PDA

View Full Version : Duxford FW190 flew



VF-17_Jolly
07-11-2009, 02:18 PM
Oh yes how happy not one but two FW190`s one static one flew http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

A bit damp to start but well worth going

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v435/POLISH_PILOT/DSC_2347.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v435/POLISH_PILOT/Image1-2.jpg

thegowars
07-11-2009, 02:27 PM
Wasn't it fantastic! Worth the trip just for that.

BillSwagger
07-11-2009, 02:50 PM
thats a great pic!!

Look how small it is, relative to the man in the cockpit.

Look at those thin wings....amazing engineering.

A great airplane.

JtD
07-11-2009, 02:52 PM
If the guys is ever going to attack a LaGG in this he's going to miss the cannons. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

It's and Ash82-FN in this one, right? What does it sound like in the air?

Nice picture.

Xiolablu3
07-11-2009, 02:54 PM
WHat a shame after 2 weeks of 28-30c degree temps Duxford had to fall on a wet day.

Nonetheless brilliant!

danjama
07-11-2009, 03:22 PM
Bloody brilliant, now i REALLY wish i went!! Dammit! Thanks for the pictures, i trust videos will pop up on youtube soon enough...you lucky fella.

I second above request, how did it sound? Did it turn well? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Mr_Zooly
07-11-2009, 03:23 PM
going tomorrow http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Freiwillige
07-11-2009, 06:42 PM
It sounds like an LA-5, since its the same motor.
I hope a BMW 801 FW flies sometime.

Choctaw111
07-11-2009, 07:22 PM
Wow! That's fantastic. That must really be something. Are there any here in the US? I have seen many great warbirds fly, but never a 190 that I remember.

danjama
07-11-2009, 07:53 PM
There's a DORA in the US, but they never fly it IIRC.

Kettenhunde
07-11-2009, 09:57 PM
We are steadily plugging away at our Focke Wulf. It will fly with an original BMW801. AFAIK, Paul Allen has the only other BMW powered FW190A series undergoing restoration to fly.

Click on pictures in my signature to see our progress.

Waldo.Pepper
07-11-2009, 10:27 PM
There are enough real flyers around now to make a decent movie. All we need now is a decent script and a patron with deep pockets who is in love with these old birds as much as we are.

I picture P-51's and Jugs vs FW and some 262's for good measure. Someone start writing!

PanzerAce
07-11-2009, 10:44 PM
Originally posted by danjama:
There's a DORA in the US, but they never fly it IIRC.

IIRC, the reason for that is that the internals to the power level black box are MIA.

Kettenhunde
07-11-2009, 11:02 PM
IIRC, the reason for that is that the internals to the power level black box are MIA.

No, Dave does not fly it because it is an original combat airframe. Much of the airplane is the exact same parts flow by Geschwader Kommodore Major Franz Goetz.

The aircraft is a priceless artifact.

ROXunreal
07-12-2009, 03:37 AM
Can't they just build an entirely new BMW 801 engine based on blueprints? Sure it would cost much but....

Also, searching for a youtube video of this flying 190, I found this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jueDXiuU6aM

Imagine stumbling upon something like this on a walk through the forest :O

Bremspropeller
07-12-2009, 03:39 AM
It sounds like an LA-5, since its the same motor.
I hope a BMW 801 FW flies sometime.

Those two engines aren't that much apart, actually.
They were both grand-children of the P&W Hornet.

Kettenhunde
07-12-2009, 03:50 AM
Sure it would cost much but....

If you want to see a Focke Wulf with an original BMW801 engine flying soon, support us! http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif

We have some cool stuff in the gift shop and if you guys think of anything we could add to it, let me know.

http://www.white1foundation.org/giftshop/index.php

It cost's over 150,000 dollars to overhaul a zero time engine found in the crate and we could definitely use the help.

All the best,

Crumpp

Bremspropeller
07-12-2009, 03:53 AM
Crumpp, I wonder (granted you have the cash...) if it would be feasible to build a BMW from scratch and substitute the mechanical engine-control for elecronic ones.

That would propably save lots of money in the long term.

Kettenhunde
07-12-2009, 04:32 AM
if it would be feasible to build a BMW from scratch and substitute the mechanical engine-control for elecronic ones.


I am sure it could be done.

Problem is there is no market for a 2000hp radial engine anymore.

We actually looked at a Focke Wulf FW-190A based unlimited racer for Reno.

All the best,

Crumpp

Gammelpreusse
07-12-2009, 06:21 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> if it would be feasible to build a BMW from scratch and substitute the mechanical engine-control for elecronic ones.


I am sure it could be done.

Problem is there is no market for a 2000hp radial engine anymore.

We actually looked at a Focke Wulf FW-190A based unlimited racer for Reno.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wait, was that your planning or did you look into the prospect of this in general? And what was the outcome of this line of thinking?

Kettenhunde
07-12-2009, 08:49 AM
Our BMW801 will have an original and operational KG on it.

The unlimited racer idea was loved off the record by BMW but publically they will not support anything from that era.

We elected to restore a Focke Wulf FW-190D9 in JV-44 colors instead of building an unlimited racer. Given time and a lot of money we may undertake the project.

All the best,

Crumpp

Vanderstok
07-12-2009, 09:15 AM
A little movie of the Fw 190 at Flying Legends, 11 july 2009:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtEwq_i-phE

And a flyby:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQfOP1W9B9Q

JtD
07-12-2009, 10:10 AM
Thanks Vanderstok!

Heliopause
07-12-2009, 01:20 PM
And this one: Flying Legends (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQQ3CIBqovY)

Gammelpreusse
07-12-2009, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Our BMW801 will have an original and operational KG on it.

The unlimited racer idea was loved off the record by BMW but publically they will not support anything from that era.

We elected to restore a Focke Wulf FW-190D9 in JV-44 colors instead of building an unlimited racer. Given time and a lot of money we may undertake the project.

All the best,

Crumpp

Good luck and all support to your ongoing projects, especially that D9!
And the day a FW racer will come into existence I will have booked my ticket to Reno http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

It is a real pity, however, that EADS does not support the projects. EADS runs both a 109 and a Ju52(that one in wartime Luftwaffe colors) without any problem to their image.

Bremspropeller
07-12-2009, 02:10 PM
And the day a FW racer will come into existence I will have booked my ticket to Reno

+1, Phil http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Xiolablu3
07-12-2009, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
We are steadily plugging away at our Focke Wulf. It will fly with an original BMW801. AFAIK, Paul Allen has the only other BMW powered FW190A series undergoing restoration to fly.

Click on pictures in my signature to see our progress.

Thats great news.

What do you personally actually do on the restoration side, mate?

COuld you get us a home video of it?

PanzerAce
07-12-2009, 07:42 PM
Ketten, since you're one of the few guys with info on this that I feel like trusting, how is the oiling system done in the inverted V engines? I would assume that the piston banks make wet sumping impossible (Though I don't know if *any* combat aircraft were wet sump during the war), but I can't for the life of me figure out how you would run a dry sump on one either, since the pan/pickups for those usually those just take the place of the wet sump system.

Thanks in advance man.


oh, one other question: Who owns the rights to the FW-190D (and Ju-213 design these days? Or has it been long enough (or because it was for a .gov) that it has become publicly available intellectual property?

Kettenhunde
07-12-2009, 09:49 PM
how is the oiling system done in the inverted V engines?

Generally they are dry sump with a pressure pump and scavenging pumps.

Thanks for the kind words!

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
07-12-2009, 11:05 PM
Who owns the rights to the FW-190D

EADS owns the papertrail to Focke Wulf, GmbH.

We own the aircraft data plates and the rights to our aircraft.

All the best,

Crumpp

I_JG78_Max
07-13-2009, 02:28 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:

Those two engines aren't that much apart, actually.
They were both grand-children of the P&W Hornet.

Not quiet true. According to Wikipedia the BMW801 is indeed a Hornets grandchild, but the Ash82 is based on the Wright R-1820 Cyclone.


III./JG27_Max

Kettenhunde
07-13-2009, 04:35 AM
According to Wikipedia

For what it is worth, Pratt and Whitney was formed by former employees of the Wright Company.

All of these engines are very similar in design and operation.

http://www.h-net.org/~business...27n1/p0162-p0172.pdf (http://www.h-net.org/%7Ebusiness/bhcweb/publications/BEHprint/v027n1/p0162-p0172.pdf)

All the best,

Crumpp

Xiolablu3
07-13-2009, 05:47 AM
By all means ignore me all you like....

Manu-6S
07-13-2009, 06:09 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
By all means ignore me all you like....
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Xiolablu3
07-13-2009, 06:47 AM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
By all means ignore me all you like....
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the quote, at least if he has me on 'ignore' I can be sure he will see it now...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

In fact I know he can see it cos I can see his ignore list.

Everyone hates me today... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Gammelpreusse
07-13-2009, 07:54 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
By all means ignore me all you like....
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the quote, at least if he has me on 'ignore' I can be sure he will see it now...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

In fact I know he can see it cos I can see his ignore list.

Everyone hates me today... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Naw, Xiolablu, not just today http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

EADS owns the papertrail to Focke Wulf, GmbH.

We own the aircraft data plates and the rights to our aircraft.

All the best,

Crumpp


If EADS holds the Focke Wulf stuff(didn't know FW was also in there), then why don't they support you guys? After all the have no problems doing the same to their Junkers and Messerschmitt heritage?

Kettenhunde
07-13-2009, 09:34 AM
then why don't they support you guys?

We are American?? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

I don't know why they have no interest in helping any of the Focke Wulf restorations out.

Restoring Luftwaffe aircraft tends to be a lonely venture until the airplane is flying. Then everybody wants to help out. We have attracted some attention recently from a few magazines because we are getting very close on White 1.

All the best,

Crumpp

Gammelpreusse
07-13-2009, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> then why don't they support you guys?

We are American?? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

I don't know why they have no interest in helping any of the Focke Wulf restorations out.

Restoring Luftwaffe aircraft tends to be a lonely venture until the airplane is flying. Then everybody wants to help out. We have attracted some attention recently from a few magazines because we are getting very close on White 1.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a shame and certainly does not throw a good light on these companies. Once again, all the best with your projects. Are there any ways to support your team?

ROXunreal
07-13-2009, 10:23 AM
So is this the first flying 190?

Gammelpreusse
07-13-2009, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by ROXunreal:
So is this the first flying 190?

That depends on what you define as a 190.

The FlugWerk 190ies were built to factory specs, but modern instrumentation, no armor plates, guns or original avioniks and a chinese engine copied from a russian design copied from an american design. The only thing that engine has in common with the original BMW is that the latter was more or less a copy of that first american design as well http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

But I suppose it's as close as you can get if you want to still sell a plane without dedicating half your life to restoring an original one.

Kettenhunde
07-13-2009, 11:13 AM
Are there any ways to support your team?


YES! Thank YOU!

Donate if you can and support us by buying some of the cool stuff in our gift shop.

If you are close enough to visit stop by. The museum has some great stuff in it.

Membership not only donates to the project but gets you access to the members website and BBS. There are plenty of original documents and some great discussions on the board.

If you are willing, we will put you to work too, lol.

http://www.white1foundation.org/giftshop/index.php

All the best,

Crumpp

DrHerb
07-13-2009, 11:26 AM
Man, I wish I had money to go and see her fly

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WH1LhX3W6VA

JG53Frankyboy
07-13-2009, 11:57 AM
it was a fantastic airshow !!!!!!!
the members of the III/JG53 enjoied it a lot - and the next day at the RAF museum Hendon (with a doubleseat Fw 190 S btw http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif )

the Ash82 of the Fw 190 sounded very deep and "dangerous" - http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

KG26_Alpha
07-13-2009, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Are there any ways to support your team?


YES! Thank YOU!

Donate if you can and support us by buying some of the cool stuff in our gift shop.

If you are close enough to visit stop by. The museum has some great stuff in it.

Membership not only donates to the project but gets you access to the members website and BBS. There are plenty of original documents and some great discussions on the board.

If you are willing, we will put you to work too, lol.

http://www.white1foundation.org/giftshop/index.php

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Crumpp

I send parcels all over the world and for it to cost me $30.00 for you to send a Polo shirt to the UK that's way too expensive for me, check your shipping rates for outside the US you may find your gift shop sales go up a little if you can find a cheaper way to ship as they look very expensive to mehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

UK to USA



Your pricing results for a delivery to USA weighing 1.0 kg are...

Surface Mail Small Packets

Service: Surface Mail Small Packets
Delivery: Delivery Aim 56 Days
Compensation: Up to £39.00
Tracking: No
Price: £6.42 @ $10.33

Xiolablu3
07-13-2009, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
By all means ignore me all you like....
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the quote, at least if he has me on 'ignore' I can be sure he will see it now...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

In fact I know he can see it cos I can see his ignore list.

Everyone hates me today... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Naw, Xiolablu, not just today http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


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

Kettenhunde
07-13-2009, 10:09 PM
I send parcels all over the world and for it to cost me $30.00 for you to send a Polo shirt to the UK that's way too expensive for me, check your shipping rates for outside the US you may find your gift shop sales go up a little if you can find a cheaper way to ship as they look very expensive to me


I will see what we can do. The website is linked to a postage calculator and those figures are supposed to be accurate for the different shipping options.

Any suggestions?

Maybe it might benefit us to get an importer for sales in Europe?

All the best,

Crumpp

Gammelpreusse
07-14-2009, 02:13 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I send parcels all over the world and for it to cost me $30.00 for you to send a Polo shirt to the UK that's way too expensive for me, check your shipping rates for outside the US you may find your gift shop sales go up a little if you can find a cheaper way to ship as they look very expensive to me


I will see what we can do. The website is linked to a postage calculator and those figures are supposed to be accurate for the different shipping options.

Any suggestions?

Maybe it might benefit us to get an importer for sales in Europe?

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That wouldn't be a bad idea, given that I have the very same problem as Airmail. Then again I do not exactly care much for souveniers anyways http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Let's see what is possible donation wise beginning of next month, more then willing to give you guys what I can spare. If there is anything else I or anybody else here can be of support, just shoot!


P.S. FYI, I already checked the donation site and how it works. As soon as I clicked the "checkout" button Firefox started to act all crazy with messages about insecure certificates and transfer options. Any idea what this is about?

Phas3e
07-14-2009, 03:09 AM
Just read today that their will be a New Zealand based one http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Kettenhunde
07-14-2009, 05:23 AM
As soon as I clicked the "checkout" button Firefox started to act all crazy with messages about insecure certificates and transfer options. Any idea what this is about?

None at all. I can have our webmaster check it out though.

Thanks for pointing that out and I really appreciate the support! Purchase a membership; I think you will enjoy the site. We just posted a bunch of previously unpublished photos from JG5.

All the best,

Crumpp

Gammelpreusse
07-14-2009, 05:29 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As soon as I clicked the "checkout" button Firefox started to act all crazy with messages about insecure certificates and transfer options. Any idea what this is about?

None at all. I can have our webmaster check it out though.

Thanks for pointing that out and I really appreciate the support! Purchase a membership; I think you will enjoy the site. We just posted a bunch of previously unpublished photos from JG5.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

NP! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
40$, that's less then 30€. I am so sold http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Kettenhunde
07-14-2009, 05:34 AM
I am so sold


Looking forward to adding you to the Membership!

ROXunreal
07-14-2009, 06:14 AM
I plan to donate as well as soon as I transfer some new money to my internet card http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

HuninMunin
07-14-2009, 06:25 AM
Incredibly.
Almost abit surreal to see a Fw 190 in the air.

You can sure see how manouvrable and dynamic that thing is, even in such a tame display.
Rollrate is incredible and the plane's rock solid in the air.
Crisp TO aswell.

RegRag1977
07-14-2009, 06:55 AM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Incredibly.
Almost abit surreal to see a Fw 190 in the air.

You can sure see how manouvrable and dynamic that thing is, even in such a tame display.
Rollrate is incredible and the plane's rock solid in the air.
Crisp TO aswell.

+1

Yes, the take-off is really impressive, wow, this bird rocks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

CUJO_1970
07-14-2009, 07:40 AM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Crisp TO aswell.


One of the first things I noticed on Fluegwerk's first test flight. The real FW190 has a very spritely takeoff.

Compare it to IL/2's version of our FW190A-8, lumbering down the runway like a bomber fully loaded http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Kettenhunde
07-14-2009, 08:06 AM
I plan to donate as well as soon as I transfer some new money to my internet card

Thank You!

DrHerb
07-14-2009, 08:52 AM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Crisp TO aswell.


One of the first things I noticed on Fluegwerk's first test flight. The real FW190 has a very spritely takeoff.

Compare it to IL/2's version of our FW190A-8, lumbering down the runway like a bomber fully loaded http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you see the climb angle the FW took? Holy Smokes! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

RegRag1977
07-14-2009, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by CUJO_1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Crisp TO aswell.


One of the first things I noticed on Fluegwerk's first test flight. The real FW190 has a very spritely takeoff.

Compare it to IL/2's version of our FW190A-8, lumbering down the runway like a bomber fully loaded http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Looking at this video i would say that ingame FW190A really lacks acceleration in comparison.

But isn't this due to the use of a better engine and/or lower AC weight? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif It's clear that this Anton is really different from the one we have in game.

NO 3 points take-off and landing neither....

Gammelpreusse
07-14-2009, 09:49 AM
No weapons, no ammo, no armor, no heavy WW2 radio equipment. That certainly makes a difference.

But that our ingame FW190 lacks low speed acceleration is no secret at all, and has not been for a very long time. That is the simple reason while contrary to history, FW190s here can't "stay and fight"

RegRag1977
07-14-2009, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
No weapons, no ammo, no armor, no heavy WW2 radio equipment. That certainly makes a difference.

But that our ingame FW190 lacks low speed acceleration is no secret at all, and has not been for a very long time. That is the simple reason while contrary to history, FW190s here can't "stay and fight"

Hi GammelPreusse, do you know if there is a scientific mean to determine the acceleration, or if there are acceleration figures somewhere, something like 0 to 100kph in x sec, 200 to 400 etc... at given altitudes?
I ask because i have only seen the top speeds/ cruise speeds figures for all types.

JtD
07-14-2009, 10:22 AM
There are figures about how much distance the Fw needs to take off or clear a 20m obstacle. You can try to reproduce this in Il2. You'll find yourself hitting the wall every time, barely managing to get the tail wheel off the ground.

Kettenhunde
07-14-2009, 10:39 AM
But isn't this due to the use of a better engine and/or lower AC weight?

It is lower weight and less power than the real thing.

IIRC, the chinese Ash-82 in the Flugwerk replicas develops ~1600PS as opposed to the ~1950PS of the FW-190A8.

The real thing can sustain a higher load factor but I doubt the real thing could fly as slow as the Flugwerk.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
07-14-2009, 10:41 AM
do you know if there is a scientific mean to determine the acceleration,

Yes it is pretty easy to calculate acceleration.

All the best,

Crumpp

RegRag1977
07-14-2009, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> But isn't this due to the use of a better engine and/or lower AC weight?

It is lower weight and less power than the real thing.

IIRC, the chinese Ash-82 in the Flugwerk replicas develops ~1600PS as opposed to the ~1950PS of the FW-190A8.

The real thing can sustain a higher load factor but I doubt the real thing could fly as slow as the Flugwerk.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you for the information!

Does it mean that apart from higher stall speed for the original, both the replica and the original shall have a comparable acceleration?
And does it also mean that the original could not take-off and climb as well as in the posted video?

I'm interested in knowing how, according to you, the original would be different (performance) from the replica.

Thanks again

RegRag1977
07-14-2009, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> do you know if there is a scientific mean to determine the acceleration,

Yes it is pretty easy to calculate acceleration.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The idea is to compare an original WW2 FW190A acceleration with the model we have in game to see how accurately IL2 simulates this aircraft.
It would be nice to have someone qualified to calculate acceleration for the real thing and for the ingame model!
Of course i'm perfectly not qualified to do it, but would be very interested in reading the results, just out of curiosity...

RegRag1977
07-14-2009, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
There are figures about how much distance the Fw needs to take off or clear a 20m obstacle. You can try to reproduce this in Il2. You'll find yourself hitting the wall every time, barely managing to get the tail wheel off the ground.

Thanks JTD for answering!

Yes i hear you, i too find it strange that the FW takes so much time to build up speed to take-off.
But arguing about that is very difficult since the top speeds seem to be correct. Wouldn't it be nice to have acceleration figures so that we could compare them with what we have in game?

BTW Do you remember the distance needed for the FW "to take off or clear a 20m obstacle", this seems very interesting.

Thanks

JtD
07-14-2009, 11:37 AM
430 meters rolling
715 meters for clearing a 20m obstacle.

I'll make a short track in Il-2 for comparison.

RegRag1977
07-14-2009, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
430 meters rolling
715 meters for clearing a 20m obstacle.

I'll make a short track in Il-2 for comparison.

Thanks for the info and for the time you'll take to do the comparison track, much appreciated!

JtD
07-14-2009, 12:09 PM
So this is on the Crimea map, taking off towards the West at 20m above sea level. I put a few white things on the runway, 100m apart each. The first red ones come at 430m, the second ones at 715m. I also put two Messerschmitt Giants there, which are about 10 m tall. I thus should easily be able to clear them.

I gave it my best Il-2 take off, which of what I have seen is rather short compared to what many others manage. There could still be room for improvement...

I'm not even sure I'm supposed to take off with WEP on, the A-5 had a 20m clearance of 600m and this was definitely at 1.42 ata, and the A-9 is at 600m again which would be done at comparable power to the A-8 at 1.58 ata but at more weight. So I think my test is very, very optimistic - and it still fails.

Edit: Well, after a few more tries it appears I can _just_ manage. But 600m in A-5 and A-9 are hopeless.

the track - right click and save (http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fwtakeoff.trk)

If there is a problem with the track tell me and I'll make it ntrk.

There used to be a Focke Wulf handbook available at tailwheel.nl, but it seem the site is down. It had a bit more info (a nice chart) regarding the take off distance.

RegRag1977
07-14-2009, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
So this is on the Crimea map, taking off towards the West at 20m above sea level. I put a few white things on the runway, 100m apart each. The first red ones come at 430m, the second ones at 715m. I also put two Messerschmitt Giants there, which are about 10 m tall. I thus should easily be able to clear them.

I gave it my best Il-2 take off, which of what I have seen is rather short compared to what many others manage. There could still be room for improvement...

I'm not even sure I'm supposed to take off with WEP on, the A-5 had a 20m clearance of 600m and this was definitely at 1.42 ata, and the A-9 is at 600m again which would be done at comparable power to the A-8 at 1.58 ata but at more weight. So I think my test is very, very optimistic - and it still fails.

Edit: Well, after a few more tries it appears I can _just_ manage. But 600m in A-5 and A-9 are hopeless.

the track - right click and save (http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fwtakeoff.trk)

If there is a problem with the track tell me and I'll make it ntrk.

There used to be a Focke Wulf handbook available at tailwheel.nl, but it seem the site is down. It had a bit more info (a nice chart) regarding the take off distance.

Thank you.

Sorry for that but i effectively encountered problems to read the track with my IL2 version, seems like i cannot load the map correctly (load ini error message or something like that). I wonder how you knew it in advance?
Anyway, if you have time i would still be glad to see your ntrk version of it...

JtD
07-14-2009, 10:36 PM
That's certainly not the type of error I considered possible. The trk tracks simply don't always replay correctly on every computer, so while I make a track of me taking off you'll see one where I blow up going off the runway. That's what I meant.

I doubt the nrtk will solve your problem. I'm using the standard 4.08m version of the game, nothing fancy, so I'm convinced the error is on your side.

ntrk here (http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fwtakeoff.ntrk)

Here's a screenshot in case you still get the error, you can see that at 715m I am just clear of 20m (the lights).

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/screens/fwtakeoff.jpg

Kettenhunde
07-14-2009, 10:41 PM
I have one in my library but I will not be home for 2-3 weeks.

K_Freddie
07-15-2009, 12:16 AM
Would it be possible to put these clips up so one can download them from elsewhere than youtube.

Thanks
K_F
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

K_Freddie
07-15-2009, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
That is the simple reason while contrary to history, FW190s here can't "stay and fight"
I don't have this problem.. I go picking fights from disadvantaged positions and come out tops most times.

It's all in your head.. When I take off - I want to come back, when I make contact - I want to win.. and I make sure that happens to the best of my ability - simple it is, said the short green lizard guy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Gammelpreusse
07-15-2009, 02:14 AM
Originally posted by K_Freddie:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
That is the simple reason while contrary to history, FW190s here can't "stay and fight"
I don't have this problem.. I go picking fights from disadvantaged positions and come out tops most times.

It's all in your head.. When I take off - I want to come back, when I make contact - I want to win.. and I make sure that happens to the best of my ability - simple it is, said the short green lizard guy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, not everybody is born a hotshot top ace experten uber pilot like you, Freddie, the rest of us earthly beeings can't keep up with that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

On the downside, your skillz also do not solve the 190s acceleration up to around 350km/h

Kettenhunde
07-15-2009, 03:31 AM
I am just clear of 20m (the lights).


For what it is worth, POH limits for take off obstacle clearance apply to a standard day at the density altitude and weight listed.

They are also not a "sometimes" or "maybe" issue. If you follow the set conditions of the chart, the aircraft will clear each and every time without difficulty.


Wouldn't it be nice to have acceleration figures so that we could compare them with what we have in game?


No problem. These are in Equivalent airspeed. If you can tell me the altitude <density, pressure, indicated, or true> and temperature, it would help to improve the accuracy.

Otherwise, the acceleration holds for the EAS listed and you can convert EAS to TAS to find out the TAS speed the acceleration value applies at the atmospheric conditions tested in your game.

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/7057/fw190a8158atatakeoffwei.jpg (http://img263.imageshack.us/i/fw190a8158atatakeoffwei.jpg/)

All the best,

Crumpp

GH_Klingstroem
07-15-2009, 03:35 AM
its interesting that when taxing the, Fw190 in game barely moves untill you reach 30% power while other planes , like the 109 starts moving at only 6-7% power. Its like we have always known, at low power settings the 190 might as well be on idle, makes no difference. Now that CANNOT be right!!! But it could be a way of representing inertia in game. I dunno. Think its the same for the p47 as well...

Gammelpreusse
07-15-2009, 04:02 AM
Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
its interesting that when taxing the, Fw190 in game barely moves untill you reach 30% power while other planes , like the 109 starts moving at only 6-7% power. Its like we have always known, at low power settings the 190 might as well be on idle, makes no difference. Now that CANNOT be right!!! But it could be a way of representing inertia in game. I dunno. Think its the same for the p47 as well...

A personal theory of mine is the reason beeing the game engine limitations. I may be wrong here, but I had the impression that thrust has a much larger impact to turning in this game then in real life, where other factors also play a role.
That is why the Spit, for example, has such krass acceleration, the raw power of the engine kinda pulls the plane through the turn. Had the 190 similiar acceleration I suppose the balance of the aircraft would stray from reality way too much.

But as I already said, that is just a theory. Maybe someone with a bit more knowledge on both the aircraft and the game engine could clear stuff up?

GH_Klingstroem
07-15-2009, 04:34 AM
Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
its interesting that when taxing the, Fw190 in game barely moves untill you reach 30% power while other planes , like the 109 starts moving at only 6-7% power. Its like we have always known, at low power settings the 190 might as well be on idle, makes no difference. Now that CANNOT be right!!! But it could be a way of representing inertia in game. I dunno. Think its the same for the p47 as well...

A personal theory of mine is the reason beeing the game engine limitations. I may be wrong here, but I had the impression that thrust has a much larger impact to turning in this game then in real life, where other factors also play a role.
That is why the Spit, for example, has such krass acceleration, the raw power of the engine kinda drags the plane through the turn. Had the 190 similiar acceleration I suppose the balance of the aircraft would stray from reality way too much.

But as I already said, that is just a theory. Maybe someone with a bit more knowledge on both the aircraft and the game engine could clear stuff up? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hmmm could be! interesting!

K_Freddie
07-15-2009, 04:36 AM
Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
On the downside, your skillz also do not solve the 190s acceleration up to around 350km/h
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

No.. but I have to make do with it can give. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Maybe someone knows the FW's empty (no guns) and fully loaded weights, as I'm sure this would be very significant considering the amount of ammo/guns it carries, and probably would account for it's sluggishness.

But one can always go into a slight dive first before climbing at speed. I do this and it makes a difference.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Gammelpreusse
07-15-2009, 04:44 AM
Originally posted by K_Freddie:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
On the downside, your skillz also do not solve the 190s acceleration up to around 350km/h
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

No.. but I have to make do with it can give. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Maybe someone knows the FW's empty (no guns) and fully loaded weights, as I'm sure this would be very significant considering the amount of ammo/guns it carries, and probably would account for it's sluggishness.

But one can always go into a slight dive first before climbing at speed. I do this and it makes a difference.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is what I do. Go into a slight dive, just to avoid a head-on, then climb up right behind the bogey after the pass. Usually works like a charm, but even then, once you drop down under 350 you have a couple problems. Takes ages to get up to speed again, which makes maneuvering with an agile oppenent particualry risky, as your energy simply can't compete. Now the common knowledge is..do not maneuver, extend away and come back! Sure, that is what I do, but that is not what I "want" to do. It's also not what the real FW jocks had to deal with.

Viper2005_
07-15-2009, 05:45 AM
Originally posted by K_Freddie:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
That is the simple reason while contrary to history, FW190s here can't "stay and fight"
I don't have this problem.. I go picking fights from disadvantaged positions and come out tops most times.

It's all in your head.. When I take off - I want to come back, when I make contact - I want to win.. and I make sure that happens to the best of my ability - simple it is, said the short green lizard guy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Surely picking fights from a position of disadvantage and trying to win to the best of your ability are mutually exclusive?

danjama
07-15-2009, 06:27 AM
Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
its interesting that when taxing the, Fw190 in game barely moves untill you reach 30% power while other planes , like the 109 starts moving at only 6-7% power. Its like we have always known, at low power settings the 190 might as well be on idle, makes no difference. Now that CANNOT be right!!! But it could be a way of representing inertia in game. I dunno. Think its the same for the p47 as well...

+1

FW taxiing is silly

K_Freddie
07-15-2009, 06:44 AM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Surely picking fights from a position of disadvantage and trying to win to the best of your ability are mutually exclusive?

Not always, It depends on who you're up against and what tactics one uses. The tables can quiet easily be turned if your attacker gets careless.
If he/she is carefull, so are you. matching counter move per attacking move.

The planes with good rear views are particularly well suited for this, as there is no visual loss of your opponent.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

freakvollder
07-15-2009, 09:04 AM
Hallo

I was there at the 12th and I was very impressed about the take-off. The FW goes straight up in the sky at very high degree and a lot of smoke from the engine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif the Spits seemed to be standing still in the air as the FW get started http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif the sound was very deep and powerful when the FW is coming around. I get a gooseflesh feeling. It was the first Air Show fore me.

Very nice to see this thing

-S-

JtD
07-15-2009, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

For what it is worth, POH limits for take off obstacle clearance apply to a standard day at the density altitude and weight listed.

Which are the conditions I tried to reproduce as well as possible in game. There are certain limits, though, for instance you can find two distances depending on the ground your taking off from, grass takes longer than concrete, but this is not modeled in game. There are other things as well, with incomplete real life data and incomplete models in game. However, everything is well enough to make the material statement that the Fw take off run is too long in game.


They are also not a "sometimes" or "maybe" issue. If you follow the set conditions of the chart, the aircraft will clear each and every time without difficulty.

First, there is no "sometimes" and no "maybe". Second, it is never possible to clear the obstacle without difficulty. And since it is difficult, results may vary as they depend on the pilots skills. Which is not constant.

JtD
07-15-2009, 09:23 AM
With regards to acceleration, I made this chart a long time ago:

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/testgraph/dEoverv.JPG

Very simply put, the stronger the engine the higher the curve should be. The lower the drag the higher the curve should be. Eventually, it is not far off the real thing. Spit and P-51 are same at low speed with similar drag and similar power, the P-51 gets better at high speed because of lower drag.
The Fw is more powerful than the two, and therefore better. The relation to the Spit and P-51 is about right.
The La-5FN is a bit too optimistic, it should be somewhere in between the Fw and the other two at lower speeds.
Sorry I could only do this chart from 260 up, but that was a limit in the procedure. Obviously the Focke Wulfs problem in game is in the lowest speed regions. Which hardly matter in flight to me, I wouldn't know the last time I tried to fight at less than 260 in the Fw.

Kettenhunde
07-15-2009, 09:45 AM
However, everything is well enough to make the material statement that the Fw take off run is too long in game.

Ok.


It's also not what the real FW jocks had to deal with.

The aircraft is an air superiority fighter by design. It was made to kill other fighters.

The design features a good high speed sustainable load factor to gain the vertical and excellent agility to maneuver.

Keep in mind, there is more to a dogfight than a round and round tail chase.

All the best,

Crumpp

Gammelpreusse
07-15-2009, 09:46 AM
The problem is fighting in the vertical. Try a loop, try a hammerhead, try doing prolonged scissors at ground level, you will come under 300 km/h on a very regular basis unless fighting the Hartmann way. The lack of power in these regions is what causes the degration of energy potential in the FW in regards to other fighters and the reason you can only do so many dives down on an opponent until co energy is reached. Energy loss in this plane below 300 is so pronounced that doing an Immelman from straight flight will cause you stability problems when leveling out on top.

Gammelpreusse
07-15-2009, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">However, everything is well enough to make the material statement that the Fw take off run is too long in game.

Ok.


It's also not what the real FW jocks had to deal with.

The aircraft is an air superiority fighter by design. It was made to kill other fighters.

The design features a good high speed sustainable load factor to gain the vertical and excellent agility to maneuver.

Keep in mind, there is more to a dogfight than a round and round tail chase.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Completly aware of that and actually what I am basing my argument upon.


Dogfighting != turn fighting. The FW190 was, by all accounts I ever encountered, a very good dogfighter. This includes scissors, barrel rolls, high yoyos, loops, basicly every maneuver there is but plain turn fighting. To my knowledge, and please correct me if I am wrong, this was enabled due to the great acceleration potential and the ability to change direction faster then any other fighter.

K_Freddie
07-15-2009, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
Completly aware of that and actually what I am basing my argument upon.

Dogfighting != turn fighting. The FW190 was, by all accounts I ever encountered, a very good dogfighter. This includes scissors, barrel rolls, high yoyos, loops, basicaly every maneuver there is but plain turn fighting. To my knowledge, and please correct me if I am wrong, this was enabled due to the great acceleration potential and the ability to change direction faster then any other fighter.
Essentially it's not advisable to do a 360 turn while in a FW190, unless you have good advantage. You can do it, and out-turn even a yak-3 but timing and conditions have to be right

Doing the usual highly elliptical 'egg-shaped' yoyo turn enables an FW to turn tighter than doing it horizontally - thus it performs better in the vertical.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Kettenhunde
07-15-2009, 10:08 AM
I wouldn't know the last time I tried to fight at less than 260 in the Fw.

I bet that did not work out too well, either.

That is too slow to get anything near maximum performance out of design.

Vx is 280kph in the FW190A series. 260kph is well in the region of reverse command.

The real aircraft is comfortable fighting around 400kph. Maximum continuous cruise speed is well forward of this and our point on the Pr curve is right at the edge of the beginning of the power stable region.

From the stall point to 400kph requires only a 300hp increase. From 400kph to Vmax at 570kph requires an additional ~1200hp.

The airplane is very comfortable in the vicinity of its maximum sustainable load factor speeds. That point is not on the lift line by design.

It should reach it quickly and maintain it easily.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
07-15-2009, 10:17 AM
Completly aware of that and actually what I am basing my argument upon.

I agree that the Focke Wulf should be able to dogfight on equal terms with its opponents.

Understand though acceleration will change depending on where we are on the L/D curve in comparison to other aircraft.

If the RAE tested the FW190 in another part of the curve, the Spitfire should be the clear winner.

You get any airplane away from its design V-speeds and it will not achieve maximum performance. The good news for anyone’s favorite airplane is that in the real world, pilots fly the plane by those speeds.

All the best,

Crumpp

danjama
07-15-2009, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
The problem is fighting in the vertical. Try a loop, try a hammerhead, try doing prolonged scissors at ground level, you will come under 300 km/h on a very regular basis unless fighting the Hartmann way. The lack of power in these regions is what causes the degration of energy potential in the FW in regards to other fighters and the reason you can only do so many dives down on an opponent until co energy is reached. Energy loss in this plane below 300 is so pronounced that doing an Immelman from straight flight will cause you stability problems when leveling out on top.

I feel inclined to agree with this.

Gammelpreusse
07-15-2009, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by K_Freddie:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
Completly aware of that and actually what I am basing my argument upon.

Dogfighting != turn fighting. The FW190 was, by all accounts I ever encountered, a very good dogfighter. This includes scissors, barrel rolls, high yoyos, loops, basicaly every maneuver there is but plain turn fighting. To my knowledge, and please correct me if I am wrong, this was enabled due to the great acceleration potential and the ability to change direction faster then any other fighter.
Essentially it's not advisable to do a 360 turn while in a FW190, unless you have good advantage. You can do it, and out-turn even a yak-3 but timing and conditions have to be right

Doing the usual highly elliptical 'egg-shaped' yoyo turn enables an FW to turn tighter than doing it horizontally - thus it performs better in the vertical.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heck, Freddy, you ole show off! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
No need to repeat what I already said, dogfghting != turnfighting

(maybe you missed the "!" in front of the "=", which basicly means "not even")

I know, and did, all the other stuff already (and quite some other stuff http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif) . I am not flying this sim since it's demo days for nothin http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

DrHerb
07-15-2009, 10:41 AM
Im a bit late on this, but we cannot forget, this version of the FW is several hundred kilos lighter than the production version, granted it has less horsepower, but Im willing to bet it has better acceleration/climbrate than a production model.

Gammelpreusse
07-15-2009, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Completly aware of that and actually what I am basing my argument upon.

I agree that the Focke Wulf should be able to dogfight on equal terms with its opponents.

Understand though acceleration will change depending on where we are on the L/D curve in comparison to other aircraft.

If the RAE tested the FW190 in another part of the curve, the Spitfire should be the clear winner.

You get any airplane away from its design V-speeds and it will not achieve maximum performance. The good news for anyone’s favorite airplane is that in the real world, pilots fly the plane by those speeds.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Roger to that. I also understand acceleration figures depend on many different settings and conditions and may differ greatly within the speed envelope. That understanding is only rudimentary, however, I understand the line of thinking, but if you want to tell me things with formulas or abstract explainations you will find me at a complete loss. http://www.cosgan.de/images/smilie/konfus/n040.gif

I am also aware that gut feeling never, ever is a good basis for any kind of argument. Nevertheless here I am argueing based on a gut feeling. You may go burn me now, but the 190 simply "feels" off by any attempt of personal reasoning and expirience, trying to link knowledge about aircraft performance now and then, combat reports and reputation and lots of other stuff relating to the plane in real life and in simulations. All that combined usually brings an aircraft to a point within everything makes sense in a way, where legendary traits start to make sense only when seen in the environments these traits came to shine and where reputations of aircraft were born to inherent design failures or simply wrong employment.

Not so with the 190 we have in this game, so far it does not add up.

Kettenhunde
07-15-2009, 10:50 AM
Im a bit late on this, but we cannot forget, this version of the FW is several hundred kilos lighter than the production version, granted it has less horsepower, but Im willing to bet it has better acceleration/climbrate than a production model.

I don’t think the discussion has much to do with the Duxford FW190 other than enjoying seeing it and provoking some thought about the original.

All the best,

Crumpp

Bremspropeller
07-15-2009, 10:54 AM
Not so with the 190 we have in this game, so far it does not add up.

People have been saying that since IL-2 was out.

Kettenhunde
07-15-2009, 11:00 AM
Not so with the 190 we have in this game, so far it does not add up.

I have not flown a real FW190 but I am a pilot including T-6 Texan time.

I have played IL2 a few times and the feeling of power and acceleration is definately lacking in the games FW190 take off.

The Bf-109's are about the most realistic aircraft I have tried in the game for simulating the feel on roll out of a high performance tail dragger.

Ground control in a tail dragger is not hard at all but you do have to be careful to not cobb the power. Lifting the tail and striking the prop is a real hazard on taxi.

That is why you will always hear, stick back, stick back, stick back and fly the plane until the prop stops turning.

All the best,

Crumpp

K_Freddie
07-15-2009, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
(maybe you missed the "!" in front of the "=", which basicly means "not even")

>, <, =, ++, --, |= |>, <|, OR, AND, NOR NAND, XOR, [], ()... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gammelpreusse
07-15-2009, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by K_Freddie:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
(maybe you missed the "!" in front of the "=", which basicly means "not even")

>, <, =, ++, --, |= |>, <|, OR, AND, NOR NAND, XOR, [], ()... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol, in general I see we have a mutual understanding http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Gammelpreusse
07-15-2009, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Not so with the 190 we have in this game, so far it does not add up.

I have not flown a real FW190 but I am a pilot including T-6 Texan time.

I have played IL2 a few times and the feeling of power and acceleration is definately lacking in the games FW190 take off.

The Bf-109's are about the most realistic aircraft I have tried in the game for simulating the feel on roll out of a high performance tail dragger.

Ground control in a tail dragger is not hard at all but you do have to be careful to not cobb the power. Lifting the tail and striking the prop is a real hazard on taxi.

That is why you will always hear, stick back, stick back, stick back and fly the plane until the prop stops turning.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

roger, I do plan to get my pilots license. Sooner, or later, but not giving up on that.

DrHerb
07-15-2009, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Im a bit late on this, but we cannot forget, this version of the FW is several hundred kilos lighter than the production version, granted it has less horsepower, but Im willing to bet it has better acceleration/climbrate than a production model.

I don’t think the discussion has much to do with the Duxford FW190 other than enjoying seeing it and provoking some thought about the original.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hear ya.

My experience with the FW in game is after takeoff, fly straight and level, and let her accelerate as much as feasible before even thinking of the climbout. I always fly it with boost engaged and rads open.

JtD
07-15-2009, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by danjama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
The problem is fighting in the vertical. Try a loop, try a hammerhead, try doing prolonged scissors at ground level, you will come under 300 km/h on a very regular basis unless fighting the Hartmann way. The lack of power in these regions is what causes the degration of energy potential in the FW in regards to other fighters and the reason you can only do so many dives down on an opponent until co energy is reached. Energy loss in this plane below 300 is so pronounced that doing an Immelman from straight flight will cause you stability problems when leveling out on top.

I feel inclined to agree with this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know...the Fw in game loses most of the energy in the pull out, at least compared to other planes. I'm not sure how it compares to the real thing.

However, losing more E in a pullout, say going up 580 instead of 600, means that you're stopped dead in the air an the other planes still goes 150. You lose it down low, you'll feel it up high.

I'll try to make a test and show a graph for this, but not today.

Gammelpreusse
07-15-2009, 11:45 AM
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 danjama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
The problem is fighting in the vertical. Try a loop, try a hammerhead, try doing prolonged scissors at ground level, you will come under 300 km/h on a very regular basis unless fighting the Hartmann way. The lack of power in these regions is what causes the degration of energy potential in the FW in regards to other fighters and the reason you can only do so many dives down on an opponent until co energy is reached. Energy loss in this plane below 300 is so pronounced that doing an Immelman from straight flight will cause you stability problems when leveling out on top.

I feel inclined to agree with this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know...the Fw in game loses most of the energy in the pull out, at least compared to other planes. I'm not sure how it compares to the real thing.

However, losing more E in a pullout, say going up 580 instead of 600, means that you're stopped dead in the air an the other planes still goes 150. You lose it down low, you'll feel it up high.

I'll try to make a test and show a graph for this, but not today. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very possible as well. I wonder if anybody from the modding crowd knows more about the internal workings in IL2.

RegRag1977
07-16-2009, 06:55 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
That's certainly not the type of error I considered possible. The trk tracks simply don't always replay correctly on every computer, so while I make a track of me taking off you'll see one where I blow up going off the runway. That's what I meant.

I doubt the nrtk will solve your problem. I'm using the standard 4.08m version of the game, nothing fancy, so I'm convinced the error is on your side.

ntrk here (http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fwtakeoff.ntrk)

Here's a screenshot in case you still get the error, you can see that at 715m I am just clear of 20m (the lights).

http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/screens/fwtakeoff.jpg

Apologizes, yes the mistake was on my side, tracks will work OK with 4.08 standard. And i can now clearly see what you meant when you spoke about the 190 Take Off distance.

Thank you for your time JTD

KG26_Alpha
07-16-2009, 08:43 AM
I thought the 1C team derated the FW190A's for the eastern front theatre, this was supposed to be historically correct, though not at all popular with FW190 pilots (myself included).

Load up with 100 fuel and some bombs then try to take off............its just plain stupid.

Back on topic now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I was rear ended on the M25 enroute to Duxford on Saturday so I missed the whole weekend sadly.

So thanks to those that are sharing their pictures here. Cheers

Gammelpreusse
07-16-2009, 09:13 AM
Originally posted by KG26_Alpha:
I thought the 1C team derated the FW190A's for the eastern front theatre, this was supposed to be historically correct, though not at all popular with FW190 pilots (myself included).

Load up with 100 fuel and some bombs then try to take off............its just plain stupid.

Back on topic now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I was rear ended on the M25 enroute to Duxford on Saturday so I missed the whole weekend sadly.

So thanks to those that are sharing their pictures here. Cheers

Only the A4 version we have is officially derated. However, the others are, too, this odd "erhöhte Notleistung" was implemented instead to compensate.

KG26_Alpha
07-16-2009, 02:37 PM
Only the A4 version we have is officially derated. However, the others are, too, this odd "erhöhte Notleistung" was implemented instead to compensate.

Would you care to elaborate on this ?

First I've heard of any compensating for the derating of the FW190A's

Cheers