190A5 vs 190A8

[thorsim]

the 4g limit was said to be at 200mph on the fw 6g on the spit.  i asked for support for that in TRW testing and noting was put forward.

so the misunderstanding is two fold in that i did not post the quote on my part and that you did not follow the thread close enough to know what i was referring to in the first place ...

another thing you will notice is the examples you posted is that the fight described could not happen in AH as the AH190 does not have the combat flaps the real world pilot deploys in the fight in the example you quoted.

i am sorry i was not more clear in my post, and that my reference was not apparent to you right away, but i have no misunderstandings in the post you quoted.  the fact is that the game and the math you attempt to use to support the game simply does not correspond with the recorded history, and that is a problem with the game,
not the history. 

it is arrogant in the extreme to attempt to adjust the history to match the game, when it is the game which professes to match the history.

thorsim,

Probably not in this case, because when I read this thread the things that stand out the most are the degree of misunderstanding of basic physics, the misinterpretation of anecdotal evidence and technical reports, and the abysmal polemics in terms of both integrity and logic. Much of it appears to be in support of or in contention with some feature or other of someones favorite aircraft, and frankly, I've seen more coherent reasoning among squabling six year olds.

As an example of how easily misunderstanding can arise:

There simply isn't "a 4g limit in game". Assuming you are referring to the 109s or 190s I just checked them all and have no difficulty reaching 9G. I suspect, you probably meant to refer to something else, such as the control force modelling at high speed perhaps? Regardless of the merits of modelling control forces, or whatever you actually meant, you may appreciate how easy it is for misunderstandings to arise when people use the wrong terms or use well defined terms incorrectly, particularly when that degree of confusion proliferates the usual ill conceived petition for change that I've seen here. Not least of all when in previous responses it has been shown that various sources are being construed in support of arguments that defy the laws of physics.



Badboy

[Baumer]

it is arrogant in the extreme to attempt to adjust the history to match the game, when it is the game which professes to match the history.

You are WAY off base with that last statement, Thorsim. Badboy put forth a valid and very well stated argument about using anecdotal information as a basis for aircraft performance.

I have thought about this several times in the past couple of days and have refrained from posting it but, here it is anyways.

I have neither the time or inclination to do a mathematical proof for you as to why the formulas that have been stated are accurate. If you doubt what is taught by major university's in their aeronautical engineering class's that's your problem. If you doubt NASA's aeronautical engineer's ability to do advanced fluid dynamic's take it up with them. Neither Hitech nor anyone at HTC made these formulas up, they simply use what is currently know and documented for modeling fluid dynamic's as it applies to aircraft.

It is my sincere hope that HTC looks at the weight of the 190's and corrects any discrepancy's, but beyond that there are no other issues to be addressed in my opinion. And no amount of anecdotal information is going to change that either.

[Badboy]

the 4g limit was said to be at 200mph on the fw 6g on the spit. 

It now sounds like what you previously quoted in your response to me as a "4g limit" is actually an accelerated stall. The thing about accelerated stalls is that once you know one value for an aircraft, you know them all, so you could verify the values involved with knowledge of the 1g stall speed. But that sort of confusion is what happens when there are people don't know what they are talking about, others who can't use terminology correctly, and others who can't quote correctly, and they all post in the same thread.

and that is a problem with the game, not the history

Nope, it is a problem caused when people have an apparently overwhelming desire for change, but misunderstand and misinterpret information because they lack the knowledge or analytical skills necessary to arrive at the valid conclusions that would be required to justify such change.

Infact, if this thread is an example, the claims are so outrageously flawed that they are little more than a source of amusement.

Badboy

[thorsim]

You are WAY off base with that last statement, Thorsim. Badboy put forth a valid and very well stated argument about using anecdotal information as a basis for aircraft performance.

I have thought about this several times in the past couple of days and have refrained from posting it but, here it is anyways.

I have neither the time or inclination to do a mathematical proof for you as to why the formulas that have been stated are accurate. If you doubt what is taught by major university's in their aeronautical engineering class's that's your problem. If you doubt NASA's aeronautical engineer's ability to do advanced fluid dynamic's take it up with them. Neither Hitech nor anyone at HTC made these formulas up, they simply use what is currently know and documented for modeling fluid dynamic's as it applies to aircraft.

It is my sincere hope that HTC looks at the weight of the 190's and corrects any discrepancy's, but beyond that there are no other issues to be addressed in my opinion. And no amount of anecdotal information is going to change that either.

That now sounds more like an accelerated stall, and not a g limit. You see what happens when people don't know what they are talking about and can't use terminology correctly?

Nope, it is a problem caused when people have an apparently overwhelming desire for change, but misunderstand and misinterpret information because they lack the knowledge or analytical skills necessary to arrive at the valid conclusions that would be required to justify such change.

Infact, if this thread is an example, the claims are so outrageously flawed and the misunderstandings so obvious, that this thread has been reduced to little more than a source of amusement.

Badboy

no sirs the testing and the game are not in synch in many ways, from many sources, and the weights are off as well so my point that you math is off per the history since your numbers are off per history as well ...

it is not my understanding at issue here it is the game and the history "."

[Badboy]

it is not my understanding at issue here it is the game and the history

In your previous responses to me you appear to have confused a "4g limit" with what may have been an accelerated stall, and that would be a fairly basic misunderstanding.

I suspect that similar misunderstandings are indeed the issue here, particularly when you consider the posts in this thread that attempt to contradict the laws of physics, and then to justify those contradictions with misinterpreted anecdotes. 

so my point that you math is off per the history since your numbers are off per history as well ...

I have no idea what you are referring to here, can you remind me what math I've posted that you take exception to?

Badboy

[thorsim]

no sir, re: the g's, i asked for a historic justification for someone else's statement, none was provided.  which leads me to believe none existed.  when it is pointed out that there is a 900lb or 500lb miscalculation in regards to some variants then the math you may do has little relevance to the historic reality ...

In your previous responses to me you appear to have confused a "4g limit" with what may have been an accelerated stall, and that would be a fairly basic misunderstanding.

no sir data selection is the issue here, no offense ...

I suspect that similar misunderstandings are indeed the issue here, particularly when you consider the posts in this thread that attempt to contradict the laws of physics, and then to justify those contradictions with misinterpreted anecdotes.  

no sir, if you have no idea what i am talking about then i suggest you re read the thread.  start with the OP then move on to the weight problems, then move on to the handling, code, then the stall behavior, then the 109 roll problem, and you will clearly see what i am talking about.  

I have no idea what you are referring to here, can you remind me what math I've posted that you think is "off per the history"

[Baumer]

Thorsim I'm the one who posted the weight issue with the 190A-8 on response #18.

You continue to make banal generalizations in your posts, and blather on with the "conspiracy theory" type comments about anecdotal reports and hearsay. It is widely acknowledged that first hand combat reports from WW2 are very erroneous for all countries involved. Just look at kills claimed, or bomb damage assessments to appreciate how difficult it is to draw real data from first hand reports. So, just like Badboy posted, the descriptions of many combat maneuvers/engagements are lacking in sufficient detail to accurately tulips the true aircraft performance.

So it appears that we've reached an impasse once again, I am unable to sway your opinion, nor will you sway mine.

[thorsim]

You continue to make banal generalizations in your posts

post an example ...

[Stoney]

i asked for a historic justification for someone else's statement, none was provided.

You know Thor, a lot of the analysis tools we're using didn't really exist back then.  I'm the one that posted the chart that showed an accelerated stall condition at 200 mph and 4g.  That's an analytical chart based on the 1g stall speed.  We could easily test it in game, but since your contention is that the FM is porked, that wouldn't prove much.  You won't find any documentation that describes the FW-190 departing at 200mph and 4g because that type of testing wasn't done back then.  So, if you're waiting for some Luftwaffe document that proves what I'm saying mathematically, it will never be produced because it doesn't exist.  So then the question becomes: "How do we prove to you the relative accuracy of the aerodynamic approximations computed by the Aces High FM?"  The answer to that, if you refuse to accept simple aerodynamic theory is "we won't...ever."  So really, if you're unable to accept the theoretical as evidence, we have absolutely nothing else to discuss. 

If you accept the simple lift equation, why can't you accept a turn equation?

[thorsim]

look guys my points are that when the vast majority of historic testing, operational POs, and other records, paint one picture of an aircraft and the game reflects something very different then something is not correct.  

what is not correct can not be known by us only noticed.  now if it was one source document that did not correspond to the game that would be one thing, however in this case it is the exact opposite and i see that as a problem.  

what you should be asking imo is why does the historic documentation and the in game result differ so much.  

like i said you could write off one or two tests but the 190 is a pretty well documented aircraft shouldn't the majority of the historic records correspond rather than conflict with the FMs?  

i submit that since it doesn't and since you say that the calculations must be correct then perhaps the data used in the calculations is flawed.  we know some of the weights are well off, what else might be wrong.  the A8 is especially too far off from it's historic reputation to leave me content about how successful the approach used here is at least in regards to this example.

you guys are also glossing over some of my points and that is a bit discouraging.    

you guys say that things must reflect the known physics and i agree, i just am having trouble understanding how you guys are having so much trouble seeing that things must also reflect the known historic data as well in order to have a really good FM.

You know Thor, a lot of the analysis tools we're using didn't really exist back then.  I'm the one that posted the chart that showed an accelerated stall condition at 200 mph and 4g.  That's an analytical chart based on the 1g stall speed.  We could easily test it in game, but since your contention is that the FM is porked, that wouldn't prove much.  You won't find any documentation that describes the FW-190 departing at 200mph and 4g because that type of testing wasn't done back then.  So, if you're waiting for some Luftwaffe document that proves what I'm saying mathematically, it will never be produced because it doesn't exist.  So then the question becomes: "How do we prove to you the relative accuracy of the aerodynamic approximations computed by the Aces High FM?"  The answer to that, if you refuse to accept simple aerodynamic theory is "we won't...ever."  So really, if you're unable to accept the theoretical as evidence, we have absolutely nothing else to discuss.  

If you accept the simple lift equation, why can't you accept a turn equation?

[Karnak]

look guys my points are that when the vast majority of historic testing, operational POs, and other records, paint one picture of an aircraft and the game reflects something very different then something is not correct.  

And what would that be?  Certainly not the Fw190 or Bf109.

you guys say that things must reflect the known physics and i agree, i just am having trouble understanding how you guys are having so much trouble seeing that things must also reflect the known historic data as well in order to have a really good FM.

Post historic data that disagrees.  Post evidence.  Things like Johnson's Spit V vs Fw190A encounter are not evidence as almost none of the variables are known.

[Baumer]

OK let's try it this way since you want me to post examples,
Having just reviewed all of your posts in this thread you have managed to post 2 pieces of "evidence". There may be others, but with a clear lack of proper citation it's difficult to differentiate if you paraphrasing from another source. 

One is a link to a "Wings of the Luftwaffe" in reply number 138. This clearly lacks the kind of data that Badboy commented on in relation to anecdotal reports.

The second is in post #38 where you posted a screen shot from a history channel show. That's it, you make mention of your numerous posts of evidence but it is very much lacking in this thread.

Now on to specific posts that I felt warrented my previous response.
 
Here is a sweeping generalization;

no sir, re: the g's, i asked for a historic justification for someone else's statement, none was provided.  which leads me to believe none existed. 

Here is an example of the repeated point of using anecdotal information as a data source.

no sir data selection is the issue here, no offense ...

Again a generalization with the continued claim of many sources.

no sirs the testing and the game are not in synch in many ways, from many sources,

More of the same "many sources" repetitive argument, with no additional clearly documented sources.

see the problem is that you guys insist on the numbers you produce justify the situation in the game and i and many others have repeatedly on many specific topics have shown that the situation in the game is in direct conflict with real world testing.  something is wrong or something is being missed and that is obvious to many.
i just want to help figure that out.

Raising suspicion that Hitech has other concerns that may preclude him from addressing the issue. Given the vast amount of data he has contributed to this thread, your documentation pale's in comparison.

i think hitech has concerns that go far beyond many of the things we are discussing here, he addresses things or doesn't for his own reasons, most of which (in my experience with online interactions) he keeps to himself.

Generalizations about the other aircraft vs the 190's.

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.

Again with the "vast majority" of generalizations

the handling in the game is inconsistent with the vast majority of tests and POs of the plane. 
that is a fact "."
that is what i questioned, and i offered an explanation.  somewhere in the process i made a statement for which i have now shown the source which no one now questions. 
why now do i feel like you want me to defend myself once again?
the FM does not match up with what it is supposed to be historically.  you think the reason is in the numbers,
i think the reason is in the decisions about the source data and the goals for the FM.
i see no need to debate as there is no way for us to know how much of the FM code can be described as subjective and how much is numerically well defined.   
i have no problem with being in respectful disagreement with some of you, however i see no reason to be badgered for offering a well supported opinion on these matters.   

Here's a good one of the "as the powers that be and the community" acting against you in a conspiracy to thwart the 190's performance.

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     

So in summation I think your repeated unoriginal generalizations, coupled with a clear lack of any real data (or even properly cited anecdotal reports) warranted my previous post.

[Badboy]

thorsim

What you actually did was to read a post that had a graph showing accelerated stalls and then post that the 190 had a "4g limit in game" you called an accelerated stall a g limit, both well known technical terms, and you got it completely wrong. That may be because you didn't understand the terminology or the effects they relate to, or you simply didn't understand the graph. What ever the reason was, in order to make a credible representation about an aircraft, it would be necessary to use technical terms correctly, or at least have the ability to comprehend basic technical information, or at least have a basic familiarity with the laws of physics. Being able to quote people accurately would help, along with the ability to interpret historical information without distortion or prejudice.

Unfortunately, when all of those issues exist, credibility is reduced to the point where claims can't be taken seriously.

Badboy

[hitech]

Baumer: Curious, did you do the formula reduction in your signature or did you see it some where?  I never noticed it before,it is interesting seeing it expressed with out a V term. I'm not exactly sure why, but I find it elegant.

HiTech

[PJ_Godzilla]

Baumer: Curious, did you do the formula reduction in your signature or did you see it some where?  I never noticed it before,it is interesting seeing it expressed with out a V term. I'm not exactly sure why, but I find it elegant.

HiTech

I like that one m'self and so cite it frequently right from wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading scroll down to "turn performance".

You like it, and find it elegant, because the v^2 terms cancel, neatly illustrating your earlier point about the lift and centripetal BOTH increasing like v^2 - to put words in your mouth. There, I've brown-nosed HT (THE MAN) and earned my "points toward my own special 410" for the day.

Anyway, this thread grows tiresome, but was valuable in that it tipped the close-to-the-vest hand a bit, at least regarding thrust distribution.