The FockeWulf seems horrific...

[Art]

Lavotchkin pilots said they had no problem rolling with 190s, and this is well represented in BoS. 

 

Open your eyes, a BnZoomer like 190 has no place at low altitude fighting (eastern front), so it became a ground attacker.

OMG

[XQ_Lothar29]

I haven't played the German Stalingrad side since I first got the game really. It was the first thing I did, and I recently came back to it, and figured I'd start improving with the FW190. What the hell happened to this plane? It flies like a lead brick. Maybe I'm not understanding what you're supposed to do in it, but I took it out in quick mission against a Yak and the Yak basically laughed at it. It has a wicked dive if you don't stall out, but it can't climb back up again and going slower than 300kph on the speedo = you stall and fall to the ground violently. It also seems to get out-turned by everything....I know generally speaking you want to air more on the boom and zoom side, but the plane does not seem fast enough or climb well enough. 

 

I'm extremely confused...this cannot possibly be an honest representation of the plane that terrified the British for a year. It seems like unless the FW has a massive energy/height advantage at all times, you're a flying bullseye. 

 

I've also watched some documentary sources that state pretty definitevely that the FW was a better dogfighter than the BF. Anyone have any tips...comments??

share your opinion

 

FatWolf190 Kcal Enjoy it jijijijij 

 

Edited May 29, 2016 by E69_Lothar29

[LLv24_Zami]

Lavotchkin pilots said they had no problem rolling with 190s, and this is well represented in BoS. 

 

Open your eyes, a BnZoomer like 190 has no place at low altitude fighting (eastern front), so it became a ground attacker.

Some people... 

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

You can roll with it (reaction time offsets roll rate in favour of the pilot with the with the initiative, but it doesn't make it a bad aircraft. With that speed and firepower you only need to run fast through a bomber formation to disperse it, and you can use the speed to box up enemy fighters and deny their escape route. Mariinskiy mentioned a hard fight where a flight from 129 GIAP bumped onto a joint Fw-190 and Bf-109 patrol. The Fw-190s made sure the P-39s couldn't escape level, and while they fought with the Fw-190s the Bf-109 group would dive, attack and climb again.

[Dr_Molem]

Some people... 

 

Luftwaffles... 

 

They will never accept that their so beloved FW-190 has succeeded to make fear the British because they could dive from high altitude on their Spitfire V and BnZ them easily, a thing that is not possible on eastern front (which is why, again, this plane became a ground attacker).

 

Am i dreaming or you are supposing that devs made it completely wrong ?? looool

Edited May 29, 2016 by Dr_Molem

[LLv24_Zami]

Luftwaffles... 

 

They will never accept that their so beloved FW-190 has succeeded to make fear the British because they could dive from high altitude on their Spitfire V and BnZ them easily, a thing that is not possible on eastern front (which is why, again, this plane became a ground attacker).

 

Am i dreaming or you are supposing that devs made it completely wrong ?? looool

For your information, I fly 50-50 both sides. I don`t fly very much Fw-190  

 

So take your Luftwaffles garbage and learn stuff before posting complete nonsense here   

[Dr_Molem]

For your information, I fly 50-50 both sides. I don`t fly very much Fw-190

 

So take your Luftwaffles garbage and learn stuff before posting complete nonsense here   

 

Excuse me but if you tell me that what i say is nonsense then you're telling to devs that what they made is nonsense, simple as that.

 

Who should i believe between you and devs ? I think i know it lol. 

[LLv24_Zami]

Excuse me but if you tell me that what i say is nonsense then you're telling to devs that what they made is nonsense, simple as that.

 

Who should i believe between you and devs ? I think i know it lol. 

As I said, read and learn. Make your own conclusions. Lots of stuff in world about WW2 and it`s aircraft. 

 

I respect devs very much. But they aren`t gods who get everything right at first try. That`s why we have constant patches coming. FM`s have been tweaked many many times and they will be tweaked further in future.

 

So why are they making patches if they are every time right on everything?? Think of that for a moment 

 

Edit: Devs themselves posted this list earlier for FM improvements http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/168-developer-diary/?p=326490. I`m glad this sim is getting improvements further besides a new theatre

Edited May 29, 2016 by Zami

[Dr_Molem]

Are there any proof that the current 190 FM is wrong ? I don't think so. 

 

And i don't see anything about the 190 in that list.

[LLv24_Zami]

Are there any proof that the current 190 FM is wrong ? I don't think so. 

 

And i don't see anything about the 190 in that list.

You said devs don`t make mistakes. There`s a list which proves otherwise.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

The psychological factor is important but it affected both sides. Some Soviet pilots attributed magic powers to the Bf-109 initially because they would dive from 1000m above and climb up like a rocket, when it was all down to tactics first and foremost. There is that famous (if unverified) story of Luftwaffe pilots avoiding fights with the Yak-3 at medium altitudes but again that came mostly because the pilots flying the aircraft were top of the line ones who knew what they were doing.

 

Comparatively the Fw-190 had a greater edge in horizontal manoeuvring whereas the Bf-109 excelled in vertical manoeuvring. Both always tried to attack with altitude of course, mainly because they were not flown by idiots, but that's something you can do with a Pe-2 if you feel inclined.

 

Rest assured, no aircraft has a magical 'win' switch. The Fw-190 was used in the bomber role in some cases because it was good at it, much like the P-47. The Fw-190 was also a good fighter by most means, even I personally rate the Bf-109 much higher for its aptitude in vertical manoeuvring. The Bf-109 was used in the vertical plan all around the war over Soviet territory just fine, so the idea that the Fw-190 was relegated because of altitude is silly, particularly when it performed better at lower levels.

 

I never got along with the Fw-190 in 15 years of Il-2, but it doesn't make it useless trash. The Brits rated the Airacobra as absolute rubbish and many Americans felt the same - the Soviets loved it by most accounts. Who is right? The one who used it within its advantages.

[LLv24_Zami]

Rest assured, no aircraft has a magical 'win' switch. 

Amen to that!

 

Edit: at least when I`m flying it 

Edited May 29, 2016 by Zami

[Dr_Molem]

You said devs don`t make mistakes. There`s a list which proves otherwise.

 

I'm not telling that devs don't make mistakes, i'm telling you that it's not possible that devs made the complete opposite of how things were IRL, as you are supposing. 

 

Devs are not dumb...

[LLv24_Zami]

I'm not telling that devs don't make mistakes, i'm telling you that it's not possible that devs made the complete opposite of how things were IRL, as you are supposing. 

 

Devs are not dumb...

Who said anything about complete opposite?? Hmm, no one. 

 

I agree, devs are not dumb. 

[Dr_Molem]

Lavotchkin pilots said they had no problem rolling with 190s, and this is well represented in BoS. 

 

Open your eyes, a BnZoomer like 190 has no place at low altitude fighting (eastern front), so it became a ground attacker.

 

Some people... 

 

???

[LLv24_Zami]

???

I recommend you to read more than one book or quote before making judgments about combat performance, my friend 

 

Okay, I`m done here. Got hangover and this is just not going anywhere. 

[Dr_Molem]

I recommend you to read more than one book or quote before making judgments about combat performance, my friend 

 

Okay, I`m done here. Got hangover and this is just not going anywhere. 

 

Ok thx for the advice, bye. 

[StG2_Juuti]

Lavotchkin pilots said they had no problem rolling with 190s, and this is well represented in BoS. 

 

Open your eyes, a BnZoomer like 190 has no place at low altitude fighting (eastern front), so it became a ground attacker.

Why Boom n' Zoomer? What about the fights over Dieppe? Very low an in a constant turning style. Okay - this was only against the RAF units. http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/dieppe.htm

[Dr_Molem]

Yeah yeah turning style lol of course. 

 

A lot of Spitfire pilots who were at Dieppe said that FW-190s were doing head-on attacks with pleasure.

Edited May 29, 2016 by Dr_Molem

[StG2_Manfred]

Yeah yeah turning style lol of course. 

 

A lot of Spitfire pilots who were at Dieppe said that FW-190s were doing head-on attacks with pleasure.

Troll!

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Well, that went south rather quickly.Here comes the lock.

 

 

 

 

TROLLS WIN!

[303_Kwiatek]

Yeah yeah turning style lol of course. 

 

A lot of Spitfire pilots who were at Dieppe said that FW-190s were doing head-on attacks with pleasure.

 

I think your knowledge is very low. You should read more.

 

Story about dogfight one most known British Ace in Spitfire MKV against Fw 190 over Dieppe.

Edited May 29, 2016 by 303_Kwiatek

[303_Kwiatek]

Other Btitish Ace Alan Dere also got very high respect to FW 190. In his book hes wrote that in 1941-1941 peroid when RAF used Spitfire MKV Germans got high adventage with their Fw 190 in combat over France.

 

Spitfire Mark V was faster ( at altutude,  at low alt was similar speed) , got better climb rate and turn rate then Yak-1 with PF engine. Also it got higher maximum dive speed over Yak-1. So overal Spitfire Mark V was better plane then Yak-1 with PF engine.

Edited May 29, 2016 by 303_Kwiatek

[StG2_Manfred]

Early Focke-Wulf FW 190s on the Eastern Front:

The FW 190 A-1, A-2 and A-3 with Jagdgeschwader 51

 

http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/earlyjg51190s.htm

 

 

One pilot who flew the FW 190 in its early service with I./J.G. 51 was Hauptmann Heinz Lange, who left 1./J.G. 54 and became Staffelkapitän of 3./J.G. 51 on 26 October 1942. His first victories with the FW 190 came on 4 December 1942, when he downed two Il-2s in the early afternoon. He had the following to say about the unit's new aircraft:

 

"I first flew the Fw 190 on 8 November 1942 at Vyazma in the Soviet Union. I was absolutely thrilled. I flew every fighter version of it employed on the Eastern Front. Because of its smaller fuselage, visibility was somewhat better out of the Bf 109. I believe the Focke-Wulf was more manoeuvrable than the Messerschmitt - although the latter could make a tighter horizontal turn, if you mastered the Fw 190 you could pull a lot of Gs and do just about as well. In terms of control force and feel, the 109 was heavier on the stick. In the Fw 190 aerobatics were a pleasure!

 

Structurally, it was distinctly superior to the Messerschmitt, especially in dives. The radial engine of the Fw 190A was also more resistant to enemy fire. Firepower, which varied with the particular series, was fairly even in all German fighters. The central cannon of the Messerschmitts was naturally more accurate, but that was really a meaningful advantage only in fighter-to-fighter combat"

[707shap_Srbin]

http://www.airforce.ru/history/ww2/golodnikov/part4.htm

 

In russian.

 

 

А.С. Теперь про FW-190. 
Сильные стороны FW-190:

1. Мощный и довольно высотный двигатель.

2. Мощное пушечное вооружение.

3. Хорошо пикировали.

4. Были легки в управлении.

5. Кабина с хорошим обзором.
Слабые стороны: Посредственная динамика разгона.

 

Н.Г. Насчет мощности и высотности двигателя FW-190, опять-таки, ничего определенного сказать не могу, но безусловно мощный.
А вот, то, что двигатель «фоккера» был значительно надежнее и устойчивее к повреждениям, чем у «мессера» это факт. Если «фоккер» два цилиндра терял, то все равно летел. Хотя, повышенная надежность и устойчивость к повреждениям, это характерно для всех радиальных двигателей по сравнению с рядными. Тут до уровня наших движков, немцы всё равно не дотянули, у нас И-16 и Ла-5 могли и четыре цилиндра потерять и всё равно «домой» долетишь, для «фоккера» же потеря двух цилиндров была пределом.
Из-за радиального двигателя немецкие летчики на «фоккерах» любили в лобовые ходить, особенно поначалу, двигателем прикрывались, а вооружение у него мощнейшее – 4 20 мм пушки и 2 пулемета. Одной очередью можно было любой самолет сбить.
Пикировал «фоккер» тоже очень хорошо, это общее свойство немецких машин было.
На горизонтали был очень хорош, на вертикали хуже.
Насчет легкости управления и обзора из кабины, это опять-таки не ко мне, это тебе к немцам надо.
Что касается динамики разгона, то у «фоккера» она действительно была слабой, в этом он уступал практически всем нашим машинам, может быть кроме Р-40, Р-40 с ним был равен в этом отношении.

 

А.С. И все-таки, Николай Герасимович, на ваш взгляд, почему на Восточном фронте «не пошел» FW-190? По отзывам советских летчиков – хороший истребитель, но не более того, а ведь на Западном фронте «фоккер» произвел фурор.

 

Н.Г. Всё правильно, истребитель сильный, на «уровне», но по боевым качествам ничего уникального не представлял.
Вообще у меня сложилось впечатление, что немцы очень много ждали от этого самолета, но явно его переоценили, завысили его характеристики.
Вот, например, уж кто им внушил мысль, что «кобра» уступает «фоккеру» по скорости? А это было. Поначалу немцы так были очень уверены в своем превосходстве в скорости и часто бывало, что «фоккеры» после атаки, пытались от нас уйти на форсаже. Ты догоняешь его и сверху начинаешь «поливать». Он «дымит», «пыхтит», а оторваться не может. Быстро мы немцев отучили только на форсаж полагаться. Потом, у «фоккеров» стало правилом – выход из атаки и уход из-под удара только крутым пикированием, и никак иначе.
На вертикали «фоккер» тоже «кобре» уступал, хотя они, поначалу, пытались с нами бой на вертикалях вести. Тоже быстро отучились. И тоже мне непонятно, ну с чего они решили, что «фоккер» «кобру» на вертикали превзойдет?
Динамика разгона была слабым местом «фоккера», может быть самым слабым местом. Они потом старались на «фоккерах» так маневр строить, чтобы скорость не терять. Затяжной маневренный бой на «фоккере» против «яка», «лавочкина» или «кобры» - проигрыш изначально. Скорость потерял и всё. Пока по новой наберешь, не один раз сбить могут. Наши машины были очень динамичные.
На лобовых «фоккер» был силен и немцы этим часто пользовались. Знать, что твоя машина пару-тройку попаданий выдержит, а ты противника одной очередью разнесешь, это большую уверенность в лобовой атаке придает. Впрочем, вскоре немцы в лобовые на «кобры» стали ходить с большой опаской, это чувствовалось. У нас пушка 37 мм, тут никакой двигатель не поможет, одно попадание и всё. При таком раскладе, для лобовой надо нервы крепкие иметь, тут двигатель не помощник. А у нас нервишки-то были покрепче немецких.
У меня случай был. Сошлись мы на лобовой с четверкой «фоккеров». Четверка против четверки. И так получилось, что во время разворота мой ведомый оказался впереди меня. Я ему: «Давай, ты впереди, я тебя прикрываю!» И он ведущему «фоккеру» «в лоб» из пушки и влупил. Попал одним, а может даже, и двумя снарядами. «Фоккер» разлетелся. В клочья. Оставшаяся тройка тут же врассыпную и только мы их и видели. Всё дело несколько секунд заняло.

 

А.С. Николай Герасимович, вы всё очень хорошо рассказали, но всё-таки не объяснили главного, почему для Восточного фронта, «фоккер» не явился той «палочкой-выручалочкой», какой он оказался на Западном? Вот смотрите, что пишет в своих мемуарах Джеймс «Джонни» Джонсон (британский ас № 1 Второй Мировой войны): «… Когда офицер управления полетами сообщал мне, что впереди замечена группа вражеских истребителей, я старался избежать боя, если только солнце и высота не давали нам шанса на внезапную атаку. Слишком велико было превосходство «Фокке-вульфов» над «Спитфайрами» весной 1943 года. …» (цитирую по: Джеймс Э. Джонсон «Лучший английский ас». М. «АСТ» 2002); а ведь Джонсон летал на «Спитфайре-Vb», машине которая на Западе однозначно считалась лучше, чем Р-40, да, пожалуй, и лучше, чем Р-39.
Даже если принять во внимание, тот факт, что на Восточном фронте, на «фоккерах» часто летали летчики-бомбардировщики, которые, которые в истребительном бою не «блистали», то всё равно, такую разницу в оценках эффективности «фоккера» это не объяснит.

 

Н.Г. Тут, наверно, ответ кроется в разнице использования «фоккера».
У нас «фоккер» немцы использовали как фронтовой истребитель и истребитель-бомбардировщик, а на Западе как перехватчик.
Видимо всё дело было в радиолокационном обеспечении. На Западе «фоккеров» наводили по РЛС, т.е. к моменту боевого соприкосновения «фоккеры» успевали набрать скорость и получить превосходство по высоте, низкая динамичность «фоккера», в этом случае, особой роли не играла, он попросту высоту в скорость переводил. Да и затяжных маневренных боёв немцы, видимо, вели меньше.
На нашем фронте радиолокационного обеспечения, такой плотности, как на Западе, у немцев не было. И мы, и немцы, в основном, обнаруживали противника визуально. Летишь и смотришь, увидел – «полный газ» и в бой. В условиях отсутствия радиолокационного наведения, для скорейшего достижения максимальной скорости, динамика разгона играла ведущую роль, а динамика у «фоккера» была посредственной.
Насколько мне помнится, когда на Западе немцы стали использовать «фоккер» в качестве истребителя-бомбардировщика, то тоже стали нести на нём большие потери.

 

Edited May 29, 2016 by I./ZG1_Panzerbar

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Here's the same excerpt, from the English translation:
 

A.S. Now about the FW-190. The strong points of the FW-190: 1. Powerful and high-altitude capable engine. 2. Powerful cannon armament. 3. Good dive characteristics. 4. Light on the controls. 5. Good visibility from the cockpit.
The weak points: Average acceleration.

 

N.G. As far as the power and high-altitude performance of the FW-190 engine, again I am unable to make any specific comments, but I know it was powerful.
I can say that the Fokker engine was significantly more reliable and resistant to damage than the Messer engine. If the Fokker lost two cylinders it could still fly. Though increased reliability and resistance to damage are characteristic for all radial engines in comparison to in-line engines. German engines were not quite at the level of our own in this regard. Our I-16 and La-5 could lose four cylinders and just the same make it home. The Fokker could not lose more than two and still fly.
Because of the radial engine the German Fokker pilots loved to employ the head-on attack, especially early on. They were protected by the engine and it had powerful armaments—four 20mm cannons and two machine guns. One burst was sufficient to down any aircraft.
The Fokker was also very good in a dive; this was a common strength of German aircraft.
It was very good in the horizontal plane and not quite as good in the vertical.
As far as ease of control and visibility from the cockpit, again you’ll have to address those issues to the Germans.
Regarding acceleration, the Fokker was indeed weak. In this aspect it was inferior to almost all of our aircraft except perhaps the P-40. The P-40 was its equal to in this regard.

 

A.S. In spite of all this, Nikolay Gerasimovich, in your view why did the FW-190 not “rule” on the Eastern Front? By all accounts from Soviet pilots, it was a good fighter, but no more than that. On the Western Front, the Fokker caused an uproar.

 

N.G. You are correct. It was a powerful fighter, equal to any other. But in its combat qualities it was not unique in any way.
Overall I got the impression that the Germans expected a lot from this aircraft, but clearly overestimated its impact and exaggerated its capabilities.
For example, who ever gave them the notion that the Airacobra was inferior to the Fokker in speed? They believed it. At first the Germans were very confident in its superiority in speed, and it happened frequently that, after an attack, a Fokker would attempt to break away from us at full throttle. We caught up to him and “poured it to him” from above. He “huffed” and “puffed” but could not break contact. We quickly broke the Germans of the habit of using full power. Later, it became a rule with Fokkers—to break off from an attack or pull away from under fire only by a steep dive, and by no other method.
The Fokker also was not equal to the Airacobra in the vertical, although they initially attempted to fight with us in the vertical plane. We also quickly broke them of this habit. I still don’t understand why they decided that the Fokker could outperform the Airacobra in the vertical.
The acceleration dynamic of the Fokker was a weakness, perhaps its weakest characteristic. Later they attempted to maneuver the Fokker so that they would not lose speed. In a protracted maneuver battle of a Fokker against a Yak, Lavochkin, or Airacobra—the Fokker lost from the start. He lost his speed and then it was over. Until he acquired new speed, we had more than one opportunity to shoot him down. Our aircraft were very dynamic.
The Fokker was powerful in head-on combat and the Germans often took advantage of this. They knew that their aircraft could withstand two or three hits but could shoot down the enemy with a single burst. This gave them great confidence in frontal attack. However, the Germans quickly began to regard frontal attacks on Airacobras with great caution. We had a 37mm cannon, a round from which no engine could withstand. One hit and it was over. Knowing this, it took nerves of steel to conduct a frontal attack. The engine could not save him. We had stronger nerves than the Germans.
I experienced this myself one time. We were engaged frontally by four Fokkers. Four against four. It turned out that during a turn my wingman got in front of me. I told him, “Go ahead, you’re in front; I will cover you!” He hit the lead Fokker in the nose with his cannon. He hit the German with one, perhaps even two cannon rounds. The Fokker disintegrated. The three that were left immediately dispersed and we lost sight of them. The whole engagement lasted several seconds.

 

A.S. Nikolay Gerasimovich, you have told us a great deal but nonetheless have not explained the principal reason why the Fokker did not become the “be all and end all” fighter on the Eastern Front that it was on the Western Front. Look at what James “Johnnie” Johnson (No. 1 British ace of World War II) wrote in his memoirs: “ . . . When the flight control officer told me that a group of enemy fighters had been spotted up ahead, I tried to avoid combat if the sun and altitude did not give us an opportunity for a surprise attack. The superiority of the Focke-Wulf over our Spitfires was too great in the spring of 1943.” (James E. Johnson, The Best British Ace, Moscow: “AST”, 2002). And Johnson flew the Spitfire Vb, an aircraft that in the West was considered better than the P-40 and also better than the P-39.
Even if one considers the fact that on the Eastern Front the Fokkers were often piloted by fighter-bomber pilots, who had not distinguished themselves in fighter combat, just the same this does not explain the difference in the evaluations of the effectiveness of the FW-190.

 

N.G. Well, perhaps the answer is rooted in the difference in employment of the Fokker. The Fokkers in our theater were employed as a front-line fighter and fighter bomber, and in the West as interceptors.
It might be that the whole explanation can lay in radar support. In the West, Fokkers were vectored by radar; that is, by the time that contact occurred the Fokkers had managed to acquire speed and to gain altitude superiority. In this case, the low acceleration rate of the Fokker did not play any special role because it had already acquired speed and altitude. The Germans were still less likely to conduct a prolonged maneuver battle.
On our front the Germans did not have the kind of radar support density that they enjoyed in the West. Both we and the Germans, on the whole, used visual means to detect the enemy. You fly and you look around. If you spot something, go to full power and engage it. In conditions of the absence of radar vectoring, the dynamic of acceleration played a crucial role in the most rapid achievement of maximum speed. The Fokker was just mediocre in this respect.
As far as I can recall, when the Germans began to employ the Fokker in the West as a fighter bomber, they also began to suffer heavier losses.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I find it doubtful very many P-39's were catching 190's from behind in a footrace unless the 190 jockey had seriously squandered his energy first. The 39 has an advantage in climb rate but that's about it.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

He states the P-39s came with a height advantage, and that was the mistake of the Fw-190 pilots. They believed that by leveling out and opening the throttle they would magically leave the combat area without a scratch, ignoring how they needed time to reach those top speeds and that flying straight and level in a combat area is outlawed by most schools of air combat.

Considering the P-39 had good acceleration and a decent top speed down (edit: the P-39Q was capable of 609 km/h at 10000 ft. when boosting the engine, not shabby at all), it was foolish to expect that they could simply level out and go away from the speeds they found themselves in during a combat.

You can repeat the same thing with the Bf-109 and the La-5 at sea level - just try engaging the boost with a Messer hot on your tail going at the same speeds and see how far you get.

Edited May 30, 2016 by 55IAP_Lucas_From_Hell

[Wulf]

This is a general observation made by Mike Spick, the noted air historian and author, about the utility of the FW 190 A, on the Eastern Front.

 

After noting that by June 1944, the Jagdwaffe could only deploy "a mere 395 single-engine fighters" on the Eastern Front, against approximately 6000 Soviet fighter aircraft, he states that ..." given that the fighting on the Eastern Front took place almost entirely at medium and low levels, it seems surprising that the FW 190 A, a dogfighter par excellence, was not used by  all fighter units.  In fact, the demands for this machine were such that there were never enough to go round.  Reconnaissance, close air support (the Schlachtgruppen) and even anti-shipping units all clamoured for the Focke-Wulf" . (P 198  Luftwaffe Fighter Aces)

 

 

Hmmm ... I wonder if they'd 'clamour' for the one we have.  I kind of doubt it.

Edited May 30, 2016 by Wulf

[Dr_Molem]

0 proof that the current 190 is "broken". 

 

Sturdy, fast, good visibility, good armament, good roll (but not better than Russian fighters, as it should), that's the FW we have in BoS, as it should, whether you like it or not. 

[Wulf]

0 proof that the current 190 is "broken". 

 

Sturdy, fast, good visibility, good armament, good roll (but not better than Russian fighters, as it should), that's the FW we have in BoS, as it should, whether you like it or not. 

 

 

I don't know why I'm bothering but, for the record, maybe not much better than an La-5 FN, sure but better than a LaGG, a Yak and an La-5 - absolutely.

[YSoMadTovarisch]

[LLv24_Zami]

0 proof that the current 190 is "broken". 

 

Sturdy, fast, good visibility, good armament, good roll (but not better than Russian fighters, as it should), that's the FW we have in BoS, as it should, whether you like it or not. 

And 0 proof that it is 100% right 

[Dr_Molem]

And 0 proof that it is 100% right 

 

Fresh news on Fw 190 FM - it's fine and still no one were able to proof opposite, only emotions  

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/22132-developer-diary-part-128-discussion/?p=352032

 

[MK_RED13]

Fresh news on Fw 190 FM - it's fine and still no one were able to proof opposite, only emotions  

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/22132-developer-diary-part-128-discussion/?p=352032

 

... hehehe.. How many times I have heard it?... like Yak flaps.... FW climb.. etc.. everything was always "FINE" .. but S! for your brilliant posts! 

Edited May 30, 2016 by MK_RED13

[LLv24_Zami]

Fresh news on Fw 190 FM - it's fine and still no one were able to proof opposite, only emotions  

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/22132-developer-diary-part-128-discussion/?p=352032

 

Read my comment again: http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/22686-fockewulf-seems-horrific/?p=361116 

 

Just out of curiosity, do you fly other than VVS?

Edited May 30, 2016 by Zami

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Hence why we desperately need a locked FM discussion forum....

[StG2_Manfred]

Have you guys realized that the Fw topics almost always go south because of the same kind of provoking trolls?

 

One last words to you Dr_Molem before I put you on my ignore list: My squadron (one of the biggest in Germany) provides the Fighting Legends server in a cooperation with 9./JG 27. And we support the TAW server, as we provide the hardware to run this server. Additionally we provide a TS server and a forum to help new pilots to get into the flight sim hobby. Guys like you provide nothing but troll posts. The current iteration of the 190 is wrong in some respects, that's a fact for us. And apparently we are not alone with this oppinion, otherwise GridiroN hadn't open this topic. But write whatever you want, I'm sick and tired to discuss the obvious. It's up to the devs to change it or not, it's their sim. It's up to us to leave the scene when we think it's enough.

[Grancesc]

Yeah yeah turning style lol of course. 

 

A lot of Spitfire pilots who were at Dieppe said that FW-190s were doing head-on attacks with pleasure.

 

To put it straight to the point, I fly more on the VVS than on the LW side (about 3:2). I love flying the LaGG-3. Howsoever, the statements of this poster here are just embarrassing. They bear witness to a very limited historical and technical Knowledge.​

[Irgendjemand]

Are there any proof that the current 190 FM is wrong ? I don't think so. 

 

And i don't see anything about the 190 in that list.

Any proove that its right?

 

.

.

.