Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: niklas on June 20, 2002, 09:20:45 AM
-
Hello
I just posted that pic at butch2k forum so i thought myself i could interest also people reading here.
Many of you know the rollrate curve for a 190 reaching 160°/sec, with 50lb stickforce at 250mph. The original RAF report mentions that this particular 190 had significantly heavier ailerons than other 190. Nevertheless the curve was published, and the naca report doesnīt even mention anymore that this 190 wasnt representative for the 190 series.
In reality rollrate was limited by wing twist, like for many other designs. Many pilots spoke about very light ailerons at high speeds for a 190, this alone should be a hint that something was wrong when a 190 reaches 50lb stickforce already at 250mph.
The tabel shows also some info about the influence of prop torque and propwash effects. Unfortunatly no hint is given how a static trim tab can compensate for the necessary input (deflection over speedrange would be very interesting)
(http://members.tripod.de/luftwaffe1/sonstiges/fw190_rollrate.jpg)
niklas
-
HOLY COW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
thanks niklas, impressive information!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Are we talking about ONE HUNDRED AND TEN DEGREES PER SECOND MEASURED AT 400 MPH ???????
If that graph is ok then we have an enormous FM issue.
-
honestly, between this thing, and the FW190A5 speed issue I brought up (again) in the other chart...
We should see a WHOLE NEW Fw190 in 1.10!!!!!!!
Pyro, HT, SOMEONE....please,please say SOMETHING! :)
-
twist the sputnik wings :p also la 7 woden miracle not twist at all :p
if is it warp roll isue then tune down equal % other plane roll :D
but twist them plzz:D
-
Eh...the way I read that chart, is the upper graph is the rollrate the 190 would have if the wings weren't governed by the laws of physics (in other words its potential roll rate), and the bottom curve is what the plane could actually do.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
and the bottom curve is what the plane could actually do.
And that is 110 degrees per sec at 400 mph ...
-
Originally posted by MANDOBLE
And that is 110 degrees per sec at 400 mph ...
no, no no mandoble you are wrong from the start. I didnt notice you had posted before.
the numbers on the left are DEGREES PER SECOND.......PER DEGREE OF DEFLECTION OF AILERONS
fW190A8 had 18 degrees of maximum aileron deflection
at 400 IAS you got ELEVEN degrees per second of roll rate PER DEGREE OF AILERON DEFLECTION
18 degrees of deflection*11 degrees per second=198 degrees/second of rollrate
AT FOUR HUNDRED MILES PER HOUR IAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
this is a RADICAL Departure from the FM we have now, not just a little problem
-
YOU ARE RIGHT!!! If the chart is correct, this is even more scandalous now :(
-
Right JAB,
...but he's not reading the top graph.
What the chart does not show is the degree of aileron input possible with 50lbs input at the various speed.
Where did the 18 degrees of deflection come from?
F.
-
I wonder why no Allied fans have come yet and said "That chart is fake" or "That chart is incorrect".....They seem to pretty silent now...
Anyway, good chart! Hope we get the AH Focke Wulf fixed.
-
1. Where does it say anything about stick forces?
2. Where does it say or imply that full aileron deflection could be achieved at all speeds?
-
I knew that was comming.... :) :) :)
-
I knew that was comming....
Yep, when people start making conclusions that aren't supported by the data, somebody will usually speak up on this board. :)
-
That chart could have come from anywhere. If I were HT (and I most certainly am not) the first thing I would want to know is how credible is the source of the information. Just posting a chart with some numbers is not enough information in my opinion.
Where did this information come from? Can I look it up myself, or do I have to use this embedded picture? As it is, this is hardly enough information to justify changing the AH flight model. In fact, I would go on to say, that if all it takes to change an AH flight model is a post like this, then I would lose trust in AH and the HTC staff and probably not play anymore.
I'm not against LW planes, but I would definetely be against this info alone being used to justify a change in the AH flight models, and you'd be silly to think that it's ok if it did.
(could that be considered an Allied rant?)
-
Where dd the 18 degrees of aileron deflection come from? Yes, I see it written on the chart... but that's photoshopped on there, so where did it really come from?
-SW
-
Greese: I think the chart is from NACA and it's available to the public. I'm sure Niklas will respond with the report number if people are interested in getting a copy. I don't think Niklas was asking for any changes, but just pointing out some information that might be useful to this sim. The rudder trim curve has been ignored by most of the people posting here but I'm pretty sure it's of interest to flight modelers.
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Where dd the 18 degrees of aileron deflection come from? Yes, I see it written on the chart... but that's photoshopped on there, so where did it really come from?
-SW
And of course how much stick force is required to get those 18 degrees at 400mph... that's a lot of wind to be pushin up on.
Anyhow, the reason many of us have stopped questioning your data or more importantly the conclusions you draw from it, is repetitive whine syndrome. We grow weary of saying the same thing every week. Its much more fun to just watch you guys foam at the mouth when you think your onto something.
Anyhow, I can't wait for 1.10 to come out.
-Sikboy
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Where dd the 18 degrees of aileron deflection come from? Yes, I see it written on the chart... but that's photoshopped on there, so where did it really come from?
-SW
Easy, 18 alieron deflection degress X 10 degrees per sec per deflection degree = 180 degrees per second at 275 mph. That is assuming you are being able to obtain 18 aileron deflection degrees, just an example. With 5 degrees of deflection you would have 50 degree per sec roll rate at 250 mph. with 30 degrees you would have 300 degree per sec and so on.
-
Yah, funked, I was expecting you to chime in here, and that was exactly why I showed so much enthusiasm. I wanted you to come in here so I could tell you something...and seems the bait worked only so much right,...
but that will be later ;) first to the point in discussion.
Originally posted by funkedup
Greese: I think the chart is from NACA and it's available to the public. I'm sure Niklas will respond with the report number if people are interested in getting a copy. I don't think Niklas was asking for any changes, but just pointing out some information that might be useful to this sim. The rudder trim curve has been ignored by most of the people posting here but I'm pretty sure it's of interest to flight modelers.
ok, first of all, funked, I give for granted that you have the NACA roll rate chart of the Fw190A suspected to have heavy controls.
that chart says at 400IAS, 190A rolled at 80d/s.
with the chart above posted, 80d/s means that, at 11d/s per degree of deflection, the 190 would be deflecting just 7 degrees of elevator...in a plane reported to have heavy controls.
Ok, I dont care about 198š/s. But 80š/s seems not to be accurate and fitting to a normal 190, either, according to the reports.
So, whe're stuck in a rollrate wich seems innacurate because we don't have a test of a proper functioning aircraft?
You're happy with that situation?
I'm not.
Now, to my first intention....
funked, you seem to be all-willing to enter all the 190 discussions you can chime in to throw arguments over the ground...but never to give a kudos to a well documented thing which probably means the FM needs a look.
there is another thread going on, related with 190A5 speeds. How come it's been active for one week now without you posting anything there (I guess you didn't find anything wrong in my arguments?), but as soon as you saw this one you had to come in and start throwing arguments down?.
Just wondering ;).
-
Yes, I know that Mandoble... but where did the 18 degrees of aileron deflection come from? It's not on the graph anywhere, I just want to know how they arrived at that.
On the graph all I can see is the Steady Rate of Roll per (degree?) aileron and the speeds at which this occurs.
Now on the left hand side of the chart, those numbers aren't anywhere near 18 where the bottom line is charted.
So I assume that it's 18*the number on the left hand side= 180degrees per second..
So where did this 18 degrees of deflection come from?
-SW
-
RAM A-5 speed is ancient history. We talked about it a long time ago and we argued but I agreed with you in the end. Nothing more for me to say on that one.
BTW What thread is that? I see no topics about A-5 in the list.
-
Originally posted by MANDOBLE
YOU ARE RIGHT!!! If the chart is correct, this is even more scandalous now :(
Using a term like scandalous does nothing for the credibility of the argument. It will only make the designer of this sim a little angry. Do you agree with that mandoble?
-
Originally posted by funkedup
RAM A-5 speed is ancient history. We talked about it a long time ago and we argued but I agreed with you in the end. Nothing more for me to say on that one.
yah but you know...some feedback is needed now and then if we want HTC to take a look at certain things we want to show may not be accurately modelled ;). (edit: URL=http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55938]this thread[/URL])
BTW I insist on the rollrate issue too. Do you think that the 190's roll at high speeds is accurate as currently modelled? :)
Edit for a PS: Ammo, this has been said for the 1000nd time...scandalous may sound as hyperbole in this forums, in spain we seem to be that....er...hyperbolic :).
I mean I'm sure Mandoble wanted simply to say taht the difference was very big. What he said is perfect given how do we use to express ourselves.
Many many times you think we do overclaim or exagerate on purpose to put down HTC. I insist; that is NOT true.
Try to understand, people...we're different people with different customes. Try to be a bit more openmindend and less paranoid relating HTC. If we would not like them,tell me then why are we here? :)
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
So where did this 18 degrees of deflection come from?
-SW
It is just an example for 250 mph. What we dont know is how many deflection degrees can you achieve in a normal 190 at 250mph applyin 50 lb of force to the stick. If you can get 18 or more, then you will have 180 degrees per secs or more.
What was the defection limit of 190A/D ailerons?
-
RAM: I think it's accurate in that pilots say it rolled great and it rolls great in the game. The only good data I've seen is the famous NACA chart and the game performance matches that pretty well, but not perfectly. Considering that HTC may have some data we don't know about, I think the in-game roll performance for the 190 is "close enough".
-
aye ,funked, but what I've read about that report (what niklas said is not new news for me) is that the Fw190A tested by NACA had unusual heavy controls.
so, the chart we have from NACA icould be under suspect because that information, wich is quoted from the test pilots themselves.
I do believe it,too, because, like niklas said, I think that to achieve full aileron deflection at 250mph making a wooping 25kg of pressure in a stick is NOT exactly to report the plane "having light controls"...
so in the end we may have a bad rolling 190 anyway...and that is one of my points here :)
-
Why are we talking about people's posting habits and language usage? We should be talking about airplanes.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
Why are we talking about people's posting habits and language usage? We should be talking about airplanes.
Because some people's language usage may mislead people on what do he wants to say ;)
Back to aircraft... :D
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
So where did this 18 degrees of deflection come from?
-SW
seawulfe, I'm sure someone can tell you about real plane data.
I'm going to give you some empirical data.
look at the chart in this thread.
According to NACA chart (wich I don't think is accurate at high speeds, but lets use it for now), at 250mph, the Fw190A rolled 160 degrees/second.
according to the chart posted here, at 250mph each degree of deflection in the ailerons of the Fw190A caused 9 degrees/second of rollrate
do some easy math
160/9 = 17.7777
In other words, the Fw190A could AT LEAST, according to those charts, deflect its ailerons 17.7777 degrees. Prolly more, but at 250IAS, and with 50lbs on the stick, the plane deflected 17.7 degrees.
-
Perhaps the Naca 190 DID have heavier controls than a usual FW-190.
What needs to be answered, is if those controls were so unusually heavy that they interfered with the plane's roll rate. If the pilot of the NACA 190 could still deflect his ailerons as far as any other 190 pilot could, then the heavier stick forces meant nothing in terms of maximum roll rate (in combat of course would have been a different matter completely).
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
Perhaps the Naca 190 DID have heavier controls than a usual FW-190.
What needs to be answered, is if those controls were so unusually heavy that they interfered with the plane's roll rate. If the pilot of the NACA 190 could still deflect his ailerons as far as any other 190 pilot could, then the heavier stick forces meant nothing in terms of maximum roll rate (in combat of course would have been a different matter completely).
J_A_B
JAB, if you're testing the rollrate of a plane at a given force applied on the stick at a given speed...you BET that, if the plane is unusually heavier of controls, the results are going to be seriously corrupt.
And if those tests are done at high speeds (where stick forces are stronger), the results are going to be even more corrupt.
If that particular 190 had heavy controls, yes, that chart would be completely off-the mark.
-
Okay, I got it now.
Was just wondering where they got that 18deg from.
-SW
-
From what I understood, regular FW-190's would never reach 50 pounds stickforce at lower speeds.
Which means if the "porked" FW-190 in the NACA tests reached that 50 pound mark at or near full deflection, there wouldn't have been a noticable difference.
Plus, how much of a difference is "signifigantly" heaver? 1 pound? 10 pounds? In a plane like the 190 with very low stick forces, a 1 pound difference may well be considered signifigant--yet really wouldn't be.
BTW, I agree with you that the AH 190A5/8 is a bit too slow and maybe rolls a bit too poorly. I just don't necessarily think that the possibly heavy controls of the NACA 190 made any real difference. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
From what I understood, regular FW-190's would never reach 50 pounds stickforce at lower speeds.
define "lower speeds"...
in any case , JAB, at 250mph IAS, the pilot was already pulling 50 pounds of pressure according to that chart. That is the point where the all-increasing rollrate stops increasing and starts decreasing dramatically due to the need to keep 50lbs on the stick
Is that "light controls" at a "lower speed" for you? ;)
Which means if the "porked" FW-190 in the NACA tests reached that 50 pound mark at or near full deflection, there wouldn't have been a noticable difference.
according to the NACA chart, that 190 reaches those 50pounds at 250mph IAS, what it doesn't mean is that is at full deflection at that point.
Someone does know the REAL aileron deflection in a 190 ,please?
Plus, how much of a difference is "signifigantly" heaver? 1 pound? 10 pounds? In a plane like the 190 with very low stick forces, a 1 pound difference may well be considered signifigant--yet really wouldn't be.
BTW, I agree with you that the AH 190A5/8 is a bit too slow and maybe rolls a bit too poorly. I just don't necessarily think that the possibly heavy controls of the NACA 190 made any real difference. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't.
J_A_B
Yep, that's the only problem here...that we don't have REAL idea on how "hard" was the plane on the controls. Just the reports from the tests pilots...but I guess that a coulpe of pounds of difference wont be exactly make a test pilot remark the "hard controls" in a certain plane compared with another....don't you think? ;)
-
Heinkel,
I am a LW fan and I asked the same questions.
The information described in this chart, if it's correct, is not very usefull without more data.
Be skeptical.
F.
edit: whoa huge reply lag
-
"but I guess that a coulpe of pounds of difference wont be exactly make a test pilot remark the "hard controls" in a certain plane compared with another"
Depends on the situation. Take 10 FW-190's. 9 have normal super light controls, the tenth is a pound heavier.....that last one will stick out like a sore thumb to a pilot used to flying the others despite still being a light plane overall.
OTOH it's equally possible that in this particular 190 maybe the control rods were bent or something and it flew like a brick. We just don't know.
J_A_B
-
-ammo-, why scandalous? Easy to answer ...
Here is me doing 250mph while rolling:
(http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/roll.jpg)
How many deflection degrees do you see at the aileron? About 35, right?
Ok, acording to the chart for 250 mph I should have been doing about 332 degrees per second. 9.5 dps per deflection degree for 250 mph with 35 deflection degrees = 332.5 dps.
-
Again, no words from HTC staff. :(
-
and you just guaranteed they won't respond Hristo.
-SW
-
Hi
The chart is from a report from M. B. Morgan and R. Smelt. I only have 1 page, but their names are given in the header.
Itīs from the RAF, and not from german source. So no exaggeration took place!
It was me who added the 18° mark, because knowing rollrate/degree deflection is useless without knowing the maximum possible deflection. 10/s *18°= 180°/s, what you already found out.
I remember 18° up down from a fw190 handbook where i was able to have a look into when i visited FLugwerk. Those are no unusual deflection ranges, even the somewhat limited P51 still had 10°. The 109 deflected 22° up and 12 ° down. A P39 25° up and 10° down. If you sum them up you reach in every example around 35° deflection total.
Btw the Ta152 used the same deflections, 18° up and down, and here i have the data.
The captured english report of the A3 mentions 17° up and down - ok, 1 degree less, but the aileron design changed at least 3 times and maybe they added 1 degree later. It would still be ~190°/sec
You can read it here, page 2 right below the flap picture:
http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/flight/fw190a3/flight_fw190a3.html
Cpt Eric Brown: incredible aileron turns were possible....
this is all what the RAF found out, and i think the english didnīt had reasons to make the germans look better than they actually were...
niklas
-
Heya niklas, thanks for sharing that info :)
I assume there is no information at all about the stick forces involved in the process of testing the plane...wich is something sad given the current state of affairs (if you got a chart, you get nothing , si if you don't, go figure, hehehe ;))
Does the report talk especifically about light controls at high speeds too?. If it does then we might be on something really neat here, maybe not for AH, but at least for better knowing the 190 :).
-
Is 18degrees the max deflection at all speeds? How is that possible?
I'd think it would be damn near impossible to get it to 18degrees at 400MPH... but then again, I dunno.
-SW
-
Not taking sides, and not knowing anything about anything...
I find it hard to believe that "deg/sec/deg of deflection" is a purely linear function. I would think that may be an optimum roll rate, but it would trail off at very slight or very extreme deflections. I mean, do the math for a 150-degree deflection at whatever speed... the formula would give you an extremely fast roll, but logic tells you that, at this point, you no longer have an aileron, but instead an airbrake. Yes I know this is a ridiculous example, but I think it makes my point about it being a nonlinear function.
-
I beieve that graph assumes that you can plug in 18 degrees of aileron deflection throughout its range of values. That would make sense. Even pluging in the 18 degrees of max deflection where it was not possible (due to stick forces or aerodynamic forces) should be compensated for in the graph. After all, you cant fly into then graph what is not possible. Right?
-
Otherwise another graph of max possible aileron deflection per speed is required.
-
And lets not forget altitude and how it would also play into the affect of roll rate. I suspect that the roll rate would differ at various ranges of alt.
-
First, my apologies. I know I am interupting a great discussion about one of my passions too, airplanes. Neither do I intend to insult anyone
Mandoble and Ram--
In the USA, the word scandelous indicates treachery, deceit, dishonesty. The propreiters of HTC are American and could very well feel insulted by that post. Just wanting to point that out.
Back to the discussion, sorry again!!
-
Yes ammo and not everyone's from the USA so not everyone's accostumed or familiar to the actual meaning of words or idioms in that country, so like Ram said, Mandoble didn't imply anything of HTC he just thought the 190 roll rate was better than he originally understood it was.
So probably now mr Mandoble will be more careful with his choice of words and being more "PC" so no one will imply anything. Then I would hate him with every inch(cm, DR evil Pinkie) of my heart for that .
:D :eek:
achoo!
-
anyone know what altitude that data was measured at?
-
Originally posted by -ammo-
In the USA, the word scandelous indicates treachery, deceit, dishonesty. The propreiters of HTC are American and could very well feel insulted by that post. Just wanting to point that out.
Ups, thats is not the meaning it was intended for. Sorry then. Substitute scandalous by huge.
Glasses, it is clear the best we can do is just to post in spanish, words meaning deviations are minimized to the extreme compared with english ;)
BTW, whgates3, my test was done at 5k with maximum allowable by structure aileron deflection.
-
Originally posted by -ammo-
First, my apologies. I know I am interupting a great discussion about one of my passions too, airplanes.....
Who are you and what have you done to Ammo ? :)
-
Right on Glasses.
I'm not surprised at all why HT doesn't reply at all to these kind of posts. RAM and Mandoble should lower there tone and try to bring things a bit more easy going (even if it takes for ever to get things changed!!). I'm for one getting really tired of reading these stupid flame fest posts. It started off as a serious post by niklas and ends up as a flame fest. (And yes I pinch in on that as well now, because I'm sick of it).
And that is from a fellow LW pilot!!
Apar
OUT
:mad:
-
Originally posted by Apar
I'm not surprised at all why HT doesn't reply at all to these kind of posts. RAM and Mandoble should lower there tone and try to bring things a bit more easy going (even if it takes for ever to get things changed!!). I'm for one getting really tired of reading these stupid flame fest posts.
EXCUSE ME!.
Quote a single line in this thread where I do flame someone ,or where my tone is out of place. Or stop doing some out of place remarks. My tone has been perfectly respectful (except for the bait I set for funked, wich was tongue in cheek and kind of a joke between him and I).
So Please?. What are you talking about?.
-
Originally posted by Dux
Not taking sides, and not knowing anything about anything...
I find it hard to believe that "deg/sec/deg of deflection" is a purely linear function. I would think that may be an optimum roll rate, but it would trail off at very slight or very extreme deflections. I mean, do the math for a 150-degree deflection at whatever speed... the formula would give you an extremely fast roll, but logic tells you that, at this point, you no longer have an aileron, but instead an airbrake. Yes I know this is a ridiculous example, but I think it makes my point about it being a nonlinear function.
Yeah, I am wondering about this too - but I'm also wondering how much of that is taken into account in the 'measured' curve, which does start to fall off at high speed. I'm not savvy enough to say if that is completely accounted for by the curve, but that certainly must have something to do with it (in addition to the rigidity of the wing.) I think the real question remains what was the maximum aileron deflection at a given speed, as noted ad nauseum in this thread - without that specific data, I don't think we can draw any concrete conclusions from the chart.
-
Funny what people write, really funny. I bet noone would have so much doubts when this curve would have been for a allied fighter.
People asked where this chart comes from. Did they ask where the charts for the P51, P38 or spitfire comes from? Not at all.
I bet few if any people knew about the deflection angles of a P39, P47, P38 and so on. But how quickly they write down their doubts about the 190...
The best joke is the following what someone wrote:"I find it hard to believe that "deg/sec/deg of deflection" is a purely linear function"
Letīs quote the "Naca Requirements for Satifactory Flying Qualities of Aircraft" :
"At any given speed, the maximum rolling velocity obatained by abrupt use of ailerons should vary smootlhly with the aileron deflection and should be aproximately proportional to the aileron defelction"
A 100% linear function? no, but close enough. Just look at the polor charts of a wing, in a reasonable area around zero lift, the lift is a linear function of AoA.
Basis of the curve is 18° deflection, for all speeds. The elasticity of the ailerons is already included in the drop of the curve. Presentign rollrate like this isnīt unusual when you have a good linear function of rollrate to deflection
Donīt forget that P38 rollchart shows a linear increase of rollrate up to 450mph, and noone had doubts so far whether the ailerons could be deflected fully at such high speeds (what isnīt a question of force alone, but also of elasticity)
The 190 was quite heavy for the compact seize. They invested a lot in the stiffness of the frame and wing. It shouldnīt surprise you that the peak was at a high speed compared to other designs.
The reaction of some of you is even more interesting than the chart lol. I should have edited the footnote and put P51 into it, that would have been a fun to read your enthusiastic reactions lol.
niklas
-
Funnier yet, most people who are questioning this chart happen to fly Fws or other LW planes.
Funked and Daff excluded.
But of course, when you go on ahead and incorrectly assume that it's because it's a LW plane that people are scrutinizing it... then you lose any potentially sane argument and worthwhile data you could ever concieve. "Of course because it's not allied, then it's not going to get fixed or be extensively scrutinized" You of course choose to ignore that many things asked for by Allied pilots for the allied planes is also ignored... but you guys just don't pay attention to that... if it isn't beneficial to your precious LuftWannabe planes, then you just ignore it and naturally assume that what was requested for an allied aircraft will be implemented/fixed.
And on top of all that, you poor LuftWannabes are gonna have a helluva time finding any game, apparently, that models the Fw correctly. Check out Il2 sturmovik, Oleg had to model the Fw using IDEAL numbers rather than test reports just to shut people up. Yet they still complain about it.
And you say the basis for this curve is 18deg deflection... HOW do they manage that at all speeds? What stick forces are required for it to get 18deg deflection at 400MPH?
-SW
-
Well Seawulfe my pot headed friend :D that's not entirely true, he did use exact numbers, exact numbers for the de- rated FWs used in the Eastern front with B4 fuel, because in the Eastern Front the Fws although used as fighters came in as mostly Jabo aircraft,not only that, but C3 fuel was hard to come by as it was reserved for some of the 109 units in the EF and units in the WF.
-
I don't see anything on that chart that indicates they were using 18 degrees of deflection - is there a document that we are not seeing that accompanies this chart?
niklas, while you have obviously brought up an interesting chart for discussion, it unfortunately seems to be incomplete, which is why we can't draw any concrete conclusions from the data. This has nothing to do with whether or not someone likes LW planes, or USAAF planes, or RAF planes.
As for the non-linear equation...
Dux just brought up a point, and a valid one, and asserted that he wasn't an expert, it was just an observation. I then, asserting again that I wasn't an expert either, commented that I had wondered the same thing, but thought maybe the curve on the chart accounted for the effect he mentioned. It was a civil exchange of observations, and the data that you mentioned (being an expert, it seems) would've added to the discussion had it not been accompanied by a heft dose of venom.
Imagining an anti-LW conspiracy, and throwing what amounts to a text-based tantrum undermines rather than supports your claims, and contributes to the feeling that anyone who flies a LW plane must be a luftwhiner or a nazi. It's a friggin' game, lose the attitude and try to have some fun. If you don't want something to be discussed, don't post it on a discussion board.
-
Check out Il2 sturmovik, Oleg had to model the Fw using IDEAL numbers rather than test reports just to shut people up. Yet they still complain about it.
And you say the basis for this curve is 18deg deflection... HOW do they manage that at all speeds? What stick forces are required for it to get 18deg deflection at 400MPH?
-SW [/B]
Well if russians did vastly exaggerate their performance claims then it doesnīt automatically mean that germans exaggerated too. At the end, if you look at german factory claims and test data, you ll see that german factory claims are very very reasonable.
IDEAL lol. The russians claim 580km/h - 600km/h for a La-5FN near ground with 1850PS, the germans 565km/h with 1800 PS. Who exaggerated?
German factory claim for a 109F2 515km/h near ground with 1250PS, the russian claim 570-580km/h near ground with same power for a yak3, and this for approval tests, imagine what russian factory claim must have been. Again: who exaggerated?
Why shouldnīt they be able to deflect the ailerons all the way up to 400mph? In the naca rollchart there are several fighters who donīt reach 50lb at all, so why shouldnīt this be able for a 190 too? Itīs only a question of aileron balance.
niklas
-
With more speed, there would be more resistance against the ailerons... true? So as the speed increases, it would take more stick force to deflect the ailerons to full deflection(18deg in this case), right?
So, how can the ailerons be deflected the full 18 degrees at high speeds where it could easily be deflected at slower speeds?
This is what I want to know.
Glasses- with 1.1 or whatever the latest patch is, Oleg claimed he used (or I read that he claimed it) Fw test factory results.. "IDEAL" means that it's a fresh plane operating at 100%, or maybe more, and using optimistic values rather than true values. So I naturally assumed this would be the best (in terms of performance) data around as opposed to what he had before.
I said nothing about exaggerating at all Niklas, don't exaggerate your point by saying things I didn't.
You LuftWannabes can learn a lot by reading Kratzer's, another virtual LW pilot, last post. If you want your data to be taken seriously, then you need to take the people who make this game seriously rather than throwing at artificial claims you have concocted in your minds about any possibility of an "allied conspiracy". Otherwise, you are damn tootin' straight they are going to ignore your drivel.. it ain't worth their time to read posts about how you THINK the [insert allied plane here] is getting better performance figures than it should while the [insert LW plane here] is getting the shaft.
There are far more people who fly LW that don't use the uber-hauptmann und uber-MightyLuftWannabeSquad monikors... and you guys screw 'em all out of getting good performance in LW planes by throwing in mindless, and unfounded, accusations about allied planes getting everything while the poor LW planes don't get anything except a cold shaft in the butt.
People are questioning this data because it is obviously incomplete, there are no stick forces and relative information regarding aileron deflection other than what is photoshopped on there. So we're supposed to take this graph and believe it without question? No, indeed, it is not us who are questioning this data that are against LW planes... we are trying to get ALL of the data, not just tidbits that can only help a particular plane while it may indeed not be complete.
Dump the allied conspiracy crap and you'll probably get more mileage out of your data.
-SW <---who happens to fly the 190A5 and A8 more than any other plane.
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
With more speed, there would be more resistance against the ailerons... true? So as the speed increases, it would take more stick force to deflect the ailerons to full deflection(18deg in this case), right?
So, how can the ailerons be deflected the full 18 degrees at high speeds where it could easily be deflected at slower speeds?
Of course pressure increases. But you still can build highly balanced ailerons. You can build ailerons where you donīt need any stick force at all and they deflect 18° at 900km/h (not very useful though). Itīs really a matter of aileron design. You could build unstable ailerons which just need to deflect 0.01° and wupp they deflect themselfs completly.
Itīs not a question of which deflection was used, as at slow speeds the chart is not far away from the "naca-190" . So itīs definitly realistic from the amount of maximum rollrate, it just shows the roll characteristics with better balanced ailerons. Thatīs all
niklas
-
Okay, now this is getting over my head. I never claimed to be an expert, just wanted an answer to my question.
I got it, I'm satisfied... I'll let the real experts decide if the chart is accurate or not.. I'm sure it is, but for some reason 110deg at 400MPH seems a little high to me.
I dunno, but thanks for the answers to my questions.
I'll argue ;) with you guys on monday, I'm out.
-SW
-
"only a burning spitfire is a good spitfire"
true true true true AMEN !
sorry to hijack :):)
-
Niklas, can you clarify these questions:
1. Does the supporting documentation for this chart state that the chart was derived from roll rate tests with full aileron deflection at all airspeeds?
2. If the answer to 1. is "yes", then does the supporting documentation state what stick forces were required to achieve full deflection at each speed?
And I guess I have a rhetorical question:
3. Why isn't anybody getting excited about the rudder trim data which directly impacts the age-old "not enough torque in AH" whine. :)
-
Well the fact that the wing should bend at the speeds shown in the chart implies that (due to polar of moment) that at that range the 190 rolled the best. Enough to cause an instantaneous deflection in the wings structure. It doesnt mean that it requires the full 18 degrees of deflection to roll at those speeds. If you read within the threads somewhere that it states that the mustang had only 10 degrees of aileron deflection then you noticed correctly. All this from a pony that was meant to perform well at high altitudes and high speeds. Could this be correct? In dealing with science, it sure has to be and especially in dealing with numbers of linear or nonlinear equatins. So I'm suggesting that even with a chart that would show aileron deflection ~ speed, we would not see 18 degrees of aileron deflection except at the lower speeds. Something that Dux's statement was trying to assert.
Off on a tangent, how do you insert this char --> °
I aint go it on my keyboard so do you have a special keyboard? :)
-
Start->Accessories->System Tools->Character Map
-
Wouldnt the polar of moment for the roll axis essentially stay the same for an airplane until it reached compression speeds where the wing and aileron funtions was locked. It just that the aileron function would change in capacity with speed and altitude but polar of moment shoud remain the same.
G thanks krats :)
-
God this is a long thread to read:
But here a few infos about maximum aileron deflection:
The FW190D9 Handbook states a max aileron deflection of
17 +/-2 degres up and down, which gives a total aileron movement of around 34 degree.
Now about the chart.
The linear line just states the rate of roll per degree of deflection if the wings were rigid, the second line is the rate of roll corrected by the impacts of the wing torsion due to the increasing forces working on the wing structure.
What does this chart than gives us for informations?
1. You can measure the max possible rate of roll with full deflection of 17° at all speeds.
2. Also the charts tells us that the wingsstructure of the FW190 will not collapse even if using full 17° at 400mph, otherwise the chart would have a notification that the measured rate of roll at certain speeds would be lower due to structure limits.
(That corresponds with statements from pilots that you could do aileron turns and rolls with a FW190 that would rip off the wings off other planes)
But what do we not know?
What the maximum REAL rollrate of the FW190 would be over the given speeds. Why do we not know it? Cause we are missing a chart that gives us the stickforce needed per degree of aileron deflection.
Without that chart we are not able to know if at 400mph the pilot of a FW190 could fully deflect the ailerons.
Here we can so far (or does the NACA report contain a stickforce per degree of aileron deflection chart?) just imagine what was possible.
But if you look at the reports from US fighterpilots and RAE test pilots, most stated that a FW190 could perform a half roll in just one second. As they dont state the speed, we can just assume that the FW190 was able to do that over a great range of speed.
I have attached a chart showing the max possible rollrate for the FW190 using 17° of deflection. It pretty much supports this, cause the FW190 would between 250 mph and 400 perform a half roll in a second.
And as control forces were reported to be light even in dives were speeds exeeded 400 mph, i think that the real rollrate of the FW190 lay somewhere close to the max possible line.
But to be sure, i again say we need a stickforce per degree of aileron deflection chart.
-
Alt+0186 on keypad Senna. š
-
Hmmmm. Interesting.
So, the point is, that actually the real life 190 rolls better than it does in AH.
I remember a thread about this. If I am correct, the rollrate is limited because of the net lag, - more rolling than the 190 can already do causes it to warp. Never the less the 190 rolls very well in AH, I even think it rolls too well for my taste.
Interesting all the same.
BTW, 50 lbs sideways on a 190 stick is a lot of force to apply. How was the stick in the 190? does anyone have a link to cockpit pictures of it?
-
As far as I remember, in AH Fw190 roll rate was long time ago reduced on purpose (!) with reason being "warp rolls"
...when LW becomes too good.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
...when LW becomes too good.
Yeah, I'm sure that's the reason....
-SW
-
Warp rolls :mad:? Now I have a vent for some steam. What about all those Spitfear and La-7 and niki break warps. I encounter that almost everytime like 70% (ok 50%, they break real fast). With the La7 its not really the break but its so fast in a dogfight it's bridging on being in a micro undetected warp or is warpy and sticky at that close of a proximity. It all depends on net connect but basically anything that does anything relatively quickly with a bad net is crossing into that region we know now as "ludicrus speed" or the "warp zone".
-
[...] too good.[...]
It is not the reason but is true. The 262DM is probably another forced decision on HTCs part, it's their game first of all.
-
Yeah, the LW is so good... a good amount of them spend the majority of their time on this board sweetying.
-SW
-
Let's re-model P51D 25mph slower and see who'll be squeaking. :rolleyes:
-
hey wulf are you viagra user ??? cant get erection othervise ?
this people who ,,b,tching on BBS ,, i prefer they have opinion and they not afraid to say what they thing is it always you who also whine about whine , just tell me why you can whine about whine and others cant about anithing ?
and i em sure they are much beter in any brick plane like you !! :p
-
I just went through this thread. Just wanted to chime in on the tangent topic regarding the A-5 speed issue. I made an update on the calculations in case you're interested and you missed it.
Here is the thread:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=55938&referrerid=3699
Just wanted to make sure that I clear up any misleading info or confusion I might have caused on that topic.
Tango, XO
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Go ahead MrRipley, doesn't effect me.
I'm whining about whining? How the shreck do you do that?
Sounds to me like someones trying to justify their whining by attempting to make it out like I'm whining.
And I'm sure they are so much better than me in any brick plane.... whatever the hell that is. If you think LW planes are brick planes, you must fly worse than how well you type out english.
But of course, the statistics are cumulated every tour. You want to see what I fly? You can go right on ahead and look it up.
Maybe you can use my stats to dry your teary eyes.
-SW
-
Wulfe, do u have ANY doubt about the reduction of roll rate in 190s? If so, post your arguments here and stop the nonsense streams.
-
You guys crack me up.
-
Whatever Mandoble, I'm not the one who started the "nonsense".
-SW
-
Por Favor Mandoble no te pongas a discutir con un tipo que fuma hasta helechos si lo dejan, el cada puta vez que alguien trae pruebas para discutir algo van a llorar y decir que esto no es valido en esto o aquello. NO solo eso si no que lo toman como ofensa que al discutir el modelaje de vuelo estamos descreditando no solo la compaņía que hace el juego si no a la nación entera con gente así francamente no se puede discutir.
Si quieren traducirlo haganlo me importa medio carajo.Ya sabes quien...
-
RAMB (Riendo A Mandíbula Batiente) Glasses ;) Probablemente esta última vez se fumo una zanahoria.
Whatever Wulfe, first PLAY this game, then post your experiences. Your play-time with 190s (as with almost whichever plane) is almost null, so, your POV is extremely limited.
-
I see one trouble ...
If the NACA chart is proved to be wrong for the 190 why should it be right for the others planes ?
For exemple I recall that the Typhoon roll rate was modified some time ago because of this chart now if this chart is wrong ...
-
Straffo, not sure about being this char the trigger to modify the roll rate of the typh, our 190 roll rate was also very different respect to the chart and it was not modified.
-
MANDOBLE I'm just trying to grab 1 or 2 ° per second for the Tyffi :)
I still havn't found any roll rate information for the Typhoon except the "infamous"(*) NACA report
(*) take it easy it's a joke ;)
-
Originally posted by Glasses
Por Favor Mandoble no te pongas a discutir con un tipo que fuma hasta helechos si lo dejan, el cada puta vez que alguien trae pruebas para discutir algo van a llorar y decir que esto no es valido en esto o aquello. NO solo eso si no que lo toman como ofensa que al discutir el modelaje de vuelo estamos descreditando no solo la compaņía que hace el juego si no a la nación entera con gente así francamente no se puede discutir.
Si quieren traducirlo haganlo me importa medio carajo.Ya sabes quien...
Es lo más sensato que he leido en estos puņeteros foros.
-
Originally posted by MANDOBLE
RAMB (Riendo A Mandíbula Batiente) Glasses ;) Probablemente esta última vez se fumo una zanahoria.
Te paso un link a la contestacion q metio passao sobre mi hace unos meses? :D Ese no se fumo una zanahoria, se fumo un invernadero entero :D.
Y lo peor es q aparte de lameculos ventajista, el tio es espaņol...pero bueno, infiltrados los hay en todas partes. Q se le va a hacer :D
-
straffo, wellllllcommmmmme to the whinnnnnnnnner sssssssssside of AH .... :D
-
Originally posted by MANDOBLE
straffo, wellllllcommmmmme to the whinnnnnnnnner sssssssssside of AH .... :D
But at least you've some data I've : "nib, nada, que tchi ,rien,que dalle"(*) nothing ...
Btw if you search in the past I've whined for the Yak 9Ut and it's soon to be time for another thread punt :p
And I still pray each evening for a MB5 ;)
(*) isn't french a marvellous language :D
-
Ok I'm gonna talk about this from the gameplay perspective. And Mandoble, you can check my stats and find that I spend the majority of my time in 190's so I think that at least gives me the right to comment ;)
For those of you that have not been around AH from the early days, yes the rollrate of the 190 was reduced.
Why? No the plane wasn't too good. It was changed because many of the 190 pilots were using it to intentionally warp roll every time they were in danger. And it got to be a serious gameplay problem.
And please don't tell me "well.... I didn't do it" because at least one of the people in this thread was one of the best warp rollers (or worst depending on your perspective) I've ever seen, and had it down to a fine art form. If you talked to them about it, they just thought it was "good defensive manuevers".
Medium to High ping times + high roll rates = warpy warpy warpy
So if you abuse it, you lose it.
Now my question is, why do you need more roll rate than is currently in the 190's? Unless you want to use warp rolls as defensives? The 190 series is still the best rolling plane in the game by far, and can use its rollrate defensively quite effectively.
You don't need to more. The plane fits its historic role, and does so within the limitations of the internet environment, without harming the gameplay of others.
You wanted an honest answer, well you got it. Of course HTC can't make such a statement, but I think most of us here know this is the straight forward truth. So if you feel insulted or threatened by my statement then flame away, but I think you'll just make yourself look bad.
-
I understand the need to reduce the rollrate of the 190 at low to medium speeds. If it caused warping, a slight decrease of the rollrate to avoid it is something I don't really mind.
However...at high speeds there is no warp problem, and the 190's rollrate at high speeds seems to be too low in AH ...and not because playability reasons.
That is what I talk about in this thread. The low-to-med speed 190's rollrate is something I can live with :)
-
Verm, I agree totally with you, an excess of roll rate may be a serious problem for game play, as spit-warp-breaks actually are (it is in front of you and now it is at your three o'clock, but that "seems" not to be a problem :rolleyes: ...).
Roll rate is nothing by itself, it is the roll rate compared with other planes roll rates what counts. If you decide to turn down the 190 roll rate to solve the warp problems, then you need to reduce proportionally the roll rate of every other plane, so, the relative advantages/disadvantages keep the same.
Actually, AH 190A can barely use its roll rate advantage to outscissor a spitIX, the spit will roll the same aided by rudder but not loosing almost any E in the process. And D9 roll rate is whatever but superb at any speed.
What we ask for is just to keep the "relative" performance of the planes as real as possible.
-
Originally posted by Vermillion
Now my question is, why do you need more roll rate than is currently in the 190's? Unless you want to use warp rolls as defensives? The 190 series is still the best rolling plane in the game by far, and can use its rollrate defensively quite effectively.
Excuse me but I find this question weird. I "need" the roll rate the 190s had in real life, nothing more, nothing less. I play AH because I want a wwii-era flight sim. Not a well-balanced game. If I wanted balance, I would play chess. And since all aircraft are open to all countries, giving the 190 its right characteristics would not affect balance the way I see it.
You know, I have never bithched or whined about the La7s and the manuvers they are able to pull off. I have never complained about the N1k2 and the moves it can make. Not once have I complained about any aircraft. Because I have always though that the aircraft are modelled correctly. That they were that good or bad in real life. And now I get to hear that the 190 is intentionally modelled wrong, for gameplay reasons?
If there is a problem with people "gaming" the game, by intentionally trying to warp their aircraft, there should be some other way to deal with them. Would it be possible to set a number of control input parameters, if anyone tries to violate these parameters, first they get a warning, and after that, if they continue, their controls freeze for 3-5 seconds.
I sincerely hope that what you have posted here is wrong. If this is HTs policy on these things...I mean I just dont understand it. Why would HT want to keep some aircraft performing worse in the game than they did in real life. If you start down that road, what is the next step...?
-
Oh, I see, I gotta play the game to comment on this stuff. Silly me!
Too bad the 190 is the same since Beta Tour 3... and if you go back further than this year, you'll find the majority of my time IS in the 190.
So below me Mandoble.
-SW
-
Hortlund, in the first stages of AH, 190 was a real problem. It was not a question of gaming the game or not, it was only a question of pure raw performance in roll, 190 rolled too fast for an internet game. It was a fact, and Verm is right. It seems you are not going to fly anything close to the real thing, but at least you should be able to fly something that keep the same advantages of the real thing in comparison with other planes.
If you tune down the roll rate of a plane for gameplay purposes, you need to compensate that tuning down, as minimum, the roll rate of the rest of the planes too.
-
Tour 23:
AKSWulfe has 38 kills and has been killed 1 time in the Fw 190A-8.
Tour 21:
AKSWulfe has 20 kills and has been killed 6 times in the Fw 190A-5.
Tour 20:
AKSWulfe has 42 kills and has been killed 7 times in the Fw 190A-8.
Tour 19:
AKSWulfe has 45 kills and has been killed 6 times in the Fw 190A-5.
and so on....
Just because I can't afford 40+ hours a month to fly doesn't mean I can't fly your precious LW planes.
Hell, took up a 190A8 last night and fought with it at ~12-3K.... 7 kills before I died against those fearsome Spits you have so much trouble against, La7s, and N1K2s.
-SW
-
Wulfe, your stats as your comments are out of scope. Do you agree or dont about the matter of 190 roll rate?
And yeah, you are surelly right, I have enormous problems against spits and Las ...
-
Didn't you see that I agreed with it? Or do you only look for the posts in which I am replying to someone else who thinks the mighty LuftWaffe is so good that their planes have to be neutered... in every freaking game?
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Tour 23:
AKSWulfe has 38 kills and has been killed 1 time in the Fw 190A-8.
Tour 21:
AKSWulfe has 20 kills and has been killed 6 times in the Fw 190A-5.
Tour 20:
AKSWulfe has 42 kills and has been killed 7 times in the Fw 190A-8.
Tour 19:
AKSWulfe has 45 kills and has been killed 6 times in the Fw 190A-5.
and so on....
Just because I can't afford 40+ hours a month to fly doesn't mean I can't fly your precious LW planes.
Hell, took up a 190A8 last night and fought with it at ~12-3K.... 7 kills before I died against those fearsome Spits you have so much trouble against, La7s, and N1K2s.
-SW
Excuse me but this is relevant how? Aside from you getting an opportunity to demonstrate your (what you apparently feel are good) stats..exactly what is the relevance here? Your word on 190 roll rates relate to your k/d ratio in 190s ...how?
My stats in the Zeke are 1 kills and 0 deaths...by your logic would that make me an authority on the zekes turn radius?
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
...who thinks the mighty LuftWaffe is so good that their planes have to be neutered... in every freaking game?
-SW
Uh, I thought everyone had agreed that the 190 roll rate indeed is neutered in this game.
-
Hortlund, read what Mandoble said to me before that reply. Then you may understand.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Uh, I thought everyone had agreed that the 190 roll rate indeed is neutered in this game.
And again, you don't read the thread but just tidbits.
-SW
-
Well, actually SW, I have read this entire thread today. And I was so bothered by it that I decided to check other posts in this forum.
Stuff that got me concerned so far are this rollrate issue, the d9 compression and 190a5 speed at sea level and 190a5 climb speed. I'm not gonna post any opinion on these things now, since I have not been able to test them myself yet. And the last thing this forum needs is someone diving into a discussion armed with nothng but his opinions and expectations.
But I will when I get home from work later tonight.
-
If you read the entire thread, in order, you would of connected my posts as replies to others in this thread.
Did you check this thread regarding the 190A5 top speed:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55938&pagenumber=2
It sure doesn't look like it needs to be changed according to Dtango's calculations.
-SW
-
What's striking is that now Dtango's calculations based on guesses outrun the factory speed chart presented..
I can't see the logic there.. :)
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Uh, I thought everyone had agreed that the 190 roll rate indeed is neutered in this game.
neutered is a bit harsh ... for a not so great difference.
If you want to see a neutered roll rate just get a pre 1.04 Typhoon and compare to the actual .
(Don't read it as a complain :it was wrong it got corrected.)
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
It sure doesn't look like it needs to be changed according to Dtango's calculations.
-SW
Are you serious?
-
Yes-
Exhaust thrust makes an impact. Looking at the physics CD0 ~ .027-.028 seems to be in line while the CD0~ .025 is not. The math here says that if the SL topspeed of the A-5 is 351mph, then the expected 21k topspeed should be 431mph.
If the calculation prove that the SL speed is in fact wrong in the game, then it also proves the A-5 charts wrong at 21K.
-SW
-
How does Dtango's exhaust thrust impact the original chart presented? One player presents a calculation estimate of flight performance that overruns the original chart?
Pfft.. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Yes-
Exhaust thrust makes an impact. Looking at the physics CD0 ~ .027-.028 seems to be in line while the CD0~ .025 is not. The math here says that if the SL topspeed of the A-5 is 351mph, then the expected 21k topspeed should be 431mph.
If the calculation prove that the SL speed is in fact wrong in the game, then it also proves the A-5 charts wrong at 21K.
-SW
But does the calculation really show that? And see my question to Dtango in the other thread. And he is saying he is using approximations, surely that must have some effect on the calculations? I really know too little about this stuff, but I find it very hard to believe that the factory charts are so wrong.
-
I never said the factory charts are wrong... but the thing is, if the A5 in game matches the charts at 21K... but is off by 16MPH at SL... then there is something that neither the calculations or the chart are going to prove/disprove the A-5's in game performance.
Atmospheric conditions, what time of year, etc. Cold air expands much more than warm air when it is super heated in an explosion. So if it's the dead of winter, you are going to get higher performance than the middle of summer.
The calculation shows that at SL the chart and Dtango's calcs match up. At 21K, the calcs are showing 431MPH... when it should be closer to 407MPH.
And what is SL in the chart? 0ft ASL I'd assume... as you know, 0ft ASL means you will be scraping water or ground.. so is the chart actual tests or is it too simply calculations?
EDIT: I said AGL, meant ASL.
-SW
-
to discuss Fw190A5's speed you've got the other thread. This is about rollrates :)
thank you :).
P.S.: AH's Fw190A8 performance is almost a copy from a FW-labelled chart
I wondered myself why AH's Fw190A5 doesn't follow a similar labelled chart, and the only answer I can find is than HTC probably didn't had that chart when they modelled the plane so they modelled it after the USAAF report.
Now they got the Focke-Wulf original chart I'm sure the Fw190A5's speed will be looked and corrected by Pyro, sooner or later, as soon as he has some time to do it :).
Now, back to the roll rates ,please :)
-
cc RAM, sorry 'bout that.
-SW
-
We have not changed any performace figures on any plane, including the 190 roll rate for "game play/internet resones".
HiTech
-
Originally posted by hitech
We have not changed any performace figures on any plane, including the 190 roll rate for "game play/internet resones".
HiTech
That's all I wanted to hear.
Thanks for the answer HiTech, (I must admit I was kinda worried a couple of posts ago).
-
Then we should suppose the initial roll rate was simply wrong, once corrected the warp went away. That, or a deep change in code to optimize that kind of data transmission/representation.
-
Originally posted by MANDOBLE
...once corrected the warp went away. .
It did? Nah, I think people got over using the LimpWristed shuffle as it would lead to carpal tunnel later on down the road.
-SW
-
"AH 190A can barely use its roll rate advantage to outscissor a spitIX, the spit will roll the same aided by rudder "
Well, d'oh!..Why don't you just use rudder as well?.
Daff
-
SWulfe,
Mandoble//the momentary subject of your grudge != LW's voice and representant.
If what Hitech says is true, there is every reason to post feedback information on the game for possible correction (or at least consideration of this info fo it) to better match what is supposed to be in the game; according to Hitech's post, matching the game's models with their RL objects is the goal, although the calling 'simulation' would cut the grass under this last assumption's feet.
-
Daff,
That (is true but) secondary to the FM being correct in the first place.
-
Originally posted by Daff
Well, d'oh!..Why don't you just use rudder as well?.
Daff
causes severe E-bleed and , in the case of the Fw190, it barely enhances the roll of the plane anyway.
-
No doubt about it Moot, if these roll rates/top speeds/etc are indeed correct.. then I believe the in-game models should be adjusted should the information be enough to prove to HTC that there is something amiss in the current modelling of the plane.
I questioned the roll rate based on stick force simply because it was left out (and I did not know what it was on the 190s), I got my answer and I was satisfied.
But then people started throwing in their asinine drivel about LW being too good, that's why the LW planes are 'neutered', or HTC not responding "again"(although they sure don't respond to all that many threads to begin with), and other such nonsense(allied conspiracies, etc)...
It's been 2+ years now, and they still can't get it past their ego that maybe HTC isn't trying to keep the LW down, or that they aren't trying to not give LW planes the performance they deserve... whatever it is... they just can't accept that despite a few degrees off in the 190s roll, or 16MPH on one planes top speed at sea level, they aren't the center of HTC's world and LW planes are less than 1/4 of the countries that participated in WWII (and thus in this game). It takes a whole toejamload of a lot of time and work to go back and fix things- especially when you are attempting to emulate flight on a freaking 1Ghz computer.
It ain't just Mandoble either. He just happens to be the one replying to me in this particular thread. Not ALL virtualLW pilots are like that- I spend the majority of my time in 190s... if they get better performance, great, but I don't want it arrived at by these BS tactics of trying to sucker HTC in with blatantly false claims about intentionally dumbing down LW planes for gameplay or whatever.
Stick to the data, with valid claims and I won't even get into a pissing match with these fellas.
-SW
-
edited for grammar
SWulfe,
Understood, I agree with you but am not in your position, nor in the generic LWhiner's, so the main purpose is still to provide for improvements to anything, for example this case in question.
If one has undirectly-related problems to bring up alongisde, inherently it is only partially relevent to the main purpose.
The protocol is another question, yes.
If I turn off diplomacy-mode, Ill say that I doubt HTC is about to be suckered by anyone into BSing their (HTC's) final product.
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
It's been 2+ years now, and they still can't get it past their ego that maybe HTC isn't trying to keep the LW down, or that they aren't trying to not give LW planes the performance they deserve... whatever it is... they just can't accept that despite a few degrees off in the 190s roll, or 16MPH on one planes top speed at sea level, they aren't the center of HTC's world and LW planes are less than 1/4 of the countries that participated in WWII (and thus in this game). It takes a whole toejamload of a lot of time and work to go back and fix things- especially when you are attempting to emulate flight on a freaking 1Ghz computer.
You could say it in a less agressive way, but in this I have to agree with you ,SW. It takes time. It takes work,too. And they got their heads and work focused in other areas of the game.
However one thing is true, here, Seawulfe. And I want you to read this in a pure objective way, I don't want to flame anything. I just try to be objective.
Pyro ,or HT, or anyone at HTC could chime in this thread, or the 190 speed thread (which has been one of the most civil discussions I recall in this forum regarding a german plane), and just say "We will look into it,when we've got time in the future"...or "we think our sources are more trustable, and AH's 190A5 speed will stay that way"...or "nice info but we need more data"...
I mean...to say "yes" , "no"...or "not enough data"...doesn't take that much time. I mean, hey even HT entering one of his code-answers (0 or 1 ,heheh :D) would be enough to know if HTC thinks the data presented is valid and worth discussing.
You would say that HTC guys have more things to do than to answer into the boards. I agree. But this topics have been around for quite some time now, and to post a short answer is not asking for much, I think. They haven't done it so far. No problem from my side, but is clear some people do have that problem :(.
I don't know, SW, the thing is that HTC has kept silence on the matter...that is a fact. The reasons of that silence I don't truly understand but is their priviledge and option to answer the questions and topics brought up in this forum, or not.
I only say that it would be better (IMHO) if we had some kind of...er..."official standpoint" made by ,say, pyro, on the matters we've discussed :). That would finish many debates wich have been discussed for literally, ages, in the forums ,and would clear many people's doubts :).
For instance... HoHun and Naudet are still disagreeing about the true power output of AH's 190D9...I won't think is that difficult for Pyro to enter one of those trheads and clear up which the true output is in AH,and so end the months-long debate for once at all :).
See, I don't think HTC has an anti-LW agenda. As I said in a previous post I do think the 190A5's speed is in the fixlist for Pyro and that will be fixed in the future.
In contrast, I don't think the rollrate is in that list....and rightly so because -even when I think is too low in AH- the true roll rate at 50lbs stick force is not well documented and thus the only chart we have is the NACA one. Wrong or not, is the only official chart with enough information to do a model, so is the one used.
I just say, that it won't be hard for Pyro or HT to enter the A5's discussion and write "1" and then enter into this one and write "0" :D. That would end many debates about their point of view, don't you think? :).
P.S. Ok, I know there would be endless debate about the why of a "yes", or why of a "no"...but at least noone will say that HTC has kept a silence on the matter anymore :)
-
I've Mentioned it before Ram, but you were on AH Vactaion I think.
It is my belief that HTC doesn't respond to these types of threads because of the distinct posibility that they will simply end up arguing with thier customers. Maybe you don't think that you would do such a thing, and maybe you are right. But there are people on this board who wouldn't think twice of questioning HTCs ethics or integrity. It's an invitation for people to "go for the jugular" to get their model changed, and I think its just an unappealing situation.
Over the last few months, people have brought data that shows that the F6F5, the F4U1D, and the 190A5 are all too slow. If HTC feels that the data warrents examination or change, they will make it. But there isn't much that can be done.
-Sikboy
-
"causes severe E-bleed and , in the case of the Fw190, it barely enhances the roll of the plane anyway."
Which, in a scissors situation, isnt necesarrily a bad thing...that is, if you are trying to force an overshoot and not just roll around to avoid being hit.
Daff
-
A message to all who think that 190 roll rate is porked :
fly Typhoon only for one week ...
I bet that after this experiment the 190 roll rate will make you sick :D :D (*)
(*) don't forget your vomit bag ;)
-
Yep ,Sikboy, and I understand your point. I'm at a point where I don't really mind if they answer or not because I do know all data posted here is looked at, and taken in account by HTC if it is reliable enough. But still I think that some posting won't hurt too much, just an in&out thing to make people know about what HTC thinks on a given issue.
I don't know :). All I know is that I would like them to post a bit more, but that I can live without it :)
Originally posted by Daff
Which, in a scissors situation, isnt necesarrily a bad thing...that is, if you are trying to force an overshoot and not just roll around to avoid being hit.
Daff
Hehehe, yes, Daff...but the thing is that I want to bleed E when I want to bleed E, and I want to stay fast and keep E when I want to keep that E ;).
and anyway rudder in 190 doesn't accelerate your roll rate. I know it first hand, is my most used ride :)
-
Just found a nice picture of the 190 stick.
Here you go ;)
-
any more where that came from ?
very interested
-
More stick pictures? here you go:)
-
What are all those buttons on the stick for? I see a pinky button, a button on the front, and two buttons on the top... anyone know?
-SW
-
Its not such a big stick, so somehow the controls must have been very light. What made the 190 roll so insanely well anyway?
Here is a picture of the Spitfire stick for comparison. It is quite a bit longer, and also bear in mind that the 190 pilot was tilted backwards in his seat. Comparing those two I think you would be able to get more force through the Spitfire stick, which was absolutely necessary, for the control was heavier.
-
The "frontal" one is not a button, it is just the security cover of the "top" button.
U had two fire (primary and secondary) buttons on the upper side of the stick and the radio button is what you call "pinkie".
In front of the stick (in the upper picture) you can notice the pair of switchers to control the WGr1 rocket launchers, both located between the legs of the pilot in the central column of the control panel.
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
What are all those buttons on the stick for? I see a pinky button, a button on the front, and two buttons on the top... anyone know?
-SW
AFAIK, pinky button was for radio, front button was primary weapons trigger, button in the top was secondary weapons trigger, button on the top, side, was bomb release button.
-
Ah, thanks guys.
-SW
-
RAM, the frontal one is not a trigger, just a cover.
-
Originally posted by Hristo
any more where that came from ?
very interested
190A8 cockpit (http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/fw190cockpit/CockPitMap.html)
The images are clickable to get a more detailed view of each instrument and panel.
Impressive, isnt it?
Compare that "F16" cockpit with the Spit one :cool:
-
I'd buy a Cougar in a second with that stick on it.
F.
-
Hi Mandoble,
>RAM, the frontal one is not a trigger, just a cover.
You're both right :-)
The trigger ("A-Knopf") covered the pushbutton in "safe" mode.
(The pushbutton was the "B-Knopf", or - with a second button on the contrul column as on the stick in question -, the "B1-Knopf") . To arm, the cover would be flipped into the front position and assume its trigger role.
(The third fire button was called "B2-Knopf", by the way. In the depicted aircraft, which is equipped with the W.Gr 21 control panel, it would be used for firing the rockets. The explanation on the web site unfortunately mistakes the W.Gr 21 launch tube jettison switch for the firing switch, but the German label "Absprengsch." clearly indicates its function.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
what hohun said :)
-
Hohun, there were two versions of the KG13B control stick?
The diagrams I have list only two fire buttons, but doesnt talk at all about releasing bombs with them. The frontal control panel had a control to arm the bombs and a handle to "jettison" them (not sure if jettison is just to drop them or to dissarm them and just jetisson them).
In the other hand, this page show the KG13B indicating that the second fire button was used to release the bombs. But the frontal metal pieze seems a simple cover of the upper main fire button, it is what is referred as cannon trigger safety. If so, it gives us only 3 buttons on the stick, and only two of them to fire "weapons". If the handle in the control panel was used to release bombs, then different combinations of guns might have beet assigned to both main fire buttons. Else, there was only one fire button for cannons and the second one for cannons OR bombs. So, carrying bombs would imply firing always all the cannons/MGs at the same time.
KG13B Control Stick (http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/fw190cockpit/stick.html)
-
Hi Mandoble,
>Hohun, there were two versions of the KG13B control stick?
I could speculate there was a KG13 with A- and B-Knopf, and the KG13B which added the B2-Knopf. However, that's really not my area of expertise, so I can only guess.
>But the frontal metal pieze seems a simple cover of the upper main fire button, it is what is referred as cannon trigger safety.
It's not as simple as you think :-) The "safety" actually had to separate the electrical connection of the gun circuit, so a plain piece of metal barely covering the cannon button wouldn't have done anyway. It's really absolutely certain that the "safety" is the A-Knopf which was used for firing the machine guns :-)
>If the handle in the control panel was used to release bombs
The handle was a mechanical back-up system for emergency release (probably incapable of arming the stores). It's labeled as "emergency stores release handle" on the referred site.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
As far as i know it buttons had the following function:
very top button: to fire the guns, which guns were fired could be selected by a switch (think it was somewhere below the ammunition counter) and or by fuzes for the different guns cicuits
left top button: used to trigger ordance, it could be selected on a panel located between the pilots legs, in the picture you can see it directly infront of the stick
button on lower front: radio button
and i think the 13A didnt have the ordance trigger
-
Originally posted by RRAM
Yep ,Sikboy, and I understand your point. I'm at a point where I don't really mind if they answer or not because I do know all data posted here is looked at, and taken in account by HTC if it is reliable enough. But still I think that some posting won't hurt too much, just an in&out thing to make people know about what HTC thinks on a given issue.
Well, in the interest of trying to have accurate representations of the the aircraft's performance capabilities, why can't HTC post THEIR source material for examination. Then if the community agrees on the validity of the source, it won't matter if another source disagrees. We will have an accepted baseline source to work with. However, I've never seen any of this. (is there some?)
I know this isn't a TA152H thread, but by source material I've found the AH TA152H runs over 30 mph slower than its published topend speed. See the subject under playability issues. Plenty of charts etc. (shrug) Haven't heard any response from HTC yet.
-
Originally posted by SOUP
Well, in the interest of trying to have accurate representations of the the aircraft's performance capabilities, why can't HTC post THEIR source material for examination. Then if the community agrees on the validity of the source, it won't matter if another source disagrees. We will have an accepted baseline source to work with. However, I've never seen any of this. (is there some?)
HTC runs a business, and they have competence (WB, FA, WWIIOL, boxed sims, etc). The information they use to model the planes is something they don't want to show in public ,because that same information could be used by a direct competitor in their own Flight models.
Also, even today, many of the charts and informations regarding WWII planes are still classified or "licensed" for use under NDA agreements. For instance, Oleg Maddox (the designer of Il2) must have an amazing ammount of information coming from the russian data of late and post WWII tests....yet he can't show it in public because NDA agreements AND (of course) the said reason: you have an information you don't want to share with your competitors.
So don't ask HTC to show their sources. They won't. And they'll do fine in not doing it :)
I know this isn't a TA152H thread, but by source material I've found the AH TA152H runs over 30 mph slower than its published topend speed. See the subject under playability issues. Plenty of charts etc. (shrug) Haven't heard any response from HTC yet.
LOL don't get Wilbus started on this...again :). Yeah ,I agree, Ta152H is slower than what it should be at very high altitudes. this was already pointed and (IMO) demonstrated some time ago. I guess is in the fixlist too (but I also guess its very low in that fixlist...the Ta152 is a very low used plane anyway, and not many people go up to 35K, where the speed loss is :))
-
RRAM,
Hmm confused about how you would have a Non-Disclosure Agreement for historical data on "ancient" aircraft.
Not looking for data on how they program the planes.. just the data they say the replicate.
Something akin to... source data for the TA152H came from yada yada yada...
If the source is credible and disagrees with another source by 15 MPH.. big deal... I'm just interested in what source was consulted that results in a difference of over 30MPH. If it was just an oops, missed it in the programing (shrug) ok, put it on a punchlist and fix it sometime. I'm just concerned we have in accurate data from jumpstreet.
Oh and who would go to 35k ? (looks over shoulder warily)
Have you seen how many buffs fly up at 30k?
(drools)
-
Originally posted by RRAM
I understand the need to reduce the rollrate of the 190 at low to medium speeds. If it caused warping, a slight decrease of the rollrate to avoid it is something I don't really mind.
However...at high speeds there is no warp problem, and the 190's rollrate at high speeds seems to be too low in AH ...and not because playability reasons.
That is what I talk about in this thread. The low-to-med speed 190's rollrate is something I can live with :)
Hmmm...so you think it's better to have fantasy FMs than enchanged netcode?
If people warp. Reducing rollrate of 190 isn't any way to fix it IMHO. Correct what is wrong.
-
SOUP, as I already told you, many of the documents regarding WWII planes are not at the public access even today. Those documents can be looked at with permission, and used for studies, etc (that ETC includes using the data to model planes in a WWII-vintage Simulation), but under a strict NDA agreement.
That is for real, and it is 100% true. As for why isn't that information available for the public today, 60 years after WWII happened, don't ask me. Ask those who manage those files.
Originally posted by illo
Hmmm...so you think it's better to have fantasy FMs than enchanged netcode?
If people warp. Reducing rollrate of 190 isn't any way to fix it IMHO. Correct what is wrong.
I'd rather have a fliable game than no game at all. Look it from any angle and perspective you want to look it at. I am a dedicated Fw190A pilot in aces high ,still I stay on what I said.
-
HT said there was no adjustment to the FM for gameplay purposes.
-
Originally posted by moot
HT said there was no adjustment to the FM for gameplay purposes.
So how about getting some rollrate for our belowed 190As. :)
-
im confused ,
was the 190 roll rate lowered in ah? if so why was it done? does the new chart this fellow has say the roll rate now is to slow or the first version? i played from the first week of beta and dont remember super rolling 190s. some people made carriers of doing the flip flop evade anyway.
why is so much ah info secret? obviously lots of well educated people all over the world trying to find what is correct. little real feedback even when the research is really well done it seems.
-
@lord dolf vader
Wht do you find confusing in this post :
Originally posted by hitech
We have not changed any performace figures on any plane, including the 190 roll rate for "game play/internet resones".
HiTech
?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Its not such a big stick, so somehow the controls must have been very light. What made the 190 roll so insanely well anyway?
I believe it was its ailerons.
They were just very effective.
-
never saw any charts for it....but R.S. Johnson's bio said that he
managed to get a LOT of 190 and 109 kills in his P47C by using
the inCREDible roll rate of the jug to make the guy think he turned
inside him..which jug obvioulsy cant do--makes sense that jug would have a good roll, at least in the direction of engine rotation--that would apply to FW and zeke as well. Jug real heavy yes, but with weight centered..oughtnt hinder roll rate--jug here rolls like b17
-
Originally posted by bj229r
never saw any charts for it....but R.S. Johnson's bio said that he
managed to get a LOT of 190 and 109 kills in his P47C by using
the inCREDible roll rate of the jug to make the guy think he turned
inside him..which jug obvioulsy cant do--makes sense that jug would have a good roll, at least in the direction of engine rotation--that would apply to FW and zeke as well. Jug real heavy yes, but with weight centered..oughtnt hinder roll rate--jug here rolls like b17
Jug has about half the rollrate of 190. Somewhere over 3secs compared to 1.8sec (360degrees) in FW190. A6M has a quite crappy rollrate despite of its big ailerons. Clipped wing spits are closest match to 190 with around 2.4sec roll IIRC.
-
We have not changed any performace figures on any plane, including the 190 roll rate for "game play/internet resones".
HiTech
the part that this can mean they have changed it but for other reasons. or they didnt change it at all ever . all it really means is they didnt do it for internet/gamplay reasons.
hell, let me back off here. i dont have a guess if they changed it at all. i have left the game twice so i dont have continious experience in them. so who knows (ht, pyro htc ect) and noone else. i just wish we knew as the reasonings behind this decisions is facinating to me.
for instance in another thread just yesterday ht himself explained why the lw rocket tubes arent dropable. it was unquestionably well thought out and the correct way to model the things. more intimate knowlege of game decisions like that makes me trust their wisdom in game mechanics i believe more public explanations like that leading to a respectful dialog would be absolutly wonderful. but after years of this i realize it just aint gonna happen. i guess i just dont understand it and will have to live with that.
-
Well I read it more simply than you :)
without any digression :p
-
Could someone post the NACA report number or the exact url of that report? I'd like to see it.
Has anyone calculated the number of g's implied by 100+ degree per second roll at such high speeds? Seems to me it could be really, really high.
-Blogs
-
...seems like it would be negative G, or possibly not, depending on where the pilot was with respect to the axis of roll...i'm there is a safe limit to negative Gs and after that to red-out or other effects probably kill you - can you red-out yourself to death?
does your head explode?
-
NACA 868 (http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-report-868/)
Actually data on Fw 190, Spitfires, Typhoon and Mustang on that report come from RAE tests. And above claimed "true Fw 190 roll rate" chart comes from the very same test.
gripen
-
There was quote of a pilot saying the roll rate on a 190 (don't remember which one) would rip parts off other planes had they that much roll rate.
-
Why not just mail/email/phone (for you German guys) FlugWerk in Germany. They should know all this, seeing they build 190 replicas to 98% original Fw190A8 standard. They re-build old warbirds aswell, and have flown the 190. They MUST have the specs on the Würger.
-
hehe that is a thought has anyone ever just called them ? i know almost my whole squad was german. bet thos guys would be tickled that we have spent essentialy years arguing what they can go check on a morning check flight lol.
and alot of other figgures also dive compression onset ect ect.
-
Well? Has anyone contacted them?
-
up
someone in Germany could see what Flugwerk has.
-
Their website is in English and they do business internationally... ANYONE with a fair grasp of English can contact them.
I can make myself understood in German (being Dutch and working for a German company) but most modern Germans speak perfectly servicable English...
-
Well, there are many Germans flying in AH, and probably some of those live near their workshop. Hmmm....how about a "Aces High" visit to them,,,,seriously!
Anyway, since I go to Germany every year, I'd be ready to have a go at it. Anyone?
-
You are saying 1 of three things:
(1) the data remains classified - unlikely,
(2) the data is contained in database that is being protected as a trade secret by the developers of computer gaming software - certainly possible
(3) the data is proprietary information of a company that was never released - unlikely given the huge quantity of standardized flight test reports that should be contained in the national archives. The problem is that these archives are difficult to search and access.
-Blogs
Originally posted by RRAM
SOUP, as I already told you, many of the documents regarding WWII planes are not at the public access even today. Those documents can be looked at with permission, and used for studies, etc (that ETC includes using the data to model planes in a WWII-vintage Simulation), but under a strict NDA agreement.
That is for real, and it is 100% true. As for why isn't that information available for the public today, 60 years after WWII happened, don't ask me. Ask those who manage those files.
I'd rather have a fliable game than no game at all. Look it from any angle and perspective you want to look it at. I am a dedicated Fw190A pilot in aces high ,still I stay on what I said.
-
What would you say if I told you that I have the AAF evaluation of the FW190D-9?
-
What else?
Originally posted by F4UDOA
What would you say if I told you that I have the AAF evaluation of the FW190D-9?
-
F4UDOA:
I would say: "Cool, lets see it." :)
Hooligan
-
Doesnt the amount of stick between your legs have a great impact on the amount of "rolling" you do? :)
-
I would say
objectively post it.
-
AFAIK the FlugWerk 190 never had a "real" flight so far.
-
No, but according to a friend of mine (SAS pilot) who has followed this project with great interest says that FlugWerk has rebuilt several warbirds including a 190 to flying condition before starting this project. Anyways they must have considerable data on the 190 lying around to be able to MAKE them. They may have specs on other planes too.