Irgendjemand Posted August 31, 2016 Posted August 31, 2016 (edited) Will. Ground Level Comparison Clean: 528 120 MG: 521 180 MG: 518 6000m Clean: 450 IAS (613 TAS) 120 MG: 442 IAS (602 TAS) 180 MG 441 IAS (600 TAS) 9000m Clean: 360 IAS (583 TAS) 120 MG: 351 IAS (568 TAS) 180 MG: 350 IAS (567 TAS) Thats a monstrous hit in performance far beyond whats expected. But it matches my overall picture of the FW 190 -> Totally Porked Edited August 31, 2016 by Irgendjemand
6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann Posted August 31, 2016 Posted August 31, 2016 Thats a monstrous hit in performance far beyond whats expected. But it matches my overall picture of the FW 190 -> Totally OK Well, think of the G-4 and G-6, same configuration except Gun bulges. They were the same size, and the G-6 was almost 10 kph slower as well. It doesn't seem too catastropic. The Bulges do pertrude and they would have slowed it down, and the 7kph didn'T surprise me at all.
RAY-EU Posted August 31, 2016 Posted August 31, 2016 The Fw190 A3 historically with 120 MG at 6400 meters could with override boost for one minute reach 673 Km/h ! In all the test parameters I estimate are about 70-90 Km/h under speed performance of the Fw190 A3 in the all diferent altitudes if you compare with the Han's datas speed in different altitudes . Where you can compare in the historic documents of WW2 of the Fw190 A3 captured and tested in 1943 by the RAF ...
Matt Posted August 31, 2016 Posted August 31, 2016 (edited) The Fw190 A3 historically with 120 MG at 6400 meters could with override boost for one minute reach 673 Km/h ! Can you link the source for that? Would be much appreciated. In all the test parameters I estimate are about 70-90 Km/h under speed performance of the Fw190 A3 in the all diferent altitudes if you compare with the Han's datas speed in different altitudes . That's non-sense. Let's stay real here. Edited August 31, 2016 by Matt 1
LuftManu Posted August 31, 2016 Posted August 31, 2016 (edited) Il-2 is grounded for us, We mainly use the 190 and now you can´t even choose it on the servers because it has been removed, nobody flying it. Yes, Stall,s are really strange. And something to think is why nobody is flying it. Edited August 31, 2016 by ManuV
JG13_opcode Posted August 31, 2016 Posted August 31, 2016 I rather like flying it, even if it's a bit of a pig compared to 1946. What baffles me is that it's always limited on WoL missions, often to less than 10 per airbase which seems excessive. I know that flying a Yak I'd much rather meet a 190 than a 109.
RAY-EU Posted August 31, 2016 Posted August 31, 2016 (edited) Here it is . You only have to convert miles and feets to km/h and meters . http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a3-level.jpg The first data phrase ... 673 Km/h at 6400 m is from aerospacepublishing uk Important captured , tested and Impreset history datas of WW2 aircraft like Fw190 A3 where belong these graphics topsecret 1943 . Edited August 31, 2016 by RAY-EU
Matt Posted August 31, 2016 Posted August 31, 2016 That's 410 mph, so 660 km/h. And those tests are without MGFF.
RAY-EU Posted August 31, 2016 Posted August 31, 2016 (edited) Ok pardon , so 660 km/h thanks I agree with you . But are 50 km/h less ! Of underperform in this case . From historic data and Han data So not 70km/h less ... -50Km/h Thanks ... And 6400 meters > 6000 meters . The speed change !? Edited August 31, 2016 by RAY-EU
JtD Posted August 31, 2016 Posted August 31, 2016 Fw tested the speed loss of MG/FF to be about 6 down low and 10km/h up high. Figures in here (Fw190A-5). 1
JG13_opcode Posted August 31, 2016 Posted August 31, 2016 (edited) Derp, still mentally on vacation. Never mind. Edited August 31, 2016 by JG13_opcode
Matt Posted August 31, 2016 Posted August 31, 2016 (edited) Ok pardon , so 660 km/h thanks I agree with you . But are 50 km/h less ! Of underperform in this case . From historic data and Han data What are you talking about? Hans data shows 667 km/h, so 7 km/h more, at 6700 meters. In the last test i made at 6400 meters, you can get 468 km/h IAS which with 2% OAT estimation results in 664 km/h TAS with emergency power. How is that 50 km/h less? Compared to Klaus' data, the speed difference at 6000m is about 40 km/h or about 8% difference. Klaus' tests are obviously with combat power, not emergency power. And i'm not sure how he calculated TAS from IAS. Edited August 31, 2016 by Matt
6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann Posted August 31, 2016 Posted August 31, 2016 What are you talking about? Hans data shows 667 km/h, so 7 km/h more, at 6700 meters. In the last test i made at 6400 meters, you can get 468 km/h IAS which with 2% OAT estimation results in 664 km/h TAS with emergency power. How is that 50 km/h less? Klaus' tests are obviously with combat power, not emergency power. And i'm not sure how he calculated TAS from IAS. The HUD Shows EAS, I convert to TAS. http://www.hochwarth.com/misc/AviationCalculator.html
Matt Posted August 31, 2016 Posted August 31, 2016 (edited) Then the airspeed indicator in the plane would show a different value than the HUD, which it does not (or vice versa, the cockpit speed gauge would also show EAS, which would be such a blatant oversight by the devs, that it can be ruled out i think). (note: some planes, like the Fw 190, show a difference between HUD and the cockpit speed gauge but that's independant of altitude or speed, so it's just a graphical misalignement and not an indication for EAS/IAS difference). Edited August 31, 2016 by Matt
RAY-EU Posted August 31, 2016 Posted August 31, 2016 Thanks Interesting explanation . Sorry Pardon agaim, and Thanks for you time . Well better if Han is close to history data ww2 . I have to evaluate more datas Is the Vacation Jet Lag . Thanks for the other way analisis betten gauge speed and Hud Speed ? This is a new way to study but need more time to underestand and comprehensive . Need more study and time to underestand and verify ..... I will need time to underestand and get in order all this conceps , too formulas and fisics conceps , not easy and time to underestand all that concept formulas datas and very interesting and funny . Thanks very much again for Clear .
JG13_opcode Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 (edited) I'd be interested to see historical documents detailing the accelerated stall, if they exist at all. That tendency for the wing to drop should definitely be "a thing" with the 190, but today I nailed a Yak, he spun out in front of me, and when I tried to climb over him like I would in the Me 109 I just ended up snap-rolling into him and we both died. It was a drag n bag so I was moving at a pretty good clip and wasn't really turning. Judging by the track I didn't have the ball completely centred, but something qualitatively feels wrong ( feelings ) The FM is close, but not quite there yet. Still, the sortie prior to that I caught 2 Yaks in line-astern and downed them both on the same pass Can't do that in the 109 (or at least I personally can't). The extra firepower and control authority at 750+ km/h really helps. Reminds me of the early "porked" Anton from il2fb. Fly it in pairs, go fast, hit hard, GTFO. Edited September 2, 2016 by JG13_opcode
Dr_Molem Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 The "fly it in pairs" that unintentionally means "you have to be 2 FW-190 to be able to match an enemy fighter", and unintentionally² revelator of the skill of those who say it, lol.
Kurfurst Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 Or their common sense and tactics. I think people on flight sim boards often put far too much emphasis on 1 vs 1 engagements, yet seldom realize that the fighters they fly were not designed with that in mind, but real life tactics - which also meant that certain weaknesses were simply overcome by using appropriate tactics.
Dr_Molem Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 Or their common sense and tactics. I think people on flight sim boards often put far too much emphasis on 1 vs 1 engagements, yet seldom realize that the fighters they fly were not designed with that in mind, but real life tactics - which also meant that certain weaknesses were simply overcome by using appropriate tactics. Not really credible since you're exactly the kind of person i'm talking about. I know you 109 [Edited] are at 7th heaven with the current situation of BOS FMs. 0 complaint about the overperformance of 109s, but they dare to say quietly "FW-190 is fine, stop bitching and use appropriate tactics".
Kurfurst Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 Overperforming 109s.... *** YAWN ***. Even. "My beräkningar shows". :D Maybe, I say maybe, that stopping b***ing and trying some actual tactics might even worth a try. I mean, what if it works? People made wonders with even 110s back in ole' Il-2. And it wasn't because it was OP.
Dr_Molem Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 Maybe, I say maybe, that stopping b***ing and trying some actual tactics might even worth a try. I mean, what if it works? What if you open your eyes and fly this plane online then upload a track here, so we can watch your beautiful flying full of advices and "appropriate" tactics ?
Max_Damage Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 (edited) Its an easy plane how can you even complain about it haha. it even has close to bubble cockpit with 360 degree sight In WOL you just fly at ~500 m and approach the air combat zone. People will be vertical looping with each other usually and they will not see you. You just do a quick pass by attack and then fly straight. turn around fluently and repeat. No haste and every once in a while you ll be getting a shootdown which is so ez with 4 20 mm. its also the historically appropriate way to use this plane. Blue complaining about fw is ridiculous. Any blue fighter is super op and fw more so. and no its not a 1v1 plane Edited September 2, 2016 by Max_Damage 1
Aap Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 The "fly it in pairs" that unintentionally means "you have to be 2 FW-190 to be able to match an enemy fighter", and unintentionally² revelator of the skill of those who say it, lol. This kind of comments really make you lose credibility. You can have all kinds of "feelings" about flight models, but if you start to complain about suggestions of flying in pairs as proof that "have to have 2 planes to match an enemy fighter" then you just show total ignorance about knowing Luftwaffe tactics. The concept of fighting in pairs was developed in Luftwaffe already during Spanish Civil War, when the Fw190 had not even hit the drawing desk yet and Bf109 was arguably the most advanced fighter in the world. Do you think the tactic was developed because Soviet I-15's or I-16's were twice as good as Bf109's? 1
Kurfurst Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 (edited) The 190 is basically Leatherface running around madly with a buzzing chainsaw and zapping anyone on the go who did not look behind their back for a second. Its not all that difficult, just requires a minimum of discipline not to enter into a maneuvering contest with 1.5 ton lighter planes. High speed and keeping up its high speed is its defence, and its far better than defensive manouvers because its an absolute and constant thing. Coupled with insane firepower, this thing just cries to be flown in pairs, the leader zapping unsuspecting foes and the wingman the suspecting ones. Edited September 2, 2016 by VO101Kurfurst
Dr_Molem Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 (edited) I almost tear my hair out when i read you, the 3 last posts, OMG. One says that 190 isn't a 1v1 plane because... Because he decided it, simply (or because you are xxxx with it in combat, don't fear to say it). Another one uses history to save his incompetence, no mention that this has not link with what i was talking about, beautiful. And finally, the 109 [Edited] refuses to show us a track of its discipline and "appropriate tactics" that he likes to talk about. Knock off the name calling........ Edited September 3, 2016 by Bearcat
Aap Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 (edited) Another one uses history to save his incompetence, no mention that this has not link with what i was talking about, beautiful. So you are able to determine my "incompetence", because I told you some facts from history that pretty much anybody interested in WWII aviation already knows? I guess you would call Werner Mölders an incompetent pilot, because he also suggested flying in pairs? And when you say that it has no link to what you were talking about, allow me to quote yourself again: "fly it in pairs" that unintentionally means "you have to be 2 FW-190 to be able to match an enemy fighter" And let me tell you again, flying in pairs does not mean that "you have to be 2 FW-190 to be able to match an enemy fighter". It is just a proper tactic to use when flying WWII fighters. Edited September 2, 2016 by II./JG77_Kemp
Dr_Molem Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 So much of a tactic that the only fighter in BOS that is advised by our experts, to be flown in pair, is the FW-190. But continue to play the blind and make as if you didn't understood since the beginning.
Kurfurst Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 I almost tear my hair out when i read you, the 3 last posts, OMG. Try harder then.
Aap Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 So much of a tactic that the only fighter in BOS that is advised by our experts, to be flown in pair, is the FW-190. But continue to play the blind and make as if you didn't understood since the beginning. Are you serious? EVERY fighter in BOS is advised to be flown in pairs. And definitely EVERY Luftwaffe fighter, as it was done historically. And like I already told, this fighter tactic for Luftwaffe was adopted already before the first Fw190 even saw daylight. It is obviously not always possible to fly in pairs in this game, but it is definitely the best way for all the fighters.
Dr_Molem Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 Are you serious? Sure i'm serious, in the forum when someone is advising to fly a plane in pairs, things want that 99,9% of time, the person is talking about the FW-190. Well that's because in the 109 you don't necessarily have to fly in pairs to rack up kills, because it outperforms every soviet fighter by a considerable margin. You know, it out climbs and out runs every soviet fighter at all altitudes. And of course, FMs have nothing to do with that.
Aap Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 Sure i'm serious, in the forum when someone is advising to fly a plane in pairs, things want that 99,9% of time, the person is talking about the FW-190. I guess you have not been around for long then. Here is a link to the Bible of new virtual pilots, Johan Kylander's "In Pursuit", written in 2005.. You can start reading from page 123: "PART V: NEVER ALONE! A single fighter is as good as dead."
Dr_Molem Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 I'm talking about forum, you're talking about "In Pursuit" (the book i stopped reading after less than 10 pages btw).
Aap Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 I'm talking about forum, you're talking about "In Pursuit" (the book i stopped reading after less than 10 pages btw). Well, maybe you should have read a bit more of it then, so you would understand the topic that is discussed here.
1CGS LukeFF Posted September 2, 2016 1CGS Posted September 2, 2016 So much of a tactic that the only fighter in BOS that is advised by our experts, to be flown in pair, is the FW-190. But continue to play the blind and make as if you didn't understood since the beginning. You are making zero sense.
Dr_Molem Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 Well, maybe you should have read a bit more of it then, so you would understand the topic that is discussed here. What ? I'm the one that started talking about this hypocritical mania to say "fly it in pairs" on the forum and you come tell me to understand the "topic that is discussed here" ? Lol ? You are making zero sense. As you have no utility on FM section, since always.
Aap Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 What ? I'm the one that started talking about this hypocritical mania to say "fly it in pairs" on the forum and you come tell me to understand the "topic that is discussed here" ? Lol ? Exactly. If you understood the topic that was discussed here, you would not have started talking that the suggestion to fly in pairs only concerns Fw190's or that it "means you have to be 2 FW-190 to be able to match an enemy fighter".
Dr_Molem Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 Exactly. If you understood the topic i thought that was discussed here, you would not have started talking that the suggestion to fly in pairs only concerns Fw190's or that it "means you have to be 2 FW-190 to be able to match an enemy fighter". Fixed for you, now stop trying to turn around my brain, not everyone has read In Pursuit.
Aap Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 Fixed for you, now stop trying to turn around my brain, not everyone has read In Pursuit. You fixed what? Twisted my words? Good for you. I have quoted your words directly. I understand that not everyone has read "In Pursuit" or knows about historical Luftwaffe fighter tactics. Now is a good chance to read it, though, and get to know why it is better to fly in pairs than alone and understand that it is not a Fw190-specific thing nor that it means that you have to have two fighters to match one enemy.
JG13_opcode Posted September 2, 2016 Posted September 2, 2016 The "fly it in pairs" that unintentionally means "you have to be 2 FW-190 to be able to match an enemy fighter", and unintentionally² revelator of the skill of those who say it, lol. Were you under the impression I was tooting my own horn? Certainly I do not consider myself to be in the top echelons of pilots.
Recommended Posts