FW190 speed measurements

[Hutzlipuh]

This is in response to this post by Phenazepam:

 

first, I measured 470 IAS - 640 TAS (for FW-190, 100% fuel, 6000 m, 1.42/2700), so not -20, but -10 kph error.

 

second, the same FW 190 at sea level has 15 kph overspeed (555 TAS in game - 540 TAS IRL, 1.42/2700), at 8 km FW 190 has at least 10 kph overspeed (655 (and continue growing) TAS to the end of the third minute in game - 645 TAS IRL, full throttle/2700).

 

I think, in your example you want to say that we did overperformanced Soviet fighters and underperformanced Axis ones. Actually it is not true. Due to complicated FM it's possible some errors, but there is no 'russian' or 'german bias'.

 

PS. We do all the best to reduce such errors.

 

 

Tests done at 0 (175m actually....cant fly 0m ) , 3000m and 6700m , Stalingrad map ,autumn , clear day , full fuel and 120 rounds MG/FF (standard loadout)

Ingame specifactions state for ground level speed 555 kph TAS , for 3000m 574 kph TAS and for 6700m 667 kph TAS

I was using this : http://www.hochwarth.com/misc/AviationCalculator.html for IAS / TAS conversion

 

 

Quick summary :

- at 175 m IAS attained when Emergency mode time used up was 545 kph = 549 kph TAS (not 555) = ~ 6kph slower then stated (reasonable close)

- at 3000 m IAS attained when Emergency mode time used up was 482 kph = 554 kph TAS (not 574) = ~ 20 kph too slow (and not getting faster even waiting longer)

- at 6700 m maximum IAS attained when Emergency mode time used up was 456 kph = 632 kph TAS (not 667) = ~ 30 kph too slow (tested different stabilizer settings inflight, no difference other then autolevel correcting and not getting faster even waiting longer)

 

Videos of tests:

 

0m :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfoCngz9Bnc

 

 

 

3000m:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vfLAxDrlWc

 

 

 

6700m:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwxKhdFz3KA

 

So if the Yaks are over speeding and the 190 is underspeeding there is the problem that the relative performance difference is skewed towards VVS-planes...

also i would like the devs to post their own video proof that they can reach those stated (ingame and here in forum) speeds (in horizontal flight within engine limits of course) and telling me why i cant reach them .

Please share your own tests and thoughts.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Hutzlipuh

[Matt]

Reference speed is without MGFF. And the calculator you used is for EAS to TAS, not IAS to TAS. And he tested at 6000 meters and you did at 6700 meters.

[Hutzlipuh]

Reference speed is without MGFF. And the calculator you used is for EAS to TAS, not IAS to TAS. And he tested at 6000 meters and you did at 6700 meters.

 

Where does phenazepam state that his test is without MG/FF ? where does it state that the ingame figures are not with standard loadout (120 rnds MG/FF was STANDARD)?

 

and if you looked closely the calculator is for cas to tas and eas at the same time... and as far as i know the instrument bar shows CAS....thats the values i used in the field for cas....

 

speedtest 6000m (STANDARD loadout 120rnds) MG/FF: 462 kph on the bar = 617 TAS

https://youtu.be/0Ap6Dak2bM8

 

 

exactly also achieved by flyer116 with 180 rounds MG/FF

 

EDIT : Also some sources claim with the reduced loadout with only inner cannons the achieved top speed at 6500m was 680 kph

Edited November 18, 2016 by Hutzlipuh

[Matt]

Where does phenazepam state that his test is without MG/FF ? where does it state that the ingame figures are not with standard loadout (120 rnds MG/FF was STANDARD)?

 

Phenazepam is responding to claims in the other topic. Those claims use a source of the Fw 190 A-3 without MGFF. So if you want to compare it to a source that doesn't use MGFF, then you shouldn't use MGFF.

 

And MGFF was not "standard" on the Fw 190 A-3, it was just one of the possible loadout options. That changed on later models.

and if you looked closely the calculator is for cas to tas and eas at the same time... and as far as i know the instrument bar shows CAS....thats the values i used in the field for cas....

The instrument bar shows IAS. Not CAS or EAS. Which might also be the reason why Phenazepam mentions IAS in his tests and not CAS or EAS.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Matt

[Wulf]

 

And MGFF was not "standard" on the Fw 190 A-3, it was just one of the possible loadout options. That changed on later models.

 

 

Is that true?  So the A-3 wasn't delivered from the factory with the MGFFs installed?  Because if it was delivered in that configuration then to my way of thinking that is standard.  Whatever happened at squadron level thereafter is whatever happened at squadron level thereafter but it wouldn't change what the factory deemed to be the standard fully equipped aircraft.

 

I have no idea what the answer actually is by the way, it just seems strange to me that what is generally held to be the 'default' fighter-role weapons set-up for the aircraft, as delivered??? isn't actually deemed to be anything of the sort.

Edited November 19, 2016 by Wulf

[Crump]

The FW-190A3 and FW-190A4 could be operated without the outboard weapons.

 

However, the 555kph at sea level matches the RAE performance of Fabers WNr 313 which had a full complement of wing weapons.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw-190-rep2092.pdf

 

That closely matches Focke Wulf specification sheet for the type which is also with full wing weapons.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a3-datasheet-29-11-42.jpg

 

 

So the A-3 wasn't delivered from the factory with the MGFFs installed?

 

To be clear, it was delivered with full wing weapons.  Removing them was an authorized load out in the Ladeplan. 

[Crump]

 

 

And MGFF was not "standard" on the Fw 190 A-3, it was just one of the possible loadout options. That changed on later models.

 

It was delivered with full wing weapons, an ETC 501 rack, plumbing for an external fuel tank, and wired with a weapon control to drop bombs.

 

Removing the ETC 501 rack was an option for the squadrons.

 

Removing the outboard cannon was an option for squadrons.

 

Mounting a 300 Liter drop tank was an option for the squadrons.

 

Mounting a bomb was an option for the squadrons.

 

All of that is authorized by the ladeplan.

[Matt]

I didn't write that it wasn't delivered with MGFF installed.

 

There were four possible load out options, three of those without MGFF installed, so I don't consider it "standard" to have MGFF installed.

 

Regardless this doesn't matter, because the Fw 190 mentioned in the German flight test that came up in the other topic did not have MGFF. So whatever you consider standard doesn't change the result.

Edited November 19, 2016 by Matt

[Crump]

 

 

I didn't write that it wasn't delivered with MGFF installed.

 

Standard is how the base model aircraft is delivered when you buy the thing. 

 

 

 

So whatever you consider standard doesn't change the result.

 

Except that Focke Wulf data says that is the Vmax for a full wing weapon equipped aircraft is 555kph.  

 

That being said, I can find no fault in the level speeds of the FW190 in BoS.

 

This does fit in with the fact the data points used to calculate stall performance was Type II(full wing weapon) performance data modeled at the Type I (MGFF removed) in the game.  The error fits previous experience but  all aircraft performance is a range and not a specific number.  It is close enough IMHO but can easily be adjusted when they do the FW-190A5 if it needs to be done.

 

Without knowing the specific data set the devs used it is impossible to tell if there is an error or not.  The wing weapons speed loss is below 2% and covered up by normal aircraft performance variation.  In other words, the FM reflects Focke Wulf's conclusion that with or without wing weapons...the practical performance is the same. 

 

The relative performance of the FW-190 is that it was one of the fastest designs at low altitude.  It ultimately reflects that in the game well.

[Matt]

Standard is how the base model aircraft is delivered when you buy the thing. 

 

With ETC and MGFF.

 

 

 

Except that Focke Wulf data says that is the Vmax for a full wing weapon equipped aircraft is 555kph.  

 

Without ETC, so not standard then.

 

 

But whatever, the OP and Phenazepam in the other topic was not comparing it to the Focke Wulf flight test with MGFF installed, but to the one without MGFF installed. That's what i wrote many times now and i'm not intersted in moving around in circles to discuss about possible definiitions of the word "standard".

Edited November 19, 2016 by Matt

[Crump]

 

 

Without ETC, so not standard then.

 

Huh?

 

What does that have to do with anything.

 

 

 

But whatever, the OP and Phenazepam in the other topic was not comparing it to the Focke Wulf flight test with MGFF installed, but to the one without MGFF installed. That's what i wrote many times now and i'm not intersted in moving around in circles to discuss about possible definiitions of the word "standard".

 

Obviously you are and are making it a point to get stuck on the word "standard"

 

How else can you cherry pick what I said so effectively and totally miss the entire point....

 

 

 

Without knowing the specific data set the devs used it is impossible to tell if there is an error or not.  The wing weapons speed loss is below 2% and covered up by normal aircraft performance variation.  In other words, the FM reflects Focke Wulf's conclusion that with or without wing weapons...the practical performance is the same.    The relative performance of the FW-190 is that it was one of the fastest designs at low altitude.  It ultimately reflects that in the game well.

 

It is a fact that the error in Clmax was aggravated by the fact the stall speed for a full wing weapon aircraft was being used as the data point for a fighter without wing weapons in BoS skewing the performance curve.

It is not a big leap of logic to conclude the level speed data might contain the same error....

[JtD]

But whatever, the OP and Phenazepam in the other topic was not comparing it to the Focke Wulf flight test with MGFF installed, but to the one without MGFF installed. That's what i wrote many times now and i'm not intersted in moving around in circles to discuss about possible definiitions of the word "standard".

To that point, there is a measurable speed difference both in game and real life due to these guns (for instance, see tests of Flyer above). At full throttle altitude, about 10km/h. In game you can get it to ~640, and if you use a suitable reference, it puts the margin of error into the 10 km/h range. The Fw190A-3, in terms of speed, is one of the most accurately modelled aircraft in game.

[Crump]

To that point, there is a measurable speed difference both in game and real life due to these guns (for instance, see tests of Flyer above). At full throttle altitude, about 10km/h. In game you can get it to ~640, and if you use a suitable reference, it puts the margin of error into the 10 km/h range. The Fw190A-3, in terms of speed, is one of the most accurately modelled aircraft in game.

 

And in the real world it is entirely possible to have a full wing weapon FW-190 that is faster than another FW-190 without wing weapons......

 

That is real life and measureable.

[A_radek]

And in the real world it is entirely possible to have a full wing weapon FW-190 that is faster than another FW-190 without wing weapons......

 

That is real life and measureable.

That sounds backwards. Not questioning your sources/knowledge Crump, but to a curious layman like me it would seem that with whatever little weight you ad, your forcing the aircraft to produce more lift. That lift coming from a slightly higher angle/more draggy airframe. If speed and horseP is to stay the same with the added weight, where would the extra energy come from?

 

 

[II./JG77_Manu*]

That sounds backwards. Not questioning your sources/knowledge Crump, but to a curious layman like me it would seem that with whatever little weight you ad, your forcing the aircraft to produce more lift. That lift coming from a slightly higher angle/more draggy airframe. If speed and horseP is to stay the same with the added weight, where would the extra energy come from?

 

 

 

Horsepower are not the same they vary already in factory fresh state, and degrade over time (not modeled in game).

Even with todays standard cars from the same model have different HP, Nissan GTR's can differ over 50hp (10%). They mostly have more hp then the datasheet says.

Edited December 9, 2016 by II./JG77_Manu*

[JG13_opcode]

That sounds backwards. Not questioning your sources/knowledge Crump, but to a curious layman like me it would seem that with whatever little weight you ad, your forcing the aircraft to produce more lift. That lift coming from a slightly higher angle/more draggy airframe. If speed and horseP is to stay the same with the added weight, where would the extra energy come from?

 

 

He's saying it's possible for a few km/h difference due to things like surface finish and roughness or normal manufacturing variance in fit and finish to outweigh the drag added by the outer gun installation.

[A_radek]

Understand now, and agreed.
Red star airacobra describes a situation when the author was unable to take off with a droptank in his worn down p-39. Having to release it at the end of the runway not to krash. At another occasion his mechanic going through the huge job of replacing the engine with one that was almost equally shabby. These were the machines they flew straight in to combat. 

(edit: I can't spell!)

Edited December 12, 2016 by aa_radek