fw 190a5 flight model

[MaxGunz]

Some of the planes are on steroids because the reals were hotrods. The Spit 25-lb is a hotrod even more than the FW 190D-9. It's about power to weight and thrust being highest at low speed, and excess thrust being what changes your momentum. That plane is the Frankenfire, not a good meter for the name Spitfire. You want to hunt Spit VB's that crossed the channel down low and are at low combat speed climbing to get the proper FW experience. But do it in an A2 or A3.

I have video of a British ace who talked about the Spit IX's and how before it was always the Spits at a clear disadvantage, when the FW's crossed with Spit IX's and thought they were dealing with Spit V's, the Spit IX's "took the pants off the Focke Wulfs" and kept on doing so. After that when FW's spotted Spits below they took time to check.

What that tells me is that with any Spit IX you will not have an easy walk in your Dora 9. You have edge to build on.

Turn in the vertical where roll changes direction and is close to zero energy cost. use short zooms or dives to achieve change in direction and speed at the same time; from high speed to moving 60+ degrees different direction you zoom climb to store speed into height while rolling to the new vector then pull out as you approach corner speed, using gravity to assist you going back to full horizontal, drop to get your speed back.
Pulling hard turns at full speed is a non-no. Even to zoom, you can zoom in a 30 degree climb and let the plane slow down to maneuver speed, even roll and take a new direction off that at little cost in speed.

There's a flight pattern to practice that's good for learning energy. Fly tilted circles for speed along the bottom and height with fast angle change across the top. You want to top at pretty good speed to bring the nose around best. The circle is more egg shape and the egg turns every time the plane crosses the top, I bet that's how the cloverleaf turn spoken of by P-38 pilots is done, it uses the vertical.

Boom and Zoom, don't strike from direct 6. Come in from the side with high closing speed -just because of that side vector- and shoot deflection starting from 400 meters out. Your closing speed effectively shrinks that range closer to 300m, aim as if 300m shot. You will soon be 300m and closing anyway. Hartman did the real version, turning into a target he flew 50m off the wing of, turned and fired into the target point-blank and exited behind the target all in one move. Try that in sim! I start at 400m, correct aim if need and start fire again by 300m. Less than a second later I am at 200m and need to turn to avoid ramming. I am -NOT- Erich Hartmann, even in sim!

Really. side approach cuts the number of evasions. If you have a wingman about 600m or so back, that should cut his workable evasions even more.
You just have to get good at deflection shooting, a matter of practice.

[Mabroc]

Good advices MaxGunz, I knew most of the tactics you explain and I follow them, been flying this sim since 2001, and many others before. My point was that after I loss all my energy from that turning dive I couldnt close in the Spit, meanwhile it just speed away after a hard 180 level turn. Yes, it was a Mark IX 25lbs but the standard VIII and IX are similar against same year AXIS planes.
They loss the energy same as other planes but regain it too quickly, being the Fw-190 much slower to accelerate (and before 4.11 they were even worst, now they are better, but 20-30khm slower at max speed) against a 109 the difference is still there but too a lesser extent. Well, gauging by experience not numbers the Spit seems to accelerate 3 times better than a 190 and maybe 1.5-2x better than a 109, alway speaking of level acceleration and same year enemies.

[MaxGunz]

You need to get numbers, record tracks, etc. Anything predictably so wrong should be recorded, analyzed, and presented with docs backing up the reasons. And then comes criticism without which you have only 1 opinion presented.. yours. Maybe someone changes their mind based on what all can see? It beats the Gaston game.

Do you know what speed you had after your turn? I've pulled some bleeders before, it's real easy to get too far inside and watch your speed go down fast. That's what practicing the tilted circle for, to teach you where the edge between just before stall is.

Make tracks so you can at least get alt/speed/etc, change the view around and see what happened more clearly.

I made tracks just to see where my shots were going and how my sight picture looked just before, my gunnery got better. Suddenly the DM's of enemy planes wasn't so tough as before.

Can you tell me the power to weight of these planes?

Can you tell me the clean stall speeds? What speed before each is no longer nose-high just to maintain alt, and what that means about acceleration? You may find a low speed zone where the FW should not do so well that no FW pilot in combat should ever get so slow.

Do you cross-control? That is using the joystick on diagonal. It makes more drag. Watch air racers, the move their sticks in + motions.

I shoot from long distance because if the target turns, I need turn much less to get a lead on his motion. I won't be able to keep that but I get my shot without losing much speed. Coming from a side, not 6, helps all that.

[JtD]

Given that at some altitudes the Spitfire climbs nearly twice as fast as the Fw 190, acceleration should also be nearly twice as good.

[MaxGunz]

Yes Freddy, bumpy air shakes planes. Safe speed is lower in bad weather.

You can probably survive a 25G impact FWIW.

That's momentary G's. Tell me about 12G turns because someone said they saw 12 on the G meter. That's cause he's twice as much as any ordinary man!

I remember the Army machinegunner who claimed that 50 cal bullets speed up after they leave the barrel. LOL, he should know, right?

[Herra Tohtori]

Originally Posted by MaxGunz

Yes Freddy, bumpy air shakes planes. Safe speed is lower in bad weather.

You can probably survive a 25G impact FWIW.

That's momentary G's. Tell me about 12G turns because someone said they saw 12 on the G meter. That's cause he's twice as much as any ordinary man!

Transient lateral acceleration limits of humans vary from person to person and short spike of 12 g, I reckon it's possible but right about at the limit of human performance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8i04jBLI5I

What's impressive is if they actually had the time to look at their g-load gauges, or if they had some sort of flight recording systems (like a small needle in the g-load gauge, pushed by the indicator needle and showing the highest peak force)?

How reliable were these g-load indicators?


Did Mustang pilots in Korea era use any sort of G-wear? When did G-pants and G-suits make their appearance?

Impact g-forces are very short duration and with the right equipment (appropriate harness) you can survive impressively high decelerations. Empirical test results have shown that human beings can survive at least 45 g's of deceleration in forward/backward axis and 35 g's in sideways acceleration. Lateral acceleration limits would probably be a bit lower due to the massive stress on the neck and the spine in general, and you'd most definitely lose consciousness due to lack of blood pressure, but again I expect with proper harness and head/neck support surviving lateral decelerations above 25 g's would be quite possible.

I remember the Army machinegunner who claimed that 50 cal bullets speed up after they leave the barrel. LOL, he should know, right?

This is exactly why anecdotes are such a reliable way of assembling a mental picture of the comparative performances of combat aircraft of 60 years ago.

[gaunt1]

Hi!

Im asking this because Im not an expert of german planes: Is the acceleration of the Fw 190 ingame is realistic or not? The plane is fast, but its short term acceleration looks quite weak. I shot down quite a few 190s even in a LaGG-3S4, he couldnt get away in time, the LaGG accelerated faster, sometimes even in a dive. So it is a bit suspicious for me. LaGG-3, especially early versions accelerated sluggishly. The 190 was really that bad IRL? Correct me if Im wrong, but as far as I know high wing loading means less drag in level flight, so plane should accelerate better.

[MaxGunz]

The answer depends on the speed, same as when the US ran a test condition competition and found the P-47 they had accelerated poorly up to a certain speed where it did the smack the head on the rest thing. With that plane, you learn that speed and don't go slower in combat.

It's about efficient air speeds for each plane, high wing loaded planes are inefficient at lower speeds to gain efficiency at higher speeds.

It's about induced drag as a percent of total drag. Until you can get your nose down, just staying aloft has a high price while at top speed it is 1% to 2% of the total. So you got to get to efficient speed before you can get your best acceleration. When another plane is already in that speed zone for his plane and you are not for yours, he may leave you behind.

Nobody pwns everywhere. When short test conclusions say at all speeds; read it to say all the speeds and conditions they tested, the ones that made sense to the testers at the time. That was AFDU, the tests would set up current combat conditions, the speeds appropriate.

You still need tracks to talk about specific online events. Impressions are not always right.