The funny thing is that Gaston bases his claims mostly from pilot's anecdotes, not physics.
As I mentioned, read some of his previous posts here over the last ten years. Gaston has never played this game, he is a failed game maker that was trying to make some flight sim oriented board game and was trying to show how in his "game" that his "flight model/physics" was far superior. You can even search the old Ubisoft IL2 message boards and you'll find the same posts from him trying to claim the same thing about IL2's flight model compared to his board game. The funny thing is that Gaston bases his claims mostly from pilot's anecdotes, not physics.
And yet, the quotes are accurate, and are consistent with my own understanding from reading pilot accounts. I don't doubt that HTC uses the best objective information available to it, but the pathetic turn performance of the 190A series, for example, just doesn't match with real-world accounts. Perhaps it has to do with something mentioned in one of the quotes, that the 190's controls were very light. We (well, OK, "I") often overlook the fact that pushing our controllers around requires no real effort, regardless of the speed at which our crates are virtually traveling.
- oldman (and I recall that AW's P-47 was based on the best objective information available to Kesmai, and certainly there was a world of difference between that P-47 and HTC's.)
Gonna have to pull out my quote from the 38 pilot who out turned the 109 pilot on the deck while still carrying his bombs. Doubt the 109 folks would agree that is how it should work :)
Gonna have to pull out my quote from the 38 pilot who out turned the 109 pilot on the deck while still carrying his bombs. Doubt the 109 folks would agree that is how it should work :)
Almost looks like he wants our 190-A family to out turn everything on the allies side
The 190A5 in AH is a way underrated turner.
+1 on that...and I'll include the A-20, Ju-88, Mosquito, and B-26 ... all can outturn a 190-A8.
No, but maybe the A8 should outturn a fully loaded Lancaster.
Yes, what most of those quote are missing is context. The 190A5 is not the best and IMO something is wrong with the modelling (G-2 specs, not A-5, last I recall?) but those quotes are taken out of context to push a preconceived agenda IMO.
There were several quotes posted many many many many years back and these may be the same ones. They were high speed engagements and nowhere near stall speeds. At higher speeds (300+) the A-5 is very maneuverable compared to a spitfire.
Context. It's important.
The context is some anecdote of a 190 who will turn when slow. Doesnt say that it will win or what slow is.
I enjoyed reading those quotes and accounts. Gaston, Thanks for posting.
Ok so what is minimum speed? Seriously, enlighten me. Level flight stall speed? Minimum controllable airspeed at full or idle power? Is it the same for all aircraft? Find some test or engineering data to support turn rate claims or all those quotes are just anecdotes.
Turning for "quite a long time" means "minimum speed" is for sustained turn speed. That is quite explicit.
Gaston
No it doesn't.
Turning Circle
41. Spitfire XIV can easily turn inside the FW 190, though in the case of a right-hand turn, this difference is not so quite pronounced.
Turning Circle
47. The Spitfire XIV easily out-turns the Me.109G in either direction.
In the FW-190A, you want to fight horizontally at minimum sustained turn speed (and never dive and climb):
That is ludicrous advice. The only thing worse would be slow, straight and level.
Combat trials and tests are more reliable, her for ex the spit 14:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14afdu.html
True, with our FW. OTOH, works fine with our Spit. The point is that, for one reason or another, our planes don't always seem to match with the way real pilots say they flew.
- oldman
FW-190A pilots were offered 3 types of ailerons: 3 different chords (you can tell them on some photos by their trim tab layout): Thin, medium, broad.
That is ludicrous advice. The only thing worse would be slow, straight and level.
My car routinely gets passed by Priuses on the highway. Is that because they are faster or i don't drive as aggressively?
Aw! but I love it when the first move is a nice, coordinated, level turn!
It's bad advice for any aircraft.
The AH flight models are correct enough. These discussions are really about the different ways you can interpret insufficient information.
First time I have heard of this. Please post examples.
Uh... dude youre mixing up anecdotes for some incomprehensible agenda.
In the first example he slowed down, decreased his turn radius and with an aircraft attempting to pull lead gave him closer and aspect problems, forcing to fly outside his turn circle.
In the second situation the offender was above corner velocity and slowing down allowed him to increase their turn rate.
None of them said that slowed to a stall and then magically won.
I know this is not mentioned anywhere, but hey: The only source was this site, from the pilot's relative, in the circa 2004-2005 AH thread titled "FW-190A performance in combat", which has now "disappeared" for decades, and for the life of this board not a single person can remember this thread of at least 3 pages?... There are some truly mysterious things going on around here... I must be making it all up...
ImpStarDuece
01-15-2010, 12:04 AM
I’ve collated the commentary from the BuAer test of an F4U-1 and F6F-3 against a FW 190A5/U5 (mislabelled in the test as a “FW 190 A/4”), with specific attention paid to manoeuvrability and engine operation:
Draw your own conclusions…
HORIZONTAL ACCELERATIONS:
“It should be noted that the application of full power in the FW-190 was much easier than in the either airplanes due to the fact that it was necessary to use only the throttle control”
TURNING CIRCLES:
Results of comparative tests of turning characteristics showed the F4U-1 and the F6F-3 to be far superior to the FW-190. Both the F6F and the F4U could follow the FW-190 in turn with ease at any speed, but the FW-190 could not follow either of the other two airplanes. The FW-190, when in a tight turn to the left and near the stalling sped, exhibits a tendency to reverse aileron control and stall without warning. Similarly, when turning to the right it tends to drop the right wing and nose, diving as a result.
From a head-on meeting with the FW-190 both the F4U-1 and the F6F-4 could be directly behind the FW-190 in one turn. From a position directly behind it was possible to turn inside the FW-190 and be directly behind it again in about three turns.
MANUVERABILITY:
The F4U-1 and the F6F-3 were found to be more manoeuvrable than the FW-190. No maneuvers could be done in the FW-190 which could not be followed by the F4U-1 and F6F-3.
It was found hat the FW-190 requires a much greater radius in which to loop than do either the F4U-1 or F6F-2, and tens to stall sharply when trying to follow the F4U-1 or F6F-2 in a loop.
Formation flying was extremely difficult with the FW-190 because of the lack of powerplant control.
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS IN MOCK COMBAT
The FW-190 is a very simple aircraft to fly in combat and seems to be designed for pilot convenience. It has a no-warning stall which tends to reduce its efficiency in combat against aircraft which can fly at near the stalling speed. In general it is considered to be an excellent interceptor-type aircraft which is at a disadvantage against aircraft designed for the purposes of “in fighting”.
One throttle level controls propeller pitch, manifold pressure, mixture, magneto timing, and throttle setting, making operation comparatively simple.
GENERAL OPINION OF PILOTS AS TO RELATIVE MERITS…
…it is felt that although more automatic features are provided in the FW-190, less direct control over variable settings is provided and the pilots has, as a result, less actual control over the engine performance.
SUGGESTED TACTICS TO BE USED AGAINST THE FW-190…
If attacked by the FW-190, the F4U-1 and F6F-3 can evade by the use of tight turns. When followed by the FW-190 the F4U and F6F can evade by the use of tight loops. If the FW-190 attempts to follow the other airports in tight loops it stalls out.
In general, whenever the hit-and-run technique cannot be employed, the F4U and F6F should make every effort to close with the FW-190, in both offence and defence.
I’ve also added selected commentary on performance and handling characteristics from the AAF memorandum on the FW-190G-3 (the US captured 6 190G-3s, intact, in Italy in 1944):
Summary:
It [the FW-190] compares favorably with standard AAF fighter types in maneuverability, speed and climb at low and medium altitudes, but is definitely weaker in performance at altitudes over 28,000 ft. Stability was satisfactory at the weight and c.g. at which the airplane was tested and the controls are excellent at all speeds up to 400 MPH indicated airspeed where the elevator tends to become quite heavy and noticeable buffeting and vibration of the airplane occurs.
Flight Characteristics
A. Cockpit Layout
The engine control which automatically selects the correct propeller pitch and fuel mixture for any power setting is a desirable feature since the pilot need concern himself only with the throttle setting.
G. Stalls and Stall Warning
The airplane has a gentle stall and controls remain effective up to the stall. Adequate warning of the stall is given by shaking of the airplane and controls.
H. Maneuverability and Aerobatics
The outstanding maneuverability feature of this airplane is it extremely high rate of roll. The radius of turn, however, is poor and it is only slightly improved by using the maneuvering flap position of 15 degrees. If pulled fast, the airplane tends to stall out abruptly with little warning. Elevator control forces are very heavy in a tight turn, requiring constant use of the elevator trim control.
The airplane responds to the controls satisfactory in performing rolls, loops, Immelmanns and other aerobatics.
Conclusions
The FW-190, AAF No. EB-104, is a well armored fighter airplane with provisions for carrying heavy armament and it compares favorably with standard AAF types of the same date in maneuverability, speed, and climb at low and medium altitudes.
"I pulled up into an extremely tight vertical turn and chopped my throttle to kill speed so I could get around quickly..." - Lt. Buck Dungan was in a scrap over Orote, Guam, June 19, 1944
Might have happened when HTC switched to the present BBS. I can't recall if everything had to begin all over again.
- oldman
The speed required to pull 6 gs is the same. The difference between level or descending is how long you can sustain it with gravity helping.
So if corner is 320 that contradicts your minimum speed statement from earlier.
Also was the 320 the intersection of the accelerated stall and pilot g or airframe g limit?
Probably because you have no WWII FW-190A pilot relative...
No the horizontal and vertical "Corner Speeds" are not the same: That is what the 320 MPH SETP 1989 test at METO absolutely proves: When pulling out of a dive, the P-51D's 6G "Corner Speed" is 250 mph or thereabouts: That 70 MPH discrepancy (with modern 1989 instruments) absolutely proves that the vertical tolerates a lower speed for 6 G than the horizontal, which in effect proves the propeller's load influences the wingloading.
Hence the WWII obsession with down-throttling...
SETP test was Minimum to reach 6 Gs at METO.
"Corner Speed" is minimum speed to reach an unsustained 6 G, it has nothing to do with sustaining 3G turns "at a minimum speed"...
320 MPH for 6 Gs is so high the aircraft will barely maintain this 6 G for a few seconds...
The fact that the horizontal corner speed is so close to max. level speed (and is at a much lower speed when pulling on the vertical) would mean that lowering power should never help these things turn horizontally, EVER, but it does... Hence the current basic knowledge is wrong on the horizontal (because they only ever took data from dive pull-outs -where the P-51D's Corner Speed is indeed around 240-250 mph-, dives during which the prop is unloaded).
It is the prop being loaded that skewers things (which doesn't happen nose-down), hence the down throttling for faster prolonged sustained speed horizontal turning, all the way down to 160 mph for the Me-109, as Karhila points out. Unloading the prop unloads the wings, allowing tighter sustained turns.
Gaston
So flight simulations know better than actual front line pilots?
Gaston
...he is a failed game maker that was trying to make some flight sim oriented board game and was trying to show how in his "game" that his "flight model/physics" was far superior. You can even search the old Ubisoft IL2 message boards and you'll find the same posts from him trying to claim the same thing about IL2's flight model compared to his board game. ...Flight model... board game... air combat?
Flight model... board game... air combat?
Air combat... board game... flight model?
Wait what? :headscratch: :rofl
You do?
I do have several books on the Fw190 and can't remember any mention of aileron design changes.
What were the part numbers for these ailerons?
Dive recovery where you want to minimize alt lost vs corner velocity where you want to maximize turn rate. 2 different things...
I give up... :bhead
Apparently. The more relevant point is that your conclusions aren't supported by your data.
Flight combat simulation isn't necessarily limited to computers. I did play table top / pen&paper based combat flight sims quite a bit before it got popular on computers.
And you basically had the very same conceptual/modeling problems and arguments about 'realism' there as well. :)
From my collection:
Data card from 'Air Force':
(https://i.imgur.com/iC18PGk.jpg)
Inherent problems of board game realism have nothing to do with hierarchy between aircraft types for each area of performance... I modified the "Air Force" game, with the correct hierarchy, and a few better rules, to create my "Advanced Air Force" variant. I don't claim it is a realistic representation of air combat... Just a correctly informative one concerning hierarchy between types:
https://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/97109/advanced-air-force
Gaston
And we're supposed to take a word of a failed board game developer as the gospel truth?
Apparently WWII frontline pilots don't know, but computer game geeks do? That's a pretty remarkable claim.
Given the photos I posted, I hope you are not actually suggesting that there were no design changes...
Gaston
"They were complementary, Me-109 was a rapier, the FW-190A was a sabre." Rall
Do understand this as the 109 flying straight and the 190 turning? I don't think that was Rall's point.
Rall was saying the 109 was more maneuverable but the 190 hit harder.
The 190 was better for being faster and having better high speed handling, not for slow speed turning.
Do understand this as the 109 flying straight and the 190 turning? I don't think that was Rall's point.
Rall was saying the 109 was more maneuverable but the 190 hit harder.
The 190 was better for being faster and having better high speed handling, not for slow speed turning.
Maneuverability is not the same as turn radius. Its also for ex roll rate.
The early 190 was better than the spit V in almost every aspect expect turn radius so yes - the spits had a lot of trouble with 190:s.
All the spits could outturn any 190, but the 190 was still in some aspects more maneuverable, the roll rate is the most obvious example. Real life pilots where affected by G- and stick forces when turning hard at higher speeds so they did not always pulled their plane to their absolute limit. These effects can never be simulated in a game and the same for the pilots physical status and training so a game will never be exactly as irl.
And you are still wrong:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/ptr-1107.pdf
KG200: "The P-47D out turns our Bf-109G."
You do realize that Kg 200 was a bomber unit that never used 109's, right?
pretty much makes that source irrelevant.
Pre 1945 it does but III./KG200 flew Fw190F-8s in 1945.
http://www.ww2.dk/air/kampf/kg200.htm
Again, none of your quotes offer any quantifiable data. There is nothing there that invalidates the AH FW190 flight model. There is nothing to explain or defend. You don't have an argument.
In circumstances where the ability to turn quickly or tightly are infinitely variable, and where two aircraft are nearly the same, such as the Tempest V and Thunderbolt II, a great deal depends on the ability of the pilots. Speed must be taken into account if the results are going to be of any real value.
For example, if a Tempest dives on a Thunderbolt with an overtaking speed of only 50 mph, the Thunderbolt will easily be able to avoid the attack by turning, although at the same speed in the hands of equally competent pilots, the Tempest will outmanoeuvre the Thunderbolt. This advantage, however, is no by any means so apparent at high altitudes, due to the greater engine efficiency of the Thunderbolt above 25,000ft.
Similarly, where low-altitude and high-altitude fighters are compared any advantage shown by the former will be reduced as the high-altitude fighter gets nearer to its best operational altitude. After taking all these considerations into account, the position of the aircraft relative to each other will be seen from the diagram.
Once again, the Spitfire maintains top place, followed by the Mustang, Meteor, Tempest and Thunderbolt. Too much regard to this order should not be paid, particularly by the individual who will angrily recall the occasion when he out-turned a Meteor when flying his Tempest. This sort of thing is inevitable, but we can only repeat that where the circumstances are common to both aircraft, these positions are not far wrong.
Gaston told us Dale! One's a merry go round and the others the roller coaster!
:salute
You’re talking energy egg, Morfiend! :salute
Gaston told us Dale! One's a merry go round and the others the roller coaster!
:salute
Also a planes cornering speed is less when heading east vs west because the spinning of the earth causes the plane to go faster in one direction vs the other. :D
HiTech
You’re talking energy egg, Morfiend! :salute