The FockeWulf seems horrific...

[JtD]

0 proof that the current 190 is "broken".

Actually there's plenty. Feel free to browse the FM section. Some things are being debated, for some things the magnitude of the error is being debated, but for instance every one who's taken a look at the stall speed from whichever angle agrees that it is too high. And believe me, that's a rare thing.

[Dr_Molem]

Actually there's plenty. Feel free to browse the FM section. Some things are being debated, for some things the magnitude of the error is being debated, but for instance every one who's taken a look at the stall speed from whichever angle agrees that it is too high. And believe me, that's a rare thing.

 

"Everyone" except devs. 

[L3Pl4K]

How good is the 190 nosedive performance compared to the real world performance.

If i read this, Bf109 F4 vs. FW190 A2/  The A3 has a reliable and slightly more powerful engine,

http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=24&L=1SyncId%3D99428BB4-5AF5-554D-AB35-5178712EEA61

Page 3 paragrah b: Google translate

 

The comparisons were with combat power, about 20% of orbital inclination and flown via a respective difference in altitude of 2000m. It was found that the Fw 190 A2 in all heights won several hundred meters ahead. The steeper and more plunged longer was, was all the greater this advantage. However, also in this case, the slower is the Fw190 A2 on their speed limit displays as the Bf109.

 

Me and ema33ig make a dive test from 4000m to groundlevel. The 190 fly with Kampfleistung nearly its topspeed. The 109 was 100m behind the 190, with same speed. On groundlevel the109 was next to the 190.

At first glance it looks like, the 190 could not gain several hundred meters lead.

Maybe someone with more experience, could investigate which.

[JtD]

"Everyone" except devs. 

That's not contradicting my statement.

[Dr_Molem]

Well, people, at the beginning, with my first post, i was being a bit sarcastic you know: http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/22686-fockewulf-seems-horrific/?p=361006

 

But when i saw that many people have not understood, i kept my momentum.

 

And now, the cake that i just find:

 

 

Time for me to go away:

 

[L3Pl4K]

 

 

Well, people, at the beginning, with my first post, i was being a bit sarcastic you know: http://forum.il2stur...rific/?p=361006 But when i saw that many people have not understood, i kept my momentum. And now, the cake that i just find:

Are you Stg2_Winger?

[Holtzauge]

So you think it's bad enough that the only option you see left is forum Seppuku Dr_Molem? Sorry to see you go...........

[9./JG27golani79]

Are you Stg2_Winger?

 

My bet is, he is Turban in disguise xD

[MK_RED13]

My bet is, he is Turban in disguise xD

Hehe.. my bet too.

[[GOAT]Spoutpout]

He said he was sarcastic, and the .gif is pretty self-explanatory of what he thinks of the game in its current state, so no, I don't think he is Turban, since Turban wouldn't need another account just to say exactly the same kind of... Misunderstandings about Fw-190's performances and history.

 

Maybe it's Han

Edited May 30, 2016 by Spoutpout

[GridiroN]

Wow...3 pages. I wasn't expecting to start a whole firestorm with my question, lol.

 

I respect that the devs are willing to say "hey, this is what we have for the FM and we believe in our work to say this is correct", but I think this is the wrong hill to fall on your sword on. Look, in my opinion and with my passable, albeit not expert knowledge on WW2 aviation, I think it is very obvious that the FockeWulf in this FM is wrong. The German's adopted the FW because it was better for the purposes of dogfighting the British in the first place, but in this game, the BF109 F2/F4/G2 is a superior plane in almost everyway except diving, and according to the previous poster who ran tests, the FW's dive isn't even as good as it should be.

 

I can't see anyone honestly preferring the IL2 FW over the BF in a serious game with stakes on the line.

Edited May 30, 2016 by GridiroN

[Wulf]

Wow...3 pages. I wasn't expecting to start a whole firestorm with my question, lol.

 

I respect that the devs are willing to say "hey, this is what we have for the FM and we believe in our work to say this is correct", but I think this is the wrong hill to fall on your sword on. Look, in my opinion and with my passable, albeit not expert knowledge on WW2 aviation, I think it is very obvious that the FockeWulf in this FM is wrong. The German's adopted the FW because it was better for the purposes of dogfighting the British in the first place, but in this game, the BF109 F2/F4/G2 is a superior plane in almost everyway except diving, and according to the previous poster who ran tests, the FW's dive isn't even as good as it should be.

 

I can't see anyone honestly preferring the IL2 FW over the BF in a serious game with stakes on the line.

 

 

Yes, interesting point.  

 

We know the 190 was the better of the two airframes, when comparisons are made with the RL Bf 109.  That's just what the history tells us (if you care to examine it).  Some people will argue the toss of course and it was certainly the preferred ride for a number of prominent  aces (a number of whom had lived with the aircraft since the conflict in Spain) but realistically, the 109, as the older of the two aircraft, struggled, particularly as the War went on, to provide the package of features that were to be found in the 190.   So whether the FMs are right or wrong, we currently have a simulation that effectively turns the world on it's head.  We can argue that it's the way the sim community organizes itself or the the way we as individuals choose to play the game, or whatever, but the bottom-line is, the simulation fails in it's underlying purpose, to accurately represent  the War as it actually was.  As things stand, the sim doesn't so much recreate the realities of air fighting in WW 2 as create a whole new fictional air-fighting environment.  Now, you can say that this simply emphasizes the limitations of computer generated simulations and to an extent that may have something to do with it but it also tends to reinforce the point that, as a 'simulation' this product has a long way to go. 

[Kurfurst]

The German's adopted the FW because it was better for the purposes of dogfighting the British in the first place,

 

Not at all, I am afraid. They wanted a second iron in the fire, with a non-DB produced radial engine for a fighter. They adopted it in the Western front simply because the reliability of the BMW 801 engine initially was very poor and made it inadvisable where this could lead to the loss of pilots and planes - i.e. flying over the deserts of Africa, the Mediterranean Sea, or the Russian steppes. The handful of JGs left as a rearguard over France could re-equipped with 190s would usually fly over friendly territory and use it as a proving ground since it was a strategic backwater to the Germans, therefore if the new plane would not work out, it would not effect the German strategic situation initial much.

[Wulf]

Not at all, I am afraid. They wanted a second iron in the fire, with a non-DB produced radial engine for a fighter. They adopted it in the Western front simply because the reliability of the BMW 801 engine initially was very poor and made it inadvisable where this could lead to the loss of pilots and planes - i.e. flying over the deserts of Africa, the Mediterranean Sea, or the Russian steppes. The handful of JGs left as a rearguard over France could re-equipped with 190s would usually fly over friendly territory and use it as a proving ground since it was a strategic backwater to the Germans, therefore if the new plane would not work out, it would not effect the German strategic situation initial much.

 

 

Or alternatively, you could argue that the Bf 109, having  singularly failed in its critical mission over England and the South of France in 1940 had now to be withdrawn to re-fit, reorganize and re-train before being deployed against a new enemy; one that, while being far more numerous than the RAF, had shown itself to be utterly lacking in both skill and initiative during it's woeful display in the Winter War against the Finns.   What better than the new  FW 190 fighter to hold the line against an increasingly resurgent RAF, over the Channel and South of France, while the 109s cleaned-up the dispirited and disorganized legions of the VVS in the East.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

And where did you get that from, exactly?

 

Think about it very clearly - you are planning an extremely risky operation that has multiple ways to fail, one which you barely have the resources for, and one which if you fail, there will be no turning back. So, given the situation, you deliberately hold back your good stuff and throw in your 'failed' fighter into the fray in an active tactical environment over enemy territory, so that your 'super' fighter can have fun hammering helpless Blenheims going about their business bombing minor targets in France.

 

Does this sound like a smart move to you?

[Kurfurst]

There is no alternative narrative to the historical reality, at least not one that makes sense. In 1941 and at the start of 1942 the 109F held the line very succesfully against the RAF's probing raids over France, and the exhange rate was just as unfavourable to the RAF as was in 1942 with the Fw 190. In 1941/better part of 1942 the 109 was matured design, suitable for frontline use. The 190 was not. There was no superfighter to be found, that was supposedly issued to the "most elite" units. That was merely the RAF's own excuse for its own strategic and tactical failings over France up to 1943. In reality, there was promising and still maturing fighter design, that's engine required frequent overhaul (an avarage 25 hours of operation for the BMW 801C at the time, and thus far larger amount of reserves so the that replacement engines could be cycled) that prevented any largescale issues to the frontlines. It offered certain advantages (such as a rugged airframe, heavier loads) and disadvantages over the existing proven one, and was issued to units in a strategic backwater until it was technically ready to be used on the main frontline (i.e. by 1943).

 

See Gallands and Gollobs own verdict on it in December 1941.

 

Zu 4:

 

    Zum bereits festgelegten Produktionsverhältnis der FW 190 zur Bf 109

    werden folgende Überlegungen amgestellt:

 

    Der Motor ist derzeit so unzuverlässig, dass das Flugzeug nach Ansicht

    von Oberst  G a l l a n d  nur bedingt einsatzfähig ist und ein Einsatz

    über See nach England derzeit nicht in Frage kommt. Nach Aussage von Motor-

    Fachleuten wird nach Durchführung von vielen Änderungen ( heute schon 20 )

    der Motor BMW 801 C und auch D frühestens in einem halben Jahr so betriebs-

    sicher werden, dass er jede Belastung aushält, also frontreif ist, wie z.B.

    der DB 601 E.

 

    Für die fernere Zukunft ist nicht anzunehmen, dass ein fronteinsatzfähiges

    luftgekühltes Triebwerk im 2000 PS-Bereich herauskommen wird. Vermitlich

    wird es die Entwicklung der Feinflugzeuge mit sich bringen, dass wir auf 

    starke flüssigkeitsgekühlte Triebwerke, trotz der grossen Vorteile, luftge-

    kühlter, zurückgreifen müssen.

 

    Es ist beabsichtigt, den DB 603 als nächtsten flüssigkeitsgekühlten nach dem

    BMW 801 D in die FW 190 einzubauen. Dazu ist zu sagen, dass der DB 603 ein

    völlig neuer Motor ist, der ebenfalls seine Kinderkrankheiten haben wird.

    Es ist nicht damit zu rechnen, dass dieser Motor vor einem Jahr an der Front

    erscheint, dann aber wird der 801 D gerade eben richtig frontreif geworden

    sein. Der Motor 801 C erreicht heute nur 25 Betriebsstunden im Durchschnitt!!

 

    Die technischen Schwierig werden also bei der FW 190 auf längere 

    Zeit dauernd bestehen, während underdessen die einzige, wirklich frontreife

    Jagdmaschine, die Bf 109 F 4 oder G ( nur weiterentwickelter Motor ! )

    bleiben wird. Der Einbau des BMW 801 C und D ist nur als Zwischenlösung zu

    betrachten, was ja durch die nächsten Einbauabsichten bewiesen wird.

 

    Ebenso unnsicher wie der Einsatz über dem Kanal erscheint, bleibt er über

    anderen Seegebieten oder über Russland. Die Zusammensetzung der Flugzeug-

    führer ist heute keine solche mehr, dass Verluste aufgrund technischer 

    Mängel hingenommen werden könnten.

 

    Ein Einsatz der FW in den Tropen wird auf grössere Motorschwierigkeiten

    stossen und die Möglichkeit hierzu wird noch sehr lange nicht gegeben sein.

 

    Solange der BMW 801 nur so wenig Betriebsstunden aushält, also bei waitem

    nicht einmal 50 Stunden erreicht, müssen sehr viele Motoren nachgeschoben

    werden. Dies wird auf Schwierigkeiten stossen, sobald mehrere Verbände

    auf FW 190 umgerüstet sein werden.

 

    Das beabsichtige Produktionsverhältnis von ungefähr 50% FW 190 und

    50% Bf 109 bedautet auf baldige Umrüstung anderer Verbände hin. Sobald dies

    geschehen ist, bleibt aber nicht mehr die Möglichtkeit, diese Verbände nur

    über eigenem Gebiet einzusetzen und es müssen eben entweder bis dahin diese

    technischen Mängel am Motor abgestellt sein, oder aber, es müssen soviel

    Motoren nachgeschoben werden, dass dauernder frühzeitiger Motorenwechsel

    ermöglicht bleibt, was kaum zu erwarten ist.

 

    Die Entwicklung zeigt auch deutlich, dass die Bf 109 immer schneller und 

    steigfähiger bleiben wird, als die FW 190. Auf die beste Steigfähigkeit

    kann aber nicht verzichtet werden. Wenn sie im Augenblick bei der Eigenart

    des Einsatzes am Kanal bei der FW 190 auch ausreicht, bzw. keine so ausrei-

    chende Rolle spielt, so darf darüber ihre Unterlegenheit mit BMW 801 C

    gegenüber der Bf 109 F 4 mit 50% der Steigzeit der F 4 auf 10000m auf keinen

    Fall übersehen werden. Mit dem BMW 801 D wird die Unterlegenheit schätzungs-

    weise noch immer 25 bis 30% der Steigleistung der Bf 109 F 4 betragen.

 

    Aus den angestellten Überlegungen heraus erscheint das Verhältnis von

    50% für die FW 190 zu hoch gegriffen sein, auch bei Berücksichtung der

    grösseren Beschussempfindlichkeit der Bf 109.

Edited May 31, 2016 by VO101Kurfurst

[Wulf]

And where did you get that from, exactly?

 

Think about it very clearly - you are planning an extremely risky operation that has multiple ways to fail, one which you barely have the resources for, and one which if you fail, there will be no turning back. So, given the situation, you deliberately hold back your good stuff and throw in your 'failed' fighter into the fray in an active tactical environment over enemy territory, so that your 'super' fighter can have fun hammering helpless Blenheims going about their business bombing minor targets in France.

 

Does this sound like a smart move to you?

 

 

Don't be so literal. [Edited]    But that aside, Hitler considered the Soviet Union a crumbling edifice (kick in the front door and the whole rotten structure was supposed to come crashing to the ground).  Consequently, his invasion was intended to be a short and sharp little affair, lasting 5-6 months at most.  It was intended to be won by a series of rapid encirclements in the west of the Soviet Union, if it was to be won at all.  It was never intended to be  some drawn-out slug-fest across the length and breadth of Soviet Russia.  The Germans weren't fools.  They understood the logistical implications if they failed to substantially destroy the Soviet armies before they were able to retreat to the east.

Edited June 1, 2016 by Bearcat

[Wulf]

 

There is no alternative narrative to the historical reality, at least not one that makes sense. In 1941 and at the start of 1942 the 109F held the line very succesfully against the RAF's probing raids over France, and the exhange rate was just as unfavourable to the RAF as was in 1942 with the Fw 190. In 1941/better part of 1942 the 109 was matured design, suitable for frontline use. The 190 was not. There was no superfighter to be found, that was supposedly issued to the "most elite" units. That was merely the RAF's own excuse for its own strategic and tactical failings over France up to 1943. In reality, there was promising and still maturing fighter design, that's engine required frequent overhaul (an avarage 25 hours of operation for the BMW 801C at the time, and thus far larger amount of reserves so the that replacement engines could be cycled) that prevented any largescale issues to the frontlines. It offered certain advantages (such as a rugged airframe, heavier loads) and disadvantages over the existing proven one, and was issued to units in a strategic backwater until it was technically ready to be used on the main frontline (i.e. by 1943).

 

See Gallands and Gollobs own verdict on it in December 1941.

 

Zu 4:

 

    Zum bereits festgelegten Produktionsverhältnis der FW 190 zur Bf 109

    werden folgende Überlegungen amgestellt:

 

    Der Motor ist derzeit so unzuverlässig, dass das Flugzeug nach Ansicht

    von Oberst  G a l l a n d  nur bedingt einsatzfähig ist und ein Einsatz

    über See nach England derzeit nicht in Frage kommt. Nach Aussage von Motor-

    Fachleuten wird nach Durchführung von vielen Änderungen ( heute schon 20 )

    der Motor BMW 801 C und auch D frühestens in einem halben Jahr so betriebs-

    sicher werden, dass er jede Belastung aushält, also frontreif ist, wie z.B.

    der DB 601 E.

 

    Für die fernere Zukunft ist nicht anzunehmen, dass ein fronteinsatzfähiges

    luftgekühltes Triebwerk im 2000 PS-Bereich herauskommen wird. Vermitlich

    wird es die Entwicklung der Feinflugzeuge mit sich bringen, dass wir auf 

    starke flüssigkeitsgekühlte Triebwerke, trotz der grossen Vorteile, luftge-

    kühlter, zurückgreifen müssen.

 

    Es ist beabsichtigt, den DB 603 als nächtsten flüssigkeitsgekühlten nach dem

    BMW 801 D in die FW 190 einzubauen. Dazu ist zu sagen, dass der DB 603 ein

    völlig neuer Motor ist, der ebenfalls seine Kinderkrankheiten haben wird.

    Es ist nicht damit zu rechnen, dass dieser Motor vor einem Jahr an der Front

    erscheint, dann aber wird der 801 D gerade eben richtig frontreif geworden

    sein. Der Motor 801 C erreicht heute nur 25 Betriebsstunden im Durchschnitt!!

 

    Die technischen Schwierig werden also bei der FW 190 auf längere 

    Zeit dauernd bestehen, während underdessen die einzige, wirklich frontreife

    Jagdmaschine, die Bf 109 F 4 oder G ( nur weiterentwickelter Motor ! )

    bleiben wird. Der Einbau des BMW 801 C und D ist nur als Zwischenlösung zu

    betrachten, was ja durch die nächsten Einbauabsichten bewiesen wird.

 

    Ebenso unnsicher wie der Einsatz über dem Kanal erscheint, bleibt er über

    anderen Seegebieten oder über Russland. Die Zusammensetzung der Flugzeug-

    führer ist heute keine solche mehr, dass Verluste aufgrund technischer 

    Mängel hingenommen werden könnten.

 

    Ein Einsatz der FW in den Tropen wird auf grössere Motorschwierigkeiten

    stossen und die Möglichkeit hierzu wird noch sehr lange nicht gegeben sein.

 

    Solange der BMW 801 nur so wenig Betriebsstunden aushält, also bei waitem

    nicht einmal 50 Stunden erreicht, müssen sehr viele Motoren nachgeschoben

    werden. Dies wird auf Schwierigkeiten stossen, sobald mehrere Verbände

    auf FW 190 umgerüstet sein werden.

 

    Das beabsichtige Produktionsverhältnis von ungefähr 50% FW 190 und

    50% Bf 109 bedautet auf baldige Umrüstung anderer Verbände hin. Sobald dies

    geschehen ist, bleibt aber nicht mehr die Möglichtkeit, diese Verbände nur

    über eigenem Gebiet einzusetzen und es müssen eben entweder bis dahin diese

    technischen Mängel am Motor abgestellt sein, oder aber, es müssen soviel

    Motoren nachgeschoben werden, dass dauernder frühzeitiger Motorenwechsel

    ermöglicht bleibt, was kaum zu erwarten ist.

 

    Die Entwicklung zeigt auch deutlich, dass die Bf 109 immer schneller und 

    steigfähiger bleiben wird, als die FW 190. Auf die beste Steigfähigkeit

    kann aber nicht verzichtet werden. Wenn sie im Augenblick bei der Eigenart

    des Einsatzes am Kanal bei der FW 190 auch ausreicht, bzw. keine so ausrei-

    chende Rolle spielt, so darf darüber ihre Unterlegenheit mit BMW 801 C

    gegenüber der Bf 109 F 4 mit 50% der Steigzeit der F 4 auf 10000m auf keinen

    Fall übersehen werden. Mit dem BMW 801 D wird die Unterlegenheit schätzungs-

    weise noch immer 25 bis 30% der Steigleistung der Bf 109 F 4 betragen.

 

    Aus den angestellten Überlegungen heraus erscheint das Verhältnis von

    50% für die FW 190 zu hoch gegriffen sein, auch bei Berücksichtung der

    grösseren Beschussempfindlichkeit der Bf 109.

 

 

 

Do you consider the Mk V and Mk IX Spitfires posed a lesser threat than the LaGG 3, The Yak 1 and the La-5?  Do you think RAF Fighter Command was a less well organized fighting force than the VVS in 1942?

[Kurfurst]

I have no problem with the 190, I really like the plane, just looking at it without the rose colored glasses. Never really liked how it flew though, in any sim (rolls crazy fast, but performs poor in the turn/stall department, mediocre in climb - its a difficult plane to fly effectively in dogfights, but it really shines in team engagements due to its speed, SA and firepower). But its just personal preference. Its just you who has problem with accepting reality and believe in fantasies instead..

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Do you consider the Mk V and Mk IX Spitfires posed a lesser threat than the LaGG 3, The Yak 1 and the La-5?  Do you think RAF Fighter Command was a less well organized fighting force than the VVS in 1942?

 

For the record, the 1942 LaGG-3 rolled better, dove better and was sturdier than the Spitfire Mk. V, and the La-5 on top of that was much faster. The 1942 Yak-1 was nearly identical to the Mk. V in performance across most parameters.

 

A major problem of the RAF over Europe in 1941-1942 can be put in one sentence by Dmitriy Glinka: «Чем больше врага — тем легче бить его» — the more enemies, the easier it is to attack them. The phrase came from an engagement where 7 P-39s came across 68 enemy aircraft (60 Junkers covered by 8 Bf-109s) and shot down many, dispersed the formation and forced them to drop bombs early and go home, without loss.

 

Coordination is fun and games but when you have 500+ aircraft in the air and the enemy has radar to spot you early on, you set yourself up for disaster when the smallest number of enemy 'hunters' go and chew through your formation at high speed then go home.

 

EDIT: Some loss (not claim) numbers for the RAF large scale operations.

 

1941. 849 fighters (RAF) vs. 183 (Luftwaffe)

1942. 900~ fighters (RAF) vs. 272 (Luftwaffe)

 

Total losses in the 1941-1942 bomber offensive over France and the Low Countries:

 

1950, inc. 200~ bombers (RAF) vs. 460 (Luftwaffe)

Edited May 31, 2016 by 55IAP_Lucas_From_Hell

[Wulf]

For the record, the 1942 LaGG-3 rolled better, dove better and was sturdier than the Spitfire Mk. V, and the La-5 on top of that was much faster. The 1942 Yak-1 was nearly identical to the Mk. V in performance across most parameters.

 

A major problem of the RAF over Europe in 1941-1942 can be put in one sentence by Dmitriy Glinka: «Чем больше врага — тем легче бить его» — the more enemies, the easier it is to attack them. The phrase came from an engagement where 7 P-39s came across 68 enemy aircraft (60 Junkers covered by 8 Bf-109s) and shot down many, dispersed the formation and forced them to drop bombs early and go home, without loss.

 

Coordination is fun and games but when you have 500+ aircraft in the air and the enemy has radar to spot you early on, you set yourself up for disaster when the smallest number of enemy 'hunters' go and chew through your formation at high speed then go home.

 

EDIT: Some loss (not claim) numbers for the RAF large scale operations.

 

1941. 849 fighters (RAF) vs. 183 (Luftwaffe)

1942. 900~ fighters (RAF) vs. 272 (Luftwaffe)

 

Total losses in the 1941-1942 bomber offensive over France and the Low Countries:

 

1950, inc. 200~ bombers (RAF) vs. 460 (Luftwaffe)

 

Telling me the Yak 1 was about as good as a Mk V doesn't help your cause substantially.  Even if true, and I haven't compared the two in some time, what does that tell you about the in-game performance of the Yak?

 

And RAF loses pale into into insignificance when compared to the number of men and aircraft the VVS lost over the same period.  Do you have figures for the VVS loses?  Do you have figures for the corresponding number of German fighters lost over the same period?

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Not sure it's supposed to tell me anything about the performance of the Yak-1 in game - it's a decent all-around fighter but by all means I'm personally much happier and effective sitting in the MiG-3, LaGG-3 or La-5. Factually speaking though in terms of speed the Yak-1 with the M-105PF was toe-to-toe with the Spitfire Mk. V. The Spitfire had an advantage in overall turn performance, while the Yak-1 rolled better.

 

Here are the losses for the Luftwaffe and the Soviet Air Force in 1941 and 1942.

 

1941. 2800 LW vs 10300 VVS (3.68 ratio)

1942. 2299 LW vs 7800 VVS (3.39 ratio)

 

That makes an overall ratio of 3.53, against an overall ratio of 4.2 for the RAF against the Luftwaffe in the same period.

 

The major difference here however is that the Luftwaffe could comfortably afford losing 460 aircraft as it did in the West, but it couldn't afford the 5000 it lost in the East.

[LukeFF]

The Germans weren't fools.

 

 

[Edited]

Edited June 1, 2016 by Bearcat

[Wulf]

Where are you getting your figures?

 

[Edited]

 

 

 

[Edited]

 

Lucas, where are you getting your figures? 

Edited June 1, 2016 by Bearcat

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Eastern Front losses from here: http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.se/2012/04/eastern-front-aircraft-strength-and.html

 

For Luftwaffe losses I used this post in Axis History Forum by Richard Anderson, author and former researcher of the Dupuy Institute (data probably comes from site ‘The Luftwaffe 1933-45’). For Soviet figures I used ‘Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century’ by Krivosheev.

Western Front losses from here: https://books.google.se/books?id=UmwwBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA239&lpg=PA239&dq=raf+circus+operations#v=onepage&q=raf%20circus%20operations&f=false

[MiloMorai]

One of the graphs from http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAF-Luftwaffe/

 

[303_Kwiatek]

For the record, the 1942 LaGG-3 rolled better, dove better and was sturdier than the Spitfire Mk. V, and the La-5 on top of that was much faster. The 1942 Yak-1 was nearly identical to the Mk. V in performance across most parameters.

 

You are wrong Spitfire MKVB ( +12 lbs boost ) was better then Yak-1 and LAgg-3 in most aspect in 1941-1942. It had better climb rate, it was faster at altitude ( at low alt got similar maximum speed), got much better turn rate and higher maximum dive speed.  Dunno about roll rate but i think it shouldnt be much different.  So in most aspects Spitfire MVb was better. 

 

And the fact is that Fw 190 A-3/A-4 kick Spitfire MkV in most aspects too.  SPitfire MKVB got only better sustained turn rate then Fw 190A.

 

Thats the facts.

 

Some German aces started to shine when change from 109 to Fw 190 like Novotny :

 

In 1942, Nowotny increased his tally of victories and claimed his 30th and 31st kills on 11 July over the Wolchow bridgehead, which earned him the Luftwaffe Honor Goblet on 14 July 1942.^[16] Nowotny shot down a further five aircraft on a single day (32nd – 36th victories) on 20 July and seven (48th – 54th victories) on 2 August. After having downed three enemy aircraft on 11 August, Leutnant Nowotny carried out three victory passes over the airfield, despite having sustained combat damage to his own Bf 109 "Black 1". In the subsequent landing, his aircraft somersaulted and he sustained moderate injuries. Walter Nowotny was awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross (Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes) on 4 September, after 56 aerial victories. The Ritterkreuz earned him a home leave to Vienna. Here, the brothers Hubert and Walter met for the last time before Hubert was killed at Stalingrad.^[3][17]Leutnant Nowotny was made Staffelkapitän of 1./JG 54 on 25 October, replacing Oberleutnant Heinz Lange.^[18]

In January 1943, JG 54 started converting to the agile Focke-Wulf 190 fighter.^[19] With the new aircraft, Nowotny scored at an unprecedented "kill" rate, often averaging more than two planes a day for weeks on end. As of 1 February 1943, Nowotny, Karl Schnörrer, – Nowotny's wingman since late 1942 – Anton Döbele and Rudolf Rademacher, formed a team known as the "chain of devils" (Teufelskette) or the Nowotny Schwarm, which during the course of the war was credited with 524 combined kills, making them the most successful team in the Luftwaffe.^[20]

Edited May 31, 2016 by 303_Kwiatek

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

You are wrong Spitfire MKVB ( +12 lbs boost ) was better then Yak-1 and LAgg-3 in most aspect in 1941-1942. It had better climb rate, it was faster at altitude ( at low alt got similar maximum speed), got much better turn rate and higher maximum dive speed.  Dunno about roll rate but i think it shouldnt be much different.  So in most aspects Spitfire MVb was better. 

 

I'm talking 1942 versions with the M-105PF against the baseline Mk. Vb. The LaGG-3 was decidedly slower, but the Yak-1 was not far behind. Also, considering the Spitfire mostly operated at higher altitudes whereas the Yak-1 operated at lower ones, this needs to be taken in account. In terms of maximum speed and climb rate within their operational range they were a close match, again, with the Spitfire better in turns while the Yak-1 is better at rolling. The Spitfire has a higher Vne but its dive acceleration was underwhelming. For this in particular I have no hard information on except pilot accounts from the RAF, Luftwaffe and VVS, the latter from a test run against a P-39K and a LaGG-3 made in 1943. The Spitfire also had very long legs, but again this wasn't a necessity for the VVS-RKKA but was a problem for the VVS-VMF. But anyhow, the Fw-190...

 

The Fw-190 certainly was a great aircraft by all means, it was best at what most fighter pilots considered essential: speed, and firepower. But like any aircraft of the period it was designed to be flown in pairs or more, not brave lone-wolfs hunting on multiplayer. I regularly have trouble when meeting a pair of those online, regardless of FM minutiae, because it can run circles around most aircraft except for the La-5 at low level and the MiG-3 higher up, and it only takes a burst to tear most aircraft apart. That being said the Bf-109 is still my nemesis, mostly because within the way I am usually fighting it constitutes a bigger danger.

[Venturi]

One of the graphs from http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAF-Luftwaffe/

 

[tailwheel]

Its the butcher butchered bird, also known as The FockedWulf, what you'd expect, ? Oh wait....

 

 

 

he he  I started calling it the FokkenWobble 190   (where 190 is the amount of degrees you spin around in a flip).... lol just kidding... not really, but yes.

[Ooooh I know this doesn't help anything, but it is funny]

[Dr_Molem]

I'm talking 1942 versions with the M-105PF against the baseline Mk. Vb. The LaGG-3 was decidedly slower, but the Yak-1 was not far behind. Also, considering the Spitfire mostly operated at higher altitudes whereas the Yak-1 operated at lower ones, this needs to be taken in account. In terms of maximum speed and climb rate within their operational range they were a close match, again, with the Spitfire better in turns while the Yak-1 is better at rolling. The Spitfire has a higher Vne but its dive acceleration was underwhelming. For this in particular I have no hard information on except pilot accounts from the RAF, Luftwaffe and VVS, the latter from a test run against a P-39K and a LaGG-3 made in 1943. The Spitfire also had very long legs, but again this wasn't a necessity for the VVS-RKKA but was a problem for the VVS-VMF. But anyhow, the Fw-190...

 

If the Yak-1 had an advantage in rolling over Spitfire V, it would be insignificant. Don't forget that Spitfires in 1942, even with basic wings, were among the best roller in the West.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

The Spitfire Mk V with standard wing and fabric-covered ailerons rolls significantly worse than the Yak-1 at most speeds. The introduction of metal ailerons dramatically improved the situation at medium and higher speeds, but it still only barely matched the lightened Yak-1 we have here.

[Dr_Molem]

The Spitfire Mk V with standard wing and fabric-covered ailerons rolls significantly worse than the Yak-1 at most speeds. The introduction of metal ailerons dramatically improved the situation at medium and higher speeds, but it still only barely matched the lightened Yak-1 we have here.

 

If you take the Yak-1 we have ingame for a realistic representation... More than 60°/s at 600 kph, so believable. 

 

I put my hand to cut that if there's any difference in roll rate between a Spitfire V non-clipped and a Yak-1 IRL, it is insignificant.

[Dakpilot]

Question , would a Spitfire MkV roll slower if it had 64 square feet larger wings? (difference in wing area between Yak and Spit)

 

I do not know the actual roll figures, but just a thought to consider before anyone volunteers for hand removal 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip- Spitfires in 1942, even with basic wings, were among the best roller in the West.

 

WT grade generalities come from a WT grade mindset with a WT grade education in WWII aviation.

[Holtzauge]

The Spitfire Mk V with standard wing and fabric-covered ailerons rolls significantly worse than the Yak-1 at most speeds. The introduction of metal ailerons dramatically improved the situation at medium and higher speeds, but it still only barely matched the lightened Yak-1 we have here.

 

Do you have some numbers or even better a chart? I'm really interested in how well the Russian fighters rolled, especially seeing they had wooden wings. Ze-Hairy did an attempt to get to the bottom of this before and I posted some Me-109 roll data in that thread but I have never seen any data for the Yak-1 so how can we claim it rolled better than the Spitfire?

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

I saw them a good while ago but I remember the ballpark, at low and medium speeds it was reasonably close to what we have in game (see Ze_Hairy's chart for that), not sure about higher speeds. I've been trying to find them today since morning but I can't, should have bookmarked it, sorry.

 

For the record though, in combat I can't remember the Spitfire being rated as anything other than 'meh' in terms of roll rate before the introduction of shorter wings.

[JtD]

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/Me-109_G2_14513_Russian.pdf

 

First chart as attached: It is roughly labelled "Force needed to change roll rate", scale is in kg/rad/s. So it shows that for instance the MiG-3 is very heavy on the ailerons, while the Hurricane is very light.

Two things to add from my side. One, the roll rate at low speed is not force limited, so this chart is only relevant for high speed rolling. Two, the figures is only valid for low aileron deflections and resulting low rolling velocities. Both the Hurricane and the Spitfire were famous for extremely light and responsive ailerons at low ailerons deflections and low speeds (even fabric covered ones), but not for great maximum rolling performance. Other than that, you could extrapolate to get maximum high speed roll rate.

 

Second chart as attached: "Aileron effectiveness". Again for small deflections, how much ailerons deflection will give you what roll. Basically you could extrapolate this to maximum aileron deflection, and get maximum low speed roll rate. Unfortunately, for the same reason as stated above, linear extrapolations from the low roll rates the figures were produced at are unreliable.

 

All in all it's probably important for 99% of the historical flying, with normal control inputs, but not very relevant for 99% of the in game flying, where it is about maximum performance.

[Holtzauge]

I saw them a good while ago but I remember the ballpark, at low and medium speeds it was reasonably close to what we have in game (see Ze_Hairy's chart for that), not sure about higher speeds. I've been trying to find them today since morning but I can't, should have bookmarked it, sorry.

OK, so there are charts that support such high rates as we have ingame? AFAIK the Fw-190 was in a class of it's own (compared to other western designs that is) and if the Russians managed to do as well it for sure would be interesting to see the figures. However, I have to confess that until I see the data I remain a bit sceptical because the Me-109 was not a very good performer in this area and I don't recall seeing any pilot accounts where German pilots complained about Russian fighters flicking around in wicked roll manouvers which you would expect if they did as well as the Fw-190 in this department.

[Holtzauge]

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/Me-109_G2_14513_Russian.pdf

 

First chart as attached: It is roughly labelled "Force needed to change roll rate", scale is in kg/rad/s. So it shows that for instance the MiG-3 is very heavy on the ailerons, while the Hurricane is very light.

Two things to add from my side. One, the roll rate at low speed is not force limited, so this chart is only relevant for high speed rolling. Two, the figures is only valid for low aileron deflections and resulting low rolling velocities. Both the Hurricane and the Spitfire were famous for extremely light and responsive ailerons at low ailerons deflections and low speeds (even fabric covered ones), but not for great maximum rolling performance. Other than that, you could extrapolate to get maximum high speed roll rate.

 

Second chart as attached: "Aileron effectiveness". Again for small deflections, how much ailerons deflection will give you what roll. Basically you could extrapolate this to maximum aileron deflection, and get maximum low speed roll rate. Unfortunately, for the same reason as stated above, linear extrapolations from the low roll rates the figures were produced at are unreliable.

 

All in all it's probably important for 99% of the historical flying, with normal control inputs, but not very relevant for 99% of the in game flying, where it is about maximum performance.

 

Thanks for posting the info JtD! Will take a look later on when I have the time to see what one can deduce from this. I was hoping for a chart similar to the one I posted for the Me-109 to compare with but I have unfortunately never seen one for Russians fighters.......