Just Started Flying the Freidrich - Wow!!!

[Sokol1]

 As the 109 DID have a ground adjustable rudder trim, which was incorrectly aligned, making the plane sideslip.    

 

And asymmetrical rudder profile.

 

http://scontent-mad1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/10366024_10204125714565397_873005802716469852_n.jpg?oh=6e31469a3b712c4534aed3a359e00881&oe=562E7451

[BlitzPig_EL]

So you think that if there's people that prefer Fw 190s, it's because of weapons..?

 

Must be why i never take outboard cannons. 

 

If the FW 190 was an American designed and built aircraft, no one would be wearing JG tags.

 

No one.

[Wulf]

I always find it really weird that the RAF had been fighting 'F' series Bf 109s since late 1940 but strangely, didn't feel a pressing need to rush the Spit 9 into production until it encountered the FW 190 in mid '41.  Isn't that odd?  Even though the F series 109s appear to have better climb, turn, much the same speed as the 190 and a better high altitude performance,  it was the RAF's encounters with the 190 the resulted in the panicked development of the Mk IX.   Isn't that just sooo strange.  Hmmmm .... oh well, live and learn I always say. 

 

In my experience, to achieve any level of success in the current BoS 190 you are advised to enter combat with a good altitude margin over your enemies.  Try and get right over the top of them if possible before commencing an attack.  Dive on a likely victim, and if unseen, try and get a burst into him at close range.  If you intend to stay and fight; you're better limiting yourself to the two Mauser cannons.  The MG FFs will hinder your performance - roll, speed and acceleration.  Whatever the outcome of the initial opening shot, keep going straight and zoom climb back up to your starting point.  Be constantly on the lookout for aircraft attempting to climb up to you.  To stay alive you must stay above the enemy.  If the enemy is aware you're lurking above, you'll have to engage in a lot of low probability deflection shooting.  To be successful at this you'll have to anticipate the track of the target aircraft.  Typically, you'll have to factor some dive or climb into that track as the enemy attempts to break into you as you close.  Often you will be shooting at aircraft that are well out of sight under your aircraft's nose.  The evasive climbing or diving break turns used by the enemy will eventually work in your favour as the enemy progressively loses energy - so if needs be wear him down with repeated attacks.  The more energy he consumes, the closer you can stay to him.  Always be aware that others will be attempting to use your distracted state to get above you.   When diving on or attempting to evade an enemy, use your ailerons to roll your aircraft into a firing position or out of danger, as the situation demands.  Keep your attacks at the upper end of your speed range at all times and then ease back off the throttle when you've re-setting for another attack so as to conserve your engine.  If an enemy aircraft is threatening, quickly level out or enter a shallow decent and accelerate had to regain separation.  Do this sooner rather than later because if  you delay you'll probably end up dead.  If something threatening appears above you break-off the combat and exit the combat area pronto.   And remember use your ailerons to set-up your turns and don't over-work your elevators.  Smooth minimal inputs work best.

Edited June 24, 2015 by Wulf

[ZachariasX]

And asymmetrical rudder profile.

 

http://scontent-mad1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/10366024_10204125714565397_873005802716469852_n.jpg?oh=6e31469a3b712c4534aed3a359e00881&oe=562E7451

 

You can also tilt the engine or propshaft slightly to the left (something commonly done in high powered turbo prop planes like the Pilatus PC-21 for instance, or almost as a requirement, for R/C planes) or just tilt the stabilo. Giving it an asymetrical layout (instead of tilting the stabylo) I see more as an effort to have as little drag as possible.

 

Main issue is: Different power settings at respective seeds require a re-trimming. If you fly at 350 km/h with 0.8 ata and have a certain "good" trim, then flying at 350 km/h at 1.2 ata WILL require a new trim, as the trim induced by the rudder is still identical to the previous setting. Aerodynamic trim scales with speed, not with the power setting. Tilting the engine shaft does scale with power setting. Sailpalnes are perfect with one single trim on the rudder for all speeds. But not prop powered planes.

 

Here the example of the PC-21 how you tilt the propshaft:

 

You can't really do this with the large 12 cylinder engines (unless you somehow geared the shaft that way). Such bent noses are mandatory for R/C planes where you can hardly trim them for yaw during the flight and it works reasonably well there.

 

Taken together, the Bf-109 (in most variants) seems to be a plane that is great fun to fly at around 350 km/h (also an average of furbal digfighting), but at 550+ km/h it loses most of its maneuvrability. Tempest pilots knew (at least the better ones) that the ABSOLUTELY HAD to keep their speed above 500 km/h to fight the Bf-109, else they'd be deep in. But the Tempest (as the 190-D9) can fly very well in combat >500 km/h, and there you own the Bf-109. At least in real life. Just because the 109 has fast legs doesn't necessarily mean it can fight well at high speeds. In a sim, where you can always move the stick at your discretion, restrictions like that (like control disharmony and physical restrictions of the cockpit) hardly come into play giving you get a more favourable impression of the plane.

 

 

In the game, I find the 109 definitely the most frag-friendly plane as well and there, I agree, the 109 would best the 190. But in the real world.. never.

[unreasonable]

In a war setting - rather than a one-one MP duel - it would probably be better to take all the cannon. Other than that Wulf's description above seems on the nail.

 

Why take all the cannon? After all you have a firepower advantage already and they do degrade performance somewhat.

 

IMHO The correct tactics for a plane that has a large firepower advantage over its opponent are to shape the engagement so that this factor is emphasized. Firepower comes into its element when going for high deflection shots, but also in head on engagements.

 

If two fighter forces of say 10 aircraft meet one another head on, neither having been able to create surprise or a height advantage, there is a huge benefit to the side that gets the first kill on the merge. If one side gets the first two kills on the merge, it will be almost impossible for the side down to 8 planes to win the fight.

 

So the best options for the 190s are:

 

1) If at advantage position use it then extend, even to the point of running away. (190s will score more kills per pass due to weight of fire than 109s)

2) If at disadvantage, run away (equal?)

3) If neutral, go for head on and throw everything at the enemy from maximum range (190s will usually score first one or two hits vs 109s, the mathematics of probability are inexorable).

 

 

Two MP players meeting one-one and dogfighting? A completely different proposition, but not particularly relevant to which was the better war weapon.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Custard found this last night and it's worth a read. I imagine it might be talking about the La-5F and 190-A4 or A5 but interesting to read about the tactics on both sides and what they thought of the 190.

 

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt/russian-combat-fw190.html

[Finkeren]

Interesting find.

 

Doing what the German pilots are described as doing in that text would get you killed instantly in BoS (except for the head-on attacks)

 

That doesn't mean that the Fw 190 FM is wrong, and it doesn't even have to mean that the person who wrote this misinterpreted what the German pilots actually did.

 

It might just be, that this is yet another reflection of what I talked about earlier: That real life pilots seldom fly their machines to the limit and beyond like we do, and that the pleasant handling within its flight envelope might actually give the Fw 190 a much better chance in a turn fight, where everyone isn't riding at the edge of an accelerated stall.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Interesting find.

 

Doing what the German pilots are described as doing in that text would get you killed instantly in BoS (except for the head-on attacks)

 

That doesn't mean that the Fw 190 FM is wrong, and it doesn't even have to mean that the person who wrote this misinterpreted what the German pilots actually did.

 

It might just be, that this is yet another reflection of what I talked about earlier: That real life pilots seldom fly their machines to the limit and beyond like we do, and that the pleasant handling within its flight envelope might actually give the Fw 190 a much better chance in a turn fight, where everyone isn't riding at the edge of an accelerated stall.

 

Yeh what I'm saying is the FW-190's real life advantages don't seem to translate well in to a simulator, not BOS and not the old IL2 either and it is something that is a major curiosity to me, so much so I was hoping for a thread about this but not one that descends in to a FM argument. In the sim the 109 gives you a very high chance of surviving where as the 190 doesn't seem that way to me. The massive firepower and high speed maneuverability are fantastic providing you are attacking from a large energy advantage and after one or two passes it's usually time to leave the area to climb again but in a DF server environment where you can find yourself attacked by higher aircraft (the Russians tend to take up La-5s when they see 190s in the area) I would much prefer to be in a 109.

Here's a couple of cool videos from in cockpit 109 and 190. The workload in the 109 looks much harder and the 190 looks like a much more modern plane and super smooth to fly.

 

 

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V3TlPYL8Sw&index=7&list=PLVwiazXlv_OvI7fQYHc88cHtg0QftYB_l

Edited June 24, 2015 by JG5_Emil

[Finkeren]

Yeh what I'm saying is the FW-190's real life advantages don't seem to translate well in to a simulator, not BOS and not the old IL2 either and it is something that is a major curiosity to me, so much so I was hoping for a thread about this but not one that descends in to a FM argument. In the sim the 109 gives you a very high chance of surviving where as the 190 doesn't seem that way to me. The massive firepower and high speed maneuverability are fantastic providing you are attacking from a large energy advantage and after one or two passes it's usually time to leave the area to climb again but in a DF server environment where you can find yourself attacked by higher aircraft (the Russians tend to take up La-5s when they see 190s in the area) I would much prefer to be in a 109.

 

This is my take on it as well. I would like to add that since squad tactics are largely absent from MP, we seldom get to see the power of a Schwarm of Fw 190 working together, which would be devastating given the firepower and ability to do quick, slashing attacks. 

 

The part I highlighted seems to agree with the link you posted quite nicely.

 

Here's a couple of cool videos from in cockpit 109 and 190. The workload in the 109 looks much harder and the 190 looks like a much more modern plane and super smooth to fly.

 

That's my view as well. It's debatable to what extent the Bf 109 was really that heavy on the controls at high speeds or tiring to fly for longer periods, but there can be little doubt, that the Fw 190 was supremely pleasant to fly for such a relatively heavy, high powered aircraft and extremely stable within its flight envelope.

[Weegie]

Fascinating thread I'm glad it started a debate over the relative strengths and weaknesses of both aircraft, although that was far from my intention.

 

Being a inexperienced and old, I'd die quickly in MP, but I'd be fascinated if any of you hot shots setup various combat scenarios with a 190 Vs 109 contest. If you did, send me the tracks and I'd have a go at editing to make a small movie that would be great.

 

Its interesting seeing this topic thrashed out.

 

Was the 190 not meant to have a big advantage in roll rate? Eric Brown stated in an interview that any aircraft with a better rate of roll had a distinct advantage in a fight. I'm not going for controversy, but its nice to learn from some of the more learned on the forum on these topics.

 

Thanks

[6./ZG26_Emil]

The 190 does have a roll rate advantage but in a 1v1 the 109 pilot would use it's superior climb rate against the 190 and it wont take long before the 109 has a good enough energy advantage over the 190. He can then start his B&Z attacks and the 190 will have to be defensive the whole time. The only chance the 190 has is in the beginning if it can force a head on before the 109 gets a bigger altitude advantage.

[Wulf]

"IMHO The correct tactics for a plane that has a large firepower advantage over its opponent are to shape the engagement so that this factor is emphasized. Firepower comes into its element when going for high deflection shots, but also in head on engagements.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We all do it I know but head on attacks really are desperate stuff.  Essentially you're rolling the dice every time you do it.  Despite the firepower disparity, it's still essentially a 50/50 gamble.  Far better to roll low and wide and extend if you can.  

[Finkeren]

Was the 190 not meant to have a big advantage in roll rate? Eric Brown stated in an interview that any aircraft with a better rate of roll had a distinct advantage in a fight. I'm not going for controversy, but its nice to learn from some of the more learned on the forum on these topics.

 

That's propably one of the most talked-about FM issues apart from the Yaks flaps-down behavior. There seems to be some agreement, that the Fw 190s roll rate is realistic, but there is disagreement as to whether the VVS fighters roll  a little too well. The thing is, there's a scarcity of reliable data on most Soviet planes' roll rates, but it is known, that virtually all Soviet fighters of the era were very good rollers, their wings specifically being designed for it. The I-16 especially was apparently able to roll at an insane rate of 230 deg/sec (the Fw 190s best roll rate was around 190 deg/sec) and contemporary film material seems to bear that out. So honestly, there's really no agrement as to whether the Fw 190 should just be very good in the rolling plane (which it is in BoS currently) or whether it should truly be in a leage of its own.

 

Also keep in mind, that when the Fw 190s great roll rate is emphasised, it is usually compared to planes like the Spitfire and the P-51, neither of which were very strong rollers.

Edited June 24, 2015 by Finkeren

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

There is anecdotal data about the la-5 early model's roll chara teristics in comparison to the 190. Its from a test where both machines were compared with each other (the 190 was partly damaged as mentioned in the report).

 

Dont have the link but basicly it stated the 190 had way lighter controls and rolling quickly was performed easily while in the La-5 the pilot could only follow when using "the maximum of his strengh not all pilots posessed".

 

So while the Lavotchkins might have a respectable roll rate (still unknown) they're most certainly not as effective on a wide speed range as the 190 is. Ingame it's the lack of excessive stick pressure force modeling for both lavotchkins making them compete with the 190 too well.

[Wulf]

Fascinating thread I'm glad it started a debate over the relative strengths and weaknesses of both aircraft, although that was far from my intention.

 

Being a inexperienced and old, I'd die quickly in MP, but I'd be fascinated if any of you hot shots setup various combat scenarios with a 190 Vs 109 contest. If you did, send me the tracks and I'd have a go at editing to make a small movie that would be great.

 

Its interesting seeing this topic thrashed out.

 

Was the 190 not meant to have a big advantage in roll rate? Eric Brown stated in an interview that any aircraft with a better rate of roll had a distinct advantage in a fight. I'm not going for controversy, but its nice to learn from some of the more learned on the forum on these topics.

 

Thanks

 

 

I have an interesting little track of a 190 involved in an extended action around Lapino, on one of the more popular DF servers, if you're interested.   You may find it useful when formulating your own tactics - or maybe not as the case may be.  It ends in comic fashion but such is life at the Front.

 

If I can work out where the track files are stored and how to send them I'll PM it to you.  Unfortunately I'm a disaster when it comes to computer stuff so it's quite likely I'll fail.miserably.

Edited June 24, 2015 by Wulf

[ZachariasX]

 It's debatable to what extent the Bf 109 was really that heavy on the controls at high speeds or tiring to fly for longer periods, but there can be little doubt, that the Fw 190 was supremely pleasant to fly for such a relatively heavy, high powered aircraft and extremely stable within its flight envelope.

 

Perhaps one of the reasons the 190's qualities don't translate that well into the sim is because we basically always have a fly-by-wire system with perfect control harmony in the joystick and pedals. Eric Brown is a short guy, but when he says in his book "Wings of the Luftwaffe" that above 400 mph the control colum was stuck such that is was about "the limit in his book" then this means something. On the onther hand, he was very fond of the 190's controls.

 

My take is that we basically do things with the 109 at high speed that no-one would do if he sat in the cockpit of the real aircraft. This appllies to all designs. How much boosted controls can do to an aircraft, Eric Brown described in the case of the Lancaster, where some examples were fitted with different kinds of boosted controls meant for the future Barbazon. He was absolutely thrilled what it did. The Lancaster, even with traditional controls being one of the stellar designs, with boosted contrlos it was just "an aeroplane without peers in his class".

 

Cockpit handling matters. Even if Willy Messerschmit thought it was good enough to provide a small seat and a stick to suit the pilots needs. When Hanna Reitsch (a really petite woman) had a go on the Me-321 (single cockpit!), she found the controls almost impossible to move in flight. When she commented about that, Messerschmitts snotty retort was just "Sie ist kein Krieger." ("She's not a warrior"). Now if a girl can't hold the controls for 10 minutes, then a "warrior" is supposed to hold them for 4 hours or so on a regular basis and even go to war with that? The attitude says everything. I see it a common mistake, just taking the performance figures of a plane like top speed, climb, etc., and just assume that this is what is actually "always there when you need it" in the real plane.

 

Wasn't it those "antropomorphic conrtrols" in CloD, where it was tried to emulate stick forces and consequently reduced input?

[Finkeren]

Sounds reasonable enough, but

 

There is anecdotal data about the la-5 early model's roll chara teristics in comparison to the 190. Its from a test where both machines were compared with each other (the 190 was partly damaged as mentioned in the report).

Dont have the link but basicly it stated the 190 had way lighter controls and rolling quickly was performed easily while in the La-5 the pilot could only follow when using "the maximum of his strengh not all pilots posessed".

So while the Lavotchkins might have a respectable roll rate (still unknown) they're most certainly not as effective on a wide speed range as the 190 is. Ingame it's the lack of excessive stick pressure force modeling for both lavotchkins making them compete with the 190 too well.

 

Sounds reasonable enough. Though we always have to remember:

 

[Finkeren]

Wasn't it those "antropomorphic conrtrols" in CloD, where it was tried to emulate stick forces and consequently reduced input?

 

Tried and pretty much failed, I think.

 

Anthropomorphic controls is a great idea in theory but hard to implement in an actual sim.

 

I wouldn't want to see it attempted in BoS. We'll have to wait for the next generation of flight sims (provided there is ever gonna be such a thing) for it to be integrated into the sim from the start.

[Dakpilot]

A lot of the advantages in real life of the much more modern design of the FW190 that gave it its 'legendary' status simply do not translate to flight sims in the current state of technology and hardware/control input devices, also the way we fly in 90% of online combat has such little relevance to how the real aircraft were used operationally during the/any conflict.

 

We compare our experiences to those reported in real life combat from a different perspective, and are often surprised/disappointed by the result 

 

Anyone flying the FW190 in a normal server is effectively fighting 'with one arm tied behind their back' and will suffer compared to history/reality

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[ZachariasX]

Custard found this last night and it's worth a read. I imagine it might be talking about the La-5F and 190-A4 or A5 but interesting to read about the tactics on both sides and what they thought of the 190.

 

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt/russian-combat-fw190.html

 

I like that one: "...and because the Germans are unable to withstand tense battles of any length."

 

It seems to be one of those reports that not only give some insight in how to treat your enemy, but also as a mean to strenghten the morals of the troops. Flying the 190 like described gets you killed for sure, I agree.

 

But I do like texts like that. And sometimes they do tell us more about the author than about the actual topic.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

The 190 does have a roll rate advantage but in a 1v1 the 109 pilot would use it's superior climb rate against the 190 and it wont take long before the 109 has a good enough energy advantage over the 190. He can then start his B&Z attacks and the 190 will have to be defensive the whole time. The only chance the 190 has is in the beginning if it can force a head on before the 109 gets a bigger altitude advantage.

 

In a 1v1, if the 190 pilot is smart enough, he must be aware of one rule.

 

The greater the difference of weight between 2 planes, the greater the chances that the fight turns into a dive/zoom engagement.

 

At the beginning, in the head-on pass, the Fw 190A will have all advantages on his side because of his armament and radial engine.

 

Then he simply makes a shallow dive to get at least 500km/h (unless it already has them) and starts to climb with this constant speed... The 109 cannot follow.

 

I've just made a short test... the 190 (1.35 ata 2500RPM) takes 10 seconds less than the 109G-2 (full power) to reach 1200m (from 200m) at 500km/h constant... the higher the speed, the higher the time difference.

 

I hope you understand what that mean.

[unreasonable]

We all do it I know but head on attacks really are desperate stuff.  Essentially you're rolling the dice every time you do it.  Despite the firepower disparity, it's still essentially a 50/50 gamble.  Far better to roll low and wide and extend if you can.

Yes, you are rolling the dice but the dice are heavily stacked in your favour. 109 vs 190 head-on is nowhere near 50-50, it is maybe 2-1 in favour of the 190 without outboard cannons, 3 or 4-1 with them, depending on how you factor in weight of fire, range and armour considerations, remembering that it is not just about who gets a hit, but who gets a hit first.

 

"The FW-190's eagerly make frontal attacks." also from the Lone Sentry article. With good reason.

 

I understand that this may not be appealing from a lone pilot's point of view looking to maximize his own score over time, but from a unit vs unit point of view trying to win a particular battle, head-head is a good option if surprise or bounce is unavailable.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

In a 1v1, if the 190 pilot is smart enough, he must be aware of one rule.

 

The greater the difference of weight between 2 planes, the greater the chances that the fight turns into a dive/zoom engagement.

 

At the beginning, in the head-on pass, the Fw 190A will have all advantages on his side because of his armament and radial engine.

 

Then he simply makes a shallow dive to get at least 500km/h (unless it already has them) and starts to climb with this constant speed... The 109 cannot follow.

 

I've just made a short test... the 190 (1.35 ata 2500RPM) takes 10 seconds less than the 109G-2 (full power) to reach 1200m (from 200m) at 500km/h constant... the higher the speed, the higher the time difference.

 

I hope you understand what that mean.

 

Yes I do but what I am saying is that the 190 shouldn't be able to shoot down the 109 unless there is a head on pass which personally I would do everything to avoid. Depending on the separation at co-alt I would keep the 190 off to my beam while I climb higher than the 190 then switching to a spiral climb as it gets closer so I can tightly turn above it, the 190 wont try to follow that and would have to extend and if it does a high speed climb the 109 is winning the race to get higher. All this does is create the vertical separation the 109 needs to survive and what happens next is down to the pilots but more than likely would end up in the 190 disengaging in my opinion if it comes back the 109 can dive on it but at no time should the 190 be in a position to shoot the 190 after the merge. Having said that a head to head at 2000m distance wouldn't be something I would fancy experiencing against a 190 :D

 

To be honest I love the 190 but flying it feels like a death sentence to me, maybe I have bad habits from the 109 but I don't feel comfortable in a 190 unless I am up at 7km.

[9./JG27golani79]

"The FW-190's eagerly make frontal attacks."

 

Hehe .. although no 190 I can´t help but of thinking about this scene when reading this sentence ..

Boy, one of the worst movies ever .. why did I watch this?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK4cKzI3-ZY

 

 

If sitting in an real fighter I think I would under no circumstances do a heads on if it could be avoided.

I also think that´s one of the problems with simulations - people don´t really suffer from consequences (besides virtual ones) because of manoeuvres or bad decissions and therefore I think that virtual flying is pretty distinctive from real flying / dogfighting.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Hehe .. although no 190 I can´t help but of thinking about this scene when reading this sentence ..

Boy, one of the worst movies ever .. why did I watch this?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK4cKzI3-ZY

 

 

If sitting in an real fighter I think I would under no circumstances do a heads on if it could be avoided.

I also think that´s one of the problems with simulations - people don´t really suffer from consequences (besides virtual ones) because of manoeuvres or bad decissions and therefore I think that virtual flying is pretty distinctive from real flying / dogfighting.

 

OMG I nearly spat my tea out lol can you imagine what a single 30mm round would do to a human 

 

In that Lone Sentry article they talk about the 190s opening fire with MGs at 1000m in a head on to panic the enemy in to maneuvering...I can imagine seeing those tracers arcing towards you would be pretty damn scary!

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Yes I do but what I am saying is that the 190 shouldn't be able to shoot down the 109 unless there is a head on pass which personally I would do everything to avoid. Depending on the separation at co-alt I would keep the 190 off to my beam while I climb higher than the 190 then switching to a spiral climb as it gets closer so I can tightly turn above it, the 190 wont try to follow that and would have to extend and if it does a high speed climb the 109 is winning the race to get higher. All this does is create the vertical separation the 109 needs to survive and what happens next is down to the pilots but more than likely would end up in the 190 disengaging in my opinion if it comes back the 109 can dive on it but at no time should the 190 be in a position to shoot the 190 after the merge. Having said that a head to head at 2000m distance wouldn't be something I would fancy experiencing against a 190 :D

 

To be honest I love the 190 but flying it feels like a death sentence to me, maybe I have bad habits from the 109 but I don't feel comfortable in a 190 unless I am up at 7km.

 

Did you even read what i wrote ?

 

The problem is that you're imagining a 190 pilot that will follow you in your low speed vertical maneuvers like a blind boar.

[KoN_]

Some very good reads there .

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Did you even read what i wrote ?

 

The problem is that you're imagining a 190 pilot that will follow you in your low speed vertical maneuvers like a blind boar.

 

and you're imagining a 109 that would be at co altitude in the first place which wouldn't happen if I was flying it :D

 

I wouldn't follow a 190 in a shallow climb either.

 

I did read what you wrote and I said I wouldn't expect the 190 to follow my maneuver but at the end of the day the 109 ends up high and therefore has the advantage.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

and you're imagining a 109 that would be at co altitude in the first place which wouldn't happen if I was flying it :D

 

But we are talking about a 1v1, which mean co energy (or almost) and co altitude.

 

Otherwise that's not a 1v1 in the rules of art... 

[unreasonable]

Hehe .. although no 190 I can´t help but of thinking about this scene when reading this sentence ..

Boy, one of the worst movies ever .. why did I watch this?

 

If sitting in an real fighter I think I would under no circumstances do a heads on if it could be avoided.

I also think that´s one of the problems with simulations - people don´t really suffer from consequences (besides virtual ones) because of manoeuvres or bad decissions and therefore I think that virtual flying is pretty distinctive from real flying / dogfighting.

Missed that movie, looks enjoyably silly... does it reach the "so bad it is good" standard?

 

If you were sitting in a real fighter you would do a heads on if that was what you were ordered to do because high command had decided that that was the best way for your unit to win a battle, or because this gave the best attritional outcome in the longer run. Or you could break off formation and risk court-martial!

[6./ZG26_Emil]

But we are talking about a 1v1, which mean co energy (or almost) and co altitude.

 

Otherwise that's not a 1v1 in the rules of art... 

 

What I was saying is the 190 wont follow the 109s maneuvers and the 109 wont follow the 190s shallow climb either but as long as the 109 didn't get obliterated in a suicidal head on pass you will end up with a fast 190 extending with a slow 109 climbing. If the 109 gets higher the 190 wont come back but the 109 probably wouldn't catch up with the 190 before he goes out of sight. If the 190 turns back though then the higher aircraft has the advantage.

[unreasonable]

well the 109 should be able to use gun pods that in term of armament eqauls it to 190

Not equals but certainly closes the gap. Gun pods on 109s, however, give a much bigger performance penalty than the outboard cannons on the 190 (I am fairly sure....) and the 109s are still more vulnerable to damage.

 

190s could probably just dogfight against gun-pod armed 109s.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

What I was saying is the 190 wont follow the 109s maneuvers and the 109 wont follow the 190s shallow climb either but as long as the 109 didn't get obliterated in a suicidal head on pass you will end up with a fast 190 extending with a slow 109 climbing. If the 109 gets higher the 190 wont come back but the 109 probably wouldn't catch up with the 190 before he goes out of sight. If the 190 turns back though then the higher aircraft has the advantage.

 

First, the 190 does not only extend, but it also climbs.

 

And... if the 109 decides to not follow the 190 in his shallow high speed climb and starts to climb at its best speed (<300km/h), the 190 must stop his climb and has to make a smooth immelmann.

 

What happen next..?

 

 

 

 

A head-on pass again, but just higher than at the beginning. 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

First, the 190 does not only extend, but it also climbs. (But at an extremely shallow angle at 1/4 the vertical speed of the 109)

 

And... if the 109 decides to not follow the 190 in his shallow high speed climb and starts to climb at its best speed (<300km/h), the 190 must stop his climb and has to make a smooth immelmann.

 

What happen next..?

 

 

 

 

A head-on pass again, but just higher than at the beginning. 

Or the 109 starts climbing steeply, using the inital energy from the avoided Headon, perpendicular in the horizontal plane to the 190. The 109 doesn't loose sight that way and will always end up higher, whatever the 190 does. The 190 thus has absolutely no advantage and has to discontinue the fight and run, because turning around and climbing towards the 109 would drain too much energy, but flying straight he would be forced into the defensive. In thhis scenario the 190 is either shot down or has to leave the battle area.

Edited June 24, 2015 by -FDFHQ-Klaus_Mann

[unreasonable]

Or the climbing 109 now gets shot down a slashing attack by the other 190 flying top cover?

 

Yes I know, one on one, but when is it ever?

 

Maybe the 109 has top cover too - but he has to turn and climb to avoid a head to head with the 190 top cover.

 

Maybe there is a top - top cover: same story. The highest 109 in the stack gets away, if you are right, all the others are shot down.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Or the 109 starts climbing steeply, using the inital energy from the avoided Headon, perpendicular in the horizontal plane to the 190. The 109 doesn't loose sight that way and will always end up higher, whatever the 190 does. The 190 thus has absolutely no advantage and has to discontinue the fight and run, because turning around and climbing towards the 109 would drain too much energy, but flying straight he would be forced into the defensive. In thhis scenario the 190 is either shot down or has to leave the battle area.

 

What about the energy lost in this "head-on avoiding" ? Anyway, it's a 109, it will lose nothing important.

 

If i understand what you say, this looks like the most boring fight that our planet has known... On one side the 109 that climbs at its best speed, and on the other, the 190 that shallow climbs at high speed, and no one wants to turn to follow the other. 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

What about the energy lost in this "head-on avoiding" ? Anyway, it's a 109, it will lose nothing important.

 

If i understand what you say, this looks like the most boring fight that our planet has known... On one side the 109 that climbs at its best speed, and on the other, the 190 that shallow climbs at high speed, and no one wants to turn to follow the other. 

Boring? It's friggin War. Nobody cares about boring, they care about survival.

I basically deny the 190s the advantage and have time to wait for the 190 to either make an error or disengage completely. I have the initiative at that point and am not going to give it away freely.

Anyways. Once you have enough seperation and potential energy you can freely attack the 190s. The 109 is no Slug either and can fly attacks all day long once above the 190s. The correct action is always however to attack from above and seperate perpendicular and as steeply as possible making use of the engine.

It'S basically a Fw190 climbing at 400kph against a Bf109 coming in at 650 and recovering back to altitude, rinse and repeat.

[ZachariasX]

Not equals but certainly closes the gap. Gun pods on 109s, however, give a much bigger performance penalty than the outboard cannons on the 190 (I am fairly sure....) and the 109s are still more vulnerable to damage.

 

190s could probably just dogfight against gun-pod armed 109s.

 

No-one used gunpods except to attack bombers and then dive for home. Against a fighter it is suicide. These pods also carry very little ammo. It gives you one, or if you are very lucky two passes at a B-17 or B-24 then "verreisen" is the strategy for everything that comes. Maybe you can hunt Il-2's. Solitary ones.

 

Speed didn't seem to suffer that much (without carrying ammo though):

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/VB-109-14-L-43.pdf

 

But adding weight on a plane that had already seen its best days is not a good Idea. It is especially a bad idea if you have a MK-108 in the nose already. One or two good hits is what it takes. With the 109F it is a different strory. Galland kept the MG FF in the wings in a configuration as the 109 E had.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Boring? It's friggin War. Nobody cares about boring, they care about survival.

 

Keep calm, we talk about virtual pilots here, put away your gun.

 

It'S basically a Fw190 climbing at 400kph against a Bf109 coming in at 650 and recovering back to altitude, rinse and repeat.

 

And... that will only happen if the 190 decides to stop his climb, then turn to follow the 109.

 

You just explained why 1v1 is all but a good example, and i can only join unreasonable for what he said about squadron vs squadron combat.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

And... that will only happen if the 190 decides to stop his climb, then turn to follow the 109.

 

You just explained why 1v1 is all but a good example, and i can only join unreasonable for what he said about squadron vs squadron combat.

Nope. The 109 would climb reasonably high over the target, slowly closing the angle of course. In the shallow dive it will reach 650kph and will keep the speed advantage forcing the 190 to perform a rolling manouver to get out of line of fire, burning energy.

In Squadron Combat the The 109s would have to try and work as predators, seperating the 190s from each other like cheetas against antilopes.

The 109s can however always quickly return to their cover at altitude, which the 190s can't.