fw 190a5 flight model

[beginner]

i dont care what i complain, i care about little bit of realism.
think about, when they were designed in reality fw like here in 4.10.1, with turning capabilities like in 4.101. do you sure know..from basic logic, that test pilot will be complain, thats is not flyiable constructed because for that absurd turnig (or they wil call it..deadly stall airplane....but historicaly you dont find such a complains, opposite ..fw was an exelent plane)

so, it was little bit stupid to set this flyight model in the game.

but, in 4.11.1 looks like reality and its OK.

[Gaston]

Well since the FW-190A was an excellent aircraft, and did out-turn any mark of Spitfire, but at at low speeds and in prolonged sustained horizontal turns only, NOT at high speeds, I guess it finally dawned on the development team just how absurd their flight model was...

My guess is they still did not go far enough. But the straight-line comments I hear underline the absurd lengths to which they thought reality would slavishly follow their grade-school math...

And the FW-190A was crap at dive and zoom, and was never used that way... But I guess the're only so much reality simmers and sim-builders can take at one time...

Gaston

[CWMV]

Prove it, I mena its one thing to say "its this way!" but another to show data.
EDIT: Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand I just responded to a necro thread. Go me.
But while Im here:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...0/ptr-1107.pdf


Sounds REALLY close to what we have in game really.

[lonewulf]

I tend to agree with "Beginner". I think the FM on the A series is at present poorly executed and has more in common with a free falling brick than the real world aircraft.

Despite such issues (eg a too great a tendency to stall, very poor acceleration and the complete absence of any sort of instantaneous turn), I don't agree that the 190 should in future be morphed into something that it was not (a turn fighter). One thing is sure, the FW 190 did not have a particularly good sustained turn rate when compared with the opposition. It was and shall always be, an energy fighter. If you want to dog-it-out with Spits down on the deck riding the edge of a stall with your flaps extended, well good luck. But no real world 190 pilot would ever consider such foolishness unless of course, he had no other option. All I can say is, you'd really want to be bloody confident that there were no other E/As in the vicinity because if there are, you'll very soon to be dead.

The real world 190 was very nimble with an exceptional roll-rate. This roll-rate issue is very important because although everyone seems to know and talk about it, few 190 flyers that I have seen actually take advantage of it. Roll rate is not about spinning the aircraft around on its axis as bad guys stand-off your six and shoot you full of holes. Roll rate is used as a means of very quickly changing the direction in which your aircraft is pointing. In essence after entering a sustained turn you quickly roll your aircraft through approx 180 degrees and pull the stick back towards you. If you do that and you are being chased by something like a Spit, you will find that he can't follow. If you're at altitude and he has a relatively low energy state you may even find that you manage to escape.

[IceFire]

I admit I'm super confused right now. I'm a big fan of the FW190 and first started flying it when it had a crippled FM in Forgotten Battles 1.0. For a long time it's never had a very good turn. The stall was fine IMHO as the FW190 was described in many tactical trials and evaluations as having a brutal stall (a fact that killed many pilots early on). I always felt the turn rate was a little low... Not as good as it should be. That was until 4.10 when the turn rate was improved... But it sounds like some think it was made worse? What?

It is much better now. I suspect it reaches near historical sustained turn rate values now (although I haven't tested).

[Gaston]

Originally Posted by CWMV

Prove it, I mena its one thing to say "its this way!" but another to show data.
EDIT: Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand I just responded to a necro thread. Go me.
But while Im here:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...0/ptr-1107.pdf


Sounds REALLY close to what we have in game really.

It sure does...: The conclusion of these "Geniuses" was that: "In general [the FW-190] is an interceptor-type aircraft that is at a disadvantage against airplanes designed for the purpose of "in fighting""...

But these US Navy "Geniuses" were at least smart enough to recognize the FW-190A HATED high speed turning and high speed combat in general (putting them far ahead of all simmers since apparently), as was widely known to the Russians:

From the same US Navy report (identical to another one for an earlier FW variant):

"It [FW-190A-5] has a no-warning stall which tends to reduce its efficiency in combat against airplanes, which can force it to fly near the stalling speed"

My God! They actually figured out the FW-190 preferred low-speed fighting!

Yipeeeeeeeeeee!

That must have been a strain... Yet their conclusion is "excellent interceptor-type aircraft"... Hmmm...



But you are right: If THIS Russian evaluations:

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/t...bat-fw190.html



says "Being very stable and having a large range of speeds, the FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed." that apparent disagreement in the final outcome on how to use it can only be because the US NAVY has much more combat experience with the FW-190A, and knew how the FW-190A should be flown far better than those poor brain-washed Germans...

Of note is that the Russian found the FW-190A to be equal to their excellent Yak-7 in left turns, but the FW-190 is apparently easily beaten in right turns:

" Yak-7 will easily outturn a FW-190 in a right turn; both planes have equal turn rate in a left turn."

(This indicates flaps up for the FW-190A by the way: Clostermann reported that later in the war, around late '43 or early '44, appeared the novel use of flaps ("volet") on the FW-190A, which he described as significantly improving the turn performance. If turning was flaps down, the wing drop would be reversed and the aircraft would turn tighter to the right at low speeds, not the left)

http://luthier.stormloader.com/SFTacticsIII.htm

But the Russians claim the Yak-1 will outmaneuver it even better, though not specifying if that included the vertical plane (vertical maneuvers are of course very poor on the FW-190A)

You gotta love below how the "excellent interceptor" was used by those foolish Germans who knew nothing about flying their own aircrafts:

http://luthier.stormloader.com/SFTacticsIII.htm

"The following information about German tactics is derived from experience of our pilots that fought the FW-190.

Germans will position their fighters at different altitudes, especially when expecting to encounter our fighters. FW-190 will fly at 1,500-2,500 meters and Me-109G at 3,500-4,000 meters. They interact in the following manner:

FW-190 will attempt to close with our fighters hoping to get behind them and attack suddenly. If that maneuver is unsuccessful they will even attack head-on relying on their superb firepower. This will also break up our battle formations to allow Me-109Gs to attack our fighters as well. Me-109G will usually perform boom-n-zoom attacks using superior airspeed after their dive.

FW-190 will commit to the fight even if our battle formation is not broken, preferring left turning fights. There has been cases of such turning fights lasting quite a long time, with multiple planes from both sides involved in each engagement."

Gosh! That last bold quote couldn't be a clue that they held their own against "superior-turning" Russian fighters now could it?

Hey! That Me-109/FW-190 relationship sort of jives with this, thousands of miles away doesn't it?:

-Squadron Leader Alan Deere, (Osprey Spit MkV aces 1941-45, Ch. 3, p. 2: "Never had I seen the Hun stay and fight it out as these Focke-Wulf pilots were doing... In Me-109s the Hun tactic had always followed the same pattern- a quick pass and away, sound tactics against Spitfires and their SUPERIOR TURNING CIRCLE. Not so these 190 pilots: They were full of confidence... We lost eight to their one that day..."

But it must all be a coincidence you know...

But my favourite of all among all, has got to be my old RCAF friend John Weir, who obviously doesn't know anything about true wingloading performance, being just, you know, an experienced fighter pilot fighting for his life and all... (What the hell's that compared to being a glorious theoretically-correct simmer?):

http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/s..._101/SF_101_03

"A Hurricane was built like a truck, it took a hell of a lot to knock it down. It was very manoeuvrable, much more manoeuvrable than a Spit, so you could, we could usually outturn a Messerschmitt. They'd, if they tried to turn with us they'd usually flip, go in, at least dive and they couldn't. A Spit was a higher wing loading..."

"The Hurricane was more manoeuvrable than the Spit and, and the Spit was probably, we (Hurricane pilots) could turn one way tighter than the Germans could on a, on a, on a Messerschmitt, but the Focke Wulf could turn the same as we could and, they kept on catching up, you know."


Obviously the poor man remembers wrongly what actually happened, and the congruence with all the others who had to face it in actual combat is just a vast world-wide collective hallucination...

Or maybe it was just magical "pilot experience", always there to throw everything into confusion: We all know that Germans in those days were mystical-oriented, and thus gained levitation powers with "pilot experience": That could be it you know...

If they had measured the wing-bending of theses things in flight, they would know what the actual wingload of these things is (Ie: What John Weir meant by "heavier Spitfire wingloading": Actual in-flight observation, not theory)...

But they only bent the wings on the ground and called it "knowledge"...

And yes, if they had done that, in-flight (recording in-flight continuous stress-gauge info, which would have been real tricky before the late 40s at least), they would have found out that, unlike jets, even at the same exact amount of Gs during a turn, an old warbird's wingload actually varies with power during the turn, as reported clearly by many WWII pilots, and used routinely as a "trick" by 8th AF P-51s, FW-190 pilots and some Me-109 pilots...

But what do these guys know...

Gaston

[theOden]

Love your post Gaston, made my sunday breakfast haha

[JG301_HaJa]

+1 on that

[lonewulf]

Gaston, while I admire your revisionist zeal, your conclusions about the 190 are simply wrong.

Your analysis of the Al Deere incident is a case in point. There is no doubt that Al Deere was caught out by the 190s that day and in the resulting bloodbath lost a number of his squadron mates. However, it had nothing to do with 'turning circle'. On this occasion the 190s bounced his Mk Vs and then used their superior speed and climb to decimate the hapless formation. It is true that the attack was sustained in nature and that the pilots in the 190s demonstrated great confidence in their aircraft; but that was more to do with their ability to outperform the Spitfires (in everything BUT sustained turn) and to enter or break off the combat at will. The 109 Fs in use at this time were not in a position to do this, of course, as they had little or no performance margin over the Mk 5 and typically did not linger in combats with Spitfires for any longer than necessary. At this point is the war most of Germany's fighter force had been moved to the Eastern Front. With relatively few fighters left in France, the LW tried to offset their numerical inferiority in the west by strictly limiting the engagements between its fighter force and Fighter Command.

The advantage that the 190 had over the Spit soon to evaporate away with the introduction of the Mk 9.

[CWMV]

Ya I'm calling you info BS.
What the pilots say about their own and enemy aircraft ate of NO VALUE when discussing FM's.
Combat is a very emotionally charged event, and what you remember and what actually happened are two very, very different things. The fact that the body and mind are experiencing stressors unlike anything else in the annals of human experience make any recollection of combat events suspect from the get go.

Then there is the comparison to soviet fighters. You mean the same soviet fighters that are overmodeled in nearly every aspect? This has been accepted by a large percentage of the community since day 1. No point in the comparison.

Now compare them in a standardized test environment, against well known and documented competitors, and you get the best data. Hence the navy tests.
If it couldn't out turn a Corsair or Hellcat then it isn't much of a turn fighter.

So if you have something other than tests against air raft that we know are porked, or the recollections of old men, post it.