Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Mus51 on May 31, 2010, 05:14:55 PM
-
I just found this on the youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0YLLBvIBFk
The video says 190's could out turn 109's at any speed... :joystick: If thats so, why don't the 190's turn at all in game?
-
Pilot anecdote...not valid when compared to the books.
I liked the videos showing an unknown 190 not being out maneuvered or out run by a Yak 9.
-
You know youve got it bad when you say to yourself "Hey, that clip is from a WWII VHS collection I have in the basement..."
-
I just found this on the youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0YLLBvIBFk
The video says 190's could out turn 109's at any speed... :joystick: If thats so, why don't the 190's turn at all in game?
Nice Camelteeth
-
I just found this on the youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0YLLBvIBFk
The video says 190's could out turn 109's at any speed... :joystick: If thats so, why don't the 190's turn at all in game?
We already did this thread in April--all 70 pages or whatever it was of it. Lets leave this one be...unless you're actually interested in the aerodynamics...
-
Personally, I would love to hear the aerodynamics.
-
The video says 190's could out turn 109's at any speed... :joystick: If thats so, why don't the 190's turn at all in game?
Ok, I'll bite then Nemesis. First, the video is wrong when it says the "190 could out turn the 109 at any speed". The video is correct when it says the 190 could out roll the 109 at any speed. What we have beaten to death lately is the definition by historical resources of the word/term "out turn". Does that mean instantaneous turn rate? Sustained turn rate? Are the authors confusing its roll rate with the ability to "turn"? The high roll rate allowed the 190 to change direction quickly. Historically, the ability to change direction was encompassed by the term "maneuverability". So, when the historians say "the 190 was more maneuverable" than the 109, it probably was. That does not mean it could "out-turn" the 109--it simply means the 190 could change direction faster.
As far as the 190's poor turn performance, its a matter of the wing design on the FW-190. The FW-190 has a very small wing, which contributes to slower sustained turning rates, higher required coefficients of lift for certain maneuvers, and a very high sensitivity to altitude. I'm glossing over some things, but this is a rough description.
-
Thank you Stoney, I enjoyed that.
-
Ok, I'll bite then Nemesis. First, the video is wrong when it says the "190 could out turn the 109 at any speed". The video is correct when it says the 190 could out roll the 109 at any speed. What we have beaten to death lately is the definition by historical resources of the word/term "out turn". Does that mean instantaneous turn rate? Sustained turn rate? Are the authors confusing its roll rate with the ability to "turn"? The high roll rate allowed the 190 to change direction quickly. Historically, the ability to change direction was encompassed by the term "maneuverability". So, when the historians say "the 190 was more maneuverable" than the 109, it probably was. That does not mean it could "out-turn" the 109--it simply means the 190 could change direction faster.
As far as the 190's poor turn performance, its a matter of the wing design on the FW-190. The FW-190 has a very small wing, which contributes to slower sustained turning rates, higher required coefficients of lift for certain maneuvers, and a very high sensitivity to altitude. I'm glossing over some things, but this is a rough description.
That makes allot more sense to me! I figured the 190's didnt have the wings to pull on.
The aerodynamics are a masterpiece though on the 190, i mean the way how the make it roll so fast is amazing.
-
Also correct me if I'm wrong since I'm just a computer gamer pilotzor! In real air combat, most doesn't often do on the deck turn fighting like in AHII. Instead they keep their E and use whatever advantages that plane and its situation permitted.
-
Correct Yenny. Not eveything on the deck would turnfight. Often doing so would be just stupid.
-
"The aerodynamics are a masterpiece though on the 190, i mean the way how the make it roll so fast is amazing."
Heh, I'm not at all sure about that. It seems that they could make the Spitty roll as fast with a much bigger wing by simply clipping it wingtips off... :P
-C+
-
:cry
-C+
:aok
-
The rollrate of the 190 is based on non linear optimization of wing aerodynamics. (http://www.vsgc.odu.edu/src/Conf08/Papers08/Williams%20-%20Paper.pdf) Of course WW2-era planes were NOT unstable - else the pilots would have a very low life expectancy (30 seconds after their first take off, more or less).
Obviously an extreme reaction to any minimal moving of the commands is the upsidedowned effect and fighters are intrinsecally instable, the more fighters are instable the more they are aerobatic planes. This last part is quite noticable in Aces High while flying various planes edging the stall speed in a knife fight.
The limit is the fatigue exerted by the pilot and the correct balance was an artistic mix of allowed instability vs. stability.
Modern jets are all super-instable because the cloche is directly governed by the computer "buffering" all the corrections needed to go in a fixed straight direction. While the pilot imposes thru a joy-stick the correct changes of direction will not be send to the wings but to the computer.
The real pilot is a super-reactive computer but the 1st in command is always the human pilot. Also the reactions of the stick are "simulated" and regulated following the taste of the pilot himself.
Heh, I'm not at all sure about that. It seems that they could make the Spitty roll as fast with a much bigger wing by simply clipping it wingtips off... :P
So, they clipped the wings on the Spitfires to obtain better roll-rate but it came at a price, It hindered its high-altitude performance because of reduced lift and increased drag.
EDIT: I found a comparison document about the F6F-5 and the F4U-1 vs the Fw 190:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/ptr-1107.pdf
Bottom line: I think i'd better do research myself before i start posting :huh.
-
The roll rate of FW190 is based on relatively short, stiff wings and Frise ailerons and I'd bet low thrust line i.e. the symmetry in rolling plane and low rotational mass contribute nicely too. It may be difficult to find any of those properties in Spitty, though, and the clipping actually had very little effect on its overall performance (alt, turning).
More of this subject here: http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/report.php?NID=2597
-C+
-
EDIT: I found a comparison document about the F6F-5 and the F4U-1 vs the Fw 190:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/ptr-1107.pdf
Bottom line: I think i'd better do research myself before i start posting :huh.
You might want to take that comparison report with a grain of salt. There was some contention as to whether or not the 190 mentioned was actually an A4 model or an earlier one. Post it anywhere else as an example and people laugh at it. I made the mistake myself once.
-
So, they clipped the wings on the Spitfires to obtain better roll-rate but it came at a price, It hindered its high-altitude performance because of reduced lift and increased drag.
I think the supercharger gearing reduced its altitude performance much more than the wing planform.
-
I just found this on the youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0YLLBvIBFk
The video says 190's could out turn 109's at any speed... :joystick: If that's so, why don't the 190's turn at all in game?
If you look at a 109s cockpit, it is very small. The pilot had no room to move his arms a great deal. Thus he could not put as much force on the stick. This is a factor not modeled in AH
-
If you look at a 109s cockpit, it is very small. The pilot had no room to move his arms a great deal. Thus he could not put as much force on the stick. This is a factor not modeled in AH
What if he was a small pilot? In which direction? Maybe he was a 35 year old bachelor?
-
If you look at a 109s cockpit, it is very small. The pilot had no room to move his arms a great deal. Thus he could not put as much force on the stick. This is a factor not modeled in AH
Actually, it is modeled.
-
When blessed with a similar power loading, the 190 does every single thing as well or better than a 109 EXCEPT turn. And turning is way, way, way, way overrated in realistic air combat.
-
I may have to disagree, BnZs.
The 109F and G2 do pretty well in sustained climb and acceleration vs a 190. Acceleration's a big thing, especially.
-
If you look at a 109s cockpit, it is very small. The pilot had no room to move his arms a great deal. Thus he could not put as much force on the stick. This is a factor not modeled in AH
Uh, you might want to double check your facts there. The stick was a bit short and high wing load design made the control surfaces get "heavier" with higher speed which increased the pressure needed to move the stick...had nothing to do with the pilots ability to move his arms.
-
I may have to disagree, BnZs.
The 109F and G2 do pretty well in sustained climb and acceleration vs a 190. Acceleration's a big thing, especially.
Note I said, "when blessed with similar power loadings". 109s and 190s kept upping the ante on horse power through the war. But for all the things that really count in WWII *airframe*-firepower, dive handling, roll rate, visibility, controls, ruggedness-the 190 has it all over the 109. Every time my squad gets assigned 109s in FSO its like "Awesome, we have the uber-craft" and every time its 190As its like "we are all going to die" yet consistently better kill numbers get racked up for us in the Butcher-Bird.
-
I think as soon as the 190 showed up, they should have quit making the 109. More capable aircraft by far, but then I'm partial to rotary engines...
-
I think as soon as the 190 showed up, they should have quit making the 109. More capable aircraft by far, but then I'm partial to rotary engines...
I dunno Stoney. If they had changed the 109 in some ways, it would have been better than the 190 in every way. Say with the G-6 if they had changed the wing design to decrease the wing load a bit, implemented the same electrical control systems that the 190 had, changed the canopy and the rudder, it may have improved the capabilities of the 109. The 190s suffered from engine heating problems from the drawing board and the fuselage was not nearly as streamlined as the 109.
-
Well, like BnZ said, from the beginning, the 190 inherently possessed the qualities that eventually mattered in the ETO air war. With a more powerful engine and it would have been a very challenging aircraft. The 109 design was old and aging by the time the ETO air war really heated up. It was like the Japanese continuing to improve the Zeke when they really should have just dumped the design and concentrated on something else.
-
Actually, it is modeled.
The extent to which it is modeled is basically a judgment call with no one "right" answer though...I mean, who are we simulating at the controls? A bantamweight or a 200 lbs. power-lifter?
If the 109 (as an example, there are other planes that had a rep for tough controls at high IAS) had controls that become too stiff to pull blackout Gs at say, 300-320mph IAS (as is the case in some sims), instead of the ~400mph IAS it takes in AHII, it WOULD change the capabilities of the 109 vrs. other iron in maneuvering combat to a notable extent. Having the "pilot" be more G resistant would have a similar effect. As it is, the 109 hardly has any problems with controls during ACM, it's only a big deal if one is trying to do very high speed bnz with a 109. But like I say, there is probably no "right" answer to the problem.
-
i suspect most of u have allready see that video so I'm not trying to say something new here. The only i can quote i that i don't know how u can simulate in a game an awkward and tiny cockpit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9YVei2Yb_k
-
i suspect most of u have allready see that video so I'm not trying to say something new here. The only i can quote i that i don't know how u can simulate in a game an awkward and tiny cockpit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9YVei2Yb_k
What makes you think it's "awkward and tiny"? It was obviously designed to be spacious enough to accomodate a 6ft tall man. So an offensive lineman from an american football team couldn't fit comfortably in it, so what? The cockpit on the A6M was designed for people of much smaller stature than the cockpit on the 109. If the 109 cockpit was so small that a person of average stature couldn't peform the functions needed, the plane would never have left the ground.
-
I love my A5, but it needs others to work. In strong, well communicating roups, the 190 is my choise, in furballs where I am alone in a mess of planes, the 109 seems to go further.
-
What makes you think it's "awkward and tiny"? It was obviously designed to be spacious enough to accomodate a 6ft tall man. So an offensive lineman from an american football team couldn't fit comfortably in it, so what? The cockpit on the A6M was designed for people of much smaller stature than the cockpit on the 109. If the 109 cockpit was so small that a person of average stature couldn't peform the functions needed, the plane would never have left the ground.
lol excuse me? did u bother to see the video below? the RAF pilot describes it as an "unbelievable small" cockpit. Now if my description of "awkward and tiny" disturbs you, at least u can trust a pilots one.
-
lol excuse me? did u bother to see the video below? the RAF pilot describes it as an "unbelievable small" cockpit. Now if my description of "awkward and tiny" disturbs you, at least u can trust a pilots one.
I did better than that, I read the British and U.S. flight test reports on captured 109s. It was described as "small" and "tight" when compared to the Spitfire and Hurricane in the British pilot reports.
The U.S. report submitted by Major Fredric Borsodi who flew P-40s, on No. 9338. Messerschmitt Bf 109 G-6/TROP which was captured in Tunisia in 1943:
http://www.kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/Bf109G-6_US_EB102/109G-6_US_EB102.html (http://www.kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/Bf109G-6_US_EB102/109G-6_US_EB102.html)
a. Cockpit layout.
The cockpit is very small and cramped. The canopy is heavy, awkward to operate, and restricts the vision to a marked extent. The general instrument layout is good, the flight and engine instruments are well grouped and easy to read in spite of the cramped quarters. The seat and rudder adjustment is insufficient. The flaps are mechanically operated by a wheel
to the left of the pilot which is difficult to reach and awkward to operate.
At the end of the report he further states:
Conclusions.
The ME-109G has a high rate of climb and good level flight performance. Its range is very limited as only 105 gallons can be carried internally and flights of over 300 miles leave little gasoline for reserve.
It is very light on all controls below 400 KPH but the turning radius is poor compared to our fighters. At high speed the controls become very heavy. The airplane is stable and should be a good gun platform but the vision is very poor under all conditions.
The cockpit is cramped but would not be too bad if the visibility were better.
British report on a captured 109-G2 from 1942:
http://www.kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109G2_britg2trop/MET109Gtrop_tests.html#briefdescr (http://www.kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109G2_britg2trop/MET109Gtrop_tests.html#briefdescr)
17. The fuselage is clearly designed to be as small as possible to give the maximum performance, and consequently the cockpit is rather cramped for anyone over 6 feet tall. The controls are laid out so that all ordinary ancillary controls are worked by the left hand, the right side of the cockpit having only switch buttons. This layout, combined with the automatic setting of airscrew pitch and of coolant flaps for water and oil, simplifies the task of the pilot.
18. Details of the controls, which are similar to those on some allied aircraft, are given in the German handbook of which a translation is held in the Enemy Aircraft Section, H.Q., M.E. A photo of the cockpit, consisting of three photos put together, is Figure 6. The rudder pedals are level with the seat so that the pilot is in a good position to resist acceleration; all ancillary controls are convenient to reach and to use.
In all published reports on captured 109s the cockpit is described in similar manner by pilots who were used to aircraft with larger cockpits. None say "awkward and tiny" or "unbelievably small". Obviously the British pilots were slightly smaller in stature than the U.S. pilots, maybe not so broad in the shoulders. When you're used to a 1972 Cadillac Fleetwood, getting into a 2009 Honda S2000 is going to feel "cramped".
-
Now if my description of "awkward and tiny" disturbs you, at least u can trust a pilots one.
Ok, let's see what actual 109 pilots said...
Me 109 F/G:
"You know the 109 is way tight and you have the cannon between your legs and there isn't very much left and visibility to the back is poor. The cockpit, as such, was very narrow, VERY narrow. You have as I mentioned, the cannon between your two legs in rather like in a tunnel, you know? Later on they made a steel plate to protect the head, backwards. But they cut off the side through the back. You know? Because we had this steel plate, here. "
- Major Gunther Rall. German fighter ace, NATO general, Commander of the German Air Force. 275 victories. Source: Lecture by general Rall.
Me 109 G-2/G-6:
- Fit like a glove?
"Yes, fit in my hand right away."
- How comfortable was the Me cockpit? Did your glove fit well on the stick? I suppose the gauges were well positioned and it was easy to command?
"Yes, it fit like a glove."
- Was it a tight fit?
"You got used to it. Both shoulders were against wall, which didn't help when you had to look all around in a battle. But we weren't wearing too much either."
- How did you see out?
"The armored glass made it a bit difficult to see behind, you had to kick the rudder a little to get a view. "
- How about when doing a climbing turn, how well did you see behind?
"Surprisingly well. "
- Tightly strapped in your seat and still could look behind?
"The straps weren't so tight you couldn't move. Sometimes a lot. "
- Mauno Fräntilä, Finnish fighter ace. 5 1/2 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association: Chief Warrant Officer Mauno Fräntilä.
Me 109 G-2/G-6:
The cockpit was cramped and the visibility wasn't good. This was evident when landing in bad conditions, especially with the G-2's cabin. This was evident when landing while it was snowing and the landing field was covered with pure white snow.
- Aulis Rosenlöf, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.
Me 109 G-6:
One thing that was absolutely good about it, was the wild performance of the aircraft. Other good points were the visibility during the flight, the sitting position, the cockpit wasn't unnecessary roomy, the impression of controlled flight and sturdy construction: no vibrations or shakings, the electrically heated flightsuit and gloves.
- Torsti Tallgren, Finnish post war fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.
Me 109 G:
Hemmo Leino's Messerschmitt 109 G being followed by two Yak-9s, while mr. Leino climbed from them using spiral climb:
"-How well could you observe those pursuers?
It could be done quite well. There was nothing. I did see when he would...I learned to notice that there, now he is about to shoot because he tightened his turn and it could be seen that he tried... Actually it was very amusing. I was not in any trouble.
- About looking down, could you stretch yourself to look down or were you tightly strapped in the seat?
We used to pull the belts tight"
- Hemmo Leino, Finnish fighter ace. 11 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.
- Notice that mr. Leino tells he is tightly strapped in his seat, yet he was able to see the two Yaks on his tail. So he had both good neck - and good visibility backwards from the cockpit.
Me 109 G:
"I got about 150 hours and over 30 aerial combats on the Messerschmitt 109. It was a fine "pilot's airplane" and there was no big complaints about the technical side, as long as you operated it within envelope, inside the performance parameters. It is hard to find any negative things about the plane from pilot's perspective when taking the development of technology into account. But the heavy and visibility limiting hood of the G-2 should have been changed into the G-6 "Galland hood" earlier."
-Hemmo Leino, Finnish fighter ace. 11 victories. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.
Me 109 G:
"The Messerschmitt pilot's suit was electrically heated from the system of the plane and it was warm. As to gloves, you had to have your own. The Air Force mitts could not be worn in the cockpit."
- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.
Me 109 G:
"- The travel of the control column of the Messerschmitt was fairly short, especially sideways, I think?
The cockpit was narrow and then the pilot's legs were on the way, there was not much space for the stick. When the pilot called "Long Jimmy" was flying, he had to keep his legs bent and it was told he held the stick with his arm under his leg. "
- Kyösti Karhila, Finnish fighter ace. 32 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.
Me 109 G:
"- How well did you see out of the cockpit of a Messerschmitt ?
As we got the Galland canopies they were a little better, wasn't it? The frames were darn wide. The lighter canopy was much better, you could see much better from there. The G-2 canopy was a problem. I remember once we had been scrambled over the Gulf of Finland, we were flying around Seiskari island and there was a lot of planes in the air. The first leg of the flight went well, but then I got more and more oil on the windscreen. I sprayed it clean with petrol, but as soon as the petrol had evaporated there was oil blocking my view. I had to do it time and again, I saw many times a Messerschmitt and the enemy he was shooting at. Then the windscreen was again blocked. I sprayed, banked, saw nothing, then three or four planes, spray, again nothing visible. I was turning about for a while, then thought, "hell no, this is no good. It is useless to stay here". I flew to the base and the mechanics worked hard to eliminate the leak."
- Antti Tani, Finnish fighter ace. 21,5 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.
Me 109:
"- How did the cockpit feel in the 109?
The cockpit was small, but one got used to it after a while. In the end it felt comfortable since you felt like part of the plane. The Spitfire's cockpit did not feel that much roomier to him either. The 262 cockpit however was larger in comparison. It also had a long flight stick, giving the pilot lots of leverage in flight."
- Franz Stigler, German fighter ace. 28 victories. Interview of Franz Stigler.
-
Me 109 G:
Hemmo Leino's Messerschmitt 109 G being followed by two Yak-9s, while mr. Leino climbed from them using spiral climb:
"-How well could you observe those pursuers?
It could be done quite well. There was nothing. I did see when he would...I learned to notice that there, now he is about to shoot because he tightened his turn and it could be seen that he tried... Actually it was very amusing. I was not in any trouble.
- About looking down, could you stretch yourself to look down or were you tightly strapped in the seat?
We used to pull the belts tight"
- Hemmo Leino, Finnish fighter ace. 11 victories. Source: Interview by Finnish Virtual Pilots Association.
- Notice that mr. Leino tells he is tightly strapped in his seat, yet he was able to see the two Yaks on his tail. So he had both good neck - and good visibility backwards from the cockpit.
............................. ....
Also notice that the enemy a/c were not in the 5 > 7 o'clock position directly astern and were below the 109.
-
The 190 would out turn the 190 ant any speed????. Well theres some serious problems with that. I could easily understand high speeds, as the 109's controls were in a bucket of concrete at 350 indicated.Medium speeds possibly, because still the 109 was difficult, but low speeds, i don't think so. The 109 had approximately the same sized wing as the 190 but the 190 was a wopping 2000lbs heavier. The wing loading on a 190 is MASSIVE!!!! If a 190 out maneuvers a 109 then the 109 has some serious design problems.
-
Nice. Way to bump a 4 month old thread... :rolleyes:
-
necro!!
anyway, you should read the post again, and the fact that this post came at th tail end of a very long post about the same question. please - read before you post, and read the post before you necro it and not add anything new?
-
If you look at a 109s cockpit, it is very small. The pilot had no room to move his arms a great deal. Thus he could not put as much force on the stick. This is a factor not modeled in AH
It wouldn't have mattered if the pilot had enough room in the cockpit, he still wouldn't have the strength enough to over come the forces over the flight controls at high speed.
ack-ack
-
The 190 would out turn the 190 ant any speed????. Well theres some serious problems with that. I could easily understand high speeds, as the 109's controls were in a bucket of concrete at 350 indicated.Medium speeds possibly, because still the 109 was difficult, but low speeds, i don't think so. The 109 had approximately the same sized wing as the 190 but the 190 was a wopping 2000lbs heavier. The wing loading on a 190 is MASSIVE!!!! If a 190 out maneuvers a 109 then the 109 has some serious design problems.
It's because the documentary was incorrect and later corrected itself. It initially said the 190 could out turn the 109 at any speed but later corrected itself when it clarified that it could "out roll" the 109 at any speed and it could.
ack-ack
-
And not read anybodies replies.......
Nice. Way to bump a 4 month old thread... :rolleyes: