PDA

View Full Version : Fw energy retention



JtD
07-17-2009, 08:56 AM
In another topic it was stated that the energy loss of the Fw compared to other planes comes mostly from the time you spend at low speeds. This poor low speed performance was also blamed to be the primary reason for reaching co-E state when boom and zooming rather soon. I said I was going to test this and I did.

The most obvious result first: It depends, in particular on the planes involved and the speed regions you fly in.

The graphs below come from a comparison test between the Fw 190A-8, the F4U-1D and the P-47D-27. I picked these three planes because they are rather similar in terms of wingloading, speed at the altitudes involved and also climb.
I started at 5000m, when reaching 360 km/h IAS I dived down steeply with about 65°, pulled out sharply (greyout approaching for a second) at about 2500 at the lowest point and zoomed up very steeply at again about 65°. Then I leveled out and the speed there was about 230 km/h IAS. I allowed the plane to accelerate for about 10 seconds there. All this was done by the marvelous autopilot, so the flights of the three aircraft were very similar.

Time is in hour of day, so it's 12 o'clock.
The energy is J/kg. Hope the physicists don't faint.

The first chart shows the energy of each plane (mass not factored so they are directly comparable) and the second chart shows the difference between the Focke Wulf and the other planes.
I think it is easy to see that the major difference comes from the pullout, not the low speed acceleration on the top. The pullout happens roughly between 12.0125 and 12.015.

If you want me to do test this with other parameters, I'll try to do so.

Note: The E-chart is not equivalent to a flight path. You gain E as soon as your engine produces more thrust than your plane creates drag. In this dive, this happened after the pullout already into the climb. So the lowest point of the E-chart is already on the way up. I figure I'll produce another picture that shows that a bit better.
http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/testgraph/divezoom01.JPG

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/testgraph/divezoom02.JPG

p.s. I would have liked to start the topic with the quote of the original statement, but authorities have warned me to do so. If the anonymous and inaccurate drivel bothers you, please don't blame me.

DKoor
07-17-2009, 09:02 AM
Didn't know about the F4U, but I always regarded the P-47D to be better with energy than FW-190A.
FW-190D may be another story tho.
BTW check the second chart mate, something is wrong with FW-190A8 data.

JtD
07-17-2009, 09:09 AM
This is altitude, speed and E for one flight. You can see the relation between altitude, speed and energy quite easily here, the biggest loss of E occurs in the pullout.

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/testgraph/divezoom03.JPG

JtD
07-17-2009, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:

BTW check the second chart mate, something is wrong with FW-190A8 data.

No, the Fw loses exactly as much as the Fw so x minus x = 0. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BillSwagger
07-17-2009, 09:19 AM
i'm trying to make sense of your charts.

I see time (in seconds) on the x axis, and energy on the y axis, but what unit of energy is this??

Just from experience, the P-47 transitions nicely into the F4U, meaning if you fly the P-47 with success then you should be able to grasp the f4U with the same confidence.
They only differ in a couple ways.
The F4U accelerates faster, but the P-47 dives faster.
The F4U can turn sharper, but the P-47 has better high speed roll response.
There are other minor differences, but both share an effective zoom climb, with the P-47 beijng superior, and both retain energy in a similar way.


i cant say the same about a 190A.
You have to fly that plane a bit differently to get the max performance out of it.


Which also reminds me of this, which may or may not pertain to the game, but i thought it showed some interesting results.
http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id88.htm
an F4U, F6f, and a 190A5 comparison report.

M_Gunz
07-17-2009, 09:30 AM
Okay I won't blame you for drivel.

230kph (IAS?) seems a more than a bit slow for a zoom end speed, less than best sustained climb at that alt.

JtD
07-17-2009, 09:39 AM
Time is not in seconds but hour of day, so it's 12 o'clock.
The energy is J/kg. Hope the physicists don't faint now.

Yes, 230 km/h IAS is a quite a bit slow but I had to go this slow because the original point was that the Fw loses most E at low speeds.

M_Gunz
07-17-2009, 09:52 AM
See the sustained climb rate each has at 100% power and steady 230kph then. The climb will be an indicator of (T-D)/W, no?

BillSwagger
07-17-2009, 09:54 AM
everything you just posted should go at the top of this thread. It would make it a bit easier to understand what you are showing.


I usually make shallow dives over longer periods of time, rather than steep dives over a shorter period because the pull out is the biggest energy grabber.

That almost seems like common sense, don't you think?


You should do another test with a shallow dive (10-20 degrees) and perform a shallow pull out at a certain speed, and then see where these planes match up.

DKoor
07-17-2009, 09:57 AM
Acceleration will play big part especially on lower speeds and the longer test lasts effect will be more pronounced http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .
Just saying.

danjama
07-17-2009, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
everything you just posted should go at the top of this thread. It would make it a bit easier to understand what you are showing.


I usually make shallow dives over longer periods of time, rather than steep dives over a shorter period because the pull out is the biggest energy grabber.

That almost seems like common sense, don't you think?


You should do another test with a shallow dive (10-20 degrees) and perform a shallow pull out at a certain speed, and then see where these planes match up.

but thats now how to BnZ (especially if repeating the sequence), the point of the tests is to show how much energy is lost pulling out of a BnZ scenario

M_Gunz
07-17-2009, 10:27 AM
If the pullout was the point then why bother with 230kph IAS?

I was waiting anyway for someone to better define just what energy retention is supposed to be besides a loose term.

JtD
07-17-2009, 10:41 AM
Maybe another way to look at it, take a look at the third chart:

Initially I am at 5000m doing 400km/h. Towards the end I am at 4750m doing 400km/h again. I have lost 250m of altitude through the maneuver. The F4U lost only 125m and the P-47 only 100m.
The idea was to test the entire B'n'Z maneuver, not just the pullout. Since in the end you're ready for the next attack, I think it can be considered accomplished.

---

The planes involved still have about 95%+ of their maximum sustained climb performance available at 230 km/h. You're not outside the performance envelope. You're just pushing it a bit. It should also be noted that I did not aim at that speed. It is what "naturally" developed through the maneuver, and it doesn't feel wrong when you see it.

---

A shallow dive/climb does not mirror the intended conditions. Also, the less you maneuver the more everything narrows down to top speed.

---

Energy retention is how much of the mechanical energy you take into a maneuver is there at the end.

BillSwagger
07-17-2009, 10:54 AM
i guess if you made a shallower dive, it would lead to a shallower pull out, and you could get varied results.

It then might show a pattern on how to BnZ in each airplane.

Just a thought.

DKoor
07-17-2009, 11:43 AM
In the end, it doesn't really matter how you test it, if it shows things.
I think you tested it good, trend is what matters http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ...

Also about this angle of BnZ attack... I prefer shallow angle, my aircraft is much more controllable that way, also I have easier gunnery time. but I guess that depends on the style of play.

IMHO nothing beats good old sneak up from low six belly raking http://www.smileysnetwork.com/demons/demon6.gif .

JtD
07-17-2009, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
i guess if you made a shallower dive, it would lead to a shallower pull out, and you could get varied results.

It then might show a pattern on how to BnZ in each airplane.

Just a thought.

Well, it is not really interesting to test the shallower angles. Trust me on this one, it has been done before. Not much more to see there. Shallower dives/climbs will benefit planes that have better sustained climb performance and a high level speed. The 109 is a plane that is very dominant here with good level speed and excellent climb.
I'd also have to rewrite the script completely which I'm reluctant to do, but maybe I will.
Another thing is to find the best pullout, you can of course pull out more gently than I did in the above test. You'd bleed less E this way. However, you'd be going faster and lower for a longer time which would cost E. It might be interesting to find the best compromise.

In terms of combat if you dive and climb at a very shallow angle, you'll give the opponent too much time to set up for the second attack, if you were to do it. If you'd climb away at 20° in the Fw turn around on the top somehow and come back at in a shallow dive, I'd just take the Spit and climb away from you as hard as I could during that time and I'd meet you co-alt the next time you try to come down on me. It just takes ages. So there's not much point to it.

Kettenhunde
07-17-2009, 10:24 PM
In the end, it doesn't really matter how you test it, if it shows things.


In many ways you are correct. I think you guys get wrapped around the axle on some of the details that really are not important.

At the same time, I see guys make major blunders on the principles. Unfortunately egos and defensive behaviors prevent any progress.

Aircraft performance calculations can be pretty straight forward but if you don't know some of the details of the methodology in use you can make some large errors like misuse of density ratio invalidating speeds.

The two most important points in this thread that if folks will lay down their egos you might end up with something useful are:


230kph (IAS?) seems a more than a bit slow for a zoom end speed, less than best sustained climb at that alt.


AND


just what energy retention is supposed to be besides a loose term.


Otherwise much of these charts will continue to be artwork; pretty colors that are only useful for decoration.

All the best,

Crumpp

JtD
07-17-2009, 11:54 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

Otherwise much of these charts will continue to be artwork; pretty colors that are only useful for decoration.

That's true if you're either not interested in the subject or don't get it. Since I'm evaluating the flight performance of planes in a game you don't even play, I suppose at least one of the this is true for you.
For me, and hopefully for others, the findings the graphs are illustrating a problem in the Focke Wulfs flight model and if one wants to be good in it you'll have to find a way around it. They thus are useful and interesting for some.

You are welcome to produce a better chart than this to illustrate the sources/places of the energy loss of the in game Focke Wulf in steep dive / zoom climb maneuvers as used in game in B'n'Z tactics.

BillSwagger
07-18-2009, 01:37 AM
http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id88.htm

did you read this, JTD??

I think the FW has a few flaws in it, as do most planes in the sim.
Most noticeable flaw isn't its flight model. It is its ability to absorb punishment. Cannons or machine guns, the FW holds together well, and can hold a decent flight pattern even after raking it wing tip to wing tip. I know they were known for being tougher planes, than say a 109 or spitfire, but to have them modeled as tough or tougher than an F4u or Hellcat, is absurd. Sawing off those paper thin wings is a ridiculous challenge.

Another interesting point, is the FW never had a great climb rate. A P-47c out climbs a Focke Wolf. Someone posted a graph of this a couple months (if not, weeks) ago. Maybe later FWs were better climbers, not sure of the data and i cant locate the graph.

I think when we start looking at performance, (and where we think it should be), its important to notice that many planes have a reputation based on a contrast to their contemporaries.

I'm sure you done your research though.
I could set up a graph of the dive acceleration and zoom of the P-47, and I might find the sim doesn't match historical records for two reasons: it is nearly impossible to simulate a ww2 plane with 100% accuracy ( or is it?) and the data that you gather from the 1940s contains a large margin of error because the instrumentation of that time period.

JtD
07-18-2009, 01:49 AM
So I tested a bit with the pullouts now and the best Fw pullout is harder than the one I used above. However, the harder you pull the more pronounced the handicap of the Fw becomes.

I got the best results with an 8g pullout, the 7-9g range is pretty similar overall, but if you pull harder or less hard you're losing out bit for bit. A 6g pullout cost me 10 km/h and 15 meters of alt relative to the 8g pullout.
If you pull harder you also give the opponent less time to recover from your attack, but it also means that you're not extending as far as you do if you pull less hard so it's easier for him to get lucky with a spray and pray shot.

JtD
07-18-2009, 02:17 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id88.htm

did you read this, JTD?

Yes, a long time ago.


I think the FW has a few flaws in it, as do most planes in the sim.
Most noticeable flaw isn't its flight model. It is its ability to absorb punishment. Cannons or machine guns, the FW holds together well, and can hold a decent flight pattern even after raking it wing tip to wing tip.

You've got to be kidding here...the Fw is famous, or infamous, in this community for being complete loss in terms of combat capabilities if a wing gets hit. Yes, you can sometimes put 30+ 20mm shells into the fuselage and you can also put 60 20mm shells in the engine and it will survive, but you can also take off a wing with a single 20mm hit. The actual toughness numbers of the Fw wing sections are (from inside to ouside):
150-120-100
The F6F and F4U have
200-150-100
and a P-47 has
350-250-100
There's no magic in the Fw's wings!


Another interesting point, is the FW never had a great climb rate. A P-47c out climbs a Focke Wolf. Someone posted a graph of this a couple months (if not, weeks) ago. Maybe later FWs were better climbers, not sure of the data and i cant locate the graph.

The early Fw were one of the best climbers of their time. The later versions not so. The P-47C models most certainly did not outclimb contemporary Focke Wulfs, the exception might be at very high altitude. The standard P-47C came with a 2000hp engine that gave them a climb rate in the range of 12m/s. At war emergency power. It were 8m/s at combat/climb settings. That's awful and was a major point of critique.

USAAF, December 1942:
Rate of climb -- The low rate of climb if the P-47C-1 was the greatest fault found in the aircraft. If it were possible to give this aircraft a superior rate of climb, three-thousand feet (3,000) or better, it would make a good fighter at all altitudes. Although this aircraft has an excellent ceiling, the low rate of climb would prevent it from being a satisfactory interceptor with the present warning systems now available in most combat zones.

It wasn't until the engines power output was increased to 2400 hp and the use of other propellers that the P-47 got past the climb performance of the Fw at medium and low altitudes. I'd date that to end of 1943, early 1944, but that's vague.


I think when we start looking at performance, (and where we think it should be), its important to notice that many planes have a reputation based on a contrast to their contemporaries.

I'm sure you done your research though.
I could set up a graph of the dive acceleration and zoom of the P-47, and I might find the sim doesn't match historical records for two reasons: it is nearly impossible to simulate a ww2 plane with 100% accuracy ( or is it?) and the data that you gather from the 1940s contains a large margin of error because the instrumentation of that time period.

You're right with all you say here but I'm not comparing the Fw to original data. Just an analysis of what happens in game, both absolutely and also relative to other planes.

Kettenhunde
07-18-2009, 02:30 AM
That's true if you're either not interested in the subject

I have tried to help out and why I continue, I don’t know! That is real good question.

The crap you catch for the effort is not worth it.

M_gunz has already pointed out the issue but I will spell it out although I am sure you will not listen.

At 230kph, the FW190 is far outside of its design V-speeds. It is flying in the region of reversed command. It will not have any energy in this portion of flight, no airplane will.

If using formulation designed to compare aircraft performance such as TE Concepts for Aircraft Performance, you would clearly see that compared to another aircraft with slower V-speeds it will have not have as much specific excess power at the same energy height.

You could just compare measured performance with calculated performance using forces required as well. If the result is reasonable, then your modeling is correct.

I will make the offer once. If you want help to get things done correctly, send me what you have over PM.


illustrate the sources/places of the energy loss

Here is where your "energy loss" comes from:

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/1661/powerrequired.jpg (http://img237.imageshack.us/i/powerrequired.jpg/)

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/2323/thrustrequired.jpg (http://img237.imageshack.us/i/thrustrequired.jpg/)http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/thrustrequired.jpg/1/w911.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img237/thrustrequired.jpg/1/)

All the best,

Crumpp

BillSwagger
07-18-2009, 02:37 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
You've got to be kidding here...the Fw is famous, or infamous, in this community for being complete loss in terms of combat capabilities if a wing gets hit. Yes, you can sometimes put 30+ 20mm shells into the fuselage and you can also put 60 20mm shells in the engine and it will survive, but you can also take off a wing with a single 20mm hit. The actual toughness numbers of the Fw wing sections are (from inside to ouside):
150-120-100
The F6F and F4U have
200-150-100
and a P-47 has
350-250-100
There's no magic in the Fw's wings!




These toughness numbers...where do they come from??

inside to out, is there also a front to tail??

or is this a circle, centered around the cockpit??


I would like to see where the spitfire and 109 toughness is.

and i'm not kidding about the FW, it has an over modeled DM. Those little wings hold up well, and i only say this because of the countless times i've hit an FW square in the wing, and the pilot is still able to scissor around with me. With hits in the fuselage, there is a bit more leeway, but plugging 20-30+ 20mm rounds should do the job 99.9% of the time.
I dont see this, and more often the same firepower will down much heavier planes.

Look at an A-20 in size, and an FW-190, yet i get more consistency in downing the A20 with a burst into its tail section than i do hitting a 190 in the tail section.

I know, smaller plane, harder to hit, but i'm simply referring to hitting the tail section of the planes.

its got me scratching my head...that's all.

JtD
07-18-2009, 02:52 AM
Kettenhunde, I think the best I can do is to ignore you. You don't understand what's going on on so many levels that it is not worth discussing this time. I can only recommend you to install the game and play it before you come here trying to tell people what's going on in there, or to be more precise trying to tell them what you think should be going on in there.

I honestly don't think that discussing an issue with you that you don't know anything about will help to clarify something. To quote a famous German artist: "Wenn man keine Ahnung hat, einfach mal die Fresse halten.". You should really consider this. At least once.

JtD
07-18-2009, 03:00 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:

These toughness numbers...where do they come from??

They are from a text file that contains plane performances. It was extracted from the game and published by folks who hacked into the game. I cannot find a link to the rar, others may know.


inside to out, is there also a front to tail??

or is this a circle, centered around the cockpit??

A complete section reads like the one below, obviously not all entries are relevant, the Fw for instance does not have turrets.

[Toughness]
AroneL 50
AroneR 50
CF 500
Engine1 350
Engine2 350
Engine3 350
Engine4 350
GearL2 200
GearR2 200
Keel1 170
Keel2 170
Nose 170
Oil 80
Rudder1 100
Rudder2 100
StabL 170
StabR 170
Tail1 120
Tail2 120
Turret1B 100
Turret2B 100
Turret3B 100
Turret4B 100
Turret5B 100
Turret6B 100
VatorL 100
VatorR 100
WingLIn 150
WingLMid 120
WingLOut 100
WingRIn 150
WingRMid 120
WingROut 100
Flap01 50
Flap02 50
Flap03 50
Flap04 50


I would like to see where the spitfire and 109 toughness is.

There are a lot of models of both types, but taking the IXc and the G-6:

[Toughness SpitfireIXcLF]
AroneL 50
AroneR 50
CF 400
Engine1 70
Engine2 70
Engine3 70
Engine4 70
GearL2 200
GearR2 200
Keel1 70
Keel2 70
Nose 100
Oil 70
Rudder1 70
Rudder2 70
StabL 100
StabR 100
Tail1 120
Tail2 120
Turret1B 100
Turret2B 100
Turret3B 100
Turret4B 100
Turret5B 100
Turret6B 100
VatorL 100
VatorR 100
WingLIn 120
WingLMid 100
WingLOut 100
WingRIn 120
WingRMid 100
WingROut 100
Flap01 100
Flap02 100
Flap03 100
Flap04 100


[Toughness 109G-6late]
AroneL 100
AroneR 100
CF 500
Engine1 150
Engine2 150
Engine3 150
Engine4 150
GearL2 300
GearR2 300
Keel1 100
Keel2 100
Nose 100
Oil 100
Rudder1 100
Rudder2 100
StabL 100
StabR 100
Tail1 100
Tail2 100
Turret1 100
Turret2 100
Turret3 100
Turret4 100
Turret5 100
Turret6 100
VatorL 100
VatorR 100
WingLIn 100
WingLMid 100
WingLOut 100
WingRIn 100
WingRMid 100
WingROut 100
Flap01 100
Flap02 100
Flap03 100
Flap04 100



Look at an A-20 in size, and an FW-190, yet i get more consistency in downing the A20 with a burst into its tail section than i do hitting a 190 in the tail section.

The A-20s tail section is 5 times as strong as the 190s. Send me a PM with your e-mail address and I'll send you the file for further use.

Kettenhunde
07-18-2009, 03:13 AM
Good luck then!

Maybe you can join the thousands of aeronautical engineering discussion and papers to be found on "Aircraft Energy Retention"...

If you find one that is not a gaming forum or a modeler, let me know!

http://www.google.com/search?h...Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi= (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=aircraft+Energy+retention+&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=)

Wurkeri
07-18-2009, 03:24 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
So I tested a bit with the pullouts now and the best Fw pullout is harder than the one I used above. However, the harder you pull the more pronounced the handicap of the Fw becomes.

There is an undocumented E_G command in the Autopilot for constant g pullout. I've tested it a bit and it appears to work but I have not really tried to tweak the ini; it appears to be one of those commands which need to be tweaked for every plane individually to get best results.

BillSwagger
07-18-2009, 03:33 AM
Well just looking at the numbers, all three of these planes are about the same size, yet there are strengths given to the FW on sections of the aircraft despite having similar structure.

[Toughness]
AroneL 50
AroneR 50
CF 500
Engine1 350
Engine2 350
Engine3 350
Engine4 350
GearL2 200
GearR2 200
Keel1 170
Keel2 170
Nose 170
Oil 80
Rudder1 100
Rudder2 100
StabL 170 <---- This could be why the FW is so hard to down just hitting the tail, by comparison to the 109/spitfire.
StabR 170 <----
Tail1 120 <----
Tail2 120 <---------------------
Turret1B 100
Turret2B 100
Turret3B 100
Turret4B 100
Turret5B 100
Turret6B 100
VatorL 100
VatorR 100
WingLIn 150 <--------- this seems high, to me too, although i know the inner wing is thicker, its still very thin, like a 109s.
WingLMid 120 <----------- ditto.....
WingLOut 100
WingRIn 150 <------
WingRMid 120 <---------------
WingROut 100
Flap01 50
Flap02 50
Flap03 50
Flap04 50

Id make suggestions on where they ought to be, but im not sure how much changing those numbers would reflect damage in game.
I wouldn't want to make them too flimsy either.


But the point should be noted.

JtD
07-18-2009, 03:44 AM
Originally posted by Wurkeri:

There is an undocumented E_G command in the Autopilot for constant g pullout. I've tested it a bit and it appears to work but I have not really tried to tweak the ini; it appears to be one of those commands which need to be tweaked for every plane individually to get best results.

Tanks for the hint, I didn't know. I may try it. I made my pullouts with pitch commands. It might even be the better approach as pitch does not depend on the speed.

JtD
07-18-2009, 03:46 AM
Bill, the Fw wing was a two spar design with a main spar and an auxiliary spar that did not run the entire length of the wing. I think that both the 109 and the Spit were classic single spar designs. This makes the inner sections of the Fw's wing quite a bit tougher than the ones on the Spit and 109.

Kettenhunde
07-18-2009, 03:54 AM
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/4098/energyretention.jpg (http://img220.imageshack.us/i/energyretention.jpg/)http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/energyretention.jpg/1/w1208.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img220/energyretention.jpg/1/)

BillSwagger
07-18-2009, 04:09 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
Bill, the Fw wing was a two spar design with a main spar and an auxiliary spar that did not run the entire length of the wing. I think that both the 109 and the Spit were classic single spar designs. This makes the inner sections of the Fw's wing quite a bit tougher than the ones on the Spit and 109.

I'm looking at the mass...its a thin wing and probably needed two spars for better reinforcement.
I see a thing wing that is harder to shoot off, and an extra wing spar doesn't account for this effect over the entire spread of the wing.
It still doesn't add up, but that's just my opinion, so i will leave it at that.


i just got your email, thanks.

Bill

JtD
07-18-2009, 04:49 AM
The Focke Wulfs wing wasn't particularly thin, it used a very common profile. The F6F for instance used the same, only that the wing was bigger.

BillSwagger
07-18-2009, 05:24 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v435/POLISH_PILOT/DSC_2347.jpg

this is a beautiful shot.

Those wings are thin, IMO, but thin is a subjective word...I just don't see them being as resistant to cannons or machine guns, as they are in the game.

Even when i repeatedly slice up the wings in game, it looks awkward that nothing more happens than a puff from the tracer rounds and a couple fragments popping off the plane. You'd think they were made of solid armor.

If it were a wing from a bomber or even a hellcat, i could be a bit more understanding.

BillSwagger
07-18-2009, 05:37 AM
this gives an idea of the mass inside this beast.

http://www.internetmodeler.com/2001/april/new-releases/vega_fw190.jpg

VW-IceFire
07-18-2009, 07:44 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v435/POLISH_PILOT/DSC_2347.jpg

this is a beautiful shot.

Those wings are thin, IMO, but thin is a subjective word...I just don't see them being as resistant to cannons or machine guns, as they are in the game.

Even when i repeatedly slice up the wings in game, it looks awkward that nothing more happens than a puff from the tracer rounds and a couple fragments popping off the plane. You'd think they were made of solid armor.

If it were a wing from a bomber or even a hellcat, i could be a bit more understanding.
You may not be but a lot of people have trouble separating the behind the scenes damage model and the visual representation of it. While later planes like the P-47, Hellcat, Ki-84, etc. have detailed visual models for when the wing is damaged the FW190 has a slight change in texture and very little else. It often feels like you're hammering away to little effect when the effect is quite large...its just not possible to see it.

I may be stating the obvious to you but I know for a fact that many have trouble separating the DM from the visual.

And BTW that IS a beautiful shot. Wonderful to have that plane up and flying!

SILVERFISH1992
07-18-2009, 07:56 AM
I once had a great book that had the Insides of all the aircraft including modern and WWI.

I'l try to find it again.

Kettenhunde
07-18-2009, 08:07 AM
this gives an idea of the mass inside this beast.


It mostly empty space aft of the cockpit and in between the wing ribs.

That picture does not give the impression of just how massive the main spar is on the aircraft.

K_Freddie
07-18-2009, 11:24 AM
JtD - It would be interersting to see charts when each aircraft if tested at it's optimum parameters, and maybe also with engine management, as most people would be flying their planes in these areas.

Also wasn't the A8 a heavier armoured version used against the bomber streams. I heard that the A6 is the best of them in terms of fighter performance... might be an idea. The A9 also had a more powerful engine than the A8.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

M_Gunz
07-18-2009, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
So I tested a bit with the pullouts now and the best Fw pullout is harder than the one I used above. However, the harder you pull the more pronounced the handicap of the Fw becomes.

I got the best results with an 8g pullout, the 7-9g range is pretty similar overall, but if you pull harder or less hard you're losing out bit for bit. A 6g pullout cost me 10 km/h and 15 meters of alt relative to the 8g pullout.
If you pull harder you also give the opponent less time to recover from your attack, but it also means that you're not extending as far as you do if you pull less hard so it's easier for him to get lucky with a spray and pray shot.

8 Gs? Are these comparisons for use by players in game?

JtD
07-18-2009, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by K_Freddie:
JtD - It would be interersting to see charts when each aircraft if tested at it's optimum parameters, and maybe also with engine management, as most people would be flying their planes in these areas.

This would mean quite a bit of work, because you'd have to find these parameters first...


Also wasn't the A8 a heavier armoured version used against the bomber streams. I heard that the A6 is the best of them in terms of fighter performance... might be an idea. The A9 also had a more powerful engine than the A8.

The A-8 was the Fw standard type from early 1944 to about the end of that year. It was an multi purpose fighter aircraft and the most numerous variant to be produced. I like to test the A-8 over other models because it is most accurately modeled in term of climb and speed of all 190A we have in game.

JtD
07-18-2009, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:

8 Gs? Are these comparisons for use by players in game?

Hehe, yes. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The pullout is only a short duration and while you start to black out towards the end of the pullout you don't really lose control of the plane. Might be hard to control through the 2-3 seconds of (almost) black screen, but since you've entered the high speed zoom climb already there's not much effort needed.
It's definitely the limit. Despite of my findings I'll probably remain in the 6g max envelope I seem to be using most online. The little extra loss of E is ok if it means he doesn't get a quick snapshot at me.

Kettenhunde
07-18-2009, 11:01 PM
It would be interersting to see charts when each aircraft if tested at it's optimum parameters, and maybe also with engine management,

That is the thing. If you don't know the parameters, how can you test for them?

A good test has a control subject and uses set methodology to measure results.

You need to reproduce the aircraft mathematically and plot the aircrafts Pr and L/D curves at a minimum.

You must know the points on those curves where specific performance is supposed to occur as well as the tolerance ranges of what is acceptable. You must also understand airspeed conversion and atmospheric modeling effects.

From this data you can the V-speeds and align them with the published POH giving you a good base of data using forces required to compare with the game results.

3. Flight test the aircraft using specific regiments designed to deliver the data required to confirm those points on the curves. There are some great tools in place to do this that would need very little modification. If the data points match up, you have a very good idea of the FM's reasonable accuracy. If they do not match up, then you know what the issue is and can make specific recommendations to fix it.

Why is it important to know all this? You will not get correct results and will draw wrong conclusions if you do not.

You can immediately catch things like ending a test far outside of the airplanes operating parameters.

I own a very high performance airplane. However if I tried to compare a Cessna 172 to my airplane outside of its V-speeds, you would think the Cessna 172 flies circles around it.

The Best angle of climb for the C172 is ~78KIAS. That is near stall speed for my airplane. The C172 is climbing out at maximum rate of ~660FPM while my airplane is mushing hard. It will still climb but nowhere near maximum performance.

You would think the C172 has equal or better performance and have skewed picture of the airplanes relative performance.

If I allow my plane to reach its Vy speed of 100KIAS, then my climb rate goes up to ~2800fpm or over 4 times what the C172 is capable of achieving on its best day.

All the best,

Crumpp

JtD
07-18-2009, 11:39 PM
Kettenhunde, comparison tests don't need to be done under optimum conditions for each plane. They can be done under any conditions deemed suitable. It is the purpose of the test which determines the methods.

I suggest you read the first post again where you can find the description of the purpose. You will then find that method suits the purpose and the results answer the question raised very well.

Kettenhunde
07-19-2009, 12:35 AM
comparison tests don't need to be done under optimum conditions for each plane.

Absolutely. If you want to diagnosis problems in the games FM compared to reality it is important to understand the aircraft performance being tested.

For example, at 230kph the FW-190 should have a very low specific excess power because of that velocity point on the airplanes curves. By design it has no energy and in this case the modeling would be correct.

If you want to test to confirm that airplanes do not do very well outside of their design V-speeds then have it.

If you want to test to see if your game aligns reasonably with reality and have the ability to diagnosis problems as well as offer solutions, then you will have to take another approach.

All the best,

Crumpp

JtD
07-19-2009, 01:58 AM
Like I said, read the first post to understand the purpose of the test.

Kettenhunde
07-19-2009, 02:19 AM
JtD says:
In another topic it was stated that the energy loss of the Fw compared to other planes comes mostly from the time you spend at low speeds. This poor low speed performance was also blamed to be the primary reason for reaching co-E state when boom and zooming rather soon. I said I was going to test this and I did.


I have read your stated purpose. It is confusing because what you are testing is as I stated:


Crumpp says:
airplanes do not do very well outside of their design V-speeds then have it.


This is tantamount to testing airplanes to see if they make good submarines.

They do not because airplanes are not designed to function as a submarine just as they are not designed to achieve specific performance outside of their V-speeds.

Since we have nothing specific in the test to confirm our FM is aligned with the real aircraft, the original question is unresolved.

All the best,

Crumpp

JtD
07-19-2009, 03:05 AM
You understand that this is a game forum and folks were discussing game issues?

Kettenhunde
07-19-2009, 03:28 AM
You understand that this is a game forum and folks were discussing game issues?

What are you comparing the games FM performance too?

JtD
07-19-2009, 04:31 AM
Originally posted by JtD in the first post of the topic:
...the Fw compared to other planes...

...a comparison test between the Fw 190A-8, the F4U-1D and the P-47D-27...

M_Gunz
07-19-2009, 05:55 AM
I think the important game issue is "what speed would you not let plane X get below in combat?".
For any of those three, I would say 310-320 kph which is higher than best climb rate just for starts.
If I can't turn with at least three Gs then I'm going too slow to jink. I top out my wingovers at
my lowest combat speed where I can still dodge fire.

The thing about all these "energy retention tests" is that they are so specific to the test conditions
that results and ranking don't apply to much outside those test conditions. If I really want to compare
the planes then I look at either excess energy curves to find what speeds each has better ability to
accelerate, what is really being sought.

The term energy-retention itself as has been shown on this forum for the past many years is indefinite
to say the least. That should be fixed first with a tight statement of goals and means and how the
results are to be applied, maybe how not as well.

Kettenhunde
07-19-2009, 05:58 AM
...the Fw compared to other planes...


And what is your control subject to judge if what you are seeing is correct....

JtD
07-19-2009, 06:26 AM
2 M_Gunz: Most certainly the test conditions have a huge influence on the outcome. That's why my first statement read: "It depends." My test only shows a trend, which however is very noticeable and thus should be sufficient enough to answer the original question.
I personally don't mind to have my speed drop very low, sometimes it is more important to have the enemy stall below you than to keep your airspeed within a certain region. I also tend to climb at best climb speeds, at least as long as I know/think that there's no enemy above and near me.

2 Kettenhunde: It was not the purpose of the test to determine if something is correct or wrong.

M_Gunz
07-19-2009, 07:29 AM
If I don't let my speed drop then I will be able to fly higher still holding decent speed. It's not just the enemy
above that makes me itch, the one below with enough speed to zoom up and shoot my too slow to dodge plane is also
a great concern to me. That's why I don't like best climb speed when enemies are anywhere visible. At best climb
I only have energy to climb and not the speed to dodge much at all should I choose to try. Best climb speed is
easy target speed, only thing worse is being cornered into a hammerhead. It happens but you should know right then
that you've let yourself be cornered. And yet some people practice getting into such situations not just in case
but as a favored tactic. Yes Bud Anderson did find himself in such a situation but read what he wrote, it was his
nightmare years and years later. That was a SH pilot that forced him to that point but not good enough, the 109
pilot blew too much speed getting behind Anderson who was hotter in a better plane at that altitude. Next time
up it was the 109 in front and the last thing he ever did. He should have done something else!

Take 3 moves to get the target if it means keeping more speed. Greed is the worst thing in tactics.

Your graphs in the higher speed parts are useful. In the low speed they are useful too if it tells not to get slow!

From some historic tests with P-47 I remember there being a certain speed where the P-47 accelerated highly compared
to under that. I forget the plane compared to though, FW or Spit and which models, just that until the right speed
was reached the P-47 was a fat dog and afterwards it was the lean wolf. The speed was around 300mph where the P-47
was getting into stride and the other was starting to lose acceleration. Maybe the other was a Spit V, I dunno.

It's not just the speeds but the altitudes. Supercharger shift heights make a lot of difference. I know for my
plane if I use it steady where I am best and not but I don't keep that information in mind for everything I might
meet. If I was better like when I was younger then I would as long as I was only meeting perhaps 2 different types,
memorize for the mission and likely forget soon after. There's only so much I will do for a game. The point is
that these things are bigger effects than most energy retention tests will reveal without minute study if at all.
What the test tells me may for those and the other (outside test conditions) reasons lead me to bad conclusions,
at least if I try and bottle the results into something simple and easy to remember for gaming.

I am lazy. I just want to know what not to do in my plane at different heights. I also want to know when to change
the supercharger and mixture. Beyond that I see how the other guy is doing and may have to try different things out
which is why I want to know what not to do. Last thing I want is to be a sitting duck.

Trefle
07-19-2009, 07:38 AM
We need tracks , screenies and charts in such a topic http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

edit: hmm sry there are a couple of charts already

BillSwagger
07-19-2009, 07:43 AM
This test is of no use to me, and there are other factors at play that can give you the results you have here. One is the P-47 zoom climb capability, however that doesn't mean the 190 isn't more useful at retaining energy.
Strictly from a starting and ending altitude stand point, yes....

I just think common sense plays a bigger role in what you get out of your aircraft.

These kind of tests show a snap shot of one maneuver powered by a pre determined set of instructions.
Most people turn or pull out with more grace then what is offered here.


Good for testing, but bad for in game application.

It is in line with what Kettenhunde said about testing a Cesna vs a performance airplane.
I realize this is just a game, but if you are not willing to test a broader range of performance specs, like level flight and shallower dives, then why show the results of one test, with a very narrow performance envelope. It just seems like bad science.

I get the P-47 and F4U are better zoom climbers than the fw190....but i didn't need a test, and a plot graph, to tell me that.


Instead, show me how and why, through a series of turns an FW190 is able to outrun a P-47??
Or how the F4U maintains its speed much better in a horizontal turn than a P-47??

Also, a lot of my confusion comes from your presentation. Don't take this the wrong way, but it was difficult for me to even know what the heck you were trying to show. I do now, though.

JtD
07-19-2009, 09:41 AM
It wasn't the purpose of the test to make a chart that is useful to you, Bill. I gave the purpose in the first post. I couldn't make it more clear than I did because forum administration doesn't like it. I said so in the first post. If you want more accuracy, talk to them. Sorry.

BillSwagger
07-19-2009, 11:38 AM
so where's the graph that will be useful for me, JTD ?? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

You dont have to answer that,

M_Gunz
07-19-2009, 02:19 PM
The first graph does show the FW as the loser in the zoom even before it slows down to the low speed.
It's not easy to pick up but looking at TAS in the second graph post (not the 2nd graph in the 1st post)
it looks like by 12.016 or so (where in the 1st graph of the 1st post the FW starts losing) the TAS
might be 500kph or better at maybe 4000m alt (just eyeballing, never did get the calibrated eyes though)
which is still around 400kph IAS -- I hope I'm wrong!

Does that help, Bill?

BillSwagger
07-19-2009, 03:04 PM
yes, but i don't need a graph to tell me the P-47 will out zoom climb an FW190.
F4U has a good power climb too.
Like i said before it just seems like common sense.
Instead, we could do another test with these same planes using a predetermined speed and do a straight horizontal turn from one heading to another heading, then see which plane still had more speed at the end of the turn.

We could also do several turns from one heading to another, and back. then see where the planes are speed wise.

Those are just a couple more tests that could also be done, and i'm sure there are many more. i just happen to think the 190 is a decent plane and i fly against it so frequently that i can identify many superior qualities.
Amongst those are its fire power, roll rate and its sickening damage model.
I have to digress a bit from these discussions about the 190. The reality of hitting a 190 with a 2-3 second burst is not displayed and then many times the same plane can still turn on a dime, and even turn the tables. Then when i get grazed by a cannon round, my whole tail section comes off.
Something just isn't right there, and it bugs the crap out of me. So, i do my best not take anything for granted and make sure he is actually going down before i choose to proceed ahead of him.

M_Gunz
07-19-2009, 04:47 PM
You should fly FW's for a couple weeks or so and see it from the other side?

DKoor
07-19-2009, 05:42 PM
M_Gunz is right.
FW-190 (especially all FW-190A's) is not a wonderplane and in spite of being "stat friendly" on realistic servers, they can thank that to their pilots at least as much as their own performance figures and powerful guns.

The only real difference between most allied fighters and FW-190 is in firepower. FW-190 is not toughest, not the fastest, not the most agile, not best energy retainer... to cut the story short, the only thing FW really has is armament.

FW-190 also requires an ultimate discipline because if you are in disadvantage, you will die as you can't out turn or out agile anything except the P-51D (with decently filled fuel tanks).
I can think of only one "tougher" bird than FW-190 in this regard... and that's the P-51D. Nice correlation, except P-51D doesn't have cannons which boldly puts it on 1 place on my planes 4 aces list.

IMHO we wont find more ideal fighter ("stat friendly" wise) than Tempest Mk.V in late war Western Front setup. It is fast as hell, tougher than any axis fighter, has arguably best gun setup in game and is more agile than any FW-190 on pretty much all speeds. Bf-109 will only have advantage in turn at low speeds.
Greatest Tempest drawback is visibility to the rear, which is not a big issue if we have a wingman.
Anyhow... Tempest will eat any FW-190 for breakfast... if it's are co alt or in any kind of advantage it should come out on top.
FW-190 may come out on top only if it starts with advantage.

P-38 is more sexy, P-47 is better higher up, P-51 faster overall, Spitfire is more agile but Tempest has the deadly combo deal and there is not much left to talk about it.
In this game speed+cannons was always the winning combination if you are after statistics (popular K/D, hit rate % etc.).

If you like fighters that are equipped primarily with machine guns, you will need to just accept the fact that sometimes your attacks wont be as successful as with cannon equipped planes.

That is why M_Gunz said the truth.
The only way to realize this all is to fly all planes.
That is really the shortcut to many other things.

GH_Klingstroem
07-19-2009, 05:59 PM
Still guys, its still a fact that the 190 barely move on the ground with 40% power. That would be almost a third of its power and it barely moves! Even the P51 which was famous for being a slow accelrator almost takes off at 50 power...
So something is fishy with the Fw engine...

BillSwagger
07-19-2009, 06:19 PM
The Dora is a fast plane, and i've had plenty of stick time in an A5, as well. I guess having seen it from both sides, only solidifies what i think about the plane, including the ta-152 series.
There is already a post that dove into this topic, so to avoid high jacking this thread i will leave it at that.

So...i still think there could be more useful tests to look at, when comparing energy retention. Not just a dive, pullout, climb test. although i realize you are trying to nail down one aspect of the plane's performance.

I'll also take a crack at defining energy retention:

The ability to retain speed with the absence of thrust in level flight.
So an effective test would be to put the planes at 600kph (TAS) at 3000M, and maintain a set heading and altitude. Then cut throttle to zero, and see how long it takes for the planes to begin stalling or fall off course.

From the perspective that altitude is energy, then it can also be defined as the ability to turn speed into altitude.
So you could take that same test, at 600kph at 3000M, and instead of cutting throttle to zero, do a series of climbs at 10 degrees, 20 degrees, and 45 degrees. See what altitudes the planes reach stall speeds at.

Outside of those definitions, i've also thought of energy retention as the ability to maintain speed through out a series of combat maneuvers. A plane that has the same speed and altitude it did when it entered a series of maneuvers as it does at the end of those maneuvers, would be an excellent energy fighter.
so a way to test that would be take the same start parameters 600kph at 3000M, set heading to zero. with each plane do a horizontal turn to 90degrees heading, then reverse roll, and turn back to 0 degrees and level the wings. Measure where the new speed is for each plane.

Viper2005_
07-19-2009, 06:33 PM
It seems to me that you want to plot the drag polar.

e.g. :

http://www.mh-aerotools.de/airfoils/hdipolar.htm

Trefle
07-19-2009, 06:38 PM
IMHO , the Anton is not without drawbacks , it's a dog , you need to keep it above 400km/h all the time cause it has appalling acceleration , it will cease to be combat worthy as soon as a few MG rounds hit your plane ( you lose a lot of speed with the slightest damage ,and without speed a 190 can't fight) and among the fast 1944 allied planes (P-47/38/51,Tempest) , the 190A is the one who retains its energy the worst (also because our 190 Anton have that bomb rack which creates drag ) .

But it is still a fantastic plane , especially with group tactics online when you're on radio comms , it's one of the best aircraft for scoring points/victories (and surviving it) because it's cockpit has excellent visibility all around , it's fast , agile at high speed and extremely well armed , and like Dkoor said speed+cannons is often a winning combination online

BillSwagger
07-19-2009, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
It seems to me that you want to plot the drag polar.

e.g. :

http://www.mh-aerotools.de/airfoils/hdipolar.htm

interesting read but i don't have the tools to get into those kind of details in il2, even though it is tracking similar information.

BillSwagger
07-19-2009, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
.... Tempest Mk.V ...... , tougher than any axis fighter.

Not sure about this statement,Dkoor. The tempest crumbles like an eggshell even against a lite burst from the 50s.





... P-47 is better...
This was the most brilliant part of your entire post, but this phrase should've ended with a period. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Viper2005_
07-19-2009, 07:00 PM
You just pick an EAS and glide.

Then your L/D ratio is given by the horizontal and vertical distances covered.

Repeat over a range of EAS and you can plot the polar.

If you know the weight and wing area then you can convert this into coefficient form.

If Reynolds number and Mach number effects are neglected (which they probably are in IL2), you can then calculate drag across the whole flight envelope.

To calculate thrust you then maintain constant EAS at full power, which will usually result in a climb.

Data reduction is more tricky here because engine power will decrease with altitude, and thrust will decrease with increasing TAS.

Given thrust and drag data, it should then be possible to build a very simple simulator of the simulator (much like IL2C), which would enable you to examine aircraft performance through a series of idealised combat manoeuvres.

The real question is whether the effort required to collect and process the data required is justifiable on the basis of the additional insight gained over and above that already available "off the shelf" via IL2C.

DKoor
07-19-2009, 07:34 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DKoor:
.... Tempest Mk.V ...... , tougher than any axis fighter.

Not sure about this statement,Dkoor. The tempest crumbles like an eggshell even against a lite burst from the 50s. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Check out this track... Brain made it long time ago on WarClouds server, track is from v4.071.
You can observe multiple Mk-108 hits on Tempest and it was still airborne. No axis fighter could survive that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif . The only other fighter in Western Theater that could perhaps survive that is a P-47.

The track;
http://www.datafilehost.com/download-cf01ee50.html

I could observe at least 3-4 direct 108 hits.
Tempest was hit by 22 bullets/shells.
1...
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/tempest_durability.jpg
2...
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/tempest_durability1.jpg
3/4...
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/tempest_durability2.jpg

still flying...
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/tempest_durability3.jpg

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/tempest_durability4.jpg

PS. Brain32 himself claimed at least 4 Mk108 hits.
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...531069525#7531069525 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/8431078525?r=7531069525#7531069525)

We can test it, that should not be a problem.
Also guys with Java capability could of course post numbers for planes so we could get rid of any doubt just how durable the Tempest is http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

VW-IceFire
07-19-2009, 08:29 PM
Yeah but it was done online...so 4 MK108 hits may have been two or one or... everyone has to remember that guns that rely on single hits for kills will do much worse online than something that is rapid fire.

Another point is that typically the structure of the Tempest remains strong while the components (engine, controls, guns, etc.) crumble under such punishment as well. I would be curious to see the exact numbers but in my mind the Tempest although quite adequate isn't close to the Thunderbolt.

Although if any of this is to go by...pilot reports say that the engine was vulnerable but the structure of the Typhoon/Tempest was quite sturdy. Especially compared to the Spitfire.

WTE_Galway
07-19-2009, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Yeah but it was done online...so 4 MK108 hits may have been two or one or... everyone has to remember that guns that rely on single hits for kills will do much worse online than something that is rapid fire.

Another point is that typically the structure of the Tempest remains strong while the components (engine, controls, guns, etc.) crumble under such punishment as well. I would be curious to see the exact numbers but in my mind the Tempest although quite adequate isn't close to the Thunderbolt.

Although if any of this is to go by...pilot reports say that the engine was vulnerable but the structure of the Typhoon/Tempest was quite sturdy. Especially compared to the Spitfire.


The wing damage looks more like 20mm ... the rudder and left horiz stab could easily have been taken off by 30mm .

BillSwagger
07-19-2009, 09:34 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
dekoor, that track is very peculiar.

this only made me hop on a QMB real quick.
Watch these and tell me which easier to fly after nailing it good with 50 cals.

Note: i used convergence set at 270/260M
P-47D late

http://www.filefront.com/14079887/quick0007.ntrk
(4xFW-190 A9)



http://www.filefront.com/14079891/quick0008.ntrk
(4xTempest)


I also welcome you to try this.

DKoor
07-19-2009, 10:02 PM
Tempest is easier to nail with .50cals than FW-190.

However at this point I'd really love to see those DM game files... dam if I just know how to extract them for myself http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif .

FW-190 is ridiculously resistant to .50cal fire structurally wise.

Trefle
07-19-2009, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
FW-190 is ridiculously resistant to .50cal fire structurally wise.

Well , but 190 are still very vulnerable to .50cal fire , my track with P-51B (only 4 guns ) destroying 2 Fw-190 A5 in one quick pass each proves it , it's all question about shooting accuracy (aiming the critical parts like fuel tanks of the fw-190 below the pilot ) , shooting distance and convergence .
http://www.datafilehost.com/download-8b9b9465.html (need 4.09 )

We had the convergence discussion in another thread , from my testing it plays a great deal , in Il-2 .50 cal is just not good for making structural damage if you don't shoot at convergence from close range (although it is possible to cut the wing of the fw-190 from far ) .

I know for sure that in a P-47 with 8 guns and 130m convergence , you can put me anything in front , Tempest or Sturmovik , if i get close enough to 130m behind him , it's sure i'll set it on fire or cut something from his plane in one pass , 8 X .50cal guns pawning the target at convergence point only 100-130m away make structural damage visible immediately , you need barely a second of sustained fire to knock anything out providing you aim critical parts (the DM "boxes" ) , whereas a guy with longer convergence will struggle to damage the structure as quickly or will need more ammos/firing time cause even if they shoot at 200-300m convergence , their bullets will still hit the target with less velocity , sometimes they'll need more than 1 pass to make visible structural damage , hence they will have the impression 0.50 cal is not efficient against xxx plane .

BillSwagger
07-20-2009, 01:46 AM
no doubt, convergence plays a big part on how well your shots land, with any gun.
Your track was two passes on two planes. Only one of them burst into the flames, and the other the AI ditched. AI ditches easier than human flyers.


hence they will have the impression 0.50 cal is not efficient against xxx plane

actually i only get this impression from the FW series of planes.
Did you look at my tracks?
here is more

Hellcat, Spitfire, P-38 and Doras.
http://www.filefront.com/14081117/50caltracks.zip

If we are looking for continuity, historically, fighters needed to have deflection ability, and having a convergence of 100-130M will give a nice cross eyed vortex, incapable of shooting accurately beyond 200M.
The fact is, a P-47 had a convergence set between 200 and 300M. 273M was the factory standard. At that convergence range FWs were torn apart with a 2-3 second burst.

In the game, I can rip through most planes in that range, but the FW is only shaken from much longer bursts or requires a much closer shot to be effective.
Again, it is case by case, but these are the trends. So take note.\\

Kettenhunde
07-20-2009, 02:20 AM
the only thing FW really has is armament.


That might be the case in a game but the science behind the aircraft says otherwise. The airplane was very much a dogfighter.

In general the FW190A is designed to fight by using a higher sustained load factor at high speed. Not instantaneous performance but sustained performance occurs at high velocity compared to many WWII fighters


While load factor alone does not prescribe turn rate or radius, it describes an
airplane limit which is a potential maneuvering restriction. The freedom to use high load
factors allows the pilot to maneuver at g levels which may be denied to some adversaries.
Specifically, a higher limit load factor is a significant advantage, producing a higher turn rate and forcing an opponent to slow down to match your turn.

http://www.aviation.org.uk/doc...ricted-FTM108/c6.pdf (http://www.aviation.org.uk/docs/flighttest.navair.navy.milunrestricted-FTM108/c6.pdf)

It is not designed for tooling around at low speed making small circles or zooming up to speeds well into the region of reversed command. It is designed to get fast, stay fast, and fight fast at low altitudes over the battle space by forcing its adversary to go slower in order to turn in defensive circles. The armament is designed to give a good lethal spread to maximize the snapshot and the agility is optimized for the aircrafts best fighting speeds to get gun solution.

Kurt Tank called it his "cavalry horse" and it was not in his words a "finicky thoroughbred race horse". The designed is optimized to operate from rough unimproved fields very close to the front. The concept was to have a fighter that could keep up with a highly mobile mechanized army to control the airspace over the battlefield. He wanted it to be rugged, simple, easily maintained, and not affected by the conditions of that environment nor require a DB series engine that was already in short supply.

Like any airplane, flying it by its "numbers" or V-speeds should deliver the best performance where the aircraft can realize its strengths to stay and dogfight.

Testing for your games FM would be better served IMHO by ensuring the game meets the V-speeds of the actual aircraft. If it does not, then something is wrong.

Testing Stall speed, unstick speed, Max rate of climb, max angle of climb, Vmax in level flight and Vne will cover the aircrafts combat specific aerodynamic characteristics very well. This applies to any aircraft in the game.

All the best,

Crumpp

K_Freddie
07-20-2009, 06:01 AM
I've posted that online track of an FW190 doing a low level, low speed dogfight... Now you can see in 'Sim Life' what the FW is really capable of..

Charts & numbers are OK, if you're flying according to the test procedures, otherwise they mean Diddly-squat.

It's the pilot ... dammit!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

M_Gunz
07-20-2009, 07:18 AM
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/il2/tempest_durability4.jpg

PS. Brain32 himself claimed at least 4 Mk108 hits.

Where the hits are counts as much or more than how many. Is that Tempest still able to fight or even land?
IRL that is bailout time, before the death-spin.

Trefle
07-20-2009, 07:39 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
no doubt, convergence plays a big part on how well your shots land, with any gun.
Your track was two passes on two planes. Only one of them burst into the flames, and the other the AI ditched. AI ditches easier than human flyers.

TBH , the second aircraft lost all his controls (elevator , aileron) and the pilot was surely seriously wounded cause i was looking to kill him , this is why he bailed out (loss of controls) , if you look at the external model damage , no human could still fly this wreck .

I do not agree with you that AI give up before humans , online a human would bail out quicker after serious damage IMHO or losing vital controls , many times i hit AI badly and they go on fighting until death and manage to put up ridiculous manoeuvers with damaged aircraft when a human would only think about saving his life . This said i respect your opinion



Originally posted by BillSwagger:
actually i only get this impression from the FW series of planes.
Did you look at my tracks?
here is more

Hellcat, Spitfire, P-38 and Doras.
http://www.filefront.com/14081117/50caltracks.zip

If we are looking for continuity, historically, fighters needed to have deflection ability, and having a convergence of 100-130M will give a nice cross eyed vortex, incapable of shooting accurately beyond 200M.
The fact is, a P-47 had a convergence set between 200 and 300M. 273M was the factory standard. At that convergence range FWs were torn apart with a 2-3 second burst.

In the game, I can rip through most planes in that range, but the FW is only shaken from much longer bursts or requires a much closer shot to be effective.
Again, it is case by case, but these are the trends. So take note.\\


Yea , i watched your track and what i noticed is that you fired at convergence on Hellcats , but in your Fw-190 track , for example the last one you engage , you shoot him from 150m away while your convergence is probably nearly double of that , the first one you shoot at was not at convergence either , the one you lit the fuel tanks up was a nice shot near convergence . But it's true that it's clear in your video that it's easer to aim the fuel tanks of the Hellcat from afar than the Fw-190's .

Yea with short convergence , you have to pay a price of not being able to shoot past approx 200 meters , i use 120m when i have only 4 Browning guns (P-51) , i use 140-160m with 6 guns depending the aircraft and 160-180m with 8 guns (P-47) depending the mission (ground attack or not ) . American planes were built to be fast so that's not a real problem to close the distance in most US birds

But that's the game ballistic in IL-2 , you know like me that DM is simplified in the sim with "target boxes" unlike in real life , the aim in IL-2 is to land as many high velocity bullets as possible in those boxes , so it's obvious that it's easier to do it with concentrated fire from close range , i too would love to have great firing range of 300meters or more and increased killzone , but i have to make a sacrifice of range in order to get more hitting power at close range ( cause i shoot only when the ennemy fills my sight )

Online or in squad campaigns , it's Extremely important to not exceed one pass on an ennemy (to save precious seconds ) , save ammo and destroy ennemy units in limited time in order to create numerical superiority . I don't think one convergence settings is "better " than another , it depends when/how far you unleash your burst , but it's a compromise , the more you have range , the less your hitting power on "hard surfaces" (aircraft structure ) will be in-game , for "soft targets" like pilot or engine , there is barely a difference though , that's why you can kill a 190 pilot from far or take out his engine from long distances

DKoor
07-20-2009, 07:43 AM
I've tested this too.

P-40M vs 8xFW-190D and 8xTempest, friendlies for easier shooting time.

Convergence 120m.

I've opened fire from 140m until the fighters were dewinged of on fire etc. , i.e. until they were visually catastrophically damaged.

Every Tempest was dewinged or simply cut after a sec or two burst while I haven't dewinged more than one or two FW's.

Can be repeatable by anyone.

The reason behind this may be the FW's old FM.
Just like the LaGG's.

FatCat_99
07-20-2009, 07:54 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
The reason behind this may be the FW's old FM.
Just like the LaGG's.
You were probably thinking about DM not FM, anyway there is nothing "old" in FW's DM or FM.

FC

DKoor
07-20-2009, 08:46 AM
Yes the DM is what I was thinking of http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif.

BillSwagger
07-20-2009, 09:57 AM
The tempest probably isnt the best comparison, but i've tested it over a broader range of aircraft and the FW holds on to its wings better than most other aircraft of its size, and even some larger ones.

Hitting the tail is also an ammo draining task that most other planes are immediately de-tailed or see a loss of controls.

The Yak, for a wooden airplane, is actually quite strong in this regard as well.

The Dms for the planes in Il2 is somewhat simplified, but there is enough detail to make some adjustments if needed.

With all the whining about the 50 cal guns, i suspect it has more to do with inflated damage models, because i've also tested the 20mm hispano on a variety of planes and although it is noticeably more effective, the FW resistance to gunfire is still there.

JtD
07-20-2009, 10:02 AM
To save you some time, Bill. Look at this (http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/aep/aep20damagetest.html) , a bit dated but not completely outdated.

BillSwagger
07-20-2009, 10:26 AM
I like what he says about the Ki-84..

I just think its a pattern i've noticed over time, and the DMs of the FW stick out in this way.
I try to approach these things with an open mind, nor take a biased approach or use puffery when demonstrating what i think.

There are times i've killed a 190 in one quick burst and there are times i've tailed a spitfire across the map before he finally falls.

I just think the longer you play, the quicker you see where the trends are.
If the solution is setting a tighter convergence (130-180M) then i can only say that something is historically flawed here.

I think i've made my point, and i'm at my kilobyte limit for this topic.

K_Freddie
07-20-2009, 11:38 AM
In a P51.. I've dewinged a FW at a range of ~100m (focal point = 150). This took about a 1 second burst with the pipper kept on one position.

Factors:- Target out of focus, Mediocre hitting power, Good aiming.

In a FW I've shredded many a wing/fuselage with a mere touch of the trigger and my target at ~150m (focal point = 150m)at a high deflection angle.

Factors: Target in focus, excellent hitting power, bloody good aiming.

In both planes I've had fleeting shots, out of focus, and rarely downed a plane in these efforts.

I don't think the DMs are that bad, just everyones shooting capabilities at those particular times are not up to scratch. I openly accept that I cannot down a plane every time I pull the trigger - If I do.. goody!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Trefle
07-20-2009, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
If the solution is setting a tighter convergence (130-180M) then i can only say that something is historically flawed here.


I think that with a different engine in SoW:BoB with far more detailed DM ( with all the wiring , radiator , oil , tubes modelled etc.. ) and every parts of the aircraft destructible , if the code registers every single bullet hit on the plane in real-time , you'll be able to have more realistic/historical settings of 0.50cal to work more efficiently IMHO , you wouldn't have bullets that do not register anymore

As far as IL-2 0.50 cal is concerned , if we had the correct APIT load-out the USAAF forces used in 1943-44 , shooting from close range and short convergence wouldn't be as important as currently , because 0.50cal would make more damage on vital systems from range with incendiaries (0.50 cal would be less dependent on bullet velocity ) , it would set on fire planes easier from longer range , well IMHO , maybe i'm wrong

BillSwagger
07-20-2009, 01:50 PM
i'm very interested in seeing this new game. It should be a huge milestone ahead of Il2.

Indeed API 50 cal, would be a huge improvement, but i already think the 50 cal does a good job, and the problem exists in the Dms of some planes.

There are probably other factors at play, like ping and connection, that also lead to varied outcomes.

Xiolablu3
07-20-2009, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> the only thing FW really has is armament.


That might be the case in a game but the science behind the aircraft says otherwise. The airplane was very much a dogfighter.

In general the FW190A is designed to fight by using a higher sustained load factor at high speed. Not instantaneous performance but sustained performance occurs at high velocity compared to many WWII fighters


While load factor alone does not prescribe turn rate or radius, it describes an
airplane limit which is a potential maneuvering restriction. The freedom to use high load
factors allows the pilot to maneuver at g levels which may be denied to some adversaries.
Specifically, a higher limit load factor is a significant advantage, producing a higher turn rate and forcing an opponent to slow down to match your turn.

http://www.aviation.org.uk/doc...ricted-FTM108/c6.pdf (http://www.aviation.org.uk/docs/flighttest.navair.navy.milunrestricted-FTM108/c6.pdf)

It is not designed for tooling around at low speed making small circles or zooming up to speeds well into the region of reversed command. It is designed to get fast, stay fast, and fight fast at low altitudes over the battle space by forcing its adversary to go slower in order to turn in defensive circles. The armament is designed to give a good lethal spread to maximize the snapshot and the agility is optimized for the aircrafts best fighting speeds to get gun solution.

Kurt Tank called it his "cavalry horse" and it was not in his words a "finicky thoroughbred race horse". The designed is optimized to operate from rough unimproved fields very close to the front. The concept was to have a fighter that could keep up with a highly mobile mechanized army to control the airspace over the battlefield. He wanted it to be rugged, simple, easily maintained, and not affected by the conditions of that environment nor require a DB series engine that was already in short supply.

Like any airplane, flying it by its "numbers" or V-speeds should deliver the best performance where the aircraft can realize its strengths to stay and dogfight.

Testing for your games FM would be better served IMHO by ensuring the game meets the V-speeds of the actual aircraft. If it does not, then something is wrong.

Testing Stall speed, unstick speed, Max rate of climb, max angle of climb, Vmax in level flight and Vne will cover the aircrafts combat specific aerodynamic characteristics very well. This applies to any aircraft in the game.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From US Navy report :-

"The FW190 is a very simple aircraft to fly in combat and seems to be designed for pilots convienince. It has a no-warning stall which tends to reduce its efficiency in combat against airplanes which can force it to fly near the stalling speed. In general it is considered to be an excellent interceptor style airplane whcih is at a dis-advantage against airplanes designed for the purpose of 'in-fighting'."


In this report 'In-fighting' obviously means 'dogfighting' or 'close-in fighting'

http://home.comcast.net/~markw4/index1.html (http://home.comcast.net/%7Emarkw4/index1.html)


In other words 'use its speed to get in and out fast, dont hang around to dogifht as its poor turning circle leaves it at a disadvantage when 'infighting' or 'dogfighting' vs planes which can turn tighter and have good stall warning'.

JtD
07-20-2009, 01:59 PM
The Ki-84 back in those days was quite a different bird. As it is now it is more "What flies as fast as a Focke Wulf, can turn like a Tempest, has firepower like a Mustang and is as tough as a Zero." kind of plane.

Xiolablu3
07-20-2009, 02:28 PM
More on the Fw190's dogfighting ability :-

Report from JG 11 on 29th [October 1944] on mock air battle between Fw 190A-9 and Bf 109 AS/MW 50.

"A Schwarm of Me 109 at 8,000 metres climbed up to attack a Rotte of Fw 190 at 10,000 metres. On the turn with 1.1 boost, the Me 109 Schwarm out climbed the Fw 190 Rotte by about 200 metres and at the same time without fully opened throttles and not flying flat out, they out turned the Fw 190 Rotte.

First attack was from above and behind with 1.1 boost and flaps retracted and a normal steep turn without opening to maximum possible speed, the Fw 190A-9 was easily overtaken and out turned.

Second attack from behind and below on the number one of the Rotte, aircraft was easily overtaken, out turned and outstripped in the inside turn.

On full throttle it is easily possible to out climb the A-9 without losing position since speed can be reduced by throttling back and doing very tight turns."


[Note the talk about 'tight-turns' 'out-turning' the opponent, which is very useful to get a gun solution when in a close in dogfight]

Bremspropeller
07-20-2009, 02:46 PM
Julius Meimberg's mock-fight (flying a G-1) against Egon Mayer's 190 ended in a draw.

So what?
Just because someone couldn't fly the plane to it's limits, the plane sucks?
Don't think so.

Wasn't there some RAF pilot that was surprised by the Luftwaffe's new spirit of STAYING in the fight instead of running, after they re-equipped with 190s?
Somebody's gotta be wrong here.


It has a no-warning stall which tends to reduce its efficiency in combat against airplanes which can force it to fly near the stalling speed.

Doesn't go along with multiple Luftwaffe pilots' accounts....
The stall in a 190 isn't shown by buffet, but by mushy aileron-control.
That doesn't mean there isn't any stall-warning at all.


Note the talk about 'tight-turns' 'out-turning' the opponent, which is very useful to get a gun solution when in a close in dogfight

10,000 meters is WELL above the 190A's optimum altitude.

There's also not a single mention of the speeds flown at.
That report doesn't prove anything new at all, only that the Anton sucked above 7,000 meters.

BillSwagger
07-20-2009, 03:07 PM
http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id91.htm

section e.

its good report over all, but it mentions everything that has been recently discussed in the previous posts.

Bremspropeller
07-20-2009, 03:36 PM
The topspeeds achieved in that test make me rather wonder about it's overall relevance for LATER versions with 1.65 ata max pressure.

Also, there isn't any figure at which speeds the "dofgight" was held at.
The note that the Corsair and Hellcat could turn into the 190 at higher (what is "higher" in the first place?) speeds is a Disneyland-tale.
Above Va, anything that limits the plane is it's stuctural strength.

So either, they didn't dare to pull the stick in the 190, or they played the double-standard trick:

A 6g-turn will always have the same radius, granted you're flying at the same speed.
Turning inside the other guy would thus mean you'd have to pull a higher g-number.
That throws off the whole issue.
Once again: above Va, you're no limited by lift but by structure.

The test's outcome is based on findings that are a little vague for that matter, to say the least.
I really doubt they went into "higher" speeds while testing the planes' turning-capabilities.

M_Gunz
07-20-2009, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
In other words 'use its speed to get in and out fast, dont hang around to dogifht as its poor turning circle leaves it at a disadvantage when 'infighting' or 'dogfighting' vs planes which can turn tighter and have good stall warning'.

Not at all. Use the vertical. The roll rate makes it tops.

BillSwagger
07-20-2009, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
A 6g-turn will always have the same radius, granted you're flying at the same speed.
Turning inside the other guy would thus mean you'd have to pull a higher g-number.
That throws off the whole issue.
Once again: above Va, you're no limited by lift but by structure.


If one plane needs to go faster in order to pull 6 Gs, while the other can pull 6 Gs going slower, which one can turn tighter??
The plane that can pull more Gs at slower speeds and not leave the flight envelope, will be able to turn inside its opponent.

I see no particular relevance in the speed comparisons, but i think the 190s turning and stall characteristics are relevant to the discussion. It speaks of aileron reversals in tight turns, and the lack of stall warning.
The fact that the plane could not follow the Hellcat or Corsair in a turn, might also mean that more speed is required for it to do so.
I see that as a disadvantage for certain combat situations.

See section l.
http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/id93.htm

It pretty much sums up what i think most of us already know about the 190 and what traps to avoid when flying it, or against it.

Bremspropeller
07-20-2009, 04:53 PM
If one plane needs to go faster in order to pull 6 Gs, while the other can pull 6 Gs going slower, which one can turn tighter??
The plane that can pull more Gs at slower speeds and not leave the flight envelope, will be able to turn inside its opponent.


All fine and good, but that's not what I'm concerned about.
My question is how fast they went during those tests and if they ever reached the 190's Va and thus it's corner-speed.

There is a good chance the the 190 has a better sustained turn at higher speeds if it has a higher Va in the first place:
I wonder where the L/Dmax speeds are respectively for the Hellcat, the 190 and the Corsair - that would give us a pretty good clue.

BillSwagger
07-20-2009, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:

All fine and good, but that's not what I'm concerned about.
My question is how fast they went during those tests and if they ever reached the 190's Va and thus it's corner-speed.


that is a good question, and i think it is safe to assume they were flying the planes in their designated design limits. I'm sure you want to see the test where it shows it has the best corner velocity going *** IAS, but i think it is a fair assessment of the bird.

They obviously wanted to see how the allied planes sized up against the 190A. I dont see them making any short cuts here.
They also say there was no maneuver a 190 could do that a Corsair couldn't do, at varying speeds and intervals.

I gather a 190 attacking from a dive would be very difficult to follow, but the same could be said about any plane.

They also list various speeds reached at altitudes. The Corair and 190 were near equal in most respects. I'm not sure how that would translate to corner velocity. that would probably require more research or another article.

The thing to take away from this article is that the Anton was not a turn fighter.
It was used as an interceptor and got in and out, using BnZ tactics.
Once caught in a close quarter fight there was little it could do other than roll and dive away, or if it had the separation, it could use its superior climb.

M_Gunz
07-20-2009, 07:14 PM
Close dogfighting ended in WWII, long before the war was over. Corsair isn't exactly a flat turn fighter itself.
When you fight using wingovers, yoyos, barrel rolls, half-loops and split-esses you are also dogfighting and you
don't need much flat-turn/stall-turn capability to succeed. Roll rate takes on a higher importance, does the F4U
roll near to the FW at around 400kph/240mph?

Energy fighting is the opposite of turn and burn, it's opened-up dogfighting rather than close in mudhen fighting.

BillSwagger
07-20-2009, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Roll rate takes on a higher importance, does the F4U
roll near to the FW at around 400kph/240mph?


In the game, i'm not sure.

In that report, it says the F4U 1D could roll with the 190A5 using mechanically linked boost tab ailerons.

There is no indication at what speed.

VW-IceFire
07-20-2009, 09:22 PM
In-game experience says that the Corsair rolls nearly as fast as the FW190 at most speeds except at very low ones...at low speeds the FW190 still rolls better.

R_Target
07-20-2009, 09:51 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
In that report, it says the F4U 1D could roll with the 190A5 using mechanically linked boost tab ailerons.

There is no indication at what speed.

The roll rate of the Fw190 in that test is probably not representative, as other tests with similar models show the Fw rolling significantly faster.

BillSwagger
07-20-2009, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BillSwagger:
In that report, it says the F4U 1D could roll with the 190A5 using mechanically linked boost tab ailerons.

There is no indication at what speed.

The roll rate of the Fw190 in that test is probably not representative, as other tests with similar models show the Fw rolling significantly faster. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


yeah, its the first report i've read to ever claim an F4u can roll with a 190, but its also the first report i've heard the F4U using mechanically linked boost tab ailerons.

Sometimes with this information its like being caught in a never ending s*** storm.

Kettenhunde
07-20-2009, 11:11 PM
From US Navy report :-


What else needs to be said....

RegRag1977
07-21-2009, 07:40 AM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:


Indeed API 50 cal, would be a huge improvement, but i already think the 50 cal does a good job,



I don't think it will be much an improvement for the six shooters which are already very powerfull at convergence (even if i too want the real thing for all 50. cal equipped fighter http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif )

But it will certainly be appreciated for the early 4 machine guns equipped AC like F4F, P51B/C, and also late war Spitfires 2X.50cal!

For these especially, API will surely be a great improvement over what we have now...

M_Gunz
07-21-2009, 11:07 AM
What month, year and where did the USAAF get all API ammo? Not from the start.

Kettenhunde
07-21-2009, 11:23 AM
using mechanically linked boost tab ailerons

Billswagger,

While boost tabs reduce the apparent stick force per G the pilot experiences they do absolutely nothing to increase the roll rate of the aircraft.

The servo tabs make a heavier control feel lighter to the pilot. Some people mistake this for an increase in "effectiveness". Effectiveness is a broad term and in one sense it does make them more effective in that the pilot expends less effort in controlling the aircraft.

Roll rate is a function of the area of control surface and if that does not change, the roll rate will not change.

All the best,

Crumpp

JtD
07-21-2009, 01:07 PM
I'm looking forward to the API whining..."I hit him twice, and he did not explode".

Does anyone have reliable information about how the API would actually perform against German single seat fighter? Like the test they did with the earlier .50 rounds where they found that they had a 0% lethality if fired at the Fw 190 fuselage from 6 o'clock? Would it go up to maybe 1 or 2%?

DKoor
07-21-2009, 01:30 PM
We all have far too much experience and "fly time" under our belts, that is large part of problem in "ammo inefficiency" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .
RL guys had far less experience and yes... there is fear factor involved too, after all all you have is one life, there is no "insert new coin" trick http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif . Imagine the pressure.

There is something about game DM's too, something that was there to be damaged IRL a lot of which simply does not exist in our game.

RegRag1977
07-21-2009, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
I'm looking forward to the API whining..."I hit him twice, and he did not explode".



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Sure will happen since i don't think it will change much, especially against Luftwaffe or late war IJN types. A kill is a kill, i don't care much if it's burning, exploding, breaking into pieces or just going down intact....Only the maddest stats wh0res do worry about that since they live in the great fear that someone, somewhere is waiting silently in the dark to finish off their Kills http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Actually I'm quite happy with the .50 cal we have now in game, but if there is something to match what was historical, then i'm for it, that's all.

But aren't we discussing something that won't happen anyway?

RegRag1977
07-21-2009, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
What month, year and where did the USAAF get all API ammo? Not from the start.

This is a good question actually!

I wonder too if other armies used the API (RAF same as US?)

DKoor
07-21-2009, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by RegRag1977:
Only the maddest stats wh0res do worry about that since they live in the great fear that someone, somewhere is waiting silently in the dark to finish off their Kills http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
This is the most entertaining and true description I've read on forums in days http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif.
Sig worthy, really.

BillSwagger
07-21-2009, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
I'm looking forward to the API whining..."I hit him twice, and he did not explode".

Does anyone have reliable information about how the API would actually perform against German single seat fighter? Like the test they did with the earlier .50 rounds where they found that they had a 0% lethality if fired at the Fw 190 fuselage from 6 o'clock? Would it go up to maybe 1 or 2%? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

yeah ... and the f4U rolls with the 190..
i love these flippin tests.

thanks...i'll have another.

BillSwagger
07-21-2009, 03:13 PM
In reference to APIs they were included in the 50 cal belting of planes as early as 1943.

It was then discovered that same year that just one API round was needed to down a plane(because of fire), and while many more regular AP rounds were required to get the same effect.

The USAAF kept this under raps because their simply wasn't enough API ammunition to load the entire belting of every plane in the airforce, however pilots were very excited to learn they would be using them on some missions. Otherwise they used the normal AP/ API belting, which if memory serves me it was 4 to 1 (every 5th bullet was API).

By 1944, this had changed, and complete belting of 100% API was used when ever possible.
They were many, many times more effective, as any pilot from that era would tell you, it was like night and day.

We are talking largely one shot kills do to fire.
reference
OPERATIONS ANALYSIS IN THE U. S. ARMY EIGHTH AIR FORCE IN WORLD WAR 2

DKoor
07-21-2009, 03:54 PM
Considering the fact that M2 (.50cal) weapon is considered to have maximum effective lethal range of 1500-2000m vs soft targets, I have 0 doubt that it would tear apart E/A if fired from 200m or less.

We must take in consideration that when target is at 200m, bullet travel path is longer than 200m, depending on aircraft speed. Granted it does get a bit extra acceleration from aircraft that fires it...

If we are unable to shred apart an aircraft flying at average speed well below 200m with accurate .50cal burst, we may have a slight problem http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

From what I've able to gather from various sources, this weapon is just mean from these distances vs anything not considerably armoured.

I'll make a few tests more to see if I can come up with some reasonable conclusion.

http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o125/DKoor/smileys/deadhorse.gif

na85
07-21-2009, 04:29 PM
I just went into FMB and set up myself in a B25, surrounded by some friendly FW190A-8s. (Planes keep flipping over when they spawn, is there a fix for this?)

I shot at each plane from the nose-mounted 50 cal gun on the B25J.

I was EASILY able to dewing the 190's by aiming for the outer wing panels (i.e. not the wing root). This required a burst of about 1 second.

By contrast, it took almost two seconds to shear off the wing root.

A head-on shot into the BMW801's chin produced an engine fire almost immediately, only required a quarter-second burst or less.

Shooting from the 5 or 7 oclock position and aiming aft and below the pilot will result in a fuel tank fire after about a second.

The empennage is difficult to remove, but can be done by aiming at the thinnest point, from the 3 or 9 o'clock positions.

I'd say the ingame .50 cal is pretty darn effective.

If someone could kindly teach me how to spawn aircraft on the tarmac properly, I will gladly post a track.

M_Gunz
07-21-2009, 04:54 PM
Unless it hits something really solid, 50 cal AP makes 1/2" holes in the target. Hold up your thumb and the widest
part should be about twice that wide, go ahead and measure (in metric that's 25.4mm).

API won't make a knock the plane down fire in many places it may hit any more than Mk 108 Mine Shells can hit just
anywhere (they are a bit wider than your thumb, less than 1/4" wider, not jelly jar sized but they explode) and shred
a fighter with 3 hits.

Some of you guys need to get a little perspective. Where the hit strikes and the angle of the hit is muy importante.

BillSwagger
07-21-2009, 05:21 PM
To some extent it can become quite trivial when comparing a video game to a real life situation.
If you can imagine taking a basket ball video game, and having people make sure every player was jumping as high as they could in real life. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

On the other hand, if i was a fan of a player that could dunk and shoot three pointers outside the line, and was able make three's from outside the line in the game, but not able to dunk, I would probably throw the game in the trash.

If someone can show where and when it ever took 5-6 seconds of trigger time (on target) to down a plane using 50 cals, i would gladly show a ..

nevermind.fmd

M_Gunz
07-21-2009, 07:08 PM
I've PK'd FW pilots and flamed engines with a lot less than 1 second of 6 50 cals.
It's the pilot. Just because you pull the trigger don't guarantee the results.
If that FW pilot who put his full MG load into Johnson's P-47 had been smarter then that P-47 would have gone down.

na85
07-21-2009, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I've PK'd FW pilots and flamed engines with a lot less than 1 second of 6 50 cals.



A head-on shot into the BMW801's chin produced an engine fire almost immediately, only required a quarter-second burst or less.

Gammelpreusse
07-21-2009, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
In reference to APIs they were included in the 50 cal belting of planes as early as 1943.

It was then discovered that same year that just one API round was needed to down a plane(because of fire), and while many more regular AP rounds were required to get the same effect.

The USAAF kept this under raps because their simply wasn't enough API ammunition to load the entire belting of every plane in the airforce, however pilots were very excited to learn they would be using them on some missions. Otherwise they used the normal AP/ API belting, which if memory serves me it was 4 to 1 (every 5th bullet was API).

By 1944, this had changed, and complete belting of 100% API was used when ever possible.
They were many, many times more effective, as any pilot from that era would tell you, it was like night and day.

We are talking largely one shot kills do to fire.
reference
OPERATIONS ANALYSIS IN THE U. S. ARMY EIGHTH AIR FORCE IN WORLD WAR 2

1 hit=kill, hm? By one API round? Still 50 cal....well, maybe I am a pessimist, but are you sure you want to stick to these words?

na85
07-21-2009, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by BillSwagger:
In reference to APIs they were included in the 50 cal belting of planes as early as 1943.

It was then discovered that same year that just one API round was needed to down a plane(because of fire), and while many more regular AP rounds were required to get the same effect.

The USAAF kept this under raps because their simply wasn't enough API ammunition to load the entire belting of every plane in the airforce, however pilots were very excited to learn they would be using them on some missions. Otherwise they used the normal AP/ API belting, which if memory serves me it was 4 to 1 (every 5th bullet was API).

By 1944, this had changed, and complete belting of 100% API was used when ever possible.
They were many, many times more effective, as any pilot from that era would tell you, it was like night and day.

We are talking largely one shot kills do to fire.
reference
OPERATIONS ANALYSIS IN THE U. S. ARMY EIGHTH AIR FORCE IN WORLD WAR 2

I smell bull****.

BillSwagger
07-21-2009, 08:03 PM
Sorry, that does read kinda funny now that i look back at it.
Its tough to condense a two page explanation into a paragraph.

Actually the way it was tested described it as being a one shot kill.
One shot probably means one burst.

here is a quote:

"Jacob Wolfowitz had written an elegant statistical analysis of the question, what was the best mixture of the several available types of ammunition to load on the belts of the .50-caliber machine gun against enemy fighters. His answer was clear cut, based on his assumptions. The conclusion was that the belts should be loaded 100 percent with the one API (armor-piercing incendiary) type. The assumptions, based on actual experiments at Wright Field, were that serial correlation in several successive hits was small or zero and thus that the probability of a kill in any shot was independent. Under these conditions the belts should be loaded entirely with bullets that had the highest probability of downing the fighter with one hit. This, the Wright Field tests showed, was the API. Not only did the ordnance sergeants not read Wolfowitz's report, but, in defiance of orders from the top, they considered it their right to load those guns as they deemed best. Each one had his own mixture formula including tracers and incendiaries as well as armor-piercing bullets. On each base, I undertook to "sell" Wolfowitz's result. The argument could be put on a common sense basis, free of the technical statistical qualification. But I do not know how successful I was."

and actually prior to this discovery, they were using a mixed belting with 50% API rounds.

"The British had collected and analyzed a great deal of German aerial equipment. They calculated, for instance, the relative vulnerability of different portions of a plane to different kinds of ammunition. For example, in a given type of German bomber, 20 percent of the target might be vulnerable to incendiary ammunition (I), 30 percent to armor-piercing (AP), and 50 percent to armor-piercing, incendiary (API) ammunition. Accordingly guns would be belted with ammunition in the ratio of 2-I to 3-AP to 5-API cartridges. Besides this, there were arguments as to whether you should put all five API together or distribute them in some other way."

M_Gunz
07-21-2009, 09:46 PM
It's *possible* for 1 API to down a plane, but if I had a game where it did that every time, I'd throw it in the trash.

JtD
07-21-2009, 10:20 PM
It is possible for any 1 round to kill a plane. In real life and in game.

BillSwagger
07-21-2009, 11:11 PM
http://www.skynet.ie/~cheese/GsocStuff/260px-Khaaaaan.jpg

Kettenhunde
07-22-2009, 01:52 AM
The British had collected and analyzed a great deal of German aerial equipment.

I have a number of these reports and it looks like someone is quoting the hit probabilities not the chance of shooting down the airplane.

IIRC, the chance of an immediate shootdown with .50cal API from dead astern on the FW-190 was extremely low. I can post some of the reports when I get back but I am sure many of them can now be found on the web.

All the best,

Crumpp

K_Freddie
07-22-2009, 02:09 AM
I'd go with the 'Kett' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif on that one... They're would probably be talking about stastical probabilities, and you know the range of these parameters - from 1 bullet to a whole belt.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

BillSwagger
07-22-2009, 02:53 AM
The statistical probabilities just show that the API round was more likely to produce a one shot kill, leading to the assumption that having 100% API belting would be more effective than diluting the ammunition with separate AP and I rounds.

I'm sure there are reports that show all kinds of healthy figures for the 190 and its prowess against the 50 cal, and all sorts of ammo.
Just as there are countless encounter reports that add more to the story.

M_Gunz
07-22-2009, 03:46 AM
From what you posted before, Bill, all API has a higher probability of a kill from a hit than just AP or Incendiary.
Scattering shots into the tail and wings, gear and seat armor doesn't have a high probability of a kill in the 1st place.
Nailing the front half of the fuselage and wing roots from below, above or to the side gives a much better chance.

KG26_Alpha
07-22-2009, 06:13 AM
From E retention to another .50 discussion by page 4.

M_Gunz
07-22-2009, 09:11 AM
If there was more to say about nothing that really means much....

Manu-6S
07-22-2009, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RegRag1977:
Only the maddest stats wh0res do worry about that since they live in the great fear that someone, somewhere is waiting silently in the dark to finish off their Kills http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
This is the most entertaining and true description I've read on forums in days http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif.
Sig worthy, really. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course... and since the thread has derailed..

Which kind of planes are usually at low altitude stealing the kills to our poor US pilots?



http://www.numbthumbsandloopy.net/images/parkzone_spitfire_mk2_m%5B1%5D.jpg

BLAME THE SPITS!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

OK Xiola... you can lock.

na85
07-22-2009, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by KG26_Alpha:
From E retention to another .50 discussion by page 4.

That's because E retention is not a 4-page topic

hirosangels
07-22-2009, 05:00 PM
I didn't know there was a book on it



WW2 Fighter Gun Debate

http://www.geocities.com/CapeC...17/fgun/fgun-in.html (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-in.html)

KG26_Alpha
07-26-2009, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by na85:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KG26_Alpha:
From E retention to another .50 discussion by page 4.

That's because E retention is not a 4-page topic </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes it is but not at the hands of this forum obviously.