Questions on the Fw 190

[istari6]

On 11/16/2019 at 3:10 PM, NZTyphoon said:

The only way to increase the altitude performance of the BMW 801 was to either add a turbocharger or increase the size of the supercharger, neither of which could be fitted into the FW 190. Kurt tank proposed the installation of a turbocharger under the fuselage, as well as a pressurized cockpit and larger wings for a 190B series, but the housing for the turbocharger was bulky and unwieldy and numerous problems with the cockpit design meant that the 'B' was abandoned: instead, Focke-Wulf decided that using the DB 603 and/or Jumo 213 would be a better way to increase the Fw 190's altitude performance.

 

Fascinating.  Hadn't realized that Tank was thinking of extending the 190 to be more like the P-47 Thunderbolt, a radial engine with a belly-mounted turbosupercharger to drive high altitude performance.  

On 11/16/2019 at 3:36 PM, bzc3lk said:

That metal contraption is a hinge which enables the plexiglass to flex as the canopy narrows when being opened due to the tapering fuselage canopy guide rails.

 

I'd noticed the interlocking metal bits and wondered at their purpose, didn't realize it was a hinge.  Very cool detail.  

On 11/16/2019 at 5:12 PM, unreasonable said:

Not using VR but TiR, I can see the gauges on the bottom tier of the panel with no obstruction without having to move my head. So perhaps your head position is set too high - I know a lot of people like to set theirs as far back and high up as they can to "improve" the view. Or it could be a VR specific thing.  

 

It's pretty easy to reconfigure the head position in VR so the lower gauges are visible.  It just struck me as overly complicated compared to the simplicity of the 109s instrument panel.  Figured there had to be a reason for stuffing those gauges back under a shelf where lighting isn't as good.

On 11/17/2019 at 2:42 AM, OBT-Psycho said:

the seating position in the wulf was notoriously more leaned/ this gave the pilot advantages with high G load. your body not being standing up right, it is easier bear higher G.

 

so as you guessed, there must be room to fit the pilot's legs, hence the two stepped dashboard.

not everyone like it, but the layout turns to be exactly to my taste. upper panel is flying information, with outer instrument being less important (i.e. speed and ATA, and most out are altitude and RPM) for a plane in a dogfight

 

Ah, thanks.  So the 190 does have a more reclined seat position ala the F-16.  That's hard to tell in VR.  

On 11/17/2019 at 10:32 AM, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

The "Fw 190 bar" has been discussed to death for literally at least a decade.

 

The exact viewpoint and field of view are irrelevant. The problem is that there is a refraction effect that cannot be modeled in games for technical reasons.

 

Games have handled this limitation in several different ways. Some have tried to strictly maintain the correct geometry, while others have created something that looks right in a typical view.

 

Ah, I didn't realize I was reopening an old debate.  I'd heard about the refraction issues through the bullet-proof glass.  I'm assuming that's because the glass is aggressively sloped, while other aircraft with bullet-proof glass tend to have it at a angle closer to vertical, so less effects on light.  As someone else notes, I was more interested in the metal A-frame bar right near the pilot's head.  It just seems surprisingly thick and obstructive to the pilot's view, so figured there had to be a reason for such a heavy design.  I've heard the 190 had a tendency to dig in and flip over on takeoff if the pilot didn't keep the stick back, perhaps it was a safety feature to protect the pilot in such a situation.  

[Sublime]

Id be interested if anyone who is knowlwedgable on early Fw190s could discuss the massive heating issue that apparently almost "cooked" pilots feet as they flew.  It was rectified later, but was it always hot near the rudder pedals?  What caused this on the FW and not other planes?

[=FEW=fernando11]

From memory, this!

A rather big and aerodinamic nose cover , that didn't alowed for good cooling, and the cockpit was too close to the engine. 

IIRC they moved the cockpit back, or the nose/engine forward. They reduced the size of the engine cowling, and I think they added some cooling shutters(maybe later)

They also put a bit longer wings, but that wasn't for overheating problems.

[Sublime]

Thanks. I know it had something to do with the evolution from the radiator "gills" (my favorite anton look) to the movable cowl etc.

Still interesting to me why it got so noticeably hot and how they let that through?  Just like learning new stuff

[Soilworker]

15 hours ago, Voyager said:

 

To do refraction in software you need either full optical ray-tracing or a second 3D view port offset from the primary view port. Needing multiple viewports is, as I understand it, one of the reasons VR is so demanding on systems. Adding additional view ports, at this time, is going to tank your frame rate in a serious way. 

 

 

 

Exactly. Not only would you need a second view point you'd need reprojection on the windshield like (as Yogi said) the mirrors we have and this can be so fraught with graphical problems such as certain elements not being rendered (correctly or at all) and the aforementioned extreme performance drain, especially at the resolutions you'd need.

 

If the devs wasted a huge amount of time and money trying to sort this to please the people who don't understand how computer graphics work the result would almost assuredly such a bug-fest the most players would demand the current system back. 

 

Edit: I should mention that I don't have a great understanding of how computer graphics work but this is pretty basic stuff. 

Edited November 19, 2019 by Soilworker

[NZTyphoon]

6 hours ago, Sublime said:

Id be interested if anyone who is knowlwedgable on early Fw190s could discuss the massive heating issue that apparently almost "cooked" pilots feet as they flew.  It was rectified later, but was it always hot near the rudder pedals?  What caused this on the FW and not other planes?

The only Fw 190s affected by overheated cockpits and cooked feet were the first 2 prototypes, V1 & V2. When Focke-Wulf decided to replace the BMW 139 with the more powerful and heavier BMW 801, plus added equipment required by the Luftwaffe, the fuselage was reinforced and lengthened slightly, while the cockpit was moved back by several centimetres. As well as reducing cockpit temperatures, moving the cockpit backwards meant that MG 17s could be fitted in the forward fuselage. NB: because the V3 and V4 prototypes had been abandoned these changes were made on the Fw 190 V5.

[Sublime]

Thanks.  It was an interesting detail I remembered reading about the early development. An anecdote about an early combat mission - in an what I thought was an A3; but probably was a v1 or v2 as per your post, its in the wiki -mentioned it quite a bit (I think the pilot was in the air a little while) and I just like generating discussion about ww2 aviation (forgive me) so I put it out there.

Plus its the most noticeable visual change in early 190s to me at least.

Now the picture the other guy posted - the front on where it looked like some early FW had a reaaally big honking cowl over the spinner.. whats up with that thing?  Was that a device just to gain speed for FW testing or were they really trying to shoehorn .. that .. onto a combat airframe??

Edited November 19, 2019 by Sublime

[NZTyphoon]

2 minutes ago, Sublime said:

Thanks.  It was an interesting detail I remembered reading about the early development. An anecdote about an early combat mission - in an what I thought was an A3; but probably was a v1 or v2 as per your post, its in the wiki -mentioned it quite a bit (I think the pilot was in the air a little while) and I just like generating discussion about ww2 aviation (forgive me) so I put it out there.

Plus its the most noticeable visual change in early 190s to me at least.

Now the picture the other guy posted - the front on where it looked like some early FW had a reaaally big honking cowl over the spinner.. whats up with that thing?  Was that a device just to gain speed for FW testing or were they really trying to shoehorn .. that .. onto a combat airframe??

That ducted spinner assembly was called "Doppelhaube": it was designed to streamline the front of the cowling, as well as directing the airflow to the engine, in conjunction with a ten-blade cooling fan (not fitted for first flight of V1, leading to increased engine temperatures and cooked feet). In practice, it was found that the Doppelhaube, which was fitted to the V1 & V2 actually contributed to drag, leading to its abandonment and the adoption of a conventional spinner and cowling.

 

Just for interest, a Hawker Tempest V NV768 was tested in 1944-45 with an annular cowling and similar ducted spinner:

[MiloMorai]

9 hours ago, Sublime said:

Id be interested if anyone who is knowlwedgable on early Fw190s could discuss the massive heating issue that apparently almost "cooked" pilots feet as they flew.  It was rectified later, but was it always hot near the rudder pedals?  What caused this on the FW and not other planes?

 

There are many expensive books out there, like the 4 Vol Smith/Creek tome on the Fw190 but there are also much cheaper books as well. An example would be the Squadron/Signal books. Tho there is some issues, overall they give a good basic history/development of the Fw190. S/S also has many more books on airplanes, ships and vehicles, all at reasonable low cost.

 

Buying books helps pay for more research and therefore more books.

[Sublime]

3 hours ago, NZTyphoon said:

That ducted spinner assembly was called "Doppelhaube": it was designed to streamline the front of the cowling, as well as directing the airflow to the engine, in conjunction with a ten-blade cooling fan (not fitted for first flight of V1, leading to increased engine temperatures and cooked feet). In practice, it was found that the Doppelhaube, which was fitted to the V1 & V2 actually contributed to drag, leading to its abandonment and the adoption of a conventional spinner and cowling.

 

Just for interest, a Hawker Tempest V NV768 was tested in 1944-45 with an annular cowling and similar ducted spinner:

Ah thanks. Hmm haube.. Doppel hood. It wasnt produced at Erla was it? Now you mention the 10 bladed fan I remember some business about that.  I seem to also remember there being a 16 bladed fan (??) Or something that they ended up changing as 16 was overkill. Or me killing brain cells did something to that memory. ?

Fascinating reading for me thanks.

1 hour ago, MiloMorai said:

 

There are many expensive books out there, like the 4 Vol Smith/Creek tome on the Fw190 but there are also much cheaper books as well. An example would be the Squadron/Signal books. Tho there is some issues, overall they give a good basic history/development of the Fw190. S/S also has many more books on airplanes, ships and vehicles, all at reasonable low cost.

 

Buying books helps pay for more research and therefore more books.

Whoa whoa hehe steady there. This is what conversation and the internet is for.  My moneys stretched tighter than a drum skin between my "recreational substances" fund; Il2/CM/Repaying/Helping Ppl slush; and fast food (often split with my dog) piggy bank.  Oh and I have that whole child obligation. Sigh.

However I appreciate the recommendations because you do never know, I do get my hands on books and UMass Boston has a fantastic library. (Boston public isnt shabby either) 

Its just a shame the more technical or some of the more "picturey" books are more rare or unavailable to check out. Totally unrelated to flight simming but for example I saw this book at a bookstore and was transfixed standing there 2 hours just gazing at it a couple of years ago : https://www.amazon.com/Great-War-First-Battle-Somme/dp/0393088804

of course Im joking some.  Obviously online I do get a few used books for a few bucks apiece when I can.  Tank was a really interesting guy as far as airplane designers go. I also think for me part of the appeal is its wartime development. It leads to interesting stories like test planes getting into combat..

i must admit on reflection that I do like learning things online particularly. Mind when I say that I mean in the context of sources I consider reliable and it of course leads me to do my own investigating.  However the advantage of another intelligent mind collecting a lifetimes interest on a subject and then everything they remember about say.. Fw190 heating from multiple sources over the years into one summed up appraisal or thought cannot be understated.  The sum of knowledge say on this board about ww2 history is staggering if you stop and think about it, and covers people whove learned this history from sources in every corner of the world. I found hints of things and fall down rabbit holes that I would never encountered in any other time in human history ever because of the way the internet and the shared significance of ww2 to humanity links us.

Edited November 20, 2019 by Sublime

[sevenless]

2 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

 

There are many expensive books out there, like the 4 Vol Smith/Creek tome on the Fw190

 

Milo, is there a vol 4 for the Fw 190? I only find a vol 4 for the Me 262 with ridiculous pricing?

https://www.amazon.com/-/de/dp/1903223040/ref=sr_1_5?__mk_de_DE=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&keywords=me+262+creek&qid=1574216208&sr=8-5

[NZTyphoon]

41 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

Milo, is there a vol 4 for the Fw 190? I only find a vol 4 for the Me 262 with ridiculous pricing?

https://www.amazon.com/-/de/dp/1903223040/ref=sr_1_5?__mk_de_DE=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&keywords=me+262+creek&qid=1574216208&sr=8-5

Nope, the Fw 190 books run to three volumes. (BTW, according to the publisher's website these books will be reprinted in 2020.)

Edited November 20, 2019 by NZTyphoon
add comment on books being reprinted

[MiloMorai]

sevenless, my mistake. NZ is correct, 3 Vol.

3 hours ago, Sublime said:

Whoa whoa hehe steady there. This is what conversation and the internet is for.  My moneys stretched tighter than a drum skin between my "recreational substances" fund; Il2/CM/Repaying/Helping Ppl slush; and fast food (often split with my dog) piggy bank.

So you can't even afford $5.00. That is one less liquid refreshment.

[JV69badatflyski]

5 hours ago, NZTyphoon said:

Nope, the Fw 190 books run to three volumes. (BTW, according to the publisher's website these books will be reprinted in 2020.)

Thanks for this info, you made my day!
Just the same story as with the Horten's Book, missed it at the release, price went up to several hundreds and then i bought the reprint this year for 35€ on Amazon 
Now the same with the ME-262 Vol-1 and i'll be happy!

[sevenless]

16 hours ago, NZTyphoon said:

(BTW, according to the publisher's website these books will be reprinted in 2020.)

 

I can recommend that to everyone who doesn´t already own them. Same with the four Me 262 books by Smith&Creek. Great books for the interested hobbyist.

[Sublime]

6 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

I can recommend that to everyone who doesn´t already own them. Same with the four Me 262 books by Smith&Creek. Great books for the interested hobbyist.

So basically all their work is good

Ive always wanted a unit histoey similar.to Caldwells history of JG26.  

[sevenless]

Just now, Sublime said:

So basically all their work is good

 

I can agree with that. Additionally to the Fw 190 and Me 262 series I have the older "Jet Planes of the Third Reich" book from 1982 Monogram Aviation Publications and already back then that book was outstanding.

[Sublime]

Thank you.

Now onto caldwells excellent JG26 history.

Is there anything comparable?  Caldwell is brilliant because he manages to weave anecdotes and somehow stops.it from being mind numbingly.boring. i wont lie.and say i understood all of it  but the fact I read it cover to cover at age 10 is high praise

[SCG_OpticFlow]

On 11/18/2019 at 2:54 AM, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

This was turned into a refraction bar discussion but OP meant the upper frame where the sliding canopy closes and contacts the fixed frame, hence the roll bar comment. There refraction doesn't play a role.



As for the reason why it was so thick, I don't know.

 

The thickness on the horizontal bar seems to match the thickness of the armored glass plate. See https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/9152-the-ultimate-fw190-photo-evidence-thread/?do=findComment&comment=147129

 

[istari6]

23 hours ago, OpticFlow said:

The thickness on the horizontal bar seems to match the thickness of the armored glass plate

 

That makes sense.  I know the 190 had a tendency to flip over on takeoff if the pilot didn't keep the tailwheel down, was wondering if they'd built it more strongly as a rollbar for pilot protection in that case.  But perhaps it's just driven by the thickness of the glass plate.  

[AndyJWest]

On 11/20/2019 at 7:29 PM, OpticFlow said:

 

The thickness on the horizontal bar seems to match the thickness of the armored glass plate. See https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/9152-the-ultimate-fw190-photo-evidence-thread/?do=findComment&comment=147129

 

 

Yup. The glass was 58 mm (2.3 inches) thick, according to one source I've seen. When you allow for the thickness of the metal surround, the top of the frame couldn't have been made significantly thinner. 

[SCG_OpticFlow]

34 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

 

Yup. The glass was 58 mm (2.3 inches) thick, according to one source I've seen. When you allow for the thickness of the metal surround, the top of the frame couldn't have been made significantly thinner. 

 

On the Russian Wikipedia it is given as 50 mm thick (made from 4 layers, 120 kg/m² density), but It is sloped at 25 degrees angle, so effective thickness is 50/sin(25°)  =~ 50/0.4226 =~ 118 mm.

 

It was tested to withstand MG 17 fire (7.92 mm caliber) from 50m distance with S.m.K. ammunition (Spitzgeschoß mit Kern - hardened steel core).

 

[sevenless]

1 hour ago, OpticFlow said:

It was tested to withstand MG 17 fire (7.92 mm caliber) from 50m distance with S.m.K. ammunition (Spitzgeschoß mit Kern - hardened steel core).

 

Would have made more sense to test it against 13mm MG 131 fire, because the whole purpose of all this uparmoring in the Sturmbock A8/R2 and A8/R7/R8 was to increase resilience against 12,7 mm (50cal)of the 4-mots.

Edited November 21, 2019 by sevenless

[GP*]

Regarding the Dora, what’s the proper way to set the temp for cowl flap actuation? I’ve left it at the default in quick missions (as the specification tab seems to recommend) and the cowl flaps are open pretty much right from the start of my flight, even at reduced power settings. Am I missing something, or does the Jumo just run really hot? 
 

Also, was the A8 cooling ever fixed? 

[Bremspropeller]

Cowl flap setting on the Dora controls desiered coolant-temp. It's an automatic.

Try a hotter desired coolant-temperature - that might keep the cowls on a flusher setting.

 

Yes. Quite a few patches ago, actually.

[SCG_OpticFlow]

18 hours ago, sevenless said:

 

Would have made more sense to test it against 13mm MG 131 fire, because the whole purpose of all this uparmoring in the Sturmbock A8/R2 and A8/R7/R8 was to increase resilience against 12,7 mm (50cal)of the 4-mots.

 

Yes but it was designed during the late 1930s (RLM spec. from 1937) when rifle caliber ammo was commonly used. Me-262 has 90 mm front plate, built to specification to stop .50 cal AP ammo.

[TRShrum]

On 11/22/2019 at 5:01 AM, Bremspropeller said:

Cowl flap setting on the Dora controls desiered coolant-temp. It's an automatic.

Try a hotter desired coolant-temperature - that might keep the cowls on a flusher setting.

 

Yes. Quite a few patches ago, actually.

So, how does one adjust this "coolant-temp"?  I can't find anything in the Key Bindings for this function under "Engine Management".

[69TD_Hajo_Garlic]

1 hour ago, TRShrum said:

So, how does one adjust this "coolant-temp"?  I can't find anything in the Key Bindings for this function under "Engine Management".

It’s the water rad control.

[Sublime]

15 hours ago, Hajo_Garlic said:

It’s the water rad control.

Pretty sure its under cowl flaps??? Thatsbwhat it adjusts? Idk ibuabe water and the cowl flaps set to same buttons since any plane will use one or the other