Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Misfit on September 10, 2004, 01:23:19 PM
-
Couple of things may or may not need to be looked at?
1) The tinted gun sight is actually making it harder to see targets in specific lighting. I dont know if its the new skins or maybe just my eye sight going bad but i can see targets alot better in allied sights then german.:( Historically i believe the sight could be toggled. Feed back anyone?
2)Flap deployment speeds. I talked to few people and they said this has been brought up in the past and that they were told by pyro that this was going to be fixed? The flaps on 109s and 190s dont deploy until well under 200. Any truth to this?
anyways feedback from the community be good :D
But i will not reply to flames, got no time for it:cool:
-
Misfit....you are correct, a dark glass could be swung in behind the sight to darken the sight in high light conditions.
When on the deck over water the "tinted" LW sight is difficult to see through.
As for speeds when LW can deploy flaps....I unfortunately have no anwer to that. Hopefully someone else does.
-
Originally posted by Misfit
But i will not reply to flames, got no time for it:cool:
See this was your problem. Leaving this sentence out would have generated many more replies :D
All I can say is that my gear will always deploy before my flaps on both 109's and 190's but I have no idea as to whether that is historically correct or not.
-
might i remind you are a dweeb MisFit :D .
But yes i do agree.
-
Well I know for sure that most of the LW aircraft, fighters in general, had a toggable tint option depending on the lighting situation. So if you were in a hot dogfight and you lost your shot because of the glare, would be bad. Whether or not it is like this in AH II im not sure. Bump for answers
-
Weren't 109Gs supposed to outturn P-47Ds pretty easily? And outturn the P-51D by a very small margin?
At least, in AH2 no 109G will outturn any US plane now.
Some say it is because of the flaps - and I fully understand the case if both planes were above the corner speed where flaps would work as a speed break as well as a stability device.
However, when the speed becomes so low(under 200mph) that the 109 can start using own flaps, now the stability issue becomes a huge problem.
No matter how many notches of flaps I pull out, whenever the plane reaches high AoA it will begin to immediately destabilize.
So now, the funny thing is, against a P-47, the 109Gs are outturned at high speeds because they can't use flaps at that speed, and they are also outturned at low speeds, because the 109 flaps does not help at stabilizing the plane at all. The only way to win against a P-51D or a P-47D pilot with simular skill levels at a co-alt engagement, is to do the boring climb-to-alt-advantage bit again and again, and turn the fight into a BnZ.
At all speeds and all alt ranges, all US planes will outturn a Bf109G. There's almost no difference in turning rates for the G-2, G-6 or the G-10 now. They all suck in the same manner.
If this be due to outmaneuvering, and not necessarily "outturning", then all US planes are so stable that it is pretty easy to outmaneuver 109Gs at all speed ranges.
I think either the flap efficiency(particularly the effect of lowering stall speeds) of US planes are much too high, or the flap efficiency of other planes are much too low.
Come to think of it, I've seen the same thing happen with a C.202 vs the Spit14. The Spit14 outturns the C.202 in AH2. The C.202 reacts almost identically to the 109s - it can't hold on to high AoA, with or without flaps.
-
Kwessa,
Flaps do not lower your AOA. They increase it.
Therefore if you are already at a high AOA, adding flaps is never going to help.
The intent of flaps is to increase AOA without increasing the deck angle of the aircraft. It also lowers the stall speed, but a stalled wing is a stalled wing regardless of speed... Therefore if you are hearing a stall horn, you're already in trouble regardless of airspeed.
A side effect of the increased AOA is lift (until you exceed the critical AOA at which point the stall occurs regardless), but it comes at a high drag penalty. Generally speaking if you are dropping in a little 'manuvering' flaps, you want to get that pulled back in ASAP as your speed is going to come down FAST. Low speed and High AOA is quite deadly.
Now, I know a few armchair bandits are going to show up and tell me I'm wrong, so I'm going to count on my fellow real life pilots to back me up here....
But if you have doubts about me being correct here then I'd ask you to explain to me why the spin/stall recovery method in every plane I know of requires you to pull up the flaps... Thats right, those flaps are aggrevating your stall... Why? Increased AOA. Another stall aggitator is a high throttle setting... Most aircraft will pitch up under high throttle settings (and torque left as well) that increased pitch makes the AOA even worse and makes the stall worse too.
The only way to turn well is to keep the wing flying... if you are stalling the wing you are not getting max performance...Flaps or no flaps.
-
Bottom line is flaps deploying at lower speeds then landing gear cant be right. I mean 1 notch before landing gear would be nice.
-
About 190 family, this was posted by Pyro 3 months ago:
"CC, Godo. I'll take a good look at that. At some point hopefully soon, I want to redo the entire series. "
I hope we'll have new 190s in the very near future.
-
Kurt, whatever you may want to be getting at, the fact remains that using flaps for turns is the standard procedure to engage enemy planes in US planes now.
All planes have their limits in the AoA which, if you cross over, you will stall. Planes react differently on the verge of the stall, but some planes react extremely making it easy to handle, while others react benevolently.
Start a turn at 150mph in a P-51 or a P-47, and then gently stomp full rudder to the direction of the turn. The plane holds a tighter turn radius.
Try that in a Spitfire, and the plane initially holds a better turn radius, then slips into a flatspin as the speed drops down.
Try that in a 109, and the plane immediately starts a snaproll.
So okay, Bf109s and Spitfires are light planes with high torque. But what about the P-51s? They weren't exactly torqueless aircraft.
The thing is, all US planes feel like the P-38 now, and to go a step further, maneuvering in the P-51 or the P-47 feels like playing IL2/FB now. The "mushy", "stable", rocking around and maneuvering at super low speeds with flaps out, not much worries about destabilization or torque.
I've tried maneuvering in the 51 or the 47 without flaps to see how much difference it makes, so I'm pretty sure the difference comes from flaps. Whatever is the special ingredient in the flaps that enables the 51 or 47 to do that at 120mph, is not working, for the other planes.
-
Yes I have noticed that US planes turn unusuallyu well now.
And also I would ask that the LW fighters geta clear gunsight, the tinted one makes aming extremely diddicult when you are down low.
-
In WWII wasn't it common knowledge that to try and turn fight with a 109 was suicide in either a Pony or Jug? :(
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Kurt, whatever you may want to be getting at, the fact remains that using flaps for turns is the standard procedure to engage enemy planes in US planes now.
Well yes, but lets not forget that modern planes produce more than their own weight in thrust and use computer controlled flaps and slats. With that much power available the increase in drag is not as apt to pull your speed down a great deal.
The thing is, all US planes feel like the P-38 now, and to go a step further, maneuvering in the P-51 or the P-47 feels like playing IL2/FB now. The "mushy", "stable", rocking around and maneuvering at super low speeds with flaps out, not much worries about destabilization or torque.
I've tried maneuvering in the 51 or the 47 without flaps to see how much difference it makes, so I'm pretty sure the difference comes from flaps. Whatever is the special ingredient in the flaps that enables the 51 or 47 to do that at 120mph, is not working, for the other planes.
There is no doubt that the P51 handles really nice with that first notch of flaps deployed. But that first notch barely deploy's the flap. It was intended for use in this manner. I do not know if that German planes used this kind of flap. If their first notch of flaps is 10 or 15 degrees, then they are not going to work the same as a P51 that is putting in 5 degrees.
Lets not forget that there are a few different types of flaps also.. Some are just not effective for this purpose... The Spitfire flap is a great example. It uses a split flap which creates a great deal more drag than lift. This flap is not going to be as effective as the P51 for increasing turn performance.
-
Bf109 did not have flap "settings" you could dial in anything you wanted... The flaps were controlled from a wheel in the cockpit and there is a history of them being used as "combat" flaps.. Also the Bf109 had the same type of plain flap as P51 did..
-
Thanks Grun, I knew it was the same flap type, what I didnt' know was that the control was as you describe.
So then the question is, how does the game set the flap (since clearly its not the analog variable thing you are describing) what amount of flap is the game putting in at the first 'notch' Clearly its more than you would want simply for performance... Thats something HTC can fix if they take a notion to...
-
You could probably argue the case either way for whether the 109G's could turn better than the P-51's and you could pull pilots from both sides who would claim that their plane was the better.
I think the general concensus is that the P-51 should out turn the 109 at high speeds, but the slower you get the gap narrows then goes the 109's way as you get slower and slower. But I'm just an old recovering AH -51 dweeb so what do I know. :)
-
At least, in AH2 no 109G will outturn any US plane now
sorry kweassa, thats what i thougt to, but i was wrong. had a G10 turn inside of my 38 with full flaps today. we were both low and pretty close to co-e at begining of fight. i thought it was bs, but was informed otherwise. sigh
~S~
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
At least, in AH2 no 109G will outturn any US plane now.
Hmmm.... must be the pilot. I out turn all 51's, f4u's, p47 (Easily) in the 109G10 but DO have problem w/ p38's, f6f/fm2/f4f's. Heck, I turn 'em w/ lala's, but then again, I can turn me110g2 with spit's and win UNLESS they get me in a constant flat turn situation and after 3-4 rounds the spit will get the advantage, and then i'll break and run like the wind!
Give me a 109G10 vs. a 51 or jug any day. Not sure exactly what we are doing different.
-
I had a sweet high-alt P51B vs 109F4 duel not long ago. I thought it was G at first, until he kept up with me. I had to turn slow, as not to lose speed. We were 15k or more. So because we both were trying to keep speed up (~200) we extended a lot, but when I pushed it, and when we slowed down, that 109F4 kept up with me in flat turns. I made some mistakes and lost a flap, an aileron, and my oil, but it was a great fight.
-
Ah yes but there was a reason why the 110 was left out of this topic. The 110 is able to lower its flaps a tad above 200. This is pretty much what i would like to see in the 109s and 190s. Go test it if ya want. The 110 will lower 1 notch flaps about 210 or so but well above the speed to deploy gears.
I am at the point to drop my gear just so i can get to speed to use flaps. I have not done it yet but getting very tempted.
As for the 51. Historically we all know the p51 had a better flap system. The P51 though in not in question. The original topic was 109s and 190s and speeds that they should be able to deploy there flaps.
As for my tinted gun sight, i wonder if i could get HTC to buy me some glasses cause he makin me go blind :p
-
Originally posted by KurtVW
Well yes, but lets not forget that modern planes produce more than their own weight in thrust and use computer controlled flaps and slats. With that much power available the increase in drag is not as apt to pull your speed down a great deal.
He likely meant now as opposed to before the present FM.
-
BTW Lute,
This is not a topic about skill. Talking skill is not gonna help this conversation as there are way to many variables involved when we start talking about fights we have been in.
But on the otherside, the only Widowmaker i've ever seen in german planes is wrag. I didnt think you guys flew german steel :D
-
Originally posted by Hajo
As for speeds when LW can deploy flaps....I unfortunately have no anwer to that. Hopefully someone else does.
Just under 200... for the LW rides...
-
i found 190s much batter now then they where in AH1
-
The modelling for all LW fighters in this game is way off.
1. The 109 did not compress. the pilot could easily adjust the whole horizontal stab with his trim wheel. I suspect that you would cause the structure to fail before it would not pull out of a dive.
2. As Grun stated you could dial in any amount of flap you desired at any speed. Think of the possibilities.
3. The 190 did not tip stall at all and the 190 could hold it's own in a turnfight with the Spit IX. Against the P47 the 190 totally dominated the engagement. The only option the P-47 driver would have was to dive away to save his skin.
4. The MG 151/20mm HE round was equally as effective as the Hispano.
Don't hold your breath on seeing any of these changes implemented. Most players prefer allied aircraft and if I were on board with HTC I wouldn't want to upset my predominant customer base.
-
Originally posted by 4510
Just under 200... for the LW rides...
Plain wrong: 311 mph and 186 mph for real Fw190s, 13 and 57 degrees respectively, way off from current AH settings.
-
Originally posted by Misfit
1) The tinted gun sight is actually making it harder to see targets in specific lighting. I dont know if its the new skins or maybe just my eye sight going bad but i can see targets alot better in allied sights then german.:( Historically i believe the sight could be toggled. Feed back anyone?
AGREE. Turn the tint off, if it was removable IRL. Planes are hard to see even in broad daylight at d200 unless they are completely backdropped by the sky. Twilight...absolutely invisible.
Theoretically if the tint was toggleable IRL , we should have a key for toggling it. In practice, we never want to toggle it on anyway, because there is no glare in this game (except for full screen "sun glare"). Same issue I described in another thread, brightness of the monitor is limited.
Originally posted by Misfit
2)Flap deployment speeds. I talked to few people and they said this has been brought up in the past and that they were told by pyro that this was going to be fixed? The flaps on 109s and 190s dont deploy until well under 200. Any truth to this?
Agree on this too, if it was the case IRL. Don't know myself, but several ppl above seem to know.
-
Originally posted by storch
4. The MG 151/20mm HE round was equally as effective as the Hispano.
In muzzle velocity, damaging power, or both?
-
2. As Grun stated you could dial in any amount of flap you desired at any speed.
Source?
3. The 190 did not tip stall at all and the 190 could hold it's own in a turnfight with the Spit IX.
Source?
Against the P47 the 190 totally dominated the engagement.
Which model of 190?
-
Originally posted by ra
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. As Grun stated you could dial in any amount of flap you desired at any speed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source?
The 109 does not have an electric switch or knob for flaps. The flaps seem to be controlled by the wheel next to the elevator trim wheel (left side of cockpit, by the seat). Want more flaps? Turn it more. Completely analog. No preset "13 degrees, 25 degrees" stuff. Want just a little? Turn it just a little. Etc.
Completely customizable, in real life.
-
Originally posted by ra
Source?
Source?
Which model of 190?
#1. go sit in the cockpit of any 109, it's pretty common knowledge.
#2. The British and USAAC tests performed had the Ailerons mis-adjusted when later on captured German personnel adjusted the ailerons the results were remarkably different from the first tests. this also is fairly common knowledge.
#3. USAAC tests in 1944 came to this conclusion and reported those very findings. once again fairly common knowledge.
I'll see if a squaddie, Crumpp will be able to post his data for me as I'm too stupid to do so myself.
-
Originally posted by phookat
In muzzle velocity, damaging power, or both?
IIRC the Hispano 20mm had a higher muzzle velocity but did not have the explosive power of the German mine munition.
-
Originally posted by storch
IIRC the Hispano 20mm had a higher muzzle velocity but did not have the explosive power of the German mine munition.
And do we have mines for AH 151/20s?
-
Originally posted by storch
3. The 190 did not tip stall at all
(http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/aleirons.jpg)
-
Originally posted by GODO
Plain wrong: 311 mph and 186 mph for real Fw190s, 13 and 57 degrees respectively, way off from current AH settings.
Well GODO take me out back of the woodshed and beat my butt..... but on the way I'm going to be screaming....
I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT REAL LIFE I WAS TALKING ABOUT HOW THEY DEPLOY IN AH2.
:rolleyes:
-
Sorry 4510
-
Let me try again:
2. As Grun stated you could dial in any amount of flap you desired at any speed.
Source?
3. The 190 did not tip stall at all and the 190 could hold it's own in a turnfight with the Spit IX.
Source?
Against the P47 the 190 totally dominated the engagement.
Which model of 190?
-
Let me just voice in my opinions here:
- Flaps: Flaps' effect on AoA is negligible, the only device moddeled in AH2 that will allow a higher AoA than the normal wing is the leading edge slats (and slot on 163). Flaps only add lift and drag. Planes in AH2 that have slats are predominately German and Russian.
- Flaps on 190s: Crumpp provided evidence some time ago on the deployment speeds of the 190's flaps. I believe the speeds GODO posted in this thread are correct.
- Snap rolling and 190s: The 190s did snap roll, but it didn't "mush" when it was close to a stall. The 190 was stable right up to the point of stall, and didn't give any warning to the pilot that he was nearing a stall.
- GODO, "premature stalling" is not the same as snap rolling. The 190s were notorious for their vicious snap roll.
- 109 handling: The 109s should be very easy to push to the limit. Every pilot anecdote I've read says that the 109 was very easy to handle in the air and compared favourably to the handling characteristics of the Spitfire, albeit with better control harmonization. Stall characteristics were gentle, and spins were easily recoverable.
It did have two important vices however; the controls got heavy in high-speed dives, but not more so than that the pilot could pull out of the dive using both hands. Due to a "toe-in" of the main wheels the 109 was very directional unstable on the ground, and when landing any tendency to turn had to be immediately corrected to avoid ground looping. A three-point landing was highly preferable since the locked tail-wheel would help greatly. Taxiing and take-off was normal though.
- There is anecdotal evidence that both 109 and 190 pilots used flaps in combat, but it was not a standard procedure, and the flaps were not specifically designed for this.
- No model 190 could turn with a Spit IX in sustained low-speed turns. In high-speed turns both aircraft are able to pull blackout turns.
- No model 109 could turn with a Spit IX in sustained low-speed turns, with one notable exception: The 109F-4 should be very close, but not quite there. In AH2 the 109F-4 turns poorly.
- I have my own concerns about the modelling of the 109 and 190, but that's more of a 3D model issue. Both the 109 and 190 flew in a "nose-down" attitude which allowed for better view over the nose. The 109's engine was mounted low due to the inverted-V design of the DB, and the 190's wings had a rather large angle of incidence (angle between wings and the length of the fuselage) that made it fly in a nose-down attitude at operational speeds.
A drawing that depicts the angle of the BF109 and Spit XIV in flight. Note the low nose of the 109.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/245_1095033241_6108078.bf109k4_and_spit_lf_xive.jpg)
In this frame from a video of a 109 cockpit the camera is looking well over the line of sight down at the propeller. Note the high placement of the Revi gun sight.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/245_1095034100_109cocpitview.jpg)
In this screenshot of the AH2 109G-10 you can clearly see that the gun sight is mounted too low, and that the engine cowling obscures the view.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/245_1095035403_ahss0copy.jpg)
While it is true that the 109's cockpit was narrow and a "tight fit" for many pilots, the notion that there was little room under the canopy is just a popular myth.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/245_1095033311_12103613.erlahaube.jpg)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Both the 109 and 190 flew in a "nose-down" attitude which allowed for better view over the nose. The 109's engine was mounted low due to the inverted-V design of the DB, and the 190's wings had a rather large angle of incidence (angle between wings and the length of the fuselage) that made it fly in a nose-down attitude at operational speeds.
A drawing that depicts the angle of the BF109 and Spit XIV in flight. Note the low nose of the 109.
In this frame from a video of a 109 cockpit the camera is looking well over the line of sight down at the propeller. Note the high placement of the Revi gun sight.
In this screenshot of the AH2 109G-10 you can clearly see that the gun sight is mounted too low, and that the engine cowling obscures the view.
Good point GScholz. I'd like to see this fixed too.
-
And how about realistic cockpits? That'd be nice.
-
So a rehetorical question ... will they fix all this... even with the information being given to them?
-
GODO is correct on the flap deployment speeds and settings.
That comes right out of the Flugzeug-Handbuch.
For the FW-190A5 vs P47D4 (P47D11 without the performance robbing hardpoint) see:
http://prodocs.netfirms.com/
There is a copy of the RAF tactical trials of Faber's FW-190A3. In it you can view the engine settings and A/C setup vs the Spitfire Mk IX we have in AH.
- GODO, "premature stalling" is not the same as snap rolling. The 190s were notorious for their vicious snap roll.
Correct. The 190 had two distinct stalls. It's low speed stall was fairly gentle with the plane simply dipping one wing. It could be made to stall at any speed however by jerking the controls too hard. In an aggravated stall it the plane would practically invert and left unchecked would enter a spin. It also recovered quickly from that stall. What GODO is referring too is the fact the AH FW-190A5 is modeled after the US Navy tactical trials of an FW-190A5/U4 vs. Corsair/Hellcat. In that test the FW-190 was outturned by an extremely wide margin. Both A/C could outturn it in less than one turning circle. It is noted that the ailerons vibrated, reversed in the turn and stalled before reaching stall speed.
The FW-190A5/U4 was a recovered wreck that required repair work to the wings, engine, and electrical system. The engine would not idle and fouled plugs and the quit running three times on the attempt to climb to altitude. The aircraft never made it anywhere near it's rated service ceiling.
No other tactical trials of the FW-190 mention anything about aileron vibration or reversal except the Luftwaffe tactical trials between an FW-190A2 vs. Bf-109F4 and the US Navy trials.
The Luftwaffe trials warn against improper setting of the grip proof tips will cause vibration and premature stalling in the turns.
The US Navy notes aileron vibration and stalling in the turns.
The FW-190 was not a turn fighter but it was far from "unmanuverable". It couldn't outturn a Spitfire but it certainly could turn better than the US Navy trials showed.
Wing loading is not the only measure of turn performance. Look at the P47D. It's wing loading is around 43 lb/sqft and the FW-190A5's is 45.9lbs. Yet the FW-190 at low speeds easily outturns the Jug.
As far as drag goes:
http://www.thetongsweb.net/AH/EAAjanuary1999.pdf
FW-190A8 at 1.42ata@2700U/min
Step A - Enter Aircraft dimension Data
Wing area S (sq. feet) - 196.96
Airplane weight, lbs (as tested) - 9418
Wing span, ft - 34.45
Step B - performance #s at a known altitude
Altitude (feet) - 4500
Maximum speed (at test alt.- mph) - 356
Engine Horsepower (bhp at test alt) - 1745
Stall speed (mph, at test alt) - 110
speed (mph TAS)
300
speed (fps)
440
CL
0.237567
D(p)
935.3667
D(i)
136.9862
CL^2
0.056438
CD(tot)
0.02705
Drag (tot)
1072.3529 @310mph - 1127.045 @315mph - 1155.4773
thrust (lb)
1699.492
excess power (bhp)
627.1391
P.E.
0.779137
Spitfire Mk IX Merlin 66 (+25)
Step A - Enter Aircraft dimension Data
Wing area S (sq. feet) - 242
Airplane weight, lbs (as tested) - 7400
Wing span, ft - 36.1
Step B - performance #s at a known altitude
Altitude (feet) - 4500
Maximum speed (at test alt.- mph) - 366
Engine Horsepower (bhp at test alt) - 1945
Stall speed (mph, at test alt) - 90
speed (mph TAS)
300
speed (fps)
440
CL
0.151922
D(p)
996.2789
D(i)
75.20623
CL^2
0.02308
CD(tot)
0.021998
Drag (tot)
1071.4852 @ 310mph - 1134.2264 @ 315mph - 1166.5965
thrust (lb)
1894.276
excess power (bhp)
822.7911
P.E.
0.779137
All Spitfire data comes from here:
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit9.html
The faster you go the more the total drag swings in the FW-190A's favor. The parasitic drag always favors the FW-190.
Also seems to me that the FW-190 also has less braking forces per mass acting on it.
So I would say David Lednicer's conclusions were correct.
For the Spitfire Mk IX Merlin 61 we have in AH:
Step A - Enter Aircraft dimension Data
Wing area S (sq. feet) - 242
Airplane weight, lbs (as tested) - 7480
Wing span, ft - 36.1
Step B - performance #s at a known altitude
Altitude (feet) - 15400
Maximum speed (at test alt.- mph) - 380.5
Engine Horsepower (bhp at test alt) - 1565
Stall speed (mph, at test alt) - 90
Total Drag - 795.641828 @ 440 fps
Parasitic drag - 687.4074265
FW-190A5
Step A - Enter Aircraft dimension Data
Wing area S (sq. feet) - 196.96
Airplane weight, lbs (as tested) - 9052
Wing span, ft - 34.45
Step B - performance #s at a known altitude
Altitude (feet) - 15400
Maximum speed (at test alt.- mph) - 394
Engine Horsepower (bhp at test alt) - 1420
Stall speed (mph, at test alt) - 110
Total Drag -718.2845242@ 440 fps
Parasitic drag - 540.0383219
Only JB 275, a Spitfire Mk VIII, and MA 648, a Spitfire Mk IX with an experimental air intake, have less overall drag throughout the flight envelope. The FW 190 always has less parasitic drag. In turns under 4 G's and the faster you go the more the FW-190 gains an overall drag advantage over the Spitfire.
Oswald's efficiency factor was calculated using:
e = 1*1.78*(1-0.0455*AR^0.68)-0.64
The Formula found in "Subsonic Drag Estimation Methods" Cavallo, B., U.S. Naval Air Development Center Rept NADC-AW-6604, 1966.
The 1935 formula from Wood was used at the time these aircraft were designed is:
e = 1/(0.9676+0.033*AR)
And yields the same conclusions.
I have my own concerns about the modeling of the 109 and 190, but that's more of a 3D model issue. Both the 109 and 190 flew in a "nose-down" attitude, which allowed for better view over the nose. The 109's engine was mounted low due to the inverted-V design of the DB, and the 190's wings had a rather large angle of incidence (angle between wings and the length of the fuselage) that made it fly in a nose-down attitude at operational speeds.
Your absolutely right, Gscholz. The FW-190 had a 2-degree angle of incidence and adopted a nose down attitude in "level" flight. The RAF tactical trials noticed a 60% better sighting view than the Spitfire. Included in it is a chart for various angles and speeds.
The FW-190 required a very gentle touch on the controls due to its light stick forces. Couple of points besides it's stall characteristics made it a very difficult aircraft to fight.
1. The stick forces were extremely light (6-8lbs) up until around 350mph where they suddenly heavied up to around 40 lbs. Much lighter than the average WWII fighter but the force changeover was sudden and dramatic. The controls remained well harmonized throughout. So light in fact that Heinrich Beauvias, a FW factory test pilot, had trouble transitioning "concrete stick" 109 pilots. One 109 pilot could not loop the 190 at any speed. He was using too much control input and the plane would simply nose up and fall to the side.
2. The elevator was very "heavy" but very sensitive, in other words hard to get a feel for it and be precise. It was very easy to "mush" your speed on the pull out by giving too much elevator. Combine this with the sudden stick force changes and it requires skill to fight.
3. Lastly the FW-190 developed a "marked nose down attitude" at 220 mph in a dive when trimmed for level flight that "must have been scary" when fighting close to the ground.
One last control note. The rudder on the FW-190 was very effective and it is noted in the Luftwaffe tactical trials that the 190 could reverse much faster than the 109.
Pyro is going to take a look at the FW-190's flight model when things slow down at HTC.
Hope this helps!
Crumpp
-
Flaps are for sissies and cripples what are you a sissy cripple!
You fly LW planes you are pre destined to lose don't you understand that's why we have to rely on our superior flying abilites due to the lack of aerodynamic misbehaviour of the evil German planes.
:D
Don't VEE EIN GHOURLIE MANN!
ok sorry carry on.
-
Originally posted by 4510
So a rehetorical question ... will they fix all this... even with the information being given to them?
Yes they will :D In two weeks :D
-
GScholz,
Can i get that gun sight from ya in that pic? :D
-
Yes they will In two weeks
That sounds a bit early, we haven't finnished beta testing version 1 yet. :aok
-
Originally posted by Misfit
GScholz,
Can i get that gun sight from ya in that pic? :D
Sure :)
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/245_1095077408_gsdefaultlarge.zip
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
All planes have their limits in the AoA which, if you cross over, you will stall. Planes react differently on the verge of the stall, but some planes react extremely making it easy to handle, while others react benevolently.
This is true..and only applies to axis planes..when flaps down they are pigs unlike allied planes.
-
GScholz,
The Spitfire in your diagram is not a Spitfire Mk XIV. It has a Merlin engine. The Mk XIV had a Griffon engine and had 2 or 3 degree better visibility over the nose.
The Spitfire in your picture appears to be a Spitfire LF.Mk XVIe powered by a Merlin 266.
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/245_1095033241_6108078.bf109k4_and_spit_lf_xive.jpg)
Good god is the spitfire an ugly and unwieldy airplane compared to that Messerscmitt.. And dammit I want flettner tabs on our late AH 109 ailerons.. :)
-
Grun,
You got one of those scale drawings with an FW-190 and a Spitfire Mk IX?
Especially the front view.
Crumpp
-
Nope
-
There was a gigantic discussion in IL2/FB boards about the 190 visibility over the nose. Lots of pics and diagrams and stuff.
(except, the UBI discussion boards don't support search functions, and its gonna be hell going through all that)
-
Thanks Kweassa.
I was actually looking to demonstrate the intake areas. If you look at a scale drawing of the Spitfire Mk IX it has just as much "intake" area as the FW-190. Instead of two squares under the wing, the FW-190 has one circle at the nose.
Combine that with it's physically larger size and it is easy to see why the Spitfire has more drag when you do the math.
Crumpp
-
S! fellas,
Another good conversation. I have enjoyed reading the input as usual.
But can we get someone from HTC to throw us a cookie in here on the 2 topics?
Summary
Tinted gunsight
Flap speed deployment on 190s and 109s.:confused:
-
Originally posted by Krusty
I had a sweet high-alt P51B vs 109F4 duel not long ago. I thought it was G at first, until he kept up with me. I had to turn slow, as not to lose speed. We were 15k or more. So because we both were trying to keep speed up (~200) we extended a lot, but when I pushed it, and when we slowed down, that 109F4 kept up with me in flat turns. I made some mistakes and lost a flap, an aileron, and my oil, but it was a great fight.
Sounds like a fight I had in my 109f-4 with a P51b not so long ago :)
-
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWfocke190.htm (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWfocke190.htm)
"After firing a burst of tracer at me he bore down on Martell. Yes, it certainly was one-the short wings, the
radial engine, the long transparent hood: the square-cut tail-plane all in one piece! But what had been missing from the photos was the lively colouring-the pale yellow body, the greyish green back, the big black crosses outlined in white. The photos gave no hint of the quivering of the wings, the outline elongated and fined down by the speed, the curious nose-down flying attitude."
-
its realy easy to understand why the LW planes are misdone
its because HTC IS A SPIT DWEEB!:p
-
Don't hold your breath on seeing any of these changes implemented. Most players prefer allied aircraft and if I were on board with HTC I wouldn't want to upset my predominant customer base.
I prefer historical accuracy above all else. If the Luftwaffe planes flew better I am sure that more people would fly them. As it is you still see lots of 109's and 190's in the air.
-
Well.. here's what I dug up with for what it's worth. Concerning the nose-down flight attitude and line of sight.
(http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A4-48s.jpg)
(http://members.lycos.co.uk/christiandrexler/dens/nosedown_attitude_marked.jpg)
(http://members.lycos.co.uk/christiandrexler/dens/fw190_sightlines_blank.jpg)
(http://www.zmogausteises.lt/fb/draw.jpg)
-
Originally posted by simshell
its realy easy to understand why the LW planes are misdone
its because HTC IS A SPIT DWEEB!:p
As I recall, HT used to fly the FW mostly.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
As I recall, HT used to fly the FW mostly.
I remember some old AW films of him in a Hog. Always figured he was a hawg man, because that was one of the first 2 planes modelled in WB.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Sounds like a fight I had in my 109f-4 with a P51b not so long ago :)
If it was you, sorry I disappeared so quickly... When you shot off 1 aileron and 1 flap, the flap was deployed 3 levels. Naturally my FIRST instinct was to retract the other flap. However a flap shot off when deployed still affects airflow (is a bug), so that put me into a spinning dive that I could not correct becuase I only had 1 aileron (not enough force to counter the flap's lift). So by the time I realized I was in trouble, chopped throttle, and slowed down enough to lower my remaining flap to 3 levels, I had dropped about 10k and decided to limp home.
And limp I did!! Had to lose a lot of alt without picking up too much speed (3 levels of flaps = crap for flying)
-
As I recall, HT used to fly the FW mostly.
Last time I saw HT up and flying it was in a PT boat at about 5k and time before that it was an F6F... I've never seen HT in any LW plane.
-
I have, he even gave mye a test ride in Me262 before it was relesed.. :)
-
Originally posted by VWE
Last time I saw HT up and flying it was in a PT boat at about 5k and time before that it was an F6F... I've never seen HT in any LW plane.
Back in the old, old, old, old, days me, HT, Killer, Anvil, and a bunch of others of the same mold usually drove FW's. At least that's what I recall.
Not sure about what he flew after AW. And, of course, in AW choice wasn't as great nor as historically accurate.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Back in the old, old, old, old, days me, HT, Killer, Anvil, and a bunch of others of the same mold usually drove FW's. At least that's what I recall.
Not sure about what he flew after AW. And, of course, in AW choice wasn't as great nor as historically accurate.
And the FWa8 was the KING of drive by shootings!
Were are
Moggy
Blue Baron
Killer
Twist
Drum
Bebop
et al?
-
Originally posted by 4510
And the FWa8 was the KING of drive by shootings!
Were are
Moggy
Blue Baron
Killer
Twist
Drum
Bebop
et al?
BB was a 109 guy.
I seem to recall Moggy and Ketchup in Hawgs.
Twist and Killer were a Fw drivers.
Can't recall for sure the others.
-DoK
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
BB was a 109 guy.
I seem to recall Moggy and Ketchup in Hawgs.
Twist and Killer were a Fw drivers.
Can't recall for sure the others.
-DoK
Oh I drifted off the topic of 190s... I just wondered WHERE they were... in real life...
-
The Fw190 does fly in a nose down attitude in AH2, that is not the problem ...
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/245_1095318753_ahss1copy.jpg)
... the problem is that so does its pilot and guns ...
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/245_1095318781_ahss2copy.jpg)
... unlike other planes.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/245_1095318807_ahss3copy.jpg)
-
The drawing above shows a -4.2 degree line of sight for the pilot. Does anyone have line of sight for any other planes? This must have been a standard thing to measure in a fighter.
ra
-
ra,
I've seen them for the Spitfire, but I don't have them. I noted that AH Spitfire seemed to have a better over the nose view than the real Merlin Spitfire. The Griffon Spitfires were a bit better than the Merlin Spitfires.
One difference seemed to be the position of the gunsight in the real Spit. It is significantly lower in the real Spit as compared to the AH Spit.
-
I'VE BEEN HIJACKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:p
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The Fw190 does fly in a nose down attitude in AH2, that is not the problem ...... the problem is that so does its pilot and guns ...
... unlike other planes.
Guns, gunsight, pilot, wings or all of them are misplaced in 190s. BTW, our 190A/D 3D revi sight is almost half the size of the real one.
-
Originally posted by ra
The drawing above shows a -4.2 degree line of sight for the pilot.
Prodocs documents indicated -5 degrees nose-line of sight for Fw190. Sadly prodocs url is not working anymore.
-
Originally posted by GODO
Guns, gunsight, pilot, wings or all of them are misplaced in 190s. BTW, our 190A/D 3D revi sight is almost half the size of the real one.
Still not as bad as the "somewhere over the rainbow" gunsights on our Yak's and La's.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Still not as bad as the "somewhere over the rainbow" gunsights on our Yak's and La's.
What do you mean by this statement? That the gunsights in the Las and Yaks are too good or too poor?
-
Originally posted by 4510
Oh I drifted off the topic of 190s... I just wondered WHERE they were... in real life...
Oh ... well Killer founded WW2OL (something-rat studios or playtime-something ... I forget which name they used) so he's still in Texas.
I'm told BB is in Austin someplace.
Moggy you see on the BBS here so he can say where he is.
I've lost track of the rest pretty much.
-DoK
-
Originally posted by Karnak
What do you mean by this statement? That the gunsights in the Las and Yaks are too good or too poor?
Too far away from the default seat position - you gotta move your view position so far forward to get the gunsight to a usable size that the cockpit framing takes up so much of your fwd view.
-
I guess the real question is now, will any of this ever get fixed?
I think HTC is doing what he can. I believe he is trying with all the changes that have been taking place. I also dont really think we need a new plane until the old ones are tuned.
Gonzo,
from what i read at your site we sound alot alike in flying styles, so when did you become a yak fan? :p
-
I think HTC is doing what he can. I believe he is trying with all the changes that have been taking place. I also dont really think we need a new plane until the old ones are tuned.
There is no doubt HTC is doing all they can and that things will be modeled as realistically as they can make them on a computer.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Misfit
...
Gonzo,
from what i read at your site we sound alot alike in flying styles, so when did you become a yak fan? :p
I always felt that the Russian planes were poorly represented given their qualities, volume of production, and effectiveness. Especially since the majority of MA combat happens below 10K, where Soviet aircraft were built to dominate.
It took years before AW had any Russian plane, and even then it was modelled very badly. I forget how long I campaign to get the La-7 to once and for all end the dominance of the Spit. And, given what it's done in AH ... I guess that was a pretty accurate call. ;)
-DoK
-
It took years before AW had any Russian plane, and even then it was modelled very badly. I forget how long I campaign to get the La-7 to once and for all end the dominance of the Spit. And, given what it's done in AH ... I guess that was a pretty accurate call.
Interesting thread on the "dominance" of VVS planes at low altitude.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=96545&highlight=German+Test+La5
IMO, with the exception of the Yak 3 and the La 7, we see mostly the result of Soviet Propaganda and a lack of data.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Oh ... well Killer founded WW2OL (something-rat studios or playtime-something ... I forget which name they used) so he's still in Texas.
I'm told BB is in Austin someplace.
Moggy you see on the BBS here so he can say where he is.
I've lost track of the rest pretty much.
-DoK
I have never seen Moggy....
MOGGY WHERE ARE YOU ?
-
Good idea of the sighting view in the FW-190:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1095462127_sightingviewgif.gif)
:p
Crumpp
-
Crumpp you don't happen to have one like this one, that's taken from low enough to see the pilot's face only as low as the eyes?
-
No, that picture is more of a joke. That is Unteroffizer Albert Licht in FW-190A8 "Yellow 8" March of 1945 in the Courland pocket.
He's Goofing off for his Girlfriend having his crew chief snap a few "hooah" pics.
Crumpp
-
Ya well in the mean time i still cant see **** through the tinted gunsight :(
O and Gonzo if you are the man that made the LA7 possible for us , let me be the 1st to thank you officially, :D because it's obvious that flight sims were in real need of this plane!
-
Originally posted by Misfit
...
O and Gonzo if you are the man that made the LA7 possible for us , let me be the 1st to thank you officially, :D because it's obvious that flight sims were in real need of this plane!
If bases weren't so close, or people not so willing to have 1-way flights, the La-7 would be used more in the interceptor role instead of as a vultch-beast.
I usually drive the La-5 anyway.
-DoK
-
I use a dora or a G10 to drive the La7's away...
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
I use a dora or a G10 to drive the La7's away...
Crumpp
Yeah ... I only use the La-5 for sort of proximity defense ... when the furball is a half sector from base and low. Lets me get in and out well.
-
ya, i flew the La-5 last night for the 1st time. This plane is Awesome. the eny value alone makes it worth flying.
Maybe i should ditch the german squad and start a VVS squad :D
-
I want to add some stuff to this...
am sure that some of the opposition would have some question as to my answers but in general I believe all but the best German aces would agree with my answers.
In short we did everything better than the Me-109 or the FW-190. Toward the end of the war, they introduced newer models with larger engines and sometimes the answer is not that clear. The TA-152 (Varient of FW-190) could fly higher and faster than the P-51 at most higher altitudes but they got very few into the war.
But for the average Me-109 and FW 190 that we encountered, we were faster at all altitudes, we climbed better (some claim this is not true), and we flew far higher than the FW-190 and about to the same height as a Me-109 (41,??? feet). The long nosed FW-190 is a question mark as several P-51 pilots stated it ran away from them at various altitudes. I do not know BUT when 4 of us bounced 40 of them at 30,000 feet, we did everything better than they did. Outturned, outsped and outclimbed them. We destroyed 4 of them and they got none of us. I even have the names of the ones we killed. The Czechs found the aircraft (3 FW 190Ds and 1 FW 190A-8)with the pilots still in them. Eventually I found myself alone with them (25 or so) and after several minutes, it started getting too hot for me and I broke for home. Some 190Ds (12 - 15??) chased me to the Alps but could not catch me.
Initially when we got the P-51, they would stay and fight with us but then it got to the point that when we bounced them, even if they outnumbered us, they would normally break for the deck and we had to chase, catch, and destroy them.
If Hitler had allowed the Me-262 to be used from the beginning as a fighter rather than a fighter-bomber, the situation could have become much more complicated.
As I have said before, the quality of the pilot had a great deal to do with the outcome of the encounter. I recall one Luftwaffe pilot who admitted the Spitfire could outturn the 109 but then added that no Spit ever outturned him. It would seem to me that the area where the 109 was better, was in its ability to fly at a lower airspeed than we could and climb very well. With the 190, it took a lot of punishment, had a high rate of roll, and could climb at a very steep attitude which if we followed brought us down too far below our best climb speed. Four of our guys reported such an incident in which the FW-190s were able to stay ahead of our birds and each time we would raise our nose to take a shot at them, our bird would stall. An interesting tactic.
Cordially, Art
-
But for the average Me-109 and FW 190 that we encountered, we were faster at all altitudes, we climbed better (some claim this is not true), and we flew far higher than the FW-190 and about to the same height as a Me-109 (41,??? feet). The long nosed FW-190 is a question mark as several P-51 pilots stated it ran away from them at various altitudes.
The P51 was by and far the most dangerous opponent for the LW IMO. Much more so than the Spitfire.
Nice Pilot stories. Start lining up specifics and things are quite different. Going through that now in my research. Running into plenty of "pilot anecdotes" that when you stack up the facts from both sides the stories just do not play out.
Example - One Spitfire Squadron in Italy 1943 claims to have been bounced by FW-190's while shooting up Italian transports coming from N. Africa. They turned the table and did well against the "FW-190's".
Unfortunately there were NO FW-190 fighters even in the theater much less escorting foreign allied transports. The only FW-190's around were on the other side of the med attacking ground targets and belonged to a dedicated ground attack unit.
Now there were Reggia 2002's in the vicinty and plenty of Macchi 202's.
Another example. Some FW-190's encounter "P40's" and a large dogfight ensues. One pilot in particular files claims for EIGHT P40's. Turns out they were Italian Macchi 202's and only 3 were damaged in the encounter. All landed safely and were pissed!
It is very easy to go to both sides and get tons of "our planes rocked" data. Are they lying? No of course not. They are simply telling the truth from one particular point of view. Got an interview with an FW-190 pilot tonight. Sure I will get some great stories!
Thanks for sharing!
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
The P51 was by and far the most dangerous opponent for the LW IMO. Much more so than the Spitfire.
Nice Pilot stories. Start lining up specifics and things are quite different. Going through that now in my research. Running into plenty of "pilot anecdotes" that when you stack up the facts from both sides the stories just do not play out.
Example - One Spitfire Squadron in Italy 1943 claims to have been bounced by FW-190's while shooting up Italian transports coming from N. Africa. They turned the table and did well against the "FW-190's".
Unfortunately there were NO FW-190 fighters even in the theater much less escorting foreign allied transports. The only FW-190's around were on the other side of the med attacking ground targets and belonged to a dedicated ground attack unit.
Now there were Reggia 2002's in the vicinty and plenty of Macchi 202's.
Another example. Some FW-190's encounter "P40's" and a large dogfight ensues. One pilot in particular files claims for EIGHT P40's. Turns out they were Italian Macchi 202's and only 3 were damaged in the encounter. All landed safely and were pissed!
It is very easy to go to both sides and get tons of "our planes rocked" data. Are they lying? No of course not. They are simply telling the truth from one particular point of view. Got an interview with an FW-190 pilot tonight. Sure I will get some great stories!
Thanks for sharing!
Crumpp
Actually,
He is friends with one of the 109 pilots he faced in one air battle. He is trying to get contact info for me. I posted a picture of them in the CT bbs. I do agree that there is a lot of "our planes rocked" but these guys took these planes to the limit in a life or death situations...
They would know the performance of there planes better than anyone else... I hope you understand what I mean.. Facts are facts... but it's not the same thing when you're flying that plane. I only wish I could have had that chance...
I can get info on the P-40F in the MTO from one of the top 325th ace, I have emailed back and forth with him a couple of times... I try not to push him, but he is a great guy with a wealth of knowledge.
-
I do agree that there is a lot of "our planes rocked" but these guys took these planes to the limit in a life or death situations...
No doubt they did and I am not taking a thing away from their abilities or bravery.
There is nothing in the world like combat and no way to describe it adequately to those have not been under hostile fire.
They would know the performance of there planes better than anyone else...
However the "reality" we experience in that situation is not always the ground truth and you will be hard pressed to find a pilot who talks bad about the plane that saved his life everyday.
You may know your equipment but you certainly do not know the enemies or their level of skill at using it.
If you study LW casualties, the Pre-1943 trained pilots took casualties at a steady rate throughout the war with a surprisingly slight increase the last years of the war.
The Post-1943 trained pilots died like flies and sustained an almost 98 percent casualty rate. If they could survive their first six missions, their chances of surviving the whole war went up astronomically.
The Luftwaffe had very competitive fighters. They did not have easy fighters to fight nor did the tactics they used come naturally.
Energy fighting takes knowledge and discipline. It is not natural to loose sight of the enemy on the reversal or to let them go and extend. It is much more natural to lock your eyes on the enemy and follow them around the sky until they come into your gunsite.
Give the NASM a call and tell them how "crappy" and "poor" performing Luftwaffe fighters were in WWII.
They just finished restoring a BMW-801D and a BMW-801TS.
Crumpp