Whats your opinion on the new FW FM?

[Dr_Molenbeek]

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.

 

Damn, i completely forgot to rectify my small mistake, i did it only on my profile because i could not post (banned):

 

 

The chart posted here is wrong for some reasons (wrong tracks with wrong settings,...): http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/21001-fw-190/?p=344387

 

Here's a more accurate chart:

 

 

Fw 190A-3 time to 5000m before the last FM update: 6:43

 

Fw 190A-3 time to 5000m after the last FM update: 6:14

 

Time to 5000m in RL sources: 6:00

 

 

Thank you for reminding me involuntarily, JtD.

[Holtzauge]

I did some tests as well, Lapino autumn map. For reference, I flew tree-top level plus a few meters to get out of the ground effect which I think will influence the results otherwize. I used 100% fuel no MGFF. I too get the idle speed stall to around 190 km/h speed on the HUD. I can control it to somewhat lower speeds so it's difficult to really nail it down but at 190 Km/h I get the impression I'm starting to settle in so to me this seems to be the stall speed.

 

If you and Matt are getting different results, could it be different power settings? Are you at idle or are you balancing the speed with throttle Matt? If so I think that could explain the difference since I too get a lower stall speed with some throttle which is expected.

[Crump]

 

 

I used 100% fuel no MGFF. I too get the idle speed stall to around 190 km/h speed on the HUD. I can control it to somewhat lower speeds so it's difficult to really nail it down but at 190 Km/h I get the impression I'm starting to settle in so to me this seems to be the stall speed.  

 

Yep, that is too fast. 

 

You need to be at idle power, maintain altitude, and pull back losing about 1 knot per second (2 Km per second).  Add a some rudder as you get close to the stall point to maintain directional control and stay off the ailerons.  

 

That is pretty close to how the RAE tested it and standard for 1G power off stall maneuver.  If you change the Angle of Attack too fast, you will skew the results.  If you add power, you will skew the result.

[Matt]

Here are two videos. One with 100% fuel and ammo and one with 10% fuel and ammo. Throttle to idle of course.

 

Both times stalling out at speeds that would suggest a current Cl of ~1.3 (which again, i'm not saying is actually correct).

 

[Crump]

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. 

 

 

Sounds like it has been modeled after the USN evaluation with ailerons out of adjustment for the stall characteristics.

 

At normal CG, At 2Km altitude the FW-190 should be neutral to stable.  It is neutral to ~550kph and increasingly stable after that.   The elevator should be effective throughout the aircraft's envelope.  That is what the measured data tells us.  In fact, the faster the aircraft goes, the more effective the elevator becomes in q-limited performance until the onset of mach effects (~M.79).

Here are two videos. One with 100% fuel and ammo and one with 10% fuel and ammo. Throttle to idle of course.

 

Both times stalling out at speeds that would suggest a current Cl of ~1.3 (which again, i'm not saying is actually correct).

 

 

 

That looks good except for the fact the stall speed for a Type II fighter is being used for a Type I fighter.

 

Your games stall speed is too high.

[Dr_Molem]

Hello people, i'm the guy who sent a report (maybe not the only one who known) about FW-190A-3 stall speed by using some random sources such as for example http://www.shockwaveproductions.com/store/fw190/tactical_trials.htm

 

Han's answer was:

 

"First of all, GERMAN sources have most priority for GERMAN planes. So german sources are consist following (google translate):

"5. landing without extended flaps.

Upon failure of the flap adjustment has to be considered that the ailerons are more sensitive in the rash.

The touchdown speed increases by about 35 km / h. Since it is very different in the individual aircraft stalling speed is appropriate at high altitude detected with idle speed (is around 160-170 km / h) and this speed of 20 km / h increases considered landing speed."

 

So, source describes 160..170 kmh stall speed in landing configuration (in game we have 165 км/ч), when flaps are retracted than source tells that stall becomes at 20 kmh more (in game we have 185 kmh)

 

Second - in your docs there are different data: first one have 118 (mph) without flaps and 105 (mph) with flaps in landing position, (this is is very close to what we have in game). Second one describes differs speeds.

 

SO.... everything is good with Fw 190 stall, actualy  :)"

 

Then i sent the post of Holtzauge but there's no reply since (4 days ago already).

 

Opinion ??

[JtD]

Here are two videos. One with 100% fuel and ammo and one with 10% fuel and ammo. Throttle to idle of course.

 

Both times stalling out at speeds that would suggest a current Cl of ~1.3 (which again, i'm not saying is actually correct).

Thanks for making the effort of uploading these videos. You're definitely stalling out at a lower speed than I do. It is of course hard to judge from these, but it looks to me as if you were not going 100% level but were on top of a parabolic flight, so not 1.0g exactly. However, given that the ground is not 100% flat, the altimeter changes might not be related to what the aircraft does.

 

In the meantime, I've been experimenting with exactly that, and also with what the auto-level does when getting slow - it also drops off. Which means that the HUD indicated stall speed is probably too low and second that the angle of attack cannot be measured against the horizon. The second part is important because the aircraft appeared to be stalling at around 12.5° wingtip angle of attack, but now I'm estimating it to be more around 15-17°. Which makes much more sense. Also, the cl-AoA relation made no sense, taking loss of altitude into account (lower cl, higher AoA) fixes that.

Regarding the first part - with a decent logging tool I'd be able to exactly determine g loads, and eliminate that error, but since I don't have it, all I can say is that the stall speeds measured are certainly not higher than what they really are. Any correction would be upwards. I think that could also be true for your stalls.

Opinion ??

Can't tell you right now because I don't want to get banned. I need to cool down a bit first.

[Ace_Pilto]

Sounds like it has been modeled after the USN evaluation with ailerons out of adjustment for the stall characteristics.

 

At normal CG, At 2Km altitude the FW-190 should be neutral to stable.  It is neutral to ~550kph and increasingly stable after that.   The elevator should be effective throughout the aircraft's envelope.  That is what the measured data tells us.  In fact, the faster the aircraft goes, the more effective the elevator becomes in q-limited performance until the onset of mach effects (~M.79).

 

 

That looks good except for the fact the stall speed for a Type II fighter is being used for a Type I fighter.

 

Your games stall speed is too high.

 

The old FM jives with that. I used to consider 550kph to be the sweet spot for maneuvering in the 190 but now you pull and get a flying snowplough.

 

What does changing the aileron balance do though? Do they (or are they supposed to) droop at lower speeds/pressures to increase camber?

[Crump]

 

 

What does changing the aileron balance do though? Do they (or are they supposed to) droop at lower speeds/pressures to increase camber?

 

They do not droop but are Frise type ailerons.

 

Improper adjustment changes the distance the nose drops into the freestream for balance and the yaw-wise drag produced to counter adverse yaw.  The ailerons become overbalanced and when really out of adjustment, they will exhibit a reversal at the stall point. 

 

Read the last sentence at the bottom...

 

 

 

Properly adjust ailerons vibrate to give stall warning and roll in the stall in normal directional control.

 

Improperly adjusted ailerons will exhibit overbalance even at take off.  A low speed force reversal IS a symptom of overbalance.  What happens is when the ailerons floats, the upward aileron is exhibiting force on the wing section inducing a  premature stall.  To the pilot it appears as it the ailerons suddenly reversed because the wing will drop to the side with the upward aileron and the downward deflected aileron will exaggerate the motion such the airplane wants to invert.

 

With control surfaces floating (stick free), the amount of upward force the aileron exerts on the wing is the amount of overbalance. 

[Crump]

 

 

So, source describes 160..170 kmh stall speed in landing configuration (in game we have 165 км/ч), when flaps are retracted than source tells that stall becomes at 20 kmh more (in game we have 185 kmh)

 

That is not what it is saying.

 

It says increase Landing speed 35kph...

 

That is pretty much a standard buffer when you approach without flaps.

 

 

Once more it does NOT say stall speed....

 

 

 

The touchdown speed increases by about 35 km / h. Since it is very different in the individual aircraft stalling speed is appropriate at high altitude detected with idle speed (is around 160-170 km / h) and this speed of 20 km / h increases considered landing speed."

 

 

Touchdown speed is NOT stall speed.

 

What it does say is that at high altitude they saw 160-170 kph IAS for 1 G power off stall speed.  That matches perfectly the RAE observation for 105 mph IAS landing configuration stall speed.

[Original_Uwe]

Well, that was pretty much exactly the response I was expecting.

[Dr_Molem]

That is not what it is saying.

 

It says increase Landing speed 35kph...

 

That is pretty much a standard buffer when you approach without flaps.

 

 

Once more it does NOT say stall speed....

 

 

 

 

 

Touchdown speed is NOT stall speed.

 

What it does say is that at high altitude they saw 160-170 kph IAS for 1 G power off stall speed.  That matches perfectly the RAE observation for 105 mph IAS landing configuration stall speed.

 

Should I add you in the PM ?

[Crump]

Please do.  It looks to me like the stall speed is actually pretty close to what it should be for the FW-190.  It appears though that the weight the stall should occur though is not correct.  The speed for your games two cannon Type I variant is the speed that corresponds to a four cannon Type II fighter in reality.

 

I think some things got "lost in translation".  Additionally it does not help that Focke Wulf did not apply any Position Error or Compressibility error corrections in their airspeeds initially.  From their point of view, I understand it.  They were not comparing performance but only instructing pilots on how to fly the airplane.  PEC corrections are not critical.  Many aircraft POH's today do the same thing.  That is why they have the "landing speed" chart in the performance section.  PEC correction to Calibrated Airspeed only becomes critical in relation to Ground Speed.  You can see this flying Large Transport Category aircraft and an Flight Management System.  It takes a surprisingly large airspeed increase to make any difference in time.  Generally speaking, a 16% increase in fuel burn only equates to a 3% increase in time (Velocity is cubed in the power equation).

 

For practical purposes, it makes no difference to have a PEC correction and eliminates a lot complexity in flight planning.  That does not help some 70 years later when trying to replicate relative performance to other fighters of the day.

[Dr_Molem]

Cannot add you, i guess your PM box is full.

[Crump]

 

 

Since it is very different in the individual aircraft stalling speed is appropriate at high altitude detected with idle speed (is around 160-170 km / h) and this speed of 20 km / h increases considered landing speed."

 

 

That is a range to cover airspeed indicator error....

I cleaned it out.

[Crump]

You're definitely stalling out at a lower speed than I do. It is of course hard to judge from these, but it looks to me as if you were not going 100% level but were on top of a parabolic flight, so not 1.0g exactly. However, given that the ground is not 100% flat, the altimeter changes might not be related to what the aircraft does.

 

 

 

 

There are multiple definitions for the stall point in aviation.  The United States (FAA and CAA in the 1940's) use the Vmc definiton.  Stall speed is the point at which control of the aircraft degrades.  It is NOT the point the wing looses lift.

 

The British use the point the wing looses lift in their definition of the stall and that is the definition used in the RAE test's.

 

Lastly, Altimeters do not care about the ground.  They read pressure altitude with a manual correction in the Kollsman window to approximate density altitude.  Indicated altitude is not density altitude, pressure altitude, true altitude, and certainly not absolute altitude.

 

Our height above the ground is Absolute altitude.   A radar altimeter is most commonly used to measure it.   That is what the "Gyp-whitz" (GPWS) is connected too so the plane can yell at you "Pull Up!!  Whoop Whoop.  Terrain...Pull Up!!" or "Minimums" if you set it them on an approach.

 

If your altimeters are reading height above the ground then there is some serious issues.  That technology does not exist in a 1940's analog altimeter.

 

More likely, you just do not understand altimetry or stall speed so it hinders your ability to interpret the data.  No offense, but In that case, the Devs were right to ban you as you probably create tons of white noise and distractions from real issues.

[LukeFF]

If your altimeters are reading height above the ground then there is some serious issues. That technology does not exist in a 1940's analog altimeter.

 

Oh, yes, it does:

 

http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.de/instrumente/katalog/hohenmesser/hohenmesser.htm

 

 

http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.de/instrumente/katalog/hohenmesser/hohenmesser.htm

 

Unbekannter elektr. Höhenmesser

- Meter über Grund

 

Fl. ? Höhenanzeiger

- "Höhe über Grund" Anzeige !

 

 

 

 

 

[JtD]

That's true LukeFF, the technology was there, but I was referring to the HUD which Crump can't understand because he doesn't have the game.

[LukeFF]

That's true LukeFF, the technology was there, but I was referring to the HUD which Crump can't understand because he doesn't have the game.

 

Ah, ok, got it.  

[Crump]

Interesting!!  The Germans had a working radar altimeters!

 

Next question is do you think airplanes can fly higher than 200 meters off the ground?  Why do you think no single engine fighter was ever equipped with one?

 

 

 

That's true LukeFF, the technology was there, but I was referring to the HUD which Crump can't understand because he doesn't have the game.

 

 

 

Why would you even care about this?  Look at the altimeter.  It is telling you the indicated altitude and is instantaneous.  Absolute Altitude tells you Absolutely nothing....

 

 

If I was at 30,026 feet would my airplane stall any differently just because it was 1000 feet AGL over the peak of Mt Everest?  No it would not.  

 

Again Mr Aerodynamic Expert give us a explanation on the effect of height above ground on an aircraft stall speed.  I eagerly await this new scientific breakthrough!!

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

You are so into your blame game you dont even notice you're talking 2 different things here.

[LukeFF]

Interesting!!  The Germans had a working radar altimeters!

 

It was a FuG 101 radio altimeter.  http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/1997/07/stuff_eng_detail_bf110g.htm

 

Next question is do you think airplanes can fly higher than 200 meters off the ground?

 

Dunno - I'm not a graduate of Embry-Riddle. On the other hand, the Germans were apparently confident enough to let their pilots fly at least 1500 meters above the ground: http://airandspace.si.edu/collections/artifact.cfm?object=nasm_A19602805000 and http://airandspace.si.edu/collections/artifact.cfm?object=nasm_A19810346000

 

http://www.dornier24.com/pages/equipment/FuG101.html

 

Why do you think no single engine fighter was ever equipped with one?

 

Do you even know why the hell this particular altimeter was installed in Bf 110G-4s? Hint - it was because these were night fighters.

Edited April 18, 2016 by LukeFF

[Crump]

You are so into your blame game you dont even notice you're talking 2 different things here.

 

 

They are just trying to justify looking at height above the ground.  Rather that simply saying, "Yeah, that does not matter when discussing stall speed and I do not know what i was thinking" it has been turned into a petty argument to justify it.

 

I do find it interesting that the Germans had radar altimeters.  That would have been the very useful in making an approach in the pre-dawn fog upon returning from a night flight.  

 

Same thing we primarily use them for....knowing where the ground is when you cannot see it in IFR conditions!!

Cannot add you, i guess your PM box is full.

 

 

it is submitted and hope it suffices!!

[L3Pl4K]

 

 

I do find it interesting that the Germans had radar altimeters. That would have been the very useful in making an approach in the pre-dawn fog upon returning from a night flight.

http://www.cdvandt.org/Funkhoehenmesser%20FuG%20101a.pdf

It is in german, but google.translate should help.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Crump, read what JtD sayed and to whom he replied. He commented on Matts stallspeed test for 1G stallspeed, which is impossible to reproduce accurate because that would imply altitude is constant. The only real value to work with however is height which is given by the HUD and not reliable enought to use as a referrence for 1G stall (that's probably where my test I made earlier on crit AoA had errors, too).

[Dakpilot]

Regardless of whether radio altimeters were around in the 40's, I was not aware that the HUD shows height above ground, because it is always reading 1M at every airfield on the ground at start?

 

The HUD is labeled Altitude, unless there is a setting for it to read height  above ground that i am unaware of?

 

 

 

 

 However, given that the ground is not 100% flat, the altimeter changes might not be related to what the aircraft does.

 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[MiloMorai]

The AN/APN-1 of 1943 was a radio altimeter.

 

The APN-1 Radio Altimeters were installed in aircraft to provide direct measurement of altitude relative to the terrain during flight. There were other models of radio altimeters in use prior to the APN-1, typically the AY series (AYB,AYD) and ARN-1. The APN-1 provided a dual range capability, 0-400 ft and 0-4000 ft.

[Crump]

Regardless of whether radio altimeters were around in the 40's, I was not aware that the HUD shows height above ground, because it is always reading 1M at every airfield on the ground at start?

 

The HUD is labeled Altitude, unless there is a setting for it to read height  above ground that i am unaware of?

 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

There is no significant movement in altitude before the stall point that I can see in either video.  After the stall, there is some movement but that is to be expected.  Simply watching the altimeter needle will tell you that.  It is instantaneous and real time.  No needle movement means constant altitude....

You VSI for example is not instantaneous or real time.  It shows a trend information that lags behind what the aircraft is actually doing.  Kind of like the inclinometer, it does not always read accurately in changing flight conditions.

 

Airspeed and your altimeter do not lag behind and show you exactly what the aircraft is doing.

 

Crump, read what JtD sayed and to whom he replied. He commented on Matts stallspeed test for 1G stallspeed, which is impossible to reproduce accurate because that would imply altitude is constant. The only real value to work with however is height which is given by the HUD and not reliable enought to use as a referrence for 1G stall (that's probably where my test I made earlier on crit AoA had errors, too).

 

The altimeter is accurate enough to reference if you game is reproducing airplanes. 

My question:

 

Is BoS sophisticated enough to have a Position Error Correction and Compressibility Error Correction to the airspeed?

Edited April 18, 2016 by Crump

[Matt]

Crump, read what JtD sayed and to whom he replied. He commented on Matts stallspeed test for 1G stallspeed, which is impossible to reproduce accurate because that would imply altitude is constant. The only real value to work with however is height which is given by the HUD and not reliable enought to use as a referrence for 1G stall (that's probably where my test I made earlier on crit AoA had errors, too).

I wouldn't say that it's impossible, you just have to fly over water, which i was doing in the 10% video at least (maybe in the 100% video too, can't remember). But yes, especially without variometer or any other help, keeping altitude 100% constant is not easy. Not sure if the real pilots had an easier time though.

 

Regardless of whether radio altimeters were around in the 40's, I was not aware that the HUD shows height above ground, because it is always reading 1M at every airfield on the ground at start?

The altitude in the HUD is always altitude above ground. Just keep auto-level on and fly for a bit over a hilly area., the altitude in the HUD will change.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Matt

[Dakpilot]

Maybe the HUD being labelled 'altitude' is a bit wrong?  not a biggie, but on a map with higher elevation this could be an issue

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[JtD]

Matt, I've continued to experiment and analyse the impact of altitude loss towards the end of 1g stall, and it is immense. Even small changes in vertical speed matter a lot. Cl varies between 1.4 and 1.1 depending on how I correct or not correct change in vertical speed (vertical acceleration). Unfortunately, the 1m accuracy for altitude and the 1km/h accuracy for the speed already make it very hard to produce a smooth polar. Not to mention that neither aircraft pitch or angle of attack are available digitally. I've put my data into a chart and it still looks like CM wind tunnel data for the most part, merely offset to the right by 0.25 degrees, which is well within uncertainty of my angle of attack measurement.

 

Just as a ballpark and for illustration for vertical speed relevance - if you fly level down to 195 and lose 5km/h per s (which the Fw roughly does), and lose half a meter the first and another one and half meter the second second (two meter total, really not much), you're in fact only flying at 0.9g's. This would lower stall speed by about 5%, here 10km/h - which is the margin we're talking about.

[Crump]

 

 

lose 5km/h per s

 

That is too fast and could be why you are getting such a large spread in results.  Trying losing speed at a rate of 1.6 to 2 km/h per s. 

Standard loss rate for flight testing is 1 Knot per second.

[Matt]

 

 

Just as a ballpark and for illustration for vertical speed relevance - if you fly level down to 195 and lose 5km/h per s (which the Fw roughly does), and lose half a meter the first and another one and half meter the second second (two meter total, really not much), you're in fact only flying at 0.9g's.

Yes, but in the second video with 10% fuel, i'm actually climbing a bit at 182 km/h, at least the altitude jumps one meter up and this time, i definately flew over water.

 

Anyway, i also think there's something wrong with the Fw 190 and i hope the devs will take a look at it.

[Gump]

as an observer on this thread - one who doesnt have the technical expertise to add the debate, but one who does fly the 190 in game occaisionally, .... i am seeing that crump has a VERY strong case for being heeded, in that he has technical expertise, has done real-world work in restoration of the 190, has done massive research and analysis of the historical data, and tends to agree with BoS pilots complaining that the FM is way wrong.

his arguments sound quite strongly supported by genuine historical data and aeronautical science.

also, the BoS pilots are complaining loudly and convincingly that something is bad wrong, even apart from any of crump's arguments.

so,

.... was i mistaken in seeing a developer saying that the current FM is correct?

.

why not just listen to crump and make the model with his input? at very least it could be tested to see what it flies like. he sure has shown the historical data to say that it would be in compliance with real-world performance.

.

as it is, i am all too happy to see 1, 2, or even 3 of these planes coming at me when im flying an La5! i call it the "butchered bird" now. the best they can do is run for home before i clean them from the sky. heh heh.

[JtD]

Yes, but in the second video with 10% fuel, i'm actually climbing a bit at 182 km/h, at least the altitude jumps one meter up and this time, i definately flew over water.

Yes, but you were climbing faster initially, which also suggests a less than 1g flight.

 

Anyway, i also think there's something wrong with the Fw 190 and i hope the devs will take a look at it.

Yeah, let's agree on that. I'm pretty sure there at least one dev who knows what's been modelled and our clmax tests are not essential for them.

[Willy__]

.... was i mistaken in seeing a developer saying that the current FM is correct?

 

 

Because they will always do that. Just take for example when the 190 came out in early acess, the devs and some people kept continuosly saying that the early 190 was correct even when a lot of people were coming and saying it wasnt, some with proof, some with nothing but anecdotes, and yet they changed the 190 more than a couple of times since they released it, so what happened to the previous "correct" FM ? Do you see where I'm trying to tell here ? Thats the nature of FM discussion, its always were and always will be. 

 

But one thing for sure, 1.201 patch 190 stinks.

Edited April 20, 2016 by Herr_Istruba

[JtD]

why not just listen to crump and make the model with his input?

I think that's a brilliant plan, the last dev he was trying to convince of one of his unique theories gave him a life time ban. Would be great if it worked the same way here.

[Gump]

I think that's a brilliant plan, the last dev he was trying to convince of one of his unique theories gave him a life time ban. Would be great if it worked the same way here.

that's certainly interesting to hear....but i find my head itching as to figuring out how to apply it...

.

his discussion certain sounds reasonable and valid, and he does not carry on with any out-of-the-ordinary inflammatory speech. a ban might be for a variety of reasons, including the dev's personal preference?

.

i can easily get all tangled up in the unfamiliar areo-tech talk (from any/all of the experts here), but crump seems to debate (point and counterpoint) with reason and data. in other words - he seems to make valid points. and this discussion (problematic 190 FM) is certainly a valid one, according to a majority of BoS pilots. it's a topic that deserves investigation. crump (as well as others) are saying/showing that something(s) need correcting....dev (?) saying all is ok.

.

[Holtzauge]

Turn capability is closely coupled with wing loading and the fact is that both the Fw-190A3 and Me-109K4 had a wing loading of around 210 Kg/m^2.  This does not mean that they should have the same stationary turn rate since this is also affected by the power loading and aspect ratio which also explains why they are so different in this respect. However, when it comes to the momemtaneous turn rate this is to a large extent determined by the wing loading and Clmax so they should not be worlds apart here which however is the impression you get when comparing the DCS K4 and BoS A3. In addition, the DCS Fw-190D9 can also produce a pretty decent momentaneous turn when needed even though it has a wing loading of around 233 Kg/m^2 , i.e. even more than the BoS A3.

 

So for those of you who are still sceptical: Why don’t you try the DCS D9 and compare that to the BoS A3? IMHO they are worlds apart in momentaneous turn performance but give it a shot yourselves and see what you think. If you worry about the impact of power then don’t engage MW-50 and limit your boost when you try the turns.

 

I think Il-2 BoS/BoM shines when it comes to the WW2 scenery and environment and the DM is way better than DCS but to be honest the current Fw-190A3 FM really detract from the overall experience and IMHO the current rendition simply does not compute with basic aerodynamics and flight mechanics which is why I lean more towards DCS being right on this one.

 

Hopefully the devs are in the process of evaluation the 1.201 rendition and maybe one can hope for a change. If so it would be much appreciated.

[Willy__]

All they had to do was keep the last patch FM with the current climb rate fix. I'm no programmer, but how difficult is it to fix one single thing without messing with the whole plane ?