So ... what's the verdict on the FW 190 now???

[303_Kwiatek]

Actually Lagg-3 in BOS is rather joke - not even comparing to "famous" Lagg-3.

[StG2_Manfred]

To contribute something positive I want to mention that FM of the 190 has improved with the last patch, feels definitely better (for me) now

[Dennis_Nedry]

I don't know the 190's performance off the top of my head but the thing is a beast between 350-650 km/h!  It just seems so effortless to fly within its performance envelope and it picks up speed so damn fast downhill.  Just my observations, not sure how accurate it is.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

i haven't seen any charts, just anecdotal evidence

 

anecdotal evidence is almost completely worthless

+1

[Leaf]

Calling anecdotal evidence "almost worthless" kinda says it all, doesn't it?

Edited February 26, 2015 by 19te.Leaf

[Feathered_IV]

Actually Lagg-3 in BOS is rather joke - not even comparing to "famous" Lagg-3.

The "anecdotal" LaGG-3 you mean?

[303_Kwiatek]

Lagg-3 in early acces and before some patch was different plane reagarding stall/spin characteristic. So before it was "anecdotal" now is what?

 

La5 with slats should be more spin proof then Lagg-3 but in BOS it is opposite now.

Edited February 26, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[Wulf]

I think flight sims in general misinterpreted the FW-190 for years through legend

and romance of the plane that its actual capabilities.

 

The Bf-109 was the Luftwaffe's true fighter  of the war.

 

By mid war to the end the Allies caught up and surpassed the FW-190 capabilities.

I am pretty sure the Germans figured it out when they converted and used the FW-190

to its full potential as a bomber interceptor and a ground attack aircraft with its superb

gun platform and payload capabilities.

 

 

 

What 'legend' are you talking about exactly?  The truth of the matter is that in 1942 RAF Fighter Command was chased out of France and it was the FW 190 that  did the chasing;  not the Bf 109 F. The 109 F wasn't regarded as anything outside the performance capabilities of the Spitfire Vs then in service; but the 190 was.   RAE testing then confirmed what everyone involved already suspected - the 190 simply outclassed the Spit V.  That performance gap remained until the early Merlin 61 powered Spitfire 9 entered service.  At that point the 190 and Spitfire were essentially a match all the way up to about 20,000ft .(with the exception of rolling and horizontal turning). 

 

The Bf 109 F was for all practical purposes the high water mark for the type.  Despite the engine upgrades shoe horned into the airframe in subsequent years the 109 was essentially obsolete by the beginning of 1943.  Reasonably fast in a straight line (although by no means cutting edge) and a very good climber but not much else.  The 190 was easily the better aircraft of the two and this was amply demonstrated as the War progressed with the development of the 190 D series, which, unlike the 109, could compete on fairly even terms with pretty much any Allied fighter you care to mention. 

 

Yes, the A series was pressed into service for ground attack duties but that was largely because the Germans had failed to develop a suitable replacement for the Ju 87 which could no longer cut it as the LW progressively lost control of the airspace around it.  The 190 (unlike the 109) was tough (read radial engine) and had the capacity to carry a significant bomb load - again, unlike the 109.  So, it wasn't that the 109 was a better fighter.  It was a simple reality that because the 190 was more versatile it was required to step-up and assume roles it was never really intended to assume.

 

Jesus Christ ... the historical revisionism that takes place on forums like this, based on nothing other than what people see on computer games, is just scary.  It's 'crazy pill' stuff.

 

Edited February 26, 2015 by Wulf

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Jesus Christ ... the historical revisionism that takes place on forums like this, based on nothing other than what people see on computer games, is just scary.  It's 'crazy pill' stuff.

And that knife cuts both ways

[303_Kwiatek]

Interesting Russian raport about LA5 flying characteristic for comparison with Fw 190  ( it is translated from Russian so could be some bugs)

 

La-5 production plant number 21

Military trials

Approved by Ch. Ing. Air Force, Lieutenant General Repin, October 26. 1942.

1. tactical flight and combat characteristics.

A) In a dogfight with German aircraft Me.109F-4 and Me.109G-2 aircraft La-5 is significantly inferior to them as vertical maneuverability and horizontal speed. As a result, the aircraft La-5 can not carry on with German fighters Me.109F-4 and 2 active Me.109G-air combat and forced to lead a defensive battle.

B) In a dogfight with German aircraft Ju.88, Me.110, He.111 aircraft La-5 meets all the requirements of a modern fighter speed and maneuver. Armament requires strengthening fire.

B) In the course of a combat operation of the aircraft La-5 were used for reconnaissance of enemy forces. Performing reconnaissance aircraft La-5 at altitudes ranging from 100 meters to strafing hampered by inadequate review forward and down (wide hood of the motor).

D) Camouflage aircraft La-5, as well as other local fighters matched unsatisfactory. Aircraft La-5 in comparison with enemy fighters in the air its color stands out against the clear sky and clouds, which facilitates the detection of the enemy of our aircraft. When viewed from the air, on the ground, coloring our aircraft also stands out against the background of the earth.

2. Flight evaluation of the aircraft La-5.

A) On the ailerons on medium speed normal load. At speeds above 450 km / h (gauge) load is significantly increased. On the steering wheel when adjusting the depth of the trimmer at a speed of 300-320 km / h neutral (ie, the load removed). A dive at speeds of 500 km / h (gauge) load arise that impede the conclusion of the aircraft from the dive. It is necessary to use the trimmer. Management rudder at high speeds difficult. Management of aircraft requires good coordination rudders. Right turn on a plane to drop its nose, it is necessary to support the left foot. Handle control aircraft convenient, but brake control is located uncomfortable. Load when braking large, so that the pilot fills on the right hand (palm and middle finger) corn.

[EAF19_Marsh]

 

What 'legend' are you talking about exactly?  The truth of the matter is that in 1942 RAF Fighter Command was chased out of France and it was the FW 190 that  did the chasing;  not the Bf 109 F. The 109 F wasn't regarded as anything outside the performance capabilities of the Spitfire Vs then in service; but the 190 was.   RAE testing then confirmed what everyone involved already suspected - the 190 simply outclassed the Spit V.  That performance gap remained until the early Merlin 61 powered Spitfire 9 entered service.  At that point the 190 and Spitfire were essentially a match all the way up to about 20,000ft .(with the exception of rolling and horizontal turning).

 

 

It really was not, factually, but the interesting thing for 'assumed' charcteristics is that that the RAF and USAAF maintained a healthy respect for the 190 that the VVS do not sem to have shared. That indicates a lot about the relative perceptions on the different fronts, as arguable the RAF and USAAF had as good if not better aircraft than the VVS for the first few years of the war.

 

There is nothing about the Yak-1 that is noticeably better than the Spit V, yet RAF pilots were more concerned about the 190. Irrespective of the FM debate, that suggests that pilot ability and tactical situation are of primary importance followed by the aircraft, but that the above is subject to collective memory of the particpants depending upon what they encountered, under what circumstances and who lived to tell the tail.

[wtornado]

I am happy you mentioned the Spitfire MK IX seeing the it entered service with the RCAF No 401 Sqd

 

 

What 'legend' are you talking about exactly?  The truth of the matter is that in 1942 RAF Fighter Command was chased out of France and it was the FW 190 that  did the chasing;  not the Bf 109 F. The 109 F wasn't regarded as anything outside the performance capabilities of the Spitfire Vs then in service; but the 190 was.   RAE testing then confirmed what everyone involved already suspected - the 190 simply outclassed the Spit V.  That performance gap remained until the early Merlin 61 powered Spitfire 9 entered service.  At that point the 190 and Spitfire were essentially a match all the way up to about 20,000ft .(with the exception of rolling and horizontal turning). 

 

The Bf 109 F was for all practical purposes the high water mark for the type.  Despite the engine upgrades shoe horned into the airframe in subsequent years the 109 was essentially obsolete by the beginning of 1943.  Reasonably fast in a straight line (although by no means cutting edge) and a very good climber but not much else.  The 190 was easily the better aircraft of the two and this was amply demonstrated as the War progressed with the development of the 190 D series, which, unlike the 109, could compete on fairly even terms with pretty much any Allied fighter you care to mention. 

 

Yes, the A series was pressed into service for ground attack duties but that was largely because the Germans had failed to develop a suitable replacement for the Ju 87 which could no longer cut it as the LW progressively lost control of the airspace around it.  The 190 (unlike the 109) was tough (read radial engine) and had the capacity to carry a significant bomb load - again, unlike the 109.  So, it wasn't that the 109 was a better fighter.  It was a simple reality that because the 190 was more versatile it was required to step-up and assume roles it was never really intended to assume.

 

Jesus Christ ... the historical revisionism that takes place on forums like this, based on nothing other than what people see on computer games, is just scary.  It's 'crazy pill' stuff.

 

Did I not say from mid war to the end?

 

I am happy you mentioned the Spitfire MK IX seeing the it entered service with the RCAF No 401 Sqd

in april 1942 and was fully implemented by mid summer or 42.

 

The only advantage the FW-190 had over all the Spits was its roll rate 

 

The poor and old outdated Spitfire MK Vb that everyone always refers to always comes up was long overdue

and theSpitfire MKIX with the Spitfire Vc frame and the Merlin 61 and by mid 1943 the Merlin 63 easily handled the FW-190  in climb

and speed and out turned the 190. I have to mention the low altitude excellent Merlin 63 and 66 for the HF and LF fighters

that had and did chase down the the FW-190 A-5's during German Jabo raidsWhat better way to increase a roll rate

with the Spitfire than to clip its poor little wing ends off and it helped .

 

It was a No 401 Sqn  MK IX that brought down the first allied kill of a  ME-262 jet in oct 1944 and brought down a JU_86R at 43,000ft  in sept of 1942.

 

Lets just retire and forget the old Spitfire MK Vb l in July 1942 like the Brits did.  

 

 

By January 44 take any FW-190 A variant it it was outclassed by the Spitfire MK XIV except ance again for the FW-190's roll rate

[TheNotoriousFNG]

.. and for some reason... in a majority of the cases the topic of "discussion" is usually a 190 or a 109. Can that many developers just be totally wrong in their assessments of these aircraft .... or is it possible that some folks' expectations are just overblown.

 

My tactic has always been to take a sim on it's own merits and learn to fly it within the confines of the physics of that universe.

 

Exactly...just look at RoF before the last major patch. There were some discrepancies in the FM of some aircraft, but even the so-called "crap planes" could be flown and fought in effectively if the pilot played to the strengths of the aircraft and its "shoddy" FM. While it may not be exactly like it was back then in a way we, as simmers, are recreating history by developing tactics to work to our chosen rides'/ride's strengths and against those of our opponents.

 

I won't say that I think the FMs don't need more fine tuning, but as is I'm pretty satisfied. I consider myself the erroneous pilot and it's more me than the aircraft's FM. Bring a wingman to the fray and watch how you attitude about certain aircraft FMs can be changed, IMO. Though I find the Yak-1 a little peculiar, I don't fly it...I'm more fond of the LaGG-3 . If I come up against it, I usually try to make sure I'm high and get the jump on them - surprise beats even the UFOs .

 

 

So...I've been mostly quiet but I've been around a while; anyone remember the La-5FN debacle? Is the Yak-1 situation comparable?

Edited February 27, 2015 by Haggart85

[Wulf]

I am happy you mentioned the Spitfire MK IX seeing the it entered service with the RCAF No 401 Sqd

 

Did I not say from mid war to the end?

 

I am happy you mentioned the Spitfire MK IX seeing the it entered service with the RCAF No 401 Sqd

in april 1942 and was fully implemented by mid summer or 42.

 

The only advantage the FW-190 had over all the Spits was its roll rate 

 

The poor and old outdated Spitfire MK Vb that everyone always refers to always comes up was long overdue

and theSpitfire MKIX with the Spitfire Vc frame and the Merlin 61 and by mid 1943 the Merlin 63 easily handled the FW-190  in climb

and speed and out turned the 190. I have to mention the low altitude excellent Merlin 63 and 66 for the HF and LF fighters

that had and did chase down the the FW-190 A-5's during German Jabo raidsWhat better way to increase a roll rate

with the Spitfire than to clip its poor little wing ends off and it helped .

 

It was a No 401 Sqn  MK IX that brought down the first allied kill of a  ME-262 jet in oct 1944 and brought down a JU_86R at 43,000ft  in sept of 1942.

 

Lets just retire and forget the old Spitfire MK Vb l in July 1942 like the Brits did.  

 

 

By January 44 take any FW-190 A variant it it was outclassed by the Spitfire MK XIV except ance again for the FW-190's roll rate

 

 

You over-state the case when suggesting the Mk 9s easily handled the 190 As.  They were reasonably well matched at the beginning but certainly the Mk 9 was probably the better of the two as the War progressed.

 

But are you suggesting the Yak 1 and La-5 were as good as the Merlin 61 powered Mk 9 Spit?

[wtornado]

At low Altitude I think the YAK-1 was much better than many people think.

 

And in certain situations and altitudes under 18 000 feet I think the YAK-9

would of given a Spitfire MK IX a good run for its money if it didn't better it.

 

And as for a LA-5 well it is great at low alt but I prefer the YAK-1 in a furball

I think think the old YAK would of fared better.

[Bearcat]

I don't get what you want to say Bearcat. Accept the things as they are because one cannot change it? It's my way or the highway?

 

People do present "proofs" for there claims, don't they? But quite often (not always) such claims get misleaded without any data by others (keyword luftwhiners).

The examples you made about the old IL-2, why they changed over time? Because devs voluntarily revised FMs? I don't think so.

I think those people are exactly the ones who make the difference (not only in SIMs), because they struggle with passion for they perception of what is right and what is wrong.

 

And, as fast as this thread get closed the next FW190 thread will appear I bet, because you cannot change people minds with closing a thread.

 

I can't change people's minds anyway.. nor am I trying to... my point is...

Exactly...just look at RoF before the last major patch. There were some discrepancies in the FM of some aircraft, but even the so-called "crap planes" could be flown and fought in effectively if the pilot played to the strengths of the aircraft and its "shoddy" FM. While it may not be exactly like it was back then in a way we, as simmers, are recreating history by developing tactics to work to our chosen rides'/ride's strengths and against those of our opponents.

 

 

That is all I am trying to say... 

 

For me when it comes to FMs I find that it is best to just master what you have rather than complain about it.. With every patch someone else will complain about something else... This guy thinks it's bad and needs to be fixed.. that guy thinks it's too good and needs to be toned down.. and back and forth it goes.. but usually the loudest complaints involve the two AC I mentioned..... and this is a long standing fact that goes back for years.. across multiple sims.. so rather than think that so many developers are just so inept.. or that the Fw-190/Bf-109 planes were just so complex due to that vaunted engineering that no developer can get them right... it just seems more logical to me that the expectations of many are somewhat over blown.. It is what it is..

 

 

i haven't seen any charts, just anecdotal evidence

anecdotal evidence is almost completely worthless

 

They're out there..

[LukeFF]

[Edited]. If they were german the Luftwhiners would be calld "luftwhiner comrades" or "Sgt. Luftwhine".

Easy to mock on people if youre on the preferred side dude.

 

Talk about posts that contribute nothing to the discussion.   

Edited February 27, 2015 by Bearcat

[Chuck_Owl]

 

[Edited]. If they were german the Luftwhiners would be calld "luftwhiner comrades" or "Sgt. Luftwhine".

Easy to mock on people if youre on the preferred side dude.

 

 

I am so bleepin' sick of this "russian devs are biased because they're russian" malarkey. All that talk about revisionist history, lack of intellectual honesty, yada yada yada... It sickens me to read that kind of stuff. Mainly because it's absolute nonsense.

 

Some of the best flight sim engineers are russian (I'm mainly thinking of Dmitri "Yo-Yo" Moskalenko, and he coded the (very good) flight models for the DCS P-51, FW-190 and Bf.109.  German, American and soon British WW2 aircraft as well) and they code german planes just as well as russian or american ones.

 

There. Is. No. Freaking. Preferred. Side.

Edited February 27, 2015 by Bearcat

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

There. Is. No. Freaking. Preferred. Side.

One thing for sure..

 

No one has presented anything that could be remotely considered as proof of a FM error..

 

Let alone preference!

 

All we have thus far is anecdotal experiences..

 

Yes experiences not evidence!

 

That for all we know says more about the sim pilot than the flight sim

[Wulf]

At low Altitude I think the YAK-1 was much better than many people think.

 

And in certain situations and altitudes under 18 000 feet I think the YAK-9

would of given a Spitfire MK IX a good run for its money if it didn't better it.

 

And as for a LA-5 well it is great at low alt but I prefer the YAK-1 in a furball

I think think the old YAK would of fared better.

 

 

This is just silly.  The Yak 1 had a performance that fell somewhere between that of a Mk II and a Mk V Spitfire.  It simply wasn't in the same league as the as the Spitfire Mk IX.

 

A Spit IX LF , even the early Merlin 61 powered version, would eat a Yak 1 for breakfast.  Basically, the Yak and the Spit weigh about the same (with the 1942 vintage Yak being a bit lighter) but whereas the Yak has a Klimov with an output of just 1200 hp, the Merlin 61 produces about 1560 hp (1650 hp with Merlin 66).  What's more, the Merlin comes with a highly sophisticated two stage two speed supercharger that didn't have the problems that dogged the blower on the Klimov unit.

 

RAE  testing found this aircraft (i.e. the Merlin 61 powered Mk IX Spitfire) to have the same performance as the 190 A-3.  I'll repeat that,  just so you understand; the Merlin 61 powered Spitfire IX had the SAME PERFORMANCE AS THE 190-A-3.  So, lets get serious, the Yak 1 isn't going to out-perform a Focke-Wulf.   The only environment where a Yak 1 will be a match for a 190 A is in a computer game.  

Edited February 27, 2015 by Wulf

[Wulf]

One thing for sure..

 

No one has presented anything that could be remotely considered as proof of a FM error..

 

Let alone preference!

 

All we have thus far is anecdotal experiences..

 

Yes experiences not evidence!

 

That for all we know says more about the sim pilot than the flight sim

 

 

Weird isn't it.  It always seems to be the guys who fly the Soviet aircraft who are so vocal in their support for the status-quo.   Hmmmm ...  ..

[FlatSpinMan]

Shall we close the thread then? Keep allegations of bias to yourself.

[JtD]

Weird isn't it.  It always seems to be the guys who fly the Soviet aircraft who are so vocal in their support for the status-quo.   Hmmmm ...  ..

What's way more weird is that anybody vocal in support of [anything that doesn't give a bigger advantage to Luftwaffe aircraft, reasonable or not] is thought to be flying Soviet aircraft in game.

---

Can you please point out the time frame during which the fighter command suspended operations over France?

Edited February 27, 2015 by JtD

[Wulf]

Well, if you want a time frame it's going to be somewhere between late '41 and August '42 when the RAF was required to support the assault-landing at Dieppe.   I can't remember the exact dates but fighter sweeps were suspended for a period, although not for very long as I recall.

 

I don't have my Spitfire books with me so I can't be more precise than that I'm afraid.  

[unreasonable]

What bugs me about these FM disputes is the way some people try to rule out some sources of information as having any value on the basis that they are "anecdotal".

 

We are talking about historic phenomena here:

 

1) Do we have time machines we can use to go back and take systematic measurements? No.

 

2) Do we have actual WW2 era planes that we can test in comparable conditions of servicing, wear etc? No.

 

3) Can we be sure of the specifications and accuracy of the test results we do have, including manufacturer and political bias at a time when "defeatism" could mean a death sentence for your entire family. No.

 

What we do have is a variety of information, all "anecdotal" in the same sense, namely other people saying what they observed. Some of this is quantitatively expressed, other parts qualitatively. It should all be judged on it's merits.

 

It is absurd to assume that quantitative data must be superior. To take an example I have previously raised, a single aircraft could be tested for top speed on two different occasions, under the same conditions as far as can be specified, yet the results could have a sufficient % points difference due to unspecified changes in conditions, measurement error, or pilot input to make a tactical difference.

 

Similarly a pair of aircraft could be tested separately, with huge graphs of quantitative data. Yet given the margin for wrror in testing, if you want to know the answer to the question of which is faster the easiest way to find out is to start them side by side and race them. Simple A or B answer, which you can then refine quantitatively.

[Chuck_Owl]

Well, if you want a time frame it's going to be somewhere between late '41 and August '42 when the RAF was required to support the assault-landing at Dieppe.   I can't remember the exact dates but fighter sweeps were suspended for a period, although not for very long as I recall.

 

I don't have my Spitfire books with me so I can't be more precise than that I'm afraid.  

 

Fighter support was extremely limited at Dieppe despite the important number of fighter squadrons mustered for the air cover. Most Spitfires who reached the AO had about 5 minutes worth of combat time before they were bingo fuel. All of us Canadians know how useless and pointless that battle was. Members of my family were killed on this stupid suicide mission that should never have been planned in the first place,.

 

#rantover

Edited February 27, 2015 by 71st_AH_Chuck

[Blooddawn1942]

I've always wondered about this Dieppe raid. What was it worth?

If it was really for testing purposes, lets say to figure out the reactiontime of the german forces and so on, it was kind of an operation I would expect from the russians. Because it must have been totally obvious that this was gonna be a suicide mission. Not the kind of operations the western allied would conduct under normal circumstances.

Always wondered about this.

[Chuck_Owl]

I've always wondered about this Dieppe raid. What was it worth?

If it was really for testing purposes, lets say to figure out the reactiontime of the german forces and so on, it was kind of an operation I would expect from the russians. Because it must have been totally obvious that this was gonna be a suicide mission. Not the kind of operations the western allied would conduct under normal circumstances.

Always wondered about this.

 

The official reason is that it was to "probe the german defences" (which is IMHO purely an excuse used to justify the complete disaster behind it and save a well-known politician's face). Part of the reason behind this farce was because of politics. Stalin pressured Churchill to launch an invasion to divert german troops from the eastern front. But (and that is a fact that is slightly less well-known) there were political pressures from canadian politicians to see their troops sent into battle (for glory and freedom poutines) as the canadian contingent had been training since the early days of 1939 and had not seen any action yet (apart maybe from Hong Kong, which ended in a massacre anyway). Some military officials also thought the Canadian Corps had something to prove, which led to the disaster we see on the History Channel.

 

The saddest thing (for us) in this story is that most of these brave men sent to Dieppe were trained professional soldiers. Their loss was hard to replace, especially since Canada has a very small population in comparison to our southern neighbors.

Edited February 27, 2015 by 71st_AH_Chuck

[Blooddawn1942]

This canadian factor and the politics behind this were unknown to me. Thanks for teaching this interessting lesson, Chuck.

[Chuck_Owl]

Well, Blooddawn, allow me to thank you as well for helping me to translate that Willy Messerschmitt documentary (shameless plug for my next "Video from the Past" episode). I learned very interesting things that I didn't know before.

 

Hopefully I can release it this week-end.

Edited February 27, 2015 by 71st_AH_Chuck

[JtD]

Getting back to the current Fw190 - I just ran a short test on the Lapino map in standard atmosphere. I used the Fw190 in normal loadout (no outer guns) with 100% fuel. Real life reference is the data sheet of the Fw190Aa3, which is pretty close to the A-3, and pretty much identical in terms of performance. (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a3-sheet-26-11-42.jpg)

 

Climb was done at 270 km/h indicated, give or take a few km/h, which at altitude <6km is pretty close to the best climbing speeds as given by Fw. As you can see, performance in game appears to be better in terms of speed at low altitude and worse in terms of speed at high altitude and in terms of climb. I haven't tested climb below 1000m. All tests done at combat/climb power.

 

Speeds were determined with stop watch and map grid, CAS-TAS conversion gives slightly lower numbers at altitude (1%).

Edited February 27, 2015 by JtD

[Blooddawn1942]

Only the last two minutes to translate left.

I will send You the file this afternoon (european time ).

It has been a pleasure to help You and utter interesting for me too.

[FlatSpinMan]

Interesting about the Dieppe background. Never thought to look into it, but it must be similarly traumatic to Canada as Gallipoli was to us Anzacs.

[voncrapenhauser]

I never loved this plane (design, features, whatever) I just call it "the stall machine". Period.

Back on topic.

 

Agreed.... and it shouldn't be that way ...at least at speed.

 

Its slow speed snap roll is well documented and discussed to death on this forum ZZZZZZZ.

 

IMO the FW 190 in this game is only good for BnZ, nothing in between.

Tight turns....only result in a spin irrelevant of speed.

Its wrong ...plain wrong.

 

A great shame....a little tweak would make this plane more accurate.

I am not claiming the 190 is an uber plane.

I just want a FW190 that bares a resemblance to anecdotal evidence of pilots who actually flown it in combat or test.

 

Right now it dose not IMO.

Edited February 27, 2015 by voncrapenhauser

[Rama]

What bugs me about these FM disputes is the way some people try to rule out some sources of information as having any value on the basis that they are "anecdotal".

So it bugs you that FMs are actually a set of equations fed with numerical parameters....... and not an historical novel or memorandum?

That's how software code works.

 

It is absurd to assume that quantitative data must be superior. To take an example I have previously raised, a single aircraft could be tested for top speed on two different occasions, under the same conditions as far as can be specified, yet the results could have a sufficient % points difference due to unspecified changes in conditions, measurement error, or pilot input to make a tactical difference.

Of course it's absurd, quantitative data are not "Superior", they are an absolute necessity in order to create a FM. Without them you can't code anything.

Also of course, a single set of quantitative data recorded in specific conditions, isn't sufficient to create a good model that will work accuratelly in all conditions. That's something all ingeneers and scientists knows. Extrapolations are more or less accurate, but the only way to increase accuracy is to retrieve more data in different experimental conditions.... if you're lucky and have enough data from diverse conditions, you can also measure the accuracy of your model.

So, depending on the data set you get, you can create a model which quality will depend on the data set quality..... but it's totally absurd to assume that non-data (aka "anecdotal évidences") can replace data to feed FM.

 

Of course, someone could try to "guess" data from "anecdotal évidences", and even persuade himself that this guessed data is accurate. That's the normal way in beliefs constructions.... and the beauty of it is that, since we're not tallking any more about physic and data, but about beliefs, no counter-argument will work (everybody is entitled to believe what he wants, and since beliefs are not quantitative data, you can't proove the belief is right or wrong)..... and that's probably the main reason FM debate are neverending: because they're mostly oppositions of belief that will lead to nothing but repeating the same opposition of the same beliefs.

 

Restrict the FM debate around the datas, and they will be short... and usefull for the dev, since they could by this way retrieve data they don't have.

 

But I suppose that the neverending debates about FM beliefs are fun and/or interesting for some... and that's why you'll allways have some in a fligth sim forum.

[voncrapenhauser]

So it bugs you that FMs are actually a set of equations fed with numerical parameters....... and not an historical novel or memorandum? That's how software code works.

 

I understand that but being a RL pilot I fly by stick and rudder not a set of numbers.

 

I just want a close similarity is all.

I know we cannot always get what we want but close would be fine with me.

I know numbers govern how a plane flies IRL too.

There should be common ground where the aircraft tuning should meet something like reality surely?

 

 

Of course it's absurd, quantitative data are not "Superior", they are an absolute necessity in order to create a FM. Without them you can't code anything.

 

+1

 

Meet reality as said above?

 

BTW its only the 190's high speed snap stall I have a problem with here.

Mostly I commend the FMs in this game.

Edited February 27, 2015 by voncrapenhauser

[Rama]

I understand that but being a RL pilot I fly by stick and rudder not a set of numbers.

I'm also a RL pilot, and also an engineer.... so I can understand that the force a RL pilot apply on stick and rudder can be measured and transformed into numbers. And you can also.

 

I just want a close similarity is all.

I know numbers govern how a plane flies.

There should be common ground where the aircraft tuning should meet something like reality surely?

what you call "similarity" is what I call "good accuracy".... and need enough data to be matched.

If you don't rely on data, considering the complexity of a good flight model, then "tuning" a model to make it "fit" one's perception of "roll inertia" (for exemple) will most probably degrade the whole model to a kind of virtual fantasy.

There's only one good way to find a common ground, it's by compiling data.

[Wulf]

It's very easy to be critical when examining the Dieppe landing .  I can however understand that if you intend to conduct a sea borne invasion on an unprecedented scale (as Normandy would prove to be) it would pay to do something on a smaller scale in first instance to test the feasibility of what is proposed.  Relatively speaking there was a huge Canadian sacrifice at Deippe - that's absolutely true.  And from any sort of rational analysis the raid was a complete disaster.  But it probably did prevent an even worse catastrophe two years later. It should also be noted that the RAF took a serious beating over Dieppe with over 100 aircraft being lost.  

 

I941-42 were pretty dark days for the Allied war effort.  We (the British Commonwealth) had been fighting the Germans since 1939 with nothing but bad news to show for it. We were losing the War. 

[Chuck_Owl]

It's very easy to be critical when examining the Dieppe landing .  I can however understand that if you intend to conduct a sea borne invasion on an unprecedented scale (as Normandy would prove to be) it would pay to do something on a smaller scale in first instance to test the feasibility of what is proposed.  Relatively speaking there was a huge Canadian sacrifice at Deippe - that's absolutely true.  And from any sort of rational analysis the raid was a complete disaster.  But it probably did prevent an even worse catastrophe two years later. It should also be noted that the RAF took a serious beating over Dieppe with over 100 aircraft being lost.  

 

I941-42 were pretty dark days for the Allied war effort.  We (the British Commonwealth) had been fighting the Germans since 1939 with nothing but bad news to show for it. We were losing the War. 

 

Well, the "why" can be debated ad nauseam. My thoughts on the matter (and that's my opinion and my opinion only) is that while the lessons learned from Dieppe happened to be useful (at a relatively "low" human cost in the grand scheme of things), they were not part of the initial plan. I think it was a monumental lack of judgement first and foremost, intentional or not.

 

That feasability test for an amphibious assault was done during the beach landings in North Africa for Operation Torch. In 1941-1942, the british armed forces did not have the manpower to invade France and actually hold it. Local british militias were given pitchforks to repulse a german invasion that would never come. Dieppe was a waste, pure and simple. Americans and British were quite divided on how to invade Europe. Some wanted to invade from Southern France, while others wanted to go by Italy, while others wanted to invade from the southern shores of the Balkans... there were many plans in put in place. All of them probably better options than the one at Dieppe, unfortunately. 

Edited February 27, 2015 by 71st_AH_Chuck

[StG2_Manfred]

Getting back to the current Fw190 - I just ran a short test on the Lapino map in standard atmosphere. I used the Fw190 in normal loadout (no outer guns) with 100% fuel. Real life reference is the data sheet of the Fw190Aa3, which is pretty close to the A-3, and pretty much identical in terms of performance. (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a3-sheet-26-11-42.jpg)

 

Climb was done at 270 km/h indicated, give or take a few km/h, which at altitude <6km is pretty close to the best climbing speeds as given by Fw. As you can see, performance in game appears to be better in terms of speed at low altitude and worse in terms of speed at high altitude and in terms of climb. I haven't tested climb below 1000m. All tests done at combat/climb power.

 

Speeds were determined with stop watch and map grid, CAS-TAS conversion gives slightly lower numbers at altitude (1%).

 

Interesting chart, thanks JtD. 

 

Am I calculating wrong or is there a 20 percent difference in climb performance?