190A5 vs 190A8

[Bubbajj]

Not saying a 190 should be a spitfire on steroids, I'm simply making the observation that the 190 encountered by the Allied forces was ,reportedly, a much more formidable and capable adversary that what is seen in game. Except for roll, our 190 is a flying brick with no other real qualities to recommend it over the 109, to which it was also supposed to be superior. What we have would make the total tonnage of Allied aircraft taken by 190 have to have been the result of BnZ and hit and run as it is evident that anyone that stops and tries to duel with a spit in a 190 is dead. The only way a 190 wins is if the spit driver has a stroke in the middle of the contest. It just doesn't make any sense.

[Stoney]

For the last time, folks need to understand that what made an aircraft competitive in the WWII air battle is not necessarily something that translates into AHII.  That the 190 was superior to the Spit V--no question.  Could it out turn a Spit V?  Not in a sustained turn it couldn't.  Kind of like an F4U couldn't out-turn a Zero, but was considered to be superior.  The P-47 couldn't out-turn a Ki-43, but was considered superior.

Aerodynamically, it is almost impossible for the FW-190 to be a better sustained turner than it is represented in-game.  I want to stress this 1,000 times and then 1,000 more.  It was not designed to achieve tight sustained turns.  It was designed to fly fast, roll fast, climb fast.  As a result of its design tradeoffs, it turned like a bullet.  Turning very tight matters in AH2.  It didn't matter nearly as much back then.

[save]

Try to climb with 190a8 and tell me it climbs fast with 4 * 20mm guns .

If the guys that has put effort into  calculating combat weight on the a8 is right, and it will be adjusted correctly, it might be a better plane ,
It will not outturn a spit, but can give it the performace it had in real life.

[jdbecks]

The 190 is a fantastic plane that is very capable at standing its ground when outnumbered, however, when flown by people who do not understand how to utilise its strengths will fall easy prey to enemy aircraft. For instance I encounter many 190s who try to make one or two passes then running or make a ho attempt..these pilots are not extracting the strengths of the plane. to fully appreciate just what the plane can and cant do you need to spend quite alot of time in cockpit.  I have flown the 190 almost exclusively since I have started the game, and although I am not the best of pilots..I know what the plane can and cant do. I never flat turn more than 90 degrees and always use the vertical and the roll rate to try and get the advantage over my enemy, which also leads to my death as I also fly it very aggressively.

In the odd occasion Stampf gives us permission to fly non Luftwaffe aircraft, I fly them for a few sorties and always go back to the dora as I feel 190 is one of the best attack aircraft in the game and even better when hunting in a pack.

I love dora, and when I cheat on her..I always go running back.

[Bubbajj]

What, can't find a Dora avatar?

So what Stoney is saying, fastest best climbing plane wins, right?

[PJ_Godzilla]

What, can't find a Dora avatar?

So what Stoney is saying, fastest best climbing plane wins, right?

No. What Stoney is saying is that, if you've been through basic aero and know anything about physics, you can derive the following (taken from Wiki):

Like any body in circular motion, an aircraft that is fast and strong enough to maintain level flight at speed v in a circle of radius R accelerates towards the centre at v^2/r. That acceleration is caused by the inward horizontal component of the lift, , where θ is the banking angle. Then from Newton's second law ,

mv^2/r = L sin(theta) = .5 rho v^2 CL A sin(theta)
Tidying up gives

R = 2 W/A /(rho CL sin(theta))

W/A is the wing loading and R decreases with it. This is basic centripetal motion - like you'd learn in sophomore physics.

Compare the wingloading of the 190 and the Spit VIII, for example. HiTech knows physics and Aero. Anecdotes aren't worth a damn, necessarily.

For example, when somebody says the 190 out-turns the Spit, what do they mean? Does it change heading more quickly? over what interval? sustained or with alt loss?

The physics don't lie. 

The smaller the wing loading, the tighter the turn.


I just love it when people come in here like nobody's ever studied this stuff before, like math, physics, and engineering haven't already established and re-established these basics. So, all I can say is vector diagram it for yourself and do the balance. If you have questions after that, bring 'em here. There's no magic going on here.

I'd also like to point out, I've seen 190's flown in the MA - indeed, done some of it myself, such that they're devilishly difficult to kill. I've also been killed by 190s. I recall my first FSO - all of my Seafire-flying squaddies got HAMMERED by A-5s as we went to land. I say, revise the weight, if needed, than take away the icon, then see how the k/d on the 190 fares (D-9 already has one of the highest k/d in the game).

This is all just silly bullhockey at this point.

[Angus]

"The smaller the wing loading, the tighter the turn."

And within the same aircraft, therefor the lighter it is (say fuel is gone and ammo wasted) the tighter the turn

[Stoney]

So what Stoney is saying, fastest best climbing plane wins, right?

No.  Re-read the entire couple hundred posts of this thread.

[Charge]

Well, the Bearcat article I posted would suggest that with its small rigid wing the 190 had some desireable qualities -maybe it could pull more instantaneous Gs in high speed without breaking its wings than its low wingloaded contemporaries? Thus it was also a problem in Bearcat that when they had to increase wing area to make carrier landings possible the wingtip loading went too high finally resulting in a 4G limit?

Does "high" wingloading suggest that while the stress of the weight of the a/c is divided over smaller area the stress is also bigger? Or do every high wingloading result in mushing through turns? Even in high speeds?

Does "low" wingloading suggest that the while the weight of the aircraft is distributed over a larger lifting area the stress is also lower and it can pull more Gs even in high speed? Or would it need the same amount of metal than there is in FW, lbs/sqinch, to retain the same rigidity and G tolerance, thus resulting in a very heavy wing?

There is a common anecdote: Soon the pilots were pulling such aileron turns in their new 190s that would have wrenched the wings off of their old 109s" What is "aileron turn" anyway?

-C+

PS. There is a saying about 190 (Hoof?): "It likes to go fast and stay fast." Obviously referring to good acceleration, low drag, and low maneuvering drag, unless you force too much AoA and start dumping speed excessively.
PPS. In 1 vs 1 the 190 generally sucks, but is starts to shine in many vs many where it can switch targets continously and stay fast and take deadly snapshots with its cannons.

[Stoney]

Well, the Bearcat article I posted would suggest that with its small rigid wing the 190 had some desireable qualities -maybe it could pull more instantaneous Gs in high speed without breaking its wings than its low wingloaded contemporaries? Thus it was also a problem in Bearcat that when they had to increase wing area to make carrier landings possible the wingtip loading went too high finally resulting in a 4G limit?

Unknown.  Typically, and as was the case with the F8F, the weight of the wing versus its structural strength is more of a design consideration.  There are techniques and materials that can be used to lessen the weight of a wing, but for the most part, its structural strength is proportional to its weight.  One of the things the Grumman engineers were trying to do with the F8F design was pack that honking big American radial in as small/light a plane as possible, so weight was a key issue.  You can make a small wing very strong.  You can make a large wing very strong.  If you try to make a larger wing weigh the same as a small wing, generally speaking, it won't be as strong. 

Does "high" wingloading suggest that while the stress of the weight of the a/c is divided over smaller area the stress is also bigger? Or do every high wingloading result in mushing through turns? Even in high speeds?  Does "low" wingloading suggest that the while the weight of the aircraft is distributed over a larger lifting area the stress is also lower and it can pull more Gs even in high speed? Or would it need the same amount of metal than there is in FW, lbs/sqinch, to retain the same rigidity and G tolerance, thus resulting in a very heavy wing?

Completely dependent on other design considerations.  Don't confuse span loading with wing-loading.  Span loading is typically a function of wing design.  Wing loading is nothing more than the weight of the aircraft in a specific configuration divided by the wing area.  Ultimately, wing-loading has no impact on the structural qualities of a wing.  It does however, impact the aerodynamic qualities.

[Bubbajj]

Must all be in the flight paradigm. I like the A5, the rest aren't worth a pound of turds.

[PJ_Godzilla]

Must all be in the flight paradigm. I like the A5, the rest aren't worth a pound of turds.

I don't know  -I like the D-9, provided I come in with some alt and speed. You can do a lot with that bird - especially if you have friendlies around. It's much better suited to BnZ or bomber-busting than a Spit, for example. The A8 is, imj, one of the best snapshot killers and bomber busters in the game.

I think that, icons off, the FW's life gets a lot easier.

[Charge]

"Don't confuse span loading with wing-loading.  Span loading is typically a function of wing design."

Yeah, that is something that I have been wondering. If you compare e.g. the wings of F6F and Spit, both good low speed turners, the span loading must be less in Spit due to smaller wingtip but then again the wing root is where all the momentum arm of the wing directs the forces. In that light the wing tip of the Bear must have been significantly lighter built than the root portion of the wing. After all it was the outboard portion of the wing that was lightened in FW too. Not sure if it got weaker in the process but if it did I'd expect there should have been a marginal difference in roll rates between A5 and A6 in A5's favor if some of the stiffness was lost.

-C+

[STEELE]

So what was the final verdict on the weight discrepancy? 500kg?

[STEELE]

Oops I meant pounds, I'm sure its not kgs lol. (The A8)