PDA

View Full Version : FW-190 flight trials.



XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 02:05 PM
The following comments were taken from "FW-190 in combat" by Alfred Price. This book was written with input from those in the RAF, USAAF, LW, and from Kurt Tank himself. This is one of the best books about a single aircraft type I have read. The following pieces were taken from a flight trial performed by the RAF when a FW-190A-3 accidentally landed at an British airfield. Tests were performed against a Spitfire V, Spitfire IX, Spitfire XII (partial), Typhoon (partial), P-51A, and P-38F. The partial tests were the result of the degradation of the 190's engine after all the previous trials.

DIVE:

"The FW-190 has a high rate of dive, the initial acceleration being excellent. The maximum speed so far obtained in a dive is 580mph (934km/h), and at this speed the controls, although slightly heavier, are still remarkably light."

Notice he says SLIGHTLY heavier and REMARKABLY light even at speeds of 934km/h! This is a far cry from those who are whining that the 190's controls should stiffen up when going over 600km/h.

CLIMB:

"The initial rate of climb when pulling up from level flight at fast cruising speed is high and the angle steep, and from a dive is phenominal (see: zoom climb)."


LOW-LEVEL FLIGHT:

"The good all-around view from the aircraft, particularly over the nose, makes the FW-190 very suitable for low level flying and ground strafing."

Hmmm, we certainly don't have this.


SIGHTING VIEW:

"The sighting view, when sitting comfortably in the normal position, is about half a ring of deflection better than that from a Spitfire. The view downwards from the centre of the sight gratucule of the edge of the reflector plate holder is about 5 degrees. This view is not obtained by elevating the guns (consequently the sight) relative to the line of flight, but is entirely due to the attitude of the aircraft in flight, which is nose down."

Interesting. I don't think the nose down attitude is simulated in FB, especially in terms of forward visibility. I am anxious to see the Spitfire's gunsite when it is released.

Controls (Summary)

"The flying characteristics are exceptional and a new pilot feels at home within minutes. The controls are light and well-harmonised and all maneuvers can be carried out without difficulty AT ALL SPEEDS. The fact that the 190 does not require re-trimming under all conditions of flight is a particularly good point.

The initial acceleration is very good and is particularly noticeable in the initial stages of climb and dive. Perhaps one of the most outstanding qualities of this aircraft is the remarkable aileron control. It is possible to change from a turn in one direction to a turn in the opposite direction with incredible speed. And when viewed from another aircraft the change appears just as if a flick half-roll has been made."

Remember these comments were made by the RAF, not the LW. If anyone is interested in how it compared to the Spits, P-51A, Typhoon, or P-38F let me know. I don't have time right now but I will be happy to post them when I get the chance.
I recommend this book to anyone who even has a remote interest in the FW-190. It is almost 200 pages of excellence and even had ground attack techniques used by 190 jabos complete with drawings. It has some great pictures of the "Beetoven" (Mistel) that I have not seen elsewhere. The comments I have provided also go into greater detail in most cases, I highly recommend this book.


<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

Message Edited on 08/25/0301:08PM by kyrule2

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 02:05 PM
The following comments were taken from "FW-190 in combat" by Alfred Price. This book was written with input from those in the RAF, USAAF, LW, and from Kurt Tank himself. This is one of the best books about a single aircraft type I have read. The following pieces were taken from a flight trial performed by the RAF when a FW-190A-3 accidentally landed at an British airfield. Tests were performed against a Spitfire V, Spitfire IX, Spitfire XII (partial), Typhoon (partial), P-51A, and P-38F. The partial tests were the result of the degradation of the 190's engine after all the previous trials.

DIVE:

"The FW-190 has a high rate of dive, the initial acceleration being excellent. The maximum speed so far obtained in a dive is 580mph (934km/h), and at this speed the controls, although slightly heavier, are still remarkably light."

Notice he says SLIGHTLY heavier and REMARKABLY light even at speeds of 934km/h! This is a far cry from those who are whining that the 190's controls should stiffen up when going over 600km/h.

CLIMB:

"The initial rate of climb when pulling up from level flight at fast cruising speed is high and the angle steep, and from a dive is phenominal (see: zoom climb)."


LOW-LEVEL FLIGHT:

"The good all-around view from the aircraft, particularly over the nose, makes the FW-190 very suitable for low level flying and ground strafing."

Hmmm, we certainly don't have this.


SIGHTING VIEW:

"The sighting view, when sitting comfortably in the normal position, is about half a ring of deflection better than that from a Spitfire. The view downwards from the centre of the sight gratucule of the edge of the reflector plate holder is about 5 degrees. This view is not obtained by elevating the guns (consequently the sight) relative to the line of flight, but is entirely due to the attitude of the aircraft in flight, which is nose down."

Interesting. I don't think the nose down attitude is simulated in FB, especially in terms of forward visibility. I am anxious to see the Spitfire's gunsite when it is released.

Controls (Summary)

"The flying characteristics are exceptional and a new pilot feels at home within minutes. The controls are light and well-harmonised and all maneuvers can be carried out without difficulty AT ALL SPEEDS. The fact that the 190 does not require re-trimming under all conditions of flight is a particularly good point.

The initial acceleration is very good and is particularly noticeable in the initial stages of climb and dive. Perhaps one of the most outstanding qualities of this aircraft is the remarkable aileron control. It is possible to change from a turn in one direction to a turn in the opposite direction with incredible speed. And when viewed from another aircraft the change appears just as if a flick half-roll has been made."

Remember these comments were made by the RAF, not the LW. If anyone is interested in how it compared to the Spits, P-51A, Typhoon, or P-38F let me know. I don't have time right now but I will be happy to post them when I get the chance.
I recommend this book to anyone who even has a remote interest in the FW-190. It is almost 200 pages of excellence and even had ground attack techniques used by 190 jabos complete with drawings. It has some great pictures of the "Beetoven" (Mistel) that I have not seen elsewhere. The comments I have provided also go into greater detail in most cases, I highly recommend this book.


<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

Message Edited on 08/25/0301:08PM by kyrule2

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 02:09 PM
It's been a long time since I posted last time my 190 links /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

So here there are, as this is perfectly "in-topic"

http://www.pbase.com/chrisdnt/eric_browns_190_report

http://www.pbase.com/chrisdnt/190_tests

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 02:17 PM
Also, from reading this book a few things really stood out:

-How good the controls and ease of flying of the 190 were.
-How good the initial acceleration of the 190 was when diving in comaparisons to other planes. And the 190's diving characteristics in genereal.
-How good the 190's climb was when pulling out of a dive.
-How much the addition of armor effected the planes performance. One account talks of a pilot in a 190A-8(R8) who wishes he was in his standard A-8 in case he met enemy fighters.
-The need for the LW to regain superiority after the release of the P-51B/C and the Spitfire XIV. The 190D certainly attempted this, and helped put the LW on equal footing again.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian

Message Edited on 08/25/0301:20PM by kyrule2

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 03:02 PM
Degrees per second? Pounds of force for a given deflection? Turn radius?

These are notably absent.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 03:44 PM
Eric Brown was actually a secret Luftwaffe infiltrator whose mission was to disseminate misinformation and propaganda with the goal of fostering an inferiority complex and defeatism on the Allies.

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 04:23 PM
~S!

Good post. Please continue.

Regards:



BPO5_Jinx
C.O. Replacement Air Group
Birds of Prey. 16th GvIAP
http://www.birdsofprey16thgviap.com
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/RS-15/N50GL.html

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 04:55 PM
"Kurt Tank: Focke-Wulf's designer and test pilot" By Wolfgang Wagner ISBN: 0-7643-0644-8

And "Focke-Wulf Ta 152" The story of the Luftwaffe's Late-war, High-altitude Fighter by Dietmar Harmann. ISBN: 0-7643-0860-2

Some very good stories in these books. Kurt Tank describes his first flight in a D-9. During this flight he dove it to 700km/h IAS at 6000m, with no flutter no vibrations no parts falling off. Escaping a Dora by diving would be unwise!

http://www.iownjoo.com/freeimghost/robban75/Dora-9-3.JPG


'When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!'

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2003, 10:35 PM
HarryVoyager wrote:

"Degrees per second? Pounds of force for a given deflection? Turn radius?

These are notably absent."

Harry, this was a comparative flight trial directly against other allied aircraft. This was a test of pilot comparisons and impressions, not of engineers. Kit Carson wrote a good article that did give the amount of stick pressure required at high speed which was lighter than the P-51 and significantly lighter than the 109.

The turn radius of the 190 was compared with all the planes I listed, but this was only in regards to turning circles. The 190 was inferior in turning circles to all the Spitfires, slightly inferior to the P-51A, the 190 turned better than the P-38F except if the P-38 slowed down to about 140mph at which speed the Lightning can perform a very tight turn which the 190 could not follow. Against the Typhoon there was little difference but the testers admitted that they were afraid to turn the 190 any tighter for fear of stalling since the test was done at low altitude. It was stated that if the 190 started a turn and then reversed it into a diving turn the Typhoon could not follow because of the vastly superior roll-rate.

As you would expect the 190 out-rolled all other planes by a good margin, but what was surprising was that the 190 out-accelerated all other planes, especially the P-51A and Typhoon. It's initial acceleration in the dive and climb was better than all other planes as well, with the P-51A also being excellent in a dive. The P-38F caught up to the 190 eventually but this took awhile and the dive/attack would have likely been broken off at this point. It is believed the same would hold true for the Typhoon. The Spitfires were out-dived at all stages.

Also the 190A-3 out-climbed the Spitfire VB, P-51A, and Typhoon at all heights. It out-climbed the P-38F up to 15,000 feet at which time the P-38 started to improve and it surpassed the 190's climb rate at 20,000 feet. Against the Spitfire IX there was little difference up to 22,000 feet at which time the 190 fell of rapidly while the Spitifre's was still improving.

There is more but I have to run. The test pilots also did a series of simulated bounces and I will post the brief conclusions if I get the chance.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

Message Edited on 08/25/0309:37PM by kyrule2

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 12:11 AM
Yes please, can u send me the details.
I favour the ME109, and FW's over the rest in FB.
These aircraft I've found to have better stability and pedictability at all speeds and in all manouveres.

On internet play I'm dis-advantaged due to high pings, but on local (PC) play, I can outstrip a Yak-3(Ace) anytime. Ok the AI is good but lacks critical intelligence. But gun accuracy is impossible to fault (I would be just as accurate if I was a computer).

Thanks
Tony
(email:- vanjast@netconnect.co.za)

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 02:25 AM
Salute

There are some other tests done which clarify and pinpoint more exactly the characteristics of the 190.

Someone made mention of Eric Brown's test. While Brown was a fan of the 190, he was not lax in pointing out the flaws of this aircraft.

Here are the pages relating particularly to the questions being discussed in this thread.

Here is one page where the question of the elevators heaviness is examined:

http://mishoga.image.pbase.com/u27/chrisdnt/large/15917684.FW190_5.jpg


And this following page discusses the high speed "flick" stall:

http://mishilo.image.pbase.com/u27/chrisdnt/large/15917691.FW190_6.jpg


The entire test report from his book can be found here:

http://www.pbase.com/chrisdnt/eric_browns_190_report

Note the 190A3 and A4 were the most maneuverable of all the 190's.

The USAAF also did a series of tests on the 190's. Here is an excerpt from one on a 190A5:

"The FW-190 performs nicely in all acrobatic maneuvers with the exception of a very slight fore and aft control which makes low altitude maneuvers dangerous. This airplane has an extremely bad high speed stall in turns which is not so evident in high speed pull outs, but if trimmed and pulled hard enough it will spin violently straight down without warning. Aileron control is very good at all speeds and rudder control is normally good. Forward and side visibility are very good which rear visibility is very poor. The cockpit is uncomfortably small for a pilot taller than 5' 11". "Bailing Out" of this aircraft would be difficult for any pilot. The airplane is quite nose heavy which would make dead stick landings dangerous and high speed dives near the ground dangerous. The engine seems to run very rough at all times and the vibration transmitted through the control column almost completely destroys any feel of the flying characteristics. This characteristic is partly responsible for the lack of warning in high speed stalls."

(By the way, the "roughness" in the engine was not an indication of a poor running engine, as this aircraft developed 1.42 atas and performed extremely well. It was a characteristic which was mentioned by the British test pilots as well)


RAF74 Buzzsaw

Anyone interested in the original can PM me and I will send it.

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 02:31 AM
Good stuff, thanks for posting it /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I/JG1 Oesau (http://jg1-oesau.org) is recruiting. Join us!

Stab.I/JG1Death at HL, Maj_Death at Ubi.com

At the start of WW2 the German army lacked experienced anti-aircraft gunners. The average gunner was so bad that the USSR decided to help them out. They did it by forcing some of their pilots to fly I-153 flak magnets. These planes were slow but very sturdy. This allowed German anti-aircraft gunners to get a large amount of target practice on a relatively small number of planes. Thanks to the Soviets help, by the end of the war the German anti-aircraft gunners were amoung the best in the world.</center>

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 02:41 AM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
-- The USAAF also did a series of tests on the 190's.
- Here is an excerpt from one on a 190A5:
-
- Forward and side visibility are very good which rear
- visibility is very poor.

I think this bit supposed to be the other way around. The Fw 190 was noted for its excellent rearward visibility.

- The engine seems to run very
- rough at all times and the vibration transmitted
- through the control column almost completely
- destroys any feel of the flying characteristics.
- This characteristic is partly responsible for the
- lack of warning in high speed stalls."
-
- (By the way, the "roughness" in the engine was not
- an indication of a poor running engine, as this
- aircraft developed 1.42 atas and performed extremely
- well. It was a characteristic which was mentioned
- by the British test pilots as well)

If this is referring to the British tests of the captured A-3, then subsequent to the tests, the engine "roughness" was cured by replacing the spark plugs with those from a downed Do 217's BMW 801As.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 02:42 AM
Salute

By the way, you can see that the British diagram is a perfect match with Oleg's cockpit, although of course, refraction through the 50mm front glass might improve the gunsight view.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 02:53 AM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- Salute
-
- By the way, you can see that the British diagram is
- a perfect match with Oleg's cockpit, although of
- course, refraction through the 50mm front glass
- might improve the gunsight view.

Actually, like I was trying to post in another thread, look at where the cockpit bars meet the upper panel (in the corners) in the drawing. Now look at where they meet in any 190 cockpit in FB and you will see that the bars in the 190 cockpit should be farther apart, improving the viewing area.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 06:44 AM
tHANKYOU

<center><FONT COLOR="white">ӚFJ-M œ R D ˜ ӡ[/i]</font>

<center> http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_109_1059752328.jpg </center>

<center><FONT COLOR="white">The "Ace Edge"(c).
With my incremental trim
I am actually able to turn so quickly that, I never turn at all.
In Fact the Planet Earth rotates around the Axis of My PC, thus giving me the optimum turn rate and insuring that you
the bandit are promptly fraged !!!
In memory Of Ray R.I.P.[/i]</font>

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 06:51 AM
WOW looks like the spitfire was one bad arse bird /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<center><FONT COLOR="white">ӚFJ-M œ R D ˜ ӡ[/i]</font>

<center> http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_109_1059752328.jpg </center>

<center><FONT COLOR="white">The "Ace Edge"(c).
With my incremental trim
I am actually able to turn so quickly that, I never turn at all.
In Fact the Planet Earth rotates around the Axis of My PC, thus giving me the optimum turn rate and insuring that you
the bandit are promptly fraged !!!
In memory Of Ray R.I.P.[/i]</font>

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 07:39 PM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- Salute
- Here is one page where the question of the elevators
- heaviness is examined:
-

Which is better than most (according to Kit Carson, with comcrete numbers), heaviness is relative (9-12 pounds per gee):

http://www.geocities.com/Sturmvogel_66/breed.html




-------------------------------------
In these locked and shackled neighbourhoods, bridge and tunnel diplomats.
See the golden ghetto's creeper.
Crazy flags from history, songs for the White House gangsters, guns for hellgate railway sleepers.
But there's a man who makes no enemies, a body never breathless, no ambition ever hopeless.
So how stands the city on this winter's night?
The city on the hill or so they said.
The snow is falling down around the armoury.
The city's closing in around my head.

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 10:10 PM
Bump...

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 10:32 PM
No Text

Message Edited on 08/26/0309:41PM by RAF74BuzzsawXO

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 10:35 PM
Salute

Kit Carson's comments are not derived from his own testing, but taken from other test material. He does confirm the high speed flick and the heavy elevators. But he is a secondary source.

Elevator lbs per G is actually not very good for the 190 when compared to other more modern design aircraft. Perhaps the 109 looked bad in comparison, but the 109 was designed in 1934.

For example, the P-47D-40, one of the heavier models of the Thunderbolt, was tested and was found to have a stickforce of 7.5 lbs per G at higher speeds. Unlike the current FB P-47, the D40 did not suffer from a hi speed stall into a flick without warning, but rather showed a mild buffet at 4.8 G's, and a moderate buffet at 5.2 G's, giving plenty of warning for the stall which occurred at 115 IAS clean.

The P-47 should have better high speed elevator response than the 190 as reported by this USAAF test of the high speed turnrate of a P-47D4 and a 190A5:

"4) Turning

(a) Turning and handling in excess of 250mph. The two airplanes alternately turned on each other's tail, holding in the turns as tightly as possible and alternating the turns first left then right. The P-47 easily outturned the Fw190 at 10,000ft and had to throttle back in order to keep from overrunning the FW190. The superiority of the P-47 in turning increased with altitude. The FW190 was very heavy in fore and aft control, vibrated excessively and tended to blackout the pilot.

(b) Turning and handling below 250mph. Turns were made so rapidly that it was impossible for the aircraft to accelerate. In making the usual rather flat turns in a horizontal plane, the FW190 was able to hang onto its propellor and turn inside the P-47. The FW190 was also able to accelerate suddenly and change to a more favourable position during the turn."

You will note that the 190 did retain better response and turnrate at lower speeds.



RAF74 Buzzsaw





Message Edited on 08/26/0309:37PM by RAF74BuzzsawXO

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 11:29 PM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- Salute
-
- Kit Carson's comments are not derived from his own
- testing, but taken from other test material. He
- does confirm the high speed flick and the heavy
- elevators. But he is a secondary source.
-
Aha? High speed flick, heavy elevators but the actual figure can't be taken without grain of salt?

- Elevator lbs per G is actually not very good for the
- 190 when compared to other more modern design
- aircraft. Perhaps the 109 looked bad in comparison,
- but the 109 was designed in 1934.

Not good? You may want to show that comparison in large? Bf is truly no basis for comparison, however FW is somewhere in La class and it is far better than most...Before you go on, you may want to get really familiar with a term called "stick-force-per-gee" in deep.

- For example, the P-47D-40, one of the heavier models
- of the Thunderbolt, was tested and was found to have
- a stickforce of 7.5 lbs per G at higher speeds.
- Unlike the current FB P-47, the D40 did not suffer
- from a hi speed stall into a flick without warning,
- but rather showed a mild buffet at 4.8 G's, and a
- moderate buffet at 5.2 G's, giving plenty of warning
- for the stall which occurred at 115 IAS clean.

You are obviously confusing two issues, if there is such a thing as "high speed flick" stall it hints on a very effective elevator - an elevator that's able to pull the highest lift factor effectively at a higher speed. It is not controverse to an _effective_ elevator. In order to pull a high speed stall you have to have a good elevator. If P-47 could not pull a pronounced high speed stall it would mean, yes what? You should also give speed for that 4.8 G and 5.2 G and a unit for that 115 IAS clean, bananas per shipload? You're not trying to claim 5.2 G at 115 mphs, are you?

-
- The P-47 should have better high speed elevator
- response than the 190 as reported by this USAAF test
- of the high speed turnrate of a P-47D4 and a 190A5:
-
Define good, I remember reading Carson or Brown from other article where they came out with _higher_ value (higher than FW that is) than that. You should also be aware that due to its wing loading P-47 was _always_ on disadvantage to almost 99.99% of the contemporary fighters in the terms of current g - current lift factor (margin to stall).

-------------------------------------
In these locked and shackled neighbourhoods, bridge and tunnel diplomats.
See the golden ghetto's creeper.
Crazy flags from history, songs for the White House gangsters, guns for hellgate railway sleepers.
But there's a man who makes no enemies, a body never breathless, no ambition ever hopeless.
So how stands the city on this winter's night?
The city on the hill or so they said.
The snow is falling down around the armoury.
The city's closing in around my head.

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 11:47 PM
Additionally, you should not get confused with the issue FW has a good elevator in FB but it should be worse than this or that. You should rather think the actual figures and rather than undermining the one being _not_ your pet aircraft with polished aluminum skin, you should think what your pet aircraft migh be able to do and further that data to the development team. You also have to make comparison between what's actually in the game vs. reality, with something like stick force per gee without knowing the gee it may be a bit more complicated. Of course, if you rather want a urinating contest with no concrete outcome, go on by all means.

-------------------------------------
In these locked and shackled neighbourhoods, bridge and tunnel diplomats.
See the golden ghetto's creeper.
Crazy flags from history, songs for the White House gangsters, guns for hellgate railway sleepers.
But there's a man who makes no enemies, a body never breathless, no ambition ever hopeless.
So how stands the city on this winter's night?
The city on the hill or so they said.
The snow is falling down around the armoury.
The city's closing in around my head.



Message Edited on 08/26/0311:49PM by Ugly_Kid

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 02:35 AM
Salute Ugly Kid

Lots of misinformation in your post.

First of all you suggest P-47 had high wingloading.

Compared to what? The 190? Nope.


P-47 D-10 fully loaded: 13, 677 lbs. Of that, 1730 lbs is fuel. 205 US gallons (each gallon is 3.5 litres) in the main tank, 100 US gallons in the auxiliary tank. This weight includes 8 .50 calibre gun installation, and the full 3400 rounds of ammunition.

Normal Combat: 13,077 lbs

With 200 gallon belly tank: 15,000 lbs

Wingloading

Fully loaded: 45.59 lbs per Sq/ft

Normal Combat Weight: 43.59 lbs per Sq/ft (The was a United States Air Force term, and was the weight at which the aircraft was expected to fight at. Normal combat weight is with the Auxiliary tank empty. At that weight, the P-47 still has a longer range than the 190)


Focke-Wulf 190A8 (Data from original Focke Wulf Documents)

Empty Weight: 7652 lbs

Normal Loaded weight: 9460 lbs

Wing Area: 196.98 Sq/ft

Wingloading: 48.03 lbs per Sq/ft


Amazing.... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Looks like the 1944 model 190 actually has higher wingloading.


Even the earlier and slower model A5's weighed in at 8600+ lbs, which gave them a wingloading of more than 43.5 lbs per Sq/ft

As far as your suggestion that the P-47 would be more prone to a high speed flick, tests done on this plane revealed a very innocuous stall, and no tendency to a flick.

For more info see the latest edition of FLIGHT JOURNAL SPECIAL ISSUE, which has a number of detailed articles on the P-47.

http://www.flightjournal.com/common/images/covers/220/p47t.jpg


Here's what the official USN test pilot,(he was doing a comparison with a Hellcat) said:

"At 120 mph it started to buffet, and at 110 it stalled. Surprisingly, it had very little wing drop, so I recovered and rechecked it several times with similar results. I then tried an accelerated stall at 125mph and found that even when I pulled the stick fairly hard, its stall was also proceded by a pronounced buffeting and very little wing drop. It seemed too good to be true. With the wheels and flaps down, it again stalled very gently, and the stall was preceded by an even stronger buffet warning and with absolutely no wing drop.
I was amazed because the stall characteristics were better than the Hellcat's, (which had a wingloading of around 36 lbs per Sq/ft) but its stall speed was 21 mph higher. I was even more impressed when I returned from the flight and inspected the leading edge expecting to find stall 'fixes' such as a cambered leading edge or leading edge spoilers that would give it these great characteristics. There weren't any."

The Thunderbolt's wing had a strong similarity to the Spitfire's in its design, and that was what also gave it excellent high altitude characteristics.


RAF74 Buzzsaw







Message Edited on 08/27/0301:45AM by RAF74BuzzsawXO

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 03:01 AM
This high speed flick was common to all high wing loaded fighters, whether P-51, P-47 or Fw-190. To say that P-47 did not suffer from it is complete lunacy.

Here's the evaluation of the Fw-190 made by K. Tank himself. Please note that Tank was an extreme test pilot, performing the most dangerous maneuvers.


http://home.comcast.net/~bogdandone/FW190_stall.jpg



Buzzsaw which was the similarity between Spitfire and P-47?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 03:26 AM
Salute Huckbein

Thanks for providing the proof to back up my statements.

Go back and re-read:

"However, there was no warning before entering the stall."

And that was for a normal level flight, not a stall in a turn.

2nd point is that nowhere in the description is an accelerated stall mentioned as being induced. Why not I wonder?

The fact is, it is well known that Kurt Tank was notable for blowing his own horn and claiming his designs were perfect. Why mention a flaw... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The interesting point he brings to light is the stall/Spin at the top of a loop when power is applied. I hadn't heard of that type of 190 instability... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I trust the test reports of independent objective test pilots than I do the self serving statements of a man who regarded himself very highly.

The FockeWulf 190's accelerated stall tendencies are well known to anyone who has even marginally researched the aircraft.


RAF74 Buzzsaw



Message Edited on 08/27/0302:58AM by RAF74BuzzsawXO

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 04:10 AM
Buzzsaw, the stall at the top of the loop was the result of the automatic boost kicking in at a critical altitude. It had nothing to do with instability but a loss of needed power at a specific moment. This happened early on and the system implementation was changed/altered in production aircraft so this would not happen again. That incident was not representative of production aircraft.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.



Message Edited on 08/27/0303:13AM by kyrule2

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 04:47 AM
I like the part where the 190 tries to blackout it's pilot. How nice from the P47 to cherish the pilot and not have him black out /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Nic

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 07:01 AM
Misinformation?, ah P-47 did not have a high wingloading? That's news to me.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif In the dive discussions you'd eagerly claim otherwise, wouldn't you?

Interesting that you select 4300 kg as a "normal" loaded weight for A-8. This would mean FW entering combat with full tanks (1300 lbs) and R-2 (wing cannons etc) whereas P-47 still having the flight back to England can do with 1280 lbs fuel?

You missed the point though, didn't you? Nevermind how it stalls, the issue was that it _does_ stall even at higher speed which indicates the pilot being able to pull the maximum lift factor out of it. Yes, even at higher speed. This would already mean onset of stall at about 7 g at 480 km/h. Again quite well presented by the game. Again this stall is no indication of lack of elevator authority rather the contrary.

Again, I am not even remotely interested in P-47 and what it can or can't (did not see it mentioned anywhere in the topic, did I). FW _had_ relatively good elevator control with 12 pounds per gee from 400 mph on. The high speed performance is presented relatively well for the first time of all IL-2 versions.

-------------------------------------
In these locked and shackled neighbourhoods, bridge and tunnel diplomats.
See the golden ghetto's creeper.
Crazy flags from history, songs for the White House gangsters, guns for hellgate railway sleepers.
But there's a man who makes no enemies, a body never breathless, no ambition ever hopeless.
So how stands the city on this winter's night?
The city on the hill or so they said.
The snow is falling down around the armoury.
The city's closing in around my head.


Message Edited on 08/27/0307:08AM by Ugly_Kid

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 07:25 AM
Isn't that also the part where the 190 is easily outturning the P47?

I'd be more upset at how for wingloading, one of if not the heaviest 190 (the A8) is used to show 190 wingloading while the P47 model? Then the A5 is trotted out and it is lower but wasn't the earlier 190's even less?

Reminds me of some other "statistics battles" I've read.

You want to pick then at least pick where it counts.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 07:36 AM
WWMaxGunz wrote:
- Isn't that also the part where the 190 is easily
- outturning the P47?
-
- I'd be more upset at how for wingloading, one of if
- not the heaviest 190 (the A8) is used to show 190
- wingloading while the P47 model? Then the A5 is
- trotted out and it is lower but wasn't the earlier
- 190's even less?
-
- Reminds me of some other "statistics battles" I've
- read.
-
- You want to pick then at least pick where it counts.
-
-
- Neal
-

Yes, good to see some can still read between the lines /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

it reminds me of the pleasentries of my fridge as in opposed to the UBI forum /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif , is it too early for a beer?

-------------------------------------
In these locked and shackled neighbourhoods, bridge and tunnel diplomats.
See the golden ghetto's creeper.
Crazy flags from history, songs for the White House gangsters, guns for hellgate railway sleepers.
But there's a man who makes no enemies, a body never breathless, no ambition ever hopeless.
So how stands the city on this winter's night?
The city on the hill or so they said.
The snow is falling down around the armoury.
The city's closing in around my head.

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 08:49 AM
compair it to charts not pilot propaganda.

the p39 190s yak mig3u movement rollrate elevator effectiveness can perform manuevers no real wwii warbird could have handled, the controlls need to be slowed down especially at high speeds.

check zenos warbird drive in theater. many of the british, us german and russian guncam vhs and dvds out there and you will understand about, many different weapons effects 303s 20mm 108 50 cals, airframe stress, jink manuevers. how much pilots had to struggle to get out of dives, having to follow a bank turn thru or stall. the difference between p39, typhoon (2 of the worst rolling a/c) vs the 190 which was one of the best rolling a/c was so small you couldnt notice by eye. less then a half a second for 180 degrees,

the jug was very manueverable at tops speeds as well but not in fb.

elevators and alierons, weight, hp very similiar

if they dull down the alieron and elevator control sensativity of the p39 yak3 190s and mig3u the fms will be extremely close to the real thing, all the climb and dive speeds seem extremely close to naca charts.






http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/ls.gif

Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 07:07 PM
i have the same book http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

probably the best book on the 190 i've seen.

http://www3.telus.net/ice51/taipans/tpn_bard.jpg (http://taipans.dyndns.org)

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 07:40 PM
Salute Ugly

Read my post again.

Weights listed for P-47D-10 are with full tanks, full ammunition, or alternately, combat weight, ie. Main tank full, full ammo.

As far as the 190A8 is concerned: This plane came standard with 4 151/20 Cannon and 2 13mm. There were very few instances of the A8 models with the outer guns removed. If I wanted to use the 190A8/R2 'Sturmbock', with the 30mm outer wing guns, it would have shown even higher weight. F models and G models were standardly equipped with only the wing root cannon but they were ground attack aircraft with additional armour and different engine tuning.

As far as the stall speeds are concerned, the speed at which the P-47 stalled is actually less than the 190A4. The A4 stalled at 127 mph. (see the Eric Brown test) The 190A8 would stall at an even higher speed. So you can see clearly that the P-47 has the advantage.

And in regards to comparing the D10 with the A8. The D10 came into service in the autumn of 1943. At that time, the Luftwaffe was being equipped with A7's at that time. The A7 was essentially identical to the A8. The A4's were generally out of service by that time. Some A5's remained. In late '44 the A8 was beginning to be introduced. The A8 was the most numerous 190A manufactured, far exceeding the numbers for the other models.

The D-10's and similar models were the most numerous P-47's through the Fall of 1943 and Spring of 1944, when the heaviest fighting occurred between USAAF Fighters and the Luftwaffe. The D22 did not come out of the factories till May of '44, and the later bubble top versions a few months later.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 09:58 PM
You seem to circle the topic never really getting there, do you? So far you've produced one quote saying something about heavy controls, well it wasn't very convincing, was it? Now you rather divert to discuss P-47 and actually tell that no it did not have a heavy wingloading, don't you? What's next it outturns yaks, zeros and anything those bashed huns were able to throw into air?

Here's a bit of Wagner for you:

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/fwa-8.jpg


Rammj¤ger is not just R-2. As you can see from that table, if you can, 4300 kg for A-8/R-2 includes, yes not only MK108 but such things as MW-50 Anlage as well, installation of which remained only a dream for A-8.

Once more high speed stall means a good elevator authority, FW very much had it...



-------------------------------------
In these locked and shackled neighbourhoods, bridge and tunnel diplomats.
See the golden ghetto's creeper.
Crazy flags from history, songs for the White House gangsters, guns for hellgate railway sleepers.
But there's a man who makes no enemies, a body never breathless, no ambition ever hopeless.
So how stands the city on this winter's night?
The city on the hill or so they said.
The snow is falling down around the armoury.
The city's closing in around my head.

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 11:03 PM
Interestingly you also give 8600 lbs (3900 kg) for A-5. I have here A-5/U-8 in 4360 kg with 2x295l drop tanks and 250 kg bomb making it 3686 kg in the end...

-------------------------------------
In these locked and shackled neighbourhoods, bridge and tunnel diplomats.
See the golden ghetto's creeper.
Crazy flags from history, songs for the White House gangsters, guns for hellgate railway sleepers.
But there's a man who makes no enemies, a body never breathless, no ambition ever hopeless.
So how stands the city on this winter's night?
The city on the hill or so they said.
The snow is falling down around the armoury.
The city's closing in around my head.

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 01:31 AM
Ugly_Kid wrote:
- Interestingly you also give 8600 lbs (3900 kg) for
- A-5. I have here A-5/U-8 in 4360 kg with 2x295l drop
- tanks and 250 kg bomb making it 3686 kg in the
- end...
-

Even at 8600 lbs, the wing loading was less -- I just went back and looked.

Somewhere is there charts that give elevator effectiveness to go with those pounds of stick pull? Somewhere the relation doesn't seem to sink in to somebody.

I do recall from discussions and posts here that the P-47 was supposed to be good in pullouts from dives with "good" being a relative term. And was it Brown who said that the 190 would sink in a pullout if not carefully flown? Again that is a relative remark, the observation made by a pilot used to different aircraft and perhaps noticing his mistake?

Beer?? I thought maybe you had a cask of cider?


Neal

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 02:44 AM
Salute

3686 kgs for a A5??? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

That's quite funny.

The 190A3 which the British captured weighed in at 8580 lbs fully fueled with ammunition loaded, (3900 kgs)

I have official Luftwaffe documents dated Oct 1st 1944 which lists a 190A8 equipped with 4 MG 151/20's at 4300 kgs.

I'd be happy to mail them to you if you are interested.

I'd trust those documents more than I would your secondary source above. For one, since it lists MW-50 as equipment for the A8, it is obviously suspect as a credible source.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 09:11 AM
You don't seem to realize that MW-50 was planned but not available that's why it's quite often in the lists (also mentioned in that bad source). That's why quite many would like to have it but that's a no-no from Oleg's side.

Still you're circling the hot potato, elevator and high-speed control characteristics of the FW, confirmed by all three articles on the previous page. (actually by four Huck's 7 g pull-out from 700 km/h (IAS) dive)

You still have to back up your airy comment in large that FW elevator was no good compared with comtemporary fighters. This time with numbers. Again, if you have a problem with P-47 then start a discussion and see what happens, I promise not to take part in that. FW as it is, is more correct than all the previous game versions together. If some of the circle flyers start getting chopped by it in large, it only means that it was about a bloody time. It means that at least a bit of the game has been improved. You should be happy that the game features credible modeling of strengths of a heavy wingloaded aircraft for the first time. It's a considerable improvement even if it does not come with polished aluminum.

Thx, I am really happy to have a look at your document, check your PM for e-mail address.

-------------------------------------
In these locked and shackled neighbourhoods, bridge and tunnel diplomats.
See the golden ghetto's creeper.
Crazy flags from history, songs for the White House gangsters, guns for hellgate railway sleepers.
But there's a man who makes no enemies, a body never breathless, no ambition ever hopeless.
So how stands the city on this winter's night?
The city on the hill or so they said.
The snow is falling down around the armoury.
The city's closing in around my head.



Message Edited on 08/28/0309:11AM by Ugly_Kid

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 11:38 AM
WWMaxGunz wrote:
- Somewhere is there charts that give elevator
- effectiveness to go with those pounds of stick pull?
- Somewhere the relation doesn't seem to sink in to
- somebody.
-
Normally it is given as stick for per gee. It means that in higher speed you need less elevator deflection to pull the same gee but that deflection is harder to get. There is a stick force for deflection which is:

1) other things remaining equal, proportional to airplane size (cube of the size), increasing rapidly with size (wink wink /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )
2) it increases with speed squared and decreases with height
3) wing loading and c.g shift the complete parabola up and down (constant term in function)

As for the stick force per g (more g requiring less deflection with increasing speed):

1) it's independent of lift factor and speed, apart from M and Reynolds number effects
2) it's directly proportional to wing loading
3) increases with forward c.g
4) is again proportional to size (cubic /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )

For this reason Carson gave two values for FW one being "normal" the second accounting for compressability. If correct at all the value given by Mr. Saw here does not account for that giving rather poor base for comparison and airy speculations.

- Beer?? I thought maybe you had a cask of cider?
-
I wish, that would be just the right thing in this heat. I was crazy enough to go to the gym and we have 33?C.

BTW, seems that they built 1334 A-8s in 1944 otherwise they build different types 228 in 41, 1850 in 1942, 2171 in 1943 and 7488 in 1944, finally 1630 in 1945. Far exeeding production figures, sure thing. A-5 is just as fine but that would not just do, would it?/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

-------------------------------------
In these locked and shackled neighbourhoods, bridge and tunnel diplomats.
See the golden ghetto's creeper.
Crazy flags from history, songs for the White House gangsters, guns for hellgate railway sleepers.
But there's a man who makes no enemies, a body never breathless, no ambition ever hopeless.
So how stands the city on this winter's night?
The city on the hill or so they said.
The snow is falling down around the armoury.
The city's closing in around my head.

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 04:00 AM
Note that POW is higher in british pic than in FB cockpit. (you can see top of dashboard well.)

If POW was at FB level lower frame would not be seen as pics of real 190 cockpits suggest.

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 04:18 AM
This test supports US dive tests of 190.

"Kurt Tank: Focke-Wulf's designer and test pilot" By Wolfgang Wagner ISBN: 0-7643-0644-8"
http://www.saunalahti.fi/meheko/190dive.jpg


There are also some other aircraft in FB which maximum divespeed are possibly too low. Ie. La-5 should be able to dive 850kmh TAS concerning finnish pilots and wartime intelligence given to them.



Message Edited on 08/29/03 03:20AM by ladoga

Message Edited on 08/29/0303:21AM by ladoga