How will the FW190 Trims be handled?

[alfredo_laredo]

The Fw190 only has an adjustable trim tab only for pitch...

 

How it ED going to handle the trim tabs adjustable on the ground?? will they be pre-set at the best configuration with no user input or can we adjust it in some way?

Edited June 16, 2014 by alfredo_laredo

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

I'm looking fwd for an answer for this too. It's a very interesting question, and actually one being asked at the forums of my other ww2 sim :-)

[UnLess_24]

I think FW190 will be (ground) adjusted to some speed, although I would like to have ground adjusting.

[Narushima]

They'll probably be fixed for 400km/h cruise. I believe that was the factory setting.

 

Though the 190 required very little trim. It was quite stable at all speeds.

[Gooseneck]

Badly?

[Foul Ole Ron]

They'll probably be fixed for 400km/h cruise. I believe that was the factory setting.

 

Though the 190 required very little trim. It was quite stable at all speeds.

 

It must have required constant pilot correction then via the stick or pedals. When flying the Mustang there's always trimming to be done. I'd doubt very much that the 190 is any different except that the pilot has to handle the aileron and rudder trim with the stick and pedals which might be a bit of a pain during long climbs.

[Narushima]

It must have required constant pilot correction then via the stick or pedals. When flying the Mustang there's always trimming to be done. I'd doubt very much that the 190 is any different except that the pilot has to handle the aileron and rudder trim with the stick and pedals which might be a bit of a pain during long climbs.

 

Mustang != Dora.

 

Each plane had different handling. The 109 for example, which was initially designed for much lower speeds, had great difficulties later on. The K-4 was an extreme handful to fly. The 190 was the complete opposite though. It was designed to be the work horse of the LW. Rugged, stable, easy to maintain and especially easy to fly.

 

Flight Controls

 

The control unit assembly consists of the horizontal stabilizer and elevators, the vertical stabilizer and rudder, the ailerons, and the flaps.

The Fw 190 D-9 has a conventional control scheme with surfaces that include a vertical stabilizer, rudder, horizontal stabilizer, two elevator, two aileron, and flaps.

As the Fw 190 D-9 is generally very stable in flight, only the horizontal stabilizer has trim adjustable in flight. Other control surfaces have trim tabs that can be adjusted on the ground.

The control system for the aircraft is advanced for its age and uses a system of push rods and control cables. Compared to a conventional pulleys and cables system, the controls in the Fw 190 D-9 are lighter and more precise.

The control system uses differential bell cranks that transfer control movement near the center position into finer control surface movement, while control movement is magnified as the controls approach their limit.

The flight stick can be moved forwards and backwards in conventional fashion to control the elevator. It can be moved 20 degrees forward and 21 degrees rearward.

The flight stick can also be moved sideways to control the ailerons in conventional fashion. Aileron deflection is limited by mechanical stops in the control stick mounting base.

Flap position is controlled via push buttons on the left-hand side of the cockpit.

http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/products/dora/?PAGEN_2=2
Edited June 29, 2014 by Narushima

[gavagai]

With a force feedback joystick you intuitively feel what is necessary for coordinated flight. I'm not worried at all about the lack of rudder trim in the 190. It's usually right rudder at low speeds, and left rudder at high speeds. Done.

[9.JG27 DavidRed]

same here, although no force feedback here...

i gotta say, i hardly if ever trim the p51 at all and got no problem with it whatsoever.

[DB 605]

Mustang != Dora.

 

The 109 for example, which was initially designed for much lower speeds, had great difficulties later on. The K-4 was an extreme handful to fly.

 

Let's take it easy here...What were those "great difficulties" here in your opinion? Please remember 109 developed whole time and K4 was almost totally different plane when compared E4 for example. Different wings, ailerons, rudder for example. 109 was actually one of the easiest ww2 planes to fly. Only very high speed manouvers were bit problematic because controls became stiff but it was not only plane with this problem, for example Mustang had similar problems too. In take-offs and landings 109 needed some careful treatment but again, once you know what to do there was no big problems and K4 should not be any more difficult here than say G6, actually K might be bit better because wider wheels and longer tail wheel.

[Narushima]

Let's take it easy here...What were those "great difficulties" here in your opinion? Please remember 109 developed whole time and K4 was almost totally different plane when compared E4 for example. Different wings, ailerons, rudder for example. 109 was actually one of the easiest ww2 planes to fly. Only very high speed manouvers were bit problematic because controls became stiff but it was not only plane with this problem, for example Mustang had similar problems too. In take-offs and landings 109 needed some careful treatment but again, once you know what to do there was no big problems and K4 should not be any more difficult here than say G6, actually K might be bit better because wider wheels and longer tail wheel.

 

What I mean was, that the 109 had quirks which made it quite difficult for new pilots. Especially later models, that had insane engine torque. Same with the spitfire really.

There are reports of German pilots being shot out of the sky like flies of Normandy simply because they couldn't even fly their G-6 in a straight line. The 109 was a newbie killer.

 

The 190 on the other hand, was extremely easy to fly. Apparently it was easier to fly than the trainer aircraft the LW used. Required almost no trim, was stable, very responsive, used electric motors to move the flaps and trim, etc...

The A-8 was the exception. It had stability problems due to added armour, making it very nose heavy. This was mitigated with the ETC rack, so they just never took it off.

D-9 didn't have those issues though.

[DB 605]

What I mean was, that the 109 had quirks which made it quite difficult for new pilots. Especially later models, that had insane engine torque. Same with the spitfire really.

There are reports of German pilots being shot out of the sky like flies of Normandy simply because they couldn't even fly their G-6 in a straight line. The 109 was a newbie killer.

 

The 190 on the other hand, was extremely easy to fly. Apparently it was easier to fly than the trainer aircraft the LW used. Required almost no trim, was stable, very responsive, used electric motors to move the flaps and trim, etc...

The A-8 was the exception. It had stability problems due to added armour, making it very nose heavy. This was mitigated with the ETC rack, so they just never took it off.

D-9 didn't have those issues though.

 

Well i agree that 190 was easier to newbies. 109 needed much more hours to get used to it. But "newbie killer" is bit overstatement here in my opinion, as reason why LW newbies could not fly them properly (in late '44/45) was because they had way too few hours for ANY ww2 fighter...

[Ala13_ManOWar]

The Fw190 only has an adjustable trim tab only for pitch...

 

How it ED going to handle the trim tabs adjustable on the ground?? will they be pre-set at the best configuration with no user input or can we adjust it in some way?

Really I don't understand such a weird question. A fixed tab is just that, a fixed tab. Tabs are adjusted on ground commonly looking for "neutral" cruise stability by ground crew and that's all. In a simulator it is logical you will get an overall stable aircraft at a selected speed, like having fixed tabs "well" regulated. So, why on earth do you expect to control fixed tabs???? :music_whistling::music_whistling:

 

 

Regarding trim control itself, it was electrical moving the whole fixed part of stabilizer. So you have a trim control like in every slightly advanced/modern aircraft in the world. Really, you think you need to control fixed tabs for anything??? Did you need on P-51 or anything??

 

 

S!

[MiloMorai]

About 10 years ago a guy did a study of accidents with JG26. JG26 was flying both the 109 and 190. The 190 had slightly more accidents.

[Narushima]

Really I don't understand such a weird question. A fixed tab is just that, a fixed tab. Tabs are adjusted on ground commonly looking for "neutral" cruise stability by ground crew and that's all. In a simulator it is logical you will get an overall stable aircraft at a selected speed, like having fixed tabs "well" regulated. So, why on earth do you expect to control fixed tabs???? :music_whistling::music_whistling:

 

 

Regarding trim control itself, it was electrical moving the whole fixed part of stabilizer. So you have a trim control like in every slightly advanced/modern aircraft in the world. Really, you think you need to control fixed tabs for anything??? Did you need on P-51 or anything??

 

 

S!

 

He was asking whether we'll be able to change the trim on the ground. Change it something else than default.

[Merlin-27]

About 10 years ago a guy did a study of accidents with JG26. JG26 was flying both the 109 and 190. The 190 had slightly more accidents.

 

This is hard to believe... unless the 190s were flown more often. Just knowing the landing gear configuration on the 109 and the fact that the 190s radial engine should be a little more durable makes it seem improbable. More green pilots assigned to the 190 maybe?

[LcSummers]

This is hard to believe... unless the 190s were flown more often. Just knowing the landing gear configuration on the 109 and the fact that the 190s radial engine should be a little more durable makes it seem improbable. More green pilots assigned to the 190 maybe?

 

 

If you read Mit FW 190D-9 im Einsatz by Axel Urbanke, ( its about the III/JG54 later becoming II/JG26, so he prefers only to this unit and the I/JG26) it says that many D-9 were lost because of mechanical failure. The D-9 was a very good plane but had the typical "Kinderkrankheiten", spare parts were rare and as you know, the material was far from good.

 

I dont say that it had more crashes then the 109 but many were lost due mechanical failures.

[gavagai]

This is hard to believe... unless the 190s were flown more often. Just knowing the landing gear configuration on the 109 and the fact that the 190s radial engine should be a little more durable makes it seem improbable. More green pilots assigned to the 190 maybe?

 

The 109's reputation for difficult landings is more myth than fact. It was not so different from other WW2 fighters.

 

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/#landing

Edited June 30, 2014 by gavagai

[Merlin-27]

If you read Mit FW 190D-9 im Einsatz by Axel Urbanke, ( its about the III/JG54 later becoming II/JG26, so he prefers only to this unit and the I/JG26) it says that many D-9 were lost because of mechanical failure. The D-9 was a very good plane but had the typical "Kinderkrankheiten", spare parts were rare and as you know, the material was far from good.

 

I dont say that it had more crashes then the 109 but many were lost due mechanical failures.

 

Fair enough. Thanks for that clarification.

 

The 109's reputation for difficult landings is more myth than fact. It was not so different from other WW2 fighters.

 

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/#landing

 

I think we've all read that piece Gav, but I've read plenty of pilot accounts saying it could be a real nightmare on takeoff.

 

Not too many people saying that about the 190.

 

 

EDIT: Even my R/C 109 is a REAL challenge to keep straight on takeoff. Scale retractable gear be damned!

Edited July 1, 2014 by Merlin-27

[Kurfürst]

Its worth reading the Luftwaffe's own assessment on the relative flying qualities of the two.

 

http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/109F4_Rechlin_vergleich_190A2/109F_Rvergleichsflg_190A2_de.html

 

IMO the 109 was the more forgiving or "newbie friendly" plane in the air and the 190 the generally more forgiving during take off and landing. It still had some quirks though, being sensitive for sink speed and generally having higher landing speeds.

 

Start- und Lande-Eigenschaften:

 

Start FW 190 A 2 ist vermöge des höheren Gewichts um etwa 60 bis 70 m

länger. Aus demselben Grunde ist die Lande-Geschwindigkeit um etwa

15 km/h höher. Jedoch ist es vermöge der robusten Bauweise des Fahrwerkes

und der auch bei geringeren Geschwindigkeiten noch stabilen Fluglage

(keine Neigung zum Abkippen) möglich, die FW 190 fast ebenso kurz zu

landen, wie die Bf 109. Die Bremswirkung der Räder ist besser als bei

der Bf 109. Etwas zu geringe oder zu hohe Fahrt bei Landen wirken sich

in der Sinkgeschwindigkeit allerdings bedeutend stärker aus, als bei der

Bf 109, sodass in einem Falle das Flugzeug sehr stark durchfällt, im

anderen Falle die Landestrecke erheblich vergrössert wird. Neigung zum

Ausbrechen besteht nicht.

 

Besonderes hervorzuheben ist, dass bei Bauchlandungen kaum nennenswerte

Beschädigungen entstehen, in keinem Fall aber ein Verziehen der Flächen

oder des Rumpfes eintritt, was bei der Bf 109 fast regelmässig der Fall

ist. Dadurch insbesondere kam es bei der Truppe zu hohen Flugzeugaus-

fällen an der Bf 109.

 

One of its greatest advantages was the robustness of the airframe if things went south during landing - belly landings were much less likely to result in a write off than in the case with the 109.

[LcSummers]

Fair enough. Thanks for that clarification.

 

 

 

NP mate, you re welcome

[tempestglen]

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/wright-field-fw190d-9.pdf

 

Allied test pilots needed rudder/aileron trim for Dora.

[Mogster]

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/wright-field-fw190d-9.pdf

 

Allied test pilots needed rudder/aileron trim for Dora.

 

They weren't impressed with it were they....

 

"Any advantage that this airplane may have in performance over other models of the FW190 is more than offset by its poor handling characteristics"

 

Interesting.

Edited July 6, 2014 by Mogster

[Narushima]

They weren't impressed with it were they....

 

"Any advantage that this airplane may have in performance over other models of the FW190 is more than offset by its poor handling characteristics"

 

Interesting.

 

Eric Brown certainly was impressed by it, calling it the second best prop fighter of ww2. The first was the Spit XIV, but only because he was biased towards it for being British, by his own admission.

 

It's quite obvious that the D-9 was either damaged or improperly calibrated in those tests. Same story with the FW 190 A-4 they captured. They complained about the poor aileron control and engine noise. Why? Because the ailerons needed to be carefully adjusted by ground crews (which the allies did not know) and the engine was in a serious need of an overhaul.

 

That and the report states they only flew it for 6 hours...

 

EDIT: Apparently, the D-9 tested was rebuilt after the war.

Edited July 6, 2014 by Narushima