Interesting discussion

To add another factor to the equation:

What about weight? At a comparable loadout were the FW190's not heavier (and larger) birds then the late Yaks due to armor plating and larger engines? What were the loadouts at the factory/TSAGI tests? What fuel loads?

[This message has been edited by Cali (edited 12-08-2001).]

Terribletwo,

I think you hit the nail on the head. The first thing I thought (and many, many others here) is that the German planes were unrealistically underpowered. I hope that the flight models can be "modded" in the future to accurately (and fairly) reflect the data.

Until then, it is still an awesome sim and a little pro-Russian propaganda won't hurt anyone.

Takeerez!

I may be terribly wrong on this matter, but AFAIK, weight does not matter for top speed. Drag and thrust do, and I dont think weight is related to neither of them.

Maybe drag increases with weight but I dont think so. Maybe some of the ppl here can give us a clue on it

[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 12-08-2001).]

Well - i like your logic I think Bf-109F after all can't get its speed due to that bad engine - not even 1200hp. Besides i remember that Luftwaffe wasn't all that entuthiastic about fighter with air-cooled engine and take a look at it only out of major water-cooled engines shortage, you should know that too IMO. About F4U having best aerodynamic - thats impossable - it was slower than P-51 even through having more powerful engine, so prolly F4U had best aerodynamic for air-cooled plane. Best aerodynamic as i heard had P-51 and P-63.

I didnt say F4U had the best aerodynamic I said it was one of the most clean planes of WWII aerodinamically -and it was because its magnific design, its well placed oil cooler, and the gull wing insertion into the fuselage-.

The P51D was better (I think it was the most aerodinamically efficient plane in WWII) because its superbly well designed airframe, its laminar flow wing and its superbly designed radiator (wich, far from adding drag, it actually thrusted the plane!).

The P-63 is a plane I dont know very well, but I know that it had laminar flow wing too, and was similar to the P39 -a quite clear design itself- so I wont be suprised if it was,too,a very clean plane.



[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 12-08-2001).]

RAM, AFAIK, from my physics class, the forward force of the engine (the forward horizontal vector) is used for 2 things:

- to generate Lift (an upright vertical vector) A
- to generate thrust (the forward horizontal vector) B

engine torque = A + B

A - is proportional to weght (it's harder to lift heavier things, no? )
B - is proportional to drag

As weght increases, A has to increase, therefore the engine power is taken way from propelling the aircraft forward.

RAM

fly the 190 a5 not the 190 a4. with emergency powr i found the maximum speed in il2 at sea level to be 570 kph.

please note that all speeds in il2 are IAS NOT TAS. this will result in lower speeds than your chart indicates at more than sea level altitudes.

Heya Zigrat! nice to see you around here! .

Well, in the fight I am talking about, I was in a 190A5, not a 190A4...

About TAS and IAS...being at SL altitude, they should be the same, isnt it?. In the fight vs the Yak9T we were at SL . And I remark in my first post the speeds at different altitudes. I know the difference between TAS and IAS -hehe after 2 years of AH, how not -

Will test top speeds later (With auto prop settings) and see what I get . Maybe in the heat of the combat I was missing something.



[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 12-08-2001).]

I stand corrected. Just tested the Fw190A5 at SL. 570km/h.

Can't understand why I had that hard time trying to catch that Yak9T, tho. Maybe damage (I dont recall getting any damage in that fight, but o well ).

Please someone fix the "view objects" section...that wrong info really misguided me!!! .

P.S. I love this sim. Liked it even while thinking the 190 was slower than what it should...now I like it even more

The first chart shows 3 pairs of curves. In the right ones is indicated "air compresibility" not taken into acount (or so, my german is quite rusty ) on them, so indeed the TAS is 656 km/h @ 6200 m with Start -u. Notleistung power (1.42 ata @ 2700 rpm).

Also, if I remember corectly (read from AH boards) it is calculated (theoretic) data, i.e. not from actual flight tests.

And again, IIRC the A-5 in Il-2 is modeled with extra armour (~4200 kg take-off weight), heavier than those charts.

Fw190A5-----1700hp-----decent aerodinamic shape

Yak9T-------1180hp------not particularly good aerodinamic shape

Hehe, now can you provide some more empiric data like drag coefficient, flat plate area or so?

PD: por lo visto al final tu también caiste, eh ?