190A5 vs 190A8

[Bronk]

i think they are comparing using the two together.  since rolling in and of itself, and flying around in circles are not very useful in air combat, of course the germans at least knew that by the early 40s

from what Saurdaukar posted the RAF knew that as well, or at least fighter command ...

Not what YOU said.

yes but the germans and the soviets both considered the 190 a superior turning aircraft ...

So which is it?
The FW190 is less maneuverable than a spitfire?
The FW190 can't out turn a spit fire?

Big difference...

[mtnman]

So, like in some of the other FM discussions, it seems we've reached a point where subjective opinion "just ain't good enough".  And the data that's available isn't easy to use to refute what HTC has come up with?  And even if the "numbers" work, some people just "feel" they've got it wrong?

The thing is, HTC has already done enough research to feel comfortable with the FM.  They can't really be expected to just up and say "oops, we got it wrong", because some folks have differing opinions.  It'd take some pretty convincing data to convince them to change things.

Beyond that, what's the "industry standard" for the 190 FM's in various sims?  Not that HTC has to parallel those, but for them to legitimately differ from that they'd logically want some pretty serious data to prove their FM was correct, or they'd undergo far more scrutiny than what can be seen here.

Again, it comes down to convincing data.  In the past, it's been taken by HTC and used to tweak things.  I'm sure they'd be willing to do it again.  But, where's that data?  Does it even exist?  If it does, present it!  Why wouldn't you present it, if you wanted it used?

To expect HTC to go out and prove themselves wrong, or prove they used bad data, isn't likely to happen.  It's an argument they can easily win just by ignoring the situation.  To expect them to post their data so that you can attempt to rip it to shreds ain't gonna happen either.  Again, they win the argument just by ignoring it.

[jdbecks]

Thorsim,

You say you have the data to prove your point, then post it.

[thorsim]

where did i say the 190 could out turn the spitfire?

Not what YOU said.So which is it?
The FW190 is less maneuverable than a spitfire?
The FW190 can't out turn a spit fire?

Big difference...

now remember what i originally posted, that the handling of the 190 most closely represents a very flawed USN report and contradicted the majority of other sources.  this issue would not be solvable unless and until HTC releases their data sources which they will not do.  however i have invited anyone to produce a German report that confirms the handling qualities of the 190s in the game/s.  after looking for years, i have yet to find one. so my suspicion revolves around why the data that seems to have been used for the 190 and deemed "good enough" for that is allowed to be soo suspect when that would never be tolerated for any home team plane.

So, like in some of the other FM discussions, it seems we've reached a point where subjective opinion "just ain't good enough".  And the data that's available isn't easy to use to refute what HTC has come up with?  And even if the "numbers" work, some people just "feel" they've got it wrong?

The thing is, HTC has already done enough research to feel comfortable with the FM.  They can't really be expected to just up and say "oops, we got it wrong", because some folks have differing opinions.  It'd take some pretty convincing data to convince them to change things.

Beyond that, what's the "industry standard" for the 190 FM's in various sims?  Not that HTC has to parallel those, but for them to legitimately differ from that they'd logically want some pretty serious data to prove their FM was correct, or they'd undergo far more scrutiny than what can be seen here.

Again, it comes down to convincing data.  In the past, it's been taken by HTC and used to tweak things.  I'm sure they'd be willing to do it again.  But, where's that data?  Does it even exist?  If it does, present it!  Why wouldn't you present it, if you wanted it used?

To expect HTC to go out and prove themselves wrong, or prove they used bad data, isn't likely to happen.  It's an argument they can easily win just by ignoring the situation.  To expect them to post their data so that you can attempt to rip it to shreds ain't gonna happen either.  Again, they win the argument just by ignoring it.

wings of the luftwaffe "190" they quote the assessment team here in this you tube video clip ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0YLLBvIBFk&feature=related

 the statement i mentioned is at the 50sec to 1 min mark,  the VVS reports were posted on this board a while ago by another member.
 

Thorsim,

You say you have the data to prove your point, then post it.

[thorsim]

i must address this ...

how do you propose to turn without rolling?  you may depending on your original aspect be able to make one turn, after that please address how you separate the roll from the process of making a tight or fast turn in one of these aircraft.

please be as specific as i am very curious about how you so easily separate the two ...

Not what YOU said.So which is it?
The FW190 is less maneuverable than a spitfire?
The FW190 can't out turn a spit fire?

Big difference...

[Stoney]

i must address this ...

how do you propose to turn without rolling?  you may depending on your original aspect be able to make one turn, after that please address how you separate the roll from the process of making a tight or fast turn in one of these aircraft.

please be as specific as i am very curious about how you so easily separate the two ...

Roll allows you to get into a tight turn quickly, but after that initial roll, roll rate has little to do with the sustained turn performance.  Like I said earlier, if all you're describing is changing the lift vector, the 190 can do that quicker than most.  Sustained turns it is a brick.  The higher it flies, the worse that condition gets.  Perhaps a more precise description would be that it suffers during high AoA maneuvering.

[thorsim]

is that "initial turn rate" or is that a different issue? ...

Roll allows you to get into a tight turn quickly, but after that initial roll, roll rate has little to do with the sustained turn performance.  Like I said earlier, if all you're describing is changing the lift vector, the 190 can do that quicker than most.  Sustained turns it is a brick.  The higher it flies, the worse that condition gets.  Perhaps a more precise description would be that it suffers during high AoA maneuvering.

[Charge]

You can see some indication of the available thrust from speed charts and there is no thrust without HP.  The 190 is probably less draggy than Spit which is one factor which would make it generally faster at low altitude. At higher altitude the high wingloading starts to take its toll and the higher weight is visible if you compare A5 to A8. I'm not sure if the low/high altitude performance of 190/Spit is somekind of indication of differences between radial and inline engines' suitability to certain altitude or merely the difference in charger impeller diameter which determines its suitability to low or high altitude/pressure.

I also don't think that ability to change lift vector is only a roll related issue. I have understood that 190s handling is "brisk" which is obviously somehow different to some other planes which are more sluggish in roll but also in response to elevator controls. But briskness alone does not make it a good turner -just a good plane to quickly change its lift vector.

There is indeed anecdotal evidence that 190 can surprise with its turning ability. The Russians reported that it will always offer "turning with minimum speed" which is rather odd but maybe it had more torque available in slow speed than LA5 (they did not compare it to Spitfire ;-)). Also J. Johnson was surprised about it while he was flying a Spit5, and reading his memoirs he is not a person that talks emotional nonsense about enemy pilots and planes, which makes an impression that he was indeed dumbfounded by the event. The mock dogfight between Meimberg and Meyer also took place and Meimberg describes that Meyers 190 "was already hanging by its prop" which again gives indication of utilizing torque characteristics and if your nose points either up or down you do not need to turn well, just roll the plane to desired vector and pull it up or down to that direction. I don't think it is possible that 190 could beat a 109 in a stall fight how ever good torque characteristics it would have.

"Perhaps a more precise description would be that it suffers during high AoA maneuvering."

Indeed. And in high speed you cannot pull too much AoA and that is where 190 would be competitive, also if G forces play a part of limiting the available flight envelope.

-C+

[Stoney]

is that "initial turn rate" or is that a different issue? ...

The two turn rates typically used for comparison are instantaneous and sustained turn rates.  Sustained turn rate is that turn rate achieved when thrust is "just sufficient to maintain velocity and altitude in the turn".  Any tighter and you either slow down or lose altitude.  Instantaneous turn rate is the maximum turn rate possible, without considering whether or not the plane will slow down or lose altitude.  The factors that affect instantaneous turn rate are speed, g-load, Clmax of the wing, and wing loading.  Instantaneous turn rates point you towards the "corner velocity" of an aircraft at a given altitude.  Given the high wing loading of the 190 series, these 190 turn rates will almost always compare poorly to their peers. 

Now, you are correct in stating that a 190 could "get into" a turn faster because of its roll rate.  But, once the turn is established, the 190 is going to suffer compared to the Spit.  So again, I realize that there are a lot of documents that describe the aircraft as "maneuverable", or "out turns" something else, or whatever.  The problem is that qualitative description tells us nothing useful for comparison, from a perspective of describing the quantitative advantage, if indeed it ever existed.  Without the numbers, we can only plug in wing area, wing span, horiz. stab area, etc. to develop the aerodynamic data that gets modeled.  The relative performance we see is the result.

I'd suggest that you create some EM Diagrams for the 190 series at typical combat weights, and then see how it stacks up against the Spit 5 and the Spit 9.  I have a feeling that the relative performance in-game for all 3 of those aircraft will be borne out in those EM diagrams.

[Stoney]

The 190 is probably less draggy than Spit which is one factor which would make it generally faster at low altitude.

Do we know this?  Just because the 190 has less wetted area does not mean that it was less "draggy".

[Charge]

"Do we know this?  Just because the 190 has less wetted area does not mean that it was less "draggy"."

Not exactly in case of A8, but D9 is less draggy and I don't see much difference between them since D9 vents its radiator all the time but A8 has a near closed cowling which could actually make it less draggy than vented radiator design in D9 -but of course the face area is bigger in A8. Too bad Lednicer decided to focus on D9 in his article...

-C+

[Gaston]

 
   In the good while since I posted here, a lot of discussions took place on Il-2's GD about the sustained turn rate of the FW-190A relative to other types, and, despite an overwhelming majority  of simmer detractors, more evidence has piled up against the US Navy evaluation of the F-190A, which in my opinion was a very mediocre attempt at confirming the prejudice that higher weight always loses...

   The key factor here is, I theorize, nose lenght: Take a barbell handle with disc weights on ONE side only, pointing the discs down: A short handle will make it easier to "point" the weight at the ground at a SLANTED angle OFF from the vertical: Lenghten the handle and you will feel the pressure inside your hand rise higher, despite the disc weight being the same.

   The disc weight is an exact replica of the prop thrust: Slanting the angle off the vertical is the equivalent of what an aircraft is doing while turning: Twisting the disc sideways to where it really wants to go without your action...

   A short handle or short nose has less leverage to press your flesh inside your hand/press down on the wing's center of lift, REDUCING the leverage down on the wing's center of lift.

   In effect, my argument is that a Spitfire a FULL power turning at 250 MPH will have a higher REAL-TURN wingloading than a FW-190A at partial power: Lighter wingloading wins, just as everybody says... Note in Johnny Johnson's account the Spitfire pilot says he is at FULL throttle, which explains his defeat in sustained turning...:

     http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg

  My argument is that a shorter nose acts like a reduced throttle but without actually reducing the throttle. They both have the same effect of defeating our calculated expectations that do not take into account the basic issue of leverage physics...

  Imagine now pointing off-vertical the one-side weighted barbell, but this time with the disc weight JUST ABOVE your hand: Can you picture how easy it is now to point the now-empty handle extremity directly at the ground, at slanted angles? That is exactly the advantage a jet has because the propulsion is behind the center of lift. That is why the jet does not benefit from downthrottling, unlike the patently obvious example here:

  http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/339-hanseman-24may44.jpg

  This is how inane is the argument that prop traction and jet propulsion behave the SAME, which is current simulation dogma...

   Quote, Thorsim: "now remember what i originally posted, that the handling of the 190 most closely represents a very flawed USN report and contradicted the majority of other sources.  this issue would not be solvable unless and until HTC releases their data sources which they will not do.  however i have invited anyone to produce a German report that confirms the handling qualities of the 190s in the game/s.  after looking for years, i have yet to find one."

    The US Navy report is likely flawed because it was run at full power ONLY by non-combat experienced pilots: The FW-190 behaved very poorly in turns above 250 MPH as is evidenced by THIS test which WAS made by front-line combat pilots...:

    http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3950/pag20pl.jpg

   That the Navy proved incabaple of really discerning the FW-190A's inferior handling at high speed (note here in the US Army test the "tendency to black-out the pilot", which is in effect a decelerating stall, initially "inside" the turn after a sudden pitch up), is merely an illustration of their prejudice about how a high weight aircraft should regain an advantage at high speed: That the aircraft itself has fairly poor handling at high speed was not enough to dissuade them from their baseless prejudice of branding it an "interceptor"... (An "interceptor" with a poor climb rate and a truly pathetic dive pull-out performance: Riiight...)

    There is, unfortunately, ONE German document that confort current prevailing opinion: The Rechlin La-5 evaluation which DOES say the Me-109G out-turns the FW-190A: I think this was again the test pilot prejudice of always testing turns at FULL throttle: Slightly above 250 MPH at full throttle, I would expect a FW-190A-8 running at 2100 hp to turn WORSE than a Me-109G at 1500 or even 1800 hp... Think of those barbells weights again...

    Note I would never claim the low-speed difference between those two is huge: The Me-109G-6 may have a smaller sustained turn radius at its peak sustained turn rate speed of 160 MPH according to Fin ace Karhila... As the US P-47D test makes obvious, the Me-109G is certainly superior-turning to the FW-190A ABOVE 250 MPH...

   Which is exactly ACTUAL German tactics observed by the Russians looked like this: FW-190 flew low to engage in prolonged turn-fighting, Me-109s flew high to do "boom and zoom" attacks...:

    http://luthier.stormloader.com/SFTacticsIII.htm

   Quote:

"They interact in the following manner:

FW-190 will attempt to close with our fighters hoping to get behind them and attack suddenly. If that maneuver is unsuccessful they will even attack head-on relying on their superb firepower. This will also break up our battle formations to allow Me-109Gs to attack our fighters as well. Me-109G will usually perform boom-n-zoom attacks using superior airspeed after their dive.

FW-190 will commit to the fight even if our battle formation is not broken, preferring left turning fights. There has been cases of such turning fights lasting quite a long time, with multiple planes from both sides involved in each engagement."


   -So more evidence is clearly piling up against prevailing simmer opinion... After all, isn't it clearly what Rall meant by the Me-109 being a straight "floret" and the FW-190A a curved "sabre", and that they complemented one another?

   While we are at it, some new interesting Soviet turn times (though since likely at full power not really representative, but at least indicative):

    FW-190A-4: 19-23 sec.  (FW-190A-5 being quoted by the Soviets as 1 second faster, so as low as 18 sec.). Me-109F: 20 sec. Me-109G-2: 22 sec.

   I don't know what the wide range of the FW-190A means, perhaps depending on pilot? Clearly the lowest turn time is better than anything a Me-109 can do...

   I'll remind everyone an actual FW-190A-8 Western ace actually posted his real-life experience on this very board a few years ago, and his description was exactly that of the Russian experience: A fearsome low-speed turn-fighter that performed at its best downthrottled for horizontal maneuvers...

   And yes, at full throttle in the turn, the Spitfire will have a higher real-life wingloading than a downthrottled FW-190A...

   Try different barbell handles and weights and see why...

   Gaston

 
 

[Angus]

"Just because you can't go 1v1 with a Spit 9 in a low-altitude knife-fight doesn't mean that the 190 performance in game is porked."

For some strange reason I'd think that that was a rather equal fight IRL...  

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/spit.html

"Other than our 190 can take off without flaps."

It could IRL too. From the video of Flugwerke 190 you can see that it can be pulled airborne from a three pointer with with none or some flaps, so there is plenty of reserve. Does HTC 190 take off from a three pointer with some flaps?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGSxosU9N5c&feature=related

Looks pretty effortless.

-C+

Here is one effortless takeoff. I have actually seen this one take off and carry on into a loop. Dropped a jaw then.
Anyway, what is the new 190's weight and power compared to the WWII one?

[Die Hard]

No armor or armament, so it is lighter. Same ASh-82 engine as the La-7 (or more specific the 82T post-war civilian version used in transport planes); 1530-1900 hp depending on rating. So, lighter than an A-8 with similar power as the BMW on MIL (1730 hp).

[Die Hard]

Posted this in the o-club a few days ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1bXBrnGsaA&feature=related

Impressive looking machine.