Aircraft Instability especially FW-190?

[BlitzvogelMcpeek78]

First of all I AM at terrible spelling. So here it goes. Is this just the flight model of this game Or am I just not trimming aircraft properly. Can't seem to get pitch trim to work. C.O.D aircraft seem to behave quite well, very much like many typical high performance but very responsive aircraft but B.O.S planes are quite sensitive especialy the FW-190. Aircraft here occilate & wag about in a way they only would in a wake of another aircraft even when no aircraft is present. Not badly, but enough so that aim is badly thrown off for long distance shots that many REAL war time pilots easily made. This aircraft ( FW-190) acts as if it is both aerodynamic tail heavy as well as physically tail heavy. But yet all the aircraft here act at least a bit this way on this sim. If this were so in real life you would NEVER see this old warbirds at airshow doind any kind of fights over the crowds heads but yet the do. There is an act with 2 mustangs & two bearcats that i know of. Now I am NO ace pilot but I do have a license and I have flown short coupled airplanes before and floks I'd be scared shitless to fly an aircraft like the the way the FW-190 flys here. The way it very easliy flicks off an accelerated stall into a wicked spin is indicative of a tailheavy airplane. I do have rudder peddels The way some of you are seen to do so well with this and other planes on "you tube" leads me to believe. IT'S ME & MY LACK OF TRIM & POSSIBLY MY EXPERIENCE WITH THESE AIRCRAFT ON THIS SIM........HELP Can't seem to get trim to work. please help on that too. THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME!!!

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Hi you have to assign you axis to 'adjustable stabilizer' not pitch trim. This applies to the 109 and 190. Have you done this?

Edited April 6, 2015 by 6./JG5_Emil

[Roo5ter]

The aircraft seem pretty stable if the turbulence is set to zero.  Fly around in QMB with 0 turbulence then try 2 and 4 and see if that alleviates some of your non FW 190 concerns.  

[Jaws2002]

Hi you have to assign you axis to 'adjustable stabilizer' not pitch trim. This applies to the 109 and 190. Have you done this?

On the 190 you can't assign axis to pitch trim/adjustable stab. Just buttons.

 

Assign two keys ot stick buttons to "adjustable stabilizer" and that should do the trimming in the 190. In the 109 you can assign that function to an axis as well.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Jaws2002

[Jaws2002]

One more thing. Unless you have a long throw joystick, reduce the sensitivity of the pitch axis in the 190. It's just too twitchy otherwise. I have the pitch set at 40% sensitivity and the yaw at 70%.

[303_Kwiatek]

German planes ( 109 and Fw 190) got much more instability then Russian ones in BOS.   What i read Fw 190 was  IRL unstable lateraly ( thats why it had great roll rate) but 109 should be quite stable plane both in pitch and roll axis.

[Wulf]

Unfortunately, as currently modeled, the 190 has this annoying habit of 'bobbing up and down' at low speed.  As Kwaitek noted, the 190 should be unstable in the rolling axis but, the up and down thang, well, that's something else again.  I don't believe its a trim issue.  Not at all.  

 

It's a bit like the capacity the Soviet aircraft have to retain seemingly boundless energy in the zoom climb.  It just seems to be one of those 'features' that the dev team thought they'd just include for some reason.  When you look at the box art for BoS and BoM and you will begin to understand what's going on.  Oh well, it is what it is I guess. 

[Primus_71]

190 and 109s have become much more stable after the latest patch.

 

I noticed that less than perfect trim on the pitch axis, meaning needing to apply a small amount of pressure on the stick, helps with stabilizing the nose for a shot. The same applies for the yaw axis as well. 

 

It is as though the aircrafts, some more than the others, have a 'play' at perfect trim, and presence of a small amount of pressure on pitch and, to a lesser degree, yaw  eliminates the 'play' and stabilizes the nose. 

 

Give it a try. 

[Dakpilot]

Strange that the aircraft with the highest wing loadings are the most unstable ....

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[AndyJWest]

Strange that the aircraft with the highest wing loadings are the most unstable ....

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

Not really. Stability has very little to do with wing loading.

[BlitzvogelMcpeek78]

THANK YOU ALL SO VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND ADVICE. i WILL TRY IT ALL AND LET YOU KNOW HOW IT GOES. AGAIN THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME!!!

[LukeFF]

Please do not use ALL CAPS. 

[=81FG=HellKitten]

Idk wat sorts of advantage Fw190 in BoS has apart from the firepower.
Everything Fw190 does in the game can be done better by different planes.

If the FM in BoS is correct, Idk why the heck the German pilots said this was more stable and easier to fly than Bf109.

Edited April 8, 2015 by =81FG=HellKitten

[RydnDirty]

Turn down your sensitivity ! I just updated after a long time away and was delighted to find the FW190 was much more unstable in accelerated stall and has much lighter elevator at high speeds ! Just as we have all read in the histories.  

 

Hopefully they keep fine tuning the FM as it continues to improve over time.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

It always drives me a little nuts when OP'ers post a problem, get advice then never post a resolution (or if it still exists).

[RAY-EU]

FW 190 A3 had better turn and acceleration than SPITFIRE MK V .FW190 burts on the scene in norther France in the summer 1941 and FW 190 first saw combat over English Channel in Setember 1941 being faster and more agile than the Spitfire .

the early FW190 were superior to the Spifire MK V and shock to the RAF, and also better than bf 109 F & G in turn and acceleration .

The Aircraft World War II Military History ED WINCHESTER 2009.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

More maneuverable =/= Better at sustained turns

[LukeFF]

FW 190 A3 had better turn and acceleration than SPITFIRE MK V .FW190 burts on the scene in norther France in the summer 1941 and FW 190 first saw combat over English Channel in Setember 1941 being faster and more agile than the Spitfire .

the early FW190 were superior to the Spifire MK V and shock to the RAF, and also better than bf 109 F & G in turn and acceleration .

The Aircraft World War II Military History ED WINCHESTER 2009.

 

Yes...and? What's your point?

[303_Kwiatek]

FW 190 A3 had better turn and acceleration than SPITFIRE MK V .FW190 burts on the scene in norther France in the summer 1941 and FW 190 first saw combat over English Channel in Setember 1941 being faster and more agile than the Spitfire .

the early FW190 were superior to the Spifire MK V and shock to the RAF, and also better than bf 109 F & G in turn and acceleration .

The Aircraft World War II Military History ED WINCHESTER 2009.

 

Fw 190 got better manouverability ( roll - change direction expecially at higher speed and better control harmony) then Spitfire MK V but Spitfire got better sustained turn rate. In the rest thing Fw 190 A-3 of course was better.  Spitfire got only turn rate against it.  So it is no wonder that with better German boom and zoom tactic RAF pilots had low chance to do anything against Fw 190. RAF got heavy losses initialy against Fw 190.

 

Fw 190 got some lateral instability thats why also it got very good roll rate -    more unstability in fighter plane more manouverbility

Edited September 16, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[Finkeren]

People seem to think that: "Ooooohhh, if the early Fw 190s were better than the Spitfire Mk. V, they must've been awesome.

 

What people seems to forget, is that the Spit Mk. V was essentially a 1940 design and had inferior performance to both the main German fighters in late 1941. The Mk. V was not all that impressive. On paper it's equal to or worse than the late series  Yak-1 we have in BoS in all but sustained turn and high altitude performance.

[RAY-EU]

The SPITFIRE MK V , was build in large numbers than any other .

 

Appearance of the FW 190 caused an urgent need for higher performance ... The SPIFIRE MK IX in fact persisted in production until 1944 , no fewer than 5.665 being delivered of the total of the total Spitfires that were build 20.334 .

[Finkeren]

Doesn't change the fact, that it was behind performance wise. The LaGG-3 also continued in production until the end of 1943, despite being completely outclassed by the La-5, even in its most developed form, the Series 66.

[RAY-EU]

My point in il2 Bos is in FW 190 A3 you turn a little bit minimun turn ( less than Bf 109 F & G ) and suddenly you enter in barrena .

???

a plane that is better in this aspecs .

[LukeFF]

My point in il2 Bos is in FW 190 A3 you turn a little bit minimun turn ( less than Bf 109 F & G ) and suddenly you enter in barrena .

???

a plane that is better in this aspecs .

 

Huh?

[RAY-EU]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvKs9VLUcCg​

 

My point is from an appreciation of the same view that is related in this video  of an interview with Luftwaffe fighter pilot Erich Brunotte

on DCS Dora .

 

In the Wiki the Turn Time of FW 190 A1 = 20.2 seconds , Ford Mustang P51 D = 20 seconds , BF 109 G2 turn Time =19 seconds and

Yak 1 Turn Time = 18 seconds .

 

We can Test the estimation of the turn Time of Fw 190 A3 in BOS ?

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

1. WIkipedia is no credible source

2. Pilot interviews are no direct sources. They can point out a fact that we can investigate in by collecting real sources and comparing them

3. Turn time is speed and altitude dependent. You can't say right away which aircraft was the better turner. At speeds below cruise the Zero beat the F4U Corsair, at high speeds the Zero became less manouvreable than Corsair. Which one is better depends on the situation you compare them.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[Brano]

Doesn't change the fact, that it was behind performance wise. The LaGG-3 also continued in production until the end of 1943, despite being completely outclassed by the La-5, even in its most developed form, the Series 66.

LaGG-3 has been produced till june 1944 in Zavod nr.31 Tbilisi,nowdays Georgia.After that production line has been modified for Yak-3 production by order of NKAP (National Comitee for Aircraft Industry). About the same time as Yak-1 production has been replaced by Yak-3 in other Zavods (Factories).

LaGG-3 series "66" had most teething problems of original design solved and were on par with performance of Yak-1.End of production was not because of "completly outclassed" La-5 performance,but simply due to more refined Yak-3 has been introduced into production.Same engine usage in LaGGs and Yaks was also a decision point,why they switched to Yak-3 and not La-5 production in Tbilisi.

[RAY-EU]

• Home
• Aviation Blog
• Resources
• Subscribe

Flight Learnings

Pilot and student pilot community. Share your pilot lessons or aviation stories.

And What is credible ? ... :

 

'The Science' instruments: In WW2 Planes had test all parameters of the caracteristics of every plane and that are in History archives and this IL2 BOS one of best sims is applying and is on it .

Radius of Turn

by Flight Learnings

in Aerodynamics

•  

•  

The radius of turn is directly linked to the ROT, which explained earlier is a function of both bank angle and airspeed. If the bank angle is held constant and the airspeed is increased, the radius of the turn changes (increases). A higher airspeed causes the aircraft to travel through a longer arc due to a greater speed. An aircraft traveling at 120 knots is able to turn a 360° circle in a tighter radius than an aircraft traveling at 240 knots. In order to compensate for the increase in airspeed, the bank angle would need to be increased.

The radius of turn ® can be computed using a simple formula. The radius of turn is equal to the velocity squared (V2) divided by 11.26 times the tangent of the bank angle.

Using the examples provided in Figures 4-48 through 4-50, the turn radius for each of the two speeds can be computed. Note that if the speed is doubled, the radius is squared. [Figures 4-51 and 4-52]

Figure 4-51. Radius at 120 knots with bank angle of 30°.

Figure 4-52. Radius at 240 knots.

Another way to determine the radius of turn is speed in using feet per second (fps), π (3.1415) and the ROT. Using the example on page 4-34 in the upper right column, it was determined that an aircraft with a ROT of 5.25 degrees per second required 68.6 seconds to make a complete circle. An aircraft’s speed (in knots) can be converted to fps by multiplying it by a constant of 1.69. Therefore, an aircraft traveling at 120 knots (TAS) travels at 202.8 fps. Knowing the speed in fps (202.8) multiplied by the time an aircraft takes to complete a circle (68.6 seconds) can determine the size of the circle; 202.8 times 68.6 equals 13,912 feet. Dividing by π yields a diameter of 4,428 feet, which when divided by 2 equals a radius of 2,214 feet [Figure 4-53], a foot within that determined through use of the formula in Figure 4-51.

Figure 4-53. Another formula that can be used for radius.

In Figure 4-54, the pilot enters a canyon and decides to turn 180° to exit. The pilot uses a 30° bank angle in his turn.

Figure 4-54. Two aircraft have flown into a canyon by error. The canyon is 5,000 feet across and has sheer cliffs on both sides. The pilot in the top image is flying at 120 knots. After realizing the error, the pilot banks hard and uses a 30° bank angle to reverse course. This aircraft requires about 4,000 feet to turn 180°, and makes it out of the canyon safely. The pilot in the bottom image is flying at 140 knots and also uses a 30° angle of bank in an attempt to reverse course. The aircraft, although flying just 20 knots faster than the aircraft in the top image, requires over 6,000 feet to reverse course to safety. Unfortunately, the canyon is only 5,000 feet across and the aircraft will hit the canyon wall. The point is that airspeed is the most influential factor in determining how much distance is required to turn. Many pilots have made the error of increasing the steepness of their bank angle.

 

 

 

 

• Pilot Training Categories
  Aerodynamics
  
  Aircraft Systems
  
  Flight Controls
  
  Flight Instruments
  
  Flight Manuals and Documents
  
  Weight and Balance
  
  Aircraft Performance
  
  Aircraft Structure
  
  Weather Theory
  
  Aviation Weather Services
  
  Airport Operations
  
  Airspace
  
  Navigation
  
  Aeromedical Factors
  
  Advanced - Instrument Rating
  
  Advanced - Avionics
  
  
  Aviation Blog
• Additional Resources
  Aviation Terminology
  
  ATC Communications
  
  Aircraft Mechanic Training
  
  Desert Hiking Clothes
  
  Helicopter Flight Training

 

     

All original works © FlightLearnings.com

 

 

 

 

 

Read more http://www.flightlearnings.com/2009/08/26/radius-of-turn/
​

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Nice copy pasting in here, yet all that has nothing to do with turn times nor relevance in aerial combat.

[Matt]

That turn time for the Ford Mustang seems a bit exaggerated.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Why doesn't the guy in the canyon just gently pull back on the control yoke and intiate the turn once clear of the canyon walls? Probably trying to impress a new girlfriend!

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

Ford Mustang P51 D 

 

-snip-

 

Hehe...

 

North American (not Ford) is the company that built the P-51 Mustang - North American P-51 "Mustang."

[DD_Arthur]

I thought the figures for the Chevvy a bit dubious too.   

[RAY-EU]

Ah Yes ?on Vacation . Correct is not Ford !? . How FW 190 A3 has the engine of BMW !

I was mistaquen : P51 Mustang not from Ford , BMW engine for FW 190 A 3 .

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Ah Yes ?on Vacation . Correct is not Ford !? . How FW 190 A3 has the engine of BMW !

I was mistaquen : P51 Mustang not from Ford , BMW engine for FW 190 A 3 .

 

The BMW801 is a great engine, and yes, it powers the Fw190. 

[SR-F_Winger]

People seem to think that: "Ooooohhh, if the early Fw 190s were better than the Spitfire Mk. V, they must've been awesome.

 

 

[Edited]

Edited October 12, 2015 by Bearcat

[StG2_Manfred]

[Edited]

Hahaha, great one Winger. THX!

Edited October 12, 2015 by Bearcat

[coconut]

Snark aside, what is the position of Western and Russian historians on the subject? Do they all agree that Russian planes were inferior to German ones at the time of the battle of Stalingrad?

[JtD]

My personal opinion is that the Soviet planes of the era benefit tremendously in flight simulation games when compared to their historical performance because their biggest deficiencies are the most difficult ones to model.

 

If you look at raw performance figures, Soviet aircraft are pretty fast, manoeuvrable and well climbing, in particular at low altitude, plus they sport an OK armament. Which are huge pro's in a game. On the other hand, their drawbacks of short service life expectancy, high pilot workload and load, tactical restrictions are basically irrelevant in a game.

 

For instance, if you were to expect you aircraft to last 1000 flying hours, you'll not only end up with a heavier design, you'll also treat it more carefully than if you expected it to last 100. The 1000h aircraft will end up as 3000kg aircraft with 1000hp maximum continuous power, where the 100h aircraft comes at 2800kg, with 1100hp. Sure, the higher rated engine will blow up after 200h, but who cares, the aircraft will have long been written off. But who cares about that if you play a game, where this is not modelled in the first place, but also totally irrelevant because folks rarely spend more than 60 minutes flying the aircraft.

For instance, you properly seal the your wooden aircraft with 25kg of extra paint, so that it lasts the extra 900hours. Also, it doesn't soak up 10kg of water every time it rains. In game, you're just 25kg heavier.

For instance, you use automated systems weighing 50kg to relieve the pilot of distracting work in combat and to reduce chances of mishandling, in game, all aircraft come with similarly automated systems, and even if not, you only need to press a couple of keys on a desk and the effect of mishandling aren't modelled for the most part, and if some are, the worst that's going to happen is someone hitting "fly again". But the performance drop for the 50kg automation, are there.

For instance, you include a good sound concept, weighing 20kg, and manage to reduce engine noise in the cockpit. The real life pilot will have a much easier time in the cockpit, and will physically be fitter. In game you just notice the 20kg ballast.

For instance, you make no compromises when making sure no exhaust fumes enter the cockpit, 15kg for this. One pilot will be half poisoned after two hours flight time, the other one will still be 100% fit. In game, you only notice 15kg ballast.

For instance, you take great care of reducing control forces in your aircraft, there's only 2kg of friction, as opposed to the 6kg in the cheaper aircraft. You also pay huge attention to detail in the design, all gaps optimized and so on. Your pilots can apply the control deflection more easily and quicker at any speed than the opposition, so your aircraft can achieve the same or better rolling velocities with smaller ailerons. Your pilot doesn't get tired to even nearly the degree the other guy does. In game, no one cares about that, and the aircraft with the larger ailerons outrolls you handily, consistently.

For instance, you use guns with a lower fire rate but higher reliability under high g loads. In game, you're only lacking firepower.

 

And so on.

 

Plus of course, in a computer game you won't ever have anywhere near the tactical restrictions you had in real life, pilots ordered to "patrol the area" and forbidden to leave it even for chasing down enemy bombers, just don't happen in a game. As long as you return to base and have a kill, things are good.

[LukeFF]

[Edited]

 

[Edited]

Edited October 12, 2015 by Bearcat