fw 190a5 flight model

[JtD]

Originally Posted by K_Freddie

Ah! it's good to have all back again...
As we've settled down to the aerodynamic theorists, who professes to know everything, and the pilot who experiences everything....

Is there any pilot report that can explain the different facts explicitly - probably not.

On the other hand is there any aerodynamic 'theorist' who has explicit flight knowledge of the aircraft in question - Zippo

So who are we to trust in this scenario - I'll take pilot experience any day, tempered with a bit of common sense

The biggest difference on all aircraft designs was that Kurt Tank, was a pilot, beside FW190 design engineer..
Yup.. I'll still stick with Gaston's theory

It's not a good idea to stick with a theory that ignores 80% of the facts and misinterprets another 15%.

[MaxGunz]

The pilot who experiences everything... LOL! What poetry! What utter nonsense!

What's behind stall and low speed turning is well within demonstrated facts. It's something that -all- those pilots had to learn right at the start. If you don't think so, find an old ground school manual.

If you want to quibble 2 or 3 places past the decimal and offhand say that makes aerodynamics knowledge of flight less than that of not a combat pilot but of some non-pilot, crap-math-and-science gamer's interpretation of what the combat pilot wrote as an after-action report or war story then go ahead if it lets you feel better about yourself but you're wrong.

[Rot Bourratif]

Herra is making a good point about control stiffness in certain flight configurations.

There is also the issue of G load on the capacity to effect the controls as your limbs are pulled in another direction.

High G load sustained turns will tire the pilot out and make him dizzy.

Maybe a Spitfire pilot who just escaped a couple of passes by a 190 through pulling as hard as he could on the stick will be tired out.

Maybe the 190 pilot would notice that the turns are not as sharp any more and now easily turn with him.

Nothing to do with actual Aircraft performance, though.

Just my tuppence.

[K_Freddie]

So, aerodynamic maths explain 100% of flight, a 100% of the time and the pilot's always wrong, according to the 'propellor head' on the ground.

You sound like an aircraft crash investigator out to needle the pilot, as they usually do. Not that they always wrong, but they not always right and in this situation not likely to accept this.

[JtD]

Originally Posted by K_Freddie

So, aerodynamic maths explain 100% of flight, a 100% of the time and the pilot's always wrong, according to the 'propellor head' on the ground.

I gave it a 5% margin.

[K_Freddie]

I was thinking up to 10%, which is why I'll allow Gaston's argument.

I'm well aware of the manuals and their contents, the pilot errors, etc...
While not being a Mech/Aerodynamic engineer, I do work in the engineering field.. some 34 years of it, some on aircraft and some pilot time. So I am no stranger theory, formulae and modelling.. as well as the practical side, plus all the goodies that go with it.

Putting this all together, I'm not going to rule out Gaston 100%.

[Janosch]

Just one more thing, said Columbo. What about computer games besides Il-2? It seems that Fw-190 made first appearance in Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe (1991) (I can do research too, ha ha ha), and it wasn't a great turnfighter there, and so it has been ever since in all games to follow. Do you guys think that the all of the game designers who put 190 in their games did their research wrong?

[Herra Tohtori]

Originally Posted by K_Freddie

So, aerodynamic maths explain 100% of flight, a 100% of the time and the pilot's always wrong, according to the 'propellor head' on the ground.

Aerodynamics as a science explains the flight characteristics of any aircraft with excellent precision.

Simulators are a different thing. Not only is the performance and handling characteristics always an approximation to some degree, the amount of things simulated may affect the actual combat performance of the aircraft.

For example, if you choose to fly with wonderwoman view, the visibility (cockpit design) ceases to be a factor, which gives a lot of advantage to planes such as F4U, Bf-109, and many others. When you restrict views to cockpit view only, planes with better visibility suddenly become a lot more effective in combat because the pilot can maintain their situational awareness better.

This is an example of a factor affecting combat performance in simulator, without having any difference in hard aerodynamic performance.

Similar example would be the thing I mentioned earlier: Handling qualities, control forces required to maneuver the aircraft, things that the simulation can only approximate to some degree based on some data. How hard can a pilot deflect ailerons in A6M Zero flying at 500 km/h? How hard is it to actually turn a Bf-109 diving at 650 km/h?

In other words, while simulators can usually be very accurate with the aerodynamic performance modeling, the combat performance of aircraft in virtual sky doesn't necessarily fully take into account the other things that were a definite factor in real life. Pilot skill, physical condition, fatigue level, tactical situation in majority of engagements, tactics that are used, fabrication differences between individual planes, visibility from the cockpit - none of this is usually even discussed when we're comparing aircraft performance.


The notion that any combat pilot with any practical experience (bar the very beginning of the war) would have voluntarily offered fight in horizontal plane if their plane was faster than the other is quite amusing. Even if your plane has better turn radius and turn rate, you would still want to retain all the energy you can in case the bandit's friends pop up when you're working on them.

Losing your energy puts you in more vulnerable position, no matter what your aircraft can do.

[MaxGunz]

Originally Posted by Herra Tohtori

Similar example would be the thing I mentioned earlier: Handling qualities, control forces required to maneuver the aircraft, things that the simulation can only approximate to some degree based on some data. How hard can a pilot deflect ailerons in A6M Zero flying at 500 km/h? How hard is it to actually turn a Bf-109 diving at 650 km/h?

Oleg did model stick forces along with trim. IL2 pilots are restricted to 20 kg strength for game considerations, possibly because fatigue modeling was too much code. The IL-2 stick interface is strength based, how far you move your joystick modified by your stick settings says how much strength the virtual pilot applies to the virtual stick. And trim affects the virtual back forces (from control surfaces) that IL-2 does model. Oleg having been a test pilot did have ideas he wanted in his sim.