Question before buying the FW190

[JtD]

Kills per sortie is primarily a function of ammo supply, not of overall aircraft quality. The Fw carries about four times the ammo the Yak carries, so if you can't get more in the Fw than in the Yak, you've either chosen a very particular scenario or something's truly wrong.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Sturm and I just, unscientifically, confirmed the above by randomly meeting in combat where he had E and 500m altitude on me............................where I unceremoniously ran from him like a frightened kitten and then pulled away with all four of my 20 mm's pointing in the wrong direction.

Kills per sortie is primarily a function of ammo supply, not of overall aircraft quality. The Fw carries about four times the ammo the Yak carries, so if you can't get more in the Fw than in the Yak, you've either chosen a very particular scenario or something's truly wrong.

You still have to get that ammo on target and you do that by flying correctly. In this case, by not flying the Fw like a 109.

[sturmkraehe]

Kills per sortie is primarily a function of ammo supply, not of overall aircraft quality. The Fw carries about four times the ammo the Yak carries, so if you can't get more in the Fw than in the Yak, you've either chosen a very particular scenario or something's truly wrong.

 

Ammo quantity or lethality of weapon loadout are one kind of airplane quality in itself.

[Descolada]

the fw is a pretty horrible aircraft imo

 

it has a rather significant altitude band where its slower than the yak as well as an even heftier one where its slower than the 109

 

it also climbs worse and turns worse

 

its really good for blowing up dudes who dont see you coming though

[JtD]

Ammo quantity or lethality of weapon loadout are one kind of airplane quality in itself.

Two kinds, if you ask me. Edited December 16, 2014 by JtD

[SR-F_Winger]

Then you're using the 190 wrong. I mostly play solo and I find much sucess with it, but it must be flown accordingly, its no easy mode like the 109. You need to be gentle, plan ahead, always have some altitute to spare and most of all, stay fast, never below 300km/h. 

 

IMHO, the 190 is a much more fun plane to fly than the 109, at least for me.

I am not saying you cant be successful in the 190. I only say it sucks performance wise - compared to other planes. And sadly thats the truth.

[216th_Xenos]

The only plane I have ever been able to really fight a 190 in is the yak, the LaGG and La-5 have more difficulty, simply because the 190 is better in pretty much every way, just fly it right, and like all planes, be patient.

 

The problem with the 190 though, is that in all flight sims it has been and will be present in, it will never be good enough, there will always be people complaining that is doesn't fly at 2000km/h, doesn't have the 90 guns that it 'historically' had, and the outer kevlar shell that protected it from everything but lasers.

[303_Kwiatek]

Fw 190 in BOS got the worse elevator effectivness at high speeds. It should have rather one of the best elevator effectivness.

 

Also still climb rate is undermodeled -  no effect for climb from russian winter where all others planes got better climb rates then ISA condition.

 

Fw 190 got not real roll rate adventage over russian planes.

 

Other way still plane can be flown efficiently against russian planes if pilot remeber to get intiial adventage in speed or alt.

 

Of course 109 F-4 is overall better aircraft in BOS then Fw 190 A-3 in near every aspect which shouldn;t be the case.

 

Truly speaking i have no doubt that we will not have historical performacne of all these planes.

Edited December 16, 2014 by Kwiatek

[DD_Arthur]

 

 

its really good for blowing up dudes who dont see you coming though

 

Which is of course, the whole art of the successful fighter pilot. 

[Brano]

Oh boy,another thread turned into "Fw FM broken".Give that poor bird a break 

[Zak]

A couple of fixes for Fw 190 are coming up next week. One for FM, one for DM.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

A couple of fixes for Fw 190 are coming up next week. One for FM, one for DM.

 

 

Can you tell us more, dear Zak ?

[Brano]

A couple of fixes for Fw 190 are coming up next week. One for FM, one for DM.

Oh,no,that will lit a spark in the eyes of "those,who know..." and what will come out of it...I dont want to see 

[SR-F_Winger]

A couple of fixes for Fw 190 are coming up next week. One for FM, one for DM.

OH YES. So hope for this bird isnt dead yet. Awesome news! Thanks Zak!

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

It's gonna get 4 kph faster and roll 2 dps faster.......and still kill everything in sight.

 

I keed, I keed.

Edited December 16, 2014 by HerrMurf

[-TBC-AeroAce]

190 is lethal, I'm not the best or the worst pilot but I can seem to beat certain people when they are 190

[Matt]

Fix for excessive AOA behaviour and a sturdier engine (against weapon damage) would be my guess (and hope)..

 

I think what's hurting the 190 the most (compared to the other BoS planes) is the extreme good rearward visibility we have in BoS. It's no problem to constantly and quickly check six in any plane. If you setup a snap view you can check six instantly without any delay or effort. Spotting an enemy 190 on your tail and then reacting before it's able to cause any damage is not a challenge and then people think the 190 is useless compared to the 109, because when the 109 is on a tail of any of the Russian planes, it can stay there (or pull up and get above etc.).

 

Many kills in WW2 came out of nowhere and in that situation, the armament of the 190 can be a huge advantage.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

A couple of fixes for Fw 190 are coming up next week. One for FM, one for DM.

awesome news! Only needs a little bit more power to match the other cold-air overperforming airplanes. Can't wait

[Zak]

Fix for excessive AOA behaviour and a sturdier engine (against weapon damage) would be my guess (and hope)..

How did you guess? IIRC that's something like what is actually coming up/

[303_Kwiatek]

What about high speed elevator effectivness?  How it could be worse then other planes even then 109??

[GP*]

What about high speed elevator effectivness? How it could be worse then other planes even then 109??

We wouldn't want this plane to be too good now would we

[III/JG2Gustav05]

We wouldn't want this plane to be too good now would we

High speed elevator effectivness is baisc character of FW190. it's a decent requirement.

[GP*]

High speed elevator effectivness is baisc character of FW190. it's a decent requirement.

My comment was sarcastic.

 

In other words, I agree with you.

[StG2_Manfred]

What about high speed elevator effectivness?  How it could be worse then other planes even then 109??

 

 

High speed elevator effectivness is baisc character of FW190. it's a decent requirement.

 

+1 

[JtD]

Have you got any actual figures on how effective it was, at high speed and/or at high Mach?

[303_Kwiatek]

http://www.shockwaveproductions.com/store/fw190/tactical_trials.htm

 

"

Dive

The Fw 190 has a high rate of dive, the initial acceleration being excellent. The maximum speed so far obtained in a dive is 580 m.p.h. |934 k.m./h.l True at 16,000 ft [4,880 m|, and at this speed the controls, although slightly heavier, are still remarkably light. One very g<x>d feature is that no alteration of trim form level flight is required either during the entry or during the pull-out. Due to the fuel injection system it is possible to enter the dive by pushing the control column forward without the engine cutting."

 

 

The flying characteristics are exceptional and a pilot new to the type feels at home within the first few minutes of flight. The controls are light and well-harmonised and all manoeuvres can be carried out without difficulty at all speeds. The fact that the Fw 190 does not require re-trimming under all conditions of flight is a particularly good point. The initial acceleration is very good and is particularly noticeable in the initial stages of a climb or dive.

 

Perhaps one of the most outstanding qualities of this aircraft is the remarkable aileron control. It is possible to change from a turn in one direction to a turn in the opposite direction with incredible speed, and when viewed from another aircraft the change appears just as if a flick half-roll has been made."

 

 

 

https://books.google.pl/books?id=NFTEPiyEiSsC&pg=PA108&lpg=PA108&dq=fw190+flight+reports&source=bl&ots=RNQutiFIR0&sig=D4Ke1IRtyB8aY5Ee9eShvmXLDcI&hl=pl&sa=X&ei=c7KSVIz1E4fVywOdi4D4Bw&ved=0CFYQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=fw190%20flight%20reports&f=false

 

page 107

Edited December 18, 2014 by Kwiatek

[JtD]

http://www.shockwaveproductions.com/store/fw190/tactical_trials.htm

So I take it that you don't have actual figures.

[Matt]

Classic case of "plane A is worse than plane B, even though plane A was know to be best" and this then equals = "plane A is too bad".

 

Could easily be that plane A is correct and plane B is too good.

[303_Kwiatek]

Pretty much how it feels in DCS....

 

Yes in DCS Fw 190 there no need some much trim at different range of speeds.

 

Exacly like it stayed in flight test from flying Fw 190.

 

In BOS Fw 190 got the worse elevator effectivnes from near all planes.   Fw 190 was known from very good control at high speeds  ( in all axis) and was known as a plane that no need retrim at different speed range.  Not true in BOS actually.

[JtD]

How much do you need to retrim the Fw in BoS if you change your speed from say 300 IAS to 500 IAS?

 

Are you aware that the need for zero trim implies an aerodynamic instability in the design, as it will not return to the original flight condition on its own once disturbed?

[JtD]

Can you please provide the aerodynamic study on which you base that statement? I'm particularly interested in the "most" CoG positions part.

[Pringliano]

JtD, do you mean, for the Fw190, or the concepts as described i.e.:

 

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-367/chapt9.htm

 

http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~lutze/AOE3134/Vehicleproperties.pdf

 

?

[JtD]

I would like to see the aerodynamics studies showing the neutral stability of the P-51D and the Bf109(K-4) at most CoG positions, and ideally the relevance of that for the Fw190A-3 or a similar study for the Fw 190A-3, figures of how much the BoS model deviates from that and real life numbers for high speed elevator characteristics of the Fw190A. Basically I'm interested in a little bit of actual data to back up all these claims made in the last couple of posts.

[Pringliano]

Hmmm, ok, no data  that I can provide you with, other than rather simple tests I have run myself, and those included simple phugoid tests with the A3 in il2-bos I did run a few months ago...

 

I was surprised to find out it shows pitch instability, both "positive and negative". Tests were run starting from 3000m, 100% fuel, aircraft trimmed ( as much as possible ) for level flight. Divergence was quite pronnounced.

 

Yet, neutral pitch stability of the Fw190 is mentioned across various sources over the Interenet, such as:

 

http://www.mnstarfire.com/ww2/history/air/fw190/fw190info.html

 

Regarding the p51d, this text has some interesting info too:

 

http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~jps7/Aircraft%20Design%20Resources/Brandt%20Introduction%20to%20Aeronautics/Ch6Stability.doc

 

and also , i.e., this interesting presentation:

 

http://www.calpoly.edu/~rcumming/SnC_Intro2.pdf

Edited December 18, 2014 by BOS-jcomm

[JtD]

Yet, no quantifiable difference between BoS and real life in that regard.

 

Just to make sure - since you +1ed Kwiateks post - you think that when compared to real life performance, the BoS Fw190 requires too much trimming? Or am I barking up the wrong tree?

 

And for what it's worth - having run my own tests in the Fw190 in BoS, I would actually call the longitudinal stability neutral, even more so if one was to consider the 0.05 margin given in the doc for the P-51 as neutral.

[JtD]

To my knowledge, the real thing was hard to pull out of high speed dives, but in a somewhat different way than it happens in BoS. The diving limitations given in the handbook seem to support that. But with so many guys around repeating that it had excellent high speed elevator response, I did hope at least one could point me to hard data, for instance a couple more high speed diving tests or a couple of kg/g figures over the speed range.

 

As a side note, you don't need to use the stabilizer to pull out of dives, it is enough to lose an elevator, and you can pull out really well with the remaining one. At least that's what happens with my standard 50-55% trim.

[303_Kwiatek]

Good find Jcomm.  But what is a concusion of these raport?  My english is too weak to understand it correctly?

[JtD]

Yes, that's essentially all hard data I know about the Fw190 high speed handling. At Mach 0.75, it gets tricky. He needs 1700m altitude with an average stick force of more than 20kg coming from a slight nose up trim to lessen the dive from about 50° to about 10°.

[III/JG2Gustav05]

Yes, that's essentially all hard data I know about the Fw190 high speed handling. At Mach 0.75, it gets tricky. He needs 1700m altitude with an average stick force of more than 20kg coming from a slight nose up trim to lessen the dive from about 50° to about 10°.

0.75M is about 860km/h, Am I right?

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Yes, that's essentially all hard data I know about the Fw190 high speed handling. At Mach 0.75, it gets tricky. He needs 1700m altitude with an average stick force of more than 20kg coming from a slight nose up trim to lessen the dive from about 50° to about 10°.

Germaine to the topic is that his .75 Mach is attained with a 50 degree dive and 1700m cushion. It's not attempted with an 85 degree dive from 2300m, as we often see/vociferously complained about in game. I'm good for examining and tweaking the elevators with good data. Just not expecting the Devs to do so based upon anecdotal information. I'm glad to start seeing some numbers/data in this thread. As a Wulf driver I'd love to see my ride become even more deadly. Should probably start a technical thread with this part of the discussion so it's not buried in a General thread if you want it looked at by people who can do something about it.