190A5 vs 190A8

[Masherbrum]

"this thread is nothing more than your typical Luftwhiner thread, pure and simple"

FYI

"The 190 A5 engine 1,700 PS (1,677 hp, 1,250 kW)
The 190 A8 engine 1,980 PS (1,953 hp, 1,456 kW)
wouldn't that give it more power & make it climb faster and fly faster?
If the engine's power did not offset the weight gain, why did they add it?"

That's a legit question Ardy started this thread with i.e the change in power loading vs. the effect of general weight increase on performance.

What it came to be once luftloonies popped in and allyfanboys started tossing their usual HTC approved poop is another matter.

-C+

For almost a year Thorsim has "questioned the FM of various Luftwaffe planes".    He questions HTC's data, coad, FM, etc.   Although one thing is fact, he never has posted actua  data.   He posts his "unsubstantiated opinion".   All of us have at one point said:  "Prove HTC wrong when it comes to data", but he won't.   If Dale answers a question, the tap dance begins and the answer given "was not good enough", because thor's question was extremely vague in the first place.

I bid thorsim good riddance.   He is claiming to be some "sierra hotel stick" in the 190 and he is far from it.

[Ghosth]

For almost a year Thorsim has "questioned the FM of various Luftwaffe planes".    He questions HTC's data, coad, FM, etc.   Although one thing is fact, he never has posted actua  data.   He posts his "unsubstantiated opinion".   All of us have at one point said:  "Prove HTC wrong when it comes to data", but he won't.   If Dale answers a question, the tap dance begins and the answer given "was not good enough", because thor's question was extremely vague in the first place.

I bid thorsim good riddance.   He is claiming to be some "sierra hotel stick" in the 190 and he is far from it.

"Quoted for truth"

Again, and again, and again, he could not back up his statements with data.
Could not in fact do the math. Yet he discounted all those who could and did.

[BaldEagl]

Although he obviously doesn't know when to give up an argument I don't think Thorism needed to be png'd.  A warning or locking the thread might have sufficed.  After all, this thread has provided all of us almost a month of daily entertainment and gaston joining in was just the icing on the cake.  

[Masherbrum]

Although he obviously doesn't know when to give up an argument I don't think Thorism needed to be png'd.  A warning or locking the thread might have sufficed.  After all, this thread has provided all of us almost a month of daily entertainment and gaston joining in was just the icing on the cake.  

The only reason I disagree is that Dale has much more important watermelon to worry about, than someone who cannot comprehend reason.   Given the two choices of PNG'ing the dolt or getting more features to this game, I'll GLADLY choose the both.   He knew what he was doing and merely argued for the sake of arguing.  

Gaston appears to be a "Thorsim in Training".  

[TequilaChaser]

would have prefered it if the thread had been locked, and maybe a statement that for AH community members of the BBS, to keep to the context of said thread and not get into nose punching contest.....

maybe a parolee instead of png ( however that system works, I have not a clue )

I don't think it has much to do with how thorsim shows his game playing/cartoon plane flying abilitys though... I personally accepted a challenge from thorsim, to put it to rest. Thorsim's ability to cartoon fly is just as good as most anyone else in the game save those "top shelf" players who are in a league all their own..... thorsim's game abilitys should not be questioned in this thread... he can hold his own against most other regular players..... we all are just average WWII flight sim geeks

what I do not and have yet to understand is how so many people can come in here and insist on making the game perform like RW planes, when for the majority hardly any know how the RL planes performed outside of what they have read somewhere....
learn to play the game/fly the planes as they are designed "within" what the game has to offer, and learn to fly them as they perform in game, not try and compare them and insist on HTC making it to what you think it should be because that is what some History channel episode said, or what some pilot said who tested a captured plane ......

finding HARD FACTUAL EVIDENCE / DATA is ok, and if it proves to be accurate, then I am sure HTC will want to input the info to better the game, but that should be the extent of it all......

YMMV........ mine does everyday depending on if it is level , uphill, or downhill  
anyhows....... it is what it is.....

[FLS]

"this thread is nothing more than your typical Luftwhiner thread, pure and simple"

FYI

"The 190 A5 engine 1,700 PS (1,677 hp, 1,250 kW)
The 190 A8 engine 1,980 PS (1,953 hp, 1,456 kW)
wouldn't that give it more power & make it climb faster and fly faster?
If the engine's power did not offset the weight gain, why did they add it?"

That's a legit question Ardy started this thread with i.e the change in power loading vs. the effect of general weight increase on performance.

What it came to be once luftloonies popped in and allyfanboys started tossing their usual HTC approved poop is another matter.

-C+

Charge don't your figures show that the -8 has a higher wing loading and the same power loading as the -5? Doesn't that support the performance we see in AH?

[Bronk]

Although he obviously doesn't know when to give up an argument I don't think Thorism needed to be png'd.  A warning or locking the thread might have sufficed.  After all, this thread has provided all of us almost a month of daily entertainment and gaston joining in was just the icing on the cake.  

The thinly veiled insults to HT and HTC put him in the soon to be PNGed bag. A blind man could see it.

[Gaston]

Thor going faster will decrease your level turn radius until you reach corner speed. Hence the definition of corner speed, the slowest speed at which you can pull maximum G's. The reason the turn radius decreases is because 2 equations fall out the same, your lift generated (force that makes the turn) and the "Centripetal force" both vary with the square of speed for a given radius. So if you would be doing a loop (with no gravity), you would continue to make the same circle (same radius) as long as you held the same AOA, no mater how fast you would go.

Now when you make a level turn you also need to provide 1g up force  along the the g's of the turn. So at stall speed where you can only produce 1g, you can not turn. but as you go faster the extra G you create all go to turn. So to make is really simple if you are flying at 6 g speed 5g's now go to turn vs 1g for gravity. This makes your circle smaller as you go faster , and hence why corner speed is the best speed to be for best instantaneous turn performance.

Now sustained turn does the exact same thing. The faster you can go at MAX AOA will make both the smallest diameter and the best degrees per sec. So for Gastons logic to be correct.  YOu have to go slower to turn better. This just is not the case at any speed below corner speed which in AH is defined at 6'gs because of black out. So do you know of many planes that can do a continuous 6 g's with out loosing alt?

Now gaston also complete confuses forces and torques. Because (I have not really looked at the net torque because it is not relative)  Torque on the airframe does not make it turn (i.e. change it's vel vector) . it only makes it spin around a point but in no way helps it change direction. This is basic Physics 101 definitions.

So for what gaston claims to be true you would increase speed by decreasing throttle,does that make any since to you?

Now lets look at some of the sustained turn rates he quotes of 250 - 300. These are just insane.

Basic lift equations are the potential lift increase with the square of the speed. So if your 1 g stall speed is 104 (fw ranges) at 208 you could pull 4 gs I do not believe any plane in the game not a plane in the game can do a 4 g sustained turn.

And hence why I said.

Repeat after me. Sustained turn rate decrease with less throttle.

Because the stuff is just simple physics 101. And the stuff grafton spews on the mater is like arguing that an apple will not fall if you drop it.

HiTech

    -Here's the approximate sustained turn rate performance of a P-51D that is downthrottled vs non-downthrottled (The numbers are approximate and are intended to represent roughly what is going on).

    Best sustained turn rate (downthrottled): Around 2.5-3 Gs at 200 MPH or less flaps-down prop on coarse pitch. Radius: About 900 ft. (See Hanseman account). Non-downthrottled at 200 MPH or less is worse than what follows:

                Around 2.5 Gs or less at 200-300 MPH flaps-up prop on finer pitch. Radius: 1400-1600 ft +(!)

                Around 2.5 Gs + (Improving trend as prop load decreases) at 300 MPH + flaps-up prop on coarser pitch, full power... Radius: 1300 ft.

                                                     Sustained turn performance is not really meaningful past 350 MPH, so one can only point to an actual British test at 400 MPH (Whenever radius is mentionned in WWII it usually means unsustained turns at high speed): 450 yds (1350 ft.) radius at 400 MPH at 10.000 ft: An impressive performance that I think reflects metal-skinned elevators that were available on the P-51D in March 1945 only... To give some idea, the Spitfire Mk XIV in that same RAE test did only 625 yds (1875 ft) at the same 400 MPH speed at 10.000 ft., despite MUCH lighter elevator controls... So much for predictive calculations...)

    The reason why sustained turn performance seems worst at 200 to 300 MPH, or maybe a bit higher, is of course because the prop disc load is highest at these speeds... Inevitably, a load that is increased AHEAD of the leading edge of the wings will pull down on that leading edge of the wings and will force a much wider radius by requiring much more force to lift that leading edge, unless you are willing to lose speed: The aircraft behaves exactly as it if it were thousands of pounds heavier...

    Yes, in a turn, less speed means going FASTER if the radius you have to turn around is 900 ft. versus at higher speed the prop load forcing you to turn around a 1600 ft radius...

    Gaston

                                                             

[Karnak]

Gaston,

Are you serious?!?  Referencing something that is using single radius numbers for speeds from 200-300mph?

[hitech]

Gaston read my lips.

Sustained turn rate decreases with less power. You are saying less power increases climb rate.

Ill tell you what, ill play teacher , please show your work.

Because lift causes drag power over comes drag around the corner you go. Less power means you can not have as much drag hence can not sustain as much less lift , hence slower around the corner you go.

I do not know how to convince you of this, but you are stating perpetual motion exists.


HiTech

[Scherf]

Please, just make the stupid stop...



And the Village People sing...

"You can't stop the stupid,
no-body can stop the stu-pid..."

[Gaston]

Firstly, I don't want to labor the obvious, basic and persistant errors in posts that so many others have already corrected, but I would like to say something about the interesting historical references that have been used to support flawed conclusions about sustained turns.

A quick review of some of the anecdotal evidence can reveal how mistakes may have been made.

For example, the combat report by Hanseman, describes how the 109 stopped cutting him off as he cut throttle, and this can be perfectly consistent with aerodynamics and the flight model in AH, but only under certain conditions. For example, Hanseman does not say anything about his initial speed, and if he was above corner velocity reducing throttle would have allowed him to increase his turn rate and reduce his turn radius more quickly. Once he employed flaps, his turn radius would have reduced even further. Nothing was said that is not entirely consistent with real world physics, and Aces High. The mistake would be to make the assumption that Hanseman continued the fight with reduced throttle, and that was somehow responsible for his continued ability to out turn the 109. There is a circumstance where even that is conceivable, and that might be if the aircraft were in a descending low G spiral turn, but Hanseman describes this engagement as occurring at 500ft so that is not the case, because there wasn't room. So, under the conditions described, the assumption that fight was continued with reduced  throttle and that this improved the turn, is clearly false because it is in conflict with basic aerodynamic principles. A much more reasonable assumption would be that once Hanseman had reduced his airspeed below corner, and employed flaps, he would have then increased power as necessary to achieve the best sustained turn.

Another example from the article by Johnson where he describes being out turned by a 190 and where the poster states:

However, if you read Johnson's article it presents a very different picture of what really happened, that is also perfectly consistent with aerodynamics. Firstly, when Johnson describes turning hard to the left and whirling around on opposite sides of what seemed to be an ever decreasing circle, he gave no indication or details of that phase of the fight, other than to say they were on opposite sides of the circle, which indicates that during that time the fight may have remained neutral. With no indication of how long that phase lasted, we can only speculate, but it is possible that if both aircraft were at high speed, and they both pulled the same G, they would have been able to match each others turns for a time while their speeds were decreasing. However, where Johnson initially describes being out turned by the 190 they were not at low altitude, and they were not in flat turns, as indicated in the quote above. They were high enough that Johnson was able to enter a near vertical dive after he conceding the fight, and the turn was not flat, Johnson actually said he was in the "tightest of vertical turns" and that he was at full throttle and greying out. What difference does that make?  Firstly, you would expect the 190 to be superior in the vertical so no real surprise there, but he also describes being at full throttle and greying out, which indicates that at that time the fight was occurring at the relatively high speeds and load factors. Bearing in mind that two aircraft at the same speed and load factor will turn at exactly the same rate and radius, this fight may have been determined partly by the superiority of the 190 in the vertical, and possibly by differences in the G tolerance of the pilots. After all, for all we know, Johnson may have had a bad night and been greying out at relatively low G, while the German stud flying the 190 was able to pull harder, generating the rate and radius necessary to give Johnson the scare he needed to beak off into a near vertical dive. When Johnson says "My over-confidence of a few seconds before had already given way to irritation at losing my opponent" he gives us the clue that this phase of the fight was infact brief, and that his perception of being out turned was arrived at quickly, and not after sustained turning. Once he had broken off into a dive the 190 was in trail and in the control position, any further turning by Johnson appears to have only been used to align himself with the Ships.

I would say that this combat report says a lot more about the survival instincts and perception of a great Ace, than it does about the performance of the aircraft involved. It is also possible to see from both reports that anecdotal evidence, typically sparse in fundamental detail and lacking any basic technical facts, or information about the condition or configuration of the aircraft involved, can very easily be misinterpreted.

Badboy

  -I quote a RANGE of best sustained radiuses for 200-300 MPH, Karnak... What is your problem?

  -All I am saying, Hightech, is that it takes less speed to go around 900 ft. than 1600 ft... Less speed can even do it FASTER... That's all.

  -As for the Badboy quote: It has been established in 1989 by TEST PILOTS, and confirmed to me by an aircraft designer, that the "Corner Speed" of many WWII fighters is " VERY close to the maximum level speed"... Hanseman does not say anything about his initial speed????? He describes several 360° turns on the deck, with AA firing on him whenever he got close to the airfield... He "gradually" worked the 109 away from the airfield 360 by 360... Do you really think that means his speed is still above 350 MPH on-the-deck!!!??? I guess you must, otherwise your whole argument against downthrottling being a low-speed tactic falls apart...

   As for the argument against the obvious interpretation of the Johnson account, I don't know where to begin...: IF it was downward spiral, they would then NOT be on opposite sides "of an ever decreasing circle"... NOT a FLAT turn????

   I love the omission of Johnson's quote: "He was gaining on me (in the same ever decreasing circle, remember?): In another couple of (360°) turns he would have me in his sights..." But that is NOT sustained performance: NOT related to sustained turning people... Noooo: The guy who was there just doesn't know what he is talking about...

   I also love the omission of Johnson's OPENING statement, with POST-WAR hindsight: "They (FW-190s) turned better than the Me-109s" What a surprise: Totally unrelated to his anecdote, of course!

   High enough for a vertical dive after conceding the fight: Yeah, 3000-5000 ft. by the looks of it: So??? Isn't what matter that he conceded the turn fight?

   But my favourite is the "vertical turn" issue, which all people desperate to sustain their "calculation" fictions have used to their utter ridicule: The following is not a matter of debate. Since your ignorance of WWII lingo is apparently severe (how could "an ever diminishing circle" be a bunch of vertical loops?), let me complete your education about WWII terminology: "Vertical turn" is WWII short-hand for a "Wings vertical turn", a diminutive in effect, for a 90° bank turn, which means, by definition, a fairly flat turn...

   -Quote, Badboy:

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


   'Couldn't have said it better myself...

    Gaston

   P.S.: For those with actual open minds, the texts in question:

    
    
    http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/combat-reports/339-hanseman-24may44.jpg
    
    http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/4716/jjohnsononfw190.jpg
    G.

  
  

[Karnak]

Gaston,

The references are too vague in their numbers.  The radius of a turn for the P-51 is not 900ft at 199mph and 1600ft at 201mph as your reference would suggest.

Yes, it does take less speed to go around a circle with a 900ft radius in the same time it takes to do so to a 1600ft circle.  However, lets say the P-51 does the 900ft circle at 150mph and the 1600ft circle at 300mph, likely given the wording of your reference, which one has the higher turn rate?  Answer: 1600ft at 300mph is faster than 900ft at 150mph.

[Ardy123]

Before more people get PNG'd, lets go back to the original focus, 190A5 vs 190 A8 performance. I still have not heard any confirmation on the engine output of the -A8 as its modeled in AH.

Is it...

 1× BMW 801 D-2 radial engine, 1,730 hp, 2,000 hp with boost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_190)

or is it the

'I thought it was 1800PS'(1775.37594207hp)

that others have stated in the forum?

Also, I have read differing reports on the output of the BMW 801-D2 engine some even stating that some had supercharger gear ratios tuned to higher altitudes which improved the power at cruse by about 150 hp. Furthermore, I've read a little about a
BMW 801F which had 2,400 PS (2,367 hp, 1,765 kW), don't know if these made it to the A-8, it might have only been attempted in A-9s.

[Jabberwock]

Sustained turn performance is not really meaningful past 350 MPH, so one can only point to an actual British test at 400 MPH (Whenever radius is mentionned in WWII it usually means unsustained turns at high speed): 450 yds (1350 ft.) radius at 400 MPH at 10.000 ft: An impressive performance that I think reflects metal-skinned elevators that were available on the P-51D in March 1945 only... To give some idea, the Spitfire Mk XIV in that same RAE test did only 625 yds (1875 ft) at the same 400 MPH speed at 10.000 ft., despite MUCH lighter elevator controls...

I've asked you for a copy of this test four times.

Please, provide a link or the original text.

No RAE testing I've come across in the PRO office matches anything like this.