Whats your opinion on the new FW FM?

[Kurfurst]

 

 

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

 

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.

 

The British measured 110 mph IAS on Faber's A-3 and 127 mph on a later Fw 190A-4/U8 jabo Brown was flying (177 and 204 km/h respectively).

 

According to Han's notes which you have posted earlier, "Indicated stall speed in flight configuration: 183..209 km/h"

 

So it would seem the FM matches the references figures and there was probably as much variation (if you remember those "define stall speed" discussions...) and I do not see what's the problem, especially since so far all there is are "reference" like the "I think the stall should be better" (better than what? Two bunnies, twelve carrots?) and "my calculation show", and "this reference is useless because it does not fit into my speculations" kind - all of which are equally worthless. 

 

Quite frankly, what is missing in all these so-called discussions is the reliable and complete reference data.

[Ace_Pilto]

Is this the complaints section? I just spent a few hours throwing it around and I'm not happy with it tbh fam. It's become very difficult to manage.

 

**Disclaimer, I don't know anything about FM so this is just my impression of how it flies**

 

The first thing I noticed was that accelerated stall onset behaviour got dialled up to 1,000 for some reason. Easing off the 'g' load to prevent accelerated stall from developing into a spin makes the thing wallow around like ti was held in the air by old knicker elastic. It's awful. You have to nursemaid it back into line and wobble along until it decides whether it wants to fly properly again. Forget about pushing on the elevator to get the nose down for speed or you'll be flying it tail first. It will invert itself and try to kill you if you push forward on the stick. Spin recovery is just so terminally broken I can't even get my head around it. If you push forward on the stick to recover from a spin, the thing flings itself into an inverted spin the very instant you get the slightest bit of control authority back, and then reverse occurs when recovering from an inverted spin, you end up in a normal spin again. You're better off not even touching the elevator at all, just say a quick prayer and hope that the wallowing bastard rights itself before the ground comes up and smashes you. It actually recovers quicker this way but you can't tell that it has recovered because the oscillations continue well past the point where they should because the knicker elastic effect comes into play again while the aircraft continues to falls like a stone. Going on feeling, it's too loose and elastic, you can't correct quick enough. It's like repeatedly overcorrecting a car that is skidding on ice until you just give up trying to get it driving forwards again and start hoping that you'll miss the really big trees on the side of the road. Some of this might be because of prop wash, I've noticed times where I just ended up flying sideways to my intended vector at random for no apparent reason and I suspect that I might have been tossed around by the propwash of an aircraft I was fighting.  I like the prop wash effect (if I'm not just imagining it) but, coupled with the strange stall behaviour, it's unpredictable and deadly.

 

Apart from that, it now flies like a mechanical turd. I spent all day defending it but now I realise, much to my chagrin, why so many people who generally enjoy the 190 are so negged about it. Climb is broken, even an La-5 s8 outclimbs it. Roll is loose and sluggish. Turn at higher speeds is broken. In fact maneuvering in general is so broken that you might as well leave the fucking elevator behind to save weight because trying to use it to maneuver the plane is a potentially fatal liability in most cases. I'm unhappy with the current 190 to the extent that, If I was commanding a squadron that was equipped with this [Edited] in WW2 I'd send it back to the factory with and then have the local Gestapo arrest the manager of the FW-190 plant where it came from for attempted murder and treason and I'd have the bastard shot too. 

 

It flies in combat like a P-51 does if you forget to drain the fuselage tank first. (Very badly with many embarrassing tendencies to try and fly tail first to the point where phrases like "death trap" seem pertinent).

 

You can still fight with it and you can still get kills but it's just so bloody hard to get reliable maneuvers out of it that only a fanatical 190 lover, a masochist or a stubborn OCD retard like me would persevere with it. It's no wonder most of the 190 drivers have gone back to 1 pass haul ass because you just can't get down and dirty in it anymore. It used to be a good plane that rewarded experience and skill, you could feel when it was in its' 'groove' but when you get up to grove speed it's just mocking wind noise and not even enough groove to power an awkward high-school reunion.

 

"IGN---Worst FM revision ever, 1/10"

Edited April 15, 2016 by Bearcat
Profanity

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Thx for your opinion Jimmy.

[Willy__]

Hey Jimmy! You should also post that on the topic about the 190 on the general discussion, as people tend to see that area of the forum more often than the FM section. 

[Crump]

 

 

127 mph on a later Fw 190A-4/U8 jabo Brown

 

AFAIK, that 127 mph comes from a book and not original documents.

 

I have posted the RAE trials of WNr 313 and here is an FW-190A4 jabo variant the RAE also flew.

 

 

Given the nature of the position error....

 

 

 

In that Indicated airspeed is significantly a higher airspeed than the airplane is actually traveling....

 

The CLmax of 1.58 as noted by Focke Wulf is right on and matches all known performance data as well the anecdotes.  The FW-190 still retains the highest stall speed of any World War II fighter.

Notice too, the touchdown airspeed exactly matches the 1G clean configuration stall speed.  Touchdown is NOT stall speed but the fact 1G clean CLmax is the design basis for most landing systems...it makes engineering sense!

That is two different Focke Wulfs that exhibit the same characteristics....craziness!  

[Holtzauge]

Is this the complaints section? I just spent a few hours throwing it around and I'm not happy with it tbh fam. It's become very difficult to manage.

 

**Disclaimer, I don't know anything about FM so this is just my impression of how it flies**

 

The first thing I noticed was that accelerated stall onset behaviour got dialled up to 1,000 for some reason. Easing off the 'g' load to prevent accelerated stall from developing into a spin makes the thing wallow around like ti was held in the air by old knicker elastic. It's awful. You have to nursemaid it back into line and wobble along until it decides whether it wants to fly properly again. Forget about pushing on the elevator to get the nose down for speed or you'll be flying it tail first. It will invert itself and try to kill you if you push forward on the stick. Spin recovery is just so terminally broken I can't even get my head around it. If you push forward on the stick to recover from a spin, the thing flings itself into an inverted spin the very instant you get the slightest bit of control authority back, and then reverse occurs when recovering from an inverted spin, you end up in a normal spin again. You're better off not even touching the elevator at all, just say a quick prayer and hope that the wallowing bastard rights itself before the ground comes up and smashes you. It actually recovers quicker this way but you can't tell that it has recovered because the oscillations continue well past the point where they should because the knicker elastic effect comes into play again while the aircraft continues to falls like a stone. Going on feeling, it's too loose and elastic, you can't correct quick enough. It's like repeatedly overcorrecting a car that is skidding on ice until you just give up trying to get it driving forwards again and start hoping that you'll miss the really big trees on the side of the road. Some of this might be because of prop wash, I've noticed times where I just ended up flying sideways to my intended vector at random for no apparent reason and I suspect that I might have been tossed around by the propwash of an aircraft I was fighting.  I like the prop wash effect (if I'm not just imagining it) but, coupled with the strange stall behaviour, it's unpredictable and deadly.

 

Apart from that, it now flies like a mechanical turd. I spent all day defending it but now I realise, much to my chagrin, why so many people who generally enjoy the 190 are so negged about it. Climb is broken, even an La-5 s8 outclimbs it. Roll is loose and sluggish. Turn at higher speeds is broken. In fact maneuvering in general is so broken that you might as well leave the fucking elevator behind to save weight because trying to use it to maneuver the plane is a potentially fatal liability in most cases. I'm unhappy with the current 190 to the extent that, If I was commanding a squadron that was equipped with this shit in WW2 I'd send it back to the factory with and then have the local Gestapo arrest the manager of the FW-190 plant where it came from for attempted murder and treason and I'd have the bastard shot too. 

 

It flies in combat like a P-51 does if you forget to drain the fuselage tank first. (Very badly with many embarrassing tendencies to try and fly tail first to the point where phrases like "death trap" seem pertinent).

 

You can still fight with it and you can still get kills but it's just so bloody hard to get reliable maneuvers out of it that only a fanatical 190 lover, a masochist or a stubborn OCD retard like me would persevere with it. It's no wonder most of the 190 drivers have gone back to 1 pass haul ass because you just can't get down and dirty in it anymore. It used to be a good plane that rewarded experience and skill, you could feel when it was in its' 'groove' but when you get up to grove speed it's just mocking wind noise and not even enough groove to power an awkward high-school reunion.

 

"IGN---Worst FM revision ever, 1/10"

 

Nice to hear another opinion from someone who has actually flown the BoS Fw-190A3. It's funny really with all other opinions being voiced here from people who have never even flown the BoS model but somehow still know that the current modeling is right and that it just has to be flown "correctly". Also strange is it not that while there are many pilot accounts confirming that the Fw-190 gave little warning upon entering the stall and would flick out of a turn, we have no accounts of the jet like superstall behaviour we see post-stall in BoS today which from your eloquent text above it is obvious that you have now have been familiarized with!

 

Finally, kudos to you for having an open mind and being able to change your point of view. A very rare thing in flight sim discussions!

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Finally, kudos to you for having an open mind and being able to change your point of view. A very rare thing in flight sim discussions!

 

Yeah indeed i have to say that i'm surprised.

[Irgendjemand]

Is this the complaints section? I just spent a few hours throwing it around and I'm not happy with it tbh fam. It's become very difficult to manage.

 

**Disclaimer, I don't know anything about FM so this is just my impression of how it flies**

 

The first thing I noticed was that accelerated stall onset behaviour got dialled up to 1,000 for some reason. Easing off the 'g' load to prevent accelerated stall from developing into a spin makes the thing wallow around like ti was held in the air by old knicker elastic. It's awful. You have to nursemaid it back into line and wobble along until it decides whether it wants to fly properly again. Forget about pushing on the elevator to get the nose down for speed or you'll be flying it tail first. It will invert itself and try to kill you if you push forward on the stick. Spin recovery is just so terminally broken I can't even get my head around it. If you push forward on the stick to recover from a spin, the thing flings itself into an inverted spin the very instant you get the slightest bit of control authority back, and then reverse occurs when recovering from an inverted spin, you end up in a normal spin again. You're better off not even touching the elevator at all, just say a quick prayer and hope that the wallowing bastard rights itself before the ground comes up and smashes you. It actually recovers quicker this way but you can't tell that it has recovered because the oscillations continue well past the point where they should because the knicker elastic effect comes into play again while the aircraft continues to falls like a stone. Going on feeling, it's too loose and elastic, you can't correct quick enough. It's like repeatedly overcorrecting a car that is skidding on ice until you just give up trying to get it driving forwards again and start hoping that you'll miss the really big trees on the side of the road. Some of this might be because of prop wash, I've noticed times where I just ended up flying sideways to my intended vector at random for no apparent reason and I suspect that I might have been tossed around by the propwash of an aircraft I was fighting.  I like the prop wash effect (if I'm not just imagining it) but, coupled with the strange stall behaviour, it's unpredictable and deadly.

 

Apart from that, it now flies like a mechanical turd. I spent all day defending it but now I realise, much to my chagrin, why so many people who generally enjoy the 190 are so negged about it. Climb is broken, even an La-5 s8 outclimbs it. Roll is loose and sluggish. Turn at higher speeds is broken. In fact maneuvering in general is so broken that you might as well leave the fucking elevator behind to save weight because trying to use it to maneuver the plane is a potentially fatal liability in most cases. I'm unhappy with the current 190 to the extent that, If I was commanding a squadron that was equipped with this shit in WW2 I'd send it back to the factory with and then have the local Gestapo arrest the manager of the FW-190 plant where it came from for attempted murder and treason and I'd have the bastard shot too. 

 

It flies in combat like a P-51 does if you forget to drain the fuselage tank first. (Very badly with many embarrassing tendencies to try and fly tail first to the point where phrases like "death trap" seem pertinent).

 

You can still fight with it and you can still get kills but it's just so bloody hard to get reliable maneuvers out of it that only a fanatical 190 lover, a masochist or a stubborn OCD retard like me would persevere with it. It's no wonder most of the 190 drivers have gone back to 1 pass haul ass because you just can't get down and dirty in it anymore. It used to be a good plane that rewarded experience and skill, you could feel when it was in its' 'groove' but when you get up to grove speed it's just mocking wind noise and not even enough groove to power an awkward high-school reunion.

 

"IGN---Worst FM revision ever, 1/10"

Wow, finally. Thanks!

Its really not about "Luftwhining" on this one. Its just porked.

[Crump]

 

later Fw 190A-4/U8 jabo Brown was flying (177 and 204 km/h respectively).

 

 

 

That seems to come from EB-104's pilot comments from some rudimentarily measured data points.  The comment "about 2 g" is not a precise measurement.

 

 

 

Some basic aircraft performance math shows:

 

 

 

Vs2 = Vs1*SQRT (load factor)

 

 

Rearranging....

 

 

Vs1 = Vs2/SQRT (load factor)

 

 

Vs1 = 180mph / SQRT (2g)

 

 

Vs1 = 127mph 

 

 

Airspeed measurement error is greatly increased under load factor with an analog gauge.

[Ace_Pilto]

Thanks guys. I don't change my mind easy but the truth is the truth. It was Irgendjemands' post stating that Hairys' video was using the old FM that made me think it might be worth plugging the stick in again to see for myself if things were really that bad and they are, this is definitely the return of the old broken 190. 

[MK_RED13]

Excellent "review" Jimmy.. but look out for bans.. you where being too truthful 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If I were you I'd be more concerned with myself.

Edited April 16, 2016 by Bearcat

[Crump]

 

 

According to Han's notes which you have posted earlier, "Indicated stall speed in flight configuration: 183..209 km/h"

 

Additionally, I assumed Han's range to correspond to the weight range of the aircraft with authorized loads.

 

183 kph IAS = 3855kg Type 1 fighter and 209 kph IAS = 4408kg Jabo variant with a 500kg bomb.

[Kurfurst]

That could be a valid consideration as well, my first though was that the range of figures referred to most commonly used power on / off and/or the flight/landing "flight configurations". I wish communication would be clearer on the devs part sometimes.

[Matt]

That could be a valid consideration as well, my first though was that the range of figures referred to most commonly used power on / off and/or the flight/landing "flight configurations". I wish communication would be clearer on the devs part sometimes.

 

 

Note 2: Flight performance ranges are given for possible aircraft mass ranges.

Not sure how that's unclear.

 

EDIT: Since it does seem to be unclear, that's with 100% fuel load. Mass ranges vary depending on additional loadout, in case of the Fw 190, bombs and MG FF.

Edited April 15, 2016 by Matt

[JtD]

183 would be for the empty aircraft, 209 would be maximum load. 3855 is somewhere in between, 194 according to my own test. Puts modelled clmax at 1.16, Charlais Meudon wind tunnel data.

 

Comparing that to the Yak-1, using a ClarkYH airfoil, not known for better maximum lift coefficients than the 23000 series as used on the Fw wing - it gets a clmax of 1.3. FUBAR.

Edited April 15, 2016 by JtD

[Crump]

 

 

183 would be for the empty aircraft,

 

You know this for sure and are not just trying to play expert?

 

My question is how can an empty aircraft fly???  Next question is why would Han do this because it does not make any sense.

 

I think you are not correct in it being empty weight.

 

 

Note 2: Flight performance ranges are given for possible aircraft mass ranges.

 

 

Empty weight is not a possible aircraft mass that could fly to even achieve any maximum coefficient of lift....

 

Engines do not run on Luft and Liebe....

I think you are confusing zero fuel weight with empty weight...

 

They are not the same thing to an engineer or a pilot.

It could be zero fuel weight.....

[Matt]

The range is always with 100% fuel.

[Ace_Pilto]

A empty aircraft could probably "fly" in a wind tunnel I guess. Or if it gets run out of fuel.

[DD_Arthur]

 

Its really not about "Luftwhining" on this one. Its just porked.

 

This, this!!!

[JtD]

The range is always with 100% fuel.

I strongly doubt that, because there's no other way to lose a full ton - which is what the span 183..209 necessitates. On another angle - they give both minimum weight "10% fuel no ammo" and "maximum take off weight", and these two weights generally agree with the two stall speed figures they give. All this can also be checked in game.

 

So Crump, it's not empty as in empty, that would of course be complete nonsense. It's empty as in "no useful load". Sorry I didn't spell it out for you before.

[Matt]

 

 

All this can also be checked in game.

Which is what i've done. The Fw 190 stalls at 183 km/h IAS with 100% fuel (no MGFF or bombs) and at 209 km/h IAS with 100% fuel and SC500. And with 100% fuel and MGFF it stalls at 186 km/h IAS.

 

This would indicate Clmax of 1.3 without bombs.

[Crump]

 

 

A empty aircraft could probably "fly" in a wind tunnel I guess. Or if it gets run out of fuel.

 

If it runs out of gas, it still has to be landed safely or have the ability to do so....

 

That is one reason for zero fuel weight.

 

Empty weight however by definition means there is nobody sitting in it to move the controls and certainly not fuel.  Empty weight also does not include any military load in the RLM system.

 

 

It would be completely nonsensical. 

 

Only using Fluggewicht makes any sense in when discussing stall speeds. 

 

 

 

183 would be for the empty aircraft, 209 would be maximum load. 3855 is somewhere in between, 194 according to my own test. Puts modelled clmax at 1.16, Charlais Meudon wind tunnel data.

 

Why would he do that???

 

It obvious that the speeds on that polar are not in any vicinity the aircraft could fly unless one wishes to believe the Focke Wulf was a miracle of low drag design.  

 

The only thing useful on that polar is the drag measurement and the 1G stall characteristics.

Which is what i've done. The Fw 190 stalls at 183 km/h IAS with 100% fuel (no MGFF or bombs) and at 209 km/h IAS with 100% fuel and SC500. And with 100% fuel and MGFF it stalls at 186 km/h IAS.

 

This would indicate Clmax of 1.3 without bombs.

 

 

That is correct.  1.3 for a Type 1 fighter at fluggewicht.

[Matt]

And btw, the much higher stall speed with SC500 could also be explained by loss of lift produced by the fuselage with bomb attached. Calculating only the additional weight with bomb attached and then using same Clmax for the plane as without any bomb and bomb holder would likely not give correct results.

 

That is correct.  1.3 for a Type 1 fighter at fluggewicht.

And Type 2.

Edited April 15, 2016 by Matt

[Holtzauge]

183 would be for the empty aircraft, 209 would be maximum load. 3855 is somewhere in between, 194 according to my own test. Puts modelled clmax at 1.16, Charlais Meudon wind tunnel data.

 

Comparing that to the Yak-1, using a ClarkYH airfoil, not known for better maximum lift coefficients than the 23000 series as used on the Fw wing - it gets a clmax of 1.3. FUBAR.

 

Well if all we are getting in BoS/BoM release 1.201 is a Clmax of 1.16 for the Fw-190A3 in power off conditions this as you say could indicate that the L/D data that was given to the devs did indeed come from the Charles Meudon tests. Now if the devs only got the data but were not aware that the tests were done at a lower Re then hopefully they will reconsider. For reference, AFAIK the Clmax for the Fw-190D in DCS corresponds to around 1.3 and since the wings of the Dora and Anton are identical we should also in BoS have the same Clmax, i.e. 1.3 and not 1.16 if Re effects are taken into account. However, hopefully the devs are already looking into this.

[Crump]

That is 113 mph on the dot.

 

However, our Focke Wulf was never traveling that fast thru the air at the stall point....

 

The problem is the PEC curves are not being considered.

 

Without that, the speeds are all wrong.

 

For example, A Spitfire Mk IX stalls at 90 mph IAS....

 

The PEC curve adds +4 mph to this speed.

 

That puts the Spitfire Mk IX stalling at 94 mph EAS.

 

If we only used IAS...

 

113mph IAS /90 mph IAS x 100 = 125% or a 25% difference in stall speed....

 

If we look at the actual speeds the aircraft move thru the air......

 

113 mph IAS - 6.5 PEC = 106.5 mph EAS

 

90 mph IAS + 4mph PEC = 94 mph EAS

 

106.5mph EAS / 94mph EAS = 113% or a 13 percent difference in their stall speeds...

 

The distance between them is cut in half when you look at what the aircraft is actually experiencing instead what is on the stock airspeed indicator.  That equates to a huge difference in relative dogfighting ability.

[Crump]

And btw, the much higher stall speed with SC500 could also be explained by loss of lift produced by the fuselage with bomb attached. Calculating only the additional weight with bomb attached and then using same Clmax for the plane as without any bomb and bomb holder would likely not give correct results.

 

 

Absolutely does not matter and is all accounted for in the calculations.  The CL required is the CL required no matter what the configuration.

 

It is no different that the aircraft requires a CLmax of 1.58 at the 1G level clean stall point and at touchdown.  The math does not care that the flaps are at 60 degrees and only tells us the amount of lift production required at that velocity.

 

The whole fuselage lift thing is a red herring and frankly I was very surprised to see it brought up.  It speaks volumes....

[JtD]

Which is what i've done. The Fw 190 stalls at 183 km/h IAS with 100% fuel (no MGFF or bombs) and at 209 km/h IAS with 100% fuel and SC500. And with 100% fuel and MGFF it stalls at 186 km/h IAS.

 

This would indicate Clmax of 1.3 without bombs.

Hm, must be something different in our test procedures, I'm getting 194. I suppose you did it manually - when does the wing drop if you use the same setup and level autopilot?

FWIW, 183 -> 209 gives you 30% more lift, so if 3855kg stall at 183, 5030kg stall at 209 or if 4385kg stall at 209, 3360kg stall at 183. So your results and the (basic) theory don't add up. So I'd appreciate if you could double check.

[Crump]

Type 2 requires a CL of 1.34 without any PEC.  In other words, it is not what the airplane is actually doing....

[Matt]

Hm, must be something different in our test procedures, I'm getting 194. I suppose you did it manually - when does the wing drop if you use the same setup and level autopilot?

 

The auto-level pilot switches off automatically before reaching stall speed to allow the pilot to react and avoid the stall. You have to do the test manually to get accurate results. I tested that many times now for the Fw 190 (and for the other planes during beta testing, to check if the description texts are correct).

 

As for external bomb loads, it works the same for the other planes too. You get a much higher increase in stall speed than you would get by simply adding the weight and calculating the speed that way. But that's perhaps for a different topic, as it's not exclusive to the Fw 190.

 

 

 

Type 2 requires a CL of 1.34 without any PEC.  In other words, it is not what the airplane is actually doing....

 

Then you're probably using a different weight than i do.

Edited April 15, 2016 by Matt

[Crump]

You get a much higher increase in stall speed than you would get by simply adding the weight and calculating the speed that way.

 

 

Yeah...because the PEC curve is not considered and your games uses the higher stall speed of a Type 2 fighter for its Type I stall point.

 

 

 

 

Then you're probably using a different weight than i do.

 

I am using the weight off the ladeplan that Focke Wulf says it should weigh.....

 

3978kg 

Edited April 15, 2016 by Crump

[Crump]

 

 

The 183 corresponds to the lightest weight FW-190 in your game...   The 104 mph EAS corresponds to a heavier fighter variant with outboard wing weapons as tested by the RAE!!   In your game, the 183 corresponds to the lighter 3855kg is the weight of a Type I fighter which does not have the outboard cannon.   Your FM's CL max is only 1.3 and not the 1.58 of the design.

 

I wrote all of this on page 1 and posted the documentation.

[Matt]

Not sure if your quotes are out of order, but anyway:

 

 

I am using the weight off the ladeplan that Focke Wulf says it should weigh.....   3978kg 

 

Ok, and you get 1.34 Cl with that weight and a stall speed of 186 km/h IAS?

 

 

 

Yeah...because the PEC curve is not considered. 

If that's actually modelled (go ahead and test), why would that make a difference with bombs instead of a plane without bombs?

Edited April 15, 2016 by Matt

[JtD]

The auto-level pilot switches off automatically before reaching stall speed to allow the pilot to react and avoid the stall. You have to do the test manually to get accurate results. I tested that many times now for the Fw 190 (and for the other planes during beta testing, to check if the description texts are correct).

First part is not true for the Fw190, it stalls before auto-level disengages (~185). Manually I can maybe get it (edit: full ammo + fuel) to stall at 191, but maybe I'm riding post stall already. 183 is completely out of the question for me with the fully fuelled plane (edit: ammo or not). Edited April 15, 2016 by JtD

[Crump]

 

 

If that's actually modelled (go ahead and test), why would that make a difference with bombs instead of a plane without bombs?

 

It is not the bombs or lack of bombs...

 

It is the weight and the fact our airspeed indicator begins to indicate a slower speed than the airplane is traveling, the faster we go....

 

The PEC is on a sloped curve and not constant.  So using an airspeed that is changing results in different Cl instead of our fixed relationship.

 

Also power will effect this and I am only speaking of power off stall speed NOT power on.  Power on stall speed tends to be a little lower than Power off speeds.

[Crump]

 

 

Ok, and you get 1.34 Cl with that weight and a stall speed of 186 km/h IAS?

 

No a stall speed of 183 kph IAS with a weight of 3978 kg.

 

The 110mph IAS listed by the RAE is for a Type 2 fighter and NOT a Type 1.

 

In addition to PEC curve, the scale has been slipped in your game and the higher stall speed of Type 2 fighter is being used for a Type I fighter.   

[Ace_Pilto]

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.

 

It won't. The problem is that the lateral stability is so bad it goes into a stall/spin for the wrong reasons and then it wallows, skids or snow-ploughs through the air more than it should. Mass distribution has been calculated wrong somewhere, the CofG is too far offset from the CofL and this causes massive oscillations to occur (and persist) when the aircraft is even briefly taken outside of its' normal stability envelope. Subsequently, the post stall behaviour belongs in an episode of "The X-Files". There are very strict standards, even in wartime, that decide whether or not an aircraft is capable of aerobatics and under what parameters it can be expected to perform them and this iteration of the Fw-190 FM does not meet those requirements. It is incapable of aerobatics and hard maneuvering below 2,000m because recovering from departure is too unreliable.

 

Take a look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QooPjDsu4Bg

 

This was made by Han back with the old FM and it displays what are fairly standard aerobatics for a WW2 fighter. Han did a good job of showing people what the 190 can do. If anyone tried this now that first climbing turn would kill them. The vertical slow rolls Han does at 1:00 with a stall off the top would be fatal. The snap roll at 1:40 would be fatal. I could go on but maybe I'll make a video showing how bad it is and just how bizzare the stall behaviour is.

 

Now before you dismiss all of this and post another reply, just take a look at any of my posts about FM complaints and you'll see that I'm usually the first to say "Stop whining and get on with it" or "Only a poor workman blames his tools" but in this case I can tell you with 100% conviction that it is borked. I like to joke around, stir people up and play devil's advocate but facts are facts. You've got a lot of knowledgeable guys here who spend a lot of time flying in BoS like Istruba, ZeHairy, Wulf and others who don't need a magical superplane to do well. I know personally that they have no interest in making an unfair advantage for themselves through co-ercing the FM developers by constantly whining because they don't need it. They live for the hard won victories and the thrill of an even contest where the maneuvering goes on until the fuel runs out rather than the bullets. I give you my word that what they are saying is legit and your persistence in arguing the contrary is making you look like a fool. 

[JtD]

It's also slower at high altitude than it used to be. Which is both good and bad. Good news is the high altitude overspeed most prominent on the Yak-1 and LaGG-3, but also present on the Fw190 is pretty much gone (for the Fw190). At combat power, it's doing 560 at 10km and 605 at 8km, both figures are a pretty good match with real life performance. Bad news is that it now slightly underperforms at 6km with 615 and at 4km with 575, which is about 10km/h slower than before. It's still close to real life figures, but on the conservative side.

 

With the climb rate having improved the way ZeHairy posted, I'd say that performance of the Fw now is pretty realistic. However, stall speed and handling need to be fixed, so that we can actually enjoy the performance changes.

 

Edit: small clarification.

Edited April 16, 2016 by JtD

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

JtD:

 

"With the climb rate having improved the way ZeHairy posted, I'd say that performance of the Fw now is pretty realistic. However, stall speed and handling need to be fixed, so that we can actually enjoy the performance changes."

 

Agreed!!

Edited April 16, 2016 by [LBS]HerrMurf

[Matt]

First part is not true for the Fw190, it stalls before auto-level disengages (~185). Manually I can maybe get it (edit: full ammo + fuel) to stall at 191, but maybe I'm riding post stall already. 183 is completely out of the question for me with the fully fuelled plane (edit: ammo or not).

Interesting, I tested different altitudes and the stall speed actually seems to get higher at higher altitudes. At low altitude, I can definitely match 183 km/h though. Might be a bug with the ASI or the stall behavior in general (it seems to affect all planes). I reported it already.

 

EDIT: Actually no, i can match the stall speed at various altitudes.

Edited April 16, 2016 by Matt

[JtD]

I just ran tests again and can't really confirm that altitude thing. Doing the same auto-level test which stalled on me at 194 the other day, now stalled at 190 +/- 1 no matter atmosphere (checked on all three Lapino maps) or altitude (300m & 6000m). I'm using the HUD figure for reference, which appears to be CAS or even EAS.

 

Are you talking about a couple of km/h or considerable figures, say 5+?

 

Edit: I'm too slow posting after loading the page. Remaining questions - are you using the HUD or the cockpit instrument or something else? Can you still match 183? If so, with full fuel, could you show a track/video of flying around level at 185-190, level stab or manual? I need to see in order to believe.

Edited April 16, 2016 by JtD