PDA

View Full Version : What Cptn Eric Brown (really) wrote about the Fw 190A



RegRag1977
10-04-2010, 11:11 AM
Hi Guys http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ,

since there has been some discussions about the Fw190 tactics and performance, and as some people here posted infos mentionning Eric Brown without quoting him "in the text", i decided to look for at least one reference and to copy some quotes in their context, so that we can have a better view of what was the Fw190A according to Eric Brown. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif BTW There's also one quote about aircraft beauty that i added for i found it funny, i hope you'll like it too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif !



“The AFDU trials confirmed what the RAF already knew - that the Fw 190 was a truly outstanding combat aircraft. They also produced vitally important information which went some way towards restoring the situation in so far as the RAF was concerned and in eradicating something of the awe in which the Focke-Wulf had come to be held by Allied pilots. It was concluded that the Fw 190 pilot trying to “mix it” with a Spitfire in the classic fashion of steep turning was doomed, for at any speed -even below the German fighter's stalling speed- it would be out-turned by its British opponent . Of course the Luftwaffe was aware of this fact and a somewhat odd style of dogfighting evolved in which the Fw 190 pilots endeavoured to keep on the vertical plane by zooms and dives, while their Spitfire-mounted antagonists tried everything in the book to draw them on to the horizontal. If the German pilot lost his head and failed to resist the temptation to try a horizontal pursuit curve on a Spitfire, as likely as not, before he could recover the speed lost in a steep turn he would find another Spitfire turning inside him! On the other hand, the German pilot who kept zooming up and down was usually the recipient of only difficult deflection shots of more than 30 deg. The Fw 190 had tremendous initial acceleration in a dive but it was extremely vulnerable during a pull-out, recovery having to be quite progressive with care not to kill the speed by 'sinking' ”

[...]

“ I recall clearly the excitement with which I first examined the Focke-Wulf fighter; the impression of elegant lethality that its functional yet pleasing lines exuded. To me it represented the very quintessence of aeronautical pulchritude from any angle. It was not to my eye, more beautiful than the Spitfire, but its beauty took a different form – the contrast being such as that between a blonde and brunette!”

[...]


"My first opportunity to fly the Focke-Wulf did not arise until 4 February 1944, the actual aircraft being the previously-mentioned Fw 190A-4/U8 PE882. This fighter had seen a lot of flying from the RAE and was destined, 10 weeks later, to be transferred to N° 1426 Flight at Collyweston with which it was to fly until 13 October 1944, when, after a fire in the air it was to crash on the road between Kettering and Stamford, demolishing there three walls before coming to rest in the garden of a house. On this cold February morning at Farnborough, however, the sad demise of this particular Focke-Wulf was still some way into the future, and despite the substantial number of hours that it had flown since reaching British hands, it gave every impression of youthfulness.

The BMW 802D engine was started by an inertia starter energized by a 24-volt external support or by the aircraft's own battery. The big radial was primed internally, both fuel tanks and pumps selected ON and the cooling gills (sic?) set to one-third aperture. We had found that the BMW almost invariably fired first time and emitted a smooth purr as it ran, such being the case on this particular morning, and once i had familiarized myself with the self-centering tailwheel – a feature that had been criticized by some AFDU pilots – I found taxying the essence of simplicity as the fighter could be swung freely from side to side on its broad-track undercarriage. Furthermore, the brakes were very good, although the view with the tail down left much to be desired.

I soon felt completely at home in the cockpit. After lining up for take-off, I moved the stick to an aft position in order to lock the tailwheel, applied 10 degrees of flap, set the elevator trimmer to neutral and the propeller pitch to AUTO and gently opened up the engine. I encountered some tendency to swing to port but easily held this on the rudder, and using 2,700 rpm and 23.5 lb (1.6 atas) boost, found the run to be much the same as that of the Spitfire Mk IX. Unstick speed was 112 mph (180 km/h) and after retracting the undercarriage by depressing the appropriate button, I reduced boost to 21.3 lb (1.45 atas) and at 143 mph (230 km/h) activated the pushbutton which raised the flaps. I then set up a climbing speed of 161 mph (260 km/h) using 2,500 rpm and this gave a climb rate of 3,150 ft/min (16m/sec).

A remarkable aspect of this fighter was the lack of retrimming required for the various stages of the flight. There was no aileron trimmer in the cockpit, but if the external adjustable trim tab had been inadvertently moved as a result, for example of a member of the groundcrew pushing against it, an out-of-trim force of considerable proportions could result at high speed. Decidedly the most impressive feature of the German fighter was its beautifully light ailerons and its extremely high rate of roll. Incredible aileron turns were possible that would have torn the wings from a Bf 109 and badly strained the arm muscles of any Spitfire pilot trying to follow. The aileron maintained their lightness from the stall up to 400 mph (644km/h), although they heavied up above that speed.

The elevators proved to be heavy at all speed and particularly so above 350 mph (563 km/h) when they became heavy enough to impose a tactical restriction on the fighter as regards pull-out from low-level dives. This heaviness was accentuated because of the nose-down pitch which occurred at high speeds when trimmed for low speeds. The critical speed at which this change in trim occurred was at around 220 mph (354 km/h) and could easily be gauged in turns. At lower speeds, the German fighter had a tendency to tighten up the turn and I found it necessary to apply slight forward pressure on the stick, but above the previously-mentioned critical figure, the changeover called for some backward pressure to hold the Focke-Wulf in the turn.

At low speeds rudder control proved positive and effective, and I found it satisfactory at high speeds, seldom needing to be used for any normal manoeuvre. It was when one took the three controls together rather than in isolation that one appreciated the fact that the Fw190's magic as a fighter lay in its superb control harmony. A good dogfighter and a good gun platform called for just the characteristics that this German fighter possessed in all important matters of stability and control. At the normal cruise of 330 mph (530 km/h) at 8000 ft (2400 m), the stability was very good directionally, unstable laterally, and neutral longitudinally.

Some penalty is, of course, always invoked by such handling attributes as those possessed by the Fw 190, and in the case of this fighter the penalty was to be found in the fact that it was not at all easy to fly on instruments. Of course, Kurt Tank's aircraft was originally conceived solely as a clear-weather day fighter. It is significant that all-weather versions were fitted with the Patin PKS 12 autopilot. I checked out the maximum level speed of my Fw190A-4/U8- which incidentally, had had its external stores carriers removed by this time- and clocked 394 mph (634 km/h) at 18,500 ft (5640 m), and I ascertained that the service ceiling was around 35,000 ft (10 670 m), so it matched the Spitfire Mk IX almost mile per hour and foot per foot of ceiling. Here were apparently two aircraft that were so evenly matched that the skill of the pilot became a vital factor in combat supremacy. Skill in aerial combat does, however, mean flying an aircraft to its limits, and when the performance of the enemy is equal to one's own, then the handling characteristics become vital in seeking an advantage. The Focke-Wulf had one big advantage over the Spitfire Mk IX in that it possessed an appreciably higher rate of roll, but the Achilles Heel that the AFDU had sought with Armin Faber's Focke-Wulf was its harsh stalling characteristics which limited its manoeuvre margins.
The AFDU comparisons between the Focke-Wulf and the Spitfire Mk IX - with the former's BMW 801 at 2,700 rpm and 20.8 lb (1.42 atas) boost and the latter's Merlin 61 at 3000 rpm and 15lb (1.00 ata)- has revealed that the German fighter was 7-8mph (11-13km/h) faster than its British counterpart at 2,000 ft (610 m) but that the speeds of the two fighters were virtually the same at 5,000 ft (1525 m). Above this altitude, the Spitfire began to display a marginal superiority, being about 8mph (13km/h) faster at 8,000 ft (2440 m) and 5 mph (8km/h) faster at 15,000 ft (4570 m). The pendulum then swung once more in favour of the Focke-Wulf which proved itself some 3 mph (5km/h) faster at 18,000 ft (5485m), the two fighters level pegging once more at 21,000 ft (6400 m) and the Spitfire then taking the lead until at 25,000 ft (7620 m) it showed a 5-7 mph (8-11 km/h) superiority.

In climbing little difference was found between the Fw 190 and the Spitfire MkIX up to 23,000 ft (7010 m), above which altitude the German fighter began to fall off and the difference between the two aircraft widened rapidly. From high-speed cruise, a pull-up into a climb gave the Fw190 an initial advantage owing to its superior acceleration and the superiority of the German fighter was even more noticeable when both aircraft were pulled up into a zoom climb from a dive. In the dive the Fw190 could leave the Spitfire Mk IX without difficulty and there was no gainsaying that in so far as manoeuvrablity was concerned, the German fighter was markedly superior in all save the tight turn – the Spitfire could not follow in aileron turns and reversals at high speed and the worst height for its pilots to engage the Fw 190 in combat were between 18,000 and 22,000 ft (5485 and 6705m), and at altitudes below 3,000 ft (915m).
The stalling speed of the Fw 190A-4 in clean configuration was 127 mph (204 km/h) and the stall came suddenly and virtually without warning, the port wing dropping so violently that the aircraft almost inverted itself. In fact, if the German fighter was pulled into a g stall in a right turn, it would flick out into the opposite bank and an incipient spin was the inevitable outcome if the pilot did not have its wits about him.
The stall in landing was quite different, there being intense pre-stall buffeting before the starboard wing dropped comparatively gently at 102 mph (164 km/h).
For landing on this and the numerous subsequent occasions that I was to fly an Fw 190, I extend the undercarriage at 186 mph (300km/h), lowering the flaps 10 deg at 168 mph (270km/h), although the pilot's notes recommend reducing speed below 155 mph (250 km/h) and the applying 10 deg of flap before lowering the undercarriage. My reason for departing from the recommended drill was that the electrical load for lowering the undercarriage was higher than that required for the flaps and German batteries were in rather short supply at Farnborough - that in the Fw190A-4/U8 was most definitely weary- so I considered it prudent to get the wheels down before taxing the remaining strength of the battery further!

The turn onto the final approach was made at 155mph (250km/h), and full flap was applied at 149 mph (240km/h), speed then being eased off to cross the boundary at 124 mph (200 km/h). The view on the approach was decidedly poor because the attitude with power on was rather flat and unlike most fighters of the period, it was not permissible to open the cockpit canopy, presumably owing the risk of engine exhaust fumes entering the cockpit. The actual touch-down was a little tricky as the prefect three-point attitude was difficult to attain and anything less than perfect resulted in a reaction from the very non-resilient undercarriage and a decidedly bouncy arrival. If a three-pointer could be achieved, the landing run was short and the brakes could be applied harshly without fear of nosing over.
I was to fly the Fw 190 many times and in several varieties -among the last of the radial-engined members of Kurt Tank's fighter family that I flew was an Fw 190 F-8 (AM111) on 28 July 1945- and each time I was to experience that sense of exhilaration that came from flying an aircraft that one instinctively knew to be a top-notcher, yet at the same time demanded handling skill if its high qualities were to be exploited. Just as the Spitfire Mk IX was probably the most outstanding British fighter to give service in WW II, its Teutonic counterpart is undoubtedly deserving of the same recognition for Germany. Both were supreme in their time and class; both were durable and technically superb, and if each had not been there to counter the other, then the balance of air power could have been dramatically altered at a crucial period in the fortunes of both combatants.”

Extract from Wings of the Luftwaffe by Eric Brown, McDonald and Jane's, 1977, p.80 to p.87

RegRag1977
10-04-2010, 11:11 AM
Hi Guys http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ,

since there has been some discussions about the Fw190 tactics and performance, and as some people here posted infos mentionning Eric Brown without quoting him "in the text", i decided to look for at least one reference and to copy some quotes in their context, so that we can have a better view of what was the Fw190A according to Eric Brown. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif BTW There's also one quote about aircraft beauty that i added for i found it funny, i hope you'll like it too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif !



“The AFDU trials confirmed what the RAF already knew - that the Fw 190 was a truly outstanding combat aircraft. They also produced vitally important information which went some way towards restoring the situation in so far as the RAF was concerned and in eradicating something of the awe in which the Focke-Wulf had come to be held by Allied pilots. It was concluded that the Fw 190 pilot trying to “mix it” with a Spitfire in the classic fashion of steep turning was doomed, for at any speed -even below the German fighter's stalling speed- it would be out-turned by its British opponent . Of course the Luftwaffe was aware of this fact and a somewhat odd style of dogfighting evolved in which the Fw 190 pilots endeavoured to keep on the vertical plane by zooms and dives, while their Spitfire-mounted antagonists tried everything in the book to draw them on to the horizontal. If the German pilot lost his head and failed to resist the temptation to try a horizontal pursuit curve on a Spitfire, as likely as not, before he could recover the speed lost in a steep turn he would find another Spitfire turning inside him! On the other hand, the German pilot who kept zooming up and down was usually the recipient of only difficult deflection shots of more than 30 deg. The Fw 190 had tremendous initial acceleration in a dive but it was extremely vulnerable during a pull-out, recovery having to be quite progressive with care not to kill the speed by 'sinking' ”

[...]

“ I recall clearly the excitement with which I first examined the Focke-Wulf fighter; the impression of elegant lethality that its functional yet pleasing lines exuded. To me it represented the very quintessence of aeronautical pulchritude from any angle. It was not to my eye, more beautiful than the Spitfire, but its beauty took a different form – the contrast being such as that between a blonde and brunette!”

[...]


"My first opportunity to fly the Focke-Wulf did not arise until 4 February 1944, the actual aircraft being the previously-mentioned Fw 190A-4/U8 PE882. This fighter had seen a lot of flying from the RAE and was destined, 10 weeks later, to be transferred to N° 1426 Flight at Collyweston with which it was to fly until 13 October 1944, when, after a fire in the air it was to crash on the road between Kettering and Stamford, demolishing there three walls before coming to rest in the garden of a house. On this cold February morning at Farnborough, however, the sad demise of this particular Focke-Wulf was still some way into the future, and despite the substantial number of hours that it had flown since reaching British hands, it gave every impression of youthfulness.

The BMW 802D engine was started by an inertia starter energized by a 24-volt external support or by the aircraft's own battery. The big radial was primed internally, both fuel tanks and pumps selected ON and the cooling gills (sic?) set to one-third aperture. We had found that the BMW almost invariably fired first time and emitted a smooth purr as it ran, such being the case on this particular morning, and once i had familiarized myself with the self-centering tailwheel – a feature that had been criticized by some AFDU pilots – I found taxying the essence of simplicity as the fighter could be swung freely from side to side on its broad-track undercarriage. Furthermore, the brakes were very good, although the view with the tail down left much to be desired.

I soon felt completely at home in the cockpit. After lining up for take-off, I moved the stick to an aft position in order to lock the tailwheel, applied 10 degrees of flap, set the elevator trimmer to neutral and the propeller pitch to AUTO and gently opened up the engine. I encountered some tendency to swing to port but easily held this on the rudder, and using 2,700 rpm and 23.5 lb (1.6 atas) boost, found the run to be much the same as that of the Spitfire Mk IX. Unstick speed was 112 mph (180 km/h) and after retracting the undercarriage by depressing the appropriate button, I reduced boost to 21.3 lb (1.45 atas) and at 143 mph (230 km/h) activated the pushbutton which raised the flaps. I then set up a climbing speed of 161 mph (260 km/h) using 2,500 rpm and this gave a climb rate of 3,150 ft/min (16m/sec).

A remarkable aspect of this fighter was the lack of retrimming required for the various stages of the flight. There was no aileron trimmer in the cockpit, but if the external adjustable trim tab had been inadvertently moved as a result, for example of a member of the groundcrew pushing against it, an out-of-trim force of considerable proportions could result at high speed. Decidedly the most impressive feature of the German fighter was its beautifully light ailerons and its extremely high rate of roll. Incredible aileron turns were possible that would have torn the wings from a Bf 109 and badly strained the arm muscles of any Spitfire pilot trying to follow. The aileron maintained their lightness from the stall up to 400 mph (644km/h), although they heavied up above that speed.

The elevators proved to be heavy at all speed and particularly so above 350 mph (563 km/h) when they became heavy enough to impose a tactical restriction on the fighter as regards pull-out from low-level dives. This heaviness was accentuated because of the nose-down pitch which occurred at high speeds when trimmed for low speeds. The critical speed at which this change in trim occurred was at around 220 mph (354 km/h) and could easily be gauged in turns. At lower speeds, the German fighter had a tendency to tighten up the turn and I found it necessary to apply slight forward pressure on the stick, but above the previously-mentioned critical figure, the changeover called for some backward pressure to hold the Focke-Wulf in the turn.

At low speeds rudder control proved positive and effective, and I found it satisfactory at high speeds, seldom needing to be used for any normal manoeuvre. It was when one took the three controls together rather than in isolation that one appreciated the fact that the Fw190's magic as a fighter lay in its superb control harmony. A good dogfighter and a good gun platform called for just the characteristics that this German fighter possessed in all important matters of stability and control. At the normal cruise of 330 mph (530 km/h) at 8000 ft (2400 m), the stability was very good directionally, unstable laterally, and neutral longitudinally.

Some penalty is, of course, always invoked by such handling attributes as those possessed by the Fw 190, and in the case of this fighter the penalty was to be found in the fact that it was not at all easy to fly on instruments. Of course, Kurt Tank's aircraft was originally conceived solely as a clear-weather day fighter. It is significant that all-weather versions were fitted with the Patin PKS 12 autopilot. I checked out the maximum level speed of my Fw190A-4/U8- which incidentally, had had its external stores carriers removed by this time- and clocked 394 mph (634 km/h) at 18,500 ft (5640 m), and I ascertained that the service ceiling was around 35,000 ft (10 670 m), so it matched the Spitfire Mk IX almost mile per hour and foot per foot of ceiling. Here were apparently two aircraft that were so evenly matched that the skill of the pilot became a vital factor in combat supremacy. Skill in aerial combat does, however, mean flying an aircraft to its limits, and when the performance of the enemy is equal to one's own, then the handling characteristics become vital in seeking an advantage. The Focke-Wulf had one big advantage over the Spitfire Mk IX in that it possessed an appreciably higher rate of roll, but the Achilles Heel that the AFDU had sought with Armin Faber's Focke-Wulf was its harsh stalling characteristics which limited its manoeuvre margins.
The AFDU comparisons between the Focke-Wulf and the Spitfire Mk IX - with the former's BMW 801 at 2,700 rpm and 20.8 lb (1.42 atas) boost and the latter's Merlin 61 at 3000 rpm and 15lb (1.00 ata)- has revealed that the German fighter was 7-8mph (11-13km/h) faster than its British counterpart at 2,000 ft (610 m) but that the speeds of the two fighters were virtually the same at 5,000 ft (1525 m). Above this altitude, the Spitfire began to display a marginal superiority, being about 8mph (13km/h) faster at 8,000 ft (2440 m) and 5 mph (8km/h) faster at 15,000 ft (4570 m). The pendulum then swung once more in favour of the Focke-Wulf which proved itself some 3 mph (5km/h) faster at 18,000 ft (5485m), the two fighters level pegging once more at 21,000 ft (6400 m) and the Spitfire then taking the lead until at 25,000 ft (7620 m) it showed a 5-7 mph (8-11 km/h) superiority.

In climbing little difference was found between the Fw 190 and the Spitfire MkIX up to 23,000 ft (7010 m), above which altitude the German fighter began to fall off and the difference between the two aircraft widened rapidly. From high-speed cruise, a pull-up into a climb gave the Fw190 an initial advantage owing to its superior acceleration and the superiority of the German fighter was even more noticeable when both aircraft were pulled up into a zoom climb from a dive. In the dive the Fw190 could leave the Spitfire Mk IX without difficulty and there was no gainsaying that in so far as manoeuvrablity was concerned, the German fighter was markedly superior in all save the tight turn – the Spitfire could not follow in aileron turns and reversals at high speed and the worst height for its pilots to engage the Fw 190 in combat were between 18,000 and 22,000 ft (5485 and 6705m), and at altitudes below 3,000 ft (915m).
The stalling speed of the Fw 190A-4 in clean configuration was 127 mph (204 km/h) and the stall came suddenly and virtually without warning, the port wing dropping so violently that the aircraft almost inverted itself. In fact, if the German fighter was pulled into a g stall in a right turn, it would flick out into the opposite bank and an incipient spin was the inevitable outcome if the pilot did not have its wits about him.
The stall in landing was quite different, there being intense pre-stall buffeting before the starboard wing dropped comparatively gently at 102 mph (164 km/h).
For landing on this and the numerous subsequent occasions that I was to fly an Fw 190, I extend the undercarriage at 186 mph (300km/h), lowering the flaps 10 deg at 168 mph (270km/h), although the pilot's notes recommend reducing speed below 155 mph (250 km/h) and the applying 10 deg of flap before lowering the undercarriage. My reason for departing from the recommended drill was that the electrical load for lowering the undercarriage was higher than that required for the flaps and German batteries were in rather short supply at Farnborough - that in the Fw190A-4/U8 was most definitely weary- so I considered it prudent to get the wheels down before taxing the remaining strength of the battery further!

The turn onto the final approach was made at 155mph (250km/h), and full flap was applied at 149 mph (240km/h), speed then being eased off to cross the boundary at 124 mph (200 km/h). The view on the approach was decidedly poor because the attitude with power on was rather flat and unlike most fighters of the period, it was not permissible to open the cockpit canopy, presumably owing the risk of engine exhaust fumes entering the cockpit. The actual touch-down was a little tricky as the prefect three-point attitude was difficult to attain and anything less than perfect resulted in a reaction from the very non-resilient undercarriage and a decidedly bouncy arrival. If a three-pointer could be achieved, the landing run was short and the brakes could be applied harshly without fear of nosing over.
I was to fly the Fw 190 many times and in several varieties -among the last of the radial-engined members of Kurt Tank's fighter family that I flew was an Fw 190 F-8 (AM111) on 28 July 1945- and each time I was to experience that sense of exhilaration that came from flying an aircraft that one instinctively knew to be a top-notcher, yet at the same time demanded handling skill if its high qualities were to be exploited. Just as the Spitfire Mk IX was probably the most outstanding British fighter to give service in WW II, its Teutonic counterpart is undoubtedly deserving of the same recognition for Germany. Both were supreme in their time and class; both were durable and technically superb, and if each had not been there to counter the other, then the balance of air power could have been dramatically altered at a crucial period in the fortunes of both combatants.”

Extract from Wings of the Luftwaffe by Eric Brown, McDonald and Jane's, 1977, p.80 to p.87

K_Freddie
10-04-2010, 11:50 AM
Interesting that there was not much difference between the IX and whatever FW he was flying.
Even more surprising was the altitudes quoted.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

stalkervision
10-04-2010, 12:22 PM
thanks for the posting. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

In early combat with the 190 the craft's excellent roll rate made it appear to "just disappear" at will from following spitfires ! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Wildnoob
10-04-2010, 02:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RegRag1977:
From high-speed cruise, a pull-up into a climb gave the Fw190 an initial advantage owing to its superior acceleration </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess we really have something wrong with the Focke Wulf acceleration in IL2.

About maneuverability, here's a quote from Hauptmann Heinz Lange:

I first flew the Fw 190 on 8 November 1942 at Vyazama in the Soviet Union. I was absolutely thrilled. I flew every fighter version of it employed on the Eastern Front. Because of its smaller fuselage, visibility was somewhat better out of the Bf 109. I believe the Fw 190 was more manoeuvrable than the Messerschmitt — although the latter could make a tighter horizontal turn, if you master the Fw 190 you could pull a lot of Gs [g force] and do just about as well. In terms of control and feel, the 109 was heavier on the stick. Structurally, it was distinctly superior to the Messerschmitt, especially in dives. The radial engine of the Fw 190 was more resistant to enemy fire. Firepower, which varied with the particular series, was fairly even in all German fighters. The central cannon of the Messerschmitt was naturally more accurate, but that was really a meaningful advantage only in fighter-to-fighter combat. The 109's 30 mm cannon frequently jammed, especially in hard turns — I lost at least six kills this way

The Spitfire was more maneuverable than the Bf 109. Still even a well flown Kurfurst could dogfight with a Mk IX as long as the combat was not just about a sustained turn until stall. Of course the energy state at start of the fight was everything, and if in favour of the Spit his advantage in turn would become a big problem for the German with also the energy advantage. On the other hand the Focke Wulf pilot could avoid this unfavourable fight if he have altitude to dive away.

BillSwagger
10-04-2010, 04:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wildnoob:
I guess we really have something wrong with the Focke Wulf acceleration in IL2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thinks its more the spitfire than the 190. If you read spitfire accounts most pilots found it difficult to dive after 109s or 190s.
I also don't see a margin of 10mph being decisively faster for either fighter, however altitude and dives tend to generate more speed in level flight and thats usually where the difference is when fighting a vertical fight. Naturally, if you generate more speed in a dive, the subsequent zoom climb is going to be higher.
Its surprising to see the Fw190 matched the climb of the spit in this example, although i think a higher boosted Spitfire was far superior in climb.

To some degree i think the Spitfire is somewhat over rated.

Bill

Ba5tard5word
10-04-2010, 05:38 PM
Interesting stuff. The Fw-190 in Il-2 does stink at acceleration and climbing, but it seems pretty good in a dive and if you keep the nose slightly down it eventually gets to a really high speed compared with a lot of contemporary planes.

I was surprised to see that he says in stalls the port (left?) wing would flip, but in Il-2 it flips to the right when you pull back hard on the stick. Maybe he's not referring to speed stalls though.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It was not to my eye, more beautiful than the Spitfire, but its beauty took a different form – the contrast being such as that between a blonde and brunette!” </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heh, nice.

Kettenhunde
10-04-2010, 08:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">From high-speed cruise, a pull-up into a climb gave the Fw190 an initial advantage owing to its superior acceleration </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I interpret this statement as the Focke Wulf has a higher initial acceleration in the zoom climb. It does not say a thing about level flight acceleration.

This is because the Focke Wulf is traveling at a faster cruise speed. This fits with the shape of the these two aircraft's power required curves and is reflected in the POH speeds for the types.

This has been discussed to death on Ubizoo hasn't it?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The Fw-190 in Il-2 does stink at acceleration </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The take off acceleration is not very realistic for an airplane much less an airplane with the power to weight of a WWII fighter.

Romanator21
10-05-2010, 01:41 AM
The same can be said for the Gladiator and P.11 which end up using the entire strip just to get off the ground.

M_Gunz
10-05-2010, 03:02 AM
Depending on how you have the trim, the ball, the rudder and ailerons, power and prop pitch you can drop either wing on stall. When HE does a stall check, HE gets the left wing to drop.

Same with acceleration. Is the nose a bit high? Are you letting it climb during acceleration? How are you trimmed? What speed are you starting the acceleration, are you so slow your AOA is high and if so did you push the nose down? All in all, how clean did you fly it, were you in slip. When I first tried trim on the throttle back in 2002 I found that I could get any plane to accelerate faster than with trim by keys.. it's not because trim on a slider is cheating, it's because trim by keys kinda sucks.

There is a difference between "the plane does X" and "I can make the plane do X" that seems to evade many players. They read what a test pilot or ace was able to do and seem to think it's like pressing a button on a vending machine. Well, not if you want realism!

RegRag1977
10-05-2010, 03:33 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by stalkervision:
thanks for the posting. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

/QUOTE]

You're welcome http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kettenhunde
10-05-2010, 05:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Same with acceleration. Is the nose a bit high? Are you letting it climb during acceleration? How are you trimmed? What speed are you starting the acceleration, are you so slow your AOA is high and if so did you push the nose down? All in all, how clean did you fly it, were you in slip. When I first tried trim on the throttle back in 2002 I found that I could get any plane to accelerate faster than with trim by keys.. it's not because trim on a slider is cheating, it's because trim by keys kinda sucks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Trimming for take off is not going to effect your roll out acceleration in any significant fashion in a real airplane.

M_Gunz
10-05-2010, 07:59 AM
Acceleration is not necessarily takeoff roll acceleration. In the context it was quoted it certainly is not:

From high-speed cruise, a pull-up into a climb gave the Fw190 an initial advantage owing to its superior acceleration and the superiority of the German fighter was even more noticeable when both aircraft were pulled up into a zoom climb from a dive.

I find the last part and this earlier statement should probably always appear together:

The Fw 190 had tremendous initial acceleration in a dive but it was extremely vulnerable during a pull-out, recovery having to be quite progressive with care not to kill the speed by 'sinking'

Two spokes of the same wheel as it were.

M_Gunz
10-05-2010, 08:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
The take off acceleration is not very realistic for an airplane much less an airplane with the power to weight of a WWII fighter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You got that from your own actual game play, not posted comments?

K_Freddie
10-05-2010, 12:41 PM
That 'sinking' can also apply in a level high speed turn, or just a lot of elevator input in level flight.

Although he describes the different ways of flying the Spit and FW, the sink is not so much a vulnerable position to be in.
This 'vulnerability' can be used instead of chopping the throttle, and so keeping your engine revs up for when you make the break out of the 'sink'. Dodging any fire during sink can be done with rudder application.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Holtzauge
10-05-2010, 01:49 PM
Chew on this..... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC8Y66V3ZJw)

M_Gunz
10-05-2010, 03:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Holtzauge:
Chew on this..... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC8Y66V3ZJw) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He can buy the equipment but that guy don't know the art.

BillSwagger
10-05-2010, 05:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K_Freddie:
That 'sinking' can also apply in a level high speed turn, or just a lot of elevator input in level flight.

Although he describes the different ways of flying the Spit and FW, the sink is not so much a vulnerable position to be in.
This 'vulnerability' can be used instead of chopping the throttle, and so keeping your engine revs up for when you make the break out of the 'sink'. Dodging any fire during sink can be done with rudder application.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I gather from the description he was referring to tactics used by the FW when in a BnZ situation. Sinking on pull out means there is not sufficient speed for a decent zoom climb which could leave the pilot in a more vulnerable position depending on his initial advantage. I might maintain that sinking is not a favorable characteristic in fighter performance specifically because it bleeds down speed, which in itself would be a hindrance. Just consider that the FW holds most of its advantages in the medium to high speed range of the envelope where it might be ill advised to bleed off that advantage in tighter turn fights or an aggressive pull out.
I still question the legitimacy of the FW acceleration only because other accounts place it comparatively slower in the climb and in level acceleration to the 109. Its also quite possible that the FWs advantage in acceleration is only from a fast cruise, where at lower speeds it could be outpaced by a Spitfire.
It would be interesting to see a hierarchy of plane performance based on acceleration, climb, speed, and dives. It would be my guess that even the Spitfire is somewhere in the middle of the pack for acceleration to reaching top speeds.

Kettenhunde
10-05-2010, 06:57 PM
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-accel.jpg

Holtzauge
10-06-2010, 01:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Holtzauge:
Chew on this..... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC8Y66V3ZJw) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He can buy the equipment but that guy don't know the art. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But he did know what bait to use http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif