Damage from my guns on FW190

[Der_Fred]

That being said... and the FW historically being able to handle damage... maybe the P51 gun focus should be adjustable... Just to stir things up a bit :-)

[Der_Fred]

With all being said and dusted.....

This what I expect from a DCS FW190...

These scenarios required precise flying with all controls, by no means...

The normal speed version

https://www.dropbox.com/s/01gjg61zb5epctr/FWHighWay.avi

 

The slowmo version

https://www.dropbox.com/s/odfb1q3qbs47s21/FW190Dancer.avi

[Der_Fred]

Another inconvenient scenario

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/r80vuemb64bnoff/MadW03.wmv

 

:-)

[Merlin-27]

That being said... and the FW historically being able to handle damage... maybe the P51 gun focus should be adjustable... Just to stir things up a bit :-)

 

I know you've stated before that you are not a troll, but wow...

You have many existing threads to choose from. Here are a couple of them.

 

This one from back in March contains vague references that say some pilots of some aircraft at some point in the war changed their harmonization to something.

Convergence/Harmonization Thread #1

 

And this one from May, is still waiting for your credible references.

Convergence/Harmonization Thread #2

 

Now, that being said, maybe you should start early on a FW-190 harmonization wish list. And I'm quite sure they will let you harmonize the guns on the eventual DCS P-38 :)

[Der_Fred]

I saw this coming as you deleted your post... :-) But non-the-less. Do I really have to.. go though this all again.

[Der_Fred]

There's a simple equation here - get it right or simply - cheers. I'm a very knowledgeable paying 'pilot'/customer and I expect you to deliver on your sales pitch/product. Don't give me [...] or excuses, give me a working product within expectations that I paid for... otherwise [...] You work it out : - )

Edited July 6, 2013 by sobek
profanity

[NineLine]

What I expect from DCS FW 190 is for it to behave like the real bird did, or atleast as close to the real thing that's ever been released, I wont hold its performance against IL2 as that's just not fair to IL2 ;)

 

With all being said and dusted.....

This what I expect from a DCS FW190...

These scenarios required precise flying with all controls, by no means...

The normal speed version

https://www.dropbox.com/s/01gjg61zb5epctr/FWHighWay.avi

 

The slowmo version

https://www.dropbox.com/s/odfb1q3qbs47s21/FW190Dancer.avi

[Yob]

Lets get back

 

Guys let's get back to how much damage the Focke Wulf can take :doh: and Not about whether IL-2 is better

[msalama]

+1

[msalama]

Do I really have to.. go though this all again.

 

AFAIK you've presented no proof whatsoever supporting your claims and opinions about the DCS Mustang, so go through _what_ again exactly?

[ARM505]

AFAIK you've presented no proof whatsoever supporting your claims and opinions about the DCS Mustang, so go through _what_ again exactly?

 

Lol! +1's Yob's 'let's get the thread back on topic', then immediately derails it again! :)

[sobek]

There's a simple equation here - get it right or simply - cheers. I'm a very knowledgeable paying 'pilot'/customer and I expect you to deliver on your sales pitch/product. Don't give me[...] or excuses, give me a working product within expectations that I paid for... otherwise [...] You work it out : - )

 

Paying customer or not you will either learn to behave according to our forum rules or you will be made to leave. Work that out first.

[Merlin-27]

I saw this coming as you deleted your post... :-) But non-the-less. Do I really have to.. go though this all again.

 

The only thing I've ever deleted was a response about the P-38 performance when I realized I still had a page of comments yet to read. I felt my response would have been too late in the conversation to even make sense and I realized my point had been made by others. You must miss me very much to even take notice.

 

I'm not sure why your attitude seems so confrontational in almost every post, but I'm going to chalk it up as a feature of your personality. All I ever asked for were facts with credible sources. Some of us just want fidelity, bottom line, and I am happy to let you know if I believe you are correct. And for the record, no you don't have to "go through it all again". I personally feel we have visited this topic about gun convergence ad nauseam and you have plenty of existing threads to respond to without us obliterating this one.

 

So in another attempt to get this one on track again, What ya think about that AI FW190-D9 damage? :)

 

I will be happy to see the AI enemy take a few crippling hits that totally ruin their day, as we do on the receiving end of their fury. If only the guys at ED could make me a better shot, like that damned AI pilot.

Edited July 6, 2013 by Merlin-27
Grammar

[WildBillKelsoe]

Guys, the OP obviously wanted to try the two against the mustang. It is a lose-lose situation. I tried his mission twice and every time the 190 fired, I suffered a catastrophic failure from his 20mm. Clearly this needs an additional AI wingman.

[Merlin-27]

I just watched the track and then took control of the '51. I took a couple hits during the fight but set the 190 ablaze in fairly short order and I'm far from a great combat pilot. The 109 seemed to leave the area. Is the issue that the guns are too powerful or that he won't die... as the track is so named?

 

EDIT: I tried it out a few more times. If the 109 does manage to get on your six while you are chasing the 190 then yes, you are usually hosed. This is true when flying against two P-51s as well. The FW seems to take damage the same as the other AI which we all know, needs work. But he does die.

Edited July 6, 2013 by Merlin-27

[Echo38]

Wing loading is a useful measure of the general maneuvering performance of an aircraft.

 

Wing loading isn't that useful without taking into consideration other factors, particularly powerloading. An 11,000 lb. P-51D rated for 67" has the same wingloading as an 11,000 lb. P-51D rated for 72", but though both have the same wingloading, one will be able to turn & climb much better (the one with more horsepower). With dissimilar aircraft, too, wingloading is only half the story--not even that, actually, as even powerloading and wingloading together are not the entirety of what determines an aircraft's turning abilities.

 

And about Fowler flaps. H.J.Marsaille wrote that he used flaps to be able to turn inside of Hurricane and P40s with his 109.

flaps or no flaps a plane with a high wing loading has lower maneuvering performance than a plane with lower wing loading.

 

The 109 didn't have Fowler flaps, nor did the Hurricane and P-40. The P-38 and the Ki-43 were the only Second World War fighters I know of which had Fowlers. It was certainly uncommon. They made a big difference for the P-38 (less so for the Ki-43, because the Oscar was already so maneuverable that using its Fowler flaps to turn better was sort of redundant); more on this in a following paragraph.

 

As far as the P-38, its strengths were power/speed wasnt it? it could out dive and climb most other fighters?

 

Outclimb, yes, most of them, despite having a much higher wingloading (~twice the weight, but also~twice the power!). Outdive, no--it had a rather low critical Mach number, and beyond that, some peculiar airflow problems caused by the wing & cockpit nacelle design. Great lifting wing (almost perfect, even by modern standards), with very stable stalling characteristics, but a relatively poor diver. (Though, when the dive flaps were working, the late models weren't necessarily worse at diving than the Me 109.) Problem was that the '38 could dive too fast to maintain control of the airplane. It did, however, easily out-dive Japanese fighters.

 

Contrary to what most "av-lite" folks (such as those who insist that wingloading equals turning ability) think, however, the P-38's poor diving characteristics were only a problem at relatively high altitudes; below ~20,000 feet, it didn't have a problem, unless the terrain elevation was high (such as while flying over mountains--and in this case, the P-38 wasn't alone in being in danger during high-speed dives). All this is well-documented--unfortunately, most people can't be bothered to look into the subject in detail, and would rather pass along old rumors and shoddy information obtained from half-baked survey-level resources. That the P-38 was a poor diver is a half-truth--the part about it having the low critical mach & all that gets repeated often, but seldom the part about it not being a problem at medium & low altitudes, where the air is denser. Likewise, the fact that the P-38 suffered from compressibility is constantly brought up, but seldom the fact that other high-speed fighters did also.

 

But even less recognized (today, at least--back during the war, it was fairly well-known amongst fighter pilots on both sides) is that the P-38 was a pretty good turning airplane. Though its instantaneous turn (and, of course, the rolling transition from not-turning to turning) were not going to be as good as lighter fighters, the sustained turn was better than many single-engine fighters (even ones only two-thirds of the P-38's weight). This was due to a combination of factors--primarily powerloading and the Fowler flaps, as I mentioned earlier. The P-38 had roughly twice the mass as the Me 109, but it also had roughly twice the power*. This, along with the wing design, is why the P-38 could climb so well. But it also let it turn unexpectedly well for such a heavy aircraft. Now, without flaps, the P-38 still didn't turn even as well as the P-47 (much less the P-51 and 109), but once the Fowler flaps were dropped to the maneuver setting, the P-38's sustained turn radius suddenly became markedly better than the P-51's.

 

Meanwhile, the P-51 and other fighters could drop a bit of flaps, too, but with their conventional and split flaps, it didn't result in nearly as much improvement as with the P-38, because the lift-to-drag ratio of these flaps are poor compared to that of Fowler flaps. Conventional and split flaps will tighten the turn, sure, but also bleed much energy and increase the sustained turn time. This is why wartime P-51 and P-47 training materials, while they did make the pilots aware of the option of dropping 10 degrees of flap for a tighter turn, cautioned pilots against over-using the combat flap setting, while P-38 training materials urged pilots to use the maneuver flap setting whenever possible in a dogfight. The Fowler flaps weren't magic, but they were a much more efficient design than conventional flaps--enough to make the P-38 a better turning airplane at low and medium speeds (<250 MPH) than many lighter fighters with inferior flap designs. (The long list of fighters without Fowler flaps includes the P-51, P-47, Me 109, FW 190, F4U, F6F, A6M, and many others.)

 

* Don't even think about quoting that tired old 1600 hp. figure at me. Later in the war, P-38Ls were pushing ~1900 hp. per engine. That the P-38L only ever had 1600 hp. is about as bad of a fallacy as the incorrect 414 MPH max speed figure that's been parrotted from book to book for the last seventy years or so (and from forum to forum for the last 20+)--though perhaps not as bad as the latter, because some earlier P-38s did run at 1600 hp., while the 414 MPH figure was obtained at military power rather than at WEP (not even the lowest WEP rating).

Edited July 7, 2013 by Echo38

[Exorcet]

@Echo38

 

"to say that the P-38 wasn't as maneuverable as the P-51 would be ignorant"

P38L : wing loading: 53.4 lb/ft² (260.9 kg/m²)

P 51 D mustang: wing loading: 39 lb/sqft (192 kg/m²)

Me 109g wing loading: 196 kg/m² (40 lb/ft²)

Spitefire Mk V wing loading: 27.35 lb/ft2 (133.5 kg/m2)

Where is the drag (and thrust)?

 

 

Wing loading is a useful measure of the general maneuvering performance of an aircraft.

For very rough estimates only.

 

 

Wings generate lift owing to the motion of air over the wing surface. Larger wings move more air, so an aircraft with a large wing area relative to its mass (i.e., low wing loading) will have more lift available at any given speed. Therefore, an aircraft with lower wing loading will be able to take-off and land at a lower speed (or be able to take off with a greater load). It will also be able to turn faster.

Wings also generate drag. As does the fuselage and control surfaces. Induced drag is often the largest source of drag on an aircraft, especially when maneuvering Ignoring drag and trying to say something about maneuverability does not make sense.

 

The plane that turns tighter needs to generate more force, but also needs to keep itself from stalling by coming to a stop.

 

Even if you want to ignore sustained performance and look at instantaneous, you still need to look at the airfoil and AoA performance.

 

So flaps or no flaps a plane with a high wing loading has lower maneuvering performance than a plane with lower wing loading.

This cannot be taken as generally true.

[Echo38]

For very rough estimates only.

 

I suddenly remember that story about the aerodynamics students who decided that bumblebees cannot fly, based on their wingloading. : D

[otto]

@Echo

with respect for my fellow virtual pilot

 

"The 109 didn't have Fowler flaps, nor did the Hurricane and P-40"

True but it did have flaps + leading edge slats and the ace Hans Joachim Marseille did turn inside huricans which had ridiculously small turning circles. Whitnesses from his squadron said so + his superiour officers.

 

 

" the P-38 generally* had superior sustained turning abilities to the P-51, as well as to the P-47, FW 190, and others."

Based on what... ?

IMHO At lest i provided some data supporting my conclusions.

 

" Under some conditions, the P-38 was a better turner than even the Me 109"

what conditions ? altitude ? speed? + data ?

 

" Under some conditions, the P-38 was a better turner than even the Me 109"

"and the P-38 was approximately twice the weight of the 109. (Also had around twice the horsepower, however--and did I mention the Fowler flaps?)

 

P38l 0.16 hp/lb vs 109g 0.21 hp/lb

Power to mass ratio favors the 109 g

Wing loading favors the 109g

and the p38 had:

2.63 times the mas of 109 g emty

2.5 times the mas of 109g loaded

And only 2.3 times the horsepower of the 109g

The p38 was a stelar energy fighter but not a turn fighter.

 

I provided at least some data not only storyes.

Of course even with all the data available to us in the end the conclusion is speculative because not one of us has flown the p38 and 109 so for me there is no point in continuing this discution.

Edited July 7, 2013 by otto

[Eponsky_bot]

 

too, but the view from the outside

 

[Echo38]

the ace Hans Joachim Marseille did turn inside huricans which had ridiculously small turning circles. Whitnesses from his squadron said so + his superiour officers.

 

And aces like Thomas MacGuire turned their P-38s inside of Zeroes and Oscars, which were just about the most maneuverable aircraft of the war. Doesn't mean that the P-38 was a better turner than the Zero! Far from it; the P-38 didn't turn nearly as well as the A6M and Ki-43. (There's also a case of a P-38 pilot winning a mock dogfight against a Spitfire pilot, out-turning him.) But in these cases, there was an enormous discrepancy in pilot skill. A super pilot in Fighter A out-turning an inexperienced pilot in Fighter B does not indicate that Fighter A is a better turning aircraft than Fighter B. This is very basic stuff. If you don't realize this, you shouldn't be making statements on the subject of fighter aircraft.

 

Based on what... ?

 

It's been about a decade since I was really into researching this stuff, but I've put hundreds of hours into researching the P-38 and other warbirds. Bought some rather difficult-to-find books dedicated to them, and not the standard tripe you get at the public library*. Looked through quite a few scans of wartime performance graphs and test documents. I don't feel that I need to do your work for you and waste hours of my time trying to track down some of these things again to try to change your mind, because it's clear to me that you don't really care to know--you've already made up your mind that what limited data you have is good enough for you, just like the rest of the IL-2 community. I've done you a favor by letting you know that your data is incomplete and faulty, and giving you a few nudges in the right direction; the real data is out there, and if you really wanted to know, you would be able to find it. But you'd have to put in the hours, like I did. I'd wager a fair amount that you won't; the fact that you're clinging to your faulty arguments even after it's been pointed out by several people that they're based on some colossal errors (e.g. the wingloading thing) is enough for me. I've seen this far too many times, back when I was still observing the IL-2 forums.

 

* Most of the general survey stuff about WWII fighters recycles lots of info from other books--in the case of the P-38, there are some incorrect figures and info that have been passed from gen-av book to gen-av book for decades, and it wasn't until only fairly recently that someone skipped that and went back to the source materials, discovered some errors, and found the real stuff. Warren Bodie, in particular, did a phenomenal job on his P-38 book, and it's no coincidence that the foreword by one of the two designers of the P-38 stated that this was the only book to have gotten things right--and that Bodie was the only author who ever bothered to contact Johnson before writing a book about the airplane.

 

Power to mass ratio favors the 109 g

and the p38 had:

2.63 times the mas of 109 g emty

2.5 times the mas of 109g loaded

And only 2.3 times the horce power of 109g

 

The 109 weighed roughly 7500 lb., and the P-38L weighed roughly 15,000 lb. These are the sort of weights they'd have often met with in combat (something like half a tank of fuel and no external stores). That puts the P-38 as being twice the mass of the 109, not the almost three times that you list.

 

The 109G had somewhere around 1600 horsepower--maybe they got it boosted up to 1700, rarely, when the fuel problems weren't a factor--while the P-38s were regularly running ~1800 per engine later in the war.

 

Twice the mass and more than twice the horsepower don't exactly cancel each other out, as the P-38 will still have a harder time in instantaneous turns, but in sustained turns, they'll be comparable. That's without flaps. Throw in the Fowler flaps--Me 109 had split flaps--and the P-38 can come out on top if the fuel load is light enough. At low and medium altitudes, I would expect a 109 to out-turn a P-38, if the '38 was running a high fuel load, but if the 109 had a high fuel load an the '38 had a low fuel load, I expect the P-38 to out-turn the Me 109. Remember, the P-38 out-turned the P-51 below 250 MPH, in tests.

 

The 109's slats were nice when they worked properly, but even then, they won't cut down its sustained turn time. Too draggy. If I remember aright (again, it's been a decade or so since I was looking into this stuff--that was before Wikipedia, by the way), the slats were used to increase AoA, resulting in a tighter turning circle but a slower turn time. That isn't necessarily good for a sustained turn.

Edited July 7, 2013 by Echo38

[otto]

@Exorcet

I provided some data to support my conclusions while my fellow virtula pilot did not so the why does the burden of proof fall on me?

 

"Where is the drag (and thrust)?"

thrust, for a piston engine?

 

P38l 0.16 hp/lb vs 109g 0.21 hp/lb

Power to mass ratio favors the 109 g

 

could't find credible data on drag for 109 that could be compared to p38.

 

"Wings also generate drag. As does the fuselage and control surfaces. Induced drag is often the largest source of drag on an aircraft, especially when maneuvering Ignoring drag and trying to say something about maneuverability does not make sense"

 

So if i igore drag and say for example that the f104 is not as maneuverable than an f15 because of wing loading than this conclision does not make sense to you?

Edited July 7, 2013 by otto

[otto]

@Echo38

 

With all that research i belive you.

But still i need to hear what a guy that has flown both planes has to say.

Edited July 7, 2013 by otto

[Exorcet]

@Exorcet

I provided some data to support my conclusions while my fellow virtula pilot did not so the why does the burden of proof fall on me?

I don't know what you mean. You posted wing loading and said that one fighter was more agile than another. You can't really do that.

 

"Where is the drag (and thrust)?"

thrust, for a piston engine?

 

P38l 0.16 hp/lb vs 109g 0.21 hp/lb

Power to mass ratio favors the 109 g

 

could't find credible data on drag for 109 that could be compared to p38.

That still isn't thrust though. Allison engined P-51's were as good as Merlins at low altitude, but not up high. Posting a single number doesn't really tell you the whole story, especially when the parameter that number belongs to can take multiple variables.

 

So if i igore drag and say for example that the f104 is not as maneuverable than an f15 because of wing loading than this conclision does not make sense to you?

No it does not because the conclusion does not follow from the given facts. Wing loading doesn't give you an EM diagram. Also look at the F-16 and F-4.

[NineLine]

Contrary to what most "av-lite" folks...

 

Much like you, unless you are quite old and have experience flying these birds back in combat, I only go by what I have read as well, honestly I am not a huge P-38 fan, so not well read on it, but I do remember reading that the P-38 could dive as well if not better than the Dora and similar variant 109s under 25000 feet, which is similar to what you said.

 

They did add dive recovery flaps(proper name?) during the course of the war to improve dives above 25000 feet, but it was still a weakness expolited by German pilots.

 

Anyways... this thread is totally derailed now :)

 

Again if the OP still even looks at this... the 190 is a WIP, I am sure improvements will be made, if you dont believe me, put a 190 on the runway and bomb it ;)

Edited July 7, 2013 by NineLine