PDA

View Full Version : FW190A Series Level Speed Performance



Irish_JG26
10-13-2005, 10:49 AM
S~ Greetings All,

IL2 has been the greatest flight sim ever and I love it. Yet as a (mostly) Axis player, I have always wondered why the as modeled level flight performance of the FW190A series has never lived up to the performance data from various tests of actual aircraft?

Example:

FW190A8 was rated at 408 mph (653kph) at approx. 16000-18000 ft (4880m-5500m). A declassified published test by the British Air Ministry of a derated FW190A (unknown series) that had been captured produced 390mph (628kph) in level flight @ 2700 rpm at 18000 ft. The same aircraft was capable of reaching 580mph (934kph) at 16000 ft (4880m) in a shallow dive.

A later test in late 1944 by the US Navy at the Patuxent River, MD flight test facility compared a new F4U Corsair and a well worn captured FW190A5. Climb rate, top speed and turn rates were all compared. The emergency boost was not used on the 190 as it was not funtctional at the time. The FW190A5 was able to out climb, and out run the Corsair in level flight at all altitudes below 25,000 ft. Above that flight level the power on the Focke Wulf dropped off. At most altitudes and speeds the Corsair held an advantage in level turn rate.

German test data of a FW190A3 shows it capable of a maximun speed at normal boost of about 647kph (402mph) in level flight at 5700m (18600ft est).

Other test data from the Focke Wulf Factory of a FW190A5 at max boost of 1.42 ata reach level speeds of 672kph (417 mph) at 6100m. Other tests reached 656kph (407mph) during same tests with same AC. Date of tests were 10.20.43.

Tests of FW190A8 dated 10.28.44 showed level speeds of 652kph(405mph) at 1.42 ata and 2700rpm at 5500m. These were also performed by the FW factory. Even on the deck at altitude of 700m it was capable of 575kph (357mph). All of the German tests are consistent with the results attained by the British Air Ministry and the US Navy.

IL2 Test data:
Now using the Moscow Winter map starting at 5000m the best attainable level speeds were as follows:

FW190A4 440-470kph
FW190A5 410-480kph
FW190A8 410-490kph
FW190F8 420-500kph
The range reflects starting in auto-pitch mode, then switching to manual prop and finally adding WEP if available. Even in a steep dive at 20m/s the best attainable speed was 620kph in the A8. Similar results in the A8 were attained in the Crimea Map as well.

It would seem that the as modeled performance of the FW190 in IL2 is unable to reach in a dive the speeds that the real 190 was able to reach in level flight? In addition when the as modeled FW190's are put into a steep dive from 5000m they always break up at speeds approaching 870-890kph. Yet the real as tested 190 was able to hit 934kph safely when tested by the British??? That from a shallow (not steep) dive.

I know that matching actual flight test data with in game test data is impossible due to variables such as air temperature, wind speeds, aircraft degradation factors, yada, yada, yada. Still it seems to be true that the flight performance of the IL2 version of the 190 is in no way close to the real performance data.

Why is that? Under the best conditions the fastest as modeled FW190 was still at least 120 kph slower than the actual well worn derated captured model that was tested by the British. That unit was running rough and was later found to have fouled spark plugs. Still in such poor running condition it was able to completely out pace the fastest FW190A8 in the IL2 Simulation. I find that to be difficult to understand or accept considering the level of detail that the Maddox 1C team had put into the IL2 sim.

I have seen explanations of these topics in the past but have a great deal of trouble accepting this seeming discrepancy. The fact that the Allies won the war was based upon many other factors such as fuel supply, industrial production, availability of sufficient trained pilots from a relatively small country which was competing head to head with the huge combined might of the USSR, USA and great Britain. Thus the fact that the Germans were eventually beaten does in no way imply that they lacked at least a few superior weapons. Certainly the FW190 was one such example. While I am a flight sim enthusiast, I am also an engineer and WWII era aviation historian and it has been a sore spot with me to see the IL2 version of the 190 so poorly represented in what has been an otherwise superior flight sim product. I would love to see this fixed.

Irish

alert_1
10-13-2005, 11:29 AM
FW190A4 440-470kph
FW190A5 410-480kph
FW190A8 410-490kph
FW190F8 420-500kph

IAS or TAS? VVS captured and tested Fw190A4 and got as high as 610 km/h TAS at 6100m...this is probably the Wuerger we have in FB.

EFG_Zeb
10-13-2005, 11:32 AM
What speed are you talking about?? IAS? TAS?
Also only the crimea map has ISA conditions.

faustnik
10-13-2005, 11:37 AM
Irish,

Can you provide some ntrks for me to look at please. Soemthing seems strange. Fw190 speeds in PF almost always test very close to historical for me.

??????????

JtD
10-13-2005, 12:05 PM
In fact, at sea level all Fockes I tested exceed test specs I got.

I suppose you mixed up indicated air speed with total air speed.

JuHa-
10-13-2005, 12:39 PM
Please use Crimea map for tests, as it has the standardised conditions. Or at least said so by the dev team.

I have to say that my results generally are much highter than yours, more than the difference in maps would cause.

Cowling flaps are closed?

110% power is used + WEP (when available) ?

Plane is held level via trim, not by stick
movements?

You let the plane accelerate until the top
speed is reached or engine seizes (which
ever happens first)?

You're reading the TAS speeds (Shift+F1 screen)?

Flaps are up? (sorry, but this would cause the difference)

Fred_77
10-13-2005, 12:54 PM
A couple of pointers to take into account when testing.

1. On the winter map, the air is denser which gives a lower True Air Speed for any given altitude as the plane has more air molecules to push out of the way. Conversely, the greater density of air molecules will give a higher Indicated Air Speed then at standard conditions. On the Leningrad map you will see the Indicated speed is quite a bit higher then the True airspeed.

2. Make sure that you use the Crimea map and have wind switched off. The Crimea map is the closest to standard conditions of 15C and SL air pressure of 29.92. The air is about 5C warmer, and it is a big assumption that the pressure is 29.92 but that is what reads on the MP gauge when the engine is off. The wind needs to be turned off because the "TAS" gauge in no cockpit view is actually measuring speed over the ground rather then actual true airspeed. Flying with wind on will poison your results either way depending on which way you are flying reletive to the wind.

If you redo the tests taking the above into account you will most likely see the TAS matches up pretty well to the published numbers.

S!
Fred.

Vrabac
10-13-2005, 01:22 PM
LOL, it's IAS... FW has good maximum speed in my experience. Other things like climb can be discussed tough. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

So at 5000m 500kmh IAS is 660kmh TAS. Meaning level speed is just as it should be.

GH_Klingstroem
10-13-2005, 03:26 PM
sigh... Here we go again... Time for me to post this for the 4th time...

Too many times I have seen people complaining about how they can not reach the top speeds of their aircraft so I will try to clarify in this post in a simple way how it works.

Indicated airspeed(IAS): This is simply the speed that is indicated on the instrument inside of the aircraft. On the leading edge of most (small) aircraft there is a tube sticking out about 5cm. The purpose of this tube is to give a speed reading to the instrument inside the aircraft. As the aircraft moves forward the air flows over the wings, fuselage and also into this tube. The more air (the faster you go), the more air will flow into the tube and give you a faster indicated speed inside the cockpit. We all know that the higher you go the less dense the air becomes and the lower you go, the more dense the air becomes. It becomes more compressed lower down because the whole atmosphere above is heavy and compresses the air below. Think of the air as amount of air molecules. This means that when you are flying around at low altitude there will be lots of air molecules going into the tube and give u a high indicated airspeed which is great. But say now that you start climbing, things will become different. Up high the amount of air molecules is much less, so there is less air molecules going over the wing and into the tube in the wing and so you will get a lower INDICATED reading(there is also less power for the engine)!! Quite simple actually! We all know what happens when the indicated speed becomes too low! We lose lift and stall! Pretty much the only thing you use indicated speeds are to know when you will stall! You can not really use it for proper navigation at all!

True airspeed (TAS): Most of us have seen this in the game but a lot seem not to understand it. The TAS you cannot read in the cockpit in these planes but is very important for navigation. Now, as I wrote above the air gets thinner and thinner the higher you go. That’s the way things are and we cannot do anything about it, however the formula of lift says states that in order to maintain the same amount of air molecules over the wing,, when there are less of them, is to fly faster. This happens automaticly. We as pilots cannot control it! Even if you read 200knots on the indicated speed gauge at sea level and you now read 200 knots at 20 000 feet, you will go much faster trough the air and therefore also over the ground! Basicly the aircraft has automaticly compensated for the thinner air and is now flying faster through the air in order to keep the same amount of air molecules over the wing, and in the tube! Great isn’t it?! Now this is all well and through tables you can read get your TAS, if the IAS is known and the altitude and the temperature (since the temp also changes the density of the air. Cold air = higher density=heavy. Warm air=lower density=light).
What you see in Cockpit OFF mode n this game is the TAS. You will see as you go higher your TAS will be higher and higher but your IAS will get lower and lower for the above reasons. At sea level TAS and IAS will be the same as the aircraft doesn’t have to compensate for the difference in density. Try it in the game and you will see! The top speeds of aircraft are given in TAS and usually at what alt that top speed is achieved and NOT in IAS!! If there is no wind your TAS will be the speed that you are flying over the ground! Hence you will reach your destination faster if you go high! If there is wind the speed over the ground is different and I will explain that below.

Ground speed (GS): Ok to continue with what I wrote above. Say now that you are cruising around in your P-51 at 20 000 feet and the you want you IAS at 200knots. Knowing that at this altitude there are less air molecules per area so that your P51automatically compensating for this by flying faster to get the same IAS. Actually you and your P-51 are flying at 273 knots, through the air to give you enough air molecules to give you a reading of 200 knots on the gauge!! This is in NO WIND condition!! I will explain this now with an example



Example 1: NO WIND!!

We are flying from west to east (90 degrees on the compass) at 200 knots IAS at 20 000 feet (temp -20C) in these conditions we are going through the air as stated above at 273 knots TAS and since there is no wind to push us around this day, this is also our speed over the ground! Easy!

Example 2: now with 20 knots tailwind.

This means that we have wind helping us to get to destination. Ok we are still flying from west to east but now we also have 20 knots of wind from the west pushing us towards destination. What this does is to decrease our TAS. This happen because TAS is the speed of the air over the wing from ahead. Now there is 20 knots of wind from behind working in the opposite direction to the airflow over the wing so you TAS will decrease by 20 knots but your ground speed will increase by 20 knots. So if you did 273 knots TAS and 273 knots over the ground in NO WIND conditions, you will now fly 293 knots over the ground but your TAS is only 253 knots. Imagine a windy day, when you run with the wind there is almost no wind hitting your face but you run faster,(low TAS but high groundspeed in this case), but if you turn around and running towards the wind much more wind will hit your face(High TAS but you run slower over the ground ). Same principle! You can control nothing of this as a pilot and usually you are not even aware of it. On the GPS today you can see the speed over the ground and therefore work out the TAS if you know the wind speed and direction, IAS and the temp.

Example 3: now with 20knots headwind.

We are still flying our P-51 east at 200 knots IAS at 20 00 feet and on the thermometer we can see its still -20C outside. On todays forecast they anticipated 20knots of wind from east to west. This is a headwind working against us, pushing us back preventing us to get to destination in time! Now our TAS up here was 273 knots but know we have another 20 knots of air flowing over the wing so the true speed of the air going over the wing is actually 293 knots, but our speed over the ground has slowed down to 253 knots!

From this we can see that TAS and groundspeed are only the same if there is no wind that day! There is almost always wind up there so very seldom is the TAS and the GS the same!
In this game however there is no wind modelled as far as I know so the speed you read in NO cockpit mode is also the speed you are flying over the ground!

As you can see IAS is only used as a way of knowing how many air molecules that are flowing over the wing producing lift. Its good to know for take off and climb out and for landing. But for actual navigation it has no purpose!

One more for you. At sea level with no wind at all, your IAS will the same as your TAS and since there is no wind it will also be your groundspeed! Hope this helps some of us!
Cheers!

Grey_Mouser67
10-13-2005, 03:40 PM
while some would disagree, I find the Fw to now be on the optimistic side of Olegs modelling efforts...it used to not be that way.

I find the aircraft is speedy and meets and exceeds rated speed at nearly all altitudes...some models are well beyond published top rated speeds; at least by the numbers I have available to me.

Somewhere along the lines, one of the patches gave the Fw its most ambitious flight characteristic...E retention! It used to be a dog...you could "mush" the plane easily due to its high wingloading and burn a bunch of E in the process...now you can mush at will with no side effects.

The Fw series is probably the type of aircraft that I fly most online and combined with its damage modelling and weapons strength, I find the plane to be awesome...maybe a bit too good, but I really have fun flying it!

I remember the day when the plane was considered an "experts" plane...I wouldn't put the Antons in the noob plane class yet because it does not turn great...but the Dora is now alarmingly close. I have no problems dictating the fight with just about every aircraft except maybe a Yak 9U or high altitude Mustangs/Jugs/Lighttnings.

I have no complaints about level speed performance from the Fw...it is a very robust plane and a joy to fly in...not so much fun to fight against though http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

faustnik
10-13-2005, 03:51 PM
.some models are well beyond published top rated speeds; at least by the numbers I have available to me.

Grey_Mouser,

The speeds in PF are very close with the historic data. Many books quote speeds and climb data from 30 minute power settings and people compare those with 3 minute power levels in PF. We have a lot of information in the Fw190 Consortium Forum (check link in my sig) and a lot of Luftwaffe test charts in the CWOS Historical Gallery:

CW Historical Gallery (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?set_albumName=historicalphotos&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php)

If you look at things closely and piece all the power setting information together, you will find speeds are good for the Fw190 series in PF, climb and acceleration are somewhat conservative for the Antons and good for the Doras. Dive is good for all the Fw190s. Turning is just a bad habit to be avoided. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Grey_Mouser67
10-13-2005, 05:06 PM
In 3.04...I felt Fw's were one of the best modelled aircraft in the game minus the fuel leak bug...I really like them and I think the speeds are excellent...my comment was specific to the 44 Dora...nowhere can I find a reference to that plane running as fast it can at critical altitude...although I haven't speed tested it in 4.01. I've got few complaints with the plane other than the cockpit bar, its E retention and its stability relative to other aircraft..especially Dora...but I do love to fly them!

Irish_JG26
10-13-2005, 05:57 PM
S~

Thanks to all who replied and to Klingstroem for his simple explaination http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif But I did already know how pitot tubes work to indicate the air speeds.

Yes, the numbers I posted were IAS. It had been so long since I had flown IL2/PF with the open cockpit that I had forgotten that there was a TAS reading there. Doh! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif At least in the case of the Anton 8 the results are about the same in Crimea Map and Moscow winter map. Go figure. Same IAS of 490kph and a TAS of about 690kph when I keep it level on the Crimea map. At least as far as I have been able to determine there is little drag penalty imposed on the 190 for opening the engine cooling flaps. That is historic since the cooling for the big radial had a very sophisticated system which provided extra cooling air flow when needed with little added drag.

Based on the TAS numbers, I would have to agree that the performance is in line with expectations and I stand corrected.

For those who were concerned, flaps were up, gear was up, WEP was on if available, etc. Thanks again for the input. One little detail that I failed to mention was that I have also noticed that the FW190F8 performs slightly faster than the more or less equivalent A8 in level flight. This in spite of the fact that the F8 has the outer cannon removed and replaced with four drag inducing hard points for mounting bombs. It is also heavier due to some added armor plate, which should have little or no impact on top speed. I have just found it amusing that the FW190F8 out performs all of the Anton's with the possible exception of the A9 which I have not tested.

Did the F8 have more hp then the A8? All the data I have seen would indicate that they had the same engine and differed only in armament and the above mentioned added armor.

Irish

LEXX_Luthor
10-13-2005, 06:07 PM
Don't call No Cockpit "open cockpit."

Willey
10-13-2005, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
In fact, at sea level all Fockes I tested exceed test specs I got.

I don't see any Focke that exceeds test data. In fact, most match them quite well, except the D-9s which are quite a bit behind my data at sea level.

JtD
10-14-2005, 01:11 AM
Example: A-8 at sealevel

German test: 578 kph
FB, Crimea map: 590 kph (<- conservate)

So in FB the A-8 is at least 12 kph faster than the Germans tested.

What's you test data for the D-9? I can get it to 610 (conservative), which is fairly close to the 612 the Germans stated on a data sheet.

faustnik
10-14-2005, 01:48 AM
Hmmm, I just did a long speed test with the A8 at sea level on the Crimea map. Top speed was 582kph, which is exactly what IL-2 Compare has it at. Looks pretty good to me.

The only complaint I guess you could make is with the A4 but, you would have to consider the power rating. If maximum rating is 1.32ata@2400rpm then it's fine, if it is 1.42@2700rpm, it might be slow. Compared to most of its '42 oponents though, its pretty fast. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

MEGILE
10-14-2005, 04:04 AM
The ATA gagues in the early antons give some strange readings.... also the object viewer says FW-190A4 is at 1.42 ATA.. so it should be hitting speeds at that power.

JtD
10-14-2005, 05:52 AM
I think you did it at auto pitch, faustnik, didn't you? Try manual to get faster.

Hetzer_II
10-14-2005, 06:33 AM
historical values were flown with auto-settings.. so i see no reason why we should go on manuell to hit them... i would like to hear the crying if other aircrafts are forced to fly on manuell...

JtD
10-14-2005, 06:49 AM
Top speed is top speed, and I really doubt the Germans would have stayed on auto if manual had given them a 15kph boost in speed.

Manual should imho not be faster than auto.

But most of all, if you fly against other folks you don't care if they are on auto or manual - you only care if they are faster or slower.

badatflyski
10-14-2005, 07:33 AM
Why swould a pilot use the manual control if the "mechanical computer" (kommandogerrät) could do the job better and faster than the pilot himself????
The only situation when the manual control was used was when the Kommando had a problem to keep the pitch on a constant speed.
And about the max speed, if i remember, the speeds were achieved without the "emergency power" and on auto pitch but in the real planes, it seems like the Kommando has a better and faster response on the throttle and on the situation than what we have in the game.

MEGILE
10-14-2005, 07:45 AM
As far as I am aware all the tests were done on auto.... if so planes should be hitting those speeds.
But also, any increase in speed using manual control really needs some test data to back it up.

BBB_Hyperion
10-14-2005, 07:54 AM
Comparing Manual Pitch ,which is in the case of the 190 A modeled as CSP Mode ( 2nd Mode Manual Pitch Control is not modeled which would allow even more strain on the engine) ,is like comparing Apples to Oranges. Tests were done with Automatic Control and to be compared not only same mode must be used but same conditions considering air density and temperature same normed day conditions . The advantage of Automatic Prop and Engine Control is not noticeable in this sim in fact most planes just set 100 % csp and never change it. There is no doubt that manual control while not effective in rapid changing speed,alt situations can indeed gain some more km/h while it overrides engine safety limits. If other planes would have their manual mode modeled as well i would exspect similar results.

JtD
10-14-2005, 08:20 AM
While it is true what you say, Hyperion, the overridden engine safety limitation are not modelled any different than standard overheating procedure. As long as you don't have an overheated engine for more than 4:30 minutes, you can run on manual as long as you wish. Btw, according to the rpm gauge engine revs go up from 2700 to 2900some.

p1ngu666
10-14-2005, 09:30 AM
i fly the IX/VIII in manual, i notice in auto it doesnt rev as high, i wonder if its a bug with PF, its only IX/VIII and 190 which have auto/CPS(ishfor 190) isnt it?

BBB_Hyperion
10-14-2005, 09:34 AM
Does this imply the engine would instantly break over 2700 ? It does not.

The problem with higher rpm is that pressure can break the engine apart including more heat. The material and the valves including the hoses are not safe to run at higher specs does not mean they wont do even for longer periods.

Manual Mode is just a csp mode so a fly governor adjusts rpm there is not more strain on the engine than in auto mode from my understanding of the auto mode most likely it is even less in csp mode but with the ability to go over limits. Only trouble can happen from overrev or pressure or heating.

Giving the engine only 4:30 over standard pressure (depending on max boost actualy used) is maybe a a big compromise and simulates bad production quality and a norm value. Wish this was more a random event (over certain boost level light overboost wouldnt kill any engine )sometimes it holds other times not.

There have been tests done iirc crump posted these about bmw engines running at full specs for 24 hours . I am sure most allied engines could do this as well and pushing over safety limits was done when needed even for extented time periods of course .

p1ngu666
10-14-2005, 09:43 AM
just tried in qmb, i could get maybe a few extra kph with manual on the IXe (full wing)

535 tas, to 540 (upper limits really) on manual

i cant trim perfectly, so i can only get rough results but still within a few kph..

TAGERT.
10-14-2005, 09:49 AM
Keep in mind there is a BUG in either the Wonder Woman TAS display or the Normal cockpit IAS dispaly. In that TAS does NOT equal IAS at sea level.

PS yes BUG, this can not be called a feature by any streach of the imagination.

p1ngu666
10-14-2005, 09:51 AM
and yeah, ive heard of bombers coming back on 1-2 engines, often they would be worn out, or certainly should be replaced
some had melted the piston http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

p1ngu666
10-14-2005, 09:53 AM
tagart, i think there equal at SL, but we dont fly at 0metres... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
we fly abit higher, so there is abit of difference

JG53Frankyboy
10-14-2005, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
just tried in qmb, i could get maybe a few extra kph with manual on the IXe (full wing)

535 tas, to 540 (upper limits really) on manual

i cant trim perfectly, so i can only get rough results but still within a few kph..

wondering why ?
because so for i understand the auto mode in the Spitfire IX/VIII is not more than "just" a mechanichal fix between the throttle and pitch lever.

Irish_JG26
10-14-2005, 10:07 AM
S~

I have found small performance gains in all the 190's under certain conditions using the manual prop settings. However, I usually back the pitch down to 85% or lower to minimized overrev which seems to speed any overheat warnings.

I use rads full open and 85 pitch to climb at full throttle or partial throttle. If level and trimmed out, the manual mode can give slightly better speed in a full power dive but pitch will need to be reduced further to 65 or 55% or so. In level cruise mode the auto mode is very effective. It also works well in combat manuvers but either way works good for me.

The 190 in manual pitch is not as unforgiving as the 109 which will instantly over rev unless you throttle back and reduce pitch.

Irish

TAGERT.
10-14-2005, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
tagart, i think there equal at SL, but we dont fly at 0metres... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
we fly abit higher, so there is abit of difference A bit yes, but the difference is much larger than a bit.. we are talking ~40mph error between the two. As for 0.0ft flying, they didnt fly with waves breaking over the wings either.. So they too had to fly at least ~100ft above water or ground.. Just like we do in the sim, yet in real life they say IAS = TAS at sea level, but in the sim we have to say TAS = IAS+40mph at sea level (aka 100ft). Only under extream weather conditions (real cold, real hot) was TAS = IAS @ sea level not true.. and the Crima map does not qualify as extream weather conditions.

This came up during the P38J top speed testing, the IAS guage (and IAS DeviceLink data) showed the P38 is hitting the *listed/documented* top speeds right on the money, with a +/-4mph error. The TAS at sea level showed the P38J was some 40mph faster than it should be.

PS someone just sent me a track file of a 109 maknig use of the prop pitch cheat.. my god.. no wonder people are mad.. using the cheat the climb rate was about 1500fpm larger than it should be.. same for the RPM and MP.. both jumped well above the rated limits.. Funny you dont see anyone talking about that.. but they will jump all over the well documented P38 and P47 boosts.

US planes allowed the pilots to manually adj the prop pitch.. Why is it our engines are limited to the max rating no mater what trick/cheat we apply, yet the 109 and 190 are allowed to over rev, over boost thier engines?

faustnik
10-14-2005, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
Top speed is top speed, and I really doubt the Germans would have stayed on auto if manual had given them a 15kph boost in speed.

Manual should imho not be faster than auto.

But most of all, if you fly against other folks you don't care if they are on auto or manual - you only care if they are faster or slower.

JtD,

You get 590kph in the A8 at SL with manual and I get 582kph with Auto. A speed increase of less than 5mph does not seem unreasonable for the rpm increase with manual rpm control override. The A8 in PF tests out at histotical speeds with historical testing methods.

I'm not quite sure where you are going with claims of the Fw190s being too fast, or even if that is you intention? It clearly is not the case. 1C has done an excellent job with the modeling of Fw190 speeds.

p1ngu666
10-14-2005, 12:02 PM
faustnik, i think there are some tests/"data" that have low top speeds etc, this has happened before http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

faustnik
10-14-2005, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
faustnik, i think there are some tests/"data" that have low top speeds etc, this has happened before http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Yeah, historical Fw190 flight test data is all over the place. It's probably the same with all a/c. Crumpp posted an RAF report that said flight tests varied +/- 4% (I think 4%).

My point is merely that 1C has done a good job in this particular area.

WWMaxGunz
10-14-2005, 01:42 PM
TAS varies from IAS by about 1 and 1/2 percent at 1000 ft.
50m... less than 1/4 percent?

I think Tagert is well within safe saying the guage difference is a bug.

IMHO, setting up two ships on grid lines and timing low alt flight between
should be enough to find out how good either guage is. I've done that to
check a different sim before and... it was off.

Willey
10-14-2005, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Example: A-8 at sealevel

German test: 578 kph
FB, Crimea map: 590 kph (<- conservate)

I can't get it past 580. Maybe because I don't use Prop cheat... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


So in FB the A-8 is at least 12 kph faster than the Germans tested.

What's you test data for the D-9? I can get it to 610 (conservative), which is fairly close to the 612 the Germans stated on a data sheet.

http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:3Vk__RIbL1oJ:jagdhu...hund.homestea d&hl=de (http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:3Vk__RIbL1oJ:jagdhund.homestead.com/files/DoraData/horizontalgeschwindigkeiten.htm++site:jagdhund.hom estead.com+jagdhund.homestead&hl=de)

2 - Sonder - Notleistung (C3) /Special Emergency = FB '44 Dora.

Sealevel: 615km/h

But: For speeds without the ETC 501 ordanace rack add 8 km/h (5 mph) below and 12 km/h (7.5 mph) above critical engine (6.5km). Since the ETC 504 had a slightly better drag coefficient I would estimate speed penalty of about 6km/h (3.7mph)to 10km/h(6.2mph).

That's 621km/h then http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

BBB_Hyperion
10-14-2005, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by TAGERT.:

A bit yes, but the difference is much larger than a bit.. we are talking ~40mph error between the two. As for 0.0ft flying, they didnt fly with waves breaking over the wings either.. So they too had to fly at least ~100ft above water or ground.. Just like we do in the sim, yet in real life they say IAS = TAS at sea level, but in the sim we have to say TAS = IAS+40mph at sea level (aka 100ft). Only under extream weather conditions (real cold, real hot) was TAS = IAS @ sea level not true.. and the Crima map does not qualify as extream weather conditions.


That problem is a old one the 0 alt we got is not 0 maybe it is the middle value over the map heights .

I started a workaround with airdensity and outside temp basing Data on IAS input only but was too busy with other things to check uni archive yet to get air density distribution charts and equitations for different temperaturs up to 20k m.
(Temp measured with He111 Temp Gauge)

So far compressibility correction is working. Air temp depending input value for air density is missing yet .

That maybe the only way to get a correct TAS conversation still we dont have all evironment variables needed for a 100 % correct approach and i doubt they let us look insight their engine to find out what is wrong .)


Originally posted by TAGERT.:

US planes allowed the pilots to manually adj the prop pitch.. Why is it our engines are limited to the max rating no mater what trick/cheat we apply, yet the 109 and 190 are allowed to over rev, over boost thier engines?

Most US Planes had manual modes as well dont know why they make such difference there . Running non standard boosts should be allowed with a random failure effect after critical limit(different for all) is passed for all planes. At the moment we dont need to care for max rpm except when in manual mode. Initiating a dive without reduceing pitch for p47 should cause some engine troubles. On most other csp planes as well. The costant workload for changed situations is not simulated.

Alone that the Pilots dont get tired from excessive turning or g load combats makes the sim less realistic than it could be.

Ratsack
10-14-2005, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by TAGERT.:
[QUOTE]

US planes allowed the pilots to manually adj the prop pitch.. Why is it our engines are limited to the max rating no mater what trick/cheat we apply, yet the 109 and 190 are allowed to over rev, over boost thier engines?

Leaving aside the 109 which has a variable pitch prop and is therefore a different animal, the 190s don't over boost on manual. What you get at full throttle at 100% pitch on manual is is the revs (2700 rpm) that you should get with full throttle in automatic. I do not know if you actually get full power with manual 100/100, given that the cockpit gauges sometimes lie.

To put it simply, the manual / auto thing on the 190 is bug, but it's not a bug that can legitimately be called a cheat.

Ratsack

Hetzer_II
10-15-2005, 12:11 AM
"US planes allowed the pilots to manually adj the prop pitch.. Why is it our engines are limited to the max rating no mater what trick/cheat we apply, yet the 109 and 190 are allowed to over rev, over boost thier engines?"

Talking about 190 the problem is:
We must use manuell mode to hit historical performance.... You in your american planes would use manuell mode to gain extra performance... you see the difference? And dont take the 109 in this thread, its about 190 and thats all we ware talking about..

thx!

TAGERT.
10-15-2005, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by Hetzer_II:
"US planes allowed the pilots to manually adj the prop pitch.. Why is it our engines are limited to the max rating no mater what trick/cheat we apply, yet the 109 and 190 are allowed to over rev, over boost thier engines?"

Talking about 190 the problem is:
We must use manuell mode to hit historical performance.... You in your american planes would use manuell mode to gain extra performance... you see the difference? And dont take the 109 in this thread, its about 190 and thats all we ware talking about..

thx! Got Track?

Hetzer_II
10-15-2005, 02:32 AM
You said that we gain exceed the historical values from the manuell settings.. so in my eyes its your turn to show a track which proves that...

JtD
10-15-2005, 03:03 AM
Hyperion, discussing things like how overboost, overheat, overrev should/could be modelled is a bit beyond what I want to write in ORR. But I agree that in general there should be a random feature simulating engine brakedown.

faustnik, very optimistic to round something like 12 kph down to 5 mph http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.
My intention is to show two things:
1st) There is a "feature" with the manual pitch on the FW that isn't really working like it should in some aspects - no matter from what perpective you look at it, at least one thing does not make sense.
2nd) 190's are not modelled too slow.

Willey, thx for filling the on the 44 Dora I had. I can't get the 44 model beyond 605 - no matter what pitch.

Ratsack, with manual you go way past 2700 rev, you get 2700 on auto.

HetzerII, the 190 gets historical performance with auto pitch, not manual. It exceeds test data with manual pitch.

WWMaxGunz
10-15-2005, 07:41 AM
Yeah 12kph is almost 7 1/2 mph. Did the earth just shake?

Vipez-
10-15-2005, 12:25 PM
I get very similar speed results with Faustnik.. And like he said, FW190 speeds are modelled very nicely by 1C..

however the Dora still has this gap in her speed at altitudes 2000- 4000 m.. Though smaller than it was in 3.04, it's still there...

faustnik
10-15-2005, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by JtD:

faustnik, very optimistic to round something like 12 kph down to 5 mph http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

I was referring to the difference between your claim of 590kph SL speed with manual pitch and the 582kph from my test on auto pitch.

Ratsack
10-15-2005, 03:58 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JtD:


Ratsack, with manual you go way past 2700 rev, you get 2700 on auto.
QUOTE]

Let me clarify. When I'm discussing the 190, I'm usually talking about the A4. I should've made that clear. Apologies.

Historical performance for the A4 should give 2700 at max power, in auto. It does not. I don't know about later versions, and I don't know what performance those versions of the BMW801 were meant to deliver. Ask Crump.

Ratsack

MEGILE
10-15-2005, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by Ratsack:


Historical performance for the A4 should give 2700 at max power, in auto. It does not.



This is acceptable though if the FW-190A4 is meeting its historic speed. Any increase in RPM would also require a decrease in performance to keep the speeds realistic.

BBB_Hyperion
10-15-2005, 08:17 PM
I reported this bug for A4 a while ago.

190 A4 1.42 AtA 2420 rpm 4.01m and attached documents proving it wrong. Not sure if it will be fixed.

faustnik
10-15-2005, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
This is acceptable though if the FW-190A4 is meeting its historic speed. Any increase in RPM would also require a decrease in performance to keep the speeds realistic.

Megile,

The A4 is a special case. It is very close to historic speeds for a derated aircraft but, not for a fully rated one.

faustnik
10-15-2005, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
I reported this bug for A4 a while ago.

190 A4 1.42 AtA 2420 rpm 4.01m and attached documents proving it wrong. Not sure if it will be fixed.

No, it is not expected to be fixed as it is a graphical issue only (reply from Oleg). So, the ata guage should be reading 1.32ata@2400rpm.

Skalgrim
10-16-2005, 08:07 AM
yes,

but she can not long hold her topseed , because

only 3min erhöhten ladedruck instead 10min boost real from willaume data,

after 3min you most go down to lower ata other damage engine in pf, real was it after 10min

when that would be change she a8-9 much better plane, p47 f4u can i fly 10min with boost than must i go down with ata.

American data say 7,5min

so they get longer boost as real and 190 get shorter boost as real and not little shorter more as 3 time shorter

why?


Originally posted by JtD:
Example: A-8 at sealevel

German test: 578 kph
FB, Crimea map: 590 kph (<- conservate)

So in FB the A-8 is at least 12 kph faster than the Germans tested.

What's you test data for the D-9? I can get it to 610 (conservative), which is fairly close to the 612 the Germans stated on a data sheet.

Hetzer_II
10-17-2005, 12:11 AM
TARGERT.. we are waiting for a track..

WOLFMondo
10-17-2005, 05:15 AM
Whats the problem with the Anton prop pitch? You need to use it to get the most out of it. Its essential for climbing and diving, to control the speed and engine temp and get the most out of the Antons, it takes skill and practice to use correctly. It makes no difference on the Dora using manual PP.

Its not like the 35billion RPM you get out the BF109 prop pitch overrev cheat which any clown can use.

There totally different. One is acceptable and fair the other is an exploit.

MEGILE
10-17-2005, 08:32 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:


There totally different. One is acceptable and fair the other is an exploit.

Is that because you fly one, and don't fly the other? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
See you on Hyperlobby Mondy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

MEGILE
10-17-2005, 08:34 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:


No, it is not expected to be fixed as it is a graphical issue only (reply from Oleg). So, the ata guage should be reading 1.32ata@2400rpm.

So oleg originally modelled it as 1.42 ATA but has now changed it to 1.32?
Why did he do this? Did he not find any evidence of 1.42 being used on operational A4s?

WOLFMondo
10-17-2005, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:


There totally different. One is acceptable and fair the other is an exploit.

Is that because you fly one, and don't fly the other? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
See you on Hyperlobby Mondy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I fly the BF109. Rarely thats granted (refrains from clown wagon comments:P), but using prop pitch in either is the same as with all planes, the result of going from manual to auto is totally different though.

faustnik
10-17-2005, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
So oleg originally modelled it as 1.42 ATA but has now changed it to 1.32?
Why did he do this? Did he not find any evidence of 1.42 being used on operational A4s?

The A4 was always modeled to 1.32ata specs, as far as I know.

From what I've been able to dig up, some Eastern fron jabo A4s might have been derated. Some Eastern fron A4s even flew with the lower powered BMW801C engines. Western front fighters flew fully rated by the time A4s reached combat units.

p1ngu666
10-17-2005, 10:21 AM
if its got the same gfx as the a5/6 for teh dials, then its a copy paste error

same wid teh p38 late..