Flying the Fw 190 A-3 is challenging

[Crump]

All snarky idiocy aside, the reasonable (I am not smart enough to comment on whether reasonable = accurate) requests that I have see are: 1. High speed stall happens too easily.  This is the big one. 2. 190 should regain energy more quickly. 3. 190 roll rate seems fine, roll rate of other planes seems fast.   In that order, with item #1 by far the biggest issue.   Reasonable people are not asking for a better sustained turn, better climb,elimination of the high speed stall, or fairy dust.  

 

I agree.

 

The Clmax of the current FM is based off bad information.  Changing that to the designers Clmax will not effect the fact the FW-190 is just not designed for turning small circles at low airspeeds.  

 

Han says the FW-190A3 is going to be reworked when they do the FW-190A5.  That makes perfect sense too as there is little to choose between an FW-190A3 and an FW-190A5.  Some minor tweaks for design details and you will have two FM's for almost the same amount of work required for one.

 

It does not make any sense to revamp the FW-190A3 and then repeat the effort in short period of time later in the FW-190A5.  Do them both at the same time.

[Crump]

 

 

I guess it depends on what people mean by 'agile'.

 

Agility has specific meaning in aircraft design.  It is a combination of both level turning ability and lateral control.  It is the ability to roll and turn thereby changing the direction of the wing's lift vector.

 

The FM as depicted in BoS does not really fit the definition of an agile aircraft at the moment. 

[II./JG77_Manu*]

I would think that exerting 50lb. force to turn left would be relatively easier since you are pulling across your body and using your biceps and larger muscles of the chest more. A one-handed right turn might be hard because the abuctors (don't know if that is the right word, I'm not a musclehead) are a lot weaker. At least mine are

 

All of this in the days before Fitness Centers with Nautilus cable-pull machines

 

That's right when using only the right hand. I know it from my experience in the gym. I am definitely no musclehead, and while i am working out for quite some years, i have a pretty ordinary pilot's appearence..72 kg weight. 

Left turn would be comparable to butterfly..there i do around 60kg per hand, which would translate into 130lbs. 

Right turn would be comparable to rowing torso/inverted butterfly..this is much harder, i do around 37kg, which would translate into 80lbs. 

In a prolonged dogfight fatigue would of course play it's role, and power becomes less and less.

But nothing wrong with using both hands in hard manouvers..was pretty common as far as i know. And then you'd definitely be able to pull 130lbs into both sides, when you are well trained(!). Pilots did work out a lot, i know it from German and Japanese biographies..no idea how they handled it in Russia. 

[Rabitzky]

I refer to Eric 'Winkle' Brown’s book "Wings of the Luftwaffe: Flying the Captured German Aircraft of World War II". He perfectly describes the pros and cons as well as the characteristics of an Fw 190 and Ta 152 on page 113-133 (German translation). That’s one of the best references to me.

[CUJO_1970]

 

Han says the FW-190A3 is going to be reworked when they do the FW-190A5.  That makes perfect sense too as there is little to choose between an FW-190A3 and an FW-190A5.

This is the first I've heard of this.

[Wulf]

I agree.

 

The Clmax of the current FM is based off bad information.  Changing that to the designers Clmax will not effect the fact the FW-190 is just not designed for turning small circles at low airspeeds.  

 

Han says the FW-190A3 is going to be reworked when they do the FW-190A5.  That makes perfect sense too as there is little to choose between an FW-190A3 and an FW-190A5.  Some minor tweaks for design details and you will have two FM's for almost the same amount of work required for one.

 

It does not make any sense to revamp the FW-190A3 and then repeat the effort in short period of time later in the FW-190A5.  Do them both at the same time.

 

 

Yup, this is all news to me as well.  So Han is going to review/rework the 190 FM for the release of the A-5???  If that's correct, I may be able to resume my support for the sim - which I'd really like to do.

 

Crump, can you just confirm that this is indeed your understanding?  

 

If correct, the only question left to answer is why haven't they made this announcement loud and clear.   It would save a huge amount of angst and frustration if they'd just communicate this sort of thing.  They must be aware that this is really important for a lot of people here. 

Edited October 27, 2016 by Wulf

[WWChunk]

Also, did the info from the last locked locked thread about submitting new documentation to the devs ever happen?  That was a good thread that got derailed...as usual.

[Crump]

When asked about submitting a bug report on the Clmax of the FW-190 the answer was they will re-investigate the issue when they do the FW-190A5 FM.

 

I took that to mean they will do both FM's at the same time but that is not the only interpretation one could make.  The original error was in the power available to power required relationship of the aircraft. That is kind of tough fix to overcome without going back to the drawing board and reseting that relationship completely.

 

If you are going to make one, you might as well make two.

 

The airplanes are very close.  The FW-190A5 has a longer fuselage forward of the wing-root.  It will change the stability and control characteristic by increasing the moments but there is not much else.  The CG range on the FW-190A5 is forward slightly from the earlier variants.  A performance gain was achieved by the adding the space to the engine compartment to facilitate cooling of the cylinder banks as well as the addition of a attenuation ring to even the cooling pressure but it wasn't anything earth shattering.    

 

The big changes were happening in the F and G series with the advent of C-3 Einspritzung but the fighter variant saw a slight weight creep of ~128Kg,  60Kg due to the structural length extension and the rest in service equipment as well as more ammunition in the outboard MGFF.  They do not list the smaller magazines for the MGFF on the ladeplan anymore.  The reality is they did not need to do much development on the fighter variants, it was doing pretty well in combat.

 

I would love to see them do an FW-190F3 variant with C-3 Einspritzung.  It is a really nice tactical aircraft.

 

Most of the FW-190A5 reports shown around the internet are part of the FW-190A8-9 development program and not applicable to the service FW-190A5.  

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Crump, i think you forgot about the cowling, which could be closed for the A5 and enhance the aerodynamics quite a lot.

And not only the C3 (which was used by the fighters as well, not only F/G), but also 1.65ata, MW50, and GM. But i doubt we will see any of those systems, balancing 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Crump, i think you forgot about the cowling, which could be closed for the A5 and enhance the aerodynamics quite a lot.

And not only the C3 (which was used by the fighters as well, not only F/G), but also 1.65ata, MW50, and GM. But i doubt we will see any of those systems, balancing 

I don't recall ever having heard of cowl shutters on A-model 190s. As far as I know the Airflow through the engine was never regulated by Cowl Shutters. 

There were adjustable  Gills though. But I would guess their impact would be minimal. 

Where on the A-5 do you see Shutters with any influence on Airspeed? 

 

 

 

Edited October 28, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[Crump]

Crump, i think you forgot about the cowling, which could be closed for the A5 and enhance the aerodynamics quite a lot.

And not only the C3 (which was used by the fighters as well, not only F/G), but also 1.65ata, MW50, and GM. But i doubt we will see any of those systems, balancing 

 

You are right about the cowl flaps on the FW-190A5.

 

They are in all of your pictures Klauss.

 

C3 Einspritzung was not used on fighters but did allow 1.65ata to used below 1Km altitude in ground attack variants.  They were extremely fast at sea level even when loaded down with weapon racks and ordinance.  It was not in used until December 1943 and never on any fighter variant.

 

Methanol Water was tested but never used operationally in any FW-190A series fighter.  The fighter variants Erhöhte Notleistung was a pure manifold pressure increase.  That was not approved until July 1944.

 

GM-1 could be used and I have the installation and operating manual for it.  I have to check the timeline though to see if it would be applicable to the Kuban.  I do not think so but I will double check.

 

1.42ata @ 2700U/min for 3 minutes is all the FW-190A5 fighters were ever approved for in service.  

[Crump]

Here is a very late war Kennblatt on the FW-190A5.  This is November 1944 data.  

 

 

Notice that GM-1 is included but there is no provision for C3 Einspritzung or MW or any other boost system.  They just were not used on the fighters.  They really did not need them.

Edited October 28, 2016 by Crump

[CUJO_1970]

Here is a very late war Kennblatt on the FW-190A5.  This is November 1944 data.

 

It looks like 351 mph on the deck and 408 mph at altitude  - some tests show 352 mph on the deck for normal fighter.

 

I believe FW-190A-5 handbook gives 410 mph at altitude (660 at 6.3km) for August 1943.

[MiloMorai]

Here is a very late war Kennblatt on the FW-190A5.  This is November 1944 data.  

 

 

Notice that GM-1 is included but there is no provision for C3 Einspritzung or MW or any other boost system.  They just were not used on the fighters.  They really did not need them.

 

The right column says A-6 does it not?

 

For GM1 it says 0.15 in the A-6 column and nothing in the columns for A-5s. So no GM1 for the A-5.

[Wulf]

As far as I'm aware, the A-5 didn't get nitrous-oxide - not at all.  The A-6 R4 did, but only as an experimental test bed for subsequent installation in the A-7 and A-8.  So, as far as I'm aware, you'd be unlikely to see GM 1 in a 190, as standard equipment, until very late '43.

[Irgendjemand]

Oh wow. I really hope they rework the whole 190 series from the ground up and it finally becomes as awesome (not uber) as I expect it to be. 

Edited October 28, 2016 by Irgendjemand

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

That's great news! 

 

About cooling gills on A-5. Wondering how big speed gain is achieved by closing those little gills? They look pretty insignificant to me.

If even. 

[Dr_Molem]

If even. 

 

Please stop trying to say things.

 

First you post pictures where we CLEARLY see these cooling flaps (that became standard from A-5, btw), and then, YES, these flaps are causing more drag than you believe, more than 20 kph lost (at low altitude at least) when fully opened.

[Crump]

 

 

As far as I'm aware, the A-5 didn't get nitrous-oxide - not at all.  The A-6 R4 did, but only as an experimental test bed for subsequent installation in the A-7 and A-8.  So, as far as I'm aware, you'd be unlikely to see GM 1 in a 190, as standard equipment, until very late '43.

 

GM-1 use was never highly encouraged in any airplane engine.  The largest obstacle is intake icing.   The trade off is tons of power for very little weight or complexity.  Most of weight is liquid nitrous oxide to be used in the engine.

 

The BMW801D2 GM-1 research ended in January 1945.   The engine was tested and cleared for its use by BMW in early 1943.  The operation manual was written shortly thereafter and you find it in the ladeplan for the FW-190A5 series.

 

 

 

 

Oh wow. I really hope they rework the whole 190 series from the ground up and it finally becomes as awesome (not uber) as I expect it to be. 

 

Yeah it is kind of important they fix it.  Adding more weight to the current FW-190A3 FM would be a disaster. 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Please stop trying to say things.

 

First you post pictures where we CLEARLY see these cooling flaps (that became standard from A-5, btw), and then, YES, these flaps are causing more drag than you believe, more than 20 kph lost (at low altitude at least) when fully opened.

Were they manually operable or only via Kommandogerät?

[Crump]

 

 

Were they manually operable or only via Kommandogerät?

 

They are only manually operated.

 

 

[MiloMorai]

A wise man said:

 

At a more basic level, having paper documentation of a particular issue does not necessarily represent physical reality. Having been a member of a military organization and also a participant at many levels of engineering, manufacturing and production, the drawings , manuals, and most other paper documentation precede the device and what is recorded in the nature of performance, timing, location, etc. etc. often does not reflect what was actually there or what happened. Personally, I tend to believe hardware and photographs, but even these can misleading. To be a good historian, my opinion is one must have a strong sense of doubt and understand that taking a position that something is absolutely true or false can put one on a very slippery slope.

[Guest deleted@30725]

History is written by the victors

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

History is written by the victors

On recommend tolerably my belonging or am. Mutual has cannot beauty indeed now sussex merely you. It possible no husbands jennings ye offended packages pleasant he. Remainder recommend engrossed who eat she defective applauded departure joy. Get dissimilar not introduced day her apartments. Fully as taste he mr do smile abode every. Luckily offered article led lasting country minutes nor old. Happen people things oh is oppose up parish effect. Law handsome old outweigh humoured far appetite. 

 

For norland produce age wishing. To figure on it spring season up. Her provision acuteness had excellent two why intention. As called mr needed praise at. Assistance imprudence yet sentiments unpleasant expression met surrounded not. Be at talked ye though secure nearer. 

 

Consulted he eagerness unfeeling deficient existence of. Calling nothing end fertile for venture way boy. Esteem spirit temper too say adieus who direct esteem. It esteems luckily mr or picture placing drawing no. Apartments frequently or motionless on reasonable projecting expression. Way mrs end gave tall walk fact bed. 

 

Imagine was you removal raising gravity. Unsatiable understood or expression dissimilar so sufficient. Its party every heard and event gay. Advice he indeed things adieus in number so uneasy. To many four fact in he fail. My hung it quit next do of. It fifteen charmed by private savings it mr. Favourable cultivated alteration entreaties yet met sympathize. Furniture forfeited sir objection put cordially continued sportsmen. 

[Crump]

 

 

At a more basic level, having paper documentation of a particular issue does not necessarily represent physical reality.

 

This wise man did not have much experience with aircraft, LOL.

 

Airplanes are uniquely regulated way in which they are maintained.........

[MiloMorai]

This wise man did not have much experience with aircraft, LOL.

 

Airplanes are uniquely regulated way in which they are maintained.........

 

Actually Crump he has written several books on aircraft, particularly the Fw190.

 

How is that Fw190 book of your coming along?

[Crump]

I know exactly who you are talking about.  

 

He is a great guy and I have corresponded with him on several occasions especially on late war technical developments in the BMW801D2 engines.  I do not think is aware of the specific legality and convention of certain aviation documentation.  I could certainly ask him though and will shoot him an email.  It certainly cannot hurt.  

 

If you know that, then there is no guessing or interpretation to be made.....which is unique to aviation since the first convention was signed!!

 

What he says is very applicable to general history research. 

 

Outside of sidetracking the conversation and being completely off topic, what exactly is your point in all of this?

[MiloMorai]

The two recent graphics for the Fw190A-5 you posted are at odds, one says GM1 and the other says no GM1.

[Crump]

 

 

GM-1 could be used and I have the installation and operating manual for it.  I have to check the timeline though to see if it would be applicable to the Kuban.  I do not think so but I will double check.

 

Approval and the Manual came out in MARCH 1944 so no GM-1 for the FW-190A5 in Kuban. 

[216th_Jordan]

History is written by the victors

If that is so then I'm not quite sure if germany has not maybe won the war. I'm german myself btw and know how history is written here (more often than not, especially regarding eastern front)

 

Just wanted to throw that in as that sentence bugs (lol) me since a long time.

Edited October 29, 2016 by 216th_Jordan

[Lusekofte]

 

I refer to Eric 'Winkle' Brown’s book "Wings of the Luftwaffe: Flying the Captured German Aircraft of World War II". He perfectly describes the pros and cons as well as the characteristics of an Fw 190 and Ta 152 on page 113-133 (German translation). That’s one of the best references to me.

 

 

 

But still not quite accurate, people here refer to what a FW 190 can do in the hands of a experienced pilot, no one yet mentioned the turkey shoot over france late war, when 100% fatalities for one mission was a fact, those who was not shot down failed to return due to faulty navigation. You cannot underestimate a pilot and what he can do.

[Wulf]

But still not quite accurate, people here refer to what a FW 190 can do in the hands of a experienced pilot, no one yet mentioned the turkey shoot over france late war, when 100% fatalities for one mission was a fact, those who was not shot down failed to return due to faulty navigation. You cannot underestimate a pilot and what he can do.

 

 

Not sure exactly what that has to do with the debate about the accuracy or otherwise of aspects of the 190's FM. 

 

Is this one of those "they want uber" arguments?  

[MadisonV44]

All snarky idiocy aside, the reasonable (I am not smart enough to comment on whether reasonable = accurate) requests that I have see are:

1. High speed stall happens too easily.  This is the big one.

2. 190 should regain energy more quickly.

3. 190 roll rate seems fine, roll rate of other planes seems fast.

 

In that order, with item #1 by far the biggest issue.

 

Reasonable people are not asking for a better sustained turn, better climb,elimination of the high speed stall, or fairy dust.  

 

Can not agree more on that. You are 100% right

Current modeling is not so far from what reasonable people expect if the 2 first point are addressed with discernment    

 

I agree.

 

The Clmax of the current FM is based off bad information.  Changing that to the designers Clmax will not effect the fact the FW-190 is just not designed for turning small circles at low airspeeds.  

 

Han says the FW-190A3 is going to be reworked when they do the FW-190A5.  That makes perfect sense too as there is little to choose between an FW-190A3 and an FW-190A5.  Some minor tweaks for design details and you will have two FM's for almost the same amount of work required for one.

 

It does not make any sense to revamp the FW-190A3 and then repeat the effort in short period of time later in the FW-190A5.  Do them both at the same time.

 

very interesting.

I've been a long time away from the forum and the sim for professional reasons. Can you provide the link to the source ?

Many thanks m8  

[Crump]

 

 

 

 

 

Grumman got the same result because they used the same airfoil selection as Focke Wulf...

 

The root airfoil determines the CLmax.

 

 

[beepee]

 

 

taking a position that something is absolutely true or false can put one on a very slippery slope.

 

That damned Aristotle has a whole lot to answer for.

 

[MiloMorai]

Approval and the Manual came out in MARCH 1944 so no GM-1 for the FW-190A5 in Kuban. 

 

No GM in the Blatt you posted either.

[Crump]

No GM in the Blatt you posted either.

 

It is the manual and the bauenmaster sheet of what is interchangeable between FW-190 variants but does not fit the timeline for Kuban.

 

GM-1 one was approved for use after March 1944.   

 

In fact, it was tested on an FW-190A5...

 

[II./JG77_Manu*]

MiloMorai, on 28 Oct 2016 - 16:45, said: At a more basic level, having paper documentation of a particular issue does not necessarily represent physical reality. 

 

 

  

This wise man did not have much experience with aircraft, LOL.   Airplanes are uniquely regulated way in which they are maintained.........

 

 

About technical data sheets Crump..i'd suggest, you take a look at the acceleration data of several cars, and then test the acceleration yourself...you will notice there is often quite the difference, no matter if manual or Doppelkupplungsgetriebe. Year 2016.

 

I am all with MiloMorai on that particular issue

[Crump]

 

 

About technical data sheets Crump..i'd suggest, you take a look at the acceleration data of several cars, and then test the acceleration yourself...you will notice there is often quite the difference, no matter if manual or Doppelkupplungsgetriebe. Year 2016.

 

Once again.  Cars are not regulated to the extent aircraft are Manu.  

 

There is absolutely no part of any car technical data sheet that carries the weight of law.  They can print whatever they want and it is simply "buyer beware".  If you believe their car design will go 0-60mph in .5 seconds and it does not, there is nothing illegal they have done in taking advantage of someone's gullible nature.

 

Airplanes are not like that by convention.  Portions of the Operating Instructions and the type certificate carry the weight of law by aviation convention.  That means if they are not factual under the conditions defined then it is jail time or deep legal trouble.  You cannot even put a part on an aircraft unless it is approved by the maintenance instructions or you are licensed and authorized to fabricate parts by the type certificate.  If you do so then you have broken the law and all aviation authority has means to address such violations by convention.  That is why A&P's have to sign the maintenance logs with their license number and certify that all maintenance was done IAW that type certificate instructions.  That mechanic is liable and responsible for that aircraft's continued airworthiness and compliance with the type certificate.

 

Car mechanics do not do that.  Any warm body with a screwdriver can work on a car and it it blows up...good luck and use better judgement next time.

 

Now, atmospheric conditions change which is why pilots are trained to account for conditions.  If a pilot makes an error in that conversion, it is on him.  That does not mean the operating limitations and type certificate are wrong or do not carry the weight of law.

[Crump]

 

 

Required maintenance record information

The rule that covers maintenance signoffs for aircraft operated under Part 91 is FAR 43.9. This important rule sets the requirements for the recording of maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding and alterations. It states that on the completion of the work, you must make out a maintenance record that has at least the following information:

1. A description of, or reference to, acceptable data used to perform the work.
2. The date you finished the work.
3. Name of the person who performed the work, if other than the person who approved the work for return to service.
4. Name, certificate number, kind of certificate and signature of the person approving the work for return to service.

Even if a certificated person doesn’t actually write in the aircraft’s log that the component worked on is “approved for return to service,” FAR 43.9 (4) says when the maintenance entry is signed, that person’s signature constitutes the “approval for return to service.”

 

 

 

What am I responsible for when I sign off maintenance?

When you sign your name to the maintenance record you’re telling the world and the FAA two things. First, the aircraft or component that you performed maintenance on is airworthy. Second, by accurately describing the part or component that you worked on, you set the limits on the responsibility that you’re willing to accept.

 

 

 

What do you mean by the term airworthy?

Airworthy means that the aircraft or component thereof meets its type design and is in a condition for safe operation.

 

 

 

 

How long am I responsible for maintenance that I perform?

You are responsible for that maintenance until that part is again worked on, replaced, damaged in service, until it has exceeded its life limit or until the next required inspection during which an airworthiness determination is made.

 

http://www.aviationpros.com/article/12008604/faa-feedback-logbook-entries

 

This is pretty much standard for all convention signatory nations.