Whats your opinion on the new FW FM?

April 23, 2016

I don't think there is very much more to add: Zacharias, Gump and Grancesc you nailed it. Agree a 100% guys!

April 23, 2016

It's even worse when you know that they never check the FM section of the English forum.

Some will say "it's normal there's only whining here" but the Russian forum is the same if not worse, and still you can see devs who often post there.

I guess checking the FM section, seing all these issues can make you sick, better staying away and think "everything is ok, only emotions".

April 23, 2016

Mostly the FM section is filled with personal wars that have raged for years over many forums, insults, wild claims of bias, sprinkled with rare moments of clarity...

It is not really surprising that as a method of conveying information it is largely ignored

Cheers Dakpilot

April 23, 2016

It's even worse when you know that they never check the FM section of the English forum.

Some will say "it's normal there's only whining here" but the Russian forum is the same if not worse, and still you can see devs who often post there.

I guess checking the FM section, seing all these issues can make you sick, better staying away and think "everything is ok, only emotions".

I must admit, personally, I learned a lot about all these planes given the data presented in these threads... The only thing that really gets me is how easy it seems (to me) to make things right. There might be some discrepancy in how any flight sim engine computes aerodynamics, but having all the expected outcome parameters at hands, it shouldn't be that hard to make things plausible.

There is the example where Chill31 invested a couple of days in the neoqb Fokker Dr.I they gave away for FSX. That Dr.I was basically an exact copy of the "pre-patched" Dr.I of "Rise of Flight" and he set it according to his flying Dr.I replica (I'm jealous, yes). Using his *.air file in old FSX, suddenly you have a Dr.I with documented airspeed, yet without the ability to move like a Tie-Fighter. A plausible plane, the only plausible Dr.I modelled for a flight sim that I've come across in the last 20 years of flight sims. thus, it is possible if you want it.

Han saying "all fine" is especially bad as he puts himself in a spot should he decide that the 190 gets done right. ("640k ought to be enough for anyone?") And here is no reason to claim this. It is even perfectly ok to not be 100% accurate for the planes we have given what we pay. Plausible will do. generally, what they deliver for the money I find just awesome. "Aces over the Pacific" featured a P-51 without gun convergence and laser guns. Impossible to hit aircraft from behind. I could go on and on with things like that. For games that set me back like twice the price of what we are paying now (but we got these nicely printed books that last longer than the sim). Thank God these times are over.

I wouldn't want Han to make the planes according to any someones wishes, but only to his own. If the stuff we get is his responsibility, then for sure it is his call. But I would expect him to be very open what his idea is. I'm sure it would be even more helpful than the disclosing of some polars.

Z

Edited April 23, 2016 by ZachariasX

April 23, 2016

IMHO, speaking from a non-technical POV, it was mentioned before that the "community", including many that are voicing opinions, consists of experienced and educated pilots (of various sorts). in other words, notable discussion (as is evident regarding the new 190 FM) by such a community is not something that should be dismissed lightly. statistically, odds are that such discourse among such community is revealing something that deserves attention. it requires no technical consideration to deduce this. the odds against this widely voiced strong dissatisfaction about something by such a community being merely "emotional" are large.

actually, this community's opinion, given its construction, is a very large asset to any team/person attempting such an endeavour. it should, therefore, be considered valuable and considered carefully.

That would be true if the community was perfect. It isn't.

April 23, 2016

Want to fly a FW 190 that performs and handles plausible?

Go DCS World. Simple as that.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Irgendjemand

April 24, 2016

DCS Fw-190 is different version. His FM is disputable especially when Dora taking off (for example). IMO Fw from BoS is more believable. If dev team correcting the current FM of Wurger according to Crump incentives - it will be a great fighter.

Edited April 24, 2016 by I./JG1_Baron

April 24, 2016

Han has laid down the guidelines for how changes will be made if evidence is provided.

Clearly the knowhow and experience to do this is present, it just needs someone to pick up the ball. Until then, this will just be another FM complaints thread, not a solutions thread.

April 24, 2016

Here is an early Focke Wulf FW-190 pitot static system Position Error Curve. Focke Wulf constructed this one off only three data points so it is not as accurate as the USAAF one built for EB-104.

However, the trend is in good agreement. The Airspeed indicator shows a faster airspeed the slower the airplane goes than the airplane is actually traveling.

The only way the Cl max of 1.58 represents the 165kph or 105 mph IAS stall point is if we pretend there is no such thing as a Position Error Correction or Compressibility.

I would give you the entire report but I can't seem to attach any documents.

From a PM:

The report has been submitted. The 1CGS FM engineer actually showed up in the thread. No response but I expect it will take him some time to sift thru the documents and calculations.

The end logic is undeniable. None of the Allied or German data disagrees on the 1G stall speed for the FW-190. The games speeds do not consider Position Error or Compressibility. If the game does not consider Position Error and Compressibility Error, then it will introduce large errors in relative performance.

If they do not change it then, there is a problem with the games engine and they cannot fix it. In that case they will probably ban me and call it correct, LOL.

April 24, 2016

Getting back to the lift coefficient or stall speed issue. I've taken the time for some simple yet laboursome testing and evaluation. Imho, it is very important that in game data is matched to each other, that they follow the same philosophy - same testing procedures, same corrections applied. This is already an issue with performance figures, but even more so with aerodynamic data, which comes from a multitude of sources that differ greatly.

So, going with relative, what I have done is a comparison between the Yak-1 and the Fw190. I've also looked up the aerodynamic data from their airfoils (Yak-1: ClarkYH, Fw190: NACA23000 series), which unfortunately I did not find in exactly the same source tested under same conditions and with same corrections applied. I did however find plenty of data for the ClarkY airfoil compared to the NACA 23012 airfoil and data for the ClarkY and the ClarkYH compared. Theses cannot be directly compared to what I got from the aircraft, but they show relative performance fairly well.

Now, much of the airfoil behaviour depends on the Reynolds number (RN). At the stall speeds, the RN for the Yak-1 is approximately 5.5, for the Fw190 approximately 6.5, owing to the higher speed. With the ClarkY, ClarkYH and NACA23012 clmax increases as the RN goes up.

At any rate, what the data showed is that clmax at the RN in question is NACA23012 > ClarkY > ClarkYH. They are close, but that's the trend. I've added the clmax given in NACA report 530 for RN4.500.000 of the NACA23012 and ClarkY. Mind you, there are errors and uncertainties attached to these figures, but the trend of NACA23012 having the higher value is triple conservative. One - RN of the FW at stall is higher than of the Yak-1, giving it a higher clmax increase, two - the higher the RN gets the bigger the advantage of the 23012 anyway and three - the ClarkY has a higher clmax than the ClarkYH. The figures are 1.5 for the 23012 and 1.465 for the ClarkY.

Below the chart from my testing. It shows is clmax for the Fw190 of 1.25 and for the Yak-1 of 1.39. Tested in level flight, idle throttle, minimum rpm, corrected for altitude loss (reduced g load). These figures certainly aren't 100% spot on, but since the method was the same, the relative performance should again be very well matched.

The Yak-1 reaches 95% of the reference clmax. The Fw190 reaches 83% of the reference clmax. In my opinion (taking conservatism of figures and some other things not discussed into account), the Yak-1 is where it is supposed to be, whereas the Fw190 falls 15% short of what can be expected.

This is going to be a bit long winded and some of you already understand all this but please bear with me because while I think it’s obvious that the BoS Fw-190 A3 in its current rendition is not living up to it’s potential while the Yak looks more optimistically modelled, from the replies here it looks like it would be good to do some background to why I’m saying what I’m saying about the Fw-190. Now that does not mean that I’m saying that the Yak is too optimistically modelled, it just means that for some reason the Fw-190 is not modelled as close to it’s potential as the Yak is. So as JtD is saying, their relative performance seems to be off. Now that gets you wondering about the state of the other fighters in BoS like the Me-109, La-5 and LaGG etc and if they are off in a similar fashion but that is another story……

So looking at the results of JtD’s tests , it looks like the Yak is much closer to the two-dimensional (2-D) Clmax values, i.e. those that are measured in a wind tunnel between walls where there is no leakage and the wind tunnel walls mirror the lift distribution of the finite wing in the wind tunnel meaning the results are valid for a wing of infinite span. This means we cannot take those values and expect a complete aircraft to have the same Clmax. When you measure in a wind tunnel there are all sorts of corrections you need to do due to blockage and mirroring effects etc but we don’t need to go into this because we have NACA data which means that the values should be applicable to an infinite wing in an inifinte space, i.e. in free flight conditions. So we have now established that we have wing profile data for the two aircraft which are comparable but which we cannot directly translate into a BoS Fw-190 and Yak comparison.

Before we leave the 2-D comparison, it should be noted that the Clark-YH on the Yak is old (based on Göttingen 398) and not optimized for aerodynamics but for production: Why? Well the underside is flat (apart from trailing edge reflex) which makes it easier in production to align it etc. so already here we have an aerodynamic compromize. Now the NACA 230 profile used on the Fw-190 OTOH was the result of painstaking experimental research in the for its time very advanced NACA variable density wind tunnel by the respected NACA researcher Eastman Jacobs who tried multiples of tens if not a hundreds of different wing profiles but found that especially one shined which was the NACA 230 series. These combined both a low Dcm/dCl, i.e. pitching moment change with changing lift with the capacity to provide a high Clmax both with and without flaps. The secret behind this was that they had what is called a forward loading in that there is a slight camber droop at the leading edge which means that they have a little bit of a built in leading edge flap down tilt if you will. To sum it up: the NACA230 series was an aerodynamicist wet dream and represented the very pinnacle of profile design at the time. This is also why it became so popular and if you google a bit you will see that lots of planes used it, even after the war.

Now what sort of Clmax can we then expect from a finite wing such as on the Yak or Fw-190? Let’s call this the 3-D Clmax. Well to begin with, the 2-D Clmax obviously needs to be adjusted. Now to begin with we need to remember that the Clmax is a dimensionless figure derived from dividing the actual wing lift with the dynamic pressure multiplied with a reference area. Now this is where it gets tricky because it’s obvious that the dimensionless value Clamx value will be affected by the reference area you choose. Usually, the reference area is the projected area looking at the aircraft from above and joining the outline of the wing trailing and leading edges into the fuselage. So this is now our reference area that we use to derive the Clmax. However, it’s obvious that the area inside the fuselage is not contributing as much lift as the wing itself and in addition, where the wing joins the fuselage there is much interference so it’s not just the area inside the wing that is not contributing that much but also the part of the wing closest to the fuselage. In addition, the wing span is not infinite so we have leakage from the high pressure area under the wing to the low pressure area on the top of the wing at the tip which also detracts from the effective wing area. On top of this there are a couple of other aspects: The first is that the wing thickness ratio is not constant: the Fw-190 root has a thickness ratio of a bit over 15% which the tip 9% which means that the theoretical Clmax of the tip is lower than for the root. In addition, the wing has a built in twist, in case of the Fw-190 a 2 degree washout meaning that the tip has a lower angle of attack than the root. So all these things combined means that the actual lifting wing area is lower than the reference are and consequently detracts from the 2-D theoretical value which is also what we see in JtD’s figure. Now here is the crunch: why is the Yak so much more closer to the theoretical value than the Fw-190? Why does that Yak reach 95% of the 2-D value but the Fw-190 only 83%? In addition, the NACA 230 can even manage up to 1.68 in Clmax IIRC correct so the Fw-190 may be even more conservatively modelled than what the figure shows.

Really, I could just have posted that from JtD’s results it is obvious that there are different standards being applied to the Fw-190 and the Yak in BoS since one is much closer to the theoretical 2-D values than the other but I don’t think that would have hit home, especially seeing there are some individuals in this forum that have made it into an art to misrepresent the point being made because they seem to have an agenda rather than trying to set things right and I’m sure that the devs understand this as well by now, at least the ones who work with the FM.

So to sum it up: there are JtD’s measurements and there is theoretical data to support that the current Clmax of the Fw-190A3 we have in BoS is too low and in addition we have another maker of Fw-190 FM who seems to be of the same opinion. I have said it before and I will say it again: Either Il-2 BoS or DCS have got this right. It’s as simple as that. From the above it’s pretty obvious what I think but you can draw your own conclusions. I don’t think I can state my case much better than that. Again, I really hope the devs look into this. I really like Il-2 BoS and BoM. It’s a great WW2 flight sim and in some areas it is way better than the competition but please fix the Fw-190 A3…….

JtD's figure from post #291 since I did not manage to include it in quote:

April 24, 2016

Simple math will tell you it is too low.

The game is not accounting for Position Error in the relative performance.

Anyway...good luck!

April 24, 2016

...long post...

I doubt there'll more than like three folks on this board reading this post, but thanks for posting anyway.

April 24, 2016

I doubt there'll more than like three folks on this board reading this post, but thanks for posting anyway.

As long as they are the right people as in those that can get things done then that will be OK if you get my drift.

April 24, 2016

hat there are different standards being applied to the Fw-190 and the Yak in BoS since one is much closer to the theoretical 2-D values

The induced angle of attack is not being treated correctly.

A lower wing loaded aircraft will stall at a shallower BODY angle of attack. It is not producing at much induced drag as therefore has a smaller force vector increasing the angle the attack.

If you ever fly a high wing loaded aircraft, the high body angle of attack will be very noticeable at the edge of the stall.

Effective angle of attack is the 2D airfoil data and is also called the infinite airfoil data. Aerodynamic convention says use the root wing airfoil characteristics as the wingtip airfoil is simply there to improve stall characteristics. It does not do the heavy lifting, only keep the stall from becoming dangerous, violent, and uncontrollable.

This the 2D data or infinite wing data for the FW-190:

Root:

Tip:

Simple math

Rearranging:

The fact your lower wing loaded aircraft (Yak) has a higher body angle using an airfoil that has a lower 2D (infinite) Clmax at the stall than the much higher wing loaded aircraft (FW-190) makes it appear the 3D wing (finite) is not being handled correctly in the FM.

Here is the Clark Y at 6.0 Re (it is in millions...not doing scientific notation) so it can be compared to the NACA 23015 root airfoil at 6.0 Re.

The 2D airfoil data plus the Induced Angle of Attack minus the Angle of Incidence Equals the Body Angle the aircraft moves thru the air...

Putting it another way:

The 2D airfoil data plus the Induced Angle of Attack Equals the Actual Wing Angle of Attack with respect to the Freestream....

The higher the wingloading, the larger the induced angle of attack, the larger the angle of attack with respect to the freestream.

If you fly a high wingloaded aircraft, you will notice the body angle at the stall is greater than the lower wing loaded aircraft.

The effective Angle of Attack which is all the wing sees, remains the same in each case as it a IS the 2D airfoil CLmax in all but a very low aspect ratio wing aircraft.

Clark Y at 6.0 Re:

April 24, 2016

Yes, Crump I agree with what you are saying but the induced angle of attack affects both the Fw-190 and the Yak since they both have finite wings so it still does not explain the difference and why the Yak gets 95% of it's 2-D lift potential and the Fw-190 only 83% as JtD's measurements show.

Edit: It's actually more than 95% for the Yak since that is in comparison with the Clark Y and not the Clark YH. Conclusion: OMG! There is not only a problem with the Fw-190 but the Yak in BoS is overmodelled!

Grabs hat and starts running...........

Edited April 24, 2016 by Holtzauge

April 24, 2016

BTW, good that you added the Clark Y Clmax Crump but would be even better with the Clark YH (it was the Clark YH that was used on the Yak) since that has a slightly reflexed trailing edge which will lower the Clmax since it acts a bit like a negative flap deflection. AFAIK this was put into the Clark Y as a compromize towards the high speed efficiency since a reflex lowers the profiles pitch down tendencies at high speed.

Anyway, we are nitpicking here, the fact remains that the Yak gets much more of it's 2-D lift potential than the Fw-190 does so I think JtD has found the answer to why the Fw-190 performs worse than it should in this respect. However, that still leaves the question of why you hit the speedbrakes in BoS whenever you try to turn the A3 and why that was dialed up in 1.201. Apparently this was done based on some polar that the devs got from some forum member but since there is no two-way flow of info we have no idea what it was and why they abandoned their old estimate and went with the new one.

Edit: So I found some data for the Clark YH myself and it looks like the Yak Clmax really is overmodelled. But since this is the Fw-190 thread I started a separate topic for the Yak here.

.

Edited April 24, 2016 by Holtzauge

April 24, 2016

es, Crump I agree with what you are saying but the induced angle of attack affects both the Fw-190 and the Yak since they both have finite wings so it still does not explain the difference and why the Yak gets 95% of it's 2-D lift potential and the Fw-190 only 83% as JtD's measurements show.

Because the formula and characteristics are reversed!!

In a low aspect ratio wing such as that found on modern fighters, the formula is reversed.

High Aspect Ratio wings:

Freestream Angle of Attack = 2D infinite wing polar CLmax + Induced Angle of Attack

In Low Aspect Ratio Wings (AR 3 and below):

Freestream Angle of Attack = 2D infinite wing polar CLmax - Induced Angle of Attack

Our 2D data stall angle of attack is in the vicinity of ~18 degrees as long as we have a normal finish and not sand paper!!

Induced Angle of Attack = 18.24 (1.58/5.8) = 5 degrees

Body Angle in a high aspect ratio winged aircraft = Angle of Attack + Induced Angle of Attack + Angle Of incidence

Body angle = 18 degrees + 5 degrees - 2.5 degrees = 20.5 degrees

Induced angle of Attack - Angle Of Incidence = 2.5 degrees

2.5 degree Change In Angle Attack / 18 degree 2D Angle of Attack = 13% change in Angle of Attack

why the Yak gets 95% of it's 2-D lift potential and the Fw-190 only 83%

100% - 13% = 87% of the 2D data Angle of Attack by quick SWAG.....

The way induced drag is handled is wrong. Induced Drag is reducing the effective angle of attack instead of being added to it.

The lower the wingloading, the less proportional the change will be.....

JtD data shows the trend is reversed of what it should be for high aspect ratio winged aircraft. Instead our freestream angle of attack increasing in high wing loaded aircraft compared to low wing loaded aircraft, it is decreasing.

Edited April 24, 2016 by Crump

April 24, 2016

Apparently this was done based on some polar that the devs got from some forum member but since there is no two-way flow of info we have no idea what it was and why they abandoned their old estimate and went with the new one.

Yes, I think they are using the Chalais-Meudon Polar from 30.11.42.

The power ratings listed on the polar measure the power output of the engine at the zero drag component. It is a time honored technique.

In fact, the CAFE foundation holds a patent on being able to measure this in-flight with the propeller on instead of having to remove the propeller and use a tow plane or if you can afford it and have access to one, a wind tunnel as they did in the 1940's.

https://engineering....A-46372-872.pdf

What you do is measure the point at which there is no pull or push force on the propeller shaft. That is the point that thrust = drag.

In this case we have two measured points, 9 PS and 4 PS. Why are the speeds so low and the power so small? We are talking about measuring the movement of the propeller shaft. The tolerances are in thousands of an inch. The larger the forces, the faster the shaft moves and the larger our measurement error.

Focke Wulf used the relationship of Power and Velocity. Once you have a measured point, you can use the physical relationship of force development to figure out what your performance will be at any other point.

For example.

If we know from flight testing that it takes 1348Hp to achieve 305KEAS then let's run the math to see our velocity at 9hp.

Our parasitic component of drag has a direct relationship with velocity and changes at the cube of velocity.

Therefore we know:

Pr2/Pr1 = (V2/V1)^3

That formulation is right out the book for BGS system aircraft performance calculations using subsonic incompressible flow theory.

9hp/1348hp = (V2/305)^3

9hp/1348hp = V2^3 / 305^3

305^3 * 9/1348 = V2^3

189431 = V2^3 = 57 KEAS = 29 m/s

Parasitic drag is the smallest component of drag and least significant at low speeds.

Let's see what our induced drag will be at 9 PS. At 305KEAS, our FW-190A3 produces 71.5hp worth of induced drag. Let's see how much power it would take for the aircraft to fly that slowly! If it equals what our engine produced, then the airplane can fly that slowly. It should be considerably more power than the BMW801D2 can produce.

The power of Induced drag has an relationship with velocit

1670bhp * .85 = 1419.5thp

1419.5 - 9 hp = 1410.5 hp

1410.5

Pr1/Pr2 = V2/V1

= 1410.5hp / 71.5hp = 305KEAS / V1

9* V1 = 305 * 71.5

V1 = 21807.5 / 1410.5

V1 = 15.4 knots = 9 m/s....

It is very easy to prove our Focke Wulf was NOT traveling at any speed the aircraft could fly in those polars.

Quite simply, the 13m/s and 18m/s represent Focke Wulfs measurement of the drag to establish drag data. That information was used to construct the Drag Data for aircraft sheet posted in that thread and predict the speed changes with various configurations and combat loads.

The aircraft cannot fly at power settings of 9hp and 4 hp. The only useful thing we can do is measure the parasitic drag and get an idea of the stall characteristics.

How do the lift polars help?

They allow us to measure our drag due to lift component under those same conditions.

It can be easily calculated.

In the BGS system for example:

Cdi = .318(CL/AR) = .318(1.2/6.08)

Cdi = .063

Induced drag = Cdi*q*S

q = (density ratio * Velocity in Knots^2) / 295

13 m/s = 25.27Kts

q = (1 * 25.27Kts^2)/295 = 2.16

Induced drag = .063*2.16*197 = 26.8lbs of drag

Power of Induced drag at 25.27KEAS = (26.8 * 25.27) / 325 = 2.08 hp

The principle is the same no matter what system you use to crunch the data and should work out quite easily given the relationship of power required to power available and newtons second law...

F=ma

April 24, 2016

BTW, good that you added the Clark Y Clmax Crump but would be even better with the Clark YH (it was the Clark YH that was used on the Yak) since that has a slightly reflexed trailing edge which will lower the Clmax since it acts a bit like a negative flap deflection. AFAIK this was put into the Clark Y as a compromize towards the high speed efficiency since a reflex lowers the profiles pitch down tendencies at high speed.

Anyway, we are nitpicking here, the fact remains that the Yak gets much more of it's 2-D lift potential than the Fw-190 does so I think JtD has found the answer to why the Fw-190 performs worse than it should in this respect. However, that still leaves the question of why you hit the speedbrakes in BoS whenever you try to turn the A3 and why that was dialed up in 1.201. Apparently this was done based on some polar that the devs got from some forum member but since there is no two-way flow of info we have no idea what it was and why they abandoned their old estimate and went with the new one.

Edit: So I found some data for the Clark YH myself and it looks like the Yak Clmax really is overmodelled. But since this is the Fw-190 thread I started a separate topic for the Yak here.

.

To ensure we are the same sheet of music.....

JtD's data proves the induced angle of attack is not being handled correctly in the game.

April 25, 2016

As the other thread is closed and some people were already asking, Venturi and me did the test 190 vs. Yak.

Firstly, let me say that the outcome was a draw. Venturi flies the current 190 with discipline and so there was not much of a fight. Nobody could down the other. He was flying most of the time in a straight line to get enough separation. So far, everything correct, but it tooks him far too long to get enough distance to be able to turn into me. When he did he had the short 'oppurtunity' for a head-on, which I easily could counter with a little manouvre. I guess after his turn he had almost no energy and could not make enough corrections to get a proper firing solution. Then he had to continously fly in a straight line again. This went on until the Yak ran out of fuel (Berloga server, 30% fuel). If the map would be the channel, then he had to return to France to get enough distance for his next turn, so to speak.

My personal summary: If the 190 would accelerate and turn a bit better, everything would be fine, imo. This I say without consideration of history, as I understand that this is also a game and needs a balancing somehow. And this is my personal oppinion, so please don't chope me up for it.

I want say Thank you Venturi for your time. You're a nice guy and a good pilot

(I hope you agree with my post)

Edited April 25, 2016 by StG2_Manfred

April 25, 2016

As the other thread is closed and some people were already asking, Venturi and me did the test 190 vs. Yak.

Firstly, let me say that the outcome was a draw. Venturi flies the current 190 with discipline and so there was not much of a fight. Nobody could down the other. He was flying most of the time in a straight line to get enough separation. So far, everything correct, but it tooks him far too long to get enough distance to be able to turn into me. When he did he had the short 'oppurtunity' for a head-on, which I easily could counter with a little manouvre. I guess after his turn he had almost no energy and could not make enough corrections to get a proper firing solution. Then he had to continously fly in a straight line again. This went on until the Yak ran out of fuel (Berloga server, 30% fuel). If the map would be the channel, then he had to return to France to get enough distance for his next turn, so to speak.

My personal summary: If the 190 would accelerate and turn a bit better, everything would be fine, imo. This I say without consideration of history, as I understand that this is also a game and needs a balancing somehow. And this is my personal oppinion, so please don't chope me up for it.

I want say Thank you Venturi for your time. You're a nice guy and a good pilot

(I hope you agree with my post)

Hi Manfred,

first thanks for your effort. The outcome is exactly what i predicted. He would run and go for a headon after half an hour of fleeing for separation. Because this is all the FW can do right now.

As i said. This was the only thing he could do to avoid being humiliated:P Surely he walked this way after all the big words:P

So funny:)

Would be awesome to see one fo the devs try to actually maneuver in their "correct" FW:)

Edited April 25, 2016 by Irgendjemand

April 25, 2016

And what would be the tactic if the FW was as wanted - current climbrate + the pre patch manuverability?

Would it look any different?

Would the FW go into a turnfight? (not enough turnrate)

Would it BnZ agressivly? (not enough climb rate advantage)

Roll rate advantage? Yak has enough roll rate that it can change direction fast enough that it wont loose in a scissor fight (combined with the low stall speed and good turn rate). Perhaps it would work against a poorly rolling Spit, however all that is needed is not to follow the scissors and keep the turn.

All I see as a possible tactic is to extend, get seperation, try to outclimb and force evasions of the Yak and making him drop altitude and with that try to get the height / position advantage.

The FW is extremly good at hit and run. That is its role. Its fast and hard hitting.

When it comes to objectives flying it is the best plane - it is the speed and the firepower that is the deciding factor.

What should the engagement like this be like historicly? What is the thinking -> do some people really think that the FW was outturning / outmaneuvering the Yak? If so, than how?

April 25, 2016

Right now, one can only be defensive, and that is nonsense. You wouldn't get into a turnfight of course, but you could slowly turn (and climb) while extending and have the opponent on your 3 or 9 o clock and not right on your six without the ability to turn at all. Also, if you could pull harder you could fly useful scissors having a chance the opponent overshoots or loosing sight on you. So there would be a lot more possibilities if the plane would be more plausible.

Edited April 25, 2016 by StG2_Manfred

April 25, 2016

The Fw-190s biggest advantage is to dictate a fight when flown with skill and discipline. That does not mean you are only allowed to fly staight passes on to your enemy, which is often labled "historical" or "the only way to do it".

Ive tried it recently on DeF against a Yak. We both were Co-alt and after some roll manouvres on my part trying to get a shooting solution on him I decided to disengage and run. Despite 80% fuel and outer wing cannons installed I could outaccelerate and slightly outclimb the Yak on the summer map. Of course that was not enough to secure an significant energy advantage so you can imagine the outcome, but I'm sure it wouldnt have worked out as well without the increased climbrate.

Edited April 25, 2016 by 5tuka

April 25, 2016

Slow climb and turn only gives you the advantage in seperation. Acctually if the Yak is smart and follows in a bit tighter turn and keeps the same climb rate as the FW, than there will be no advantage.

So its only about the seperation and getting enough of it where a fast non energy loosing turn can be performed and out of that having a good chance for a stable headon where the Yak has to avoid - hopefully loosing energy in the process and the FW at an energy advantage at that point.

The problem online is that mostly the Yak pilots dont climb at the same rate and try to reduce the distance - that is a massive mistake and here this is the FW window for a positive outcome. Obviously with the pre patch manuverability this was more effective.

However in a fight between two highly skilled pilots this wont happen.

As for rolling scissors - again here the window of opportunity is minimal at best and only if the Yak pilot makes a mistake.

Generally with two highly skilled pilots this makes no sence as the result will always be negative for the FW.

I am not defending the current iteration of the FW - dont get me wrong. I also prefered the pre patch version as it was an excelent fighter for going in and out of furbals. Just before the patch I flew it a few times on Berloga dogfight server and got much better and faster kills than with the Bf109 - doing hit and runs, extending until the enemy got engaged and immidiatly reversing with a hard hitting pass (30 kills in less than an hour with 0 deaths). It was excelent for that and now it is missing the last bit of the hard pull to get the kill shot in.

However the FW will not work as a lone wolf fighter -> there needs to be some friendlies around to keep the enemy distracted.

So again even with the FM adjustement - nothing will really change in the playing style - it will by no means become a turnfighter or have a massive fighting advantage over the VVS planes (except the speed advantage of course).

The real FW issues will start once we get into the later stages of the war and the speed advantage is reduced / negated. Than it will have no advantage except the roll rate which is only effective against significantly slower rolling planes.

Its all about flying in pairs for the FW - there the speed, firepower and plenty of ammo trump all other factors.

Edited April 25, 2016 by PeterZvan

April 25, 2016

Well Peter, I think we are not too far off. I'm speaking about a wide flown turn during the separation and then start your (head-on) attack with a 90° turn and not with a 180° turn, as it is now. Because this 180° turn bleeds your energy completely. In a wide turn, and I mean wide, it wouldn't help the pursuer to turn tighter because he just would fly in another direction. Hope you understand what I want to describe.

As for the scissors, rollrate - yes at the moment it's hard to use them as an advantage - and this contradicts everything I ever read about this plane.

April 25, 2016

Yes I know exactly what you are describing - its exactly what I do and acctually I prefer to stay relativly low as than the opponents dont have the option to dive enough - giving me a much better position after the merge.

But getting that seperation will be the same - now or after the modification (if it happens).

My thinking is that the rollrate will never be a real advantage in simulation due to the stick forces which come in question. This is where the FW probably exceled the most - usability of manuverability.

And I would say that the roll rate advantage of the FW really is usefull only against significantly slower rolling planes (Spit) or at high speeds.

Serious question - are there any historic accounts where the usage of the roll rate advantage is described in detail -> being used in dogfights? Something like the writings of Sakai which had described his fights very accuratly so that one gets an idea of what the fight acctually looked like.

I havent read many books on the subject so I am really interested on how detailed the descriptions are.

April 25, 2016

Serious question - are there any historic accounts where the usage of the roll rate advantage is described in detail -> being used in dogfights? Something like the writings of Sakai which had described his fights very accuratly so that one gets an idea of what the fight acctually looked like. I havent read many books on the subject so I am really interested on how detailed the descriptions are.

Yes, there are plenty, both of usage of scissors in dogfights, or a split-S to get away when in a disadvantageous position. I got a serious of books, they are a compendium of German pilot (also marine and army) biographies/accounts, which came out in German magazines in the 50s/60s.

They (pilots of 190s) described overall, that they could pretty much outmanouver anything with scissors. They were baffled however when the late P38 came into play, and the first time their manouver didn't work anymore at high speeds. They also told about problems evading P47 with Split-S, which was the "easy safe method" to evade Spitfires/Russians etc. But those were really the only 2 aircraft, they feared in dogfights, or let's rather say, they specifically mentioned.

April 25, 2016

Aerodynamically, The advantage of the Focke Wulf is in excess power. A 1700hp engine was a very powerful engine in 1941 just as a 2000hp was a very powerful engine in 1945. This translates into being able to sustain a higher load factor than other less powerful fighters. It's high wing loading means it cannot sustain this load factor at slower speed and the working speeds are higher as a result. It is the exact same thing as the effect of weight on glide distance.

The heavier the aircraft is, the higher the airspeed must be to obtain the same glide ratio. If two aircraft have the same L/D ratio but different weights and start a glide from the same altitude, the heavier aircraft gliding at a higher airspeed will arrive at the same touchdown point in a shorter time. Both aircraft will cover the same distance but the lighter one will take a longer time to do so.

The higher the airspeed, the larger the radius. Rate is a function of speed and radius.

That is how aircraft work.

The FW-190 relies upon rate of turn and agility to dogfight. It's radius of turn is poor but it moves its guns around the circle well.

It is not "only able to extend" or "work in teams".

11:03 in the Film...

Aerodynamically and in terms of the science of aircraft performance, at low Altitude the Dora turned about the same as the FW-190A8, btw.

The FW-190A3, FW-190A8, and FW-190D9 are about the same in terms of power to weight.

April 25, 2016

rious question - are there any historic accounts where the usage of the roll rate advantage is described in detail ->

From the AiAA library we find a paper used in a presentation on Fighter Aircraft Design. This is not for a game. It is for engineers who are designing tomorrow's fighters that will defend their way of life.

The most famous and one which has the most measured data on the design is the Spitfire vs FW-190. This is not for a game either. The RAE quantified the relative combat performance agility in order to devise a way to fight, survive, and win.

Visual aid on what the graph means in practical terms of a dogfight:

In fact the agility difference was so decisive in a dogfight, Supermarine went back to the drawing board to specifically design a variant just to counter the FW-190.

Agility.pdf

April 25, 2016

You dont fly in MP do you Crump?

As for the accounts - split S... I can relate to that.

I am more interested in how they used the scissors and against what - would love to read a few detailed ones in original german language.

Also the document is not an account on how the FW fought.
And a Spitfire is not a Yak or La.

Edited April 25, 2016 by PeterZvan

April 25, 2016

Aerodynamically and in terms of the science of aircraft performance, at low Altitude the Dora turned about the same as the FW-190A8, btw.

The FW-190A3, FW-190A8, and FW-190D9 are about the same in terms of power to weight.

Clear example of BIAS.

You put a picture of him saying the D9 was great in turn fights.

Then you claim the D9 and the A8 and A3 are the same.

But he said, just before, that the D9 was BETTER than the As. Obviously you didn't quote that. I wonder why ? Call me a troll, I'm used to it

Edited April 25, 2016 by Turban

April 25, 2016

-snip-

Then you claim the D9 and the A8 and A3 are the same.

-snip-

No he didn't.

-snip-

The FW-190A3, FW-190A8, and FW-190D9 are about the same in terms of power to weight.

-snip-

He said very specifically "are about the same in terms of power to weight."

You are a troll and the worst part is that you're not even an entertaining one.

April 25, 2016

You're talking about scissors Fw 190. Currently it is pretty hard to perform these maneuvers with fw190 and you besides all have to be lucky and rely on a mistake of his oponente.Nesse video I can reverse a desvantasoja position for fw190 but this is hard to happen. I would say 10 situations like this, 9 I would morto. This kind of combat with Fw 190 is very Difficult for its instability and its stol speed. I say Usually que fw190 need a lot of luck in this type of combat and even a mistake of his opponent. This video is more a fun Fw190 the pilot, not a lesson in how to fly this bird.

I posted this video in Sections Screenshots and Videos

Edited April 25, 2016 by JAGER-Kampf

April 25, 2016

No he didn't.

He said very specifically "are about the same in terms of power to weight."

You are a troll and the worst part is that you're not even an entertaining one.

You know what power to weight ratio helps ??

I guess you don't.

Also : can you read this ?

at low Altitude the Dora turned about the same as the FW-190A8, btw. (From Crump)

And then compare it with what the pilot said :

The Dora had better turning ability the the 190 A6 (From the pilot's interview)

Do you think they mean the same thing ?

They don't. Crump's statement goes against what the pilots says. Who you're gonna trust ??

Saying the D9 was comparable to the A serie is just wrong.

Edited April 25, 2016 by Turban

April 25, 2016

Please guys, don't feed the troll, or this thread goes south as well...

(There is a feature called ignore list)

April 25, 2016

Please guys, don't feed the troll, or this thread goes south as well...

(There is a feature called ignore list)

Good advice.

April 25, 2016

Please guys, don't feed the troll, or this thread goes south as well...

(There is a feature called ignore list)

+1

April 25, 2016

People would rather comment on me and call me a troll than on what the actual D9 pilot says, very clearly, in the picture I posted.

That goes to show that you're not interested in facts, and you just end up calling anyone disagreeing with you a troll.

In case someone missed it :

Edited April 25, 2016 by Turban

April 25, 2016

There are plenty of people who disagreed with me in the near past, i wouldn't call most of them trolls however, even if we had completely different opinions, and throwing passive agressive statements at each other. In the last weeks i can only see one troll in this forum, highjacking pretty much any topic

This poor troll should rather stop, with every new topic he gets involved, it get's more pathetic and embarrassing. Shame that he doesn't realize that.

Lately when i was coming home drunk i had a good laugh, but seeing things sober, it just makes me sad

Edited April 25, 2016 by II./JG77_Manu*

Whats your opinion on the new FW FM?

Recommended Posts

Holtzauge

Dr_Molenbeek

Dakpilot

ZachariasX

Turban

Irgendjemand

I./JG1_Baron

Stig

Crump

Holtzauge

Crump

JtD

Holtzauge

Crump

Holtzauge

Holtzauge

Crump

Crump

Crump

StG2_Manfred

Irgendjemand

PeterZvan

StG2_Manfred

6./ZG26_5tuka

PeterZvan

StG2_Manfred

PeterZvan

II./JG77_Manu*

Crump

Crump

PeterZvan

Turban

SCG_Space_Ghost

3./JG15_Kampf

Turban

StG2_Manfred

Crump

II./JG77_Manu*

Turban

II./JG77_Manu*

Browse All

Activity