Whats your opinion on the new FW FM?

[SR-F_Winger]

My comrades are mostly disappointed. I think its a little early since we all had only a few hours to test until now and i personally was doing pretty well yesterday.

Would be interesting to know what the crowd thinks.

[Turban]

First I think this belongs in FM section. I know it's less fun but still.

 

Second : I won't discuss it here. At least I'll try. 

[SYN_Haashashin]

Moved it to FM discussion subforum, where all FM related discussion have to take place.

[LittleJP]

The climbrate is nice, but I'm getting annoyed stalling out everytime I get my guns on target. I loved the FW 190 because I could pull off snapshots in a high speed dive, but now, I'll stall out before able to get a gun solution.

[Turban]

OP, what are you disappointed about? It's not really clear?

 

About the FW?  People are disappointed because it doesn't forgive as much as before. But The FW was not a forgiving plane, it has great roll, diving speed etc, but it certainly didn't like to be treated without some respect.

That's the feeling I'm getting from what I read. That's not much.

 

But what the devs have done with the FW goes is coherent with that. And untill people give facts there really is nothing to disappointed about. 

 

It probably requires some getting used to, somme setting up of curves and all. But I don't think there is a problem with the FM on the FW just because people think it forgives less.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

"But The FW was not a forgiving plane"

 

When devs introduced the Fw 190A-3 in BoS, almost 2 years ago, and the climb rate was even more crappy than it was 2 days ago, people were saying "But the FW was never known to be a good climber".

 

You see what i mean ?

[Turban]

 

When devs introduced the Fw 190A-3 in BoS, almost 2 years ago, and the climb rate was even more crappy than it was 2 days ago, people were saying "But the FW was never known to be a good climber".

 

You see what i mean ?

 

 

 

Not really ? It's not the same.

Plus the 190 was not blessed with incredible climb rate. If was good at diving then climbing back. Anyway. Climb rate has been fixed no?

 

Regarding the rest. Do you think the FW was a forgiving plane regarding abrupt change of AoA ? Do have sources for that? Do you think the devs did something wrong in their data ? Which one ?

Edited April 1, 2016 by Turban

[JtD]

Actually, the ease of handling was one of the major strengths of the Fw190, allowing it to be flown to the limit even by rather badly trained pilots. This starts with the ease of taxiing, continues with take off, stays true for in flight and is again true on landing.

 

The two vices which it had in that regard were poor visibility forward on the ground, and a high speed snap stall, which could be a nasty surprise to rookie pilots, but was considered a useful feature by veterans.

[Turban]

On the ground has nothing to do with flight. In was mainly due to it's landing gear in particular, not hard to see why.

Was it forgiving regarding abrupt changes of AoA ?? That is what we are interested in. The rest is irrelevant to this particular topic.

 

 

Also I hate to be that guy, but the FW does very well online from what I've seen.  So it's not broken or anything. Just wanted to clear that up...

Edited April 1, 2016 by Turban

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Not really ? It's not the same.

 

It is.

 

If was good at diving then climbing back.

 

Ok, enough.

 

Welcome. 

 

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

Also I hate to be that guy, but the FW does very well online from what I've seen.  So it's not broken or anything. Just wanted to clear that up

I dont want to be that guy ... but neither you posses the FW-190, nor you can have a lot of experience with the new aircraft since patch was introduced yesterday. So:

a) You dont know if it is correct or not.

b) You dont let the other discuss it because of your assumptions.

 

So with all my respect, please let the ones who actually have it discuss the possible changes they are experiencing. 

[HR_Zunzun]

Actually, the ease of handling was one of the major strengths of the Fw190, allowing it to be flown to the limit even by rather badly trained pilots. This starts with the ease of taxiing, continues with take off, stays true for in flight and is again true on landing.

 

The two vices which it had in that regard were poor visibility forward on the ground, and a high speed snap stall, which could be a nasty surprise to rookie pilots, but was considered a useful feature by veterans.

 

I think that is what Turban is pointing out. If I have undestood it correctly it seems that the Fw190 is now more sensitive to this "vice" (when trying to get a firing solution in a high speed bounce)? Whether this new degree of sensitiveness is historical or not is another matter.

 

 

[Turban]

I dont want to be that guy ... but neither you posses the FW-190, nor you can have a lot of experience with the new aircraft since patch was introduced yesterday. So:

a) You dont know if it is correct or not.

b) You dont let the other discuss it because of your assumptions.

 

So with all my respect, please let the ones who actually have it discuss the possible changes they are experiencing. 

 

 

I still haven't seen facts that what is ingame is wrong....... 

Never claimed to have the plane. Never claimed to have experienced it first end.

 

Discussing (one way or another) what evidence is presented here (which is none so far )  doesn't require me to have the FW 190. 

 

I didn't outright deny claims about the FW. I'm saying there is no proof so far. And just saying it stalls when abruptly changing the AoA doesn't necesserily mean something is wrong with it.

[Turban]

I think that is what Turban is pointing out. If I have undestood it correctly it seems that the Fw190 is now more sensitive to this "vice" (when trying to get a firing solution in a high speed bounce)? Whether this new degree of sensitiveness is historical or not is another matter.

 

Yep. 

Is the degree right or wrong? Well that can be discussed. But it needs to be proven with facts.

When it comes to "feeling" and "flying behavior" the FW was prone to that snap stall. Some would stall just when the pilot would be surprised and pull a bit too hard/not enough coordination stick/rudder.

So, the description so far is not "unrealistic" at all and the numbers seem pretty close from what is to be expected.

 

 

 

Edited April 1, 2016 by Turban

[Crump]

 

 

When it comes to "feeling" and "flying behavior" the FW was prone to that snap stall.

 

The FW-190 was not "prone to snap stall".

 

First of all that is not an aviation term and is meaningless.  If you mean it was prone to aggravated stalls then the answer is no...it was not.  No more so than any other aircraft.

 

Aggravated stall is an accelerated stall, that means it occurs under aceleration forces above 1G.  In a coordinated turn, the formula is Vs (g) = Vs x Square Root (Gz).

 

If our 1G stall speed was 110mph then at 6G's the aircraft would stall at 270 mph!!

 

That would be an accelerated stall and most airplanes act very differently in an acelerated stall compared to a 1G stall.

 

 

 

One final note, Accelerated stalls tend to stall more abruptly, because of this it is extremely important to keep your turn coordinated. Un-coordinated turns in a stall allow one wing to stall more than the other causing the aircraft to dip toward the wing most stalled. Failure to stay coordinated in an accelerated stall could throw you into a spin before you know it happened making recovery impossible at lower altitudes.

 

http://www.lapeeraviation.com/accelerated-stalls-2/

 

The stability and control characteristics of the FW190 do require some degree of fineness on the stick.   It had relatively light forces and at high altitude/airspeed some longitudinal instability.

 

At low altitudes it was perfectly neutral in its stability which is why it did not require much attention on the trim.  At high altitude, it required constant attention on the trim.

 

 

There is a great anecdote about looping the FW-190.  Heinrich Beauvis had a pilot named Schmitz who recently converted to an FW-190 and swore the machine could not fly a proper loop without dropping out on a wing.   Beauvis took him up in a two place FW-190.  

 

The man accelerated to proper loop entry speed and then hauled back very hard on the sitck.  The airplane went nose up and began to fall off on a wing in a stall.  Beauvis noted no attempt to correct the behavior.  

He then took over the controls, applied hard rudder to keep the wing from falling off and maintained control over his course and altitude.  He then brought the aircraft back to loop entry speed, pulled back with an appropriate amount of force and flew a perfect loop. 

 

Schmitz then realized his mistake in over controlling the aircraft.

 

It is very common in aircraft with light control forces and near neutral stability.  A good friend of mine who is a very experienced F-16 driver went into a 4000 foot per minute descent the very first time he tried to do a level steep turn in my Thorp T-18.  If you are not used to it, you will overcontrol it.  Once you do get used to it however, it is extremely maneuverable, pleasant, and fun to fly.

[DD_Arthur]

Fantastic!  We're now going to have an FM flame off between two guys who don't fly the plane.

 

@Winger; yeah, this part of the crowd thinks whatever has been changed has b#####d it up again.  Pity.

[Turban]

It's crazy how heated things get for no reason ..

 

1) I used the term 'snap stall" as it was posted by someone else before.   For convenience. No need to start a lecture on stalls

 

2) Having a clean stall in a straight line, or a turn, or whatever when you're doing a linear movement.. doesn't mean you're not gonna get a dirty stall when doing an abrupt change.

 

Stalls are not that simple and you (should?) know it.

 

And the FW was prompt to "snap stalls". Link in the other thread.

Edited April 1, 2016 by Turban

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

Discussion of the FW-190s FM handling characteristics between 1 guy who doesn't even own the game, and one who only flies Russians 95%+ of the time.

 

Edited April 1, 2016 by RoflSeal

[Turban]

Discussion of the FW-190s FM handling characteristics between 1 guy who doesn't even own the game, and one who only flies Russians 95%+ of the time.

 

 

And yet these guys try to contribute to the discussion with more than just personal attacks.

[von_Tom]

The climbrate is nice, but I'm getting annoyed stalling out everytime I get my guns on target. I loved the FW 190 because I could pull off snapshots in a high speed dive, but now, I'll stall out before able to get a gun solution.

 

Yes - it is twitchier and less forgiving.  I also found a few minutes ago that when I started a defensive move I'd normally do I couldn't because the AOA change almost induced a spin - not good at 100m!

 

I have no idea if the change makes it more or less correct.

 

von Tom

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

And yet these guys try to contribute to the discussion with more than just personal attacks.

Well, you see, I tried not getting into this discussion due to the fact that I am away from my PC, and hence haven't flown the new FW-190 FM.

[Crump]

Yes - it is twitchier and less forgiving.  I also found a few minutes ago that when I started a defensive move I'd normally do I couldn't because the AOA change almost induced a spin - not good at 100m!

 

I have no idea if the change makes it more or less correct.

 

von Tom

 

 

If the stall speed is not correct then the accelerated stall will occur earlier and you maneuvering envelope is reduced.

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/21001-fw-190/?p=344956

[Venturi]

So basically, you're saying that the aircraft should stall at a much lower speed? What speed are you thinking of then? Current 109 type low speed stalls, with control authority to the point where the wing drops? I'm just curious.

 

If the stall speed is not correct then the accelerated stall will occur earlier and you maneuvering envelope is reduced.

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/21001-fw-190/?p=344956

[Crump]

 

 

So basically, you're saying that the aircraft should stall at a much lower speed? What speed are you thinking of then?

 

The speed in your game that corresponds to a coefficient of lift of 1.58. That value corresponds to the 1G level flight stall CLmax of the FW-190 as designed by Focke Wulf.  Aerodynamically that is the only relationship that is fixed and does not change.

 

A stall always occurs at the same angle of attack no matter what the conditions of flight.   In 1G level flight at 8580lbs which is the weight of Faber FW-190A3, that come out too 104 Mph Equivilent Airspeed which equals 110mph Indicated Airspeed as the test pilot read it on his airspeed indicator.

 

It has a higher stall speed than any other World War II fighter.  Basically, your FW-190A3 stalls at a higher speed and lower weight than the real thing.

[Venturi]

So the testing post patch is saying 180 kph indicated in game, give or take a few (you know, depending on the point of view in the cockpit, etc... all those in game variables)

Which is 111.8mph indicated in game... didn't you say the instruments should read ~110mph?

 

Seems reasonable to me, and that it's stalling correctly according to your reasoning. I don't see where you have a problem going off what you're saying. But maybe I'm just not following you. Have you tested it and confirmed these numbers Crump? Maybe the testers aren't flying the FM enough to figure this all out...

 

The speed in your game that corresponds to a coefficient of lift of 1.58. That value corresponds to the 1G level flight stall CLmax of the FW-190 as designed by Focke Wulf.  Aerodynamically that is the only relationship that is fixed and does not change.

 

A stall always occurs at the same angle of attack no matter what the conditions of flight.   In 1G level flight at 8580lbs which is the weight of Faber FW-190A3, that come out too 104 Mph Equivilent Airspeed which equals 110mph Indicated Airspeed as the test pilot read it on his airspeed indicator.

 

It has a higher stall speed than any other World War II fighter.  Basically, your FW-190A3 stalls at a higher speed and lower weight than the real thing.

Edited April 1, 2016 by Venturi

[Crump]

 

 

It's crazy how heated things get for no reason ..   1) I used the term 'snap stall" as it was posted by someone else before.   For convenience. No need to start a lecture on stalls  

 

No Issues, just though you might want to know what is correct!

 

2) Having a clean stall in a straight line, or a turn, or whatever when you're doing a linear movement.. doesn't mean you're not gonna get a dirty stall when doing an abrupt change.   Stalls are not that simple and you (should?) know it.  

 

And, absolutely NOT correct....

 

And the FW was prompt to "snap stalls". Link in the other thread.

 

Yep, if pulled too fast, it will stall at any airspeed or power setting!!

 

 

 

Venturi....

 

Han has told you the stalling characteristics of the FM....

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/168-developer-diary/?p=336140

 

Indicated stall speed in flight configuration: 183..209 km/h

Indicated stall speed in takeoff/landing configuration: 167..190 km/h

Dive speed limit: 850 km/h

Maximum load factor: 11 G

Stall angle of attack in flight configuration: 15.5°

Stall angle of attack in landing configuration: 14.1°

 

Ground speed at sea level, engine mode - Emergency: 555 km/h

Maximum ground speed at 3000 m, engine mode - Emergency: 574 km/h

Maximum ground speed at 6700 m, engine mode - Emergency: 667 km/h

 

Service ceiling: 10800 m

Climb rate at sea level: 16.4 m/s

Climb rate at 3000 m: 12.4 m/s

Climb rate at 6000 m: 10.1 m/s

 

Maximum performance turn at sea level: 24.7 s, at 280 km/h IAS.

Maximum performance turn at 3000 m: 34.3 s, at 270 km/h IAS.

 

Flight endurance at 3000 m: 3.2 h, at 350 km/h IAS.

 

Takeoff speed: 170..210 km/h

Glideslope speed: 205..215 km/h

Landing speed: 160..170 km/h

Landing angle: 12.5°

 

Note 1: the data provided is for international standard atmosphere (ISA).

Note 2: flight performance ranges are given for possible aircraft mass ranges.

Note 3: maximum speeds, climb rates and turn times are given for standard aircraft mass.

Note 4: climb rates are given for Combat power, turn times are given for Emergency power.

 

Engine:

Model: BMW-801D

Maximum power in Emergency mode at sea level: 1700 HP

Maximum power in Emergency mode at 5700 m: 1440 HP

Maximum power in Combat mode at 700 m: 1520 HP

Maximum power in Combat mode at 5300 m: 1320 HP

 

Engine modes:

Nominal (unlimited time): 2300 RPM, 1.2 ata

Combat power (up to 30 minutes): 2400 RPM, 1.32 ata

Emergency power (up to 3 minutes): 2700 RPM, 1.42 ata

 

Oil rated temperature in engine intake: 60..70 °C

Oil maximum temperature in engine intake: 85 °C

Oil rated temperature in engine output: 105 °C

Oil maximum temperature in engine output: 120 °C

Cylinder head rated temperature: 180 °C

Cylinder head maximum temperature: 220 °C

Supercharger gear shift altitude: automatic

 

Empty weight: 3148 kg

Minimum weight (no ammo, 10% fuel): 3330 kg

Standart weight: 3855 kg

Maximum takeoff weight: 4385 kg

Fuel load: 409 kg / 524 l

Useful load: 1237 kg

 

Forward-firing armament:

2 x 20mm gun "MG 151/20", 250 rounds, 700 rounds per minute, synchronized

2 x 7.92mm machine gun "MG 17", 900 rounds, 1200 rounds per minute, synchronized

2 x 20mm gun "MG FF", 90 rounds, 540 rounds per minute, wing-mounted (modification)

 

Bombs:

Up to 4 x 55 kg general purpose bombs "SC 50"

249 kg general purpose bomb "SC 250"

500 kg general purpose bomb "SC 500"

 

Length: 8.85 m

Wingspan: 10.51 m

Wing surface: 18.3 m^2

 

Combat debut: March 1942

 

Unlock of additional airplane configuration:

 

MG FF/M 20mm additional wing-mounted guns with 60 rounds per each

Additional mass: 123 kg

Ammunition mass: 29 kg

Guns mass: 94 kg

Estimated speed loss: 7 km/h

 

Unlock of additional airplane configuration:

 

MG FF/M 20mm additional wing-mounted guns with 90 rounds per each

Additional mass: 144 kg

Ammunition mass: 50 kg

Guns mass: 94 kg

Estimated speed loss: 8 km/h

 

Unlock of additional airplane configuration:

 

4 x 55 kg General Purpose Bombs SC 50

Additional mass: 280 kg

Ammunition mass: 220 kg

Racks mass: 60 kg

Estimated speed loss before drop: 85 km/h

Estimated speed loss after drop: 41 km/h

 

Unlock of additional airplane configuration:

 

249 kg General Purpose Bomb SC 250

Additional mass: 279 kg

Ammunition mass: 249 kg

Racks mass: 30 kg

Estimated speed loss before drop: 37 km/h

Estimated speed loss after drop: 11 km/h

 

Unlock of additional airplane configuration:

 

500 kg General Purpose Bomb SC 500

Additional mass: 530 kg

Ammunition mass: 500 kg

Racks mass: 30 kg

Estimated speed loss before drop: 43 km/h

Estimated speed loss after drop: 13 km/h

 

What is there to test or guess at?  The data is provided if you know how to interpret it and process it.

 

The difference is the amount and access to original documents on the type.  I have an extensive library on the Focke Wulf because i worked on one and was part of project to restore an FW-190F8 to flying condition.  We got the wings 90% done, the fuselage completed, the empennage, and a BMW801D2 motor restored to flight worthy condition before running out of funds and having to sell the project.  It now sits in a hanger at the Collings Foundation.

[Venturi]

Uh huh, as of mid Feb which is when these were measured IN GAME. Maybe something has changed in the interpretation of the data.

 

Do you have an operating manual with these numbers so we can be authoritative on this subject?? 

 

Characteristics presented below were measured in the game, which took almost two weeks of hard work. In the end we've got informative and standardized data for all planes in the game we'd like to present you below:

Edited April 1, 2016 by Venturi

[Crump]

The 183 corresponds to the lightest weight FW-190 in your game...

 

The 104 mph EAS corresponds to a heavier fighter variant with outboard wing weapons as tested by the RAE!!

 

In your game, the 183 corresponds to the lighter 3855kg is the weight of a Type I fighter which does not have the outboard cannon.

 

Your FM's CL max is only 1.3 and not the 1.58 of the design.

 

It should be stalling at 165 kph in that configuration NOT 183kph.  Somebody has misrepresented touchdown speed with the 1G level stall in clean configuration.  They are the same speed in the FW-190 design.  The problem is instead of representing that, other much higher speeds have been passed off to the developers as the stalling speed!

 

Do you have an operating manual with these numbers so we can be authoritative on this subject?? 

 

Of course I have a manual and data to back it up!    

[Venturi]

AH, according to you, the configuration that the FW190A-3 was tested in, in the other thread (outer cannon removed) should be stalling at 165, which is 102.5 mph? Keep in mind it was only 100lbs less than the 110mph variant, in a ~8000lb aircraft... according to the weights given.

 

Just curious, at what speed does the current FM of the Bf109F-4 stall? Just for comparison?

 

 

The 183 corresponds to the lightest weight FW-190 in your game...

 

The 104 mph EAS corresponds to a heavier fighter variant with outboard wing weapons as tested by the RAE!!

 

In your game, the 183 corresponds to the lighter 3855kg is the weight of a Type I fighter which does not have the outboard cannon.

 

Your FM's CL max is only 1.3 and not the 1.58 of the design.

 

It should be stalling at 165 kph in that configuration NOT 183kph.  Somebody has misrepresented touchdown speed with the 1G level stall in clean configuration.  They are the same speed in the FW-190 design.  The problem is instead of representing that, other much higher speeds have been passed off to the developers as the stalling speed!

Edited April 1, 2016 by Venturi

[von_Tom]

If the stall speed is not correct then the accelerated stall will occur earlier and you maneuvering envelope is reduced.

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/21001-fw-190/?p=344956

 

Perhaps but the stall speed depends on the AOA as well as speed.  Also, it used to be that a violent speed bleeding manoeuvre could be controlled before entering a stall/spin.  The best example I can think of is what I almost tried to do - a zero ATA rolling scissors to try and force an overshoot followed by me increasing ATA and extending to gain energy.  I got to the start of the roll but had to quit as it twitched very badly.  This was at probably 450 - 500kmh.  It does not "feel" like a violent semi-controlled manoeuvre is possible.

 

As I say, I have no idea if this is accurate or not.

 

von Tom

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Uh huh, as of mid Feb which is when these were measured IN GAME. Maybe something has changed in the interpretation of the data.

 

Do you have an operating manual with these numbers so we can be authoritative on this subject?? 

 

Characteristics presented below were measured in the game, which took almost two weeks of hard work. In the end we've got informative and standardized data for all planes in the game we'd like to present you below:

 

In addition, last week our engineers tested the planes turn time and climb rate, so we updated the Dev Diary #123 with the corrected data. Fw 190 flight model was also corrected (thanks to [i.B.]ViRUS for his cool finding of additional Fw 190 A-4 Lift-Drag curves) so its turn tume and climb rate correspond to the reference better.

 

DD 125

[Crump]

 

 

AH, according to you, the configuration that the FW190A-3 was tested in, in the other thread (outer cannon removed) should be stalling at 165, which is 102.5 mph? Keep in mind it was only 100lbs less than the 110mph variant, in a ~8000lb aircraft.

 

 

At take off weight, the Type II fighter is 271lbs heavier.  

 

 

The Bf-109F4 data is also in that thread.  The Clmax according to Mtt is 1.5

Perhaps but the stall speed depends on the AOA as well as speed.  

von Tom

 

It does and that Angle of Attack will always correspond to a coefficient of lift of 1.58.

[Crump]

 

 

Fw 190 flight model was also corrected (thanks to [i.B.]ViRUS for his cool finding of additional Fw 190 A-4 Lift-Drag curves) so its turn tume and climb rate correspond to the reference better.

 

 

What lift to drag curves and which FW-190A4 variant??  I have the feeling you this led to a big mistake.

 

I hope they were not something like this....

 

 

Notice the propeller on polar power settings.....

 

9 PS and 4 PS....

 

 

That is because the polar is measured at 13 m/s and 18 m/s wind velocity.  That is far below what the airplane could fly at....

 

It is useful to the engineer because if defines the shape of the polar and tell us the 1G stall characteristics.

It double posted the picture and it will not delete it.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

So if i understand correctly...

 

Our Fw 190A-3 has a 1G stall speed that is almost 20 km/h too high ?

[Crump]

Yes

[Dr_Molenbeek]

By "observation" only, i saw what damage a small 10 km/h too high 1G stall speed can inflige to an a/c in other flight sim, so... 20 km/h, no wonder why it is a brick now.

 

EDIT: Of course you will not notice anything if you're a "clean" pilot, i mean Hit & Run only, you know.

 

But if you like dogfighting, maneuvers like diving turn, flat scissoring, high speed turn,... you notice the difference.

Edited April 2, 2016 by Ze_Hairy

[Crump]

Well Ze_Hairy if that polar was used to determine your FW190's flight characteristics, then you have a wonderful simulation of what it would be like to fly the airplane after a moderate icing event.

 

Re = (42.65fps *  5.95ft) /.000158ft^2ps = 1.6x10e6 Re

 

That is the scaling number for the airplane traveling at 13 Meters per Second.  That puts the Clmax at 13 m/s in the same vicinity with the polar I posted earlier from the windtunnel.

 

That is somewhere in between an Re of 2.6 and the standard roughness airfoil section at the relatively high reynolds number of 6.0.  Standard Roughness is equal to very coarse grit sandpaper and represent a severe icing event.

 

 

So now you know how to fight a moderately iced up airplane!!

 

 

It is all good!!

[SR-F_Winger]

Hey guys. Nice to see such knowledge.

Crump and Hairy. Could you guys consider teaming up on filing a detailed bugreport on your observations, send it to Han in the by them defined form and keep us FW fans posted? Back it up with all relevant documents and maybe we have a chance on getting the FW finally reflecting the plane it really was.

Edited April 2, 2016 by StG2_Winger

[StG2_Manfred]

Dogfighting with the A3 is almost impossible now, you stall stall stall and then you stall.

 

Then I made some tests with a comrade on Berluga. Yak vs. A3, starting with the same energy level. For the A3 it was not really possible to climb away (power climb >= 350 kmh), nor to dive away, nor to run away in level flight. It took ages to gain a 2-300m distance. A3 used combat power, Yak used full power, 50% cooling flaps.

[Holtzauge]

Since the OP is asking for opinions: My first impressions are that Clmax is lower and that you slow down faster when you load the plane, i.e. the induced drag factor seems to have been dialed up. Just my subjective impressions so far and I plan to do some more tests later but right now I'm not a happy camper.....