Wasn't there an acceleration test in the ubi forum once? As far as I remember, the problem lied in the acceleration at low speeds.
Very understandable when you take off. I always thought that Oleg programmed an automatic parking break for the 190 :)

As it has been said: The problem might very well be the Kommandogerät which can't handle the prop pitch at low speeds.

I think this means well, but is highly flawed.

The engine? Just not a perfect system.

Wear and tear, electrical system health? Are all cylinders firing? Every cylinder getting the same intake charge? No valve springs affecting exhaust or intake?

Will every single FW190 of each type provide the identical performance of every other same type?

And what about weather, ie air density or temperature.

You are demanding a digital reproduction of a very analogue system.

Which is tiresomely representative of all those that complain ceaselessly about their favourite aircraft.

What about engine manufacturing quality 70 years ago?

What about fuel quality 70 years ago, amidst resource denial?

What about every little thing that affects the performance of an aircraft that CANNOT be precisely captured with mathematics?

Just have a look at modern racing. With all the tech and knowhow and experience available now, why do teams bother trying to improve their vehicles?

Isnt it simply a case of using exactly the same settings for every race track every time you go there?

;)

Useless.

Complete FW-190A8 Aircraft Handbook (in English) with Performance Data from Focke Wulf:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/3mzmmykwgoo/fw190a8.pdf

enjoy!

Do you have any information who compiled and printed this, and where was it published? I guess it is a translation of an official document? Just being curious.

Anyway, what LtBear is asking for is just not obtainable. I tried to do this for a plane I am working on, whose flight characteristics are unknown due to lack of flight test data, and the result is just not verifiable...

I used the Theory of wing sections (Anderson) for computation of lift, and I ended up with some values which were overestimating the critical AoA of this aircraft (based on similar aircraft and their AoAcrit in IL-2) by 3-4 degrees.

Anyway, in order to do this, you have to have a complete understanding of how the FM is represented in this simulation, and when I say "complete" I mean complete as in the case of its creator, if you get my drift.

I've downloaded this from tailwheel.nl (now the side seems to be down) years ago. Don't know if they made this translation or others.
The translation is accurate, i ve the orginal german documents.

Cool, thx! ;)

LTBear..
I think this has been chewed to death on the UBI forum and if I'm not mistaken about this being the same document discussed, some points to consider.

- The FW tested was not at peak performance for fuel, maintenance reasons.
- It looked to be a Jabo version which generally had more armour plating = heavier.

You'll also notice a glaring contradiction in the document you linked.
The bit about how easy the engine management was, and how the allied test pilots found this to be a problem ????

From this document you cannot conclude a definitive acceleration/turning/performance figure for the FW.

:)