Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: SunTracker on November 10, 2004, 01:21:50 PM
-
The Fw-190 concept was a small lightweight airframe with a powerful engine. So why did the 190 turn so poorly?
-
The FW 190 was designed for speed, with a highly aerodynamic, and rather small airframe. The wings were small sized, which meant less drag, but less lift as well. And less lift leads to poorer turning abilities... actually in the early design stage a small and a larger wing style were both considered, the latter being accepted for production because of its nicer handling qualities.
-
Originally posted by VO101_Isegrim
The FW 190 was designed for speed, with a highly aerodynamic, and rather small airframe. The wings were small sized, which meant less drag, but less lift as well. And less lift leads to poorer turning abilities... actually in the early design stage a small and a larger wing style were both considered, the latter being accepted for production because of its nicer handling qualities.
The La-5/7 had less wing area than the Fw190 and it would turn quite well. :cool:
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
The La-5/7 had less wing area than the Fw190 and it would turn quite well. :cool:
Thats because Soviet designers were quite clearly far superior to their german counterparts. It is why the germans struggled with the under-par 109 for so many years without an adequate replacement.
-
lightweight airframe
It was not that lightweight. The original engine, the BMW 139 was lighter than the engine that ended up in the design, the BMW 801 series.
The BMW 139 was dropped because of overheating issues that could not be solved, availability, and it's development potential was not as high as the 801 series, AFAIK.
Another issue that effects the FW-190 in flight sims only. Turning ability is not the measure of a fighters manuverability. It is only how tight a turn it can enter once the pilot gets the plane into a bank. As one RAF pilot put it "Turning does not win air battles". Even Galland became frustrated with the RLM's facsination with turning. Turning is a part of the manuverability picture but not the entire picture. Wingloading and power loading are the primary characteristics that determine turning ability.
The other part of manuerability is agility. Shaw defines that as "the ability to change the direction of your lift vector". The primary characteristic for that is roll rate.
The third part of the picture is the "entangable" as Boyd put it. I encourage you to read up on the USAAF lightweight fighter development program. Some interesting things came out of the F18 and F16 trials.
The last thing is manuvering flaps. The FW-190 had them and the pilots used them. At 2 G's they lowered the stall to about 140mph and greatly improved the turn. They did not turn it into a Zeke by any means but allowed it to deal with USAAF Fighters with combat flaps.
Crumpp
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
The La-5/7 had less wing area than the Fw190 and it would turn quite well. :cool:
And the Lavochkin was also a ton ligther...
-
Originally posted by Crumpp
The last thing is manuvering flaps. The FW-190 had them and the pilots used them. At 2 G's they lowered the stall to about 140mph and greatly improved the turn. They did not turn it into a Zeke by any means but allowed it to deal with USAAF Fighters with combat flaps.
Not again Crumpp. :rolleyes:
The Fw 190, from the Handbook, had 3 positions: IN, OUT, and TAKEOFF. Now if you want to call the TO position 'manuvering' fine but then reword you statement to reflect their real use.
I can see this book starting untold new myths re. the Fw190.
-
From Furbie:
"Thats because Soviet designers were quite clearly far superior to their german counterparts. It is why the germans struggled with the under-par 109 for so many years without an adequate replacement."
Hehe, I smell a bait, good thing I'm not a fish.
On the eastern front the 109 and 190 were by no means under-par, the Russians didn't catch up with them untill late late in the war.
Look at the Armament and Speed, say 190A vs LaGG-3 in 1943 :D
And 190's would actually turnfight with US fighters, but it could be a dicey deal......utterly depending on pilots and load.
I bet them P51's gave them a hard time sometimes.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
And the Lavochkin was also a ton ligther...
Those Russians sure knew how to make wooden a/c. Light, strong, nimble, robust.:p
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Those Russians sure knew how to make wooden a/c. Light, strong, nimble, robust.:p
Russian airframe designers were second to none for sure... the Yak-3 is the best example, easily comparable, if not superior to the Spit IX, using a laughable engine with only half-2/3s the power output.. there`s price for it, though. Short range, short lifespan of airframe, practically no ordonance could be carried...
-
Seen a Yak-3 in the air.
Very nice one, very very.;)
-
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=122132&highlight=FW190
The Fw 190, from the Handbook, had 3 positions: IN, OUT, and TAKEOFF. Now if you want to call the TO position 'maneuvering' fine but then reword you statement to reflect their real use.
Don't worry Milo. It's the catch and release program! ;)
It's funny though that the USAAF classified the "Take Off" flaps as maneuver flaps:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1100134296_manuverflaps.jpg)
Kind of goes right along with what all the pilots that flew the FW-190 say about using flaps in the turn.
Crumpp
-
on what speeds did the flaps deploy? (the 10* part)
-
Not a German report Crumpp but we all know the Allies did not fully understand the 190.:)
Notice that the 10* is within your spec for TAKE OFF position.
So what you should have said was:
The TAKE OFF postion, the primary function (as noted in the 190 handbook), could be used for maneuvering. :)
You got a professional writer lined up for your book?
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Sorry Milo. I just could not resist baiting you a little!
on what speeds did the flaps deploy? (the 10* part)
Anywhere below 500 kph.
Crumpp
-
500kph is around 300mph right?
thats way off from what we have in AH.
-
Pretty Sure it will be addressed. Pyro is going to be working on the the FW-190 soon.
HTC does a fantastic job of recreating these planes, IMO.
Crumpp
-
A thumbs up and a YES to tha Crumpp.
IMHO they are the best around in their category, leaving most others in the dust
-
Crummp,
Do you have the rest of that document?
-
Yes I do bro.
I will put a copy in your folder to be sent with the Drag data and FW-190 drag polars if you would like.
Crumpp
-
Pretty Sure it will be addressed. Pyro is going to working on the the FW-190 soon.
I don't think its that optimistic.
The impression I got was that Pyro might look into the 190s, as he wanted to redo them sooner or later.
I think you're gonna have to send them a really really detailed report of how the flaps can be used at that speed for the 190s(or possibly even 109s..?), and have some conversation about it.
-
You da man, dog!!
!
-
Crump,
Please contact me at the address listed in my profile.
Regards,
Greg Shaw
-
Pretty Sure it will be addressed. Pyro is going to be working on the the FW-190 soon.
So we may at some time in the future get manuevering flaps on the FW190 like the Pony and Jug have?
Man, that would take the 190 into the realm of a really competative ride :aok
I hope they do this fairly soon. If the 190 had flaps at 300 mph it would definately turn better, and should be better at vertical moves. Of course all this would be at the expense of acceleration and speed. Hell, they might even want to perk the Dora ;)
-
Is dat raw data **** for real? If yes, kudos to crump for spending countless hrs researching luft planes functions:aok
-
now this is how news should look like on patch 3 or 2.02 patch 1
1. now changed flap settings for 190s
-
do not expect a miracle from a 10* flap position...
it will turn a tad batter... thats it
-
Originally posted by Flyboy
do not expect a miracle from a 10* flap position...
it will turn a tad batter... thats it
Yes and no, that 10 degreees available at 300 mph, nearly diouble the current min flap speed, will be a significant change. Also I assume all othervflap positions migh recevie higher limits too..
-
Anyone who wants a better turning 190 does not understand the basic concept of that plane.
Dogfights were never meant to be merry-go-arounds like we have in AH. Be fast, catch your enemy suprised, use your manouverability and speed to get outta trouble if you have to.
I've never read any account of a 190 pilot that used flaps in combat. It would have been stupid. Needlessly slows you down in an enviroment where death lures in every cloud.
Developement of fighter planes was aimed at speed, versatility and firepower. Turning - if at all - is a defensive manouver. Oh, and don't mix turning with manouverabilty. In dogfight staying outta plane is a very important thing - the 190 does this perfectly with its unsurpassed roll-rate.
I know RL and game world don't mix very well. But aren't doing sims to recreate reality as good as possible? Maybe something within the game-mechanics itself favours turners in AH... icons?... no fear of virtual death? who knows...
What I want is a historical cockpit for the 190 and its uncut roll-rate. Oh, and a few more loadouts would be nice!
-
I've never read any account of a 190 pilot that used flaps in combat.
Every FW-190 pilot I have interviewed has said the same thing. They used flaps in the turn.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1100392187_pt1engflaps.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1100392227_pt2engflaps.jpg)
They made a significant different in the ability of the FW-190 to get into position to gain a gun solution.
And they were handy if you got caught low and slow.
But aren't doing sims to recreate reality as good as possible?
Yep. HTC does a great job and I am sure will model the FW-190 as accurately as possible with the information they have at hand.
Crumpp
-
Anyone who wants a better turning 190 does not understand the basic concept of that plane.
The concept of what the plane is supposed to be is irrelevant.
The relevant matter is just what it can do in real life, that cannot be done in Aces High. If there is any clear evidence that Fw190s were able to turn better, or if it could use flaps (albeit a limited amount of degrees) up to higher speeds, then its worth looking into.
Dogfights were never meant to be merry-go-arounds like we have in AH. Be fast, catch your enemy suprised, use your manouverability and speed to get outta trouble if you have to.
That's the flight-sim gamer's view of 'dogfight'. We play a game-depicted version of WW2 planes where we can specifically compare and contest one plane against another in detail, against pilots with years of sim-flying experience.
We know (in this game) we can never outturn a Spit or match up against a P-51 in rolling scissors in Fw190s considering a more-or-less average grade of pilot skill, but real life combats actually in many cases involved vast amounts of mid to low speed turning fights in its element.
The so-called method of high speed "BnZ" passes was simply an ideal situation that may or may not present itself. Fighters under specific orders could not just run away and come back with an alt advantage at the pilots whim, like we can do in this game.
Unless your own flight meets the enemy flight with an initial alt advantage, according to circumstances there was always a possibility your flight would meet an enemy flight at co-alt terms, or disadvantaged in alt.
If the preferred combat method was always limited to "be fast, catch your enemy surprised" the average number of sorties a combat pilot would actually fight an enemy plane would drop down to less than 1/3rd of the cases.
Also, in this game we play we pull 5~6G maneuvering at 400mph all the time without any kind of fatigue, however in real life a speed of anything even near 400mph would be a very scary thing a combat pilot must go through, much less a practical combat speed where a pilot was expected to actually maneuver and line up for a shot during the "boom" sequence of the bounce.
Pilots devised all kinds of methods to keep their speed under control - from opening the radiator flaps to increase drag, to overriding automatic pitch control and setting it to maximize drag if possible, and etc..
More often than not the given alt advantage would be limited. In this game if we have a 8k alt advantage in a plane like the P-51 we would use it fully and dive upto 500mph TAS. It is hardly the case with real life. After the initial bounce in many cases even P-47s would mix up with 109s in turn fights. The conventional "merry-go-round" fights happened a lot more in real life than you would imagine.
The comment that "80% of the pilots shot down did not see their attacker" is misleading - it does not mean 80% of WW2 combat happened in a BnZ, but simply in all kinds of fights and occasions the plane that was shot down was in a multi-plane engagement and failed to realize that there was an enemy wingman behind him in that 'merry-go-round' fight.
I've never read any account of a 190 pilot that used flaps in combat. It would have been stupid. Needlessly slows you down in an enviroment where death lures in every cloud.
That "stupid method" is mentioned often in Nowotny's combat. He would pop down flaps momentarily to gain gun solution by pulling higher lead than possible without flaps.
Besides, if the use of flaps in a plane concept such as the 190 was useless, then it'd be more or less the same with a plane like the P-51 or the P-47. Strangely, nobody has yet mentioned using flaps in a P-51 or a P-47 was stupid, at least to my knowledge.
Developement of fighter planes was aimed at speed, versatility and firepower. Turning - if at all - is a defensive manouver. Oh, and don't mix turning with manouverabilty. In dogfight staying outta plane is a very important thing - the 190 does this perfectly with its unsurpassed roll-rate.
True.
But turning is never just defensive. Given rest of the conditions are equal a better turning plane always has the first initial advantage in anything it does. Compare the Spit14 or the La-7 with the Bf109G-10 - given the pilot conditions are equal a Bf109G-10 can never, ever win against a Spit14 or a La-7 at co-alt, co-E situation.
Turning is the first instinctive factor of air combat, and there is a good reason why "n00bs" know nothing but to turn.
As the emphasis and evolution of combat planes shifted towards speeds and firepower it is true that the importance of the traditional element of turning abilities have subsequently become less important - however, even still turning was a lot more important than we gamers would like to think.
I know RL and game world don't mix very well. But aren't doing sims to recreate reality as good as possible? Maybe something within the game-mechanics itself favours turners in AH... icons?... no fear of virtual death? who knows...
It depends on what kind of 'reality' we have in our minds. Not trying to be rude, but as with your case, sometimes misinformation tends to lead us to misconclusions about what the 'reality' was.
-
Great post Kweassa, agree 100% :aok
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Compare the Spit14 or the La-7 with the Bf109G-10 - given the pilot conditions are equal a Bf109G-10 can never, ever win against a Spit14 or a La-7 at co-alt, co-E situation.
That is not entirely true. If the fight is limited to less than 5k I would agree, but above 5k the 109G-10 outperformes both the La-7 and Spit14 in climb, speed and accelleration. Which in my humble opinion is far more useful than turn radius.
-
GS does the G10 really ooudo the Spit 14 in climb above 5K?? Really?
-
In AH1 the Spit14 held the upper hand almost up to 10k, but last I checked in AH2 the Spit14's climb had been derated to barely above that of the 109G-10, which equalize at about 5k. Speed goes to the 109 at all altitudes except from 24k to 26k where the Spit has a marginal speed advantage. La-7 owns the 109 below 5k in speed, but not above.
I could be wrong on the Spit14 climb rate though, since no new charts have been posted by HTC.
-
Lets see fw pawns 109 and yak. Read my sig.
:lol
-
Thanks.
-
Us real 190 drivers we dont care about them numbers. We just go out there and and make due with what we got. A flying rock! Ok Im been drinking beer. Cheers!
:D
-
Which in my humble opinion is far more useful than turn radius.
Yes it is more useful. You hold the initiative in the fight. Although I feel it is better to have lower altitude performance than being able to outperform up high.
Most fights end up on the deck. Although in AH2 the ability to actually climb away from the fight is there now.
Crumpp
-
"The comment that "80% of the pilots shot down did not see their attacker" is misleading"
I agree, but I'd also like to point out that in a turn fight it may be harder to shoot down the enemy because of the angles and speeds tend to change all the time making the shooting quite hard (and the enemy knows you are ther in hte first place...). By this I mean that the turn fights did take place but their results were not very good compared to situations were you could surprise your enemy and shoot at an unmaneuvering target.
-C+
-
By this I mean that the turn fights did take place but their results were not very good compared to situations were you could surprise your enemy and shoot at an unmaneuvering target.
Absolutely,
This is why find quite a few large swirling fights with relatively few casualties. Most of those occurred in the initial merge of the fight.
Only a few pilots could master the lead and deflection shooting dog fighting required. Even fewer could master themselves or had enough training to make the tasks at hand instinctive.
One of the FW-190 pilots I know shot down several enemy A/C in turn fights.
Good example is a P51D over the Ardennes forest. He was bounced and in the initial merge snapped his FW-190 to the right and went into a hard high G turn. At the moment six other FW-190 pilots were either dead or in process of dying in that initial bounce. The P51 followed and a turn fight occurred. To gain the necessary lead the FW-190 pilot popped flaps at the end. The P51D went down and the FW-190 snapped hard Left out of the circle, dove for the deck and got away.
The main thing he emphasized to me was the calm nerves and cool head it took in that situation. It was not that he was impervious to fear. He was just too busy to think about it. With properly adjusted ailerons the FW-190 would give some warning before the stall. It would burble slightly at the edge. When that occurred you backed off slightly and depending on the speed of the turn either held slight forward or backwards pressure on the stick. If it did stall it would drop the right wing but recovery was instantaneous if you backed off the backpressure and fed opposite aileron. As the airspeed slowed you had to begin adding some opposite aileron to maintain the turn.
In his words many pilots when the dogfight began, especially those not well trained, concentrated on the big picture of what is about to happen. They did not focus on small tasks of the here and now. Subsequently they gave into their fear and were not well trained enough to perform simple mechanical tasks while scared ****less.
Crumpp
-
One thing of turning:
"Yes it is more useful. You hold the initiative in the fight. Although I feel it is better to have lower altitude performance than being able to outperform up high. "
I would readily sacrifice some fpm for a hugely better turnrate.
The question is how many.
Remember, the Spit 14 loaded full should make it from the runway to 20K in 5 minutes.
The G10 is very close there as well, or should be....
And then to P51 to 190 in turning.
Nice info from Crumpp.
I know also of the opposite happening, 190's being outturned by the P51.
The P51 could after all also pop flaps, - just 1 notch.
The thought of a 190 with slots as well makes me shudder ;)
-
I would readily sacrifice some fpm for a hugely better turnrate.
IMHO turnrate is a secondary, "nice to have" quality in a fighter. Come fly the CT as Axis during any mid-war PTO theater match up. A well flown Hellcat, P38, or Corsair is very difficult for a zeke to deal with. Basically you turn and hope you get lucky or the they get stupid.
It is far from an essential quality. Now a decent rate turn in order to take advantage of gun solution opportunites is another story. You don't need to outturn your opponent, just be able to take advantage of the angles he gives you.
Crumpp
-
The Speed difference between a Spit XIV and any axis fighter at the same time is minimal, and frequently in the XIV's favour.
The XIV turns quite much better than a 190 or a 109G10, even G6, which were it's natural enemies.
The Speed difference between F4U's and Zeke's is vast, so is roll rate, zoom, acceleration, all vastly in favour of the F4U.
Add armour to that.
The Zeke needs a nice low alt bounce or just a stupid foe to get succesful.
But it's really oranges and apples compared to a say Spit XIV to a 190A8..................
-
Originally posted by Angus
I would readily sacrifice some fpm for a hugely better turnrate.
The question is how many.
You would have to sacrifice speed, not climb. Bigger wings (for the same weight) would actually increase climb rate. Speed is something most pilots won't sacrifice for anything. Speed is life.
-
Sorry Scholzie, was a typo.
Not fpm, but mph!!!!
But when it comes to such a margin that in no way it can be used for running away, then.............:D
-
I will put a copy in your folder to be sent with the Drag data and FW-190 drag polars if you would like.
Hi Crump, could you contact me under LNhome@gmx.net if you don't mind i would like to check of the drag data you got for the FW190 is the same i already have.
Regards
Naudet
EDIT: Would also be nice to get some info on the FW190 book you are researching. Which FW190 variants are covered, when will it be published and such things.
-
Hello Naudet...
How have you been?
It's been awhile I hope all is well...
S!
Wotan...
-
Hi Wotan,
all is well so far, but i am a bit short on time. Had to abandom most Onlineplaying and my Research on the FW190 due to work.
I hate it when RL interferes to much into my hobbies. ;)