Dakpilot Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 Stop trying to split hairs with history just to act as some sort of mediator between Dakpilot (wrong) and Wulf (correct). The Mk IX was introduced to counter the 190. It's as simple as that. I agree that the Mk IX was introduced to counter the FW 190, but none of it was designed or produced for that purpose, they just took the old Mk V stuck a Wellington engine on it, and parity was pretty much restored I guess my objection is really describing the Mk IX as a "new stop-gap fighter" , when there was nothing really that new about it, unlike the 190 which was an all new design Cheers Dakpilot 1
GP* Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 I don't get it. Presumably you (the attacking pilot) must be at least co-alt with the 190 and either within or close to gun range and closing, otherwise, why would the 190 pilot elect to go inverted (and sacrifice all his altitude). So from this advantageous position you then wait for him to roll inverted and commence a power dive. At this point you "rip out a burst against the belly" which presumably will be fast disappearing under the nose of your aircraft - if it's still visible at all. So why wait for him to commence a split S? Why wouldn't you just try and get him before he goes evasive? Without knowing the context in which this advice was offered, it kind of sounds like the sort of nonsensical 'bs' that might be dolled-out to dispirited pilots when actually, you have no answers for them at all. Yep, pilots in the west obviously just didn't have the skill to carry out this maneuver... I agree that the Mk IX was introduced to counter the FW 190, but none of it was designed or produced for that purpose, they just took the old Mk V stuck a Wellington engine on it, and parity was pretty much restored I guess my objection is really describing the Mk IX as a "new stop-gap fighter" , when there was nothing really that new about it, unlike the 190 which was an all new design Cheers Dakpilot I see what you're saying now. Thanks.
PatrickAWlson Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 I pfound this on the net. It's a Russian report on the FW-190. I can't help but wonder where this information came from as it seems to describe an aircraft that is in many ways the opposite of the FW-190. Full article here The speed of the FW-190 is slightly higher than that of the Messerschmitt; it also has more powerful armament and is more maneuverable in horizontal flight. The FW-190 has a large supply of ammunition, with 15 seconds of cannon fire, and 50 seconds of constant machine-gun fire. For this reason the gunners are not economical with their ammunition, and often open up the so-called "frightening fire". The pilots have good visibility laterally, forward, upward and rearward. A fairly good horizontal maneuver permits the FW-190 to turn at low speed without falling into a tail spin. An armored ring on the front part of the engine provides the pilot with reliable protection; for this reason, the FW-190's quite often make frontal attacks. In this way they differ from the Me-109s. One shortcoming of the FW-190 is its weight. The lightest model of this plane weighs 3,500 kgs. (7,700 lbs), while the average weight is from 3,800 (8,360 lbs) to 3,900 kgs. (8,580 lbs). Since the FW-190 is so heavy and does not have a high-altitude engine, pilots do not like to fight in vertical maneuvers. Another weak point in the FW-190 is the poor visibility downward, both forward and rearward. The FW-190 is seriously handicapped in still another way; there is no armor around the gas tanks, which are situated under the pilot's seat and behind it. From below, the pilot is not protected in any way; from behind, the only protection is the ordinary seat-back with 15-mm of armor. Even bullets from our large caliber machine guns penetrate this armor, to say nothing of cannon.
Wulf Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 I agree that the Mk IX was introduced to counter the FW 190, but none of it was designed or produced for that purpose, they just took the old Mk V stuck a Wellington engine on it, and parity was pretty much restored I guess my objection is really describing the Mk IX as a "new stop-gap fighter" , when there was nothing really that new about it, unlike the 190 which was an all new design Cheers Dakpilot Well I'm glad that Go_Pre knows what you're talking about (although frankly I suspect he's just being polite or maybe he's sensing madness and has decided to just back away slowly while speaking in calm modulated tones) because frankly, I'm struggling. So you have an "objection" to the description of the Mk IX as a "new stop-gap fighter". I find that ridiculous but for your benefit the Mk IX was "new" because it was a new Mk of Spitfire with considerably greater performance than the Mk V then in service. It was a "stop-gap" machine because it was only ever intended as a temporary measure to bridge the performance gap between the Mk V and the Mk VIII, which was eventually expected to replace it - once all the development work and re-jigging and re-tooling had been done. In the interim while all this development work was going on, Fighter Command required a fighter that could compete with the 190 on something like even terms, hence the Mk IX, the first Spitfire to feature a Merlin with two speed, two stage supercharging for improved performance, particularly at higher altitudes. Frankly your objection just sounds like a silly exercise in semantics.
unreasonable Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 I pfound this on the net. It's a Russian report on the FW-190. I can't help but wonder where this information came from as it seems to describe an aircraft that is in many ways the opposite of the FW-190. Full article here The speed of the FW-190 is slightly higher than that of the Messerschmitt; it also has more powerful armament and is more maneuverable in horizontal flight. The FW-190 has a large supply of ammunition, with 15 seconds of cannon fire, and 50 seconds of constant machine-gun fire. For this reason the gunners are not economical with their ammunition, and often open up the so-called "frightening fire". The pilots have good visibility laterally, forward, upward and rearward. A fairly good horizontal maneuver permits the FW-190 to turn at low speed without falling into a tail spin. An armored ring on the front part of the engine provides the pilot with reliable protection; for this reason, the FW-190's quite often make frontal attacks. In this way they differ from the Me-109s. One shortcoming of the FW-190 is its weight. The lightest model of this plane weighs 3,500 kgs. (7,700 lbs), while the average weight is from 3,800 (8,360 lbs) to 3,900 kgs. (8,580 lbs). Since the FW-190 is so heavy and does not have a high-altitude engine, pilots do not like to fight in vertical maneuvers. Another weak point in the FW-190 is the poor visibility downward, both forward and rearward. The FW-190 is seriously handicapped in still another way; there is no armor around the gas tanks, which are situated under the pilot's seat and behind it. From below, the pilot is not protected in any way; from behind, the only protection is the ordinary seat-back with 15-mm of armor. Even bullets from our large caliber machine guns penetrate this armor, to say nothing of cannon. I wondered about the "do not like to fight in vertical manoeuvres" part as well - again perhaps this reflects the fact that so many 190 units in the East were Jabos and had probably never been trained in these moves or had the opportunity to fly with experienced pilots who used them. Also flying low could tend to dampen one's enthusiasm for diving and zooming: much scarier to do this at 1,000m than at 5,000 over the English Channel. Anyway the vertical is not needed to take advantage of the Fw190's main tactical advantage in the initial close, which is its tremendous firepower which makes high deflection shots - and head on attacks - worthwhile, especially when used by flights or pairs operating as teams. As to more "manoeuverable in horizontal flight" this corresponds to German accounts I have read, but what does it actually mean? I think it means that the 190 can change direction faster than the 109: but not necessarily that it can sustain a long turn without losing energy better than the 109. 2
Ace_Pilto Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 It depends on speed too, teh 190 should have a better initial turn rate over 500kph than pretty much anything in game.
Dakpilot Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 (edited) Well I'm glad that Go_Pre knows what you're talking about (although frankly I suspect he's just being polite or maybe he's sensing madness and has decided to just back away slowly while speaking in calm modulated tones) because frankly, I'm struggling. So you have an "objection" to the description of the Mk IX as a "new stop-gap fighter". I find that ridiculous but for your benefit the Mk IX was "new" because it was a new Mk of Spitfire with considerably greater performance than the Mk V then in service. It was a "stop-gap" machine because it was only ever intended as a temporary measure to bridge the performance gap between the Mk V and the Mk VIII, which was eventually expected to replace it - once all the development work and re-jigging and re-tooling had been done. In the interim while all this development work was going on, Fighter Command required a fighter that could compete with the 190 on something like even terms, hence the Mk IX, the first Spitfire to feature a Merlin with two speed, two stage supercharging for improved performance, particularly at higher altitudes. Frankly your objection just sounds like a silly exercise in semantics. Silly exercise in semantics aside, but, it is important, yes it was a new mark but it was not a 'new' fighter just a boosted MkVc Now I am a fan of the FW 190 and Kurt tank, in its design it had may of the attributes of being the first truly modern fighter with huge attention given to performance inside the cockpit as well as outside, rugged construction,ease of maintenance and production, ultra modern systems for the day, more than adequate armament, best outward visibility of the time, and all round good field handling and considerable effort put into harmonious handling of all controls. Even decent multi role built in from the start All in all there is nothing not to admire, and in the dark days of 42 it did dominated the skies of western Europe, building its legend, however despite all its great qualities, it was successfully countered, not by a New aircraft but by an up engined Mk V, not everyone is familiar with the confusing Spitfire Mk history and that was my point, there was nothing designed 'new' in the MkIX stop gap, the Mk VIII being a different and confusingly named later model. The 190 deserves its Legendary status but all too often this is taken to mythical proportions with a little too much hyperbole Quite why your comments have to be peppered with sly insults and implications of madness.. I guess that is just your style but it is a bit tiring. Interestingly post War, after a while in Argentina (IAe 33, along with one of the famous Horton brothers) Kurt Tank went on to design India's first supersonic jet, in fact India's first ever jet, for Hindustan Aircraft Limited, the HF-24 Marut which saw successful combat service in the Indo/Pakistan war and was only retired in 1990 So was the Marut German or Indian (just a joke after the outrage when I mentioned jokingly the American part in the design of Ju-88) We are all interested in aviation here (as are the Dev's), quite why the forum always has to resort to combat at the very first instance baffles me, maybe it has its roots in the name ''Combat flight sim" but perhaps that should be left to the virtual skies Cheers Dakpilot Edited February 14, 2016 by Dakpilot
SKG51_robtek Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 Silly exercise in semantics aside, but, it is important, yes it was a new mark but it was not a 'new' fighter just a boosted MkVc Now I am a fan of the FW 190 and Kurt tank, in its design it had may of the attributes of being the first truly modern fighter with huge attention given to performance inside the cockpit as well as outside, rugged construction,ease of maintenance and production, ultra modern systems for the day, more than adequate armament, best outward visibility of the time, and all round good field handling and considerable effort put into harmonious handling of all controls. Even decent multi role built in from the start All in all there is nothing not to admire, and in the dark days of 42 it did dominated the skies of western Europe, building its legend, however despite all its great qualities, it was successfully countered, not by a New aircraft but by an up engined Mk V, not everyone is familiar with the confusing Spitfire Mk history and that was my point, there was nothing designed 'new' in the MkIX stop gap, the Mk VIII being a different and confusingly named later model. The 190 deserves its Legendary status but all too often this is taken to mythical proportions with a little too much hyperbole Quite why your comments have to be peppered with sly insults and implications of madness.. I guess that is just your style but it is a bit tiring. Interestingly post War, after a while in Argentina (IAe 33, along with one of the famous Horton brothers) Kurt Tank went on to design India's first supersonic jet, in fact India's first ever jet, for Hindustan Aircraft Limited, the HF-24 Marut which saw successful combat service in the Indo/Pakistan war and was only retired in 1990 So was the Marut German or Indian (just a joke after the outrage when I mentioned jokingly the American part in the design of Ju-88) We are all interested in aviation here (as are the Dev's), quite why the forum always has to resort to combat at the very first instance baffles me, maybe it has its roots in the name ''Combat flight sim" but perhaps that should be left to the virtual skies Cheers Dakpilot OT but funny, i've just visited a Aircraft museum in Wernigerrode/Germany today https://www.tripadvisor.de/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g198507-d3840073-i113769625-Luftfahrtmuseum_Wernigerode-Wernigerode_Saxony_Anhalt.html, where one of the last four existing HF24 Marut is on display, the other three are in India.
PatrickAWlson Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 Read a bit more and the viscous stall is for real based on the pilot reports. Recovery is supposed to be simple and said stall was apparently used as an evasive technique - it was so nasty that no plane could realistically follow it . However, if you're like me and you do it at 700 meters - well, the results are pretty obvious. So I cannot ding the devs on that - kills me all the time but it was there in the real plane. I have always had this concept of how an FW190 should be flown and why everybody called it maneuverable even though it had a rotten sustained turn. It always seemed to me that its strengths were its ability to make very sharp, instantaneous maneuvers from a high energy state combined with a much better than average ability to return to a high energy state. So it was always slash - make one maneuver to get into firing position, use that firepower and ammo, then get your energy back and do it again. This is not hit and run. If this assessment is on the mark the FW would be absolutely deadly if flown properly in a sustained dog fight. Fly it the wrong way by trying to maneuver with your opponent and you pay the price. 5
Wulf Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 (edited) This is another extract from Eric Brown's book Wings of the Luftwaffe, again, about the handling/performance characteristics of the FW 190 A. I've posted all this stuff previously but I just thought some of the new guys may not have seen it. If you're interested in WW 2 German aircraft I strongly recommend that you try and obtain a copy. The book is pure gold! If you have time, check out Eric Brown online. He is an absolutely amazing character. A RN FAA test and combat pilot he holds the record for the number of different aircraft flown (487), record for the number of carrier landings made, he also had an aircraft carrier shot out from under him at one point, knew Udet etc, etc... An amazing guy. Oh yeah, and I sent all this stuff to the devs, of course, just for their general information, but no reply. "At low speeds rudder control proved positive and effective, and I found it satisfactory at high speeds, seldom needing to be used for any normal manoeuvre. It was when one took the three controls together rather than in isolation that one appreciated the fact that the Fw190's magic as a fighter lay in its superb control harmony. A good dogfighter and a good gun platform called for just the characteristics that this German fighter possessed in all important matters of stability and control. At the normal cruise of 330 mph (530 km/h) at 8000 ft (2400 m), the stability was very good directionally, unstable laterally, and neutral longitudinally.Some penalty is, of course, always invoked by such handling attributes as those possessed by the Fw 190, and in the case of this fighter the penalty was to be found in the fact that it was not at all easy to fly on instruments. Of course, Kurt Tank's aircraft was originally conceived solely as a clear-weather day fighter. It is significant that all-weather versions were fitted with the Patin PKS 12 autopilot. I checked out the maximum level speed of my Fw190A-4/U8- which incidentally, had had its external stores carriers removed by this time- and clocked 394 mph (634 km/h) at 18,500 ft (5640 m), and I ascertained that the service ceiling was around 35,000 ft (10 670 m), so it matched the Spitfire Mk IX almost mile per hour and foot per foot of ceiling. Here were apparently two aircraft that were so evenly matched that the skill of the pilot became a vital factor in combat supremacy. Skill in aerial combat does, however, mean flying an aircraft to its limits, and when the performance of the enemy is equal to one's own, then the handling characteristics become vital in seeking an advantage. The Focke-Wulf had one big advantage over the Spitfire Mk IX in that it possessed an appreciably higher rate of roll, but the Achilles Heel that the AFDU had sought with Armin Faber's Focke-Wulf was its harsh stalling characteristics which limited its manoeuvre margins.The AFDU comparisons between the Focke-Wulf and the Spitfire Mk IX - with the former's BMW 801 at 2,700 rpm and 20.8 lb (1.42 atas) boost and the latter's Merlin 61 at 3000 rpm and 15lb (1.00 ata)- has revealed that the German fighter was 7-8mph (11-13km/h) faster than its British counterpart at 2,000 ft (610 m) but that the speeds of the two fighters were virtually the same at 5,000 ft (1525 m). Above this altitude, the Spitfire began to display a marginal superiority, being about 8mph (13km/h) faster at 8,000 ft (2440 m) and 5 mph (8km/h) faster at 15,000 ft (4570 m). The pendulum then swung once more in favour of the Focke-Wulf which proved itself some 3 mph (5km/h) faster at 18,000 ft (5485m), the two fighters level pegging once more at 21,000 ft (6400 m) and the Spitfire then taking the lead until at 25,000 ft (7620 m) it showed a 5-7 mph (8-11 km/h) superiority.In climbing little difference was found between the Fw 190 and the Spitfire MkIX up to 23,000 ft (7010 m), above which altitude the German fighter began to fall off and the difference between the two aircraft widened rapidly. From high-speed cruise, a pull-up into a climb gave the Fw190 an initial advantage owing to its superior acceleration and the superiority of the German fighter was even more noticeable when both aircraft were pulled up into a zoom climb from a dive. In the dive the Fw190 could leave the Spitfire Mk IX without difficulty and there was no gainsaying that in so far as manoeuvrablity was concerned, the German fighter was markedly superior in all save the tight turn – the Spitfire could not follow in aileron turns and reversals at high speed and the worst height for its pilots to engage the Fw 190 in combat were between 18,000 and 22,000 ft (5485 and 6705m), and at altitudes below 3,000 ft (915m).The stalling speed of the Fw 190A-4 in clean configuration was 127 mph (204 km/h) and the stall came suddenly and virtually without warning, the port wing dropping so violently that the aircraft almost inverted itself. In fact, if the German fighter was pulled into a g stall in a right turn, it would flick out into the opposite bank and an incipient spin was the inevitable outcome if the pilot did not have its wits about him.The stall in landing was quite different, there being intense pre-stall buffeting before the starboard wing dropped comparatively gently at 102 mph (164 km/h).For landing on this and the numerous subsequent occasions that I was to fly an Fw 190, I extend the undercarriage at 186 mph (300km/h), lowering the flaps 10 deg at 168 mph (270km/h), although the pilot's notes recommend reducing speed below 155 mph (250 km/h) and the applying 10 deg of flap before lowering the undercarriage. My reason for departing from the recommended drill was that the electrical load for lowering the undercarriage was higher than that required for the flaps and German batteries were in rather short supply at Farnborough - that in the Fw190A-4/U8 was most definitely weary- so I considered it prudent to get the wheels down before taxing the remaining strength of the battery further!The turn onto the final approach was made at 155mph (250km/h), and full flap was applied at 149 mph (240km/h), speed then being eased off to cross the boundary at 124 mph (200 km/h). The view on the approach was decidedly poor because the attitude with power on was rather flat and unlike most fighters of the period, it was not permissible to open the cockpit canopy, presumably owing the risk of engine exhaust fumes entering the cockpit. The actual touch-down was a little tricky as the prefect three-point attitude was difficult to attain and anything less than perfect resulted in a reaction from the very non-resilient undercarriage and a decidedly bouncy arrival. If a three-pointer could be achieved, the landing run was short and the brakes could be applied harshly without fear of nosing over.I was to fly the Fw 190 many times and in several varieties -among the last of the radial-engined members of Kurt Tank's fighter family that I flew was an Fw 190 F-8 (AM111) on 28 July 1945- and each time I was to experience that sense of exhilaration that came from flying an aircraft that one instinctively knew to be a top-notcher, yet at the same time demanded handling skill if its high qualities were to be exploited. Just as the Spitfire Mk IX was probably the most outstanding British fighter to give service in WW II, its Teutonic counterpart is undoubtedly deserving of the same recognition for Germany. Both were supreme in their time and class; both were durable and technically superb, and if each had not been there to counter the other, then the balance of air power could have been dramatically altered at a crucial period in the fortunes of both combatants.” Edited February 14, 2016 by Wulf 1
II./JG77_Manu* Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 In climbing little difference was found between the Fw 190 and the Spitfire MkIX up to 23,000 ft (7010 m a pull-up into a climb gave the Fw190 an initial advantage owing to its superior acceleration superiority of the German fighter was even more noticeable when both aircraft were pulled up into a zoom climb from a dive Not too much similarities with the in game 190...seems like the Devs could do good with reading that book - at least when they also plan to introduce the A4/A5
1CGS LukeFF Posted February 14, 2016 1CGS Posted February 14, 2016 Not too much similarities with the in game 190...seems like the Devs could do good with reading that book - at least when they also plan to introduce the A4/A5 With all due respect to Mr. Brown, anecdotes do not make for a good flight model.
=362nd_FS=RoflSeal Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 Well, Eric Brown pretty much flew all the WW2 aircraft, including Russian ones, I think he has a pretty good idea.
Dr_Molenbeek Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 With all due respect to Mr. Brown, anecdotes do not make for a good flight model. They help, and devs are great user of pilot's anecdotes (look at the last 109s FM change), like it or not.
216th_Lucas_From_Hell Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 They are good for cross-referencing and making minor adjustments, for sure. That being said the FM cannot be based on words.
HagarTheHorrible Posted February 14, 2016 Posted February 14, 2016 (edited) With all due respect to Mr. Brown, anecdotes do not make for a good flight model. Presumably, a Test pilots only function was to ensure the wings didn't fall off, rather than an appraisal and feedback to the designers, in which case you're probably correct and one of the most experienced test pilots of his generation anecdotes should be disregarded as pretty worthless. Personally though. given his experience and ability, I would have said he was probably the best resource, bar none, when it comes to weighing up the competing merits of aircraft from that period. Edited February 14, 2016 by HagarTheHorrible
1CGS LukeFF Posted February 14, 2016 1CGS Posted February 14, 2016 I never said his anecdotes should be regarded as worthless - just that they should not form the basis for any serious flight model.
StG2_Schmausch Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 I never said his anecdotes should be regarded as worthless - just that they should not form the basis for any serious flight model. Oh, Luke... what has happened HERE? http://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/2396-pochemu-samolyoty-ne-razvalivayutsya-na-skorosti/page-3?do=findComment&comment=373477 1
Wulf Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 (edited) I never said his anecdotes should be regarded as worthless - just that they should not form the basis for any serious flight model. I think it would be more accurate to describe much of what Eric wrote as 'flight notes' rather than anecdotes. Eric was a 'test pilot', and in all probability the most experienced test pilot of the War - certainly in the west at any rate. He wasn't just some Joe-average relaying the most terrifying 15 seconds of his life. He flew pretty much everything there was to fly. 190s, 109s, 163s, 162s, 262s, - he flew them all. But hey, what would he know..... Edited February 15, 2016 by Wulf
Fern Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 Couldnt outrun a Yak today. I started to extend from 6000 in a shallow dive to 4000 in EMERGENCY POWER. He still gained on me. The Russian planes must be using this stuff.
1CGS LukeFF Posted February 15, 2016 1CGS Posted February 15, 2016 Oh, Luke... what has happened HERE? http://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/2396-pochemu-samolyoty-ne-razvalivayutsya-na-skorosti/page-3?do=findComment&comment=373477 What part of "basis" is so hard to understand?
Ace_Pilto Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 I think it would be more accurate to describe much of what Eric wrote as 'flight notes' rather than anecdotes. Eric was a 'test pilot', and in all probability the most experienced test pilot of the War - certainly in the west at any rate. He wasn't just some Joe-average relaying the most terrifying 15 seconds of his life. He flew pretty much everything there was to fly. 190s, 109s, 163s, 162s, 262s, - he flew them all. But hey, what would he know..... If he flew the 163 you can bet he knew the quickest route from the apron to the pilot's bar.
1CGS LukeFF Posted February 15, 2016 1CGS Posted February 15, 2016 I think it would be more accurate to describe much of what Eric wrote as 'flight notes' rather than anecdotes. Eric was a 'test pilot', and in all probability the most experienced test pilot of the War - certainly in the west at any rate. He wasn't just some Joe-average relaying the most terrifying 15 seconds of his life. He flew pretty much everything there was to fly. 190s, 109s, 163s, 162s, 262s, - he flew them all. But hey, what would he know..... Good grief... Nowhere in my post did I denigrate Mr. Brown. I am quite familiar with his experience in the flight testing of German aircraft. For the last time, all I am saying is: anecdotes, pilot notes, whatever one wants to call them, should not form the basis of any serious flight model. They can certainly help fill in the gaps in very specific areas where test data is insufficient, but they should never, ever be relied upon as a primary resource. That is all. 1
andyw248 Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 The actual touch-down was a little tricky as the prefect three-point attitude was difficult to attain and anything less than perfect resulted in a reaction from the very non-resilient undercarriage and a decidedly bouncy arrival. Off topic but interesting nevertheless...
Wulf Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 Off topic but interesting nevertheless... Don't read too much into it. It's just anecdotal. If he flew the 163 you can bet he knew the quickest route from the apron to the pilot's bar. Jimmy - good of you not to mention the cricket........
Wulf Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 (edited) Couldnt outrun a Yak today. I started to extend from 6000 in a shallow dive to 4000 in EMERGENCY POWER. He still gained on me. The Russian planes must be using this stuff. I know what you mean. It seems to be a classic case of 'Emperor's New Clothes' . Because people fear being ridiculed and told they're doing something wrong, hardly anyone's prepared to state the bleeding obvious, that the Yaks and La's can, more often than not, catch a fleeing 190 in a drawn-out foot race. But it's the truth, from a co-alt/energy position it is often impossible to get away. Edited February 15, 2016 by Wulf
HagarTheHorrible Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 LukeFF, I won't disagree with you about Eric's anecdotes being the basis for FM's, or at least the sole basis, but given his experience and that he was a fully paid up Test pilot, with all the analytical observance that goes with that profession and with extensive knowledge of German aircraft, his anecdotes should be given as much weight as any other official documentation. Pure numbers don't paint the complete picture when it comes to an aircrafts characteristics ( there's many a slip betwixt cup and lip ) and notes of the type provided by Eric are pure gold. I can't be certain as it's a while since I 've read his book but I'm sure his pure flying experience would also have been fleshed out by German pilot debriefing after the war so I wouldn't be surprised if they also formed the basis of any assessment of an aircrafts characteristics.
II./JG77_Manu* Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 With all due respect to Mr. Brown, anecdotes do not make for a good flight model. Nobody is talking about them "making" a flight model. They only confirm, what the numbers are saying anyway. That the climb rate is too bad. Not too hard to come to the fact, that the acceleration also suffers due to this fact. Apart from that, those are no "anecdotes", this is flight testing, exactly as valuable as speed tests and co. You should never base your FM solely or mostly on those tests, but if you make a flight model after a particular source - which may or may not be right - and then there are severe discrepancies between the aircraft FM in game, and the described behavior you can read about by paid test pilots (and not some John Doe diary, like you try to imply), you should at least consider to doublecheck your sources. 1
303_Kwiatek Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 (edited) Anegdote is that ex Yak1 is about 60 kph faster at 7 km alt then should in BOS http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/21030-impact-radiator-setting-yak-1-speed/?do=findComment&comment=333147 How relative performance looks like if ex A3 or G2 got accurate speed and moreover A3 got 1-2 m/s lower climb rate then should? Edited February 15, 2016 by 303_Kwiatek
II./JG77_Manu* Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 Anegdote is that ex Yak1 is about 60 kph faster at 7 km alt then should in BOS http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/21030-impact-radiator-setting-yak-1-speed/?do=findComment&comment=333147 How relative performance looks like if ex A3 or G2 got accurate speed and moreover A3 got 1-2 m/s lower climb rate then should? You are right with the Yak of course (my sig is no joke), but that's another entire topic not the right place to discuss in this topic i guess..
Dakpilot Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 It is great info in Mr Browns notes,but the figures do not say which type it is? or is that info given in the book, are these not the same aircraft whose performance was tested by RAE and is normally dismissed due to the documented poor condition of the captured aircraft Cheers Dakpilot
II./JG77_Manu* Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 It is great info in Mr Browns notes,but the figures do not say which type it is? or is that info given in the book, are these not the same aircraft whose performance was tested by RAE and is normally dismissed due to the documented poor condition of the captured aircraft Cheers Dakpilot Please Dakpilot, before you highjack yet another discussion, first read about what it is. All your questions are explained in this discussion already. Make at least the effort to read it, when you feel the need to jump in
Dakpilot Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 Hijack a discusson, lol I thought this thread was about tips for flying the FW-190, dont try and pin that on me Cheers Dakpilot
Fern Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 (edited) Here's a good thread that got locked a year ago. May look familiar Manu. From what I gathered, the FW190 is not modeled wrong, its the Russian planes. And a year later having the same discussion. http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/14420-reasons-why-i-severely-lowered-my-bos-flight-time-lately-bos Edited February 15, 2016 by Fern
II./JG77_Manu* Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 Here's a good thread that got locked a year ago. May look familiar Manu. From what I gathered, the FW190 is not modeled wrong, its the Russian planes. And a year later having the same discussion. http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/14420-reasons-why-i-severely-lowered-my-bos-flight-time-lately-bos It is modeled wrong. Check the FM discussion in case you are interested. Other planes overperforming at the same time only shows that problem more clearly
Guest deleted@50488 Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 (edited) I really don't know about the, perfect or not, adjustment to published data on the F190 A-3, but truth is it is my preferred ( or at least among my preferred ) aircraft in Il-2 BoS. I have been flying it extensively, and haven't had a single problem with spins, or even wobbliness... I gained experience and hand, and that's in good part what is required. Flown to it's advantages it's an extraordinary fighter and it never let's you down, unless you really ruin your flight and start using it in continuous turning flight, specially at higher altitudes... Edited February 15, 2016 by jcomm
1CGS LukeFF Posted February 15, 2016 1CGS Posted February 15, 2016 and not some John Doe diary, like you try to imply Dude, drop these stupid accusations already. Do I need to put it in bold, all-caps, 48-point font that I'm not disrespecting Mr. Brown in any way, shape, or form? Fun fact for you: back when I was working on making the He 162 flyable for the original IL2, I probably quoted half of Mr. Brown's chapter on the He 162 in submitting my data to Oleg Maddox to review. Does that sound like someone who regards Mr. Brown's writings as some "John Doe diary"?
Wulf Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 I really don't know about the, perfect or not, adjustment to published data on the F190 A-3, but truth is it is my preferred ( or at least among my preferred ) aircraft in Il-2 BoS. I have been flying it extensively, and haven't had a single problem with spins, or even wobbliness... I gained experience and hand, and that's in good part what is required. Flown to it's advantages it's an extraordinary fighter and it never let's you down, unless you really ruin your flight and start using it in continuous turning flight, specially at higher altitudes... I don't think anyone's suggesting the 190's a basket case. As currently configured it's quite usable, and I certainly agree about the spin characteristics, When the machine is used as intended, spin just isn't an issue. Even at very low speeds, the 190 is still remarkably maneuverable and controllable. However, that isn't really the issue is it - at least it isn't for me. What I want is a 190 that behaves like the original, with all the advantages and disadvantages that implies. I'm not looking for a free ride, I just want an authentic experience, at least to the extent that's going to be possible with a PC. 1
II./JG77_Manu* Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 anecdotes do not make for a good flight model Browns flight tests had nothing to do with anecdotes. Serious aircraft testing of things, you can't completely express in numbers. Sorry, but downplaying these tests with the expression "anecdotes" sounds pretty unrespectful. 1
Feathered_IV Posted February 15, 2016 Posted February 15, 2016 Some things like Brown saying the 190's rate of roll would "rip the wings off a 109" tend to have the potential to create some unreal expectations.
Recommended Posts