the first screenshots of the FW190 in game!

[sturmkraehe]

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.

 

I think the point is that these measurements are measurements without significance to the sim. In the sim you need to modell the maximum possible taking into account realistic limitations. The RAE report does not provide any clue about maximum roll rates of Focke Wulfs nor does it provide any info about limitation. It is interesting but not useful for the sim. 

 

This whole report has as much a meaning to aircraft performance as if measuring the speed of a plane without knowing how much throttle is given. 

[DD_bongodriver]

I'm sure the RAE report had some sort of relevance at the time it was effected and there is no need to get excited over it, probably it's a case of it use in this thread as irrelevant to it's original intent.

[SYN_Ricky]

A peculiarity of the FW-190 is that she takes off in a three-point attitude, also the tailwheel lock was activated pulling the stick back. Wonder if this is modelled correctly in BOS...

http://youtu.be/JPdjr-e7BEY

[Sternjaeger]

I'm sure the RAE report had some sort of relevance at the time it was effected and there is no need to get excited over it, probably it's a case of it use in this thread as irrelevant to it's original intent.

 

yes, it answered some of the questions the RAF had a the time, but it was by no means a thorough measurement as it has been implied by Crump.

A peculiarity of the FW-190 is that she takes off in a three-point attitude, also the tailwheel lock was activated pulling the stick back. Wonder if this is modelled correctly in BOS...

 

http://youtu.be/JPdjr-e7BEY

 

any aircraft with enough HP can take off from three-point attitude, it's not a peculiarity of the FW190, and that video is not showing that anyway, the stick is being held back by the pilots to keep the tailwheel locked.

Edited May 2, 2014 by Sternjaeger

[SYN_Ricky]

yes, it answered some of the questions the RAF had a the time, but it was by no means a thorough measurement as it has been implied by Crump.

 

any aircraft with enough HP can take off from three-point attitude, it's not a peculiarity of the FW190, and that video is not showing that anyway, the stick is being held back by the pilots to keep the tailwheel locked.

 

I read it somwhere (guess it was in one of Osprey books on the 190) that the 190 had to be in a three point attitude for take-off, the tail should not be lifted, so it seems a bit peculiar to me in that sense. I agree the video doesn't show the moment when it leaves the ground, but you clearly see that the 109 pilots lifts the tail quite early, the 190 pilot doesn't...

Edited May 2, 2014 by SYN_Ricky

[Sternjaeger]

mmmh it'd be interesting to see the source of this information, but no, you don't have to take off on a three points attitude, it's in fact quite a potentially dangerous thing to do, especially if you're fully loaded. 

 

[Bearcat]

A peculiarity of the FW-190 is that she takes off in a three-point attitude, also the tailwheel lock was activated pulling the stick back. Wonder if this is modelled correctly in BOS...

http://youtu.be/JPdjr-e7BEY

I believe the P-51 was like that too. The tailwheel bit...

[Sternjaeger]

I believe the P-51 was like that too. The tailwheel bit...

 

oh, that one I can assure you is not the case at all. You can if you wish, because it pulls like a steam train even at 75%, but you defo don't have to.

 

The tailwheel on the P-51 unlocks if you push the stick forward, a bit past the centre line.

Edited May 2, 2014 by Sternjaeger

[DB605]

mmmh it'd be interesting to see the source of this information, but no, you don't have to take off on a three points attitude, it's in fact quite a potentially dangerous thing to do, especially if you're fully loaded. 

 

 

 

 

 

IIRC, with D9 model it was advised to take-off and land to three points because prop was so close to ground when standing on main gears only. That was in Crandalls book "The Focke-Wulf Fw 190 Dora volume 1".

[BlitzPig_EL]

Looks like the pilot's head in the screen shots is right against the top of the canopy.

 

Much higher position than real life photos show.

 

That's one way to get around the bar I guess.

[Crump]

I think the point is that these measurements are measurements without significance to the sim. In the sim you need to modell the maximum possible taking into account realistic limitations. The RAE report does not provide any clue about maximum roll rates of Focke Wulfs nor does it provide any info about limitation. It is interesting but not useful for the sim. 

 

This whole report has as much a meaning to aircraft performance as if measuring the speed of a plane without knowing how much throttle is given. 

 

 

The combat film is a sideline to the report.  It most certainly does measure the maximum roll rate of the FW-190 under known conditions in addition to the information provided from the combat films.

[siipperi]

IIRC, with D9 model it was advised to take-off and land to three points because prop was so close to ground when standing on main gears only. That was in Crandalls book "The Focke-Wulf Fw 190 Dora volume 1".

 

Really? That's really interesting, not sure if it was must or if they just preferred doing so. P47 might have same problem. it got huge prob too.

Would be interesting if anyone got some internet link for it.

[DB605]

Really? That's really interesting, not sure if it was must or if they just preferred doing so. P47 might have same problem. it got huge prob too.

Would be interesting if anyone got some internet link for it.

I can dig the book up and take scan of that page when i'll have time.

[DB605]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not really that much difference in pilot position. And of course pilot height and seat positions may vary between different pics.

Edited May 2, 2014 by DB605

[DD_bongodriver]

it does sound odd, the 2 videos and pics above show the 190 has a massive ground to prop clearance.

[SYN_Ricky]

mmmh it'd be interesting to see the source of this information, but no, you don't have to take off on a three points attitude, it's in fact quite a potentially dangerous thing to do, especially if you're fully loaded.

 

 

 

It's true that I don't remember reading this statement anywhere else, I should look in the book for the exact quote and see if there are other sources supporting it...maybe in the FW-190 official manual?

 

And yes, I saw the video you posted and indeed he lifts the tail, but is it an original FW-190 or one of those with the russian engine, could that change the take-off procedure ?

Edited May 2, 2014 by SYN_Ricky

[DD_bongodriver]

but is it an original FW-190 or one of those with the russian engine, could that change the take-off procedure ?

 

 

Highly unlikely.

[DB605]

it does sound odd, the 2 videos and pics above show the 190 has a massive ground to prop clearance.

I was talking about D9 wich have less clearance. But anyhow, just did a quick look to book and here's quote from Gerhard Knoll: "We had to make three-point landings with the Fw 190 to make sure the large propeller would not hit the ground."

No mention about take-off so it may just be that my memory was wrong.

[Sternjaeger]

the problem was that as you can see from wartime videos they pretty much took off from REALLY rough grassy, boggy fields, so keeping your prop clear off the ground must have been much more challenging. 

[Sternjaeger]

The combat film is a sideline to the report.  It most certainly does measure the maximum roll rate of the FW-190 under known conditions in addition to the information provided from the combat films.

 

no it does not because there is no accurate method of measurement being used and t here's no certainty on the amount of input given on the controls. Now please refrain from insisting on this, because it will only end up with the mods locking the thread. If you want to argue this, please post it in the aviation references section. 

[Crump]

 

 "We had to make three-point landings with the Fw 190 to make sure the large propeller would not hit the ground."

 

All the FW-190 pilots I spoke with said the exact same thing.  You have to three point the airplane.  That is not a bad thing.  Only reason I ever wheel land a tail dragger is for my own practice.  Severe crosswinds, I three point it.

 

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.

 

 

There is nothing unorthodox about their measurements or conclusions.  The combat film measurements is one small part and serves to confirm the RAE own flight investigations.

[sturmkraehe]

Yes, please open a separate thread. I still cannot understand how one can conclude on the maximum possible roll rate of a Focke Wulf just from watching some combat movies without knowing what the Focke Wulf pilot actually did. Again it's like saying a plane flies at maximum speed just by measuring its fly past speed without knowing the throttle input ...

[Jaws2002]

mmmh it'd be interesting to see the source of this information, but no, you don't have to take off on a three points attitude, it's in fact quite a potentially dangerous thing to do, especially if you're fully loaded. 

 

That's no real fw190. It has a Russian engine.

I read in a lot of places that real fw190 had to be landed in a three point attitude because of prop clearance.

[DD_bongodriver]

I don't think the Russian engine means having a different prop.

 

this 190 is original with the BMW engine, it doesn't land 3 point, you can see there is a ton of prop clearance.

 

the landing is at the end of the video

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhAgU-GUc1Q

 

and another vid of the same 190 doing another wheeler landing

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wFCc1OVsaY

Edited May 2, 2014 by DD_bongodriver

[Brano]

Chinese engine,to be precise

another example how innocent thread with name "'first screenshots of Fw190 in game"' turns into neverending "'mine is the truth"'

 

[Sternjaeger]

All the FW-190 pilots I spoke with said the exact same thing.  You have to three point the airplane.  That is not a bad thing.  Only reason I ever wheel land a tail dragger is for my own practice.  Severe crosswinds, I three point it.

ALL the FW-190 pilots? Wow, how many you met? You still comparing your toy plane with a full scale warbird? As said above, please continue this conversation somewhere else.

 

 

There is nothing unorthodox about their measurements or conclusions.  The combat film measurements is one small part and serves to confirm the RAE own flight investigations.

I give up, obviously you don't understand what we are all saying, but I don't really know how to explain it to you other than English.

 

A message to the mods, can Crump's interesting posts be moved to the appropriate section please, as they do not pertain the original topic I started?

 

 

That's no real fw190. It has a Russian engine.

I read in a lot of places that real fw190 had to be landed in a three point attitude because of prop clearance.

As you can see from Bongo's post, the original FW190 does the same thing.

 

Let's make something clear: when you have enough power at your disposal, you can take off your taildragger from two or three points, the choice can also depend on the sort of ground you're flying from.

 

I can't find it anywhere, but there's a late war video showing what I think was a Dora and almost toppling over at take off because it rolled straight into a huge puddle of water.

 

Taking off on three points as a precaution doesn't mean that's the only way to take off.

Edited May 2, 2014 by Sternjaeger

[DD_bongodriver]

I think the vid you are talking about actually shows 109's taking off.

[DB605]

I think the vid you are talking about actually shows 109's taking off.

No, i have seen same video several times. It have both 109's and Doras.

 

Edit, this one:

 

Edited May 2, 2014 by DB605

[Crump]

 

ALL the FW-190 pilots? Wow, how many you met? You still comparing your toy plane with a full scale warbird? As said above, please continue this conversation somewhere else.

  

 

 

What are you talking about?  Weisse Eins was an original FW-190F8 and BMW801 engine.

 

http://www.white1foundation.org/

 

In the course of project I met several FW-190 pilots and Luftwaffe veterans.  Oskar Bösch who emphasized the three point take offs and landing on several occasions when discussing flying the aircraft.

[Sternjaeger]

I think the vid you are talking about actually shows 109's taking off.

 

there are also FW190s if memory serves, the point was that the three point technique was preferred to avoid flipping the aircraft over when flying from rough grass airstrips, which were pretty much the norm in majority of cases in 1944 onwards.

[sallee]

Fascinating reading from both of you. If you keep it civil, we can all enjoy it!

[Fafnir_6]

 

 

 

Not really that much difference in pilot position. And of course pilot height and seat positions may vary between different pics.

Wasn't head clearance part of the reason they moved to the bubble-style canopy on later Fw190A-8s, Fw190F-8s and Fw190D-9s?

 

All this discussion of the 'bar' and nobody mentions the actual problem with it....or did I see the word 'refraction' somewhere in there? :D

 

Ok, ok, stopit!

Honestly, A proper nose-down in level flight implementation would do more for forward visibility than refraction or size of bar IMHO. Judging from the material posted so far, we have much to look forward to . The top pic here shows the Fw190A-3 in a slight dive but if you examine the angle of the MG151 in the wing root as zeroed for level flight, the aircraft still has its distinctive nose-down slant.  I love it .

 

Cheers,

 

Fafnir_6

Edited May 2, 2014 by Fafnir_6

[II./JG27_Rich]

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/ptr-1107.pdf

 

 

Against some America fighters

[LukeFF]

Looks like the pilot's head in the screen shots is right against the top of the canopy.

 

Much higher position than real life photos show.

 

That's one way to get around the bar I guess.

 

The model of the pilot has absolutely nothing to do with what the player sees from the cockpit.

Edited May 2, 2014 by LukeFF

[DD_bongodriver]

Was intended, AFAIK, to safely operate the plane from rough, unprepared airstrips (hence the wide track U/C)

 

Well that is simply a specific technique required for specific surfaces and is fairly common to most types, but the way it was suggested is that it was a mandatory handling technique specific to the 190 regardless of surface type.

[Crump]

I don't think the Russian engine means having a different prop.

 

this 190 is original with the BMW engine, it doesn't land 3 point, you can see there is a ton of prop clearance.

 

the landing is at the end of the video

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhAgU-GUc1Q

 

and another vid of the same 190 doing another wheeler landing

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wFCc1OVsaY

 

 

Neither one of these are wheel landings.  You can look at the elevator in the first one and see the pilot is holding stick back after the bounce.

 

In the second one, the pilot plants it hard and bounces on the three point landing.  He controls the oscillation and re-establishes the 3-pointer.

 

Wheel landing involve flying the aircraft to the runway.  When the mains touch, the elevator goes FORWARD to pin the airplane on the runway with the mains. 

 

There is no application of forward elevator with the mains on the runway in either video.

 

Here is an instructor teaching a student how to wheel land.  At the 30 second mark he instructs the student to move the stick FORWARD about an inch when the mains touch and hold it there.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLs-r-uOx0U

[Crump]

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/ptr-1107.pdf

 

 

Against some America fighters

 

 

Good stuff Rich.  The report specifically states all the data is qualitative and not quantitative.   That means it is opinion and observation without measurement.

 

The RAE actually measured the roll rates and upon reading the qualitative opinion of the US Navy had some quantitative data to share!!

 

[Sternjaeger]

I just can't believe that EVERY single topic where we're trying to have a technical conversation has to be hijacked by your drivel Crump, it is frankly annoying. 

[DD_bongodriver]

Neither one of these are wheel landings.  You can look at the elevator in the first one and see the pilot is holding stick back after the bounce.

 

In the second one, the pilot plants it hard and bounces on the three point landing.

 

True enough the first video is probably a cocked up 3 point but the second video is a wheeler landing and there is no bounce whatsoever, I'm surprised they issue FAA class1 medicals with such bad eyesight.

 

when I teach students to do wheeler landings I also get them to maintain the tail wheel off for the sake of practice but the fact is there is simply no requirement to do so, checking forward on the stick is primarily to slow down the rate the tailwheel will drop due to decreasing airspeed, you effectively fly the tail down.

Edited May 2, 2014 by DD_bongodriver

[DD_bongodriver]

Design specifically intended.

 

I think we have crossed wires, I am talking about the apparent strict mandate to operate from a 3 point attitude and not about the wide track and long undercarriage.