Some data comparison between FW 190 A-3 vs Yak-1 (1942)

[303_Kwiatek]

Hi

 

I decided to put here some data about FW 190 and Yak-1 performacne for comparison for anyone would like to make his own opinion about relative performance of these planes:

 

 

Fw 190 A-3

 

Fw 190 Aa-3 ( export Turkish version)

 

 

 

 

Maximum speed :

0 km  - 540 kph ( WEP)

6.4 km  - 660 kph ( WEP)

climb rate initial -  16 m/s ( 1.3 Ata no WEP)

climb to 5 km - 6 min ( 1.3 Ata - no WEP)

 

RAF estimated climb at WEP ( 1.4 Ata 2700 RPM ) for 18,75 m/s.

 

Turn time ( VVS test for 1 km )  - 22-23 sec 

 

German specification for standart A-3 ( without outtern cannons)

 

 

Speed:

0 - 565 kph

cliimb rate - 16.5 m/s

 

Fw 190 A-3 RAF test  ( with flying characterstic)

 

http://www.shockwaveproductions.com/store/fw190/tactical_trials.htm

 

Some notes about flying characteristic Fw 190 A-3 by RAF test:

 

Flying Characteristics

 

 The aircraft is pleasant to fly, all controls being extremely light and positive. The aircraft is difficult to taxi due to the excessive weight on the self-centring tailwheel when on the ground. For take-off, 15° of flap is required, and it is necessary to keep the control column back to avoid swinging during the initial stage of the take-off run. The run is approximately the same as that of the Spitfire IX.

 

Once airborne, the pilot immediately feels at home in the aircraft. The retraction of the flaps and undercarriage is barely noticeable although the aircraft will sink if the retraction of the flaps is made before a reasonably high airspeed has been obtained.

 

The stalling speed of the aircraft is high, being approximately 110 m.p.h. (177 k.m./h.) with the undercarriage and flaps retracted, and 105 m.p.h. [169 k.m./h.| with the undercarriage and flaps fully down. All controls are effective up to the stall. One excellent feature of this aircraft is that it is seldom necessary to retrim under all conditions of flight.

 

The best approach speed for landing with flaps and undercarriage down is between 130 and 140 m.p.h. |209 and 22.5 k.m./h.| indicated, reducing to about 125 m.p.h. [201 k.m./h.| when crossing the edge of the aerodrome. Owing to the steep angle of glide, the view during the approach i.s good and the actual landing is straightforward, the touchdown occurring at approximately 110 m.p.h. The landing run is about the same as that of the Spitfire IX. The view on landing is poor due to the tail-down attitude of the aircraft. The locking of the tailwheel again assists in preventing swing during the landing run.

 

The aircraft is very pleasant for aerobatics even at high speed.

 

Performance

 

The all-round performance of the Fw 190 is good. Only brief performance tests have been carried out and the figures obtained give a maximum speed of approximately 390 m.p.h. True at 1.42 atmospheres b<x>st, 2,700 r.p.m. at the maximum power altitude of about 18,000 ft. All flights at maximum power were carried out for a duration of 2 minutes only.

 

There are indications that the engine of this aircraft is de-rated, this being supported by the pilot's instruction card found in the cockpit. Further performance tests and engine investigation are to be carried out by the RAH and more definite information will then be available.

 

Climb

The rate of climb up to 18,000 ft |5,488 m) under maximum continuous climbing conditions at 1.35 atmospheres boost 2,450 r.p.m., 165 m.p.h. is between 3,000 and 3,250 ft/min |15.24 to 16.51 m/sec|. The initial rate of climb when pulling up from level flight at fast cruising speed is high and the angle steep, and from a dive is phenomenal. It is considered that the de-rated version of the Fw 190 is unlikely to be met above 25,000 ft |7,622 mj as the power of the engine starts falling off at 22,000 ft and by 25,000 ft has fallen off considerably. It is not possible to give the rate of climb at this altitude.

 

Dive

The Fw 190 has a high rate of dive, the initial acceleration being excellent. The maximum speed so far obtained in a dive is 580 m.p.h. |934 k.m./h.l True at 16,000 ft [4,880 m|, and at this speed the controls, although slightly heavier, are still remarkably light. One very g<x>d feature is that no alteration of trim form level flight is required either during the entry or during the pull-out. Due to the fuel injection system it is possible to enter the dive by pushing the control column forward without the engine cutting.

 

CONCLUSIONS

 

The Fw 190 is undoubtedly a formidable low and medium altitude fighter.  Its designer has obviously given much thought to the pilot. The cockpit is extremely well laid out and the absence of large levers and unnecessary gadgets most noticeable. The pilot is given a comfortable seating position, and is well protected by armour.

 

The simplicity of the aircraft as a whole is an excellent feature, and enables new pilots to be thoroughly conversant with all controls in a very brief period.

 

The rough running of the engine is much disliked by all pilots and must be a great disadvantage, as lack of confidence in an engine makes flying over bad country or water most unpleasant.

 

The armament is good and well positioned, and the ammunition capacity should be sufficient for any normal fighter operation. The sighting view is approximately half a ring (of deflection) better than that from the Spitfire.

 

The all-round search view is the best that has yet been seen from any aircraft flown by this unit.

 

The flying characteristics are exceptional and a pilot new to the type feels at home within the first few minutes of flight. The controls are light and well-harmonised and all manoeuvres can be carried out without difficulty at all speeds. The fact that the Fw 190 does not require re-trimming under all conditions of flight is a particularly good point. The initial acceleration is very good and is particularly noticeable in the initial stages of a climb or dive.

 

Perhaps one of the most outstanding qualities of this aircraft is the remarkable aileron control. It is possible to change from a turn in one direction to a turn in the opposite direction with incredible speed, and when viewed from another aircraft the change appears just as if a flick half-roll has been made.

 

 

 

 

 

Yak-1  ( 1942 with PF engine)

 

 

Speed:

0 km - 510 kph

3.6 km - 570 kph

Turn time at 1 km - 19-20 sec

Climb time to 5 km - 6.4 min ( 5.9 min)

 

Max dive speed from manual - 650 kph

 

Climb rate :

 

Some more Russian data for Yaks:

 

 

http://wio.ru/tacftr/yak.htm

Edited September 8, 2016 by 303_Kwiatek

[RAY-EU]

What more has impresed is the Fw 190 A3 dive speed limit of 950 km/h and is oviusely .

The dive speed limit of Hans data ( for il2 BOS ) is 850 Km/h .!?

And Yak1 dive speed limit 650 km/h While Hans data for (il2Bos) are Yak 1 dive speed limit 720 Km/h !?

Thats the reason ? I have had Online Yak 1 at more 700 km/h behind me ?! With a FW190 A3 and thought ? Thats not posible !

And was not posible in WW2 . Here are the history WW2 archives !

[150GCT_Veltro]

:rtfm:   

 

Thank Kwiatek.

[JV69badatflyski]

Mike Williams added several nice documents on the  different versions of the Wurger last years:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/
The dive test for exemple: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-0022-dive.html it's a translation/summary but all the originals in german are available there.
Worth to check it

 

[Turban]

The ingame plane is pretty coherent with all the litterature.

 

Acceleration might feel odd sometimes along with speed loss compare to other planes. But is it really wrong and what is wrong then? The FW or the others?

[LittleJP]

The in game stall speed is much higher than the 177 km/h quoted. Can't tell you on the Yak off-hand since I usually drive the I-16 on the red side.

Edited September 9, 2016 by LittleJP

[Irgendjemand]

Thanks Kwiatek!

I hope the info will be used to make changes happen.

There is plenty of evidence the FW in BOS needs a change.

I am confident some day something is gonna happen.

[JV69badatflyski]

Hello turban,

Thank you for your input but i think it wasn't the Kwaitek's Goal to start a discussion (that would get locked 2days later, again) but to provide enough official documents on the plane so everyone can make his own opinion...and maybe give another point of view for the devloppers.
a CL based on data from windtunnel with speed of 19m/s is not really a valid point ...what part of the plane flies at this speed?
But if you want, you're free to recreate the dive test mentionned above and give us your impressions ,even better with a track with technochat on.
Kr

[Kurfurst]

IL2BOS dive speed limits are quite enigmatic and very high compared to the real limits in manuals... as if the formula to get them would be real limits + 100 km/h (like 109's 850 dive limit, this is only true for 1944 versions).

 

It could be a FM engine related thing though, to prevent things like achieving say 751 km/h and suddenly the wing falls off. There was a bit of tolerance or buffer zone on these in real life before the really bad things happened.

[L3Pl4K]

Okay, let me just ask. What exactly do you guys think is wrong with the fw in the current patch? Top speeds are coherent with irl data, climbrates are correct as well.

  190 has great problems in outdiving other fighters. You can not gain enough speration.

http://www.beim-zeug...x.php?id=24&L=1

Page 3 im Sturzflug.

During Dive

 

The comparisons were done with combat power settings and a diveangle of aproximately 20% starting at a height of around 2000m. Result was that the FW 190 A2 could gain several hundred meters of separation. The steeper and longer the dive was the bigger the gained separation. Remains to be mentioned that the FW 190 A 2 reached its topspeed slower than the BF 109 F4.

Edited September 9, 2016 by L3Pl4K

[Dr_Molem]

Okay, let me just ask. What exactly do you guys think is wrong with the fw in the current patch? Top speeds are coherent with irl data, climbrates are correct as well. 

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/24656-fw-190-after-last-update/?p=380437

 

"Stall characteristics, stall speed (15 kph too high, because they refuse to take PEC into consideration), lift/drag ratio, roll rate illogical inertia,... The FM needs a complete overhaul, not "some tweaks". Sure, before they touch the plane a few months ago, it indeed had need some tweaks only, but this is no longer the case today."

[Dr_Molem]

Ok, what about combining the old Fm with current RoC? That'd fix these 

 

Would be nice.

 

If it happened, the only real problems would have been the slightly too high stall speed, and still those stall characteristics at speed (which were already too exaggerated).

[Turban]

The in game stall speed is much higher than the 177 km/h quoted. 

 

It's not. I just checked. Both clean and in landing configuration. 

 

 and still those stall characteristics at speed (which were already too exaggerated).

 

Exaggerated? Based on what?

Edited September 9, 2016 by Turban

[303_Kwiatek]

Probably they mess with wing polar of 190 - known as finess ratio. Now plane is more draggy so worse acceleration more energy bleed and much more prone to stall. I think it would be enough to correct only climb rate which was underated before and dont touch anything more. So developers improved little bit climb rate (still not sure as much as it should be) but other hand change drag and stall characteristic of wing airfoil. Even before these changes Fw190 was prone to stall so it was need to control carefully.

Other hand we got e.x. Yak1 which overperform in speed and climb comparing to rl data. Also it could dive safetly up to 750 kph. ( some other planes also overperform in speed at medium to high alt like Lagg or 109F4 but Yak1 overperform by highest number)

[303_Kwiatek]

Exaggerated? Based on what?

Based on these that now Fw190 is only runing straight plane not able to do combat manovers which irl had no problem to do. Before last changes Fw190 was also prone to stall and spin but at least you could do some defence manuovers with carefully - still was not so easy. Before it had also acceleration in dive which is lost now.

[303_Kwiatek]

Read british test about flying characteristic and answer yourself if BOS Fw190 is a plane which corensponded with these results?

 

For me it it corensponded well but with DCS Fw190 or quite accepted with A3 before finess ratio changed. ( not taking in comparison other overperforming planes in BOS - taking only Fw190 apart)

[Turban]

Read british test about flying characteristic and answer yourself if BOS Fw190 is a plane which corensponded with these results?

 

 

Yes it does.

[Dr_Molem]

It's not. I just checked. Both clean and in landing configuration. 

 

1G stall speed of the FW-190A-3 ingame is ~184 kph.  Try again.

 

Exaggerated? Based on what?

 

On pilot reports who said they had to use full elevator & full rudder to get into a spin (easily recoverable btw, which is not the case ingame) at high speed to make overshoot the bandit on their 6. 

[303_Kwiatek]

Turban i think you are fixed and stuck with your opinion nothing change these. Do you ever try A3 before last changes or in other games? You remind me developers attitude and claim since Fw190 was relased in Bos that everything is correct with these plane. Then changes have came

Edited September 9, 2016 by 303_Kwiatek

[Turban]

1G stall speed of the FW-190A-3 ingame is ~184 kph.  Try again.

 

 

On pilot reports who said they had to use full elevator & full rudder to get into a spin (easily recoverable btw, which is not the case ingame) at high speed to make overshoot the bandit on their 6. 

1) Like I said, I just checked.

 

2)That's not the accelerated stall that is mentionned everywhere which was unintenional most of the time.

Turban i think you are fixed and stuck with your opinion nothing change these. Do you ever try A3 before last changes or in other games? You remind me developers attitude and claim since Fw190 was relased in Bos that everything is correct with these plane. Then changes have came

 

I'm just sharing my opinion. Why shouldn't I ?

 

I created a thread but people came in to get it locked. That won't keep me from discussing things.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Turban

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

I think it would be enough to correct only climb rate which was underated before and dont touch anything more.

+1

 

 

 

Okay, let me just ask. What exactly do you guys think is wrong with the fw in the current patch? Top speeds are coherent with irl data, climbrates are correct as well.

 

I think, like Kwiatek, that the following has been pretty much the desire of everyone arguing that the 190 is porked:

 

1. Revert to the old "fineness ratio"

2. Keep the new climb

3. Increase dive speed (I believe dive and E retention on general was way better before the fineness ratio adjustment, but could also be "feelings only")

 

Did they ever explain what data that fineness adjustment was based on?

Edited September 9, 2016 by II/JG17_SchwarzeDreizehn

[150GCT_Veltro]

+1

 

 

 

 

I think, like Kwiatek, that the following has been pretty much the desire of everyone arguing that the 190 is porked:

 

1. Revert to the old "fineness ratio"

2. Keep the new climb

3. Increase dive speed (I believe dive and E retention on general was way better before the fineness ratio adjustment, but could also be "feelings only")

 

Did they ever explain what data that fineness adjustment was based on?

 

Perfect!

 

Just imagine a FW-190A-5 in the same condition we have now for the FW-190A-3.

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

Don't know about that stall speed havent read about that. But I don't think i agree with you on stall characteristics being exaggerated prior to finesse patch. Stalls felt perfectly fine to me, coming from 46 i was like damn this is exactly what i expected the thing to fly like reading from history. I enjoyed flying the focke very much, it was fun to out-maneuver yaks 

Ok what's the plan, how are we going to get old fm back wih current roc??

 

 

They said they only changed fineness ratio and climb speed in the last patch.

I am not sure though, how one affects the other in their FM, so there might be interdependencies - meaning fineness ratio adjustments lead in part to the improvement of roc.

If not, I think many ppl would be happy by just changing the fineness ratio back to what it was.

So we would basically need to show them that their fineness ratio adaption was wrong. However I don't know what data they based their adjustment on.

Edited September 9, 2016 by II/JG17_SchwarzeDreizehn

[303_Kwiatek]

Reducing lift to drag ratio surly dont rise climb rate but rather opposite higher drag more energy bleeding and i suppose also worsening stall characteritic even more.

[Dr_Molem]

1) Like I said, I just checked.

 

Then i suppose you got your own stall speed, why not share it with us ?   

Meanwhile, from DD 123: Indicated stall speed in flight configuration: 183..209 km/h   

 

2)That's not the accelerated stall that is mentionned everywhere which was unintenional most of the time.

 

Be free to quote these mentions you're talking about, that you easily get into an accelerated stall at high speed with FW-190, just by pulling elevator.   

 

 

Don't know about that stall speed havent read about that. But I don't think i agree with you on stall characteristics being exaggerated prior to finesse patch. Stalls felt perfectly fine to me, coming from 46 i was like damn this is exactly what i expected the thing to fly like reading from history. I enjoyed flying the focke very much, it was fun to out-maneuver yaks 

Ok what's the plan, how are we going to get old fm back wih current roc??

 

It's true that when i remember, you had some buffering at high speed (before FM update) before stalling, still minime imo, but that could aswell be because the elevator was too light.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Dr_Molem

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

Reducing lift to drag ratio surly dont rise climb rate but rather opposite higher drag more energy bleeding and i suppose also worsening stall characteritic even more.

 

AFAIK L/D isn't the same as fineness ratio.

Wouldn´t L/D be used on a wing - as a measurement of lift to drag- and fineness ratio as a way to describe the overall body of a plane / object?

 

They said they increased the fineness ratio and not the L/D as far as I remember.

 

Fineness ratio says something about length to width of a body. I don't know how this data is taken into account in the FM computing.

 

Anyways I´m no engineer, but from what I know I don´t see the connection between L/D and fineness ratio. But I´m always happy to learn something new...

Edited September 9, 2016 by II/JG17_SchwarzeDreizehn

[LuftManu]

Nice information as always Kwiatek! Bravo!

[RAY-EU]

Well , so the maximun dive speed reached of FW190 A3 is about 912 km/h and 934 km/h from 10 km to 5km . These is impresionant you could attac very fast from High ! . WW2 Historyc archives ...

I am still Impressed ! > & Han data 850 km/h .

Edited September 9, 2016 by RAY-EU

[I-Cipson]

Great Report Kwiatek!

 

AT this point it's hard to see that Flying Models on the Old Il2-1946 were more accurate than in this new Game.
Infact Combats in 1946 were much better balanced and therefore enjoyable...

This is the reason for which 1946 was the reference Combat Simulator for over 15 years.

 

Many Communities think that Developers should very well consider this aspect (more important than graphics) if they want to repeat the success of 1946.
Otherwise, notwithstanding their enormous work, players will jump on the first simulator that will provide them these characteristics of balance and historical realism ...

For others there is WarThunder ...

[RAY-EU]

Or could jump to IL2 Cliffs of Dover ! BOB ...

[150GCT_Veltro]

Another problem that probably will come soon if nothing will be "checked" for A3.

FW-190A-5 did have the barycenter moved to provide more loadout weight.

Edited September 9, 2016 by 150GCT_Veltro

[WWChunk]

Thank you for starting this thread, AND for providing data, 303_Kwiatek.

[Crump]

Probably they mess with wing polar of 190 - known as finess ratio. Now plane is more draggy so worse acceleration more energy bleed and much more prone to stall. I think it would be enough to correct only climb rate which was underated before and dont touch anything more. So developers improved little bit climb rate (still not sure as much as it should be) but other hand change drag and stall characteristic of wing airfoil. Even before these changes Fw190 was prone to stall so it was need to control carefully.

Other hand we got e.x. Yak1 which overperform in speed and climb comparing to rl data. Also it could dive safetly up to 750 kph. ( some other planes also overperform in speed at medium to high alt like Lagg or 109F4 but Yak1 overperform by highest number)

 

 

Close but a little backwards.....only because of the specific situation the way propeller aircraft performance develops.

 

If they increased the drag...then the lift must increase at a given L/D ratio.  You would not get the performance characteristics observed in your game.  The climb rate would be decreased not increased.

 

We do not need some long drawn out baloney argument.  Yes, reducing fineness ratio generally means a more blunt object.  It very much depends on specifically what your talking about whether drag is reduced or increased.

 

 

 

t/c ratio = fineness ratio; edit'd to add this explanation so the reader would not get lost

 

Decreasing fineness ratio means decreasing drag in the vicinity of V r/c max (Maximum Rate of Climb) in a propeller aircraft.  If you switch that point and do not change the L/D ratio...you decrease the lift production the FM can produce in all areas because lift and drag are connected thru a direct relationship.

 

 

Honestly, Fineness ratio is the physical design of the aircraft.  The fuselage length over average height nor the wing average chord over average thickness will not change.  Fineness ratio is fixed and easy to calculate.

 

 

 

Crumpp says:

 

Fineness ratio is a function of the physic shape and dimensions of the design.  It does not change.  It is the thickness divided by the chord ratio for the wing and length divided by diameter for the fuselage.  IN other words, instead of adding more available power without increasing absolute power and recalculating their basic aerodynamic data, they changed the physical shape of the design mathematically and continued to use the same flawed aerodynamic starting point.  It is simply a shortcut to achieve specific performance in ONE area at the expense of other performance.

 

The original error in the FW-190 flight model is quite obvious if you understand the physics.  They got their power input confused by using performance at a lower power setting used by TASGi against the BMW 801 power output curves.  That point was proven and the reason why the FW-190 FM got the "fineness ratio" adjustment.  The absolute power relationship to the L/D ratio was not correct in the orignal FM.

 

Problem with that technique is we have not changed the basic error in absolute power and are still working within the erroneous relationships of the forces of flight established in the original error.   In the system that is the aircraft, we have not reset any of the relationships and the aircraft is still not representative of it power production.

 

Lift and drag have a direct relationship.  When one increases, the other increases in proportion to the L/D ratio of the design.  We have L/D curves for the aircraft that are not representative.

 

Why?  Changing the fineness ratio adjusted the drag of the design.  That did free up more power to increase the climb of the aircraft model.  In reducing the drag, they shifted they simply shifted the error in the L/D curve.  If you reduce the drag, you will reduce the lift according to that L/D ratio.

 

This change is drag would introduce a new error in the stall.

 

That is also why we see what very much appears to be an error in the stall angle of attack as listed by the developers.  If one knows the science, one can simply look at the airfoil selection and stall angle of attack to see that something is very wrong.

 

 

 

​http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/21732-whats-your-opinion-new-fw-fm/?p=376053

 

 

 

They said they increased the fineness ratio and not the L/D as far as I remember.

 

You are correct on the L/D ratio not changing which leads the characteristics of your FM.

 

The developers decreased the fineness ratio, though....

 

 

 

Fw 190 A-3 aerodynamic characteristics corrected to meet the now available data (in short, its fineness ratio was reduced a little while its climb rate at high altitudes increased somewhat);

Edited September 10, 2016 by Crump

[303_Kwiatek]

But truly we dont know what exacly they changed. If they really reduced aerodynamic fineness ratio so drag and lift should be reduced if i understand correctly so strange to me that fw190 after change behave like more draggy plane - worse acceleration and more energy bleeding strange. As i said hard to say what they mean "fineness ratio". Simply if they want improve climb rate without changing aerodynamic shapes they need add more power or change prop characteristic but then maximum speed change also or cl max should rise?

Edited September 10, 2016 by 303_Kwiatek

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

As far as I understand it should read

 

Fw 190 A-3 aerodynamic characteristics corrected to meet the now available data (in short, its fineness ratio was reduced a little while AND AS A RESULT its climb rate at high altitudes increased somewhat)

 

 

 

But truly we don't know what exactly they changed.

 

Maybe they did ONLY change the fineness ratio. I think what we do NOT know (or at least I don´t) is what this parameter determines in the FM apart from the increased climb. Well we do know the result actually, we get the sort of behavior we have after the patch.

 

I mean, what is a model after all, it is a simplified representation of reality, that, by taking a limited set of parameters as input, tries to achieve an output that mimics the modeled entitiy. It could be that this parameter change has a big sensitivity on other flight characteristics as well in that model, which might not correspond to reality.

 

i think you can argue as you did Kwiatek in your post if we were talking reality i.e. we would change the fineness ratio of a  real plane in the real world. In the the flight model that is Il2 it might not have these effects (or actually does not, all under the assumption, that the developers really only changed what they claimed)

 

So in short, we know probably know what they changed, we just don´t know how exactly the model takes these changes into account apart from climb.

Edited September 10, 2016 by II/JG17_SchwarzeDreizehn

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

That´s why I was asking, what data they used to change, the fineness ratio. As was said before, fineness ratio should not change, since the dimension of the plane hasn't changed.

We can probably luftwhine all day, but if the devs say that their model meets key data (such as speed, climb etc.) which it does mostly, they wont change a thing.

If we tell them things like drag, e-retention and stall are wrong since the last patch, they will tell us it´s feelings only.

I think the only viable way to go, is to ask what data they based the fineness ratio change on

(Sadly I do doubt they will provide this data, because, if proven incorrect they would have to actually rework the FM instead of using the current workaround)

Edited September 10, 2016 by II/JG17_SchwarzeDreizehn

[ZachariasX]

One shouldn't be "Luftwhining", but be merely interested in what is going on. We have what we have in the game, and anyone interested in progress of this thing should make it as easy as possible for the devs to continue working on it.

 

So far, IF the original error was made by using a flawed power output curve, then the explanation made by Crump above is about the only reasonable explanation made in this forum of the (seeming) deeper issue of the A3 we have currently in the game.

 

One cannot "just fix the stall" as they couldn't just fix the climb. By changing one parameter, you change the equations for all other values.

 

My hope is that when the devs will do the A5, they have another chance to overhaul the whole FM of the Fw190 and quietly fix the A3 as well. Given how poisoned the discussion about the A3 is, it is probably the only reasonable way to do it.

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

One cannot "just fix the stall" as they couldn't just fix the climb. By changing one parameter, you change the equations for all other values.

 

Yes i agree and it´s also what I tried to say.

 

But as you and Crump said, if they originally used the incorrect power setting, with the correct fineness ratio, and then adjusted the fineness ratio to fit the climb then wouldn´t it make much more sense to just ask the devs what their fineness adjustment was? Has this simple question been posted to the devs by anyone? Because once we have their adjustment we can talk numbers and not "just feelings". Because ultimately (assuming the adjustment was made as we suspect) one number has to be off. Either the climb or the fineness ratio. That would be a much better basis for a discussion or am I wrong?

Edited September 10, 2016 by II/JG17_SchwarzeDreizehn

[150GCT_Veltro]

 

My hope is that when the devs will do the A5, they have another chance to overhaul the whole FM of the Fw190 and quietly fix the A3 as well. Given how poisoned the discussion about the A3 is, it is probably the only reasonable way to do it.

 

Absolutely!

 

We all agree here i think.

[ZachariasX]

 

 

But as you and Crump said

 

I didn't say that. The credit goes entirely to Crump. I did however paraphrase him on that, as to me it is the only coherent model to explain what we have in the game as FM given what the devs stated they did and how the "inner machanics" of the FM could work and can make correct predictions, like elevated stall speeds by adjusting finess ratio as the devs did.

 

On the other hand, despite having a conclusive model that can make correct predictions (a model that explains what you know is bogus, and not science), I will never claim knowing the truth.

 

Science, even when using simple math, is much harder than most people think is. I've done my Ph.D. in other fiels than aerodynamics, but it surely taught me to be wary of claiming "to be right".

 

Z