Whats your opinion on the new FW FM?

[Holtzauge]

Just for clarity: The object here is to turn around as quickly as possible so loosing speed is OK and that's why I need the end IAS as well!

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Ok, entry and exit speed. I guess I will just start recording and after testing will watch the recorded material to get the data. 

 

Also, what variant you want - with 4 cannons or 2 only ? Since that will have impact on turn as well. 

[Askania]

 

LII VVS
 
1-12 August of the 1941.
 
MiG-3 No. 3595
 
Engine: AM-38
 
Prop: AV-5L110A
 
Speed Tests
 
Nominal. at SL - 514 km/h
 
Forsazh. at SL - 547 km/h
 
 
Nominal. H -1000 m. - 534 km/h
 
Forsazh.  H -1000 m. - 560 km/h

 

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Moscow map, 12:00, Autumn, Alt : 100-300 m, No wind, No Turbulence, Weather clean.

Aircraft : FW-190 A-3 at full fuel and ammo load. 4 cannons. Turn direction : right.

 

Trial 1 : Entry speed - ~400 kph Indicated 

Exit speed - ~379 kph Indicated 

Turn time - 27,5

 

Trial 2 : Entry speed - ~400 kph Indicated 

Exit speed - ~370 kph Indicated 

Turn time - 28 s

 

 

Trial 3 : Entry speed - ~400 kph Indicated 

Exit speed - ~355 kph Indicated    

Turn time - 26 s

 

 

Trial 4 : Entry speed - ~400 kph Indicated 

Exit speed - ~335 kph Indicated 

Turn time - 24 s

 

Trial 5 : Entry speed - ~400 kph Indicated 

Exit speed - ~320 kph Indicated 

Turn time - 23 s

 

Trial 6 : Entry speed - ~400 kph Indicated 

Exit speed - ~317 kph Indicated 

Turn time - 22,8 s

 

First 3 trials I was trying to find how much I can pull my stick and how to stabilize the ball, to make it at least a bit coordinated. So they rather show you the history of testing of limits. 

Trial 4, 5 and 6 were best of 5-6 I've made after the first three, where I tried to remember what was the limit and fly as close to the limit as possible but avoid stalling. Most of the time my nose was over horizon for the first 90-120 degrees and then I could fly with nose at the horizon or slightly below it. In two other trials I've stalled, getting below 310, so it seems that falling below that is too much. 

 

Sidenote :Those tests were performed with a simple joystick without rudder pedals, times were measured with stopwatch so I dont claim them to be perfect or very accurate. They can give an idea though. 

[JtD]

Without specified manifold pressure and revolutions its not possible to get conclusive info.

However, for this we do have the info and it is pretty much as Brano said - the "top" speed trial at sea level were carried out at nominal power setting, not the take off power setting.

This is also conclusive if you just analyse the data on its own (the table alone is probably insufficient, though) - if you look at engine power over altitude characteristics and the speed curve, you'd either get a lower full throttle altitude or would see some odd step in the speed performance, if take off settings were used to determine the quoted sea level speeds.

 

About this being "standard" procedure - it indeed is, usually, if some forzash mode exists, this was quoted separately. Not of the MiG-3, though, as it was a take off setting, not a dedicated forzash setting, as could for instance be found on the La-5.

 

Sorry for off topic, lets get back to Fw190.

Edited April 5, 2016 by JtD

[Caudron431]

Anecdotes are often a better indicator of historical performances of aircraft, then the data. Data was often manipulated due to loads of different reasons, i mean even today without totalitarian governments that happens a lot. But if a lot of different pilots, even designated test pilots, from different sides of the war all tell the same story about certain kinds of behavior, that's way more believable then a single sheet of data.

 

And which anecdotes are to be believed? I must say i disagree. Anecdotes are not really saying much about the performance differences between aircraft. They just don't take into consideration important parameters like engagement doctrines, level of training, level of agressivity, morale, for instance, and so many differences between armies and cultures. (Things you cannot really simulate).

 

Anecdotes would  only be useful if one could force simers to fly just as the pilots flew their rides in the past,  only with the knowledge in ACM they had at the time, and of course with the same state of mind.

 

Anecdotes are useful to understand points of views in history, not to understand what one could really do with an aircraft when he can train without the risk of dying in the process, as long as he wants on it, to reach its full potential. When you reach the point when you can have 10000h of combat training on a virtual type, you reach the point where history is no longer of any use. And you cannot expect history to repeat itself.

 

That's why sims are just sims. It's a great part of the charm it has, it shows how a war would look like if it was on a computer.

 

As for the comparison with DCS: I too prefer the Dora because it is way easier to fly, but in the same time we don't really have nimble aircraft to face in combat. As for the IL2 Anton i must say so far i'm still into the process of learning it. It seems to be harder to master than the old one for sure. I will try my best to become good with it: too early for me to say if i hate it.

[Holtzauge]

 

Moscow map, 12:00, Autumn, Alt : 100-300 m, No wind, No Turbulence, Weather clean.

Aircraft : FW-190 A-3 at full fuel and ammo load. 4 cannons. Turn direction : right.

 

Trial 1 : Entry speed - ~400 kph Indicated

Exit speed - ~379 kph Indicated

Turn time - 27,5

 

Trial 2 : Entry speed - ~400 kph Indicated

Exit speed - ~370 kph Indicated

Turn time - 28 s

 

 

Trial 3 : Entry speed - ~400 kph Indicated

Exit speed - ~355 kph Indicated

Turn time - 26 s

 

 

Trial 4 : Entry speed - ~400 kph Indicated

Exit speed - ~335 kph Indicated

Turn time - 24 s

 

Trial 5 : Entry speed - ~400 kph Indicated

Exit speed - ~320 kph Indicated

Turn time - 23 s

 

Trial 6 : Entry speed - ~400 kph Indicated

Exit speed - ~317 kph Indicated

Turn time - 22,8 s

 

First 3 trials I was trying to find how much I can pull my stick and how to stabilize the ball, to make it at least a bit coordinated. So they rather show you the history of testing of limits.

Trial 4, 5 and 6 were best of 5-6 I've made after the first three, where I tried to remember what was the limit and fly as close to the limit as possible but avoid stalling. Most of the time my nose was over horizon for the first 90-120 degrees and then I could fly with nose at the horizon or slightly below it. In two other trials I've stalled, getting below 310, so it seems that falling below that is too much.

 

Sidenote :Those tests were performed with a simple joystick without rudder pedals, times were measured with stopwatch so I dont claim them to be perfect or very accurate. They can give an idea though.

Thanks! At work now so simulations will be this evening CET. What power setting did you use? 1.3 or 1.4 ata?

 

BTW: I was planning to do the 2 gun version at 1.3 ata, sorry for leaving that out but can you or someone else give me added weight for 4 gun version and I will check on that as well.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Oh, right, forgot to note power. It was emergency power so 1.42 Ata.

 

Weight of the additional guns and 90 rounds per each gun is 144 kg in total. According to the ingame description estimated speed loss is 8 km/h. 

[Holtzauge]

In the attachment below are the results for a momentaneous turn for the Fw-190A3 with MGFF, W=3994 Kg, 1.4 ata, 400 Km/h IAS at turn entry, 100 m altitude. I think most of the numbers are self-explanatory but don't hesitate to ask if something is unclear. Maybe I'll get around to do a diagram if I can find the time but the table will just have to do for now.

 

So the C++ prediction is around 20.5 s to do a 360 deg under these conditions. Also noteworthy is the higher speed at exit: around 345 km/h in the simulation and apart from the earlier stall in the latest release, this was also something that bothered me in the latest update: The Fw-190A3 seemed to bleed speed faster than felt right and this feeling now seems vindicated by the simulation results.

 

BTW: That the Clmax goes up slightly during the deceleration is a mach effect: The Clmax you can sustain is connected to mach and at higher speeds it is buffeting limited. Also:Had to increase the Cdo with 4% to get a 8 Km/h speed loss from the vanilla A3. Did the MGFF really cut that much speed off?......

 

Concerning the accuracy of the simulation, I don’t have time now but I will post the results from a comparison I did a few years ago for the Me-109K4 with data calculated by Messerschmitt for 6 Km alt maybe later today or otherwise tomorrow. I think they tab pretty well but you can judge for yourself later when I post them.

 

Have no idea if the devs are already looking into this. Maybe they are and maybe they are planning some additional tuning to be done on the 1.201b model? Will be interesting to see if we get any more info in the next update.

 

Edit: Thanks =LD=Hiromachi for doing the BoS reference test flights!

Edited April 5, 2016 by Holtzauge

[Kurfurst]

Concerning the accuracy of the simulation, I don’t have time now but I will post the results from a comparison I did a few years ago for the Me-109K4 with data calculated by Messerschmitt for 6 Km alt maybe later today or otherwise tomorrow. I think they tab pretty well but you can judge for yourself later when I post them.

 

I can personally testify that your calculations usually fall within +/- 10% in speed and +/- 25% for climb. 

 

Looking at your turn results they seem to fall within +/- 15% of the real measured values.

[Holtzauge]

I can personally testify that your calculations usually fall within +/- 10% in speed and +/- 25% for climb. 

 

Looking at your turn results they seem to fall within +/- 15% of the real measured values.

You can't testify to anything because you have zero credibility since you invariably peddle the high end outliers for the Me-109 and produce the absolute rock bottom data for the Spitfire. That my figures deviate from yours is simply because I use the median values and you the outliers. It's as simple as that. [Edited]

 

Please keep from getting personal in these discussions..

Edited April 5, 2016 by Bearcat
Personal

[MiloMorai]

[Edited]

 

Please try to keep this from getting personal.. if this cannot be done I will have to take other steps.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Bearcat
Personal

[Turban]

1) Knowing that the devs use a "robot pilot" , I do have to think about how imprecise "we" are. ( Not to discredit anything, just a side note on any experiment (including anything that'd come from me ))

 

2) I'm not excatcly sure why you looked at "turning values" (again not to discredit anything, I just feel like I didn't realize "turning values" were in question)

 

3) My personal interest would go to the roll rate of the FW. My personal feeling is that while the Me 109 roll rate might be high, the FW 190 might be low initialy . Just my feeling and something I'd be interested to know more about.

[Holtzauge]

1) Knowing that the devs use a "robot pilot" , I do have to think about how imprecise "we" are. ( Not to discredit anything, just a side note on any experiment (including anything that'd come from me ))

 

2) I'm not excatcly sure why you looked at "turning values" (again not to discredit anything, I just feel like I didn't realize "turning values" were in question)

 

3) My personal interest would go to the roll rate of the FW. My personal feeling is that while the Me 109 roll rate might be high, the FW 190 might be low initialy . Just my feeling and something I'd be interested to know more about.

 

Well I will do some tests myself and maybe more people will try. If we do enough tests then I think the results will start to converge and we will see where we end up. Anyway, I would be surprised if it was possible to match the C++ simulation figures with the current Fw-190A3 model in BoS.......

[Holtzauge]

Here (attached figures) is the comparison of C++ simulation method with the Messerschmitt calculation I mentioned earlier:

 

Entry speed for both: 180 m/s or 648 Km/h. Messerschmitt have used a Clmax=1.13 here and I used the same. I would not have assumed that the reduction due to mach effects was that large but since Messerschmitt used that figure so did I. I also (like Messerschmitt) assumed that load factor was limited to 5 g’s initially. The numbers in the table are: x, y, speed and time.

 

End speed at 24 s after initiating turn:

 

Messerschmitt end speed 133.2 m/s and my C++ sim 130.46 m/s which gives an accuracy deviation of around 2%. Another nice result in my C++ simulation is that I too, get the transition from load factor limited to Clmax limited at 8 s into the turn as well. In addition, the size of the turn and position co-ordinates are not that far apart.

 

So all in all not to bad a correlation which indicates that the Fw-190A3 results I posted earlier should not be that far off…..

Edited April 6, 2016 by Holtzauge

[von_Tom]

Just an anecdote - I tried the FW again tonight and only using 10% stick deflection made for a far more pleasant experience.  It's almost as if the control linkage sensitivity has been upped, rather than something nasty being done to the FM.

 

von Tom

[3./JG15_Hans]

Actually, the ease of handling was one of the major strengths of the Fw190, allowing it to be flown to the limit even by rather badly trained pilots. This starts with the ease of taxiing, continues with take off, stays true for in flight and is again true on landing.

 

The two vices which it had in that regard were poor visibility forward on the ground, and a high speed snap stall, which could be a nasty surprise to rookie pilots, but was considered a useful feature by veterans.

True. One of the main reasons a lot of people are pissed off about the new FM

I've been flying the 190 for the past few hours (I usually only fly offline), and IMO, it has been changed for the worst.  Contrary to popular belief here, I don't want, nor do I expect, an uber-plane; but I find it incredibly hard to believe that it could not maneuver, or turn at high speeds, without beginning to stall, or just flat out stalling.  I'm not even yanking the hell out of the stick, just applying usual back pressure, and then boom, it's into a spin I go.  I don't see how a sim that gets so much right, or the closest we have ever seen it anyway, could continually neuter or hamper a plane that was historically proven to be a great fighting machine.  I'm not an aerodynamics expert, or even a flight model guru, but there has to be something there that so many people feel the same way.  It's literally only this bird that has its wings clipped.  Guess I'll go back to flying the 109 for awhile.

Well said!

[Willy__]

The new FM made it the flying brick... again.

 

R.I.P. 190 

[ZachariasX]

 

 

and a high speed snap stall, which could be a nasty surprise to rookie pilots

 

What is this "high speed snap stall"? Any source for this? Eric Brown writes about the Fw-190 A-3 that it had "elevators proved to be heavy at all speeds and particularly above 563 km/h (350 mph) when they became heavy enough to impose a tactical restriction on the fighter as regards pull-outs from low level dives." This is ecactly NOT a description of a plane "with high speed snap stall".

 

I suppose if you are a "rookie pilot", just about anything about a plane from the caliber of a Fw-190 could come as a nasty surprise.

[JtD]

Pilot reports, both German and Allied, as well as manuals/test reports. Please note that 350mph indicated air speed is above level top speed for the Fw190 even at emergency power up to late war 1.58ata boost at the lowest altitudes in standard conditions. It's also about 3 times the 1g stall speed, so putting the aircraft into a stall at that speed will cause 9g, which is beyond the safe structural limit of the aircraft. So 350 is a little bit more than the high speed meant in the high speed snap roll/stall context.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

So, just an opinion here..........

 

While I am fine with the stall/accelerated stall being sudden, in the last iteration there was more warning in the form of wind noise. It wasn't a physical buffet or shake but the changing sound of the wind was a great indicator you were riding the edge of the stall. This seems to be missing or at least greatly reduced in this version.

 

And everyone, I think, felt the previous stall was "sudden." I'd just like to get that wind change back and maybe the speed of onset as well.

 

"Sudden," even in official testing is pretty subjective. The previous sudden was sudden enough, if you will, and the AC was definitely more enjoyable to fly and fight in. She could still kill you quickly if you were hamfisted with her. If we can't go back to the previous version in the physical sense at least increase the audible indicators.

Edited April 7, 2016 by [LBS]HerrMurf

[Turban]

The devs will have to see, but some stalls don't come with noise, or very very  briefly , because they appear too fast , that's part of what made them dangerous.

[Venturi]

Pilot reports, both German and Allied, as well as manuals/test reports. Please note that 350mph indicated air speed is above level top speed for the Fw190 even at emergency power up to late war 1.58ata boost at the lowest altitudes in standard conditions. It's also about 3 times the 1g stall speed, so putting the aircraft into a stall at that speed will cause 9g, which is beyond the safe structural limit of the aircraft. So 350 is a little bit more than the high speed meant in the high speed snap roll/stall context.

Exactly. It is a safety feature which like the 109's loss of elevator command at high speed, prevents over control and dynamically over stressing the airframe. The spitfire for instance with it's high elevator authority, could rip its wings off..

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

The devs will have to see, but some stalls don't come with noise, or very very  briefly , because they appear too fast , that's part of what made them dangerous.

As I stated, sudden is still subjective and I think there is some leeway to play with without being ahistorical.

[ZachariasX]

Pilot reports, both German and Allied, as well as manuals/test reports. Please note that 350mph indicated air speed is above level top speed for the Fw190 even at emergency power up to late war 1.58ata boost at the lowest altitudes in standard conditions. It's also about 3 times the 1g stall speed, so putting the aircraft into a stall at that speed will cause 9g, which is beyond the safe structural limit of the aircraft. So 350 is a little bit more than the high speed meant in the high speed snap roll/stall context.

 

Ok, I looked it up again and what I find is the following:

 

In this American Report (1943) of an unspecified Fw-190 (an A-4?)

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_Eng-47-1658-D.pdf

 

g. Stall & Stall Warning.

The clean stall power off is about 118 IAS . The dirty stall power off is about 105 IAS. There is very little stall warning and the airplane falls off sharply to the right. Elevator loads are heavy requiring trim to get a complete stall.

 

That sounds like stalling the plane in turns is only possible through aid of trim along with pulling back as far as you can, but then, when it happens, it happens quickly.

 

 

In this American report from January 1994 (page 3)

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/ptr-1107.pdf

they say that

 

The FW-190 stalls with very little warning, but recovers easily.

 

However they don’t mention the effort given to stall the aircraft.

 

Interestingly, they put also this (page 4):

 

The Fw-190 is a very simple airplane to fly in combat, and it seems designed for pilot convenience. It has a no-warning stall which tends to reduce its efficiency in combat against aircraft which can force it to fly near the stalling speed. […]

 

I assume, this means if the Fw-190 made the error of losing all his energy, in the full power, low speed turning contest it. This in a variant that has been strengthened for the role as fighter-bomber. It is not the fighter configuration.

(I find remarkable in this report that it also mentions that the 190 outruns both the F-4U and the F6F-3 at 160 knots or faster climbs.)

 

 

Here:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/eb-104.html

 

“G. Stalls and Stall Warning

The airplane has a gentle stall and controls remain effective up to the stall. Adequate warning of the stall is given by shaking of the airplane and controls.”

 

So, no sudden stalls with the Fw-190 (AAF No. EB-104, May 26^th 1944). It is also the “fighter-bomber type” and equipped with only two 20 mm canon. Is it an Fw-190 A4/U8?

 

 

I can’t find too much vicious stall behavior. In fact I see the opposite. Are there other documents that say otherwise? Are there documents?

 

 

Z

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

The only thing I could find about that matter right now although the A-1 was the lightest and weakest powered of the 190.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[ZachariasX]

Interessting. Another rather benign impression of how the 190 reacts to "pulling back on the stick". But yes, it is an A-1.

 

Z

[Turban]

Ok, I looked it up again and what I find is the following:

 

In this American Report (1943) of an unspecified Fw-190 (an A-4?)

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_Eng-47-1658-D.pdf

 

g. Stall & Stall Warning.

The clean stall power off is about 118 IAS . The dirty stall power off is about 105 IAS. There is very little stall warning and the airplane falls off sharply to the right. Elevator loads are heavy requiring trim to get a complete stall.

 

That sounds like stalling the plane in turns is only possible through aid of trim along with pulling back as far as you can, but then, when it happens, it happens quickly.

 

 

In this American report from January 1994 (page 3)

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/ptr-1107.pdf

they say that

 

The FW-190 stalls with very little warning, but recovers easily.

 

However they don’t mention the effort given to stall the aircraft.

 

Interestingly, they put also this (page 4):

 

The Fw-190 is a very simple airplane to fly in combat, and it seems designed for pilot convenience. It has a no-warning stall which tends to reduce its efficiency in combat against aircraft which can force it to fly near the stalling speed. […]

 

I assume, this means if the Fw-190 made the error of losing all his energy, in the full power, low speed turning contest it. This in a variant that has been strengthened for the role as fighter-bomber. It is not the fighter configuration.

(I find remarkable in this report that it also mentions that the 190 outruns both the F-4U and the F6F-3 at 160 knots or faster climbs.)

 

 

Here:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/eb-104.html

 

“G. Stalls and Stall Warning

The airplane has a gentle stall and controls remain effective up to the stall. Adequate warning of the stall is given by shaking of the airplane and controls.”

 

So, no sudden stalls with the Fw-190 (AAF No. EB-104, May 26^th 1944). It is also the “fighter-bomber type” and equipped with only two 20 mm canon. Is it an Fw-190 A4/U8?

 

 

I can’t find too much vicious stall behavior. In fact I see the opposite. Are there other documents that say otherwise? Are there documents?

 

 

Z

 

Your last one :

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/eb-104.html

 

You mentionned (G) for the power off stall.

 

You didn't mention (H) :

 

If pulled fast, the airplane tends to stall abruptly with little warning

 

 

Why ? Deliberate ommission ?

Edited April 8, 2016 by Turban

[Dr_Molem]

Your last one :

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/eb-104.html

 

You mentionned (G) for the power off stall.

 

You didn't mention (H) :

 

 

Why ? Deliberate ommission ?

 

The plane ingame does not need you to "pull fast" to enter into an unreacoverable inverted flat-spin.

[Dakpilot]

The sudden stall characteristic is so well known it was a recognised tactic of Luftwaffe 190 pilots as an evasive maneuver, mentioned in many pilot memoirs  

 

benign power off level stall is not the same as power on accelerated stall in a maneuver

 

these are just points. Not saying the FM is perfect

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Kurfurst]

To add to that - genuine German trials of 190A-2 vs 109F-4 doesn't reflect on stall characteristics.

 

http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109F4_Rechlin_vergleich_190A2/109F_Rvergleichsflg_190A2_de.html

 

d)  Steuerdrücke, Kurven:

    

Die Steurerdrücken bei der FW 190 A 2 sind als gering zu betrachten. Selbst bei 700 km/h Fahrt ist das Flugzeug im Gegensatz zur Bf 109 noch mit erträglichen Steuerdrücken beweglich zu fliegen. Die Wendigkeit ust gut,  was besonders bei wechselseitigen Kurven-Fliegen und höheren Geshchwindigkeiten sich gegenüber der Bf 109 auffallend bemerkbar macht. Bezüglich der Rollwendigkeit bedeutet die FW 190 einen guten Fortschritt, der sich insbesonders im Luftkampf stark bemerkbar mact, Ob die FW 190 enger kurvt als die Bf 109 konnte nicht eindeutig festgestellt werden.

[Turban]

The plane ingame does not need you to "pull fast" to enter into an unreacoverable inverted flat-spin.

 

I'm sure the FW won't go into an unrecoverable inverted flat spin for no reason. I'd love to see a video of a FW go into an unprovoked unrecoverable inverted flat spin.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Everyone needs to take a step back. On the one hand, there are some real, albeit fairly minor, problems with the Fw. On the other hand, there is neither bias nor extreme problems with the AC. There are Herculean problems modeling the AC with the amount of physics involved and I'm sure the DEV's are doing their best to deliver a proper FM. A minor change here or there can produce surprising or unwanted effects over there. I'm sure more tweaks are on the way but it will take time and it will always be an approximation.........................it is only a graphical interpretation. It is not a real world fire breathing monster. Within the capabilities of the physics modeling there will always be some approximation of real world flight.

 

With that being said;

 

The Fw does not go into an unrecoverable inverted flat spin for no reason.....................

 

a) It does go into an inverted high speed accelerated stall and does not require any fast action on the stick to do so. A constant rate high speed descending turn will induce the effect. It is a combination of aileron and elevator. I am working through some tests but I am admittedly just a layman.

 

b) It is NOT unrecoverable. It can be brought out of the inverted flat spin but it takes some altitude and experience to get it done. It is generally unrecoverable below about 800m.

 

I've never been under the impression the Fw was some ballerina dancing lightly about the stage. She is an interceptor and a four gun beast. She is agile within her flight regimen but is not designed for the close in knife fight. No game has ever really modeled her that way that I have "flown."

 

I do think she should be more agile than she is here and more importantly I think the previous stall modeling was both better and probably more accurate. The previous stall was sufficiently sudden and it required experience to avoid it. There was very little stall warning before and you had to really know the AC to get her to turn well. There is less now and it seems unrealistic for an AC approved for combat. That last sentence is admittedly subjective.

 

As I've said elsewhere, even the pilot reports stating the stall was sudden has a bit of subjectivity to it as well. I think there is room for how sudden is "sudden," if you will. There is room for DEV interpretation here while retaining the spirit of both history and playability. Some of the reports above mention buffeting and that has been reduced in the new FM. Even if the physical buffeting is absent, putting in the wind noise would go a long way to providing pilot insight as to how far he is riding the stall before the snap over.

 

I give the DEV's credit for their effort while acknowledging there are flaws. I suggest both sides of the user discussion keep BOTH of those facts in mind while speaking of the fruits of that labor.

 

I try to be balanced in my opinion of the AC and fly it for what it is. It does have flaws. Some of them are historical and intentional. I'm sure some of them are neither.

Edited April 8, 2016 by [LBS]HerrMurf

[Turban]

Well, when it comes to interpretation, in aviation the term "sudden" means "sudden". In other word it happens in a blink of an eye. I think that when test pilots write "sudden", they mean it.

Test pilots are serious pilots and they do their job seriously, they don't use words lightly.

 

Also, regarding spins. Spins are a deadly thing, regardless of the plane. I don't have the exact number in mind, but I'm pretty sure the FW had a minimum altitude for spins. Below that and you should just try to eject, not recover.

Pilot had those things in mind when flying. It seems that people today jus don't want to have to deal with those things.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Turban

[Turban]

The more I read about it, the more it appears that I was right from the start,  the FW stall is obviously a well know phenomenon.

 

 

When the RAF captured the first flyable Fw 190 in 1942, a thorough evaluation revealed the Achilles Heal to be a harsh stalling characteristic, which limited its maneuver margins. Captain Eric Brown states (Ref. 11): The stalling speed of the Fw 190A- 4 in clean configuration was 127 mph (204 km/h) and the stall came suddenly and virtually without warning, the port wing dropping so violently that the aircraft almost inverted itself. In fact, if the German fighter was pulled into a g stall in a tight turn, it would flick out into the opposite bank and an incipient spin was the inevitable outcome if the pilot did not have his wits about him. The stall in landing configuration was quite different, there being intense pre-stall buffeting before the starboard wing dropped comparatively gently at 102 mph (164 km/h). The results of an USAAF evaluation of the Fw 190 (Ref. 12 and 13) report the aircraft to have a gentle stall. However, these reports admit that the Fw 190 stalled abruptly when maneuvering. The reason for this reported difference in non-maneuvering stall behavior is unknown. A comparison of the local wing lift coefficients, calculated by VSAERO, at stall with the estimated stalling lift coefficients of the airfoils two-dimensionally (Fig. 12) shows that approximately the inner 40% of the wing reaches C]max at the same aircraft angle of attack. A wartime Focke Wulf report (Ref. 14) indicates that at higher loading conditions (i.e., when pullin g more gs) elastic deformation of the Fw 190 outer wing shifts the load distribution outboard. This would cause even more of the wing to reach its stalling lift coefficient simultaneously. Combined with the sharp stalling features of the NACA 230XX airfoils, this would produce the harsh stall found in by Capt. Brown. 

 

page 89

 

http://a.moirier.free.fr/Conception/Conception/Charge%20alaire/World%20War%20II%20fighter%20aerodynamics.pdf 

 

 

And that is just one example of the numerous mentions of that now infamous stall.

[Dr_Molem]

How could you be right about something since you don't even possess the plane ingame...

[Turban]

How could you be right about something since you don't even possess the plane ingame...

 

I said snap accelerated stall were a known occurrence. Some called me an heretic.  But as it happens, it was indeed a known occurrence. That's a fact.

 

There hasn't been any detailled argument from people who possess the plane. Just complaints about an unpleasant high AoA high speed sudden stall.

 

Well, guess what, no need to possess the plane to tell you that this behavior (fitting the description made  within those complaints) is mentionned in every flight test report of the FW .

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Sorry but we are going to disagree. Even if you believe there is no room for interpretation of the documents there is certainly room for interpretation of how it is modeled. Those pilots were making seat of the pants assessments and measurement systems were rudimentary at best. I don't doubt their skill. Additionally, it should be added, seventy five years later the DEV data must be plugged into a pretty good game engine to be further interpreted by simplified physics. There is a world of opportunity for error in that string.

Further, the documents don't refer to high speed accelerated stalls and are not completely germaine to this portion of the conversation.

Your constant adherence to everything is exactly as it is and the Devs/sim is infallible makes you appear no less fanatical than the Lufties gnashing their teeth and rending garments on the other side of the fence. This is true through numerous threads.

Even Dak, an avowed, "friend of the sim, and whom I consider a friend as well (so far as anonymous internet friends go) states there is room for review at the very least. So just chill.

There is room for both improvement and interpretation of what the sim is trying to, uh, simulate. I'm willing to bet an American dollar there will be another Fw FM revision within six to twelve months.

Edited April 8, 2016 by [LBS]HerrMurf

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

My argument, if we are going to argue symantics is essentially this: the previous stall modeling WAS SUDDEN. The current stall modeling is INSTANTANEOUS and that is not what those test pilots reported in their documents that don't exactly pertain to the topic of high speed accelerated stall characteristics.

Edited April 8, 2016 by [LBS]HerrMurf

[Turban]

. So just chill.

 

There is room for both improvement and interpretation of what the sim is trying to, uh, simulate. I'm willing to bet an American dollar there will be another Fw FM revision within six to twelve months.

 

 

I'm chilled 

 

The problem is that what people call "improvement and interpretation" always means "make it better and easier". For some reason.. 

 

 

 

Your constant adherence to everything is exactly as it is and the Devs/sim is infallible 

 

I don't adhere blindly and I don't think the devs are infaillible ...

 

But let's face it, no complaints about the FW so far have come with arguments worth fighting for     Show me some arguments worthy of consideration and I'll jump on the FW hate train