190 vs yak1

[Mac_Messer]

I don't think he's ever said he was going to take it and turn inside a Yak-1 in a prolonged turn fight. Also, a 1vs1 in a game is not representative for WW2 air combat and has no significance when trying to make a point about realistic or unrealistic performance.

 

That said, just flying level for separation is quite a bit less than the Fw could do in real life, both on the paper and according to pilot accounts.

I agree with some of it but not all. A duel at coalt would surely show the Focke`s behavior in certain maneuvers, even when performed at high speed. That creates several disadvantages for the Focke which, I think you agree, are not quite historical.

 

A competent virtual pilot in BoS/BoM would act according to what the current FM lets him do, so he`d avoid making maneuvers that are historically typical for the FW190.

And my view on this car crash arguement? The FW190 is more difficult for me to fly now, so much so that I just can't do anything now except very disciplined ' straight' flight in the vertical. Historical or not, I can't use the 190 for fun, such as a co-alt QMB scenario as I used to. However, I know of more capable pilots who see no issue since the changes.

Right. Since the patch I see people perpetuating more and more the myth of the Focke Wulf being an experten aircraft. It was not, and surely if you want it to call it that, then the 109 was a far more experten plane.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

I see some crazy posts here.

 

Especially the "They were not designed for xxxx but rather for xxxx", it literally killed me.

[Lusekofte]

I don't think it matters. Personally, as this is a ' combat' flight sim, it makes much more sense to me and is more productive to actually fly against each other to try and ' demonstrate' a point rather than exchanging words on a forum.

 

And Venturi and Manfred should fly however they wish. The result isn't necessarily going to mean anything conclusive to many people, but to some it may answer some questions.

 

I would just say to agree on a certain fuel load. When I do QMBs of 190 vs yak, I give them the same volume... which means if I give the yak 75%, I think it is about 65% for the 190. If they both have 100% it is a disadvantage for the 190.

 

And my view on this car crash arguement? The FW190 is more difficult for me to fly now, so much so that I just can't do anything now except very disciplined ' straight' flight in the vertical. Historical or not, I can't use the 190 for fun, such as a co-alt QMB scenario as I used to. However, I know of more capable pilots who see no issue since the changes.

 

This I can relate to, but is it not time to give the developers a proper hint about this. Someone given a proper report on it? 

They said numerous of times they do not pay attention to hysterical reports seen in here. 

It is a typical tendencies from Luftwaffe side to make a constant complaint about lack of performance in their planes and over performance in Russian side. It is as old as this game. 

My point here is simply the fact that I can see plenty of usage in the FW 190, historical or not. I find it a very stable and fast gun platform. Witch is a historical fact. 

I find the German side over crowded with high performance planes compared to Russian plane set. It is in many ways historical, but we miss out on some planes that could even it more. But there is no major complaint as a result

Edited April 21, 2016 by 216th_LuseKofte

[Geleitzug]

Typical 109 engagement at 7:15 onwards..

 

7:22 you pull too hard (buffeting increases E loss from turn)

8:18 he is diving at over 500kph indicated, it takes him a good turn to pull up but elevators should lock and cause much more alt loss - obviously trim use

8:42 he should have extended, as his violent turning has burned much of his E advantage... pulling up here gives you a shot at him

8:58 should have kept level to make you stall out, then dropped on your tail, as it is he allows you to use a very tight flaps turn at the top of your loop to get immediate position advantage, and now you are higher than him as well - this is the critical mistake

9:23 again he makes the same mistake but this time you have enough speed to pull a guns solution, he is damaged, and now you have both position and energy

10:00 you get the kill shot but if you had missed, even at this late stage with all his mistakes, he would have outclimbed you if he had stayed in the climb and you would have stalled -- and again he would have had the advantage.

 

BnZ takes more than vertical turn n burn.

 

Sorry for be a bit OT, but I would have a quick question regarding the motor management of the 109/E - I have the problem that even though I have set the automatic motor management I can only fly the Emil for a minute or less and then the motor stops; I'm of course watching the manifold pressure not being above 1.15 ata and the engine speed not above 2300 rpm... is there anything else I have to obey ?

[Mac_Messer]

Water and oil temperature below 110C.

[Geleitzug]

Water and oil temperature below 110C.

 

Aren't the coolers/radiators automatically controlled for the Emil ? or is it just for the F's and G's ?

[FTC_Etherlight]

That is only true for the F and G models, in the Emil you have to do that stuff yourself.

[Geleitzug]

That is only true for the F and G models, in the Emil you have to do that stuff yourself.

 

Ah, ok - thank you for the hint...

[Lusekofte]

There's quite a few (mainly or entirely) LW pilots who sit quietly on TS not ever mentioning any issues with the VVS being over-powered; it's like anything, complaints are always louder than compliments. Please don't tar anyone who flies LW with the noise from a few.

 

In a 'proper' MP situation and not my messing about in QMB I'm perfectly happy in the 190 as long as my target hasn't seen me and I have a little energy over them ;-)

 

(Because I can't/don't dogfight.)

 

But seriously the high speed control and fire power is just fantastic.

 

However, I have an awesome amount of respect for some (many) of the guys out there that can time their evasive maneuvers in VVS aircraft to perfection, leaving frustrated 109s/190s milling about. It's actually quite beautiful to see done so well. If I try and do the same I'm normally just in my chute soon after.

 

Chief I know it is only a few and you are not among them, my point is merely that these people have made any claims more difficult to get taken serious. I know a lot of LW pilots who does the best with what they got.

I just say that nothing said here will be taken into consideration by the developers, you should get together with some people and put together a good case for changing the FM of the FW 190. We have people with sufficient knowledge like Ze hairy etc. 

[Gump]

i fly VVS about (rough guess) 80-90% of the time. i am, in no way, a "luftwhiner". i would argue that the german fighters are the better planes, and any VVS plane is at a disadvantage to them, especially the 109. the 109 CAN, btw, turn very well.

.

i actually enjoy being able to blast the 190's with ease now while flying an La5. as long as they are handicapped like this, i will enjoy taking advantage of it.

.

i used to fly the 190's sometimes, and it was still challenging back then, but that's why i like it. it still had a snap stall issue if treated rough. i fly it sometimes now, for the challenge, but the snap stall now creates such a maneuvering restriction that inverted flat spins are almost inevitable in any combat except (possibly) the most controlled and comfortable (where time is plentiful and turning isn't necessary).

.

i simply agree that the plane doesnt fly right now. i cannot see the german war machine spending money to build, maintain, pilot and fuel a plane that flies like this when they had the 109's already. i could not imagine an RAF being concerned about this plane, as is, if they were already battling 109's. i think you would have heard (from both sides) of MANY more german pilots spinning into the ground in battle with this current behavior. it's just too cantankerous to be justified compared to a 109.

[Lusekofte]

And I did not point fingers at anyone, but we all know what I said is true. And I am absolutely sure that this topic work against any attempt of making the FW 190 better. 

Get together facts and pm them to Han or other people and this might be sorted out

[Dr_Molenbeek]

And I did not point fingers at anyone, but we all know what I said is true. And I am absolutely sure that this topic work against any attempt of making the FW 190 better. 

Get together facts and pm them to Han or other people and this might be sorted out

 

You deserve a +1 only for having said "this might be sorted out" rather than "this will be sorted out".

[WokeUpDead]

Any fighter aircraft can win a fight, even a fight against an aircraft with a much higher level of performance, if it attacks from a highly advantageous position.  What that's got to do with the effectiveness or otherwise of the 190 v the Yak 1 I don't know?

 

In theory, any aircraft can get itself into an advantageous position, but in practice the faster, better-climbing aircraft do so more often.  That's why the 190 was so effective against the slower, worse-climbing Spitfire V, and that's how it can be more effective against the Yak.  

Edited April 21, 2016 by WokeUpDead

[Gump]

In theory, any aircraft can get itself into an advantageous position, but in practice the faster, better-climbing aircraft do so more often.  That's why the 190 was so effective against the slower, worse-climbing Spitfire V, and that's how it can be more effective against the Yak.  

(preface) im no expert, just asking because we always hear of the BoB spit vs messer, then the appearance of the fw190 caused great fear in the RAF. why?..

...

could the 109 not outclimb the mkV? was it merely a climb rate (vs 109) issue that made the 190 a fearful surprise to the RAF? could the 190, then, noticeably outclimb the 109? wasnt there a difference in maneuverability at high speed between 109 and 190 - i thought the 109's controls would get heavy-freeze or the ailerons would shed and the 190 would still work? if so, why would this matter if reasonable maneuver would cause accelerated stall?

...what would make the 190 more feared by the RAF than the 109? why would the LW use these planes, instead of 109's, as fighters/escorts in the BoB? or did they just get caught in fighter roles while heading for another type mission?

...... 

hmmm...check this page out...

https://www.quora.com/Which-was-the-better-Luftwaffe-air-to-air-fighter-the-Messerschmitt-Bf-109-or-the-Focke-Wulf-Fw-190

Edited April 21, 2016 by Gump

[PatrickAWlson]

This what I have read, take it as you will (disclaimer - the 190 has always been my favorite).  The 190 was heavy and had short wings.  This made it a very poor horizontal turner.  What it was very good at was acceleration, roll, high speed handling, and abrupt changes of direction using vertical maneuvers.  With that in mind, the right way to fly a 190 historically was to keep fast, make abrupt (preferably vertical) maneuvers and use the aircraft's acceleration to regain energy between said maneuvers.  Repeat while the advantage was retained.  If the advantage was lost use roll and acceleration to escape (split-S was a favorite).

 

Things not to do in a 190 are get in a sustained turning fight, avoid consecutive energy bleeding maneuvers, don't get slow.

 

Those in favor of the current 190 FM seem to be saying that the aircraft retains its speed, acceleration, and high speed stability.  Those against argue that it has lost the ability to maneuver well in any envelope.  I am a really bad pilot and i hardly ever fly anyway, so I have no opinion.  I just follow these threads to learn more about my favorite WWII bird .

Edited April 21, 2016 by PatrickAWlson

[Turban]

(pr's controls should freface) im no expert, just asking because we always hear of the BoB spit vs messer, then the appearance of the fw190 caused great fear in the RAF. why?..

...

could the 109 not outclimb the mkV? was it merely a climb rate (vs 109) issue that made the 190 a fearful surprise to the RAF? could the 190, then, noticeably outclimb the 109? wasnt there a difference in maneuverability at high speed between 109 and 190 - i thought the 109's controls would get heavy-freeze or the ailerons would shed and the 190 would still work? if so, why would this matter if reasonable maneuver would cause accelerated stall?

...what would make the 190 more feared by the RAF than the 109? why would the LW use these planes, instead of 109's, as fighters/escorts in the BoB? or did they just get caught in fighter roles while heading for another type mission?

...... 

hmmm...check this page out...

https://www.quora.com/Which-was-the-better-Luftwaffe-air-to-air-fighter-the-Messerschmitt-Bf-109-or-the-Focke-Wulf-Fw-190

 

 

The 109's controls should freeze at high speed, when the FW190's didn't. The FW could dive at speed that no other fighter would match and still maneuver. Making a well flown FW190 almost invulnerable. And very deadly. Lots of firepower too. 

 

The Mk V outclassed the FW 190 in turns. The turn and burn dogfight was the 109's field, and before the 190, the RAF was still in a traditional kind of turning fight. When the 190 came it changed the way fights would go.

 

The FW 190 didn't impress the RAF by being a better 109, the FW 190 impressed the RAF by bringing the fight on the vertical plan in spectacular fashion.

In theory, any aircraft can get itself into an advantageous position, but in practice the faster, better-climbing aircraft do so more often.  That's why the 190 was so effective against the slower, worse-climbing Spitfire V, and that's how it can be more effective against the Yak.  

 

 

Every aircraft can get in a good position. But not every aircraft can actually use that.

 

Russian aircrafts can't dive and go fast. And when they reach max speed, they can't maneuver.  

 

That cuts a whole lot of options and strategies.

 

The FW can dive at speed 200 kph over the russian speed limit and still maneuver.  ,That's just one example of the amazing capabilities the plane have. And the tactical advantages. 

[Dr_Molenbeek]

...what would make the 190 more feared by the RAF than the 109?

 

The Fw 190, as opposed to the 109, was able to make maneuvers that the Spitfire could not follow.

 

Bf 109 pilots avoided dogfighting against Spitfires, but Fw 190 pilots ? Why would you not accept a dogfight against a plane against which you can do whatever you want as soon as you avoid slow speed sustained turning, and still get away easily by diving if in trouble ?

 

- Squadron Leader Alan Deere: "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..."

[Gump]

This what I have read, take it as you will (disclaimer - the 190 has always been my favorite).  The 190 was heavy and had short wings.  This made it a very poor horizontal turner.  What it was very good at was acceleration, roll, high speed handling, and abrupt changes of direction using vertical maneuvers.  With that in mind, the right way to fly a 190 historically was to keep fast, make abrupt (preferably vertical) maneuvers and use the aircraft's acceleration to regain energy between said maneuvers.  Repeat while the advantage was retained.  If the advantage was lost use roll and acceleration to escape (split-S was a favorite).

 

Things not to do in a 190 are get in a sustained turning fight, avoid consecutive energy bleeding maneuvers, don't get slow.

 

...

...

this little snip doesnt mention variant, but it's interesting nonetheless...

.

 

 

Came across a US study of the evolution of fighter tactics and was interested to see a paragraph about the tactics typically used by P-51 pilots in WWII in whgich they used the P-51's good instantaneous turn and roll and the ability to zoom climb but avioded getting into long turning fights, particularly against better-turn aircraft like the Fw 190. There was no elaboration about the "better-turning" part, just the statement.

 

 

how about this short video featuring werner seitz...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0YLLBvIBFk

.

and...

 

 

A lot of pilots, both Allied and Axis, have an opinion of the 109. Several Luftwaffe aces (Eric Hartmann included) preferred the 109 over Focke-Wulf's design. One Allied P-47 pilot once commented that "In all the dogfights I was in, I never saw the pilot of a 109 lose control. I saw a lot of Fw-190's spin out, hit trees, or suddenly stall. Never the Messerschmitt." 

Edited April 21, 2016 by Gump

[Lusekofte]

You deserve a +1 only for having said "this might be sorted out" rather than "this will be sorted out".

 

 

I honestly was not aware of any changes in FW 190 FM, before I read this tread. I used it as I always did with a bomb in its belly flying low and fast. Another thing is my fail to understand exactly what make the developers respond I fail to understand, but my guess is topic like this does only piss them off. 

I do wish for a best as possible game, and I choose to believe there is something wrong with the

[Gump]

it's also interesting to hear douglas bader, describing johnny johnson's 1st encounter with the fw190 (while flying mkV spit), saying the (paraphrased) "new german fighter with round engine and squarish wingtips outmaneuvered and was better than the spitfire mkV in every respect".

 

from this fw190 documentary video at 22:00...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFHy923q96Q

.

also, the prevailing discussion in various places are that the 109 could climb faster, and that the (early)190 didn't have a high performance ceiling - 109 was higher. the video also mentions that the fw190 could out turn the F4. is that what i heard?!?

[WokeUpDead]

(preface) im no expert, just asking because we always hear of the BoB spit vs messer, then the appearance of the fw190 caused great fear in the RAF. why?..

...

could the 109 not outclimb the mkV? was it merely a climb rate (vs 109) issue that made the 190 a fearful surprise to the RAF? could the 190, then, noticeably outclimb the 109? wasnt there a difference in maneuverability at high speed between 109 and 190 - i thought the 109's controls would get heavy-freeze or the ailerons would shed and the 190 would still work? if so, why would this matter if reasonable maneuver would cause accelerated stall?

...what would make the 190 more feared by the RAF than the 109? why would the LW use these planes, instead of 109's, as fighters/escorts in the BoB? or did they just get caught in fighter roles while heading for another type mission?

...... 

hmmm...check this page out...

https://www.quora.com/Which-was-the-better-Luftwaffe-air-to-air-fighter-the-Messerschmitt-Bf-109-or-the-Focke-Wulf-Fw-190

 

These are interesting questions, I think Turban answered some of them a couple posts below yours: the 190's ability to maneuver at high-speeds and firepower could have been something very new to Spit V pilots.  I think the 190's great roll-rate also scared them and was a big part of the "we're being outmaneuvered" perception; didn't the Brits clip the wings of some later Spitfire versions just to improve that plane's sluggish roll rate?

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

Bf 109 pilots avoided dogfighting against Spitfires, but Fw 190 pilots ? Why would you not accept a dogfight against a plane against which you can do whatever you want as soon as you avoid slow speed sustained turning, and still get away easily by diving if in trouble ? - Squadron Leader Alan Deere: "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..."

 

Its funny how pilots have such different views..... just like the folk on here

 

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.

[Mac_Messer]

The 109's controls should freeze at high speed, when the FW190's didn't. The FW could dive at speed that no other fighter would match and still maneuver. Making a well flown FW190 almost invulnerable. And very deadly. Lots of firepower too.

 

Nonsence. The stick in the 109 would get heavier at higher speed but it happened gradually and not so early - at speeds approaching 650IAS.

Every aircraft can get in a good position. But not every aircraft can actually use that.

Russian aircrafts can't dive and go fast. And when they reach max speed, they can't maneuver.  

 

That cuts a whole lot of options and strategies.

 

The FW can dive at speed 200 kph over the russian speed limit and still maneuver.  ,That's just one example of the amazing capabilities the plane have. And the tactical advantages. 

No, it actually currently cannot maneuver much better than 109 at high speed. The difference between the two is that 109 can`t make tight elevator turns while the 190 could make it but has little to no pre stall envelope and almost no pre stall warning. And it bleeds much more energy than any 109 while doing this.

Edited April 21, 2016 by Mac_Messer

[F/JG300_Gruber]

also, the prevailing discussion in various places are that the 109 could climb faster, and that the (early)190 didn't have a high performance ceiling - 109 was higher. the video also mentions that the fw190 could out turn the F4. is that what i heard?!?

 

Quote from Heinrich Beauvais' report of his comparison at Rechlin of the Bf109-F4 vs Fw190-A2 powered with the BMW 801 C

 

"As mentioned in the summary, the Fw 190 A2/ Bf109 F4 comparison trial results apparently favour the Bf109 F4. The trials showed the Bf109 to have a noticeable and exceptional acceleration, apart from the other data shown on the graph. The turning capabilities of the Bf109 are better than the Fw190's. This, however, is compensated by the Bf109's handling qualities (high rudder forces), which are worse than the 190's. The two types can therefore be considered more or less equal."

 

And these are from hptm. Gordon Gollob, in another trial at Rechlin in december 1941 :

 

"Speed : The Fw190 A2 is not quite as fast as the Bf109 F4, but it can be considered equally fast for practical purposes. The inferiority of the Fw is more noticeable at altitude and amounts to around 15 to 20km/h at worst. It is virtually as fast between 4000 and 4500m. At ground level it is equal in speed, perhaps faster by about 10km/h

Dive : The comparison were made at combat speed, diving at around 20 per cent inclination, and over an altitude difference of 2000m. The results showed that the Fw190 A2 ended up several hundred metres ahead at all altitudes. The steeper and longer the dive, the greater the lead.

Climb : The time for the Fw190 A2 to climb from 1000 to 10000m is 6 minutes longer i.e. the performance is about 50 percent worse. In terms of roll response, the Fw190 has a clear advantage which is particularly noticeable in aerial combat"

[Turban]

Nonsence. The stick in the 109 would get heavier at higher speed but it happened gradually and not so early - at speeds approaching 650IAS.

No, it actually currently cannot maneuver much better than 109 at high speed. The difference between the two is that 109 can`t make tight elevator turns while the 190 could make it but has little to no pre stall envelope and almost no pre stall warning. And it bleeds much more energy than any 109 while doing this.

 

1) I didn't mention any particular speed, so........ What I was talking about was more the ability to dive and attack at very high speed and leaving without being caught.

 

2)The problem is that the 109 roll rate is BoS is too high at high speed, and possibly the elevator too. Not to mention the guys who put the stabilizer on the pitch axis.  The 109 is too good at high speed currently which takes away something from the FW.

The FW was loved by LW pilots for it's abilities at high speed, where the 109 would get stiff. 

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Its funny how pilots have such different views..... just like the folk on here

 

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.

 

Please, you're free to explain me how do you "zoom and dive" on your enemy when you're a the same altitude or below. Perhaps i'll learn something new, who known.

[Turban]

Some people seem to think FW always won... they didn't. As a matter of fact many got shot down. It was a great plane, not an invincible one.

 

Many reasons for its successes, but some people will ignore that and just say it was a perfect plane that would win no matter what. It's not the case.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

Please, you're free to explain me how do you "zoom and dive" on your enemy when you're a the same altitude or below. Perhaps i'll learn something new, who known.

They are not my word they are Eric Brown's it such a shame we can't ask him anymore. What I can gather is from what he was saying though is that 190 pilots did everything they could to stay on the vertical and avoided getting into the horizontal.

 

I'm fairly sure he knew what he was talking about.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

No doubt about that.

[JtD]

It's amazing that some people cannot get their head around that the wish is for a historically accurate Fw190 not a gaming advantage in form of some uberplane.

[Mac_Messer]

1) I didn't mention any particular speed, so........ What I was talking about was more the ability to dive and attack at very high speed and leaving without being caught.

 

2)The problem is that the 109 roll rate is BoS is too high at high speed, and possibly the elevator too. Not to mention the guys who put the stabilizer on the pitch axis.  The 109 is too good at high speed currently which takes away something from the FW.

The FW was loved by LW pilots for it's abilities at high speed, where the 109 would get stiff. 

1) No, you wrote the controls on the 109 would freeze. They would not freeze but get heavier. Gradually.

 

2) The 109 is very stiff at high speed so much so that it cannot pull any angles other than getting out from a dive before crashing. The current 190 however stalls very early at any speed and so factually is not able to pull any more of an angle than the 109.

[BlitzPig_EL]

It's amazing that some people cannot get their head around that the wish is for a historically accurate Fw190 not a gaming advantage in form of some uberplane.

 

Gamers will be gamers JtD.  it's just the nature of the beast.  Many online players see this as an athletic contest. a football match in the air, so to speak, so they will choose the "best" aircraft, regardless of history, or the make up of the two sides in a match, in order to "score" more "points".   This is the same mentality that leads to the use of non historical control bindings, and the quest for non historical aerial dominance by one or two types of aircraft, that we have seen since the beginning of WW2 air combat simulation.

 

For myself, I choose to fly the planes I personally like the best, and let the chips fall where they may.  Hence when I get around to it, I will be flying the I 16 and P 40 a lot, and if we ever see a Finnish theater I will be seen in the Hawk 75 almost exclusively.  The current BoS plane set leaves me wanting really, except for the IL2...

 

And yes I know that you are thinking after my response that I am an FW 190 hater.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The truth in this matter is what's at issue however. 

 

So many anecdotes, so little actual performance facts.

Edited April 22, 2016 by BlitzPig_EL

[Kurfurst]

- Squadron Leader Alan Deere: "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..."

 

 

A-ha! I guess we have it where the Fw 190 might be off : it doesn't model that full load of confidence.... 

[PatrickAWlson]

I'm going to try to sum up the complaint in two sentences:

1. The FW 190 lack the ability to perform sudden high speed maneuvers that it had historically.

2. While the accelerated stall is an acknowledged nasty characteristic, as implemented in BoS it's over the top.

 

Does that seem like a fair summary?

 

My opinion is that #2 is true.  I think that there is a tendency to over model nasty characteristics and I think this tendency exists across RoF and BoS.  

 

The 190: "it was flown with great confidence" ... "I saw 190 pilots spin into the trees".  Which is true?  How about both?  By the end of the war the Germans were fielding some very raw, inexperienced, basically bad pilots.  Those guys probably did spin their crates into the ground on a regular basis.  However, in the earlier years the German pilots were properly trained.  They weren't all aces by any means but they were at least competent.  They had no problem with the 190.  The stall characteristic is noted and yet the 190 does not have a reputation as a pilot killer. 

 

My conclusion: the stall should be there but it seems to me that it should not be THE factor on the mind of an experienced sim pilot.  The plane just could not have been that dangerous in real life.  

[Kurfurst]

I think there is also a 3rd answer - with more processing power, the FMs are getting more and more detailed and it might seem strange to a lot pilots compared to what they were used to. If you look at the sims of the 90s, there was basically no or very little characteristics; the old Il-2 had some, but I think was still very basic, since the FM was mostly developed in the early 2000s. Some other flight sims ever had it even worse... 

 

Its only now that we have insane CPU power and developers can present more detailed characteristics, that might seem very unnatural and alien first compared to what we are used to. Also the differences as a result are more subtle and harder to measure and compare to the real world data.

[Turban]

I'm going to try to sum up the complaint in two sentences:

1. The FW 190 lack the ability to perform sudden high speed maneuvers that it had historically.

2. While the accelerated stall is an acknowledged nasty characteristic, as implemented in BoS it's over the top.

 

Does that seem like a fair summary?

 

My opinion is that #2 is true.  I think that there is a tendency to over model nasty characteristics and I think this tendency exists across RoF and BoS.  

 

The 190: "it was flown with great confidence" ... "I saw 190 pilots spin into the trees".  Which is true?  How about both?  By the end of the war the Germans were fielding some very raw, inexperienced, basically bad pilots.  Those guys probably did spin their crates into the ground on a regular basis.  However, in the earlier years the German pilots were properly trained.  They weren't all aces by any means but they were at least competent.  They had no problem with the 190.  The stall characteristic is noted and yet the 190 does not have a reputation as a pilot killer. 

 

My conclusion: the stall should be there but it seems to me that it should not be THE factor on the mind of an experienced sim pilot.  The plane just could not have been that dangerous in real life.  

 

 

Most people here expect to get the same results as german aces of WWII. Disregarding the fact that those guys back then were extremely skilled and experienced pilots.

 

They never factor that in, for some reasons. WWII aces got some results , and so should every gamers apparently.

 

They don't see the real picture. They see pictures of german aces and think that should translate directly into the results they should be getting from the FW 190.

 

Most people here complaining about the FW stall would have died IRL a long time ago, probably on take off even. If they die from spins ingame, well that means the game is doing something right.

[ACG_pezman]

Thanks, I just find it irritating when things seem too become 'us' or ' them' so easily.

 

I'm not entirely sure what the FM should be and will leave it to the devs. I can just understand why people are annoyed with the changes (accurate or not).

 

Anyway, I shall duck out of the thread now!

And brace for incoming!

[SKG51_robtek]

Most people here expect to get the same results as german aces of WWII. Disregarding the fact that those guys back then were extremely skilled and experienced pilots.

 

They never factor that in, for some reasons. WWII aces got some results , and so should every gamers apparently.

 

They don't see the real picture. They see pictures of german aces and think that should translate directly into the results they should be getting from the FW 190.

 

Most people here complaining about the FW stall would have died IRL a long time ago, probably on take off even. If they die from spins ingame, well that means the game is doing something right.

So many assumptions and so few facts.

Fact is, i.e., that most of the people writing here have much more hours on their virtual rides then the pilots in wwii had, learning from their errors (mostly) where the pilots then just died.

Edited April 22, 2016 by I./ZG15_robtek

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I'm going to try to sum up the complaint in two sentences:

1. The FW 190 lack the ability to perform sudden high speed maneuvers that it had historically.

2. While the accelerated stall is an acknowledged nasty characteristic, as implemented in BoS it's over the top.

 

Does that seem like a fair summary?

 

My opinion is that #2 is true.  I think that there is a tendency to over model nasty characteristics and I think this tendency exists across RoF and BoS.  

 

The 190: "it was flown with great confidence" ... "I saw 190 pilots spin into the trees".  Which is true?  How about both?  By the end of the war the Germans were fielding some very raw, inexperienced, basically bad pilots.  Those guys probably did spin their crates into the ground on a regular basis.  However, in the earlier years the German pilots were properly trained.  They weren't all aces by any means but they were at least competent.  They had no problem with the 190.  The stall characteristic is noted and yet the 190 does not have a reputation as a pilot killer. 

 

My conclusion: the stall should be there but it seems to me that it should not be THE factor on the mind of an experienced sim pilot.  The plane just could not have been that dangerous in real life.  

Yes, I quite agree with this analysis overall.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

As mentioned in the summary, the Fw 190 A2/ Bf109 F4 comparison trial results apparently favour the Bf109 F4. The trials showed the Bf109 to have a noticeable and exceptional acceleration, apart from the other data shown on the graph. The turning capabilities of the Bf109 are better than the Fw190's. This, however, is compensated by the Bf109's handling qualities (high rudder forces), which are worse than the 190's. The two types can therefore be considered more or less equal

 

 

so 190-A2 and 109-F4 are considered equal by test pilots/official evaluation. Doesn't that imply that the A3 (better engine) is even better then the F4? Or at least also "more or less equal"?