Flying the Fw 190 A-3 is challenging

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

From what I understand the problem right now is:

 

The described stall behaviour (snapping and inverting) is not represented in game, instead it's unpredictable and often leads to a flat spin which isn't really useful in a dogfight

 

The common tactic of diving away in a steep decent to use the planes superior dive performance and then climb away in a shallow dive to use it's superior energy retention doesn't work either....so basically flying the Fw 190 A-3 in BOS like a real FW A-3 will kill you 99% of the time, is that about right?

Well, I showed that in a shallow 700kph Dive the 190 has no advantage over the Yak and MiG, and only a minute advantage over LaGG and La-5. 

The 190 seems to be worse than the 109F-2 in some ways. 

At 4500-2500m the 190 also has no reliable advantage over the Yak and I expect it to have a severe, disadvantage against the MiG-3. 

Edited September 28, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Klaus__Mann

[Asgar]

Well, I showed that in a shallow 700kph Dive the 190 has no advantage over the Yak and MiG, and only a minute advantage over LaGG and La-5.

The 190 seems to be worse than the 109F-2 in some ways.

At 4500-2500m the 190 also has no reliable advantage over the Yak and I expect it to have a severe, disadvantage against the MiG-3.

So...it's borked?

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

So...it's borked?

Not a Judgement I will make. 

I will have to make a ton of tests to establish reliable data. Basically Climb/Dive Tests 500-2500m at 400, 500, and 600kph as well. Maybe even in increments of 50. And repeat these tests at 2500-4500m at 350, 450 and 550 IAS. That's a long night of testing. 

 

My main interest was which Aircraft could outdive what. Well, it seems you cannnot outdive a Yak for long. 

Edited September 28, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Klaus__Mann

[303_Kwiatek]

Before last FM changes for FW 190 it has noticable better accelearation.

 

Problem is that developers take dircetly tunel wind test for Fw 190 A  from Chalais Meudon bei Paris and set 1.17 Clmax and 15.5 cAoA.

 

  They should take care that these tunnel test was made with low Reynolds number with velocity 36 m/s which is below stall speed of Fw 190. So these data cant be used directly for estimated CLmax for Fw 190.  It should be estimated based on other data ( wing profil and similar test for other planes which got similar wing profil).  Clmax afected also critical angle of attack - so if Clmax is too low also critical angle of attack is too low in game.

 

So developers made clearly error estimaed Clmax and critical angle of attack of Fw 190 based only on these wind tunnel data without futher more analyze and calculations. It wasn't really professional approach.

 

For example DCS Fw 190 D-9  ( with the same wing as Fw 190 Anton)  got about 1.35-1.38 Clmax ( without aircreew effect) and about 17 deg Critical Angle of Attack. 

 

So for comparsion BOS A-3  Clmax - 1.17, cAoA - 15.5 deg  vs DCS D-9   Clmax 1.35-1.38,  cAoA - ab. 17 deg.

 

Here we have why A-3 in BOS is so craped plane.

Edited September 28, 2016 by 303_Kwiatek

[Art]

No, I watched for a official video that do some aerobatics...................

Old video .. before patch .. Show me now ..

[EAF19_Marsh]

Out of interest, why would a low Reynolds number be a problem; IIRC that means a smoother, less chaotic airflow?

[Asgar]

Out of interest, why would a low Reynolds number be a problem; IIRC that means a smoother, less chaotic airflow?

Read again as he said they used a velocity of 36m/s that's below the stall speed. The tested the a/c in an environment in which it wouldn't even be able to fly

[EAF19_Marsh]

Read again as he said they used a velocity of 36m/s that's below the stall speed. The tested the a/c in an environment in which it wouldn't even be able to fly

 

Err, I did. I was wondering why the low Reynolds number was relevant; the airspeed in and of itself has an obvious effect on the test but the airflow stability is a somewhat different point.

 

So I asked

[303_Kwiatek]

Interesting is that German estimaed Clmax for all Fw 190 series as 1.58 Clmax

 

[303_Kwiatek]

Another funny fact is that even if Yak-1 wing airfoil reach lower lift cofficent then Fw 190 wing airfoil  ( NACA data)   BOS developes without problem set 1.3 Clmax for Yak-1  and change Fw 190 Clmax for lower value - 1.17.   don't it smell like balancing ?

 

 

 

JtD, on 14 Sept 2016 - 17:21, said: Why does the Yak-1 in game have a considerably higher maximum lift coefficient than the Fw 190 (both by your figures and my own testing), while the ClarkYH airfoil of the Yak-1 has a considerably lower maximum lift coefficient than the NACA 23xxx airfoil of the Fw 190? I'd prefer specific reasons over empty phrases, if you can spare the time. Thank you.

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

Edited September 28, 2016 by 303_Kwiatek

[JtD]

Err, I did. I was wondering why the low Reynolds number was relevant; the airspeed in and of itself has an obvious effect on the test but the airflow stability is a somewhat different point.

 

So I asked

Higher Reynolds number - higher clmax. 35m/s to say 50m/s is a difference in the 0.1 - 0.15 region for an aircraft like the Fw190.

 

 

Interesting is that German estimaed Clmax for all Fw 190 series as 1.58 Clmax

This still is flaps and gear down.

[Lusekofte]

While the AI flying the P-40 laugh at all the complaining.

 

All kidding aside, I have trouble believing that the 190 was as unstable as it is in this game.

 

 

This is probably the case, and how many times should it be brought up. 

First, people need to understand they did not buy a real plane for 69 $ it is a game. My guess is when FW 190 A 5 getting released the A3 will be revisited. In the meantime use it wisely, it is a great plane for every other task than dogfighting. I fly it very well in all aspects when it comes to ground pounding. I have evaded many attacks from LA 5 and yaks, and all this because of the constant bitching about this plane. I have taken a liking to the plane, witch I do fr all underdog. But this underdog have given me 100% survivability 

[303_Kwiatek]

303_Kwiatek, on 28 Sept 2016 - 12:05, said: Interesting is that German estimaed Clmax for all Fw 190 series as 1.58 Clmax

This still is flaps and gear down.

 

Not sure case similar Clmax  data got  Grumman F6F which used the same wing profil as Fw 190 in clean configuration.

 

I think in case of  lack other orignal data for Fw 190 ( cl max and cAoA) developers should analyze Gurmman data which used the same wing profile if they want to keep proffesional aproach.

 

 

But fact is that Fw 190 A should got higher Clmax set then Yak-1 .   DCS D-9 developers estimated 1.35-1.38 so its looks much more accurate then BOS 1.17. Also D-9 got about 17 deg cAoA  ( tested manualy in game from bar info)

Edited September 28, 2016 by 303_Kwiatek

[JtD]

The F6F has achieved 1.35 - 1.45 in gliding condition in flight and slightly less than 1.3 in a wind tunnel test.

 

It did not achieve 1.58 under any conditions comparable to the conditions under which the 1.17/1.20/1.30 were achieved with the Fw190 in the CM wind tunnel.

[303_Kwiatek]

If so its looks that DCS flight engineers made very well home work estimated D-9 Clmax for 1.35-1.38 ( power off) and cAoA about 17 deg ( maby more but not less)

 

It looks much more beliveable  ( also comparing to Yak-1 cl max) then BOS actual data

Edited September 28, 2016 by 303_Kwiatek

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

I have taken a liking to the plane, witch I do fr all underdog. But this underdog

Problem is the 190 shouldn't be an underdog. Quite the opposite, should be around top in the ballpark.  

[303_Kwiatek]

This still is flaps and gear down.

BTW dont you think that with full flaps and gear down clmax shouldn be much higher? Flaps give at least 0,5 more lift cifficent

[JG13_opcode]

Err, I did. I was wondering why the low Reynolds number was relevant; the airspeed in and of itself has an obvious effect on the test but the airflow stability is a somewhat different point.

 

So I asked

Simplified: For experimental results to have meaning, they have to be done at a Reynold's Number that is representative of real world conditions.

 

If Re is too low, it presents an incorrect picture.

 

Re is not so much the stability of the airflow, but the ratio of viscous and inertial forces in the flow. It is usually calculated with airspeed in the numerator, which is why Re and V are analogous.

Edited September 28, 2016 by JG13_opcode

[II./JG77_Manu*]

So there is quite some data and information now, including the sheet that shows that all 190s have the same CLmax. Dora has CLmax close to 1,40, so our A3 should have the exact same, and seems to be as far off in the game as it gets. Surely enough to send a proper report to the Devs now, no?

Edited September 28, 2016 by II./JG77_Manu*

[Livai]

Problem is that developers take dircetly tunel wind test for Fw 190 A from Chalais Meudon bei Paris and set 1.17 Clmax and 15.5 cAoA. They should take care that these tunnel test was made with low Reynolds number with velocity 36 m/s which is below stall speed of Fw 190. So these data cant be used directly for estimated CLmax for Fw 190. It should be estimated based on other data ( wing profil and similar test for other planes which got similar wing profil). Clmax afected also critical angle of attack - so if Clmax is too low also critical angle of attack is too low in game.

 

It's just simple algebra. You can 'solve' for the stall speed if you have the CL max, and vice versa. If you have the stall speed, the weight, and the wing area, you can indisputably calculate the true CL max of the aircraft. No error whatsoever is involved. None. It is always always always always calculated. All CL max values were calculated this way back then. All of them. Absolutely all of them.

 

BTW when it is 'tested' in a wind tunnel, what they're finding: the stall speed, and then calculating the CL max, lol

Edited September 28, 2016 by Superghostboy

[WWChunk]

First, people need to understand they did not buy a real plane for 69 $ it is a game. My guess is when FW 190 A 5 getting released the A3 will be revisited. In the meantime use it wisely, it is a great plane for every other task than dogfighting. I fly it very well in all aspects when it comes to ground pounding. I have evaded many attacks from LA 5 and yaks, and all this because of the constant bitching about this plane. I have taken a liking to the plane, witch I do fr all underdog. But this underdog have given me 100% survivability 

 

It was not just a ground pounder, and as a customer, no matter how much the plane costs, I should not have to wait to see if they fix it when they start on the A5.  I'm sorry LustKofte, but I couldn't disagree more with you.  It shouldn't be an underdog…period.

 

So there is quite some data and information now, including the sheet that shows that all 190s have the same CLmax. Dora has CLmax close to 1,40, so our A3 should have the exact same, and seems to be as far off in the game as it gets. Surely enough to send a proper report to the Devs now, no?

 

I have the same question.  Will somebody be putting something together for the devs, and if so, what can I do to help?

[JG13_opcode]

 

 

No error whatsoever is involved. None.

 

There's error in everything.  Precision scientific instrumentation is a multi-billion-dollar global industry for a reason.  You can do a PhD in instrumentation.

[JG13_opcode]

Will somebody be putting something together for the devs, and if so, what can I do to help?

 

These days I don't have time to do a lot of testing or digging through archives but if I could get the data together and a good description of what the problems with the Calais tunnel were, I would happily do a write-up.

 

We need a large body of tests (preferrably with tracks/recordings attached) documenting the ingame 1G (level flight) stall speed in clean configuration.  In game terms you'd need to list which map, time of day, how much fuel, what altitude, if your altimeter is set to Standard or Local reference, trim settings, engine conditions (throttle, ATA, RPM), and flaps up or down.

 

For context, the Americans define in their MIL-STD-1797A (and most other NATO military test establishments have something similar) that stall speed is the higher of the 3 speeds at which one or more of the following occurs:

• uncommanded pitching/yawing/rolling
• intolerable structural dynamics (i.e. vibration/buffeting)
• the first local maximum of CLmax vs alpha is reached for steady forward flight

We'd be looking for either 1 or 3.

 

The preferred method we use in RL is to decelerate slowly while maintaining the desired altitude.  Typically we do this by trimming for 1.2 to 1.5 times the predicted stall speed, setting the appropriate power/thrust setting and configuration, and then using the elevators to maintain altitude which causes a deceleration.  You want to decelerate at no more than 5 km/h.  Typical RL tests are done at 2+ CG locations (fuel states in game) and 2+ altitudes.

 

There are problems, though.  For one, real pitot-static systems have inherent errors, and it gets worse at high angle of attack.  I have no idea if this is modeled in-game or not.

Edited September 28, 2016 by JG13_opcode

[Livai]

There's error in everything.  Precision scientific instrumentation is a multi-billion-dollar global industry for a reason.  You can do a PhD in instrumentation.

 

LoL, a formula is the key to calculate everything. Who know it................................

Running around with value not knowing how to calculate the missing one is a error in everything!!!

[JG13_opcode]

LoL, a formula is the key to calculate everything. Who know it................................

Running around with value not knowing how to calculate the missing one is a error in everything!!!

LoL, if your Cl or speed measurements have unaccounted-for errors, then you won't get good results.

 

Every formula is subject to the "Garbage in, garbage out" rule.

[Gump]

excellent discussion, guys

[Livai]

Every formula is subject to the "Garbage in, garbage out" rule.

 

 

LoL, tell this to the aerodynamics people from this game and see what happen.

[JG13_opcode]

LoL, tell this to the aerodynamics people from this game and see what happen.

What exactly are you implying?

[Hutz]

Well just was flying a round , noticed a yak following me and started shooting at me i pushed down slightly on the stick and applied slight left roll....the 190 immediately entered a uncontrollablw spin around yaw axis while continuing towards my flightpath...as this was close to the ground you can imagine :pancake.... and just as i wanted to take another plane the game crashed...

 

Im honestly fed up with the game (yes game...sim would be too much praise for this piece of...), devs that just anounced the next game and not wanting to fix the current flaws....

 

20. False claims on future or past decisions and plans of the developers, which are not backed by hyperlinks or other facts are prohibited.

Violations of this rule will result in the following:

First offense - 7 days ban on entry

Edited September 29, 2016 by BlackSix

[JtD]

Can we get back to flying the thing and leave the rest to the FM section?

 

That snap roll, anyone?

[JG13_opcode]

Can we get back to flying the thing and leave the rest to the FM section?

 

That snap roll, anyone?

Fair enough. http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/25504-lets-put-together-new-report-fw-190a-3-han/

[Urra]

Well just was flying a round , noticed a yak following me and started shooting at me i pushed down slightly on the stick and applied slight left roll....the 190 immediately entered a uncontrollablw spin around yaw axis while continuing towards my flightpath...as this was close to the ground you can imagine :pancake.... and just as i wanted to take another plane the game crashed...

 

Im honestly fed up with the game (yes game...sim would be too much praise for this piece of...), devs that just anounced the next game and not wanting to fix the current flaws....

Pushing the nose down too far has that consequence every time in the 190.

[Capt_Stubing]

Pushing the nose down too far has that consequence every time in the 190.

You are correct sir...  Very little negative G and you will automatically be in a spin regardless of airspeed as well.  I will have to do some testing but I think what is happening is the way the FM works is if you're negative G you are instantly uncoordinated and go into a spin.  Not even a flat stall but a spin.  It would take quite a bit to get a plane to get into a spin at 400 mph unless you really set it up to so and stamp on the rudder.  The current 190 does it will very little effort and no rudder input for whatever reason. 

[MadisonV44]

Now 15 pages of debate (dozen of other 190 closed topics) 

It's only emotions

 

Can you believe that guys ? 

[ShamrockOneFive]

Now 15 pages of debate (dozen of other 190 closed topics) 

It's only emotions

 

Can you believe that guys ? 

 

Yep. I can believe that. People are rarely rational or logical and can sustain baseless arguments over the course of an entire lifespan.

 

Doesn't mean that there may not be a problem with the FW190A-3 flight model. This thread is about the emotions...  The are two or three excellent threads in the FM section of the forum where they are mostly talking clmax, AoA, wing profiles and the stuff that really matter. We've got just a smattering of that here.

[Capt_Stubing]

Now 15 pages of debate (dozen of other 190 closed topics) 

It's only emotions

 

Can you believe that guys ? 

History of other sims along with this one say otherwise... The FW 190 FM is by far the most tweaked airplane I've seen in combat sims since 1982. 

[BraveSirRobin]

  don't it smell like balancing ?

 

Only if you completely ignore the fact that the 109 is a bleeping rocket ship.

[JG13_opcode]

Another funny fact is that even if Yak-1 wing airfoil reach lower lift cofficent then Fw 190 wing airfoil  ( NACA data)   BOS developes without problem set 1.3 Clmax for Yak-1  and change Fw 190 Clmax for lower value - 1.17.   don't it smell like balancing ?

 

 

Only if you completely ignore the fact that the 109 is a bleeping rocket ship.

+1, if they were going for balance they'd have nerfed the F-4

[unreasonable]

You are correct sir...  Very little negative G and you will automatically be in a spin regardless of airspeed as well.  I will have to do some testing but I think what is happening is the way the FM works is if you're negative G you are instantly uncoordinated and go into a spin.  Not even a flat stall but a spin.  It would take quite a bit to get a plane to get into a spin at 400 mph unless you really set it up to so and stamp on the rudder.  The current 190 does it will very little effort and no rudder input for whatever reason. 

 

My guess is that it is not the negative G as such causing the problem, but that you have stalled the wing by pushing it beyond the negative critical AoA. 

 

A wing can fly with negative AoA - that is why you can fly upside down, but it can also stall. Given the rather low critical AoA in normal flight, I assume that the critical negative AoA is also rather low.

 

Hence pushing forwards on the stick too hard will stall the wing just like pulling too hard: true in all planes, at any speed, but the 190 (and probably P-40) more than most.

 

Without a G meter in the GUI it is hard to test, but if you unload to zero Gs with a gentle stick forwards, and then very gradually increase stick forwards, you should be able to get negative Gs - just less than in say the 109.

[kendo]

Well just was flying a round , noticed a yak following me and started shooting at me i pushed down slightly on the stick and applied slight left roll....the 190 immediately entered a uncontrollablw spin around yaw axis while continuing towards my flightpath...as this was close to the ground you can imagine :pancake.... and just as i wanted to take another plane the game crashed...

 

Im honestly fed up with the game (yes game...sim would be too much praise for this piece of...), devs that just anounced the next game and not wanting to fix the current flaws....

 

Issues with the 190 - agreed, as many others have pointed out.

 

"just announced the next game and not wanting to fix the current flaws..." - that is complete and utter bullshit!!

 

Try reading any of the last half dozen dev diaries....