PDA

View Full Version : one more fw190 A performance thread..



pupo162
09-07-2010, 05:25 AM
LAtely ive been flying more the 190A ( 6 and 8 models ) on an internal campaign on my squad, and im starting to learn a lot of dfiferent ways to maximize the 190 performance.

Ive learned long time ago to use it like this:

-radiator ALWAYS open, since it will cost you no speed at all
-prop pitch at 100% when climbing but auto when maintaning or descending,also applies for combat situations.
- throtle 110% and boost enganged always if speed is the objective.

but now i start to hear different opinions from pilots in my squad saying that rads are better closed, if diving put prop on 80 not on auto and so on...

my question is, wich is after all the best settings for outrunning and achiving maximum speed during a suistained altitude escape, a dive, zoom climb, and speed constant climb.

thank you

VW-IceFire
09-07-2010, 07:01 AM
As far as the radiator goes... I'm fairly certain that it causes drag. Yes it's a different kind of radiator than the ones that cause obvious drag (see American fighters with R-2800s) but more than a few people who I consider to be knowledgeable stated unequivocally that the FW190s radiator also causes drag when open. It certainly does in game.

So I definitely control my radiator settings. Usually full open while climbing and then closed in combat for as long as possible.

I use 100% prop pitch in most situations and just leave it there. I've never found any real advantages at 80% in a dive. I'll try that again but I just leave it at 100%. I usually throttle back in a dive too as I find the FW190 picks up too much speed in high speed dives.

Xiolablu3
09-07-2010, 07:18 AM
I have to second that radiator open causes drag.

When I was flying the Fw190, i find tactics far more important than a slight bit of extra speed in the climb. I never used prop pitch. I left it on auto.

Exactly how much extra speed/power does messing with the prop pitch gain you?

koivis
09-07-2010, 09:06 AM
I think the speed where automatic prop pitch becomes better than 100% (on sea level) is about 10 to 20 km/h slower than the top speed. If flown straight and level or in dive, the automatic pitch is the fastest option. This only applies to A-5 to A-9 though, as A-4 is faster at level flight at full 100% pitch.

The rpms (from memory) on 100% increase in A-5 to A-9 from 2700 to 2900, and in A-4 to 2400 to 2700.

AndyJWest
09-07-2010, 09:57 AM
I've just done a quick test with my autopilot. A Fw 190-A5 in level flight at 6000m is about 20Km/h TAS slower with the radiators fully open than fully closed. At 110% throttle it overheats rapidly with the radiator fully closed though, it would probably be more sensible to run it half-open.

K_Freddie
09-07-2010, 12:02 PM
WRG to plop pitch..
On manual PP set it around 80% and then go back to auto-PP.

When into a climb, when revs start getting too low, switch to manual.. helps you hang on a bit longer.
On the way down only switch to auto when revs hit 2500-2700.. and feel it bite.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
edt: If I remember correctly, with radiator closed you can cruise around all day at around 85-95% throttle, and maintain your speed.

pupo162
09-07-2010, 12:26 PM
thanks for the replies.


Xiolablu3, i cant give you exact numbers but at htis missions i usuallt fly the first something like 3 and half minutes full prop full trhotle and boost getting me into an altiutude of around 3000 meters. without prop i think i could only get to around 2000.


looks like i will start to close my rads a bit more often then to gain those 20 Kph, just in case that one yak manages to get into me...

thanks all

TS_Sancho
09-07-2010, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by AndyJWest:
I've just done a quick test with my autopilot. A Fw 190-A5 in level flight at 6000m is about 20Km/h TAS slower with the radiators fully open than fully closed. At 110% throttle it overheats rapidly with the radiator fully closed though, it would probably be more sensible to run it half-open.

Andy, would you mind running your auto pilot pilot program with the same aircraft, throttle 90%, rads closed, prop pitch manuel set to %100 and post the results?

AndyJWest
09-07-2010, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by TS_Sancho:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AndyJWest:
I've just done a quick test with my autopilot. A Fw 190-A5 in level flight at 6000m is about 20Km/h TAS slower with the radiators fully open than fully closed. At 110% throttle it overheats rapidly with the radiator fully closed though, it would probably be more sensible to run it half-open.

Andy, would you mind running your auto pilot pilot program with the same aircraft, throttle 90%, rads closed, prop pitch manuel set to %100 and post the results? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sure, won't take long...

AndyJWest
09-07-2010, 02:15 PM
Interesting - at 90% throttle, rads closed, 100% pitch it seems to be marginally faster than auto pitch rads open 110% throttle.

All testing was done With a stock Fw 190A-5, on the Smolensk map. Wind and turbulence was off, as was limited fuel - fuel load was 50% (this keeps the fuel load constant throughout the test).

Figures from earlier test (auto prop pitch):

Rads open, 100% throttle 569 Km/h
Rads open, 110% throttle 600 Km/h
Rads closed, 100% throttle 590 Km/h
Rads closed, 110% throttle 623 Km/h

New test:
prop pitch 100%, rads closed, 90% throttle 606 Km/h

For comparison:
auto prop pitch, rads closed 90% throttle 584 Km/h

I'm a little unsure about the exactness of these results (the original ones were a bit rushed, as I was only trying to determine differences, rather than absolutes), but they seem to be indicating a trend.

Given the higher RPM with 100% pitch than auto, I'd expect the engine to be running hotter, and fuel consumption to be higher, though I haven't measured either.

K_Freddie
09-07-2010, 02:53 PM
Same for the ME109...
You close the radiators, set throttle to about 60% and PP ~50-60%.. and it shunts like sh1t on teflon. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

This all works for economic cruising, but when combat starts it's radiators open, and throttle yoyo-ing. The adv of cruising like this is that your engine is fairly 'cool' when you enter the combat zone allowing more abuse during combat.

ROXunreal
09-07-2010, 03:31 PM
ALWAYS close the rads when zoom climbing with enemies underneath.

I have also noticed that when trying to outrun or chase someone at about equal speed closing the rads does make an important difference. I fly with rads fully open all the time except for zoom climbs and when running away/chasing someone with equal/more speed.

You can fly with 95% throttle, rads in position 6 and WEP on for as long as you like http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

You can fly up to 103% throttle with rads fully open and WEP off without overheating.

Also keep in mind that the engine can run while overheating for a decent amount of time (compared to most other aircraft) before sustaining damage on open rads, but overheating with closed rads will kill the engine very fast.

I use full manual prop pitch all the time, and it works for me (though I can't claim it's the best because I didn't really do any serious testing of the alternatives myself). 100% PP when (zoom) climbing or flying at high altitude (+7000m), I use 85-80% in a dive, depending on speed, and I use 90% most of the time when flying level.

TS_Sancho
09-07-2010, 04:57 PM
Thank you for confirming that configuration Andy.

I wonder if parasitic drag from the cowl flaps has a specific value or if different design configurations exhibit differing values?

As an example does a P-47 with full open cowl flaps pay the same penalty as a P-51 with an open radiator?

Another question for Andy, does your autopilot allow for acceleration testing? I have felt that open cowl flaps have an impact on acceleration as well but never actually timed it.

Is it possible for you to use your autopilot tool to time the difference in acceleration of identical aircraft with open and closed cowl flaps from say 250kph to 500kph?

AndyJWest
09-07-2010, 05:24 PM
I'm not sure how you can meaningfully compare radiator drag on it's own, given the multiple variations between different aircraft - I suspect only inspection of the source code would tell you much.

As far as measuring acceleration, if you mean in level flight, it should be possible, though I've never tried it. The AP won't stay dead straight and level with sudden throttle movements, but it will probably give a reasonable comparative figure. I'm not sure that doing it with radiators open and closed will tell you a great deal though - since open radiators affect top speed, they must logically affect acceleration anyway.

I'll have a bit of a tinker with this, and see how I get on. It might also be useful to compare acceleration of different aircraft, though again how useful this will be I'm not sure - I'd expect to be able to approximate the results from power-to-weight ratios, and top speeds.

EDIT ---
I've had a bit of an experiment. It looks promising, though I'll have to analyse the data when I'm a bit more with it - my brain has gone on go-slow again. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Sillius_Sodus
09-07-2010, 06:37 PM
I find the Antons perform better with manual pp. It is a lot of work though and not really the way they were flown irl, although I stand to be corrected on that.

The Doras' engines will overspeed very quickly if you're not careful.

AndyJWest
09-07-2010, 06:41 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't manual 'prop pitch' in the 190s actually control engine RPM? I think that by adjusting it, you are actually changing the 'constant speed' setting, rather than the pitch itself.

I'll check this again when I'm more wide awake...

Daiichidoku
09-07-2010, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by TS_Sancho:

I wonder if parasitic drag from the cowl flaps has a specific value or if different design configurations exhibit differing values?

As an example does a P-47 with full open cowl flaps pay the same penalty as a P-51 with an open radiator?


AFAIK, there is a global rad flap model, akin to the global fuel tankage in the game

i do know that the various rad flap settings do increase drag as speed rises, basically, anything over 500 kph REALLY increases drag

ROXunreal
09-08-2010, 04:39 AM
The Ki-84 has a notorious drag increase when cowl flaps are open, they're huge.

JG53Frankyboy
09-08-2010, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by AndyJWest:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't manual 'prop pitch' in the 190s actually control engine RPM? I think that by adjusting it, you are actually changing the 'constant speed' setting, rather than the pitch itself.

...............

correct.
the manual settings in the 109 and 190 behave different in game.

PhantomKira
09-09-2010, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:

anything over 500 kph REALLY increases drag

If you're going that fast, wouldn't it stand to reason that with the amount of cooling air going through the engine, there would be no need to open the radiator at all? Might doing so actually damage the engine through shock cooling?

AndyJWest
09-09-2010, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by PhantomKira:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:

anything over 500 kph REALLY increases drag

If you're going that fast, wouldn't it stand to reason that with the amount of cooling air going through the engine, there would be no need to open the radiator at all? Might doing so actually damage the engine through shock cooling? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends if you mean 500 Km/h IAS or TAS? At 6000m, a Fw 190-A5 overheats rapidly in level flight at 110% throttle (around 620 Km/h TAS, 450 Km/h IAS) with the radiator fully closed.

Insuber
09-09-2010, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by PhantomKira:

If you're going that fast, wouldn't it stand to reason that with the amount of cooling air going through the engine, there would be no need to open the radiator at all? Might doing so actually damage the engine through shock cooling?

IMHO the amount of cooling air is *directly* proportional to the speed, while the needed power goes with the *squared* speed. Therefore the produced heat increases faster than the heat removal due to the increased speed.
In practice, full throttle causes an increase of temperature, since the radiators aren't sized for the worst case, for several reasons.

Cheers,
Insuber

Jumoschwanz
09-09-2010, 07:30 PM
I do not know about flying the FW190A in any Hacked(modded) versions of the sim, but if you are flying the official version of IL2, then having the radiator open definitely slows the plane down. Here is what I have done with the official version of the 190A:

For cruising I use auto prop pitch with closed radiator and 91%-99% throttle. This will let the 190 cruise at a fairly quick speed and will keep it cool and let the fuel last a long time.

When I see a threat I will go prop pitch 85% and radiators wide open and set the throttle to whatever the fight demands. The plane is faster on 85% than on auto pitch, but it also keeps the rpms down and the engine cooler than 100% prop pitch. If you run 100% pitch the engine overheats more quickly.

If you have to RUN from danger, then close the radiator fully, hit the WEP and use 85% prop pitch, this will give you the highest speed and let the engine last long enough to hopefully get you out of trouble, but it will overheat and quit eventually.

If you find yourself almost out of fuel and you need to fly some distance to get home, then go to 0% prop pitch and try around %50 throttle, this will really stretch the fuel you have!

And just FYI, if you try the Dora out, then fly it using 0% prop pitch all the time except in combat go to auto and WEP. This way you can fly most all missions with a %50 fuel load and have better handling in dogfights.

I have a lot of text and movies on flying the 190A on my YouTube channel here:

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=Jumoschwanz#g/u

Wildnoob
09-09-2010, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by Sillius_Sodus:
I find the Antons perform better with manual pp. It is a lot of work though and not really the way they were flown irl, although I stand to be corrected on that.

The Lavochkins also have pratically an engine computer like the Fw190 in IL2. They needed a lot of levers to be pressed (up to six could be needed to go from low to high speed) which incresead a lot the possibility of suboptimal performance. Without mention that in RL if you didn't manage the PP well you could even get engine damage.

So I don't think it's incorrect to "cheat" a little using the advantages of the manual PP even if the plane was not flow this way in rl.

JtD
09-10-2010, 01:57 AM
Originally posted by Insuber:

IMHO the amount of cooling air is *directly* proportional to the speed, while the needed power goes with the *squared* speed.

Not quite right - regarding the cooling air, you must not forget the cooling fan the BMW 801 had. Well, while mostly of academic interest here, the amount of cooling air is not 0 at 0 speed even without a fan due to convection. Add to that that a radiator also radiates, which is a mechanism of cooling independent of the amount of air going over the surface.
Regarding the power of the engine, it is proportional to speed *cubed*.

Anyway, you bottom line is right - as you increase power the heat output increases faster than the cooling capacity of the radiator, thus the engine temperatures go up.

The worst case for engines would often be a full power climb, with little cooling but lots of heat being generated. Depending on the plane, this could still be alright with the radiators, which usually were to be open for that condition. Also, as a general trend, a closed radiator would provide sufficient cooling at high speed high power settings.

BillSwagger
09-10-2010, 02:23 AM
There was also the problem that at higher altitudes, the colder air would change the viscosity of the oil which could cause problems getting the correct amount to the engine.
Less oil means more friction and higher heat.
I'm not sure how relevant that is to Il2s models.
I don't think shock cooling was ever a real problem or that it even exists.
As described, the theory of shock cooling can occur, but you are talking about an engine that would be running at temperatures where the metal glows red hot.
anyone know the typical red line temperature for an aviation engine?



Bill

JtD
09-10-2010, 02:55 AM
Well, that temperatue would depend on the part you are looking at. I've read accounts of engines glowing in the dark (radial engine, cylinder head) but if you look at the oil temperature, you'll often find the limits in the range of 100 °C.

Kettenhunde
09-10-2010, 06:01 AM
http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/9894/coolinggills.jpg (http://img96.imageshack.us/i/coolinggills.jpg/)

JG53Frankyboy
09-10-2010, 06:18 AM
and to ad, the 190A-4 had no controlable "cooling flaps" at all AFAIK

Insuber
09-10-2010, 06:37 AM
You're fully right JtD. I oversimplified the case to get to the conclusion. I considered that the cooling fan effect was a constant at different velocities, but certainly it's not the case. I just wanted to go down to the dimensioning parameters, ignoring the second order elements and the limit situations.

As far as power - my bad - drag goes with squared speed, and thus the power goes with the speed cubed.

Cheers!
Insuber




Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Insuber:

IMHO the amount of cooling air is *directly* proportional to the speed, while the needed power goes with the *squared* speed.

Not quite right - regarding the cooling air, you must not forget the cooling fan the BMW 801 had. Well, while mostly of academic interest here, the amount of cooling air is not 0 at 0 speed even without a fan due to convection. Add to that that a radiator also radiates, which is a mechanism of cooling independent of the amount of air going over the surface.
Regarding the power of the engine, it is proportional to speed *cubed*.

Anyway, you bottom line is right - as you increase power the heat output increases faster than the cooling capacity of the radiator, thus the engine temperatures go up.

The worst case for engines would often be a full power climb, with little cooling but lots of heat being generated. Depending on the plane, this could still be alright with the radiators, which usually were to be open for that condition. Also, as a general trend, a closed radiator would provide sufficient cooling at high speed high power settings. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

PhantomKira
09-10-2010, 09:03 AM
Andy - So that's a "K" as in kph, not knots, nor is it an "M" mph. Duh! I knew that! Really I did! (Pay attention, sir...) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif Damn metric system! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Bill - When I learned about shock cooling in flight school, it was for civil aircraft in a civil environment where longevity of the engine is paramount. Being military, I'm sure they were far less concerned with the long term effects on an engine, considering the fact that it wasn't expected to last more than a few hundred hours at most anyway; before long term damage would show up from that particular problem.

AndyJWest
09-10-2010, 09:36 AM
The knot is a unit of speed equal to one nautical mile per hour... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knot_%28unit%29

I think that would make knots per hour a measure of acceleration. Still darned confusing. Should have stuck with sensible units, like cubits per lunar month. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kettenhunde
09-10-2010, 12:42 PM
as you increase power the heat output increases faster than the cooling capacity of the radiator


There is no "radiator" on an air-cooled engine. By design there is also a large cooling margin built into any air cooled engine. It accounts for such things as environmental and operational extremes.

Do not confuse the oil cooler radiator with an engine radiator. Oil capacity has a much larger effect on air cooled engine temperatures than the oil-cooler radiator. An example is the different variants of the BMW 801 required different oil cooler capacities so subsequently BMW produced several oil tanks that could be fitted on Focke Wulfs.

IIRC, The design of the radiator mounts was changed in order to eliminate vibrational cracking but not radiator itself in the FW-190 BMW801. Looking at the Ersatzteilliste and list of interchangeable parts from the Baumaster Focke Wulf and I do not recall seeing a design change to the radiator itself.

K_Freddie
09-10-2010, 02:15 PM
The nautical system sounds complicated but if you read this wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautical_mile) page you can see how simple it is compared navigating with Km and Kph.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

JtD
09-11-2010, 07:44 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

There is no "radiator" on an air-cooled engine.

Congrats for figuring that out all by yourself!

K_Freddie
09-11-2010, 08:55 AM
If I'm not mistaken ..
what are these 'engine cowl flaps'..

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/A6M3_Model32-common.jpg

Kettenhunde
09-11-2010, 08:56 AM
Congrats for figuring that out all by yourself!

You did not leave the impression you understood that when started talking about the oil cooler radiator on the BMW801.

It was not changed during the design life cycle because it was not the most important element of the engines cooling.

Instead you delivered a treatise on radiators in a discussion of an aircraft with an air cooled engine.


JtD says:
Add to that that a radiator also radiates, which is a mechanism of cooling independent of the amount of air going over the surface.

Kettenhunde
09-11-2010, 08:58 AM
what are these 'engine cowl flaps'..


Yes they are.....

The Focke Wulf had what is referred to as cooling "gills".

K_Freddie
09-11-2010, 09:07 AM
A radiator system with a difference http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JtD
09-11-2010, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

You did not leave the impression you understood that when started talking about the oil cooler radiator on the BMW801.

Who started talking about the oil cooler radiator on the BMW 801 and how does it concern my statements? You're really confused. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif


It was not changed during the design life cycle because it was not the most important element of the engines cooling.

In case of which I wonder why the models up to A-4 used a part designated 9-6125A and the later ones a part designated 9-6125B. Maybe you can research the difference and for once make a valuable contribution to this board.
Note: I'm not disputing the fact that it wasn't the most important item.


Instead you delivered a treatise on radiators in a discussion of an aircraft with an air cooled engine.

Did I? I was under the impression that Insuber made a general statement, and I quote "radiators", to which I replied. He had no problem understanding my point. If you find it impossible to follow discussions here then maybe it's time for you to shut up. You're adding nothing but aggro.

AndyJWest
09-11-2010, 10:18 AM
It's probably too late to stop this thread degenerating into yet another nit-pickers' convention, but can I just say that as it was me who referred to 'radiators' in the context of the Fw-190, I'll acknowledge this was incorrect, and I should have said 'cooling gills'. I fail to see why it is worth having a slanging match over though.

In any case, I thought this thread was about the in-game performance of the FW-190, and the question was whether variations in drag were modelled as the cooling system (gills, radiators, or whatever) was adjusted. I think it's been demonstrated that it is, and rather than arguing about terminology, wouldn't it be more to the point to discuss whether these variations are realistic?

K_Freddie
09-11-2010, 11:05 AM
Isn't there a report somewhere that the P51 increased it's speed (a few mph or so), when opening it's radiator..
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Kettenhunde
09-11-2010, 11:37 AM
wouldn't it be more to the point to discuss whether these variations are realistic?


Yes there should be variations when the gills are open. I posted the instructions from the POH on the FW-190A series.

The gills for most part are closed in all level flight conditions and the engine is in no danger of overheating.

It was designed that way.

All cooling systems create drag and operating the cooling systems controls generally alters that drag picture changing the performance of the aircraft.

Honestly, it seems to me that many folks are concerned with minutia in the modeling of your game. They concentrate on tiny details which have little effect on the overall picture.

All the while ignoring such glaring inaccuracies such as the tail dragger physics in your game. In a few game shapes I have tried, the control inputs required for take off are completely backwards such that if you were to try that in a real airplane, you would end up the subject of an NTSB report.

JtD
09-11-2010, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by AndyJWest:

I think it's been demonstrated that it is, and rather than arguing about terminology, wouldn't it be more to the point to discuss whether these variations are realistic?

The 190 D-9 was tested to lose about 50 km/h in top speed between least - drag position and all open. It doesn't lose that much in game.
I have no number for the A model at hand, but considering that a slightly increased oil cooling capacity (adjustment of oil cooler gap) costs about 15-20 km/h, I'd say that the rads open penalties in game certainly aren't too big.

badatflyski
09-11-2010, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
:

In case of which I wonder why the models up to A-4 used a part designated 9-6125A and the later ones a part designated 9-6125B. Maybe you can research the difference and for once make a valuable contribution to this board.
Note: I'm not disputing the fact that it wasn't the most important item.


maybe because the A4 as it's predessesors was short nosed and from the A5 they added 15cm in lenght to the engine mount?! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

if you look carefully, the A1(retrofitted); A2 and the A3 were equipped with "fixed" cooling holes and then from the A4, the grills were operated manually if needed, maybe for even better aerodynamics??? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kettenhunde
09-11-2010, 01:34 PM
The 190 D-9 was tested to lose about 50 km/h in top speed between least - drag position and all open. It doesn't lose that much in game.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif


http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/1948/190d9chart.jpg (http://img811.imageshack.us/i/190d9chart.jpg/)

JtD
09-11-2010, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by badatflyski:

maybe because the A4 as it's predessesors was short nosed and from the A5 they added 15cm in lenght to the engine mount?!

Yes, they changed something with the oil cooler at that point. I just wonder what.

JtD
09-11-2010, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The 190 D-9 was tested to lose about 50 km/h in top speed between least - drag position and all open. It doesn't lose that much in game.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

http://img811.imageshack.us/im.../1948/190d9chart.jpg (http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/1948/190d9chart.jpg)
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I say something about the effect of cooling flap settings on speed and you post a http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif plus a chart showing the effect of bomb racks on speed? What's the point??? Are you trying to look like a complete moron?

You know, 8 out of your 12 last posts on these boards contain an out of context quote of mine followed up by a nonsensical reply like the above. Haven't you got anything better to do with your life than stalking someone on an internet gaming forum? In case you haven't noticed, nothing good has come out of this for you, ever.

Sorry Andy, but be assured that this is all from me. So there's hope for the topic.

BillSwagger
09-11-2010, 02:15 PM
sort of reminds me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...maW0&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poDLjwSmaW0&feature=related)

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I think the stock 190 in game is fairly accurate.
I didn't know about those quirks with RPM settings. I'll have to give those a try. I've always felt it was easier plane to use, seeing as the 190 trumps about every bird in the game with its firepower.

Bill

VW-IceFire
09-11-2010, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by K_Freddie:
Isn't there a report somewhere that the P51 increased it's speed (a few mph or so), when opening it's radiator..
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
LOL don't even get people started on that one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kettenhunde
09-11-2010, 04:41 PM
you post a Party Hat plus a chart showing the effect of bomb racks on speed?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

You need to read, JtD. The chart is from the report on WNr 210002 and the report is the effect of cooling flaps as noted.

It is such a large picture so you can read the fine print.....

The effect was test with and without the ETC501 rack and the lines are clearly marked as the speed differences between closed and open rads.

The cooling flaps cause a change of ~25kph according to the report.


JtD says:
The 190 D-9 was tested to lose about 50 km/h in top speed between least - drag position and all open. It doesn't lose that much in game.

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/5779/strak.jpg (http://img215.imageshack.us/i/strak.jpg/)

If you were not so concerned about what I write or think everything is personal attack on you, you might NOT be so blinded.

Kettenhunde
09-11-2010, 05:02 PM
JtD says:
Yes, they changed something with the oil cooler at that point.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif


http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/4488/oilcooler.jpg (http://img189.imageshack.us/i/oilcooler.jpg/)

I already told the folks in this thread the only that was changed was the mounts due to vibrational cracking.

TX-Gunslinger
09-12-2010, 12:35 AM
Pupo, hopefully you will return to this thread at some point. Here's a few things that might help you.

Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away - these are the things that the "190 Brotherhood" used to pass out to new folks asking about Il2 tips for the series.

Basic 190 Gunnery-Luftwaffe Style
http://mission4today.com/index...Base&op=show&kid=310 (http://mission4today.com/index.php?name=Knowledge_Base&op=show&kid=310)

General Tactics - Hunde_3.JG51/diomedes33/VW-Icefire/faustnik
http://mission4today.com/index...Base&op=show&kid=306 (http://mission4today.com/index.php?name=Knowledge_Base&op=show&kid=306)

BMW 801 Engine Management and Anton Basics - TX-Gunslinger
http://mission4today.com/index...Base&op=show&kid=307 (http://mission4today.com/index.php?name=Knowledge_Base&op=show&kid=307)

Dora Manual Prop Pitch considerations - TX-Zen
http://mission4today.com/index...Base&op=show&kid=308 (http://mission4today.com/index.php?name=Knowledge_Base&op=show&kid=308)

High Altitude 190 Operation and Tactics
http://mission4today.com/index...Base&op=show&kid=311 (http://mission4today.com/index.php?name=Knowledge_Base&op=show&kid=311)

There are more threats now than when these were written. The Yak-3 VK107, 25lb Spitfire, P-38 Late, and P-47D Late were not in existance, so take the comparitive (aircraft vs aircraft) comments with a little care.

The basics gist of these articles still apply and the BMW 801 is the same.

If you use mods, there are some additional considerations which apply to FW-190A2/A3/D11/D13 and higher order Allied threats.

Hope this helps

S!

Gunny

JtD
09-12-2010, 01:00 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

You need to read, JtD. The chart is from the report on WNr 210002 and the report is the effect of cooling flaps as noted.

It is such a large picture so you can read the fine print.....

The effect was test with and without the ETC501 rack and the lines are clearly marked as the speed differences between closed and open rads.

Let me help you here:

- "Startl. mit ETC 504, feste Radkl."
- "Startl, ohne ETC 504, bewegl. Radkl."

does not translate into ETC 501 and cooling flaps. It is take off power, with and without ETC 504 and with flexible and solid wheel well covers. There are also lines for "Kampfl.", which means combat power.

Edit: Wait, I see, you're thinking the tests of how the cooling flaps effect the full throttle altitude in a climb on the left part of the chart are connected to the speed graphs on the right part. They aren't.


The cooling flaps cause a change of ~25kph according to the report.

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/5779/strak.jpg

So that graph, which I think is not with 210002 but with 210006, was done with an empty drop tank attached at 2000m altitude, where the plane reached a speed of 505 km/h max. Now the figures I am referring to are from the testing of 210001, with a top speed of 665 km/h being reached at 5900m. These conditions are hardly comparable. With 210001, the effect of opening and closing the radiator flap was stated to be about 50 km/h. Which in fact is an ok match with the figures you posted, if you do the math.

As to the oil cooler:

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/4488/oilcooler.jpg

You have managed to upload Group 62c, which is "Behälter mit Kühler (Ersatzlösung)", translates into "Container with radiator (alternative solution)". A refit. Now if you instead of this had had a look at 62a "Behälter mit Kühler (Europa)" which describes the standard outfit as built by the factory, you would indeed have found 9-6125A listed for the models I mentioned. To make the list complete, 62b describes the tropical solution and also has the 9-6125B listed for all models.

Once more, you primary objective seems to be to prove me wrong, even if that means you have to post selective information out of context. That's really poor.

On a plus side, it looks like you're right on the mounting thing, the extra ring profile in between the cooler and the armor seems to only be present in combination with the B cooler. Good information, thank you.

Holtzauge
09-12-2010, 03:02 AM
Hmmmmmm. Reading this thread reminds me of an old Swedish proverb which translated reads something like this:

" He who digs a hole for someone else to fall in often ends up in it himself"

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Edit: Forgot the party hat.

Jumoschwanz
09-12-2010, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by AndyJWest:
It's probably too late to stop this thread degenerating into yet another nit-pickers' convention,

Yes, this forum is largely useless to anyone wanting practical information thanks to geniuses like you and others who manage to literally spam out thousands of inane posts in only a few months. Most of yours and your "teams"(Swagger, Icefire, Gunz, etc..) posts indeed have nothing at all to do with any question asked, they are simply a droning and unappealing background noise washing over all that takes place here.....

AndyJWest
09-12-2010, 01:25 PM
To avoid dragging this thread off-topic:
a question for Jumoschwanz (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=2601013236&m=4881091288&r=4881091288#4881091288).

M_Gunz
09-12-2010, 02:20 PM
How many posts ago were the original questions answered? I runned out of . fingers . to . count . on. Oh . dear.

And now I'm part of some conspiracy team that .. posts messages here.. that someone doesn't like. How shocking and new an experience, *here* of all places!

Well if I'm part of a forum team then I want ID cards, a secret meeting place and cool hats or this thing is right off.
First order of business might be to find out who our evil team leader is. Is it Andy? Will we be told or will there be a vote?

FoolTrottel
09-12-2010, 03:45 PM
Yeah, this is getting silly.