Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: RRAM on April 05, 2008, 10:06:47 PM
-
First of all, and before anything. I beg all of you to **please** keep this civil. I don't want nor mean to start one of the traditional LW fanboys vs Allied fanboys flamefest. I just want to start an honest, informative and civil thread about something I've wondered about the Fw190A8 for some time. I'm going to stick to the facts, and let any feelings out.
And also before anything else: You all know the Fw190 is my favorite plane of choice, but I'm not trying to get any changes to the FM of any Fw190 in the game unless the facts back up the need for said changes. I insist, please don't turn this thread into a flamefest. And this goes for those posters who are on the LW side, as those who dislike their planes. PLease, keep this civil.
I also want to say beforehand that I'm not trying to put any pressure on HTC with this information and thread, and, I'll say it clearly, I do not think any Luftwaffe planes are unfairly treated or modelled into the game. I just have some information that doesn't match the game data, and I want to share it so it can be discussed and, if it's enough information and proof for HTC/Pyro to change the FM of a certain plane (which I openly say it's THEIR Decision, data or not data :)) maybe included into Aces High.
First of all I'll present you this data:
(http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/8664/fw190a8cleansizedfl8.jpg)
which is a standard Fw190A8 graph showing the speed curves and climbrates at several altitudes. As you might see in the chart header the top-performance curves are listed for a Fw190A8 under 1.42 ata and 2700rpm and a standard load of weapons/ammo. This kinds of charts are done for normal takeoff weight (100% fuel, and all the other weights taken in account), meaning it's graphs should be directly comparable to those of HTC (unless I'm told otherwise I think the graphs are for full fuel/weapon&ammo loads)
No ETC rack is listed so the graphs are for clean A8s.
now I'll put here the official Fw190A8's chart from HTC's website:
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/190a8clmb.gif)
The curves themselves show also the plane performances with the standard erhohte notleistung (C3 injection) fitted into all serial production Fw190A8 and present in ACes High (1.58ata/2700rp with low blower, 1.65ata/2700rpm with high blower).
I'm going to write only about the Sea Level performances for now. Mostly because I want to see how the thread develops. If a flamefest ensues (by any side), I won't bother writting more about this.
So, let's start with the climbrate. With the standard emergency power (1.42 ata) the plane climbs 16m/s@SL, which tranlated into fpm it's 3150fpm. With erhohte notleistung, it's 18m/s, translated into fmp it's 3540fpm.
The in-game chart shows around 3400fpm. This seems to point out a loss of 140fpm climb performance from the Fw charts. Lose of climbrate means also a lower acceleration, so we should assume the in-game Fw190A8 has a slighly worse acceleration than the Fw190 listed in the Fw chart. It's not a big impact in game (is a slight difference at least), but it's there.
About speeds we can also compare both graphics. The Fw's chart shows a speed of around 578km/h at sea level, which translated into mph it's 359mph.
As we can see AH's Fw190A8's top speed is listed as 350mph at sea level. So 9mph lower than what the Fw's chart shows. Unlike the climbrate performance, this 9mph can be enough to save your life or not when in game.
I would like to hear from anybody if there is any reason why AH's Fw190A8 has this different performance from what the historic charts show that escapes my mind :).
Thanks for reading, and please keep it civil.
-
I don't know what data HTC has used for the A-8, but it flies like a "Sturm" 190 loaded down with armor. Even without the wing guns it is just like flying a brick, unlike the A-5. Subjective I know, but there it is.
-
I fly the A-8 a lot, and got to disagree. It feels fine, and compared with the one in AH1 I think it has a better speed retention and overall a better "Feeling"..
I do not agree it flies like a brick. As long as you keep the plane over 230-240mph, it's very maneouverable. And packs quite a punch.
All I wonder about is why the difference between the real life data, and the AH's one, nothing else.
-
Hola RAMona :-) 190 dweeb.
-
all in all, I don't think a small diference as 130fpm can be a decisive point, in fact, if you load the external mg151 you will loose about 250 fpm.
Watching at the graphicals, almost the shape of the curve is in very high fidelity.
190s are a very good plane in a multiplane engagement, with several planes in each side, and a poor plane in an one Vs one fight.
AH planes are very near to reality in perfomance, perhaps not the most, but they don't differ from much, talking about a 3% in speed is not much, in a real plane, engine tolerances and usage can do this diference in perfomance much bigger.
as someone stated before, you have asked many times to improve the 190,¿ are you from bilbao?
Salute all, Pasao
-
"I would like to hear from anybody if there is any reason why AH's Fw190A8 has this different performance from what the historic charts show that escapes my mind."
Because HTC has different data?
Strange that the weight is listed 4300kg and the same chart but without GM1 lists the same weight as does the one with R2 configuration (also listing a very minor drag penalty).
I thought the GM1 would add at least 100kg to weight and the R2 (2xMK108) even more yet the performance only reduces by 2-3mph for R2?
According to chart I have (190.801-132 date 25.10 -44) the deck speed for A8 fighter is 350mph.
So it seems that in HTC has used the latest data, not the best. I'm sure that policy is same with all the planes.
***
What I have wondered is the energy retention of 190 -or rather the lack of it. I have read one analysis which stated that "with its small wing the 190 like to go fast and stay there" referring to good maneuverability and low drag in high speed when compared to planes with larger wings. I have understood that it could also be G loaded more due to this feature. In AH it feels there is no aerodynamic advantage of the small wing. It seems that even in high speed you need to compensate the size of the wings with more AoA than the opposing plane thus creating more drag and slowing you down more rapidly.
If you observe the engine installation of LA-5 and FW190 you may notice that there is no similar exit for the hot cooling air in 190 as there is for LA-5 which has big gills on the sides of engine. The cooling louvers in later models are still very small and they do not seem to have any controllable surfaces. It seems that in general when radiators are closed the air deflects away from the front opening so opening the radiator increases the drag, so it makes me wonder what is it on 190's design that is considered draggy, or more draggy than any other a/c? I'm not sure if the radials actually have the advantage of having the propeller distracting the air flow before it enters the cooling stage? Lednicher article does not help much with this because it leaves out the effects of cooling entrance and propeller effects.
-C+
-
What I have wondered is the energy retention of 190 -or rather the lack of it. I have read one analysis which stated that "with its small wing the 190 like to go fast and stay there" referring to good maneuverability and low drag in high speed when compared to planes with larger wings. I have understood that it could also be G loaded more due to this feature. In AH it feels there is no aerodynamic advantage of the small wing. It seems that even in high speed you need to compensate the size of the wings with more AoA than the opposing plane thus creating more drag and slowing you down more rapidly.
-C+
What aerodynamic advantage would you expect with the smaller wing?
-
"I would like to hear from anybody if there is any reason why AH's Fw190A8 has this different performance from what the historic charts show that escapes my mind."
Because HTC has different data?
Strange that the weight is listed 4300kg and the same chart but without GM1 lists the same weight as does the one with R2 configuration (also listing a very minor drag penalty).
I thought the GM1 would add at least 100kg to weight and the R2 (2xMK108) even more yet the performance only reduces by 2-3mph for R2?
According to chart I have (190.801-132 date 25.10 -44) the deck speed for A8 fighter is 350mph.
Charge, does that last chart you're speaking of list the plane with the ETC centerline rack mounted on?
I ask because after looking at further information I think that the "clean" Fw190A8's performance in AH matches that of a Fw190A8 with ETC501 rack on - the ETC caused some 7.5mph speed loss@Sea Level. May it be that the Fw190A8 even when not loaded with DT or a Bomb does take in account the drag of the bomb rack?. I know it was not strange for the Fw190A8 fleet to fly with the ETC rack even in those sorties where it was not used, because the rack had a positive effect on the CoG of the plane...so maybe AH models the rack as "always on" no matter the loadout selected in hangar.
That could explain the performance loss from the chart I posted. But if that's the case, then IMO, the graphics of the plane in-game should show the rack always mounted...
It's just a theory, but this can be it.
-
Selecting performance data for most WWII aircraft is difficult. There is often contradictory data, missing data and, often, language barriers. Getting something as tested as a P-51 or Spitfire seems very hard to me, things like C.205s and Ki-84s nigh unfathomable.
I did a lot of work trying to gather data for the Mosquito VI performance and I'll tell you, it is a very frusterating, quite expensive endeavor. For example, for the longest time I could not find a single chart or test that had the Mosquito VI's initial climb at anything over 2,000fpm, let alone HTC's Mossie VI's ~3,500fpm. Now the wieght and powerloading strongly suggested HTC was right, but no test I have a hardcopy of listed anything near that. Eventually I came across a single document of combat tests of the FB.VI Series 2 in which that climb rate was described, just as we have it in AH, but for years I was playing with a Mossie I suspected climbed like a fighter when it should have climbed like a Ki-67. HTC was right, I just hadn't found the document. Another Mossie example: roll rate. I have never found anything other than pilot anecdotes about the Mossie's roll rate. The best data I have ever found for roll rate have simply been videos and films of Mossies in flight, particularly at airshows.
As HTC keeps their sources to themselves, it is very hard to know which dataset they are using, or why. I know Pyro has a copy of the best Mossie book in my library only because he said he'd ordered a copy, but I have no idea what other resources they have for Mosquitoes.
(I am not trying to turn an Fw190A-8 thread into a Mossie thread, I simply have more experience in Mossie research than I do for any other aircraft vis-a-vis flight performance, so I used it as my example)
-
lol the 190A8 could out turn a mustang, in this game it cant out turn a rock
just saying :aok
-
lol the 190A8 could out turn a mustang, in this game it cant out turn a rock
just saying :aok
This is exactly the kind of answers I was NOT looking to get. Firstly because the thread is not discussing Fw190's turn-rate, secondly because what you said is highly debatable because it depended on airspeed and situation.
And anyway if you are trying to out-turn anything in the Fw190 you're flying the plane the wrong way.
Said that, please keep the thread in topic.
Karnak, I know there is a lot of performance data on WWII planes, but that graph I posted is not the only one listing a speed of around 580km/h at SL for the Fw190...just wondering about the speed loss seen in the game, not putting HTC's numbers in doubt. There must be a reason why the 190 is slower at sea level than what the charts I talk about say, and I'd want to know it, nothing else.
I've flown the mossie in the MA, BTW. Pretty nice plane for attack sorties :).
-
I saw the episode of "Dogfights" where they said the 190A8 could out-turn a P-51 too :devil.
The writers must have gotten "roll" confused with "turn" somwhere along the line. The planes relative wingloading would seem to say "no" and testing done at the time bears this out.
-
This is exactly the kind of answers I was NOT looking to get. Firstly because the thread is not discussing Fw190's turn-rate, secondly because what you said is highly debatable because it depended on airspeed and situation.
And anyway if you are trying to out-turn anything in the Fw190 you're flying the plane the wrong way.
Said that, please keep the thread in topic.
Karnak, I know there is a lot of performance data on WWII planes, but that graph I posted is not the only one listing a speed of around 580km/h at SL for the Fw190...just wondering about the speed loss seen in the game, not putting HTC's numbers in doubt. There must be a reason why the 190 is slower at sea level than what the charts I talk about say, and I'd want to know it, nothing else.
I've flown the mossie in the MA, BTW. Pretty nice plane for attack sorties :).
need to just accept blabbering idiots such a me making posts, at lest i kept the 190a8 part right :aok
-
"Charge, does that last chart you're speaking of list the plane with the ETC centerline rack mounted on?"
The chart I have says "without ETC 501" (a translated one). Also another chart I have suggests 556km/h on the deck with 2700 rpm.
"What aerodynamic advantage would you expect with the smaller wing?"
Lower drag, lower drag in turns with high speed, better structural G tolerance (lower span-wise loads on wings), good roll rate.
"I saw the episode of "Dogfights" where they said the 190A8 could out-turn a P-51 too"
Since some of you people seem to be very interested in relative turn performance there are some anecdotal evidence that suggest that FW was indeed a competitive turner in certain circumstances. Of course "a turn" and "turn performance testing" is a very relative term and usually in flight tests of FW it is not defined exactly "how" the turn performance is tested.
Luftwaffe guncams: In one famous compilation there is an alleged A7 handily out-turning a P-47 which pulls so hard that contrails come out of its wings.
At 06:10 time, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZOb0vx9y9I&feature=related, you notice that FW is even able to pull lead (now if it even IS FW190...).
Russian report of LA5 vs Fw190:
"If a frontal attack of an FW-190 should fail the pilot usually attempts to change the attacks into a turning engagement. Being very stable and having a large range of speeds, the FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed. Our Lavochkin-5 may freely take up the challenge, if the pilot uses the elevator tabs correctly. By using your foot to hold the plane from falling into a tail spin you can turn the La-5 at an exceedingly low speed, thus keeping the FW from getting on your tail."
Now is this WTF or what? "keeping the FW from getting on your tail" Not "handily out turning" but "keep from getting to your tail". Considering other BS on that report I put little value on that statement but it is interesting anyway.
Italian testing of 205 vs other planes IIRC they concluded that FW is as manuverable as 205 where as 109 is worse.
A story of a Spitfire pilot who's flight gets scattered by 190s and finds himself pulling so many Gs that he is blacking out and finds a 190 "gaining" on him (catching, pulling lead?). Considering the worse pilot position in Spit it is possible that the pilot experienced the G effects earlier than the FW jock. So that situation does not have much to do with relative turning performance other than the FW could turn with Spitty on that one. I saw the story years ago but I haven't found it since. I'm not sure if it was a story by Brown or Johnson but IIRC it was one of those famous Spit pilots.
"The writers must have gotten "roll" confused with "turn" somwhere along the line. The planes relative wingloading would seem to say "no" and testing done at the time bears this out."
You also need to consider wing profile effects on AoA and drag/lift. FW and Pony have different NACA profiles which affect their turning ability in certain situations. You could also point me to location where to find tests between FW190 and P51.
I'm not claiming that 190 should be a stellar turner but there are anecdotes telling that in some situations it could compete.
***
There was a strange situation when I was trailing a fast LA7 and not able to gain on him when he starts a pull to the right low. We go so fast that while I try to follow him I black out almost instantly and commence the lag turn just keeping him in sight through tunnel vision in a high G turn. Well the bugger turns much more sharply than me 180 degrees and heads back to where he came from leaving me handily behind and I can't catch him anymore. Assuming my story to be accurate enough he could pull more Gs than I could with same speed and while I could, and had to, keep my energy because I could not pull any more in fear of G-lock he made a sharper turn and still came out of it with more energy to get away. That was a "WTF" situation for me. That LA was not experiencing the same G loading that I was and that should have been the deciding factor, not the turn perfomance. Now if I "fall through" a turn I'm actually experiencing less Gs than the one not "falling through" so in any way the LA should not be able to pull more Gs and not got away if he cut the throttle and I held my energy through that turn. I've played this game for 6-7 years now and I can tell when people fly their planes so that I cannot and I can give credit that many do, but I also think that I can tell when planes fly in a "strange" manner. I'm not sure of what actually happened in that situation but it seemed very strange.
-C+
-
Lower drag, lower drag in turns with high speed, better structural G tolerance (lower span-wise loads on wings), good roll rate.
Given the higher wingloading, it should have to turn at a higher Coefficient of Lift than a plane of similar weight with more wing area, thus, more profile drag as a result. Furthermore, induced drag due to low aspect ratio would also be higher than a comparison aircraft. G-tolerance is a structural advantage :). Agreed on lower friction drag due to smaller wing, and roll rate with the shorter aileron moment arm. Only the lower friction drag would be an "aerodynamic" advantage, if I've done my reading right. Lednicer has a good report that compares the 190A and D with the P-51 and Spit, and has a lot of interesting aerodynamic information. PM your email and I'll send it to you.
-
Charge:
Things we must take into account:
1. These guys were generally taught that "Speed is Life".
2. When the planes are above corner speed, assuming neither airplane has control issues at high speeds, the pilot who can stand the most Gs is the one who can turn tightest. And they didn't have G suits.
3. We don't mind pulling Gs at all except for the narrowing of our views, but the threshold where they start to become highly uncomfortable (I've heard) is around 4. If we were to call 4 or 5 Gs our "corner speed" instead of 6, that lowers the speed threshold where a Pony, La5 or FW190 all turn about the same even further.
"You also need to consider wing profile effects on AoA and drag/lift. FW and Pony have different NACA profiles which affect their turning ability in certain situations. You could also point me to location where to find tests between FW190 and P51."
I think the famous turning circle drawing derived from British tests can be found somewhere at Spitfireperformance.com. It places the 109, Jug, and 190 in roughly the same range, with the Pony turning tighter than all 3. You can also find there a report comparing the F6F and F4U to the FW190 and concluding the former turn much tighter.
"Italian testing of 205 vs other planes IIRC they concluded that FW is as manuverable as 205 where as 109 is worse."
Fascinating. British testing concludes that the 109 and FW are about equal and the Pony is better than either. Italian testing concludes the 190 is a better turner than the 109. German testing concludes the opposite. I can't help but wonder just what the heck is going on here...
-
Stoney, in case you did not read the whole thread, I wrote earlier: "Lednicher article does not help much with this because it leaves out the effects of cooling entrance and propeller effects."
So I do have it. ;) While a very interesting article it still lacks detail and some wrong pictures do not really help.
"Given the higher wingloading, it should have to turn at a higher Coefficient of Lift than a plane of similar weight with more wing area, thus, more profile drag as a result."
This is the feature I'm very interested of. Does it really happen that way in high speed or does it happen so that a plane with a bigger wing, while pulling less AoA to achieve same Gs, actually still creates more drag area and thus slowing it down more quickly than a plane with a smaller wing with more AoA would?
"In aviation, induced drag tends to be greater at lower speeds because a high angle of attack is required to maintain lift, creating more drag. However, as speed increases the induced drag becomes much less, but parasitic drag increases because the fluid is flowing faster around protruding objects increasing friction or drag."
IE. the more wing area the more parasitic drag (among other forms of drag), and in high speed any AoA will add to that.
It may well be that FW with its weight/power/wingloading ran out of the usable speed range in which it still could maneuver efficiently but I'm not very convinced that it did happen. We could claim that the first versions of FW were designed with just enough wing-area to make it competitive (or slightly inferior) to contemporary fighters in 1939 and that in five years it ran out of its potential due to increased weight, BUT why did they keep such a small wing with Ta152C? (NOTE: FW190 196.5 sqf vs Ta152C 210.9 sqf and 250.7 sqf H-models.)
***
BnZ, your G summary is interesting but I do not see how it would give answer to my "G-story" in which I pointed out that there is something odd with either 190 or LA7, considering that my observation was correct. On the other hand it may well be caused by simply lag in my end, but that was not the only time it has happened.
"I think the famous turning circle drawing derived from British tests can be found somewhere at Spitfireperformance .com. It places the 109, Jug, and 190 in roughly the same range, with the Pony turning tighter than all 3. You can also find there a report comparing the F6F and F4U to the FW190 and concluding the former turn much tighter."
I have seen them both. The picture and report is so general that it probably has more propaganda value than scientific value. The US test of F4U, F6F and FW190 does not tell you exactly how the turning comparison was made so I assume that it favored the US planes too much ie. slow speed stall turns.
"I can't help but wonder just what the heck is going on here..."
Well, I agree. Most people have made up their minds and decided what is fact and what is not. I haven't. This is a very interesting and complicated subject IMO.
-C+
-
All first accounts I've read of pilots who flew the 190 say the plane was very maneouverable, an exceptional dogfighter and a superb fighter plane overall. Keeping in mind its high Corner Velocity (around 220mph) compared with other planes, the turning at speeds at, or a bit over that speed could be better than other fighters with much lower CV. The 190 posessed a very good initial turnrate according to all accounts. The fact that the plane could bank and start turning almost instantly (while other planes spent more time banking into the turn), combined with the avobe-mentioned initial turnrate could also compensate for the high wingloading and make the plane a much better close quarters fighter ,compared with other lower wingloaded fighters, than what one would expect initially. I'm not surprised about account of both the Fw190 outturning 109s, while other accounts say otherwise. It all should depend on the speeds involved.
The key here is that those attributes lasted as long as the speed was near the corner velocity. Under it the 190's high wingloading prevailed, giving the Fw the bad traits most pilots of AH hate on it. One of the things I've always wondered about the 190 was not its turning ability, but it's E-retention, and it is because I have no real life data to base on. So, having nothing to compare it with, as it is in AH, I'm happy with it right now.
From my own limited experience in the plane in AH I find the plane very maneouverable at speeds over 200mph. I love it's abilities and I find that as long as I stay at or over those speeds bassically nothing will catch me unless I do something very stupid. Conversely if I'm in someone's six I know he won't be able to shake me off unless he manages to stay alive until he has bled me of most of my speed (and usually I break off earlier than that). When at under 200mph its a whole different world, and I don't know if that's very accurate or not. I, personally, think it is accurate.
Regarding turn-rates ,etc,and to discuss them we would need real life data, and not just subjective accounts, of the fw190's turning performances at different speeds...or even better an EM chart made out of real life reports. Until we don't have as a base to compare the plane with, I trust 100% HTC's representation of the plane's turning performances in game.
BTW, and back to the topic...any more info regarding the 190A8's top speed is still welcome :). I'll add a bit myself with this chart:
http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/albums/Fw190_Graphs/fw190g8_climb.jpg
Fw190G8's top speed with center and wing racks: 566km/h or 351,6mph@SL. Even without the nose mounted weapons, the wing racks should add a decent deal of drag, yet the plane has even a better top speed than a Fw190A8 in Aces High with the same engine settings. Which again, points out a higher SL speed for the Fw190A8 and validates even more the chart I posted first.
-
Drain the rear tank, and she will become that fighter you seek.
-
I have always thought that the 190s are seriously porked in AH. The stalling behaviour seems over sensitive and the lack of ability to turn is over done. The 190 was no turn fighter, I know that and don't want it to be. It just seems that it is not the feared and much praised aircraft that it was.
Thanks for posting this information, guys, perhaps we can have them looked at.
-
Drain the rear tank, and she will become that fighter you seek.
Does that help a lot, or just enough to be noticeable?
donkey
-
Stoney, in case you did not read the whole thread, I wrote earlier: "Lednicher article does not help much with this because it leaves out the effects of cooling entrance and propeller effects."
I did read it from the beginning, but apparently forgot you wrote that. I do have 2 separate Lednicer articles, both of which include the 190. You may have both.
So I do have it. ;) While a very interesting article it still lacks detail and some wrong pictures do not really help.
Well, it talks about the wingloading, wing geometry, coefficients of lift, etc. What would engine cooling and prop effects have to do with the aerodynamic advantages of the smaller wing?
"Given the higher wingloading, it should have to turn at a higher Coefficient of Lift than a plane of similar weight with more wing area, thus, more profile drag as a result."
This is the feature I'm very interested of. Does it really happen that way in high speed or does it happen so that a plane with a bigger wing, while pulling less AoA to achieve same Gs, actually still creates more drag area and thus slowing it down more quickly than a plane with a smaller wing with more AoA would?
I've got some equations for instantaneous and sustained turn rates. They're fairly complicated and would take some time, but would not be impossible to complete. I don't know if we have the data required for them, but I could take a look. If hard turning isn't a requirement, using a small wing would be ideal, but there are more issues out there. Prop efficiency, power curves for the engine, etc. if you're talking about why isn't it faster, etc.
It may well be that FW with its weight/power/wingloading ran out of the usable speed range in which it still could maneuver efficiently but I'm not very convinced that it did happen. We could claim that the first versions of FW were designed with just enough wing-area to make it competitive (or slightly inferior) to contemporary fighters in 1939 and that in five years it ran out of its potential due to increased weight, BUT why did they keep such a small wing with Ta152C? (NOTE: FW190 196.5 sqf vs Ta152C 210.9 sqf and 250.7 sqf H-models.)
An excellent question. Surely there's some resource that can speak to this?
[/quote]
-
It just seems that it is not the feared and much praised aircraft that it was.
That may depend on whether or not its the 1942 fear and praise or the 1945 fear and praise.
-
Russian report of LA5 vs Fw190:
"If a frontal attack of an FW-190 should fail the pilot usually attempts to change the attacks into a turning engagement. Being very stable and having a large range of speeds, the FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed. Our Lavochkin-5 may freely take up the challenge, if the pilot uses the elevator tabs correctly. By using your foot to hold the plane from falling into a tail spin you can turn the La-5 at an exceedingly low speed, thus keeping the FW from getting on your tail."
Now is this WTF or what? "keeping the FW from getting on your tail" Not "handily out turning" but "keep from getting to your tail". Considering other BS on that report I put little value on that statement but it is interesting anyway.
Italian testing of 205 vs other planes IIRC they concluded that FW is as manuverable as 205 where as 109 is worse.
A story of a Spitfire pilot who's flight gets scattered by 190s and finds himself pulling so many Gs that he is blacking out and finds a 190 "gaining" on him (catching, pulling lead?). Considering the worse pilot position in Spit it is possible that the pilot experienced the G effects earlier than the FW jock. So that situation does not have much to do with relative turning performance other than the FW could turn with Spitty on that one. I saw the story years ago but I haven't found it since. I'm not sure if it was a story by Brown or Johnson but IIRC it was one of those famous Spit pilots.
"The writers must have gotten "roll" confused with "turn" somwhere along the line. The planes relative wingloading would seem to say "no" and testing done at the time bears this out."
You also need to consider wing profile effects on AoA and drag/lift. FW and Pony have different NACA profiles which affect their turning ability in certain situations. You could also point me to location where to find tests between FW190 and P51.
I'm not claiming that 190 should be a stellar turner but there are anecdotes telling that in some situations it could compete.
***
There was a strange situation when I was trailing a fast LA7 and not able to gain on him when he starts a pull to the right low. We go so fast that while I try to follow him I black out almost instantly and commence the lag turn just keeping him in sight through tunnel vision in a high G turn. Well the bugger turns much more sharply than me 180 degrees and heads back to where he came from leaving me handily behind and I can't catch him anymore. Assuming my story to be accurate enough he could pull more Gs than I could with same speed and while I could, and had to, keep my energy because I could not pull any more in fear of G-lock he made a sharper turn and still came out of it with more energy to get away. That was a "WTF" situation for me. That LA was not experiencing the same G loading that I was and that should have been the deciding factor, not the turn perfomance. Now if I "fall through" a turn I'm actually experiencing less Gs than the one not "falling through" so in any way the LA should not be able to pull more Gs and not got away if he cut the throttle and I held my energy through that turn. I've played this game for 6-7 years now and I can tell when people fly their planes so that I cannot and I can give credit that many do, but I also think that I can tell when planes fly in a "strange" manner. I'm not sure of what actually happened in that situation but it seemed very strange.
-C+
ummm didn't Fw 190s had Formula-1 car style seating position?
I guess that might explain why FW pilots do not experience black outs earlier compare to other planes
-
Italian testing of 205 vs other planes IIRC they concluded that FW is as manuverable as 205 where as 109 is worse.
The 190 has much better high speed handling than the 109 and handily out rolls both, which earned it the description of 'nimble'. The handily out-rolling part that is.
BTW, I find myself often out-turning spitfires at medium to high speeds, only once it gets slow do I seem to have trouble.
-
RAM in Air Warrior and when I started in Aces High somehwere around 8 to 9 years ago I always flew the 190.
RAM....if you would (this is my opinion of FM) try the A8 with the 4x20mm option and then try the 2X30mm and 2X20mm.
I feel that when flying the 2X30mm and 2X20mm option the ingame FM appears to be a 190A8/R8 FM.
When I fly the 4X20mm configuration it handles better and is more nimble.
Anyone else of that opinion?
-
Since I came back to AH, I've never flown a Fw190A8 with anything other than 4x20mms...so I can't say anything about the differences between configurations.
-
I always take the Mk 108 load-out because I feel that the 4 x 20mm load-out is severely underpowered.
The Mk 108 load-out allows me to get snapshots from 400+ which result in instant disabling of the target aircraft, thus I can stay faster and not blow my E saddling for that extra firing time I seem to need with the 4 x 20 mm
The difference between the C-hog's cannons and the 190 A8's 4 x 20mm load is out of sight.
-
I always take the Mk 108 load-out because I feel that the 4 x 20mm load-out is severely underpowered.
Xasthur... welcome to the world of Bf-109 pilots. How do you think I feel in my Bf-109G6? Keep in mind, I NEVER take Gondolas.
-
First of all, and before anything. I beg all of you to **please** keep this civil. I don't want nor mean to start one of the traditional LW fanboys vs Allied fanboys flamefest. I just want to start an honest, informative and civil thread about something I've wondered about the Fw190A8 for some time. I'm going to stick to the facts, and let any feelings out.
And also before anything else: You all know the Fw190 is my favorite plane of choice, but I'm not trying to get any changes to the FM of any Fw190 in the game unless the facts back up the need for said changes. I insist, please don't turn this thread into a flamefest. And this goes for those posters who are on the LW side, as those who dislike their planes. PLease, keep this civil.
I also want to say beforehand that I'm not trying to put any pressure on HTC with this information and thread, and, I'll say it clearly, I do not think any Luftwaffe planes are unfairly treated or modelled into the game. I just have some information that doesn't match the game data, and I want to share it so it can be discussed and, if it's enough information and proof for HTC/Pyro to change the FM of a certain plane (which I openly say it's THEIR Decision, data or not data :)) maybe included into Aces High.
you wrote that or your lawyer ? :p
-
Xasthur... welcome to the world of Bf-109 pilots. How do you think I feel in my Bf-109G6? Keep in mind, I NEVER take Gondolas.
Haha, look at my avatar mate. I've been flying 109's since day one :aok
-
you wrote that or your lawyer ? :p
lol Straffo. I just thought that with the past I have in this forums, and the fame I (deservedly) earned some years ago, I had to clearly explain where do I stand,what I wanted this thread to be like (and what I didn't want it to turn into), and that I like AH2 and HTC's work. And I had to do all that before I started writting about the topic itself.
It's also true that many discussions concerning german planes have turned into ugly debates with personal attacks involved. I wanted none of that here, and so I politely asked everyone to keep this civil and to discuss facts only. Something, BTW, that I think so far we have achieved between everyone.
-
Does that help a lot, or just enough to be noticeable?
donkey
It helps a lot, it's noticeable, and it's done automatically :). with 100% fuel load, the auto system drains AUX first, AFT second, FWD in the end. It's the way the historical Fw190A8s drained their tanks aswell. Burning the fuel in the aft tanks moved the plane's CoG forward, and the Fw190 handled much better with that CoG's change. And so does AH's 190.
Something I liked a lot when I came back to AH2 was noticing that at lesser fuel loads, the tanks weren't equally loaded (as it used to be in AH1), but they are loaded according to the plane's needs. For instance, if you take 75% fuel you won't get 75% in each of the tanks, but the AUX tank wont' be even loaded, while the FWD is 100% and the AFT is partially loaded. The plane ,so, starts already with a good fuel weight distribution that helps it's maneouverability.
Try it offline: drain in FWD-AFT-AUX order ,and do some maneouvers. Compare the handling with the 190 draining tanks in the correct order and you'll see the difference by yourself.
-
Here is what I don't understand...
Removing weight from ahead of the CG of the aircraft would move the CG backward somewhat, which would reduce stability in the pitch axis, and reduce the amount of downforce the horizontal stab needs to produce to the aircraft in straight-and-level flight or change the pitch angle...doesn't this reduction in downward force needed from the tail to hold change pitch angle actually make for a somewhat reduced load on the wings? I thought this was the justification for canard aircraft designs vs. conventional tail aircraft, despite the former's stability problems.
-
Here is what I don't understand...
Removing weight from ahead of the CG of the aircraft would move the CG backward somewhat, which would reduce stability in the pitch axis, and reduce the amount of downforce the horizontal stab needs to produce to the aircraft in straight-and-level flight or change the pitch angle...doesn't this reduction in downward force needed from the tail to hold change pitch angle actually make for a somewhat reduced load on the wings? I thought this was the justification for canard aircraft designs vs. conventional tail aircraft, despite the former's stability problems.
Well, a plane loaded at the aft limit of the CG envelope reduces trim drag, and allows the plane to fly at a lower angle-of-attack, which reduces profile and induced drag. So, two equivalent aircraft, at the same weight, one with a load at the forward limit of the CG envelope, and one with a load at the aft limit of the CG envelope; the plane loaded at the aft limit of the CG envelope will be faster. Obviously we're talking about a small increase in speed here.
But, I would think that the better handling with the aux tank empty, while partially due to CG issues, can also include some benefit just because the plane is lighter.
-
... and reduce the amount of downforce the horizontal stab needs to produce to the aircraft in straight-and-level flight...
Tail load does not have to be down for the whole aircraft to be stable, in most cases it is up.
-
"I did read it from the beginning, but apparently forgot you wrote that. I do have 2 separate Lednicer articles, both of which include the 190. You may have both."
I don't. I only have the EAA Jan 1999 article. I didn't know there were two of them...
"Well, it talks about the wingloading, wing geometry, coefficients of lift, etc. What would engine cooling and prop effects have to do with the aerodynamic advantages of the smaller wing?"
The article mentioned above tells about modeling the whole airframe and in both Anton and Dora the cooling system is built around propeller spinner, where as in P51 and Spitfire the cooling drag is located differently. Since propeller can effect the stall characteristics the propeller probably has an effect on cooling drag too. IIRC some Antons (or Fs) were tested with cooling fans with more blades but while providing more cooling they also increased drag (IIRC that is). That may also give a clue of how much the propeller actually affected the cooling drag and thus the total drag of the airframe. I brought this up because I'm interested about the total drag figures of 190s.
But as I wrote earlier the venting of the cooling air is also one factor which needs to be considered to have a good idea of the actual cooling drag of a radial engine and Lednicher report does not offer any conclusion to that. It is just a calculation from a 3D model.
I brought this up before because I'm interested about the total drag figures of 190s and it would be interesting to calculate what would be its top speed in theory and what are the factors that would make it to exceed it or fail to achieve those figures. Being crappy with maths I only hope that somebody in addition to Mr Lednicher would provide such interesting analysis.
BTW if you look at the Figure 2 in article mentioned before it escapes me how the P51 and FW190 can have nearly identical Cl plots despite the radical difference in their airfoils, both NACA profile selection and in size? And what would they look like with different speeds and AoAs? That is what I'd like to see and that is what that article leaves totally open. I'm sure Mr Lednicher would have more data on the subject and trying to squeeze it all in a few pages in a magazine would be impossible so he had to use the space efficiently -resulting in an interesting article with little new to offer for enthusiasts like us.
-C+
PS. I have posted this earlier but maybe this is more appropriate place for it: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_199808/ai_n8826530/pg_1
PPS. Also notice that the trim drag is further reduced by the tailplane which moves as a whole reducing form drag.
-
Some A-9 and maybe some F-9 were tested with a 14-bladed cooling fan instead of the standard 12-blade fan. It did not improve cooling (at least not really noteable) but required even more power to be driven so they reverted to the standard 12-blade fan.
-
Found this. Particularly interesting is the section describing drag build-up.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-468/ch5-2.htm
Drag increase of 12% between radial and "inline" configuration and added 6.6% for opening the cooling exits.
Thats how I read it.
-C+
-
I fly the A8 alot. Please dont improve it :)
Few fly it, and i would prefer if it stayed that way :t