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

[unreasonable]

 

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

 

I think what that link demonstrates is not so much that science is hard, but that, arguably, statistical results, at least in the Newtonian domain, are not scientific at all.  

[Crump]

Let's not sidetrack the thread.  

 

 

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?

 

Will they share that information?  I do not think so.....  

 

Most likely a flippant, "You is wrong" despite the science....

[Irgendjemand]

Some sort of politely written request with a poll would be nice maybe.

If there is a number of customervoices it might raise the chance they are finally heard.

Bash me if its a stupid idea:)

Edited September 10, 2016 by Irgendjemand

[ZachariasX]

I think what that link demonstrates is not so much that science is hard, but that, arguably, statistical results, at least in the Newtonian domain, are not scientific at all.  

 

I was using this reference as an example of how having an agenda damages reason. Science is there to make you understand things. Not to prove one right.

 

The source of the article for sure is one of the "most notorious statisticans". Hence the focus on stats. "Not scientific" statistics are no statistics at all; it's plain garbage, no matter how popular it might be.

[unreasonable]

I was using this reference as an example of how having an agenda damages reason. Science is there to make you understand things. Not to prove one right.

 

The source of the article for sure is one of the "most notorious statisticans". Hence the focus on stats. "Not scientific" statistics are no statistics at all; it's plain garbage, no matter how popular it might be.

 

I liked the utility in the link btw, it is a clever way of making a point and a good article too. Many of last year's Edge.org Questions were about this precise topic of the "replication crisis" which has the academics in a tizzy.

 

In principle I want to agree that having an agenda damages reason, but then again Hume said that "reason is .... the slave of the passions" and I have to admit that I have yet to come across a convincing refutation to his argument, either intellectual or embodied. I suppose to get round this we need to have a passion for the search for scientific truth, whatever our conception of that may be, which will perhaps cancel out some of the damage caused by having an agenda. But there are still bills to pay, tenure to be secured, etc. 

 

I fully agree that science is a set of procedures that have been found to help people make accurate predictions about future events. But "understanding" is a psychological term. Plenty of people are convinced they "understand" certain phenomena, but if they cannot make accurate predictions what does this amount to? And if they can, who needs "understanding"?

 

As to "scientific statistics"; I would say no such thing exists. There are correctly calculated statistics, and incorrectly calculated statistics. None of the outcomes you can generate in the p-value utility are any more or less "scientific" than any other - I am assuming that the calculations are all done correctly. Some combinations of variables simply have higher or lower correlations. The problem seems to be that scientists, periodicals etc have started to use this arbitrary 0.05 value for "statistical significance" as a gateway for publication, without adequate hypothesis testing, and journalists and the general public accept this as demonstrating some kind of scientific proof.

 

Perhaps we should jack it up to 0.99!  

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

 

 

Some sort of politely written request with a poll would be nice maybe. If there is a number of customervoices it might raise the chance they are finally heard. Bash me if its a stupid idea:)

 

Sure I´ll support if you want to give it a try

[ZachariasX]

To be on topic, I don't think the devs really owe us much more than a game that they think is good. It is however up to us to buy it.

 

How customer interest is handled is a different thing (that also costs money). But in the end it matters much more what people do than what and how they say it. In our case here, we see Jasons and 777's continued effort and, in sum, a really fine combat sim that does get better with almost every iteration.

 

I like the fact that they make the Yak-1b as well as the Fw190A5 for the simple fact that THIS will be an economically viable occasion to wholly review the flight models. "Me is right"/"You is wrong" doesn't pay bills. On the contrary.

 

And thank you Kwiatek for the OP with the data! When one has good data on those planes, I think it's great if one shares them here. The product can only benefit. I'm more than curious how they will do in game when released!

[Crump]

 

 

"Me is right"/"You is wrong" doesn't pay bills.

 

Nope, It causes folks to not buy the game.

 

 

 

unreasonable

 

Your musing are really off topic.

 

Aircraft Performance math is not some mysterious nether realm or philosophy.  Aircraft performance is simple newtonian physics based off F=ma.  You most definitely can predict performance and anything outside of normal variation is a huge red flag to any engineering team.  

[MiloMorai]

Aircraft Performance math is not some mysterious nether realm or philosophy.  Aircraft performance is simple newtonian physics based off F=ma.  You most definitely can predict performance and anything outside of normal variation is a huge red flag to any engineering team.  

 

So anyone who has some basic math skill can do it.

[Crump]

Basic Math Skills = college level algebra, trig, and Calculus.  

[Crump]

It is all based on F=ma.  

 

 

http://parkflight.blogspot.com/2013/02/blog-post.html

You need to know what is applicable and what is not, Milo.  Rote learning of a few formulas is not a substitute for a detailed education and will not produce a correlation level of learning.

Just because a formula looks simple does not mean the thought process or the math behind it is simple.

[MiloMorai]

Basic Math Skills = college level algebra, trig, and Calculus.  

 

So, a university degree is not a requirement.

[Crump]

 

 

So, a university degree is not a requirement.

 

I highly encourage you to stay in school and get one. 

[150GCT_Veltro]

[Irgendjemand]

I put up a poll HERE

[L3Pl4K]

Old FM

[150GCT_Veltro]

Yes, the old one.

[Crump]

 

 

Yes, the old one.

 

And somebody said it was also at 10% fuel... 

 

Obviously nobody flies an airplane with 10% fuel in the tanks.

[Dr_Molem]

10% fuel and no gun, iirc.

[Bearcat]

I highly encourage you to stay in school and get one. 

 I highly encourage you to refrain form posts like this if you want to continue posting here.. 

[JtD]

How often do we have to discuss this? Please apply a little bit of common sense instead of talking about length to width ratios or something like that. "Fineness ratio" is just google translate for the original Russian announcement of "аэродинамическое качество", which literally means "aerodynamic quality" and properly translated is just lift-drag ratio.

 

In case you don't take my word for it, here's the Russian wiki page for аэродинамическое качество. I hope that even if you don't speak Russian, you'll find the bit where it says K = Cy/Cx, which is K equals Lift coefficient divided by Drag coefficient, with K being the "аэродинамическое качество".

[Haza]

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

 

Have you tried the JU-87 in CLOD recently?  The last time I played CLOD, the JU87 with bombs could keep pace with a clean BF110 in level flight.  Perhaps before you start suggesting things, you might like to have all of the facts!!

 

Regards

[ITAF_Cymao]

 

 

I highly encourage you to refrain form posts like this if you want to continue posting here..

 

I highly would encourage developers to say something about this topic if they want to sell next projects...

 

S!

[Irgendjemand]

 

 

I highly would encourage developers to say something about this topic

This is second, the rest of the post not.

And i want to add: Please say something - other than "All just feelings".

[JG13_opcode]

I highly would encourage developers to say something about this topic if they want to sell next projects...

 

S!

Why do you think they're going to the Pacific? No 190 there that they'll be badgered about.

[LukeFF]

Why do you think they're going to the Pacific? No 190 there that they'll be badgered about.

 

 

[JG13_opcode]

They received one single A-5 for evaluation purposes.

[LukeFF]

They received one single A-5 for evaluation purposes.

 

Relax, it was a joke. 

[ZachariasX]

Relax, it was a joke. 

 

But they do look lovely. Campaign missions would then be:

 

- taking them apart

- shoving them in a tiny submarine(s)

- happy journey to Japan

- putting them back together in flight worthy conditions

 

[JtD]

- see the Japanese in awe when they put a tiny weight (was it a coin?) on one aileron of the Fw190 and notice the aileron starts moving ... control friction as low as never before seen on an aircraft that size in Japan.

[Holtzauge]

When I was a kid we lived for few years in South Africa and I always used to nag my parents to bring me to the museum of military history in Johannesburg. They had a lot of interesting stuff there but since I was mostly interested in aircraft I especially remember the A-series Fw-190 they had on display. In those days it was left sitting outside under a roof and there was a ramp up to the cockpit which was strangely enough kept open. I distinctly remember leaning in and moving the stick and I also remember my surprise at the low friction and solid no play feel which was nothing like on the Piper Cherokee I got to fly from the right seat. So even though it had been sitting outside exposed to the elements (with what looked like a minimum of maintenance) for more than 30 years the aileron linkage and bearings must all have been in top notch condition. That's German engineering for you: Spitzenklasse!

Edited September 14, 2016 by Holtzauge

[WWChunk]

That's anecdotal evidence only...

[Holtzauge]

That's anecdotal evidence only...

Nope it's not anecdotal: I just told you that I have actually manouvered a Fw-190A which makes me an expert so I demand that my opinion be respected!

[RAY-EU]

But Bf 109 E is Ok

 

[Crump]

How often do we have to discuss this? Please apply a little bit of common sense instead of talking about length to width ratios or something like that. "Fineness ratio" is just google translate for the original Russian announcement of "аэродинамическое качество", which literally means "aerodynamic quality" and properly translated is just lift-drag ratio.

 

In case you don't take my word for it, here's the Russian wiki page for аэродинамическое качество. I hope that even if you don't speak Russian, you'll find the bit where it says K = Cy/Cx, which is K equals Lift coefficient divided by Drag coefficient, with K being the "аэродинамическое качество".

 

 

There is more to it than this JtD.  I do not know who did the "wiki" but относительное удлинение, удлинение (фюзеляжа) = finess ratio while аэродинамическое качество при планировании = Lift to Drag Ratio

 

Both of them are аэродинамическое качество or the generic term for aerodynamic properties.....

 

Both fineness ratio and Lift to Drag ratio are aerodynamic properties, even in english!

 

The language is pretty specific and would be very difficult to confuse or mess up a translation.

Edited September 18, 2016 by Crump

[PatrickAWlson]

But they do look lovely. Campaign missions would then be:

 

- taking them apart

- shoving them in a tiny submarine(s)

- happy journey to Japan

- putting them back together in flight worthy conditions

 

 

BoS meets Silent Hunter.  It could work.

[JG13_opcode]

A Battle of The Atlantic sim, focusing on ASW operations in and around "The Gap" would be awesome.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Han answering JtD, who's asking why does Yak-1 has a higher CLmax than Fw 190A-3 ingame...

 

It's a good question   While I'm not An.Petrovich - I can't do a supposition why it is. But it is - we have wind tunnel test reports for these planes and they confirming that we have correct aerodynamic coeficients for these planes.

German tube tests for Fw190 shows 1.17 without airscrew affecting ("Messungen an einer Fw 190 im grossen Windkanal von Chalais Meudon bei Paris", Focke-Wulf Bericht Nr.06006, 1943.)

Soviet technical desription of 1941 for Yak1 shows 1.33 without airscrew affecting

[303_Kwiatek]

So we have answer no changes in fm Fw190 A3 and probably A5 also. We fight from begining for accurate climb rate and control response at high speed. Correcting climb rate which was clearly wrong from begining was very paitfully for developers. Final effect is we got more close climb rate better high speed elevator response but the same time we got much worse acceleration and much more nasty stall characteristic. Final still plane is crap some things were corrected some things were dumped so final effect is similar. Probably i will leave my A3 in hangar and no interest to buy another one craped plane.

Edited September 23, 2016 by 303_Kwiatek

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

("Messungen an einer Fw 190 im grossen Windkanal von Chalais Meudon bei Paris", Focke-Wulf Bericht Nr.06006, 1943.)

 

 

Anyone got this document and could give some brief overview ?