A8 to fast after update?

Of course it's a wrong behavior, as long as you have common sense and notice that it loses power. You just have to compare it to the other planes IN DCS with comparable or less power to weight ratio.

You claim it is wrong, you have to show what you base this claim on. Do you want ED to change the Anton's behaviour to your common sense? Common sense has no numbers diagrams or figures to base this on.

And are you unable or unwilling to show the "non-energy-losing-loops" with a DCS aircraft the way you claim Anton should be able to?

Fox

You claim it is wrong, you have to show what you base this claim on. Do you want ED to change the Anton's behaviour to your common sense? Common sense has no numbers diagrams or figures to base this on.

 

And are you unable or unwilling to show the "non-energy-losing-loops" with a DCS aircraft the way you claim Anton should be able to?

 

 

Fox

Nothing stops me to use common sense to judge different things.. but that's a different story. You confuse energy with power..

Nothing stops me to use common sense to judge different things.. but that's a different story. You confuse energy with power..

No hollow phrases anymore. If there is a problem, show the problem, if you can.

But, you convinced me that you can't. So many posts, but not a single attempt to even show the problem.

Fox

Your judgement is hollow, not mine. And if you don't believe me then here it is for you to better understand:

-P51D: Weight 4054kg (30% fuel), Power 1,490 hp (1,111 kW) at 3,000 rpm

-FW 190 A-8: Weight 4037kg (40%), Power 1,500 hp at 2,400 rpm

With these data in mind do the looping tests again and see the differences.

Let me add another thing here, if I don't have any data then neither ED has, because they are public data not and some state secret. That's why I used my own judgement and ED's own data regarding different planes and make comparisons.

It's clear that FW 190 is underpowered (low acceleration) and it also loses power in climbing. It should have 2700 rpm with OR without 1.65 boost (C-3, NOS, MW) with the relative INCREASE in power. It's obviously an incomplete airframe that we have now. Nevertheless, with only 1500hp it should be able to do a double loop without missing 50km/h at the bottom of the loop, as in currently does.

"The 190 has a high power-to-weight ratio, meaning that it has a good acceleration. It is equally quite manoeuverable and can reach higher airspeeds than the Mustang at altitudes under 20,000 ft(6 km)." page 71 https://www.mudspike.com/wp-content/uploads/guides/DCS%20FW-190A-8%20Guide.pdf

Seriously amazingme you can't just say there is an issue and then point blank refuse to show any evidence, especially when iFoxRomeo is a doing all the leg work.

Show some willing to back up your claims

Your judgement is hollow, not mine. And if you don't believe me then here it is for you to better understand:

-P51D: Weight 4054kg (30% fuel), Power 1,490 hp (1,111 kW) at 3,000 rpm

-FW 190 A-8: Weight 4037kg (40%), Power 1,500 hp at 2,400 rpm

Finally! Some Numbers. Was it really that difficult? Now we can start to work on the problem.

Mass: 0.42% difference

Power: 0.67% difference. Powerchange during the loop from SL to approx 3000ft is small enough for this comparison, I'd say.

Wingspan: 6.91% difference; P-51, 11.28m / A8, 10.5m

Wingarea: 15.5% difference; P-51, 21.66m² / A8, 18.3m²

Overall length: 8.95% difference; P-51, 9.83m / A8, 8.95m

Airfoil characteristics, laminar flow vs. conventional?! And how big are the differences in the cross section/resistance?

So we have some similarities and some (I'd say) not neglegtable differences.

With these differences alone, I would expect differences in aircraft behaviour. The question is: To what extent?

Did you realize, that the P-51 reaches ~580km/h with 1490hp, while the Anton reaches only ~520km/h with 1560hp? I'm talking about the real aircraft. And this is represented in DCS.

With these data in mind do the looping tests again and see the differences.

No, that is up to you to show these perfect P-51 loops and the imperfect A8 loops. You claim, you show!

Let me add another thing here, if I don't have any data then neither ED has, because they are public data not and some state secret. That's why I used my own judgement and ED's own data regarding different planes and make comparisons.

Right, they are no state secret anymore. But how do you know what data ED has? Did they tell you?

It's clear that FW 190 is underpowered (low acceleration) and it also loses power in climbing. It should have 2700 rpm with OR without 1.65 boost (C-3, NOS, MW) with the relative INCREASE in power. It's obviously an incomplete airframe that we have now. Nevertheless, with only 1500hp it should be able to do a double loop without missing 50km/h at the bottom of the loop, as in currently does.

Do you base your claim only on aircraft mass and power at SL?

During a steep climb with the A8 the rpm droops by ca.50rpm. As I gave an explanation a few post before, this droop is (as I see it) because of the lagging prop-governor.

"The 190 has a high power-to-weight ratio, meaning that it has a good acceleration. It is equally quite manoeuverable and can reach higher airspeeds than the Mustang at altitudes under 20,000 ft(6 km)." page 71 https://www.mudspike.com/wp-content/uploads/guides/DCS%20FW-190A-8%20Guide.pdf

Ask Chuck where he got that Info from. This applies to the D9 but not to the A8. The A8 is inferior to the Mustang in every aspect, except armament.

Fox

It's just a bare elementary flight dynamics: 190A8 has significantly higher wing loading than P-51. It gives an advantage in boom-zoom tactics because of lower overall wing drag during 1g or unloaded flight. It will gain energy faster in diving ang straight zoom. But for loaded flight lower wing loading is an advantage because you do not need to get high AoA (i/e/ CL) area where induced drag A*CL^2 grows significantly.

 

That's why the looping in 190 is a bit of art - you need to avoid high AoA to keep energy and be not very gently on stick not lose speed at the top of the loop.

I do understand how aerodynamics work and the laws of physics, in general, but the A-8 cannot recover it's energy in the dive after doing a loop, because it's either underpowered or it loses power or both. The double loop experiment it very concludent. If you avoid the high AoA, as you said, then you won't be able to go over the top in the first place. The max AoA should be around 18-19 degrees, and you'll bleed all speed doing it. iFoxRomeo did some looping tests, and as you can notice, he has to extend longer and longer after each loop to regain the initial energy.

Loop descending part is not a diving, because the plane is loaded significantly more than 1 g, so the plane easily can dump energy even as it loosing altitude.

If you have Tacview you can use full energy graph to compare.

 

And yes, though WF is not underpowered but it's ability to keep energy is definitely lower than for P-51. And the reason, as I wrote, is it's higher wing loading.

 

By the way, the another pole is Spitfire - it can loop easily without loosing energy even at the same power/weight ratio as fw 190 but worse in BnZ.

Yes, in reality was not underpowered, but as I don't have any real life experience with it nor any data coming from real life testing for this, I can only compare it to other planes in DCS, as they share the same framework, and I reckon it's still underpowered even with 1500PS @ 1.4 ATA.

A lower wing loading means larger wing which, in turn, means more drag, so it's not all about wing loading. It helps with sustained turn at lower speeds, but those are not true fighters, are they? The ability to change the direction, due to higher roll rate is what a fighter is all about and instantaneous turn rate would allow the pilot to put the guns in lead especially at high speeds. The logic behind the Mustang which would have to carry a lot of fuel for long distances missions are opposite to the FW philosophy of creating a nimble fighter that could rapidly intercept and destroy the bombers together with their cover.

An additional question would be if we'll get 1.65ATA that will ameliorate the current performance. Thanks!

...

Did you realize, that the P-51 reaches ~580km/h with 1490hp, while the Anton reaches only ~520km/h with 1560hp? I'm talking about the real aircraft. And this is represented in DCS.

...

I quote myself, because you really ignore stuff that contradicts your point, right?

Yes, in reality was not underpowered, but as I don't have any real life experience with it nor any data coming from real life testing for this,...

No real life testing data available? Seriously? Previously you said this:

...

Let me add another thing here, if I don't have any data then neither ED has, because they are public data not and some state secret. That's why I used my own judgement and ED's own data regarding different planes and make comparisons...

First you say, that ED can only have the data, that you have, and now you say you don't have real data? Then what data did ED use to model the aircraft, if they have only the data you have, and you have no real life data?:doh:

Let me help you again here:

Source: wwiiaircraftperformance.org

Fw190A8

Klick here for the full report

ETC reduces Topspeed at SL by 12km/h

So topseed at SL ~528km/h for the Anton with 1560HP

Source: wwiiaircraftperformance.org

P-51D

Klick here

P-51 at 1490HP reaches ~363mph -> 584km/h

Summarized real life testdata, not calculated:

Anton: ~528km/h with 1560HP, Wingarea 18.3m²

P-51: ~584km/h with 1490HP, Wingarea 21.66m²

Seriously, do you really think they should perform the same when the P-51 has a greater wingarea, yet is significantly faster than the A8 at the same powerlevel?

Fox

I quote myself, because you really ignore stuff that contradicts your point, right?

 

 

No real life testing data available? Seriously? Previously you said this:

 

First you say, that ED can only have the data, that you have, and now you say you don't have real data? Then what data did ED use to model the aircraft, if they have only the data you have, and you have no real life data?:doh:

 

 

Let me help you again here:

Source: wwiiaircraftperformance.org

Fw190A8

Klick here for the full report

ETC reduces Topspeed at SL by 12km/h

So topseed at SL ~528km/h for the Anton with 1560HP

 

 

Source: wwiiaircraftperformance.org

P-51D

Klick here

 

 

P-51 at 1490HP reaches ~363mph -> 584km/h

 

 

Summarized real life testdata, not calculated:

 

Anton: ~528km/h with 1560HP, Wingarea 18.3m²

P-51: ~584km/h with 1490HP, Wingarea 21.66m²

 

 

Seriously, do you really think they should perform the same when the P-51 has a greater wingarea, yet is significantly faster than the A8 at the same powerlevel?

 

 

Fox

First of all, your data are with these conditions:

Engine BMW D-2/328909 to 27.9 .

Engine BMW D-2/316248

A-8 production condition (without outer wing weapons).

Armament: 2 MG 131, 2 MG 151 (MG 151 with ammunition)

ETC 501. Rigid wheel door panels.

Wing nose camera BSK 16 installed (temporarily)

AT-bomb rack mockup with 6 bombs per wing ( Panzerblitz ) 29.9 . / . 6.10.

Here's the correct data:

The flight performance in clean configuration is 557km/h at SL (2700 rpm @ 1.42ATA) in a test done in 1943 and 578km/h at SL in a test done in 1944:

1943

1944

Secondly, the top speed, only, won't tell anything about the other characteristics of the planes, acceleration (level, climbing, diving), roll rate etc. that I was referring to.

FYI:

First of all, your data are with these conditions:

 

Engine BMW D-2/328909 to 27.9 .

 

Engine BMW D-2/316248

 

A-8 production condition (without outer wing weapons).

 

Armament: 2 MG 131, 2 MG 151 (MG 151 with ammunition)

 

ETC 501. Rigid wheel door panels.

 

Wing nose camera BSK 16 installed (temporarily)

 

AT-bomb rack mockup with 6 bombs per wing ( Panzerblitz ) 29.9 . / . 6.10.

 

Here's the correct data:

 

The flight performance in clean configuration is 557km/h at SL (2700 rpm @ 1.42ATA) in a test done in 1943 and 578km/h at SL in a test done in 1944:

 

1943

 

1944

 

Secondly, the top speed, only, won't tell anything about the other characteristics of the planes, acceleration (level, climbing, diving), roll rate etc. that I was referring to.

 

FYI:

You don't read properly.

First. The sheet I refered to is not the sheet for the bomb-test. You refer to a test I didn't put the link in my post. So no Bombracks other than the ETC501. On another sheet the speed-drop for the installed ETC is given with 12km/h at SL. So without the ETC501 installed you can add 12km/h to the 1.32ATA speed value, not to the 1.42ATA.

You try to verify your claim with calculated data + you ignore the powersetting for the calculated performance. Both sheets you refer to are not from tests, but from calculations. And you don't refer to 1.32ATA (1560HP) you previously started with, but now takeoff power 1.42ATA and even the boosted setting of 1,58ATA. Of course then the topspeed values get closer to the Mustang. But this was not your starting point and actually show that you are wrong with you claim. The A8 needs significantly more HP to achieve the same top speed as the Mustang does with less power.

The Fw190A8 is significantly slower at the same powersetting than the Mustang. The other performance parts like rollrate etc of course result from the dimensions and weight. And they differ from that of the Mustang. But still you claim that the A8 should perform similar to the Mustang. You mix stuff up, so that it looks that your claim is correct, but it isn't.

There is no chance to show you that you are wrong because you ignore everything that doesn't fit your liking. I'll stop from here. But at least others can see this discussion and make their own amazing conclusions.

Fox

You don't read properly.

First. The sheet I refered to is not the sheet for the bomb-test. You refer to a test I didn't put the link in my post. So no Bombracks other than the ETC501. On another sheet the speed-drop for the installed ETC is given with 12km/h at SL. So without the ETC501 installed you can add 12km/h to the 1.32ATA speed value, not to the 1.42ATA.

You try to verify your claim with calculated data + you ignore the powersetting for the calculated performance. Both sheets you refer to are not from tests, but from calculations. And you don't refer to 1.32ATA (1560HP) you previously started with, but now takeoff power 1.42ATA and even the boosted setting of 1,58ATA. Of course then the topspeed values get closer to the Mustang. But this was not your starting point and actually show that you are wrong with you claim. The A8 needs significantly more HP to achieve the same top speed as the Mustang does with less power.

 

The Fw190A8 is significantly slower at the same powersetting than the Mustang. The other performance parts like rollrate etc of course result from the dimensions and weight. And they differ from that of the Mustang. But still you claim that the A8 should perform similar to the Mustang. You mix stuff up, so that it looks that your claim is correct, but it isn't.

 

There is no chance to show you that you are wrong because you ignore everything that doesn't fit your liking. I'll stop from here. But at least others can see this discussion and make their own amazing conclusions.

 

Fox

ED also calculates data and uses those data in the FM model of various aircraft and it's nothing wrong with that as long is uses the CORRECT input data. What you ignore is how the REAL engineers from Focke-Wulf Flugzeugbau AG calculated those data and how the tests were done to confirm those data.

All I said is that the A-8 in DCS is underpowered in DCS, from all points of view.

Besides that, also in DCS, the A-8's governor behaves weird, at least. Starting in air with 2700rpm with full power you can only get to 1.32ATA in level flight, and it stays there. The only way to achieve 1.4ATA (and not 1.42!!!) is if you dive, but the power remains constant. Sometimes, the boost goes to 1.65 then returns to 1.4, very weird.

The only "logical" thing I understand from you is that the Mustang is better than the A-8 because it can achieve a higher top speed forgetting to mention in what conditions those tests were done so that the Mustang could achieve those speeds.

If you think that the engineers from FW were wrong in their calculations and ED is right.. I rest my case here.

ED also calculates data and uses those data in the FM model of various aircraft and it's nothing wrong with that as long is uses the CORRECT input data. What you ignore is how the REAL engineers from Focke-Wulf Flugzeugbau AG calculated those data and how the tests were done to confirm those data.

 

All I said is that the A-8 in DCS is underpowered in DCS, from all points of view.

 

Besides that, also in DCS, the A-8's governor behaves weird, at least. Starting in air with 2700rpm with full power you can only get to 1.32ATA in level flight, and it stays there. The only way to achieve 1.4ATA (and not 1.42!!!) is if you dive, but the power remains constant. Sometimes, the boost goes to 1.65 then returns to 1.4, very weird.

 

The only "logical" thing I understand from you is that the Mustang is better than the A-8 because it can achieve a higher top speed forgetting to mention in what conditions those tests were done so that the Mustang could achieve those speeds.

 

If you think that the engineers from FW were wrong in their calculations and ED is right.. I rest my case here.

Cool. As your name suggests, you are amazing!:thumbup:

It is 1.42ATA as it is stated in the manual and on the calculation and test sheets. Take a closer look at them. Might help you.

I never said the calculations are wrong. But you still need to take the correct values for comparison. But that goes to far now.

Isn't that funny, that you are the only person on these forums, that is unable to fly with 2700 rpm and 1.42ATA? Check the prop governor is ON and check your throttle binding, press right CTR+Enter to see if your throttle command goes to 100% and/or use "Num +" to give 100% throttle command.

Your problem exactly corresponds to prop governor - off

It is amazing, that it took you so long to finally describe YOUR problem with the Anton. Instead you accused ED of wrong modeling and that you know it better.

Fox

Cool. As your name suggests, you are amazing!:thumbup:

 

It is 1.42ATA as it is stated in the manual and on the calculation and test sheets. Take a closer look at them. Might help you.

 

 

I never said the calculations are wrong. But you still need to take the correct values for comparison. But that goes to far now.

 

 

 

Isn't that funny, that you are the only person on these forums, that is unable to fly with 2700 rpm and 1.42ATA? Check the prop governor is ON and check your throttle binding, press right CTR+Enter to see if your throttle command goes to 100% and/or use "Num +" to give 100% throttle command.

Your problem exactly corresponds to prop governor - off

 

It is amazing, that it took you so long to finally describe YOUR problem with the Anton. Instead you accused ED of wrong modeling and that you know it better.

 

Fox

You clearly confuse me with somebody else..

You clearly confuse me with somebody else..

Was it your evil twin who wrote the posts in this thread?

Was is your evil twin who wrote the posts in this thread?

No, but you should watch your language. Please keep this civilized without ad hominem attacks. My controls are fine, A-8 not so much.. You should try and see for yourself what I mean. See the clips bellow.

===============Translation of your report========================

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a8-733705-2.html

Flight Report Fw 190 A-8/733705 Nr.2 translated:

[...]

Condition:

Engine 801 D-2/316248

A-8 production condition (without outer wing weapons).

Armament: 2 Mg 131, 2 MG 151 (MG 151 with 230 rounds ammunition each).

ETC 501. Rigid wheel door panels.

Perlon-landing-gear tires the Firm Conti 25.10. ./. 10.11.

Ballast: In the FT area 10 kg.

In fuselage center instead of internal extra tank 125 kg.

Between floor panel and master compass 75 kg.

30.10. ./. 6.11.44 Take-off weight G = 4224 kg

Center of gravity position = 0.78 m.

Program:

1. Determination of level speeds with engine, Werk-Nr. 316248.

2. Recording of the cooling pressures in climb and level flight.

3. Flight characteristic investigations with rear positions of the center of gravity.

Results:

1. After replacement of the engine that failed from supercharger damage, serial No. 328909, level speeds using combat and take-off power were determined in the as-delivered condition. Using the ram pressure calibration as shown in Flight Report Nr 1 the important points of the speed plots are as follows:

Speed at SL with combat power VwKC = 321 mph (516 km/h)

" " " take-off power VwKC = 334 mph (537 km/h)

Speed at full throttle height with combat power (5650m) VwKC = 366 mph (589 km/h)

" " " " take-off power (6100m) VwKC = 383 mph (617 km/h)

The necessary conditions are fulfilled for a later comparison and the airplane can be converted to the intended improved aerodynamic condition.

2. Since a modification of the cowl flaps as well as the cooling air outlet cross-section is also scheduled with the conversion, the pressures in the engine were determined during climb and level flights. The chart of the values obtained in the climb show, that from 6000 m height upwards the necessary cooling pressure drop as required by BMW for 220° cylinder temperatures is reached only with fully opened cowl flaps.

3. For the check of the rearmost position of the center of gravity for bad weather fighters the machine was brought, through ballast, to a rear center of gravity with full drop tank from s = 0.78 ./. 0.76 m . With this the airplane is significantly unstable and must be flown carefully. Only after consumption of the fuel supply down to approximately 100 litres for each main fuselage tank, thus a cog-position of 0.72 m, a sufficient stability around the transverse axis is present.

In the case of standard pre-setting of the horizontal stabilizer of 2° toward nose-heavy (indicated 0) and neutral elevator trim tab edge resulted in the following trim indicator positions:

Center of Gravity position 0.78 m (unstable):

Take-off + 1°

Climb +1.8°

Center of Gravity position 0.72 m (stable):

Level flight + 0.5°

Climb +1.0°

Further flights conducted with trim tab edges adjusted to ~ 25° nose-heavy resp. tail-heavy show that no movement of the neutral point is caused through this. Judged purely by feel, however, the upward slope of the stability line seems thereby influenced by, and in the favorable sense with trim tab edges adjusted nose-heavy.

Langenhagen, 21 November 1944

GT/Schw.

=========================================================

The results are:

Speed at SL with combat power VwKC = 321 mph (516 km/h)

" " " take-off power VwKC = 334 mph (537 km/h)

This test was done for a SPECIFIC engine Werk-Nr. 316248 with ETC501 installed.

Anyway, I made two short videos to back up my claims.

In the first movie you can see that my top speed @SL is ~500km/h @ 1.32ATA and ~520 km/h @ 1.42ATA , whereas my wingman can reach >557km/h @ probably 1.42ATA. I also did a few loops to show that the rpm dropping can be heard. Nothing wrong with the controls as you can see that my VPC throttle can reach the maximum travel.

In the second one, with air start, you may notice that the boost is capped @ 1.32ATA and, unless I dive it cannot reach 1.4ATA not even 1.42 and upon climbing it is again capped @1.32ATA. Call that NORMAL and I'll uninstall DCS altogether.

I'll try to remove A-8 module and re-install it, maybe it'll change something.

L.E. Same thing after re-installing the module.

No, but you should watch your language. Please keep this civilized without ad hominem attacks. My controls are fine, A-8 not so much.. You should try and see for yourself what I mean. See the clips bellow.

 

===============Translation of your report========================

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a8-733705-2.html

 

Flight Report Fw 190 A-8/733705 Nr.2 translated:

 

[...]

 

Condition:

Engine 801 D-2/316248

 

A-8 production condition (without outer wing weapons).

 

Armament: 2 Mg 131, 2 MG 151 (MG 151 with 230 rounds ammunition each).

 

ETC 501. Rigid wheel door panels.

 

Perlon-landing-gear tires the Firm Conti 25.10. ./. 10.11.

 

Ballast: In the FT area 10 kg.

 

In fuselage center instead of internal extra tank 125 kg.

 

Between floor panel and master compass 75 kg.

 

30.10. ./. 6.11.44 Take-off weight G = 4224 kg

 

Center of gravity position = 0.78 m.

 

Program:

 

1. Determination of level speeds with engine, Werk-Nr. 316248.

2. Recording of the cooling pressures in climb and level flight.

3. Flight characteristic investigations with rear positions of the center of gravity.

 

Results:

 

1. After replacement of the engine that failed from supercharger damage, serial No. 328909, level speeds using combat and take-off power were determined in the as-delivered condition. Using the ram pressure calibration as shown in Flight Report Nr 1 the important points of the speed plots are as follows:

 

 

Speed at SL with combat power VwKC = 321 mph (516 km/h)

 

" " " take-off power VwKC = 334 mph (537 km/h)

 

Speed at full throttle height with combat power (5650m) VwKC = 366 mph (589 km/h)

 

" " " " take-off power (6100m) VwKC = 383 mph (617 km/h)

 

 

The necessary conditions are fulfilled for a later comparison and the airplane can be converted to the intended improved aerodynamic condition.

 

2. Since a modification of the cowl flaps as well as the cooling air outlet cross-section is also scheduled with the conversion, the pressures in the engine were determined during climb and level flights. The chart of the values obtained in the climb show, that from 6000 m height upwards the necessary cooling pressure drop as required by BMW for 220° cylinder temperatures is reached only with fully opened cowl flaps.

 

3. For the check of the rearmost position of the center of gravity for bad weather fighters the machine was brought, through ballast, to a rear center of gravity with full drop tank from s = 0.78 ./. 0.76 m . With this the airplane is significantly unstable and must be flown carefully. Only after consumption of the fuel supply down to approximately 100 litres for each main fuselage tank, thus a cog-position of 0.72 m, a sufficient stability around the transverse axis is present.

 

 

In the case of standard pre-setting of the horizontal stabilizer of 2° toward nose-heavy (indicated 0) and neutral elevator trim tab edge resulted in the following trim indicator positions:

 

 

Center of Gravity position 0.78 m (unstable):

Take-off + 1°

Climb +1.8°

 

Center of Gravity position 0.72 m (stable):

Level flight + 0.5°

Climb +1.0°

 

Further flights conducted with trim tab edges adjusted to ~ 25° nose-heavy resp. tail-heavy show that no movement of the neutral point is caused through this. Judged purely by feel, however, the upward slope of the stability line seems thereby influenced by, and in the favorable sense with trim tab edges adjusted nose-heavy.

Langenhagen, 21 November 1944

GT/Schw.

=========================================================

 

The results are:

 

Speed at SL with combat power VwKC = 321 mph (516 km/h)

 

" " " take-off power VwKC = 334 mph (537 km/h)

 

This test was done for a SPECIFIC engine Werk-Nr. 316248 with ETC501 installed.

 

Anyway, I made two short videos to back up my claims.

In the first movie you can see that my top speed @SL is ~500km/h @ 1.32ATA and ~520 km/h @ 1.42ATA , whereas my wingman can reach >557km/h @ probably 1.42ATA. I also did a few loops to show that the rpm dropping can be heard. Nothing wrong with the controls as you can see that my VPC throttle can reach the maximum travel.

 

 

In the second one, with air start, you may notice that the boost is capped @ 1.32ATA and, unless I dive it cannot reach 1.4ATA not even 1.42 and upon climbing it is again capped @1.32ATA. Call that NORMAL and I'll uninstall DCS altogether.

 

 

I'll try to remove A-8 module and re-install it, maybe it'll change something.

 

L.E. Same thing after re-installing the module.

You have used IAS instead of TAS but you're on sea level, so anyways, it seems to lack power, about 15 km/h less at 1.32 ATA

You have used IAS instead of TAS but you're on sea level, so anyways, it seems to lack power, about 15 km/h less at 1.32 ATA

I hope it's not only on my side..

No, but you should watch your language. Please keep this civilized without ad hominem attacks. My controls are fine, A-8 not so much.. You should try and see for yourself what I mean. See the clips bellow.

 

===============Translation of your report========================

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a8-733705-2.html

 

Flight Report Fw 190 A-8/733705 Nr.2 translated:

 

[...]

 

Condition:

Engine 801 D-2/316248

 

A-8 production condition (without outer wing weapons).

 

Armament: 2 Mg 131, 2 MG 151 (MG 151 with 230 rounds ammunition each).

 

ETC 501. Rigid wheel door panels.

 

Perlon-landing-gear tires the Firm Conti 25.10. ./. 10.11.

 

Ballast: In the FT area 10 kg.

 

In fuselage center instead of internal extra tank 125 kg.

 

Between floor panel and master compass 75 kg.

 

30.10. ./. 6.11.44 Take-off weight G = 4224 kg

 

Center of gravity position = 0.78 m.

 

Program:

 

1. Determination of level speeds with engine, Werk-Nr. 316248.

2. Recording of the cooling pressures in climb and level flight.

3. Flight characteristic investigations with rear positions of the center of gravity.

 

Results:

 

1. After replacement of the engine that failed from supercharger damage, serial No. 328909, level speeds using combat and take-off power were determined in the as-delivered condition. Using the ram pressure calibration as shown in Flight Report Nr 1 the important points of the speed plots are as follows:

 

 

Speed at SL with combat power VwKC = 321 mph (516 km/h)

 

" " " take-off power VwKC = 334 mph (537 km/h)

 

Speed at full throttle height with combat power (5650m) VwKC = 366 mph (589 km/h)

 

" " " " take-off power (6100m) VwKC = 383 mph (617 km/h)

 

 

The necessary conditions are fulfilled for a later comparison and the airplane can be converted to the intended improved aerodynamic condition.

 

2. Since a modification of the cowl flaps as well as the cooling air outlet cross-section is also scheduled with the conversion, the pressures in the engine were determined during climb and level flights. The chart of the values obtained in the climb show, that from 6000 m height upwards the necessary cooling pressure drop as required by BMW for 220° cylinder temperatures is reached only with fully opened cowl flaps.

 

3. For the check of the rearmost position of the center of gravity for bad weather fighters the machine was brought, through ballast, to a rear center of gravity with full drop tank from s = 0.78 ./. 0.76 m . With this the airplane is significantly unstable and must be flown carefully. Only after consumption of the fuel supply down to approximately 100 litres for each main fuselage tank, thus a cog-position of 0.72 m, a sufficient stability around the transverse axis is present.

 

 

In the case of standard pre-setting of the horizontal stabilizer of 2° toward nose-heavy (indicated 0) and neutral elevator trim tab edge resulted in the following trim indicator positions:

 

 

Center of Gravity position 0.78 m (unstable):

Take-off + 1°

Climb +1.8°

 

Center of Gravity position 0.72 m (stable):

Level flight + 0.5°

Climb +1.0°

 

Further flights conducted with trim tab edges adjusted to ~ 25° nose-heavy resp. tail-heavy show that no movement of the neutral point is caused through this. Judged purely by feel, however, the upward slope of the stability line seems thereby influenced by, and in the favorable sense with trim tab edges adjusted nose-heavy.

Langenhagen, 21 November 1944

GT/Schw.

=========================================================

 

The results are:

 

Speed at SL with combat power VwKC = 321 mph (516 km/h)

 

" " " take-off power VwKC = 334 mph (537 km/h)

 

This test was done for a SPECIFIC engine Werk-Nr. 316248 with ETC501 installed.

 

Anyway, I made two short videos to back up my claims.

In the first movie you can see that my top speed @SL is ~500km/h @ 1.32ATA and ~520 km/h @ 1.42ATA , whereas my wingman can reach >557km/h @ probably 1.42ATA. I also did a few loops to show that the rpm dropping can be heard. Nothing wrong with the controls as you can see that my VPC throttle can reach the maximum travel.

 

 

In the second one, with air start, you may notice that the boost is capped @ 1.32ATA and, unless I dive it cannot reach 1.4ATA not even 1.42 and upon climbing it is again capped @1.32ATA. Call that NORMAL and I'll uninstall DCS altogether.

 

 

I'll try to remove A-8 module and re-install it, maybe it'll change something.

 

L.E. Same thing after re-installing the module.

Please, read it all!

It might sound displeasing. But the first part is my impression of you, that can, of course, completely differ from reality.

________________________________________________________________

I don't know you. I can only assess your character by the words you write.

This is tricky.

As you call yourself "amazingme", you set the standard for yourself very high with that alone(not including, what you said during this and other conversations). And I am truly amazed. I rechecked the word "amazing", in case I got the translation wrong. "Astound" would also fit as an exchange for "amazing". I am astound how someone, who sets the standard so high by his words, gets so much so wrong.

You can not admit that you made a mistake, or got something wrong.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I have absolutely no problem being corrected, but then the correction has to be correct. Just one example: 1.42ATA.

...The only way to achieve 1.4ATA (and not 1.42!!!) is if you dive, but the power remains constant.....

I showed you that 1.42 is the correct value, but your answer was

You clearly confuse me with somebody else..

_______________________________________________________________

Now to the other part:

A testflight contains the airframe number, engine number etc. And in the test you now refer to, the engine was replaced because of a faulty supercharger, then tested and it was found okay then. They continued with the test. If the engine was still not sufficient, the engine would have to be repaired/exchanged again. The resulting speeds this particular A8 achieved are similar to other tests, so it was fine.

...

 

1. After replacement of the engine that failed from supercharger damage, serial No. 328909, level speeds using combat and take-off power were determined in the as-delivered condition.

...

The necessary conditions are fulfilled for a later comparison and the airplane can be converted to the intended improved aerodynamic condition.

{You added:} This test was done for a SPECIFIC engine Werk-Nr. 316248 with ETC501 installed.{No it was not a test FOR this engine, but WITH this engine to see if the necessary conditions for further testing are fulfilled now. And they were fulfilled, as it is written in the testresults.}

Your videos:

What is the atmospheric condition in your tests? Standard atmosphere to compare it to the original graphs is necessary, unless you want to convert the values by yourself to standard atmosphere (I'm unable to do that).

First video:

Did you trim the aircraft? Or did you push/pull the stick to fly level?

In your speedtest you had no TAS indication. Use 2x LCtr+Y, or LCtr+Z to open the info bar and have TAS shown in the cockpitview(or use tacview).

The testcharts use TAS (corrected for compessibility).

Your cooling flaps were fully open in the speed run. That costs you precious km/h. I'm not sure, but I think it is around -20ish km/h from fully closed to fully open at SL.

Second video, again without atmospheric conditions stated.

Your video shows:

~1.8km altitude

~1,31 - 1,32 ATA

~2700rpm

Now look at the real-life test chart.

Altitude: 1.8km

Ladedruck Startleistung Horizontalflug ~1.34ATA

at 2700rpm

ATA delta DCS to real-life testchart average-graph ~0.03.

I think that is really really good. And consider, that you didn't reach the resulting speed of this powersetting at this point. The increased dynamic pressure at higher speeds could increase the ATA additionally.

If you can maintain (in std. atmosphere) levelflight at 1.8km altitude at takeoff power, you should reach ~560km/h (+~12km/h if ETC501 is removed) TAS.

...In the second one, with air start, you may notice that the boost is capped @ 1.32ATA and, unless I dive it cannot reach 1.4ATA not even 1.42 and upon climbing it is again capped @1.32ATA. Call that NORMAL and I'll uninstall DCS altogether....

Hmmm... "Normal", as shown above...

But I don't think it is necessary to uninstall DCS.

Better enjoy the high level of detail and accuracy in DCS.

Fox

Please, read it all!

It might sound displeasing. But the first part is my impression of you, that can, of course, completely differ from reality.

 

 

 

________________________________________________________________

I don't know you. I can only assess your character by the words you write.

This is tricky.

 

As you call yourself "amazingme", you set the standard for yourself very high with that alone(not including, what you said during this and other conversations). And I am truly amazed. I rechecked the word "amazing", in case I got the translation wrong. "Astound" would also fit as an exchange for "amazing". I am astound how someone, who sets the standard so high by his words, gets so much so wrong.

 

You can not admit that you made a mistake, or got something wrong.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, I have absolutely no problem being corrected, but then the correction has to be correct. Just one example: 1.42ATA.

 

I showed you that 1.42 is the correct value, but your answer was

 

 

_______________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 

Now to the other part:

 

 

A testflight contains the airframe number, engine number etc. And in the test you now refer to, the engine was replaced because of a faulty supercharger, then tested and it was found okay then. They continued with the test. If the engine was still not sufficient, the engine would have to be repaired/exchanged again. The resulting speeds this particular A8 achieved are similar to other tests, so it was fine.

 

 

 

Your videos:

 

What is the atmospheric condition in your tests? Standard atmosphere to compare it to the original graphs is necessary, unless you want to convert the values by yourself to standard atmosphere (I'm unable to do that).

 

 

First video:

 

Did you trim the aircraft? Or did you push/pull the stick to fly level?

 

In your speedtest you had no TAS indication. Use 2x LCtr+Y, or LCtr+Z to open the info bar and have TAS shown in the cockpitview(or use tacview).

The testcharts use TAS (corrected for compessibility).

 

 

Your cooling flaps were fully open in the speed run. That costs you precious km/h. I'm not sure, but I think it is around -20ish km/h from fully closed to fully open at SL.

 

 

 

 

Second video, again without atmospheric conditions stated.

 

Your video shows:

 

 

 

 

 

~1.8km altitude

~1,31 - 1,32 ATA

~2700rpm

 

 

Now look at the real-life test chart.

 

 

Altitude: 1.8km

Ladedruck Startleistung Horizontalflug ~1.34ATA

at 2700rpm

 

ATA delta DCS to real-life testchart average-graph ~0.03.

I think that is really really good. And consider, that you didn't reach the resulting speed of this powersetting at this point. The increased dynamic pressure at higher speeds could increase the ATA additionally.

 

If you can maintain (in std. atmosphere) levelflight at 1.8km altitude at takeoff power, you should reach ~560km/h (+~12km/h if ETC501 is removed) TAS.

 

 

 

Hmmm... "Normal", as shown above...

But I don't think it is necessary to uninstall DCS.

Better enjoy the high level of detail and accuracy in DCS.

 

 

Fox

You, again, are a very confused man. You maybe confuse me with someone else, like, your parents, I don't know.. When you attack a person it means two things: first, you don't have any logical argument and second, it makes you look like a low character person, but you should've known that by now, without me telling you these.

I've shown you that the values from the charts are OFF in DCS, no matter what the conditions are. The differences are too large. Additionally, and that was my main concern about Anton's FM accuracy, is that it loses the power during climbing at any altitude.

You, again, are a very confused man. You maybe confuse me with someone else, like, your parents, I don't know.. When you attack a person it means two things: first, you don't have any logical argument and second, it makes you look like a low character person, but you should've known that by now, without me telling you these.

 

I've shown you that the values from the charts are OFF in DCS, no matter what the conditions are. The differences are too large. Additionally, and that was my main concern about Anton's FM accuracy, is that it loses the power during climbing at any altitude.

Well, there is nothing more to say from my side.

Fox

I think that nothing has changed.

 

1,42ATA, 100% - 2700 RPM

with ext. rack

coolant flaps fully open - 518 kph (one previous DCS build 517 kph, my old test)

coolant flaps fully close - 532 kph (532 kph, from the same like above)

 

the same eng. setting without ext. rack

coolant flaps fully open - 532 kph

coolant flaps fully close - 547 kph

(did not find any older data, lost them...)

 

It seems that fully open coolant flaps have the same drag like external rack, but this is not new.

Hi Saburo,

Can you, please, make a video or attach a tacview with the speeds obtained? I can't get to those speeds no matter configuration and air temperature I set in ME. My top speed (TAS) is ~540km/h with rads fully closed and ~530km/h with rads fully opened (both on a hot day). Are you sure you weren't diving? I also noticed (in tacview) that TAS and IAS differ with maximum +/-3km/h no matter the atmospheric conditions, so, of course, this difference could be easily neglected @ SL.

Only brief video. Usualy spend more time on "measured" speed, just to be sure.

When i perform this test at another altitudes i throttle back to max. continuous power climb and do the same like i did in video, level plane, set power and wait...:)

I always use data from "Info bar".