PDA

View Full Version : Which Fw190 version is the best fighter?



WildeSau1975
05-14-2007, 05:02 AM
Hi all,

Just wanted to know which is the best figther of Fw190 series - if it's the D version, which is second best.

I mean only fighter and not Jabo.

Thanks for any clarification.

Michael the WildeSau

WildeSau1975
05-14-2007, 05:02 AM
Hi all,

Just wanted to know which is the best figther of Fw190 series - if it's the D version, which is second best.

I mean only fighter and not Jabo.

Thanks for any clarification.

Michael the WildeSau

mynameisroland
05-14-2007, 05:11 AM
D9 44
D9 45
A9
A6
A5
A4

tigertalon
05-14-2007, 05:17 AM
With roland on this one, if going versus single engined targets.

Bewolf
05-14-2007, 05:23 AM
D9 44
D9 45
A 6
A 5
A 9
A 4
A 8

leitmotiv
05-14-2007, 05:48 AM
I'll take a red-hot A-1 from fall 1941 which poleaxed the British. Light, fast, deadly, and all over the Spit V. Downside: cooling problems not yet solved, no MG151s, just four MG17s and two MGFFs, but what a machine.

Bremspropeller
05-14-2007, 08:28 AM
With a R/C warhead, the Mistel-version would rawk your local server http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Xiolablu3
05-14-2007, 11:43 AM
The FW190D9 is by far the best fighter of them all.


My favourite Anton depends on the year.

If its 1942, then the FW190A4 is possibley the best warplane of the year along with the BF109G2.

I also like the FW190A6.


However none of the FW190's aare really dogfighters, they are energy fighters, where you use you speed and power to swoop down, blast the enemy out of hte skit with one burst and zoom away. Dont spend time in prolonged dogfights against Spitfires - you are then fighting to the one advantage the Spitfire has , turn rate.

USe your brain and work out how best to use your speed and firepower against the enemy without getting into a dogfight/turnfight.

tigertalon
05-14-2007, 12:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
However none of the FW190's aare really dogfighters, they are energy fighters, where you use you speed and power to swoop down, blast the enemy out of hte skit with one burst and zoom away. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's ironic probably that what you describe here is not an energy fighter from historical perspective. IRL energy fighters were able to outclimb/outzoom/outaccelerate_in_a_dive their opponents when fighting them on equal terms, i.e. with no initial alt advantage. That only means that you have to dogfight him in a vertical plane. Now taking an A4 and having to dive 3km, draggin a spitV behind only to extend and climb sloooooowly back up for half an hour and across entire map to reach sufficient separation is simply not historical. As noted even in british tests of captured 190s a 190 has optimal climbing speed roughly equal to the spit, but angle of climb is steeper - this way 190 is dissapearing higher and higher above spit, more and more away from spits sight line - now that's what I call outclimbing! If spit wants to get a firing solution, he must pitch up further and he'll stall. That's for sure not a case in PF, both planes climb at approx. same angle, but 190 does it a bit faster, that way you are only outdistancing your opponent, not outclimbing him, as planes stay on the same line whole time, 190 is in spits sight whole time, only more and more far. In PF you cannot effectively outclimb a spitV in a A4 period. The way it is done in PF is simply not outclimbing. As an example, take a G2 and a Lagg3 or a P40B - that's how outclimbing should be done. At the end we, again, come to poor output of BMW801 at slow speeds (up to 350kph).

The famous "energy fighting is not dogfighting" assumption is simply wrong. There are roughly two general ways of dogfighting: energy fighting and stall fighting. IRL you can energy fight a spitV in a 190 without a huge initial E advantage on him. In IL2, you can't.

I still stand firmly behind an opinion that an altitude advantage as a must when engaging enemy on 1v1 basis is simply a poor excuse for a poor 1v1 plane. Spitfire, 109 and such are, besides being good turn fighters also excellent energy fighters as they can outclimb most opponents with ease when fighting them on equal terms.

Please, note that I speak about RL-IL2 comparison. U know me and u probably know that I know very well how to fly a Fw190 and I am sure it's the plane that allows a player to rack up best K/D ratio, especially in 1942 before the introduction of SpitIX/La5 and later P51. But 1v1, equal E, this plane is poor - be it as a stall or energy fighter. I refuse to believe that germans in 190s imperatively needed 2km alt advantage before engaging enemy and needed to run like there is no tomorrow if their first pass was not succsessful.

Manu-6S
05-14-2007, 12:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
However none of the FW190's aare really dogfighters, they are energy fighters, where you use you speed and power to swoop down, blast the enemy out of hte skit with one burst and zoom away. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Never take ingame performance as truth. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As usually I quote everything TT says. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

TheGozr
05-14-2007, 12:48 PM
They were all fighters but it's all depend what you want to do..

JG4_Helofly
05-14-2007, 01:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
However none of the FW190's aare really dogfighters, they are energy fighters, where you use you speed and power to swoop down, blast the enemy out of hte skit with one burst and zoom away. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's ironic probably that what you describe here is not an energy fighter from historical perspective. IRL energy fighters were able to outclimb/outzoom/outaccelerate_in_a_dive their opponents when fighting them on equal terms, i.e. with no initial alt advantage. That only means that you have to dogfight him in a vertical plane. Now taking an A4 and having to dive 3km, draggin a spitV behind only to extend and climb sloooooowly back up for half an hour and across entire map to reach sufficient separation is simply not historical. As noted even in british tests of captured 190s a 190 has optimal climbing speed roughly equal to the spit, but angle of climb is steeper - this way 190 is dissapearing higher and higher above spit, more and more away from spits sight line - now that's what I call outclimbing! If spit wants to get a firing solution, he must pitch up further and he'll stall. That's for sure not a case in PF, both planes climb at approx. same angle, but 190 does it a bit faster, that way you are only outdistancing your opponent, not outclimbing him, as planes stay on the same line whole time, 190 is in spits sight whole time, only more and more far. In PF you cannot effectively outclimb a spitV in a A4 period. The way it is done in PF is simply not outclimbing. As an example, take a G2 and a Lagg3 or a P40B - that's how outclimbing should be done. At the end we, again, come to poor output of BMW801 at slow speeds (up to 350kph).

The famous "energy fighting is not dogfighting" assumption is simply wrong. There are roughly two general ways of dogfighting: energy fighting and stall fighting. IRL you can energy fight a spitV in a 190 without a huge initial E advantage on him. In IL2, you can't.

I still stand firmly behind an opinion that an altitude advantage as a must when engaging enemy on 1v1 basis is simply a poor excuse for a poor 1v1 plane. Spitfire, 109 and such are, besides being good turn fighters also excellent energy fighters as they can outclimb most opponents with ease when fighting them on equal terms.

Please, note that I speak about RL-IL2 comparison. U know me and u probably know that I know very well how to fly a Fw190 and I am sure it's the plane that allows a player to rack up best K/D ratio, especially in 1942 before the introduction of SpitIX/La5 and later P51. But 1v1, equal E, this plane is poor - be it as a stall or energy fighter. I refuse to believe that germans in 190s imperatively needed 2km alt advantage before engaging enemy and needed to run like there is no tomorrow if their first pass was not succsessful. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

The 190 was known as a superb dogfighter, but in game vertical dogfight is nearly impossible. The only great advangage the 190 have is it's speed. If you have speed you are safe as soon as you are above your enemy because you can always dive shoot and extand away. This works for all aircrafts the same which are fast and thats why planes like the tempest, p47, p51 and fw190 are safe planes and that makes them good in this game.
But was it the speed alone which made of the fw190 such a great fighter? I think no, but I have no facts to proove it.

BaronUnderpants
05-14-2007, 01:07 PM
Fw 190D9 -44 is the best Fw in game.

As far as in game, everything Xiolablu3 said describes well how u should use the FW190..regardless of wich version. A4 may do slightly better in a turnfight against its contemporarys than say a D9 against Spit 25lbs, not much better, but still.

Regarding tigertalons post...well, i agree with every word, meet a Spit, La, Yak at equal terms ingame, ( alt, speed ) and u got 1 shot and then u better "run" for the next couple...or 10`s of miles, wich in my ears sound as far from RL as u can get. I always thought Fw should have some of Bf109 qualities, especially climb.

I dont consider it to be "outclimbing" a foe if u have a 200 mph speed advantage to begin with.

But hey, what do i know. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

DKoor
05-14-2007, 01:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
IRL energy fighters were able to outclimb/outzoom/outaccelerate_in_a_dive their opponents when fighting them on equal terms, i.e. with no initial alt advantage. That only means that you have to dogfight him in a vertical plane. Now taking an A4 and having to dive 3km, draggin a spitV behind only to extend and climb sloooooowly back up for half an hour and across entire map to reach sufficient separation is simply not historical. As noted even in british tests of captured 190s a 190 has optimal climbing speed roughly equal to the spit, but angle of climb is steeper - this way 190 is dissapearing higher and higher above spit, more and more away from spits sight line - now that's what I call outclimbing! If spit wants to get a firing solution, he must pitch up further and he'll stall. That's for sure not a case in PF, both planes climb at approx. same angle, but 190 does it a bit faster, that way you are only outdistancing your opponent, not outclimbing him, as planes stay on the same line whole time, 190 is in spits sight whole time, only more and more far. In PF you cannot effectively outclimb a spitV in a A4 period. The way it is done in PF is simply not outclimbing. As an example, take a G2 and a Lagg3 or a P40B - that's how outclimbing should be done. At the end we, again, come to poor output of BMW801 at slow speeds (up to 350kph).

The famous "energy fighting is not dogfighting" assumption is simply wrong. There are roughly two general ways of dogfighting: energy fighting and stall fighting. IRL you can energy fight a spitV in a 190 without a huge initial E advantage on him. In IL2, you can't.

I still stand firmly behind an opinion that an altitude advantage as a must when engaging enemy on 1v1 basis is simply a poor excuse for a poor 1v1 plane. Spitfire, 109 and such are, besides being good turn fighters also excellent energy fighters as they can outclimb most opponents with ease when fighting them on equal terms.

Please, note that I speak about RL-IL2 comparison. U know me and u probably know that I know very well how to fly a Fw190 and I am sure it's the plane that allows a player to rack up best K/D ratio, especially in 1942 before the introduction of SpitIX/La5 and later P51. But 1v1, equal E, this plane is poor - be it as a stall or energy fighter. I refuse to believe that germans in 190s imperatively needed 2km alt advantage before engaging enemy and needed to run like there is no tomorrow if their first pass was not succsessful. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Could easily be the post of the month http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

JG4_Helofly
05-14-2007, 01:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Could easily be the post of the month Cool </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very true http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

KraljMatjaz
05-15-2007, 07:57 AM
1. Fw190-D9 1945 model (faster on the deck than 44 - you can outrun La7, with 44 you can't)
2. Fw190D-9 1944 model
3. Fw190A-9
4. Fw190A-8 (it would be on last place without 108 option)
5. Fw190A-6
6. Fw190A-5
7. Fw190A-4

BUT! i find A-4 in 1942 much more superior than D-9_45 in 1945.

leitmotiv
05-15-2007, 08:05 AM
Completely agree with the last sentence! The FW never again enjoyed the level of superiority it did in 1941-42 later in the war---that is unless you count the Ta 152H as an Fw 190!

Bewolf
05-15-2007, 08:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
However none of the FW190's aare really dogfighters, they are energy fighters, where you use you speed and power to swoop down, blast the enemy out of hte skit with one burst and zoom away. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's ironic probably that what you describe here is not an energy fighter from historical perspective. IRL energy fighters were able to outclimb/outzoom/outaccelerate_in_a_dive their opponents when fighting them on equal terms, i.e. with no initial alt advantage. That only means that you have to dogfight him in a vertical plane. Now taking an A4 and having to dive 3km, draggin a spitV behind only to extend and climb sloooooowly back up for half an hour and across entire map to reach sufficient separation is simply not historical. As noted even in british tests of captured 190s a 190 has optimal climbing speed roughly equal to the spit, but angle of climb is steeper - this way 190 is dissapearing higher and higher above spit, more and more away from spits sight line - now that's what I call outclimbing! If spit wants to get a firing solution, he must pitch up further and he'll stall. That's for sure not a case in PF, both planes climb at approx. same angle, but 190 does it a bit faster, that way you are only outdistancing your opponent, not outclimbing him, as planes stay on the same line whole time, 190 is in spits sight whole time, only more and more far. In PF you cannot effectively outclimb a spitV in a A4 period. The way it is done in PF is simply not outclimbing. As an example, take a G2 and a Lagg3 or a P40B - that's how outclimbing should be done. At the end we, again, come to poor output of BMW801 at slow speeds (up to 350kph).

The famous "energy fighting is not dogfighting" assumption is simply wrong. There are roughly two general ways of dogfighting: energy fighting and stall fighting. IRL you can energy fight a spitV in a 190 without a huge initial E advantage on him. In IL2, you can't.

I still stand firmly behind an opinion that an altitude advantage as a must when engaging enemy on 1v1 basis is simply a poor excuse for a poor 1v1 plane. Spitfire, 109 and such are, besides being good turn fighters also excellent energy fighters as they can outclimb most opponents with ease when fighting them on equal terms.

Please, note that I speak about RL-IL2 comparison. U know me and u probably know that I know very well how to fly a Fw190 and I am sure it's the plane that allows a player to rack up best K/D ratio, especially in 1942 before the introduction of SpitIX/La5 and later P51. But 1v1, equal E, this plane is poor - be it as a stall or energy fighter. I refuse to believe that germans in 190s imperatively needed 2km alt advantage before engaging enemy and needed to run like there is no tomorrow if their first pass was not succsessful. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bravo. Excellent synapsis. The FW190 was a real jewel. It still is a fantastic fighter in Il2 and I use it all the time. But it definately lacks when it comes to opponents at same alt. And I never, ever, understood its slow acceleration. Even Bombers do better in this game.

TgD Thunderbolt56
05-15-2007, 08:21 AM
A9 ftw!!!

HuninMunin
05-15-2007, 08:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Could easily be the post of the month Cool </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very true http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+2

mynameisroland
05-15-2007, 08:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KraljMatjaz:
1. Fw190-D9 1945 model (faster on the deck than 44 - you can outrun La7, with 44 you can't)
2. Fw190D-9 1944 model
3. Fw190A-9
4. Fw190A-8 (it would be on last place without 108 option)
5. Fw190A-6
6. Fw190A-5
7. Fw190A-4

BUT! i find A-4 in 1942 much more superior than D-9_45 in 1945. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

you have your priorities wrong. The D9 45 is a poor second to the D9 44 if you have any interest in flying it the way it should be flown.

Also the Fw 190 A6 scores above the Fw 190 A8 for the same reason.

The reason is that the D9 44 and A6 perform better at high altitude than Russian aircraft (in general) while still performing excellently at low altitude.

KraljMatjaz
05-15-2007, 08:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
you have your priorities wrong. The D9 45 is a poor second to the D9 44 if you have any interest in flying it the way it should be flown.

Also the Fw 190 A6 scores above the Fw 190 A8 for the same reason.

The reason is that the D9 44 and A6 perform better at high altitude than Russian aircraft (in general) while still performing excellently at low altitude. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with the fact that D-9 44 is better than 45 almost in every respect. However, when in trouble, diving to the deck and running like hell can mean the difference between the life and death, that's why I PERSONALLY prefer the 45 model. It saved my butt many times from that pesky La7s, and I don't think 44 model would do the same. I agree that with 44 model I probably wouldn't need to dive and run so often in first place, but when need comes, a 45 has better chances of survival, and for me that's the reason above all other combined.

Yes, A6 is better in almost every respect than A8, still A8 is faster on the deck, and has a 108 option. Two reasons that prevail FOR ME PERSONALLY.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
you have your priorities wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please abstain from such comments in future.

Xiolablu3
05-15-2007, 08:42 AM
I totally agree about the low speed acceleration, and also its turn is too low.

As for the comments about the FW190, I agree with most, however in the FW190A4 vs Spitfire MkVb it is simply easy to stick around the Spitfire MkVB and 'play' with him in the game. I can easily stay in the same area and fight the Spitfire Vb without having to have 2km advantage and then run after the first pass.

Once I get the game reisntalled I will record a track on UKded2s CHannel '42 map. Thats my favourite Spitfire slaughter map for the FW190, they really can do nothing at all as long as I dont make a mistake and start horizontal turning with them.

Not saying the game is totally acurrate, the Spitfire Vb climbs too fast and is much too slow also, but I think its easier than it sounds in TT's post to hammer a Spitfire Vb in a FW190A4. I think his post is a good synopsis of the FW190A5/A6/A8 vs Spitfire IX, however.

gkll
05-15-2007, 09:01 AM
I thought that RL and ingame spit V's properly have either a sustained climb advantage or at least parity with early 190A's? Or do people maintain the fm is wrong for climb rate (ie 190 is porked)?

You're all patting each other on the back on this e-fighting mantra, I see no specifics, what is the issue exactly? Besides the 190 is porked....

Potentially valid issues I have seen for the 190 are roll rate, possibly insufficient low speed acceleration (not proven), possibly turn rate, no improvements to any of these is going to let a 190 'efight' a coe spit. Read Shaw more carefully, note the e-fighter uses the vertical for the kill &lt;after&gt; multiple turns wearing down the opponent's e, at every pass is a guns shot for the angle fighter. This with similar aircraft. Note for clarity the 'vertical move' I talk about here is when the angles fighter can no longer match the vertical move, the fight could be entirely vertical to that point...

In 41 it sounds rather as if the Brits were being suckered into fighting at 400 k plus, where the 190 absolutely has an advantage (ingame too), do you think &lt;our&gt; guys with their 1000's of hours experience and the benefit of another 50 years worth of tactical thinking on BFM are going to make this mistake? Don't be so sure the game has it wrong, find specific issues and demonstrate how they affect what particular tactic or manuever. Anyways it is clear that many many 190 drivers in our game are pretty unhappy with how things worked out with Oleg's physics-based FM, however doesn't this game turn out to be the answer to the question "what would have happened if the Brits and the Germans both understood modern BFM concepts perfectly, understood their aircraft's strengths and weaknesses vs the enemy perfectly, and then engaged co-e?" This never remotely happened RL, hence the confusion?

I can't 'efight' an early zero with a spit no more than a 190 can take on a spit in this efighting style of close in fighting. About the only thing that might help a bit is if the FM is indeed too generous with the 'hanging off the prop', changing that wouldn't revolutionize anything but it would allow a bit of breathing space....

mynameisroland
05-15-2007, 09:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KraljMatjaz:
I agree with the fact that D-9 44 is better than 45 almost in every respect. However, when in trouble, diving to the deck and running like hell can mean the difference between the life and death, that's why I PERSONALLY prefer the 45 model. It saved my butt many times from that pesky La7s, and I don't think 44 model would do the same. I agree that with 44 model I probably wouldn't need to dive and run so often in first place, but when need comes, a 45 has better chances of survival, and for me that's the reason above all other combined.

Yes, A6 is better in almost every respect than A8, still A8 is faster on the deck, and has a 108 option. Two reasons that prevail FOR ME PERSONALLY.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
you have your priorities wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please abstain from such comments in future. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why should I ?

this is a discussion forum, someone has asked which Fw 190 is the best <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">fighter</span>

The Fw 190 D9 44 and Fw 190 A6 are better fighters than the Fw 190 D9 45 and Fw 190A8.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Fighting</span> isnt running away or carrying Mk 108s

I trust my own and also Tiger Talons opinion and experience as a sucessful Fw 190 IL2 pilots over yours, especially when giving advice to a new Fw 190- pilot. You IMO are not giving WildeSau1975 a fair reflection of the best pick of Fw 190s as fighters -which is what he asked is it not?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I agree with the fact that D-9 44 is better than 45 almost in every respect. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yet because the D9 45 is 9km/h faster at one altitude you think its a better fighter ....

gkll
05-15-2007, 09:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

Not saying the game is totally acurrate, the Spitfire Vb climbs too fast and is much too slow also, but I think its easier than it sounds in TT's post to hammer a Spitfire Vb in a FW190A4. I think his post is a good synopsis of the FW190A5/A6/A8 vs Spitfire IX, however. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The spit IX has equal powerloading and substantially superior wingloading, at speeds unders say 400 k it should wipe the floor witha 190 in a close in fight. Anything wrong here? Get the speed well up and the 190 superior high speed acceleration and roll rate can be useful, problem is you need room to do this, with a co-e head on merge the spit can easily force an extension on the 190, is this an 'efight'?

mynameisroland
05-15-2007, 09:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gkll:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

Not saying the game is totally acurrate, the Spitfire Vb climbs too fast and is much too slow also, but I think its easier than it sounds in TT's post to hammer a Spitfire Vb in a FW190A4. I think his post is a good synopsis of the FW190A5/A6/A8 vs Spitfire IX, however. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The spit IX has equal powerloading and substantially superior wingloading, at speeds unders say 400 k it should wipe the floor witha 190 in a close in fight. Anything wrong here? Get the speed well up and the 190 superior high speed acceleration and roll rate can be useful, problem is you need room to do this, with a co-e head on merge the spit can easily force an extension on the 190, is this an 'efight'? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fw 190 is heavier, smaller wetted area and is cleaner. This allows the Fw 190 to accelerate faster than the Spitfire in horizontal flight and especially in shallow dives - this superior engery translates in to superior Zoom climbs. Its aerofoil section was designed for flight and combat at higher speeds than the Spitfire, its pilot excercised greater control over his aircraft while at the same time requiring less energy expended.

The Zero had significantly superior wingloading over the Hellcat but that did not prevent the Hellcat from being superior in certain turning situations - the Bf 109 and P38 are another example.

gkll
05-15-2007, 09:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gkll:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

Not saying the game is totally acurrate, the Spitfire Vb climbs too fast and is much too slow also, but I think its easier than it sounds in TT's post to hammer a Spitfire Vb in a FW190A4. I think his post is a good synopsis of the FW190A5/A6/A8 vs Spitfire IX, however. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The spit IX has equal powerloading and substantially superior wingloading, at speeds unders say 400 k it should wipe the floor witha 190 in a close in fight. Anything wrong here? Get the speed well up and the 190 superior high speed acceleration and roll rate can be useful, problem is you need room to do this, with a co-e head on merge the spit can easily force an extension on the 190, is this an 'efight'? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fw 190 is heavier, smaller wetted area and is cleaner. This allows the Fw 190 to accelerate faster than the Spitfire in horizontal flight and especially in shallow dives - this superior engery translates in to superior Zoom climbs. Its aerofoil section was designed for flight and combat at higher speeds than the Spitfire, its pilot excercised greater control over his aircraft while at the same time requiring less energy expended.

The Zero had significantly superior wingloading over the Hellcat but that did not prevent the Hellcat from being superior in certain turning situations - the Bf 109 and P38 are another example. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't disagree with anything you say... however to exercize the advantages, while remaining close in, is very difficult. One slip and the angles fighter has you. The advantage in zoom climb only occurs in the first part of the zoom, later it becomes a powerloading contest which the spit is just fine with, so the actual meters of advantage is not so great with a co e merge. It is not enough to get out of guns range for sure, in fact it just puts the 190 out front, not a good position.

Actually I might disagree with one thing you say, it is not clear to me that the 190 should have a low speed acceleration advantage. Powerloading is similar, since drag rises as the (square?) of speed, at lower speeds (less than 350 k? 400 k? somewheres around there...) prop design and engine characteristics (as well as raw powerloading) will be influential, maybe RL 190's didn't appreciably out accelerate comparative spits at 'lower' speeds?

mynameisroland
05-15-2007, 09:56 AM
Fw 190 was known to accelerate faster than contemporary Spitfires, indeed it had a comparable take off run despite being appreciably heavier and having a higher wing loading.

One other advantage which is difficult to quantify is its rate of roll in a close in manuvering fight. Having a superior rate of roll allied to superior dive acceleration and zoom climb allows the plane to counter an opponents superior turn performance to some degree. P47s often used this technique to cut inside tighter turning Bf 109s, in IL2 it is also possible to manuver in the vertical when turning to negate an opponents superior turn.

Xiolablu3
05-15-2007, 10:52 AM
Good points GKII, however you cannot deny that the FW190A is undermodelled in turn rate, and is also a derated Jabo version.

ALso the low speed range is poor, not sure if this is historical or not, its hard to prove, but I would hazard a guess that its abit undermodelled.

We cannot deny that however much it is possible to beat Spitfire IX's in Fw190A6-A8 (and it certainly is, I find Spitfires one of the least threatening planes these days, P51, Tempest and P47 far more dangerous to me) it should perhaps have a little more 'ooomph' than it actually does.

I think its been proved that the Spitfire Vb climbs too well and is too slow, so thats pretty certain. However by how much I am not sure.

gkll
05-15-2007, 12:43 PM
Xio and Roland - fair enough on all points. My point is that you could add some turn rate to the 190a series, you could add a bit of low speed acceleration and the picture will not change much. My point is that 'efighting' (and people mean a lot of different things with this term...) in a 'close-in' situation will be very difficult if your opponent has equal powerloading and distinctly and signifcantly better wingloading. The angles fighter can force the issue readily, the marginal zoom advantage and roll rate will not help with a co-e headon merge, 1v1. Adding the enhancements will not change this basic picture much at all.

And I don't believe that RL WW2 combat was as clean and well-understood a contest as we get in the game, I'm not sure how comparable these are.

On a different note, I don't believe Shaw is any dean of BFM tactics anyways, I see Andy Bush over at SimHQ with a somewhat different view of many aspects of e-fighting. Shaw should not be taken as gospel, go check out the "tiger talk" forum on SimHQ for some different perspectives.

Xiolablu3
05-15-2007, 12:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gkll:
My point is that you could add some turn rate to the 190a series, you could add a bit of low speed acceleration and the picture will not change much. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I absolutely agree with this. The two areas where the FW190 is a bit undermodelled, are areas which really dont matter if you are flying her correctly.

gkll
05-15-2007, 12:46 PM
Oh Xio it is gkll not 'gk2' if you see what I mean. It is just something close to my initials and pretty random, I just never wanted to lose my post date ha ha.

Also my post count reflects my time committment to the game, I am not able to actually do much of what I talk about.... strictly average.

DmdSeeker
05-15-2007, 12:57 PM
I'm confused; normally one would posit that the later model would out perform the earlier model.

So what makes the '44 Dora a better fighter than the '45`?

mynameisroland
05-15-2007, 01:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gkll: The angles fighter can force the issue readily, the marginal zoom advantage and roll rate will not help with a co-e headon merge, 1v1. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I appreciate waht you are saying, the 1 vs 1 co altitude bit is a no brainer because air warfare dictates you engage with an advantage or if you are in the faster plane you run away if at a disadvantage. any positional advantage at all allows the Fw 190 to cut corners and get a firing solutiuon on the Spitfire.

One vs one co alt merge the gladiator would be the best WW2 fighter.

mynameisroland
05-15-2007, 01:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DmdSeeker:
I'm confused; normally one would posit that the later model would out perform the earlier model.

So what makes the '44 Dora a better fighter than the '45`? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you have IL2 Compare? Look it up.
The D9 44 uses C3 fuel and produces more HP up high and weighs less, giving it a better turn rate and climb rate and making it faster at most heights, far faster at high alts. D9 45 uses lower octane B4 fuel and MW50 to help it regain the lost HP but at the expense of weight and hi alt power.

Xiolablu3
05-15-2007, 01:26 PM
Its a case of 2 planes, the '44 version using the ideal method, the '45 plane using a different less preferential method but able to run on lower octane fuel.

I think the MW50 equipment added a bit of weight, but I cant be sure.

HellToupee
05-15-2007, 02:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Fw 190 was known to accelerate faster than contemporary Spitfires, indeed it had a comparable take off run despite being appreciably heavier and having a higher wing loading.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

you have to remember 190s used flaps on take off, spitfires did not.

JG14_Josf
05-15-2007, 03:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The angles fighter can force the issue readily, the marginal zoom advantage and roll rate will not help with a co-e headon merge, 1v1. Adding the enhancements will not change this basic picture much at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why speculate when the facts were recorded in history?

What would happen in a co-e head-on merge when considering the facts recorded from the following tests (http://www.pbase.com/chrisdnt/190_tests)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With both aircraft flying (head-on) at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb (after the merge) the superior climb of the Fw 190 is even more marked.

How does that translate into not changing the basic picture much at all?

The actual basic picture in actual, real, combat is also recorded accurately in history.

Same web source (http://www.pbase.com/chrisdnt/eric_browns_190_report)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The hope of catching the Fw 190 in the vertical was known to be hopeless, where, trying everything in the book didn't work.

Is there a notion that suggests that a book might have said ˜don't pitch up into vertical flight', and then, that is what stopped the Spitfire pilot's from following the vertical maneuvering?

If so, then, how does that explain the side by side flight test results?

Did the book also say that side by side flight tests are to be conducted in such a manner that the Fw 190 must be allowed to climb at a steeper angle and the Fw 190 must be allowed to increase the superior climb from a pitch up at high cruise, and the Fw 190 must be allowed to increase that advantage when pulling out of a dive into a zoom climb and therefore the Spitfire pilots chopped the throttle on their Spitfire's during the side by side flight tests and avoided pitching the plane up steeper during the tests?

Why are these side by side flight tests and this combat situation analysis ignored by those who ignore them? I can guess.

The same type of willful ignorance is now occurring with Kettenhundes (Crummps) presentations on optimum sustained turn bank angle calculations. What is the point of choosing to be ignorant?

What is the point of changing the subject around and attacking the person linking the sources of information instead of addressing the information?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How can that be any clearer?

How can that not be proof of this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What can possibly be argued about concerning the plain language of the above?

And for anyone to refer to Shaw as proof that the game is correct on the energy tactics issue must be reading a different author.

The following stands as one of the best examples of the use of energy tactics according to SHAW:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Fighter Combat
by Robert Shaw:

The following episode, found in Thunderbolt! by World War II USAAF ace Robert S. Johnson, is one of the best examples available of the use of energy tactics (diving extension/pitch-back) to defeat a double-superior opponent. The encounter described is a mock combat engagement over England between Johnson (P-47C) and an unidentified RAF pilot in a new Spitfire IX. The Spitfire had about 25 percent better power loading and nearly a 25 percent lower wing loading. The Thunderbolt's only performance advantages were faster top speed, greater acceleration in a dive (because of the P-47's heavier weight and higher density), and better roll performance. (See the Appendix for a discussion of roll and acceleration performance.) Johnson, undoubtedly one of the greatest natural fighter pilots of all time, used his roll performance defensively to allow himself the chance to build an energy advantage in a diving extension. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The same old tired arguments continue to ignore the actual facts.

A player of a game didn't report how the actual Fw climbed a higher rate and climbed at a steeper angle. That was a report made by the British authorities during WWII. Attack them.

Shaw wrote the words claiming that the P-47 mock combat against the Spitfire is one of the best examples of the use of energy tactics. Fight him and accuse him of error.

The game does not model acceleration correctly – quite backwards actually. Acceleration is a measurement of excess power.

The Fw190A-3 (de-rated) according to the British was capable of greater excess power than the Spitfire VB under all conditions of flight.

Comparing the Fw190A-3 (de-rated) and running on the wrong gas and still coming out with greater acceleration under all conditions of flight, particularly during the initial stages, is a measurement of excess power.

If the game has the Spitfire VB (1941) accelerating faster than the games Fw190A-4, then, the game is wrong and wrong on both ends. The earlier Spitfire can hardly be expected to perform better than the June 1942 Spitfire and the later Fw190A-4 can hardly be expected to perform worse than the June 1942 Fw.

The only reason why the game Fw 190A-4 can compete with the Spitfire VB 1942 is due to a curious and strange modeling of the Spitfire having a top speed limit (terminal velocity and level flight) and no associated reduction in power during the climb.

If the game did, in fact, model the June 1942 Spitfire as inferior in acceleration (not in slow speed sustained turns) to the Fw190A-4, then, how huge would the gap be between the 1942 Spitfire VB and the 1943 Spitfire VB?

Why also does the Fw 190 become even less capable of initial acceleration despite an increase in power to weight and despite an increase in total thrust?

Why on the other hand are the Spitfires gaining performance in leaps and bounds from Spitfire VB to Spitfire IX?

The Fw190 starts out poor in acceleration and becomes worse.

The Spitfire starts out superior in acceleration (initial acceleration up to the point where the top speed limit begins to slow down that rate of acceleration) and gains tremendously in acceleration on the top end, apparently, due to an increase in boost pressure.

If the Fw190A-4 is modeled as de-rated (low boost) and the Fw190A-8/9 are modeled with an increase in boost, then, why does that fact not also cause a huge increase in acceleration? Again – the Spitfires and the Fw190s decrease power to weight ratios and both increase thrust.

What does not change much is size and shape for both plane types.

Even the change from A model to D model for the FW was not a huge change in size and shape, yet, the game models the A models as if they were very poor in acceleration (most noticeably during take-off roll and vertical maneuvering during pitch back and initial dive acceleration) while the D model is modeled as if it were the first Fw produced as a fighter plane (very noticeable with the short take-off run and ability to extend away after a pitch back or overshoot in a vertical scissors).

Crumpps work very well illustrates the folly of the game engine. The disadvantages of large wings and high drag where the plane is definitely designed as a turn fighter are not modeled into the game. The excess power superiority is maintained by the Spitfires over the A model 190s throughout the entire envelope except where that strange low top speed is taken from the game's Spitfire VB (1941).

Note:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The initial acceleration of the Fw 190 is better than the Spitfire IX under all conditions of flight, except in level flight at such altitudes where the Spitfire has a speed advantage and then, providing the Spitfire is cruising at high speed, there is little to choose between the two aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can blame me for some fantasy confusion concerning a Spitfire V and a Spitfire IX. The document makes no such confusion.

The Fw190 in the side by side evaluation test above is documented as an Fw190A-3 de-rated serial production fighter plane running rough on the wrong gas.

The Spitfire IX in the test above is also listed in Eric Browns book (web resource linked above) as:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...Merlin 61 at 3,000 rpm and 15 lb (1-00 ata)... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If there is confusion over the Spitfire VB (1941) in the game, Spitfire VB in the ADFU tests documented in the source above, Spitfire IX (June 1942 Merlin 61), and the Spitfire IX in the game, then, that confusion is not mine. I can actually read. Your Straw-Man may need your help.
The Fw190A-3 with the de-rating screw removed (the throttle fully forward for 2 minutes maximum) was slower than the Merlin 61 Spitfire IX and only at high cruise did that Spitfire prove to be as capable of accelerating as the de-rated engined Fw 190 fighter plane running on the wrong gas.
Crumpp has also explained the purpose of de-rating as a means of prolonging engine life and/or breaking in engines and/or limiting engines that prove to be under performing from the factory – as far as I understand the reasoning for placing the screw in the throttle gate (de-rating).
If there are side by side flight tests of 1943 Fw190A series fighter planes and 1943 Spitfire's then those reports remain undiscovered by me.
There is this:
Spit 25 v Early 109 (http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/109gtac.html)
How well does the game simulate that match-up?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Climb
18.........The climb of the Spitfire is superior to that of the Me.109 at all heights. It has a particularly marked advantage below 13,000 feet using 18 lbs.boost, and this is naturally more pronounced when using 25 lbs. boost. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the performance is almost identical, but when climbing speed is reached the Spitfire slowly pulls away.

Dive
19.........Comparitive dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Me.109 can leave the Spitfire without any difficulty.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The game is accurate after each patch. That should be reason enough for skepticism.
OK go ahead and blame me.
Poor Nancy

Xiolablu3
05-15-2007, 03:42 PM
It was interesting to read yhat stuff for the 100th time, thanks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

'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" '

Thanks for the excellent description of the FW190A4 vs SPitfire VB in the game! Oleg really has done a fantastic job to get it that accurate.

'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.'

Yep, the Spitfire Vb is slightly overmodelled in climb and under,modelled in top speed, we already said that. However I seem to have no trouble outpacing a Spitfire Vb in a climb when I fight them.
The FW190A4 certainly does have a better dive and better zoom climb in the game than the Spitfire Vb. I agree!

The Spitfire IX Merlin66 had a much better climb than the FW190A5-A6, also much better powerloading and more cannon ammo. Its top speed was also faster than the FW190A5-A6 at some heights, at others they were very close, its turn was almost the same as the MkVb ie. much better than the FW190 - meaning it was far superior to the Spitfire Vb 1941 which was struggling to keep up with the FW190 in any area apart from turn. Now the FW190A only has roll rate, zoom climb and dive speed to rely on, whereas it held almost every card over the MkVb Spitfire.

Hope this helps you understand why the MkIX was such a different kettle of fish to a FW190 to the MkVb.


However I am not sure what the point of your post is.

BTW - No patch is completely perfect, that much should be obvious, however hopefully Maddox games get OVERALL a little closer with every patch.

Who is blaming you and for what?

When I reinstall the game, I will record a track of FW190A4 vs Spitfire Vb as you seem to be having trouble?

JG14_Josf
05-15-2007, 04:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Thanks for the excellent description of the FW190A4 vs SPitfire VB in the game! Oleg really has done a fantastic job to get it that accurate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

X3,

When you can demonstrate Eric Brown's description of Fw versus Spitfire combat, then, you can. Meanwhile your opinion remains an opinion.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The famous "energy fighting is not dogfighting" assumption is simply wrong. There are roughly two general ways of dogfighting: energy fighting and stall fighting. IRL you can energy fight a spitV in a 190 without a huge initial E advantage on him. In IL2, you can't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
How about demonstrating how you can use the vertical and energy tactics with your Fw190 against someone like tigertalon? You begged off my challenge when I told you that the event would be recorded on a track file.
How about this:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Please, note that I speak about RL-IL2 comparison. U know me and u probably know that I know very well how to fly a Fw190 and I am sure it's the plane that allows a player to rack up best K/D ratio, especially in 1942 before the introduction of SpitIX/La5 and later P51. But 1v1, equal E, this plane is poor - be it as a stall or energy fighter. I refuse to believe that germans in 190s imperatively needed 2km alt advantage before engaging enemy and needed to run like there is no tomorrow if their first pass was not succsessful. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Am I confused?
Is the perspective being communicated above almost exactly the same perspective being communicated here:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> 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" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Did both communications actually mean hit and run tactics?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Fw 190 is heavier, smaller wetted area and is cleaner. This allows the Fw 190 to accelerate faster than the Spitfire in horizontal flight and especially in shallow dives - this superior engery translates in to superior Zoom climbs. Its aerofoil section was designed for flight and combat at higher speeds than the Spitfire, its pilot excercised greater control over his aircraft while at the same time requiring less energy expended. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Did I read that wrong too?
Is that more evidence supporting the hit and run theory of fighting with the Fw190?
Perhaps I have the hit and run theory wrong?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As for the comments about the FW190, I agree with most, however in the FW190A4 vs Spitfire MkVb it is simply easy to stick around the Spitfire MkVB and 'play' with him in the game. I can easily stay in the same area and fight the Spitfire Vb without having to have 2km advantage and then run after the first pass.

Once I get the game reisntalled I will record a track on UKded2s CHannel '42 map. Thats my favourite Spitfire slaughter map for the FW190, they really can do nothing at all as long as I dont make a mistake and start horizontal turning with them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That, if it happens, can definitely clear up any confusion concerning the actual tactics employed and avoid any doubt whatsoever concerning interpretations of words written in plain English.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">However none of the FW190's aare really dogfighters, they are energy fighters, where you use you speed and power to swoop down, blast the enemy out of hte skit with one burst and zoom away. Dont spend time in prolonged dogfights against Spitfires - you are then fighting to the one advantage the Spitfire has , turn rate.

USe your brain and work out how best to use your speed and firepower against the enemy without getting into a dogfight/turnfight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If the track file shows hit and run tactics, then, the track file will show hit and run tactics.
If the track file shows energy tactics, then, the track file will show energy tactics. If I get a copy of the track file, then, I'll try to make up a .jpg like these:
Hit and run:
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Textbook%20bounce.jpg
Swoop down unseen, shoot, and then zoom away out of range (drag for your wingman even).


Energy tactics:
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Vertical%20Zoom.jpg
Swoop down. Enemy breaks and scissors for the shot after the overshoot. Shoot if possible but don't burn too much energy. Zoom up. Enemy hangs on the prop shooting. Swoop back down while enemy stalls.
I for one am very anxious to see anyone employ energy tactics with an Fw190A series plane against any Spitfire.
The Spitfire in the presentation above was one of the very good players (they are almost all very good players) on Warclouds (you can see evasive maneuvering in the track file).
My experience so far mirrors this:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I still stand firmly behind an opinion that an altitude advantage as a must when engaging enemy on 1v1 basis is simply a poor excuse for a poor 1v1 plane. Spitfire, 109 and such are, besides being good turn fighters also excellent energy fighters as they can outclimb most opponents with ease when fighting them on equal terms. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Any Fw190A versus Spitfire match-up requires from the Fw pilot a huge initial advantage in energy (altitude and speed) for any two passes like the one demonstrated with the 109. The energy loss during one single pitch back maneuver against a scissoring opponent in the Spitfire is enough to bring the excess energy to an equal state requiring a running, nose low, extension after the second pass if the second pass does not accomplish a crippling shot. That is one pass, followed by one loop, followed by another pass only if enough excess energy (higher altitude and higher speed) allowed sufficient range (distance above the target) allowed for a second pass, followed by a definite run away from the much greater ability of the Spitfire to gain energy after hanging on its prop in a stall.
Please do record the track file proving otherwise.
Prove the following to be possible in the game:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm really wondering how you can prove that above considering that the following is anything but the reality of what exist in the game:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Please do prove your claims.

luftluuver
05-15-2007, 05:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I think the MW50 equipment added a bit of weight, but I cant be sure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agh, common sense would say weight was added as there was the tank, the plumbing and the MW50 fluid.

The aux tank in the A-8 added almost 200lb (90kg) to the a/c's weight.

Bremspropeller
05-15-2007, 05:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Though being right, Brown fails to tell that the 190 has a higher turn-rate a high speeds.

Turn-rate is much more important IRL than turning-radius.

slipBall
05-15-2007, 05:12 PM
I vote for them all

carguy_
05-15-2007, 05:27 PM
Definitely the A9.It is the best Focke Wulf.If I want good maneuvering and smaller firepower I take the Bf109.FW190D9 is very good,right,but it can`t take Spitfires alone.Even a P51 poses a slight problem.

FW190A9 is IMO the closest thing I`d imagine how the Focke Wulf really flew.
It holds energy well,has very good acceleration.It`s about the only Anton which does not suddenly leeave you with 0 energy advantage.If one does not follow Spit into turns and executes maneuvers repeatedly correctly then it can last long,much longer.Against Spits one can even stay safe for an extended time without being suddenly forced to a steep running dive.

So from a 109er`s perspective the A9 is all a 109 pilot wants in such a plane.The FW190D9 is too much of a compromise.Not really devastating weapons,not really good maneuvering characteristics.If I take K4,G14,G10 I still have rocket climb,stall fight tricks and good firepower.

VMF-214_HaVoK
05-15-2007, 05:59 PM
I prefer the Antons 5/6. Dora is awesome but lacks the punch and besides that I usually dont fly the late war stuff as there is too many performance issues on all sides except for the PTO aircraft.

HellToupee
05-15-2007, 07:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Though being right, Brown fails to tell that the 190 has a higher turn-rate a high speeds.

Turn-rate is much more important IRL than turning-radius. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

it had a higher turn rate at high speeds?

Never seen anything about that, spitfire had very effective elevators even at very high speeds, it could easily pull a higher turn rate than the pilot could take.

Ratsack
05-16-2007, 12:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Though being right, Brown fails to tell that the 190 has a higher turn-rate a high speeds.

Turn-rate is much more important IRL than turning-radius. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

it had a higher turn rate at high speeds?

Never seen anything about that, spitfire had very effective elevators even at very high speeds, it could easily pull a higher turn rate than the pilot could take. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I tend to agree with you here. The business about turn rates at high speeds is very murky.

What he may be referring to is a quick and dirty SWAG analysis that Crump did over at CWOS. This has been widely misconstrued by some to mean that the Focke-Wulf could out turn the Spitfire at high speed. What it showed was that at high speed, the Spitfire would have to give up energy to match the Focke-Wulf's turn rate. That is to say, the Spit could match the Fw 190's turn, but it would have to give up speed or altitude to do it.

It's no big deal, and the discussion over at CWOS is very interesting for what it's worth, but some of the zealots, nutters and purveyors of verbal sewage around this place (and I don't mean you, Bremspropeller) will take any excuse to try to argue that the heavier fighters should turn like Zeros, all in the name of 'energy'.

Use the fork, Luke.

cheers,
Ratsack

Bremspropeller
05-16-2007, 02:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That is to say, the Spit could match the Fw 190's turn, but it would have to give up speed or altitude to do it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wich actually means it can't sustain the turn-rate and therefore can't turn with the 190.

It either loses energy or has to turn slower than the 190.

Manu-6S
05-16-2007, 03:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
It either loses energy or has to turn slower than the 190. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is it reflected in the game? I really don't think.

HellToupee
05-16-2007, 03:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That is to say, the Spit could match the Fw 190's turn, but it would have to give up speed or altitude to do it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wich actually means it can't sustain the turn-rate and therefore can't turn with the 190.

It either loses energy or has to turn slower than the 190. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sustained turn is differnt from max turn rate, outturning would mean pulling a higher turn rate than can be sustained, sustaining turns was also just something u didnt do in a 190 vs a spit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bremspropeller
05-16-2007, 06:46 AM
Change "sustain" into "maintain" and you got, what I actually wanted to say.

The Spit has two chances: it could turn tighter or as tight, but beed off it's energy in no time.
Or it could turn at a lower turn-rate, but maintain it's energy.

You can't maintain your turn-rate by getting slower (unless you are above corner-speed). Trying to do so would lead to increased AoA, meaning increased drag and therefore a huge loss of energy.
Otherwise, a Spit thats slowing down in a turn (going towards it's corner-speed) won't be able to catch the 190 b/c it's maintaining it's speed and starts to open the distance.

Bewolf
05-16-2007, 07:29 AM
Quite the opposite of what we have in game.

Kurfurst__
05-16-2007, 07:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
The aux tank in the A-8 added almost 200lb (90kg) to the a/c's weight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amazing feature from a tank that weights only 32 kg or so... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

stathem
05-16-2007, 08:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Change "sustain" into "maintain" and you got, what I actually wanted to say.

The Spit has two chances: it could turn tighter or as tight, but beed off it's energy in no time.
Or it could turn at a lower turn-rate, but maintain it's energy.

You can't maintain your turn-rate by getting slower (unless you are above corner-speed). Trying to do so would lead to increased AoA, meaning increased drag and therefore a huge loss of energy.
Otherwise, a Spit thats slowing down in a turn (going towards it's corner-speed) won't be able to catch the 190 b/c it's maintaining it's speed and starts to open the distance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So...what happens if the Spit decides to add some vertical into his turn to bank the energy AND turn at corner? You're relying on the Spitfire pilot to follow your flat turn blindly.

and...if you try to turn at this high IAS where the FW out-turns the Spit, what is the bank angle required? Guess it's not a recommended evasive manouvre if the Spit is in or near guns range?

JG14_Josf
05-16-2007, 09:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So...what happens if the Spit decides to add some vertical into his turn to bank the energy AND turn at corner? You're relying on the Spitfire pilot to follow your flat turn blindly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So...is it true or false before applying any tactics?

A. At the Fw190s steepest 'sustained', level, horizontal, bank angle, turn rate, and turn radius can the Spitfire also maintain that bank angle, turn rate, and turn radius?
B. If not, then, move on to tactics.
C. If so, then, move on to tactics.

The game is easy to test for the answer. The tactics required in the game are easy to employ with obvious results.

If the Fw190 can sustain a level turn at high speed and the Spitfire cannot, then, the Fw190 can use nose to tail turns (two circle geometry) and "out rate" the Spitfire and that can be employed up down or sideways.

The Spitfire (having a slower steepest bank angle in a horizontal turn) can defeat any Fw190 (in the game now or even if the Fw190 was modeled with a higher and steeper bank angle maximum in a level turn) with nose to nose turns (one circle geometry) and angles tactics.

Angles tactics are more applicable to slow speed or stall fights due to the nature of the geometry i.e. it is akin to a slow race where the winner is behind the loser.

Energy tactics (two circle geometry and ˜out rating' in turns) are high speed maneuvers where the end game is timed to be employed after the opponent has been forced slower, lower, and without as much excess energy.

The question is, again, does the Fw190, in reality, have an ability to maintain, in a horizontal turn, a higher bank angle at a higher speed than the Spitfire. True or False?

No need to blame anyone for anything.

True

Or

False

Take any two planes and answer the question.

Any two planes will do. Any two planes – not blue. Not red.

Any two planes will do.

The plane with the higher speed advantage will be more capable of employing the energy fight, two circle geometry, vertical maneuvering, pitch/back, dives, zooms, and high speed combat.

The plane with the lower speed advantage will be more capable of employing angles tactics, one circle geometry, horizontal maneuvering, sustained, stall fighting low speed combat.

Designed for slow speed fighting (http://yarchive.net/air/spitfire.html)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Actually, the Spitfire was very slow for its power, so I wouldn't
say it had good high speed performance (in level flight). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why attack the messenger? The answer is as plain as day.

Bremspropeller
05-16-2007, 09:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So...what happens if the Spit decides to add some vertical into his turn to bank the energy AND turn at corner? You're relying on the Spitfire pilot to follow your flat turn blindly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


We're talking about plain physics, not about tactics here.

The 190 could leave the Spit standing any time by diving away.

Ratsack
05-16-2007, 09:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Change "sustain" into "maintain" and you got, what I actually wanted to say.

The Spit has two chances: it could turn tighter or as tight, but beed off it's energy in no time.
Or it could turn at a lower turn-rate, but maintain it's energy.

You can't maintain your turn-rate by getting slower (unless you are above corner-speed). Trying to do so would lead to increased AoA, meaning increased drag and therefore a huge loss of energy.
Otherwise, a Spit thats slowing down in a turn (going towards it's corner-speed) won't be able to catch the 190 b/c it's maintaining it's speed and starts to open the distance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

'You can't maintain your turn-rate by getting slower (unless you are above corner-speed). '

That's the key point. The Fw 190A's corner speed was higher than the Spit's. But that doesn't make it a good turner, it just means that it turned best at a speed higher than the Spit's best turning speed. At its best turning speed, it did not turn as well as the Spit at its best speed. However, if we assume Crump's SWAG is right (and I make no comment on that), at the Fw 190's best turning speed, the Fw 190 would have a higher rate of turn.

In the game, I don't know if that's true. I've not seen anybody actually test for corner speed. There are some who will blather incontinently about corner speed without ever actually producing the data.

If Crump's proposition were true, it does not follow automatically that the Spit in this situation is all out of options. The two that you outlined - bleed his energy turning tight, or turn at a lower rate - are not the only options he's got. As Stathem pointed out, the Spit pilot could convert his excess speed into altitude until he's at the HIS OWN corner speed, and then comfortably out turn the Focke-Wulf, with no net loss in energy. Once he's at his corner speed, he'd probably stay in that general part of the envelope. The Focke-Wulf pilot would probably attempt to stay fast.

This would lead to the Spits executing flat turns to attack and evade, while the Fw 190s would avoid any horizontal turn that took their speed lower than corner (~ 250 mph, or 400 km/h).

cheers,
Ratsack

london17m
05-16-2007, 11:46 AM
just wondering, does anyone know of any real life accounts of Spitfire vs 190s?

Brain32
05-16-2007, 12:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> If Crump's proposition were true, it does not follow automatically that the Spit in this situation is all out of options. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ofcourse it doesn't, the ones with half a brain know that this does not mean you should be turnfighting Spitfires lol. Just that at FW's design cornering speed(440kmh) FW190 could achieve greater turn rate than a Spitfire, ofcourse the Spitfire can always choose to turn tighter, but at the cost of speed, this is what we know as energy fighting, forcing your opponnet to a lower E-state. It's not about outturning Spitfires in a FW190 lol.
Whether this is true in game or not, it's hard to say, the above is related to a controlled enviroment, and nobody fights making perfect sustained turns and stuff like that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Only proper testing can show if this is true in-game or not, however perfect sustained turns are currently waaay out of my league as my joystick spikes at virtually every axis, even the pot on the throtthle is spiking http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Bremspropeller
05-16-2007, 12:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">ust that at FW's design cornering speed(440kmh) FW190 could achieve greater turn rate than a Spitfire, ofcourse the Spitfire can always choose to turn tighter, but at the cost of speed, this is what we know as energy fighting, forcing your opponnet to a lower E-state. It's not about outturning Spitfires in a FW190 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Finally somebody got it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

hop2002
05-16-2007, 12:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Just that at FW's design cornering speed(440kmh) FW190 could achieve greater turn rate than a Spitfire </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just a second, let's make something clear. That is Crumpp's argument, no one else's.

This seems to be based on an argument over at Butch's board. Crumpp maintained that the Fw 190 most efficient cruise speed was considerably faster than other WW2 fighters. From this he seems to have concluded that the Fw 190 therefore had less drag at that much higher speed.

It's worth pointing out that he was alone on Butch's board, and opposed by several members who know their aerodynamics, just as he is opposed on the CWOS forums.

Ratsack
05-16-2007, 12:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">ust that at FW's design cornering speed(440kmh) FW190 could achieve greater turn rate than a Spitfire, ofcourse the Spitfire can always choose to turn tighter, but at the cost of speed, this is what we know as energy fighting, forcing your opponnet to a lower E-state. It's not about outturning Spitfires in a FW190 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Finally somebody got it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, and the point I was making was and am still making is that getting your opponent fly slower does not mean you're forcing him to a lower energy state. If he is converting speed to altitude, the loss of speed may be energy neutral.

As I've said before, if somebody feels like testing the corner speeds of these planes, I'd be interested to see the results.

cheers,
Ratsack

Bremspropeller
05-16-2007, 12:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If he is converting speed to altitude, the loss of speed may be energy neutral </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not true, for the plane in front now has the higher speed and the higher altitude.
Even if the speed-value is equalized due to giving up alt, the other plane still has more potential energy, giving it a superrior energy-state.
Let's not forget the MASS involved (favouring the 190).

As soon as the lagging plane bleeds off speed, it has an inferior energy-state - no matter if it converts alt into speed, or not.

Manu-6S
05-16-2007, 01:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Ofcourse it doesn't, the ones with half a brain know that this does not mean you should be turnfighting Spitfires lol. Just that at FW's design cornering speed(440kmh) FW190 could achieve greater turn rate than a Spitfire, ofcourse the Spitfire can always choose to turn tighter, but at the cost of speed, this is what we know as energy fighting, forcing your opponnet to a lower E-state. It's not about outturning Spitfires in a FW190 lol. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't understand well... example:

A spit is chasing me during a dive and I reach the 700km/h.. could I pull the stick to enter in a climb FASTER than the spit? If I understood the spit can take the same angle of the FW190 ahead BUT not without losing speed since his turn rate is lower than the FW's one at this speed. So he can't reach the same altitude of the german plane because if he turn tight he will lose energy and if he climb with a shallow angle he will lose part of gained speed.

The same thing but with inverse plane: I'm chasing a diving spit in a FW190: can the spit pull the nose up faster then my plane without losing energy?

These are the things I always find strange about this aspect of the game.

Ratsack
05-16-2007, 01:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If he is converting speed to altitude, the loss of speed may be energy neutral </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not true, for the plane in front now has the higher speed and the higher altitude.
Even if the speed-value is equalized due to giving up alt, the other plane still has more potential energy, giving it a superrior energy-state.
Let's not forget the MASS involved (favouring the 190).

As soon as the lagging plane bleeds off speed, it has an inferior energy-state - no matter if it converts alt into speed, or not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think we're either at cross purposes here, or you're talking gibberish. I need to sleep now, so I'll come back and have a look at this exchange tomorrow. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

cheers,
Ratsack

stathem
05-16-2007, 01:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">ust that at FW's design cornering speed(440kmh) FW190 could achieve greater turn rate than a Spitfire, ofcourse the Spitfire can always choose to turn tighter, but at the cost of speed, this is what we know as energy fighting, forcing your opponnet to a lower E-state. It's not about outturning Spitfires in a FW190 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Finally somebody got it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No Brems, stop changing the goalposts. In your post that I responded to you said

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Spit has two chances: it could turn tighter or as tight, but beed off it's energy in no time.
Or it could turn at a lower turn-rate, but maintain it's energy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

making it sound like a tactic. When I responded with a simple BFM counter (which could be considered an energy tactic) you said

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We're talking about plain physics, not about tactics here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now Brain says it's about energy tactics and you bend over backwards to agree with him.

Make up your mind.

Would it have made a difference if I noted that I was the reason I was interested in high speed turning because I try to use it flying the Tempest against Messers?

Kettenhunde
05-16-2007, 01:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's worth pointing out that he was alone on Butch's board, and opposed by several members who know their aerodynamics, just as he is opposed on the CWOS forums. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Knowing aerodynamics better by arguing that best range does not occur at L/Dmax and the best endurance at Prmin?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As always SE is the inverse of FF (1/FF.) Maximum SE occurs at the bottom of the FF graph. This is slower than the L/Dmax speed (bottom of the blue curve.) You can see that a propeller aircraft must fly slower, and therefore at a greater angle of attack, than an identical jet aircraft.

Just as with the jet aircraft maximum SR (V/FF) occurs where the line from the origin touches the fuel-flow (power) curve. If you inspect the graph above you can see that maximum range in a propeller aircraft occurs at the speed corresponding to minimum drag, i.e. L/Dmax. (Note the difference between prop and jet aircraft in this regard. This would be the SE speed for a jet.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://selair.selkirk.bc.ca/aerodynamics1/Performance/Page7.html

The speeds are easy to verify given a handbook.

The only one in that whole thread with any sense about aerodynamics is Henning. Once Henning viewed the documentation he changed his mind and retracted his objections.

The rest are the same old "gamers" pushing for the edge in their game shape.

Please keep my name out of these silly discussions.

Thanks!

All the best,

Crumpp

Pollack2006
05-16-2007, 01:34 PM
Four pages in and nobody's posted this yet......?

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Got%20Energy.jpg

Brain32
05-16-2007, 01:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Just a second, let's make something clear. That is Crumpp's argument, no one else's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ofcourse, this is what we're talking about, I never did express it as an apsolute truth, I have no knowledge about aerodynamics in that kind of detail.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> It's worth pointing out that he was alone on Butch's board, and opposed by several members who know their aerodynamics, just as he is opposed on the CWOS forums. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yet still as it seems nobody was able to dispute that, raise suspicion among those of us that do not understand or even try to understand all those formulas sure, but dispute it, not yet.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Yes, and the point I was making was and am still making is that getting your opponent fly slower does not mean you're forcing him to a lower energy state. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Depends, how much slower and for how much alt did he spent a certain amount of speed, we're not talking modern jets with huge trust here. If at hipotetically 440kmh Spit must turn tighter to avoid he will bleed a sh1tload of speed for the manouver itself, how much alt do you think will he be able to get?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> As I've said before, if somebody feels like testing the corner speeds of these planes, I'd be interested to see the results. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Most certainly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> A spit is chasing me during a dive and I reach the 700km/h.. could I pull the stick to enter in a climb FASTER than the spit? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Too much excess speed for both planes in your example, at such a high speed, it will all depend on pilot G-endurance(in-game should be same for all) and control authority. Make no mistakes at this speeds Spitfire or any other plane(with exception of our ME109) will be able to hold with you.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Would it have made a difference if I noted that I was the reason I was interested in high speed turning because I try to use it flying the Tempest against Messers? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
In Tempest vs ME109, you have another thing in equasion - control authority. ME109 trying to evade a Tempest by turning...not for the faint hearted, I do not recommend it as it doesn't work in 95% of cases...

Bremspropeller
05-16-2007, 01:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Now Brain says it's about energy tactics and you bend over backwards to agree with him. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not about tactics, but about E-fighting in general.
Keping in mind to hold your energy at a high state is not a tactic in my book.

JG14_Josf
05-16-2007, 01:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pollack2006:
Four pages in and nobody's posted this yet......?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

On the subject of high speed turn performance the better chart is this one:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Wing%20Loading.jpg

The Sustained turn envelope is highlighted in Red. What can be seen in that chart is complete dominance in the sustained turn performance envelope from the slowest speed right up to .7 Mach where the F-86 begins to show an advantage in sustained turn performance.

Note the increase in g force as the F-86 increases speed on that sustained turn line.

What is not published on that chart and what can help illuminate what Crumpp's work suggests is a bank angle notation for that type of chart on that sustained turn stall line.

If Crummp were to use his formula to predict (or reverse engineer) the chart, then, he could also add the bank angle peak for each plane and at what speed the bank angle peaks.

My guess is that the bank angle peak will correspond with the lift production peak (the highest possible g).

Therefore the Mig will probably be turning the steepest bank angle in a sustained turn near .7 Mach. If the Mig goes slower, then, the plane must roll out. If the Mig goes faster, then, the plane must roll out.

On that Chart the F-86 does not have an advantage in sustained turn performance (higher g load); however – the F-86 can match the Mig at nearly 5 g. The F-86 must go faster to reach its peak sustained g load (and probably bank angle).

Note: The F-86 is the plane with the higher wingloading (more weight and less wing ratio) and the F-86 is the plane with the lower power loading (more weight and less power ratio) and the F-86 is the plane with the lower corner velocity.

Note too: The F-86 was the better energy fighter.

One more note: The Mig-15 was the better turn fighter (angles or stall fighter).

HellToupee
05-16-2007, 02:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">ust that at FW's design cornering speed(440kmh) FW190 could achieve greater turn rate than a Spitfire, ofcourse the Spitfire can always choose to turn tighter, but at the cost of speed, this is what we know as energy fighting, forcing your opponnet to a lower E-state. It's not about outturning Spitfires in a FW190 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Finally somebody got it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes but you said this was about turning rate, if the 190 wants to outturn the spit and hold that speed its going to have to give energy aka altitude, as in game d9 vs spit u can outturn if u and he keep speed over 400 but you must be giving altitude to keep that speed. If you are sustaining maintaining what ever flat giving no altitude ur turn rate will not be high.


and maintain and sustain they essentially mean the same thing so changing those words does not change the meaning.

Manu-6S
05-16-2007, 03:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> A spit is chasing me during a dive and I reach the 700km/h.. could I pull the stick to enter in a climb FASTER than the spit? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Too much excess speed for both planes in your example, at such a high speed, it will all depend on pilot G-endurance(in-game should be same for all) and control authority. Make no mistakes at this speeds Spitfire or any other plane(with exception of our ME109) will be able to hold with you.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes Brain, but I mean is that turn rate is involved also if on vertical axis: I understand that a diving spit can't climb with the same angle of the FW190, and, if he does this, he would lose energy to keep the angle.

I see it like the quivering on the FW190 then you use too much elevator: the spit will raise the nose more BUT will lose more energy that doing a shallow climb.

After all this can explain the great advantage of the Faber'FW agaist the Spit, and all the accounts saying that FW190s could still extend by a steep climb at high speed.

HellToupee
05-16-2007, 05:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> A spit is chasing me during a dive and I reach the 700km/h.. could I pull the stick to enter in a climb FASTER than the spit? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Too much excess speed for both planes in your example, at such a high speed, it will all depend on pilot G-endurance(in-game should be same for all) and control authority. Make no mistakes at this speeds Spitfire or any other plane(with exception of our ME109) will be able to hold with you.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes Brain, but I mean is that turn rate is involved also if on vertical axis: I understand that a diving spit can't climb with the same angle of the FW190, and, if he does this, he would lose energy to keep the angle.

I see it like the quivering on the FW190 then you use too much elevator: the spit will raise the nose more BUT will lose more energy that doing a shallow climb.

After all this can explain the great advantage of the Faber'FW agaist the Spit, and all the accounts saying that FW190s could still extend by a steep climb at high speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ur not going to be able to climb at a steeper angle than the mk9, its power to weight is much superior, rember the the plane the faber 190 climbed at a steeper angle to was a standard mkv spitfire lets say 9lbs doing what like 1200hp where as faber was around 1700hp.

Brain32
05-16-2007, 06:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> ur not going to be able to climb at a steeper angle than the mk9, its power to weight is much superior, rember the the plane the faber 190 climbed at a steeper angle to was a standard mkv spitfire lets say 9lbs doing what like 1200hp where as faber was around 1700hp. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes but he did say at high speed, sure once they both reach their best climbing speed the Spit will overtake the FW190 rapidly, but in a high speed climb...

Kettenhunde
05-16-2007, 07:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">On that Chart the F-86 does not have an advantage in sustained turn performance (higher g load); </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The F86 on your chart does have a sustained turn advantage at high velocity over the MiG 15 on this chart.

I highlighted it in blue for you.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1179363683_wingloading1.jpg

Any aircraft that has a higher top speed will have a sustained turn performance advantage at some point in the high velocity realm over the slower aircraft. Remember that at top speed the only sustained performance our aircraft is capable of is flying wings level.

The advantage to this is the slower aircraft cannot match this performance without trading altitude for airspeed. If he does go to the vertical, then the one traveling the at the faster velocity will zoom the highest.

Whichever design has the highest L/D ratio in a given condition of flight will generally have the advantage.

L/D ratio is the glide ratio for that condition of flight. The higher ratio is moving farther through the air for less effort.

The Dmin point and L/Dmax for a given design can be found by looking up the maximum range cruise speeds and the maximum endurance cruise speeds. The curve can then be calculated and compared.

Aircraft are a system though and not one characteristic.

All the best,

Crumpp

JG14_Josf
05-16-2007, 09:05 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/RocketDog/polar24c.jpg

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Whichever design has the highest L/D ratio in a given condition of flight will generally have the advantage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is that the same as Lift pressure/Dynamic pressure?

I mean the plane can't lift without some loss. The glider, for example, can't glide forever.

At 3 g on the lift vector and maintaining altitude (no acceleration up or down) the plane with the least loss (D in L/D) or cost on lift (L in L/D), at a specific speed, will require the least engine power – no?

Anyway – the F-86, according to the chart, can turn a smaller radius turn at high speed AND maintain altitude; however – the maximum sustainable g force, in a sustained turn, (and therefore the steepest bank angle?) is nearly the same for both planes (at different speeds) and that maximum g force is (sustained) is just under 5 g.

Since the F-86 does manage to sustain just under 5 g at a higher speed, then, it can't (if I understand this correctly) maintain as steep a bank angle as the Mig.

If the Fw190 was capable of sustaining a turn at a higher speed and a higher bank angle, then, does that mean that the peak g load (sustained) for the Fw 190 will be higher (at a higher speed)?

And would that mean, then, that the cost of gaining that much g (lift production) is a lower cost of drag (decelerating force)?

Ratsack
05-16-2007, 09:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If he is converting speed to altitude, the loss of speed may be energy neutral </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not true, for the plane in front now has the higher speed and the higher altitude.
Even if the speed-value is equalized due to giving up alt, the other plane still has more potential energy, giving it a superrior energy-state.
Let's not forget the MASS involved (favouring the 190).

As soon as the lagging plane bleeds off speed, it has an inferior energy-state - no matter if it converts alt into speed, or not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've re-read this and I think you're wrong.

Starting conditions:
* We assume Crump's contention to be correct for the sake of argument;
* We assume - again for the sake of discussion - the Fw 190 A's best speed for sustained turn to be 450 km/h and the Spitfire's to be 300 km/h; and
* We stipulate a starting condition where the Fw 190 A and Spitfire IX are at 450 km/h, at the same altitude.

Under these starting conditions the Fw 190 already has more energy, being the heavier plane moving at the same speed and at the same height.

The Fw 190 starts a LEVEL turn - to the left, for example - at its best speed for sustained rate of turn, 450 km/h. The Spitfire can now:

a.) Attempt to match his own rate of level turn to the Fw 190's, and lose either height or speed. This option is NOT energy-neutral for the Spit, as he will lose energy doing it: either height or speed, or both.

b.) Attempt his best level turn at that speed. This is an energy-neutral option for the Spitfire, in that it is neither losing nor gaining speed or height. Neither is the Focke-Wulf, so the latter retains its initial energy advantage and is being allowed to extend it into an angle advantage. Dumb.

c.) Pull into a zoom climb - with his angular velocity in the pull up such that he is going at his best rate of turn at that speed - until his speed drops to Spitfire corner speed (i.e., 300 km/h). This move is energy-neutral for the Spitfire, because he has converted kinetic energy (speed) into potential energy (height). There is no net gain or loss to the system. The Focke-Wulf maintains its energy advantage because it is faster, but is now at a lower altitude. Furthermore, the Spitfire at its new altitude and speed is able to turn at a higher rate than the Focke-Wulf.

From this position, the Spitfire can play the angles against the Focke-Wulf, and if left alone can accelerate to his top speed at that height (i.e., well above his best turning speed), thus putting energy in the bank for the next merge, where the dodgy bastage will simply rinse and repeat.

This is how players in Focke-Wulfs end up with 'inferior' Spitfires always above them.

If the Focke-Wulf 190 A is to dominate its contemporary Spitfire opponents, the pilot must fly a lot smarter than this, and use the vertical and not leave it for the bloody Spitfires.

cheers,
Ratsack

Kettenhunde
05-16-2007, 10:06 PM
I don't think the Spitfire is inferior by any means Ratsack. Both aircraft are very good designs and very much equals.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Is that the same as Lift pressure/Dynamic pressure? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is the ratio of lift pressure to drag pressure.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If the Fw190 was capable of sustaining a turn at a higher speed and a higher bank angle, then, does that mean that the peak g load (sustained) for the Fw 190 will be higher (at a higher speed)? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not sure what your asking but the Focke Wulf does not out turn the Spitfire. I never said that. Only in a small portion of the envelope at high velocity can it sustain a higher angle of bank.

This is useful to the Focke Wulf's energy picture as the aircraft can maneuver and maintain an energy advantage.

The Focke Wulfs Nz Max will occur at higher velocity but it will not be higher than the Spitfires Nz max because of where the Prmin points occur.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">At 3 g on the lift vector and maintaining altitude (no acceleration up or down) the plane with the least loss (D in L/D) or cost on lift (L in L/D), at a specific speed, will require the least engine power – no? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct, the higher L/D ratio is moving using less effort. L/D ratio is also called glide ratio. If you have an L/D ratio of 12:1 then you are moving 12 feet forward for every 1 foot lost in altitude.

All the best,

Crumpp

HellToupee
05-16-2007, 10:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> ur not going to be able to climb at a steeper angle than the mk9, its power to weight is much superior, rember the the plane the faber 190 climbed at a steeper angle to was a standard mkv spitfire lets say 9lbs doing what like 1200hp where as faber was around 1700hp. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes but he did say at high speed, sure once they both reach their best climbing speed the Spit will overtake the FW190 rapidly, but in a high speed climb... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

but a high speed climb isnt steep.

PRAETORIVS
05-16-2007, 10:57 PM
I've had a lot of success in the A-9 due to it's stability and hitting power. Out-board Mk-108's pack a devastating punch that convert even bombers into confetti in one pass and send single engine fighters spinning .... if they didn't explode. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

It climbs poorly, though, and does not turn well. To avoid annoying TT let us call it a speed fighter. In most cases I take this up because I disdain Spitfires as Wussmachines and abhore La's as Uberwussmachines and won't fly them. I found I could usually stay out of reach of them if I can keep myself in a superior energy state. It has increased my K/D Ratio over the past four cycles exponentially.

However, if expect to do a lot of higher altitude work then I'll take a D-9. It is faster and is much easier to keep out of reach of Spits and Oleg's Wonder Machine, but doesn't pack the punch of the A-9.

Mid-War the A-6 is usually my choice.

Manu-6S
05-17-2007, 12:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
but a high speed climb isnt steep. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If my elevetor doesn't become useless I can decide how much pull the stick for climb: if I pull too much I can have problems with G-force. In that case the pilot's position inside the FW could help him.

I said this because sometime I follows a booming spit in my FW and I see that, at high speed, he can quite complete a loop while I'm still raizing my nose.

If I'm not near I can kill him but then I'm at 150m I cant follow his manouvre.

If the high speed turn rate is better I should raise my nose faster than him.

HellToupee
05-17-2007, 05:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
but a high speed climb isnt steep. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If my elevetor doesn't become useless I can decide how much pull the stick for climb: if I pull too much I can have problems with G-force. In that case the pilot's position inside the FW could help him.

I said this because sometime I follows a booming spit in my FW and I see that, at high speed, he can quite complete a loop while I'm still raizing my nose.

If I'm not near I can kill him but then I'm at 150m I cant follow his manouvre.

If the high speed turn rate is better I should raise my nose faster than him. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

what?

Ratsack
05-17-2007, 05:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
I don't think the Spitfire is inferior by any means Ratsack. Both aircraft are very good designs and very much equals. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, and I wasn't having a dig at you when I put the word 'inferior' in parentheses. Rather I was sinking the slipper into some of our brethren on these boards who will take any fact or factoid, in any context, and use it to argue that black is white and white is black if it also shows that 'their' plane should be better.

I am also becoming a little impatient with some of our brethren who seem to think the air war consisted of the Battle of Britain and the 8th AF daylight offensive. To these good worthies the Spitfire is just the plane the Thunderbolt and Mustang replaced. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

cheers,
Ratsack

mynameisroland
05-17-2007, 05:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PRAETORIVS:
I've had a lot of success in the A-9 due to it's stability and hitting power. Out-board Mk-108's pack a devastating punch that convert even bombers into confetti in one pass and send single engine fighters spinning .... if they didn't explode. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

It climbs poorly, though, and does not turn well. To avoid annoying TT let us call it a speed fighter. In most cases I take this up because I disdain Spitfires as Wussmachines and abhore La's as Uberwussmachines and won't fly them. I found I could usually stay out of reach of them if I can keep myself in a superior energy state. It has increased my K/D Ratio over the past four cycles exponentially.

However, if expect to do a lot of higher altitude work then I'll take a D-9. It is faster and is much easier to keep out of reach of Spits and Oleg's Wonder Machine, but doesn't pack the punch of the A-9.

Mid-War the A-6 is usually my choice. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Using your criteria for personally favouring the Fw 190A9 the D0 335 or Ta 152 C is probably the best fighter in the game.

What the D9 44 gives you over the A9 or the D9 45 is speed, better climb, superior turn and excellent all altitude performance. The twin Mg 151s of the D9 series is sufficient to shoot down any fighter aircraft, infact most Fw 190 'aces' prefer the Mg 151 over the Mk 108 for air to air fighter combat.

A good measure amongst the Fw 190s would be to fly one against the other. A D9 44 will out fight any of the Fw 190 family including the 45 one on one.

Bremspropeller
05-17-2007, 07:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">From this position, the Spitfire can play the angles against the Focke-Wulf, and if left alone can accelerate to his top speed at that height (i.e., well above his best turning speed), thus putting energy in the bank for the next merge, where the dodgy bastage will simply rinse and repeat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your three options directly repeat what I said.

However, your last statement is not necessarily true:

1.) The Spit does not keep it's energy equal during the zoom (drag).

2.) The 190 opens up the distance, as the Spit trades speed for altitude and thus gains options.
Due to it's mass advantage, it could also zoom up (gaining a higher alt due to it's greater inertia).


Tactically this analysis states nothing.
But physically it sais, the 190 has an advantage over the Spit at high speeds - of course only when being flown accordingly.

Ratsack
05-17-2007, 08:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">From this position, the Spitfire can play the angles against the Focke-Wulf, and if left alone can accelerate to his top speed at that height (i.e., well above his best turning speed), thus putting energy in the bank for the next merge, where the dodgy bastage will simply rinse and repeat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your three options directly repeat what I said. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, they don't, but it doesn't matter.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
However, your last statement is not necessarily true:

1.) The Spit does not keep it's energy equal during the zoom (drag). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're right, there's always drag, but I didn't factor that in because I wanted to keep it simple. If we're going to factor in the drag on the Spitfire in the zoom, then we have to factor in the drag on the Focke-Wulf in its turn. It's the same thing. I left it out in both instances rather than muddy the water having to say things like 'this move is nearly energy-neutral'.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
2.) The 190 opens up the distance, as the Spit trades speed for altitude and thus gains options.
Due to it's mass advantage, it could also zoom up (gaining a higher alt due to it's greater inertia). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with the first sentence above, but it goes downhill from there. It's true that the 190 could zoom up. It's also true that it should attain a higher alt than the Spitfire if it maxed out the zoom climb. I don't really agree with your reasoning, in that there's more to it than mass. Be that as it may, the 190 pilot wouldn't want to max out his zoom climb until he had some horizontal separation.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Tactically this analysis states nothing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree. What it shows is that if the Spitfire pilot doesn't try to turn outside his plane's best envelope, and if when invited to do so by the Fw 190 he instead converts excess speed into height and THEN plays the angles, he can minimize the 190's energy advantage and prevent the German getting a gun solution almost indefinitely. However, if the 190 is flown well, the Spit would have to give up some of his carefully husbanded E to ensure a good shot. In summary, the flyer who is too recklessly aggressive is likely to be the one floating home.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
But physically it sais, the 190 has an advantage over the Spit at high speeds - of course only when being flown accordingly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm. O.K. If you say so.

cheers,
Ratsack

karost
05-17-2007, 09:34 AM
for Fw190
Fw190 D9 is the best fighter
Fw190 A9 is the best killer

if you have deflection shooting skill in MK108 , Fw190 A9 is a choice. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/1816/07050701trainingjl6.jpg

http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/4366/07050702trainingbv9.jpg

http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/621/07050703traininguo6.jpg

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/3074/07050704trainingpu5.jpg

http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/2352/07050705trainingkz5.jpg

Yesss http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif
S!

PRAETORIVS
05-17-2007, 11:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:

Using your criteria for personally favouring the Fw 190A9 the D0 335 or Ta 152 C is probably the best fighter in the game.

What the D9 44 gives you over the A9 or the D9 45 is speed, better climb, superior turn and excellent all altitude performance. The twin Mg 151s of the D9 series is sufficient to shoot down any fighter aircraft, infact most Fw 190 'aces' prefer the Mg 151 over the Mk 108 for air to air fighter combat.

A good measure amongst the Fw 190s would be to fly one against the other. A D9 44 will out fight any of the Fw 190 family including the 45 one on one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the Do turns very, very poorly .... something akin to a battleship towing two other battleships behind it...

But, it's just as rugged as a battleship and hits just as hard. Do's can really drive Spits nuckin' futs because it can just fly straight until the Spit runs out of ammo then go after and kill the Spit.

However, the Do never saw combat nor entered production, so I fly it only occasionally when I get a wild hair up my can.

I have found I do not get along with the Ta-152C very well. It does hit hard, but it lacks the speed of the real thing and is still weaker in armament to the A9. But, I do fly it sometimes.

The D9 is definitely faster than an A-9, but I'm not sure it's more maneuverable. The 2 Mg-151/20's are good, but I tend to be a lousy shot with them. The A-9 is also more stable and that makes my shooting much better.

I am not trying to say which is the best 190 variant because that will vary from individual to individual. For me the A-9 has been the best all-around 190.

I cannot adjust the sensitivity for my CH Rudder Pedals for some reason, only for my X-52. Thus, if the shot allows me use pitch and/or roll to adjust on target I am much more accurate than if it requires me to yaw the sights on line. When I open the controller sensitivity controls I get only Pitch and Roll, no yaw. Think I'm gonna buy Saitek pedal real soon...

JG14_Josf
05-17-2007, 11:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If the Fw190 was capable of sustaining a turn at a higher speed and a higher bank angle, then, does that mean that the peak g load (sustained) for the Fw 190 will be higher (at a higher speed)? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can rephrase that to avoid being accused of putting words in anyone else's mouth.

If:

A. Fw190 peak sustained bank angle is x (-1) at y (+1) km/h
B. Spitfire peak sustained bank angle is x(+1) at y (-1) km/h

Then

The Spitfire can sustain a steeper peak bank angle at a lower speed.

The Fw190 can sustain a shallower peak bank angle at a higher speed.

Where "sustain" means to maintain altitude (no acceleration up or down).

Now my question again:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If the Fw190 was capable of sustaining a turn at a higher speed and a higher bank angle, then, does that mean that the peak g load (sustained) for the Fw 190 will be higher (at a higher speed)? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If:

The Fw 190 was capable of sustaining a turn at a higher speed and a higher bank angle.

Intending to mean:

If the Fw 190 was capable of sustaining a steeper peak bank angle than the Spitfire (even if it occurs at a higher speed), then, does that mean that the maximum g load will be higher for the Fw190?

Example:

Fw 190 maximum (peak) sustained bank angle is x (+1) at velocity y (+1)

Spitfire maximum (peak) sustained bank angle is x (-1) at velocity y (-1)

If so, then, will the Fw190 have a greater maximum sustainable g load (greater maximum acceleration on the lift vector) while sustaining altitude (no acceleration up or down)?

I ask this question specifically because, so far, the discussion defines ˜sustainable' as maintaining a level or horizontal turn (no acceleration up or down).

What happens when both aircraft ˜sustain' maximum g load without limiting the maximum sustainable g load to flight conditions requiring zero acceleration up or down (maintaining altitude)?

What happens to the bank angles of the Fw190 and the Spitfire when both planes ˜sustain' maximum g load as both planes drop the nose from their PEAK lift/drag condition of turning flight? Which one can sustain a higher peak bank angle? Which one can sustain a higher peak bank angle at a lower speed?

If you do not understand yet that I am not trying to put words in your mouth and if you do not understand yet that my questions dos not have to be ignored just because my questions are difficult to communicate, then, the choice to ignore my questions does not have to accompany a claim that I think you say something you did not say. Don't blame me for trying to make you say things that you don't want to say. That is not my intention AT ALL. There is no reason to suggest that you say things that you didn't say. Why is the thought suggested at all?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It is the ratio of lift pressure to drag pressure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the case of the F-86 versus Mig-15 (where an EM chart has been recorded) what would be the effect on that chart as the F-86 increases lift pressure and decreases drag pressure at its PEAK g production in a level turn (the sustained altitude stall line or envelope)?

In other words; if you look at the chart and note the speed at which the F-86 can maximum g force (lift production) and sustain altitude (approximately .8 Mach on the chart), then, what would happen if the F-86 design was changed in such a manner that, at that speed, the plane produced more lift pressure and less drag pressure (increase L/D at that speed)?

Or in other words: Why, at .8 Mach, is the Mi15 incapable of producing more lift pressure and/or less drag pressure at that speed?

The Mig15 is lighter per wing surface area.

The F-86 is heavier per unit of engine thrust.

The F-86 can match the Mig15 in PEAK g production in a sustained turn (at a higher speed).

What are their bank angles at peak bank angle?

Which plane can ˜sustain' the higher bank angle at any speed?

Does their peak bank angle correspond with their peak g (lift) production during ˜sustained' level turns? The F-86 is almost 5 g at .8 Mach and the Mig is almost 5 g at .7 Mach.

What increases lift pressure capabilities and/or what lowers drag pressure capabilities for fight conditions involving PEAK bank angle and PEAK lift production?

Note: Peak lift production is independent of bank angle since bank angle is a reference to the gravity vector and peak lift production is accomplished with wings level – inverted flight. Peak ˜sustained' lift production is accomplished with a nose lose turn spiraling down at corner speed. Peak ˜sustained altitude' lift production is accomplished when no acceleration is generated up or down. Both the spiral down ˜sustained' lift production and the ˜sustained altitude' maximum lift production flight conditions are dependent upon bank angle. Which plane can ˜sustain' the higher bank angle in either flight condition (nose down or ˜sustained altitude')?

Which plane has the lower corner speed?

Fw 190
Spitfire

F-86
Mig 15

If the formula used to find the lower corner speed does not find the F-86 with the lower corner speed, then, perhaps there is a misunderstanding concerning the facts.

The EM chart is linked to a John Boyd site. It may not be an accurate EM chart. If it is an accurate EM chart, then, the F-86 did have the lower corner velocity.

The F-86, like the Fw 190, had the higher wing loading.

In the case of the Fw190A-3 versus Spitfire VB (June 1942) the Fw 190 was not like the F-86/Mig because the Fw 190 had the higher thrust loading compared to the light weight opponent (Spitfire). That can easily be proven with flight tests (rather than relying upon engine horsepower figures or calculations).

Anyway – the maximum possible g force production and the speed at which that PEAK rate of acceleration on the lift vector is reached is a specific flight condition (wings level inverted) and knowing the ratio of lift pressure to drag pressure designed into the wing is a vital factor determining PEAK turn performance, when altitude loss is not a factor, or any flight condition for that matter – apparently.

L/D changes with angle of attack no?

Lift pressure/Drag pressure changes with angle of attack – correct?
A plane with a very good lift pressure to drag pressure ratio (accelerates on the lift vector for very little cost in deceleration measured as air speed) at high angle of attack is not the same thing as a plane with a very good lift pressure to drag pressure ratio at lower angles of attack no?

And this ratio of L/D at high angle of attack to L/D at low angle of attack is, in part, a function of wing design variables such as camber no?

A very thin wing built for speed is not likely to have a lot of camber no?

I'm trying to avoid communicating in such a way that suggests me putting words in anyone else's communications.

Changes in the L/D ratio from the highest Lift pressure to lowest drag pressure ratio caused by changes in angle of attack are changes in L/D that effect how much acceleration on the lift vector is gained by how much loss of air speed. In other words; a plane with a lot of camber may be more efficient at high angles of attack during unsustainable flight compared to a plane that can ˜sustain' a high angle of attack without losing altitude because the efficiency of the high camber plane is higher at high angles of attack (yet the high camber winged plane may be heavier) – yes or no?

A design compromise can be reached, apparently, whereby slow speed performance is gained at the cost of high speed performance in more detailed design variables than simply the wing size per unit weight and the engine horsepower per unit weight. Such variables include wing camber, is that true, where the higher camber wing is more efficient at high angles of attack (more lift pressure per unit of drag pressure).

L/D if I am not mistaken is unchanged by weight (unless weight and load distorts wing shape). What changes with additional weight is not the ratio of lift pressure to drag pressure. What does change with changes in weight, relative to L/D, is stall speed.

It goes up.

What does weight do to the maximum lift production possible for any given plane (maximum lift production is achieved inverted with wings level)? Will increases in weight lower the maximum possible lift production or will increases in weight merely increase the speed required to arrive at the maximum lift production (measurable as g force)?

Discussions can help arrive at better understanding. Of course when someone already understands everything, then, that person is in a position to be charitable, I suppose, since he has nothing to gain from discussion – at all. I am not that one. If you think so, then, you are confused.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Not sure what your asking but the Focke Wulf does not out turn the Spitfire. I never said that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Words can manage to communicate accurate perceptions. This is a known fact.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Only in a small portion of the envelope at high velocity can it sustain a higher angle of bank.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does the Fw190 ˜out turn' the Spitfire in a small portion of the envelope at high velocity?

Perhaps a ˜yes' or ˜no' answer is insufficient?

Which plane has the lower corner velocity?

Which of the following planes have the lower corner velocity?

Fw190A-3 (the one tested by the British = an actual, real, production example of the Fighter type = even though the known comparative flight tests were conducted using the wrong gasoline)

Spitfire VB (1942 June) fighter type (actual example of the actual plane) used in the side by side tests done by the British against the Fw190A-3

Which plane has the lower corner velocity of the above two planes according to a formula since the actual corner speed tests conducted were only conducted as "pull-out" from dive tests. No other corner speed tests were done. Unless ˜split S and dive' combat tests are considered ˜corner speed' tests.

Now; if the same formula used to find the corner speeds of the Spitfire and the Fw above is TESTED on the F-86 and the Mig-15 (the formula itself is tested), then, the formula can be tested for accuracy (assuming the EM chart taken from the John Boyd site is accurate).

If the formula places the Mig-15 with the lower corner speed, then, either the formula is wrong or the EM chart is wrong.

Certainly there must be an accurate EM chart whereby any corner speed formula can be tested to see if the formula is accurate relative to the real world where fighter pilot's live – and die.

If anyone needs help with identifying game corner speeds, then, they can learn how to do it the right way according to modern combat testing procedures such as the Wind Up Turn and the Loaded Deceleration. That can be found on the Navair site.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Focke Wulfs Nz Max will occur at higher velocity but it will not be higher than the Spitfires Nz max because of where the Prmin points occur. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Trying not to misinterpret the above; trying to understand it:

A. That relates to ˜sustained' (maintaining altitude = no acceleration up or down)?
B. That is not confined to any attitude of flight at all.

I ask that question again because of the F-86 versus Mig-15 example indicates confusion to me as I try to interpret the relationship.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Focke Wulfs Nz Max will occur at higher velocity but it will not be higher than the Spitfires Nz max because of where the Prmin points occur. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is Nz Max? Is it the maximum amount of lift production possible? Is it, in other words, the maximum acceleration on the lift vector possible? Is it only the maximum amount of acceleration on the lift vector during a ˜sustained' turn (no acceleration up or down)?

The F-86 generates more g force (Nz max) at a lower speed (lower corner speed) and this fact (if the chart is accurate) is easy to see on the chart.

The F-86, on the other hand, cannot generate more g force (Nz max) when the effort is limited by the need to maintain altitude (no acceleration up or down); however – both planes have the same maximum g force ˜sustained' at just under 5 g (on the chart).

The actual acceleration on the lift vector (maximum) for both planes in level flight is the same (just under 5 g). The Mig can generate just under 5 g, in a sustained turn, at a lower speed. Both have the same Nz max = 4.8 (approximately) g?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Focke Wulfs Nz Max will occur at higher velocity but it will not be higher than the Spitfires Nz max because of where the Prmin points occur. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again – to eliminate confusion there may be a need to gain more information.

The F-86's Nz Max will occur at a higher velocity but it will be the same as the Mig Nz max (4.8g) because of where the Prmin points occur?

Am I confusing terms?

Nz max = maximum lift production measurable as g force = the point at which the plane is accelerating the highest possible rate on the lift vector?

Both the F-86 and the Mig 15 accelerate 4.8 g maximum in a sustained turn according to the chart. The F-86 has a higher speed Nz max.

How about bank angle?

Will knowing the bank angles help eliminate some of my confusion?

Which plane can sustain a higher bank angle?

Are both planes at the same bank angle when both planes are at their Nz max point?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Focke Wulfs Nz Max will occur at higher velocity but it will not be higher than the Spitfires Nz max because of where the Prmin points occur. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What exactly is Prmin?

I think that Prmin is a measure of efficiency whereby the power available is maximized at the minimum power required for that specific condition of flight (no acceleration up down forward or back) at the lift limit and at full power.

Prmin is somewhat confusing to me.

Corner speed is easier to understand for me.

Corner speed is the speed at which the plane can generate the most acceleration (measured as g force) on the lift vector. That is very simple.

What is the maximum rate of acceleration possible for the plane i.e. what is corner speed.

Corner speed will be a higher rate of acceleration (more g) than the maximum acceleration on the lift vector speed during a ˜sustained' (no acceleration up or down) turn. Corner speed doesn't limit the g production, the lift production, with the need to maintain altitude.

The plane with the lower corner speed will be the energy fighter.

The F-86, for example, was the energy fighter compared to the higher corner speed Mig-15.

Having an accurate EM chart of the Fw and Spitfire (drawing in the accelerated stall line and not JUST the sustained stall line - accurately) will prove which plane was the energy fighter just like the EM chart for the F-86 versus Mig-15 proves that the F-86 was the energy fighter.

Pilot experience confirms the fact that the F-86 was the energy fighter. The Mig-15 was the turn fighter (stall fighter = angles fighter).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Correct, the higher L/D ratio is moving using less effort. L/D ratio is also called glide ratio. If you have an L/D ratio of 12:1 then you are moving 12 feet forward for every 1 foot lost in altitude. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So as not to suggest that the above is wrong I feel the need to state that I am not saying that the above is wrong; however – in this context the L/D term can be confused with a straight and level decent made by a glider rather than utilize the term (L/D) to mean an efficiency ratio during a maximum performance turn performed by a WWII fighter plane with a high performance engine, where, the lift pressure to drag pressure ratio equates to 12 feet on the lift vector for 1 foot on the forward vector, or, more precisely – the acceleration on the lift vector is gained at the expense of velocity on the air speed indicator. I don't want to confuse L/D to mean something that is limited to glider performance.

Am I not communicating?

A condition of flight can occur whereby the ratio of lift pressure to drag pressure stabilizes and acceleration on the lift vector is no longer accelerating (just like the glider is no longer accelerating when it is flying 12 feet forward for each foot down) and this condition of flight can measure that ratio of lift pressure and drag pressure as g force on the lift vector and speed on the velocity vector.

Rather than 12/1 the ratio becomes 6g/400 km/h.

The 12 feet forward is a measure of "lift" no different than the 6 g is a measure of lift??

The 1 foot down is a measure of drag (or cost) no different than the 400 km/h is a measure of drag (or cost).

If the ratio between lift pressure and drag pressure changes (opening a radiator flap, deploying combat flaps, lowering landing gear, etc), then, 12/1 is no longer valid and 6 g/400 km/h is no longer accurate.

If I am not mistaken, please consider discussing, or ignoring, and avoiding attacking me personally, the L/D ratio does not change with additions or subtraction of aircraft weight.

What can be confusing on this perspective is ˜sustained' turn performance.

From another angle:

If I am not mistaken, please consider discussing, or ignoring, and avoid focusing attention on me personally, the L/D ratio (the lift pressure to drag pressure ratio) does not change with additions or subtractions of thrust; because – the L/D ratio is a function of wing (and fuselage) size, shape, and aerodynamic properties.

Therefore; the plane having the maximum acceleration of the lift vector capability for the least loss in deceleration on the forward vector is independent of both the wing - loading and power - loading ratios.

A confusion of this fact concerns how that L/D (at maximum lift) ratio applies to flight conditions where weight must be forced upward against gravity by engine power.

Lifting weight up against the force of gravity is a function of wing – loading and power – loading.

L/D is not.

So, again, what are the corner speeds?

One way of finding corner speed involves calculation.

The better way (more accurate despite the need to rely upon pilot skill) to find corner speed is with flight tests.

If I am not mistaken the F-86 versus Mig-15 documented corner speeds on the Boyd Chart were the results of flight tests conducted by Chuck Yeager and John Boyd when a Mig-15 pilot defected from North Korea (China?) with his Mig-15.

I think it is safe to say that Chuck and John were skilled pilots capable of finding an accurate corner speed by either calculation or flight tests.

I'm interested in seeing anyone's formula tested for accuracy. Without a test for accuracy a formula is untested for accuracy. I think that is self-evident.

That is what I think despite what anyone else claims to be my thoughts.

JG14_Josf
05-17-2007, 11:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yesss </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice shot!

Thanks

Manu-6S
05-17-2007, 12:40 PM
This image shows how the things work actually when a FW190 is chasing a Spit in a dive (imagine that the Spit is attacking a plane under him).
http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/8420/spit190os3.gif

The Spit changes climb angle faster than the FW190 (it, like many of us know, will lose energy by using too mush elevator).

Note that is simply a high speed turn rate matter even if in the vertical axis.

Shouldn't it be the opposite?

The spit can climb steeper but losing energy (like our FWs do).

Surely the pilot's position inside the FW190 could make him resist more Gforce and elevators were really good.

I have always read accounts where the pilots claimed that they could disengage also climbing.

The same with the FW tested by RAF.

finally, but maybe it's only a story, Clostermann claimed that during a fight I was chased by several FW190s while climbing (after a dive) and the FW190s were closing on him: his target was to reach the Merlin 2nd state altitude to be safe, and so it was.

JG4_Helofly
05-17-2007, 01:01 PM
@Manu, what you described in your image is correct for lower speed. The spitfire has a instant turn advantage due to it's lower wing loading (We are talking about instant turn not sustained turn performance!), but at very high speed the limiting factor is the pilot. As soon as you can not black out anymore the plane with the better instant turn will turn tighter.

mynameisroland
05-17-2007, 01:21 PM
Hi http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Well, the Do turns very, very poorly .... something akin to a battleship towing two other battleships behind it... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Fw 190 A9 and the Do 335 have very similar turn circles, and the Do 335 out climbs the A9 too.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The D9 is definitely faster than an A-9, but I'm not sure it's more maneuverable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look for a program called IL2 Compare, it shows you turn climb and speed performance for aircraft. The Fw 190 D9 is faster, climbs better and out turns the A9.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The 2 Mg-151/20's are good, but I tend to be a lousy shot with them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the key sentence, if you are a good shot 2x Mg 151s are deadly. Ever since they re introduced the MG shells they have been the most destructive 20mm cannon in IL2. Quite simply they chew up fighters, especially Spitfires. They are easier to aim with and encourage deflection shooting due to their rate of fire and trajectory.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I cannot adjust the sensitivity for my CH Rudder Pedals for some reason, only for my X-52. Thus, if the shot allows me use pitch and/or roll to adjust on target I am much more accurate than if it requires me to yaw the sights on line. When I open the controller sensitivity controls I get only Pitch and Roll, no yaw. Think I'm gonna buy Saitek pedal real soon... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I use CH pedals too and found them over senstitve, I just dulled down the responsiveness in my IL2 config file. So instead of having a linear increase like 0/5/10/15/20/25/30 ... and so on I re wrote it so that it was 0/2/4/6/8/10/16/ and so on increasing in value until it ended up as 100. That helped alot for me.

Bremspropeller
05-17-2007, 01:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If we're going to factor in the drag on the Spitfire in the zoom, then we have to factor in the drag on the Focke-Wulf in its turn. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The Spit has a greater wing-area and creates more lift.
Thus, it produces more drag than the 190 in the same turn (granted AoA is the same with both a/c).

Producing more lift, the Spit would have to pull a smaller AoA, but I doubt that this will equal out the drag (Spit having a larger wetted area from the start and a larger wing-area).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I disagree. What it shows is that if the Spitfire pilot doesn't try to turn outside his plane's best envelope, and if when invited to do so by the Fw 190 he instead converts excess speed into height and THEN plays the angles, he can minimize the 190's energy advantage and prevent the German getting a gun solution almost indefinitely. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is an option. However that would require the 190 to continue turning.
A good pilot would use his gained E advantage and disengage.

Ratsack
05-17-2007, 11:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If we're going to factor in the drag on the Spitfire in the zoom, then we have to factor in the drag on the Focke-Wulf in its turn. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The Spit has a greater wing-area and creates more lift.
Thus, it produces more drag than the 190 in the same turn (granted AoA is the same with both a/c).

Producing more lift, the Spit would have to pull a smaller AoA, but I doubt that this will equal out the drag (Spit having a larger wetted area from the start and a larger wing-area).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I disagree. What it shows is that if the Spitfire pilot doesn't try to turn outside his plane's best envelope, and if when invited to do so by the Fw 190 he instead converts excess speed into height and THEN plays the angles, he can minimize the 190's energy advantage and prevent the German getting a gun solution almost indefinitely. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is an option. However that would require the 190 to continue turning.
A good pilot would use his gained E advantage and disengage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except, as I pointed out, the Fw 190 doesn't have a net gain in energy in this scenario.

cheers,
Ratsack