FW-190 high speed black out

[Roland_HUNter]

IL-2 developers are mentioned here: ?
 

 

[JuliMonkey]

15 minutes ago, -[HRAF]Roland_HUNter said:

IL-2 developers are mentioned here: ?
 

 

As far as i know he sometimes plays IL2

[EpeeNoire]

one comes to think that il-2 in its current state doesn't really do this aeroplane justice - but that's kind of how it always has been

(remember the days when you were constantly stalling, even in slight turns? which rendered the plane basically useless in dog fights? ahhh, those days...)

Edited March 8, 2020 by EpeeNoire

[=621=Samikatz]

5 hours ago, EpeeNoire said:

one comes to think that il-2 in its current state doesn't really do this aeroplane justice - but that's kind of how it always has been

 

Huh? It owns bones in this sim, all four models. It's usually fast in both speed and acceleration at altitudes most commonly fought at in the sim, it can equip an absurd amount of firepower  the control authority at high speeds is brilliant for pulling snap shots, and if someone gets on your six there's no plane series better at forcing an overshoot. Sure it isn't great at low speeds but it doesn't need to be. If there's 190s on a map I will never take a 109 when flying axis

[senseispcc]

If we listen to most of this type of video, we can ask our self how the German did manage to lose the war?! Yes, this is bad news, they did. Stop thinking the Germans had the best planes or tanks or soldiers or even that they lost because they were alone. This are all lies, the allies, all of them adapted when the Germans did not.

The Allies Spitfires, Typhoons, Tempest, P51, P47, P38 adapted to the flow of the war so did the Yaks or Lagg's, and any plane of the war was never perfect!

And a lot of German planes were built by "slaves" and how more the war advanced in time how more the quality of those produced planes worsened.

And one last  little detail...this is a GAME and I hope it stay so. And a very nice game...

 

Edited March 8, 2020 by senseispcc
correction

[[CPT]Crunch]

If you bothered to actually watch the series he says no such thing, the brilliance of the design was it was all around good on average at everything required of it, but ergonomically brilliant for combat pilots, with automated controls that were easy to run and hard to get one into trouble.  Technically designed for quick field maintenance for higher in service rates, the guns weren't installed as an afterthought like most, but integrated from the beginning into the wings.  A brilliant solution to strengthening the firewall engine mountings and wings with an integrated through main spar.  An advanced isolated electrical system, flight control rigging, and oxygen systems that couldn't be knocked out with single hits.  In other words a fully and deliberately designed "for war" fighting machine, not some speed record breaking race bird or souped up highly modified trainer with guns slapped into it as an afterthought to make due.  That's what was remarkable throughout its service.

[CountZero]

The guy has a point, if they decided to add G improvments so airplanes with G suits can benefit from it, they should do also that airplanes that have better pilot seat for G force on pilots benefit also, and untill they show G force in HUD we cant know if 190s seat design benefits from it in game like in real.

[Bremspropeller]

13 hours ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

If you bothered to actually watch the series he says no such thing, the brilliance of the design was it was all around good on average at everything required of it, but ergonomically brilliant for combat pilots, with automated controls that were easy to run and hard to get one into trouble.

 

Plus, when it was introduced into service, it was pretty much the fastest fighter in the world.

[AndyJWest]

4 minutes ago, CountZero said:

The guy has a point, if they decided to add G improvments so airplanes with G suits can benefit from it, they should do also that airplanes that have better pilot seat for G force on pilots benefit also, and untill they show G force in HUD we cant know if 190s seat design benefits from it in game like in real.

 

So far, despite multiple requests, nobody has provided any sources which provide actual data on the supposed benefits of the Fw 190's seat layout. And what data there is on later research (i.e. with seats that with backs reclined at 30 degrees or so) would seem to imply that any benefits were likely to have been fairly marginal.

[RedKestrel]

4 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

 

So far, despite multiple requests, nobody has provided any sources which provide actual data on the supposed benefits of the Fw 190's seat layout. And what data there is on later research (i.e. with seats that with backs reclined at 30 degrees or so) would seem to imply that any benefits were likely to have been fairly marginal.

Yep. In every thread, there are people claiming the 190 seat position is better for G-forces. And yet no one is able to show this was the case, or even show what the actual angle of the seat was in comparison to allied fighters.

This happens all the time in historical / reenactment circles. Someone heard something somewhere and now its just one of those "everyone knows" unverifiable facts that float around. Everyone is sure it is true because the person who told them was sure it was true. Sometimes it turns out to be true but it is very rarely the whole truth.

[=621=Samikatz]

Is it something modern fighters take advantage of? I know the F-16 has you lean quite far back but I thought that was to keep the fuselage small

[AndyJWest]

30 minutes ago, =621=Samikatz said:

Is it something modern fighters take advantage of? I know the F-16 has you lean quite far back but I thought that was to keep the fuselage small

 

Seats in modern fighters are often reclined to a significant extent (from memory, the F-16 seat back is at 30 degrees to the vertical?), and there is data to show that this improves G resistance. From the sources I've seen so far (not an exhaustive search, since much data isn't freely available online) the benefit comes mostly from decreasing the vertical difference between the heart and the brain. And simple trigonometry will show that you need to recline a seat a lot more than is the case in typical WW2 aircraft for to make much difference in that regard.

 

It is possible that there is also some benefit from raising the pilot's feet. The RAF seemed to think so, since this is the explanation usually given for why the Spitfire has two footrests, one above the other, for each foot. On the other hand, a source I found earlier (I linked it in one of the previous threads on the topic) seemed to suggest  that from experiments in a centrifuge, it made no significant difference regarding the Gs necessary to cause a blackout.

 

And yes, a reclined seating position can significantly reduce the cockpit cross-section, which is why high-performance sailplanes are designed that way. 

Edited March 9, 2020 by AndyJWest

[cardboard_killer]

I'll say that the Spitfire V pilots over France thought it was superior to the V, but an IX was a fair(er) fight. There is a comment by an RAF pilot that moved from flights fighting over France to North Africa in the Spit V saying that the quality of Fw190 pilots in general were not near the level of the France based LW unit (can't think of the formation name). I haven't watched the video yet, but I also know that Fw-190s, as they were replacing Ju-87s as ground support often did not have fighter pilots driving them but retrained bomber pilots. And pilot skill against reasonably close technology usually determines the victor in a "fair" fight, which no pilot wants anyway.

[Bremspropeller]

It's not the "reclined seat" in the 190. It's the elevated foot-position. The effect is the same: A lower hydrostatic pressure-differential the heart has to produce during high-g maneuvers. The effect is up to debate. Maybe @busdriver could elaborate about his experiences between straight and reclined seats.

The issue whether the pilot does g-strain or not probably is of higher impartance than the reclining-angle of the seat. Unless the seat is really flat - like in a glider.

 

The F-16's 30° seat-recline did come from the fact the the seat wouldn't fit straight-upright. The "reclination for additional g-tolerance" was an afterthought and the PR-department gladly took the cue...

 

19 minutes ago, cardboard_killer said:

There is a comment by an RAF pilot that moved from flights fighting over France to North Africa in the Spit V saying that the quality of Fw190 pilots in general were not near the level of the France based LW unit (can't think of the formation name).

 

That's probably because they were also fighting ground-attack units there. Such as Ekdo. 19, III./ZG 2, III./SKG 10 and II./Sch.G. 2.

II./JG 2 did pretty well in Tunisia. They did overclaim, though.

 

Edited March 9, 2020 by Bremspropeller

[ZachariasX]

7 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

The F-16's 30° seat-recline did come from the fact the the seat wouldn't fit straight-upright.

The same is true for the Fw-190. It is almost either upright position OR the front fuselage fuel tank. You cannot tuck it under the dash like that when you sit upright.

 

You can see this also with the Bf-109 fuel tank:

 

It literally is stuck behind and underneath the pilot. If you made the seat upright while maintaining the head position of the pilot, the front part underneath the pilot would be thinner and you'd use considerable volume. In the Fw-190 the tank is only below the pilots position, hence the volume lost by installing an upright seat (while maintaining the pilots head at the same level) would be even larger.

 

Neither Willy nor Kurt thought of an F-16 when designing their aircraft. They thought of endurance. And *may have* asked whether a pilot could still fit inside the aircraft. They were improving the loading of their aircraft. Not improving the g-loading of their pilots.

[AndyJWest]

With the possible exception of church pews (which from distant memory seem mostly designed to keep you awake), seats almost invariably have an angled back. Because it is more comfortable that way. 

[Bremspropeller]

45 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Neither Willy nor Kurt thought of an F-16 when designing their aircraft. They thought of endurance. And *may have* asked whether a pilot could still fit inside the aircraft. They were improving the loading of their aircraft. Not improving the g-loading of their pilots.

 

I doubt that KT or WM were thinking about *endurance* (or range for that matter). They'd have built an entirely different airplane in that case.

I'll agree on that they tried to maximize fuel-load for a given (small) amount of fuselage volume - which I'm certain is what you meant anyway.

[RedKestrel]

2 hours ago, =621=Samikatz said:

Is it something modern fighters take advantage of? I know the F-16 has you lean quite far back but I thought that was to keep the fuselage small

In addition to what others have said, too, fighters that came after the F-16 have generally not included that aggressive of a reclined seat. The closest is, I believe, the F-22, but its still off by five to ten degrees or something like that.
 

[Bremspropeller]

The Rafale uses a 29° seat-recline.

[cardboard_killer]

I recline in my seat to fly.

 

 

[ZachariasX]

2 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

I doubt that KT or WM were thinking about *endurance* (or range for that matter). They'd have built an entirely different airplane in that case.

I'll agree on that they tried to maximize fuel-load for a given (small) amount of fuselage volume - which I'm certain is what you meant anyway.

Yes, I'm talking about one hour flight instead of half an hour.

 

Both were great in cramping in a lot behind those engines with little sticking out to the sides. The creature then has to adjust in some sort or the other.

[busdriver]

3 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

Maybe @busdriver could elaborate about his experiences between straight and reclined seats.

 

It was much much easier to use a "piddle pak" in the Phantom than the F-16...oh you meant WRT to g tolerance. I can't recall any F-16 pilot saying or thinking they had a higher g tolerance because of the seat being reclined. And indeed the discussion always mentioned that it was the only way to get the seat in the jet.

 

My last two months as an RF-4 RTU instructor I flew 30 BFM training hops (according to my logbook). I went to the centrifuge the week I arrived for F-16 training (before flying it). My anecdotal evidence, was I had a very high g tolerance, sustained 6 g WITHOUT using the anti-g straining maneuver and no g-suit inflation. When I started flying the F-16, I didn't feel that it had increased my tolerance.