Whats your opinion on the new FW FM?

[Mac_Messer]

Luke - I know full well that he dosent own the game nor flies MP so he has no idea how online sim fighting acctually happens.

As for Mac Messer - again - do you own the game, do you fly at all? The discussiona was 1 on 1 co alt headon engagement FW v Yak. And how its handeled. 

Your preposition is that the FW starts with a significant advantage.

As for scissor overshoots - its very clear to me how they are done and as the Yak has a significantly lower stall speed and much higher controlability. Online MP now or pre patch it was suicide to go into that engagement against a capable pilot in a Yak.

The thing is that the FW is at stall speed, but Yak still far from it so can always slow down even more and keep behind + follow the turn / roll / whatever. 

 

I simply dont see the significant advantage online - even if the rollrate of the FW would be 50% faster - it dosent have the turnrate at slow speed or low enough stall speed to get the advantage needed to consistently shoot down Yaks with ease against two highly skilled pilots

Yes, I do own the FW190 and have some hours in it. I am just about to end the LW sp campaign, about a third of the sorties number I flew the Focke Wulf. I also flew original IL2 for 5 years. Online in BoS, I flew just a few hours. Can`t stand the df nature of the mp. Once you fly coops you don`t look back, obviously.

 

That is not my preposition. The correct one would be that both the 190 and yak are at similar speed ex. when yak takes 190 in a descending attack, 190 does a half roll and dives, quickly accelerates to similar speed yak attacked him. I don`t understand why you`d want to make this a 1v1 190 yak at coalt. This is not the topic of the discussion but historical Focke Wulf 190 A3 flight abilities. Obviously I gave an example when 190 is fast because you have to stay fast in it but still the current FM negates what fw190 could do prepatch at high speed.Venturi showed that by trying to gain separation in a 1v1 and he should be able to do much more. I don`t think anyone is saying that the 190 should take on the yak at low sustained horizontal turn or at stall fight.

Scissors at low speed are ofcourse a lot harder, though 190 high roll rate should be able to let it change direction quickly even in such a situation, let alone at speeds above 450IAS.

StG2_Manfred described the way you`re supposed to act on the defensive when you fly the 190 and that was exactly what I meant to say.

Edited April 25, 2016 by Mac_Messer

[Crump]

 

 

21s with 1.42ata 

 

21 seconds to complete a 360 agrees (at 4km IIRC) with Luftwaffe data.   

[PeterZvan]

That is significantly less than what is achivable in BoS. 

 

That is certanly something which varants an FM adjustement - what is the source for that? 

[Crump]

 

 

I don`t think anyone is saying that the 190 should take on the yak at low sustained horizontal turn or at stall fight.

 

You are right.  Nobody is saying that at all.

 

When we talk about turn rate and turn performance most people think of one spot in the envelope.  Aircraft are not one dimensional.  In fact that paper I posted from the AIAA library talks about the importance of design balance.   That is what makes the FW-190 a very interesting design and where its reputation as a dogfighter was born.  It is a very well balanced design besides having the best agility found in a World War II fighter.

 

For example, here is an analysis of the rate of turn performance over the entire envelope between an FW-190A8 at 1.58ata @ 2700U/min with a P-51D5 at 67"Hg @ 3000rpm.  Both aircraft are at take off weight for a clean configuration fighter.

 

It is good to illustrate the depth that aircraft designs have regarding turn performance.

 

 

 

The airplane that can sustain the highest turn rate AT the highest speed will control the dogfight.  It can force the opposing aircraft to give up energy.  That is how real airplanes work.  It is not hard to do either.  You simply bank and pull, adjusting the angle of bank and back pressure to keep the airspeed you want the airplane to maintain.

 

Aircraft accelerate very quickly in the turn and a pilot needs to be able to precisely control the speed.  That is why the FAA has a speed standard on steep turns as part of the practical exam at all pilot levels.

 

 

 

Objective six specifies the maneuver's altitude and airspeed standards - you must complete the maneuver with- out gaining or losing more than 100 feet of altitude and more than 10 knots of airspeed. 

 

http://flighttraining.aopa.org/students/maneuvers/skills/steepturns.html

[Holtzauge]

FW190A-3 is a great plane, probably the 3rd best in the game behind every 109 and the Yak as it stands. However I believe the 109 and Yak-1 are both over modeled in certain ways and that casts shade on the 190. I also think that at lower speeds the 190 is modeled as a bit too fragile, but this is also overplayed by the LW audience.

 

May very well be true what you say about the Yak and 109 but I can’t say really because I have not analysed them in detail. However, I don’t agree concerning the Fw-190 as it is rendered in BoS for the reasons I have stated in this thread. Also, I don't belong to any audience so if you have problems with the LW audience bring it up with them, not me.

 

You propose that burning energy against a lighter more nimble opponent is a good idea?

 

Yes I do under certain circumstances such as burning energy in a turn or zoom to pull that little bit of extra lead to reach a guns solution. In those cases burning energy against a more nimble opponent is a very good idea.

 

So your opinion is that the 190 should be able to "turn and burn" with a Yak-1? Have you flown the Yak-1 in game? I suspect your opinion needs leavening.

 

Strawman: I never said that the BoS Fw-190 should turn like the Yak-1. I suspect you need to try the DCS Fw-190 D9. Have you flown it?

 

Venturi: So you're saying the 109's trim wheel should be able to go from full up to full down in 6 seconds at 600 kph?

 

Another strawman: Go back and read what I wrote. I have said nothing about the trim. I was talking about elevator forces.

 

Venturi: I believe you are making some assumptions here, and are also grouping together a lot of things that are unrelated in an attempt for an emotional appeal. I have to ask, do you own the sim? Have you flown in it?

 

I believe you  are muddying the waters here but do feel free to list what unrelated things I have grouped together. I have to ask, do you own DCS and have you flown the DCS Fw-190 D9?

Edited April 25, 2016 by Holtzauge

[DD_Arthur]

I

believe you  are muddying the waters here but do feel free to list what unrelated things I have grouped together. I have to ask, do you own DCS and have you flown the DCS Fw-190 D9?

 

Uh huh. 

 

So;  do you own this game Holtzauge?

[Dakpilot]

I am confused

 

Of the three main people contributing info to this 11 page thread, two do not own the game, and the other owns it but does not use it and prefers other sims and cares little for BoS or whether the FM's are correct but enjoy's the FM arguments by his own admission 

 

Of the two who dont own it, one thinks another sims 190 is great and the other finds another sims 190's FM implausible, and these two have been locked in forum combat for years in many different places

 

And all of this is somehow supposed to help those who enjoy BoS/Bom and make the best of it

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[PeterZvan]

Crump - from your answers it appears that you have no idea on how air combat works.

Turn radius is a much bigger factor than what you seem to think of it from your charts and texts. 

If you have a slower speed and the same or better turn rate, than this is what is used. This shortcuts the turn (lead pursuit) and the slower better turning plane gets on the six and close to the faster plane.

This is BFM at its core (excuse the link to Wiki - the data there is accutally correct and can be verified in proper BFM documents if you would like to do that)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_fighter_maneuvers

 

If one wants to really use turn rate advantage, than only the best sustained turn rate should be used (that is a singular point in the performance envelope) and only if it is significantly better than the opponents plane and only if there is enough circular seperation to prevent the enemy of using a instantanius turn for a quick lead pursuit and getting into a shooting postion.

If it gets to that which is extremly rare in WWII sims, than the situation is so that the planes are on oposing sides of the circle, both are on the deck and at very low speed (close or less than the optimum sustained turn speed).

Its how the real world air combat kinematics work. That is why BFM is developed and the dogfights are much more dimensional than your assumptions.

 

To understand this it is irrelevant which sim is used - the kinematics behind the BFM are the same - the question is only what works for which plane and how quickly one recognises what is happening and what to do. 

A sim is in the end nothing more than a calculation of trajectories which are determined by pilot inputs and it gives out correct results if the FM is correct. 

If the FW in BoS could do 21 sec at 4000m for a sustained turn it would dominate.

 

Dakpilot - that is exactly the thing - and at least one has no idea on how air combat works and is at the same time explaing to us how the FW should be flown in combat.

 

Its silly, they should just link to the sources for the 21sec/ turn sustained turnrate @4000m and all this disscusion will finish. If that is the case, than at SL the FW should have a turn rate of well below 20 sec per turn and would completly dominate - it would be fastest, best rolling and with at least comparable if not better turn rate.

It would be exactly what people think that it was.

Just link to the credible source here, I will than write a formal FM adjustement request to Han in the correct way. 

Edited April 25, 2016 by PeterZvan

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I posted a picture with a clear quote from a D9 pilot.

 

I could probably do more but that's already more than you guys ever produced so I don't need to so far.

 

 

You're telling me about what you think.

 

How about proof ? Flight test reports, flying performance data, pilots giving their opinion, anything real ?

 

You're trying to make it sound possible but you're not giving any proof.

The major problem is you are using a single point source to make a broad claim. It hardly stands up to anything we'd call actual research. You demand documentation and proof to counter your claim which clearly has neither.

[Crump]

Crump - from your answers it appears that you have no idea on how air combat works.

 

No I do not know how it works in a game.  My experience is in real aircraft.  I feed my family in them.

 

In reality, Turn Rate is the measure of turn performance advantage and the deciding factor.  At least that is how it works in the air! 

 

On a computer screen, you probably have more experience but that does mean your experience reflects how things work!

 

From the US Navy Test Pilot Manual:

 

 

Since you are trying to simulate reality......I would think your experience would reflect this fact too.

 

Doesn't it or is there a fundamental flaw with your experience?

 

Turn rate is not a singular point in the envelope.  Anywhere an aircraft has a rate advantage it will outturn an opponent at the same speed.  In other words, the turn rate advantage can force an opponent to a lower energy state to match.  That is exactly the science behind why the FW-190 vs Spitfire dogfights developed the way the did.  The Focke Wulf simply would force the Spitfire to a lower energy state in order to survive.  Then it became a stand off of agility at high speed vs turning performance at low speed.

 

 

 

SL the FW should have a turn rate of well below 20 sec per turn

 

No, it comes out to 19.5 seconds to make a 360 degree turn ....hardly "well below" 20 seconds.  I think you are letting emotions get the best of you in your desire to invalidate me.

 

[Venturi]

I think he's asking for the source so he can send a FM write-up to Han for you, since you don't own IL-2 BOS/BOM.

[Crump]

Once more, if I drop the power to 1.28ata at 2400U/min.....

 

I get exactly the same turn times at the VVS measured!!

 

[Crump]

 

 

I think he's asking for the source so he can send a FM write-up to Han for you, since you don't own IL-2 BOS/BOM.

 

Han has already seen all this data. 

[Gump]

in a FW190 documentary video, douglas bader quotes johnny Johnson as saying that the new german fighter (fw190) could outmaneuver the spitfire in every way. ...

.

regarding this statement: Johnson was the leading RAF ace, bader was among top. both were exceedingly competent and, might I say, loyal to Britain (if any exaggeration would occur, it would boost the spitfire). the spitfire mentioned was preMk9 - the discussion continued as Bader described the Mk9 as an engined-up spit version to counter the SPEED of the 190.

.

this, coupled with the aforementioned RAF pilot quote (mentioned by hotlzauge) that the 190 would stay and fight (confidently) instead of extending away like the 109's, all in reference to dogfights with the turn-famed spitfire, is a very strong indicator that the fw190 did not have to run away for long times/distances to return and hope only for head-on shots. it would also be real-world testimony that the fw could turn well (a statement which werner steinz clearly makes).

.

moving on from there, how did the spitfire turn compare to the yak1 turn? I have no idea - just wondering. I know the spitfire is famed for it's turn...I haven't hear about the yak1 - was it better?

[JtD]

... the other owns it but does not use it and prefers other sims and cares little for BoS or whether the FM's are correct but enjoy's the FM arguments by his own admission ...

In my defence, I'd play the game more often if it offered me anything I'm interested in. Which mostly means a better SP campaign, plus some LAN coop option. It's not that I don't fire it up regularly and see if I somehow can get some fun out of it. Unfortunately, usually after 30 minutes or less in quick missions getting annoyed with controls that can't be set up or are set up but don't work as they should, I realize I don't and quit.

I don't consider FM's the most important contributing factor to my in game fun, I've said time and again I want a decent GUI and a good campaign. I've been dealing with much worse FM's for many, many years and still had fun. I think I care enough about BoX, while I think there have been some unfortunate, fundamentally wrong design decisions, I'd even buy BoM just to support the guys. If there wasn't a dev insulting his customers on a regular basis.

As a sidenote, I said I play other games, not that I prefer other sims. There are more fun games out there than I have time for playing. And I enjoy discussions, not arguments.

[unreasonable]

I am confused

 

Of the three main people contributing info to this 11 page thread, two do not own the game, and the other owns it but does not use it and prefers other sims and cares little for BoS or whether the FM's are correct but enjoy's the FM arguments by his own admission 

 

Of the two who dont own it, one thinks another sims 190 is great and the other finds another sims 190's FM implausible, and these two have been locked in forum combat for years in many different places

 

And all of this is somehow supposed to help those who enjoy BoS/Bom and make the best of it

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

That seems odd on the face of it but in fact their discussion has certainly helped me, if you count understanding as part of enjoyment as I do. In fact I have been firing up BoS for the first time in weeks to fly around in the Fw and see what they - and the regular Fw drivers like HerrMurf -  are talking about.

 

What they have done is focus on what seems to be going on with the accelerated stall, which IMHO is at the heart of the angst, because even if the current Fw has theoretically close to RL turn, climb and speeds (I do not know), the regular Fw pilots [edit; perhaps not all, many of them] are saying that they cannot use them effectively because they cannot handle the aircraft close to the limit without risking sudden and terminal consequences. 

 

The technical discussion has been about what has been done to the Fw - ie in effect changing the AoA at which the wings stall, although the actual input data the model uses is not know to us. The question then is whether the data used in the current FM appears to match the sources, and whether these sources are open to (mis)interpretation. Perhaps a sufficiently clear cut case can be presented that Hans et al will take notice; if so it will only be done on the basis of a carefully worked through case based on the level of detail these three chaps have been discussing.

 

The issue of "owning the game" would be perfectly valid if they were discussing what it feels like to fly the BoS Fw. Someone who does not own the game is indeed on shaky ground pontificating on that, but in relation to the issue of what the RL Fw could actually do, and comparing with data obtained from someone who does own the game, ownership becomes irrelevant and people drawing attention to this are guilty of the ad hominem fallacy.

 

I do feel that the general discussions about the "head on no firing merge" scenario with a Yak are a distraction and not helpful, however. Apart from anything else, why would any Fw pilot in his right mind not fire during the merge? They also seem to get the aircraft into a contrived situation where the aircraft that goes slow first wins. There is clearly more to ACM than that.

 

Generally I suspect that it is a mistake to try to fit a FM to tactical anecdotes - better to get the technicalities right and let players discover the tactics themselves: which will not necessarily be the same as RL usage since the game environment, especially in MP, often differs from RL. If the "three musketeers" have been helping to get the technical stuff right, and helping non-technical but interested types like me get a better understanding of what may be happening, more power to them.

Edited April 26, 2016 by unreasonable

[Holtzauge]

Interesting to see how some trip over themselves to discredit the messanger to avoid the issue.

 

And, yes I own and fly both BoS and DCS, kinda needed to compare the two no?

Edited April 26, 2016 by Holtzauge

[StG2_Manfred]

.....

 

Sorry, but the pic you posted gives the wrong impression, me thinks Venturi.

 

You should write to it, that you hit me when I was already landing the Yak in the field.

 

I recoreded a track, probably you as well. Please post the video and everybody can see what was going on.

 

I do not have much time at the moment, but maybe I can create and upload it soon.

Edited April 26, 2016 by StG2_Manfred

[PeterZvan]

You do realise that in the example you gave from the manual, the winning plane is the one with the fastest instantanious turn - and that this is exactly what the example is saying that should be done?

So this dosent help your theory at all. 

Your perhaps earn your money with RL aircraft, but deffinitly not by fighting with them. 

 

As for the source:

1: Why did Han discredit it?

2: How can the data for a FW190 A4 flown at reduced ATA be used for a FW190 A3 at 1.42 ATA? By extrapolation? And where is the 21 sec at 4000m quote? I see the turn times in the source given for 1000m.

Edited April 26, 2016 by PeterZvan

[Turban]

The major problem is you are using a single point source to make a broad claim. It hardly stands up to anything we'd call actual research. You demand documentation and proof to counter your claim which clearly has neither.

 

A claim from an actual pilot is better than claims by forum "experts" . You all claim the A3 is comparable to the D9, but have nothing that shows it to be true.

 

Anyway, don't drag me back in this.

[unreasonable]

Anyway, don't drag me back in this.

 

[Dakpilot]

Interesting to see how some trip over themselves to discredit the messanger to avoid the issue.

 

And, yes I own and fly both BoS and DCS, kinda needed to compare the two no?

 

Why when asked did you avoid the question of having BoS? kind of sets you up for the assumptions that were made..

 

point is personal feuds left over from other forums cloud the discussions for decent debate and decent results..it is not surprising that Dev's do not read these threads

 

A lot of the time these FM discussions seem more about personal combat than improving the game/sim

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Stig]

Several pages back a possible fault in the 190's FM was found. It's not going to come to the devs attention buried in a long thread of back and forth arguments. It's great having all the knowlegdeable people in these FM debates; it would just be better if it actually lead to a solution. 

 

Dogfights are proper term for air combat; however for air combat forum discussions catfight seems a more suitable term 

[Grancesc]

Why when asked did you avoid the question of having BoS? kind of sets you up for the assumptions that were made..

 

point is personal feuds left over from other forums cloud the discussions for decent debate and decent results..it is not surprising that Dev's do not read these threads

 

A lot of the time these FM discussions seem more about personal combat than improving the game/sim

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

This is your second post of this kind. I see very well your attempts not to discredit individual people here. But you try to discredit the whole discussion platform which is IMO much nastier. Please understand that a considerable part of the BOS/BOM community is concerned about the present Fw190 FM. Most who express here have no other agenda than to improve this Sim.

[Dakpilot]

This is your second post of this kind. I see very well your attempts not to discredit individual people here. But you try to discredit the whole discussion platform which is IMO much nastier. Please understand that a considerable part of the BOS/BOM community is concerned about the present Fw190 FM. Most who express here have no other agenda than to improve this Sim.

 

If you see my post as trying to discredit the whole discussion platform then you have very much misunderstood me

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Grancesc]

If you see my post as trying to discredit the whole discussion platform then you have very much misunderstood me

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

If that was not your intention and you say so, then please accept my apologies for the misunderstanding.

 

​Cheers Grancesc

[StG2_Manfred]

Why when asked did you avoid the question of having BoS? kind of sets you up for the assumptions that were made..

 

point is personal feuds left over from other forums cloud the discussions for decent debate and decent results..it is not surprising that Dev's do not read these threads

 

A lot of the time these FM discussions seem more about personal combat than improving the game/sim

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

I pointed out in several threads that you apparently do not have any online experience but you asking others if they own BoX ???

 

Check yourself: http://il2stat.aviaskins.com:8008/de/pilots/?search=dakpilot&tour=9

 

I checked the whole year 2016, not a single entry of a Dakpilot. Yes yes, we all know, you fly on all others servers but not on the most populated....

 

For me (and also for others) it's obvoius whats your agenda is.

Edited April 26, 2016 by StG2_Manfred

[Dakpilot]

In my defence, I'd play the game more often if it offered me anything I'm interested in. Which mostly means a better SP campaign, plus some LAN coop option. It's not that I don't fire it up regularly and see if I somehow can get some fun out of it. Unfortunately, usually after 30 minutes or less in quick missions getting annoyed with controls that can't be set up or are set up but don't work as they should, I realize I don't and quit.

I don't consider FM's the most important contributing factor to my in game fun, I've said time and again I want a decent GUI and a good campaign. I've been dealing with much worse FM's for many, many years and still had fun. I think I care enough about BoX, while I think there have been some unfortunate, fundamentally wrong design decisions, I'd even buy BoM just to support the guys. If there wasn't a dev insulting his customers on a regular basis.

As a sidenote, I said I play other games, not that I prefer other sims. There are more fun games out there than I have time for playing. And I enjoy discussions, not arguments.

 

Fair enough, from your post I got the impression you were talking about other flight games/sims, thankyou for the clarification 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Dakpilot]

I pointed out in several threads that you apparently do not have any online experience but you asking others if the own BoX ???

 

Check yourself: http://il2stat.aviaskins.com:8008/de/pilots/?search=dakpilot&tour=9

 

I checked the whole year 2016, not a single entry of a Dakpilot. Yes yes, we all know, you fly on all others servers but not on the most populated....

 

For me (and also for others) it's obvoius was your agenda is.

 

Really? because I don't fly on WoL I must have an agenda? sorry but you have lost me now

 

Someone else asked the question of BoS ownership and in a long reply countering every other point, did not reply to that question from the poster.

 

I wrongly assumed from the lack of reply the incorrect answer.

 

I cannot be alone in noticing some long going feuds from other forums. Many useful threads have been closed for off topic 'rants' by mods for this reason

 

*EDIT* for full disclosure I live in a part of the world where internet connection can be troublesome, for unselfish reasons I do not participate on busy servers so much due to ping issues, seeing me warp all over the sky on occasion will not help others enjoyment of the server

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited April 26, 2016 by Dakpilot

[Irgendjemand]

Sorry, but the pic you posted gives the wrong impression, me thinks Venturi.

 

You should write to it, that you hit me when I was already landing the Yak in the field.

 

I recoreded a track, probably you as well. Please post the video and everybody can see what was going on.

 

I do not have much time at the moment, but maybe I can create and upload it soon.

Oh wow, what a "Di**move" by him. Shooting a landing plane thats out of fuel and then using a pic of right that to make the impression he actually won?

How this guy is bristling with integrity. Awesome:P

[Crump]

You do realise that in the example you gave from the manual, the winning plane is the one with the fastest instantanious turn - and that this is exactly what the example is saying that should be done?

So this dosent help your theory at all. 

Your perhaps earn your money with RL aircraft, but deffinitly not by fighting with them. 

 

 

 

 

It is talking about rate....end of story.    Take a mountain flying course when you get your pilots license.  You will learn all about the differences between rate and radius.

 

You do not have a complete understanding of it.

 

As for your insistance on the "realism" of computer simulation and the relevance of computer based flight behaviors....

 

The first thing our training department instructors tell new hires is "do not try and grease the landing in the sim, plant it...do not red screen it".

 

When you do steep turns (which are fun in a 100,000lb airplane)...they will tell you if you do it in the airplane it is much easier than the sim because the sim does not replicate the airplanes behaviors.  Stalls are the same way.  The basic control movements are the same but the aircrafts behavior is not being reproduced in the simulator. 

 

Simulators do not act anything like the real aircraft.  They are for training procedures and not for learning flight behaviors.  This is a 28 million dollar full motion simulator with 3 dedicated mainframes that only simulates ONE airplane.

 

You are going to tell me based on your home computer flight game how airplanes act???  I am confused by that.

 

 

As for the source:

1: Why did Han discredit it?

2: How can the data for a FW190 A4 flown at reduced ATA be used for a FW190 A3 at 1.42 ATA? By extrapolation? And where is the 21 sec at 4000m quote? I see the turn times in the source given for 1000m.

 

  1.  He said they use "German sources for German airplanes" which I was confused by because there were both Focke Wulf GmbH and Allied documents posted because the secondary sources all are in agreement with the primary sources, LOL.

 

2.  If you have a know point of performance, it is easy to do the math based on the physical relationships to determine performance in any other point in the airplanes envelope.  That is what engineers do, btw.  Flight test gather a few data points under known conditions which the engineers then use to convert to any condition.....

 

 

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....

[Crump]

 

 

PeterZvan

 

Let's see what the real world has to say....

 

 

 

FW-190A has the following advantages compared to the Me-109G6: under 4,000 meters it is about 20-30 km/h faster in horizontal flight. It is easier to control and has better overall pilot visibility. It also has superior firepower

 

 

Mmmm...that is the same thing the science say it should have in the horizontal (that is angle or turning) fight!

 

 

 

Above 4,500 meters is it slower in horizontal flight. 

 

 

Yep, the BMW801D2 is not a high altitude engine....

 

 

 

FW-190 will commit to the fight even if our battle formation is not broken, preferring left turning fights. There has been cases of such turning fights lasting quite a long time, with multiple planes from both sides involved in each engagement.

 

Does that happen in your game now?

 

http://luthier.stormloader.com/SFTacticsIII.htm

[Crump]

I don`t think anyone is saying that the 190 should take on the yak at low sustained horizontal turn or at stall fight.

 

I have not run the math yet but that is exactly how the FW-190 defeated the Spitfire or at least was able to dogfight on equal terms.  It did not outturn a smart Spitfire pilot, it simply forced him to a lower energy state in order NOT to be outturned in a sustained horizontal fight.  

 

The FW-190 then could use its acceleration and agility to neutralize the better sustained turn performance the Spitfire enjoyed at the lower working airspeeds.  Of course, the Spitfire neutralized that acceleration and agility with its sustained turn rate.  It became a contest of equals.

 

That same characteristics of design balance in the FW-190 is seen in the VVS combat manual. 

Edited April 26, 2016 by Crump

[Dakpilot]

From the same article you are quoting " Lets see what the real world has to say" ,  Soviet Fighter Tactics published 1943,  

 

"Russian Yak-7 pilots that fought FW-190 and successfully shot it down are certain that a Yak-7 can fight the FW-190 in all situations successfully and with more success than the Me-109"

 

just for interest sake not saying this is true but it is interesting coming from an 'enemy' perspective re 190 and 109 in 43 on Russian front, of course this does not take into account tactical and strategic situation and of course must be noted as anecdotal

 

However I think this one may have been included for propaganda reasons, unless this is reported multiple times from other sources 

 

"Captured FW-190 pilots are familiar with specifics of all our planes, and consider Yak-1, Yak-9 and La-5 to be superior to theirs"

 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Crump]

 

 

"Russian Yak-7 pilots that fought FW-190 and successfully shot it down are certain that a Yak-7 can fight the FW-190 in all situations successfully and with more success than the Me-109"

 

That could be true.  There were multiple variants of the Yak 7 with a variety of performance. In fact, modifications to the Yak 7A in 1942 resulted in it becoming the one of the fastest Soviet fighter at a cost of degraded maneuvering performance compared to a Yak 1.  That speed increase would have helped against the FW-190.

 

 A Spitfire Mk XII was purposely designed to counter the Focke Wulf and I imagine an FW-190 pilot would have a hard time with one on his six.

 

That does not change the basic success of the tactics used against the Spitfire.  

That is all a complete distraction from the point being made about turn rate at high speed being a huge advantage in a dogfight due to the fact it forces an opponent to a lower energy state.

[Brano]

"Captured FW-190 pilots are familiar with specifics of all our planes, and consider Yak-1, Yak-9 and La-5 to be superior to theirs"

 

 

Just to correct this statement. Most probably lost in translation to english (it is no bad,but a bit "rough") but this is original:

Пленные летчики с ФВ-190 хорошо знакомы с нашими самолетами и оценивают самолеты Як-1, Як-7 и Ла-5 как очень хорошие.

Which translates to: Captured Fw-190 pilots are very well familiar with our aircrafts and find aircrafts Jak-1,Jak-7 and La-5 to be very good.

[Crump]

There is already a good article illustrating exactly what I am saying....

 

 

 

So, let’s get down to the real point of these diagrams… Suppose you are the P-51 driver and want to know where you have an advantage over the Spitfire. Take a look at the diagram in Fig10 again and notice that the sustained turn rate curves for both aircraft cross at 255mph. Above that speed the P-51 has a sustained turn rate advantage. Above that speed the P-51 also has equality in the instantaneous turns and better top speed and acceleration. So, the P-51 can fight the Spitfire above 255mph without ever losing the advantage…it is the energy fighter. However, if the P-51 driver pushes the fight too hard and slows below 255mph, the advantage will go to the Spitfire! Unfortunately it is not quite that clear cut. Having a sustained turn rate advantage above 255mph doesn’t mean that you can engage the Spitfire in a turning fight, even if you stay at or above that speed. If you do, the Spitfire will trade his airspeed for angles and be in a position for a shot fairly quickly. By attempting to maintain a sustained turn at high speed you will have a large turn radius and that will concede turning room to the Spitfire. What the P-51 drivers should do, is to stay in that part of the envelope where they have the advantage, and that basically means high-speed attacks followed by extensions beyond gun range. Let’s look at that idea more closely.

 

http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_011b.html

 

The sustained turn rate advantage at a higher working speed is what gives the energy fighter the ability to maneuver and dictate the fight.  That is a function of excess power at velocity and why fighter designers considered speed to be so important, even sacrificing horizontal maneuverability to achieve design balance.  It does not mean that energy fighters are one dimensional aircraft and attempt to outturn an opponent with this high speed turn rate advantage.  Rather, Use the sustained turn rate advantage to force your opponent out of a co-energy state while you maintain the area of the performance envelope that has advantage for you.

 

The aircraft that has the lower working speed sustained turn rate performance point must trade airspeed or altitude (energy) to realize that performance advantage over an aircraft that has a higher working speed.   That is how the physics works.

 

In this example, a smart P-51 pilot will stay at 255 mph and when he sees the Spitfire begin to gain advantage in the turn rate...he knows that pilot has traded airspeed for angles.  It is time for the P-51 to break off the turn rate fight, transition to the vertical, and continue to build his energy advantage while depleting his opponent.  Agility and acceleration are key in the vertical.

 

 

 

Just to correct this statement. Most probably lost in translation to english (it is no bad,but a bit "rough") but this is original:

 

Thank you Brano! 

[JtD]

I've had this very same debate with Crump years ago, and it lead nowhere, as you can see from the above posts. I'd recommend to stick to what you know to work from the game, and leave the theoretical applications of the theories to Crump. After all, as PeterZvan already mentioned, the game is an application of these theories (in fact a pretty good and complex one) and playing it gives a much better understanding of what the theories mean in practice than reading long posts does.

 

I'd prefer if this topic got back to the current Fw190 FM and would not be about P-51's turn fighting Spitfires.

[Crump]

 

 

So it would seem the FM matches the references figures and there was probably as much variation (if you remember those "define stall speed" discussions...) and I do not see what's the problem, especially since so far all there is are "reference" like the "I think the stall should be better" (better than what? Two bunnies, twelve carrots?) and "my calculation show", and "this reference is useless because it does not fit into my speculations" kind - all of which are equally worthless. 

 

The FM does not seem to account for instrument error (Position Error Correction) or Compressibility.  The devs keep quoting the FW-190 Flugzeug Handbuch.  The speed listed is Indicated Airspeed and the sentence specifically references that this speed was taken at high altitude.  That means an unknown compressibility error correction is warranted as well as the instrument error (Position Error Correction).  

 

If you just use uncorrected indicated airspeed on an airplane with an airspeed indicator whose error is to read higher than the airplane is actually going...then your CLmax will be lower than it should be and the error relative to airplanes whose airspeed indicator shows them going slower than they are actually flying will be increased.

 

Understand? 

I've had this very same debate with Crump years ago, and it lead nowhere, as you can see from the above posts. I'd recommend to stick to what you know to work from the game, and leave the theoretical applications of the theories to Crump. After all, as PeterZvan already mentioned, the game is an application of these theories (in fact a pretty good and complex one) and playing it gives a much better understanding of what the theories mean in practice than reading long posts does.

I'd prefer if this topic got back to the current Fw190 FM and would not be about P-51's turn fighting Spitfires.

 

Wow......
"my theories" are reproduced in a simhq article for gamers!!  Should I be proud?

It lead nowhere because like PeterZvan you did not understand it and therefore dismissed it out of hand.

Fortunately, aircraft designers who build the fighters that protect us do understand it.

[JtD]

I used these theories which are not yours to regularly score three digit kill streaks. That's the practical application I am talking about, as opposed to theoretical applications you keep posting on these forums. It pretty much proves I understand the theories very well, and from what I read, so does PeterZvan. Don't worry about us.

 

So, are you done with the insults now and can we get back to the Fw190 FM?