pixelshader Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 I did this quickly, less than an hour total. I think it's accurate to +- half a sec maybe. I used video to time climbing from 1km to 2km altitude. I used 70% fuel, planes trimmed to be neutral at about 500ias, no rudder corrections, hud reading for speed, altimeter for alt, throttle @ the dint on 190, 1.3ata on f4, full open on g2, and finally removed headrest on 109s as normal. results are in format: climb speed / seconds for 1km>2km / resulting meters/sec climb rate 190: 290 68.5s 14.6m/s 300 66.5s 15.0m/s 310 65.4s 15.3m/s 320 64.8s 15.4m/s 330 65.5s 15.3m/s 109f4: 280 43.3s 23.1m/s 290 41.5s 24.1m/s 300 41.7s 24.0m/s 109g2: 290 42.5s 23.5m/s 300 42.1s 23.8m/s 310 41.0s 24.4m/s 320 41.0s 24.4m/s 1
pixelshader Posted July 29, 2014 Author Posted July 29, 2014 Two more for fun, to push the f4! 295 climb speed, 37% fuel. 2600 rpm: 36.9s or 27m/s 2700 rpm: 34.9s or 28.7m/s I wonder if it could do over 30m/s with low fuel, and from 0 to 1km altitude?
pixelshader Posted July 29, 2014 Author Posted July 29, 2014 I decided to quickly test the soviet crafts for comparison, again with 70% fuel. Max throttle (and boost on la5), assuming best climb speed to be about 290-300. I could not believe the results! la5 49.1s 20.4m/s yak1 54.2s 18.5m/s lagg3 57.9s 17.2m/s The LaGG is climbing better than the 190!?? Surely I had made a mistake, or maybe my assumption that the 190 is a decent climber is just wrong? I did one more run of the 190 just to be sure, and the result did not change. 190again 320ias 64.9s 15.4m/s
Finkeren Posted July 29, 2014 Posted July 29, 2014 Not that I didn't already know, but the 109 is a friggin' BEAST when it comes to climb rate.
LLv34_Flanker Posted July 29, 2014 Posted July 29, 2014 S! I think the game has this "cold boost" a bit overdone thus giving all planes performance they never had.
303_Kwiatek Posted July 29, 2014 Posted July 29, 2014 It looks like Fw 190 had too low climb rate. It should be similar to LA5 with climb rate or even better when using 1.42 ATa
303_Kwiatek Posted July 29, 2014 Posted July 29, 2014 (edited) LA5 got the same climb time to 5 km like Fw 190 A-3 ( at 1.3 Ata 2400 RPMs) - 6 minutes. So both planes have equal average climb rate , both could used emergency boost but LA only up to 2.5 km. Also Fw 190 A-3 without outtern wing cannons had reduced weight and climb rate was better. Edited July 29, 2014 by Kwiatek
6./ZG26_5tuka Posted July 29, 2014 Posted July 29, 2014 (edited) S! I think the game has this "cold boost" a bit overdone thus giving all planes performance they never had. It's not only the cold weather but also the air pressure that increases engine performance. The higher the air pressure the better is the fuel / air mix inside the cylinders. And yes the 190 was a bad climber in reality. Don't know if worse than the Lagg-3 (guess they should be rather equal) but way behind the 109 for sure. Also check the fuel load setting, maybe if the 190 has (weight wise) more fuel on board than Lagg-3 (at 70% each) it makes up for a bad comparison. Edited July 29, 2014 by [Jg26]5tuk4
JtD Posted July 29, 2014 Posted July 29, 2014 (edited) LA5 got the same climb time to 5 km like Fw 190 A-3 ( at 1.3 Ata 2400 RPMs) - 6 minutes. So both planes have equal average climb rate , both could used emergency boost but LA only up to 2.5 km. Also Fw 190 A-3 without outtern wing cannons had reduced weight and climb rate was better. La-5 without Forzash is given with 5.4 minutes in Soviet documents, without boost. Also time to altitude says nothing about relative climb performance between 1000m and 2000m as given by pixelshader. The La-5 had a higher full throttle altitude than the Fw 190 A-3, which in a climb already loses boost pressure below 1000m and only has the second gear kick in above 2000m. Over roughly 1500m altitude it loses 3 m/s climb performance due to this. The La-5 on the other hand has the full throttle altitude of the first gear fairly close to 2000m, usually given a little below, which means it pretty much achieves its peak climb rate between 1000m and 2000m. Its simply the better climber at this altitude. Edit: Added a chart showing climb rates as represented in the Tsagi book. I don't agree with them 100%, but they illustrate how the climb characteristics around 2000m compare between La-5 and Fw 190, (the altitudes on this chart appear a little too high, so 2500m looks more like what I know from other sources). Edited July 29, 2014 by JtD
303_Kwiatek Posted July 29, 2014 Posted July 29, 2014 (edited) La-5 without Forzash is given with 5.4 minutes in Soviet documents, without boost. Also time to altitude says nothing about relative climb performance between 1000m and 2000m as given by pixelshader. The La-5 had a higher full throttle altitude than the Fw 190 A-3, which in a climb already loses boost pressure below 1000m and only has the second gear kick in above 2000m. Over roughly 1500m altitude it loses 3 m/s climb performance due to this. The La-5 on the other hand has the full throttle altitude of the first gear fairly close to 2000m, usually given a little below, which means it pretty much achieves its peak climb rate between 1000m and 2000m. Its simply the better climber at this altitude. Edit: Added a chart showing climb rates as represented in the Tsagi book. I don't agree with them 100%, but they illustrate how the climb characteristics around 2000m compare between La-5 and Fw 190, (the altitudes on this chart appear a little too high, so 2500m looks more like what I know from other sources). Your data is totaly wrong expecially for FW 190. It it clear example of russian propaganda. You could wipe your ass these kind of russian books - i know these russian charts very well i know that they are far inaccurate and made by russian propaganda. RL FW 190 A-3, A-4 got climb rate at low alt ab. 16- 16,5 m/s depend of take of weight ( outtern cannon) at 1.3 Ata 2400 RPMs. At emergency power 1.42 Ata 2700 RPMs climb was about 1-1.5 m/s better. RL data for standart serial LA5 ( not F or FN version) give 6:00 minutes to 5 km ( propably without forzah). Fw 190 A-3/ A-4 got the same result at climb settings 1.3 Ata 2400 RPMs. So i think some should revised their knownledge and suorces. FW 190 was worse climber then contemporary 109 versions but still Fw 190 climb rate was better then some russian fighters ( like LAgg3 ) and no worse then LA5 or Yak-1. Also FW 190 was faster, better diver, better control response expecially at high speeds, better roll rate and firepower. These is the historical facts. If someone think that it was not true he live in russian propaganda fog. Edited July 29, 2014 by Kwiatek
JtD Posted July 29, 2014 Posted July 29, 2014 It's just odd that the Soviets Fw climb data is fairly close to German test reports. Fw factory data is somewhat better, but then I guess Fw factory data didn't really matter to the Soviets. If you could post the La-5 test report with the 6:00min to 5000m, I'd be happy to learn. If you only have a figure from a book, well, I have plenty of figures from plenty of books already. Don't bother.
303_Kwiatek Posted July 29, 2014 Posted July 29, 2014 Read about captured Fabers Fw 190 A-3 RAE test with climb rates which got derated engine ( only emergency 1.35 Ata 2450 RPMs). http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a3.html Dont read russian propaganda chart - they understate peformacne of German planes ( expecially at low alts) and overestimate russian ones ( usually take data from prototypes not serial frontline planes )
Matt Posted July 29, 2014 Posted July 29, 2014 (edited) One more chart just for the sake of it. For an A-5 with 4 cannons and 4000 kg. Not quite an A-3, but close. Flown with 1.32 ATA/2400 RPM. 1000-2000 m climb is not really one of the 190s strong points. Edited July 29, 2014 by Matt
JtD Posted July 29, 2014 Posted July 29, 2014 Why should I read a test I know and I know has more stuff wrong than right? Why is a British test of a captured Fw any more accurate than a Soviet test of a captured Fw? Am I supposed to disregard all the German, Soviet and US data I know because it contradicts the British test? I know you love that British test because it shows how the Fw totally rulez. But, unfortunately, it not only contradicts _all_ other tests there are, but also disagrees with physics. I'll hardly go with the most wrong data there is out there. Anyway, I posted the chart I posted to illustrate the problem of jumping to generalizations regarding climb performance based on data from a narrow altitude band. It's not surprised that the essence of my post was completely lost on you. 1
Leaf Posted July 29, 2014 Posted July 29, 2014 All thanks to http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a3.html
LLv34_Flanker Posted July 29, 2014 Posted July 29, 2014 S! Just bear in mind that the VVS planes in game are modelled to BEST conditions aka what they should have been, not what they usually were in many cases. Same applies to Luftwaffe planes, they should be modelled in game to best results, not the average. What messes up the results is this cold air thingy. I am sure we could have read about these incredible speed boosts in literature. Now we have planes going way over their any historical speeds and if the modelling continues like this the late war planes will be comparable to jets soon. Cold air gives boost, but also denser air means more friction and friction increases drastically with speed and to overcome this you need even more power. So how much does cold air really give you a boost than a "feeling" the plane is better. No documentation has been shown about these values so far. So I guess the boosts we see in BoS would be a bit less than now in RL situation.
Livai Posted July 29, 2014 Posted July 29, 2014 I decided to quickly test the soviet crafts for comparison, again with 70% fuel. Max throttle (and boost on la5), assuming best climb speed to be about 290-300. I could not believe the results! la5 49.1s 20.4m/s yak1 54.2s 18.5m/s lagg3 57.9s 17.2m/s The LaGG is climbing better than the 190!?? Surely I had made a mistake, or maybe my assumption that the 190 is a decent climber is just wrong? I did one more run of the 190 just to be sure, and the result did not change. 190again 320ias 64.9s 15.4m/s You dont made a mistake, you have right.
303_Kwiatek Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 (edited) Why should I read a test I know and I know has more stuff wrong than right? Why is a British test of a captured Fw any more accurate than a Soviet test of a captured Fw? Am I supposed to disregard all the German, Soviet and US data I know because it contradicts the British test? I know you love that British test because it shows how the Fw totally rulez. But, unfortunately, it not only contradicts _all_ other tests there are, but also disagrees with physics. I'll hardly go with the most wrong data there is out there. Anyway, I posted the chart I posted to illustrate the problem of jumping to generalizations regarding climb performance based on data from a narrow altitude band. It's not surprised that the essence of my post was completely lost on you. Beacasue British test were made with good condition not damaged Fw 190 A-3 and their test is corensponded well ( if we analyze used bost rating) with German charts and data. Well i dont know what earth you live but if you belive in russian or rather i should say soviet propaganda and charts you have to be very naive person. Here are real life data which i collected for years about performacne of these planes : 109 F-4 at 1.42 Ata : 0 -537 km/h 6.2 - 650 km/h At 1.3 Ata 0 - 523 km/h 6.0 - 635 km/h climb time - 6 km - 6.0 min turn time- 19-20 sec 109 G-2 at 1.3 Ata ( tailwheel retractable) 0 - 537 km/h ( 525 km/h - fixed tailwheel) 7.0 - 660 km/h ( 650 km/h - fixed taiwheel) climb time - 5 km - 4.11 min turn time - 20-21 sec Fw 190 A-3 at 1.42 Ata 0 - 540 km/h 6.4 - 660 km/h At 1.3 Ata 0 - 520 km/h 5.7 km - 630 km/h climb time 5 km - 6.0 min turn time - 22 sec Some German data claim for A-3 without outtern cannons ( 3850 kg): 1.42 Ata 0 - 565 km/h 6.5 - 680 km/h 1.3 Ata 0 - 540 km/h 5.8 km - 648 km/h La5 1942: 0 - 509 ( 535 km/h - forzah) 6.5 - 580 km/h climb time to 5 km - 6.0 min turn time - 22 sec Lagg3 ( 1942) M 105 PF 0 - 507 km/h 4.0 - 566 km/h climb time - 5 km - 6.4 min turn time - 21-22 sec Yak1 ( 1942) M 105 PF 0 - 500 km/h 3,6 - 571 km/h climb 5 km - 6 min turn time - 19 sec Edited July 30, 2014 by Kwiatek
JtD Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 I hope you are aware that the RAE tests with a 3900 kg aircraft at 2400rpm/1.34ata show worse climb rates than the Tsagi graph does, even though they tested a 4000kg plane at 2400rpm/1.32 ata. 13.5 m/s peak climb rate down low is pretty poor and far off any other data. A loss of only 34kW in climbing power between 1st and 2nd supercharger gear is implausible, since the engine produces 150kW less. All other climb data reflects that. So it's wrong, but you call that a good correspondence. Well, whatever. 1
Schmalzfaust Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 Anyone knows whats the maximum time I can fly with 1.42 Ata in die 190? Also what's the maximum permanent Ata I can fly without damaging the engine?
1CGS =FB=VikS Posted July 30, 2014 1CGS Posted July 30, 2014 Why should I read a test I know and I know has more stuff wrong than right? cause its russian (soviet) propaganda, and its only propaganda that exists, you know Just bear in mind that the VVS planes in game are modelled to BEST conditions aka what they should have been, not what they usually were in many cases. thats not true, all VVS airplanes modelled correspondingly to serial production machines control tests by NII VVS/LII VVS. 3
LLv34_Flanker Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 S! Then put the data on the table All VVS planes(German too to an extent) are too fast at the moment if you look at sources like Gordon - Khazanov who used TsAGI and NII VVS data in their books among other. If you read those NII VVS reports there are countless lists of flaws found in serial planes: misaligned access doors, badly rigged landing gears, rigging problems with wings, systems failing due badly built etc. So I think I am pretty right saying the planes are in their best shape now rather than serial built
Finkeren Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 What you are saying isn't necesarilly incorrect Flanker, but it's really the best way to go about it. After all, we are not modelling the Luftwaffes inability to cope with the Russian climate either with engines refusing to start without a bonfire lit underneath them or breaking down due to inferior ersatz lubricants.
pixelshader Posted July 30, 2014 Author Posted July 30, 2014 (edited) I tested acceleration, a nice easy test with autopilot. I will share it too. 70% fuel again, measuring time from 350 to 450 hud speed with just a phone stopwatch. Accurate to maybe +- .3 sec. 190 2400rpm 21.0s 2500rpm 19.0s 2600rpm 17.9s 2700rpm 16.7s 109f4 2500rpm 14.7s 2600rpm 12.8s 2700rpm 11.7s 109g2 2600rpm 14.3s la5 max+boost 15.2s yak1 max 20.4s lagg3 max 24.0s Out of curiosity I also tried to test the stall speed with idle engine, and the maximum aoa using the snap view to look what I assume is exactly 90degrees, and the trusty method of drawing lines on screenshots. I think I could get the aoa to within half a degree accuracy, but I am not sure what it means. I didn't measure the yak or lagg, because the autopilot goes into oscillations for some reason. 190 max aoa: 15.4 degrees @speed: 169km/h ias 109f4 max aoa: 17.5 @speed: 156 109g2 max aoa: 17.3 @speed: 159 la5 max aoa: 16.2 @speed: 180 I have no idea what it means really. Of course, the 109 is floating around like a feather as expected. I thought it was strange that the la5 stalls at a faster airspeed than the 190, but a higher aoa at the same time. Does anyone know if that is expected? Edited July 30, 2014 by pixelshader
6./ZG26_5tuka Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 (edited) I thought it was strange that the la5 stalls at a faster airspeed than the 190, but a higher aoa at the same time. Does anyone know if that is expected? Stall speed depends on the airfoil and the AoA you currently have. Take this one as example: Lift (Cl) increases with higher AoA up to a certain amount (so does drag, alias Cd). At some point the lift starts going reverse, means it's decreasing while drag is raising more rapidly the more you increase your AoA. At this point increasing your AoA is also rasing your stall speed. Don't have any data on the La-5 / 190 airfoils but the most likely reason for your test resultl is that you pulled too steeply when performing the stall test with La-5. Edited July 30, 2014 by [Jg26]5tuk4
pixelshader Posted July 30, 2014 Author Posted July 30, 2014 (edited) Stall speed depends on the airfoil and the AoA you currently have. Take this one as example: Lift (Cl) increases with higher AoA up to a certain amount (so does drag, alias Cd). At some point the lift starts going reverse, means it's decreasing while drag is raising more rapidly the more you increase your AoA. At this point increasing your AoA is also rasing your stall speed. Don't have any data on the La-5 / 190 airfoils but the most likely reason for your test resultl is that you pulled too steeply when performing the stall test with La-5. I used autopilot! It is extremely smooth, except for in the yak and lagg for whatever reason. At 1000m, I should have mentioned. Edited July 30, 2014 by pixelshader
1CGS =FB=VikS Posted July 30, 2014 1CGS Posted July 30, 2014 S! Then put the data on the table All VVS planes(German too to an extent) are too fast at the moment if you look at sources like Gordon - Khazanov who used TsAGI and NII VVS data in their books among other. If you read those NII VVS reports there are countless lists of flaws found in serial planes: misaligned access doors, badly rigged landing gears, rigging problems with wings, systems failing due badly built etc. So I think I am pretty right saying the planes are in their best shape now rather than serial built You should remember - that all datas are re-calculated to standart conditions (+15 C / 760mm), so yes - all airplanes speed qauges shows higher speeds - as its -15 outside at the Stalingrad. And all planes had serial production planes conditions - the ones when frontline usints get them, as well for germans. As well we had combined control report for serial production planes from few factories, which build fighterplanes in USSR thru 1943, and i would say - each factory, sometimes, build its own airplane, due to workers quality, etc.etc PS: usually, most of the books we had on LaGG`s/La - is just another re-print / re-compilation, nothing new there, ive gathered lots of copyes of original test reports from TSAMO and such, and sometimes i wonder where these sources texts came from. 1
pixelshader Posted July 30, 2014 Author Posted July 30, 2014 To me what it means, is that the LA is producing more power than the 190 (power to weight ratio). This allows the LA to have a higher angle of attack, but this becomes a double edge sword (just think climb speeds and angle of attack or refer graph posted above), and due to the high wing loading the aircraft stalls out at a higher speed to the 190. The test is with 0% throttle!
JtD Posted July 30, 2014 Posted July 30, 2014 The Fw 190 and the La series have a very similar airfoil, both are using the NACA 23000 series of similar thickness. The La series has leading edge slats, though, which make it different. The La should have a slightly lower stall speed than the Fw 190, due to the lower wing loading alone, and even lower due to the leading edge slats (at a higher angle of attack). Thanks pixelshader for doing all those test and sharing the results.
pixelshader Posted July 30, 2014 Author Posted July 30, 2014 The Fw 190 and the La series have a very similar airfoil, both are using the NACA 23000 series of similar thickness. The La series has leading edge slats, though, which make it different. The La should have a slightly lower stall speed than the Fw 190, due to the lower wing loading alone, and even lower due to the leading edge slats (at a higher angle of attack). Thanks pixelshader for doing all those test and sharing the results. Puzzling.. If I look again a few times the La doesn't truly lose control until a bit over 170, even if it is somewhat unstable to the autopilot beginning at under 180. At what point is it properly considered 'stalled'? I think it clearly spins out before the 190, though. Nitpicking I think, but it was more fun to test things than actually play the game today, hahah.
303_Kwiatek Posted July 31, 2014 Posted July 31, 2014 (edited) Some data for uber Laggs, LA and Yaks fighters: http://www.wio.ru/tacftr/lag.htm http://www.wio.ru/tacftr/yak.htm Engine Armament Sea level Max Speed Climb Cel. Turn Weight LaGG-3 (29, 32 series) 1942 M-105PF 1 ShVAK + 1 UBS 507 km/h 566 km/h/ 6.2 km [800 m/min] 10 km 21 s 3160 kg La-5 1942 M-82 2 ShVAK [2*200] 509 km/h 580 km/h/6.25 km 6.0m to 5 km 9.5 km 22 s. 3360 kg La-5F 1943 M-82F 2 ShVAK [2*200] 557 600/6.3 km 5.5 min to 5 km 9.55 20 s. 3200 kg Yak-1 1942 M-105PF ShVAK [120],2 ShKAS [2*750] 500 km/h 571 km/h/3650 6.0 to 5 km 19 s. 10 km 980 km 2885 kg Yak-1 light 1942 M-105PF ShVAK [120] none 526 km/h 592 km/h/3800 4.7 to 5 km 17 s. 11 km 2780 kg And for Fw 190 A-3 : Fw 190 Aa-3 (export version for Turkish) German version : Fw 190 A-3 Looking for all these RL data there is clearly that Fw 190 A-3 is undermoldeled in performacne in BOS comparing to other planes expecially russian ones. Mostly Fw 190 is too slow and got too weak climb rate. Not wonder if BOS Fw 190 performacne was made according to russian data. Edited July 31, 2014 by Kwiatek 1
RydnDirty Posted July 31, 2014 Posted July 31, 2014 Those test results are very interesting. Thanks! I have noticed the FW190 manifold pressure drops right off between 1000-2000m. The first time I noticed I wondered if my throttle was glitched then realised the supercharger was changing gears at 2000m. Looking on the bright side the FW190 is a challenge to fly against the Ruskies like this. I like the German birds but it would get boring flying the Bf109 disciplined, fast and vertical and never getting shot down. The FW190 on the other hand is a challenge and I'll probably fly it more than the Bf109.
Matt Posted July 31, 2014 Posted July 31, 2014 There is just some weird anomaly with the supercharger anyway. It switches around 2300 meters and then the performance goes down like crazy. It should switch around 3000 meters, if run at Start/Notleistung. Also the top speed with first gear is at those 2300 meters, while it should be at critical altitude (~1000 meters). But even at 3000 meters, the speed of the 190 is a bit too low. I think the supercharger gears are just modelled incorrectly.
Leaf Posted July 31, 2014 Posted July 31, 2014 (edited) Some data for uber Laggs, LA and Yaks fighters: http://www.wio.ru/tacftr/lag.htm http://www.wio.ru/tacftr/yak.htm Engine Armament Sea level Max Speed Climb Cel. Turn Weight LaGG-3 (29, 32 series) 1942 M-105PF 1 ShVAK + 1 UBS 507 km/h 566 km/h/ 6.2 km [800 m/min] 10 km 21 s 3160 kg La-5 1942 M-82 2 ShVAK [2*200] 509 km/h 580 km/h/6.25 km 6.0m to 5 km 9.5 km 22 s. 3360 kg La-5F 1943 M-82F 2 ShVAK [2*200] 557 600/6.3 km 5.5 min to 5 km 9.55 20 s. 3200 kg Yak-1 1942 M-105PF ShVAK [120],2 ShKAS [2*750] 500 km/h 571 km/h/3650 6.0 to 5 km 19 s. 10 km 980 km 2885 kg Yak-1 light 1942 M-105PF ShVAK [120] none 526 km/h 592 km/h/3800 4.7 to 5 km 17 s. 11 km 2780 kg And for Fw 190 A-3 : Fw 190 Aa-3 (export version for Turkish) German version : Fw 190 A-3 Looking for all these RL data there is clearly that Fw 190 A-3 is undermoldeled in performacne in BOS comparing to other planes expecially russian ones. Mostly Fw 190 is too slow and got too weak climb rate. Not wonder if BOS Fw 190 performacne was made according to russian data. Not wanting to get into "russian data" discussion, it does seem to me that climb rate and top speed is a little too low in BoS Edited July 31, 2014 by LeafyPredicament 2
Gil--- Posted August 1, 2014 Posted August 1, 2014 (edited) Some data for uber Laggs, LA and Yaks fighters: http://www.wio.ru/tacftr/lag.htm http://www.wio.ru/tacftr/yak.htm Engine Armament Sea level Max Speed Climb Cel. Turn Weight LaGG-3 (29, 32 series) 1942 M-105PF 1 ShVAK + 1 UBS 507 km/h 566 km/h/ 6.2 km [800 m/min] 10 km 21 s 3160 kg La-5 1942 M-82 2 ShVAK [2*200] 509 km/h 580 km/h/6.25 km 6.0m to 5 km 9.5 km 22 s. 3360 kg La-5F 1943 M-82F 2 ShVAK [2*200] 557 600/6.3 km 5.5 min to 5 km 9.55 20 s. 3200 kg Yak-1 1942 M-105PF ShVAK [120],2 ShKAS [2*750] 500 km/h 571 km/h/3650 6.0 to 5 km 19 s. 10 km 980 km 2885 kg Yak-1 light 1942 M-105PF ShVAK [120] none 526 km/h 592 km/h/3800 4.7 to 5 km 17 s. 11 km 2780 kg And for Fw 190 A-3 : Fw 190 Aa-3 (export version for Turkish) German version : Fw 190 A-3 Looking for all these RL data there is clearly that Fw 190 A-3 is undermoldeled in performacne in BOS comparing to other planes expecially russian ones. Mostly Fw 190 is too slow and got too weak climb rate. Not wonder if BOS Fw 190 performacne was made according to russian data. "Kraftstoff C3" on your report - do you know what it is? There is enough german data with common serial A3 that climbs below 15 m/s if you count average from SL to 2000 m. And even if it would be not 15.4 but 16.4 it is still slower than even Lagg just because Fw-190 at 2400 rpm has less power per weight than Lagg at ful throttle, it's simple. FW-190 in game is surely not made according to russian data because its turn rate is far better than russian 29 sec at 1000 meters (and about 26 with 15 degree flaps if i remember right that report). So just accept that 190 on 2400 rpm was good in climb only when compared with P-47 or P-51D at low to middle alt. Edited August 1, 2014 by Sch.G.1_Gil---
303_Kwiatek Posted August 1, 2014 Posted August 1, 2014 (edited) "Kraftstoff C3" on your report - do you know what it is? There is enough german data with common serial A3 that climbs below 15 m/s if you count average from SL to 2000 m. And even if it would be not 15.4 but 16.4 it is still slower than even Lagg just because Fw-190 at 2400 rpm has less power per weight than Lagg at ful throttle, it's simple. FW-190 in game is surely not made according to russian data because its turn rate is far better than russian 29 sec at 1000 meters (and about 26 with 15 degree flaps if i remember right that report). So just accept that 190 on 2400 rpm was good in climb only when compared with P-47 or P-51D at low to middle alt. I think you need more knowledge to judge these things. C3 mean that Fw 190 used C3 fuel - 100 octan. Maby russian in their capured Fw 190 used lower octan like in some RAF planes - thats why performacne of tested planes was worse then should be. Even Fw 190 A-5 which got the same engine like A-3/ A-4 but it was more heavy plane got 15 m/s. Obviously A-3 and A-4 got better climb rate casue both got less take off weght - so 16 - 16.5 m/s at 1.32 Ata 2400 RPMs is accurate for these version depend of equimpent ( outterwing cannons). At 1.42 Ata and 2700 RPMs climb would be much better even of only for 3 minutes allowed. Where you hell got 29 sec??? Russian data claim for Fw 190 A-4 at 1000m - 22-23 second turn time ( left - right). Fw 190 A-3 got similar climb time to 5 km like LA5 and Yak-1 from these time and shouldn;t be worse here. Lagg3 should be much worse then all these planes ( 800 m/min - 13.5 m/s). Edited August 1, 2014 by Kwiatek 3
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now