190A5 vs 190A8

[Charge]

"But, once the turn is established, the 190 is going to suffer compared to the Spit."

Could we ponder this a bit more?

If we imagine a 2-3G turn at 250mph, 300mph and 350mph for, say, Spit IX and 190A8. What is the AoA needed to achieve this acceleration and which plane presents more drag at that condition? We can just leave out thrust at this stage which comes into play later in determining for how long the a/c can hold a steady 2-3G turn when decelerating but that is not the focus now.

Why I'm interested in this is the claim that a high wingloaded plane would have (to a limit) less drag in high speed maneuvers than a low wingloaded plane -thus these different planes also have different optimum speeds for turn, and in case of these two planes they also have different best climb speeds.

If it is true that would mean that  the 190A8 would have an option to engage a (low G) turn at certain speed and a following Spit IX would bleed its energy faster if it follows at same or more G (IRL it would initially need less G to follow but rapid 180 deg roll would require the pursuer to pull more G to keep up -especially if it rolls slower). That would make the Spit turn tighter and easily inside the 190, but if the 190 changes direction the distance would actually grown as the Spit has already started to lose E more than the 190. So the 190 would eventually get away by making a turn and rapidly flicking the plane 180 degrees and making an opposite turn i.e."S:ing"? Or would cutting the corner always make up for the lost distance for the pursuer or would the advantage in roll speed be the only asset that would make a difference, not the difference in maneuvering drag?

The point is that the 190 needs more AoA to establish same G turn as e.g. the Spit IX, but will the aforementioned bigger wetted area of the bigger wing actually present more, sort of needless, drag compared to smaller one in certain speed range?

Does that sound totally insane?

-C+

[Stoney]

"But, once the turn is established, the 190 is going to suffer compared to the Spit."

Could we ponder this a bit more?

If we imagine a 2-3G turn at 250mph, 300mph and 350mph for, say, Spit IX and 190A8. What is the AoA needed to achieve this acceleration and which plane presents more drag at that condition? We can just leave out thrust at this stage which comes into play later in determining for how long the a/c can hold a steady 2-3G turn when decelerating but that is not the focus now.

Why I'm interested in this is the claim that a high wingloaded plane would have (to a limit) less drag in high speed maneuvers than a low wingloaded plane -thus these different planes also have different optimum speeds for turn, and in case of these two planes they also have different best climb speeds.

If it is true that would mean that  the 190A8 would have an option to engage a (low G) turn at certain speed and a following Spit IX would bleed its energy faster if it follows at same or more G (IRL it would initially need less G to follow but rapid 180 deg roll would require the pursuer to pull more G to keep up -especially if it rolls slower). That would make the Spit turn tighter and easily inside the 190, but if the 190 changes direction the distance would actually grown as the Spit has already started to lose E more than the 190. So the 190 would eventually get away by making a turn and rapidly flicking the plane 180 degrees and making an opposite turn i.e."S:ing"? Or would cutting the corner always make up for the lost distance for the pursuer or would the advantage in roll speed be the only asset that would make a difference, not the difference in maneuvering drag?

The point is that the 190 needs more AoA to establish same G turn as e.g. the Spit IX, but will the aforementioned bigger wetted area of the bigger wing actually present more, sort of needless, drag compared to smaller one in certain speed range?

Does that sound totally insane?

-C+

Typically, high wingloading gives an advantage in lower parasitic drag due to a smaller wing.  This is usually evidenced during cruise or at top speed.  The disadvantage is that typically, this gives the aircraft worse performance during any activity that requires higher AoA.  So, typically, landing speeds are higher, stall speeds are higher, and at higher altitudes, you reach a point of diminishing returns where the lower parasitic drag during cruise is mitigated by ever-increasing amounts of induced drag.  In this case, load factors will dramatically increase as g-loads are created.

Now, as long as maneuvering is restricted to low-alpha maneuvers, the advantages of high wingloading will remain.  So, a smart pilot in a high wingloaded aircraft will attempt to keep alpha to a minimum in order to retain energy as efficiently as possible.  I would imagine that there are situations where a 190 could maintain a higher rate of turn in a low-g turn.  We would have to do some testing/run some numbers to know for sure. 

As for the rest of your hypothetical, I don't know.  That's a pretty dynamic situation, and I don't know if we could ever "model" that on paper.

[jdbecks]

as long as maneuvering is restricted to low-alpha maneuvers

can you explain what alpha maneuvering is please? other than a great interesting and easy to understand post 
Infact there are some good posts here.

[Die Hard]

One day they'll be tearing holes in the sky with it then
Anyway, off to my 109G testing

Why are you testing the 109G? Has it changed?

[thorsim]

i believe that because so much of what must be modeled has never been tested, and that nothing has been tested in a completely consistent manner, much of the "code" is based on subjective comparative tests and POs, and more over the selection of which opinions and eventually the final FM product must be a result of at least as much opinion and conjecture as it is about the actual physical definable description of the plane (weight, bhp, wing size)

things like how it stalls, when it stalls, how difficult it is to keep from stalling, controllability, etc. all are subjective, and observations and opinions will vary.  all that must be coded to be in accordance with whatever source the designers have settled upon.  in the case of the 190 i find it's handling to be less than what one would expect in relation to the vast majority of the historic material you will find about the type if you look.

Thank you Thorsim I appreciate that very much (if it's directed to me). It was not my intent to badger you, merely to point out an alternative path to making the point about the flight model.

I do have a question for you regarding your position. If I've read your previous post correctly, you feel that the FM's physics vary from plane to plane, and that HTC made decisions about how to model the 190's physics in order to fit into their goals for Aces High. Am I understanding your point correctly?  

it would be good to get that sorted out but as i noted above i think there is much more to the FM code than weights and size and such.

If the series is a bit over weight as Baumer and Krusty point out.  If HTC agree and fix it what do you think happens to the FW's performance?

I'm willing to bet ALL areas will improve except maybe zoom.  You kept on about the model being porked and its not... just the weight plugged into it might be off a bit.

[Angus]

Why are you testing the 109G? Has it changed?

I do not know. Anyway, I have this rare old graph of a 109G6 along with other info about the aircraft. It is from Augsburg from dec 1944. One of the few rather complete tests I have from the LW, so I was just curious.
Basically, this always bothers me. A lot of criticism of the performance of LW aircraft. Proper LW data is hard to find, and the Allied data from captured aircraft is discarded as no good.
So, I am spending the time I am on the phone, or rather waiting for it, by clocking different things. A bit fun really.

[Die Hard]

Cool! Let us know what you find.

[Stoney]

things like how it stalls, when it stalls, how difficult it is to keep from stalling, controllability, etc. all are subjective, and observations and opinions will vary.  all that must be coded to be in accordance with whatever source the designers have settled upon.  in the case of the 190 i find it's handling to be less than what one would expect in relation to the vast majority of the historic material you will find about the type if you look.

All of this is basic aerodynamics and not a subjective thing.  "2 + 2 = 4" not "2 + 2 = 5 in my opinion".  The source required for these equations are dimensions, weights, planforms, etc.  Very quantitative stuff.  

Ultimately, you simply think the 190 is porked, while the "home team" aircraft are not.  That's compelling.

[thorsim]

i think the 190s handle poorly compared to the rest of the set.

i think that the 190s suffer more than gain as they are impoved in the development representations in the game.

both are directly contradictory to the historic record.

i think sir that values need to be set for the FMs based on what data can be found, i find that the correlation between the data i have found and the FMs behaviors tend to be much more in the more optimistic range for most of the home team air craft, and much more in the pessimistic range for the 190s ...

i also think that after repeated explanations and clarifications on my part i am still getting questions and projections and demands while no one is making any effort to address my POV they just keep demanding data they know is not available and attempting to oversimplify the discussion.

yes much of the flight qualities of an aircraft are quantitative, but i assure you there is more than weight, thrust, drag, and lift variables in the code and beyond that type of data at some point the designers must rely on subjective data in order to define a FM, at that point the choices one uses go a long way in defining the quirks and abilities of each FM

once again ultimately i find that the FMs of the 190s do not live up to the history of the type in many regards especially in comparison to some other FMs who's relation to history seems to be very optimistic. 

i have a question for you.  have you seen the code?  if not, i think your ability to comment on how quantitative it may or may not be is no better than the rest of us.

no offense.

All of this is basic aerodynamics and not a subjective thing.  "2 + 2 = 4" not "2 + 2 = 5 in my opinion".  The source required for these equations are dimensions, weights, planforms, etc.  Very quantitative stuff.  

Ultimately, you simply think the 190 is porked, while the "home team" aircraft are not.  That's compelling.

[Delirium]

i have a question for you.  have you seen the code?  if not, i think your ability to comment on how quantitative it may or may not be is no better than the rest of us.

no offense.

Have you flown a historic 190 with the same engine as it had originally? If not, I think your ability to comment on how inaccurate the 190 FM is is no better than the rest of us.

No offense.

 

[Stoney]

i have a question for you.  have you seen the code?  if not, i think your ability to comment on how quantitative it may or may not be is no better than the rest of us.

no offense.

I have not.  You got me.  I'm a fraud.

Later gents...

[thorsim]

that is an excellent point, you do realize that "the rest of us" would include anyone who is employed at HTC ...

that being the case we are all equal in our ability to understand the handling of the 190s in that we are all relying on the same data pool.  why don't you look into that data and see if you come to a different conclusion than mine.

it might be more productive and actually contribute something to this conversation unlike your inane comment i quoted below.  

Have you flown a historic 190 with the same engine as it had originally? If not, I think your ability to comment on how inaccurate the 190 FM is is no better than the rest of us.

No offense.

 

[Baumer]

Thorsim,

While I have not seen the code, I have had the opportunity to speak with Hitech, Pyro, Sudz, and Skuzzy numerous times both on the phone, and at the past two conventions. I find them to be very open and forthright about discussing how the game works, Hitech has gone to such lengths during my conversations, that he has pulled up the source code to verify cretin aspects that we were talking about.

So I feel very confident when I say that the FM physics are not rewritten for each plane, but that each aerodynamic model is using the same set of calculations to model it's behavior. Someone from HTC please chime in if I've stated that incorrectly.

And just to be absolutely clear, I agree with you that there is an issue with the Fw190A-8 performance. However, in my opinion the way to address the issue with HTC is with quantifiable data, not the subjective information you have provided.

 

[thorsim]

my point is not that you are a fraud, it is that there is more than punching in numerical values to a formula required to define an FM to the extent that is required for a sim.  if that were the case then nobody would be demanding and or hoarding data and sources like they were gold.  since we all know data sources can conflict somewhat then it becomes important which data sources you choose.  

i do not see where i made that point personally offensive to you, and quite frankly i was easier on you than you have been on me.

it is disappointing to see you "take your ball and walk away" like this .

I have not.  You got me.  I'm a fraud.

Later gents...

[jdbecks]

quite an interesting read for you whilst looking at flight trials,

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190d9test.html


some weights for the a8

spec                    metric              english
   _____________________   _________________   _______________________

   wingspan                10.5 meters         34 feet 5 inches
   wing area               18.3 sq_meters      197 sq_feet
   length                  8.96 meters         29 feet 5 inches
   height                  3.96 meters         13 feet

   empty weight            3,470 kilograms     7,650 pounds
   max loaded weight       4,900 kilograms     10,800 pounds

   maximum speed           657 KPH             408 MPH / 335 KT
   service ceiling         10,300 meters       33,800 feet
   range                   800 kilometers      500 MI / 435 NMI