Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Charge on July 07, 2009, 10:31:42 AM
-
Over a past few years I have every now and then referred to an article I thought I had lost, its about the turning ability of FW190 and now I finally found it:
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg
I'd appreciate if anybody had a better scan of this article.
-C+
-
Thats rite out of his book titled "Wing Leader"
Pipz
-
Johnson was a runner!
-
Ack-dragger even!
-
And a spit dweeb :aok
Pipz
-
Did he HO?
-
Spit IX FTW! :rock
His book, recommended to my by furball a bit back, is next on my list of autobiographies of World War 2 pilots, with Nine Lives by Al Deere next. :aok
-
Spit IX FTW! :rock
His book, recommended to my by furball a bit back, is next on my list of autobiographies of World War 2 pilots, with Nine Lives by Al Deere next. :aok
Both are very good books.
Pipz
-
Does seem like an odd thing. Perhaps Johnson was well above corner speed, and/or could not stand up to as many Gs as the 190 pilot.
-
Did he HO?
Only time he ever got hit was in a HO with a 190. His Spit IX took a 20mm round to the wing root into the main spar, bent the wing back a bit and caused the Spit to be a write off. He got a Spit XIV as a replacement, but I don't seem to recall that he liked it as much.
-
Does seem like an odd thing. Perhaps Johnson was well above corner speed, and/or could not stand up to as many Gs as the 190 pilot.
I think it has more to do with how pilots really flew in WWII v. how they fly here. Every WWII aircraft sim makes the FW 190 out to be a dog of a dogfighter. Every personal account I've ever read, written by an Allied fighter pilot, says that the FW was a dancer. I have assumed from this that real people weren't willing to slow down and use flaps the way we do in here.
- oldman
-
The 190 is a monster in Special Events. It's ability to stay fast, change direction quickly, and dispatch the enemy quickly lends itself more to this environment than the MA's.
The 190 is a very maneuverable aircraft, it's just not very good in a flat turn.
Hptm. Heinz Lange of 3./JG51 on the Fw 190 as compared to the Bf 109;
'I first flew the Fw 190 on November 8th 1942 at Vyazma in the Soviet Union. I was absolutely thrilled. I flew every fighter version of it employed on the Eastern Front. Because of it's smaller fuselage, visibility was somewhat better out of the Bf 109. I believe the Focke Wulf was more maneuverable than the Messerschmitt- although the latter could make a tighter horizontal turn, if you mastered the Fw 190 you could pull a lot of Gs and do just about as well. In terms of control force and feel, the 109 was heavier on the stick. In the Fw 190 aerobatics were a pleasure!'
-
I think it has more to do with how pilots really flew in WWII v. how they fly here. Every WWII aircraft sim makes the FW 190 out to be a dog of a dogfighter. Every personal account I've ever read, written by an Allied fighter pilot, says that the FW was a dancer. I have assumed from this that real people weren't willing to slow down and use flaps the way we do in here.
- oldman
The A5 used to be a pretty fair knife fighter in AH. Took a hit with the transition to AH2, and got nuetered with the flaps patch that turned the F4U's into superplanes.
-
I think it has more to do with how pilots really flew in WWII v. how they fly here. Every WWII aircraft sim makes the FW 190 out to be a dog of a dogfighter. Every personal account I've ever read, written by an Allied fighter pilot, says that the FW was a dancer. I have assumed from this that real people weren't willing to slow down and use flaps the way we do in here.
That's my opinion as well.
Judging from what is described by many anecdotes - not just those coming from the best of pilots - it seems many of the real life factors (which cannot be adequately simulated within the boundaries of a mere game) acted out as quite a bit of hinderance which might have kept the pilots from achieving the theoretical maximum performance of their aircraft.
Some autobiographies coming from the expert pilots describe pulling so close to the edge of stall that their aircraft shivered and shook, whilst at the same time, other anecdotes originating from the average pilots seem to describe a general disdain towards having to push their aircraft towards dangerous grounds, or having to enter such a situation which warrants it in the first place.
Stories of some elite squadrons portray a cocky band of well trained aces who'd gladly chop throttle, slow their aircraft, and flicker the flap levers and switches to enter a knife fight, whilst other stories emphasize they trained their pilots to play it safe, and keep things simple during dogfights.
Some anecdotes even seem to suggest that most pilots rarely even adjusted their throttle lever during combat - leave the throttle setting at max. combat power, and then both hands on the control column.
The guncam footages also show some interesting moments. Taking into consideration that most of the footage is in 1/3rd speed, even when played at a normal real-life speed the evasive maneuvers of the target plane in the films are very simple to the simpilot's eyes. One can only imagine what's going through the pilot's mind in his last moments of the flight, but considering grave circumstances, the type of evasives shown rarely extend further than the simplest of left-right scissoring. It's actually quite difficult to see any kind of attempts at fancy evasives at all.
Another point might be the difficulty of handling due to aerodynamic forces and physical/psychological factors.
Some people have posted that it isn't all that difficult to move your head and body around during high G maneuvers, and a loose strap would be all you'd need to have a reasonable six view. However, there seems to be some disparity between looking around at high Gs during a leisure flight, and during combat maneuvering under high mental stress. For whatever reasons, apparently checking 6 wasn't an easy task, which in time came to the development of wingman coverage tactics during the course of the war.
Also, some people say stronger people can exert forces well over 50lbs on the control column, but it's quite difficult to imagine every pilot in the squadron would be able to continuously pull, push, pull, push, pull, push with maximal force during high speed flight in a single combat. Sure, I might be able to lift up heavy weights, but I'm not sure if I could continuously exert enough force to pick it up, down, up, down, up, down as long as I want. Especially during the excitement of combat with my breath running scant, sweat tickling into my eyes, forehead itching and etc etc..
According to guncam footages, the most common thing to expect seems to be you latching onto an enemy plane, your initial attack fails, the enemy plane turns left, you turn harder to gain a leadshot angle, the enemy tries a scissor to the right you change directions to follow him, nail a few shots, the target smokes, and the plane either goes down or the pilot bails.
I'm not sure if any real pilot would really glady try do what we'd do in AH... in which we'd see an enemy while flying at 400mph, enter a steep combat turn, chop throttle, put down flaps, pull a 3~4G turn while tunnel vision sets in and allows only a tiny circle of visibility, the enemy plane scissors to right, you change directions accordingly and pull another 3~4G turn, and your vision would come back briefly and then tunnel again, and then enter a rolling scissors fight with the outside view of the world going round and round and round, your plane shaking and gasping at the edge of the stall as you try to barrely roll again and again, as slowly as possible, trying to go slower and barrely around at a larger radius than the enemy, at which point the combat altitude would drop down and your wingtips might be scratching the dirt.
Heck, the preferred practice of dive bombing was to fly over the target at a slow speed, invert and split-S downwards to the target and drop, because this method was known to be more accurate, as well as it would relieve the pilot from the dreadful -Gs if he had to push forward the controls to just duck down and enter -G dive.
...
If one takes all of what's mentioned above into consideration, the conclusion seem to support the theory that the aerial combat of WW2 planes rarely involved the 'extremes' of flight.
I think the FW190s are depicted as reasonable turners in anecdotes, because neither the 190s nor their enemy Spitfires would really get into a serious turn contest during combat. If RAF testings confirm the Spits outturn 190s quite easily, but combat reports say otherwise, then I think the only explanation is that combat pilots don't fly like test pilots.
-
I have assumed from this that real people weren't willing to slow down and use flaps the way we do in here.
- oldman
If I remember rite the 190 had a nasty stall habbit and gave no warning it was about to stall which kept guys from flying it hard at slow speeds.
On the other hand the Spitfire would indicate it was about to stall with a shudder.
German pilots were trained for the hit and run high speed fights although there are always exceptions.Marseille was known for slowing his 109 down and droping flaps.
From what I have read the British seem to have had no problem turning theyre spits at slow speed.
Mcguire was killed when his 38 went into a stall while he was turning at slow speed.
Italians were known for dog fighting and supposedly could be seen doing aerobatics in combat.
Japanese planes were purpose built for slow speed fighting.
I guess givin a situation like that you gotta do what ya gotta do although staying fast was probably prefered.
Pipz
-
Kweassa sums up it pretty well. The air combat in WW2 had very few to do with the combat in AH2.
Also there are factors a simulation just can't model. Handling qualities in example. One of the FW190s greatest strength was is exellent and easy handling coupled with exellent control harmony.
This is something AH2 can't model. AH2 also can'T model the impact of high G forces on the pilot. In AH2 every pilot has the same strength and G tolerance at all times. Thats rarely the case in reality. And one must remember that WW2 combat pilots were not trained aerobatic professionals. So there will not have very many prolonged high G dogfights.
Another thing are aircraft restrictions not modelled in AH2. Take a spitfire handbook an check what is all prohibited, especially if full fuel load is taken and you get a completely different plane than in AH2.
If I remember rite the 190 had a nasty stall habbit and gave no warning it was about to stall which kept guys from flying it hard at slow speeds.
The FW190 gave stall warning, if the ailerons were well ajusted and regulary maintained. The FW190 handbook has very detailed instructions how to ajust and maintain the ailerons. For the FW190 captured during WW2 by the allied it is unlikely that the right instructions where at hand.
-
I thought it was a couple German pilots that mentioned the 190 didnt give a stall warning.I am going by memory.I have read well over 100 books and I cant recall exactly where I read it.I guess Ill leave it at that <G>
NaughtyN
Is that book you mentioned the actual maintenance manual for the plane?Just curious if it is a book I can purchase.It sounds like something I may be interested in.
Pipz
-
Judging from what is described by many anecdotes - not just those coming from the best of pilots - it seems many of the real life factors (which cannot be adequately simulated within the boundaries of a mere game) acted out as quite a bit of hinderance which might have kept the pilots from achieving the theoretical maximum performance of their aircraft.
It is a game of numbers and probability. If you slow down enough to enter a fight on the edge of stall with flaps out, there is a real chance that you'll kill yourself (see McGuire et al.). Now, the pilot must ask himself just one question: "do you feel lucky punk?".
If the chance of killing yourself is 1/2, very few people would even consider it. But what about 1/10? 1/50? 1/100? Eventually the odds would appeal to you enough to have a go at it. Now comes the difference between real life and a game. Here you will take a 1/5 or 1/10 risk easily, especially if it is lower than you typical death/kill ratio. You will even try bigger risks as it usually rewards you with more fun fights for the risk of what? a teleport to the tower? Epeen loosing erection? In real life you gamble with your real life. Taking 1/5 odds as a way to fight, will likely kill you before you make an ace. In real life it is impossible to calculate kills/death ratio, except postmortem.
Two planes could have same potential performance, but if one gives you 1/100 chance to kill yourself by stalling and the other 1/20, pilots of the first plane will be seen turn fighting it while the pilots of the other will refrain from doing so - except for a few suicidal or exceptionally good individuals that ignore/improve the odds.
-
Spitfire > 190 and 109, nuff said. :cool:
-
Spitfire > 190 and 109, nuff said. :cool:
Amen. :D
-
Tony if your big on Spitfires you probably would also enjoy the book "Spitfire Offensive" by R.W.Sampson.
Pipz
-
Spitfire > 190 and 109, nuff said. :cool:
Christ.....
Spitfire XVI > EF2000 in our sim..........notice how I left it all nice and "Euro" for ya :aok
<BG>
Pipz
-
"The 190 is a very maneuverable aircraft, it's just not very good in a flat turn."
Well, that is not what the anecdote states.
"Spitfire > 190 and 109, nuff said." Sure. Kazaa, this is for you : http://www.luftwaffe.cz/spit.html ;)
I'm sure the combat performance of Spitfire pilots got a lot better by the introduction of IX when the 190s could no more enter and exit the fight at will.
Let me analyze the situation described in that article a bit:
Due to greying out effect I think that the Spit was not at its optimal turning speed but the FW was on a speed region where it can still turn very well. It is argued that FW190 cannot turn well at any speed but obviously this is not the case.
It is also probable that due to cockpit geometry the FW pilot was not experiencing greying(or blacking) out as the Spit pilot did if he was just flying lag pursuit, trying to hang with the Spit. If he was trying to pull lead the German was probably graying out just the same.
By "gaining on" Johnson means that the FW was either just catching him in turn or in a position of possibly gaining lead for a shot after a couple more rounds. It is questionable if the FW could have sustained the turn so long, as I presume the G was held rather constant ie. the speed was getting slower and slower so the FW would have exited its best turning speed region whereas the Spit would have entered its own. Obviously Johnson was not too interested to find out what would happen.
Thats how I read it.
-C+
-
That's my opinion as well.
Judging from what is described by many anecdotes - not just those coming from the best of pilots - it seems many of the real life factors (which cannot be adequately simulated within the boundaries of a mere game) acted out as quite a bit of hinderance which might have kept the pilots from achieving the theoretical maximum performance of their aircraft.
Some autobiographies coming from the expert pilots describe pulling so close to the edge of stall that their aircraft shivered and shook, whilst at the same time, other anecdotes originating from the average pilots seem to describe a general disdain towards having to push their aircraft towards dangerous grounds, or having to enter such a situation which warrants it in the first place.
Stories of some elite squadrons portray a cocky band of well trained aces who'd gladly chop throttle, slow their aircraft, and flicker the flap levers and switches to enter a knife fight, whilst other stories emphasize they trained their pilots to play it safe, and keep things simple during dogfights.
Some anecdotes even seem to suggest that most pilots rarely even adjusted their throttle lever during combat - leave the throttle setting at max. combat power, and then both hands on the control column.
The guncam footages also show some interesting moments. Taking into consideration that most of the footage is in 1/3rd speed, even when played at a normal real-life speed the evasive maneuvers of the target plane in the films are very simple to the simpilot's eyes. One can only imagine what's going through the pilot's mind in his last moments of the flight, but considering grave circumstances, the type of evasives shown rarely extend further than the simplest of left-right scissoring. It's actually quite difficult to see any kind of attempts at fancy evasives at all.
Another point might be the difficulty of handling due to aerodynamic forces and physical/psychological factors.
Some people have posted that it isn't all that difficult to move your head and body around during high G maneuvers, and a loose strap would be all you'd need to have a reasonable six view. However, there seems to be some disparity between looking around at high Gs during a leisure flight, and during combat maneuvering under high mental stress. For whatever reasons, apparently checking 6 wasn't an easy task, which in time came to the development of wingman coverage tactics during the course of the war.
Also, some people say stronger people can exert forces well over 50lbs on the control column, but it's quite difficult to imagine every pilot in the squadron would be able to continuously pull, push, pull, push, pull, push with maximal force during high speed flight in a single combat. Sure, I might be able to lift up heavy weights, but I'm not sure if I could continuously exert enough force to pick it up, down, up, down, up, down as long as I want. Especially during the excitement of combat with my breath running scant, sweat tickling into my eyes, forehead itching and etc etc..
According to guncam footages, the most common thing to expect seems to be you latching onto an enemy plane, your initial attack fails, the enemy plane turns left, you turn harder to gain a leadshot angle, the enemy tries a scissor to the right you change directions to follow him, nail a few shots, the target smokes, and the plane either goes down or the pilot bails.
I'm not sure if any real pilot would really glady try do what we'd do in AH... in which we'd see an enemy while flying at 400mph, enter a steep combat turn, chop throttle, put down flaps, pull a 3~4G turn while tunnel vision sets in and allows only a tiny circle of visibility, the enemy plane scissors to right, you change directions accordingly and pull another 3~4G turn, and your vision would come back briefly and then tunnel again, and then enter a rolling scissors fight with the outside view of the world going round and round and round, your plane shaking and gasping at the edge of the stall as you try to barrely roll again and again, as slowly as possible, trying to go slower and barrely around at a larger radius than the enemy, at which point the combat altitude would drop down and your wingtips might be scratching the dirt.
Heck, the preferred practice of dive bombing was to fly over the target at a slow speed, invert and split-S downwards to the target and drop, because this method was known to be more accurate, as well as it would relieve the pilot from the dreadful -Gs if he had to push forward the controls to just duck down and enter -G dive.
...
If one takes all of what's mentioned above into consideration, the conclusion seem to support the theory that the aerial combat of WW2 planes rarely involved the 'extremes' of flight.
I think the FW190s are depicted as reasonable turners in anecdotes, because neither the 190s nor their enemy Spitfires would really get into a serious turn contest during combat. If RAF testings confirm the Spits outturn 190s quite easily, but combat reports say otherwise, then I think the only explanation is that combat pilots don't fly like test pilots.
What an awesome post!
Helm ...out
-
http://www.luftwaffe.cz/spit.html ;)
Hey!!!............I like that link! :aok :D
Pipz
-
Spit IX FTW! :rock
His book, recommended to my by furball a bit back, is next on my list of autobiographies of World War 2 pilots, with Nine Lives by Al Deere next. :aok
The fight in question was fought by Johnson in a Spitfire Vb which the 190 outclassed completely outside of turning circle.
The tables turned again with the introduction of the Spit IX
-
Which 190 model was that?
-
It's interesting that nobody has really focused the key comment regarding the fight; he lost sight. There is very little actual information regarding the geometry of the fight or relative E states so it's very hard to say which aircraft was really superior, what is clear is that Johnson made a bad mistake. How long did Johnson lose sight and what was his response? When someone loses sight 99.9% of the time they will ease their pull so they can look around, especially if they lost sight because they started to black out. Even if this only took a few seconds, a few seconds of the 190 pulling his best turn while the Spit pulled less can easily account for the angles the 190 made and, once in a position of advantage, any aircraft is tough to shake regardless of which is the better turning aircraft.
Also, you have to take anecdotal information with a very, very, large grain of salt. The way a pilot perceives a fight is wrong far more than it is ever right. There are many reasons why this is so based on both psychology and physiology. The human brain, especially under severe stress, is just not an accurate recorder of facts but focuses on perceptions. You might, for instance, think that Johnson's interpretation of the 190's capabilities are really somewhat colored by the fact he's covering or minimizing his own mistake, either consciously or subconsciously. I'm not saying this is a fact in this case as there's no way to really know, but it is a consideration when reading anecdotes.
This is why we now have things like the TACTS Range and rely strongly on HUD recorders to reconstruct fights. It's also one of the reasons NFWS discusses fights as "the F14 did this, the F5 did that" rather than "wohooo, Maverick killed Joker". It takes some of the personality and ego out of a fight (the movie not withstanding) leading to more accurate reconstruction (as well as more intelligent decisions during a fight). TACTS accurately records the entire flight and can be used almost exactly the same way we use the film viewer. Modern HUD tapes are also very different from the gun cameras of WWII and will record the entire fight, including all the aircraft info on the HUD, shots, and voice.
The very first thing to do after a flight and before the debrief is to pop in the HUD tape and reconstruct what really happened from your own perspective and then, during the debrief, compare tapes to help build the real picture as best as is possible. The results can be very surprising even for experienced pilots and your credibility can be questioned should you have "forgotten" to turn on your HUD recorder and make some claim not supported by hard data.
On another subject, I find the various descriptions of the 190's stall warning interesting. The comment that when the ailerons are properly rigged the 190 gives good stall warning is significant. It seems to indicate that the 190's stall may have a tendency to begin at the wingtip vice the wingroot unless the ailerons are exactly right. This would not be a good thing as field conditions and airframe stresses would make proper rigging difficult to maintain and therefore, the average pilot would be forced to deal with poor stall warning and abrupt stall characteristics.
-
I can't remember where I read it, but I recently saw mention that some 190s' performance was significantly degraded by improper aileron maintenance. Might've been some Russian-captured Fw's, or.... I can't recall.
-
"On another subject, I find the various descriptions of the 190's stall warning interesting. The comment that when the ailerons are properly rigged the 190 gives good stall warning is significant. It seems to indicate that the 190's stall may have a tendency to begin at the wingtip vice the wingroot unless the ailerons are exactly right. This would not be a good thing as field conditions and airframe stresses would make proper rigging difficult to maintain and therefore, the average pilot would be forced to deal with poor stall warning and abrupt stall characteristics."
Both FW and Spit have the same amount of wash-out at wingtip. In Spit the angle change is divided evenly across the length of the wing, whereas in FW the angle changes on the last 20% of the wing length. I don't know which is better.
-C+
-
Both FW and Spit have the same amount of wash-out at wingtip. In Spit the angle change is divided evenly across the length of the wing, whereas in FW the angle changes on the last 20% of the wing length. I don't know which is better.
There are many factors beyond the washout as the wings are very different. With some wings, the airfoil section (the profile, not just the relative proportions or angle of incidence) changes from the root to the tip usually to give an elliptical lift profile (this is true even if the wing isn't physically elliptical as with the Spit). This impacts critical AOA at different parts of the wing and the washout is chosen to compensate for it. A key factor here though is the sensitivity to aileron rigging. When properly rigged, the accounts indicate a desireable stall progression from the root to tip. This suggests that conversely improper rigging is causing the tip to stall first which would lead me to believe that the wingtip stall margin is pretty small.
-
NaughtyN
Is that book you mentioned the actual maintenance manual for the plane?Just curious if it is a book I can purchase.It sounds like something I may be interested in.
The information is in the real FW190 Handbook. I have a copy of it in my archive. Its for the A8. It should also be available via ebay or try it here www.luftfahrt-archiv-hafner.de
The information about the stallwarning is not from it, the handbook contains the informations about the maintain and ajust them and how important that is from good control and flight characteristics.
On another subject, I find the various descriptions of the 190's stall warning interesting. The comment that when the ailerons are properly rigged the 190 gives good stall warning is significant. It seems to indicate that the 190's stall may have a tendency to begin at the wingtip vice the wingroot unless the ailerons are exactly right. This would not be a good thing as field conditions and airframe stresses would make proper rigging difficult to maintain and therefore, the average pilot would be forced to deal with poor stall warning and abrupt stall characteristics.
That was acutally the case. The arupt stall happened because of one wingtip stall and suddenly drop, it was due to wingtwist under load if i remember right. The stall could be felt in the control colum in the case that the ailerons were correctly ajusted. Improper ajusted or badly maintained ailerons would cause forces in the control columns so that the feel was lost.
A pilot also needed some experience on the FW190 to get that feel, so your statement that the average, inexperienced or badly trained pilot had to deal with sharp accelerated stall characteristics is right.
-
It was easy to adjust the ailerons on the Fw 190s. Unlike most other WWII fighters which used pulleys, wires and bell cranks to transfer control input to the control surfaces, the 190 used a linked push-rod system. It could easily be fine tuned and there was little or no play in the controls. Now this issue is further complicated by the fact the Fw 190 had several different ailerons which could be mounted. Each type delivered different performance envelopes and would be used by the pilots to tune their performance to the most likely combat conditions they would encounter. Unlike in the allied air services there was a high degree of official customization available to Luftwaffe fighter pilots; various propellers, gun packages, ammunition, control surfaces, instrumentation, and probably a good deal of unofficial mods as well. Galland even had a cigar lighter installed in the cockpit of his 109. Makes it difficult to determine exactly what the typical performance of a German fighter was.
-
Yes I can see a LW pilot saying I want 'aileron B' for my 190 in 1942.
What I fine interesting about the 190s stall was no matter which direction the a/c was turning the a/c always flipped in the same direction.
-
It was easy to adjust the ailerons on the Fw 190s. Unlike most other WWII fighters which used pulleys, wires and bell cranks to transfer control input to the control surfaces, the 190 used a linked push-rod system. It could easily be fine tuned and there was little or no play in the controls. Now this issue is further complicated by the fact the Fw 190 had several different ailerons which could be mounted. Each type delivered different performance envelopes and would be used by the pilots to tune their performance to the most likely combat conditions they would encounter. Unlike in the allied air services there was a high degree of official customization available to Luftwaffe fighter pilots; various propellers, gun packages, ammunition, control surfaces, instrumentation, and probably a good deal of unofficial mods as well. Galland even had a cigar lighter installed in the cockpit of his 109. Makes it difficult to determine exactly what the typical performance of a German fighter was.
Not particularly accurate in regards to the comment about Allied planes and pilots. I'm sure it was universal to any air force where pilots did things to try and get more performance out of their birds whether it be removing mgs, changing exhaust stacks, waxing, removing paint etc. 5th AF in the Pacific had specific mods they asked for before accepting different aircraft. You can find different unit wide mods in the 8th AF. It goes on and on.
I can give you example after example of this done in RAF and USAAF units.
-
Yes that is true Milo, but it CHANGED sides when the aircraft was in a flaps-down landing configuration.
With the flaps up, the LEFT wing dropped with little warning, which then prevented the weaker right wing; ie; the higher, outside-of-the-turn wing, from "flicking down outside" in left turns; this thus gave a better turn radius to the LEFT, flaps up.
With the flaps down it was the opposite; the RIGHT wing dropped down equally hard, but this time with significant warning. This could have been due to the gear being out, but I would think it is more likely the flap down position was the main culprit.(See the Eric Brown stall descriptions)
Given the lesser engine reserve power at higher speeds, making efficient speed-retaining turns at high speeds would not allow the flaps to be deployed for very long, so above say 250 MPH IAS, I would say the FW-190A turned poorly, but significantly better to the LEFT, flaps up.
Below 250 MPH IAS, the reserve engine power left for acceleration was greater, so the extra drag of flaps-down was acceptable, thus the FW-190A was especially competitive in RIGHT turns at these speeds, but the right/left difference seems less pronounced than at high speed... This flaps-down for low speed only is based on an actual FW-190A-8 Western Front ace's descriptions. (He also described deliberately, and successfully, using low-speed turn-fighting against p-51Ds)
The achievable tightness in 190A low-speed turns depended on at least four different basic 190A configurations; aileron chord types; short, medium, long. The presence or absence of the weighty outboard Mg 151s made a big difference from the A-6 up. The A-8's wide blade wood prop represented one of the biggest advance, and very likely made late A-8s and A-9s competitive at low speed turning with Spitfire IXs, or at least Mk XIVs...
Finally, a significant advance was the extra power of the A-8, when 1.58 ATA became standard.
It could be short chord ailerons improved turn performance at higher speeds by allowing a better high speed "stall catch". I still think the FW-190A at high level speeds could not turn with most allied fighters, and did worse than the Me-109G...
If you pit a 190A-6 with say 1.42 ATA, four cannons, narrow chord ailerons and a narrow metal prop, against an early Spitfire Mk IX, the result will probably be a significant gain by the Mk IX in low speed turning. (Note that Johnny Johnson says early 190As were better turning than the 109F! Probably at low speeds only, and Gunther Rall for his part has them pegged as very, very close. Note Rall did not like the 109G, which might have completed a larger circle faster, so the closeness he mentions is likely regarding the F...)
If, on the other hand, you pit a 190A-8 with 1.58 ATA, two cannons, long chord ailerons AND a broad-blade wood prop, I wouldn't be surprised if even a Spitfire Mk IX at +25lbs had a hard time matching low-speed turns with it... At high speeds the Spitfire IX turning superiority would be in evidence, especially in right turns, because the FW-190A would need to keep its flaps up...
This shows the wide range of possible conflicting anecdotes. However, the notion that the FW-190A can do prolonged turns well at high speeds, especially to the right, is not backed up by anecdotal evidence I have read in U.S. combat reports, except one probably involving speeds starting near 500 MPH at low altitude in a left turn, and even then the P-47D could keep inside the turn. It seems probable that above 400 MPH turn disparities narrow down between many types;
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/353-field-22april44.jpg
I think it is very clear from the Johnny Johnson article that the situation in his Spitfire Mk V was getting progressively worse in continuous turning at slow speed against a FW-190A. The "greying out" reference rather than "blacking out" indicates lower rather than higher speeds, as at very high speed you can at least start with a brief black-out... "It was only a matter of time" he said, before diving towards friendly flak. His description of the superiority of the Spitfire Mk IX is also very plausible, as the Mk IX would be superior in turns to early 190As at both high and low speeds. It is even possible the better high speed turn and climbing of the Me-109G made it more suited to fighting the Spitfire IX... (The 109G retained some superiority in roll, dive acceleration and zooms compared to the Spit IX; unlike 190As tales of woes, Gustav pilots of JG 52 in Italy did not seem to fear the Mk IX as much as American types...) The J. Johnson quote "The 190 seems faster in a zoom climb than the 109" sounds highly unlikely to me, and could indicate such maneuvers were undertaken in the 190A ONLY with the advantage of high speed, exactly as the Russians describe here;
http://www.ww2f.com/russia-war/21828-russian-combat-experiences-fw-190-a.html
Note, zoom issue excepted, the striking similitude of opinion with the J. Johnson article.
Gaston.
P.S. For those who missed this P-47D vs FW-190A report;
http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg
Note that in "On Special Missions; Kg 200", it is clearly stated that German tests of a captured needle-prop P-47D led to the conclusion that it "out-turns the Me-109G".
I would moderate that by saying it would not amount to any kind of large margin at lower speeds or right turns, and even less in climbing right turns... Note also that the later bubbletop P-47D is clearly not as good as the razorback in turning, for reasons unknown to me... I think it could be for more reasons than just the extra 1000 pounds of weight I heard separated them.
G.
-
I'll try this P-47/190 link again...;
http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg
Gaston.
-
Not particularly accurate in regards to the comment about Allied planes and pilots. I'm sure it was universal to any air force where pilots did things to try and get more performance out of their birds whether it be removing mgs, changing exhaust stacks, waxing, removing paint etc. 5th AF in the Pacific had specific mods they asked for before accepting different aircraft. You can find different unit wide mods in the 8th AF. It goes on and on.
I can give you example after example of this done in RAF and USAAF units.
Unlike in the allied air services there was a high degree of official customization available to Luftwaffe fighter pilots. It was an individual choice in the Luftwaffe and it wasn't unusual for a squadron to field several different models of aircraft and a mixture of modifications. In particular in the staff squadrons of German fighter wings.
-
I recall RAF pilot accounts of mixing in with 190's where maybe one was a long nosed one. As well as gaggles of 109's and 190's together.
Galland didn't just have a cigar lighter, he had a different gun package on his 109F. Or F's perhaps, since he got shot down in 1941. (?)
Not unique to the LW though, as early as in the BoB the RAF was upgrading various items, so a squadron would not necessarily field identical aircraft. Before the BoB that also included the props (Rotol), later on this included different spinners, exhaust stubs etc etc.
-
However, they were not the pilot's prerogative, but a matter of standard squadron equipment. Perhaps ironic when considering the regime they fought for, the Luftwaffe was big on individuality and personal achievement. The Allies by comparison were much more regimented; unit above the individual, squadron above pilot. While the Germans decorated their pilots and gave them leave based on personal achievement, any form of personal glorification was frowned upon in the RAF. RAF pilots would celebrate their fifth victory and "ace" status with a quiet beer in the O'Club. The USAAF and USN pilots were a bit more competitive amongst themselves, but unit cohesion and performance as a team were nevertheless more important. In the Luftwaffe there were instances were whole squadrons would just protect their leading "eksperten" as he, alone, attacked and racked up kills. A whole squadron reduced to one attacking aircraft with a dozen "wingmen"; not a very efficient way to fight a war. The Germans really saw their fighter pilots as modern knights, and just like the knights of old they had a lot of leeway in how they equipped themselves for battle.
Here's probably the biggest "individualist" pilot of the whole war:
(http://zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/Galland.jpg)
-
A stellar example of an attacking individual with lots of wingmen would apply to Marseilles :t However, and after all, the LW was the one who introduced the standard tactics still used today.
Good picture of "Dolfo" there BTW.
-
Galland didn't just have a cigar lighter, he had a different gun package on his 109F. Or F's perhaps, since he got shot down in 1941. (?)
From what I have read those 109s were test aircraft from the factory.The one with the MG131 in the cowl is said to be a F-4/U1,The one with the guns in the wings is said to be a F-6/U.It may have orignaly had MG17's in the wings but on Gallands plane they were replaced with MG/FF.For one reason or another they never went into full production.
Pipz
-
This shows the wide range of possible conflicting anecdotes. However, the notion that the FW-190A can do prolonged turns well at high speeds, especially to the right, is not backed up by anecdotal evidence I have read in U.S. combat reports, except one probably involving speeds starting near 500 MPH at low altitude in a left turn, and even then the P-47D could keep inside the turn. It seems probable that above 400 MPH turn disparities narrow down between many types;
By the time the US got involved a lot of the good LW pilots had disappeared. So a jug pilot in 44 was more likely to encounter 'newbies' who didn't know how or weren't taught the limits of their rides with very short training.
In AH the 190A5 is a very underrated platform but a reasonable pilot can make this bird dance and it can give the average spitfire pilot a hard time in the right hands.
-
Fw 190A-7 turning inside and scoring hits on a P-47D turning hard enough to create wing-tip vapor trails.
Timecode 6:08
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xqjs5NzKSxg
-
Spot the HO on the p51 at around the 7:50 mark. :)
I'm currently reading a gift from SF3 called 'Spitfire On My Tail' by Ulrich Steinhilper. I'm only about halfway through and he has been very critical of the luftwaffe so far. It's a real insight into the disputes between the commanders, veterans, officers and NCO's of the Luftwaffe.
-
By the time the US got involved a lot of the good LW pilots had disappeared. So a jug pilot in 44 was more likely to encounter 'newbies' who didn't know how or weren't taught the limits of their rides with very short training.
In AH the 190A5 is a very underrated platform but a reasonable pilot can make this bird dance and it can give the average spitfire pilot a hard time in the right hands.
How many experienced pilots did the USAAF have. Sure they might have had a flight time advantage but they didn't have combat time. There was still quality LW pilots around in the first half of 1944.
A good book that is online is 'Strategy for Defeat: The Luftwaffe, 1933-1945', Williamson Murray
http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/catalog/books/Murray_B12.htm
-
Each type delivered different performance envelopes and would be used by the pilots to tune their performance to the most likely combat conditions they would encounter. Unlike in the allied air services there was a high degree of official customization available to Luftwaffe fighter pilots; various propellers, gun packages, ammunition, control surfaces, instrumentation, and probably a good deal of unofficial mods as well. Galland even had a cigar lighter installed in the cockpit of his 109. Makes it difficult to determine exactly what the typical performance of a German fighter was.
Hello Die Hard,
i would really like to see a source for this. I study the FW190 and its operations now for more than 10 years and there was no large degree of customization in the LW. Not more than in the Allied airforces. Only some very few pilots with a very high reputation (i.e. Galland) could get customizations. Normally a LW pilot had to take the plane he got assigned too, without any customization allowed.
The FW190 handbook clearly states that the three different ailerons typs where created during the ongoing development of the FW190, they were not designed to met different "mission envelopes". No single FW190 book or document i own anywhere states different aileron performance or pilot choice which types to use. In mine (from June 1944) it is also noted that the two older types where no longer in production and will be subsequently replaced by the third type. The handbook also says nothing about differences in performance between those three types, but notes that on one plane, only ailerons of the same type are allowed.
All the best
Naudet
-
Naudet, I knew there had to be something fishy about the aileron interchangeability for the 190. I could never understand why the improved aileron would be replaced by an older version
Thanks for posting. :aok
I have also heard stories that the auxiliary fuel tank would be removed/installed depending on what mission the 190 was to partake in. Have you heard of this being done?
-
I knew there had to be something fishy about the aileron interchangeability for the 190. I could never understand why the improved aileron would be replaced by an older version
The handbook doesn't note any difference in performance between those three types. I just guess the later ones incooporated some improvements so the aileron "feel" became even better than it already was. With all three types the aileron area and deflection stayed the same, so rolling performance will - if at all - only vary very slightly.
I have also heard stories that the auxiliary fuel tank would be removed/installed depending on what mission the 190 was to partake in. Have you heard of this being done?
Not for the D9 for sure. All D9 where delivered with that auxiliary fuel tank or the MW50 tank in the same place.
A-8 and A-9 where to my knowledge (but i don't have researched the A-Model in the same dept as the D9) delivered with and without the auxiliary tank or a GM-1 tank, but i didn't read of that tank being removed or added between missions.
Althought it was not really difficult for a good Staffel-workshop to add or remove it, the procedure is still more time intensive and more complex than to hang a droptank to the ETC rack. Additionally if that tank was installed, it was necessary to move the ETC rack forward to keep the CG within the limits. It doesn't seem very "economical".
How many experienced pilots did the USAAF have. Sure they might have had a flight time advantage but they didn't have combat time. There was still quality LW pilots around in the first half of 1944.
Milo, a flight time advantage and especially "time on combat type" is very important and here the USAAF training had a significiant and ever increasing advantage to the german flight training from 1943 until the end of the war. Sure there where the old veterans and aces with the good german flight training from preware till 1940 or even the medicore training from 1941-42 with lots of flight hours, but even they where already in the minority in the first half of 1944, so that 4 out of 5 times an allied pilot encountered a german "flight trainee" instead of a well trained veteran with enough time to fly his plane to the edge.
For me Eric Brown and his flight tests are still the single best source for comparing WW2 planes against each other. Even more so, since i have my own pilot license and know on how many factors, especially human factors plane performance depends. All the anecdotes in the books, all statements of veterans how they came out on top in a certain situation, just show how the pilot-plane-combo performed in that single engagement. On another day, with another guy in the opposing fighter and maybe in a slighty different physical condition (tired, worn out etc.) the outcome might have been the contrary although the same planetypes where involved.
-
Yes that would be my take on the Aux tank. The mechanics had more important work to do on the dozen or so 190s in the staffel.
It doesn't seem very "economical".
Early production A-8s did not come with the aux tank fitted (an option). From Sept 1944 it was a standard fit.
Considering the source of the removal/installing of the aux tank statement, I would say he made another of his numerous erroneous conclusions.
-
Hello Die Hard,
i would really like to see a source for this.
Hello.
My source is a friend of mine who is what I call a 190-phile. He works on White 1, and also worked on Black 3. I'm afraid I can't post a written source for you, but I take his word for it.
http://www.white1foundation.org/
-
Would that be Crumpp ;)
-
No, that's not his name, and I won't divulge his identity without permission.
-
Ok Die Hard,
i am myself support the White1Foundation and my first though about your source was the same as Angus. And although i appreciate Crumpp for his effort on rebuilding the White 1 and know that he owns an almost invalueable archive off original FW documents, i would call him a little overeager when it comes down to realisticly rate the FW190 performance and what is supported by the documents and what is not. I am now pry to know your source, but will accept if you won't reveal his identity.
But in this case - without intending an offense to you or your source - i will trust my researches and my own archive, where i so far didn't find any informations or even a hind that the three ailerons types had different performance envelopes.
If you ask in this forum, i am sure many folks will tell you that i am a also a 190-phile. And i must admit that years back (must have been around 2001/2002) i had a very strong FW bias. I regulary get a good laugh when rereading my own old postings. For me the most important experience that opened my eyes, was when i started to train and became a (privat) pilot myself. You get a whole new look how to rate plane performance and how difficult it is to pin it down. Actually any published performance number of any plane is a more or less accurate guess and even today everyone is happy if the real performance varies +/- 3% from the published numbers.
Best regards
Naudet
-
I'm not particularly fond of the 190 though it is an interesting bird, and you'd better consider my post hearsay.
-
No, that's not his name, and I won't divulge his identity without permission.
It was his forum name. I have his name and email somewhere (since we have been mailing every now and then). I think he was on that particular project, - that's partly what made me curious, - as well as how it's going. NP mate.
And Naudet, still fly the 190 in AH? Nice post anyway, and the point of what changes once you fly yourself is nicely put. Don't have a private pilot's license, but I tried various birds. Turns out that my old postings of quite some heat (I also have fun looking at them) are frequently some arguments with people that never flew a little aircraft.
-
And Naudet, still fly the 190 in AH?
Resubbed about 3 month ago, just to fly the 190, cause saddly it is so ugly expensive to rebuild and maintain a real one. :aok
-
Hehe, maybe we can wing one day. Online name is Daimler in my case, although I frequent the Merlin powered rides. Very little time for me before late autumn though.
In the meantime we carry on saving....you for your 190 from the Flugzeugwerke, and me from Australia, Spit Mk 26 :D
-
Flugzeugbau you mean. Flugzeugwerke is more 109 ;)
-
The 3 ailerons were NOT similar in surface dimensions...
The three different ailerons had three different CHORD dimensions; it was not a matter of improvement; you can differenciate them in some photos by the position of the fixed trim tab; with the trim tab fully inboard, the trailing edge "extends" to be level with the trim tab, therefore increasing the chord by about 40-50 mm or so. (This is beyond the wing trailing edge!)
With the trim tab at the one-third inboard position, the trim tab sticks out; no extended aileron trailing edge.
A longer chord aileron meant more aileron authority at low speeds, shorter chord meant less aileron heaviness at high speeds. In late A-8s, the proper 190A tactics against later American fighters made the low speed turning advantage increasingly important, so the long chord was more common.
The FW-190A-8 Western ace I mentionned went even further and added SPACERS to the aileron hinge, to "artificially" boost the chord even further (and thus increasing the low-speed "stall catching authority"), making the A-8 an even more specialized low-speed dogfighter. This took advantage of the P-47's, and especially of the P-51's, weakness in low-speed turning ("especially" not because of a vast low-speed turning performance difference between those two U.S. fighters, but because the stronger P-47 could afford more head-to-head combat, therefore ignoring speed to keep facing head-to-head into an attack was less productive than with the P-51). Unlike the Japanese, whose less armed and more fragile aircrafts could not effectively counter hit-and-run tactics with a series of head-to-heads runs, the FW-190A was powerful and strong enough to make head-to-heads a losing proposition to U.S. fighters, particularly the P-51.
So the FW-190A was probably one of the few marginally successful counters that the old dogfighting doctrine found to hit and run tactics, hence the preliminary flap-popping and downthrottling, described by an actual FW-190A-8 Western ace, when facing P-51s... He did not care about "energy fighting", only low speed turn response against multiple opponents...
The Japanese compared their imported FW-190A-5 to their heavily armed, tight-turning J2M3, but the difference with the FW-190A was that the J2M3 could make viciously hard prolonged turns at higher speeds: One was observed by a witness making high speed turns "more violent than anything I had ever seen in Europe", resulting in the pursuing P-51D losing its tail control surfaces and crashing.
In comparison, the FW-190A could probably initiate a fairly violent turn at high speed, especially to the left, but it could not sustain it to compete with P-51s or P-47s; it would mush or stall. Again;
http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg
The Zero Model 52 may not have been able to duplicate the J2M3's high speed turning performance, but its evolution followed the correct path for a late-war low-speed dogfighter: Much longer-ranged cannons, and then seriously increased armament, regardless of the cost to top speed, to exploit its remaining low-speed turning advantage. This would then force the hit-and-run American fighter into a series of head-to-head attacks, where the odds were at least even against the later five-gun A6M5c... Note that the Zero is unique in getting the windshield armoured glass as a standard BEFORE even getting pilot back armor, a clear indication of the perceived combat priority...
This is not to say the Zero or the FW-190A never used hit-and-run tactics, but in the case of the 190A in particular, these hit-and-run tactics certainly occurred mostly at the higher altitudes to compensate for the 190A's lack of competitive high altitude turn performance. Also, up there the miserable pull-out performance of both the Zero and the 190A mattered less than when fighting low to the ground...
To characterize the FW-190A as a good hit-and-run fighter is only slightly less ridiculous than for the Zero because of the 190A's high dive speed. Otherwise you could not be further away from its true character... The Me-109G was actually much more versatile than the FW-190A in vertical maneuvers, despite a 50-70 MPH slower top dive speed, but even so it generally had trouble matching U.S. vertical combat performance.
Remember the Russian evaluation of hundreds of compiled combat reports; "The FW-190A does not like vertical maneuvers"
An interesting thread here were the cited document takes the superiority of the FW-190A in general turning performance, over the Me-109G when confronting the La-5, as an implied "common knowledge" that is not worthy of any elaboration...
Only today has this become a "mystery"...;
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/1121035477
Once again, "common knowledge" can be lost, and I hope the increasing mountain of evidence will not be ignored forever...
Gaston
-
The 3 ailerons were NOT similar in surface dimensions...
The three different ailerons had three different CHORD dimensions; it was not a matter of improvement; you can differenciate them in some photos by the position of the fixed trim tab; with the trim tab fully inboard, the trailing edge "extends" to be level with the trim tab, therefore increasing the chord by about 40-50 mm or so. (This is beyond the wing trailing edge!)
The handbooks gives the dimensions for the three ailerons as followed.
Type #1 #2 distance trailing edge to leading edge (or chord) 448mm 8, both had an "Achsrücklage" (hinge layback?) of 7mm.
Typ #3 distance trailing edge to leading edge (or chord) 451mm, no "Achsrücklage. The handbook states that through these changes the rudder was immersed (moved back) by 10mm.
From this information, i assume Type #3 will have improved handling qualities and a bit better aileron authority due to the slighty larger (+10mm) effective aileron area.
I will look up a few books tomorrow if i find photos revealing a more significiant difference.
-
Flugzeugbau you mean. Flugzeugwerke is more 109 ;)
http://www.flying-wings.com/special/04_fw190/04_fw190.htm
On September 29th 2004, a beautiful autumn day at Manching AFB, the Flugwerk FW 190 took off from the northern runway for its official press flight. After the first hop on June, 22nd and another flight earlier that week this has been the third flight by chief test pilot Horst Philipp.
-
The Flugwerk 190A-8N is not modeled in AH. The AH 190s are modeled on the original Focke-Wulf Flugzeugbau AG aircraft. NaughtyN will find it difficult to fly a Flugwerk 190 in-game as Angus suggested. (He actually suggested a Flugzeugwerke 190. Bayerische Flugzeugwerke made 109s, but no 190s.)
-
I see now. I misread his post.
-
NP, - point is I meant the one they're building these days.
Wonder which one from AH is the closest one in performance.
Anyway, I hope I see one some day, as well as a 109. Maybe horsing around a bit. Doubt I'll ever see anything close to the performance of a certain Griffon powered Spit in the year 2000. The guy was completely insane. Will post if I find a video of it. Pilot was French, just like O'Bama :devil
-
The A-8N is as light or lighter than an A-5, but with the power of an A-7 or A-8. Like most warbirds/replicas today its performance won't be representative of wartime service.
-
Angus, do you mean Christoph Jaquard?
I know he owns a Spit XIX. It flew with a dual prop, but this was changed to a 5 bladed one this year.
If yes, he is also the first guy whos FW190A8/N has ended its flighttests and is now displaying it on airshows. He was in La Ferté-Alais and Duxford this yeas and i will hopefully see it on the Hahnweide in September.
About the different ailerons. I reviewed a lot of pictures, but it was hard to find any that really showed the aileron to flap changeover. I found a few good ones along the leading edge for the earlier versions, which showed that there was straight line, only the trim tab extending past the leading edge. For the third type with the new trim tab postion there was no real good picture, but the medicore ones showed no significient extending of the aileron leading edge.
-
Angus, do you mean Christoph Jaquard?
I know he owns a Spit XIX. It flew with a dual prop, but this was changed to a 5 bladed one this year.
If yes, he is also the first guy whos FW190A8/N has ended its flighttests and is now displaying it on airshows. He was in La Ferté-Alais and Duxford this yeas and i will hopefully see it on the Hahnweide in September.
You mean this one?
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f80/wurzeluk/2007_0101CALIFEB20090054.jpg)
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f80/wurzeluk/2007_0101CALIFEB20090025.jpg)
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f80/wurzeluk/2007_0101CALIFEB20090037.jpg)
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f80/wurzeluk/2007_0101CALIFEB20090091.jpg)
-
there was an excitable German kid behind our little group area who would start shouting everytime the 190 did it's pass.
I was preying for the ponies to gang it and blow it up but dang i dont think they put 50 cals in them anymore :lol
-
there was an excitable German kid behind our little group area who would start shouting everytime the 190 did it's pass.
I was preying for the ponies to gang it and blow it up but dang i dont think they put 50 cals in them anymore :lol
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
I giggled inside everytime he shouted "achtung! achtung!" everytime the spitfires flew past. :)
-
... i will hopefully see it on the Hahnweide in September.
Will that be legal or do Jaquard have to paint over those swastikas first?
-
Got any more shots of the 190 in that bottom pic?
-
Will that be legal or do Jaquard have to paint over those swastikas first?
As far as I understand, the swastika is legal as long as it's being used in a historical context, if that makes sense...
-
Their law is very specific as far as I know. People have been charged and tried for painting swastikas on model airplanes, even if it was historically correct. That is a replica 190. I think only museums as the like can legally display nazi symbols.
-
The 190 that didn't fly at Duxford belongs to Tom Blair from Florida. It's also a new build 190 from Flugwerk.
-
Bruv119, Thats indeed the one i mean. I think Mr. Jaquard will have to cover the swastikas somehow.
I also noticed that there was a second Flugwerk 190 at Duxford. If it's really owned by Tom Blair, does he own two of them?
Look here http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=17579&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
Sadly i haven't heard much news about the D9/N Black 12, since those pictures where postet. Anyone know more?