Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Slade on April 09, 2011, 09:25:44 AM
-
Guys,
There is some evidence that the 190 could out turn the 109.
FW-190 vs BF-109 per Werner Seitz:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0YLLBvIBFk&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0YLLBvIBFk&feature=related)
The 190 could out turn and out roll the Messerschmitt at any speed.
In AH the 190 can roll great but cannot turn inside a 109 under normal circumstances it seems.
Do you feel the 190's turn radius is modeled correctly in the current version of AH?
Thanks,
Slade :salute
-
They also said it was more manouverable and in many ways it is. You have to keep in mind that a component of both manouverability and ability to turn is the ability to rotate your lift vector, i.e. roll which the 190 excells at. No where in that clip did they say it could sustain a flat turn better. The other key here is "at any speed". The 190 remains very controllable at very high speeds.
So I think both they and AH are correct.
-
i used to think the same thing but i've since learned better...it's going to depend on a number of factors including what baldeagl stated...which version of 109 vs which version of 190?
the 109-e and f models were known for tight flat turns...turn radius suffered with the g models.
with a few minor items in the name of "playability"...all the books and research i've scrounged indicate what exists in ah is very close to the real thing.
-
with a few minor items in the name of "playability"
And what items would those be?
HiTech
-
Have you ever tryed to turn a 190 a5 vs a 109 g-6, without flaps? They were produced in almost the same time, and they turn pretty much the same. Flaps/stall speed makes the difference.
-
And what items would those be?
HiTech
are you sure you want me to answer that?
-
are you sure you want me to answer that?
Just think how educational it will be.
-
Just think how educational it will be.
actually it would not be worth it...just end up being another long boring argument over what information is valid according to who has possession of it.
-
actually it would not be worth it...just end up being another long boring argument over what information is valid according to who has possession of it.
Then don't make accusations that we change flight modeling based on playability.
HiTech
-
I wish I could find the graphics that showed the differences between planes before and after patch 2.07 (major airflow patch).
Before that patch the 190a5 was actually a pretty agile bird - I definitely had no qualms mixing it up with 109s or F4Us. The P-51D and 109G-10 (today it is the K-4) were very evenly matched.
After that patch the 190s lost about 40% or so off their turn radius, and the P-51 was similarly affected.
That really changed the dynamics between some of the planes in the game.
-
I wish I could find the graphics that showed the differences between planes before and after patch 2.07 (major airflow patch).
Before that patch the 190a5 was actually a pretty agile bird - I definitely had no qualms mixing it up with 109s or F4Us. The P-51D and 109G-10 (today it is the K-4) were very evenly matched.
After that patch the 190s lost about 40% or so off their turn radius, and the P-51 was similarly affected.
That really changed the dynamics between some of the planes in the game.
The A6 would be an awesome addition, it's wingloading is 1kg per m^2 less than the A5, also has the upgraded outboard cannon. (I'm not ambitious enough to convert that to non-metric)
Did U know the Ta152 H has 1lb per ft^2 lower wingloading than the 51D? Its true :banana:
-
I did not mean to start pointing match. I love this game and how HiTech have modeled the planes. I was just seeking more understanding on the modeling.
I appreciate all the feedback on the topic. :aok
Is there an up-to-date list of turn radius and\or sustained turning for the current plane set?
Thanks again. :-)
-
Then don't make accusations that we change flight modeling based on playability.
HiTech
don't put words in my mouth or assume i'm saying something i'm not...i never specifically or obliquely mentioned anything about the flight modelling.
-
Is there an up-to-date list of turn radius and\or sustained turning for the current plane set?
Thanks again. :-)
Do a BBs search for Spatula's application. That info is in the app.
-
i used to think the same thing but i've since learned better...it's going to depend on a number of factors including what baldeagl stated...which version of 109 vs which version of 190?
the 109-e and f models were known for tight flat turns...turn radius suffered with the g models.
with a few minor items in the name of "playability"...all the books and research i've scrounged indicate what exists in ah is very close to the real thing.
I took this too mean you were saying we changed performance for playability sake, if you meant something different then I apologize for jumping on ya.
I did not mean to start pointing match. I love this game and how HiTech have modeled the planes. I was just seeking more understanding on the modeling.
I appreciate all the feedback on the topic. :aok
Is there an up-to-date list of turn radius and\or sustained turning for the current plane set?
Thanks again. :-)
Questing models is never a problem slade, we can always have made a mistake.
Just assume we want performance numbers accurate just like you do. And we have changed things in the past when something comes to light that we havn't seen.
HiTech
-
Just assume we want performance numbers accurate just like you do. And we have changed things in the past when something comes to light that we havn't seen.
HiTech
I can attest to this they added 600lbs to my Girl the 38G
Dam you Mudr ..............Dam you :furious
lol jk
-
I took this too mean you were saying we changed performance for playability sake, if you meant something different then I apologize for jumping on ya.
HiTech
hell no, i know better...perhaps i should have stated something along the lines of..."a few minor items not associated with the flight models".
is the weight of the 190a8 still in question?
-
I don't know HT, I think the new Firefly might be overmodeled. I have no documentation to back that claim up though. :uhoh
(http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/2513/77303687.jpg) (http://img23.imageshack.us/i/77303687.jpg/)
(http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/8697/17839835.jpg) (http://img175.imageshack.us/i/17839835.jpg/)
(http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/7788/61323119.jpg) (http://img401.imageshack.us/i/61323119.jpg/)
-
Before that patch the 190a5 was actually a pretty agile bird - I definitely had no qualms mixing it up with 109s or F4Us.
After that patch the 190s lost about 40% or so off their turn radius
As a long time pilot of the 190 from all the way back early on in AH1 and enjoying the A5 quite often in the many years since I started playing this game, I have to say you're wrong here. 190s actually gained manuverability because the snap-stall would happen any time you banked your wings below 250mph before the airflow recode. After that you could actually get down near to stall speed and benefit from knife fighting. It allowed the 190 to actually manuver. I used to mix it up from inferior E positions against faster planes and still come out the victor in the A5. Nice plane.
It didn't happen at all as you describe, IMO.
-
is the weight of the 190a8 still in question?
It's not in question. It's just wrong. :noid
:bolt:
EDIT: I'm not digging at HTC. I guess they're busy and it's on a massive to-do list somewhere.
-
that is what i was wondering krusty.
-
As a long time pilot of the 190 from all the way back early on in AH1 and enjoying the A5 quite often in the many years since I started playing this game, I have to say you're wrong here. 190s actually gained manuverability because the snap-stall would happen any time you banked your wings below 250mph before the airflow recode. After that you could actually get down near to stall speed and benefit from knife fighting. It allowed the 190 to actually manuver. I used to mix it up from inferior E positions against faster planes and still come out the victor in the A5. Nice plane.
It didn't happen at all as you describe, IMO.
Oh it absolutely happened. Widewing actually compared the turning circles pre and post patch and there was a HUGE difference. Most of the stink was made with regards to the P-51 though, which was also drastically impacted for the worse. The P-51 would absolutely tear up any of the P-47s in a knife fight before that patch, and after it the P-51 was easy meat for a P-47, or anything else bar a 190.
-
As a long time pilot of the 190 from all the way back early on in AH1 and enjoying the A5 quite often in the many years since I started playing this game, I have to say you're wrong here. 190s actually gained manuverability because the snap-stall would happen any time you banked your wings below 250mph before the airflow recode. After that you could actually get down near to stall speed and benefit from knife fighting. It allowed the 190 to actually manuver. I used to mix it up from inferior E positions against faster planes and still come out the victor in the A5. Nice plane.
It didn't happen at all as you describe, IMO.
Honest to goodness my phone said it posted nothing, not 4...
-
Triple post. First time ever.
-
Guess I cant delete it. Damn you auto-correct?
-
Oh it absolutely happened. Widewing actually compared the turning circles pre and post patch and there was a HUGE difference. Most of the stink was made with regards to the P-51 though, which was also drastically impacted for the worse. The P-51 would absolutely tear up any of the P-47s in a knife fight before that patch, and after it the P-51 was easy meat for a P-47, or anything else bar a 190.
Widewing we need you and your report! :cheers:
My bet is IF the turning radius was nerfed, it was based on flight testing reports made by US or UK with a rough running or misadjusted-aileron trim tab-captured 190F thats been mistaken for an A model (NOT saying that is why it was nerfed, one can only
speculate till we get a reason from the higher-ups, and thats only if the turn radius if found to have changed per Widewing's studies)
The 190 would stall like ours do if The aileron trim tabs were not adjusted correctly on the ground. When properly adjusted, the aileron would "catch" the stall, and the little 190 would turn as tight, if not tighter than an La5 or Yak
-
STEELE,
The change in question wasn't a nerf to the Fw190 per se, it was a global flight model change that affected all aircraft to one degree or another. IIRC the Bf109s turned better after that patch than they did before whereas the Fw190s and P-51 turned worse.
-
The funny thing is that I can find references to that thread, but not the thread itself. Widewing says in one thread that he has documented his concerns "here" with "here" being a link to another thread - but that thread won't load.
Perhaps there is a cached version of it or something.
-
Can you post those links anyway? You can extract the thread ID from all previous forum software versions' link format, that I've seen.
-
I can attest to this they added 600lbs to my Girl the 38G
Dam you Mudr ..............Dam you :furious
lol jk
Ahh those were the days. The 38G was even more of a beast in a turn fight :)
-
Being a former 190 dweeb, the 190s will out turn 80% of the planes in AH above 275mph.
-
My bet is IF the turning radius was nerfed, it was based on flight testing reports made by US or UK with a rough running or misadjusted-aileron trim tab...
What if it had nothing to do with test flight reports, but had everything to do with nothing more than refinement of the aerodynamics modeling??? Perhaps the older flight model wasn't accounting for some facet of the aerodynamics that control induced drag, for example... Given most standard aerodynamics analysis, the relative sustained turning performance of both the 190 and the P-51 compared to the rest of the planeset, is consistent with how they should compare in real life.
-
What if it had nothing to do with test flight reports, but had everything to do with nothing more than refinement of the aerodynamics modeling??? Perhaps the older flight model wasn't accounting for some facet of the aerodynamics that control induced drag, for example... Given most standard aerodynamics analysis, the relative sustained turning performance of both the 190 and the P-51 compared to the rest of the planeset, is consistent with how they should compare in real life.
:aok That Stoney is a smart guy. It's worth paying attention to him.
-
In RL the 190 was quite nimble at high speeds, and in rough maneuvers. A 109 could have troubles with a very rough turn at the entry. The 190 would enter the turn faster, and do better at high speeds. Then the rest depends on altitude and weight.
A 190 would NEVER be close to turning with a 109 at 25K, but at 10K....well.....
-
Depends on your definition of "turn".... and the nature of the turn and the circumstances entering a turn.
-
Angus, nimble does not = good sustained turn. If we follow an aerodynamic definition of maneuverability to mean "the ability to rapidly change direction" , the 190 would be the king of maneuverability among WWII aircraft, due to its practically unequaled roll performance. Maneuverability, however, does not mean it could "turn" well, as Krusty alluded to. There are very conspicuous aerodynamic reasons the entire FW-190 family turns like bullets. The most simple way to express them is to say that Kurt Tank designed them that way. Just like the P-51 and P-47, the FW-190 was an excellent combat aircraft in the actual war, but is not a great knife fighter for Aces High in our virtual war. As soon as all FW-190 apologists on this board accept this very important distinction, we can all resume our normal programming.
-
Moot, the thread Widewing mentions the other thread in is here - (I'm not very good at this stuff)... http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,199758.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,199758.0.html).
The link to that thread is http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=185075&perpage=40&pagenumber=3.
I tried replacing the "forums" with "bbs" but it still doesn't find it.
-
Moot, the thread Widewing mentions the other thread in is here - (I'm not very good at this stuff)... http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,199758.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,199758.0.html).
The link to that thread is http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=185075&perpage=40&pagenumber=3.
I tried replacing the "forums" with "bbs" but it still doesn't find it.
This thread..? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,185075.0.html)
I was working with a guy who flies the P-47s as his MA ride. He's been going through a flat spot (all pilots hit these bumps in the virtual road from time to time) and wanted to work on his ACM. We began flying the P-47D-11. After an few duels, I took a D-25 trying to even out things a bit as he was struggling some. Not even enough. So, I grabbed a P-51D.
If I flew a pure E fight, the P-51D was perfectly adequate. However, if I dumped flaps and maneuvered, the Mustang was badly outclassed by the D-11. I switched to the P-51B and there was little improvement.
This was really bothering me. Flaps out, the P-51s are absolute pigs. Indeed, the P-51B has a turn radius that is nearly 70 feet greater than the P-47D-11.
Consider that a low fuel P-51B (25% gas) weighs right around 9,000 lb and the P-47D-11 (25% gas) weighs about 12,200 lb.
This results in respective wing loadings of:
P-51B: 38.59 lb per sq/ft
P-47D-11: 40.66 lb per sq/ft
Even with flaps up, the P-47D-11 out-turns the P-51B. That simply should not be the case.
P-51s and P-47s have a similar maximum coefficient of lift.
P-51B: 1.89
P-47D: 1.93
If we take the wingloading and divide it by the co-efficient of lift, we have a reference indicator of turning ability.
So, for the P-51B: 38.59/1.89 = 20.42
For the P-47D-11: 40.66/1.93 = 21.07
Thus, the P-47's turn radius should be 103% of that of the P-51B (clean, no flaps).
Unfortunately, in the game it's backwards.
P-51B turn radius, clean: 758.2 feet
P-47D-11 radius, clean: 748.4 feet
Thus, the P-51B's turn radius is 101.3% of that of the P-47D-11.
So, in AH2, the P-47D-11 turns slightly smaller circles than the P-51B. Adding flaps in increments results in the P-47 gradually turning smaller circles until at full flaps, the difference in just short of 70 feet. This results in the P-51B turn radius being 113% of that of the P-47D-11.
From: wwiiaircraftperformance.org
(http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustang-tactical-header.jpg)
BRIEF TACTICAL COMPARISON WITH SPITFIRE XIV
Maximum Endurance
25. By comparison the Spitfire XIV has no endurance.
Maximum speed
26. There is practically nothing to choose in maximum speed.
Maximum climb
27. The Spitfire XIV is very much better.
Dive
28. As for the Spitfire IX. The Mustang pulls away; but less markedly.
Turning Circle
29. The Spitfire XIV is better.
Rate of Roll
30. Advantage tends to be with the Spitfire XIV.
Conclusion
31. With the exception of endurance, no conclusions should be drawn, as these two aircraft should never be enemies. The choice is a matter of taste.
BRIEF TACTICAL COMPARISON WITH TEMPEST V
Maximum endurance
32. By comparison, the Tempest V has no endurance.
Maximum speed
33. The Tempest V is 15-20mph faster up to 15,000ft. There is then no choice until 24,000ft when the Mustang rapidly pulls ahead, being about 30mph faster at 30,000ft.
Maximum climb
34. These compare directly with the results of the speed tests. At similar performance height, the Tempest has the better zoom climb.
Dive
35. The Tempest tends to pull away.
Turning circle
36. The Tempest is not quite as good.
Rate of Roll
37. The Tempest is not so good. This attribute of the Tempest V may be improved upon in later aircraft.
Conclusions
38. The Mustang has endurance and general performance above 24,000ft. Conclusions should not be drawn below this height, but the Tempest has a better speed and climb below 10,000ft.
Note that the AH2 Tempest out-turns both the P-47D-11 and the P-51B...
When the drag model was revised, the P-51s suffered a large hit to their turn radius, especially with flaps out. They went from reasonably capable to absolutely helpless in an instant. Only the Fw 190A-8 and F-8 have larger turn radii than the P-51D.
This is another thing that needs to be looked at. Our P-51s have lost much of their luster. I'm hoping that HTC looks at them again before Combat Tour debuts.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Wotan,
Now there is a blast from the past. How are you? And no that isn't it... there was a thread where he actually had taken film of him turning different planes before and after the patch and compared them.
-
That old thread showed me that I had made a mistake... I had stated that the F6F-5 had only two flap positions, up and down. That was incorrect. About a year later, I had unrestricted access to an F6F-5 and it's manuals. What I found was that the F6F pilot could position the fighter's flaps at any position in between up and down. The only down side is that the left and right flaps are not connected mechanically. Thus, it required careful rigging to set the angle equal.
-
You have to remember, what 109 and what 190 model as if a A5 were to turn against a G6 with gunpods attached there is a possibility, however the 190 had a higher wing loading so actually turning with a 109 in a 190 is extremely difficult. The 109 had superb low speed handling, however the faster you got the lower the maneuverability of the 109 so I can understand where the idea comes from.
Ether way the are both superb fighting machines.
-
I dunno if now plane performances are now more accurate or not...Logic says they would be...but:
I quit AH1 in 2003 for personal reasons and I've just got back to AH2 2 months ago.
As a purely 190D9 driver all I can see is that FW190-D9 performance has suffered since AH1 vs plane-set.
I'll try to explain the reason as I've been trying to find out all posibles causes through forum:
1. It seems that Fw190 turns worse now at high speeds
2. It seems that box damage are smaller
3. It seems that tracers alpha has changed and It's harder to see them
4. It seems that flashes pings have been removed under nose hits
One style of fiting in a 190 is diving fast to enemy 6 and make a quick devastating solution. Now it is harder because it is more difficult to aim due to the all four reasons above. If you miss the first pass oportunity, then you lost surprise factor. Bad in an 190
Same style is diving on a enemy but when he sees you...then he makes a break turn. Now it is more difficult to get inside his break turn and get the snapshot for reasons 1, 2 and 3
Another style is 1 vs 1 (many) rope and dope: Now it is more dificult because turn speed is worse in 190. So it is harder to gain angles on boggie using vertival movements.
As far as I know, in a 190 you have to make fast kills, because, otherwise....you lose your E-advantage in every turn, and surely another enemy will show up with more energy and you have to change to surviving modus.
If staments 1, 2, 3, 4 are true (i really dunno, as I got them from this forum and personal experience), it seems that global changes in the whole setplane has shifted to a point that grows 190 weakness and diminishes 190 strengths.
It could be also that I,ve been off for 8 years and I have to get the feeling again. Or that, honestly, I am getting really old.
I dunno
(S)
-
Being a former 190 dweeb, the 190s will out turn 80% of the planes in AH above 275mph.
Sure. The 190 is an energy fighter. Those unfamiliar with this should go look at Badboy's EM diagrams.
Anyway, we've had this argument so many times it's tiresome: Sustained turn in the 190 iisn't so good because of the wingloading. High speed turn and instantaneous turn = not so bad, often quite good...
I'm sure Gaston and Thorsim will show up at some point and star tmaking crazy arguments about "close-coupling" and other concepts of torque that don't square with basic sophomore-levle physics.
One thing I'd offer w/r concessions of playability (and I could be wrong): rad flaps... it's like our active grill shutter here at Ford, only, in WWII, they're mostly manual and therefore add to the "busy-ness" of the a/c in question OR you suffer a drag penalty or heating issue for being clueless about your rad flap setting. How about it?
-
I suspect the huge difference & I'm sure the areo guys will pan me for this, is that in AH, many planes can be held in the buffet and turn quite well while in this situation. Realistically, I'd Imagen that with the air separating at the wings and all the turbulence above the wing (causing the buffet) would cause the plane to just drop and loose even more e, preventing one from maintaining a turn in the buffet for longer than a split second. For example, in a 109 or a spit, I can hold the plane in the buffet for as long as necessary, even climb while its buffeting....
(http://www.discoverhover.org/infoinstructors/images/angleOfAttack.jpg)
-
A stall is part of the flight envelope. It's not a very efficient part but you're still flying. The wings don't stall completely all at once, The inner wing with the flaps stalls first, the ends generally stall last. Since this is where the ailerons are they retain roll authority.
-
Sure. The 190 is an energy fighter....
not to hack your reply but I just want to point out something....all fighting is "Energy fighting" whether its BnZ or TnB or "knife fighting" which is a combination of BnZ and TnB
I see a lot of people say BnZ is "energy" fighting...its kind of a misnomer, for it is ALL Energy fighting.
-
A stall is part of the flight envelope. It's not a very efficient part but you're still flying. The wings don't stall completely all at once, The inner wing with the flaps stalls first, the ends generally stall last. Since this is where the ailerons are they retain roll authority.
Actually, for most of the planes in the game, the wingtips stall first, then the root. Its why everything wants to roll over on its back when you stall the plane. Now, these days, most commercially produced planes are designed to stall at the root and not the tip, so you maintain aileron authority. Just another important Cliff Clavin piece of info... :)
-
I suspect the huge difference & I'm sure the areo guys will pan me for this, is that in AH, many planes can be held in the buffet and turn quite well while in this situation. Realistically, I'd Imagen that with the air separating at the wings and all the turbulence above the wing (causing the buffet) would cause the plane to just drop and loose even more e, preventing one from maintaining a turn in the buffet for longer than a split second.
Well, in-game, and HTC can correct me if I'm wrong, the buffet tells you that the plane is close to stall speed--not that it has already stalled. So, in reality, you haven't stalled yet, you're basically on the edge of a stall, close to the maximum lift coefficient, so the best turn radius is effectively in, but not beyond, the buffet. Its the same in real life, its just that no one in real life wants to have their plane depart controlled flight like we coax them to do in-game...
-
Stoney, my point with the 190's nimbleness was exactly the rollrate, not the turn. It would be able to enter a turn quite fast.
When it comes to sustainability the 109 will normally have the edge, with the only exception of the altitude where the 190 has more engine power, and then a light 190.
For the rough turn, the 109 had the tendency of dipping the outboard wing, - but there you are talking of a turn entry at high speed.
Actually, you could make a Spitfire do that as well.
-
I suspect the huge difference & I'm sure the areo guys will pan me for this, is that in AH, many planes can be held in the buffet and turn quite well while in this situation. Realistically, I'd Imagen that with the air separating at the wings and all the turbulence above the wing (causing the buffet) would cause the plane to just drop and loose even more e, preventing one from maintaining a turn in the buffet for longer than a split second. For example, in a 109 or a spit, I can hold the plane in the buffet for as long as necessary, even climb while its buffeting....
(http://www.discoverhover.org/infoinstructors/images/angleOfAttack.jpg)
First, this picture is horribly wrong because it deleted the single most important part of the airflow - the big circular airflow on the trailing edge of the wing. Instead, (many) textbooks show this nice flow going past the trailing edge, leaving it undisturbed as if the wing never passed through the air. It is the circular flow that is responsible for the generation of lift. What happens in a stall is that the one semi-ordered rotational flow breaks into small vortices as in the 3rd sketch. This destroys the "suction" of air from over the wing and stops the large-scale circular flow pattern around the whole wing (the air above flow faster than the air below bla bla Bernuli).
Here, see what happens behind the wing (cuts part of the circular flow behind):
http://youtu.be/Vjk9Ux2COx0
The advantage of this movie is that it uses drifting particles to visualize the flow instead of smoke. Smoke trails tend to stick to the laminar flow and do not highlight the rotational flow behind the wing. Some of the smoke is sheared and enter the vortex, but then it is well mixed and look like uniform faint haze, so it is hard to see - this is why it is named "separation" of the air flow. The air does not really leave the wing (no vacuum over it which would actually increase lift..) it is the smoke lines used in wind tunnels that give this impression.
The transition in many cases is not as sudden as you might think. The large circular patters on the trailing edge starts to wobble and small vortices break off of it before it is completely destroyed. This instability is part of the buffeting. You can see it in this movie (this time with smoke, notice the difference in what you see vs. the other movie):
http://youtu.be/6UlsArvbTeo
The wobbles of the flow lines behind the wing is the onset of stall, but the wing still produces lift at this stage.
Another effect is that parts of the plane reach this stall before others. A twist along the length of the wing will cause the root to stall before the tips. In a real plane there may be turbulence created around parts that are not supposed to create lift at all, like fuselage/canopy sections that are not ideally aligned with the airflow at high AOA.
-
Very nice demos..
-
Forgive my ignorance of aeronautical engineering but...
Don't they have CAD programs that you enter the plane design and it can basically tell you exactly what the plane can do at what altitudes? I've "heard" that these programs are now small enough to fit onto laptops. Is this true? If so, would this not help answer these types of questions?
On a related note years ago I read a story from Naval Aviation where the test flight unit in Maryland compared the F6F, F4U and Fw-190. I don't recall which versions of the birds though the general outcome was the Navy planes were pretty close to each other and both out turned the 190, though only modestly so. This is from memory so I could be way off, but it seems the 190 was a pretty good turner. Maybe better then how it is modeled in AH.
But I could be all wet on both accounts.
Boo
-
Forgive my ignorance of aeronautical engineering but...
Don't they have CAD programs that you enter the plane design and it can basically tell you exactly what the plane can do at what altitudes? I've "heard" that these programs are now small enough to fit onto laptops. Is this true? If so, would this not help answer these types of questions?
On a related note years ago I read a story from Naval Aviation where the test flight unit in Maryland compared the F6F, F4U and Fw-190. I don't recall which versions of the birds though the general outcome was the Navy planes were pretty close to each other and both out turned the 190, though only modestly so. This is from memory so I could be way off, but it seems the 190 was a pretty good turner. Maybe better then how it is modeled in AH.
But I could be all wet on both accounts.
Boo
There are CFD methods that can provide very good correlation with test/real-world. My background (before crossing to the dark side) otoh, was with rigid-body and elastodynamic CAE using ADAMS and I'd say your results THERE are only as good as the model you postulate.
-
not to hack your reply but I just want to point out something....all fighting is "Energy fighting" whether its BnZ or TnB or "knife fighting" which is a combination of BnZ and TnB
I see a lot of people say BnZ is "energy" fighting...its kind of a misnomer, for it is ALL Energy fighting.
Sure, I'll buy that. However, I'm referring to BadBoy's local definition with respect to the E-M diagrams. Recall, if you've seen this - and IIRC, Shaw uses the same local defn - that the "energy fighter" and "angles fighter" can be defined readily by a comparison of their E-M diagrams. In some cases, the differentiation is almost impossible or is subject to configuration (consider Ki-84 vs. Spitty 9). Also note that what is an energy fighter in one compasrison will be an angles fighter in another (consider FW190d vs. Spitty 9, then FW190d vs. Me262).
So, I'll buy your generality but was being pretty specific here.
BTW, if you haven't seen Badboy's development of the E-M, you can find it here: http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_011a.html
-
Actually, for most of the planes in the game, the wingtips stall first, then the root. Its why everything wants to roll over on its back when you stall the plane. Now, these days, most commercially produced planes are designed to stall at the root and not the tip, so you maintain aileron authority. Just another important Cliff Clavin piece of info... :)
I thought it was torque that rolled them over when they departed. Why would the wingtips stalling first instead of last cause that? If the wingtips stall first why do you still have roll authority right up to departure?
If the wingtips stall first wouldn't you also see a difference in behavior between stalling with flaps out and flaps in since the inner wing would still stall first with flaps out?
-
I thought it was torque that rolled them over when they departed. Why would the wingtips stalling first instead of last cause that? If the wingtips stall first why do you still have roll authority right up to departure?
If the wingtips stall first wouldn't you also see a difference in behavior between stalling with flaps out and flaps in since the inner wing would still stall first with flaps out?
Imagine you're in a turn. The velocity of the tip relative to freestream is lower - and usually hits stall speed first. Stoney points out obliquely that, back in the day, they didn't use aero or geometric washout to get either a higher max alpha or a lower alpha, respectively, to prevent tip stall.
As for the inner wing stalling first flaps out, no... first, the relative airpseed is higher there, second, popping flaps reduces the stall speed.
Interesting side note: Stoney actually got the NACA sections i/b, o/b for the 190. It looked to me from that as though the 190 actually has aero "wash-in" - the tip section has a lower max alpha than the i/b section. No wonder the 190 had vicious tip stall.
-
Performance in a turn is really a separate issue. Flaps increase the effective incidence so even with wash-in enough flaps would create washout.
-
I thought it was torque that rolled them over when they departed. Why would the wingtips stalling first instead of last cause that? If the wingtips stall first why do you still have roll authority right up to departure?
If the wingtips stall first wouldn't you also see a difference in behavior between stalling with flaps out and flaps in since the inner wing would still stall first with flaps out?
Here's a response I posted in another thread that explains why most WWII fighters are susceptible to tip stall:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,307351.msg3974910.html#msg3974910
The torque is the primary force that encourages them to flip over on their backs, because there's not enough aileron authority when stalled to counteract the other destabilizing forces (primarily torque). In a hard turn, you may even create a situation where one tip is stalled and the other isn't.
-
Performance in a turn is really a separate issue. Flaps increase the effective incidence so even with wash-in enough flaps would create washout.
Ah, okay, you're talking about stall without turn. In this case, I agree - popped flap should decrease max alpha inboard. However, real world, I'd expect one side to stall first. I also agree that sufficient flap inboard in the absence of wash-in (or with sufficiently small wash-in) would create wash-out.
I just don't see why, given that freestream for all sections would be slightly different and given confounding torques like the engine, and given stall (where aero forces don't straighten much of anything) you'd expect anything without strong washout to NOT tip stall. Even with good washout, if the velocity drops enough or if alpha is high enough, I'd still expect no predictable roll answer if there is an engine torque present.
-
The torque is the primary force that encourages them to flip over on their backs, because there's not enough aileron authority when stalled to counteract the other destabilizing forces (primarily torque). In a hard turn, you may even create a situation where one tip is stalled and the other isn't.
This is more like the scenario I was talking about. In the 109, I'd expect, if I'm able to induce a left tip stall (harder, given the slats on the 109), a fairly wicked roll about the negative longitudinal but a much milder one turning the other direction - since turning right, engine torque and the lift asymmetry will tend to counter.
-
Interesting side note: Stoney actually got the NACA sections i/b, o/b for the 190. It looked to me from that as though the 190 actually has aero "wash-in" - the tip section has a lower max alpha than the i/b section. No wonder the 190 had vicious tip stall.
They still designed in "washout"--its just that the planform and airfoil taper they used basically negated any benefit the washout created, and still resulted in a wing that would tip stall. So, the effect is that, despite the washout that was constructed, the effect at stall was still "wash-in", if you want to call it that. I'd prefer sticking to just saying "more conducive to tip stall".
@FLS, a constant-chord, constant thickness wing will theoretically stall at the same speed. If that wing had washout as well, theoretically the root would stall before the wing tip.
-
They still designed in "washout"--its just that the planform and airfoil taper they used basically negated any benefit the washout created, and still resulted in a wing that would tip stall. So, the effect is that, despite the washout that was constructed, the effect at stall was still "wash-in", if you want to call it that. I'd prefer sticking to just saying "more conducive to tip stall".
I don't think so. We talked about this before. The D-9, for example, has a 23015.3 and a 23009 Naca secxtion, tip/root. When we compare alpha max for the two, we find max alpha tip is lower than root.
-
I can't say you're wrong Stoney. Maybe I'm not seeing tip stall as an issue because it occurs so close to departure. It seems like the down aileron will increase the lift on the wing resisting the torquewise rotation and if the opposite wing is losing roll authority first you can just reduce the angle on the still effective aileron. It seems like the roll occurs at departure and not from reduced roll authority from tip stall. Am I missing something?
-
They still designed in "washout"--its just that the planform and airfoil taper they used basically negated any benefit the washout created, and still resulted in a wing that would tip stall. So, the effect is that, despite the washout that was constructed, the effect at stall was still "wash-in", if you want to call it that. I'd prefer sticking to just saying "more conducive to tip stall".
@FLS, a constant-chord, constant thickness wing will theoretically stall at the same speed. If that wing had washout as well, theoretically the root would stall before the wing tip.
Stoney, for what it is worth the FW 190 wing twist went to, and stayed at, zero from about 80% chord to the tip. A curious design feature which could explain its legendary departure characteristics in low speed/high AoA/bank angle stalls. The reference to this anomaly is in Lednicer's aerodynamic modelling comparisons using VSAERO to compare P-51B versus P-51D, versus, Spit IX verus FW 190D
-
I can't say you're wrong Stoney. Maybe I'm not seeing tip stall as an issue because it occurs so close to departure. It seems like the down aileron will increase the lift on the wing resisting the torquewise rotation and if the opposite wing is losing roll authority first you can just reduce the angle on the still effective aileron. It seems like the roll occurs at departure and not from reduced roll authority from tip stall. Am I missing something?
According to the following reference "Elastic deformation of the Fw 190 outer wing occurs and shifts the load distribution outward" (This would even more of the wing to reach its stalling lift co-efficient simultaneously).
Ref Gross, P -"Die Entwielung der Tragwerkkonstruktion Fw 190", Bericht 176 der Lilllenthal-Gesellschaft, 2 Teil, January, 1944
-
I think Ardy was asking generally about flight in the stalled regime and not specifically about the 190 which seems to be exceptional from what's been posted here.
-
According to the following reference "Elastic deformation of the Fw 190 outer wing occurs and shifts the load distribution outward" (This would even more of the wing to reach its stalling lift co-efficient simultaneously).
Ref Gross, P -"Die Entwielung der Tragwerkkonstruktion Fw 190", Bericht 176 der Lilllenthal-Gesellschaft, 2 Teil, January, 1944
That's an interesting point very relevant to RW aand it raises a question to which I reckon the answer must be an emphatic no...
HTC doesn't model and aeroelastic effects here, does he? I'd be very surprised...
-
Stoney, for what it is worth the FW 190 wing twist went to, and stayed at, zero from about 80% chord to the tip. A curious design feature which could explain its legendary departure characteristics in low speed/high AoA/bank angle stalls. The reference to this anomaly is in Lednicer's aerodynamic modelling comparisons using VSAERO to compare P-51B versus P-51D, versus, Spit IX verus FW 190D
It certainly exacerbates the problem, yes, and I had forgotten that detail so thanks for the reminder. I have a copy of that article, but hadn't looked at it in a while. I'm trying to wrap my head around what exactly that construction would look like. Is it that the twist starts at the root, achieves 2% at the 80% semi-span location, and then remains fixed out to the tip? Because if that's the way it was designed, it would just mean that the twist resolved itself earlier than on other aircraft, and that a 2% difference in incidence would still remain at the tip, right?
-
I think Ardy was asking generally about flight in the stalled regime and not specifically about the 190 which seems to be exceptional from what's been posted here.
Well, it is a condition that is present on almost all aircraft of the era. For example, the F6F and F4U both have a 15%/9% airfoil thickness taper from root to tip. P-51 also uses thickness taper and the Spitfire had a 12%/9% thickness taper as well. Just about every aircraft in the plane set suffers from this characteristic, except for those aircraft with leading edge slats. Combined with the planform taper, it can lead to very dicey low-speed handling.
-
I can't say you're wrong Stoney. Maybe I'm not seeing tip stall as an issue because it occurs so close to departure. It seems like the down aileron will increase the lift on the wing resisting the torquewise rotation and if the opposite wing is losing roll authority first you can just reduce the angle on the still effective aileron. It seems like the roll occurs at departure and not from reduced roll authority from tip stall. Am I missing something?
Two components are at work here: stall and reduced aileron effectiveness. Once a wing tip is stalled, the lift it produces is dramatically reduced, resulting in a destabilizing roll moment. Second, the reduced or interrupted airflow over the aileron reduces its ability to counteract destabilizing moments in the roll axis. It would require some fairly complex analysis to show this graphically, especially since there is a dynamic change in both the resulting lift distribution of the wing as this occurs, but the overall effect is that not only does the plane become destabilized in the roll axis, but the primary control surface that provides the stabilizing input experiences reduced effectiveness. A double-whammy, if you'll forgive the colloquialism.
Now, in some of the aircraft in-game, you can more easily manage this instability at the edge or even into the stall. Some of the aircraft in the game experience the tip-stall condition almost instantaneously with the rest of the wing stalling. Some planes begin to display it much earlier. The FW-190, given its inherent lower fixed roll stability, is more difficult to control. For example, one of the reasons I have a difficult time testing power off stalls in the FW190 is because of its instability approaching the stall. My speeds wander all over the place. Where I can get other planes to stall within 1 or 2 mph of each test, the FW-190 family gets so unstable at those speeds that the deviation between tests grows to 5-8 mph.
-
It certainly exacerbates the problem, yes, and I had forgotten that detail so thanks for the reminder. I have a copy of that article, but hadn't looked at it in a while. I'm trying to wrap my head around what exactly that construction would look like. Is it that the twist starts at the root, achieves 2% at the 80% semi-span location, and then remains fixed out to the tip? Because if that's the way it was designed, it would just mean that the twist resolved itself earlier than on other aircraft, and that a 2% difference in incidence would still remain at the tip, right?
Stoney - Nope.
The Fw 190 started at +2 degrees from 0 to ~ .15 span, then from 2 to zero at .8 span, then zero to the tip with no washout in last 20% span
The P-51B started out at - 1/2 degree at .1span to + 3/4 degree at .20 span then negative gradient to -1.4 degrees at tip.
The P-51D started out at +1 degree at .1 span to + .6 degree at 25% span then negative gradient to -1.4 degrees at the tip. The two differences are the geometry of the leading edge strake and the unusual upsweep of twist on the P-51B atarting out with a NEGATIVE angle at the Root.from the root chord to app
-
Stoney - Nope.
The Fw 190 started at +2 degrees from 0 to ~ .15 span, then from 2 to zero at .8 span, then zero to the tip with no washout in last 20% span
The P-51B started out at - 1/2 degree at .1span to + 3/4 degree at .20 span then negative gradient to -1.4 degrees at tip.
The P-51D started out at +1 degree at .1 span to + .6 degree at 25% span then negative gradient to -1.4 degrees at the tip. The two differences are the geometry of the leading edge strake and the unusual upsweep of twist on the P-51B atarting out with a NEGATIVE angle at the Root.from the root chord to app
Ok, pulled the article and see what you're saying--from the graph in Fig. 6. I'm guessing the aileron span was probably 20% of the wing semi-span? I know from my earlier look at the airfoil Clmax, the 23015 stalls at about +2 degrees AoA more than the 23009. Unfortunately, the chord continues to taper beyond the .8 semi-span position, so at 1.0 semi-span the tip stalls before the .8 semi-span position. I wonder if the airfoil taper continued from the .8 semi-span to the tip?
Interestingly enough, it looks like the twist in all three aircraft would at least correct for the airfoil taper, if not more on the Spit and P-51 with the negative incidence, except for that last 20% of the FW-190 semi-span.
-
Ok, pulled the article and see what you're saying--from the graph in Fig. 6. I'm guessing the aileron span was probably 20% of the wing semi-span? I know from my earlier look at the airfoil Clmax, the 23015 stalls at about +2 degrees AoA more than the 23009. Unfortunately, the chord continues to taper beyond the .8 semi-span position, so at 1.0 semi-span the tip stalls before the .8 semi-span position. I wonder if the airfoil taper continued from the .8 semi-span to the tip?
I would believe constant taper all the way to the tip chord
Interestingly enough, it looks like the twist in all three aircraft would at least correct for the airfoil taper, if not more on the Spit and P-51 with the negative incidence, except for that last 20% of the FW-190 semi-span.
I suspect that the twist philosophy for the Mustang was focused on altering the load (Lift) distribution inboard to more closely approximate and elliptical lift distribution to reduce induced drag
-
Well, it is a condition that is present on almost all aircraft of the era. For example, the F6F and F4U both have a 15%/9% airfoil thickness taper from root to tip. P-51 also uses thickness taper and the Spitfire had a 12%/9% thickness taper as well. Just about every aircraft in the plane set suffers from this characteristic, except for those aircraft with leading edge slats. Combined with the planform taper, it can lead to very dicey low-speed handling.
Isn't that low speed handling typically with enough flaps out to mitigate that condition?
-
I suspect that the twist philosophy for the Mustang was focused on altering the load (Lift) distribution inboard to more closely approximate and elliptical lift distribution to reduce induced drag
Usually its only done to combat tip stall characteristics, since you can achieve better lift distribution properties merely by tapering planform... Twist causes drag, whereas taper doesn't. A 45% taper ratio gets you pretty close to an elliptical lift distribution if you leave airfoil thickness constant out to the tip. I haven't checked it to be sure, but just from eye-balling it, the P-51 has to be close to 45-50% just by planform shape.
-
Isn't that low speed handling typically with enough flaps out to mitigate that condition?
No, not necessarily. Typically, with flaps out, the flapped area of the wing will stall at a lower AoA than without flaps. But if the tips stall close to or before the flapped area of the wing stalls, you can have the same issue, with the inboard part of the wing (with or without flaps) still flying, but with the wingtips stalled, and thus, very little aileron authority. That's why some aerobatic aircraft have full span ailerons--so they retain aileron authority regardless of whether or not the wingtips are stalled.
-
Can we generalize for WW2 fighters how much flap extension was required to create washout for the wingtips? I'm assuming it was typical for full flaps and I'm curious if that's true and if it was true for the halfway setting.
-
Can we generalize for WW2 fighters how much flap extension was required to create washout for the wingtips? I'm assuming it was typical for full flaps and I'm curious if that's true and if it was true for the halfway setting.
Flaps don't create washout. Washout is changing the angle of incidence of the wing away from what it is at the root. Its sometimes referred to as "twist" since the changed angle of incidence gives the appearance that the wing is "twisted" from root to tip. Flaps add wing area and camber, but only to the flapped area of the wing (i.e. that portion of the wing that has flaps along the trailing edge). The effect of flaps is to create a higher Clmax, lower stall speed, and create a "nose-down" approach angle, giving the pilot a better view over the nose (sometimes). Flap use also decreases the stall angle of attack, for the flapped area of the wing only. Now, you could consider this effect as creating twist of a sort, since it will encourage the flapped area of the wing to stall before the wingtips (potentially), but this is not the purpose they are designed for.
-
Yes I realize that flaps don't actually twist the wings when they deploy. Flaps can cause the inner portion of the wing to stall sooner than the outer portion. When flaps have more than one position I assume this is unlikely to occur at the first flap position and likely to occur at the fully open flap position. My question was what point of flap extension would typically cause the flapped portion of the wing to stall first?
-
Flaps don't create washout. Washout is changing the angle of incidence of the wing away from what it is at the root. Its sometimes referred to as "twist" since the changed angle of incidence gives the appearance that the wing is "twisted" from root to tip.
I'd qualify: that's one type of washout; geometric. You can also do it with a section change (aka aerodynamic washout). All the more reason that tip to root section change in the 190 baffles me.
-
A blind guess - have you guys looked at the Ta 152 C and H wing designs? May be some clues there, as everywhere I've read it's considered to be "what the 190 was supposed to be".
-
I think that 152C has a similar wing in every other aspect but it was only bigger to counter the increased weight, I'd say that wingloading remained almost the same as in 190A8. Obviously Tank thought that for low alt work such wing was adequate.
Dunno 'bout that H wing.
"According to the following reference "Elastic deformation of the Fw 190 outer wing occurs and shifts the load distribution outward" (This would even more of the wing to reach its stalling lift co-efficient simultaneously).
Ref Gross, P -"Die Entwielung der Tragwerkkonstruktion Fw 190", Bericht 176 der Lilllenthal-Gesellschaft, 2 Teil, January, 1944"
In reference to Lednicer article U guys don't think that in comparison between 190, Spit and P51 the larger wings flexed less? ;)
-C+
-
I think that 152C has a similar wing in every other aspect but it was only bigger to counter the increased weight, I'd say that wingloading remained almost the same as in 190A8. Obviously Tank thought that for low alt work such wing was adequate.
Dunno 'bout that H wing.
"According to the following reference "Elastic deformation of the Fw 190 outer wing occurs and shifts the load distribution outward" (This would even more of the wing to reach its stalling lift co-efficient simultaneously).
Ref Gross, P -"Die Entwielung der Tragwerkkonstruktion Fw 190", Bericht 176 der Lilllenthal-Gesellschaft, 2 Teil, January, 1944"
In reference to Lednicer article U guys don't think that in comparison between 190, Spit and P51 the larger wings flexed less? ;)
-C+
Charge, a couple of things I can add:
1. I know the 152 utilized the same aero sections root and tip (23015.3, 23009) but am unsure of the taper profile or twist profile, if any. Obviously the aspect ratio was much higher and I'm pretty certain the wingloading was lower than the Dora but I only say that because the sustained turn rat eis better (which clearly follows, assuming the powerloading enables similar bank angles and the CLMax is similar, possibly a bad assumption).
2. I would expect lower-loaded wings to flex less, but it doesn't necessarily follow because the section depth of the wing is also variable (recall MY/EI where y will go like section depth and I will go like section depth cubed). This is especially critical in the case of the Spitty because I think i'ts got a flimsy and shallow section, judging by the way it loses wings. I'd like to see sction data on that one. As for the -51, the loading is high but, again, I lack section info.
Further, I'd expect the flex to be distributed parabolically root-to-tip so you'd really need to do the thing as a spanwise integral.
-
In reference to Lednicer article U guys don't think that in comparison between 190, Spit and P51 the larger wings flexed less? ;)
-C+
Agreed...I don't know why he listed that in the article.
-
A blind guess - have you guys looked at the Ta 152 C and H wing designs? May be some clues there, as everywhere I've read it's considered to be "what the 190 was supposed to be".
I personally don't think there's anything wrong with the original wing. You fly the plane inside its envelope, and it works. You fly outside, and it doesn't. That's every plane that's ever been built.
-
Me neither, just thought that that qualitative description could be the clue some of you guys seemed to be looking for.
The H's wing is made for very high altitude rather than general purpose, but I'm pretty sure it has the outer ends twisted so they stall last, pretty differently from the C model's wing.
-
"According to the following reference "Elastic deformation of the Fw 190 outer wing occurs and shifts the load distribution outward" (This would even more of the wing to reach its stalling lift co-efficient simultaneously).
Ref Gross, P -"Die Entwielung der Tragwerkkonstruktion Fw 190", Bericht 176 der Lilllenthal-Gesellschaft, 2 Teil, January, 1944"
In reference to Lednicer article U guys don't think that in comparison between 190, Spit and P51 the larger wings flexed less? ;)
-C+
'Flexing' is all about stiffness (deflections) for loads applied in both bending and torsion. Impossible to analyze by 'inspection'. Comparisons would first examine the aero load distribution and the spar/torque box design but even the t/c ratio is deceiving for a deep chord design like the Spit as the actual depth of the main spar, spanwise was probably close to the other designs.
I suspect Lednicer included the article because he was intrigued by cause and effect of manuever on the 'vicious departure' charcteristicsof the 190 near stall vs the zero twist on the 20% of the semi span... and trying to figure out why Tank would design a wing which virtually stalls all at once for 80% - when stall, by and of itself does not follow easily (or symmetrically) predictable rules in asymmetric flight
-
'Flexing' is all about stiffness (deflections) for loads applied in both bending and torsion. Impossible to analyze by 'inspection'. Comparisons would first examine the aero load distribution and the spar/torque box design but even the t/c ratio is deceiving for a deep chord design like the Spit as the actual depth of the main spar, spanwise was probably close to the other designs.
I suspect Lednicer included the article because he was intrigued by cause and effect of manuever on the 'vicious departure' charcteristicsof the 190 near stall vs the zero twist on the 20% of the semi span... and trying to figure out why Tank would design a wing which virtually stalls all at once for 80% - when stall, by and of itself does not follow easily (or symmetrically) predictable rules in asymmetric flight
Drgondog,
How much did areo engineers know back then. I mean, were they able to mathematically predict the general behavior (such as stall handling), or was it more along the lines that they guessed (based on simple mathematical models), then they built it and tested to see if they got the result they wanted?
-
'Flexing' is all about stiffness (deflections) for loads applied in both bending and torsion. Impossible to analyze by 'inspection'. Comparisons would first examine the aero load distribution and the spar/torque box design but even the t/c ratio is deceiving for a deep chord design like the Spit as the actual depth of the main spar, spanwise was probably close to the other designs.
I suspect Lednicer included the article because he was intrigued by cause and effect of manuever on the 'vicious departure' charcteristicsof the 190 near stall vs the zero twist on the 20% of the semi span... and trying to figure out why Tank would design a wing which virtually stalls all at once for 80% - when stall, by and of itself does not follow easily (or symmetrically) predictable rules in asymmetric flight
I kind of tend to think that the article existed for the 190, but there was no known analysis for the other two. So he included it. However, based on the analysis of the other two aircraft, it was inconsistent for him to throw that little wrench in the mix. Generally speaking, since most WWII aircraft were in the 5-6 aspect ratio range, I'd guess wing flex from bending was fairly inconsequential. Torsion flex should be low since most used double spars as well, but I'm just spit-balling on both.
-
Fowler flaps for the win! :rock
-
No kidding. Imagine a 190 with that. Or a 38 without em.
-
No kidding. Imagine a 190 with that. Or a 38 without em.
The Fowler flaps on the 38 probably only existed because they couldn't run the flaps outside of the booms and therefore need a more effective flap for the area they had to work with. Fowlers, by themselves aren't that big of a deal...
@ Moot... I determined an induced Coefficient of Drag (Cdi) for the Ta-152 at stall that's a little more than 30% lower than an A-Model 190. Just shows you how much that long wing helps out at slow speeds.
-
The Fowler flaps on the 38 probably only existed because they couldn't run the flaps outside of the booms and therefore need a more effective flap for the area they had to work with. Fowlers, by themselves aren't that big of a deal...
@ Moot... I determined an induced Coefficient of Drag (Cdi) for the Ta-152 at stall that's a little more than 30% lower than an A-Model 190. Just shows you how much that long wing helps out at slow speeds.
Stoney,
PM me if you want, I don't want to hijack the thread, but if you don't mind me asking, how did you calculate that?
Thanks
-
As I recall, Nakajima added fowler flaps to the Ki-43 due to the customer's complaints that it lacked adequate maneuverability in combat. I would expect the Ki-84's were there for the same reason.
-
I thought fowlers were a big deal because they were much better aerodynamically: that they better conformed to the ideal shape for flaps? IE extra lift with less drag compared to split flaps that are just plain dirty, plain flaps that comparatively bend the foil shape too abruptly... and slotted flaps only marginally better than plain flaps? So would a slotted flap and fowler flap of equal surface areas be only marginally different, in effectiveness? Is the slotted flap usually worse in the game only because they're smaller than the typical in-game fowler?
So the 152H's flaps are that much more efficient because of their aspect ratio.. This is the same general dynamic that makes the 152H wing better for E retention in instantaneous turns?
-
Stoney,
PM me if you want, I don't want to hijack the thread, but if you don't mind me asking, how did you calculate that?
Thanks
First, you determine the Clmax from the stall speed. I got a stall speed of 107mph IAS at S.L. and 10711 lbs (25% fuel I believe).
The formula for determining Clmax is:
(W/S) / .5 * p * V^2 where (or more simply, wingloading / dynamic pressure):
W/S = Wingloading
p = density of air (in slugs)
V = stall speed (in feet/sec)
Once you've determined Clmax you can continue on to the formula for induced drag coefficient (since induced drag is a function of lift and wing efficiency)
The formula for determining Cdi is:
Clmax^2 / pi * e * AR where:
Clmax = max lift coefficient computed from the first formula
pi = 3.14...
e = Oswald's Efficiency number (more on that next)
AR = Aspect ratio
For Oswald's Efficiency number, there are a couple ways to do it, with the first and most imprecise being to simply estimate it at about .8, but I did an approximation based on another formula I have, which gives the Ta-152 an "e" of approx. .78. For most other of the aircraft in the planeset, you can use an approximation of about .87 or .88 (which is most appropriate for those aircraft with an aspect ratio of 6 or so).
Now, my results might not be spot on real world numbers due to the fact they are sort of best estimations, but the comparison between the different aircraft is probably very close. With the other 190's, I got a Cdi of around .13 and with the 152 came up with around .9
-
I thought fowlers were a big deal because they were much better aerodynamically: that they better conformed to the ideal shape for flaps? IE extra lift with less drag compared to split flaps that are just plain dirty, plain flaps that comparatively bend the foil shape too abruptly... and slotted flaps only marginally better than plain flaps? So would a slotted flap and fowler flap of equal surface areas be only marginally different, in effectiveness? Is the slotted flap usually worse in the game only because they're smaller than the typical in-game fowler?
So the 152H's flaps are that much more efficient because of their aspect ratio.. This is the same general dynamic that makes the 152H wing better for E retention in instantaneous turns?
Think of plain, slotted, and fowler flaps as different tools the designer has to work with. The purpose of flaps is to better configure the aircraft for landing--don't think of them in any other fashion.
Next, planes stall at Clmax, and landing speeds are usually a function of stall speed (Vs). Typically, landing speed is 1.2-1.3 X Vs.
Now, from my formula I posted in the previous post, you can see that Clmax = wingloading / dynamic pressure. We know that all wings stall at a given angle-of-attack. If a designer is trying to hit a specified landing speed (say, Vought when they designed the Corsair to conform with the Navy spec on carrier landing speeds), he can either increase the wing area or Clmax, or decrease the weight of the aircraft in order to hit that target landing speed. If you increase the wing area, stall speed decreases, and thus landing speed is lower. But, if you increase wing area, you add weight and drag. If the designers considers changing the airfoil to increase Clmax, stall speed decreases, and thus the landing speed decreases. But, changing the airfoil may decrease top speed due to it being optimized for more high-lift conditions. The designer could then consider reducing the weight of the aircraft, but to do so, a host of other tradeoffs would be required. So, the designer is stuck. Flaps provide him/her with an answer to the problem.
Now, each aircraft only has a fixed amount of wing that can be "flapped"--basically the limit is the distance between the inboard end of the aileron and the wing root. Some aircraft, such as the P-38, introduce another portion of the wing that can't be "flapped". So, he/she has a fixed length of the wing with which to place the flaps. So, now he's determined how long the flaps can be, and has considered how much he needs to reduce the landing speed. So, with this knowledge, he begins to analyze which type and size of flaps will help him achieve his specified landing speed. Plain flaps are the simplest, have the lightest installed weight (typically) but are the least efficient. Slotted are more efficient, but add mechanical complexity and more weight. Fowlers are the most mechanically complex, heaviest, but are the most efficient per foot of flapped area, since the increased wing area and increased camber combine to make them very effective per foot of flapped area. So, you could rationalize that if the flapped area of the wing is restricted (say on the P-38 for example), Fowlers could be a good solution since the extra weight and mechanical complexity would be lessened (due to fewer feet of flapped area), and the aerodynamic benefits maximized. However, on a plane that doesn't limit the flapped area, a designer may be able to achieve a sufficient reduction in landing speed with plain or slotted flaps, avoiding the extra complexity and weight. Obviously if weight and complexity aren't an issue (which would occur very rarely in aircraft design), Fowlers would be ideal. But, since everything in aircraft design is a tradeoff, sometimes good-enough, is.
To truly determine which flaps are "best" between dissimilar aircraft, you'd need to test each aircraft without flaps and with full flaps, then compare which one provides the highest reduction in landing speed using some sort of metric, like percent of reduction, or something like that. I would bet my lunch money that there are aircraft in-game that have more efficient plain or slotted flaps than the Fowlers on the P-38. I could be wrong, and we wouldn't know unless we tested them, but plain or slotted flaps, given the proper application, have every chance to be as or more efficient than Fowler flaps, based on the design criteria of the flap system. If Fowlers are too heavy, then obviously plain or slotted would be "better". If Fowlers are too complex or too costly, then plain or slotted could be "better". I keep emphasizing "better" because its all about the design principles and tradeoffs made in order to give the aircraft the desired landing speed characteristics.
Yes, all things being equal, Fowlers have more potential than plain or slotted, but sometimes the less-complex system is more "efficient"
And, as far as the Ta-152 goes... That testing was done with flaps up, so no conclusion can be made regarding the higher aspect ratio and flap efficiency. You can, however, deduce that the increased wing span helps reduce the induced drag coefficient.
-
Understood, thanks Stoney. But.. And I'm not saying I consider one or the other as less important or interesting - from a dogfighting POV, does the same tradeoff-based picture apply, with plain/slotted flaps very possibly being just as efficient as fowlers from a bottom line agility POV?
-
ty stoney, I wanna learn more about physics...
-
Understood, thanks Stoney. But.. And I'm not saying I consider one or the other as less important or interesting - from a dogfighting POV, does the same tradeoff-based picture apply, with plain/slotted flaps very possibly being just as efficient as fowlers from a bottom line agility POV?
Well, we could test and see. The Spits are the only planes I know that have plain flaps in-game, and they only go full deflection or none, so that might be tough to compare. But, I'd say compare an F4U (slotted) with two notches to a P-38 (fowler) with two notches and see which one gets a bigger percentage reduction in sustained turning radius. That could be one way to compare them. Unfortunately, we don't have two identical aircraft, with the same flapped area with one having slotted and one having fowlers. That would be the only way to do a direct comparison I guess...
-
Spits' flaps aren't split type?
(http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s58/tapakeg/birds/350px-Flaps.png)
-
yeah I think 109s have plain type...not sure.
-
The spit flaps only had the up & down setting, and were mostly thought as an "airbrake" for landing, since the aircraft tended to float quite a bit on the ground effect.
They were "modded" for a middle setting when loaded Spit V's were flying off carrier decks. It was just a piece of wood that did the trick, and in that position they added q bit of lift at the takeoff.
-
ty stoney, I wanna learn more about physics...
Ardy, I'll make you a serious offer. If you want my copy of "Fundamentals of Flight" (shevell - a guy I took a couple of classes with, in fact), I will send it to you (no scheisse). My wife keeps bugging me to get rid of old text books and it's a good one for basic linear aero stuff. It's in a box in my basement and hasn't been touched since we moved to the new house last October. I bought it new in like '84 or some other Stone Age date.
-
I kind of tend to think that the article existed for the 190, but there was no known analysis for the other two. So he included it. However, based on the analysis of the other two aircraft, it was inconsistent for him to throw that little wrench in the mix. Generally speaking, since most WWII aircraft were in the 5-6 aspect ratio range, I'd guess wing flex from bending was fairly inconsequential. Torsion flex should be low since most used double spars as well, but I'm just spit-balling on both.
Stoney - Absent real analysis (documented) your spit balling is probably good. My spit balling below.
I don't have a feel one way or the other why Lednicer included the report but it (Fw 190 twist design) is a real anomaly and because the Butcher Bird was notorius for sharp departures in high G turns it would be natural to see if the study yielded insight.
The 23015 airfoil was known to have sharp stall charcteristics but I seem to recall that the Fw airfoil was a modified 23015-3? with a change to leading edge radius and have zero clue what benefit was expected with the mod.
As to torsion issues, hard to say relatively speaking. The roll reversal on the Spit at high speed was almost certainly due to wing torsion. With the decided question regarding aileron authority of the Fw 190 in High AoA/G I can't help but wonder regarding outer wing torsion combining with the near simulataneous reaching of CLmax on the inboard 80%. ???
-
Ardy, I'll make you a serious offer. If you want my copy of "Fundamentals of Flight" (shevell - a guy I took a couple of classes with, in fact), I will send it to you (no scheisse). My wife keeps bugging me to get rid of old text books and it's a good one for basic linear aero stuff. It's in a box in my basement and hasn't been touched since we moved to the new house last October. I bought it new in like '84 or some other Stone Age date.
Shevell is good, Anderson (both Introduction to Flight and Fundamentals of Flight) is good for basic level but sound aero across theory of flight, flight mechanics, S&C, etc. Shevell has several tomes on the web also.
probably get from Amazon or Albris cheap
-
'Flexing' is all about stiffness (deflections) for loads applied in both bending and torsion. Impossible to analyze by 'inspection'. Comparisons would first examine the aero load distribution and the spar/torque box design but even the t/c ratio is deceiving for a deep chord design like the Spit as the actual depth of the main spar, spanwise was probably close to the other designs.
Thinking about this more, it really wouldn't be all that hard, IF I had section properties of the wing at spanwise stations, or, far easier, closed form descriptions of:
the main wing spar section as f(span)
the lift distribution as f(span) at a given Cl, alt,V
the wing chord as f(span) and the position of the spar within as f(span)
some relevant material data (G and E for whatever aluminum they used on the F-dub)
to get a twist and bending flex distribution for the wing - especially if we made some crude assumptions (model it as main spar, offset lift from torsion axis along a .25chord line using given distribution).
I'm kind of wondering about that wing box structure, though. Messerchmitt pioneered, my recollection, the use of a single-spar wing on the 109. The 190 probably isn't that simple - but such an approx would make for a pretty tractable analysis, so long as I knew the section geometry, taper, material, and chord location of that main spar. OTOH, it's also probably do-able, but harder, to just take a wing structure x-section and figger out the bending and polar inertias numerically. That's hardly elegant - and more time consuming.
I'm also kind of thinking that it'd BE SUPER COOL if HTC modeled, using simple torsion/bending combined loading beams, WING FLEX in our beloved cartoon aircraft. That'd be really cool, especially on something like a B-24. If, as indicated, SPitty's got a significant enough problem with twist that it gets into aileron reversal, that'd be one way to pick it up - a crude but sufficiently descriptive aeroelastic model in-game...
-
Drgondog,
How much did areo engineers know back then. I mean, were they able to mathematically predict the general behavior (such as stall handling), or was it more along the lines that they guessed (based on simple mathematical models), then they built it and tested to see if they got the result they wanted?
Good questions. Simple answer - yes to axis-symmetric flight from low speed stall prediction, to drag analysis, to climb and range estimation. Not so well in asymmetrical aerodynamics, flight mechanics and drag analysis -
Aero is non linear and analysis in pre design is all about enough knowledge to remove insignificant variables from the important ones and they had a very good handle on sub Mcr incompressible flow flight prediction study - but considering the number of failed prototype designs one can safely say they didn't always get it right.
Aeroelasticity and fatigue analysis were non-existant. Compressibility and transition aero from incompressible to compressible regions were largely a mystery. Analyzing complex airframes and deriving variable pressure distributions to supply loads to airframe structures guys were in infancy and numerical methods, CFD, etc were not possible.. slide rule was the computer.
-
Thinking about this more, it really wouldn't be all that hard, IF I had section properties of the wing at spanwise stations, or, far easier, closed form descriptions of:
the main wing spar section as f(span)
the lift distribution as f(span) at a given Cl, alt,V
the wing chord as f(span) and the position of the spar within as f(span)
some relevant material data (G and E for whatever aluminum they used on the F-dub)
to get a twist and bending flex distribution for the wing - especially if we made some crude assumptions (model it as main spar, offset lift from torsion axis along a .25chord line using given distribution).
I'm kind of wondering about that wing box structure, though. Messerchmitt pioneered, my recollection, the use of a single-spar wing on the 109. The 190 probably isn't that simple - but such an approx would make for a pretty tractable analysis, so long as I knew the section geometry, taper, material, and chord location of that main spar. OTOH, it's also probably do-able, but harder, to just take a wing structure x-section and figger out the bending and polar inertias numerically. That's hardly elegant - and more time consuming.
I'm also kind of thinking that it'd BE SUPER COOL if HTC modeled, using simple torsion/bending combined loading beams, WING FLEX in our beloved cartoon aircraft. That'd be really cool, especially on something like a B-24. If, as indicated, SPitty's got a significant enough problem with twist that it gets into aileron reversal, that'd be one way to pick it up - a crude but sufficiently descriptive aeroelastic model in-game...
-
Spits' flaps aren't split type?
(http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s58/tapakeg/birds/350px-Flaps.png)
You are correct. I should have said "split". Sorry, it was late...
-
...on something like a B-24. If, as indicated, SPitty's got a significant enough problem with twist that it gets into aileron reversal, that'd be one way to pick it up - a crude but sufficiently descriptive aeroelastic model in-game...
Thinking a little more on this... Even if we had, e.g., a simple multi-node aeroelastic model underlying the graphics, the graphics themselves would probably be upset by this, yes? Some of the elastodynamic models I'd do would flex but only in a "piecy" way w/r the representative graphics - for example, a heavy truck frame rail would look like an elemental representation (because it was). I suspect any rendering of an elastic wing would have to use an awful lot of elements to look convincing, and this probably prices it out of usefulness, computational intensity-wise.
-
The 23015 airfoil was known to have sharp stall charcteristics but I seem to recall that the Fw airfoil was a modified 23015-3?
As to torsion issues, hard to say relatively speaking. The roll reversal on the Spit at high speed was almost certainly due to wing torsion. With the decided question regarding aileron authority of the Fw 190 in High AoA/G I can't help but wonder regarding outer wing torsion combining with the near simulataneous reaching of CLmax on the inboard 80%. ???
I think the root chord thickness was 15.3%, so the airfoil most precisely would be listed as a 23015.3. The only modified 23000 I've ever heard of was the airfoil used on the P-47, which supposedly was a modified 23000 designed by Republic. I've never done any analysis to determine what the changes introduced, but the profiles look almost identical, and I don't know if something like XFOIL would show a conspicuous difference.
-
Thinking a little more on this... Even if we had, e.g., a simple multi-node aeroelastic model underlying the graphics, the graphics themselves would probably be upset by this, yes? Some of the elastodynamic models I'd do would flex but only in a "piecy" way w/r the representative graphics - for example, a heavy truck frame rail would look like an elemental representation (because it was). I suspect any rendering of an elastic wing would have to use an awful lot of elements to look convincing, and this probably prices it out of usefulness, computational intensity-wise.
Well, would the flex even be perceptible visually at a glance? I think, short of some serious FEA analysis couple with some CFD panelling, you could get anything that would be reliable enough to bother modelling. The FW-190 roll handling is probably sufficiently dicey as it is in-game to get us a 95% solution--which is probably enough for a good relative representation. Just my opinion.
-
Thinking about this more, it really wouldn't be all that hard, IF I had section properties of the wing at spanwise stations, or, far easier, closed form descriptions of:
Let me ask some questions - reflecting what I would need...
the main wing spar section as f(span)
I would need -spanwise - the complete drawings - including BOM, so that I could look at the complete inner structure from leading edge to flap hinge line. This detail would give me what I had to know about a.) actual spar and secondary spar (torque box) geometry, b.) beam cap, shear web and rivet type/distribution (to give me a notion of both the assumed bending moments via cap/skin/web geometry as well as the shear transfer from axial to compression loading transfer of the bending loads from upper to lower caps) - from root to the tip.
the lift distribution as f(span) at a given Cl, alt,V
I would particularly like to have the pressure/lift distributions in max G pull out, asymmetric predictions for high speed slow roll and yaw in dives (primarily for eppenage more than wing but also to look at torsion from aileron on the wing torque box). I would like to have 'best guess' from the aeros on the assumed aero load distribution in high G near max AoA turn.
the wing chord as f(span) and the position of the spar within as f(span)
I want the bleeping dwgs - lol
some relevant material data (G and E for whatever aluminum they used on the F-dub)
with the BOM and any relevant 3rd party data (i.e casting/forging/stamped part spec, etc)
to get a twist and bending flex distribution for the wing - especially if we made some crude assumptions (model it as main spar, offset lift from torsion axis along a .25chord line using given distribution).
Crude won't do you much good but if you had the drawings you could make a very good assumtion on expected loads, and therefore some speculation and knowledge regarding assumed deflections
I'm kind of wondering about that wing box structure, though. Messerchmitt pioneered, my recollection, the use of a single-spar wing on the 109. The 190 probably isn't that simple - but such an approx would make for a pretty tractable analysis, so long as I knew the section geometry, taper, material, and chord location of that main spar. OTOH, it's also probably do-able, but harder, to just take a wing structure x-section and figger out the bending and polar inertias numerically. That's hardly elegant - and more time consuming.
Lol - get the friggen drawings..
I'm also kind of thinking that it'd BE SUPER COOL if HTC modeled, using simple torsion/bending combined loading beams, WING FLEX in our beloved cartoon aircraft. That'd be really cool, especially on something like a B-24. If, as indicated, SPitty's got a significant enough problem with twist that it gets into aileron reversal, that'd be one way to pick it up - a crude but sufficiently descriptive aeroelastic model in-game...
I did this 'stuff' for living before I decided money was better than fun. I actually pioneered NASTRAN at Bell Helicopter for the Army and some work at NASA along the same path - introducing fatigue, aeroelasticity and high temp into my simple world..
-
Thinking a little more on this... Even if we had, e.g., a simple multi-node aeroelastic model underlying the graphics, the graphics themselves would probably be upset by this, yes? Some of the elastodynamic models I'd do would flex but only in a "piecy" way w/r the representative graphics - for example, a heavy truck frame rail would look like an elemental representation (because it was). I suspect any rendering of an elastic wing would have to use an awful lot of elements to look convincing, and this probably prices it out of usefulness, computational intensity-wise.
Well - if you could buckle NASTRAN or Stardyne as a subroutine, model the wing in rods and shear panels, load up to a supercomputer, then solve for Navier Stokes with a very fine mesh to plow through the load aero load model (and back to NASTRAN) in real time through a flight path, you could probably get fairly close. I know I couldn't and NASTRAN has probably ben superceded by far better methodolgies.
-
Well, would the flex even be perceptible visually at a glance? I think, short of some serious FEA analysis couple with some CFD panelling, you could get anything that would be reliable enough to bother modelling. The FW-190 roll handling is probably sufficiently dicey as it is in-game to get us a 95% solution--which is probably enough for a good relative representation. Just my opinion.
Well, I'd guess the game doesn't use CFD panelling right now to develop the loads. So, whatever error exists in load development is a separate increment of error, if you like. Separated thus, the question boils down to accuracy of a combined load (somewhat grossly) discretized beam model. Typically, the question at this point becomes how good is good enough? In the case of a chassis-cab Transit I modelled for a rollover reconstruction back in the 90's (this never happened for all recorded purposes) correlation to test improved, naturally, as the element count improved- but the count was by no means especailly CPU costly in the finished model. I'll cast around and see if I can find what kind of convergence to test there is for a fairly complex beam section model under combined loading as you increase the element count. I'm certian 80-20 rule obtains, it's just a question of how much discretization could be supported.
As for visibility of flex - I'd guess not on a 190, except for maybe the TA. I'd bet money you could see it on the 24 and 29, though.
-
Dragon, you are one crazy motorscooter. I interviewed down at Bell way back in '91. That was before I went into consulting with MDI (the ADAMS people - before they got bought by MSC). I think you guys had an internally developed rigid-body dynamics analysis tool but the interviewers were pretty close-lipped about it. In any case, I think it safe to save that your method would blow the computing and data-transfer capacity of the purveyors and users ALL TO HELL - but it'd be really cool, nonetheless.
I too left engineering for the dark side back in '98. Condolences...
I still contend that, if I could get good test agreement using a flexible-element ADAMS model on a structure as complex as the Transit chassis-cab frame, a wing should be doable. It sounds like you're expecting the secondary spar and the caps to be pretty critical to development of any simplified beam representation. I'm wondering how closely you could rep such a complex structure with a tapered beam. And that'd be the key to making any such thing workable; simplification. As for the lift distribution development, well, how does the game do it now? Clearly, using, for example, your aileron deflection example, the spanwise lift distribution is affected in game because we roll in response. I'm sure the pressure dist on those sections would be affected, thus affecting the torsional moment on the box - and I'm pretty sure the game doesn't care about that.
Any idea on how they're doing their load development?
-
I think the root chord thickness was 15.3%, so the airfoil most precisely would be listed as a 23015.3. The only modified 23000 I've ever heard of was the airfoil used on the P-47, which supposedly was a modified 23000 designed by Republic. I've never done any analysis to determine what the changes introduced, but the profiles look almost identical, and I don't know if something like XFOIL would show a conspicuous difference.
Good catch - I was actually disconnecting on the trailing modifier to the five digit series after the dash as contrast to a number after the decimal.
-
Dragon, you are one crazy motorscooter. I interviewed down at Bell way back in '91. That was before I went into consulting with MDI (the ADAMS people - before they got bought by MSC). I think you guys had an internally developed rigid-body dynamics analysis tool but the interviewers were pretty close-lipped about it. In any case, I think it safe to save that your method would blow the computing and data-transfer capacity of the purveyors and users ALL TO HELL - but it'd be really cool, nonetheless.
LOL. I was at the Beginning of the development back when we started noodling with elastic deformation to predict crash energy absorption.. which of course neither NASTRAN nor Stardyne could handle. Where we were in the 70's wouldn't strain a laptop today, however so I really don't know what the 'hog vector' would be. Iterative solutions on the deflections within the modelled geometry due to applied loads shouldn't be as cumbersome as say, a fine mesh NS procedure - So, Godzilla I am afraid I can't shed too much speculation on where they are these days.
I SUSPECT the V-22 airframe would drive the structures guys to seek higher wisdom for such conditions as wing flex (and associated movement of flap shaft to bearing relationships, as well as the dual torque shafts to and from the gear mixing box to engine.rotor pylon issue.
I was all over the XV-15 back in the day and part of the Noda Magic pylon design team.
I too left engineering for the dark side back in '98. Condolences...
You are just a youthful lad, grasshopper and have a long and glorious debt ridden life ahead of you as you matriculate to a higher state..
I still contend that, if I could get good test agreement using a flexible-element ADAMS model on a structure as complex as the Transit chassis-cab frame, a wing should be doable. It sounds like you're expecting the secondary spar and the caps to be pretty critical to development of any simplified beam representation. I'm wondering how closely you could rep such a complex structure with a tapered beam. And that'd be the key to making any such thing workable; simplification. As for the lift distribution development, well, how does the game do it now? Clearly, using, for example, your aileron deflection example, the spanwise lift distribution is affected in game because we roll in response. I'm sure the pressure dist on those sections would be affected, thus affecting the torsional moment on the box - and I'm pretty sure the game doesn't care about that.
I don't have access to the model, the assumtions relative to Inertial moments about any axis or assumed load distributions.
I would actually be surprised to discover that the models are that sophisticated - but have an open mind.
The two really tricky parts would be to build in changes to 1.) aerodynamic pressure distributions of a rolling, yawing construct which has a thrust axis and rotational stream tube 'off angle' from free stream velocity vector, and 2.) the tarnsition model from axis symmetric, low vortex/form drag environment (we can look to Anderson, et al for this) to an abrupt asymmetrix, increasing drag, decreasing propeller efficiency (the Thrust thingy), uncertain CLmax due to contributions from elevator/aileron/rudder inputs and operator induced rapid changes to control deflections.
Oh, yes - and predict a real time change in huge Viscous/form drag rise as boundary layer begins to deteriorate and adverse pressure gradients rear their ugly head behind the wing?
These scare me and I'm fearless (also not very smart)
Any idea on how they're doing their load development?
I don't know enough about either the Transit or ADAMS to speculate.
My first reaction to modelling using a tapered beam is that a better analogy is a series of beams, each representing a slightly different geometry and property, coupled with very stiff springs along the spar(s) line where the bending loads are expected to be absorbed.. have to ponder what to do with the outer shear panels, however, as they are the keys to torsion absorption/deflections.
The different beams have to be modelled to provide an analogy for a series of torque boxes with shear and axial load representation (IMO) and are mostly empty space - versus homogeneous constructs
A materially homogeneous beam should not yield the same response to combined vertical and in-plane loads as the box models.
Just my long out of practice humble opinion..good to chat with someone who knows what is involved in airframe type structural analysis.
Back to Transit. My reaction is that modelling it would be one order of magnitude below a WWII fighter and even less aligned with the complexity of a Transition subsonisupersonic capable/wierd flight profile bird like a F-22?
I say that with full understanding that I don't know the complexity of the Transit, nor do I have an understanding of the forces the structure is designed to withstand, but
- an airframe designed to take great loads (Q, and intertial, about six degrees of freedom) with variable combinations both in magnitude and direction while remaining light and easy to produce by the thousands seems to offer more complexity?
-
I don't know enough about either the Transit or ADAMS to speculate.
My first reaction to modelling using a tapered beam is that a better analogy is a series of beams, each representing a slightly different geometry and property, coupled with very stiff springs along the spar(s) line where the bending loads are expected to be absorbed.. have to ponder what to do with the outer shear panels, however, as they are the keys to torsion absorption/deflections.
The different beams have to be modelled to provide an analogy for a series of torque boxes with shear and axial load representation (IMO) and are mostly empty space - versus homogeneous constructs
A materially homogeneous beam should not yield the same response to combined vertical and in-plane loads as the box models.
Just my long out of practice humble opinion..good to chat with someone who knows what is involved in airframe type structural analysis.
Wow. I can almost see the skin ripple on the wing when you talk torsion. In torsion, the section looks like a thin-walled tube with all the load carried by stressed skin, yes? Bending-wise, you're talking discretization and that makes sense to me - except the boundary conditions on the elements (why springs - connect them rigidly and youd get the same effect anyway, wouldn't you; a local inflection that'll converge to continuous as element count goes to infinity?). The taper I proposed as a means of getting all the properties inot some convenient f(X) form (the dream of a closed-form solution) - but I think I see what you mean about the torsional characteristics... I mean - the beam is not going to rep that thin-walled tube as well as your beam plus torque box. I'm thinking that's because the inertial props can be completely divorced in your rep.
As for Transit structure, it's probably not as bad as a wing but it still involved a fabricated thin-walled structure. Otherwise, your humble input strikes me as really kewl.
Is there any chance you're retired?If so, you might have the time for a development like that...
The rest, re: loads - I'd also be surprised if its all that sophisticated too. Many of the conditions you describe as difficult still frequntly occur in game, though. I look at that crazy tail slide. Isn't that a fine example where you've probably got detached and/or reversed flow and bad pressure dist on one side of the fuselage? Is that all discounted in force development? I seem to be able to get good speed reductions out of yaw oscillation, but suspect that's just based on a linear model of Cd w/r sideslip... In fact, I''d guess it's all just linear range stuff but have no idea.
Finally - life advice goood. The grasshopper, though, is more like an ant. I just sort of like work.
-
Wow. I can almost see the skin ripple on the wing when you talk torsion. In torsion, the section looks like a thin-walled tube with all the load carried by stressed skin, yes?
That is the beauty of the shear web whether the connector for beam caps to convert bending loads to axial forces on the caps and transfer the shear stress to the opposite cap... or to stabilze a torque box (wing or fuse) and enable the shear from one bulhead/longeron panel to another and channel load paths to thingy's like longerons - such as when you stomp a rudder and roll a 51 in a gigh speed dive - and pray your tail doesn't 'depart'
When I said 'show me the drawings, the rivet diameter and spacing will tell me all I need to know about the design limit loads (and load path) when combined with cross sections of the beam/stringer/doubler/longeron, etc
Springs ONLY if you want to develop as sense for the deflections and rotations at different nodes in the model with drastically reduced elements along your simplicity notions.
The taper I proposed as a means of getting all the properties inot some convenient f(X) form (the dream of a closed-form solution) - but I think I see what you mean about the torsional characteristics... I mean - the beam is not going to rep that thin-walled tube as well as your beam plus torque box. I'm thinking that's because the inertial props can be completely divorced in your rep.
As for Transit structure, it's probably not as bad as a wing but it still involved a fabricated thin-walled structure. Otherwise, your humble input strikes me as really kewl.
The closest analogy I suppose is an air liner/cargo hull design designed to fly in a straight line at low (relative) speeds
Is there any chance you're retired?If so, you might have the time for a development like that...
I still dabble as a management consultant that looks into ugly sales and operations deficiencies and produce glorious process (and sometimes leadership) changes.. and candidly I am a better practitioner than a developer. There are theoretical aero/math wizards that have forgotten more hovering over the john than I will ever know about actual relaxation/iterative solution methods.
The rest, re: loads - I'd also be surprised if its all that sophisticated too. Many of the conditions you describe as difficult still frequntly occur in game, though. I look at that crazy tail slide. Isn't that a fine example where you've probably got detached and/or reversed flow and bad pressure dist on one side of the fuselage? Is that all discounted in force development? I seem to be able to get good speed reductions out of yaw oscillation, but suspect that's just based on a linear model of Cd w/r sideslip... In fact, I''d guess it's all just linear range stuff but have no idea.
I don't play the game and haven't experienced the responses to stick or attitude so I really have no clue.
Finally - life advice goood. The grasshopper, though, is more like an ant. I just sort of like work.
I did well when making a career change to IT Services - but I miss flying and the airframe business (military and civilian) - living well and hard has a tendency to cause deficiencies in critical internal systems when not managed properly - long story/short regarding why I don't fly anymore.
-
You two have now effectively departed from Stoney's envelope with all the engineering gee-whiz stuff... :)
HTC does model the lift distribution of each wing, complete with pitching moment and all the drag moments at various stations along the span. Somewhere around here is a thread with a very telling image of an F4U in flight with the flight model shown graphically. Maybe Moot knows the linky for it--I can't remember and didn't bookmark it.
-
You two have now effectively departed from Stoney's envelope with all the engineering gee-whiz stuff... :)
HTC does model the lift distribution of each wing, complete with pitching moment and all the drag moments at various stations along the span. Somewhere around here is a thread with a very telling image of an F4U in flight with the flight model shown graphically. Maybe Moot knows the linky for it--I can't remember and didn't bookmark it.
Stoney - I will retire gracefully - at least temporarily.
What technique did HTC use to develop the lift distribution - pick an airfoil for the basic pressure dictribution and integrate based on a span-wise algorith to simulate the effect that twist and taper applied to more closely approach elliptical? - then resolve to a single lift vector that they scaled based on N? Did they fool with the rudder and elevator since that data is also available (although relative AoA in a dwonwash for a high G turn would be tricky)
-
Stoney - I will retire gracefully - at least temporarily.
What technique did HTC use to develop the lift distribution - pick an airfoil for the basic pressure dictribution and integrate based on a span-wise algorith to simulate the effect that twist and taper applied to more closely approach elliptical? - then resolve to a single lift vector that they scaled based on N? Did they fool with the rudder and elevator since that data is also available (although relative AoA in a dwonwash for a high G turn would be tricky)
I'm not sure exactly how they model it, but it appears, from the picture, that each station on the wing, there is a lift component, drag component, and I think a pitching moment. I know that the prop wash over the wing is modeled, and I assume that similar things are going on on the empenage (it wasn't in the picture). Its a vector based model, so it has the associated drawbacks, but is still very impressive, especially with respect to the fidelity it achieves with the real life examples. Dale even modeled an RV-8 to fly in-game to compare to his personal RV-8 to reality check it. I'd guess, except for some of the playability issues (like the engine management) its probably as close to the real thing as you can get without some sort of CFD type engine.
-
Pretty impressive - I wonder if it captures the Aw Sh--! moment on the F4U wing when it loses the inboard left gull lift distribution just before stall? Doesn't matter it still sounds impressive.
-
Impressive and tractable... that last is really important. If he's already discretized the wing and has loads, well, that sounds a lot like the jumping-off point we used to always get to with a rigid body model. We'd be able to achieve a certain level of agreement to test, then we'd start wondering about compliance effects. Sometimes, we'd run into crazy ones - like tire memory (tires aren't simple at all), but mostly, it was the usual suspects; frame flex causing compliance-based over/under steer effects, that kind of crap. There's an analog there, given that the tire is like the wing, the slip angle like alpha. Beyond that, it'd be great to hear from the coaders on these matters. In some ways, I could see them really not caring. Otoh, what's correlation worth... to a "game" and a small subscriber base? What's low-cost correlation worth to anyone out there with no access to deep pocket places like Bell or MSC or Ford? There's got to be a cross-sell opportunity there.
-
I'm Still Impressed
-
I'm not sure exactly how they model it, but it appears, from the picture, that each station on the wing, there is a lift component, drag component, and I think a pitching moment. I know that the prop wash over the wing is modeled, and I assume that similar things are going on on the empenage (it wasn't in the picture). Its a vector based model, so it has the associated drawbacks, but is still very impressive, especially with respect to the fidelity it achieves with the real life examples. Dale even modeled an RV-8 to fly in-game to compare to his personal RV-8 to reality check it. I'd guess, except for some of the playability issues (like the engine management) its probably as close to the real thing as you can get without some sort of CFD type engine.
I remember a picture Dale posted, the wing was broken up into 16 lift vectors. I wonder if sub-dividing it further would make a noticeable impact.
-
I remember a picture Dale posted, the wing was broken up into 16 lift vectors. I wonder if sub-dividing it further would make a noticeable impact.
As Stoney mentioned, and I think it was in our last battle with Gaston, Thor, and the minions of darkness, there was a nice example of a turning 190 with vector graphics on glorious display. One of the memorable things to me was the accounting for differences in velocities relative to freestream of the prop blades. This, in itself is no huge deal - the freestream component of the relative air velocity w/r the prop foil is clearly larger to the outside of the turn - but I was impressed.
As for your question, I suspect they set a target for correlation and hit it - and used the crudest discretization that delivered in order to minimize computation intensity.
That's where I'm coming from with the elastic stuff - how crudely could it be done meaningfully? Would the graphics support it?
-
I remember the dev/debugging screenshot that HT (or Pyro?) posted a while back. But I don't have it anymore, deleted it with everything AH a year+ back. Someone's bound to have it though, if it was important enough to eyeball it.
This might have been it:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,197316.msg2309082.html#msg2309082
-
I remember the dev/debugging screenshot that HT (or Pyro?) posted a while back. But I don't have it anymore, deleted it with everything AH a year+ back. Someone's bound to have it though, if it was important enough to eyeball it.
This might have been it:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,197316.msg2309082.html#msg2309082
That was it Moot, but it looks like Pyro deleted the pictures. Ehh...well. And Dragondog, they do model the "gull wing stall" on the F4U. These pictures would have shown you that.
-
Maybe something like this?
Looks to me like every foot there's a vector.
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQAZyaWQzjV6gHIQIA_3t5ezztFEnYknxDxpIginDqhsXRbWIOy)
-
As Stoney mentioned, and I think it was in our last battle with Gaston, Thor, and the minions of darkness, there was a nice example of a turning 190 with vector graphics on glorious display. One of the memorable things to me was the accounting for differences in velocities relative to freestream of the prop blades. This, in itself is no huge deal - the freestream component of the relative air velocity w/r the prop foil is clearly larger to the outside of the turn - but I was impressed.
As for your question, I suspect they set a target for correlation and hit it - and used the crudest discretization that delivered in order to minimize computation intensity.
That's where I'm coming from with the elastic stuff - how crudely could it be done meaningfully? Would the graphics support it?
For an example - when I modelled the AH-1 Cobra I used combinations of Beam/plate or rod/panel - the rod panel nicely agreed with 'traditional hand crank analysis' for stress, and lousy dynamic agreement- while the beam/plate was lousy stress wise it was very good for dynamic response. One was too elastic while agreeing stress loads (and imposing excess deflections) while the other was 'under stressed' but in good agreement with deflections and natural frequency.
NASTRAN eventually 'fixed' the rod/shear panel' model response on harmonics but while I was fooling with it, plates were always 'overly optimistic' for stress analysis.
Summary - if the really complicated, and far better representation of complex geometry, model has intriguing failures on dynamic and elastic response - I am not overly optimistic that a simple beam approach is useful...
-
Summary - if the really complicated, and far better representation of complex geometry, model has intriguing failures on dynamic and elastic response - I am not overly optimistic that a simple beam approach is useful...
There are really two issues here. Bear in mind, the elast stuff we did in ADAMs was pretty intensive at the time. We were tying up what were state of the art SGI stations to run 'em (I had two of my own in a corner of PArklane restricted from prying eyes and dubbed "The Cage"), and a leaf spring (another example of a simpler elasto we'd do) would often take on the order of hours. I guess the two questions are how simple and how fast... The first pertains to how much the structure could be simplified while still retaining correlation, the second pertains to how much "moore's law" we've gotten since the late 90's.
Otherwise, I was stunned to find you don't play. Why not? It's one of the best diversions I've found. I don't have time to become a "real" fake pilot but still enjoy it. If I get a couple of hours in per week, I'm pretty happy. You could fly with JV44 if you like.
-
There are really two issues here. Bear in mind, the elast stuff we did in ADAMs was pretty intensive at the time. We were tying up what were state of the art SGI stations to run 'em (I had two of my own in a corner of PArklane restricted from prying eyes and dubbed "The Cage"), and a leaf spring (another example of a simpler elasto we'd do) would often take on the order of hours. I guess the two questions are how simple and how fast... The first pertains to how much the structure could be simplified while still retaining correlation, the second pertains to how much "moore's law" we've gotten since the late 90's.
Otherwise, I was stunned to find you don't play. Why not? It's one of the best diversions I've found. I don't have time to become a "real" fake pilot but still enjoy it. If I get a couple of hours in per week, I'm pretty happy. You could fly with JV44 if you like.
Too much of an addiction.. I would fly with whatever flies the P-51B I suspect. I have too many diversions as it is between building gunstocks, bird hunting and compiling complete 8th AF lists for air/ground scores/macr's/accident reports, etc in my spare time,
I just finished Vol I Our Might Always - a two part history of the 355th FG, TFW and current FW and trying to decide between self publish or Schiffer (and get hosed, royalty wise). It is now 400+ pages with tables and not counting photos (0-2000)
-
It's a free download. A couple of off-line hops in a P-51B wouldn't hurt. You could quit any time. :devil
-
^^^
I agree,Drgondog you really owe it to yourself and try it! I for one would like to hear your impressions of the flight model. And who knows you might even take Dale up on his offer after you give AH a go.
:salute
-
Maybe something like this?
Looks to me like every foot there's a vector.
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQAZyaWQzjV6gHIQIA_3t5ezztFEnYknxDxpIginDqhsXRbWIOy)
Have you got a full screen sized image of that pic?
-
Have you got a full screen sized image of that pic?
Sorry Stoney, just searched the net a few minutes and found the linked image. Maybe Mace has some of these images.
-
Don't know if you have read Skip Holm's flight report on the 109 :
http://www.skipholm.com/event.php?bnid=20
-
Don't know if you have read Skip Holm's flight report on the 109 :
http://www.skipholm.com/event.php?bnid=20
Funny... Skip says flap deployment causes a nose-down pitch. I never find this in sim on landing, pitching instead slightly nose-up. Mind, Skiip's real-world take strikes me as the more intuitive
-
He doesn't seem to mention the trim state when the nose/flap movement happens.
-
Stony the numbers displayed are lift drag aoa at each vector. Each wing section could be modifed to simulate the wing twisting, but first Im curious as to the net CL and AOA changes.
-
I missed all the aerogeek fun in this thread! A few random thoughts:
1) Stoney talked about tip stalls & why stalled aircraft well roll on to their backs. Another major factor to consider for power-on stalls is asymmetric wing stalls from the propeller slipstream. On a clockwise rotating prop the left wing experiences an up-wash while the right wing experiences a down-wash. This results in the left wing experiencing a greater induced aoa while the right wing has a lower induced aoa which means that all things being equal the left wing will stall first. The asymmetric loss of lift results in a rolling moment to the greater stalled wing. This is modeled in AH & could be seen in the pics Pyro had posted before but now removed that Stoney refers to.
2) As to aeroelastic affects I’d venture to guess that they would be more impactful to the FM from a stability point of view – i.e., aileron reversals, wing divergence, tail boom bending and the changes to control & stability with those sorts of things. All sorts of fun in figuring out the basis to model the aeroelasticity though (don’t they teach whole classes on the topic?). I can just see the whine-o-meter shoot through the roof. :D Lord have mercy!
3) I vote ddog & PJ as the grand & vice grand pooba’s of Pyro & Hitech’s sacred order of propellerheads. :D
-
asymmetric stall usually happens due to aileron more than slip stream. As the plane slows down, an increased deflection of the ailerons is required to counter the torque roll tendency. This makes one (usually left) wing require larger AoA at the aileron section while the other has a reduced AoA. The stall will happen at the outer section of one wing wich will (due to longer lever) produce much stronger roll than an uneven stall at the root. The sudden loss of lift on a large outer section of one wing, while the other is still providing strong lift will flip the plane over in an instant.
-
Stony the numbers displayed are lift drag aoa at each vector. Each wing section could be modifed to simulate the wing twisting, but first Im curious as to the net CL and AOA changes.
I assume the designed twist is represented in the existing stations from which those numbers are created?
@ Tango... I had forgotten about the actual effect of the prop wash, even though I knew it was modeled. Perhaps it accounts for more of the rolling moment than the tip stall characteristics? Ironically, the aircraft shown in the invisible picture was the F4U, which had one of the least-tapered wings of the entire fighter plane-set.
-
I assume the designed twist is represented in the existing stations from which those numbers are created?
Correct along with wing area tapers/flap/slats & control surface effects.
HiTech
-
@ Tango... I had forgotten about the actual effect of the prop wash, even though I knew it was modeled. Perhaps it accounts for more of the rolling moment than the tip stall characteristics?
Well whether you stall the tip or other part of a wing first you'd get the rolling moment if the stall was asymmetric (one wing vs. the other) so I'd say that either could be just as responsible :). In either case you'd get asymmetric lift forces between the wings & a rolling you go!
-
asymmetric stall usually happens due to aileron more than slip stream. As the plane slows down, an increased deflection of the ailerons is required to counter the torque roll tendency. This makes one (usually left) wing require larger AoA at the aileron section while the other has a reduced AoA. The stall will happen at the outer section of one wing wich will (due to longer lever) produce much stronger roll than an uneven stall at the root. The sudden loss of lift on a large outer section of one wing, while the other is still providing strong lift will flip the plane over in an instant.
:aok
-
The A6 would be an awesome addition, it's wingloading is 1kg per m^2 less than the A5, also has the upgraded outboard cannon. (I'm not ambitious enough to convert that to non-metric)
Did U know the Ta152 H has 1lb per ft^2 lower wingloading than the 51D? Its true :banana:
The A8 is not that far from the A6, That extra armour protection helped to keep pilots alive after shooting vital parts of an plane, in real life.
-
I missed all the aerogeek fun in this thread!
1) Stoney talked about tip stalls & why stalled aircraft well roll on to their backs. Another major factor to consider for power-on stalls is asymmetric wing stalls from the propeller slipstream. On a clockwise rotating prop the left wing experiences an up-wash while the right wing experiences a down-wash. This results in the left wing experiencing a greater induced aoa while the right wing has a lower induced aoa which means that all things being equal the left wing will stall first. The asymmetric loss of lift results in a rolling moment to the greater stalled wing. This is modeled in AH & could be seen in the pics Pyro had posted before but now removed that Stoney refers to.
This phoenomena for the F4U (left wing - inboard) was validated and reported in wind tunnel models in stall zone - one could expect even worse in asymmetrical flight. By contrast the pressure distribution for the P-63 and P-51 were both nicely symmetrical right up to the break
2) As to aeroelastic affects I’d venture to guess that they would be more impactful to the FM from a stability point of view – i.e., aileron reversals, wing divergence, tail boom bending and the changes to control & stability with those sorts of things. All sorts of fun in figuring out the basis to model the aeroelasticity though (don’t they teach whole classes on the topic?). I can just see the whine-o-meter shoot through the roof. :D Lord have mercy!
Classes taught now - but absent powerful structural modelling with very nice representation of airframe structure subjected to loads (developed and inposed by another very powerful Aero app capable of dealing with asymmetric flight conditions for both stability factors and pressure distribution), combined and integrated by folks skilled in both the science blended with their 'art'..??.. it just hurts my little pointed head..
3) I vote ddog & PJ as the grand & vice grand pooba’s of Pyro & Hitech’s sacred order of propellerheads. :D
Appreciate the thought but I will recede into the background as there are several guys on this thread, yourself included that didn't come into town on a wagonload of turnips..
-
Is there an up-to-date list of turn radius and\or sustained turning for the current plane set?
Do a BBs search for Spatula's application. That info is in the app.
Can anyone help me find Spatula's application or how to determine a plane's turn radius?
Gonzo's site is really good on this too but I'd like to extract something more current (and include the newer planes).
Thanks! :salute
-
Can anyone help me find Spatula's application or how to determine a plane's turn radius?
Gonzo's site is really good on this too but I'd like to extract something more current (and include the newer planes).
Thanks! :salute
THere's a simple formula: 2WL/(rho Cl sin(theta) = R, where theta is max bank, as determined by the power loading.
Otherwise HOLY NECRO BUMP BATMAN!!!!
-
Turn radius is always rather tricky.
Goes linear with climb rate as a thumb rule ;)
-
Angus, with continious turn rate, if reverse modelled for climbrate is done, the A8 will never ever leave the ground :D
-
I found a russian site about the fw190a8 tactics on the eastern front , I was most surprised that according to these russian resources Fw190a8 could outrun / give too slow catchup to prevent guns use.
http://www.airpages.ru/eng/lw/fw190a7.shtml
If you compare that to what Fw190a8 represents in AH , its slower / much slower at the deck, but RL speed gave the 190a8 survivability in many cases.
-
Found a link of fw190 vs mosquito
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Military-History-669/World-War-2-Aircraft.htm
It does not look like the fights mossie vs fw190a8 we have in AH.
In AH you get outfought at all flight parameters except roll.
-
A FW190-D can equal a continuous turn on the deck with a Spitfire! that is a fact :old: :airplane: :joystick:
-
Found a link of fw190 vs mosquito
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Military-History-669/World-War-2-Aircraft.htm
It does not look like the fights mossie vs fw190a8 we have in AH.
In AH you get outfought at all flight parameters except roll.
I like the massive documentation that is used to support their position. None of their links support that conclusion, or even refer to such a comparison. The one daylight Fw190 vs Mosquito VI fight I am aware of went in favor of the 190s, but the Mosquitos took some with them.
A FW190-D can equal a continuous turn on the deck with a Spitfire! that is a fact :old: :airplane: :joystick:
With the convincing data you have supplied how can anybody ever disagree....
Guys, unsupported claims are literally worthless.
-
A FW190-D can equal a continuous turn on the deck with a Spitfire! that is a fact :old: :airplane: :joystick:
It's a conspiracy I tell you, a conspiracy!
(http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/203/allieshigh.png)
-
Actually its true I can do it game think about it I will supply a film :old:
What you forget is the size and speed of turn lets say the situation is a spit8 800 of a FW190D's 6 more or less co -E alt, if you roll/bank the FW at an angle on its side and let it turn on trim alone using roll to adjust at high speed the spitfire will not be able to catch you in the turn, the more he tightens his turn the more E he will bleed the same will happen if he trys to cut across the circle he will rejoin in a worse position. The only way a plane could catch you in this situation is if it was a faster plane than yours and turns the same way, since the FW190D is near the top of the speed charts that won't happen often.
This bank is technically still a sustained turn and the end result is still a circle, its just a much wider and faster one.
-
The one daylight Fw190 vs Mosquito VI fight I am aware of went in favor of the 190s, but the Mosquitos took some with them.
There were a fair number of daylight Mossie-190 engagements off Norway, honours about even though it was ah, not recommended as standard procedure for Coastal Command Mosquitos to hang about and dogfight with JG 5. Were assorted inconclusive run-ins, Max Aitken himself gave a brace of 190s the slip, at least one other I can think of over the channel where the Mossie escaped.
Only really one-sided encounter was over Biscay - three Mossies lost for a single 190 damaged. The surviving Mossie pilot put a lot of the blame on the sortie leader, who failed to take any action after the 190s had been spotted.
Will see if I can do a rough tally for the Norway stuff.
-
In terms of the actions off Norway, the Mossies lost 6 confirmed to 190s while destroying 4 confirmed in return.
As noted, there were also actions over Biscay, also daylight engagements with 109s in Norway.
Also as noted, there were further inconclusive combats - for example in June 1943 a Norwegian crew of 333 Squadron damaged a Luftwaffe flying boat then fought with two 190s for ten minutes. Quite like AH stuff - each time the Mossie got onto the tail of one of the 190s, it had to evade the other. Eventually broke off and headed home.
-
Actually its true I can do it game think about it I will supply a film :old:
What you forget is the size and speed of turn lets say the situation is a spit8 800 of a FW190D's 6 more or less co -E alt, if you roll/bank the FW at an angle on its side and let it turn on trim alone using roll to adjust at high speed the spitfire will not be able to catch you in the turn, the more he tightens his turn the more E he will bleed the same will happen if he trys to cut across the circle he will rejoin in a worse position. The only way a plane could catch you in this situation is if it was a faster plane than yours and turns the same way, since the FW190D is near the top of the speed charts that won't happen often.
This bank is technically still a sustained turn and the end result is still a circle, its just a much wider and faster one.
That makes no sense. The Fw190D-9 may as well just not turn at all there and it will out run said Spitfire Mk VIII. That is certainly not a description of a Spitfire being out turned by an Fw190.
Scherf,
Sounds about right. The Mosquito VI was not ideal for dogfighting, but it wasn't helpless either. In the last fight you mentioned, the Mossies were unable to score on the Fw190s due to a 190 getting on their tail when they were in position to fire on the other 190, yet given that no Mossies were lost there, they were able to get the 190 off of their six as well.
-
Scherf,
Sounds about right. The Mosquito VI was not ideal for dogfighting, but it wasn't helpless either. In the last fight you mentioned, the Mossies were unable to score on the Fw190s due to a 190 getting on their tail when they were in position to fire on the other 190, yet given that no Mossies were lost there, they were able to get the 190 off of their six as well.
Yup, just so, although it was a single Mossie vs two 190s. PM me your email addy and I'll send you the Combat Report from the National Archives. Goes for other forumites as wel.
-
Ah yes, one Mossie. I'd misread that as being 333 Squadron vs two Fw190s. One Mossie vs two Fw190s is an even better example refuting the claim by save.
save,
The Fw190A-5 rolls better than the Mossie, as you noted, and it accelerates/climbs better. The Fw190D-9 rolls better, accelerates/climbs better and is faster. I am not sure if the Fw190A-8 or F-8 in AH will do anything other than out roll the Mossie. They are also much smaller, more squirrely targets.
-
Report sent Karnak.
As for the 190 being a small target, all a 190 has to do to avoid me is hold still while I poop off all my ammo, can't hit the damn things, though that's just me and my craptacularity.
-
That makes no sense. The Fw190D-9 may as well just not turn at all there and it will out run said Spitfire Mk VIII. That is certainly not a description of a Spitfire being out turned by an Fw190.
And that is certainly not what I said in my original statement, I never mentioned it out turning a Spitfire, the original statement I said stands true.
A FW190-D can equal a continuous turn on the deck with a Spitfire! that is a fact :old: :airplane: :joystick:
-
Then don't make accusations that we change flight modeling based on playability.
HiTech
From what I understand, changing the simulation for the sake of playability is one of the things that doomed Warbirds.
-
And that is certainly not what I said in my original statement, I never mentioned it out turning a Spitfire, the original statement I said stands true.
It doesn't do that either. You're playing semantic games. The Spitfire's turn is faster than the Fw190s in terms of degrees per second and has a smaller radius. You are making up your own "turn" test, designed from the outset with a particular desired outcome, and declaring the Fw190 a match.
Testing doesn't work like that.
-
A FW190-D can equal a continuous turn on the deck with a Spitfire! that is a fact :old: :airplane: :joystick:
Aerodynamically impossible...
-
It doesn't do that either. You're playing semantic games. The Spitfire's turn is faster than the Fw190s in terms of degrees per second and has a smaller radius. You are making up your own "turn" test, designed from the outset with a particular desired outcome, and declaring the Fw190 a match.
Testing doesn't work like that.
Not really, your the one who is trying to change my original comment into a statement were the spitfire can win using its attributes.
Aerodynamically impossible...
-
Aerodynamically impossible...
Lets hear why. :old:
-
Not really, your the one who is trying to change my original comment into a statement were the spitfire can win using its attributes.
You specifically said the Fw190D could match the Spitfire Mk VIII for turning. That is false. You aren't doing a turning match in your described method, you're doing a speed test.
Basically, you created a test of your own that has designated results and are now complaining when called on it.
Fact: The Fw190 cannot match the Spitfire in sustained turn.
-
Lets hear why. :old:
Couse the same reason why the F-86 can outturn an F-104.
:bolt:
-
Karnak , as I wrote, it was only the 190a8 that I have enough experience against the mossie in AH , the A5 may have more options.
A8 might even climb a bit better against mossie really low on wep, something I dont try concidering its more or less an suicide in the A8 , since its too slow plane against its mid-1944-45 competitors found in MA.
-
You specifically said the Fw190D could match the Spitfire Mk VIII for turning. That is false. You aren't doing a turning match in your described method, you're doing a speed test.
Basically, you created a test of your own that has designated results and are now complaining when called on it.
Fact: The Fw190 cannot match the Spitfire in sustained turn.
Really? Do tell me if the end result is a circle? As the result of a turn? I am not complaining you however seem to have problem with reading :airplane:
-
Lets hear why. :old:
Do we really have to produce the sustained turn equation again? It's a function of the wingloading and, implicitly, both the powerloading (via max bank) and the slope of the CL/CD curve (via the CL at the sustained turn).
In any case, it's hard to tell what you're arguing here, Perv, since it's a fact that the turn rate of the Spit, as well as its radius, are both much better than that of the 190.
Otherwise and with regard to this thread, Holy Necro-Bump Batman!!!
-
Karnak , as I wrote, it was only the 190a8 that I have enough experience against the mossie in AH , the A5 may have more options.
A8 might even climb a bit better against mossie really low on wep, something I dont try concidering its more or less an suicide in the A8 , since its too slow plane against its mid-1944-45 competitors found in MA.
Your claim, and the claim of the site you linked to, was not supported by either of the sites it linked to, nor by the historical data supplied by Scherf. You claimed that the Mossie VI vs Fw190A-8 fight in AH was not correct. This does not seem to be the case.
I will agree with you that the Fw190A-8, starting co-E, with a Mosquito Mk VI in AH will have a hard fight, but that does not seem to be incorrect based on the historical data.
Really? Do tell me if the end result is a circle? As the result of a turn? I am not complaining you however seem to have problem with reading :airplane:
That the end result was a, very large, circle does not make it a sustained turn test. We don't get to just create new definitions of terms because redefining them helps our argument.
-
That the end result was a, very large, circle does not make it a sustained turn test. We don't get to just create new definitions of terms because redefining them helps our argument.
There was no argument just a statement of fact (albeit under unconventional circumstances to you), while I have an open mind to see that a bigger circle is a bigger circle, your mind only sees the spitfire winning by turning better when I did not state who won, so tell me the official maximum radius for this circle? Have I went over the limit, if so by how much?
-
It's a conspiracy I tell you, a conspiracy!
(http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/203/allieshigh.png)
Viewing this on my phone just noticed the logo :rofl
-
Do we really have to produce the sustained turn equation again? It's a function of the wingloading and, implicitly, both the powerloading (via max bank) and the slope of the CL/CD curve (via the CL at the sustained turn).
In any case, it's hard to tell what you're arguing here, Perv, since it's a fact that the turn rate of the Spit, as well as its radius, are both much better than that of the 190.
Otherwise and with regard to this thread, Holy Necro-Bump Batman!!!
So if both aircraft are turning at 360 mph constant then which aircraft has the smaller turn radius?
Are you saying that under the circumstances I have described the fw190d has not got enough thrust to sustain a turn at a more or less constant speed?
-
Lets hear why. :old:
Because in aerodynamics, there are only two figures of merit that are used to classify turning maneuvers--radius and rate. The FW-190 cannot match the Spitfire in either, especially in sustained turns, but even if instantaneous turning is considered.
-
So if both aircraft are turning at 360 mph constant then which aircraft has the smaller turn radius?
Are you saying that under the circumstances I have described the fw190d has not got enough thrust to sustain a turn at a more or less constant speed?
Neither of these aircraft can produce enough thrust to maintain a 360 mph IAS sustained turn.
-
"Do we really have to produce the sustained turn equation again? It's a function of the wingloading and, implicitly, both the powerloading (via max bank) and the slope of the CL/CD curve (via the CL at the sustained turn)."
Still after years of reading these boards it escapes me how the relative turn performance can be determined accurately only with wing-loading as input for aerodynamic quality. No max AoA taken into account, no max lift, high lift devices, what else?
If the common equation used for this gives the definite answer then IRL a huge, very thin flat plate with 1:1 aspect ratio would be turning better than, say, 6:1 aspect long wing with half the area and a good wing profile. Wouldn't it? IF it doesn't, would it be safe to say that the equation gives an approximation, nothing more, and it is up to the user to interpret how closely two planes can be compared in the first place using that equation?
-C+
-
Neither of these aircraft can produce enough thrust to maintain a 360 mph IAS sustained turn.
If I can get on tonight after work I will knock up a film :salute
-
I found a russian site about the fw190a8 tactics on the eastern front , I was most surprised that according to these russian resources Fw190a8 could outrun / give too slow catchup to prevent guns use.
http://www.airpages.ru/eng/lw/fw190a7.shtml
If you compare that to what Fw190a8 represents in AH , its slower / much slower at the deck, but RL speed gave the 190a8 survivability in many cases
According to the site you linked the AH FW190A8 max speed is correct. The inability to catch them was due to the response time not the aircraft speed. Keep in mind that ground level is not necessarily sea level and temperature affects air density and speed.
-
"Do we really have to produce the sustained turn equation again? It's a function of the wingloading and, implicitly, both the powerloading (via max bank) and the slope of the CL/CD curve (via the CL at the sustained turn)."
Still after years of reading these boards it escapes me how the relative turn performance can be determined accurately only with wing-loading as input for aerodynamic quality. No max AoA taken into account, no max lift, high lift devices, what else?
If the common equation used for this gives the definite answer then IRL a huge, very thin flat plate with 1:1 aspect ratio would be turning better than, say, 6:1 aspect long wing with half the area and a good wing profile. Wouldn't it? IF it doesn't, would it be safe to say that the equation gives an approximation, nothing more, and it is up to the user to interpret how closely two planes can be compared in the first place using that equation?
-C+
It's a linear range equation so, no, the max AoA isn't taken into account. The impact of high lift devices is taken into account via the Cl curve itself. As for your assertion about the aspect ratio, I'd say it's incorrect, given that the slope of the CL vs Cd curve is ideally high and a low AR is going to allow the induced drag to be high. As for the flat plate, maybe, depending on how it's linear range CL vs CD performance compares to a good airfoil (I doubt favorably).
The following is from another post of mine...
Recall that Cl appears in the denom of that sustained turn equation. It'll be the Cl that delivers enough lift at some extreme bank theta max such that you lose no alt. This is where relative drag plays in to making or breaking the fighter. You can express, of course, the Cl as a function of the Cd0 and Cd, right? I.e., Cl = ((Cd-Cd0)/k)^.5. and THAT's ASSUMING WE'RE IN THE LINEAR CD VS CL REGION...
Since sustained turn will go up as Cl required decreases, we want to minimize (Cd-Cd0)/k
Remember that k = 1/(pi*AR*e) so that the denom will grow with AR. Leaving that aside since intuitively pleasing anyway, we can go on. Since Cd0 is a constant and Cd is always going to be greater than Cd0 at positive lift, we can say we want minimal induced drag for the necessary lift, yes? And this is why a Spitfire makes a better fighter than a barn door if both have the same wingloading and powerloading. I.e. you want something with a very healthy d(Cl)/d(Cd) as well as the two aforementioned attributes.
-
If I can get on tonight after work I will knock up a film :salute
Once again, you're not testing any turn here. You're testing speed.
What you are claiming is the same as a P-51 fan claiming the P-51 will climb faster than a Spitfire and then setting the climb speed to 350mph, knowing full well the Spitfire can't climb at that speed. I mean, who cares that the P-51's best climb is ~3400fpm and the Spitfire's best is ~4500fpm if you you can write the test to have a predetermined outcome by changing the "climb" test into a "speed" test. That is what you are doing here. You are changing a "turn" test, which the Fw190 has no chance of being equal to the Spitfire in, to a "speed" test and just calling it a turning test.
-
Or, he's looking at the right hand side of the E-M and talking turn rate at a specific speed... a slightly different idea but one with some merit. Whether or not he's savvy to the E-M, I don't know.
-
Or, he's looking at the right hand side of the E-M and talking turn rate at a specific speed... a slightly different idea but one with some merit. Whether or not he's savvy to the E-M, I don't know.
I think what Charge was trying to say is what I've started saying over and over again now. Excess power available is what allows a Spit or any other aircraft to out turn any other aircraft. Doesn't matter about wing load, power load, or any of those other figures of merit. Even an aircraft that's capable of an extreme Clmax can't do anything with it unless it has the power to do so.
-
Here you go, one big giant turn in a FW190-D sustained at never below 370 mph. ps best up the viewer speed to x2 :rofl
** NOTE ONLY USE FIREFOX BROWSER TO OPEN THIS LINK **
http://www.4shared.com/file/Za-lQ9Ep/370_turn.html (http://www.4shared.com/file/Za-lQ9Ep/370_turn.html)
** NOTE ONLY USE FIREFOX BROWSER TO OPEN THIS LINK **
Neither of these aircraft can produce enough thrust to maintain a 360 mph IAS sustained turn.
How can this be true if I can turn at 370-380 mph?? You can dress it up how you like but it is still a flat turn sustained at over 360 mph.
-
Are you confusing IAS and TAS? The FW190D only goes slightly more than 360 IAS with WEP in a straight line.
-
Are you confusing IAS and TAS? The FW190D only goes slightly more than 360 IAS with WEP in a straight line.
No, he isn't. He is playing BS semantic games.
-
No, he isn't. He is playing BS semantic games.
Your nerd rage amuses me, the original statement of fact was simply a cheeky wee comment but true none the less. Your taking this quite badly I see :rofl
-
Your nerd rage amuses me, the original statement of fact was simply a cheeky wee comment but true none the less. Your taking this quite badly I see :rofl
:rofl
You think I am upset by your inability to be honest? It is actually rather amusing.
-
:rofl
You think I am upset by your inability to be honest? It is actually rather amusing.
Where am I being dishonest?? fact is a spit 8 starting at co E 800 or so off my 6 wouldn't be able to outturn me in the film I don't think he could even sustain that speed to stay in lag of my turn tbh. Tell me what is dishonest about that? I have backed it up with film as well :headscratch:
-
Or, he's looking at the right hand side of the E-M and talking turn rate at a specific speed... a slightly different idea but one with some merit. Whether or not he's savvy to the E-M, I don't know.
He seems to be missing the part where turn rate is speed plus G load and excess power available determines the available G.
-
You are being dishonest by calling it a turn comparison when it is, in fact, a speed comparison. You can do the exact same thing in regards to climb rate, as I pointed out earlier.
Any aircraft that is faster than another could do exactly the same thing. The aircraft's ability to turn is completely irrelevant to the test's outcome.
-
[/quote]You are being dishonest by calling it a turn comparison when it is, in fact, a speed comparison. You can do the exact same thing in regards to climb rate, as I pointed out earlier.
Any aircraft that is faster than another could do exactly the same thing. The aircraft's ability to turn is completely irrelevant to the test's outcome.
Question is the plane in the film I supplied turning????
-
Question is the plane in the film I supplied turning????
As noted, that is completely irrelevant.
-
As noted, that is completely irrelevant.
So you are going to deny that the film I supplied is not in fact making a turn at over 370 mph?? :rolleyes: it is kind of critical to my first statement that started this :lol
A FW190-D can equal a continuous turn on the deck with a Spitfire! that is a fact :old: :airplane: :joystick:
-
So you are going to deny that the film I supplied is not in fact making a turn at over 370 mph?? :rolleyes: it is kind of critical to my first statement that started this :lol
No, and I never needed the film, nor have I watched it, as I knew what you were describing. You are converting a small amount of the aircraft's power into a slight turn, essentially using the excess power at 360mph to turn. The Spitfire Mk VIII, not able to go that fast, has no excess power to convert to a turn at that speed. I am assuming the tests are on the deck.
That is not a test of an aircraft's turning capability, it is a test of its speed capability. Any aircraft that is faster, no matter how poor it may be in terms of max degrees per second turn rate or minimum turn radius, would be able to do that in a test against a slower aircraft. It has nothing to do with the aircraft's ability to turn.
-
No, and I never needed the film, nor have I watched it, as I knew what you were describing. You are converting a small amount of the aircraft's power into a slight turn, essentially using the excess power at 360mph to turn. The Spitfire Mk VIII, not able to go that fast, has no excess power to convert to a turn at that speed. I am assuming the tests are on the deck.
That is not a test of an aircraft's turning capability, it is a test of its speed capability. Any aircraft that is faster, no matter how poor it may be in terms of max degrees per second turn rate or minimum turn radius, would be able to do that in a test against a slower aircraft. It has nothing to do with the aircraft's ability to turn.
This should have been your first response and I was expecting someone to guess that straight away, yes the turn is more or less flat on the deck maybe 30 feet above the sea in the TA. I never specified what circumstances this would happen under or subscribed to a strict testing method, I'm a simple man and to me that is a turn albeit unconventional to your testing methods, the end result is the same.
-
It was obvious what you were doing the moment you gave the speed of the sustained turn.
-
It was obvious what you were doing the moment you gave the speed of the sustained turn.
So why all the deception talk? I actually think its quite a useful thing to know and helpful in game. I personally think conventional turn rate is overrated in game. Seems on the boards every discussion is about how well something can turn conventionally. To me it shows a lack of imagination.
-
So why all the deception talk? I actually think its quite a useful thing to know and helpful in game. I personally think conventional turn rate is overrated in game. Seems on the boards every discussion is about how well something can turn conventionally. To me it shows a lack of imagination.
How would it not be known? It is self evident. Same as the climb example I gave earlier with the P-51 and Spitfire.
-
This should have been your first response and I was expecting someone to guess that straight away, yes the turn is more or less flat on the deck maybe 30 feet above the sea in the TA. I never specified what circumstances this would happen under or subscribed to a strict testing method, I'm a simple man and to me that is a turn albeit unconventional to your testing methods, the end result is the same.
Pervert, I can't watch the film from work, how did you avoid the spit from getting its nose pointed in front of yours and firing off its guns to kill ya. I mean so you were turning at a faster speed but the spit doesn't need to turn going as fast, he just needs it get his nose pointed in front with enough deflection to pop off the shot.
-
This should have been your first response and I was expecting someone to guess that straight away, yes the turn is more or less flat on the deck maybe 30 feet above the sea in the TA. I never specified what circumstances this would happen under or subscribed to a strict testing method, I'm a simple man and to me that is a turn albeit unconventional to your testing methods, the end result is the same.
So you dove to the deck and used the speed from the dive and you're calling that a sustained turn? In other words you can't sustain a turn at 360mph IAS in a FW190D, as Stony already pointed out. You demonstrated that you have the speed to run away from a Spitfire as Karnak pointed out. You used your imagination and you imagined something.
-
So why all the deception talk? I actually think its quite a useful thing to know and helpful in game. I personally think conventional turn rate is overrated in game. Seems on the boards every discussion is about how well something can turn conventionally. To me it shows a lack of imagination.
Perv, I'm not going to flame you or Karnak. You're both talking past each other, using different currencies, as it were. However, I will submit to you the following fascinating tutorial on the E_M, as posted by The Godfather, Leon "BadBoy" Smith (or, as I say, Smiff). This will show you of what Karnak speaks. As for your assertions, I see no untruth to them - true enough, at certain speeds, the F-dub has a sustained turn capability the Spitty can't match - because it can't fly at those speeds.
It's a pretty dense two pages, not expecially heavy on the maths, but is invaluable... Read and be amazed at what Da Godfatha is putting down.
http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_011a.html
-
How would it not be known? It is self evident. Same as the climb example I gave earlier with the P-51 and Spitfire.
Apparently not it would seem, I will try and get some MA time in and show you how it can be useful outnumbered in a FW190 D9
Pervert, I can't watch the film from work, how did you avoid the spit from getting its nose pointed in front of yours and firing off its guns to kill ya. I mean so you were turning at a faster speed but the spit doesn't need to turn going as fast, he just needs it get his nose pointed in front with enough deflection to pop off the shot.
This one I made up tonight for this thread, the answer to that is to stay out of effective guns range 800yds I find with this sort of turn more than effective even with 6-7 plus shooting. Should be really doing more filming I have been having a lot of success using this as a base in the last few months I am being ganged situations to drain planes of their E on the deck then baiting them for the shot and spiral/roll climbing popping a few on the way down and building my E advantage over them again.
This seems to work so well because the pursuing cons are all pulling lead and therefore burning more E, some of them even lose patience and try and cut across the circle and lose even more E for a short term speculative guns solution, they rejoin the circle and fall into a worse position than before.
The longer this goes on the worse it seems for the opponent and the harder they have to turn to keep in range, MA realistically the most turns I have ever had to make is 2 one is usually enough but it all depends on whats joining the fight.
-
So you dove to the deck and used the speed from the dive and you're calling that a sustained turn? In other words you can't sustain a turn at 360mph IAS in a FW190D, as Stony already pointed out. You demonstrated that you have the speed to run away from a Spitfire as Karnak pointed out. You used your imagination and you imagined something.
I could repost a film starting from say 100 mph you will just have to watch for a hell of a lot longer to see it reach over 370 but it will eventually, think I made what 3 turns in that film at that speed? Considering it is 10 minutes long you couldn't hold on to that speed for that length of time in a turn.
I could simply get up to my top speed on the deck and do it all again, have you even watched the film btw? it sounds like you haven't.
-
Perv, I'm not going to flame you or Karnak. You're both talking past each other, using different currencies, as it were. However, I will submit to you the following fascinating tutorial on the E_M, as posted by The Godfather, Leon "BadBoy" Smith (or, as I say, Smiff). This will show you of what Karnak speaks. As for your assertions, I see no untruth to them - true enough, at certain speeds, the F-dub has a sustained turn capability the Spitty can't match - because it can't fly at those speeds.
It's a pretty dense two pages, not expecially heavy on the maths, but is invaluable... Read and be amazed at what Da Godfatha is putting down.
http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_011a.html
Is this wormzilla btw? I'm frankly quite surprised at all these respectable figures ganging up on poor pervert here :rofl its like the MA all over again. I think I would punch myself in the face if I got to heavily into all this FM stuff, I go by what I can and cannot do in a plane then find away around what I cannot do. Will have a read at that might already have done so.
-
I saw the film. You pulled 1 to 1.5 G to keep the drag down and you still were losing speed throughout the first turn when you weren't slowly descending. You demonstrated that you're faster than a Spitfire. You did not demonstrate that you were matching a Spitfire's sustained turn rate which was your assertion.
The fact that you can rope people in a turn does not prove your claim that a 190D can sustain a turn with a Spitfire. Any aircraft can turn poorly when it's turned too hard. That says nothing about the actual relative turning ability between two aircraft.
You did stay above 360 though, I'll grant you that. :D
You aren't being ganged up on, the point is that certain terms have specific meanings and it can be confusing for people when those terms are used creatively.
-
I saw the film. You pulled 1 to 1.5 G to keep the drag down and you still were losing speed throughout the first turn when you weren't slowly descending. You demonstrated that you're faster than a Spitfire. You did not demonstrate that you were matching a Spitfire's sustained turn rate which was your assertion.
The fact that you can rope people in a turn does not prove your claim that a 190D can sustain a turn with a Spitfire. Any aircraft can turn poorly when it's turned too hard. That says nothing about the actual relative turning ability between two aircraft.
You did stay above 360 though, I'll grant you that. :D
You aren't being ganged up on, the point is that certain terms have specific meanings and it can be confusing for people when those terms are used creatively.
Actually I wasn't pulling at all really I will post another film tomorrow starting from say 100 mph and repeat it closer to the ground, although altitude I believe in the first film is not a factor to my speed throughout the turn.
-
Apparently not it would seem, I will try and get some MA time in and show you how it can be useful outnumbered in a FW190 D9
There is no need to show me anything. It is a tactic I have used many times in faster aircraft.
However, I would never conflate it to mean I was out turning anything. When using this tactic you are out running somebody.
-
Actually I wasn't pulling at all really I will post another film tomorrow starting from say 100 mph and repeat it closer to the ground, although altitude I believe in the first film is not a factor to my speed throughout the turn.
Pulling or trimmed it's all the same AoA. You can actually pull about 1.8 G in the 190D and still sustain 360 mph and you'll see a much higher turn rate and still outrun a Spitfire. I was off on the speed before because I was thinking of the 190A8. My bad. It doesn't change the fact that you aren't demonstrating " A FW190-D can equal a continuous turn on the deck with a Spitfire! that is a fact". Any two aircraft at the same speed and G load will turn at the same rate and radius. But in a sustained turn where you are trying to out turn each other the Spitfire has a higher max turn rate because it has more available G at any given speed up to corner speed.
-
There is no need to show me anything. It is a tactic I have used many times in faster aircraft.
However, I would never conflate it to mean I was out turning anything. When using this tactic you are out running somebody.
I never said it out turned the spit, you keep adding that bit in. Are you having problems reading what I type?
-
Is this
A FW190-D can equal a continuous turn on the deck with a Spitfire! that is a fact".
Not another way to word this?
Any two aircraft at the same speed and G load will turn at the same rate and radius.
The reason you still think this is still wrong is because you believe that you cannot sustain the speed I have proved you can in the film. Not only did I demonstrate it you just used
Any two aircraft at the same speed and G load will turn at the same rate and radius.
to dismiss
A FW190-D can equal a continuous turn on the deck with a Spitfire! that is a fact".
they are pretty much the same thing
But in a sustained turn where you are trying to out turn each other the Spitfire has a higher max turn rate because it has more available G at any given speed up to corner speed.
Yeah I already knew that, your trying to prove something based on an assumption that is not mentioned in my original statement.
-
No, Perv, it's not wormzilla. I'm a far less respectable figure of about 2 years experience (I struggle to maintain 1:1 in my G-14) - but I am credentialed and the reason you need to look at the E-Ms, and why Karnak and FLS could use to as well, is the key word MAX.
See, FLS in his last statement said "No way you can match the max turn rate on a Spitty in a 190D-9. " This is absolutely true. However, if you look at this plot: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,310017.msg4023999.html#msg4023999 and consider the example of the Hurri 1 and the 109E, you will see that, at 275mph, the 109 can do about 10 dps and the Hurri can't do anything - it's out of speed at the diagram alt. Even at 250 mph, the 109E can outturn - sustained, the Hurri 1. This is a bit of a counterintuitive result but lies at the heart of past USAF tactics - is, indeed, what the nation that produces poor angle fighters but great energy fighters (at least in past) has deployed.
I'm not a part of any gang that includes you or those two. I don't like turns in the barrel. I'm just a shining crusader for truth and enlightenment.
What I'd like to see right now is an appearance by Badboy with a comparative E-M for the D-9 and Spitty 9.
-
No, Perv, it's not wormzilla. I'm a far less respectable figure of about 2 years experience (I struggle to maintain 1:1 in my G-14) - but I am credentialed and the reason you need to look at the E-Ms, and why Karnak and FLS could use to as well, is the key word MAX.
See, FLS in his last statement said "No way you can match the max turn rate on a Spitty in a 190D-9. " This is absolutely true. However, if you look at this plot: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,310017.msg4023999.html#msg4023999 and consider the example of the Hurri 1 and the 109E, you will see that, at 275mph, the 109 can do about 10 dps and the Hurri can't do anything - it's out of speed at the diagram alt. Even at 250 mph, the 109E can outturn - sustained, the Hurri 1. This is a bit of a counterintuitive result but lies at the heart of past USAF tactics - is, indeed, what the nation that produces poor angle fighters but great energy fighters (at least in past) has deployed.
I'm not a part of any gang that includes you or those two. I don't like turns in the barrel. I'm just a shining crusader for truth and enlightenment.
What I'd like to see right now is an appearance by Badboy with a comparative E-M for the D-9 and Spitty 9.
I'll have to read it tomorrow matey I have a 12 hour shift in 6 hours and need some sleep will continue tomorrow, wouldn't take the gang thing to seriously :rofl too many zillas round these days in my day there was only 1 godzilla! and he wore a rubber suit :old: :old:
-
Yeah I already knew that, your trying to prove something based on an assumption that is not mentioned in my original statement.
Well if that's all you meant to say you are correct. A Spitfire pilot can choose to let a FW190 match his turn rate. :D
-
What I'd like to see right now is an appearance by Badboy with a comparative E-M for the D-9 and Spitty 9.
This is a Spit 5 vs a 190A5 but I think it will make your point PJ.
(http://www2.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/853fd5b09dc045d940570bae0924b79cfdace5dbb8e9e5c38be3b6e15efd0e235g.jpg) (http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=szy4lzh4mpqpvrt&thumb=4)
-
Thanks, FLS. We can see, in the case of the A5 and Spitty 5, that, yes indeed, the a-5 can beat the Spitty 5 sustained turn rate between 250 and the Spitty's max.
In terms of max sustained, though, it's all Spitty - and at a much lower speed.
-
See, FLS in his last statement said "No way you can match the max turn rate on a Spitty in a 190D-9. " This is absolutely true. However, if you look at this plot: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,310017.msg4023999.html#msg4023999 and consider the example of the Hurri 1 and the 109E, you will see that, at 275mph, the 109 can do about 10 dps and the Hurri can't do anything - it's out of speed at the diagram alt. Even at 250 mph, the 109E can outturn - sustained, the Hurri 1. This is a bit of a counterintuitive result but lies at the heart of past USAF tactics - is, indeed, what the nation that produces poor angle fighters but great energy fighters (at least in past) has deployed.
You can't really say that the Hurri can't do anything at it's top speed of 260 if the 109 is going 275. The Hurri can easily pull 2.2G and slow down to 245 and maintain 10 dps with a smaller radius than the 109 making 7 dps at 275 or 10 dps at 260.
Thanks, FLS. We can see, in the case of the A5 and Spitty 5, that, yes indeed, the a-5 can beat the Spitty 5 sustained turn rate between 250 and the Spitty's max.
In terms of max sustained, though, it's all Spitty - and at a much lower speed.
We see this differently. The Spitfire can pull 6G at 250 and maintain 6G until it hits 200 where it can sustain a 3G turn at 18 dps. Even though it ends up slower it still has a higher sustained rate and smaller radius than the 190 at any turn rate the 190 can sustain. The 190 loses the 6G ability at 250 and can only sustain 18 dps at 160 mph. Above 250 the Spitfire still has the choice of letting the 190 match or exceed it's turn rate but it always has the option of out turning the 190 by pulling harder up to 6G or slowing down
-
Pervert, I can't watch the film from work, how did you avoid the spit from getting its nose pointed in front of yours and firing off its guns to kill ya. I mean so you were turning at a faster speed but the spit doesn't need to turn going as fast, he just needs it get his nose pointed in front with enough deflection to pop off the shot.
Its the eagle claw!
-
Perv, here's a good link that talks about the two types of turn rates. You'll see that neither agree with the maneuver you performed in your film. http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/instturn/instturn.htm
Terminology is important--I'll leave it at that. If you had said that a FW-190 could outrun a Spit while performing low-g maneuvers, we would have all said "heck yes'.
-
Perv, here's a good link that talks about the two types of turn rates. You'll see that neither agree with the maneuver you performed in your film. http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/instturn/instturn.htm
Terminology is important--I'll leave it at that. If you had said that a FW-190 could outrun a Spit while performing low-g maneuvers, we would have all said "heck yes'.
Actually your wrong, it is still a turn the spit and fw are still in the same place, the spit in the middle of this turn pulling lead is stuck there unable to get within guns range. If the spit perfectly followed the few line of turn you could also say if both keep turning the fw is catching the spit.
-
You can't really say that the Hurri can't do anything at it's top speed of 260 if the 109 is going 275.
We see this differently. The Spitfire can pull 6G at 250 and maintain 6G until it hits 200 where it can sustain a 3G turn at 18 dps.
What I said was quite clear. I said between 250 and the Spitty's max (approx), the 190a-5 has a higher sustained turn rate. You're talking about transient maneuvers, about which I said nothing. What you state above is true enough, so I don't think we "see this differently" either. My statement was properly qualified and absolutely true, per the plot. What you're talking about is what the logical Spitty driver will do and is typical of combat.
-
What I said was quite clear. I said between 250 and the Spitty's max (approx), the 190a-5 has a higher sustained turn rate. You're talking about transient maneuvers, about which I said nothing. What you state above is true enough, so I don't think we "see this differently" either. My statement was properly qualified and absolutely true, per the plot. What you're talking about is what the logical Spitty driver will do and is typical of combat.
I just wanted to clarify that the Hurri and Spit are only at a disadvantage if they feel compelled to maintain their speed at the expense of turn rate. I didn't think that was clear to everyone that might read this. I wasn't saying you were wrong about the plot but your statement that the Hurri couldn't do anything at 275 was misleading. I'm sure you meant that it couldn't level turn and still maintain 275 but I wasn't sure that was clear to everyone else.
-
Actually your wrong, it is still a turn the spit and fw are still in the same place, the spit in the middle of this turn pulling lead is stuck there unable to get within guns range. If the spit perfectly followed the few line of turn you could also say if both keep turning the fw is catching the spit.
So your contention is that the turn rate of the FW190 is greater than the Spit?
-
Actually your wrong, it is still a turn the spit and fw are still in the same place, the spit in the middle of this turn pulling lead is stuck there unable to get within guns range. If the spit perfectly followed the few line of turn you could also say if both keep turning the fw is catching the spit.
That hole is getting mighty deep. When you break thru, be sure to try the local eggrolls.
-
So your contention is that the turn rate of the FW190 is greater than the Spit?
Never said that you are dealing in absolutes and ignoring the fact that the film I posted is in fact a turn, what you have posted I already know and did know before I posted my original statement. The difference is it use very little G go look at the film and tell me the plane is not turning or that it is not making a circle.
As for the outrun comment well I'd have to still disagree since the plane isn't going anywhere but a circle, if it is inside the FW's circle and is a slower plane depending on how its turning it never really leaves and neither does the FW its a stalemate. Done this with rollover and hawker tonight in the TA hawker in a spit 16 and rollover in a spit 8 hawker pretty much pulled lead in his turn consitant and fluctuated between 800 and 1.5k rollover in the spit 8 took the option of constantly cutting the corners to start with then pulled lead it was the same result.
That hole is getting mighty deep. When you break thru, be sure to try the local eggrolls.
I think its pretty funny seeing a bunch of FM guys deny a circle is a circle and that you make that circle by turning, go watch the film yourself if the FW is not turning and making a circle in the process I will go eat an eggroll! :rofl
Think the problem here is it does not fit into the terminology as stoney puts it, that doesn't make it any less true nor does it change any of the other truths they believe I am attempting to violate.
p.s good fights tonight FLS :salute
-
pervert,
It is because you are using incorrect terminology to describe what you are doing. Terms have specific definitions, but you aren't using those definitions.
-
Look Perv. The field of aerodynamics uses very specific terminology in order to define things that are otherwise very difficult to define. Its kind of like economics, where every model has assumptions that exclude some variables in order to illuminate a specific characteristic of the problem being examined. For the sake of this argument, you either work inside that terminology or you don't. If you don't, then you aren't proving anything from an aerodynamics perspective. This is merely for your cultural literacy--take it or leave it.
-
Actually your wrong, it is still a turn the spit and fw are still in the same place, the spit in the middle of this turn pulling lead is stuck there unable to get within guns range. If the spit perfectly followed the few line of turn you could also say if both keep turning the fw is catching the spit.
What if the Spitfire flies the same circle (radius, actually), but in the opposite direction? As you approach each other, he high yoo-yoos onto your six and shoots off your winkie.. Then what?
Within the test flight community, I believe that the standard for measuring turn radius was a sustained 3g turn. You're not pulling even a tenth of a g.. Thus, you're simply demonstrating that you can fly a very large circle faster. But, that's not turning per se.
I've seen your logic used before. A now deceased friend of mine was a member of the AVG (Erik Shilling). Erik used to argue that his Tomahawk could out-climb a Ki-43. He used the example of establishing a climb rate at 250 mph. The Ki-43 could not match the climb rate at that same speed. Thus, Erik argued that he was out-climbing the Japanese fighter. The fact is that at their best rate of climb, the Ki-43 gains altitude considerably faster than a Tomahawk could hope to. Erik, like you, was attempting to change the definition to suit his argument.
-
"Erik used to argue that his Tomahawk could out-climb a Ki-43. He used the example of establishing a climb rate at 250 mph. The Ki-43 could not match the climb rate at that same speed."
If climb rate is a good indication of turn ability would it be safe to say that at that speed the Tomahawk could eventually out-turn Ki43 with higher rate of turn? Of course it would be stupid for the Ki to remain at that speed and not turn inside the Th's turn to achieve its best turn performance. But if he did try to turn inside the Th wouldn't the Ki slow down to his best turn speed (as indicated by climb speed) which would be lower than that of Th and at that speed the turn rate would still determine who is out-turning who regardless of circle diameter. Generally it is hard not to at least match that same turn rate once you slow down a lower wing loaded plane with smaller turning circle.
In practice the Th would roll to the opposite direction when he sees that the Ki is cutting the corner and leave the circle with better E that the Ki?
-C+
-
If climb rate is a good indication of turn ability...
Climb rate is determined by excess power available only. Turn rate is also dependent on load factor, so I don't think you should correlate the two...
A comparatively heavy aircraft with a ton of power available can climb like a scalded dog and be capable of tremendous outright speed, and yet suffer from a poor turn rate. And, like WW said, he wasn't really achieving "best rate of climb" at 275mph...
I think someone already used the F-104 as an example, but its appropriate in this situation as well.
-
What if the Spitfire flies the same circle (radius, actually), but in the opposite direction? As you approach each other, he high yoo-yoos onto your six and shoots off your winkie.. Then what?
Your expanding on this quite a lot and not taking the statement for what it is. You are trying to change a strict described situation that works by changing only the parts that makes it fail, ie the situation you described above. I could just as easily say why not have the FW turn back towards the spit seeing he is going in the other direction, climb, fly of the map or countless other options.
Within the test flight community, I believe that the standard for measuring turn radius was a sustained 3g turn. You're not pulling even a tenth of a g.. Thus, you're simply demonstrating that you can fly a very large circle faster. But, that's not turning per se.
This I believe is the crux of the reason of why certain people here won't accept that a low G turn is a turn, but lets not go nuts here widewing the turn I did is a turn and does form a circle. It just does not fit into whats accepted as relevent to air combat by whoever laid out the conditions of it.
I guess the ultimate question for validity is "Is performing a very low G turn or turning on roll a valid or useful thing to have in the MA" In my opinion I'd say yes but like anything in air combat only when the situation requires it. I have used it to escape from gangings countless times rather than just fly off in a straight line I can stay in the vicinity of were ever the fight is and still stay 10 mph or less of my top speed. In a plane that doesn't turn well at low speed this is a good thing.
But, that's not turning per se.
That Is pretty much covered by the 'can' part of my original statement..it was intentionally left that way intially as a joke but a true one, although of very limited use.
Erik, like you, was attempting to change the definition to suit his argument.
Give that man an eggroll :rofl :rolleyes: problem is under those conditions it is also true. The 3 G min limit for testing was something I was unaware of which explains why Stoney coming off with a statement like
Neither of these aircraft can produce enough thrust to maintain a 360 mph IAS sustained turn.
Made no sense to me as I knew I could do it at over 370 and sustain it, according to your flight testing rules this sort of turn would be impossible to make. But I'd encourage you to look past that and realise that it is a circle and the only way to form that is to turn, trying to say a plane is not turning when you can see it do that on film is a bit ridiculous frankly. Trying then to re define it within your flight testing rules as running away is a matter of convenient perspective on your part the 2 planes are going nowhere but around in circles.
-
Look Perv. The field of aerodynamics uses very specific terminology in order to define things that are otherwise very difficult to define. Its kind of like economics, where every model has assumptions that exclude some variables in order to illuminate a specific characteristic of the problem being examined. For the sake of this argument, you either work inside that terminology or you don't. If you don't, then you aren't proving anything from an aerodynamics perspective. This is merely for your cultural literacy--take it or leave it.
I understand what your trying to say here Stoney but if its useful in game for me to make a low G sustained turn why should I limit myself by the rules of flight testing? It is literally G of a turn at its extreme low end. Why would that need to be excluded if in certain situations it can help you out?
-
Pervert I think the main source of confusion here is that you were stating you could match the Spit turn rate ( you can't :D ) and what you were showing was an advantage from your speed in a low G turn if the Spit chose to match your turn rate. :old:
Fun flying in the TA. :cheers:
-
I understand what your trying to say here Stoney but if its useful in game for me to make a low G sustained turn why should I limit myself by the rules of flight testing? It is literally G of a turn at its extreme low end. Why would that need to be excluded if in certain situations it can help you out?
No one is saying you should limit yourself. We are saying you should use the correct terms to describe what you are doing.
-
I understand what your trying to say here Stoney but if its useful in game for me to make a low G sustained turn why should I limit myself by the rules of flight testing? It is literally G of a turn at its extreme low end. Why would that need to be excluded if in certain situations it can help you out?
By no means was I saying don't do it. Its a valid way to gain separation in a FW-190. I was merely trying to get you to understand what your statement meant in aerodynamic terms--nothing else.
-
Oops, sorry for using wrong terminology from my part too.
As turn rate means degrees per second the Th in Th/Ki example does not have higher turn rate than Ki I merely suggested that it's just able to fly a low G circle faster than Ki. But is that true?
What I mean is that if HWL (high wing loaded plane) stays at low G it will produce less parasitic drag while maneuvering compared to LWL at same speed (if we consider thrust and weight to be the same with these a/c)?
If that is not the case then there is practically no sense in putting a small wing to an aircraft as it will always be inferior in everything except drag creation at low level flight and at higher altitudes it is worse even in that sense?
When looking at FW190A8 it seems that 2000HP is not producing same speeds as its allied contemporaries with less HP. What is wrong then, propeller, form drag, too small wing?
-C+
-
"When looking at FW190A8 it seems that 2000HP is not producing same speeds as its allied contemporaries with less HP. What is wrong then, propeller, form drag, too small wing?"
According to Baumer, in a previous thread he proved, with orginal documents , the Fw190a8 to be considerably overweight in Aces High.
I also suspect we have the most basic version, without paddle propeller etc.
-
Oops, sorry for using wrong terminology from my part too.
As turn rate means degrees per second the Th in Th/Ki example does not have higher turn rate than Ki I merely suggested that it's just able to fly a low G circle faster than Ki. But is that true?
I would assume so. P-40 should be faster than a Ki-43, so theoretically it could use a similar technique as what Perv showed in his film. Any near-1G maneuvering will focus on the speed of the aircraft, rather than its turn ability, for example.
What I mean is that if HWL (high wing loaded plane) stays at low G it will produce less parasitic drag while maneuvering compared to LWL at same speed (if we consider thrust and weight to be the same with these a/c)?
When you say HWL, are you assuming that wing area is the same, and its merely weight that's increasing the wing load? Because that makes a huge difference. Also, IN GENERAL, maneuvering doesn't create parasitic drag. That's a constant in almost all cases, unless you drop flaps, drop the gear, or hold your arm out of the cockpit. :) Induced drag, on the other hand, and form drag to a certain extent, are the culprits when considering the effects of maneuvering on drag. In a hard turn, the Cdi goes through the roof, and while a HWL aircraft may have a low Cdi at high speed and flying straight and level, its Cdi in a hard turn will be enormous, comparatively speaking, in conditions of hard turning, climbing, or low dynamic pressure conditions (i.e. high altitude anything, or sea level slow speeds).
If that is not the case then there is practically no sense in putting a small wing to an aircraft as it will always be inferior in everything except drag creation at low level flight and at higher altitudes it is worse even in that sense?
Well, I suppose it depends on the mission of the aircraft and the tactics used. Japanese design philosophy of the era concentrated on "furball" type dogfighting ability, and so they made light, lightly wing-loaded aircraft that turned on a dime. In doing so, they accepted the tradeoff that meant their aircraft were slow and practically unarmored. If you're designing an "interceptor" type aircraft, that has design criteria that focus on speed and don't intend for them to maneuver hard, then small wings that reduce drag are logical. Even today, a lot of the newer, high-technology GA airplanes that have hit the scene in the last 10-15 years, like the Lancair aircraft, have high wing-loading so that they can achieve higher cruise speeds. And, our current military fighters, to some extent, use tiny wings matched with enormous amounts of thrust (and complex control surface systems) to achieve both very high speeds and some measure of maneuverability. Remember that the FW-190 series shares similar turning qualities as the most "successful" U.S. fighters like the P-47, P-51, etc. in a clean condition. The biggest difference for the 190 is that it doesn't develop nearly the amount of power at high altitudes as the Jug or Pony. Personally, I see some serious genius in Tank's design, its just that, in my opinion, the powerplants (excepting the 190D to some extent) were underpowered compared to their U.S. peers. If he'd had a 2800 HP powerplant available, like the R-2800 C series, late in the war, the late model FW-190As would be different beasts entirely.
When looking at FW190A8 it seems that 2000HP is not producing same speeds as its allied contemporaries with less HP. What is wrong then, propeller, form drag, too small wing?
It all boils down to power available vs. power required. The P-47, for example, performs so well at altitude, not because of its aerodynamic properties (its still big and heavy), but because its still making sea-level power at 30,000 feet. The Merlin doesn't maintain nearly as much power at the same altitude, but because of the aerodynamic properties of the aircraft, the P-51 still has the excess power necessary to perform at high altitude. Unfortunately for the 190A series, both its aerodynamic properties (small wing) and its powerplant suffer at altitude. And, at sea level, the FW-190 is much more competitive with both aircraft, even though its aerodynamic properties still create issues with respect to turning.
I've glossed over some details here, but in general, this, in my opinion, is both the reason why Tank designed the plane the way he did, and also the reason it performs the way it does.
-
In a hard turn, the Cdi goes through the roof, and while a HWL aircraft may have a low Cdi at high speed and flying straight and level, its Cdi in a hard turn will be enormous, comparatively speaking, in conditions of hard turning, climbing, or low dynamic pressure conditions (i.e. high altitude anything, or sea level slow speeds).
QFT. Elaborating on Stoney's statement, recall that Cdi = kCl^2. Turning a highly wingloaded ac means the required Cl will be quite high, comparatively, since the lift needed to maintain the turn will be much greater than weight, given that the ac is banked. Further, because of the high wingloading and because that lift will be a function of dyn press, ref area, and Cl, The induced is going to be like throwing out an anchor.
Perve's intuitive approach is entirely correct - don't turn that monster much. That's a big part of the reason I've left the Dora, mostly. The temptation to stay locked on Spitty's six is overwhelming - and a good way to get killed.
-
What I'm trying to undestand is that is there some amount of turn where the small wing is more efficient than a bigger one. I'm not talking about a break turn of 4-6Gs but something up to 3Gs, highest, as it seems that at those accelerations 190s can still be quite competitive without dumping too much energy. Or is the negative effect of wingloading purely linear to G loading meaning that e.g. the negative effects of high wing loading of A8 is just not that evident in smaller G loads?
Coincidentally I have noticed that my survival rate in dogfight is doubled when I lose the other elevator in A8...
-C+
-
http://youtu.be/Vjk9Ux2COx0
The advantage of this movie is that it uses drifting particles to visualize the flow instead of smoke. Smoke trails tend to stick to the laminar flow and do not highlight the rotational flow behind the wing. Some of the smoke is sheared and enter the vortex, but then it is well mixed and look like uniform faint haze, so it is hard to see - this is why it is named "separation" of the air flow. The air does not really leave the wing (no vacuum over it which would actually increase lift..) it is the smoke lines used in wind tunnels that give this impression.
The transition in many cases is not as sudden as you might think. The large circular patters on the trailing edge starts to wobble and small vortices break off of it before it is completely destroyed. This instability is part of the buffeting. You can see it in this movie (this time with smoke, notice the difference in what you see vs. the other movie):
http://youtu.be/6UlsArvbTeo
These films are really interesting and I wanted to point out the backwards terminology of aerodynamics. This is because we see what's happening from the perspective of the aircraft. If we look at it the alternative way, from the perspective of the air or a otherwise stationary object, we may gain a better understanding of what is actually going on. In the second film, the air volume above the wing is not actually moving faster but is less affected by the wing than the air volume below the stagnation point. Pressure builds up below the wing and this simply slows the air down (the wing is in the way), actually the aircraft drag this air along with it (accelerating it if you will) for some distance before letting go of it as the pressure drop, that generates lift as well as drag. The lower pressure above the wing is less able to affect that body of air, and so much less drag is induced from the air volume above the wing.
That aircraft has the least drag which is able to pass through any given body of air and affect it (disturb it) the least.
In this context all tractor prop configurations are really bad because of the dirty nature of the prop disc and slipstream effect over fuselage and wing(s).
If I recall this correctly the first versions of the 190 outturned the 109. It must have been the 109 E/F model at that time, and the first production run models of the Anton which are in question. As the 190 was burdened with heavier armament and armor, performance suffered profoundly. The 190 was not a big aircraft by any standards, and any additional weight had huge impact on wing loading.
-
I found a russian site about the fw190a8 tactics on the eastern front , I was most surprised that according to these russian resources Fw190a8 could outrun / give too slow catchup to prevent guns use.
http://www.airpages.ru/eng/lw/fw190a7.shtml
If you compare that to what Fw190a8 represents in AH , its slower / much slower at the deck, but RL speed gave the 190a8 survivability in many cases.
Can't say with a high degree of certainty, but this 'might' be because of the generally poor condition of the frontline VVS fighters. They were not built as factory prototypes nor maintained and operated as such. This is the vice of russian engineering and always has been. They can build excellent prototypes and tech demonstrators but when it comes to series production quality and field manintenance standards it's a different story.
-
From what I understand, changing the simulation for the sake of playability is one of the things that doomed Warbirds.
You can add 'Fighter Ace' to that list.
-
You can add 'Fighter Ace' to that list.
See, they should put each type in a row and have several rows of differnet types. You, in your "fighter" would move left or right to shoot these rows as they get closer and closer. If they get all the way to your "fighter", you lose that fighter. If you shoot the special flashing fighter, you power up with extra BFG's under your wings - and they'll annihilate all of the enemy "fighters". If you do this, you go to the "next level" where you're now facing rows of "attack aircraft". Now THAT'S historical realism.
And, oh yeah, you need like a hyperspace button so that the dude with the faygo redpop and the bong and twinkies can hit it if he gets in trouble.
-
Personally, I see some serious genius in Tank's design, its just that, in my opinion, the powerplants (excepting the 190D to some extent) were underpowered compared to their U.S. peers. If he'd had a 2800 HP powerplant available, like the R-2800 C series, late in the war, the late model FW-190As would be different beasts entirely.
QFT
Simply put, Tank had the engine late in the war, but not the time.
-
"When looking at FW190A8 it seems that 2000HP is not producing same speeds as its allied contemporaries with less HP. What is wrong then, propeller, form drag, too small wing?"
According to Baumer, in a previous thread he proved, with orginal documents , the Fw190a8 to be considerably overweight in Aces High.
I also suspect we have the most basic version, without paddle propeller etc.
Dunno if the paddle propeller would help it, speedwise. On the Mosquito all it did was increase acceleration at low speeds, top speed was the same with both the paddle bladed and needle bladed props.
-
What I'm trying to undestand is that is there some amount of turn where the small wing is more efficient than a bigger one. I'm not talking about a break turn of 4-6Gs but something up to 3Gs, highest, as it seems that at those accelerations 190s can still be quite competitive without dumping too much energy. Or is the negative effect of wingloading purely linear to G loading meaning that e.g. the negative effects of high wing loading of A8 is just not that evident in smaller G loads?
Coincidentally I have noticed that my survival rate in dogfight is doubled when I lose the other elevator in A8...
-C+
I don't know enough to answer this one yes or no. I think that if power and aspect ratio is held constant, the answer would be "no". The impact the load factor has on the Cdi is too great. Fighting it as light as possible will certainly help performance the most. I know when I used to take up 190s, I'd almost always carry only the normal 2X20mm load to reduce weight as much as possible. Gliders use very high aspect ratio wings, while keeping wing area as small as possible, in order to achieve reductions in both induced and parasitic drag, but they aren't subject to the same requirements as a normal, powered aircraft. The power is the key up to stall AoA. A P-47M with only about 1/4 tank and half the ammo remaining gets pretty sprightly with 2800 HP behind it, even though its wingloading at takeoff weight is about the same or worse than a 190.
Perhaps there could be some sort of trade study conducted to determine the "optimum" condition for an aircraft based on that 3G turn restriction, but I don't know yet that I'm capable of figuring that out. I know there was a period when I was doing the initial design layout of my Formula 1 aircraft where I was trying to determine the proper tradeoff between a number of factors in order to create the optimal design for the Formula 1 course at Reno, but I failed to determine how best to do it. So, I merely settled on making it weigh as little as possible.
Good questions though Charge! :aok
-
Dunno if the paddle propeller would help it, speedwise. On the Mosquito all it did was increase acceleration at low speeds, top speed was the same with both the paddle bladed and needle bladed props.
Typically broad chord propellers give a bigger boost to climb rate. They sometimes can even knock a few mph off of top speed. So, I doubt the paddle-blade would help top speed or turn that much.
-
Typically broad chord propellers give a bigger boost to climb rate.
Much like a late war 109, right? (huge broad paddle like prop == good climb)
so, big wide paddle props = low speed thrust?
thin props = high speed thrust?
I'm sure someone has a curve somewhere relating the prop width to the optimal speed for max thrust.
-
Stoney & Charge
It's the mark of the 23000 series of airfoils. I'm sure there are other factors, but keeping it on the level of the AH playfield it's a treat unique to the 190 series. The difference in handling between low/hi aspect ratio can be seen in the Ta152. There is a lot of truth in the 3G "magic" limit, it's a matter of conservation of E and if you load the 190 too much it will bleed like no other fighter in AH. The D partly make up for that by adding acceleration (more hp). Most ppl in the game know of experience but few seem to know why the 190 is such a bad turner. It is perfectly possible to B&Z within a 3G limit, I'd argue that most successful 190 jocks do precisely that.
-
Stoney & Charge
It's the mark of the 23000 series of airfoils.
Well, the 23000 were used on the F6F, F4U, P-47, FW-190, etc. It was probably the most widely used airfoil of the period. I don't think the difference in performance can be attributed to that airfoil. It has relatively high Clmax, good Cd0 and very low pitching moment. It does have nasty stall behavior, but that doesn't have much impact on what we're talking about here.
-
I'd wager higher wing loading in combination with the aspect ratio and smaller R numbers than contemporary allied fighters using the "same" airfoil, if it actually was the same.
-
See, they should put each type in a row and have several rows of differnet types. You, in your "fighter" would move left or right to shoot these rows as they get closer and closer. If they get all the way to your "fighter", you lose that fighter. If you shoot the special flashing fighter, you power up with extra BFG's under your wings - and they'll annihilate all of the enemy "fighters". If you do this, you go to the "next level" where you're now facing rows of "attack aircraft". Now THAT'S historical realism.
And, oh yeah, you need like a hyperspace button so that the dude with the faygo redpop and the bong and twinkies can hit it if he gets in trouble.
:lol
Just half a minute here. Are you disparaging my Galaxian High??? Don't be hatin'.
-
What I'm trying to undestand is that is there some amount of turn where the small wing is more efficient than a bigger one. I'm not talking about a break turn of 4-6Gs but something up to 3Gs, highest, as it seems that at those accelerations 190s can still be quite competitive without dumping too much energy. Or is the negative effect of wingloading purely linear to G loading meaning that e.g. the negative effects of high wing loading of A8 is just not that evident in smaller G loads?
Maths are required to know for sure comparing dissimilar aircraft. As with all things Aerodynamica interdependent variables exist as in this case. That said, it's possible but not probable that a smaller wing produces less drag in a turn.
First what do we mean by "smaller" wing, smaller span, area or both? Let's assume both span and area. While smaller area reduces parasite drag (less surface area for skin friction), reduced span & area play double jeopardy in increasing induced drag.
1) As messrs. Stoney & Godzilla note, CDi exponentially increases with the square of Cl. Assuming equal weight, smaller wing area creates greater drag because Cl must be greater to produce the same amount of lift vs. greater wing area. (Greater Cl also increases viscous drag but that's another topic).
2) Induced drag is strongly a function of wing span, the lower the wing span the greater the induced drag. This gets magnified with g-load.
There are various other design reasons and trade-offs for smaller wings, e.g. the Fw-190 wouldn't have the fantastic roll rate if Herr Tank stuck bigger wings on them etc. However lower drag during maneuver is not one of them.
-
As messrs. Stoney & Godzilla note, CDi exponentially increases with the square of Cl. Assuming equal weight, smaller wing area creates greater INDUCED drag because Cl must be greater to produce the same amount of lift vs. greater wing area. (Greater Cl also increases viscous drag but that's another topic).
Fixed that for you... :)
Some comparison I did based on in-game testing:
4 Aircraft performing a 3G instantaneous turn at 250 mph IAS
| Type | | Cdi @ condition |
| 190A5 | | .037 |
| 190A8 | | .043 |
| Spit 5 | | .015 |
| P-47N | | .040 |
These numbers were generated with aircraft loaded to 25% fuel and normal ammo loads. I have the exact weights if you're interested. Anyway, you can see the impact wing loading has on induced drag coefficient. The 190 series have over twice, and almost 3 times the Cdi of a Spit 5 performing the same maneuver. You'll also note that the Jug has similar numbers to the 190s. So, what does this mean? Basically, that the 190 and Jug have to work a lot harder to turn than the Spit does (i.e. they have a higher power required number than the Spit).
-
You can always match the radius of the tightest turn with a roll :old:
-
You can always match the radius of the tightest turn with a roll :old:
:headscratch: are you taking about executing a displacement roll to cut the turn or a high/low yo-yo?
I don't understand, a roll doesn't change your direction, just your lift vector, a turn does.
-
Fixed that for you... :)
Ha, score one for "aero-pedantism"! :) (Of course I could quibble but no one normal in the peanut gallery would care!) Yes, of course kettle meet pot here as pedantic aerogeeks go. :rock
-
:headscratch: are you taking about executing a displacement roll to cut the turn or a high/low yo-yo?
I don't understand, a roll doesn't change your direction, just your lift vector, a turn does.
Imagine being in a turn and being unable to follow his turn you get the nose up and use a slow roll relative to his circle as he is burning more e he will always stall in this climbing turn.
-
Ha, score one for "aero-pedantism"! :) (Of course I could quibble but no one normal in the peanut gallery would care!) Yes, of course kettle meet pot here as pedantic aerogeeks go. :rock
I didn't want anyone to think that a smaller wing meant more zero-lift drag... :aok
-
Fixed that for you... :)
Some comparison I did based on in-game testing:
4 Aircraft performing a 3G instantaneous turn at 250 mph IAS
| Type | | Cdi @ condition |
| 190A5 | | .037 |
| 190A8 | | .043 |
| Spit 5 | | .015 |
| P-47N | | .040 |
These numbers were generated with aircraft loaded to 25% fuel and normal ammo loads. I have the exact weights if you're interested. Anyway, you can see the impact wing loading has on induced drag coefficient. The 190 series have over twice, and almost 3 times the Cdi of a Spit 5 performing the same maneuver. You'll also note that the Jug has similar numbers to the 190s. So, what does this mean? Basically, that the 190 and Jug have to work a lot harder to turn than the Spit does (i.e. they have a higher power required number than the Spit).
Do you have Cdo for the same four?
-
Do you have Cdo for the same four?
No. I haven't researched them yet...
-
Think some of those CDo numbers are here:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/wiki/index.php/File:The_Aircraft_Performance_Data _Book_AVIA_28-3030_.jpg
I believe the reference notes will give a hint re: which 190 was tested.
-
No. I haven't researched them yet...
Let me restate, I have the Cd0 for the Jug from America's Hundred Thousand. The rest I don't have.
-
Fargin linky no worky. Maybe this will:
(http://i937.photobucket.com/albums/ad212/mhuxt/The_Aircraft_Performance_Data_Book_AVIA_28-3030_-1.jpg)
Should have some CDo stuff for Spit 5 and 190. Will try to find out which 190 in particular.
-
It was this one, an Fw 190 A-3.
http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/PippinBill/6764.htm
-
Fargin linky no worky. Maybe this will:
(http://i937.photobucket.com/albums/ad212/mhuxt/The_Aircraft_Performance_Data_Book_AVIA_28-3030_-1.jpg)
Should have some CDo stuff for Spit 5 and 190. Will try to find out which 190 in particular.
:aok Thanks for posting Scherf!
-
:aok Thanks for posting Scherf!
No worries, just passing on good karma.
The full document is posted over in the Mosquito VI entry at the AH wiki site.
-
I don't get it. Compared to Mustang the profile drag is in same class, yet CDo is bigger than in Typhoon or Hurricane? :headscratch:
-C+
-
I don't get it. Compared to Mustang the profile drag is in same class, yet CDo is bigger than in Typhoon or Hurricane? :headscratch:
-C+
It's normalized... Think about that denom - Which, based on the remarks, looks to be all over the place.
-
Absolute values for flat plate areas can be easily calculated by multiplying the Cd0 with wing area.
-
Yeah, sure. But where does the CDo figure come from?
-C+
-
Yeah, sure. But where does the CDo figure come from?
-C+
Probably from some sort of component build-up method given the way the chart is broken down. Or, could be from flight test data that's then plugged into a formula that gives you the component parts.
-
AFAIK that chart is calculated from the flight test data, each plane has a test refered in the right side.
-
Another thing to notice is that some of the planes are 'prototypes' that my not have the same gun config, different engines, etc... from the final production version.
-
Probably from some sort of component build-up method given the way the chart is broken down. Or, could be from flight test data that's then plugged into a formula that gives you the component parts.
Probably, because if you take the 100fps drag figure and divide it by the dynamic pressure and either ref area, or even if you use the speed cited in the remarks, it doesn't tie out to the CD0. I spent a little time today trying to get a match and was unable to succeed. Best I could do was about a factor of 2, leading me at one point to think they'd dropped the .5. Doubt it, though...
-
Probably, because if you take the 100fps drag figure and divide it by the dynamic pressure and either ref area, or even if you use the speed cited in the remarks, it doesn't tie out to the CD0. I spent a little time today trying to get a match and was unable to succeed. Best I could do was about a factor of 2, leading me at one point to think they'd dropped the .5. Doubt it, though...
Raymer's Book has a component buildup method that involves some pretty complicated formulas to do estimated drag numbers for each component like leakage and protuberance drag, for example, just like what the chart has broken out. Could be some of the flight test data gives them some constants with which they can work up the individual component drag contributions. I wouldn't take those numbers as dead-on, actual numbers, but more like very close estimates.
-
"AFAIK that chart is calculated from the flight test data, each plane has a test refered in the right side."
That makes sense. Does it also mean that from aerodynamic figures they figured out like: wetted area, profile drag, wing area, weight and estimated power available and estimate of propeller efficiency they made calculations what should be the approximate top speed of that airframe and if e.g. the power available from the engine was not what it was supposed to be it would reflect back down to aerodynamic figures which were used to determine the theoretical potential of the airframe?
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a-chart-7oct43.jpg
-C+
-
Guys,
There is some evidence that the 190 could out turn the 109.
FW-190 vs BF-109 per Werner Seitz:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0YLLBvIBFk&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0YLLBvIBFk&feature=related)
In AH the 190 can roll great but cannot turn inside a 109 under normal circumstances it seems.
Do you feel the 190's turn radius is modeled correctly in the current version of AH?
Thanks,
Slade :salute
Although I am not one to defend the 109, I do not think a 190 will beat it in a knife fight. The 190 has a much higher wing loading than the 109, much higher. Not only that but the 109 has a leading edge slat that at a high AoA will shoot air over the top of the wing, delaying the stall. The 190 has a rather unpredictable stall, almost like a mustang, and a much higher wing loading than it to. The only aircraft based evidence for the 190 being able to out turn a 109 is the center of gravity, and control surface characteristics and placement. I can imagine however the 190 being much more pilot friendly. The 109 had a cramped cockpit and a short control stick, as well as no rudder trim, so pilots were always trying to correct using the rudder pedals, tiring them. The stick on the 109 provided less leverage over the 190s most likely longer one. The pit was also larger and better arranged over the 109. So pilots most likely are saying the 190 can change heading easier through its speed range, where the 109 had a bit more trouble at medium to high speeds. On paper though, the 109 should win. :airplane:
-
The 190 has a much higher wing loading than the 109, much higher.
The wing loading is something that vary greatly depending on which model you look at. The whole 190 turn radius debate I believe is rooted in the original testing of the 190 where it actually did turn inside the 109 (contemporary E and/or F model). No documentation remains of this testing to this day, so it is all hearsay. The 190 was developed far beyond its original specifications and came to be the heavy laden buff killer we know in AH and ultimately what it became known for.
So bottom line, the FW 190A-1 was a completely different animal than our earliest version, the A-5. In many regards, they do not compare. The first production model might have turned inside the 109 but the later A-5 and A-8 that we have, certainly did not.
-
Thanks all for the feedback and info on the 190. :aok