Climb test Yak-1 vs F-4 vs Fw 190

[Holtzauge]

It would give me a really hard time to refind the post... since it was on russian forum. 

 

EDIT: Done.

 

Bf 109s: http://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/2965-voprosy-razrabotchikam-2/?p=329653

 

Russian fighters: http://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/2965-voprosy-razrabotchikam-2/?p=330512

 

People asked for Fw 190A-3, but NOPE, totally sikret dokumjants.

 

"totally sikret dokumjants" Good one!   

 

Spassiba tavaritj Hairy!

[Holtzauge]

IMHO I think the Me-109G2 is a good example of why it is important to find multiple sources to determine a historical climb rate. IIRC then you can find anything between 17 and 24 m/s climb rate at 2 Km altitude. However, usually you can find clues to why you have outliers like the 17 and 24 m/s figures.

 

For example, if you read the fine print for the 24 m/s figure this comes from a Finnish trial in which the Finns themselves classify the speed results as reliable while they term the climb results as “somewhat reliable” and include the caveat that no special measuring equipment was used to gauge climb rates. Further, the Finnish G2 test was done at 11 deg C, i.e. not CINA, and there is no indication of fuel status at the time of climb test, e.g. was the fuel state low due to the speed test being done before the climb test etc.

 

However, such small details will not stop certain people from shamelessly promoting such results as “representative” for their favorite ride the Me-109 while in the next instant pop up in another thread and there vociferously argue why the Spitfire should be modeled on the absolute rock-bottom outliers you can find. Such an approach to the truth may be acceptable if you are a shady lawyer but as an engineer I prefer a more scientific approach by going for a mean when the outliers have been shaved off. Note: Any resemblance to any real person, living or dead, is of course purely coincidental…….

 

Concerning the Fw-190A3, So far we have the British test with a quite a low value that probably belongs to the outliers while there are two other German results that probably belong more in the mean department. However, before passing judgement it would be good to get some more input to get an indication of where the mean might be which of course also applies to the BoS climb test results.

Edited December 31, 2015 by Holtzauge

[Sgt_Joch]

On the FW190 A there are other tests, i.e Russian tests:

 

 

However, if you look at just the German tests:

 

 

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a3.html

 

you get a predicted performance of 6 min. 10-15 secs. to 5 km for a 3850 kg A3 @ 2400 RPM.

 

considering Han stated the in game FW climb performance is within 5% of RL, it should be no more than 6 min. 33 secs. in game.

[Holtzauge]

OK, thanks Sgt_Joch. Interesting to see the Russian A-4 estimate in the first figure. IIRC then the only major difference to the A3 was the MW50 in A4 but judging from the climb rate chart it looks low even for Steig & Kampf. L. so maybe its for Daur L.? Also good to see the British RAE and German manufacturers data in same figure. Again, the British data looks strange:lower climb rate at low altitude then a higher ceiling?

[LittleJP]

Do we know if the tests are done with the MG-FF or just onboards?

[III/JG2Gustav05]

IMHO I think the Me-109G2 is a good example of why it is important to find multiple sources to determine a historical climb rate. IIRC then you can find anything between 17 and 24 m/s climb rate at 2 Km altitude. However, usually you can find clues to why you have outliers like the 17 and 24 m/s figures.

 

For example, if you read the fine print for the 24 m/s figure this comes from a Finnish trial in which the Finns themselves classify the speed results as reliable while they term the climb results as “somewhat reliable” and include the caveat that no special measuring equipment was used to gauge climb rates. Further, the Finnish G2 test was done at 11 deg C, i.e. not CINA, and there is no indication of fuel status at the time of climb test, e.g. was the fuel state low due to the speed test being done before the climb test etc.

 

However, such small details will not stop certain people from shamelessly promoting such results as “representative” for their favorite ride the Me-109 while in the next instant pop up in another thread and there vociferously argue why the Spitfire should be modeled on the absolute rock-bottom outliers you can find. Such an approach to the truth may be acceptable if you are a shady lawyer but as an engineer I prefer a more scientific approach by going for a mean when the outliers have been shaved off. Note: Any resemblance to any real person, living or dead, is of course purely coincidental…….

 

 

I don't see any people here try to use 24m/s finish data to benchmark the bf109G2 in this game. the "Rechlin E`Stelle Erprobungsnummer 1586" data shows 21m/S, its almost in the middle of 17m/s and 24m/s and which is being used for modeling Bf109G2 in this game declared by development team ( thank Ze_Hairy for information),  please tell me where does your the"shamelessly" conclusion come from?

Edited January 1, 2016 by III/JG2Gustav05

[Holtzauge]

I don't see any people here try to use 24m/s finish data to benchmark the bf109G2 in this game. the "Rechlin E`Stelle Erprobungsnummer 1586" data shows 21m/S, its almost in the middle of 17m/s and 24m/s and which is being used for modeling Bf109G2 in this game declared by development team ( thank Ze_Hairy for information),  please tell me where does your the"shamelessly" conclusion come from?

If you by here mean here as in this forum then yes but if you mean here as in this thread then no. The word shamelessly comes from years of observing this agenda driven behaviour in a number of different forums.

[Brano]

And where is "NOPE,sikrit documjents" coming from? I would like to see a link.Otherwise it is shameless mocking of the devs by frustrated individual.

Han did post recently on Q&A for devs thread,that info about Fw test datas might come after the holidays.So stay tuned and stop acting like spoiled kids...

[Dr_Molenbeek]

And where is "NOPE,sikrit documjents" coming from? I would like to see a link.Otherwise it is shameless mocking of the devs by frustrated individual.

Han did post recently on Q&A for devs thread,that info about Fw test datas might come after the holidays.So stay tuned and stop acting like spoiled kids...

 

What an useful post... wow.

 

Please be useful to the discussion or go away, instead of crying like a baby for a stupid remark... My God...

 

The post of Dooplet has been completely ignored and you dare pretend nothing happened.

[SYN_Haashashin]

I will never understand why all FM topics end up in a whole back and forth of personal attacks, and people wonder why their topics get locked. As said, leave the personal stuff to other places (PM).

 

As said, take it easy and read what you write before posting.

[Holtzauge]

Do we know if the tests are done with the MG-FF or just onboards?

The one I posted earlier explicitly says it's without MGFF. Note the weight given is 3850 Kg in this configuration. The "Baubeschribung" page Sgt_Joch posted above says 3850 indicating its also without MGFF. Russian figure unknown weight and configuration AFAIK? Fabers/British test is with MGFF judging from pictures I've seen and the MGFF is listed in armaments section in evaluation report but someone else may be able to confirm whichever it was.

[LittleJP]

Thats for clearing that up. I'll try running a number of tests with and without the MG/FF and see what matches I get.

[Crump]

 

 

If you by here mean here as in this forum then yes but if you mean here as in this thread then no. The word shamelessly comes from years of observing this agenda driven behaviour in a number of different forums.

 

 

I know what you mean. 

 

 

 

The aeroplane is simple and easy to fly and has no vices. 

 

 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/k5054.html

 

 

 

In September 1936, a report on the handling trials was released. It stated that the controls were “quick under all conditions” and that the rudder – modifed since the first flight – was “extremely effective”. The report stated that the stability of K5054 in flight was “satisfactory” but that while doing acrobatics in the air K5054 was “very easy and pleasant” to fly. Take-off was “easy” and the undercarriage had “excellent shock absorbing qualities” with ground handling being “extremely good”. A summary of K5054’s flying qualities was “simple and easy to fly and has no vices”.

 

 

Small details left out make a huge difference to drive an agenda!!

 

 

 

In its first few flights, K5054 was unarmed. Now work was done to fit out the aircraft with its armaments and furhter refinements were made. 

 

 

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/world-war-two-in-western-europe/battle-of-britain/k5054-spitfire-prototype/

 

 

 

Agenda's suck and they ruin the fun of these games because each agenda strives to achieve dominance when the facts really say equality.

[LukeFF]

And exactly why are we now talking about the Spitfire? 

[Holtzauge]

Thread entropy? Thread starts off as aquarium, heat is added and voila: we have fish soup. Moderators then battle to restore aquarium but are foiled by second law of thermodynamics?

[Crump]

And exactly why are we now talking about the Spitfire?

We are not talking about the Spitfire. We are talking about agenda's. The Spitfire site had a later report on the armed service condition K-9788 after K5054 had crashed and been written off. But since the site owners did not understand the material they presented they put up documents that were "detrimental". Once they realized it, the documents were removed and a more "favorable" earlier report on the unarmed K5054 without service loadout was added instead minus any of the original documentation.

 

The topic is agendas and not the aircraft.

Edited January 2, 2016 by Crump

[6./ZG26_Custard]

Anecdotal evidence is never a very good source of information and I originally linked this article  several months ago.

 

The Bf 109, called "the lean" (the Soviet nickname) was widely considered by Soviet airmen as a more agile and potent adversary than the Fw 190, which was viewed as "heavy and slow..." especially when climbing.”

 

A translated Russian article from "Red Fleet" describing Russian aerial tactics against the German FW-190, from Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 37, November 4, 1943.

 

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt/russian-combat-fw190.html

 

I'm lead to believe that ground attack versions  of the 190 essentially were replacing the Ju 87 on the Eastern front . If these Jabo versions had additional armour causing them to be heavier but were indistinguishable in the air from the fighter versions. Could it be that Soviet pilots may have correctly reported an observation, but one that distorts the facts of the real capabilities of the aircraft when deployed in the pure fighter form?

Edited January 2, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Custard

[Crump]

 

 

Could it be that Soviet pilots may have correctly reported an observation, but one that distorts the facts of the real capabilities of the aircraft when deployed in the pure fighter form?

 

I think so.  The fighter variants of the FW-190 were only deploy in small numbers to the eastern front.  They did very well. 

 

http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/earlyjg51190s.htm

 

http://www.amazon.com/Focke-Wulf-Russian-Front-Osprey-Aircraft/dp/1855325187

 

http://www.airpages.ru/eng/ru/fw190a.shtml

[Holtzauge]

Anecdotal evidence is never a very good source of information and I originally linked this article  several months ago.

 

The Bf 109, called "the lean" (the Soviet nickname) was widely considered by Soviet airmen as a more agile and potent adversary than the Fw 190, which was viewed as "heavy and slow..." especially when climbing.”

 

A translated Russian article from "Red Fleet" describing Russian aerial tactics against the German FW-190, from Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 37, November 4, 1943.

 

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt/russian-combat-fw190.html

 

I'm lead to believe that ground attack versions  of the 190 essentially were replacing the Ju 87 on the Eastern front . If these Jabo versions had additional armour causing them to be heavier but were indistinguishable in the air from the fighter versions. Could it be that Soviet pilots may have correctly reported an observation, but one that distorts the facts of the real capabilities of the aircraft when deployed in the pure fighter form?

 

Yes, maybe so and also probably Jabo pilots were in general less proficient in a2a engagements: Would make sense really if your main job was ground pounding then you would reasonably in average probably lag in both training and a2a experience compared to the Me-109 jocks who's chief job was just that.

 

Anyway, checked the "TSAGI aircraft construction 1917-1945" doc were the Russian climb chart Sgt_Joch posted in #83 comes from. The climb chart is page 87 and on page 85 in the same doc there is a table that gives the following details for the A4: Weight 3989 Kg, 4x20 mm and climb time to 5 Km 6.8 min. Also, if you look in the Russian climb chart then the climb rate between 2 and 5 Km is a bit over 11 m/s which is undeniably closer to the BoS climb data we have so far but of course is for a different heavier plane than we have tested with......

[LukeFF]

We are not talking about the Spitfire. We are talking about agenda's. The Spitfire site had a later report on the armed service condition K-9788 after K5054 had crashed and been written off. But since the site owners did not understand the material they presented they put up documents that were "detrimental". Once they realized it, the documents were removed and a more "favorable" earlier report on the unarmed K5054 without service loadout was added instead minus any of the original documentation.

 

The topic is agendas and not the aircraft.

 

Crump, just stop it already. You're the one that decided to drag the Spitfire into the topic, complete with charts and all. If you want to talk about agendas and Spitfires, then by all means open up a new topic.

Edited January 3, 2016 by LukeFF

[YSoMadTovarisch]

Yes, maybe so and also probably Jabo pilots were in general less proficient in a2a engagements: Would make sense really if your main job was ground pounding then you would reasonably in average probably lag in both training and a2a experience compared to the Me-109 jocks who's chief job was just that.

 

Anyway, checked the "TSAGI aircraft construction 1917-1945" doc were the Russian climb chart Sgt_Joch posted in #83 comes from. The climb chart is page 87 and on page 85 in the same doc there is a table that gives the following details for the A4: Weight 3989 Kg, 4x20 mm and climb time to 5 Km 6.8 min. Also, if you look in the Russian climb chart then the climb rate between 2 and 5 Km is a bit over 11 m/s which is undeniably closer to the BoS climb data we have so far but of course is for a different heavier plane than we have tested with......

AFAIK, the A4 that was captured by the Soviets had it's original prop damaged due to a failure in the MGs synchronization mechanism.

 

Also, the A4 in this Soviet test chart also had severely underperforming speed:

 

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n40/lumino1/G-2_w_wo_gondies.jpg~original

Edited January 4, 2016 by GrapeJam

[Holtzauge]

AFAIK, the A4 that was captured by the Soviets had it's original prop damaged due to a failure in the MGs synchronization mechanism.

 

Also, the A4 in this Soviet test chart also had severely underperforming speed:

 

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n40/lumino1/G-2_w_wo_gondies.jpg~original

This link is from a Russian evaluation of the A4 and also has some interesting numbers:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qayREUJe65w

 

So the top speed figures given in this clip (510 & 610 Km/h) tally with the table you posted but the climb time to 5 Km (about 7:30 min into the clip) is given as 6 min which is closer to my sim result and the German FW numbers. So even this A4 with extra weight and MGFF climbs better than the 6.8 min in the TSAGI climb compilation.

 

BTW: Any more info on the prop damage because I sure hope that is only the spinner we see wobbling around in the clip.....

[Dr_Molenbeek]

"The British determined that, with a takeoff weight of 3890 kilograms, the Fw 190A-3 reached a speed of 603 km/h at an altitude of 5500 meters and reached a speed of 627 km/h at 6000 meters when a 1-minute reheat was used. But, we needed to verify the Focke-Wulf tactical flight characteristics for ourselves. This opportunity arose on 16 January 1943, thanks to a synchronizer failure. Warrant Officer Helmut Brandt of I/JG54 shot off his propeller blades with a cannon round and he was unable to get his aircraft to his side of the front line. His airplane landed on the ice of Lake Ladoga and he tried to escape on skis, but was caught by Russian patrols. The captured fighter aircraft was urgently evacuated to the rear and then handed over to Engineer-Captain P. S. Onopriyenko, a lead engineer, for testing at the Air Forces Scientific Research Institute."

 

http://www.airpages.ru/eng/ru/fw190a.shtml

[Holtzauge]

"The British determined that, with a takeoff weight of 3890 kilograms, the Fw 190A-3 reached a speed of 603 km/h at an altitude of 5500 meters and reached a speed of 627 km/h at 6000 meters when a 1-minute reheat was used. But, we needed to verify the Focke-Wulf tactical flight characteristics for ourselves. This opportunity arose on 16 January 1943, thanks to a synchronizer failure. Warrant Officer Helmut Brandt of I/JG54 shot off his propeller blades with a cannon round and he was unable to get his aircraft to his side of the front line. His airplane landed on the ice of Lake Ladoga and he tried to escape on skis, but was caught by Russian patrols. The captured fighter aircraft was urgently evacuated to the rear and then handed over to Engineer-Captain P. S. Onopriyenko, a lead engineer, for testing at the Air Forces Scientific Research Institute."

 

http://www.airpages.ru/eng/ru/fw190a.shtml

OK, interesting info. One wonders where they got the prop from then? Another A4 or did they salvage  Brandts prop as well and refurbished it? Did Brandt belly land or land with gear out on the ice, i.e.  what was the state of the airframe and prop they got their hands on? Anyway interesting to see that even the Russian numbers are not aligned: They now have both a 6 min and a 6.8 min figure for climb with A4 with MGFF to 5 Km altitude.

 

BTW: You mentioned someone (Dooplet) who asked the devs about what Fw-190 data they used to determine the A3 performance. Any news on how that is coming along and do you have a link so we can keep tabs on it?

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Hello Han, good to see you online. You've stated the Fw190 in terms of climb performance is very close to your reference. We've been wondering what that reference is. Could you please name it so we can stop guessing?

 

Can answer after hollydays - after 11th Jan.

[Crump]

The Russian FW-190A4 was tested at a weight of 3989Kg (3978Kg = FW-190A3 Ladeplan with full wing weapons).  

 

The power settings used by the Soviets were:

 

1.32ata @ 2700U/min = Take Off and Emergency Rating

 

1.21ata @ 2400U/min = Nominal Rating.  This is was used as the climb power setting on all the tests.

 

This is why the Russian FW-190A4 performance corresponds to the FW-190Aa3 performance.  The engine power settings are the same.  The FW-109Aa3 climbs a little better because it is 140 Kg lighter in weight due to the wing root MG151's being replaced with MG17's.  The outboard MGFF's were optional loadouts on the FW-190A3, A4, and FW-190Aa3.

[303_Kwiatek]

Climb settings for A-3 was 1.32 Ata 2400 RPM not 1.21 Ata and emergency was 1.42 Ata 2700 RPMs

Edited January 6, 2016 by 303_Kwiatek

[Crump]

Climb settings for A-3 was 1.32 Ata 2400 RPM not 1.21 Ata and emergency was 1.42 Ata 2700 RPMs

 

 

Yes, I am just telling you what the Soviets used in their testing.

[Crump]

Do you guys have the Soviet Information and the conditions of the test?

[Crump]

 

 

The Russian FW-190A4 was tested at a weight of 3989Kg (3978Kg = FW-190A3 Ladeplan with full wing weapons).     The power settings used by the Soviets were:   1.32ata @ 2700U/min = Take Off and Emergency Rating   1.21ata @ 2400U/min = Nominal Rating.  This is was used as the climb power setting on all the tests.   This is why the Russian FW-190A4 performance corresponds to the FW-190Aa3 performance.  The engine power settings are the same.  The FW-109Aa3 climbs a little better because it is 140 Kg lighter in weight due to the wing root MG151's being replaced with MG17's.  The outboard MGFF's were optional loadouts on the FW-190A3, A4, and FW-190Aa3.

 

 

I did not post this to get silence.  Do you guys need the proof of this or is it common knowledge?

[Matt]

It's completely irrelevant. Unless the devs used that test for the performance of the 190 in BoS. And it's obvious enough, that they didn't do that. So i've no idea why people even bring that test up here or why you brought the Spitfire here. Only reason i can think of for the latter, would be to hijack a topic again, which seems to be a lifetime hobby of yours.

[Art]

Do you guys have the Soviet Information and the conditions of the test?

Yes I would like see it  because I want to make sure that my information is correct. Thanks And I hope that it will be repaired.

[Crump]

Yes I would like see it  because I want to make sure that my information is correct. Thanks And I hope that it will be repaired.

I will post the report including several VVS data sheets on the BMW801D2 that all list the power settings. I just started a 4 day and get home on the evening of the 12th.

 

I want to check some other resources but that history of the machine they tested has some interesting details.

 

 

It's completely irrelevant. Unless the devs used that test for the performance of the 190 in BoS. And it's obvious enough, that they didn't do that. So i've no idea why people even bring that test up here or why you brought the Spitfire here. Only reason i can think of for the latter, would be to hijack a topic again, which seems to be a lifetime hobby of yours.

You are free not to post or read. Why don't we try that option out?

 

It is really not irrelevant however. Simply put, F=Ma....

 

If the force and mass data point do not align with an FW-190....then you are not simulating an FW190.

 

No comment from you is required!

 

All the Best,

 

Crumpp

[MK_RED13]

 

Hello Han, good to see you online. You've stated the Fw190 in terms of climb performance is very close to your reference. We've been wondering what that reference is. Could you please name it so we can stop guessing?

 

Can answer after hollydays - after 11th Jan.

 

 

..... news? 

[Crump]

Here you go....

 

I think the Soviets never knew the BMW801D2 was in service.  They used and maintained the lower engine settings of the BMW801MA-2 bomber engine.

 

 

 

Detailed examination of a BMW 801 engine in the Soviet Union taken from a Do 217K-1 aircraft that had made a force landing helped in learning more about the Focke-Wulf fighter. A TsIAM team of engineers that B. A. Terekhov and Kh. M. Kuzyakhmetov led performed special tests on model A-2 engine Nr 30871 under laboratory conditions. The conclusions were as follows: the engine took the form of a carefully developed standard power plant for fighters and bombers. The main idea of the construction was to reduce drag to a minimum. For this, the German engineers made the piston stroke equal to the cylinder diameter, used a short connecting rod, and did away with external intake pipes. Supercharger air was taken from beneath the oil coolant situated inside the cowling.

 

 

 

TsIAM chief V. I. Polikovskiy deemed it necessary to point out the reliable work of the ceramic spark plugs that showed no signs of overheating. He recommended that German know-how be used in selecting the plugs for domestic M-82F engines. At the time, our specialists did not know that, beginning in 1941, Focke-Wulf fighters were fitted with the more powerful BMW 801D engine.

 

 

Any mechanic would instantly recognize that all the blades on this propeller have curled tips.  Once more, they are deeply curled down to the blades effective radius meaning this was a high energy impact.  The engine was turning at or near full power when the aircraft touched down.

 

That means this propeller/hub is not repairable and is scrap.  Assuming the prop shaft can even be turned by hand, the engine would require a complete teardown, mic/overhaul of the crankshaft, and complete overhaul/rebore of the engine case.  The bottom end would have to be completely overhauled to a minimum of serviable specifications.

 

If the propeller shaft could not be turned by hand, then the engine is scrap metal.

 

 

Most likely, the Soviets used the engine from the Do-217K or another suitable replacement and just replaced the entire engine/propeller.

 

The Russian FW-190A4 was tested at a weight of 3989Kg (3978Kg = FW-190A3 Ladeplan with full wing weapons).  

 

The power settings used by the Soviets were:

 

1.32ata @ 2700U/min = Take Off and Emergency Rating

 

1.21ata @ 2400U/min = Nominal Rating.  This is was used as the climb power setting on all the tests.

 

This is why the Russian FW-190A4 performance corresponds to the FW-190Aa3 performance.  The engine power settings are the same.  The FW-109Aa3 climbs a little better because it is 140 Kg lighter in weight due to the wing root MG151's being replaced with MG17's.  The outboard MGFF's were optional loadouts on the FW-190A3, A4, and FW-190Aa3.

[Crump]

 

 

The bottom end would have to be completely overhauled to a minimum of serviable specifications.

 

 

Should read:

 

The bottom end would have to be completely overhauled to a minimum of serviceable specifications.

[Art]

Thank you!
and Han still nothing ? 

[1stCL/Fucida]

Hi Crump, it's very nice to see you here

 

This is why the Russian FW-190A4 performance corresponds to the FW-190Aa3 performance.  The engine power settings are the same.  The FW-109Aa3 climbs a little better because it is 140 Kg lighter in weight due to the wing root MG151's being replaced with MG17's.  The outboard MGFF's were optional loadouts on the FW-190A3, A4, and FW-190Aa3.

 

Now I don't understand you. As you mentioned above/before, Fw 190 Aa-3 should have settings 1,32 @ 2700 @ 0 m? I know almost nothing about Aa-3 (except well known basics), but in this list it seems, that there should be normal BMW 801 D with 1,42 @ 2700 @ 0 m (and 1440 PS on second gear). Am I lost something?

 

Thank you very much for any explanation.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

The correct power settings for the Fw 190 A with BMW 801 D engine were the same as ingame:

 

Takeoff and emergency* 

(Start- und Notleistung)       1.42 ata    2700RPM   1730 PS @ 0.9km

 

Climb and combat**

(Steig- und Kampfleistung)  1.32 ata    2400 RPM  1520 PS @ 0.7km

 

max continues

(Höchstdauerleistung)          1.2 ata    2300 RPM  1370 PS @ 1.8km

 

*limited (3min)

**limited (30min)

 

Source: Fw190 A-2, A-3, A-4 Flugzeug Handbuch (Stand Oktober 1942)

Edited January 17, 2016 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[Dr_Molenbeek]

 

So far the only answer i got from devs this summer about this issue was: "As about cold weather boost, the issue can be in engine radiators conditions, means that bf109`s and others (mostly) had radiators shutters, which are more closed when cold weather, but FW190 doesnt had any of such (only later mods of 190A3 and as base from A4 - there was side shutters - for regulation of airflow from engine)."

 

No such problem in the old IL-2 1946 of course, not even in War Thunder... Does someone can explain to me how this issue could be related to the fact that the Fw 190A-3 has cooling gills, as devs claim it ?

Edited January 18, 2016 by Ze_Hairy