Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by thebusdriver

  1. Tempest. Favorite fighter of the war It's a low-altitude beast. Should be much like the 190A is now (my favorite LW kite), with less roll rate, beastly climb, and better energy retention. Also 4 20mm Hispanos are... oh so yummy.
  2. I completely disagree. Unless the 190 is slow and on the deck to begin with. Spitfire roll rates at high speeds are cripplingly bad. You can easily gain separation with a quick scissors, walk away, get into a shallow climb once you gain distance, and when he breaks (or decides to go into a steeper climb) you climb steeper yourself and come back to whomp him. I don't fear Spit Mk IX LF models (low fighter with the Merlin 66), unless they're running 25lbs of boost. Spit5s are just meat. Not fun to fight 1v1, but in a 190, nothing is fun to fight against 1v1.
  3. Sure, but like I said - "dogfighter" is a subjective statement. What does he mean by it? We can't know. He doesn't define it, and there is no common, agreed-upon definition either. I think what we can agree on is that Brown is not talking about a 1v1 scenario - those were very atypical scenarios during the war. So he must mean a group battle. Suddenly the equation changes. Turning is increasingly less important as fights get bigger. You don't want to be jerking around in a furball while having 190s, P-51s, or Tempests diving through it and picking off targets. In that scenario, a 190 could be a good dogfighter. Probably not so much in a 1v1. It was definitely a real thing. There was a video (now taken down) of a P-47 pilot talking about it. Here's the old thread from the ubi forums - https://forums.ubi.com/archive/index.php/t-644954.html - you can see several people commenting, referring to the fact that he was a real pilot. edit: found another copy of the video -
  4. You seem to be extremely hung up on pilot accounts of that era, when you have no specific idea of what they might mean when they say "dogfighter" or "turning". One thing that often gets overlooked is how utterly exhausting a turnfight would be. Sustained high Gs vs occasional bursts of high G (like from BnZ) could change someone's mind about what makes a good "dogfighter". What Brown thinks makes a good dogfighter isn't necessarily what you think, and what I think can be different from that. Similarly in regards to turning - when a pilot says a kite turns well, does he mean it has good instantaneous turn? Sustained turn? Energy retention? Does he mean the stick forces are light (like in a 190)? Is he referring to a specific speed? So rather than get obsessed with subjective accounts (that are HIGHLY prone to error - witness the common myth that P-47 pilots had about "bouncing" .50 cals off the ground into the bellies of "Tigers" and killing them), we focus on the physics - wing loading, drag, power, and NACA foil. And every single sim since the original Air Warrior has the 190 being poor in sustained turns. So unless you have something other than your specific interpretation of someone else's subjective experience, I doubt you're going to be changing minds.
  5. I've honestly never had problems with that. The Spits still can't catch you at the same altitude, and once they dive to develop the speed necessary, their roll rate goes to shit. Just go evasive, build some distance, gain some altitude, and come back to whomp them. Their only option is to fly above 6km. I'm pretty sure Fighter Command was facing a fairly similar A-3. German pilot accounts spoke of baiting Spitfires to come down low to play. If the Spits didn't want to, they couldn't do much about the bombers hitting their shipping. I do think that the 190 should turn retain a bit more energy than it does right now in the game (IMO flight sims do a poor job evaluating the effects of an airfoil - so 190s bleed more energy than they should, and P-51s tend to be able to pull higher AoA than they should because the turbulence sensitivity of a laminar flow wing was more pronounced) - but I don't think there's anything to suggest that 190s could engage in turn fights with Spits.
  6. Absolutely. You just have to be much more patient and aware than you would be in a 109. You may need to take longer, more shallow zoom climbs, you'll have to be more gentle with maneuvers, but unless you're fighting an aircraft that can outrun as well as outclimb you (like a La-5FN, La-7, P-51, Yak-3, Tempest, or later model of a P-38), the 190A can use its superior speed to extend, climb ,and come back. You can even engage in a short series of aggressive turns if you absolutely have to, just be aware that this will leave you in a low-energy state and unless you killed/crippled your opponent, or you have altitude to dive away, you're going to be easy pickings. But if you really want to dogfight in a 190, bring a wingman. Two 190s can murder multiple slower aircraft. One of you dives in to attack, the other keeps altitude. If the attacker is followed, the wingman clears his tail. Then the initial attacker gains altitude. The two of you work together to keep the enemy fighters below you. In severe mismatches - like against LaGGs or Spit5s - you don't even have to particularly worry if a couple of them gain altitude above you (unless they're very close and above you), because they're so much slower and less maneuverable in dives. I'd argue that two 190s working together are better able to clear the air than two 109s, though this does depend on opposition (again, if the enemy are in P-51s or La-5FNs, you'd be better off in a 109).
  7. Maybe that's the other busdriver. I'm "thebusdriver" I've never flown a real aircraft in my life (well, I took over the yoke of a training Cessna for like 5 minutes once). I have, however, played flight simulators since Air Warrior on GEnie. Also, while I understand tactics very well, I have poor gunnery and have trouble tracking black dots on screens, so I tend to fare poorly in 100% realism battles. I wish flight sim designers would recognize that spotting aircraft in real life is easier than on a screen - the sun glints off surfaces, objects are relatively bigger, etc. But that's just me.
  8. Are you sure your read my entire post? In my second point I make it very clear that a small number of 190s can dominate a larger number of Spit5s.
  9. The 190 is very fast - in a straight line. It dives extremely well, so it gains a lot of speed in a dive, and it's very controllable in a dive (ie, it's easy to turn or roll - compare this to a 109, which gets sluggish in dives). The 190 can even regain a lot of energy from a dive by climbing out of one at a 20-30 degree angle. What the 190 doesn't do well is retain energy (speed) in turns or accelerate. So turning after your dive, even pulling out of the dive, causes you to bleed energy. Also, while doing your zoom climb (the climb after the dive), your heavy airframe works against you - an La-5 or 109 are naturally better climbers, so even though they don't gain as much speed in dives, they still come out better in the zoom climb afterwards due to their superior power:weight ratio and lower wing loading (wing loading is the weight of the aircraft divided by the surface area of the wings. The higher your wing loading, the more energy you lose in turns). So let's look at two scenarios: 1. 109F-4 vs La-5. 2. 190 vs La-5. In scenario 1, the 109F-4 out-climbs, out-accelerates, and out-turns the La-5. The La-5 can outrun it on the deck and low altitudes. The 109 approaches the La-5 with altitude, dives down, and forces the La-5 to get evasive. The La-5 eventually gets beaten down to the deck and the 109 uses its superior energy generation and retention (because it turns better) to maintain an energy advantage. Even if the La-5 manages to avoid getting hit at all, eventually it ends up on the deck and is forced to run. It can't reasonably fight against an opponent that turns better, has more energy, and climbs better. It is faster on the deck, but because the 109 still has an energy and altitude advantage, the 109 can catch up to it and force it to be evasive. Unless the La-5 is very lucky, or very skilled (and the 109 makes mistakes), this is a kill for the 109. In scenario 2, the 190 is somewhat faster than the La-5, dives better, and rolls better. The La-5 climbs faster and turns better. So the 190 dives down on the La-5, and say the La-5 evades. The 190 pulls up into a zoom climb to regain energy. During this zoom climb, it gains less altitude (relative to its dive speed) than the 109 would. More importantly, the 109 could begin to maneuver for another attack pass (with a high, sweeping turn, or even a loop) without losing much energy. The 190 is going to lose a lot more energy in its turn around or loop over. The La-5, meanwhile, being a better climber than the 190, has started to cut into the 190's energy advantage. So where the 109 was capable of building more of an energy advantage after its attack, the 190 is actually going to lose some of it. After a few passes, unless you damage the La-5 or its pilot panics and makes needlessly aggressive evasive maneuvers (which use up a lot of energy), you will now be in an equal energy scenario. Unable to turn with the La-5, and with worse acceleration and climb, the 190 has only one option - to run.
  10. The Spit is a much better turnfighter than a Yak or I-16. It's also got more power and firepower than either.
  11. The 190 is not a dogfighter. The fact that it can give the Spit5 trouble in a fight is a testament to how much it outclasses the Spit. There are only two ways to fly the 190: 1. If you're playing solo, you're not a fighter. You're a murderer. You have zero interest in anything resembling an equal fight. You come in with enough altitude, you dive on somebody, and you try to murder them. If you miss and nobody else is in the area, you get into a gentle zoom climb, turn around, and try again. But with every pass, unlike the 109 or La-5, you lose a lot of energy, while your opponent can potentially gain some. In multiplayer, my rule is one pass and then haul ass, unless I'm absolutely certain no one else is in the area. 2. If you have wingmen, you take turns. It (almost) doesn't matter how many opponents there are, as long as both of you have the speed and energy to get away. One of you dives in first for a pass, and as he's approaching the target, the other goes in for the second pass maybe 10-15 seconds later. If the lead starts dragging, the tail bags. If the tail ends up dragging, the lead goes for some altitude and then comes back with that energy to bag his wingman's drag. You could be outnumbered 10:2 by Spit5s and they're all but helpless against you and your wingman, if you guys play safe and smart. They can't catch up and even if they climb above you, they can't maneuver well enough at high speed to land shots.
  12. http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt/russian-combat-fw190.html Best source I have on it. I know that FW-190s often serve as Jabos, but it wasn't exclusive. I'd be surprised if Soviet pilots ran into jabo 190s and formed their opinion based only on that.
  13. Experienced Russian pilots didn't fear the 190 much, because their fighters were better able to counter the 190's advantages. Once you take away a 190's speed, it has very few options. It can't out-turn its opponents, it can't out-climb, and while it can roll better, that is only buying time - it's not a defence that works in the long run and you cannot reverse with pure rolls. Unfortunately for the 190, most Russian planes from the mid-war onwards, were capable of running down the 190 on the deck, and could turn better, and usually climb better. Yak-3, La-5FN, La-7 - they could all catch a 190. Now you could still engage in prolonged drag-and-bag tactics, but this works both ways. Your wingman is catching your tail, but his wingman could be on your wingman. The 109 had capabilities to the end of the war that Russian fighters couldn't quite match. Its mid-high altitude performance, climb rate, and ability to turn caused serious problems.
  14. In my experience, based on some servers that would switch between eras (or games like World War II Online that had era progression), it'll be a mix. Some people always want the BnZ advantage for that high K/D. Others are brand loyalists. There are a few who really like a challenge and switch to the underdog side.
  15. Sure, but it's a 1944 model. That means that it would face the La-7... a devastatingly bad matchup for any FW-190A.
  16. Here's the thing: we have two things to work off off. The NACA wing profiles and the wing loading. 190 wings have a better profile for turning - the P-51's profile sees too much turbulence at a high AoA. On the other hand, the 190 has 25% higher wing loading. It bleeds energy and slips in turns like no other single-engine plane, not even the P-47. The stubby, straight contours were also made for speed - not energy retention. We can even see this with the P-51 - rectangular wings. Stories from pilots just aren't physics. Stories from pilots also told us that Tigers would blow up if a P-47 skipped its bullets off the ground into the belly, and we know that isn't physically possible. I think you're really underestimating other video games. The physics model in, say, Aces High may not be great, but they did their research. As did 1C when they made IL-2. Luftwaffles love arguing how their planes are under-tuned, but the D-9 was one of the deadliest piston engine planes in either sim. But expecting it to turn a sustained turn with a P-51 is unrealistic. Short turns? Absolutely - like I said, the 190 can handle a high angle of attack (at speed). The P-51 can't be jerked around like that. FYI, my favorite plane may be the Tempest, but it's only narrowly ahead of the 190. My first love is and always will be the 190. In early-mid war scenarios, the 190A is by far my favorite aircraft.
  17. Oh I'm not worried, it's not going to be a painful disparity. Rather, I simply expect a pleasant change of pace from the current state of affairs, where German fighters have clear advantages at mid-high and even low altitudes, but nothing the Russians can't work around with good teamwork. I don't know how they're going to model the aircraft in BoX, but the A-8 should not be able to outrun or out-turn the P-51 on the deck. P-51 IIRC manages about 580kph flat-out at sea level, the A-8 tops out around 560. The disparity grows quickly as you gain altitude. The A-8, in most sims I've played, can't even out-turn a P-47 in a sustained turn (though it is faster on the deck). D-9 will go about 600kph at sea level, Tempest 610-615. Up to about 2km the Tempest is faster, then it slows, only catching up to the D-9 at about 4.5-5km. Tempest should handily out-turn any 190 in anything except instantaneous turns at high speeds, and it should retain energy better. D-9 out-rolls the Tempest at all speeds. P-51 actually does out-roll the Dora above 800kph IIRC, but the D-9 retains a significant climb advantage up until very high altitudes - and trades speed advantages with the P-51 at various levels from 3km-6km, after which the P-51 starts to pull away. Sources: memories of performance charts, memories of IL-2 '46, War Thunder. For the most part all my memories are consistent, but of course, I don't present myself as any sort of authority here.
  18. I'm giddy like a schoolgirl. Tempest is by far my favorite aircraft of the war. I wish it was the Mk II, but that would just be ridiculously overpowered. And the Mk V looks better (by "better", I mean scary-ugly), so there's that. Given the way multiplayer in BoX goes, this is going to be a relatively tough era for the Germans. As good as the D-9 is - and it's damn good - the Tempest should be able to run her down quite handily on the deck. Meanwhile, top cover of Mustangs will keep the Dora from dominating at mid-high altitudes. The K-4 and G-14 will help at those altitudes, but their control issues at high speeds will be a problem, and they still shouldn't have the speed to match a P-51, though climb and turn will be to their advantage. The A-8, though one of my favorite aircraft, is seriously outclassed against anything the Allies bring, except maybe the Spit Mk IX at low altitudes (but this depends on which version of the Spitfire we get - a LF with high boost is going to give even the Dora problems). I suspect mission designers will have to include 262s more often than we expect. The fighter-bomber advantage shifts firmly towards the Allies as well. The P-38L and P-47D are going to seriously outmatch the 190s, nevermind the 109s.
  19. Will BOK be sold through Steam? Or only directly through the IL-2 website? I have a couple of Steam friends I'd like to gift it to.
  20. 190A. The one pure BnZ fighter in the game. Flying it is like swinging an axe in battle. Screw finesse, you get high, you swing down, you smash, you swing back away, and get high again. You can't fence with it.
  • Create New...