PDA

View Full Version : Serious Fw190A Series Climb Questions



faustnik
02-27-2004, 10:36 AM
From an RAF evaluation of a catured Fw190A4:

"The rate of climb up to 18,000ft under maximum contitnous climbing conditions at 1.35 atmospheres boost 2,450 r.p.m., 165 mph is between 3,000 and 3,250 ft/min."

"The climb of the Fw190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the Fw190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the Fw190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000 feet. With both aircraft flying at a high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled into a climb from a dive, the Fw190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it."

RAF Report
Fc/S. 2947
17th July 1942

We don't have know exactly how the Spit MkV will perform in FB but, surely the Fw190A4 is not performing up to these specs. What are the reasons for that? The Fw190A4 difference between the A4 and the A3 was provisions for a boost systems in the A4 correct? How could the Bf109G2 be so superior to the Fw190A4 in climb. Surely the Allies found the Fw190 to be the best performing enemy a/c that they faced. The RAF difficulties with the 190 were due in part to the 190's fantastic climbing performance, right? If the 109 was so superior in climb, why would they be shocked by the 190?

Is the Fw190A4 modeled in FB different from the versions that the RAF faced on the Channel Front? If so, exactly how?


http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FBComp190A4G2.jpg
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FBComp190A4MkV.jpg

Please note: Although the climb of the SpitMkV is great in this chart, I do not show what a dog it is according to the same FB Compare in terms of top end speed. It's going to be no uberplane according to this program. I'm not ripping on the unseen, unknown SpitV FM, just asking questions about the 190.

BTW, FB Compare shows some great climb for the P-38! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Thanks for any help with these questions,

Faust

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

faustnik
02-27-2004, 10:36 AM
From an RAF evaluation of a catured Fw190A4:

"The rate of climb up to 18,000ft under maximum contitnous climbing conditions at 1.35 atmospheres boost 2,450 r.p.m., 165 mph is between 3,000 and 3,250 ft/min."

"The climb of the Fw190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights. The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the Fw190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the Fw190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000 feet. With both aircraft flying at a high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled into a climb from a dive, the Fw190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it."

RAF Report
Fc/S. 2947
17th July 1942

We don't have know exactly how the Spit MkV will perform in FB but, surely the Fw190A4 is not performing up to these specs. What are the reasons for that? The Fw190A4 difference between the A4 and the A3 was provisions for a boost systems in the A4 correct? How could the Bf109G2 be so superior to the Fw190A4 in climb. Surely the Allies found the Fw190 to be the best performing enemy a/c that they faced. The RAF difficulties with the 190 were due in part to the 190's fantastic climbing performance, right? If the 109 was so superior in climb, why would they be shocked by the 190?

Is the Fw190A4 modeled in FB different from the versions that the RAF faced on the Channel Front? If so, exactly how?


http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FBComp190A4G2.jpg
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FBComp190A4MkV.jpg

Please note: Although the climb of the SpitMkV is great in this chart, I do not show what a dog it is according to the same FB Compare in terms of top end speed. It's going to be no uberplane according to this program. I'm not ripping on the unseen, unknown SpitV FM, just asking questions about the 190.

BTW, FB Compare shows some great climb for the P-38! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Thanks for any help with these questions,

Faust

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

02-27-2004, 10:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
We don't have know exactly how the Spit MkV will perform in FB but, surely the Fw190A4 is not performing up to these specs. What are the reasons for that? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In British tests, they tested both FW 190 and Spit at normal climb powers, endurable for long time : 1/2-1 hour long... climb at maximum performance could be different.

Also, the Spit V had many boosts during its service... first only 9 lbs in 1941, then 12 in 1942, then +16 lbs/sq inch in late 1942 IIRC. In 1943 some were modified for low altitude performance at the expense of medium/high alt perforance (Spit V. LF) Those had very good climb rate at low level, but worser at altitude..

It also depends what you compare... basically the FW 190 climbed better in l942, in 1943, LF spits would climb better at very low alts.. but also 190A-5 appeared, it did 4000 fpm at 1,42ata. Better than MkV at most alts.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
How could the Bf109G2 be so superior to the Fw190A4 in climb. Surely the Allies found the Fw190 to be the best performing enemy a/c that they faced. The RAF difficulties with the 190 were due in part to the 190's fantastic climbing performance, right? If the 109 was so superior in climb, why would they be shocked by the 190?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The G-2 was MUCH superior in climb than FW 190A, any version... lighter aircraft, lower wingloading etc. The Allies were shocked by the FW 190A as a whole, it came out of nothing... the 109 they knew already.. but I doubt they tested a G-2 in 1942, when AFDU did those tests with the FW 190A-3. First G-2 I know to be captured is the famouse black six, captured in the end of 1942. Perhaps they did some test in 1943, but it arrived to england a lot later only.. so in brief they saw the Fw 190A a lot earlier than the Bf 109G. It also only saw service later than the FW 190A. It was a later bird.

BTW, do you have link for FB Compare?

Willey
02-27-2004, 10:55 AM
The Spit is overmodelled according to Il-2 Compare then. Anyway, it's a slow crate which does only 450 on the deck, which is 90 less than the A-4 does. The A-4 can hold it's speed advantage up to 7k after Il2C. There it's faster with 100% power than the Spit with 110% power. What I wonder about is the clipped wing isn't even 10km/h faster, climb almost the same, but 1 sec more for a full circle. I expected at least noticably speed and climb differences... The LF is really the low alt variant. Also here, the clipped wing doesn't matter really much.

Willey
02-27-2004, 10:59 AM
Il-2 Compare DL: http://www.silver.ru/soft/il2c_v23.zip or http://www.buddy-spike.net/il2c_v23.zip

faustnik
02-27-2004, 11:11 AM
Willey,

I don't want this to degenerate in to a 190 vs. Spit flame fest. I really want to evaluate the 190A4 climb on its own.

But, yeah, the Spit V is REALLY slow in FB compare!

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

faustnik
02-27-2004, 01:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Willey:
The Spit is overmodelled according to Il-2 Compare then. Anyway, it's a slow crate which does only 450 on the deck, which is 90 less than the A-4 does. The A-4 can hold it's speed advantage up to 7k after Il2C. There it's faster with 100% power than the Spit with 110% power. What I wonder about is the clipped wing isn't even 10km/h faster, climb almost the same, but 1 sec more for a full circle. I expected at least noticably speed and climb differences... The LF is really the low alt variant. Also here, the clipped wing doesn't matter really much.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Willey,

Why do you think the Spit is overmodeled. Id say it's the 190 that is undermodeled. Look at the G2. almost twice the climb rate of the 190??? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

JG14_Josf
02-27-2004, 03:31 PM
A serious evaluation of climb performance is problematic.

If two of us could manage to go back in history to find one FW190 and if both of us managed to pilot it for testing purposes we could find that the two of us find two different climb rates for the same plane.

It should be clear that one absolutely correct climb performance number for one plane is difficult at best to determine with absolute certainty.

It must be understood that any written data made by test pilots in the past can only be used as a starting point toward a serious determination of the performance capabilities of one single plane.

One plane.

Many FW190s were produced and each of them performed differently.

We the players involved in the activity of simulating WWII air combat are not concerned with absolute climb capabilities of one plane or even a representative example of one type of plane.

Our concern is relative performance capabilities.

Therefore the serious climb question becomes even more problematic.

Nailing down the absolute capabilities of one plane is difficult enough. Nailing down relative performance becomes exponentially more difficult.

The inevitable error that can result when trying to determine an absolute performance value can compound the inevitable error when one planes performance is compared with another plane. In other words, for example, if the error of one plane falls short of a true value while the error of another plane is above the true value then the error of relative performance is compounded in both directions. A true relative performance capacity is subjected to a compounding error factor when two planes are compared to one another when such comparisons are made from independent test results.

What history has recorded however are examples of test pilots and even combat test pilots who have tested these planes in mock combat.

These test results remove the compound error that can result when independed test results are compared since the idea behind the combat test trials are not so much to determine absolute performance data but instead the combat test trials are specifically designed to determine relative performance capabilities.

What can happen if a game producer models performance values based entirely upon individual test results?

If one plane is modeled with an absolute value in climb performance that is 10 percent higher than a true representative example of the real plane in history and if another plane is modeled with an absolute value in climb performance that is 10 percent lower than a true representative value in history then the result is a relative performance error of 20 percent.

A 20 percent error in relative performance can completely reverse the actual, historical relative performance capabilities of two planes.

If history records an example of two British fighter pilots documenting mock combat trials between a captured derated FW190A-3 with fouled spark plugs and a "Spitfire VB from an operation squadron" and the results of their mock combat reports that "The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights" then it seems to me that when compared to a game proporting to simulate or mock WWII combat that an error has occured if the Spitfire is modeled so as to be able to handily out climb the FW.

I don't know how accurate IL2compare reports in game performance but the FW190-Spitfire match-up is not the only problem.

From wings of the Luftwaffe by Captain Eric Brown:

page 157

"The Gustav offered a marginally better climb rate up to 20,000 ft (6 096 m) but between this altitude and 25,000 ft (7 620m) the Mustang had a very slight advantage."

Compare the Mustang climb performance in IL2compare.

If the new version of IL2/FB does turn out to be as indicated by IL2compare then at least some historical record will indicate significant error. An error where one plane is closer in performance than what history documents is one thing when superiority is made inferior the error becomes significant and will alter any tactical simulation of combat between those planes modeled with such a significant error.

faustnik
02-27-2004, 03:37 PM
Great post Josf, thank you.

In FB even the P-40 has a big, completely non-historic, climb advantage over the 190A4. This does cause us to alter our methods of fighting in the 190, extending in the horizontal rather than the historic vertical.


But, is the 190A4 that is modeled in FB similar enough to be compared to the A3 discussed in the RAF report? Is that report at all relavent?

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

Zen--
02-27-2004, 03:42 PM
Well said Josf, very nice

-Zen-

faustnik
02-27-2004, 05:27 PM
Just adding this one in here:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/P40vsA4.jpg

Outclimbed by a P-40! Doh! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

Welshman_PF
02-27-2004, 05:42 PM
the AI dont use 100% prop pitch or close their rads so stop whinning bcos that A4 climbs faster than that program says it does .

and the spit wont have the prop pitch advantage.

and anyway whats the problem if it does if your in a situation like that all you do is run flat out on the deck and climb slowly there is no way a spit can keep up with you, its the zoom climb that makes the diference not sustained climb ..

faustnik
02-27-2004, 05:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Welshman_PF:
the AI dont use 100% prop pitch or close their rads so stop whinning bcos that A4 climbs faster than that program says it does .

and the spit wont have the prop pitch advantage.

and anyway whats the problem if it does if your in a situation like that all you do is run flat out on the deck and climb slowly there is no way a spit can keep up with you, its the zoom climb that makes the diference not sustained climb ..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

See posts above please. It's funny how a there can be a million posts about P-47 roll rate etc. but, discuss a LW a/c and you're whinning.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

AFJ_Locust
02-27-2004, 06:19 PM
GOOD POST JOSF that dosent just apply to fw &/or spit theres many ac modled like this in FB

10% high 10% low http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

http://img20.photobucket.com/albums/v61/AFJ_Locust/Loco_mad_sig2_small.jpg

http://alloutwar.com/IL2FS/

mike_espo
02-27-2004, 06:25 PM
Wow!! Very enlightning. The FW-109A 4 had a climb rate of 4100ft/min and the SpitV had a rate of 3650 ft/min. Maybe Oleg got the V and the IX mixed up??? The Spit IX had a climbrate the same as the A4.

JG14_Josf
02-27-2004, 06:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>But, is the 190A4 that is modeled in FB similar enough to be compared to the A3 discussed in the RAF report? Is that report at all relavent? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Relevant?

If the question is "Does IL2/FB model an accurate representation of the relative combat capabilities that existed between the 190A4 and the Spitfire VB in history?" than I say the AFDU test trials are more relevant than any other known source.

The most important performance factor required to determine relative combat capabilies is absent in most of the data I've seen so far presented on these web forums, and some of this most important information is found in the AFDU test trial reports.

What is the most important information the fighter pilot must know in order to gain a decisive edge over his opponent?

Climb rate?

Turn rate?

Top Speed?

Acceleration?

Please bear with me here because I think my take on this is relevant.

I think the question is best answered by Fighter pilots.

We could ask Robert Shaw or how about John Boyd?

John Boyd:

"If I am at 30,000 feet and 450 knots and pull six Gs, how fast am I gaining or losing energy? Can my adversary gain or lose energy faster than I can?"


Energy maneuverability is the decisive advantage and knowing the extent of this factor will give a pilot a decisive edge.

From Focke Wulf in Combat by Alfred Price on tactical trials done by the British at RAE Farnborough August 1942.

190A-3 (rough running engine) vs SpitVB (from an operational squadron)

"With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the Fw190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled into a climb from a dive, the Fw 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it."

"Comparative dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Fw 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease, particularly during the initial stages."

FB models the A-4

The test trials above compared an A-3.

Are they relevant?

W.S.Douglas Air Chief Marshal wrote a letter to the Under Sectetary of State for Air, Lord Sherwood concerning the 109A-3 captured and used in the British tests.

17th July, 1942
"...It is no answer to say that the position will be reversed when the Spitfire IX comes into general use. In the first place I have only fourteen Spitfire IXs, whereas the enemy has between two and three hundred Fw 190s. In several respects the Fw 190 is superior to the Spitfire IX, e.g. in climb and accleration at certain critical altitudes and in negative G carburation. The most alarming aspect of the position however is that, whereas the Spifire with Merlin engine is almost at the end of its possible development, the Fw 190 is only in the early stages of development. Reports are already to hand of more horsepower being put into the engine of the Fw 190, and there is no doubt that with its greater engine capacity, it can in time easily outstrip the Merlin Spitfire in performance."


The bottom line for those of us who wish to simulate WWII air combat concerns relative performance because we are simulating air combat.

The ADFU tests were simulating air combat and thier tests indicate a decisive advantage held by the A-3 over the Spitfire VB.

When the Spitfire VB becomes avaialable in the new patch then we, the players, will conduct our own combat trial tests and we can compare our test results with the historical records.

We can compare climb rates too.

I propose that what we will really want to know is something John Boyd spent a large portion of his amazing life understanding i.e. Energy Maneuverability.

If one plane can pull up into a climb from a dive and then draw away from the other then this performance advantage will far exceed a marginal climb rate advantage that one plane holds over another.

Energy maneuverability is the unknown factor that is not reported in IL2compare or any simple basic performance chart, and yet it is the most important factor.

If Oleg models the Spitfire as having higher acceleration than the Fw190 then this error will be more important than the possible climb rate error.

The energy manueverability factor will determine if the Spitfire can handle an FW and visa versa.

I suggest we wait and see if the Spitfire turns out to be a good fighter before we pass judgment.

Who knows maybe Oleg modeled a dog with a good climb rate.

JG14_Josf
02-27-2004, 06:50 PM
Faustnik,

Can you post the P-51C compared to the Bf 109G-6?

Compared to this from "Wings of the Luftwaffe" by Eric Brown:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"The Gustav offered a marginally better climb rate up to 20,000 ft (6 096 m) but between this altitude and 25,000 ft (7 620m) the Mustang had a very slight advantage."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is evidence that suggests the quote above refers to a 109G6/U2 with gun pods Werk number 41 2951 compared with a Mustang III (P-51C)

mike_espo
02-27-2004, 07:06 PM
JG 14 I hope your right. Otherwise, there is a serious problem with the FW spit matchup. Everything I ve read says the FW was superior to the spit in every category except turn. In FB, you really have to be careful when fighting with the FW. I think the bf 109 is superior in every catagory other than Armament. Most pilots preferred the FW over the Bf.

faustnik
02-27-2004, 07:36 PM
Here is the P-51B vs. the G6 Josf:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/G6vsP51B.jpg

Here's the P-51C (same stats as P-51B) vs. the G6 Late:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/P51BvsG6Late.jpg

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

Hunde_3.JG51
02-27-2004, 08:00 PM
I think there are serious problems with the 190A's climb-rates. By accounts it could climb pretty well at low-medium altitudes but in FB it is out-climbed by just about everthing, often quite easily. It doesn't matter to me about numbers, graphs, etc (though they are helpful), because simple game testing will tell you that a P-40, P-39, P-51, etc. shouldn't simply walk away from their contemporaries where the 190A is concerned. Me and my squad leader plan to do some serious testing where the FW-190 is concerned after the AEP release, and I am really hoping that climb-rates were re-examined, never mind the silly roll-rates we have.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

JG14_Josf
02-27-2004, 08:35 PM
Thanks Faustnik,

That is another example of IL2compare reports conflicting with historical record.

FW vs Spit is not a new topic (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=46710344&r=37710344#37710344)

Energy maneuverability modeling in IL2 changes from version to version.

At the moment the FW190 series is , in my opinion, at a high point when compared to the relative performance of the historical opposition and how the FW stacks up compared to past versions of the game.

If the Spitfire were to have been introduced into the plane set in past versions of IL2, back when the FW was double inferior to all contemporary opposition, again in my opinion, the spitfire would have stuck out like a sore thumb as the worst plane in the sim if it were modeled anywhere close to the same performance as the FW.
The problem would have been further complicated by the fact that the FW was once modeled with a huge turn rate advantage with flaps deployed.

Imagine an FW that could only fight the Spitfire in horizontal turns?

I think the FW's have improved significantly in the area of energy maneuverability, and that this does pave the way for the introduction of the Spitfire into the sim without too much controversy.

The adjustments in energy maneuverability that has occured, however this managed to be accomplished, has moved the FW from a third class plane with an uber flaps out turn rate to a plane that can contend with its contemporaries with reasonable historical similarities.
For example: The IL2 FWs are now able to fight in the vertical and not well suited in the horizontal fight. They lose energy quickly but gain it back quickly when the nose is pointed down. The FW's zoom well enough to use this tactic to advantage.

Look at IL2compare and see how the Spitfire stacks up against the Lagg3, Yak1, and Yak1B.

According to IL2compare the Spitfire is going to be a very good slow speed turning plane, as if the plane had huge wings!

How is Oleg going to model the Spits energy manueverability?

Oleg and company have a very though job fitting this plane into the sim.