the first screenshots of the FW190 in game!

[Pierre64]

Two more showing standard factory camo patern.

 

 

 

One more (colorized?):

[Tyberan]

Cant wait for the 190, my favorite aircraft.

 

Its the reason i spend a fortune on books. If you guys want some really good reference material for the FW190 I would highly recommend the 3 volumes from Ian Allen Publishing, not only squadron history but every friggin detail is covered about the aircraft. I have them all and they are top notch. 

 

Only wish there was good publications like this for the russian aircraft as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Gort]

So the complaint about the bar - was it not well stocked or stocked with the wrong selection?

I can't think of a more desirable feature for a fighter- a flying bar is heaven for the fighter pilot. Imagine celebrating your kills (or your survival) on the way back from a tough mission.

 

A bar and a tailhook should be a design requirement.

Edited April 30, 2014 by Victory205

[Panzerlang]

Galland had an ashtray for his cigars, WE DEMAND AN OPTIC!

[SvAF/F19_Klunk]

 

I can't think of a more desirable feature for a fighter- a flying bar is heaven for the fighter pilot. Imagine celebrating your kills (or your survival) on the way back from a tough mission.

A bar and a tailhook should be a design requirement.

 

 

I like that new approach on a bar

Edited April 30, 2014 by F19_Klunk

[DD_bongodriver]

I can't think of a more desirable feature for a fighter- a flying bar is heaven for the fighter pilot. Imagine celebrating your kills (or your survival) on the way back from a tough mission.

 

A bar and a tailhook should be a design requirement.

 

 

I guess if you turn up back at base plastered that tailhook will come in handy.

[StarLightSong]

What has it gots in its pockets's?  Mine!

 

and bailout survivable too!

Could use a bit more recline in the pilots chair though ; )

This is the axis plane I've waited for, and with so many roles and potential "unlockables" only a lend lease Spit could equal it, or a Lag 9 niner.

Edited May 1, 2014 by JJJudyJoYstickr

[TJT]

Cant wait for the 190, my favorite aircraft.

 

Its the reason i spend a fortune on books. If you guys want some really good reference material for the FW190 I would highly recommend the 3 volumes from Ian Allen Publishing, not only squadron history but every friggin detail is covered about the aircraft. I have them all and they are top notch. 

 

Only wish there was good publications like this for the russian aircraft as well.

 

 

I've got the first 2 volumes and the 3rd is on my wish list.    Very nice books indeed.

 

Yefim Gordon's Il-2/Il-10 book is a really nice one about the name sake of the game.  

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ilyushin-IL-10-Famous-Russian-Aircraft/dp/1857803221/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1398903375&sr=8-6&keywords=IL_2

Edited May 1, 2014 by TJT

[Trident_109]

Other than supporting 1C/777 Studios this is why I spent $90.00!

[Wulf]

In answer to your question, Uriah, no, the engine design you are referring to, called "rotary", was abandoned soon after WW1, as the increased demands in terms of horsepower meant the use of different engine designs.

 

The FW190 had a sophisticated BMW radial engine, which had an electro-mechanical apparatus that would automatically adjust mixture and pitch according to the flight attitude, altitude and speed, considerably reducing the pilot's workload.

 

There was one peculiarity (which was in fact common to most mid/late war German radial engines), a fan that was installed between the propeller and the engine, which was meant to ram air inside the very snug cowling, considerably helping with the cooling of the engine itself. 

 

If memory serves the fan had its own gearing and would spin at a different speed than the propeller. I am not 100% sure, but I seem to remember that the speed of the fan was also regulated by the kommandgerät (the aforementioned apparatus).

 

 

I think I remember reading that the cooling fan spun at 3x the speed of the prop shaft.

 

What really interests me is how well it rolls.  Most of the aircraft in the game seem to roll pretty well, at least at this stage of the process.   If the 190 model is to be a faithful representation of the original its going to have to out-roll them all.  We will see........ 

Edited May 1, 2014 by Wulf

[siipperi]

Sadly I prefer long nosed versions more than old fockes. D-9 and so on. But looks amazing.

[Tyberan]

Other than supporting 1C/777 Studios this is why I spent $90.00!

 

Same here, then I found that I really enjoy the PE-2 which is a nice bonus

 

Sadly I prefer long nosed versions more than old fockes. D-9 and so on. But looks amazing.

 

Again same here, the long nose Dora defiantly is the most bad ass looking fighter out of WW2. But the A version is still a great looking and flying aircraft.

 

 

 

 

I've got the first 2 volumes and the 3rd is on my wish list.    Very nice books indeed.

 

Yefim Gordon's Il-2/Il-10 book is a really nice one about the name sake of the game.  

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ilyushin-IL-10-Famous-Russian-Aircraft/dp/1857803221/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1398903375&sr=8-6&keywords=IL_2

 

ooh, nice find i'll definatly check it out. Also 3rd volume not the most definative book on the long noses but has a lot of stuff i've never read or photos i've seen before in other texts

Edited May 1, 2014 by Tyberan

[senseispcc]

 

 

What really interests me is how well it rolls.  Most of the aircraft in the game seem to roll pretty well, at least at this stage of the process.  

 

The BF 109 G2 is a beast when it comes to the roll, rudder and stick in the same direction and roll like hell.

[DB605]

Is this already posted here? Contains some good footage about A-4:

 

 

http://youtu.be/HESIq6g1ODo

[Finkeren]

Sadly I prefer long nosed versions more than old fockes. D-9 and so on. But looks amazing.

It's a question of taste, and the Dora does look very elegant and sleek, but from a technological standpoint there's no question that the BMW powered 190s are far more interesting.

[AndyJWest]

Regarding the cooling fan, apparently it ran at 1.72 x crankshaft speed/3.18 x propeller speed http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/engines/what-do-cooling-fans-do-18933.html#post508822

[Crump]

I think I remember reading that the cooling fan spun at 3x the speed of the prop shaft.

 

What really interests me is how well it rolls.  Most of the aircraft in the game seem to roll pretty well, at least at this stage of the process.   If the 190 model is to be a faithful representation of the original its going to have to out-roll them all.  We will see........ 

 

 

Here is an RAE comparison based on Gun Camera footage analysis.  I will post the entire report in the Developer Assistance forums.

 

Here is the page from the report:

 

 

Here is a graphic that gives a good visual on the information presented by the RAE.  It represents the relative position of the FW-190 to the Spitfire after ONE SECOND of time has elapsed.

 

[Sternjaeger]

I'm not sure I understand the logic or value of the "TIMES TO BANK FROM COMBAT FILM" parameter.. 

[Crump]

You will when you read the report. 

 

It is part of the full RAE investigation in the roll rates of the FW-190. 

 

The combat film portion was derived by the Operational Research Section of Fighter Command from analysis of gun camera footage selected with the criteria the Spitfire was not rolling at the point of measurement. 

 

It quantifies the relative agility between the aircraft in a dogfight.

 

The RAE investigation confirms and agrees with the Operational Research Section of Fighter Commands results by using accepted rolling velocity calculations and flight test measurements.

Edited May 1, 2014 by Crump

[DD_bongodriver]

How can it be a measure of relative agility if the spitfire was not rolling at the time of measurement?

[von_Tom]

How can it be a measure of relative agility if the spitfire was not rolling at the time of measurement?

 

Precisely because the rate of roll is being measured against a non rolling aircraft.  If both were rolling it would be more awkward to gauge the roll rate bearing in mind parameters such as speed, energy states and so on.  At best it is an approximation anyway because if it was combat footage it wasn't exactly a scientific situation with defined parameters etc. 

 

I'm presuming it was Spitfire footage that was used.

 

Hood

Edited May 1, 2014 by Hood

[Crump]

How can it be a measure of relative agility if the spitfire was not rolling at the time of measurement?

 

 

Because the unknown quality of the FW-190's roll rate is then measured and can then be compared to the known quality of the Spitfires roll rate.  That is what the chart shows.

 

 

 

It does not show the relative performance on the films, it shows the relative performance of the aircraft from flight measurements taken while in combat.

Come on Guys, the Operational Research Section of Fighter Command was not stupid and neither was the RAE.

Edited May 1, 2014 by Crump

[Sternjaeger]

yeah, but how can you be sure from a combat film what sort of input was being given at the time by the FW190 pilot? 

[Crump]

Let me put it another way.....

 

They took films which they could measure the Spitfire was NOT rolling and the FW-190 WAS rolling to get a practical measurement of the rolling velocity of the FW-190. 

 

They then compared that measurement from the films on the FW-190 to the RAE's previously measured rolling velocity data on the Spitfire to produce the chart comparing the two aircraft.

[Crump]

 

yeah, but how can you be sure from a combat film what sort of input was being given at the time by the FW190 pilot?

 

 

You cannot be sure what the input is for the Focke Wulf pilot and there is no altitude and speed data available. 

 

The average rolling velocity as measured from the films is only 120 degrees per second. 

 

That is far below the RAE measured maximum rolling velocity of the FW-190 and well within its measured performance envelope.

 

Again, the RAE included the data in the report because it agrees with their measured findings.  It is not meant to represent maximum rolling performance of the Focke Wulf, only what is being experienced during aerial combat.

 

I am sure those Luftwaffe pilots were constrained by physics and were not trying to rip the wings off their aircraft.

[Sternjaeger]

ah, so it wasn't "combat film", it was purposely shot gun camera footage with two RAF pilots? Still, it seems kind of an awkward way of measuring roll rates? Not to mention that fuel and ammo load would have probably affected the rate.. 

That's what never really convinced me about RAE reports, their empirical measurements were based on fundamentally flawed methods..

Edited May 1, 2014 by Sternjaeger

[sturmkraehe]

Is this already posted here? Contains some good footage about A-4:

 

Interesting footage. But somehow the spinner of the FW190 looks damaged as if it hat fallen on its nose. 

[Crump]

ah, so it wasn't "combat film", it was purposely shot gun camera footage with two RAF pilots? Still, it seems kind of an awkward way of measuring roll rates? Not to mention that fuel and ammo load would have probably affected the rate.. 

That's what never really convinced me about RAE reports, their empirical measurements were based on fundamentally flawed methods..

 

No, it was gun camera footage and lots of it.  They just only used the films where the Spitfire was not rolling to measure the rolling velocity of the Focke Wulf.  The technique worked although it underestimated the maximum rolling velocity of the Focke Wulf.

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting take on it though.  Pb/2V is what is use today to derive rolling velocity....same method they used at the RAE.

 

What do you base your opinion on?

Edited May 1, 2014 by Crump

[Sternjaeger]

Crump, it's all down to what you intend to do with these estimates. 

 

Are those estimates accurate? No. Do they serve any purpose? Not really. It didn't take a rocket scientist to understand that the FW190 could roll faster than a Spit, don't you think?

[Sternjaeger]

 

 The technique worked although it underestimated the maximum rolling velocity of the Focke Wulf.

 

..erm, it didn't really work if it underestimated the roll rate though, did it?

Edited May 1, 2014 by Sternjaeger

[Crump]

Sure it worked, it just did not show the maximum roll rate of the Focke Wulf, only the relative performance as seen in combat.

It certainly gives a good visual of the relative performance in a dogfight.  It also highlights the reason the RAF recommended avoiding close combat with the Focke Wulf.

[Bearcat]

Well that whole discussion is moot and meaningless because I am certain that at this point in history.. the devs were able to use whatever German documents they could find relating to the specs of the 190 in the creation of the model for this sim.. so regardless to whatever numbers the R.A.F. had back in the day... they are moot when placed against actual specs.

[Sternjaeger]

Well that whole discussion is moot and meaningless because I am certain that at this point in history.. the devs were able to use whatever German documents they could find relating to the specs of the 190 in the creation of the model for this sim.. so regardless to whatever numbers the R.A.F. had back in the day... they are moot when placed against actual specs.

 

+1

Sure it worked, it just did not show the maximum roll rate of the Focke Wulf, only the relative performance as seen in combat.

It certainly gives a good visual of the relative performance in a dogfight.  It also highlights the reason the RAF recommended avoiding close combat with the Focke Wulf.

 

What I see is that it merely tried to put down on paper the notion of "alright chaps, they can roll faster now". It is absolutely useless for anything else I'm afraid.

[Bearcat]

The only take away I get from those screenies is.... if you didn't buy a Premium Edition it doesn't matter because you won't be flying it anyway.. What I am curious about is .. Once the La-5 & 190 are released to the early access crowd.. if you have the standard edition will you still be able to use it as an AI plane? Probably .. although I am not sure.. sort of how it was for RoF.

[Crump]

 

they are moot when placed against actual specs.

 

 

Never seen any actual flight measurements from Focke Wulf.  It would be interesting to see.  All I have seen is the calculated performance from the initial design.  AFAIK, the RAE measurements are the only ones recorded.

[Sternjaeger]

Never seen any actual flight measurements from Focke Wulf.  It would be interesting to see.  All I have seen is the calculated performance from the initial design.  AFAIK, the RAE measurements are the only ones recorded.

 

those are NOT recorded measurements, they're gross estimates.

[Crump]

 

those are NOT recorded measurements, they're gross estimates.

 

The report has recorded measurements, Sternjager.  You do know the RAE had FW-190A3 WNr 313 and several other FW-190's in their possession?

 

[Panzerlang]

The report shows "It can roll at least this fast".

[Tab]

What I am curious about is .. Once the La-5 & 190 are released to the early access crowd.. if you have the standard edition will you still be able to use it as an AI plane?.

all who have early access will be able to fly la-5 and 190 in early access till the game is released. After release I am pretty sure it will be like RoF.

[Sternjaeger]

 

The report has recorded measurements, Sternjager.  You do know the RAE had FW-190A3 WNr 313 and several other FW-190's in their possession?

 

 

of course I know this, that's why I found these reports useless for the purpose of accurate measuring.

 

A guy on another forum put it down quite eloquently:

"Roll rates vary considerably with speed. If you take just the F4U-1 Corsair (See: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...4u-1-02155.pdf), the rates of roll during tests (overload fighter, 273 gallons of fuel in fuselage tank, wing tanks empty, full aileron deflection) l, were as follows:

 

1) right roll: 70° / sec, clean, 150 mph; 84° / sec, clean, 200 mph.

2) Left roll: 70° / sec, clean, 150 mph; 76° / sec, clean, 200 mph.

 

Fuel in the outer tanks will make it roll slower. As a rule, very few WWII fighter could exceed 90° / second. Each must be researched individually, and the rate changes considerably with speed. 

 

If you want to do a fun simulation, have at it. If you want a realistic simulation, you need to carefully read performance reports from WWII. The thing is, they tested what they tested, not necessarily what we want to know today. They figured, for instance in the report above, that testing the rate of roll at 150 and 200 mph was enough to characterise the aircraft. But what about 400 mph and above? Not shown in the report, and you cannot assume it gets higher because most WWII aircraft rolled slower after reaching some max roll speed that varied by a lot between aircraft types. To be complete, the report also characterized the roll rate in landing configuration at 90, 150, and 200 mph, but that is not a configuration you would use in combat.

 

The Me 109, for instance, was a pretty good roller at 250 mph. But at 420 mph it was pretty solid in both pitch and roll, and the stick could not even be moved more than about 1/4 deflection to either side due to aerodynamic forces and a very narrow cockpit, making application of much force to the stick a problem. The 109 was designed for combat at 180 - 280 mph and it was a bit out of its element at 350+ mph.

 

From: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html :

 

The Me 109E could roll 45° in 1 second at 200mph, but the same roll at 385 mph took 4 seconds.

The Spitfire Mk I could roll 45° in 1.9 seconds at 200 mph, but at 385 mph it took 3.8 seconds.

It looks like the roll rates of the Me 109E (or Bf 109E) and the Spitfire Mk I were equal at about 330 mph, with the 109 rolling better when slower and the Spitfire rolling better when faster."

 

There's no "one size fits all" parameter that can be used for the various attitudes, and again what surprises me is the unorthodox way in which RAE did their measurements.

Edited May 2, 2014 by Sternjaeger