Whats your opinion on the new FW FM?

[RAY-EU]

We do not had FW190 & By this way We will not have FW 190 for a long time ...

 

get better the roll and climb and cut others so do a worse stall ...

 

The FW190 is not more agile than the Spitfire MkI and should be more that the MkV,

that Spitfire MKI we knew in Il2 Cliffs of Dover ...Was by far more agile than the 1/7 Fw190 of Il2 BOS .

 

May be we could test the FW190 A3 , 4 , 6 in DCS vs Spitfire MK IX

 

Fw190 is a Forgotten plane and not liked to remenver for the winers who write their history ...

 

I7 5930 K , Asus Rampage V 3.0 USB , 128 GB Ram , 2x Titan X Gtx nvidia in SLi ..... and waitting for shipping the HTC ViVe and to be compatible with Sims .

Edited April 11, 2016 by RAY-EU

[Wad]

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

 

I hear that there was a systematical error in this report due to wrong wind tunnel calibration. Is it true?

[RAY-EU]

Better than a wind tunnel calibration , are the performances of Axis planes in WW2 registered by sensors

 

is about what the Axis catalog : with all the history documents their write about all the test and measures about the dinamic , airplane performances of their planes, with some especial register sensors in the planes in test or in combat during WW2 in the total Air battles .

 

And you have acces in Internet ; and we test and we can compare ... The specifications of ww2 aircrafts .

[Holtzauge]

Actually, IMHO the Fw-190 Dora should be very comparable with the Anton when it comes to stalling characteristics: They both have the same wing planform, they both have the same wing profile NACA230, they both have the same wing thickness ratio at root and tip. They both have the same washout built into the wing and neither have slats or slots.  They both have the same wing structure so the wing bending and torsion under load should be comparable. These are the defining characteristics that will determine the stalling characteristics and if someone has a different opinion it would be very interesting to hear what they base this on.

 

Again, if the Anton behaved as viciously as it does in BoS then why are there no pilot accounts of this? No one is saying it’s supposed to be docile and AFAIK no one is asking that the accelerated stall characteristics should be tamed. The Anton should give little warning at the stall limit which is also what pilots who flew it said. What I have never read about though in any pilot accounts is the superstall like settling into a high AoA state that the current BoS Anton exhibits.

 

So I’m casting my lot with those asking this to be looked into: I find it much more likely that the missing witness accounts, different post-stall behaviours in DCS and legacy Il-2 all point in the same direction: The current BoS Anton stall characteristics need tuning.

[Grancesc]

Yesterday, I did another test flight with the FW of patch V1.201d (fighter configuration, four cannon, 50% fuel, BOS-map autumn). I must start by saying that I have a replica cockpit with well-defined seat-, throttle-, pedal- and joystick positions (joystick in middle position). Thanks to a TM Warthog joystick extension (7, 5 cm) I’m able to perform precise flight maneuvers and can reproduce them at any time. I started the tests with my original joystick and pedal curve settings (used in patch V1.1017b). Then I tried through curves corrections and other trim configurations to achieve the best flight characteristics in V1.201d. The best I could achieve with today's patch, was:

• Slightly improved climb performance between 2-3000m (approx. 2 m/s)
• Stall speed on touchdown ~ 180 km/h IAS. It used to be 168 km/h with V1.107b (which coincides with the test report from Eric Brown of 02.03.1944).
• g-stalls when pulling in a turn take place today at 13-15 km/h higher speeds.

The realistic values that prevailed with V1.107b cannot be achieved with the new patch. These new flight characteristics leave with virtual pilots, especially with people flying the FW variants of IL-2 1946 or the FW190D of DCS, a bad impression. To make matters worse, the FW in the V1.201d doesn't seem to behave w/r to flight characteristics as described in the literature (Eric Brown, various DVL test reports and Wright Field Report AAF NO.EB-104).

[Turban]

 

Again, if the Anton behaved as viciously as it does in BoS then why are there no pilot accounts of this? N

 

 

The sudden stall coming with no warning  is mentionned in pretty much all flight reports. This has been quoted throughout the several threads. I don't know why people keep looking the other way pretending this didn't happen.

 

The A and the D have different CG , might not affect the stalling speed as much, but it'll definitely have an influence of how far it goes into a spin and how easy it is to recuperate. 

[Turban]

Yesterday, I did another test flight with the FW of patch V1.201d (fighter configuration, four cannon, 50% fuel, BOS-map autumn). I must start by saying that I have a replica cockpit with well-defined seat-, throttle-, pedal- and joystick positions (joystick in middle position). Thanks to a TM Warthog joystick extension (7, 5 cm) I’m able to perform precise flight maneuvers and can reproduce them at any time. I started the tests with my original joystick and pedal curve settings (used in patch V1.1017b). Then I tried through curves corrections and other trim configurations to achieve the best flight characteristics in V1.201d. The best I could achieve with today's patch, was:

• Slightly improved climb performance between 2-3000m (approx. 2 m/s)
• Stall speed on touchdown ~ 180 km/h IAS. It used to be 168 km/h with V1.107b (which coincides with the test report from Eric Brown of 02.03.1944).
• g-stalls when pulling in a turn take place today at 13-15 km/h higher speeds.

The realistic values that prevailed with V1.107b cannot be achieved with the new patch. These new flight characteristics leave with virtual pilots, especially with people flying the FW variants of IL-2 1946 or the FW190D of DCS, a bad impression. To make matters worse, the FW in the V1.201d doesn't seem to behave w/r to flight characteristics as described in the literature (Eric Brown, various DVL test reports and Wright Field Report AAF NO.EB-104).

 

For the sake of the discussion I'll repost my questions too

 

1) 168 kmh is the stalling speed in landing configuration.   I don't see what does it have to do with the high speed stall people are talking about ?

 

2) You talk about "g-stall" speed. But what about the AoA ?? What about rudder coordination ?? You need to show these too. Because they are essentials. A video would be great ?

 

3)I don't see how "feelings" gathered in IL2 1946 , or on the 190 D in DCS are relevant and/or proof of anything ?

 

4)Sudden stall with little to no warning at high speed in some conditions is mentionned in pretty much all available flight reports, including Brown's test report. So.. ?

Edited April 12, 2016 by Turban

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

 

1) 168 kmh is the stalling speed in landing configuration.   I don't see what does it have to do with the high speed stall people are talking about ?

Repeating it over and over again in different threats doesnt make it true.

[MiloMorai]

The A and the D have different CG , might not affect the stalling speed as much, but it'll definitely have an influence of how far it goes into a spin and how easy it is to recuperate. 

 

The CG of these 2 a/c are ..........

[Turban]

Repeating it over and over again in different threats doesnt make it true.

 

You are saying it isn't true ?? 

[tailwheel]

I don't have a real Fw 190. I know there are real ones out there. I've googled wind tunnels but at $250,00 per session that's too expensive. So from what I've read the plane is supposed to be maneuverable, good to handle but goes into nasty stalls when kicked around. I used to fly it in BOS and it was a challenge but it was workable. Now I barely stay ahead of IL-2s, forget lags or yaks. If I see fighters now I run. Is that how the LW flew those planes? Even in what I consider modest maneuvers this bird is as slippery as a dog on wet ice. If it's what the real LW had to work with then that was awful for them. As far as it being fun in a sim. nope not in air to air. To me it's just a faster Ju87. Forget escorting, forget intercepting, ground attack only. Shame. Anyway, I'm so frustrated, maybe I can get some pleasure out of my gunzerker.

 

(couple days later) I still enjoy flying it for ground pounding though, and still manage a few aerial kills now and again. Seems to be most wobbly on a full tank of gas. Would it be possible to change it so we are able to set any fuel level in campaign?

Edited April 15, 2016 by Tailwheelbrownbear

[ACG_pezman]

Flew the 190 today for the first time since the last major update, and well, it's not good. I thought that maybe there was some exaggeration in this thread, but now I realize it is almost all true. I do want to mention that coordination with the rudder does make it more flyable, but still it is hard to control. It's no wonder I see so many 109's now in the air.

 

Now, I have got to mention that as a predominately VVS pilot, it's kind of funny to see all the frustration in this thread. At least the LW has a few other exceptional aircraft to choose from. Us poor VVS guys have to choose from being seal clubbed hard or being seal clubbed slightly less hard with our aircraft selection*.

 

*This statement is going to draw some heat but it is assuming that both pilots are competent.

[StG2_Manfred]

A very nice and true statement 71st_AH_p3zman. It's refreshing to read a multifaceted thinking. We discuss the whole subject on our own forum and although we are a German squadron, most of us agree that a balancing is somehow needed. And as mentioned plenty of times in this forum, it's always a interpretation of hard data, subjective impressions and anecdotes so there is room to tweak here and there. It just would be nice if the outcome would be plausible and enjoyable. In case of the 190 this means flying it should still feel like a capable fighter and not only an attack plane.

[Grancesc]

From many BOS/BOM users primarily the stall behavior of the FW after the patch 1.201d is criticized. Therefore, I decided to test first the stalls during landing and then in maneuvering flight (see post #165). In the former case, you successively reduce speed on the approach (airplane in landing configuration) until the wing does not generate enough lift and stalls the aircraft. The decisive factor is the speed at which the aircraft flips. In the latter case, however, one enters with sufficient speed (e.g. 400 km/h) in a horizontal turn pulls gs until at a certain speed a part of the wing loses lift and stalls the aircraft (here referred to high speed stall or g-stall). Well, the tests show that both landing stall and g-stall are significantly worse in V1.201d than in V1.107b. That's hardly surprising, because this behavior is the result of the decreased lift/drag ratio. That’s a measure that was announced and clearly communicated by the developers (answered by Han in Questions for Developers, post #1749 on 08 April 2016 - 15:13).

While the earlier flip when landing is acceptable for many the vpilots (you have only to be a little bit more careful in the approach), the affects in the g-stall behavior are devastating. The FW V1.201d is difficult to fly in combat and has lost by this measure a lot of combat power. But maybe that was the intention of the developers.

 

Flew the 190 today for the first time since the last major update, and well, it's not good. I thought that maybe there was some exaggeration in this thread, but now I realize it is almost all true. I do want to mention that coordination with the rudder does make it more flyable, but still it is hard to control. It's no wonder I see so many 109's now in the air.

Now, I have got to mention that as a predominately VVS pilot, it's kind of funny to see all the frustration in this thread. At least the LW has a few other exceptional aircraft to choose from. Us poor VVS guys have to choose from being seal clubbed hard or being seal clubbed slightly less hard with our aircraft selection*.

*This statement is going to draw some heat but it is assuming that both pilots are competent.

P3zman, you have my full sympathy. I’m also counting myself to the VVS guys (two-thirds of my flight time in allied aircrafts). But what has happened to the FW190 since V1.201d, is not conducive for our BOS/BOM sim.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

The too high stall speed issue has been reported (and not only once i suppose), they now investigate it.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Thx Hairy, looking forward to the result.

[RAY-EU]

Thanks to all . Good News ...

 

I will cheq ?!

 

Thanks Han ! Them Will be the La 5 F & FN turn time and the La 7 was the best Dogfighter of the World War 2 .

 

The History It comes living ...

 

And now that I was getting so much fun with The Bf G2 afther the limitations ... Will be enthusiasthic to return to the 190 ?!

 

Thanks very much for enjoying this Sim every day&night I am a conected fun with my WW2 books ... Sorry To much fun ...Thanks at All!

[Irgendjemand]

The too high stall speed issue has been reported (and not only once i suppose), they now investigate it.

Thanks a lot Hairy!

[Holtzauge]

One more thing: AFAIK we don't know exactly what data the devs used to tune the L/D curve? However, if it is from the French Charles Meudon wind tunnel, it may show too low L/D numbers due to Re number effects: Apparently at least some of full scale tests were run at 36 m/s wind speed in the tunnel and that is lower than stall speed and would have the effect that the wind tunnel measured Clmax will not reach as high value as IRL due to Re effects. So it could be so that the L/D reduction that has was done 1.201 was based on data that had been gathered at a too low Re and consequently was too conservative.

 

Hopefully the devs have this info already. If not, then maybe someone could complement the report that has already been filed so this info is not missed?

[Dr_Molenbeek]

I'm not the one who has sent the report, but i'll talk to the guy.

 

I'll see, thx Holtzauge.

[Holtzauge]

[MasterBaiter]

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Well devs stated they were being handed aerodynamic analysis on the A-4 by a comunity member but not specificly who and what specific test it was.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

That was my impression as well.

[Gump]

I have found at least one good thing about the new 190 - I can beat it with a La5!

[LittleJP]

You can beat the thing in a I-16..

[JtD]

One more thing: AFAIK we don't know exactly what data the devs used to tune the L/D curve? However, if it is from the French Charles Meudon wind tunnel, it may show too low L/D numbers due to Re number effects: Apparently at least some of full scale tests were run at 36 m/s wind speed in the tunnel and that is lower than stall speed and would have the effect that the wind tunnel measured Clmax will not reach as high value as IRL due to Re effects. So it could be so that the L/D reduction that has was done 1.201 was based on data that had been gathered at a too low Re and consequently was too conservative.

 

Hopefully the devs have this info already. If not, then maybe someone could complement the report that has already been filed so this info is not missed?

Not only that, but also wind tunnel data is only partially representative for real life conditions due to the walls/floor/ceilings impact on the airflow. Given that I know that and according to some dev I don't know jack, I'd certainly expect the devs to know they can't just take a wind tunnel polar and put it in game. Not to mention that the data for one aircraft is not necessarily representative for the average, good condition series machine. I'd be very surprised & heavily disappointed if the current all is correct version is the result of such a basic screw up. Edited April 14, 2016 by JtD

[Venturi]

I have found at least one good thing about the new 190 - I can beat it with a La5!

I'll take that bet...

My feeling is that regardless of how awesome the plane is made, it will not really be enough to satisfy the critics. I personally think it doesn't accelerate or roll fast enough, but I'm fine with the turning. And I'm really happy they increased the climb rate which is way more important anyways. Whereas some people want it to be another, faster 109 in which they don't have to swipe at the stabilizer wheel while diving.

[Holtzauge]

Not only that, but also wind tunnel data is only partially representative for real life conditions due to the walls/floor/ceilings impact on the airflow. Given that I know that and according to some dev I don't know jack, I'd certainly expect the devs to know they can't just take a wind tunnel polar and put it in game. Not to mention that the data for one aircraft is not necessarily representative for the average, good condition series machine. I'd be very surprised & heavily disappointed if the current all is correct version is the result of such a basic screw up.

 

Well the wall corrections have to be done in any wind tunnel irrespective of Re. However, NACA even built a special wind tunnel, the variable density wind tunnel to be able to get measurements at the correct Re since this effect is very important and the type of airfoil the Fw-190 has, the NACA 230-series, was in fact IIRC actually a product of testing in the NACA variable density wind tunnel and for these types of thick profiles the Re effects are pronounced and Clmax will be lower if measured at a lower Re and we do know the devs did say that the latest tweak was done based on new L/D data and consequently it's important to rule out all sources of errors. In fact if the L/D data the devs refer to were from the Charles Meudon wind tunnel, this tunnel had other issues: The Germans found that measurements were unreliable due to limitations in the measuring equipment and that the dynamic pressure varied too much ( ref Reports and Translations No 494, Sept 1946, Wind tunnel measurements to determine aileron properties on Fw-190) . So all in all, would make sense to take Charles Meudon wind tunnel measurements with a grain of salt......

[Dr_Molenbeek]

I'll take that bet...

My feeling is that regardless of how awesome the plane is made, it will not really be enough to satisfy the critics. I personally think it doesn't accelerate or roll fast enough, but I'm fine with the turning. And I'm really happy they increased the climb rate which is way more important anyways. Whereas some people want it to be another, faster 109 in which they don't have to swipe at the stabilizer wheel while diving.

 

The more i read you the more i want to put you in my blacklist, really.

 

Seriously, if you're not able to understand the issue here (too high stall speed and its consequences), i would advise you to stay in the P-40 thread just below this one.

[MasterBaiter]

The more i read you the more i want to put you in my blacklist, really.

 

Good to see Im not the only one

[Willy__]

 

 

Good to see Im not the only one

 

You guys are too gentle. He's on my ignore list since long time ago. 

[Turban]

Looking forward to see what the devs will say about this "issue" . 

 

Wonder what's in that report. If it's the same kind of non argument that we've seen in this thread...  

 

Time will tell I guess.

[Grancesc]

I'll take that bet...

My feeling is that regardless of how awesome the plane is made, it will not really be enough to satisfy the critics. I personally think it doesn't accelerate or roll fast enough, but I'm fine with the turning. And I'm really happy they increased the climb rate which is way more important anyways. Whereas some people want it to be another, faster 109 in which they don't have to swipe at the stabilizer wheel while diving.

 

 

Gents, please be forgiving and excuse him. He is a member of FMDO*.

* Flight Model Defense Organization

 

Edited April 14, 2016 by Grancesc

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Name calling, by either side of the debate, does not really drive the conversation.

[Venturi]

Luftwhiners unite...

[Dakpilot]

Sometimes I feel dirty looking in here...seems like a girls junior school

 

my ignore list is bigger than yours woo hoo     namecalling and suchlike

 

LOL

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited April 14, 2016 by Dakpilot

[JtD]

This topic is about the new FW190 flight model (or lack thereof), not about your petty feuds. Can you please cultivate them elsewhere?

[Kurfurst]

Well, so far there is only a speculation that the FM is not correct based on a speculation that the CL of the Fw 190 should - to quote: "higher" - than the CL value actually measured in wind tunnel which is dismissed again by speculation the real life measure were, of course, unreliable. We also have some random totally off topic speculative calculations about everything but the Fw 190A which serve no purpose at all other than the usual petty self-promotion and ego-boosting.

 

So I would risk saying the thread so has very on the Fw 190 flight model and a lot of speculations and fantasies. There is claim that something is not right with the FM, and its entirely possible that the FM is incorrect, but this can be only decided based on wheter it matches real life reference figures or not, yet any real life figure is instantly dismissed.

 

I have to ask then, what should be the reference then? Wishful thinking and fantasies?

[Crump]

 

 

The Coefficient of Lift of 1.85 gives good agreement with the 105mph IAS as measured by the British.

 

 

 

 

Well, so far there is only a speculation that the FM is not correct based on a speculation that the CL of the Fw 190 should - to quote: "higher" - than the CL value actually measured in wind tunnel which is dismissed again by speculation the real life measure

 

 

It is not just speculation.  The measured values of airspeed and weight information provided in multiple actual flight tests all produce a CLmax that is much higher than the polars.  It is easy to tell that the polars do not reflect how the aircraft performs in the air.