Fw-190 after the last update

[Crump]

 

 

I don't think it's "just fine". I think it needs a little work and fine-tuning

 

That sounds about right from what I am reading.  The original mistake of establishing the wrong power needs to be fixed in a manner that resets the aircraft L/D characteristics that are representative of the actual aircraft.  It was a well balanced design and known for its low altitude dogfighting capability. 

 

 

 

But I guess that is the problem. If I remember it correctly other members of this community proved that power settings used for FM calibration were wrong. So they tuned fineness ratio as an (already unsatisfying) workaround to fit speed and climb references. Ever since that "fix" the strange stalls happen

 

That appears to have happened.   

 

 

 

The FW 190 is what it is , and I do not find it bad. But I do not say it is accurate. 

 

 

They are trying to make it accurate I believe.  Problem is a stability and control characteristic is being mimic'd by altering the airfoil characteristics.  That is not going to produce the desired result.

 

At low altitude, the FW-190 was essentially static and dynamically longitudinally stable with light stick forces.  At higher altitude it was neutral to unstable. 

 

That is why it needed a delicate touch on the controls and could not be hamfisted under certain conditions of flight.  As it became neutral to unstable, the ability of the elevator to accelerate the angular velocity in changing the wings angle of attack increased.  That produces an accelerated stall if not controlled by the pilot.  If you know how to read the information, the longitudinal control characteristics are very clear in a report I provided to the Devs.

 

Airfoil wise, they have produced a reasonable approximation of a severe icing event and stability wise, it mimics an FW-190 above 15,000 feet at Mach .55 or above....

[Fern]

FW190 compared to airspeed loses to P-40

 

 

 

 

Why's the FW190 hit harder for the additional mass for the wing mounted guns not in the airflow like gunpods? 144/123kg gain for a 8/7km loss.  Then the P-40 can gain 207 kg additional mass(additional ammo) for only a 2km loss. And then there's the 3 km gain for removing to guns, for the loss of 156kg. So if you add the 156kg guns back you'll have a 3km loss, while adding 144kg to FW190 is hit for an additional 8km loss. How's the 190 not being neutered?

 

Then the Lagg-3 with 23mm is an additional 111kg, but is only calculated to 35kg for a 0km loss? Then 37mm is an additional 194kg gain (only cacluated to 106kg) for a 2km loss? I guess thats because they're not in the airflow.

 

There's other discrepancies. The Bf110's armor window and engine plates dont add any km loss. That should be fixed for a loss or fix the E-7. The E-7 is also being neutered by the armor plates. It's just additional weight not in the airflow. Just tells me additional weights and airspeed gains/losses (like a 23mm being added) arent being equally applied.

[Holtzauge]

Short answer is that mass does not impact top speed. It has a big impact on climb, acceleration and turn performance but almost no impact on top speed (within reasonable limits of course) and the small weight addition on the P-40 is negligible from a speed perspective. On the FW-190 OTOH you have the cannon sticking out affecting aerodynamics.

[Fern]

Then why are the E-7 armor plates hindering a 4km loss in speed? They're not affecting the aerodynamics of the plane.

[LLv24_Vilppi]

Short answer is that mass does not impact top speed.

Is that really true? I know it is true in vacuum, when no other forces are acting on the object, but how about in the case of an aeroplane?

 

Classic mechanics: F=ma.

 

In case of aeroplane flying on constant altitude the lift needs to be equal to G, or in other words F_l-G=0. That means that as G=mg, F_l (lift) needs to change accordingly to the mass of the flying object (hopefully an identified one), as g is constant.

 

And how does a plane that does not change its shape create more lift?

 

By increasing AoA. And if a plane increases AoA, it also increases drag.

 

I do believe this is pretty much high school physics, at least in the Finnish educational system.

 

And if I'm wrong or rude, I'll apologise tomorrow. It's just the booze and frustration talking.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Then why are the E-7 armor plates hindering a 4km loss in speed? They're not affecting the aerodynamics of the plane.

When the Center of gravity shifts too far, the Elevators have to exert more force and thus create more drag. 

Is that really true? I know it is true in vacuum, when no other forces are acting on the object, but how about in the case of an aeroplane?

 

Classic mechanics: F=ma.

 

In case of aeroplane flying on constant altitude the lift needs to be equal to G, or in other words F_l-G=0. That means that as G=mg, F_l (lift) needs to change accordingly to the mass of the flying object (hopefully an identified one), as g is constant.

 

And how does a plane that does not change its shape create more lift?

 

By increasing AoA. And if a plane increases AoA, it also increases drag.

 

I do believe this is pretty much high school physics, at least in the Finnish educational system.

 

And if I'm wrong or rude, I'll apologise tomorrow. It's just the booze and frustration talking.

That is really only true for extreme differences in weight. 

Normally an Aircraft is fastest with normal fuel load. When it runs low on fuel, the excess lift has to be countered by nosing down, creating more drag from the fuselage and elevators. 

When it is heavy but perfectly balanced you will have almost no speed penalty, since it sits very straight in the air. 

When it's overloaded and unbalanced the elevators have to exert more force to balance the aircraft and induce more drag. 

Edited August 28, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[GridiroN]

I read the notes carefully, but there are not mentioned any changes to Fw-190 model, but I found trim working completely differently. Can you confirm my finding?

 

I don't know about this patch, but I noticed maybe two patches ago, they reverse the trim settings. 

 

My take on the FW is this:

 

I trust the Devs when they tell me that they made their best effort to recreate the performance levels of the actual aircraft with regard to speed, climb, etc. Maybe they got it right, maybe they didn't...I'm not an aero engineer or Flight Dynamics expert. It is what it is in that regard, and I actually don't care...all planes have their strengths and weaknesses, and from a 'game' perspective I think it is fair to expect the LW fans to adapt to that even if it isn't 100% accurate.

 

What I DO think needs to be looked at is how easily the aircraft snap stalls and enters unrecoverable spins when flown on a personal computer using commonly available joysticks. As the FW 190 behaves now in the sim (forcing the pilot to walk on eggshells any time they turn in combat), it does not represent anything that a competent Air Force would have accepted for mass production or deployed into a combat zone. In that sense it "fails to simulate".

 

Unfortunately the onset point of the unrecoverable stall/spin in game is not something that there is specific "Flight Test Data" to refute because the test pilots would basically have had to die to get it.

 

So the devs would have to exercise some subjective judgment to soften the stall/spin characteristics without turning it into a UFO, and I hope they do. They put so much effort into building this beautiful model and it makes no sense to leave it in a place where people with normal joysticks don't want to use it in any kind of air combat requiring the elevator.

 

As a VVS fan, I'd like to encounter more FW 190s online. And maybe destroy some of them

 

Wonderful post. I agree. Whilst I think the FW is not as bad as everyone says it is, I have, since day one of the change been pretty vocal about the fact that the FW as it's currently modelled would pose more threat to a mediocre or untrained pilot than to an enemy. There is no way the German luftwafee would institute such a plane as it's currently modelled. I however, don't think crying about it is going to change anything. Quite frankly I don't think the FM for the 190 is ever changing as the only accounts that would be able to contradict the flight behavior are pilot accounts and non-German sources and the devs aren't interested in pilot accounts and non-German sources for German planes.

 

You don't speak for "the whole LW community."  

 

He doesn't need to. The opinion that the FW190 FM is wrong is obviously shared by the majority of pilots kicking around. The only people who don't believe the FW is wrong are Russian flyers with an axe to grind because it benefits them for the luftwaffe to be as uncompetitive as possible. A couple people have also presented sources regarding the FM of the Yak and that  it's climb rate in this game is too high... and of course many people take issue with the F4. The devs have done a wonderful job thus far, and I support them with my money, but this game isn't perfect and devs aren't gods. I'm not sure why you tend to automatically oppose, usually with condescension, any suggestion that a FM is incorrect...  

Edited August 28, 2016 by GridiroN

[Holtzauge]

Is that really true? I know it is true in vacuum, when no other forces are acting on the object, but how about in the case of an aeroplane?

 

Classic mechanics: F=ma.

 

In case of aeroplane flying on constant altitude the lift needs to be equal to G, or in other words F_l-G=0. That means that as G=mg, F_l (lift) needs to change accordingly to the mass of the flying object (hopefully an identified one), as g is constant.

 

And how does a plane that does not change its shape create more lift?

 

By increasing AoA. And if a plane increases AoA, it also increases drag.

 

I do believe this is pretty much high school physics, at least in the Finnish educational system.

 

And if I'm wrong or rude, I'll apologise tomorrow. It's just the booze and frustration talking.

 

Klaus beat me to it but I can complement with this: When at top speed the drag due to lift i.e. connected to weight is quite small and as an example, increasing the mass by 200 Kg on a Fw-190A3 will result in a speed loss of only about 1-2 Km/h at SL. At higher altitude there will of course be a bigger impact but still quite small compared to the aerodynamic effects of protusions such gun barrels and bulges.

[Monostripezebra]

Is that really true? I know it is true in vacuum, when no other forces are acting on the object, but how about in the case of an aeroplane?

 

Classic mechanics: F=ma.

 

In case of aeroplane flying on constant altitude the lift needs to be equal to G, or in other words F_l-G=0. That means that as G=mg, F_l (lift) needs to change accordingly to the mass of the flying object (hopefully an identified one), as g is constant.

 

And how does a plane that does not change its shape create more lift?

 

By increasing AoA. And if a plane increases AoA, it also increases drag.

 

I do believe this is pretty much high school physics, at least in the Finnish educational system.

 

And if I'm wrong or rude, I'll apologise tomorrow. It's just the booze and frustration talking.

 

You are basically correct, but miss a bit there: off course planes do not "change shape".. but the key to understanding that, is that wing shape does remain the same.

"Everything that flies, needs to be light" is an old design proverb in aviation, if something is heavier, off course it needs more energy into the lift force to fly. However, if we talk subsonic flight, the properties of a wing remain fairly constant.. ie: the angles at which it flies with what LD remain, but the SPEEDS at which that angle is obtainable changes. Ultimately limited by the never-exeed speed and ultimate loads, which off course are easier reached by a heavier plane. But basically that is why glider pilots take on water balast.. you have the same best L/D angle, but at a speed which allows you to travel faster. You off course have more difficulty climbing (heavier weight up needs moar engergy, but also has more potential energy once up).

 

it´s all about the total lift to drag relationsship. Off course, increasing AoA increases drag, but the speed variable is the important point... the L/D polar just shifts forward when you increase weight (and thus wingload). Depending on the engine and obtainable imput, higher relative weight does NOT mean automatically a speed loss. Just thing of "stubby wings" racing planes.. that have intentionally their wings cut to make them faster by having a higher wingload and thus their best L/D ratio at a higher speed. That beeing said, the center of gravity and thus the needed rudder deflections have also a fundamental influence and that is where you lose speed.

 

BUT: the often heard sentence "heavier plane means slower" is incorrect... it needs to be "heavier plane needs to go faster to obtain the same properties"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift-to-drag_ratio

Edited August 28, 2016 by Dr_Zeebra

[Holtzauge]

Wonderful post. I agree. Whilst I think the FW is not as bad as everyone says it is, I have, since day one of the change been pretty vocal about the fact that the FW as it's currently modelled would pose more threat to a mediocre or untrained pilot than to an enemy. There is no way the German luftwafee would institute such a plane as it's currently modelled. I however, don't think crying about it is going to change anything. Quite frankly I don't think the FM for the 190 is ever changing as the only accounts that would be able to contradict the flight behavior are pilot accounts and non-German sources and the devs aren't interested in pilot accounts and non-German sources for non-German planes.

 

 

He doesn't need to. The opinion that the FW190 FM is wrong is obviously shared by the majority of pilots kicking around. The only people who don't believe the FW is wrong are Russian flyers with an axe to grind because it benefits them for the luftwaffe to be as uncompetitive as possible. A couple people have also presented sources regarding the FM of the Yak and that  it's climb rate in this game is too high... and of course many people take issue with the F4. The devs have done a wonderful job thus far, and I support them with my money, but this game isn't perfect and devs aren't gods. I'm not sure why you tend to automatically oppose, usually with condescension, any suggestion that a FM is incorrect...  

 

+1

[Fern]

When the Center of gravity shifts too far, the Elevators have to exert more force and thus create more drag. 

 

That is really only true for extreme differences in weight. 

Normally an Aircraft is fastest with normal fuel load. When it runs low on fuel, the excess lift has to be countered by nosing down, creating more drag from the fuselage and elevators. 

When it is heavy but perfectly balanced you will have almost no speed penalty, since it sits very straight in the air. 

When it's overloaded and unbalanced the elevators have to exert more force to balance the aircraft and induce more drag.

 

So thres no CG shift for a 111kg 23mm cannon in the nose of Lagg-3, while 89kg of armor plates affects the E-7 CG?

[Lusekofte]

It is very depending on the planes design, however the developers had access to the Russian mass production planes info , so they got a great deal of information about these planes. Axis planes have and by the look of it been and will be a constant dispute on performance and source .

You can argue as much you like, but if you cannot find a source or proof about your claim, you might just forget about it

Edited August 28, 2016 by 216th_LuseKofte

[LLv24_Vilppi]

BUT: the often heard sentence "heavier plane means slower" is incorrect... it needs to be "heavier plane needs to go faster to obtain the same properties"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift-to-drag_ratio

I'll get back to this once I'm sober, but just a quick remark on this exact sentence: The sentence indeed seems correct. But, the heavier plane also needs a better weight to power ratio to make into that same optimal speed. Hence, what happens with the same maximum power output (in which we achieve the maximum speed) when the mass of the plane increases?

[Fern]

 

 

It is very depending on the planes design, however the developers had access to the Russian mass production planes info , so they got a great deal of information about these planes. Axis planes have and by the look of it been and will be a constant dispute on performance and source .

You can argue as much you like, but if you cannot find a source or proof about your claim, you might just forget about it 

Haha, I'm just gonig by whats been provided by the game in the weapon stats. Sheesh.

 

So:

E-7 with armor plates addition (89 kg) = 4 km/h loss

Lagg-3 with 37 mm addition (106 kg) = 2 km/h loss

Thats bullcrap.

 

Lagg-3 with 23 mm addition (42 kg, from what I figured) = should at least have a 1 km/h loss

23 mm = 69 kg  23 mm round = .5 lbs ea x 90 = 45 kg

20 mm = 42 kg  20 mm round = .20 lbs ea x 150 = 30 kg

45-30 = 15 kg difference

 

69 kg - 42 kg = 27 kg difference

 

15 kg + 27 kg = 42 kg instead of 35 kg

 

P40 156kg guns with a 3km loss, while 144kg to FW190 is hit for 8km loss. I would think they would exhibit the same type of drag, with different weights. So thats bullcrap. FW190 should only have a 2.5 km/h for 144kg and 1.5 km/h loss for 123kg wing cannons.

Edited August 28, 2016 by Fern

[StG2_Manfred]

It is very depending on the planes design, however the developers had access to the Russian mass production planes info , so they got a great deal of information about these planes. Axis planes have and by the look of it been and will be a constant dispute on performance and source .

You can argue as much you like, but if you cannot find a source or proof about your claim, you might just forget about it

I argue with my wallet. If they really want to change their attitude with Jason as leader it would be now the time to reveal those data they used and how they come to their performance figures. This is a game/sim and not the cold war and it is quite legit that we CFS enthusiasts want to understand the numbers behind and why things happen or not. But I doubt that they have understand the importance of that and when the Normandie map of CFS and the next major release of TF is ready I guess the next portion of pilots get lost for BoX. I'm sorry that I have to say that, but that are my conclusions when I think of the prevailing mood in our squadron. Edited August 28, 2016 by StG2_Manfred

[Matt]

 

 

P40 156kg guns with a 3km loss, while 144kg to FW190 is hit for 8km loss. I would think they would exhibit the same type of drag, with different weights. So thats bullcrap. FW190 should only have a 2.5 km/h for 144kg and 1.5 km/h loss for 123kg wing cannons.

 

Problem with that logic is that with MGFF on the Fw 190, there are two pretty big buldges on the underside of the wings for the ammo drums.

[Monostripezebra]

I'll get back to this once I'm sober, but just a quick remark on this exact sentence: The sentence indeed seems correct. But, the heavier plane also needs a better weight to power ratio to make into that same optimal speed. Hence, what happens with the same maximum power output (in which we achieve the maximum speed) when the mass of the plane increases?

 remember that great highschool phsics experiment where you put a penny and a feather in a glas tube.. and let them both fall.. and then suck the air out of that tube and let them fall again and both fall equally? As long as we´re not talking climbing where lifting a great weight up means we need more force and receive more potential energy, the influence of the drag is the important factor. It´s a bit better explained then I can do in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_polar if you look at the required power plot bit.

[WWChunk]

It is very depending on the planes design, however the developers had access to the Russian mass production planes info , so they got a great deal of information about these planes. Axis planes have and by the look of it been and will be a constant dispute on performance and source .

You can argue as much you like, but if you cannot find a source or proof about your claim, you might just forget about it

 Quick question, and it may be a dumb one, so bear with me.

 

Will the devs only look at historical info as a source for the FM's, or will they use real world aerodynamics, such as people like Crump have provided?  I can't vouch for his information, as I've no clue about such things, but if an object is bound by physics to act in a given manner, then historical data can be proven fallible.

 

I hope there is a fix to the 190 eventually, but I am not holding my breath.  I just want ALL of the planes to act as they would in the real world.

[Fern]

 

Problem with that logic is that with MGFF on the Fw 190, there are two pretty big buldges on the underside of the wings for the ammo drums.

 

 

Those bulges are not that big at all.

 

 

 

 

You must be thinking of these that we dont have in the game:

[LLv24_Vilppi]

Klaus beat me to it but I can complement with this: When at top speed the drag due to lift i.e. connected to weight is quite small and as an example, increasing the mass by 200 Kg on a Fw-190A3 will result in a speed loss of only about 1-2 Km/h at SL. At higher altitude there will of course be a bigger impact but still quite small compared to the aerodynamic effects of protusions such gun barrels and bulges.

Ah, re-reading the thread now I see I kind of jumped the gun and misquoted you by taking that one sentence out of context (sorry for that). While I stand by what I said (and looking at your post, I don't think we even disagree), my comment wasn't really relevant to Fern's original question.

 

The original discussion was about the relative difference between planes and the overall significance of the effect that weight has against top speed, and as Klaus and others explained, there are other (possibly more significant) factors included than the one I commented on.

[LLv24_Vilppi]

Depending on the engine and obtainable imput, higher relative weight does NOT mean automatically a speed loss.

I think you misquoted a bit my misquotation :D The fault lies in me of course as I was the one who initially made the whole topic quite a lot murkier.

 

But if I'm allowed to continue in the off-topic a bit, what I meant is that the weight increase does affect the TOP speed (i.e. the speed that the plane can achieve with maximum thrust, as limited by the engine) in level flight. How significant this is, is -- as noted by others -- the real question here.

 

And as Klaus noted, the shape of the plane does change (I was making an oversimplification there) due to the needed trimming of the elevators (or the whole tail wing) for the speed and weight balance.

 

I believe that when designing an aeroplane, these are questions on optimising the qualities of the plane for its purpose (fuel economy, speed, stability, etc). And like you noted, for racing planes it makes sense to get the best lift-drag ratio to the higher speeds, but this does not change the fact that if the plane is made heavier at that point it does need more lift to fly, and more lift with the same wings mean more drag, right? And if the engine can't create any more thrust to overcome that increase, the speed will drop.

 

Again, if this increase in drag is the most significant thing and how big of a relative impact it has, depends on the plane design.

[GridiroN]

Those bulges are not that big at all.

 

 

 

 

You must be thinking of these that we dont have in the game:

 

What in Hitler's name were those for...!? They look absolutely painful to fly with.

 

But yes, those bulges are not big enough to impact a 1750HP engine by several KPH. 

Edited August 29, 2016 by GridiroN

[Irgendjemand]

I argue with my wallet. If they really want to change their attitude with Jason as leader it would be now the time to reveal those data they used and how they come to their performance figures. This is a game/sim and not the cold war and it is quite legit that we CFS enthusiasts want to understand the numbers behind and why things happen or not. But I doubt that they have understand the importance of that and when the Normandie map of CFS and the next major release of TF is ready I guess the next portion of pilots get lost for BoX. I'm sorry that I have to say that, but that are my conclusions when I think of the prevailing mood in our squadron.

+1. My BIG hope lies on Jason taking over. I really hope he changes how things are handeled. And big +1000000 on your statement about the cold war.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Irgendjemand

[LukeFF]

 

 

What in Hitler's name were those for...!? They look absolutely painful to fly with.

 

 

That's the A-5/U12, designed specifically for attacking bombers on the Western Front. 

[Dr_Molem]

Those bulges are not that big at all.

 

 

Those are MG 151's bulges.

 

Those below are MG FF/M bulges:

 

 

They are bigger.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Dr_Molem

[Matt]

Those bulges are not that big at all.

 

 

 

 

 

You must be thinking of these that we dont have in the game:

 

Wrong plane with MG151. See Dr.Molems post (or simply check the plane model ingame?). But thanks for letting me know, what i must be thinking about.

[Fern]

That's a freaking painting! [Edited]

Edited August 29, 2016 by SYN_Haashashin
Really poor taste.

[Fern]

Also, in-game there's no bulge for 151, or 3 and 4 cannons.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Fern

[Matt]

[Fern]

Cool.

 

Check this out: http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109G_MK108gondies/MK108gondies.html

 

6 km/h loss for big ass gondala underwing guns! So you're telling me the FW190 bumps warrant a freaking 7/8 km/h loss? No freaking way!

 

 

Messerschmitt AG.
     augsburg

             Speed ​​influence of
              2 MK 108 among the surfaces
                    the Me 109 G.
Test report
No. 109 14 L 43
Date: 12/08/43
Copy :

 Abt. Flight testing
 group services


http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/

Reason: In the course of further Me 109G goods by
                    Behalf of Prof. Messerschmitt airplane measurements
                    perform with MK 108 mockups on the Me 109 G.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/

experimental
Procedure: It was with a respective stop flight and without dummies
                    performed. The values ​​are not converted,
                    since the two flights were made in rapid succession, and
                    a change of air-condition during the short
                    Degradation time of the dummies did not take place.


Result: speed without dummies Vw = 525 km / h
  
                    Speed ​​with dummies Vw = 519 km / h
  
                    Loss of speed by dummies .DELTA.V = 6 km / h
  
                    n = 2600 U / min; p - 1.30 ata; B = 717 mm Hg;
                    t = 19 ° C; H = 480 m.

   http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
         

Aircraft: Me 109G W.Nr. 15 562 Ind .: CN + WF

Engine: DB 605 A / 1 W.Nr. 37,648

Propeller: 3-fl. VDM adjusting D = 3.0 m
                    Sheet Model 9-12159 A
                    Sentence no. 3 buf 75
http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/
state of
Aircraft: Serie version Me 109 G with GM 1 system. surface
                   special treatment, a little smoother than the experiment
                   Report 109 11 L 42 shown exemplary. Cool closed;
                   Cooler display rods; Wing thermometer; Landing gear; Spur.
                   Dummies for MK 108 wooden. Execution and attachment
                   see photo. 2 ETC 50 successively hanging under the fuselage.
ttp: //kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/

implementation
d.Messungen: 2 stop flight combat power n = 2600 U / min, p = 1.30 ata at ground level.
                   Air pressure was, by height recorder aboard the plane
                   Temperature measured at the bottom.

                            1. Flight: with MK 108 mockups
                            2. Flight: without MK 108 dummies.

 

More: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109g-16476.html

 

Influence of the attachments.
        Level speed is reduced through:
        2 x underwing weapons    about          7 mph
        2 x ETC 50 racks    about    0 – 2 mph
        2 x 50 kg Bomb    about          4 mph    
        1 Sandfilter        6 – 7 mph  
        and increases through wheel covers
about 6 to 7 mph.
        Details see page 4.

 

 

 

It's not just the 190 thats being neutered. All planes across the board should see increases in speed.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Fern

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

Even though this is a very interesting discussion, IMHO the 2-4 kph difference these bulges make is not pivotal to anyone currently not flying the 190.

So yeah it's a valid point, but to me this seems like worrying about a missing cupholder on a car without wheels...

[Irgendjemand]

Even though this is a very interesting discussion, IMHO the 2-4 kph difference these bulges make is not pivotal to anyone currently not flying the 190.

So yeah it's a valid point, but to me this seems like worrying about a missing cupholder on a car without wheels...

HAH. Made me laugh. Big +1

Edited August 29, 2016 by Irgendjemand

[Matt]

for big ass gondala underwing guns! So you're telling me the FW190 bumps warrant a freaking 7/8 km/h loss? No freaking way!

 

Eh no, i never ever wrote that. I only wrote that your extra-weight-only comparison between the P-40 extra ammo and the Fw 190 extra MGFF and your conclusion that the influence of the extra weight (while completely ignoring the extra drag of the MGFF+drum cover) would have the same % effect on level speed is incorrect. The same can be said about comparing the influence on speed of the MG151 gondolas of the Bf 109 with the MGFF guns on the Fw 190.

 

But other than that, i agree with the last two posts above mine. Also if you want the devs to change anything, you should consider changing your attitude or alternatively sticking to drawing pictures of dicks on bathroom walls in your school instead.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Matt

[Fern]

Ok, I agree. I was wrong about the weight thing. But that last thing I found about k/m loss for F4/G2 wing cannons should only be a 6 km/h loss, instead of a 12 km/h loss that present in-game. So in turn, if the big gondala guns are a 6 km/h loss, how would the FW190 bumps constitute a 7/8 km/h loss? So yes, I'm changing my argument now. You're right, i'm wrong.

[Matt]

Only relevant test i'm aware of, is this one, which states a 5 km/h speed loss for the installation of two MG 151 as outer wing guns on a A-6 (with muzzle covers and afaik, without ammo load). So 7-8 km/h loss with MG FF with ammo and the bigger drum covers does not seem like too much of a stretch to me. But maybe someone has a better source for that. But this is getting off topic now.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_816_Nr1.pdf

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Ok, I agree. I was wrong about the weight thing. But that last thing I found about k/m loss for F4/G2 wing cannons should only be a 6 km/h loss, instead of a 12 km/h loss that present in-game. So in turn, if the big gondala guns are a 6 km/h loss, how would the FW190 bumps constitute a 7/8 km/h loss? So yes, I'm changing my argument now. You're right, i'm wrong.

G-2 and G-4 with Gondolas were 512kph, while the cleanest Model in the Same test, a G-2/R2 achieved 523. A clean model would have achieved 525. So ingame is quite close. 

[Fern]

Here Klaus_Mann, go to town with these: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a3.html

 

Here's a test for the A-3 with M.G.F.F. Oerlikon on page 4: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw-190-rep234.pdf

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Here Klaus_Mann, go to town with these: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a3.html

 

Here's a test for the A-3 with M.G.F.F. Oerlikon on page 4: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw-190-rep234.pdf

Was talking 109 gun pods. On the 109 the speed difference is around 12-13kph.

[Fern]

Yeah, take those test I provided and see how it matches the FW190 in game, since you like to do this stuff.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Yeah, take those test I provided and see how it matches the FW190 in game, since you like to do this stuff.

Will. 

 

Ground Level Comparison

Clean: 528

120 MG: 521

180 MG: 518

 

6000m

Clean: 450 IAS (613 TAS)

120 MG: 442 IAS (602 TAS)

180 MG 441 IAS (600 TAS)

 

9000m

Clean: 360 IAS (583 TAS)

120 MG: 351 IAS (568 TAS)

180 MG: 350 IAS  (567 TAS)

Edited August 30, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann