Jaws2002 Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 If you are a FW-190 fan, you've seen this video a few times already. Joking. Cool video. thanks.
II./JG77_Manu* Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 Well the Devs should take a look at 4:00 - 4:30
Jaws2002 Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) Here's another documentary about the 190, with lots of german pilots interviews. Very well done. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFHy923q96Q Edited February 10, 2015 by Jaws2002
Finkeren Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 Lots of interesting footage of prototypes and early A-0 and A-1s, but the narration is utter BS
Feathered_IV Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 In other breaking news, a 190 was just found lying on its belly in a forest.
sop Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 im gonna belly roast it but hear the wings the best!
FuriousMeow Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 Well the Devs should take a look at 4:00 - 4:30 They absolutely should especially since the 190 was never known to have a better turn circle time than the 109 at medium to low speeds. The video is bunk.
==LD==Lemsko Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) what you forget is that if real pilots talk about turning they dont mean the low speed turning we do here in game. and of course over a certain speed the amount of force you need to apply in a 109 vs the light controls on the fw190 will let you pull more g than the 109, ergo it turns better. Edited February 10, 2015 by Lemsko
FuriousMeow Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) What you forget is that "maneuverability" everyone cites isn't a one size fits all. It varies through the entire flight envelope. The Fw190 is a great plane, within its fight envelope, it is a terrible plane outside of it. The SpitVb vs 190 engagement everyone goes on is not a 190 totally decimating a single SpitVb in a 1:1 encounter, it is a squadron vs a squadron which allows a lot of lenience in terms of engagement and has no absolute in how the engagement was played out. It's just a worthless statement since there is zero circumstance presented. The 190 is not the ultimate fighter of WWII, it was great for what it did but it couldn't take a novice fighter pilot and make him an ace, and it also couldn't defeat multiple bogies on its own. Great plane, but not this mystical uber plane some wish it was. And within BoS, it is an awesome plane when operated to its strengths. The devs need not do anything with the plane, the operators need to operate it properly. Hence my point, and it clearly flew over your head higher than a Ta-152H-1. Edited February 10, 2015 by FuriousMeow 1
Finkeren Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 Geez guys, no need to start a long discussion based on this. The narration on this clip is just standard-fare sensationalistic 'This was teh best plane of teh war'-BS that you see in those types of History Channel-esque documentaries. Most of what's in that video is at best simplified half-truths, so take it for what it is. 5
Crump Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 is not a 190 totally decimating a single SpitVb in a 1:1 encounter, Sure it is...Read the Tactical Trials of WNr 313.
LizLemon Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Don't bother with furious meow. I think he has something personal against the 190. He argued against basic physics because it meant the bar shouldn't be there.
FuriousMeow Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) Here you go. I can't read half of that, and from what I can read it is a strict technical point of view that doesn't account for pilot experience. You do know SpitVs encountered 190A4s and shot them down? That's funny Lizzy, almost as funny as using a D-13's armored windscreen that is far, far thicker than the A-3s (by at least double) as an example? Edited February 11, 2015 by FuriousMeow
Crump Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 You do know SpitVs encountered 190A4s and shot them down? Sure they did....1:1 classic dogfight's too. You do know FW-190A8's encountered Spitfire Mk IX's and shot them down....1:1 classic dogfight style too?
LizLemon Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Refraction occurs no matter the thickness. Of course the thicker it is the greater the "drop" of the image. But nice to see that you are no longer denying basic physics.
FuriousMeow Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) Sure they did....1:1 classic dogfight's too. You do know FW-190A8's encountered Spitfire Mk IX's and shot them down....1:1 classic dogfight style too? You do know P-51s shot down Me-262s? Your information isn't helping you. A 190A4 will not totally decimate a SpitV, it won't. It's interesting Crump, you consistently get in arguments on this board and are invariably evidenced to spout some single point that relies on one small point to help prove you are right. The 190A4 vs SpitV argument is entirely reliant on squadron vs squadron engagement. In 1vs1 engagement, SpitVs have shot down 190A4s. Therefore, the point you think you have proven so hard falls short because SpitVs weren't totally decimated by 190A4s except in squadron vs squadron engagements which - guess what? - I already said happened. Refraction occurs no matter the thickness. Of course the thicker it is the greater the "drop" of the image. But nice to see that you are no longer denying basic physics. SSDD. I have a windscreen on my car, no drop. Slightly thicker windscreen on a car with a greater angle, no greater drop. Stop being a clown. Edited February 11, 2015 by FuriousMeow
LizLemon Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 SSDD. I have a windscreen on my car, no drop. Slightly thicker windscreen on a car with a greater angle, no greater drop. Stop being a clown. There most certainly is a drop. But the thinness of the glass makes it minor. And has already been explained to you the further away an object is the less noticible the drop will be. Guess I spoke to soon about you learning basic physics.
FuriousMeow Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Hmmm, except its not observable. I guess your physics just isn't applicable to real world when the amount of thickness is negligible enough that it just isn't there.
LizLemon Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 I didnt say it wasn't observable. I said "less noticible" and "minor". At this point I'm honestly unsure if you are intentionally misrepresenting others posts or just not comprehending them. As for physics applicable to the real world, please explain to me what is happening with this spitfires propeller.
Crump Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 A 190A4 will not totally decimate a SpitV, it won't. Nobody said this FuriousMeow...... All I said is a Spitfire will not totally decimate the design contemporary FW-190. They are equal dogfighters and it is the man that matters....not the machine.
9./JG27golani79 Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 As for physics applicable to the real world, please explain to me what is happening with this spitfires propeller. Someone must have cut out a piece ... @Meow Refraction exists - believe it or not - even in your windshield ..
Bearcat Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 ENOUGH OF THIS ALREADY!!! Do we really need yet ANOTHER 190 thread full of charts and graphs and pages and pages of debate!!! I DON"T THINK SO!!! Sheeeesh!! 3
Recommended Posts