190 vs yak1

[Turban]

 

 

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"? 

 

 

 

It's gonna be better in some areas, and it's gonna be worse in other areas.

 

You can't just compare them with one word. Be it better,  worse or equal.

 

They had different qualities in different areas, they were flown differently etc. It's not as simple as "which one is better" .

 

It's in all the reports, etc. Many things have been said about the differences between the 109 and the 190, it's no secret.

Edited April 22, 2016 by Turban

[PatrickAWlson]

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.

 

I disagree.  Most of the guys here have a lot more time than the average pilot.  Almost everybody here has died over and over but we have a reset button.  Given infinite chances, most simmers should be the equivalent of a decently trained pilot who should have a reasonable command of the aircraft. 

 

Per controlling the aircraft, it is a matter of degree.   If the consensus is that a reasonably well trained pilot is afraid to do anything but fly in straight lines then that just doesn't sound right.  Expectations of instant Hartmann (or Nowotny if we want to talk 190 drivers) is there sometimes and it is silly. But accepting the idea that one of two core Luftwaffe aircraft types was death waiting to happen ... seems a bit much.  

 

For myself I think I am that mediocre pilot incarnate.  I have no problems controlling any other aircraft that I have flown in combat flying.  My results are not great but I am in control of the airplane.  Except the 190 - it kills me every time.

[DD_Arthur]

 

For myself I think I am that mediocre pilot incarnate.  I have no problems controlling any other aircraft that I have flown in combat flying.  My results are not great but I am in control of the airplane.  Except the 190 - it kills me every time.

 

Yeah, that about sums it up for yours truly too.  How do you get on with the '190 Turban?

[seafireliv]

I disagree.  Most of the guys here have a lot more time than the average pilot.  Almost everybody here has died over and over but we have a reset button.  Given infinite chances, most simmers should be the equivalent of a decently trained pilot who should have a reasonable command of the aircraft. 

 

This 100%.

[Turban]

If you guys really think you could take those planes, take off, perform aerobatic maneuvers, land, IRL without breaking the plane and/or killing yourself..let alone go in a dogfight.. with trained pilots...... you're delusional.
 

No offence.

[BraveSirRobin]

If you guys really think you could take those planes, take off, perform aerobatic maneuvers, land, IRL without breaking the plane and/or killing yourself..let alone go in a dogfight.. with trained pilots...... you're delusional.

 

No offence.

 

That isn't actually what they're saying, and I'm pretty sure you know it.

[Gump]

after watching quite a few documentary videos about the FW190 yesterday, I am convinced that the plane was quite a fearsome fighter and was quite maneuverable (both mentioned by werner steinz and johnny Johnson). it (early versions) WAS NOT used as the 'high' cover over the 190's - just the opposite (109's were used as top cover for the 190's). as we heard quote a bit back - the 190 ran out of steam around 5km-6km, but was consider much better than the 109 BELOW that altitude. it was notably faster that the 109 lower than that - the spitfires had to upgrade their engine because of this (according to the documentaries). the only advantage the 109 had low was its acceleration and climb rate. obviously due to the 109 being the lighter airframe

.

I kinda sounds like the 109 would be the better BnZ plane - higher alt and better climb.

 

there was NO mention, in all the discourse and multiple pilot interviews (german, british, American) of the 190 being hard to control or dangerous - one mention (190 pilot) of a peculiar quirk that it would sometimes tilt at high speed and the pilot couldn't correct. even the comments about the spit mk9 upgrade were about speed to match/beat the SPEED of the 190 (not climb or high alt).

.

I would not think the documentaries could have consistently misrepresented the plane so drastically as to try and hide a plane that could only be useful in a very narrow type of tactic by only a few experts. the more I watched, the more I gained respect for the abilities of the plane as a fighter. actually, im almost afraid that, if the plane does get modeled correctly, coupled with the already dominant BoS 109, the german side will have another uber fighter to chose from.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

That isn't actually what they're saying, and I'm pretty sure you know it.

Of course he does. By his logic only a very small percentage of sim pilots should bother purchasing the game because that select few would be able to fly them online or enjoy the hobby, much less have any chance of success. Similarly, doesn't that then also mean no one should find any success is the Yak or 109 for the very same reasons?

Edited April 23, 2016 by [LBS]HerrMurf

[Turban]

That isn't actually what they're saying, and I'm pretty sure you know it.

 

hum.. no I don't. I guess I'll give it another read sometime, see what I missed.

 

Of course he does. By his logic only a very small percentage of sim pilots should bother purchasing the game because that select few would be able to fly them online or enjoy the hobby, much less have any chance of success. Similarly, doesn't that then also mean no one should find any success is the Yak or 109 for the very same reasons?

 

hum.. wat ? What are you talking about ?

[Mac_Messer]

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.  

To my understanding the logic behind most pilot accounts about the FW190 does so that your # 1 excludes #2 and mutually.

 

If you are aquainted with the main historical differences of behaviour of the 109/190 in piloting, you are able to actually decipher what the lucky people that flew those birds meant.

My take is that the 190 compared to the 109, besides being a modern fighter, was simply an easier aircraft to fly. Not only because all the automatic systems and light stick controls but also a very predictable behaviour in maneuvers. A pilot was able to pull high G maneuvers with it while in 300-650IAS range as long as the initial stage of the maneuver was performed gently so to say. How you do it is not make half stick deflection rightaway, but rather pull it as gradually as to prevent reaching AoA that is critical for the 190. Given that a competent trained average pilot knew about the snap stall, he could avoid it at all times and perform maneuvers that were unspoken of the 109. Although the very same aircraft could very well kill a pilot that knew nothing about the accelerated stall. With such behavior, there is hardly any doubt that the 190 with all its other qualities (like the wide landing gear, good pilot armor) could have been met in LW with a very warm welcome, a true upgrade over the 109, which would only last in service for duties that 190 couldn`t do (like the high altitude ops).

 

Current BoS interpretation of the 190 almost completely contradicts that as the 109 is clearly the superior aircraft.

[Holtzauge]

<snip>

there was NO mention, in all the discourse and multiple pilot interviews (german, british, American) of the 190 being hard to control or dangerous - one mention (190 pilot) of a peculiar quirk that it would sometimes tilt at high speed and the pilot couldn't correct. even the comments about the spit mk9 upgrade were about speed to match/beat the SPEED of the 190 (not climb or high alt).

.

I would not think the documentaries could have consistently misrepresented the plane so drastically as to try and hide a plane that could only be useful in a very narrow type of tactic by only a few experts. the more I watched, the more I gained respect for the abilities of the plane as a fighter. actually, im almost afraid that, if the plane does get modeled correctly, coupled with the already dominant BoS 109, the german side will have another uber fighter to chose from.

 

I think you have a very good point here. I have not read any account of the Fw-190 where it is described as we see it in BoS today either. Funny isn't it that if you look at the closest competitor, i.e. DCS, their rendition tabs much better with all these accounts? Now I wonder why that is so? Could it be that one rendition is more accurate than the other perhaps?

 

Oh, and to preempt the inevitable comeback that the A3 and D9 were different: Show me a pilot account where someone says that the flight characteristics of the Fw-190 where completely transformed when going from the A-series to the D9 in that while the A-series showed a terrible post behaviour much like a modern jet superstall or going into a crazy inverted spin while the D9 could if the pilot did not have his wits with him go into a spin but recovered if you unloaded it in time much like it  does in DCS.

 

Using Occam's razor the reason we don’t have any such accounts is simply because there are none. But hey, maybe I'm wrong and we will soon see such an account posted here but I'm not holding my breath on that one though........

[Turban]

 

I think you have a very good point here. I have not read any account of the Fw-190 where it is described as we see it in BoS today either. Funny isn't it that if you look at the closest competitor, i.e. DCS, their rendition tabs much better with all these accounts? Now I wonder why that is so? Could it be that one rendition is more accurate than the other perhaps?

 

Oh, and to preempt the inevitable comeback that the A3 and D9 were different: Show me a pilot account where someone says that the flight characteristics of the Fw-190 where completely transformed when going from the A-series to the D9 in that while the A-series showed a terrible post behaviour much like a modern jet superstall or going into a crazy inverted spin while the D9 could if the pilot did not have his wits with him go into a spin but recovered if you unloaded it in time much like it  does in DCS.

 

Using Occam's razor the reason we don’t have any such accounts is simply because there are none. But hey, maybe I'm wrong and we will soon see such an account posted here but I'm not holding my breath on that one though........

 

 

Would you take some of your time to prove to me that the earth isn't flat ? 

 

The D9 has different wings, different engine, longer nose, longer tail, etc, etc . To imply that one should be used as reference to the other is ...well it's silly.

 

So if on top you wanna compare two different planes from two different games, as an argument ...... well... that's just ... that's just no right....

 

How many times will you come up with this ???  Will you seriously write that stuff until the devs make the BoS A3 fly like the D9 in DCS ????  

[Wulf]

One of the most often heard quips about the 190 is that it turned ordinary pilots into good ones.  Well, I don't think anyone is going to say that about the BoS 190.  You might perhaps say that about the 109, I suppose, but certainly not the 190.  

 

I'm sure there are people out there who will learn to master the thing as modeled but they will be a minority.  For most pilots the 190 will remain just too damn twitchy to be bothered with.   

[MadisonV44]

+1 completely agree

[Holtzauge]

Yep, I use used fly the BoS A3 because it was more challenging which is fine. But the ahistorical monstrosity we have now will stay in the hangar until patched or, alternatively, someone else makes an A3 that conforms to the laws of aerodynamics and flight mechanics.

[Holtzauge]

Looks like someone hasn't figured out that he is being ignored. Why would you feed a troll?

[Livai]

I just use the big fuel tank from the 190 compared to the 109 to my advantage. The 190 never was a pure fighter plane it was more a allrounder plane and thats how I fly it. Level flight or dive your best friend if you fly a 190.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Looks like someone hasn't figured out that he is being ignored. Why would you feed a troll?

 

And a troll that plays its role perfectly, a great contributor of why the devs see us like ignorants who only want an über-plane.

The 190 never was a pure fighter plane it was more a allrounder plane and thats how I fly it.

 

Fly it like that if you want. But don't stick false labels on planes, please, because pure fighters variants of Fw 190 is not a myth.

[Wulf]

The 190 never was a pure fighter plane it was more a allrounder plane and thats how I fly it. Level flight or dive your best friend if you fly a 190.

 

 

The 190 was designed as an all weather day fighter.  As matters transpired, it was found to be sufficiently versatile that it could be successfully adapted to numerous other roles, unlike the 109.   But to suggest it was designed as some sort of multi-role fighter-bomber-torpedo plane is pure drivel.

[L3Pl4K]

 

 

The 190 never was a pure fighter plane

http://www.klassiker-der-luftfahrt.de/geschichte/flugzeuge/jagdflugzeug-focke-wulf-fw-190/636260

The RLM give the development order for a Fighter, not for a  panacea.

[Matt]

 

 

The D9 has different wings

 

In what way are the wings different?

[L3Pl4K]

Dora 9 and Anton 8 has the same Wing. The difference between A3 and A6/A8 is a reinforcement of the structure for the installation of MG151. The wing aera is the same.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

don't feed :-)

[L3Pl4K]

 

 

don't feed :-)

Lets feed him with habanero chili

[Art]

. The 190 never was a pure fighter plane it was more a allrounder plane and thats how I fly it. Level flight or dive your best friend if you fly a 190.

Jesus.... Who told you this nonsense?

[Holtzauge]

BTW, when are we going to be shown how to fly the A3? When are Venturi and Manfred flying? I'm hoping to get a few tips on how to fly the current rendition so I'm really looking forward to it.

[Capt_Stubing]

Wow yet another 190 thread...  Why is this plane so much in debate?  It's not only in this sim but in the original Il2 where the FM was tweaked multiple times.  I think in this sim it's been changed 3 times by my count.  Is it me or does it seem like the Devs really don't like this plane.  

 

My 2 pennies.   I have to agree with some of the earlier comments.  This version of the FW is pretty difficult to use and be successful regardless of the accuracies.   I think anyone flying the thing can clearly see it doesn't have the typical characteristics which have been well documented.  It doesn't handle very well at high speeds the Stalls are incredible deep as if the thing didn't have a vertical stab and she's not very fast. I know it's anecdotal but It's  a lot harder to be successful in this plane given what we are up against in the sim.  Yeah yeah what are my credentials?   Flying the FW for over a decade in the last sim and why all the changes to the FW FM? 

Edited April 23, 2016 by 14./JG5CaptStubing

[Turban]

Ok, my bad I thought their wings had more differences.

It doesn't change the fact that in a realistic sim you can't say with a straight face that the A3 should be comparable to the D9. And taking the D9 of DCS as a reference for what to expect of the A3 in BoS is silly. Period.

[Livai]

Jesus.... Who told you this nonsense?

 

start a climb with the 190 where the yak is 1km away from you and see what happends...... Nothing good for the 190..... The climb speed will drop to a level where a Yak reach shooting range around 0.46km away from your tail....maybe a La-5 with boost on is able to get much closer to you than a Yak for target pratice....

 

I tested it Yak vs 190 both with full fuel at 3000m where the Yak was 1km away and I started to climb the angle what I use with a 109. If I did not this climb the Yak never was able to get that much close on my tail. But the climb even with Full Engine Power I was not able to gain distance. The Climb Speed drops from the 190 the Yak get closer to 0.46km but not closer but still enough to shoot some rounds into the plane. With a 109 this never happends because the 109 out climb the Yak from a 1km distance and the climb speed never drops how it happends with the 190

[SKG51_robtek]

Ok, my bad I thought their wings had more differences.

 

It doesn't change the fact that in a realistic sim you can't say with a straight face that the A3 should be comparable to the D9. And taking the D9 of DCS as a reference for what to expect of the A3 in BoS is silly. Period.

Dear Turban, as you have no, nothing, nada, first hand knowledge of the 190 here, any contribution to this thread from you is silly. Period.

[Turban]

Dear Turban, as you have no, nothing, nada, first hand knowledge of the 190 here, any contribution to this thread from you is silly. Period.

 

I'm well aware of what the FW can do, can't do, what it looks like when in the hands of a good pilot and a bad one  I know what most people describe here isn't a reality in fights. That's my first hand experience

 

Don't call me out on experience unless you have something to show for Cause you don't

[DD_Arthur]

I'm well aware of what the FW can do, can't do, what it looks like when in the hands of a good pilot and a bad one

 

Turban;  you DO NOT HAVE the freaking 'plane!   Why persist in making such a blatant ass of yourself?

[Lusekofte]

This tread is exactly why I am not a fan of this site

[LLv24_Zami]

Turban; you DO NOT HAVE the freaking 'plane! Why persist in making such a blatant

ass of yourself?

I have been wondering the same thing. Can't think of anything else than trolling to get the topic locked.

[SKG51_robtek]

I'm well aware of what the FW can do, can't do, what it looks like when in the hands of a good pilot and a bad one  I know what most people describe here isn't a reality in fights. That's my first hand experience

 

Don't call me out on experience unless you have something to show for Cause you don't

No, dear Turban, you are NOT aware what the 190 can do, or can't do in this game, period.

All you can offer are meaningless guesses, were the only value lies in the entertainment for the readers.

If you are contend with that, fine, carry on, but don't expect to be taken for serious.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Turban,

 

Less than twenty posts ago you made completely ignorant statements about the 190 airframe and then claim to be an expert on it's use. You are not an expert on the AC and don't own it in this sim. You are trolling in the extreme.

[Turban]

Turban;  you DO NOT HAVE the freaking 'plane!   Why persist in making such a blatant ass of yourself?

 

You think I'm gonna buy it just to please you ? 

 

Most people here including yourself don't fly much.  You do complain a lot though. What do you expect. 

 

I guess we have a different definition of what being an ass is

Turban,

 

Less than twenty posts ago you made completely ignorant statements about the 190 airframe and then claim to be an expert on it's use. You are not an expert on the AC and don't own it in this sim. You are trolling in the extreme.

 

I'm still right. Can't compare the A3 to the D9 , period.

[SKG51_robtek]

....I'm still right. Can't compare the A3 to the D9 , period.

That just shows your level of ignorance regarding airframes. not more!

[Turban]

That just shows your level of ignorance regarding airframes. not more!

 

[Livai]

Question: Is there a reason why the climb speed from the 190 drops? I mean same angle + same climb speed compared to a 109 vs 190. 

Question: Where starts high,medium or low altitude in this game here? I read that the engine power starts falling off at 6000m? But hey I started to climb from 3000m and the engine power starts falling off.