PDA

View Full Version : From Oleg Maddox: How to out-climb Spitfire V (with merlin 45 or 46) in FW-190A-4.



crazyivan1970
03-11-2004, 10:15 AM
I wish i could paste it in http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

http://home.cogeco.ca/~lomacfpp/crazyivan/FW_vs_Spit.jpg

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

[This message was edited by crazyivan1970 on Thu March 11 2004 at 09:26 AM.]

[This message was edited by crazyivan1970 on Thu March 11 2004 at 10:04 AM.]

[This message was edited by crazyivan1970 on Thu March 11 2004 at 10:04 AM.]

[This message was edited by crazyivan1970 on Thu March 11 2004 at 10:39 AM.]

crazyivan1970
03-11-2004, 10:15 AM
I wish i could paste it in http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

http://home.cogeco.ca/~lomacfpp/crazyivan/FW_vs_Spit.jpg

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

[This message was edited by crazyivan1970 on Thu March 11 2004 at 09:26 AM.]

[This message was edited by crazyivan1970 on Thu March 11 2004 at 10:04 AM.]

[This message was edited by crazyivan1970 on Thu March 11 2004 at 10:04 AM.]

[This message was edited by crazyivan1970 on Thu March 11 2004 at 10:39 AM.]

crazyivan1970
03-11-2004, 10:15 AM
"How to out-climb Spitfire in FW-190.

1) FW-190 out-climbs Spitfire on the speeds higher then 260 km/h
If you initialize climb at 350 mk/h, Spitfire will have have 4m/s less climb rate.

2) FW can effectively use Zoom Climb. After acceleration in horizontal flight FW 85km/h!! faster near the ground and
achieving speeds close to maximal FW can go into near vertical climb. After this maneuver pursuing Spitfire V that will be left far behind.

If you initialize climb at speeds below 260 km/h Spitfire will have superiority.

Tip: Never, by all means do not engage into turn-fight with Spitfire while flying FW, Boom & Zoom only. Use superior speed and superior weapons against Spitfire.

All of the above by all means does not contradict with test trials of captured FW190 against Spitfire V."


Will add picture when i find host for it.

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

faustnik
03-11-2004, 10:19 AM
Thanks for posting this Ivan.

Might be time to end this topic of dicussion. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

lbhskier37
03-11-2004, 10:21 AM
Hmm, looks surprising like what I have been doing since AEP came out. Maybe that's why I've only been shot down by a spit once in my 190. Thanks Ivan and Oleg, maybe this will die off soonhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig2.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

faustnik
03-11-2004, 10:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lbhskier37:
Hmm, looks surprising like what I have been doing since AEP came out. Maybe that's why I've only been shot down by a spit once in my 190.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You got shot down by a Spit?

Loser! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



(just messing with you lbhskier37 ) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

ajafoofoo
03-11-2004, 10:27 AM
Whoops, got my answer from topic title....deleted.

Hunde_3.JG51
03-11-2004, 10:33 AM
I have no problem defeating Spits, still the A-4 may be 85km/h faster near ground than Spit ('41), but it is only about 25km/h faster than Spit (LF '42). In that case you must drag them high which can be more difficult as LF has much better climb than standard F. version. I agree with what is said here, but since the A-4 is '42 and the LF is '42 it changes things a bit. *Note I am not saying anyhting is wrong, LF Spit had great climb at low altitude. Though I still wonder which is correct, if the LF should be in '43 and the F CW in '42 as posted in aircraft flyables list. Some here have said the LF version in '42 uses a Merlin 50, which was used in '43. Just curious, no worries.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

lbhskier37
03-11-2004, 10:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lbhskier37:
Hmm, looks surprising like what I have been doing since AEP came out. Maybe that's why I've only been shot down by a spit once in my 190.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You got shot down by a Spit?

Loser! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



(just messing with you lbhskier37 ) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I got him back on the next flight though http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig2.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

Kwiatos
03-11-2004, 10:48 AM
Of course if Fw190 has speed adventage for example about 100km/h could zoom climb better then slowest aircraft. The same is spitfire have 100km/h adventage will be better zoom climb than slowest Fw190. Problem is that with the same speed Fw190 zoom climb the same like Spitfire. I do some test online with mate. I fly Fw190 A-4 mate Spitfire 1941 behind me 300m. Altitude 2000m. I dived to the deck reached 700km/h and pull up to vertical- zoom climb. Spitfire follow me and could easy shoot me.

03-11-2004, 10:54 AM
http://uploads.offtopic.com/files/climbs.gif

faustnik
03-11-2004, 10:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lbhskier37:

I got him back on the next flight though http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In that case we'll let you slide. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

Koohullin
03-11-2004, 11:02 AM
Something tells me we have Spitfire using an M motor.


from the modification list for the Spitfire V

#788

introduce clipped wings(all Mks)
dated 17.11.42.

That is pushing the 1942 date somewhat for the 46 engine model(Spitfire Mk.Vb (Merlin 46) 1942 clipped wings) if one is flying a 1942 scenario.

Oleg_Maddox
03-11-2004, 11:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Of course if Fw190 has speed adventage for example about 100km/h could zoom climb better then slowest aircraft. The same is spitfire have 100km/h adventage will be better zoom climb than slowest Fw190. Problem is that with the same speed Fw190 zoom climb the same like Spitfire. I do some test online with mate. I fly Fw190 A-4 mate Spitfire 1941 behind me 300m. Altitude 2000m. I dived to the deck reached 700km/h and pull up to vertical- zoom climb. Spitfire follow me and could easy shoot me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I would suggest to record a tracks with it.
2 tracks:
1) you fly FW, you mate fly Spit
2. Your mate fly FW. You fly Spit.

You will see the differences.

JG26Red
03-11-2004, 11:50 AM
blah... whatever... iam sick of this game

crazyivan1970
03-11-2004, 11:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG26Red:
blah... whatever... iam sick of this game<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bad day at the office Red? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

Oleg, you know what time it is? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif it`s midnight http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

ZG77_Nagual
03-11-2004, 11:56 AM
Red, if you're sick of the game - maybe another bbs would be more entertaining for you.

faustnik
03-11-2004, 11:57 AM
Nice reply Red http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif, don't be a ****.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

ZG77_Nagual
03-11-2004, 11:58 AM
I took an A4 up last night and found myself flying against an la7 and a clipped spit. It was shaping up to be a great fight when I suddenly had to leave - but both their airplanes had more than a few holes in them and my lovely a4 still looked shiny new http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

crazyivan1970
03-11-2004, 12:00 PM
Nag is overmodeled... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

Oleg_Maddox
03-11-2004, 12:01 PM
Why I asked to post it?

Becasue FW-190s are my favorite aircraft design of WWII. And I don't like when someone who know nothing about advatages of thi aircraft say something bad against it. I take it as agaist me. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I know that some American prop planes had some better devices for confort fly, but the engineering that is present in design of this aircraft is simply increadible for the time when it was developed as final fighter. I don't tell about engine or Komandegerate (which people mix with some other things that was working as well on many WWII aircraft. But so cool word looks for many other nations as magic word!). I tel about construction aircraft, wing construction , etc... There were solved some similar to La-5 initial problems of overheating by simple ways, there were used simple solutions(like it looks now in modern time) for serious things.... They was so simple that was copied on La-5FN for two month and was goinf in a serial production (its why Chinese production of licensed after the war ASh-82FN is so good was going for the created now FW replics!)

Also, as I told in the past... If FW is my favorite aircraft it doesn't means that this plane will fly better than any others...

JG26Red
03-11-2004, 12:02 PM
awwwwww, iam sorry, i seem to hurt somes feelings... sorry.. i love this game man, iam just sick of bickering, this plane this, this plane that... sounds like a 10 year family reuninon, or even worse, my 9 year old brothers classroom... lol



anyways.. hey the DLL works ivan.. lol

ZG77_Nagual
03-11-2004, 12:07 PM
[/QUOTE]Also, as I told in the past... If FW is my favorite aircraft it doesn't means that this plane will fly better than any others...[/QUOTE]

Depends on the violinist http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

lbhskier37
03-11-2004, 12:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
Why I asked to post it?

Becasue FW-190s are my favorite aircraft design of WWII. And I don't like when someone who know nothing about advatages of thi aircraft say something bad against it. I take it as agaist me. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I know that some American prop planes had some better devices for confort fly, but the engineering that is present in design of this aircraft is simply increadible for the time when it was developed as final fighter. I don't tell about engine or Komandegerate (which people mix with some other things that was working as well on many WWII aircraft. But so cool word looks for many other nations as magic word!). I tel about construction aircraft, wing construction , etc... There were solved some similar to La-5 initial problems of overheating by simple ways, there were used simple solutions(like it looks now in modern time) for serious things.... They was so simple that was copied on La-5FN for two month and was goinf in a serial production (its why Chinese production of licensed after the war ASh-82FN is so good was going for the created now FW replics!)

Also, as I told in the past... If FW is my favorite aircraft it doesn't means that this plane will fly better than any others...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope that someday when you have some free time I would have the honor of flying my favorite plane the FW as wing with you.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig2.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

crazyivan1970
03-11-2004, 12:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I hope that someday when you have some free time I would have the honor of flying my favorite plane the FW as wing with you.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When dedicated server is released maybe we will arrange something like Oleg vs World hehe. Tickets will be available at ticketmaster.com http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I`m gonna be rich!!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/351.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

JG5_JaRa
03-11-2004, 12:35 PM
"How to out-climb Spitfire in FW-190.

1) FW-190 out-climbs Spitfire on the speeds higher then 260 km/h If you initialize climb at 350 mk/h, Spitfire will have have 4m/s less climb rate."

You cannot force the Spit to play this game. If it refuses to follow the A4 at 350 km/h but climbs at 230 instead, it has about 2,5m/s better sustained climb at sea level according to IL2C. The higher both get, the more increases the climb rate advantage of the Spit. So no matter how far the 190 will run away or how much it will zoom climb from high speed, if the Spit simply outclimbs it using its superior maximum (!) sustained climb rate, it will have a considerable altitude advantage soon so the 190A4 cannot reach it any more. The only way to catch the Spit is if the 190 is very fast and close in the beginning or if it has an initial energy advantage. But such an initial energy advantage makes even the crappiest plane better, so that is barely a performance characteristic. The 190A4 can run away at will but it cannot outclimb the Spit in FB.

lbhskier37
03-11-2004, 12:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_JaRa:
"How to out-climb Spitfire in FW-190.

1) FW-190 out-climbs Spitfire on the speeds higher then 260 km/h If you initialize climb at 350 mk/h, Spitfire will have have 4m/s less climb rate."

You cannot force the Spit to play this game. If it refuses to follow the A4 at 350 km/h but climbs at 230 instead, it has about 2,5m/s better sustained climb at sea level according to IL2C. The higher both get, the more increases the climb rate advantage of the Spit. So no matter how far the 190 will run away or how much it will zoom climb from high speed, if the Spit simply outclimbs it using its superior maximum (!) sustained climb rate, it will have a considerable altitude advantage soon so the 190A4 cannot reach it any more. The only way to catch the Spit is if the 190 is very fast and close in the beginning or if it has an initial energy advantage. But such an initial energy advantage makes even the crappiest plane better, so that is barely a performance characteristic. The 190A4 can run away at will but it cannot outclimb the Spit in FB.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the spit climbs at slow speed but higher climbrate, the 190 will be pulling away. Its true that the spit can then get higher, but it will be slower and far behind the 190 so it will never catch the 190. If the spit levels to try to catch the 190(now higher than the 190) it will be far behind and at a slower speed, so in level flight by the time the spit gets to the 190, the 190 will have made up the altitude difference.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig2.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

JG5_JaRa
03-11-2004, 12:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lbhskier37:
If the spit climbs at slow speed but higher climbrate, the 190 will be pulling away. Its true that the spit can then get higher, but it will be slower and far behind the 190 so it will never catch the 190. If the spit levels to try to catch the 190(now higher than the 190) it will be far behind and at a slower speed, so in level flight by the time the spit gets to the 190, the 190 will have made up the altitude difference.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whether or not the 190 can catch the Spit this way depends on the particular situation. If the Spit is only high enough and the 190 is not too far away, it won't work for the 190.
However, I did not say that the Spit will get the 190 at any cost, I said that the 190 can't force the Spit to play a game where it will be outclimbed. There is absolutely no reason for the Spit to follow the 190 in a 350 km/h sustained climb. The best the 190 pilot can do is to refuse the fight using his higher top speed, but that is not outclimbing the Spit.
It is like saying you can outclimb a 109K4 with a P.11 if the P.11 pilot uses the tactic of convincing the 109 pilot to fly level while the P.11 climbs. Sure, this works. Won't happen, however.

blabla0001
03-11-2004, 01:58 PM
Well, when they did the climb tests vs whatever they did it like this.

Then they make these reports and charts and then it shows that the FW190 climbs faster then the spit.

It's not that they perform these tests during combat and then document it, so wether or not the enemy is going to "play your game" is completely irrelevant.

[This message was edited by Cappadocian_317 on Thu March 11 2004 at 01:24 PM.]

biggs222
03-11-2004, 02:25 PM
i cant wait for the LFmkIX to come out in the patch, then the FWs will really have something to cry about, oh yeah the G6s will also join the pitty party. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/icon_twisted.gif

blabla0001
03-11-2004, 02:27 PM
My bet will be that they cry harder when the MKXIV and the MK22 make it in IL2 FB.

lbhskier37
03-11-2004, 02:28 PM
By that time we can use the A5, so I'm not too worried.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig2.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

lbhskier37
03-11-2004, 02:29 PM
Late spits will be fun too, will give a good fight for D9s and TA152s. I'm not that much into the late war birds though. 1943 has the funnest planeset IMHO

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig2.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

blabla0001
03-11-2004, 02:32 PM
I like the early birds better too, I have been a dedicated Hurricane player since FB came out, just recently I traded it for a Spit Vb (The Standard one, don't care much for the clipped winged one)

I pretty much draw the fun line with the MKIX but when I play on a server full of late war birds I will pick the MKXIV when I feel like it though. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

biggs222
03-11-2004, 02:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cappadocian_317:
My bet will be that they cry harder when the MKXIV and the MK22 make it in IL2 FB.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

oh yeah that too lol totally forgot about those 2. when we have them the spit family will be able to counter any axis prop plane in FB/AEP. good times are ahead http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

blabla0001
03-11-2004, 02:35 PM
Don't forget the Tempest V Biggs. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

crazyivan1970
03-11-2004, 02:37 PM
There is always late G`s and K4 for you Spitfire/Tempest lovers http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Don`t expect air superiority muahahaha. Not to forget TA-152 Heeee

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

biggs222
03-11-2004, 02:39 PM
YEAH THAT TOO!!! omg brit air power out the WAHZOO!!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

ah crazy the mkXIVe and mk22 will handle the K4 and ta152H/c with ease, and if the spits chase the hun down low the tempest will take care of whats left http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

crazyivan1970
03-11-2004, 02:55 PM
Are you sure about that Biggs? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

zugfuhrer
03-11-2004, 03:01 PM
It is good to hear that you get personally involved in designing planes Oleg.

Thoose figures that is showed in the beginning of this thread, can you make them public.

I am very interested in wich speed I use at what height to outclimb a certain plane, in what speed will my start decomposing, etc etc

WWMaxGunz
03-11-2004, 03:05 PM
I hear tell there is a new il2compare made from testing data. Those charts would tell it.


Neal

JRH147
03-11-2004, 05:03 PM
Where can one get the latest version of IL2Compare?

HQ1
03-11-2004, 05:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Of course if Fw190 has speed adventage for example about 100km/h could zoom climb better then slowest aircraft. The same is spitfire have 100km/h adventage will be better zoom climb than slowest Fw190. Problem is that with the same speed Fw190 zoom climb the same like Spitfire. I do some test online with mate. I fly Fw190 A-4 mate Spitfire 1941 behind me 300m. Altitude 2000m. I dived to the deck reached 700km/h and pull up to vertical- zoom climb. Spitfire follow me and could easy shoot me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I would suggest to record a tracks with it.
2 tracks:
1) you fly FW, you mate fly Spit
2. Your mate fly FW. You fly Spit.

You will see the differences.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Oleg can you tell me the differences please.

Ralston66
03-11-2004, 05:42 PM
Thank you Oleg, I just can't help but be drawn to fly the 190 every time I play. This is definetly my favorite and has taught me new found respect for some of the russian planes that I did not realize until Il2 sturmovik came out.

Thanks for this great sim and the attention you have given to accuracy and detail, brings me back everytime.

Rich (Ohio, USA)

Blottogg
03-11-2004, 06:17 PM
CrazyIvan, on a note somewhat related to the thread topic, I second (third?) JRH147's and zugfuhrer's requests. Any chance of Youss making the "personal edition" of Il2 Compare public, or would this merely throw gasoline on the smouldering embers?

Blotto

"Speed is life." - Anon
"Sight is life. Speed is merely groovy." - "Junior"

JG52_Meyer
03-11-2004, 06:52 PM
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/Meyer%20JG52/SpitROC.jpg

Could anyone tell me how it is possible that spit climbs faster at 6000m than at sea level?

Koohullin
03-11-2004, 07:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG52_Meyer:
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/Meyer%20JG52/SpitROC.jpg

Could anyone tell me how it is possible that spit climbs faster at 6000m than at sea level?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


test of Spitfire Mk. VB W.3134 (Merlin 45) http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/w3134.html

From SL to 15000ft/4572m the climb was constant, 3250f/m.

From 15000ft/4572m it dropped to 2770f/m at 18,000/5486m and 2440f/m at 20,000ft/6096m.

Your little chart is incorrect.

Blottogg
03-11-2004, 07:28 PM
JG52_Meyer, I don't know where the critical altitude for the Spit Mk V's Merlin was (the highest altitude it could pull full power), but I'm sure it was well above sea level, and very likely around 6000m. At that altitude, the Spit will have the same power available at sea level, but significantly less drag, leaving more power left over (Ps) for climb.

German superchargers were mechanized a little differently than allied gear driven blowers (hydraulically driven, similar to an automatic transmission IIRC), but apparently their power fell off faster with altitude. I'd need to do more reading to be sure, but perhaps the German motors weren't "flat rated". In other words, Allied engines usually maintained a set power output from sea level to critical altitude (the "flat" part of their horsepower "rating") while I'm guessing that German motors had their maximum boost at sea level, and barring supercharger speed changes, fell off from there.

Blotto

"Speed is life." - Anon
"Sight is life. Speed is merely groovy." - "Junior"

JG52_Meyer
03-11-2004, 07:47 PM
This is not "my little chart", this is what we have in game.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

And Blottog, you are wrong about the concept of "critical altitude" .

Critical altitude it is not when the power is the same than at sea level, critical altitude is the higher altitude where the supercharger can sustain the nominal manifold pressure. The power is not the same because of the energy loss to compressing the air.

Blottogg
03-11-2004, 08:08 PM
Good point, I didn't take into account the extra power lost driving the compressor in order to maintain sea level MP at altitude. Since the blower is already providing ~30" of MP above ambient at sea level (again, not sure for the Merlin 45/46), the extra power lost providing 45" boost at 18,000' (to maintain constant total MP) would not be that large, and would be more than compensated for by the reduction in drag. Were the power loss greater than the drag reduction, it would have made a supercharger dead weight, whether climbing or in level flight.

Blotto

"Speed is life." - Anon
"Sight is life. Speed is merely groovy." - "Junior"

Koohullin
03-11-2004, 08:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG52_Meyer:
This is not "my little chart", this is what we have in game.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You posted it.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JG14_Josf
03-11-2004, 08:14 PM
Focke Wulf
Fw190 in Combat
by Alfred Price

Unsolicited Testimonials

page 48

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

Page 39

"Time would reveal that Sir Sholto Douglas had been over-pessimistic in his view that improved version of the Fw 190 would '...outstrip the Merlin Spitfire in performance'. In fact the Spitfire IX would be a worthy opponent for most versions of the Fw 190, and the Mark XIV would prove superior. Nevertheless, the letter reveals clearly that in the summer of 1942 the German fighter was a matter of considerable concern to the RAF commander.
Following intitial flight trials at the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough in July 1942, the captured Focke Wulf 190 flew to the Air Fighting Development Unit at Duxford for tactical trials. The resultant report, issued on August 1942 and reproduced below almost in its entirety, is a model of what such an intelligence document should contain. In places the language was complimentary in the extreme. The reader should bear in mind that these are not the words of a Focke Wulf salesman trying to boost his firm's product, but those of an enemy forced to give an opponent grudging admiration in time of war"



Virtual Pilots 109 Myths (http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/109myths/#db)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>109 had a hydraulically driven (fluid coupled) clutch driving its supercharger, which made it capable of avoiding wasting power at lower altitudes. At those altitudes normal gear+clutch driven supercharger equipped planes were wasting a significant amount of their HP compressing air which could not be used by the engine. Later 109s even had a two gear, fluid coupled supercharger which gave very good power up to 11km.Even a normal 109G could produce full power up to 7 km (around 21.000 ft) with a normal single-gear supercharger. This supercharger was a low tech (sic), single stage single gear (sic) device, while the Allied designers used up to two stage, intercooled (in some cases) two gear superchargers to achieve similar power as the simple fluid clutch. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Blottogg
03-11-2004, 08:53 PM
Good post Josf. I'm out of ideas for the discrepency. Oleg's point is that the 190 can outclimb the Spit on a relative basis, depending on airspeeds. The report is talking about absolute climb rates (although Vy for both aircraft is about the same according to the report.) At least I correctly remembered how the German supercharger was mechanized.

Blotto

"Speed is life." - Anon
"Sight is life. Speed is merely groovy." - "Junior"

JG14_Josf
03-11-2004, 10:05 PM
Blottogg,

If the 190 were modeled in the game as reported by the British in that Book then who would fly the Spitfire?

Who would fly a Spitfire if the view was as Captain Eric Brown states:

"The sighting view, when sitting comfortably in the normal position, was somewhat better than that of the Spitfire owing to the nose-down attitude of the Fw 190 in flight."

Don't get me wrong here I do not know how these planes should be modeled. I am not trying to sell the program. I have never flown these planes. I can only take what the real combat pilots wrote with a grain of salt just like I should take any other source of information concerning what was and will never ever be again. We can have fun simulating and IL2/FB/AEP is by far the best game in town.

Hunde_3.JG51
03-11-2004, 11:22 PM
Josf, FW-190 in Combat is a great book.

Reading that and playing FB back to back makes it clear that the two (Eric Brown & FB representation) have different opinions/ideas of the FW-190, and the Spitifre V for that matter. The good, steep angle of climb and superior zoom climb are not there. Nor is the the better "half a ring" sighting view compared to Spitifre. Like you said though, FB is still the best game in town. There are just certain things I don't agree with (energy bleed, overheat times for certain planes, etc.). I don't mean this as a whine, just pointing out that there are stark differences between the two.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
03-12-2004, 12:42 AM
@HUNDE_3.JG51:


Agree 100%.

Unfortunately because once the crowd gets to know that you're an dedicated FW190/109Pilot they take everything as a whine.

Shortly after you'll see the temperature reaching boiling conditions and most of that turns into a flame-war.

I still wonder that there's less concern and topics/threads about allied planes and related issues then there're issues about axis planes.

One reads a lot about the plane one admires, flys on Servers with highest possible realism settings and yet one gets the feeling that one cannot recreate what's been written.

I do not want to be in Oleg's position, having to defend his position all the itme against a bunch of "wannabe"-war-aces (which we are) which in time will get frustrating.

However, I think that the FW190 in Forgotten Battles is one of the most flown planes and it certainly should get as much attention as a spitfire, Mustang or a LA7 / Yak - 3.

Since I think that most Mustang/Spit/La/Yak drivers are happy with their mount it's not asking to much if one gets the same attention.

I'm happy Oleg seems to like the FW and this info is new to me (since I remember reading that he liked the 109s online...).

Question: wasn't the test of the captured FW190 actually a FW-190A3 ? (FW190 vs Vb) (don't remember)

WWMaxGunz
03-12-2004, 01:50 AM
If I hadn't read the report posted up on SimHQ from one of the pilots actually involved in the British test, I might agree. But he said different and he did fly the Spit VB in that test. He says the same as Oleg does.

A test is only as good as the testers and reports are also like that.

It should be clear that with proper tactics, the FW's have a very significant edge. That edge is enough to account for how it was over the channel in 1942.


Neal

JG14_Josf
03-12-2004, 03:23 AM
Neal,


I am very interested in hearing the words of any of the pilots involved in any British combat test trials and how those words compare with Oleg's words.

As far as tactics are concerned; it may be true that speed is a significant advantage and a pilot with a speed advantage has the option to dissengage from a fight as long as the pilot realizes the need in time, and as long as he has enough fuel to keep on running. If the opponent has a climb advantage then which plane builds a greater combat advantage; the faster plane or the better climbing plane?

Does the running plane or does the climbing plane gain a net combat adantage?

Does the plane gaining altitude with the nose pointed at the opponent have a greater combat advantage or does the plane gaining speed with the tail pointed at the opponent have a greater combat advantage?

At some point, it seems to me, the faster plane must burn any advantage gained in speed when trying to turn back into a possition to fire unless of course the faster plane mounts rear firing guns.

With rear firing guns the faster plane can return under the better climbing plane and the faster plane can lure the better climbing plane into diving behind the faster plane so the faster plane can then point his rear firing guns at the better climbing plane.

Fighter combat includes the need to gain possition. Running gives up possition. If the running plane does not gain energy at a faster rate then the better climbing plane then there is no way to regain possition, unless the pilot flying the better climbing plane is stupid.

If you have evidence refuting the references in Albert Price's book, Eric Brown's book, and Mike Spick's book then please be more specific than "he said different".

Evidence can go a long way toward clearing up misconceptions. If Albert Price, Eric Brown, and Mike Spick are wrong, and if their interpretation and presentations are false then it sure would be good to find this information out and be done with it.



The IL2 graph for sea level climb capabilities should illuminate a problem right away.

How useful is sea level climb performance information? How long does a plane climb at sea level?

Note how the IL2 compare chart has the FW 190 falling rapidly behind in max climb performance as altitude goes above sea level.

IL2 compare leaves out the most important combat performance informaion.

Where is the energy maneuverability information?

Where can a pilot see if his plane will have any advantage in energy maneuvering?

There is so much missing in those IL2compare charts that one plane could look good on those charts and be a dog in the game. Gaining energy in a straight line has one combat tactical application. Hit and Run.

In all three references; Eric Brown's, Albert Price's, and Mike Spick's they describe the FW190 dominating the Spitfire, they describe the FW190 as being capable of employing energy tactics to advantage over the Spitfire.

Please show how these sources are wrong, in what way are they wrong, and please show the source of the information.

If these Authors are wrong it sure would be good to find out the source of the error.

Perhaps it was a dissinformation campaign run by the British government to lull the German pilots into a false sense of security.

I'm sure this type of propaganda existed.

Maybe Eric Brown, a combat pilot, was simply telling lies because he had some personal problem with the RAF.

Perhaps Eric Browns dissinformation effected Alfred Price's work, and who knows maybe Mike Spick simply copied the error too.

Eric Brown may have started the snow ball that became the FW190 myth. The FW190 may not have been a good dog fighter at all. It may have only been a fast plane capable of entering a fight with more speed and leaving the fight with more speed. It is not impossible to see that such an error could rewrite history.

What cannot be said however is that Eric Brown, Alfred Price, and Mike Spick are not clear on their evaluation of the Fw190 relative to the Spitfire. They describe in detail how the FW190 dominated.

The question is not if Eric Brown's, Alfred Price's, and Mike Spick's work describe how the FW190 dominated the Spitfire, the question is if those sources are true or false.

If they are false reports then please clear this up.

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
03-12-2004, 03:53 AM
BUMP !

best post so far JG14_Josf !

as a sidenote: in case the "wild" theory of "FW190 being a bad fighter" would be true, how comes various other sources give the plane very good credits. (Galland for example, who himself was a BF109 / Me262 pilot)

WWMaxGunz
03-12-2004, 04:15 AM
Here is extracts from that post on SimHQ at this address;

http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=--7998#000006

Topic name is FW190 vs. Spits

Post is first on the thread, 03-09-2004 12:23 by Wireman

Source of material is "Lucky 13", Hugh Godefroy, Stoddart 1987 pgs 155-157

Huh. Just on a reread I see he went from the VB to switch to the IXB. Doesn't say anything about the relative climbs. It's the IXB that could outclimb the FW if it stayed at 160mph and could not keep up in a full throttle climb and at the same angle, ie trying to follow him. But then the IXB could catch a FW in a dive after making up the time lost in the slower rollover and start. That doesn't mean that Oleg doesn't have other information and I very highly doubt that HE would base a word on any one report or story so before blowing your horn you migh want to see what Oleg has to say!

I still don't trust just going by books. Not after all the Chimp vs Huck vs Milo vs Issy threads with the deuling quotes and anecdotes. I've seen that in other sim discussions over the past 6 years I've started with forums. I can still pull lines about the IXB and FW from just one paragraph of that single post that appear contradictive and are taken alone. No test is better than the pilots and conditions, then the people making the conclusions and report can only go down if not hold close to what was.


Neal

hop2002
03-12-2004, 04:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Critical altitude it is not when the power is the same than at sea level, critical altitude is the higher altitude where the supercharger can sustain the nominal manifold pressure. The power is not the same because of the energy loss to compressing the air.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the supercharger is driven by gears, not a hydraulic cutch, the supercharger maintains the sam speed, and compresses the air toomuch at sea level, meaning the plane has to throttle back.

That means the engine produces peak power at critical altitude, not below it. The Spit Vb should have a peak climb rate at around 16 - 17,000 ft.

WWMaxGunz
03-12-2004, 07:03 AM
Throttle ...correct me if I'm wrong here... is the plate that restricts air coming into the engine while fuel is controlled by the mixture.

So if I have more air pressure going into the manifold and after that is the throttle plate which I close more then shouldn't the engine get the same amount of air and fuel than if less supercharger pressure with more open throttle? Isn't the throttle something you open to get the guages to go where you want when balanced with the other controls?

Anyhow, that is how John Deakin explains throttle, chargers and manifold pressure in his Pelicans Perch column article but then that is for modern AC so I say please correct me here so I can learn.

It just seems to me that maximum power should be maintainable up to critical alt.

Air density. Less drag as you go up but is lift partly due to air density just as drag? Same for both on the prop?


Neal

hop2002
03-12-2004, 08:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Throttle ...correct me if I'm wrong here... is the plate that restricts air coming into the engine while fuel is controlled by the mixture.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So if I have more air pressure going into the manifold and after that is the throttle plate which I close more then shouldn't the engine get the same amount of air and fuel than if less supercharger pressure with more open throttle?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes.

However, with a geared supercharger, it turns at a set number of revs at a set engine rpm. If, for example, the engine turns at 3000 rpm at combat power, and the supercharger turns at ten times the engine rpm, the supercharger will turn at 30,000 rpm at combat power at any altitude.

At the critical alt, you need all 30,000rpm, but at sea level, the supercharger is overcompressing the air, and the throttle has to be partially closed to avoid overboosting the engine.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Isn't the throttle something you open to get the guages to go where you want when balanced with the other controls?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. But the supercharger cannot be changed (ok, the gears allow a couple of different stages, but you get the same problem in each gear). That means the throttle has to be changed to maintain constant pressure, because you can't change the supercharger. For that reason, critical alt is called full throttle height (FTH) in British tests, because critical alt is the point at which the throttle is fully open.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It just seems to me that maximum power should be maintainable up to critical alt.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Power actually increases up to critical alt. The engine is turning at the same rpm, and the fuel and mnifold pressure are constant. That means power should be the same from sea level to critical alt, but the air temperature is decreasing as altitude increases, which leads to a gradual increase in power from sea level to critical alt. (I think the supercharger is doing less work as alt increases as well, but I'm not 100% sure of that)

For an example, look at the Griffon HP chart at the bottom of http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit14pt.html

It shows 3 differnt manifold pressure levels, 18, 21 and 25 lbs, so just pick the top one and follow it. You will see an increase in power up to critical alt, a decrease past critical alt, then an increase again as the supercharger changes to the higher gear, then a decline after the second critical alt. (There are as many critical alt peaks as there are supercharger gears)

WWMaxGunz
03-12-2004, 01:22 PM
Ohhhh yes, the air temperature and the charger making up for lack of density you end up with more oxygen per volume.

About the charger having to work harder at the same rpm and lower, denser air... I can see very well since the engine powers the charger and more power is lost the lower you fly.

Neat. And the charger weighs a bunch so a low alt high perf plane will have all that extra edge down low over a high alt high perf plane in the same kind of class of engine. IE, you build a big, powerful enough monster for high alt and it may well overrun the non-monster low alt plane. Hey, there's almost always a way to make exceptions!


Neal

Blottogg
03-12-2004, 04:52 PM
Hop2002, thanks for the explainations. I wasn't sure if there was a wastegate arrangement to modulate MP below critical altitude (we'd been down that road in a previous thread, but I'm getting old and senile.)

Since the supercharger is normally located downstream of the carburetor (and compresses not just air, but fuel-air mixture), adjusting the throttle to maintain maximum MP should result in constant HP up to critical altitude (where the throttle will be wide open.) as per the fig. 9 here (ignore the turbocharger, and look at the engine, supercharger, carburetor arrangement):

http://rwebs.net/avhistory/opsman/geturbo/geturbo.htm

I'm not sure about power increasing with altitude up to critical altitude for all aircraft. The temperature goes down, but so does density. This means the throttle is open more, meaning the compressor does more work (actually, the compressor does the same work, but the pressure and temperature reduction from the throttle becomes less and less as altitude goes up) and with that, the intake manifold temp. will rise due to compression. I don't know if the ambient temperature drop is greater than, or less than, the temperature rise due to compression. For the Merlin Mustang (from AHT... I finally got my copy) it looks like ambient drops faster than compression heating rises though (power increases with altitude up to critical altitude), supporting your point for the Merlin powered Spitfire at least. Still don't know what the power vs. altitude graph looks like for the BMW 801 though.

Blotto

"Speed is life." - Anon
"Sight is life. Speed is merely groovy." - "Junior"

Blottogg
03-12-2004, 05:09 PM
Josf, reading the SimHQ link Neal posted, I think that is more in line with the climb performance I would expect from these two aircraft (and in line with Oleg's comments and the aircraft performance in the game.) The lower wing loaded Spit should have a lower Vy (best rate of climb speed) than the 190, as well as a lower Vx (best angle of climb speed.) The only thing I can think of is that the test sited in Alfred Price's book was incorrectly run at the same climb speed. Depending on which speed was picked for a co-speed test, either one or the other aircraft would be favored.

As far as being tactically significant, you're right that climbing at a lower absolute rate won't get the 190 into a guns-bearing position. It does give the 190 pilot the initiative to accept or decline the fight however. The Spit pilot can decline the fight by climbing, but the 190 will still be there under him, and he's got to come down some time. The 190 pilot can climb at his best speed and leave the Spit in the dust by comparison, with the Spit unable to do anything about it.

Blotto

"Speed is life." - Anon
"Sight is life. Speed is merely groovy." - "Junior"

hop2002
03-12-2004, 05:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Neat. And the charger weighs a bunch so a low alt high perf plane will have all that extra edge down low over a high alt high perf plane in the same kind of class of engine. IE, you build a big, powerful enough monster for high alt and it may well overrun the non-monster low alt plane. Hey, there's almost always a way to make exceptions!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not just the bulk and weight of the more powerfull supercharger, you can reduce the load on the supercharger if you lower the altitude rating.

For example, the Merlin turned at 3000 rpm at combat power. If you needed 30,000rpm out of the supercharger to maintain a set manifold pressure up to 20,000ft, then you would need a lot less rpm to maintain the same pressure to 10,000ft, which means you can lower the supercharger gear ratio, and use less engine power to drive the 'charger.

That's why the Spit V gained such a lot with the use of the M engine, the supercharger could do far less work, which meant less waste at low altitude, but meant the engine couldn't maintain as much power at high altitude.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'm not sure about power increasing with altitude up to critical altitude for all aircraft.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It should for any with a mechanically driven supercharger (in each gear, of course. Higher gears will exhibit the same behaviour, but use more power than lower gears)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>For the Merlin Mustang (from AHT... I finally got my copy) it looks like ambient drops faster than compression heating rises though (power increases with altitude up to critical altitude), supporting your point for the Merlin powered Spitfire at least. Still don't know what the power vs. altitude graph looks like for the BMW 801 though.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It seems to work the same for the Merlin, Griffon, and even the 801D.

A long time ago Butch posted some Russian engine charts (that also showed the Merlin and Griffon) with a couple of Russian engines.

The VK 105 II can' make out the exact cyrilic labels) shows exactly the same behaviour, rising from sea level to it's first peak at about 300m, then rising from the gear change at 1km to a peak at 2km.

The same applies to the Ash-82H, although with much higher critical alt.

I've got the 801D power chart, but as I saved it from somebody's sit, I wouldn't feel comfortable reposting it. It shows 1800 ps at sea level, rising to about 1820 at 800m, dropping to 1460 ps at 2.5km, rising again to 1490 at 5.8 km, then dropping after that. Those figures are without ram.

Blottogg
03-12-2004, 05:54 PM
Thanks for pointing out the advantages of a lower critical altitude. I hadn't thought of it in terms of supercharger HP requirements (at least not recently... senility kicking in again...) That's a good way for me to remember just why the LF's do so much better at low altitude though (and why kids "clip" the compressors on their car's hybrid turbochargers.)

It sounds like the 801 was tuned with a lower critical altitude than the Merlin, which would also account for the 190 reputation for running out of steam at altitude faster than the Merlin powered fighters.

As far as the possibility of a supercharged engine loosing power immediately with altitude, I was just hedging my bets. The only way I can think of for this to happen is with a very inefficient supercharger installation generating more heat than the temperature reduction at altitude would compensate for.

Blotto

"Speed is life." - Anon
"Sight is life. Speed is merely groovy." - "Junior"

JG14_Josf
03-12-2004, 06:15 PM
Blottogg,

I am not able to conclude how these two planes were supposed to stack up against each other in history. The 3 books I have that specifically report, in detail, how these planes stacked up against each other in combat and during tactical trials ran during the war suggest something different than what is reported by the program IL2compare.

As far as absolute numbers are concerned with engine HP, Thrust, Wing loading, total drag, parasitic drag, induced drag, etc. I am inclined to take these quotes from "Fighter Combat"

page 392:
"Beware the lessons of a fighter pilot who would rather fly a slide rule than kick your azz?"
Commander Ron "Mugs" McKeown, USN

And this:

"Energy performance reflects a fighter's Ps under specified flight conditions. Ps at a given airspeed is a function of the ratio of excess thrust to aircraft weight, as shown by Equation 4 in the Appendix, and is a measure of the aircraft's ability to climb or accelerate under those conditions. A fighter's T/W is a fairly good indicator of its energy performance. This ratio is usually stated in terms of static sea-level thrust and representative combat weight. For piston-engine aircraft a parameter known as "power loading," the ratio of aircraft weight to brake horsepower (normally maximum sea-level power), is used rather than T/W. Both these measures may be misleading, however, since operating conditions of altitude and airspeed can affect thwo fightersw in different ways. For example, a fighter with a relatively powerful normally aspirated piston engine may have lower power loading and better performance than a turbocharged fighter at low altitudes; but the turbocharged fighter would retain its power better at altitude and could have superior energy performance at higher levels. Likewise with jet engines, performance can vary greatly with inlet design, therefore a fighter may have higher T/W and better performance at slow speeds but be inferior at faster speeds.
A fighter's aerodynamic efficiency, in particular its lift-to-drag ratio, is also vitally important to energy performance, especially at high G or high speed. In order to simplify this discussion, however, the term high T/W infers greater climb rate, faster acceleration, and higher maximum speed capability relative to the opponent.
Obviously fighter performance can be a complex subject, and the numbers alone don't always tell the whole story. Development of effective tactics against dissimilar aircraft is, however, highly dependent on intimate knowledge of all aspects of relative fighter peformance and design, as well as total familiarity by the pilot with his own aircraft and weapons system. Comparison testing, in which enemy aircraft are flown against friendly fighters, is undeniably the best method of gathering this crucial information"



And from FW 190 in Combat

Alfred Price's book reports:


page 39
"Following initial flight trials at the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough in July 1942, the captured Focke wilf 190 flew to the Air Fighting Development Unit at Duxford for tactical trials. The resultant report, issued in August 1942 and reproduced below almost in its entirety, is a model of what such an intelligence document should contain."

page 48

Climb

The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continueous 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 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.

Dive

Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Fw 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages.

Back to page 39

Chapter 5
Unsolicited Testimonials

"The reader should bear in mind that these are not the words of a Focke Wulf salesman trying to boost his firm's product, but those of an enemy force to give an opponent grudging admiration in time of war."



The British combat pilot reports and IL2compare cannot both be true they are two different versions of history.

Blottogg
03-12-2004, 08:47 PM
Mugs was probably a history major.

I think the problem here is that we're doing an apples and oranges comparison with different boost settings for the Spitfire. The Spitfire data from the UK reports, posted here:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spitv.html

shows the Spitfire climbing at 2650 ft/min. at 12 psi of boost. When boost was upped to 16 psi, the airplane gained over 1000 ft/min. of climb to 3710 ft/min. Pretty impressive gains for turning up the wick 4 psi.

Butch2k posted a climb chart for the A-5 in the other thread which shows the climb rate topping out at ~16m/s or 3150 ft/min at 1000m (or about 500 ft/min more than the Vb at 12 psi boost.) I know it's apples and oranges by not being for the A-3, but it's the best I've got. As an aside, the climb rate line should mirror the power output line for the engine, which shows me that as I suspected, the 801 blower has a much lower critical altitude (~1000m) than any Merlin.

I've lost it if it's already been mentioned in these threads, but what boost setting do we have in AEP? It looks like we've got the 16 psi of boost, which means that the Spitfire should outclimb the 190 in the game, in the manner in which Oleg described. If we're supposed to be flying with 12 psi, then the Spit's FM probably needs to be looked at. The SimHQ discussion seems matches the 16 psi data, while the test in Alfred Price's book looks to be for a 12 psi aircraft. Can anybody remind me what we've got modeled in AEP?

Blotto

"Speed is life." - Anon
"Sight is life. Speed is merely groovy." - "Junior"

JG14_Josf
03-12-2004, 10:06 PM
Blottogg,

History major?

The book goes on to report about Mugs:

Commander, U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School
2 Victories, Vietnam Conflict

The Alfred Price book goes on to report:

page 49

Fw 190 versus Spitfire IX

Climb

During comparative climbs at various heights up to 23,000 ft, with both aircraft flying under maximum continuous climbing conditions, little difference was found between the two aircraft although on the whole the Spitfire was slightly better. Above 22,000 ft the climb of the Fw 190 is falling off rapidly, whereas the climb of the Spitfire IX is increasing. When both aircraft were flying at a high cruising speed and were pulled up into a climb from level flight, the Fw 190 had a slight advantage in the initial stages of the climb due to its better acceleration. This superiority was slightly increased when both aircraft were pulled up into the climb from the dive.
It must be appreciateed that the differences between the two aircraft are only slight and that in actual combat the advantage in climb will be with the aircraft that has the initiative.

Dive

The Fw 190 is faster than the Spitfire IX in a dive, particularly during the initial stage. This superiority is not so marked as with the Spitfire VB.


Is the Spitfire IX another orange compared to an apple?

IL2compare reports a climb advantage for the Spit VB over the FW 190 A4.

Is the FW 190 A4 another orange compared to the apple FW 190 A3?

Even if the game relabled the FW 190 A4 as a 190 A3 (with a rough running engine) and renamed the Spitfire VB 1941 to be a Spitfire IX 1942 then IL2compare would still show an error towards the Later model Orange Spit and against the early model apple FW.

Robert Shaw wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Obviously fighter performance can be a complex subject, and the numbers alone don't always tell the whole story. Development of effective tactics against dissimilar aircraft is, however, highly dependent on intimate knowledge of all aspects of relative fighter peformance and design, as well as total familiarity by the pilot with his own aircraft and weapons system. Comparison testing, in which enemy aircraft are flown against friendly fighters, is undeniably the best method of gathering this crucial information <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Charts, specs, books, factory tests, etc. are one thing, Combat trials pitting one plane physically against the other is something else, and this type of comparison was done in history and the results were recorded.

Yea, so what, it is just a game.


The facts would be nice to know.

[This message was edited by JG14_Josf on Fri March 12 2004 at 09:57 PM.]

Magister__Ludi
03-13-2004, 04:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blottogg:

Butch2k posted a climb chart for the A-5 in the other thread which shows the climb rate topping out at ~16m/s or 3150 ft/min at 1000m (or about 500 ft/min more than the Vb at 12 psi boost.) I know it's apples and oranges by not being for the A-3, but it's the best I've got.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I don't know if you noticed that chart butch posted is climb rate at 1.32ata, not 1.42ata. Initial climb at 1.42ata is somewhere around 17-18m/s for A5 (around 3500fpm, Oleg says 4000fpm but I don't have his data).


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blottogg:
As an aside, the climb rate line should mirror the power output line for the engine, which shows me that as I suspected, the 801 blower has a much lower critical altitude (~1000m) than any Merlin.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you are projecting the performance of the two speed two stage supercharger Merlin 60 series onto the earlier ones. First series had decent performance for their times, but in '42 Merlin 45 had inadequate high altitude performance compared with DB-605A. Merlin 45 had a single speed single stage supercharger!, too little to compete with variable speed supercharger mounted on DB-605A. Critical altitude for Merlin 45 was slightly above 4000m, whereas DB-605A had the critical altitude at 5800m. BMW-801D also had a better high altitude performance, even though it wasn't a performant high altitude engine (less than 1000m is critical altitude in low gear, but this is not the correct way to give the critical altitude for a two speed supercharger engine, you should take the critical altitude in high gear, which is above 5000m also).

WWMaxGunz
03-13-2004, 05:11 AM
Blotto, check with Butch about the VB boosts. I think the 16 psi is for the LF's down below critical but that should be checked.


Neal

hop2002
03-13-2004, 05:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I think the problem here is that we're doing an apples and oranges comparison with different boost settings for the Spitfire. The Spitfire data from the UK reports, posted here:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spitv.html

shows the Spitfire climbing at 2650 ft/min. at 12 psi of boost.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think there's a single climb test done at 12 lbs. They are done at 9 lbs 2850 rpm, 9lbs 3000 rpm, and 16 lbs 3000 rpm. In fact, I've never seen a Spit climb test done at 12 lbs.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>When boost was upped to 16 psi, the airplane gained over 1000 ft/min. of climb to 3710 ft/min. Pretty impressive gains for turning up the wick 4 psi.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Max rate of climb at 9 lbs 2850 rpm (30 min rating) was 3250 ft/min http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/w3134.html

Max rate of climb at 16 lbs 3000 rpm was 3700 ft/min, but note this aircraft was ballasted to add the weight of 4 20 mm cannon.

hop2002
03-13-2004, 05:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Blotto, check with Butch about the VB boosts. I think the 16 psi is for the LF's down below critical but that should be checked.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, 16 lbs was the rating for the Mk V from summer 1942 onwards. http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/aa878.html

The LF had a rating of 18 lbs
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/w3228.html

WWMaxGunz
03-13-2004, 05:51 AM
TY Hop!

Have a look in the other Spit climb thread and see what Ludi (is that Huck or Issy?) is saying. very different from the climbs you just listed.

Trouble is that if he knows something different, he won't say whether it's Huck or Issy doing the saying. Same for Chimp some of the time but in the opposite direction. And they will all extrapolate in a second.

I like what Butch says because he is the most impartial loads of data and good memory for it guy here, except maybe Oleg I'm not sure! I'm much more willing to believe them in the face of what I've seen over time here. The others are wait and see.


Neal

clint-ruin
03-13-2004, 06:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

I like what Butch says because he is the most impartial loads of data and good memory for it guy here, except maybe Oleg I'm not sure! I'm much more willing to believe them in the face of what I've seen over time here. The others are wait and see.Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Butch is a true saint in all of this.

A true wealth of information, and unlike some of the more voracious trolls on these forums - if he does not have data for something, or is incorrect about something, he does not seem to have some psychopathic ego attachment to being seen as an infallible expert, and says so.

Truly an example some could learn from ;&gt;

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Koohullin
03-13-2004, 06:05 AM
The Vc with the Merlin 45 could use 16lb(2.09ata) boost to 10,000ft where it dropped by 1 lb, to 15lb(2.02ata) boost. This is a mid 42 a/c.

In another test(Vc), 9.3lb(1.63ata) could be used til 13,400ft with the boost pressure dropping off from there.(early 42 test)



One should read the Osprey Aviation Elite book of No. 91 Nigeria Squdron and see how happy they were to finally get the Spitfire XII in May 1943 because of the troubles they were having with the Fw190s. They were flying Spitfire LF Vbs at the time.

On 12 June (1942) Flt Lt Spurdle was on a weather recon of the Somme area, when he was chased by a Fw. Evading, he then saw 4 a/c approching from his 12. Thinking he was to be attacked he fired, fortunatly missing as they we Spitfires.

"the encounter clearly demonstrated that even experienced fighter pilots were becoming nervous about the Fw190."


Skimming through the book, found the following.

Of interest, is a 20mm hit on a Vb on Dec.11 1942 on the upper side of the fuselage just behind the roundel(pg58). What a mess! The a/c did make it back to base. In another photo of a 20mm hit, the damage was much less extensive(pg52). Pg 51 has another interesting photo but no details are given. Most of the port elevator is missing.

For the flag waving, drum beating Canucks, there is a profile of a Mk IX(MK734), with the red maple leaf under the cockpit. Dated Aug. 44.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


ps. from what I have read on the forums, the only one with an agenda is Ludi and Kurfurst. I have never seen them admit to any faults with LW a/c. Labelling those which point out these faults as German haters.

[This message was edited by Koohullin on Sat March 13 2004 at 05:19 AM.]

JG14_Josf
03-13-2004, 09:50 AM
The unfortunate result of any effort to rewrite history is the inevitable loss of truth.

Real people fought with these planes that we play with in simulation. It was their lives that were spent doing what we find interesting and entertaining.

As those soldiers lived they recorded their experiences, and those documents serve as their link to future generations.

I find it instructive to see how easily some people find use in discarding relavant information simply because it does not fit with their own agenda and they seem to have little regard for the cost of this omission.

IL2/FB stands as a record of history if it waves the flag of accuracy. If this commercial advertizing label is used to sell the product then the producers of the game have a responsibility to preserve the record of past history.

In effect the game honors the sacrafices of those humans beings who spent their lives in troubled times at least to the extent that the game represents the true nature of the confict.

If others reading this board do not understand the true meaning of this fact then they can pound sand for all I care, my concern is to maintain an accurate perspective of history. My concern is to see the past with clear vision and an open mind so as to be able to better understand what these people really went through during their lives.

If I read a book concerning history it is imperative that my mind remain open to the possibility that the Author is mistaken but at the same time I must trust that the record stands as some measure of fact, otherwise the lessons of history stand only for entertainment, and only to confuse future application of any lessons learned by our past generations.

To some people, including me, truth holds value.

Now on to the point in question raised by this thread.

What is being passed for historical record in the form of at least 3 books in print now reports that the FW 190 is not the FW 190 reported in what is being sold as an accurate representation of that plane.

Where is the truth?

If you don't give a damn about the truth then you probably aren't reading this far, but if you do think there is value in truth and if this subject does help to form your opinion of what those people went through during that time in history then PLEASE add something of value toward this quest.

Luftwaffe Fighter Aces
The Jagdflieger and their Combat Tactics and Techniques
by Mike Spick

page 121

"With the advent of the FW 190A, this was not as crutical as it once had been. The aircraft was a superb dogfighter, and its pilots used it as such. The previous summer, faced with slashing attacks by the 109s, the constant complaint of RAF pilots was that 'Jerry' didn't stay and fight, totally ignoring the fact that in the 109 this was tactically correct. Now they were repaid in spades: in his new FW 190A, 'Jerry' stayed and fought as never before."

Take any 10 pilots familiar with the Spitfire in the game and have them fight any 10 pilots familiar with the FW.

Change pilots with the planes and have them fight again.

Have them fight 10 times in each plane.

See how many of those guys come to the conclusion that the FW 190 is a superb dog fighter against the Spitfire.

Inspect their tactics through the advantage of recorded tracks.

See for yourselves how the players manage to reproduce the historical record and see what those pilots in history had to deal with during their lives.

The game is after all; Accurate, isn't it?

P.S.

Focke Wulf
Fw 90 in Combat
Alfred Price

Unsolicited Testimonials
page 44
Sighting View
"The sighting view, when sitting comfortably in the normal position, is about half a ring [of deflection] better than that from a Spitfire.
The view downwards from the center of the sight graticule of the edge of the reflector plate holder is aboiut 5 degrees. This view is not obtained by elevating the guns (and consequently the sight) relative to the line of flight, but is entirely due to the attitude of the aircraft in flight, which is nose down."

PzKpfw
03-13-2004, 12:23 PM
And here we see the difrence of historical opinion Ie, UK pilots truly feared the Fw 190 over the Kannel front.

British tests proved the 190 was superior to the Spitfire V, & even the introduction of the Spitfire IX did not wholy redress the balance. Westren tactics were to fight the Fw 190 on the vertical plane, and avoid the horizontal plane.

On the other side of the pond; we have the Soviet opinion of the Fw 190 from tests etc. Which is totaly the opposite of the Westren veiws, one reading them, almost believes the Soviets must have tested a difrent plane.

As Oleg has stated before the VVS fighter pilots had no respect for the Fw 190 as a fighter, Yet hundreds of VVS pilots met their demise at the hands of the few Fw 190s on the eastren front, one ponders how their can be no 'respect'.

1./JG 51 pilots considered the Fw 190A-3,
they converted to, to be, superior to the Bf 109F4 in fact, they reported the 109F was inferior to both the La-5 & Yak 7B.

To JG 51 pilots Fw 190A3 represented an superb dogfighter in all but the tightest horizontal turns. JG 51 pilots also remarked the Fw 190A3 could pull aileron turns that would have tore the wings off an Bf 109F etc. JG 51 & JG 54 both used the Fw 190 operationaly in the East, & would end the war as the 2nd & 3rd highest scoreing Jadgeschwader.

And thats basicly been the crux of the Fw 190 debate since IL-2s release the difrence in the Eastren & Westren opinions on the Fw 190 modeled in IL-2 vs time period portrayls etc.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

WWMaxGunz
03-13-2004, 08:56 PM
How do Soviet pilots lost to FW's measure up to Soviet pilots lost to 109's?

Historys' Mysteries. The unexplained is sometimes not unexplainable, just no one can prove their case. And the answer doesn't have to be fully logical when it comes to fear or respect.

An FW in the right hands was certainly something to be respected regardless of what plane was flown against any FW. How long was the time of fear for the Brit pilots, before they were anxious to mix it up not only over the Canal but over the continent? Took the Spit IX to get there or was it before then, like once new tactics were worked out in the V's? Was there ever a time when the FW's were able to roam over Britain freely without challenge? To even perform routine sweeps over Britain? I don't know of such but then that don't mean there wasn't so I'm asking. And I am aware that a group of experten were based at Abbeville, not far away so the right hands was there for a long time.


Neal

LEXX_Luthor
03-13-2004, 09:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>1./JG 51 pilots considered the Fw 190A-3, they converted to, to be, superior to the Bf 109F4 in fact, they reported the 109F was inferior to both the La-5 & Yak 7B.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I would say the JG pilots were probably Whining mostly about the weak guns on the F or at least F2, unless we get more information here.


__________________
"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

butch2k
03-14-2004, 02:48 AM
Exact they were equipped with F-1 and F-2 before moving to 190As

warriorbear
03-14-2004, 07:05 AM
Just a side note to any air combat you need good replacements. As WWII progressed many luft pilots were getting younger and ended up being less trained. Could this aspect of history play apart in this conversation?

I dont believe in compromise, when it comes to History, but with so many takes on test pilots from both sides isn't there a safe middle.

Waariorbear

WWMaxGunz
03-14-2004, 09:46 AM
Bigtime WB. And it affected the Germans most of all but still applied to all sides that had and lost veterans.

Germany had more with longer experience and training before 1940. Loads of them went back to the glider training when they were kids on up. Excellent pilots who could get the most out of their planes, the very most. As those were lost there were some new coming in with much the same training but had been too young to make the first wave. But even those took losses and there were only so many gliders and so much time prior to the war.
They really started out with a huge lead and once lost they were pressed so hard they were always starting out replacements from worse than the rest.

It's not like the war was thrust on them. But considering the conditions in Germany prior to that nut taking the place over, getting involved with foreign interests and getting on a war footing there was people dying in poverty on a terrible scale that was ignored or just exploited by outsiders.

Still, starting trouble means getting trouble. It is a huge shame that better answers were not made and I think all the powers of the time share in that shame.


Neal

JG14_Josf
03-14-2004, 10:30 AM
How can compromise be avoided when the medium being used to simulate and therefore record history is both limited in capability and expanding in scope?

Airplanes were capable of specific unique attributes including such things as agility and energy manevuerability. How can a desk top computer program simulate agility?

The Fw was not an arrangement of one's and zero's. It was a superb dog fighter in it's time. It had a significant advantage in acelleration for one thing. Read this from BOYD:

Pages 305-306

"In January 1975, the Air Force announced that the YF-16 won the lightweight fighter fly-off. Differences between the YF-16 and the YF-17 were so great that the fly-off had hardly been a contest: the YF-16 was the unanimous choice of pilots who flew both aircraft.
The results confused Boyd: E-M data and computer modeling pre-dicted a much closer contest. Boyd met with the pilots and they got down to basics. They used their hands to demonstrate combat maneuvers and they used highly technical fighter-pilot terminology such as "sh*t hot" to describe the YF-16, and it did not take long for a consensus to emerge. They preferred the YF-16 because it could perform what they called a "buttonhook turn." It could flick from one maneuver to another faster than any aircraft they ever flew. It was born to turn and burn-the most nimble little banking and yanking aircraft the world had ever seen. When a pilot was being pursued by an adversary during simulated aerial combat, the ability to snap from one maneuver to another made it much easier to force the adversary to overshoot. It was, as the writer James Fallows later described it, a knife fighter of an airplane, perfect for up-close-and-personal combat.
Until the YF-16 came along, energy dumping-that is, pulling the aircraft into such a tight turn that it quickly lost airspeed and altitude-was a desperation maneuver. This was the last resort when a pilot could not shake and enemy from his six. He dumped energy and hoped he would get a shot as the crowd went by. But the lightweight fighter had such an extraordinary thrust-to-weight ratio and could recover energy so quickly that energy dumping became a tactic of choice rather than of desperation. A pilot could dump energy, then pump the stick back and forth as he regained the initiative- "dumping and pumping," it was called."

Fw 190 in Combat:

page 48

Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Fw 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages

page 51

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.

page 52 (P-51A)

The acceleration of the Fw 190 under all conditions of flight is slightly better than that of the Mustang and this becomes more marked when both aircraft are crusing at low speed.

page 53 (P-38F)

The acceleration of the two aircraft was compared and the Fw 190 was found to be better in all respects

page 54 (Typhoon)

The initial acceleration of the Typhoon, particularly from slow speed, is much slower althought the difference is acceleration when flying at high speed is not so great.

The War Diary of Hauptmann Helmut Lipfert

page 163

"In the process I made the interesting discovery that the ground attack pilots in thier Fw 190s were faster at low level than we were. On the way home I waved over one of the Focke Wulfs and genstured to the pilot that I wanted to race.
We started out at the same speed, then opened the throttles simultaneously and slowly but surely the "90" pulled ahead. I couldn't keep up, even though the aircraft I was flying certainly wans't a poor one. But this was no fighter which left me behind, but a close-support aircraft for which we "faster" fighters were supposed to be flying escort. But it was not only in level speed that this bird was superior to us. Its main strength lay in its enourmous firepower and diving speed."

Back to Robert Shaw:

page 141

"In order to simplify this discussion, however, the term high T/W inferes greater climb rate, faster acceleration, and higher maximum speed capability relative to the opponent.
Obviously fighter performance can be a complex subject, and the numbers alone don't always tell the whole story."


Can a computer program simulate "Agility"?

The scope of a computer program, even a computer program that is advertized as being accurate, must include marketability.

Too many forces are aligned against the Fw 190 for it to be modeled accurately. It was after all made by the worst generation of people ever to discrace the planet earth http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Note the smiley face.

WWMaxGunz
03-14-2004, 01:09 PM
You ask if a flight sim can simulate agility???

Hellllooooooo? Try using your joystick! Or maybe just use it correctly?

Of course computer flight sims simulate agility. That's intrinsic to any flight model.

You just don't agree with how, is it THE FW190 or all models of FW in the sim, are.


Neal

JG14_Josf
03-14-2004, 03:21 PM
Neal,

Thanks for the answer.

I'm not quite satisfied with that description.

As to your version of my opinion, please consider the possibility that you are wrong.

My opinion is mine and it is not as simple as you seem to think.

What cannot be contended, however, is the fact that the IL2/FB flight model does not agree with the War time British combat test trials as reported by Eric Brown and Alfred Price in thier books.

If you have an open mind then consider please the following description of agility. This is from the book "Boyd":

"In doing advanced conceptual design work on the lightweight fighter, he went over all his notes from the past, from as far back as Korea. He remembered his early E-M work and how difficult it was to prepare accurate E-M charts for the F-86. He remembered the F-86's countless battles with MiGs. He remembered how, on paper, the MiG was a superior aircraft in almost every respect. But the F-86 had a ten-to-one kill ratio against the MiG. Why?
Boyd pored over the notes again and again. could there be something else, some other element, perhaps an element not covered by E-M, that held the answer? Boyd made a list of attributes of the MiG and the F-86. For days he went into frequent trances as he groped for the answer. In the end he came up with two significant advantages the F-86 had over the MiG. First, the F-86 had a bubble canopy that gave the pilot a 360-degree field of vision, while the MiG pilot's view to the rear was blocked. Thus, the F-86 pilot had a much easier time observing his enemy than the enemy had observing him. Second, the F-86 had full hydraulic controls, while the MiG did not. This meant that the F-86 pilot could control his aircraft with one finger, while controlling the MiG was so difficult that MiG pilots often lifted weights between flights in order to gain strength. The unboosted controls of the MiG meant that its pilot grew fatigued more quickly than the F-86 pilot but, far more importantly, the F-86 driver could go from one maneuver to another more quickly than the MiG driver. In a practical sense this meant the F-86 pilot could go through a series of either offensive or defensive maneuvers quicker than could his adversary. And with each maneuver he gained a half second or a second on his enemy intil he could either break for separation or be in position for a kill. the MiG was faster in raw acceleration and in turning ability, but the F-86 was quicker in changing maneuvers. And in combat, quicker is more important.
These advantages - better observation and greater agility - would make the lightweight fighter an even more extraordinary air-craft. This concept of agility was an intimation of what in another few years would be the best-known part of the Boyd's legacy."

And again back to Shaw.

"Obviously fighter performance can be a complex subject, and the numbers alone don't always tell the whole story."

Here is another combat example that does not go "by the numbers" yet stands as a historical record in defense of the FW's wartime capabilities.

Stormbird
by Hermann Buchner

page 84

"The russians consisted of a group of around nine Yaks, diving out of the clouds from an altitude of about 1000 metres and flying as a group toward the FW 190s parked on the runway. To my luck, most of the Yaks shot at the machines on the left side. They made only a single attack then disappeared as they had come. As it later turned out, one remained and made a second attack on my FW 190. With a great deal of effort, I had managed to leave the grouind and just managed to clear the hanger with difficulty, my undercarriage still down, when the Yak shot at me. I was lucky in that the Russian was far too fast and was himself suprised at his opportunity. He missed me entirely, shooting away past me with his machine. I had been warned and was now aware of what the Russuans would do in this situation. With the undercarriage and flaps in, the 190 was making up ground, the weapons ready, my 250 kg bombs jettisoned in preparation to take up the aerial battle. Unfortunately, I didn't have much time, the Yak 9 was already bahind me and shooting, but the pilot must have been a beginner, for again his aim wasn't very good. At this stage, I still did not know whether he was alone or whether there were still other Yaks in the area. Meanwhile, I had reached sufficient speed to do battle. I could observe my opponent, now the chances were even and it boiled down to flying ability. I was given and advantage; ground control informed me on the radio that this was the only Yak around, at least in this area. Subsequently, I succeeded in getting behind him, but my shots were also not successful, I was a bit nervous. The furious turning battle was played out about 300-400 meters over the airfield. In addition, my colleagues on the grouind were on the radio playing along. I told them to shut their mouths and turn off the radio. A savage battle now began, the pilot was better than I had reckoned him to be at the beginning. Each of us tried to get behind the other and get into a good position. While turning, each of us managed to fire, but neither of us made any successful hits. We had been circling now for over five minutes when he made the decisive error by trying to leave the turning circle and leave the area, heading off to the right. He set his machine on the horizontal and , at this moment, I sat about 50-80 metres behind him and had him full in my sights. I pressed the trigger on the cannon and something flared up in his cockpit, the Yak tipped over on its right wing and fell to the ground. My friends were shouting into the radio, "You've shot him down! You can land, there are no more Russuans over the airfield." I could hardly believe that the battle had so quickly been decided, the flight lasted 15 minutes. After landing, I taxied to my parking place and shut off the engine, happy to be on the ground again. So many times over the last few weeks, I had not escaped unscathed and had had to land after being attacked. My mechanics greeted me joyfully, in spirit, they had been up there with me, They told me that nine or ten Yaks had come out of the clouds and attacked the airfield. One turned back and attacked my 190, the other Yak pilots leaving their colleague in the lurch and flying back to their base.
The StaffelKapitan congratulated me on my success and drove me to the crash site of the Yak. The pilot was a Kapitan with about 350 enemy flights. He had papers and a letter from his parents on him. His name was Kapitan Ivanov, 24 years old and and old hand flying at the Front, with blue eyes and blond hair and medals as well. He even wore Czarist shoulder epaulettes, the first we had ever seen. We then drove to the Gruppe command post and I reported to the Kommandeur. He only shortly said, "Buchner, at 1400 hrs, there's a Ju 52 going to Breslau and there's a place for you on it".

And so History is recorded in many forms.

What is to be believed and what is to be discarded as fake?

What stands as historical record and what is merely novel?

I assure you, Neal, that my opinion is not defined by you.

WWMaxGunz
03-14-2004, 07:55 PM
I think there should be a big market for an aircombat edition of Trivial Pursuit.

Boyd may have thought that the F-86's were killing MiG's at 10:1 but history has caught up with that and the figure is much less.

Oleg does not model pilot endurance of pilot body energy state. He does not I am sure have a stored value of agility per plane. That is something that went out with airwar boardgames such as we used to play back in the early to mid 70's. There have been table-driven games since that have charts to say how the planes fly and there are physics based sims with constants or at least variables (fuel weight must change as other things as well) and formulae but I'd bet any amount that agility is nothing but the outcome of how the sim runs.

You keep looking for something to match everything you can find to read. Since so much of what is written contradicts other things written and there's so much just wrong, I really think you can spend forever looking.

I'm sure you like IL2/FB very much.
I'm sure that you as well as all of us would like to see particular parts changed.
I'm sure that I'll be satisfied more and sooner though. I use the sim for what I want and I enjoy what I can get out of it. Somehow I don't think we differ that much there either.

Have a good one.


Neal

JG52_Meyer
03-14-2004, 08:21 PM
Spit VC , Merlin 45 16lb/in2

http://web.archive.org/web/20040314182826/http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/aa878climb.gif

FB Spit VB, JUmo 213E? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.jagdgeschwader52.com/meyer/SpitROC.jpg

JG14_Josf
03-14-2004, 10:25 PM
Boyd:

"You gotta challenge all assumptions. If you don't, what is doctrine on day one becomes dogma forever after."

I call it having an open mind, and it is not easy.

The game is simply the best one so far, time has a way of changing opinion.

My use of the game includes tactical study and presentation:

Sustained turn techniques (http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/sustained%20turn%20technique.htm)

High Yo Yo, Energy fighting, Rolling scissors, Half Split, Teamwork, Drag setup, and flat scissors. (http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~chapman/il2guide/tracks.htm)


Back on topic.

Boyd has a saying for planes that are not favorably modeled.

"It is what fighter pilots call a "grape": squeeze it in a couple of hard turns and all the energy oozes out. That energy cannot be quickly regained, and the aircraft becomes an easy target."

Shaw has his own version:

"A "double-superior" condition occurs when one fighter has both significantly higher T/W and lower wing loading than its opponent. Obvously the unlucky adversary in this situation is "double inferior."

Shaw goes on to give advice for the pilot of the inferior fighter

"These problems may be alleviated, however, by a very thorough aircraft preflight inspection , followed by a decision to spend the day in the bar. If this luxury is not available, high-speed hit-and-run tactics or multiple-aircraft engagements may offer some relief; otherwise the pilot of the inferior fighter must be very good or very lucky"

That hit and run high speed team advice sure does sound familiar.

Back to Mike Spick:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>With the advent of the FW 190A, this was not as crutical as it once had been. The aircraft was a superb dogfighter, and its pilots used it as such. The previous summer, faced with slashing attacks by the 109s, the constant complaint of RAF pilots was that 'Jerry' didn't stay and fight, totally ignoring the fact that in the 109 this was tactically correct. Now they were repaid in spades: in his new FW 190A, 'Jerry' stayed and fought as never before." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

clint-ruin
03-14-2004, 10:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:

That hit and run high speed team advice sure does sound familiar.



Back to Mike Spick:

[QUOTE]With the advent of the FW 190A, this was not as crutical as it once had been. The aircraft was a superb dogfighter, and its pilots used it as such. The previous summer, faced with slashing attacks by the 109s, the constant complaint of RAF pilots was that 'Jerry' didn't stay and fight, totally ignoring the fact that in the 109 this was tactically correct. Now they were repaid in spades: in his new FW 190A, 'Jerry' stayed and fought as never before." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Josf,

I think that there are a couple of other tactical factors.

1) slow speed, low alt, tight turning fights are never favoured in a multiple-plane engagement scenario. Especially over enemy territory where it's quite easy for another enemy group to show up and bounce from superior alt/speed. The Spits advantage over the 190 appears to be in this realm of flight.

2) not being an expert on the plane - but I seem to recall that the FW190s handling/climb advantage is at high speed, rather than low speed.

About the Il-2 compare charts - as far as I know the "MAX climb at alt" is just that. The maximum possible climb sustainable. Which in the spits case would be its very, very slow speed / high AOA climb. Not exactly the most useful thing to use in a team engagement either unless you're feeling very lucky.

Anyhow - just a comment on tactics - I'm very far from an expert of any kind on the 190/Spit so I'll let the grognards continue to do battle :&gt;

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

crazyivan1970
03-14-2004, 11:02 PM
I have a COOP...where 6 He111s attack railstation with escort of 8 FW190-A4 and flight of 8 Spitfires 1942 CW intercepts them. I think we played this COOP like 5-6 times, and after 15-20 min of fierce fighting all Spitfires die and usually 4-6 190`s left. Hmmmm.. Some good pilots in Spits too.

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

JG14_Josf
03-15-2004, 01:04 AM
Clint-ruin,

Who really knows how the FW and Spit actually did compare in history?

I don't. Any authority I express on the subject is imitation at best. This is why my posts include references.

Like this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Alfred Price's book reports:


page 39
"Following initial flight trials at the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough in July 1942, the captured Focke wilf 190 flew to the Air Fighting Development Unit at Duxford for tactical trials. The resultant report, issued in August 1942 and reproduced below almost in its entirety, is a model of what such an intelligence document should contain."

page 48

Climb

The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continueous 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 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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The above quote describes a situation where the FW190A-3 being tested in combat trials by the British pilots during the war had both a better climb rate and a steeper climb angle than the Spitfires they used for this important evaluation.

There can be two possible ways to look at those tests. They are false, or they are true. The language and context is straight forward.

If those reports are false then this fact would be good to know.

Perhaps the next best WWII combat flight sim will have flight models with references to back up any stated claims of accuracy, including solid evidence to show why Alfred Prices book is not accurate; that is, of course, if the flight models are shown to be different than the combat test trials report.

Meanwhile we do have a very good WWII air combat simulator, even if the flight models don't measure up to some of the historical evidence, the actual accuracy of these flight models could be spot on according to the numbers of other sources.


However the real planes were not ones and zeros crunched out on a glorified adding machine so it is, at least, my opinion that what we have is simply amazing as it is, even if it appears to be innacurate based upon some source material.

As far as the coop with escort duty goes I wonder if any tracks were made of these events, and how much the bombers effected the outcome.
This type of scenario is going to prove out the combat effectivness of these planes as they are modeled in the sim. My experience with AEP is limited so far to the TA-152.

Raven has a fantastic server going on Hyperlobby.

Greatergreen is still stuck with 1.22

Another server, with minimal aids, on hyperlobby stutters too much for me.

Any tests done with plane type against plane type could use the control of having the pilots switch planes for a repeat of the tests.

I wonder if the British did the same type of control when they tested the FW against the Spit.

karost
03-15-2004, 01:54 AM
Hi, JG14_Josf and friends here
Refer to this topic concerning to FW 190A

I need help to know about air tacical combat call "Vector Roll Attack"

did any friends who get used to this tactic has test with FW 190A in AEP yet ? I need to know :
1) how to apply this tactic ?
2) this tactic is working in AEP or not ?


seem AEP 2.0 make FW 190 more challenging http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

S!

mamal
03-15-2004, 06:03 AM
Simply You can´t outclimb FW 190 in Spitfire MkV! It was really breaking point when FW 190 came into servise. Many squadrons kept MkVs until first quarter of 1944. So, now You can better imagine what was going on! And when You realize that most of MkVs where more than year or two in servise ... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif I want to say that You can´t find answer in tables and manuals!


Steph

PzKpfw
03-15-2004, 06:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
I would say the JG pilots were probably Whining mostly about the weak guns on the F or at least F2, unless we get more information here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


1./JG 51 converted from 109F2's my bad on
the typo.

All thats basicly implied in the texts is that the majority of pilots were much happier with A3's then they were with F2's. And the A-3 tipped the scales back in their favor, in their eyes, over those pesky Yak7B & La-5's. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Regards, John Waters

---------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945.

WWMaxGunz
03-15-2004, 06:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by karost:
Hi, JG14_Josf and friends here
Refer to this topic concerning to FW 190A

I need help to know about air tacical combat call "Vector Roll Attack"

did any friends who get used to this tactic has test with FW 190A in AEP yet ? I need to know :
1) how to apply this tactic ?
2) this tactic is working in AEP or not ?


seem AEP 2.0 make FW 190 more challenging http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

S!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Vector Roll? Simple:

FW did not flat turn as well as it could roll so you point the nose up or down as steeply as you need and roll till the top of your plane is pointing where you wish to go then pull the nose onto that direction (vector is another word for direction here).
That way you turn the FW in less time than it can flat turn. That is how they stayed with the fight. With that and plenty of speed they did keep the initiative. Zooming up to roll nto target and not letting the nme get a chance to build speed to follow you is a tactic that goes back to WWI. Spads and Pfalz's couldn't fight without it. The Spads were much like FW's of their time only maybe moreso.


Neal

hop2002
03-15-2004, 06:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Spit VC , Merlin 45 16lb/in2<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bear in mind that Spit is ballasted to have the weight of 4 20mm cannon, so it's several hundred pounds heavier than a Spit Vb.

Even at that weight, it has a ROC of 19 m/s from sea level to about 2500m, so at low alts the FB Spit Vb is actually undermodelled in climb. It's overmodelled at 3000m and above.

However, the Spit Vb in the game is 35 km/h slower at sea level than the real Spit Vb.

JG14_Josf
03-15-2004, 02:01 PM
Karost,

I have a new track with the TA-152 employing a vector roll on a P-38. It was recorded last night and as soon as possible this track will make its way to Michapma's web page. If Mike finds it to be up to standard then a vector roll example will be available for inspection soon. My example is not at all ideal but is should illuminate at least the fundamental perspective.

What can be seen on Mike's web page already is my interpretation of a High Yo-Yo on the track file called 1-30mm and this too should be instructive.

The Yo-Yo differs from the Barrel roll, or Lag displacement roll attack in that the direction of roll relative to the opponent changes from outside the targets turn and toward the targets turn in the case of a High Yo-Yo; but for a Barrel Roll there is a roll away from the targets turn from inside the targets turn instead.

The following is a description of the Barrel Roll attack from Boyd's Aerial Attack Study, my notes are in Brackets. Boyd's notes are in parenthesis:

1. Stalk your target and attempt to reduce angle-off as much as possible. [Line up behind the target] If this is impossible, employ the procedures outlined below.
[During a 6 o'clock bounce attack the target sees the attack coming and maneuvers to spoil the shot so a Barrel Roll Attack is prescribed]

2. Dive below and inside your opponent's turn radius, maintaining nose-tail separation throughout the maneuvers. [Don't get too close]
The dive below should be initiated far enough out so the forthcoming zoom may be played inside or outside the defenders turn.
[Get ready to zoom up well before the overshoot, maintain control of the fight, be pro-active and not simply reactive]

3. Pull up and zoom inside your opponent's turn radius if you feel he is not strongly oriented toward the scissors maneuver (sometimes this is difficult to determine). [This is a crucial moment during the attack. The wrong move by the attacker will favor the defender. At this time during the attack the target is out in front and nose high. The attacker is closing rapidly. The target is turning to make things difficult and spoil a tracking shot. Before the attacker gets too close he must now decide to either lead the target or lag behind the turning target. The wrong choice here can be costly for the attacker. The right choice here is the key to making the Barrel Roll Attack work. Boyd now describes how to Barrel Roll Attack a plane that does not reverse the original evasive turn. In this case the attacker leads the target with a turn inside the defenders turn radius and then the attacker pulls up into a zoom climb. The zoom climb must be done in time, before things get too close.]

4. Barrel-roll, nose-high, in a direction away from your opponent's turn. If he turns right, barrel-roll left, and vice versa. The roll will reduce vector velocity and the height of the yo-yo apex, yet maintain a higher aircraft velocity.
[Since a Barrel Roll Attack is made inside the opponents turn radius it should be clear how this attack differs from a yo-yo where the attack is made outside of the opponents turn radius. Going back to the crucial decision moment before the pull up; it should be clear that the attack is changed significantly when the attacker decides to lead the turning target. Looking out in front as the attacker closes on the target the attacker makes the decision to keep the target in his right hand view as the target turns left. The attacker maneuvers to a collision course, the attacker turns to fly ahead of the turning target as if the attack is meant to be a snap shot.]
[If the attack was planned as a high yo-yo the attacker would allow the target to pass from his right view to his left view before the attacker zooms up. The high yo-yo attack is made on the outside of the target's turn and the Barrel roll attack is made on the inside of the target's turn. Now it should be clear as to which way the attacker rolls his plane for a Barrel Roll Attack. Looking out in front the attacker has a target on his right side, the target is turning left. The attacker zooms up and rolls right keeping the target in his forward up view.]
[In other words the attacker is maneuvering to place his lift vector aimed at the target. Notice the difference at this time; if the attacker were to roll left as the target is going from the attacker's right view to the left view then the roll left and zoom would break visual contact. It may seem wrong to roll right as the target is passing from right to left it may seem quicker and better to roll left at this time so as to start turning sooner; it may seem as if rolling right is the long way around. It may seem, at this time, as if rolling right will delay the shot opportunity.]

[Going back to the crucial moment before the attacker closed the gap, going back to the time when the two planes were relatively far apart; the attacker could set up a High Yo-Yo and allow the turning target to pass from his front right view to his front left view and then the attacker can pitch up and roll left to keep his vector pointed at the target. Notice the difference? The Barrel Roll Attack is a move made by the attacker to turn inside the targets turn, to fly ahead of the target and then pitch up rolling opposite the targets turn to keep the target in view and to keep the lift vector pointed at the target. Why does this work?]

[Boyd says: "reduce vector velocity" My interpretation is that this means the maneuver avoids the problems of a snap shot where vector velocity is increasing rapidly and "reduce the height of the yo-yo apex" means that this maneuver is better than the outside yo-yo because the roll is done quickly with less zooming up and more energy is being spent toward maintaining the correct amount of separation.]
[Understand that a high yo-yo increases separation with more zoom and less geometrical advantage, which brings us to "yet maintain a higher aircraft velocity." The Barrel Roll Attack wastes less energy than the yo-yo since roll, pitch, and yaw are all simultaneously working toward gaining angles and maintaining just the right amount of separation. Picture a Barrel placed on the scene of this maneuver where the attacking plane goes around the barrel while the target plane is centered in the barrel. The target plane turns about 90 degrees inside the barrel while the attacking plane turns how much? The idea seems to be an adjustable lead turn. Rolling up and on top of the target sets up the correct amount of separation for a lead turn. The roll up and then over on top of the target changes the geometry from a increasing aspect snap shot into a nose to nose merge followed by a aileron directionally assisted out of plane early turn. The moment of overshoot is replaced by an oblique lead turn where the attacking plane is utilizing yaw, aileron, elevator, and geometry to gain angles against the opponent.]

5. Continue the roll and employ bottom rudder as the aircraft comes through the nose-high inverted position. This will provide a 270deg change of direction and place you with longitudinal separation, at a reduced angle off above your opponent, diving toward a six-o'clock-low position. The longitudinal separation will be less than that acquired from an ordinary yo-yo.
[Looking back at the imaginary barrel placed on the scene it should be clear that although the path around the barrel is longer than the turn inside the barrel the path around the barrel is more efficient. The target plane is using elevator and possibly some rudder input to make a 180 degree heading change. The Attacking plane is flying faster and cannot match the same elevator turn, let alone try to turn inside the slower plane turning horizontal. But the Attacking plane can use aileron elevator and rudder to scribe a line around the barrel to maintain just the right amount of separation, not too close and not to far away from the turning target.]
[As the target turns the attacking plane goes from a position abeam or to the side of the target then over the target and then behind the target and at all times the attacker is maintaining and then increasing angular or geometrical advantage because every input control is used to place the lift vector on the target at all times during the maneuver and the resulting expenditure of energy is vectored to point the attacking planes nose at the defending planes tail.]
[The attacking plane maintains just the right amount of separation and maintains just the right heading to maneuver into firing position and this happens to work out looking similar to scribing a line around a barrel where the target is inside the barrel. The problems of getting too close should be clear as are the problems of allowing too much separation. Think of the maneuver as being a solid steel bar connecting both planes that does not allow the attacking plane to get too close yet pulls the attacking plane around the target plane as the attacking plane scrubs off excess energy. The solid steel bar lifts the attacking plane during the approach and pulls the attacking plane around as the attacking plane overshoots. Think of the maneuver as if the target plane were a center point where the attacking plane flies around this center point up, over, around, and then back in. The idea is to maintain enough separation throughout the maneuver for the room needed to eventually turn into the target. Flying too close will remove the required room to turn in and flying too far away will allow the target to escape or reverse. Think of the Barrel as being a path around the target that allows the faster plane to travel a longer distance around the target yet maintain the proper heading or vector to continue his progress toward angular gains.]

[Boyd says: "employ bottom rudder" and on this point the maneuver is very difficult to understand for me, perhaps you can make more sense of the terminology. Yaw can direct the velocity vector just as the elevator can only not with as much effect since the elevator directs the lift force of the wings and the thrust of the engine whereas the rudder changes only the engines trust and any lift force created by the fuselage, and any combination of these forces. Picture the attacking pilot's perspective as he rolls to keep the target in his view. The attacking pilot maintains the target at his high 12 o'clock. How can yaw help in this task? What happens at the top of the barrel? Where is the target in the attackers forward up view; left, right or centered?]

6. Do not employ bottom rudder if your opponent rolls away from the turn and pulls up into the attack. Instead, employ top rudder and continue the roll from the inverted position. This will place you in a nose-high attitude at six-o'clock-low - a perfect set-up for a GAR-8 launch.
[At the start of the barrel roll the target is showing his canopy to the attacker. If the target reverses the turn at this point, such as would be done for a scissors maneuver, then the target would be showing his underside. The attacker is looking first at a plane passing from his right to his left during the initial zoom, as the attacker starts to roll, in this case rolling right; the target is now orbiting from right to up and right. Rudder and Yaw can be used to point the plane at the target with bottom rudder as the target appears on the right, but if the opponent reverses and if the opponent pitches up then the attacker should stop the yaw to the right and down and start yawing to the left and up since the target is now showing his low 6, turning the other way and going up.]

[I think the next segment of Boyd's description brings us back to the critical moment before the decision is made to go inside or outside of the targets turn. At this moment the attacker is again out of range and closing fast. The target has seen the attack coming and has started a defensive turn. For our example we claim that the target turns left, and the Attacker must decide if the target is going to continue turning left or left then right. The Attacker will cut off the left turn for a Barrel Roll Attack or:]

7. Pull up and zoom to the outside of your opponent's turn radius if you feel you can sucker him into a turn-reversal. If he reverses, continue with the following procedures.

8. Roll in a direction opposite your opponent's turn-reversal. This will reduce your vector velocity and help maintain longitudinal separation.

9. Play top or bottom rudder, according to whether your opponent pulls up or dives away after the reversal. If he pulls up, employ top rudder. This will allow you to roll nose-high toward a six-o'clock-low position. If he dives away, employ bottom rudder. This will allow you to roll nose-low and prevent your opponent from obtaining extreme longitudinal separation.

karost
03-21-2004, 08:29 AM
Thank you, Josf and WWMaxGunz for share me(us) your knowledge http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


Wow .... Vector Roll tactic is for a smart guy to apply
I can see the point that attcker have to pull up and roll to other side of opponent to make more room to roll and turn back inside cycle turn of him ( opponent ) also keep target not loss sight.


... this tactic is very cool coz he can maintain advatage situation and maintain energy too , I can see this idea can apply to other turing trip for energy tactic art.


http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I think 190 piot not olny chanlleng but must smart too , otherwise he has to cry out lound http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


again Josf , Thank so much for your long lecture, it is very good knowledge.

S~
9/BK_Karost

WWMaxGunz
03-21-2004, 09:51 PM
Bumping the original topic because so many people still don't believe that the 190-A4 can outclimb the Spit VB in the sim.


Neal

JG14_Josf
03-22-2004, 08:45 AM
Karost,

Salute right back at you. We are a fraternity of sorts; the WWII combat flight sim community.

I've since realized another possible advantage with the Barrel roll and this concerns the advantage of gravity.

It makes a lot of sense for the Energy fighter to manipulate his turns with gravity assist whenever possible. Gravity adds one G of turning force:

Fighter Combat
by Robert Shaw

Page
412

"Whenever the fighter's lift vector is oriented above the horizon, gravity detracts from turn performance; conversely, gravity enhances turn performance when the lift vector is pointed below the horizon."

Neal,

Thanks for the Bump; I would not have seen Karost's response without it, however the Fw190's climb advantage in the game can hardly be considered accurate if Alfred Prices report on British Combat Test Trials hold any relavant value.

"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 cosiderably steeper."

JG5_UnKle
03-22-2004, 08:47 AM
Well I still need convincing.

How can an A-4 EVER manage to outclimb the Spit when the sustained climb of the Spit is better than the 190 at ALL altitudes?

A Spit pilot has to be totally stupid to follow you at 400Kph as you belt away. You cannot force the spitfire pilot to "Climb like you want him to" - no matter what you say IF I fly a Spit vs a 190 I CAN outclimb him at ALL altitudes.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg

faustnik
03-22-2004, 09:29 AM
Unkle,

I agree there are a few things from the Farnborough test that still bother me when compared to FB:

"The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the Fw190 is considerably steeper"

This is the opposite of the FB 190 which must use a shallower climb angle to gain an adnavtage on the Spit V. Unfortunately the test does not list the speed at which climb was tested.

It does mention in another part of the test that:
"The rate of climb (of the Fw190A3) up to 18,000 ft under maximum continuous climbing conditions at 1.35 atmoshpheres boost 2,450 r.p.m., 165 m.p.h. is between 3,000 and 3,250 ft/min"

So, can we assume the both the Fw190A3/A4 and the SpitBV were climb tested at 165mph? If this is true, we can test this in FB. The Fw190 should climb 450 ft. per munite faster than the SpitVB at this speed.

Also, what was the correct boost pressure for the A3 to be run at?

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

JG5_UnKle
03-22-2004, 09:45 AM
WRT the A-3/A-4 I believe it wasn't until late 1942 that they ran at 1.42 ata (2700 rpm IIRC) but boost on the Spit I'm not sure.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg

hop2002
03-22-2004, 03:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It does mention in another part of the test that:
"The rate of climb (of the Fw190A3) up to 18,000 ft under maximum continuous climbing conditions at 1.35 atmoshpheres boost 2,450 r.p.m., 165 m.p.h. is between 3,000 and 3,250 ft/min"
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is part of the problem. It gives an absolute figure for A4 climb at 1.35 ata 2450 rpm of 3 - 3250 ft/min. This is what the RAF thought was maximum continuous climb.

The Spitfire Vb maintained 3240 ft/min up to 15,000ft at maximum continuous climb.
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/w3134.html

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If this is true, we can test this in FB. The Fw190 should climb 450 ft. per munite faster than the SpitVB at this speed.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to this report, but it doesn't quatify what performance setting the Spit V was run at, other than to say maximum continuous climbing conditions (30 minute rating)

I've just given the 30 minute rating climbs for the Spit above, but it's interesting to note the phrase from the test: Maximum continuous climb

The Spitfire manual has the following ratings:

Maximum climbing 30 minutes 2,850 rpm, 9 lbs boost

Maximum continuous 2650 rpm, 7 lbs boost

Maximum continuous and maximum climb are two different ratings for the Spit, yet the report says maximum continuous climb.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Also, what was the correct boost pressure for the A3 to be run at<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The intended boost pressure for the 190 A3 was 1.42 ata, 2700 rpm. The climb rating was inteded to be 1.35 ata, 2450 rpm.

The planes couldn't safely be run at that rating in service, and they were all derated, to 1.35 ata 2450 rpm maximum, and 1.2something climb rating.

The British weren't sure about the derating, and ran the plane at it's full 1.42 ata 2700 rpm for 3 minutes, and used the 1.35 ata rating as a 30 minute rating.

That's why they had engine trouble.

Spit V ratings were

3000 rpm 9 lbs/sq in in 1941
3000 rpm 12 lbs sq/in
3000 rpm 16 lbs sq/in in summer 1942

I'm not sure when the 12 lbs rating came in, but it was certainly in force, and about to be superceeded, when Arnim Faber's A3 was tested.

faustnik
03-22-2004, 03:42 PM
Thanks Hop2002! Excellent info.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

JG14_Josf
03-22-2004, 03:44 PM
hop2002 wrote:

"That's why they had engine trouble."

Is there any information available to confirm these statements?

How many hours of flying at 1.42 did this FW 190 fly?

Is the derating an engine maintanence issue that can be over ruled by a pilot at any time during combat?

In Alfred Prices book a reference on this issue is noted:

page 45

"[Later it was discovered that the roughness was due to fouling of the Bosch sparking plugs after a short period of running. The fault was cured by fitting Siemens type plugs taken from the BMW 801A engine of a crashed Do 217 bomber.]"

hop2002
03-22-2004, 04:26 PM
To confirm which part? The ratings the British used are in the report.
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_282_1078596128.jpg

The actual derated ratings are pretty common knowledge, I can dig up some quotes from Butch if you like.

The statement that the engine trouble was caused by running at too high a rating? Well, it seems fairly common sense that if the Germans had forbidden 1.42ata, and limited 1.35 ata to 3 or 5 minutes, and the British ran it at 1.42 ata and 1.35 ata for 30 minutes, then engine trouble is a pretty likely outcome.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>How many hours of flying at 1.42 did this FW 190 fly?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hours? 1.42 ata was supposed to be a 3 or 5 minute rating and was banned all together. The British did use it though.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Later it was discovered that the roughness was due to fouling of the Bosch sparking plugs after a short period of running. The fault was cured by fitting Siemens type plugs taken from the BMW 801A engine of a crashed Do 217 bomber<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The RAF also limited it to 1,35 ata later on. If plugs had been the issue, then I'm sure the Germans would have fitted those plugs. 1.42 ata was not allowed until after a chromed exhaust was fitted, and there may have been other fixes as well.

FW190fan
03-22-2004, 04:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
hop2002 wrote:

"That's why they had engine trouble."

Is there any information available to confirm these statements?

How many hours of flying at 1.42 did this FW 190 fly?

Is the derating an engine maintanence issue that can be over ruled by a pilot at any time during combat?

In Alfred Prices book a reference on this issue is noted:

page 45

"[Later it was discovered that the roughness was due to fouling of the Bosch sparking plugs after a short period of running. The fault was cured by fitting Siemens type plugs taken from the BMW 801A engine of a crashed Do 217 bomber.]"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Thanks JG14_Josf

You saved me the trouble of posting it.

I don't know how many times I've stated the same thing about the BMW801 and fouling of the Bosch spark plugs but I usually don't bother anymore because people just want so badly to believe they all just ran rough http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

BTW:

Arnim Faber's FW190A-3 was flown by the RAF (Thoroughly wrung out in Eric Brown's words) for about 7 months between 3 July 1942 and 29 January 1943. At the AFDU it was:

"put through intensive performance trials and flown competitively against several Allied fighter types."

The airframe was struck off charge for firing trials on 18 Sept. 1943.

The FW190A-4/U8 that was tested as RAF serial PE882 was flown by the RAF for approx. *18 months* between 17 Apr. 1943 and 13 Oct. 1944:

"...despite the substantial number of hours that it had flown since reaching British hands, it gave every impression of youthfulness...We had found that the BMW almost invariably fired first time and emitted a smooth purr as it ran..."

"Wings of the Luftwaffe" by Captain Eric Brown pp. 78-81

ISBN 1-85310-413-2

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

dahdah
03-22-2004, 04:36 PM
How many flight hours? As much as an a/c would have got if it was operational with a combat unit?

faustnik
03-22-2004, 05:36 PM
"The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the Fw190 is considerably steeper"

This is the line that seems so opposite from FB. Any explainations for this? Is it a "speed" thing?

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

JG14_Josf
03-23-2004, 12:07 AM
Anyone know what exacty is involved with derating a 190?

Was this a suggested maintanence item or was it a phisical mechanical limitation?

Were the pilots able to over ride a derated engine if necessary in combat?

WWMaxGunz
03-23-2004, 12:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
"The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the Fw190 is considerably steeper"

This is the line that seems so opposite from FB. Any explainations for this? Is it a "speed" thing?

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
http://www.7jg77.com
_http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


It could be a taking someone at their word thing since many times I've seen it posted by LW fans that the Brit tests weren't done right.

What does FW company or the LW say about best climb for the 190-A4? Those are the charts Oleg used, not Mr. Price. If the A4 seems wrong then compare it to the German charts, not the Spit. If the Spit seems wrong then compare it to the proper charts. If you want your opinion to be a dang pigpong ball then sit and compile differences in historians views. Haven't you seen enough Chimp vs Isegrim vs Milo vs Huckebein threads to know that for any "fact" there's a "counter-fact" if only you have enough books? I bet you have!


Neal

CTO88
03-23-2004, 04:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:


And so History is recorded in many forms.



<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

maybe the losses of mig15s were very high, but the russians mig15 kill the americans airplanes 1:3 and even the sabre at least 1:1,5. the other mig15 losses are due korean and chinese airforces.
so like chuck yeager: it's the man behind the machine! mig15 losses not tells that mig was worse than f86 like your source suggest.

your second report isn't a proof for a well turning (in meaning of narrow circle) fw190a. the pilot tells that sometimes yak shoot at him and he shoot at yak. you dont know how often and under what circumstances. maybe they flew 400km/h than fw190 is of course better. sometimes the enemy pilot is bad (as he didnt hit) and next time he is good (in turning)? so what? maybe he was nervous and made failures because of flying alone over enemy airfield?

JG14_Josf
03-23-2004, 05:09 AM
CT088,

I'm just an old broken down construction worker sitting behind a computer trying to have fun simulating an interesting time in history when people flew planes and shot at each other.

My references come from people who are much more qualified than I will ever be at judging how things really did stack up in those days.

You can form whatever opinion you choose and it is alright by me, but forgive me please if I take what you say with at least as much scepticism as I apply to Hermann Buchner and Robert Coram.

karost
03-23-2004, 07:04 AM
Hi , Josf and friends ... I have some funny story to share for this topic again.

As I'm not a good for history technical data air combat so let my share my joke http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

After I got my new AEP ... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ... and make online test 190A4 vs. spit5 VB
when I join a custom host in HL with icon/on , it is very hard to develop advantage to kill spit5 down and forgot about sustain climb advantage in 190A vs. spit5 .... NO WAY POSSIBLE.... and Josf, forgot about "Vector Roll tactic" too, coz I was shot in to a cockpit from other spit5 behind me when I apply that tactic .... LOL


Again, I join in host with FR ( no icon , no external view no P/L ) I can manage a kill like I read in the book as get to the top and drive down to below and behind and bounce Spit5 then run way and look back if I see some spit5 behind me , I will drive fast and zoom climb or drive deep down at low away.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ( if icon/on .... no way to out http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )


I read a book about air combat like "LUFTWAFFE FIGHTER ACES by make spick" page 99...
"The German fighter retained its advantage in rate of roll, in ZOOM CLIMB and in the drive, but was generally equaled in all other departments."

If any one read and found about L/W tactic in 190A that apply "sustain climb tactic" to down spit5, please share me a knowledge that would be good

So, ZOOM CLIMB or SUSTAIN CLIMB.. which one can initial apply.. to build an advantage for make a kill in history technical data air combat for 190A ( if both pilot are same smart ) .... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif what do you think Josf ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

S!

faustnik
03-23-2004, 09:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

It could be a taking someone at their word thing since many times I've seen it posted by LW fans that the Brit tests weren't done right.

What does FW company or the LW say about best climb for the 190-A4? Those are the charts Oleg used, not Mr. Price. If the A4 seems wrong then compare it to the German charts, not the Spit. If the Spit seems wrong then compare it to the proper charts. If you want your opinion to be a dang pigpong ball then sit and compile differences in historians views. Haven't you seen enough Chimp vs Isegrim vs Milo vs Huckebein threads to know that for any "fact" there's a "counter-fact" if only you have enough books? I bet you have!


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Neal,

Fortunately, we don't have Isegrim and Huck confusing the issue in this thread. Just a few contributors trying to make sense of the situation. I am finding their replies informative and interesting.

Do you have a point, or are you just trying to stifle questions that you don't like? I read your posts in Gibbages ".50 demands" thread. You said nothing about taking "Oleg's word for it" there. Once again, I am having trouble understanding the reason for your post. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

[This message was edited by faustnik on Tue March 23 2004 at 08:58 AM.]

JG14_Josf
03-23-2004, 11:52 AM
Karost,


I am going to ramble on a bit in this post concerning a general perspective on on-line flight sim combat. The reason I think it is important to comunicate in the following manner is due to an understanding I have now that I did not have during my initial on-line flight sim days and I see now that my present perspective is much more lucid.

For me, it is a good time to write.

Combat is a balance between offense and defense.

On the one extreme a player can do nothing but maneuver so as to gain possition for a shot.

On the other extreme a player can constantly maneuver in avoidance of being shot.

One player goes right into the fight.

The other player flies off the map in the opposite direction of the fight.

Somewhere in between those two extremes is a game called energy fighting.

The idea is to balance the application of offensive and defensive maneuvering to refinement in an effort to maintain advantage in speed, altitude, and possition.

In order the play the energy game it is imperative that the player learn and develop an abiliy to accurately judge relative energy states.

The ability to percieve relative energy states is used to determine when maneuvering is adjusted from offense to defense and from defense to offense.

For example:

When taking off from home field it should be obvious that every other player has a higher energy state and therefore any decisions to manuever should strongly favor defense.

A keen ability to perceive relative possition is just as important and this too drives maneuvering to balance offense and defense.

Example:

Taking off from home field another player is strafing the field. The other player has possitioned his plane to aim at your plane. Your plane is not yet aimed at his plane. At this time defense is not an option (other than hitting the escape key)and therefore the opponent's relative possition is dictating a need to maneuver more toward offense and less toward defense.

The perception of relative possition is much easier than the perception of relative energy states, however both have equal importance in determining when to attack and when to defend.

Why is the perception of realtive energy states useful?

If you can imagine all fighter combat maneuvering to fall into three categories you may find that one of these catagories are fully dependent upon the keen ability to judge relative energy states. If that capability is lacking then maneuvering is then going to fall into either of the other two catagories.

The first catagory is defined by manuevering dominated by offense.
This type of maneuvering is called by various names including general labels like:
Angles fighting
Turn and Burn Fighting

The second type of maneuvering is dominated by defense.
This type of maneuvering is often labeled:
Hit and Run
or
Boom and Zoom

The third category is characterized by a careful balance between offenive and defensive maneuvering and I know of no other label than:
Energy fighting.

During an energy fight the player must balance both relative possition and relative energy states in an effort to maintain enough excess energy through carfull application of defensive maneuvering to enable offensive maneuvring at the right time and place for an often fleeting opportunity to shoot.

Another very important capability is required for the energy fighter that being a thorough understanding of relative aircraft performance capabilities.

When in doubt the balance of offense and defense swings toward defense and the energy fighter's maneuvers tend more to resemble hit and run.

It is only when the energy fighter is able to predict future relative maneuvering capabilities that the strength of offense increases during combat and only when a decided advantage in maneuvering capabilites exist, or when the opponent makes an obvious mistake.

In other words the plane must be capable of the maneuver in order for energy fighting to work.

A speed advantage is an energy advantage that can be employed toward both a stronger offense and a more effective defense.

A climb advantage is a speed advantage in the vertical

A dive advantage is also a speed advantage in the vertical.

These advantages can be used to enter a fight quickly and leave a fight quickly and are qualities well suited for Hit and Run tactics and maneuvering.

A turn radius advantage can boost both offense and defensive capabilities and having an advantage in this area is well suited for angles tactics.

A turn rate advantage is both a boost in offensive and defensive capabilities and having an advantage in turn rate is an energy fighting advantage.

Again, a thorough understanding of relative strengths and weaknesses between your plane and your opponents plane is vital when trying to balance defensive and offensive maneuvering.

It is important to know what your plane can do against the opponents plane at any given time and place for the effective employment of energy tactics.

Which brings us to the subject of energy maneuverability and a quote from the book John Boyd by Robert Coram (John Boyd is the father of the F-16 Falcon and EM)

"Hollywood and the movie Top Gun notwithstanding, the F-14 Tomcat is a lumbering, poor-performing, aerial truck. It weights about fifty-four thousand pounds. Add on external fuel tanks and missiles and the weight is about seventy thousand pounds. It is what fighter pilots call a "grape": squeeze it in a couple of hard turns and all the energy oozes out. That energy cannot be quickly regained, and the aircraft becomes an easy target."

Grapes in IL2/FB do not make good energy fighters.

A grape sporting a huge advatage in altitude and speed in IL2/FB may get away with one maneuver common to energy tactics such as the sustained turn technique, the diving extension and pitch back, the rolling scissors, the Barrel roll, etc. however this momentary employment of energy tactics must soon be followed by the run part of hit and run tactics since the grape will suffer such a huge relative loss of energy during the maneuver that the grape will be slower and or lower at the end of the maneuver. The grape will need to capitalize on any possition gains and then get out before the energy margin swings too far in favor of the opponent.

[This message was edited by JG14_Josf on Tue March 23 2004 at 11:00 AM.]

WWMaxGunz
03-23-2004, 07:01 PM
Squeeze an apple hard enough and it's the same way.

That's a problem in sims in general is you don't get feel of how hard you're maneuvering. It takes a lot of good practice to tell the signs and just one is the onset of bleed turning worse.

We get lots of posts in any decent sim about crap planes of terrible turning performance by people who take a plane that shouldn't be pushed past a point and push it past that all the time. Since that's what they do with some other plane or sim, that's what they do. You see it more from online players but the biggest reasons are that online the enemy is usually better than the AI coupled with online players post at online forums more in general. Simple to say, it's easier to lose your head in the heat of battle -- more whines begin there and proceed from there than anything. Quick impressions made and reinforced, then "tested" over and over in carefully set conditions made to replicate more than anything the initial conception. The whine spreads like in a roomful of toddlers, one starts and the rest catch on.

Don't yank the FW's or the P-51's, P-47's, etc, and they'll give good return. It is no ACCIDENT that there are people online who fly those and have very good kill ratios. No accident at all.

Anyone wants a good definition of E-fighting can try Bulletheads AW Training Pages. Yes, the sim is Air Warrior. Yes, the same exact thing applies to practically every air combat sim ever made.

http://people.delphiforums.com/jtweller/training/train.htm

Bullethead ain't guessing. He is a master at this from way back.


Neal

JG14_Josf
03-24-2004, 09:23 AM
Karost,

In my previous post I tried to express the overall situation from my perspective.

In other words while flying my thoughts are as reported.

Specifically the idea is to look for and maintain an advantage, to press the attack while an advantage is obvious, and to fall back onto defense as the situation deteriorates into dissadvantage.

Exceptions exist where aggression is the only clear defense, but otherwise the goal is to push the envelope in every direction to advantage before contact is made with the opponent.

The reason I feel it is necessary to report the overall mind set before answering a specific question concerning a tactic or maneuver is that each maneuver is a minor part of a tactic and each tactic is a minor part of a strategy and it is important to see the big picture instead of a collection of pieces as one would see when starting to build a puzzle.

Imagine, please, that at this moment in time we are meeting each other on-line and we are playing IL2. You are in the Spit VB while I am flying the 190A4.

We are both on the runway.

What is your mind set?

Mine is such that I am happy to be flying the better plane.

My plane goes faster.

I can always leave you behind when you get the slightest advantage.

I dictate the fight, unless I make a mistake.

What else are you thinking as we sit on the runway getting ready to fight each other?

Please, don't take offense to my imaginary situation here, for all I know I may be 'preaching to the choir' my intent here is to answer a specific question about a specific maneuver from my viewpoint. In order to accomplish this task it is important to me to get down to basics first.

Back to the runway.

I am trying to form a picture of how our planes stack up against each other in an effort to determine what I can and what I can not do in the next chunk of time with the specific goal of increasing my chances of winning the fight and decreasing your chances of winning the fight.

The Spitfire VB in the game has a climb advantage. This is an important advantage that eliminates a whole world of options for me the Fw driver. That world where you can reign supreme while you fly the Spit is anywhere above my Fw 190. I cannot let you get above me. The higher you are above me the worse my situation will be and the greater will my dependence be upon my ability to run away.

So big deal the game doesn't recreate history as accurately as some reports indicate. It is not beyond comprehension that despite many examples of historical record indicating that the Fw190A4 should be able to climb above a Spit VB the possiblity exists that sometime during the real War this situation did exist where a version of Spit VB did fight a version of Fw190 where the Spitfire had the climb advantage.

We recreate such a fight.

Back to the runway.

I think to myself: Self if you were fighting an Fw what would you do?

My answer is that I would climb at maximum climb rate and go right at the Fw, and in this manner I would maximize my advantage in climb rate.

So on the runway I form my strategy. I'll fly at my own maximum climb rate but instead of going straight for the Spit, I'll go 90 degree's off angle. If the Spit is heading west and toward my base then I'll head north or south.

The Spit will get to my base higher than I'll get away but my plan is to catch the Spit driver searching around at medium altitude over my base.

I guess that the Spit will stop climbing at 5,000 meters so I'll stop climbing at 8.

At 5,000 meters heading north I turn back to my base and at 8,000 meters I am about half way back to my base with enough room to nose down and get some speed before the fight.

What did you do to get ready for this fight?

Suppose you did as I expected and are now at 5,000 meters looking around my base.

I see you down there well before I get to my base from the north and I have plenty of time and altitude to gain 500kph.

I see you turning around looking for me.

I have time to get the Sun behind me as I attack from above.

All my experience and perceptive capabilities indicate to me that at this time in the fight my energy level is much greater than yours.

I have every advantage possible and am getting ready to hose you.

O.K. The set-up is now ready and we can inspect the "Barrel Roll Attack" or any other method of employing a plane with a higher energy state bearing down on the near perfect attack.

I am approching you from your 6 oclock.

If you do not see me in your Spit VB in this game, in this situation, then I assure you my computer is going to send to your computer a signal to cause your plane damage from my Fw.

I've got many tracks to testify to this fact.

This is what makes me happy.

I know how to do this type of attack to a high percentage rate of success.

I find only one thing in the game more enjoyable that bouncing another player where my attack is first recongized by the opponent player when his plane takes damage.

That one other more enjoyable event is when my wingman is in front of the guy who just now realizes I am taking apart his computer generated plane.

What happens if you see me during my attack and you break to the left before I have time to shoot?

I may try the Barrel Roll Attack.

I am more inclinded to go with the High Yo-Yo since the Barrel Roll Attack requires such exacting precision it leaves me no time to look around for any other threats.

[This message was edited by JG14_Josf on Wed March 24 2004 at 08:34 AM.]

WWMaxGunz
03-24-2004, 04:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

It could be a taking someone at their word thing since many times I've seen it posted by LW fans that the Brit tests weren't done right.

What does FW company or the LW say about best climb for the 190-A4? Those are the charts Oleg used, not Mr. Price. If the A4 seems wrong then compare it to the German charts, not the Spit. If the Spit seems wrong then compare it to the proper charts. If you want your opinion to be a dang pigpong ball then sit and compile differences in historians views. Haven't you seen enough Chimp vs Isegrim vs Milo vs Huckebein threads to know that for any "fact" there's a "counter-fact" if only you have enough books? I bet you have!


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Neal,

Fortunately, we don't have Isegrim and Huck confusing the issue in this thread. Just a few contributors trying to make sense of the situation. I am finding their replies informative and interesting.

Do you have a point, or are you just trying to stifle questions that you don't like? I read your posts in Gibbages ".50 demands" thread. You said nothing about taking "Oleg's word for it" there. Once again, I am having trouble understanding the reason for your post. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
http://www.7jg77.com
_http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25_

[This message was edited by faustnik on Tue March 23 2004 at 08:58 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If Gibs entire basis was on one or a very few quotes like the Pacific P-38's shooting Zeroes down at 1000 yards, his whole basis mind you, then I wouldn't be participating in that thread as I am. And I still ain't sure about that one either. Sorry you can't see the difference. Should I question that?


Neal

faustnik
03-24-2004, 05:04 PM
Neal,

In this thread questions are being asked. In the other, changes demanded. I would think the other would bother you more.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

WWMaxGunz
03-24-2004, 05:15 PM
Well Josf, those are good tactics.

Even if the Spit outclimbs, he is still slow and has not gone far regardless. To gain speed he must either spend a long time near level in which the FW can still be climbing at or over 400kph, or he must dive and lose the extra alt. I always hated being slow enough in a climb that I couldn't get out of the way of an attack. And I wish I still had the edge to pull off attacking shots while barrel rolling but them days is gone for me.

S! Josf!


Neal

WWMaxGunz
03-24-2004, 05:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Neal,

In this thread questions are being asked. In the other, changes demanded. I would think the other would bother you more.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
http://www.7jg77.com
_http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hang in there, it's not over. You see me asking questions there or not?


Neal

faustnik
03-24-2004, 05:19 PM
OK http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

JG14_Josf
03-24-2004, 10:01 PM
Returning back to the situation where the Fw190A-4 is bearing down on the Spitfire VB in the game.

The Spitfire driver can see the attack coming and begins to turn left, at first he is probably trying to get an idea about closure rates.

Both pilots find that the energy advantage does belong to the Fw 190 since the Fw is diving and closing.

Let's suppose that the Fw has a large energy advantage and is closing fast.

It is decision time for me in the Fw since I have the initiative. I've caught the Spitfire pilot in a defensive situation, in other words I have more energy and better possition. This type of situation is more common when hunting at higher speeds. Entering known areas where enemies can be found at high speed as opposed to slow speed give the opponents less time to react. In this hypothetical instance the Spitfire does not have enough time to reverse before the distance between us reaches the effective range of our weapons. I can point my guns at him and he cannot point his guns at me.

The Spitfire has his pants down, so to speak.

My next decision depends upon what the Spitfire pilot does; I tend to be much more conservative than most of the guys in my squad.

In an equal engagement my percentage of success is not very good, I tend to allow the fight to be driven by the opponent too much.

But in this situation my Fw commands everthing. I have all the cards and it is enough for me to simply enjoy the situation.

Poor Spit guy somewhere out in net land is at my mercy.

If the Spitfire guy is not aggressive enough during the initial closure my tendency is to pull a lot of lead quick just like one might do to set up a Barrel Roll Attack; perhaps this is true, I am not sure, my tries at a Barrel Roll Attack have been few and not very instructive.

Pulling the right amount of lead on a less than aggressive target at 12 o'clock is a guess; to judge and aim at a future point of intersection.

I am looking at a snap shot, a high speed guns pass. My thinking is to be the one killing bullet. I try to vector my bullets and not my guns. I am trying to manually guide my bullets at the target and then release them at the last moment before my plane runs into the target plane. If my guess is right and if the target does not react in time my plane will pass his plane at very close range. It continues to be a surprise to me when reviewing track files just how close two planes can pass in IL2 and remain undammaged. It is almost as if IL2 only models a collision if my plane actually touches the target plane regardless of what the target plane may see on his computer.

If my guess is right, if I pull the right amount of lead with a quick turn aiming somewhere ahead of the target my shot will be a tap on both triggers followed by a small quick change of vector to avoid the collision, and only if a collision is imminent. Often a high speed pass will involve a crossing vector instead of an intercept vector, such is the case when my guess is not correct, and the target turns more or turns less than expected leaving me at extended range.

I find much use in thinking about collision vectors as if my plane is the bullet projectile. More often than not this type of observation and intent drives maneuvering into good or even great high speed guns passes.

If the Spitfire is more aggressive as range closes my sense of defense increases; in such a situation my thinking quickly changes from attack to either extension and an observation of the situation or to set up a drag for my wingman.

The reason I am describing this situation is both my desire to write and communicate plus an explanation as to why the Barrel Roll Attack may be something I find difficult to apply.

During the closure phase of the attack when the Spitfire starts to turn; my attack is not often planned far enough ahead to invision the application of a Barrel Roll Attack.

There is little reason or evidence that suggests to me that such an attack would not work in this situation, in the game, with those planes. What must be understood, at least from my understanding, is that the Barrel Roll Attack is applied when an Attack is made upon a slower plane and in this type of situation the energy margin allows the faster plane to travel farther. The Barrel Roll Attack is the long way around the Barrel while the slower target plane is traveling a shorter distance.

WWMaxGunz
03-24-2004, 10:18 PM
If I lay on the trigger at about 350m and let off at about 150m then I can pass behind the target or over it. I've been making nice streams that the target flies through if at high angles. The stream moves forward but the target is faster, it leaves room for error but wastes rounds. Maybe when I get better at tracking but those damn struts and the narrow view make that tough to say the least. I still get some nice hits from high side and underneath. Coming from behind and some angle gets far more hits but usually not as effective per hit. Still it gets more single pass kills and I blame that on my poor high deflection shooting. But I get a bit better with practice in this sim which is harder to judge where the rounds are going. In the FW's I use the MG's and when the tracers look right it's cannon time. I like the firepower of the Fockes!

Really, go check out Bulletheads' Pages and save yourself a lot of time.


Neal

JG14_Josf
03-25-2004, 11:51 AM
Back to the Barrel Roll Attack set-up situation where my Fw190 is closing rapidly on a Spitfire VB breaking in a left hand turn: the next decision I make at that crucial moment just after the Spitfire shows an obvious defensive turn is a decision based upon my current velocity, among other things of course.

It would not be possible for me to complete a Barrel Roll Attack if my speed is either too far under or over corner speed.

The Barrel Roll Attack depends upon at least enough energy to complete the maneuver but also there is a need to have at least enough relative turn rate to gain angles and maintain an advantage in possition.

At speeds greater than corner speed the Fw190 has an abundance of energy to complete the manuever but too much energy to complete the maneuver in time and space.
At corner speed or at about 350 to 400kph the Fw turns the fastest rate possible and almost the smallest radius possible.
When a maneuver such as the Barrel Roll Attack is started at speeds well above corner speed the barrel starts out very large in diameter because it takes a long time for the Fw to motor around at that speed.
As the Fw srubs off speed during the maneuver, as the Fw decelerates down to corner speed the Barrel shrinks to a minimum size.
It should be clear that maneuvering at or slightly above corner velocity is required for the Barrel Roll Attack.
If on the other hand the Fw were to begin a Barrel Roll Attack at 300kph the Barrel or the size of the turn radius would again increase. Under corner velocity the Fw does not even have enough energy to pull the g force required to maximize turn rate. Under 350kph the Fw does not even have enough energy to black out the pilot. At slower speeds the Fw has decreasing turn performance.

It makes very good sense to base maneuvering decisions upon the capacity to complete maneuvers. In the case of the Barrel Roll Attack there is a real need to have the correct velocity at the start of the maneuver.

I think that any Fw190 driver in the game will understand this fact; the Fw turns very well at the right speed.

Knowing that speed and maintaining that speed is very important when maneuvering against any opponent in the game.

So far, it seems clear, that many things are required in order for a Barrel Roll Attack to be a viable option to maneuver for advantage.

Many of these variable must be set-up by the attacker previous to the engagement.
The attacker must either have control of the sitaution from the start or be very lucky.

karost
03-25-2004, 11:10 PM
Hi Josf, you right for Barrel Roll Attack need alot of training
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


But I found one funny way, when I apply Barrel Roll Attack to BF109 vs. Spitfire VB then I learn new tactic that Spitfire VB can not swing me off his 6 o'clock http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

ok , back to 190A4 , mostly at initial of speed attack of 190A from me is over 500 km/h drive to him and if he left turn hard so what I gonna do ?

1) apply Barrel Roll Attack which it not work same as you said , coz my speed is over corner speed.
2) snap shot with deflection cut his flight path at 100 meter and zoom up, well.... that is a batter choice for me which same like you , why ?
2.1) to deflection with 4x20mm is more easy then mk108 30mm which I have experience over 2 year online http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
2.2 ) if he (Spitfire VB) is a lucky man and still save from my attack at 2.1 then I will zoom up to the top of stall edge and apply stall reverse back to him for H2H which not good but more fun ... why ?
3.1 if he thinks 4x20mm vs. 2x20mm is bad idea and avoid I still apply my deflection skill event we fly pass .
3.2 if he is challenging guy and like to play "cow boy decision" then ...... depend on his luck .... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
4. and if he still lucky then for me is the time for "emergency escape" no way to let him on my 6 at gun range .... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


I try to improve my skill for Barrel Roll Attack ,, which not easy coz , 190A is no my main favor plane like 109
In game 190A need more cool hand pilot with very good energy tactic skill to dance with Spitfire VB which has better climb performance far away from a history ..... that mean 190A pilot in game has to work harder then 190A pilot in history .... ( I mean in 1942 and not include Spitfire IX )


S!

jurinko
03-26-2004, 05:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by karost:
Hi, JG14_Josf and friends here
Refer to this topic concerning to FW 190A

I need help to know about air tacical combat call "Vector Roll Attack"

did any friends who get used to this tactic has test with FW 190A in AEP yet ? I need to know :
1) how to apply this tactic ?
2) this tactic is working in AEP or not ?


seem AEP 2.0 make FW 190 more challenging http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

S!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Vector Roll? Simple:

FW did not flat turn as well as it could roll so you point the nose up or down as steeply as you need and roll till the top of your plane is pointing where you wish to go then pull the nose onto that direction (vector is another word for direction here).
That way you turn the FW in less time than it can flat turn. That is how they stayed with the fight. With that and plenty of speed they did keep the initiative. Zooming up to roll nto target and not letting the nme get a chance to build speed to follow you is a tactic that goes back to WWI. Spads and Pfalz's couldn't fight without it. The Spads were much like FW's of their time only maybe moreso.


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

it is almost impossible as at every touch of elevator, Fw will a) stall, b) lost all his energy c) make the turn so slowly and carefully, that the enemy is behind him.
Fw sux. Never read that it was a plane which could not turn at all.

----------------------
Letka.13/Liptow @ HL

"With the advent of the FW 190A, this was not as crutical as it once had been. The aircraft was a superb dogfighter, and its pilots used it as such. The previous summer, faced with slashing attacks by the 109s, the constant complaint of RAF pilots was that 'Jerry' didn't stay and fight, totally ignoring the fact that in the 109 this was tactically correct. Now they were repaid in spades: in his new Fw 190A, 'Jerry' stayed and fought as never before."

JG14_Josf
03-26-2004, 02:14 PM
Karost,

I have a project in mind that can aid in visualizing combat maneuvers such as the Barrel Roll Attack.

Imagine a brass or bronze rod 1 meter in length and this rod has a mark along the length of the rod at every 10 centemeters.
This soft thin bendable rod will be the path of our Fw190 over a specific distance (the total length of the rod) and a specific time (each individual mark on the rod)
Our Fw is traveling at 500kph
For our Spitfire we cut a second 1 meter long brass rod at 70 centimeters to represent the distance the Spitfire travels at 350kph.
Our Spitfire distance is also segmented into 10 equal lenghts of time, so our Spitfire stick has marks at every 7 centimeters.
Now we have an Fw190 stick measuring 1 meter long to represent a total distance traveled and it is graduated into 10 equal segments of time.
We also have a Sptifire stick measuring 70 centemeters or 30% shorter than the Fw 190 stick and this Spitfire stick is also graduated into 10 equal segments of time.
We can now bend the sticks to represent the different flight paths our planes will take during any maneuver in a specific amount of time and space.
We can even get real fancy by making little paper airplane silhouettes at each time mark on each rod.
Of course this type of visual aid has limitations and may only serve to show the 3 dimentional geometry involved in manevuers like the Barrel Roll Attack.
It would take a whole lot more math to figure out the factor of energy loss during maneuvering.
For example if the Fw190 completed the Barrel Roll Attack with an average of 6g's during the turn it would burn a lot more energy than if the Spitfire were to pull an average of 5'gs.
The length of rod and distance between time markers would vary considerably as load factor changes. The total distance traveled in the same amount of time would decrease as more energy is burned and increase as less energy is burned. For our exercise we assume a relative amount of energy being lost by both fighters during the maneuver and this can be misleading.
The idea behind the steel rods, from my perspective, is to allow the person performing this task the ability to see relative flight paths in 3D.
Our Spitfire rod needs to look like the letter J for purposes of demonstrating a break turn defensive move against the Barrel Rolling Fw.
We can use two tupperware bowls to bend our rods.
We can use the smaller of the two Tupperware bowls to bend our Spitfire Rod, since the Spitfire will be turning a smaller radius turn.
Suppose we use 49 centimeters of rod to make the U part of the J and we leave 21 Centimeters for the l part of the J and this now is our Spitfire flight path from start to finish in that moment of time called the Barrel Roll Attack.
Since the Spitfire starts his turn at the third segment of time or at 21 centimeters we can also leave our Fw190 rod arrow straight for the same amount of time. We will need to leave the Fw190 rod straight for the first 30 centimeters.
We now have 70 centimeters to bend around the larger tupperware bowl to represent the longer flight path of the Fw in the same amount of time.
If we bend the Fw rod first into a J it will have more curl at the end of the J to a point where the Fw rod almost looks like a P.
What should becoming clear is the advantage of turn rate.
Turn rate is greatest at corner speed.
Now place the J flat on the ground in front of you to represent a spitfire turning left. The J will be upside down and backwards, somthing like this: 7
Now place the P next to the 7 like this: P7
What we have now is the Barrel Roll Attack in two dimentions. We can move the P to overlap the 7 and get a picture of what the Fw190 pilot is trying to do but it doesn't really become clear until we add the third dimention.
The P needs to be bend up where the straight part starts to curve at the third segemnt of time. Then the curved part of the P needs to bend around to simulate the plane rolling. The Fw flight path is going up and then crossing over the Spitfire J, then the Fw is rolling it's lift vector down and back to begin following the Spitfire's up side down J flight path.
After bending the rods around some it should become clear that a longer rod has advantages in geometry over the shorter rod, even if the shorter rod is able to turn around a smaller tupperware bowl.
There is going to be big problem with this type of maneuver if for whatever reason the longer rod is not significantly longer and if the smaller tupperware bowl is significantly smaller.
Things that can change the relative lengths of the rods and the tupperware bowls include relative velocities, corner speeds, turn rates, turn radii, g load, flap use, and energy maneuverability otherwise known as energy bleed.

A plane that burns a whole lot of energy fighting a plane that doesn't burn a whole lot of energy is going to have a shorter stick.
A plane with a shorter stick cannot Barrel Roll Attack a plane with a longer stick.

The higher a planes relative energy bleed factor or induced drag factor, whatever, will require a higher initial speed advantage in order to complete a maneuver. If the drag or energy bleed factor exceeds a certain amount then the required excess speed factor needed to complete the maneuver becomes impossible because of the limitations in turn performance asocitated with corner speed.

WWMaxGunz
03-26-2004, 03:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jurinko:

it is almost impossible as at every touch of elevator, Fw will a) stall, b) lost all his energy c) make the turn so slowly and carefully, that the enemy is behind him.
Fw sux. Never read that it was a plane which could not turn at all.

----------------------
Letka.13/Liptow @ HL

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I choose C. With decent speed to start the enemy is way behind and very soon below. Decent speed isn't less than 80kph over the other and never less than 380-400kph which is slow enough.

Don't turn the FW flat is the whole entire point of going vertical. But it's nice to say that with any touch of elevator the FW will stall as that's good slogan material. It beats finding out how far to take a turn depending on speed and not exceeding it.

Style has to match the plane and not the other way around. As I recall there's always been a thing about the FW can't turn well enough except for one patch early into IL2:Sturmovik. The whole entire FM was changed to make it easier to turn as of FB resulting in FW's that bleed less and turn better yet... the other planes do too! What a crime! The FW should do a flat 360 in how many seconds?

Awww, forget the tests, forget the charts, here's how it is:

THAT'S NOT THE POINT! IT'S HOW IT ALL FITS RELATIVE! WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIGHT LIKE IT SAYS AND BY ANY MEANS WE WANT! IT SAYS STAY AND FIGHT LIKE NEVER BEFORE AND WE WANT THAT HOWEVER WE DO IT! YOUR TACTICS SUCK AND THE FW IS PORKED! WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO TURN FOR A WHILE WITHOUT LOSING MORE THAN A TINY BIT OF SPEED AND WIN!

Wrong. Angles for energy. You burn E for degree and if you don't have more than 15 degrees to lose then don't push for 60 and expect to zoom off unless a dive is part of it. Oooops, almost forgot that dives are porked and zoom climbs and climbs....

What a terrible sim and how is it that SOME people fly the FW's and just shoot people down online left and right yet still don't get wiped when it's such a suckass losing, porked up plane?

Fly it right. Those who do don't whine, they gloat. Or you can do the alternative and push at every opportunity for the FW-190-UFO.


Neal

faustnik
03-26-2004, 03:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

Fly it right. Those who do don't whine, they gloat. Or you can do the alternative and push at every opportunity for the FW-190-UFO.

Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Neal,

Reading back through this thread I can see where you get the idea that some are just whining for a better 190, but, that is not the case. There is no doubt that all the versions of the 190 are deadly online, especially in historical COOPs using team tactics.

As I find the 190 a very interesting aircraft and have been spending a lot of time reading about it. Many, not one or two references are made to the steep vertical climbing tactics that the 190's used against the Spitfires over the Channel.

In FB we need to use very different tactics including long horizontal extensions and shallow climbs. So, from this, I have two questions:

Are the historical tactics used by 190 pilots the same as those we use in FB?

I would also ask you in particular, since you have been around flight sims a long time, how the FB 190 compares to other sims in terms of vertical climbing ability?

If not, what characteristic of the FB model causes the historic tactics to be ineffective?

I'm not saying the model is wrong. I'm not asking for the 190 to be made into a UFO. I can see how you might get the wrong impression and I probably have too. Maybe clearly stating my intentions will help clear things up.

S!

faust

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

WWMaxGunz
03-27-2004, 01:49 AM
I haven't spent a lot of time reading accounts since I was in school except for some online reading the last few years. And there are some sims I've missed out on that while tabled are at least correct enough to force tactics, Aces High and Air Warrior for two.

Okay, I did spend some time offline with AW3 and man oh man trying to turn the FW's seemed to me to be harder than the original IL2:Sturmovik or at least as hard. Turning most any plane was harder in that sim than say the Aces series (almost a laugh compared but still good for something you could play on a 386SX or 486) or EAW (I had the AW3 CD before EAW came out) but what I learned by persevering was that with the right technique in getting a turn started then it was possible to get good smooth turns provided I didn't push past limits I had to learn. The way I started the turn out was critical to how fast I could get into the turn itself and the way I knew that was when and how fast the nose started coming around. After that the degrees per second would accelerate to a point and then slow. I worked at different ways to get the DPS to increase like going nose low or varying power, more rudder, less rudder, anything really and was able to get it all down to a feel and habit.

Pulling for more DPS past the point where it's coming along nicely or best for the conditions I reached would get me a small return in extra turnrate but the expense was speed loss immediately which led to an actual loss in sustainable turnrate below that optimum I tried to exceed. That fits about exactly with what the better guys I learned from later in 1998 were saying about what some labelled as corner speed although it's more accurately sustainable corner speed. And it all applies to every decent sim I've flown although some are easier to feel than others and back in the fall of 2002 I and some others here were not sure about IL2:Sturmovik having that groove at all. Josf was there for the turn speed & radius discussions as was Ugly Kid and some others.

The Groove as I've known it applies to all sims and I'm sure IL2:FB now but it's not as clear as some. It's about certain speeds that are best for turns where you don't lose that speed if you maintain the turn properly, ie stay in the groove and you get the best and fastest turn. It's got historic and modern basis and there's living pilots who tell of it. It's like a freaking religion in some sims, the first number the old hand players ask for for different planes. You want to make your turns at that speed or if you're going faster then bleed down to there but loosen up if the speed drops a knot. In some, well many sims it seems as if in that groove the plane all but rattles along like a rollercoaster and man is that a fascinating feeling!

So you have the groove and there's finding out how to start the turn which in some sims --is-- just bank and yank. In the better ones you do that and you get mush and/or a very poor turn. I'd bet that Janes WWII and some others have no penalty from comments on the FM's. RB2 turns had to be started right to get the best rate but RB3D kind of slacked off towards "playability" (it's been more than 5 years so I'll say it: the last beta before the release was much better and we all wanted that, wondered why they dumped what they did on us). With EAW the things I learned about starting turns really helped. Rowans MA was even moreso, if you haven't tried thatun then pick it up just for flying around, the control, the view system and the feel are excellent. If people think it's easy to spin with FB/AEP then they ought to spend time with MA! LOL, get good in that and you'd not have problems with AEP!

With IL2 from the beginning it has been important to start turns off proper. Get the plane over into bank and don't just pull like getting the dog away from something he's sniffing at unless maybe he's a real big dog and then you have it. There's a gentle and smooth pull till the nose starts coming around and it helps to drop the power at the start. Once it starts coming around then it's okay to smoothly pull for more. Convince the dog he wants to go where you want, then walk him.

Always watch the nose and it it ain't accelerating, don't keep pulling more stick. If anything, let up some and see it that don't help.

Turns are made by changing where your lift points and a bit of AOA. Once you've banked it takes a different amount of time per plane per sim for the lift to start bringing the plane around. This is IRL too, you move the controls and wait for things to happen. Just pulling more and more, you'd better know what you're doing cause it's better to wait a little otherwise.

How does that apply to the FW tactics? Well turning is a biggie and pitching up or pulling out of dives is the same basic thing. You gotta watch and move the stick according to what you see knowing that there's a lag between what you see and what you're doing just like a VSI or alt indicator needle lags what the plane is really up to, again IRL and any good sim.

EAW and IL2, certain planes I go for speed. FW's Jugs, Mustangs, any like those. It depends on what I'm facing too. An FW vs a Jug I'd work more angles as the Jug won't turn as well while FW vs Mustang I'd go for less angles. The exact same thing goes for WWI planes, an Alb DVa versus an N17 or N24 I'd go for speed while the same versus any Spad I'd go for angles. Angles doesn't mean flat turn flying, just that I'd hold on for more angle and pitch change to make a shot.

If I have the speed plane then in combat, select a target that's long your flight path without too much turn. If you can hit it then do what you can and keep on going. There's planes behind you trying to catch up and if they do then you're meat. Try and keep distance to the rear with a positive delta-V. Try and stay with more E than any enemy in sight. Make hits and keep going for the next one. Once clear and far ahead of pursuers, climb at speed losing a little then seek a good space to raise steep to slow down for a wingover still not dropping below your best climb speed, for me I look for 200mph/320kph range (I like even numbers) and then drop back down accelerating to best speed to do it again. Drag the ones that got high up down so you're not threatened, still taking targets of opportunity but never ever scarificing more speed than you can make up quickly and if you survive untouched then it's time to make some serious chase down kills once there's no one posing a serious threat to ebing able to dive and run you down.

One on one that's a case of E fighting till you wound him into pure defense and then if you still have to, harrass or ride him till he's too low and slow to dodge unless you nail him sooner.

On a DF server there's everlasting, all replensihing, always a minute away intruders. Maybe someone you just shot down will get you as you're after the next or maybe it's you out for revenge. IMHO it's about as stupid as taking TV wrestling seriously to take DF and anything that happens in it seriously. If you have a team then you can practice tactics, at least small ones.

Any decent sim, I don't turn more than a little against a better turning and usually slower plane. 30 degrees max and then only for a pretty sure hit that better be telling. 90 degrees? Never unless he's wounded and it's just us.

Well, if I can go vertical, roll onto him and dive back down then it's not actually a turn is it? Just a change in direction in which case 180 degrees is as easy as 30. I just wouldn't do that if anybody was around that could nail me in the process.

That's what sims have taught me about ==Relatively Poor Turning But Faster Planes== and combat. It's utmost to keep the relatively part in mind.

Geez this post has been long.


Neal

JG14_Josf
03-27-2004, 11:12 AM
Just in case anyone is interested in my perspective and even at the risk that my only reason for continuing this line of disscusion is to improve my own abilitly to see this clearly I am going to continue where I left off with the Brass Rod demonstration.

The Brass Rods are useful in being more specific and less general with relative combat performance and geometry. They can be used to visualize the concepts of space (rod length and shape), time (rod length and graduation), and relative possition (one maneuvring rod placed next to another) in much the same manner as is done with drawings in Robert Shaw's book 'Fighter Combat', however the brass rods are 3 dimentional and the drawings are not.

Suppose we have an accurate representation of a Spitfire making a left break turn and an Fw 190 making a Barrel Roll Attack and our representation of these manuevers are accurate relative to each other in the form of a brass rod bent like a J for the Spitifire, and something that may end up looking like a pigs tail for the Barrel Roll Attack for the Fw 190.
With these two maneuvering rods we can move them around until the end points of these imaginary flight paths show the Fw 190 on the 6 of the Spitfire in range for a shot.

What we then have is an example of a faster Fw 190 dog fighting a slower Spitfire.
The imaginary Fw makes an aggressive, offensive, maneuver for a killing shot against a defensive, aggressive, Spitfire.

This is an example of energy fighing.
This in not an example of a boom and zoom (otherwise known as Hit and Run)maneuver.

This is also not an angles tactic maneuver since the Fw 190 used nose to tail geometry and a turn rate advantage as opposed to nose to nose geometery and a turn radius advantage.

This Barrel Roll Attack can easily fit the description of Mike Spick's example i.e. the Fw 190 depicted in the Manuevring Rod demonstration 'Stays and Fights'

I'd like to clarify one item before moving on just in case some readers (if there are any) of this disscusion are not familiar with nose to nose and nose to tail geometry.

Also known as one and two circle turn geometry the idea is to classify relative maneuvering into two types; Relative turns where both planes turn toward each other for nose to nose geometry (one circle) and turns where both planes turn away from each other for nose to tail geometry (two circle). The importance of understanding this geometrical situation involves the relationhip in time and space between two distinct turn performance characteristics; Turn rate and Turn Radius.

Remember the Brass rods where the Spitfire rod was shorter to represent a slower speed and therefore less distance traveled? We bent that rod in the shape of a J. The longer rod represented the Fw190 traveling faster and therfore farther and if the Fw190 turns while it is going faster then it travels farther around the circle; it makes a P shaped maneuvering rod, in other words the Fw190 completes more turn in a given time than the Spitfire, or the Fw 190 has a higher turn rate and this is a function of speed as long as the Fw 190 has the capacity to generate lift and pull g force it will continue to turn and if it turns at a high speed with high G force then it will turn many degrees in a short period of time. For the moment, before elaborating too much on the forces involving the conditions required to maximize turn rate it is instructive to place the bent rod that looks like a J next to the other rod that looks like a P. They should look something like this: 9L where the number nine represents the Fw190 going a long distance while the capital letter 'L' represents the Spitfire going a shorter distance. The Fw190 is going fast so it must travel farther in the same amount of time as the slower Spitfire.
The number nine is an Fw 190 going up and turning left all the way around, while the capital letter 'L' represents the spitfire coming down and also turning left but not getting very far around. For the sake of clarity look at this nose to tail or two circle geometry as if both planes completed one full turn; like this: 96 &lt;-notice the two circles.
The Spitfre turns away from the Fw and the Fw turns away from the Spitfire to make two separate circles in the sky, to complete a nose to tail geometry turn.
I cannot stress enough the need to understand the relationship between turn rate, turn radius and turn geometry. I cannot think of a more important concept to aid in understanding fighter combat than this geometric association and turn performance relationship. At any given time in a fight the need to change heading involves the decision to turn nose to nose or nose to tail even if the pilot does not understand that this decision is being made.
Nose to nose favors the slower plane turning a smaller turn radius. Nose to tail favors the faster plane turning a higher turn rate. Nose to nose will place the slower smaller turn radius plane in a possition to shoot the faster higher turn rate plane. Nose to tail will place the higher turn rate plane in a possition to shoot at the slower smaller turn radius plane. This is a geometric relationship and it always works this way in time and space.
If a pilot is going faster with a higher turn rate and a larger turn radius and if he makes the mistake to turn nose to nose against the slower tighter turning plane then he (the faster plane) will place his plane in front of the slower plane and he (the faster plane) will be shot; there is no way around this fact.
The clearest example of how this works involves the situation where two planes are flying at each other in a head on merge like this: -----&gt; &lt;------
One plane is going just enough faster than corner velocity to be able to maximize turn rate, in other words most of his turn will be on the edge of black-out pulling the most g force possible at the slowest speed possible, not too fast, not too slow but just where black out is still possible.
The other plane is going just enough over stall speed to turn a maximum performance instantaneous turn to reach the stall after one full turn, in other words the slower plane is able to minimize the radius of one full turn.
Here we have two planes flying at each other that are at very different speeds and therefore at very different levels of turn capabilities. The faster plane will travel farther but will complete a full turn in less time. The slower plane will turn a smaller diameter turn.
Assuming both planes do not turn until the moment they pass each other, and assuming they both either miss or do not take the head-on shot, what can happen next?
They turn, they both turn, and depending upon which way they turn will determine who shoots who down.
To make this geometric understanding simple we can imagine that both pilots make a flat, maximum performance turn, in other words both pilots go for angles, in short they start to dog fight.
If anyone reading this is with me at this point in this imaginary combat and they do not yet know the importance of the decision being made by these imaginary pilots at this crucial time then they can learn a valuable lesson and reach an important level of understanding by following this explanation.
Think what you will concerning my motives or inflated ego, I am having fun writing if nothing else.
If both pilots simply turn a natural turn without any thought or consideration toward relative geometry then they will most likely both turn nose to tail and the faster plane will shoot down the slower plane.
Both pilots will turn into each other as they pass, it is the natural thing to do as they pass each other they both turn in the direction they look; I see the enemy passing to my left therefore I turn left.
If both pilots turn left they then scribe two circles in the sky like this: 96
The nine is a bigger circle but since it is the path of the faster plane it gets around the circle faster and before the slower plane making the 6 can point his guns at the faster plane; he, the slower plane, will be eating lead.
If however the pilot of the slower plane does understand turn performance geometry then the pilot of the slower plane will turn right when the faster plane turns left and before the faster plane completes one turn the slower plane will be inside the faster planes turn and the pilot of the slower plane will be shooting down the faster plane.
In effect the pilot of the slower plane will turn the opposite way that he is looking when the two planes pass each other, and the pilot of the slower plane therefore turns toward the faster plane after the head-on pass. In other words the pilot of the slower plane turns his nose toward the nose of the other plane and when both planes come around to complete that first turn they scribe one single circle in the sky.
What happens if the pilot of the Faster plane begins a nose to tail turn but the pilot of the slower plane does not?
What happens if the pilot of the faster plane understands the importance of geometry and as he turns toward the passing slower plane it becomes clear to the pilot of the faster plane that the the pilot of the slower plane also understands turn geometery; what does the pilot of the faster plane do when he see's the pilot of the slower plane rolling into a possition to turn nose to nose?
At that moment in time just as the two planes pass each other it is of vital importance to choose the correct turn geometry and here at this time this fact should become very clear.
The faster plane simply rolls away and extends, for each time the slower plane tries to cancel the nose to tail geometry the faster plane answers with a roll in the other direction and each time this happens the two planes are flying further apart.
How often does that happen?

[This message was edited by JG14_Josf on Sat March 27 2004 at 10:26 AM.]

faustnik
03-27-2004, 11:27 AM
Thanks guys, great reading!

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

JG14_Josf
03-27-2004, 01:40 PM
Once the relationship between turn rate, turn radius and turn geometry is fully understood it should therefore be clear why corner speed is so important at least if the concept of maximizing turn performance is understood.

First it should be obvious that turn performance depends upon lift and lift is measurable in acceleration times the force of gravity in the direction of the turn.

If there is no g force or lift then there is no turn and therefore the higher the g force the greater the turn...rate.

There is no limit on the association between turn rate and g force.

The more g force the greater the turn rate.

If a plane and the pilot can pull 100 times the force of gravity in a turn it will turn a very fast turn rate.

Imagine an airplane that can spin on its own center of gravity. Imagine that the pilot is .5 meters away from this center of gravity so the pilot must swing around the airplanes center while the pilot sits in his seat. The pilot is scribing an arc that is one meter in diameter. Now imagine that the plane is capable of turning around on it's own center of gravity at a rate of 360 degrees per second. How far does the pilot have to travel in one second?
Pie times the diameter (http://www.mathgoodies.com/lessons/vol2/circumference.html)
1 meter times 3.14 = 3.14 meters.
3.14 meters around a circle in one second
is
11.304 KPH (http://www.onlineconversion.com/speed_all.htm)

Now imagine that our pilot is on top of a hammerhead turn and it just so happens that his plane will pivot 360 degrees in one second and our pilot can handle the g force generated as he travels around that 1 meter circle, in our hypothetical situation our hypothetical pilot has no problem with the g force generated by going around a one meter circle at 11.3 KPH. Ok, maybe he throws up.

Now imagine another pilot flying around our hammerhead pilot and this other pilot is 50 meters away and this other pilot is turning the same 360 degrees per second.
100 meters times 3.14 = 314 meters a second.

or
1,130.4 kilometers/hour (http://www.onlineconversion.com/speed_all.htm)

If you have not bought Robert Shaw's book 'Fighter Combat' then you can't turn to page 391.

On that page is a chart that shows the relationship between turn rate/airspeed and g force.

Our first pilot can live because he is going slow, our second pilot will not live, he is going to fast.

Both pilots are turning the same exact turn rate i.e. 360 degrees per second.

Shaw shows this formula for Turn rate:

Rt ~ V2/n

or

Turn rate ~ Velocity squared/g force

I can imagine our pilot number 2 turning into some form of vapor seeping out the cracks in the bottom of the plane before plane 2 makes it very far around the circle. My imagination only get's me so far, my math stinks.

Maximizing turn performance has it's limitations. Pilots can only stand so much turning and it is for this reason that planes have a sweet spot for turn rate. The optimum turn rate is that point where the pilot can handle the greatest G force and no faster.

Imagine the hammer head pilot moving out further away from the center of the turn. As he moves further out from the center of the turn he goes faster.
Somewhere between 11 and 1,100 kph the pilot cannot stand any more g force and so he must slow down the plane. He falls behind in turn rate.

karost
03-28-2004, 06:24 AM
Hi, Josf and friend


I have some data from HQ web site this data very old but could give me some idea for our topic here


Spitfire Mk V ( Aces High EM Diagram )
--------------------------------------------------------------
Corner Velocity ( 6g stall speed) : 205 mph
Turn rate at corner velocity : 36. dps
Turn Radius at corner velocity : 480 ft
1g Stall Speed: : 85 mph
Best sustained turn velocity : 140 mph
Turn rate at best sustained velocity : 24. dps
Turn radius at best sustained velocity 500 ft
Best sustained g: : 3.0 g


when Spitfire vb ( in FB game ) pull turn left hard to avoid 190 bounce so he should pull more then 3g for sure but not over 6g , then How many speed loss after he pull hard left ??


so I need help for 190A4 data ( in FB:AEP) to apply "Barrel Roll Attack"

FW190A4
-------------
Corner Velocity ( 6g stall speed) : ?? ( I think, 375 km/h but may be I wrong )
Best sustained turn velocity : ?? km/h

if I know performance data between corner velocity speed and best sustained turn speed that would be good to let me develop my skill in "Barrel Roll Attack"


S!


Oh.... god... please give EM Diagram for IL2-FB , then I will stop cry out loud .... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JG14_Josf
03-28-2004, 02:30 PM
Karost,

Thanks for the response.

I've been trying to take the long way around explaining what I know or at least what I think I know about how and why the Barrel Roll Attack should work in the game IL2/FB/AEP.

I think it should work and does work but for all practical purposes it may not apply well in the game. The margin of energy loss between the SpitV and the Fw190A4 at maximum turn performance conditions may be such that this maneuver can only work in ideal conditions in the game. I suspect that this condition is not accurate based upon what historical record I have concerning this plane match-up. Perhaps whatever it was that enabled the historical Fw 190A-3 to outclimb the Spitfire VB and climb almost as good as the Spitfire IX is the same stuff that makes an Fw 190 Barrel Roll well, perhaps it has to do with actual thrust/drag values instead of engine performance numbers and test pilot performance numbers entered into a computer program. It may be that the span is too far to bridge.


I did not want to express my opinion on this as much as my intent is to convey to you or anyone else reading this that my opinion is based upon a specific deduction.

That specific deduction moved from an explanation of geometry with the one and two circle turn and the relationship between turn rate and turn radius to an explanation of corner velocity.

I think you are on the right track if you are now looking for specific turn performance values.

It is important to realize that if the information is going to be of any use it must be accurate.

Although the numbers you have from Aces High my not be accurate for the game IL2 it can serve to illustrate the importance of speed.

At corner velocity the turn rate is faster and the turn radius is smaller.

36. dps/ 480ft at Corner speed
24. dps/ 500ft at best sustained speed

If this is true, in that game, then a Spitfire at corner speed passing a Spitfire at best sustained speed in a-
head-on merge: ----&gt;&lt;-----
the Spitfire at corner speed can turn nose to nose and be around the turn faster and be inside the slower spitfires turn radius.
This assumes both planes start thier turns at the same time and that is an important consideration since in that combat situation; quickness is required. Any delay on the faster plane will increase his turn radius or at least his relative possition on the already turning slower plane, therefore it stands to reason that the faster plane should go for the more practical two circle nose to tail geometry despite the marginal turn radius advantage. The faster Spitfire has a significant turn rate advantage over the slower Spitfire, so the faster Spitfire can motor around a full turn as the slower spitfire completes only 240 degrees. The faster spitfire will gain 120 degrees in 10 seconds!

That is different flight sim.

The relationships between speed, turn rate, and turn radius should be the same in IL2.

When gathering important performance information the factor of corner speed is a primary concern and this information is not available with the program IL2compare.

IL2compare does not report corner speed, instead it reports sustained turn performance.

Corner speed is easy to find in the game and it can be done anytime while running the game.

Remember that g force is a measurment of the energy required to turn the plane and more g force equals higher turn rates.
Remember that speed also increases turn rate but only if this energy can be vectored with lift. The energy of speed tends to go straight.
Lift turns it. The only way to convert speed into turn rate is with lift generated and vectored inside the turn and this application of lift can be measured as g force.
The problem is that either the pilot or the plane can stand only so much g force and this limits any increase in turn rate. The plane can only turn as fast as the pilot in the game IL2/FB/AEP.
In other words the pilot flying the plane can increase turn rate by going faster and he can increase turn rate by directing that speed with lift but his goal of turning faster is limited when he has enough speed and therefore enough lift to generate enough g force to drain all the blood out of his virtual head, and from that speed and that g force he can turn no faster in a turn.
What happes when the plane goes even faster?
It takes more lift to turn the faster plane so it takes more g force to turn the faster plane.
The pilot cannot take any more g force so the faster plane cannot turn as fast as the slower plane.
This must be true in the sim; that the fastest turn rate possible is achieved when the plane is flying at the speed where black out is first possible and any speeds slower or faster than this 'corner' speed will produce slower turn rates.

In the sim it is easy to find corner speed by gaining enough altitude to start a diving turn.
The idea is control speed with aileron and g force with elevator.
If the plane isn't going fast enough to black out the pilot then it isn't going fast enough to maximize turn rate so drop the nose by banking more and let speed increase.
Once the plane is going fast enough to black out the pilot bank less so the plane doesn't dive too much and gain any more speed.
At this time you are trying to maximize turn performance by pulling back on the stick and at the same time trying to roll the plane into just the right amount of nose down attitude so that speed reamins constant. Try to keep the pilot just on the verge of black-out.
If things are stable and the plane is not diving faster or climbing slower, and the pilot is almost blacked out but not blacked out, if the pilot is turning in a shallow dive at a constant speed and the pilot is seeing that cross hatched looking grey screen then look at the airspeed and the altitude and remember these numbers. What you have just done is find corner speed for that altitude.
You have found the speed where your plane will turn the fastest rate possible.
If you use the Airplane airspeed gauge and if this gauge does show indicated air speed than this corner speed should not change much with altitude.
If you record the session and if you can maintain that corner speed for one full revolution by picking out a spot on the horizon and return to that spot then you can easily find a value for maximum turn rate.
One turn is 360 degrees and the track file records time, and that math stuff can be used to figure degrees per second.
360 divided by the number of seconds equals degrees per second.