Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: GODO on June 12, 2004, 06:08:55 PM
-
Our new AH2 190A5 seems to do no more than 339 mph at 300 feet, that with four guns and full fuel tanks.
The following Focke-Wulf chart shows 190A5 using a 1942 BMW engine doing 352 mph on the deck, also in a four guns configuration.
190A5 speed chart (http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190_A5_speed.gif)
Pyro, can you revise our 190A5 speed, please?
-
Is that the chart done using overly optimistic calculations in place of actual flight testing again?
-
The chart is dated 20/10/43 (190A6 was already in production line), and 190A5 was introduced in Nov 1942. Why to use overoptimistic calculations for a more than tested plane? The chart shows also two curves per powersetting, one may be considered overoptimistic and the other overpesimistic, but both start from the same point a the deck, 567Km/h.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Is that the chart done using overly optimistic calculations in place of actual flight testing again?
Pray tell me WHY 565 km/h is 'overly optimistic' for a plane with 1800 PS engine, hmm ? In fact, in the USN`s tests, they even exceeded FW`s own speed specifications at high altitudes by a considerable margin.
-
190A8 did 339 mph at sea level with same powersetting than 190A5 (1.42 ata 2700 rpm), but being 600lb heavier and with extra drag due 13mm Mg instalations.
In AH2 both planes use same military powersetting (2400 rpm, 39.5MAN), at 300 feet 190A5 (100% fuel, 4x20mm) reaches 326mph, 190A8, while being much heavier, reaches 329mph (100% fuel, 4x20mm).
IMO, something is wrong here and should be revised.
-
The phantom missing "12 mph" at SL again...
It didnt work for Ram either....
Wil this here is definately a "Round 12".....
:p
-
I don't know about those "missing" 12mph, but I do find it strange that the A8 is faster than the A5 on the same power setting. The A5 being lighter and cleaner than the A8.
-
Theres been a few threads on this over the years,
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26433&highlight=190A5
I believe this is the 1 that set off the 12/15mph sl debate...
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26433&highlight=190A5
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
Pray tell me WHY 565 km/h is 'overly optimistic' for a plane with 1800 PS engine, hmm ? In fact, in the USN`s tests, they even exceeded FW`s own speed specifications at high altitudes by a considerable margin.
If that is the chart that I think it is, it was done using German calculations that are overly optimistic for low altitude speed. This method is overly optimistic regardless of the aircraft in question.
If it is the chart I think it is, then it is not flight testing, but engineering gestimates of the proposed aircraft's performance.
-
Karnak, can you explain why our A8 is marginaly faster than A5 both in military power at 300 feet?
-
Leave me out of this Wotan! :D
To be honest, I don't give a damn anymore but I do agree with you.
-
Btw, if you look at the man pressure gauge in the A5/A8/F8 you will see that the A5 is running on 43 while the A8/F8 run on 40, that's at the deck.
Just FYI.
-
I linke dthe same thread 2 times in my last post the second link was meant to be this thread
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26425
-
Wil the a5 reads 42.5 at mil. Its a bug it should read 39.5 @ mil. 42.2 is wep setting. I will post in the bug forum.
My tests of the a8 4 x 20 100% fuel
SL=
2400 rpm @ 40 MP (guage reads 40 e6b says 39.5) = 330mph
A5 2 x 151 and 2 x mgff/m
SL=
2400 rpm @ 42.5 (guage reads 42.5 e6n says 39.5) = 328mph
If you look at the chart Godo posted there are 2 curves for each of the 3 settings. The left curve for each setting is the most accurate.
If the AH A5 is based on the G3 tested by the US it still doesnt explain why the a8 which is heavier and has more drag is faster then the a5 at mil power.
Even if the chart godo posted is calculated why would the a5 be slower?
That's the question. Whether its 8 mph or 12 mpg really makes no difference. As Urchin said in the other thread its not like the A5 will be out there running down the runstangs and typhies and la7s etc...
This is an old arguement that is scared by a few posters who dont know when enough is enough. It would appear even if they are on to something it most likely will be ignored becasue of their history.
That's not to say HTC hasnt looked at this data and reached a different conclusion. But there has been many threads on this and the a5 has remained the same. Take your pick.
Anyway fly a 109, they are much more fun :p
-
So you are saying this has become a personal issue with the Staff of HTC?
Crumpp
-
Just saying I don't want to be called names again Crumpp. Like I said before. I don't give a damn anymore.
Fun to read and post from time to time though but as far as discussing things such as performance or anything else I don't bother.
Personal issue? Wrong description I think, let's say they take some people less seriously thus probarly not giving these kind of threads the hard look they might give others. Of course I may be wrong...
-
Wotan, rgr, I jusy posted the readouts the planes gave me in AH2, be it right or wrong, bug or not.
-
Looking at the RLM document posted on this web page I do not see anything that say's it is a "gestimate". The three curves are for C3 Boost, Full Military Power, and Cruise. My German is ok but I am by no means fluent. Please point out where you believe this is not an actual flight test.
http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190.html
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Wotan, rgr, I jusy posted the readouts the planes gave me in AH2, be it right or wrong, bug or not.
VV, I had noticed the other day but forgot to post it in the bug forum...
Your post reminded me...
-
Think I found were the disconnect is on the "gestimate".
There is no doubt this is an actual flight test. It is done exactly like every flight test was conducted using the technology of the day.
In the book " Messerschmitt Bf-109F-K: Development, Testing, and Production" by Willy Radinger and Wolfgang Otto there is a whole detailed chapter on High speed trials of the 109. It goes in depth on RLM test flight procedures and the scientific insturmentation used to measure flight performance in the '40's.
It consisted of a camera mounted in the cockpit to shoot pictures of the instruments under the prescribed flight conditions. When the A/C lands the film is developed and the data analyzed by the slide rule wielding engineers.
What you see on this graph is the the three points at a specific altitude/engine setting the test pilot was instructed to fly and the data recorded.
The engineers then did extrapolate the data and you see a performance band the 190 will fall into depending on air density (temp and humidity). It is the exact same method used by everyone to test A/C in the '40's.
Unfortunately there was no "blackbox" with which they could download realtime info into their laptops.
That's were the disconnect lays I believe.
Crumpp
-
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.
-
Pyro, look for the more realistic available data and take also in consideration the year and the front. For example, late A8s were fitted with BMW801 TU as well as A9s (TU/TS). Consider also the usage of GM-1 tank instead of extra fuel for the BMW801D A8s (western front). Its all your choice, just try to model them the more accurately possible for the desired front and year, this will be important for scenaries and TOD.
-
Pyro,
Thank you for taking a look at this issue. I know you guys have a full plate with the new release. I for one would like to see the RLM data used. I want things as realistic as possible just like most of your customers.
No matter how you slice it. The FW190 was one of the great fighters of WWII. It was not the end all in performance but many experts consider it the main performance rival of the Spitfire. A 190 should excell at the "Energy Knife fight".
As long as a 190 retains it's strengths then 190 pilots should have to deal with it's weaknesses, Bottom Line.
Crumpp
-
Working after RLM data would be best IMO, be it good or bad for the plane.
-
It’s not just a matter of rlm data, there’s conflicting rlm data as well.
Not only may our A5 end up with a worse climb rate (see mando's current 190a vs. Spit thread) but it may end up slower at alt.
Pyro is saying he will take multiple data points and work through the inconsistencies. That doesn’t mean the A5 he ends up with will match the chart posted here.
If you believe that the AH a5 will match the chart posted you are most likely setting your self up for some disappointment.
Asking for GM1 is a bit ridiculous as well. 1st the alt limit was like 7500m, 2nd do even know how many 190a’s actually had GM1? The 190a8 we need for AH is one that has a use in ToD and events. An 190a8 with GM1 would not be something that would have use outside the main and would be rare even then. I
-
Wotan,
The FW-190A8 with GM-1 I believe would be no different than the FW-190A8 we have now. The GM-1 equipped A8's still retain the C3 boost and have the GM-1 boost in addition for High altitude work. The GM-1 equipped A8 would be a few KG's lighter since the 115 liter tank is replaced with GM-1 Nitrous tank which is just a tad bit lighter. I got a breakdown of the weights of each system but unfortunately left my books at work where I am scanning the data for Mandoble's website.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
The GM-1 equipped A8's still retain the C3 boost and have the GM-1 boost in addition for High altitude work.
Exactly, performance below 25k is similar to 1.58ata 190A8, above 8Km it gave 500 fpm extras up to 38k and 45Km/h extras at 32k. GM-1 may be configured easily as an hangar option for hi alt cap missions. For common low level fights, aux fuel tank would be the better option, it can be emptied quickly saving that weight. No aux fuel tank would be even a better option.
190D9 equipped with GM-1 got 100 extra PS at 6.5k, and 400 extra PS at 8.5Km.
Any idea about BMW 801 TU and TS power settings?
-
Above 8000m who cares?
No one in flies that high but you. GM1 was not serialized on the a8 or any 190.
We don't need any rare a8 with GM1.
-
Yeah that graph I'm sending to Mandoble has an FW-190A9 with the BMW-801 TS engine on it.
Not sure but I don't think they got around to mounting the GM-1 on the Dora. It was discussed and planned by the FW design team but none were ever mounted in production A/C that I am aware of. The Dora recieved a "B4" boost (same as the C3, just spraying fuel in the supercharger) during operational trials with III/JG54. In early 1945 the first production Dora's with MW-50 began to arrive in the JG's.
Crumpp
-
GM-1 was not rare on the 190A8. It was a standard kit that could be installed in place of the 115 liter auxiliary tank.
Crumpp
-
GM1 was not serialized on the a8.
Do you know how high 8000m is? Below that GM1 could not be run.
Who cares if the A8 can climb 500fpm above 26k with GM1 or gain an extra 27 mph?
Look at the AH1 A8 chart. Above 26k feet it climbs well under 1000fpm... Even with the 27 mph extra it still be below 350mph. Hell the a8 could not even make a flat turn at that alt with out losing altitude.
Who are going to fight at 30000ft? At that alt all ami planes will still perform better, even the AH spit reaches best alt at 26500ft abd would climb twice as good and be at least 50 mph faster...
"Hi alt cap" geesh.........
Even in events you dont fight that high.
-
Wotan,
I don't think anyone is disputing the usefullness of GM-1. What would be useful is the option to dump the 115 liter auxiliary tank and save the 100 kg of weight.
Facts are that GM-1 WAS serialized for production in the 190A8 and it WAS available for the Geschwader maintenance to install in place of the Auxiliary or vise versa.
Crumpp
-
Here are some sites about the FW-190A8's GM-1.
http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/1997/07/stuff_eng_detail_fw190a.htm
or
http://www.vectorsite.net/avfw190.html
==============================================
The next subvariant, the "FW-190A-8", turned out to be the most heavily produced of all FW-190 subvariants, with over 1,300 built. It was essentially an A-7 with the option for either GM-1 nitrous-oxide engine boost for high-altitude operation, or an additional internal fuel tank, as well as many detail improvements.
==============================================
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Look at the AH1 A8 chart. Above 26k feet it climbs well under 1000fpm... Even with the 27 mph extra it still be below 350mph.
190A8 GM-1 performance curve (http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/190-2-1024.jpg)
I read 395 mph, 1800 fpm with GM-1 at 26k (1300 fpm, 380 mph without GM-1). May be this graph is also based on overoptimistic calculations ...
-
Wotan, does it ever change? ;)
Its funny to see all these charts floated around in forums, that are just copies of the scan I made several years ago, for these very same types of discussions. LOL!
-
So your the originator of all this data?
Crumpp
-
I'm just the one that scanned it, and posted it here on the BBS many years ago. Its from an english translation of the original Focke-Wulf manual, purchased by Gatt and Funked who shared it with me. I keep it and many other interesting Fw-190 documents on my webspace, and every so often I post the address for people to have access to it.
The original scan in high detail is at http://www.vermin.net/fw190/190-2.jpg
-
Yeah I got a FW-190A8 Flight Manual. You can purchase them from:
http://www.luftfahrt-archiv-hafner.de/
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Vermillion
Wotan, does it ever change? ;)
Its funny to see all these charts floated around in forums, that are just copies of the scan I made several years ago, for these very same types of discussions. LOL!
That data, in English, has been around since 1974(30 years ago), at least. First seen in the Fw190A-8 Handbook(D.(Luft)T.2190 A-8) ISBN 0-88992-000-1 published by Valkyrie Publications
-
Yeah I guess it's been around since 25-10-44.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Yeah I guess it's been around since 25-10-44.
Crumpp
Ah Crumpp, but not in English and readily available to the masses.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :cool: :p
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Yeah I know.... Just jerkin your spitdriver chain.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Yeah I know.... Just jerkin your spitdriver chain.
Crumpp
Since when does an Anton or a Dora look like a Spit?:eek: :D :D Kurt's a/c, no matter what WW2 sim, are my preferred rides.:) Tempest and F4U being the other rides. Definately NO Messicraps or the other Yank crud.:aok
-
See what you guys did, brought Verm out of the woodwork, you better quit now before Funked gets here....
-
Originally posted by Pyro
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.
Actually this data sheet comes right out of the department of flightmechanics from Focke Wulf rather than the RLM. It´s data is somewhat based on flight tests, especially the drag influences of bombs etc (F-8 chart)
Those documents were used for combat plannings, thus the fuel consumption tables for example have 10-15% safety factor. The same probably with the climb rates, and maybe also speed tables. To calculale the range for a combat sortie you better go with conservative speed assumption if you want to get the plane back even under weired situation which could reduce range(wind, icing etc.). You better also take conservative climb rates and so on.
Pyro, pls send me a dummy mail to send you something back
niklas
-
Originally posted by Wotan
It’s not just a matter of rlm data, there’s conflicting rlm data as well.
Not only may our A5 end up with a worse climb rate (see mando's current 190a vs. Spit thread) but it may end up slower at alt.
Pyro is saying he will take multiple data points and work through the inconsistencies. That doesn’t mean the A5 he ends up with will match the chart posted here.
If you believe that the AH a5 will match the chart posted you are most likely setting your self up for some disappointment.
No, I was talking about using that data provided that nothing jumps out that raises a problem. I speculate that the disappointment will come from AH matching those charts, not vice versa.
-
I kind of like them now as it is, I just consider it weird that the spits out accelerate them, but the spits outaccelerate most planes I've fought in AH2 so far.
190's as they are now feel good IMO not in any way uber but a clear improvement from AH1 (together with some other planes). Both the A5 and D9 feel more like fighters, the A8 feel heavy as it should do.
Spit the only plane I have an issue with right now, was able to catch a 3k P38 before almost right after take off when he made an attack and tried to zoom away from my spit 9. Was surprised my self that I kept up with him so good.
Pyro, a question though, the F8, I only tried it for one sortie (will try it more tomorrow) but it felt alot lighter then the A8, almost underweight... may have been fuel or something else, but felt like it was turning better then it maybe should.
-
vv gotcha pyro
Just for the heck of it I ran a 20k test of the AH 2 A-5 and compared it to the chart Godo posted.
Start - u. Notleistung (Takeoff & Emergency)
Godo's Chart
@ 6100m (20k) = 655kmh = 407mph
AH 2
@ 6100m (20k) = 649m = 403 mph
Steig - u. Kampfleistung (Climb & Combat)
Godo's Chart
@ 6100m (20k) = 625km/h = 388mph
AH 2
@ 6100m (20k) = 634 km/h = 394 mph
For the AH 2 test the fuel multiplier was set @ .01 and I used a 127 mph rising wing to jump up to 20k. I then slected no wind and leveled at 20k (closer to 20015). I took 2 x 20 mg151 and 2 x 20 mgff, So basically the A5 had full weight during my quick test.
-
Pyro,
Thanks for taking the time to answer.
I think the "problem" with the 190's flight model is not neccessarily gounded in the charts. It may not even be the 190's flight model but rather other A/C are out of balance.
Correct me if I am wrong on the following assumptions:
1. Flight Models are no longer just a set of numbers that are straight forward to adjust. They are in fact complicated sets of data that adjusting the parameters can have unforeseen consequences on other flight characteristics. It is much more difficult than simply adjusting a few key strokes to achieve the desired effect.
2. No FM is such a simulation will ever EXACTLY match the actual A/C data. A certain "margin" of error is not only acceptable but rather becomes a certainty.
Being an aficionado of "simulations" I want things as close to the actual data as possible but am willing to accept a margin of error either way. I say adjust the FW-190 data to as close to the Luftwaffe Specs as possible BUT I for one do not think the AH 190's are at this time a good simulation of the 190 as a fighter.
This opinion is based on the following as already posted in the "190A8 vs Spit" thread to another player.
==============================================
As for the clipped wing Spits. It helped reduce the rollrate and improved low altitude performance but it was not the answer to the FW-190A. That distinction went to the Griffon powered Spits
http://www.wwiitech.net/main/britain/aircraft/spitfire/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously therefore, steps had to be taken immediately to counter this new and very dangerous threat. One of the first steps was to clip the wings of the Spitfire V's, thus improving their low-altitude capability enough to be able to rival the Fw-190. This was not however, an adequate upgrade, and it was clear that a new model would be required. This came in the form of the Spitfire Mk IX. The Spitfire IX appeared with all three types of wing; the extended, standard and clipped wing, and also introduced a new armament configuration; a combination of two 20mm Hispano cannon and two .50-inch Browning machine guns. The Mk IX did not solve the problem of the Fw-190, but when combined with new Hawker Typhoon aircraft, did help the situation. The Mk IX was fitted with a higher-powered version of the Merlin, the Merlin 61, rated at 1,660hp. 5,665 Spitfire Mk IX's were produced. The Mk X was powered by a 1,650hp Merlin 77 engine, and the Mk XI was powered by either a 1,760hp Merlin 63, or a Merlin 70 rated at 1,665hp.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The data I have says the two A/C are pretty close in the initial climb with the Spit IX leaving the 190 behind at high altitude.
Some food for thought on the combat value of the marginal advantage the Spit 9 did have:
Being a lower wingloaded A/C the spit will climb at a slower speed and steeper angle. It will end up above the FW-190 at the end of the climb.
The FW-190 climbs at a faster speed and shallower angle. If the spit follows directly it will be left behind. This was the case in Dogfights between the two.
The Spitfire pilot climbs at his best speed. He is above the 190 but now must close the Horizontal gap so he dives.The 190 pilot simply dives too. The spitfire cannot catch him in a dive and worse case will follow him to the deck were the 190's top speed is greater. End result - 190 retains the advantage in the fight.
This is why Spit pilots didn't fight 190's in the vertical. The 190's roll advantage, zoom climb, and speed leveled the playing field making the deciding factor pilot skill.
You don't see this in AH at all. The Fw-190 is reduced to clumsy easily avoided attacks in the vertical. It does not posses the manuverability advantage of the actual FW-190. FW-190 pilots got in close and fought in the verticle because they had some real manuvering advantages. Try the classic 190 manuver of turning until the Spit begins to gain in the turn, flick out of the turn circle, dive and zoom climb above. The AH2 spitfire 9 will follow you with no difficulty and shoot you down. Test pilots with radio communication anticipating the manuver COULD NOT follow a 190 in the Merlin Spit. Even the Spitfire Mk 14 had great difficultly WITH radio notification following a 190A in this manuver.
AH2 is not a correct simulation of the fighting between these great fighters. Facts are the 190 was MORE manuverable than the Spitfire 9 in flight with the exception of sustained turn radius.
Do not confuse advantages with domination. The Griffon powered spits DOMINATED the 190A. In the Merlin powered Spit IX niether dominated the other in reality. Each had it's advantages and the checks and balances between the two leveled the playing field. It should be one of the most nail biting fights in the game given equal energy states at the merger.
==============================================
Many great facts and details about the handling characteristics of the 190 can be found in these documents:
http://prodocs.netfirms.com/
Nashwan posted this link in another thread. It's the same allied test flight info I have. Try to reproduce these test's in AH.
I do have several performance charts on the 190 that I have not seen posted in these forums. They will posted on Mandobles site this week.
Crumpp
-
Your right Niklas it does come from the Focke Wulf Factory Test Flight however in Nazi Germany the entire Aircraft industry fell under and was administered by the RLM.
Think of the RLM as the German equivilent of the FAA in the United States only with better lookin uniforms.
:)
When refering to RLM I mean it is German Data from German trained personnel on German Designed equipment for German soldiers/sailors/airmen to use. Thanks for keeping me straight.
Crumpp
-
Hi Niklas, my email is dougb@hitechcreations.com.
Crumpp,
It's not that we can't match numbers, it's that there aren't a full spectrum of numbers to match. Numbers can be hit with some precision, subjective judgements can't be. Hitting the limited numbers that I have to work with doesn't mean the model is correct overall, but if I'm completely missing then it's obviously incorrect.
On your Spit vs FW climb hypothesis, it's a good theory but it's based on an assumption rather than a fact. That assumption being that the Spitfire has a lower best climb speed, when in reality they are about the same, around 170 mph.
-
Pyro,
Take a look and let me know if my assumptions are correct.
Take as an example the P47 test. The P47 handily outclimbs the FW190 in a sustained climb.
In zoom climb though the FW190 has a real advantage. Both A/C start off at the same altitude, speed, and are side by side. When they pull up the FW-190 ends up 1500 feet (497 meters) above the P47. If the 190 continues the climb then the P47 will quickly catch him.
The FW-190 must have had a terrific zoom climb cause according to Robert Johnson's (in his P47) encounter with a Spit in a mock dogfight he ended up outzooming the spit and using a hammerhead to get a gun solution on the spit. The spitdriver couldn't catch him. Are you familiar with the encounter I am refering too? His experience is also backed up by the RAF tests.
While there is no mathimatical graph there certainly is hard data.
An undeniable fact is these are approved Air Force test's conducted by Air Services at war in order to come up with tactics to defeat an enemy. According to Eric Brown in his "Wings of the Luftwaffe" the RAF had numerous examples of the FW-190 after Faber's. So many flying examples of 190's that Faber's 190A3 was tested to destruction to determine how much damage had to be inflicted to destroy a 190. He mentions 2 FW-190A4's, an FW-190A5, FW-190G1, and a couple of FW-190A8's. These were all flown by the test flight during the war. If at any time the RAF's recommendation to its pilots in fighting the 190 changed during any version of the Merlin powered spits then I am sure the RAF would have implemented the change.
The RAF did not recommend any of it's Merlin powered spits to "mix it up" with any 190A. It recommended pilots "fly at high speed" in areas the 190 operated in as this would give them the "best" chance to shoot down a 190. When the Griffon powered spits came on the scene the RAF changed this recommendation to now pilots can afford to "mix it up" with 190A's.
The 190 vs Merlin powered spit was a fight decided by pilot skill. Each plane had it's advantages and it's disadvantages but niether one dominated the other. In AH Merlin powered spits dominate the 190A's. Try reproducing the RAF test flight results.
190A drivers should welcome a Merlin powered spit fight as an even match up. Instead in the CT arena you have massive crying everytime a spit is introduced into it's historically correct line up.
I think based on the facts before me that the 190 must have had the advantage in zoom climb, roll rate (manuverability), and accelleration, especially in the dive. All these add up to advantages in the close in energy "knife" fight which is exactly the style of fighting the Luftwaffe practiced in FA-190's according to Brown. To Quote Capitan Brown:
==============================================
"A somewhat odd form of Dogfighting developed with the FW-190 pilots endevoured to keep in the verticle plane by using zooms and dives while their spit mounted antagonist tried everything in the book to draw them on to the horizontal. If the German pilot lost his head and failed to resist the temptation to try a horizontal pursuit curve on a spitfire, as likely as not, before he could recover his speed lost in steep turn he would find ANOTHER spitfire turning inside him. On the other hand, the German pilot who continued to zoom up and down was usually the recipiant of difficult deflection shots of more than 30 degrees. The FW-190 had tremendous initial accelleration in a dive but was extremely vunerable during a pullout. recovery, having to be quite progressive with care not to kill the speed by "sinking".
==============================================
This is pullout observation is backed up by Focke Wulf test pilot Heinrich Beauvais in Dietmarr Herman's "FW-190A An illustrated History of the Luftwaffe's Legnedary Fighter" in which a transitioning 109 pilot "Schmitt" was unable to get the 190 to loop at any speed. Whenever he pulled up on the stick the 190 would simply nose up and then fall off to the side and stall out. It never would "fly" through a loop. Beauvais took Schmitt's 190 up and flew it through a loop at just above stall speed. He then explained to the transitioning 109 pilot that the stick forces were much less and to use gentle pressure. After that Schmitt had no problem flying perfect loops.
As a simulation fan I want our 190A as close to the real one as is possible with all of it's strengths and weaknesses. As a fighter it did dominate Spit Mk V, was equal to the Merlin powered Spit Mk IX and it was itself dominated by the Griffon powered spits.
Lastly, Pyro, thank you for taking the time to look at this issue. I know you guys are busy. Keep on truckin with Tour of Duty I'm looking forward to checking it out.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Take as an example the P47 test. The P47 handily outclimbs the FW190 in a sustained climb.
Huh?
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/190a5climb.gif)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/p47d30climb.gif)
-
Gscholtz,
We are talking about the wartime allied test flight documents which the original papers are available for examination.
Thanks though because this graph does not match the actual flight test either. It is contrary to the real thing. Wonder why? I was thinking that the P47 the USAAF used the paddle blade prop. Think they list the setup of each A/C in detail. Need to check it.
Crumpp
-
The P47D4 used in the test with Water Methynol injection had some real advantages at low altitude including a better sustained climb rate. However the high you went the better FW-190A became vs the P47D4 and at 26000 feet the P47's only option was to dive away from a 190A.
Unusual. The 190 is generally better at lower altitudes and is not a good high alt fighter.
Pyro,
I misquoted that test after I reread it. The FW-190 still has a definate zoom climb advantage. It leaves the P47D4 in the first 1500 feet and not a 1500 foot seperation. Then the sustained climb rate of the P47 takes over and it outclimbs the 190.
So it is not as dramatic an advantage as it seemed at first but still one nonetheless.
The zoom climb, roll rate, and accelleration of the 190 make it a great energy dogfighter.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Pyro
That assumption being that the Spitfire has a lower best climb speed, when in reality they are about the same, around 170 mph.
Take a look at 190D9 Va, it may be well above 169 mph at sea level.
D9 speed (http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/d9climb.jpg)
-
Pyro,
Are you sure about that climb speed?
According to the performance charts I have seen put the 190A5's climb at around 285 kph on Military Power at 2400U/min at 1.32 ata. from sea level until 3400 meters. So the Spit IX and the 190A5 had the similar climb speeds with the 190 averaging a few miles per hour faster provided the 190 was not using C3 boost.
Now the rate of climb drops dramatically over this altitude range from a peak of 16M/sec at around 1 km to 12.5M/sec at 3400 meters.
Shaws information holds up with the Spit (lower wingloaded) being a few miles an hour slower if it tried to follow the 190 directly in a climb and both A/C started at the same energy level Provided the the 190 driver didn't drop below his best climb speed.
Just a guess but I bet this will not hold true at altitudes the Spit is faster and accellerates better.
Crumpp
Crumpp
-
The best climb speed of the 190A5 tested by the Navy was 160Knots or 184MPH.
(http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/page2.jpg)
-
That great stuff F4UDOA! Thanks bro.
You wouldn't happen to have a copy of enclosure 3, the power settings for this test would you?
No doubt about it, the 190 climbed at a faster speed and shallower angle than the Spitfire.
Crumpp
-
184mph for A5, about 182mph for D9 and, depending on the source, 170 or 160mph for SpitIX.
That 190A5/U4 had reduced armament, only two MG 17 and two MG151/20 but also with two reconnaissance cameras.
-
The FW-190A5 used in this test is 58.28 kg's lighter than the test A/C in the data I have. This is probably due to the removal of the outboard MGFF's/ammunition and the addition of the cinecamera and two 12.5 camera's.
I am just taking a guess Pyro, but I'll bet that this 190A5/U4 was also using Military Power.
However If no hard data is available on the actual set up/power settings then I would just use this as a base for the climb on C3 boost.
Crumpp
-
No prob.
(http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/page6.jpg)
-
Thanks Man!!
U guys review this, but if I am correct in reading the conduct of the test AND the power settings they used...
Then the climb rate test was at 1.35 ata which would mean this 190 was either developing a little better Manifold pressure than normal on Military power (1.32 ata) or it's using something else. Maybe the mechanics need to adjust the throttle some...
Either way, there is no doubt the 190's best climb speed was faster than the Spit 9's.
Crumpp
-
CC, Godo. I'll take a good look at that. At some point hopefully soon, I want to redo the entire series.
Crumpp, what do you think the best climb speed should be?
-
Originally posted by Pyro
I want to redo the entire series.
It is good to hear that. Take then in consideration the actual trim dependence of current 190s. All of them need to be trimmed constantly for every speed and desired maneouver, mainly elevators. On the other hand, 190s were loved by their pilots just because they were mostly free of trimming issues. If needed for very hi speeds, they had a small lever to actuate an electrical elevator trim. More than probably that lever was very rarely needed.
(http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/fw190cockpit/images/Trim_FW190A8_DM_01.jpg)
Looking at the lever, going from full +5 to full -5 degrees should not take more than a second or two. Actually, in AH, it takes long time to go from full nose up to full nose down, and meanwhile 190s are very unstable (CT is by no means the answer).
-
Thanks Pyro!
Pyro I really can't say an exact figure without seeing all the data. The test I have and the limited altitudes I calculated it for is enough to determine that the best climb speed is faster than 170mph.
Offhand just looking at the charts available:
Again at 1.32 ata and 2400U/min -
285kph Sea level to 3400 meters - Note the curve actually breaks away at around 2700 meters but curvature is so slight that it does not break the next box line until 3400 meters. You could adjust for this.
From 285kph at 3400 meters it steadily drops to 250 kph at 8500 meters,
From there it sharply drops to 233 kph at just below 11,000 meters.
Now the USAAF test uses the higher Manifold pressure and a faster prop rpm to achieve a higher climb speed.
Completely guessing in the dark I would add about 5-8 kph for 1.42ata boost. Maybe even less because 1.46 psi just doesn't strike me as huge boost.
I am not going to pretend I know how to do the math to get the exact figures. You would have to give me some time to work on it! I am sure some knowledgeable players could put together workable realistic figures.
I am sending Mandoble all the the stuff I have including some exerpts from the Luftwaffe test of an FW-190 vs 109F4.
Found some performance charts for the 190A8, 190A9, 190D9, 190D12, Ta-152C, and Ta-152H which I will get Mandoble to post on his website too, for anyone to use.
The trim thing is correct in that in the many pilots comment that it needed "little to no retrimming" throughout it's flight envelope. One exception was high speed flight (400 mph plus) the 190 took on a "marked" nose down trim that many allied test pilots comment "must have been scary in low altitude fights".
Have you guys at HTC thought about asking for player volunteers (that U guys approve) to assist in the FM design. Might help to eliminate the whine's if the players got a say. The players examine the material and have a set time to make their recommendations with HTC reserving the ultimate say. Eliminate a lot of work for you guys and get the planes set up quicker.
Thanks again for taking the time to look this over!
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Completely guessing in the dark I would add about 5-8 kph for 1.42ata boost. Maybe even less because 1.46 psi just doesn't strike me as huge boost.
1.42 ata is approx. 20.8 psi, and you have to multiply that with the compression ration of the engine to get the real boost. The 190s ran on C3 fuel which was comparable to the allied 100/130 octane avgas, but the Germans still had to use various forms of intake cooling (C3 injection/MW50) to prevent the BMW engine from knocking, so they ran on as high a boost as they could. The Allies favoured high boost with low compression while the Germans favoured low boost with high compression. The end result is pretty much the same.
-
GScholtz,
Thanks for info.
1.42 ata - 1.32ata = .10ata = 1.46psi total Manifold pressure increase.
Crumpp
-
Boost conversion table from the TAIC Manual.
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/JStirlingBomber/Boost.jpg
Neil.
-
Looking at the 190A5 chart and a 190A8 using 1.42ata C3 boost the average increase in level speed over 1.32ata is about 25-30 kph.
We are talking about best climbing speed which is significantly lower than top level speed. I ventured a guess at the increase in best climbing speed with 1.42 ata boost and nothing more. If you have hard math then please present it.
Thanks for your help.
Crumpp
-
If you are looking at the A-5 chart at the top of this thread where it says C3 that isnt C3-injection. Thats just the fuel type.
A C3 injection curve would be "erhöhte Notleistung".
The A-8 chart that Verm posted doesnt have a curve for C3-injection.
Incidentally, C-3-injection wasnt serialized until the A-8. It tested on the a5 in '43 (IIRC) but it wasn't until '44 when it was serialized.
The 1.42 ata setting on the A-5 is "Start - u. Notleistung" (Takeoff & Emergency).
For a quick look check the AH2 A-8 "wep" setting.
2700rpm at 47.3 mp (1.63 or so ata).
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
GScholtz,
Thanks for info.
1.42 ata - 1.32ata = .10ata = 1.46psi total Manifold pressure increase.
Crumpp
Ah, I misunderstood your meaning. My mistake.
-
Wotan,
Thanks but we know what C3 injection is and how to say it in German.
No problem Gshcoltz.
Thanks for the input.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Wotan
The A-8 chart that Verm posted doesnt have a curve for C3-injection.
That chart does have grayed areas for 1.58ata speed and climb rate.
Our 47.2" MAN 190A8 corresponds to 1.58 ata, not to 1.65.
(1 Hg" = 0.03342 atmospheres)
Now, was 1.58 ata C3 injection, or 1.65 ata?
The following document points to 360 mph at sea level for 1.65 ata with C3 injection.
C3 Injection (http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190a-boost-doc1.jpg)
The same document shows 344 mph as maximum speed at sea level for 1.42ata, and that boost was also achieved by the lighter 190A5.
-
You are correct Wotan about the naming of C3.
I've got a 190A8 and 190A9 graphs for level speed with 1.65 ata. None of the 190 charts I have seen the boost labeled "erhöhte Notleistung". All are labeled "Start - u. Notleistung" (Takeoff & Emergency) and have the Manifold pressure next to the fuel type.
I think the "Emergency" part covers the "erhöhte Notleistung".
Crumpp
-
Mando look at Neil's conversion chart. 47.3 = 8.5 lbs per square inch = 1.63 or so ata.
Funked quoted from the a8 manual that 3 types of wep were used.
1. Just runnning a higher ata with no boost agent (I cant recall ata, 1.58 maybe?)
2. C3 - injection
3. GM1
GM1 was never serialized.
Crumpp
You said this:
Looking at the 190A5 chart and a 190A8 using 1.42ata C3 boost the average increase in level speed over 1.32ata is about 25-30 kph.
"Look at the chart" implies the chart in this thread. Neither the A-8 chart Verm posted nor the A-5 chart Mandoble posted in this thread have a curve for C-3 injection.
-
No but they have the Manifold pressure for C3 boost.
I just got an email from the LuftArchive. The pilots handbooks I ordered for the 190A5-9 have been shipped. In addition I have the technical manual for the 190A7 thru 190A9. If they don't answer some of these questions then I will get the BMW-801 Technical Manual.
Crumpp
-
Wotan,
From what I understand. The lines for GM-1 were installed on the 190's from the A5 til the series end. The GM-1 boost system was not available however and not used due to technical problems.
A kit was installed at the Geschwader technical shops for C3 boost which tapped into those lines.
With the A8 GM-1 kits (tank installed, lines are run on the production line) are available for the A/C. It could be installed by the Geschwader maintenance shops.
However there is quite a bit of conflicting information out there on FW-190 boost systems.
Think I will just purchase the BMW 801D-2 manual. Solve a bunch of this speculation. Especially since Pyro is going to be looking at the FM. Might as well get the source and use it.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Mando look at Neil's conversion chart. 47.3 = 8.5 lbs per square inch = 1.63 or so ata.
Then that conversion chart is wrong, 190A5 42.5" MAN would result in 1.46 ata instead 1.42 ata. Our 190A8 is doing exactly 1.58 ata at sea level on WEP.
1 ata = 14.69 psi = 30 MAN"
-
See this thread:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=117523&highlight=Math
1 ata is not 1 ATM (14.69 psi)
1 ata = 1kg/cm^2 = 14.2 lbs/in^2 = 28.96 inHg
An ata is NOT 1 atmosphere.
I learned this just a few months ago myself
-
fyi,
Neil's chart is right
(5.5 psi * 2.04 ) + 29.92 = 41.14 in Hg
41.14 in HG / 28.96 = 1.42 ata
(8.4 psi * 2.04) + 29.92 = 47.056 in Hg
47.056 in Hg / 28.96 = 1.62 ata
In that thread you will see Pyro made the same error you did.
-
Interesting...Thanks for the info.
I always assumed it was Atmosphere Absolute as opposed to ATM. I use ata in my calculations for diving.
Crumpp
-
So did I until I was talking with a guy in il2. I then came here and asked.
BPNZ, HoHun and Butch convinced me.
Pyro believed the same so we are in good company I guess...
-
In that case, any german plane in AH is running with higher MAN than they should.
In any case, the increase on MAN between A5 and A8 just like jumping from 1.42 to 1.58. Asuming our A5 is modeled for 1.42, our A8 will reach no more than 1.58.
-
Huh?
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
Huh?
AH 190A8 is running at 47.2" MAN on WEP. 190A5 at 42.5" MAN on WEP, a difference of 4.7" HG, so 0.16ata.
Asuming our A5 should be doing 1.42 ata on WEP, our A8 is actually doing 1.58ata.
Then, the correct numbers for 190's " MAN should be 41.1" MAN for 190A5 and 45.8" MAN for 190A8, instead of 42.5 and 47.2 respectively.
-
Got it.
Crumpp
-
Most of the German plane's have incorrect MP because I made the incorrect conversion pointed out above. I had my hands too full to go back and correct them all before release and I'm not really too concerned about it right now as I want to see new MP gauges changed to their native units when we do some work on the gauges.
The A8 in AH should be running at 1.58 ata at low blower and 1.65 ata at high blower.
-
Keep truckin on Tour of Duty. All this other stuff can sort itself later after TD's release.
I personally hate the MA and think TD is going to revolutionize. online flight sims. WWII Online is a great concept but they have taken on too big a chunk with trying to do Land, Air, and Sea all at once with today's technology.
Fighter Ace has an excellent concept with it's Territorial Combat but it is not taken to the next level with missions. Nor can a plyer hop in a tank and go after all those AI tanks/troops. Besides the flight Model/views is so cartoonish that it puts FA on the same level as Unreal Tournament or Quake.
I think AH Tour do Duty time has come. The Air war can be simulated very well with some elements of the ground conflict. The mission based element is great and will give the players goals to achieve in the arena. Lots more immersion, Lots of possibilities...
We know you got the 190's on the list and in the mean time we will try and get as much input from knowledgable sources including the spitfire experts in the community. That way we can give the hard facts were they exist and a better best guess on the othersuff. Thanks Again.
Take Care!
Crumpp
-
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=495105506&r=495105506#495105506
Crumpp,
Please take a look at the above web page if you get a chance. I've read your analysis concerning the simulation of relative performance capabilities and how these factors should translate into tactical application.
Energy fighting performance qualities include acceleration, climb, and top speed.
Angles fighting performance qualities include turn performance.
I do not wish to change flight sims, but it is a suprise to find someone who has made the same observation based upon many of the same sources.
-
JG14_Josf,
Give me your email and I will send you some Documentation.
Crumpp
-
josf.kelley@verizon.net
Thanks