PDA

View Full Version : Fw 190 series game performance vs real data



bolillo_loco
07-05-2005, 04:26 PM
Feel free to challenge my findings by providing data you obtained in the game. I will probably respond and try and duplicate your data. People who respond with feelings and opinions with out any data to back their feelings and opinions will most likely not get a response from me. Its your forum too, so state what you feel I am not telling you what to do I am telling you what I am going to do. I could be wrong here and my data is not conclusive. I am putting it out for reasons of debate.


CONDITIONS

All speeds were obtained using the crimea map via quick mission, 75% fuel was carried, default weapons, no external stores, radiator closed, using 100% pitch and auto pitch intermittenly, (I had no problems with cooking engines while I did this), wind effects turned off. If I forgot to mention something I will correct it later. Climb rates were taken on the crimea map that I made for multi player. the clock started when I released the breaks. All 190s had 100% fuel and ammo w/ no external stores, and the weapon load out was "default". Rates of roll were taken at 10,000 ft and IAS was used. DPS means degrees per second. All Fw-190s rolled nearly identicle so the below figures I feel can be used for all Fw 190 series fighters. Since all Fw 190s rolled too slowly the figure at the end is how much more slowly it rolled when compaired to the naca chart.


RATE OF ROLL

150 mph 90 DPS -20 DPS
200 mph 120 DPS -15 DPS
250 mph 90 DPS -72 DPS
300 mph 90 DPS -40 DPS
350 mph 60 DPS -35 DPS
400 mph 60 DPS -10 DPS

Fw-190A6

*Note the speed in my book given at 7,000 meters is with GM-1 boost which I do not believe we have in this game. I do not have any figures w/o the GM-1 boost.

IN GAME 190A6
S.L. 575 kmh
7,000m 675 kmh

REAL 190A6
S.L. 560 kmh
7,000m 675 kmh
9,200m 630 kmh

IN GAME Fw-190A6 is 15 kmh faster than data on the real A6 at sea level and it is even faster than the real 190A6 at 7,000m even though the real 190A6 is using GM-1 boost while the in game 190A6 is not.

CLIMB

IN GAME 190A6

3,000m - 3:00 minutes
6,000m - 6:00 minutes
8,000m - 8:00 minutes

average rate of climb at all altitudes up to 8,000 meters was 16.6 m/s
rate of climb at sea level for real Fw 190A6 is listed as 14.6 m/s

A6 climbs slightly better at sea level and significantly better at altitude than the real Fw 190A6. It also has a slight to moderate speed advantage over the real data of the 190A6 at low altitudes and at high altitudes w/o GM-1 it has a significant advantage

Fw-190A8

IN GAME A8

S.L. 590 kmh
3,000m 595 kmh
5,500m 675 kmh
8,000m 650 kmh
10,000m 625

REAL 190A8

S.L. 565 kmh
3,000m 595 kmh
5,500m 655 kmh
8,000m 610 kmh
10,000m 560 kmh

IN GAME Fw-190A8 is

25 kmh faster at sea level
15 kmh faster at 3,000 meters
20 kmh faster at 5,500 meters
40 kmh faster at 8,000 meters
65 kmh faster at 10,000 meters

Fw 190A8 CLIMB

IN GAME

3,000 meters 2:50 minutes, average 17.7 m/s
6,000 meters 5:20 minutes, average 20.0 m/s from 3,000 to 6,000
8,000 meters 7:45 minutes, average 13.8 m/s from 6,000 to 8,000

IN GAME VS REAL Fw-190A8

average up to 3,000 meters 3.7 m/s faster than real data
average up to 6,000 meters 10.0 m/s faster than real data
average up to 8,000 meters 8.8 m/s faster than real data

Fw-190A9

IN GAME

S.L. 595 kmh
3,000m 625 kmh
5,500m 685 kmh
8,000m 680 kmh
10,000m 635 kmh

REAL Fw-190A9

S.L. 595 kmh
3,000m 610 kmh
5,500m 670 kmh
8,000m 640 kmh
10,000m 605 kmh

IN GAME Fw 190A9 is

no error at sea level
15 kmh faster @ 3,000m
15 kmh faster @ 5,500m
40 kmh faster @ 8,000m
30 kmh faster @ 10,000m

IN GAME Fw 190A9 CLIMB

3,000m 3:15 minutes, average rate of climb 15.4 m/s
6,000m 6:00 minutes, average rate of climb 18.8 m/s from 3,000 to 6,000
8,000m 8:30 minutes, average rate of climb 13.3 m/s from 6,000 to 8,000

I have no data on the fw 190A9's real rate of climb, but I am going to assume that it is very close to the A8 which would mean that the A9 climbs significantly faster than it should.

Fw 190D9 (1944)

IN GAME

605 kmh S.L.
730 kmh 6,600m
665 kmh 10,000m

REAL Fw 190D9 W/MW 50

612 kmh S.L.
702 kmh 6,600m
635 kmh 10,000m

THE IN GAME Fw 190D9 IS

7 kph too slow at sea level
28 kph too fast at 6,600m
30 kph too fast at 10,000m

CLIMB FW 190D9

3,000m 2:45 minutes, average 18.8 m/s
6,000m 5:10 minutes, average 20.7 m/s from 3,000 to 6,000
8,000m 7:45 minutes, average 13.0 m/s from 6,000 to 8,000

IN GAME FW 190D9 CLIMBS

3.2 - 4.2 m/s too slowly at altitudes below 3,000m
5.7 m/s too fast between 3,000m - 6,000m
3 m/s too fast at altitudes between 6,000m - 8,000m

bolillo_loco
07-05-2005, 04:26 PM
Feel free to challenge my findings by providing data you obtained in the game. I will probably respond and try and duplicate your data. People who respond with feelings and opinions with out any data to back their feelings and opinions will most likely not get a response from me. Its your forum too, so state what you feel I am not telling you what to do I am telling you what I am going to do. I could be wrong here and my data is not conclusive. I am putting it out for reasons of debate.


CONDITIONS

All speeds were obtained using the crimea map via quick mission, 75% fuel was carried, default weapons, no external stores, radiator closed, using 100% pitch and auto pitch intermittenly, (I had no problems with cooking engines while I did this), wind effects turned off. If I forgot to mention something I will correct it later. Climb rates were taken on the crimea map that I made for multi player. the clock started when I released the breaks. All 190s had 100% fuel and ammo w/ no external stores, and the weapon load out was "default". Rates of roll were taken at 10,000 ft and IAS was used. DPS means degrees per second. All Fw-190s rolled nearly identicle so the below figures I feel can be used for all Fw 190 series fighters. Since all Fw 190s rolled too slowly the figure at the end is how much more slowly it rolled when compaired to the naca chart.


RATE OF ROLL

150 mph 90 DPS -20 DPS
200 mph 120 DPS -15 DPS
250 mph 90 DPS -72 DPS
300 mph 90 DPS -40 DPS
350 mph 60 DPS -35 DPS
400 mph 60 DPS -10 DPS

Fw-190A6

*Note the speed in my book given at 7,000 meters is with GM-1 boost which I do not believe we have in this game. I do not have any figures w/o the GM-1 boost.

IN GAME 190A6
S.L. 575 kmh
7,000m 675 kmh

REAL 190A6
S.L. 560 kmh
7,000m 675 kmh
9,200m 630 kmh

IN GAME Fw-190A6 is 15 kmh faster than data on the real A6 at sea level and it is even faster than the real 190A6 at 7,000m even though the real 190A6 is using GM-1 boost while the in game 190A6 is not.

CLIMB

IN GAME 190A6

3,000m - 3:00 minutes
6,000m - 6:00 minutes
8,000m - 8:00 minutes

average rate of climb at all altitudes up to 8,000 meters was 16.6 m/s
rate of climb at sea level for real Fw 190A6 is listed as 14.6 m/s

A6 climbs slightly better at sea level and significantly better at altitude than the real Fw 190A6. It also has a slight to moderate speed advantage over the real data of the 190A6 at low altitudes and at high altitudes w/o GM-1 it has a significant advantage

Fw-190A8

IN GAME A8

S.L. 590 kmh
3,000m 595 kmh
5,500m 675 kmh
8,000m 650 kmh
10,000m 625

REAL 190A8

S.L. 565 kmh
3,000m 595 kmh
5,500m 655 kmh
8,000m 610 kmh
10,000m 560 kmh

IN GAME Fw-190A8 is

25 kmh faster at sea level
15 kmh faster at 3,000 meters
20 kmh faster at 5,500 meters
40 kmh faster at 8,000 meters
65 kmh faster at 10,000 meters

Fw 190A8 CLIMB

IN GAME

3,000 meters 2:50 minutes, average 17.7 m/s
6,000 meters 5:20 minutes, average 20.0 m/s from 3,000 to 6,000
8,000 meters 7:45 minutes, average 13.8 m/s from 6,000 to 8,000

IN GAME VS REAL Fw-190A8

average up to 3,000 meters 3.7 m/s faster than real data
average up to 6,000 meters 10.0 m/s faster than real data
average up to 8,000 meters 8.8 m/s faster than real data

Fw-190A9

IN GAME

S.L. 595 kmh
3,000m 625 kmh
5,500m 685 kmh
8,000m 680 kmh
10,000m 635 kmh

REAL Fw-190A9

S.L. 595 kmh
3,000m 610 kmh
5,500m 670 kmh
8,000m 640 kmh
10,000m 605 kmh

IN GAME Fw 190A9 is

no error at sea level
15 kmh faster @ 3,000m
15 kmh faster @ 5,500m
40 kmh faster @ 8,000m
30 kmh faster @ 10,000m

IN GAME Fw 190A9 CLIMB

3,000m 3:15 minutes, average rate of climb 15.4 m/s
6,000m 6:00 minutes, average rate of climb 18.8 m/s from 3,000 to 6,000
8,000m 8:30 minutes, average rate of climb 13.3 m/s from 6,000 to 8,000

I have no data on the fw 190A9's real rate of climb, but I am going to assume that it is very close to the A8 which would mean that the A9 climbs significantly faster than it should.

Fw 190D9 (1944)

IN GAME

605 kmh S.L.
730 kmh 6,600m
665 kmh 10,000m

REAL Fw 190D9 W/MW 50

612 kmh S.L.
702 kmh 6,600m
635 kmh 10,000m

THE IN GAME Fw 190D9 IS

7 kph too slow at sea level
28 kph too fast at 6,600m
30 kph too fast at 10,000m

CLIMB FW 190D9

3,000m 2:45 minutes, average 18.8 m/s
6,000m 5:10 minutes, average 20.7 m/s from 3,000 to 6,000
8,000m 7:45 minutes, average 13.0 m/s from 6,000 to 8,000

IN GAME FW 190D9 CLIMBS

3.2 - 4.2 m/s too slowly at altitudes below 3,000m
5.7 m/s too fast between 3,000m - 6,000m
3 m/s too fast at altitudes between 6,000m - 8,000m

Stigler_9_JG52
07-05-2005, 04:48 PM
I'd be interested to see turn rate data. That's where I believe the in-game FW190s are really optimistically modelled.

The FW190 should have a good instantaneous turn, especially at higher speeds, but going past more than 1/3 of a circle, it should bleed energy like a truck; which would lead the smart pilot to stick to its historical B&Z, slash and reverse tactics. In this sim, I think it turns quite a bit too well sustained, especially with combat flaps (totally unsure of whether FW's had settings for this or not).

S.taibanzai
07-05-2005, 05:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
Feel free to challenge my findings by providing data you obtained in the game. I will probably respond and try and duplicate your data. People who respond with feelings and opinions with out any data to back their feelings and opinions will most likely not get a response from me. Its your forum too, so state what you feel I am not telling you what to do I am telling you what I am going to do. I could be wrong here and my data is not conclusive. I am putting it out for reasons of debate.


CONDITIONS

All speeds were obtained using the crimea map via quick mission, 75% fuel was carried, default weapons, no external stores, radiator closed, using 100% pitch and auto pitch intermittenly, (I had no problems with cooking engines while I did this), wind effects turned off. If I forgot to mention something I will correct it later. Climb rates were taken on the crimea map that I made for multi player. the clock started when I released the breaks. All 190s had 100% fuel and ammo w/ no external stores, and the weapon load out was "default". Rates of roll were taken at 10,000 ft and IAS was used. DPS means degrees per second. All Fw-190s rolled nearly identicle so the below figures I feel can be used for all Fw 190 series fighters. Since all Fw 190s rolled too slowly the figure at the end is how much more slowly it rolled when compaired to the naca chart.


RATE OF ROLL

150 mph 90 DPS -20 DPS
200 mph 120 DPS -15 DPS
250 mph 90 DPS -72 DPS
300 mph 90 DPS -40 DPS
350 mph 60 DPS -35 DPS
400 mph 60 DPS -10 DPS

Fw-190A6

*Note the speed in my book given at 7,000 meters is with GM-1 boost which I do not believe we have in this game. I do not have any figures w/o the GM-1 boost.

IN GAME 190A6
S.L. 575 kmh
7,000m 675 kmh

REAL 190A6
S.L. 560 kmh
7,000m 675 kmh
9,200m 630 kmh

IN GAME Fw-190A6 is 15 kmh faster than data on the real A6 at sea level and it is even faster than the real 190A6 at 7,000m even though the real 190A6 is using GM-1 boost while the in game 190A6 is not.

CLIMB

IN GAME 190A6

3,000m - 3:00 minutes
6,000m - 6:00 minutes
8,000m - 8:00 minutes

average rate of climb at all altitudes up to 8,000 meters was 16.6 m/s
rate of climb at sea level for real Fw 190A6 is listed as 14.6 m/s

A6 climbs slightly better at sea level and significantly better at altitude than the real Fw 190A6. It also has a slight to moderate speed advantage over the real data of the 190A6 at low altitudes and at high altitudes w/o GM-1 it has a significant advantage

Fw-190A8

IN GAME A8

S.L. 590 kmh
3,000m 595 kmh
5,500m 675 kmh
8,000m 650 kmh
10,000m 625

REAL 190A8

S.L. 565 kmh
3,000m 595 kmh
5,500m 655 kmh
8,000m 610 kmh
10,000m 560 kmh

IN GAME Fw-190A8 is

25 kmh faster at sea level
15 kmh faster at 3,000 meters
20 kmh faster at 5,500 meters
40 kmh faster at 8,000 meters
65 kmh faster at 10,000 meters

Fw 190A8 CLIMB

IN GAME

3,000 meters 2:50 minutes, average 17.7 m/s
6,000 meters 5:20 minutes, average 20.0 m/s
8,000 meters 7:45 minutes, average 13.8 m/s

IN GAME VS REAL Fw-190A8

average up to 3,000 meters 3.7 m/s faster than real data
average up to 6,000 meters 10.0 m/s faster than real data
average up to 8,000 meters 8.8 m/s faster than real data

Fw-190A9

IN GAME

S.L. 595 kmh
3,000m 625 kmh
5,500m 685 kmh
8,000m 680 kmh
10,000m 635 kmh

REAL Fw-190A9

S.L. 595 kmh
3,000m 610 kmh
5,500m 670 kmh
8,000m 640 kmh
10,000m 605 kmh

IN GAME Fw 190A9 is

no error at sea level
15 kmh faster @ 3,000m
15 kmh faster @ 5,500m
40 kmh faster @ 8,000m
30 kmh faster @ 10,000m

IN GAME Fw 190A9 CLIMB

3,000m 3:15 minutes, average rate of climb 15.4 m/s
6,000m 6:00 minutes, average rate of climb 18.8 m/s
8,000m 8:30 minutes, average rate of climb 13.3 m/s

I have no data on the fw 190A9's real rate of climb, but I am going to assume that it is very close to the A8 which would mean that the A9 climbs significantly faster than it should.

Fw 190D9 (1944)

IN GAME

605 kmh S.L.
730 kmh 6,600m
665 kmh 10,000m

REAL Fw 190D9 W/MW 50

612 kmh S.L.
702 kmh 6,600m
635 kmh 10,000m

THE IN GAME Fw 190D9 IS

7 kph too slow at sea level
28 kph too fast at 6,600m
30 kph too fast at 10,000m

CLIMB FW 190D9

3,000m 2:45 minutes, average 18.8 m/s
6,000m 5:10 minutes, average 20.7 m/s
8,000m 7:45 minutes, average 13.0 m/s

IN GAME FW 190D9 CLIMBS

3.2 - 4.2 m/s too slowly at altitudes below 3,000m
5.7 m/s too fast between 3,000m - 6,000m
3 m/s too fast at altitudes between 6,000m - 8,000m </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol wil look up some things

But your way of with this data vs real be sure

And when i am at it wil look forp-51,p47 vs game shal we http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

Fehler
07-05-2005, 05:37 PM
Well, so much for your book.

GM-1 boost was never put on the FW190 A-6. So.. if they cant get that right... I dont heve the charts here, but I am hoping someone will chime in with correct figures.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I have no data on the fw 190A9's real rate of climb, but I am going to assume that it is very close to the A8 which would mean that the A9 climbs significantly faster than it should. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"But I am going to assume" ???

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">All speeds were obtained using the crimea map via quick mission, 75% fuel was carried, default weapons, no external stores, radiator closed, using 100% pitch and auto pitch intermittenly </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oleg's testing is slightly different. Try 100 fuel, auto pitch. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But I do like.. No, I LOVE Roselyn Sanchez! But for my taste, Patricia Velasquez has much cleaner lines.. Less drag, MORE SPEED!

http://www.criticalbeauty.com/Patricia_Velasquez.jpg

BBB_Hyperion
07-05-2005, 05:39 PM
Must be a joke is in GD .)

Found already some Data that dont back up yours
http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/7052/fwdata0ta.jpg

bolillo_loco
07-05-2005, 05:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fehler:
Well, so much for your book.

GM-1 boost was never put on the FW190 A-6. So.. if they cant get that right... I dont heve the charts here, but I am hoping someone will chime in with correct figures.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I have no data on the fw 190A9's real rate of climb, but I am going to assume that it is very close to the A8 which would mean that the A9 climbs significantly faster than it should. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"But I am going to assume" ???

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">All speeds were obtained using the crimea map via quick mission, 75% fuel was carried, default weapons, no external stores, radiator closed, using 100% pitch and auto pitch intermittenly </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oleg's testing is slightly different. Try 100 fuel, auto pitch. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But I do like.. No, I LOVE Roselyn Sanchez! But for my taste, Patricia Velasquez has much cleaner lines.. Less drag, MORE SPEED!

http://www.criticalbeauty.com/Patricia_Velasquez.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do not care how oleg obtains his data. the fact is in this game you can use 100% to obtain higher speeds than in auto pitch. if you do not like it I would suggest neutering the fw 190 and bf 109 series so that they have no benifit from manual pitch just like all the other aircraft in this game do. before I hear your comments on the fw 190 using manual prop pitch, they both had the equivelent of a constant speed unit with the manual unit being back up incase the constant speed unit failed. U.S. planes also had manual prop pitch control, yet none of them gain any extra benifit from it.

can you provide data for the climb of the fw 190A9? considering it has very similar power and it weighs more than the Fw 190A8 while using the same basic airframe. I would say in real life it climbs very similar to the A8.

I do not care what any other plane in this game can do, this thread is about the Fw 190 series. If you want a 47 and 51 thread similar to this start a new one. I have already done one on the P-38 and found its rate of climb and top speeds at altitude to be too slow as well as the rate of roll for the J model being too slow.

my books are listed below. all the Fw 190 charts that I have seen floating around lately can be found in one of these books. The Fw-190A6 using GM-1 was obviously data from a test aircraft similar to data that can be found for the Fw 190A4 using MW 50 (which it never did other than for testing purposes).

Focke-Wulf Ta-152

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0764308602/qid=1.../002-8279652-6414462

Fw 190 "Long Nose" An Illustrated History of the Fw 190D series by Dietmar Hermann ISBN 0764318764 Schiffer publishing

Kurt Tank: focke wulf's designer and test pilot by wolfgang wagner

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0764306448/qid=1.../002-8279652-6414462

Fehler
07-05-2005, 06:10 PM
OK, you want to get your panties in a tussle, OK..

First of all.. Oleg has testing criteria. You dont like it, tell him. But dont rig a test, then point your finger and say.. Ah-HA! There is the problem... I knew it, and I knew that if I kept finger ***ing the test, I could make my test prove what I wanted!

2nd. You assumed, and you are wrong. Review the illustration below. Also, make note on all the settings on the chart. You will soon notice that the FW-190 is actually slower than advertised.

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/7052/fwdata0ta.jpg

bolillo_loco
07-05-2005, 06:21 PM
the fact still stands that you are wrong because use of 100% pitch causes the fw 190 to go faster. where are the prop pitch police in this game to make sure everybody using a 190 series fighter isnt using 100% pitch? the 190 can use this exploit to obtain faster speeds. either neuter the 190 so prop pitch doesnt make it go faster or give it to every plane in this game.

I have been aware of the chart you provided for several years it is in one of the three books I have listed. The chart you provided proves that the 190A9 climbs too quickly by the way and it is faster in the game than the data you provided on the chart. There is also another chart in one of the three books that I have and listed above in my previous thread. you gave no compairison of any data to the chart you provided so I do not know what your point is. I used this chart


http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/page154chart.jpg


which is also in one of my books. you are not providing any proof along with your accusations. and your not being specific. if you disagree with me test the in game fw 190, provide your testing methods and provide some sort of reference data that you used to compair the two.

RedDeth
07-05-2005, 06:38 PM
if your gonna tussle with bolillo you better have about 500 aviation books cuz he has about 75 just on the P-38 alone.

on a side note ive noticed on warclouds since patch 18 of top 20 pilots are flying german now. and a good few of those arent top pilots. this trend only started after the last patch. something drastically changed with german planes this patch regarding E retention and turnability and possibly top speeds too.

RedDeth
07-05-2005, 09:44 PM
quack....that seems to have stopped em cold

bolillo_loco
07-05-2005, 09:58 PM
well I would hope that somebody else tests the aircraft under the same circumstances that I have, just to find any errors I may have made while obtaining my data.

BBB_Hyperion
07-05-2005, 10:14 PM
Intresting how you compare manual prop pitch data (oh forgot it isnt manual alone its a spoolup trick) to auto data thats like comparing a car with automatic to manual shift. I am afraid the real tests are done with auto only and there are no real tests with manual cause it exposes engine and pilot life to more risks than needed that doesnt mean that experienced pilots couldnt use it and did so. I just recently found out that the FW CEM Prop Manual modeling is wrong how the game models it but you wont like it how it was.

Climbtimes are always given in climb & combat power regime as indicated on the sheet itself if not noticed.

Max Speed with WEP isnt given on the chart for A9 .

Oleg has Boxes full of Fw Factory Data and he modeled it after factory Data its most likely the most data backuped plane in the sim.

There are standard test procedures that are given by Oleg and these needs to be followed if not your tests are ignored.

So we wont see any 640 km/h at sea level doras or rubber in the airintake +20 km/h or even polished surface +15 km/h.

Easily it could be shown that the P51D Climbs too good and too fast using only 25 % Fuel and 110 %WEP while real tests were done at climb and combat and 100 % fuel its not really comperative i hope you get that now.

So when doing serious tests under Olegs conditions continue else its a waste of your time and ours it will just be ignored.

Badsight.
07-05-2005, 10:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RedDeth:
this patch regarding E retention and turnability and possibly top speeds too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>cant say for sure about E-retention , but i know most FW lost 10 km/h (some more) top speed with this patch (level)

Jaws2002
07-05-2005, 10:22 PM
I agree that if is wrong it should be fixed, specially the damage model.
Dora was faster in 3.4 and most of the FW's. You didn't notice a shift in game balance, because unless the FW had 108's on was not real a treat. You could still maneuver after a quick pass. Just like four .50's are now to the FW.
I think the dramatical change was in firepower. You no longer walk away from the first pass. If you get hit by 20mm you will feel it. You may no longer fight.
This alone is the biggest change in 4.1. This is what messed up the "balance". Check how many hits are needed for MG-151/20 equipped fighters comparing it with 3.4, There's the difference. That's why so many more planes go down when hit by FW-190's. And of course the "No fuel tank" FW-190.http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif
In 3.4 Dora was faster then anything except I-185-M71.
I for one think that FW-190 was thrown from one corner to another from patch to patch, and I don't see an end to it. I think the game engine can't get it so accurate to match all the charts at all altitudes. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

VW-IceFire
07-05-2005, 10:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
I'd be interested to see turn rate data. That's where I believe the in-game FW190s are really optimistically modelled.

The FW190 should have a good instantaneous turn, especially at higher speeds, but going past more than 1/3 of a circle, it should bleed energy like a truck; which would lead the smart pilot to stick to its historical B&Z, slash and reverse tactics. In this sim, I think it turns quite a bit too well sustained, especially with combat flaps (totally unsure of whether FW's had settings for this or not). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apparently A-6s (and presumably above) had combat flaps. But I've heard that in one place (The Big Show) and never anywhere else. I haven't been able to find any other mention of it anywhere...yes or no.

Tachyon1000
07-05-2005, 10:44 PM
Two things. One, if we take these indeed as errors in the modeling on the 190, they would appear to be systematic, therefore unlikely to be easily fixed as they are inherent in the flight model itself, not any specific flight model for the 190. Two, I distinctly remember comments that the high altitude flight model was not as accurate as it should be from Oleg himself, therefore I am not surprised that errors may be greater at greater altitude.

Considering the operational envelope for most players is between the deck and maybe 4000 meters, errors at higher altitudes are less troubling.

Stigler_9_JG52
07-05-2005, 10:50 PM
I certainly can't see how you can use a totally different testing method to poke holes in another testing method...for example, couldn't it be that +/-25% gas would account for that "performance boost" or for perceived "over/undermodeling"? Avgas is a heavy liquid.

Why not make it easier on yourself and just use Oleg's method and see if the numbers match up?

robban75
07-05-2005, 11:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
IN GAME 190A6
S.L. 575 kmh
7,000m 675 kmh

REAL 190A6
S.L. 560 kmh
7,000m 675 kmh
9,200m 630 kmh </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I only have time for a quick response, I'm of to work! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fw 190 A-5 speed chart at 1.42 ata. http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190_A5_speed.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Fw 190D9 (1944)

IN GAME

605 kmh S.L.
730 kmh 6,600m
665 kmh 10,000m

REAL Fw 190D9 W/MW 50

612 kmh S.L.
702 kmh 6,600m
635 kmh 10,000m

THE IN GAME Fw 190D9 IS

7 kph too slow at sea level
28 kph too fast at 6,600m
30 kph too fast at 10,000m

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The '44 D-9 doesn't use MW50, it uses C3 injection, just like the Antons. The '44 D-9 should manage 621km/h at sea level.

The '45 D-9 uses MW50, and it tops 612km/h at sea level in-game. It's quite accurate IMO. The '44 D-9 is very undermodelled.

For D-9 speeds, look here. Don't forget, these speeds are with the ETC504 rack fitted.

http://jagdhund.homestead.com/files/DoraData/horizontalgeschwindigkeiten.htm

bolillo_loco
07-05-2005, 11:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Intresting how you compare manual prop pitch data (oh forgot it isnt manual alone its a spoolup trick) to auto data thats like comparing a car with automatic to manual shift. I am afraid the real tests are done with auto only and there are no real tests with manual cause it exposes engine and pilot life to more risks than needed that doesnt mean that experienced pilots couldnt use it and did so. I just recently found out that the FW CEM Prop Manual modeling is wrong how the game models it but you wont like it how it was. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

your entire "my speeds are wrong because I used 100% prop pitch" is rubbish. 100% prop pitch is the ultimate top speed of the fw 190 not auto pitch. if auto pitch and 100% pitch yeilded the same top speed it wouldnt matter, but the Fw 190 has an unfair exploit while using 100% pitch. either give it to every a/c in the game or take it away from the fw 190. it is not some game bug. it is purposely modeled. the funny part about some people who treat manual pitch as something rarely used is if a server were to turn off complex engine management you would hear people who use german planes complain because they lost their added boost via CEM. "exposes the pilot and plane to some risks? experienced pilots could use it and did"? I guess you mean in real life, yea I buy that a human is more accurate than a constant speed unit which makes calculations and adjustments so many more times quickly than a human is capable of. a pilot would have to focus all his attention to maintaining rpm while climbing and diving with changes in power settings......yes I believe that. steady in flight crusing.......sure thats possible. which all means nothing to this game, the bottom line is the real top speed of our in game fw 190 series is obtained while using 100% pitch not auto pitch. using 100% pitch in the Fw 190 in this game is as simple as turning off the auto pitch, going to 100%, and just sitting back. from the time I got "engine overheating" till the engine began to make noise was five full minutes.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion: Easily it could be shown that the P51D Climbs too good and too fast using only 25 % Fuel and 110 %WEP while real tests were done at climb and combat and 100 % fuel its not really comperative i hope you get that now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

what is the point in even posting something so silly? I used 75% fuel in the Fw 190 and I will gladly retest at 100% fuel which will not make the Fw 190 any slower. My rates of climb for the Fw 190 were 100% fuel BTW. nor would I purposely skew a test that I performed.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Oleg has Boxes full of Fw Factory Data and he modeled it after factory Data its most likely the most data backuped plane in the sim </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ah yea and the charts I provided are fw factory data, my three main reference books were also written by germans.

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

There are standard test procedures that are given by Oleg and these needs to be followed if not your tests are ignored </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

it isnt my fault if he doesnt check speeds of the Fw 190 while using complex engine management. its just an unfair exploit that only the Bf 109 and Fw 190 series enjoy. no other a/c in this game can do this even though the real a/c also had manual pitch controls.

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

So when doing serious tests under Olegs conditions continue else its a waste of your time and ours it will just be ignored </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

thats great then ignore my posts, but do not tell me how to use my time.

BTW hyperion, did you even notice the errors I found where the fw 190 series did not perform to the data I provided?

bolillo_loco
07-05-2005, 11:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
I certainly can't see how you can use a totally different testing method to poke holes in another testing method...for example, couldn't it be that +/-25% gas would account for that "performance boost" or for perceived "over/undermodeling"? Avgas is a heavy liquid.

Why not make it easier on yourself and just use Oleg's method and see if the numbers match up? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the 25% will make little difference for top seeds. I used 75% fuel for speed tests.
I used 100% fuel for climb tests.


totally different testing methods? because I used 100% pitch. I am really growing tired of hearing about the 100% pitch. auto pitch is not the true maximum speed of the fw 190 in this game, 100% pitch is.

bolillo_loco
07-05-2005, 11:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robban75:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
IN GAME 190A6
S.L. 575 kmh
7,000m 675 kmh

REAL 190A6
S.L. 560 kmh
7,000m 675 kmh
9,200m 630 kmh </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I only have time for a quick response, I'm of to work! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fw 190 A-5 speed chart at 1.42 ata. http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190_A5_speed.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Fw 190D9 (1944)

IN GAME

605 kmh S.L.
730 kmh 6,600m
665 kmh 10,000m

REAL Fw 190D9 W/MW 50

612 kmh S.L.
702 kmh 6,600m
635 kmh 10,000m

THE IN GAME Fw 190D9 IS

7 kph too slow at sea level
28 kph too fast at 6,600m
30 kph too fast at 10,000m

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The '44 D-9 doesn't use MW50, it uses C3 injection, just like the Antons. The '44 D-9 should manage 621km/h at sea level.

The '45 D-9 uses MW50, and it tops 612km/h at sea level in-game. It's quite accurate IMO. The '44 D-9 is very undermodelled.

For D-9 speeds, look here. Don't forget, these speeds are with the ETC504 rack fitted.

http://jagdhund.homestead.com/files/DoraData/horizontalgeschwindigkeiten.htm </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I already have the chart for the A5 and I did not test it simply because I do not understand what this chart represents. I also find the top speed of 670 kph very questionable, meaning it isnt a production plane used in combat, but rather some factory a/c used for testing purposes.

I was under the impression that the 1944 D9 series had no boost at all. late in the year (44) there was some sort of modification which let the Jumo run at 1,900 hp, but it wasnt with mw 50 or some other sort of chemical injection. The 1945 series was the one which had the MW 50 boost. since our in game 190D9 has the boost I tested it using the figures provided for MW 50 injection.

you felt it was under modeled, in which way?

the things I found under modeled were 7 kph too slow at sea level and its rate of roll was significantly slower than that of the NACA chart. its rate of climb up to 3,000 meters was a bit slow as well about 3.2 - 4.2 m/s too slow. other than that it was over modeled in ever other respect.

AFJ_Locust
07-05-2005, 11:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tachyon1000:
Two, I distinctly remember comments that the high altitude flight model was not as accurate as it should be from Oleg himself, therefore I am not surprised that errors may be greater at greater altitude. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then why arent the allied ac so much better at higher altitude ???

Gibbage1
07-06-2005, 12:15 AM
Top speed is what it says. "Top speed". If you can get the maximum performance out of an aircraft with 0% prop pitch, its still the aircraft's top speed no matter how Oleg test's.

If Oleg tested the FW-190's "top speed" with flaps down and it matched historical reccords, would you demand all test's on the FW's top speed to be done with flaps, and call anyone who raised there flaps and got a faster speed to be wrong? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

You guys will fight anything with a web of lies and BS to keep every advantage you have, historical or not.

I still love the post were someone said that the FW DM bug was "acceptable" because the P-51 and P-47 can out turn it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Gib

Hetzer_II
07-06-2005, 12:43 AM
As mentioned before:
Manuell prop-setting was possible for the 190... but all the test are flown with auto-settings...
So only as a thought... maybe there was a little
advantages but no documents about it...

btw can anybody post the difference in topspeed between auto and manuel settings?

RedDeth
07-06-2005, 01:07 AM
hyperion you said a whole lot to contradict bolillos evidence.

but you used no evidence. only your opinion. dude if your gonna post back up your words with proof.

btw bolillo tore your post to pieces with logic and proof from german sources....


and in reply to tachyon1000. everyone always talks about how high altitude is nerfed and not accurate...

but amazingly some planes do well above 10k and some dont. and after certain patches some planes that did well dont anymore.

thats a crock and oleg knows it. high alt planes can all fly like jugs if oleg makes it so. or they can all fly like an LA7 at 10k if oleg makes it so.

oleg decides which planes can fly high and which dont. anyone that wishes to say the game doesnt work correctly at high altitudes is foolish to believe so and my proof is fly a jug vs an LA7 at 10K and see what happens.


step down and step off that high altitude cop out. it doesnt fly.

someone swung the balance on axis vs allied planes this patch and its very well evidenced on fullreal servers where axis is now winning 95 percent of all battles.

before it was roughly 50 / 50

something is fishy in denmark.

ICDP
07-06-2005, 01:18 AM
For reference, here is a speed test using both auto and manual PP (100%)

Crimea map, 12PM, no wind, 100% fuel, default ammo.

Fw190A5 top speed at SL (game data)

PP Auto: 568 kph (matches real data from various sources)
PP 100%: 575 kph

So the manual PP does match the chart posted by Robban (and other data I have for Fw190A5) but manual witth 100% PP is giving an unfair speed boost.

Anyone who argues that this is realistic should post a real test chart with manual PP to prove it or admit that this is un unfair boost.

Armer_Ritter
07-06-2005, 01:33 AM
unfair advantage.... if i only hear that...

7km/h.. i bet you wouldnt notice the difference if you fly a 190 or be chased by 190.. acceleration at the topspeed-region is such slow that you will only reach these speeds after several minutes of straigt-flight... I bet a 190 will never fly such straight for long enough to gain an advantage from this 7 km/h.... take your 7 km/h which means i can seperate 120m in 1 minute.. i would need about 4 1/2 minute before im out of range from 0.50 or about 6 minutes before beeing safe from hispannos... whoooo what a advantage.. one turn and you will be about 20 kmh faster in 51... together with the fact that you barely need more than 5 minutes to cross a whole of these suuper realistic online-maps...

If these 7 kmh is realy youre problem.. i suggest relearning your flightskill...

what realy counts is the acceleration of 190 in speedranges between 300-560 and gues how it accelerates...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Badsight.
07-06-2005, 01:40 AM
if Auto pitch runs at a lower manifold pressure due to a lower RPM being held . . . . . . then of course it will be a slower speed than a higher MP/RPM manuel setting

but the speed of any plane has to be reached in the same way it was in the RL tests they did back in the fourties

trying to say manuel should be used because its faster is BS

if Auto pitch was used back then , then Auto should be used now , whether you like it or not

allied A/C not having the same ability as the FW/BF series is a total seperate subject , or is this a stealth pitch whine thread , i mean your looking at german source material that has auto pitch being used so whats the problem

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">but the Fw 190 has an unfair exploit while using 100% pitch. either give it to every a/c in the game or take it away from the fw 190. it is not some game bug. it is purposely modeled. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

F19_Ob
07-06-2005, 02:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
I'd be interested to see turn rate data. That's where I believe the in-game FW190s are really optimistically modelled.

The FW190 should have a good instantaneous turn, especially at higher speeds, . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was playing in QMB yesterday. Yak3 against fw190 a9 and the fw outturned the yak at highest speed, but as the speed decreased the yak got it's advantage back.
I was in the yak.

F19_Ob
07-06-2005, 02:32 AM
Golodnikov felt that reference books left things out.

Quotes from the Golodnikov articles:

"You can try, but it is a difficult and thankless task to compare the combat qualities of aircraft using reference book data. There are simply too many nuances to consider."

-----------------------------


A. S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, sometime relatively long ago I was speaking with a pilot€"a frontline veteran. Right after the war they flew in captured aircraft. And no matter how hard they tried, they were unable to attain the speeds the Germans had written in their specifications. The shortfall in speed was significant. In the end, they prevailed upon a German, a high-level specialist, and asked him, €œWhy this shortfall in speed? Are we using the engine€s capability incorrectly?€ His response was that they would never achieve the target speed, because the German specifications showed the theoretical speed, and they were attempting to attain that speed on their instruments.

Nikolay Gerasimovich, in your view, is this possible?

N. G. Of course. We had a group of specialists with us from NII VVS. They were examining specifications and were looking at speed. €œWhat speed is indicated at 7,000 meters? 780? Take away 100. And what about 3,000 meters? 700? Reduce it 70 km.€ This is how they calculated the instrumented speed and, characteristically, almost always hit their target. Perhaps they knew something about our focus on speed."


The articles:

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/golodnikov/

jurinko
07-06-2005, 02:35 AM
hmm seems somebody got its *** kicked by Fw 190s http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.scitech.sk/~jurinko/online09.JPG

yeah baby, yeah!

Pirschjaeger
07-06-2005, 04:24 AM
Bolillo, did your specs come from one location or varios locations? To make things more valid and take out less variables I think it would be best to get specs from many documents written by different testors, than add them up and find an average.

I would never trust the results from one source on the characteristics of a plane simply because not all pilots are created equal.

Once you have your "general results average" then you must have the results of many tests done on the same plane by different pilots. Then make an average and compare.

It's interesting that you want to make these tests and that it's good for the community, but one test by one pilot(in game) vs one test by one pilot(in real) holds little validity in my opinion.

When we fly the same planes, same settings, in my squadron, I can usually outclimb the others. It has nothing to do with the plane but rather the pilot. With control of pitch, flaps, and power, there are too many variables and possibilities depending on the pilots' skills.

Maybe if we flew the same planes together you could outclimb me or vise-versa.

Fritz

Fehler
07-06-2005, 04:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ICDP:
For reference, here is a speed test using both auto and manual PP (100%)

Crimea map, 12PM, no wind, 100% fuel, default ammo.

Fw190A5 top speed at SL (game data)

PP Auto: 568 kph (matches real data from various sources)
PP 100%: 575 kph

So the manual PP does match the chart posted by Robban (and other data I have for Fw190A5) but manual witth 100% PP is giving an unfair speed boost.

Anyone who argues that this is realistic should post a real test chart with manual PP to prove it or admit that this is un unfair boost. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, I decided to test the A-5 as well, but it looks like ICDP beat me to it...

Crimea Map, 100% fuel, no wind, default ammo:

Auto Pitch: 565kph @ SL
Maunal: 574kph @ SL
(Pretty close to ICDP's tests. I only made one run at each (I use my time flying to enjoy the game, and I have a real job and kids and stuff too) but it is close enough for government work in my book..

Unfortunately I didnt record overheat times, but manual was MUCH faster, so I wouldnt have been able to use this "Exploit" in game for too long before my engine wacked out on me. It did seem that the acceleration was a tad better, but I didnt put a stopwatch to it but again, it was also directly associated with quick overheat. (Perhaps that is the exploit you guys are talking about? Slightly better acceleration, offset by quick overheat? I dont know, I just dont see a usable advantage)

Oh, BTW, someone, I believe it was wastel or Butch2K, posted reference material about switching to manual pitch for take-off on short runways or with heavy load because manual allowed for greater acceleration opposed to the KG. Granted, this was on a Bf109, not a FW-190, but it appears to me (Note disclaimer) that the German system could be exploited in real life to give faster spool-up; acceleration. (This, of course, greatly added the chance of damage to the engine from over-rev) But the climb and level speed tests by RLM were always done with auto settings and rads open to the equivilent of position 4 in the game. This is a fact, so comparing a real-life speed chart with auto PP/rad #4, to manual/rad closed, is truly apples and oranges.

So, what speeds could one of these planes ultimately do in real life with reckless abandon to the engine? No chart I have ever viewed tested it! Now, if someone can proivide a chart showing that, I would be all ears (Eyes, actually). The chart would, of course, have to show the point at which the engine froze up solid or blew up to be accurate so we all knew that the ultimate speed was eventually reached.

Now, our virtual pilot doesnt have to worry aboout breaking an engine, because he will live to fight another day (Refly button). Thus, you see virtual pilots doing things that real pilots would never do. So, if you perceive an unfair advantage because a virtual pilot is willing to take risks in a game that his real-life counterpart wouldnt do, then it is because THIS IS A GAME!

I do think that the DM is screwy, and have said so a few times. But truthfully, I find it funny that now that the FW-190A's have four real cannon and can actually inflict damage in a single pass (As they were designed to do, I might add), all the test-a-holics are out to prove something is unfair with the FM. In fact, the plane is actually slower now than it was in 3.04! Go test that and see for yourself! In some instances, it is 10-15 kph slower!! And of course, the speeds under 3k are still slower than real world data charts (Where it counts the most in most DF servers) But hey, we can overlook that, it is a disadvantage.

Where was everyone's tests last patch? Oh, no one cared becaused the 190 had to stick on a planes tail for 4-5 seconds to do any real damage, so no one cared. It was a Butchered Bird.

@Gibbage, I attempted to find a thread where you complained about the fule leak bug on the 190 in v3.04, but was unable to locate it. Can you possibly point me to that link? And I couldnt find a thread where you complained about the "Insta-50kph loss from a single wing hit" bug either... Odd, can you point me to a link to that thread as well? Oh, and while you are at it, the gunsight bug... a link to that one too.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">By Gibbage:
You guys will fight anything with a web of lies and BS to keep every advantage you have, historical or not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And you will never address issues that give you an unfair advantage. Can you say hypocrite?

Aaron_GT
07-06-2005, 05:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">your entire "my speeds are wrong because I used 100% prop pitch" is rubbish. 100% prop pitch is the ultimate top speed of the fw 190 not auto pitch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What the ultimate speed is is not important. What is important is that in the game the same procedures and prop settings are used as the real life test data. If the real life tests used auto setting then you have to use auto setting in the game. Maybe using manual prop pitch in the real life tests they might have squeezed 20 km/h extra out of all 190s at sea level, at the expense of the danger of blowing the engine? In real life blowing an engine had more consquences than in the game, so would have been more proscribed than in the game.

Aaron_GT
07-06-2005, 05:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Top speed is what it says. "Top speed". If you can get the maximum performance out of an aircraft with 0% prop pitch, its still the aircraft's top speed no matter how Oleg test's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have to conduct the tests in the same was as the real life tests or you are comparing apples and oranges and the debate is pointless.

What if the only test data for P-38s was without WEP. Would you ask for P-38 performance with WEP to match the RL charts without WEP?

Aaron_GT
07-06-2005, 05:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So the manual PP does match the chart posted by Robban (and other data I have for Fw190A5) but manual witth 100% PP is giving an unfair speed boost. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In real life the auto pitch was presumably there to protect the engine whilst allowing reasonably good performance. Given the state of control feedback design at the time it is entirely possible that in real life that a performance boost by using manual pitch would be possible, and documentation tends to support this idea. However it might not have been wise to do it in real life due to the chance of enigne damage. In the game engine damage just means hitting refly, so we are inured to that. In real life it might mean 10 years in a Soviet prisoner of war camp.

If the behaviour in the game is accurate (same speed according to test conditions, same boost as in real life by using manual pitch) then I can't see what the problem is. The fact that we dare do things in a game that people wouldn't tend to do in real life is not something Oleg can really fix and is a problem in many areas. Short of having Oleg come round and shoot you if you get shot down there isn't really much to be done about that.

Aaron_GT
07-06-2005, 05:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I do think that the DM is screwy, and have said so a few times. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes - the 8mm armoured ring should help a bit, but seems to help rather too much!

S.taibanzai
07-06-2005, 06:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fehler:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ICDP:
For reference, here is a speed test using both auto and manual PP (100%)

Crimea map, 12PM, no wind, 100% fuel, default ammo.

Fw190A5 top speed at SL (game data)

PP Auto: 568 kph (matches real data from various sources)
PP 100%: 575 kph

So the manual PP does match the chart posted by Robban (and other data I have for Fw190A5) but manual witth 100% PP is giving an unfair speed boost.

Anyone who argues that this is realistic should post a real test chart with manual PP to prove it or admit that this is un unfair boost. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, I decided to test the A-5 as well, but it looks like ICDP beat me to it...

Crimea Map, 100% fuel, no wind, default ammo:

Auto Pitch: 565kph @ SL
Maunal: 574kph @ SL
(Pretty close to ICDP's tests. I only made one run at each (I use my time flying to enjoy the game, and I have a real job and kids and stuff too) but it is close enough for government work in my book..

Unfortunately I didnt record overheat times, but manual was MUCH faster, so I wouldnt have been able to use this "Exploit" in game for too long before my engine wacked out on me. It did seem that the acceleration was a tad better, but I didnt put a stopwatch to it but again, it was also directly associated with quick overheat. (Perhaps that is the exploit you guys are talking about? Slightly better acceleration, offset by quick overheat? I dont know, I just dont see a usable advantage)

Oh, BTW, someone, I believe it was wastel or Butch2K, posted reference material about switching to manual pitch for take-off on short runways or with heavy load because manual allowed for greater acceleration opposed to the KG. Granted, this was on a Bf109, not a FW-190, but it appears to me (Note disclaimer) that the German system could be exploited in real life to give faster spool-up; acceleration. (This, of course, greatly added the chance of damage to the engine from over-rev) But the climb and level speed tests by RLM were always done with auto settings and rads open to the equivilent of position 4 in the game. This is a fact, so comparing a real-life speed chart with auto PP/rad #4, to manual/rad closed, is truly apples and oranges.

So, what speeds could one of these planes ultimately do in real life with reckless abandon to the engine? No chart I have ever viewed tested it! Now, if someone can proivide a chart showing that, I would be all ears (Eyes, actually). The chart would, of course, have to show the point at which the engine froze up solid or blew up to be accurate so we all knew that the ultimate speed was eventually reached.

Now, our virtual pilot doesnt have to worry aboout breaking an engine, because he will live to fight another day (Refly button). Thus, you see virtual pilots doing things that real pilots would never do. So, if you perceive an unfair advantage because a virtual pilot is willing to take risks in a game that his real-life counterpart wouldnt do, then it is because THIS IS A GAME!

I do think that the DM is screwy, and have said so a few times. But truthfully, I find it funny that now that the FW-190A's have four real cannon and can actually inflict damage in a single pass (As they were designed to do, I might add), all the test-a-holics are out to prove something is unfair with the FM. In fact, the plane is actually slower now than it was in 3.04! Go test that and see for yourself! In some instances, it is 10-15 kph slower!! And of course, the speeds under 3k are still slower than real world data charts (Where it counts the most in most DF servers) But hey, we can overlook that, it is a disadvantage.

Where was everyone's tests last patch? Oh, no one cared becaused the 190 had to stick on a planes tail for 4-5 seconds to do any real damage, so no one cared. It was a Butchered Bird.

@Gibbage, I attempted to find a thread where you complained about the fule leak bug on the 190 in v3.04, but was unable to locate it. Can you possibly point me to that link? And I couldnt find a thread where you complained about the "Insta-50kph loss from a single wing hit" bug either... Odd, can you point me to a link to that thread as well? Oh, and while you are at it, the gunsight bug... a link to that one too.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">By Gibbage:
You guys will fight anything with a web of lies and BS to keep every advantage you have, historical or not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And you will never address issues that give you an unfair advantage. Can you say hypocrite? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol good one http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Hetzer_II
07-06-2005, 09:01 AM
"@Gibbage, I attempted to find a thread where you complained about the fule leak bug on the 190 in v3.04, but was unable to locate it. Can you possibly point me to that link? And I couldnt find a thread where you complained about the "Insta-50kph loss from a single wing hit" bug either... Odd, can you point me to a link to that thread as well? Oh, and while you are at it, the gunsight bug... a link to that one too."

Good joke......

Gibby was always known for beein objective.. he never spoke to oleg or has anything to do with what we saw in the past...

anyone telling different story is biased and read a bunch of lies..

Hristo_
07-06-2005, 09:29 AM
If 100% prop pitch os so effective, maybe it is time for me to start using it.

Honestly, I've never used it. What do I gain with it ? Are there any drawbacks ?

Fehler
07-06-2005, 09:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:
If 100% prop pitch os so effective, maybe it is time for me to start using it.

Honestly, I've never used it. What do I gain with it ? Are there any drawbacks ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

About 7-8 kph for a short period of time, but you overheat fast.

A real 190 flyer will tell you to run manual 80%, 103 throttle for the best all-around performance vs. heat. You wont be at your fastest, but you can run like that all day long (Well not really, but for a long time anyway). And for dive, I have been fiddling around with diving initially at 100%, but lowering prop to 50% as I get close to wing break speed. I seem to maintain my E after a pullout a bit longer using this method. And it may be me, but I zoom climb at 80%PP so I dont stall out over the top with torque and thus, I can drive around the hammerhead much better. (Anyone notice how bad the ball becomes un-centered in the 190 during a zoom climb? A bug? Well, it hurts the 190, so that wont get investigated around here... and if someone mentions it, they are a Luftwhiner)

So, as you can see, I use manual PP all the time. Not to gain these mythical advantages, but to manage my torque and heat since 4.01. That's where the *Advantage* really is! And guess what, you can do it with all planes.. Hmmm http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ankanor
07-06-2005, 10:45 AM
Hristos!!! That's Blasphemy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif Go ask Gibbage1 RedDeth and bollilo_loco They seem to know everything about the Butcherbird http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Jaws2002
07-06-2005, 11:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RedDeth:
hyperion you said a whole lot to contradict bolillos evidence.

but you used no evidence. only your opinion. dude if your gonna post back up your words with proof.

btw bolillo tore your post to pieces with logic and proof from german sources....


and in reply to tachyon1000. everyone always talks about how high altitude is nerfed and not accurate...

but amazingly some planes do well above 10k and some dont. and after certain patches some planes that did well dont anymore.

thats a crock and oleg knows it. high alt planes can all fly like jugs if oleg makes it so. or they can all fly like an LA7 at 10k if oleg makes it so.

oleg decides which planes can fly high and which dont. anyone that wishes to say the game doesnt work correctly at high altitudes is foolish to believe so and my proof is fly a jug vs an LA7 at 10K and see what happens.


step down and step off that high altitude cop out. it doesnt fly.

someone swung the balance on axis vs allied planes this patch and its very well evidenced on fullreal servers where axis is now winning 95 percent of all battles.

before it was roughly 50 / 50

something is fishy in denmark. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Cmon Red Death don't be mean with my little FW http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
There are still fresh in my mind the encounters with you Mantis, JD, rsm, Locust, in your poor K-4's.
I still remember the distinctive high pitch tone of your engine. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
That little thing(K-4) was able to get up to 40km/h advantage in some patches from overreving but you never complained about it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
You flew K-4 with that flaw for what? one year?
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
Anyway i'm not sure is wrong the way the fw's are now, you get extra speed at the expence of your engine.
There was a story of a Russian veteran on this forum long time ago. He said that on the front they would run P-40's and p-39's at higher rpm. He said something like: after one or two tough fights you had to change the engine. Was not good anymore.
What puzzles me is that FW-190's are slower than in 3.4.
Why is this attitude, " uber FW", coming up now.
Isn't the firepower that made the difference.?
But I too think Dora is Uber. It was never so easy to get kills in it.

NorrisMcWhirter
07-06-2005, 12:17 PM
^ This 'uber' 190 myth is just a function of corrected 151/20s and the lack of Hollywood-style 'Towering Inferno' special fire effects which, to some extent, has some truth. Yep, it doesn't catch fire but that doesn't mean you haven't hurt it.

It's odd that whenever something Allied is changed , all we hear about is how great it is to have things, 'just the way they were' whereas when anything LW gets fixed all we hear is whining.

Of course, I'm biased. Still, all I need now is for someone from the 'other side' who is equally biased to tell me how biased I am.

Ta,
Norris

zimbower1
07-06-2005, 12:28 PM
As long as there are no energy fights or coordinated flights in PF these kind of tests are useless when compared to real life preformance.
No offence..
Cheers

Udidtoo
07-06-2005, 12:32 PM
Ok Norri. I'm bored enough to play tag.

Many months back your bias was showing and we exchanged at least 10 or 12 words that were of such great import that I have no idea what they pretained to now.

I do however recall feeling somewhat guilty because someone said you were a "****** of some reknown". That was hardly fair and I should have voiced my objections since you had been subjected to a willful misrepresentation of your charector.

Let it be known that I have never for 1 second felt your to be reknowned.


Edit. Almost forgot to stay on topic. I've flown the 190s at least 26 times and can dispatch just about anything a satuday night flights bring. How good does it need to get before the never ending 'Its not good enough still" cease? When they emit a proximity deathray that desolves anyone within 300 meters.

Oh you kids. always more more more.

robban75
07-06-2005, 12:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
I already have the chart for the A5 and I did not test it simply because I do not understand what this chart represents. I also find the top speed of 670 kph very questionable, meaning it isnt a production plane used in combat, but rather some factory a/c used for testing purposes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The chart shows a 655km/h topspeed. The 670 is without accounting for compressability.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I was under the impression that the 1944 D9 series had no boost at all. late in the year (44) there was some sort of modification which let the Jumo run at 1,900 hp, but it wasnt with mw 50 or some other sort of chemical injection. The 1945 series was the one which had the MW 50 boost. since our in game 190D9 has the boost I tested it using the figures provided for MW 50 injection. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, by using a Ladedruckssteigerungs-Rüstatz, the power ouput increased from 1750PS, to 1900PS.

The D-9 '44 we have in-game has C3 fuel instead of B4 fuel. There is pictoral, anecdotal as well as charted evidence of its use.
With C3 injection, the D-9 '44 had better performance compared to the B4 MW50 boosted D-9 '45. Not much better, but still better. In-game the '44 cannot reach its low alt topspeed of 621km/h, but at alt it is 10km/h too fast. According to charts the '44 should be faster than the '45 at all altitudes. In-game it certainly has a better climbrate, but its acceleration is not superior to the '45 D-9. The '45 D-9 is very well modelled IMO. But all of the 190's lose their breath between 1000 and 3000-4000m in the game. The D-9 '45 is actually 33(!)km/h too slow at 2000m. This was a serious bug I hoped would get fixed in the patch, but it wasn't. It's been like this for almost a year now. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
07-06-2005, 12:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Udidtoo:
Ok Norri. I'm bored enough to play tag.

Many months back your bias was showing and we exchanged at least 10 or 12 words that were of such great import that I have no idea what they pretained to now.

I do however recall feeling somewhat guilty because someone said you were a "****** of some reknown". That was hardly fair and I should have voiced my objections since you had been subjected to a willful misrepresentation of your charector.

Let it be known that I have never for 1 second felt your to be reknowned.


Edit. Almost forgot to stay on topic. I've flown the 190s at least 26 times and can dispatch just about anything a satuday night flights bring. How good does it need to get before the never ending 'Its not good enough still" cease? When they emit a proximity deathray that desolves anyone within 300 meters.

Oh you kids. always more more more. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not quite sure what you are saying so I won't jump to conclusions.

Of course I have my biases which are mostly a reaction to things that have known to be wrong (and/or admitted to by Oleg) but I'm not afraid to admit it unlike a lot of people who purport to be impartial. Perhaps that is the reason why people feel uncomfortable with it? No doubt the person who referred to me as that is sitting an equal distance from the other side of the fence. Hence the irony.

A more important question would be, 'Do I give a t*ss?' The answer to that would be no.

Of course, if a confirmed Luftwhiner said that I was a whiner, then I'd take notice http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Anyway, sorry to drag this off topic so PM me if you wish to take it further.

Ta,
Norris

Gibbage1
07-06-2005, 12:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fehler:
@Gibbage, I attempted to find a thread where you complained about the fule leak bug on the 190 in v3.04, but was unable to locate it. Can you possibly point me to that link? And I couldnt find a thread where you complained about the "Insta-50kph loss from a single wing hit" bug either... Odd, can you point me to a link to that thread as well? Oh, and while you are at it, the gunsight bug... a link to that one too.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont fly the FW so I did not know about it. But I do shoot the FW. When I get 20+ kills in a row and never light them up, there is something wrong so I tested it.

Question for you. Did you post about the P-38's critical dive speed being too low? How about the roll rate being off in 3.0? Or about the stalls in the P-38? Or the .50 cal spread vs other HMG's? It goes both ways.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

And you will never address issues that give you an unfair advantage. Can you say hypocrite? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like what? The only unfair advantage is a small speed boost above listed at low altitudes. Im very sure thats been sent by many of you guys for Oleg's attention. Its been posted on the ORR and many times here and I did not fight it.

Also, do you see me in here going OW OW OW!! FW must be lowered by 7MPH!! No. Im disputing the loose definition of "top speed", not the FW's top speed.

RedDeth
07-06-2005, 01:00 PM
neither bolillo nor my support is stating fw190 is uber. its just stating top speeds on auto match stats in german books. on manual they dont.

everyones defence of this is that hey in real life you could probably go manual and go faster. is this known fact? AND why not give this advantage to russian american british and japanese planes?

the P47 was seriously boosted in the field by mechanics and could easily beat its top speeds up to 40 mph faster. but oleg doesnt model that because its not a rated speed.

same thing with german. its rated at a certain speed but he gives you an alternate method to go faster but not with american planes where we KNOW and have documented proof american planes went much faster than rated speeds.

and yes jaws everyone flew k4s and used manual prop and there was a huge benefit from it. so much so that it wasnt competitive not to fly it. but that was pit off where both sides flew german.

were mainly talking about fullreal where one side is german and the other allied. your not comparing apples to apples . your comparing grapes to watermelons.

i personally love flying 190s and 109s as much as allied.

its just an odd difference and is biased towards one specific planeset since all countries had planes that could use manual if wanted.

lbhskier37
07-06-2005, 01:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RedDeth:
neither bolillo nor my support is stating fw190 is uber. its just stating top speeds on auto match stats in german books. on manual they dont.

everyones defence of this is that hey in real life you could probably go manual and go faster. is this known fact? AND why not give this advantage to russian american british and japanese planes?

the P47 was seriously boosted in the field by mechanics and could easily beat its top speeds up to 40 mph faster. but oleg doesnt model that because its not a rated speed.

same thing with german. its rated at a certain speed but he gives you an alternate method to go faster but not with american planes where we KNOW and have documented proof american planes went much faster than rated speeds.

and yes jaws everyone flew k4s and used manual prop and there was a huge benefit from it. so much so that it wasnt competitive not to fly it. but that was pit off where both sides flew german.

were mainly talking about fullreal where one side is german and the other allied. your not comparing apples to apples . your comparing grapes to watermelons.

i personally love flying 190s and 109s as much as allied.

its just an odd difference and is biased towards one specific planeset since all countries had planes that could use manual if wanted. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The thing is that planes with CSP props were tested with pitch at 100%, (or whatever made them go the fastest) because they were designed to run like that. Planes with the automatic controls were designed to be run in automatic, so were tested that way. It just happens that in the german planes with the automatic controls, when the automatic control is off you can over-rev the engines because they don't use a CSP prop. Because all the allied planes have a CSP prop, in order to over-rev the engine you need to adjust the prop and engine on the ground. I think they should have P47s and other allied planes with these "field mods" because many were like this, but just because we don't have these models in the game doesn't mean the german planes should be toned down to lower specs than they should have. From my understanding, the only way to remove this so called "exploit" would be to either remove manual prop control, or artificially lower the performance so that the german aircraft need to be over-reved in order to achieve their rated performance. Neither of those options make any sense though because 1. manual prop pitch was available and is documented that it was used at least for takeoffs and to get better acceleration and 2. if over-reving was needed to achieve max performance, people who fly things other than air-quake (online wars anyone?) and actually care to return to base without siezing an engine wouldn't be able to use the full performance they should have.

jessi1
07-06-2005, 01:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">dont fly the FW so I did not know about it. But I do shoot the FW. When I get 20+ kills in a row </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL wow with those stats(lol)what are you complaining about ace.

Gibbage1
07-06-2005, 02:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jessi1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">dont fly the FW so I did not know about it. But I do shoot the FW. When I get 20+ kills in a row </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL wow with those stats(lol)what are you complaining about ace. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I fly a lot of QMB. I put up 16+ FW's at a time and shoot them down. Not very difficult, but it allows me to find patters in its DM that I can exploit online. Like if an area of the wing is weak, online I will hit that area. I do this VS almost all aircraft, but the FW I noticed the fuel not burning or leaking so I posted it in the ORR.

jessi1
07-06-2005, 02:12 PM
OK mate i thought you were talking about online for a minute there, thanks for clearing that up. Salute

Fehler
07-06-2005, 02:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Question for you. Did you post about the P-38's critical dive speed being too low? How about the roll rate being off in 3.0? Or about the stalls in the P-38? Or the .50 cal spread vs other HMG's? It goes both ways. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fair point. I dont proclaim to know much about the P-38. As a matter of fact you guys have educated me much in this area over the past few weeks. For me, it is an ugly plane that is quite fun to fly because it has more than one engine. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The Revelle model I built as a kid made me hate the plane since my youth! (What a crappy kit.. Nothing fit correctly, and it was a pain in the rear to make look right! hehe)BTW, thanks for the info on the Lightning, you have made me interested in it once again!

As for the .50's, I actually did make some posts on my personal feelings based on my experience of firing them for some 4-5 years while in the service. But actually, I have always felt ALL guns in the game are too accurate and lack the punch on these relatively frail pieces of equipment (Airplanes). Perhaps the .50 was the most accurately depicted gun in the game at the time, and the rest were too accurate. (Remember that debate?)

To be honest with you Gibbage, I know you have a wealth of knowledge, and talent (I might add) and have a genuine affection for the game and the subject of WWII aviation. You just come across as very right wing most of the time when you lump all axis flyers as Luftwhiners. After all these years of hearing it, it tends to put one on the defensive immediately. These lines have been drawn in the sand a long time ago, and there are several here that perpetuate it (On both sides!) It tends to make discussion unfruitful.

BTW, I like your assessment of the plane's DM. There are still a few other weird things about the DM, but in all it has gotten better. And I am sure the next patch will address this last issue; Oleg has been great about fixing things!

BTW, @Norris.. stop whining. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Did you take notice? ROFL!

flockzap
07-06-2005, 02:43 PM
Oh man... an enlightened one. Bollillo your my hero now... I can´t wait to see the huge flight sim based on real data you have... Geeezzzzz 3 books???? man.... u must be a living encyclopedia... just tell me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif when will your FABULOUS AWESOME ACURATE flight sim will be available for us commom mortals??? Is it close? this year maybe? Please tell us so... Man I really can´t wait for a sim so accurate. Lemme know ok.

Flockzap

NorrisMcWhirter
07-06-2005, 03:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">BTW, @Norris.. stop whining. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Did you take notice? ROFL! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hehe..good job I was only joking.

Me? Stop whining? You're more likely to see me tucking into a elephant gizz Creme Brulée http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ta,
Norris

bolillo_loco
07-06-2005, 03:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hetzer_II:
As mentioned before:
Manuell prop-setting was possible for the 190... but all the test are flown with auto-settings...
So only as a thought... maybe there was a little
advantages but no documents about it...

btw can anybody post the difference in topspeed between auto and manuel settings? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

so why cant other aircraft in this game achieve higher speeds while using manual prop pitch? all american aircraft also had manual prop pitch, they could turn the constant speed unit off and adjust their pitch manually during the entire flight, they didnt though they used the constant speed unit, why? simple it was much more accurate and capable of maintaining a constant prop rpm than any human is capable of. this myth that germans flew about using manual pitch to gain a few extra rpm is rubbish IMHO simply because the amount of adjustments needed in combat while the aircraft is diving, climbing, turning, accelerating.........its beyong the ability of the human to make fast and accurate adjustments like a constant speed unit can. the germans had a constant speed unit in their aircraft, but because they used a different word for it everybody who supports higher speeds via prop pitch in german a/c is saying they didnt have one they used manual pitch. give me a break

bolillo_loco
07-06-2005, 03:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Bolillo, did your specs come from one location or varios locations? To make things more valid and take out less variables I think it would be best to get specs from many documents written by different testors, than add them up and find an average.

I would never trust the results from one source on the characteristics of a plane simply because not all pilots are created equal.

Once you have your "general results average" then you must have the results of many tests done on the same plane by different pilots. Then make an average and compare.

It's interesting that you want to make these tests and that it's good for the community, but one test by one pilot(in game) vs one test by one pilot(in real) holds little validity in my opinion.

When we fly the same planes, same settings, in my squadron, I can usually outclimb the others. It has nothing to do with the plane but rather the pilot. With control of pitch, flaps, and power, there are too many variables and possibilities depending on the pilots' skills.

Maybe if we flew the same planes together you could outclimb me or vise-versa.

Fritz </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

this was my exact purpose of this post. If you read my original post which started this thread I said my findings were not all inclusive and may contain errors, I would like other people to test and compair what they have found.


this post is nothing like the P-38 post, there people challenged my findings with findings of their own, we then tested some more until we were on common ground. All I have seen so far have been Fw 190 fan boys making silly statements

Gibbage1
07-06-2005, 03:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fehler:
BTW, I like your assessment of the plane's DM. There are still a few other weird things about the DM, but in all it has gotten better. And I am sure the next patch will address this last issue; Oleg has been great about fixing things!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When testing the FW-190's ability to light, I found some very interesting things in reguards to the global DM. I honestly thing that IL2's DM system is FUBAR and Oleg must put in some big time efforts to fix it. At the moment it works, but so does a broken watch. But once you start testing some guns vs some targets, you ask yourself "WTF"

Take for instance the MG151 in the F2. It wont light up a Zero or Betty bomber. YA!!! So I tested the other German MG's like the nose guns on 109's and 190's and cant like up a Zero, but I can light up a Betty. M2's will light up both Betty and Zero's easy, and same for UBS and SHVAKS (7.62). I thoght about the Fw-190 fuel tank and tried almost all guns in IL2 (HMG and LMG's) and none could light up the tanks. Then I took an I-16 (early with 4 7.62's) up and shot a P-47 for about 30+ seconds with unlimited ammo and it did not smoke, did not get any damage on it or anything. I tried the Hurricane IIb and the P-47 went down VERY fast.

I asked Oleg about these things, and I did not get a reply. I also asked Oleg about the FW DM and did not get a reply. To be honest, I think I burnt my bridges with him, but there is still lots and lots of problems with IL2's DM, so I stopped looking. The more I found, the less I wanted to play. Dont even get me started about the Allied glass engines http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

And yes, I do tend to lump people who fly Luftwaffe aircraft as "Luftwhiners" and "Lufties" but thats my own personal bitterness shining through. Why? When I was working on the P-80 and Go-229 models, I got hundreds of e-mails saying "Stop the P-80!" and even some hate mails. Not one bad E-mail about the Go-229 , but I got plenty of E-mails saying "Wow, your so cool!" about the Go-229, some from the same people who told me to stop the P-80 because it did not "fit" with IL2. So tell me after that there is not a biest in this comunity. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

bolillo_loco
07-06-2005, 03:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">your entire "my speeds are wrong because I used 100% prop pitch" is rubbish. 100% prop pitch is the ultimate top speed of the fw 190 not auto pitch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What the ultimate speed is is not important. What is important is that in the game the same procedures and prop settings are used as the real life test data. If the real life tests used auto setting then you have to use auto setting in the game. Maybe using manual prop pitch in the real life tests they might have squeezed 20 km/h extra out of all 190s at sea level, at the expense of the danger of blowing the engine? In real life blowing an engine had more consquences than in the game, so would have been more proscribed than in the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

so give the extra top speeds to all aircraft in this game that also had manual pitch, all american aircraft also had manual pitch control, yet they see no benifit.

I could run the Fw in 100% pitch for five minutes until the engine was damaged, thats five minutes after I got the warning "engine over heat" once I heard the engine begin to chirp I throttled back left the engine cool and the plane was still flyable although it had lost its to speed it was still able to return to base and land safely.

and besides the 15-25 kph excessive speeds I found amongst the fw 190 series is nothing compaired to the 40-60 kph excessive speeds I found at altitude.

AerialTarget
07-06-2005, 03:44 PM
It's funny that the Luftwhiners here are claiming that it is realistic to use manual propeller pitch to give an advantage, but not backing it up. What is even funnier, though, is them consistently ignoring the fact that Allied airplanes had manual propeller pitch, too, in real life, but not in the game. In short, no one has given proof that the Axis' propeller pitch is a realistic advantage and not an unrealistic exploit. But even if they can provide proof that it is realistic, the fact still remains that the Allies should then also have it! This is not out of "fairness" or "balance," but because the Allied airplanes in real life could switch to manual propeller pitch, too!

If switching to manual propeller pitch should give an advantage, then give it to the Allied aircraft, which could also switch to manual in real life. And if switching did not give an advantage in real life, then please take that advantage away from the Axis airplanes! However you look at it, the Axis airplanes do have an unrealistic advantage over the Allied airplanes.

bolillo_loco
07-06-2005, 03:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Top speed is what it says. "Top speed". If you can get the maximum performance out of an aircraft with 0% prop pitch, its still the aircraft's top speed no matter how Oleg test's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have to conduct the tests in the same was as the real life tests or you are comparing apples and oranges and the debate is pointless.

What if the only test data for P-38s was without WEP. Would you ask for P-38 performance with WEP to match the RL charts without WEP? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

again you are being quite silly with your statements, it is a fact the fw 190 exceeds its maximum listed speeds while using 100% pitch, if the P-38 in this game had the same exploit as the fw 190 and was the only a/c in the game that did or one of two a/c that did then I would certainly expose it for what it was.

bolillo_loco
07-06-2005, 03:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So the manual PP does match the chart posted by Robban (and other data I have for Fw190A5) but manual witth 100% PP is giving an unfair speed boost. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In real life the auto pitch was presumably there to protect the engine whilst allowing reasonably good performance. Given the state of control feedback design at the time it is entirely possible that in real life that a performance boost by using manual pitch would be possible, and documentation tends to support this idea. However it might not have been wise to do it in real life due to the chance of enigne damage. In the game engine damage just means hitting refly, so we are inured to that. In real life it might mean 10 years in a Soviet prisoner of war camp.

If the behaviour in the game is accurate (same speed according to test conditions, same boost as in real life by using manual pitch) then I can't see what the problem is. The fact that we dare do things in a game that people wouldn't tend to do in real life is not something Oleg can really fix and is a problem in many areas. Short of having Oleg come round and shoot you if you get shot down there isn't really much to be done about that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

again american aircraft had manual pitch controls, yet they have no benifit from using manual prop pitch

bolillo_loco
07-06-2005, 03:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fehler:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:
If 100% prop pitch os so effective, maybe it is time for me to start using it.

Honestly, I've never used it. What do I gain with it ? Are there any drawbacks ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

About 7-8 kph for a short period of time, but you overheat fast.

A real 190 flyer will tell you to run manual 80%, 103 throttle for the best all-around performance vs. heat. You wont be at your fastest, but you can run like that all day long (Well not really, but for a long time anyway). And for dive, I have been fiddling around with diving initially at 100%, but lowering prop to 50% as I get close to wing break speed. I seem to maintain my E after a pullout a bit longer using this method. And it may be me, but I zoom climb at 80%PP so I dont stall out over the top with torque and thus, I can drive around the hammerhead much better. (Anyone notice how bad the ball becomes un-centered in the 190 during a zoom climb? A bug? Well, it hurts the 190, so that wont get investigated around here... and if someone mentions it, they are a Luftwhiner)



So, as you can see, I use manual PP all the time. Not to gain these mythical advantages, but to manage my torque and heat since 4.01. That's where the *Advantage* really is! And guess what, you can do it with all planes.. Hmmm http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yea I got 15-25kph extra speed

bolillo_loco
07-06-2005, 03:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ankanor:
Hristos!!! That's Blasphemy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif Go ask Gibbage1 RedDeth and bollilo_loco They seem to know everything about the Butcherbird http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

war clouds is the only place I do not use german aircraft, in every other server I quite often use german aircraft

Fehler
07-06-2005, 03:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
When I was working on the P-80 and Go-229 models, I got hundreds of e-mails saying "Stop the P-80!" and even some hate mails. Not one bad E-mail about the Go-229 , but I got plenty of E-mails saying "Wow, your so cool!" about the Go-229, some from the same people who told me to stop the P-80 because it did not "fit" with IL2. So tell me after that there is not a biest in this comunity. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huh? Why hate the Lufties then? If they loved the Go-229, and the red guys hated the P-80.. Or was it the other way around?

Personally, I like both planes. All planes add to different scenarios that one can make for nifty coops or even DF missions. Let's face it, even with all the technical data in the world, there is no way to recreate these planes exactly. Heck, two planes off the same assembly line, in order can be different, much like cars today, and those assembly lines are automated!

Personally, I like the YP-80. I have had a few nice jet/jet fights with it and against it, and again, I do think you have a great deal of talent and demonstrated it with all the models you have made for the game.

The bad thing about making anything that is shared with the public is that you can never please all the people.. Just look around here.. hehe! "The masses are the a sses..." http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

bolillo_loco
07-06-2005, 03:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RedDeth:
hyperion you said a whole lot to contradict bolillos evidence.

but you used no evidence. only your opinion. dude if your gonna post back up your words with proof.

btw bolillo tore your post to pieces with logic and proof from german sources....


and in reply to tachyon1000. everyone always talks about how high altitude is nerfed and not accurate...

but amazingly some planes do well above 10k and some dont. and after certain patches some planes that did well dont anymore.

thats a crock and oleg knows it. high alt planes can all fly like jugs if oleg makes it so. or they can all fly like an LA7 at 10k if oleg makes it so.

oleg decides which planes can fly high and which dont. anyone that wishes to say the game doesnt work correctly at high altitudes is foolish to believe so and my proof is fly a jug vs an LA7 at 10K and see what happens.


step down and step off that high altitude cop out. it doesnt fly.

someone swung the balance on axis vs allied planes this patch and its very well evidenced on fullreal servers where axis is now winning 95 percent of all battles.

before it was roughly 50 / 50

something is fishy in denmark. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Cmon Red Death don't be mean with my little FW http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
There are still fresh in my mind the encounters with you Mantis, JD, rsm, Locust, in your poor K-4's.
I still remember the distinctive high pitch tone of your engine. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
That little thing(K-4) was able to get up to 40km/h advantage in some patches from overreving but you never complained about it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
You flew K-4 with that flaw for what? one year?
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
Anyway i'm not sure is wrong the way the fw's are now, you get extra speed at the expence of your engine.
There was a story of a Russian veteran on this forum long time ago. He said that on the front they would run P-40's and p-39's at higher rpm. He said something like: after one or two tough fights you had to change the engine. Was not good anymore.
What puzzles me is that FW-190's are slower than in 3.4.
Why is this attitude, " uber FW", coming up now.
Isn't the firepower that made the difference.?
But I too think Dora is Uber. It was never so easy to get kills in it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I too used the K4 and manual prop pitch and I have complained about it being the only a/c in the game that gains so much from it. I think its time to take away manual prop pitch from 109s and 190s or give it to every plane in the game.

bolillo_loco
07-06-2005, 03:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lbhskier37:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RedDeth:
neither bolillo nor my support is stating fw190 is uber. its just stating top speeds on auto match stats in german books. on manual they dont.

everyones defence of this is that hey in real life you could probably go manual and go faster. is this known fact? AND why not give this advantage to russian american british and japanese planes?

the P47 was seriously boosted in the field by mechanics and could easily beat its top speeds up to 40 mph faster. but oleg doesnt model that because its not a rated speed.

same thing with german. its rated at a certain speed but he gives you an alternate method to go faster but not with american planes where we KNOW and have documented proof american planes went much faster than rated speeds.

and yes jaws everyone flew k4s and used manual prop and there was a huge benefit from it. so much so that it wasnt competitive not to fly it. but that was pit off where both sides flew german.

were mainly talking about fullreal where one side is german and the other allied. your not comparing apples to apples . your comparing grapes to watermelons.

i personally love flying 190s and 109s as much as allied.

its just an odd difference and is biased towards one specific planeset since all countries had planes that could use manual if wanted. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The thing is that planes with CSP props were tested with pitch at 100%, (or whatever made them go the fastest) because they were designed to run like that. Planes with the automatic controls were designed to be run in automatic, so were tested that way. It just happens that in the german planes with the automatic controls, when the automatic control is off you can over-rev the engines because they don't use a CSP prop. Because all the allied planes have a CSP prop, in order to over-rev the engine you need to adjust the prop and engine on the ground. I think they should have P47s and other allied planes with these "field mods" because many were like this, but just because we don't have these models in the game doesn't mean the german planes should be toned down to lower specs than they should have. From my understanding, the only way to remove this so called "exploit" would be to either remove manual prop control, or artificially lower the performance so that the german aircraft need to be over-reved in order to achieve their rated performance. Neither of those options make any sense though because 1. manual prop pitch was available and is documented that it was used at least for takeoffs and to get better acceleration and 2. if over-reving was needed to achieve max performance, people who fly things other than air-quake (online wars anyone?) and actually care to return to base without siezing an engine wouldn't be able to use the full performance they should have. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

american aircraft had manual prop pitch also. what do you think they used when the constant speed unit failed? manual pitch was adjustable from the cockpit and was part of the pre take off check list. you ran the engine up to x rpm and then tested the constant speed unit, then you switched to manual pitch and tested it by increasing and decreasing rpm to see if it was functioning.

Gibbage1
07-06-2005, 04:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fehler:
Huh? Why hate the Lufties then? If they loved the Go-229, and the red guys hated the P-80.. Or was it the other way around?

Personally, I like both planes. All planes add to different scenarios that one can make for nifty coops or even DF missions. Let's face it, even with all the technical data in the world, there is no way to recreate these planes exactly. Heck, two planes off the same assembly line, in order can be different, much like cars today, and those assembly lines are automated!

Personally, I like the YP-80. I have had a few nice jet/jet fights with it and against it, and again, I do think you have a great deal of talent and demonstrated it with all the models you have made for the game.

The bad thing about making anything that is shared with the public is that you can never please all the people.. Just look around here.. hehe! "The masses are the a sses..." http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well it happened on the forum also. The vast majority of the anti-P-80 threads were enhabited by posters with 190's and 109's in there sig. No anti-Go-229 thread was ever made. Again, a demonstration that there is a Luftwaffe biest in this comunity.

Hristo_
07-06-2005, 04:00 PM
Thanks Fehler and others.

But to me manual PP is too much of a hassle. I'll rather keep my concentration on smart flying instead of fiddling with PP.

Stupid flying = no manual PP will save you
Smart flying = no manual PP needed

bolillo_loco
07-06-2005, 04:00 PM
I see that nobody is interested in actually testing the Fw 190 themselves and compairing it to my findings so that we can determine if the Fw 190 meets, exceeds, or doesnt achieve its rated top speeds and rates of climbs at various altitudes. I suspected as much even before I began testing the Fw 190.

it has turned into another flame post nothing more nothing less.

I see no reason to continue

Fehler
07-06-2005, 04:08 PM
OK, you arent quite getting it, or you are intentionally attempting misdirection because you have been proven wrong.

1. Your TEST is WRONG. You didnt use the proper settings prescribed by Oleg for testing for ALL FREAKING ARICRAFT IN THE GAME and then you come here with inaccurate data and try to argue another point based on that bad test data. Not only that, but you didnt even use the test conditions set out in your own freaking graphs! Get it yet?

2. Manual prop pitch no longer gives any significant advantages in the game. It is more of a novelty now, and for anything you gain, you are also, and nearly immediately taken from in the form of engine overheat.

3. You fail to recognize that you are now arguing the second point based on poor testing criteria of the first point.

If an automotive company speed tests a car with a 100 lb block in the trunk and advertises that car's speed as X, but you go and pull the block out of the trunk, are you really surprised that your test car is faster? Go back, restest with proper procedures, you will discover that you are incorrect. Or continue to debate based on fallacy and get laughed at. Your choice.

Fact. Based on the RLM settings (Whether you like those settings or not) and based on Oleg's testing criteria (Whether you like it or not), the FW-190 in the game is slower than it should be. Some models grossly slower, other not too bad.. less than 5%.

Now, if you would like manual prop pitch, lets talk about another allied advantage that you actually do have which is NOT historical. While the axis planes can switch to manual, we can also over-rev. CSP's could also over-rev in a dive.. Why is that not modeled? If you look at it closely, Complex Engine Management for the axis plane equipped with the Kommandgarant system (Which was developed to reduce pilot workload) actually increases it in the game. The allied planes "Complex Engine Management" merely means you have need to switch to 100% pitch and fly around all day diving, and climbing without any fear or worries. Now that's pretty complex... So, yeah, get manual pitch.. and get runaway prop as well...

bolillo_loco
07-06-2005, 04:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fehler:
OK, you arent quite getting it, or you are intentionally attempting misdirection because you have been proven wrong.

1. Your TEST is WRONG. You didnt use the proper settings prescribed by Oleg for testing for ALL FREAKING ARICRAFT IN THE GAME and then you come here with inaccurate data and try to argue another point based on that bad test data. Not only that, but you didnt even use the test conditions set out in your own freaking graphs! Get it yet?

2. Manual prop pitch no longer gives any significant advantages in the game. It is more of a novelty now, and for anything you gain, you are also, and nearly immediately taken from in the form of engine overheat.

3. You fail to recognize that you are now arguing the second point based on poor testing criteria of the first point.

If an automotive company speed tests a car with a 100 lb block in the trunk and advertises that car's speed as X, but you go and pull the block out of the trunk, are you really surprised that your test car is faster? Go back, restest with proper procedures, you will discover that you are incorrect. Or continue to debate based on fallacy and get laughed at. Your choice.

Fact. Based on the RLM settings (Whether you like those settings or not) and based on Oleg's testing criteria (Whether you like it or not), the FW-190 in the game is slower than it should be. Some models grossly slower, other not too bad.. less than 5%.

Now, if you would like manual prop pitch, lets talk about another allied advantage that you actually do have which is NOT historical. While the axis planes can switch to manual, we can also over-rev. CSP's could also over-rev in a dive.. Why is that not modeled? If you look at it closely, Complex Engine Management for the axis plane equipped with the Kommandgarant system (Which was developed to reduce pilot workload) actually increases it in the game. The allied planes "Complex Engine Management" merely means you have need to switch to 100% pitch and fly around all day diving, and climbing without any fear or worries. Now that's pretty complex... So, yeah, get manual pitch.. and get runaway prop as well... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the only person who is wrong is you. my testing proceedures were just fine, my goal was to find the maximum speed, I did not restrict my tests so that the fw 190 would be slower even though it is easily capable of extra speed by using prop pitch.

my findings exposed an exploit that only german aircraft have, ie manual prop pitch. even though many other aircraft in the game have it nobody wants do discuss why german aircraft have it and why they gain benifits from climb and maximum speed from it while other aircraft do not. german aircraft also had CSP and they too would over rev in the dive so whats your point? if you have ever read a pilots manual on american aircraft (which I doubt you have or you would know they too had manual prop pitch) you would see the proceedures for diving as not to over rev the engine.

the games dive model is obviously flawed, but almost across the board every aircraft benifits from this, so your desperate grasp at uncovering some weakness that, in your own words "only allied aircraft suffered from" are seen as nothing more than an obvious attempt to try and get off the topic at hand which was top speeds and climb rates for the Fw 190. your attempts hold as much water with me as a criminal on trial for murder saying "but look at what so and so is doing, how can you worry about me killing somebody when so and so is doings bla bla bla"

you mindless banter and inexcuseable language of some of your posts only expose you for what you are..............................


you and your buddies have won. I will no longer respond to this thread. I can see that trying to reason with people of your nature is futile.

Fehler
07-06-2005, 04:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Again, a demonstration that there is a Luftwaffe biest in this comunity. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I am sorry your projects were received that way. I wonder if any of those who criticized you ever got off their fat rears and made a model for the game? I bet not.

That point always makes me laugh when I hear the "Why fantasy planes in the game" cries from people here. Why? Because people who wanted them in the game worked hard on them and submitted them. -OR- Oleg himself played around and made them FOR FREE! For FREAKING FREE! How can anyone b!+ch about anything that is free? But afterwards, they come back and ask, or sometimes demand things from the people they bashed around. There is nothing more pathetic. (Hehe, I actually typed patchthetic before I corrected my error - that's kind of funny!)

Gibbage1
07-06-2005, 04:27 PM
Maybe Oleg's method of testing is wrong?

Like I said, if he got his max speed test with flaps down, does that mean its OK?

There may be a bug in the FW-190's prop pitch that makes it exceed the maximum speed. Why do I say its a bug and not a feature? It does not happen with any other aircraft other then the 109.

You can prove that its a feature by providing proof that manual prop pitch did in fact give better then top speed results in Luftwaffe aircraft.

NorrisMcWhirter
07-06-2005, 04:41 PM
I wonder what proportion of people that fly blue DIDN'T complain, send hate mail etc?

I'd have preferred to see neither in the game but I certainly wouldn't have stopped their development.

Ta,
Norris

ICDP
07-06-2005, 04:56 PM
It really is astonishing to see some people defend the unfair speed boost in manual PP by making wild claims that it "might" have been like that in real life. Unless we see a chart showing real test data using manual PP all speeds achieved using this mode are fantasy.

Lets take an example.

Fighter A and B should have equal top speeds.

Due to an unfair and unrealisitc "feature" fighter A is 20-30kph too fast. Thus instead of parity this leaves fighter B at a big disadvantage in top speed.

Unfortunately it is becoming clearer that poor Oleg can't win. There are far too many biased people on both sides who will never be pleased.

I love the Fw190A and fly it almost exclusively when I fly blue. One thing I would hate to see is it being labeled a NOOB plane because of the DM bug or other "unfair" advantages.

Fehler
07-06-2005, 05:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Maybe Oleg's method of testing is wrong?

Like I said, if he got his max speed test with flaps down, does that mean its OK?

There may be a bug in the FW-190's prop pitch that makes it exceed the maximum speed. Why do I say its a bug and not a feature? It does not happen with any other aircraft other then the 109.

You can prove that its a feature by providing proof that manual prop pitch did in fact give better then top speed results in Luftwaffe aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I dont know how to respond without "tagert'ing" you.. hehe.

a. Maybe Oleg's method of testing is wrong?
If it is, and his testing is the basis for the entire sim, then the whole sim is wrong.

b. Like I said, if he got his max speed test with flaps down, does that mean its OK?
Well, if the real life test was done with flaps down, then how could we fault his results?

c. There may be a bug in the FW-190's prop pitch that makes it exceed the maximum speed. Why do I say its a bug and not a feature? It does not happen with any other aircraft other then the 109.
Yes, for some unknown reason, Oleg decided to model manual settings in the German planes only. Why Oleg decided to do this is a total mystery.

I may not have been clear earlier. I do feel that the allied planes should be able to switch to manual pitch. It would even be a cool idea to model failure of the CSP in such a manner that a pilot would need to use the manual pitch.

There must have been a reason for the way Oleg modeled CEM in the game, what I dont know exactly. I dont think it is entirely accurate by any means.

My debate with Bolillo_loco is entirely based upon his conclusion that the FW-190 is performing above real life data, when in fact the data for the real life results were based on different criteria than his tests. Junk in = junk out. Simple as that. If he used the same testing procedures as established with his charts, he would find that the FW-190 is actually slower than his charts.

That was the opening line in his thread. HE established the testing criteria which differed from the real testing criteria and Oleg's testing criteria when he switched to manual pitch with 75% fuel, and then complains that something is wrong. There is.. his testing criteria!

If he believes there is an exploit, then:

1st: He has to find documents showing testing in the same manner he is testing.

2nd: In absence of that, then he would have a good question to pose.. Why is there no test data with manual pitch?

A Logical answer would probably be.. Because of the risk of engine failure.

3rd: Does Oleg model engine failure possibilities when using manual pitch?

Yep, in the form of quick overheating and over-reving. (This is the point he conviently leaves out)

4th: How soon should engine failure begin? Sooner than modeled?

That would take a SWAG tool to figure out.

(SWAG = Scientific Wild-A$$ Guess) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Which leaves a lot for interpretation. Oleg has interpreted this with over heat and over rev.

So, is it an exploit? I dont think it is. There is no extended usefulness. As pointed earlier.. 7kph equates to being out of gun range in 4 minutes? How is that an advantage? In the mean time, while you are using this advantage, you overheat faster and have to slow down to recover or you risk engine failure. So you are back to square one. No advantage.

That's how I see it. Furthermore, I could care a less if they gave the same thing to the allied planes. It's just something extra to fiddle with while flying. Likewise, I dont care if they force German planes to fly on auto settings all the time. It's just one less thing to fiddle with while flying.

AerialTarget
07-06-2005, 06:05 PM
Yet, it is a significant advantage, particularly in climbs and high altitude speed. I was taught it only a week ago when flying the Me-109 G-2 for blue, and found it to be an immense improvment. I haven't used it since.

lbhskier37
07-06-2005, 06:17 PM
Hop what do you mean allied aircraft have manual prop pitch in addition to CSP? How does this system work? With CSP you set the RPM and the hydraulics of the system try to keep it at that rpm. do you mean you can turn that off and physically control the angle of the prop blades? I was under the impression that CSP props only let you control the desired rpm.

Gibbage1
07-06-2005, 06:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fehler:

a. Maybe Oleg's method of testing is wrong?
If it is, and his testing is the basis for the entire sim, then the whole sim is wrong.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Question. One that anyone has YET to address. How did the Luftwaffe get the maximum speeds for aircraft? What was the test variables? Equipment? Weight? Armorment? Were these test's done by the manufacturer or the military? We know how US test's were performed (both military and manufacturer) but how did the Luftwaffe get its top speed figures? If Oleg did not fallow these procedures, then his method is flawed. If he got HIS top speed one way, and the Luftwaffe another (For instance, manual or auto prop pitch) then this is an issue that must be addressed.

Gibbage1
07-06-2005, 06:54 PM
Also, I think there is confusion as to the definition of "Maximum speed". To me, the term means the fastest an aircraft can fly at level speed. I think the dictionary has something similar. To you, I think it means the fastest an aircraft can fly with some settings. Correct? Does Maximim speed translate differant in German?

RedDeth
07-06-2005, 10:19 PM
Fehler. you claim bolillos Tests are wrong. you have no proof. you spout off inaccurate data. again no proof.

but bolillo comes up with the same speeds as oleg. on auto pitch.

so your statement is FALSE. bol is not testing wrong. or by sheer coincidence he finds identical results?

fehler your statement that manual pitch no longer gives any advantages in game... at altitude it gives 60 kph advantage. id say thats an advantage. again your proven wrong.


your statement about overrevving only happens in steep dives in 109s. i flew all day today in FW190 in dives at 100 prop and no over revving

everything you said fehler is incorrect and blatantly goes against everyones findings. even olegs.

oleg tested the planes on auto pitch to max speeds then threw in a freebie manual pitch speed enhancement.

there is no logic in that. and its already been brought up that most planes that had csp and auto pitch could go manual as a back up.

fehler ill give you your own car logic right back at ya. i know chevys and i know the corvettes have auto and manual trannys.

guess what the auto tranny is much faster shifting more efficient than manual. you cant manually beat it.

if that doesnt make sense to you fehler then go read your comparison to cars. totally incomprehensible

Badsight.
07-06-2005, 10:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
I see that nobody is interested in actually testing the Fw 190 themselves and compairing it to my findings so that we can determine if the Fw 190 meets, exceeds, or doesnt achieve its rated top speeds and rates of climbs at various altitudes. I suspected as much even before I began testing the Fw 190.

it has turned into another flame post nothing more nothing less.

I see no reason to continue </div></BLOCKQUOTE>so this was just a stealth pitch whine thread

i think you knew the speeds in your data was made with Auto pitch even before you began

if you have been "flamed" its because you have whined about your results ............... in other words the speeds are not wrong , they are correct , just your method wasnt

allied planes that had manuel pitch control IRL but not in FB is a total seperate issue/topic

you could have stuck to topic

AerialTarget
07-07-2005, 01:00 AM
The fact remains, gentlemen, that the American aircraft were able to switch to manual propeller pitch control in real life, just like the German aircraft, and yet the American aircraft do not have it modelled. Only the German aircraft do, and it does give a significant advantage. If the speed advantage it's realistic, give it to both sides - they both had the same manual propeller pitch backup system in real life. And if the speed advantage is not realistic, then remove it at once. Either way, whether or not Bolillo's methods of testing are correct or not, and whether or not using manual propeller pitch to give a speed boost is realistic, there is a an unrealistic imbalance towards axis airplanes, and you cannot hide that fact no matter how much you try to steer the conversation away from it!

You are arguing that of two sides who used the same system in real life, only one of them should be able to have that system modelled in a way to give an advantage in the game! All you are proving is that you are not interested in the truth and not interested in realism and the way things really were. You are only concerned with getting as many virtual kills to pad your petty, insignificant ego as you possibly can, regardless of what deliberate unrealisms, dishonesty, and dishonor this requires.

anarchy52
07-07-2005, 02:43 AM
Meaning of prop pitch in game is different on german and alied planes. This is what I dug out after a brief search. I think this question was addressed a while ago in ORR by someone far more competent in these matters then me.

As for tests: all data on FW-190 was obtained using auto settings (kommandgerat) and it fits nicely with in-game performance. Using manual control to override komandgerat could increase the power output but you would be risking engine damage (in dives especially) and decrease engine life.

I don't think there's anything wrong with fockes performance in the game. Quite contrary, USAF jocks in game have the advantage of not having to bother with complex engine/prop management overhead.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Constant-speed, controllable-pitch: the pitch on this prop can be adjusted by the pilot, (in the form of adjusting the RPM on the tach) but the prop contains a "regulator" which will then maintain the RPM set. Increasing the RPM will set the prop to a "flat" blade angle and the regulator will then hold that RPM by varying the blade angle. This was the most common form of "automatic" prop, I believe. Spits, Mustangs, Corsairs, Jugs, Hellcats all had some form of this.

"Constant-speed:" this prop is totally self-governing, and is tied into the engine mixture/fuel control system so that the "optimum" RPM and blade angle is maintained. The pilot simply controls the amount of fuel sent to the engine, and the prop sets itself. I think only the FW-190s (and maybe later 109s and things like the Ta-152) were equipped with this system.

Prop controls: the most common would be to have an RPM control and manifold pressure control. The throttle would control the manifold pressure (boost) and the prop control would set the RPM. There is typically a "max" boost associated with any given RPM setting, i.e. you normally increase RPM before increasing boost, and decrease boost before decreasing RPM, so that you don't "overboost" the engine by making it try to turn the prop faster than the prop is set to go (although some forms of WEP are in reality just overboosting).

A third power control you could add would be mixture, but this is usually set "full rich" for most of the things we do (takeoff, landing, fighting) and in a sim would be most useful only if the map is big enough to require range-maximizing measures.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

anarchy52
07-07-2005, 03:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Also, I think there is confusion as to the definition of "Maximum speed". To me, the term means the fastest an aircraft can fly at level speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
"Maximum speed" in game is modelled after maximum speed obtained in level flight at conditions specified in test. All tests, both allied and german were conducted using auto settings. I've never seen any test data on focke wulfs using manual control. So, you is wrong - be sure.

Analogy: "Faber" test was disputed because results were obtained using higher boost then german pilot's notes permitted. So we have "by the book", official performance, but as "Faber" test shows that max. official performance isn't necessarily absoulute peak performance.
Analogy: Max speed of a bicycle with me as power unit is about 35km/h in normal conditions. But I bet I can go faster if I was having an adrenaline rush and chased by an angry mob of red-whiners http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

Pirschjaeger
07-07-2005, 05:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fehler:
Huh? Why hate the Lufties then? If they loved the Go-229, and the red guys hated the P-80.. Or was it the other way around?

Personally, I like both planes. All planes add to different scenarios that one can make for nifty coops or even DF missions. Let's face it, even with all the technical data in the world, there is no way to recreate these planes exactly. Heck, two planes off the same assembly line, in order can be different, much like cars today, and those assembly lines are automated!

Personally, I like the YP-80. I have had a few nice jet/jet fights with it and against it, and again, I do think you have a great deal of talent and demonstrated it with all the models you have made for the game.

The bad thing about making anything that is shared with the public is that you can never please all the people.. Just look around here.. hehe! "The masses are the a sses..." http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well it happened on the forum also. The vast majority of the anti-P-80 threads were enhabited by posters with 190's and 109's in there sig. No anti-Go-229 thread was ever made. Again, a demonstration that there is a Luftwaffe biest in this comunity. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't see the anti PY80 thread but I did see a couple anti 109z threads. IMHO if it didn't see combat then it shouldn't have been modelled. Simple enough me thinks. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz

AerialTarget
07-07-2005, 05:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
Meaning of prop pitch in game is different on german and alied planes. This is what I dug out after a brief search.

"Constant-speed, controllable-pitch: the pitch on this prop can be adjusted by the pilot, (in the form of adjusting the RPM on the tach) but the prop contains a "regulator" which will then maintain the RPM set. Increasing the RPM will set the prop to a "flat" blade angle and the regulator will then hold that RPM by varying the blade angle. [snip]

"Constant-speed:" this prop is totally self-governing, and is tied into the engine mixture/fuel control system so that the "optimum" RPM and blade angle is maintained. The pilot simply controls the amount of fuel sent to the engine, and the prop sets itself. I think only the FW-190s (and maybe later 109s and things like the Ta-152) were equipped with this system."
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're wrong. Although the Axis and Allied airplanes had different systems as described, they both could switch to manual propeller pitch, where the pilot directly controls the angle of the propeller. This is a very basic system, and there are no "different types of manual propeller pitch."

Can't someone please listen for a change? Is having an unrealistic advantage so important to you that you are willing to ignore facts and data and pretend that your unrealistic advantage is realistic? Gah! May your favorite aircraft fly badly for you! This is more irritating and frustrating than arguing with Hristo.

This is ticking me off so badly that I'm going to repeat the facts which I and others have already stated. One! In real life, while the automatic systems are different from Axis to Allied, the manual systems are the same. Two! In the game, using the manual system gives a significant advantage. Three! In the game, the Allies don't get to use their manual system, but the Axis do. Since using the manual system gives a significant advantage in the game, the Axis have an advantage over the Allies that they did not have in real life. Four! No proof has been posted to show that using the manual system should give an advantage or not. Regardless of whether or not it should, it should be given or not given to both sides, since they both used the same system! Is this taffing clear enough for everyone?

lbhskier37
07-07-2005, 05:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
Meaning of prop pitch in game is different on german and alied planes. This is what I dug out after a brief search.

"Constant-speed, controllable-pitch: the pitch on this prop can be adjusted by the pilot, (in the form of adjusting the RPM on the tach) but the prop contains a "regulator" which will then maintain the RPM set. Increasing the RPM will set the prop to a "flat" blade angle and the regulator will then hold that RPM by varying the blade angle. [snip]

"Constant-speed:" this prop is totally self-governing, and is tied into the engine mixture/fuel control system so that the "optimum" RPM and blade angle is maintained. The pilot simply controls the amount of fuel sent to the engine, and the prop sets itself. I think only the FW-190s (and maybe later 109s and things like the Ta-152) were equipped with this system."
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're wrong. Although the Axis and Allied airplanes had different systems as described, they both could switch to manual propeller pitch, where the pilot directly controls the angle of the propeller. This is a very basic system, and there are no "different types of manual propeller pitch."

Can't someone please listen for a change? Is having an unrealistic advantage so important to you that you are willing to ignore facts and data and pretend that your unrealistic advantage is realistic? Gah! May your favorite aircraft fly badly for you! This is more irritating and frustrating than arguing with Hristo.

This is ticking me off so badly that I'm going to repeat the facts which I and others have already stated. One! In real life, while the automatic systems are different from Axis to Allied, the manual systems are the same. Two! In the game, using the manual system gives a significant advantage. Three! In the game, the Allies don't get to use their manual system, but the Axis do. Since using the manual system gives a significant advantage in the game, the Axis have an advantage over the Allies that they did not have in real life. Four! No proof has been posted to show that using the manual system should give an advantage or not. Regardless of whether or not it should, it should be given or not given to both sides, since they both used the same system! Is this taffing clear enough for everyone? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you have any info on how the manual system worked on CSP props? What did they use to control the actual blade angle, and was it a mechanical, hydraulic, or electrical system? This is the first I have ever heard of CSP props haveing secondary control of the actual blade angle and am interested in how it worked. Was there some other lever than the normal prop pitch lever that controled desired RPM?

jessi1
07-07-2005, 06:05 AM
Im right no your wrong, my planes better, no mine is, what a bunch of **** all of you are spitten out, page after page of *****in from both sides, its a freakin game people and never will be realistic in every way especially the planes. Does any of this help people in any way or does this improve the quality of gameplay by any margin...NO. All this does is show that you all read books, some read alot and others not so much period. Allied whiners and axis whiners boo freakin hoo, get off the forums and play the game for what it is..FUN. None of you were in the war, none of you flew any of the planes you ***** about and guess what, YOU NEVER WILL. You can read a thousand books about how this plane or that plane flew, but it doesnt matter its not your company nor is it your say as to how this plane or that plane will fly in the game its Olegs and company. I have respect for all parties here and dont want to point the finger to anyone but this kind of **** is getting really stupid and goes no were. If you like the p-38s fly them, if you like the fw190s fly them, they are yours to fly because you all paid for the game its as simple as that. There are so many variables that were involved in real life situations(air thickness or thinness,temperatures,fuel grades etc etc) that cant be put into this GAME to equal what happened back then so why bother with going back and forth with this and that. Its **** like this that hurts this community more than bring it together to help each other out or newbies that would like some good info. All of you guys have alot of knowlege about planes and flight simming so why not spread it out to help people rather than complain or ***** to others. Evey day i see the **** on the news about war here and war there, people *****in about this and that, and then i come here to find out some info and i see stuff like this, arguing back and forth about there planes..lol. Respect to all of you guys, but please try to love this for what it is....a GAME. Salute

AerialTarget
07-07-2005, 06:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lbhskier37:
Was there some other lever than the normal prop pitch lever that controled desired RPM? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, in the P-38 Lightning they are small levers or possibly switches. I am not sure if they are levers like the throttles or if they are switches that are held until the RPM are at the desired level. I believe it is the latter, based on the Roaring Glory video. However it works, the end result is exactly the same - it directly adjusts, in real time, the angle of the blades. People can bluster about and "it's a game" (nice way of admitting defeat) all they want. Facts are facts.

lbhskier37
07-07-2005, 09:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lbhskier37:
Was there some other lever than the normal prop pitch lever that controled desired RPM? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, in the P-38 Lightning they are small levers or possibly switches. I am not sure if they are levers like the throttles or if they are switches that are held until the RPM are at the desired level. I believe it is the latter, based on the Roaring Glory video. However it works, the end result is exactly the same - it directly adjusts, in real time, the angle of the blades. People can bluster about and "it's a game" (nice way of admitting defeat) all they want. Facts are facts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is this manual adjustment only available with the Curtis electric props? I can't see how it would be easy or worthwhile to impliment a separate manual control using a normal hydaulic prop. Does anyone know the inner workings of the curtis electric prop, or how this manual system was implimented? Its not that I don't believe you AT, but this is just the first I have ever heard of CSP props also having a manual back-up and I'd like to understand more of the how's and why's of the manual part.

Levon1981
07-07-2005, 12:33 PM
I don't know where did you get this info about the FW-190D-9 speed but I can tell you for shure that no serially produced FW-190D-9 could reach 612km/h on S.L. Prototypes maybe. Because even the mighty FW-190D-12/R-11 with its Jumo 213F( 2060 hp, 2560 hp with MW-50) and more advanced aerodynamics at S. L. could reach only 615 km/h with MW-50!!!
In real life the serial FW-190D-9s could reach:
at S.L - 543-545 km/h (575 km/h with MW-50)
at 6800 m - 686 km/h (704 km/h with GM-1)

The same kind of wrong speed data is well spread about Bf-109K-4 (DB-605DC or AS):

at S.L - 605 km/h with MW-50
at 7000 m - 727-728 km/h with GM-1

This data is correct only for prototypes but not for serial planes.
In real life the Bf-109K-4 (DB-605DC or AS) could reach:
at S.L - 580-585 km/h with MW-50
at 7000 m - 700-705 km/h with GM-1

Talking about the FW-190A-6, why should it be slower than the FW-190A-8? I think it should be even slightly faster because:
1. it had exactly the same engine
2. it was even lighter because the A-8s armour was significantly increased.
3. it had a much smoother cowling (because of the MG-17s instead of the MG-131 on A-8) that provided much better aerodynamics.

Now about the FW-190A-9, I think that it's more realistic to have 585 km/h with MW-50 on S.L. But maybe the late FW-190A-9s (with removed outer MG-151/20s) could reach 595 km/h with MW-50. At the end of the war many FW-190A-9s had their outer (not the synchronized) 20 mm cannons removed by the requests of many pilots.

Hetzer_II
07-07-2005, 12:37 PM
why the hell a d9 should need much more power for these speeds than a 51???

Nothing..

good joke..

lbhskier37
07-07-2005, 12:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Levon1981:
I don't know where did you get this info about the FW-190D-9 speed but I can tell you for shure that no serially produced FW-190D-9 could reach 612km/h on S.L. Prototypes maybe. Because even the mighty FW-190D-12/R-11 with its Jumo 213F( 2060 hp, 2560 hp with MW-50) and more advanced aerodynamics at S. L. could reach only 615 km/h with MW-50!!!
In real life the serial FW-190D-9s could reach:
at S.L - 543-545 km/h (575 km/h with MW-50)
at 6800 m - 686 km/h (704 km/h with GM-1)

The same kind of wrong speed data is well spread about Bf-109K-4 (DB-605DC or AS):

at S.L - 605 km/h with MW-50
at 7000 m - 727-728 km/h with GM-1

This data is correct only for prototypes but not for serial planes.
In real life the Bf-109K-4 (DB-605DC or AS) could reach:
at S.L - 580-585 km/h with MW-50
at 7000 m - 700-705 km/h with GM-1

Talking about the FW-190A-6, why should it be slower than the FW-190A-8? I think it should be even slightly faster because:
1. it had exactly the same engine
2. it was even lighter because the A-8s armour was significantly increased.
3. it had a much smoother cowling (because of the MG-17s instead of the MG-131 on A-8) that provided much better aerodynamics.

Now about the FW-190A-9, I think that it's more realistic to have 585 km/h with MW-50 on S.L. But maybe the late FW-190A-9s (with removed outer MG-151/20s) could reach 595 km/h with MW-50. At the end of the war many FW-190A-9s had their outer (not the synchronized) 20 mm cannons removed by the requests of many pilots. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Where did you get your information? In the words of Oleg "...close this book and don't open it forever" A9 with MW-50? A6 and A8 having the same engine? Huh? D-9s and K4s with MW50 and GM1?

lrrp22
07-07-2005, 01:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hetzer_II:
why the hell a d9 should need much more power for these speeds than a 51???

Nothing..

good joke.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why? Substantially worse aerodynamics. I'm suprised you didn't know that.

Why was the smaller/lighter Spitfire IX 30 mph slower that the P-51 on identical power? Same reason- no joke.


.

mynameisroland
07-07-2005, 02:52 PM
Question to Bolio

The Fw 190 A4 in reality was credited with a speed in excess of 414mph can you please tell me your findings for this aircraft is it overmoddeled in any way?

Also Im intrigued about your findings for the A6 it has been credited by varying sources with a speed or 421 - 426 mph at 20000ft again what are your findings here?

My findings are the A4 just achieves 400mph and the A6 414 mph. Which is if anything undermoddeled

faustnik
07-07-2005, 06:18 PM
Wow, I'm gone for a few days and Bolillo posts this garbage. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif Why don't you actually investigate the Fw190 before posting this cr4p because you "got a new book". The Fw190A6 "real life" speeds you posted are not correct by the data we have for a standard Fw190A5/A6. There are many different D-9 tests too, did you examine all of them, or does owning one Fw190 book make you an authority?

What a joke. Is there a little bias in your posts? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

RedDeth
07-07-2005, 07:07 PM
you guys are making a major point that is INCORRECT.

bolillo isnt pro american nor pro german.

bolillo did not test the fw190 to find fault. he tested it to find results. then he looked them up with multiple books to check. his answers are posted here.

bolillo flys mostly axis planes in pit off. and allied planes in pit on with us.

bolillo has 75 books on the p38 and i would guess he has about 500 books on ww2 fighter planes.

bolillo has tested many planes and started threads about them.

bolillo has stated that at sea level certain axis planes are actually slower than they should be.

bolillo hasnt whined once. people have whined about his results and complained and called him liar with no proof to back up their name calling.

note that bol never name called back. he never does that.

alot of people are making giant leaps of faith in defense of german manual prop pitch.

but facts are facts. german planes were tested to maximum speeds. these cannot and should not be exceeded in game.

but they are . disguised under manual prop pitch these planes are flying faster than all published records.

those are facts.

ive not heard one fact yet to refute that.

p.s. quite possibly my favorite plane in ww2 IS the fw190 and a close second the corsair.

so im not biased. i love all german planes.

but facts are facts and thats all bolillo is talking about. a bunch of pro german plane guys are stating that bolillos tests are wrong and incorrect. but they dont say how he is doing his tests incorrect. and everyones results match bolillos so how again is bol wrong?


here is the epitome of nonsensical banter...from badsight...


"so this was just a stealth pitch whine thread
{no faustnik it is not}

i think you knew the speeds in your data was made with Auto pitch even before you began
{i think you are right faustnik, because bol followed procedure to test planes i.e. auto pitch, he then tested on manual to see if it matched. just my one sentence here disproves your whole hypothesis}

if you have been "flamed" its because you have whined about your results ............... in other words the speeds are not wrong , they are correct , just your method wasnt
{bol hasnt whined, just reported findings. and if the speeds bol found were correct to reports bol wouldnt have posted otherwise. and what method of bols is incorrect? manual pitch speeds do not match records...ever try to fit a square peg into a round hole badsight? it doesnt work}

allied planes that had manuel pitch control IRL but not in FB is a total seperate issue/topic"
{read this sentence badsight. THE REASON THE SPEEDS ARE OFF IS B E C A U S E OF MANUAL PROP PITCH...THIS CANT BE A SEPARATE ISSUE AS IT IS THE CAUSE.}

JG52_Meyer
07-07-2005, 09:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:



You're wrong. Although the Axis and Allied airplanes had different systems as described, they both could switch to manual propeller pitch, where the pilot directly controls the angle of the propeller. This is a very basic system, and there are no "different types of manual propeller pitch."

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Dead wrong. In a "normal" CSP system the pilot has NO control of blade angle. Only german planes could turn off the CSP (VDM, electric operated, afaik the doras had a Junkers propeller -hydraulic- and you couldn't "unplug" the CSP). That's why the 109 and 190 had an instrument showing the propeller angle, could you find that instrument in another plane?

faustnik
07-07-2005, 10:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">bolillo did not test the fw190 to find fault. he tested it to find results. then he looked them up with multiple books to check. his answers are posted here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's BS RedDeth. He made a statement that the Fw190 climb rate was not historical, as if he knew what he was talking about. I gave Bolillo links to 190 data the last time he made a BS post about the 190, giving him the benefit of the doubt. Obviously he didn't check it, he just made claims based on his limited data as if he was an authority on the subject. Asking a question is one thing, claiming something as fact is another.

RedDeth, check the CWOS 190 fourm, you're a member. Look for more data then form your opinion. I don't question the tests, just his "real life data".

Fw190 Data (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=571)

bolillo_loco
07-07-2005, 10:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52_Meyer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:



You're wrong. Although the Axis and Allied airplanes had different systems as described, they both could switch to manual propeller pitch, where the pilot directly controls the angle of the propeller. This is a very basic system, and there are no "different types of manual propeller pitch."

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Dead wrong. In a "normal" CSP system the pilot has NO control of blade angle. Only german planes could turn off the CSP (VDM, electric operated, afaik the doras had a Junkers propeller -hydraulic- and you couldn't "unplug" the CSP). That's why the 109 and 190 had an instrument showing the propeller angle, could you find that instrument in another plane? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the american aircraft that had constant speed props could be turned off by the flick of a switch and the pilot could manually adjust prop pitch with the constant speed unit turned off. I would suggest any of the roaring glory videos on american aircraft. the pre take off check was run engine up, check constant speed props, check manual pitch by switching off constant speed unit and increasing and decreasing rpm manually, then the magneto check.

I am quite sure that german aircraft while using manual prop pitch could not have their props spun up to 3,500-4,500 like certain german aircraft can. I use german aircraft in this game quite frequently and while in a bf 109 I use cem nearly all the time and I do not over heat my engine. I can make it scream like a 2 cycle chain saw engine. at 3,500-4,500 rpm the engine is turning at what??? 2:1 2.36:1 that means the actual engine speed is well inexcess of 7,000 rpm.

is this historically accurate? its an obvious bias that only the bf 109 and fw 190 series are able to do this in the game while many of the aircraft in this game had manual pitch. I seriously doubt that germans flew around with their constant speed units turned off (what ever the germans called it there was still an automated system for prop pitch)

bolillo_loco
07-07-2005, 11:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">bolillo did not test the fw190 to find fault. he tested it to find results. then he looked them up with multiple books to check. his answers are posted here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's BS RedDeth. He made a statement that the Fw190 climb rate was not historical, as if he knew what he was talking about. I gave Bolillo links to 190 data the last time he made a BS post about the 190, giving him the benefit of the doubt. Obviously he didn't check it, he just made claims based on his limited data as if he was an authority on the subject. Asking a question is one thing, claiming something as fact is another.

RedDeth, check the CWOS 190 fourm, you're a member. Look for more data then form your opinion. I don't question the tests, just his "real life data".

Fw190 Data (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=571) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have more than one book on the fw 190 series and I say this because you felt the need to try and belittle in in an earlier post of your's claiming that I only had one book. I also have several books written about german aircraft that were tested by the english and one or two that were written by Capt. Eric Brown. I listed three books that I used because they contained the highest data. the charts you provided were already in the books that I have. you obviously do not have them or you would not accuse me of not using your data. In this thread I never claimed to be some authority on the Fw 190 which you seem to like stating. I usually post what is written from my books. out of the two of us you have been the one who implies that he is the expert on fw 190 data. you obviously never read my original post which I will repost for you.

ORIGINALLY POSTED BY ME

"Feel free to challenge my findings by providing data you obtained in the game. I will probably respond and try and duplicate your data. People who respond with feelings and opinions with out any data to back their feelings and opinions will most likely not get a response from me. Its your forum too, so state what you feel I am not telling you what to do I am telling you what I am going to do. I could be wrong here and my data is not conclusive. I am putting it out for reasons of debate."

**NOTE THE LAST TWO SENTENCES, and I quote again "I could be wrong here and my data is not conclusive. I am putting it out for reasons of debate." I think that I have made it quite clear as to my intentions. If you disagree with the speeds I obtained then test the Fw 190 and post your findings. I will then retest and try and achieve the same speeds that you have. several people challenged my findings in another post, we all eventually came to the same conclusions after more testing. other people got higher or lower data than I did and I kept retesting till I could duplicate their findings or until the majority of us had data so close that any errors were unimportant. Not all of my data had 190s performing higher than published data, while most of it did, not all of it did. Nobody in this thread took the time to test any of the Fw 190s I did and then post their findings in this thread. all it has been is a bunch of bickering over prop pitch and name calling etc etc etc.

your temper tantrum and that of many other luftwaffe supporting types isnt something I did not expect, I guess I was wrong in assuming that while there would be many whinners some might actually grasp what I was after and test the aircraft to either dispute or confirm my findings.

I said I was done with this thread, but I responded to your post for two reasons. 1: you debated somewhat reasonably in my P-38 data thread, and 2: you showed up late.

"I'm done stick a forker wulf in me"

faustnik
07-07-2005, 11:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I could be wrong here and my data is not conclusive. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

On this we agree.

I don't question your in-sim data at all. I assume it is correct. I question your cliams of 'real-life" data. Much of it is not correct, including your speed and climb rates. It isn't even complete. What ata ratings are your tests at? Do you even know what the ratings are in-sim? You should be pretty sure before you start posting such things.

Check these and compare to your "real-life" speeds.

1.65 ata HP and speeds (http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/A5_Power_1.65ata.jpg.jpg)

A5/6 speeds up to 1,42 ata (http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/fw190_A5_speed.gifata)

Oh, and as for whining, you're the one claiming Oleg is wrong and biased based on your incomplete information. So, if you are going to label someone a whiner, look to the big "L" on your forehead.

TAGERT.
07-07-2005, 11:22 PM
Did I miss them.. Or has this thread trully gone six pages without one track file posted to support the claimes made?

TAGERT.
07-07-2005, 11:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
yea I got 15-25kph extra speed </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Probally that same discrepancy in speed we encountered during the P38 top speed tests, where the Wonder Woman TAS was about 25kph faster than what DeviceLink was reporting. If you recall, DeviceLink numbers were spot-on with the rated numbers and teh WW view TAS was about 20+kph higher. If you got a track file I can process it to see if that is the case here.. Ill bet the numbers from DeviceLink for the 190 are spot on too.

bolillo_loco
07-07-2005, 11:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I could be wrong here and my data is not conclusive. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

On this we agree.

I don't question your in-sim data at all. I assume it is correct. I question your cliams of 'real-life" data. Much of it is not correct, including your speed and climb rates. It isn't even complete. What ata ratings are your tests at? Do you even know what the ratings are in-sim? You should be pretty sure before you start posting such things.

Check these and compare to your "real-life" speeds.

1.65 ata HP and speeds (http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/A5_Power_1.65ata.jpg.jpg)

A5/6 speeds up to 1,42 ata (http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/fw190_A5_speed.gifata)

Oh, and as for whining, you're the one claiming Oleg is wrong and biased based on your incomplete information. So, if you are going to label someone a whiner, look to the big "L" on your forehead. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

once again your only response is to insult me by name calling

please mummy make the bad men stop

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v358/bolillo_quemado/morrisseyhangthedj.jpg

faustnik
07-07-2005, 11:43 PM
Trying looking at the data I posted and look to yourself as the name caller.

faustnik
07-08-2005, 12:26 AM
Look Bollilo, here's my beef and why I get pissed off. The whole difficulty with the Fw190 is limited and contradictory information. Much of the information in published books is incomplete or worse, incorrect. New information is discovered as interested groups and individuals look further into the subject. So, anyone making claims of "this is wrong" better have some pretty solid evidence to back it up. I see many people on this forum acting as if "they know" and it's just not true.

Oleg has a large amount of factory data on the Fw190. Data that has not been filtered through various authors and historians. Oleg also has the technical background to interperet this information. So, anybody claiming Oleg is "wrong" better show better sources than his. As for claims of Oleg being biased, that's real whining.

So, sorry to jump on you, this thread just struck a nerve.

Lixma
07-08-2005, 12:27 AM
DON'T DRAG MORRISEY INTO THIS !!!!

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

Hetzer_II
07-08-2005, 01:18 AM
To be simple:

Please post sources for manuell prop pitch settings in 51.. it isnt an argument to say watch this or that film.. maybe they could shut down csp.. but maybe only at low power-settings so they can check if the unit is funtion... but maybe that was not the case under flight conditions...

So please post sources.. its know from german planes that thex could, and that it was used...
i wanna see same thing from allied planes...

For example.. like mentioned before.. it will be hard to set correct blade-angle without having an instrument for viewing it.. or without any kind of stick or another thing to controll it.... with what a 51pilot chooses the blade-angle? Where he shut down csp?

After presenting this.. maybe you will gain more people on your side...

But thx for your efforts anyway!

S!

Gibbage1
07-08-2005, 02:18 AM
I dont have the pilots manual for the p-51, but this is for the P-38 H, J and L.

Page 25. Engine and accessories operation ground test.

#1. Checp propeller control levers. REC RPM then INC RPM.

#2. Check propeller selector switches. DEC RPM then INC RPM then return to AUTO CONSTANT SPEED. Be sure that the propeller warning lights (On P-38H only) glow when selector switches are out of AUTO CONSTANT SPEED.

The propeller control knob is under the throttle handles below the tention knob.

Also, this is not feathering. There are two switches to feather the props on the steering colum.

RedDeth
07-08-2005, 02:25 AM
faustnik and badsight.

please provide a list of fw190 books you own.


i bet its less than bolillos

like i said. bol is psycho. he has hundreds and hundreds of books on ww2 aviation.

faustnik
07-08-2005, 02:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RedDeth:
faustnik and badsight.

please provide a list of fw190 books you own.


i bet its less than bolillos . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How much?

anarchy52
07-08-2005, 02:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
I am quite sure that german aircraft while using manual prop pitch could not have their props spun up to 3,500-4,500 like certain german aircraft can. I use german aircraft in this game quite frequently and while in a bf 109 I use cem nearly all the time and I do not over heat my engine. I can make it scream like a 2 cycle chain saw engine. at 3,500-4,500 rpm the engine is turning at what??? 2:1 2.36:1 that means the actual engine speed is well inexcess of 7,000 rpm.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Got track of Bf-109 engine running at 7000rpm?

Someone said: "ego is the heaviest ballast of a fighter pilot". I guess you got owned by a 109/190 and of course it must be that those planes are overmodelled and have unfair advantage. Pathetic.

Badsight.
07-08-2005, 03:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RedDeth:
and what method of bols is incorrect? manual pitch speeds do not match records...ever try to fit a square peg into a round hole badsight? it doesnt work}

allied planes that had manuel pitch control IRL but not in FB is a total seperate issue/topic"
{read this sentence badsight. THE REASON THE SPEEDS ARE OFF IS B E C A U S E OF MANUAL PROP PITCH...THIS CANT BE A SEPARATE ISSUE AS IT IS THE CAUSE.} </div></BLOCKQUOTE>you have got to be kidding me

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RedDeth:
but they dont say how he is doing his tests incorrect. and everyones results match bolillos so how again is bol wrong? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>this is what happens when you skim posts , . . . you miss stuff

bollilo is using a german FW190 test that states auto pitch was used

& here he is trying to say the higher MP/RPM is giving a higher result than a lower MP/RPM auto setting gave & that its wrong

WTF is wrong with you ?

do you not understand what is giving the Late-38 its excellent increase in performance ?!?!?!?!

its revving 200 RPM higher that is massivly boosting the HP

thats nearly 10% of the total rev-range extra redline limit & it shows in the extra power produced

now run along & think about what your seeing with the FW revs when you go manuel 100% from the auto setting

i should not have to think for you , the reason here is OBVIOUS

& yes Bollilo is testing it wrong when he switches to manuel , if he did it like the RL test happened guess what . . . .

Badsight.
07-08-2005, 03:50 AM
do you guys not get what the issue here is with manuel control

its that its not an option on every plane that actually had it IRL

the fact that manuel pitch control gives higher performance that Auto setting . . . .

"as long as it allows higher RPM's" . . . . . . is TOTALLY accurate

if it didnt then it would be PORKED

please tell me you understand this BASIC fact of combustion engine operation RedDeth

Torque x RPM = HP

Hetzer_II
07-08-2005, 04:36 AM
"Page 25. Engine and accessories operation ground test."...

Thx gibbage... do you also have any source that provides evidence, that it was used in flight?
I mean... here it is just stated as a procedure to check if the csp-unit is running normaly...

s!

Badsight.
07-08-2005, 04:53 AM
if the electric CSP unit failed Hertzer , . . . . wouldnt they have turned it off & switched to a manuel control

especially if there was a dial or leaver within reach to control it

Hetzer_II
07-08-2005, 05:32 AM
sure.. i would... but if anyone can provide some clear sources.. we would not need an argue over 7 pages..

AerialTarget
07-08-2005, 06:50 AM
I'd like to point out two things, Hetzer. Firstly, you and no one else has yet posted a single source indicating that German planes were able to use it in flight the way you claim they were.

Secondly, you claim that American airplanes should not be able to switch to manual pitch in flight, contrary to German planes. Why do you say this? You have not only no proof of this (no sources, just like the no sources that show that German planes could use it in flight), but there is no reason to assume it. When the propeller pitch in American airplane is manually cycled on the ground to test it (first of all, why in the world do you think they are testing it if it's a useless funtion in flight, and for that matter why would it even be there?), it is tested at high power settings. So much for your theory of "maybe they could shut down csp.. but maybe only at low power-settings so they can check if the unit is funtion." Anyway, whoever said that they are cycling to propellers only to test if the constant speed unit is working properly? I will tell you; you did. Again, watch the bloody video! And stop assuming that American aircraft couldn't switch to manual propeller pitch just because they don't in the game. Next you'll be thinking that American aircraft didn't have a mixture control. Ha, ha!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52_Meyer:
Dead wrong. In a "normal" CSP system the pilot has NO control of blade angle. Only german planes could turn off the CSP (VDM, electric operated, afaik the doras had a Junkers propeller -hydraulic- and you couldn't "unplug" the CSP). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does "Curtis electric propellers" ring a bell? Please do some basic research before making strong, absolute statements about an airplane of which you know nothing.

Badsight, you say that the issue is not whether or not all airplanes that could switch to manual pitch should be modelled that way in the game. You say that the issue is whether or not the Focke Wulf could use the manual switch to gain an advantage. While you are correct that the discussion of the second point is in accord with the original thread topic, the first issue does indeed need discussing. Do you suggest that a new thread be created for it?

mynameisroland
07-08-2005, 06:59 AM
Bolio as this is a thread concerning the ingame speed vs the RL speed of the Fw 190 and not a slanging match

Can you please answer my query relating to the in game speed of the A4 and A6? I want to see what your tests find.

AerialTarget
07-08-2005, 07:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The Fw 190 A4 in reality was credited with a speed in excess of 414mph can you please tell me your findings for this aircraft is it overmoddeled in any way?

Also Im intrigued about your findings for the A6 it has been credited by varying sources with a speed or 421 - 426 mph at 20000ft again what are your findings here? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unlike Bolillo Loco, you are not providing sources. That is probably why he is not responding. We are sick of people throwing figures around without sources. Mind you, I don't hold any conceptions about the validity of your figures - I know next to nothing about the Focke Wulf. But don't expect people to consider them fact without a fairly reliable source.

Rolland, you're trolling. You're asking Bolillo Loco a question which he addressed in the first post in this thread! Moreover, I just went back and did conversions, and his figures for the A6 match yours within a few miles per hour.

mynameisroland
07-08-2005, 08:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The Fw 190 A4 in reality was credited with a speed in excess of 414mph can you please tell me your findings for this aircraft is it overmoddeled in any way?

Also Im intrigued about your findings for the A6 it has been credited by varying sources with a speed or 421 - 426 mph at 20000ft again what are your findings here? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unlike Bolillo Loco, you are not providing sources. That is probably why he is not responding. We are sick of people throwing figures around without sources. Mind you, I don't hold any conceptions about the validity of your figures - I know next to nothing about the Focke Wulf. But don't expect people to consider them fact without a fairly reliable source.

Rolland, you're trolling. You're asking Bolillo Loco a question which he addressed in the first post in this thread! Moreover, I just went back and did conversions, and his figures for the A6 match yours within a few miles per hour. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Troll?

Where did he post any info regarding the A4? As far as I can see the A6 is slower in game than is quoted historically. Sorry if I dont post a source - as Bolio owns most WW2 books printed that shouldnt be a problem. I dont carry about a list of books that I own so that when I am not at home I can post the author date of publication ect here

I You actually held an interest in the FW - which you admitted you so not - you would realise that the figures I quoted are the most commonly found speeds for the Fw A4 and A6. Please read Faustniks threads and visit the Fw 190 page here you will find some information on a plane you admit you know little about.

Now back to the origional question what speeds do you have for the A4 and A6 in Mph in game and then in RL?

Loki-PF
07-08-2005, 08:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:

Oleg has a large amount of factory data on the Fw190. Data that has not been filtered through various authors and historians. Oleg also has the technical background to interperet this information. So, anybody claiming Oleg is "wrong" better show better sources than his. As for claims of Oleg being biased, that's real whining. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So it's true that the ingame performance of the German planes is based on *FACTORY* performance numbers? Very interesting.........

.

AerialTarget
07-08-2005, 08:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Now back to the origional question what speeds do you have for the A4 and A6 in Mph in game and then in RL? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Allow me to convert what, as I already said, Bolillo Loco already posted in the first post in this thread.

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

IN GAME 190A6
S.L. 357 mph
22965 ft 419 mph

REAL 190A6
S.L. 348 mph
22965 ft 419 mph
30183 ft 391 mph
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

S.taibanzai
07-08-2005, 08:30 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by RedDeth:
you guys are making a major point that is INCORRECT.

bolillo isnt pro american nor pro german.

bolillo did not test the fw190 to find fault. he tested it to find results. then he looked them up with multiple books to check. his answers are posted here.

bolillo flys mostly axis planes in pit off. and allied planes in pit on with us.

bolillo has 75 books on the p38 and i would guess he has about 500 books on ww2 fighter planes.

bolillo has tested many planes and started threads about them.

bolillo has stated that at sea level certain axis planes are actually slower than they should be.

bolillo hasnt whined once. people have whined about his results and complained and called him liar with no proof to back up their name calling.



but facts are facts and thats all bolillo is talking about. a bunch of pro german plane guys are stating that bolillos tests are wrong and incorrect. but they dont say how he is doing his tests incorrect. and everyones results match bolillos so how again is bol wrong?

QUOTE]


Woow you live with him ??

Tel me.... are you close g....y friends pssss i wont tel any one ---

mynameisroland
07-08-2005, 09:10 AM
Thanks , so the A6 is slower in game than in real life then? The A6 was the fastest Anton at high altitude the following A8 was slower it reached a nominal 408 mph.

Seeing as you are now Bolio's spokesman can you please get him to test the A4 ?

As he is suggesting the Fw is slightly overmoddeled compared to the data he has in RL I would be interested to find how the A4 comes out?

Is that acceptable to you or is it another troll post http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Hetzer_II
07-08-2005, 09:23 AM
@arialtarget

Let me point 2 things out:

First: I never said that allied planes should not be allowed to use manuel prop-setting if they historical had the ability.

Second: I´m happy with things like they are now.. so i believe its the turn of the people wanting something changed to show the sources.. dont know if its the other way around where you live... and if youre realy interisted look here..

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1945/naca-wr-e-192/naca-wr-e-192.pdf

faustnik
07-08-2005, 09:46 AM
Aerial Target,

The speeds of the Fw190A4 would vary considerably depending on when the aircraft was tested and at what settings. There is evidence to indicate that the A4's were initially derrated to 1.35 ata before mid-'42. After mid '42 there were improvements to the exhaust system that allowed boost levels to increase to 1.42 ata. The A4 was slightly lighter than the A5 but, speeds should be similar at similar horsepower. This graph should give you a good idea of speeds at those settings:

Fw190A5 speed at 1.35 & 1.42 atas (http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/fw190_A5_speed.gif)

In the sim the maximum boost for BMW 801D powered Fw190s are:

Fw190A4: 1.32atas
Fw190A5: 1.42atas
Fw190A6: 1.42atas
Fw190A8: 1.65atas

AerialTarget
07-08-2005, 10:58 AM
Don't get me wrong, Faustnik, I'm not saying that Bolillo's books' figures are the right ones. I'm merely converting them for Mynameisroland since he is persistently asking Bolillo for the same figures over and over again. As you know, I do not hold the opinion that the Focke Wulf is overmodelled in any way except for the damage capability (bug). My argument with Mynameisroland has to do with his dishonesty in his posts directed at Bolillo.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Thanks , so the A6 is slower in game than in real life then?

[Bolillo] is suggesting the Fw is slightly overmoddeled compared to the data he has in RL

Is that acceptable to you or is it another troll post </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seeing as how his game figures are nine miles per hour faster than his book figures at sea level and equal at twenty two thousand feet, yes, I'd call your post another troll post. Or did you simply misread the figures?

By the way, don't forget that Bolillo also concluded that the Focke Wulf, all versions, is seriously undermodelled in terms of roll rate.

bolillo_loco
07-08-2005, 11:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
I am quite sure that german aircraft while using manual prop pitch could not have their props spun up to 3,500-4,500 like certain german aircraft can. I use german aircraft in this game quite frequently and while in a bf 109 I use cem nearly all the time and I do not over heat my engine. I can make it scream like a 2 cycle chain saw engine. at 3,500-4,500 rpm the engine is turning at what??? 2:1 2.36:1 that means the actual engine speed is well inexcess of 7,000 rpm.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Got track of Bf-109 engine running at 7000rpm?

Someone said: "ego is the heaviest ballast of a fighter pilot". I guess you got owned by a 109/190 and of course it must be that those planes are overmodelled and have unfair advantage. Pathetic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

to make posts about somebody you do not know and then make assumptions on said person proves absolutely nothing except to yourself.

the only server I only fly american aircraft is war clouds. last month I managed 85 kills in a P-38 against fw 190s and bf 109s. I was shot down 16-17 times and I managed a 4.0+:1 kill ratio against said bf 109s and fw 190s so I do not think it is a case of being owned by them.

other servers I play in I use the bf 109 which is one of my favorite planes because of its rediculous manaul prop pitch advantage. I also sometimes use the fw 190 series which also gains advantage by using manual prop pitch. no other aircraft in this game can do this. use of manual prop pitch gives you enough of an advantage that you can defeat a person of equal ability if he is using the same aircraft as you are and not using manual pitch. if the person is not in a bf 109 or fw 190 then you can simply just run away or climb away because manual prop pitch gives you such an unfair advantage. I have been writting about this bogus exploit enjoyed by bf 109s and fw 190s ever since I came to this game in december of 2003.

the only reason I can see why somebody would defend the use and extra performance gains of a german aircraft while using manual prop pitch is because they use it and do not want to lose said performance gains. All I would like to see is manual prop pitch gains taken away from these aircraft so that there would be no benifit in performance while using manual or auto pitch, or give manual prop pitch performance gains to every aircraft in the game.

I can think of several people or squads who are aware of the gains of manual prop pitch, everybody in the afj, many in the =FA=, and several people I played with in the 334th. I only am familiar with a very small percentage of our gaming community.

the best two people I have seen use manual prop pitch in german aircraft are rattlecat and rsm.

I have no problem with german aircraft meeting the highest published data, I do however think it is a rather unfair advantage to have them greatly exceed it while using manual prop pitch while no other aircraft in this game can do so.

I find it rather amusing how many people go up in arms when somebody mentions taking away performance gains of the bf 109 and fw 190 while using manual prop pitch, why is it so amusing? simple because everybody that defends it says the engines are damaged so easily or that nobody or hardly anybody uses it, well if this is the case why would anybody care if it was taken away? I personally use it a lot and I would still like to see the performance gains taken away.

Gibbage1
07-08-2005, 12:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hetzer_II:
"Page 25. Engine and accessories operation ground test."...

Thx gibbage... do you also have any source that provides evidence, that it was used in flight?
I mean... here it is just stated as a procedure to check if the csp-unit is running normaly...

s! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The manual was littered with mention of the manual prop controles, but its clear the manual wants you to stay in manual unless in an emergency situation. The only referance I found of it instructing you to get OUT of Auto is if the electrical fails and CSP fails.

But that does not at all mean pilots did not use it. Its well known that the dive flaps was used to boost the P-38's turn for a very short time. This is not mentioned in the pilots manual. Also same for the clover leaf manuver. Not all things are listed in there. Just normal and safe operation. Most of the time the manual is more on the conservitive side to keep pilots safe.

Hetzer_II
07-08-2005, 01:04 PM
@aerialtarget
and, did you read the naca test of the "kommandogeraet"?

@gibbage
Thx..

AerialTarget
07-08-2005, 02:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:
All I would like to see is manual prop pitch gains taken away from these aircraft so that there would be no benifit in performance while using manual or auto pitch, or give manual prop pitch performance gains to every aircraft in the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I think a better idea would be to attempt to find out for certain whether or not switching to manual should give this performance advantage boost, and based on the findings either ditch it altogether or give the ability to switch to manual - with the performance boost - to all aircraft that were able to switch to manual in real life. However you look at it, there is currently an unrealistic advantage for the blue side. And some people here are desperately trying to steer the conversation away from that point.

faustnik
07-08-2005, 03:00 PM
The problem with this thread is that Bolillo insists that the Fw190s are receiving an unfair advantage by using manual pitch. The Fw190 should (according to some sources) in many cases be reaching higher speeds with auto than they do in PF. As to if manual was used or not, that's an open question. The control is right on the throttle, but, that still doesn't mean it was used regularly. If it was used, did it provide a performance increase?

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/Fw190throttle2.jpg

The jury is also out for how and when the manual controls were used in other a/c. It's something that needs to be looked into.

Do you want to get at the truth, or just "get at the blue side"?

Badsight.
07-08-2005, 03:32 PM
manuel pitch allow you rev at a higher RPM

the eaiset way to get across what higher RPM should do is to fly the P-38L . . . . . . . & then fly the P-38_Late

engine DM , overheat times . . . . . . . . they also need to be looked at & altered for a lot of planes in the sim right now

bolillo_loco
07-08-2005, 04:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
The problem with this thread is that Bolillo insists that the Fw190s are receiving an unfair advantage by using manual pitch. The Fw190 should (according to some sources) in many cases be reaching higher speeds with auto than they do in PF. As to if manual was used or not, that's an open question. The control is right on the throttle, but, that still doesn't mean it was used regularly. If it was used, did it provide a performance increase?

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/Fw190throttle2.jpg

The jury is also out for how and when the manual controls were used in other a/c. It's something that needs to be looked into.

Do you want to get at the truth, or just "get at the blue side"? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

if you do not use manual prop pitch why do you care if any extra speed obtained while using manual prop pitch is taken away from german aircraft provied they do not suffer any performance loss in auto pitch?

lbhskier37
07-08-2005, 04:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
I'd like to point out two things, Hetzer. Firstly, you and no one else has yet posted a single source indicating that German planes were able to use it in flight the way you claim they were.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"We got one on our radar, but boy, is that plane fast - it must be a pathfinder Mosquito or Beaufighter. I am releasing the drop tanks and revving the engines way beyond max power to 3100 rpm, and I am holding the speed of the target but cannot get closer. After 10 or 15 minutes I give up, relieved that the engines did not blow up. When I have landed, I discover that the drop tanks are still under the wing. That made for a very unhappy maintenance crew."

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/thun.html

This is refering to a bf110 G4, but I believe they had the same basic system as 109s. Not sure offhand what the normal rpm of those is, but this sounds like he is using the prop pitch control to overboost it. I'm sure someone can track down the normal max rpm using the auto prop pitch.

Aaron_GT
07-08-2005, 04:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">if you do not use manual prop pitch why do you care if any extra speed obtained while using manual prop pitch is taken away from german aircraft provied they do not suffer any performance loss in auto pitch? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If historically there was a performance boost to be had from using manual prop pitch in the Fw190 then it should be left in the game. To remove it would be a retrograde step in terms of modelling accuracy. If there are features of some US planes (e.g. Curtiss Electric Props) not being modelled in the game then evidence should be gathered and sent to Oleg as an argument for an inclusion of an additional feature.

For example, rather than campaigning for the 109K to be removed from the game, we campaigned for the Mustang III to be added. This is the right way to go about things.

faustnik
07-08-2005, 04:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">if you do not use manual prop pitch why do you care if any extra speed obtained while using manual prop pitch is taken away from german aircraft provied they do not suffer any performance loss in auto pitch? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


No, I don't think taking the option away is a good idea if it existed. I would like the Fw190 to perform to historical specs on auto, that's how they were tested. I think the standard method was "auto" pitch, so, if that is the case, it would be best to stick to auto. I can't say that for sure, there is evidence of use of the manual control, I don't enough information to make that judgement.

If no advantage was gained from manual in real life, and it does it PF, the performance gap should be eliminated. If there was a performance advantage, it should be left in, of course.

mynameisroland
07-08-2005, 04:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
Don't get me wrong, Faustnik, I'm not saying that Bolillo's books' figures are the right ones. I'm merely converting them for Mynameisroland since he is persistently asking Bolillo for the same figures over and over again. As you know, I do not hold the opinion that the Focke Wulf is overmodelled in any way except for the damage capability (bug). My argument with Mynameisroland has to do with his dishonesty in his posts directed at Bolillo.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Thanks , so the A6 is slower in game than in real life then?

[Bolillo] is suggesting the Fw is slightly overmoddeled compared to the data he has in RL

Is that acceptable to you or is it another troll post </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seeing as how his game figures are nine miles per hour faster than his book figures at sea level and equal at twenty two thousand feet, yes, I'd call your post another troll post. Or did you simply misread the figures?

By the way, don't forget that Bolillo also concluded that the Focke Wulf, all versions, is seriously undermodelled in terms of roll rate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Get a grip ! Why do you have to resort to a slanging match and insinuating things that are not apparent?

The Fw 190 A4 speeds have not been mentioned here as they are inferior in game to RL so they do not support the theory that the Fw is overmodelled in game - guess what that is why I repeatedly ask for the test to be done on the A4.

Your conversion for the A6 shows that the ingame maximum speed falls short of its RL speed which was over 421mph - I have never read the quoted 419 which you claim to be the historical figure in RL.

Now instead of trying to disrupt a thread concerning an aircraft you admitted you have little knowledge on. Why not instead leave the posting to people who actually are interested in the Fw 190.

If you dont want to test the A4 according to the test conditions outlined by Bolio then please explain why. As I mentioned above I suspect this is because the A4 is modelled adversly and does not support your argument.

Oh and the fact that Bolio has concluded the Fw 190 is undermoddeled in roll rate - Wow ! thank you for your seal of approval. This has been well know by people who fly the Fw since beta versions of patch 4.00 it has also been acknowledged by Gibbage who actually takes part in discussions rather than attempts to disrupt them.

I suggest if you want to talk abot the Fw's performance in game further why not visit the forum at CWOS Fw 190 forum where you will be welcome to read up on the aircraft and post your findings there.

Stop trying to troll and degenerate this thread anyfurther please.

Gibbage1
07-08-2005, 05:42 PM
Question. If manual gave a boost in ANY aircraft, would it not be mentioned in any of the many many stories we have read? I have read a lot of pilots books and they always talk about the little "tricks" they use to get every ounce out of there aircraft. Getting 20+MPH by switching to manual is one hell of a nice trick to use in combat!!! It SHOULD be mentioned SOMEWHERE. Find it.

NorrisMcWhirter
07-08-2005, 06:12 PM
hmmm...forgive me for not posting 'real' (in the eyes of the poster, at least) data but I must make an observation here - prior to 4.01, there was little or no 'airtime' given to the 190 (except in terms of how to fly this oddball fighter/it's DM issues) but now all we hear about is overmodelling in pretty much all departments.

I know the response will be 'accuracy, of course' but what is the _real_ agenda here? Something to offset the 190's new potency now that it's guns have been corrected? OK, Oleg, go and change it for the sake of gameplay...again.

I agree that switching between manual and auto is an exploit that _should not_ be permitted but why was this not raised for 3.04 where the effect was more marked? Same reason?

Don't worry - I'm sure the creation of enough threads about how overmodelled the 190 is will result in it being 'corrected' in the next patch in order to reduce it to being an easy target. Congratulations, in advance, on getting your way.

Cheers,
Norris

bolillo_loco
07-08-2005, 06:51 PM
well not one person has bothered to test the in game aircraft themselves and provide data that they gathered, surprise surprise, it has been nothing but a bunch of luftwaffe supporters complete with luftwaffe signatures who have showed up in force to belittle and call me names. I have selected some choice words that were used against me by some luftwaffe supports and recapped them below, the original posters were Fehler (page 1) and faustnik (page 6).

***ing look to the ***ing big "L" on your ***ing forehead

faustnik
07-08-2005, 06:52 PM
No way Norris. 1C has looked long and hard at the Fw190 series. They aren't going to pork it based on some forum silliness. If anything, I bet the "auto" speeds will get corrected up, and the performance gap reduced.

My only beef with this thread is some of the "real" performance figures posted, which were based on limited information. The idea of investigating the auto vs. manual prop pitch settings is a good one.

***************

I tested A4 speeds at 100 meters.

Auto pitch: 537kph TAS
100% pitch: 552kph TAS

552kph is right there by the A5 chart at 1.32 atas minus the A4 weight difference. Either way, 1C is looking pretty good with their modeling.

faustnik
07-08-2005, 06:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:


***ing look to the ***ing big "L" on your ***ing forehead </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are really full of it Bolillo. Please show where I used that kind language on this forum?

bolillo_loco
07-08-2005, 07:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:


***ing look to the ***ing big "L" on your ***ing forehead </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are really full of it Bolillo. Please show where I used that kind language on this forum? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

once again you did not bother to read my post which isnt supprising.

I have selected some choice words that were used against me by some luftwaffe supports and recapped them below, the original posters were Fehler (page 1) and faustnik (page 6).

***ing look to the ***ing big "L" on your ***ing forehead

*note page 6 you said "look to the big "L" on your forehead"

**Note page 1 fehler said "***ing"

I combined the two and said so in my original post. now you telling me that I am full of ****, or cant s h i t be used in this forum? apparently if you spell them incorrectly it is ok or if you drop one of the offensive words out its ok to use the rest, or abbreviations are fine for catchy phrases which use profane language.

faustnik
07-08-2005, 07:17 PM
Combining quotes and attributing them to people, that's pretty low.

You call people whiner and Luftwhiner and you're OK with that. Obviously you can dish it out but, can't take it. Like I said, you're really full of it.

Loki-PF
07-08-2005, 08:34 PM
Well the Luftwhiners are the most organized and the most vocal/strident... They've fermented enough whine to get Oleg to change the 151/20's so they are non historical. No surprise really that they will have the *favored* flight models is it?

RedDeth
07-08-2005, 08:50 PM
so here is the basis of faustnik and badsights arguments.

yes we know the fw190 in testing has never achieved the speeds available in game.

BUT we should be able to keep these higher speeds in game because if you switch to manual pitch you will go faster.

ok prove that the fw190 went faster than tested if so..... but you cant.

there are no tests on manual pitch. i wonder why. probably because it made no difference in TOP SPEED.

also as gibbage pointed out and i also already noticed ... NOT ONCE ANYWHERE IN ANY OF THOUSANDS OF BOOKS will you find one german pilot stating he could go 20 up to 60k faster on manual pitch.

IT NEVER HAPPENED AND COULDNT happen. if it could it would have been reported at least once in human history.

you have to draw the line somewhere. and i choose to draw the line at reality. in reality fw190 had rated tested speeds by germans and youd better bet those were optomistic speeds. allieds could never achieve the same speeds with german planes and german pilots told them the results were always optomistic.

badsight. faustnik. its time to put up or shut up. you state you have plenty of books so prove now why amerians couldnt achieve those speeds in same planes with BETTER fuel than the germans. and prove with pilot accounts that the manual prop pitch tweek in game worked in real life.

we wait with baited breath.

Badsight.
07-08-2005, 08:55 PM
RedDeth , are you ******ed ?

what part of "higher RPM equals more power" do you not get ?

now get in the FW-190 & watch the RPM guage

what happens when you switch to manuel control under full power ?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
manuel pitch allow you rev at a higher RPM

the eaiset way to get across what higher RPM should do is to fly the P-38L . . . . . . . & then fly the P-38_Late

engine DM , overheat times . . . . . . . . they also need to be looked at & altered for a lot of planes in the sim right now </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
what is it that is giving the P-38_Late its better performance over the P-38L RedDeth ?

its got more HP hasnt it

& how do you think its getting that extra HP ?!?!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RedDeth:
so here is the basis of faustnik and badsights arguments. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Reality

its called Reality RedDeth , not fantasy land where things are the way they are just because you want them to be that way

the real issue isnt whether higher MP gives an increase in power , any half-bake apprentice mechanic can tell you that

its that only the FW & BF have this advantage & theres proof that it wasnt limited to just them

Badsight.
07-08-2005, 09:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RedDeth:
you have to draw the line somewhere. and i choose to draw the line at reality. in reality fw190 had rated tested speeds by germans and youd better bet those were optomistic speeds. allieds could never achieve the same speeds with german planes and german pilots told them the results were always optomistic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>omg do you realise that Bf109s & FW-190s in FB are not moddeled to the best data available ?!?!?

ever since FB v1.0 thats been the whine over them

Maddox Games used the data they thought was accurate , not just the best they could get

man are you AFJ crybabies , where are your 101 threads over whats wrong with the Allied planes in FB that have bogus moddeling ?

its ok if its Allied ?!?!?!?

faustnik
07-08-2005, 09:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">so here is the basis of faustnik and badsights arguments.

yes we know the fw190 in testing has never achieved the speeds available in game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What? Now you are making up things I never said. What's going on around here?

Fehler
07-08-2005, 10:01 PM
@Bolillo_Loco:

The statement I made "Finger ***ing the test" was not a statement made in a derogatory fashion at you personally. I suppose the term "Jury rigging" would have been a better use of words to describe my opinion. I am sorry if you took offense to my statement, it was not intended in that manner.

I am sometimes a bit brash when I talk, quite possibly 10 years of military, and 18 years of Law Enforcement has made me this way. I should have used better judgment in my statement, and again, I hope you will accept my apology.

As a matter of fact, the statement was meant so innocently, that when you posted
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...inexcuseable language of some of your posts only expose you for what you are...... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I was thinking, "What the heck is this guy talking about?"

Now that I go back and review, since you pointed out the page where I wrote this, I understand where you perceived that I was cursing you. I am sorry if it read this way, again that was not my intent.

I wish you would have said something on TS the past few days so I could have clarified this. Eventually, this is a game, nothing more. It means nothing more in the real world than enjoyment for enthusiasts, which we both are. Disagreement of opinion should not cause people to harbor ill feelings toward one another, and I hope that this has not caused any permanent ill feelings with you.

My sincere apologies,
JV44 Fehler

Also: To anyone else that may have derived ill meaning from this statement, I fully apologize to you as well.

AerialTarget
07-08-2005, 10:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
the eaiset way to get across what higher RPM should do is to fly the P-38L . . . . . . . & then fly the P-38_Late </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The P-38 L "Late" runs at exactly the same revolutions per minute as the other versions - three thousand. The manifold pressure is what is different. Contrary to what Oleg says in the object view, the engines are the same. Indeed, there is no difference in the aircraft between what the game terms the P-38 L and the P-38 L "Late." The reason for the increase in power is the fuel grade - you couldn't safely use war emergency power without one hundred and fifty grade fuel. The P-38 Ls that didn't use war emergency power used one hundred grade fuel.

Badsight, you don't seem to understand what manual propeller pitch does. It doesn't increase the power, it only increases the angle of the blades. Since the power, or the "push," remains the same but the blades now have less air to push against, they spin faster. This does not necessarily move the plane faster, because they are grabbing less air!

Think of it as a man trying to push two heavy crates away from each other by standing in between them and pushing out with both arms. Now if one of those crates suddenly weighs almost nothing, he will suddenly push it away. This does not mean that his strength has increased. The other crate will be just as unlikely to move as before.

faustnik
07-08-2005, 10:43 PM
Well, back to discussion. As Fehler pointed out, it should not have been made personal. I apologize for my part in that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Anyway, I did some tests in the Fw190A6 climb. My results were similar to Bolillo's. With 100% fuel, defailt load I got:

Auto to 6K meters: 6.32 sec.
100% to 6K meters: 6.11 sec.

Well, IF the power could be boosted through rpm increase this gian would make some sense. What I thought was strange was the overheat was similar between the two runs. The 100% pitch ran much higher rpms, yet the engine never fried. Again, I have no idea how long the engine could rev like that before taking damage, but, there did not appear to be much heat penatly over that time.

Fehler
07-08-2005, 10:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Well, back to discussion. As Fehler pointed out, it should not have been made personal. I apologize for my part in that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Anyway, I did some tests in the Fw190A6 climb. My results were similar to Bolillo's. With 100% fuel, defailt load I got:

Auto to 6K meters: 6.32 sec.
100% to 6K meters: 6.11 sec.

Well, IF the power could be boosted through rpm increase this gian would make some sense. What I thought was strange was the overheat was similar between the two runs. The 100% pitch ran much higher rpms, yet the engine never fried. Again, I have no idea how long the engine could rev like that before taking damage, but, there did not appear to be much heat penatly over that time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What ata ratings are you getting for each run? I am away from the house (Actually, I am working) so i cant test it, but I believe you wont get the full 1.42 unless you go manual 100%. If you are getting max speed on less than 1.42, then the plane is too fast. If you are getting max speed at 1.42, then it is correct. Follow my understanding? If you can get over 1.42, then it is a bug.. I think it's really that simple. Manual or autp, the max speeds should be obtained with max ata, which for the A-6 should be 1.42.

AerialTarget
07-08-2005, 10:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Your conversion for the A6 shows that the ingame maximum speed falls short of its RL speed which was over 421mph - I have never read the quoted 419 which you claim to be the historical figure in RL. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are lying. I not only never claimed that, but stated that I do not have any idea what the historical figure was in real life.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
If you dont want to test the A4 according to the test conditions outlined by Bolio then please explain why. As I mentioned above I suspect this is because the A4 is modelled adversly and does not support your argument.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why don't I test it? Because the speed of the Focke Wulf is irrelevent to me except from a historical standpoint. Increasing the speed of the Focke Wulf would not greatly affect my success rate. Although my P-38 Lightning currently has a faster top speed, the Focke Wulf is currently fast enough that I don't ever try to outrun it. I likely won't even notice if they are made ten miles per hour faster, except perhaps when trying to catch up to it. And that is only an issue because of the incredible and unrealistic amount of damage it can take due to a bug.

I feel sorry for the guys who fly the Focke Wulf (except Hristo), and respect their patience. The only reason I feel that killing them is any sort of achievement is because of the damage model bug. I personally feel the the Focke Wulf may be undermodelled, as I cannot conceive of any man whose life actually depended on his aircraft ever setting foot into one if they were as bad as they are in the game. But I don't care enough about the airplane to go researching it. Therefore, I do not make strong statements about it. I don't have an agenda to nerf the Focke Wulf! Were this the One Oh Nine we were talking about, you might have a valid reason for saying that. I do feel that the One Oh Nines are largely overmodelled (though I have little data to back me up, it is my mild belief based on various things), and their ner***e would indeed greatly affect my success rate.

But here's the thing! I don't care if it makes shooting down any plane harder or easier, I want them to be realistic. If that means speeding them up, so be it! If that means that the manual propeller pitch trick is correct, then leave it in! A little extra speed wouldn't make these difficult to fly airplanes uberplanes. It wouldn't bother me in the least, as long as it is realistic. In fact, I'd be pleased because of the added realism.

But if the manual propeller pitch advantage is indeed realistic, then give it to the Allied planes that could switch to manual propeller pitch! Poeple here are saying that it's a non-issue, but what would you say if Oleg suddenly modelled Allied aircraft's wings to provide lift in the game when partially gone, but not Axis aircraft's? Even though it would be realistic that the Allied aircraft's wings provide lift when partially gone, the fact that the Axis aircraft don't even though they did in real life would make it an unrealistic advantage for the Allies. Don't you see?

faustnik
07-08-2005, 11:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fehler:
If you are getting max speed at 1.42, then it is correct. Follow my understanding? If you can get over 1.42, then it is a bug.. I think it's really that simple. Manual or autp, the max speeds should be obtained with max ata, which for the A-6 should be 1.42. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The atas guage goes from 1.39 (auto prop) to 1.42 (100%), basically it nudges up just a bit, very little difference.

faustnik
07-08-2005, 11:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:

If that means that the manual propeller pitch trick is correct, then leave it in! A little extra speed wouldn't make these difficult to fly airplanes uberplanes. It wouldn't bother me in the least, as long as it is realistic. In fact, I'd be pleased because of the added realism.

But if the manual propeller pitch advantage is indeed realistic, then give it to the Allied planes that had could switch to manual propeller pitch! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree 100% http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I checked through my three US a/c manuals. The FM-2 has manual and auto prop pitch control. I'm not sure on the F4U. The P-63 specifically says there is no manual control.

AerialTarget
07-08-2005, 11:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Anyway, I did some tests in the Fw190A6 climb. My results were similar to Bolillo's. With 100% fuel, defailt load I got:

Auto to 6K meters: 6.32 sec.
100% to 6K meters: 6.11 sec.

Well, IF the power could be boosted through rpm increase this gian would make some sense. What I thought was strange was the overheat was similar between the two runs. The 100% pitch ran much higher rpms, yet the engine never fried. Again, I have no idea how long the engine could rev like that before taking damage, but, there did not appear to be much heat penatly over that time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
I checked through my three US a/c manuals. The FM-2 has manual and auto prop pitch control. I'm not sure on the F4U. The P-63 specifically says there is no manual control. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Faustnik, you and Tagert share the Objectivity Award in my book. My compliments!

Hey, what are the units you and Fehler are discussing? Degrees of propeller pitch? Would you explain this a bit?

Fehler
07-08-2005, 11:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
I personally feel the the Focke Wulf may be undermodelled, as I cannot conceive of any man whose life actually depended on his aircraft ever setting foot into one if they were as bad as they are in the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Remember the Russians did not have a great opinion on the FW-190. Had the game been created by a British team, the bird would probably be ver different.

The same could be said about the P-39. Had an American team designed the game, the P-39 (Not very well liked here) would probably be very different.

I am not suggesting bias in the form of malicious intent. Merely we all like what we like. If you dont believe me, talk "The big three" talk with car enthusiasts. A Chevy guy will swear by the bow-tie. A Ford guy will Mustang you to death. Both will do this, even though we ALL know MOPAR ruled the world in the late 60's-early 70's! Four Two Six Hemi!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Guess which company I like. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I'll give you a hint.. it aint Garage Mechanic's Companion, and it aint Found On Road, Dead... heh

AerialTarget
07-08-2005, 11:27 PM
This is pretty silly, but anyone who is still listening to me might want to go back and reread my last few posts in this thread; I have a habit of editing my posts after I notice errors while reading the posts in context. Usually, this doesn't matter, because I change them within a few minutes of posting, but since this thread is so active that by the time I had edited them, the people I was talking to have already replied. And I made some fairly large additions to my last two or three posts - it was impressed upon me very early in my forum-going career that double posting is rude. Sorry for the inconvenience!

faustnik
07-08-2005, 11:30 PM
"Atas" are the German boost pressure measure. Like "+ pounds" for the UK or inches mercury for us.

*******************

Oh, as for the 190 being undermodeled, it's fine, it just takes a while to get used to flying to its strenghts, and good teamwork, gotta have good teamwork.

AerialTarget
07-08-2005, 11:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fehler:
The same could be said about the P-39. Had an American team designed the game, the P-39 (Not very well liked here) would probably be very different. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Although I agree with your point, the P-39 Airacobra probably isn't the best example. The Russians seem to have had a higher opinion of it than we did. It shows in the game, as well; currently it is the easiest American aircraft to fly and get kills in, except for the F-4U Corsair.

RedDeth
07-09-2005, 02:24 AM
STILL waiting for proof from badsight and faustnik that going to manual pitch produces more speed in fw and 109 on the top end. i really would like to see this.

and also pilots accounts. although we all know there are none.

any takers? bolillo has proven the highest available speeds on manual dont match any records....any verifiable records.

so now you must prove that manual pitch will increase maximum speed. and not just low speed acceleration.

theyve been ignoring this for a while.

and theyve also been making ridiculous statements that fw and 109 actually went much faster than any records....

without any proof.

Gibbage1
07-09-2005, 02:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:

***ing look to the ***ing big "L" on your ***ing forehead </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You lost all credability in that one sentance. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Gibbage1
07-09-2005, 02:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fehler:

Remember the Russians did not have a great opinion on the FW-190. Had the game been created by a British team, the bird would probably be ver different.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You dont know Oleg very well, do you? The FW-190 is his PASSION! I know this because he said so to me, a few times, when I met him in person. He very much loves the FW-190 for its technical aspects. The engine design and placement in the aerodynamic fairing, fed by a cooling fan. Oleg also said to me that the Russians copied MANY of the FW-190's technical aspects in its LA5/7/9 series.

With all that, and WATCHING his face bright up when he talks about the FW-190, do you HONESTLY think he is gonna nerf the darn thing because its German and he is Russian? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

To say that Oleg was biest AGAINST German aircraft would get laughs from me. I cant say the same about US aircraft. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Gibbage1
07-09-2005, 02:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RedDeth:
STILL waiting for proof from badsight and faustnik that going to manual pitch produces more speed in fw and 109 on the top end. i really would like to see this.

and also pilots accounts. although we all know there are none.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im still waiting also. Everyone on this forum has every pilots quote spoken about there aircraft memorized. I am sure a cute little power boosting trick would strike note. If I ever read it about the P-38, be sure I would try it in game and if it did not work, I would post about it.

ICDP
07-09-2005, 04:27 AM
I have tested the Fw190-A5 quite extensively for topseeds at various altitudes using both auto and manual PP.

I used Crimea map, 12:00PM, no wind or turbulence, 100% fuel and internal ammo. Comparisons are made with Roban's Fw190-A5 chart on page one of this thread.

Bollio opted not to use the chart linked to by Roban as he felt the topspeed of 670kph was suspect. I am not disputing his decision but in defence of this chart USN test data gives a topspeed of 660kph at 25,000ft (7620m) for the Fw190-A5. The test states "It should be noted that the runs were made for about two minutes only, during which time full speed was probably not developed." The USN test of the Fw190 speeds show the following speeds (kph) at various altitudes (feet).

200ft---537
5,000---574
10,000--574
15,000--620
20,000--645
25,000--660

With the above data I set about testing the Fw190-A5 speeds. Bear in mind that I am running the engine at high RPM much longer than the two minutes in the USN test, so speeds will be higher.

Speeds using auto PP (these speeds match the chart almost perfectly apart from 1100m where it is 17kph too slow). I have also included the ATA reading for each test run.

alt(m)-Spd--ATA
SL----567---1.39
1100--585---1.39
3000--593---1.27
6100--668---1.39
8000--640---1.04


Speeds using manual PP (100%). As can be seen the use of manual PP gives a small boost in speed at most altitudes (slightly more so at higher alts). I have shown the difference in speed between auto and manual PP.

alt(m)-Spd--ATA
SL----574---1.39 +7kph
1100--592---1.39 +7kph (still 10kph slower than real test data)
3000--604---1.32 +9kph
6100--675---1.39 +7kph
8000--655---1.1 +15kph

After much testing it seems the Fw190-A5 matches the test data almost perfectly (using the Fw190-A5 test). One area I am confused about is the ATA readings duting the tests, at no point did I reach 1.42 using either PP method. The difference in speeds using manual and auto is slight but it does exist (still no proof this is a realisitc exploit). The speed boost given by manual PP is not significant but I intend to test the acceleration and climb rate using auto and manual PP to see how they are effected.

diomedes33
07-09-2005, 04:27 AM
So let me get this straight.

You(bolio loco) have in your hands a bunch of charts with max speed tests for various 190 models.

I hope that the conditions for these tests are listed somewhere, either on the test itself or in some sort of German Flight Test SOP. If not this whole 9 page thread is a moot point. The tests are invalid without a context.

Assuming that others on this board are in the know and these tests were conducted with auto prop pitch in the real plane. You choose to ignore this and test the max speeds with manual prop pitch. Then use the first test to validate your argument that the 190 is too good.

You don't see a problem with this? Saying this is an absolute maximum speed is a falacy. There's just to many factors even after normalization. It simply states this is the max speed for the conditions during the test.

I could use the same logic to show that the 190 is undermodeled because it can't reach its top listed speed at 0% prop pitch.

I tried to be as diplomatic as I can. I don't have anything against anyone in this thread, or think the 190 is under/over modeled. I'm just saying that you can't use Real World Data to [in]validate the Sim unless you collect the data in the same context.

Fehler
07-09-2005, 04:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bolillo_loco:

***ing look to the ***ing big "L" on your ***ing forehead </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You lost all credability in that one sentance. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Naw, dont take it out on him. The bad thing about text only is that 80% of the communication is missing (Body language, voice tone, etc.) That's why it is so easy to misinterpret what one is saying to you in forum-ese. I can clearly see how he got the wrong impression of my text, and from that, I totally understand his anger. My bad, not his...

_________________________________

As far as "Proof", "I have a book" is not proof. I would like to see the graphs of this book. I would like to compare the ata pressures on the tested aircraft to the ratings in the game. There is numerous pieces of information given in the original post that is incorrect, and lead me to believe his charts are incorrect. For example, no A-6 had GM-1 boost. Bolillo stated that he has no charts without the GM-1 boost. But he has charts that include something the plane never had? SO, how reliable is this chart? Then there is the statement about the A-9/A-8 difference. Bolillo states that the characteristics should be similar. OK, The A-8 equipped with the BMW 801D (1750 HP @ Take-off 1.65ata) is similar to the A-9 which weighed only 70 kg more, but had the BMW 801F (2400HP) or at least the BMW 801TS 2000HP)? That's roughly 8.3 horse power for every kilogram of added weight!

It is quite possible that his reference material has the wrong boost ratings (ata), but we dont know, because we cant see them, only book covers through his links. And, as far as books are concerned, Oleg has shown in the past that book information can be incorrect. He even proved me wrong once when I quoted material in a book by William Green entitled "Warplanes of the Third Reich." Olegs, information came from a RLM document. I was wrong, and he told me such... So, books are only good as their authors, and the material they use to extrapolate their information.

Now, lets take a look at just one of the game comparisons by Bolillo...

Here is a link that Robban provided.

http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/fw190_A5_speed.gif

Bolillo stated he had this chart, but didnt understand it. It is simple... it is a chart showing the different speeds at differnt boost ratings. 1.20, 1.32, and 1.42. In the game, the only way to hit the 1.42 ata rating for the BMW801D is to use MANUAL PITCH But, Bolillo finds this chart "Questionable" Why? What about it looks un-authentic? The A-5 and A-6 could run at 1.42 ata. Try it on auto and see if you can hit 1.42. You cant, not without Manual pitch. In fact, it is my understanding that we should be able to fly the 190 on auto to get the max boost, but currently we can't. Personally, I would rather fly on auto than have to finger (Edited for easier reading) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif the pitch. This way I can concentrate more on shooting you guys down! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif So please, eliminate the manual prop pitch anti-exploit and give me my full boost with auto settings, just like you guys already have!

Here is an additional in-game fact; the game's FW-190 A-4 has a de-rated engine, the one that was originally used on the Russian front and de-rated because of overheating problems. So, in fact, the FW-190 A-4 should be faster, as this problem was rectified soon after the planes delivery to the front. This is why MyNameIsRoland keeps asking about an A-4 test. Yes, he is being sarcastic, because he knows you guys will be shocked to find out that the A-4 is modelled with the worst possible ratings it could be.

FW-190 speeds been hashed over time and time again with Oleg. Oleg possesses original RLM documents on the FW-190. Dont believe me? Submit this bug and get a "You is wrong," so I can laugh at you.

Oleg probably took more care in modelling the speeds of this plane than any other in the game. The DM is questionable in certain areas, the forward view wrong in my opinion, and the "Edge of your pants stall" a bit overmodelled as far as I am concerned. But the speeds are about as spot on as you can get in a computer simulator.

_________________

@RedDeth, a few pages back, you made a statement about automatic transmissions in cars v. manual transmissions. Do you really think that fluid pressure build-up and the incurring delays associated with it are more efficient than the direct connnection of a manual transmission? If you do, as your post suggests, then you are wrong. In an automatic transmission configuration, the "Gears" are changed by fluid pressure build-up through the torque converter. This is not instantaneous, even with the best shift kits, let along in stock configuration. Not only that, but there is more reciprocating weight in an automatic transmission configuration than in a gear box configuration. (You have to slosh around the fluid, build up pressure in the torque converter, apply it to the clutches through a series of passageways, then the clutches have to grip the bands to turn the output shaft) In a gear box, you side step the clutch, and your transmission is turning the output shaft in the ratio depending upon which gear you selected. Thus, less horse power is lost through the transmission in manual configurations. This is also why you get better gas milage in manual transmission vehicles than in automatic ones. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Manual = more efficient. The only limitation is the driver.

ICDP
07-09-2005, 05:11 AM
After a quick test of the Fw190-A8 in game I can reach 585kph at SL using manual 100% PP (I couldn't match Mollio's 590). Using manual PP I can get 577kph, the A8 does seem to be quite a bit overmodelled in speed at SL. Does anyone have a link to actual test data the can back up this speed for the Fw190-A8, the data I have seen shows a speed of 565kph at SL using 1.65 ATA.

Aaron_GT
07-09-2005, 06:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">well not one person has bothered to test the in game aircraft themselves and provide data that they gathered, surprise surprise, it has been nothing but a bunch of luftwaffe supporters complete with luftwaffe signatures who have showed up in force to belittle and call me names. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I hope I'm not being lumped into some Luftwhining camp as I am most certainly not a luftwhiner! I just think that testing the 190 with one type of prop pitch and comparing it against tests with a different setting add nothing. Now if the A8 SL speeds with auto PP are overmodelled as ICDP suggests, then they should be changed. If using 100% manual prop pitch gives a boost in performance that is probably fair enough, but if the boost (given the RPM increase) is too much then it should be changed. If other planes should have manual prop pitch options available, then ideally those should be added if possible. Under no accounts, though, should a plane have historical capabilities removed due to another plane lacking what it should have.

SeaFireLIV
07-09-2005, 06:25 AM
Yawn. When are you guys going to see that you`re going round in circles? None of you of either side are going to change your minds. I guess y`all just enjoy the masochistic nature of this thread.

Kocur_
07-09-2005, 08:16 AM
Fehler Posted Sat July 09 2005 03:32

"In the game, the only way to hit the 1.42 ata rating for the BMW801D is to use MANUAL PITCH But, Bolillo finds this chart "Questionable" Why? What about it looks un-authentic? The A-5 and A-6 could run at 1.42 ata. Try it on auto and see if you can hit 1.42. You cant, not without Manual pitch."

As far as im concearned above sums it up. Shake your hands and walk away in peace http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I am a Fw-190 design fan. That caisson wing! Caisson not disturbed by gear struts moved before it, hiding in non-stressed leading edge! Wing trasferring from two spars design, only for guns compartment into caisson using skin to carry stress! Upper and lower halfs riveted separately with easy access to everything, joined afterwards with screws hid behind leading edge and ailerons/flaps...Brilliant and beautiful design! Beautiful!
Oleg shows his passion for Fw-190 in a surprising way...:forward view, guns until 4.xx (btw THANK YOU!), former "death leak",losing 60kmh of top speed after few mg hits on wings...

lbhskier37
07-09-2005, 08:45 AM
Redeath, Gibbage, read my previous post. This is showing manual pitches use in a bf110 I think.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lbhskier37:


"We got one on our radar, but boy, is that plane fast - it must be a pathfinder Mosquito or Beaufighter. I am releasing the drop tanks and revving the engines way beyond max power to 3100 rpm, and I am holding the speed of the target but cannot get closer. After 10 or 15 minutes I give up, relieved that the engines did not blow up. When I have landed, I discover that the drop tanks are still under the wing. That made for a very unhappy maintenance crew."

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/thun.html

This is refering to a bf110 G4, but I believe they had the same basic system as 109s. Not sure offhand what the normal rpm of those is, but this sounds like he is using the prop pitch control to overboost it. I'm sure someone can track down the normal max rpm using the auto prop pitch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here is what we have in game right now, on auto you get 2700rpm, if this guys was hitting 3100rpm he must have been using manual pitch, and I don't think he would be doing it to chase someone if it didn't give him some extra speed since his engines would be pretty shot afterwords.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/bf110rpm.jpg

rednine
07-09-2005, 09:46 AM
i dont know one hole in the wing in a fw then im preatty much finished with the sorty, not to mention the la dm is preatty amazing too why arent you on a crusade over that little plane??
whats the beef with fw anyway?? its far from uber man once you are low and slow you are dead! no two ways about it

p1ngu666
07-09-2005, 09:56 AM
u probably wont see data on the manual pitch with over rev because its over revving, the engine maker wont like that at ALL.

most engines had a max rpm, and a max diving rpm which was abit higher, i think on merlin its 3000, and 3200rpm but im not 100% sure.

theres a few sides to this,
a) leave it as it is
B) disable manual mode
c) change the power curve of engine, so over reving doesnt produce more power than normal "auto".

imo the 190s, and any other plane infact, should reach there correct speeds on auto, and should have there over rev extra power capped so it doesnt give a advantage, it was surposed tobe a cps unit so it would be limited to max rpm of engine like on the merlin alison etc.

109 should be the same aswell, and any other plane, its uncharted as to how it performs above its normal maxium

faustnik
07-09-2005, 01:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rednine:
i dont know one hole in the wing in a fw then im preatty much finished with the sorty, not to mention the la dm is preatty amazing too why arent you on a crusade over that little plane??
whats the beef with fw anyway?? its far from uber man once you are low and slow you are dead! no two ways about it </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rednine,

The Fw190 DM is broken, it's a confirmed bug, there is no debate on it. The bug allows it soak up huge amounts of .50 to the fuel tanks without catching fire. It's busted. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

mynameisroland
07-09-2005, 01:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AerialTarget:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Your conversion for the A6 shows that the ingame maximum speed falls short of its RL speed which was over 421mph - I have never read the quoted 419 which you claim to be the historical figure in RL. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

'You are lying. I not only never claimed that, but stated that I do not have any idea what the historical figure was in real life.'

**Well dont bloody post Bolio's findings then if you dont have any knowledge for all you know they could be pulled from his a*rse**

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
If you dont want to test the A4 according to the test conditions outlined by Bolio then please explain why. As I mentioned above I suspect this is because the A4 is modelled adversly and does not support your argument.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

'Why don't I test it? Because the speed of the Focke Wulf is irrelevent to me except from a historical standpoint. Increasing the speed of the Focke Wulf would not greatly affect my success rate. Although my P-38 Lightning currently has a faster top speed, the Focke Wulf is currently fast enough that I don't ever try to outrun it. I likely won't even notice if they are made ten miles per hour faster, except perhaps when trying to catch up to it. And that is only an issue because of the incredible and unrealistic amount of damage it can take due to a bug.'

**What are you doing in a thread about the Fw 190's speed then&gt; cant you read?**

'I feel sorry for the guys who fly the Focke Wulf (except Hristo), and respect their patience. The only reason I feel that killing them is any sort of achievement is because of the damage model bug. I personally feel the the Focke Wulf may be undermodelled, as I cannot conceive of any man whose life actually depended on his aircraft ever setting foot into one if they were as bad as they are in the game. But I don't care enough about the airplane to go researching it. Therefore, I do not make strong statements about it. I don't have an agenda to nerf the Focke Wulf! Were this the One Oh Nine we were talking about, you might have a valid reason for saying that. I do feel that the One Oh Nines are largely overmodelled (though I have little data to back me up, it is my mild belief based on various things), and their ner***e would indeed greatly affect my success rate.'

**Please , your pity is wasted on me, my K\D ratio is currently 19.2 to 1**

'But here's the thing! I don't care if it makes shooting down any plane harder or easier, I want them to be realistic. If that means speeding them up, so be it! If that means that the manual propeller pitch trick is correct, then leave it in! A little extra speed wouldn't make these difficult to fly airplanes uberplanes. It wouldn't bother me in the least, as long as it is realistic. In fact, I'd be pleased because of the added realism.'

**If you want realism read some books before you come in to this thread and post your **** about the Fw then. Or as we have suggested many times already in this forum GO TO THE Fw 190 FORUM - thats a good starting place!**

'But if the manual propeller pitch advantage is indeed realistic, then give it to the Allied planes that could switch to manual propeller pitch! Poeple here are saying that it's a non-issue, but what would you say if Oleg suddenly modelled Allied aircraft's wings to provide lift in the game when partially gone, but not Axis aircraft's? Even though it would be realistic that the Allied aircraft's wings provide lift when partially gone, the fact that the Axis aircraft don't even though they did in real life would make it an unrealistic advantage for the Allies. Don't you see? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>'

**Post data that says Alies would or should benefit from this. You are the one asking for this to be introduced or taken away so why not prove it ! If oleg deemed it neccessary to have manual prop override take it up with him - you clearly are ignoring people here who are posting facts (other than Bolio the only qualified expert on FW 190 in your opinion)

Your experience of the Fw 190 seems to stem directly from being shot down by it maybe that is why your posts are emotional - they betray your frustration of having your *** handed to you repeatedly. My advice would be try and fly the plane yourself and maybe take an interest in its history before you come on here and spout your tripe. Respect Hristo - so you should, after all he did defeat you in the K4 which isnt even his favoured plane - if he was in an Fw you wouldnt have had even 30 sec worth of a track to show off.**

RedDeth
07-09-2005, 01:55 PM
IBHSKIER37 we need to touch on that subject you mention.

you state that because a 110 was flooring it max speeding it going into over rev that this implies manual prop pitch makes a plane faster.

but all the 110 is doing is maxing out the throttle by what i read there.

same as with the P38L Late. you could gas those planes to the firewall and throw yourself back but that has nothing to do with switching over to manual prop pitch.

did the p38 pilots achieve their higher engine power in the p38L LATE by switching to manual prop pitch? i do not believe so. i may be wrong but i sincerely doubt it. its never been brought up or mentioned ever.

RedDeth
07-09-2005, 01:56 PM
fehler i was talking specifically of the late model corvette. not all automatic transimissions.

you wont be able to outshift a new corvette automatic transmission. guaranteed. its all computer controlled.

good luck.

lbhskier37
07-09-2005, 02:14 PM
redeath, at least in the game, the auto prop pitch keeps the rpm below 2700 on the g2. The only way to get to 3100 is using manual.

faustnik
07-09-2005, 02:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RedDeth:
IBHSKIER37 we need to touch on that subject you mention.

you state that because a 110 was flooring it max speeding it going into over rev that this implies manual prop pitch makes a plane faster.

but all the 110 is doing is maxing out the throttle by what i read there.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The LW manual pitch contol adjusted rpms it even says on the Fw190 prop pitch adjuster located on the throttle handle "increase rpm" and "decrease rpm".

AGAIN, I am in no way saying it was standard procedure to use this as a power boost. All I'm saying is that I'm not sure if it could be used that way.

From the A8 manual:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/190%20pitch%20control.JPG

BBB_Hyperion
07-09-2005, 03:03 PM
Check CWOS Faustnik looks like 'RPM Increase' is not without reason in quotes its Pitch UP / DOWN Control.

Kettenhunde
07-09-2005, 03:18 PM
Hey Faustnik!

Overspeed the VDM governer and you will damage it. Maybe not instantly but it is not designed to go over 2700U/min.

The FW-190D9 did not use any boost system when it first appeared. This lasted about a month.

From Dietmar Harmann:

"It was originally intented that two aircraft should be converted to test the Fw 190 D-9 with the MW 50 system. The company planned to convert Werknummer 210 002 at Langenhagen and Werknummer 210 048 was equipped with the system in Sorau. The machine was supposed to go to Rechlin for testing of the MW 50 system, however, it crashed at Sorau while on the third flight. Pilot Finke was killed. In spite of this, testing of the MW 50 system continued on the ground. Interestingly, the special tank was filled with water only, as no methanol was available. Estimated maximum speed at fround level without methanol-water was 540 km/h at 3,300 rpm and 1.5 atm of boost. With methanol-water, maximum speed at ground level was 585 km/h at 3,300 rpm and 1.76 atm boost. In production aircraft it was planned that the MW 50 system could be used to draw fuel or methanol/water from the 115-liter tank. On account of delivery difficulties, however, it was decided to use the tank with methanol-water only, and this was dubbed the "Olderburg System" (see III./JG 54). This system was installed in production aircraft beginning in November 1944."

The Dora never used C3-Einspritzung AFAIK. The BMW 801 series did use it for Erh¶hte Notleistung until Jan 45 when a directive came down to change all BMW801 series motors to a simplified MW50. This was most likely done to conserve fuel, as C3-Einspritzung was a much better antiknock agent after the alkane ratio was adjusted and produced almost twice the performance gains of either Alkohol-Einspritzung. C3-Einspritzung was also not cleared for widespread Jagd-einsatz use above 1KM altitude until July 1944. The testing for "Erh¶hte Notleistung für Jager" began in late 1943. Before July 1944, with the exception of operational trials, C3-Einspritzung was exclusively used in Jaborei below 1 KM in altitude and could be installed in the jaborei and schl¤chter varients in the FW-190A5 and later.

GM-1 was cleared for use in Dec 1943 for all Jagd-einsatz.

The FW-190A5 level speed graph posted in this thread shows the calibration differences between an inboard pitot tube and the outboard mounting.

The BMW801D2 did not have the same power output throughout the life of the series. As with any engine it was constantly improved upon. It went from a 1941 output of about 1670PS at 1.42ata - 2700U/min to 2050PS at 1.58ata - 2700U/min in 1944. And of course there were the 801TS, TU, and TH motors with improved performance over the BMW801D2. Some milestones in 801D2 power development include several fuel composition adjustments; exhaust changes, redesigned pistons (late 1943), cylinder sleeves, and fuel delivery changes.

As for the invunerability of the FWß190 fuel tanks. Oleg most likely has a copy of the RAE vunerability tests on the FW-190A.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1120943740_190vunerability.jpg

I encourage those of you interested in the History and Performance of the FW-190 and the air war in general to join the "White 1 Foundation". We can certainly use the help, as it is extremely expensive to rebuild one of these aircraft.

http://www.white1foundation.org/


All the best,

Crumpp

aka, Kettenhunde....Ubisoft has a long memory! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

faustnik
07-09-2005, 04:00 PM
Thanks Crump! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

That's a great damage chart!

I can't believe that .50 API would not ignite the fuel tank with a solid burst.


*****************

A few questions:

Would 1.65 ata be available to the NE equipped BMW801D engined Fw190s?

Youmention clearance for GM-1 but, how many a/c actually flew with GM-1 for high altitude operations? Was it ever used operationally or just in testing?

Gibbage1
07-09-2005, 05:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lbhskier37:

Here is what we have in game right now, on auto you get 2700rpm, if this guys was hitting 3100rpm he must have been using manual pitch, and I don't think he would be doing it to chase someone if it didn't give him some extra speed since his engines would be pretty shot afterwords.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats a big asumption.

Gibbage1
07-09-2005, 05:19 PM
Note in that test, they used AP and Ball ammo. No API's.

Kettenhunde
07-09-2005, 05:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That's a great damage chart!

I can't believe that .50 API would not ignite the fuel tank with a solid burst. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Here is the rest of the RAE Vunerability Report on the FWß190:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1120950573_190vunerability1.jpg

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1120950632_190vunerability2.jpg

GM-1 was in use in the Geschwaders from December 1943. It was popular with the pilots as it gave great gains at the altitudes they engaged at. It was unpopular with the ground crew as it is extremely volatile. It was loaded into the züsatzkraftstoffbehaltor im rumpf in a liquid form. In the endurance test, BMW tested GM-1 on several motors by running them for 10 hours straight on an altitude stand at a height of 10KM. Minor corrosion of the supercharger impeller was noted.

Here is the GM-1 flight test at Start-U-Notleistung:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1120950707_fw190a8gm1.jpg

Here is the aircraft setup. As for all of these flight test unless noted, the aircraft is a standard frontline finish. Not filled and polished. Polishing only gained the FWß190 an average of about 4 kph. Lots of work for little gain.

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1120950772_fw190a8gm1setup.jpg

Here is the FW190A8, standard finish, in a clean configuration. This matches the 578KPH on the chart posted earlier:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1120950919_fw190a8clean.jpg

Here is the FW-190A8, standard finish, with ETC 501 rack mounted:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1120951247_fw190a8etc501.jpg

It takes about 5 minutes for one man to remove or install the Züsatzkraftstoffbeholter im Rumpf. The ETC 501 rack is a little more involved. It took a crew of 4 around 15 minutes to remove or replace. The Geschwader Technical Officer would post the aircraft set up in the ready room, usually the night before, and the ground crew would set the planes up.

For fun, here is an FW-190G8 flight test. Notice the climb:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1120951313_fw190g8.jpg

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
07-09-2005, 06:07 PM
Hey Faustnik,

It is surprising the little amount of damage .50 cal API does do and I imagine, realistically modeled, it will lead to some complaining by those with "Barnes and Noble" expectations.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Would 1.65 ata be available to the NE equipped BMW801D engined Fw190s? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not in a fighter before July 1944 unless it was an aircraft in operational trials AFAIK. After that, yes.

In 1943 it was cleared for ground attack varients below 1 KM.

C3-Einspritzung offered several advantages over the Alkohol-Einspritzung systems.

It did not require a seperate tank for antiknock agent and drew C3 from forward fuel tank. The system represented a weight savings of over 120Kg when compared to Alkohol-Einspritzung.

It produced almost twice the performance gains of the Alkohol-Einspritzung systems.

Erh¶hte Notleistung refers to manifold pressure used with the injection of an antiknock agent (MW, EW, or C3) or in the case of GM-1, supplemental oxygen. That manifold pressure was 1.58 ata in the 1st Gear and 1.65 in the second gear of the Single stage supercharger. Later this was upped to 1.78ata-1.82ata in Jan 45.

All the best,

Crumpp

faustnik
07-09-2005, 07:22 PM
Thanks Crump!

I had no clue that GM-1 was used operationally.

There was always some question as to weather the ETC rack was counted in A8/A9 speed. This shows that it definately is not.

I'm still skeptical about the .50 API and yes I do shop at Barnes & Noble. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Gibbage1
07-09-2005, 08:11 PM
Correction. They are using Incendary, but why Ball incendary? There is a big differance between API and Ball.

The thing I noticed about the test.

#1, the rounds would penetrate into the first (aft) fuel tank. Its noted that the aft fuel tank would be mostly full.

#2, the rounds would have a hard time penetrating the forward fuel tank because the fluid in the aft fuel tank would stop them.

#3, we all know that firing from dead 6 is almost useless. Its noted that as little as 5 degrees of angle results in a MUCH better result.

A lot of times, AP's would punch holes in fuel tanks, causing vaper and fuel leakage. This would fill the aft section of the aircraft with fuel and oxygen vaper. The next API or Ball incendary to pass through that area...... You can guess the results.

A P-38 pilot wrote about a A6M Zero that bounced him. At the last moment, he noticed it on his right side, firing cannons at him. He banked left to use the engine as a shield. It worked. He lived, but he quickly smelt fuel vapers and his engine was smoking. His only though was to get out as fast as possible. He pulled the release bars of the p-38's canopy just as the aircraft exploded. The explosion was so MASSIVE, all his wingmen reported him dead. What happened was, the suction from popping the canopy at high speeds sucked him out just as the aircraft exploded! He was knocked unconchous, but regained just before he hit the water and was able to pop his parachute. Sadly not in time and he broke both his legs hitting the water. Again, he was alove. Floating in the middle of the Pacific with his quad thinking he was dead. A Japanese destroyer found him, and in the Pacific thats NOT something you want. A few Japanese crew shot him, but he played dead even though they hit him a few times!!! So they left him. He later washed up on a friendly beach, was helped back to health by villagers and rode a outrigger back to base 1 month later to the suprise of his quad members who thought he was dead!

The point is, you dont need to light the fuel tanks with a direct hit.

Thats why you see aircraft exploding on US guncam footage often. Fuel vaper and oxygen is the key to rappid combustion (or explosion). Not having an API passing through the tank.

BBB_Hyperion
07-09-2005, 08:12 PM
Thx for posting it Crump.

Is it possible that you have a BMW 801C/D Engine Manual that is of a later date then 3rd Revision October 41 .

Of intrest is everything that has to do with Elektrical Airscrew Manual Pitch mode.

In the old manual it was in Section
Betriebsvorschriften
Vor dem Anlassen
Point 3.

Abbremsen
Point 1. and the more important Point 2.

When its excatly the same the manual mode allows changing the propeller pitch directly via electro motor not over csp mode in auto pitch.

Aaron_GT
07-10-2005, 01:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Correction. They are using Incendary, but why Ball incendary? There is a big differance between API and Ball. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since it is an RAE report it might be the types of .50 ammunition that the RAF was using at the time?

JG5_UnKle
07-10-2005, 07:33 AM
Great stuff Crump S!

RedDeth
07-10-2005, 01:48 PM
just when ive lost all faith in gibbage having a brain on other forums he posts a brilliant analysis and new interesting info.

"
Posted Sat July 09 2005 19:11
Correction. They are using Incendary, but why Ball incendary? There is a big differance between API and Ball.

The thing I noticed about the test.

#1, the rounds would penetrate into the first (aft) fuel tank. Its noted that the aft fuel tank would be mostly full.

#2, the rounds would have a hard time penetrating the forward fuel tank because the fluid in the aft fuel tank would stop them.

#3, we all know that firing from dead 6 is almost useless. Its noted that as little as 5 degrees of angle results in a MUCH better result.

A lot of times, AP's would punch holes in fuel tanks, causing vaper and fuel leakage. This would fill the aft section of the aircraft with fuel and oxygen vaper. The next API or Ball incendary to pass through that area...... You can guess the results.

A P-38 pilot wrote about a A6M Zero that bounced him. At the last moment, he noticed it on his right side, firing cannons at him. He banked left to use the engine as a shield. It worked. He lived, but he quickly smelt fuel vapers and his engine was smoking. His only though was to get out as fast as possible. He pulled the release bars of the p-38's canopy just as the aircraft exploded. The explosion was so MASSIVE, all his wingmen reported him dead. What happened was, the suction from popping the canopy at high speeds sucked him out just as the aircraft exploded! He was knocked unconchous, but regained just before he hit the water and was able to pop his parachute. Sadly not in time and he broke both his legs hitting the water. Again, he was alove. Floating in the middle of the Pacific with his quad thinking he was dead. A Japanese destroyer found him, and in the Pacific thats NOT something you want. A few Japanese crew shot him, but he played dead even though they hit him a few times!!! So they left him. He later washed up on a friendly beach, was helped back to health by villagers and rode a outrigger back to base 1 month later to the suprise of his quad members who thought he was dead!

The point is, you dont need to light the fuel tanks with a direct hit.

Thats why you see aircraft exploding on US guncam footage often. Fuel vaper and oxygen is the key to rappid combustion (or explosion). Not having an API passing through the tank. "

Kettenhunde
07-10-2005, 02:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Feel free to challenge my findings by providing data you obtained in the game. I will probably respond and try and duplicate your data. People who respond with feelings and opinions with out any data to back their feelings and opinions will most likely not get a response from me. Its your forum too, so state what you feel I am not telling you what to do I am telling you what I am going to do. I could be wrong here and my data is not conclusive. I am putting it out for reasons of debate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Sure! Your findings seem to fall within acceptable variation standards for production aircraft performance.

People pick up a book or read a graph and say "AH HA!!" this is exactly what this aircraft should do performance wise. Unfortunately that is rather naive. Aeronautics does not work that way. Conditions change, both environmental and from aircraft to aircraft. What you end up with is an acceptable range. That is why you will find position correction error calculations in most flight test.

http://www.eaa1000.av.org/technicl/instcal/instcal.htm#Example_Data

Results can vary just in the method used to calculate positional error.

I think your findings are within acceptable production standards, both the good and the bad for the FW-190 series.

Frise ailerons are subject to a wide variation of performance BTW. Aileron adjustment was the Achilles heel of the FW-190 series and greatly affected turning performance.

An example of production standards for the RAF:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1121024395_raftestflightstandards.jpg

I have graphs showing 564kph at sea level with internal intakes and 555kph for the external intakes for the FW-190A6. 564kph is a 2 percent error to 570kph. I would say Oleg has done a great job of modeling the FW-190 series. Climb is also within acceptable production variation.

All the best,

Crumpp

Kettenhunde
07-10-2005, 03:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">just when ive lost all faith in gibbage having a brain on other forums he posts a brilliant analysis and new interesting info. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


That analysis does work well for the Zeke. Zekes were prone to catching fire, as many of the japanese designs were too. This is easy to see when you examine the structure of the aircraft.

Zekes did not have self sealing fuel tanks until late in the war.

It is much easier to see how the RAE got the scientifically tested results they measured by examining the structure of the FW-190 fuel tanks. They are actually bladders of thick synthetic latex held in place with webbing suspension.

http://www.white1foundation.org/parts/fueltank1.jpg

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/503_1121031013_fueltank.jpg

All the best,

Crumpp

AerialTarget
07-10-2005, 11:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Well dont bloody post Bolio's findings then if you dont have any knowledge for all you know they could be pulled from his a*rse </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was reposting Bolillo's results because you were repeatedly asking for them, even though they had already been posting. First you ignore a post, then you ask for it to be posted again, then you yell at me when I oblige. Way to go, irritant!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Your experience of the Fw 190 seems to stem directly from being shot down by it maybe that is why your posts are emotional - they betray your frustration of having your *** handed to you repeatedly. My advice would be try and fly the plane yourself and maybe take an interest in its history before you come on here and spout your tripe. Respect Hristo - so you should, after all he did defeat you in the K4 which isnt even his favoured plane - if he was in an Fw you wouldnt have had even 30 sec worth of a track to show off. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since you have once more typically ignored a post, I will repeat my earlier one. I am not afraid of the Focke Wulf. I am afraid of the One Oh Nine. I have faced Hristo on equal terms with him in a Focke Wulf and me in my P-38. I ended up on his tail blasting away and hitting him, and only the arrival of his stooges when he flashed his lights saved him.

The fact is that Hristo is deathly afraid to face me in a Focke Wulf without his pals nearby. He also, since our first duel, has refused to duel me, hiding under a thin screen of imagined superiority. In truth, he knows that the only reason he lost that duel was because it was my first week using internals only, and also because I had not yet learned that the airbrake in four point zero one no longer instantly puts you into a flat spin at low speed. The absense of either one of those factors, both of which are no longer present, would have ensured his destruction, and he knows it. And that is why he declines my every challenge.

And since you are so full of yourself, why don't you duel me in your Focke Wulf of choice? Hmmm? Your kill ratio is most impressive, and I am eager to put a dent in it. You'll even enjoy an advantage similar to the two I mentioned Hristo having - I am currently trying to learn my TrackIR (something that Hristo had in the duel and I did not - another advantage). Speaking of advantages, did I ever mention that he started out with an altitude advantage in our duel, due to my mistaking a bystander for him? Yes, the bystander had agreed to turn on his navigation lights so that I could not mistake him, but he forgot and I concentrated on him instead of Hristo until I saw Hristo behind me.

So, how about it? Are you up to fulfilling your boasts, defiler? Or will you prove them idle?

JG5_UnKle
07-11-2005, 02:18 AM
So gentle reader after 11 pages we have this conclusion:

Fw-190 is not acheiving historical performance in auto and needs manual to do it.

Simple solution, ensure Fw-190 performs correctly in auto and remove the advantage of manual.

Use manual only if the auto is busted.

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