Whats your opinion on the new FW FM?

[Turban]

There are plenty of people who disagreed with me in the near past, i wouldn't call most of them trolls however, even if we had completely different opinions, and throwing passive agressive statements at each other. In the last weeks i can only see one troll in this forum, highjacking pretty much any topic

This poor troll should rather stop, with every new topic he gets involved, it get's more pathetic and embarrassing. Shame that he doesn't realize that.

Lately when i was coming home drunk i had a good laugh, but seeing things sober, it just makes me sad

 

What would interest me more than your study of my character would be this question :

 

Would you agree that the FW 190 D9 had better turning abilities than the FW 190 A 8,6 and/or 3 ?

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

Would you agree that the FW 190 D9 had better turning abilities than the FW 190 A 8,6 and/or 3 ?

 

 

Will be my only answer to you, since it's a normal question without trolling:

No, i don't agree. This statement is only true for high altitude. The guy fought in the western front, probably mainly at 8 or 9k. At this alt every Anton is a dog, turning capabilities zero. He was saying his statement within the context of western front encounters. At low alt the Anton was equal, if not better.

In addition, the A6 is not the A8. A8 with MW50 and 1.65ata had considerably more power then A6. So you can also expect a better sustained turning capability from the A8

[unreasonable]

I am late to this thread but I see the remarkable phenomenon of Crump, JtD and Holtzauge in agreement on the technicalities - that the current Fw FM stalls at too low an AoA given their source data, calculations and in-game tests, (as best as I can understand the discussion), while the experienced Fw drivers all agree that the current iteration makes normal manoeuvering very hard as a consequence.

 

Congratulations gentlemen on an interesting and civil discussion!

 

Of course they may all be wrong, but if they are perhaps directly addressing the specific issue - the AoA at stall - would be the most productive way to examine that possibility?

[LukeFF]

You dont fly in MP do you Crump?

He doesn't even own the game.

Edited April 25, 2016 by LukeFF

[Turban]

 

 

Will be my only answer to you, since it's a normal question without trolling:

No, i don't agree. This statement is only true for high altitude. The guy fought in the western front, probably mainly at 8 or 9k. At this alt every Anton is a dog, turning capabilities zero. He was saying his statement within the context of western front encounters. At low alt the Anton was equal, if not better.

In addition, the A6 is not the A8. A8 with MW50 and 1.65ata had considerably more power then A6. So you can also expect a better sustained turning capability from the A8

 

 

I'm sorry but you can't say that fights happened mainly at high altitude and take that as an argument.

 

The D9 fought at low altitude a lot too, for example against the Tempest, and it was feared at those low/mid altitude. 

 

Now the "MW50" or whatever system the A8 where fitted over the A6 is an emergency power , that's worth keeping in mind. It also had extra armor, something to consider too.

 

And while Crump started including the A8 in the discussion, may I remind everyone that we are talking about the A3 here ? 

 

Anyway, anyone trying to claim that the A3 should be comparable to the D9 has a long road ahead.

Edited April 25, 2016 by Turban

[Crump]

You dont fly in MP do you Crump?

 

As for the accounts - split S... I can relate to that. 

I am more interested in how they used the scissors and against what - would love to read a few detailed ones in original german language.

 

Also the document is not an account on how the FW fought.

And a Spitfire is not a Yak or La.

 

It is an account of how the FW-190 fought.

 

 

In fact, here is a British Intelligence document.

 

The normal fighter variant of the FW-190 was being reported as a "new development" as either the FW-190D series or equipped with the 2600 hp BMW802 engine, LOL.  The performance of the aircraft is notable enough the pilots reported it.

 

 

That is not a glowing endorsement of the combat capability of the normal fighter FW-190A.....

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Please guys, don't feed the troll, or this thread goes south as well...

 

(There is a feature called ignore list)

 

 

Good advice.

 

 

+1

 

Sorry, guys... I obviously can't help myself sometimes.

[Mac_Messer]

And what would be the tactic if the FW was as wanted - current climbrate + the pre patch manuverability?

Would it look any different?

Would the FW go into a turnfight? (not enough turnrate)

Would it BnZ agressivly? (not enough climb rate advantage)

Roll rate advantage? Yak has enough roll rate that it can change direction fast enough that it wont loose in a scissor fight (combined with the low stall speed and good turn rate). Perhaps it would work against a poorly rolling Spit, however all that is needed is not to follow the scissors and keep the turn.

 

All I see as a possible tactic is to extend, get seperation, try to outclimb and force evasions of the Yak and making him drop altitude and with that try to get the height / position advantage.

The FW is extremly good at hit and run. That is its role. Its fast and hard hitting.

When it comes to objectives flying it is the best plane - it is the speed and the firepower that is the deciding factor.

 

What should the engagement like this be like historicly? What is the thinking -> do some people really think that the FW was outturning / outmaneuvering the Yak? If so, than how?

Much easier gun solution at high speed. Much safer abrupt trajectory changes at high speed. Also if you can stay fast, would be possible to get into vertical dogfight.

High rate of roll is often used at overshoot maneuvers. A Yak would not be able to follow a quick direction change at speed close to stall an so would overshoot. Likewise at high speed, you do the dive in FW and use rolling to change direction with high G load that Yak cannot possibly follow.

 

In such situation a Yak pilot must assume his position in dogfight and find his enemy. A good FW190 pilot already has separation/gun solution at this point.

Anyway, anyone trying to claim that the A3 should be comparable to the D9 has a long road ahead.

The A3/A4 were a lot closer to D9 in terms of pure fighter characteristics than the A5/6/8/9.

[MiloMorai]

The normal fighter variant of the FW-190 was being reported as a "new development" as either the FW-190D series or equipped with the 2600 hp BMW802 engine, LOL.  The performance of the aircraft is notable enough the pilots reported it.

 

No 'or'. Clearly states Fw190D with a larger engine.

[Crump]

 

 

Now the "MW50" or whatever system they where fitted is an emergency power , that's worth keeping in mind. It also had extra armor, something to consider to.

 

 

The Dora had the exact same armor as the FW-190A3 and FW-190A8 normal fighter variants.

 

The weight and power are about the same at low altitude  Aerodynamically it is a wash at low altitude which is why many FW-190A8 pilots preferred the Anton in the beginning because it was more agile than the Dora.

[Stig]

 

 

 

No 'or'. Clearly states Fw190D with a larger engine.

 

 

A  combat involving Dora's in November '43?

[Crump]

 

The A3/A4 were a lot closer to D9 in terms of pure fighter characteristics than the A5/6/8/9.

 

That is correct.  The FW-190 gained about 8% weight creep for a 35% increase in power over the lifecycle of the design.  That is pretty good.

 

The average design weight creep for a World War II fighter was ~14% with a similar increase in power.

 

The result is the FW-190A3/late FW-190A8/FW-190D9 are very similar in their combat performance relative to their contemporaries.  

 

I have to clarify my statement about the FW-190A8.

 

The early variant FW-190A8 are probably the worst performers in the line up.  They were intended to be fielded with the a manifold pressure increase on the engine limitations that did not materialize for several months after the types introduction.  That was the result of a BMW program that began in 1942 to develop the motors power.

 

 

The late FW-190A8 and Dora are almost exactly the same at low altitude.  At high altitude, the Jumo 213 trumps the BMW801 of course.

 

[PeterZvan]

Its not an account - an account of how it fought would be a pilot that acctually was fighting describing the fight maneuver after maneuver and what he did to get the advantage... Lets see one of those.

 Yours are just a bunch of documentation and mostly related to speed than to anything else.

 

Luke - I know full well that he dosent own the game nor flies MP so he has no idea how online sim fighting acctually happens.

As for Mac Messer - again - do you own the game, do you fly at all? The discussiona was 1 on 1 co alt headon engagement FW v Yak. And how its handeled. 

Your preposition is that the FW starts with a significant advantage.

As for scissor overshoots - its very clear to me how they are done and as the Yak has a significantly lower stall speed and much higher controlability. Online MP now or pre patch it was suicide to go into that engagement against a capable pilot in a Yak.

The thing is that the FW is at stall speed, but Yak still far from it so can always slow down even more and keep behind + follow the turn / roll / whatever. 

 

I simply dont see the significant advantage online - even if the rollrate of the FW would be 50% faster - it dosent have the turnrate at slow speed or low enough stall speed to get the advantage needed to consistently shoot down Yaks with ease against two highly skilled pilots

Edited April 25, 2016 by PeterZvan

[Crump]

A  combat involving Dora's in November '43?

 

 

Exactly.  That the British pilots would think so highly of the FW-190's performance they encountered in 1943 that they would go back and report it as new type is pretty telling.

[Grancesc]

Gents, have you noticed that every Fw190 thread in which our troll appears, is closed soon after by Bearcat. Alleged justification "Locking... because of the tone". It could be a coincidence. Please do not let provoke you.

[MiloMorai]

A  combat involving Dora's in November '43?

 

And in France between Dieppe and Abbeville.

[Crump]

 

 Yours are just a bunch of documentation and mostly related to speed than to anything else.

 

I simply dont see the significant advantage online - even if the rollrate of the FW would be 50% faster - it dosent have the turnrate at slow speed or low enough stall speed to get the advantage needed to consistently shoot down Yaks with ease against two highly skilled pilots

 

 

It is not related to speed and if you understand aerodynamics and aircraft performance...it is all very telling as to how the aircraft was fought.

 

Just like all the FW-190 pilots I have talked too relate....They used the sustained turn rate and excess power to either outturn an opponent or force them into the defensive posture because in order to not be outturned, the opponents had to slow to a lower airspeed to realize turn performance advantages.

 

The FW-190 pilots used the roll rate/acceleration to get out of the way of anyone on their 6 when on the defensive in a dogfight and gain positional advantage on the offensive.

 

Go look at the graphic....

 

The Spitfire was NOT a poor rolling World War II fighter.  It's agility was above average to the other designs.   ONE second after getting on the tail of a Focke Wulf, the FW190 is so out of plane against its attacker, the attacker has not hope to follow in any turn.  You do not need a great turn radius because you can just get out of the way of an attacker.

 

The agility of the Focke Wulf was a major step forward in lateral control.  It literally negated the turn advantage and caused a flurry of lateral control research amongst the nations having to face it in combat.

[PeterZvan]

Not getting provoked here - I find it hilarius that Crump who dosent even own the sim let alone flies it is trying to explain to us how we should be flying and fighting with the FW using some charts and graphs that are true for only singular situations and only if the enemy continues doing the wrong thing. 

As we all (people that acctually fly a lot and fight a lot) know the data is only applicable at very few moments and adjustements to the fighting style happen all the time - therefore only very significant advantages of planes are the determining factor - Bf109 climb rate and speed, Yak turn rate, stall speed + flaps, FW speed and firepower. 

Of course I am more than willing to learn from the data / chart experts on how the fighting should be done - show me online, I will happily fly as the opponent.

[PeterZvan]

It is not related to speed and if you understand aerodynamics and aircraft performance...it is all very telling as to how the aircraft was fought.

 

Just like all the FW-190 pilots I have talked too relate....They used the sustained turn rate and excess power to either outturn an opponent or force them into the defensive posture because in order to not be outturned, the opponents had to slow to a lower airspeed to realize turn performance advantages.

 

The FW-190 pilots used the roll rate/acceleration to get out of the way of anyone on their 6 when on the defensive in a dogfight and gain positional advantage on the offensive.

 

Go look at the graphic....

 

The Spitfire was NOT a poor rolling World War II fighter.  It's agility was above average to the other designs.   ONE second after getting on the tail of a Focke Wulf, the FW190 is so out of plane against its attacker, the attacker has not hope to follow in any turn.  You do not need a great turn radius because you can just get out of the way of an attacker.

 

The agility of the Focke Wulf was a major step forward in lateral control.  It literally negated the turn advantage and caused a flurry of lateral control research amongst the nations having to face it in combat.

 

Lets see - sustained turn of the FW - around 24,5 sec per turn.

Yak 1 - around 19 sec per turn.

Yak gets outturned in a sustained turn??

Or Yak turns tighter, cuts the 190 turn (sustained turn for FW is about 320 to 330kmh, Yak is around 270, it can drop to 250, tighten the turn, get close behind the FW). 

It takes the Yak about 240 degrees to be on the tail of the FW and with a good gun solution. FW has nowhere to go from there - speed difference is too little, seperation is to little, acceleration is to low. 

 

You really should come online to understand exactly where you are wrong - you described just about the worst thing that one can do in the FW.

This is a beginner mistake online. 

 

Graphic shows me some difference - add it up - roll for 1 sec, than turn for... sec and you get to .... degrees. Opponent rolls for 2 sec, than turn for... sec and you get.... degrees.

Make that work online - the significantly better turn rate will always trump the roll rate except if the roll rate is really bad.

Edited April 25, 2016 by PeterZvan

[Crump]

Not getting provoked here - I find it hilarius that Crump who dosent even own the sim let alone flies it is trying to explain to us how we should be flying and fighting with the FW using some charts and graphs that are true for only singular situations and only if the enemy continues doing the wrong thing. 

As we all (people that acctually fly a lot and fight a lot) know the data is only applicable at very few moments and adjustements to the fighting style happen all the time - therefore only very significant advantages of planes are the determining factor - Bf109 climb rate and speed, Yak turn rate, stall speed + flaps, FW speed and firepower. 

Of course I am more than willing to learn from the data / chart experts on how the fighting should be done - show me online, I will happily fly as the opponent.

 

Obviously many of your players are having a hard time aligning history, anecdotes, and the science of flight with your games FM.  

 

Only trying to help and I would also be able to put some pretty disparaging comments your way but I will not as you seem to be only trolling at this point and trying to provoke.

 

 

 

Lets see - sustained turn of the FW - around 24,5 sec per turn.

 

That is way too high for a best sustained turn rate for the FW-190A3 at any altitude the Yak is turning ~19 degrees per second.

 

Do the math.

 

 

 

FW has nowhere to go from there - speed difference is too little, seperation is to little, acceleration is to low. 

 

But that should NOT be the case....

 

The speed difference is dramatic as well as the acceleration.  The Focke Wulf has some ~350 more horsepower.   That is why the FW-190A3 is some 70kph faster at sea level.

 

I can run the math for you.

[StG2_Manfred]

Peter, nobody says that scissors would rescue the 190 pilot in every situation. Image the following situation. You're fast in the 190 and from behind a Yak dives on you, getting on your six. You realize the situation, do a half roll and pull. As soon as you vanish underneath the cowling of the Yak and realize he wants to follow you, you again do a half roll and pull. When the Yak pilot tries to follow and has completed the first part of the manouvre you are already ascending and getting out of sight. If he doesn't follow you do only the first part and dive away. This is of course just an example. Just want to say it's about high-speed maneuverability. If you want to scissor fight against a Yak at low speed you are dead meat, I agree. At least this should be possible, unfortunately it isn't at the moment.

Edited April 25, 2016 by StG2_Manfred

[PeterZvan]

Not trolling at all - just trying to learn something. 

We simply cant use the significant roll rate advantage ingame in such a way that it will be a massive game changer. It was that way in all dev developed sims until now. A few % data missrepresentation up or down. Resulting dogfight / fighting style remains more or less the same. 

 

What should the sustained turn performance for the FW be than? 18 sec / 360 degrees? 20 sec? 22 sec? 24 sec?

What should the Yak sustained performance be? 16 sec / 360 degrees? 20 sec? 22 sec?

What are the optimal speeds?

I know the current ingame data and for each version previously. So would love to double check. 

 

The FW not only has 350 more hp, but also has 930 kg more. So Yak has 0,43 hp/kg and FW has 0,41 hp/kg. So the acceleration race - especially at low speed is won by the Yak - I did the math.

70km/h faster at sea level - where, when?? Where did you get that number from?  

 

Run the math, calculate when and where the gun solution happens, do the trajectories. 

The sims are great at that - they acctually are runing the calculations constantly underneath and we (the players) are constantly readapting and adjusting our tactics. We have many many more iterations than RL pilots and we come across virtual pilots with much more combat hours and trial and error tests than any RL pilot ever made. 

 

Manfred - fully agreed there and its totaly viable and understandable ingame - as a tactic to defend and get away. 

I just want to explore more of the real word historical information and tactics for defence or attack and would like to hear it from the people that say that this was the case. 

I would love to see the way to do it consistently - now I dont. 

 

One more thing - the roll rate can be massivly improved if snap roll or usage of engine tourqe is included - something that is not described on any chart that I have seen until now.

Edited April 25, 2016 by PeterZvan

[Crump]

You really should come online to understand exactly where you are wrong - you described just about the worst thing that one can do in the FW. This is a beginner mistake online. 

 

Do you have to find and maintain a specific speed in your game when you turn?  

 

PeterZvan, the difference is in a real aircraft a fighter pilot is looking to stay at the aircraft's best performance speeds.  Every game I have tried so far does not replicate this very well at all nor do they reproduce roll/yaw coupling very well.  Fights are these 1 dimensional performances that are their own beast with little of the thought process required to fly an airplane.

 

You do not have to work very hard in a real aircraft as a pilot to maintain that turn speed and the aircraft accelerates very quickly with a simple relaxation of the stick.

Edited April 25, 2016 by Crump

[Turban]

 

The result is the FW-190A3/late FW-190A8/FW-190D9 are very similar in their combat performance relative to their contemporaries.  

 

The late FW-190A8 and Dora are almost exactly the same at low altitude.  At high altitude, the Jumo 213 trumps the BMW801 of course.

 

 

 

Now you're saying they are similar in their combat performance relative to their contemporaries... ?

 

That is true. That does not make them comparable with each other !

 

Then you talk about how they were similar at low alt, but you're talking about engine performance !!! (engine graphs only give a little piece of the story !)

 

The flying abilities were different. I dare you to prove me wrong.

 

Give me proof that the A3 would be equal and have the same flying performances (e.g turning abilities ) than the D9 .

 

I have never seen anything implying this. Quite the opposite. Only in this thread have I seen people claming this was the case.

[PeterZvan]

Do you have to find and maintain a specific speed in your game when you turn?  

 

PeterZvan, the difference is in a real aircraft a fighter pilot is looking to stay at the aircraft's best performance speeds.  Every game I have tried so far does not replicate this very well at all nor do they reproduce roll/yaw coupling very well.  Fights are these 1 dimensional performances that are their own beast with little of the thought process required to fly an airplane.

 

You do not have to work very hard in a real aircraft as a pilot to maintain that turn speed and the aircraft accelerates very quickly with a simple relaxation of the stick.

 

Well in BoS / Bom the sustained turn is massivly different with speed. Therefore I wrote the speeds at which the best sustained turn rate is achieved.

It is also the best aircraft performance speed for turns so to say - you wrote that this is how the FW won fights - using better turn rate than the opposing plane. 

And this does not work as the Yak has a much better turn rate and a much smaller turn radius so can alway easily turn inside the FWs turn. Draw it on the table, do the maths and you will see at what point the Yak is behind the FW and what the distance is.

 

We do not fight at all like this as it is to simple (like I wrote - its a beginner mistake), but we fight in much more complex ways to try to use the advantages of the planes. Its very clear that you should try BoS to understand how complex it is and that it exibits exactly the behaviour which you are saying that it  is not.

 

Simple relaxation of the stick in such a situation as described above means simply geting shot by the Yak behind you wo at that point is close by, accelerating better than you and not loosing much distance due to speed disparity. If the Yak pilot is a good shot, than the FW is dead within 4 sec at that point. 

 

BTW: it almost never comes down to sustained turns in BoS. 

 

And please write the sustained turn times for FW and Yak as you said that BoS simulates it incorrectly - would love to know what they should be.

Edited April 25, 2016 by PeterZvan

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

The flying abilities were different. I dare you to prove me wrong.

 

-snip-

 

I dare you to prove yourself right.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

The roll-yaw coupling is indeed somewhat borked and hopefully going to be looked at when DD120 changes are being finilised.

 

Due to very high rudder authority and roll coupling you can "boost" your roll rate when using rudder by ~ 1/3. However, rudder is so sensetive that it will get you into a snapstall when pushed too fast even at speeds of 500km/h.

 

Turning with the 190 isnt easy as it feels like its losing a considerable amount of lift when banking and speed drops rapidly when pulling slightly over the horizon. It does not "get thrown" into a turn as much as a Yak or Bf109 to say in laymans terms.

Edited April 25, 2016 by 5tuka

[JtD]

Now you're saying they are similar in their combat performance relative to their contemporaries... ?

 

That is true. That does not make them comparable with each other !

 

Then you talk about how they were similar at low alt, but you're talking about engine performance !!! (engine graphs only give a little piece of the story !)

 

The flying abilities were different. I dare you to prove me wrong.

 

Give me proof that the A3 would be equal and have the same flying performances (e.g turning abilities ) than the D9 .

 

I have never seen anything implying this. Quite the opposite. Only in this thread have I seen people claming this was the case.

Add to that my claim, given that in a sustained level turn the three important things are:

1 - the lower span loading, which the A-3 has,

2 - the lower wing loading, which the A-3 has and

3 - the higher power loading, which at low altitude the A-3 has and at high altitude the D-9 has (combat power)

it is pretty evident that at low altitude the A-3 was much better in a sustained level turn than the D-9. Not so clear at higher altitudes. Later A model fighters were much worse in that regard because they gained weight, eventually being as heavy as the higher powered D-9. The only thing that would save the day is the increased emergency power, which at low altitude would restore parity unless compared to D-9's using MW50 injection.

[Turban]

I dare you to prove yourself right.

 

I posted a picture with a clear quote from a D9 pilot.

 

I could probably do more but that's already more than you guys ever produced so I don't need to so far.

Add to that my claim, given that in a sustained level turn the three important things are:

1 - the lower span loading, which the A-3 has,

2 - the lower wing loading, which the A-3 has and

3 - the higher power loading, which at low altitude the A-3 has and at high altitude the D-9 has (combat power)

it is pretty evident that at low altitude the A-3 was much better in a sustained level turn than the D-9. Not so clear at higher altitudes. Later A model fighters were much worse in that regard because they gained weight, eventually being as heavy as the higher powered D-9. The only thing that would save the day is the increased emergency power, which at low altitude would restore parity unless compared to D-9's using MW50 injection.

 

You're telling me about what you think.

 

How about proof ?  Flight test reports, flying performance data, pilots giving their opinion, anything real ?

 

You're trying to make it sound possible but you're not giving any proof.

Edited April 25, 2016 by Turban

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

What should the Yak sustained performance be? 16 sec / 360 degrees? 20 sec? 22 sec?

19s is right

 

 

 

What should the sustained turn performance for the FW be than? 18 sec / 360 degrees? 20 sec? 22 sec? 24 sec?

21s with 1.42ata 

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

I posted a picture with a clear quote from a D9 pilot.

 

I could probably do more but that's already more than you guys ever produced so I don't need to so far.

 

-snip-

 

So did Crump... Followed with technical information.

 

Remind yourself that the burden of proving your statement is your own... It's nobody else's burden to disprove you when you can't prove what you're saying.

[JtD]

As the other thread is closed and  some people were already asking, Venturi and me did the test 190 vs. Yak.

 

Firstly, let me say that the outcome was a draw. Venturi flies the current 190 with discipline and so there was not much of a fight. Nobody could down the other. He was flying most of the time in a straight line to get enough separation. So far, everything correct, but it tooks him far too long to get enough distance to be able to turn into me. When he did he had the short 'oppurtunity' for a head-on, which I easily could counter with a little manouvre. I guess after his turn he had almost no energy and could not make enough corrections to get a proper firing solution. Then he had to continously fly in a straight line again. This went on until the Yak ran out of fuel (Berloga server, 30% fuel). If the map would be the channel, then he had to return to France to get enough distance for his next turn, so to speak.

 

My personal summary: If the 190 would accelerate and turn a bit better, everything would be fine, imo. This I say without consideration of history, as I understand that this is also a game and needs a balancing somehow. And this is my personal oppinion, so please don't chope me up for it.

 

I want say Thank you Venturi for your time. You're a nice guy and a good pilot 

 

(I hope you agree with my post)

So it went as expected and announced. Thanks to both of you for taking the time.

 

I disagree a little bit with your conclusions about the acceleration and turn. I think this is fairly accurate at the moment. What imho is lacking with the Fw190 is high altitude speed advantage (see my post in the now locked topic), the lowest speed end of the flight envelope (too high stall speed) and an easy handling, allowing the pilot to aggressively fly the aircraft to the limit.

If you both were to fly fast and level in a head on situation on the first pass at a fairly high altitude, and the Fw190 had a 70 km/h speed advantage it historically had, it could enter a zoom climb and end up about 350m above the Yak-1. If the Yak wanted to enforce a shooting solution, it would have to manoeuvre more aggressively, losing more E and end up even lower. Currently, the speed advantage is closer to 30km/h which gives the Fw190 a 150m advantage, which is perfectly in gun range even after some hard manoeuvres by the Yak pilot.

Add to that the differences in stalling characteristics, the Fw190 helplessly flip flopping like a fish on land while the Yak goes through the stall as if on rails (bit over the top but not too far off), performing that zoom climb that historically would put the Fw190 immediately in command of the fight turns into suicide in game.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

So it went as expected and announced. Thanks to both of you for taking the time.

 

I disagree a little bit with your conclusions about the acceleration and turn. I think this is fairly accurate at the moment. What imho is lacking with the Fw190 is high altitude speed advantage (see my post in the now locked topic), the lowest speed end of the flight envelope (too high stall speed) and an easy handling, allowing the pilot to aggressively fly the aircraft to the limit.

If you both were to fly fast and level in a head on situation on the first pass at a fairly high altitude, and the Fw190 had a 70 km/h speed advantage it historically had, it could enter a zoom climb and end up about 350m above the Yak-1. If the Yak wanted to enforce a shooting solution, it would have to manoeuvre more aggressively, losing more E and end up even lower. Currently, the speed advantage is closer to 30km/h which gives the Fw190 a 150m advantage, which is perfectly in gun range even after some hard manoeuvres by the Yak pilot.

Add to that the differences in stalling characteristics, the Fw190 helplessly flip flopping like a fish on land while the Yak goes through the stall as if on rails (bit over the top but not too far off), performing that zoom climb that historically would put the Fw190 immediately in command of the fight turns into suicide in game.

 

Pretty much sums all the problems of the 190 FM (and the Yak) up perfectly, couldn't say it any better. 

[JtD]

You're telling me about what you think.

 

How about proof ?  Flight test reports, flying performance data, pilots giving their opinion, anything real ?

What are you contesting? The facts? Go look them up. The physics? Go learn them. At any rate, go.

[PeterZvan]

19s is right

 

 

 

21s with 1.42ata 

 

 

This is the first time that I see such a low number - do you have any sources?

 

And where does the 70km/h advantage come from - is that SL or high altitude?

We are going back to the original FM problem which was that the FW was too slow and the Yak much too fast which in the end noone could prove to the devs - quite strange acctually as this data should be the easiest to find and the most accurate.

 

And for Crump - I opened several questions to you and you neglected to answer any - please follow up with your statements and dont avoid them.

Edited April 25, 2016 by PeterZvan

[unreasonable]

If you both were to fly fast and level in a head on situation on the first pass at a fairly high altitude, and the Fw190 had a 70 km/h speed advantage it historically had, it could enter a zoom climb and end up about 350m above the Yak-1. If the Yak wanted to enforce a shooting solution, it would have to manoeuvre more aggressively, losing more E and end up even lower. Currently, the speed advantage is closer to 30km/h which gives the Fw190 a 150m advantage, which is perfectly in gun range even after some hard manoeuvres by the Yak pilot.

Add to that the differences in stalling characteristics, the Fw190 helplessly flip flopping like a fish on land while the Yak goes through the stall as if on rails (bit over the top but not too far off), performing that zoom climb that historically would put the Fw190 immediately in command of the fight turns into suicide in game.

 

That probably answers the question I had in my mind reading the threads about tactics by the Fw drivers: assuming that the Yak will turn tighter, why do they (the Fw drivers) not go straight up in a zoom (maintaining energy as much as possible while you pull into it)? Actually even given the Fw has less speed advantage than perhaps it should I still would have thought this is the best bet, (except for just running away) since unless the Yak spots this instantly and starts to follow the height gain to the Fw will be greater. If the Yak has banked in anticipation of a turn fight he will also have to un-bank before zooming.

[Holtzauge]

First of all thank you Venturi and Manfred for setting time aside for doing the testing and special thanks to Manfred for the resume of what happened.

 

I can only second what has already been said: It went down pretty much as those of us who are familiar with the 1.201 rendition of the A3 predicted: Turns out it’s not such a great plane after all (in BoS that is) and you are basically limited to surprise attacks on unsuspecting targets or extending way after a meet because if you attempt any sort of turn, and that is not a turn as in trying to turn with your opponent but as in lining up for a deflection shot you are toast since if you do this you either stall out or if you manage to pull the lead you need you have depleted your energy and need to extend away. Personally, I find that hard to reconcile both which what I know of aerodynamics and flight mechanics (as outlined in post #330 ) and I can for sure neither reconcile it with pilot accounts of the time, especially the one by Alan Deere that Ze_Hairy posted earlier: "Never had I seen the Hun stay and fight it out as these Focke-Wulf pilots were doing... In Me-109s the Hun tactic had always followed the same pattern - a quick pass and away, sound tactics against Spitfires and their superior turning circle. Not so these 190 pilots: They were full of confidence..." Now in BoS, who stays and fights it out in a BoS model 1.210 A3? Did Venturi? No shadow on him, it’s just that he didn’t because you can’t can you……..

 

Really, this whole discussion reminds me of the old Me-109 stick force debates. The way that was modelled in the early flight sims like Microsoft CFS and Il-2 was ridiculous. However, you had exactly the same type of arguments going on: On the one side you had people saying “Well, it’s a well known fact that the Me-109 had problems pulling out of dives”. On the other hand you had people saying “Sure, and we acknowledge that, it’s just that this should not happen already at 400 km/h IAS”. To which the former would reply that the latter was just trying to get an unfair advantage and that they just needed to learn to fly the plane. I blame Microsoft CFS for creating this scenario in the first place by getting it wrong from the beginning and then Il-2 carried on the tradition with grumpy devs dismissing forum input and it was like pulling teeth to get it fixed. In the end we got there and today we have a sort of consensus in the flight sim community of what is reasonable as witnessed by how this is now modelled both BoS and DCS.

 

I predict that in a few years time we will look back at all this in the same way and no one will then even think about questioning that the Fw-190 can turn in the same way that no one today is questioning that a Me-109 pilot can pull out of a dive. I think everyone is acknowledging that the Fw-190 A3 does not turn as well as the opposition and that the Me-109 had control issues at high IAS. However this does not mean that the former cannot turn and the latter cannot pull out of a dive. One issue took years to get right. Let’s hope this does not hold true for the BoS Fw-190A3 turn capability because the truth will come out sooner or later. Would be a shame if the BoS Fw-190A3 will be remembered in the same way as the Microsoft CFS Me-109…….

Edited April 25, 2016 by Holtzauge

[JtD]

That probably answers the question I had in my mind reading the threads about tactics by the Fw drivers: assuming that the Yak will turn tighter, why do they (the Fw drivers) not go straight up in a zoom (maintaining energy as much as possible while you pull into it)? Actually even given the Fw has less speed advantage than perhaps it should I still would have thought this is the best bet, (except for just running away) since unless the Yak spots this instantly and starts to follow the height gain to the Fw will be greater. If the Yak has banked in anticipation of a turn fight he will also have to un-bank before zooming.

You can't go into a zoom climb very well with a rather low speed advantage and a similar climb rate (as in game now) because if you zoom up, the guy following you will zoom up in a shallower angle after turning around - this means he'll lose speed slower and stall later. So in addition to a good altitude advantage on top of the zoom climb, you'll also need some separation to avoid a shooting solution.

 

If you were thinking about going up vertically, many pilots after head ons pull up and go around the top, because it uses less energy and after 90° it gives the option to change direction just by rolling. If both aircraft were to pull up vertically right to where they stall out on the top, the slower aircraft with the tighter turn (Yak-1) will be on the other guys six. If, however, the Yak pilot made the mistake of wasting his energy in a level or even downward turn, there is a chance for the Fw to zoom away. But even then, with the Yak-1 entering the zoom climb later and having a much better low speed handling, it is likely to still be zoom climbing when the Fw is stalling out. Which is not good if you're in the Fw190.

 

Bottom line, you need more than a 30km/h advantage for a sufficient separation.

 

p.s.: If this was hard to follow, it's because you can't see my hands flying the manoeuvres.

Edited April 25, 2016 by JtD

[Holtzauge]

Oh, forgot to add: I know I said turns above in post #397 but what I really mean is of course the ability to change direction by tilting the lift vector in the desired direction so I'm talking about vertical zooming as well as the horizontal manouvering "turns".

[Venturi]

First of all thank you Venturi and Manfred for setting time aside for doing the testing and special thanks to Manfred for the resume of what happened.

 

I can only second what has already been said: It went down pretty much as those of us who are familiar with the 1.201 rendition of the A3 predicted: Turns out it’s not such a great plane after all (in BoS that is) and you are basically limited to surprise attacks on unsuspecting targets or extending way after a meet 

Venturi: FW190A-3 is a great plane, probably the 3rd best in the game behind every 109 and the Yak as it stands. However I believe the 109 and Yak-1 are both over modeled in certain ways and that casts shade on the 190. I also think that at lower speeds the 190 is modeled as a bit too fragile, but this is also overplayed by the LW audience.

 

 

 

because if you attempt any sort of turn, and that is not a turn as in trying to turn with your opponent but as in lining up for a deflection shot you are toast since if you do this you either stall out or if you manage to pull the lead you need you have depleted your energy and need to extend away.

 

Venturi: I do not see how this is ahistorical in general when flying against a Yak-1 in a "duel" situation. You propose that burning energy against a lighter more nimble opponent is a good idea?

 

 

 

Personally, I find that hard to reconcile both which what I know of aerodynamics and flight mechanics (as outlined in post #330 ) and I can for sure neither reconcile it with pilot accounts of the time, especially the one by Alan Deere that Ze_Hairy posted earlier: "Never had I seen the Hun stay and fight it out as these Focke-Wulf pilots were doing... In Me-109s the Hun tactic had always followed the same pattern - a quick pass and away, sound tactics against Spitfires and their superior turning circle. Not so these 190 pilots: They were full of confidence..." Now in BoS, who stays and fights it out in a BoS model 1.210 A3? Did Venturi? No shadow on him, it’s just that he didn’t because you can’t can you……..

 

Venturi: Well this is interesting, I wasn't going to mention the fight details. But since you have, basically Manfred never had a shot against me except at very long range from behind, and he never hit. I extended and turned around for head ons. Manfred avoided these with violent dives away, every time, but I still got big shots at him. So your opinion is that the 190 should be able to "turn and burn" with a Yak-1? Have you flown the Yak-1 in game? I suspect your opinion needs leavening.

 

Really, this whole discussion reminds me of the old Me-109 stick force debates. The way that was modelled in the early flight sims like Microsoft CFS and Il-2 was ridiculous. However, you had exactly the same type of arguments going on: On the one side you had people saying “Well, it’s a well known fact that the Me-109 had problems pulling out of dives”. On the other hand you had people saying “Sure, and we acknowledge that, it’s just that this should not happen already at 400 km/h IAS”. To which the former would reply that the latter was just trying to get an unfair advantage and that they just needed to learn to fly the plane. I blame Microsoft CFS for creating this scenario in the first place by getting it wrong from the beginning and then Il-2 carried on the tradition with grumpy devs dismissing forum input and it was like pulling teeth to get it fixed. In the end we got there and today we have a sort of consensus in the flight sim community of what is reasonable as witnessed by how this is now modelled both BoS and DCS.

 

Venturi: So you're saying the 109's trim wheel should be able to go from full up to full down in 6 seconds at 600 kph? That's absurd, but that's what is occurring right now. I don't know why someone would want to fly the 190 instead of the Bf109 as it currently stands, if they want maximum performance. Before patch, after patch - doesn't matter. Bf109 is better and the major reason is because it is overmodeled in this respect vis-a-vis the 190 and by extension every other plane.

 

 

I predict that in a few years time we will look back at all this in the same way and no one will then even think about questioning that the Fw-190 can turn in the same way that no one today is questioning that a Me-109 pilot can pull out of a dive. I think everyone is acknowledging that the Fw-190 A3 does not turn as well as the opposition and that the Me-109 had control issues at high IAS. However this does not mean that the former cannot turn and the latter cannot pull out of a dive. One issue took years to get right. Let’s hope this does not hold true for the BoS Fw-190A3 turn capability because the truth will come out sooner or later. Would be a shame if the BoS Fw-190A3 will be remembered in the same way as the Microsoft CFS Me-109…….

Venturi: I believe you are making some assumptions here, and are also grouping together a lot of things that are unrelated in an attempt for an emotional appeal. I have to ask, do you own the sim? Have you flown in it?

Edited April 25, 2016 by Venturi