Whats your opinion on the new FW FM?

[MiloMorai]

That Soviet fighter maneuvers really good with only one aileron.

[JG13_opcode]

After spending over 50 hours online this past month or so, fighting against humans and reviewing many flight records - the handling disparity between the other fighters and the FW-190 is unacceptable.

 

You fly the FW on a razor's edge - any wrong or sudden movement and the aircraft wants to fall out of the sky. A unique branch of physics has been applied to the FW that can't be explained away by wing loading. It is currently playing by rules that don't apply to it's competitors.

What do you think about the tests conducted by the Allies that noted "the FW 190 had an exceptionally bad high speed stall tendency" in turning tests?

 

Specifically, a 1944 test noted that the aircraft would depart violently and without warning if the stick was pulled back too hard in a turn.

 

I'm very interested in your opinion on this finding.

Edited July 28, 2016 by 13GIAP_opcode

[mb339pan]

To be fair, you were missing your canopy which should slow down your plane a lot, you also got hit pretty badly so further speed was lost due to aerodynamic damage.

@1:18 560/570 km/h... look before you speak

 

time to uninstall this shit

 

7. Comments containing profanity, personal insults, accusations of cheating, excessive rudeness, vulgarity, drug propaganda, political and religious discussion and propaganda, all manifestations of Nazism and racist statements, calls to overthrow governments by force, inciting ethnic hatred, humiliation of persons of a particular gender, sexual orientation or religion are not allowed and will result in a ban.

 

Violations of this rule will result in the following:

Second offense - 7 days of the ban on entry

 

19. Systematic message spam on the forum, unfounded negative comments about the game, derogatory comparison of the game with other products without pointing out specific flaws, constant distraction of forum administration and developers by repetitive complaints about false problems are prohibited.

 

Violations of this rule will result in the following:

First offense - 7 days ban on entry

Edited July 29, 2016 by BlackSix

[MK_RED13]

 

Muheheheheehehe.. MELDONIUM boost for YAK1.. jesus..roll rate at 650km/h with one alerion off is fantastic? How is possible? Mr. Yakovlev you are the best of the best from all aircraft designer!!!! Why he started using metal in later versions of Yaks??? 

[Willy__]

Muheheheheehehe.. MELDONIUM boost for YAK1.. jesus..roll rate at 650km/h with one alerion off is fantastic? How is possible? Mr. Yakovlev you are the best of the best from all aircraft designer!!!! Why he started using metal in later versions of Yaks???

 

Weight reduction comrade! No need for two aileron. Just one is enough to match the roll rate of a 190...    

 

 

 

 

   

Edited July 28, 2016 by Herr_Istruba

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Not sure what this video is supposed to proof but it probably it's not what you think it is.

Edited July 28, 2016 by 6./ZG26_5tuka

[MK_RED13]

Pssst.. 5tuka.. I know.. Yak is not Yak.. it is UFO!!!.. but psssssst.. it is the secret!       

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

What do you think about the tests conducted by the Allies that noted "the FW 190 had an exceptionally bad high speed stall tendency" in turning tests?

 

Specifically, a 1944 test noted that the aircraft would depart violently and without warning if the stick was pulled back too hard in a turn.

 

I'm very interested in your opinion on this finding.

 

 

I´m actually very interested in another thing. Do you even own the FW 190? Did you ever fly it in BOS and do you even know what people are talking about when they talk about it´s stall charakteristics?

 

What experience is your input based on?

[JG13_opcode]

I´m actually very interested in another thing. Do you even own the FW 190? Did you ever fly it in BOS and do you even know what people are talking about when they talk about it´s stall charakteristics?

 

What experience is your input based on?

 

I have all the BOS aircraft and flew Axis exclusively for many years before this sim came out.  I switched to Allied because when this sim was new I regularly saw 15 Axis vs 2 or 3 Allies online.  Don't let the "13 GIAP" in my handle throw you off.  I am not interested in seeing the Axis aircraft neutered to further my own success online.

 

Moving on from this obvious attempt to make me appear biased:

 

Capt Eric Brown, a famed British pilot, also noted the Fw 190A-4's harsh stall characteristics.  Specifically the wing dropped so abruptly that the aircraft nearly inverted itself.

 

On page 94 of Luftwaffe Fighter Aces, there is the following quote from Capt Brown:

 

"... if the German fighter was pulled into a g stall in a right turn, it would flick out into the opposite bank and an incipient spin was the inevitable outcome if the pilot did not have its wits about him."

Edited July 28, 2016 by 13GIAP_opcode

[CUJO_1970]

What do you think about the tests conducted by the Allies that noted "the FW 190 had an exceptionally bad high speed stall tendency" in turning tests?

Specifically, a 1944 test noted that the aircraft would depart violently and without warning if the stick was pulled back too hard in a turn.

I'm very interested in your opinion on this finding.

Yes, it is historic and should be modeled properly - for example old IL2 sim modeled this stall and recovery quite well. Can you also tell about the recovery characteristics following the stall in these tests? How does it compare with recovery from the stall in this sim?

 

But, the fact that you even asked this question seems to indicate you don't understand the problems everyone has with the current FW-190 flight model.

 

Nobody is asking for it to be modeled without departure. No one has ever requested that.

[CUJO_1970]

The Yak video is typical online experience. Even that is damaged yak-1 no less.

 

I can't imagine what yak-3 or yak-9U will be capable of if this is what yak-1 is doing.

Edited July 28, 2016 by CUJO1970

[JG13_opcode]

Can you also tell about the recovery characteristics following the stall in these tests?

 

 

I recall reading that it often required significant altitude to recover but I don't have any specifics about the recovery.

 

But, the fact that you even asked this question seems to indicate you don't understand the problems everyone has with the current FW-190 flight model. Nobody is asking for it to be modeled without departure. No one has ever requested that.

You're right.  I don't understand because you can easily go on youtube and see videos of Mr X getting 5+ kills in one sortie on a regular basis flying the 190 online.  I've had some good flights in it as well.

 

Everyone seems to be asking for the Fw 190 to be a docile, tame aircraft when in reality that was not necessarily the case.

 

I actually think the 190 is one of the better-modeled aircraft we have. It's just the others that are quite optimistically-modeled. See for example the issue with flaps.

 

The Yak video is typical online experience. Even that is damaged yak-1b no less.

 

I can't imagine what yak-3 or yak-9U will be capable of if this is what yak-1b is doing.

I'm quite certain we don't have the Yak 1b in game yet.

[CUJO_1970]

Also don't see any yak-1 pilots complaining about rolling and diving with FW-190 at 350 mph, even with damaged wing missing entire aileron blown off as shown in this track. Video doesn't lie.

 

Instead they ask for better airplanes to fight the Luftwaffe in general discussion thread.

Edited July 28, 2016 by CUJO1970

[JG13_opcode]

Also don't see any yak-1b pilots complaining about rolling and diving with FW-190 at 350 mph, even with damaged wing missing entire aileron blown off as shown in this track. Video doesn't lie.

We don't have the yak-1b in game.

 

Instead they ask for better airplanes to fight the Luftwaffe in general discussion thread.

Some do, some don't. I fly the yak 1 and you'll find me in that thread arguing that the yak has a great chance online. Do you always make generalizations about people based on the aircraft that they fly in a video game?

 

You don't even know which aircraft we have in game, why am I wasting my time arguing?

[CUJO_1970]

 I'm quite certain we don't have the Yak 1b in game yet.

Oops you are correct - should have said Yak-1 - I went back and changed it.

[CUJO_1970]

I don't understand because you can easily go on youtube and see videos of Mr X getting 5+ kills in one sortie on a regular basis flying the 190 online.

Irrelevant to flight model. I have #8 k/d ratio out of 400 pilots on 1CGS DED server while flying only FW-190 and I'm not even a good pilot.

 

Has nothing to do with FM.

[JG13_opcode]

Has nothing to do with FM.

So you're just arguing for the sake of it in an FM thread?

 

OK, I'm done. Have a great evening.

[CUJO_1970]

Everyone seems to be asking for the Fw 190 to be a docile, tame aircraft when in reality that was not necessarily the case.

Ive not seen anyone make this request, for the FW to be docile or tame.

So you're just arguing for the sake of it in an FM thread?OK, I'm done. Have a great evening.

I'm not arguing about anything.

 

When I say it has nothing to do with FM, it means success online has nothing to do how the plane is modeled in the sim.

 

It's not that hard to understand really.

[Willy__]

 

 

You're right.  I don't understand because you can easily go on youtube and see videos of Mr X getting 5+ kills in one sortie on a regular basis flying the 190 online.  I've had some good flights in it as well.

 

You do know that those videos were from some time ago, BEFORE they introduced some FM revision on the 190, right ? The plane was fine some patches ago until someone appeared with some borked data from a borked windtunnel test. Since then the 190 is garbage.

 

Any argument that uses those videos as proof should not be taken in consideration, it does not reproduce what we have in game in the current patch.

[JtD]

A good pilot can get a large number of kills per sortie or a good K/D in any plane. A good pilot doesn't fix a broken flight model, though.

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

 

I have all the BOS aircraft

 

I have no doubt

 

 

 

I switched to Allied

 

Exactly!!

 

 

"Moving on from this obvious attempt to make me appear biased..."

 

 

There is a difference between being biased and not knowing what you are talking about. I refer to the latter.

 

 

Speaking of biased... I salute you for the enthusiasm with which you participate in a discussion about an aircraft you have not flown in a year!

Edited July 29, 2016 by SchwarzeDreizehn

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Axis side has so terrible airplanes, but why in mp servers VVS are outnumbered 2:1 at least. Look at MIG3 and P40 how those airplanes are modeled, one could say they uselles - that for allegations for VVS uber planes. For this FW190 i would like to be as historical accurate as possible in this game.

[Dr_Molem]

You're right.  I don't understand because you can easily go on youtube and see videos of Mr X getting 5+ kills in one sortie on a regular basis flying the 190 online.  I've had some good flights in it as well.

 

The last video of Mr.X where he flies the FW-190 was 1 month before the FM "update".

 

You've just showed that you have no idea what people are talking about here, in fact it seems like you just want to play the FM defender, the 1CGS's sword.

[ZachariasX]

On page 94 of Luftwaffe Fighter Aces, there is the following quote from Capt Brown: "... if the German fighter was pulled into a g stall in a right turn, it would flick out into the opposite bank and an incipient spin was the inevitable outcome if the pilot did not have its wits about him."

 

 

Ah... the all recurring argument of discussion past. A sentence taken completely out of context. The very same Eric Brown also said that in order to get there you need not only full pull on the stick, but also full back trim. This is NOT what we have in the game. It is also happening at slow "fast" speeds, like 350 km/h where you can actually exceed wing lift with increasing g force in a turn.

 

In game, the 190 is about the most difficult plane to fly and not having any special advantage, except for the guns, whereas in reality, the 190 cetrainly didn't have the reputation of being like this.

 

But be it. If 777 want it like that, then bei it. having the desired performance enveloppe of the 190 published would help this discussion. But maybe the devs consider this as trade secret. Too bad.

[JG13_opcode]

 

The last video of Mr.X where he flies the FW-190 was 1 month before the FM "update".

Hmmm, I'll have to check it out again, then.

 

You've just showed that you have no idea what people are talking about here, in fact it seems like you just want to play the FM defender, the 1CGS's sword.

lol you obviously have not checked my post history.

[CUJO_1970]

Axis side has so terrible airplanes.

I would have to disagree here - I don't fly the 109 online, but I see 109F-4 and G-2 are fairly dominant on 1CGS Normal server.

 

I would consider either of these planes to be almost child's play compared to flying the FW-190.

[DD_Arthur]

 

 having the desired performance enveloppe of the 190 published would help this discussion. But maybe the devs consider this as trade secret. Too bad.

 

The information you seek is contained in Dev diary 123.  

[ZachariasX]

The information you seek is contained in Dev diary 123.  

 

This is some info, but not really what I was talking about. Stated absolute speeds do not much reflect how the plane is supposed to hanlde.

[Gump]

Ah... the all recurring argument of discussion past. A sentence taken completely out of context. The very same Eric Brown also said that in order to get there you need not only full pull on the stick, but also full back trim. This is NOT what we have in the game. It is also happening at slow "fast" speeds, like 350 km/h where you can actually exceed wing lift with increasing g force in a turn.

 

In game, the 190 is about the most difficult plane to fly and not having any special advantage, except for the guns, whereas in reality, the 190 cetrainly didn't have the reputation of being like this.

....

.

from all the quotes i've seen here, the instance of eric brown's comment does not say that the stall happened early or before expected. in other words, it sounds like mr brown may have been emphasizing WHAT HAPPENS WHEN IT STALLS, and needed to force it into a stall to do that. this does not mean the stall was easy to get to or limited good maneuver/turn capability (before the stall attitude). if mr. brown found that the stall was easily avoided during regular, but capable, maneuvers, then he would be in agreement with the rest of the WW2 pilots (allied and axis) that described the 190 as a very capable and dangerous low/mid alt dogfighter.

actually, the 190 was known to have some kind of characteristic stall, and mr brown may have been searching for all the places to find it, as well as what it behaved like, and recovery techniques.

Edited July 29, 2016 by Gump

[ZachariasX]

.

from all the quotes i've seen here, the instance of eric brown's comment does not say that the stall happened early or before expected. in other words, it sounds like mr brown may have been emphasizing WHAT HAPPENS WHEN IT STALLS, and needed to force it into a stall to do that. this does not mean the stall was easy to get to or limited good maneuver/turn capability (before the stall attitude). if mr. brown found that the stall was easily avoided during regular, but capable, maneuvers, then he would be in agreement with the rest of the WW2 pilots (allied and axis) that described the 190 as a very capable and dangerous low/mid alt dogfighter.

actually, the 190 was known to have some kind of characteristic stall, and mr brown may have been searching for all the places to find it, as well as what it behaved like, and recovery techniques.

Reading through the entire reports of Eric Brown, that is exactly what I would think he meant. He reports a sudden, drastic stall once you abuse the plane enough to get there. Other than that, it is reported as a plane that makes it easy to take it to the limit, because it flys rather well.

 

He also mentioned that he considered the plane to be a difficult one to fully exploit in combat, as it doesn't have the tight turning circle at lower speeds as many of the contemporary fighter planes have, such as the Yak or the Spit as well as a comparably slow horizontal accelleration. Both being qualities that help a great deal in a furball down low. No wonder the 109 was considered more dangerous by the Russians. But if you know what you are doing and you could exploit the agility, you have a great plane. He even listed the D9 as one of his all time favorite rides. And this *because it flew well*.

 

The agility (of the A and D series) he found outstanding. Accelleration in a dive were also found to be very good. I hardly know of any account where a 190 was caught when diving away. In game, it will not help. We have a plane that is not significantly more agile than competition either.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Honestly, my only complaint is in the stall characteristics. If they reverted to the previous stall I'd be happy and let you guys argue the minutiae til you were blue.

 

Some of the claims here are, uh, a little far afield. She is an exceptionally heavy fighter for her size and must be flown accordingly. While there are some distinct problems and she must be flown within a narrow flight envelope, she is not the brick some would portray in these forums and elsewhere.

[ZachariasX]

 

 

HerrMurf' timestamp='1469884264' post='373750'] Honestly, my only complaint is in the stall characteristics. If they reverted to the previous stall I'd be happy and let you guys argue the minutiae til you were blue.

 

Well, that is to what most of it comes down to.

 

As for heavy, the Fw-190 has about the same (like 5% more) wing loading (while being lighter) as the F8F Bearcat. And that one was the plane where Eric Brown said "he blacked out most" because it so starightforward for aerobatics. So, no, the 190 is not likely to be "so delicate, just because it is heavy". Same with the Sea Fury.

 

It seems, modelling the 190 propperly is about as challenging as getting a Dr.I correct FM whise. So, we have to live with that.

[Crump]

There is no need to argue about the stall characteristics of the aircraft.  These polars show exactly what 1G the stall is like....

 

Propeller and No Propeller...

 

 

 

 

The polar below is the most useful as it tells us the exact drag measurements.  It list's the power required to achieve the polar defining that fixed and direct relationship of Drag to Lift.  I already did all the math for your community.  They did not understand the physical relationships and blew it off as something swirling around in the ether (definition: clear sky; upper regions of the air beyond the clouds).  Your game models the wing characteristics of an FW-190 flying at an Reynolds Number that equals ~30mph airspeed at sea level....far slower than the airplane can even fly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why do engineers measure propeller and no propeller?  It is determine the DRAG of the aircraft so you can determine the DRAG of components such as wing racks.

 

 

 

 

Back to the stall...

 

The portion of the polar from CLmax to point the wing no longer produces ANY lift shows a very gradual change in coefficient of lift.  

 

All of those polars show a very gentle 1G stall.  Why?  It is the entire wing design.  The FW-190 wing used a different airfoil (NACA 20009) and geometric twist to ensure the inboard portion of the wing always stalled first. 

 

A harsh stall polar looks like this:

 

 

Notice the sharp drop after CLmax.  The wing instantly loses the ability to create any lift all at once.  Very sharp and harsh stall.

 

Notice the dependence of Reynolds Number and CLmax for the stall.  Your FW-190 wing in BoS has the characteristics of an NACA 230015.3 airfoil traveling at about ~30 mph....

 

If you know some industry standard aircraft performance math....you can easily figure that one out based on the power input required to achieve the point Thrust = Drag as listed in the polar.

 

The accelerated stall characteristics are normal but under asymetrical loadings, aeroelasticity can remove the aerodynamic twisting of the wing resulting in a that famous "harsh" accelerated stall.  

 

[F/JG300_Gruber]

Aside from the fact that she bleeds a lot of speed when stalling, I still have a few things that puzzle me.

 

Reading Eric Brown's report, he flew a 190 A4/U8, without the bomb racks and without outer wing MG/FF. So if I'm not mistaken, that's basically the A3 we have in game (D2 engine, minus the GM1 tank for boost).

He said : "The stalling speed of the Fw190 A4 in clean configuration was 204km/h and the stall came suddenly and virtually without warning, the port wing dropping so violently that the aircraft almost inverted itself."

His report was from a flight in february 1944.

 

If I try to replicate this particular behaviour, let's say that it was on a good warm february afternoon with 12°C on the ground.

100% fuel, with MG/FF still mounted (might simulate the slightly heavier A4 Brown flew), so the situation may probably be less favourable than during the real test. 

At 3500m (outcome is the same at 500m anyway), I'm stalling the plane at 190km/h (182 without the MG/FF) 

The stall is not sudden nor especially violent, buffeting happens under 220km/h and the plane effectively drop the port wing noticeably but without flipping on it's back. 

 

So from this it looks like at low speed, the behaviour of the plane may be even better than the real one, with a lower stall speed and slightly milder stall characteristics. 

 

From what I've read here, since the new FM corrected the climb rate of the 190 (not in the optimistic way, but at least matching some of the flight test), roll rate is almost spot-on, etc... could it be possible that we got a pretty good representation of the 190 in game, (with a bit more forgiving stalls) and that just the others planes are all overperforming in some of their characteristics ? (roll rate for Lavotchkins and 109, speed for yak 1 and so on) making the 190 look like a crappy airplane whereas it is not ?

 

The shortcomings that may remains so far could be it's acceleration in a dive (I don't have any number on that), and the leafing problems when attempting stall based manoeuvers, which imho may also well be related to the excessive yaw induced roll for all planes devs have already acknowledged and will look upon in the next few patches.

 

 

Just some thoughts of mine. 

Edited July 30, 2016 by F/JG300_Gruber

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Well, that is to what most of it comes down to.

 

As for heavy, the Fw-190 has about the same (like 5% more) wing loading (while being lighter) as the F8F Bearcat. And that one was the plane where Eric Brown said "he blacked out most" because it so starightforward for aerobatics. So, no, the 190 is not likely to be "so delicate, just because it is heavy". Same with the Sea Fury.

 

It seems, modelling the 190 propperly is about as challenging as getting a Dr.I correct FM whise. So, we have to live with that.

 

Which doesn't change much. Planform and camber will affect stall as well. I wouldn't expect both aircraft to stall similarly based upon a number of factors other than just weight. Compared to everything else in game, thus far, she is heavy which accounts for some of the constant complaints about her. But that's minutiae again. I think we are in agreement overall. Fix the stall and we have an acceptable AC, all other factors being unmolested.

Edited July 30, 2016 by [LBS]HerrMurf

[Gump]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=11&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjC2u-Sj5zOAhVE6mMKHWw2BfIQtwIITTAK&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DR0YLLBvIBFk&usg=AFQjCNEe8yR_ELLKI_MbzWg93A0W0lJ6Jw

.

this isn't eric brown, but i'd say he is somewhat credible.

Edited July 30, 2016 by Gump

[Crump]

 

 

As for heavy, the Fw-190 has about the same (like 5% more) wing loading (while being lighter) as the F8F Bearcat. And that one was the plane where Eric Brown said "he blacked out most" because it so starightforward for aerobatics. So, no, the 190 is not likely to be "so delicate, just because it is heavy". Same with the Sea Fury.

 

The FW-190 had relatively light stick forces for a fighter of it's day.  This meant a pilot could rapidly change the angle of attack as he did not have the resistance he may have been used too feeling.

 

I think the biggest issue is how your game handles induced angle of attack and the aircraft's CLmax is based on an impaired polar that was not determining the aircraft's CLmax but rather the drag and lift relationships.

 

What I mean by the induced angle of attack is heavy aircraft achieve high body angles at the stall point.  It is the physics of having higher energy wing vortex's.  In reality airfoils like the ClarK Y which always stalls at a lower angle of attack than the NACA 230015 or NACA 23009 at the same Reynolds Number.

 

That was brought to light in this thread but never discussed.  I think the folks just did not catch the significance.

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/21001-fw-190/?p=344968

 

In your game, light aircraft manage to achieve a higher body angle at the stall than heavy aircraft.  Some quick testing would easily prove that.

 

Load up an aircraft with full fuel and ammunition vs an aircraft with minimum fuel and record the stall body angle.  The heavier aircraft should be able to achieve a higher body angle.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Sure but the stall was acceptable and historically relevant in the last iteration. It is less about the X/Y graphs and more about the 1001001 data entry at this point.

[ZachariasX]

Sure but the stall was acceptable and historically relevant in the last iteration. It is less about the X/Y graphs and more about the 1001001 data entry at this point.

 

This is my guess as well. I mean, the game has to have some general way to process aerodynamic data to come up with given flight characteristics. As computing power is a scarce commodity, you have to make good guesses rather than precise calculations that would require a good number of mainframes. Now if the general way of good guessing gives rather nice results for most aircrafts that we have in the game, it does not necessarily so with an "outliner" such as the 190.

 

Not being able to cross-check with real aircraft flight data (given what we pay for this sim) leaves one in a spot. What you can do is fit the performance figures to hard data such as top speed and climb etc., something that was nicely addressed in one of the last patches. In that sense "we probably got what is reasonable to do" within the limits of the digital nature engine.

 

It is just too bad that this "outliner" is one of the two most important German planes. It is the one, that if the Germans had to choose between the two, they would have picked the Fw-190 as only piston powered fighter. Here, most would rather opt for the I-16 if they had to choose between the 190 and the I-16.

 

I think a good meter to judge how good a plane is modelled is in looking at how people are using a specific plane. Looking at this, it seems to me that, flaps or not, many things are done right, but what works for most planes doesn't really work for the 190.

 

This is why I was asking for more data to see where and how much the computed FM values depart or match published data. On the other hand, given coding hours are a limited resource as well, I am happy to get a flyable Ju-52 as well as the Yak-1b. This is more rewarding for the devs (as ANY change to the 190 will perpetuate this thread). And I do consider the flyable Ju-52 as a big gesture from the devs, as I am not sure how many players would buy and use that one despite several guys in here being very vocal about being happy about it.

[Crump]

 

 

he game has to have some general way to process aerodynamic data to come up with given flight characteristics.

 

It depends on the theory.  Many of these home flight sims use lifting line theory.  That is aircraft behavior theory and not aircraft performance theory.  Lifting line is great for determining what the aircraft will do inflight inside the envelope.  It does not and cannot determine the edges of that envelope.  That is a completely different set of math problems and all the edges of that envelope have to be found empirically.