Flying the Fw 190 A-3 is challenging

[216th_Jordan]

IL-2 1946 HSFX is simulator, IL-2 BOS.......no comments

 

that's the difference

and the earth is flat?

 

Anyways, a further comment on this leads to nothing. All has been said in this thread.

Edited October 24, 2016 by 216th_Jordan

[PatrickAWlson]

Speak english instead of purposely using technical jargon so as to make sure no one without an aerospace engineering degree can understand you and I'd be more than happy to have a conversation with you. 

 

 

The devs have made it very clear quite a few times how to they design and tweak flight models. They use OFFICIAL GERMAN sources for GERMAN planes and OFFICIAL RUSSIAN sources for RUSSIAN planes. Unfortunately, most of the testing that concludes that the FM has better turn rate than X, or better fineness than Y was not done by German, but usually Britain or Russia, so all those sources are not considered. 

 

They also consider pilot testimony irrelevant. 

 

 

Do official German sources state exactly the conditions under which the FW190 departs controlled flight?  My guess is that they do not.  

 

A complex FM derives its results from many small data items.  That algorithm to derive results is not a perfect representation of the real world.  The results may be generally very good, but then you can get an outlier for which your algorithm produces notably bad results.  I think that is what we have with the FW190.  No vast conspiracy, no unreasoning hatred of the plane (although that might be developing as much as they have to hear about it ), just a case where either the data model is not correct (easy to fix)  or the algorithms do no properly interpret this particular data model (much harder to fix).

[II./JG77_Manu*]

In addition there are also a lot of guessings involved in the FMs. There are many aircraft attributes where they don't have any source (for example La5 roll rate), then they just guess the value for the game using related sources and stuff. Of course you have a wide spectrum how to interpret sources in those conditions

[Capt_Stubing]

Has anyone ever played IL-2 1946, more specifically with HSFX mod on? The FW-190 A-3 flies incredibly differently in 1946 than the one in BOS. I suggest everyone (both lovers and haters) to try flying the IL-2 1946 with HSFX mod on to see if they too can feel the differences (so as to know if I am imagining the difference) and what exactly contributes to the differences in handling, qualities and characteristics.

Yes the A-3 is different in HSFX than what we have in BOS.  I would also offer I think there are more variables involved with BOS than HSFX.  The stalls are certainly more believable in BOS which leads me to believe this...  Purely anecdotal but the BOS FW  FM seems is a bit more unstable all around.  You can get her to almost swap ends at 400mph which would be pretty difficult to do in most planes.  There is some interesting discussions in the FM section of the forums about the FW.  In terms of flying the FW it's quite a bit harder to be successful in this sim.  We will see if anything comes of it.

[Art]

Speak english instead of purposely using technical jargon so as to make sure no one without an aerospace engineering degree can understand you and I'd be more than happy to have a conversation with you. 

 

 

The devs have made it very clear quite a few times how to they design and tweak flight models. They use OFFICIAL GERMAN sources for GERMAN planes and OFFICIAL RUSSIAN sources for RUSSIAN planes. Unfortunately, most of the testing that concludes that the FM has better turn rate than X, or better fineness than Y was not done by German, but usually Britain or Russia, so all those sources are not considered. 

 

They also consider pilot testimony irrelevant. 

Stop TROLLING! They use bad sources ! this is  reason why is fw 190 wrong.

[BM357_TinMan]

We always did that in the old IL2, long before RoF.

It actually goes clear back to CFS2.  That's where first encountered it

[ShamrockOneFive]

They use bad sources ! this is  reason why is fw 190 wrong.

 

You should provide some better sources.

 

I'd be pretty happy to see some good stuff posted.

 

Seeing as we're talking about the FW190 in other sims for a moment... I flew the FW190 a lot back in the Forgotten Battles days. Early on it was not that different than the version we see now. It had a particularly brutal stall that flipped you all over the sky almost immediately. Over the years it mellowed out a bit... I'm not sure if its the result of purely complaints, better data, or what. It kind of feels like we started over with kind of the same thing in the second gen IL-2 series. What lead to that... I don't know.

 

Does anyone know what data the HSFX guys used for their FM? What about TD when they redid the FW190 flight models?

Edited October 24, 2016 by ShamrockOneFive

[Wulf]

Do official German sources state exactly the conditions under which the FW190 departs controlled flight?  My guess is that they do not.  

 

A complex FM derives its results from many small data items.  That algorithm to derive results is not a perfect representation of the real world.  The results may be generally very good, but then you can get an outlier for which your algorithm produces notably bad results.  I think that is what we have with the FW190.  No vast conspiracy, no unreasoning hatred of the plane (although that might be developing as much as they have to hear about it ), just a case where either the data model is not correct (easy to fix)  or the algorithms do no properly interpret this particular data model (much harder to fix).

 

 

If you just went from algorithm to patch I could absolutely buy the 'outlier argument'.  But unless the world has gone completely mad I have to assume that someone somewhere in this process ran a couple of tests (i.e. actually flew the thing).  Am I really being asked to believe the new FM was tested and found acceptable/believable?  Seriously?  

 

If you have an algorithm that produced a flight model seemingly at odds with the bulk of the available literature, wouldn't you think, okay, we appear to have an outlier here, so maybe we need to do some tweaking here before we go public - because if we don't, our reputation may suffer.   You don't need to be an expert in aeronautical science to realize that something is seriously wrong here and yet, as the months turn into years here we all are rehearsing the same old stuff, but nothing gets done.  So no, for me, the outlier argument just doesn't hold water.  

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

A complex FM derives its results from many small data items.  That algorithm to derive results is not a perfect representation of the real world.  The results may be generally very good, but then you can get an outlier for which your algorithm produces notably bad results.  I think that is what we have with the FW190.  No vast conspiracy, no unreasoning hatred of the plane (although that might be developing as much as they have to hear about it ), just a case where either the data model is not correct (easy to fix)  or the algorithms do no properly interpret this particular data model (much harder to fix).

 

Actually, as a dedicated Fw driver, this is pretty much what I've been saying all along. I believe they are doing the best they can within their game engine. I think they fed some bad data but, based on that data, believe they have a close approximation. With the exception of the stall she meets all of the other flight data pretty well. These Dev's are hardworking and do a fantastic job. I'm totally down for reviewing the data (and I believe they are, based on another thread) but there is no way anyone should believe in any broad conspiracy or ill will by this team.

Edited October 25, 2016 by II/JG17_HerrMurf

[CUJO_1970]

Yep - it's been 6 months hasn't it?

 

Half a damned year. December will be 9 months (if even the issue is corrected by then)...for this period of time FW drivers have flown every mission with FM like Mustang flying with full back fuel tank.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

 "If the devs ever do improve the lift coefficient or whatever the 190 is going to be terrifying." 

 

As it should be ^^

Edited October 25, 2016 by II/JG17_HerrMurf

[GridiroN]

Wing designs have pros and cons. In regards to the design chosen for the FW cons are: stall characteristics, hard to manufacture. The design was chosen anyway, because the pros [crump's technical jargon] outweighed the cons. The cons of the wingdesign decision are to be felt in the game (not the manufacture part, of course), the pros are not, and -- to add insult to injury -- they are (in numbers) even on the lower end of values to be found in the game. 

 

The numbers representing why the wing design was chosen inspite of the stall characteristics are discussed in the FM-Section. As far as I can judge, there is agreement on the numbers being off. The discussion is mainly on how far off they are.

 

(Trying to do a translation as an ... erm ... uninitiated to an uninitiated )

 

Thanks, appreciated. 

 

Well, one can't expect to win a race with cut off toes, me thinks.

 

 

I know that the high speed stall in tight turns is a fact acknowledged in the official sources, the other flaws we experience in this game aren't, afaik.

It really would be better, if the devs would reveal the reason why this plane especially deviates from the fact based expectations of so many.

 

I know that according to pretty much every pilot testimonial, it's claimed the plane gave ample warning it was going to stall, so this was rarely an issue pilots faced. As opposed to BoS/BoM in which the plane really does violently throw itself to the ground rather immediately upon receiving troublesome pilot input.

 

 

Stop TROLLING! They use bad sources ! this is  reason why is fw 190 wrong.

 

Providing sensible replys that add to the value of an intellectual conversation regarding aerodynamic characteristics of an antiquated airplane is trolling now? You're an interesting little fellow...lol

 

As it should be ^^

Here here!

Edited October 26, 2016 by GridiroN

[Wulf]

sorry if this has already been answered, but is this of any legitimacy?

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a5.html

esp

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/eb-104.html

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_Eng-47-1658-D.pdf

 

I assume this has all been hashed over already?

Too bad we can't afford to buy one from flugwerk and flight test a real one.

 

 

Yes, this stuff has all been thrashed to death.  

 

Get a Flugwerk 190 and they'd just tell you the replacement power plant negates the value of any contradictory data.  There's no winning with 'these people'.

Edited October 25, 2016 by Wulf

[Turban]

 

 

I know that according to pretty much every pilot testimonial, it's claimed the plane gave ample warning it was going to stall, so this was rarely an issue pilots faced. As opposed to BoS/BoM in which the plane really does violently throw itself to the ground rather immediately upon receiving troublesome pilot input.

 

Here here!

 

Here here indeed.

 

Another example of people trying to make a fantasy look like a fact.

 

The accelerated stall of the FW 190 actually gave little to no warning at all. That's why it was dangerous. It was an issue. German pilots DID DIE from it with the plane throwing itself into the ground.

 

THAT IS THE FACT.

 

So that's either an attempt to spread misinformation or a lack of knowledge. 

Edited October 25, 2016 by Turban

[6./ZG26_Custard]

Regarding the stall and the tuning circle of the FW190 the vast amount of the reports say the same thing as in the two examples here.

The RAF got there arses handed to them on a plate when flying in the Mk V because the 190 was faster ( around 25MPH faster)  and more heavily armed and the LW employed tactics that benefited the advantage that the aircraft had. If you are on the deck "mixing" it flying a heavy aircraft with small wings you are probably going to get shot down more often than not.

I'm not saying the FM is perfect, far from it (the same can be said with any flight sim out there)  but as it's been said before the RL advantage that the 190 afforded (less physical exertion etc) cannot be easily transfer to a sim environment .

[PatrickAWlson]

Here here indeed.

 

Another example of people trying to make a fantasy look like a fact.

 

The accelerated stall of the FW 190 actually gave little to no warning at all. That's why it was dangerous. It was an issue. German pilots DID DIE from it with the plane throwing itself into the ground.

 

THAT IS THE FACT.

 

So that's either an attempt to spread misinformation or a lack of knowledge. 

 

I have seen quotes from LW pilots stating the opposite.  Not only did the plane give sufficient warning but purposely allowing the accelerated stall to happen was a very useful escape tactic.  I am sure that some pilots either were not aware or chose to ignore the warnings and did die, but most did not really find much of an issue with the planes handling characteristics.  It was generally regarded as easy to fly and quite newbie friendly.  So the stall is a fact among many, not THE FACT.

 

I read the entire history of JG27 and they never made a big deal out of the stall.

 

I will happily post something that does not support my statement above ... Here's one book that states that it was "sudden and viscious"

Link here

But read the next sentence ... below 127 MPH!

 

There is all sorts of "evidence" out there to support any number of conclusions.  If one happily discounts contradictory evidence that does not support a preconceived notion then one can firmly believe whatever they want (or whatever they feel like arguing at the moment).

 

The best that I can come up with is that the stall was there, it did provide warning, it could kill an unaware pilot, it did not appear to be an issue in most of the flight envelope, it was an issue in specific areas of the flight envelope, and could actually be useful for an experienced pilot.  There's a lot of wiggle room in there - how vicious, how sudden, how much warning, how easy/difficult to recover, exactly where in the flight envelope.  

[Stig]

@ Pat

 

JG27 didn't fly the 190. Do you mean JG26?

[Turban]

I have seen quotes from LW pilots stating the opposite.  Not only did the plane give sufficient warning but purposely allowing the accelerated stall to happen was a very useful escape tactic.  I am sure that some pilots either were not aware or chose to ignore the warnings and did die, but most did not really find much of an issue with the planes handling characteristics.  It was generally regarded as easy to fly and quite newbie friendly.  So the stall is a fact among many, not THE FACT.

 

I read the entire history of JG27 and they never made a big deal out of the stall.

 

I will happily post something that does not support my statement above ... Here's one book that states that it was "sudden and viscious"

Link here

But read the next sentence ... below 127 MPH!

 

There is all sorts of "evidence" out there to support any number of conclusions.  If one happily discounts contradictory evidence that does not support a preconceived notion then one can firmly believe whatever they want (or whatever they feel like arguing at the moment).

 

The best that I can come up with is that the stall was there, it did provide warning, it could kill an unaware pilot, it did not appear to be an issue in most of the flight envelope, it was an issue in specific areas of the flight envelope, and could actually be useful for an experienced pilot.  There's a lot of wiggle room in there - how vicious, how sudden, how much warning, how easy/difficult to recover, exactly where in the flight envelope.  

 

That speed you mention is the no power stall. It's weird that I even have to mention it. It tells a lot actually.

 

Didn't the JG 27 operate mostly 109 ? 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

This is obviously a Fake Photo if you were listening to the Luftwhiners. I smell Photoshop. 

 

[Turban]

 

 

I will happily post something that does not support my statement above ... Here's one book that states that it was "sudden and viscious"

Link here

 

 

That link is interesting.

 

People should read it. It's just one of many mentions of the stall. It clearky states how important it was.

[216th_Jordan]

I think Pat wanted to show that there are sources for both argumentations.

[Dr_Molem]

2 differents argumentations that come from 2 categories of pilots that have a completely different level of skill, maybe ? 

[Avatar13]

This is obviously a Fake Photo if you were listening to the Luftwhiners. I smell Photoshop. 

 

 

Hey! You trying to get me in trouble?!?   After reading this thread and a couple of others I decided to spend a little time trying to refamiliarize myself with the 190. I felt that the FM had changed at some point in the past 1-2 years (it's been that long since I've flown it...) but after spending more time with it I was/am slowly getting re-used to its' idiosyncrasies. I also tried fighting the Pe-2 to check out some of the complaints about that. True, that s.o.b. (even the average AI ones!) always knows when to turn as I'm trying to get into position for a diving attack so more often than not I got hit, that particular run I got lucky and flamed that bastige on my first pass... But yes, I still find this bird a challenge to fly. Oh yeah, I had to practice taking off again, too! LOL But for some reason, I keep coming back to her... Gee, I guess I really am a masochist!

[LLv34_Taku]

It would be nice to be able to reduce the overall responsitivity of Pitch -axis in joystick settings. If you set the curve of an axis to 100% it makes the elevator less responsive in the center zone of the Joystick which is fine but that means Elevator control will kick in at some point and that's disastrous especially flying 190.

 

Maximum amount of elevator control is not needed, an option where full deflection of joystick would only give like 75%(or whatever it's adjusted to) of elevator control could be useful...

[PatrickAWlson]

I think Pat wanted to show that there are sources for both argumentations.

 

Thank you.  There is a lot of information out there but it is not quantified.  Taken as a whole it can support a wide range of views.  Cherry picked, it can support your particular point of view  

[6./ZG26_Custard]

Thank you. There is a lot of information out there but it is not quantified. Taken as a whole it can support a wide range of views. Cherry picked, it can support your particular point of view

There are a whole host of subjective reports regarding the 190 but in the main and particularly from the western allied and soviet test reports it does mention time and again the stall characterises of this aircraft. How do we put a finger on who has the right source or who is was right based on an individual’s feelings? 

 

Johnnie Johnson stated that the MkV was totally outclassed by the 190 but with the speed advantage it had that’s not surprising. What is interesting is more than half of his aerial victories (19) were against the 190 when he flew the MkIX.

 

It will be interesting to see what the discussions will be like on the forum when we have the A5 and MkV going head to head

Edited October 25, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Custard

[Stig]

 

 

Maximum amount of elevator control is not needed, an option where full deflection of joystick would only give like 75%(or whatever it's adjusted to) of elevator control could be useful

 

 

I used to that with my Combatstick via the CH Control Manager, that made a difference, though I still had to be gentle on the controls. Unfortunately, the Win10 anniversary update messed Control Manager up, so it no longer works.    

[Urra]

It would be nice to be able to reduce the overall responsitivity of Pitch -axis in joystick settings. If you set the curve of an axis to 100% it makes the elevator less responsive in the center zone of the Joystick which is fine but that means Elevator control will kick in at some point and that's disastrous especially flying 190.

 

Maximum amount of elevator control is not needed, an option where full deflection of joystick would only give like 75%(or whatever it's adjusted to) of elevator control could be useful...

The adjustment curve for each axis has a slider for dead zones at the ends in the game. Use that to get the 75 %.

[[CPT]Pike*HarryM]

Speaking of Johnnie...("Wing Leader", Great book)

 

 

[LLv34_Taku]

The adjustment curve for each axis has a slider for dead zones at the ends in the game. Use that to get the 75 %.

I thought adjusting that makes joystick to be more responsive.

[Dr_Molem]

Trying hard to picture this fight in my head. He says they both turned left at the merge...could the FW have faked left then rolled back right and up to cut across the circle behind the Spitfire as it burned off energy in its tight turn? That's the only way this engagement makes any sense to me.

 

As soon as the 190 that is in your picture of this fight has nothing to do with our BoS FW-190, it is all but hard to imagine how it did happen.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

Trying hard to picture this fight in my head. He says they both turned left at the merge...could the FW have faked left then rolled back right and up to cut across the circle behind the Spitfire as it burned off energy in its tight turn? That's the only way this engagement makes any sense to me.

It may have been written this way for dramatic effect?

 

Pierre Clostermann's book "the big show" is a great read but he courted controversy with his books which allegedly may have been slightly over romanticised.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

As soon as the 190 that is in your picture of this fight has nothing to do with our BoS FW-190, it is all but hard to imagine how it did happen.

I am always amazed about the delusions some 190 fanboys have about their precious aircraft. Truly Ridiculous.

[StG2_Manfred]

I am always amazed about the delusions some 190 fanboys have about their precious aircraft. Truly Ridiculous.

Still waiting for your video proof where you show how to fly the 190, which you keep saying to people here. But nothing from you only plain words. So I checked your 190 sorties at WoL stats. It says enough about you. Almost every sortie you bailed or died...

 

That's ridiculous...

[Aap]

Hmm, delusions.

RAF pilots were having delusions, Luftwaffe pilots were hallucinating, stat counters were drunk and RAF commanders that decided to stop the circus flights after running into Fw190's were on drugs.

[Turban]

Still waiting for your video proof where you show how to fly the 190, which you keep saying to people here. But nothing from you only plain words. So I checked your 190 sorties at WoL stats. It says enough about you. Almost every sortie you bailed or died...

 

That's ridiculous...

 

 

Could say the same about you. I guess the 109 must be porked too ! Damn it ! 

 

All I'm saying is,  you should keep that kind of attacks to yourself.

Edited October 25, 2016 by Turban

[Stig]

In WWII tens of thousands of victory credits were awarded to fighter pilots for the destruction of aircraft that the enemy didn't lose. Therefore tens of thousands of combat reports were filed, detailing the events leading to the destruction of  these aircraft that weren't in fact lost by the enemy. That is potentially a lot of anecdotal information relating something that didn't happen, or at the least didn't happen the way it was described in the report!

In fact there is probably just as much 'wrong or mistaken' information as there is correct information out there. 

 

Something to bear in mind when digging up anecdotal evidence 

[StG2_Manfred]

Could say the same about you. I guess the 109 must be porked too ! Damn it !

 

All I'm saying is, you should keep that kind of attacks to yourself.

You are on my ignore list, but this time I answer you once. The difference between me and you or Klaus is, I didn't tell others they would fly it wrong, so I have nothing to prove.

 

Btw you opened a thread after you bought the 190 and also explained people they would fly her wrong. Where is your video?

[Aap]

The "anecdotal evidence" is not just made up stories. It is how the pilots really saw and experienced these things. If both RAF and Luftwaffe pilots tell matching "anecdotes" about these encounters, it is kind of silly to say that in reality it happened the other way around.

 

What comes to over-claiming, historians have been able to check the records from both sides after the war ended. In the books they usually bring up both numbers. For example about the mentioned circus flights, actual records show that RAF losses were higher than Luftwaffe's already before Fw190 appeared. But due to over-claiming, RAF command believed that they are "winning" these fights. The British claims were actually done in good faith - when Bf109's used the tactics of one pass and dive away, their engines were emitting smoke during steep dives and made RAF pilots believe they were going down. Once the Fw190's appeared and actually started to accept the dogfights and stay engaged despite being outnumbered, it became obvious for RAF commanders also that they are being badly outscored in these fights, so they stopped the circus flights.

[Dakpilot]

Yes, Fw 190 outclassed Spit MkV in circus raids

 

= many anecdotes prove FW 190 is supreme fighter

 

Spit Mk IX introduced, balance was restored, but Mk IX was only a Mk V with slightly better engine (stopgap from bomber development)

 

therefore Spit Mk V with more HP = supreme fighter 

 

  there is so much history and info, but all people seem to be interested in is a few (choice) anecdotes

 

my anecdote beats your anecdote..lol,  ad nauseum

 

Cheers Dakpilot