Author Topic: 190A5 vs 190A8  (Read 65345 times)

Offline Stoney

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #255 on: April 12, 2010, 10:43:06 PM »
I tried making that point probably 5 pages ago. Apparently I was ignored.

Well, we keep going around and around in this thread anyway.  I'm just trying to establish a baseline with either or both of these two so I can figure out whether or not there is any sense, whatsoever, in continuing to try and convince them of things that 100% of the aerodynamic community understands are truth. 
"Can we be incorrect at times, absolutely, but I do believe 15 years of experience does deserve a little more credence and respect than you have given from your very first post."

HiTech

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #256 on: April 12, 2010, 10:48:04 PM »
Well good luck. I kind of gave up on that after hearing the (IMO) absurd pet theory about prop disc drag and throttling issues being the end all of turning issues.

Offline thorsim

  • Parolee
  • Restricted
  • ****
  • Posts: 1029
      • The Luftwhiner Lounge
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #257 on: April 12, 2010, 11:27:03 PM »

    -Yes it precisely the partial throttle modeling that is off, as is the notion that the best sustained turn rate is reached at full power, and at speeds above 220 MPH, when Fin ace Karhila found his preferred sustained turn speed at 160 MPH on the Me-109G-6... This might not mean the superior turn rate, but at least equal to the best possible sustained turn rate, with the further sight lead offered by a smaller radius in itself...


reducing throttle or dropping flaps to "close" their turn = reducing turn radius.  Once established, best sustained turn rate is achieved at maximum power, at least with the aircraft in this game.  If you guys want to have an intelligent conversation about this stuff, you have to use more precise language.

he was clear about it until you edited his post in order to take issue with it ...

>>>>
Quote from: Gaston on Today at 07:47:28 PM
...is off, as is the notion that the best sustained turn rate is reached at full power...

If I prove mathematically, that you are wrong, will you believe me?
<<<<

If you guys want to have an intelligent conversation about this stuff, you should make an effort to understand the posts instead of adjusting their meaning in order to take issue with them and thereby discredit the point ...

which in this case a pilot preferred the rate/radius at a speed well below the best sustained speed achieved at full throttle which makes perfect sense when taking in the larger world of ACM over static aircraft testing.  as does my point about the roll and turn being a consideration at least as important (and probably much more so) as sustained turn rates in the context of ACM ...
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 Stoney

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #258 on: April 12, 2010, 11:37:49 PM »
stuff


You got me again...  I am a sneaky bastard.

"Can we be incorrect at times, absolutely, but I do believe 15 years of experience does deserve a little more credence and respect than you have given from your very first post."

HiTech

Offline thorsim

  • Parolee
  • Restricted
  • ****
  • Posts: 1029
      • The Luftwhiner Lounge
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #259 on: April 13, 2010, 12:06:39 AM »
i'm not trying to piss anyone off it is just frustrating to see someone or be someone posting one thing only to have someone argue with something else, and often in a less than polite manner ...

not that you do that habitually sir ...

no offense


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 Bronk

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9044
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #260 on: April 13, 2010, 05:32:31 AM »
reducing throttle or dropping flaps to "close" their turn = reducing turn radius.  Once established, best sustained turn rate is achieved at maximum power, at least with the aircraft in this game.  If you guys want to have an intelligent conversation about this stuff, you have to use more precise language.
Ohh I agree completely.  I don't think any ac in game has enough surplus thrust to maintain best sustained. I was poking thor trying to get him to come to the same conclusion.

The only thing I can think that may cloud this issue agin is ... the roll component.

Example is the 109f at low speed. It will not roll to the right. You have to reduce throttle to initiate the roll component.
See Rule #4

Offline PJ_Godzilla

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2661
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #261 on: April 13, 2010, 06:49:10 AM »
Well good luck. I kind of gave up on that after hearing the (IMO) absurd pet theory about prop disc drag and throttling issues being the end all of turning issues.

Yes, I'm also quite vehement in drawing the distinction here that, while a prop disk at speed will resist rotation - both due to the prop alpha effect I described and due to rotational inertial effects (this is also in play at zero forward speed, not so the former), Gaston has yet to show anything that says that the scale of that torque is anything like significant or, indeed, that even if it is, that such would make any diff, the effect being present in all the a/c, subject to local differences in prop design. Indeed he says as much when he contends that the off-max turn of the Spit will still best the 190, like setting versus like setting. Or, am I missing some assertion he might be making regarding the lower pitch inertia of the 190A? If so, I'd say, "plausible" but that's not going to help overcome the disk effect, which is a torque and will need to be counteracted regardless of source - thus demanding more pitch torque from the tail surface - not something easy to come by in a "close-coupled" (read, short moment arms) a/c. 

His contention on the rest, however, is more clear. He's stating that the 190 a is a better turner at mid-speed off-max than the game credits - yet I see no analytical or test evidence for this assertion - though there is some anecdotal evidence presented. He goes on to dismiss what I feel may be the real turn strength of the 190A - instantaneous turn rate. We are already well-supplied with evidence that it's roll rate is stunning.

We need more clarity around his point and, most of all, we need a way to test the hypothesis. That's the only way we'll ever finish this thing.
Some say revenge is a dish best served cold. I say it's usually best served hot, chunky, and foaming. Eventually, you will all die in my vengeance vomit firestorm.

Offline thorsim

  • Parolee
  • Restricted
  • ****
  • Posts: 1029
      • The Luftwhiner Lounge
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #262 on: April 13, 2010, 07:23:06 AM »

Example is the 109f at low speed. It will not roll to the right. You have to reduce throttle to initiate the roll component.

ummm data please
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 save

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2852
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #263 on: April 13, 2010, 09:08:52 AM »

Adolf Galland in catsuit  :salute



My ammo last for 6 Lancasters, or one Yak3.
"And the Yak 3 ,aka the "flying Yamato"..."
-Caldera

Offline Stoney

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #264 on: April 13, 2010, 09:29:16 AM »
He goes on to dismiss what I feel may be the real turn strength of the 190A - instantaneous turn rate. We are already well-supplied with evidence that it's roll rate is stunning.

Perhaps some confusion in terms here.  Instantaneous turn rate depends on the ability to make lift, and describes an "instant" of maximum turn performance without consideration for sustaining that performance or having the energy to sustain it.  Since lift is a function of Clmax and wing loading, the 190 has poor instantaneous turn characteristics, compared to other aircraft.  For example, an FW-190D9 at 9000lbs (roughly clean aircraft with 50% fuel) has a corner velocity of about 260 mph IAS.  A Spit 5 at 6300 lbs (again about 50% fuel) has a corner velocity of 203 mph IAS.  

That being said, its "agility" or "maneuverability" is outstanding--probably the best in the plane set.  I think you meant that it can roll and begin a direction change almost instantly.  
"Can we be incorrect at times, absolutely, but I do believe 15 years of experience does deserve a little more credence and respect than you have given from your very first post."

HiTech

Offline PJ_Godzilla

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2661
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #265 on: April 13, 2010, 09:45:23 AM »

That being said, its "agility" or "maneuverability" is outstanding--probably the best in the plane set.  I think you meant that it can roll and begin a direction change almost instantly.  

Right, I'm not speaking of a max flat turn rate but rather a min time to heading change. The latter is comprehensive of how quickly you get to a banked max-lift condition. Best turn rate (typically at corner) isn't what I'm after.
Some say revenge is a dish best served cold. I say it's usually best served hot, chunky, and foaming. Eventually, you will all die in my vengeance vomit firestorm.

Offline thorsim

  • Parolee
  • Restricted
  • ****
  • Posts: 1029
      • The Luftwhiner Lounge
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #266 on: April 13, 2010, 10:08:52 AM »
we also need to remember that all max direction changes are limited at the top end by the human G-Load factors ...

am i mistaken in thinking the initial turn rate being good or bad effects the AOA required for
direction-change/time and energy bleed to accomplish that direction-change/time and not so much how much we can turn?  
until of course we enter the sustained turn rate range.

have i got that correct?

i.e. a +5 g turn is a +5 g turn, one plane may bleed more e doing it but the turns by definition are the same if the speed is the same.

the ability to sustain that turn and maintain altitude while turning may vary but a +5 g turn is exactly the same at the same speed for every aircraft.

at least that is how my understanding of physics says it must be.  

which in game brings me back to plane handling and character and the subjective data and how impportant the sources you use for modeling those things are.

« Last Edit: April 13, 2010, 10:39:15 AM 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 Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #267 on: April 13, 2010, 12:57:07 PM »
I recall reading a quote from a 60- or 70 kill German ace about the Fw190A vs Spitfire IX.  He said that once the Spitfire IX arrived there was nothing the Fw190 had over the Spitfire other than roll rate, which was of marginal value and that he dreaded facing Spitfires because he felt they out performed his Fw190A by such a large margin.

I know his opinion was by no means universal, but there you have an example of a German ace, flying Fw190As, who felt the Spitfire Mk IX and beyond were simply superior to the Fw190s.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Stoney

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #268 on: April 13, 2010, 01:18:49 PM »
The problem is that a Spit 5 can pull almost 6g at 200mph and a FW190 can only pull 4g.  That means the 190 will have a bigger turn radius at the same speed.  Obviously, things will change as the turns slow to sustained radii.



Or am I missing something?
"Can we be incorrect at times, absolutely, but I do believe 15 years of experience does deserve a little more credence and respect than you have given from your very first post."

HiTech

Offline thorsim

  • Parolee
  • Restricted
  • ****
  • Posts: 1029
      • The Luftwhiner Lounge
Re: 190A5 vs 190A8
« Reply #269 on: April 13, 2010, 01:36:39 PM »
The problem is that a Spit 5 can pull almost 6g at 200mph and a FW190 can only pull 4g.  That means the 190 will have a bigger turn radius at the same speed.  Obviously, things will change as the turns slow to sustained radii.

(Image removed from quote.)

Or am I missing something?

what do you propose is the limiting factor ?

and isn't 200 mph below the 190s best corner velocity?  doesn't that mean that we are beyond the initial turn rate and "same G=same turn" point i was making ???

I recall reading a quote from a 60- or 70 kill German ace about the Fw190A vs Spitfire IX.  He said that once the Spitfire IX arrived there was nothing the Fw190 had over the Spitfire other than roll rate, which was of marginal value and that he dreaded facing Spitfires because he felt they out performed his Fw190A by such a large margin.

I know his opinion was by no means universal, but there you have an example of a German ace, flying Fw190As, who felt the Spitfire Mk IX and beyond were simply superior to the Fw190s.

that is why i am not advocating single sources for establishing the parameters of the FMs
« Last Edit: April 13, 2010, 01:51:20 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.