Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Ardy123 on March 24, 2010, 05:10:03 PM
-
I know there are many threads that say things like '190 performance is crippled, etc...' I'm not trying to start that here, I was just wondering that why according to the http://gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php (http://gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php) the 190 A8 has worse performance than the 190 A5?
The 190 A5 engine 1,700 PS (1,677 hp, 1,250 kW)
The 190 A8 engine 1,980 PS (1,953 hp, 1,456 kW)
wouldn't that give it more power & make it climb faster and fly faster?
If the engine's power did not offset the weight gain, why did they add it?
It just doesn't make sense, why would a later revision of an airplane intended to be an 'improvement' have worse performance?
-
The 190 A5 engine 1,700 PS (1,677 hp, 1,250 kW)
The 190 A8 engine 1,980 PS (1,953 hp, 1,456 kW)
In AH, the A8 weighs 900lbs more than the A5
-
It actually weights 500 lbs more than the real A-8 did!
The reason is that the Germans were developing heavier and heavier firewpower. They were also trying to get the MW50 working on 190s (hence that aux tank you have in the A8, used for regular gas in this case). These outboard 20mm guns, 30mm guns, the strengtening of the frame, the heavier engine, the heavier 13mm cowl guns, all lead to weight gain.
It's like the 109G-6 gaining weight over the G-2. Overall it was well worth the improvements, and it was a more lethal killing machine. It just wasn't necesarilly the lightest or fastest.
-
It actually weights 500 lbs more than the real A-8 did!
Could you provide some primary source material that confirms this?
-
crap.. just lost my post.
I posted some on it a while back, and compiled posts and comments from others as well.
I rechecked the forums with a search and must correct myself: The A8 is about 250 lbs overweight. (It was the F-8 that was 500lbs heavier than the A-8 but with identical climb/speed charts, another issue)
http://www.vermin.net/fw190/190-1.jpg
http://www.vermin.net/fw190/translated-fwchart.jpg
Almost every chart I read lists 4300kg weights for a loaded 4x20mm 190A8. Ours is much heavier, leading to discussions on these forums in the past that maybe ours is modeled off of the "sturm" with the weight of the added armor included, but with OUT the actual armor! (attack anybody, anywhere, and you'll probably lose a cannon, or your oil, very easily).
In comparison, here is the recorded weights in AH (note: taken before the ETC rack had weight added to it!)
190A-8 2 guns 100% (169gal): 9360 lbs
190A-8 2 guns noaux% (139gal): 9178 lbs
190A-8 2 guns 0%: 8346 lbs
190A-8 2 guns (noMGAmmo) 100%: 9189 lbs
190A-8 2 guns (no20mmAmmo) 100%: 9118 lbs
190A-8 4 guns 100% (169gal): 9682 lbs
190A-8 4 guns (no20mmAmmo) 100%: 9304 lbs
190A-8 30mm guns 100% (169gal): 9891 lbs
190A-8 30mm guns (no20mmAmmo) 100%: 9506 lbs
190A-8 2 guns DT (248gal): 9900 lbs
190A-8 2 guns DT dry (169gal): 9426 lbs
190A-8 2 guns DT dropped (rack on): 9360 lbs
169 gal = 1,014 lbs
1 gal = 6 lbs
30 gal aux tank = 180 lbs
79 gal DT = 474 lbs
950 13mm rounds = 171 lbs
500 20mm rounds = 242 lbs
280 20mm rounds = 136 lbs
110 30mm rounds = 143 lbs
1x 13mm round = 0.18 lbs
1x 20mm round = .485/.486 lbs (in/out)
1x 30mm round = 1.3 lbs
2x MG151/20 plus 280 rounds = 322 lbs
each MG151/20 outboard = 93 lbs
2x 30mm plus 110 rounds = 531 lbs
each 30mm = 194 lbs
More weight than A-5 (not counting aux)= 596 lbs
Total DT weight = 540 lbs
Empty DT weight = 66 lbs
ETC rack weight = 0 lbs?
Bottom line is: Our A8 is very over-weight.
[edit: typo fix]
-
why has it not been fixed yet? if it was say the P51 that was over weight..there would be far more outcry on the forums
-
you do some forum searches and folks were talking about it back as early as 2001 or so.
They were talking about MW50 since 1999 :rofl
P.S. That's not even counting the hot debate about our A-5 being modeled off of a ballasted G-3 after its capture by allies.
-
Yep, like I thought, about 100% error in your 500lbs figure for A-8...
The reason I asked was that during one of these A-8 weight discussions I went and checked the HTC home page's aircraft section's weight and it was 9481lbs to the pound. That was before the AH Wiki. I think we had the weights listed in the E6B at the time but I didn't feel the need to check in game. That info had been there from 1999 until the start of AH Wiki. I guess the weight has changed at some point. That first link's scan was scanned by Vermillion from a manual Gatt sent to him IIRC.
Similar case is with the A6M2. Before AH Wiki A6M2's weight was listed as 5313lbs in the home page's aircraft pages. An often quoted figure which might originate from Rene Francillon's Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War. The weight in AH is higher. Roughly 200lbs more IIRC.
Hopefully Pyro gets around to look into both of these figures at one point.
-
you do some forum searches and folks were talking about it back as early as 2001 or so.
They were talking about MW50 since 1999 :rofl
P.S. That's not even counting the hot debate about our A-5 being modeled off of a ballasted G-3 after its capture by allies.
having down some searching :cry I can not read no more as it makes me upset so much :cry.
One day :pray
-
maybe all the planes are piloted by a man weighing roughly 200 lbs or so with his gear etc!? EVER THINK THE PILOT is the PROBLEM STOP BEING SO OBESE!
-
maybe all the planes are piloted by a man weighing roughly 200 lbs or so with his gear etc!? EVER THINK THE PILOT is the PROBLEM STOP BEING SO OBESE!
So HTC modeled the pilot after me? What an honor! :salute
-
maybe all the planes are piloted by a man weighing roughly 200 lbs or so with his gear etc!? EVER THINK THE PILOT is the PROBLEM STOP BEING SO OBESE!
Did you really think the Germans didn't take the pilot into account when calculating combat weights? I mean, they're Germans :D
The Fw 190D-9 weight table I have allows for 100kg (roughly 220lbs) for the pilot.
-
why has it not been fixed yet? if it was say the P51 that was over weight..there would be far more outcry on the forums
Now that's just a Luftwhine :)
Keep in mind it was Murdr, a 38 driver who came across the numbers showing the 38G was underweight by 600 pounds and HTC corrected it. Some of us just kept on flying our 38Gs and didn't worry about it. And yeah it was a US bird too and they fixed it despite the performance decrease!
-
how about they keep the 200 pounds of weight on the zero, but give us self-sealing gas tanks, armored glass conopey and a tad more structural strength in a dive?
deal?
-
"The 190 A8 engine 1,980 PS (1,953 hp, 1,456 kW) "
Does AH A8 have such power? I thought it was 1800PS?
-C+
-
Now that's just a Luftwhine :)
:noid :lol
-
Yep, like I thought, about 100% error in your 500lbs figure for A-8...
Your initial reply didn't seem to indicate you thought my numbers were off, you sounded like you didn't think the A8 was overweight at all. I knew there were a lot of weight issues with AH's 190A/F models, and knew it was like flying around with a bomb onboard all the time. I just confused which number was wrong in this case. It was a smaller bomb, but still a lot.
The reason I asked was that during one of these A-8 weight discussions I went and checked the HTC home page's aircraft section's weight and it was 9481lbs to the pound. That was before the AH Wiki. I think we had the weights listed in the E6B at the time but I didn't feel the need to check in game. That info had been there from 1999 until the start of AH Wiki. I guess the weight has changed at some point. That first link's scan was scanned by Vermillion from a manual Gatt sent to him IIRC.
Similar case is with the A6M2. Before AH Wiki A6M2's weight was listed as 5313lbs in the home page's aircraft pages. An often quoted figure which might originate from Rene Francillon's Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War. The weight in AH is higher. Roughly 200lbs more IIRC.
If I recall there have been at least a handful of planes (half a dozen or so?) where the weights were called into question on the AH charts. I think that the concensus at the time was that the weights were not with full fuel, and it was hard to judge what state the aircraft was in while testing (which led to our having a weight readout in our E6B for diagnostic testing).
All of my 190A8 numbers posted above were taken from E6B, and then using math to figure out the weights of individual components.
P.S. Our outboard 30mm package weighs far too much, and our outboard 20mm package doesn't weigh enough, as compared to the real deal. Current bang-for-buck is the 4x20mm, until that is fixed.
-
So the general consensus is that the weight is off in AH? Does HiTeck or Pyro have anything to say about this?
-
I'm not sure where this fit's in exactly but this is what I have for the A-8 weight's in various configurations.This is from T.2190A-8 issued (Sep/44). I'm not saying this is the end all document, it's always wise to compare sources.
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/Fw190A8page.jpg)
In summary comparing the various gun packages in AH (from the E6B) to this I came up with the following ranges;
- 2 MG131's, 4 MG151's- in AH it's from -.2 under to +20 pounds over weight (this is the only configuration the AH weight falls within the range in the document)
- 2 MG131's, 2 MG151's- in AH it's from +67 to +77 pounds over weight
- 2 MG131's, 2 MG151's, 2 MK 108's- in AH it's from +68.8 to +78.8 pounds over weight
- 2 MG131's, 2 MG151's, ETC 501 carrier, SC 500kg- in AH it's from +40.7 to +41.1 pounds over weight
Also doing a little more math,
The ETC 501 rack in game is 23.8 pounds to light.
The GP 500kg in game is 2.5 pounds to light.
BTW I wonder how it would handle with the /R-3 package? ;)
I hope that helps with the weight discussion.
-
They probably are working on other things. One of them (Pyro?) chimed in on a thread about the ETC rack weight. They're probably aware that we've brought up the weight issues a number of times.
They probably have a "to do" list longer than the state of Texas is. I just wish this would move towards the top of it :D
-
According to milo (and he cites the source):
ammunition for 2 MG131 - 77kg/170lb for 950rds
ammunition for 2 MG151 - 110kg/243lb for 500rds
ammunition for 2 MG151 - 64kg/141lb for 280 rds
removal of 2 MG151 and ammo - 389lb
ref. 190A-8 Handbook, Tech Description #284
The 30mm MK108 weighed 58kg or 128lb.
Doing the math from the E6B, the empty weight of our in-game MG151/20s (outboard) is 93lbs per gun, and for the Mk108s is 194lbs per gun. That means for dry weight alone (after ammo is gone) you're 132 lbs over what it should be.
Also, have you tested the ETC 501 lately in-game? I never got around to it, but in the thread where Milo cited the weight of the rack and referenced it for HTC, he even said 60.7 kg, same as your sheet. Might be an oversight on HTC's part? Worth double checking and reporting.
P.S. Don't show translated sheets like that around here, it will start a 5-page flame war about falsifying data, as in one of the last threads it was done (insert old rolleyes here)
-
I'm not sure where this fit's in exactly but this is what I have for the A-8 weight's in various configurations.This is from T.2190A-8 issued (Sep/44). I'm not saying this is the end all document, it's always wise to compare sources.
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/Fw190A8page.jpg)
In summary comparing the various gun packages in AH (from the E6B) to this I came up with the following ranges;
- 2 MG131's, 4 MG151's- in AH it's from -.2 under to +20 pounds over weight (this is the only configuration the AH weight falls within the range in the document)
- 2 MG131's, 2 MG151's- in AH it's from +67 to +77 pounds over weight
- 2 MG131's, 2 MG151's, 2 MK 108's- in AH it's from +68.8 to +78.8 pounds over weight
- 2 MG131's, 2 MG151's, ETC 501 carrier, SC 500kg- in AH it's from +40.7 to +41.1 pounds over weight
Also doing a little more math,
The ETC 501 rack in game is 23.8 pounds to light.
The GP 500kg in game is 2.5 pounds to light.
BTW I wonder how it would handle with the /R-3 package? ;)
I hope that helps with the weight discussion.
Thanks for that Baumer!
I probably haven't seen it before.
That's rather realiable source as it shows the weight breakdown.
-
I'm not too sure "how reliable" it is. Even assuming AH's is modeled off this or another similar breakdown, some parts of it don't mesh. It doesn't match the empty weight of AHs plane even though the loaded weight appears to. On top of that at least half a dozen other flight tests and weight breakdowns list the A8 with 4x20mm cannon and an aux tank (fully loaded) as weighing 100kg less than that.
I tried looking at the breakdown to see where the 100kg discrepency might be, but I don't know where the difference lies. It lists "permanent accessories" "additional accessories" and "standard equipment" as having over 1300 pounds of weight, but does not say what is in there. Surely gunsights and other equipment, but why is the overall 100kg heavier?
Not to mention the fact that for the same amount of gallons, AH's internal fuel weighs 1014 pounds while the chart says 1102.4 pounds, almost 100 lbs heavier?
It does seem to be one of the charts (or similar to the charts) AH used to build the gun options, but the rest? Let's say it matches this loaded weight for the 4x20mm A-8, but for some reason the outboard 20mm package is too light(as shown). So why, if the outboard 20mm are too light in AH, why does it still meet this 4400kg loaded weight?
P.S. Ran across another one, different serial number, still in German, also listing 4x20mm loadout and 4300kg.
http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/8664/fw190a8cleansizedfl8.jpg
-
That chart is a couple of pages further back in the pdf I have. The problem is, that set for 4 graphs lists the same weight regardless of the load out. Since that set of graphs has the 4 20mm's as the same weight as, 2 20mm's and 3 Mk 108's, that lead me to believe they were not reliable.
I have not done any empty weight testing, or verified the weight of the ammunition but it would be nice if it could be addressed. I know HTC all ready has a million thing on their "To Do" list.
-
Just going to compile a little list of different tests and different airframes on different dates (including the untranslated version of the 2 images I linked earlier in this thread), all listing weights and loadouts for the test.
These are not meant to really debate what performance we have or should have, but are only used as examples of historic weights in wartime testing (battle loaded) airframes. Also note dates are day/month/year, NOT the normal month/day/year.
New links:
serial no.: 801-048
date: 13.11.1943
chart link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-level-speed-13nov43.jpg
Lists 4300kg for fully loaded 4x20mm
Lists 4350kg for fully loaded 2x20/2x30
serial no. 801-051
date: 13.11.1943
chart link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-climb-13nov43.jpg
Lists 4300kg for fully loaded 4x20mm
Lists 4350kg for fully loaded 2x20/2x30
serial no. 801-132
date: 25.10.1944
chart link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-25oct44.jpg
Already previously listed, but translated chart:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-25oct44.jpg
Lists 4300kg for fully loaded 4x20mm
serial no. (A-8 not listed, ta152 comparison)
date: 3.1.1945
chart link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-3jan45.jpg
Lists 4300kg for fully loaded 4x20mm.
serial no. (A-8 not listed, anothe rta152 comparison)
date: 12.1.1945
chart link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-12jan45.jpg
Lists 4300kg for fully loaded 4x20mm
serial no. (A-8 not listed, compares multiple variants)
date: 1.10.1944
chart link: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/leistungsdaten-1-10-44.jpg
already previously listed, but translated chart:
http://www.vermin.net/fw190/translated-fwchart.jpg
Lists 4300kg for fully loaded 4x20mm
-
190a8r4 had nitrous oxide tank called GM-1 boost system
According to JG26 volume2, the system increased the top speed by as much as 36 mph at altitudes above 8000 meters.
GM-1 raised the fighter's critical altitude from 5500 to 6300 meters (18,000 to 20,700 feet) at which height its maximum speed was 656 km/h (408 mph).
/Save
-
you do some forum searches and folks were talking about it back as early as 2001 or so.
They were talking about MW50 since 1999 :rofl
P.S. That's not even counting the hot debate about our A-5 being modeled off of a ballasted G-3 after its capture by allies.
the handling always seems to be more like the F5 in those USN tests than anything else, i always wanted to see the plane that had the RAF so nervous, what hitech has delivered so far sems to fall pretty short.
-
the handling always seems to be more like the F5 in those USN tests than anything else, i always wanted to see the plane that had the RAF so nervous, what hitech has delivered so far sems to fall pretty short.
Against Hurris, Spit5s, P-40s, etc, our 190A5 is faster, accelerates better, climbs better, rolls better, and has lethal firepower, suffering only in turn rate and radius. A pack of experten in 190s flying against the planes the RAF had when the 190 first appeared will make it abundantly clear what the RAF was so nervous about.
EDIT: Which is not to say the 190A line couldn't use some of its more potent members added to help it retain relevance in the MW and LW...
-
better is not dominant.
Against Hurris, Spit5s, P-40s, etc, our 190A5 is faster, accelerates better, climbs better, rolls better, and has lethal firepower, suffering only in turn rate and radius. A pack of experten in 190s flying against the planes the RAF had when the 190 first appeared will make it abundantly clear what the RAF was so nervous about.
EDIT: Which is not to say the 190A line couldn't use some of its more potent members added to help it retain relevance in the MW and LW...
-
The 190A-5 completely dominates the Spit5. Completely and utterly.
-
Even back in AH1 it was pretty superior, at all alts. I recall a number of HTH rooms with themed setups, one was 190a5s vs spit5s. They are faster and better. Even when you have a spit5 closing on your tail (and remember, back then 1.2k killshots were the NORM!) you could disengage by running away. If he was too close to run straight, you could do 3-4 revolutions of a flat scissors and get him out of sync, and as soon as he was out of sync just keep going. By the time he turned back you had too much of a lead for him to hope of catching you.
I found quite a bit of glee learning how to use historical tactics against the pesky spitties in my 190. Back then I was rather unskilled and was very impressed with how well the 190 did. The firepower, diving, roll, and overall performance makes it devastating to the spit5s.
The only thing the spit5 has is near-stall flat-turn radius, and that doesn't even enter into most fights.
Compare a pony to a hurricane. Hurricane turns much tighter, and can kill a pony, but the pony has better all round performance in almost every area. Same deal with the 190.
-
I found quite a bit of glee learning how to use historical tactics against the pesky spitties in my 190. Back then I was rather unskilled and was very impressed with how well the 190 did.
+1
Personally, I love the A5. Wish it was a tad faster (cough) but with some of its best engine performance (RoC) at typical (4-6K) MA altitudes, it can surprise.
Nothing quite so satisfying as turning the tables on one who engaged with the intention of using your poor flat turn performance against you.
Roll + RoC + Acceleration = In control of fight.
Sustained Turn = Makes up for mistakes.
-
I kill pony's in Hurry's and 190's with SpitV's if needed. It also counts for the driver of the slower kite to know what to do :D
The 190 will respond worse to violent maneuvers than the Spit V, and the counter to scissor as an evasive, look more than turn. In such a way I learned to close on the 190 :devil
Anyway, in order to kill an enemy, you have to be in range. That means you are there too :D
-
You'll need the 190 driver to make a mistake. Skill can make up for a performance deficit, but you're clearly at a disadvantage. 1 vs 1 the 190 is a difficult bird to fly against a turner, but many vs many it dominates the Spit5.
-
the hi-tech 190s poor handling alone precludes it from being dominant in the games.
poor handling character only noted in that one USN 190-F5 test with all it's problems.
the fact that some of us can cope with the plane does not justify it's representation in the game/s.
-
the hi-tech 190s poor handling alone precludes it from being dominant in the games.
poor handling character only noted in that one USN 190-F5 test with all it's problems.
the fact that some of us can cope with the plane does not justify it's representation in the game/s.
...and thus, the Gates of Hell open.
I need me a bowl of popcorn.
-
the hi-tech 190s poor handling alone precludes it from being dominant in the games.
poor handling character only noted in that one USN 190-F5 test with all it's problems.
the fact that some of us can cope with the plane does not justify it's representation in the game/s.
Here we go again.
-
Poor handling? Rolls like a dream, steady gun platform. Elevator effective to very high speeds.
Only bad point of handling is poor rate and radius of turn and a tendency to drop a wing when stalled-IOW, the same ones the 190s actually had!
-
ok lets see, where does the 190 rate in ah as maneuverable/manageable/ease of flight in AH ...
now explain the differences in that and just about every test report and pilot opinion other than the USN report i mentioned ...
hell even the history channel (as bias a source as there is) says the a8 should out maneuver the p51 ...
(http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k44/thor-jg51/ponyvfw.jpg)
you all need to come to terms with this stuff, the 190 is described by the Luftwaffe, RAF, VVS as exceptionally easy to fly with impeccable handling, both the germans and the soviets thought its effective turn was better than the 109s a plane the british admit turned as well and some now say better than the spitfire, yet in the games ...
WTF is with these boards everybody is saying how the 190 is off and i say it is off and i get jumped on ...
you guys need to grow up and take a statement for what it is, and the in game handling of the 190s is nothing like it was reported to be by by everyone who tested them, with the exception of the USN in that one test of the underpowered, unbalanced, weight added, 190F
which seems to have bee the basis for the handling qualities of the 190s in the games ...
not sure how that is not obvious to everyone ...
Poor handling? Rolls like a dream, steady gun platform. Elevator effective to very high speeds.
Only bad point of handling is poor rate and radius of turn and a tendency to drop a wing when stalled-IOW, the same ones the 190s actually had!
-
This is shaping up to be very INteresting. :D
-
He has a point, and you all shouldn't rag on him. On the other hand maybe the same info is presented the same way and folks tire of it (like B-29 requests).
I think that perhaps the balances at work in turns could be retuned so that it turns more easily (and probably a bit tighter, as well) but overall I don't think modeling the A5 off of other more reputed testing would change it all that much.
I'm for it, I'm just saying it's not a horrible plane already, and any such changes would only make it better.
Oh, and given the option I'd fight one vs a P-51 any day. I think they probably are more manuverable, even with the Pony's flaps bonus. I've out-turned my fair share of uber-flappen-armed ponies and jugs in 190A5s. It eats them for lunch.
-
You quoted something off of "Dogfights" on the History Channel as a source? Fine. In another episode this same show claimed the 109 was less maneuverable to the P-51. Willing to accept the hierarchy of 190>P-51>109 in turning ability as reality, or would you rather switch to using *rational* evidence to argue your position? :devil
The Good:
The 190 IS stable.
The 190 DOES have excellent control authority at all speeds.
The 190 DOES out-roll virtually every plane in the game.
The Bad:
The 190 has a poor rate and radius of turn, due to high wing-loading.
The 190 has a tendency to drop a wing when you stall it.
What part of this do you think conflicts with history? "Excellent handling" does NOT mean out-turns a Zero.
ok lets see, where does the 190 rate in ah as maneuverable/manageable/ease of flight in AH ...
now explain the differences in that and just about every test report and pilot opinion other than the USN report i mentioned ...
hell even the history channel (as bias a source as there is) says the a8 should out maneuver the p51 ...
(http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k44/thor-jg51/ponyvfw.jpg)
you all need to come to terms with this stuff, the 190 is described by the Luftwaffe, RAF, VVS as exceptionally easy to fly with impeccable handling, both the germans and the soviets thought its effective turn was better than the 109s a plane the british admit turned as well and some now say better than the spitfire, yet in the games ...
WTF is with these boards everybody is saying how the 190 is off and i say it is off and i get jumped on ...
you guys need to grow up and take a statement for what it is, and the in game handling of the 190s is nothing like it was reported to be by by everyone who tested them, with the exception of the USN in that one test of the underpowered, unbalanced, weight added, 190F
which seems to have bee the basis for the handling qualities of the 190s in the games ...
not sure how that is not obvious to everyone ...
-
if your flat turning in a 190 you are flying the 190 wrong, its all about the vertical..I always high yo yo than flat turn. Having good manoverbility does not mean good turn rate.
-
the "accelerated stall" was noted by low 190 time pilots and or testers, it was not a flaw, it was a "less pronounced" stall warning. you can feel free to find a higher time 190 pilot who had the time in type to acclimate himself to the 190s pre stall warnings that holds the same opinion of a "no warning" stall.
it is in no way fair to the type to take a tester or low time FW190 pilot who is surprised by the RELATIVE stall compared to the spit or the 109 and then use that to model what by all accounts was an excellent handling airframe even stellar and model it so much as to make it twitchy and difficult in the turn. there is no way that would happen to a more popular plane type ...
likewise please find one report other than the infamous USN one that has the 190 behaving anything like as difficult as the A8 in the games ...
(note this discussion).
i never understand how easy it is for so many to believe that some plane types got so much worse as they evolved while others don't or even get better while going through pretty much the same changes.
point of fact that in the games the p51 has to be made to depart in a snap roll while in TRW it was soo difficult to do a snap roll with out departing it was prohibited in the POH, and the instant departure was often used by it's pilots as a last ditch desperation evasive.
it is a somewhat subjective thing and it must be decided how well behaved an airframe should be modeled, but i would point out that there were no full fleet retrofits on the 190 for a handling issue like in the p51, and it never earned a nickname like the "ensign eliminator" like the F4u.
so excuse me for being somewhat suspect about the data choice used for the handling character when these airframes are benign in comparison to the handling of the 190s which was often described with words like
"impeccable" relating to its handling character.
-
it is a somewhat subjective thing and it must be decided how well behaved an airframe should be modeled, but i would point out that there were no full fleet retrofits on the 190 for a handling issue like in the p51, and it never earned a nickname like the "ensign eliminator" like the F4u.
so excuse me for being somewhat suspect about the data choice used for the handling character when these airframes are benign in comparison to the handling of the 190s which was often described with words like
"impeccable" relating to its handling character.
And the 190 in Aces High has impeccable handling traits. It is an easy to control plane. (It is easy to take off and land too-this is *the* most vital handling issue to most real pilots). The only thing it does not do well handling-wise is out-turn better turning aircraft.
It's easy to snaproll the P-51 in Aces High. Most people do not snaproll the P-51 in Aces High because it *is* rather difficult to do a snaproll at 450mph IAS. :neener:
F4Us? 190s were not designed as carrier aircraft. But of course the 190 also does not have the tendency to ground-loop that the F4U had in real life...and in Aces High.
There are lots of us here who have had no trouble making the 190s hold their own as dogfighters against the typical P-51 pilots. You seem to be the odd man out.
-
you need to check yourself a bit, i am saying what i said, if you think i am somewhat inferior in the 190s i would direct you to the score boards ...
none of that changes the fact that the 190s are a comparative handful in the games relative to planes with much poorer real world reputations, recall/retrofits, and overall testing/pilot opinions.
that is what i am saying, and it is a fact.
And the 190 in Aces High has impeccable handling traits. It is an easy to control plane. (It is easy to take off and land too-this is *the* most vital handling issue to most real pilots). The only thing it does not do well handling-wise is out-turn better turning aircraft.
It's easy to snaproll the P-51 in Aces High. Most people do not snaproll the P-51 in Aces High because it *is* rather difficult to do a snaproll at 450mph IAS. :neener:
F4Us? 190s were not designed as carrier aircraft. But of course the 190 also does not have the tendency to ground-loop that the F4U had in real life...and in Aces High.
There are lots of us here who have had no trouble making the 190s hold their own as dogfighters against the typical P-51 pilots. You seem to be the odd man out.
-
Thor, you invariably hang out in a crowd, cherry-pick, and don't get into actual fights if you can possibly avoid it. You know it, and I know it. Anyone can get a high k/d doing this in any plane, the only requirement being the lack of a boredom gene. The one time you consented to test how "good" you actually are in 190s, you got waxed 100% of the time in A-5s by a non-190 pilot just returning to the game from shoulder injury, against whom I had won 4 of 5 the previous day. Want to prove me wrong? Post just *ONE* film of you doing any kind of 1v1 ACM in an 190 against *anything*, mmmmkaay?
And I'm saying the 190s conform pretty much to what Eric Brown et al had to say about them. A dream to fly except for relative turning ability.
you need to check yourself a bit, i am saying what i said, if you think i am somewhat inferior in the 190s i would direct you to the score boards ...
none of that changes the fact that the 190s are a comparative handful in the games relative to planes with much poorer real world reputations, recall/retrofits, and overall testing/pilot opinions.
that is what i am saying, and it is a fact.
-
thanks for making my point, eric brown was not a 190 pilot he was employed as i recall by the royal navy sooo
wtf are you doing passing off his impressions as the final word on the airframe. would you ever suggest that the german impressions of the p-51s should define it's performance and character in the games or even eric browns for that matter ...
quit avoiding my statement, address what i have said because how well or poorly i do in the game, or duels, or how i approach the game is irrelevant, and point of fact is that nobody at all has followed through with my counter challenge so stop with the pointless BS, none of that has anything to do with the topic at hand.
which is that is seems very evident that every minor complaint about the 190 from any tom dick or eric is very over represented when compared with every real problem of some of the other more fortunate FMs in the games.
Thor, you invariably hang out in a crowd, cherry-pick, and don't get into actual fights if you can possibly avoid it. You know it, and I know it. Anyone can get a high k/d doing this in any plane, the only requirement being the lack of a boredom gene. The one time you consented to test how "good" you actually are in 190s, you got waxed 100% of the time in A-5s by a non-190 pilot just returning to the game from shoulder injury, against whom I had won 4 of 5 the previous day. Want to prove me wrong? Post just *ONE* film of you doing any kind of 1v1 ACM in an 190 against *anything*, mmmmkaay?
And I'm saying the 190s conform pretty much to what Eric Brown et al had to say about them. A dream to fly except for relative turning ability.
-
thanks for making my point, eric brown was not a 190 pilot he was employed as i recall by the royal navy sooo
wtf are you doing passing off his impressions as the final word on the airframe. would you ever suggest that the german impressions of the p-51s should define it's performance and character in the games or even eric browns for that matter ...
Like with many of your vague posts, you have failed to clearly define a single problem you have with the AH 190...you simply ramble on about how "bad" it is without defining a single performance parameter to compare to reality.
The 190 magically changes its stall traits in the hands of an allied tester?
The truth is, flight traits in a sim cannot be defined by pilot reps...they have to be defined by the physical traits of the airplanes in question to have any meaning at all.
quit avoiding my statement, address what i have said because how well or poorly i do in the game, or duels, or how i approach the game is irrelevant, and point of fact is that nobody at all has followed through with my counter challenge so stop with the pointless BS, none of that has anything to do with the topic at hand.
I mentioned some of us can fight P-51s in 190s with success consistently, which I think is relevant to the discussion of how "advantaged" the two flight models are. You mentioned your "score" as evidence for your understanding of 190s, so I had to disabuse you of that notion...yet again.
which is that is seems very evident that every minor complaint about the 190 from any tom dick or eric is very over represented when compared with every real problem of some of the other more fortunate FMs in the games.
Actually, the stall traits of the 190s in AH have nothing to do with what Eric Brown or anybody *said* about them. It has to do with the stall traits of the 190 airfoil, engine torque, and other factors Hitech models in from the best data available. This is not Il2, flight models are not based on word-of-mouth.
EDIT: But the AH A-5 IS abit too slow...I have charts to that effect. What do you have to back up what YOU are saying?
-
Like with many of your vague posts, you have failed to clearly define a single problem you have with the AH 190...you simply ramble on about how "bad" it is without defining a single performance parameter to compare to reality.
The 190 magically changes its stall traits in the hands of an allied tester?
still cant find a 190 pilot that agrees with the tourist impressions, just like i said you couldn't.
The truth is, flight traits in a sim cannot be defined by pilot reps...they have to be defined by the physical traits of the airplanes in question to have any meaning at all.
that would be nice, i assure you it is not what is happening here, as your snap roll ability of the p51 should make abundantly clear to you ...
I mentioned some of us can fight P-51s in 190s with success consistently, which I think is relevant to the discussion of how "advantaged" the two flight models are. You mentioned your "score" as evidence for your understanding of 190s, so I had to disabuse you of that notion...yet again.
so you are saying that impressions are relevant when you can manipulate them to support your opinions but are invalid when you can't? hehe these are the AH boards so i guess that's ok ...
Actually, the stall traits of the 190s in AH have nothing to do with what Eric Brown or anybody *said* about them. It has to do with the stall traits of the 190 airfoil, engine torque, and other factors Hitech models in from the best data available. This is not Il2, flight models are not based on word-of-mouth.
umm i don't suppose we could see that data could we? of course not :t
This is not Il2, flight models are not based on word-of-mouth.
pretty insecure about IL-2 aren't you ...
"ohhh my gosh a different approach burrrnn them, ridicule, kill it before we discover the truth"
you need to get past this other game bashing, after all they just may be better.
EDIT: But the AH A-5 IS abit too slow...I have charts to that effect. What do you have to back up what YOU are saying?
never seen a chart on flight character, i have seen operational suspensions and fleet retrofits for handling problems though, just not in the 190s ...
-
none of that changes the fact that the 190s are a comparative handful in the games relative to planes with much poorer real world reputations, recall/retrofits, and overall testing/pilot opinions.
that is what i am saying, and it is a fact.
So are we talking about facts? or opinions? What do you do if pilot/expert opinions contradict each other? In Col. Anderson's book he states that the 51 was more nimble and could turn a little tighter than the 109 or the 190, yet someone posted an interview around here awhile back with a modern pilot who said the 109G could out turn the 51.
-
I don't want to fan the flames but I do have to make a comment. The IL2 flight modeling is mostly ridiculous. Oleg uses his power to change it at a whim, and in the first place coded so much rubbish and inaccurate numbers, performances, and physics, that it's a laugh.
Even many die-hard IL2 fans are modding the game to introduce "real" 190 variants that meet historical specs and even the historic throttle settings! (Something Oleg didn't bother to check).
it is NOT a good game to compare to historical numbers. That's not even counting how most of the planes feel the same when flying ("generic" flight model).
BnZs: The test that he is saying our 190 is based on (and I'm not sure it wsa based on this, but I know of the test itself) was a plane with badly out-of-position aileron trim tabs. This, among other things, caused a heavier workload on the pilot, worse handling - especially in sustained turns - and reduced the turning performance by a significant amount compared to ALL other german/british/soviet testings of the same plane. The test was flawed, there is no doubt about that. That WOULD mean that using a better test as basis for AH's 190a5 would improve the turning performance and the sustained turn rate as well.
Thorsim: he does have a point in that you seem to be moving into the "this pilot said that" territory. Much of this is very subjective. There is ample evidence with testing and actual combat results to suggest the 190 was more manuverable, but perhaps not best to rely on "so-and-so outturned a p51 here" because of all the variables implied.
-
pretty insecure about IL-2 aren't you ...
"ohhh my gosh a different approach burrrnn them, ridicule, kill it before we discover the truth"
you need to get past this other game bashing, after all they just may be better.
190s and 109s handle worse in Il2 than they do in AHII.
-
that is a good question, opinions vary so what do you do. what you don't do is not take any one opinion or one report and use that to define the handling of a plane if you want to be accurate. remember when a pilot is unable to do something well in a plane he only has a few hours in, he will often become better with time in type especially in recognizing and preventing/managing stalls and closing turns.
when you take his initial impressions and then code them then that becomes an absolute limit.
that is why country of origin tests and opinions tend to be given more weight in these discussions elsewhere. however even more telling is when current flying airframes are compared without agenda as you mention below. i believe the 190n is currently out turning the p51s at the air shows these days for what it's worth, as are the 109s.
once again my point/s
the 190s are a comparative handful in the games relative to planes with much poorer real world reputations, recall/retrofits, and overall testing/pilot opinions.
that does not seem correct and it seems to be clearly because
every minor complaint about the 190 from any tom dick or eric is very over represented when compared with every real problem of some of the other more fortunate FMs in the games.
So are we talking about facts? or opinions? What do you do if pilot/expert opinions contradict each other? In Col. Anderson's book he states that the 51 was more nimble and could turn a little tighter than the 109 or the 190, yet someone posted an interview around here awhile back with a modern pilot who said the 109G could out turn the 51.
-
i did not compare the games i responded to an impression and dig at another game as if there was only one way to skin a cat. it would be very nice to be able to actually get in the exact planes and do the kind of testing and comparisons we would like to have. IMO IL-2 does some things better representing the realities of the airframes and even lowly AW classic had some things better than either WB or AH (which i find very similar FM wise)
i am just uncomfortable with the bashing this game is better than that etc, i think they all have their good and bad points and i enjoy them all in different ways.
190s and 109s handle worse in Il2 than they do in AHII.
I don't want to fan the flames but I do have to make a comment. The IL2 flight modeling is mostly ridiculous. Oleg uses his power to change it at a whim, and in the first place coded so much rubbish and inaccurate numbers, performances, and physics, that it's a laugh.
Even many die-hard IL2 fans are modding the game to introduce "real" 190 variants that meet historical specs and even the historic throttle settings! (Something Oleg didn't bother to check).
it is NOT a good game to compare to historical numbers. That's not even counting how most of the planes feel the same when flying ("generic" flight model).
BnZs: The test that he is saying our 190 is based on (and I'm not sure it wsa based on this, but I know of the test itself) was a plane with badly out-of-position aileron trim tabs. This, among other things, caused a heavier workload on the pilot, worse handling - especially in sustained turns - and reduced the turning performance by a significant amount compared to ALL other german/british/soviet testings of the same plane. The test was flawed, there is no doubt about that. That WOULD mean that using a better test as basis for AH's 190a5 would improve the turning performance and the sustained turn rate as well.
Thorsim: he does have a point in that you seem to be moving into the "this pilot said that" territory. Much of this is very subjective. There is ample evidence with testing and actual combat results to suggest the 190 was more manuverable, but perhaps not best to rely on "so-and-so outturned a p51 here" because of all the variables implied.
-
Just to put what Thorsim is saying in perspective, take up a Spit16 and a 190A5, and pull them both into accelerated stalls with the throttle firewalled. The 190 actually recovers quicker and easier.
-
i don't suppose you noted which stalled easier or first did you, since that is what we are discussing,
it is also funny that you did not use the examples i put forward either.
i'm wondering, did you need to look around for a while to find something you could try and use as a contradiction ...
???
or did you immediately run out and test a plane i never mentioned in this thread, for something i did not bring up as an issue.
i.e. i fail to see where i brought up recovery time at all in this thread, or the spit 16 for that matter.
Just to put what Thorsim is saying in perspective, take up a Spit16 and a 190A5, and pull them both into accelerated stalls with the throttle firewalled. The 190 actually recovers quicker and easier.
-
Just to put what Thorsim is saying in perspective, take up a Spit16 and a 190A5, and pull them both into accelerated stalls with the throttle firewalled. The 190 actually recovers quicker and easier.
Thats because only one of them stall. :lol
But lets not turn this into another thread soaked with tears of sadness and frustration. :)
-
Thats because only of them stall. :lol
But lets not turn this into another thread soaked with tears of sadness and frustration. :)
i'm thinking you meant to say that only one of them stall ...
-
i'm thinking you meant to say that only one of them stall ...
Whats with people correcting me on the BBS lately? :lol
-
i don't suppose you noted which stalled easier or first did you, since that is what we are discussing, it is also funny that you did not use the examples i put forward either.
i'm wondering, did you need to look around for a while to find something you could try and use as a contradiction? or did you immediately run out and test a plane i never mentioned in this thread for something i did not bring up as an issue.
i.e. i fail to see where i brought up recovery time at all in this thread, or the spit 16 for that matter.
The are equally easy to stall...all you have to do is haul all the way back on the stick below corner velocity. The 190 can be made to stall at higher speed because of a much higher wingloading of course. But the Spit, once you honk the stick back seems to do at least one complete snaproll even if you relax stick pressure instantly, while the 190 merely does a half-roll if you release stick pressure soon enough.
I think what you are really complaining about is the fact that the 190 does not match the turn performance of X plane you would like it to beat.
I tested Spit16 because it is called "easy mode noob plane"
-
i assure i am "complaining" about what i have clearly stated in my observations ...
well you keep thinking, it is your time to waste after all ...
btw the problem is stalling while trying not to, i am pretty sure you used the opposite approach in your "testing" and that sort of makes your "findings" useless in this discussion ...
The are equally easy to stall...all you have to do is haul all the way back on the stick below corner velocity. The 190 can be made to stall at higher speed because of a much higher wingloading of course. But the Spit, once you honk the stick back seems to do at least one complete snaproll even if you relax stick pressure instantly, while the 190 merely does a half-roll if you release stick pressure soon enough.
I think what you are really complaining about is the fact that the 190 does not match the turn performance of X plane you would like it to beat.
-
Okay, to put it succinctly: You say 190 behaves badly when pressed to it's limits, I say 190 does *not* behave particularly badly when pressed to its limit, albeit that limit comes at higher speed than with most planes.
P-51: Flips on its back when you honk it into the stall in AHII.
-
no sir i have repeatedly said that the types behavior and limits mostly resemble one particular test done by the USN which is not in agreement with the vast majority of other tests done on the type and that the USN test admits to all sorts of anomalies that should exclude it from any serious consideration in regards to at least the 190 series data that test produced.
personally a test that flawed should be completely ignored as it is on most serious BBS.
i find it disturbing that the behavior of the 190s makes me think that that test is in fact the source of the performance/behavior code for the 190s in the games.
btw what you are looking for i would think is the speeds and Gs at the stalls and rudder/stick work required to postpone the departure as long as possible. not what the code tells the plane to do after a departure is initiated ...
does AH have a "HUDRECORD" command or something like it as WBs does?
not that you really need it, take any plane you want and you will clearly see the workload and performance differences, it is pretty obvious after all.
Okay, to put it succinctly: You say 190 behaves badly when pressed to it's limits, I say 190 does *not* behave particularly badly when pressed to its limit, albeit that limit comes at higher speed than with most planes.
P-51: Flips on its back when you honk it into the stall in AHII.
-
BnZs, you're comparing the P-51 to the 190 in snap stall capability? Almost every plane in the game can snap stall to some degree or another. That's not an issue, nor is it really a comparison, IMO.
In a level stall, or in a banking turn pulling a few Gs, the stalls are night and day. P51 mushes a lot more, 190 just drops a wing.
There really is a marked stall issue at play in the 190s. It's currently intentional on HTCs part.
I wouldn't mind seeing it "fixed" a bit, personally.
-
i find it disturbing that the behavior of the 190s makes me think that that test is in fact the source of the performance/behavior code for the 190s in the games.
you really need to get with someone that has a clue how to fly a FW to see what they are capable of.
what you can do in a FW vs. what someone that really knows that bird in AH are two totally diff. things.
give it another 6 months you will be amazed at what you can make that bird do.
-
The 190s were known to have bad departure characteristics. So was the P-51. The Spit and 109 were known to have benign departure characteristics and "float" in a stall. I'd say the game reflects these differences. I also don't think anyone alive today really knows for sure.
-
You do realize that WW2 combat pilots are still alive today, right?
And that many planes were flown after the war for some time? And that some warbirds still exist today?
And that thousands of hours were spent on multiple planes testing every minute aspect of them, back in WW2 with expert pilots of the time, and that these pages of tests remain in existence to this day, right?
Just askin'....
-
i thought the pony had a bad departure and some CSF issues but not a super abrupt one, also some serious lateral stability issues depending on the fuel state ...
the 190 had a quicker stall with less warning than the 109/spit but not a particularly bad stall characterized mostly by a wing drop ...
(my point is that there were warnings, less than the airframes that it was compared to, but certainly enough for pilots with experience in type to get used to and be able to manage, predict, and avoid not the "no warning stall" brown describes as that was his perception and others with more experience in type dispute his observation)
the 109 because of its slats had a very delayed and benign stall characterized by a nose drop until the speed came up again, by all accounts not much drama at all ...
the spitfire gave a lot of stall warning with tons of shudder before the stall which could be uneventful however it did have a very bad spin and that could be quite a problem if not corrected very early ...
that is what i have understood for a long time, feel free to correct or interject ...
and krusty is right there is a lot of stuff still to be learned about these things, you should all take the time to gather as much info as you are able, i am off to see Bill Gordon again tomorrow USN TBF ATO pilot ...
-
definitely still getting the ins and outs of the game, but i can still tell which planes are more work than the others, the 190s are quite capable but they are a comparative handful as well, that does not correspond to most real world opinions of the type imo.
you really need to get with someone that has a clue how to fly a FW to see what they are capable of.
what you can do in a FW vs. what someone that really knows that bird in AH are two totally diff. things.
give it another 6 months you will be amazed at what you can make that bird do.
-
You do realize that WW2 combat pilots are still alive today, right?
How many of them have flown both the Fw190 and P-51 so they can make an informed comparison? I know of one, but he didn't fly any of them operationally.
-
A number flew both, but the point is that there are ample reports from each side's respective experts.
No need to find merely 1 expert who was skilled in both a P-51 and a Fw190, when you have mulitple experts' reports specific to only the 190 or only the p-51. You compare what they say, rather than relying on THEM to compare the planes for you.
Besides, we're not even really comparing those two planes. This more a discussion of the Fw190 and that was just an example thrown out.
-
Too bad I wasted so much time reading this thread.
thorism, post some flight DATA to back up your claims. Anecdotes (which are also absent from your posts) and your feelings about a plane just don't do it. Do you really think AH is sitting in his office thinking "thorism must be right. He's a 190 expert. Pyro, change the 190 flight models ASAP."?
-
Wow did this thread take on a different direction.
-
Too bad I wasted so much time reading this thread.
thorism, post some flight DATA to back up your claims. Anecdotes (which are also absent from your posts) and your feelings about a plane just don't do it. Do you really think AH is sitting in his office thinking "thorism must be right. He's a 190 expert. Pyro, change the 190 flight models ASAP."?
He doesn't work that way...
He expects you to prove him wrong, so he doesn't need to prove himself right. If you can't (or don't feel like spending the time to) prove him wrong, then he must be right, right?
It's all opinions about opinions at this point. And to back those opinions about opinions up, toss in an occasional plane "nickname" if it fits (notice the F4U was referred to as the "Ensign Eliminator" rather than the "Sweetheart of Okinawa"). If needed, refer to the pilots who didn't get the desired flight results as inexperienced in that type (but don't mention that the nickname used referred to inexperienced pilots not getting the desired results...)
The weight issue sounds like it may be valid, and proven. I'm interested in that...
-
Say what you will about how he presents himself, the US test of the 190 is widely accepted by all to be flawed in every way, and the Brits took the very same plane and yielded a better turn performance because the trim wasn't as fubar'd as the US test.
Many 190s were flight-tested in the war, captured and native. The US test is the worst by far and nobody takes it as a serious representation of the 190's turning capabilities.
That's fact. That's not opinion.
Say what you will about the rest, but that's something you can check on.
P.S. Folks might think "So what, big deal, the trim was a little off" but in fact the trim was way off. It forced an earlier stall than normal because of the way the ailerons or the trim tabs were setup. It wasn't a minor point. Even Fw190 pilots learned that properly set trim tabs meant a big difference in manuverability.
-
Ill post the Brit 190 test tonight.
Cliffs Notes: "We're screwed."
-
point of fact it was not only the control system that was improperly adjusted the report notes that ...
weight was added
cog was adjusted
engine was underperforming
engine boost was not performing correctly
the pilot had very little previous time in the type
and of course the airframe was either a recovered crash or a captured derelict
it had no experienced or certified maintenance crew
by all accounts had been reassembled improperly noted by the control system imbalance
there is no telling what else was not put together properly.
oh and it was not even a 190-A it was a 190-F
you guys keep noting that the 190s are off, so i brought this test up because quite frankly it is the only explanation i can find after years of researching such things to explain the handling of the 190s in the games
and how they contradict the vast majority of accounts and tests on the type/s ...
but feel free to look into things yourself, if it's not worth your time i suggest you consider if it was your favorite ride that was in question and then if your concern level was different then do a little "soul searching" about how concerned with accuracy you really are, do you care about accuracy or do you just care about your own plane and its advantages.
Too bad I wasted so much time reading this thread.
thorism, post some flight DATA to back up your claims. Anecdotes (which are also absent from your posts) and your feelings about a plane just don't do it. Do you really think AH is sitting in his office thinking "thorism must be right. He's a 190 expert. Pyro, change the 190 flight models ASAP."?
bald eagle there are qualified and subjective characters to planes and FMs that both effect performance.
He doesn't work that way...
He expects you to prove him wrong, so he doesn't need to prove himself right. If you can't (or don't feel like spending the time to) prove him wrong, then he must be right, right?
It's all opinions about opinions at this point. And to back those opinions about opinions up, toss in an occasional plane "nickname" if it fits (notice the F4U was referred to as the "Ensign Eliminator" rather than the "Sweetheart of Okinawa"). If needed, refer to the pilots who didn't get the desired flight results as inexperienced in that type (but don't mention that the nickname used referred to inexperienced pilots not getting the desired results...)
The weight issue sounds like it may be valid, and proven. I'm interested in that...
i don't expect anything and quite frankly i have posted more data on this board than my detractors ever have, including you sir, i have grown tired of it so yes it is time everyone else took their turn to go look and see for themselves as the powers that be and the "community" here have soured my taste for data mining for their benefit, i am certainly not the first and i am sure i am not the last to reach that point with these boards btw ...
so yes, prove me wrong if you can
-
thanks for making my point, eric brown was not a 190 pilot he was employed as i recall by the royal navy sooo
wtf are you doing passing off his impressions as the final word on the airframe. ...
Here's what Wiki says about Eric Brown:
Captain Eric Melrose "Winkle" Brown, CBE, DSC, AFC (born 21 January 1919) is a former Royal Navy officer and test pilot who has flown more types of aircraft than anyone else in history. He is also the Fleet Air Arm’s most decorated pilot, and holds the world record for aircraft carrier landings.
And the kid who has never flown asks "wtf". :rofl
-
didn't notice FW-190 combat experience on his resume, if you did please point that out ...
until you find that i will take other more specifically qualified opinions over Mr. Browns ...
just like I would prefer take say David Bong's opinion of the capabilities and quirks of the p-38 over Mr. Browns ...
the fact that you are posting silly little funny faces when i say that sheds some light on you real interests,
and ability to qualify data sources sir.
Here's what Wiki says about Eric Brown:
Captain Eric Melrose "Winkle" Brown, CBE, DSC, AFC (born 21 January 1919) is a former Royal Navy officer and test pilot who has flown more types of aircraft than anyone else in history. He is also the Fleet Air Arm’s most decorated pilot, and holds the world record for aircraft carrier landings.
And the kid who has never flown asks "wtf". :rofl
-
just like I would prefer take say David Bong's opinion of the capabilities and quirks of the p-38 over Mr. Browns ...
Who is David Bong?
-
didn't notice FW-190 combat experience on his resume, if you did please point that out ...
So your point is that even though he was an experienced WW2 fighter pilot, was fluent in German, test flew 53 different German aircraft after the war, interviewed many different German pilots and designers, flew every Allied fighter aircraft the FW190 fought against, is widely considered one the few people who can authoritatively compare Allied and Axis aircraft, and was the most prolific test pilot in the history of aviation flying 500 different aircraft; he should be discounted because he didn't fly the FW190 in combat.
I'm going to use the silly little funny face again. :rofl
-
Who is David Bong?
Maybe he meant to say "Dick".
ack-ack
-
Maybe he meant to say "Dick".
ack-ack
right Richard Bong
BF on my part ...
thanks for correcting ...
-
Brown has flown a lot of planes, but is not skilled in them. He just had some opportunities to fly them. He's been discredited in a lot of things he's said over the years, so I wouldn't take him as a valuable source of information.
-
yes ...
especially since
1) using an airframe day after day for years is nothing like the testing he did
2) he did much of the things you point out well after the 190 tests and therefore are irrelevant to the tests
3) since pilots with factors more time in the type say that they managed the stall just fine contradicting his observation
4) since none of you would expect anything less for any aircraft you considered was treated unfairly by it's FM
5) i never said discount his findings i said that he should not be the final say on the capabilities and quirks of the aircraft he would not be allowed to be the final say on the f4u for example, no reason he should be the final say for the 190s.
6) not to mention that it has been pointed that just as anyone else Mr. Brown had his biases ...
7) if Mr. Brown is the end all be all of opinions then the spit 14 and 190-D9 would be the best prop planes in the set, and clearly better than the p-51, the f4u would not be able to beat any of them ...
so my point is he was not the best source of 190 data and no one source should define a FM, or any specific aspects of an FM for that matter(if conflicting credible data exists) as IMO no source is going to be perfect.
tests as flawed as the USN test that is at the center of this discussion should not be allowed to be used for anything at all.
i am glad you now see how silly your funny face is, i am at a loss as to why you keep insisting on using it though, i mean the rest of your post was almost interesting.
So your point is that even though he was an experienced WW2 fighter pilot, was fluent in German, test flew 53 different German aircraft after the war, interviewed many different German pilots and designers, flew every Allied fighter aircraft the FW190 fought against, is widely considered one the few people who can authoritatively compare Allied and Axis aircraft, and was the most prolific test pilot in the history of aviation flying 500 different aircraft; he should be discounted because he didn't fly the FW190 in combat.
Can I assume this is an example of your ability to qualify data sources?
I'm going to use the silly little funny face again. :rofl
-
Brown has flown a lot of planes, but is not skilled in them. He just had some opportunities to fly them. He's been discredited in a lot of things he's said over the years, so I wouldn't take him as a valuable source of information.
Well I certainly wouldn't take his word over yours Krusty. :D
-
Whether you're being sarcastic or not, the guy has issues. Do some searching on these forums. A while back some folks pretty much laid out how he's been discredited in a number of areas and many things he says.
EDIT: I'm doing a quick search for the thread I had in mind but haven't found it so far. I'm sure it was Brown, but there's a small possibilty it was another WW2 pilot that flew more WW2 planes in tests than most pilots, and made boisterous claims that most of his peers proved wrong....
-
From: Focke Wulf 190 at War, Alfred Price, 1977 Printing.
I could not find the text of the testing online so this is all typing... will take a couple installments as there is a considerable amount of information.
Begins...
MOST SECRET
Headquarters, Fighter Command
Royal Air Force
Bentley Priory Stanmore
FC/S. 29470
17th July, 1942
Sir,
I attach a memorandum on the performance and operational characteristics of day-fighters, with particular reference to what our position will he in the Spring of 1941. I ask that immediate consideration should he given to the points raised in this memorandum.
1. It is scarcely necessary for me to emphasize the point that quality is more important than quantity in the production of fighters. At the beginning of the war our fighters possessed technical superiority over those of the enemy. We have gradually lost this lead and we are now in a position of inferiority. It is essential that this position should he remedied before next spring when it is anticipated that intensive air fighting will take place.
2. I seem to detect a spirit of complacency in the Ministry of Aircraft Production. This is borne out by the speeches of the Minister of Production and the Minister of Aircraft Production in the debate in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 14 July. They appear to find it difficult to believe that we have really lost our lead in fighter performance. There is however no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the Fw 190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today (author's italics). It is no answer to say that the position will be reversed when the Spitfire IX comes into general use. In the first place I have only fourteen Spitfire IXs, whereas the enemy has between two and three hundred Fw 190s. In several respects the Fw 190 is superior to the Spitfire IX, e.g. in climb and acceleration at certain critical altitudes and in negative G carburation. The most alarming aspect of the position however is that, whereas the Spitfire with Merlin engine is almost at the end of its possible development, the Fw 190 is only in the early stages of its development. Reports are already to hand of more horsepower being put into the engine of the Fw 190, and there is no doubt that with its greater engine capacity, it can in time easily outstrip the Merlin Spitfire in performance. This in fact is likely to have happened by next spring.
3. In my opinion therefore this is no time for complacency in regard to the quality and performance of our day-fighter aircraft. In the attached memorandum will be found certain suggestions for making the necessary improvements. These are the result of a study of the problem by my technical staff, who may not have all the facts and future possibilities at their fingertips. At the same time I ask that they should be given serious consideration.
I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient Servant, (signed)
W. S. Douglas Air Chief Marshal
Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief Fighter Command, Royal Air Force
The under Secretary of State
Air Ministry,
Whitehall, SW1
-
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE AIRCRAFT
The Fw190 is a small, compact, single-seat, single-engined, low wing monoplane fighter. There are fittings under the fuselage to enable it to carry bombs or a jettisonable fuel tank. It has a fully retractable undercarraige and partially retractable tail wheel. The mainplane is fully cantilever and is fitted with split flaps of metal construction. The flaps have four positions: retracted, 15 degrees for take-off, 30 degrees for use in the event of a baulked landing, and fully down for landing. Operation is by means of three electric push buttons.
The power unit is a BMW801-D, 14-cylinder, 2-row radial engine, fitted with a two-speed supercharger giving the best performance at 9,000 and 18,000ft. Between 5,000 and 8,000ft the performance of the engine falls off as it is just below the height where the two-speed supercharger come into operation. The estimated power of the engine is 1,700hp at the maximum power altitude of 18,000ft. The engine oil coolers and induction system are totally enclosed by an extremely neat cowling and cooling is assisted by an engine driven fan behind the propeller.
The constant speed VDM 3-bladed metal propeller is electronically operated. It is automatically controlled by an hydrolic governor and if required manually, by an electric switch on the pilot’s throttle lever.
The undercarriage is retracted by pushing a red button. The operation for lowing the undercarriage consists of pushing a green button and releasing the undercarriage locks by pulling a level which is situated on the left-hand side of the cockpit. In the even tof an electrical failure, the only emergency method of lowering the undercarriage is by means of this lever, gravity completing the operation. The tailwheel is partially retracted and lowered mechanically by a cable attached to the starboard undercarriage leg. It is fully castoring and can be locked for take-off and landing by holding the control column right back.
All the control surfaces are fabric covered and are fitted with metal trimming tabs which can be adjusted only on the ground. For trimming, the tailplain is adjustable in flight over the range of +5 degrees to -3 degrees. It is operated electrically by two push buttons governing the up and down movements. There is a visual indicator in the cockpit.
The armament consists of 4x20mm guns in the wing and 2x1.92mm chaine guns in the engine cowlings. The all-up weight of the aircraft, including pilot, is approximately 8,600lbs and the wing loading is 41.8lbs/sqft.
PILOT’S COCKPIT
The cockpit is fully enclosed and although rather narrow is otherwise extremely comfortable. The pilot’s position is excellent and as his feet are level with the seat, it enables him to withstand high acceleration forces without blacking out. The positioning of all instruments is excellent and all controls fall easily to the pilot’s hand, the absence of unnecessary levers and gadgets being particularly noticeable. The front panel is in two pieces, the top containing the primary flying and engine instruments and the lower panel the secondary instruments. Cut-out switches for the electrical citcuits are housed in hinged flaps on the starboard side.
The switches and indicators for the operation of the undercarriage, flaps and tail incidence are situated on the port side. The control column is the standard German fighter type with a selector switch and firing button for guns, and a send./receive button for the wireless.
The cockpit canopy, which is made of moulded plexiglass, is well shaped and extends far back along the fuselage. The bullit-proof windscreen has a pronounced shape which is unusual. The canopy can be slid back for entry and exit and for taxi-ing, operation being buy means of a crank handle similar to that in the Westland Whirlwind. The enclosure can be jettisoned in an emergency by pressing a red level on the starboard side; this unlocks the hood and detonates a cartridge which breaks teh runners and blows the canopy off. Heating for teh cockpit appears efficient and cooling is effected by a small flap on the port side and seems quite sufficient for the pilot;’s comfort.
ARMOUR PLATE
The pilot’s bucket seat is made of 8mm armour plate and the unprotected gaps behind are fitted shaped strips varying in thickness between 5mm and 6mm. The pilot’s head and shoulders are protected by shaped amour plate 13mm thick and the windscreen is of bullet-proof glass about 1 ¾ in thick. Both fuel tanks are self-sealing. The oil tank, which is situated in front of the engine cowling, is protected by a ring of armour plate varying in thickness, and the tank itself is surrounded by a toughened steel ring.
RADIO
The wireless installation is the old type FuG7 and the only unusual feature is that there is no wireless mast, there being instead a short aerial between the tail fin and the cockpit canopy.
OXYGEN
The aircraft is fitted with standard improved Hohenatmer oxygen equipment with Blazer attachment, giving pure oxygen at high altitude. Three bottles of unusual shape are the source of the supply. It was not possible to test the efficiency of this equipment but it is understood that the RAE are carrying out investigations and will render a report in due course.
COMPASS
A Patin Distant Reading Pilot’s Compass is installed in the centre of the dashboard and the Master Unit is in the rear of the fuselage. An aircraft silhouette takes the place of the normal needle and indicates the direction which the aircraft is flying. There is an adjustable verge ring which can be set to any desired course and the aircraft then turned until the silhouette is pointing to the course selected. The compass generally of excellent design and the dial is situated in a position where it can be easily seen by the pilot. The magnet is many times more powerful that in our compasses, and as a result is less affected by northerly turning and acceleration errors. It is also unaffected by current or voltage fluctuations, or changes in temperature.
-
ARMAMENT CHARACTERISTICS
The armament consists of:
-Two MG17 guns of 7.92mm caliber fitted above the engine, synchronized, firing through the propeller arc.
-Two MG151/20 guns of the 20mm caliber, synchronized, firing through the propeller arc are installed in the wing roots about 12in out from the engine cowling.
-Two Oerlikon FF20mm guns fitted in the wings outboard of the propeller arc.
GUN BOTTONS AND SWITCHES
The guns are fired by means of a button on the front of the control column. A small selector switch at the side of tyeh column enables the pilot to select the following alternatives:
-MG17 and MG151/20 guns.
-Oerlikon FF20mm guns.
-All guns.
In addition to this it is possible, by means of cut-out switches, which are situated on the starboard side of the cockpit, to fire each pair of guns independently. There are ammunition counters in the cockpit for each gun.
HEATING
Hot air from the engine cowling is led by means of ducts to the ammunition chutes of the MG17 guns and thence upwards to the breech mechanism. The Oerlikon FF20mm guns are also heated by hot air from the engine cowling. No special provision is made for heating the MG151/20 guns and its is thought that oweing their position near the engine this is unnecessary.
SIGHT
A reflector sight, type Revi 12-D, is mounted 1 ½ in to the starboard of the vertical centre line. The graticule is 5 degrees 48 inches in diameter, which is the equivalent to approximately 95MPH for the high muzzle velocity of the German armament. Vertical and horizontal lines are marked off in degree steps from the centre of the graticule. Seven such lines are visible each way, these lines assist the pilot in range estimation and allowing for line.
HARMONIZATION
The harmonization ranges for each pair of guns are:
Two MG17 guns at 300 meters or 330 yards.
Two MG151/20 guns at 450 meters or 490 yards.
Two Oerlikon FF20mm guns at 250 meters or 270 yards.
The gun lines of the MG17 guns are not symmetrical about the vertical centre line. The port gun converges whereas the starboard gun diverges with the result that they cross over 1ft 2in to starboard. This my be due to incorrect harmonization.
SIGHTING VIEW
The sighting view, when sitting comfortably in the normal position, is about half a ring (of deflection) better than that from a Spitfire. The view downwards from the centre of the sight graticule to the edge of the reflector plate holder is about 5 degrees. This view is not obtained by elevating the guns (and consequently the sight) relative to the line of flight, but is entirely due to the attitude of the aircraft in flight, which is nose down.
TACTICAL TRIALS GENERAL
The FW190 is considered an excellent lwo and medium altitude fighter. It is fast, well armed and very maneuverable. The fighting qualities have been compared with a Spitfire VB, Spitfire IX, Mustang IA, P-38F, Typhoon and the prototype Griffon engine Spitfire. All aircraft were carrying full war load.
…to be continued... hope y'all dont mind me "reserving" a couple posting slots to keep the information contiguous.
-
FLYING CHARACTERISTICS
The aircraft is pleasant to fly, all controls being extremely light and positive. The aircraft is difficult to taxi due to excessive weight on the self-centering tailwheel when on the ground. For take off, 15 degrees of flap is required and it is necessary to keep the control column back to avoid swinging during the initial stage of the take off run. The run is approximately the same as that of the Spitfire IX.
Once airborne, the pilot immediately feels at home in the aircraft. The retraction of the flaps and undercarriage is barely noticable although the aircraft will sink if the retention of the flaps is made before a reasonably high airspeed has been obtained.
The stalling speed of the aircraft is high, being approximately 110MPH with the undercarriage and flaps retracted and 105MPH with the undercarriage and flaps fully down. All controls are effective up to the stall. One excellent feature of this aircraft is that it is seldom necessary to re-trim under all conditions of flight.
The best approach speed for landing with flaps and undercarriage down is between 130 and 140MPH, Indicated, reducing to about 125MPH when crossing the edge of the aerodrome. Owing to the steep angle of glide, the view during an approach is good and the actual landing is straightforward, the touchdown occurring at approximately 110MPH. The landing run is about the same as that of the Spitfire IX. The view on landing is poor due to the tail-down attitude of the aircraft. The locking of the tailwheel again assists preventing swing during the landing run.
The aircraft is very pleasant for aerobatics, even at high speed.
PERFORMANCE
The all-around performance of the FW190 is good. Only brief performance tests have been carried out and the figures obtained give a maximum speed of approximately 390MPH, True, at 1.42 atmospheres boost, 2,700RPM at the maximum power altitude of about 18,000ft. All flights at maximum power were carried out for a duration of two minutes only.
There are indications that the engine of this aircraft is de-rated, this being supported by the pilot's instruction card found in the cockpit. Further performance tests and engine investigation are to be cartried out by the RAE and more definite information will then be available.
Throughout the trials the engine has been running very roughly and as a result, pilots flying the aircraft have had little confidence in its reliability. The cause of this roughness has not yet been ascertained but it is thought that it may be due to a bad period of vibration at certain engine speeds which may also affect the injection system (Author's note: this toughness was later found to be due to fouling of the Bosche spark plugs after short periods of running; the fault was cleared by fitting Siemens type plugs taken from the BMW801A engine of a crashed Do217).
ENDURANCE
The total of 115 gallons of fuel is carried in two self-sealing tanks and each tank is fitted with an immersed fuel pump for use at altitude. A total of 9 gallons of oil is carried in a protected oil tank. The approximate endurance under operational conditions, including dog-fights and climb to 25,000ft is approximately 1 hour 20 minutes. There is a red warning light fitted in a prominent position which illuminates when there is only sufficient fuel left for 20 minutes flying.
CLIMB
The rate of climb up to 18,000ft under maximum continuous climbing conditions at 1.35 atmospheres boost, 2,450RPM, 165MPH is between 3,000 and 3,250ft/min. The initial rate of climb when pulling up from level fliht at fast cruising speed is high and the angle steep, and from a dive is phenomenal. It is considered that the de-rated version of the FW190 is unlikely to be met above 25,000ft as the power of the engine starts falling off at 22,000ft and by 25,000ft has fallen off considerably. It is not possible to give the rate of climb at this altitude.
DIVE
The FW190 has a high rate of dive, the initial acceleration being excellent. The maximum true speed so far obtained in a dive is 580MPH True, at 16,000ft and at this speed the controls, although slightly heavier, are still remarkably light. One very good feature is that no alteration of the trim from level flight is required either during the entry or during the pull-out. Due to the fuel injection syhstem it is possible to enter the dive by pushing the control column forward without the engine cutting.
SEARCH VIEW
The view for search from the FW190 is the best that has yet been seen by this unit. The cockpit hood is of moulded plexiglass and offer an unrestricted view all around. No rear view mirror is fitted and it is considered unnecessary as the backward view is so good. The hood must not be opened in flight as it is understood that tail buffeting may occur and that there is a chance of the hood being blown off. This, however, is not a disadvantage for day search as the quality of the plexiglass is excellent. During conditions of bad visibility and rain, or in the event of oil being thrown on the windscreen, the fact that the hood must not be opened in flight is obviously a disadvantage.
-
Reserved:
INSTRUMENT FLYING
LOW FLYING
FORMATION FLYING
NIGHT FLYING
ENGINE STARTING AND QUICK TAKE-OFF
FIGHTING QUALITIES
-
Reserved:
FW190 V. SPITFIRE VB
CLIMB
DIVE
MANEUVERABILITY
-
Reserved:
FW190 V. SPITFIRE IX
CLIMB
DIVE
MANEUVERABILITY
-
Reserved:
FW190 V. MUSTANG IA (P-51A)
CLIMB
DIVE
MANEUVERABILITY
-
Reserved:
FW190 V. P-38F LIGHTNING
CLIMB
DIVE
MANEUVERABILITY
-
Reserved:
FW190 V. 4-CANNON TYPHOON
CLIMB
DIVE
MANEUVERABILITY
-
Reserved:
FW190 V. GRIFFON SPITFIRE (Mk XII)
MANUVERABILITY
CONCLUSIONS:
-
just doesn't sound to me like our 190s ...
thanks for all the effort Saurdaukar
-
just doesn't sound to me like our 190s ...
What exactly?
-
just doesn't sound to me like our 190s ...
thanks for all the effort Saurdaukar
And to me it sounds exactly like our 190s. When I was a noob I found that the combination of roll-rate, rudder-authority, stability as a gun platform, and firepower allowed me to get kills easier than any other plane with my lousy gunnery, making it worth accepting certain inherent performance limitations.
-
so yes, prove me wrong if you can
Actually, I have zero interest in proving you wrong. Show the facts, get the models changed. I'd like them to be as accurate as possible, frankly. That goes for the whole plane-set.
That doesn't mean I'm convinced by your arguments- it just means I'm not opposed (as if that would matter, lol)...
Your last comment though- "that doesn't sound to me like our 190's" leaves me hanging though. Why doesn't it? It sounds like them to me...
I didn't check to compare the weight issues brought up earlier though; was that what you're referring to?
-
well lets start with posts 92-98 ...
those do not sound like our 190s ...
Actually, I have zero interest in proving you wrong. Show the facts, get the models changed. I'd like them to be as accurate as possible, frankly. That goes for the whole plane-set.
That doesn't mean I'm convinced by your arguments- it just means I'm not opposed (as if that would matter, lol)...
Your last comment though- "that doesn't sound to me like our 190's" leaves me hanging though. Why doesn't it? It sounds like them to me...
I didn't check to compare the weight issues brought up earlier though; was that what you're referring to?
And to me it sounds exactly like our 190s. When I was a noob I found that the combination of roll-rate, rudder-authority, stability as a gun platform, and firepower allowed me to get kills easier than any other plane with my lousy gunnery, making it worth accepting certain inherent performance limitations.
What exactly?
-
well lets start with posts 92-98 ...
those do not sound like our 190s ...
Typical...
Post some data or stop luftwhining. Sounds like, feels like, pilot x said... ect... ect.... ect... are not hard DATA. If there is a weight issue, document it (with multiple sources if possible) and HTC will address it. They did so when the p-38g was to LIGHT. This was brought up by a 38 pilot who wanted an accurate model.
-
typical, resort to "post some data" when it has just been shown that the data is often flawed, in a game where we have undisclosed data "sources" that lead to FMs that are not supported by the vast majority of historic testing and it should be clear that even if the numbers are all known (which in the vast majority of cases is not the situation) that still leaves us with an incomplete "picture" of the flight character of a plane.
just to make a point, i am suspecting that those posts are DATA SOURCES and are part of the RAF's evaluation ...
a typical AH response from you, how about this, tell me the exact data correlation between increased BHP weight and performance in whatever plane you want i.e. i want to know the specific and all of the exact consequences of the changes. find me some historic data that defines that exactly without using testing and POs.
when you can't, i want you to ponder how much of the FMs are subjective and therefore how fundamentally important the testing and pilot opinions are to formulating a GOOD FM, as is the ability to judiciously and equitably qualify good sources of all kinds and get them to all agree so you get a clear "picture" of the FM.
that means seeing through, and wanting to see through all the historic "fan boys" and "haters" for each type.
oh and as far as the weight of the 190 a8 goes that is intentionally impossible just as it is with the p-51D in the game because "for some reason" the specifics of the model is not specified ...
a person as interested in data as you profess to be should know that and never would have asked your question, unless your question is not really a question at all. is that the case, are you just trying to undermine another persons point without making a point of your own???
Typical...
Post some data or stop luftwhining. Sounds like, feels like, pilot x said... ect... ect.... ect... are not hard DATA. If there is a weight issue, document it (with multiple sources if possible) and HTC will address it. They did so when the p-38g was to LIGHT. This was brought up by a 38 pilot who wanted an accurate model.
-
:cry :cry :cry
And still more tap dace .... data luftwhiner.. post it.
-
he did hater (posts 88-98) deal with it ...
BTW misquoting should be against the TOS, if it isn't already ...
And still more tap dace .... data luftwhiner.. post it.
-
typical, resort to "post some data" when it has just been shown that the data is often flawed, in a game where we have undisclosed data "sources" that lead to FMs that are not supported by the vast majority of historic testing and it should be clear that even if the numbers are all known (which in the vast majority of cases is not the situation) that still leaves us with an incomplete "picture" of the flight character of a plane.
just to make a point, i am suspecting that those posts are DATA SOURCES and are part of the RAF's evaluation ...
a typical AH response from you, how about this, tell me the exact data correlation between increased BHP weight and performance in whatever plane you want i.e. i want to know the specific and all of the exact consequences of the changes. find me some historic data that defines that exactly without using testing and POs.
when you can't, i want you to ponder how much of the FMs are subjective and therefore how fundamentally important the testing and pilot opinions are to formulating a GOOD FM, as is the ability to judiciously and equitably qualify good sources of all kinds and get them to all agree so you get a clear "picture" of the FM.
that means seeing through, and wanting to see through all the historic "fan boys" and "haters" for each type.
oh and as far as the weight of the 190 a8 goes that is intentionally impossible just as it is with the p-51D in the game because "for some reason" the specifics of the model is not specified ...
a person as interested in data as you profess to be should know that and never would have asked your question, unless your question is not really a question at all. is that the case, are you just trying to undermine another persons point without making a point of your own???
From what I know, the FM of the aircraft of AH is the closest and least debated with the aircraft with the most data available. Take the Spitfire and its testing for instance, which is very well documented, even online. AH is very close, and if anything, does not overdo the FM in the aircraft's favour.
Getting equal data, such as climb and speed charts for every model of say the 109 and the 190 seems to be much more difficult. I do have a copy of a 109G6 tested in 1944, and unless the AH FM has been changed recently, the AH FM tops the chart, but stays very close. Will have to test again, now won't I ;)
I have no proper chart over the 109F, nor have I ever managed to get one. Nor over the 190.
So, - hence the term "luftwhiner". Just bring a solid test chart of a combat loaded 190A8 and post it and compare to the AH chart. Would save a wall of text....
Something like this:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a5.html
-
"when you can't, i want you to ponder how much of the FMs are subjective and therefore how fundamentally important the testing and pilot opinions are to formulating a GOOD FM, as is the ability to judiciously and equitably qualify good sources of all kinds and get them to all agree so you get a clear "picture" of the FM. "
Well, I think you have a point there Thor -sort of.
The problem is that there is no way of knowing if the models in AH match exactly their real life counterparts in all aspects. The anecdotes could give a clue but they have no scientific basis, they are just subjective observations. It could also be that even if the model matches the RL performance figures in climb and level speed without additional fiddling with model properties the maneuverability could still be different to that IRL (uh oh...). I'm quite sure that if you fly 190A8 in various flight sims you may notice that its performance feels different and I'm sure every programmer stands behind his code to be sufficiently accurate in presenting the RL flight model.
It just needs to be accepted that this is the HTC:s view of how those planes actually flew, and most importantly the majority of the player base accepts it too, so nothing is going to be "reviewed" or "changed" in 190A8's case.
***
Interesting that In MA I have noticed that people like to pick them away first in many vs. many since they are easy targets and because of their guns they are too dangerous to be left alive. Does that sound like it's an unmaneuverable steady brick with big guns? :lol
***
"I do have a copy of a 109G6 tested in 1944, and unless the AH FM has been changed recently, the AH FM tops the chart, but stays very close. Will have to test again, now won't I"
Absolutely, and after you have done it please post your results for us all to see, please. ;)
-C+
-
he did hater (posts 88-98) deal with it ...
Nothing in posts 88-98 is significantly different than our 190. Other than our 190 can take off without flaps.
-
typical, resort to "post some data" when it has just been shown that the data is often flawed, in a game where we have undisclosed data "sources" that lead to FMs that are not supported by the vast majority of historic testing and it should be clear that even if the numbers are all known (which in the vast majority of cases is not the situation) that still leaves us with an incomplete "picture" of the flight character of a plane.
just to make a point, i am suspecting that those posts are DATA SOURCES and are part of the RAF's evaluation ...
a typical AH response from you, how about this, tell me the exact data correlation between increased BHP weight and performance in whatever plane you want i.e. i want to know the specific and all of the exact consequences of the changes. find me some historic data that defines that exactly without using testing and POs.
when you can't, i want you to ponder how much of the FMs are subjective and therefore how fundamentally important the testing and pilot opinions are to formulating a GOOD FM, as is the ability to judiciously and equitably qualify good sources of all kinds and get them to all agree so you get a clear "picture" of the FM.
that means seeing through, and wanting to see through all the historic "fan boys" and "haters" for each type.
oh and as far as the weight of the 190 a8 goes that is intentionally impossible just as it is with the p-51D in the game because "for some reason" the specifics of the model is not specified ...
a person as interested in data as you profess to be should know that and never would have asked your question, unless your question is not really a question at all. is that the case, are you just trying to undermine another persons point without making a point of your own???
First, it seems as though you assume that HTC is playing fast with the numbers. The performance of these planes is determined by formulas. These formulas are the same for each aircraft. So, perhaps there are some things that are not modeled with 100% fidelity, but they affect the entire planeset equally. Your argument that lack of data to compare to is valid. But...
A lot of the flight "tests" of the era did not result in "data". Most of the reason Brown is so often criticized is his use of anecdotal comparisons between aircraft. "The Spitfire turns better than the 109...etc.". He doesn't list numbers, just his opinions. A lot of the fight test documents of the era are similar. While I think everyone will appreciate Brown's experience flying all those different aircraft, to simply accept his comparisons carte blanche is foolish, from a historical perspective.
In 1942, when the 190 was introduced, it was an intimidating aircraft to the RAF. It outclassed the Spits in use at that time in almost every category except turn performance, which was obviously an overrated characteristic anyway. Just because you can't go 1v1 with a Spit 9 in a low-altitude knife-fight doesn't mean that the 190 performance in game is porked.
-
yes but the germans and the soviets both considered the 190 a superior turning aircraft ...
i am not suggesting anything, i am pointing out that in a lot of ways the subjective aspects of the 190 FMs not only do not reflect the majority of tests and opinions but in fact are most in line with the worst example/s of the enemy combatant tests and opinions.
for example the RAF match up findings posted in this thread significantly different than the set in AH ...
so here again it comes down to subjectivity and once again i am pointing out that the handling (to a very large extent) and the turning ability in the game do not reflect the majority of published tests and opinions on the type.
fyi the flight tests all resulted in data, they just might not be the easily plugged in numbers we all hope for. hence my point about subjectivity ...
you have reached success with a FM when the vast majority of the best sources that you have deemed quality concur with the FM in the game. that is not the case with the 190s
First, it seems as though you assume that HTC is playing fast with the numbers. The performance of these planes is determined by formulas. These formulas are the same for each aircraft. So, perhaps there are some things that are not modeled with 100% fidelity, but they affect the entire planeset equally. Your argument that lack of data to compare to is valid. But...
A lot of the flight "tests" of the era did not result in "data". Most of the reason Brown is so often criticized is his use of anecdotal comparisons between aircraft. "The Spitfire turns better than the 109...etc.". He doesn't list numbers, just his opinions. A lot of the fight test documents of the era are similar. While I think everyone will appreciate Brown's experience flying all those different aircraft, to simply accept his comparisons carte blanche is foolish, from a historical perspective.
In 1942, when the 190 was introduced, it was an intimidating aircraft to the RAF. It outclassed the Spits in use at that time in almost every category except turn performance, which was obviously an overrated characteristic anyway. Just because you can't go 1v1 with a Spit 9 in a low-altitude knife-fight doesn't mean that the 190 performance in game is porked.
take offs are admittedly easier in AH than TRW for playability reasons.
FYI that test has an at best simplistic view of the flap system of the 190s at worst it is just flat out wrong, hard to tell which from what is there though ...
Nothing in posts 88-98 is significantly different than our 190. Other than our 190 can take off without flaps.
From what I know, the FM of the aircraft of AH is the closest and least debated with the aircraft with the most data available. Take the Spitfire and its testing for instance, which is very well documented, even online. AH is very close, and if anything, does not overdo the FM in the aircraft's favour.
Getting equal data, such as climb and speed charts for every model of say the 109 and the 190 seems to be much more difficult. I do have a copy of a 109G6 tested in 1944, and unless the AH FM has been changed recently, the AH FM tops the chart, but stays very close. Will have to test again, now won't I ;)
I have no proper chart over the 109F, nor have I ever managed to get one. Nor over the 190.
So, - hence the term "luftwhiner". Just bring a solid test chart of a combat loaded 190A8 and post it and compare to the AH chart. Would save a wall of text....
Something like this:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a5.html
-
"Just because you can't go 1v1 with a Spit 9 in a low-altitude knife-fight doesn't mean that the 190 performance in game is porked."
For some strange reason I'd think that that was a rather equal fight IRL... :D
http://www.luftwaffe.cz/spit.html
"Other than our 190 can take off without flaps."
It could IRL too. From the video of Flugwerke 190 you can see that it can be pulled airborne from a three pointer with with none or some flaps, so there is plenty of reserve. Does HTC 190 take off from a three pointer with some flaps?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGSxosU9N5c&feature=related
Looks pretty effortless.
-C+
-
yes but the germans and the soviets both considered the 190 a superior turning aircraft ...
Turning???? Little vague no?
Hi speed.... low speed... instantaneous... sustained.
Specifics boyo.
-
germans said any alt any speed of course they included the roll in the process after all they were pragmatic those germans.
Turning???? Little vague no?
Hi speed.... low speed... instantaneous... sustained.
Specifics boyo.
-
germans said any alt any speed of course they included the roll in the process after all they were pragmatic those germans.
I'm sure you will now post the DATA to back up this claim. Like you have so often done in the past.
Correct me if I'm wrong and I may be.
The FW 190 a8 is heavier and has less wing area than say a Mk IX spit. Equipped a merlin 66 the Mk IX has about the same HP. Please explain how a higher wing loaded plane with = HP gets around a circle quicker?
-
"Equipped a merlin 66 the Mk IX has about the same HP."
Also the altitude affects this since at low alt the 190 has the edge on power output...
-C+
-
"Equipped a merlin 66 the Mk IX has about the same HP."
Also the altitude affects this since at low alt the 190 has the edge on power output...
-C+
Charge what's the hp at the alt you are talking about... just so we can nail this down.
Ohh and that is a far cry from "any alt any speed" no?
-
i've posted about data mining and board attitudes before, the information is very public why don't you go find it yourself ...
or i tell you what, i will post a copy of the quote which includes reference to the source document and you promise to quit harassing me about data from now on and for forever ...
otherwise you will just have to trust me.
I'm sure you will now post the DATA to back up this claim. Like you have so often done in the past.
Correct me if I'm wrong and I may be.
The FW 190 a8 is heavier and has less wing area than say a Mk IX spit. Equipped a merlin 66 the Mk IX has about the same HP. Please explain how a higher wing loaded plane with = HP gets around a circle quicker?
-
i've posted about data mining and board attitudes before, the information is very public why don't you go find it yourself ...
or i tell you what, i will post a copy of the quote which includes reference to the source document and you promise to quit harassing me about data from now on and for forever ...
otherwise you will just have to trust me.
Your parents made you take dance class as a child?
Edit: After seeing kurfurst posting here I trust no luftwhiner.
-
no i lived with a professional ballet dancer in NYC for several years though, flexibility is an interesting feature in a woman BTW.
you gonna put your "mouth" where your mouth is? or maybe look for some data yourself for a change, or you are you just going to continue harassing people with something to offer to a conversation while offering nothing yourself ?
Your parents made you take dance class as a child?
Edit: After seeing kurfurst posting here I trust no luftwhiner.
-
More hyperbole .
Thorism decoder working overtime today.
You make a claim, you back it up. Either with new finds or links to old. Otherwise it's treated as more hyperbole luftwhine. :aok
Gratz on the dancer though, looks like she taught you to dance on the head of a pin. :P
-
no i lived with a professional ballet dancer in NYC for several years though, flexibility is an interesting feature in a woman BTW.
you gonna put your "mouth" where your mouth is? or maybe look for some data yourself for a change, or you are you just going to continue harassing people with something to offer to a conversation while offering nothing yourself ?
I guess I'll have to stop assuming you're 15 years old.
Basically you want your subjective understanding of somebody else's subjective opinion to determine the FW190 FM in AH.
If you put that in your sig you wouldn't have to mention it in every thread about German A/C.
-
The Flugwerk 190 is not a good benchmark for what a wartime 190A8 could have done. Its several hundred kgs lighter and has equal (if not more) available power.
Thorsim, how do you propose that HTC could match what equals to a "correct" behavior of the 190 when you are talking about your subjective feelings. There are quite a few people here who think our 190 does indeed feels "correct" and has good handling qualities. Both are subjective opinions.. who is correct now?
The only alternative is to go by hard data, isn't it?
-
yes but the germans and the soviets both considered the 190 a superior turning aircraft ...
Everything that I've read suggests that the Germans thought that while the Fw 190 was more maneuverable overall, that the Bf 109 had better flat turning performance.
-
so as i suspected you are going to continue to contribute nothing and just post incessant demands for data ... sorry, you go do a little just a tiniest bit of research on the 190 and you will see the light about what i am saying.
Thorism decoder working overtime today.
You make a claim, you back it up. Either with new finds or links to old. Otherwise it's treated as more hyperbole luftwhine. :aok
Gratz on the dancer though, looks like she taught you to dance on the head of a pin. :P
well i will have to assume you are 12 since you seem to continue to wish to believe the FMs in the games are made up of anything like a majority of objective confirmed concrete numerical data. i'm betting that they are not, and so the sources of the data then becomes very important and of course for the most part they are not revealed. as far as why i have become so expert on German a/c is that for the most part it does not seem to be the allied aircraft not meeting the expectations one has by investigation ...
you will note that no one in what 9 pages now has offered a german test or PO that supports the findings in the allied tests mentioned here or any german data that supports the flight character of the FMs in the games.
that would not be tolerated for an american plane btw, maybe you should put that in your sig..
"this we will not tolerate" , and then start a list ...
subjectivity has been addressed previously
I guess I'll have to stop assuming you're 15 years old.
Basically you want your subjective understanding of somebody else's subjective opinion to determine the FW190 FM in AH.
If you put that in your sig you wouldn't have to mention it in every thread about German A/C.
that may or may not be so however people make statements about other warbirds that are likewise very different than their wartime counterparts. it will be interesting to see what differences exist between the 190n and white one when it flies and what reasons can be found as to why ...
i suggest they use the same procedure with all the FMs especially in regards to the subjective evaluations.
preferably they would compile all the available data whatever form that may take, review it amongst a panel of players and experts form every "camp" who both edit the sources for any anomalies and then compile the remaining data into a set of goal numbers that the coders match and then resubmit the FM for review until it meets the panels expectations enough that they are comfortable saying it is a beta FM and then post the data and the what and whys of the process along with the beta to the community for final vetting ...
that is how it should be done IMO ...
good hard data would be nice but that is pretty much unavailable in the detail desired on the vast majority if not all of the FMs/Planes in the set ...
however what you don't do is take either the best or worst data for any type and use that exclusively for anything imo.
The Flugwerk 190 is not a good benchmark for what a wartime 190A8 could have done. Its several hundred kgs lighter and has equal (if not more) available power.
Thorsim, how do you propose that HTC could match what equals to a "correct" behavior of the 190 when you are talking about your subjective feelings. There are quite a few people here who think our 190 does indeed feels "correct" and has good handling qualities. Both are subjective opinions.. who is correct now?
The only alternative is to go by hard data, isn't it?
well first of all, have you seen all the data? secondly you are qualifying the turn in a way the germans did not as they were more pragmatic in their flight evaluations than their counterparts, imo.
i.e. they seemed to have measured the process of the turn in actual mock combat instead of separating the parts of a turn, at least in this case.
Everything that I've read suggests that the Germans thought that while the Fw 190 was more maneuverable overall, that the Bf 109 had better flat turning performance.
-
Sniped for pompous luftwhine
Heard it all before there Crump Jr.
-
...
Do you argue just for the sake of arguing and think posting wall after wall of text will make you the winner? You obviously have no data to back up your claims. If you did you'd have been able to post once and be done with it.
I'm as much an expert on the 190's as you are. They are fine. There. Done. Expert opinion posted. No more need to post walls of text. I win. And as proof that I win I submit that there will not be a change to the 190's.
-
You obviously have no data to back up your claims. If you did you'd have been able to post once and be done with it.
Ya think?
-
Heard it all before there Crump Jr.
LOL.
-
yes but the germans and the soviets both considered the 190 a superior turning aircraft ...
If they are referring to sustained turning, its aerodynamically impossible. If they are referring to the ability to change the lift vector, then they're probably correct, but that's a roll rate issue.
-
"Equipped a merlin 66 the Mk IX has about the same HP."
Also the altitude affects this since at low alt the 190 has the edge on power output...
-C+
Comparing the absolute horsepower is worthless. You must compute power available versus power required to make that comparison worthwhile.
-
Thorism decoder working overtime today.
You make a claim, you back it up. Either with new finds or links to old. Otherwise it's treated as more hyperbole luftwhine. :aok
Gratz on the dancer though, looks like she taught you to dance on the head of a pin. :P
:rofl
-
i think they are comparing using the two together. since rolling in and of itself, and flying around in circles are not very useful in air combat, of course the germans at least knew that by the early 40s ;)
from what Saurdaukar posted the RAF knew that as well, or at least fighter command ...
If they are referring to sustained turning, its aerodynamically impossible. If they are referring to the ability to change the lift vector, then they're probably correct, but that's a roll rate issue.
-
i think they are comparing using the two together. since rolling in and of itself, and flying around in circles are not very useful in air combat, of course the germans at least knew that by the early 40s ;)
from what Saurdaukar posted the RAF knew that as well, or at least fighter command ...
Not what YOU said.
yes but the germans and the soviets both considered the 190 a superior turning aircraft ...
So which is it?
The FW190 is less maneuverable than a spitfire?
The FW190 can't out turn a spit fire?
Big difference...
-
So, like in some of the other FM discussions, it seems we've reached a point where subjective opinion "just ain't good enough". And the data that's available isn't easy to use to refute what HTC has come up with? And even if the "numbers" work, some people just "feel" they've got it wrong?
The thing is, HTC has already done enough research to feel comfortable with the FM. They can't really be expected to just up and say "oops, we got it wrong", because some folks have differing opinions. It'd take some pretty convincing data to convince them to change things.
Beyond that, what's the "industry standard" for the 190 FM's in various sims? Not that HTC has to parallel those, but for them to legitimately differ from that they'd logically want some pretty serious data to prove their FM was correct, or they'd undergo far more scrutiny than what can be seen here.
Again, it comes down to convincing data. In the past, it's been taken by HTC and used to tweak things. I'm sure they'd be willing to do it again. But, where's that data? Does it even exist? If it does, present it! Why wouldn't you present it, if you wanted it used?
To expect HTC to go out and prove themselves wrong, or prove they used bad data, isn't likely to happen. It's an argument they can easily win just by ignoring the situation. To expect them to post their data so that you can attempt to rip it to shreds ain't gonna happen either. Again, they win the argument just by ignoring it.
-
Thorsim,
You say you have the data to prove your point, then post it.
-
where did i say the 190 could out turn the spitfire?
Not what YOU said.So which is it?
The FW190 is less maneuverable than a spitfire?
The FW190 can't out turn a spit fire?
Big difference...
now remember what i originally posted, that the handling of the 190 most closely represents a very flawed USN report and contradicted the majority of other sources. this issue would not be solvable unless and until HTC releases their data sources which they will not do. however i have invited anyone to produce a German report that confirms the handling qualities of the 190s in the game/s. after looking for years, i have yet to find one. so my suspicion revolves around why the data that seems to have been used for the 190 and deemed "good enough" for that is allowed to be soo suspect when that would never be tolerated for any home team plane.
So, like in some of the other FM discussions, it seems we've reached a point where subjective opinion "just ain't good enough". And the data that's available isn't easy to use to refute what HTC has come up with? And even if the "numbers" work, some people just "feel" they've got it wrong?
The thing is, HTC has already done enough research to feel comfortable with the FM. They can't really be expected to just up and say "oops, we got it wrong", because some folks have differing opinions. It'd take some pretty convincing data to convince them to change things.
Beyond that, what's the "industry standard" for the 190 FM's in various sims? Not that HTC has to parallel those, but for them to legitimately differ from that they'd logically want some pretty serious data to prove their FM was correct, or they'd undergo far more scrutiny than what can be seen here.
Again, it comes down to convincing data. In the past, it's been taken by HTC and used to tweak things. I'm sure they'd be willing to do it again. But, where's that data? Does it even exist? If it does, present it! Why wouldn't you present it, if you wanted it used?
To expect HTC to go out and prove themselves wrong, or prove they used bad data, isn't likely to happen. It's an argument they can easily win just by ignoring the situation. To expect them to post their data so that you can attempt to rip it to shreds ain't gonna happen either. Again, they win the argument just by ignoring it.
wings of the luftwaffe "190" they quote the assessment team here in this you tube video clip ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0YLLBvIBFk&feature=related
the statement i mentioned is at the 50sec to 1 min mark, the VVS reports were posted on this board a while ago by another member.
Thorsim,
You say you have the data to prove your point, then post it.
-
i must address this ...
how do you propose to turn without rolling? you may depending on your original aspect be able to make one turn, after that please address how you separate the roll from the process of making a tight or fast turn in one of these aircraft.
please be as specific as i am very curious about how you so easily separate the two ...
Not what YOU said.So which is it?
The FW190 is less maneuverable than a spitfire?
The FW190 can't out turn a spit fire?
Big difference...
-
i must address this ...
how do you propose to turn without rolling? you may depending on your original aspect be able to make one turn, after that please address how you separate the roll from the process of making a tight or fast turn in one of these aircraft.
please be as specific as i am very curious about how you so easily separate the two ...
Roll allows you to get into a tight turn quickly, but after that initial roll, roll rate has little to do with the sustained turn performance. Like I said earlier, if all you're describing is changing the lift vector, the 190 can do that quicker than most. Sustained turns it is a brick. The higher it flies, the worse that condition gets. Perhaps a more precise description would be that it suffers during high AoA maneuvering.
-
is that "initial turn rate" or is that a different issue? ...
Roll allows you to get into a tight turn quickly, but after that initial roll, roll rate has little to do with the sustained turn performance. Like I said earlier, if all you're describing is changing the lift vector, the 190 can do that quicker than most. Sustained turns it is a brick. The higher it flies, the worse that condition gets. Perhaps a more precise description would be that it suffers during high AoA maneuvering.
-
You can see some indication of the available thrust from speed charts and there is no thrust without HP. ;) The 190 is probably less draggy than Spit which is one factor which would make it generally faster at low altitude. At higher altitude the high wingloading starts to take its toll and the higher weight is visible if you compare A5 to A8. I'm not sure if the low/high altitude performance of 190/Spit is somekind of indication of differences between radial and inline engines' suitability to certain altitude or merely the difference in charger impeller diameter which determines its suitability to low or high altitude/pressure.
I also don't think that ability to change lift vector is only a roll related issue. I have understood that 190s handling is "brisk" which is obviously somehow different to some other planes which are more sluggish in roll but also in response to elevator controls. But briskness alone does not make it a good turner -just a good plane to quickly change its lift vector.
There is indeed anecdotal evidence that 190 can surprise with its turning ability. The Russians reported that it will always offer "turning with minimum speed" which is rather odd but maybe it had more torque available in slow speed than LA5 (they did not compare it to Spitfire ;-)). Also J. Johnson was surprised about it while he was flying a Spit5, and reading his memoirs he is not a person that talks emotional nonsense about enemy pilots and planes, which makes an impression that he was indeed dumbfounded by the event. The mock dogfight between Meimberg and Meyer also took place and Meimberg describes that Meyers 190 "was already hanging by its prop" which again gives indication of utilizing torque characteristics and if your nose points either up or down you do not need to turn well, just roll the plane to desired vector and pull it up or down to that direction. I don't think it is possible that 190 could beat a 109 in a stall fight how ever good torque characteristics it would have.
"Perhaps a more precise description would be that it suffers during high AoA maneuvering."
Indeed. And in high speed you cannot pull too much AoA and that is where 190 would be competitive, also if G forces play a part of limiting the available flight envelope.
-C+
-
is that "initial turn rate" or is that a different issue? ...
The two turn rates typically used for comparison are instantaneous and sustained turn rates. Sustained turn rate is that turn rate achieved when thrust is "just sufficient to maintain velocity and altitude in the turn". Any tighter and you either slow down or lose altitude. Instantaneous turn rate is the maximum turn rate possible, without considering whether or not the plane will slow down or lose altitude. The factors that affect instantaneous turn rate are speed, g-load, Clmax of the wing, and wing loading. Instantaneous turn rates point you towards the "corner velocity" of an aircraft at a given altitude. Given the high wing loading of the 190 series, these 190 turn rates will almost always compare poorly to their peers.
Now, you are correct in stating that a 190 could "get into" a turn faster because of its roll rate. But, once the turn is established, the 190 is going to suffer compared to the Spit. So again, I realize that there are a lot of documents that describe the aircraft as "maneuverable", or "out turns" something else, or whatever. The problem is that qualitative description tells us nothing useful for comparison, from a perspective of describing the quantitative advantage, if indeed it ever existed. Without the numbers, we can only plug in wing area, wing span, horiz. stab area, etc. to develop the aerodynamic data that gets modeled. The relative performance we see is the result.
I'd suggest that you create some EM Diagrams for the 190 series at typical combat weights, and then see how it stacks up against the Spit 5 and the Spit 9. I have a feeling that the relative performance in-game for all 3 of those aircraft will be borne out in those EM diagrams.
-
The 190 is probably less draggy than Spit which is one factor which would make it generally faster at low altitude.
Do we know this? Just because the 190 has less wetted area does not mean that it was less "draggy".
-
"Do we know this? Just because the 190 has less wetted area does not mean that it was less "draggy"."
Not exactly in case of A8, but D9 is less draggy and I don't see much difference between them since D9 vents its radiator all the time but A8 has a near closed cowling which could actually make it less draggy than vented radiator design in D9 -but of course the face area is bigger in A8. Too bad Lednicer decided to focus on D9 in his article...
-C+
-
In the good while since I posted here, a lot of discussions took place on Il-2's GD about the sustained turn rate of the FW-190A relative to other types, and, despite an overwhelming majority of simmer detractors, more evidence has piled up against the US Navy evaluation of the F-190A, which in my opinion was a very mediocre attempt at confirming the prejudice that higher weight always loses...
The key factor here is, I theorize, nose lenght: Take a barbell handle with disc weights on ONE side only, pointing the discs down: A short handle will make it easier to "point" the weight at the ground at a SLANTED angle OFF from the vertical: Lenghten the handle and you will feel the pressure inside your hand rise higher, despite the disc weight being the same.
The disc weight is an exact replica of the prop thrust: Slanting the angle off the vertical is the equivalent of what an aircraft is doing while turning: Twisting the disc sideways to where it really wants to go without your action...
A short handle or short nose has less leverage to press your flesh inside your hand/press down on the wing's center of lift, REDUCING the leverage down on the wing's center of lift.
In effect, my argument is that a Spitfire a FULL power turning at 250 MPH will have a higher REAL-TURN wingloading than a FW-190A at partial power: Lighter wingloading wins, just as everybody says... Note in Johnny Johnson's account the Spitfire pilot says he is at FULL throttle, which explains his defeat in sustained turning...:
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg
My argument is that a shorter nose acts like a reduced throttle but without actually reducing the throttle. They both have the same effect of defeating our calculated expectations that do not take into account the basic issue of leverage physics...
Imagine now pointing off-vertical the one-side weighted barbell, but this time with the disc weight JUST ABOVE your hand: Can you picture how easy it is now to point the now-empty handle extremity directly at the ground, at slanted angles? That is exactly the advantage a jet has because the propulsion is behind the center of lift. That is why the jet does not benefit from downthrottling, unlike the patently obvious example here:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/339-hanseman-24may44.jpg
This is how inane is the argument that prop traction and jet propulsion behave the SAME, which is current simulation dogma...
Quote, Thorsim: "now remember what i originally posted, that the handling of the 190 most closely represents a very flawed USN report and contradicted the majority of other sources. this issue would not be solvable unless and until HTC releases their data sources which they will not do. however i have invited anyone to produce a German report that confirms the handling qualities of the 190s in the game/s. after looking for years, i have yet to find one."
The US Navy report is likely flawed because it was run at full power ONLY by non-combat experienced pilots: The FW-190 behaved very poorly in turns above 250 MPH as is evidenced by THIS test which WAS made by front-line combat pilots...:
http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg
That the Navy proved incabaple of really discerning the FW-190A's inferior handling at high speed (note here in the US Army test the "tendency to black-out the pilot", which is in effect a decelerating stall, initially "inside" the turn after a sudden pitch up), is merely an illustration of their prejudice about how a high weight aircraft should regain an advantage at high speed: That the aircraft itself has fairly poor handling at high speed was not enough to dissuade them from their baseless prejudice of branding it an "interceptor"... (An "interceptor" with a poor climb rate and a truly pathetic dive pull-out performance: Riiight...)
There is, unfortunately, ONE German document that confort current prevailing opinion: The Rechlin La-5 evaluation which DOES say the Me-109G out-turns the FW-190A: I think this was again the test pilot prejudice of always testing turns at FULL throttle: Slightly above 250 MPH at full throttle, I would expect a FW-190A-8 running at 2100 hp to turn WORSE than a Me-109G at 1500 or even 1800 hp... Think of those barbells weights again...
Note I would never claim the low-speed difference between those two is huge: The Me-109G-6 may have a smaller sustained turn radius at its peak sustained turn rate speed of 160 MPH according to Fin ace Karhila... As the US P-47D test makes obvious, the Me-109G is certainly superior-turning to the FW-190A ABOVE 250 MPH...
Which is exactly ACTUAL German tactics observed by the Russians looked like this: FW-190 flew low to engage in prolonged turn-fighting, Me-109s flew high to do "boom and zoom" attacks...:
http://luthier.stormloader.com/SFTacticsIII.htm
Quote:
"They interact in the following manner:
FW-190 will attempt to close with our fighters hoping to get behind them and attack suddenly. If that maneuver is unsuccessful they will even attack head-on relying on their superb firepower. This will also break up our battle formations to allow Me-109Gs to attack our fighters as well. Me-109G will usually perform boom-n-zoom attacks using superior airspeed after their dive.
FW-190 will commit to the fight even if our battle formation is not broken, preferring left turning fights. There has been cases of such turning fights lasting quite a long time, with multiple planes from both sides involved in each engagement."
-So more evidence is clearly piling up against prevailing simmer opinion... After all, isn't it clearly what Rall meant by the Me-109 being a straight "floret" and the FW-190A a curved "sabre", and that they complemented one another?
While we are at it, some new interesting Soviet turn times (though since likely at full power not really representative, but at least indicative):
FW-190A-4: 19-23 sec. (FW-190A-5 being quoted by the Soviets as 1 second faster, so as low as 18 sec.). Me-109F: 20 sec. Me-109G-2: 22 sec.
I don't know what the wide range of the FW-190A means, perhaps depending on pilot? Clearly the lowest turn time is better than anything a Me-109 can do...
I'll remind everyone an actual FW-190A-8 Western ace actually posted his real-life experience on this very board a few years ago, and his description was exactly that of the Russian experience: A fearsome low-speed turn-fighter that performed at its best downthrottled for horizontal maneuvers...
And yes, at full throttle in the turn, the Spitfire will have a higher real-life wingloading than a downthrottled FW-190A...
Try different barbell handles and weights and see why...
Gaston
-
"Just because you can't go 1v1 with a Spit 9 in a low-altitude knife-fight doesn't mean that the 190 performance in game is porked."
For some strange reason I'd think that that was a rather equal fight IRL... :D
http://www.luftwaffe.cz/spit.html
"Other than our 190 can take off without flaps."
It could IRL too. From the video of Flugwerke 190 you can see that it can be pulled airborne from a three pointer with with none or some flaps, so there is plenty of reserve. Does HTC 190 take off from a three pointer with some flaps?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGSxosU9N5c&feature=related
Looks pretty effortless.
-C+
Here is one effortless takeoff. I have actually seen this one take off and carry on into a loop. Dropped a jaw then.
Anyway, what is the new 190's weight and power compared to the WWII one?
-
No armor or armament, so it is lighter. Same ASh-82 engine as the La-7 (or more specific the 82T post-war civilian version used in transport planes); 1530-1900 hp depending on rating. So, lighter than an A-8 with similar power as the BMW on MIL (1730 hp).
-
Posted this in the o-club a few days ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1bXBrnGsaA&feature=related
Impressive looking machine.
-
That is why the jet does not benefit from downthrottling, unlike the patently obvious example here:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/339-hanseman-24may44.jpg
I disagree with almost everything you've said here.
You use examples that have other explanations for the cause-effect relationship.
It was not gyroscopic twisting that makes turning a plane turn worse or better at different throttle speeds. You note the P-51 example dropped a whopping 20-degrees of flaps (almost half) and chopped throttle, and only after a prolonged turn fight gained advantage.
The simple explanation is he was turning slower, but tighter. The lesser skilled Me109 pilots (late 1944? Let's face it, few aces left by then) and probably the presence of gunpods or any number of other factors lead to the P51 shooting down the 109.
You make such a large and elaborate argument about this, as if it's a new and novel thing, but it's old-hat for most sims in gaming history. The reason you chop throttle isn't to turn better due to gyroscopic tendency, it's to get the better ANGLE, simple as that.
Ask the guys that fly P-47s in this game and rack up boucou kills. They drop the flaps and cut the throttle to the same end result: They use it to cut in behind somebody for a better angle.
(edit: typo fix)
-
Ignore Gaston - he's the world's pre-eminent (only?) crypto-physicist and has a bottomless pit noise upon which to call.
-
In response to this thread I've chosen a new sig for the time being, check it out.
-
In response to this thread I've chosen a new sig for the time being, check it out.
LOL.
-
The key factor here is, I theorize, nose lenght: Take a barbell handle with disc weights on ONE side only, pointing the discs down: A short handle will make it easier to "point" the weight at the ground at a SLANTED angle OFF from the vertical: Lenghten the handle and you will feel the pressure inside your hand rise higher, despite the disc weight being the same.
The disc weight is an exact replica of the prop thrust: Slanting the angle off the vertical is the equivalent of what an aircraft is doing while turning: Twisting the disc sideways to where it really wants to go without your action...
Uhhh wut?
-
a couple of points here ...
1) i was annoyed at the constant demands from some for "data" from some who never post any themselves, even after data was already posted. especially since the data in question is broadcast monthly for anyone with even a casual interest in the topic to absorb. so i felt that just a little bit of research burden placed on the doubter/hater was not out of line.
2) i think that in the case of the 190 that the subjective handling modeling is taken from a poor source and over represented so that the advantages of a vastly superior RW roll rate are neutralized to a large extent by a turn rate and handling modeling that is in line only with the worst recorded testing that has been dismissed by any serious historians of the topic.
that imo is why we do not see the 190 "out turning" planes in the game, or surprising anyone with it's maneuverability even though most accounts suggest that it should.
i don't want to be lumped in with turn rate or radius arguments going on in this thread now, my issues are mostly with the flight/handling character of the FM and i think i have been clear with the hows and whys of my POV.
-
I don't recall ever seeing hard data posted by you Thorsim.
I have seen you post stuff that you CALL data but is pretty much opinions and conjecture. Nothing even close to what would be required to prove your point or show that HTC might be using flawed data.
I for one would LOVE the 190's to be tweaked a bit. The a5 is a bit slow IMO and I do think the 190's as a whole are a tad sluggish and should be slightly better turners.
My main ride in AirWarrior was the 190A4 and I love the 190 series. I have always felt they were a tad under modeled in AcesHigh.
BUT I have also never seen anything posted by anybody that shows that HTC is wrong (except for the slower 190a5. I think i've seen it pretty much proven they are slower in AH than they should be) so I just don't fly them much anymore.
You are the one saying AH is "wrong" re: the 190. The burden of proof is then on your shoulders and you need to put up or shut up. Either show some actual data that can prove HTC has modeled the 190 series wrong (anecdotes and opinions are not Data) or accept that what HTC has done is pretty close and live with it.
HTC has been proven wrong in the past and they fixed the modeling. It can and has been done. HTC will fix any flaws in the flight modeling if it is proven to be flawed or incorrect.
I have never felt they have a bias vs. German rides and are quite open to input from the community.
But "so and so said..." and "I feel..." just ain't gonna cut it and will never get anything changed.
-
Thorsim please consider this, both Krusty and I have posted data in this thread about the weight of the 190A-8. While our numbers don't match, they both point out that the current A-8 is overweight.
It's only a matter of degree by how much, the weight is off.
If HTC sees the data and feels it's sufficiently accurate enough to change from what the current model was based on, they will do it. They have made changes in the past with other models (when the data is provided) so I expect them to make them now if it's appropriate. Correcting the weight will directly effect the wing loading (versus other pseudo-physics), which in turn, leads to better sustained turn performance.
-
2) i think that in the case of the 190 that the subjective handling modeling is taken from a poor source and over represented so that the advantages of a vastly superior RW roll rate are neutralized to a large extent by a turn rate and handling modeling that is in line only with the worst recorded testing that has been dismissed by any serious historians of the topic.
There is nothing in the qualitative report that supports porking the 190 in-game. There's no numbers in that report you keep talking about. HTC can't model anything off of that report. For the last time, the turn rate of the 190 must be poor, from an aerodynamic standpoint. Unless you're willing to rewrite some fundamental aerodynamics equations, the 190 should suck in a turn, relative to most of the other planes in the game. It does not handle high angles of attack well at any altitude. That doesn't mean the 190 sucked in real-life. Neither the P-51 or the P-47 could turn worth a damn either, and they were very successful. Obviously, this game adds something to the mix that was different from the actual war.
i don't want to be lumped in with turn rate or radius arguments going on in this thread now, my issues are mostly with the flight/handling character of the FM and i think i have been clear with the hows and whys of my POV.
From a rhetorical point of view, this statement makes no sense. You don't want to argue the math that shows why the 190 maneuvers the way it does, but you want to complain about the way the 190 maneuvers? That's the proverbial "taking your ball and going home".
-
well i have a question, what makes you think the 190s are slightly under modeled?
I don't recall ever seeing hard data posted by you Thorsim.
I have seen you post stuff that you CALL data but is pretty much opinions and conjecture. Nothing even close to what would be required to prove your point or show that HTC might be using flawed data.
I for one would LOVE the 190's to be tweaked a bit. The a5 is a bit slow IMO and I do think the 190's as a whole are a tad sluggish and should be slightly better turners.
My main ride in AirWarrior was the 190A4 and I love the 190 series. I have always felt they were a tad under modeled in AcesHigh.
BUT I have also never seen anything posted by anybody that shows that HTC is wrong (except for the slower 190a5. I think i've seen it pretty much proven they are slower in AH than they should be) so I just don't fly them much anymore.
You are the one saying AH is "wrong" re: the 190. The burden of proof is then on your shoulders and you need to put up or shut up. Either show some actual data that can prove HTC has modeled the 190 series wrong (anecdotes and opinions are not Data) or accept that what HTC has done is pretty close and live with it.
HTC has been proven wrong in the past and they fixed the modeling. It can and has been done. HTC will fix any flaws in the flight modeling (eventually sometimes) if it is shown to be flawed or incorrect.
I have never felt they have a bias vs. German rides and are quite open to input from the community.
But "so and so said..." and "I feel..." just ain't gonna cut it to get anything changed.
-
the handling in the game is inconsistent with the vast majority of tests and POs of the plane.
that is a fact "."
that is what i questioned, and i offered an explanation. somewhere in the process i made a statement for which i have now shown the source which no one now questions.
why now do i feel like you want me to defend myself once again?
the FM does not match up with what it is supposed to be historically. you think the reason is in the numbers,
i think the reason is in the decisions about the source data and the goals for the FM.
i see no need to debate as there is no way for us to know how much of the FM code can be described as subjective and how much is numerically well defined.
i have no problem with being in respectful disagreement with some of you, however i see no reason to be badgered for offering a well supported opinion on these matters.
Thorsim please consider this, both Krusty and I have posted data in this thread about the weight of the 190A-8. While our numbers don't match, they both point out that the current A-8 is overweight.
It's only a matter of degree by how much, the weight is off.
If HTC sees the data and feels it's sufficiently accurate enough to change from what the current model was based on, they will do it. They have made changes in the past with other models (when the data is provided) so I expect them to make them now if it's appropriate. Correcting the weight will directly effect the wing loading (versus other pseudo-physics), which in turn, leads to better sustained turn performance.
There is nothing in the qualitative report that supports porking the 190 in-game. There's no numbers in that report you keep talking about. HTC can't model anything off of that report. For the last time, the turn rate of the 190 must be poor, from an aerodynamic standpoint. Unless you're willing to rewrite some fundamental aerodynamics equations, the 190 should suck in a turn, relative to most of the other planes in the game. It does not handle high angles of attack well at any altitude. That doesn't mean the 190 sucked in real-life. Neither the P-51 or the P-47 could turn worth a damn either, and they were very successful. Obviously, this game adds something to the mix that was different from the actual war.
From a rhetorical point of view, this statement makes no sense. You don't want to argue the math that shows why the 190 maneuvers the way it does, but you want to complain about the way the 190 maneuvers? That's the proverbial "taking your ball and going home".
-
i have no problem with being in respectful disagreement with some of you, however i see no reason to be badgered for offering a well supported opinion on these matters.
Thank you Thorsim I appreciate that very much (if it's directed to me). It was not my intent to badger you, merely to point out an alternative path to making the point about the flight model.
I do have a question for you regarding your position. If I've read your previous post correctly, you feel that the FM's physics vary from plane to plane, and that HTC made decisions about how to model the 190's physics in order to fit into their goals for Aces High. Am I understanding your point correctly?
-
I disagree with almost everything you've said here.
You use examples that have other explanations for the cause-effect relationship.
It was not gyroscopic twisting that makes turning a plane turn worse or better at different throttle speeds. You note the P-51 example dropped a whopping 20-degrees of flaps (almost half) and chopped throttle, and only after a prolonged turn fight gained advantage.
The simple explanation is he was turning slower, but tighter. The lesser skilled Me109 pilots (late 1944? Let's face it, few aces left by then) and probably the presence of gunpods or any number of other factors lead to the P51 shooting down the 109.
You make such a large and elaborate argument about this, as if it's a new and novel thing, but it's old-hat for most sims in gaming history. The reason you chop throttle isn't to turn better due to gyroscopic tendency, it's to get the better ANGLE, simple as that.
Ask the guys that fly P-47s in this game and rack up boucou kills. They drop the flaps and cut the throttle to the same end result: They use it to cut in behind somebody for a better angle.
(edit: typo fix)
-I was NOT talking about a GYROSCOPIC effect...
In a turn, the inside prop disc half move SLOWER forward (by an infinitesimal amount) than the outside disc half: To achieve that result means the ENTIRE thrust in the slower (inside-turn) disc half HAS to be overcome COMPLETELY: Partially overcoming the thrust would yield no forward speed difference between the inside-turn and oustside-turn disc half...
A rope with 200 lbs hanging from it, the 200 lbs weight being pushed up with a force of 100 lbs, will still have 100 lbs of tension in it... However infinitesimal the difference in velocity between the inside/outside-turn prop disc halves, you have to overcome ALL of the relevant disc thrust half to gain any difference in forward movement speed of the disc halves...
In effect, the center of the whole disc's thrust moves into the inside-turn disc half, gaining probably a small leverage against the nose being raised.
The trouble is, however small the leverage, the prop blade makes a right-angle stress-riser against the nose, enormously increasing the pressing down on the wing's center of lift, meaning you have to reduce power if you want to reduce your REAL-LIFE wingloading...
Jets have no 90° stress-risers, and thrust being at the rear, it is easier to raise a horizontal bottle by the rear end, or the middle, than by the neck...
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the elevator tail-depression force has equal leverage to the upper disc half not wanting to be pulled back: Same lenght roughly: longer tail than nose on a P-51, but then NO 90° stress-riser on the tail either, unlike the nose...
If the total disc thrust at WEP is say 4000 lbs: 1/2 of that is 2000 lbs. Equal leverage means the tail needs 2000 lbs of downward force just to defeat the upper disc half not wanting to be pulled back.
That is an EXTRA 2000 lbs of DOWNWARD force down on the wingloading: This would vary greatly if the prop aircraft nose is shorter compared to the wing's center of lift. Or if you unload the disc by downthrottling...
I don't see what gyroscopic effects have to do with any of this... The passive stability of an aircraft varies with power: It is greater the greater the prop disc load is: The prop disc load is at its greatest in the middle range of speeds, say 250-350 MPH for a P-51: these are the worst speeds for sustained turn rates on most but maybe not all WWII fighters...
Karhila preferred to downthrottle his Me-109G-6 down to 160 MPH: If he preferred this sustained turn rate for itself, or for the smaller sustained turn radius it offered, matters little: THAT is the speed he found most advantageous in the Me-109G-6 for prolonged turn-fighting... Similarly, the P-51D's best sustained turn rate was obviously very low with flaps down and prop on coarse: Around 190-200 MPH at most...
Nothing too difficult to get in what actual pilots have said...
Gaston
P.S. By the way, the P-47 is one of the few aircrafts that historically benefitted very little from downthrottling in sustained turns... Only for brief angle gains as far as I could see, and historically it also never used its flaps, at least its pilots NEVER mention using them in turns...
G.
-
No armor or armament, so it is lighter. Same ASh-82 engine as the La-7 (or more specific the 82T post-war civilian version used in transport planes); 1530-1900 hp depending on rating. So, lighter than an A-8 with similar power as the BMW on MIL (1730 hp).
One day they'll be tearing holes in the sky with it then ;)
Anyway, off to my 109G testing ;)
-
well i have a question, what makes you think the 190s are slightly under modeled?
If the series is a bit over weight as Baumer and Krusty point out. If HTC agree and fix it what do you think happens to the FW's performance?
I'm willing to bet ALL areas will improve except maybe zoom. You kept on about the model being porked and its not... just the weight plugged into it might be off a bit.
-
"But, once the turn is established, the 190 is going to suffer compared to the Spit."
Could we ponder this a bit more?
If we imagine a 2-3G turn at 250mph, 300mph and 350mph for, say, Spit IX and 190A8. What is the AoA needed to achieve this acceleration and which plane presents more drag at that condition? We can just leave out thrust at this stage which comes into play later in determining for how long the a/c can hold a steady 2-3G turn when decelerating but that is not the focus now.
Why I'm interested in this is the claim that a high wingloaded plane would have (to a limit) less drag in high speed maneuvers than a low wingloaded plane -thus these different planes also have different optimum speeds for turn, and in case of these two planes they also have different best climb speeds.
If it is true that would mean that the 190A8 would have an option to engage a (low G) turn at certain speed and a following Spit IX would bleed its energy faster if it follows at same or more G (IRL it would initially need less G to follow but rapid 180 deg roll would require the pursuer to pull more G to keep up -especially if it rolls slower). That would make the Spit turn tighter and easily inside the 190, but if the 190 changes direction the distance would actually grown as the Spit has already started to lose E more than the 190. So the 190 would eventually get away by making a turn and rapidly flicking the plane 180 degrees and making an opposite turn i.e."S:ing"? Or would cutting the corner always make up for the lost distance for the pursuer or would the advantage in roll speed be the only asset that would make a difference, not the difference in maneuvering drag?
The point is that the 190 needs more AoA to establish same G turn as e.g. the Spit IX, but will the aforementioned bigger wetted area of the bigger wing actually present more, sort of needless, drag compared to smaller one in certain speed range?
Does that sound totally insane?
-C+
-
"But, once the turn is established, the 190 is going to suffer compared to the Spit."
Could we ponder this a bit more?
If we imagine a 2-3G turn at 250mph, 300mph and 350mph for, say, Spit IX and 190A8. What is the AoA needed to achieve this acceleration and which plane presents more drag at that condition? We can just leave out thrust at this stage which comes into play later in determining for how long the a/c can hold a steady 2-3G turn when decelerating but that is not the focus now.
Why I'm interested in this is the claim that a high wingloaded plane would have (to a limit) less drag in high speed maneuvers than a low wingloaded plane -thus these different planes also have different optimum speeds for turn, and in case of these two planes they also have different best climb speeds.
If it is true that would mean that the 190A8 would have an option to engage a (low G) turn at certain speed and a following Spit IX would bleed its energy faster if it follows at same or more G (IRL it would initially need less G to follow but rapid 180 deg roll would require the pursuer to pull more G to keep up -especially if it rolls slower). That would make the Spit turn tighter and easily inside the 190, but if the 190 changes direction the distance would actually grown as the Spit has already started to lose E more than the 190. So the 190 would eventually get away by making a turn and rapidly flicking the plane 180 degrees and making an opposite turn i.e."S:ing"? Or would cutting the corner always make up for the lost distance for the pursuer or would the advantage in roll speed be the only asset that would make a difference, not the difference in maneuvering drag?
The point is that the 190 needs more AoA to establish same G turn as e.g. the Spit IX, but will the aforementioned bigger wetted area of the bigger wing actually present more, sort of needless, drag compared to smaller one in certain speed range?
Does that sound totally insane?
-C+
Typically, high wingloading gives an advantage in lower parasitic drag due to a smaller wing. This is usually evidenced during cruise or at top speed. The disadvantage is that typically, this gives the aircraft worse performance during any activity that requires higher AoA. So, typically, landing speeds are higher, stall speeds are higher, and at higher altitudes, you reach a point of diminishing returns where the lower parasitic drag during cruise is mitigated by ever-increasing amounts of induced drag. In this case, load factors will dramatically increase as g-loads are created.
Now, as long as maneuvering is restricted to low-alpha maneuvers, the advantages of high wingloading will remain. So, a smart pilot in a high wingloaded aircraft will attempt to keep alpha to a minimum in order to retain energy as efficiently as possible. I would imagine that there are situations where a 190 could maintain a higher rate of turn in a low-g turn. We would have to do some testing/run some numbers to know for sure.
As for the rest of your hypothetical, I don't know. That's a pretty dynamic situation, and I don't know if we could ever "model" that on paper.
-
as long as maneuvering is restricted to low-alpha maneuvers
can you explain what alpha maneuvering is please? other than a great interesting and easy to understand post :aok
Infact there are some good posts here.
-
One day they'll be tearing holes in the sky with it then ;)
Anyway, off to my 109G testing ;)
Why are you testing the 109G? Has it changed?
-
i believe that because so much of what must be modeled has never been tested, and that nothing has been tested in a completely consistent manner, much of the "code" is based on subjective comparative tests and POs, and more over the selection of which opinions and eventually the final FM product must be a result of at least as much opinion and conjecture as it is about the actual physical definable description of the plane (weight, bhp, wing size)
things like how it stalls, when it stalls, how difficult it is to keep from stalling, controllability, etc. all are subjective, and observations and opinions will vary. all that must be coded to be in accordance with whatever source the designers have settled upon. in the case of the 190 i find it's handling to be less than what one would expect in relation to the vast majority of the historic material you will find about the type if you look.
Thank you Thorsim I appreciate that very much (if it's directed to me). It was not my intent to badger you, merely to point out an alternative path to making the point about the flight model.
I do have a question for you regarding your position. If I've read your previous post correctly, you feel that the FM's physics vary from plane to plane, and that HTC made decisions about how to model the 190's physics in order to fit into their goals for Aces High. Am I understanding your point correctly?
it would be good to get that sorted out but as i noted above i think there is much more to the FM code than weights and size and such.
If the series is a bit over weight as Baumer and Krusty point out. If HTC agree and fix it what do you think happens to the FW's performance?
I'm willing to bet ALL areas will improve except maybe zoom. You kept on about the model being porked and its not... just the weight plugged into it might be off a bit.
-
Why are you testing the 109G? Has it changed?
I do not know. Anyway, I have this rare old graph of a 109G6 along with other info about the aircraft. It is from Augsburg from dec 1944. One of the few rather complete tests I have from the LW, so I was just curious.
Basically, this always bothers me. A lot of criticism of the performance of LW aircraft. Proper LW data is hard to find, and the Allied data from captured aircraft is discarded as no good.
So, I am spending the time I am on the phone, or rather waiting for it, by clocking different things. A bit fun really.
-
Cool! Let us know what you find.
-
things like how it stalls, when it stalls, how difficult it is to keep from stalling, controllability, etc. all are subjective, and observations and opinions will vary. all that must be coded to be in accordance with whatever source the designers have settled upon. in the case of the 190 i find it's handling to be less than what one would expect in relation to the vast majority of the historic material you will find about the type if you look.
All of this is basic aerodynamics and not a subjective thing. "2 + 2 = 4" not "2 + 2 = 5 in my opinion". The source required for these equations are dimensions, weights, planforms, etc. Very quantitative stuff.
Ultimately, you simply think the 190 is porked, while the "home team" aircraft are not. That's compelling.
-
i think the 190s handle poorly compared to the rest of the set.
i think that the 190s suffer more than gain as they are impoved in the development representations in the game.
both are directly contradictory to the historic record.
i think sir that values need to be set for the FMs based on what data can be found, i find that the correlation between the data i have found and the FMs behaviors tend to be much more in the more optimistic range for most of the home team air craft, and much more in the pessimistic range for the 190s ...
i also think that after repeated explanations and clarifications on my part i am still getting questions and projections and demands while no one is making any effort to address my POV they just keep demanding data they know is not available and attempting to oversimplify the discussion.
yes much of the flight qualities of an aircraft are quantitative, but i assure you there is more than weight, thrust, drag, and lift variables in the code and beyond that type of data at some point the designers must rely on subjective data in order to define a FM, at that point the choices one uses go a long way in defining the quirks and abilities of each FM
once again ultimately i find that the FMs of the 190s do not live up to the history of the type in many regards especially in comparison to some other FMs who's relation to history seems to be very optimistic.
i have a question for you. have you seen the code? if not, i think your ability to comment on how quantitative it may or may not be is no better than the rest of us.
no offense.
All of this is basic aerodynamics and not a subjective thing. "2 + 2 = 4" not "2 + 2 = 5 in my opinion". The source required for these equations are dimensions, weights, planforms, etc. Very quantitative stuff.
Ultimately, you simply think the 190 is porked, while the "home team" aircraft are not. That's compelling.
-
i have a question for you. have you seen the code? if not, i think your ability to comment on how quantitative it may or may not be is no better than the rest of us.
no offense.
Have you flown a historic 190 with the same engine as it had originally? If not, I think your ability to comment on how inaccurate the 190 FM is is no better than the rest of us.
No offense.
:devil
-
i have a question for you. have you seen the code? if not, i think your ability to comment on how quantitative it may or may not be is no better than the rest of us.
no offense.
I have not. You got me. I'm a fraud.
Later gents...
-
that is an excellent point, you do realize that "the rest of us" would include anyone who is employed at HTC ...
that being the case we are all equal in our ability to understand the handling of the 190s in that we are all relying on the same data pool. why don't you look into that data and see if you come to a different conclusion than mine.
it might be more productive and actually contribute something to this conversation unlike your inane comment i quoted below.
Have you flown a historic 190 with the same engine as it had originally? If not, I think your ability to comment on how inaccurate the 190 FM is is no better than the rest of us.
No offense.
:devil
-
Thorsim,
While I have not seen the code, I have had the opportunity to speak with Hitech, Pyro, Sudz, and Skuzzy numerous times both on the phone, and at the past two conventions. I find them to be very open and forthright about discussing how the game works, Hitech has gone to such lengths during my conversations, that he has pulled up the source code to verify cretin aspects that we were talking about.
So I feel very confident when I say that the FM physics are not rewritten for each plane, but that each aerodynamic model is using the same set of calculations to model it's behavior. Someone from HTC please chime in if I've stated that incorrectly.
And just to be absolutely clear, I agree with you that there is an issue with the Fw190A-8 performance. However, in my opinion the way to address the issue with HTC is with quantifiable data, not the subjective information you have provided.
-
my point is not that you are a fraud, it is that there is more than punching in numerical values to a formula required to define an FM to the extent that is required for a sim. if that were the case then nobody would be demanding and or hoarding data and sources like they were gold. since we all know data sources can conflict somewhat then it becomes important which data sources you choose.
i do not see where i made that point personally offensive to you, and quite frankly i was easier on you than you have been on me.
it is disappointing to see you "take your ball and walk away" like this .
I have not. You got me. I'm a fraud.
Later gents...
-
quite an interesting read for you whilst looking at flight trials,
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190d9test.html
some weights for the a8
spec metric english
_____________________ _________________ _______________________
wingspan 10.5 meters 34 feet 5 inches
wing area 18.3 sq_meters 197 sq_feet
length 8.96 meters 29 feet 5 inches
height 3.96 meters 13 feet
empty weight 3,470 kilograms 7,650 pounds
max loaded weight 4,900 kilograms 10,800 pounds
maximum speed 657 KPH 408 MPH / 335 KT
service ceiling 10,300 meters 33,800 feet
range 800 kilometers 500 MI / 435 NMI
-
i agree about the preference for clear and accurate data, the core of my POV in this discussion is what you do when that kind of data is either conflicting and or unavailable.
for example even if you could define the performance of an aircraft with just it's static well known numbers how do you address it's behavior in flight?
the designer must make choices, and those choices have consequences on playability.
i think hitech has concerns that go far beyond many of the things we are discussing here, he addresses things or doesn't for his own reasons, most of which (in my experience with online interactions) he keeps to himself.
Thorsim,
While I have not seen the code, I have had the opportunity to speak with Hitech, Pyro, Sudz, and Skuzzy numerous times both on the phone, and at the past two conventions. I find them to be very open and forthright about discussing how the game works, Hitech has gone to such lengths during my conversations, that he has pulled up the source code to verify cretin aspects that we were talking about.
So I feel very confident when I say that the FM physics are not rewritten for each plane, but that each aerodynamic model is using the same set of calculations to model it's behavior. Someone from HTC please chime in if I've stated that incorrectly.
And just to be absolutely clear, I agree with you that there is an issue with the Fw190A-8 performance. However, in my opinion the way to address the issue with HTC is with quantifiable data, not the subjective information you have provided.
-
FW190 A5 Flight performance tests
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a5.html
FW190 A8 Flight performance tests
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a8.html
FW190 D9 Flight performance tests
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190d9test.html
-
Cool! Let us know what you find.
I could be lazy and email it to you :D
Anyway, so far, the only thing for sure is that the AH 109G6 is too slow at alt (8 km). Have to check out the Ata and weight to be sure, but that is how it is.
The speed at SL was good, a tad in favour by AH.
Then there is the question of subvariants.
Makes a bit of fun though. Since this is somewhat time-consuming, I do it while milling around the house and while on hold on the phone.
I'd be very happy to get my hands on some charts of the 190A5 and 109F. The only one of the 109F I have is both course, and with an unknown origin. The 109G6 data I have is absolutely solid.
-
Luftwaffe report of the 190 A8
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/td284.pdf
Flight report of the 190 D9
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/wright-field-fw190d-9.pdf
In the flight report of the 190 D9 they state that turn rate is poor.
-
Great find JDbecks !!!
This report is very detailed and confirms exactly what I have always suspected about the FW-190D-9 compared to the FW-190A-8: It converted the great low-speed horizontal turn-fighter-only that was the FW-190A into a mediocre-turning Me-109G clone that had great boom-and-zoom vertical performance (better-diving but likely still not quite as good climbing as the Me-109G)...
I had previously read that actual FW-190A pilots found the D-9 to be inferior in maneuverability to the A-8, but superior in overall performance. They described the FW-190A-8's maneuvering superiority as being caused by the older aircraft type being "shorter-coupled", their words not mine, which I gradually integrated into my notion that the shorter nose could make, to some extent, a big difference in sustained turn handling by reducing the leverage of the prop's thrust to tax the wingloading...
Note those other aircrafts that shortened their noses by switching to radials, their significant consequent gain in combat maneuverability being usually attributed falsely to lighter weight:
Lagg-3 in-line converted to the radial La-5: Large gain in actual combat turn performance: La-5 was 250 lbs HEAVIER... Some Soviet turn times show them in a dead heat at 21-22 sec, but these tests were again usually run at full power by test pilots, so the 1300 HP Lagg-3 was handicapped with far less wingloading-taxing power than the 1800 HP La-5F, which could explain the similarity in sustained turn times at FULL power (a test pilot mania not always shared by combat veterans)... Lesser-powered Yaks do better for similar reasons: 19 seconds, but only about 1300 HP also.
Ki-61 converted to Ki-100: 100 + lbs HEAVIER Ki-100 had such a turn performance boost that it was considered by the Japanese, in extensive tests, to be so superior to the Ki-84 that ONE Ki-100 could take on THREE Ki-84s and still come out on top regularly, and REPEAT the feat by switching the pilots around...
One Ki-100 against one Ki-84 was considered no contest at all, and the Ki-100 would always win immediately, even with an altitude disadvantage... Again the same remained true while switching pilots... (These tests report are from Aeroplane's Ki-100 close-up article)
Such superlatives in turn combat doctrine (after all, the Ki-84 was some 25-30 MPH faster at least: 420 vs 390 MPH...) are not really imaginable with the Ki-61, though the radial's extra horsepower did undoubtedly help in the turn-climbing of the Ki-100...
The emphasis by the Japanese on turn-fighting was reflected by the Germans on the Western Front: The advice given to newly-arrived Eastern Front pilots was to ALWAYS turn with the Western Allies, and NEVER to try to climb or use the vertical... Boom and Zoom is only useable if you regularly enjoy an altitude and/or speed advantage: For various reasons, not often the case for either the Japanese or the Germans by 1944...
As one Lufwaffe senior officer put it: "All the aces sent to me from the Eastern front got shot down on the Western Front..."
I have even read one example of a Me-109G-14AS pilot that tried to climb, with MW-50 engaged, above diving Americans, and being pointed out as an example of a pilot who died because he refused to take the advice of turning and not using the vertical... This from a fellow pilot who survived the war...
By late 1944 70% of Luftwaffe front-line Western-Front strenght was FW-190As, while the BF-109G remained dominant in the East, and for good reasons...
The D-9's stall tests confirm my suspicions that the prop disc thrust contributes to taxing the wingloading: It is here plain to see:
Quote: "Controls remain effective up to the stall except in the power off condition wherein some difficulty is experienced in applying enough elevator to obtain abrupt stalls"
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/wright-field-fw190d-9.pdf
Note the speed at which this occurs is not mentionned: The same probably occurs in fairly high speed power-off situations: The reason is that, in addition to the elevator's authority being curtailed by reduced prop wash, the REAL-LIFE wingloading is at the same time reduced by the power-off condition, making the stalls less "clean"...
You gotta love the clear and concise conclusion, confirming every sustained turning combat report I have read:
"1-The FW-190D-9, although well armored and equipped to carry heavy armament, appears to be much less desirable from a handling standpoint than other models of the FW-190 using the BMW 14 cylinder radial engine."
Any advantage this airplane may have in performance over other models of the FW-190 is more than offset by its poor handling characteristics."
Except for boom-and-Zooming tactics, I couldn't have said it better myself...
Gaston
-
i always understood that the maneuverability trade off from the 190a to the 190d was a slightly reduced roll rate but an improved turn rate both a result of increased stability caused by the increased length of the airframe and the increased power/weight ...
-
-So did I, until the lights went on for me about the true tactical nature of the Anton...
Note the FW-190D-9's longer tail and different nose may have given the D-9 superior high speed elevator handling to the Anton, as the high-speed vertical handling of the Anton could hardly be worse...
Gaston
-
(http://www.watchmoviestreaming.com/pictures/dumbanddumber1.jpg)
-
Dora D9 should be faster ( speed is life -specially late44+ ) than the A8, and much better performer at altitude.
Try and fly the 190a8 with 2 *20 - this is exactly how I expect a 4-gun A8 to behave.
Those who claim the A8 is overweight have a good point.
Adding GM-1 nitrox would be a lower eny ride , but a sweet one, countering allied escorts in scenarios, giving 38km/h more speed at altitude.
-
I've always heard the "coupled" description (as in shorter-coupled) as describing the distance between the wing and the horizontal tail. I've never heard it used to describe how far the nose protrudes in front of the wing.
A disadvantage to a short nose would seem to be its ability to balance the plane through leverage, which would then require more weight. To shorten the nose would seem to require a heavier engine (or adding weight). A longer nose would allow a lighter engine. Of course, I doubt they plan it that way. My guess is they use the weight/size of the engine to determine how long the nose is.
The plane has to balance on the CoG. And there's a trade-off for adding weight/shortening the nose.
-
(http://www.watchmoviestreaming.com/pictures/dumbanddumber1.jpg)
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Quote: "Controls remain effective up to the stall except in the power off condition wherein some difficulty is experienced in applying enough elevator to obtain abrupt stalls"
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/wright-field-fw190d-9.pdf
Note the speed at which this occurs is not mentionned: The same probably occurs in fairly high speed power-off situations: The reason is that, in addition to the elevator's authority being curtailed by reduced prop wash, the REAL-LIFE wingloading is at the same time reduced by the power-off condition, making the stalls less "clean"...
More like the more-forward nature of the CG means the aircraft is fairly nose-heavy, and that you run out of elevator authority to induce a power-off stall. And, you can't reduce wing loading by chopping the throttle. Wing loading stays constant, unless you drop weight or lose a wing, since its a function of wing area and weight only.
-
More like the more-forward nature of the CG means the aircraft is fairly nose-heavy, and that you run out of elevator authority to induce a power-off stall. And, you can't reduce wing loading by chopping the throttle. Wing loading stays constant, unless you drop weight or lose a wing, since its a function of wing area and weight only.
-Not just wing area and weight: That's the theoretical "reality". You can't reduce the THEORETICAL wingloading, but the real-life item yes:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/339-hanseman-24may44.jpg
Read this account and see if this guy doesn't think reducing throttle allowed him to SUSTAIN better low-speed turns...
Or read this account and see what happens when the guy, by his own admission, had his throttle "wide-open"...:
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg
Besides, this is just silly: By pulling back on the stick you are ALSO pulling back on the top prop disc half: Explain to me how one can be done without the other...
And to pull back on those thousands of pounds of thrust you are using the wing's lift as a pivot... Explain to me how there is a way around THAT...
And to move the top prop disc half back by far less than one mm (by any amount in fact) you have to beat ALL of the thrust there: A 200 lbs weight supported by a rope, this weight being lifted by 100 lbs of force, will still leave 100 lbs of tension in that rope...
Yes a Spitfire at full power HAS a heavier real-life wingloading than a FW-190A at partial power...
But surely simmers can explain to me how there is a way around these real-life contingencies...
Gaston
-
-Not just wing area and weight: That's the theoretical "reality". You can't reduce the THEORETICAL wingloading, but the real-life item yes:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/339-hanseman-24may44.jpg
Read this account and see if this guy doesn't think reducing throttle allowed him to SUSTAIN better low-speed turns...
Or read this account and see what happens when the guy, by his own admission, had his throttle "wide-open"...:
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg
Besides, this is just silly: By pulling back on the stick you are ALSO pulling back on the top prop disc half: Explain to me how one can be done without the other...
And to pull back on those thousands of pounds of thrust you are using the wing's lift as a pivot... Explain to me how there is a way around THAT...
And to move the top prop disc half back by far less than one mm (by any amount in fact) you have to beat ALL of the thrust there: A 200 lbs weight supported by a rope, this weight being lifted by 100 lbs of force, will still leave 100 lbs of tension in that rope...
Yes a Spitfire at full power HAS a heavier real-life wingloading than a FW-190A at partial power...
But surely simmers can explain to me how there is a way around these real-life contingencies...
Gaston
Impossible to argue with that logic...
-
(http://roflrazzi.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/celebrity-pictures-homer-simpson-facepalm-copy.jpg)
-
-Not just wing area and weight: That's the theoretical "reality". You can't reduce the THEORETICAL wingloading, but the real-life item yes:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/339-hanseman-24may44.jpg
Read this account and see if this guy doesn't think reducing throttle allowed him to SUSTAIN better low-speed turns...
Or read this account and see what happens when the guy, by his own admission, had his throttle "wide-open"...:
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg
Besides, this is just silly: By pulling back on the stick you are ALSO pulling back on the top prop disc half: Explain to me how one can be done without the other...
And to pull back on those thousands of pounds of thrust you are using the wing's lift as a pivot... Explain to me how there is a way around THAT...
And to move the top prop disc half back by far less than one mm (by any amount in fact) you have to beat ALL of the thrust there: A 200 lbs weight supported by a rope, this weight being lifted by 100 lbs of force, will still leave 100 lbs of tension in that rope...
Yes a Spitfire at full power HAS a heavier real-life wingloading than a FW-190A at partial power...
But surely simmers can explain to me how there is a way around these real-life contingencies...
Gaston
Gaston, I'm baffled by your assertion that you're "pulling back" on the prop disk by pitching. You'r e merely reorienting the thrust vector - not translating it backwards about some imaginary axis (top half???).
Also, believe the ref. to close-coupled is likely a reference to the pitch inertia. Lower pitch inertia, all other things being equal (they aren't) will reduce the force authority required to rotate the ac in pitch. I would buy that the A-8 is an AC that can be rotated in pitch quickly, assuming the elevator authority is there w/r the D-9 - which has a longer lever arm.
However, the flat turn performance drivers are well understood: r= 2/rho*w/a*1/CLs(theta)
And w/a sucks, here. Also see the Wright pat data on the A-8's turn perf.
-
wright pat test in this thread is on the 190d9 could you link the test to which you are referring ...
the d9 test is also not in agreement with other sources ...
Gaston, I'm baffled by your assertion that you're "pulling back" on the prop disk by pitching. You'r e merely reorienting the thrust vector - not translating it backwards about some imaginary axis (top half???).
Also, believe the ref. to close-coupled is likely a reference to the pitch inertia. Lower pitch inertia, all other things being equal (they aren't) will reduce the force authority required to rotate the ac in pitch. I would buy that the A-8 is an AC that can be rotated in pitch quickly, assuming the elevator authority is there w/r the D-9 - which has a longer lever arm.
However, the flat turn performance drivers are well understood: r= 2/rho*w/a*1/CLs(theta)
And w/a sucks, here. Also see the Wright pat data on the A-8's turn perf.
-
wright pat test in this thread is on the 190d9 could you link the test to which you are referring ...
the d9 test is also not in agreement with other sources ...
It's already been linked in this thread!
As for Gaston's assertion about reducing throttle to decrease turn radius, all I can say is mv^2/r...
I'm starting to smell a "non-technical".
-
It's already been linked in this thread!
As for Gaston's assertion about reducing throttle to decrease turn radius, all I can say is mv^2/r...
I'm starting to smell a "non-technical".
a is the first letter in our alphabet ,d is the 4th letter in the alphabet ...
8 is ... well the 8th letter which is followed immediately by the number 9 the 4th digit on your second hand ...
i can see where you may have trouble following discussions when you are having these problems ...
so please once again show me the the 190 a8 data you mention below
And w/a sucks, here. Also see the Wright pat data on the A-8's turn perf.
because this is the only "wright pat" test report in this thread, which is obviously a D and marked so on the web link, first page, and several other places in the report ...
Flight report of the 190 D9
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/wright-field-fw190d-9.pdf
In the flight report of the 190 D9 they state that turn rate is poor.
I'm starting to smell a "typical AH board troll" with the usual reading comprehension issues ...
-
Quote:
"Gaston, I'm baffled by your assertion that you're "pulling back" on the prop disk by pitching. You're merely reorienting the thrust vector - not translating it backwards about some imaginary axis (top half???)."
-Because a prop disc is a FLAT object, it does not naturally follow a curve. In a 90° bank turn the top half of the prop disc travels forward SLOWER than the bottom half. I REALLY hope I don't have to argue about this...: You car's inner wheels in a curve move forward more slowly than the outer wheels, which is why you need a differential on asphalt for everyday driving... (You can get away with locking the differential on dirt roads or while spinning the rear wheels during drag races, which is a bit like having the air's elasticity)
The amount of speed difference between the halves is infinetisimal but that does not matter: To create that difference in forward speed you have to pull back on the top half continuously, and to pull this top disc half back by ANY amount you have to defeat the ENTIRE thrust thrust produced within that top disc half...
The bottom prop disc half doesn't resist being tilted forward, since that does not fight its thrust direction...
Gaston
-
No more than any plane "fights its own thrust" when hanging on the prop at slow speeds. No more than a plane accelerating "fights its own thrust" to move forward.
You're really pushing this pet theory of yours and IMO seems a bit grasping. I am not as learned as some on these forums, but you're taking a very simple desription and applying it to a very fluid and dynamic situation. Not to mention the fact that the prop blades are moving sideways relative to this change in direction, anyways. They'll produce thrust as well as lift (pointed forward, I mean, from the prop blades) and they won't "fight" the air they push backwards any more than they would "fight" the dense air at low altitudes.
-
so please once again show me the the 190 a8 data you mention below
I'm starting to smell a "typical AH board troll" with the usual reading comprehension issues ...
Sorry, I thought it was linked here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/eb-104.html
I note they don't stipulate a-8. However, the general specs match - BMW801, armament, etc. Turn radius is rated as "poor" - though they don't quantify, I think it safe to say you don't use a "poor" turner as a turn fighter.
As for the mv^2/r, clearly, if you decrease throttle and velocity, you can improve your turn radius for a given bank and lift condition.
I'd also note that stating that A-8 turn performance is better than d-9 turn performance is probative of A-8's superlative turn capability -not at all. Indeed, I've yet to see any evidence that the A-8 had anything like competitive flat-turn capabilities w/r Spitfire, or even P-51.
That's all I'm saying here.
-
Quote:
"Gaston, I'm baffled by your assertion that you're "pulling back" on the prop disk by pitching. You're merely reorienting the thrust vector - not translating it backwards about some imaginary axis (top half???)."
-Because a prop disc is a FLAT object, it does not naturally follow a curve. In a 90° bank turn the top half of the prop disc travels forward SLOWER than the bottom half. I REALLY hope I don't have to argue about this...:
Gaston
No, you don't have to argue this. I didn't understand your statement as written before. Your meaning is clearer now. I take back any dismissal. I also cop to Thor's accusation. I skimmed.
I would add this, however. It's probably worse than you posit. Why? a prop works to produce thrust by creating a press decrease on the forward surface and that goes something like the square of the velocity of the prop foil relative to the ambient air. Given that the top half is moving relative to free stream SLOWER, should you not also see an attendant thrust increase - due to increased prop alpha (alpha being the angle determined by the resultant of the sum of the forward velocity vector plus the rotational velocity vector - at that radius point on the prop foil - right, it increases as we travel toward the tips) on that half of the disk, thus making it's "pitch" (in the ac frame of ref - not prop pitch) rotation harder? If so, you'd also see decreased thrust on the lower half, since it's forward motion relative velocity is greater -thus making it's prop alpha smaller.
Vector diagram it for yourself. I guess the thing is stable in that it resists rotation - and that's not including rotational inertia effects - which only make it more so.
Mea Culpa to you and Thor. I still see little case for A-8 being anything like a turner, though. w/a DOES suck and the powerloading and upper bound on the wing's capability ensure that the A-8 can't overcome this limitation.
-
apology accepted, you should pay special attention to parts 8 and 9 of the report and by the dates it seems very early for an a8 enemy test ...
and remember from earlier in this thread it seems that the germans might have included the roll in their comparative turn test evaluations ...
Sorry, I thought it was linked here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/eb-104.html
I note they don't stipulate a-8. However, the general specs match - BMW801, armament, etc. Turn radius is rated as "poor" - though they don't quantify, I think it safe to say you don't use a "poor" turner as a turn fighter.
As for the mv^2/r, clearly, if you decrease throttle and velocity, you can improve your turn radius for a given bank and lift condition.
I'd also note that stating that A-8 turn performance is better than d-9 turn performance is probative of A-8's superlative turn capability -not at all. Indeed, I've yet to see any evidence that the A-8 had anything like competitive flat-turn capabilities w/r Spitfire, or even P-51.
That's all I'm saying here.
-
Its a G-3 model, as shown on the name of the link. So basically, an A-5.
-
odd they kept doing the comparative flight tests on the ground attack variants, you would think they would have captured some fighter variants by 44 ...
EDIT : i wonder if the quality and quantity of captured types for testing led to the differences between the
tendency for the very favorable RAF/VVS opinions of the 190s to be so much better in general than the USAAF/USN opinions ???
that and the lack of a real need to disassemble and reassemble the A/C for shipping ...
-
Quote, AAF EB-104 report: ". Elevator control forces are very heavy in a tight turn, requiring constant use of the elevator trim control."
-This tells me the evaluation of a wide turning radius was, as usual, made at full power, and heavy elevator forces seem to mean above 250 MPH:
http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg
Quote , PJ_Godzilla: "I would add this, however. It's probably worse than you posit. Why? a prop works to produce thrust by creating a press decrease on the forward surface and that goes something like the square of the velocity of the prop foil relative to the ambient air. Given that the top half is moving relative to free stream SLOWER, should you not also see an attendant thrust increase - due to increased prop alpha (alpha being the angle determined by the resultant of the sum of the forward velocity vector plus the rotational velocity vector - at that radius point on the prop foil - right, it increases as we travel toward the tips) on that half of the disk, thus making it's "pitch" (in the ac frame of ref - not prop pitch) rotation harder? If so, you'd also see decreased thrust on the lower half, since it's forward motion relative velocity is greater -thus making it's prop alpha smaller."
Well, you have my congratulations sir, you are the FIRST to clearly agree with the basic premises of my theory (You probably don't agree about the short nose leverage theory, which I can accept is yet not an obvious certainty, but you do agree with the DOWTHROTTLING element helping in increasing the sustained low-speed turn rate if I understood you correctly)...
AND, though I did not go down that line here, I have also explained it once with a similar content to what you just did: The prop's center of thrust MOVES into the upper disc half, which means the BOTTOM disc half LOSES thrust while the thrust in the upper half INCREASES...
Since we now both agree that overcoming the prop's passive resistance to longitudinal twisting is a heavy burden, then it is not much of a stretch from now on to accept that overcoming it requires taxing the wing's available lift with a leverage force coming from the tail?
Which does mean that lowering power will reduce the depressing force on the wing all by itself, not just as an aerodynamic byproduct of lowering the speed (this is why in combat accounts the turn rate benefit seems INSTANTANEOUS rather than delayed by the time it would take a heavy airplane to slow down), which is what is being tirelessly argued against me...
Well I am glad I finally did not type all this for nothing! That we don't agree on the FW-190A's relative turn performance is not important: pilot accounts of the day all agree on its superiority to at least the Me-109, barring a handful of test pilots running things at full power...
I'll add a few links for your perusal about the FW-190A issue:
http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt/russian-combat-fw190.html "inevitably offers turning combat at a minimum speed"
http://luthier.stormloader.com/SFTacticsIII.htm Note the "interaction" of FW-190As and Me-109s...
Turn times, a bit criptic, but having the FW at 19-23(?) s. minimum, vs 20.5 s. for the Me-109F and 22 s. for the Me-109G-2:
http://wio.ru/tacftr/ww2t.htm
FW-190A being indeed better turning, relatively, at speeds BELOW 250 MPH, and much worse above:
http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg
Note same crummy FW-190A high speed handling here, with on top of that the same "tendency to black-out the pilot" as link above, DESPITE "elongated" loop (a pitch-up stall-"mushing" towards the inside of the turn then outside, decelerating violently tail-down):
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/20-murrell-2dec44.jpg
FW-190A beating in sustained low altitude flat turns a Spitfire Mk V that is running at "wide-open throttle", WITH post-war hindsight:
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg
The FW-190A's character in turns is so contrasted from below 250 MPH to above 250 MPH that I think this is why its turn performance has remained so clouded to this day... Both good and bad qualifications can apply to the FW-190A's turn ability...
Anyway, I am glad someone finally sees the prop effect I was refering to... You apology is well accepted! From the description you made of prop blades and their relative speed in the airflow, I would think you might be an engineer of some sort?
Gaston
FW-190A beating a Spitfire V running at full power in sustained low-altitude flat turns, and with post-war hindsight mind you...
-
Never mind the misplaced last sentence: If I edit it out some of the the links will break...
Gaston
-
The Fw190 vs Spit V article you just posted has been discredited as a source for your claims on this very board in the past. You have a lot of gumption and intellectual dishonesty to try to foist it again.
-
I'm starting to smell a "typical AH board troll" with the usual reading comprehension issues ...
Please do not resort to making personnel attacks on me, when I have not even came close to writing something that could offend you! when people start to resort to personnel attacks during discussions it shows nothing but a lack of respect and immaturity who do not hold any communication skills. The links I posted held way more information and data on the 190 flight tests than your link to a documentry.
The reason why I did not post much on the subject; is because my lack of knowledge on the topic..I just thought I would do some reaserch on an intersteting subject and to share my results with the rest of the community..I was fully aware that one of the reports was for the dora, but posted it anyway for gerneral interest.
-
EDIT : i wonder if the quality and quantity of captured types for testing led to the differences between the
tendency for the very favorable RAF/VVS opinions of the 190s to be so much better in general than the USAAF/USN opinions ???
Or, it could just be evidence that 8 different test pilots could fly the same plane and get out with 8 different opinions.
-
i was paraphrasing a personal attack directed at me from someone else surrounding his misidentification of the plane type in one of the sources you posted here ...
nothing at all was directed at you sir you were only quoted in order to show the data in question which you introduced to this discussion.
i am surprised and sorry at any confusion that may have offended you sir ...
being misquoted and or misrepresented and then insulted about those misquotes is pretty common on these boards and i was at an "i've had enough" point last night.
i'm sorry you felt caught up in things sir, imo you are a contributer just as you described ...
+S+
t
Please do not resort to making personnel attacks on me, when I have not even came close to writing something that could offend you! when people start to resort to personnel attacks during discussions it shows nothing but a lack of respect and immaturity who do not hold any communication skills. The links I posted held way more information and data on the 190 flight tests than your link to a documentry.
The reason why I did not post much on the subject; is because my lack of knowledge on the topic..I just thought I would do some reaserch on an intersteting subject and to share my results with the rest of the community..I was fully aware that one of the reports was for the dora, but posted it anyway for gerneral interest.
-
i was paraphrasing a personal attack directed at me from someone else surrounding his misidentification of the plane type in one of the sources you posted here ...
nothing at all was directed at you sir you were quoted in order to show the data in question which yo introduced to this discussion.
i am surprised and sorry at any confusion that may have offended you sir ...
being misquoted and or misrepresented and then insulted about those misquotes is pretty common on these boards and i was at an "i've had enough" point last night.
i'm sorry you felt caught up in things sir, imo you are a contributer just as you described ...
+S+
t
no porblem, your welcome :salute
-
The Fw190 vs Spit V article you just posted has been discredited as a source for your claims on this very board in the past.
i am curious as to why?
-
Since we now both agree that overcoming the prop's passive resistance to longitudinal twisting is a heavy burden, then it is not much of a stretch from now on to accept that overcoming it requires taxing the wing's available lift with a leverage force coming from the tail?
Which does mean that lowering power will reduce the depressing force on the wing all by itself, not just as an aerodynamic byproduct of lowering the speed (this is why in combat accounts the turn rate benefit seems INSTANTANEOUS rather than delayed by the time it would take a heavy airplane to slow down), which is what is being tirelessly argued against me...
Well I am glad I finally did not type all this for nothing! That we don't agree on the FW-190A's relative turn performance is not important: pilot accounts of the day all agree on its superiority to at least the Me-109, barring a handful of test pilots running things at full power...
I'll add a few links for your perusal about the FW-190A issue:
...
I would think you might be an engineer of some sort?
Gaston
I do accept this disk issue and, after going through my vector-based prop-alpha argument, as I'll coin it, I still cannot conclude that this is a "heavy burden". While I believe it would be entirely correct to conclude it as an incremental burden, barring test data, it is difficult to know the relative scale of torque due to this minor incremental angular deflection of the disk relative to the other forces resisting the turn. Testing it would be relatively easy using simply the spinning disk itself, sans other aero elemetns of the a/c, and rotating it with respect to freestream, then measuring the torque required to hold that angular deflection.
Where you had me thinking you bananas, briefly, was in your statement about the wingloading. While this effect will incrementally affect the instantaneous load on the wing, it does not affect W/A - the weight to unit area ratio and what we commonly call wingloading. After reading that, I was guilty of prejudiced dismissal.
All that said (I do go on - tiresome, isn't it?), I think your conclusion that the Wright-Pat testing was conducted at higher speed was likely correct. As for your assertions regarding the low-speed handling of the 190a - we're still left with an evidentiary deficit. The Russian accounts are anecdotal and of mixed assertion. While they claim HO's and turnfights are typically offered, they also assert that the LA-5 is a better turner. The time data is, as you stated, cryptic, since the flight condition is not stated. The Spit account is anecdotal and occurs in RW conditions. I can easily see how a pilot might think he's being outturned even if the machine so attributed actually doesn't possess a better turn rate or lower turn radius. Incidentally, when I first started flying AH, I always got the impression that the slowest aircraft in the sky was the one I was flying.
Finally, there are at least two things that I think bear follow-up:
1. while we have data regarding, and frequently discuss sustained turn performance, we tend to neglect instantaneous turn performance. I think that a peak turn rate is qualified by the displacement - we could talk about time to a given heading displacement, right? Do we agree that for such a given change, the faster "displacer" will tend to be the one with a strong combination of off-zero roll and pitch response? This is where, I think, the "close-coupled" assertion may be meaningful since, for a given level of elevator authority (peak force and distance combination - the "moment-producer"), the machine possessed of a lower pitch inertia (and lower pitch damping as we get into rotational pitch velocities that are non-zero, i.e., as displacement increases - this might be significantly different b/w types though I believe it will trend much like the inertial since mass-distribution is likely to be something like aligned to surfaces at distances) will be more responsive. I would LOVE to see quantitative data describing pitch authority for the different AH types - think of how valuable it would be for, for example, deciding on how much roll to use in your (generic pull vert and roll - not classical) immel against a given yank-and-bank banana - even if you can't see him. Of course, we already know the FW will get to the banked condition very quickly.
2. We know the AH FW is overweight, right?
3. It'd be very interesting to see if there was any low-speed eval done.
And yes, guilty as charged, though I now live on the dark side - PD Process Development. My academics in Eng were all Aero though I haven't been in that field since the early 90's. I'm automotive these days.
-
:salute
no porblem, your welcome :salute
-
Or, it could just be evidence that 8 different test pilots could fly the same plane and get out with 8 different opinions.
yea, that is why i tend to go with opinions that have more than 6 hours of flight time in type behind them.
-
yea, that is why i tend to go with opinions that have more than 6 hours of flight time in type behind them.
Fair enough, but my point was to highlight the imprecision of these flight tests. They rarely had any instrumentation beyond the normal instruments, and rarely resulted in any quantitative data. Therefore, they always should be taken with a grain of salt...
-
Fair enough, but my point was to highlight the imprecision of these flight tests. They rarely had any instrumentation beyond the normal instruments, and rarely resulted in any quantitative data. Therefore, they always should be taken with a grain of salt...
pretty much my point to, one set of opinions should not define a FM ...
+S+
-
pretty much my point to, one set of opinions should not define a FM ...
+S+
They don't--not in this game. The math does. I'm working on some stuff that I'll post up for everyone to take a look at. It will explain, aerodynamically, why the FW-190 performance is the way it is in-game. Maybe by the end of the weekend.
-
They don't--not in this game. The math does. I'm working on some stuff that I'll post up for everyone to take a look at. It will explain, aerodynamically, why the FW-190 performance is the way it is in-game. Maybe by the end of the weekend.
GL with that
-
i am curious as to why?
Because unlike a flight test to determine envelopes the E states of both aircraft are not known, nor is it known that Johnson's evaluation of what the enemy fighter could do or was about to do is accurate. We have no comments on this from the Fw190 pilot's side.
It is never a good thing to be relying on in combat testimony as a source for performance information. There are too many distortions caused by misunderstanding the situation.
-
i agree there to a point, but as an account i think it is a quality pice of data in so far as it goes ...
i.e. i am not saying the article says the 190 should flat turn better than a spit, but it does raise some interesting consequences to the roll rate initial turn rate problem a 190 could be for a spit ...
as a pice of the puzzle imo it has value and should not be dismissed totally, obviously nor should it define the FM.
since we can determine by math that we know the 190 should not out flat turn the spit we should be looking for why that pilot had that impression when we are trying to figure out what an FM should be. that is very much to my point about the multiple source approach for the defined FM.
Because unlike a flight test to determine envelopes the E states of both aircraft are not known, nor is it known that Johnson's evaluation of what the enemy fighter could do or was about to do is accurate. We have no comments on this from the Fw190 pilot's side.
It is never a good thing to be relying on in combat testimony as a source for performance information. There are too many distortions caused by misunderstanding the situation.
-
since we can determine by math that we know the 190 should not out flat turn the spit we should be looking for why that pilot had that impression when we are trying to figure out what an FM should be. that is very much to my point about the multiple source approach for the defined FM.
Its easy if you consider that from the pilots perspectives, they see another plane gaining angles on them and so they casually use the term "out turn" when it isn't exactly the most precise term to use. We don't know what "out-turn" means in any of these reports, because they don't use quantitative descriptions. You never see something like "I was turning 25 dps at 230 mph in a 4G sustained turn". There's no codified flight regime they use when they go up. Its like a scientist putting together an experiment for a journal. He says "I just invented cold fusion". The first thing his peers are going to ask for is the method he used to achieve his results. Even if he achieves his result legitimately, but can't describe the method, his results will be trash.
Eric Brown is famous for having said a P-47D had a critical mach of .73, when in fact, after the war, there was a huge amount of test flying done with the Jug in the transonic range. The data they put together showed the plane had a critical mach of .82. This was the difference between one pilots single flight versus a standard series of tests, using instrumented aircraft, and a team of pilots and scientists. Who knows, maybe Brown's Jug had a poorly calibrated airspeed indicator, or maybe he just read the speed wrong. Maybe the acceleration of the Jug in the dive scared him enough that he got scatter-brained and forgot something. The bottom line is that he's a human, and therefore fallible, subject to prejudices, and individual taste. I've seen two reports on the FW-190 canopy and one said the visibility was excellent, and another that said it was horrible. Which one is correct? I've seen the cockpit characterized as "too cramped". Well, if you're a P-47 pilot and you get out of that aircraft, with its enormous cockpit and extra room, and slip into the FW-190, its obviously going to feel cramped. German pilots that flew 109s probably felt that the 190s bigger cockpit was a nice improvement. Robert Johnson said that his P-47, after being fitted with a paddle-blade prop, could outclimb a Spit 9. Doesn't mean he wasn't a great fighter pilot, or that I shouldn't value his experience, if I don't believe that statement.
Those reports are important to understand context. But they have to be considered carefully.
-
Those reports are important to understand context. But they have to be considered carefully.
i agree completely, and would extend that to all data we do not know for certain, like we know the weight of a gallon of fuel and how many gallons a aircraft carries ...
all values for which we have conflicting data we should vet to exclude anomalies and then average the rest ...
from there we do the same with all our subjective data and use that for the final adjustments ...
that is how i would do things to get the final goal data for the FMs
-
i agree there to a point, but as an account i think it is a quality pice of data in so far as it goes ...
i.e. i am not saying the article says the 190 should flat turn better than a spit, but it does raise some interesting consequences to the roll rate initial turn rate problem a 190 could be for a spit ...
Right - and this is exactly where I'm going with my response to Gaston (see item 1, self-linking as a courtesy to you, Thor: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,286128.msg3639049.html#msg3639049 ) . It could be that the instantaneous roll+pitch for the 190A is very good - so long as you confine the displacement to a sufficiently small displacement interval within the "correct" speed range.
However, as Stoney says, sustained turn performance is crap and the math says so.
-
N/M Stoney summed it up well.
-
i agree completely, and would extend that to all data we do not know for certain like the weight of a gallon of fuel and how many gallons a aircraft carries ...
We don't know how much a gallon of fuel weighs, or how many gallons a plane carries? Did I miss something? Should be 6 lbs per gallon. Or are you talking about density changes as a result of temperature variation--because that's a pretty minute difference all told.
-
We don't know how much a gallon of fuel weighs, or how many gallons a plane carries? Did I miss something? Should be 6 lbs per gallon. Or are you talking about density changes as a result of temperature variation--because that's a pretty minute difference all told.
no i left out a comma, try this ...
"i agree completely, and would extend that to all data we do not know for certain, like we know the weight of a gallon of fuel and how many gallons a aircraft carries ..."
will fix, sorry for the confusion ...
-
Right ... It could be that the instantaneous roll+pitch for the 190A is very good - so long as you confine the displacement to a sufficiently small displacement interval within the "correct" speed range.
However, as Stoney says, sustained turn performance is crap and the math says so.
right but you must consider how many degrees of direction change the 190 puts on before the other plane can even match the required aspect.
i.e. how much does the roll rate head start factor into the "turn".
this is where i think the 190 excelled historically. the 190 gets that advantage every time it significantly changes it's aspect, or forces it's opponent to change it's aspect, so it would have been very difficult for an enemy pilot to perceive that he had a sustained turn-rate advantage if the 190 pilot was exploiting his roll rate and instantaneous turn rate advantage.
this is the likely source of the "out turned by the 190" syndrome people find so hard to believe.
point of fact is that if the 190 kept to quick lower g turns or high speed turns then reverse or extreme aspect change turns,
he may in-fact spend the entire "dogfight" actually "out turning" his opponent.
it would be very difficult to follow a 190 through several quick maneuvers, likewise it would be very difficult to shake a 190 with a position advantage without resorting to a sustained turn which can often be countered in the vertical ...
i think ...
-
it would be very difficult to follow a 190 through several quick maneuvers, likewise it would be very difficult to shake a 190 with a position advantage without resorting to a sustained turn which can often be countered in the vertical ...
i think ...
Well, doesn't this then (and I realize we don't have the "instantaneous max pitch rate vs. speed" plot I'd love to see) walk us into the rationale for the d-9? It's vertical performance is better than the a series - at least in climb. I've flown the d-9 a lot but the best education I've gotten with regard to it's "twitchiness" was in trying to follow a well-flown d-9. I COULD NOT get anything more than an exceedingly brief sight picture on him. After he'd run for a bit, he'd then reverse vertically - and after that, you're looking at the business end, typically from below. Usually, though, they're not well flown in the MAs
Or, as you postulate, if trying to shake one via sustained turn, being owned by a yo-yo sounds like a distinct possibility - I always try it on the Spits when I'm in a d-9..
All that said, the A-series was known for vicious snap roll at lower speeds and even spinning. Indeed, I read an "anecdotal" that said the some luft pilots used that spin as an evasive. I'd expect the D-9 to be more resistant to this, given it's greater PMI and longer surface leverage. I'm now wondering about the larger tailed versions of d-9 as a remedy, perhaps it was an improvement in the "weathervane" stab derivative?
I'll have to go see what the pitch response is like in the 220+ range, because the same anecdotals (some worldaccessnet crap that sounds like its based on sim) claims sharp initial turn response at moderate speeds and up to about 90 degrees of turn. This looks like anecdotal testament to my query about short er duration turn rates.
BTW, I understand the "facepalm" on this one. This thread has occurred again and again. I wish they'd just fix the weight. Then we'd have a better picture.
-
The Fw190 vs Spit V article you just posted has been discredited as a source for your claims on this very board in the past. You have a lot of gumption and intellectual dishonesty to try to foist it again.
-And it has been discredited in what way exactly?
As for the extent of my assertion about the effect of the upper disc half thrust increase relative to the bottom half (which has been described and accepted here by at least one poster), one aspect I think is worth emphasizing is the following: This is equivalent to having the prop's center of thrust move UP, and this upward movement creates a lever, however small: My assertion is that this effect is a heavy burden on the wing load because the propeller blade is at 90° to the fuselage, and this creates an unsupported STRESS-RISER that multiplies the effect that would seem modest otherwise.
I think this effect is of sufficient magnitude to allow a FW-190A to out-sustain turns a Spitfire V if the Spitfire is putting out 1400-1500 HP and the FW-190A is downtthrottled to say 900 hp (Of course an equally downthrottled Spit would win). Now would the FW-190A not slow down so much as to reduce its turn rate MORE than its turn radius? Maybe a frontally "denser" aircraft, in weight-to-drag ratio, loses less speed in a turn and thus needs less power to sustain a sufficient velocity?
Whatever the case may be, the Johnny Johnson account is perfectly clear as to what is going on, and benefits from the hindsight of being post-war from one of the Allies top aces. He states clearly in the opening paragraph: "The FW-190A turned better than the Me-109", in agreement with the overwhelming majority of Western and Eastern combat pilots...
I think the path of the FW-190A's instantaneous turn performance is a step in the wrong direction: This aircraft did not like being pulled suddenly, and shined more in the sustained turns that were more typical of European air combat than is today generally accepted in simmer circles...
I think for the math to be accurate for sustained turns, it has to take into account that some aircraft benefit more from downthrottling than others. Keep in mind that according to Fin ace Karhila, the peak sustained turn rate of the Me-109G-6 is found, by heavily DOWNTHROTTLING as underlined by him, as low as 160 MPH... That is extremely low, and does not speak well for the general sustained turning ability of this aircraft, though at these extreme low speeds the light wingloading does allow it to compete by a smaller radius which does gives some lead to fire even without gaining in turn rate...
That the prop disc thrust load has a major burden effect on the wing's load can be clearly seen in this account for the reasons outlined below:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/339-hanseman-24may44.jpg
Quote (after numerous 360°s at 500 ft.):"He began to turn inside me. Then he stopped cutting me off as I cut throttle"
"Cutting throttle" here went on for SEVERAL 360s: "GRADUALLY I worked the Me-109 away from the airfield" "Everytime I got near the airdrome they opened fire with light AA fire"... Then, MORE cutting of throttle produced MORE gaining: "and commenced turning inside him AS I decreased throttle setting"
The AS in the last sentence is especially significant here: It means there was no deceleration lag from cutting the throttle to reach a better lower speed: Cutting the throttle IMMEDIATELY sharpened the sustained turn, and did so in a SUSTAINED way that lasted through a large numbers of 360°s...
I think the right-angle stress-riser of the prop blade/spinner junction, from the leverage created by the shifting prop center of thrust described by PJ_Godzilla, is the overlooked factor here. It is not a small burden because of that right-angle leverage...
Any math that cannot discern propeller traction from jet propulsion is obviously inadequate, and not any kind of a source of reliable information for propeller aircraft performance in this case.
Those math predictions do seem to predict the miserable turn performance for the FW-190A, but are accurate only above 250 MPH, which is low enough a treshold to make for some misleading sustained turn tests at full power...
An actual FW-190A-8 Western ace said on this board that the FIRST thing he did BEFORE the merge (with P-51Ds!) was to downthrottle, pop the flaps and prepare for tight slow turns...
Gaston
-
I wish they'd just fix the weight. Then we'd have a better picture.
While it will be conspicuous enough to those that fly it regularly, the weight reduction will not make a huge difference in its sustained turn performance overall. The correction may be made, but don't expect a panacea for what ails the 190's turn ability.
-
is there a real world test showing the advantages of wing load vs. power to weight?
like say an in-depth comparison between an extra 300 vs extra 540 (i am assuming the airframes are the same other than the engine)
if so could we not compare the effects by testing the same airframe say one with wep on, and one without wep.
and one say with a bomb on and one without, wep on and wep off etc ...
i am just wondering if we could quantify the effect per pound and per unit of power on an airframe in TRW and in the game/s and compare the two.
thoughts?
+S+
t
-
Thorsim,
Look at this thread by Badboy (one of the AH trainers). http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,284578.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,284578.0.html)
He has an excel calculator that will graph just what you asked for.
It's very effective for showing the difference in a wing loading. It takes a bit of practice to fly the test correctly but the calculations are spot on.
-
While it will be conspicuous enough to those that fly it regularly, the weight reduction will not make a huge difference in its sustained turn performance overall. The correction may be made, but don't expect a panacea for what ails the 190's turn ability.
Agreed. If fuel weighs roughly 6 pounds per gallon, I reckon 540 lbs is about the difference of 90 gals of fuel.
I don't expect it to be a panacea - but I do expect it to help us get a better picture of the 190s true performance.
-
not exactly what i was looking for, but thanks ...
my thought is that if we knew what the effects were on an airframe when you add or take away weight, and or power and could establish a value to each of those things, well then we could maybe do a better job projecting numbers into our data holes.
i.e. what does adding power do exactly, what does reducing weight do exactly, etc ...
-
You're welcome,
Here's an example of a quick test I just did. The upper curve (in Red) is an Fw190A-8 with 2 20mm's and 10 gallons of fuel for a weight of 7991. The blue curve is the same plane with 100% internal fuel and ammo for a weight of 9360. So as you can see the less weight the better I was able to turn.
It is very important to read the pdf and understand how to to do the testing. But the best part of this is that you can now test on your own and produce the data you want.
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/Fw190example.jpg)
-
On a brighter side of things, this is turning out to be one of them ol' fashioned Luftwhiner threads.
...and God knows we've not had one of those in a long, long time. Ahhhhhhh, the nostalgia...
-
An actual FW-190A-8 Western ace said on this board that the FIRST thing he did BEFORE the merge (with P-51Ds!) was to downthrottle, pop the flaps and prepare for tight slow turns...
Gaston
Who was this 'western FW190A-8 ace' and why not post the link to his posts in this thread?
On a brighter side of things, this is turning out to be one of them ol' fashioned Luftwhiner threads.
...and God knows we've not had one of those in a long, long time. Ahhhhhhh, the nostalgia...
It's Spring time. The weather is warm enough for the lederhosen to come out and the Luftwhiner threads soon follow.
ack-ack
-
On a brighter side of things, this is turning out to be one of them ol' fashioned Luftwhiner threads.
...and God knows we've not had one of those in a long, long time. Ahhhhhhh, the nostalgia...
Sorry, we're all just ker-rap, of dishonorable character and intent and of no redeeming qualities whatsoever. What did you expect? We're not looking for a leg-down, exactly.
-
I think the right-angle stress-riser of the prop blade/spinner junction, from the leverage created by the shifting prop center of thrust described by PJ_Godzilla, is the overlooked factor here. It is not a small burden because of that right-angle leverage...
Whoa, careful here. What I described was the blade alpha change as you rotate the disk in a/c pitch. Admittedly, this causes a reaction torque - as does the change in the rotational velocity vector (tau = I*omega, anyone?) but I never said it was a "heavy burden". I sadi you'd have to test (or at least do some clacs) to figure out the relative scale. Further, this reaction torque is just that - a torque about the pitch axis opposite the a/c pitch. Why would it be any more or less significant on the FW? Clearly, by your own argument, the Spit can do the same thing. Or, are you just stating that the Luftwaffe taught partial-throttle use of the 190 and that our partial-throttle AH turnrate is off?
Inquiring minds want to know.
All that said, I'm enjoying this thread.
-
just curious, what should we be discussing in a thread titled 190A5 vs 190A8 ...
???
(_@_)s
It's Spring time. The weather is warm enough for the lederhosen to come out and the Luftwhiner threads soon follow.
ack-ack
On a brighter side of things, this is turning out to be one of them ol' fashioned Luftwhiner threads.
...and God knows we've not had one of those in a long, long time. Ahhhhhhh, the nostalgia...
-
Having seen such a great postings of non information since crump left.
HiTech
-
Having seen such a great postings of non information since crump left.
HiTech
haven't a good day HT?
-
"Having seen such a great postings of non information since crump left. HiTech"
"i think hitech has concerns that go far beyond many of the things we are discussing here, he addresses things or doesn't for his own reasons, most of which (in my experience with online interactions) he keeps to himself."
Obviously you were wrong Thor as HT has time to chime in to say all this pondering is just crap. It took just 17 pages, next time it will take 18 pages... :rofl
Besides, I don't think Crumpp "left", I understood he was thrown out. Tell me if I'm wrong.
-C+
-
Besides, I don't think Crumpp "left", I understood he was thrown out. Tell me if I'm wrong.
-C+
Crummp left when HiTech took away his keys to the forums.
ack-ack
-
i don't think you have any idea about what i was talking about ...
of course most of our interactions (HT and i) are on other boards so you may not be seeing the whole picture
and that is not your fault ...
"Having seen such a great postings of non information since crump left. HiTech"
"i think hitech has concerns that go far beyond many of the things we are discussing here, he addresses things or doesn't for his own reasons, most of which (in my experience with online interactions) he keeps to himself."
Obviously you were wrong Thor as HT has time to chime in to say all this pondering is just crap. It took just 17 pages, next time it will take 18 pages... :rofl
Besides, I don't think Crumpp "left", I understood he was thrown out. Tell me if I'm wrong.
-C+
Crummp left when HiTech took away his keys to the forums.
ack-ack
i'm sure anyone who is not here is not here of their own accord as sunglasses are easy to put on ...
he is probably just too busy with that 190 to bother with things here ...
-
Whoa, careful here. What I described was the blade alpha change as you rotate the disk in a/c pitch. Admittedly, this causes a reaction torque - as does the change in the rotational velocity vector (tau = I*omega, anyone?) but I never said it was a "heavy burden". I sadi you'd have to test (or at least do some clacs) to figure out the relative scale. Further, this reaction torque is just that - a torque about the pitch axis opposite the a/c pitch. Why would it be any more or less significant on the FW? Clearly, by your own argument, the Spit can do the same thing. Or, are you just stating that the Luftwaffe taught partial-throttle use of the 190 and that our partial-throttle AH turnrate is off?
Inquiring minds want to know.
All that said, I'm enjoying this thread.
-Yes it precisely the partial throttle modeling that is off, as is the notion that the best sustained turn rate is reached at full power, and at speeds above 220 MPH, when Fin ace Karhila found his preferred sustained turn speed at 160 MPH on the Me-109G-6... This might not mean the superior turn rate, but at least equal to the best possible sustained turn rate, with the further sight lead offered by a smaller radius in itself...
As for where is the FW-190A-8 Western Ace, who described the three different types of ailerons the FW-190A had, and the one he chose (longest chord for the optimum performance at the lowest possible speed, at the expense of high-speed aileron performance), with the addition of field-made spacers to increase chord further and talking generally about how the FW-190A-8 was ALL about downthrottled flaps-out low-speed horizontal turn performance, catching the stall on the ailerons, "I feared no other fighter in my FW-190A-8".
His opinions were posted here through a close relative who interviewed him on the phone, but he did not wish to to be identified apparently... It was obvious from the mass of intricate, and unexpected, knowledge he had that he was not a "poseur"... And I later found all Soviet evaluations painted the same picture, as did most Western pilots to the perpetual bafflement of simmers everywhere ever since...
I have spent several hours searching the AH forums for this thread which dates back to around 2003-2005, but I am pretty sure it was deleted as I never could find it...
I call on whoever can solve the problem among the administrators of this board to find this thread and post it here, as I find it highly strange that such an important thread full of unexpected information, from a very credible-sounding source, has been deleted and is not in anyone's memory around here: Just how many ORIGINAL first-hand accounts of FW-190A combat does surface on these board?
I'm sure SOMEONE aroud here remembers this thread, it was quite long, and I think it is not beyond possibility that it could be found, assuming we are not dealing with a bit of bad will here... I have spent over 8 hours searching for it on this site and came up with nada, so unless someone is afraid of confronting the real deal, I would suggest it should be brought up minus the vitriol that caused to be deleted...
I REALLY doubt I am the only one around here to remember it...
Gaston
-
...is off, as is the notion that the best sustained turn rate is reached at full power...
If I prove mathematically, that you are wrong, will you believe me?
-
i think that would be off the point, as we all have read of pilots not at their optimum turn rate reducing throttle or dropping flaps to close their turn in order to achieve an angle, or evade an attacker ...
so proving your point mathematically may be possible, but it is pointless in this part of this discussion since it is about improving your turn rate/radius not where the best rate/radius is power speed alt etc. wise.
i think.
If I prove mathematically, that you are wrong, will you believe me?
-
i think that would be off the point, as we all have read of pilots not at their optimum turn rate reducing throttle or dropping flaps to close their turn in order to achieve an angle, or evade an attacker ...
so proving your point mathematically may be possible, but it is pointless in this part of this discussion since it is about improving your turn rate/radius not where the best rate/radius is power speed alt etc. wise.
i think.
And if you are below best, you need to add power or dive for more speed.... what's your point?
-
And if you are below best, you need to add power or dive for more speed.... what's your point?
it was pretty clear ...
the one doesn't necessarily have everything to do with the other, as your example shows as well.
-
i think that would be off the point, as we all have read of pilots not at their optimum turn rate reducing throttle or dropping flaps to close their turn in order to achieve an angle, or evade an attacker ...
so proving your point mathematically may be possible, but it is pointless in this part of this discussion since it is about improving your turn rate/radius not where the best rate/radius is power speed alt etc. wise.
i think.
reducing throttle or dropping flaps to "close" their turn = reducing turn radius. Once established, best sustained turn rate is achieved at maximum power, at least with the aircraft in this game. If you guys want to have an intelligent conversation about this stuff, you have to use more precise language.
-
I tried making that point probably 5 pages ago. Apparently I was ignored.
-
I tried making that point probably 5 pages ago. Apparently I was ignored.
Well, we keep going around and around in this thread anyway. I'm just trying to establish a baseline with either or both of these two so I can figure out whether or not there is any sense, whatsoever, in continuing to try and convince them of things that 100% of the aerodynamic community understands are truth.
-
Well good luck. I kind of gave up on that after hearing the (IMO) absurd pet theory about prop disc drag and throttling issues being the end all of turning issues.
-
-Yes it precisely the partial throttle modeling that is off, as is the notion that the best sustained turn rate is reached at full power, and at speeds above 220 MPH, when Fin ace Karhila found his preferred sustained turn speed at 160 MPH on the Me-109G-6... This might not mean the superior turn rate, but at least equal to the best possible sustained turn rate, with the further sight lead offered by a smaller radius in itself...
reducing throttle or dropping flaps to "close" their turn = reducing turn radius. Once established, best sustained turn rate is achieved at maximum power, at least with the aircraft in this game. If you guys want to have an intelligent conversation about this stuff, you have to use more precise language.
he was clear about it until you edited his post in order to take issue with it ...
>>>>
Quote from: Gaston on Today at 07:47:28 PM
...is off, as is the notion that the best sustained turn rate is reached at full power...
If I prove mathematically, that you are wrong, will you believe me?
<<<<
If you guys want to have an intelligent conversation about this stuff, you should make an effort to understand the posts instead of adjusting their meaning in order to take issue with them and thereby discredit the point ...
which in this case a pilot preferred the rate/radius at a speed well below the best sustained speed achieved at full throttle which makes perfect sense when taking in the larger world of ACM over static aircraft testing. as does my point about the roll and turn being a consideration at least as important (and probably much more so) as sustained turn rates in the context of ACM ...
-
stuff
You got me again... I am a sneaky bastard.
-
i'm not trying to piss anyone off it is just frustrating to see someone or be someone posting one thing only to have someone argue with something else, and often in a less than polite manner ...
not that you do that habitually sir ...
no offense
-
reducing throttle or dropping flaps to "close" their turn = reducing turn radius. Once established, best sustained turn rate is achieved at maximum power, at least with the aircraft in this game. If you guys want to have an intelligent conversation about this stuff, you have to use more precise language.
Ohh I agree completely. I don't think any ac in game has enough surplus thrust to maintain best sustained. I was poking thor trying to get him to come to the same conclusion.
The only thing I can think that may cloud this issue agin is ... the roll component.
Example is the 109f at low speed. It will not roll to the right. You have to reduce throttle to initiate the roll component.
-
Well good luck. I kind of gave up on that after hearing the (IMO) absurd pet theory about prop disc drag and throttling issues being the end all of turning issues.
Yes, I'm also quite vehement in drawing the distinction here that, while a prop disk at speed will resist rotation - both due to the prop alpha effect I described and due to rotational inertial effects (this is also in play at zero forward speed, not so the former), Gaston has yet to show anything that says that the scale of that torque is anything like significant or, indeed, that even if it is, that such would make any diff, the effect being present in all the a/c, subject to local differences in prop design. Indeed he says as much when he contends that the off-max turn of the Spit will still best the 190, like setting versus like setting. Or, am I missing some assertion he might be making regarding the lower pitch inertia of the 190A? If so, I'd say, "plausible" but that's not going to help overcome the disk effect, which is a torque and will need to be counteracted regardless of source - thus demanding more pitch torque from the tail surface - not something easy to come by in a "close-coupled" (read, short moment arms) a/c.
His contention on the rest, however, is more clear. He's stating that the 190 a is a better turner at mid-speed off-max than the game credits - yet I see no analytical or test evidence for this assertion - though there is some anecdotal evidence presented. He goes on to dismiss what I feel may be the real turn strength of the 190A - instantaneous turn rate. We are already well-supplied with evidence that it's roll rate is stunning.
We need more clarity around his point and, most of all, we need a way to test the hypothesis. That's the only way we'll ever finish this thing.
-
Example is the 109f at low speed. It will not roll to the right. You have to reduce throttle to initiate the roll component.
ummm data please
-
Adolf Galland in catsuit :salute
(http://trollcats.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/godwin_is_a_nazi_trollcat.png)
-
He goes on to dismiss what I feel may be the real turn strength of the 190A - instantaneous turn rate. We are already well-supplied with evidence that it's roll rate is stunning.
Perhaps some confusion in terms here. Instantaneous turn rate depends on the ability to make lift, and describes an "instant" of maximum turn performance without consideration for sustaining that performance or having the energy to sustain it. Since lift is a function of Clmax and wing loading, the 190 has poor instantaneous turn characteristics, compared to other aircraft. For example, an FW-190D9 at 9000lbs (roughly clean aircraft with 50% fuel) has a corner velocity of about 260 mph IAS. A Spit 5 at 6300 lbs (again about 50% fuel) has a corner velocity of 203 mph IAS.
That being said, its "agility" or "maneuverability" is outstanding--probably the best in the plane set. I think you meant that it can roll and begin a direction change almost instantly.
-
That being said, its "agility" or "maneuverability" is outstanding--probably the best in the plane set. I think you meant that it can roll and begin a direction change almost instantly.
Right, I'm not speaking of a max flat turn rate but rather a min time to heading change. The latter is comprehensive of how quickly you get to a banked max-lift condition. Best turn rate (typically at corner) isn't what I'm after.
-
we also need to remember that all max direction changes are limited at the top end by the human G-Load factors ...
am i mistaken in thinking the initial turn rate being good or bad effects the AOA required for
direction-change/time and energy bleed to accomplish that direction-change/time and not so much how much we can turn?
until of course we enter the sustained turn rate range.
have i got that correct?
i.e. a +5 g turn is a +5 g turn, one plane may bleed more e doing it but the turns by definition are the same if the speed is the same.
the ability to sustain that turn and maintain altitude while turning may vary but a +5 g turn is exactly the same at the same speed for every aircraft.
at least that is how my understanding of physics says it must be.
which in game brings me back to plane handling and character and the subjective data and how impportant the sources you use for modeling those things are.
-
I recall reading a quote from a 60- or 70 kill German ace about the Fw190A vs Spitfire IX. He said that once the Spitfire IX arrived there was nothing the Fw190 had over the Spitfire other than roll rate, which was of marginal value and that he dreaded facing Spitfires because he felt they out performed his Fw190A by such a large margin.
I know his opinion was by no means universal, but there you have an example of a German ace, flying Fw190As, who felt the Spitfire Mk IX and beyond were simply superior to the Fw190s.
-
The problem is that a Spit 5 can pull almost 6g at 200mph and a FW190 can only pull 4g. That means the 190 will have a bigger turn radius at the same speed. Obviously, things will change as the turns slow to sustained radii.
(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p61/stonewall74/Spit5_FW190A5_MaxLoad.png)
Or am I missing something?
-
The problem is that a Spit 5 can pull almost 6g at 200mph and a FW190 can only pull 4g. That means the 190 will have a bigger turn radius at the same speed. Obviously, things will change as the turns slow to sustained radii.
(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p61/stonewall74/Spit5_FW190A5_MaxLoad.png)
Or am I missing something?
what do you propose is the limiting factor ?
and isn't 200 mph below the 190s best corner velocity? doesn't that mean that we are beyond the initial turn rate and "same G=same turn" point i was making ???
I recall reading a quote from a 60- or 70 kill German ace about the Fw190A vs Spitfire IX. He said that once the Spitfire IX arrived there was nothing the Fw190 had over the Spitfire other than roll rate, which was of marginal value and that he dreaded facing Spitfires because he felt they out performed his Fw190A by such a large margin.
I know his opinion was by no means universal, but there you have an example of a German ace, flying Fw190As, who felt the Spitfire Mk IX and beyond were simply superior to the Fw190s.
that is why i am not advocating single sources for establishing the parameters of the FMs
-
The problem is that a Spit 5 can pull almost 6g at 200mph and a FW190 can only pull 4g. That means the 190 will have a bigger turn radius at the same speed. Obviously, things will change as the turns slow to sustained radii.
(http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p61/stonewall74/Spit5_FW190A5_MaxLoad.png)
Or am I missing something?
Yes, but, if we do a roll and bank, the 190A has something like 160 deg/sec -and thus would get to a max bank angle in something like half a second. The Spit IX's is 140 deg/sec MAX and falls off at speed, thus coughing up a couple of precious tenths on a small directional change, possibly. Once we get into a sustained turn, though, per your data, at a given speed, the 190 won't pull the g and is thus liable to suffering tactical reversal. I'm still at time to heading change, if we can call it that, over small intervals, as the real strength of the F-dub - and that the machine was outclassed in sustained turns by the Spit VIII's and IX's - as your plot notes, if it can't produce as much force per unit mass (here's where the wingloading rears it's head, since it enables greater force generation per unit mass) it can't turn as quickly... simple as second law... with the only caveat that the power available has to be sufficient to overcome the increase in induced drag at the higher lift numbers.
-
Yes, but, if we do a roll and bank, the 190A has something like 160 deg/sec -and thus would get to a max bank angle in something like half a second. The Spit IX's is 140 deg/sec MAX and falls off at speed, thus coughing up a couple of precious tenths on a small directional change, possibly. Once we get into a sustained turn, though, per your data, at a given speed, the 190 won't pull the g and is thus liable to suffering tactical reversal. I'm still at time to heading change, if we can call it that, over small intervals, as the real strength of the F-dub - and that the machine was outclassed in sustained turns by the Spit VIII's and IX's - as your plot notes, if it can't produce as much force per unit mass (here's where the wingloading rears it's head, since it enables greater force generation per unit mass) it can't turn as quickly... simple as second law... with the only caveat that the power available has to be sufficient to overcome the increase in induced drag at the higher lift numbers.
this also plays into my desire to know the relationship between wing-loading and power/weight and how exactly they both benefit the turn.
-
this also plays into my desire to know the relationship between wing-loading and power/weight and how exactly they both benefit the turn.
For how the powerloading figures, see the equation for max bank. If you figure you've got to support your weight and that the component of lift oppsing it vanishes as you approach 90 degrees bank, you start to see that you have to increase your lift radically at extreme bank and that that will, in turn, drive your induced drag up like the square of Cl. The payoff, of course, is that you direct most of your lift vector at the center of a circle, right? So, powerloading to orient... wingloading to force (both to keep you up and to turn you), is how I see it...
-
i was sort of looking for a qualitative real world test to compare to the math, i think the example i put forward was the extra 300 vs the 540 ...
-
If you have wing planform data and weights for the Extras, we might be able to set up a comparison.
I'll post some more stuff re: wingloading tonight. There's an interesting lesson to be learned from looking at the Ta-152's stall speed vis a vis wingloading.
6g is always going to be the limit load factor for us, since everyone blacks out in-game at 6g. Also, just remember that this is for instantaneous turn rate. I've got some more stuff I'm developing for sustained turn comparisons, and specific power.
-
ummm data please
I was speaking of in game.
-
Gaston Wrote:
[quote} -Yes it precisely the partial throttle modeling that is off, as is the notion that the best sustained turn rate is reached at full power, [/quote]
It is not 100% clear what you are saying, but if you believe best sustained turn rate with any plane I know of is achieved at less then full power, you have much learning to do.
Best turn rate definition is best sustainable rate of turn in level flight I.E. with out going up or going down or speeding up or slowing down and going around the circle in the least time possible. No plane in the game can even come close to it's corner speed in a sustained turn. You would have to be able to sustain a turn at g limit above corner speed for it to be any use of throttling back.
If you were saying something different in your quote never mind.
HiTech
-
I was speaking of in game.
ok, don't worry about the data then, thanks for the tip.
-
ok, don't worry about the data then, thanks for the tip.
Not sure if this is sarcasm or not but welcome. You should try it. Spiral up to the right add wep to keep going. When you can get no further try rolling right without cutting power.
-
Gaston has yet to show anything that says that the scale of that torque is anything like significant or, indeed, that even if it is, that such would make any diff, the effect being present in all the a/c, subject to local differences in prop design. Indeed he says as much when he contends that the off-max turn of the Spit will still best the 190, like setting versus like setting. Or, am I missing some assertion he might be making regarding the lower pitch inertia of the 190A? If so, I'd say, "plausible" but that's not going to help overcome the disk effect, which is a torque and will need to be counteracted regardless of source - thus demanding more pitch torque from the tail surface - not something easy to come by in a "close-coupled" (read, short moment arms) a/c.
His contention on the rest, however, is more clear. He's stating that the 190 a is a better turner at mid-speed off-max than the game credits - yet I see no analytical or test evidence for this assertion - though there is some anecdotal evidence presented. He goes on to dismiss what I feel may be the real turn strength of the 190A - instantaneous turn rate. We are already well-supplied with evidence that it's roll rate is stunning.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,261798.0.html
We need more clarity around his point and, most of all, we need a way to test the hypothesis. That's the only way we'll ever finish this thing.
The scale of the effect is easy to approximate: If the thrust of the propeller is 4000 lbs, and the upper disc half has 2000 lbs, then pulling back on that upper disc half to make it slightly slower is going to require defeating the entire thrust in that disc half to move it back, even by an infinitesimal amount. A suspended weight of 200 lbs lifted by a 100 lbs of force is still going to leave 100 lbs of tension in that rope...
The mitigating factor here is that closer to the spinner axis the backward movement is less than at the prop tip: I hear blade center of thrust was at 2/3rds the height, but max height is only in the center of the rotation in profile view, so the "scientific" way of doing this would be to calculate how high the ENTIRE 4000 lbs center of thrust is displaced into the upper disc half, as is accepted by PJGodzilla as being what actually happens on stick pull, and that height of the 4000 lbs center of thrust will then give us the leverage applied by the prop at full power against the wing's center of lift.
But then you have to take into account the leverage-increasing effect of the prop being at a right-angle to the lenght of the nose, creating a right-angle stress-riser that increase somewhat the actual leverage, given the forward direction of the thrust...
The FW-190A is advantaged, like all radials, by having less upper disc half leverage agains the wing's center of lift due to the shorter nose, and, by extension, less leverage compared to the elevator's tail lenght leverage...
The Spitfire probably has to downthrottle lower for its wingloading advantage to emerge.
The fact is for most of these aircrafts the best sustained turn rate is probably found at around 190-200 MPH, or at least the one that has the smallest radius while STILL equalling the best sustained turn rate, and 160-170 MPH for the Me-109G and Spitfires...
For all these aircrafts except maybe the really heavy ones: P-47, F4U, F6F, speeds between 250 and 350 MPH are the WORST speeds for sustaining turns because their lower overall weight would allow them to perform better in turns below the speeds where the prop disc load is at its highest.
As far as where the REAL Corner Speed is for these aircraft, it is so high it is practically irrelevant for WWII combat that is not in a dive of some sort, as it ie "near the maximum level speed" as tested here in 1989:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,261798.0.html
And this, by the way, has been confirmed to me as plausible by an actual aircraft designer... So that 1989 test done by actual modern test pilots is correct in stating the P-51's "Corner Speed" is at around 370 MPH at least, that is, this is around the lowest speed at which 6-7Gs (they tested 6Gs) can be reached....
It is clear why it is so high: At full power, the prop disc load is at its highest at the middle range of speeds, and the effect is so powerful you have to reach into much higher speeds for the elevator's authority to increase (which it doesn't do on all prop fighter types) while the prop disc load is reduced enough to even allow reaching the "structural limit" of 6 or 7 Gs... On the Me-109G-6 the best sustained turn rate speed was found by the Fins to be about 220 MPH, so you have to go all the way down there to find the first real top sustained turn rate, and going much below that to 160 MPH, with lower power, will tighten the radius without reducing the rate, giving a tactical advantage even if the actual turn rate is not increased beyond that of 220 MPH.
In any case, it is obvious the effect effect of the prop on the REAL-LIFE wingloading is measured in the thousands of pounds (maybe one, maybe three...)if a downthrottled FW-190A can decisively beat a full-power Spitfire V in sustained level turns...
Gaston
I'm sure someone here remembers the thread circa 2004-2006 titled "FW-190A Western ace experience", posted here by a relative who was willing to relay questions to the actual pilot... He said he out-turned a tailing P-51D on the deck in TWO 360 degree turns and shot it down, which I did not believe until I understood the problem of downthrottling versus full power... (The P-51D had strained so hard he almost stalled in front of him...)
He is the only source I ever heard speak of field-made aileron hinge "spacers" to increase low-speed sustained turn performance by "catching" the stall... And of the importance of the broad wood prop on low-speed turn performance...
-
Not sure if this is sarcasm or not but welcome. You should try it. Spiral up to the right add wep to keep going. When you can get no further try rolling right without cutting power.
no sir i was sincere, i find them pesky in my a8 sometimes ...
+S+
-
ok, don't worry about the data then, thanks for the tip.
Widewing awhile back posted a rather indepth thread about the low speed handling characteristics of the Bf 109F and goes into detail about the difficulty of rolling the Franz to the right at low speeds. If you want to take the time, I do recommend searching for it because it is a gold mine of information.
ack-ack
-
Gaston you are completely mixing the terms cornering speed and sustained turn rate.
They are completely different concepts, cornering speed would be almost identical with engine off or full power on any conventional plane.
HiTech
-
i thin HTC is missing a big opportunity ...
***a virtual wind tunnel***
for a fee of course ;)
-
i thin HTC is missing a big opportunity ...
***a virtual wind tunnel***
for a fee of course ;)
I actually would love to have something like that for my RC planes... describe them in some virtual 3d format and see how the should perform before I build it... that would be cool.
-
I actually would love to have something like that for my RC planes... describe them in some virtual 3d format and see how the should perform before I build it... that would be cool.
Call a CFD house. This kind of stuff is done all the time. We used to even do some WT sims using ADAMs.
Depending on the guts of HTC's FM, who knows, it might be a genuine cross-sell opportunity.
-
The mitigating factor here is that closer to the spinner axis the backward movement is less than at the prop tip: I hear blade center of thrust was at 2/3rds the height, but max height is only in the center of the rotation in profile view, so the "scientific" way of doing this would be to calculate how high the ENTIRE 4000 lbs center of thrust is displaced into the upper disc half, as is accepted by PJGodzilla as being what actually happens on stick pull, and that height of the 4000 lbs center of thrust will then give us the leverage applied by the prop at full power against the wing's center of lift.
But then you have to take into account the leverage-increasing effect of the prop being at a right-angle to the lenght of the nose, creating a right-angle stress-riser that increase somewhat the actual leverage, given the forward direction of the thrust...
The FW-190A is advantaged, like all radials, by having less upper disc half leverage agains the wing's center of lift due to the shorter nose, and, by extension, less leverage compared to the elevator's tail lenght leverage...
Okay, I'll accept the scaling argument for now. Suffice it to say that the disk will resist rotation in pitch, both for the blade alpha and rotational inertial effects I've mentioned before.
Let's also be clear that you can resolve the resultant thrust + torque to a single force above the prop axis - thus admitting the change in center of thrust of which you speak. This is simply physical shorthand and is easily done.
The torque resulting from this CofT change, regardless of how far out you move it radially along the prop blades, acts on a pitch lever arm that is perpendicular to the long axis of the a/c - indeed should be something like the distance from the CofT to the a/c CG and will tend to pitch the a/c nose down. I see zero reason for the "close-couple" f-dub to realize any advantage or freedom from this effect that the Spit would not also have, this distance likely not being significantly different b/w the two. I.e., I think you're using the wrong moment arm in your mental model.
As for that "close- coupling" again, I'd say it's real advantage is a minimized pitch inertia. However, the ability to rotate the a/c in pitch is dependent on both this and the ability of both wing and elevator to generate a pitch moment - and we know the max lift of the wing per unit mass is compromised due to this a/c's higher W/A.
I don't think we get there from here with the 190.
-
I actually would love to have something like that for my RC planes... describe them in some virtual 3d format and see how the should perform before I build it... that would be cool.
There actually is some good design software for the RC-planes, my favorite is the Profili2.
http://www.profili2.com/
-
Okay, I'll accept the scaling argument for now. Suffice it to say that the disk will resist rotation in pitch, both for the blade alpha and rotational inertial effects I've mentioned before.
Let's also be clear that you can resolve the resultant thrust + torque to a single force above the prop axis - thus admitting the change in center of thrust of which you speak. This is simply physical shorthand and is easily done.
The torque resulting from this CofT change, regardless of how far out you move it radially along the prop blades, acts on a pitch lever arm that is perpendicular to the long axis of the a/c - indeed should be something like the distance from the CofT to the a/c CG and will tend to pitch the a/c nose down. I see zero reason for the "close-couple" f-dub to realize any advantage or freedom from this effect that the Spit would not also have, this distance likely not being significantly different b/w the two. I.e., I think you're using the wrong moment arm in your mental model.
-I understand what you mean: That the distance from the wing's center of lift to the prop on a Spit is not necessarily different than that of the FW-190A's... I don't claim to know for sure WHY the FW-190A performs better at low speed than would be expected: I just observe that it was preferred to the Me-109G as a low-speed sustained horizontal turn fighter at medium-low altitudes while the Me-109G was preferred as a Boom and Zoom vertical fighter... This is why Rall said they "complemented" one another and that the FW-190A was a "Sabre" (curved), while the Me-109G was a "floret" (straight)...
Maybe it is the distribution of drag due to the broader nose, the distribution of mass compared to the tail lenght to nose-lenght ratio: It could be any number of things... I do not say a downthrottled Spitfire will not out turn a downthrottled FW-190A... I do not even say that the Karhila Me-109G's 160 MPH best sustained turn speed will beat the sustained turn rate observed at 220 MPH by the Fins: I say the sustained turn rate is the SAME PLUS the advantage of a smaller radius...
It could be that for very obscure unintuitive reasons the FW-190A gains more from downthrottling than other aircrafts... The critical point is that we agree that the purpose of downthrottling here is NOT to wait for a lower speed but to reduce IMMEDIATELY the nefarious effect of the prop's pull on the tightness of the radius, at the same time succeeding in MAINTAINING the SAME sustained turn rate, or even potentially improving it, while reducing the radius to a greater extent than the speed is reduced...
This would explain why the Corner Speed is found in Il-2, and in actual tests, to be near 400 MPH, despite calculations putting it at around 280 MPH on a P-51D Mustang: The negative effect of the prop disc load at these middle speeds is what delays the ability to pull the maximum G on most types to such a high speed, meaning as you go down from 400 MPH to 300 MPH your ability to pull Gs is REDUCED, to a low around 260-300 on most types, getting no better but MUCH tighter if you downthrottle from there to sustainable turn speeds much below those: On Il-2 the best sustained turn rate for the P-51D at full power is 240 MPH, for the Me-109G the Fins found it at 220 MPH, but on both downthrottling would probably allow an slight increase of sustained turn rate combined with a BIG increase in turn radius reduction, so that the best combination is actually 200 MPH on a P-51D and 160 MPH on the Me-109G-6, as narrated by Karhila...
As for high-speed fighting in the FW-190A, again theory is found wanting, but this time for aerodynamic behaviour reasons that have nothing or little to do with the prop disc load......
True, Kurt Tank did say 7Gs with minimal stick forces at high speeds, but I think these included the typical tail-down pull-out deceleration that the Russian observed made a nose-level FW-190A drop a further 660 ft. on dive pull-out, this AFTER the nose was level! These were in part DECELERATION Gs in high-speed stick-pulls, horizontal behaviour adding snapping out because of assymetry in loads, but could include sideway "sinking" also, and the lack of elevator competitiveness of the FW-190A above 250 MPH is laughably obvious from all sources, and can only be ignored because it does not match people's intuitive expectations...
I hope I covered some of the wanted points...
Gaston
-
Gaston: Repeat after me.
Sustained turn rate decreases with less throttle.
Sustained turn rate decreases with less throttle.
Sustained turn rate decreases with less throttle.
Sustained turn rate decreases with less throttle.
Sustained turn rate decreases with less throttle.
Sustained turn rate decreases with less throttle.
Sustained turn rate decreases with less throttle.
HiTech
-
Hear is a picture of our FW in a sustained turn about 180mph. The blue vectors are the thrust vectors.
-
Gaston, try as well:
Top speed in level flight will not decrease with less weight.
Or:
Top speed will decrease with less throttle.
Or:
Climb rate will increase with less weight.
Or:
Sustained turn rate will increase with less weight.
Then:
Climb rate will decrease with less throttle.
And:
Acceleration from stall in level flight will decrease with increased weight.
While bearing in mind that ROC, acceleration and sustained turning are.....not in different corners given the same thrust....
-
Hear is a picture of our FW in a sustained turn about 180mph. The blue vectors are the thrust vectors.
Cool picture.
Can you post an mp3 when the pig finally sings? :bolt:
-
could you describe/define the other numbers ?
Hear is a picture of our FW in a sustained turn about 180mph. The blue vectors are the thrust vectors.
-
could you describe/define the other numbers ?
Or even the thrust numbers. It's hard to see how the vectors are distributed and what their magnitudes are. Are they generally lower thrust on the faster portions oF the "disk" (outside/lower)? One thing that IS clear is that it is not a uniform thrust centered at the hub. You've discretized it to 4 or 6 nodes.
BTW, Hitech, you are THE MAN. I go a little Chris Matthews (that bought-and-paid-for shill) everytime I hear the default "check 6". Now about my special 410, that I ALONE will be enabled to fly...
-
I may be in a slip Godzilla, but the numbers are just to get a feel for the magnitudes, they are LB's thrust. I have no Idea where the ball was, and because PFactor will have much more of an effect then Inside/ Outside curve would.
No mater what the outside tip would travel about 75 ft more per circle. So 180mph and 20 sec circle
1.46 * 180 * 20 = 5256
(5256 + 75) / 20 / 1.46 = 182.19178082191780
would be about 2 mph difference. I.E. about 1.2% difference in thrust so in the fw it would be in the range of 20lbs.
HiTech
-
I may be in a slip Godzilla, but the numbers are just to get a feel for the magnitudes, they are LB's thrust. I have no Idea where the ball was, and because PFactor will have much more of an effect then Inside/ Outside curve would.
No mater what the outside tip would travel about 75 ft more per circle. So 180mph and 20 sec circle
1.46 * 180 * 20 = 5256
(5256 + 75) / 20 / 1.46 = 182.19178082191780
would be about 2 mph difference. I.E. about 1.2% difference in thrust so in the fw it would be in the range of 20lbs.
HiTech
I take your point but, since blade lift goes like v^2 and the relative V magnitude of inner and outer is (vtangential^2 + vforward^2)^.5 ... it's still small - even though the local blade Cl will be slightly different due to the alpha diff (something like blade pitch off horiz less atan(vtangential/vforward) - the diff in vforward dictating that this ratio diff too will be small. Thus, so diminishes the torque on the hub due to a/c pitch or - the movement in Center of Thrust. Since that displaces off of hub only slightly, Gaston's power-on pitch moment difference disappears with it.
Yet, my suspicion is, he'll continue to cling to this argument.
I wouldn't mind losing that 90 gals of fuel weight equivalent, mind, on the F-dub. And I do want the 410BeauKi43g55re2005pe2fulmar swordfishdevastatorvengeanced efiantp63rocskuabattlebarracu daraidenyak3...
-
Gaston: Repeat after me.
Sustained turn rate decreases with less throttle.
Sustained turn rate decreases with less throttle.
Sustained turn rate decreases with less throttle.
Sustained turn rate decreases with less throttle.
Sustained turn rate decreases with less throttle.
Sustained turn rate decreases with less throttle.
Sustained turn rate decreases with less throttle.
HiTech
-That is simply not the case below 250-300 MPH on most types... Plenty of anecdotal accounts make this perfectly clear, though on some types it is likely the turn rate stays the same and the radius decreases, an advantage of itself... Gaston
-
we got any real world data on turn rate over speed range? and radius over speed range?
so we can look at the relationship, i'm not all in on gaston's point, but it could easily make sense that a pilot could see an decrease in radius without much of a decrease in rate as a "better turning" state for an aircraft and therefore prefer a slower turn speed ...
-
-That is simply not the case below 250-300 MPH on most types... Plenty of anecdotal accounts make this perfectly clear, though on some types it is likely the turn rate stays the same and the radius decreases, an advantage of itself... Gaston
That is physically impossible, therefor the anecdotes are wrong. If you reduce your throttle you will go slower and if you are going slower you will take longer to complete a circle. You do not tighten the circle enough by going slower to make up the difference.
-
we got any real world data on turn rate over speed range? and radius over speed range?
so we can look at the relationship, i'm not all in on gaston's point, but it could easily make sense that a pilot could see an decrease in radius without much of a decrease in rate as a "better turning" state for an aircraft and therefore prefer a slower turn speed ...
If the pilot could decrease the radius, he wasn't flying at the best sustained turn rate or radius to begin with. Best sustained turn rate only occurs at one condition for any single aircraft weight. Any faster and the radius is larger, any slower and the radius cannot be sustained. That's why we're being so obstinate here Thor--we're talking about something that is black and white.
-
And for some reason it took 21 pages to finaly end all the debate?...lol, sounds like an ego trip to me.
Somwhere there is a dead horse being flogged...
-
And for some reason it took 21 pages to finaly end all the debate?...lol, sounds like an ego trip to me.
Somwhere there is a dead horse being flogged...
It's like that. Back when I used to work in vehicle dynamics, we used to do something called R202 training. It went something like this:
Customer: I don't like the way this car handles.
Engineer: can you be more specific?
Customer: It's the way this steering wheel is.
Engineer: can you be more specific?
Customer: Look at what happens when I turn it.
Engineer: Can you be more specific?
Customer: At first, nothing....
Engineer... etc.
And what you end up finding out is that the deadband is too large, the gain off-center is too small, and that the efforts just off-center are too small to provide any good on-center feel. In short, the steering is crap for specific reasons but the customer claims the "handling" sucks for general reasons.
Then there's some guy out of left field like you who mocks the effort.
-
It's like that. Back when I used to work in vehicle dynamics, we used to do something called R202 training. It went something like this:
Customer: I don't like the way this car handles.
Engineer: can you be more specific?
Customer: It's the way this steering wheel is.
Engineer: can you be more specific?
Customer: Look at what happens when I turn it.
Engineer: Can you be more specific?
Customer: At first, nothing....
Engineer... etc.
And what you end up finding out is that the deadband is too large, the gain off-center is too small, and that the efforts just off-center are too small to provide any good on-center feel. In short, the steering is crap for specific reasons but the customer claims the "handling" sucks for general reasons.
Then there's some guy out of left field like you who mocks the effort.
That would be a good example if there was something wrong with the FW190 flight model.
-
That would be a good example if there was something wrong with the FW190 flight model.
It wasn't intended to be about the FM, it was intended to represent the interaction with Gaston. It turns out that his gripe about the FM is a good deal more specific than "the F-dub isn't modelled correctly". In that sense the analogy holds up. It breaks down in the specific case you cite, but that was collateral to my point - that being, often repeated questions, a "drilling down" if you like, is necessary to get at the crux of the issue. Recall, please, that this was in response to the "why 21 pages?" question.
Yes, as far as I can see, the only thing wrong with the f-dub is the minor weight issue cited before.
If you like, I could change my analogy so that the customer is asking for more deadband and less gain but. like I say, the concretes of the example were incidental to the point of R202 - which is translating the non-technical to something specific. Indeed, you could say the Ford and AH briefs are totally different. We seek to give the customer what they want, HTC seeks to give the customer what it wants qualified by and to some extent, only so long as it aligns with FM and historical integrity - two very different missions.
-
... Since that displaces off of hub only slightly, Gaston's power-on pitch moment difference disappears with it.
Yet, my suspicion is, he'll continue to cling to this argument...
Apparently you agree with Steven as well as the point I made. :aok
The nice thing about these threads is that they're informative as well as entertaining.
-
Gaston, - LOL, read the word SUSTAINED. SUSTAINED, SUSTAINED, SUSTAINED!!!!
-
we got any real world data on turn rate over speed range? and radius over speed range?
so we can look at the relationship, i'm not all in on gaston's point, but it could easily make sense that a pilot could see an decrease in radius without much of a decrease in rate as a "better turning" state for an aircraft and therefore prefer a slower turn speed ...
Thor going faster will decrease your level turn radius until you reach corner speed. Hence the definition of corner speed, the slowest speed at which you can pull maximum G's. The reason the turn radius decreases is because 2 equations fall out the same, your lift generated (force that makes the turn) and the "Centripetal force" both vary with the square of speed for a given radius. So if you would be doing a loop (with no gravity), you would continue to make the same circle (same radius) as long as you held the same AOA, no mater how fast you would go.
Now when you make a level turn you also need to provide 1g up force along the the g's of the turn. So at stall speed where you can only produce 1g, you can not turn. but as you go faster the extra G you create all go to turn. So to make is really simple if you are flying at 6 g speed 5g's now go to turn vs 1g for gravity. This makes your circle smaller as you go faster , and hence why corner speed is the best speed to be for best instantaneous turn performance.
Now sustained turn does the exact same thing. The faster you can go at MAX AOA will make both the smallest diameter and the best degrees per sec. So for Gastons logic to be correct. YOu have to go slower to turn better. This just is not the case at any speed below corner speed which in AH is defined at 6'gs because of black out. So do you know of many planes that can do a continuous 6 g's with out loosing alt?
Now gaston also complete confuses forces and torques. Because (I have not really looked at the net torque because it is not relative) Torque on the airframe does not make it turn (i.e. change it's vel vector) . it only makes it spin around a point but in no way helps it change direction. This is basic Physics 101 definitions.
So for what gaston claims to be true you would increase speed by decreasing throttle,does that make any since to you?
Now lets look at some of the sustained turn rates he quotes of 250 - 300. These are just insane.
Basic lift equations are the potential lift increase with the square of the speed. So if your 1 g stall speed is 104 (fw ranges) at 208 you could pull 4 gs I do not believe any plane in the game not a plane in the game can do a 4 g sustained turn.
And hence why I said.
Repeat after me. Sustained turn rate decrease with less throttle.
Because the stuff is just simple physics 101. And the stuff grafton spews on the mater is like arguing that an apple will not fall if you drop it.
HiTech
-
If the pilot could decrease the radius, he wasn't flying at the best sustained turn rate or radius to begin with. Best sustained turn rate only occurs at one condition for any single aircraft weight. Any faster and the radius is larger, any slower and the radius cannot be sustained. That's why we're being so obstinate here Thor--we're talking about something that is black and white.
that is kinda weird as you guys have always separated the two, rate and radius, and as far as i can tell always admitted that one was achieves at a much slower speed than the other.
however no one here has made any effort to address my question, did you understand it?
i mean if these things are soo absolute then surely there is some pertinent real world data that proves the math.
that is all i asked for, some corresponding real world data, and so far after the several requests i have seen none.
that is disappointing since even gaston has provided at least a fair amount of anecdotal evanesce for his views.
see the problem is that you guys insist on the numbers you produce justify the situation in the game and i and many others have repeatedly on many specific topics have shown that the situation in the game is in direct conflict with real world testing. something is wrong or something is being missed and that is obvious to many.
i just want to help figure that out.
-
Thor going faster will decrease your level turn radius until you reach corner speed. Hence the definition of corner speed, the slowest speed at which you can pull maximum G's. The reason the turn radius decreases is because 2 equations fall out the same, your lift generated (force that makes the turn) and the "Centripetal force" both vary with the square of speed for a given radius. So if you would be doing a loop (with no gravity), you would continue to make the same circle (same radius) as long as you held the same AOA, no mater how fast you would go.
Now when you make a level turn you also need to provide 1g up force along the the g's of the turn. So at stall speed where you can only produce 1g, you can not turn. but as you go faster the extra G you create all go to turn. So to make is really simple if you are flying at 6 g speed 5g's now go to turn vs 1g for gravity. This makes your circle smaller as you go faster , and hence why corner speed is the best speed to be for best instantaneous turn performance.
Now sustained turn does the exact same thing. The faster you can go at MAX AOA will make both the smallest diameter and the best degrees per sec. So for Gastons logic to be correct. YOu have to go slower to turn better. This just is not the case at any speed below corner speed which in AH is defined at 6'gs because of black out. So do you know of many planes that can do a continuous 6 g's with out loosing alt?
Now gaston also complete confuses forces and torques. Because (I have not really looked at the net torque because it is not relative) Torque on the airframe does not make it turn (i.e. change it's vel vector) . it only makes it spin around a point but in no way helps it change direction. This is basic Physics 101 definitions.
So for what gaston claims to be true you would increase speed by decreasing throttle,does that make any since to you?
Now lets look at some of the sustained turn rates he quotes of 250 - 300. These are just insane.
Basic lift equations are the potential lift increase with the square of the speed. So if your 1 g stall speed is 104 (fw ranges) at 208 you could pull 4 gs I do not believe any plane in the game not a plane in the game can do a 4 g sustained turn.
And hence why I said.
Repeat after me. Sustained turn rate decrease with less throttle.
Because the stuff is just simple physics 101. And the stuff grafton spews on the mater is like arguing that an apple will not fall if you drop it.
HiTech
well then i would submit that since gaston has produced pilot opinions to support his statements that maybe what is happening, since this is all relative ...
(in the sense that your point of comparison and probable point of reference is another aircraft)
then i submit that if it is impossible that the turn rate radius is as he has presented, then maybe it is possible gaston's example of 250-300 is where the 190 had the best relative or comparative turn rate VS. the opponents that pilot had experienced in combat.
i think that that is why many pilots state earlier models but not the earliest models of many aircraft as their favorites even though the performance is clearly improved throughout the type. i.e. at some point in it's development it had a better relative performance vs. it's opponents that that particular variant faced then the type did during the rest of the pilots time in the type.
you see i don't like the whole "idiot, F.O.S., liar" accusations. especially since he is relaying the experiences of people with real world experience in these aircraft. i.e. you may be able to dismiss gaston's conclusions, however his historic references should at least peak some interest if at least just to figure out why they possibly do not seem to jive with the game's representation of the A/C in question.
BTW thanks hitech that was a clear and helpful post.
+S+
t
-
Thor, It is so bloody simple its is if you are telling me to go out and drop an apple to prove the real world case, take any plane in the world, and the same things are true. Every plane in the game, every plane that flys (until thrust vectoring) uses the exact same principles. Ive done it in my plane and sure enough it did the exact same as I stated above. Ive done it in cessnas, read Bob Shaws book all state the identical thing.
HiTech
Never mind thor was written before you previous post.
-
Never mind thor was written before you previous post.
it's ok i did the same on the previous exchange ...
+S+
-
especially since he is relaying the experiences of people with real world experience in these aircraft. i.e. you may be able to dismiss gaston's conclusions, however his historic references should at least peak some interest if at least just to figure out why they possibly do not seem to jive with the game's representation of the A/C in question.
Firstly, I don't want to labor the obvious, basic and persistant errors in posts that so many others have already corrected, but I would like to say something about the interesting historical references that have been used to support flawed conclusions about sustained turns.
A quick review of some of the anecdotal evidence can reveal how mistakes may have been made.
For example, the combat report by Hanseman, describes how the 109 stopped cutting him off as he cut throttle, and this can be perfectly consistent with aerodynamics and the flight model in AH, but only under certain conditions. For example, Hanseman does not say anything about his initial speed, and if he was above corner velocity reducing throttle would have allowed him to increase his turn rate and reduce his turn radius more quickly. Once he employed flaps, his turn radius would have reduced even further. Nothing was said that is not entirely consistent with real world physics, and Aces High. The mistake would be to make the assumption that Hanseman continued the fight with reduced throttle, and that was somehow responsible for his continued ability to out turn the 109. There is a circumstance where even that is conceivable, and that might be if the aircraft were in a descending low G spiral turn, but Hanseman describes this engagement as occurring at 500ft so that is not the case, because there wasn't room. So, under the conditions described, the assumption that fight was continued with reduced throttle and that this improved the turn, is clearly false because it is in conflict with basic aerodynamic principles. A much more reasonable assumption would be that once Hanseman had reduced his airspeed below corner, and employed flaps, he would have then increased power as necessary to achieve the best sustained turn.
Another example from the article by Johnson where he describes being out turned by a 190 and where the poster states:
FW-190A beating in sustained low altitude flat turns a Spitfire Mk V that is running at "wide-open throttle", WITH post-war hindsight:
However, if you read Johnson's article it presents a very different picture of what really happened, that is also perfectly consistent with aerodynamics. Firstly, when Johnson describes turning hard to the left and whirling around on opposite sides of what seemed to be an ever decreasing circle, he gave no indication or details of that phase of the fight, other than to say they were on opposite sides of the circle, which indicates that during that time the fight may have remained neutral. With no indication of how long that phase lasted, we can only speculate, but it is possible that if both aircraft were at high speed, and they both pulled the same G, they would have been able to match each others turns for a time while their speeds were decreasing. However, where Johnson initially describes being out turned by the 190 they were not at low altitude, and they were not in flat turns, as indicated in the quote above. They were high enough that Johnson was able to enter a near vertical dive after he conceding the fight, and the turn was not flat, Johnson actually said he was in the "tightest of vertical turns" and that he was at full throttle and greying out. What difference does that make? Firstly, you would expect the 190 to be superior in the vertical so no real surprise there, but he also describes being at full throttle and greying out, which indicates that at that time the fight was occurring at the relatively high speeds and load factors. Bearing in mind that two aircraft at the same speed and load factor will turn at exactly the same rate and radius, this fight may have been determined partly by the superiority of the 190 in the vertical, and possibly by differences in the G tolerance of the pilots. After all, for all we know, Johnson may have had a bad night and been greying out at relatively low G, while the German stud flying the 190 was able to pull harder, generating the rate and radius necessary to give Johnson the scare he needed to beak off into a near vertical dive. When Johnson says "My over-confidence of a few seconds before had already given way to irritation at losing my opponent" he gives us the clue that this phase of the fight was infact brief, and that his perception of being out turned was arrived at quickly, and not after sustained turning. Once he had broken off into a dive the 190 was in trail and in the control position, any further turning by Johnson appears to have only been used to align himself with the Ships.
I would say that this combat report says a lot more about the survival instincts and perception of a great Ace, than it does about the performance of the aircraft involved. It is also possible to see from both reports that anecdotal evidence, typically sparse in fundamental detail and lacking any basic technical facts, or information about the condition or configuration of the aircraft involved, can very easily be misinterpreted.
Badboy
-
yes but we also have testing that disputes the stall behavior of the 190, have been unable to produce operator air-force supporting evidence for the extent of it's twitchy behavior in higher g, have had a 4g limit in game that has yet to be supported, have rooted out a roll tendency in the game for the 109(at least the F) that is also unsupported in any testing yet shown. we have a better general understanding of the excellent real world handling qualities of the 190s, and a definitive weight disparity in some of the 190 FMs in the game.
IMO this has been a worthwhile discussion, and in my experience discussions such as this one can lead to excellent FMs that both reflect the definable mathematics/physics, and the historic testing and literature.
i am all for explaining pilot observations with known aerodynamics of the aircraft, i think that usually the one tends to support the other. where there are discrepancies however they imo should be used as an opportunity to either support the game representation, or to better understand the aircraft being "recreated" and possibly re-evaluate some things in the game/s. or at least ad them to the wish list...
-
thorsim,
in my experience discussions such as this one can lead to excellent FMs that both reflect the definable mathematics/physics, and the historic testing and literature.
Probably not in this case, because when I read this thread the things that stand out the most are the degree of misunderstanding of basic physics, the misinterpretation of anecdotal evidence and technical reports, and the abysmal polemics in terms of both integrity and logic. Much of it appears to be in support of or in contention with some feature or other of someones favorite aircraft, and frankly, I've seen more coherent reasoning among squabling six year olds.
As an example of how easily misunderstanding can arise:
have had a 4g limit in game that has yet to be supported
There simply isn't "a 4g limit in game". Assuming you are referring to the 109s or 190s I just checked them all and have no difficulty reaching 9G. I suspect, you probably meant to refer to something else, such as the control force modelling at high speed perhaps? Regardless of the merits of modelling control forces, or whatever you actually meant, you may appreciate how easy it is for misunderstandings to arise when people use the wrong terms or use well defined terms incorrectly, particularly when that degree of confusion proliferates the usual ill conceived petition for change that I've seen here. Not least of all when in previous responses it has been shown that various sources are being construed in support of arguments that defy the laws of physics.
Badboy
-
the 4g limit was said to be at 200mph on the fw 6g on the spit. i asked for support for that in TRW testing and noting was put forward.
so the misunderstanding is two fold in that i did not post the quote on my part and that you did not follow the thread close enough to know what i was referring to in the first place ...
another thing you will notice is the examples you posted is that the fight described could not happen in AH as the AH190 does not have the combat flaps the real world pilot deploys in the fight in the example you quoted.
i am sorry i was not more clear in my post, and that my reference was not apparent to you right away, but i have no misunderstandings in the post you quoted. the fact is that the game and the math you attempt to use to support the game simply does not correspond with the recorded history, and that is a problem with the game,
not the history.
it is arrogant in the extreme to attempt to adjust the history to match the game, when it is the game which professes to match the history.
thorsim,
Probably not in this case, because when I read this thread the things that stand out the most are the degree of misunderstanding of basic physics, the misinterpretation of anecdotal evidence and technical reports, and the abysmal polemics in terms of both integrity and logic. Much of it appears to be in support of or in contention with some feature or other of someones favorite aircraft, and frankly, I've seen more coherent reasoning among squabling six year olds.
As an example of how easily misunderstanding can arise:
There simply isn't "a 4g limit in game". Assuming you are referring to the 109s or 190s I just checked them all and have no difficulty reaching 9G. I suspect, you probably meant to refer to something else, such as the control force modelling at high speed perhaps? Regardless of the merits of modelling control forces, or whatever you actually meant, you may appreciate how easy it is for misunderstandings to arise when people use the wrong terms or use well defined terms incorrectly, particularly when that degree of confusion proliferates the usual ill conceived petition for change that I've seen here. Not least of all when in previous responses it has been shown that various sources are being construed in support of arguments that defy the laws of physics.
Badboy
-
it is arrogant in the extreme to attempt to adjust the history to match the game, when it is the game which professes to match the history.
You are WAY off base with that last statement, Thorsim. Badboy put forth a valid and very well stated argument about using anecdotal information as a basis for aircraft performance.
I have thought about this several times in the past couple of days and have refrained from posting it but, here it is anyways.
I have neither the time or inclination to do a mathematical proof for you as to why the formulas that have been stated are accurate. If you doubt what is taught by major university's in their aeronautical engineering class's that's your problem. If you doubt NASA's aeronautical engineer's ability to do advanced fluid dynamic's take it up with them. Neither Hitech nor anyone at HTC made these formulas up, they simply use what is currently know and documented for modeling fluid dynamic's as it applies to aircraft.
It is my sincere hope that HTC looks at the weight of the 190's and corrects any discrepancy's, but beyond that there are no other issues to be addressed in my opinion. And no amount of anecdotal information is going to change that either.
-
the 4g limit was said to be at 200mph on the fw 6g on the spit.
It now sounds like what you previously quoted in your response to me as a "4g limit" is actually an accelerated stall. The thing about accelerated stalls is that once you know one value for an aircraft, you know them all, so you could verify the values involved with knowledge of the 1g stall speed. But that sort of confusion is what happens when there are people don't know what they are talking about, others who can't use terminology correctly, and others who can't quote correctly, and they all post in the same thread.
and that is a problem with the game, not the history
Nope, it is a problem caused when people have an apparently overwhelming desire for change, but misunderstand and misinterpret information because they lack the knowledge or analytical skills necessary to arrive at the valid conclusions that would be required to justify such change.
Infact, if this thread is an example, the claims are so outrageously flawed that they are little more than a source of amusement.
Badboy
-
You are WAY off base with that last statement, Thorsim. Badboy put forth a valid and very well stated argument about using anecdotal information as a basis for aircraft performance.
I have thought about this several times in the past couple of days and have refrained from posting it but, here it is anyways.
I have neither the time or inclination to do a mathematical proof for you as to why the formulas that have been stated are accurate. If you doubt what is taught by major university's in their aeronautical engineering class's that's your problem. If you doubt NASA's aeronautical engineer's ability to do advanced fluid dynamic's take it up with them. Neither Hitech nor anyone at HTC made these formulas up, they simply use what is currently know and documented for modeling fluid dynamic's as it applies to aircraft.
It is my sincere hope that HTC looks at the weight of the 190's and corrects any discrepancy's, but beyond that there are no other issues to be addressed in my opinion. And no amount of anecdotal information is going to change that either.
That now sounds more like an accelerated stall, and not a g limit. You see what happens when people don't know what they are talking about and can't use terminology correctly?
Nope, it is a problem caused when people have an apparently overwhelming desire for change, but misunderstand and misinterpret information because they lack the knowledge or analytical skills necessary to arrive at the valid conclusions that would be required to justify such change.
Infact, if this thread is an example, the claims are so outrageously flawed and the misunderstandings so obvious, that this thread has been reduced to little more than a source of amusement.
Badboy
no sirs the testing and the game are not in synch in many ways, from many sources, and the weights are off as well so my point that you math is off per the history since your numbers are off per history as well ...
it is not my understanding at issue here it is the game and the history "."
-
it is not my understanding at issue here it is the game and the history
In your previous responses to me you appear to have confused a "4g limit" with what may have been an accelerated stall, and that would be a fairly basic misunderstanding.
I suspect that similar misunderstandings are indeed the issue here, particularly when you consider the posts in this thread that attempt to contradict the laws of physics, and then to justify those contradictions with misinterpreted anecdotes.
so my point that you math is off per the history since your numbers are off per history as well ...
I have no idea what you are referring to here, can you remind me what math I've posted that you take exception to?
Badboy
-
no sir, re: the g's, i asked for a historic justification for someone else's statement, none was provided. which leads me to believe none existed. when it is pointed out that there is a 900lb or 500lb miscalculation in regards to some variants then the math you may do has little relevance to the historic reality ...
In your previous responses to me you appear to have confused a "4g limit" with what may have been an accelerated stall, and that would be a fairly basic misunderstanding.
no sir data selection is the issue here, no offense ...
I suspect that similar misunderstandings are indeed the issue here, particularly when you consider the posts in this thread that attempt to contradict the laws of physics, and then to justify those contradictions with misinterpreted anecdotes.
no sir, if you have no idea what i am talking about then i suggest you re read the thread. start with the OP then move on to the weight problems, then move on to the handling, code, then the stall behavior, then the 109 roll problem, and you will clearly see what i am talking about.
I have no idea what you are referring to here, can you remind me what math I've posted that you think is "off per the history"
-
Thorsim I'm the one who posted the weight issue with the 190A-8 on response #18.
You continue to make banal generalizations in your posts, and blather on with the "conspiracy theory" type comments about anecdotal reports and hearsay. It is widely acknowledged that first hand combat reports from WW2 are very erroneous for all countries involved. Just look at kills claimed, or bomb damage assessments to appreciate how difficult it is to draw real data from first hand reports. So, just like Badboy posted, the descriptions of many combat maneuvers/engagements are lacking in sufficient detail to accurately tulips the true aircraft performance.
So it appears that we've reached an impasse once again, I am unable to sway your opinion, nor will you sway mine.
-
You continue to make banal generalizations in your posts
post an example ...
-
i asked for a historic justification for someone else's statement, none was provided.
You know Thor, a lot of the analysis tools we're using didn't really exist back then. I'm the one that posted the chart that showed an accelerated stall condition at 200 mph and 4g. That's an analytical chart based on the 1g stall speed. We could easily test it in game, but since your contention is that the FM is porked, that wouldn't prove much. You won't find any documentation that describes the FW-190 departing at 200mph and 4g because that type of testing wasn't done back then. So, if you're waiting for some Luftwaffe document that proves what I'm saying mathematically, it will never be produced because it doesn't exist. So then the question becomes: "How do we prove to you the relative accuracy of the aerodynamic approximations computed by the Aces High FM?" The answer to that, if you refuse to accept simple aerodynamic theory is "we won't...ever." So really, if you're unable to accept the theoretical as evidence, we have absolutely nothing else to discuss.
If you accept the simple lift equation, why can't you accept a turn equation?
-
look guys my points are that when the vast majority of historic testing, operational POs, and other records, paint one picture of an aircraft and the game reflects something very different then something is not correct.
what is not correct can not be known by us only noticed. now if it was one source document that did not correspond to the game that would be one thing, however in this case it is the exact opposite and i see that as a problem.
what you should be asking imo is why does the historic documentation and the in game result differ so much.
like i said you could write off one or two tests but the 190 is a pretty well documented aircraft shouldn't the majority of the historic records correspond rather than conflict with the FMs?
i submit that since it doesn't and since you say that the calculations must be correct then perhaps the data used in the calculations is flawed. we know some of the weights are well off, what else might be wrong. the A8 is especially too far off from it's historic reputation to leave me content about how successful the approach used here is at least in regards to this example.
you guys are also glossing over some of my points and that is a bit discouraging.
you guys say that things must reflect the known physics and i agree, i just am having trouble understanding how you guys are having so much trouble seeing that things must also reflect the known historic data as well in order to have a really good FM.
You know Thor, a lot of the analysis tools we're using didn't really exist back then. I'm the one that posted the chart that showed an accelerated stall condition at 200 mph and 4g. That's an analytical chart based on the 1g stall speed. We could easily test it in game, but since your contention is that the FM is porked, that wouldn't prove much. You won't find any documentation that describes the FW-190 departing at 200mph and 4g because that type of testing wasn't done back then. So, if you're waiting for some Luftwaffe document that proves what I'm saying mathematically, it will never be produced because it doesn't exist. So then the question becomes: "How do we prove to you the relative accuracy of the aerodynamic approximations computed by the Aces High FM?" The answer to that, if you refuse to accept simple aerodynamic theory is "we won't...ever." So really, if you're unable to accept the theoretical as evidence, we have absolutely nothing else to discuss.
If you accept the simple lift equation, why can't you accept a turn equation?
-
look guys my points are that when the vast majority of historic testing, operational POs, and other records, paint one picture of an aircraft and the game reflects something very different then something is not correct.
And what would that be? Certainly not the Fw190 or Bf109.
you guys say that things must reflect the known physics and i agree, i just am having trouble understanding how you guys are having so much trouble seeing that things must also reflect the known historic data as well in order to have a really good FM.
Post historic data that disagrees. Post evidence. Things like Johnson's Spit V vs Fw190A encounter are not evidence as almost none of the variables are known.
-
OK let's try it this way since you want me to post examples,
Having just reviewed all of your posts in this thread you have managed to post 2 pieces of "evidence". There may be others, but with a clear lack of proper citation it's difficult to differentiate if you paraphrasing from another source.
One is a link to a "Wings of the Luftwaffe" in reply number 138. This clearly lacks the kind of data that Badboy commented on in relation to anecdotal reports.
The second is in post #38 where you posted a screen shot from a history channel show. That's it, you make mention of your numerous posts of evidence but it is very much lacking in this thread.
Now on to specific posts that I felt warrented my previous response.
Here is a sweeping generalization;
no sir, re: the g's, i asked for a historic justification for someone else's statement, none was provided. which leads me to believe none existed.
Here is an example of the repeated point of using anecdotal information as a data source.
no sir data selection is the issue here, no offense ...
Again a generalization with the continued claim of many sources.
no sirs the testing and the game are not in synch in many ways, from many sources,
More of the same "many sources" repetitive argument, with no additional clearly documented sources.
see the problem is that you guys insist on the numbers you produce justify the situation in the game and i and many others have repeatedly on many specific topics have shown that the situation in the game is in direct conflict with real world testing. something is wrong or something is being missed and that is obvious to many.
i just want to help figure that out.
Raising suspicion that Hitech has other concerns that may preclude him from addressing the issue. Given the vast amount of data he has contributed to this thread, your documentation pale's in comparison.
i think hitech has concerns that go far beyond many of the things we are discussing here, he addresses things or doesn't for his own reasons, most of which (in my experience with online interactions) he keeps to himself.
Generalizations about the other aircraft vs the 190's.
i think the 190s handle poorly compared to the rest of the set.
i think that the 190s suffer more than gain as they are impoved in the development representations in the game.
both are directly contradictory to the historic record.
i think sir that values need to be set for the FMs based on what data can be found, i find that the correlation between the data i have found and the FMs behaviors tend to be much more in the more optimistic range for most of the home team air craft, and much more in the pessimistic range for the 190s ...
i also think that after repeated explanations and clarifications on my part i am still getting questions and projections and demands while no one is making any effort to address my POV they just keep demanding data they know is not available and attempting to oversimplify the discussion.
yes much of the flight qualities of an aircraft are quantitative, but i assure you there is more than weight, thrust, drag, and lift variables in the code and beyond that type of data at some point the designers must rely on subjective data in order to define a FM, at that point the choices one uses go a long way in defining the quirks and abilities of each FM
once again ultimately i find that the FMs of the 190s do not live up to the history of the type in many regards especially in comparison to some other FMs who's relation to history seems to be very optimistic.
i have a question for you. have you seen the code? if not, i think your ability to comment on how quantitative it may or may not be is no better than the rest of us.
no offense.
Again with the "vast majority" of generalizations
the handling in the game is inconsistent with the vast majority of tests and POs of the plane.
that is a fact "."
that is what i questioned, and i offered an explanation. somewhere in the process i made a statement for which i have now shown the source which no one now questions.
why now do i feel like you want me to defend myself once again?
the FM does not match up with what it is supposed to be historically. you think the reason is in the numbers,
i think the reason is in the decisions about the source data and the goals for the FM.
i see no need to debate as there is no way for us to know how much of the FM code can be described as subjective and how much is numerically well defined.
i have no problem with being in respectful disagreement with some of you, however i see no reason to be badgered for offering a well supported opinion on these matters.
Here's a good one of the "as the powers that be and the community" acting against you in a conspiracy to thwart the 190's performance.
i don't expect anything and quite frankly i have posted more data on this board than my detractors ever have, including you sir, i have grown tired of it so yes it is time everyone else took their turn to go look and see for themselves as the powers that be and the "community" here have soured my taste for data mining for their benefit, i am certainly not the first and i am sure i am not the last to reach that point with these boards btw ...
so yes, prove me wrong if you can
So in summation I think your repeated unoriginal generalizations, coupled with a clear lack of any real data (or even properly cited anecdotal reports) warranted my previous post.
-
thorsim
What you actually did was to read a post that had a graph showing accelerated stalls and then post that the 190 had a "4g limit in game" you called an accelerated stall a g limit, both well known technical terms, and you got it completely wrong. That may be because you didn't understand the terminology or the effects they relate to, or you simply didn't understand the graph. What ever the reason was, in order to make a credible representation about an aircraft, it would be necessary to use technical terms correctly, or at least have the ability to comprehend basic technical information, or at least have a basic familiarity with the laws of physics. Being able to quote people accurately would help, along with the ability to interpret historical information without distortion or prejudice.
Unfortunately, when all of those issues exist, credibility is reduced to the point where claims can't be taken seriously.
Badboy
-
Baumer: Curious, did you do the formula reduction in your signature or did you see it some where? I never noticed it before,it is interesting seeing it expressed with out a V term. I'm not exactly sure why, but I find it elegant.
HiTech
-
Baumer: Curious, did you do the formula reduction in your signature or did you see it some where? I never noticed it before,it is interesting seeing it expressed with out a V term. I'm not exactly sure why, but I find it elegant.
HiTech
I like that one m'self and so cite it frequently right from wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading scroll down to "turn performance".
You like it, and find it elegant, because the v^2 terms cancel, neatly illustrating your earlier point about the lift and centripetal BOTH increasing like v^2 - to put words in your mouth. There, I've brown-nosed HT (THE MAN) and earned my "points toward my own special 410" for the day.
Anyway, this thread grows tiresome, but was valuable in that it tipped the close-to-the-vest hand a bit, at least regarding thrust distribution.
-
PJ is correct I use it from wiki after comparing it to a couple of aerodynamics books I have. Unlike you guys I don't remember all this stuff and have to look it up frequently!
from wiki link that PJ posted;
"Effect on turning performance"
To turn, an aircraft must roll in the direction of the turn, increasing the aircraft's bank angle. Turning flight lowers the wing's lift component against gravity and hence causes a descent. To compensate, the lift force must be increased by increasing the angle of attack by use of up elevator deflection which increases drag. Turning can be described as 'climbing around a circle' (wing lift is diverted to turning the aircraft) so the increase in wing angle of attack creates even more drag. The tighter the turn radius attempted, the more drag induced, this requires that power (thrust) be added to overcome the drag. The maximum rate of turn possible for a given aircraft design is limited by its wing size and available engine power: the maximum turn the aircraft can achieve and hold is its sustained turn performance. As the bank angle increases so does the g-force applied to the aircraft, this has the effect of increasing the wing loading and also the stalling speed. This effect is also experienced during level pitching manouevers. [8]
Aircraft with low wing loadings tend to have superior sustained turn performance because they can generate more lift for a given quantity of engine thrust. The immediate bank angle an aircraft can achieve before drag seriously bleeds off airspeed is known as its instantaneous turn performance. An aircraft with a small, highly loaded wing may have superior instantaneous turn performance, but poor sustained turn performance: it reacts quickly to control input, but its ability to sustain a tight turn is limited. A classic example is the F-104 Starfighter, which has a very small wing and high wing loading. At the opposite end of the spectrum was the gigantic Convair B-36. Its large wings resulted in a low wing loading, and there are disputed claims that this made the bomber more agile than contemporary jet fighters (the slightly later Hawker Hunter had a similar wing loading of 250 kg/m2) at high altitude. Whatever the truth of that, the delta winged Avro Vulcan bomber, with a wing loading of 260 kg/m2 could certainly be rolled at low altitudes[9].
Like any body in circular motion, an aircraft that is fast and strong enough to maintain level flight at speed v in a circle of radius R accelerates towards the centre at frac{v^2} {R}. That acceleration is caused by the inward horizontal component of the lift, L sin\theta, where θ is the banking angle. Then from Newton's second law ,
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/a/d/2/ad292f130b30f8c20b3975d58f1f8072.png)
Tidying up gives
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/a/5/a/a5aaf8b55baf1840a0700364155896ac.png)
-
That's all Greek to me Baumer but wouldn't θ be AOA?
-
That's all Greek to me Baumer but wouldn't θ be AOA?
Bank... and this is why powerloading becomes significant - for it determines max sustained theta.
AofA implicitly appears in the Cl - itself f(alpha).
-
Thanks PJ, I should have realized AOA was already used to calculate L.
-
very misleading, the wings of the luftwaffe link is a section of the show were they are narrating the german 190 assessment and comparison to the 109, it is nothing like what you are suggesting below sir, if you watched it you would know that, and i have to wonder why you chose to misrepresent it.
the history channel is an example of the common knowlege on this comparison is so much in favor of the 190 that possibly the most bias show on the topic is apparently very comfortable flat out stating what should be obvious to anyone who has looked into this topic even casually, which is that the 190 is easily one of the most if not the most maneuverable fighter of its day and clearly more maneuverable than the p-51d "." i did not present it as proof of anything it was purely an example of the knowlege base on the specific topic.
this is just the same old game, pick some anomalous data and model it, a source that alone in all of history states problems with what was clearly a poorly set up problem airframe.
however since no other report mentions those "problems" no one can find a source that even mentions the problems much less specifically refutes them so no one can find a source to dispute them.
this is what page 23, please find me one other report that supports the 190 behaving in the piss poor manner that the a8 does in the game, and find me a german report that complains about any stall character at all.
until you do i will continue to believe that ...
1) the flight model looks nothing like the calculations you do to justify it.
2) the subjective decisions made in selecting the data values used in the flight model of the 190s are based on
an anomalous discredited source that in no way reflects the historic reality in the case of the 190s.
3) that when the vast body of historic data conflicts with the FM then the process of building the FM is flawed not
the history.
now anybody want to take bets that HTC is either going to divulge it's source data ...
(all of which is public domain BTW and commonly included in FM upgrades in other games when they are proud of their accuracy and market themselves as focusing on reality i.e. they say this is our FM we are proud of it and this is how we came about the goal performance or this is how the plane really flew and here is the proof)
or its FM code to divulge how the values they decide on from above are implemented in the game?
now here is my problem with you guys. if i am FOS then just go find some credible historic data that proves it.
look into the 190 as deeply as i have looking for a reason for the way it is in the game/s ...
when you can't maybe you will come to see my points.
OK let's try it this way since you want me to post examples,
Having just reviewed all of your posts in this thread you have managed to post 2 pieces of "evidence". There may be others, but with a clear lack of proper citation it's difficult to differentiate if you paraphrasing from another source.
One is a link to a "Wings of the Luftwaffe" in reply number 138. This clearly lacks the kind of data that Badboy commented on in relation to anecdotal reports.
The second is in post #38 where you posted a screen shot from a history channel show. That's it, you make mention of your numerous posts of evidence but it is very much lacking in this thread.
Now on to specific posts that I felt warrented my previous response.
Here is a sweeping generalization;
Here is an example of the repeated point of using anecdotal information as a data source.
Again a generalization with the continued claim of many sources.
More of the same "many sources" repetitive argument, with no additional clearly documented sources.
Raising suspicion that Hitech has other concerns that may preclude him from addressing the issue. Given the vast amount of data he has contributed to this thread, your documentation pale's in comparison.
Generalizations about the other aircraft vs the 190's.
Again with the "vast majority" of generalizations
Here's a good one of the "as the powers that be and the community" acting against you in a conspiracy to thwart the 190's performance.
So in summation I think your repeated unoriginal generalizations, coupled with a clear lack of any real data (or even properly cited anecdotal reports) warranted my previous post.
-
[..]you all need to come to terms with this stuff, the 190 is described by the Luftwaffe, RAF, VVS as exceptionally easy to fly with impeccable handling, both the germans and the soviets thought its effective turn was better than the 109s a plane the british admit turned as well and some now say better than the spitfire, yet in the games ...
[..]
Apparently, thorsim, you prefer anecdotes over maths. I'm happy to oblige :)
I'm sure somebody will have a scan of the original report but i suppose you know it since it has often been brought up. The Rechlin test center report issued in December 1941 included the following about relative turn capabilities of a 109F-4 vs a 190A-2:
"It has yet to be determined whether the Fw190 turns tighter than the Bf109."
The two people who did the test, Hptm Gordon Max Gollob (who signed the report) and a civilian, Heinrich Beauvais, took turns in these two aircraft.
Beauvais said:
"[..]First he flew the 109 and was at least superior in turning [..] There was a tendency to disbelieve its inferiority in turning. The report stated that "it has yet to be determined whether the Fw190 turns tighter than the Bf109." In my opinion this should be viewed as misleading. It is true that the turning radii were not measured, but that did not really matter. What did matter was turning times, and in this respect the Bf109 was clearly superior."
You find this quote in Dietmar Hermann's book "Focke-Wulf Fw190A", ISBN 0-7643-1940-X
If you go by pilot report, that's a pretty authoritative one. Both pilots found the 190 to be "better" than the 109 btw.
It also illustrates the problems with these reports. Usually, there is no speed or altitude in it nor any definition of "outturn".
If you fly a 190A8 in this game you can easily produce an overshoot versus a(ny) 109 which will look like "he outturned me!" to him.
All it matters is sufficient speed.. and you can do it only once because you will have lost a good chunk of energy.
But it still is comparing apples and oranges: High speed elevator authority+stick forces, better deceleration favor the 190 (which brings us back to "good handling qualities") but it will be outturned by every 109 in a sustained turn.
-
i don't believe that anywhere you will find that i posted in disagreement of anything you relate below,
you also will nowhere find me misrepresenting a source i put forward.
did you happen to note in these 23 pages what my basic problem is with the 190?
it has nothing specifically to do with sustained turn rate. gaston has a turn rate issue.
i otoh have a matching history, and source data complaint which centers around departure characteristics and overall handling of the 190s which i believe the reports you quote below found to be soo excellent that the 190 project was pushed forward on that ability in spite of some persistent engine overheating issues the type was suffering at that time.
my only support of gaston is that his data is actual data and should be taken into account in a respectful manner as all data should. what any data actually says and does not say must be considered carefully and i believe i have been clear on that point as well.
EDIT : a good FM will be reflective of the majority of historic testing not in contradiction of it. there is IMO a problem with the 190s in the game/s
Apparently, thorsim, you prefer anecdotes over maths. I'm happy to oblige :)
I'm sure somebody will have a scan of the original report but i suppose you know it since it has often been brought up. The Rechlin test center report issued in December 1941 included the following about relative turn capabilities of a 109F-4 vs a 190A-2:
The two people who did the test, Hptm Gordon Max Gollob (who signed the report) and a civilian, Heinrich Beauvais, took turns in these two aircraft.
Beauvais said:You find this quote in Dietmar Hermann's book "Focke-Wulf Fw190A", ISBN 0-7643-1940-X
If you go by pilot report, that's a pretty authoritative one. Both pilots found the 190 to be "better" than the 109 btw.
It also illustrates the problems with these reports. Usually, there is no speed or altitude in it nor any definition of "outturn".
If you fly a 190A8 in this game you can easily produce an overshoot versus a(ny) 109 which will look like "he outturned me!" to him.
All it matters is sufficient speed.. and you can do it only once because you will have lost a good chunk of energy.
But it still is comparing apples and oranges: High speed elevator authority+stick forces, better deceleration favor the 190 (which brings us back to "good handling qualities") but it will be outturned by every 109 in a sustained turn.
-
If you go by pilot report, that's a pretty authoritative one. Both pilots found the 190 to be "better" than the 109 btw.
Thats brings up a good question, what where they looking for when they claimed better? As far as I can tell, the 109K4 can out climb, out turn and probably go faster than a 190d9 and a G14 easily 'out performs' a fw 190 A8 in AH. Were they comparing a 109g6 to a 190d9?
-
Thorsim you are just to funny, I sometimes think you go on like this for some odd reason just because you think you are actually making a persuasive argument.
You ask me to post examples of your replies in this thread that warranted my post.
I did that.
You've repeatedly made the statement that you have posted sources that contradict the flight model.
You have not.
You have stated that because no one has done a mathematical proof of basic aerodynamic formulas, they can't be accurate.
That's complete nonsense.
If it's even remotely possible, you should step back and take some time for introspection and really ask yourself if you can be objective in your analysis.
If you want to look at my objectivity take a look at Spatulas utility, and look at my stats. I have more kills in the Fw190D-9 then any other plane in Aces High. So you are not the only one who likes the 190 series in this thread. I want them to be modeled as accurately as possible, however I understand that accuracy is based on data, not "I think" or "it's wrong, fix it".
Krusty actually had a very good point way back at the beginning of this thread, he stated something to the effect, "post the data and let HTC figure it out".
-
baumer do you really think all they do is put in thrust weight drag and lift etc. values into a formula and the FM pops out ???
there is much more to it and much of that process is subjective and dependent on a data selection process which has also been shown to be subjective.
for example i pointed out that when someone tested the stall speeds and described the departure i pointed out that how the plane stalled is in direct conflict with the vast majority of historic testing. that sir is a problem.
the same thing was noted in the 109 and i asked another poster to provide historic data and he admitted it was a game issue. since i am sure you will find that what was described in the game is in that case also in direct conflict with the documented historic and modern testing of the 109 that as well is a problem.
baumer what i find funny is that on the one hand you yourself point out that the numbers used in the game/s are flawed and on the other hand when i point out that the behavior of the FM is contrary to history you try and discredit me using math with numbers you yourself have noted are flawed.
i am not "just thinking" here i assure you i do not have the ability to travel through time and influence other peoples experiences. i sir am relaying the opinions and tests of people who actually have real world experience in the aircraft in question and it is every bit the data that you profess the numeric values you use are.
once again ...
a good FM will be reflective of the majority of historic testing not in contradiction to it.
Thorsim you are just to funny, I sometimes think you go on like this for some odd reason just because you think you are actually making a persuasive argument.
You ask me to post examples of your replies in this thread that warranted my post.
I did that.
You've repeatedly made the statement that you have posted sources that contradict the flight model.
You have not.
You have stated that because no one has done a mathematical proof of basic aerodynamic formulas, they can't be accurate.
That's complete nonsense.
If it's even remotely possible, you should step back and take some time for introspection and really ask yourself if you can be objective in your analysis.
If you want to look at my objectivity take a look at Spatulas utility, and look at my stats. I have more kills in the Fw190D-9 then any other plane in Aces High. So you are not the only one who likes the 190 series in this thread. I want them to be modeled as accurately as possible, however I understand that accuracy is based on data, not "I think" or "it's wrong, fix it".
Krusty actually had a very good point way back at the beginning of this thread, he stated something to the effect, "post the data and let HTC figure it out".
-
Thats brings up a good question, what where they looking for when they claimed better? As far as I can tell, the 109K4 can out climb, out turn and probably go faster than a 190d9 and a G14 easily 'out performs' a fw 190 A8 in AH. Were they comparing a 109g6 to a 190d9?
If you had read the first section, you would have seen this:
The Rechlin test center report issued in December 1941 included the following about relative turn capabilities of a 109F-4 vs a 190A-2
ack-ack
-
Edited, post was obsolete by ack-ack's.
-
Thor let me try clue you in.
Baumer made a post about a weight problem. He posted the data sheet he worked from (note it was an original document NOT 2nd hand information).
2 he did real analysis of AH's weight as compared to his document.
3. He found a discrepancy.
4. He did real math as to what EXACTLY he thought the discrepancy was.
5. I saw his post walked over to Doug and said what you think of this.
6. We decided to look into it.
Your post.
1. You read this document that the pilot said the FW was not bad in stalls.
2. You think AH is not docile in stalls.
3. You have no real frame of reference of what stalls are like in a plane.
I read your post after all the other BS you have posted and just simply ignore it , because every post you ever make has 1 thing in common.
It wants to make the FW or 109 better then it is currently modeled. And every post shows nothing really concrete to back up you post. You try use stuff like the history channel to back up a claim. At every possible turn you try to flame HTC. You post in a criticizing manner in every effort you make.When corned you simply change topics and go onto some other item you wish to complain about, and then months later say your 1st issue was not addressed when you were proven wrong. You try to argue physics with people who do this stuff for a living and then wish to argue that there math means nothing just because you can't do the same.
You show no interest what so every to try gain a working knowledge of the what makes planes fly so you will make statements like a plane is 900lb to heavy with out realizing a discrepancy of that magnitude is almost impossible to happen because it causes conflicts with many other numbers that say something is not correct. We have seen documents of the 205 that say it can climb faster then the HP that the same document said the plane had. If you don't have just the basics of math to be able to do simple analysis you would state we are biased because we don't make the 205 fly like the document said.
Now why would I given even the slightest credibility to your thoughts about the way a plane should fly. When you give us 0 credibility for knowledge of the subject even though we do this stuff for a living.
HiTech
-
Yes, I believe that given my understanding of how fluid dynamics are computer modeled, that there is an aerodynamic 3d model within the game. That model interacts with the mathematical equations that then calculate the specific performance as the maneuver is being performed.
I also believe that every 3d model interacts with the same mathematical equations no matter if it's a Dr.1, Spit V, B-17 or RV-8.
I do not believe that there are separate or unique interactions with the math formulas based on it being a P-51 or an Fw 190.
The test you are referring to has been addressed all ready but I'll try again. As badboy pointed out there are numerous ways to encounter a stall and that Stoney's chart may be in error based on his flight precision. If you read the PDF with Badboys calculator you would appreciate how difficult/demanding performing flight testing is.
Having been a member of the CAF and actually flown several WW2 aircraft, I can also judge aircraft anecdotes very well. In 1995 I got to meet several members of the flying tigers during one of their reunions. They spoke of the P-40 in glowing terms, witch differed greatly for the actual performance of the plane. So I have first hand experience in listening to and objectively analyzing pilot statements about an aircraft's performance.
I am not trying to discredit you, I am trying to get you to understand that what you continually state is data, is nothing more than subjective anecdotes.
Reiterating what I stated in the first line of this post, subjectivity plays no part in the 3d model or the mathematical equations.
-
See rule #4
-
He probably came to the same conclusion as me:
"Thorsim is an idiotic time-wasting whiner with a shapeless axe to grind and time on his hands. Why should I feed his habit?"
-
that really is not what i was looking for, so lets go slow ...
the flight model has to define things that are not defined by the physical characteristics of the plane, can we agree on that?
Yes, I believe that given my understanding of how fluid dynamics are computer modeled, that there is an aerodynamic 3d model within the game. That model interacts with the mathematical equations that then calculate the specific performance as the maneuver is being performed.
I also believe that every 3d model interacts with the same mathematical equations no matter if it's a Dr.1, Spit V, B-17 or RV-8.
I do not believe that there are separate or unique interactions with the math formulas based on it being a P-51 or an Fw 190.
The test you are referring to has been addressed all ready but I'll try again. As badboy pointed out there are numerous ways to encounter a stall and that Stoney's chart may be in error based on his flight precision. If you read the PDF with Badboys calculator you would appreciate how difficult/demanding performing flight testing is.
Having been a member of the CAF and actually flown several WW2 aircraft, I can also judge aircraft anecdotes very well. In 1995 I got to meet several members of the flying tigers during one of their reunions. They spoke of the P-40 in glowing terms, witch differed greatly for the actual performance of the plane. So I have first hand experience in listening to and objectively analyzing pilot statements about an aircraft's performance.
I am not trying to discredit you, I am trying to get you to understand that what you continually state is data, is nothing more than subjective anecdotes.
Reiterating what I stated in the first line of this post, subjectivity plays no part in the 3d model or the mathematical equations.
-
the flight model has to define things that are not defined by the physical characteristics of the plane, can we agree on that?
No. The flight model can only be based on the physical characteristics of the aircraft.
When you start with a false conclusion as your first premise, you can never validate it with facts. The point of a circular argument is that it can't be defeated by argument. That's why they're so popular. But you can't prove a circular argument either, you can only believe in it. :old:
-
have you seen the code? have you sen the way they adjust the variables and what those values are?
No. The flight model can only be based on the physical characteristics of the aircraft.
When you start with a false conclusion as your first premise, you can never validate it with facts. The point of a circular argument is that it can't be defeated by argument. That's why they're so popular. But you can't prove a circular argument either, you can only believe in it. :old:
-
have you seen the code? have you sen the way they adjust the variables and what those values are?
I don't need to see the code, I've seen the arguments, that's enough. I understand you and I don't feel any need to try and change your mind.
-
I don't need to see the code, I've seen the arguments, that's enough. I understand you and I don't feel any need to try and change your mind.
just curious how do you suppose they establish the differences in stick forces or rudder authority or trim effectiveness or compression effects etc etc.
i.e. all those things that the basic physical parameters of the plane won't tell you in any real detail.
how do you numerically represent the differences in flight character between the changes in the shape of a tail surface or a wing tip or the change in the material used in a control surface?
-
that really is not what i was looking for, so lets go slow ...
the flight model has to define things that are not defined by the physical characteristics of the plane, can we agree on that?
no
-
Thorsim please read these pages on modeling. They will address your questions of how computer models can handle different materials and forces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_fluid_dynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_fluid_dynamics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_element_analysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_element_analysis)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immersed_Boundary_Method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immersed_Boundary_Method)
-
i will, in the meantime why don't you show me where one can find all the data required to define these things in the aircraft modeled in the game.
Thorsim please read these pages on modeling. They will address your questions of how computer models can handle different materials and forces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_fluid_dynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_fluid_dynamics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_element_analysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_element_analysis)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immersed_Boundary_Method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immersed_Boundary_Method)
-
Here is a link to a set of Fw 190A-8 blueprints you can buy,
http://www.aircraft-manuals.com/fowufwa8aibl.html (http://www.aircraft-manuals.com/fowufwa8aibl.html)
Here is a quote from the site;
"From the original manufacturing drawings converted first on microfilm and now in electronic format Airframe Engineering Drawings ( Blueprints ) Tiff and PDF Graphic format # 900 Engineering drawings sheets This set contains drawings for most aspects of this aircraft - Bremen blueprints for the Fuselage and Wings, Rudder, elevator, canopy, windscreen, cockpit, formers, ribs, instrument panel and supporting structures, cockpit side panel, control linkages, cockpit controls, dimensions between ribs and formers, wing riveting plans, maintenance access panels. Included are very accurate fuselage cross sections with data co-ordinates for the curves. This Set of Engineering Drawings are not complete or exhaustive."
This would be a very good start for an accurate model.
I don't know where HTC got their data but at worst case they could get all the data by simply going to an existing airframe and getting all the measurements. That would be a very long and tedious process, but it could be done.
-
LMAO The thread that just keeps on giving.
Baumer post hard data and presto HT going to take a look at it.
Meanwhile back in toontown Thor keeps spouting hyprbole hoping to get noticed.
Thor set your hair on fire next.... you might get noticed that way.
-
those are really cool and it would be great if that is how detailed HTC was about getting the actual forces modeled . however since by his own admission he uses data instead of force load calculations i am going to have to point out that your projection on how things are done in AH is a fail.
Thorsim please read these pages on modeling. They will address your questions of how computer models can handle different materials and forces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_fluid_dynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_fluid_dynamics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_element_analysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_element_analysis)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immersed_Boundary_Method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immersed_Boundary_Method)
yes it would, but that is not how it is done in AH.
Here is a link to a set of Fw 190A-8 blueprints you can buy,
http://www.aircraft-manuals.com/fowufwa8aibl.html (http://www.aircraft-manuals.com/fowufwa8aibl.html)
Here is a quote from the site;
"From the original manufacturing drawings converted first on microfilm and now in electronic format Airframe Engineering Drawings ( Blueprints ) Tiff and PDF Graphic format # 900 Engineering drawings sheets This set contains drawings for most aspects of this aircraft - Bremen blueprints for the Fuselage and Wings, Rudder, elevator, canopy, windscreen, cockpit, formers, ribs, instrument panel and supporting structures, cockpit side panel, control linkages, cockpit controls, dimensions between ribs and formers, wing riveting plans, maintenance access panels. Included are very accurate fuselage cross sections with data co-ordinates for the curves. This Set of Engineering Drawings are not complete or exhaustive."
This would be a very good start for an accurate model.
I don't know where HTC got their data but at worst case they could get all the data by simply going to an existing airframe and getting all the measurements. That would be a very long and tedious process, but it could be done.
light your own hair on fire and note the fail above ...
LMAO The thread that just keeps on giving.
Baumer post hard data and presto HT going to take a look at it.
Meanwhile back in toontown Thor keeps spouting hyprbole hoping to get noticed.
Thor set your hair on fire next.... you might get noticed that way.
-
i am going to have to point out that your projection on how things are done in AH is a fail.
Keep insulting the man... the fail that will be heading your way will be epically funnay. :aok
-
Keep insulting the man... the fail that will be heading your way will be epically funnay. :aok
who did i insult? and what exactly were you inferring with "toontown"?
-
Are you guys not surprised thorsim isn't able to provide any data? It's a common theme in all of his threads and if anyone provides the data that shows he's wrong, he dismisses them.
ack-ack
-
Are you guys not surprised thorsim isn't able to provide any data? It's a common theme in all of his threads and if anyone provides the data that shows he's wrong, he dismisses them.
ack-ack
and this data that has proven me wrong would be where?
-
and this data that has proven me wrong would be where?
and your *cough* data has proven ht's model wrong how?
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
just curious which story will you be sticking with?
and your *cough* data has proven ht's model wrong how?
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Are you guys not surprised thorsim isn't able to provide any data? It's a common theme in all of his threads and if anyone provides the data that shows he's wrong, he dismisses them.
ack-ack
-
just curious how do you suppose they establish the differences in stick forces
There is an NACA document that has roll rates across a speed spectrum using (can't remember which) 50lbs or 60lbs of stick force. That gives some data for stick forces for some aircraft.
Obviously a lot of stuff has to be fudged in any simulation about WWII equipment.
An example of a fudge would be the Ki-84's roll rate. When it was first added it rolled slower than a full span Spitfire. It was changed after somebody produced a Royal Navy flight test in which it was noted that the Ki-84 significantly outrolled the Seafire Mk III.
-
what you mean they didn't use a blueprint and a slide rule ?
There is an NACA document that has roll rates across a speed spectrum using (can't remember which) 50lbs or 60lbs of stick force. That gives some data for stick forces for some aircraft.
Obviously a lot of stuff has to be fudged in any simulation about WWII equipment.
An example of a fudge would be the Ki-84's roll rate. When it was first added it rolled slower than a full span Spitfire. It was changed after somebody produced a Royal Navy flight test in which it was noted that the Ki-84 significantly outrolled the Seafire Mk III.
-
those are really cool and it would be great if that is how detailed HTC was about getting the actual forces modeled . however since by his own admission he uses data instead of force load calculations i am going to have to point out that your projection on how things are done in AH is a fail.
I believe that your attempted fail has failed.
DeezCamp I have been using Blade Element therory since I started writing sims.
HiTech
You can read this to learn more about blade element theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_element_theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_element_theory)
But I'll just post this little snip-it to help speed up the process, (I added the bold/underline/italics)
"Blade element theory (BET) is a mathematical process originally designed by William Froude (1878), David W. Taylor (1893) and Stefan Drzewiecki to determine the behavior of propellers. It involves breaking a blade down into several small parts then determining the forces on each of these small blade elements. These forces are then integrated along the entire blade and over one rotor revolution in order to obtain the forces and moments produced by the entire propeller or rotor."
-
what you mean they didn't use a blueprint and a slide rule ?
I doubt there is anything to use such tools on in regards to the Ki-84. You'd need to know precise cable runs, attachment points, hinge points, lever points, control surface area and such in order to have any hope of calculating stick forces or control surface effectiveness that way and I doubt it would be possible even then. I understand that the Japanese destroyed most of their technical documentation at the end of the war.
-
ok well then i am curious if he uses these calculations exclusively why would he care about the weight discrepancies you posted?
I believe that your attempted fail has failed.
You can read this to learn more about blade element theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_element_theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_element_theory)
But I'll just post this little snip-it to help speed up the process, (I added the bold/underline/italics)
"Blade element theory (BET) is a mathematical process originally designed by William Froude (1878), David W. Taylor (1893) and Stefan Drzewiecki to determine the behavior of propellers. It involves breaking a blade down into several small parts then determining the forces on each of these small blade elements. These forces are then integrated along the entire blade and over one rotor revolution in order to obtain the forces and moments produced by the entire propeller or rotor."
-
yea i think it would be cumbersome in the extreme to approach a sim that way as well.
I doubt there is anything to use such tools on in regards to the Ki-84. You'd need to know precise cable runs, attachment points, hinge points, lever points, control surface area and such in order to have any hope of calculating stick forces or control surface effectiveness that way and I doubt it would be possible even then. I understand that the Japanese destroyed most of their technical documentation at the end of the war.
-
just curious which story will you be sticking with?
There is no difference between what Bronk and I have stated. The only data you've presented have been purely anecdotal, which in these types of discussions is basically no data. Others have presented and shown the math behind it and all you've been able to present is "pilot so and so said...".
ack-ack
-
and this data that has proven me wrong would be where?
I think Braumer's and Badboy did a pretty good job but that's just me.
ack-ack
-
right ok so your position is that any historic documented real world experience information no matter how well supported or how many separate sources agree, is in the opinion of the community completely irrelevant in comparison to in house mathematic formulations done with undisclosed data numbers which by the way have been proven to have been in error in several cases in this thread alone?
is that the argument you guys are trying to make?
There is no difference between what Bronk and I have stated. The only data you've presented have been purely anecdotal, which in these types of discussions is basically no data. Others have presented and shown the math behind it and all you've been able to present is "pilot so and so said...".
ack-ack
I think Braumer's and Badboy did a pretty good job but that's just me.
ack-ack
-
You continually fail to grasp the concept that nothing you have posted has been "well supported".
It is my position that correct data, used in a correct mathematical model, can produce an accurate program for simulating aircraft performance.
-
thorsim,
The reason combat reports fail to meet the criteria of evidence of performance is because there are too many unknown variables. Whenever you look at flight performance testing it is always done in a fashion to eliminate differences caused by other variables and to isolate the thing being tested. In a combat report that is not true and, worse, you almost always only have one side of the encounter described.
-
You continually fail to grasp the concept that nothing you have posted has been "well supported".
so you are saying that my position that the FW-190s were excellent handling aircraft with outstanding maneuverability is not well supported?
are you saying that the aircraft so described above by so many sources could ever be modeled accurately and be described as a pig as they so often are in AH?
clearly you yourself was curious enough about at least one of the representations of this aircraft type to investigate it, and you yourself found flaws with this FM. i mean were not you supporting my claims of inaccuracy by being compelled to investigate the matter in the first place?
It is my position that correct data, used in a correct mathematical model, can produce an accurate program for simulating aircraft performance.
i think you can gleam a lot of general information with the method you put forward above.
however i also believe that to be able to model the specifics of an aircraft you also need real world flight testing and comparative data taken by humans.
after all if you could know everything about an aircraft from a design program then there would be no need for test pilots anymore, would there? a computer program and all those equations will not be able to tell you exactly how a plane will behave in a stall.
also you have touched on the core of my point, which was in my first post in this thread.
how do you know ...
A) what the "correct data" is ...
B) if the "correct data" is in fact the data being used in the game/s, especially when the source data is a "secret".
-
i agree, and i have not relied on combat reports as much as i have on testing, there are many flight tests referenced in this thread, i think all types of accounts can offer insight but i have nowhere suggested one source or even one type of source should ever be used exclusively to define a FM or any aspect of an FM, that sir is what i am saying is wrong here.
thorsim,
The reason combat reports fail to meet the criteria of evidence of performance is because there are too many unknown variables. Whenever you look at flight performance testing it is always done in a fashion to eliminate differences caused by other variables and to isolate the thing being tested. In a combat report that is not true and, worse, you almost always only have one side of the encounter described.
-
thorsim,
Post a flight test of the Fw190 that shows it to be a great turning aircraft. I say turning because that is the repeated focus of these threads. Nobody argues that the Fw190 isn't very crisp to maneuver and has an great roll rate.
I have never seen a test that supports your contention that it should turn with Spitfires.
-
right ok so your position is that any historic documented real world experience information no matter how well supported or how many separate sources agree, is in the opinion of the community completely irrelevant in comparison to in house mathematic formulations done with undisclosed data numbers which by the way have been proven to have been in error in several cases in this thread alone?
is that the argument you guys are trying to make?
Nothing you've provided has been 'well supported', all it's been has been "pilot A said plane X turned better than plane Y" and you "support" it by referencing a show on the History Channel.
ack-ack
-
look at what has been presented here and review my complaint i am not gaston my issue is not with the sustained turn rates of the 190s.
BTW the "tv-show" was narrating from the the german evaluation teams report on the 190 which i am not about to type out here although another poster has typed out some of it and refrenced where you may find it in print.
Nothing you've provided has been 'well supported', all it's been has been "pilot A said plane X turned better than plane Y" and you "support" it by referencing a show on the History Channel.
ack-ack
i never said that re-read the thread and quit misquoting me ...
thorsim,
Post a flight test of the Fw190 that shows it to be a great turning aircraft. I say turning because that is the repeated focus of these threads. Nobody argues that the Fw190 isn't very crisp to maneuver and has an great roll rate.
I have never seen a test that supports your contention that it should turn with Spitfires.
until you guys start addressing the things that i have addressed this conversation will not go anywhere
-
until you guys start addressing the things that i have addressed this conversation will not go anywhere
Sorry, addressing hyperbole is counterproductive. Giving it any credence is bad juju.
-
Sorry, addressing hyperbole is counterproductive. Giving it any credence is bad juju.
how ironic ...
-
Thor you are a 190 zealot plain and simple. No amount of discussion/posting of hard data will dissuade you from the belief that it is the superior WWII prop AC. I'll leave you to post more hyperbole on why it is the uberest WWII ac.
-
Thor you are a 190 zealot plain and simple. No amount of discussion/posting of hard data will dissuade you from the belief that it is the superior WWII prop AC. I'll leave you to post more hyperbole on why it is the uberest WWII ac.
more like i've read enough about the type to be convinced that the designers of WB/AH decided to use the data from a USN test that by far shows the 190 in it's least favorable light as its source data for the type.
so now we have a 190 series that most matches a flight test that nobody uses for it's obvious flaws defining the abilities and liabilities of the type in the game/s and that is why the plane falls so far short of it's historic reputation in the game/s.
oh, except for one feature that the USN test differs from the game/s 190s. the USN didn't find a reason to deny the type the use of it's combat flaps the way the designers of WB/AH have.
point of fact my favorite plane of WW2 is the jugg. "Thunderbolt" is the book that first peaked my interest in WW-2 air combat.
-
(http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv220/wforman/motivatorff14c9b1a5a26438598dfa7303.jpg)
(replace 109 with 190 in the pic, I can't take credit for this one but it is incredibly accurate :devil )
-
(http://www.luft46.com/ggart/gg802-1.jpg)
http://www.luft46.com/ggart/gg802-1.jpg
fixed ;) ...
(http://i685.photobucket.com/albums/vv220/wforman/motivatorff14c9b1a5a26438598dfa7303.jpg)
(replace 109 with 190 in the pic, I can't take credit for this one but it is incredibly accurate :devil )
-
(http://www.luft46.com/ggart/gg802-1.jpg)
http://www.luft46.com/ggart/gg802-1.jpg
fixed ;) ...
I actually modelled this aircraft in using Plane Maker for X-Plane once. Pretty sweet.
-
Finally he has been put to rest. Even though this thread was irritating because of thorism I liked to read it because of the input from guys like Baumer, Stoney, HT, etc.
-
Just so I am understanding you correctly here Thorsim...
The math and science that is used to determine AcesHigh's flight model, despite being universally accepted as being beyond reproach, is not 'good enough' for you because it lacks the element of "human error".
Why would ANYBODY want a games flight model based in any way on someones opinion? One would think that hard test data, math, and science would be what you want to ensure accuracy.
Add to that that what you are basing your "assumptions on" (your so called 'facts') are sorely lacking the data that would required to give them any merit.
10 people, all experts, can test drive the same car and have 10 different opinions of it.
"I drove a Ferrari once and it seemed a bit mushy in a turn at this one track I was driving it at" does not tell us enough information to base a driving sim on. We don't know the track, time of day, model, etc, etc, etc... Just some guys vague opinion that the car was mushy in a corner.
People make mistakes. Opinions are just that, opinions. Having an opinion doesn't make it a fact.
I would also turn your own argument back at you. You claim that AH models it's 190 series based on that USN test you keep bringing up. Have you seen the Coad (not that you would understand it) to know that for a fact? Has HiTech stepped in here and stated that the AH 190 FM is indeed based on that single test and I missed it?
It seems to me you are basing a whole heck of a lot of your argument on assumptions whereas everybody that has been debating with you has backed their opinions up with stone cold facts.
(there is a saying about assumptions you know...)
-
Just so I am understanding you correctly here Thorsim...
just so you are understanding me i will go over this one more time ...
The math and science that is used to determine AcesHigh's flight model, despite being universally accepted as being beyond reproach, is not 'good enough' for you because it lacks the element of "human error".
the math may or may not be used to one extent or another in the FM, however the data that is put into those formulas to arrive at the values they use to establish the parameters of the flight model are selected from data sources that you all are arguing are too subjective to be taken as data. i submit that it is fundamental to the FM what data is selected.
i will point out that any disagreement on what i state above is also based on assumption and ...
(there is a saying about assumptions you know...)
Why would ANYBODY want a games flight model based in any way on someones opinion? One would think that hard test data, math, and science would be what you want to ensure accuracy.
the hard test data must be arrived at someplace and i do not think the designers have ever had access to the vast majority if any of the planes represented in the game in their wartime configurations and i am positive they have not tested any of them for hard test data so at some point the designers must select data from the historic record. i am amazed that that is not obvious to everyone.
Add to that that what you are basing your "assumptions on" (your so called 'facts') are sorely lacking the data that would required to give them any merit.
the crux here is whether the data used to determine the FM is restricted to weights areas and force loads and then run through a program to determine say roll rate, or whether the values are just input directly from a selected data source or sources and that historic value is input into the FMs directly. since we know some of the values are directly inputted from data sources there is no reason to "assume" that any values are arrived at by any other means. is there?
10 people, all experts, can test drive the same car and have 10 different opinions of it.
"I drove a Ferrari once and it seemed a bit mushy in a turn at this one track I was driving it at" does not tell us enough information to base a driving sim on. We don't know the track, time of day, model, etc, etc, etc... Just some guys vague opinion that the car was mushy in a corner.
now that is not the case here is it? more like 9 guys drove a Ferrari, some for years and in many races and one guy drove a wrecked fiat that was poorly reassembled for a few minutes and they all wrote their opinions of the "Ferrari" and then a programmer chose the Fiat review to represent the Ferrari, in fact he used it as a base for all the Ferraris he modeled.
People make mistakes. Opinions are just that, opinions. Having an opinion doesn't make it a fact.
yes they do, why do you assume it is the testers who are all ...
(save one or 2 who were in the poor little Fiat we discussed earlier)
in very close agreement and actually had access to the type and not the programer?
after all they have admitted to being interested in numbers that seem to show one of their mistakes.
I would also turn your own argument back at you. You claim that AH models it's 190 series based on that USN test you keep bringing up. Have you seen the Coad (not that you would understand it) to know that for a fact? Has HiTech stepped in here and stated that the AH 190 FM is indeed based on that single test and I missed it?
i have some insights into how the values are represented and adjusted in WB, and unless HTC reinvented the wheel when they left there and came here which the similarities in the games makes me doubt i think i have a pretty good general idea of how things are done.
i have stated that the flight character of the 190 most resembles that USN test when the game is compared to the tests that i have been rooting through for several years, yes.
It seems to me you are basing a whole heck of a lot of your argument on assumptions whereas everybody that has been debating with you has backed their opinions up with stone cold facts.
less so than most others here with their ideas about how things are done in the flight modeling world.
i completely understand how math/physics is able to describe the world around us but i assure you the approach
that i have seen is much more like a diving score i.e.
"gizmo variation 11.3"
"doodad effectiveness 10.2"
etc ...
(there is a saying about assumptions you know...)
i don't make assumptions, i relay data and then try to sort out what is going on based on other data.
Just so you are understanding me correctly lute.
t
-
i don't make assumptions, i relay data
Then post it. :rofl
-
i have it's your turn.
Then post it. :rofl
-
i have it's your turn.
You have posted hyperbole. IE feels like/ people said.
I have no problem with the FM , I cant prove a negative.
So good luck with that luftwhiner. :aok
-
you could post another positive that is contradictory ...
unless of course you can't find one ...
BTW "feels like / people said" is the only data you are ever going to find
about much of what needs to be modeled in the game.
since as you should know any chance of absolute proof ended in 1945.
You have posted hyperbole. IE feels like/ people said.
I have no problem with the FM , I cant prove a negative.
So good luck with that luftwhiner. :aok
-
since as you should know any chance of absolute proof ended in 1945.
Funny, baumer had no problem find weight problem and documenting it. Think he was around in 45 maybe? :P
-
thorsim,
Your arguments about the 190's maneuverability don't get the response they do because it is German. A Spitfire fan arguing about how the Spit was a great turn fighter and should turn with A6M2s and Ki-43s would get the same treatment. The difference is, nobody has ever doggedly argued like that on behalf of any non-German fighter on this board.
An 8,500lb fighter with 197 square feet of wing area is not going to turn as well as an 8,000lb fighter with 242 square feet and to think otherwise is absurd.
-
Funny, baumer had no problem find weight problem and documenting it. Think he was around in 45 maybe? :P
and he used no data from 1945, or earlier ?
? ? ?
-
An 8,500lb fighter with 197 square feet of wing area is not going to turn as well as an 8,000lb fighter with 242 square feet and to think otherwise is absurd.
where have i said one should ?
-
LOL persona non grata and still posting,someone missed a click. :lol
-
i don't make assumptions, i relay data and then try to sort out what is going on based on other data.
Since you like to continually practice the five D's of dodge-ball, let me fix this statement for you.
"I don't make assumptions, I relay on anecdotal hearsay and then try to sort out what is going on based on other data and change the topic when it doesn't fit."
There is absolutely no further value to continuing this discussion with you Thorsim. The people who actually matter, and or can rationally discuss a topic, have spoken up. Given your inability to rationally discuss issues, or properly continue a discussion with out dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge, I will no longer waste my time trying to discuss anything with you.
Good luck with your future endeavors,
Baumer
-
the best to you sir i hope your travels are all safe in those computer designed vehicles that still need to be hand tested, you know to make sure the data and the real world results are within acceptable ranges of one another.
Since you like to continually practice the five D's of dodge-ball, let me fix this statement for you.
"I don't make assumptions, I relay on anecdotal hearsay and then try to sort out what is going on based on other data and change the topic when it doesn't fit."
There is absolutely no further value to continuing this discussion with you Thorsim. The people who actually matter, and or can rationally discuss a topic, have spoken up. Given your inability to rationally discuss issues, or properly continue a discussion with out dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge, I will no longer waste my time trying to discuss anything with you.
Good luck with your future endeavors,
Baumer
-
LOL persona non grata and still posting,someone missed a click. :lol
probably rewriting the TOS as we post ...
-
i have it's your turn.
You posted NOTHING. You are now going to be PNG'd when HTC gets into the office in the AM and thankfully, not allowed to post any more.
-
probably rewriting the TOS as we post ...
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2022/2349194940_3009a8a436.jpg?v=0)
Not advisable.
-
What I really think, and I posted this opinion WAY back when Thorsim 1st showed up here, is this is a case of a guy who can't fly very well and blaming the game.
Just because HE can't fly a 190 worth a crud doesn't mean many, many other players can.
If you think about it, in a round about way, Thorsim is somewhat right believe it or not. There is a flaw in the 190 we have in AH that is based on human error and miscalculations. The problem, obviously, is the pilot.
-
4- Flamebaiting, flaming, being abusing, being disrepectful, trolling, spamming or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed. If you cannot make a positive contribution to the thread, then just stay out of it.
pretty much didn't do any of that ...
-
Not sure though that thorsim needs to be PNG'd, he's the last of the Lufthwhiners and we should preserve them so the future generations can have some amusement.
ack-ack
-
Some days I really hate computers. Or more correctly stupid coaders.
HiTech
-
Some days I really hate computers. Or more correctly stupid coaders.
HiTech
:rofl
-
I'm slightly inclined to agree with Ack-Ack; however, this guy really had it coming to him.
once again i fail
-
Well I don't agree with that. A subject was brought up and feed back is what makes or breaks the thread. Unfortunately there is always those who come in to put in their two cents and do so with the intent to breed content and cause dysfunction within the community. Yes every one has an opinion and has a right to voice it. But watching these threads from afar it is evident that some of the participants go out of their way either unintentional or on purpose to cause friction and discord among the community to meet their goals. If you feel the persons view is wrong state you objections and reasons why. But there are those who seem to violate rule #4 and then accuse others of doing the same thing. I say don't get self righteous and then accuse the other side of aggravating the problem. I would say everyone needs to step back and take a long look at the problem and at themselves. If you have a problem with my opinion then contact me at fphpcp@yahoo.com and I will be happy to discuss it individually.
-
But watching these threads from afar it is evident that some of the participants go out of their way either unintentional or on purpose to cause friction and discord among the community to meet their goals.
well put, sadly some need to put down others to feel good about their pathetic selves (I'm not referring to the PNG although I don't agree with it either)... The thread was why the A8 performance was worse than the A5's and there was some interesting stuff here. The thread was not an excuse to trash talk each other and add no value.
:salute
-
well put, sadly some need to put down others to feel good about their pathetic selves... The thread was why the A8 performance was worse than the A5's and there was some interesting stuff here. The thread was not an excuse to trash talk each other and add no value.
:salute
Not that I agree with the PNG but this thread is nothing more than your typical Luftwhiner thread, pure and simple. Both Gaston and thorsim were repeatedly shown data that they dismissed because of a complete lack of understanding of the subject and yet insisted in claiming the flight model was porked. They made their beds and now they have to lie in them.
ack-ack
-
So the consensus is that the A8 may have a few extra pounds on it? Also, what exactly is the engine output modeled by the game? Looking online there appears to be mild discrepancies between sources.
-
"this thread is nothing more than your typical Luftwhiner thread, pure and simple"
FYI
"The 190 A5 engine 1,700 PS (1,677 hp, 1,250 kW)
The 190 A8 engine 1,980 PS (1,953 hp, 1,456 kW)
wouldn't that give it more power & make it climb faster and fly faster?
If the engine's power did not offset the weight gain, why did they add it?"
That's a legit question Ardy started this thread with i.e the change in power loading vs. the effect of general weight increase on performance.
What it came to be once luftloonies popped in and allyfanboys started tossing their usual HTC approved poop is another matter.
-C+
-
"this thread is nothing more than your typical Luftwhiner thread, pure and simple"
FYI
"The 190 A5 engine 1,700 PS (1,677 hp, 1,250 kW)
The 190 A8 engine 1,980 PS (1,953 hp, 1,456 kW)
wouldn't that give it more power & make it climb faster and fly faster?
If the engine's power did not offset the weight gain, why did they add it?"
That's a legit question Ardy started this thread with i.e the change in power loading vs. the effect of general weight increase on performance.
What it came to be once luftloonies popped in and allyfanboys started tossing their usual HTC approved poop is another matter.
-C+
And HT said he and pyro would look into the weight issue... after BAUMER posted hard data. Isn't that what we all want and not a FM designed around what pilot x said it felt like/or what it did in x situation?
-
"this thread is nothing more than your typical Luftwhiner thread, pure and simple"
FYI
"The 190 A5 engine 1,700 PS (1,677 hp, 1,250 kW)
The 190 A8 engine 1,980 PS (1,953 hp, 1,456 kW)
wouldn't that give it more power & make it climb faster and fly faster?
If the engine's power did not offset the weight gain, why did they add it?"
That's a legit question Ardy started this thread with i.e the change in power loading vs. the effect of general weight increase on performance.
What it came to be once luftloonies popped in and allyfanboys started tossing their usual HTC approved poop is another matter.
-C+
Allyfanboys? You really should read this thread again or have someone read it to you slowly. No one was expousing the virtues of Allied aircraft or trying to state that Allied planes were better, this thread was pure Lufthwhiner B.S.
ack-ack
-
...allyfanboys started tossing their usual HTC approved poop is another matter.
Seriously???
-
Having been a member of the CAF and actually flown several WW2 aircraft, I can also judge aircraft anecdotes very well. In 1995 I got to meet several members of the flying tigers during one of their reunions. They spoke of the P-40 in glowing terms, witch differed greatly for the actual performance of the plane. So I have first hand experience in listening to and objectively analyzing pilot statements about an aircraft's performance.
Hey, I visited the CAfi n AZ just a month or two ago - I got to walk through a B-17 after they landed it. Some day, when I retire, I'd like to work there just for S's and G's.
What's your affiliation?
-
ok well then i am curious if he uses these calculations exclusively why would he care about the weight discrepancies you posted?
If you look at, for example, CFD simulation, you need to know the geometry of the body for which you're trying to get state variables. For example, you could map a pressure distribution on a body (in any state of control surface deflection) in a known flow using CFD. That particular map, however, would only tell you the flight behavior of the AC after you'd resolved it out and effected it to the vehicle (i.e. distributed-mass body in grav field). For that, i'd turn to a rigid or elastodynamic sim like ADAMS (what I used to do) or even classical analytic methods and you'd need additional properties of the a/c - like its mass distribution cited -to get the flight behavior. ADAMS, btw, was notoriously difficult for soing something like a flight vehicle because it didn't handle continuous things like a fluid flow well. It was another story if you had some sort of analytic representation of the forces that you could input as a user-defined force based on in-sim variables.
Here's the thing, though, Thor... it IS entirely possible to do virtual "testing" with the right level of analysis and specific input properties for the AC - and you might even get it right if you've done a couple of correlations with your method and know it's pitfalls. This stuff isn't the black box I think you might imagine it to be... i.e., HTC does do this crap for a living (lucky bastard) and, based on what I've seen, does it pretty well. I speak as an Aero Engineer who used to do tunnel tests at NASA Ames. While I haven't done Aero for something like 20 years (I went over to Automotive and used to do vehicle dynamics - sim, test, and correlating the two - there before crossing to the "dark side), I've been around engineering, its methods, and other technical crap long enough to have a pretty keen BS detector - and it ain't going off in response to HTC's posts.
All that said, that's why I want to see more. Until you understand his methodology, you're really unqualified to critique it in anything more than an uninformed way. Clearly, there are different degrees of "uninformed-ness". You might want to learn a little something about some of the methods to which this group of self-congratulatory, somewhat grating, but generally intelligent and oddly enjoyable arscheklownen have linked, then come back with better questions. That's what I'm going to do - because besides the CFD and FEM stuff, there were a couple of more specific items cited that should prove informative.
-
however i also believe that to be able to model the specifics of an aircraft you also need real world flight testing and comparative data taken by humans.
after all if you could know everything about an aircraft from a design program then there would be no need for test pilots anymore, would there? a computer program and all those equations will not be able to tell you exactly how a plane will behave in a stall.
This is the "virtual prototyping" dream - and it is possible. The real value of the test data is in model validation. However, once you march forward from validation to attempted prediction, yes, there is some risk.
I'd refer you to Boeing's most recent commercial jetliner. They used CAE to eliminate a lot of hardware prototyping. We do that here (in my company) as well.
-
"this thread is nothing more than your typical Luftwhiner thread, pure and simple"
FYI
"The 190 A5 engine 1,700 PS (1,677 hp, 1,250 kW)
The 190 A8 engine 1,980 PS (1,953 hp, 1,456 kW)
wouldn't that give it more power & make it climb faster and fly faster?
If the engine's power did not offset the weight gain, why did they add it?"
That's a legit question Ardy started this thread with i.e the change in power loading vs. the effect of general weight increase on performance.
What it came to be once luftloonies popped in and allyfanboys started tossing their usual HTC approved poop is another matter.
-C+
For almost a year Thorsim has "questioned the FM of various Luftwaffe planes". He questions HTC's data, coad, FM, etc. Although one thing is fact, he never has posted actua data. He posts his "unsubstantiated opinion". All of us have at one point said: "Prove HTC wrong when it comes to data", but he won't. If Dale answers a question, the tap dance begins and the answer given "was not good enough", because thor's question was extremely vague in the first place.
I bid thorsim good riddance. He is claiming to be some "sierra hotel stick" in the 190 and he is far from it.
-
For almost a year Thorsim has "questioned the FM of various Luftwaffe planes". He questions HTC's data, coad, FM, etc. Although one thing is fact, he never has posted actua data. He posts his "unsubstantiated opinion". All of us have at one point said: "Prove HTC wrong when it comes to data", but he won't. If Dale answers a question, the tap dance begins and the answer given "was not good enough", because thor's question was extremely vague in the first place.
I bid thorsim good riddance. He is claiming to be some "sierra hotel stick" in the 190 and he is far from it.
"Quoted for truth"
Again, and again, and again, he could not back up his statements with data.
Could not in fact do the math. Yet he discounted all those who could and did.
-
Although he obviously doesn't know when to give up an argument I don't think Thorism needed to be png'd. A warning or locking the thread might have sufficed. After all, this thread has provided all of us almost a month of daily entertainment and gaston joining in was just the icing on the cake. :D
-
Although he obviously doesn't know when to give up an argument I don't think Thorism needed to be png'd. A warning or locking the thread might have sufficed. After all, this thread has provided all of us almost a month of daily entertainment and gaston joining in was just the icing on the cake. :D
The only reason I disagree is that Dale has much more important watermelon to worry about, than someone who cannot comprehend reason. Given the two choices of PNG'ing the dolt or getting more features to this game, I'll GLADLY choose the both. He knew what he was doing and merely argued for the sake of arguing.
Gaston appears to be a "Thorsim in Training".
-
would have prefered it if the thread had been locked, and maybe a statement that for AH community members of the BBS, to keep to the context of said thread and not get into nose punching contest.....
maybe a parolee instead of png ( however that system works, I have not a clue )
I don't think it has much to do with how thorsim shows his game playing/cartoon plane flying abilitys though... I personally accepted a challenge from thorsim, to put it to rest. Thorsim's ability to cartoon fly is just as good as most anyone else in the game save those "top shelf" players who are in a league all their own..... thorsim's game abilitys should not be questioned in this thread... he can hold his own against most other regular players..... we all are just average WWII flight sim geeks
what I do not and have yet to understand is how so many people can come in here and insist on making the game perform like RW planes, when for the majority hardly any know how the RL planes performed outside of what they have read somewhere....
learn to play the game/fly the planes as they are designed "within" what the game has to offer, and learn to fly them as they perform in game, not try and compare them and insist on HTC making it to what you think it should be because that is what some History channel episode said, or what some pilot said who tested a captured plane ......
finding HARD FACTUAL EVIDENCE / DATA is ok, and if it proves to be accurate, then I am sure HTC will want to input the info to better the game, but that should be the extent of it all......
YMMV........ mine does everyday depending on if it is level , uphill, or downhill :D
anyhows....... it is what it is.....
-
"this thread is nothing more than your typical Luftwhiner thread, pure and simple"
FYI
"The 190 A5 engine 1,700 PS (1,677 hp, 1,250 kW)
The 190 A8 engine 1,980 PS (1,953 hp, 1,456 kW)
wouldn't that give it more power & make it climb faster and fly faster?
If the engine's power did not offset the weight gain, why did they add it?"
That's a legit question Ardy started this thread with i.e the change in power loading vs. the effect of general weight increase on performance.
What it came to be once luftloonies popped in and allyfanboys started tossing their usual HTC approved poop is another matter.
-C+
Charge don't your figures show that the -8 has a higher wing loading and the same power loading as the -5? Doesn't that support the performance we see in AH?
-
Although he obviously doesn't know when to give up an argument I don't think Thorism needed to be png'd. A warning or locking the thread might have sufficed. After all, this thread has provided all of us almost a month of daily entertainment and gaston joining in was just the icing on the cake. :D
The thinly veiled insults to HT and HTC put him in the soon to be PNGed bag. A blind man could see it.
-
Thor going faster will decrease your level turn radius until you reach corner speed. Hence the definition of corner speed, the slowest speed at which you can pull maximum G's. The reason the turn radius decreases is because 2 equations fall out the same, your lift generated (force that makes the turn) and the "Centripetal force" both vary with the square of speed for a given radius. So if you would be doing a loop (with no gravity), you would continue to make the same circle (same radius) as long as you held the same AOA, no mater how fast you would go.
Now when you make a level turn you also need to provide 1g up force along the the g's of the turn. So at stall speed where you can only produce 1g, you can not turn. but as you go faster the extra G you create all go to turn. So to make is really simple if you are flying at 6 g speed 5g's now go to turn vs 1g for gravity. This makes your circle smaller as you go faster , and hence why corner speed is the best speed to be for best instantaneous turn performance.
Now sustained turn does the exact same thing. The faster you can go at MAX AOA will make both the smallest diameter and the best degrees per sec. So for Gastons logic to be correct. YOu have to go slower to turn better. This just is not the case at any speed below corner speed which in AH is defined at 6'gs because of black out. So do you know of many planes that can do a continuous 6 g's with out loosing alt?
Now gaston also complete confuses forces and torques. Because (I have not really looked at the net torque because it is not relative) Torque on the airframe does not make it turn (i.e. change it's vel vector) . it only makes it spin around a point but in no way helps it change direction. This is basic Physics 101 definitions.
So for what gaston claims to be true you would increase speed by decreasing throttle,does that make any since to you?
Now lets look at some of the sustained turn rates he quotes of 250 - 300. These are just insane.
Basic lift equations are the potential lift increase with the square of the speed. So if your 1 g stall speed is 104 (fw ranges) at 208 you could pull 4 gs I do not believe any plane in the game not a plane in the game can do a 4 g sustained turn.
And hence why I said.
Repeat after me. Sustained turn rate decrease with less throttle.
Because the stuff is just simple physics 101. And the stuff grafton spews on the mater is like arguing that an apple will not fall if you drop it.
HiTech
-Here's the approximate sustained turn rate performance of a P-51D that is downthrottled vs non-downthrottled (The numbers are approximate and are intended to represent roughly what is going on).
Best sustained turn rate (downthrottled): Around 2.5-3 Gs at 200 MPH or less flaps-down prop on coarse pitch. Radius: About 900 ft. (See Hanseman account). Non-downthrottled at 200 MPH or less is worse than what follows:
Around 2.5 Gs or less at 200-300 MPH flaps-up prop on finer pitch. Radius: 1400-1600 ft +(!)
Around 2.5 Gs + (Improving trend as prop load decreases) at 300 MPH + flaps-up prop on coarser pitch, full power... Radius: 1300 ft.
Sustained turn performance is not really meaningful past 350 MPH, so one can only point to an actual British test at 400 MPH (Whenever radius is mentionned in WWII it usually means unsustained turns at high speed): 450 yds (1350 ft.) radius at 400 MPH at 10.000 ft: An impressive performance that I think reflects metal-skinned elevators that were available on the P-51D in March 1945 only... To give some idea, the Spitfire Mk XIV in that same RAE test did only 625 yds (1875 ft) at the same 400 MPH speed at 10.000 ft., despite MUCH lighter elevator controls... So much for predictive calculations...)
The reason why sustained turn performance seems worst at 200 to 300 MPH, or maybe a bit higher, is of course because the prop disc load is highest at these speeds... Inevitably, a load that is increased AHEAD of the leading edge of the wings will pull down on that leading edge of the wings and will force a much wider radius by requiring much more force to lift that leading edge, unless you are willing to lose speed: The aircraft behaves exactly as it if it were thousands of pounds heavier...
Yes, in a turn, less speed means going FASTER if the radius you have to turn around is 900 ft. versus at higher speed the prop load forcing you to turn around a 1600 ft radius...
Gaston
-
Gaston,
Are you serious?!? Referencing something that is using single radius numbers for speeds from 200-300mph?
-
Gaston read my lips.
Sustained turn rate decreases with less power. You are saying less power increases climb rate.
Ill tell you what, ill play teacher , please show your work.
Because lift causes drag power over comes drag around the corner you go. Less power means you can not have as much drag hence can not sustain as much less lift , hence slower around the corner you go.
I do not know how to convince you of this, but you are stating perpetual motion exists.
HiTech
-
Please, just make the stupid stop...
And the Village People sing...
"You can't stop the stupid,
no-body can stop the stu-pid..."
-
Firstly, I don't want to labor the obvious, basic and persistant errors in posts that so many others have already corrected, but I would like to say something about the interesting historical references that have been used to support flawed conclusions about sustained turns.
A quick review of some of the anecdotal evidence can reveal how mistakes may have been made.
For example, the combat report by Hanseman, describes how the 109 stopped cutting him off as he cut throttle, and this can be perfectly consistent with aerodynamics and the flight model in AH, but only under certain conditions. For example, Hanseman does not say anything about his initial speed, and if he was above corner velocity reducing throttle would have allowed him to increase his turn rate and reduce his turn radius more quickly. Once he employed flaps, his turn radius would have reduced even further. Nothing was said that is not entirely consistent with real world physics, and Aces High. The mistake would be to make the assumption that Hanseman continued the fight with reduced throttle, and that was somehow responsible for his continued ability to out turn the 109. There is a circumstance where even that is conceivable, and that might be if the aircraft were in a descending low G spiral turn, but Hanseman describes this engagement as occurring at 500ft so that is not the case, because there wasn't room. So, under the conditions described, the assumption that fight was continued with reduced throttle and that this improved the turn, is clearly false because it is in conflict with basic aerodynamic principles. A much more reasonable assumption would be that once Hanseman had reduced his airspeed below corner, and employed flaps, he would have then increased power as necessary to achieve the best sustained turn.
Another example from the article by Johnson where he describes being out turned by a 190 and where the poster states:
However, if you read Johnson's article it presents a very different picture of what really happened, that is also perfectly consistent with aerodynamics. Firstly, when Johnson describes turning hard to the left and whirling around on opposite sides of what seemed to be an ever decreasing circle, he gave no indication or details of that phase of the fight, other than to say they were on opposite sides of the circle, which indicates that during that time the fight may have remained neutral. With no indication of how long that phase lasted, we can only speculate, but it is possible that if both aircraft were at high speed, and they both pulled the same G, they would have been able to match each others turns for a time while their speeds were decreasing. However, where Johnson initially describes being out turned by the 190 they were not at low altitude, and they were not in flat turns, as indicated in the quote above. They were high enough that Johnson was able to enter a near vertical dive after he conceding the fight, and the turn was not flat, Johnson actually said he was in the "tightest of vertical turns" and that he was at full throttle and greying out. What difference does that make? Firstly, you would expect the 190 to be superior in the vertical so no real surprise there, but he also describes being at full throttle and greying out, which indicates that at that time the fight was occurring at the relatively high speeds and load factors. Bearing in mind that two aircraft at the same speed and load factor will turn at exactly the same rate and radius, this fight may have been determined partly by the superiority of the 190 in the vertical, and possibly by differences in the G tolerance of the pilots. After all, for all we know, Johnson may have had a bad night and been greying out at relatively low G, while the German stud flying the 190 was able to pull harder, generating the rate and radius necessary to give Johnson the scare he needed to beak off into a near vertical dive. When Johnson says "My over-confidence of a few seconds before had already given way to irritation at losing my opponent" he gives us the clue that this phase of the fight was infact brief, and that his perception of being out turned was arrived at quickly, and not after sustained turning. Once he had broken off into a dive the 190 was in trail and in the control position, any further turning by Johnson appears to have only been used to align himself with the Ships.
I would say that this combat report says a lot more about the survival instincts and perception of a great Ace, than it does about the performance of the aircraft involved. It is also possible to see from both reports that anecdotal evidence, typically sparse in fundamental detail and lacking any basic technical facts, or information about the condition or configuration of the aircraft involved, can very easily be misinterpreted.
Badboy
-I quote a RANGE of best sustained radiuses for 200-300 MPH, Karnak... What is your problem?
-All I am saying, Hightech, is that it takes less speed to go around 900 ft. than 1600 ft... Less speed can even do it FASTER... That's all.
-As for the Badboy quote: It has been established in 1989 by TEST PILOTS, and confirmed to me by an aircraft designer, that the "Corner Speed" of many WWII fighters is " VERY close to the maximum level speed"... Hanseman does not say anything about his initial speed????? He describes several 360° turns on the deck, with AA firing on him whenever he got close to the airfield... He "gradually" worked the 109 away from the airfield 360 by 360... Do you really think that means his speed is still above 350 MPH on-the-deck!!!??? I guess you must, otherwise your whole argument against downthrottling being a low-speed tactic falls apart...
As for the argument against the obvious interpretation of the Johnson account, I don't know where to begin...: IF it was downward spiral, they would then NOT be on opposite sides "of an ever decreasing circle"... NOT a FLAT turn????
I love the omission of Johnson's quote: "He was gaining on me (in the same ever decreasing circle, remember?): In another couple of (360°) turns he would have me in his sights..." But that is NOT sustained performance: NOT related to sustained turning people... Noooo: The guy who was there just doesn't know what he is talking about...
I also love the omission of Johnson's OPENING statement, with POST-WAR hindsight: "They (FW-190s) turned better than the Me-109s" What a surprise: Totally unrelated to his anecdote, of course!
High enough for a vertical dive after conceding the fight: Yeah, 3000-5000 ft. by the looks of it: So??? Isn't what matter that he conceded the turn fight?
But my favourite is the "vertical turn" issue, which all people desperate to sustain their "calculation" fictions have used to their utter ridicule: The following is not a matter of debate. Since your ignorance of WWII lingo is apparently severe (how could "an ever diminishing circle" be a bunch of vertical loops?), let me complete your education about WWII terminology: "Vertical turn" is WWII short-hand for a "Wings vertical turn", a diminutive in effect, for a 90° bank turn, which means, by definition, a fairly flat turn...
-Quote, Badboy:
"Infact, if this thread is an example, the claims are so outrageously flawed that they are little more than a source of amusement."
'Couldn't have said it better myself...
Gaston
P.S.: For those with actual open minds, the texts in question:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/339-hanseman-24may44.jpg
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg
G.
-
Gaston,
The references are too vague in their numbers. The radius of a turn for the P-51 is not 900ft at 199mph and 1600ft at 201mph as your reference would suggest.
Yes, it does take less speed to go around a circle with a 900ft radius in the same time it takes to do so to a 1600ft circle. However, lets say the P-51 does the 900ft circle at 150mph and the 1600ft circle at 300mph, likely given the wording of your reference, which one has the higher turn rate? Answer: 1600ft at 300mph is faster than 900ft at 150mph.
-
Before more people get PNG'd, lets go back to the original focus, 190A5 vs 190 A8 performance. I still have not heard any confirmation on the engine output of the -A8 as its modeled in AH.
Is it...
1× BMW 801 D-2 radial engine, 1,730 hp, 2,000 hp with boost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_190)
or is it the
'I thought it was 1800PS'(1775.37594207hp)
that others have stated in the forum?
Also, I have read differing reports on the output of the BMW 801-D2 engine some even stating that some had supercharger gear ratios tuned to higher altitudes which improved the power at cruse by about 150 hp. Furthermore, I've read a little about a
BMW 801F which had 2,400 PS (2,367 hp, 1,765 kW), don't know if these made it to the A-8, it might have only been attempted in A-9s.
-
Sustained turn performance is not really meaningful past 350 MPH, so one can only point to an actual British test at 400 MPH (Whenever radius is mentionned in WWII it usually means unsustained turns at high speed): 450 yds (1350 ft.) radius at 400 MPH at 10.000 ft: An impressive performance that I think reflects metal-skinned elevators that were available on the P-51D in March 1945 only... To give some idea, the Spitfire Mk XIV in that same RAE test did only 625 yds (1875 ft) at the same 400 MPH speed at 10.000 ft., despite MUCH lighter elevator controls...
I've asked you for a copy of this test four times.
Please, provide a link or the original text.
No RAE testing I've come across in the PRO office matches anything like this.
-
Gaston read my lips.
Sustained turn rate decreases with less power. You are saying less power increases climb rate.
Ill tell you what, ill play teacher , please show your work.
Because lift causes drag power over comes drag around the corner you go. Less power means you can not have as much drag hence can not sustain as much less lift , hence slower around the corner you go.
I do not know how to convince you of this, but you are stating perpetual motion exists.
LOL, this is really the punch. For ROC and turn are closely bound within WW2 power and airframes, - before the time of insane power and such.
Try chopping the throttle in a climb.....
HiTech
-
Here's the approximate sustained turn rate performance of a P-51D that is downthrottled vs non-downthrottled
Gaston, it doesn't matter how you try to justify it, the idea that sustained turn performance improves by reducing throttle is wrong. So any conclusions you reach based on that idea will also be wrong.
Just to be clear, allow me to spell it out:
If you consider any aircraft at any speed, in otherwords across the entire envelope, the sustained turning performance will always be maximised at full power. Reduce throttle and the sustained turning performance will also reduce.
Saying that it works the other way around, will never make it so, regardless of how many anecdotes you misinterpret.
Badboy
-
Maybe it would be more clear with an example of a typical initiation of a turn fight?
Two planes, A and B have a head-on merge at "combat speed".
Plane A goes into 3 G turn to preserve some E watching what the other guy starts doing
Plane B knows he turns slightly better and goes straight into 5 G turn to gain on A
A notices the high G turn of B and tightens his turn to 5G too
B notices that he is not gaining on A and cuts throttle to ease some Gs and cut into A's turn
A holds a maximum 5G turn at full throttle and decelerates steadily fighting black-out
B has decelerated to his best corner speed and is slowly gaining angles on A and pushes full throttle to maintain a, say, 3G turn for as long as possible steadily turning inside A's turn because A's better turn rate is not compensating for the angle gain of B's now smaller turn radius
A has now two options: ease to 0G and extend leaving B with less energy and decide to do something else e.g. go into climb or simply run, or continue his 5G turn with full throttle until his max allowable thrust cannot maintain that G anymore and he has bled all his E and while doing it he has given lot of time for B to gain angles and free snap shots and even after that ending in front of B without any energy to spare.
Basically the same options as Badboy already explained but in practice.
-C+
-
HT - thanks for looking into 190a8 !
.
-
deleted
(arguing with some of the Luftwaffe guys is pointless)
-
deleted
(arguing with some of the Luftwaffe guys is pointless)
no it's not. :D
-
Hanseman does not say anything about his initial speed????? He describes several 360° turns on the deck, with AA firing on him whenever he got close to the airfield... He "gradually" worked the 109 away from the airfield 360 by 360...
Nope, not only did Hanseman not say he did it "360 by 360" but it also isn't possible. You can't move away from a fixed point by turning in circles, by definition, turning in a circle means moving around its centre point. Your interpretation is obviously wrong. When Hanseman said a "dog fight developed" he was clearly referring to a more dynamic sequence of maneuvers and not just 360 degree turns.
Do you really think that means his speed is still above 350 MPH on-the-deck!!!???
Of course not, I never mentioned 350mph, you have used a logical fallacy known as the straw man argument. What I said was that the only way throttling back would help, would be if they were above corner velocity, otherwise it would not be helpful. Since Hanseman claims it was helping, that is the only possible conclusion, because the alternative you have suggested is aerodynamically impossible.
I guess you must, otherwise your whole argument against downthrottling being a low-speed tactic falls apart...
Nope, I'm simply explaining well known and well understood aerodynamic facts. Your interpretation is in conflict with the laws of physics.
As for the argument against the obvious interpretation of the Johnson account, I don't know where to begin...: IF it was downward spiral, they would then NOT be on opposite sides "of an ever decreasing circle"... NOT a FLAT turn????
Firstly, Johnson never used the term "Flat turn" that's another misinterpretation and two pilots in a descending spiral turn could certainly remain on opposite sides, the point being that during the time they were on "opposite sides" the fight was obviously neutral.
I love the omission of Johnson's quote: "He was gaining on me (in the same ever decreasing circle, remember?):
Nope, when Johnson noticed that the 190 was gaining on him it was while he was doing "the tightest of vertical turns" during the time they were whirling round on opposite sides of the circle, the fight was neutral. You are confusing the chronological sequence in Johnson's description.
(how could "an ever diminishing circle" be a bunch of vertical loops?)
They were clearly different phases of the fight one followed after the other.
WWII terminology: "Vertical turn" is WWII short-hand for a "Wings vertical turn", a diminutive in effect, for a 90° bank turn, which means, by definition, a fairly flat turn...
Absolutely not, if an aircraft banks so that the wings are vertical, the aircraft will be accelerating towards the ground at 32.2ft/s^2 and would lose at least 10,000ft of altitude in the first 30 seconds, since you claim they were only at 5000ft that phase of the fight could only have lasted for a few seconds if Johnson still needed room for his near vertical dive. So regardless if it was a vertical turn, or a turn with wings vertical, it still wasn't a sustained turn, which by definition occurs with no loss of altitude. If it was a turn with wings vertical, then it would have lasted just a few seconds, and certainly for less time than it would take for them to make it around the circle even once. So if you are right about the wings being vertical, there wasn't time for a sustained turn, or much turning of any kind. Either way, your interpretation does not fit the description, and is obviously wrong.
More importantly, it doesn't matter how you interpret that anecdote, you still can't use it to justify the idea that reducing throttle improves sustained turns, because you maximise sustained turns at full power.
Badboy
-
Absolutely not, if an aircraft banks so that the wings are vertical, the aircraft will be accelerating towards the ground at 32.2ft/s^2 and would lose at least 10,000ft of altitude in the first 30 seconds, since you claim they were only at 5000ft that phase of the fight could only have lasted for a few seconds if Johnson still needed room for his near vertical dive.
Uh, No. :headscratch: There is more than lift just from the wings. I can attest that the lowly C-152 will in fact make a knife edge pass at 135kt (don't try this at home kids). And, if the bank angle is anything less than 90, you got some lift there from the wings too. Lift can be generated from any part of the ship, depending on speed and angle. And no, Virginia, you will not get 20k fpm (10k feet in 30 secs = 20k fpm) just from racking the ship over on its side.
-
Before more people get PNG'd, lets go back to the original focus, 190A5 vs 190 A8 performance. I still have not heard any confirmation on the engine output of the -A8 as its modeled in AH.
Is it...
1× BMW 801 D-2 radial engine, 1,730 hp, 2,000 hp with boost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_190)
or is it the
'I thought it was 1800PS'(1775.37594207hp)
that others have stated in the forum?
Also, I have read differing reports on the output of the BMW 801-D2 engine some even stating that some had supercharger gear ratios tuned to higher altitudes which improved the power at cruse by about 150 hp. Furthermore, I've read a little about a
BMW 801F which had 2,400 PS (2,367 hp, 1,765 kW), don't know if these made it to the A-8, it might have only been attempted in A-9s.
Do you guys like to argue in circles? wasn't 28 pages enough? I'm trying to save some of you from getting PNGd, etc... so please lets get back to the original topic and not your wrong, FM is porked, etc....
so back to the original question, What is the power output of the engine modeled in AH for the the 190-A8?
Thanks
-
I'm trying to save some of you from getting PNGd, etc... so please lets get back to the original topic and not your wrong, FM is porked, etc....
Thanks
the problem is that some people keep on insisting the FM is wrong and posting incorrect data to prove their point and this has the potential of harming AH. How? Because potential customers see these posts and will believe the flight model is porked and don't bother trying the game and tell others how "porked the AH FM is". That's what ultimately led to thorsim's demise and will also lead to Gaston's eventually. The bottom line is, inaccurate statements about the core feature this game is built on can hurt HTC.
ack-ack
-
the problem is that some people keep on insisting the FM is wrong and posting incorrect data to prove their point and this has the potential of harming AH. How? Because potential customers see these posts and will believe the flight model is porked and don't bother trying the game and tell others how "porked the AH FM is". That's what ultimately led to thorsim's demise and will also lead to Gaston's eventually. The bottom line is, inaccurate statements about the core feature this game is built on can hurt HTC.
ack-ack
I completely agree but I would like to get the thread back on its original track, its been totally hijacked by all this 'poop'.
-
And, not to highjack (this is related) over to D-9 but I read today that 426 mph at ~19k is top speed for a D-9 w/o the MW50 injection. The source cited 438 as top speed for the D-9 with...
I recall reading the early A-series had problems with overheating under boost and that the D-9's Jumo's suffered from scarcity of MW-50 systems.
So, I think the power issue would be a good one for the HTC boys to illuminate.
Besides, as you note, it beats trying to illuminate outer space.
-
Ardy, looking at the charts I have for the Fw190A-8 I believe what we have is close to the 1800 Ps figures. But only someone from HTC can state with certainty what it is.
-
no it's not. :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM
-
What is the power output of the engine modeled in AH for the the 190-A8?
The highest power setting AH's A-8 uses is 1.58ata@2700rpm. A source which I consider very reliable is Mr. Dietmar Hermann who has done a lot of research on Fw190 and written recent works about the subject. He lists the output to be 2050ps with the 1.58@2700rpm power setting on the deck in an article handling the BMW 801D engine in Flugzeug Classic's 12/2004 issue.
Wheather or not this is the output that AH models I off course cannot say for sure.
-
HiTech,
What is the engine output of the A8 as its modeled in the game?
Thanks
-
And, not to highjack (this is related) over to D-9 but I read today that 426 mph at ~19k is top speed for a D-9 w/o the MW50 injection. The source cited 438 as top speed for the D-9 with...
I recall reading the early A-series had problems with overheating under boost and that the D-9's Jumo's suffered from scarcity of MW-50 systems.
So, I think the power issue would be a good one for the HTC boys to illuminate.
Besides, as you note, it beats trying to illuminate outer space.
I believe the 426 MPH D-9 is with the Jumo 213A injected engine and the 435 MPH D-9 is with the DB 603 injected engine.
-
Gaston,
I think I can offer a more plausible explanation for why we see pilots referring to improving their turn by throttling back.
When we consider an aircraft performance envelope as illustrated by a Energy Maneuverability diagram, it is normally bounded by a lift limit on the left, which is in effect a stall line, by a G limit at the top, which for real aircraft would be a structural limit, and would depend on configuration, external stores etc, and a placard limit on the right.
I've drawn a diagram below for an aircraft with the following data:
Weight: 8000lbs
Wing Area: 200ft^2
Engine: 1600HP
Clmax: 1.4
It has the normal lift limit, a top speed limit on the right instead of a placard limit, and instead of using a structural G limit I've used a G limit associated with pilot physiology.
(http://www.badz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/images/EM.gif)
Regarding that G limit, according to one WWII fighter pilot he would begin to lose peripheral vision at 4 to 4.5G and holding that for as little as 10 seconds would cause complete loss of vision. Not blackout, he was still aware and could still feel, he just couldn't see anything. If a pilot without a G suit couldn't hold as much as 4.5G for long without losing sight of the enemy, I suggest that would be a more likely self imposed limit. So the diagram above is drawn with that limit and if the pilot wanted to stay in a hard turn for a significant period of time, he would probably have to remain closer to 4 than 4.5G.
That would mean that the best turn or corner velocity would occur at between 210 and 225mph. The negative Ps at those corner velocities indicate that 4 to 4.5G turns could be sustained with an altitude loss of between 1800 and 2700 fpm respectively.
That I suspect may be an explanation for the anecdotes we have seen that refer to reducing throttle. For the diagram I posted above, a pilot who could only hold 4g for an extended period of time without losing sight of the enemy, would need to be at about 210mph to achieve his best turn, and it could be sustained with an altitude loss of about 1800 fpm. So if he was any faster than that he would benefit from throttling and I suspect entering an engagement above that speed was common.
Of course, late war G suits pushed those G limits up to 5.5 to 6G and aircraft with inclined seats and high foot positions helped too.
However, it is of course still wrong to say that an aircraft has a better sustained turn at anything less than full power, and I think it is much more likely that the G tolerance of real pilots may have compelled them to reduce speed to achieve their best turn, as explained above, and that appears to be consistent with the anecdotes we have seen.
Badboy
-
Ardy, I'd like to add that 1800ps figure comes from performance chart for BMW 801D Sr.Nr. 9-801:5401 dated 10.7.42 and is for the 1.42ata@2700rpm setting. The 1.58ata-setting, which was accomplished with ADI (C3-injection), developed more power.
-
Ardy, I'd like to add that 1800ps figure comes from performance chart for BMW 801D Sr.Nr. 9-801:5401 dated 10.7.42 and is for the 1.42ata@2700rpm setting. The 1.58ata-setting, which was accomplished with ADI (C3-injection), developed more power.
hmm, so if the A-8 is engine performance is modeled to that document then it should be outputting 2021.92hp, now the only thing missing is the confirmation that it was modeled from that document or that the modeling is treating 1.58 ata as 2021.92 hp.
This would mean that the power to weight ratio for both the A5 and A8 is...
A8 = 9702lb / 2021.92hp ~= 4.7984lb per hp
A5 = 8802lb / 1676.71hp ~= 5.249lb per hp
I would expect the A8 to have better climb performance than the A5 and acceleration given that it has more power per lb of weight, this is not reflected in the game. What am I missing?
-
hmm, so if the A-8 is engine performance is modeled to that document then it should be outputting 2021.92hp, now the only thing missing is the confirmation that it was modeled from that document or that the modeling is treating 1.58 ata as 2021.92 hp.
This would mean that the power to weight ratio for both the A5 and A8 is...
A8 = 9702lb / 2021.92hp ~= 4.7984lb per hp
A5 = 8802lb / 1676.71hp ~= 5.249lb per hp
I would expect the A8 to have better climb performance than the A5 and acceleration given that it has more power per lb of weight, this is not reflected in the game. What am I missing?
I think at this point in this thread, you're probably better of creating another thread just on the engine used so your questions won't continued to get buried under the other topics being discussed.
ack-ack
-
I think at this point in this thread, you're probably better of creating another thread just on the engine used so your questions won't continued to get buried under the other topics being discussed.
ack-ack
Good idea
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,287701.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,287701.0.html)
-
That would mean that the best turn or corner velocity would occur at between 210 and 225mph. The negative Ps at those corner velocities indicate that 4 to 4.5G turns could be sustained with an altitude loss of between 1800 and 2700 fpm respectively.
This looks like a pretty sound analysis. My only question comes in regard to the statement above. Clearly, that 4.5g turn is unsustainable from the graph posted. How were you able to quantify the alt loss as you did? I see a radius and g diff b/w best and best sustained but cannot see how you estimated the alt loss.
-
Godzilla was this your question?
(drag - thrust) * speed = Needed Power.
Weight * decent rate = Power.
HiTech
Changed had drag and trust reversed in subtraction.
-
THE MAN nails it with equation 2...
I think. Let me bounce this off you. T-D also = MA. I.e., an a/c entering a turn it CANNOT sustain will decel because drag will exceed thrust. This decel will continue until required power = available power - and we end up on the sustained turn line.
Going back to the power deficit, (back into Force time velocity - same as an energy per unit time) I'd say we can safely assume that the power deficit in the instantaneous turn will translate into the power of the fall, as you couch it in eqn. 2.
As for the sign convention, who cares about that?
-
As for the sign convention, who cares about that?
I don't care hence why I had it reversed. All the same to me, I just think the difference.
And yes about instantaneous turn it either shows up as -accelerate or loss in alt. And hence why E = V^2 + Alt.
HiTech
-
This looks like a pretty sound analysis. My only question comes in regard to the statement above. Clearly, that 4.5g turn is unsustainable from the graph posted. How were you able to quantify the alt loss as you did? I see a radius and g diff b/w best and best sustained but cannot see how you estimated the alt loss.
I normally post EM diagrams without a full set of curves showing specific excess power, or Ps curves. I normally just show the zero Ps curve because that shows the aircraft's sustained turning ability. If you want to see how the aircraft can gain or lose energy you need all the Ps curves, and I've included them in the diagram below. The units are in feet per second.
(http://www.badz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/images/EM2.gif)
You can see from this diagram that when the aircraft is at the 4.5G corner velocity of 225mph it has negative Ps of 46ft/s and that means that in order to maintain that optimum turn the aircraft would need to descend at 2760ft/min. Otherwise it will decelerate at the rate of 3.1 mph every second.
You also see that at the 4G corner velocity of 212mph it has negative Ps of 28ft/s and the aircraft would need to descend at the rate of 1680ft/min in order to maintain that turn, if the aircraft stayed level it would decelerate at the rate of 2 mph every second.
That means a pilot on the edge of grey out could maintain his optimum rate and radius in a 8 degree descending spiral turn at the 4.5G corner, or a 5 degree descending spiral turn at the 4G corner, as shown in the diagram below.
(http://www.badz.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/images/AoD.jpg)
I've used P-51 images to create the diagram because I had them handy, but the EM diagrams are for the generic aircraft data I posted earlier, not the P-51. Also this diagram isn't drawn to scale, so the spiral turn looks steeper than it should.
What this means is that in this case, a pilot entering a fight at some speed significantly above 225mph and who wanted to perform a maximum rate turn within his physiological G limits, might choose to do it by reducing throttle until his speed was between 212 and 225 mph. Remember, if he can only pull 4.5G for about ten seconds before losing his vision, any time he spends flying faster than his 4.5G corner velocity will be time spent turning at less than optimum conditions, and that means allowing an adversary to gain on him in the turn. So it is hardly suprising that there are anecdotes describing just that. However, once they reach their 4G or 4.5G corner velocity (depending on the particular pilots G tolerance) their best option would be to try to maintain that optimum turn for as long as possible. That means going to full power! But even at full power, they couldn't maintain that turn, they would need to exchange altitude for it by entering a descending spiral turn with an angle of descent of between 5 and 8 degrees, so a relatively shallow descent. You can see from the EM diagram that staying level and allowing the aircraft to decelerate to its best sustained turn may not have been the preferred option. Firstly because the best sustained turn rate is about 20dps but it can achieve 23dps and 24.5dps at the 4G and 4.5G limits respectively, and when you consider that a 2dps advantage was considered decisive, that extra turn rate is very significant. But also because I suspect that real pilots were less willing to ride the edge of the stall, and that maintaining speed close to corner velocity, albeit a corner velocity defined by their own G tolerance, would give them more options as well as the best instantaneous turn for as long as the altitude lasted, and so I think that would have been a more desirable choice.
Badboy
-
Gaston, it doesn't matter how you try to justify it, the idea that sustained turn performance improves by reducing throttle is wrong. So any conclusions you reach based on that idea will also be wrong.
Just to be clear, allow me to spell it out:
If you consider any aircraft at any speed, in otherwords across the entire envelope, the sustained turning performance will always be maximised at full power. Reduce throttle and the sustained turning performance will also reduce.
Saying that it works the other way around, will never make it so, regardless of how many anecdotes you misinterpret.
Badboy
-I love the part about ANY aircrafts... Props and jets are exactly the same folks: Remember that... It kind of reminds me of my gape-mouthed reading of Shaw's fighter tactics book, which showed not the slightest glimmer of understanding of the difference between TRACTION and PROPULSION: You have to wonder why engineers even bother using those terms... Most of the WWII anecdotal examples he produced unsurprisingly involved the P-47, which is probably the most likely prop aircraft to produce accounts flattering to his near-total lack of practical understanding of actual WWII air fighting (shared by a lot of US Navy test pilots apparently)... Of course, with the P-51, he carefully omitted the numerous successful accounts of low-speed downthrottling/coarse prop pitch/popped flaps that would show how inapplicable much of his theories are to real prop-driven combat...(You think the Hanseman account I use is the only one? It is merely the most obvious one of about a half-dozen in Mike William's WWII site, and several more elsewhere: If that one doesn't do it, NOTHING will...).
Your argument basically amounts to, I put a bigger number into an equation, and therefore a bigger outcome is necessary in real-life as it is in the equation... Has it occurred to you that turning inefficiency can drastically increase with more power? And that several different aces from several nations have mentionned downthrottling as an essential part of dogfighting? Off the top of my head, Karhila said:
""I learned to fly with the "Cannon-Mersu" (MT-461). I found that when fighter pilots got in a battle, they usually applied full power and then began to turn. In the same situation I used to decrease power, and with lower speed was able to turn equally well. I shot down at least one Mustang (on 4th July 1944) in turning fight. I was hanging behind one, but I could not get enough deflection. Then the pilot made an error: he pulled too much, and stalling, had to loosen his turn. That gave me the chance of getting deflection and shooting him down. It was not impossible to dogfight flying a three-cannon Messerschmitt."
" When the enemy decreased power, I used to throttle back even more. In a high speed the turning radius is wider, using less speed I was able to out-turn him having a shorter turning radius. Then you got the deflection, unless the adversary did not spot me in time and for example banked below me. 250kmh seemed to be the optimal speed."
-But of course this 32 victory ace doesn't know what he is talking about... And note also the funky 160 MPH optimal sustained turn speed for a Me-109G-6... That's as close as possible to the "Corner Speed" of course...
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/#g6r6
Let's see an interpretation of this...
Gaston
P.S. I got a bit behind on your interesting later posts, so I will reply to those later...
G.
-
(http://www.worldcupblog.org/files/2008/07/miss-cleo.jpg)
Wit words you speak, and tone you set, ya shall be forewarned, I sense a PNG in someones future....
-
-I love the part about ANY aircrafts... Props and jets are exactly the same folks: Remember that... It kind of reminds me of my gape-mouthed reading of Shaw's fighter tactics book, which showed not the slightest glimmer of understanding of the difference between TRACTION and PROPULSION: You have to wonder why engineers even bother using those terms... Most of the WWII anecdotal examples he produced unsurprisingly involved the P-47, which is probably the most likely prop aircraft to produce accounts flattering to his near-total lack of practical understanding of actual WWII air fighting (shared by a lot of US Navy test pilots apparently)... Of course, with the P-51, he carefully omitted the numerous successful accounts of low-speed downthrottling/coarse prop pitch/popped flaps that would show how inapplicable much of his theories are to real prop-driven combat...(You think the Hanseman account I use is the only one? It is merely the most obvious one of about a half-dozen in Mike William's WWII site, and several more elsewhere: If that one doesn't do it, NOTHING will...).
Your argument basically amounts to, I put a bigger number into an equation, and therefore a bigger outcome is necessary in real-life as it is in the equation... Has it occurred to you that turning inefficiency can drastically increase with more power? And that several different aces from several nations have mentionned downthrottling as an essential part of dogfighting? Off the top of my head, Karhila said:
""I learned to fly with the "Cannon-Mersu" (MT-461). I found that when fighter pilots got in a battle, they usually applied full power and then began to turn. In the same situation I used to decrease power, and with lower speed was able to turn equally well. I shot down at least one Mustang (on 4th July 1944) in turning fight. I was hanging behind one, but I could not get enough deflection. Then the pilot made an error: he pulled too much, and stalling, had to loosen his turn. That gave me the chance of getting deflection and shooting him down. It was not impossible to dogfight flying a three-cannon Messerschmitt."
" When the enemy decreased power, I used to throttle back even more. In a high speed the turning radius is wider, using less speed I was able to out-turn him having a shorter turning radius. Then you got the deflection, unless the adversary did not spot me in time and for example banked below me. 250kmh seemed to be the optimal speed."
-But of course this 32 victory ace doesn't know what he is talking about... And note also the funky 160 MPH optimal sustained turn speed for a Me-109G-6... That's as close as possible to the "Corner Speed" of course...
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/#g6r6
Let's see an interpretation of this...
Gaston
P.S. I got a bit behind on your interesting later posts, so I will reply to those later...
G.
The danger of the anectodal stuff is you are adding the ability of the pilot involved to the equation. What the 32 kill Ace could do in a 109 may be completely different from a novice. I post my favorite 38 combat report all the time and it involves a 38J pilot still carrying his 500 pounders, out turning a 109G in a fight on the deck after being bounced by the higher 109. If that's my evidence then I can claim that a P38J carrying 500 pounders should out turn a 109 every time. My guess is however that it isn't the case.
-
I have heard a pretty good tale where a P51 out-turned a 190 on the deck with one notch of flaps. It would seem real to me. The same pilot however once almost lost a turnfight with a 190, - this time he flew a Sptitfire MkV. "Almost lost" means that he decided to end the turning and disengage (he used controlled a snap-stall (spin entry) to reverse the turn and disappear under the nose of the 190) and get away). But my guess is that the 190 was already happy to get out of the lock, probably absolutely close to stalling. This would have been a 190A5 or even less,- it was in the summer/autumn of 1942.
It was the only time when he was seriously worried in a turnfight with a LW fighter, - he claimed the 190 being a much more feared opponent than the 109, - in the beginning. Later on, he had no problems with it, - there was even an engagement where P51's chased higher 190's UPHILL and caught them at 20K!!!!! (from 12 to 20K)
Anecdotes are anecdotes, but a combat report is but the same, only done and written from an encounter happening very shortly before, and perhaps putting more accounts into an assumption.....
-
-Yes, the FW-190A will be out-turned even at slow speeds if the pilot keeps more power on than the P-51... Also the FW-190A had a fearsome stall, especially at higher speeds, that needed a deft touch to catch it, and it seemed to intimidate a lot of pilots who were described by American pilots as being afraid to "reef it in" at low altitudes... I look at it this way: It took me twelve years of study to finally ignore the wingloading data... I'll bet many of them didn't believe it either: I know for a fact Walther Oseau was one of them, and one of his fellow officers attributed his loss to his scepticism about the FW-190A's turning ability (I can source this)... He had to spiral his Me-109G-6AS down 20 000 ft. because "His aircraft slowed down in tight turns, more so than his P-51D adversaries...". This according to a witness...
-I know of this particular P-38 account and it is to me a significant one, as it was well-detailed, and whatever variables may be at play, with many other examples it tells me that at the very least the Me-109G did not out-turn the P-38 at some speeds, but that the reverse was likely true... My conclusions about the relative vertical and horizontal merits of the Me-109G and FW-190A took thousands of accounts to sift through before a clear picture finally overcame my decades-long prejudice, and I realized that boom and zoom FW-190As were largely a myth, as were routinely tight-turning Me-109Gs...
I present only a few of the more clear accounts, but there are thousands of others seen over decades that also formed my opinion, including all the P-47/P-51 accounts of the Mike Williams "WWII aircraft performance site"... About 1200 of them right there...
Quote, Badboy:
"What this means is that in this case, a pilot entering a fight at some speed significantly above 225mph and who wanted to perform a maximum rate turn within his physiological G limits, might choose to do it by reducing throttle until his speed was between 212 and 225 mph. Remember, if he can only pull 4.5G for about ten seconds before losing his vision, any time he spends flying faster than his 4.5G corner velocity will be time spent turning at less than optimum conditions, and that means allowing an adversary to gain on him in the turn. So it is hardly suprising that there are anecdotes describing just that. However, once they reach their 4G or 4.5G corner velocity (depending on the particular pilots G tolerance) their best option would be to try to maintain that optimum turn for as long as possible. That means going to full power! But even at full power, they couldn't maintain that turn, they would need to exchange altitude for it by entering a descending spiral turn with an angle of descent of between 5 and 8 degrees, so a relatively shallow descent. You can see from the EM diagram that staying level and allowing the aircraft to decelerate to its best sustained turn may not have been the preferred option. Firstly because the best sustained turn rate is about 20dps but it can achieve 23dps and 24.5dps at the 4G and 4.5G limits respectively, and when you consider that a 2dps advantage was considered decisive, that extra turn rate is very significant."
-This is very interesting, and by lowering the G "Corner Speed" limit to the "10 second vision loss limit" you do get a lower Corner Speed that appears more in line with what is going on in the accounts we have... However, two things clearly don't agree with the accounts:
-The downthrottling you described would be very fleeting, as even by just doing a hard flat 6 G turn WITHOUT downthrottling you would easily lose 50-70 MPH or more in a single 360° turn, and you would achieve that without having to fiddle with the tricky and worrisome procedure of reducing the throttle and THEN having to throttle back up...
Granted, the FW-190A had a "brainbox" throttle that made this easy, but the FW-190A pilot who mentionned downthrottling in this forum said he did so BEFORE the merge with P-51Ds even occurred... Downthrottling was part of preparing for combat from CRUISING speed... Slow turning from the start was his combat speed all the way through most of what the enemy did, except diving perhaps... You can bet any other WWII type that has a pilot wanting to fiddle with the throttle to lose speed in a fleeting manner would do it for the urgent need to not overshoot a vulnerable target about to be hit: It is indeed a very short downthrottling, as it is the equivalent of hitting the brakes before a corner (P-47s even sometimes fired their guns for this purpose!)... You hit the brakes in a corner, but not all the way around the racetrack...
Yes a brief slowdown was often made to allow not overshooting or turning briefly tighter... But downthrottling is not always the easiest way to do this, and all the examples we discussed are clearly multiple sustained 360°s with NO mention of throttling back UP in ANY of those...
The fact is, unless you are just out of a very serious dive, you lose speed badly enough in a sustained turn to not have to worry about changing your throttle settings TWICE during turning combat...
It is very clear in those previous accounts (including Karhila's multiple sustained turns, on-the-deck, with a "Mustang"), that downthrottling involved NO throttling back up, or why would Hanseman say: "The AA fired on me EVERY TIME I got close to the airdrome" "I worked him GRADUALLY away from the airfield" and, AFTER all of that, best of all: "I commenced turning inside him as I decreased throttle settings" (This after being initially out-turned by the Me-109G when speeds and his throttle were higher...)
In fact, in the Hanseman case he mentions downthrottling TWICE: Initial downthrottling effect: "He stopped cutting me off"
SECOND downthrottling effect, several on-the-deck 360°s AFTER the first one: "I commenced turning inside him as I reduced throttle settings."
So he downthrottled FURTHER, my guess from 250-300 MPH to 225 MPH the first time, then from 225 MPH to 190-200 MPH the second time, while the initially winning Me-109G probably stayed at the same high power throughout the numerous 360°s...
Conspicuous by its absence is any mention of UPTHROTTLING, despite the proximity of the ground... So the weight of evidence is clearly 2:0 in my favour in this specific example...
Some of the Japanese pilots of course knew about it, and a hilarious account illustrates this well: 12-16 late P-38s were attacking from all angles a lone low-flying Ki-43 Oscar, all trying to shoot it down, taking turns at different tactics for about half an hour... All ran out of either ammo or fuel and had to leave the scene, not having scored a single hit... Said one of the P-38 pilots: "He seemed throughout the ordeal to be loafing about at reduced power with his canopy open, always turning with the needed angle to spoil our attacks..."
-The last italized phrase in the Badboy quote has a very important point I want to make: Spiralling down to maintain 4-4.5 G is NOT what a WWII combat pilot wants to do when "locked" in a sustained turnfight (and yes, real slow-speed turnfights DO lock you INTO them at lower speeds when the aircraft is not so able to "flick out"...); Spiraling down when chased is a clear sign of weakness, meaning you can't keep your adversary away from your tail and maintaint the all-important altitude advantage or even height parity. Spiraling down is NOT what a WWII pilot would choose to do from a tailing enemy as it is the same thing as surrendering the high ground: They could not care less about minute optimum turn rate changes since losing the height while turning and being tailed means they will almost surely lose, in the "real" world...
That being said, spiralling down DOES allow much tighter sustained turns, but not only for the obvious reasons; Because for once speed is increased while REDUCING the all-important prop disc load... But in sustained turns it is the way out for the inferior-turning aircraft, and often no way out at all in the long run, because you cannot really raise your nose to shoot above yourself in maximum-rate sustained turns, especially when nose-down... Out-turning if you are in front in this case will get you little but to lose more altitude than the opponent...
This is why much of WWII sustained turn-fighting is usually as close as possible to the stereotypical sustained flat turns, unless the chased aircraft is significantly inferior in flat sustained turn performance at the speed it is occurring, in which case it HAS to split-S, climb or spiral down.
Gaston
-
Downthrottling was part of preparing for combat from CRUISING speed... Slow turning from the start was his combat speed all the way through most of what the enemy did, except diving perhaps...
You hit the brakes in a corner, but not all the way around the racetrack...
Said one of the P-38 pilots: "He seemed throughout the ordeal to be loafing about at reduced power with his canopy open, always turning with the needed angle to spoil our attacks..."
Regarding the top excerpt, consider the following:
1. your assertion about the disk loading states that the effect of the reaction torque reduction caused by downthrotting is immediate. I accept this argument, though not your scaling argument (see HT's estimate and my own response to his estimate in which I, in turn, estimate the relative velocity and alpha change on the blades due to turning). Why, then, would F-dub pilots feel any need to downthrottle prior (better answer: to get to something like the right speed for max dps/min radius -which would involve a delay, turn onset, then upthrottling to overcome the increase in induced drag) to combat? Further, if the practice of reducing power to improve turn rad and rate were used on 190s, why would it not also make sense to use the same effect on other aircraft - all of which would experience the same effect? Yet, it is not tactical practice to do so on any other notable type... Were the pilots of all other types presumably unaware of the effect?
No, your account doesn't sufficiently explain why the F-dub would be the only type to be flown this way. Badboy's explanation, otoh, is far more plausible.
2. At the same time, I find it entirely possible that wanting to go into the fight at something more like corner might make more sense for the pilot than entering the turn at a higher speed and allowing decel. Why? Because prior to decel and at pilot limit, your dps and rad are both worse than at corner - i.e., for the same g load, at the higher speed your turn is larger (again, g=v^2/r). I'm also curious, at this point, about the relative acceleration performance of the FW as compared to, e.g., a Spit VIII or IX. If the Spitter holds E better (and I think it does), the F-dub might, by getting to corner prior to fight start, have a brief turn advantage over the Spitter. Consider, for example, a Spit that can make a 4g pilot limit at a lower speed than the F-dub... if it's currently at 325mph and the F-dub is already at corner, who has the turn advantage? - given that the pilot limits are similar, the answer is something like a 9/4 ratio in favor of the a/c at corner). I'd also cautiously here assert, if indeed th e Spit is worse at accel/decel that inducing an overshoot or "too-large" energy scrub from a Spit-flying foe might be a decent tactical idea for the F-dub jockey.
3. Regarding the Ki43 and P-38s, I have little doubt that a good Ki pilot could make decent evasives of attacking high-speed 38's from a reduced power setting. This says nothing objective about the impact of power available on sustained turn rate.
4. Combat Flaps: we don't have 'em on the F-dub in AH but you could expect their effect to reduce your corner speed and increase your best turn rate/decrease turn r.
For a decent development of this, I might point you to BadBoy's fairly neat ACM guide (kudos on this, BB): http://www.netaces.org/badboy/Acmi.pdf
So, I see little reason that popping flaps is something too difficult to understand IF we accept that the FW pilots were behaving as posited above in 2..
5. You DON'T hit the brakes in a corner (unless you want to spin). The cardinal rule of racing is "throttle in a corner, brake in a straight line". This simple statement betrays a misunderstanding of the weight transfer impact on traction in an auto AND a misunderstanding of the fact that more power is required, both in flight and in an auto, to overcome, in the case of the ac, greater induced drag caused by "uplifting" or, in the case of the auto, the greater rolling resistance caused by maintaining a slip angle to generate cornering force.
In short, I think the FW argument you posit, while interesting, is caught in a logical trap (i.e., why is the practice limited to this type? your explanation is insufficient), a theoretical trap - see any decent development of the turn performance min radius equation, and an empirical trap - see test data on just about any type of aircraft for which turn performance data is available.
Anyway, that's my read on this thing.
-
I post my favorite 38 combat report all the time and it involves a 38J pilot still carrying his 500 pounders, out turning a 109G in a fight on the deck after being bounced by the higher 109. If that's my evidence then I can claim that a P38J carrying 500 pounders should out turn a 109 every time.
I think everyone has tried talking sense into them, without success.
If you ever want to chuckle, read the interviews the Allies had with the Luftwaffe after the war ended.
-
That being said, spiralling down DOES allow much tighter sustained turns, but not only for the obvious reasons; Because for once speed is increased while REDUCING the all-important prop disc load... But in sustained turns it is the way out for the inferior-turning aircraft, and often no way out at all in the long run, because you cannot really raise your nose to shoot above yourself in maximum-rate sustained turns, especially when nose-down... Out-turning if you are in front in this case will get you little but to lose more altitude than the opponent...
* It is nowhere near a sustained turn if you are not keeping the same altitude yet are losing it......
* your nose would not be be down / below the horizon in a maximum sustained turn, and yes you could seriously be able to raise your nose to shoot if you needed to, although in reality one would be more inclined to shoot level or even lower their nose to shoot ( unless the opponent went to climb - think YoYo )
your definition and theorys of Maximum sustained turns are completely off base, and for one to raise their nose in a maximum sustained turn would only lower their turn radius, only making the "maximum sustained turn" less in regards of "maximum sustained TURN RATE", they would infact have a smaller radius when raising the nose.....the Turnrate would suffer......
Not sure where you going with the Shaw's Book, and saying that Jet Propulsion and Prop Driven AirCraft are the same....... got a page # to throw out to us bottom feeders, so we can see exactly what you are talking about......
Note - as it relates to INGAME- in Aces High, when (2) opponents go toward one another and merge, you could say it is a 50/50 crap shoot that one if not both will sometimes attempt to "Reduce Throttle" to gain angles ( read as better TURN RATE" on the initial merge....... however WRONG that maybe........ is left to one's own interpetation...
just saying......
oh, and Prop Driven Aircraft produce their most POWER / Thrust right at / near Stall Speed at WOT..... to where as A Jet Engine / Aircraft produces its Thrust well on upstream of that somewhere like near Corner Speed Area of its pfight envelope.... ( not counting AFB )
-
TequilaChaser Wrote
POWER / Thrust wrote POWER / Thrust is best at Climb Rate On prop plane.
While your concept is correct,(Thrust goes down) Power dosn't change a lot from climb speed to top speed on most wwii planes/constant speed props. And in some cases power can increase with speed do to ram air effects and exhaust thrust.
HiTech
-
(http://www.worldcupblog.org/files/2008/07/miss-cleo.jpg)
Wit words you speak, and tone you set, ya shall be forewarned, I sense a PNG in someones future....
Ardy, nothing Gaston has wrote is in any way out of line with this bbs. His conclusions are very inaccurate, but he has done nothing but argue his ideas which is always legitimate.
HiTech
-
Ardy, nothing Gaston has wrote is in any way out of line with this bbs. His conclusions are very inaccurate, but he has done nothing but argue his ideas which is always legitimate.
HiTech
Hear, hear... That's a spirit of transparency and open debate that at least one more Chief Exec. would be wise to emulate. For without it, credibility suffers...
-
While your concept is correct,(Thrust goes down) Power dosn't change a lot from climb speed to top speed on most wwii planes/constant speed props. And in some cases power can increase with speed do to ram air effects and exhaust thrust.
HiTech
Yes Sir, I understand your concept, however I did not write what you quoted me on exactly like that
:
hitech posted the following:
TequilaChaser Wrote
Quote
POWER / Thrust wrote POWER / Thrust is best at Climb Rate On prop plane.
I do understand the differences in the thrust & overall power relations, I need to think about it to get my head around the "exhaust thrust" effect for prop driven engines ( turbo Props I could relate to this ), I know this to be so for Jet engines, I am not seeing it for the prop driven engines, outside of a little added side effect perhaps....
my apologies if I did not go into detail enough in my 1st reply.
edit: I am not arguing or debating the fact ither :)
-
I am still trying to understand how anyone could think that chopping throttle would increase ROT, - or ROC......
Try chopping throttle in the best possible climb...and only ONE thing will happen ... to begin with.... :t
-
Yes Sir, I understand your concept, however I did not write what you quoted me on exactly like that
:
I do understand the differences in the thrust & overall power relations, I need to think about it to get my head around the "exhaust thrust" effect for prop driven engines ( turbo Props I could relate to this ), I know this to be so for Jet engines, I am not seeing it for the prop driven engines, outside of a little added side effect perhaps....
my apologies if I did not go into detail enough in my 1st reply.
edit: I am not arguing or debating the fact ither :)
at 375mph 1 lb thrust = 1hp.
Exhaust thrust could be as much as 100 lbs. (simply put the engines exhaust nozzles face backwards creating thrust). So at 375 on a 1000hp engine you would be adding 10% HP.
But at 187 MPH you would be only adding 5% HP.
Check out the mosquito speed change with and without flame dampers do to exhaust thrust change, I believe it is about 17MPH top speed.
HiTech
-
From the 190 engine performance thread, if you look at the bottom of this chart you'll see the thrust generated by exhaust at 2400 and 2700 RPM.
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/bmw801d_performance_curve.jpg)
-
Wow Baumer. Excellent work. Your reworking of that equation was well nothing short of just ‘brilliant!’.
[sidebar]
For the aerospace educationally challenged, or for those who should read themselves a book on it, I had book while I was a gilder pilot as a cadet over 20 years ago. Got the old version from my friend’s dad who was an American Vietnam Phantom pilot. I lost it after a military posting in 1995, but I just found another new version of it on-line.
(http://covers.openlibrary.org/b/olid/OL8905178M-M.jpg)
For most flight schools, this book is a must-own.
Google has a preview of it HERE (http://books.google.com/books?id=m5V04SXE4zQC&pg=PT33&lpg=PT33&dq=+%22angle+of+bank%22&source=web&ots=iYTi_mZAra&sig=ytjcmr9RStdIdgZzaiBJJ-wxjts&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%22angle%20of%20bank%22&f=false)
Amazon also has it for around $17. (http://books.google.com/url?client=ca-print-pub-0163604280282699&format=googleprint&num=0&channel=BTB-ca-print-pub-0163604280282699+BTB-ISBN:1602390347&q=http://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Aeronautical-Knowledge-Aviation-Administration/dp/1602390347&usg=AFQjCNGCkXxVdRAP10pVP34tVnCE8r53wg&source=gbs_buy_s&cad=0)
I’m not an expert like Baumer on this – but I do understand the complex and underlying principles of centrifugal forces, weight and gravity, aerodynamics, drag coefficients, lift, propeller design, stability and design, wing load, moment arm, parasite drag, induced drag, thrust and the relationship between engine torque and horsepower and how it accelerates an aircraft, surface tension, and the oh… hundred of other factors that impact how an aircraft moves in the sky. Throw in air temperature, humidity, and the physics of air itself, it’s not an easy science.
Chapter 3 of the FAA book has everything you need to know the basics. It’s written for someone who wants to know more about aircraft, and you don’t need a PHD to understand the language. If you can fly the Spitfire I in Aces High, you’re already half-way there. :D
[/sidebar]
-
I can't claim credit for the formula reduction. It's from Wikipedia's wing loading page, scroll down to effects on turning performance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading)
I think it's great that you posted about the Encyclopedia of Aeronautical Knowledge. Getting more people to understand the fundamentals will help make these kinds of discussions more meaningful. Terms like instantaneous turn, sustained turn speed, and sustained turn rate, have very specific definitions and are often times used incorrectly.
Here is a link to a free copy (in .pdf) from the FAA of the handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge.
http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aviation/pilot_handbook/ (http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aviation/pilot_handbook/)
-
-I love the part about ANY aircrafts... Props and jets are exactly the same folks: Remember that... It kind of reminds me of my gape-mouthed reading of Shaw's fighter tactics book, which showed not the slightest glimmer of understanding of the difference between TRACTION and PROPULSION: You have to wonder why engineers even bother using those terms... Most of the WWII anecdotal examples he produced unsurprisingly involved the P-47, which is probably the most likely prop aircraft to produce accounts flattering to his near-total lack of practical understanding of actual WWII air fighting (shared by a lot of US Navy test pilots apparently)...
It is a fact that reducing throttle in any aircraft will reduce its sustained turning performance, it doesn't matter if it is a prop or a jet. So if both Shaw and I don't have "the slightest glimmer of understanding", how is that we both understand that very simple concept and you don't?
Your argument basically amounts to, I put a bigger number into an equation, and therefore a bigger outcome is necessary in real-life as it is in the equation... Has it occurred to you that turning inefficiency can drastically increase with more power? And that several different aces from several nations have mentionned downthrottling as an essential part of dogfighting?
Of course, but reducing throttle will only improve turning if the aircraft is far enough above corner velocity to warrent it, but it won't ever improve sustained turning performance, that just isn't possible.
http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/#g6r6
Let's see an interpretation of this...
Certainly, you can interpret the quote below without breaking the laws of physics as follows:
"I learned to fly with the "Cannon-Mersu" (MT-461). I found that when fighter pilots got in a battle, they usually applied full power and then began to turn. In the same situation I used to decrease power, and with lower speed was able to turn equally well. I shot down at least one Mustang (on 4th July 1944) in turning fight. I was hanging behind one, but I could not get enough deflection. Then the pilot made an error: he pulled too much, and stalling, had to loosen his turn. That gave me the chance of getting deflection and shooting him down. It was not impossible to dogfight flying a three-cannon Messerschmitt."
In the first three sentences of that quote this pilot claims that decreasing power enabled him to turn "equally well" but there is no indication what speeds, and in fact he must have been referring to speeds above corner velocity, because that's the only way his statement can be true. He was also not out turning the enemy aircraft at that point because when he says "I could not get enough deflection" that means he was stuck in lag. If we assume that both aircraft were at relatively high speed, that would mean that when he referrs to the enemy pilot stalling, it would have been an accelerated stall. Just because a stall was mentioned, doesn't mean they were flying slowly, and the next quote confirms this:
"When the enemy decreased power, I used to throttle back even more. In a high speed the turning radius is wider, using less speed I was able to out-turn him having a shorter turning radius. Then you got the deflection, unless the adversary did not spot me in time and for example banked below me. 250kmh seemed to be the optimal speed."
Here he clearly states that the radius is wider at "high speed", and that his advantage came from having a shorter turning radius. The point is that you only get a shorter radius if you reduce speed when you are already above corner velocity. Once you are at or below corner velocity reducing speed won't reduce the radius any further. So this quote clinches it, and this pilot clearly understands the relationship between speed, power, and turn radius, and that decreased power only works to improve the turn radius when you are above corner velocity.
The problem is, that you are saying that this works at speeds below corner velocity and that reducing throttle improves sustained turning, both of which are wrong. Below corner velocity the turn radius remains almost constant, and in order to achieve a better sustained turn you must increase power, not reduce it.
What you are suggesting isn't just wrong it is impossible, and the process of sound reasoning required to interpret those anecdotes, involves eliminating the impossible, not embracing it as you are doing.
Badboy
-
In fact, in the Hanseman case he mentions downthrottling TWICE: Initial downthrottling effect: "He stopped cutting me off"
SECOND downthrottling effect, several on-the-deck 360 AFTER the first one: "I commenced turning inside him as I reduced throttle settings."
So he downthrottled FURTHER, my guess from 250-300 MPH to 225 MPH the first time, then from 225 MPH to 190-200 MPH the second time, while the initially winning Me-109G probably stayed at the same high power throughout the numerous 360°s...
Your first guess may well be correct, because that confirms that he was above corner velocity and reduced throttle for the right reason, but your second guess has him reducing throttle below corner velocity which would not be consistant with improved turning. It is far more likely, that he wasn't doing continuous turns, because if he was he couldn't have moved away from the field. It is far more likely that in his effort to distance himself from the enemy field, he stopped or reduced his turning for long enough to put some distance between himself and the field, and that he accelerated in the process, which would mean he would need to reduce throttle again once he resumed turning to bring himself back to corner velocity.
That being said, spiralling down DOES allow much tighter sustained turns,
Nope, spiralling down allows you to maintain speed while achieving a high instantaneous turn rate, but descending is by definition NOT a sustained turn.
This is why much of WWII sustained turn-fighting is usually as close as possible to the stereotypical sustained flat turns,
The problem with that, as everyone has been trying to explain to you, is that if they were doing flat turns at or below corner speed as you claim, their best sustained turn performance would occur at maximum throttle, and under those conditions reducing throttle doesn't make any sense at all because your turn would be seriously degraded.
We are both trying to interpret those anecdotes, and neither of us can be certain we have it right, but unfortunately your interpretation is not consistant with the laws of physics, and that should be a fairly convincing clue that it might be worth opening your mind to some of the alternatives being suggested that are at least physically possible.
Badboy
-
I think I can explain the reducing throttle part.
Often in game, I will reduce throttle and turn hard to force an overshoot. To the other player it looks like a very tight turn, only because they blow past you and sudden find them selfs on the outside of the turn and way in front of you.
try it yourself, grab a 109k4, go about 275 mph and get a spit 16 on your 6. Lower the nose a little, cut throttle, snap roll to the right, and pull back until you almost black out, then snap roll it to the left and pull back again. Most pilots will not cut throttle and will blow past you and you can get the snap shot on the left turn.
-
I think I can explain the reducing throttle part.
Often in game, I will reduce throttle and turn hard to force an overshoot. To the other player it looks like a very tight turn, only because they blow past you and sudden find them selfs on the outside of the turn and way in front of you.
try it yourself, grab a 109k4, go about 275 mph and get a spit 16 on your 6. Lower the nose a little, cut throttle, snap roll to the right, and pull back until you almost black out, then snap roll it to the left and pull back again. Most pilots will not cut throttle and will blow past you and you can get the snap shot on the left turn.
but it does help to cut throttle in 109 when making right turns as you are fight the torque of the engine
-
but it does help to cut throttle in 109 when making right turns as you are fight the torque of the engine
Throttle cutting helps on the roll but for a sustained turn I would say no (have not tested), you need the power to drag your plane through the turn without loosing to much e. Late war 109s don't really need to 'out turn' like a zero, they can use their engine to bleed the other guy out of e because they accelerate and climb so well. For a sustained right turn, have a slight nose up, flaps out, full throttle with wep and hold that badboy on as it shakes... the other guy will bleed e and all you need to do then is go up.
-
Try a good turn-fight in AH. I normally go for a high-turn rather than cutting throttle, since it will open a way for an upwards escape or give aggressive possibilities.
The only reason to chop throttle is to cut to a quick shot, - after that you are riding the stall, and in trouble if the opponent turns better.
Unless....it is all heading downwards...and in that case, your enemy would have to be lower to allow it...
Either way, NEITHER IS SUSTAINED TURN.
-
NEITHER IS SUSTAINED TURN.
Agreed, and I tried to elude to that too.
-
The problem with your collective misunderstanding of how this works is that you ignore, in the specific wording of the accounts, all the numerous clues that these downthrottled turns are indeed SUSTAINED...
-First of all, there is no mention in any of these accounts of UPTHROTTLING...
-I concede that downthrottling exists also for cancelling brief overshoots: The short-lived nature of those is very evident in the accounts, and often it can be achieved in other ways, like dropping flaps, side-slipping, rolling violently or, for the P-47, even firing its guns...
-I do not claim downthrottling below 250 MPH gains a far higher turn RATE: It may or may not according to type, or remain equal on some types. I claim it reduces turn RADIUS greatly. Note Karhila says "I turned equally well, but in a smaller radius".
-No explanation has been provided by anyone as to why Karhila says the "optimal" sustained turn rate (or sustained turn rate/radius combo) speed of the Me-109G-6 to be around 250 km/h, or 160 MPH(!). This is clearly far below any "Corner Speed" however it is defined. (The Fins tested an unspecified sort of optimal turn speed on the Me-109G-6 as being around 220 MPH, and Il-2 supposedly has it at 240 MPH for sustained turns on the P-51D)
That he mentions such an extremely low speed in the context of explaining his downthrottling tactics in sustained turns is undeniable... He even mention his tactics in contrast to those who throttled up! He also makes NO mention of upthrottling back up himself, and neither does any of those other sustained downthrottling accounts.
Note also his wording of the "P-51" dogfight: "I was HANGING behind him, unable to gain deflection, until he made a mistake". Meaning this was going on for quite a while... He described of this specific combat, but in another interview, that the speed of the "P-51" was 300 km/h (200 MPH) in a wider radius, while he was at 250 km/h in a smaller radius, and that the P-51's "higher" speed is what prevented him from gaining deflection: 200 MPH in a P-51 or P-40 is well below even the watered-down 10 seconds to blindness "Corner Speed" of 4-4.5 Gs...
THAT "P-51" battle, in the other interview, was clearly described as going on for "several" 360° turns near the water... This excludes any "non-sustained" explanations...
The conclusion I draw from the "P-51" speed being stated as being 200 MPH is that both were downthrottling to their optimal sustained turn rate/radius combination, but maybe because of the 20 mm gondolas the Me-109G-6 barely won despite the wingloading advantage...
I do accept that the FW-190A is incapable of matching the 160 MPH turn radius of the Me-109G-6, but I do maintain that it has a higher sustained turn rate slightly above that speed (the 109F could compete in rate, but not the G): Say something like the P-51D's preferred sustained turn speeds of 190-200 MPH, but with a better sustained turn rate than the P-51D (because of a smaller radius), and also a better sustained turn rate than most other fighters in Europe except some Russian fighters and some Spitfire Marks.
I never said downthrottling was advantageous ONLY to the FW-190A, only that it may be MORE so, because of the type's patently awful, and downright scary, high-speed handling behaviour...
Until the problem of TRACTION/PROPULSION is understood, nothing will be resolved further: In the case of ALL airborne nose-traction, I assert less is indeed more: Here is an interesting example that was presented to me on Il-2 to show me the errors of my ways: It shows a genuine understanding of my argument, but achieves the opposite of what the author intended...
Here is the argument: If what I say is true for the prop's passive resistance to turning, would it not also mean that the BAC Lightning jet would benefit in turns of lowering the power in its UPPER engine to help the turn? (It is a jet fighter with two large engines in an over-under fuselage position)
To that I say no... It merely shows how the issue here is so large it cannot be seen: Turning basically means continuously raising the leading edge of the wings (which makes the whole thing very different from climbing): What leverage does the jet engine thrust have to counter-act the raise of the leading edge of the wings? It is the other way around here: It is the wings leading edges that HAVE 15-20 ft. of leverage to deflect the thrust, not the other way around!
What if we were to modify the BAC Lightning?: Let's imagine re-routing the jet nozzles, say with no loss of thrust efficiency, so that the SAME thrust exits now out of a nozzle on each SIDE of the nose: No longer a top and bottom difference!: The thrust is now 15-20 ft AHEAD of the leading edges (say the median point of them given the sweep), and there is now no vertical separation in the thrust!
Would reducing the nose pull on such an airccraft, which has NO large flat disc to resist vertical twisting (The side-by-side nozzles have NO right-angle stress-riser vertical leverage like the flat disc prop has), would that produce an increase in sustained turn rate at lower speeds if you lowered the tractive power?
It would certainly help the wings to keep lifting their leading edges continuously, since the nose-pulling continuously pulls then down!: If they lift their leading edges easier, then it is less taxing for the wing lift to achieve this raising action: Less taxing of the wing lift means less REAL-LIFE wingloading...
So you can clearly see here the exact same thing remains true regardless of the nature of the traction: The flat prop disc's passive resistance and right-angle stress-riser leverage is only a compounding factor of an inherent nose-traction problem that can be alleviated only by reducing power in a continuous turn (short of putting the thrust at the rear!)...
All of this would be common knowledge if all jets had their exhausts exiting in the nose... All jet fighter pilots would be today taught to downthrottle in turning combat occurring BELOW Corner Speed if their jets were all nose-tracted... (And that could possibly drive combat speeds down, despite the instantaneous explosive impact of missiles, at least to some extent...) That they might be taught that their principles of fighting was refined in WWII (or even WWI!) may be nice for morale to give them a sense of connection to a glorious past, but it is completely artificial: Nose traction requires you to THINK about turning combat differently...
It is very nice to repeat like a mantra that "speed is life", but limp-wristed guns when you are going too fast are nowhere near as good as missiles (as the Komet found out), and in WWII it was the limitations of the machines that often forced a type of fighting we seem to have quickly forgotten...
Gaston
-
News flash! There's no "prop disc"...
The "disc" is an optical illusion. It's really just a few small blades moving really fast, that due to "persistence of vision" looks like a disc. "Looking like" and "behaving like" aren't the same thing.
Lots of folks see things that look like ghosts and flying saucers every year; that doesn't mean they're actually seeing ghosts and flying saucers.
This "right-angle stress-riser vertical leverage like (you claim) the flat disc prop has" is really limited to just a small fraction of time per revolution of the prop. It only exists when one of the blades is vertical. In a two or four-blade prop, that effect would be canceled out by the lower blade moving forward faster (in reality, neither blade is being "pulled back"). In a three-blade scenario, the two lower blades would be countering the effect of the upper blade...
Any time there isn't a blade pointing directly "up", the effect you argue would be minimized, simply because there's no "right-angle stress-riser". Anything less than a right angle would be "less", right? Keeping in mind that we're looking at a full 360 degrees of rotation, there's a blade creating "right-angle stress-riser vertical leverage" exactly what fraction of the time? Maybe 1/90th of the time (four-blade prop).
You could just as easily present your argument in reverse, by claiming the bottom blade "forces" the nose up, because the up elevator deflection removes some of the obviously much-needed resistance keeping the lower blade from forcing the nose up. We could even toss in the idea that gravity or centrifugal force are pulling the tail down, or "out" of the turn. And with all the leverage afforded the tail, due to it's distance from the CoG, surely the tail would prevail. Besides, in addition to leverage, the tail has brute weight on it's side! Which weighs more, the blade, or the tail?
Cripes! It's flat-out amazing that once the elevator is deflected upwards the slightest amount, that we have any hope of stopping or (good-golly!!) reversing that process.... You'd think that once the nose started up (or is the tail dropping???) the effect would be like a runaway train! The "turn" would rapidly tighten, maybe even flipping the plane around backwards (or maybe just ripping it to shreds?)! Jumpin' Jiminy!
And who says it needs to be limited to the up/down aspect? What would the effect be like if the vertical stabilizer was shot off, especially with a three-blade prop? You'd think that when the blade was straight out to the right, it'd surely overcome the pull of the other two blades, especially since it had the benefit of "right-angle stress-riser vertical leverage" and the other two don't... It should swing the tail to the right! And then the left... Quickly followed by the right... Like a salmon swimming upstream!
Disclaimer- I'm being a bit sarcastic here... I was tempted to just mention something about a horse and water, but got carried away...
-
So in essence your argument is, that a front wheel drive car can turn better than a rear wheel drive car since the thrust is forward of the CG.
or, Lets be even more clear, your point is;
I will continue to make aerodynamic conclusions based on second hand information, that is lacking in detail. I will continue to maintain that only MY interpretation of the second hand account is correct, and will denigrate any other proposed explanations.
Here is a fun little experiment, fly a sortie in Aces High (Make sure to record it using Alt-R). Hopefully you can get into a nice little 1 on 1 with someone and win. Now, I want you to wait 1 to 2 hours after the engagement to write as detailed an action report as possible, include items such as initial engagement altitude, initial speed, boggy speed & alt. Then continue to describe the combat, including number and lengths of turns, flap usage (yours and boggys), final altitude. All this without using any cheat sheets and not looking at the film. Then compare the report to the film and tell me what you get.
-
I'm pretty sure a right angle stress riser has nothing to do with aerodynamics. Maybe somebody can enlighten me. :headscratch:
"The problem with your collective misunderstanding of how this works is that you ignore, in the specific wording of the accounts, all the numerous clues..."
I think that's the crux of the biscuit right there. What we should be doing is reading between the lines and looking at the big picture. We are ignoring the numerous clues that give us relevant information that is not explicitly stated. :old:
Have a nice day. :)
-
I'm pretty sure a right angle stress riser has nothing to do with aerodynamics. Maybe somebody can enlighten me. :headscratch:
"The problem with your collective misunderstanding of how this works is that you ignore, in the specific wording of the accounts, all the numerous clues..."
I think that's the crux of the biscuit right there. What we should be doing is reading between the lines and looking at the big picture. We are ignoring the numerous clues that give us relevant information that is not explicitly stated. :old:
Have a nice day. :)
When did you stop getting old and forgetful FLS and start making sense again? :)
-
Quote, Baumer: "So in essence your argument is, that a front wheel drive car can turn better than a rear wheel drive car since the thrust is forward of the CG."
-Everybody in the automotive world knows the handling of front-wheel drive cars is vastly different from rear-wheel drive... Ever saw a rear-wheel drive car make a hairpin turn in a Rally? See what happens next when a front-wheel drive car makes the same turn...
Quote, mntman: "News flash! There's no "prop disc"...
The "disc" is an optical illusion."
-Yes I know: You can actually prove that by putting your hand into it real quick! Try it!
Gaston
P.S. Wasn't the crux of my argument that the thrust location at the nose mattered more than whether it was a prop or not? I think some posters here didn't quite read or understand all of it...
G.
-
Ever saw a rear-wheel drive car make a hairpin turn in a Rally? See what happens next when a front-wheel drive car makes the same turn...
Some of the all time best Rally cars have been RWD.
Ferrari 288 GTO
Ford Escort
Opel Ascona
Opel Manta
Talbot Sunbeam Lotus
Vauxhall Chevette
Toyota Celica
Porsche 911
Fiat 131 Abarth
Opel Kadett
Lancia Stratos
Ford Fiesta
Triumph TR7
Ford Fiesta
Peugeot 205
Darrian T90
Hilman Impian
Hillman Avenger
Renault 5
Toyota Starlet
Toyota Corolla AE 86
Ford Sierra RS
Lancia 037
BMW 325i
Vauxhall Magnum
Not sure what you are getting at here...
Before most went to AWD some of the top Rally cars were RWD.
If you are saying FWD is a better handling car than RWD then I think the nice people at Ferrari, Porsche, Lamborghini, Mercedes Benz, McLaren, Shelby SuperCars, BMW, Saleen, Jaguar, Koenigsegg, Audi (etc, etc) might have a thing or two to say about that.
-
Are you seriously trying to tell me that broccoli is better than sprouts?
-
Gaston please learn to use correct terms.
1. the word optimal, simply means best. You are mixing 2 concepts.
2. You say "optimal turn speed", and ("optimal" sustained turn rate). They are completely different concepts. The key concept being the word SUSTAINED.
Every one here has given you the definition and why 160 is the best sustained turn rate. and 220 being the best turn rate , the key being able to hold the same speed and alt are the different between the concepts.
So the official terms would be best sustained turn rate. And best turn rate.I.E. Best turn rate & radius happen at corner speed. Best SUSTAINED turn rate & radius happen close to best climb speeds. Corner speed in AH (limited at 6 g's) happens at 2.44 * Stall speed. Corner speed happens at the sqrt(glimit) * Stall Speed.
now many people will leave out the word "Optimal or best" when speaking of sustained turn rates, it is automatically assume the word best or optimal is applied to the sentence or people would stat it more like what rate of climb or turn can be sustained in at 220 mph. But this is not the same concept of best sustained turn rate. It is the same concept when some one states the max speed of a plane, they are leaving out the part that it will only do this speed at one altitude.
If you were to try SUSTAIN a turn at 220 mph (this means not slowing down and not descending) you turn rate would be at least half of what your SUSTAINED turn rate would be sustained at 160 mph. And this is where you are constantly mixing terms. It is conceivable you could get a better turn rate and radius with reduced throttle at corner speed ( sorry I have not crunched the numbers to find out) but this will be at the expense of loosing altitude more quickly, notice we are not using the word SUSTAINED because this is not a sustained turn, we are loosing alt, and there fore will very quickly have to stop the turn, or hit the ground. Hence why the word SUSTAINED is used.
-No explanation has been provided by anyone as to why Karhila says the "optimal" sustained turn rate (or sustained turn rate/radius combo) speed of the Me-109G-6 to be around 250 km/h, or 160 MPH(!). This is clearly far below any "Corner Speed" however it is defined. (The Fins tested an unspecified sort of optimal turn speed on the Me-109G-6 as being around 220 MPH, and Il-2 supposedly has it at 240 MPH for sustained turns on the P-51D)
Now as far as you disk loading, could you please draw a simple sketch of this loading you are referring to? If you would I can fairly quickly do the math for you to show you it's net effect with full power and reduced power.
Gaston , it is obvious to me you are truly interested in these topics. I and a few others here know the physics side of this very well, and contrary to your belief, planes do not fly out side of the realm of physics. (If you do not except this concept of physics are true, your hole riser argument also falls apart, because you are trying to make a physics argument as to why the effect is there) If your "Disk riser concepts" is true, then your sketch would very quickly prove it to be true once we crunch some numbers.
HiTech
-
Quote, Baumer: "So in essence your argument is, that a front wheel drive car can turn better than a rear wheel drive car since the thrust is forward of the CG."
-Everybody in the automotive world knows the handling of front-wheel drive cars is vastly different from rear-wheel drive... Ever saw a rear-wheel drive car make a hairpin turn in a Rally? See what happens next when a front-wheel drive car makes the same turn...
bad analogy, folks. The rwd tends to be superior in racing primarily because of weight transfer and friction-circle effects. The former means that, on accel, you will transfer weight rearward, thus enabling the generation of greater frictional, tractive force - itself dependent on the normal force on the tire. The latter is best described by a simple thought experiment - or you can try it in your car: how much turning force can your front tires generate when they're locked in braking or spinning under accel?
-
Hi Gaston,
Please take the time to read this carefully...
I'm going to explain what happens when you throttle back and reduce power. Take a look at the diagram below.
There are two curves on this diagram that show where a sustained turn is possible across the entire envelope for full power at 1600HP and for a reduced throttle setting of 1000HP.
Notice that when you reduce power, the curve showing all possible best sustained turns moves lower down the envelope, and you can see that means lower sustained turn rates and larger radii.
Specifically, at 225mph the sustained turn rate drops from about 17.8 dps to 12.8 dps a loss of 5dps. Also, the turn radius increases from about 1100ft to 1500ft. This shows that reducing throttle has a dramatic adverse impact on an aircraft's sustained turning performance by reducing the turn rate and increasing the radius.
You can see all this by examining this diagram:
(http://www.leonbadboysmith.com/images/EM5.gif)
Similar diagrams to this have been produced since 1932, and they show exactly the same displacement of the sustained turn curve on WWII aircraft as seen above, indicating significantly reduced sustained turn performance with reduction in throttle. But that is not just applicable to WWII aircraft, reduce the thrust on a Prop or a Jet and the sustained turning ability will suffer accordingly.
I claim it reduces turn RADIUS greatly. Note Karhila says "I turned equally well, but in a smaller radius".
Take another look at that diagram, you will notice that every point on the 1000HP sustained turn curve has a larger turn radius than the 1600HP curve speed for speed. That means if you are at 200mph at full power you could sustain a turn with a radius under 900ft, with reduced throttle at 1000HP that turn would be wider at about 1150ft. You can see this yourself by looking at the diagram. Less throttle leads to worse turn radius, and worse turn rate, period.
As explained before, the only way the anecdotes make sense, or are at least physically possible, is if you interpret them from the perspective of turning at some G limit, and thus instantaneous turns, not sustained turns. The reason that works can also be seen on the diagram above, and here is an example:
Say a pilot is flying at a self imposed 4G limit, he's on the edge of greying out and is using that as his G meter. He doesn't want to pull any harder because he knows that at 4.5G he loses his vision completely after a few seconds, and that could be disastrous, so he's holding 4G at 305mph. At that moment his turn rate is 16dps and his radius is 1600ft. You can see that if he can hold that 4G and reduce his speed to 212mph he will have a turn rate of 23dps and a radius under 800ft. That means he can improve his turn rate and cut his turn radius in half, and of course it would make sense to reduce throttle to try to get to there as soon as possible!
That's a dramatic improvement, but it only occurs during instantaneous turning conditions. Once you enter a sustained turn, maximum power is required. Why? Because you would rather be at point A than point B on the diagram. Those two points represent the place in the envelope where the best sustained turn can be achieved at 1000HP and 1600HP and you can see at a glance that full power (point A) gives the highest sustained turn rate possible, and the smallest sustained turn radius.
The problem with your collective misunderstanding of how this works is that you ignore, in the specific wording of the accounts, all the numerous clues that these downthrottled turns are indeed SUSTAINED...
All of the anecdotes you have posted so far are consistent with the facts outlined above. They were real events described by the people who were there, so they should be interpreted by us in a way that is entirely consistent with the laws of physics. That's why the turns being described could not have been sustained turns, because reducing throttle has an adverse impact on sustained turning. So fortunately, there isn't a collective misunderstanding, and the rest of the world hasn't somehow got it all wrong!
Badboy
-
All of this would be common knowledge if all jets had their exhausts exiting in the nose... All jet fighter pilots would be today taught to downthrottle in turning combat occurring BELOW Corner Speed if their jets were all nose-tracted... (And that could possibly drive combat speeds down, despite the instantaneous explosive impact of missiles, at least to some extent...) That they might be taught that their principles of fighting was refined in WWII (or even WWI!) may be nice for morale to give them a sense of connection to a glorious past, but it is completely artificial: Nose traction requires you to THINK about turning combat differently...
As HTC said, it would be best if you diagram this out. As is, and being no stranger to the free-body diagram, I will attempt to make sense of what you've written here and before with regard to the thrust issue:
1. it is entirely true that the center of thrust will move SLIGHTLY during turning. See my earlier development of the local blade alpha for the aero effect. If you want to determine the inertial impact of trying to change the direction of the rotating prop, I'd ask you to try to get some data on that prop's rotational inertia - though I doubt it differs significantly from most of the other types.
2. I've also shown ,based on HTC's numbers from the F-dub, that the aero effect of displacing the center of thrust is to create a pitch moment of small scale. As HTC also noted, this moment resists aircraft pitch but in no way counters the aircraft turn, itself driven by the large resultant lift force directed at the center of the turn.
3. Thrust does tend to produce a nose up/down (pitch) moment if the center of thrust is displaced vertically, a nose left/right (yaw) if the center of thrust is displaced laterally - this is true if the a/c is a jet or a prop. Your "nose tractive" argument needs to be diagrammed because I see little here to counter the physical reality that the torque scalar (magnitude) is always force X perpendicular distance of perpendicular force x distance.
As for the rest, I think Badboy's nailed it.
-
P.S. Our outboard 30mm package weighs far too much, and our outboard 20mm package doesn't weigh enough, as compared to the real deal. Current bang-for-buck is the 4x20mm, until that is fixed.
According to the A-8 manual found here: http://www.simcentrum.com/pafiledb.php?action=file&id=51 (http://www.simcentrum.com/pafiledb.php?action=file&id=51), the weight of the outboard cannon ammo is correct to the pound in Aces High at 322lbs.
The cannon weighs 42kg so the weight of the cannons seems to be correct aswell per your weight figures.
-
Well according to a number of other sources including technical orders (cited in previous threads on the matter) that weight is wrong.
-
Well according to a number of other sources including technical orders (cited in previous threads on the matter) that weight is wrong.
Would you post those sources?
-
As a matter of fact. No. I will not.
There have been at least a half dozen threads on 190s brought back to life or started new in the past month or two. In fact you don't seem to recall the first few pages of this thread (before it spiraled into Gaston-world) where this was already asked and answered.
-
As a matter of fact. No. I will not.
There have been at least a half dozen threads on 190s brought back to life or started new in the past month or two. In fact you don't seem to recall the first few pages of this thread (before it spiraled into Gaston-world) where this was already asked and answered.
I'm trying to collect as many sources as possible to form a complete picture so it would be possible to find out what causes these weight discrepencies.
This table puts AH's 20mm setup as +67 to +77 pounds over weight compared to AH as Baumer mentioned:
(http://332nd.org/dogs/baumer/BBS%20Stuff/Fw190A8page.jpg)
From the manual I mentioned:
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/A-8weighs.jpg)
The weight of the ammo matches AH. And the cannons weight also seems to match AH.
So that is why I asked for the source. Is it the same as Baumers or a separate one?
EDIT/Actually, according to Baumer's mention of the srouce of the table he posted...his table is from the same basic manual (T.2190 A-8)./EDIT
EDIT/Yeh, both of these tables are found from the same manual./EDIT
-
Gaston please learn to use correct terms.
1. the word optimal, simply means best. You are mixing 2 concepts.
2. You say "optimal turn speed", and ("optimal" sustained turn rate). They are completely different concepts. The key concept being the word SUSTAINED.
Every one here has given you the definition and why 160 is the best sustained turn rate. and 220 being the best turn rate , the key being able to hold the same speed and alt are the different between the concepts.
So the official terms would be best sustained turn rate. And best turn rate.I.E. Best turn rate & radius happen at corner speed. Best SUSTAINED turn rate & radius happen close to best climb speeds. Corner speed in AH (limited at 6 g's) happens at 2.44 * Stall speed. Corner speed happens at the sqrt(glimit) * Stall Speed.
now many people will leave out the word "Optimal or best" when speaking of sustained turn rates, it is automatically assume the word best or optimal is applied to the sentence or people would stat it more like what rate of climb or turn can be sustained in at 220 mph. But this is not the same concept of best sustained turn rate. It is the same concept when some one states the max speed of a plane, they are leaving out the part that it will only do this speed at one altitude.
If you were to try SUSTAIN a turn at 220 mph (this means not slowing down and not descending) you turn rate would be at least half of what your SUSTAINED turn rate would be sustained at 160 mph. And this is where you are constantly mixing terms. It is conceivable you could get a better turn rate and radius with reduced throttle at corner speed ( sorry I have not crunched the numbers to find out) but this will be at the expense of loosing altitude more quickly, notice we are not using the word SUSTAINED because this is not a sustained turn, we are loosing alt, and there fore will very quickly have to stop the turn, or hit the ground. Hence why the word SUSTAINED is used.
Now as far as you disk loading, could you please draw a simple sketch of this loading you are referring to? If you would I can fairly quickly do the math for you to show you it's net effect with full power and reduced power.
Gaston , it is obvious to me you are truly interested in these topics. I and a few others here know the physics side of this very well, and contrary to your belief, planes do not fly out side of the realm of physics. (If you do not except this concept of physics are true, your hole riser argument also falls apart, because you are trying to make a physics argument as to why the effect is there) If your "Disk riser concepts" is true, then your sketch would very quickly prove it to be true once we crunch some numbers.
HiTech
-The distinction between peak sustained and peak unsustained turns is very clear in my mind, and I do mention it always...
-I did not know that the best sustained turn speed of the Me-109G-6 was accepted as being 160 MPH: The replies I got on Il-2 was that the Me-109G-6 had a peak sustained turn rate speed of around 220 MPH, at full power, while the P-51D was a little higher at around 230 MPH. It is true Finnish testing of a Me-109G-2 "peak" at 220 MPH allowed some speed loss, but then the turn was done with a slight CLIMB, so the methodology is peculiar here...
In any case I had never heard of a peak sustained turn rate at FULL power being as low as 160 MPH before Karhila said so for reduced power... Also I determined that the 6G "Corner Speed" of many WWII prop fighters to be well above 320-340 MPH... This means to me that any downthrottling below near-full max level speed is not an advantage according to accepted theory...
Note the Me-109G's pilot manual has the sustained turn rate, at full power and at 400 km/h, as being 13 seconds for 180°, or presumably a 26 seconds for a 360°: Very near the maximum sustained turn of 24 seconds in Russian tests, or 22 seconds for the G-2...
At 450 km/h, still in the Me-109G-6 pilot manual (a whopping 281 MPH), the sustained turn rate abruptly drops to 14 seconds for 100° of turning, so there is an abrupt sustained turn-rate drop of near-50% at a much higher speed than what you say... (I was told this was due to reduced engine acceleration, but I remain open for other contributing explanations for this abrupt drop: Prop disc load, aerodynamics)
If the sustained turn rate DOUBLED from 220 MPH to 160 MPH, then 24-26 seconds would be 12-13 seconds at 160 MPH... I have never seen such numbers for sustained turns below 200 MPH, or at ANY speed...
You say 6G "Corner Speed" is 2.44 time stall, but that would only be about 250 MPH on the P-51D Mustang, and wartime testing clearly has an unsustained turn radius of 450 yds (1350 ft.) at 400 MPH for the p-51D (Spit XIV 625 yds), and the 1989 P-51D tests also clearly states "(6G in test) Corner Speed is VERY close to maximum level speed", implying a rapid loss of speed when turning at this (6G?) "structural" limit" ("structural limit" might here mean something a bit higher, like an 7-8G Corner Speed at 400 MPH, which matches the wartime testing of 450 yds. radius at 400 MPH)
This means to me the lowest speed to be able to reach 6G unsustained, in a P-51D, is at least around 320-350 MPH, and I don't see how this can be consistent with 250 MPH... The absolute structural max. of 7-8G is probaly around 400-420 MPH, which, with fluttering pushing the micro-second loads past 13 Gs, explains why these aircrafts could only be "broken" in dives, and never in level speed flight...
Also a 6G "Corner Speed" of 320-350 MPH seems consistent to me with a peak sustained turn rate of around 230 MPH at full power for a P-51D...
This matches, roughly, the Me-109G-6 pilot's manual 26 seconds of sustained 360°s at 250 MPH at full power... (Though the actual 24 seconds sustained "peak" was tested by the Russians at an unknown speed, maybe a bit lower like 220 MPH)
I am very surprised you find a sustained turn peak for the Me-109G-6 to be at 160 MPH, AT FULL POWER... My impression is that this is not consistent with the actual location of the 6G "Corner Speed" at 320-350 MPH in some types, and the near-best sustained 26 seconds sustained turn time at 250 MPH in the Me-109G-6 pilot's manuals...
In fact, my impression is that 160 MPH is such a low speed that the Me-109G-6 CANNOT turn hard enough to maintain such a low speed AT FULL POWER without downthrottling... It would be "pulled" faster to a more "natural" and wider-radiused sustained turn speed of over 210-220 MPH at full power... Top speed at full power is 400 MPH, or 360 MPH at lower alts: Can it really turn hard enough at full power, at a sustained 160 MPH, to lose 200 +MPH of straight speed???
As far as downthrottling accounts go, the notion that this tactic entails a loss of altitude is contrary to the examples I provided of this occurring in flat turns, or at less than 500 ft... I also pointed out that spiraling down to gain angles on a chaser is not a generally sound and acceptable tactic in WWII, since even out-turning in this case is useless because of the lower resulting position compared to the chaser... This is "giving up the high ground", and not really productive at low speeds where zooming or even raising the nose is not easy or available...
I will provide later some crude graphics about the disc load effect on wing-loading, since my worded explanations are not so helpful...
Gaston
-
Gaston do you wish to learn or just keep spouting a complete mix of numbers? If you learn you may be able to start to see when the numbers you are quoting just are orders of magnitudes incorrect.
Gaston I have flow real mustangs in dogfights. I have pulled 6 g's in them. It is far far below 300 mph. Now you can take my real world pilot account of ME flying the plane, or you can take my physics analysis. Your choice. But the numbers you are mixing and matching to try draw a conclusion is just not even close to accurate. My RV has a 6 g corner speed of about 140. And a stall speed of 58. I have tested both many many times. Again it is about 2.44 ratio, the simple reason it is 2.44 is because 2.44 = sqrt(6) and that is because lift increases with the square of speed.
So Gaston believe your uneducated conclusions, or learn from many of us here who have both done the real thing, and know how to calculate the math. I would much prefer you start trying to apply what Badboy, I and Godzilla are trying to teach you. Because we really have nothing to prove to as to what plane is better, we really do not care. We love this stuff, and enjoy teaching others the physics.
HiTech
-
I am perfectly willing to admit that the figures I use are inaccurate, but if you can pull 6 Gs unsustained turns far below 300 MPH in a P-51D, why is it that when test pilots tested the P-51D in 1989, with the SAME 6 G limit, they concluded: "The "Corner Speed" is very close to the maximum level speed"...:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,261798.0.html
The definition of "Corner Speed" is the lowest speed at which a chosen G limit can be reached... If 3.2 G sustained turns can be done at 250 MPH, it is very believable that near-6Gs turns can be reached "instantaneously" at the same speed, but that still requires you to explain why they said what they said... Which you haven't done except to say that "very close to the maximum level speed" for Corner Speed was "insane"...
My guess is that you can get pretty close to 6 instantaneous Gs below 300 MPH, say 5.5 Gs, but either the 1989 test pilots had a more stringent standard for "Corner Speed" (more than just barely reaching the value on a G-meter), or they still detected an improving trend towards 6 Gs past 300 MPH... They never went to the absolute 7-8 Gs in those 1989 tests, so their conclusion could be an extrapolation of what they got at 6 Gs. It is not complicated for you to explain what you think they meant... I haven't seen you address what they said.
Don't expect me to consider your P-51D accounts more authoritative than theirs... This is from the Association of Professional Test Pilots...
As for the difference between traction and propulsion in turns, here is a crude graphic that explains why traction could not in any way be assumed to perform the same as propulsion, regardless of prop effects or not...
http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj284/gaston11_2008/english-electric-lightning_31.jpg?
The big issue is that, when thrust is in the nose, the action of pivoting the nose upward REQUIRES that the entire thrust in that nose to be pulled BACK... There is no way around it... When propulsion is in the tail, pivoting the nose up moves the thrust FORWARD...
Now, I can already see the amounts of forward or backward movements will be decried as being infinitely small... I will again point to the example of a rope holding a weight of 200 lbs: You lift that weight directly with a force of 100 lbs: There is still 100 lbs of tension in that rope...
To move the thrust BACK, no matter how infinitesimal the amount, you have to beat the ENTIRE thrust coming from the nose: And that lever to beat the thrust is resting of the pivot point of the action: The lift center of the wing...
And that puts a depressing force on that center of lift, increasing the real-life wing-loading...
Gaston
-
My guess is that you can get pretty close to 6 instantaneous Gs below 300 MPH, say 5.5 Gs, but either the 1989 test pilots had a more stringent standard for "Corner Speed" (more than just barely reaching the value on a G-meter), or they still detected an improving trend towards 6 Gs past 300 MPH... They never went to the absolute 7-8 Gs in those 1989 tests, so their conclusion could be an extrapolation of what they got at 6 Gs. It is not complicated for you to explain what you think they meant... I haven't seen you address what they said.
Cut and paste there exact wording. I have not seen the document you are referring to. For all I know, if they just said corner speed they could be referring to structural limit corner speed. It is not a question of taking my word over theirs gaston, but rather that the most likely case is you have made an incorrect conclusion from what they wrote. Either way, post the reference and we will see whats up.
The big issue is that, when thrust is in the nose, the action of pivoting the nose upward REQUIRES that the entire thrust in that nose to be pulled BACK
There is no pushing or pulling of thrust, the rotation of the aircraft is only rotating the prop. The prop is then exerting thrust in a different direction. The forces resisting the rotation are not thrust unless the thrust line would be tilted up when the plane is level causing a pitching down moment. But this torque would be the same no mater what attitude the aircraft is in, but there is no pushing or pulling of thrust, that really is not a physics concept.
The same applies with the jet, when rotating the aircraft there is not any torque by the thrust if the thrust lies on a radial from the CG. And if it is not aligned then the torque is the same as you are rotating . Other then slip stream effects of a prop causing effects on the tail and wing. The jet will react 100% identical to the prop as long as both lie on the same line.
HiTech
-
As for the difference between traction and propulsion in turns, here is a crude graphic that explains why traction could not in any way be assumed to perform the same as propulsion, regardless of prop effects or not...
http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj284/gaston11_2008/english-electric-lightning_31.jpg?
The big issue is that, when thrust is in the nose, the action of pivoting the nose upward REQUIRES that the entire thrust in that nose to be pulled BACK... There is no way around it... When propulsion is in the tail, pivoting the nose up moves the thrust FORWARD...
Nothing is moving backwards. All you're doing with the pitch rotation is slightly decreasing the forward velocity of the upper part of the prop, thus changing its local alpha and slightly increasing its thrust there. I suppose what you say would be true if the ac were fixed but it's not. Even if it were, so long as the line of thrust is aligned to the pivot point, the resultant pitch moment from the pitch perturbation would still be zero. This changes if you can vector the thrust - and that's why a Harrier, for example, can use VIFF maneuvers to point its nose in some pretty wild ways. That doesn't obtain with the BAC Lightning shown nor with our nose pullers that have a line of thrust that points, or very nearly points, through the CG.
Try this: Torque = R X F, where they're both vectors. Or, think of it as Torque = Force x perpendicular distance or = Perpendicular force x distance to get the scalar magnitude.
-
Gaston,
WWII aircraft did not produce enough thrust at full throttle to reach their best turn rate as a sustained turn. That is why the Bf109's (not sure which version, but even from a D to a K the number won't go up too much) best sustained turn speed is 160mph and the best turn rate is 220mph. Turning that hard produces too much drag for the Bf109 to reach 220mph. This is true of all WWII aircraft for whatever their best turn and best sustained turn speeds are. All decreasing the throttle is going to do is slow the aircraft down and force the pilot to slacken off on his turn in order to dedicate more of the wing's lift to keeping the aircraft at its altitude, thus increasing the radius of the turn as well.
Now, a Bf109 moving at 350mph can increase its turn rate and tighten the turn radius by chopping the throttle and using the E stored in inertia until it drops below 220mph. Ideally, if you were to do that in combat, you'd probably want to go back to full throttle when slightly above 220mph, depending on timing, and absolutely at 220mph so as to retain as much E as possible for as long as possible in the turn. You'd still be losing E, but the engine would be putting more E back in at full throttle than at 50% throttle, so the rate of E loss would decrease a bit.
Thrustwise, I seem to recall that Widewing said the F4F-4 produced about 1100lbs of thrust and the Spitfire Mk XIV produced about 1750lbs of thrust.
-
Thrustwise, I seem to recall that Widewing said the F4F-4 produced about 1100lbs of thrust and the Spitfire Mk XIV produced about 1750lbs of thrust.
Karnak thrust on constant speed props varys linearly with speed in normal speed ranges. I.E. Thrust = HP / Speed. So stating what the thrust of a plane is, dosn't really make since unless you include a speed.
HiTech
-
Here is the cut and paste quote, hitech (It is the "Society of Experimental Test Pilots", I remembered their name wrong):
"SUSTAINED TURN PERFORMANCE at METO at 10,000 ft.
The F6F out-turned the other three by a conclusive margin (1g). The other
three were all about the same.
Corner speeds of all were very close to the maximum level flight speed,
implying very rapid energy loss when turning at the structural limit.
The F6F was in light airframe buffet at 6g at Vmax; the P-47 experienced
light buffet at 4.8g. The FG-1 and P-51 were buffet-free up to 6g."
This test here was limited to 6Gs... I asked an actual prop aircraft designer, and he did not find it implausible that the "Corner Speed" would be that high ("Very close" can only be above 300 MPH, and is likely as high as 330+)...
If you can pull high Gs (5 G +) below 300 MPH, it could simply mean the "Corner Speed" is a modest 6 G peak at 330-350...
Note the same holds true of the other three US WWII types, and is likely true on many WWII fighters, including the Bf-109F/G/K if trimmed tail-heavy... I am almost sure it would not apply to those types with very poor high-speed elevator performance, like the A6M Zero, or it would "seem" to be even higher on the FW-190A, well above 400 MPH, because its turn/pull-out performance is so poor between 250 and 400 MPH... [Even then, measuring Gs on the FW-190A, at very high speeds, is a questionable issue because of the steep nose-up deceleration mushing (IE: The "tendency to black-out the pilot" mentionned in the Italian Front P-47 comparative)...:
http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg
That is why it was NOT used for Boom and Zoom in Russian-observed Luftwaffe tactics, but the Bf-109G emphatically was... "The principal characteristic of the Me-109 in combat was speed", said French ace Clostermann, while comparing it to the FW-190A... ("Le Grand Cirque", comparative footnotes at the end) You have to wonder why it was not so for the actually faster FW-190A... What did he say about the FW-190A?: "They started later in the war to use flaps to turn a little tighter" Hmmmmm... but I disgress...]
Quote, Karnak: "WWII aircraft did not produce enough thrust at full throttle to reach their best turn rate as a sustained turn. That is why the Bf109's (not sure which version, but even from a D to a K the number won't go up too much) best sustained turn speed is 160mph and the best turn rate is 220mph. Turning that hard produces too much drag for the Bf109 to reach 220mph. This is true of all WWII aircraft for whatever their best turn and best sustained turn speeds are. All decreasing the throttle is going to do is slow the aircraft down and force the pilot to slacken off on his turn in order to dedicate more of the wing's lift to keeping the aircraft at its altitude, thus increasing the radius of the turn as well."
-160 MPH is barely 55-60 MPH above stall... Where is the source that 160 MPH is the Me-109G-6's best sustained turn speed at FULL power? Karhila mentions it stricktly in the context of downthrottling, something he emphasizes not every pilot did...
Besides, it is obvious from the "Society of Experimental Test Pilots", since the Me-109G's elevator, with tail-heavy trim, could beat a WWII-vintage fabric-elevator P-51D Mustang's above 400 MPH, that the Me-109G's "Corner Speed" is more like a P-51D's than an A6M Zero's... Lowest speed to reach 6 Gs for a Me-109G was likely more in the (tested) Mustang neighborhood of 320-350 than the Zero's likely 200-250 MPH range... The 2.44 stall/Corner Speed ratio for these WWII fighters, at least if METO is used (and I do think METO power also affects the instantaneous turn), does not appear to correspond to actual tests... I would rather go with the test than with "all aircrafts are the same at a 2.44 ratio"...
Quote, PJ_Godzilla: "Nothing is moving backwards. All you're doing with the pitch rotation is slightly decreasing the forward velocity of the upper part of the prop, thus changing its local alpha and slightly increasing its thrust there. I suppose what you say would be true if the ac were fixed but it's not. Even if it were, so long as the line of thrust is aligned to the pivot point, the resultant pitch moment from the pitch perturbation would still be zero."
-First of all, the thrust alignment is NEVER perfectly in-line with the pivot point... In WWII fighters it is nearly always above...
-YES the nose lifted IS moving backwards compared to the INITIAL straight-line situation, just like the tail IS moving forward... This is NOT the case sometimes if you don't have to pull back on the stick: The aircraft "tightens" the turn by itself for aerodynamic lift reasons... As soon as you have to keep pulling back on the stick, it means the aircraft wants to go straighter than what you want it to do... And THAT "straighter" direction, which the aircraft "wants", is the fixed reference point from which the nose moves back and the tail moves forward as you pull for what YOU want... And that fixed reference line continues fighting you as long as you need to deflect the elevator...
Now that we have the basic concept that, compared to the direction the aircraft "wants", the nose DOES move backward on stick pull, as does the tail move forward, we can adress why the rotation of propulsion thrust pitch at the rear is not the same as the rotation of traction thrust pitch at the front: Allow me a few questions to see if you actually visualize the concept:
What is inherently more stable, pulling a wheelbarrow or pushing it? Isn't greater stability in a aircraft a greater RESISTANCE to turning?
If you exclude propeller torque effects: Is the process of being tracted at a lower speed, compared to what the current engine output would allow, not increasing that "wanting to go straighter" stability effect, as long as the speed remains slower than the maximum straight line speed for that power output?
Finally, perhaps more cryptically: What happens when you cut wood with the tip of chainsaw? It does relate to why the propulsing tail moving forward is not the same as the tracting nose moving back...
Gaston
-
Karnak thrust on constant speed props varys linearly with speed in normal speed ranges. I.E. Thrust = HP / Speed. So stating what the thrust of a plane is, dosn't really make since unless you include a speed.
HiTech
True. I had forgotten that.
-
Gaston when you're flying at 200-300 MPH and you pitch up nothing is moving backwards. It seems like you're picturing the relative movements of a stationary aircraft and not putting it into context. For example, anybody can take a bicycle wheel and spin it and see that the spokes move forward at the top and backwards at the bottom. This is simply observation. From that you can conclude that the spokes move forwards and backwards at the same time when the bike is moving forwards but that would be incorrect. Once the bike is moving the spokes only move forward or stop, there is no backwards movement.
-
-First of all, the thrust alignment is NEVER perfectly in-line with the pivot point... In WWII fighters it is nearly always above...
What is inherently more stable, pulling a wheelbarrow or pushing it? Isn't greater stability in a aircraft a greater RESISTANCE to turning?
I wondered how long it would take before you used the word "stable". Yes, as you state and I will help, if we have a vertical displacement of the center of thrust from the "pivot" a "nose puller" will cause a nose-down moment. I've already stated as much. Likewise true, a "tail pusher" will have produce a moment that tends to increase that pitch rotation if the line of thrust is below the pivot, increase if above. Indeed, I already helped you to define the scale of the aero effect that tends to cause this moment - blade alpha. If you'd come up with numbers on prop inertia, I'd also help you quantify the inertial effect. Your scale arguments about the force help not at all and are a bit Patsy Cline, tending toward Comrade Grechko.
Further, none of that shanges the rest of what's been developed here. Also further, your motion argument is not correct in the inertial frame of reference.
As I say, R X F, physics 101, my man.
-
Grechko who saved Romanenko?
-
Grechko who saved Romanenko?
Andrei Grechko...
Kapitsa also said the Soviet leadership had come close to using nuclear arms on China. He had been at the Politburo discussion. He said that Marshal Andrei Grechko, the Defense Minister, actively advocated a plan "once and for all to get rid of the Chinese threat." Grechko, a dim-witted martinet replaced by Dimitri Ustinov in 1976, called for unrestricted use of the multimegaton bomb known in the West as the "blockbuster." The bomb would release enormous amounts of radioactive fallout, not only killing millions of Chinese but threatening Soviet citizens in the Far East and people in other countries bordering China.
One, sort of low-brow source (Time - yes, I know, it's a McNews rag, but if you want depth, a simple search will reveal better sources)...
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,960276-15,00.html#ixzz0mUtZYQOq
I'd think you could safely call him a little unbalanced or perhaps just dim, not so much for his plan to use nuclear weapons, but for his poor choice of same. I mean, why destroy a populace when cleaner, hard-target warheads could, instead, knock out the chinese military and leave that populace and the national wealth undefended, therefore subject to annexation? That I could see. Nobody who's analyzed this, save for the unilateralists, whose "useful idiot" (so coined by the Soviets) views say that you shouldn't prepare for a nuke war since it's unwinnable and unsurviveable, honestly sees nuclear wars as "unwinnable", precisely because of the raw military capabilities of the weapons and the resultant potential for military victory without wholesale destruction. But Grechko, his plan was simply to eradicate Chinese. What purpose would that serve?
such a plan can only be seen as a bit insane. BTW, Soviet doctrine w/r the US was for the paralyzing first strike via big hits. The goal being disarmament/decapitation. It was the US that sold the MAD route to the idiot public - all while building highly accurate warheads (unnecessary if your target is a city).
Anyway, how does this bear on Gaston? I'm not trying to insult him OR call him dim but it's looking like he may need a little statics and dynamics training. His scale arg on the prop is simply crazy like Grechko. That's okay - I mean, he sticks to the arg and that's why I don't insult him - only his arg. I sympathize with his intuitive desire for there to be a good turnfighter in the LW but am about 99% sure the F-dub isn't it. I also think he's a decent guy.
-
Ok, the same guy that was involved with Russia giving false information to Egypt in 1967 and look how that turned out. I thought you were making a lost in space reference but Grechko was the one on the tether.
That was also my point with the wheel example, that you can't look at something in isolation. With all the forces applied to the aircraft CG, looking at any one force, particularly without the math, is likely to be misleading.
-
The term "filibuster" keeps coming to mind in this thread.
-
The term "filibuster" keeps coming to mind in this thread.
can't imagine why...
-
The term "filibuster" keeps coming to mind in this thread.
That reminds me of the story of the 3 monks and the lantern.
-
-Sorry, I can't really provide specific quantity data on what a prop's load does...
There is a point that needs to be clarified in my view: The idea from PJ_Godzilla that tilting the jet engine also by necessity tilts the thrust by the same amount... I think the net effect of the thrust center migration in the prop disc also happens on to somewhat the same extent on jet propulsion: The effect of thrust "migration" is simply that a fairly wide object turning has a noticeably slower side and a noticeably faster side. The thrust center "migrates" to the slower side for the same reason that it does on a prop disc: Since the aircraft is NOT accelerating (on the contrary, while turning it usually decelerates), the faster "outside" side is NOT accelerated: It is the "inside" side that is SLOWED DOWN, hence my saying the nose traction is "pulled in" when the stick is pulled... Tail propulsion is on the other hand "pushed in" when the stick is pulled...
This "pull-in", I contend, regardless of how small the amount, requires defeating the entire amount of thrust that is relevant.
You might think the effect is smaller on jet thrust than a prop: There is no right-angle stress-riser lever action, but a jet exhaust thrust is not a perfect line as in a math formula: It spreads wide in a sort of "cone", and within that cone the thrust center will move around given the width of the cone...
I have added to my previous graphic the jet cone and the slanted thrust center "C" (probably at an exaggerated angle), and this does allow to visualize better how large a difference tail propulsion makes to stability vs nose-traction, and how increasing traction power to the nose would in fact increase the burden on the pivot point "O"...:
http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj284/gaston11_2008/english-electric-lightning_31-1.jpg?
Note how the elevator action, "F", is counter-acted by the slanted thrust center "C": It is exactly like a toothed wheel being stopped by a cog... You can clearly see that the more powerful "C" is ("upthrottling"), the HARDER "F" will have to press down on "O" for the same turn action... (On prop aircrafts the thrust hits the elevators, so the greater "F" force usually will be available, but the lift of "O" is only helped by speed, and speed tends to go down, or stay constant, in turns...)
That harder pressing down action on "O" will amount to a greater real-life wingloading: As if the aircraft was heavier, but in fact loaded up with its own thrust...
Now look at the tail-propulsion example: The exaggerated slant "C" center of thrust is over the top, but even if it was less than on my image it would still be above the horizontal, and this means it would ASSIST the downward action of "F", the elevator...
Again, I cannot quantify what is the amount of the difference between the traction and propulsion effect, but it doesn't seem to me that the amount is really small...
This effect, as I explain it, WOULD explain the need for sustained downthrottling in sustained low-speed nose-tracted turns, in addition to explaining why this downthrottling has immediately positive results that are durable over several 360°s, rather than delayed effects that would wait for a lower speed, and then would only be short-lived as the speed falls below the "Corner Speed"...
Furthermore, the fact that the 6 G "Corner Speed" was tested on actual WWII types in 1989, with professional test pilots using modern instruments, as being "very close to the maximum level (METO) speed", militates further against downthrottling towards the "Corner Speed" providing a durable turn rate advantage... (By "durable" meaning over several 360°s.)
To my mind, this proves the Stall/Corner Speed ratio of 2.44 times is not applicable to all types, and that if prolonged downthrottling is observed in one of the 1989 tested types (plenty of very clear WWII anecdotes on the P-51D Mustang), then slowing down to Corner Speed is obviously not what is going on...
The nose-traction reduction theory, to reduce the wing's load, is then the only explanation left...
Gaston
P.S. And yes Badboy, "Vertical Turn" is in fact a horizontal turn in WWII lingo: Ask any Western WWII veteran pilot (sigh).
G.
-
Gaston would you post a link to a "right-angle stress-riser lever action" explanation as it relates to aerodynamics? I only know of right angle stress risers in materials properties.
Also a link to "vertical turn" as slang for a "horizontal turn" would be helpful. I've actually never seen that before.
-
This has gone unhinged.
Gaston, you're NOT pulling the prop back. The prop is still moving at a finite speed with respect to freestream. You simply increase the thrust on the slower side slightly - because of the prop alpha effect I showed and because tau=I*rotational velocity. Your contention that you must defeat the entire thrust to rotate the prop is wrong. Draw a Free-Body Diagram. At Steady State (v= constant) the thrust force on the "disk is exactly cancelled by the drag on the disk from the ac. Now move the thrust slightly off-center due to slightly higher blade loads on the slower side - that torque is what gets reacted at the hub on the ac.
You could simpy resolve it in a simplified 2-blade example at a given instant in time as the distance of the center of lift w/r hub times the diff in magnitude of force.
As for your Lightning diagram, it looks like you have the thrust vector rotating. If we resolve the slight reaction torque plus slight force imbalance caused by the turning effect to a single force vector at the point of thrust, yes, we can say there would be a slight nose-down moment caused by turning the nose puller and LIKEWISE slight nose down moment caused by the pusher, assuming the point of thrust is above the "pivot". The only way you get "nose up" out of that pusher is if you change the realtionship of the "pivot" and the point of thrust.
Why? Because the moment resulting from thrust is dependent on RXF. A forward thrust ABOVE the "pivot" will cause a nose-down torque - end of story.
Meanwhile, forgetting this incorrect scaling and sign, your argument still breaks down because all other nosepullers do the same exact thing.
Finally, that c versus f argument is all wrong. You're totally neglecting the impact of the primary force-generating element of the ac. Also, the torque produced by the thrust is dependent both on the displacement off "pivot" of the thrust (vertial displacement means a pitch torque) and the magnitude of the thrust.
-
The term "filibuster" keeps coming to mind in this thread.
:lol i think you might be on to something
-
P.S. And yes Badboy, "Vertical Turn" is in fact a horizontal turn in WWII lingo: Ask any Western WWII veteran pilot (sigh).
G.
You cannot be more wrong than that, a vertical turn is exactly what it is, a turn in the vertical plane and was never used by WW2 pilots as a reference to a horizontal turn.
ack-ack
-
Quote, Ack-Ack: "You cannot be more wrong than that, a vertical turn is exactly what it is, a turn in the vertical plane and was never used by WW2 pilots as a reference to a horizontal turn."
- I'm tired of debating this: Read the context of the text, and go educate yourself on WWII pilot lingo:
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg
If you are unwilling to educate yourself on WWII pilot language, or open your eyes to what is written, then there is not much point in debating with willfull ignorance, is there? Hightech, if you are a pilot and have spoken to WWII pilots, why not set this guy straight?
-Quote PJ_Godzilla: "If we resolve the slight reaction torque plus slight force imbalance caused by the turning effect to a single force vector at the point of thrust, yes, we can say there would be a slight nose-down moment caused by turning the nose puller and LIKEWISE slight nose down moment caused by the pusher, assuming the point of thrust is above the "pivot". The only way you get "nose up" out of that pusher is if you change the realtionship of the "pivot" and the point of thrust."
-If there is a nose-down moment in either case, both propulsion and traction thrust centers starting above the pivot point by the same amount, then the alignment of the center of thrust is getting closer to the pivot point in the propulsion case and is getting FURTHER away in the traction case... I don't see how there is a way around that...
Perhaps there is no nose-up moment in propulsion, I agree, but it sure is getting closer to that when pushed and further away when tracted... That alone is very significant from the point of view of leverage... I don't see why you you would not mention it...
Besides, to get back to the Anton vs Gustav issue, anyone who has faced both in battle, and knows anything about the issue, knows perfectly well that the FW-190A acted like a "Saber", which is curved, and that the Me-109G acted like a "Floret", which is straight, which basically means the FW-190A out-sustain turns the Me-109G... Observed Luftwaffe tactics are perfectly in sync with this, as linked previously...:
http://luthier.stormloader.com/SFTacticsIII.htm
This means that whatever the theoretical math says, it is ignoring some basic issue, and is therefore not an authoritative source... Just like downthrottling cannot be used to reach the calculated 2.44 ratio "Corner Speed" if the real "Corner Speed" is found at 320-350+ MPH !
Fortunately I have encountered since, on other non-simmer sites, other very knowledgeable people who have come to the exact same conclusions as I have regarding the FW-190A's low-speed sustained turning excellence and high-speed turning mediocrity, and how it out-sustains turns the Me-109G at lower speeds by a significant margin... So the complete upside-down comprehension of this issue appears more confined to the computer simulation world than I previously feared... Perhaps because of a greater dependance on maths to create computer flight models...
To which I can only say: Thank God!
Gaston
-
Gaston there is nothing in Johnson's account which suggests he's describing a horizontal turn when he uses the term "vertical turn". The fact that he escapes with a vertical dive suggests that the FW190 was nose up in a vertical turn and catching Johnson who picked that moment to break off. If they were in a horizontal turn then the FW190 could have dove when Johnson did. It's not "well known WW2 pilot slang". What fighter pilots know well is that the best time and way to exit a fight is when your opponent is pointed in the opposite direction. The opposite of a vertical dive is a vertical climb. Both are part of a vertical turn. I hope this helps.
Edit: Regarding the Saber vs Floret (Foil) comparison. The Saber is a heavier weapon more suited for slashing attacks. The Floret is lighter, more nimble and designed for thrusting. Your contention that the Saber's curve represents sustained turning ability is frankly ludicrous.
-
Quote, Ack-Ack: "You cannot be more wrong than that, a vertical turn is exactly what it is, a turn in the vertical plane and was never used by WW2 pilots as a reference to a horizontal turn."
- I'm tired of debating this: Read the context of the text, and go educate yourself on WWII pilot lingo:
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg
Gaston
Nothing in that story even remotely proves "vertical turn" was WW2 pilot slang for a horizontal turn. Honestly, think about it using some logic. Why would a pilot use vertical turn to describe a turn on the horizontal plane?
If you are unwilling to educate yourself on WWII pilot language, or open your eyes to what is written, then there is not much point in debating with willfull ignorance, is there? Hightech, if you are a pilot and have spoken to WWII pilots, why not set this guy straight?
I'm sorry but the only one displaying ignorance is the person that doesn't have a concept of the basic physics of flight and thinks a vertical turn was used to describe a horizontal turn by WW2 pilots.
Can you remind me which Avalon Hill baord game you're revamping? Just so I know which game to steer clear of game that completely ignores the basic laws of aerodynamics.
ack-ack
-
Fortunately I have encountered since, on other non-simmer sites, other very knowledgeable people who have come to the exact same conclusions as I have regarding the FW-190A's low-speed sustained turning excellence and high-speed turning mediocrity, and how it out-sustains turns the Me-109G at lower speeds by a significant margin... So the complete upside-down comprehension of this issue appears more confined to the computer simulation world than I previously feared... Perhaps because of a greater dependance on maths to create computer flight models...
To which I can only say: Thank God!
Gaston
So, ulitmately, this all boils down to the fact you (and those that share your views on other non-simmer sites) think every aerodynamics text in the world is wrong. That's outstanding...
-
So who is Gaston? Does he play AH? I've never heard of him, but he obviously knows very little. "Vertical turn"? :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Fortunately I have encountered since, on other non-simmer sites, other very knowledgeable people who have come to the exact same conclusions as I have regarding the FW-190A's low-speed sustained turning excellence and high-speed turning mediocrity, and how it out-sustains turns the Me-109G at lower speeds by a significant margin... So the complete upside-down comprehension of this issue appears more confined to the computer simulation world than I previously feared... Perhaps because of a greater dependance on maths to create computer flight models...
Gaston,
You do realize that during WWII, math, and currently math+computer flight models are exactly how aircraft are designed, built, tested, and produced, right? I mean, you're talking about upside-down comprehension in the computer simulation world, but that same "upside-down" comprehension is what's up in the sky right now carrying people across oceans and participating in wars.
In the "modern age", Mathematics, computers, and scientific hard theory are how things are done. Not via faith and "I think this will work".
-
Dudes,
The hubris knows no limits. "I put this interpretation on pilot accounts, but the maths apparently don't support my interpretation. Teh maths are teh wrong!"
Just leave him be, there's nothing can be done.
-
-If there is a nose-down moment in either case, both propulsion and traction thrust centers starting above the pivot point by the same amount, then the alignment of the center of thrust is getting closer to the pivot point in the propulsion case and is getting FURTHER away in the traction case... I don't see how there is a way around that...
No. Diagram it out for a pusher and puller. Ignoring local flow effects, th shift due to blade alpha and inertial effect would be the same in the ac vertical- and thus so would be the offset. Any lateral displacement would cause a slight nose down, tractive, slight nose up push, and we know this term will get even smaller than the a/c vertical term since the ac will likely be near theta = 90. You're working with decimal dust.
Besides, to get back to the Anton vs Gustav issue
http://luthier.stormloader.com/SFTactics...
Quotes like this?
"Yak-7 will easily outturn a FW-190 in a right turn; both planes have equal turn rate in a left turn. Yak-1 and La-5 outmaneuver FW-190 even better.
"
-
Gaston physics 101 calculating toque or moment.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/hitech/page1.jpg)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/hitech/page2.jpg)
But in essence what the above pages show is that torque is the same no mater where it is applied to a body.
If the Engine is 1' above the cg and thrusting directly forward it makes no difference how far (1 mile or 0 ) in front or behind the cg i, it will produce the exact same pitching down moment, and that number is (thrust) ft lbs (because I choose 1 ft above) if I chose 2 ft it would be Thrust * 2 FT Lbs.
If you do not believe the 2 pages above, then we no longer really have anything to discuss, because the 2 pages are right out of a collage physics 101 text book.
As far as the vertical turn , it is in no way a normal term for a 90 deg horizontal term, but reading the document Gaston posted I am not so sure that it is referring to a turn in the vertical plane. In that account my guess would be it is being used as a term for a Chandal/ lazy 8 in which case the escape would be on the down side of the Chandal as the fw is on the up side .
Gaston, if you do not believe math works for plane analysis, and that when any report disagrees with the basic flight physics then something else is not being shown in the report, or it is being interpreted wrong and would be able to be found in other reports, as example stick forces limiting g pulling,or ram air increasing HP with speed. But to just trying to guess what the reason is with out some basis in fact is just pure folly.
This means that whatever the theoretical math says, it is ignoring some basic issue, and is therefore not an authoritative source... Just like downthrottling cannot be used to reach the calculated 2.44 ratio "Corner Speed" if the real "Corner Speed" is found at 320-350+ MPH !
And this is where you miss the boat, as I said above it math dosn't meet the real thing there is a reason. But the discrepancy in MPH you are showing , let alone the range (320- 350 ) is a HUGE range, at the speeds you are dealing with you have showing nothing in the magnatude of forces that would show close to a 100 mph corner vel error. Gaston just as 2.44 is 6 Gs 3.0 is 9 Gs, at 320 you would be in the 9 G range , posible the just said corner vel of 320 , but did not specifie the G loading? There is nothing that sais corner vel has to be 6 Gs, that is just a convention used because it is a good average for what pilots can take.
HiTech
-
Is it just me or Hitech's picture links don't work?
-
Is it just me or Hitech's picture links don't work?
Just you.
ack-ack
-
As far as the vertical turn , it is in no way a normal term for a 90 deg horizontal term, but reading the document Gaston posted I am not so sure that it is referring to a turn in the vertical plane. In that account my guess would be it is being used as a term for a Chandal/ lazy 8 in which case the escape would be on the down side of the Chandal as the fw is on the up side .
HiTech
I read it as an oblique loop because of the grey out. A chandelle seems like it would get too slow and the FW190 could unload then take a shot, and a high yoyo/lazy8 just wouldn't have the G.
-
Just you.
ack-ack
I guess it's then for the US-net viewers only, instead of the internet. :aok
-
Just you.
And me.
-
I guess it's then for the US-net viewers only, instead of the internet. :aok
<--- non-US person currently looking in awe at the pictures :D
-
And me.
You aren't missing anything. It's just an attempt to describe reality using "math" instead of anecdotal evidence. :devil
-
For the "not in the USA" BBS readers...
(http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/550/page1qj.jpg)
(http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/5122/page2ul.jpg)
-
I guess it's then for the US-net viewers only, instead of the internet. :aok
pics look fine on the left coast...
-
Now I see it.
Thanks Lute.
-
Thx Lute, can see them now too.
But they are not funny... and full of words... and... math :uhoh
-
You aren't missing anything. It's just an attempt to describe reality using "math" instead of anecdotal evidence. :devil
Maybe if Lusche was to make a pie chart, Gaston would finally understand?
ack-ack
-
Thx Lute, can see them now too.
But they are not funny... and full of words... and... math :uhoh
I tried to tell you Lusche, but just like Lot's wife you had to look. I can't bear to imagine what salt does to snails.
-
I tried to tell you Lusche, but just like Lot's wife you had to look. I can't bear to imagine what salt does to snails.
It's ok.. I have a love/hate relationship with math. I'm ansolutely fascinated by it, but can't understand it
-
Gaston,
You have been quoting extracts from a flight test comparison conducted by the Society of Experimental Test Pilots, entitled "Ending The Argument". However, that report is very clear and specific about several points on which you appear to be speculating. For example, you speculate about the corner speed of the P-51D in that report as follows:
This test here was limited to 6Gs... I asked an actual prop aircraft designer, and he did not find it implausible that the "Corner Speed" would be that high ("Very close" can only be above 300 MPH, and is likely as high as 330+)...
If you can pull high Gs (5 G +) below 300 MPH, it could simply mean the "Corner Speed" is a modest 6 G peak at 330-350...
Besides, it is obvious from the "Society of Experimental Test Pilots", since the Me-109G's elevator, with tail-heavy trim, could beat a WWII-vintage fabric-elevator P-51D Mustang's above 400 MPH, that the Me-109G's "Corner Speed" is more like a P-51D's than an A6M Zero's... Lowest speed to reach 6 Gs for a Me-109G was likely more in the (tested) Mustang neighborhood of 320-350 than the Zero's likely 200-250 MPH range...
But why are you guessing at the corner speed when the report you are quoting provides corner speed values for all of the aircraft tested? For example, if you check FIG 10 in that report it shows the corner speed for the P-51D to be at 237 KIAS. Then if you look at FIG 9 it shows the sustained turn curve for the P-51D and at 1G, the low end is the stall speed, and the high end is the top speed. The low end is at 83 KIAS, which agrees with the 1G power on stall speed quoted in Table II of that report. The top end of that curve is at 238 KIAS, (320mph) at 10,000 feet which is the top speed for their test. They ran the tests at max cruise settings not full military power, which explains why that top speed is lower than you would expect.
We therefore have a corner Velocity at 237 KIAS, and Top Speed of 238 KIAS.
So the report was right to state that the corner velocity was close to top speed, under the conditions used in the test, there was only a 1 KIAS difference.
However, A WWII P-51D was more likely to get closer to 400mph (300 KIAS) at 10,000 feet and at Military Power.
Not only that, but examination of FIG 10 shows that the 1G and 3G stall speeds quoted in the report and the 6G stall speed don't all occur at the maximum angle of attack. The 3G accelerated stall tests were conducted in a descending turn, which explains why that data point appears where it does, but the speed quoted for the 6G corner velocity is too high. If you examine the data points on the stall speed curve, only the first 3 points correspond to the stalling AoA and lift coefficient for the 1G power on stall speed. Those first 3 points go up to 3G, after 3G, the line indicates that the test pilot was pulling to a point below maximum AoA and was therefore at a lower lift coefficient than he was achieving at the lower G values.
It appears that only 3G accelerated stalls were conducted during those tests and there is a clue in the report as to why that might be. It says that the P-51D they tested had "High Stick Forces, Inadequate stall warning, and Vicious departure characteristics" If the pilot were to allow the stall to fully develop, there was a real risk of exceeding structural limits and spinning the aircraft. Power-on spins were prohibited, because they were (and still are) considered very high risk. Recovery could take as much as 10,000 feet, but these tests were carried out at 10,000 feet, so it is clear that while the pilot was reaching 6G, it was not at the 6G accelerated stall speed, because the resulting "vicious departure" may have overloaded the airframe and left the pilot without enough room for recovery. Not to mention that during departure the rapid onset of normal and lateral forces on the pilot would cause blackouts much more rapidly than the slow G onset normally commanded by the pilot in the approach to the stall, thereby increasing the risk. So the pilot who conducted this test was actually reaching 6G at a speed above the 6G accelerated stall speed for safety reasons, and this was therefore not the true corner velocity. This can also be confirmed by inspection of FIG 10 from this report, when superimposed on curves of what would have been aerodynamically possible. In each case, the pilot gave himself a safety margin and did not reach the 6G accelerated stall that is normally quoted as the Corner Velocity, and instead recorded a higher speed where the 6G limit was reached. That margin in the case of the P-51D test was 34 KIAS above the speed at which a departure would have occurred.
Given that the 1G stall speed and the Corner Speed occur at the maximum lift coefficient, the Corner Speed based on the 1G power-on stall speed of 83 KIAS as stated in Table II and Figure 9 of that report would actually result in a Corner Velocity of 203 KIAS, and a top speed of 300 KIAS for a WWII P-51D at 10k and full military power. That tells a very different story.
Yes, the report was right to state that the corner velocity was close to top speed, but only under the conditions used in the test. Those conditions were of a fighter being flown below full power and thus achieving a top speed well below what it was capable of, and being pulled to 6G at a speed above the 6G stall speed for safety reasons, and thus not achieving its true corner velocity at the 6G accelerated stall.
The difference is shown in the EM diagram below:
(http://www.leonbadboysmith.com/images/EM7.gif)
This diagram shows that given the more appropriate wartime conditions of a P-51D at 10,000ft and full military power, with a stall speed of 83 KIAS, a corresponding corner speed of 203 KIAS and a top speed of 300 KIAS, would place the corner speed much closer to the middle of the envelope and not near the top speed, as shown in the diagram above. Of course those values change with altitude and the weight of the aircraft.
The main conclusions are:
- The report and its conclusions are correct, but only under the stated conditions.
- The corner velocity for most WWII fighters did not occur close to top speed, but at a speed closer to the mid range of the envelope.
- For most WWII fighters the corner velocity does indeed approach and exceed top speed, but only at much higher altitudes.
- Corner speed occurs at the accelerated stall, and not at some point above it where the pilot feels safe. So the 6G corner velocity really does occur at 2.45 times the stall speed, even if a pilot would not actually risk pulling 6G at that speed for fear of departure.
Since you have been quoting this report, I assume you have studied the figures and tables I have been referring to, particularly with respect to the features I have described above. If you need any help understanding the technical aspects of that report, please let me know because I would be happy to clarify any of the issues for you.
Hope that helps…
Badboy
-
I have no fancy smancy Charts but I do have an interesting video of an interview two guys did who apparently played WW2OL. Asking specifically about comparatively aircraft performance. I particularly enjoyed the slight interview they had with a fellow named Skip Holm at 3:20.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94 what does he know? :rofl
-
Ancient news. Been brought up years back.
He flies warbirds in present times. These planes are limited in what they can do (for insurance and airshow safety reasons), how much power they can draw, and overall he's talking vague comparisons that don't have any merit or basis in fact.
-
Ancient news. Been brought up years back.
He flies warbirds in present times. These planes are limited in what they can do (for insurance and airshow safety reasons), how much power they can draw, and overall he's talking vague comparisons that don't have any merit or basis in fact.
Still for a guy who is ex USAF and flies both P-51s and 109s is very telling what he says at 3:20 , something what I've known about most "western games"
The same thing happened when Il2 came out the Yaks and Laggs were ridiculous.
-
Yayyy more hyperbole. Ohh welcome back glasses will you be belittling a pilots death anytime soon?
-
The main conclusions are:
- The report and its conclusions are correct, but only under the stated conditions.
- The corner velocity for most WWII fighters did not occur close to top speed, but at a speed closer to the mid range of the envelope.
- For most WWII fighters the corner velocity does indeed approach and exceed top speed, but only at much higher altitudes.
- Corner speed occurs at the accelerated stall, and not at some point above it where the pilot feels safe. So the 6G corner velocity really does occur at 2.45 times the stall speed, even if a pilot would not actually risk pulling 6G at that speed for fear of departure.
Conclusion III combined with Conclusion IV says to me (let me bounce this off you - I'm hoping for further elaboration) that, as altitude increases, stall speed increases (no surprise) and that corner speed also increases (since typically occurring at stall). You indicate it increases beyond top - but is this just another way of saying that, with decreased rho and a given ClMax, V required to produce sufficent lift to maintain a sustained turn increases to the point that power required ((T-D)*V)exceeds power available? I note that the air-breathing piston engine, even with forced induction, will have diminishing power with altitude.
Otherwise, I think you've just obliterated the "corner speed at top speed" assertion that Gaston made as an unconditional assertion. You've properly conditioned it - and thus revealed a large error in conclusion on his part.
-
Still for a guy who is ex USAF and flies both P-51s and 109s is very telling what he says at 3:20 , something what I've known about most "western games"
The same thing happened when Il2 came out the Yaks and Laggs were ridiculous.
Glasses: Are you in any way insinuating AH models are incorrect do to marketing reasons? Or that what he said about games at the marker you keep bringing up applies to AH?
HiTech
-
Conclusion III combined with Conclusion IV says to me (let me bounce this off you - I'm hoping for further elaboration) that, as altitude increases, stall speed increases (no surprise) and that corner speed also increases (since typically occurring at stall). You indicate it increases beyond top - but is this just another way of saying that, with decreased rho and a given ClMax, V required to produce sufficent lift to maintain a sustained turn increases to the point that power required ((T-D)*V)exceeds power available? I note that the air-breathing piston engine, even with forced induction, will have diminishing power with altitude.
Otherwise, I think you've just obliterated the "corner speed at top speed" assertion that Gaston made as an unconditional assertion. You've properly conditioned it - and thus revealed a large error in conclusion on his part.
Both stall and corner remain the same in IAS wit ALT. Both speeds are normally given in IAS not TAS because of this. Power curves are very much different between turbo & super charged engines. Remember temp is going down causing an increase in power, with a turbo outlet pressure is also dropping creating an increase in efficiency in the turbo. (my memory on this is a bit vague but I seem to remember brake HP went up with ALT on some turbo charged planes until RPM limit was reached of the turbo).
HiTech
-
Ancient news. Been brought up years back.
He flies warbirds in present times. These planes are limited in what they can do (for insurance and airshow safety reasons), how much power they can draw, and overall he's talking vague comparisons that don't have any merit or basis in fact.
You're right the performance of each aircraft is kept under safe levels , but so is the combat weight. Still the 109 outperforms the Mustang, from not
only one but two guys that regularly fly those aircraft in modern times. Any who I'm enjoying the whole back and forth, learning some new stuff
here,carry on.
-
Glasses, no ducking out, I expect an answer to my question.
HiTech
-
I have no fancy smancy Charts but I do have an interesting video of an interview two guys did who apparently played WW2OL. Asking specifically about comparatively aircraft performance. I particularly enjoyed the slight interview they had with a fellow named Skip Holm at 3:20.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94 what does he know? :rofl
Everything definitive in that video is modeled in Aces High. The Bf109 out turns and out climbs the P-51, so what's your point? WW2OL had a questionable flight model 4 years ago? And Skip Holm is speculating on why that is based on comments made by a WW2OL player 4 years ago. Do you even know which Spitfire was compared to which Bf109 in WW2OL? Did Skip Holm know? What is the point of posting that in a thread about the current AH flight modeling? How is that video interesting?
-
How is that video interesting?
Because Glasses is part of the great Luftwhine conspiracy--Kurfurst, et al, that cannot be shaken in their belief that western flight sims/games purposefully nerf 109 and 190 performance.
-
Conclusion III combined with Conclusion IV says to me (let me bounce this off you - I'm hoping for further elaboration) that, as altitude increases, stall speed increases (no surprise) and that corner speed also increases (since typically occurring at stall). You indicate it increases beyond top - but is this just another way of saying that, with decreased rho and a given ClMax, V required to produce sufficent lift to maintain a sustained turn increases to the point that power required ((T-D)*V)exceeds power available? I note that the air-breathing piston engine, even with forced induction, will have diminishing power with altitude.
You have to be carefull here, because when we are discussing corner velocity, it isn't related to sustained turning theory as described by the equation for excess power cited above. Maximum rate turns at corner velocity are not sustainable, and you can see that more clearly by looking at the diagram below. It shows you where in the envelope sustained turns are possible, and everywhere else, only instantaneous turns can be achieved. Infact, if you are at the peak of that diagram, and therefore performing a maximum rate turn at corner velocity, you will also be bleeding energy at the maximum rate, that is you will have the maximum negative excess power as described by the equation you posted.
(http://www.leonbadboysmith.com/images/EM8b.gif)
If you want to visualise the effect of altitude on corner velocity and top speed, take a look at the following two diagrams. I've included two speed scales, one showing miles per hour in true airspeed, because those are the values you normally see quoted, and the other showing knots indicated airspeed, because those are the values shown in the report, and are the values that pilots need to know, as HiTech pointed out.
Notice that these diagrams confirm what HiTech said about the corner velocity and the stall speed... They occur at the same indicated airspeed (KIAS) in both diagrams.
(http://www.leonbadboysmith.com/images/EM8.gif)
(http://www.leonbadboysmith.com/images/EM9.gif)
However, you will notice that at the higher altitude, the corner velocity gets closer to top speed, and that trend continues and is more pronounced for aircraft that don't have such a high critical altitude as the P-51 to the extent that some aircraft in that situation can not generate enough lift at their top speed to reach 6G. In that case, their envelope is defined by their top speed and the lift limit. Then they have a corner velocity defined by the point where those two lines intersect.
However, I should point out that EM diagrams produced by the military often use a placard limit and not the top speed to define the right hand side of the envelope, after all fighters often go much faster than their top speed.
Hope that helps...
Badboy
-
Glasses, no ducking out, I expect an answer to my question.
HiTech
Compared to the Early Models of AH's Flight Model I think so. Where aircraft would swing out of the runway violently if you slammed on the throttle wide open and you had to use a considerable amount of opposite rudder to keep the aircraft aligned.
A plane like the P-38, which was in Europe particularly, cannon fodder and many Luftwaffe pilots salivated when they saw it, blasting it to pieces. Get a really benign flight characteristic being able to easily out turn smaller lighter planes with larger power outputs in relation to their weight. Then again as numbers began to rise and the odds began to turn . Stacks of P-38s P-51s and P-47s met the Luftwaffe on "one to one engagements" that left them trapped. Yet in AH the P-38 and P47 historically not the most maneuverable aircraft below 10k ft here with a few degrees of flaps you can turn tighter than any "nimbler" lighter plane of the LW . So I have my questions. Still I fly them ,make kills enjoy the whines when I do shoot down someone who thinks the 109s should be neutered even worse. The fact that the Ta 152 has the flight characteristics of a pigeon with mercury poisoning heck you never know. oh and BTW The wing tanks on the Ta 152 were not used unless it was for long haul flights they were not self sealing . The primary tanks were the Front and AFT tanks just like the 190A and D and should be filled first before the wing tanks. That might certainly contribute to the instability and low speed handling. Either the German pilots were superhuman (which I don't believe contrary to what most try to make assumptions that I've said or implied this) or the planes were that good and the pilots well trained enough that they could make and deliver the victories under near equal terms not 5:1 in the West and 8:1 in the East.
IN b4 Ban. :D
P.S. oh and Ht F-86 and MiG 15 plox.
-
Compared to the Early Models of AH's Flight Model I think so. Where aircraft would swing out of the runway violently if you slammed on the throttle wide open and you had to use a considerable amount of opposite rudder to keep the aircraft aligned.
Well I can tell you that's exactly what happens (IRL) in a T-6 if you apply power without your feet on the rudder.
-
Wasn't it Adolf Galland that said "I should like an outfit of spitfires for my Gruppe, Herr Reichsmarchall!"? I thought that was in reference to the BoB? When the German's outnumbered the Brits, but still suffered heavier casualties?
I'd have thought that at that stage of the war the German pilots would be benefiting from superior skill/experience as well as superior numbers. And the German pilots were able to freely engage the spits and hurris, which they were distracted with the bombers as their primary target.
Why would he want spits if his 109's were nimbler? All those advantages, yet higher casualties and a wish to swap planes?
-
Because Glasses is part of the great Luftwhine conspiracy--Kurfurst, et al, that cannot be shaken in their belief that western flight sims/games purposefully nerf 109 and 190 performance.
BTW each time you use the Luftwhine(r) remark I get 5 cents xD. Oh and it's not just western games that did it Il2/Forgotten battles when their first incarnations came out the Laggs and Yaks were simply overly generous in their performance and the American planes were laughable when they first came in as-well. They later rectified the performance of many of them, it still has issues like any commercial combat flight sim will have for the foreseeable future . Maybe if the combat flight sim has a future as an entertainment medium then they will refine and be able to better simulate accurately the performance they had.
-
Wasn't it Adolf Galland that said "I should like an outfit of spitfires for my Gruppe, Herr Reichsmarchall!"? I thought that was in reference to the BoB? When the German's outnumbered the Brits, but still suffered heavier casualties?
I'd have thought that at that stage of the war the German pilots would be benefiting from superior skill/experience as well as superior numbers. And the German pilots were able to freely engage the spits and hurris, which they were distracted with the bombers as their primary target.
Why would he want spits if his 109's were nimbler? All those advantages, yet higher casualties and a wish to swap planes?
and if you take the quote out of context it will support the argument you're trying to make. Why he said he wanted spits is because Goering wanted the 109s to fly low and slow over the bombers completely negating their speed advantage and ceiling they had on the Spits. It was a way to irk Goering and put him in his place.
-
Well I can tell you that's exactly what happens (IRL) in a T-6 if you apply power without your feet on the rudder.
and it did Happen in AH way back when. The nastier aircraft were the The 109 the 190, P-51 which even modern pilots state they cannot go full throttle on take off or the plane will simply veer off the runway and of course the Corsair. Which I remember back in the day the Torque,P factor,spiraling slipstream was so nasty I used that to my advantage out maneuvering 6 of them causing all to lawn dart while they tried to keep up with my 190 in a rolling scissor. Ending that sortie with 8 kills. ( this was back in the day where all the kills came up one by one,instead of at the end of the sortie.)
-
I'd have thought that at that stage of the war the German pilots would be benefiting from superior skill/experience as well as superior numbers. And the German pilots were able to freely engage the spits and hurris, which they were distracted with the bombers as their primary target.
They weren't able to freely engage Spits & Hurris for the most part. As the bombers took unexpected high losses, the fighters were ordered to fly close escort, robbing them much if the initiative. And this lead to increasing frustration which led to that famous comment, because Galland (and others) felt they were not using their weapon to it's best capabilities
-
Glasses the P-51 has been toned down? That hardly supports your premise and says nothing about whether the aircraft are more accurate than they were or less or the same. Anecdotal arguments are hardly useful. People still veer off the runways. The lack of success of the P-38 in Europe had several reasons none of which were it's flight performance compared to the Bf109 and FW190. You've posted unsupported opinion and assertions that are easily shown to be incorrect just by actually comparing the AH aircraft in question.
-
and if you take the quote out of context it will support the argument you're trying to make. Why he said he wanted spits is because Goering wanted the 109s to fly low and slow over the bombers completely negating their speed advantage and ceiling they had on the Spits. It was a way to irk Goering and put him in his place.
From what I've read, the German fighter pilots often flew at least 4-5000 ft above their bombers, regardless of Goering's wishes/orders. They did that because they knew it to be a more effective means to protect the bombers.
Sure, Goering was being foolish, but did he really have that much control over his pilots? That they wouldn't try to be above their bombers?
Even so, it looks like you're arguing that "even terms" puts the German fighter pilots at a disadvantage? Even with superior numbers? I guess I'm envisioning the Brits trying to climb up to the bombers, since they didn't really have loads of time to climb well above them, did they? As it was, didn't they generally arrive too late anyway, AFTER the bombers had dropped their bombs?
And regardless, trying to irk Goering or not, why would he (Galland) ask for spitfires? Because he felt they were "inferior" to the German planes? Would it really irk Goering that his pilots wanted "inferior" planes? Did Galland really think his pilots would do better in Spitfires? If he was arguing about the tactics Goering demanded, why didn't he say something sarcastic like "Maybe we should escort our bombers from below, so we're between them and the British airfields"? Why make his quote in reference to a machine, when the problem was (supposedly) the tactical use of their own machines?
When it comes to "and if you take the quote out of context it will support the argument you're trying to make"... isn't dismissing the quote as you've done count as a way to "support the argument you're trying to make"?
-
They weren't able to freely engage Spits & Hurris for the most part. As the bombers took unexpected high losses, the fighters were ordered to fly close escort, robbing them much if the initiative. And this lead to increasing frustration which led to that famous comment, because Galland (and others) felt they were not using their weapon to it's best capabilities
As escorts, weren't they supposed to engage the British fighters, and kill them or draw them away from the bombers? It's not like they were supposed to sit back and watch. They were there to kill the Brits, who were supposed to be trying to kill the bombers. Add to that the fact that while the Germans knew where they planned to attack, while the Brits had to do their best to figure it out...
If your fighter is equal or superior to your opponent, you have superior numbers, and he (the enemy) is trying to kill a bomber, I guess I'd expect you to prevail. Honestly, I can see why Goering was irked.
I'm having a hard time believing that the 109/190 models are porked due to "Allied infatuation". Prior to this long, drawn-out discussion, I'd have thought it to be an interesting possibility. After all, the Allies did win, so get to write the books, right? But, as more information is brought to light, my doubts that this is the case are really increasing.
The American's also won the fight against the Native Americans, but we don't see the books stating "The American's won due to the inferior fighting ability's of the NA's". On the contrary, it's common knowledge that the fight was won through killing the women and children and destroying the food sources and homes of the NA's. It wasn't a "glorious" victory, but it was effective.
In a "glory" sense, it would make more sense to pork the Allied planes, and "beef up" the Axis planes. That way the "bragging rights" would be better. As in, "We won the fight, even with inferior equipment".
-
Sure, Goering was being foolish, but did he really have that much control over his pilots? That they wouldn't try to be above their bombers?
He would have had quite a lot control. Bomber crews were filing reports. Actually it were those bomber crews reports, complaining about the perceived absence of LW fighters, that lead to those strict orders.
And regardless, trying to irk Goering or not, why would he (Galland) ask for spitfires? Because he felt they were "inferior" to the German planes? Would it really irk Goering that his pilots wanted "inferior" planes? Did Galland really think his pilots would do better in Spitfires? If he was arguing about the tactics Goering demanded, why didn't he say something sarcastic like "Maybe we should escort our bombers from below, so we're between them and the British airfields"? Why make his quote in reference to a machine, when the problem was (supposedly) the tactical use of their own machines?
It almost seems to me as if you haven't read Gallands memoirs on that matter? He pretty much explained why he did that "request" - He WAS being sarcastic, it was born out of frustration, frustration coming from the fact that the fighters were put on a tight leash.
-
It almost seems to me as if you haven't read Gallands memoirs on that matter? He pretty much explained why he did that "request" - He WAS being sarcastic, it was born out of frustration, frustration coming from the fact that the fighters were put on a tight leash.
Nope, I've never read his memoirs. I'm probably missing some pertinent information. I'm probably not going to "get it" in relation to his frame of mind, either, unless I do read them. It still seems like a flat-out odd way to argue a point. Would his pilots have done better, tight leash and all, if they had different planes?
Why bring plane-type to the table at all, if the tactics were at fault?
I find the bomber crews misconceptions to be interesting, actually. The same seems to be true for the British, who seemed to feel that they weren't getting adequate protection from the bombers.
-
Nope, I've never read his memoirs. I'm probably missing some pertinent information.
Allow me to quote, but forgive me the sucky translation ;)
Referring to that famous meeting with Mölders & Göring:
"The topic 'escort' was being discusserd for the umpteenth time. Göring was clearly taking the bomber's point of view and demanded close ("unmittelbar") escort. The bombers are being more important than our kill tally. I tried to explain to him that the 109, being a superior plane while attacking, and a verifiable successful fighter plane, would be less suited for such a purely defensive task, than the slower, but significantly more maneuverable Spitfire."
(...)
After the famous request:
"Once I had spoken these words, I was myself shocked by them. Because I did not really mean it that way. Of course I preferred our Me 109 over the Spitfire. But I was incredibly angry at the lack of understanding and the stubbornness of our leadership, who gave us tasks (...) that we could fulfill only inadequatly, if at all."
(quoted from: Galland, Adolf: Die Ersten und die Letzten. 15. Auflage, München 1983, p.96-97)
-
Nope, I've never read his memoirs. I'm probably missing some pertinent information. I'm probably not going to "get it" in relation to his frame of mind, either, unless I do read them. It still seems like a flat-out odd way to argue a point. Would his pilots have done better, tight leash and all, if they had different planes?
Why bring plane-type to the table at all, if the tactics were at fault?
Because the 109's strength vs. the Spitfire was speed. Force the 109s to give up that advantage, and the Spit's turning ability dominates.
If you want slow planes to stay with the bombers, Spits or Hurricanes are more up to that task than 109s. So if they won't allow you to change your tactics (which they wouldn't), you ask for a plane that is more up to the task you are given.
Seems pretty clear to me.
Yeah, like Lusche said. ;)
-
From what I've read, the German fighter pilots often flew at least 4-5000 ft above their bombers, regardless of Goering's wishes/orders. They did that because they knew it to be a more effective means to protect the bombers.
Sure, Goering was being foolish, but did he really have that much control over his pilots? That they wouldn't try to be above their bombers?
Even so, it looks like you're arguing that "even terms" puts the German fighter pilots at a disadvantage? Even with superior numbers? I guess I'm envisioning the Brits trying to climb up to the bombers, since they didn't really have loads of time to climb well above them, did they? As it was, didn't they generally arrive too late anyway, AFTER the bombers had dropped their bombs?
And regardless, trying to irk Goering or not, why would he (Galland) ask for spitfires? Because he felt they were "inferior" to the German planes? Would it really irk Goering that his pilots wanted "inferior" planes? Did Galland really think his pilots would do better in Spitfires? If he was arguing about the tactics Goering demanded, why didn't he say something sarcastic like "Maybe we should escort our bombers from below, so we're between them and the British airfields"? Why make his quote in reference to a machine, when the problem was (supposedly) the tactical use of their own machines?
When it comes to "and if you take the quote out of context it will support the argument you're trying to make"... isn't dismissing the quote as you've done count as a way to "support the argument you're trying to make"?
During the BoB in raw numbers the Germans outnumbered the Brits 2:1 if we take into account the bomber stream and not just the fighters that confronted the RAF's fighter arm. But when you take both the defensive and offensive force of both sides they were about even. That and of course the Brits had Radar that they could pinpoint where the bomber stream was headed so they could save fuel and pilots. That combined with the fact that the Brits were fighting on their home turf. When a German got shot down and would be able to bail out he would be lost to the German war effort. Compared to the Brits if he wasn't killed or severely injured could go back to his squad the same day.
He intended to make Goering realize the tactics he was asking for in relation to the up close and personal escort of the bombers that he ,Galland felt it would be better suited for Spitfires, not because he thought the spitfires were superior or better suited. This has been misinterpreted through out these boards time and time again when the full quote and context of why he said this is put forth they still deny it even straight from the horse's mouth.
If you're misquoting without the purpose or why he said it at the time it would support the argument that at least Galland wanted Spits because he thought it was superior, not the full discussion which made him retort with that particular remark. That going by the accounts of the pilots present made Goering visibly upset, not only asking for the enemy's machine but by the insubordination of a lower ranking officer.
http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/misc/myths1.htm
"Adolf Galland rated the Spitfire so highly he told Goering 'Give me a squadron of Spitfires'." - Here's a quote from his book The First And The Last:
"The theme of fighter protection was chewed over again and again. Goering clearly represented the point of view of the bombers and demanded close and rigid protection. The bomber, he said, was more important than record bag figures. I tried to point out that the Me109 was superior in the attack and not so suitable for purely defensive purposes as the Spitfire, which, although a little slower, was much more maneuverable. He rejected my objection. We received many more harsh words. Finally, as his time ran short, he grew more amiable and asked what were the requirements for our squadrons. Moelders asked for a series of Me109's with more powerful engines. The request was granted. 'And you ?' Goering turned to me. I did not hesitate long. 'I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my group.' After blurting this out, I had rather a shock, for it was not really meant that way. Of course, fundamentally I preferred our Me109 to the Spitfire, but I was unbelievably vexed at the lack of understanding and the stubbornness with which the command gave us orders we could not execute - or only incompletely - as a result of many shortcomings for which we were not to blame. Such brazen-faced impudence made even Goering speechless. He stamped off, growling as he went."
http://www.books-on-line.com/bol/book/files/priestpl.pdf <---on Luftwaffe's war of attrition.
-
That makes sense... I guess it makes Skip look like he doesn't know what he's talking about...
It also reminds me eerily of the AH 109 vs Spit.
-
BTW each time you use the Luftwhine(r) remark I get 5 cents xD.
The only reason people call you that is that you guys proclaim performance that you cannot prove mathmatically/aerodynamically. Much like Thorsim digging his heels in on some bastardized interpretation of some test flight report he read, and inferring that it proves his point. There's so much selectivity bias in your arguments its laughable. And, of course, when challenged on the performance of the 109/190, after exhausting the arguments that cling to anecdotes, you guys always go back and attack the Allied aircraft saying they are so much easier to fly in-game than they were in real life.
It gets tiring--truly. I recommend you guys create your own forum where you can pat each other on the back about how wrong the rest of us "unwashed" are. You do that, and I'll make a deal. I won't come on your forum and extol the virtues of Allied aircraft ad nauseum if you guys will stay out of here with your conspiracy theories.
-
Compared to the Early Models of AH's Flight Model I think so. Where aircraft would swing out of the runway violently if you slammed on the throttle wide open and you had to use a considerable amount of opposite rudder to keep the aircraft aligned.
A plane like the P-38, which was in Europe particularly, cannon fodder and many Luftwaffe pilots salivated when they saw it, blasting it to pieces. Get a really benign flight characteristic being able to easily out turn smaller lighter planes with larger power outputs in relation to their weight. Then again as numbers began to rise and the odds began to turn . Stacks of P-38s P-51s and P-47s met the Luftwaffe on "one to one engagements" that left them trapped. Yet in AH the P-38 and P47 historically not the most maneuverable aircraft below 10k ft here with a few degrees of flaps you can turn tighter than any "nimbler" lighter plane of the LW . So I have my questions. Still I fly them ,make kills enjoy the whines when I do shoot down someone who thinks the 109s should be neutered even worse. The fact that the Ta 152 has the flight characteristics of a pigeon with mercury poisoning heck you never know. oh and BTW The wing tanks on the Ta 152 were not used unless it was for long haul flights they were not self sealing . The primary tanks were the Front and AFT tanks just like the 190A and D and should be filled first before the wing tanks. That might certainly contribute to the instability and low speed handling. Either the German pilots were superhuman (which I don't believe contrary to what most try to make assumptions that I've said or implied this) or the planes were that good and the pilots well trained enough that they could make and deliver the victories under near equal terms not 5:1 in the West and 8:1 in the East.
IN b4 Ban. :D
P.S. oh and Ht F-86 and MiG 15 plox.
Do I need to post that 38J-10 with the 500 pounders still attached out turning the 109G on the deck dogfight again? Glasses you haven't changed in years. Same old song and dance I remember from the MA and 200. You of course have no bias at all, but everyone else does.
It's classic Luftwhine
-
Do I need to post that 38J-10 with the 500 pounders still attached out turning the 109G on the deck dogfight again? Glasses you haven't changed in years. Same old song and dance I remember from the MA and 200. You of course have no bias at all, but everyone else does.
It's classic Luftwhine
Of course the only way to recreate that against green pilots is to be generous in performance. It's ok nothing will change in that regard. Essentially like night and day after ending a sortie in a 190 and coming back to a P-47 I can get kills in my sleep.
That's my advice to anyone even when figures are given along with pilot anecdotes. They are disregarded and thrown to the side. Of course you're so impartial xD.
-
Of course the only way to recreate that against green pilots is to be generous in performance. It's ok nothing will change in that regard. Essentially like night and day after ending a sortie in a 190 and coming back to a P-47 I can get kills in my sleep.
That's my advice to anyone even when figures are given along with pilot anecdotes. They are disregarded and thrown to the side. Of course you're so impartial xD.
You prove my point. You have a vision of how it's supposed to work and have found the 'evidence' you need to be convinced of it. You've got guys here going above and beyond to explain this stuff, but it doesn't matter as the classic Luftwhiner believes that there is no way the German stuff can be beaten without an unfair advantage. So it must be an Allied bias by the game designer.
Your post I replied to starts with the comment about the LW guys salivating at the thought of fighting the 38. Now your response to my talking about that on the deck fight where the 38 driver downs the 109 driver in a turn fight while carrying 500 pounders, is talk about green pilots.
The guys trying to be rational about this are throwing out the pilot talk as each pilot's experience is different. I can give you pilot stories of 38s eating up 109s. You talk about LW pilots drooling over 38s. Who cares. In the end the math doesn't lie.
-
You prove my point. You have a vision of how it's supposed to work and have found the 'evidence' you need to be convinced of it. You've got guys here going above and beyond to explain this stuff, but it doesn't matter as the classic Luftwhiner believes that there is no way the German stuff can be beaten without an unfair advantage. So it must be an Allied bias by the game designer.
Your post I replied to starts with the comment about the LW guys salivating at the thought of fighting the 38. Now your response to my talking about that on the deck fight where the 38 driver downs the 109 driver in a turn fight while carrying 500 pounders, is talk about green pilots.
The guys trying to be rational about this are throwing out the pilot talk as each pilot's experience is different. I can give you pilot stories of 38s eating up 109s. You talk about LW pilots drooling over 38s. Who cares. In the end the math doesn't lie.
The hilarious thing is used correctly the german stuff can wipe the floor with the allied stuff, the whiners just haven't put the time into properly learning or experimenting with the planes to see what works and what doesn't. They see a fight as who's plane turns the best and then blame that on their failure to learn their chosen plane properly.
If they spent as much time practising as they did looking up anecdotes they wouldn't have this problem.
-
The Spitfire Mk Ia was faster than the Bf109E-4 during the Battle of Britain due to 100 octane fuel. I have read accounts from both sides to this effect. It is odd that Galland would make that statement about the Spitfire when it fits the Hurricane much better.
Then again, the British tended to significantly underestimate the performance of German aircraft, so it is entirely possible that the Germans did the same regarding British aircraft.
-
Of course the only way to recreate that against green pilots is to be generous in performance. It's ok nothing will change in that regard. Essentially like night and day after ending a sortie in a 190 and coming back to a P-47 I can get kills in my sleep.
That's my advice to anyone even when figures are given along with pilot anecdotes. They are disregarded and thrown to the side. Of course you're so impartial xD.
What figures have you posted? Your only evidence in this thread was a clip about WW2OL where the pilots said nothing to contradict the AH flight models. You offer nothing new. You add nothing to this discussion. You have no argument.
-
The hilarious thing is used correctly the german stuff can wipe the floor with the allied stuff, the whiners just haven't put the time into properly learning or experimenting with the planes to see what works and what doesn't. They see a fight as who's plane turns the best and then blame that on their failure to learn their chosen plane properly.
If they spent as much time practising as they did looking up anecdotes they wouldn't have this problem.
Indeed. I remember my first FSO. My squad flew Seafires. I've come to know the Seafire as a sweet, if a bit slow, dogfighter. Nonetheless, we got caught by a significant group of 190A-5s as we came in for refueling and got beaten up - badly.
If we're going to talk about the shakiness of anecdotal evidence, I'd like to put a good word in for the anecdotal evidence that says that AH Luftwaffe a/c are inherently inferior - since, last I recall, the d-9 (for example) earns an overall late war k/d of something like 1.3. I doubt the 109k-4 fares much worse. With a year's experience under my belt, Ill also say that my favorite rides tend to be Luftwaffe - though I'll occasionallly jump into the Spit VIII and Seafire II (I'd like a Seafire III, por favor). I'm just not a fan of the Jug, Corsair, or Pony, though I find the latter to be a credible (ha) machine - if you don't much likes the fightins'.
38's a good machine but has terrible compressibility.
-
Interesting read about Bearcat's relation and FW190:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_199808/ai_n8826530/
-C+
PS. "Do I need to post that 38J-10 with the 500 pounders still attached out turning the 109G on the deck dogfight again?" Sounds like an anecdote. Shouldn't you do the math and show how that is possible? ;)
-
You have to be carefull here, because when we are discussing corner velocity, it isn't related to sustained turning theory as described by the equation for excess power cited above. Maximum rate turns at corner velocity are not sustainable, and you can see that more clearly by looking at the diagram below. It shows you where in the envelope sustained turns are possible, and everywhere else, only instantaneous turns can be achieved. Infact, if you are at the peak of that diagram, and therefore performing a maximum rate turn at corner velocity, you will also be bleeding energy at the maximum rate, that is you will have the maximum negative excess power as described by the equation you posted.
However, you will notice that at the higher altitude, the corner velocity gets closer to top speed, and that trend continues and is more pronounced for aircraft that don't have such a high critical altitude as the P-51 to the extent that some aircraft in that situation can not generate enough lift at their top speed to reach 6G. In that case, their envelope is defined by their top speed and the lift limit. Then they have a corner velocity defined by the point where those two lines intersect.
However, I should point out that EM diagrams produced by the military often use a placard limit and not the top speed to define the right hand side of the envelope, after all fighters often go much faster than their top speed.
Hope that helps...
Badboy
It does. I keep confusing corner speed with max sustained turn speed. It looks like the former is the intersection of the stall speed curve and the max g curve while the latter is th eintersection of the stall speed curve and the max sustained g curve. Apparently, at any g above this last, power is insufficent to maintain the sustained turn and has to be "made up for" in alt loss.
As for the second point, it looks as though that right vertical VMax line'd just shift left for a lesser ac. The critical alt of which you speak would be (mem's not good enough to recall) I'm thinking, the alt at which the VMax TAS intersects the stall speed curve - i.e., you can fly at this alt, but only at VMax and on the verge of stall.
Gracias, chico malo... er, ungezogener junge...
-
And I'm assuming that Badboy's last counter to Gaston regarding the test conditions has met with Gaston's and Thor's critical approval and this issue is settled?
I'm assuming they've read it, understood it, have no counter for it, and are ready to sign a document that says, "the AH F-dub FM looks to be of pretty sound composition, based on logical and time-honored theory, compatible with test data, and is otherwsie pretty good scheisse"???
Gaston?
C'mon, now. Part of adulthood is making a decision, understanding its consequences, then acknowledging acceptance of said decision and consequences...
-
It does. I keep confusing corner speed with max sustained turn speed. It looks like the former is the intersection of the stall speed curve and the max g curve while the latter is th eintersection of the stall speed curve and the max sustained g curve. Apparently, at any g above this last, power is insufficent to maintain the sustained turn and has to be "made up for" in alt loss.
As for the second point, it looks as though that right vertical VMax line'd just shift left for a lesser ac. The critical alt of which you speak would be (mem's not good enough to recall) I'm thinking, the alt at which the VMax TAS intersects the stall speed curve - i.e., you can fly at this alt, but only at VMax and on the verge of stall.
Gracias, chico malo... er, ungezogener junge...
By jov I tink he's got it.
Actually you put it very well put, and an it is easy way to think of it.
HiTech
-
Interesting read about Bearcat's relation and FW190:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_199808/ai_n8826530/
-C+
PS. "Do I need to post that 38J-10 with the 500 pounders still attached out turning the 109G on the deck dogfight again?" Sounds like an anecdote. Shouldn't you do the math and show how that is possible? ;)
Math was never my strong suit :)
I just pretend in my pretend airplane :aok
-
Anybody read the article I posted? After all it sort of.. um.. "on topic" and all.
What was that that impressed Grumman designers so much? In all the tests that were run the FW failed to impress the test pilots but why did it impress an aircraft manufacturer?
-C+
-
Anybody read the article I posted? After all it sort of.. um.. "on topic" and all.
What was that that impressed Grumman designers so much? In all the tests that were run the FW failed to impress the test pilots but why did it impress an aircraft manufacturer?
-C+
I always thought it had to do with the way they got so much engine into such a small place. The Bearcat following suit
-
Anybody read the article I posted? After all it sort of.. um.. "on topic" and all.
What was that that impressed Grumman designers so much? In all the tests that were run the FW failed to impress the test pilots but why did it impress an aircraft manufacturer?
-C+
I think the FW-190 was an awesome design. Had it, IMO, been afforded an engine that allowed it to achieve the same levels of high altitude performance as the Jug, Pony, or later Spits, it would have been a monster. The thing that a lot of folks forget is that back during the war, having the ability to drop 3 notches of flaps and turn inside a 400 foot radius wasn't that important. Most people marveled at its roll rate. Obviously, Grumman liked its geometry.
That's the thing I've hated the most about this discussion is that some of these guys think we're slagging on the aircraft when really, all we've been decrying is its sustained turn rate. Sustained turn rate matters a lot more in Aces High than it did during the war.
-
Charge that's fascinating article you linked. I don't quite understand your question because the 3 people mentioned that were inspired to design the Bearcat by the FW190 were all test pilots. I think the FW190 impressed everybody but that doesn't mean that everyone preferred it to other aircraft that also impressed them.
-
I think the FW-190 was an awesome design. Had it, IMO, been afforded an engine that allowed it to achieve the same levels of high altitude performance as the Jug, Pony, or later Spits, it would have been a monster. The thing that a lot of folks forget is that back during the war, having the ability to drop 3 notches of flaps and turn inside a 400 foot radius wasn't that important. Most people marveled at its roll rate. Obviously, Grumman liked its geometry.
That's the thing I've hated the most about this discussion is that some of these guys think we're slagging on the aircraft when really, all we've been decrying is its sustained turn rate. Sustained turn rate matters a lot more in Aces High than it did during the war.
I think that's entirely correct. I blame the icon, in large part, on this. I think that the most common kill in WWII was likely accomplished by an enemy who was undetected by the victim, else why the signal importance of seeing the enemy before he sees you? For this role the F-dub is undeniably well-suited: do unto others then get the hell out.
Also, and I meant to mention this before, hats off to Josef Pips Priller, Spitfire Killer. He had 68 Spit kills, 101 total victories, and survived the war. (http://www.milartgl.com/images_3_b/Fw190A8-Priller.jpg) It looks like about half of his kills came for JG26.
-
An estimate is 80% of fighters not knowing that there was somebody on their 6.
Which makes the 190 a diabolically good "jumper", with it's firepower and good platform.
And then, - reasonably good diving charecteristics, with a quick entry into a dive, and having optimal engine power at lower altitudes, - all good for jumping Spitties over home ground.
It got worse at high alt though. Spitfire domain. Would have been hard to jump Duncan "Smithy" Smith who lead his Spit IX's in battle formation at 43K already in 1942.....
In that case though, the 190 pilot had a good view upwards :devil
-
"In that case though, the 190 pilot had a good view upwards"
And rear mind you.
It's also good that towards the end of the war even those überfast Spitties got bubble canopies and they could check their 6's so that Herr Priller could not shoot them down in his leadsled A8. :devil
-C+
-
Herr Priller didnt have to fly much after 1/1 1945 :)
He spent most of his time with ground duties in the 1945 war.
-
More incredible is all his claims were on the Western front. Considering that Spitfires were the main opposition for most of the war, it is natural that Spitfires would make up the greater number of his claims.
list of claims, http://www.luftwaffe.cz/priller.html
-
He's lucky he wasn't flying after 1/1. I think things got pretty hairy. For example, Johannes Steinhof had his 262 accident in April of that year: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Steinhoff
That's why he spent the rest of his life as a reconstructed crispy critter.
Galland was also shot down - four times. At least one of those was due to a Spitfire (Drobinski of 303 in 1941). I should add, here, that the reason I cited Priller the Spit Killer is that he was the Number One Spit Killer in the Luftwaffe.
I believe "Dolfo" was flying a 109F at the time - and it probably looked like this (note the murderous "MickeyMaus" below the cockpit, a bit more fun than, e.g. Hartmann's "bleeding heart" Karaya or Priller's rather mundane Ace of Hearts): (http://img576.imageshack.us/img576/8770/bf109fgalland.jpg)
Galland had a close brush in '45 in his 262, getting shot up by a 47 and having to land the crippled jet at an airfield under attack. I don't know if the vulch light was on.
Anyway, all that's probative of is, even with a great pilot at the controls, both 262s and 109s were very vulnerable - doubtless F-dubs were too. Galland was wounded numerous times. Rall had a thumb shot off and had his spine broken in 3 places. Molders, of course, was killed. Marseille was MIA. The list goes on. Hartmann's expereince was pretty unusual, I think.
-
Marseille was MIA.
Marseille was killed in an accident while bailing out of a 109 g2 with engine trouble that was non combat related. Marseille = Aces High style uber flying in real life :devil he retired unbeaten :D
-
Marseille was killed in an accident while bailing out of a 109 g2 with engine trouble that was non combat related. Marseille = Aces High style uber flying in real life :devil he retired unbeaten :D
Yes, you're correct. The 109G-2 caught on fire due to an oil leak whose root cause appears to have been some broken spur gear teeth. However, recall that my statement was that the 109 was highly vulnerable, even in the hands of an expert pilot. This still appears to be true - though I was definitely in need of corrrection on the MIA biz. In the course of readin gabout Marseille, I also ventured across the deaths of two of his kameraden, Steinhausen and Stahlschmidt, both aces (34 and 59 victories) and members of his staffel, who preceded him in death by mere days. Both of these were victims of RAF Hurris and Spits.
This raises another question, though, and one I've wondered about for some time. The 109, given its hub cannon, must have had a geared hub, yes? I mean, the DB's crank had to have been offset from the barrel of the kanone, right?
-
This raises another question, though, and one I've wondered about for some time. The 109, given its hub cannon, must have had a geared hub, yes? I mean, the DB's crank had to have been offset from the barrel of the kanone, right?
Sectional view of a DB 601:
(http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/db601na.jpg)
-
Sectional view of a DB 601:
(http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/db601na.jpg)
Then I stand corrected again... it's a geared output shaft - not a geared hub.
-
The greatest percentage of Marsielles claims were P-40s.
-
The greatest percentage of Marsielles claims were P-40s.
Yes, and bad talk goin' round town said papa had three outside children and another wife - and that ai'nt right.
No, it's true. I've also read he was a ball-hoggin' hotdog whose command style crippled his staffel and appeared t odo so to feed him kills. But then, flipside, I've read contemporary pilots wh said he was the best shot in the Luftwaffe.
-
Here is one for Hitech, and Gaston :D
Gunther Rall told me personally that he considered Marseille to have been the best shot of the LW in WW2.
Some years later, I was spending some time /A humbl lunch and some visit) with an ex LW wing-commander, who worked with the "old guns" when they were with NATO. That would include Rall, Krupinsky, even Galland, Steinhoff, and a number worth drooling over.
His opinion was that Rall was the very best shot, since he was making his hits under very high G's, and under deflection ,etc.
Marseille, (Rall told me he had killed 17 Spitfires in a day) had a special set-up, - He (being a superb pilot and an excellent shot) had the team-mates covering him while he would do stall turns to get a dead shot from no distance. Like a trap to confident Spitfire pilots who believed they could turn inside 109's. In that case, Marseille would throttle down and then up again in order to get the 109 into a complete slotted bat-turn, getting a killing shot from practically point blank, with some convergience, and he would hit the fuselage and often kill the engine or pilot. Then, he had his mates covering him, so he go most of the squadron's kills personally.
The 17 Spitfire story never held water, nor did the 17 kill story. He may have hit 17 times an aircraft that day, which is already a remarkable achievent.
He did not get away like unscratched....there is a famous picture of Marseille showing a bullet hole in his fuselage some short distance in front of the cockpit. That means a split-second away from a bullet in your gut.
-
17 Spitfires????
Marseille was credited with 17 kills in three separate sorties over El Taqua, Alam Halfa and Deir el Raghat.
His adversaries on the early morning missions were Mk II Hurricanes (No. 1 Squadron SAAF and No. 238 Squadron RAF) and Mk V Spitfires (No. 92 Squadron RAF). One South African, Lieutenant Bailey, was injured in a crash landing, while Major P. R. C. Metelerkamp managed to fly his heavily damaged fighter back to his base. Flying Officer I. W. (Ian) Matthews of 238 Sqn was killed.[114] Pilot Officer Bradley-Smith (92 Sqn) bailed out of his burning Spitfire VC BR474. Bradley-Smith was uninjured.
Among Marseille’s adversaries during the midday combat were Mk IIB Tomahawks of No. 5 Squadron SAAF and Mk I Kittyhawks of No. 2 Squadron SAAF, to which was attached pilots of the 57th Fighter Group USAAF.[Notes 10] Lieutenant Stearns was wounded in the crash-landing of his P-40, Lieutenant Morrison (Kittyhawk I, ET575) remains missing in action, Lieutenant W. L. O. Moon bailed out of his Kittyhawk I, EV366 and was uninjured. Lieutenant G. B. Jack also remains missing in action.
Marseille's evening opponents were Hurricanes from No. 213 Squadron RAF, of which Marseille claimed five shot down.[116] Marseille's 117th official victory was over a Hurricane Mk IIB, BN273. The pilot, Sergeant A. Garrod, bailed out uninjured.
-
Yes, and bad talk goin' round town said papa had three outside children and another wife - and that ai'nt right.
PJ, I'm depending on you
to tell me the truuuuuuu-uuuu-uuu-uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuth.
-
Marseilles was a great pilot and warrior. Perhaps the best of them all in single combat. However, the focus on personal achievement and glory was detrimental to the Luftwaffe as a fighting force. Some Luftwaffe squadrons were reduced to one or a few aces, with the rest of the pilots just trying to protect their champions. It was a very inefficient way to use a whole squadron of fighters, and when these aces fell it was devastating to morale.
-
"However, the focus on personal achievement and glory was detrimental to the Luftwaffe as a fighting force. Some Luftwaffe squadrons were reduced to one or a few aces, with the rest of the pilots just trying to protect their champions. It was a very inefficient way to use a whole squadron of fighters, and when these aces fell it was devastating to morale."
DieHard, I think that is a quite rough generalization, and as such it is generally incorrect.
-C+
-
Pardon the confusion but? Isn't this the 190A5 vs 190A8 thread?
-
17 Spitfires????
Marseille was credited with 17 kills in three separate sorties over El Taqua, Alam Halfa and Deir el Raghat.
His adversaries on the early morning missions were Mk II Hurricanes (No. 1 Squadron SAAF and No. 238 Squadron RAF) and Mk V Spitfires (No. 92 Squadron RAF). One South African, Lieutenant Bailey, was injured in a crash landing, while Major P. R. C. Metelerkamp managed to fly his heavily damaged fighter back to his base. Flying Officer I. W. (Ian) Matthews of 238 Sqn was killed.[114] Pilot Officer Bradley-Smith (92 Sqn) bailed out of his burning Spitfire VC BR474. Bradley-Smith was uninjured.
Among Marseille’s adversaries during the midday combat were Mk IIB Tomahawks of No. 5 Squadron SAAF and Mk I Kittyhawks of No. 2 Squadron SAAF, to which was attached pilots of the 57th Fighter Group USAAF.[Notes 10] Lieutenant Stearns was wounded in the crash-landing of his P-40, Lieutenant Morrison (Kittyhawk I, ET575) remains missing in action, Lieutenant W. L. O. Moon bailed out of his Kittyhawk I, EV366 and was uninjured. Lieutenant G. B. Jack also remains missing in action.
Marseille's evening opponents were Hurricanes from No. 213 Squadron RAF, of which Marseille claimed five shot down.[116] Marseille's 117th official victory was over a Hurricane Mk IIB, BN273. The pilot, Sergeant A. Garrod, bailed out uninjured.
So....that makes 5 kills from these engagements as confirmed? And did Marseille then get them all?
Milo, this was a good cover of events. Would have taken me days of work :)
Brings me to a point though. I have looked quite a lot into LW claims and registered losses, Then RAF claims and registered losses. Apart from both being a bit off in the claim department, , the losses are hard to register. In that case especially the LW, which is understandable, for they were on the loosing side, and a lot of documents were destroyed. The torture is finding proper loss records to match up to the numbers of an airforce that mostly got destroyed.
Anyway, a challenge.
Milo. I have lost your email address. Could you ping me on info@gardsauki.is?
Thanks ;)
-
Maybe a bid of a throwback to this whole conversation, but I tend to agree with Thorsim that our 190 seems to be less capable than it was anecdotally. In a mere 5 minutes of web surfing I found this. Nowhere does it say that the 190 was an inferior handler but, quite to the contrary, accounts seemed to give it performance superior to the spits until the advent of the IX and one writer actually said in no uncertain terms that it OUT TURNED the 109. It just seems like the 190 we have is nowhere near as capable as the 190 accounted for in WWII.
(4) Alan Deere, Nine Lives (1959)
Savagely I hauled my reluctant Spitfire around to meet this new attack and the next moment I was engulfed in enemy fighters-above, below and on both sides, they crowded in on my section. Ahead and above, I caught a glimpse of a FW 190 as it poured cannon shells into the belly of an unsuspecting Spitfire. For a brief second the Spitfire seemed to stop in mid-air, and the next instant it folded inwards and broke in two, the two pieces plummeting earthwards; a terrifying demonstration of the punch of the FW 190s, four cannons and two machine-guns.
I twisted and turned my aircraft in an endeavour to avoid being jumped and at the same time to get myself into a favourable position for attack. Never had I seen the Huns stay and fight it out as these Focke-Wulf pilots were doing. In Messerschmitt 109s the Hun tactics had always followed the same pattern-a quick pass and away, sound tactics against Spitfires with their superior turning circle. Not so these FW 190 pilots, they were full of confidence.
(3) After the war the British fighter pilot Johnnie Johnson wrote about the merits of the Focke-Wulf 190.
The Focke-Wulf 190 was undoubtedly, the best German fighter. We were puzzled by the unfamiliar silhouette, for these new German fighters seemed to have squarer wingtips and more tapering fuselages than the Messerschmitts we usually encountered. We saw that the new aircraft had radial engines and a mixed armament of cannons and machine-guns, all firing from wing positions.
Whatever these strange fighters were, they gave us a hard time of it. They seemed to be faster in a zoom climb than the Me 109, and far more stable in a vertical dive. They also turned better. The first time we saw them we all had our work cut out to shake them off, and we lost several pilots.
Back at our fighter base and encouraged by our enthusiastic Intelligence Officers, we drew sketches and side views of this strange new aeroplane. We were all agreed that it was superior to the Me 109f and completely outclassed our Spitfire Vs. Our sketches disappeared into mysterious Intelligence channels and we heard no more of the matter,. But from then on, fighter pilots continually reported increasing numbers of these outstanding fighters over northern Franc
From Vectorsite.com
The V1 machine originally featured a three-bladed variable-pitch propeller with an oversized prop spinner. The spinner fitted flush to the edge of the engine cowling for streamlining, with a central duct surrounding a ten-bladed fan for airflow, but this configuration didn't cool the rear set of cylinders very well. The oversized prop spinner was replaced by a conventional prop spinner, which didn't do much to eliminate the overheating problem but demonstrated no real reduction in performance, and so was retained for all following FW-190s.
The cockpit overheating remained a serious nuisance. Temperatures reached up to 55 degrees Celsius (130 degrees Fahrenheit) and Sander complained that sitting in the cockpit "was like having your feet in a fire!" Unfortunately, the canopy couldn't be opened in flight to cool off, since the open canopy created disruptive turbulence over the tail.
The difficulties did not disguise the fact that the new fighter was fast, powerful, and agile. Sander demonstrated the V1 at the Luftwaffe flight test center at Rechlin in early July 1939, including a show for Reichsmarshal Hermann Goering, who was so enthusiastic that he endorsed mass production of the type, saying it should be "turned out like hot rolls!" Luftwaffe test pilots were also enthusiastic about the new machine, stating that it handled better than the Bf-109.
* The British Royal Air Force (RAF) first encountered the FW-190A-1 in air combat over the coast of northern France in September 1941. The new German aircraft was more than a match for the Spitfire V. British intelligence was initially puzzled by reports of the new German fighter, with some speculation that the type might actually be a captured French Curtiss Hawk 75 or the Bloch 151 fighter, both of which were radial-engine machines with a vague resemblance to the FW-190. By the end of the year, the British had no doubt that they were up against something much more formidable.
* In February 1942, FW-190s of Adolf Galland's JG-26 squadron escorted the battle cruisers SCHARNHORST and GNEISENAU on their famous "Channel Dash" from France to the Baltic, with the Focke-Wulf fending off attacks by RAF Hurricanes and Spitfires, and shooting down all of a flight of six Swordfish torpedo-bombers that courageously pressed their attack despite the odds.
Many Luftwaffe pilots racked up large numbers of kills, particularly on the Eastern front. The Luftwaffe's fourth highest scoring pilot, Oberleutnant Otto Kittle, who scored 267 victories, got 220 of his kills in FW-190A-4s and A-5s, making him the high scorer with the type. Other German aces, including Walter Nowotny, Heinz Baer, Herman Graf, and Kurt Buhligen, all scored over a hundred kills in the FW-190.
From Aviation-history.com
The Focke-Wulf was not only faster but its superior handling and faster roll rate gave it an edge in the hands of even less experienced pilots.
Just seems like the 190 we have is NOWHERE near what was faced by the allies.
-
At the same time, there is a quote from a 60-70ish kill Fw190 aces complaining that the Spitfire IX did everything better than the Fw190 other than roll.
In AH the Fw190A-5 will dominate the Spitfire Mk V.
As to the turning, I just don't see how the physics work for the Fw190 to out turn a Spitfire. The numbers just don't work for it.
-
Not saying a 190 should be a spitfire on steroids, I'm simply making the observation that the 190 encountered by the Allied forces was ,reportedly, a much more formidable and capable adversary that what is seen in game. Except for roll, our 190 is a flying brick with no other real qualities to recommend it over the 109, to which it was also supposed to be superior. What we have would make the total tonnage of Allied aircraft taken by 190 have to have been the result of BnZ and hit and run as it is evident that anyone that stops and tries to duel with a spit in a 190 is dead. The only way a 190 wins is if the spit driver has a stroke in the middle of the contest. It just doesn't make any sense.
-
For the last time, folks need to understand that what made an aircraft competitive in the WWII air battle is not necessarily something that translates into AHII. That the 190 was superior to the Spit V--no question. Could it out turn a Spit V? Not in a sustained turn it couldn't. Kind of like an F4U couldn't out-turn a Zero, but was considered to be superior. The P-47 couldn't out-turn a Ki-43, but was considered superior.
Aerodynamically, it is almost impossible for the FW-190 to be a better sustained turner than it is represented in-game. I want to stress this 1,000 times and then 1,000 more. It was not designed to achieve tight sustained turns. It was designed to fly fast, roll fast, climb fast. As a result of its design tradeoffs, it turned like a bullet. Turning very tight matters in AH2. It didn't matter nearly as much back then.
-
Try to climb with 190a8 and tell me it climbs fast with 4 * 20mm guns .
If the guys that has put effort into calculating combat weight on the a8 is right, and it will be adjusted correctly, it might be a better plane ,
It will not outturn a spit, but can give it the performace it had in real life.
-
The 190 is a fantastic plane that is very capable at standing its ground when outnumbered, however, when flown by people who do not understand how to utilise its strengths will fall easy prey to enemy aircraft. For instance I encounter many 190s who try to make one or two passes then running or make a ho attempt..these pilots are not extracting the strengths of the plane. to fully appreciate just what the plane can and cant do you need to spend quite alot of time in cockpit. I have flown the 190 almost exclusively since I have started the game, and although I am not the best of pilots..I know what the plane can and cant do. I never flat turn more than 90 degrees and always use the vertical and the roll rate to try and get the advantage over my enemy, which also leads to my death as I also fly it very aggressively.
In the odd occasion Stampf gives us permission to fly non Luftwaffe aircraft, I fly them for a few sorties and always go back to the dora as I feel 190 is one of the best attack aircraft in the game and even better when hunting in a pack.
I love dora, and when I cheat on her..I always go running back.
-
What, can't find a Dora avatar?
So what Stoney is saying, fastest best climbing plane wins, right?
-
What, can't find a Dora avatar?
So what Stoney is saying, fastest best climbing plane wins, right?
No. What Stoney is saying is that, if you've been through basic aero and know anything about physics, you can derive the following (taken from Wiki):
Like any body in circular motion, an aircraft that is fast and strong enough to maintain level flight at speed v in a circle of radius R accelerates towards the centre at v^2/r. That acceleration is caused by the inward horizontal component of the lift, , where θ is the banking angle. Then from Newton's second law ,
mv^2/r = L sin(theta) = .5 rho v^2 CL A sin(theta)
Tidying up gives
R = 2 W/A /(rho CL sin(theta))
W/A is the wing loading and R decreases with it. This is basic centripetal motion - like you'd learn in sophomore physics.
Compare the wingloading of the 190 and the Spit VIII, for example. HiTech knows physics and Aero. Anecdotes aren't worth a damn, necessarily.
For example, when somebody says the 190 out-turns the Spit, what do they mean? Does it change heading more quickly? over what interval? sustained or with alt loss?
The physics don't lie.
The smaller the wing loading, the tighter the turn.
I just love it when people come in here like nobody's ever studied this stuff before, like math, physics, and engineering haven't already established and re-established these basics. So, all I can say is vector diagram it for yourself and do the balance. If you have questions after that, bring 'em here. There's no magic going on here.
I'd also like to point out, I've seen 190's flown in the MA - indeed, done some of it myself, such that they're devilishly difficult to kill. I've also been killed by 190s. I recall my first FSO - all of my Seafire-flying squaddies got HAMMERED by A-5s as we went to land. I say, revise the weight, if needed, than take away the icon, then see how the k/d on the 190 fares (D-9 already has one of the highest k/d in the game).
This is all just silly bullhockey at this point.
-
"The smaller the wing loading, the tighter the turn."
And within the same aircraft, therefor the lighter it is (say fuel is gone and ammo wasted) the tighter the turn ;)
-
So what Stoney is saying, fastest best climbing plane wins, right?
No. Re-read the entire couple hundred posts of this thread.
-
Well, the Bearcat article I posted would suggest that with its small rigid wing the 190 had some desireable qualities -maybe it could pull more instantaneous Gs in high speed without breaking its wings than its low wingloaded contemporaries? Thus it was also a problem in Bearcat that when they had to increase wing area to make carrier landings possible the wingtip loading went too high finally resulting in a 4G limit?
Does "high" wingloading suggest that while the stress of the weight of the a/c is divided over smaller area the stress is also bigger? Or do every high wingloading result in mushing through turns? Even in high speeds?
Does "low" wingloading suggest that the while the weight of the aircraft is distributed over a larger lifting area the stress is also lower and it can pull more Gs even in high speed? Or would it need the same amount of metal than there is in FW, lbs/sqinch, to retain the same rigidity and G tolerance, thus resulting in a very heavy wing?
There is a common anecdote: Soon the pilots were pulling such aileron turns in their new 190s that would have wrenched the wings off of their old 109s" What is "aileron turn" anyway?
-C+
PS. There is a saying about 190 (Hoof?): "It likes to go fast and stay fast." Obviously referring to good acceleration, low drag, and low maneuvering drag, unless you force too much AoA and start dumping speed excessively.
PPS. In 1 vs 1 the 190 generally sucks, but is starts to shine in many vs many where it can switch targets continously and stay fast and take deadly snapshots with its cannons.
-
Well, the Bearcat article I posted would suggest that with its small rigid wing the 190 had some desireable qualities -maybe it could pull more instantaneous Gs in high speed without breaking its wings than its low wingloaded contemporaries? Thus it was also a problem in Bearcat that when they had to increase wing area to make carrier landings possible the wingtip loading went too high finally resulting in a 4G limit?
Unknown. Typically, and as was the case with the F8F, the weight of the wing versus its structural strength is more of a design consideration. There are techniques and materials that can be used to lessen the weight of a wing, but for the most part, its structural strength is proportional to its weight. One of the things the Grumman engineers were trying to do with the F8F design was pack that honking big American radial in as small/light a plane as possible, so weight was a key issue. You can make a small wing very strong. You can make a large wing very strong. If you try to make a larger wing weigh the same as a small wing, generally speaking, it won't be as strong.
Does "high" wingloading suggest that while the stress of the weight of the a/c is divided over smaller area the stress is also bigger? Or do every high wingloading result in mushing through turns? Even in high speeds? Does "low" wingloading suggest that the while the weight of the aircraft is distributed over a larger lifting area the stress is also lower and it can pull more Gs even in high speed? Or would it need the same amount of metal than there is in FW, lbs/sqinch, to retain the same rigidity and G tolerance, thus resulting in a very heavy wing?
Completely dependent on other design considerations. Don't confuse span loading with wing-loading. Span loading is typically a function of wing design. Wing loading is nothing more than the weight of the aircraft in a specific configuration divided by the wing area. Ultimately, wing-loading has no impact on the structural qualities of a wing. It does however, impact the aerodynamic qualities.
-
Must all be in the flight paradigm. I like the A5, the rest aren't worth a pound of turds.
-
Must all be in the flight paradigm. I like the A5, the rest aren't worth a pound of turds.
I don't know -I like the D-9, provided I come in with some alt and speed. You can do a lot with that bird - especially if you have friendlies around. It's much better suited to BnZ or bomber-busting than a Spit, for example. The A8 is, imj, one of the best snapshot killers and bomber busters in the game.
I think that, icons off, the FW's life gets a lot easier.
-
"Don't confuse span loading with wing-loading. Span loading is typically a function of wing design."
Yeah, that is something that I have been wondering. If you compare e.g. the wings of F6F and Spit, both good low speed turners, the span loading must be less in Spit due to smaller wingtip but then again the wing root is where all the momentum arm of the wing directs the forces. In that light the wing tip of the Bear must have been significantly lighter built than the root portion of the wing. After all it was the outboard portion of the wing that was lightened in FW too. Not sure if it got weaker in the process but if it did I'd expect there should have been a marginal difference in roll rates between A5 and A6 in A5's favor if some of the stiffness was lost.
-C+
-
So what was the final verdict on the weight discrepancy? 500kg?
-
Oops I meant pounds, I'm sure its not kgs lol. (The A8)
-
"Completely dependent on other design considerations. Don't confuse span loading with wing-loading. Span loading is typically a function of wing design. Wing loading is nothing more than the weight of the aircraft in a specific configuration divided by the wing area. Ultimately, wing-loading has no impact on the structural qualities of a wing. It does however, impact the aerodynamic qualities."
A higher span heads to less G-tolerance, while chord at the root does not. Just wondering.....
-
A higher span heads to less G-tolerance, while chord at the root does not. Just wondering.....
I'm not sure I understand the question...
-
I am thinking of the wing spar. See how wings fluctuate at G if it is a long long wing ;)
-
Well, you can make a long span very strong, its just going to increase weight proportionally.
-
Precicly ;)
But weight also "increases" with G, so I wonder where the trade-off with span and chord occures. Which brings you to the form of the wing (tapering and thickness) and all the possibilities for stiffening the wing without making it able to break so easily.
But in general, the wing will take the most G at the root, and flex the more at the tip. Interesting how the trade-offs were done.
-
Precicly ;)
But weight also "increases" with G, so I wonder where the trade-off with span and chord occures. Which brings you to the form of the wing (tapering and thickness) and all the possibilities for stiffening the wing without making it able to break so easily.
But in general, the wing will take the most G at the root, and flex the more at the tip. Interesting how the trade-offs were done.
Well, trade studies are conducted that consider aspect ratio, weight, structural strength, etc. There is some sort of aerodynamic goal the designer has in mind and when doing wing design, for example, they could set up a "carpet plot" to see how changing the various characteristics impacted the design goals. The design goal may prioritize aerodynamic efficiency or weight, or strength. I've got some formulas that will take span, aspect ratio, taper ratio, design load, and will give you estimated weights for the wing as a result. Its pretty interesting to see how those various characteristics affect the theoretical weight.
-
As per topic I remember reading awhile ago that FW's wing weighed 400-450kg and fuselage something like 350kg IIRC. Dunno if that's a normal weight distribution between those two parts (two because FW has a solid spar so the whole wing is in one piece).
-C+
-
As per topic I remember reading awhile ago that FW's wing weighed 400-450kg and fuselage something like 350kg IIRC. Dunno if that's a normal weight distribution between those two parts (two because FW has a solid spar so the whole wing is in one piece).
-C+
I thought it was built in 2 halves then bolted together?
Edit: think this is wing halves ...
(http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/articles/black3/images/black3-5.jpg)
-
The Focke Wolfe 190A8 has a bigger and heavy motor then the A5, which makes it slower and less of a climber and the A8 has a way heavyer wing loading then the A5.
-
The Focke Wolfe 190A8 has a bigger and heavy motor then the A5, which makes it slower and less of a climber and the A8 has a way heavyer wing loading then the A5.
The last few sites I've visited that deal exclusively with the 190 state that after the A6, subsequent models had an Enlarged and Lightened wing to help offset any weight increases. I have yet to find the square footage of the A5 wing compared to the A8, though. (Or wing weights) :headscratch: