crumpp
-
crumpp.. i have to ask...
why?
-
We restoring an FW190 to fly it with a BMW801 Motor and I am writing a book on the type. You have to know the details and design changes to restore it. And of course so you do not kill yourself or anyone else flying it.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
For the German data:
I have all the load datum sheets on the entire Focke Wulf line from FW-190V5g to Ta-152H1, C, and all the types inbetween. Reports on all the engine changes, production information engines/airframes, flight testing, engine/prop manuals, Fluzeug-Handbuchs for the entire series, motor endurance testing, fuel changes, mixture regulations, anti-knock injection testing for all the systems, installation instructions for Alkohol-Einspritzung, GM-1, C3-Einspritzung, Erhörte Notleistung für Jager, the Beanstandungen's from 1942 til the end of the war, Engineering meetings with BMW, experience reports from Focke Wulf/Geschwaders......
and it goes on. I have amassed so many reports now that I forget them. Everytime I dig through my filing cabinet I find reports that I did not know existed!
I emptied Wright Patterson's archives on the FW190 too. If you go to our Museum, about 75 pages of original Focke Wulf documentation with stamps and signatures is on display that is part of my collection. I have about 50 more pages to add to it at the house. Neat stuff, Kurt Tank was a scribbler. Some of them have penciled in changes while others are covered in notes in the margin. One of the other neat documents in our collection is a handwritten BMW801 TS manual. It's a crewchiefs notes. Classes were given at the Geschwaders in the last year of the war. I have a published copy too but those are very rare. We just acquired an original Ta-152H Flugzeug Handbuch too. Very rare an not cheap either!
All the best,
Crumpp
:O
-
Originally posted by MANDO
not without me IN Wilbus ;)
Hey Crummp, what happened with all that 190 info sent to Pyro?
Originally posted by Crumpp
Nothing. You notice any changes? Basically I quit doing it. Pyro is not working on the FW190 FM's as other things have priority. When I have talked to him, not much can be "simulated" to make the FW190 more realistic due to code restrictions.
I would say it has about zero priority.
Now it seems HTC attitude is anyone who offers is "cherry picking". Sorry but I am not going to put forth the effort, time, and money to get them the data with that kind of crap.
All the best,
Crumpp
you're not alone:(
-
crumpp is involved with http://www.white1foundation.org the museum is located near one of the historic restoration meccas in kissimee florida. the museum is run by dr. mark timken and maintains an open door policy towards vintage aircraft afficiondaos and all are welcome. it's a neat place to visit. they are accepting donations for the restoration of the only FW190F8 known to exist.
-
Originally posted by storch
crumpp is involved with http://www.white1foundation.org the museum is located near one of the historic restoration meccas in kissimee florida. the museum is run by dr. mark timken and maintains an open door policy towards vintage aircraft afficiondaos and all are welcome. it's a neat place to visit. they are accepting donations for the restoration of the only FW190F8 known to exist.
Thought the NASM 190 is a 190F8 as well
-
Thought the NASM 190 is a 190F8 as well
It is an FW-190F9 and was reconstituted airframe. It started life out as an FW-190A7.
Ours came from NDW and was originally manufactured as an FW-190F8. It was however reengined, stripped of extra armour, wingracks, grossebombenelektrik, and converted to FW-190A8 standard during its service with JG5.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
not much can be "simulated" to make the FW190 more realistic due to code restrictions.
pls elaborate
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
It is an FW-190F9 and was reconstituted airframe. It started life out as an FW-190A7.
Ours came from NDW and was originally manufactured as an FW-190F8. It was however reengined, stripped of extra armour, wingracks, grossebombenelektrik, and converted to FW-190A8 standard during its service with JG5.
All the best,
Crumpp
Knew it had been an A7 originally. Wonder why the book on it calles it an F8? Interesting stuff.
Saving your pennies for one of those Flugwerk birds Crumpp?
They look kinda nice, even if they are 190s ;)
Since the odds are against me having a Spit XII someday, I guess I'll settle for a clipped LFIX of XVI :)
Hey I can dream can't I?
-
Knew it had been an A7 originally. Wonder why the book on it calles it an F8? Interesting stuff.
It is currently labeled an FW-190F8. It has a BMW801TS motor and all FW-190's reengined with the S-series motors are to be redesignated A9/F9. I gotta give Larry a copy of that order so it can be changed!
;)
Saving your pennies for one of those Flugwerk birds Crumpp?
Nope, original parts will not fit on them. Remind me of those fiberglass bodies Lamborghini's over a Volkswagon frame.
They are neat but nothing like the real thing except in looks from a distance.
Of course I will never have the money to actually own a real one.
:cry
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
The FW190's FM is based off allied test's not Rechlin or Focke Wulf data.
I am sure there would be an uproar if German or Japanese data was used to model any allied aircraft.
Pyro's answer to Luftwhiners long time ago:
Originally posted by Pyro
Well the situation is a bit more sticky than described here and may well end up being one of those times when you better watch what you wish for. I do plan to do quite a bit of work in the performance modeling of planes to try and smooth out inconsistencies. So I'm willing to completely remodel the performance on the A-5. But if I'm going to take the RLM data as the basis of the model, then I'm going to work with all of the RLM data and not just a single data point. Much of the RLM data, particularly in climbing, is inferior to the current AH model. I haven't played with it to discover what inconsistencies exist in it, but it may be a better fit. Of course, that doesn't mean that people will like the overall changes. C'est la vie.
...
I speculate that the disappointment will come from AH matching those charts, not vice versa.
-
the 190A-8/F-8, 190D-9, and 152 matches the data from FW but not the a5
pyro was talking about the 190A-5. A-5 is the only FW plane that is based onn allied test's not Rechlin or Focke Wulf data.
-
The 152 got worse with the AH2 FM change.
It might match the numbers now, but fixing what broke to make it as it was in AH1 would be already very good.
-
Pyro's answer to Luftwhiners long time ago:
He talked about completely removing the FW-190A5 as it is the worst performing Focke Wulf.
Much of the RLM data, particularly in climbing, is inferior to the current AH model.
Is simply not true. The RLM data is simply much faster at lower altitudes and fast enough at higher alts. If you read the rest of thread you will see Pyro had the wrong impression on the best climb speed of the FW-190.
A fighter variant climbed at a shallower angle but much faster best climb speed. It's climb rate was still faster than many allied fighter but it's very high best climb speed allowed it to take a very shallow angle of climb and leave almost anyone behind who tried to directly follow.
The RLM data is much faster at lower altitudes and slightly slower at higher altitudes. In AH, I for one would rather be faster on the deck than have perfomrance at an altitude no fights occur.
the 190A-8/F-8, 190D-9, and 152 matches the data from FW but not the a5
The FW-190A8 does not come close to matching RLM numbers. Just a quick glance at the Ta-152 shows it's climb rate at "emergency power" is around 400 fpm less than it should be at "Steig-u-Kampfleistung".
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Thought the NASM 190 is a 190F8 as well
ok the only original FW190F8, sorry for the confusion, my bad.
-
TimRas, in the very same thread Pyro expressed his willing to redo ALL the 190 present series, not only A5.
"When I have talked to him, not much can be "simulated" to make the FW190 more realistic due to code restrictions."
LOL, he was jocking, right?
-
Nope, he was serious.
There was quite a list of things, many where minor.
Main thing was the operation of the engine, fuel system, and boost.
All the best,
Crumpp
.
-
AH Fw 190A-8 matches Focke-Wulf calculations(dated 25.10.44) - 564kph @ s/l, 652kph @ 5.5km.
-
Justin, just a note, top speed is only one factor of these that determine the handling and performance of any plane. We may have a Spit with its correct top speed for any alt but handling like a 747 and rolling like a F104.
-
posted twice, sorry
-
It is not neccessarily TOP SPEED that I am talking about. I am referring to something that has been brought up many times on this forum by people like Kweassa and others, and that is that the LW planes suffer from very harsh stall characteristics when approaching speeds below 200mph, where Allied planes seem to suffer from no such disturbances and fly smooth as silk. I have noticed the change in FM between the two planesets over time, and my first recollection of this change was when AH2 came out with a "new and improved flight model". They just handle like **** compared to the Allied planeset. And this was not alwasy the case. The Allied planes are today much easier to fly compared to the Axis. Why? I have no idea.
-
Agree Nath, tested the P51 D as late as last night and it was like turning on Easy mode compared to LW rides.
Don't know why it is like that, I doubt the german planes were that much worse then allied planes but who knows...
-
AH Fw 190A-8 matches Focke-Wulf calculations(dated 25.10.44) - 564kph @ s/l, 652kph @ 5.5km.
The performance estimates are conservative. Actual flight tested performance is a little better.
It is more a manuverability issue. IMHO the elevator authority and rudder authority are off more than speed.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
The A8 now is like dog fighting in a CV.
The roll rate has also seemed to have been slowed down in the K4 and G14.
Lack of flaperons are also a problem. Unless im blind and just can't see them moving with the flaps.
-
Elevator authority on the 109s was supposedly pretty fair?
Seem to recall someone saying this was the case with the early 109s.
In AHI a 109 could be snap rolled and preformed it very well but soon as AHII came out NO WAY???? Tried it many times many different ways but NOPE!
I know cause I did it allot avoiding La7s and such. Was a combo of start a left turn then down vater roll right, and left then right rudder, or was that right then left rudder? Anyways used to surprise allot of LALA pilots with it. Admittedly was hard to do though :( if you didn't do it just so you were toast!
Seem to recall DOWN was enhanced on purpose? Something to do with a big name pilot that helped with the developement insisting on it?
Rudder isn't too bad on the current 109s but could be better?
k has pretty fair rudder but thinkin the g2 through g14 suffer from a smaller rudder?
Hmmm uh oh now we gonna have RUDDER envy???
-
wrag, I think your "snap turn" would just show up as stick stirring on the other pilot's end, and that's been greatly reduced as of late with the new smoothing code. So even if you could pull it off it probably wouldn't help.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Agree Nath, tested the P51 D as late as last night and it was like turning on Easy mode compared to LW rides.
Don't know why it is like that, I doubt the german planes were that much worse then allied planes but who knows...
You know, sometimes someone tells us: gawd, stop whining, take a P-51 or a Spitfire and enjoy AH! (I dont talk about Niks and Lalas to avoid breaking many forum rules ;))
The problem is: we feel like playing on easy mode with stall limiter and laser-guns (well, the last choiche is not selectable ;)). We dont feel any challenge to fly those planes.
-
Stall limiter does absolutely nothing to help you in a turn fight and everything to get you killed faster.
-
Originally posted by gatt
You know, sometimes someone tells us: gawd, stop whining, take a P-51 or a Spitfire and enjoy AH! (I dont talk about Niks and Lalas to avoid breaking many forum rules ;))
The problem is: we feel like playing on easy mode with stall limiter and laser-guns (well, the last choiche is not selectable ;)). We dont feel any challenge to fly those planes.
//sarcasm on
so you should be pleased , the more they are "porked" the more it's a challenge !
//sarcasm off
:D
-
I think HTC needs to fix the 190s before ToD comes out if they want people to play it. Whos ganna want to fly a messed up 190s into a group of P51s and B17s.
-
Originally posted by Larry
I think HTC needs to fix the 190s before ToD comes out if they want people to play it. Whos ganna want to fly a messed up 190s into a group of P51s and B17s.
Very good point.
-
Originally posted by Morpheus
Stall limiter does absolutely nothing to help you in a turn fight and everything to get you killed faster.
Morph, the worst thing is that it seems to be the stall limiter even if it is turned off :D ;)
-
Of course you all being ex-LW pilots and having flown real 190/109s you'd know things were 'off'?
From another thread -
HT said NO fm's had been altered on any of the remodels. (of course this excludes the K4/G14)
-
Originally posted by Grits
[...]I dont believe that the two main LW rides, the 109 and 190 were as bad in the real world relative to their Allied counterparts as they are in AH or the Germans would have lost the war in 1942.
[...]
Grits for sig. ;)
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Of course you all being ex-LW pilots and having flown real 190/109s you'd know things were 'off'?
From another thread -
HT said NO fm's had been altered on any of the remodels. (of course this excludes the K4/G14)
wow, so when you piss and moan about your spitfires not being right or what other EroTfighter you can come up with, its because you have countless hours of stick time in them? Please.
Pay attention Here please.
We're talking about for one, obvious mistakes. Such as combat flaps or lack there of. Or the lack of operational flaperons. Not to mention the obvious change in flight characteristics with each update making it feel even worse.
When the last update first came out I felt it right away. I didnt say anything because I knew I'd have countless numbers of people like you, Kevin, with smart ass, whiner remarks. But then I saw this thread, and talked to Nath even before he posted this thread about how the new LW's felt, and I knew it wasnt just me then.
If there was a problem or something was missing on a P51D that WAS there on all P51D's in real life, and its not in the game, it would be fixed ASAP.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Of course you all being ex-LW pilots and having flown real 190/109s you'd know things were 'off'?
Of course you all being ex-RAF/USAAF pilots and having flown real Spits/P51s you'd know things were 'right'?
-
But none of you LW guys have posted any data in this thread ...
don't you ?
Originally posted by Wilbus
Agree Nath, tested the P51 D as late as last night and it was like turning on Easy mode compared to LW rides.
Don't know why it is like that, I doubt the german planes were that much worse then allied planes but who knows...
It allways was , you remember the "Rumble" ?
"tight pink leather pants" Hristo vs "Allied running opportunist" Hangtime
-
Originally posted by straffo
But none of you LW guys have posted any data in this thread ...
don't you ?
It allways was , you remember the "Rumble" ?
"tight pink leather pants" Hristo vs "Allied running opportunist" Hangtime
Straffo
People like crummp/MANDO/RAM ect got tired of posting datas and stuff proving that the *real* 190A-5 was a PIG compare to 190A-4 and A-8 for almost.... 6 years!!! (heh i've been reading old threads from Aircraft and Vehicle lately ) :)
-
And they were never convincing.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Of course you all being ex-LW pilots and having flown real 190/109s you'd know things were 'off'?
From another thread -
HT said NO fm's had been altered on any of the remodels. (of course this excludes the K4/G14)
Actually Kev that doesn't exlude the K4, it actually includes the K4 as it is teh EXACT same as the G10 (acording to HT).
It exludes the G14 since the G14 is a new plane, not a remodelled one.
This is no different from all the Sissyfire threads Kev.
But of course the Allied planes were that far greater then the German ones, afterall, the allies won the war.
We all know the winners write the history.
Blerch, this is a pretty dead subject, it has been a dead subject for years and will be a dead subject for years to come. For some reason I, and many more, will keep discussing it though.
-
Ok.
the 109s as of right are OK (except the G-14, G-14 is not making its top speed of 416 mph at 16,400 feet).
The 190s such as A8/F-8 and D-9 are ok (data wise) but from what i've read the 190A-5 is way off and all 190 FM is unchanged when AH2 released.
-
Data wise OK yes as for speed and climb (pretty close atleast) but that is not what it is about really.
Dive acceleration, level acceleration, zoom climbs, stall characteristics...
-
Main problem with 190A5 was its top military speed COMPARED with 190A8. 190A5 uses the very same military power setting as 190A8, it was lighter and less draggy (as only difference for AH was weight and MG mounts) but top military speed was the same as 190A8.
Now if we look into AH planes data, 190A5 is modeled with 8583 lbs and 190A8 with 9682 lbs. In no way they can have the same top speed for the same military poweroutput.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
[...FW190] Data wise OK yes as for speed and climb (pretty close atleast) but that is not what it is about really.
Dive acceleration, level acceleration, zoom climbs, stall characteristics...
ah, no wonder there's been a *noise* going on right now;)
by the way this issue should have been addressed and solved a year ago or two
-
Originally posted by Morpheus
wow, so when you piss and moan about your spitfires not being right or what other EroTfighter you can come up with, its because you have countless hours of stick time in them? Please.
Pay attention Here please.
We're talking about for one, obvious mistakes. Such as combat flaps or lack there of. Or the lack of operational flaperons. Not to mention the obvious change in flight characteristics with each update making it feel even worse.
When the last update first came out I felt it right away. I didnt say anything because I knew I'd have countless numbers of people like you, Kevin, with smart ass, whiner remarks. But then I saw this thread, and talked to Nath even before he posted this thread about how the new LW's felt, and I knew it wasnt just me then.
If there was a problem or something was missing on a P51D that WAS there on all P51D's in real life, and its not in the game, it would be fixed ASAP.
HT's own words = "NOTHING HAS BEEN CHANGED IN THE FM's"
Only things I complain about in the Spits is the boost etc, I'm no expert to say, "oh the climb is wrong, the ballistics are wrong, it doesn't turn right etc".
As I said HT has stated the FM's are unchanged.
-
Flying them I do not beleive that nothing has changed. Sorry. Something has changed.
-
ok crumpp, *you* have a good reason... now for all you other luftweenies with the same fixation on obtaining this info... should i be amused or concerned? :confused:
-
Originally posted by Morpheus
Flying them I do not beleive that nothing has changed. Sorry. Something has changed.
i agree... the k4 feels noting like the old g10 it supposed morphed (heh) from. and i think i've put my fair share of time in the 109 series in AH.
since the g14 is totally new, i can only go by what is presented on it.
-
don't take the following observation as a dig at HTC because it isn't. i just flew the spitVIII for the first time in the CT. I understand the rationale behind it. a player made a comment and it was an epiphany. give people one of the most popular warplanes in all of history, model it to a relatively easy mode with phenomenal views and armed with lazer cannons. the bottom feeders will eventually find it and think they are good. you get my $14.95 for another month. I say leave the formula because it works, without it the game would fail and we would be out of some enjoyable and cheap entertainment.
-
Originally posted by Morpheus
Flying them I do not beleive that nothing has changed. Sorry. Something has changed.
I can only go on what HT has stated.
-
I can only go on what HT has stated.
Noted...
Thanks for the input.
-
And as I have stated, HT said the model hasn't changed. Well the code that processes the FM sure has changed! Because there are several major upgrade changes that have affected the flight models of all 190s and 109s over a long period of time, and yet the FM has never changed.
It's undeniable changes have been made. If they're not in the FM (which HTC has stated) then I don't give a rat's where they ARE found, they exist.
That's my point.
HTC's crew does fly the game, sure. They spend far far more time, however, working and coding and all the support stuff that goes on behind the scenes. There's a very real chance they didn't "feel" or recognize the changes they made.
Hell, we, the players, are the testing audience 90% of the time. WE find the bugs and problems. Well we've found them, we've noted them, but since we can't go sifting through 100,000 lines of coad we really can't help them "fix" 'em, so all we get is the standard "No FM changes were made" -- which is true but beside the point.
-
Originally posted by storch
don't take the following observation as a dig at HTC because it isn't. i just flew the spitVIII for the first time in the CT. I understand the rationale behind it. a player made a comment and it was an epiphany. give people one of the most popular warplanes in all of history, model it to a relatively easy mode with phenomenal views and armed with lazer cannons. the bottom feeders will eventually find it and think they are good. you get my $14.95 for another month. I say leave the formula because it works, without it the game would fail and we would be out of some enjoyable and cheap entertainment.
So there I was at the Legends airshow in England, talking to a Spit pilot. His comment was the Spitfire was almost too easy to fly. He laughed and said it might have made more sense to start new pilots on the Spitfire and then go on to the Tiger Moth and Harvards.
He was part of the crew that flew the Spitfire and Hurricane to Malta. He commented that he was flying the Hurricane as it presented more of a challenge to fly.
So is it just possible that the Spit is modeled correctly?
Is it just possible it was a pilot friendly aircraft that did one heckuva good job as a fighter during WW2?
I'm going to quit apologizing for flying Spits. I bow to the greatness of all the Luftwobbles. I like the history of the Spit, I can claim former Spit pilots as friends, and I just like it. You want to complain about it, go for it. Storch, you've been whining about Spits as long as I've been around. Might just want to put your energies elsewhere though :)
-
Originally posted by Krusty
It's undeniable changes have been made. If they're not in the FM (which HTC has stated) then I don't give a rat's where they ARE found, they exist.
That's my point.
Despite the fact that I am in the minority, I will deny it Krusty. I not only refute the idea that the measureable numbers have changed, I refute the idea that there are any intangable differences to be felt, I think its your imagination. I dont feel any change, you and many, many others do. I think you (not you literally, the "we" you) feel the changes because you want to feel them. Maybe I dont feel them because I am in denial, I dont know.
I just tested the K-4 and the old G-10 back to back. I had a copy of 2.04 for the G-10 and used the current K-4. Both planes at 100% fuel, 30mm spinner, and no gondies on the G-10 the deck speed, climb rate, acceleration from 150-300, and roll rate at both 200 and 300 are IDENTICAL. No differences. They are the same plane.
Until something shows up in a patch ReadMe or I find something measurably different I am going to call Placebo on the FM changes.
-
It's undeniable changes have been made.
I agree. The FW190 handles differently compared to when it first came out in AH2.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
I agree. The FW190 handles differently compared to when it first came out in AH2.
That's interesting, Crumpp. I see it the same way.
When AH2 started, the 190s had much better E-retention. You could make a high speed attack on a Spit (for example), pull hard and reverse immediately without danger to be catched by the Spit. Do do this 2 or 3 times in a row, until the speed had dropped. Then disengage and leave an even slower Spit behind.
Soon after, in an early Patch, the 190s were reduced to the actual level.
PS: It was not easier zu kill Spits, but much easier not to be killed.
-
I just tested the K-4 and the old G-10 back to back. I had a copy of 2.04 for the G-10 and used the current K-4. Both planes at 100% fuel, 30mm spinner, and no gondies on the G-10 the deck speed, climb rate, acceleration from 150-300, and roll rate at both 200 and 300 are IDENTICAL. No differences. They are the same plane.
Grits,
They don't want to hear that after all undeniable changes have been made and HTC is keeping those changes secret just because he hates LW planes. Just ask any one of the experts in this thread.
Anyway, it has been a while since the last Ramm/Mando type 'woe is the LW' melt down. Just sit back and enjoy it.
-
Originally posted by Bruno
Grits,
They don't want to hear that after all undeniable changes have been made and HTC is keeping those changes secret just because he hates LW planes. Just ask any one of the experts in this thread.
Anyway, it has been a while since the last Ramm/Mando type 'woe is the LW' melt down. Just sit back and enjoy it.
:aok
-
as an example the 190A8 carries the additional weight of the auxiliary tank even after the cartoon fuel is all used up. it's an acknowledged error that will not be corrected until "in two weeks". my solution to this particular problem is when flying the A8 I drain the aft fuel first then the forward fuel leaving the unemptiable tank for last. now please address the issue of a 190A8 being unable to compete against bombers above 23k. it doesn't climb well enough to catch them, any manouever causes an immediate stall with a loss of altitude. this from the LW's premier bomber interceptor. the fact is that they were modelled incorrectly from the start. the fact is since Nath's original premis for this thread is valid, namely that the LW cartoonoplanes simply do not perform with anywhere near the ease of other types in the game and are very likely to be incorrect across the board. it is across the board. it appears to me to be clearly intentional or corrections would have been made. when I started "luftwhining" pyro and ht both said to "provide documentation". well my squaddie crumpp has provided reams of documentation gleaned from irrefutable sources such as the nasm and wright patterson. the next response was well the data was being "cherry picked" what ever that means because crumpp has sent all the data he collected and not specific data attempting to bolster his position. in conclusion I come away with the perception that some folks just can't say "I made a mistake", and make corrections. I say so be it. let the bottom feeders enjoy the woobieness of their training wheel rides. it's all the more gratifying to cartoon shoot them down. this is still the best game of this genre, until something better comes along I'll continue to play it.
-
Originally posted by storch
when I started "luftwhining" pyro and ht both said to "provide documentation". well my squaddie crumpp has provided reams of documentation gleaned from irrefutable sources such as the nasm and wright patterson. the next response was well the data was being "cherry picked" what ever that means because crumpp has sent all the data he collected and not specific data attempting to bolster his position.
After all the man-hours wasted just to gather info and only to say the *data* for 190 was *cherry picked*? That's messed up.
what is this *data* suppose to be? Speed? acceleration? climb? weight? CoG? power? G-tolerance? (add more if still missing a keyword for *data*;)) Where did this *data* comme from? What source?
-
Originally posted by 1K3
After all the man-hours wasted just to gather info and only to say the *data* for 190 was *cherry picked*? That's messed up.
what is this *data* suppose to be? Speed? acceleration? climb? weight? CoG? power? G-tolerance? (add more if still missing a keyword for *data*;)) Where did this *data* comme from? What source?
sorry but it's there in front of you nasm=? ;)
-
OK we are not talking about changes to top speed.
What is being talked about is preceived differences.
Some of the planes SEEM to fly differently then before........
E bleed SEEMS to be greater...........
Nothing major mind you just something SEEMS slightly different.
What is being seen is ... one day you can do certain things in a certain plane against another certain plane, a patch is made, you download and apply the patch, and suddenly that certain plane does NOT SEEM to be able to quite do what it did before against that other certain plane.
I noticed what SEEMED to be a difference in E bleed on the 109s the very 1st flight. Landing it seemed suddenly different?
Perhaps some numbers got changed inadvertantly? No idea. I don't know the coding being used. Or how the numbers/coding is being applied.
I DO know that when coding things can change on you. I did some coding for over 10 years. I HAVE noticed programs can look pretty much the same as they did before you have typed in your changes or added lines, BUT after compiling something that worked fine before doesn't any more, or still works but is slightly different then before. Also noticed that sometimes such things can accumulate.
AND i've noticed it isn't in the actual CODING but somewhere within the language and the compilier itself. Perhaps memory addressing, perhaps calculations, or any number of things. They do HAVE to patch programming languages, and their compiliers from time to time. A decimal place may not be right where it should be? You can look at printouts or the screens all day, seven days a week and still miss such a thing.
That and power supply and memory condition and ....... well the things that can affect code are MANY. Sometimes a fresh compile after a reboot is better then one that came after 3 weeks of coding and compiling over and over.
SO everything can LOOK the same, but there is a difference that you can't quite put you're finger on. BUT.................
Oh Well.............
-
Originally posted by Zwerg
That's interesting, Crumpp. I see it the same way.
When AH2 started, the 190s had much better E-retention. You could make a high speed attack on a Spit (for example), pull hard and reverse immediately without danger to be catched by the Spit. Do do this 2 or 3 times in a row, until the speed had dropped. Then disengage and leave an even slower Spit behind.
Soon after, in an early Patch, the 190s were reduced to the actual level.
PS: It was not easier zu kill Spits, but much easier not to be killed.
Could it be it feels different because the Spit XVI/VIII you are now meeting is a totally different one to the 'old' V and IX?
They XVI and the VIII accelerate much, much better than either of the old ones.
I think someone did a test and they are not far behind a Lala up to their max speed.
I also wonder if the new 'code smoothing' is causing more than just the weird mini warps etc.
-
What people have to remember about the fights is that, top speed does not win a fight.
Acceleration and climb rate (specially zoom climb) aswell as E retation wins a fight. The only thing top speed does for you is the ability to run away.
As the current MA environment has got quite a few LA7's flying around top speed doesn't matter all that much anymore either as there will usually be atleast one LA7 in the area who is capable of catching you no matter if you fly a 109, 190, P51, Jug or any other plane from either side (part from the perks).
Why is the Spit 16 and Spit 8 (well all spits) so dangerous? Because of the same reason the Ki84 is (only the Ki84 takes alot more time to master and fly well). Climb rate, acceleration, zoom climb. They are the perfect close combat dogfighters.
Are they overmodelled? I doubt it. The spit was infamouse for being an easy plane to fly.
Are the LW birds undermodelled? I think so. I also think that acceleration and dive acceleration, E retation and such is somewhat fubar, aswell as low speed handeling.
Are the US Birds overmodelled? Why do I think they are? Not because of top speed, not because of climb but mostly because of their stall characteristics. Without flaps they feel awsome to fly, extrmely friendly, much more then described in combat reports. Once a notch (or more) of flaps can be popped they go from awsome to unbelievable.
Just my opinion of course.
IMO the entire AH Acceleration FM feels off IMO, I know I am not the only one who's had Zekes outdive me in real fast 1944 planes (Dora, 109 G10/K4, P51, P47 etc, you name it). And that is going from same starting speed.
Of course, just my opinion.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Are the US Birds overmodelled? Why do I think they are? Not because of top speed, not because of climb but mostly because of their stall characteristics. Without flaps they feel awsome to fly, extrmely friendly, much more then described in combat reports. Once a notch (or more) of flaps can be popped they go from awsome to unbelievable.
Just my opinion of course.
IMO the entire AH Acceleration FM feels off IMO, I know I am not the only one who's had Zekes outdive me in real fast 1944 planes (Dora, 109 G10/K4, P51, P47 etc, you name it). And that is going from same starting speed.
Of course, just my opinion.
I was flying a P47 offline with 75% fuel and max ammos. I put this puppy into full flap anti gravity mode starting at 150 IAS, pulled up and it my nose went completely vertical with very little stalling or what I would assume would be extreme drag from full flaps (basically an airbrake if they are extended all the way). The nose stayed up until about 50 or so ias. Crazy. No LW can do that.
-
Like its not easy to get kills in LAs, Ki-84s, P-51Ds, N1K2s, F4U-1s and 109s?
Too funny.
Obviously some with big chips on their shoulders are getting bruised, but thats nothing new.
Accusing HTC of *deliberately*? screwing with the FMs or guns is the desperate logic of the whiner.
"My favorite plane sucks vs the Spitfire" Pwoo baby. :cry
-
You've totally missunderstood this thread squire and I am guessing you haven't even read half of it.
-
what is this *data* suppose to be? Speed? acceleration? climb? weight? CoG? power? G-tolerance? (add more if still missing a keyword for *data*) Where did this *data* comme from? What source?
Pretty much all that and then some. What do you want to know?
Data comes from:
Focke Wulf, Gmbh
BMW
VDM
Rechlin
Wright AeroEngine Company
Luftwaffe Technical and Operational publications
USN Technical Air Intelligence Section
Royal Aircraft Estabilishment
National Advisory Council on Aeronautics
To name a few......
It is found in museum archives, company archives, and private collections. Prices range from very reasonable to extremely expensive depending on the material or the source. That is not to mention the time, gas, and effort expended to collect it.
The NASM is pretty reasonable but I highly recommend taking a trip to the airchives when possible:
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/arch/
All the best,
Crumpp
-
You've totally missunderstood this thread squire and I am guessing you haven't even read half of it.
Correct.
He is just trolling.
It's his usual contribution to any discussion on Luftwaffe History as well.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Disagree.
-
When you have no facts or insights to bring and only comment to inflame, you are trolling.
Go check out the Spitfire modeling threads. This kind of juvenile behavior did not occur. You don't see post after post of:
Quit cherry picking the data.....
Any point brought out is backed up with facts. Conclusions maybe different but nonetheless arguments are made based on solid information, not smoke and mirrors.
The FW-190's need to be reworked. They were modeled during a time when the quantity of data available today was simply not around. Allied testing and obscure performance graphs with little to no background/aircraft set up information are the bases for the modeling.
How many knew a few years ago that 6 different engines were used between the FW190A, F, and G series? I have never seen that in any book. Almost all will claim the BMW801D was the same motor developing the same amount of horsepower from 1939 until 1945. Silly notions if you think about it. Certainly not backed up by any real factual information.
There are still mysteries to be solved as well. We have a box of at least 8 different piston designs which we have pulled from 801D2 motors. I have only a couple documented.
So have some maturity and quit doing it here simply because it is the opposition under discussion.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Just make the ultimate post about each fw190.
Without using any ! and being the more concise possible.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Data wise OK yes as for speed and climb (pretty close atleast) but that is not what it is about really.
Dive acceleration, level acceleration, zoom climbs, stall characteristics...
And hence the problem, if Top speed, and climbs are correct, then Accelerations. Also must be correct.
You can not seperate the items because they are all directly related.
Zoom climbs would also include some loading so you would also have to find out if stustained turn rates are correct.
But if sustained turn, top speed, stall speed,and climb rates are correct. Then accelerations have to be correct, in dive zoom or level.
Stall characteristics are much more subjective then the other pieces of the flight envlope.
HiTech
-
Just make the ultimate post about each fw190.
Sorry but we are not busting our hump for the benefit of the Aces High BBS or HTC. I was doing that on my own and offered to help Pyro since I played this game before my involvement in the Museum.
So, I should spend my time to write up the "ultimate" FW-190 post. Impart all the information it has taken years to amass and a substantial outlay of cash upon the community so that Hitech will change a game??
A game that he attaches a stigma of dishonesty to anyone who is generous enough to DONATE original documentation.
Not happening.
If the community is willing to do something along the lines of the WWIIOnline players, then I will make the "ultimate" FW-190 post.
http://www.white1foundation.org/sponsors_wwiiol.htm
That way we can at least recoup some of our losses.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
The FW-190's need to be reworked. They were modeled during a time when the quantity of data available today was simply not around. Allied testing and obscure performance graphs with little to no background/aircraft set up information are the bases for the modeling.
All the best,
Crumpp
I found websitte with Chuck Yeager"s impresion about Fw190D9,
.........[Twenty years ago, doing an interview with BGEN Chuck Yeager, I asked about his experience at Wright-Patterson in 1945-47, and especially about flying captured Axis aircraft. "Which was best?" I wanted to know. He replied quickly: "That long-nose Focke-Wulf was maybe the best piston-engine fighter I ever flew. As long as you stayed below 25,000 feet."[/URL]
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Could it be it feels different because the Spit XVI/VIII you are now meeting is a totally different one to the 'old' V and IX?
[...]
No. In the time i mentioned (Start of AH2) we had the Spit1, Spit5 and Spit9 (and the Seafire?).
When it happened I thought by myself:"Wow they finally got it and made the 190 a fighter!"
And of course the difference was not only against Spits but all planes.
-
Originally posted by hitech
And hence the problem, if Top speed, and climbs are correct, then Accelerations. Also must be correct.
You can not seperate the items because they are all directly related.
[...]
I don't know enough about the physics of flight to say you're wrong, but I know that for race car design top speed and accelerration are not so directly coupled. Maybe it's because cars use a wider range of the powerband than we do in AH. I don't know, but the above statement doesn't seem intuitively correct to me. Torque is torque, right? ... whether it's getting applied to wheels on pavement or a prop beating the air or water. Unfortunately, I'm betting that acceleration data is probably pretty hard to come by.
-
Just so there is no misunderstanding and I get labled anti-LW, I am not claiming that the LW planes are perfect, they need some work (especially the 190's). I just dont believe they have been porked recently by one of the patches.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
I don't know enough about the physics of flight to say you're wrong, but I know that for race car design top speed and accelerration are not so directly coupled.
Top speed and acceleration are not directly related but climb rate and acceleration are. Climb rate IS acceleration basically.
-
Originally posted by Grits
Top speed and acceleration are not directly related but climb rate and acceleration are. Climb rate IS acceleration basically.
But isn't climb also related to wing area (lift & drag) and weight?
Put another way, given two planes with equal weight and power, you'd expect the one with more wing area to climb better, right? It has more lift, so it can accelerate vertically better. But you'd also expect the one with less wing area to accelerate better in level flight due to less drag. It has less drag so it can accelerate in the horizontal better.
Again, I am far from an expert, I'm just looking at this from a logical standpoint.
-
Originally posted by Grits
Top speed and acceleration are not directly related but climb rate and acceleration are. Climb rate IS acceleration basically.
Partially correct. Substained climb rate is related to acceleration at climb speed ONLY and considering that that speed keeps constant. With current substained climb rates at default speeds we may have an idea of how a plane accelerates compared to other at speed ranges from 150 to 169mph more or less.
-
Originally posted by hitech
And hence the problem, if Top speed, and climbs are correct, then Accelerations. Also must be correct.
Climb rates correct for ALL the speed range, not just for the default climb speed. BTW, as far as I remember, 190s substained climb rates were correct for a climb speed ~8-10 mph slower than correct ones. How would that affect the entire acceleration curve of a 190 for any alt?
-
Originally posted by hitech
But if sustained turn, top speed, stall speed,and climb rates are correct. Then accelerations have to be correct, in dive zoom or level.
HiTech
I'm not sure about zoom climb. All the info I found on FW-190A and Spitfire tels me that the 190 had a better zoom climb then all the spits up to MkXIV.
MkXIV was the first spitfire to be able to keep up with the FW in Zoom climb ( more precise to catch up at the top do to much better climb). We know that MKIX and MKVIII had better climb then the FW yet they had worse zoom climb.
I did some testing with a friend two days ago in TA with FW-19A5 and Spit MKVIII. the spit will let you standing in a zoom climb no matter if you pull up from fast cruise or from a high speed dive. This is WRONG.
If a plane climbs better then the other is not necessary better in a zoom.
-
Originally posted by Shane
hah! so you're gonna hangar that niki, huh?!? :aok
Btw: Niki is Axis too. ;)
-
Top speed and acceleration are not directly related but climb rate and acceleration are. Climb rate IS acceleration basically.
Not necessarily Grits.
That is like saying wingloading is the "end all" of turn performance. It is not.
Power loading and drag effect accelleration. Aircraft accellerate at different rates at different times during the same speed run depending on the drag characteristics. The FW-190 is design engineered to accellerate best in the low to mid range speed realm which is most important for dogfighting. From mid to top speed it is unremarkable.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
[Twenty years ago, doing an interview with BGEN Chuck Yeager, I asked about his experience at Wright-Patterson in 1945-47, and especially about flying captured Axis aircraft. "Which was best?" I wanted to know. He replied quickly: "That long-nose Focke-Wulf was maybe the best piston-engine fighter I ever flew. As long as you stayed below 25,000 feet."
Quite a few pilots who flew it say the same thing.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Dok, Think of Climb rate as a car going up hill. The lift is serving just as the tires of the car do, and has no effect on climb rate.
Drag does effect climb rate, just like it would effect acceleration in a car. But for any given speed the drag does not change if your are flying level or going up hill. As long as the speed remains constant so does the drag.
(Side note drag does drop very slightly in a climb (do to less lift required), but for normal purposes you can ignore the change)
Basicly it is exatly the same as a car, the exess power can either pull you up hill, or increase your speed. Climb rate and acceleration are linear functions of each other.
Crumpp:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top speed and acceleration are not directly related but climb rate and acceleration are. Climb rate IS acceleration basically.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not necessarily Grits.
That is like saying wingloading is the "end all" of turn performance. It is not.
Power loading and drag effect accelleration. Aircraft accellerate at different rates at different times during the same speed run depending on the drag characteristics. The FW-190 is design engineered to accellerate best in the low to mid range speed realm which is most important for dogfighting. From mid to top speed it is unremarkable.
All the best,
Grits statment is 100% correct, and is not at all like your wingloading metaphore.
You are correct about your thoughts on acceleration . But they have nothing to do with grits statment about the releation ship between Acceleration and climb. Gritts is not talking only about max climb rates, but climb rates for any given speed. Infact the relation ship can even been seen and stays true when faster then max flat level speed for any plane.
Think of max speed as when Acceleration = 0;
Now starting a climb will slow the air craft. I.E. trading Climb rate for negative acceleration. Or start a dive and Accleration will be positive. They are directly tradeable in any equation .
HiTech
-
Crummp, do you have any really usefull 190 acceleration numbers? That is time from speed A to speed B for some alts flying level.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Dok, Think of Climb rate as a car going up hill. The lift is serving just as the tires of the car do, and has no effect on climb rate.
Drag does effect climb rate, just like it would effect acceleration in a car. But for any given speed the drag does not change if your are flying level or going up hill. As long as the speed remains constant so does the drag.
(Side note drag does drop very slightly in a climb (do to less lift required), but for normal purposes you can ignore the change)
Basicly it is exatly the same as a car, the exess power can either pull you up hill, or increase your speed. Climb rate and acceleration are linear functions of each other.
OK ... so what you're saying is that if you took the airframes of a Spit-V and a Fw190A, gave them the exact same power available, and threw some sandbags into the Spit to get it's weight the same as the Fw, that they'd climb and accelerate the exact same?
Physics was my worst subject in school, and it shows, but I just want to be sure I understand this.
-DoK
-
Its a thread with many contributors Wilbus, you assume I was aiming at one-and-all, I wasn't. I have been around long enough to know the "mysteries" of "what its really about", we aren't covering any new ground here...you could cut and paste from any number of previous threads. Thx.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
OK ... so what you're saying is that if you took the airframes of a Spit-V and a Fw190A, gave them the exact same power available, and threw some sandbags into the Spit to get it's weight the same as the Fw, that they'd climb and accelerate the exact same?
Physics was my worst subject in school, and it shows, but I just want to be sure I understand this.
-DoK
:aok
-
Crummp, do you have any really usefull 190 acceleration numbers? That is time from speed A to speed B for some alts flying level.
Yes.
You are correct about your thoughts on acceleration . But they have nothing to do with grits statment about the releation ship between Acceleration and climb. Gritts is not talking only about max climb rates, but climb rates for any given speed. Infact the relation ship can even been seen and stays true when faster then max flat level speed for any plane.
Yes and you misunderstood my post or I was not clear. Acceleration in an aircraft is NOT constant. Your statement is only true for the measurement of the extreme ends of the scale. In other words from stall speed to maximum speed. Some aircraft accelerate better in certain portions of the range.
So while one aircraft may “out accelerate” another in the whole, this may not hold true throughout the envelope.
Good example is the P47D4 using water injection vs FW 190. No matter what the altitude, in the sprint the FW190 outaccellerated the P47D4. However in the "long haul" the P47D4 overtook the FW-190.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Sort of like a Marathon runner and a sprint runner.
-
Good example is the P47D4 using water injection vs FW 190. No matter what the altitude, in the sprint the FW190 outaccellerated the P47D4. However in the "long haul" the P47D4 overtook the FW-190.
The FW190G3 was at 1.42ata Start u Notleistung, BTW.
Sort of like a Marathon runner and a sprint runner.
Yes. An aircraft which can "sprint" is optimized to take advantages that occur in the dogfight.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Crump,
You misunderstood what HiTech was saying. He is saying that climb and acceleration are the same and any point you choose to measure them at they will be directly related.
Look at it this way (made up numbers), an aircraft that climbs at 1500fmp at 200mph has an acceleration of 10 on our imaginary acceleration measurement. Further down this speed scale at, say, 225mph, the climb has dropped to 1350fpm. At that point is must have an acceleration value of 9. At 260mph it has dropped to 1000fpm, so the acceleration must now be 6.67.
Further, due to the way drag acts, the faster you go the higher it is, you will never see sustained climb rate go back up anywhere on an aircraft's performance chart after peak climb rate has been passed. Some aircraft are cleaner than others and so will eventually climb faster at a given speed than the other aircraft which when slower, climbed/accelerated better.
It is all very linear.
-
It is all very linear.
It is NOT linear. You can say that all day long but the reality in the air is different.
Your drag is not linear, why would you think accelleration would be?
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
...
Yes. An aircraft which can "sprint" is optimized to take advantages that occur in the dogfight.
...
Which kind of goes back to my race car analogy. Watch an F1 race some time, the cars all have to be within a very narrow range of weight, size, and output due to FIA rules. But it's obvious that some cars accelerate better, some have higher top speeds, and some handle better in turns - all based on factors beyond just weight and power output.
The cars which use more aero for downforce and handling pay for it in top end. The cars which are tuned to pull better out of the turns don't have the grunt available at higher speeds to pass down the straights. There's a balance. It's logical.
Maybe its apples and oranges, but it feels like something's missing.
-
Max speed is a known for a particular plane. Any speed below that there is potential acceleration. If you are say, 150mph, under your max speed that balance can be traded to produce climb. If you were level, and at full power you would be accelerating, but you are not, you are maintaining 150mph under your max (whatever that number may be). So in reality you ARE accelerating, but part of the energy is used in climb.
It really is a theoretical concept that is different in specifics for every particular plane, but the mechanics of it are the same regardless of drag, wingload or anything else. Excess acceleration is used in climb performance.
-
Max speed is a known for a particular plane. Any speed below that there is potential acceleration.
Aircraft do not accellerate at a constant rate. It's not theory, it is fact.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
A 109E can accelerate from 0 to 150 inside 20 seconds (taking off) but it may take 4 minutes of level flight to accelerate to 350mph. Even in AH acceleration isn't constant.
-
Crump,
It is linear. Perhaps you think "linear" means a straight line on a graph? I don't know, but you seem to be having a hard time of it.
The faster you go the greater the drag on any particular airframe. There is never a point at which drag is reduced as speed increases. I don't think you are claiming that, but your insistance that it is not linear is begining to make it sound like you are suggesting such an absurd thing.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Aircraft do not accellerate at a constant rate. It's not theory, it is fact.
Nobody has suggested such a ridiculous thing other than you in your descriptions of what others have suggested. You are reading things into our statements that are not there.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Aircraft do not accellerate at a constant rate. It's not theory, it is fact.
I never said that, you are making this more complicated than it is. Its more abstract, you are taking it too literally.
Like HT said, if you are at max speed acceleration=zero.
At any speed below max speed (down to stall speed) there is potential acceleration which also=potential climb.
If you can not accelerate you can not climb.
It is not "constant" and every plane will have different potential to accelerate/climb when below max speed.
But...a given plane's ability to accelerate=ability to climb. They are directly related.
-
Saying the best climber should be the best accelerator? If they are directly related I mean.
-
There is never a point at which drag is reduced as speed increases.
Actually there is just such a point.
The lowest point in the total drag force curve corresponds to VL/D, and gives the best lift-to-drag ratio. Using the standard lift/drag model and a little calculus, it can be shown that this occurs right at the point where the induced drag force curve crosses the parasite drag force curve.
http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/4forces.html#fig-force-ias
But...a given plane's ability to accelerate=ability to climb. They are directly related.
Sure over the total envelope. Other Aircraft may still accelerate faster however depending on the portion of the envelope examined.
The relationship is sort of like wingloading. A lower wingloaded aircraft does not always outturn a higher wingloaded plane. Velocity and Power have a large effect.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Here's a graph that might help make things clearer:
(http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b311/qwejibo/xcess_power.gif)
The curves show the sustained climbrate at speeds from stall to top level speed. IOW the curves represent the available excess power at any given speed.
In this case; Plane A will have superior acceleration at lower speeds - until it crosses under the Plane B curve, after which point Plane B will have superior acceleration performance.
-
Well apparently SOMETHING is throwing a monkey wrench into all the theory about these things. In AH as it is, certain planes outdive planes they historically could not. Since AH2 every plane across the board gained about 50% dive and zoom and E retention capabilities. That's without each and every plane getting a new FM, that's just the code around the FM.
So drastic changes can be made which don't affect AH's "top speed" or "climb rate". We've seen it! Biggest problem to adjust to from AH1 -> AH2 was not gunnery for me, it was "how the hell are they diving like that/zooming like that???" Zeros outrun P40Es with WEP on the deck both co-E. La7s outdive P47s, and out-zoom 109s. As somebody else mentioned, P47 can pull a move at 150mph and hang on its prop with full flaps until 50mph with no problems. So while "top speed" and "climb" and maybe acceleration are correct, other things add up to make the flight envelopes of the planes in AH incorrect.
It's like a thousand papercuts. One is no biggy. 2 is a pain. 3 is annoying. By the time you get to 1000 it's just unacceptable.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Saying the best climber should be the best accelerator? If they are directly related I mean.
Basically, yes. P-47D-11s climb like a brick, accelerates like a VW minibus.
Ki84s climb like a rocket, and accelerate like a topfuel dragster.
Climb and acceleration are directly related, however...
Originally posted by Crumpp
Sure over the total envelope. Other Aircraft may still accelerate faster however depending on the portion of the envelope examined.
Exactly Crumpp, thats what I have been saying. While some planes may accelerate best a low-mid speeds, and some at mid-high, their ability to accelerate and their climb rates are still directly related and really are the same thing.
-
And hence the problem, if Top speed, and climbs are correct, then Accelerations. Also must be correct.
You can not seperate the items because they are all directly related.
Zoom climbs would also include some loading so you would also have to find out if stustained turn rates are correct.
But if sustained turn, top speed, stall speed,and climb rates are correct. Then accelerations have to be correct, in dive zoom or level.
Stall characteristics are much more subjective then the other pieces of the flight envlope.
HiTech
Dok, Think of Climb rate as a car going up hill. The lift is serving just as the tires of the car do, and has no effect on climb rate.
Drag does effect climb rate, just like it would effect acceleration in a car. But for any given speed the drag does not change if your are flying level or going up hill. As long as the speed remains constant so does the drag.
(Side note drag does drop very slightly in a climb (do to less lift required), but for normal purposes you can ignore the change)
Basicly it is exatly the same as a car, the exess power can either pull you up hill, or increase your speed. Climb rate and acceleration are linear functions of each other.
those statements only underscore the ignorance and incompetence of the HTC flight modeling staff. These statements are absolutely false.
First:
"And hence the problem, if Top speed, and climbs are correct, then Accelerations. Also must be correct."
absolutely false. Consider two aircraft, one with a drag plate area of 4 sq ft such as the P-51, and then another with a plate area of 40 sq ft, both aircraft of the same weight, let's say 10,000 lbs. Let's say we also give one model a wing efficiency of 1, and the other a wing efficiency of .1. A flight model CAN be developed where each aircraft WILL have the same climb rate and the same top speed. However, since the as in the climb, the flight model that has a wing efficiency of .1 will require about 1,000 more hp to produce the same climb rate, likewise, the aircraft with a 40 sq ft drag area will require about 15,000 hp to go 350 mph at sl, whereas the 4 sqft model will only require about 1,500 hp. I guarandamntee you that the difference in wing efficiency in the climb rate will create a change in acceleration, same as with top speed.
Another thing with zoom climbs, you don't know, and cannot calculate, the horsepower at speeds greater than the top level speed. For all you know, the maximum horsepower at top speed could be decreasing on one aircraft, whereas on another it could gain another 10% of horsepower in a dive due to ram effect and prop efficiencies.
"But if sustained turn, top speed, stall speed,and climb rates are correct. Then accelerations have to be correct, in dive zoom or level."
This is absolutely false. The sustained turn performance is greatly tied to wing efficiency. Consider again the equation for induced drag:
induced drag = 2 * weight^2 / (rho pi wingspan^2 wingefficiency velocity^2)
now consider an aircraft in a a 3g turn. The aircraft will weigh 3 times as much, and in relation to drag - that is 3 times SQUARED. Now consider everything being equal in two different aircraft except for horsepower and wing efficiency. So that the equation could be reduced down to a constant * weight^2 / wingefficiency or let C = 2/(rho pi b V^2)
thus you have
induced drag = C W^2/e
now you WILL have a greatly different required HP for the two aircraft if one has a wing efficiency of .95 and one that has an e of .45. EVEN THOUGH the turn rates may be the same, they WILL have different acceleration. So at sea level, for a b=32 ft at 200mph, C = 1/330,000
so for a 10,000 lb aircraft at 3g, the difference in induced drag between a .45 and .95 wing efficiency is 2890 lbs verses 6075 lbs, or a 1535 hp vs 3240 hp. That difference will definitely make a difference in acceleration.
"Dok, Think of Climb rate as a car going up hill. The lift is serving just as the tires of the car do, and has no effect on climb rate."
absolutely false. In a sustained climb, as you know, the lift is constant. However the amount of lift can be changed by the angle of attack of the wings. BUT in changing the angle of attack, you also change the amount of induced drag created. Going back yet once again to wing efficiency. Again, two aircraft with differing wing efficiencies and different climb power rates to create the same climb rate, WILL have different accelerations.
"Climb rate and acceleration are linear functions of each other."
That may be true for a single airspeed for a single aircraft, but as I have already shown, what is the slope of the linearity? You simply can't say that because you have the climb rate correct, that you have acceleration correct.
As far as turn rates go also, it's not just horsepower and wing efficiency, but also the stall. If one aircraft stalls at 75 mph and another stalls at 110mph, the slower one almost certainly will turn inside the faster one. Case in point, and probably my whole reason for this diatribe is simply look at the Spits stall point in the game. You can probably measure the early spits at 75 mph and the later ones around 85mph. BUT these should be IAS speeds. Going back to the Spit 1 where the stalling speed is generally quoted as 76 to 78mph, 78mph in the N1371 report, BUT this is IAS, and if you look at the position error for the Spit, it is nearly 12 mph at this speed, meaning the TAS stall speed is closer to 90 mph than 75. The same goes for the FW 190. Wonder why the 190 has such poor turn performance in AH? It's because of the high stall speed, well over 100mph. The 190 doesn't have any problem turning, the problem is it reaches it's stall WAY to early. The 190 has a wing area of 197 sq ft. Given that Stall speed = (2*W/ (Rho CLMax WingArea))^.5 or that CLMax = 2W / (S * Rho * Vs^2), that gives the 190 a CLMax of of 1.25 at 7000lbs, wherease with the spit, a 75mph stall speed at 6000 lbs give it a CLMax of nearly 1.8, when in fact, there should be very little difference in the CLMax of each aircraft, and both should be closer to 1.5.
The plane and basic facts are that these guys are simply inept when it comes to flight modeling. They can't even realistically calculate a proper stall speed, and use IAS numbers for what should be TAS, and can't even do a CLMax calculation to verify that their assumptions are correct. Their flight modeling technique is just about as good as their spelling.
-
Exactly Crumpp, thats what I have been saying. While some planes may accelerate best a low-mid speeds, and some at mid-high, their ability to accelerate and their climb rates are still directly related and really are the same thing.
I don't know how AH models acceleration but it can make a huge difference.
An aircraft that can accelerate in the lower end of the speed scale can afford to bleed it's opponent down. As long as it pressed the advantage it will always maintain it.
I have noticed the same thing about certain aircraft. I have to wonder how a Hurricane can dive with an FW-190 or a Bf-109.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
there should be very little difference in the CLMax of each aircraft, and both should be closer to 1.5.
Interesting. I have Focke Wulf documentation saying the CL max 1.58 for the FW-190A8.
We have been trying to retrace the conditions the aircraft was under vs measured polars.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by milian
those statements only underscore the ignorance and incompetence of the HTC flight modeling staff. These statements are absolutely false.
The plane and basic facts are that these guys are simply inept when it comes to flight modeling. They can't even realistically calculate a proper stall speed, and use IAS numbers for what should be TAS, and can't even do a CLMax calculation to verify that their assumptions are correct. Their flight modeling technique is just about as good as their spelling.
If it smells like a Straiga, walks like a Straiga and quacks like a Straiga....
Widewing
-
Grits, interesting but what happens when it comes to a dive?
I mean, we all know the P47 was infamaous for accelerating once put in a dive. Then this whole thing must be turned upside down?
Interesting Info here...
*Will keep on listening*
-
Originally posted by milian
The plane and basic facts are that these guys are simply inept when it comes to flight modeling. They can't even realistically calculate a proper stall speed, and use IAS numbers for what should be TAS, and can't even do a CLMax calculation to verify that their assumptions are correct. Their flight modeling technique is just about as good as their spelling.
Why dont you submit your resume to them Professor?
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Grits, interesting but what happens when it comes to a dive?
I mean, we all know the P47 was infamaous for accelerating once put in a dive. Then this whole thing must be turned upside down?
One word...MASS. They climb like bricks, and fall like bricks. :)
-
I don't think the personal attacks were helpful, but overall we're making some progress here. We're discussing physics now instead of bias and conspiracy theory.
So I'm remaining hopeful - if we can find out the root cause of the Fw's low-speed handling/spin and acceleration woes, maybe that'll help resolve other abnormalities people have been talking about.
Somewhere in all this is an answer.
-
keep personal attacks to bare minimum
im hopefull that 190s willl be solved.
-
Crumpp:
Total drag = (lift)induced drag + parasite drag.
induced drag decreases with speed while parasite drag increases with speed.
Not sure if there is a crossing point, but if it is, it is not at top speed.
Acceleration is told to be in close relation to ROC (HoHun)
Dive speed is NOT in relation to ROC.
Terminal Velocity does NOT rely totally on mass. Mass will help within the same airframe though. (Remember the 2 cannonball test from the tower in Pisa as well as the feather and hammer on the moon, - remember Newton)
And Milian: are you a troll? :confused:
-
Not sure if there is a crossing point, but if it is, it is not at top speed.
Yes there is a crossing point. That is where drag is the lowest and usually the cruise speed of an aircraft.
Acceleration is told to be in close relation to ROC (HoHun)
Yes as stated already accelleration is closely related to climb. I don't feel like repeating myself a dozen times. Please go back and read the thread.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Crump,
That is what I meant. After the peak climb/acceleration speed (that is, after all, what we're talking about here) where parasitic drag exceeds induced drag, total drag will simply increase as the speed increases until the total drag equals the aircraft's acceleration. The greater the drag the lower the acceleration and hence the lower the climb rate. Due to differing parasitic drag on differing airframes each aircraft using different engines and propellors each aircraft will have it's own, unique, curve.
There is something I would like to point out about the dive acceleration that people keep talking about. You seem to think that it was much different than it was. I recall that somebody, Widewing I think, posted text from the USA's comparitive flight trials of the A6M2 against various USN ans USAAF fighters. The American fighters pulled away from the A6M2 in a dive as you'd expect, however the actual distances gained on it were not nearly so large as you would expect. I don't remember the numbers so I won't post guesses, but I do remember it totally changed my take of things like the RAF's description of the Fw190's diving capability compared to the Spitfire Mk IX's.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
There is something I would like to point out about the dive acceleration that people keep talking about. You seem to think that it was much different than it was. I recall that somebody, Widewing I think, posted text from the USA's comparitive flight trials of the A6M2 against various USN ans USAAF fighters. The American fighters pulled away from the A6M2 in a dive as you'd expect, however the actual distances gained on it were not nearly so large as you would expect. I don't remember the numbers so I won't post guesses, but I do remember it totally changed my take of things like the RAF's description of the Fw190's diving capability compared to the Spitfire Mk IX's.
That was from the TAIC test of the F6F-5 and A6M5. Initial dive acceleration was about equal. However, thereafter the F6F rapidly pulled away.
During this testing a maximum speed of 335 mph was recorded for the Zero and 409 mph for the F6F-5. Virtually every captured Zero tested displayed a max speed below that claimed by Mitsubishi. I recall something close to 318 mph for the A6M2. TAIC used independent air speed measuring equipment (independent of the aircraft's pitot system).
My regards,
Widewing
-
Terminal Velocity does NOT rely totally on mass.
lol, terminal velocity has everything to do with mass!
normally, in level flight, drag = thrust, at terminal velocity, drag = weight. Typically, at terminal velocity, the prop produces no thrust but an excess amount of drag.
(Remember the 2 cannonball test from the tower in Pisa as well as the feather and hammer on the moon, - remember Newton)
double LOL. That is NOT mass, that is DENSITY!
But the feather and hammer is a good point, but not on the moon where there is no air resistance. The heavier object WILL fall faster if the air resistance is in a non-negligable ratio to weight. Sure, if you drop a 1 lb bowling ball and a 10 lb bowling ball where air resistance is .00001 ounce, sure, you will not notice a difference. But if air resistance was at 1 lb, perhaps like tying the same size parachute to each, the heavier object WILL fall faster.
Such is terminal velocity, at very high speeds just think of the drag created by the airframe as a small parachute.
Not sure if there is a crossing point, but if it is, it is not at top speed.
usually at best climb speed, for the spit 1, it is 140 mph, the 109 is 155 mph. You will not that the climb speed in the spit is given as 170 mph, this IS NOT the best climb speed, 140 mph was found to be too slow for controlability and for cooling in the radiator.
if we can find out the root cause of the Fw's low-speed handling/spin and acceleration woes
it's in the stall speed, plain and simple. Test it yourself. Take a 190 and decelerate while keeping the climb rate close to 0, and find out the speed where you can no longer keep a 0 climb rate. Then try it with a P-51, they should have just about the same stall speed. Then try it with a Spit, there shouldn't be more than a 10-15 mph difference. Fixing the stall speed in the 190 will fix most all it's problems.
As for the acceleration, you have to go way back here:
http://homepage.eircom.net/~frontacs/WBStored/Engines.html
The 190 could produce up to 300lbs of exhaust thrust to give you an idea of how significant it could be to top speed.
One big benefit of the mechanically driven supercharger is that the exhaust can be used to augment thrust. Trust me, this is a much bigger deal than it sounds. It doesn't give much of a performance boost to low end acceleration or climb, but it does have a big effect on top speed.
hmm, let's see, 300lbs of exhaust thrust at top end, but "doesn't give a performance boost to low end acceleration" . . .
geez, umm, let me guess, exhaust thrust is added at the top end of the 190 which means it nerfs the low end performance . . . and since there is no exhaust thrust figures given on the Spit or the Pony, it's not included. jeebus crispus, talking about "cheary" picking the data.
-
but I do remember it totally changed my take of things like the RAF's description of the Fw190's diving capability compared to the Spitfire Mk IX's.
I have those trials too, Karnak. The point is not how little the difference was when measured side by side.
If you read the rest of the report, the point is those small difference add up to HUGE advantage in actual combat.
At no point could the Zeke follow any of the US fighters in the verticle during mock combats.
During this testing a maximum speed of 335 mph was recorded for the Zero and 409 mph for the F6F-5. Virtually every captured Zero tested displayed a max speed below that claimed by Mitsubishi. I recall something close to 318 mph for the A6M2. TAIC used independent air speed measuring equipment (independent of the aircraft's pitot system).
What do you expect Widewing?? How many Mitsubishi mechanics or Zeke crewchiefs did the TAIC employ? None....
Why people expect a foriegn power during wartime to be able to know the intricacies of an enemy design is beyond me. It simply does not pass the common sense test.
Additionally the conditions of the South Pacific are some of the harshest in the world on mechanical equipment. The humid salty air can corrode metal in a very short time. It was not uncommon for all combatants to lose power on their aircraft after a short period of time in the field under those conditions. You cannot expect any aircraft to be maintained in top condition for very long in primative conditions in harsh enviroments.
It is easy to spot the maintenance mistakes made in the allied FW 190 test's by being familiar with maintenance requirements of the aircraft.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
The greater the drag the lower the acceleration and hence the lower the climb rate.
That is not true according to the results of flight-testing. The greater the drag, the steeper the angle of climb and slower the best climb speed.
Both the P 51 and the FW 190 have less drag than the Spitfire. Yet the Spitfire out climbs them.
Both the P51 and the FW-190 climb at a faster best climb speed and shallower angle than the Spitfire.
Interesting phenomena with the FW-190 too. The FW-190G8 has much higher drag than the FW-190A8 and is heavier. The FW-190G8's climb rate is substantially greater. It climbs at a slower speed but much steeper angle. The FW-190G8 is also slower than the FW-190A8. It has more drag.
In the climbing test of the FW-190A8 with Zustatzkraftstoffbehälter, the climb rate at low altitudes with the drop tank actually increases dramatically as well. The angle steepens and best climb speed slows way down.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Well in AH that isn't modeled. I've tested many aircraft to see if changing the speed will help boost climb rates. In AH you have a +/- 10 mph margin (using autoclimb) where you'll be about the same ROC as default climb speed. If you reduce it (say in a spit from 170 to 130, say in a 109 from 155 to 110) you will only get a short boost as the nose rises, but once the plane quickly settles into steady climb your ROC is much worse than it was at default climb rate.
In AH, that is.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
What do you expect Widewing?? How many Mitsubishi mechanics or Zeke crewchiefs did the TAIC employ? None....
Why people expect a foriegn power during wartime to be able to know the intricacies of an enemy design is beyond me. It simply does not pass the common sense test.
Additionally the conditions of the South Pacific are some of the harshest in the world on mechanical equipment. The humid salty air can corrode metal in a very short time. It was not uncommon for all combatants to lose power on their aircraft after a short period of time in the field under those conditions. You cannot expect any aircraft to be maintained in top condition for very long in primative conditions in harsh enviroments.
I have no idea why you must argue with everyone about everything....
I am merely reporting what the tests revealed, moreover Saburo Sakai told an interviewer that the maximum speed of the A6M2 was just 315 mph.
You should also note that skilled engine mechanics can tune virtually any engine, especially when TAIC had captured manuals for the Zero and its Sakae radial. Let's go further and understand that TAIC was staffed by some of the Navy's best aero engineers. I'd wager that the Japanese personnel responsible for maintaining that Zero never had it running better than TAIC did, and likely not even as well.
As to the effects of deploying aircraft at sea, there's nothing you can tell me about that. Why? Because I was the senior Petty Officer responsible for maintaining several Grumman recip aircraft (C-1A) deployed aboard the USS Saratoga during Med deployments. Basic maintenance will keep powerplants running at full power. We never saw a loss of power in any of our R-1820s. They ran like Swiss watches.
My regards,
Widewing
-
You think maybe the navies of the world had some experience dealing with the sea air on aircraft?
All the combatants in the Pacific understood full well what was required to keep a/c and engines running properly.
Just as they understood what was required to maintain engines in the freezing cold and dust of the Eastern Front, or the dust of the Med and other regions.
All combat a/c suffered from hard use, no matter where they were deployed <.
Furthermore, you seem to think that allied mechanics were just plain stupid. That they couldnt change out plugs, or perform maintenance on an engine (theirs or anybody elses), just because they weren't certified by BMW or Mitsubishi, "wow its a radial engine never SEEN one before Billy".
TAIC can't do it huh? what did they do, drive to some gas station along a state highway and recruit from there? "Come on pard, hyuk yuk, well throw in a case of lucky strikes for ya too...hell ya, bring the pig, yeehaw!"
:lol
-
I have no idea why you must argue with everyone about everything....
Not arguing with everyone, just you Widewing. Just you when you make erroneous assumptions or silly statements such as the massive contribution to the war effort the P47M made.
Facts are you are extremely biased and your post is another "axis data cannot be trusted" implication.
You should also note that skilled engine mechanics can tune virtually any engine,
Sure that is why Toyota racing hires Ford factory mechanics.
Tell that to the RAE. They got ONE BMW801 to run smoothly. Then the Germans changed mixture regulations, plugs, and fuel composition.
I'd wager that the Japanese personnel responsible for maintaining that Zero never had it running better than TAIC did, and likely not even as well.
Based on what? Your opinion contrary to common sense?
I am merely reporting what the tests revealed, moreover Saburo Sakai told an interviewer that the maximum speed of the A6M2 was just 315 mph.
Please read before you start refuting:
Additionally the conditions of the South Pacific are some of the harshest in the world on mechanical equipment. The humid salty air can corrode metal in a very short time. It was not uncommon for all combatants to lose power on their aircraft after a short period of time in the field under those conditions. You cannot expect any aircraft to be maintained in top condition for very long in primative conditions in harsh enviroments.
I would hardly call a Carrier "primative" conditions and I certainly expect Saburo Sakai to have experienced a drop in performance from the primative island airfields he operated from for much of his IJNAF career.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Ok WW3 on the forum...again ;)
Milian (somehow I find your writing familiar....oh, your not ??):
"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terminal Velocity does NOT rely totally on mass.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
lol, terminal velocity has everything to do with mass!
normally, in level flight, drag = thrust, at terminal velocity, drag = weight. Typically, at terminal velocity, the prop produces no thrust but an excess amount of drag.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Remember the 2 cannonball test from the tower in Pisa as well as the feather and hammer on the moon, - remember Newton)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
double LOL. That is NOT mass, that is DENSITY!"
Boulderdash!
Hammer vs feather is mass to mass - on the moon where there is no air. So, the feather falls like the hammer.
The cannonballs have exactly the same shape and are solid through, the mass pr cubic is the same. Their aerodynamic shape is the same. They fall the same. At terminal velocity one might extend - in that case the bigger one, for it has more mass against the frontal area - but there we are again, at an aerodynamic issue.
And Crumpp: I am not sure WTF is going on, but basically you are spending your time on the forum arguing with practically everybody! Even me!!! :(
-
Furthermore, you seem to think that allied mechanics were just plain stupid. That they couldnt change out plugs, or perform maintenance on an engine (theirs or anybody elses), just because they weren't certified by BMW or Mitsubishi, "wow its a radial engine never SEEN one before Billy".
Spend a nickle and call an aircraft engine mechanic to get his opinion. Ask him about different fuels and developing full boost.
http://www.motobende.de/
Addtionally get the reports from the PRO or NASM archives on German fuel development, mixture settings, etc....
Funny It seems it took mechanical engineers studying the motor to get the correct mixture and plug combination with this Kommandogerät. We ran into similar problems rebuilding our Kommandogerät to function properly. It took much more than Billy Bob on the flightline.
Here is one that the RAE never flew, only bench tested:
(http://img7.potato.com/loc97/th_a38_RAE_Bench_Test.jpg) (http://img7.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc97&image=a38_RAE_Bench_Test.jpg)
Unfortunately, BMW changed the Kommandogerät fuel injection system to reduce the harshness of gear change. The antiknock protection of C3 was also changed putting the RAE right back at square one with their BMW801 engine knowledge because the Kommandogerät operation and plug requirements completely changed.
http://img126.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc246&image=9cc_Alkane_Ratio.jpg
Not to mention the fact that BMW produced six different versions of the BMW801D2 that had completely different motor set ups:
http://img125.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc51&image=05d_different_motors.jpg
All the best,
Crump
-
And Crumpp: I am not sure WTF is going on, but basically you are spending your time on the forum arguing with practically everybody! Even me!!!
Because folks keep posting idiotic ideas to defend the status quo irregardless of the facts.
Such AS:
terminal velocity has everything to do with mass!
Terminal velocity has absolutely NOTHING to do with MASS. Drag effects it but not mass....
The answer to the question (doesn't a more massive object accelerate at a greater rate than a less massive object?) is absolutely not! That is, absolutely not if we are considering the specific type of falling motion known as free-fall. Free-fall is the motion of objects which move under the sole influence of gravity; free-falling objects do not encounter air resistance. More massive objects will only fall faster if there is an appreciable amount of air resistance present.
Basic physics.....
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/1DKin/U1L5e.html
all the best,
Crumpp
-
Lol that quote was from.....whatever his name is :)
-
Ah, yes Milian. (this time)
But Crumpp....you sometimes post something wrong as well and get corrected.....
-
But Crumpp....you sometimes post something wrong as well and get corrected.....
Sure I do. I am human too and certainly do not know everything.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Hi Widewing,
>I'd wager that the Japanese personnel responsible for maintaining that Zero never had it running better than TAIC did, and likely not even as well.
Hm, probably somewhat off-topic in a Luftwaffe thread, but have a look at the different Allied test results and TAIC estimates I collected and complied into one chart:
(http://hometown.aol.de/WBHoHun/A6M_Speed.png)
Quite obviously, it's impossible that all of the tested aircraft were running at standard (manufacturer guaranteed) performance. I'm not even sure that at least one did.
>Let's go further and understand that TAIC was staffed by some of the Navy's best aero engineers.
Well, the interesting thing about the test results and the TAIC intelligence charts is that as far as the A6M is concerned, the performance reported by TAIC exceeds the performance tested by TAIC.
(Not that I'd suggest using the TAIC performance estimates as final word on the issue - they're often inconsistent in themselves, and in the case of the A6M do not match the TAIC intelligence data on the engines, which in turn has issues of its own.)
A6M performance really is a tough nut, and I don't believe anyone has cracked it yet.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Based on what? Your opinion contrary to common sense?
I was maintaining and repairing radial engines when you were in ditties, and that includes R-1820s (HU-16E, US-2B, S-2F and C-1A), R-2800s (C-118B and C-131F), R-3350s (SP-2H) as well as the Lycoming O-540 (U-11).
So, stow your pathetic know-it-all nonsense. Guys who have "been there and done that" aren't interested in wannabe diatribes.
Do yourself a favor and consult professional help.
Widewing
-
I was maintaining and repairing radial engines when you were in ditties, and that includes R-1820s (HU-16E, US-2B, S-2F and C-1A), R-2800s (C-118B and C-131F), R-3350s (SP-2H) as well as the Lycoming O-540 (U-11).
Yeah and ask any Marine about the "primative" conditions on board a carrier!
With all your experience you would think you would not make so many silly claims that just do not bear out in fact.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by HoHun
(http://hometown.aol.de/WBHoHun/A6M_Speed.png)
The Patuxent River A6M5 (yellow plot) data came from Naval Air Tactical Note 106, distributed to Royal Navy F6F squadrons deployed to the Pacific. The tests were performed by TAIC at Patuxent River, which the RN used to generate NATN 106. As far as I know, only the Patuxent River facility used independent air speed measuring equipment. I seem to recall that field tests performed by TAIC in the war zone relied on aircraft instrumentation for speed data. However, my memory is vague on this. Do you have any info on test methodology?
My regards,
Widewing
-
Widewing,
Yes, it did pull away, but as I recall the gain was about 200 yards after a pretty dang, long time. People hear seem to thing that when the RAE says the Fw190 outdove the Spit IX it means the Fw190 should be 2000 yards ahead after a dive of, say, 10,000ft. That is just silly. The performance differences were not that great.
Originally posted by Crumpp
That is not true according to the results of flight-testing. The greater the drag, the steeper the angle of climb and slower the best climb speed.
Both the P 51 and the FW 190 have less drag than the Spitfire. Yet the Spitfire out climbs them.
Both the P51 and the FW-190 climb at a faster best climb speed and shallower angle than the Spitfire.
Interesting phenomena with the FW-190 too. The FW-190G8 has much higher drag than the FW-190A8 and is heavier. The FW-190G8's climb rate is substantially greater. It climbs at a slower speed but much steeper angle. The FW-190G8 is also slower than the FW-190A8. It has more drag.
In the climbing test of the FW-190A8 with Zustatzkraftstoffbehälter, the climb rate at low altitudes with the drop tank actually increases dramatically as well. The angle steepens and best climb speed slows way down.
All the best,
Crumpp
Neat. Of course it has absolutley nothing to do with what I posted and is information I already know.
Crump, stop thinking we're all morons and working overtime to misread whatever we say so as to make us wrong. It is really damn irritating.
-
The performance differences were not that great.
No they were not when measured side by side. However they made a huge difference in actual combat.
Crump, stop thinking we're all morons and working overtime to misread whatever we say so as to make us wrong.
That is not what I am trying to do Karnak. I certainly do not think everyone is "morons" inspite of some obvious trolls. It is a BBS so sometimes things get misread or misunderstood from the writers intention. That works both ways.
Combined with the insistance of some that allied physics works differently from axis physics.
As I said in the begining of this thread. I see no anti Luftwaffe conspiracy, just a lack of data.
Facts are the science and the history do line up in reality. They do not seem to be lining up in our "simulation".
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
No they were not when measured side by side. However they made a huge difference in actual combat.
That isn't really my point though. Some people seem to expect such massive differences that unless we see differences as massive as they imagine there were they will whine about it. Of course the differences were important to combat and made a big difference in the outcome.
That is not what I am trying to do Karnak. I certainly do not think everyone is "morons" inspite of some obvious trolls. It is a BBS so sometimes things get misread or misunderstood from the writers intention. That works both ways.
Combined with the insistance of some that allied physics works differently from axis physics.
As I said in the begining of this thread. I see no anti Luftwaffe conspiracy, just a lack of data.
Facts are the science and the history do line up in reality. They do not seem to be lining up in our "simulation".
All the best,
Crumpp
I don't think there is either, but I do think there is distinctly room for improvement in the models. Somethings are overmodeled such as the Bf110s and some things are undermodeled such as the Fw190s. I doubt anything HTC does other than blatantly nerfing all Allied airfraft so that they simply cannot fight back will silence some people's opinions that there is an anti-Luftwaffe bias.
-
That isn't really my point though. Some people seem to expect such massive differences that unless we see differences as massive as they imagine there were they will whine about it. Of course the differences were important to combat and made a big difference in the outcome.
Agree 100% people do expect to see huge differences that did not exist.
I don't think there is either, but I do think there is distinctly room for improvement in the models. Somethings are overmodeled such as the Bf110s and some things are undermodeled such as the Fw190s. I doubt anything HTC does other than blatantly nerfing all Allied airfraft so that they simply cannot fight back will silence some people's opinions that there is an anti-Luftwaffe bias.
I certainly hope not. I see no reason to "nerf" allied planes nor do I believe in an anti-Luftwaffe conspiracy. Facts are the more fun the game is the better for HTC.
Using correct data will IMHO go a long way to making things more competative. Accurate modeling is enough. Facts are the technology was pretty much the same on all sides. People confuse a lack of strateagic materials or the pursuit of new technology with a lack of existing technology. It is more about the engineering trade offs chosen than anything.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
terminal velocity has everything to do with mass!
read carefully:
More massive objects will only fall faster if there is an appreciable amount of air resistance present.
an aircraft with a 5 sq ft plate area travelling at 400 mph at 10,000 ft will have 1,500 lbs of drag, you can't ignore air resistance.
Now consider two aircraft, one 12,000 lbs and one 6,000 lbs. As f=ma, or f/m = a, where force = weight - drag, we get (w-d)/(w*32.2)=a, now at 1,500 lbs drag at 10,000 ft, we get an acceleration of 28 ft/sec^2 for the 12,000 lb aircraft and 24 ft/sec^2 for the 6,000 lb aircraft. After 10 seconds under the same conditions, the 12,000 lb aircraft will be travelling at least 27mph faster.
At terminal velocity, where weight = drag, the 12,000 lb aircraft will "theoretically" ignoring prop drag and (mach) compression effects based of a 5 sq ft plate area, will have a terminal velocity of 1130 mph at 10kft, the 6,000 lb aircraft will have a 800 mph terminal velocity.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Widewing,
Yes, it did pull away, but as I recall the gain was about 200 yards after a pretty dang, long time. People hear seem to thing that when the RAE says the Fw190 outdove the Spit IX it means the Fw190 should be 2000 yards ahead after a dive of, say, 10,000ft. That is just silly. The performance differences were not that great.
It sounds as if were much more than a 200 yard gain.
From NATN No.106:
"8. Initial dive accelerations of the Zeke 52 and the F6F-5 were about equal, after which the F6F-5 was far superior."
Perhaps you are thinking of another test.
My regards,
Widewing
-
"8. Initial dive accelerations of the Zeke 52 and the F6F-5 were about equal, after which the F6F-5 was far superior."
Yeah it says right here under the definition of "far superior" that it is at least a billion jillion light years......
Come on Widewing, what is your definition of "far superior"?
Hardly scientific. All we know is that a Zeke in unknown condition was "at least" capable of out accellerating the F6F-5 in the initial portion of the dive. After that the Hellcat wins. By how much?? How would it do against one right off the flight deck serving in a IJNAF Sentai? Probably not quite as "far superior" as this Hellcat.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
so...then everything said and posted about the fw190 being "far superior" to others planes is well.... really not that superior?
-
so...then everything said and posted about the fw190 being "far superior" to others planes is well.... really not that superior?
Sure. Just as the Hellcat though it was enough to make a difference in a fight.
That is all I am saying. I fully agree with Karnak. Measured differences are not that great but should add up in combat.
We also see the "at least" performance of the FW190 in those test's just like TAIC Zeke testing. Not top performance.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Yeah it says right here under the definition of "far superior" that it is at least a billion jillion light years......
Come on Widewing, what is your definition of "far superior"?
Let's see... A Spider Monkey's reasoning skills Vs. your reasoning skills. Now that's far superior! He might recognize you as a banana, but that mistake could be justified by the general resemblence.
Geez Einstein, I quoted the report verbatim. You surely own a dictionary, maybe even a thesaurus. The words "far superior" are self-evident. You know, as in much better, considerably better and so on. It's common knowledge that to shake off a Zero, all an F6F pilot had to do was execute a diving turn. In fact, the same NATN states to do exactly that.
Listen, rather than annoy everyone here, why not get to the root of the problem and sue the Priest?
Widewing
-
So put a number on "far superior"?
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
So put a number on "far superior"?
All the best,
Crumpp
Still trolling, huh? How does one put a number on something not quantified with a number?
Widewing
-
Wow, what a donnybrook this one turned out to be.
Wheres Sid Ceasar?
-
What I think we have to remember with "far superior" during war time and in real life is not the same as "far superior" in AH.
The Fw 190 A3 (the one captured by RAF) was far superior to the Spit Vb in a climb between 0 and 20k. The average climb rate was about 450 ft/min better. (Of course this was quite a bit better down low as the 190's engine power fell off with altitude).
So 450 ft/min was considered far superior. 450/min makes a big difference in AH aswell (specially in longer climbs) but due to icons people can, and do, take much longer range shots and hit them much easier. We also have the ability to re-up once we've sprayed away all the ammo from 600 yards.
Also due to the fact that many planes in AH can easily be pulled up to near vertical even at low speeds throw away a few 20mm's makes it more dangerous. While they probarly could do that in R/L nobody would be as stupid as to do it.
So I expect the "far superior" of the F6F to be about the same over the Zeke as it was Fw 190 A3 vs Spit 5.
-
It's common knowledge that to shake off a Zero, all an F6F pilot had to do was execute a diving turn. In fact, the same NATN states to do exactly that.
Well, the same thing was said about the Fw 190 vs Spit 5 (even vs the Spit 9 actually) in the RAE test report. Best way was to dive into a turn and then change direction, by the time the spits had rolled into the new direction the 190 would be too far away to catch or even shoot.
Acording to the report. Let's understand that such things do not work in AH, not for the 190 neither the F6F.
Far Superior is most likely the same thing on those two planes as Crumpp and Karnak have already said.
-
Originally posted by Waffle BAS
so...then everything said and posted about the fw190 being "far superior" to others planes is well.... really not that superior?
Correct when it comes to AH combat.
-
This keeps going anymore and the only leverage Crumpp will have is the yet-to-be-made ultimate FW190 post.
-
Not sure if anyone is trying to argue against this, I might have missunderstood some posts above but...
In vacum, and in vacum only, objects of different mass and different shape (such as a feather and a bullet) accelerate at the same speed.
As soon as air resistance comes into play the game changes.
The acceleration is still constant but depending on shape of objects (aerodynamics) the objects will accelerate faster/slower.
-
Widewing,
Must have been a different report as the one I am thinking of gave actual separation distances. I seem to recall that the distance was measured either in ten second increments or after 30 seconds. Something like that in any case, but it did not give a vague "Far Superior" type of response.
Miliian's last post gave some idea of what it looked like. In his example an airfraft with twice the weight was a mere 27mph faster after 10 seconds. Now the A6M and US aircraft tested wouldn't fit into that simplistic a model, but it gives an idea.
The dive for an F4F or Fw190 was not an instant, automatic, free escape.
-
The dive for an F4F or Fw190 was not an instant, automatic, free escape.
Neither was turning for the Spitfire. The classic FW190 engagement was to turn with the Spitfire until it started gaining ground in the circle. Flick out of the turn circle, dive, zoom above, and start again.
Only the Spitfire Mk XIV had a chance of following.
The FW-190 did not need an altitude advantage to take on the Spitfire with equal terms, either.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Unless there is simply some massive performance difference I don't really think there are any automatic escapes for any fighter.
The Me262 has some things that are pretty much automatic escapes.
The Ki-43 probably comes pretty close to being able to use turning as an automatic escape from a fighter that tries to turn with it.
FYI, I don't think the Fw190s in AH turn as well as they should.
-
Hehe Crumpp:
"Only the Spitfire Mk XIV had a chance of following.
The FW-190 did not need an altitude advantage to take on the Spitfire with equal terms, either."
This will need to be looked into and you may well expect this to be answered.
Firstly there was the XII which could follow.
Secondly, the clipped and boosted ones could glue on pretty well.
Thirdly the 190 was shining in the medium to low altitudes. It could not expect to deal with Spitfires nor the U.S. fighters at very high altitudes.
Why do you think that Spitfires were clipped and boosted?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Why do you think that Spitfires were clipped and boosted?
Because they look so damn sexy? ;)
-
This will need to be looked into and you may well expect this to be answered.
Feel free to look into it, Angus.
Firstly there was the XII which could follow.
Maybe.
The manoeuvrability of the Spitifre XII is considered to be excellent. It was compared with the Spitfire IX (R.M. 10 SM engine), also designed as a high performance low-altitude fighter, over which it has an advantage in speed but not in climb, and found to be much better in rate of roll. Above 20,000 feet however, the Spitfire IX with standard wing tips has a better all-round performance and was able to out-manoeurvre the XII. It was unfortunate that in the trials the Spitfire IX was only an average aircraft on controls and was inferior to both of the Mk. XIIs flown. It is considered that when used below 20,000 feet it will be able to out-pace, out-turn and roll as well as the FW.190. The general manoeuvrability for dog-fighting is slightly limited by the fact that the engine cuts under negative acceleration forces.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit12afdu.html
However no actual test flight was ever made even with the few FW-190G2/3's the RAE captured and flew.
The clipped wing spits according to the Spitfire pilots were not the answer the RAE "considered" them to be in actual combat.
(http://img124.potato.com/loc24/th_ad0_Effect_of_clipping_Spitfire_Wings.jpg) (http://img124.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=ad0_Effect_of_clipping_Spitfire_Wings.jpg)(http://img44.potato.com/loc24/th_c5c_rolltestonspit5_9_12_conclusions.jpg) (http://img44.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=c5c_rolltestonspit5_9_12_conclusions.jpg)(http://img20.potato.com/loc24/th_a5e_pilotopinions.jpg) (http://img20.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=a5e_pilotopinions.jpg)
This is most likely due to RAE 1231 being the main reference for RAF measured roll rates on the FW-190. A good example of why foreign testing should not be held up as anything but "at least" performance.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
You'll see Guppy peking at this very soon I expect.
I figure you HAVE seen his entries on the XII's running down 190's?
-
You'll see Guppy peking at this very soon I expect.
Sure Guppy and I had some great discussions on this subject. Managed to run down a couple of the the encounters and match them up with Luftwaffe reports.
In general for WWII airbattles you will find positional advantage means much more than aircraft type. Whoever has altitude, numbers, or both comes out on top.
The claims of "my aircraft was so superior" just do not turn out to be true when the facts are examined from both sides.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Exactly. And the 190 being so fast down low as well as sporting a phenomenal roll-rate forced the RAF to mod their Spitfires to keep up.
But in the same timeframe say 1943/44 you often have similar performance so it is the position that counts more.
-
Millan: You are a guest on this BBS and if you wish to remain on this bbs I expect to be treated with some respect. You are free to tell me that something I have posted is incorect and we can debate the phyiscs of it.
But calling HTC or me incompetent is way over the line.
You parse my statements but make assumptions that are not in the statments.
Take my first statement.
And hence the problem, if Top speed, and climbs are correct, then Accelerations. Also must be correct.
I said top speeds and climbs, I.E. note singulare in the Top speed, an the plurral in the climbs. You refered to 2 points Max climb rate, and top speed. Hence completly changing what I said.
I used the plural becuase I was refrering to the clmib rate/speed curve from max climb to top speed. I.E. the hole point of the post was to make the point that climb and accelerations are identical (I.E. liniar relation ship) at any given speed.
On your AOA discusion of drag, you conviently left out my NOTE that drag does change slightly from level flight to a steady state climb.
And you even miss the stall speed piece of my post
But if sustained turn, top speed, stall speed,and climb rates are correct. Then accelerations have to be correct, in dive zoom or level.
Note: the specific reference to stall Speed?
Finaly as a quick check try these numbers.
190A5 area 197 weight 8580
Spit 9 area 240 Weight 7400.
And stall speed would not be shown in TAS, but either IAS or CAS depending on what type of document you are reading.
And in your AH testing, note we use a generic IAS - CAS curve of the air speed we show.
HiTech
-
"Finaly as a quick check try these numbers.
190A5 area 197 weight 8580
Spit 9 area 240 Weight 7400."
Wingloading comparisons a rather meaningless things. They dont take account of the maximum lift coefficient of the airfoil, or how much it can develop at higher AoA. Considering the Spitfire had a rather thin airfoil, and much of the lift was sacrificed on it with the washout, it is very likely that the Lift Coefficient was rather low. This is fact is suggested by Niklas's article which shows the Spit having a Clmax of only 1.12, a very-very low value. Briefly that while the Spit had a rather large wing, it wasn't very good at turning that big area into useful lift.
This quick check also ignores the fact the FW 190 had combat flaps to assist manouvering (by improving Cl), while the Spitfire's flaps were either fully up or fully down, ie. useless in combat. So while I'd generally believe the Spitfire having somewhat better liftloading normally (w. c-flaps on the 190 this is questionable), the difference was surely not as breathtaking as quick checks of WL would suggest.
I seem to recall there was an engagement w. J Johnson being followed in turns by a 190, he was quite surprised. BTW didn't JJ said something like the IX being his favourite, the XIV being just too heavy, and altough powerful, 'not a Spitfire anymore'. Anybody has his words handy?
-
ok then, publish the numbers for induced drag in level flight for several aircraft at a certain speed, weight, and altitude, such as:
Spit 1
Weight 5800 lbs
Speed: 200 mph
Altitude 100 ft
Parasitic drag: 475 lbs
Induced drag : 170 lb
do this for at least 3 aircraft and I think my point will be readily proven that the flight models in AH have a wing efficiency of less than .5
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
I seem to recall there was an engagement w. J Johnson being followed in turns by a 190, he was quite surprised. BTW didn't JJ said something like the IX being his favourite, the XIV being just too heavy, and altough powerful, 'not a Spitfire anymore'. Anybody has his words handy?
That is a common sentiment in regards to the Mk XIV, although sometimes the Mk V is singled out as the most pleasant to fly instead of the Mk IX / Mk VIII / Mk XVI.
FYI, the Mk XIV in AH feels very heavy and to be used effectively must be flown very significantly differently than a Merlin Spit. It is much like a British Bf109K-4.
-
The word I have heard of the "most pleasant" to fly, has, mostly, been the VIII which was one of the reasons I was happy to see it added in AH.
As for 190 turn radius vs spit I don't think anyone should argue which one would turn best. The Spit should win hands out, as it does, and as it did in the brittish tests. However, was this "superior" turn rate maybe as "superior" as the acceleration and climb rate we previosuly discussed? ;)
Another thing interesting about those tests is the comparison between a P38F and the 190 A3.
Maneuverability
The Fw 190 is superior to that of the P38F, particularly in the rolling plane. Although at high speed the Fw 190 is superior in turning circles, it can be out-turned if the P38F reduces its speed to about 140 mph at which speed it can carry out out a very tight turn which the Fw 190 cannot follow
I feel that Fw 190 vs a P38 in AH, any P38 even the much heavier L let alot the lighter G the 190 is easily outturned way above 140mph.
-
I suspect the "poor performance" of the LW fighters in AH is at least partially a result of their lousy weapons. In other words, if the FW-190D-9 had Hispanos instead of MG151's, people would see it in a more favorable light. In my opinion this creates a feeling of the airplane not handling as well as it "should".
Airplane performance serves a purpose. In the case of a WW2 fighter, that purpose is to get your guns on target. The weapons available on the 109's and 190's have terrible ballistics relative to some other weapons. In order for a FW-190 to get its guns on target, that 190 has to pull MORE lead than, say, a Hispano-armed Spitfire would. Even if the 190 was equally as nimble as the Spit, it'd still "feel" less nimble because of that. On top of that, you usually have to hold the plane on target longer to get the desired effect.
Replace the FW-190A-8's 4 cannon with Hispanos and I suspect people would rapidly give it respect befitting the "butcher bird". Maybe the planes aren't the problem, but rather the guns.
J_A_B
-
That may play some part J_A_B, frankly I expect it does, but I also think Crump has posted some fairly convincing evidence that the Fw190s are overweight as well.
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
I suspect the "poor performance" of the LW fighters in AH is at least partially a result of their lousy weapons. In other words, if the FW-190D-9 had Hispanos instead of MG151's, people would see it in a more favorable light. In my opinion this creates a feeling of the airplane not handling as well as it "should".
Airplane performance serves a purpose. In the case of a WW2 fighter, that purpose is to get your guns on target. The weapons available on the 109's and 190's have terrible ballistics relative to some other weapons. In order for a FW-190 to get its guns on target, that 190 has to pull MORE lead than, say, a Hispano-armed Spitfire would. Even if the 190 was equally as nimble as the Spit, it'd still "feel" less nimble because of that. On top of that, you usually have to hold the plane on target longer to get the desired effect.
Replace the FW-190A-8's 4 cannon with Hispanos and I suspect people would rapidly give it respect befitting the "butcher bird". Maybe the planes aren't the problem, but rather the guns.
J_A_B
I don't know about everyone else, but the guns aren't what bug me about the Fw. What bugs me is:
1) The low- and mid-range acceleration seems pretty weak so you run out of options very quickly. This also means that you can't roll-reverse, dump the nose a little, and get out of guns range like you used to be able to, and should be able to.
2) The low-speed handling is so vicious that at the top of vertical manouevers I find myself spending more effort fighting to keep the 190 from spinning out than on tracking the enemy I want to shoot down. I don't expect it to turn like a Spit, but having it so prone to spinning out with the slightest pull on the stick at low speeds is really limiting.
And these two syndromes almost seem contradictory. That is, if it has this big torquey engine which causes it to spin out so easy, then it should have gobs of low- and mid-range grunt for acceleration. And if it don't have the grunt, then why is there all this torque spinning me out so bad?
-DoK
-
And if it don't have the grunt, then why is there all this torque spinning me out so bad?
I've already told you! It is the high stall speed, well over 100mph! The 190 should have a stall speed similar to the P-51, but it doesn't. It stalls at about 110mph whereas it should stall around 95mph.
So HT, you ever gonna pony up on some induced drag numbers or what?
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Sure Guppy and I had some great discussions on this subject. Managed to run down a couple of the the encounters and match them up with Luftwaffe reports.
In general for WWII airbattles you will find positional advantage means much more than aircraft type. Whoever has altitude, numbers, or both comes out on top.
The claims of "my aircraft was so superior" just do not turn out to be true when the facts are examined from both sides.
All the best,
Crumpp
And I think that's the key. We're talking about relatively evenly matched aircraft that made incremental increases in performance as they edged to the far end of piston engined aircraft performance.
The guy with the height and the sun had the advantage. Just reading through the Spit XII combat reports, it was toughest on the Spits when the 190s were above coming down fast. If the 190s played into the Spits best qualities the 190s suffered in that case, if not they controlled the fight.
If the XIIs had the bounce it was a similar experience for the 190s.
Again, to expect the 190 to fight the Spits fight is silly just as it's silly to expect the Spit driver to fight the 190 driver's fight. If either made that mistake they usually paid for it.
Johnnie Johnson's encounter with the turning 190 was over Dieppe and he was in a Spit V. The 190, which was that much superior to the V was gaining the edge in a high speed turn. Johnson lost him by nosing down and risking running through the flak of the Allied ships below.
Johnson also commented on how turning and turning to avoid the 190s was purely defensive which didn't sit well with an offensive minded fighter pilot. The Spit IX was the answer for him and he considered the LFIX the best dogfighting Spit of them all.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
That may play some part J_A_B, frankly I expect it does, but I also think Crump has posted some fairly convincing evidence that the Fw190s are overweight as well.
correct me oif im wrong but AH 190A-5 is a bit underweight too. ~ 200lb less than it should be
-
Originally posted by milian
I've already told you! It is the high stall speed, well over 100mph! The 190 should have a stall speed similar to the P-51, but it doesn't. It stalls at about 110mph whereas it should stall around 95mph.
So HT, you ever gonna pony up on some induced drag numbers or what?
While I respect your knowledge about physics and the numbers/calculations you have posted above I think you may be wrong here...
Also from the Brittish test of the captured Fw 190 A3:
The stalling speed of the aircraft is high, being approximately 110mph with the undercarriage and flaps retracted, and 105 mph with the undercarriage and flaps fully down. All controls are effective up to the stall. One excellent feuture of this aircraft is that it is seldom necessary to retrim under all conditions of flight.
Which leads me to one thing that bugs me alot. The fact that the 190 is one of the planes in AH that is in need of the MOST trimming, constantly trimming both ailerons and elevator when changing speed. I constantly trim it, ailerons are specially noticable when comparing to other planes.
Flew the F4u the other day, a plane notorious for tourqe and I hardly had to trim it at all, I didn't even touch the aileron trim in dive or any other part of the flight, I only trimmed the elevators some.
This is very noticable on top of zooms aswell, the F4u just doesn't seem to have the tourqe described in books/by pilots.
Same thing goes when flying some other planes aswell (quite a few actually although not as noticable as on the F4u). The need to trim just isn't there "as it should" IMO.
Sure you say, use the combat trim, but it shouldn't be needed really.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
That may play some part J_A_B, frankly I expect it does, but I also think Crump has posted some fairly convincing evidence that the Fw190s are overweight as well.
Got a link by any chance? I can't find it.
-
The stalling speed of the aircraft is high, being approximately 110mph with the undercarriage and flaps retracted, and 105 mph with the undercarriage and flaps fully down.
That is my whole friggen point!!!!!
110mph of what? Is it IAS as read off the cockpits airspeed indicator? Is it by a trailing static line? Is it measured by GPS? Is it TAS at sea level? Is uncorrected or corrected? Is it power on or power off?
That is my whole POINT!!!!!!!! AH has taken that to literally mean 110mph IAS which translates down to 110mph at sea level speed but are totally unaware of the position error correction. As I have said, if you take a 110mph stall speed, and do a CLMax calculation, you can VERY easily see that it is WAY too high. And you simply can NOT take a power off stall speed and base aircraft performance on that in a power on condition. That is my whole point! This is the EXACT reason why the Fw 190 flies like a pig at low altitude. AH has taken the 110mph stall speed to LITERALLY mean 110mph in their "generic" IAS terms or TAS at SL. This is NOT the case, and have not taken into any consideration position error correction which they could easily tell they were off the mark if they simply did a CLMax calculation. But since I have been banned in using the word "incompetent" in here I don't know what else to say.
oh, not to mention Crumpp jumping in here and talking about the ailerons, lol
-
How about posting in a nice manner and keeping the discussion alive in a nice way instead of yelling incompetence? Not gonna do any of us any good really.
So if the airspeed indicator of the 190 in the tests showed 110mph (that would be indicated aswell as true btw since they did it at sea-level, correct?) you mean it wasn't actually 110 but rather 95?
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
The fact that the 190 is one of the planes in AH that is in need of the MOST trimming, constantly trimming both ailerons and elevator when changing speed.
This is pretty important and has been posted here several times in the past. What kind of weird explanation may justify the constant and exagerated re-trim needs of AH 190s? As far as I remember, 190s were the planes that most elevator re-trim need for all their flight envelop.
-
Karnak--I agree that the issue is larger than any *single* cause. The dedicated LW fliers are probably so used to those guns that they forget just how crappy they are compared to some other options--they're a real handicap. Guns aside, there's no denying that the 190A-8 in particular handles more like a dumptruck than a fighter plane. That seems rather odd since it was the most-produced version of the 190. I'm just trying to keep people thinking about all possibilities.
Wilbus--The 190, more than any other plane in the game, might be an example of why I don't like having trim at all in these kinds of games. There's just no point in modeling it when our *real* stick forces don't change anyway. It only adds tedious busywork (proven by the fact that most fighters couldn't even trim all 3 axis in flight).
milian--are you saying the REAL 190's airspeed indicator wasn't accurate? Certainly other planes have suffered from that sort of problem (the F6F was known for this). Or, are you saying something else?
J_A_B
-
I dunno ... I stumbled across this while looking for data:
http://www.anycities.com/user/j22/j22/aero.htm
It's about a Swedish fighter developed in WW2 - but what's interesting was that they did comparisons of it with all the planes we're discussing and they were a neutral power in WW2.
It states the stall for the P51D was 100mph, and the 190A was 110mph. There's an interesting graph near the end for instantaneous and sustained turns - the 190A came out a sliver behind the P51 and the 190D had a sustained turn closer to a Spit IX. Gander at their results for the 109G compared to the Spit9 in sustained turn.
At the very end is a chart for relative acceleration. The 190D hauls .. it should leave a P51 in the dust. The 190's and P51's had a slight level-flight acceleration edge over the Spit. This was tested for the 200 to 300 mph range - which is on the high side for typical AH fights.
There's other comparisons of all them fizzicks variables and jazz you guys have been tossing around - flat plate wet cd's ... yeah.
There's also a link to a cool article on fighter aerodynamics:
http://www.geocities.com/hlangebro/J22/EAAjanuary1999.pdf
I won't pretend to understand half of what they heck they're talking about, but it explains how there are two conflicting reports of the 190's stall characteristic. (If I understand it right, the RAF testers hauled on the stick like it was a Spit which caused wing deformity which accelerated the abrupt stall we've come to know and loathe. When flown with more restraint, the stall was gentle as experienced in landing trials.)
Interesting stuff ...
-DoK
-
What engine at what boost was in that Spit IX?
(The site doesn't work for me here at work.)
-
Wilbus: What milian is refering to is CAS, i.e. calibrated air speed. Btw that is also modled in AH's air speed indicator. It is do to the fact that as the plane changes AOA, the pitot tube is no longer square with the air stream, and hence induces an error. Normaly it actualy works the other way at very high AOA's (I.E. your real speed is faster than what your air speed indicator is showing) but that is not always the case.
CAS to IAS is not a simple caculation , it realy requires a table per airplane type.
And finaly unlike milian claims, we do not simply take a given stall speed and use it as he claims, We use many different methods for comming up with a CLMax that we use in game. And btw in AH the FW's CLMax is higher than the spitfires, once again exatly the oposit of what milian claims.
And finaly, do not take what I am saying that I belive the FW or any other model is absolutly accurate, and can not be improved. As with any of our planes, they are what data we have, the more data we have the more precise we can model an aircraft. But the model data , has absolutly nothing to do with how we model things.
CRUMPP:
It apears you took a statement of mine different than it was intended.
I do not belive you cheary pick data you send us. We apreaciate any data your or other people took the time to dig up, Enthisam for the game and aiplanes is an assest to us.
But I do belive it is the normal for people who love a paticular airplane to view data with an unintended bias.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by Karnak
What engine at what boost was in that Spit IX?
(The site doesn't work for me here at work.)
It's a GeoCities site ... ain't surprised if its blocked by a corp firewall (I had to work around ours).
It doesn't give specs on the planes being compared, so the data is suspect in that regard. I think some interpolation would be needed based on known "good" data ... if such a thing exists.
-
DoKGonZo, if these graphs were correct, our current 190s would be so deviated from the real ones that certainly they should be redone.
A D9 with almost same substained turn performance as SpitIX and clearly superior in turn to P51D and B? Remarkably superior also in acceleration between 200 and 300 mph TAS to P51D/B and SpitIX. :p
-
Originally posted by hitech
CRUMPP:
It apears you took a statement of mine different than it was intended.
I do not belive you cheary pick data you send us. We apreaciate any data your or other people took the time to dig up, Enthisam for the game and aiplanes is an assest to us.
But I do belive it is the normal for people who love a paticular airplane to view data with an unintended bias.
HiTech
whew, does it mean HTC will re-check and tune the 190 FM soooner or later?
some of us are just impatient:p
-
They have other pages on the site with climb v. alt and speed v. alt as well.
Again, I can't vouch for the accuracy. But what is interesting is that the only bias the testers might have is to have their own design show well. So no Axis v. Allied bias, and all planes would be maintained by people from the neutral country. Their analysis of their own design lends some credibility to whatever testing methodology they used.
As someone else has mentioned, with ToD on the near horizon, getting the Axis v. Allied match ups where they should be gets more important.
-DoK
-
oh, not to mention Crumpp jumping in here and talking about the ailerons, lol
Unlike other RAE reports I cannot find anything in Faber's Tactical Trials that is a symptom of ailerons out of adjustment.
The Luftwaffe certainly had problems keeping the sensitive ailerons adjusted and it is silly to think the allies would not have experienced the same thing. The condition does have specific symptoms that are not present when adjusted within tolerances.
The largest factor in the Faber’s "at least" performance is the lack of proper fuel or engine settings. This would greatly effect power production due to knock-limited performance.
The stalling speed of the aircraft is high, being approximately 110mph with the undercarriage and flaps retracted, and 105 mph with the undercarriage and flaps fully down.
You can expect the stall speed to be high in the early FW-190A's as the CoG was farther back than originally intended. The CoG was adjusted in the FW-190A5 and FW-190A8 moving it forward and lowering the stall speed to around 95mph (150 kph). This is also the biggest reason for the unpopularity of the Zustatzkraftstoffbehälter im Rumpf. Just like the P51's fuselage tank and many similar tanks that were tried or used on WWII fighters, it moved the CG rearward to the point of instability. This was helped some by moving the ETC 501 rack forward in the FW-190A8 and corrected in the FW-190A9 by increasing the weight of the motor. Niether C3-Einspritzung nor Erhöhte Notleistung required the Zusatzkraftstoffbehälter im Rumpf.
But I do belive it is the normal for people who love a paticular airplane to view data with an unintended bias.
Sure I would agree with that. That is why if I were designing a WWII fighter simulation, I would only use manufacturers guaranteed production specifications for performance. These could then be adjusted within their tolerances only to balance the game with the sole purpose of increasing everyone's fun. In the end you are left with very realistic performance data that is essentially irrefutable.
It is when people pass off data at the upper end of these percentages as the "average" that destroys the balance.
Only a few quantum leaps in aviation technology occurred during WWII. Neither the FW-190 series nor any Spitfire Mark is among them. In fact there is not a single propeller driven fighter that can make that claim IMHO.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Where is this .....Spit vs 190 going.
Okay, this, from Kuffie:
"Wingloading comparisons a rather meaningless things"
No. you may have a chance making it looking irrelevant with CL numbers which will be rather embarrasing when the whole thing gets calculated, - since the Spit wing is that vastly bigger. The liftloading is still good ;)
Go ahead and calculate the Spitfire climb into Newtons. Then divide with the power vs the power of the 190. You see, the 190 has a LOT of power, already the A series have the equal of a Griffon, while the Griffon Spit will create more lift. Oh, a whine, the Spit XIV should handle better :D
And surface area will ALWAYS matter a lot when you're whipping near the stall. (if not beyond it). The lower wingloading, especially marked at lower speeds will (as well as the fact of higher ROC) make the Spittie, oh yes, - accelerate faster from the stall to a certain point than the 190.
The 190 has the downhill opportunity though :D
oh me bad....trolling, well if you can call it trolling, that basically I think the HTC flight model is pretty pretty good. The 190 might turn a tad better in the initial break and the Spit XIV might be a tad less of a pig, but otherwise....good good and always getting better..
Extra bonus.
Harry Broadhurst's best ride was the Spit IX LF, clipped and all Merlin 66.
(I'll face any AH 190 in that one hehe)
Quill said the VIII was the finest.
Another whine, - does our VIII roll like the long winged one?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Another whine, - does our VIII roll like the long winged one?
It might. See the thread regarding the Spit VIII's roll rate further down in this forum. I was the topic starter.
-
Where is this .....Spit vs 190 going.
I don't see anyone claiming the FW-190 should outturn a Spitfire in the sustained turn.
The performance differences though are not as great as people tend to think.
correct me oif im wrong but AH 190A-5 is a bit underweight too. ~ 200lb less than it should be
Yes. Our FW-190's gain almost as much weight as the entire series. Going from FW-190A2 "light fighter" variant with only two wing root cannon to FW-190A8 air superiority fighter with full wing armament, the series only gains 914 lbs. Sounds like quite a bit until you begin to examine the weight gain of other fighter designs.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Yes. Our FW-190's gain almost as much weight as the entire series.
What evidence is this statement based on? Did you test something in the game to come to this conclusion? Or did HT and Pyro post the "AH weight" of the 190s in a thread somewhere?
-
Originally posted by Sable
Or did HT and Pyro post the "AH weight" of the 190s in a thread somewhere?
AH 190A8 - Planes and vehicles (http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/190a8.html)
-
What evidence is this statement based on? Did you test something in the game to come to this conclusion? Or did HT and Pyro post the "AH weight" of the 190s in a thread somewhere?
Look on the AH Home page under:
game data
planes vehicles, and boats
FW-190A5 = 8583 lbs or 3,893.18Kg's
The FW-190A5 Take off weight for full wing armament is 4106Kg's
-
So assuming that the numbers on the webpage are the actual numbers coded into the game, the one FW that actually handles pretty good is underweight. That's encouraging for the LW fans. :(
-
So assuming that the numbers on the webpage are the actual numbers coded into the game, the one FW that actually handles pretty good is underweight. That's encouraging for the LW fans.
Actually IMHO that should be encouraging. It does not change what the aircraft was capable of doing. HTC's model is in fact lighter than Faber's FW-190A3 as tested.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
If someone is interested about real flight tested data from Fw for the A-8, below is a chart from the Shockwave productions site. If compared to the AH A-8, there is a very good agreement with at military power (assuming that 30 min rating for the A-8 was 1,42ata 2700rpm). Only other issue I can see is that the AH A-8 should have the ETC rack visible because it has the 30gal extra tank.
gripen
(http://www.shockwaveproductions.com/store/fw190/aircraft_source_data_files/image005.jpg)
-
Gripen the discussion is still not about top speed or top climb rate so while the chart is interesting in its own way it is not really about the discussion...
Wilbus: What milian is refering to is CAS, i.e. calibrated air speed. Btw that is also modled in AH's air speed indicator. It is do to the fact that as the plane changes AOA, the pitot tube is no longer square with the air stream, and hence induces an error. Normaly it actualy works the other way at very high AOA's (I.E. your real speed is faster than what your air speed indicator is showing) but that is not always the case. CAS to IAS is not a simple caculation , it realy requires a table per airplane type.
And finaly unlike milian claims, we do not simply take a given stall speed and use it as he claims, We use many different methods for comming up with a CLMax that we use in game. And btw in AH the FW's CLMax is higher than the spitfires, once again exatly the oposit of what milian claims.
And finaly, do not take what I am saying that I belive the FW or any other model is absolutly accurate, and can not be improved. As with any of our planes, they are what data we have, the more data we have the more precise we can model an aircraft. But the model data , has absolutly nothing to do with how we model things.
Thanks for the answers, appriciate it!
Another question. In this (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=165186) thread there was a discussion/question about how many HP the AH 190 D9 has got.
The discussion allso mentions Tourqe.
"Mister Fork" was kind enough to explain some of it and mentioned a modell he made for it in "Screaming Deamons over Europe", the 190 D9.
He explained that when increasing/decreasing engine tourqe the thing that changed alot was acceleration. Top Speed and climb rate didn't change much/any at all.
This is also backed up by the page posted by "DoKGonZo".
One thing about that page. It is not comparison tests made by Sweden during WW2. They are calculations based from aerodynamics and physics made by the person who made the homepage.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Gripen the discussion is still not about top speed or top climb rate so while the chart is interesting in its own way it is not really about the discussion...
Hm... if I look back this thread, I can see a lot of claims about the speeds of the AH FWs starting from the page 1 of this thread. So far no one has actually posted real flight tested performance data here. Note that hitech claimed (page 1 of this thread) that:
"HTC Never modiefies a planes performance based on anything but our best interpitation of the flight data we have availible to us."
And if the AH A-8 is compared to the real A-8, there is a very good agreement.
gripen
-
Have you actually read the last few pages here??
I think it has been stated quite a few times that is is not about top speed and top climb rate.
Stall behavior, maneuverability and acceleration is up for discussion now.
Thanks for the chart though, will save it (think I have it somewhere already but can never have too many copies).
And if the AH A-8 is compared to the real A-8, there is a very good agreement.
Speed and climbwise yes.
-
What is the set up of that aircraft Gripen?
Which thermostat, Lufterrad, pistons, Kommandogerät, propeller, baffling changes, etc....
Was it summer or winter and did the engine have the changes made?
All effect the performance of the FW-190.
Interesting too that the graph does not show any Jagd-einsatz weapon set up for the FW-190A8 that was ever produced.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
If someone is interested about real flight tested data from Fw for the A-8, below is a chart from the Shockwave productions site.
This statement works both ways too:
It is when people pass off data at the upper end of these percentages as the "average" that destroys the balance.
Passing off lower end data as the "average" also creates an imbalance.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
What is the set up of that aircraft Gripen?
Which thermostat, Lufterrad, pistons, Kommandogerät, propeller, baffling changes, etc....
Was it summer or winter and did the engine have the changes made?
All effect the performance of the FW-190.
Interesting too that the graph does not show any Jagd-einsatz weapon set up for the FW-190A8 that was ever produced.
All the best,
Crumpp
The serial number of the 801 as well as the WNr of the 190 (AGO built) is stated on the chart so you being the expert should be able to tell us what the 'set-up' of the engine and a/c is.
-
Originally posted by Mime
listen to me for a sec
I have played this game since beta. In the past 2 years or so it seems like all the allied planes have been increasingly made easier to fly (incredible almost anti gravity, turn radius increasing, little drag flaps and cockpits with very little obstructions) while axis planes (specifically the LW fleet) have only become worse. The 190A series flies the same as it always has, like a pig. For example the P47 used to be much more like the 190 in terms of flight model -- they were almost an even match in a 1on1 situation with the P47 being slightly more manueverable. Everything has changed now and the P47 no longer difficult to fly. The P51 also used to be much more difficult to maintain around the stall, but now it flies like it resists gravity. Both the 190 and 109 series haven't changed at all in any FM respects from what I can tell, while the competition has for some reason become a fleet of EZ Mode planes. And to mention the fact that the 190 and 109 cockpits after revision have become so obstructive to render them increasingly harder to aim with, while the older Allied cockpits became slimmer or retained the older cockpit bar dimensions. I don't understand this. How do the Axis planes get worse and the Allied the same or get clearer views?
I admit I do not have any technical tests on how the planes performed in the game from the various updates, but it is just a way I have felt the flight models and cockpit models change (or lack thereof in the case of the LW birds) throughout Aces High.
Has anyone else noticed this too?? Maybe it is just me.
Thx for reading...
NathBDP
back to the original question and it's relevence to ingame play. last night in the CT I was goaded by a player of more or less (more to the more than to the less) equal skill to a "duel". Now, generally I do not accept such challenges, much preferring to spar on the text buffer than in a cartoon "duel". This time however I rose to the challenge and stipulated that I would "choose the weapons". The "challenger" accepted and I selected that he fly any LW aircraft and I would fly the spit of my choosing. the fight is on. I'm cruising along at 3k heading to the appointed dueling grounds in Weehawken NJ to meet mr hamilton when I'm pounced!!!! frantically calling for my wife to remove my granddaughter from my lap (she came laughing her head off at my distress and relieved me of my burden thus lightening my spit of 26 extra pounds) in the interim we had done three turns me guessing where he is by sound alone, (I'm missing half of my right thumb so my views are under my left thumb on the X45 throttle, my left hand up to this moment suspending my delighted granddaughter, chicks dig fighter pilots) and I had yet to identify this "threat". Behold!!! before me was a sleek and deadly MC205. He was in a sharp starboard bank while slighly nose up (I estimate 45 degrees) come back on the throttle just a bit, apply a little right rudder while increasing my angle, pull the nose a little ahead, cross control with a little left rudder pressure, he disappears beneath my nose, lightly tap the "fire both" trigger. the next thing I see on the text buffer is a accusation of being a HO'r from my non LW flying "challenger". any idiot can win in an AH spit. that's the reason they are here. something has to keep the US$14.95 rolling in every month. The spits do it for the new guy that needs to get kills while they climb the steep learning curve or low skill and self esteem crowd. Once again, I say leave it as it is, my skills have improved and killing spittards is fun and all the more rewarding when you know you start every fight with the deck stacked against you. Perhaps in another life I was a pacific salmon. anyway HTC has a good though not "balanced" formula which allows us all to participate in as close as possible to the long ago but hopefully never to be forgotten event that was aerial combat in WWII. having said all that, go and fix the damn 190 already.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Which thermostat, Lufterrad, pistons, Kommandogerät, propeller, baffling changes, etc....
Was it summer or winter and did the engine have the changes made?
Maybe you should ask these from Shockwave productions. The basic configuration is given in the chart as well as the dates.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Passing off lower end data as the "average" also creates an imbalance.
It's the only flight tested data posted to this thread so far and it appears to agree very well with the AH A-8. I don't see a reason to assume imbalance.
gripen
-
so far and it appears to agree very well with the AH A-8.
I just checked it with the production trial data and it does have good agreement.
It is below the average for an FW-190A8 Jabo-einsatz at 1.42ata @ 2700U/min with ETC 501 rack mounted but within 3% guarantee performance for level speed.
You've posted this graph before.
It's the only flight-tested data posted to this thread
The data I posted earlier is based on over 100 flight tests and represents the numbers given to the RLM for production Focke Wulf single engine performance.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
An example of Focke Wulf test flight procedures:
Test Schedule:
http://img105.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=a3c_flight_test.jpg
Test results:
http://img21.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=2a3_FW190A9.jpg
Gripen says:
The basic configuration is given in the chart as well as the dates.
This is the kind of statement that smacks of aircraft performance ignorance. Where do you even begin to see enough information on the graph you took from Shockwaves site to draw any conclusion about average production performance of the FW-190A8? Facts are your are ignorant of this test's background or set up.
Something as simple as the intake set up can have huge effect on recorded performance.
http://img106.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=561_Intakes.jpg
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
An example of Focke Wulf test flight procedures:
Test Schedule:
http://img105.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc24&image=a3c_flight_test.jpg
That is not a test schedule but a flight log. No indication of how many a/c either.
-
Originally posted by storch
back to the original question and it's relevence to ingame play. last night in the CT I was goaded by a player of more or less (more to the more than to the less) equal skill to a "duel". Now, generally I do not accept such challenges, much preferring to spar on the text buffer than in a cartoon "duel". This time however I rose to the challenge and stipulated that I would "choose the weapons". The "challenger" accepted and I selected that he fly any LW aircraft and I would fly the spit of my choosing. the fight is on. I'm cruising along at 3k heading to the appointed dueling grounds in Weehawken NJ to meet mr hamilton when I'm pounced!!!! frantically calling for my wife to remove my granddaughter from my lap (she came laughing her head off at my distress and relieved me of my burden thus lightening my spit of 26 extra pounds) in the interim we had done three turns me guessing where he is by sound alone, (I'm missing half of my right thumb so my views are under my left thumb on the X45 throttle, my left hand up to this moment suspending my delighted granddaughter, chicks dig fighter pilots) and I had yet to identify this "threat". Behold!!! before me was a sleek and deadly MC205. He was in a sharp starboard bank while slighly nose up (I estimate 45 degrees) come back on the throttle just a bit, apply a little right rudder while increasing my angle, pull the nose a little ahead, cross control with a little left rudder pressure, he disappears beneath my nose, lightly tap the "fire both" trigger. the next thing I see on the text buffer is a accusation of being a HO'r from my non LW flying "challenger". any idiot can win in an AH spit. that's the reason they are here. something has to keep the US$14.95 rolling in every month. The spits do it for the new guy that needs to get kills while they climb the steep learning curve or low skill and self esteem crowd. Once again, I say leave it as it is, my skills have improved and killing spittards is fun and all the more rewarding when you know you start every fight with the deck stacked against you. Perhaps in another life I was a pacific salmon. anyway HTC has a good though not "balanced" formula which allows us all to participate in as close as possible to the long ago but hopefully never to be forgotten event that was aerial combat in WWII. having said all that, go and fix the damn 190 already.
LOL I wish I was in the CT last night (stupid dial up) who was the "challenger"??
-
Questions guys on the RPM settings for WEP.
1. The P51 for example, when you engage WEP, only the manifold pressure increases which means the Mustang's engine torque shoots up.
2. In the Dora, when you engage WEP, RPM increases, which robs the engine of torque. Why not keep the RPM's at 3000!?!?!
Data:
P-51D with Packard V-1650 "Merlin" Engine
- Merlin produces 1490hp at 3000rpm
- 1,720hp at WEP RPM with 3000 rpm
- engine torque is 2609lb/ft for 100% throttle
- engine torque is 3012lb/ft at WEP (15% jump)
Dora with Junkers Jumo 213A Inline
- Jumo engine is 1720hp at 3000rpm
- 2240hp at WEP at 3250rpm
- engine torque is 3012lb/ft at 3000rpm
- engine torque is 3620lb/ft at 3250rpm (16% jump)
QUESTION: Why the jump in RPM's for the DORA?? It robs engine torque! If HTC leaves the RPM at 3000, it means that engine torque would jump to 3921 from the current 3620! It robs acceleration on the Dora.
-
I will also point out that all LW fighters RPM increases for WEP. Shouldn't engine RPM should remain constant? why the jump? All it does is rob extra engine torque.
-
Yup I am spamming the boards, if you missed the other naudet received from NASM actual flight test data for the D-9.
But for those that are interested in the FW190D documents from the NASM here are their designations:
1. FW/Fb/FW190-210001 (1-2)
Reel: 8069 Frame: 1153
2. FW/Fb/FW/210001/(3)
Reel: 2861 Frame: 989
3. FW/Fb/FW190-210002 (1,2,3)
Reel: 3996 Frame: 343
4. FW/FW190/Sch/16/3/45
Reel 2731 Frame: 797
Those four together will be exactly 50 pages, so if you order them, you won't exceed the limit per order.
-
Mister Fork: Your assesment of torque is incorect.
Torque by itself can not be translated into thrust , and thrust is what accelerates an airplane.
Thrust is generated both by rpm and torque, I.E. by total HP output.
HiTech
-
I think Fork means that the only noticable difference is increased torque.
But that's just me :confused:
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
The data I posted earlier is based on over 100 flight tests and represents the numbers given to the RLM for production Focke Wulf single engine performance.
I can't find such data on the A-5 or A-8 from this thread.
Originally posted by Crumpp
This is the kind of statement that smacks of aircraft performance ignorance. Where do you even begin to see enough information on the graph you took from Shockwaves site to draw any conclusion about average production performance of the FW-190A8? Facts are your are ignorant of this test's background or set up.
Something as simple as the intake set up can have huge effect on recorded performance.
Hm... it can be easily seen from the FTH that that the tested A-8 had a normal intake system.
Otherwise the data you posted seem to be from BMW 801F or TS powered models ie not for the A-5 or A-8. And where is the documentation about the configuration?
BTW is that flight test data from the tests of the V34?
gripen
-
Hi Widewing,
>I seem to recall that field tests performed by TAIC in the war zone relied on aircraft instrumentation for speed data. However, my memory is vague on this. Do you have any info on test methodology?
To avoid more off-topic posts here, I have summarized the current state of my A6M analysis in the original A6M thread:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=154320
I'd love to hear your opinion on the Sakae engines! :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
And where is the documentation about the configuration?
It was posted earlier. Guess you missed it.
Otherwise the data you posted seem to be from BMW 801F or TS powered models ie not for the A-5 or A-8.
It is from an BMW801E series aircraft. No claims about the FW-190A8, FW- 190A5 or any FW-190 performance are made in my post.
Facts are Focke Wulf average performance numbers are flight tested and easily achieved for a normal finish fighter. The performance estimates are conservative as well. I could post flight-tested data of FW-190A's hitting 595kph on the deck. It would not be representative of anything but the extreme upper end of Focke Wulf guaranteed performance numbers just as your shows the lower end of the scale. In other words, cherry picking data.
Focke Wulf guarantee performance range for in-flight figures:
http://img19.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc43&image=cd7_Focke_Wulf_tolerences.jpg
That snippet was simply to show what a flight test report has from Focke Wulf and the variation in performance. The set-up portion of the aircraft is multiple pages in length and extremely detailed.
Hm... it can be easily seen from the FTH that that the tested A-8 had a normal intake system.
You will have to point out where it says that. Lufterrad and supercharger gearing change FTH as well. The FTH on that report is actually low.
Other than FTH due to supercharger gearing changes there is no difference in power production the BMW801 series. At the same manifold pressure the motors produce the same amount of power. In fact the BMW801D2 received the pistons of the E series during its lifecycle.
And where is the documentation about the configuration?
That is all the documentation you’re going to get from me, Gripen.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
That is not a test schedule but a flight log. No indication of how many a/c either.
It is a log of test flights, Milo.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
It is a log of test flights, Milo.
All the best,
Crumpp
Of coarse it is test flights since the operative word you used was 'test' in your original statement. Glad you know the difference between a test schedule and a (test) flight log, now.
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
It was posted earlier. Guess you missed it.
...
That is all the documentation you’re going to get from me, Gripen.
Hm... I can't find such documentation from this thread.
Originally posted by Crumpp
No claims about the FW-190A8, FW- 190A5 or any FW-190 performance are made in my post.
Your post 11-29-2005 01:27 PM:
"The data I posted earlier is based on over 100 flight tests and represents the numbers given to the RLM for production Focke Wulf single engine performance."
So where it is if it's posted here?
Originally posted by Crumpp
Focke Wulf guarantee performance range for in-flight figures:
http://img19.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc43&image=cd7_Focke_Wulf_tolerences.jpg
That seem to be from Fw 190Aa-3 spec sheet (for Turkey) and the speeds claimed appear to be without compressibility correction.
Originally posted by Crumpp
You will have to point out where it says that. Lufterrad and supercharger gearing change FTH as well. The FTH on that report is actually low.
I'm merely linking the data from Shockwave productions site, if you have questions, you should ask them.
Anyway, it's the only flight tested data on the A-8 posted to this thread so far.
gripen
-
That seem to be from Fw 190Aa-3 spec sheet (for Turkey) and the speeds claimed appear to be without compressibility correction.
What does that have to with the factory guaranteed percentages for performance??
So where it is if it's posted here?
They have been posted. Search the BBS. Gripen, your dishonesty in the past, stubborn inability to admit when your wrong, and nasty disposition make it very unlikely I will ever share any documentation with you intentionally. You’re like the little boy who cried, "WOLF". I really don't have much else to say on this to you.
I'm merely linking the data from Shockwave productions site, if you have questions, you should ask them.
As I stated earlier, Gripen if you would read my post's:
It is within specifications for production FW-190A8 performance. Lower end of the scale but within specifications.
Crumpp says:
I just checked it with the production trial data and it does have good agreement.
It is below the average for an FW-190A8 Jabo-einsatz at 1.42ata @ 2700U/min with ETC 501 rack mounted but within 3% guarantee performance for level speed.
You've posted this graph before.
Of coarse it is test flights since the operative word you used was 'test' in your original statement. Glad you know the difference between a test schedule and a (test) flight log, now.
Yes and to the reader it becomes a schedule of the test flights. Your attempt to argue about this is just plain silly semantics.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Crumpp, you should make an ignore list.
-C+
-
Before that he should make that ultimate 190 thread.
-
Originally posted by moot
Before that he should make that ultimate 190 thread.
With alot of charts posted!
I WANT CHARTS!!
-
Isn't Crumpp writing a book on 190s?
I bet it contains all the relevant info on subject.
There is not much sense to share those charts for free that has cost him money to collect for his book? :)
-C+
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Yes and to the reader it becomes a schedule of the test flights. Your attempt to argue about this is just plain silly semantics.
schedule[/u]
1. list of meetings, commitments, or appointments: an outline description of the things somebody is to do and the times at which they are to be done
2. work plan: a plan of work to be done, showing the order in which tasks are to be carried out and the amounts of time allocated to them.
Notice both say to be done.
log
3. A record of a vehicle's performance, as the flight record of an aircraft.
3a. To travel (a specified distance, time, or speed): (in your list, the flight time with TO and landing times)
There is a difference and your so called 'test schedule' gives no description of what was being tested.
Stop being the weasel and just admit, for once at least, you used the wrong word.
-
True Charge :)
When will it be done Crumpp?
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
What does that have to with the factory guaranteed percentages for performance??
So far no one has posted documentation what is the base line for normal performance of the A-5 or A-8.
Originally posted by Crumpp
They have been posted. Search the BBS.
I can't find them, just give the link.
Originally posted by Crumpp
Gripen, your dishonesty in the past, stubborn inability to admit when your wrong, and nasty disposition make it very unlikely I will ever share any documentation with you intentionally. You’re like the little boy who cried, "WOLF". I really don't have much else to say on this to you.
I wonder what all this has to do with the performance of the LW planes.
Generally, you should be able to proof your arguments.
Originally posted by Crumpp
As I stated earlier, Gripen if you would read my post's:
It is within specifications for production FW-190A8 performance. Lower end of the scale but within specifications.
I don't know what you are trying to argue, you wanted to know the used intake, cooling fan etc. You should ask these from Shockwave productions, they put that data available.
I have only told my own observation that the data on tested A-8 (kampf- und startleistung) seem to agree well with the AH A-8 (military power). Nothing posted here proves that there is some kind of imbalance.
gripen
-
When will it be done Crumpp?
Finishing up most of the engine research now. Might be sidetracked for a bit as we are putting together a series of shorter books for the Foundation.
Still have a few mysteries to be solved.
Crumpp, you should make an ignore list.
Good advice.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
This bird is going to fly, yes?
And when?
Pictures? Links?
-
Someone should pay for and donate a copy to HTC, then?
-
Originally posted by Angus
This bird is going to fly, yes?
And when?
Pictures? Links?
http://www.white1foundation.org
-
Someone should pay for and donate a copy to HTC, then?
That would be great if someone would organize the FW190 fans in AH to start a donation drive. We could really use the money and it is tax deductible for the US citizens.
Anybody fly WWIIOnline's FW190A4 out of curiosity?
All the best,
Crumpp
-
"Anybody fly WWIIOnline's FW190A4 out of curiosity?"
I have. Otherwise the game started to suck so bad that I unsubbed a few days ago after playing it for three years along with AH.
I flew the WW2OL FW offline when it first came out and it was a jaw dropper. I thought that "let them keep their stinkin' sustained turn if I can whip this beast around this fast I can engage anything and in any situation."
Well, as it happened that version of FW never became "operational", but still the "neutered" WW2OL FW is somewhat different -as is their Spit IX.
Their FW is really a beast as long as it stays fast and in high speed it doesn't bleed speed rapidly in maneuvers (as expected). In slow speed it becomes quite hard to fly. Anyway it feels more pleasant to fly than AH A5. Of course it also flies against its contemporary rivals, and not LAs and Nikis, so that makes it to feel even more competitive.
-C+
-
Holy mother of Kurt Tank is that a a Dorita Cowling in one of the screenshots for the White 1 Foundation page?
http://www.white1foundation.org/parts/gosshawkgroup.jpg
Man if they could get a Dora with a Jumo 213 a real Jumo 213A flying that would be most delightful to see such a beauty fly again.
-
Holy mother of Kurt Tank is that a a Dorita Cowling in one of the screenshots for the White 1 Foundation page?
That is Yellow 10. We helped in the restoration.
It's a FW-190D13.
http://www.indianamilitary.org/FreemanAAF/Aircraft%20-%20German/FE%200118-FW190D13/Y10Completed1.jpg
http://www.indianamilitary.org/FreemanAAF/Aircraft%20-%20German/FE%200118-FW190D13/0118.htm
All the best,
Crumpp
-
That would be Delightful if even thoguh they won't fly it they could rev the engine up to take off speed as if they were doing a pre takeoff power testing just to see how she sounds at full power.
Has it done so has it turned its engine on if so howq do the AH sounds done by Mitsu san compare to the real thing.
How did the exhaust fumes smell, I bet delightful, but that's just me :D
I wonder why can't anyone Auto Cad the friggin blueprints of the 190D-9 and start making um, acquire a license from BMW or something to make the engines, and if Jumo is out of bussiness why can't they make the engines like they used to back then, I'm sure there's a market for these types of aircraft, if they were mass produced(considering the prime buyers rich folks) these planes would fly off the shelf.
-
How did the exhaust fumes smell,
C3 and B4 have a unique smell. Not at all like natural petroleum Avgas. More like dirty coal.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Ok and what would these types of planes use for AV gas 100 lo lead blue or green or 110 octane?
-
The problem with the engines is that they were so precisely engineered and made that nobody can now replicate the parts without MASSIVE costs and overhead (and if only for a small part -- it's not cost effective -- that is unless you plan on starting full production for the engines and there just isn't a market for that)
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
C3 and B4 have a unique smell. Not at all like natural petroleum Avgas. More like dirty coal.
All the best,
Crumpp
It should as is was made from coal.
-
The problem with the engines is that they were so precisely engineered and made that nobody can now replicate the parts without MASSIVE costs and overhead (and if only for a small part -- it's not cost effective -- that is unless you plan on starting full production for the engines and there just isn't a market for that)
Your not kidding. We have had to search the world for some tiny parts. For example, some of the ball bearing sizes are not in production anywhere in the world. We found a scrap hovercraft that just happenend to have the correct size ball bearings to replace some of them.
We have also had to amass a collection of engines far out of proportion to what is normally needed to maintain one aircraft. With this though comes as many questions as answers.
If you guys are not members, please join. We can use the support.
It should as is was made from coal.
See, you can impress me with your knowledge.:cool:
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Hi Glasses,
>I wonder why can't anyone Auto Cad the friggin blueprints of the 190D-9 and start making um, acquire a license from BMW or something to make the engines, and if Jumo is out of bussiness why can't they make the engines like they used to back then, I'm sure there's a market for these types of aircraft, if they were mass produced(considering the prime buyers rich folks) these planes would fly off the shelf.
You can actually buy Fw 190A reproductions as kit aircraft from Flugwerk:
http://www.flugwerk.de/new/fw190/fw190.shtm
They use Chinese-made Ash-82 engines because no BMWs are available.
If you find your own Jumo 213, you can also have a Dora kit (they only built one of these so far).
Have fun! :-)
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by Charge
"Anybody fly WWIIOnline's FW190A4 out of curiosity?"
I have (Snip) .... of course it also flies against its contemporary rivals, and not LAs and Nikis, so that makes it to feel even more competitive.
-C+
Exactly.
-
FW-190's did fly against La's and Yaks. They were competative. So much in fact that the VVS operated a squadron of captured Dora's.
Oscar Boesch last kill was a Yak. He collided with it in a close quarter dogfight.
According to the VVS testing of turning rates, at max cruising speeds, it took an La7 12 complete turns to outturn an FW-190A5.
Examine any JG which flew FW-190's in Russia, they not only tangled with VVS fighter, they managed to get a decent kill ratio.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
According to the VVS testing of turning rates, at max cruising speeds, it took an La7 12 complete turns to outturn an FW-190A5.
Crumpp, what does it mean in terms of speed at 5K and 10K?
Thx.
-
Crumpp, what does it mean in terms of speed at 5K and 10K?
Roughly a 50kph speed difference between Daurleistung and Start un Notleistung.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
OKay so somebody that knows how to do this needs to test the turn rate of AH's LA7 then the turn rate of AH's 190a5, and compare the two. What's the math? How much faster must the 190a5 turn to require 12 turns to catch up?
-
Flew LW aircraft some time ago in the CT, - 190 vs the La's.
Was a very good setup. The 190 was good for the job.
-
In WW2OL the FW190 is A4 variant and it flies against Spit IX and P39 and P38.
-C+
-
Flew LW aircraft some time ago in the CT, - 190 vs the La's.
Feel free to fight an La 5 1 vs 1 co-altitude anytime. I would be glad to meet you in the DA. I will fly the La5.
Last time I did that, it was the first time I ever spent the majority of a dogfight at idle or very reduced power to keep from over running the FW-190.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Let me know Crumpp when you see a chance for some flights. I'd rather wing you if you don't mind ;)
Been bloody busy lately so I haven't been doing anything than forums and the occational MA. Like NOW.
(Wife sleping, daughter sleeping, me on lookout, hehe)
-
Speed vs flap deployment for 109E. These speed/flap deployment figures remained virtually unchanged for all 109 variants.
(http://www.furballunderground.com/freehost/files/1/471_109_Flap_deploy_speeds.jpg)
-
I see a slight difference between the chart and AH.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
I see a slight difference between the chart and AH.
:rolleyes:
:lol :rofl :lol :rofl
-
Speed vs flap deployment for 109E. These speed/flap deployment figures remained virtually unchanged for all 109 variants.
Frustrating thing is that has been posted several times in this thread alone. Many times over the past few years.
It will be ignored in spite of the overwhelming factual and anecdotal evidence of both the LW fighters ability to use "combat flaps". Which is almost as funny as the claims of engineering incompetacy of the part of the Messerschmitt, Focke Wulf, or whatever the axis firm happens to be under discussion on these boards at the time.
Anyone ever notice that whenever an original document is produced, there are scores of rank amatuer calculator jockey's rushing out of the woodwork presenting their "proof" that the document is wrong.
How about this one?? The report concludes the duraluminum produced in the US was inferior. Even more interesting is the fact it is backed up by the Wright AeroEngine companies own investigations into German Metallurgy.
http://img45.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc231&image=cca_page1.jpg
Repeat after me.....
There is NOTHING wrong with the modeling of any LW fighter so quit "Luftwhining".
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Speed vs flap deployment for 109E. These speed/flap deployment figures remained virtually unchanged for all 109 variants.
(http://www.furballunderground.com/freehost/files/1/471_109_Flap_deploy_speeds.jpg)
-
You just posted that
-
Yes, yes I did.
Yes, yes I did.
-
It will be ignored
:cry
-
The flaps on the 109s were supposed to be changed in the 2.06 and it was an oversight that it wasn't.
-
Thanks pyro.
-
OH! Kwel!
-
The flaps on the 109s were supposed to be changed in the 2.06 and it was an oversight that it wasn't.
Great!
Any word on the FW-190's getting fixed?
All the best,
Crumpp
-
I think I'll give the luftwabble planes a try after they redo the flaps :)
-
Originally posted by Kermit de frog
I think I'll give the luftwabble planes a try after they redo the flaps :)
oh no you don't :)
-
Stay in your Typhoon, Fwoggie.
:aok
-
Frequent Hizooka dweebs are not alowed in LW planes.
:p
-
happy day. :D
-
:O
-
Not to pee in your cornflakes guys but ... what this sentence mean exactly is ...
Originally posted by Pyro
The flaps on the 109s were supposed to be changed in the 2.06 and it was an oversight that it wasn't.
Starting at version 2.07 the flaps on 109 won't deploy ... at all :D
Ps and what about the 190 Pyro ?
-
Originally posted by straffo
Starting at version 2.07 the flaps on 109 won't deploy ... at all :D
LOL it did occur to me...
:noid
-
Originally posted by straffo
Not to pee in your cornflakes guys but ... what this sentence mean exactly is ...
Starting at version 2.07 the flaps on 109 won't deploy ... at all :D
Ps and what about the 190 Pyro ?
Flaps since when did they put flaps on 109s?
-
Originally posted by straffo
Not to pee in your cornflakes guys but ... what this sentence mean exactly is ...
Starting at version 2.07 the flaps on 109 won't deploy ... at all :D
Ps and what about the 190 Pyro ?
HAHAHAHA!
:rofl
-
You know they have to add the Spiteful, F8F, F9F, and Spitfire Mk XXI before they the next patch.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
You forgot the F7F.
Anyway there will never be a Spit with +25 - it's too good.
Wha abot the flaps? Is the deployment to slow or not allowable at higher speeds?
Well how about Spit I and 109E realistic UC then?
(30 secs?)
-
F.21 Crump. They abandoned Roman numerals after the Mk XIX.
:p
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
You know they have to add the Spiteful, F8F, F9F, and Spitfire Mk XXI before they the next patch.
All the best,
Crumpp
oh i cant wait 'till spit XXXXI comes out
-
oh i cant wait 'till spit XXXXI comes out
It'll be here next patch!
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by straffo
Not to pee in your cornflakes guys but ... what this sentence mean exactly is ...
Starting at version 2.07 the flaps on 109 won't deploy ... at all :D
Ps and what about the 190 Pyro ?
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
It'll be here next patch!
All the best,
Crumpp
How many Spits were there?
-
22 or thereabouts.
-
109 will get COMBAT FLAPS???
:aok
(plays tune "Ride of the Valkerie")
and what about the 190s? :p
-
Well I just gt 7 kills in 2 consecutive sorties ni ta152s... I don't think they need combat flaps but will make things interesting!
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
According to the VVS testing of turning rates, at max cruising speeds, it took an La7 12 complete turns to outturn an FW-190A5.
Crumpp
Hi Crumpp
Do you have a source for this? I would like to aquire such data....
When you say max cruise speeds.........what do you mean?
-
Originally posted by 1K3
109 will get COMBAT FLAPS???
:aok
(plays tune "Ride of the Valkerie")
and what about the 190s? :p
?
I think you'll find they are being set to deploy at the correct speed, would hardly call it combat flaps.
-
Well Kev considering the 109 gives added lift when they can be deployed as it is, they will most likely give added lift/turn when they are fixed aswell.
Then people can call it combat flaps or whatever they want. Just having them fixed to the correct speeds would be nice.
However, looking at the chart posted recently they should be able to deply 10 degree's already at 490mph. Don't think that will happen.
-
I think you'll find they are being set to deploy at the correct speed, would hardly call it combat flaps.
Funny the USAAF thought they were and labeled them as such during their testing of the Focke Wulf.
When you say max cruise speeds.........what do you mean?
Max cruise for the FW-190 is 1.20ata @ 2300U/min.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Funny the USAAF thought they were and labeled them as such during their testing of the Focke Wulf.
Crumpp
Guy was talking about 109's not 190's.
Original post - "109 will get combat flaps"
Interesting aside - Guess it's lucky that for the time to required to wind the flaps down (for manual deployment planes), you are still able to change the throttle, unlike real life.
Applies to all aircraft with manually deployed flaps, not just LW, not being biased here.
Edit -
Thinking about it - This may be the main reason you don't seem to see any or very few combat reports of 109's using 'combat flaps'. It's more expediant to have throttle control than have to wind down (x) degrees of flaps whether your the chaser or chased.
Wilbus - That chart TAS or IAS?
-
Crumpp. The talk was about the 109, not the 190.
Question thoug. What max speed could the first notch of flaps be deployed at in the 190?
Not sure if the chart is in TAS or IAS.
-
"Thinking about it - This may be the main reason you don't seem to see any or very few combat reports of 109's using 'combat flaps'. It's more expediant to have throttle control than have to wind down (x) degrees of flaps whether your the chaser or chased."
OR, IRL they did not really need them to be competitive with their contemporary rivals...
;)
-C+
-
Not sure if the chart is in TAS or IAS.
Usually it is IAS when it goes to the pilot although that strikes me a somewhat fast in this case.
Either way the 109 has a comfortable lead on flap deployment speeds.
What max speed could the first notch of flaps be deployed at in the 190?
The Flugzeug-handbuch instructs the pilot to raise the take off flaps and trim for level flight at 500Kph IAS. I would set that as the top speed of the take off position for a game.
AFAIK there is no set top speed however and the take off flaps should be deployable throughout the FW-190's normal speed envelope.
10-13 degrees is just not a whole lot of flap.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
FW-190's did fly against La's and Yaks. They were competative. So much in fact that the VVS operated a squadron of captured Dora's.
"In the east, the Russian advance towards Berlin reaped war booty aplenty. This included between 6 to 10 Focke-Wulf Fw190D-9’s captured intact by the 2 Guards IAP of 322 IAD at a Focke-Wulf facility near Marienburg, East Prussia. Fresh from the production line it appears that at first they were not flown but were, for propaganda purposes, painted with red stars by the Air Force of the Baltic Fleet.
From this selection of Dora’s, it appears that one example was chosen for extensive flight-testing by NII VVS. However, as Russian types in production such as the Yak-3 and La-7, were according to the Dora test pilots better aircraft, the remaining examples were not flown. It appears that they ended their days being used for gun sighting and identification training on the ground by Russian pilots of the 322 IAD before probably being scrapped.
The subject of Soviet Dora testing and operational use based on surviving photographic evidence has been over the years open to much speculation and conjecture. This includes photographic evidence, apparently in a US Military Review circa 1948/49, showing a pair of Dora’s stationed at Görden, SW of Brandenburg. According to the article these two Dora’s remained on the Russian inventory as trainers until late 1949 until one of them crashing in Latvia during March of the same year. If any readers can throw any light on the unnamed US Military Review or has additional information on Soviet D-9’s, please contact the article author.
[sources]
“Under the Red Star” by Carl Fredrik Geust (Airlife 1993)
Email correspondence with Carl-Fredrik Geust 17/10/03"
from the LEMB board
VVS = Voenno-Vozdushnye Sily > Soviet Air Force
The VVS is not the air arm of the Soviet Navy, which operated the Doras.
-
Actually VVS stands for-Military Air Force:)
-
I am vry interested in any source docs re this La7 to FW performance trial.
I have the following translation with respect to a performance trial with an 109 G4
Fund of NII VVS, inv. 485716, file 273
Approved. Chief Engineer of VVS A.Repin, 11 Oct 1944
THE STATEMENT
on results of verification trials of a serial La-7 with ASh-82FN engine and
VISh-105V-4 propeller, D=3.1m
/ac.No 45210203, prod. in July 1944 by factory No 21/
Air combat with Me-109G-4
In horizontal manoeuvring up to 5000m the La-7 gets on the tail of
the Me-109 for an aimed shot after 3-4 turns. Above 5000 m the advantage of
La-7 in horizontal manoeuvre decreases. At an altitude of 7000m horizontal
manoeuverability of both planes is equal.
In vertical manoeuvring the La-7 has an obvious advantage over the Me-109
up to 3500m and can keep an altitude dominance of 150m during combat. When
it reaches an altitude of 3500m the La-7 slightly loses its superiority over
the Me-109 in vertical manoeuverability, but even at 7000m the La-7 can
maintain a dominance of about 40-50m. At 6500-7000m the vertical
manoeuverability of both planes is equal.
The La-7 accelerates into the dive faster than the Me-109 and therefore can
reduce the distance to an escaping target. However, in continuous dive the
Me-109 increases its speed faster after initial acceleration and departs from
the La-7.
Unfortunately the comparison is virtually without hard data.
a future trial to acertain the left right turn efficiencies recorded the following.
Approved. Chief engineer of VVS A.Repin, 29 Dec 45
The statement No 222
on results of verification trials of La-7 with ASh-82FN engine and VISh-105V-4
propeller in order to determine manoeuverability characteristics
/ a/c No 38100869, plant No 381, prod. of July 1945 /
Lead pilots: major Kubyshkin A.G., captain Pikulenko D.G.
Brief data
The complete verification trials were to determine the difference between right
and left manoeuvres and influence of the engine mode on manoeuverability
characteristics (360deg. turns at 1000 and 5000m, combat turns and split-Ss)
are to be done for the first time.
The plane has been tested with normal flight weight of 3310kg at nominal
engine mode (Ps=1000mm of Me. pile, n=2400RPM).
Conclusion.
1. La-7 does manoeuvres better backward to propeller rotation's direction,
as well as Yak-3.
2. The difference between right and left manoeuvres for La-7 is less than
for Yak-3 (the difference in time of right and left turns is 0.3-0.7 sec
for La-7 and 1.0 sec for Yak-3).
Inferences.
1. La-7 No 38100869 has following manoeuverability characteristics:
a) optimum extreme sustained turn
H,m...Direction...IAS,km/h.....Time,sec.........Radius,m.......Bank angle,deg.
1000.right.........320-340......21.0-21.2........305-335........70.7-71.4
.........left..........320-340.....20.7-21.0........290-315........71.2-71.5
5000.right..........280-290.....30.7................485-500........64.3-64.8
.........left..........280-290.....30.0................470-490........65.4-65.7
203 was a standard early production unit.....869 was a 3 cannon unit with the latest inlet filters installed in the wings.
I assume that LW experts here can take known 109G4 performance figures and transpose those with the FW190?
-
Thanks for sharing Milo!
You buy that book at Barnes and Noble?
Good buy!
Hey Tilt,
The report puts the FW-190A5 turning 360 degree in 22.6 degrees at 1 KM.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Hey Tilt,
The report puts the FW-190A5 turning 360 degree in 22-23 degrees.
All the best,
Crumpp
22-23 secs? which would broadly correlate to min v min and max v max a 2 sec advantage per 360 between 10 and 12 circuits per lapping........but then the circuit diameter will decide when a shot is available.
Do you have a copy of this report you can forward?
-
Do you have a copy of this report you can forward?
No unfortunately I cannot share this one. Although I am privy to parts of the report pertaining to the Focke Wulf, I do not have the whole thing.
“Under the Red Star” by Carl Fredrik Geust (Airlife 1993)
Was the wall even down then?? Oh wait it had just fallen.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Speaking of comparisons, I don't know if anyone has posted thes before:
http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/Spitfire9v190.htm
http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/VBv190.htm
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Speaking of comparisons, I don't know if anyone has posted thes before:
http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/Spitfire9v190.htm
http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/VBv190.htm
Again, an opinion. We're splitting hairs with comparisons like that. While I do believe the FW is a strong accelerator, as his opinions confirm, but what are we after here?
-
DoKGonZo, these comparisons are about 190A4, and we dont have that variant in AH.
-
Originally posted by MANDO
DoKGonZo, these comparisons are about 190A4, and we dont have that variant in AH.
From what I recall the A4 and A5 were pretty similar:
"In April 1943, the production lines began turning out the next subvariant, the "FW-190A-5", which was almost indistinguishable from the A-4 but added a longer engine mounting to increase strength and reduce vibration. The new mounts stretched the aircraft by about 15 centimeters (six inches) and became production standard."
-
The length added to the nose was for heat and exhaust reasons, if I recall. The center of gravity was shifted forward slightly and ETC rack further helped by moving up 6 inches as well.
EDIT: They were mechanically identical, perhaps. The tail and fuselage and etc were almost identical, but it flew differently. It had more weight and a different power rating on the engine.
-
OK ... all my books are still packed, so I'm only going by what I see on the web.
All I'm after is getting as much data in front of HT and Pyro as possible. When ToD launches it'll be pretty important for the 190A and 109G to be competetive.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
OK ... all my books are still packed, so I'm only going by what I see on the web.
All I'm after is getting as much data in front of HT and Pyro as possible. When ToD launches it'll be pretty important for the 190A and 109G to be competetive.
Fow 1190s i think crumpp sent enough data for 190s, but its sitting in a queue line.
-
It had more weight and a different power rating on the engine.
The FW-190A5 had the same power as a post June 1942 FW-190A3. You will find some sources that claim the lengthening was done to improve cooling. That is most likely NOT the case. The problem the BMW801 was experiencing in the FW-190 installation at this time was too much cooling. The front bank of cylinders ran much cooler than they were supposed too creating a temperature imbalance. This was later corrected by the addition of an attenuating ring along with different fuel formulas for summer / winter.
The only changes to the motor between the FW-190A3 and the FW-190A5 are fuel changes improving knock limited performance, change to the Kommandogerät operation of the supercharger gearing, and changes to the mixture regulations for the new fuels.
Now C3 Einspritzung appears on the FW190G and F series along with the zustatzkraftstoffbehälter im rumpf. The tank causes instability when full and is not required for C3 Einspritzung installation. Some FW-190G's reach speeds of 585kph at sea level with empty racks.
That is running like a raped ape at tree top level for a 1943 ground attack platform.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
"Was the wall even down then?? Oh wait it had just fallen."
Eh? What friggin wall, and what does it have to do with Geust?
-C+
-
Eh? What friggin wall, and what does it have to do with Geust?
Your showing your age. The Berlin Wall.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
You're showing your youth. It fell in '91.
October if my memory does not betray me....
-
Berlin wall fell Nov 1989.
Few days later a few of us hired a minibus and drove to Berlin, still got the piece of the wall I "pick-axed" off at home.
-
I vaguely recall it was 91... Dangit who's got a source here? lol
-
You're showing your youth. It fell in '91.
Actually it fell in 1989.
http://www.andreas.com/berlin.html
It took the Soviet Union until Dec. 1991 to collapse where it went into several years of turmoil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_constitutional_crisis_of_1993
I got my dates confused. :o
Getting senile.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Thank Crummp I thought it was 89.
Was also lucky enough to go back July 1990 to see Roger Waters perform 'The Wall'.
-
Was also lucky enough to go back July 1990 to see Roger Waters perform 'The Wall'.
Nice! I was over in Germany from 1990-91.
I expect to see some really good histories of the Eastern Air War come out in the next 10 years as things settle down and become more open.
"Black Cross, Red Star" is just the begining. Even today it is a difficult area to research. Nothing like the difficulties of the days of the USSR or the formative years of the CIS, however.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Ah yes, the Big Bear was 1991, got mixed....lol, me showing age.
Still baffled how long ago this was. Lived with my old gran at the time and had moved out in 1991 so should have remembered.
Was scratching my head though hehe.
BTW, Black Cross-red star, - any good?
Was corresponding to Bergström some years back,- was planning to see Grieslawsky. But the old fellow died the week I was going to phone him :(
-
"Your showing your age."
My age? I was born in 1971 and I do know about the Berlin wall.
Just don't understand what you mean with that "wall" thing when Geust and "Under the red star" is mentioned. :rolleyes:
-C+
-
Charge.
No offense meant.
On the book:
If it was published in 1993 access to VVS information was much more difficult.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Rgr Crumpp.
:)
-C+
-
BTW, Black Cross-red star, - any good?
It covers a rather broad subject but does an wonderful job IMHO.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Tilt
I am vry interested in any source docs re this La7 to FW performance trial.
I have the following translation with respect to a performance trial with an 109 G4
....
I assume that LW experts here can take known 109G4 performance figures and transpose those with the FW190?
Depends. The Russians certainly tested at least one 109G-4 but that one had gunpods mounted, it'd make it difficult to compare. Do you have any further details, what's the source?
From what I have, the 10G-4 w. gunpods did 650 kph at 7000m w. 1.3ata 30-min rating, in the russian tests.
-
Zipped scans of the original VVS docs. Some I think have been re typed since 44/45
There is a whole bunch of stuff here I do not have proper translations for.............. and alot of that regularly refers to comparisons between la7 and la5.
Unfortunately the 109G4 is mentioned only in the above respect without other data. Page 1 of the following reports which show performance figures across a range of La7's
http://www.tilt.clara.net/data/page01_10.zip
I would welcome any translations of the following
http://www.tilt.clara.net/data/01-10.zip
http://www.tilt.clara.net/data/11-20.zip
http://www.tilt.clara.net/data/21-30.zip
http://www.tilt.clara.net/data/31-37.zip
-
Oh my God!!
Where did you get all this stuff?
-
Very nice! Anybody with a good command of russian?
On the Soviet tests done, I know they got both a G-2 and G-4 with gunpods. The G-2 they tested both clean and as heavy fighter, but for the G-4 I can only find results for a 'five pointer' (ie. 3cannon+2mg) plane. This would of course not mean that was the only condition they tested it, but the russians, like Western allies seem to have developed themselves the idea that the Gustav was a sort of heavy fighter that always flew with gondolas..
-
I have translations for the first set of zipped docs (Page01_10) and have posted them here often.
But not the others........although I have laborious worked thru some of the tables with dictionary in hand.
The reference to the 109G4 I posted above is the only one in all my stuff.
The only thing that I did learn was the sustained dive capability of the G4 was better than the La7 . In comparative terms this is quite informative.
The rest has too many variables that could come to play............(to which is now added the possibility of wing pods!)
-
The late 109's could dive very very fast, and they were relatively quick in gaining the speed. They would AFAIK need to be trimmed out of the dive.
Rall has mentioned that the P47 was the first he met that could not be left behind.
-
Originally posted by Tilt
The only thing that I did learn was the sustained dive capability of the G4 was better than the La7 . In comparative terms this is quite informative.
In AH the only things I have ever dove away from an La-7 in are a Mosquito and an Me262. I remember an La-7 diving away from my Spit XIV. It left me like I was standing still, and the Spit XIV isn't really a slouch when it comes to diving either.
-
AH's dive model is inaccurate across-the-board.
-
They would AFAIK need to be trimmed out of the dive.
Yep, they used the flosse. In the Bf-109's it was not difficult to precisely control the recovery. In the FW-190 the flosse became very sensative and it was possible to overload the aircraft very quickly.
There is anecdotal evidence of FW-190's diving in combat, building up speed, and then suddenly disintegrating.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Lukas: I can't get out this dive! I'm screwed!
Obi Wan Kommander: Use the flosse, Lukas!
-
Originally posted by Angus
The late 109's could dive very very fast, and they were relatively quick in gaining the speed. They would AFAIK need to be trimmed out of the dive.
Rall has mentioned that the P47 was the first he met that could not be left behind.
The trick was a bit different, but I presume many aircraft used similiar ways before diving.
The 109 manual notes that the pilot shouldn't trim the plane into dive, ie. leave it on the normal cruise setting, and keep the stick pushed forwards slightly instead to compensate for the nose-up tendency.
When he wants to come out, if he simply releases the stick and it went back to neutral by the airflow, the nose-up trim pulled the plane up by itself, plus he could help it out with the elevator, and/or use more trim if thins go scary.
Trimming out from a dive heavily using the Flosse has it's dangers, since it's the whole horizontal stabiliser that moves, being a much bigger area is far more effective than ordinary trim tabs on control surfaces - for this reason it's wasnt a particularly bad feature that since it was hand operated (it was electric on the FW190 iirc), the forces prevented you from suddenly ripping your own tail off. ;)
Another good feature of it that under compressibility it can be an effective way controlling the planeess, under conditions where the elevator is useless (normal trim tabs only set the elevator, so are useless in this case just as well).
-
Originally posted by justin_g
Lukas: I can't get out this dive! I'm screwed!
Obi Wan Kommander: Use the flosse, Lukas!
:rofl
I don't know if you are aware of, but the guy who did 906 kph/.805Mach in dive in acontrolled test was named Lukas Schmidt, Messerschmitt's test pilot...
-
T.E.Jonsson dived a Hurricane to some insane speed, - full power from 30K.
He got locked up badly, the aircraft sustaining some damage, but he pulled out,- with the stick.
The aircraft was damaged, - it acquired a dihedral of 4 degs and the wing coating got "waves" on it.
Hawkers experts later came to have a look. This was in 1940.
-
The 109 performance HAS changed. Whether it is the FM or not, I don't care, it has changed. I flew the g10 almost exclusively for almost 3 years. I've gone through all the changes from AH1 to AH2. But this is getting silly.
The K4 is way more unstable then the G10. Roll rate feels slower then before too. I won't even start about the view through half a meter thick bars........ :O
The G2 snap rolls on most tight turns when at 75%+ fuel (g2 was already for a long time unstable at 75+ fuel in AH).
I'm not an FM specialist but the stability of the 109's can't be right. People that have fought me in 109's the last years know that i'm not a n00b in these planes. I cannot believe that these planes were THAT unstable in real life.
I hope the FM's will be fixed, I feel reluctant to fly LW in ToD.
-
The K4 is way more unstable then the G10.
I agree 100% there. I have flown the K-4 some this week. I have 3 deaths (only deaths while in a K-4) as a result of auguring while fighting low otd. It seems like there's certain times the Kurfürst will just lose all control input and flop. Speeds and AoA have varied in the 3 deaths I have.
The G-14 feels just as 'unstable'. I haven't flown the others. Besides its performance the G-14 in AH is one of the worst representations of a 109 in any game I have flown. Maybe they were in a rush to release the new version. It looks like they have gone to this 'all the lw can do is fly straight' model that was apart of WBs for the longest time.
Other then my whine above about 'stability' I don't see any major differences.
Wotan
-
g14 feels a bit heavy to me but it's suppose to be the hot rod pf 109s!:p
-
Bruno and Apar,
it would be interesting to have someone testing the old G-10 and the new K-4 as far as stability, roll rate, turn performance, etc.etc. .... are concerned. When I used the G-10 without the pods it was with the engine mounted 20mm and not the 30mm (anyway, i dont remember if it was available and I dont know whats the difference in term of weight, if any). However, the tactic was pretty different: more speed, deflection shooting, firing even from 400-500yds. A different world.
I really hope the FM hasnt got worst. Togheter with the pig G-14 i't would be too much, really.
-
Originally posted by gatt
Bruno and Apar,
it would be interesting to have someone testing the old G-10 and the new K-4 as far as stability, roll rate, turn performance, etc.etc. .... are concerned. When I used the G-10 without the pods it was with the engine mounted 20mm and not the 30mm (anyway, i dont remember if it was available and I dont know whats the difference in term of weight, if any). However, the tactic was pretty different: more speed, deflection shooting, firing even from 400-500yds. A different world.
I really hope the FM hasnt got worst. Togheter with the pig G-14 i't would be too much, really.
not to worry gents. St. Grits of Blue Velvet Safetyness has already done so he has proclaimed in his infinite wisdom that we are full of conspiracy theories and he is making reservations at a recovery center for all us luftwhiners.
-
Perhaps it's just the new cockpit?
But to me the new 109s' just FEEL different. The k4 and the g14. GIVE ME BACK MY G10!!!!!!!!
This from someone that flew the g10 almost exclusively to other planes.
P.S. IMHO if ALL the k4 came from the factory with gonds then gonds should be made available in the hanger options. Even if they were removed by groundcrews later. NOW you want to beat a k4 HO him.
P.P.S.S. IMHO if there was over 5000 variants of f4s built with gonds then the gonds should be made available in the hanger options.
AND I don't think I'll be particapating in the TOD arena/arenas when IMHO the axis planes are porked so badly.
-
Originally posted by Apar
The 109 performance HAS changed.
Hey Apar. My AH is still 2.05 patch 3, if you need any test of the G10, tell me.
-
Originally posted by storch
not to worry gents. St. Grits of Blue Velvet Safetyness has already done so he has proclaimed in his infinite wisdom that we are full of conspiracy theories and he is making reservations at a recovery center for all us luftwhiners.
Why bring my squad into this? If you notice, I dissagree with several of my squaddies in the BK's who think FM's have been changed. Your latent-homosexual fixation on the BK's is not healthy Storch, you should take up gardening or something.
Originally posted by MANDO
Hey Apar. My AH is still 2.05 patch 3, if you need any test of the G10, tell me.
Storch is correct, I have tested the 109's in five (six if you cound the beta) different versions of AH2. I tested OTD speed, acceleration, and roll in versions 1.997, 2.0, 2.02, 2.03, 2.04 and the current one. I tested the E-4 and F-4 and tested the old G-10 to the new K-4 in all the versions I listed above. Just for good measure, I also tested the 190A-5, the F4U-1D, the Tiffie, the Ki-84 and the P-51D. I found nothing different in any version of AH2 in any plane in any way I could think to test them.
Let me say this clearly once more. I am NOT saying the 109's and 190's are correct, there is no way they were this poor in comparison to their allied counterparts. What I AM saying is nothing I can find through testing has changed in any patch of AH2 and nothing but repeatable tests showing some kind of difference will change my mind.
-
P.P.S.S. IMHO if there was over 5000 variants of f4s built with gonds then the gonds should be made available in the hanger options.
only 0.1 percent of 109F4s had gondolas and mostly used as a testbed for the new 109Gs
-
So it has been consistant.
Consistantly wrong that is. :D
-
Some of the recent comments do bring up an interesting point.
There's two kinds of "wrong" which I think are being discussed. One is pure performance numbers - acceleration and sustained turn probably being the most "off".
The other is the more subjective stuff like the way the 109 and 190 flop around at low speeds. The 190 *should* behave badly if you yank the stick like it was a Spit. But if you're smooth on the controls it should be docile. The 109 just doesn't feel like the tight, darty little plane it was. It "feels" heavy.
The raw numbers are easier to fix and isolate. The more subjective stuff, and the onset of spin and control loss at low speeds, not so much. But given where most AH fights end up, its pretty important to get this stuff closer to right.
-
Bruno and Apar,
it would be interesting to have someone testing the old G-10 and the new K-4 as far as stability, roll rate, turn performance, etc.etc. .... are concerned. When I used the G-10 without the pods it was with the engine mounted 20mm and not the 30mm (anyway, i dont remember if it was available and I dont know whats the difference in term of weight, if any). However, the tactic was pretty different: more speed, deflection shooting, firing even from 400-500yds. A different world.
I really hope the FM hasnt got worst. Togheter with the pig G-14 i't would be too much, really.
Gatt, i flew g10 with 30mm 90% of the time. Only once in a while choose the 20mm when i suffered from "rubber bullet 30mm". I never flew with gondies on. Would be great to test k4 versus g10.
Greetings
Apar
-
Hey Apar. My AH is still 2.05 patch 3, if you need any test of the G10, tell me.
Mandoble, that would be great. I'll send you a PM.
Thx in advance.
Greatings
Apar
-
Looking at the The Complete Aces High 2 Fighter Turn performance thread ... I really have a tough time believing that the Fw190's are the worst-turning propellor planes in the game. Worse than any P47 (except the A5 which sucks the least). Worse than a Mosquito. Worse than a Me110C. And all by a pretty noticable amount. I certainly don't expect Spit-like turning, but come on - I almost want to see the bomber turn rates to see which of them can out-turn a Fw.
-
Here is one RAF pilots experience with an FW-190G1 on his very first check out ride. He runs into either A-36's or P51A's. Someone should compare the A-36/P51A turn ability to the P51C/D. According to Deans AHT, the P51A/A36 was over 1000lbs lighter than the P51B's. Going from P51A to P51B, the Mustang gains more weight and equal power as the entire FW-190A lineup.
Hardly a scientific test.
(http://img106.potato.com/loc132/th_dfe2f_Spitpilots_opinion.jpg) (http://img106.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc132&image=dfe2f_Spitpilots_opinion.jpg)
This one is a little better. It represents a P47D4 with Water Injection and high activity propeller. It gives the speeds and altitudes. Check out paragraph d (2) Turning below 250 mph.
(http://img109.potato.com/loc74/th_4c93b_p47_fw190_2.jpg) (http://img109.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc74&image=4c93b_p47_fw190_2.jpg)
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Does anyone have a test showing the Fw's stall speed? The only info I have on it is the 127mph number listed in Eric Brown's book, which is obviously wrong (considering that he states right before that that he used a much lower speed at takeoff).
The climb/speed for the 190A5 in the game perfectly matches the test info on the captured EB-104 (which is slower then a real A5, but also lighter and better climbing, so it would turn better all else being equal). The A8 in the game perfectly matches the Focke-Wulf performance sheet I have for the A8. The D9 as well. So if there is a problem, it doesn't appear to be with power, parasite drag, or weight. That would leave lift/induced drag.
As for the 190's turn performance comparative to the competition - I don't have a hard time believing it should be towards the back of the pack. The British TAIC trials found that the Typhoon was about even with the 190 (but of course we don't have much info on how exactly they tested for this, and with what specific airplanes under what specific load conditions). Frank Klibbe of the 56th FG has an account published in Hammel's "Aces against Germany" where he describes a situation where a 190A bounces his P-47 at low altitude - they procede to turn for about 5 minutes or so before they both break for home, neither being able to gain an advantage. Based on stuff like this, the feeling I get is that the 190s should be about on par with the P-47 and Typhoon - i.e. a bit better then they are in AH. But of course this is all based on subjective accounts - we don't know the energy states or conditions of the aircraft involved. So I have a hard time saying AH is "wrong" based on them. And it may also be a case of us having a 190 that is a bit on the pessimistic side and a P-47 a bit on the optimistic side, or what not.
-
Back of the pack, sure ... but dead last? And worse by such a wide margin?
A couple things about the 2nd report that Crumpp posted seem odd:
In (b)(1) they say the P47 used water injection and overheated and the Fw did not. Does this mean the Fw didn't use WEP and the 47 did, or that the Fw's WEP just didn't cause an overheat? If the 47 needed WEP to outclimb the Fw at military power that's pretty interesting.
In (c) they say the Fw dove away from the 47 at the beginning. but in (d)(2) they say the Fw accelerates slowly in a dive. What I think they meant in (d)(2) is that the P47 retains energy better at the zoom part of the oblique turn. Right? But even that seems contradictory because they also said the Fw excels at hanging on its prop.
In (d)(3) they say the P47 out-turned the Fw above 250 mph, but that the Fw tended to black out the pilot? I'd think the plane pulling tighter would be pulling more G's and therefore more prone to black-out. Could this be a reflection of cockpit ergonomics?
The "constantly runs rough part" ... would this be due to non-LW ground crews working on the plane?
The description of how they induce the snap-stall is consitent with both the RAF tests and the article I posted a week or so ago which explains how such harsh treatment deforms the wing and accelerate the stall.
-
In (b)(1) they say the P47 used water injection and overheated and the Fw did not. Does this mean the Fw didn't use WEP and the 47 did, or that the Fw's WEP just didn't cause an overheat? If the 47 needed WEP to outclimb the Fw at military power that's pretty interesting.
Yep. The FW190 was using 1.42ata @ 2700U/min Start u Notleistung. Erhöhte Notleistung was not in use at this time.
According to the test, this particular aircraft developed 1.45ata which is within normal variation for the Kommandogerät.
What I think they meant in (d)(2) is that the P47 retains energy better at the zoom part of the oblique turn. Right?
That is what I took it mean. The FW-190 is able to pull a steeper angle of bank than the P47 due to powerloading and has a smaller radius of turn. The P47 seems to be able to climb better at low speeds as it is much closer to it's best climb speed. The P47 best climb speed is 140-155IAS. The FW-190's is around 180 IAS.
I'd think the plane pulling tighter would be pulling more G's and therefore more prone to black-out. Could this be a reflection of cockpit ergonomics?
He would be pulling more G's. The FW190 pilots almost supine position was ideal for handling G's but without a true G-suit he is not immune. Even with a G-suit he a pilot is not immune.
One of the largest reasons we see the "P51 can outturn any German fighter" has more to do with the USAAF adaptation of the G suit than aircraft turn performance.
The "constantly runs rough part" ... would this be due to non-LW ground crews working on the plane?
In part, however it is most likely due to the use of allied natural petroleum fuels with German plugs and engine set up optimized for using the synthetic fuels. With timing adjustments they would be able to eliminate the "rough" running during much of the engines operation. However at the operating extremes, loss of power would occur due to knock limited performance and fouling of the plugs. Hence the "rough running".
The description of how they induce the snap-stall is consitent with both the RAF tests and the article I posted a week or so ago which explains how such harsh treatment deforms the wing and accelerate the stall.
I very much agree with David Lednicer's design analysis. It fits perfectly with what the FW-190 pilots have told me.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
What I've heard the 190 would get into a turn quickly and keep on well at higher speeds, but as it was prone for snap stalls, it was better not risking too much.
Oh the 110 and P47
"Looking at the The Complete Aces High 2 Fighter Turn performance thread ... I really have a tough time believing that the Fw190's are the worst-turning propellor planes in the game. Worse than any P47 (except the A5 which sucks the least). Worse than a Mosquito. Worse than a Me110C."
I find it difficult to belive that a P47 would out-turn a 190, and definately not a 110 who was known for notorious flat spins.
Maybe just me ....:p
-
but as it was prone for snap stalls, it was better not risking too much.
You should probably read the article. It was not prone to snap stalls. That is a myth come about from allied testing of FW-190's without properly adjusted ailerons.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Here's the article: http://www.geocities.com/hlangebro/J22/EAAjanuary1999.pdf
It's towards the end that they discuss how under heavy G loading the Fw's wing deforms causing more of the wing to reach its stall limit sooner (what the RAF tests reported). This explained how the Fw didn't have the harsh stall characteristic at the same low speeds for landing approaches (what the USAAF tests reported).
The problem in AH as I see it (assuming the above analysis is right) is that the snap-stall kicks in even under low G's, with smooth control motions, at low speed - probably not enough to have onset the wing deformity, and certainly not an abrupt enough control input to snap the plane around. This could be tough for HT to model as it means that the wing's properties are different for different G loads. Maybe he already has this in there - dunno.
But if this problem could be fixed so the Fw didn't flop around like a spastic pidgeon at low speeds, and the acceleration could be looked at, I think the 190's would be much more competetive - crappy turn rates and all.
-
How does a stall snap in a flat turn relate to improperly adjusted ailerons?
-
Originally posted by Widewing
You won't see a critique of that because they don't roll faster than any Fw 190...
Spitfire roll rates in degrees per second, based upon one 360 degree roll.
So, the standard wingspan Spitfires don't come anywhere near the 190s in roll rate. Moreover, while the Spit XVI rolls very fast, it still lags behind the 190s by a noteworthy margin.
My regards,
Widewing
Widewing,
Appreciate the testing data - how do you measure the exact degree of roll per second? I used a stopwatch myself during a cannon ROF experiment, but it was easy to see the ammo load and click when it was exhausted. Are you doing a 360 roll and dividing it out or what?
EagleDNY :huh
-
Originally posted by EagleDNY
Widewing,
Appreciate the testing data - how do you measure the exact degree of roll per second? I used a stopwatch myself during a cannon ROF experiment, but it was easy to see the ammo load and click when it was exhausted. Are you doing a 360 roll and dividing it out or what?
EagleDNY :huh
I approached this with combat maneuvering in mind. This means that I test over a single 360 degree roll rather that measure sustained roll rate, which has much less meaning in combat. By testing using a single roll, you factor in roll acceleration too.
I would trim the airplane so it would fly straight and level hands-off. I then bang over the stick and time how long it takes completely around to level again. Note that I make no effort to stop the roll until well past level. I then divide 360 degrees by the time to obtain an average for the entire 360 degrees. Some aircraft suffer from a lot of adverse yaw, which tends to bleed speed faster. This will skew the data a bit. This test is best done offline using the F3 outside view.
There will be errors from test to test, which is why I do several tests and then average the results.
My regards,
Widewing
-
How does a stall snap in a flat turn relate to improperly adjusted ailerons?
The symptoms of improperly adjusted ailerons are excessive fluttering and reversal. The fluttering causes all kinds of extra drag I would guess effectively putting on the brakes. The reversal would cause the pilot suddenly input controls opposite of what was required to hold the turn.
Properly adjusted ailerons will barely vibrate the moment before the stall but do not reverse at any portion of the slow speed flight envelope. Oscar says you had to be relaxed and have some experience in the aircraft to notice it.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
...Properly adjusted ailerons will barely vibrate the moment before the stall but do not reverse at any portion of the slow speed flight envelope. Oscar says you had to be relaxed and have some experience in the aircraft to notice it....
Is that all planes or just 190s?
-
"It's towards the end that they discuss how under heavy G loading the Fw's wing deforms causing more of the wing to reach its stall limit sooner (what the RAF tests reported)."
What? I didn't see that?
I'd like to have a quote, please.
***
"Properly adjusted ailerons will barely vibrate the moment before the stall but do not reverse at any portion of the slow speed flight envelope. Oscar says you had to be relaxed and have some experience in the aircraft to notice it."
I just read a book where a German ace told that you could easily predict the stall as you could feel it as slight jolts in the ailerons.
-C+
-
The jolt could be the ailerons becoming free (not held by air)
yes?
-
More like the air popping unevenly in and out on the top of the wing.
So in a way you are correct Angus.
-C+
-
nice ;)
-
Originally posted by Charge
"It's towards the end that they discuss how under heavy G loading the Fw's wing deforms causing more of the wing to reach its stall limit sooner (what the RAF tests reported)."
What? I didn't see that?
I'd like to have a quote, please.
Page 5, middle column, half-way down:
"... A wartime Focke Wulf report indicates that at higher loading conditions (i.e. when pulling more G's) elastic deformation of the Fw190 outer wing shifts the load distribution outboard. This would cause even more of the wing to reach its stalling lift coefficient simultaneously. Combined with the sharp stalling features of the NACA 230XX airfoils, this would produce the harsh stall found in by Capt. Brown. A gentle stall would be evidences by a more gradual progression of the 2D stall spanwise."
The paragraphs leading up to that discuss the disparity in the USAAF and RAF reports in re stall characteristics.
This could prove to be pretty crucial in that it means that at lower speeds, where less G's are possible, the Fw still wouldn't turn well but it also wouldn't be so madeningly prone to spinning out. So at least you could use the turn rate you had to capitalize on roll reversals. Couple this with improving acceleration and the Fw suddenly has the means of disengaging from a fight with a better-turning plane its supposed to have. It'd also mean that when pulling over the top of a vertical move (low G, low speed manouever) the Fw190 wouldn't be so prone to snap-stalling as it is now - so the Fw could become more aggressive in the vertical - which it's supposed to be able to do.
And, IMO, fixing the snap-stall and acceleration is probably all that the Fw series needs. They seem to climb about where they should, the turn rates seem kind of low but I don't see that affecting play in the MA much.
I guess I look at the modeling a little different - I'm not as concerned with raw performance numbers. I've known HT and Pyro a long, long time and I trust them to get that stuff as close to right as they can. I'm more interested in "can I use plane A versus plane B the way I'm supposed to be able to?" In other words, does the game reflect the combat dynamics accurately. Two dynamics are keeping the Fw190's from having their historic "skill set".
I think in the case of the 109 its acceleration and the way it bleeds energy and loses sustained turn rate are the culprits, though honestly I haven't looked at it that close.
-DoK
-
It seems to me that the LW aircraft FMs and ammunition ballistics are seriously neutered. I have more than one documentary (About 8th AF Bombers) Where pilots and crews complained that German canon outranged their M2s and LW pilots were able to attack them from outside their range... Try that in AH! I have had numerous perpendicular attack runs on bombers where i started receiving pings at 2K!!!
Also, anyone ever notice that almost invariably 1st ping is engine or oil?
I try to fly the G6 whenever possible, but wothout dragging ultra high drag gondolas it is nearly impossible to knock a bomber down (as modeled) in a G6.
I prefer the butcher bird when hunting bombers but the flight characteristics of the plane (As modeled) make it possible to make 1 good pass, IF you have an alt advantage... After that if you find yourself in a lag pursuit of bombers you will be picked to death before you can get back in range. In an A8 the FIRST thing you lose is the engine, usually 1st ping.
I have guncam footage of several different LW aircraft attacking B-17s.. some inside 100 yards! I imagine it was hard for a gunner to be a sniper in an aircraft that was bouncing around being buffeted by wind, gunfire, pilot movement, machine gun recoil couldnt have made it easy either!
I do NOT believe there is an anti-LW conspiracy but we have commie planes that were 'uber' (The modeling data had to come from the kremlin!) We also have NiKs in the arena that can lake a HO Pass at a D9 or Spit16 turn 180 degrees w/o losing E and run down an a/c that should be faster.
I am not trying to beat up on HTC, if I didnt enjoy the game, i really could easily spend it elsewhere, and would. I just believe that these planes must have performed much better than they do in this game. How else would you explain the massive number of kills the LW aces racked up? Were the pilots just that much better? Thats the only alternative solution I can come up with.
-
Originally posted by Mr No Name
I have guncam footage of several different LW aircraft attacking B-17s.. some inside 100 yards! I imagine it was hard for a gunner to be a sniper in an aircraft that was bouncing around being buffeted by wind, gunfire, pilot movement, machine gun recoil couldnt have made it easy either!
They try to kill rear gunners from 600-800m and then shot more close.
I agree 100% with your opinion.
Bad english here. Sorry.
-
Is that all planes or just 190s?
It is only the FW190 that I know of with such sensative aileron adjustment. When you see the design of the adjustment blocks, it is no wonder they had problems keeping them adjusted IMHO.
The FW-190 ushered in many design innovations, aileron adjustment was not one of them.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Well it could be one of two things either how the planes themselves perform or some of the concessions made to game play like Mr No Name shady account has said, as to how aircraft perform in relation to the Fw.
You have some airplanes that historically could not turn with their counterparts even though they had more power but they had insome instances double the weight of those aircraft they were turning against.
Some planes had historical advantage above 250mph because the stick forces were stronger compared to its contemporaries, but below that because of the acceleration and the relative profile and weight these aircraft performed worse. I truly do not believe as it relates to its Historical counterpart that they gained a benefit for dropping more and more flaps to allow them to decrease their turning circle and increase their turning rate.
Another that is the matter is that if you drop full flaps and try to do a power off approach with full side slip the Fw still picks off speed,it could be either it's not causing drag a la 109 or is it it's not causing any lift, or very little.
I'm sure the aicraft performed well at their most advantagious speeds but some aircraft perform well at any speed, completely throwing out the in game balance and the historical balance which is not accurately represented in game. A fact that older games online flight sims have been able to reproduce to some degree.
-
Besides, I think a lot of this discussion we're truely splitting hairs in performance differences. Who knows....:rolleyes:
-
The problem with the bombers is the slaved guns on 3 a/c at once.
-
You have some airplanes that historically could not turn with their counterparts even though they had more power but they had insome instances double the weight of those aircraft they were turning against.
Good points Glasses.
I think in the case of the FW-190 it gains some advantage at low speed. This is evident from both the RAE pilots experience and the USAAF tactical trials with a P47D4 using Water Injection and high activity propeller. Here is the conclusions from the P47 report:
(http://img20.potato.com/loc193/th_6052d_FW190_P47_conclusions.jpg) (http://img20.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc193&image=6052d_FW190_P47_conclusions.jpg)
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Crumpp,
Did you notice the wingloading of the two aircraft? That 190 should definitely outturn that P-47. However the Jug is carrying enough fuel to fly around the world and back.
I like to use Basic weights as an indicator of wing loading and power loading to get a better picture of "combat weight".
Basic Weight for the P-47D-4
10,128LBS
Wing Area =300SQ ft
Wing Loading= 33.76
Power Loading= 5.64 At 20,000FT according to the report assuming mil power
Basic Weight FW190A-5
6716LBS
Wing Area- 197Sq Ft
Wing Loading= 34.09
Power Loading= 4.38
You can tell these A/C depending on external loadout will be very close in stalling speeds at compraple loadouts.
The 190 will have a power loading advantage based on the powers listed in the report. Depending on model the R-2800 could provide more HP than listed.
-
Let's not only say that they have a similar wing area and weight ratio, but consider that the one with almost 40% more mass is going to react a lot slower in turns, plus it's a draggy-as-hell airframe (the p47)
-
Hmmm,
I've always liked the Luftwaffe planes. They are extremely competetive flown to their strengths. I would guess most people complaining about them ae trying to fly them in typical MA furball style. Which is simply not what the 190's are about. The 109's are better at it, but still can't compete with the spitfires and lalas.
But ye' gods, get up a head of steam in a 190 and you are well nigh' invinceable. I have a hard time understanding why anyone who's played this game for a long time would think the LW aircraft are "porked" or otherwise dis-advantaged. They have guns, roll and speed. They make awesome weapons platforms. The only major disadvantage is turn, and if you're trying to compete with, well, just about any other fighter in the turn you are going to lose. So don't play their game, play yours, and you will come out on top.
g00b
-
They have guns G00B but even the A8 with its 4x20mm is far less potent than most US (and other allied) planes. A P51 with 6x50 cals is a far better plane for killing. They are far easier to hit with, they hit from much longer distances and you easily put more lead into the plane. Sure a plane will go down by 5 or 6 or so 20's from an A8 but you need to hit for them to cause any dammage.
Sure the 190 has got roll rate. Roll rate doesn't mean very much in AH. In most fights it means nothing. The only time it really means anything it when compared to two very different planes as far as roll goes (Tiffie and 190 for example).
As for speed, top speed, the Dora has it but it is out accelerated by very many planes in normal AH combats. K4 has got speed aswell but not enough to outrun 50 cal and Hizooka planes. Being a few mph faster then a Pony means being within his hit distance (800 yards or so) for WAY too long and we all know how prone the 109's (not to mention Mr. Glass Nose Dora) are to engine hits.
Playing your game in a 190 means you typically need Alt, and quite much of it. If you take more then a few passes on an enemy you will lose that alt advantage and be forced to run or fight it out. And fighting it out in a 190 is usually very stupid unless you are a vastly superior pilot.
I used to fly alomst only 190's for years and years after moving from the G10. I have always considered the 190 a more difficult plane to fly and especially dogfight in. I've stopped flying them since I came back from my 10 month break. You know why? Because they are not competative. Why should I fly around in a plane, no matter how fast it is if the guns are 10 times as hard to hit with and cause half the dammage? The 190's survive thanks to B&Z. While I enjoy B&Z I do not enjoy cherry pickin targets in a furrball for minutes and minutes at a time and that's basicly the only thing the 190's are good at. Hitting unaware targets. Why? Because the balistics and punch absolutely sucks.
I much rather take a 1943 P47 D11 over a Dora simply because the D11, although worse on the paper in terms of roll, climb, speed etc is by FAR the superior plane in AH.
-
In general I agree Wilbus, but the 190a5 being the least-crappy of the lot is still quite capable. Last tour it earned me most of my kills, most of them in dogfight situations turning (in the vertical as much as I could help it) and burning.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
I much rather take a 1943 P47 D11 over a Dora simply because the D11, although worse on the paper in terms of roll, climb, speed etc is by FAR the superior plane in AH.
Do you really believe that?
-
Try it... I was flying the 47N a couple of weeks ago (taking a break from my usual ride, am branching out a bit) and was absolutely surprised how well it flew -- even while heavy with 8 guns and full ammo load!
Trust me, the Jug is better than the 190s because it lacks the problems that the 190s have in spades.
-
I like to use Basic weights as an indicator of wing loading and power loading to get a better picture of "combat weight".
Hi F4UDOA,
I agree that the relative performance will change based on individual aircraft loadout. I do not think it will be a very dramatic change and the FW-190 would retain it's low speed advantages.
AHT list's 14,500lbs as the combat weight of the P 47D25 (+) and is used on all the performance graphs for the type. I would think that the P47D4 tested has the auxillery main internal tank installed as well as the auxillery tank and larger water injection tank. However we do not know for certain and can only use what they have given us 60 years ago.
Anybody have a load sheet for the P47D4?
The FW-190 weight is listed as 3,855.54 kilograms. That comes very close to a 60 percent fuel weight of the FW-190A5 with full wing armament or as the aircraft was set up, fully loaded combat weight of an FW-190A5 without full wing armament. However it is impossible to pin down exactly what FW-190A they were trying to simulate based on the weight alone.
It is interesting BTW, that Focke Wulf determined there was no performance differences between an aircraft with or without the wing armament. From the FW-190A5 and up, that version is not even a factory produced fighter variant. Which makes sense when you consider the results of the Spitfire testing. Another design which gained weight and power over it's lifetime.
I think you have compared completely empty weights too. A completely empty FW-190A5 without, oil, fuel, pilot, ammo, etc.. weighs 7,301.71 pounds (avoirdupois). You would have to remove all the radios and service gear to reach 6700lbs and it would not be representative of an FW-190 accepted for Luftwaffe service. It would be an empty aircraft sitting on the factory floor. Same with the P47D4. AHT list's the basic weight as 10,700 lbs for both the P47C and D25 (-).
That comes out to:
FW-190A5 = 37lbs /sq ft empty
P47D4 = 35.6lbs/sq ft. empty
It is not the wingloading that determines angle of bank and minimum radius of turn. It is the powerloading. Weight wise there is little to no difference between a P47D4 and a P 47C. I can post the P47C tactical trials but that one is really ugly for the Thunderbolt. It concludes that the best chance the P47 has is to spot the FW-190 first and dive away.
The P47C is outclassed by the FW-190 in all performance parameters except top diving speed in the tactical trials vs the same FW190A5.
(http://img43.potato.com/loc263/th_51760_p47_fw190_4.jpg) (http://img43.potato.com/img.php?loc=loc263&image=51760_p47_fw190_4.jpg)
Wingloading P47C vs FW-190A5 at fully loaded take off weights fighter configuration:
Fully loaded:
FW-190A5 = 46lbs / sq ft
Even at the listed weight the FW-190's wingloading is a whooping 1 lb heavier than the P47C fully loaded.
P47C = 42lbs / sq ft
All the P47D4's performance improvements are the result of better powerloading/thrust over the P 47C. In spite of the added weight of water injection, additional armour, and internal auxillery tanks.
Here we see that the Spitfire Mk XIV gains 1000lbs and 5 lbs / sq ft more wingloading than the Spitfire Mk IX. Yet it has exactly the same turn performance as the lighter, less wingloaded Spitfire Mk IX:
The tactical differences are caused chiefly by the fact that the Spitfire XIV has an engine of greater capacity and is the heavier aircraft (weighing 8,400 lbs. against 7,480 lbs. of Spitfire IX).
The turning circles of both aircraft are identical. The Spitfire XIV appears to turn slightly better to port than it does to starbord. The warning of an approaching high speed stall is less pronounced in the case of the Spitfire Mk XIV.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14afdu.html
It would be nice to see a load plan for the P47D4 with paddle blade prop and water injection however.
It would be nice to see a comparision of an FW-190A8 with a wide chord wooden prop too, but that is wishful thinking! :cry
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
They have guns G00B but even the A8 with its 4x20mm is far less potent than most US (and other allied) planes. A P51 with 6x50 cals is a far better plane for killing. They are far easier to hit with, they hit from much longer distances and you easily put more lead into the plane. Sure a plane will go down by 5 or 6 or so 20's from an A8 but you need to hit for them to cause any dammage.
I feel they are fairly equal overall. The 50's give you a bit more reach, bu the 20's do hit pretty hard.
Originally posted by Wilbus
Sure the 190 has got roll rate. Roll rate doesn't mean very much in AH. In most fights it means nothing. The only time it really means anything it when compared to two very different planes as far as roll goes (Tiffie and 190 for example).
Roll means alot in AH. Not just for scissors and defensive manuevers, but to get your shots lined up. The A5 is simply a joy to fly, largely because of the phenomenal roll rate.
Originally posted by Wilbus
As for speed, top speed, the Dora has it but it is out accelerated by very many planes in normal AH combats. K4 has got speed as well but not enough to outrun 50 cal and Hizooka planes. Being a few mph faster then a Pony means being within his hit distance (800 yards or so) for WAY too long and we all know how prone the 109's (not to mention Mr. Glass Nose Dora) are to engine hits.
The K4 is darn near uber in this game. What is it, a 4500ft/min climb? No american plane can even come close. Plus it's still fast as hell. Translate this into an extended run to even out energy states of pursuers followed by a slow climb or spiral climb, and coming over the top of the rope with a 30mm canon pointed at the cockpit of the would be pursuer. Bang! Even I have a hard time missing a stationary target at 200 yrds. In comparison, the P-51 has the speed but not the climb, and the Spitfire MKXVI has the climb but not the speed. The only non-perked aircraft that hold a candle to the K4 in shear performance numbers is the LA-7, and that's only down low. I don't seem to have the problems you do with pony's tearing me apart at 800 yards or the "glass nose".
Originally posted by Wilbus
Playing your game in a 190 means you typically need Alt, and quite much of it. If you take more then a few passes on an enemy you will lose that alt advantage and be forced to run or fight it out. And fighting it out in a 190 is usually very stupid unless you are a vastly superior pilot.
I used to fly alomst only 190's for years and years after moving from the G10. I have always considered the 190 a more difficult plane to fly and especially dogfight in. I've stopped flying them since I came back from my 10 month break. You know why? Because they are not competative. Why should I fly around in a plane, no matter how fast it is if the guns are 10 times as hard to hit with and cause half the dammage? The 190's survive thanks to B&Z. While I enjoy B&Z I do not enjoy cherry pickin targets in a furrball for minutes and minutes at a time and that's basicly the only thing the 190's are good at. Hitting unaware targets. Why? Because the balistics and punch absolutely sucks.
Sounds like we are on the same page. I don't think the guns are THAT bad though, maybe you just need some more practice with them?
Originally posted by Wilbus
I much rather take a 1943 P47 D11 over a Dora simply because the D11, although worse on the paper in terms of roll, climb, speed etc is by FAR the superior plane in AH.
Not sure what to make of this comment. I don't agree with you, neither in a duel or MA environment is the D11 superior to the D9. The D9 is the much more "surviveable" aircraft. The D11 is certainly more fun with the TnB capability and the 8 .50 lead hose.
g00b
-
Well said Wilbuz.
For me it was the other way around, I started of flying 190's (A8 mostly) and switched to the 109g10 in AH1. The g10 handled much better in close combat and it didn't snap roll as easy as the 190 in AH. Furthermore it had better low speed handling, so much better that I used to stall fight many planes in it and came out on top. It's vertical performance was great compared to many other planes allowing successful ropes and fast wing over in the fights (especially when using flaps). The plane was naturally nose heavy and turned over quick on top.
I flew the K4 quite a bit in the last week and came to the conclusion that it performs less then the G10. High speed handling hasn't changed much but it seems as if its turn rate at medium and low speeds has decreased (i can't measure it but feel it when flat turning la's and yak's now in K4 compared to G10 before). It decelerates accelerates less then before (takes longer, more overshoots against other planes now). The most noticeable change is its stall fight performance. It is "less stable" in roll around stall and it doesn't wing over as easy as before (even with flaps).
In total it simply feels as if the plane is heavier then before, maybe even a shift in CG.
-
Originally posted by Sable
Do you really believe that?
I've got enough experience in pretty much every single plane in AH to know. It is not a question of believing anything, it's a question of knowing. And I know.
Stop trying to be arrogant.
Sounds like we are on the same page. I don't think the guns are THAT bad though, maybe you just need some more practice with them?
Uhm.... ok, need more practice with them. OK... sure. After all, I've never flown any LW planes in AH so I wouldn't know how they perform or how the guns perform.
Not sure what to make of this comment. I don't agree with you, neither in a duel or MA environment is the D11 superior to the D9. The D9 is the much more "surviveable" aircraft. The D11 is certainly more fun with the TnB capability and the 8 .50 lead hose.
Pretty much the only reason the Dora is more survivable is thanks to its speed. But you don't get kills by running. Maybe that is most peoples idea of fun (judging from MA environment lately I'd say it is) but it's not mine.
As for 20's vs 50 of course the 20's hit harder when they hit but the 50's are far superior to the Mg151's thanks to balistics and the ability to saw planes to pieces from very long distances.
...I don't seem to have the problems you do with pony's tearing me apart at 800 yards or the "glass nose".
Not having experienced or seeing glass nose in the Dora as a problem only proves one thing, and that's that you don't fly it often.
As for 800 yard shots, they are less common now since after AH2 was released but they still aren't all that difficult to hit with 50 cal.
-
I have to agree with Wilbus on this one goob....
You state that the K-4 is uber. I wonder how much you fly it (if at all), because it is far from uber. It climbs like a bat outta hell, sure, but it's unstable compared to the G10 and the 30mm-only armament has basically defanged it as a fighter craft. It can climb... It can only run for a short time... It can evade... But that's all it can do. It can rarely ever get kills. Uber? No. Good climb with no bite = space shuttle... might be fun to ride but you won't get any kills in it.
-
Facts are as can be seen from the any of the original reports even untrained personnel could get some very good "at least" performance.
The aircraft was fighter in every sense of the word, not a ponderous aircraft that needs a huge altitude advantage to be successful.
Against its contemporary adversaries, on even terms it gave an even fight.
All the best,
Crump
-
Originally posted by Krusty
I have to agree with Wilbus on this one goob....
You state that the K-4 is uber. I wonder how much you fly it (if at all), because it is far from uber. It climbs like a bat outta hell, sure, but it's unstable compared to the G10 and the 30mm-only armament has basically defanged it as a fighter craft. It can climb... It can only run for a short time... It can evade... But that's all it can do. It can rarely ever get kills. Uber? No. Good climb with no bite = space shuttle... might be fun to ride but you won't get any kills in it.
30mm = no bite? Can't get kills in it?
Stats from the last 3 tours
Tour 70
Bf 109K-4 22 kills and 9 deaths
Bf 109G-14 13 kills and 3 deaths
Bf 110G-2 33 kills and 6 deaths
Fw 190D-9 5 kills and 2 deaths
Tour 69
Fw 190A-5 11 kills and 3 deaths
Bf 110G-2 19 kills and 6 deaths
Tour 68
Bf 109K-4 13 kills and 4 deaths
Fw 190A-5 6 kills and 1 death
Fw 190D-9 14 kills and 7 deaths
Bf 110G-2 19 kills and 7 deaths
Nope, I don't fly LW a whole lot, but certainly enough to form a valid opinion. I just don't agree the LW planes are handicapped, porked or anything else. You simply must fly them the way they were designed to be flown. And by that I don't mean timidly, anyone who flies with me on a regular basis knows I have quite the gung-ho attitude.
g00b
-
You simply must fly them the way they were designed to be flown.
Problem Goob is the FW-190 was not designed to be flown like it has to be in Aces High.
If you flew it in reality like you do in the game against say, the P47, you would be flying to the enemies strengths.
Even against the Spitfire, it was not flown with single high speed slashing attacks followed by miles of extension. FW-190 pilots stuck to the Spitfires to prevent them from regaining energy. Something you are not able to do in AH.
The facts do not support the current FM characteristics.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Tour 68 the K4 wasn't out yet. The G10 flew better than what we've got now.
-
I think you are simply seeing the effects of what the aircraft "could" do vs. what the pilots/planes "did" do in real life. It's standard procedure to pull 'till blacked out in a Spitfire in game, in reality, maneuvering was much less violent, pilots didn't pull 6g+ corners on a whim. I'm sure you've seen tons of guncam footage, quite a few of these engagements were rather sedate afairs by Aces High standards. Even though the planes were capable of extreme performance, very few pilots ever pushed these planes anywhere near as hard as we do in Aces High.
My 2 cents...
g00b
-
My Tour 71 stats:
Fw 190A-5 16 kills 4 deaths
Fw 190A-8 88 kills 11 deaths
Fw 190D-9 60 kills 9 deaths
I guess I'm just playing a different game or something.
-
I think you are simply seeing the effects of what the aircraft "could" do vs. what the pilots/planes "did" do in real life.
I think your full of it and don't want the game to change from the easy kills you get now.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
pilots didn't pull 6g+ corners on a whim
With a real enemy plane closing in on your six, firing real projectiles, you'll pull anything to get out of it alife. WWII was not a game, where you could up a brand new plane once killed in action.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Krusty
I have to agree with Wilbus on this one goob....
You state that the K-4 is uber. I wonder how much you fly it (if at all), because it is far from uber. It climbs like a bat outta hell, sure, but it's unstable compared to the G10 and the 30mm-only armament has basically defanged it as a fighter craft. It can climb... It can only run for a short time... It can evade... But that's all it can do. It can rarely ever get kills. Uber? No. Good climb with no bite = space shuttle... might be fun to ride but you won't get any kills in it.
Strange, K4 is the highest scoring and most used 109 last tour -
Kill10872
Deaths 7914
K/D 1.3736
This tour its the 109 pack leader again.
Kills 3235
Deaths 2214
K/D 1.4605
Someones getting kills in it.
The problem is the K4 is as about as much suited to the MA low alt furballs as the Spit XIV.
In other words - they aren't.
-
This tour its the 109 pack leader again.
Of course it is, it is the late war 109 and people will fly it in the MA.
These "statistics" are not very useful for determining individual plane performance.
Like the guy who post's his K/D stats for the FW-190.
Come on, if you fly the FW-190 as AH models it, you are not going to dogfight. You will fly around at high speed, menacing the unsuspecting. It's is about as timid and boring an aircraft as you can get without becoming a transport.
So unless your not smart and you lose SA, your going to fly home. Least I only die in it when I lose SA and allow someone above me.
Facts are though that is not what FW-190's did in reality. They were employed and used as air superiority fighters.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
I don't know if the Fw is quite that timid, but it is pretty much at the bottom of the MA food chain. If you're in a Fw you have to worry about having more planes do more things better than you than just about any other ride. If you get in any way greedy when flying a Fw, odds are you don't make it home. And with all the Hozooka-armed planes out there, the Fw's guns aren't even anything special.
Sure, you can do well in it. A good player can do well in anything. And if you optimize your play to vultching and cherry-picking, you can run up some nice streaks if you don't get greedy. But, same is true with a Tiffy, P47, etc.
I still don't think it's completely porked, though. Just a few things need to be looked at to make it a threat again: the snap stall, acceleration, and maybe the 20mm's (cuz it sure takes a pile of 'em to kill anything).
-
DoKGonzo said it pretty Well I think. It has been mentioned before, much of why people think LW rides are undemodelled are because they are all armed with freaking pea-shooters (ok and even shorter ranged, though hard hitting, taters).
Oh, btw...
500.
-
it took 8 tater HITS for me to flame a lanc engine in 109K4 last week (No, i wasnt firing cowl guns at the same time)
-
I put 5-7 30mms all in the same spot on the rear fuselage of a lanc (halfway between wings and stabs) and nothing. Nope wasn't firing MGs.
-
Just out of curiousity, were these firing runs done offline or online?
-
P51 out accelerates the D9 in Ah, wtf.
-
Originally posted by Stang
P51 out accelerates the D9 in Ah, wtf.
no
all 190s in AH right now out-accelerates the P51s and P47 in a SPRINT. The problem with 190s in AH is manuverability at medium speeds. try to turn 190s at 300 mph TAS and you'll notice that the right wing would drop. In p51 you can yank n bank like a spitfire/a6m now. ridiculous.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Just out of curiousity, were these firing runs done offline or online?
Online, got it on film.
-
As has been pointed out numerous times -
Control runs etc are not modelled in any planes, therefore firing at a buffs fuselage is pretty pointless, no matter what guns you have. (had worse than what your describing with a much longer sustained burst on buffs fuselage from Tiffy 4x20mm)
Best way to down a buff still is to hit the wintips, add to that the engines now they all seem to catch fire so easily.
The damage model is the one area that seems to be lagging compared to the rest of the game.
-
Well, AH has parts modeled so that "Take xxxx damage" and they go "pop"... I am fairly certain NO part of any bomber can take 7x 30mm rounds and yet not reach the "pop"ping point.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Online, got it on film.
Hmmm ... I'm wondering just how much lethality is defanged online vs. the default for offline.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Well, AH has parts modeled so that "Take xxxx damage" and they go "pop"... I am fairly certain NO part of any bomber can take 7x 30mm rounds and yet not reach the "pop"ping point.
Lol I agree, neither should it be able to take a sustained burst from 4x20mm, yet they do.
It's where you hit them (wigtips/engines), not how much you put into them.
Dunno if it's related, but both the Lanc and B26 seem to take a lot of punishment. Although all buffs motors catch fire ridiculously easy now.
-
DokGonzo, I've noticd that planes offline pop real easy after one burst, sometimes a short burst with just a few MG hits.
Kev, that's no lie! I was in an f4u1c and unloaded almost my entire ammo load into a b26 (had only 30 rounds left in primary and secondary gun banks, out of about 400 total) and only smoked an engine shot off an aileron and caused a gas leak. I think he bailed and gave me the kill. This was a while back (some months), but it stuck in my mind.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
DokGonzo, I've noticd that planes offline pop real easy after one burst, sometimes a short burst with just a few MG hits.
...
Yeah ... since I only fly once or twice a week I usually spend 10 or 15 minutes offline first to recalibrate my aim and I notice the disparity in lethality. I'm pretty sure you can dial the lethality up or down offline, but I haven't touched that setting for my practice.
I wonder what the arena lethality setting is? Because if it's the same as the default for offline it sure as hell don't act like it.
-
Should be the same online if you havn't changed it doc. All lethalities set to 1.0
HiTech
-
Offline you get instant location on your bullets and self and target, online you get varrying net lag for all 3, so maybe it takes more hits because more are missing in those hits? Not sure.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Should be the same online if you havn't changed it doc. All lethalities set to 1.0
I didn't change it offline.
Hmmm ... so if it isn't lethality then its something else.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Should be the same online if you havn't changed it doc. All lethalities set to 1.0
HiTech
Well DANG IT what is it then???? Cause I've hit fighters with a 30mm and they have kept on keepin on.......................
LAG? I got lots of that :( Packet loss? I get that pretty heavy from time to time. Also get errors and resends allot sometimes. Went to log on and checked the ping at the arena choice screen. Was getting 2 and 3 repeat sendings per packet for abit. Hung up instead. Used a different connect number and looked good for almost a minute so logged on.
I had a La7 come at me HO I moved to my right to avoid and saw it passing to my left and BANG I lost a part and got a collison message?????
Naturally I didn't have film on. So now I got a folder FULL of film
Can't seem to repeat it. I actually WON a collison today :D Been LONG time coming though :(
Been shot down by puffy ack 3 times in the last 2 days :( Was manuvering 2 of those times :(
Oh well....................... <<<<<<<<<<<<<< Yo Skuzzy can we get a smiley for that?????
-
Originally posted by wrag
Well DANG IT what is it then???? Cause I've hit fighters with a 30mm and they have kept on keepin on.......................
LAG? I got lots of that :( Packet loss? I get that pretty heavy from time to time. ...
Well this is actually progress, because offline the LW guns are decent enough. Hell, even the US .50 cals are decent enough offline.
And I see things online that defy all logic. Like last weekend I head-on'd a flight of '24's with a 110 and just splooged 20mm and 30mm on the lead ship and it didn't go down. Hit sprites all over it wing-to-wing and in between but it flew on, albeit smoking.
I've also looked at some films where I thought I had rubber bullets online, but when viewing the film it saw hits recorded.
If there is a problem with hits not recording online, the lower ROF and MV of the LW cannons would exacerbate that. Especially on the 109 and 190.
I also wonder if there's a factoring of angle-off of hits that hurts the 30mm more due to its lower muzzle velocity. In other words, does a hit sprite mean "impact" or "damage"?
-
I think your getting close Dok.
Different thread someone submitted a film to HT film showed a lot of hit sprites. yet I think the amount that caused damage was less.
There is a bug in the film viewer.
Wonder if it ties in with getting hits on people but NOT seeing hit sprites.
-
Hard to say if its a bug in the film viewer. If the viewer emulates the offline mode of drawing hit sprites, it may be showing the "true" hit resolution sans network influence. Or it may be drawing the sprites which we don't get to see online because of latencies (i.e. the host resolves the hit the same online as on film, but the report of the hit doesn't get to us cuz of lag).
This makes more sense because the actual per-shell lethality is the easiest part of this whole equation.
The big question, then, is: if you see hit sprites from 20mm and 30mm LW rounds on an enemy plane, what would prevent these from causing damage? Is there anything in the code which factors striking angle which could be out of whack (i.e. maybe calibrated with the Hispano as the baseline?)? Is explosive damage somehow getting dropped out? Are the shells losing velocity too fast for some reason so their kinetic energy is porked on impact?
There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear.
Bonus points for anyone who can name the song and the band. :)
-
Originally posted by Grits
Bonus points for anyone who can name the song and the band. :)
Buffalo Springfield.
"For What It's Worth'
Written by Stephen Stills
-
"There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's Hitech with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware
I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Young dweebs speaking their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind
What a field-day for the heat
A thousand people in the board
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for LW side
It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, Skuzzy come and take you away"
[ OK, sorry Buffalo Springfield, slightly altered ;) ]
-
It was I who posted that film in another thread. HT debugged the film and after some more questions from me also discovered there is a bug in the film viewer showing more hit sprites then there are hits.
-
maybe in the film viewer, yes, but my sharpest memory is of the actual, online, attack run. I saw at least 5 (maybe a bit more, so I say 5-7 to cover my bases) hit sprites all in the same area.
Regardless, the explosive power of 5x 30mms, even if scattered over a couple different parts, should have incinerated that bomber!
-
Rgr Krusty.
I was just answering Kev's post above.
-
OK ... maybe the FilmViewer does report extra hits then.
The question still remains what is it about the LW cannons that causes damage effects to be reduced or discarded in online play? Lets assume that the lethality settings are correct, because they are offline. And lets assume we're dealing with the case where the host reports hit sprites so we know it wants to apply damage. And lets assume we're dealing with a case where we know that only cannons are hitting the target.
Does a cannon shell hitting a plane always mean the shell detonates? If not, why not? That's the only thing I can think of - if somehow the shells were hitting like solid rounds that would explain the behavior.
-
Might be that what you see on your FE not neccesarily what gets sent to the server and what gets sent to the other guy.
Of course what it might be considered good enough effect of LW guns offline into the on-line MA doesn't translate much because the AH DM primarily gives much more importance to the MV of the bullet and ROF than the actual effect the bullet has,but if I'm not mistaken MG151s in AH doesn't have a mixed belt like they did in RL so maybe that's the reason it doesn't perform well.
-
So far, HT has mentioned that one individual hit sprite is a packet. A packet could be more than one bullet hitting. That much he's said. So you could see less sprites than there were bullets hitting, but you should never see sprites where bullets never hit, going by that logic.
-
20mm hit at a b17 3d photo
http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/fuselage.htm
The photo at the bottom shows what real 30mm could do....
http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/wings.htm
Look that 20mm from a FW, 6th photo....
http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/tail.htm
and then look at the bottom photo the hole from a 20mm hit
from a FW.
Thats the real results of LW ammo.
The AHII lethality problems, if we consider that we dont see the same at
hispanolasers,
are *coad* problems.
ps Offline lethality works fine, but when we are online other options
take command and the offline code doesnt work anymore.
The Real Problem is The Online Code ( Settings) controled from the Host.
-
HT has said that the lethality settings are the same online as the default for offline. I guess the meta question is: "what variables affect the final lethality values?"
-
Well I'm thinkin something is off.
Cause both myself and some of my squadies and others flyin near me in the MA have reported/complained of seeing thier bullets go right through the cons. And the dirt divers are really aggravating. Your closing on their 6 and firing and they dive down UNDERGROUND and come up 2 to 3 K somewhere else??? What's with that?
Packet loss? smoothing code itself? server going south? Server has been acting wierd last day or two.
Sure looked like my 30mm went right through a P38 no damage. Finally got him the 3rd try with a long stream of 30mm. Was about 1/4 of my 30mm ammo though. So I shoot at em and should hit but??? and add in this.......
My connect is sux. Been that way for nearly 2 years I guess. I'm generally about 1/10 of a second behind MOST everyone else in the arena with a connect that averages between 200 and 300 ms. Avoiding their nose in a 1 v 1 can be interesting. On my FE I've manuvered so I can see they have NO SHOT but on theirs.... BANG and I'm down :( 1/10 of a second is a LONG TIME in the AHII MA. The 109g10 with the nose 20 and gonds kinda made up for that. Was fast and I could usually get some seperation if needed. And I could hit em out to about 600 yds in some cases. Now with the tator gun I nearly have to get sooooo close I almost RAM em to hit. FORGET about HO'n. Now they all seem to LOVE to HO the 109k4. Especially those spit16 dweebs LOL. The g14, IMHO, is just barely, if at all, better then the g6.
Haven't flown for about 3 days now. Takin a break here. AHII for me right now is just TOO FRUSTRATING!
-
I'm pretty convinced now that something is off. I was 110'ing last night and had to HO my way through a bunch of Bish ponies to get pointed back home. Lit up a couple and they didn't even smoke, no parts flew off, nothing. This is happening too often to be a coincidence - and with the 110G there's no doubt I'm using cannons.
This is an annoyance in the MA ... but I can always just fly something else there. In ToD, this could be a real problem.
-
I have found a simple fix for the LW aircraft shortfalls.
STOP FLYING LW AIRCRAFT!!
In my frustration of the modeling I have stopped flying them. I will still up them from time to time but only it ends in frustration.
Try any aircraft with 6X50 or better and watch bombers burst into flames without any effort at all. Saw off wings without any difficulty. Pilot wounds are almost automatic.
Call it ballistics, lethality, stall characteristics, weight..etc...etc...etc..or whatever you want. Simple truith is the LW planes in AH stink in comparison to allied planes.
So until something is changed by HTC the LW planes will just be hanger queens for me and pretty much my whole squad.
Everything I have seen in the past, on TV, read in books, from the net, information gathered from even this thread. I simply cannot believe that LW aircraft were historically this bad.
RIP 109F4 RIP my dear friend :cry
-
Obviously those B-17's are overmodelled in those pictures. There is no way they actually survived those hits. Especially the one where the entire tail section is cut in half.
It is a vast allied conspiracy.
BTW, Has anyone every compared the K/D of cannon armed fighters to .50 cal fighters in AH?
Here is a quick snip from an interesting artical.
By the summer of 1943, the Germans had deployed the Focke Wulf FW 190A4, a dedicated bomber killer armed with two 7.9mm machine guns and four 20mm cannons. With all guns functioning, a three-second burst fired about 130 rounds of ammunition. The Luftwaffe estimated that it took an average of 20 hits from the 20mm cannon to destroy a B-17. Analysis of gun camera film revealed that the average German pilot scored hits with only 2 percent of the rounds fired, thus on average, 1000 rounds were fired to score the 20 hits required.
How many hits are you getting?
-
It is a vast allied conspiracy.
No there is nothing wrong with anything. It is just whole entire group of people just whining.
Lets squelch it so it does not interfer with our fun in shooting them down.
Luftwhiners..........
Analysis of gun camera film revealed that the average German pilot scored hits with only 2 percent of the rounds fired, thus on average, 1000 rounds were fired to score the 20 hits required.
On a serious note it was determined that the Luftwaffe needed to attack the bombers in pairs to ensure an immediate shootdown. Additionally IIRC the belting was changed as well.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
I really think it is the guns more than anything that keep people from flying the LW planes. Well, and the view on the 109s is atrocious now, the 190 I seem to have gotten used to (wasnt having problems in H2H anyway).
For those of us that are more aggressively inclined, and like to fight the other guys fight, those guns are a handicap and a half.
Had a decent fight with a guy in a H2H room, he was in a Spit 16, I was in an A5. He screwed up, I landed a quick snapshot along the spine of his plane from the back of the cockpit to the tail with my 20s. No damage. Next revolution of the scissors, he gets a snapshot on me, blam blam, tails gone.
Thanks, GG.
It isn't that the plane is horrible. It has slightly below average manueverability, if you were to ask me. But when you combine that with slightly below average firepower, there is no reason at all to waste your time in one.
Still not certain they are modelled incorrectly though, I wasn't having to much trouble with the H2H guys. Granted, the MA/Da is a completely different ballgame, but if the plane was as bad as you all suggest, I wouldn't even be able to come close to hanging with anyone.
-
Originally posted by kevykev56
I have found a simple fix for the LW aircraft shortfalls.
STOP FLYING LW AIRCRAFT!!
....
Except for one important thing: TOD.
That's why I feel some urgency about getting this resolved. The 109 and 190 have to be competetive (including "ease of use" to some degree) for that to be balanced.
-
Merry Christmas all.
Sure it shows how good plane was the B17, but the point is
imagine this hole in a fighter, and Then lets talk about lethality.
What fighter can survive one or two hits like this ?
-
Originally posted by Hades55
Merry Christmas all.
Sure it shows how good plane was the B17, but the point is
imagine this hole in a fighter, and Then lets talk about lethality.
What fighter can survive one or two hits like this ?
How bout a Spitfire? :) Pilot brought her home.
(http://www.furballunderground.com/gallery2/data/media/18/BrokenSpit1.jpg)
(http://www.furballunderground.com/gallery2/data/media/18/brokernSpit2.jpg) (http://www.furballunderground.com/gallery2/data/media/18/BrokenSpit3.jpg) (http://www.furballunderground.com/gallery2/data/media/18/BrokenSpit4.jpg)
-
Oh that was common, huh?
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Oh that was common, huh?
All the best,
Crumpp
LOL of course not Crumpp. Lighten up a bit man, it's Christmas!
I hope the tree is covered in tiny 190s for ya with lots of books and parts for White 1 under it :)
-
Originally posted by Urchin
I really think it is the guns more than anything that keep people from flying the LW planes. Well, and the view on the 109s is atrocious now, the 190 I seem to have gotten used to (wasnt having problems in H2H anyway).
For those of us that are more aggressively inclined, and like to fight the other guys fight, those guns are a handicap and a half.
Had a decent fight with a guy in a H2H room, he was in a Spit 16, I was in an A5. He screwed up, I landed a quick snapshot along the spine of his plane from the back of the cockpit to the tail with my 20s. No damage. Next revolution of the scissors, he gets a snapshot on me, blam blam, tails gone.
Thanks, GG.
Aye so many times I've had this happen online, you scissor(that's why I don't do this anymore or very few times) the other guy, you cover him all throughout the fuselage with bullets and he flies away without even a pilot wound, next roll with a 190 your engine is on fire and you're tailess or dead, has happened with la7s ,spitfires ,P-51s and insert many other aircraft here. :-(
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
LOL of course not Crumpp. Lighten up a bit man, it's Christmas!
Well he's got a point. A lot folks (look at F4UDOAs reply) see these sensational pictures of 'miracle' planes that survived extreme damage and conclude that all B-17s (or in your case Spitfires) were made of Titanium (or in F4UDOAs case that bombers in AH should be able to eat 50 rounds of 2 cm or 10 rounds of 3 cm).
The reality is you can't judge how 'tough' a particular aircraft type is unlees you examine all losses as well. I would bet that many aircraft were lost with far less visual damage. I could post images of 109s with extreme damage and that made it home but the 109 was hardly a 'tough aircraft'.
Fröhliche Weihnacht...
-
Originally posted by Bruno
Well he's got a point. A lot folks (look at F4UDOAs reply) see these sensational pictures of 'miracle' planes that survived extreme damage and conclude that all B-17s (or in your case Spitfires) were made of Titanium (or in F4UDOAs case that bombers in AH should be able to eat 50 rounds of 2 cm or 10 rounds of 3 cm).
The reality is you can't judge how 'tough' a particular aircraft type is unlees you examine all losses as well. I would bet that many aircraft were lost with far less visual damage. I could post images of 109s with extreme damage and that made it home but the 109 was hardly a 'tough aircraft'.
Fröhliche Weihnacht...
No doubt. The guy asked about fighters. I have lots of Spit stuff. Those images came to mind. Not implying the Spit was tougher then any other bird.
Here's a 109 just to be fair and un biased :)
Just having fun gents. Can't get too serious about this. Happy Holidays
(http://www.furballunderground.com/gallery2/data/media/15/109Fdamage.jpg)
-
Holy crap! That must have been friendly fire, or on the Eastern Front, cause a 109 that took a Hizooka round to the tail would be toast!
-
looks toast to me
-
Tonight ill light a candle for u all poor lw drivers.
-
You might need to light a whole Cathedral full of candles Bug :D
-
Well..wasnt the airframe for the 109 designed back in the 20's? Dont remember. Yea..they did some modifactions, added power etc but its still the same basic design. They never radicaly departed from it due to the industrial needs and Hitlers folly.
What I'm saying is that you can only tweak an old design but so much.
BTW...I love the 109's but if a 47/51/38/spit etc is a "better" plane in game it would make sense in many ways.
You might not of seen this often in actual combat as the pilots where more interested in staying alive rather than see how tight they could turn before stalling out....zooming and stalling...etc. Most wouldnever consider pushing the envelope.
The luffwaff might of also had "better" more veteren sticks as well, at least early on and mid way through the war. This would help them succeed in combat w/slightly inferior rides ie the 109's?
I take no sides in this folks.... check my past posts if needed....
xBAT
-
Well..wasnt the airframe for the 109 designed back in the 20's?
The Bf-109 was laid out based on design requirements issued on 6 July 1933.
Accounts vary but generally put the Bf-109V1 first flight occuring sometime from October 1935 to Spring 1936.
The Spitfire was designed to meet specifcations laid out in 1934. Supermaines entry won and after being modified was flown on 5 March 1936 as the Type 300.
These aircraft are contemprary designs in every sense of the word.
Your statements make no sense whatsoever.
Was the Spitfire Mk XIV an obsolete design? Or was British physics different from German physics?
Perhaps there was a bubble surrounding all axis aircraft, sort of like their own personal Bermuda Triangle, where the laws of science just did not apply?
All the best,
Crumpp
-
BTW...I love the 109's but if a 47/51/38/spit etc is a "better" plane in game it would make sense in many ways.
This game is far from reality. The game shapes you "fly" are there for your amusement and have very little in common with the actual aircraft.
They provide customer satisfaction.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
The Bf-109 was laid out based on design requirements issued on 6 July 1933.
Accounts vary but generally put the Bf-109V1 first flight occuring sometime from October 1935 to Spring 1936.
The Spitfire was designed to meet specifcations laid out in 1934. Supermaines entry won and after being modified was flown on 5 March 1936 as the Type 300.
These aircraft are contemprary designs in every sense of the word.
Your statements make no sense whatsoever.
Was the Spitfire Mk XIV an obsolete design? Or was British physics different from German physics?
Perhaps there was a bubble surrounding all axis aircraft, sort of like their own personal Bermuda Triangle, where the laws of science just did not apply?
All the best,
Crumpp
Thinking there was a major design change between the 109e models and the 109f models onward. Think the wings/wing tips and the tail section were redesigned?
Resulted in the wing cannon being taken off the 109s???????
Was the vator and rudder authority reduced as well?
-
Ahhmmmm, Crumpp:
"This game is far from reality. The game shapes you "fly" are there for your amusement and have very little in common with the actual aircraft."
A game is far from reality. It's a game. However, this is not a very good remark. HTC has been putting a lot of work into modelling as well as their information allows, and with a lot of ambition.
HT himself is a flyer, and he flew the P51 as well as lighter aircraft.
I fly every now and then, so I get a tad of comparison. Guess what, flying AH rather helps. (the only thing I feel in a little aircraft is that the acceleration in AH should perhaps be more).
Do you fly little aircraft yourself and compare it with AH?
Because if you don't, you should not write stuff like that...
-
HT himself is a flyer, and he flew the P51 as well as lighter aircraft.
He flew IN a P 51. Not the same thing, Angus.
Yes I fly.
However, this is not a very good remark. HTC has been putting a lot of work into modelling as well as their information allows, and with a lot of ambition.
My quote is the truth, Angus. HTC does not have a perception problem, many of the players do. Those who want to compare the game to reality.
Which if you will read the thread was in response to someone with just such a problem.
Please don't take a quote out of context and attach a totally different meaning to it.
All the best,
Crumpp
-
I actually flew IN a double seater P-51D ("Miss Torque", Wanaka, NZ) and have more than 300 hours of cross country in MY light taildragger aircraft: I still think the AH2's 205/A-8/G-6/G-14 suck and the Pony-Jug fly on rails. So what? :D (joking, but not too much)
-
Originally posted by batdog
Well..wasnt the airframe for the 109 designed back in the 20's? Dont remember. Yea..they did some modifactions, added power etc but its still the same basic design. They never radicaly departed from it due to the industrial needs and Hitlers folly.
What I'm saying is that you can only tweak an old design but so much.
BTW...I love the 109's but if a 47/51/38/spit etc is a "better" plane in game it would make sense in many ways.
Hmm, actually all of these planes you listed (51 exc?) were designed in the same timeframe, the second half of the 1930s. None of them were conceived after 1940.
One can argue the Bf 109 variants, excluding the E, were the latest of them all, since they got a major redesign of the Bf 109 with the F model, which had little in common with the previous models. It's development lasted between 1939, when most of the work was completed and 1940, when the final touches were implemented and it was put into production. The wing for example was completely new, and in that sense it evolved a lot more than any other design. As for never departed from it.. why fix something that ain't broke? Improvements otoh were continously added.this ensured that a good concept (with it's limitations coming from the original requirements) was very competitive up to the end of the war in the role it was designed for (interception/air superiority), and gained capabilities in other roles as well.
-
Well, there was the problem of arming the wing, just can't remember why.
Anyway, happy new year Kuffie, and you all!!!
-
Happy New Year to All !
@angus,
You mean the 109F's wing ? Galland could modded it even on the field to contain a pair of extra MG FF. I guess they didn't want to mess with holing the main spar. The basic armament was enough and effective, for extra firepower, they went with gondolas.
Now that I have some extra info on them, I can understand why they simply used gondies instead of putting them into the wing. Simple as that, it was equally good. The gondolas came with only 5-6 mph speed loss and 215 kg extra weight, including everything - guns, fitting and ammunition.
Now if I compare that with the PRO doc I have about the speed loss and extra weight due to installing 2 Hispanos into the C-wing on the Hispano... installing two cannons came with 6.25 mph speed loss, plus the bulges for canon fairing (two small ones : -0.5mph, single large one : 1.5mph). I guess the extra weight of 2 Hissos and 240 rounds for them is also comparable.
just to illustrate two different solutions with the same results..
-
Hi Kurfürst,
>You mean the 109F's wing ? Galland could modded it even on the field to contain a pair of extra MG FF. I guess they didn't want to mess with holing the main spar.
I wonder how the Hispano installation in the CASA Messerschmitts looked in detail? Do you think they had to pierce the main spar for that installation?
>I guess the extra weight of 2 Hissos and 240 rounds for them is also comparable.
I get 159 kg for guns/ammunition/belting according to my comparison chart. Gun weight is from Tony, and I believe ammunition/belting was read off a Spitfire weight chart.
>215 kg extra weight
I get 135 kg for guns/ammunition/belting, so the rest must be atrributed to the mounting strcuture.
Compared to the 159 kg of the Spitfire/Hispano solution, the gondola weight penalty is 56 kg. Not nice, but probably not enough to justify the bad press it received over the past decades either ;-)
By the way, one reason not to introduce Galland's F-6/U solution was that MG FF/M production had been terminated in favour of MG151/20 production pretty early on. All the Schräge Musik installations in night fighters were made from stock-piled guns, of which there were plenty by night fighter standards. However, the demands of full-scale Me 109 production would have been much higher. (Thinking about it, how long did the Fw 190 continue to use the MG FF/M?)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Uhh:
"You mean the 109F's wing ? Galland could modded it even on the field to contain a pair of extra MG FF. I guess they didn't want to mess with holing the main spar. The basic armament was enough and effective, for extra firepower, they went with gondolas."
Well, Galland somehow wanted more firepower and saw the gondies as a penalty.
Haven't ploughed through his book yet, - maybe there is something about it in there.
-
Hi HoHun!
"I wonder how the Hispano installation in the CASA Messerschmitts looked in detail? Do you think they had to pierce the main spar for that installation?"
I am not sure. I've seen schematics for MG151/20 installations on 109K projects, and as I recall they did not pierced the main spar, but put it well forward in the wing, protounding from the leading edge. The CASA 'schmitts with the Hispano cannon may have done the same, the cannon is well out of the leading edge :
(http://www.unrealaircraft.com/hybrid/images/H109_esp_sch.jpeg)
http://www.unrealaircraft.com/hybrid/Bf109.php
">I guess the extra weight of 2 Hissos and 240 rounds for them is also comparable.
I get 159 kg for guns/ammunition/belting according to my comparison chart. Gun weight is from Tony, and I believe ammunition/belting was read off a Spitfire weight chart.
>215 kg extra weight
I get 135 kg for guns/ammunition/belting, so the rest must be atrributed to the mounting strcuture.
Compared to the 159 kg of the Spitfire/Hispano solution, the gondola weight penalty is 56 kg. Not nice, but probably not enough to justify the bad press it received over the past decades either ;-)
I just looked up the actual weight from the two-cannon SpitIXc loading chart : http://www.spitfireperformance.com/ab197wl.gif
2 x Hispanos = 294 lbs
240 rounds of ammo = 150 lbs
Total : 444bs weight = 201 kg
So actually the two Hispanos in the C-wing or two Mausers in underwing gondolas weight pretty much the same with ammo (note though, it's 240 vs 270 rounds) - 201 kg vs. 215 kg.
Drag is also pretty much the same, ca 7 mph for the Hispanos, 5mph for the gondies, but the former refers to rated altitude, the latter to SL, so on equal footing I guess they are virtually identical.
I wonder why people sceptical about what the press tells them... ;)
-
Originally posted by Angus
Well, Galland somehow wanted more firepower and saw the gondies as a penalty.
Haven't ploughed through his book yet, - maybe there is something about it in there.
Galland's modded 109 was a 109F-2, Werkn. 6750. This one only had the MG 151/15 in the nose as basic armament, not the MG 151/20 cannon of the later models. In view of this his decision was understandable, the 15mm mauser simply wasn't enough - that's why they changed in with the F-4 and later to 20mm version.
-
A nose pack ( 3 guns) and 2 guns in the wings yes?
As well as Micky Mouse, hehe ;)
-
HA1112 was a jabo plane, not a fighter.