Whats your opinion on the new FW FM?

[Dr_Molem]

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 .

 

My dear, dear Turban...

 

What you seem to ignore is that the plane, before the last patch, was already prone to dangerous high speed accelerated stall. The plane was already the one that had the highest learning curve in BoS, and some people were already calling it "the spin machine", guess why ? Before the patch, the plane was not "forgivable" or "easy to fly" at all. Understood ?

 

Now that the stall speed is too high, these accelerated stall appear sooner, and are more dangerous than before, period.

[ZachariasX]

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 ?

 

Oh.. I might have spawned something here that wasn't my intention.

 

-------------

So, please my disclaimer:

 

With this I am just asking for source material reflecting the 190s stall charactersitcs. I was not mentioning the ingame 190 with a single word. Regarding the ingame 190, I am just happy with the fact that the devs continue working on the 190's FM and did not abandon it. So, for this, THANK YOU DEVS!

 

-------------

 

Back on my topic.

 

No, I was asking for exactly what you added. An honest thank you for that.

 

 

So, the 190 will tend to drop a wing if the stick is yanked back very fast. Now it also says that the stick forces are heavy. Thus doing so is not very likely. Kurt Tank was doing the right thing in making the elevator control heavy if that was an issue.

 

 

 

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

 

[...]

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

It was used like that? Is there an example? I'd love to know? I am asking because I'd like to get to know more good background info on that bird. So, if you know about such accounts, can you name some? Really, I am not trying to say you are wrong, I like to look them up.

 

Z

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Turban, I don't hate it either. I fly it regularly, almost exclusively even. I think the "brick" layers are off base as well.

 

I am firmly of the opinion that the previous version of the accelerated stall was plenty historical and considerably more realistic for a front line fighter.

 

I don't want to, "make it better and easier," per se. I want to make it better and reasonably conform to the expectations set forth by multiple written records. I love that it is and has been difficult to master. Probably a similar feeling of accomplishment to those who fly the LaGG.

Edited April 8, 2016 by [LBS]HerrMurf

[ZachariasX]

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.

 

 

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.

 

Although the link didn't work for me, I got the source material. Interessting.

 

Looking at the reference of Eric Brown, he writes in "Wings of the Luftwaffe" on the 190:

 

"...but the Achilles Heel that the ADFU had sought with Armin Faber's [the first Fw-190 to be captured by the British] Fw-190A-3 was it harsh stalling characteristics."

 

I found it notable that he only mentioned a specific aircraft that had this behaviour (loadouts can affect this kind of behaviour as well) and Eric Brown himself didn't go too much into the stalling characteristics when he was fling the individual types. Perhaps he was too good of a pilot to be challenged by whatever the 190 did...? Who knows. He certainly has flown worse aircraft that that type.

 

I found the aspect of wing bending at high g's and the effect on aerodynamics an interessting aspect. Good info here. Thank you for posting it.

 

 

Z

Edited April 8, 2016 by ZachariasX

[Crump]

 

My dear, dear Turban...

 

What you seem to ignore is that the plane, before the last patch, was already prone to dangerous high speed accelerated stall. The plane was already the one that had the highest learning curve in BoS, and some people were already calling it "the spin machine", guess why ? Before the patch, the plane was not "forgivable" or "easy to fly" at all. Understood ?

 

Now that the stall speed is too high, these accelerated stall appear sooner, and are more dangerous than before, period.

 

 

 

He does not know the difference between an normal stall and an accelerated stall or that they are connected or function.

 

Anyone can run the math on at 1G level clean configuration stall speed of 110mph IAS + PEC.

[Crump]

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

That is very specific language David Lednicer uses, Turban.  It has meaning to an engineer that is completely different from the one you are getting.

[Turban]

That is very specific language David Lednicer uses, Turban.  It has meaning to an engineer that is completely different from the one you are getting.

 

 

 

 

Captain Eric Brown states : 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).

 

I know you like to think you are above everyone else but I think what's written is quite clear, even for us plebs..

 

Edit : Weird, the link seemed to work a few hours ago ..

Edited April 8, 2016 by Turban

[Turban]

@ Crump

 

Look what I found on another forum. Something you wrote :

 

 

 

Yes and no. The FW-190 had two distinct stalls. 

It's normal stall was gentle with the aircraft nose dropping and the right wing dipping slightly. 

This stall is what occurs the vast majority of the time. 

Left unchecked at high speed the aircraft would enter a spin. Recovery was instantaneous. 


The second stall requires some explanation into the wing design. The FW-190 wing had 2 degrees of twist added in from span .81 to the root. This was done to move the lift distribution away from elliptical to lessen the harsh stalling characteristics of elliptical distribution. Common practice. Designers in the late 1930's were very aware of the benefits of elliptical distribution and how to manipulate it. The tips were left elliptical to gain the induced drag benefits. 

When torsional forces would straighten the wing out, giving the entire wing elliptical distribution and angle of attack changed rapidly enough to induce a stall, the entire wings lift would stall at once. The FW-190 would invert violently and enter a spin. 

In order to achieve the second stall conditions the pilot had to be traveling at high speed, input roll and elevator. Almost a snap roll. The aircraft recovered quickly from the spin. This is the stall many FW-190 pilots learned to use as a defensive move to shake an allied fighter off there six. 

 

 

 

I find this completely hilarious.  You remember starting a lecture on how "snap" is not a proper word...     and.. just about everything you said in this thread.. you contradict what you wrote yourself somewhere else..

 

Anyway.. good laugh 

Edited April 8, 2016 by Turban

[ZachariasX]

 

[...]

 

Edit : Weird, the link seemed to work a few hours ago ..

 

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

 

This link works for me....

[Turban]

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

 

This link works for me....

 

 

Good then, that was the point 

 

Well, anyway, I'm done here, I just wanted to fight some misinformation some people were spreading  implying that the FW had no high speed high AoA stall, because as we all know now, the FW did have that nasty snap stall.

 

So I'll go and  will be back when we know more or something interesting comes up.

 

Cheers

[Crump]

 

 

Captain Eric Brown states : 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).

 

Where is that statement?  

 

Here is the report from the RAE on WNr 313...that is Faber's Aircraft and one Eric Brown is famous for flying.

 

[Crump]

 

 

  Crumpp says: Almost a snap roll.

 

 

 

You remember starting a lecture on how "snap" is not a proper word..

 

No I said "snap stall" is meaningless and undefined.

 

A snap roll is a aerobatic maneuver.   The are also called "flick rolls" by the JAA definitions.  Both the United States and Europe...You know that right??

 

 

 

Flick rolls (called 'snap rolls' in the USA)

 

https://www.aerobatics.org.uk/judging/topics/flick-rolls

 

 

A "snap stall" is not anything that is defined.  It is open to interpretation.  

 

 

 

Aerobatics - Spin, Flick Roll and Snap Roll

 

 

Edited April 8, 2016 by Crump

[ZachariasX]

Captain Eric Brown states : 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).

 

 

I've seen this one, and this description seems very much in line with this one:

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

page 3:

 

"The turn is poor with a very unpleasant accelerated stall occurring at 180 with about 2 ''g" applied. The maneuver flap position, 10°, brings this down to 140 IAS. The elevators are very in a tight turn necessitating trim."

 

Interestingly enough in the first quote, Eric Brown says "...pulled into a g stall in a tight turn, it would flick out into the opposite bank...". It flicks outside of the turn, not generally dropping the port wing.

 

Now, in both situations, the plane is flown very slowly, much too slow for a combat situation where you had the initiative.

 

On top of that rather unsurprising behavior at these slow speeds (given the wing loading of the plane), there seems also the issue that the plane seems to stall at much higher speeds, even above corner speed of the Fw-190. If I understood the previous posts correctly, this seems to occur if the pilot made a very quick pull on the stick, despite stick force being notably heavy, discouraging such behavior. This is what is news to me.

 

Z

 

 

Where is that statement?

 

That is (also?) from Eric Browns "Wings of the Luftwaffe", page 93.

[Crump]

 

 

I've seen this one, and this description seems very much in line with this one:

 

That one states "about" 118mph IAS.  Not only is that just an eyeball estimate from an unknown  weight and altitude.  That is on an aircraft without unknown pitot static maintenance condition.   Given a calibrated eyeball,  I see that as giving good agreement with RAE WNr313 and EB-104.  The later aircraft just having much more precise information and a more recently maintained pitot static system.

[ZachariasX]

Crump, one more note on the stall speeds: Armin Fabers' was a front line Fw-190A-3, the A-4 he probably got the stall speed references for in Turbans quote is AFAIK from an Fw-190A-4/U8. This means it is a fighterbomber variant, outer canons removed and strenghtened fuselage. I have no numbers on the specific weight of this aircraft. But if it was markedly heavyer, then this might explain for the differences in stall speeds mentioned.

 

Z

[Crump]

If you run the math on the acelerated stalls, it also gives good agreement with the 110mph IAS found by the RAE.

[Turban]

While speed will vary , it's not really the topic at hand.

 

The topic is the FW abrupt stalls that are real, not a myth or insignificant.

Anyway, like I said, I'm done here untill something interesting comes along.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

It is important because no one is discussing low speed simple stall behavior. We are discussing high speed combat applications and accelerated stalls.

 

And I am, specifically, addressing onset only not the overall behavior.

[Crump]

Crump, one more note on the stall speeds: Armin Fabers' was a front line Fw-190A-3, the A-4 he probably got the stall speed references for in Turbans quote is AFAIK from an Fw-190A-4/U8. This means it is a fighterbomber variant, outer canons removed and strenghtened fuselage. I have no numbers on the specific weight of this aircraft. But if it was markedly heavyer, then this might explain for the differences in stall speeds mentioned.

 

Z

 

 

That very well could be it too.  

 

A standard analog airspeed indicator and pitot static system also explains it quite nicely.  Not only does the movement of the airspeed needle induce error, The pitot static system easily leaks.  The fittings loosen and air begins to leak.  Any leak will throw the speed off.  Even changing to an alternate static source will throw the airspeed indicator off from its "no leak" static system calibration point.  

 

 

 

Why are the instruments not perfect? There are several reasons. The scales may not be printed in exactly the right place, or the face may have moved. The gears in the instrument may not be sized perfectly. But most of all, friction still exists. We are trying to measure minuscule changes in pressure, which means the force exerted by the bellows in the instrument is also minuscule. Even with the best jeweled movement, there will still be a minute amount of friction opposing this minute force. As such, if the instrument is moving up (indication increasing), the needle will stop just below the "proper" value. Likewise, if the instrument is moving down (indication decreasing), the needle will stop just above the "proper" value. This difference in reading depending on which way the instrument is moving is called "hysteresis."

 

http://www.eaa1000.av.org/technicl/instcal/instcal.htm

 

In fact,  they are so common and easy to get, all aircraft have to have them recertified every 2 years to fly in IFR.

 

Once more, it would not be worth it for the RAE or USAAF to fix it.  Static system leaks are easy to detect, hard to locate and often expensive/time consuming to fix.  It is far easier to just calibrate it on the day of the test and you will get a close enough ball park.

 

 

 

http://www.avweb.com/news/airman/184279-1.html

[Art]

 

Hi Crupm have you full messengare? I would like to ask you something

[Crump]

Yes...ask away

[Holtzauge]

When it comes to the BoS Fw-190 flying characteristics, I think a big problem right now is the post- stall behaviour: Sometimes the aircraft settles into a stable high alfa attitude and stays there until you pancake in unless you very actively use elevator to push down the nose.

 

I see three things that speak against this behaviour:

 

First, while pilot anecdotes do seem to support the Fw-190’s penchant for sudden entry into a stall with little warning (at high speeds), I do not recall seeing any that mention it getting stuck in a stable high alfa superstall.  So simply releasing the backpressure on the stick should lead to recovery and not require the very active elevator input needed today to push the nose down.

 

Second, while spinning is a known issue with WW2 type of aircraft, the superstall type of settling into a stable high alfa attitude is a characteristic more associated with low aspect ratio delta jet aircraft like the J-35 Draken. To me it looks like the current BoS behaves very much like this since if you only release back pressure it will still  stay locked in the high alfa attitude and auger in which seems strange for a much higher aspect ratio wing like on the Fw-190.

 

Third, the Fw-190 has been modelled in both BoS and DCS. If you compare the stall and post-stall modeling between these sims, they are very different which means that one of them (in their current releases) is more accurate than the other and right now I think more speaks for the DCS model than the current BoS model.

 

However, seeing all the nice new models like the Ju-88 being introduced I guess the BoS/BoM devs have much on their table but it would anyway be nice if they could look this over and maybe even include a fix in one of the coming releases!

[beepee]

Of course you will not notice anything if you're a "clean" pilot, i mean Hit & Run only, you know.

 

But I thought "clean" was the only way to fly a 190??

 

Personally, I don't try and fly it like a Tie Fighter, so I don't have any issues with the new FM.

 

 

 

Third, the Fw-190 has been modelled in both BoS and DCS. If you compare the stall and post-stall modeling between these sims, they are very different which means that one of them (in their current releases) is more accurate than the other and right now I think more speaks for the DCS model than the current BoS model.

 

BUT...the Fw-190 in DCS is not the same model as what we have in BOS.

 

Surely the Dora model would have had different flight characteristics than the early Anton model we have in BOS?

 

I personally don't see the logic in trying to compare them, but I am no expert on these things, just a guy that likes playing at being WWII combat pilot.

Edited April 9, 2016 by beepee

[Holtzauge]

BUT...the Fw-190 in DCS is not the same model as what we have in BOS.

 

Surely the Dora model would have had different flight characteristics than the early Anton model we have in BOS?

 

I personally don't see the logic in trying to compare them, but I am no expert on these things, just a guy that likes playing at being WWII combat pilot.

Well you have a valid point: They are different and probably have quite different CG locations relative the AC so yes, they would probably have different stability margins but the general configuration such as wing planform, wing profile and wash-out are the same AFAIK so I think they should be generally comparable when it comes to post-stall characteristics. At least it seems strange that one behaves much as you would expect while the other gets locked up in something akin to a superstall. In addition: if the Fw-190A3 did have a tendency to behave like we see in BoS then I would have expected to have read about it in pilots accounts since the A3's post-stall behaviour in BoS is simply deadly.

Edited April 9, 2016 by Holtzauge

[ZachariasX]

[...]

 

First, while pilot anecdotes do seem to support the Fw-190’s penchant for sudden entry into a stall with little warning (at high speeds), I do not recall seeing any that mention it getting stuck in a stable high alfa superstall.  So simply releasing the backpressure on the stick should lead to recovery and not require the very active elevator input needed today to push the nose down.

[...]

 

This is what kind of puzzles me about the Fw-190. What is "high speed"? I know of no anectote about the Fw-190 when flown at or beyond corner speed, that a sudden pull on the stick will make it flick, when the same pull (up to the same number of "g") made more slowly wouldn't make it flick.

 

The article "WW2 Fighter Aerodynamics" give a hint about wing flexing. What I don't really understand about this point is why that should be an issue dependent on how quick "g" are increasing and not on how many "g" act as accelleration.

 

When Eric Brown says that the Fw-190 flicks in a rather nasty way outside the turn at 180 in a turn pulled with 2 "g" is this "high speed stall"? (I mean if you did the comparable thing in a Cessna, you'd be just an idiot going slow for such maneuvers and asking for it.)

 

Now my thinking was that if I went at corner speed, I should be reasonably safe in being able to pull to the structural limit of the aircraft, be it a slow or a fast pull (reasonably fast). Now, if the 190 high speed flicked, say at 5 g, how would I ever get to, say 7 g in a turn? Why would they build a plane such that it could bear 11 g when "it flicks out way before"?

 

This I don't mean in the context of the ingame Fw-190, but the real one.

 

So, please, is there an anectote of a pilot going like 450 km/h that could make the plane flick by simple pulling back (without losing a wing)? Btw, what would be corner speed of an Fw-190A-4?

 

 

The stall speeds (diry and clean) as referenced for the ingame 190 seem to make sense to me, especially in regard of Crupms posting #131 above.

 

Z

[Crump]

 

 

The article "WW2 Fighter Aerodynamics" give a hint about wing flexing.

 

it is wing flexing just like David Lednicer and subsequently, Focke Wulf determined.  

 

The polars clearly show us the stall characteristics of the wing.

[Crump]

 

 

Now my thinking was that if I went at corner speed, I should be reasonably safe in being able to pull to the structural limit of the aircraft, be it a slow or a fast pull  

 

As a fighter, It was kind of designed that way to use corner velocity effectively.

 

And yes, you can pull all the way to CaMax (CLmax) without fear of a stall.

 

While the airspeed changes with weight and density altitude.....

 

Angle of Attack and Coefficient of lift have a fixed relationship.  The wings stalls at the same angle of attack which means it stalls at the same coefficient of lift.

[Holtzauge]

This is what kind of puzzles me about the Fw-190. What is "high speed"? I know of no anectote about the Fw-190 when flown at or beyond corner speed, that a sudden pull on the stick will make it flick, when the same pull (up to the same number of "g") made more slowly wouldn't make it flick.

 

The article "WW2 Fighter Aerodynamics" give a hint about wing flexing. What I don't really understand about this point is why that should be an issue dependent on how quick "g" are increasing and not on how many "g" act as accelleration.

 

When Eric Brown says that the Fw-190 flicks in a rather nasty way outside the turn at 180 in a turn pulled with 2 "g" is this "high speed stall"? (I mean if you did the comparable thing in a Cessna, you'd be just an idiot going slow for such maneuvers and asking for it.)

 

Exactly where the limit goes as to what is meant by high speed is not clearly defined in this case I think. However, that the wing twists so that the built in wash-out is reduced is a common problem for all aircraft since the resultant from the wing lift acts forward of the flexural center of the wing meaning it tends to bend the wing leading edge up more than the trailing edge.

 

What is strange here is why the Fw-190 seems to have suffered more form this effect since AFAIK the 1g stall, i.e. wings level is supposed to have been benign while the stall at higher g-loads i.e. at higher speeds (higher dynamic pressure really) seems to have come with little warning. If it comes already at 2 g this comes as somewhat of a surprise to me since that corresponds to a relatively low dynamic pressure and I would not have expect that much wing twist until you are looking at stalls at 4-5 g's or beyond. If the reason for the stall characteristics becoming worse is due to wing twist then it seems strange that the Fw-190 has such a high aileron reversal speed (calculated to around 700-800 mph IAS IIRC) since this indicates a quite torsionaly stiff wing.......

Edited April 9, 2016 by Holtzauge

[Crump]

 

 

When Eric Brown says that the Fw-190 flicks in a rather nasty way outside the turn at 180 in a turn pulled with 2 "g" is this "high speed stall"? (I mean if you did the comparable thing in a Cessna, you'd be just an idiot going slow for such maneuvers and asking for it.)

 

That is sounds like a normal accelerated stall.   If you keep pulling after the stall most aircraft will exhibit the same "nasty behavior" unless equipped with high lift devices such as vortex generators or LE stalts.

 

Here is the Spitfire Mk I manual warning of the exact same thing....

 

 

As you note, you can do the same thing in a Cessna.  Any pilot getting a Commercial checkride or an ATP checkride will demonstrate this to the FAA in flight.  If you do not recover at the first sign of the stall and keep forcing the wing, it will react violently.  Now, a skilled pilot can use some rudder to prop the wing up for a bit, lol.

[ZachariasX]

[...]

What is strange here is why the Fw-190 seems to have suffered more form this effect since AFAIK the 1g stall, i.e. wings level is supposed to have been benign while the stall at higher g-loads i.e. at higher speeds (higher dynamic pressure really) seems to have come with little warning. If it comes already at 2 g this comes as somewhat of a surprise to me since that corresponds to a relatively low dynamic pressure and I would not have expect that much wing twist until you are looking at stalls at 4-5 g's or beyond. If the reason for the stall characteristics becoming worse is due to wing twist then it seems strange that the Fw-190 has such a high aileron reversal speed (calculated to around 700-800 mph IAS IIRC) since this indicates a quite torsionaly stiff wing.......

 

Yes, this is why it came as a surprise to me too. I mean, the wing of the 190 IIRC is made of one unit, giving it a great deal of strength as well as the confidence of the aircrews that they could do just about anything without the fear of tearing off the wings.

 

 

Here is the Spitfire Mk I manual warning of the exact same thing....

 

Thnx!

[Crump]

 

 

What is strange here is why the Fw-190 seems to have suffered more form this effect since AFAIK the 1g stall, i.e. wings level is supposed to have been benign while the stall at higher g-loads i.e. at higher speeds (higher dynamic pressure really) seems to have come with little warning.

 

 

It is not really strange. It is by design.  The smaller the buffet zone, the more the airfoil is working towards the performance we want such as maintaining a turn. The larger the buffet zone, the more energy is devoted to stall warning and not performance.

 

Lots of high performance fighters are designed to give little warning.  The P-51 comes to mind in the USAAF.  

 

The FW-190 for example with properly adjusted ailerons, would exhibit aileron vibration before the stall.  

 

Here is the modern definition of  buffet zone standards:

 

 

 

Here is a World War II fighter noted for its ample warning:

 

 

Most importantly, all of this depends on aircraft configuration, CG location, and coefficient of lift.  It changes IAW those variables.

 

For example, The severe buffeting on the fighter depicted above only occurs with gun ports uncovered at normal to aft CG locations.  With gunports covered, the buffet zone energy changes to light to moderate...

[ZachariasX]

Ok, to sum all that up I would conclude the following:

 

1. The wing profile and washout of the Fw-190 per se gives a benign stall characteristics.
2. Adding load to the wing makes it flex.
3. The more the wing flexes, the more it shifts the main lift farther out of the wing.

 

• Result 1: Reduction of effective wing area, while also increasing lever arm to roll the plane once the lift distribution is getting more unequal between the wings (e.g. in a turn).
• Result 2: Corner speed is increased effective wing area (giving lift) is reduced.

 

Bottom line is you have to be faster with the Fw-190 to make a high g pull out of a dive and and it will roll more violently when pulling too much in high g turns.

 

BUT the plane can pull high g with ease provided you are really fast enough.

 

That make sense?

 

If I am correct with that, then it would be interesting (well, at least academically) how much corner speed is increased by the flexing…

[Crump]

 

 

  BUT the plane can pull high g with ease provided you are really fast enough.

 

 

The aeroelasticity effect occurs in asymmetrical loadings.   Basically "pulling hard" while cross controlled will do it or uncoordinated flight.

[Art]

Yes...ask away

I would like PM but i cant.. have you still full?

[Crump]

pm sent

[tailwheel]

Where is that statement?  

 

Here is the report from the RAE on WNr 313...that is Faber's Aircraft and one Eric Brown is famous for flying.

 

34. The aircraft is very pleasant for aerobatics, which can be carried out at high speed.

Well after an evening spent spinning out and flipping this way and that, I'd hardly say the 'new' 190 fits item 34 at all.

[ZachariasX]

34. The aircraft is very pleasant for aerobatics, which can be carried out at high speed.

Well after an evening spent spinning out and flipping this way and that, I'd hardly say the 'new' 190 fits item 34 at all.

With BoS/M I can spin out with most aircraft even at high speeds. Some are more ready to do that (yes, the 190), some less. It seems I can tolerate much higher g loads ingame than RL. I should have a g meter in the cockpit... and way more time at hand to learn to fly those aircraft propperly before I have an oppinion about the ingame FM.

 

Regarding aeroelasticy, if the 190 is suffering from that, then it would affect the plane in fast spiral dives when rolling more inside the dive or outside the dive. Straight pulling out after a wingover dive should not be more problematic than with other planes featuring a stiff wing.

[Wad]

What lift to drag curves and which FW-190A4 variant??  I have the feeling you this led to a big mistake.

 

I hope they were not something like this....

 

 

Is this page from "Messungen an einer Fw 190 im grossen Windkanal von Chalais Meudon bei Paris", Focke-Wulf Bericht Nr.06006, 1943?

[Crump]

 

 

"Messungen an einer Fw 190 im grossen Windkanal von Chalais Meudon bei Paris", Focke-Wulf Bericht Nr.06006, 1943?

 

 

It could be, I have the full report on a reel in a box at the house.  

[Crump]

 

 

Regarding aeroelasticy, if the 190 is suffering from that, then it would affect the plane in fast spiral dives when rolling more inside the dive or outside the dive. Straight pulling out after a wingover dive should not be more problematic than with other planes featuring a stiff wing.

 

All airframes suffer from aeroelasticity.   The FW-190 had a very stiff wing.  

 

Anecdotes of FW-190 pilots who used the stall/spin characteristics ALWAYS entered with a generous application of rudder.

 

Airframes are only rated for load application in a single axis (Z-axis).  Asymmetrical loading significantly reduces the load factor the airframe can handle.  

 

All roll maneuvers start with application of rudder to maintain coordinated flight as the aircraft changes the orientation of the z-axis.  The inclinometer (ball) is not accurate during this transition and a pilot can only rely upon feel and visual clues to stay coordinated.

 

This is why Eric Brown made the comment, aileron turns can be made which would rip the wings off a Spitfire.  A sloppy application of rudder results in asymmetrical loading because the roll is uncoordinated.  

 

That is how torsionally stiff the FW-190 wing was....the wings did not break but rather flexed out the 2.5 degrees of washout on the upward moving wing.  When the wing stalled, the entire wing stalled resulting in the directional reversal and if the pilot did not relax back-pressure....a spin would develop.