Author Topic: 190A5 vs 190A8  (Read 65382 times)

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #75 on: April 01, 2010, 09:48:33 AM »
Say what you will about how he presents himself, the US test of the 190 is widely accepted by all to be flawed in every way, and the Brits took the very same plane and yielded a better turn performance because the trim wasn't as fubar'd as the US test.

Many 190s were flight-tested in the war, captured and native. The US test is the worst by far and nobody takes it as a serious representation of the 190's turning capabilities.


That's fact. That's not opinion.

Say what you will about the rest, but that's something you can check on.


P.S. Folks might think "So what, big deal, the trim was a little off" but in fact the trim was way off. It forced an earlier stall than normal because of the way the ailerons or the trim tabs were setup. It wasn't a minor point. Even Fw190 pilots learned that properly set trim tabs meant a big difference in manuverability.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2010, 09:50:16 AM by Krusty »

Offline Saurdaukar

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8610
      • Army of Muppets
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #76 on: April 01, 2010, 11:38:15 AM »
Ill post the Brit 190 test tonight.

Cliffs Notes:  "We're screwed."

Offline thorsim

  • Parolee
  • Restricted
  • ****
  • Posts: 1029
      • The Luftwhiner Lounge
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #77 on: April 01, 2010, 11:40:50 AM »
point of fact it was not only the control system that was improperly adjusted the report notes that ...

weight was added

cog was adjusted

engine was underperforming

engine boost was not performing correctly

the pilot had very little previous time in the type

and of course the airframe was either a recovered crash or a captured derelict

it had no experienced or certified maintenance crew

by all accounts had been reassembled improperly noted by the control system imbalance

there is no telling what else was not put together properly.

oh and it was not even a 190-A  it was a 190-F

you guys keep noting that the 190s are off, so i brought this test up because quite frankly it is the only explanation i can find after years of researching such things to explain the handling of the 190s in the games
and how they contradict the vast majority of accounts and tests on the type/s ...

but feel free to look into things yourself, if it's not worth your time i suggest you consider if it was your favorite ride that was in question and then if your concern level was different then do a little "soul searching" about how concerned with accuracy you really are, do you care about accuracy or do you just care about your own plane and its advantages.  

Too bad I wasted so much time reading this thread.

thorism, post some flight DATA to back up your claims.  Anecdotes (which are also absent from your posts) and your feelings about a plane just don't do it.  Do you really think AH is sitting in his office thinking "thorism must be right.  He's a 190 expert.  Pyro, change the 190 flight models ASAP."?


bald eagle there are qualified and subjective characters to planes and FMs that both effect performance.

He doesn't work that way...

He expects you to prove him wrong, so he doesn't need to prove himself right.  If you can't (or don't feel like spending the time to) prove him wrong, then he must be right, right?

It's all opinions about opinions at this point.  And to back those opinions about opinions up, toss in an occasional plane "nickname" if it fits (notice the F4U was referred to as the "Ensign Eliminator" rather than the "Sweetheart of Okinawa").  If needed, refer to the pilots who didn't get the desired flight results as inexperienced in that type (but don't mention that the nickname used referred to inexperienced pilots not getting the desired results...)

The weight issue sounds like it may be valid, and proven.  I'm interested in that...

i don't expect anything and quite frankly i have posted more data on this board than my detractors ever have, including you sir, i have grown tired of it so yes it is time everyone else took their turn to go look and see for themselves as the powers that be and the "community" here have soured my taste for data mining for their benefit, i am certainly not the first and i am sure i am not the last to reach that point with these boards btw ...

so yes, prove me wrong if you can    
THOR C.O. II ~JG-27~ Afrika-AH
Axis Co-Op
Quote from: any number of idiots here
blah blah Blah
Quote from: oldman
Good call.  Ignore the people who actually flew the real planes against each other.

Offline FLS

  • AH Training Corps
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11617
      • Trainer's Website
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #78 on: April 01, 2010, 12:28:17 PM »
thanks for making my point, eric brown was not a 190 pilot he was employed as i recall by the royal navy sooo
wtf are you doing passing off his impressions as the final word on the airframe.  ...
 

Here's what Wiki says about Eric Brown:

Captain Eric Melrose "Winkle" Brown, CBE, DSC, AFC (born 21 January 1919) is a former Royal Navy officer and test pilot who has flown more types of aircraft than anyone else in history. He is also the Fleet Air Arm’s most decorated pilot, and holds the world record for aircraft carrier landings.

And the kid who has never flown asks "wtf".  :rofl

Offline thorsim

  • Parolee
  • Restricted
  • ****
  • Posts: 1029
      • The Luftwhiner Lounge
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #79 on: April 01, 2010, 01:17:44 PM »
didn't notice FW-190 combat experience on his resume, if you did please point that out ...

until you find that i will take other more specifically qualified opinions over Mr. Browns ...
 
just like I would prefer take say David Bong's opinion of the capabilities and quirks of the p-38 over Mr. Browns ...

the fact that you are posting silly little funny faces when i say that sheds some light on you real interests,
and ability to qualify data sources sir.

  

Here's what Wiki says about Eric Brown:

Captain Eric Melrose "Winkle" Brown, CBE, DSC, AFC (born 21 January 1919) is a former Royal Navy officer and test pilot who has flown more types of aircraft than anyone else in history. He is also the Fleet Air Arm’s most decorated pilot, and holds the world record for aircraft carrier landings.

And the kid who has never flown asks "wtf".  :rofl
« Last Edit: April 01, 2010, 03:12:30 PM by thorsim »
THOR C.O. II ~JG-27~ Afrika-AH
Axis Co-Op
Quote from: any number of idiots here
blah blah Blah
Quote from: oldman
Good call.  Ignore the people who actually flew the real planes against each other.

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #80 on: April 01, 2010, 04:36:27 PM »

just like I would prefer take say David Bong's opinion of the capabilities and quirks of the p-38 over Mr. Browns ...

Who is David Bong?

Offline FLS

  • AH Training Corps
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11617
      • Trainer's Website
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #81 on: April 01, 2010, 04:43:33 PM »
didn't notice FW-190 combat experience on his resume, if you did please point that out ...
 

So your point is that even though he was an experienced WW2 fighter pilot, was fluent in German, test flew 53 different German aircraft after the war, interviewed many different German pilots and designers, flew every Allied fighter aircraft the FW190 fought against, is widely considered one the few people who can authoritatively compare Allied and Axis aircraft, and was the most prolific test pilot in the history of aviation flying 500 different aircraft; he should be discounted because he didn't fly the FW190 in combat.


I'm going to use the silly little funny face again.   :rofl





« Last Edit: April 01, 2010, 05:29:02 PM by FLS »

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #82 on: April 01, 2010, 04:57:08 PM »
Who is David Bong?

Maybe he meant to say "Dick".

ack-ack
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song

Offline thorsim

  • Parolee
  • Restricted
  • ****
  • Posts: 1029
      • The Luftwhiner Lounge
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #83 on: April 01, 2010, 05:00:03 PM »
Maybe he meant to say "Dick".

ack-ack

right Richard Bong

BF on my part ...

thanks for correcting ...
« Last Edit: April 01, 2010, 05:25:58 PM by thorsim »
THOR C.O. II ~JG-27~ Afrika-AH
Axis Co-Op
Quote from: any number of idiots here
blah blah Blah
Quote from: oldman
Good call.  Ignore the people who actually flew the real planes against each other.

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #84 on: April 01, 2010, 05:10:26 PM »
Brown has flown a lot of planes, but is not skilled in them. He just had some opportunities to fly them. He's been discredited in a lot of things he's said over the years, so I wouldn't take him as a valuable source of information.

Offline thorsim

  • Parolee
  • Restricted
  • ****
  • Posts: 1029
      • The Luftwhiner Lounge
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #85 on: April 01, 2010, 05:18:36 PM »
yes ...

especially since

1) using an airframe day after day for years is nothing like the testing he did

2) he did much of the things you point out well after the 190 tests and therefore are irrelevant to the tests

3) since pilots with factors more time in the type say that they managed the stall just fine contradicting his observation

4) since none of you would expect anything less for any aircraft you considered was treated unfairly by it's FM

5) i never said discount his findings i said that he should not be the final say on the capabilities and quirks of the aircraft he would not be allowed to be the final say on the f4u for example, no reason he should be the final say for the 190s.

6) not to mention that it has been pointed that just as anyone else Mr. Brown had his biases ...

7) if Mr. Brown is the end all be all of opinions then the spit 14 and 190-D9 would be the best prop planes in the set, and clearly better than the p-51, the f4u would not be able to beat any of them ...

so my point is he was not the best source of 190 data and no one source should define a FM, or any specific aspects of an FM for that matter(if conflicting credible data exists) as IMO no source is going to be perfect.

tests as flawed as the USN test that is at the center of this discussion should not be allowed to be used for anything at all.

i am glad you now see how silly your funny face is, i am at a loss as to why you keep insisting on using it though, i mean the rest of your post was almost interesting.

So your point is that even though he was an experienced WW2 fighter pilot, was fluent in German, test flew 53 different German aircraft after the war, interviewed many different German pilots and designers, flew every Allied fighter aircraft the FW190 fought against, is widely considered one the few people who can authoritatively compare Allied and Axis aircraft, and was the most prolific test pilot in the history of aviation flying 500 different aircraft; he should be discounted because he didn't fly the FW190 in combat.

Can I assume this is an example of your ability to qualify data sources?

I'm going to use the silly little funny face again.   :rofl






« Last Edit: April 01, 2010, 06:32:33 PM by thorsim »
THOR C.O. II ~JG-27~ Afrika-AH
Axis Co-Op
Quote from: any number of idiots here
blah blah Blah
Quote from: oldman
Good call.  Ignore the people who actually flew the real planes against each other.

Offline FLS

  • AH Training Corps
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11617
      • Trainer's Website
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #86 on: April 01, 2010, 05:34:55 PM »
Brown has flown a lot of planes, but is not skilled in them. He just had some opportunities to fly them. He's been discredited in a lot of things he's said over the years, so I wouldn't take him as a valuable source of information.

Well I certainly wouldn't take his word over yours Krusty.   :D

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #87 on: April 01, 2010, 05:36:10 PM »
Whether you're being sarcastic or not, the guy has issues. Do some searching on these forums. A while back some folks pretty much laid out how he's been discredited in a number of areas and many things he says.


EDIT: I'm doing a quick search for the thread I had in mind but haven't found it so far. I'm sure it was Brown, but there's a small possibilty it was another WW2 pilot that flew more WW2 planes in tests than most pilots, and made boisterous claims that most of his peers proved wrong....
« Last Edit: April 01, 2010, 05:55:37 PM by Krusty »

Offline Saurdaukar

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8610
      • Army of Muppets
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #88 on: April 01, 2010, 08:50:13 PM »
From:  Focke Wulf 190 at War, Alfred Price, 1977 Printing.  

I could not find the text of the testing online so this is all typing... will take a couple installments as there is a considerable amount of information.

Begins...

MOST SECRET

Headquarters, Fighter Command
Royal Air Force
Bentley Priory Stanmore
FC/S. 29470

17th July, 1942
 
Sir,

I attach a memorandum on the performance and operational characteristics of day-fighters, with particular reference to what our position will he in the Spring of 1941. I ask that immediate consideration should he given to the points raised in this memorandum.
 
1. It is scarcely necessary for me to emphasize the point that quality is more important than quantity in the production of fighters. At the beginning of the war our fighters possessed technical superiority over those of the enemy. We have gradually lost this lead and we are now in a position of inferiority. It is essential that this position should he remedied before next spring when it is anticipated that intensive air fighting will take place.
 
2. I seem to detect a spirit of complacency in the Ministry of Aircraft Production. This is borne out by the speeches of the Minister of Production and the Minister of Aircraft Production in the debate in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 14 July. They appear to find it difficult to believe that we have really lost our lead in fighter performance. There is however no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the Fw 190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today (author's italics). It is no answer to say that the position will be reversed when the Spitfire IX comes into general use. In the first place I have only fourteen Spitfire IXs, whereas the enemy has between two and three hundred Fw 190s. In several respects the Fw 190 is superior to the Spitfire IX, e.g. in climb and acceleration at certain critical altitudes and in negative G carburation. The most alarming aspect of the position however is that, whereas the Spitfire with Merlin engine is almost at the end of its possible development, the Fw 190 is only in the early stages of its development. Reports are already to hand of more horsepower being put into the engine of the Fw 190, and there is no doubt that with its greater engine capacity, it can in time easily outstrip the Merlin Spitfire in performance. This in fact is likely to have happened by next spring.
 
3. In my opinion therefore this is no time for complacency in regard to the quality and performance of our day-fighter aircraft. In the attached memorandum will be found certain suggestions for making the necessary improvements. These are the result of a study of the problem by my technical staff, who may not have all the facts and future possibilities at their fingertips. At the same time I ask that they should be given serious consideration.

I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient Servant, (signed)

W. S. Douglas Air Chief Marshal
Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief Fighter Command, Royal Air Force
The under Secretary of State
Air Ministry,
Whitehall, SW1

« Last Edit: April 01, 2010, 09:07:10 PM by Saurdaukar »

Offline Saurdaukar

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8610
      • Army of Muppets
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #89 on: April 01, 2010, 08:52:02 PM »
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE AIRCRAFT

The Fw190 is a small, compact, single-seat, single-engined, low wing monoplane fighter.  There are fittings under the fuselage to enable it to carry bombs or a jettisonable fuel tank.  It has a fully retractable undercarraige and partially retractable tail wheel.  The mainplane is fully cantilever and is fitted with split flaps of metal construction.  The flaps have four positions: retracted, 15 degrees for take-off, 30 degrees for use in the event of a baulked landing, and fully down for landing.  Operation is by means of three electric push buttons.

The power unit is a BMW801-D, 14-cylinder, 2-row radial engine, fitted with a two-speed supercharger giving the best performance at 9,000 and 18,000ft.   Between 5,000 and 8,000ft the performance of the engine falls off as it is just below the height where the two-speed supercharger come into operation.  The estimated power of the engine is 1,700hp at the maximum power altitude of 18,000ft.  The engine oil coolers and induction system are totally enclosed by an extremely neat cowling and cooling is assisted by an engine driven fan behind the propeller.  

The constant speed VDM 3-bladed metal propeller is electronically operated.  It is automatically controlled by an hydrolic governor and if required manually, by an electric switch on the pilot’s throttle lever.

The undercarriage is retracted by pushing a red button.  The operation for lowing the undercarriage consists of pushing a green button and releasing the undercarriage locks by pulling a level which is situated on the left-hand side of the cockpit.  In the even tof an electrical failure, the only emergency method of lowering the undercarriage is by means of this lever, gravity completing the operation.  The tailwheel is partially retracted and lowered mechanically by a cable attached to the starboard undercarriage leg.  It is fully castoring and can be locked for take-off and landing by holding the control column right back.

All the control surfaces are fabric covered and are fitted with metal trimming tabs which can be adjusted only on the ground.  For trimming, the tailplain is adjustable in flight over the range of +5 degrees to -3 degrees.  It is operated electrically by two push buttons governing the up and down movements. There is a visual indicator in the cockpit.

The armament consists of 4x20mm guns in the wing and 2x1.92mm chaine guns in the engine cowlings.  The all-up weight of the aircraft, including pilot, is approximately 8,600lbs and the wing loading is 41.8lbs/sqft.

PILOT’S COCKPIT
The cockpit is fully enclosed and although rather narrow is otherwise extremely comfortable.  The pilot’s position is excellent and as his feet are level with the seat, it enables him to withstand high acceleration forces without blacking out.  The positioning of all instruments is excellent and all controls fall easily to the pilot’s hand, the absence of unnecessary levers and gadgets being particularly noticeable.  The front panel is in two pieces, the top containing the primary flying and engine instruments and the lower panel the secondary instruments.  Cut-out switches for the electrical citcuits are housed in hinged flaps on the starboard side.

The switches and indicators for the operation of the undercarriage, flaps and tail incidence are situated on the port side.  The control column is the standard German fighter type with a selector switch and firing button for guns, and a send./receive button for the wireless.

The cockpit canopy, which is made of moulded plexiglass, is well shaped and extends far back along the fuselage.  The bullit-proof windscreen has a pronounced shape which is unusual.  The canopy can be slid back for entry and exit and for taxi-ing, operation being buy means of a crank handle similar to that in the Westland Whirlwind.  The enclosure can be jettisoned in an emergency by pressing a red level on the starboard side; this unlocks the hood and detonates a cartridge which breaks teh runners and blows the canopy off.  Heating for teh cockpit appears efficient and cooling is effected by a small flap on the port side and seems quite sufficient for the pilot;’s comfort.

ARMOUR PLATE
The pilot’s bucket seat is made of 8mm armour plate and the unprotected gaps behind are fitted shaped strips varying in thickness between 5mm and 6mm.  The pilot’s head and shoulders are protected by shaped amour plate 13mm thick and the windscreen is of bullet-proof glass about 1 ¾ in thick.  Both fuel tanks are self-sealing.  The oil tank, which is situated in front of the engine cowling, is protected by a ring of armour plate varying in thickness, and the tank itself is surrounded by a toughened steel ring.

RADIO
The wireless installation is the old type FuG7 and the only unusual feature is that there is no wireless mast, there being instead a short aerial between the tail fin and the cockpit canopy.

OXYGEN
The aircraft is fitted with standard improved Hohenatmer oxygen equipment with Blazer attachment, giving pure oxygen at high altitude.  Three bottles of unusual shape are the source of the supply.  It was not possible to test the efficiency of this equipment but it is understood that the RAE are carrying out investigations and will render a report in due course.

COMPASS
A Patin Distant Reading Pilot’s Compass is installed in the centre of the dashboard and the Master Unit is in the rear of the fuselage.  An aircraft silhouette takes the place of the normal needle and indicates the direction which the aircraft is flying.  There is an adjustable verge ring which can be set to any desired course and the aircraft then turned until the silhouette is pointing to the course selected.  The compass generally of excellent design and the dial is situated in a position where it can be easily seen by the pilot.  The magnet is many times more powerful that in our compasses, and as a result is less affected by northerly turning and acceleration errors.  It is also unaffected by current or voltage fluctuations, or changes in temperature.