fw 190a5 flight model

[jermin]

This forum is hijacked by self-appointed experts who don't even know how to do reasoning correctly. Don't try to argue with them, otherwise your post will be deleted eventually.

My whole squadron (Flying German fighters) has stopped supporting the newly released patches which severely porked the already undermodeled German planes and will stay on UP3 from now on.

I'm afraid Oleg need to do something to stop his game being tinkered by some unprofessional bigots any longer.

[ElAurens]

Oh, please don't think I am calling anyone a Nazi.

Not my intention at all sir.

I've just seen this tactic used over and over again in the 10 years I've been involved with the IL2 series.

There are folks that fly for both sides that are so wrapped up in their aircraft that any way to get an edge is OK with them. It's been like this since the dawn of online combat flight simulation.

[Janosch]

Originally Posted by jermin

My whole squadron (Flying German fighters) has stopped supporting the newly released patches which severely porked the already undermodeled German planes and will stay on UP3 from now on.

That's funny, since there's no shred of professionalism or accuracy to be found in UP3.

[Derda508]

@ ElAurens

No sweat

I know what you mean.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by jermin

This forum is hijacked by luftwhiners who don't even know how to do reasoning correctly. Don't try to argue with them, otherwise your post will be deleted eventually.

My whole squadron (Flying German fighters) has stopped supporting the newly released patches which severely porked the already undermodeled German planes and will stay on UP3 from now on.

I'm afraid Oleg need to do something to stop his game being tinkered by some unprofessional bigots any longer.

congratulations for joke post of the thread.

impressive, considering some of the other contenders.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by JtD

IceFire, don't waste your time. You can bring up all sorts of evidence, and as soon as they don't fit the theory, they'll be ignored. For instance we have the Russian tests that give ~18s sustained turn time for the Spitfire vs. ~22s for the 190, but because they used black magic during these tests they are no valid argument.

It is frustrating... definitely.

[Codex]

Wow.

Well I find Gaston's points refreshing.

The process for any debate is to back up your argument with facts. The trouble is facts can often be interpreted many ways.

It would be interesting to see if we can get any flight data of the currently restored FWs

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by lonewulf

Yes, yes, that makes sense doesn't it. I mean, what would be more difficult to manage, a large bomber with 4 engines and a crew or 7 or 10 men or a little single seat fighter. Hmmm ... umm ... hold on a minute ...

I think it's fairer to say that fighter pilots were selected for certain attributes - notably aggressiveness, aerobatic skill and g-tolerances - from the pool of available pilots.

There are plenty of examples of WW2 era pilots who started off in fighters and then ended up in other sorts of planes (notably, many AVG members), as well as pilots who started off flying attack planes or bombers and who switched to fighters.

[Gaston]

Originally Posted by Codex

Wow.

Well I find Gaston's points refreshing.

The process for any debate is to back up your argument with facts. The trouble is facts can often be interpreted many ways.

It would be interesting to see if we can get any flight data of the currently restored FWs

Current newly built FW-190A-8Ns are said to be mid-way in turn rates between a P-51D and Yak-3 with VK-107... This might be when ballasted to similar combat weights, or if not then maybe similarly underweight for all...

This would be without flaps, downthrottling or without the P-51's coarse pitch at low speed "trick", so the actual ultimate performance could be more or less radically separated... The order seems about right... The FW-190A's upper cowl shape is very different on the Ns than on the the real thing (no tapering), so aerodynamically they are not the same, and the FW-190A-8Ns also don't always use correct props...

Gaston

[Gaston]

Originally Posted by Glider

So to sum up you agree that all the test reports, from all nations, disagree with you, but you insist that you are right.
Also you don't have any evidence but you don't hesitate to twist what a real pilot said to make it fit your fantasy in particular Hauptmann Heinz Lange.

And as for the one example

P/O J. Stewart (Rhodesian) of 64 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 30 July 1942:

I was flying as Blue 3 and during the engagement I saw 4 F.W. 190's flying below me in the opposite direction and attacking four of my squadron. I shouted a warning and stall-turned to port to attack the rear two F.W. 190's. They broke and turned with me but I could easily out-turn them and I got several bursts at the rear one.

That should do it

Well KG 200 did do tests and they did say "The P-47D out-turns our Bf-109G", but you do choose to ignore them don't you?

Or maybe I misunderstood your position, and you actually understand the Me-109G is ridiculously out-turned by the P-47D?

You also choose to ignore what all combat reports are saying, including your own quote:

"I was flying as Blue 3 and during the engagement I saw 4 F.W. 190's flying below me"

Well, if you want to make sure it is not high speed, you better exclude diving from the equation don't you?

On top of that we don't know how far below, or how fast they were going...:

"in the opposite direction and attacking four of my squadron."

"Attacking" and "opposite direction" implies they are neither slow nor, more importantly, turning...

Maybe "Stall-turned" confused you: It does not mean that the turning was close to level flying speed stall, but it could instead very well be close to a 350-400 MPH 6 G "stall-turn"... In fact unsustained speed maximum rate turns are typically "stall-turns"...

Finally: "They broke and turned with me but I could easily out-turn them and I got several bursts at the rear one."

Well "several" burst is good for your argument, but still there is no suggestion of low speed or multiple level turns is there?

In fact, "broke and turned with me", combined with "attacking" and "opposite direction", pretty much implies they were previously going fairly straight, which in turn suggests fairly fast...

But maybe you don't quite get the distinction I make between high G turning performance and low-G sustained turning performance? Well, consider that just because it's all the same for our "sophisticated" current flight physics (assuming similar needed stick effort per G at high speeds), it doesn't mean it's all the same for my theory...

But since you don't accept, not even momentarily for the sake of an argument apparently, the basics of my theory, that explains the unconvincing example you chose...

Hey, have you heard of the multiple turns level fight by Johnny Johnson? "Opposite side of an ever diminishing circle"?: That's more like the ticket...

"It was only a matter of time", and one will come up...

Gaston