Yak can keep Up

[mb339pan]

Nonsense 

 

tested yourself

 

Just start the QMB and test with the parked plane (engine running) virtually the Russian arms they'll never overheat and have no leakage (especially the yak)

of course the speed of the 'weapon is influenced by the propeller speed, in flight to 100% trottle the result, always for the yak is the same, guns no overheat end no have dispersion (see tracers)

Now there is no need to make 200 videos as evidence, this simple test can be done by each of us, just lose five minutes of our lives and run, now run QMB, start mission preferably at night whitout wing end test!

 

 

Now you can talk to 'infinity on FM, but one thing can not be doubted: the quality of German weapons!

 

Russian cannon

 

 

 

German cannon

 

 

[unreasonable]

That's the most advanced aerodynamics I've heard about in il2 bos

 

Really ?

 

Ok, they'll address it some day... After all my other sim also has a bunch of inaccuracies, and I do prefer BoS as it is right now... But I do get irritated when a LagG3 or a Yak-1 can actually follow me in a climb, above 2500', and close enough to shoot me down after a Z&B in my Fw190 A3 :-/

 

That is (at least partly) because your 190's supercharger is in high altitude gear when it should have been possible to keep it in low altitude gear and gain power up to about 4km.

[Reflected]

I had a 30 min (!) dogfight with a Yak, I was in a G-2. We spiralled up to 8km. I gained on him, I climbed better (at 320ish kph) but not enough so that I could dive on him. Made a few passes but he was able to conserve his energy better in a turn than me in a dive. We ended up doing a few head on passes, then he flew off East, and I landed. I would bet a million dollar he was using his flaps...

[SR-F_Winger]

I had a 30 min (!) dogfight with a Yak, I was in a G-2. We spiralled up to 8km. I gained on him, I climbed better (at 320ish kph) but not enough so that I could dive on him. Made a few passes but he was able to conserve his energy better in a turn than me in a dive. We ended up doing a few head on passes, then he flew off East, and I landed. I would bet a million dollar he was using his flaps...

Heh. In the vast majority of encounters i see russians use the flaps. Its an exploit and it will be used as long as there is no punishment for doing so or the model will be corrected.

I for my part am looking forward to the next patch. Firstly since i might finally be getting to fly the side with the overpreforming planes. And secondly since i hope there might be some long needed fixes.

 

And regarding that dogfight you had. Shouldnt the G2 climb WAY better is such a spiral?

 

FYI: A good friend of me quit the game after he tried flying the YAK-1. He is a very good pilot. He said its just BS how easy the germans fall when flying this plane. And he prefers german side. So he quit from frustration.

Edited July 6, 2015 by VSG1_Winger

[Matt]

That is (at least partly) because your 190's supercharger is in high altitude gear when it should have been possible to keep it in low altitude gear and gain power up to about 4km.

Not with the engine of the A-3.

[Guest deleted@50488]

Not with the engine of the A-3.

 

That is (at least partly) because your 190's supercharger is in high altitude gear when it should have been possible to keep it in low altitude gear and gain power up to about 4km.

 

 

Explain please, for the layman...

 

Do you ( unreasonable ) say the supercharger shouldn't have kicked in at such low altitudes ?

 

Do you ( Matt ) say it should / could, or that there was simply no such effect at all in the A3 ?

 

My only reference is the Fw190 D9 in DCS World, and I don't thing such effect is visibly ( looking at ATA ) identifiable there ( ? ) 

Edited July 6, 2015 by jcomm

[unreasonable]

OK I will try to explain what I meant as clearly as I can (since I am a layman too!).

 

AFAIK,

 

1) The BoS Fw190 supercharger gear changes at approx. 2.4 km altitude.

 

2) This is not how the RL 190 gear change worked. The gear change was affected by altitude (really pressure) and the position of the power lever, (which latter would correlate to the rpm). For a given rpm, the gear changes at two distinct altitudes, one for changing from low to high, the other for changing from high to low.

 

 

 

3) This means that if you are climbing from take-off, your gear will change at the higher line on the chart. If descending from above the top line, it will change at the bottom line.

 

What does this mean for performance? Need a new post for this as I am getting timed out....

Edited July 6, 2015 by unreasonable

[unreasonable]

When you are flying in the altitude zone between the lines, which will be common in BoS play, your BoS 190 will always be in high altitude gear. In RL it could be in either, depending on where you had come from.

 

The problem is that for most of the zone between the lines, the available power was higher if you were in low altitude gear. Essentially, the higher HP needed to drive the high gear is greater than the power gained from the extra compression of the air in this zone.

 

 

 

Extract from NACA report on testing of automatic controls in 190 engine.

 

So the question is how much difference does this actually make?

Edited July 6, 2015 by unreasonable

[Y-29.Silky]

My God, no matter what the topic starts as, everything turns into a Fw-190 flame fest. I've come to terms that this community will never be satisfied with the 190 FM until it's able to club everything. Because it's literally mentioned in 85% of the threads.

[unreasonable]

Taking these two charts as a broad indication of the behavior of the 190, you can see that the BoS test results show a very large drop off in speeds at altitudes just above the gear change level. This is consistent with the gear being in high. On the RL data, no such drop is observed: the speed drops off very slightly above critical altitude. This is consistent with the supercharger being in low gear.

 

 

 

 

 

There is no flaming going on here, simply an attempt to understand what appear to be some counter-intuitive observations.

 

If my analysis of what is going on is correct, a simple dix would be to either install a dual height switch altitude in the FM, or to keep a single altitude and move it up 1 or 1.5km. As it is currently configured, the 190 is always forced to fight in the worst gear for the altitude 2.4 - 4 km.

 

 

Edited July 6, 2015 by unreasonable

[Guest deleted@50488]

@unreasonable:  A BIG thank you for your EXCELLENT explanations! 

The first chart on you last post does show that all variants have a decrease in speed around 4000', which is around 1300m though... ( ? )  ... or are all the 3 charts taken from BoS recorded data ?

 

My God, no matter what the topic starts as, everything turns into a Fw-190 flame fest. I've come to terms that this community will never be satisfied with the 190 FM until it's able to club everything. Because it's literally mentioned in 85% of the threads.

 

@Silky: Dear Silky,

 

please understand that unreasonable just KINDLY replied to my quest for a layman explanation of what has been described, at these and many other threads, as the modeling of supercharger gear in the Fw190 A3.

 

I am thankful to him for his explanation, which actually contributed to a better understanding of the way it works in BoS, and the way it should work ( which I believe am now sure it is certainly not the way it does presently ).

 

I just returned to BoS and am really enjoying it again, but I want to know the details - I like to know the details - of modeling of the various aerodynamic and systems modeling approaches in every simulator I use(d). 

 

Today I was at the DED server, and for the first time, fighting on an F4, and less than 50% fuel load and no additional amno, I was surprised by the performance of the Yak-1, also mentioned in this thread...  Since I had access to outside views ( Normal DED server ), I decided to follow my follower, and to my surprise ( and dismay regarding the flight dynamics modeling ) indeed he was using flaps most of the time, specially when I would expect it to completely ruin his performance ( due to the many aerodynamic effects associated with such lift devices, starting with the plain simple induced drag... ).

 

These observations are important to me, not to act as a troll, but rather to have a better understanding of what I am using.

Edited July 6, 2015 by jcomm

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Taking these two charts as a broad indication of the behavior of the 190, you can see that the BoS test results show a very large drop off in speeds at altitudes just above the gear change level. This is consistent with the gear being in high. On the RL data, no such drop is observed: the speed drops off very slightly above critical altitude. This is consistent with the supercharger being in low gear.

 

fw190a3-level.jpg

 

TAScomparisons.jpg

 

 

TAS.png

 

There is no flaming going on here, simply an attempt to understand what appear to be some counter-intuitive observations.

 

If my analysis of what is going on is correct, a simple dix would be to either install a dual height switch altitude in the FM, or to keep a single altitude and move it up 1 or 1.5km. As it is currently configured, the 190 is always forced to fight in the worst gear for the altitude 2.4 - 4 km.

 

Great post 

[Matt]

Do you ( Matt ) say it should / could, or that there was simply no such effect at all in the A3 ?

 

It should change gear at the altitude it does in BoS.

 

It's also pretty obvious if you look at all speed charts, that it doesn't change gear at 4000 meters. The gear switch altitude also depends on atmospheric conditions, hence why with default BoS conditions (-15 °C) it changes gear at a bit lower altitude than in standard atmosphere flight test.

 

Also there's is no huge power loss when changing to gear two, that was the case before they changed the FM a few months ago, so the flight test graph by Gustav is outdated.

 

The only thing which might be incorrect (I have not made specific tests using the latest BoS, so I can't say it for sure), is that the gear changing altitude doesn't vary depending on throttle/manifold pressure setting, which should be the case.

[Guest deleted@50488]

It should change gear at the altitude it does in BoS.

 

It's also pretty obvious if you look at all speed charts, that it doesn't change gear at 4000 meters. The gear switch altitude also depends on atmospheric conditions, hence why with default BoS conditions (-15 °C) it changes gear at a bit lower altitude than in standard atmosphere flight test.

 

Also there's is no huge power loss when changing to gear two, that was the case before they changed the FM a few months ago, so the flight test graph by Gustav is outdated.

 

The only thing which might be incorrect (I have not made specific tests using the latest BoS, so I can't say it for sure), is that the gear changing altitude doesn't vary depending on throttle/manifold pressure setting, which should be the case.

 

Thx for the additional info Matt!

[unreasonable]

It should change gear at the altitude it does in BoS.

 

It's also pretty obvious if you look at all speed charts, that it doesn't change gear at 4000 meters. The gear switch altitude also depends on atmospheric conditions, hence why with default BoS conditions (-15 °C) it changes gear at a bit lower altitude than in standard atmosphere flight test.

 

Also there's is no huge power loss when changing to gear two, that was the case before they changed the FM a few months ago, so the flight test graph by Gustav is outdated.

 

The only thing which might be incorrect (I have not made specific tests using the latest BoS, so I can't say it for sure), is that the gear changing altitude doesn't vary depending on throttle/manifold pressure setting, which should be the case.

 

The NACA report is of the BMW801D2 engine. Is this not the A3's engine? This describes in detail the mechanism by which the gear is changes at two, widely spaced altitudes. My understanding is that 1CGS understood this perfectly and decided to make a simplifying assumption, which is fine, but may have had some knock on consequences.  Are you saying that the RL gear change was at only one altitude?

 

As to what the altitude is to change up: the NACA report graph shows 13,000ft for 2400rpm.  The RL speed line graphs show about 10,000ft. 2.4km is approx. 7,800ft, so it is still quite a bit lower than either of these.

(The gear change on the RL speed graph is the second kink in the line going up - the first is the critical altitude for gear 1, the other for gear 2).

 

Gustav's graphs may be out of date in which case the problem is mitigated.

Edited July 6, 2015 by unreasonable

[mb339pan]

 

 

fw190a3-level.jpg

 

TAScomparisons.jpg

 

 

TAS.png

 

graphics wrong! (Il2 boS speed test!)

 

LA5 boost on with radiators closed reaches 570/571 km/h IAS!

Fw 190 on 1.32ATA (86% trottle) reaches the 560 km/h IAS, 1.42 ATA run on 580 km/h on my test, altitude 200m no wing 13:00 pm on stalingrad map

 

the problem that LA5 maintained for more than 3 minutes !, and attention that speed at low altitude with 190!! (below 1000m)

 

the ideas are confused, if he posted the wrong things .. do not complain with dev

Edited July 6, 2015 by 150GCT_Pan

[Guest deleted@50488]

Makes sense, since

 

pressure altitude = (standard pressure - your current pressure setting) x 1,000 + field elevation

 

density altitude = pressure altitude + [120 x (OAT - ISA Temp)]

 

and in BoS under default mission settings the QNH = QNE, and indeed at those sub-sero temps, that density altitude ( around 2800m ) should happen at a lower pressure altitude ( read on the altimeter )

[unreasonable]

Makes sense, since

 

pressure altitude = (standard pressure - your current pressure setting) x 1,000 + field elevation

 

density altitude = pressure altitude + [120 x (OAT - ISA Temp)]

 

and in BoS under default mission settings the QNH = QNE, and indeed at those sub-sero temps, that density altitude ( around 2800m ) should happen at a lower pressure altitude ( read on the altimeter )

 

jcomm - the RL switch mechanism is not triggered by density altitude: it is triggered by atmospheric pressure and the pilot's control lever setting alone. naca BMW Bench Test.pdf

 

I have just done some test runs myself - the switch in BoS is at 2400m irrespective of rpm.

 

Currently just checking results to see if they look much different from Gustav's.

[Guest deleted@50488]

Ok, and thx again unreasonable for your tests!

 

If it's solenoid-based, than it should occur around 2800m pressure alt.

 

Anyway, tomorow is going to be, again, a test / decision day for me regarding BoS.

 

I fly mostly A3 and F4, and kept reading about the irrealistic advantage of the Yak-1. Just came from a couple of DED NORMAL online sessions, and I am very disappointed.

 

I was a true hero. Picked a 60% fueled Yak-1, got like a swiss cheese by a foe on an F4, and still managed to engage him in a dogfight and win!  I used flaps most of the time, my engine was damaged, my cell seriously hit... No problem...

 

This is not acceptable - I really hope tomorrow's update, apart from the I-16, brings good news regarding this total inconsistency of the Yak-1 as it is modeled right now :-/

Edited July 6, 2015 by jcomm

[unreasonable]

OK, sorry for OT, but as it has come up --- just discovered something very interesting about the BoS --

 

Examine the following chart: 60% fuel, 2400rpm (as near as I could get it), autolevel - not completely scientific as I just did one series of tests so fuel weight was slowly diminishing.

 

 

Speed IAS Altitude     kph m ata prop        

 

514 2230 1.18 9.18

502 2350 1.32 9.27

505 2200 1.32 9.29        

566 1500 1.31 9.15

547 1500 1.32 9.14

 

line1 is about as low as your ata gets just before you switch up. You can see in line 2 I have switched up - my ata has risen. But then when you descend - line 3 - you maintain ata all the way down.

 

I take this to mean that you are still in high gear while desending. Note that this comes with a speed penalty compared to the same test in line 1.

 

I checked this at the point where the ata just starts to drop while ascending - same thing: looks like the gear is still in high!

 

So it maybe that the BoS system models everything exactly as per the RL version - except that the switch altitudes are quite a bit lower than I expected! Still not sure why that is...

Edited July 6, 2015 by unreasonable

[LukeFF]

My God, no matter what the topic starts as, everything turns into a Fw-190 flame fest. I've come to terms that this community will never be satisfied with the 190 FM until it's able to club everything. Because it's literally mentioned in 85% of the threads.

 

I have money on how long it will take for a discussion on the I-16 to devolve into an Fw 190 argument. 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

To be fair, this thread derailed a few days ago with the dispersion post and other sillyness. As a dedicated Fw guy I think it's probably time to close this one up.

[Matt]

As to what the altitude is to change up: the NACA report graph shows 13,000ft for 2400rpm.  The RL speed line graphs show about 10,000ft. 2.4km is approx. 7,800ft, so it is still quite a bit lower than either of these.

I'm not using NACA or speed graphs, but the manual for the Kommandogerät of the BMW 801 (issued by BMW in April 1943) and was answering to your post, that the engine could be kept at gear 1 up to 4000 meters altitude, which according to that manual, was simply not the case.

 

On a side note, i quickly checked if manifold pressure affects the switch altitude in BoS and it obviously does. So that's working too.

[Reflected]

As for the flaps again, do an experiment:

 

1) Get a 109, take off with 20% flaps. Rotate gently, start climbing at a shallow angle, gear in, retract flaps. What happens? Not much, it keeps accelerating.

 

2) Do the same with a Yak: gear in, flaps in - it starts falling like a grand piano. Such is the extra lift gained with flaps out.

 

Or just do some tight turns at 3-400 kph at the edge of stalling. Lower the flaps and voilá, you have a Spitfire.

 

I really wish I could provide any kind of hard data and make it sound more professional.

[Gl-l0st]

To complicate things further try this with the Yak, climb to 4000 meters and continue to climb to 6000 meters or more. At 4000 meters slowly reduce the fuel mixture from maximum all the way back to zero being careful not to konk the engine, the engine loses power but there is a sweet spot in the climb when it doesn't stop. You can continue to run on 0% mixture for who knows I stopped after 15 minutes, all the while continueing to climb above 6000 meters with 100% throttle and prop pitch. I would have expected the engine to seriously overheat and sieze but it doesn't seem to, this really shouldn't be the case surely?

[unreasonable]

I'm not using NACA or speed graphs, but the manual for the Kommandogerät of the BMW 801 (issued by BMW in April 1943) and was answering to your post, that the engine could be kept at gear 1 up to 4000 meters altitude, which according to that manual, was simply not the case.

 

On a side note, i quickly checked if manifold pressure affects the switch altitude in BoS and it obviously does. So that's working too.

Thanks, I had never seen that before. I can only conclude that the NACA unit may have been calibrated incorrectly and hence produced an excessively high switch up.

 

Happy to have my hypothesis refuted by better evidence.

[Gl-l0st]

To complicate things further try this with the Yak, climb to 4000 meters and continue to climb to 6000 meters or more. At 4000 meters slowly reduce the fuel mixture from maximum all the way back to zero being careful not to konk the engine, the engine loses power but there is a sweet spot in the climb when it doesn't stop. You can continue to run on 0% mixture for who knows I stopped after 15 minutes, all the while continueing to climb above 6000 meters with 100% throttle and prop pitch. I would have expected the engine to seriously overheat and sieze but it doesn't seem to, this really shouldn't be the case surely?

I'm unable to edit my post so I've quoted it.

You can set mixture to 0% at 2400 meters and at 2600 meters engine stops misfiring, then it can climb to around 9300 meters although rather slowly.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Yea the mixture simulation in BoS semms very weird/buggy and totally different from RoF. You should notice a great difference in manifold pressure when lowering/increasing your mixture, yet that does not quite happen ingame. Yet the exhaut flames change depending on the efficiency your mixture has.

 

It one of those ancient bugs in this game I'd like to see fixed as soon as possible because it does effect all planes with manual mixture controll.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[JtD]

Changing mixture does not cause changes in manifold pressure, unless you're killing the engine with an overly rich or lean mixture. It should primarily cause changes in exhaust flame appearance, fuel consumption and engine temperature, and also engine power.

 

Why don't you start criticizing the developers for something they did wrong, instead of for something you have no idea about?

[Gl-l0st]

Changing mixture does not cause changes in manifold pressure, unless you're killing the engine with an overly rich or lean mixture. It should primarily cause changes in exhaust flame appearance, fuel consumption and engine temperature, and also engine power.

 

Why don't you start criticizing the developers for something they did wrong, instead of for something you have no idea about?

You can set mixture to 0% at 2400 meters and at 2600 meters engine stops misfiring then continue to fly as if nothing has changed. It does cause loss of power but it doesn't appear to overheat and there is enough power to climb above 9000 meters and it is consuming fuel.  I had 60% fuel to start with climbed to 9300 meters flew around then used autolevel, left the computer and came back 1 and a half hours later. The track recording is 1 hour 20 minutes long but the autopilot had to descend after running out of fuel, so maybe it took 15 minutes to descend and crash land.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

If you fly an real aircraft with manual mixture controll and dont lean it once climbing youll notice a drop in maifold pressure (if your plane has no constant speed propellor, drop in RPM). Leaning the mixture in this case shows an increase in maifold pressure.

 

But yea, real live pilot talking. Never mind this croud since they have no clue at all.

[CaK_Rumcajs]

If you fly an real aircraft with manual mixture controll and dont lean it once climbing youll notice a drop in maifold pressure (if your plane has no constant speed propellor, drop in RPM). Leaning the mixture in this case shows an increase in maifold pressure.

 

But yea, real live pilot talking. Never mind this croud since they have no clue at all.

You may have your answer in your comment. Well partially. Manifold pressure is a function of throttle position, compressor speed, engine speed, aircraft speed and ... and is restricted by throttle lever position. As long as the compressor can keep up with the ambient air density it'll provide you with constant manifold pressure. Drop in manifold pressure would be experienced above certain altitude if leaning mixture would lead to drop in RPM. But RPM is controlled by a constant speed propeller governor. So first it would try to drop propeller settings to keep RPM constant. So what exactly should you be searching for? A prop dial would help. Like the germans have the clock like prop dial. Optimal mixture would provide you with highest prop setting while lean or rich mixture would lead to drop in this setting. It's a pitty the russian planes are not equipped with such dial.

Do you fly planes with naturally aspirated engines and with fixed props? That would explain your expectations.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Gliders but we learn the same basics as PPL-A pilots.

 

I didnt want to go itno detail about this, just referred to a basicbscenario (constant climb in stable atmosphere with fixed throttle position). Of course there are more things influrencing manifold pressure but not as a result of changing mix.

 

Counter question: What change(s) in RPM and/or manifold pressure can a pilot expect when leaning his mixture in level flight at constant speed, altitude above GL and fixed throttle? (momentary changes included)

Edited July 7, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

And thx for your reasonable answer and contribution in an argument

[CaK_Rumcajs]

Gliders but we learn the same basics as PPL-A pilots.

 

I didnt want to go itno detail about this, just referred to a basicbscenario (constant climb in stable atmosphere with fixed throttle position). Of course there are more things influrencing manifold pressure but not as a result of changing mix.

 

Counter question: What change(s) in RPM and/or manifold pressure can a pilot expect when leaning his mixture in level flight at constant speed, altitude above GL and fixed throttle? (momentary changes included)

Mixture leaning within certain limits doesn't translate into change in manifold pressure nor RPM. Constant speed prop adjusts acordingly to engine performance output. Manifol pressure is not directly affected by mixture (as long as the engine spins). Lean or rich mixture decreases engine performance. If you play with mixture and keep throttle position and RPM constant you'll get change in speed. Mixture affects engine performance -> thrust -> speed. That all with constant RPM and throttle position. Ofc within limits. If you lean mixture to the point the engine is not able to keep desired RPM anymore and the charger can't provide enough pressure you'll get change in manifold pressure. Mind that zero mixture setting in game doesn't mean zero fuel flow. 0% mixture means mixture control is set to max lean position which still provides some fuel in.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Well, my (possibly wrong) assumption was thinking that if MP can drop at too rich mixture at a certain altitude it may change with too lean mixture setting as well. I don't call myself an expert since I haven't studied aircraft engines (yet) though so I'll take your explaination, but I'm still unsure weather it's simulated correctly ingame.

[Gl-l0st]

Mind that zero mixture setting in game doesn't mean zero fuel flow. 0% mixture means mixture control is set to max lean position which still provides some fuel in.

So 0% mixture is actually 100% lean and 100% mixture is 100% rich. This makes sense to me and explains what is happening with 0% mixture setting above 2400 mtr with the Yak. Is it safe to assume this is the same for all aircraft with manual mixture control in BoS?

[FuriousMeow]

And this is the exact mentality I'm talking about, I'm even guilty of it. But seriously, go into Jupps server because it's action packed, fly the Yak for an hour, and you'll know what we're talking about.

 

I have. It really isn't the Yak. I'd love to see data, but so far it's all none of that.

 

It's always the plane that poses the most problem for a certain airforce that gets the most attention. I wish I had taken a video of it, because it was less than 30 minutes of flying and I damaged a Yak, shot down a Yak and disengaged from two Yaks to RTB on an Expert server (so no icons) and I used the 109G2 at it's appropriate altitude - above 3KM. It was also against several Yaks, not just single engagements.

 

As far as the flaps - when you are running full throttle in a Yak and it stops you from accelerating with flaps down - well, that's drag. The lift isn't enough to make it worth the drag penalties. Not to mention the 109s can easily cut inside in scissor turns, its getting to the point where its just obviously those "experten" aren't quite as Experten as they thought.

 

If someone is getting into a close in corners fight against a Yak in a 109 at altitudes sub 3000 meters, why does anyone think they should automatically win? Or even have slight ease of it? It should be damn hard, the Yak-1 was very good below 3000meters. It just didn't have that many good pilots.

 

Let's be honest, the LaGG-3 is fine because it's easy as hell to shoot down. The La-5 is fine because it can't turn fight, just run away and hope to get the jump on a 109 - against the 190 its a bit of a close fight that comes to pilot skill and the 190 is flown far less than the 109 so that stands to reason that it wouldn't be complained about. The Yak is left and it can actually fight, which it very well could in the hands of capable pilots, and because it actually is a 50/50 shot in equal skilled pilots below 3000 meters then "obviously something is wrong."

Edited July 8, 2015 by FuriousMeow

[FuriousMeow]

I'll just relay this because it amuses me on the expert opinions of "how it feels" vs how it actually is or should be.

 

Back in the days of the original Aces High, which had a very good FM for what could be done at the time, the 190A-5 was introduced. It was amazingly good. It could BnZ like nothing else. It would still stall out, as it should have, in sharp corners or low speed turns but it could zoom like nothing else. Some said it was wrong, but many said it felt right and it matched what they read. It was argued back and forth, the 190 is perfect and the 190 is off. The ones who swore the 190 was perfect were the 190 fans and LW squadrons. The ones who said it was off were everyone else, plus some LW squadron individuals.

 

Well, turns out no matter how right it felt to the defenders that there was a mistype in the drag characteristics and it was reduced. The data came out before the fix came showing that the zoom was way too capable and it wasn't evident in the normal flight, only in vertical zoom.

 

That's why "feel" doesn't matter, only hard data does. Because only hard data will show where the error most likely is.

[FuriousMeow]

Weight characteristics, not drag for the AH 190A5.