fw 190a5 flight model

[K_Freddie]

There's no smoke without a fire.
Gaston has some good points that a lot around here wish to ignore, as his hypothesis doesn't agree with the theorists (we were not there), or the indoctrinated (the P51 won the war) so therefore he's 'shot down'.


The obvious point he's making is that while the theoretical aeronautical formulae and calculations do play a role in the FMs, it's not the final say in the matter and there is a small percentage of unknown flight characteristics that are only known by the pilots themselves - some errant observations like canned flight tests, and others real. A trend is what one should look for, to get a fair idea.

an experienced pilot uses this small percentage to his advantage..

[KG26_Alpha]

Originally Posted by k_freddie

there's no smoke without a fire.
Gaston has some good points that a lot around here wish to ignore, as his hypothesis doesn't agree with the theorists (we were not there), or the indoctrinated (the p51 won the war) so therefore he's 'shot down'.


The obvious point he's making is that while the theoretical aeronautical formulae and calculations do play a role in the fms, it's not the final say in the matter and there is a small percentage of unknown flight characteristics that are only known by the pilots themselves - some errant observations like canned flight tests, and others real. A trend is what one should look for, to get a fair idea.

An experienced pilot uses this small percentage to his advantage..

I don't usually ........... but ............

+1

As a mission builder from v1.0 days watching the game change with the patches and new updates,
its clear "game balance" has been a factor in the strange FM's DM's in the present configuration of IL2 1946.

If the game is capable of running real world data if so then let it have it, will the game be fun anymore with this data, I doubt it.

The strange wing pylon loadings and other bomb mg/cannon data etc found in the past in the SFS files bemused many but made sense for "game balancing".

Lets just say the FW190 in IL2 has been the most "adjusted" for FM & DM over the years,



Butcher Bird or Butchered Bird ?





.

[K_Freddie]

Maybe someone would put the 'real' numbers into the FMs and bring reality to the benign term Full Real.

When IL2 came out the axis a/c were the underdogs and the allied superior. The challenge for me was to dedicate my time to the axis a/c an prove to myself that they can beat the allied ones - it was a challenge I enjoyed and for the most part, succeeded.

It the FM numbers were changed for the real, then it'll become a challenge for the Allied jockeys to enjoy. It will not make the game less attractive, but more so.

From most of my readings of WW2 DFs, all pilots crapped themselves on seeing opposition fighters, from then it was down to experience, tactics and FMs. Spitfires wear feared, FW190's simply made pilots sh1t themselves.
The distortion of allied superiority only occurred due to the greater numbers of a/c (and pilots) they had - as Stalin was noted for saying on the 'inferiority' of his a/c 'quantity has a quality of it's own'.

Here's one vote for a new game 'real' FM

[K_Freddie]

Just some online thoughts..

With current FMs I find the FWs best turning ability between 325-400kph.
When a spit, tempest.. etc uses the vertical I don't follow, but stay level/horizontal and build up my speed, then flip vertical for a quick burst, then down again for speed.

There are times I cut throttle back and play around at stall speed as the allied aircraft do have major difficulty in this area - But I've always said this... and like Gaston I've been 'shot down' verbally for 'heresy'... but many allied a/c have died at this point

you work it out

[MaxGunz]

Reality checks --
* wing loading and excess thrust are the 1st order factors. 2nd order is less.
* say hello to stall speed differences

At low speed the stall speed is critical which goes right to wing loading.
The plane that has the lower stall speed can still turn where the other cannot.

In banked level turns the lift is tilted, you need to have enough to keep the plane level, wings at stall angle must fly faster to make the extra lift needed to both hold the plane up and turn.

Excess thrust which changes with speed and height only determines when a plane can no longer hold stall.

Look at FW stall speed compared to what others you want.

Or you can take bits of war stories that tell less than they leave out and weave them with poetic license into a fabric fit for fairies and other fantasies. To call that reality or historic is a shame.

[Glider]

What you say is correct but equally the control forces do have a bearing on the high speed turns.

No one would deny that the Zero was one of the best slow speed turners, but at anything above 250mph the controls were almost rigid and as a result its actual performance in a turn at these sppeds was very poor. Had the controls been given a different gearing/ configeration whatever then she would probably have been an even better all round fighter.

It was a similar story for the 109 but the critical speed was higher.

I have little doubt that the calculations and theories would say that the 109 and Zero had the wing performance and power to turn at higher speeds, but if you cannot move the controls then are going nowhere other than in a straight line or a gentle turn.

[lonewulf]

"No one would deny that the Zero was one of the best slow speed turners, but at anything above 250mph the controls were almost rigid and as a result its actual performance in a turn at these sppeds was very poor. Had the controls been given a different gearing/ configeration whatever then she would probably have been an even better all round fighter."

I don't mean to throw (another) red herring into the mix but that's an interesting point. Could the turn performance of a fighter be altered in this way, or by simply increasing the size or throw of the elevators?? I don't know but I suspect not. It seems unlikely that the engineers of the day were unable to come up with such an obvious and easy fix for something like the 109.

[Glider]

Its something that is probably easier to say than do. The Size of the control surfaces clearly has a bearing on this. However, make them smaller and the plane loses some of its agility. Change the config and you have to change the wing design with obvious complexities. Change the gearing and the aircraft will handle differently in particular the secondary control effects.
Its a big change and I was wrong to imply in my previous posting that it was straightforward.

The basic design of the Spit wing didn't change until the Mk20 right at the end of the war. The P47 until the H again at the end of the war, The Fw 190 until the Ta 152 again at the end of the war. The only front line fighter that I can think of that significantly changed its wing design early in the war was the Me109 F in 1940.

My main point was that the force needed to change the controls does impact the planes ability to turn at high speed. Sabru Saki made the observation that a lot of the suicide pilots who just missed their targets when diving in a Zero, probably were unable to move the controls because of how they locked up at speed.

[Gaston]

Originally Posted by K_Freddie

There's no smoke without a fire.
Gaston has some good points that a lot around here wish to ignore, as his hypothesis doesn't agree with the theorists (we were not there), or the indoctrinated (the P51 won the war) so therefore he's 'shot down'.


The obvious point he's making is that while the theoretical aeronautical formulae and calculations do play a role in the FMs, it's not the final say in the matter and there is a small percentage of unknown flight characteristics that are only known by the pilots themselves - some errant observations like canned flight tests, and others real. A trend is what one should look for, to get a fair idea.

an experienced pilot uses this small percentage to his advantage..

I do agree most WWII fighter pilots could probably use effectively a 5% advantage in turning performace. Maybe even a lot less, but certainly their flying skill would not erase more than about a 5% advantage.

An often forgotten fact is that all fighter pilots were the very best available among the whole pool of available pilots...

A race car driver probably routinely uses up to less than a fraction of 1% below the actual limit of the car in a turn, on a machine where the "stall" has virtually no warning or "rumble" other than a precise sensation of lateral load he learns to recognize.

If you accept that you take the wingloading of a Spitfire at 140 lbs/square feet, and that of a FW-190A at 215 lbs/sq ft. or even 230 lbs/sq ft. (similar power in the engine), then, for a fighter pilot to mishandle such an advantage to the point of losing a low-speed sustained horizontal turn contest, you would have to assume that a pilot of the caliber of Johnny Johnson is so incompetent that he can lose a competitive edge of over 60%: About 12 times the outer edge of what is even remotely possible...

That is 1200 % over anything plausible.

Yet not only are there several (if not numerous) disparate account of this impossible thing happening (with, additionally, one credible witness stating the FW-190A's superiority in low speed turns was an iron-clad rule vs the Spitfire: John Weir), but there are actually no first person examples anywhere of the "theoretically" more plausible outcome ever occurring...

I have been asking litterally for years now for a low-speed low-altitude turning battle where the Spitfire defeated the FW-190A in a series of sustained horizontal turns: In years nothing has surfaced...

A few examples were provided (by one of the more honest online detractors of mine, since all the others have always provided zip), but these examples where all at very high altitudes or preceded by a massive dive (suggesting high speed on the part of both the Spitfire and its target), and in fairness to him he did accept these objections as valid...

So this monstrous 60% advantage in wingloading somehow escaped all first person narration in actual low-speed combat...

And in the years of reading combat accounts since, only the strongest endorsement ever of my position has so far surfaced: John Weir's unequivoval statement that the Spitfire was out-turned easily by the Hurricane, and the Hurricane in turn was slightly out-turned by the FW-190A...

For the opposite view?: A whole lot of nothing.

The enormity of the Spitfire's 60% wingload advantage is only equalled by the utter discretion from witnesses: And after several years of searching, you have to wonder when something agreeing with current flight physics is ever going to come up...

The mistake is not small: I estimate up to 40% of the actual wing bending during a turn (dive pull-outs don't count) of some these machines (particularly the Spitfire) is not even acknowledged as happening, and the cause is completely unknown even if it was known to happen (which it isn't)...

And it would be very easy to blow my assertion out of the water: All you have to do is provide in-flight strain gauge wing bending data in level turns for WWII fighter types.

Guess what: There isn't any: The strain gauge values were done on the ground...

I would be delighted to be proven wrong by such in-flight WWII data, but my bet is the detractors will come up short on hard data, like they do on everything else...

Gaston

[lonewulf]

An often forgotten fact is that all fighter pilots were the very best available among the whole pool of available pilots...

Yes, yes, that makes sense doesn't it. I mean, what would be more difficult to manage, a large bomber with 4 engines and a crew or 7 or 10 men or a little single seat fighter. Hmmm ... umm ... hold on a minute ...