Dr_Molenbeek Posted August 27, 2015 Posted August 27, 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B41lrABB6m0 8
NachtJaeger110 Posted August 27, 2015 Posted August 27, 2015 Nice work Ze_Hairy, what was your method to test the roll rates in Bos? Btw: Crump already gathered lots of sources in this old thread here, but please all, don't let this one end like that: http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/6207-roll-measurements-fw-190-rae-1231/
6./ZG26_5tuka Posted August 27, 2015 Posted August 27, 2015 (edited) Did or do you plan to test the Lagg-3 as well? They have the same airframe so the result should be close to the La-5 (only difference might be due to the different engine = different torque force). If your data is trustorthy it's actually more off than I expected it. If you gathered your numbers in a single roll only the difference might be bugger due to the "inertia forces" implemented for the Fw 190 / any plane ingame excluding the Lavotchkins. This could be circumvented by performing 2 rolls and measuring only the second one though. Anyway, thx for your testing Edited August 27, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka
Dakpilot Posted August 27, 2015 Posted August 27, 2015 Interesting, but the NACA roll rate (190) was already covered in the stickied post at the top of this section by Dev's, are roll rate tests done uncoordinated with no rudder input? Not critizing just interested, How do your findings fit onto the posted NACA graph if all the others were done with 50lbs stick input, and does that have an effect on the results?, are all the tests done at 10.000ft press. alt? Cheers Dakpilot
MK_RED13 Posted August 27, 2015 Posted August 27, 2015 Ze_Hairy.. muhehehehehehe.. excellent work!!!! 1
TP_Jacko Posted August 27, 2015 Posted August 27, 2015 Interesting, but the NACA roll rate (190) was already covered in the stickied post at the top of this section by Dev's, are roll rate tests done uncoordinated with no rudder input? Not critizing just interested, How do your findings fit onto the posted NACA graph if all the others were done with 50lbs stick input, and does that have an effect on the results?, are all the tests done at 10.000ft press. alt? Cheers Dakpilot Nice detail, I wonder how they measured 50 Ib stick force 2
Dr_Molenbeek Posted August 27, 2015 Author Posted August 27, 2015 Sorry, i had to go when i opened the thread. In the test the FW 190 is in light configuration, 2 cannons only, and both planes at 60% fuel. Yes i did several tests and not only what you see in the videos, and at different altitudes... 1000m, 3000m, 5000m,... No rudder ! My tests are about single roll time, to take the FW 190 if you make 2 roll then the time of the 2nd roll will be correct according to the NACA chart. The only chart i have done myself previously had ended up in the dustbin of 1CGS (because reasons), this is the only reason why i chose this chart to put FW 190A-3 and La-5 s.8 single roll curves. The point is about La-5 (and LaGG-3) that rolls way too fast (and that's my opinion, you're free to not share it), and about the FW 190 roll inertia that cancels everything you can read about it, such... Yet in BoS it has this ugly tendency to yaw, and i'll make a video later to show how switching from a direction to another is... useless and ugly, since the inertia is too pronounced. 4
Dr_Molenbeek Posted August 28, 2015 Author Posted August 28, 2015 (edited) @ Hairy, from which document is the text copy? This screenshot has been posted a long time ago by jaws2002. It is from "Focke-Wulf Fw 190A. An illustrated history of the Luftwaffe's legendary fighter aircraft", by Dietmar Hermann, Ulrich leverenz and Eberhald Weber. Edited August 28, 2015 by Ze_Hairy 3
6./ZG26_5tuka Posted August 28, 2015 Posted August 28, 2015 (edited) My tests are about single roll time, to take the FW 190 if you make 2 roll then the time of the 2nd roll will be correct according to the NACA chart. Ok so you consider the Fw 190's roll rate to be accurate but the inertia to be wrong? Just asking because that's basicly my impression of it. As for the Lavotchkins they have never reccieved any roll inertia back when it was introduced so they have extreme roll accelerations. That's surely wrong and should be improved by applying proper inertia values + decrease their roll rate (at least somewhat slower than the Fw 190 as pilot notes state). Edited August 28, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka
Dr_Molenbeek Posted August 28, 2015 Author Posted August 28, 2015 Ok so you consider the Fw 190's roll rate to be accurate but the inertia to be wrong? Just asking because that's basicly my impression of it. Yes. About La-5, what we know is that devs have not even used La-5 s.8 (or close) data for the roll rate, but a later variant (s.21 from spring 43, according to bivalov), and they made some "corrections" from these data. We think they forgot that the s.8 has 2 additional fuel tanks in wings, and that the 2 main fuel tanks in wings were a bit lighter than on late series... But it might not be all. 2
TWC_Ace Posted August 28, 2015 Posted August 28, 2015 thers no chance early la5 would roll faster than Fw190.....
L3Pl4K Posted August 28, 2015 Posted August 28, 2015 About La-5, what we know is that devs have not even used La-5 s.8 (or close) data for the roll rate, but a later variant (s.21 from spring 43, according to bivalov), and they made some "corrections" from these data. Data from ser 21 for roll rate??? Wrote the devs this in forum? Or is this a insider info?
Dr_Molenbeek Posted August 28, 2015 Author Posted August 28, 2015 (edited) Data from ser 21 for roll rate??? Wrote the devs this in forum? Or is this a insider info? "We have direct flight test data on later La-5 (with reduced aelirons angle), it is enought to make correct adjustments on early one (with greater angle of aelirons deflection)." (from Han) La-5 s.21 infos come from russian forum. Edited August 28, 2015 by Ze_Hairy
Wombat Posted August 29, 2015 Posted August 29, 2015 I do hope that fm for the FW190 are improved on. This ac is the reason I invested in BOS. The BOS BF109's do not interest me as much as I think we were all spoilt with BF109e's in COD. If what we have now is a true (virtual) representation I can't see how it was said to be one of the best ac of the war. Keep up the good work Hairy. 1
Dr_Molenbeek Posted August 29, 2015 Author Posted August 29, 2015 (edited) I do hope that fm for the FW190 are improved on. This ac is the reason I invested in BOS. The BOS BF109's do not interest me as much as I think we were all spoilt with BF109e's in COD. If what we have now is a true (virtual) representation I can't see how it was said to be one of the best ac of the war. Keep up the good work Hairy. Thank you. AFAIK the two things that need to be fixed in the Fw 190 FM are the roll rate inertia, and this: http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/17539-fw-190a-3-climb-rate/ When this will be the case, you can be sure that the Fw 190 will be completely superior to the Bf 109s except for low speed climbing, and turning at low to medium speed. Edited August 29, 2015 by Ze_Hairy
MK_RED13 Posted August 29, 2015 Posted August 29, 2015 Interesting for me is why we have in game La5 s.8 with s.21 FM.. ? Any answer?
Dr_Molenbeek Posted August 29, 2015 Author Posted August 29, 2015 (edited) Not a La-5 s.8 with s.21 FM. They made corrections from La-5 s.21 (we think it's the s.21, what is sure is it's a later La-5, not the s.8) data. There is every reason to believe that they have made mistakes during these "corrections" (because yes, for those who may have forgot, devs are humans like us, they make mistakes like us). Edited August 29, 2015 by Ze_Hairy
Billkong Posted August 30, 2015 Posted August 30, 2015 Good work hairy I realy hope the devs pay attention to this..!
ROSS_BW_Kuznechik Posted August 30, 2015 Posted August 30, 2015 (edited) Glorious russian rolling technology comrade! Strike roll for Sanctions! , товарищ. Edited August 30, 2015 by =BW=Kuznechik 1
Dr_Molenbeek Posted August 30, 2015 Author Posted August 30, 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZqjnT_ifwE We clearly see that the plane almost wants to "stop" rolling because of the too pronounced inertia, in BoS. 5
StG2_Manfred Posted August 30, 2015 Posted August 30, 2015 If you are 100% sure that the mistakes in the FM are due to an existing bias of the devs and not due to conflicting and immensely complex data and aeronautical phenomena, go ahead. If you are not 100% sure, please don't decrease our chances of getting a fix by frustrating devs who maybe, just maybe have tried to do a good job Stay scientific. follow the example of Ze_Hairy who is really putting some thought into it. This is the way we're going to achieve something, everything else is very contra-productive. sorry, had to get that one out once... Well Nachtjäger, I'm following this project from the very beginning and there have been so many scientific posts and what have they helped? All in all it has become worse instead of better, particularily with the last patches... What the FM section needs (and for the most part has been getting recently) is facts not this kind of jingoistic BS rhetoric Your own rather obvious bias has been shown in your many other posts on the 'bias subject' obvious troll is obvious Cheers Dakpilot YOU'd better read history books instead of staying all day long in forums...
Dr_Molenbeek Posted September 3, 2015 Author Posted September 3, 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lw42-fLtZA Engine torque "influence" is not an option. 1
Finkeren Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 I'm following this project from the very beginning and there have been so many scientific posts and what have they helped? All in all it has become worse instead of better, particularily with the last patches... Ahem... no. The Fw 190 might still be off in certain areas, cudos to Ze_Hairy for helping to uncover the flaws, but it's infinitely better and closer to reality now, than it was when it first was released. The last couple of patches haven't even touched FMs at all, so you're talking out of your nether regions. 1
StG2_Manfred Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 Ahem... no. The Fw 190 might still be off in certain areas, cudos to Ze_Hairy for helping to uncover the flaws, but it's infinitely better and closer to reality now, than it was when it first was released. The last couple of patches haven't even touched FMs at all, so you're talking out of your nether regions. You put it out of context, I was speaking generally, and not exclusively about the 190.
MK_RED13 Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 Engine torque "influence" is not an option. ...excellent work..Ze_Hairy... and what about La5 ?
Finkeren Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 You put it out of context, I was speaking generally, and not exclusively about the 190. Ok, then enlighten me: In which aspects has the FM of various planes become 'worse' over the last few updates?
Dr_Molenbeek Posted September 3, 2015 Author Posted September 3, 2015 and what about La5 ? I left the La-5 to the russian community. They can read russian data, i cannot... and it changes everything.
Art Posted September 3, 2015 Posted September 3, 2015 I left the La-5 to the russian community. They can read russian data, i cannot... and it changes everything. Great idea
Crump Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 Interesting, but the NACA roll rate (190) was already covered in the stickied post at the top of this section by Dev's, are roll rate tests done uncoordinated with no rudder input? Not critizing just interested, How do your findings fit onto the posted NACA graph if all the others were done with 50lbs stick input, and does that have an effect on the results?, are all the tests done at 10.000ft press. alt? Cheers Dakpilot No, the roll rate as measured in RAE 1231 is coordinated with rudder, which is standard unless you are specifically measuring adverse and proverse yaw. It is time to bank measurement so includes the instantaneous roll rate. Simply put, it is how fast the RAE measured the aircraft making an initial bank.
Crump Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 My tests are about single roll time, to take the FW 190 if you make 2 roll then the time of the 2nd roll will be correct according to the NACA chart. Which is correct and the FW-190 data transcribed by the NACA from the RAE report is the amount of time to go from wings level to the angle of bank noted on the chart. In other words at 255 mph IAS, the FW-190 could achieve a 161 degrees bank angle from wings level.
Dr_Molenbeek Posted January 13, 2016 Author Posted January 13, 2016 (edited) Which is correct and the FW-190 data transcribed by the NACA from the RAE report is the amount of time to go from wings level to the angle of bank noted on the chart. In other words at 255 mph IAS, the FW-190 could achieve a 161 degrees bank angle from wings level. Fw 190 A-3 roll speed in game is 1.5..2 times less than it is in NACA and RAE flight test reports - NACA report shows the roll angular speed of continuous rolling, not intermediate roll speed during 1 roll. So if we perform test on ф continuous rolling in game it will correspond to NACA report with good precision (mistake would be less than 2%). From Han... http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/11664-fm-claims-respond/?p=179317 [Edited] Edited January 14, 2016 by Bearcat
Crump Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 It is plainly written in English how the test was performed and what was measured. It is also plain to see the NACA, which holds the modern definition of steady roll rate simply transcribed the RAE EAS data onto their own IAS graph. It is not the most scientific piece of work. The report was not written to compare WWII aircraft and had the FW-190 data had little value when the "Summary of Lateral Control Research" was written by the NACA. It was only included to show a technical trend in lateral control research. The 1947 NACA in Indicated Airspeed data: The July 1943 RAE report in Equivalent Airspeed. You can see the NACA curve is simply transcribed data without regard to details. The RAE plainly state in English what they measured, the conditions of flight they measured it in, and how they recorded the data. What the RAE measured does not correspond to the NACA or modern definition of steady state of roll. The RAE simply recorded the time to bank of the aircraft at speeds from 200 mph ASI to 400 mph ASI correcting the speed to Equivalent Airspeed and the altitude to 10,000 feet.
Crump Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 You can use figure three of that report to determine the FW-190's rate of roll under any condition, btw. If I have time I will work a problem or two for you using it.
RAY-EU Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 Very Good Job in many ways and in other posts . Thanks We will wait for any news from Russian Data ¡?
m2b1 Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 We will wait 2 weeks or more... But it will not change.
LLv24_Vilppi Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 Which is correct and the FW-190 data transcribed by the NACA from the RAE report is the amount of time to go from wings level to the angle of bank noted on the chart. In other words at 255 mph IAS, the FW-190 could achieve a 161 degrees bank angle from wings level. Hi Crump, I'd like to verify something here. Do you mean that the times recorded in the Fig. 6 of the RAE report are from level flight (stick more or less centred) to a certain bank angle? I.e. the time is calculated from the point where the pilot initiates the manoeuvre to the said angle.
Recommended Posts