Fw 190 vs Spitfire

NachtPiloten said:
Here is some interesting data

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg

The site is fun to read. If I am reading this correctly, then the 190 has a much better roll characteristics then the Spitfire. What is you take on this? :help:
Click to expand...

It is if you can manage the 190 o.k. If i am correctly this is based on the performence of the aircraft not on the pilot in the cockpit normaly pure on the meguring performance the roll characteristics is beter on the 190 then the spitfire but if a good pilot is in the spitfire against a 190 i place my bet on the spit then.
 
Very cool! Now, this could point back to a more unstable setup that was bugging a lot of us. Not absolutely though. The Spit had it's guns mounted far out on the wings which would increase the roll inertia and decrease speed.
 
Flightmodels

Now, I looked at the old AvH files and found that the rollrate and other variables were nearly identical to what you see in this chart. This is fun!

The Spit ixc had a rollrate of 105 deg/sec as per the chart, in CFS3 stock ...213 deg/sec with the 190 having 201. No wonder the planes handled like flying saucers!

As we have always known the AvH stuff seemed to be the best there was (is) for CFS3.
 
Excellent! AvH is the best, no question. Maybe I should have an AvH only install? :wiggle: Anyway,the crucial thing is to manage the secondary effects of torque, stall behavior, , slip stream, compressibility... all that "edge of the envelope" stuff required for good dogfighting.
 
Eric 'Winkle' Brown, test pilot extraordinaire, on the Fw-190 (as quoted in another thread on Nacht's new Fw190 .AIR file):-
"Decidedly, its most impressive features were its light ailerons and its extremely high rate of roll. It could do incredible aileron turns that would have torn the wings off a 109, and the ailerons maintained their lightness from the stall up to 400mph (645km/h) before becoming heavy."

Compare that with Alex Henshaw's comments on testing the Spitfire Mk.21:-
"On the previous design the ailerons got progressively heavier with speed....The lightness of control, however, at very high speeds was such a tremendous improvement over the Mark IX and all other models that one revelled in aerobatics at speeds that would have been impossible before. I could now execute rolls and aileron turns at speeds of over 500 IAS (indicated air speed) with ease. With previous Marks ... the ailerons would have been rock solid and there wasn't enough room in the sky to get round."

This is what I like about the AvH flight models - what the experts of the time reported, Gregory's flight models tend to bear out.
 
Possibly, but what do they mean by aileron turns? Bank and yank? roll 90' then elevator turn?
 
Squiffy said:
Possibly, but what do they mean by aileron turns? Bank and yank? roll 90' then elevator turn?
Click to expand...

That would be a "roll", a turn around the longitudal axis.
In other words drop the stick to the left or right.......
A superior rate of roll enables the pilot to change direction of flight faster than the opponent.
 
Exactly as Mathias says...the Fw190 was well-known for it's fast roll, which was used to great advantage by the pilots.

The 190 was also known to be a pilot friendly a/c, much more forgiving than the 109s. Wide main gear stance made the airplane easier to handle on the ground, for whoever was in the cockpit. A steadier airplane upstairs, and a rock solid flyer.
 
That's what I thought. Now, with it's high roll rate and good response from stall to 400~ we need it to be a lot nicer in high power turns. That's where snap-out stalls and weird torque behaviors really were a pain with stock. I suppose the ship will favor one turning direction versus the other for engine spin. That needs to be reliably simulated and not overkilled.
 
Squiffy said:
That's what I thought. Now, with it's high roll rate and good response from stall to 400~ we need it to be a lot nicer in high power turns. That's where snap-out stalls and weird torque behaviors really were a pain with stock. I suppose the ship will favor one turning direction versus the other for engine spin. That needs to be reliably simulated and not overkilled.
Click to expand...

Ok, what the heck are you asking for?:faint:
 
Mathias said:
What do you think would be the difficulties in handling the Fw 190?
Click to expand...

some times i can hold on, on ETO's 190 i go a lot strait down in the durt with this one i dont have problems to hold on spits and P51's or thunderbolds or any other kind of aircrafts but with the 190 if i make a deep left turn right turn or lol over fast im going down like a brick
 
Nacht, look for "full power" stall data. That's the configuration where torque is maxed and speed is min. High angle of attack, various altitudes too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top