How do YOU fly the 190.............NOT an FM discussion.

[Wulf]

The 190 was never meant as a replacement for the 109. If it were, it would have been an inline too using a DB engine. It was simply a second iron in the fire, relying on a radial BMW engine, for the same reason German bombers switched to Jumo engines at the start of the war: you couldn't rely on just one vulnerable and limited supply from a singe engine maker.

 

And for all the glory and good press the 190 gets as the "elite" fighter deployed to the "elite" fighter units on the west, in reality there wasn't much truth about the story. The "new German superfighter" was just a good excuse for Fighter Command, which was taking a just as bad and badly one sided trashing from 109Fs in 1941 as it did in 1942 from Focke Wulfs. Read up the numbers from for example Hooton, it was just as bad if not worse... Though both types were superior to the Mark V, primarly because they were much faster, the real problem were poor tactics and the completely senseless strategy of sending fighters over France which the Germans could ambush at will. When 190s shot a good number of Spitfires from a single Squadron, it provided a good excuse why to stop this 2 years of wasting fighters for nothing nonsense.. The German wartime docs read a different story - they simply deployed the 190 to France because its engine was initially too unreliable to permit sorties and widespread deployment over the desert or sea or over the steppes, i.e. the MTO and the eastern front.

 

Kurfurst, your stalwart defense of the 109, against all comers, is in many respects commendable but sometimes I think it blinds you to reality.

 

The 109 was a great fighter, no one disputes that, but being conceived as it was at a time of great technical innovation in the field of aviation  it very quickly began to show it's age.  The RLM was well aware that a fighter designed in 1934 was unlikely to maintain a position of dominance for very long.  The 190 was commissioned to pick up where the 109 left off and I think in most respects it succeeded very well.  Your argument that it couldn't have been intended as a replacement because it didn't utilize the DB power plant is simply nonsensical.   Firstly, because the output of DB motors was fully committed to existing production in the late 1930s and secondly because, as the Americans demonstrated, radial power plants  are very well suited to fighter applications and in some respects superior.  The radial wasn't Tank's first choice of course but because the officials at the RLM were smart enough to know it would serve no good purpose to disrupt the production schedules of 109 and 110 aircraft the new fighter would have to use something other than a DB motor and in the late 1930s the BMW offering was the most promising alternative.

 

I agree that the 109 F was in some respects superior to the Mk V Spitfire (but certainly not to the Mk IX) but you are wrong to suggest that it constituted the same level of threat as the 190 A.  And I have to say that your simplistic analysis of Fighter Command tactics over France in 41-42 leaves much to be desired.  The Circus operations conducted by the RAF were always going to be a difficult learning experience but they were considered necessary at the time if the Allies were to re-assert themselves on the Continent.  And it is simply wrong to imagine that these operations provided the Luftwaffe with easy pickings.  More often than not these operations put more RAF fighters over France than the total strength of JG 2 and JG 26 combined.  And despite what some will tell you, the opposing formations were often visible to both German  and British Radar so limiting the Luftwaffe's ability to execute ambushes.  However, what Fighter Command noticed was that whereas the 109s typically only engaged in high speed hit and run tactics against the fringes of the British formations, the 190s would engage in drawn out dog fighting - quite the opposite of the narrative expounded around here.    

 

And finally, if the BMW motor was considered so unreliable in 41-42 that it couldn't be used over the sea or desert, why were 190s employed extensively as air cover during Operation Cerberus and why were they stationed from time to time in Norway in 41-42 for the protection of coastal shipping?

So make sure you are never in that situation

 

 

And what if you're required to escort bombers and defend them against fighter attack?  What would you suggest in those circumstances Emil?

Edited April 16, 2016 by Wulf

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Back on the whiskey so early?

 

Not whiskey, but this:

 

[6./ZG26_Emil]

North African style green tea with mint? Very nice and there's something we can agree on then.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Sry for offtopic, but history is about to be rewriten in here.

It very quickly began to show it's age.  The RLM was well aware that a fighter designed in 1934 was unlikely to maintain a position of dominance for very long.  The 190 was commissioned to pick up where the 109 left off and I think in most respects it succeeded very well....The radial wasn't Tank's first choice of course but because the officials at the RLM were smart enough to know it would serve no good purpose to disrupt the production schedules of 109 and 110 aircraft the new fighter would have to use something other than a DB motor and the BMW offering was the most promising alternative.

 

1st, the Fw190 was developed back in 1940 in Kurt Tanks initiative to offer the RLM with a new fighter deisgn to complement the Bf-109 Standard fighter (not replace!). By that time the deployed and combat proven Bf-109 E models as well as the development ongoing Bf-109 F series were highly promising designs and showed good combat results. There was no reason for the RLM to consider the 109 obsolete by that time at all.

 

Second, Kurt Tank's very first proposal incorperated the BMW132 (Ju-52 engine) which was quickly changed for the bigger, more powerfull BMW801. That design choice was very much disliked by the RLM, which demanded every fighter to be equiped with inline engines for better aerodynamics and because inline engines were easier to produce in mass.

 

Tank eventually suceeded to convey the RLM to produce his fighter thx to the other qualities the 190 had. Wide landing gear, easier to handle for new piltos, heavy armarment, better armour protection and the ability to be used as a Jabo (more so than the fragile 109) gave the 190 reason to be accepted as a secondary Luftwaffe fighter aircraft.

 

Another reason for the 190 not becoming the standrad fighter to replace the 109 was because Messerschmitt enjoyed high political recognition, which helped him pushing his designs ahead of the competition as seen with the He-100 and He-280.

Edited April 16, 2016 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Didn't know that, thanks for sharing 5tuka

[Wulf]

Sry for offtopic, but history is about to be rewriten in here.

 

1st, the Fw190 was developed back in 1940 in Kurt Tanks initiative to offer the RLM with a new fighter deisgn to complement the Bf-109 Standard fighter (not replace!). By that time the deployed and combat proven Bf-109 E models as well as the development ongoing Bf-109 F series were highly promising designs and showed good combat results. There was no reason for the RLM to consider the 109 obsolete by that time at all.

 

Second, Kurt Tank's very first proposal incorperated the BMW132 (Ju-52 engine) which was quickly changed for the bigger, more powerfull BMW801. That design choice was very much disliked by the RLM, which demanded every fighter to be equiped with inline engines for better aerodynamics and because inline engines were easier to produce in mass.

 

Tank eventually suceeded to convey the RLM to produce his fighter thx to the other qualities the 190 had. Wide landing gear, easier to handle for new piltos, heavy armarment, better armour protection and the ability to be used as a Jabo (more so than the fragile 109) gave the 190 reason to be accepted as a secondary Luftwaffe fighter aircraft.

 

Another reason for the 190 not becoming the standrad fighter to replace the 109 was because Messerschmitt enjoyed high political recognition, which helped him pushing his designs ahead of the competition as seen with the He-100 and He-280.

 

 

No, it wasn't developed in 1940.  It first flew in '39.

 

No it wasn't intended as an immediate replacement - I didn't suggest it was.  The 109 airframe was considered to have further development potential BUT, it was well understood that time had moved on.  The 109 F is widely considered to be the zenith of the type.   

 

Tank would have used the DB power plant if it had been available.

 

Yes, if Willly hadn't been so well 'connected' the 109 would probably have been deemed obsolete in 1943. 

Edited April 16, 2016 by Wulf

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Tank would have used the DB power plant if it had been available.

I'd gladly see a proof for that because it would imply Tank had double standards. He highly critizied the 109 and it's powerplant because of their fragility. That's why he (to my knowledge) was highly convinced of the radial engine being more suited for a true combat fighter aircraft. That's also why Tank was very displeased to switch to the Jumo 213 for the Dora series after the supplies of BMW801 became insufficient as a result of production complications and enemy bombardments.

Edited April 16, 2016 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[Turban]

You guys try to silence everybody claiming that you only hold the truth, but your arguments are beyond silly.

 

I don't even know where to start. I know I said I was out, but some stuff you guys write is painful.

 

Bs example :

 

-"Look at that german ace, look how well he did, I should be able to easily do just as well" !

 

 -> Germans aces were amazing pilots, far better than you and I. You can't just get in a plane and do what they did. A lot of german pilots were not much more than cannon fodder. Take that into account for a change

 

-"The FW was an amazing all around dogfighter"

 

-> The FW could be deadly in good hands, but in never had the advantage in both vertical and horizontal. It was always all about the vertical. Anyone claiming different is either lying or ignorant.

 

-"The FW was the best, if the 109 stayed in production it's because of politics or whatever"

 

-> The FW had many advantages, but it wasn't perfect, and the 109 certainly had good counter arguments. From manufacturing ones to flying ones. Most german aces actually prefered the 109 till the end btw.

 

 

This isn't a sim forum it's a FW 190 groupie club...

[Wulf]

I'd gladly see a proof for that because it would imply Tank had double standards. He highly critizied the 109 and it's powerplant because of their fragility. That's why he (to my knowledge) was highly convinced of the radial engine being more suited for a true combat fighter aircraft. That's also why Tank was very displeased to switch to the Jumo 213 for the Dora series after the supplies of BMW801 became insufficient as a result of production complications and enemy bombardments.

 

 

Ummm ... that's news to me.  You're suggesting the Jumo was mated to the 190 airframe because they ...umm ....ran out of BMW motors?  So presumably not because the radial couldn't be adapted to develop sufficient hp to operate effectively at altitudes above 6k?

 

No, that's not my understanding at all.

 

.

Edited April 16, 2016 by Wulf

[VBF-12_Snake9]

This isn't a sim forum it's a FW 190 groupie club...

 

 This made me laugh out loud.  I image them marching in with huge 190 flags, singing their 190 songs, then all standing in reverence citing their 190 creed.  

 

knock knock knock . . .  Meeting called to order.  

Edited April 16, 2016 by 12.OIAE_Snake9

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Don't feed the trolls...

[Livai]

And what you say to this???  

 

Flight Characteristics

The Fw 190 is very much a "Pilot's" aircraft.  It will reward the skilled operator, but will turn on the novice with great malice.  It boasts superb control harmony and is very maneuverable, however, beware the accelerated stall.  The aircraft will whip into a spin with almost no warning and recovery is quite challenging.  Aileron turns are this aircraft's forte, but the actual turn rate is far less than a Spitfire, and comparable to a Mustang.  The aircraft can outroll most of its competition but the stall characteristics make it difficult to turn with an adversary.

 

Stalls

A stall in the Fw 190 in clean configuration is sudden and comes without much warning and a sudden wing drop, so avoidance is the best policy.  In the landing configuration, with flaps and gear down, there is more warning and the left wing will drop more gently.  Accelerated stalls should be avoided completely, as the aircraft tends to snap roll the opposite direction and go into a spin.  A very high level of situational awareness is required when flying this aircraft near its limits.

 

Spins

Like any high performance plane of this type, spins are not recommended.  The aircraft will tend to lose a great deal of altitude if recovery is not immediate.  Power-on spins are much worse; if the aircraft spins with power on, cut the power, neutralize the ailerons, and apply rudder opposite the direction of the spin.

 

Permissible Acrobatics

All acrobatics are permissible, with the exception of snap rolls and power-on spins.

[Willy__]

It will reward the skilled operator, but will turn on the novice with great malice. 

 

That contradict with what pilots said back then. The 190 was known to have a very good harmonized controls, which was beneficial to rookie pilots. Oddly enough, in the sim its quite opposite, maybe it has to do the way people flown back while on war compared to what people try to do with it nowaydays on the sim. Anyways, everything else pretty much sums the characteristics of the 190. You could also say that experienced pilots could use that sudden stall in their favor, but thats more of an exception than a rule.

 

@topic: funny how the topic name is "How do YOU fly the 190" and yet people who do not own the plane are ones of the more vocals here...     

Edited April 16, 2016 by Herr_Istruba

[BlitzPig_EL]

As we all know, pilot accounts are to be discredited, because guys flying in their dens in the comfort of their homes know more than Eric Brown.

 

One Caveat...  Pilot accounts are OK only if they support your personal view point.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

Regarding pilot reports on air to air combat here is a view of three:

 

Duane W. Beeson, P-51 pilot, 4th Fighter Group
The most important thing to a fighter pilot is speed; the faster an aircraft is moving when he spots an enemy aircraft, the sooner he will be able to take the bounce and get to the Hun. If you have any advantage on him, keep it and use it. When attacking, plan to overshoot him if possible, hold fire until within range, then shoot and clobber him down to the last instant before breaking away. It's like sneaking up behind someone and hitting them with a baseball bat.

 

Erich Hartmann, Me 109 pilot, Jagdgeschwader 52

Once committed to an attack, fly in at full speed. After scoring crippling or disabling hits, I would clear myself and then repeat the process. I never pursued the enemy once they had eluded me. Better to break off and set up again for a new assault. I always began my attacks from full strength, if possible, my ideal flying height being 22,000 ft because at that altitude I could best utilize the performance of my aircraft. Combat flying is based on the slashing attack and rough manoeuvring. In combat flying, fancy precision aerobatic work is really not of much use. Instead, it is the rough manoeuvre which succeeds.

 

Captain Eric Brown RN
It was concluded that the 190 pilot trying to mix it with a Spitfire in a classic fashion of steep turning was doomed for at any speed even below the German fighters stalling speed it would be out turned by the British opponent. Of course the Luftwaffe was well aware of this so a style of dogfighting evolved in which the 190 pilots endeavoured to keep on the vertical plane by zooms and dives, while their Spitfire-mounted antagonists tried everything in the book to draw them on to the horizontal.

 

I think that this idea that has developed that the majority of WWII pilots engaged in balletic aerial duels doesn't hold the field, when you read the reports from those that were really evolved.

Edited April 16, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Custard

[Livai]

Engine and Characteristics

The BMW 801 14-cylinder radial was an excellent powerplant, although it lacked the ultimate high-altitude performance of the Merlin engines used in the Mustang and Spitfire.  Power tends to fall off rather quickly above 6,000 meters (20,000 feet).  Below that altitude the engine is a superb performer, with plenty of power available.

[Stig]

I think that this idea that has developed that the majority of WWII pilots engaged in balletic aerial duels doesn't hold the field, when you read the reports from the those that were really evolved.

 

 

 

Good luck be rational, you are going to need it 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

Good luck be rational, you are going to need it

No, not my rationale but that of the pilots that flew these aircraft.

[LukeFF]

@DEVS a little statement on the matter FW190 would be greatly apprechiated.

Please stick to the subject of the topic. Posting stuff like this is just plain inconsiderate.

[Crump]

 

 

the stall characteristics make it difficult to turn with an adversary.

 

The achilles heel of the FW-190 is the aileron adjustment.  The Luftwaffe had a hard time maintaining them properly as they required a bit of attention.

 

There is a huge difference in the stall characteristics of the aircraft between properly adjusted ailerons and not properly adjusted.  You can see it for example in the USN trials where the ailerons are reversing before the stall.  That is right out of the German Documentation as characteristic of improperly adjusted ailerons.

 

Propeller adjusted, there is no reversal and the ailerons provide stall warning in the form a vibration that arises as one approaches the stall point. 

[Ace_Pilto]

So make sure you are never in that situation

 

Good advice in theory but in practice everyone gets caught by surprise sometimes, no matter how careful they are. What if I can't just run away? Should I just give up and press Ctrl-E? 

 

Like I said before, yes, if you want to chop firewood, use the sharp end of the axe. Everyone knows that the least risky approach is the best tactical way to do things but you have to be able to fight back in any plane when things go badly. Some aircraft are better suited and win more reliably and others require more skill and more luck. I know that there are a lot of people out there who have underestimated a Stuka or an Il-2 and got punished for it even though they had every conceivable advantage to begin right? There is no way that those Stuka or Sturmovik guys were up at 6,000m looking for Yaks and 109's to bounce. Is it so surprising then that some people deliberately look for trouble in the 190 which is (supposed to be) a highly capable fighter? It's well worth knowing what to do when you proverbial intersects with the industrial, even if you have to spend a few hours in an airquake server dying over and over to learn it. 

 

We're not set up to approximate the real-life experience with much accuracy given the way things currently stand right now in flight simulation. There are so many factors that make the tactical picture from back then so different to what we do. We make our own objectives, formations and team-work are the exception to the rule for us and there's no "big picture" looming over us with dark consequences for failure, just a 45 second wait for the new map to load.  We fly because it is fun, not because the newspapers and radio convinced us that murdering foreigners in the name of patriotism is "in" this year. It's good to emulate realistic, historical tactics, I agree that this gives you a lot of advantages and it's what I do most of the time... 

 

BUT

 

Those tactics existed for a different reason. The reason why dogfighting wasn't so common in WW2 or even WW1 is because a dogfight is usually a 50-50 outcome unless one pilot is significantly more talented than the other. A 50% failure rate is inefficient and wasteful compared to bouncing people and the high brass disapprove of wastefulness, it agitates their record keeping and causes unwelcome scrutiny from their political masters who have to turn around and ask their taxpayers for all their pots and pans because we crashed too many Spitfires this month. 

 

What I disagree with regarding dogfighting, and it took me some time to come around to this point of view, is that it isn't good practice or historical to learn dogfighting techniques.

 

Even though dogfighting wasn't the best practice way of doing things I can tell you that pilots indulged in it constantly against each other in impromptu training sessions which they arranged whenever they got the chance. They'd bounce each other on test flights, cook up excuses to get into the air and dogfight, leaders would take new pilots up and spar with them to test their capabilities. All this practice wasn't just because they wanted to give bad film-makers a chance to misinterpret what fighter pilots actually did 60 years later or just because they thought dogfighting was fun and likely to any impress attractive women who happened to be watching so that they could get involved in a love triangle with them and a captured enemy pilot which would further pollute the febrile imaginations of bad film-makers who can't write well enough to fill 120 minutes of cinema without using dullard tropes from the cliche handbook. *gasp sentence too long... must... breathe!*

 

They knew that if they got caught out that they had to be able to defend themselves or they would be dead the first time things went pear shaped and, in war, everything ends up pear shaped to some degree. It's the same reason why they teach you how to break a guy's neck in the army, even though they give you an assault rifle that can kill him easily from 300m away.

Edited April 17, 2016 by VA_JimmyBlonde

[Wulf]

 

 

 " ...impress attractive women who happened to be watching so that they could get involved in a love triangle with them and a captured enemy pilot which would further pollute the febrile imaginations of bad film-makers who can't write well enough to fill 120 minutes of cinema without using dullard tropes from the cliche handbook. *gasp sentence too long... must... breathe!*

 

 

 

 

Yeah, that's what keeps me in the game.  That and the fact that the sheep around here is gettin realllll picky...

 

Ever been dumped by a sheep Jimmy (course you have - there's no shame in it bro - well, not if you're an Ocker anyhoo)?  Cuts you right to the heart.  That Doris, she sure was one pretty little ewe.  Sniff.  Damn...memories flooding back....bugger it 

Edited April 17, 2016 by Wulf

[Ace_Pilto]

 

 

Edited by Wulf, Today, 16:26.

 

 

I like that you actually take the time to go back edit your shitposting Wulf. Not much surprises me anymore but you managed it today. Well done.

[Wulf]

 

I like that you actually take the time to go back edit your shitposting Wulf. Not much surprises me anymore but you managed it today. Well done.

 

 

Did you really have to go and include a self portrait??  Geez ...always going that one step too far.

[Lusekofte]

Boy oh boy, I am going to start a topic called FW 190 every month..... and grab my popcorn. These topics always bring the best in this community. 

[Ace_Pilto]

Did you really have to go and include a self portrait??  Geez ...always going that one step too far.

 

One step too far? I haven't yet begun.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvpnfrgZYxk

[Holtzauge]

Guys: As much as I find your thoughts on how dogfighting, film producing and sheep are connected interesting (having a sense of humour always helps IMHO ), I have a question to those of you who seem to have flown the BoS Fw-190 through its paces:

 

Is it true that turn performance is affected by your trim setting? i.e. do you get different (as in better) turn performance if you use the horizontal stabilizer and trim into the turn? I’ve seen posts here and there in the forum suggesting this (not only for the Fw-190 I believe?). Is there some truth in this and if so what order of improvement are we talking about? From a theoretical standpoint I can’t see that this should have a major impact unless we are talking significant elevator angles but if this is the case in BoS it would be good to know.

 

And yes, before some smart-alec jumps in to tell me I’m not not supposed to turn the Fw- 190, I am aware of this fact but I am trying to understand how the BoS Fw-190 is modelled in order to fly it as best as I can.

[Wulf]

Struth m8, I was goin through the dirty laundry basket and I found this little gem.  You bastards .........  

 

 

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Good advice in theory but in practice everyone gets caught by surprise sometimes, no matter how careful they are. What if I can't just run away? Should I just give up and press Ctrl-E? 

 

Like I said before, yes, if you want to chop firewood, use the sharp end of the axe. Everyone knows that the least risky approach is the best tactical way to do things but you have to be able to fight back in any plane when things go badly. Some aircraft are better suited and win more reliably and others require more skill and more luck. I know that there are a lot of people out there who have underestimated a Stuka or an Il-2 and got punished for it even though they had every conceivable advantage to begin right? There is no way that those Stuka or Sturmovik guys were up at 6,000m looking for Yaks and 109's to bounce. Is it so surprising then that some people deliberately look for trouble in the 190 which is (supposed to be) a highly capable fighter? It's well worth knowing what to do when you proverbial intersects with the industrial, even if you have to spend a few hours in an airquake server dying over and over to learn it. 

 

We're not set up to approximate the real-life experience with much accuracy given the way things currently stand right now in flight simulation. There are so many factors that make the tactical picture from back then so different to what we do. We make our own objectives, formations and team-work are the exception to the rule for us and there's no "big picture" looming over us with dark consequences for failure, just a 45 second wait for the new map to load.  We fly because it is fun, not because the newspapers and radio convinced us that murdering foreigners in the name of patriotism is "in" this year. It's good to emulate realistic, historical tactics, I agree that this gives you a lot of advantages and it's what I do most of the time... 

 

BUT

 

Those tactics existed for a different reason. The reason why dogfighting wasn't so common in WW2 or even WW1 is because a dogfight is usually a 50-50 outcome unless one pilot is significantly more talented than the other. A 50% failure rate is inefficient and wasteful compared to bouncing people and the high brass disapprove of wastefulness, it agitates their record keeping and causes unwelcome scrutiny from their political masters who have to turn around and ask their taxpayers for all their pots and pans because we crashed too many Spitfires this month. 

 

What I disagree with regarding dogfighting, and it took me some time to come around to this point of view, is that it isn't good practice or historical to learn dogfighting techniques.

 

Even though dogfighting wasn't the best practice way of doing things I can tell you that pilots indulged in it constantly against each other in impromptu training sessions which they arranged whenever they got the chance. They'd bounce each other on test flights, cook up excuses to get into the air and dogfight, leaders would take new pilots up and spar with them to test their capabilities. All this practice wasn't just because they wanted to give bad film-makers a chance to misinterpret what fighter pilots actually did 60 years later or just because they thought dogfighting was fun and likely to any impress attractive women who happened to be watching so that they could get involved in a love triangle with them and a captured enemy pilot which would further pollute the febrile imaginations of bad film-makers who can't write well enough to fill 120 minutes of cinema without using dullard tropes from the cliche handbook. *gasp sentence too long... must... breathe!*

 

They knew that if they got caught out that they had to be able to defend themselves or they would be dead the first time things went pear shaped and, in war, everything ends up pear shaped to some degree. It's the same reason why they teach you how to break a guy's neck in the army, even though they give you an assault rifle that can kill him easily from 300m away.

 

They most certainly did practice dogfighting. We talked to Joe Peterburs about this and he said they would dogfight their P-40s against the P-51 all of the time and win as well. However he also said he couldn't remember any instances of people being in a dogfight during the war and that includes Walter Schucks 200 kills.

 

I'm not really talking about the real world I'm just talking about computer aircraft, I don't mind how people fly and I'm not telling people how to enjoy their game. All I have said about the 190 really is that because of it's poorer performance relative to the 109 I tend to take it up a high higher because I don't want to get bounced while flying a 190 as we all know it is a very hard aircraft to dogfight in and I know I'm probably going to get killed if I am alone. I would say the same about the P-40 after flying it, it's a crap climbers so I want to start with the biggest advantage possible.

[Ace_Pilto]

Is it true that turn performance is affected by your trim setting? 

 

Trim is a labour saving device. It's really meant for stopping your arms from getting tired but you could possibly get creative with it. I trim for a target speed and use it to tell me how fast I am going. (Yes, I know there is an airspeed indicator but I like looking out the window at the scenery)

 

 

Struth m8, I was goin through the dirty laundry basket and I found this little gem.  You bastards .........  

 

Note how the frustrated batsman has a little tanty and throws his bat. Very bad form. He was obviously not a man with the calibre and composure to hit a 6 off the last ball so Lillee did him a favour. If my old coach saw me throw my bat I'd be dodging bouncers for a month at net practice.

 

 

However he also said he couldn't remember any instances of people being in a dogfight during the war and that includes Walter Schucks 200 kills.

 

Lucky him, that would be like being in the infantry and never having to participate in a bayonet charge. 

 

 

All I have said about the 190 really is that because of it's poorer performance relative to the 109

 

 

Ahhh, now that would have made some people here unhappy.  

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Ahhh, now that would have made some people here unhappy.  

 

Well, if he's talking about the current state of the game, there's a bit of truth.

[Wulf]

Just had my first online session in weeks/months??  The 190 certainly isn't what it was.  I couldn't comment on whether it's more or less accurate now (for all the obvious reasons) but it's certainly much harder to stay in a fight than it used to be.  The Russian machines seem to be able to get out of your way with considerable ease these days.  You can certainly bounce the unsuspecting (as you can in any fighter) but maneuver fighting seems beyond her capabilities now.  Instantaneous turn in particular is all but non-existent.  I imagine that group of people who can be bothered will adapt over time, but I don't think, as an aircraft, it's very well suited to the style of combat that's typically encountered online 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Guys: As much as I find your thoughts on how dogfighting, film producing and sheep are connected interesting (having a sense of humour always helps IMHO ), I have a question to those of you who seem to have flown the BoS Fw-190 through its paces:

 

Is it true that turn performance is affected by your trim setting? i.e. do you get different (as in better) turn performance if you use the horizontal stabilizer and trim into the turn? I’ve seen posts here and there in the forum suggesting this (not only for the Fw-190 I believe?). Is there some truth in this and if so what order of improvement are we talking about? From a theoretical standpoint I can’t see that this should have a major impact unless we are talking significant elevator angles but if this is the case in BoS it would be good to know.

 

And yes, before some smart-alec jumps in to tell me I’m not not supposed to turn the Fw- 190, I am aware of this fact but I am trying to understand how the BoS Fw-190 is modelled in order to fly it as best as I can.

People who are gaming the trim are doing so on aircraft which have trim on an axis. It is a known flaw. The Fw has trim on a button so it is not as accurate. I don't know if anyone is gaming it in this aircraft as it requires two inputs that can't be married together.

 

As for trim; I trim with a very slight nose down bias. It is about a full tick down on the trim meter in level flight at 2400 rpm. (This is actually nose up trim and maybe counter-intuitive for some). This seems to have a small effect on both improving elevator effectiveness and the onset of the dreaded accelerated stall.

Edited April 17, 2016 by [LBS]HerrMurf

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

190s legacy will be restored this night when I log on DED server

[VBF-12_Snake9]

People who are gaming the trim are doing so on aircraft which have trim on an axis. It is a known flaw. The Fw has trim on a button so it is not as accurate. I don't know if anyone is gaming it in this aircraft as it requires two inputs that can't be married together.

 

As for trim; I trim with a very slight nose down bias. It is about a full tick down on the trim meter in level flight at 2400 rpm. (This is actually nose up trim and maybe counter-intuitive for some). This seems to have a small effect on both improving elevator effectiveness and the onset of the dreaded accelerated stall.

Axis has nothing to do with the way this game treats the stab. I can "game" the stab just as well with buttons on the 190 as the axis on the 109. When will people learn.

 

I have no idea IF the stab should react like this, but the fact is it does in this game.

 

Try it out. Go in a 700 kmh dive and try pulling the stick, then press and hold up trim. Hold on to your socks cause your climb straight up, and probably black out from Gs.

[Crump]

 

 

All I have said about the 190 really is that because of it's poorer performance relative to the 109

 

 

MMmmm

 

Read the Italian fighter trails???

 

The Germans certainly did not think the FW-190 was poorer in Performance than the Bf-109 by any means..

[Crump]

Now if you asked Mtt...of course the Bf-109 was better in everything....

 

Mtt even has the flight report to prove it....

 

Unfortunately, Rechlin own testing did not agree at all with Mtt's findings. 

 

[Turban]

I can understand now that some people are forming such a cult for the Luftwaffe.

I mean, imagine them having to learn to fight flying russian aircrafts. .       

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Axis has nothing to do with the way this game treats the stab. I can "game" the stab just as well with buttons on the 190 as the axis on the 109. When will people learn.

 

I have no idea IF the stab should react like this, but the fact is it does in this game.

 

Try it out. Go in a 700 kmh dive and try pulling the stick, then press and hold up trim. Hold on to your socks cause your climb straight up, and probably black out from Gs.

That is not gaming the trim. That is how it sould be used. Tying the 109's trim and elevator to the same joystick movement is gaming the trim. When I pull back on the stick it should not automatically change the pitch on the horizontal stab as well. Using trim with a hat switch is about as accurate as a graphics game is gonna get.

 

Now that we are on about a half dozen tangents, lets get back to the topic.

[Irgendjemand]

Heh, there is a guy that doesnt even realize he is on everyones ignorelist already:P