Whats your opinion on the new FW FM?

[JtD]

"During a stall the aircraft remains - even after possibly having dropped a wing - under all circumstances flawlessly controllable. In tight turns - under power, no flaps - it has no tendency to drop a wing. During landing - idle, full flaps deflection - it is possible to fly it at the limit until touchdown, without losing controllability around the longitudinal and vertical axis. A side slip during approach is also unproblematic."

 

Does this sound familiar? No? It's from the flight manual of the Fw190.

[Holtzauge]

"During a stall the aircraft remains - even after possibly having dropped a wing - under all circumstances flawlessly controllable. In tight turns - under power, no flaps - it has no tendency to drop a wing. During landing - idle, full flaps deflection - it is possible to fly it at the limit until touchdown, without losing controllability around the longitudinal and vertical axis. A side slip during approach is also unproblematic."

 

Does this sound familiar? No? It's from the flight manual of the Fw190.

 

Well it does seem and sound familiar.......When flying the DCS Fw-190 that is. Here in BoS it's a bit different to say the least: I still can't get my head around the stall characteristics we have here. I mean I have never ever seen any pilot account saying the Fw-190 could get locked up in a high angle of attack superstall..........

 

Thanks for the translation JtD. I mean it's good with German data because AFAIK the rule of thumb is German data for German planes right?

[Sunde]

"During a stall the aircraft remains - even after possibly having dropped a wing - under all circumstances flawlessly controllable. In tight turns - under power, no flaps - it has no tendency to drop a wing. During landing - idle, full flaps deflection - it is possible to fly it at the limit until touchdown, without losing controllability around the longitudinal and vertical axis. A side slip during approach is also unproblematic."

 

Does this sound familiar? No? It's from the flight manual of the Fw190.

Sounds like the formula used for the 109 and Yak currently ingame. The current one for the FW 190 should sound like this (mostly a joke, chill)... 

 

 "During a stall the aircraft remains - even after possibly having dropped a wing - under all circumstances completely uncontrollable. In tight turns - under power, no flaps - it has a tendency to drop a wing. During landing - idle, full flaps deflection - it is impossible to fly it at the limit until touchdown, without losing controllability around the longitudinal and vertical axis. A side slip during approach is also problematic."

 

Seems more like it! 

Edited May 5, 2016 by JG19_Mueller

[CUJO_1970]

"During a stall the aircraft remains - even after possibly having dropped a wing - under all circumstances flawlessly controllable. In tight turns - under power, no flaps - it has no tendency to drop a wing. During landing - idle, full flaps deflection - it is possible to fly it at the limit until touchdown, without losing controllability around the longitudinal and vertical axis. A side slip during approach is also unproblematic."

 

Does this sound familiar? No? It's from the flight manual of the Fw190.

 

 

Per latest developer comments, these words in the flight manual are only "feelings" and not backed up by any "proofs".

 

I mean, history is full of so many pilot accounts that clearly support the current flight model. 

[FTC_Riksen]

Per latest developer comments, these words in the flight manual are only "feelings" and not backed up by any "proofs".

 

I mean, history is full of so many pilot accounts that clearly support the current flight model.

Ur parashooting into the middle of the discussion with such a comment clearly shows you didnt even take the time to read the topic.

[JtD]

I'm sure Cujo was being sarcastic. I'm not sure you understood it this way as well?

[FTC_Riksen]

Apparently Im the one who didnt correctly read what u ment Cujo .... My apologies. Thxs for pointing out the sarcasm that I totally missed JtD

[SvAF/F16_Goblin]

Per latest developer comments, these words in the flight manual are only "feelings" and not backed up by any "proofs".

 

I mean, history is full of so many pilot accounts that clearly support the current flight model. 

LOL

[Turban]

All of a sudden pilots accounts are important , yet when pilot accounts mention violent stall they are disregarded. Funny uh? 

[Matt]

What pilot account do you mean? I see not one on this page at least.

[CUJO_1970]

All of a sudden pilots accounts are important , yet when pilot accounts mention violent stall they are disregarded. Funny uh?

 

Please point out which pilot account was disregarded in this thread, specifically. Otherwise, it appears you have interjected a straw-man with the intention of deliberately misrepresenting what people have actually said.

 

Also, please confirm what those silver bars suggest: you don't own or fly the FW in the sim and have no idea how it actually handles.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

it appears you have interjected a straw-man with the intention of deliberately misrepresenting what people have actually said.

 

-snip-

 

Yeah, that's generally what Turban does.

[Turban]

lol.

 

Have a look at page 3/4 of this thread, a few are mentionned.

 

Pretty much all pilot accounts will mention a violent stall on fast AoA changes.

While the FW wouldn't have a nasty stall in a constant clean turn, it didn't like fast AoA changes. That's just fact. 

 

By the way, tight doesn't mean the same for all aircrafts. And tight doesn't mean abrupt.  You guys read "tight" and all of a sudden, the FW should be turning as tight as a 109 no problem. lol.

 

 

Anyway. Check pilot accounts. Read them entirely. I'd be surprised if you find one that doesn't mention that stall.

[JtD]

I hope you are aware that the speed at which AoA changes is practically irrelevant for stalling. An aircraft stalls when a certain AoA is exceeded. It's just physics, so what you consider fact, actually is not.

 

Fact is instead that if you quickly change AoA you may quickly go through the stall warning and quickly exceed critical AoA, something aircraft with lower wing loadings, different airfoils, heavier elevators etc. were not as capable of as the Fw190. In other words, if you fly the Fw190 as ham-fisted as you can fly the Yak-1 in BoS, you'll likely stall the Fw190 every now and then. If stalls occur, they should still be easily controllable. But in the first place, they should be easily avoidable for experienced pilots who may quickly change AoA, without exceeding critical AoA.

[Livai]

Not sure how correct this is but here is my research......

 

Fw190 has more weight than a La-5 but at the same time more horse power than the La-5 at the end this makes the Fw190 even with the La-5. The La-5 has nose guns = zero wing loadings  and the Fw190 wing guns = more wing loadings but here is to say that only the removeable outer wing guns cause the higher wing loading because the guns + ammo is stored there the other wing guns have stored his ammo below the pilot.

 

The La-5 will be every time the winner during a turn dogfight against a Fw190. The La-5 turns better than the Fw190. This is funny because the La-5 turns better with more weight and less horse power than a Fw190. If there is not something wrong with the FM from the Fw190.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Not quite true. The La-5 has no wing guns but wing fuel tanks whereas the Fw-190 has fuselage tanks. That means the 190 should be more favourable in terms of rate of roll because the pilot has less inertia forces to overcome.

 

Wing loading does increase with aircraft weight, not only wing weight. For wing loading it doesnt matter where your guns are mounted. I've no proper data at hand so bear with me, but the Fw190 should have both higher wing loading as well as (~200-300kg) more total weight.

[Matt]

This is funny because the La-5 turns better with more weight and less horse power than a Fw190.

The La-5 weights 500 kg less than the Fw 190.

 

The La-5 has a 5% smaller wing area, but that's easily compensated by the weight advantage.

Edited May 14, 2016 by Matt

[Crump]

The two designs are very close.  The soviet data lists the production 1942 La-5 turn time as 22.8 seconds at 1000 meters.

 

That is the same as the 23 seconds the soviets list for the FW-190A4 at 1000 meters.

 

The Soviet production La-5FN is listed as having a turn time of 19 seconds. 

 

That is also supported by Lerche's combat trials.  The La-5FN was found to be slightly better in the turn but with significantly poorer stability and control characteristics such that turns at low speeds were unpleasant.

 

The La-5 series has weak directional dampening at low velocity combined with diminished rudder effectiveness.  That means it begins to oscillate directionally(yaw-wise) and the rudder is not as effective at lifting the wing in a stall.  When the slats extend, the aileron forces become overbalanced.

 

The trials recommended the FW-190 use its superior dive acceleration to enter a shallow dive and climb away at best climb speed.  Because the La-5 series best climb speed is at a lower airspeed but higher angle of climb, the FW-190 could gain an altitude and position advantage to reattack but to avoid pro-longed turn fights because it was felt the Russian pilots were used to significantly poorer stability and control characteristics. 

 

The FW-190's handling was far superior both at low and high speeds maneuvers.   

The FW-190A3 has ~350hp more than the La-5.  That compensates quite a bit in terms of thrust limited performance.

[YSoMadTovarisch]

The M82 engine on the La5 produced the same amount of HP as the BMW 801D on the FW190A3.

[Crump]

The ASH-82FN did match the BMW801D2 at some points in its power curve.  The ASH-82 as found in the 1942 La-5 production series did not.

Lerche's tested an La-5FN which is much closer to the BMW801D2.  Your game doesn not have the La-5FN.....it has the La-5.  Different aircraft.

[JtD]

Maybe for the most accurate picture, attached a comparison between the Ash82 and the BMW801D performance based on handbook figures. Please keep in mind that Forzash was intended for take off only and strictly forbidden in 2nd supercharger gear. I've added it for the entire first gear because in theory it was possible, but this is actually more of a feature of the Ash82F, which had Forzash cleared for 10 minutes at a time, for use also in flight.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Are you sure about the 1800 PS for the BMW801D? I've ever only seen 1750 PS mentioned.

Edited May 18, 2016 by 6./ZG26_5tuka

[JtD]

Depends. 1800 is the highest I know, but that's just fair because the Ash82 figures are the highest I know as well.

 

Engine performance may depend on engine installation (intake&exhaust configurations, auxiliaries) and also on what losses are taken into account, be it a cooling fan or auxiliary machinery like generators, hydraulic pumps and so on. Lowest figures I know are for the BMW about 1660PS for take off, and for the Ash82 1600PS on Forzash. Overall the relations don't change much.

[Brano]

M-82 (111) and M-82A (112) had forsazh limited to 5-10min

M-82F had forsazh set as nominal = unlimited but pilot had to keep max 1000mmHg MP at 2nd supercharger gear,otherwise BOOM

M-82FN had carburetors AK-82BP replaced with NB-3U injection pump and unified lever for supercharger switch with pressure regulator RPD-1F,thus preventing overboosting at 2nd stage of supercharger automaticly

[Crump]

Forzash wasn't always available and the soviet production standard La-5 (1942) does not list it as being available. 

 

Static power to static power at approved power settings that could be used in flight in combat......

 

ASH-82 = 1380hp at sea level (Right off the Soviet ASH-82 specification sheet for static power)

 

BMW801D2 = 1800hp at sea level (1850PS) (Right out of BMW data for Static Horsepower at sea level)

 

 

 

Are you sure about the 1800 PS for the BMW801D? I've ever only seen 1750 PS mentioned.

 

That matches power at a ram effect at Vmax EAS for the FW-190 at sea level.

 

That is not the same conditions as the ASH-82 power curve and not valid for comparison.

[Brano]

Forzash wasn't always available and the soviet production standard La-5 (1942) does not list it as being available. 

Source?

[Crump]

 

This curve represent one of the first Forsazh ratings approved  and is only for take off.  The La-5 manual is very specific.  At a altitude of 100-150 meters,  Forzash is not be used and it instructs the pilot to ensure the oil temps and cylinder head temps remained within limits after using Forzash for take off.

[Crump]

The "F" in ASH-82FN...literally stands for Forzash or boosted.

That is not the same thing as a take off rating nor is it a combat boost system.  It is simply increased power to get the airplane off the ground.

You can read a very detailed history of the La-5 development in:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Combat-Aircraft-Second-World/dp/1857800834

[JtD]

Source?

Speaking of it, have you got a source for Forzash being nominal for the F engine? If that was true, wouldn't the FN be a big step backwards, limited to considerably less nominal power?

 

Should we move this discussion to a new topic about the La-5?

[Crump]

Not sure how correct this is but here is my research......

 

Fw190 has more weight than a La-5 but at the same time more horse power than the La-5 at the end this makes the Fw190 even with the La-5. The La-5 has nose guns = zero wing loadings  and the Fw190 wing guns = more wing loadings but here is to say that only the removeable outer wing guns cause the higher wing loading because the guns + ammo is stored there the other wing guns have stored his ammo below the pilot.

 

The La-5 will be every time the winner during a turn dogfight against a Fw190. The La-5 turns better than the Fw190. This is funny because the La-5 turns better with more weight and less horse power than a Fw190. If there is not something wrong with the FM from the Fw190.

 

 

If the FM does not match the fixed by design performance points of the FW-190, then it is not modeling an FW-190.

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/21001-fw-190/?p=358058

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/21001-fw-190/page-12

 

Best Rate of Climb speed is the point that CL^3/2 / CD is maximum. 

 

If it does not reach the same point then your lift and drag relationship is not an FW-190.

[Brano]

The "F" in ASH-82FN...literally stands for Forzash or boosted.

That is not the same thing as a take off rating nor is it a combat boost system.  It is simply increased power to get the airplane off the ground.

F stands for Forsyrovanyi which is translated not as boosted,but as strenghtened = several engine components were made stronger to withstand higher MP for longer time.

M-82 forsazh limit was 2400rpm and 1140mmHg for 5min. 

Source: Инструкция летчику по эксплуатации самолета Ла-5 с мотором М-82,ВКАП СССР, ОБОРОНГИЗ 1942 

 

This was changed for FN engine to 2500rpm and 1200mm for 10min.Its nominal was set to 2400rpm and 1000mmHg.

Forsazh for FN engine was engaged on same lever as supercharger switch lever. Moving lever to stage 1 switched off pressure regulator RPD-1F allowing boosting engine from 1000mmHg nominal to 1200mmHg forsazh regime. To prevent this high boosting on 2nd stage of supercharger (which would lead to damage/destruction) RPD-1F was switched on with limit 1000mmHg. 1st stage forsazh on,2nd stage forsazh off.

Source: самолет Ла-7 описание конструкции,книга третья, государственное издательство оборонной промышленности,1945

 

You can read a very detailed history of the La-5 development in:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Combat-Aircraft-Second-World/dp/1857800834

No,thanks.That book has lots of bugs inside as many others from these authors. You better stick to original manuals and instructions.

Speaking of it, have you got a source for Forzash being nominal for the F engine? If that was true, wouldn't the FN be a big step backwards, limited to considerably less nominal power?

 

Should we move this discussion to a new topic about the La-5?

Yes,we should move that to separate thread as we are off topic here.Sorry 

Edited May 18, 2016 by Brano

[Crump]

F stands for Forsyrovanyi which is translated not as boosted,but as strenghtened = several engine components were made stronger to withstand higher MP for longer time. M-82 forsazh limit was 2400rpm and 1140mmHg for 5min.  Source: Инструкция летчику по эксплуатации самолета Ла-5 с мотором М-82,ВКАП СССР, ОБОРОНГИЗ 1942

 

 

Well that is good.  We have your word on it.  Unfortunately, that is not good enough.

 

How do you explain that none of the power charts or Manuals for the La-5 series mention anything other that a take off rating until the ASH-82FN engine? Once more, it is highly unlikely the design power production could just be magically increased.  More likely, the engine went thru a developmental phase and was improved like every other engine and is described in Khazanov's book.  

 

Please post this manual!!   It would be new and interesting.

 

 

 

No,thanks.That book has lots of bugs inside as many others from these authors. You better stick to original manuals and instructions.

 

Unfortunately there is not much on the VVS birds in the west.  However, Yeflin Gordon's and Dmitri Khazanov work does align with TASGI's data, all the other ASH-82 data found, and the manuals that are over here. Not only that, it is very well written and makes perfect alignment with how aircraft work and are developed.  So what little of the original documentation that has leaked over here is in agreement with their well laid out  history of the development of the Lavochkin series. 

 

 

самолет Ла-7 описание конструкции,книга третья, государственное издательство оборонной промышленности,1945

 

 

Isn't under discussion

Edited May 19, 2016 by Crump

[CUJO_1970]

FW flight model without a doubt has been adjusted with latest update.

 

More testing required but initial impression is positive.

[MasterBaiter]

Placebo

[Irgendjemand]

Any more impressions on the FW. IS there a reason to fire up the game or should i better leave it shelved?

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Havent noticed any change either so far flying on the Moscow map. I'm sure they would have mentoned any changes to it in the notes.

[Brano]

Well that is good.  We have your word on it.  Unfortunately, that is not good enough.

 

How do you explain that none of the power charts or Manuals for the La-5 series mention anything other that a take off rating until the ASH-82FN engine? Once more, it is highly unlikely the design power production could just be magically increased.  More likely, the engine went thru a developmental phase and was improved like every other engine and is described in Khazanov's book.  

 

Please post this manual!!   It would be new and interesting.

Take-off rating in La-5 instructions was forsazh rating. In those instructions for La-5 with M-82 engine it is clearly written that forsazh is tested during warm-up and used during take-off and also during combat. Clasification of engine regimes was different in USSR,as was in Germany or USA. Forsazh can be  read as take-off or Notleistung or such. You have a name of source,do some research to obtain it. 

 

 M-105PF was puschetschnyii forsyrovanyi but it doesnt mean that F was for forsazh,as there was none. Forsirovanyi ment "made stronger to withstand increased rpm and MP by different means"

M-82 had forsazh,so had M-82F and M-82FN(V),but in different values for different duration, engaged in different way. Changes made to the construction of engine systems were no magic. They continuously strengtened/modified cruicial parts like piston rods,crankshaft,oil system,cooling of cylinders by increasing ribs area etc. to match up with increased rpm (2400-2500) and MP from 950-1200mmHg.

Specificly for M-82F it was change in oil system and supercharger clutch.

 

Btw La-7 had M-82FN engine,same as La-5FN so it is "under discussion". I just wanted to point out the automated forsazh on/off system. And it was also the manual I had at hand immediatelly.

 

Sorry again to everyone for offtopic,this was my last post on this matter,whatever the reaction will be 

[Crump]

Take off ratings are for take off.  My La-5 manual does not mention its use for combat.  Now the La-5FN  manual does mention its use in combat.

 

 

 

 M-105PF

 

 

 

I have no idea what the F stands for in the M-105PF series and did not mention it at all in this thread.

[ER*Melhilion]

Any more impressions on the FW. IS there a reason to fire up the game or should i better leave it shelved?

 

After a few short tests yesterday, I would say that the FW has a better acceleration and she is easier to handle to get less in the stall.

Also the "wobbling effect" on the F4 appears to have been  improved.

[LukeFF]

After a few short tests yesterday, I would say that the FW has a better acceleration and she is easier to handle to get less in the stall.

Also the "wobbling effect" on the F4 appears to have been  improved.

 

Once again, placebo.