PDA

View Full Version : FW190 Flight Characteristics



Panzerknacker02
05-14-2007, 12:07 AM
What exactly is up with the nasty tendency for the sim's FW190 to roll port and go into a spin during tight turns anyway? I've read pretty-much every single personal history written by an FW190 pilot and have never heard of anything like this- the aircraft is always described as being quite agile and very easy and pleasant to fly. And why is it that even if I turn stalls and spins off it still happens?

msalama
05-14-2007, 12:14 AM
I'm sorry, but it's you, not the plane. An excerpt from an article (http://www.acepilots.com/german/fw190.html) describing the bird in detail:

"Hermann Krafft's I./JG.51 pilots learned about the airplanes vicious stall characteristics. Below 200 kilometers per hour (127 MPH), the port wing would abruptly fall off. In a tight turn, it could flick over and go into a spin. Properly controlled and with sufficient altitude, a spin could even offer an escape; no Soviet plane could match it."

So?

MrMojok
05-14-2007, 12:34 AM
On Mike William's site, there are probably about six or seven hundred P-51 pilot after-action reports.

About 150 reports end with a FW190 rolling to port at low level and augering in, and claimed as a victory.


(that's a slight exaggeration, but go look. There are literally dozens of them that talk about this).

Xiolablu3
05-14-2007, 12:39 AM
You are trying to turn too sharply in a plane which isnt a good turner.

If you push planes with a high wingloading like the FW190 hard in a turn, they are always going to spin out.

Panzerknacker02
05-14-2007, 12:49 AM
That's really interesting- like I wrote, I can't recall having read of this rather serious problem in any of the histories. Guess I'll have to go back and look at them again. Doesn't make the FW190 a ton of fun to fly that's for sure...

Xiolablu3
05-14-2007, 01:13 AM
The FW190 is a fast B&Z aircraft, you cannot fly it like a Spitfire.

Its one of hte most effective planes in the sim, but you need to fly it like a real pilot, not like a computer game.

Try and imagine you are really there and your life depends on it, stay fast and high. Get above your enemy and then swoop down shoot and zoom away. If you are attacked and hte enemy is higher than you, then use you speed to escape and then either head back to base, or extend away, climb high and try and get above them. Then B&Z.

Dont get into an energy burning dogfight like you would in a Spitfire or Zero - You will lose.

If you need more info search this forum for 'FW190 tactics'

If you want to dogfight in the classic 'WW1 Red BAron styleee' then pick a Bf109, Zero or SPitfire instead. NOtice that as the war progresses it moves away from this style of fighting and into the modern tactics which are used for the FW190/P51/Tempest etc.

TX-Gunslinger
05-14-2007, 01:15 AM
Stick settings (Pitch and Roll) are probably way too hot for this bird.

S~

Gunny

MrMojok
05-14-2007, 01:20 AM
Don't be discouraged by it-- it's a blast to fly.


Just STAY FAST! Don't chase people in circles.

msalama
05-14-2007, 01:59 AM
Stick settings (Pitch and Roll) are probably way too hot for this bird.

Yep, pays to check them out too. 100's across the board or any nonsense like that will NOT work, that's for sure! Even the defaults (10, 20, 30...) can actually be far too hot depending on the controller(s) used...

I'm suggesting an exponential curve myself.

WOLFMondo
05-14-2007, 02:18 AM
The roll to port is the engine torque.

Don't give up on the butcher bird. In this sim you don't really experiance why the 190 was easy to fly i.e. the fully automated engine managment systems etc and takes a little to learn to fly it in combat. Its most agile when rolling rather than turning.

My only advice is try to learn it with another person. The 190 is a plane best used in a pair.

K_Freddie
05-14-2007, 02:21 AM
When flying tight with high AoA, you must apply right rudder to counter this torque effect of the engine.

This characteristic is very effective in preventing a stall when doing a hard right bank when 'low and slow'. During the right bank you apply just enough power to counter the right wing dropping OR full power with right rudder as needed.
NO - I repeat - NO other plane can follow you, and this is what makes the FW a great turn fighter, contrary to what others believe.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ratsack
05-14-2007, 04:27 AM
In addition to the comments about stick settings, have a close look at how you're controlling the machine in the turn. In particular, you need to keep the slip ball centered if you want to maximize turn performance. That means rudder. However, it's not as simple as right turn / right rudder. It depends upon speed. At high speed you need left rudder to fly straight, while at low speed you need right rudder to fly straight. Know where you are in the flight envelope and apply rudder accordingly. The aim is to keep the nose following the turn, not ˜hunting' to the opposite side.

After a while, you don't need to watch the ball to do this. You can see, for example, the nose ˜hunting' to the left (or up) while you're in a tight right-hander. If you apply right rudder, the nose will point back into the turn. This will make the turn cleaner – meaning you lose less speed – and keeping an eye on it also makes you more aware of when the beast wants to chuck you out of the top of the turn and into a spin.

The other thing to remember is that at low speeds, rudder is often more powerful than aileron. In fact, the intuitive use of ailerons at very low speeds can actually stall the wing you're attempting to lift. Train yourself to use the rudder in these situations.

Rudder is your friend. Get pedals if you need to. Cheap M$ sidewinder car pedals will do.

Secondly, have a close look at how you're controlling the plane into the turn. Go off line and pay close attention to what you're doing here. If you find yourself applying significant amounts of aileron and elevator at the same time, you're heading into the territory of Dr Spin. You're also flying very messily, and as a consequence losing more speed than you need to with every maneuver. While some maneuvers – such as the barrel roll – will require some combination of elevators and ailerons, really fast changes of direction are best accomplished by rolling and then turning.

Of course, this is not a panacea. Sometimes flying ˜messy' is a life saver, particularly when somebody is shooting at you. It can make it very hard for your attacker to predict your direction and thus judge their shot. However, in the normal course of events you want to be saving your speed as much as you possibly can. This is particularly true when you're dog fighting. Every km/hour you save is speed to help you maneuver for the gun shot. This means you want to fly as cleanly as you can, and that requires good coordination of all three main controls, and good use of rudder in particular.

cheers,
Ratsack

DKoor
05-14-2007, 04:52 AM
With 190, you'll do excellent job online.... if you're into stats anyway. It's among the best aircraft to boost your stat, any premium bnzer for that matter is.

Codex1971
05-14-2007, 05:10 AM
I have been a quest to re-learn this plane because frankly I suck right now in the FW, but I love this plane, always have and I'm not giving up. I have the privilege of "going back to school" learning to fly again with my squad mates so you might want to consider joining a squad but that is a personally preference. I just believe that there is only so much that you can get from "reading" books or watching tracks i.m.o. You need to practice with human opponents.

The best advice I have gotten so far from others:

Be patient; don't be too eager to pounce.

Keep your speed and alt high, but don't go too high, above 6K your engine performance drops dramatically.

Fight your fight and not the enemies; the FW is best flown in the vertical so use high YO-YO's to keep your speed high but separation small.

Never get into a twisting turn fight if you're inexperienced. If things are starting to turn bad, just extend and escape.

Now, I know this is going against a "popular" view of the FW, but an FW flown properly can defeat an angles fighter like a Spit or Yak; I have seen first hand a squad mate in a D-9 force a Spit to overshoot in a scissors contest and gun the Spit pilot down and this was with the Spit starting with a higher ˜E' state. You can turn fight in an FW, you just have to be skilled at it.

Just remember, no matter what plane your flying, your fighting the pilot not the machine.

Ratsack
05-14-2007, 07:52 AM
Originally posted by Codex1971:
...

Now, I know this is going against a "popular" view of the FW, but an FW flown properly can defeat an angles fighter like a Spit or Yak; I have seen first hand a squad mate in a D-9 force a Spit to overshoot in a scissors contest and gun the Spit pilot down and this was with the Spit starting with a higher ˜E' state. You can turn fight in an FW, you just have to be skilled at it.

Just remember, no matter what plane your flying, your fighting the pilot not the machine.

Very true. You can dogfight in the Fw 190, even the A series. But you have to know what you're doing, and you have to be able recognize early when the other guy is getting upper hand, and take action immediately. If you let your pride or aggression get the better of you when you should really be leaving, the (insert-name-of-turn-fighter-here) will eat you. Extend, regain the advantage, then come back and kill him. The Fw 190 A does that last bit really well: 4 x 20 mm cannon. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

cheers,
Ratsack

Xiolablu3
05-14-2007, 11:49 AM
Yres, you really need to work out how to use the roll rate to your advatage, scissors is one of hte manouvres, however its a bit of a risky manouvre compared to B&Z, and should only really be used as a last resort IMO. You are a very easy target as you scissor back and forth across his gunsight, and you are very much in Lady Lucks hands.

If I have an enemy stuck to my tail, especially a slow diver like a Spitfire, I will much rather go into a hard dive towards my own lines. You can bet that friendlies are incoming to the battle and will be glad of a drag and bag.

I recommend getting on Teamspeak and onto a good server with freindly regulars such as UKded2 (I know there are others, but I fly mostly here and know that its a very freindly environment). Yes externals are on, but this is great for learning as you can see exactly what is happening in the fight, also it bring s a lot of action, meaning hte learning comes thick and fast.

Even if htere is not a FW190 on the current map, then you can pick a simlar plane like the Tempest,P47 or P51 and carry on the learning as a lot of the tactics apply to all these planes.

I am going to reinstall the game soon, if I see you on UKded2 (my favourite relaxing/fun server) I will try and give you some tips http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

faustnik
05-14-2007, 11:59 AM
J=In a DF server, just concentrate on keeping you speed as high as possible. Don't try to DF, don't press for the kill. It's not that hard, keep it simple. If you are stalling out in a DF, you're trying too hard.

If you get into more realistic situations, SE missions, online wars, COOPs, you might have to stay and fight, but, for practice, just stay fast.

M_Gunz
05-14-2007, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by Panzerknacker02:
What exactly is up with the nasty tendency for the sim's FW190 to roll port and go into a spin during tight turns anyway? I've read pretty-much every single personal history written by an FW190 pilot and have never heard of anything like this- the aircraft is always described as being quite agile and very easy and pleasant to fly. And why is it that even if I turn stalls and spins off it still happens?

Torque effect in that plane while moving slow had killed rookies down low.
It was also used in an escape tactic getting a P-38 safe from 4 FW's, he got them following
on a tight climbing spiral and watched as each in turn stalled and rolled over.

It's got that much torque per mass and when I say slow, what is clean power off stall compared
to how fast you go when that happens? Add the torque to how close you fly to stall, slam the
gas on and go for the fast spin up and yes, that killed rookie FW pilots shoved into war.

VW-IceFire
05-14-2007, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by Panzerknacker02:
That's really interesting- like I wrote, I can't recall having read of this rather serious problem in any of the histories. Guess I'll have to go back and look at them again. Doesn't make the FW190 a ton of fun to fly that's for sure...
There were three things I learned about the FW190 when I was a kid.

1) Heavy firepower

2) Very fast

3) Nasty stall

Every book I look in seems to mention the planes somewhat significant and serious stall which could kill pilots that were not aware of it. Its actually a design consideration as far as I can see...because the instability and stall behavior is related to the roll rate (as its been explained to me).

Xiolablu3
05-14-2007, 05:56 PM
Its also a result of high wingloading, I believe.

BfHeFwMe
05-14-2007, 06:23 PM
Don't worry, your in Kurts Tank, it'll take three Mustangs worth of ammo to put a dent in you.

If things still go wrong, have the fastest Spitfires banned from the server.

VMF-214_HaVoK
05-14-2007, 07:25 PM
Doesn't make the FW190 a ton of fun to fly that's for sure...

Sorry man, but your flying it all wrong then. The FW-190 is an absolute joy to fly and among my favorite aircraft.

Xiolablu3
05-14-2007, 07:29 PM
Force Feedback makes a BIIG difference to spinning out in planes.

You can 'feel' the plane and can tell when you are pushing her too hard in a turn.

Even my old £4.99 MS Force Feedback Pro Gameport is a big help.

A company needs to start making sticks similar to the MS FF sticks, and soon.

I would never want to give up Force Feedback now that I have used it, even if I had an X52, I would still use my old FF PRo.

VW-IceFire
05-14-2007, 08:30 PM
With the 190 you have to develop a sort of tough love feeling with flying the plane. If you treat it wrong then it will respond back 10X over. Once you figure out what you're supposed to do with it then the rewards are pretty significant. Its really a great plane...its small and hard to hit, better armed than its contemporaries in most years, roll rate is second to none so you can quickly change vectors, and finally its quite sturdy given its small size.

If you want to fly it...spend some serious time flying it.

BaldieJr
05-14-2007, 08:35 PM
Which keys control the height of my wings load?

mynameisroland
05-15-2007, 04:58 AM
Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Don't worry, your in Kurts Tank, it'll take three Mustangs worth of ammo to put a dent in you.

If things still go wrong, have the fastest Spitfires banned from the server.

Thats why god invented this baby -

To put Fw 190s out of their misery http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Panzerknacker02
05-15-2007, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:Every book I look in seems to mention the planes somewhat significant and serious stall which could kill pilots that were not aware of it. Its actually a design consideration as far as I can see...because the instability and stall behavior is related to the roll rate (as its been explained to me).

Weird- I have gone back and re-read a bunch of books- Alarm im Westen by Willi Heilmann, JG26 Top Guns of the Luftwaffe (worst book title ever- ha), Eagle's Wings by Hajo Herrmann- and not one mentions any kind of nasty stall issues with the FW190; Heilmann actually praises the FW190 for its high maneuverability and even describes a couple of tight-turning battles without mentioning any inherent stall issues. Not that I doubt it's the case- not if everyone but me's heard of it (ha). Perhaps it's that personal histories are usually written by successful pilots and since they're masters of their machines, the inherent characteristics aren't real issues to them, as is the case with the Bf109s touted hazardous takeoff and landing characteristics that everyone mentions- the great 109 pilots hardly if ever say anything about them...

faustnik
05-15-2007, 10:57 AM
JG26 had the most experienced Fw190 pilots in the LW. Experieced Fw190 pilots could detect the stall warning.

HuninMunin
05-15-2007, 11:04 AM
I agree; a master of his plane would now the stall warnings like the back of his hands.

They even used it to shake an enemy ( provoke a spin and stop it after the aircraft has flipped over and split-s afterwards).
Works ingame aswell http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

Panzerknacker02
05-15-2007, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Doesn't make the FW190 a ton of fun to fly that's for sure...

Sorry man, but your flying it all wrong then. The FW-190 is an absolute joy to fly and among my favorite aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ha- well you're welcome to your opinion, but it doesn't make mine any less valid. That there are additional devices such as force-feedback controllers, rudder pedals, etc. that allow one to more realistically fly this plane and thus learn to address its 'negative' characteristics is great, but given that this is still a game, not being able to turn of or even down the major negatives such that an occasional player with a regular joystick has trouble enjoying it isn't the best situation. Like the really fragile nature of the JUMO004 and its tendency to catch fire if the throttles aren't advanced slowly- historically-accurate, yes? Would I like to be able to turn it off sometimes? Absolutely.

Xiolablu3
05-15-2007, 11:20 AM
Its justa case of practise mate,

You willget better in the FW190 over time and will love her by the end.

Panzerknacker02
05-15-2007, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
JG26 had the most experienced Fw190 pilots in the LW. Experieced Fw190 pilots could detect the stall warning.

Which explains why I've never read of it- only if it was a significant factor in an event being described would I expect it to be mentioned, and that'd probably be very rare for an experienced pilot.

I don't go much for general texts because they usually just repeat the same basic information- although in this case, none of those I have mentions the stall- but prefer personal histories because they give sometimes very interesting unexpected details. Guess that didn't really work here (ha). And not having read much of anything from the other side, the apparently significant loss of 'Nachwuchs' to this issue isn't something I've ever heard of.

I guess what I really need is some proper rudder controls- as it is I just have the keyboard and that's not the best method for applying fine control, so I generally don't use it much at all.

Panzerknacker02
05-15-2007, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Its justa case of practise mate,

You willget better in the FW190 over time and will love her by the end.

I've been playing combat flight sims since Mig Alley Ace on the old Commodore 64, but Il2 is the first time I've played anything with this much accuracy with respect to flight characteristics, so indeed it's something I have to get used to. I do well with most of the other birds, but the FW190 is just one whose number I haven't got yet http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

M_Gunz
05-15-2007, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by Panzerknacker02:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:Every book I look in seems to mention the planes somewhat significant and serious stall which could kill pilots that were not aware of it. Its actually a design consideration as far as I can see...because the instability and stall behavior is related to the roll rate (as its been explained to me).

Weird- I have gone back and re-read a bunch of books- Alarm im Westen by Willi Heilmann, JG26 Top Guns of the Luftwaffe (worst book title ever- ha), Eagle's Wings by Hajo Herrmann- and not one mentions any kind of nasty stall issues with the FW190; Heilmann actually praises the FW190 for its high maneuverability and even describes a couple of tight-turning battles without mentioning any inherent stall issues. Not that I doubt it's the case- not if everyone but me's heard of it (ha). Perhaps it's that personal histories are usually written by successful pilots and since they're masters of their machines, the inherent characteristics aren't real issues to them, as is the case with the Bf109s touted hazardous takeoff and landing characteristics that everyone mentions- the great 109 pilots hardly if ever say anything about them... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are books that mention it however it happens under circumstances that no trained FW pilot
would want to get into and knows how the plane will react when slow and at or changing to high
power and torque and propwash changes. If you don't know then you will be trying to understand
when you should have been making some change. At least you get to practice recovery now if you
have the altitude.

Really the writing is in pilotese or translated from that and does assume knowing a lot.
Without relevant knowledge we don't know the values of the words compared to a PC stick that
without FFB is by hardware limits not telling you what a real one would. So you will have
different response in sim to your book at times. Most people complain about the speed bleed
then (it can't be them that's the problem!). Even with FFB the stick is short, it's not going
to control so fine. So will he be ready and less surprised when even before the plane starts
to change attitude he has felt change in the stick and his seat both? And you who do not have
those is behind the mark even knowing how the torque will be.

Books... fun to read but;
Is the interpretation of the reader proven by the words it is taken from? Often not.

M_Gunz
05-15-2007, 12:10 PM
EAW has a lesser FM and some 80's-hokey spins but I found out then that by playing with the
stalls and spins enabled that I learned to keep whatever plane I stayed with almost always
inside the envelope. I'd spin maybe once in hours and only when I pushed it while fixated
on the kill instead of the flying.

Learn the limits of your plane and stay inside em then the plane is a good plane.
If it's got no safe limits then it's a bad plane.
If you don't know the plane then it could be 'bad' anyway.

Xiolablu3
05-15-2007, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by Panzerknacker02:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Its justa case of practise mate,

You willget better in the FW190 over time and will love her by the end.

I've been playing combat flight sims since Mig Alley Ace on the old Commodore 64, but Il2 is the first time I've played anything with this much accuracy with respect to flight characteristics, so indeed it's something I have to get used to. I do well with most of the other birds, but the FW190 is just one whose number I haven't got yet http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What you should do is get online tonight or as soon as possible.

Get onto a freindly server with relaxed setting such as UKdedicated 2 (Or even UKdedicated1 if you want, but this one has no cockpit allowed and very easy settings on). ANd CHAT to people on the server, ask questions, bar the odd idiot mot people on these servers will help you out with any questions.

Follow a teamate with a good score and protect him. You will learn by watching him, and he will be glad of the cover.

Make sure you make your chat bar bigger so you can see messages etc form the server and talk to players. OPen chat and drag the corner of the box bigger with your mouse. Make it 6 lines.

Online play is 10 times the fun of offline, the battles and planesets on some of hte servers are fantastic.

If you have a mic you could also set up teamspeak. Even just listening will help you leanr much quicker.

Download Hyperlobby from www.hyperfighter.sk, (http://www.hyperfighter.sk,) pick UKdedicated1 if you want very easy settings or UKded2 if you want quite relaxed with externals but no icons and cockpit always on and never look back http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

There are other good fun servers for pure dogfighting like 334th server, however these have extremely easy settings, no Historical Missions and no Ground targets.

Most other good servers use much harder settings such as Winds OF War, UKdedictaed3, Warclouds, Historia etc. I recommend Ukded1 or 2 as the best place for a new player to start, partly because of the settings, and partly because of the very friendly admins and regulars.

JG14_Josf
05-15-2007, 01:38 PM
Since February the pilots of I and II Gruppen [JG 54 1943] had been rotating back to the homeland in small batches for conversion on to the Fw190A. The ˜Forke', or ˜Pitchfork', as we christened it, was a much more robust bruiser of a fighter than the Me 109G. It was powered by a 1,700 hp BMW radial engine and...
The Fw 190's performance and flying characteristics were equally impressive. In a dive it could exceed 700 km/h. It was highly responsive around all axis, could be reefed into a tight turn, and gave its pilot ample warning of a stall by sharp, jerky aileron movements. If these were ignored, the machine would automatically go into a flick half roll, losing height and turning through 180 degree in less time than it takes to describe here. This manoeuvre was virtually impossible for another pilot to follow. If you were in a dogfight, and had sufficient altitude, it was a sure way of getting an opponent off your tail. This 'built-in' escape tactic was the saving of many Forke pilot who found himself in extremis.
This conversion course took place at Heilingenbeil airfield in East Prussia, where the new fighters were delivered direct from a nearby factory. The Geschwader kept a rear party based at the field, who were responsible for conducting the conversion training.


Within seconds I had four, then eight, and finally twelve Mustangs sitting on my tail. But while I was flying close above the stream they were unable to open fire on me for fear of hitting their own bombers. This dubious sanctuary did not last long. The high combined closing speed which had protected us during our frontal assault on the bombers now worked against me and I soon found myself hurtling past the last squadron in the formation and out into clear sky beyond.
I immediately began to yo-yo, turning steeply, diving and climbing, climbing and diving. My pursuers didn't seem to know what to make of my Russian front aerobatics. They clung on grimly behind me, but couldn't hold me in their sights long enough to get in an effective burst. I spied a welcome bank of cumulus ahead of me and slightly below. After three more complete circles I was directly above one of the larger clouds. I yanked the stick to the left back into my belly and trod hard on full right rudder. My machine spun down into the cloud.
In my temporary haven I let go of the controls. The trusty Forke at once righted itself and I shot out from he bottom of the cloud into sunlight again. Where were the Mustangs? I looked up and saw them circling the cloud-top above me. I put my nose down and got out of there fast.

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/41RMJE8Y35L._AA240_.jpg

The myth that the Fw190 was a hit and run plane (B&Z) and not an effective energy fighter is a falsehood supported by games and game zealots that can't simulate aerodynamics accurately and ignore history.

Of course this fact will generate the usual insults aimed at anyone pointing out this fact.

If anyone actually wants to know the facts they can. There is not a shortage of accurate information proving the facts.

http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/FW190Stall.gif

VSAERO (http://www.am-inc.com/VSAERO.shtml)


A comparison of the local wing lift coefficients, calculated by VSAERO, at stall with the estimated stalling lift coefficients of the airfoils two-dimensionally (Fig. 12) shows that at higher loading conditions (i.e., when pulling more gs) elastic deformation of the Fw190 outer wing shifts the load distribution outboard. This would cause even more of the wing to reach its stalling lift coefficient simultaneously.

The study by David Lednicer is not currently showing up on the net.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1157217519_fw190a.jpg

It may show up again. You may find it to be instructive too.

Fw 190 combat evaluation (http://www.pbase.com/chrisdnt/eric_browns_190_report)

That is also a good read.

You can also ignore reality and believe in the myth.

Xiolablu3
05-15-2007, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
The myth that the Fw190 was a hit and run plane (B&Z) and not an effective energy fighter is a falsehood supported by games and game zealots that can't simulate aerodynamics accurately and ignore history.


WTF? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I think you will find that all of my Spitfire Vb victims will very much agree that the FW190A4 in the game is an EXCELLENT energy fighter. Are you talking about a different game to IL2?


Panzer - the FW190 IS very manouvrable, but manouvrable in Fighter planes speak is not necesarily turning circle. The FW190 for example had quite a poor turn rate compared to other planes such as the Bf109, Zero or Spitfire.

It did however have incredibly good controls even at high speeds where other planes were locking up, meaning it stayed manvrable right throughout the speed range. It also had a phenominal rate of roll.

When it is reported that the FW190 was extremely manouvrable, it is in different areas to where the Bf109 or SPitfire are manouvrable.

Bremspropeller
05-15-2007, 05:17 PM
FW190 for example had quite a poor turn rate compared to other planes such as the Bf109, Zero or Spitfire.


Yes and no.

It's all a question of speed. At corner-speed, neither Spitfire, nor P-51 could out-turn the 190 (out of Crumpp's documents posted at CWOS).

The 190 was designed to fly fast. Therefore it doesn't move it's a$$ around below 400 kph.
Above 450, life starts to be fun.

Codex1971
05-15-2007, 05:49 PM
I think what he is trying to say is the FW's stall characteristics are over modeled in IL-2 compared to what has been reported by many FW pilots and other commentaries.

Edit: Reading from Xiolablu3 reply

JG14_Josf
05-15-2007, 07:29 PM
I think you will find that all of my Spitfire Vb victims will very much agree that the FW190A4 in the game is an EXCELLENT energy fighter.


X3,

Again-you can prove how well you can maneuever against a Spitfire as I fly it and record your lessons in energy fighting. You refused to teach me so far - so - are you a blow hard or what?

Keep on spreading your lies and falsehoods. Your dupes will continue to listen and join in on the endeavor. What is the purpose? Do you mind my asking?

Hit and run tactics can be employed by any plane against any other plane. Energy tactics can also be used from a higher energy state to energy parity when the employer of energy tactics is using a less capable energy fighter (less excess power).

I'm anxious for you to offer your track file of your version of energy fighting. When?

You can send your track file here:

josf.kelley@verizon.net

I'm not worried about the spam - at all.

BfHeFwMe
05-15-2007, 07:48 PM
Hit and run isn't a luxury one has when fighting a defensive war, so it is game land cipher after all. You'd be going up in run90's at the time and place of the allied bomber streams and escorts choosing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Either that, or the fat man himself would have you shot. http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif

M_Gunz
05-15-2007, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">FW190 for example had quite a poor turn rate compared to other planes such as the Bf109, Zero or Spitfire.


Yes and no.

It's all a question of speed. At corner-speed, neither Spitfire, nor P-51 could out-turn the 190 (out of Crumpp's documents posted at CWOS).

The 190 was designed to fly fast. Therefore it doesn't move it's a$$ around below 400 kph.
Above 450, life starts to be fun. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When they don't have the same corner speed or anywhere near the same, that does leave a gap
in performances doesn't it?

Davinci..
05-15-2007, 09:14 PM
Sorry Josf, a spit vb is simply not a threat to a a4, I used to think they were, till I ran a ton of tests(some of which were for you). A4 is much faster, dives better, zoom climbs better(barely), accelerates faster, retains way more e, and loses less speed in a turn(at 400km/h). It is simply an all around vastly superior aircraft.

Now do I think there is a little something wrong with the say a spit can zoomclimb?(spitvb vs a4 matchup). Absolutely, now weather or not that is because the 190 dosnt zoom climb well enough, or the spit dost it too well, or some combination of the 2, I dont know..

I cant tell you for sure the a4 has all the makings of the significantly superior energy fighter when compared to the spitv, and if you are having any problems fighting them, then you might be doing something wrong. A spit v is not a threat to an a4, its a speedbump at best.
All of my flying since 4.08 has been on the winds of war server.

Number of time I have shot down a spitvb/vc when flying the 190 a4 46. Number of times a spitvb/vc has shot me down in a 190 a4. 3.

One caught me while landing while I was already damaged, one got me while I was trying to save a team mate(from another spit). and the other i dont remember.

46 to 3...

You cant get much clearer then that... a spit vb is no match for a 190 a4.

Bremspropeller
05-16-2007, 02:30 AM
When they don't have the same corner speed or anywhere near the same, that does leave a gap
in performances doesn't it?

Corner speed = speed with the highest possible turn-rate.

You have to compare each plane's turn-rate at given speed, not the maximum possible value at different speeds for different a/c.

JG14_Josf
05-16-2007, 09:47 AM
You cant get much clearer then that... a spit vb is no match for a 190 a4.

Davinci..,

Do me a huge favor. Take some time out of you busy schedule (everyone is busy) and let's record some track files. If you can shoot me down once while I fly the Spitfire, then, I will have made a mistake that can be obviously recognized as a mistake on the track file. I am confident that you will not shoot me down. Not once.

I have one example of a track file (I'm not crusading here) that is sufficient for me to make my claim above. It was recorded a few months ago (with the current patch) on Spits and 109s server.

I can hit and run any group of Spitfires in the 190 – all day. I did. From 2000 meters higher I can make one pass. The Spitfire evades well (good pilot), scissors, and goes for the shot while I zoom up (I had 2,000 meter extra altitude and my pass was made while my plane was shaking = very fast). My target was turning 2,000 feet below me when I made my pass.

I make the first pass, over the top, the Spitfire is spraying (they know that this is a high percentage opportunity since the Fw190 must always attack at a very high speed to get away with this and many probably don't get away with this because they don't attack with sufficient extra energy = more that 2000 meters and more than plane shaking during the first pass). The Spitfire misses me. I drop in for a second pass and the Spitfire evades again (good pilot = didn't hang onto his prop too long). I must now run from the Spitfire.

I take the Spitfire in tow for two sectors (approximately). Now I have sufficient extra range and speed to go over the top and make a head-on attack (no guns for me = I merely want to spoil his lead turn so I must reduce lateral separation and pass the tow plane as close as possible without getting shot). Now I can look for another target with the Spitfire tow plane following. I won't be able to turn with my new target unless the Spitfire tow plane is bored enough to do something other than follow me around the map.

So...if you want to record some track files and remove any misunderstandings involved with the use of English, then, let's do it. You won't shoot me down while I fly the Spitfire unless I make a huge mistake. I can stay above you at all times. If you try too hard to make your hit and run passes, then, you will be shot down.

The track files will play out as one plane using hit and run tactics and the other plane using angles or energy tactics. I prefer energy tactics but with the Spitfire there is no need to be so patient.

How about it?

I am currently flying with a bunch of good people (they can even find reason to respect me as a person for some reason) almost every night. If you show up on a day that isn't a Forgotten Skies official mission, then, we can run a Spitfire versus 190 track file generating challenge. Track files remove all the silly talk. If there is any contention concerning what one person's track file shows, then, we can compare both track files from both of our perspectives.

How about it?

M_Gunz
05-16-2007, 09:56 AM
Unless one is approaching or leaving at higher speed than the other.

A very high speed boomer will be beyond his corner and make a wider 6 G arc than at corner
until he slows down to corner speed, figure 400 kph or so for fast fighters mid-war on.

If the one he approaches is 400 kph and corners at 360 and he is 650 kph and corners at 400
then who is going to turn tighter? Turning G's makes an arc that is wider with more speed.
And once you can not maintain corner speed then what?

faustnik
05-16-2007, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
Don't worry, your in Kurts Tank, it'll take three Mustangs worth of ammo to put a dent in you.

Only if the Mustang pilots can't shoot. .50 cals are very strong in 4.08. My last P-51B mission resulted in three human Fw190 kills, my wingee got a couple more. It's not that hard. I know of one online pilot that gets 6-7 kills with .50 armed planes every mission against LW planes.


Hit and run isn't a luxury one has when fighting a defensive war, so it is game land cipher after all. You'd be going up in run90's at the time and place of the allied bomber streams and escorts choosing.

This is a great point! Fw190s can run a DF server, but, when you get into more specific situations the Fw190's weaknesses really show. Some missions don't allow you the time to make long extensions. In this type of tight situation, the Spitfires are the greatest.

Manu-6S
05-16-2007, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Only if the Mustang pilots can't shoot. .50 cals are very strong in 4.08. My last P-51B mission resulted in three human Fw190 kills, my wingee got a couple more. It's not that hard. I know of one online pilot that gets 6-7 kills with .50 armed planes every mission against LW planes.


Above all with our bf109's DM... one burst means bf dewinged or flamed.


Originally posted by faustnik:
This is a great point! Fw190s can run a DF server, but, when you get into more specific situations the Fw190's weaknesses really show. Some missions don't allow you the time to make long extensions. In this type of tight situation, the Spitfires are the greatest.

Some week ago I and my mates were on spitvs109... latewar map with spit9e, p47D and P51D against G6AS and FW190A8.

We, flying 4 A8, kept 15 minutes to down Fenrir in his Spit9e at 5500m. He is a good pilot and was alone.

If there was one Spit more I guess we should extend...

Ratsack
05-16-2007, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
... Some missions don't allow you the time to make long extensions. In this type of tight situation, the Spitfires are the greatest.

I think Johnnie Johnson said almost exactly that in one of his books.

cheers,
Ratsack

Davinci..
05-16-2007, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You cant get much clearer then that... a spit vb is no match for a 190 a4.

Davinci..,

Do me a huge favor. Take some time out of you busy schedule (everyone is busy) and let's record some track files. If you can shoot me down once while I fly the Spitfire, then, I will have made a mistake that can be obviously recognized as a mistake on the track file. I am confident that you will not shoot me down. Not once.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is a huge problem with that...

I could say the exact same thing about the a4..
You could say/do the same thing in the 190, im sure you are just as confident, that no spitfire could shoot you down "not once", in a 190, if thats what your goal was(as it is for your proposed test for the spit).

What on earth does that prove?

So if i make the same challenge to you, to try and shoot my a4 down in a spitvb, and you cant.. what dose that say?

You say if you get shot down its because you made a mistake. Isnt that also true for a 190 vs a spitvb? that if a 190 gets shot down its because it made a mistake.

You are testing who makes a mistake, not relative aircraft performance(which the a4 is clearly better).

Your test has no value.

WOLFMondo
05-16-2007, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:

This is a great point! Fw190s can run a DF server, but, when you get into more specific situations the Fw190's weaknesses really show. Some missions don't allow you the time to make long extensions. In this type of tight situation, the Spitfires are the greatest.

In those situations I'd expect to have a wing man and in a drag and bag scenario the 190 is always the winner against Spitfires, at least in my experiance.

faustnik
05-16-2007, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:

This is a great point! Fw190s can run a DF server, but, when you get into more specific situations the Fw190's weaknesses really show. Some missions don't allow you the time to make long extensions. In this type of tight situation, the Spitfires are the greatest.

In those situations I'd expect to have a wing man and in a drag and bag scenario the 190 is always the winner against Spitfires, at least in my experiance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In a point defense or close escort situation, if you extend in a drag, the area you are protecting might get hosed. The Spit can defend the zone using its great turn and acceleration. That's why I think the Spit are so good in some specific situations.

I know what you are saying though, for D&B, the Fw190 is #1.

Ratsack
05-16-2007, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by Davinci..:
....

You are testing who makes a mistake, not relative aircraft performance(which the a4 is clearly better).

Your test has no value.

You said it. It bears repeating, too:




Your test has no value.

But I have to tell you, you're wasting your breath. Josf 'believes' that the best way to test these things is with on-line comparative tests. Belief is a fine thing.


If you feel like doing some testing, I'd be interested to see the actual corner speed values for these planes.

cheers,
Ratsack

JG14_Josf
05-16-2007, 01:32 PM
What on earth does that prove?

Davinci,

You didn't take up the challenge. That is fine. I can understand this fact. You see no value in it. I, on the other hand, can see you demonstrating what you say to be true concerning the game and how the game works.

Just in case someone reading this is inclined to believe that your version of my viewpoint is my viewpoint instead of me knowing what my viewpoint actually is; the following bears repeating:


Climb
The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably stepper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the Fw 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000 feet [7,620 m]. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled into a climb from a dive, the Fw 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.

Above is what actually happened in history when an Fw190 was flown in the same place, at the same time, to evaluate relative performance capabilities.

What follows is a description of how those performance capabilities can be used in fighter combat.


It was concluded that the Fw190 trying to "mix it" with a Spitfire in the classic fashion of steep turning was doomed, for at any speed - even below the German fighter's stalling speed - it would be out- turned by its British opponent. Of course, the Luftwaffe was aware of this fact and a somewhat odd style of dogfighting evolved in which the Fw 190 pilots endeavored to keep on the vertical plane by zooms and dives, while their Spitfire-mounted antagonists tried everything in the book to draw them on to the horizontal. If the German pilot lost his head and failed to resist the temptation to try a horizontal pursuit curve on the Spitfire, as likely as not, before he could recover the speed lost in a steep turn he would find another Spitfire turning inside him! On the other hand, the German pilot who kept zooming up and down was usually the recipient of only difficult deflection shots of more than 30 deg. The Fw 190 had tremendous initial acceleration in a dive but it was extremely vulnerable during a pull-out, recovery having to be quite progressive with care not to kill the speed by "Sinking"

Source material (http://www.pbase.com/chrisdnt/eric_browns_190_report)

No need to prove anything to me. If you feel as if your words are sufficient to prove something to me, then, so be it.
I'm willing to prove what I know to be true with a demonstration.

A session between the game's Spitfire VB (1941) and the Fw 190A-4 will be nothing like the historical record above in either case (side by side performance evaluation or combat tactics).

One plane will employ hit and run. The other plane will employ a combination of energy and angles tactics.

What actually occurred in history cannot be demonstrated today so there is a general lack of understanding concerning what the words say.

Example:

The words say:


Climb
The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights.

Someone might read that and assume that the words say:

The climb of the Spitfire VB is superior to that of the Fw 190 at all heights.

I'm not saying someone does read into the words that particular interpretation. The Spitfire VB (1941) in the game is certainly not the same thing as a Spitfire VB (June 1942 the actual Spitfire tested). The Fw190A-4 is certainly not the same thing as the Fw 190A-3 (de-rated and running rough on the wrong gas with fouled spark plugs which is the actual Fw used in the real tests).

Someone might have a different interpretation of the following:


Of course, the Luftwaffe was aware of this fact and a somewhat odd style of dogfighting evolved in which the Fw 190 pilots endeavored to keep on the vertical plane by zooms and dives, while their Spitfire-mounted antagonists tried everything in the book to draw them on to the horizontal

Someone might read that above and conclude the following:

Of course the Blue players were aware of this fact and a somewhat odd style of dogfighting evolved in which the Fw 190 pilots endeavored to attack from higher and faster positions and leave the fight before doing any turning that places all the advantages into the hands of the Spitfires while their Spitfire-mounted antagonists tried everything in the book to draw them into returning before the map runs out of time.

I'm not saying that anyone actually interprets the historical record in that manner; however – the game does speak for itself.
If you see no value in it, then, you don't.


Sorry Josf, a spit vb is simply not a threat to a a4, I used to think they were, till I ran a ton of tests(some of which were for you). A4 is much faster, dives better, zoom climbs better(barely), accelerates faster, retains way more e, and loses less speed in a turn(at 400km/h). It is simply an all around vastly superior aircraft.

What is for me?

Please explain and remove all my confusion concerning what you tested for me?

How did you manage to quantify ˜zoom climbs better (barely), ˜accelerates faster' (at what speeds), "retains way more e", "and loses less speed in a turn (at 400 km/h)?

If you expect me to take your word on the above despite my own experience, then, you expect too much. I would have to lie to myself in order to replace my own documented (on track files) experience with your experience.

If you don't want to show me how the Fw190A-4 ˜zoom climbs better (barely), ˜accelerates faster', "retains way more e", "and loses less speed in a turn (at 400 km/h)" during an on-line session because that would prove nothing, then, don't.

The offer remains open to anyone.

Davinci..
05-16-2007, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:

Please explain and remove all my confusion concerning what you tested for me?

How did you manage to quantify ˜zoom climbs better (barely), ˜accelerates faster' (at what speeds), "retains way more e", "and loses less speed in a turn (at 400 km/h)?

If you expect me to take your word on the above despite my own experience, then, you expect too much. I would have to lie to myself in order to replace my own documented (on track files) experience with your experience.

The offer remains open to anyone.

Are you out of your flippin mind???

Do you not remember our pms a few months ago(march), in which i did a lot of testing for you, and showed you the results?? i still have the pms.. if you have suddenly forgotten?? and need to be refreshed.

At that time you said yourself you hadnt even tested spitvb vs a4 in the currents version only the previous version of the game.

And I quote "I have nothing to say about the current version of the game and how well the Spitfire VB matches up to the Fw190A-4 due to having no experience on-line with those two planes as they are modeled with the current patch."

Have you even tested the current version of the game yet??? or are you still using previous versions results?? these "documented" tracks of your from old verison of the game? or current?

In the current version of the game.

The 190 a4, Is much faster, accelerates Significantly better, zoom climbs better, dives better, loses less speed in a turn(i never pmed you the results of that test) and holds enery in a striaght line substantialy better then the spitvb.
Im not asking you.. im telling you.

I have tracks, as well as the pms i sent you(and you replied to) and have no problem supplying either to you, if you need to be reminded.

but i have a funny feeling you will suddenly remember.

JG14_Josf
05-16-2007, 03:27 PM
Are you out of your flippin mind???

Why does a lack of accurate communication turn into you questioning my sanity? Can you see how I ask a reasonable question and your question is an attack upon me personally?

Why jump to the conclusion that I am worthy of your personal attacks?


Do you not remember our pms a few months ago(march), in which i did a lot of testing for you, and showed you the results?? i still have the pms.. if you have suddenly forgotten?? and need to be refreshed.

I did not remember because you begged off the challenge of showing me what you mean during an on-line session then as you do now. Do you not understand how I can forget about someone who refuses to back up their claims with a demonstration? How many people SAY this and SAY that on this forum? I do not remember them well. I remember people who demonstrate well.


And I quote "I have nothing to say about the current version of the game and how well the Spitfire VB matches up to the Fw190A-4 due to having no experience on-line with those two planes as they are modeled with the current patch."

Have you even tested the current version of the game yet??? or are you still using previous versions results?? these "documented" tracks of your from old verison of the game? or current?

How many months ago was this exchange?

Did you read the following from me:


I have one example of a track file (I'm not crusading here) that is sufficient for me to make my claim above. It was recorded a few months ago (with the current patch) on Spits and 109s server.

Do you expect me to maintain a log book?

My log book in chronological order (not dated precisely):

New patch
PM exchange with Davinci..
Pneumonia/Pleurisy (1 week in hospital)
2 weeks at home from hospital
Deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism (2 weeks in hospital)
Recuperation for several months
Return to communication with Davinci...

As it happens I did, in fact, find the opportunity to test the Fw190A-4 versus the Spitfire VB (June 1941) [it may have been Spitfire Vc on that server during that track file] since my PM exchange with you – IN FACT.

I don't even have to check my log book.

I know my experience since talking to you includes tests done with squad friends where I've flown the Spitfire VB (1941) against 109G2. I am not on a crusade. My friends were working on training (JG53) so Hertt and I were offering ourselves as targets. The Spitfire is unbeatable against the 109 and certainly against the 190, or, I'm wrong. I'm willing to prove it one way or the other.

Am I crazy in the head still? Am I not worth the time and energy required to prove this matter one way or the other?

I get that part.


The 190 a4, Is much faster, accelerates Significantly better, zoom climbs better, dives better, loses less speed in a turn(i never pmed you the results of that test) and holds enery in a striaght line substantialy better then the spitvb.
Im not asking you.. im telling you.

I have tracks, as well as the pms i sent you(and you replied to) and have no problem supplying either to you, if you need to be reminded.

but i have a funny feeling you will suddenly remember.

Save your funny feelings. I have the PMs too. You sent me ONLY your stats and you sent me ONLY your opinions.

I was the last one to respond with this:


In my opinion:

The way to test vertical maneuvering performance is to have both planes lined up one behind the other at 2,000 meters altitude at time zero (spawn).

Both planes level off and get settled at the same speed and the same altitude.

Both planes roll inverted and dive straight down to a ground reference (I put a ship in the water).

Both planes pull out just over the Ship and both planes zoom straight up to see which plane stalls first.

I've done this test with my squad wingman and at first he didn't get the hang of it.

I was able to go higher in both planes.

After awhile he figured out how to maximize performance and we both topped out about the same over and over again – the Fw190 has a very slight advantage.

Note: If the test is started at a higher altitude where the Fw190 can accelerated to speeds above the Spitfires maximum dive speed, then, OF COURSE, the Fw190 will gain much more speed in the dive part, and the Fw190 will be ahead at the bottom of the dive during the pull-out, and the Fw190 will be faster at the start of the vertical zoom part; however – the turn at the bottom will be well above corner speed so the turn will be much wider for the Fw190.

When I did my tests as described above it was purposefully done to simulate any advantage in:

The Split S dive maneuver (something the Fw190 was famous for having a significant advantgage).

Initial acceleration in a vertical dive where no amount of induced drag will alter the pure race against parasite drag (no induced drag ˜lifting' the plane).

Extended acceleration in a vertical dive, again, no induced drag lifting the plane

"Pull out" from a dive (Zoom) = corner speed or high speed turn performance

Deceleration in a vertical zoom climb where, again, there is no deceleration caused by induced drag ˜lifting' the plane weight/mass.

Some test results

Those tests are drag races. Which plane can push more air mass in less time?

The higher mass plane will have the advantage.

The higher thrust plane will have the advantage

The smaller size (more dense) plane will have the advantage

The cleaner, less bumpy, plane will have the advantage.

The Fw190 has all the advantages in vertical maneuvering performance in reality and tactics proved this out.

The Spitfire was too light to follow.

The Spitfire was larger.

The Spitfire was bumpier.

The Spitfire was less massive.

The Spitfire was less dense.

The Spitfire was producing much less thrust (moving air opposite the velocity vector).

The Spitfire should be much less able to ˜penetrate' air mass going down.

The Spitfire should be much more decelerated going up.

Both planes should be well capable of producing sufficient lift force to accelerated the aircraft mass at 6 times the acceleration rate of gravity on the lift vector at the bottom of the dive, in the zoom turn, and up into the vertical zoom climb without stalling, sinking, or otherwise not producing 6 times the force of gravity.

If anything the Fw190 should have the advantage in high speed turn performance because it has more energy per unit of velocity to use in the compression of air mass at speeds when compressibility effect takes affect (above .3 Mach, 220 mph, and or 355 km/h).

The game has always done a poor job of modeling high speed drag force.

If you look at the web page I linked you may find that the cause of the problem is that the game models an Fw190 that is twice its actual size and therefore it is half as dense as it should be; which is probably the reason whey the game models the Fw190 with an incredible glide angle (like a sail plane).

The Fw190 dives like a big fast styrofoam glider and it slows down like one in the vertical line one too.

Light planes do not push air mass well; the opposite is true i.e. light planes get pushed around by air mass and that is why they have good slow speed turn performance when maintaining or gaining altitude during the turn.

The heavy, small, minimum wing-loaded, high thrust planes should have a very tight dive radius and very fast turn rate in a diving turn i.e. a slow corner velocity.

The bank angle should be steep, the dive angle should be steep, and the spiral radius should be tight and the turn rate fast. The lighter planes should not be able to keep up in a tight spiral dive due to too much wing i.e. they want to climb.

I'm rambling now.

If you are interested in testing, then, let's set something up.

You did not respond. I forgot about you after you didn't respond.
That is the end of that story. You can twist it around any way you want.

Since then I have adjusted my opinion concerning how the game simulates the Spitfire VB (1941) versus the Fw190A-4.

You can go on telling me whatever you SAY over and over again if you prefer.

I can repeat for anyone wanting to know what my perspective continues to be:


Climb
The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably stepper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the Fw 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000 feet [7,620 m]. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled into a climb from a dive, the Fw 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.

The game cannot simulate the above.

Because the game cannot simulate the above the game cannot simulate what is recorded next:


It was concluded that the Fw190 trying to "mix it" with a Spitfire in the classic fashion of steep turning was doomed, for at any speed - even below the German fighter's stalling speed - it would be out- turned by its British opponent. Of course, the Luftwaffe was aware of this fact and a somewhat odd style of dogfighting evolved in which the Fw 190 pilots endeavored to keep on the vertical plane by zooms and dives, while their Spitfire-mounted antagonists tried everything in the book to draw them on to the horizontal. If the German pilot lost his head and failed to resist the temptation to try a horizontal pursuit curve on the Spitfire, as likely as not, before he could recover the speed lost in a steep turn he would find another Spitfire turning inside him! On the other hand, the German pilot who kept zooming up and down was usually the recipient of only difficult deflection shots of more than 30 deg. The Fw 190 had tremendous initial acceleration in a dive but it was extremely vulnerable during a pull-out, recovery having to be quite progressive with care not to kill the speed by "Sinking"

I am confident that any attempt to reproduce the two historical examples above will fail miserably. I am confident enough to prove it one way or the other with anyone who thinks otherwise. I don't waste much time with the people who utilize this game for fun because they know what the game does as well as I do. On some occasions we conduct tests and the same thing is confirmed over and over again. The Fw190 is double inferior except for a higher top speed to the Spitfire VB (1941).

If you do not understand what I write, then, don't blame me. I offered to show you.

Davinci..
05-16-2007, 03:58 PM
Im curious Josf.. What conclusions did you draw from your testing. concerning
Acceleration, dive, zoom climb, and e-retention.

We cannot possibly be comming up with different answers to the same questions in the same game.

I offerd you "my" results(of tests, which you can have the tracks of if you want), you ignore them.. I offered you hard numbers as to how the spit and a4 do in game, and you say "apperences can be decieving" and "lets test pilots mistakes"..

What did you want me to continue talking to you about.

You know that the a4 we have in game is derated, i dont understand why you expect it to perform in the manner described above(with respect to real world flight tests vs spit).
That just dosnt make sense. We are using different planes then the ones mentioned in the tests. And i wholeheartedly agree with you that the spit does too well in the verticle(zooms and dives). But you cannot compare the planes we have in game to the ones in the test, because they are different..

You'll notice in the real world test, they focus on hard numbers. not which pilot made a mistake, to draw their conclusions from.

The a4 in game Accelerates much better, holds e much better, is much faster, zoomb climbs better, dives better. Can you show me number from your tests that contradict this? like i did for you?

Manu-6S
05-16-2007, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by Davinci..:
The a4 in game Accelerates much better , holds e much better, is much faster, zoomb climbs better, dives better. Can you show me number from your tests that contradict this? like i did for you?

Can you please post me the link to your numbers that demostrate these? Probably I miss them. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

JG14_Josf
05-16-2007, 05:53 PM
You know that the a4 we have in game is derated, i dont understand why you expect it to perform in the manner described above(with respect to real world flight tests vs spit).

Davinci..

My e-mail is josf.kelley@verizon.net send me your track files please.

I can't comment on what I do not know. If your experience is different from mine, then, what is the most effective way of eliminating all the variables?

Exchanging e-mails and track files?

There is more than one reason why side by side flight tests are conducted when the idea is to measure relative performance.

What I expect to see from your tests are facts. What do your facts mean? I don't know yet.

You wrote something worth commenting on (even though we have yet to test side by side tests) and there seems to be some confusion concerning de-rating.

A. If you have proof that the 190A-4 is modeled as a de-rated plane, then, please provide this proof.
B. De-rating is MERELY a screw put in place in the throttle gate.
C. The Faber Fw190A-3 was de-rated.
D. The only tests done with the Faber Fw190 according to the report at RATED power (obviously without the screw in place) were speed runs for no more than 2 minutes maximum.
E. Climb tests were performed at the De-rated throttle setting.
F. The engine system may not cause the plane to rev to an exact manifold pressure for each plane under every flight condition (Crumpp provides much of the data on this and too bad for Crumpp if he doesn't like his name mentioned).
G. To suggest that the real Fw190A-3 tests were skewed to be too HIGH compared to the Fw190A-4 in the game ONLY CONFIRMS THE INNACURACY OF THE GAME. The Fw190A-4 was an improvement over the 190A-3 and the 190A-3 in the tests ran rough on the wrong gas with fouled spark plugs according to the British.
H. To suggest that the Spitfire VB June 1942 used in the tests is skewed to be too LOW compared to the Spitfire VB 1941 is the game is, again, proving the inaccuracy of the game as if the British could have improved their relative performance if only they could have had one of Oleg's 1941 Spitfires.
I. De-rating suggests almost nothing by itself and regardless of the de-rating (the actual climb tests being performed at the de-rated maximum throttle setting i.e. the throttle moved to where the screw is in place) the Fw190A-3 climbed at a steeper angle than the 1942 Spitfire VB used in combat in June 1942.
How many more words can we exchange while we completely refuse to conduct side by side test of our own?


Im curious Josf.. What conclusions did you draw from your testing. concerning
Acceleration, dive, zoom climb, and e-retention.

My limited testing on the current patch is simple and the information gathered is conclusive.

A. Dive on Spitfire from 2,000 feet screaming past the target causing the target to break turn.
B. Pitch up after the pass watching the Spitfire (which was turning low and slower before my initial dive).
C. Watch the Spitfire perform a scissors after his break turn to climb up unto my six and start spraying and praying.
D. Maintain enough correction change to make his aim difficult as my energy runs out.
E. Dive in for another pass and judge the situation for relative energy states during a second extension after the second pass.
F. The Spitfire is turning much more than I am.
G. I came in from much higher and I passed the Spitfire much faster.
H. After my zoom climb and dive the RATE OF EXTENSION is slow.
I. The rate of range gain is too slow to afford another zoom climb.
J. The energy fight lasted one vertical climb after 2,000 meters excess energy.
K. The energy fight lasted one vertical climb after more than 100 km/h (much more) excess energy at the first pass.
L. The distance required to gain enough distance away from the Spitfire to allow a reversal into a head-on pass is approximately 2 grid squares.
M. Gaining range after the pass must be performed nose level or lose low as the Spitfire gains range if I pitch the nose up AT ALL.
N. The entire process of reversing (nose low, nose level , or nose high) removes all energy advantage leaving the next head-on merge at energy parity or an energy deficit.
O. The Spitfire, if allowed to, can lead turn into a killing shot because energy is equal.
P. Eliminating the lead turn option sets up another 2 sector chase.
Q. Perhaps 4 sectors of running (so long as the Spitfire doesn't climb) can re-set up another HIT after the RUN.
R. Climbing against the Spitfire is not an option.

The above is based upon one on-line session in Spits and 109s.

Below is based upon another on-line session with my friend Wotan.

A. One pass from 2,000 meters altitude affords me one shot.
B. Running away from Wotan is so boring I turn before 2 sectors
C. On the merge I go vertical to test relative zoom climb performance.
D. Before my speed even begins to slow down I must go defensive as the range between our planes is closing rapidly with him in the Spitfire getting ready to shoot.
E. That means that he turned more angles and lost less energy.
F. I maneuver nose to nose to remove lateral separation and increase the rate of angle change (giving him no shot and setting up another vertical merge with him going up and me going down).
G. I extend again.
H. I go 2 sectors again.
I. 2 sectors isn't enough since the previous zoom removes too much relative excess energy.
J. Turn again and again end up lower, slower, and requiring defensive maneuvering.
K. Talk to Wotan the whole time with him confirming how he has no trouble remaining completely offensive – no problem.
L. The only problem on his end (and on my end when I tested the Spitfire) is avoiding the first pass when the Fw190 has 2,000 meters more altitude and 100 km/h or more greater velocity.

If you are really curious, then, I'm curious as to why you won't take the challenge.

More words?


The a4 in game Accelerates much better, holds e much better, is much faster, zoomb climbs better, dives better. Can you show me number from your tests that contradict this? like i did for you?

You did something for me? If you conducted tests from speeds where the Spitfire is flying almost at its maximum level speed, then, OF COURSE, the Fw190 will accelerate faster. I did not go back and read our whole exchange. What is the point?

Do you think that your numbers will prove to me that I can't employ energy tactics for more than one (against a good opponent) or two passes?

I may have missed something important in your tests. Forgive my oversight – please.

Again – am I supposed to trust your numbers better than my own experience? If you think I can't fly, then, I can prove your theory.

What is the problem?

faustnik
05-16-2007, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
A. If you have proof that the 190A-4 is modeled as a de-rated plane, then, please provide this proof.

Well, the power is limited to 2400rpm on the auto setting in the sim. This, and also discussions with Oleg would indicate that we have a de-rated A4.

(Not saying that it is correct, only that it exists in this form in the sim.)

Siwarrior
05-17-2007, 02:22 AM
ok well heres my .000002
i think it matters less on how much power the plan has ( to a limited extent),
but how you fly the plane
and therefore im more interested in the handling abilities, which in the fw are only good 400km/h+

id rather take an a5/6 over and 8/9 because imo they handle better and are reasonably fast

cheers ( btw if you wanna flame me dont bother because idc) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JG14_Josf
05-17-2007, 01:28 PM
Well, the power is limited to 2400rpm on the auto setting in the sim. This, and also discussions with Oleg would indicate that we have a de-rated A4.

(Not saying that it is correct, only that it exists in this form in the sim.)

Faustnik,

I cannot comment on the discussion with Oleg since I have not read them (or if I did they have been forgotten).

De-rating was merely a screw placed in the throttle gate. The reasons for de-rating (and re-rating) are varied – according to the information available to me. De-rating was a screw – re-rating was removing the screw.

If the plane is modeled as a ˜de-rated' plane, then, the screw (simulated screw) in the throttle gate limits all the controls controlled by the throttle including the constant speed governed R.P.M and whatever else the throttle position controls (such as manifold pressure and spark advance – etc.).

What happens when the player of the simulated Fw190 switches to manual prop pitch?

What happens according to Oleg?

A. No more de-rating and therefore the 190A-4 in the game is now a Fighter Version of the Fw 190A-4 used by the Germans in WWII capable of the full R.P.M. and full Manifold pressure, spark advance, etc.?
B. The manual prop pitch feature in the game is merely a game balance adjustment to help fix the disparity between historical performance and game performance.
C. Something not yet known by me that may be included in the discussion involving Oleg.

There was no ˜manual' prop pitch control on the Fw190 in history, as far as I've been able to find so far, which acts like the game ˜manual' prop pitch where the switch disconnects the R.P.M governor from the throttle lever and allows the pilot to set the R.P.M governor independently from the throttle lever. The actual ˜manual' prop pitch, according to what I've found so far, for the Fw190, was similar to the manual prop pitch on the 109 where the pilot has direct control of the prop pitch angle and this real life feature was not used in combat and it did not improve performance (unless some pilots used it to help slow down quicker – perhaps – when trying to force an overshoot such as during a rolling scissors maneuver).

So; does the game offer a full fledged 190A-4 fighter version with the ˜manual' pitch option?

Do the game gauges for R.P.M and manifold pressure actually work accurately or are they just window dressing?

If the game offers a full fledged 190A-4 fighter version with the inaccurate ˜manual' pitch option, then, can that model be set to the ˜de-rated' throttle and r.p.m. setting to gain a higher angle of climb (at approximately the same climb speed) and out-climb (rate) the Spitfire VB (1942 or 1941 whichever the actual game Spitfire is)?

Did the real plane (re-rated) heat up as fast as the game plane when using the inaccurate ˜manual' prop pitch feature?

P.S. The problems with engine over-heating, according to the sources I have found so far, where fixed during the 190A-3 production run and refitted, as far as I remember, to the 190A-2 production run already in the field. By the time the 190A-4 production run was running the over-heating problems were fixed, therefore, that particular reason for placing the screw in the throttle gate (de-rating) was no longer a production problem – reason - apparently.

faustnik
05-17-2007, 01:40 PM
All good questions.

The problem with the manual pitch, as you point out, is the rapid overheat, and the inability to maintain consistant rpm.

I wonder if a climb test is possible with the Spit V somehow limited to +9 boost power and the A4 maintaining 2700 rpm? It might be tough to work out the details, but, it would be interesting.

JG14_Josf
05-17-2007, 03:04 PM
I wonder if a climb test is possible with the Spit V somehow limited to +9 boost power and the A4 maintaining 2700 rpm? It might be tough to work out the details, but, it would be interesting.

Faustnik,

I wonder that too; however - the actual climb tests for the 190A-3 were not conducted at 2700 rpm according to at least four references.

A.
"All flights (level speed) at maximum power were carried out for a duration of 2 minutes only"

B.
"Climb
The rate of climb up to 18,000 ft [5,488 m] under maximum continuous climbing conditions at 1.35 atmospheres boost 2,450 r.p.m, 165 m.p.h...."

Both of those I quote from my copy of FW190 in Combat by Alfred Price which refer to the AFDU comparisons.

C.
"The AFDU comparisons between the Focke-Wulf and the Spitfire IX - with the former BMW 801 at 2,700 rpm and 20-8 lb (1-42 atas) boost and the latter's Merlin 61 at 3,000 rpm and 15 lb (1-00 ata) - had revealed that the German fighter was 7-8 mph (11-13 km/h) faster than its British counter-part at 2,000 ft (610 m) but that the speeds of the two fighters were virtually the same at 5,000 ft (1 525 m). Above this altitude, the Spitfire began to display a marginal superiority, being about 8 mph (13 km/h) faster at 8,000 ft (2 440 m) and 5 mph (8 km/h) faster at 15,000 ft (4 570 m). The pendulum then swing once more in favour of the Focke-Wulf which proved itself some 3 mph (5 km/h) faster at 18,000 ft (5 485 m), the two fighters level pegging once more at 21,000 ft (6 485 m) and the Spitfire taking the lead until, at 25,000 ft (7 620 m) it showed a 5-7 mph (8-11 km/h) superiority.
In climbing, little difference was found between the Fw 190 and the Spitfire Mk IX up to 23,000 ft (7010 m), above which altitude the climb of the German fighter began to fall off and the difference between the two aircraft widened rapidly. From high-speed cruise, a pull up into a climb gave the Fw 190 an initial advantage owing to its superior acceleration and the superiority of the German fighter was even more noticeable when both aircraft were pulled up into a climb from a dive, the Fw 190 could leave the Spitfire Mk IX without difficulty and there was no gainsaying that in so far as manoeuvrabity was concerned, the German fighter was markedly superior of the two in all save the tight turn – the Spitfire could not follow in aileron turns and reversals at high speeds and the worst heights for its pilot to engage the Fw 190 in combat were between 18,000 ft and 22,000 ft (5 485 and 6 705 m), and at altitude below 3,000 ft (915 m). "

That is taken from Wings of the Luftwaffe by Eric Brown.
Those documents are now available on the net.

D.
"Fw 190 versus Spitfire IX
Climb
During comparative climbs at various heights up to 23,000 ft, with both aircraft flying under maximum continuous climbing conditions, little difference was found..."

Eric Brown is obviously re-reporting the ADFU results of tests done ˜at maximum continuous climbing conditions'

Maximum continuous climbing conditions = 2,450 rpm according to the British documents.


I wonder if a climb test is possible with the Spit V somehow limited to +9 boost power and the A4 maintaining 2700 rpm? It might be tough to work out the details, but, it would be interesting.

It would be interesting for sure, since, in "climbing, little difference was found between the Fw 190 and the Spitfire Mk IX up to 23,000 ft (7010 m) while the Fw190A-3 was running at 2,400 rpm and the Spitfire IX was running at whatever setting was considered to be ˜continuous climbing conditions' for the Spitfire IX during those tests with that model of Spitfire IX in June of 1942.

I think it is very likely that the game already has the Fw190A-4 (better version of the fighter plane over the Fw190A-3) being out climbed by the Spitfire VB 1941 (worse version of the fighter plane than the Spitfire IX June 1942) in both climb rate and certainly steeper in climb angle.

So...having the 1941 Spitfire throttled down to something resembling 9 lb boost, in the game, climbing against the 190A-4 running full (re-rated) throttle might actually resemble the real Spitfire IX (June) versus the Fw190A-3 (running on the wrong gas with fouled spark plugs) as both planes were operated at continuous climbing power (certainly not using manual prop-pitch), where, there is little to choose between the two planes in the game (Fw190A-4 running full throttle and the Spitfire VB 1941 not running at full power), and, find out which one overheats and destroys the engine first.

Note: The 190A-3 engine ran much better on the bench after new spark plugs were fitted to it, after, all those tests were done while running on the wrong gas, engine running so rough the British pilots were afraid to take the plane over water – according to the information available).

JG4_Helofly
05-17-2007, 03:22 PM
According to il2c even the spitfire Vb is climbing much better than the fw190. At 3500m the spit Vb is 5m/s better in climb performance. We know that the spit Vb we have in game is a later model, but even than the spit has a great advantage. If a spit IX (merlin 61) should only be slightly better in climb than why should a 1942 spitVb be much better? Or was the late spitVb equiped with a merlin 66?

JG14_Josf
05-17-2007, 03:36 PM
1942 spitVb be much better?

The game labels the Spitfire VB as a 1941 model.

Let me check again since the new patch came out it could have easily been corrected.

I can confirm that; instead of correcting the mislabeling (if that is true) of the Spitfire VB (1941) there are now three 1941 model Spitfires available. Added to the 1941 Spitfire stable, in the newest patch, are the Spitfire Vc (2) 1941 and the Spitfire Vc (4) 1941.

Did I confirm that correctly?

The Fw 190 stable continues to have the Fw190A-4 available and it continues to have a much lower climb angle than any Spitfire which is backwards according to the available documentation. The available Fw 190 continues to have a lower climb rate which is backwards according to the available documentation. The available Fw 190 continues to have a very poor turn rate "sustained" which is not backwards according to the available documentation; however – the turn rate "sustained" is less than the available documentation.

The Fw 190 does manage to go faster than the available documentation so therefore it is over-modeled.

Please fix all the Fw 190s so they don't go too fast anymore.

That is a serious request. It is the second time I've requested the same thing.

Thanks.

hop2002
05-17-2007, 03:45 PM
According to il2c even the spitfire Vb is climbing much better than the fw190. At 3500m the spit Vb is 5m/s better in climb performance. We know that the spit Vb we have in game is a later model, but even than the spit has a great advantage.

The AFDU test of Faber's aircraft used the following settings for climb:

Spitfire V - 9 lbs, 2850 rpm (less than 1000 hp)
Fw 190 - 1.35 ata, 2450 rpm (about 1500 hp)

However, in game the Spitfire V uses 16 lbs (for climb, although the speed is limited to about 9 lbs, iirc)

Spitfire V - 16 lbs, 3000 rpm (1380 hp)

The Fw 190 is either the derated example:

Fw 190 - 1.35 ata, 2450 rpm (about 1500 hp)

or the fully rated one:

Fw 190 - 1.42 ata, 2700 rpm (about 1780 hp)

Whether the 190 A4 in game is derated or not, at combat power the Spitfire gains relative to the 190. The Spitfire gains about 38% power going from climbing power to maximum power. The 190 gains either nothing (if it's derated) or about 19% if it's fully rated.

According to Focke Wulfe performance tests, at climbing power (fully rated) the Fw 190 A3 climbed at 16 m/s at sea level, dropping to 12.5 m/s at 3,000m, 11 m/s at 6,000m

According to the AFDU, the Spitfire Vb at climbing power climbed at 16.5 m/s at sea level, 16.5 m/s at 3,000m and 12.5 m/s at 6,000m.

In other words, even at climbing power, in independent tests the Spitfire V outclimbed the 190 A3 (fully rated). It's only the test of Faber's plane, which seems to have shown a higher climb rate but lower speed, that shows the 190 having a higher sustained climb rate than the Spitfire Vb.


If a spit IX (merlin 61) should only be slightly better in climb than why should a 1942 spitVb be much better?

Because at climbing power, which is what the AFDU test used, the Spitfire V actually has a slightly better climb rate than the Spitfire IX (Merlin 61).

When both went to combat power (16lbs on the V, 15 lbs on the IX) the V is actually a bit better than the early IX below 10,000ft, but of course can't sustain anything like the same climb rate at higher altitudes.

JG14_Josf
05-17-2007, 05:12 PM
In other words, even at climbing power, in independent tests the Spitfire V outclimbed the 190 A3 (fully rated). It's only the test of Faber's plane, which seems to have shown a higher climb rate but lower speed, that shows the 190 having a higher sustained climb rate than the Spitfire Vb.

Independent tests can be compared to side by side tests as competitive methods of finding specific information.

This is not something that some 21 century gamer has cooked up.


"Energy performance reflects a fighter's Ps under specified flight conditions. Ps at a given airspeed is a function of the ratio of excess thrust to aircraft weight, as shown by Equation 4 in the Appendix, and is a measure of the aircraft's ability to climb or accelerate under those conditions. A fighter's T/W is a fairly good indicator of its energy performance. This ratio is usually stated in terms of static sea-level thrust and a representative combat weight. For piston-engine aircraft a parameter known as "power loading." the ratio of aircraft weight to brake horsepower (normally maximum seal-level power), is used rather than T/W. both these measures may be misleading, however, since operation conditions of altitude and airspeed can affect two fighters in different ways. For example, a fighter with a relatively powerful normally aspirated piston engine may have lower power loading and better performance than a turbocharged fighter at low altitudes; but the turbocharged fighter would retain its power better at altitude and could have superior energy performance at higher levels. Likewise with jet engines, performance can vary greatly with inlet design, therefore a fighter may have higher T/W and better performance at slow speeds but be inferior at faster speeds.
A fighter's aerodynamic efficiency, in particular its lift-to-drag ratio, is also vitally important to energy performance, especially at high G or high speed. In order to simplify this discussion, however, the term high T/W infers greater climb rate, faster acceleration, and higher maximum speed capability relative to the opponent."


Development of effective tactics against dissimilar aircraft is, however, highly dependent on intimate knowledge of all aspects of relative fighter performance and design, as well as total familiarity by the pilot with his own aircraft and weapons system. Comparison testing, in which enemy aircraft are flown against friendly fighters, is undeniably the best method of gathering this crucial information

Now; that is a lot to read in context but the context is important. There is more to performance than a simple parameter such as rate of climb for one plane testing rate of climb on one day in England compared to anther ˜independent' climb test done another day in Germany.


Comparison testing, in which enemy aircraft are flown against friendly fighters, is undeniably the best method of gathering this crucial information.

That is exactly what was done when the Fw190A-3 mistakenly landed in England. One of the tests done was climb rate. It does not take much effort to realize the difference between conducting an actual side by side climb test to see which one climbs at the higher angle and the higher rate and at what speed the higher rate is arrived at and compare that method of finding which plane climbs faster and which plane climbs at a higher rate to a comparison of two ˜independent' flight tests done on two different continents for reasons that are not specifically meant to measure which plane climbs at a higher rate and which plane climbs at a steeper angle and what speed either plane manages to out-climb the other plane.

The climb tests done in Germany may, or may not, have been conducted to measure anything more than target performance variables. Such as: Test werk number x to see if it can climb at y under xy conditions – fill in then blanks. The test pilot performs the test, the test document is filled out, the plane passes the test and everything is done by the book.

How many of those types of tests are needed to arrive at an accurate average for any particular model?

The same applies to any plane type tested by any factory or military office intending to quantify any performance variable whatsoever.

How many of those types of tests are needed to arrive at an accurate average for any particular model?

In fact, the ˜independent' test picked out as THE climb test could be off either way (too much or not enough) for that production model's actual average.

That is a variable. What is known is the one test.

If there are two tests for the same model, then, there is more than one method of finding the average of the two tests. That is another variable.

If there is only one test, then, that one test represents that one plane's performance capabilities for that day, with that pilot, under those atmospheric conditions.

There are more variables. The test pilot could have been merely filling in the blanks, on that day, for that document, and visiting his girl friend instead. That is a possibility when only one climb test is available for that production model.

What if the conversion factors for atmospheric conditions is not the same for Germany and England?

That is another variable.

When the purpose is to find out which plane climbs at a steeper angle, then, it is hardly possible to find a better method than plucking an example of an Fw190 out of combat during the war and testing that plane side by side with the Fw190s opponents including the current Spitfire VB (June 1941) and the current Spitfire IX (June 1942).

There are two better ways.

Take all the Fw190A-3s produced and take all the Spitfire VBs and the Spitfire IXs produced and conduct side by side climb tests with every single plane produced using the best pilots available on as many days as possible and average the results with more than on calculation and then compare the calculated averages.

No matter how many times the question is asked the fact remains that one combat example of an Fw190 was tested side by side with at least one Spitfire VB and at least one Spitfire IX in June 1942. The test was conducted to find out which plane performed better than the other plane on that day.

Ignoring the increased advantages in climb performance when ˜pulling up' from high cruise speed and ignoring the increased advantages in climb performance when ˜pulling up' from a dive into a climb is something that the British did not do; they did not ignore that advantage that the combat example of an Fw190A-3 (de-rated and running on the wrong gas with fouled spark plugs) had over the June 1942 Spitfire IX.


In climbing, little difference was found between the Fw 190 and the Spitfire Mk IX up to 23,000 ft (7010 m), above which altitude the climb of the German fighter began to fall off and the difference between the two aircraft widened rapidly.

If, as ˜independent' tests suggest, the June 1942 Spitfire IX was somehow worse than the June 1942 Spitfire VB, then, why would the above ˜little difference' be the result of the British efforts to quantify which plane had the better climb performance when testing the Spitfire IX at ˜continuous climb conditions' compared to the Fw190 at ˜continuous climb conditions'?

If the Spitfire VB flying under continuous climbing conditions were tested against the ˜little difference' Spitfire IX evaluation, then, the Spitfire VB should, in fact, have been better in the test with the Spitfire VB June 1942 against the Fw 190A-3 June 1942.

Is that true or false?

How can someone find out which plane will climb better than the other plane in June 1942?

How can someone test to see if the Spitfire VB in June of 1942 could climb better or worse than the Spitfire IX against the Fw190A-3 in June of 1942 while all three planes are using continuous climb conditions?

A. Fw190A-3 not at full throttle
B. Spitfire IX not at full throttle
C. Spitfire VB not at full throttle (without overheating or damaging the engine during the climb)

How about taking a combat example of the Spitfire VB and a combat example of the Fw190A-3 and test to see which one will climb better than the other one on the same day, from the same airport, side by side, looking out the cockpit, and seeing which plane climbs better than the other plane?

How does someone define ˜better'?

Why not check to see if the British actually did this test?

They did and they managed to quantify ˜better' well:


Climb
The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably stepper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the Fw 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000 feet [7,620 m]. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled into a climb from a dive, the Fw 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.

Apparently the actual TEST confirmed that the Spitfire VB did not compare as well as the Spitfire IX in the climb tests done by the British in June 1942 during their side by side performance evaluations at continuous climbing performance conditions.

Engine damage (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/dowding1.jpg)


A recent increase in the number of engine failures, due to the failure of bearings, is an indication that some pilots are over-stepping the engine limitations laid down in the Pilot's Handbook.

2. The use of the automatic boost cut out control enables the pilot to get an emergency boost of + 12 lbs. per sq. in. from the engine for 5 minutes when circumstances demand it. Some pilots "pull the plug" with little excuse on every occasion.

3. The introduction of Constant Speed Airscrews permits an increase in the rate of climb. This has led some pilots to climb their aircraft at too steep an angle, with the result that there is a considerably diminished forward speed and the engine does not receive the cooling which it...


Making metal (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/ap1590b.jpg)


11. The use, in an emergency, of this high boost pressure is a definite over-load condition on the engine and therefore all occasions on which it is essential to make use of the + 12 lb. /sq. in. must be reported by the pilot and recorded in the engine log book so that the engineer officer may be able to assess the reduction in life between overhauls and the need for special inspections.

Between ˜continuous climbing conditions' and ˜over-load' there is a big leap in power on the Spitfire – apparently.

Between ˜de-rated' and ˜rated' (throttle to the screw or past the screw) on the Fw190 there is not such a big leap.

What happens when the Fw190 is run at maximum power for too long?

I found one example (and it was not a BMW engine):

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/510PQ478MKL._AA240_.jpg

It is in there

M_Gunz
05-17-2007, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
"Climb
The rate of climb up to 18,000 ft [5,488 m] under maximum continuous climbing conditions at 1.35 atmospheres boost 2,450 r.p.m, 165 m.p.h...."

About 266 kph, ideal for the FW. Best for Spit VB is about 240 kph.

And climb speed for the Spitfire in those comparative tests? Same speed, 165 mph.

And yes, over and over Oleg has posted that the 190A-4 we have is DERATED.
Instead of ATA 1.42 we have, IIRC, ATA 1.35. That is OLD information.

Pollack2006
05-17-2007, 06:25 PM
Easy to test performance of A4 with manual prop-pitch....just turn overheat off in the options and see how it does. Probably not too easy under combat conditions but for straight climb/speed/dive/accel tests it should highlight any hidden potential.

JG14_Josf
05-17-2007, 06:31 PM
And climb speed for the Spitfire in those comparative tests? Same speed, 165 mph.

If I am not mistaken the above is an assumption.

One part of the report by the British appears to be an ˜independent' test where the Fw 190 is flown alone and during that test the British report the climb speed as 165 mph.

How did they arrive at that number? Did they rely upon the air speed indicator in that Fw 190?

That is a variable.

Another part of the report by the British is specifically reported as a side by side comparison test flight where the British report how the Fw 190 that they flew (not flying in a game) had a superior climb than the Spitfire VB at all heights, considerably steeper angle, and ˜Under maximum continuous climbing conditions' (not full throttle and not on manual prop pitch) the climb of the Fw 190 was "about" 450 ft/min better up to 25,000 ft [7,620 m], yes, that is UP TO SEVEN THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED METERS ALTITUDE the Fw190A-3 climbed about 450 ft/min better than the Spitfire and it didn't overheat or damage the engine. The engine was ˜thoroughly' wrong out by the time the aircraft was wrote off after all the tests were done. The side by side report does not specify the climb speed of the Spitfire VB (June 1942) or the Fw190A-3, rather, that part of the report mentions that the ˜best' speeds for climbing are approximately the same.

If I am not mistaken it is an assumption to suggest that the tests were somehow irrelevant due to some very likely errors in documented speeds and conversion variables. When the planes were piloted side by side to see which one climbed better the results were reported as follows:


Climb
The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably stepper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the Fw 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000 feet [7,620 m]. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled into a climb from a dive, the Fw 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.

Those are the words written down by the British in June 1942 and those are not the words written down by me or anyone else in May 2007.

Any two gamers can buy the game, install the game, and simulate those side by side tests using a game's Spitfire VB (1941) to represent the actual British Spitfire VB (June 1942) against a game Fw 190A-4 to represent the captured German Fw190A-3 (de-rated and running on the wrong gas with fouled spark plugs) to simulate the British tests done in June 1942.

Players can try every kind of combination of throttle setting, prop pitch exploit, radiator setting, atmospheric conditions, no engine overheat, engine overheat, full switch, arcade, and anything whatsoever to see if the British test can be simulated accurately.

The results of such tests are interesting.

The report concerning the side by side test done with the Spitfire IX versus the Fw190A-3 may include climb speeds too. I did not notice that detail. Perhaps someone else has.

M_Gunz
05-17-2007, 07:48 PM
I'm not assuming anything. I've read an account of the tests written by the guy that flew the Spits.
I know that the side by side was done at higher speed. Whoever wrote that conclusion sees
240 kph and 266 kph as approximately the same which shows his expertise. In the case of
the Spitfire climb it is not approximately the same at all. Thing is that from what I read
the speed was a good deal more than 300 kph let alone 266. Oh well. Just keep pushing
those expert conclusions like they are some kind of physical law. Some believe you, but
nobody that's going to be changing anything in this or the next series.

JG14_Josf
05-17-2007, 08:29 PM
I've read an account of the tests written by the guy that flew the Spits.

I'm also not assuming that the speeds flown during the test were ˜high' or ˜low' or anything but what the report states i.e. ˜best speeds for climbing'.

That is what the report says and that isn't something someone remembered about what someone else remembered about something that happened during the days that all the flight tests were conducted contributing to the report that is written in plain English.

If the person remembering what someone else remembered about those flight tests contributing to the report can actually be quoted, then, that remembering can be quoted.

Where are these quotes?

Did these quotes say something other than what exists on the report or does someone simply not remember things well?

The report states something and the remembering rememberer claims the opposite of what the report documents?

The Spitfire VB (June 1942) doesn't climb at the approximate same speed ˜at all'?

The British WWII side by side flight evaluation is a fabrication?

The remembering rememberers memory is the truth?

And, of course, the messenger must be attacked? The people writing the report, since they can't even document which plane is flying faster while flying side by side with another plane, must be non-experts at judging which plane is flying faster when doing a side by side climb test? What idiots!

Is it possible that the remembering remeberer is remembering something related to but no specific to the specific tests done that ended up recording the following?


Climb
The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the Fw 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000 feet [7,620 m]. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled into a climb from a dive, the Fw 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.

I'm not assuming. If the remembering rememberer can quote the memory and link the source, then, any assumptions that might be made could be avoided as the variables are eliminated and the speculations concerning the truth of the actual reports can be avoided.

The fact remains that the report exists. The report is written in English. The report is very specific as to which plane was superior in climb at all heights, the best speeds for climbing were approximately the same for both planes, the angle of the Fw 190 was considerably steeper. Under maximum climbing conditions the Fw 190 was about 450 ft/min better up to 7 thousand 6 hundred meters altitude.

The British were even specific enough to document an increased advantage in climb when both aircraft were flying a thigh cruising speed and then pulled up into a climb, where, the Fw 190 is even more superior in climb when pulling up into a climb from a dive as the Fw 190 draw away very rapidly, not just rapidly but very rapidly, and the Spitfire has no hope of catching it.

Try that in the game. What can be concluded? The British report is false?

The British report is false because someone remembers something someone else remembers and that something was opposite of what was written on the final report.

I think I see how this works; but I won't assume anything. I can speculate that the reason why the report is believed to be false has nothing whatsoever to do with what someone remembers about what someone remembers, rather, as my speculation goes, the game is always accurate no matter how many times the game changes from patch to patch and therefore any one who dares to suggest that the game is not accurate will automatically be attacked viciously to the limits of the tolerance of the moderators.

And, of course, any document that reports performances that are opposite of the game performance are false. And, of course, the WWII pilots writing the report are attacked too.

I'm not assuming anything. I have my speculations that can be confirmed or denied with more accurate information – as time goes by.

VW-IceFire
05-17-2007, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">1942 spitVb be much better?

The game labels the Spitfire VB as a 1941 model.

Let me check again since the new patch came out it could have easily been corrected.

I can confirm that; instead of correcting the mislabeling (if that is true) of the Spitfire VB (1941) there are now three 1941 model Spitfires available. Added to the 1941 Spitfire stable, in the newest patch, are the Spitfire Vc (2) 1941 and the Spitfire Vc (4) 1941.

Did I confirm that correctly?

The Fw 190 stable continues to have the Fw190A-4 available and it continues to have a much lower climb angle than any Spitfire which is backwards according to the available documentation. The available Fw 190 continues to have a lower climb rate which is backwards according to the available documentation. The available Fw 190 continues to have a very poor turn rate "sustained" which is not backwards according to the available documentation; however – the turn rate "sustained" is less than the available documentation.

The Fw 190 does manage to go faster than the available documentation so therefore it is over-modeled.

Please fix all the Fw 190s so they don't go too fast anymore.

That is a serious request. It is the second time I've requested the same thing.

Thanks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Spitfire V performance is pretty wacky actually. Not in the way you'd think. Its top speed is of a +9lb and its climb rate is of a +12lb so its not really doing either properly. Not sure what its meant to be. Kind of a frankenstine aircraft. The clipped Vb has the same issue. I think the LF Vb (and clipped) is more correct.

HellToupee
05-17-2007, 09:57 PM
its got the speed of a mk1 spit more like :P