Whats your opinion on the new FW FM?

[Crump]

 

 

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

 

I did not insult you JtD.  You threw the punches studmuffin.

 

 

 

've had this very same debate with Crump years ago, and it lead nowhere, as you can see from the above posts.

 

Implying that I am an idiot in a very passive aggressive style that leads to these things being shut down.

 

Get back to the FW-190? Why don't you add to the conversation instead of insulting others??

 

I have been talking about the FW-190 for several pages, posting documents, math, and anecdotes that back up the science and the math.  How about you? 

[Grancesc]

@Crump and others
Your aeronatical knowledge is for me not in question and you have a lot of energy to put  things right. How could we bundle all the energy of this forum to bring this messed FW190 FM back in order? With trench fighting each other, I think we will not succeed.

[JtD]

I was going to get back to your(?) statement in the other topic about Fw190 acceleration, but with Crump theorizing about Spitfires turnfighting Mustangs I don't see this happening right now. Sorry. (Not cancelled, just postponed.)

[PeterZvan]

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

 

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.

 

At least read the article correctly. It writes exactly what needs to be done and yet you say differently.

Also you have evolved your theory in the last 4 posts and have now gotten to the concept of extending, outclimbing and attacking with an advantage. This only achived by superior straight line speed and / or better climb rate. So a clasical BnZ engagament which is the norm in all sims and . Before you were advocating using turn rate at higher speeds to win fights - as you than quickly learned from the ariticles which you dug up dosent work at all and had to readjust your theory.

JtD is right however - no point discussing this with you.

 

I got all the info out of this disscussion I wanted - in these discussions only very few people acctally know how to use the plane performance in dogfights and those arguments are for me much more valid as they know what to look for. 

As for how much I understand about BFM theory I invite anyone to discover that online - Crump you are more than welcome. You supposably know more about it than me so you should have no problems defeating because as you state I am one dimensional in my thinking.

Heck I will even buy you a BoS copy if you would do that. Or lets do it in RoF which is free to play. Or any other sim which caters to you. 

 

But back to topic of FW underperforming in BoS. 

We remained at too high stall speed as the problem.

Also sustained turn rate is incorrect according to Crump - I understand that the data was rejected by Han and I understand why (I do get the concept of extrapolation btw - at least dont calculate it simplified as drag due to changed AoA and changed prop efficiency due to pitch and rotational speed change as well... the sim physics engine calculates it much more accuratly)

 

So where are the German sources that give 21 sec for a sustained 360 degrees turn at 4000m for a FW190 and under what conditions was it done? 

Its German sources for German planes - please present it as you say that the sources are abundant. 

Than it will all be over and the FW will turn into the superb fighter like it is described in the accounts. 

I will write the FM report to Han. In exactly the format needed. 

Will even do the homework to find out why it is underperforming if it is - for such a high deviation something must be massivly off and therefore easy to find. 

Edited April 26, 2016 by PeterZvan

[Crump]

 

 

I understand that the data was rejected by Han

 

No, there was not sustained turn rate data presented.  That is a function of the Clmax and excess power characteristics,  Put in the correct inputs and you get the correct results....

 

 

 

no point discussing this with you.

 

Then why mention it?  You stick to the virtual ones and I keep to the real ones...how is that?

 

 

 

Heck I will even buy you a BoS copy if you would do that. Or lets do it in RoF which is free to play. Or any other sim which caters to you. 

 

Sure....it is your dime.  Put your money where your mouth is..... 

[PeterZvan]

RoF is fine than? Or BoS?

Do you even own a controler needed for this?

 

We do it publicly - you loose and you never again preach to people on how they should use the planes - that are my conditions. 

 

Why wasnt the sustained turn rate presented? Its the most important for dogfights and very easy to verify ingame. If that is off, then they have to concede that they have someting wrong - be it Clmax or whatever.

I am interested acctually how the CLmax is distributed over the complete wing (for JtD acctually). I gather that Clmax is for a profile, but profile thickness / size and shape is changing over the wing span. How do you guy incoporate that + wingtip drag to it all? Or do you use glide ratio for the complete plane and verify ingame - if so is there data for the glide ratio for the FW?

And where are the sources??

Edited April 26, 2016 by PeterZvan

[Gump]

having a science and a physically active/athletic background, i understand how theory and application go hand-in-hand. application is benefited when the theory is understood. various tendencies that lean towards one of the other are present in any population (ie: science geeks vs boxer), but the relationship still exists, and anyone who can grasp both will benefit. forgive me if i dont fall into this scale where (many of) you do, but im trying to fit in where i can. from my POV, ....

.

the current FW190 FM does not match commonly-accepted-as-valid real-world (anecdotal?) application reports. more than just a little difference. many users complaining about it being a severe problem. ive flown it, too, and concur. it is NOT a fearsome opponent to face, even with an La5. it is not "easy" to fly (to victory) in aerial combat, especially in MP, where skill levels demand very good performance.

..

since the performance of this model is driven by a mathematical model (based on theory+data), the error HAS to lie in: theory or; data or; both. it cannot lie in the application (use) of the model, since the historical reports are so far from performance/maneuver that is possible in game. there is overwhelming agreement on this. hence, application (anecdotal evidence) gleaned from historical reports are useful when evaluating our game experience as 'accurate'. we can, therefore, say that "something is wrong with the FM" (that is, the 'theory and/or data) because the plane 'doesn't perform like they said it did'. not because we don't know how to fly it.

...for instance, a pole vaulter cannot use just any pole to achieve the same results. he has to chose a pole made to specs that consider his weight, grip, approach speed, body height, strength and desired vault height. if an experienced vaulter knows what to expect for his performance (how high he should vault based on his effort), and sees something contrary to this in actuality, he knows there is something wrong with his pole, and proceeds to evaluate the pole for it's various theoretical characteristics (or just gets another one).

.

given the real world versus game discrepancies, the only way to evaluate our current FM would be to evaluate the math and data. sometimes understanding and discerning the data requires understanding the theory that enables it. for instance, many times in my industry we throw out data because it cannot fit the theory - it is invalid and reveals a problem in the acquisition - we only know this because we understand the theory AND/OR, we compare it to real world existing/pre-existing samples. persistent contrary data requires a change to a troubleshooting mode.

.

through the things brought to light in this discussion, we have a consensus that the FM is faulty and, not only that, but some very good reasons to examine some specific causes. you guys might wrestle a bit, but it is educational regardless. theoretical wrestling, btw, is not necessarily a bad thing, just as a debate is not necessarily a bad thing. "as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another". i, for one, have learned theoretical (aeronautical science) things, tactical combat things, historical things from this discussion. thanks to all.

[Holtzauge]

<snip>

 

So where are the German sources that give 21 sec for a sustained 360 degrees turn at 4000m for a FW190 and under what conditions was it done? 

Its German sources for German planes - please present it as you say that the sources are abundant. 

Than it will all be over and the FW will turn into the superb fighter like it is described in the accounts. 

I will write the FM report to Han. In exactly the format needed. 

Will even do the homework to find out why it is underperforming if it is - for such a high deviation something must be massivly off and therefore easy to find. 

 

You won't find any IRL data for 21 s at 4000 m for the Fw-190 A3 because it is physically impossible. I have a C++ program that allows me to do estimates and mine is 30-32 s at 4000 m with full fuel no MGFF depending on power setting, the lower figure for 1.42 ata and the higher for 1.32 ata.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Holtzauge

[PeterZvan]

Well that is what Crump is saying that is inside the german documentation or evident from the german documentation.

He goes so far as saying that around 19,5 sec is what it should be doing at SL.

So I want to see the source. 

 

Your 30sec to 32sec are acctually quite simmilar to what is doable in BoS now.

I got 32sec for 1.42 ata and 35 sec for 1,32 ata - full fuel no MGFF - the turns were performed very stably - with more tries I might trim those times by 1 sec.

Its a bit more than your estimation and probably this is another indicator of the supposed issue. 

It would be very usefull to have real data for that - turn time, speed, ata and altitude - so please help us Crump. 

[Holtzauge]

Ran some more C++ numbers for 360 deg turn all with full fuel and A3 sans MGFF:

 

Yak-1 at SL 18.5 s

 

Fw-190 A3 1.42 ata at SL 20.9 s

 

Yak-1  at 4 km 28 s

 

Fw-190 A3 1.42 ata at 4 Km 31 s

 

So it looks like BoS is a bit more pessimistic than me for the A3. What about the Yak? How do my figures compare there? Don't have time to test myself tonight and work tomorrow.....

Edited April 26, 2016 by Holtzauge

[PeterZvan]

SL

Yak-1 SL is almost spot - a few tenths give or take - when turned to the right I was getting around 19,2 sec so I did the 4000m tests to the left. 

Suprisingly FW190 also - just did two seperate tests and got consistant 20,6 sec - not easy to fly it that way or to set it up quickly due to the nasty stall, but it will do that - all tests done turning to the right. 

 

4000m

Yak - I am getting around 24 to 25 sec. Not more.

 

I do have to mention that I did use the winter map for this - so winter conditions and better performance. 

 

Summer conditions Yak-1.

SL around 21 sec

4000m around 27,5 sec

 

Summer conditions FW190 1,42 ata no MGFF

SL around 24,5 sec

4000m around 36 sec

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

 

So it looks like BoS is a bit more pessimistic than me for the A3. What about the Yak? How do my figures compare there? Don't have time to test myself tonight and work tomorrow.....

Stats card for the Yak-1 @ 2932kg says

21.2s at Sea level @ 270kph IAS

27.8s @ 3000m @ 270kph IAS

at Nominal power setting

 

FW-190A-3 @ 3855kg it says

24.7s @ SL @ 280kph IAS

34.3s @ 3000m @ 270kph IAS

at WEP setting

Edited April 26, 2016 by RoflSeal

[Crump]

You won't find any IRL data for 21 s at 4000 m for the Fw-190 A3 because it is physically impossible. I have a C++ program that allows me to do estimates and mine is 30-32 s at 4000 m with full fuel no MGFF depending on power setting, the lower figure for 1.42 ata and the higher for 1.32 ata.

Your sea level turn times are within one second of mine. Probably a difference in Np. I based mine off VDM and Focke Wulfs thrust horsepower data.

 

I pulled the altitude from memory so it could very well be wrong and have not run the math for 4000meters so I won't stand by it until I find the document I got the 21 seconds from....

 

However the VVS data I posted records turning times both left and right, clean and with 10 degrees of flap at 1000 meters. The power is 1.28ata at 2700U/min. The weight is corrected to take off weight for an MGFF equipped FW-190A4.

 

That gives a good data point to compare the accuracy of your estimate. Mine agrees with it.

 

That document shows 21 seconds with 10 degrees of flap.

[Kurfurst]

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?

 

Actually your statistics show that you have exactly ZERO hours flown in BoS.  I would then hazard to guess that you probalby 'fly' in DCS and BoS 50-50.

 

[Edited]

 

So oddly all these arguments this thread were largely between people who do not fly the BoS Fw 190 at all. 

 

You do not know how much he has or has not flown in this sim. Nor is it ANY of your business one way or the other.

Edited April 27, 2016 by Bearcat
Personal

[JtD]

Actually your statistics show that you have exactly ZERO hours flown in BoS.

Actually the statistics show that he's spend zero hours flying the CAMPAIGN.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Take the personal history stuff to PM. It has no business here.

[Holtzauge]

[Edited]

 

So oddly all these arguments this thread were largely between people who do not fly the BoS Fw 190 at all.

Gee, and YOU complain about stalking here in BoS?

Edited April 27, 2016 by Bearcat

[Kurfurst]

Stats card for the Yak-1 @ 2932kg says

21.2s at Sea level @ 270kph IAS

27.8s @ 3000m @ 270kph IAS

at Nominal power setting

 

FW-190A-3 @ 3855kg it says

24.7s @ SL @ 280kph IAS

34.3s @ 3000m @ 270kph IAS

at WEP setting

 

It seems the turn figures are quite a bit worse for both the Yak 1 (17-19 secs) and the Fw 190A-4 (22-23 secs) than what was measured in real life with the planes, albeit at 1000 m (which makes the SL figures in the game look in more pessimistic). The Yak is far worse off though, its supposed to best turning thing that is out there, and in a completely different league than the Wulf.

 

I began to wonder though if the game stat cards are truely are the best figures, and not just figures in a specific condition, but so far nothing indicates that its the latter. Something is off.

 

 

 

Actually the statistics show that he's spend zero hours flying the CAMPAIGN.

 

[Edited]

Edited April 27, 2016 by Bearcat
Personal

[JtD]

It seems the turn figures are quite a bit worse for both the Yak 1 (17-19 secs) and the Fw 190A-4 (22-23 secs) than what was measured in real life with the planes, albeit at 1000 m (which makes the SL figures in the game look in more pessimistic). The Yak is far worse off though, its supposed to best turning thing that is out there, and in a completely different league than the Wulf.

The Yak-1 we have in game is a series 69 Yak which was tested at 19-20s turn time at 1000m. But since Soviet turn time figures come with a number of inconsistencies, I wouldn't take them too seriously.

 

I am sure there will be an explanation, or several ones. Still, I'd go with what's Occam's razor would suggest.

I was merely sharing a fact, do with it whatever you like.

[Kurfurst]

The Yak-1 we have in game is a series 69 Yak which was tested at 19-20s turn time at 1000m. But since Soviet turn time figures come with a number of inconsistencies, I wouldn't take them too seriously.

 

I was merely sharing a fact, do with it whatever you like.

 

I am not sure on what exactly are you wishing to base the turn times of aircraft in question if not on the actual and very easily measurable turn times by professionals, and, more importantly, do you really think that there is any realistic chance that the devs will seriously consider this rather unorthodox approach...?

[JtD]

What were the atmospheric conditions and the aircraft condition like during each test? Why is there a variance of 3s with near identical aircraft, and 7s for a similar subversions of one type? You want to model it with 18s? Here's the Soviet test figure. You want to model it with 25? I can prove that, too.

 

You will need to model it on the physics behind the aircraft, and for plausibility get in range of the real life figures that is covered by uncertainty of measurement. If you're hellbent on matching one specific figure you know little about, you're just bound to make mistakes. I agree with you on the trend of in game figures being somewhat worse than real life, but the Yak's better than the Fw by 3.5s, which is not far off what the average Soviet figures give.

I'm curious about why the real life figures are better, but I don't think this necessarily means the game is wrong. Maybe it's just that in game conditions are different from real life testing conditions.

 

do you really think that there is any realistic chance that the devs will seriously consider this rather unorthodox approach...?

What approach, if I may ask?

[Holtzauge]

SL

Yak-1 SL is almost spot - a few tenths give or take - when turned to the right I was getting around 19,2 sec so I did the 4000m tests to the left. 

Suprisingly FW190 also - just did two seperate tests and got consistant 20,6 sec - not easy to fly it that way or to set it up quickly due to the nasty stall, but it will do that - all tests done turning to the right. 

 

4000m

Yak - I am getting around 24 to 25 sec. Not more.

 

I do have to mention that I did use the winter map for this - so winter conditions and better performance. 

 

Summer conditions Yak-1.

SL around 21 sec

4000m around 27,5 sec

 

Summer conditions FW190 1,42 ata no MGFF

SL around 24,5 sec

4000m around 36 sec

 

 

Stats card for the Yak-1 @ 2932kg says

21.2s at Sea level @ 270kph IAS

27.8s @ 3000m @ 270kph IAS

at Nominal power setting

 

FW-190A-3 @ 3855kg it says

24.7s @ SL @ 280kph IAS

34.3s @ 3000m @ 270kph IAS

at WEP setting

 

Ok, thanks for doing the tests. Unfortunately I forgot to mention that my program assumes standard atmospheric condition, i.e. 15 deg C so that would correspond to the autumn map which means my results should fall in between the winter and summer BoS data above. Were your tests done with summer map RoflSeal?

 

One thing that does stand out though is the Yak turn at 4 Km which with 24-25 s in winter and 27.5 s in summer seems to indicate better performance than my 28 s for autumn map in BoS.

 

More difficult to tell for the Fw-190 since we don't have a winter or autumn value but only the summer value of 36 s to compare with my 31 s.

 

Up to now it has been more about the momentaneous turn performance but of course the sustained is also important to get right for the Fw-190 since while no one will think about turning with a Yak, it is important when you turn while trying to maintain energy that you don't bleed more energy than you should so which is the impression i get in 1.201: Not only the stall was affected but also how quickly you bleed energy when you try to turn.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

Ok, thanks for doing the tests. Unfortunately I forgot to mention that my program assumes standard atmospheric condition, i.e. 15 deg C so that would correspond to the autumn map which means my results should fall in between the winter and summer BoS data above. Were your tests done with summer map RoflSeal?

 

One thing that does stand out though is the Yak turn at 4 Km which with 24-25 s in winter and 27.5 s in summer seems to indicate better performance than my 28 s for autumn map in BoS.

 

More difficult to tell for the Fw-190 since we don't have a winter or autumn value but only the summer value of 36 s to compare with my 31 s.

 

Up to now it has been more about the momentaneous turn performance but of course the sustained is also important to get right for the Fw-190 since while no one will think about turning with a Yak, it is important when you turn while trying to maintain energy that you don't bleed more energy than you should so which is the impression i get in 1.201: Not only the stall was affected but also how quickly you bleed energy when you try to turn.

Not my tests, they are the figures (among others) on the plane card when you open it up in the Profile menu. 

[Holtzauge]

Your sea level turn times are within one second of mine. Probably a difference in Np. I based mine off VDM and Focke Wulfs thrust horsepower data.

 

I pulled the altitude from memory so it could very well be wrong and have not run the math for 4000meters so I won't stand by it until I find the document I got the 21 seconds from....

 

However the VVS data I posted records turning times both left and right, clean and with 10 degrees of flap at 1000 meters. The power is 1.28ata at 2700U/min. The weight is corrected to take off weight for an MGFF equipped FW-190A4.

 

That gives a good data point to compare the accuracy of your estimate. Mine agrees with it.

 

That document shows 21 seconds with 10 degrees of flap.

 

I ran the C++ simulations for Fw-190A3 with 1.42 ata at 4000 m, full fuel no MGFF, standard atmospheric conditions with both 0 and 10 deg flap for comparison:

 

No flap: Best turn speed was 264 Km/h IAS with turn time 31.03 s, radius 444 m

 

10 deg flap: Best turn speed was 247 Km/h IAS with turn time 30.82 s, radius 412 m

 

So again, it sounds really strange with 21 s at 4000 m for the Fw-190A3 in any condition. Maybe there is a typo somewhere? Would you mind posting the data? Since we have a lot of German speaking forum members they may be able to help unravel what is behind this figure.

 

Not my tests, they are the figures (among others) on the plane card when you open it up in the Profile menu.

 OK, sorry for the confusion. I thought they were measured by you! Edited April 27, 2016 by Holtzauge

[JtD]

Little addition - note the landing speed figures in the table Kurfurst posted? 140 for the Yak, 154 for the Fw190. Again we don't know exactly what they refer to, but if they were calibrated air speed for the weight given, the Fw190 would have a 7% higher maximum lift coefficient then the Yak. Which is pretty much exactly what I would expect based on airfoil data & wing configuration. Reminder - in game we have ~10% in favour of the Yak.

[JtD]

Max speed is a thing, the acceleration time spent to reach this speed is another.

 

In BOS Yaks are able to stick like glue to the FW for a very long time before the two planes can reach their respectives max speed. Enough time to make the difference in a lot of cases.

(Taken from the closed topic).

 

Attached a chart comparing accelerations - the old Fw190 at 1.32 ata, the new one at 1.32 and 1.42 and the Yak-1, tested at 1000m. At low speed, the Yak-1 accelerates better than the Fw190 at 1.32ata, at higher speeds they are practically the same, and at 1.42ata the Fw190 is slightly to considerably better over the entire speed range.

Mind you, the first point on the chart (and the line attached to it) also reflect engine spool up time, which with the Fw190 is considerably higher due to the Kommandogerät. While the M105 pitch is set to 2700rpm no matter the throttle, the BMW801 is set to very low rpm and needs some time to get going. It's not relevant in combat if you stick to higher power settings.

I'm not sure about the lowest speed acceleration of the Fw190 (@ ~250), because Fw data shows fairly constant climb rate between 240 and 310 down low, and acceleration is closely linked to climb. Both utilize the same excess power. Based on that, acceleration at 250 should be considerably higher than at 300, but it is not.

Everything else is quite plausible, the Fw190 as such and relative to the Yak-1, and if you save emergency power for emergency situations, the Fw has a good advantage in acceleration and a huge advantage in speed. Down low and up high, at least, medium altitude not so much.

 

Edit: I think that low speed acceleration might be worth re-testing.

Edited April 29, 2016 by JtD

[Holtzauge]

I see the reference to Occam’s razor and the snide remark that I don’t  own BoS or fly the Fw-190 are still there so in parting let me say this: As should be obvious by now my main interest is in FM and for this I use the quick mission feature in BoS.  Since I bought the premium edition I already have all the unlocks and sitting through a campaign to unlock skins is just not my cup of tea. So there’s your explanation for the zero hours in campaign.

 

I see JtD has made an effort to get this thread back on track so if you have any more questions or input on how I use BoS then maybe you can take that via PM’s ?

[Grancesc]

I see the reference to Occam’s razor and the snide remark that I don’t  own BoS or fly the Fw-190 are still there so in parting let me say this: As should be obvious by now my main interest is in FM and for this I use the quick mission feature in BoS.  Since I bought the premium edition I already have all the unlocks and sitting through a campaign to unlock skins is just not my cup of tea. So there’s your explanation for the zero hours in campaign.

 

I see JtD has made an effort to get this thread back on track so if you have any more questions or input on how I use BoS then maybe you can take that via PM’s ?

 

+1 and good provision !

[Crump]

If you fix the Clmax....the turn performance will align.

[Crump]

RoF is fine than? Or BoS?

Do you even own a controler needed for this?

 

We do it publicly - you loose and you never again preach to people on how they should use the planes - that are my conditions. 

 

Why wasnt the sustained turn rate presented? Its the most important for dogfights and very easy to verify ingame. If that is off, then they have to concede that they have someting wrong - be it Clmax or whatever.

I am interested acctually how the CLmax is distributed over the complete wing (for JtD acctually). I gather that Clmax is for a profile, but profile thickness / size and shape is changing over the wing span. How do you guy incoporate that + wingtip drag to it all? Or do you use glide ratio for the complete plane and verify ingame - if so is there data for the glide ratio for the FW?

And where are the sources??

 

You have been like really quiet and I have not heard a reply?

 

Do you want to do this or not?

Little addition - note the landing speed figures in the table Kurfurst posted? 140 for the Yak, 154 for the Fw190. Again we don't know exactly what they refer to, but if they were calibrated air speed for the weight given, the Fw190 would have a 7% higher maximum lift coefficient then the Yak. Which is pretty much exactly what I would expect based on airfoil data & wing configuration. Reminder - in game we have ~10% in favour of the Yak.

 

 

You can actually look at unstick speed. [Edited]

 

Landing speed is defined as 1.15 to 1.3 times stall speed.  It is the speed the aircraft should be at as it arrives at the runway.  That leaves enough lift reserve to flare the aircraft and arrest the descent.

 

Crump I have warned you about these kinds of posts several times. You have a way of talking to people like you think they are idiots and it is very insulting and becomes very hard to stomach after a while.

Edited May 1, 2016 by Bearcat
Condescending argumentive post

[JtD]

[Irgendjemand]

Hm. Anyone else noticed that practically noone touches the FW in MP anymore?

[Crump]

Hm. Anyone else noticed that practically noone touches the FW in MP anymore?

 

I own Rise of Flight and had it almost since it was first developed.  It is a good game.

 

I looked forward to BoS because it was developed by 777 studios and based upon the ROF engine.  

 

The airplane I am most familiar with is the FW-190 because of the work I did at the World War II Fighter Aircraft Foundation.

 

 

The foundation also has a collection of German aircraft support equipment and artifacts that can be seen along with the FW 190 project and the extremely rare FW190 Dora 9 project. The foundation’s P-51D Mustang project, “Missy” will be joining the other restoration projects in the near future.

The 501©3 foundation began over a decade ago when it took on the herculean effort to restore the German war veteran back to flying condition, officials noted. The team of aircraft conservators are using the original blue prints, specifications, parts, materials, paints, compounds and one of the two remaining flightworthy BMW 801 engines to bring this front line veteran back to flying status.

 

http://generalaviationnews.com/2011/10/10/wwii-fighter-aircraft-museum-opens-restoration-center-to-tour/

 

If the airplane I am most familar with was correct, the others are probably correct, and I would spend my money.

[Crump]

 

 

Wow....

 

 

 

http://people.clarkson.edu/~pmarzocc/AE429/AE-429-13.pdf

 

[Edited]

 

it is a fact, the "Landing Speed" is always higher than stall speed.  It is also a fact that unstick speed often equals stall speed.  Ground effect gives a margin of safety and normal take off instructions are to acelerate in ground effect until reaching Vx.  Climb out at Vx until obstacles are clear and then pitch for Vy.

 

Not knowing these basic facts makes it a certainty the individual does not have a formal education in aerodynamics.

 

It can be concluded with 100% certainty that this chart is NOT stall speed in the landing configuration.....

 

ENOUGH!

Edited May 1, 2016 by Bearcat

[Willy__]

Hm. Anyone else noticed that practically noone touches the FW in MP anymore?

 

[Edited]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

... deep.

 

(At least with current porked FM)

Edited May 1, 2016 by Bearcat

[6./ZG26_Emil]

 

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

 

That's just not how air combat worked...this is the problem people have developed ways of flying in a game which were not normal or usual in the real world not to mention suicidal regarding low altitude T&B. Yes pilots trained in dogfighting but in the real world it didn't happen much.

[Irgendjemand]

A well meant advice: Maybe 777 should start monitoring their playercount on diffrent planes. I dont know it but i think it could speak volumes on how popular diffrent planes are and therefor be of help in avoiding the loss of potential current and future customers.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

A well meant advice: Maybe 777 should start monitoring their playercount on diffrent planes. I dont know it but i think it could speak volumes on how popular diffrent planes are and therefor be of help in avoiding the loss of potential current and future customers.

I don't recommend that.

 

Usually the best plane is the most popular plane.

[Matt]

So the devs shouldn't model planes like the Ju 87 anymore I guess. Since it's less popular than any 109.

 

Just because a plane isn't popular (especially online on a dogfight server), doesn't mean that the FM is off. In case of the 190 that might be the case, but there's no reason to assume this for all not so popular planes.

[Irgendjemand]

I only mean monitoring such things could help the devs see how their work is perceived. Especially for such a popular plane like the FW. And especially since its been in the game for quite a while. For some reason right now noone seems to fly it. And I think that if this IS the case this should give the devs something to think about.

I mean if I were dev and would create the simulation of a certain plane and then all of the sudden after some FM changes NOONE flies it i would want to know why.

Edited May 2, 2016 by Irgendjemand