Flying the Fw 190 A-3 is challenging

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

What about ClOD? Does it have a 190 modelled after the BOB accounts and results of British test flights? How does it perform there?

Even over here you had people complaining   https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/3qmrvs/was_the_fw190_really_this_unstable_in_real_life/

[JG5_Zesphr]

There is some interesting data in all these FW190 discussions, but filtering away the personal attacks and upset feelings gets tiresome quickly. It seems to me the plane we got in the game conforms to some of the anecdotes and data, but all anecdotes and test flight do not seem to agree with eachother. Most of the data in favour of the agile 190 is from other fronts and people who did not fight on the eastern front, right? Then why should the devs choose to follow those accounts, instead of the accounts the devs have that apply directly to the 190 in the eastern front?

 

What about ClOD? Does it have a 190 modelled after the BOB accounts and results of British test flights? How does it perform there?

the 190 wasn't around in the BoB and I've posted some of the tests above 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

The basic overview is that it's light on the controls and only falls short in sustained turn and clm at high alt vs the IX. There is no statement about it being twichy or prone to stalls at any speed. In fact on page 55 it notes, "The flying characteristics are exceptional and a pilot new to the type feels at home with in the first few minutes of flight. The controls are light and well-harmonised and all manoeuvres can be carried out with out no difficulty at all speeds"

Again it comes down to a multitude of reports where in some it mentions the stall without warning and in others no mention of it.With the sheer number of differing reports its coming down to personal perspectives.

[JG5_Zesphr]

Again it comes down to a multitude of reports where in some it mentions the stall without warning and in others no mention of it.With the sheer number of differing reports its coming down to personal perspectives.

This report made by the RAF to find a weakness to exploit to fight the 190, if the stall characteristics were as sever as some say they are it would have been, by all logic, highlighted. Also this report, in the nature for which it was carried out for, I think makes it quite solid.    

[ACG_pezman]

Again it comes down to a multitude of reports where in some it mentions the stall without warning and in others no mention of it.With the sheer number of differing reports its coming down to personal perspectives.

Well, going by this thread, it sounds like the devs nailed the FM. We have a multitude of differing opinions here just like the multitude of different reports. Guess it goes off the pilot. Some pilots were probably more suited to flying the 190 than others who may have had a hard time with it.

 

Still, when you fly VVS, the 190 seems completely capable and true to the legend. However when you fly the 190 it feels like balancing on a tight rope. Guess perception does make that much of a difference.

 

And Harry, those personal attacks are just going to get you banned... again

[Livai]

Only comparable is DCS and old il2

 

How about Microsoft FSX Classic Hangar? FSX has both Fw-190 the A-3 and the A-5.

[303_Kwiatek]

Ok, just to break from the little argument, I've got some extracts from a book I'm reading at the moment- Focke wulf in combat by Alfred price- in it he has a section where there is a report of a captured A-3 by the British. I've got some rather low quality but readable extract about the tests here: http://imgur.com/a/WyVat

It's against the Mk. V an IX spits with a bit against a griffin spit (there are also the mustang 1A and P-38 in the book).

 

The basic overview is that it's light on the controls and only falls short in sustained turn and clm at high alt vs the IX. There is no  statement  about it being twichy or prone to stalls at any speed. In fact on page 55 it notes, "The flying characteristics are exceptional and a pilot new to the type feels at home with in the first few minutes of flight. The controls are light and well-harmonised and all manoeuvres can be carried out with out no difficulty at all speeds" 

 

Personally I do fell the 190 is off in BoS in regards to the stalling of the plane. 

 

Exacly.

 

Interesting is that Yak-1 with PF engine got similar performance like Spitfire Mark I ( +12 lbs boost)  -  Spitfire got better sustained turn time but Yak-1 should have little better roll rate  -  max speed and climb rate was very similar.   Fw 190 A-3 near totaly dominated Spitfire Mark V  ( only sustained turn was better in Spitfire) so it should also ouctlass Yak-1 in every espect beside turn time.  Maby developers of BOS affriad that if Fw 190 would be simulated close to RL data and handling it would totaly dominated Russian planes existied in game?  Since relase of A-3 in BOS developers got "strange" problem with fix clearly wrong and poor climb rate of Fw 190 A-3.  We were ensured that climb rate was correct where clearly it wasn't. With big pain developers changed these but suddenly they reminded that they used wrong data for Fw 190 wing polar. Excusme so wing polar before famous "finess ratio" was based on what?

 

How about Microsoft FSX Classic Hangar? FSX has both Fw-190 the A-3 and the A-5.

 

FSX has simplifacated physics which is not comparable with BOS or DCS.

Edited September 24, 2016 by 303_Kwiatek

[JG5_Zesphr]

Exacly.

 

Interesting is that Yak-1 with PF engine got similar performance like Spitfire Mark I ( +12 lbs boost)  -  Spitfire got better sustained turn time but Yak-1 should have little better roll rate  -  max speed and climb rate was very similar.   Fw 190 A-3 near totaly dominated Spitfire Mark V  ( only sustained turn was better in Spitfire) so it should also ouctlass Yak-1 in every espect beside turn time.  Maby developers of BOS affriad that if Fw 190 would be simulated close to RL data and handling it would totaly dominated Russian planes existied in game? 

 

Maybe but the if that is the case the Yak 1b should solve that some what. However I don't think the devs would be that sly, especially with the ability to limit numbers on servers. Plus  people seemed to be happy with the manoeuvrability before the new FM so it may have just been a complication when correcting the rate of climb  

Edited September 24, 2016 by Zesphr

[KoN_]

How do all you nerds manage to attract women lol

 

You guys fight about this stuff like it really matters. It's a game. A time killing hobby. You guys missed out on the real WW2 by quite a few years.

Says the man with 656 posts ...lol 

[303_Kwiatek]

Surly Fw 190 A-3 in BOS before "finess ratio" got also nasty stall charactersitic and was not also easy to fight, you had to be careffuly beacuse in hard manouvers you could stall also easly but AT LEAST you could try some scissors both horizontal or vertical and control your plane to some degree. Before you got also acceleration.  You wasn't able to sustained turn with other fighters casue you would stall but at least you could tried to do more some fight not only runing straight and make hit and run actions.  Now these plane is only hit and run plane totaly unseless in any other type of fight.

[Turban]

Ok, just to break from the little argument, I've got some extracts from a book I'm reading at the moment- Focke wulf in combat by Alfred price- in it he has a section where there is a report of a captured A-3 by the British. I've got some rather low quality but readable extract about the tests here: http://imgur.com/a/WyVat

It's against the Mk. V an IX spits with a bit against a griffin spit (there are also the mustang 1A and P-38 in the book).

 

The basic overview is that it's light on the controls and only falls short in sustained turn and clm at high alt vs the IX. There is no  statement  about it being twichy or prone to stalls at any speed. In fact on page 55 it notes, "The flying characteristics are exceptional and a pilot new to the type feels at home with in the first few minutes of flight. The controls are light and well-harmonised and all manoeuvres can be carried out with out no difficulty at all speeds" 

 

Personally I do fell the 190 is off in BoS in regards to the stalling of the plane. 

 

 

uh...

 

Ok, so there is a problem, because the stall is mentionned, it is actually mentionned that  "the pilot was  reluctant at the time to risk stalling the aircraft in the turn at such low height it is therefore possible the turn could have been made tighter" ...

 

So... no stall ever ?? It's mentionned twice on the last page from comparisons with 2 different aircrafts......

 

Also, since you underlined :

 

all manoeuvres can be carried out with out no difficulty at all speeds

 

 

It is absolutely what we have ingame. So I don't get it.

Edited September 24, 2016 by Turban

[KoN_]

The way things are going for the Axis side `every one will be flying allies in BOK........  

 

And here comes the Spitfire now this will open up a can of worms .

Edited September 24, 2016 by II./JG77_Con

[JG5_Zesphr]

uh...

 

Ok, so there is a problem, because the stall is mentionned, it is actually mentionned that  "the pilot was  reluctant at the time to risk stalling the aircraft in the turn at such low height it is therefore possible the turn could have been made tighter" ...

 

So... no stall ever ?? It's mentionned twice on the last page from comparisons with 2 different aircrafts......

 

Also, since you underlined :

 

 

It is absolutely what we have ingame. So I don't get it.

aye I didn't see it, no defence here

 

Although in game it it doesn't seem like you can do every manoeuvre at a somewhat low speed 

Edited September 24, 2016 by Zesphr

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Just nothing but personal insults are you 12 or something? 

 

You think you are an "expert" and you are nothing of the sort. You are attacking me personally because I have posted reports that don't agree with your view of how it should be. Perhaps if you took the time to read some of these reports instead of just throwing insults about Because you think you are right you may learn something. I really don't know why I waste my time on someone who clearly is in love with his own ego and is not a supporter of this sim.

 

You know what's funny ? I ignored all your copy/past Google posts (FM is right, see what Brown said !!!!) until you, kid, decided to quote me.

 

I don't accept that a clown like you, who proved in the past and still shows today, that he ignores everything about this plane (hurr durr vertical fighting !! full BnZ plane !), comes and tries to teach me something about this plane and especially when he's wrong at 200%. And no, copy/pasting Brown words do not make you any better nor increase your knowledge in air-combat, sadly for you.

 

My God, how can i still waste my time by talking to this hair brush...

 

BTW i never claimed to be an expert, but perhaps that you see things like that because you're the complete opposite of an expert ?

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Hilarious that even after 2 years, and countless explanations including sources people are still clueless and uninformed.

It was explained already 100 times why the accounts from Russian pilots don't match the admiration about the 190 from western pilots. I'd suggest everyone to read up a little about this bird.

If anyone wants to comment on this aircraft, read German sources, because they made by far the most and accurate flight tests.

All those Russian stories are pure nonsense.

If we would take the German accounts for Russian aircraft, they would all be flying bricks. Up until 1944 the Germans didn't even count the Russian planes as worthy adversaries, hence they put almost all of their aircraft in the western theatre, and only some old ones in the east.

[303_Kwiatek]

These topic is about 190 not 109 dont mess it. If you not follow 190 problems since relase what you coukd know about developers attitude for these plane. Fixing climb rate got about a year and was big problem for developers. Got you similar problems with Yak or Lagg? You know a fact that Yak1 and Lagg3 (in fact F4 too) overperformer above 4 km a lot - Yak1 is overspeed the most. Anyone or developers make something with these fact?

Some people here are totally beyond the pale, lmao it's hilarious

People cherry pick the bits of information that fit their world view and dismiss 95% of the data that dont. It's like a religion. Seriously. Some people here assume the answer before asking the questions. And when their beliefs are challenged, they become openly hostile and deny any evidence which challenges their deeply held beliefs.

 

Oh, the good ol luftwhiner victim complex. See, they always try to flip it. oh yea 109s and 190s are so inferior compared to the current allied planeset, totally accurate -.-" NO THOSE ARE THE 2 BEST AIRCRAFT IN THE GAME STOP TRYING TO FLIP IT, its so funny

[II./JG77_Manu*]

The thread thus far...

 

person 1: *sourced detailed information, argument supporting the current FM*

person 2: ha, don't make me laugh you fool, I am a lvl 99 Fw-190 paladin! you know nothing. here is my own information which I carefully selected and edited to fit my world view.

person 1: *more well-sourced information*

person 2: *snarky remark, personal insult, opinionated superlative comment on aircraft's capabilities, repeats the same information they posted before ad eternum*

 

Shouldn't this junk be in the FM section by now?

Lucas we both know that you can do better than that. While it might flatter the mob in this forum, it's just not true.

The FM section is all over with sources(!) both anecdotal and numerical, about what this plane can do, and where it is good at. Only because people are sick of searching out and mentioning those sources week after week doesn't mean that they are not there.

You regularly scan the forum, so please don't act if they were not there. If you want to continue talking about it, lets take it to the FM section, where it belongs

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Oh the irony. You are just further proving my point.

Not my own opinion, but a general consensus in Germany in WW2, and an opinion still a lot of German historians present in their books

[unreasonable]

Guys, there is an FM section where these topics can be - and have been - discussed sensibly using empirical data. The main point at issue seeming to be the accuracy/comparability of the documents the team is currently using to model the FMs.

 

Perhaps the people with the technical expertise can get the team to look again or at least explain why things are as they are, but we all know for sure that they are not going to do it in threads like this.

 

The only thing this kind of flaming is going to achieve is that the developers may start to think again about banning all FM discussions, as they were on the verge of doing before the community persuaded them to set up an FM section.

 

Perhaps some of you want that to happen: for anyone who does not, I would just say; please step away from the thread.

Edited September 24, 2016 by unreasonable

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

I don't accept that a clown like you, who proved in the past and still shows today, that he ignores everything about this plane (hurr durr vertical fighting !! full BnZ plane !), comes and tries to teach me something about this plane and especially when he's wrong at 200%. And no, copy/pasting Brown words do not make you any better nor increase your knowledge in air-combat, sadly for you. My God, how can i still waste my time by talking to this hair brush... BTW i never claimed to be an expert, but perhaps that you see things like that because you're the complete opposite of an expert ?

Just keep on with the personal attacks. You can't help yourself can you?  It’s no wonder you have been banned on this forum so many times. You have no intention of further supporting this sim and you have told us numerous times you are done with it. Just like a bad penny you keep returning to wow us with your insight charm and "intellect" I don't pretend to be an expert in anything but you just can't accept another viewpoint without resorting to petulant insults...how sad.

[IVJG4-Knight]

Well, going by this thread, it sounds like the devs nailed the FM. We have a multitude of differing opinions here just like the multitude of different reports. Guess it goes off the pilot. Some pilots were probably more suited to flying the 190 than others who may have had a hard time with it.

 

Still, when you fly VVS, the 190 seems completely capable and true to the legend. However when you fly the 190 it feels like balancing on a tight rope. Guess perception does make that much of a difference.

 

And Harry, those personal attacks are just going to get you banned... again

 

It's funny how people use DCS 190 plane to compare but don't notice that the visibility to the rear on that plane is perfect.Compare that to our fw190a3.It's really bad.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Lucas we both know that you can do better than that. While it might flatter the mob in this forum, it's just not true.

The FM section is all over with sources(!) both anecdotal and numerical, about what this plane can do, and where it is good at. Only because people are sick of searching out and mentioning those sources week after week doesn't mean that they are not there.

You regularly scan the forum, so please don't act if they were not there. If you want to continue talking about it, lets take it to the FM section, where it belongs

 

Perhaps I wasn't clear, Manu

 

The FM section does indeed have a lot of interesting data (even if one has to dig through loads of senseless arguments and smartarsery from both sides). However, the last few pages of this thread have been a back-and-forth where Custard provides some very lengthy and well-detailed documents or explanations displaying that the Fw-190 did have poor stall characteristics, and Hairy returning with waves of personal insults and 'I am right because you're an idiot' rhetoric. Regardless, this thread is above all a discussion on the accuracy or inaccuracy of the Fw-190 we have in game, yes? Isn't this something that belongs exclusively to the FM section, like all the other flight model discussions?

 

By the way, your comment about 'Russian' aircraft being counted as 'worthless' until 1944 and the Luftwaffe not bothering to oppose them properly to instead focus on the West borders on fantasy. The worthless Soviet aircraft and their pilots produced over 100 aces whose tally exceeded 30 aerial victories, no small feat considering the quality of the opposition. The air battles over Kuban were so gritty because both Soviet and German units stationed there were the very best they had to offer.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

By the way, your comment about 'Russian' aircraft being counted as 'worthless' until 1944 and the Luftwaffe not bothering to oppose them properly to instead focus on the West borders on fantasy. The worthless Soviet aircraft and their pilots produced over 100 aces whose tally exceeded 30 aerial victories, no small feat considering the quality of the opposition. The air battles over Kuban were so gritty because both Soviet and German units stationed there were the very best they had to offer.

Please quote me properly, if you do it. I didn't say worthless. I said no worthy adversaries, that just means they didn't value them as much as the western aircraft, and didn't value them as in par with their own. That's a huge difference to "worthless". With numbers there comes threat.

Nothing "fantasy". I can upload you a bunch of pages from German books which state exactly that. Kuban only shows what i said, they used a very limited number of obsolete fighters, while they user their newer ones (G6, A6) in the western front.

And for a second time: That's not my personal opinion. The reason i mentioned it is, that a bunch of people in here just come up with some Russian pilot accounts or a single western test pilot, and think they present the ultimate truth, without having the slightest clue about actual (German) sources.

I said if(!!!!) we would use the same standard for Russian planes (only listening to German tests or pilot accounts) then(!!) all Russian aircraft in the game be shit.

Don't just excerpt some lines out of my post, without mentioning the context please.

Only thing i want is no double standards, and same procedure for every plane (homecountry sources first, then the rest)

[Stig]

 

 

 

EDIT: Tactics changes not only because of the plane capabilities, but also because of pilot's experiences... You know my dear, Fw 190 pilots in 44-45, were not the same as those who fought during 42-43.

 

 

I absolutely agree, but maybe you didn't really think too deeply about this comment, before you posted it.

 

Anyway, the Fw190's reputation stems mainly from the Channel front 1941-42, so I thought I'd provide some stats to give a little perspective:

 

According to Caldwell  Fighter Command losses from mid June to end of '41: 411

By my own rough count Figher Command losses 1. half '42: 330

                                      Figher Command losses 2. half '42: 340

 

II/Jg26 was the only unit equipped with Fw 190's in 1941.

Jg26 was equipped with Fw 190's at the start of 1942, and Jg2 was in the process op converting.

2. half of '42, Jg26 and Jg2 were almost entirely equipped with Fw 190's.

 

As far as FC losses are concerned, it doesn't seem to matter much what aircraft the Jagdwaffe were flying in this period.  

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Just keep on with the personal attacks. You can't help yourself can you?  It’s no wonder you have been banned on this forum so many times. You have no intention of further supporting this sim and you have told us numerous times you are done with it. Just like a bad penny you keep returning to wow us with your insight charm and "intellect" I don't pretend to be an expert in anything but you just can't accept another viewpoint without resorting to petulant insults...how sad.

 

Got nothing to say so you ask me about my reasons to be here ? Why ? Now that your bad attempt at disinformation failed, you get bored ? Go away.

 

Continues spamming the report button then.

 

inb4 banned for attacking the uncultivated FM blind defenders.

[303_Kwiatek]

It's funny how people use DCS 190 plane to compare but don't notice that the visibility to the rear on that plane is perfect.Compare that to our fw190a3.It's really bad.

You used only rear visibility from cocpit? Cause you know in plane you got also front and other side visibility? Dont even try to compare DCS Fw190 and BOS here.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

 

 

Only thing i want is no double standards, and same procedure for every plane (homecountry sources first, then the rest)

 

This is the approach they have been taking ever since this game was created, and Han mentioned the German documents they used to verify the Clmax of the Fw-190 against Soviet documents they used for the Clmax of the Yak-1, in response to a question posed by JtD.

 

Also, 'no worthy adversaries' is exactly the same thing as 'worthless', and the Kuban opposition was not made of second rate fighters, particularly if you recall that the early Bf-109G-6 was a flying brick with guns and an engine. But alas, that's off topic.

[JG13_opcode]

The FW is challenging, but I don't really agree with this. Spent a few hours with it offline against Yaks' LaGGs, MiGs and even I-16s. Deliberately got into co-energy dogfights with them.

 

Obviously the AI is brain dead, but you can't really sneak up on them and their gunfire is accurate. I was able to succeed against them even in maneuvering fights when I deliberately gave up the advantage. Did better 190 vs. Soviet than I did 190 vs. 109. I realize that online is a different thing, but I would expect the 190 to do even better in higher-realism situations like TAW or FNBF/SNBF compared to the 'duel at high noon' scenario I was flying against the AI (which is tactically fantasy anyway and throws all complaints about 'historical accuracy' out the window).

 

Fly the 190 like a P-40 when in the horizontal...keep the nose down a bit and the speed high. Use displacement rolls and alternate high and low yo yos to get a gun solution on a better-turning Soviet fighter. The 190 actually turns very well in its own envelope - if you make the fight about large, fast oblique circles instead of small slow horizontal/vertical ones you will be strong against the VVS fighters I listed. La-5 might be more of a challenge.

 

Contrary to what other people have said, I use 0 sensitivity/linear curves for pitch and roll with my T-16000M joystick. 20% for rudder pedals. With tiny control movents, I feel like the 190 responds to my thoughts like Firefox LOL. I still get the occasional stall but much less often than when I had curves at 50%.

 

With all due respect, my opinion is that if people spent a tenth of the time learning to master the 190 that they did explaining why it was useless, they'd be pleasantly surprised. I felt the same way about the P-40 that people feel about the 190, and once I stopped crying and started working on it I began to like flying it.

110% irrelevant. Sorry, but experiences offline against trash AI are not in any way indicative of what online against humans is like.

[KoN_]

Some people here are totally beyond the pale, lmao it's hilarious  

People cherry pick the bits of information that fit their world view and dismiss 95% of the data that dont. It's like a religion. Seriously. Some people here assume the answer before asking the questions. And when their beliefs are challenged, they become openly hostile and deny any evidence which challenges their deeply held beliefs.

 

 

 

 

Oh, the good ol luftwhiner victim complex. See, they always try to flip it. oh yea 109s and 190s are so inferior compared to the current allied planeset, totally accurate -.-" NO THOSE ARE THE 2 BEST AIRCRAFT IN THE GAME STOP TRYING TO FLIP IT, its so funny

What the hell you going on about . ???  Not even going to lower myself to that remark . 

Edited September 24, 2016 by II./JG77_Con

[Brano]

To ze hairy and his cultists it would be better to go back to old hacked Sturm FM worshiping their guru - Kwiatek. Oh boy,the memories of those times when any Joe could modify buttons file to the sci-fi extent. I watched such video on YouTube recently,the Fw hacked FM it was like ultimate fighter plane. Climbing,diving,turning like devil's bride. Resembling spaceship of Elite Dangerous in vacuum :D

 

7. Comments containing profanity, personal insults, accusations of cheating, excessive rudeness, vulgarity, drug propaganda, political and religious discussion and propaganda, all manifestations of Nazism and racist statements, calls to overthrow governments by force, inciting ethnic hatred, humiliation of persons of a particular gender, sexual orientation or religion are not allowed and will result in a ban.

Edited September 25, 2016 by SYN_Haashashin

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Tell me that after you dominate the AI offline while flying the 190.

 

I can dominate any AI plane in every fighter of the game, regardless the "style" (BnZ, vertical, TnB). Sorry, but opcode is right. Fighting against the AI doesn't tell you anything what so ever. 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

There is some interesting data in all these FW190 discussions, but filtering away the personal attacks and upset feelings gets tiresome quickly. It seems to me the plane we got in the game conforms to some of the anecdotes and data, but all anecdotes and test flight do not seem to agree with eachother. Most of the data in favour of the agile 190 is from other fronts and people who did not fight on the eastern front, right? Then why should the devs choose to follow those accounts, instead of the accounts the devs have that apply directly to the 190 in the eastern front?

 

What about ClOD? Does it have a 190 modelled after the BOB accounts and results of British test flights? How does it perform there?

The problem with this line of thinking is the aircraft was the same on both fronts. The technical data is the same. The anecdotes are different because it was utilized TACTICLY different on the two fronts. The technical data does not change to meet one or another set of implementation.

[URUAker]

So, Han posted that they have wind tunnel data backing up the lift coefficients we have in game, but also said that they will be happy to make necessary changes y someone will report the FM issue by PM to him, with a certain format, and data.

 

It will be great that those who say they have sufficient proof of an FM problem would PM Han, with the exact format he asked for, and then post the report AND the answer.

 

Else all I see are forum members just showing off. At least I know who the Devs are.

[303_Kwiatek]

Such raport was sended exacly described these wind tunel data which was not correct interpretated by developers. Response from Han was similar like from Oleg M. in old il2 times something like "you got wrong logic"

I wonder based on what data developers made wing polar for their A3? They fix a little climb rate and the same time suddenly they discover new wind tunnel data for fw190 wing

Edited September 24, 2016 by 303_Kwiatek

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Interesting is that Yak-1 with PF engine got similar performance like Spitfire Mark I ( +12 lbs boost)  -  Spitfire got better sustained turn time but Yak-1 should have little better roll rate  -  max speed and climb rate was very similar.   Fw 190 A-3 near totaly dominated Spitfire Mark V  ( only sustained turn was better in Spitfire) so it should also ouctlass Yak-1 in every espect beside turn time.  Maby developers of BOS affriad that if Fw 190 would be simulated close to RL data and handling it would totaly dominated Russian planes existied in game?

 

I see this argument brought from time to time but it makes me wonder if they are that much comparable, because in the Western front the altitude of operations was much higher in comparison to the Eastern Front (7.000m would be a good average?). How does fare the Fw-190 vs Yak-1 in BoS at 7.000m? Maybe at the deck a Fw-190 wouldn't have that much advantage over a Spit mk V? Also the Mk V still had some trouble with the negative Gs maneuvers and the carburetor "coughing" the engine (100% solved with the mk IX), this also could be a factor towards Fw-190 superiority.

 

Anyways when Spitfire mk Vb for Battle of Kuban comes out there surely will be a lot of comparison made, with test flights and matchup fights too, so we will get a better idea of this. Probably will lead to even more discussions and flame wars but well what you gonna do

[II./JG77_Manu*]

I guess my online vs. offline experience has been different from yours but I definitely prefer going against humans.

What's that supposed to mean? Complete change of topic?

[URUAker]

Such raport was sended exacly described these wind tunel data which was not correct interpretated by developers. Response from Han was similar like from Oleg M. in old il2 times something like "you got wrong logic"

I wonder based on what data developers made wing polar for their A3? They fix a little climb rate and the same time suddenly they discover new wind tunnel data for fw190 wing

Ok so make the report and responde public, and then the comunity can ask the devs to explain the "you got wrong logic" response... Or maybe we come to the conclusion that Devs are right.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Hannig, who converted from Bf 109G to Fw 190A-4:

 

"Since February the pilots of I and II Gruppen [JG 54 1943] had been rotating back to the homeland in small batches for conversion on to the Fw190A. The ˜Forke', or ˜Pitchfork', as we christened it, was a much more robust bruiser of a fighter than the Me 109G. It was powered by a 1,700 hp BMW radial engine and...

The Fw 190's performance and flying characteristics were equally impressive. In a dive it could exceed 700 km/h. It was highly responsive around all axis, could be reefed into a tight turn, and gave its pilot ample warning of a stall by sharp, jerky aileron movements. If these were ignored, the machine would automatically go into a flick half roll, losing height and turning through 180 degree in less time than it takes to describe here. This manoeuvre was virtually impossible for another pilot to follow. If you were in a dogfight, and had sufficient altitude, it was a sure way of getting an opponent off your tail. This 'built-in' escape tactic was the saving of many Forke pilot who found himself in extremis.

This conversion course took place at Heilingenbeil airfield in East Prussia, where the new fighters were delivered direct from a nearby factory. The Geschwader kept a rear party based at the field, who were responsible for conducting the conversion training."

 

Propaganda of course.

 

Hannig again, flying his Fw 190A-6 in June 1944:

 

"As we broke through above them we became aware of condensation trails lancing down towards us. In bunches of four, these could only be the bombers' top cover fighter escorts. Within seconds I had four, then eight, and finally twelve Mustangs sitting on my tail. But while I was flying close above the stream they were unable to open fire on me for fear of hitting their own bombers. This dubious sanctuary did not last long. The high combined closing speed which had protected us during our frontal assault on the bombers now worked against me and I soon found myself hurtling past the last squadron in the formation and out into clear sky beyond. 

I immediately began to yo-yo; turning steeply, diving and climbing, climbing and diving. My pursuers didn't seem to know what to make of my Russian front aerobatics. They clung on grimly behind me, but couldn't hold me in their sights long enough to get in an effective burst. I spied a welcome bank of cumulus ahead of me and slightly below. After three more complete circles I was directly above one of the larger clouds. I yanked the stick to the left back into my belly and trod hard on the full right rudder. My machine spun down into the cloud. 

In my temporary haven I let go of the controls. The trusty Forke at once righted itself and I shot out from the bottom of the cloud into sunlight again. Where were the Mustangs? I looked up and saw them circling the cloud-top above me. I put my nose down and got out of there fast."

 

Wait what ? Russian front aerobatics ?? I thought this plane was a pure BnZer, incapable to dogfight (because dogfight means "slow speed turnfight" in some minds *cough* Custard *cough* Klaus *cough*)...

 

So many examples, even posted on the forum, like the dogfight between Mayer in his Fw 190A-3 against this Bf 109G pilots, which ended with no winner. But NOPE !! Brown said "BnZ" so it has to be.

[Turban]

 

Hannig, who converted from Bf 109G to Fw 190A-4:

 

"Since February the pilots of I and II Gruppen [JG 54 1943] had been rotating back to the homeland in small batches for conversion on to the Fw190A. The ˜Forke', or ˜Pitchfork', as we christened it, was a much more robust bruiser of a fighter than the Me 109G. It was powered by a 1,700 hp BMW radial engine and...

The Fw 190's performance and flying characteristics were equally impressive. In a dive it could exceed 700 km/h. It was highly responsive around all axis, could be reefed into a tight turn, and gave its pilot ample warning of a stall by sharp, jerky aileron movements. If these were ignored, the machine would automatically go into a flick half roll, losing height and turning through 180 degree in less time than it takes to describe here. This manoeuvre was virtually impossible for another pilot to follow. If you were in a dogfight, and had sufficient altitude, it was a sure way of getting an opponent off your tail. This 'built-in' escape tactic was the saving of many Forke pilot who found himself in extremis.

This conversion course took place at Heilingenbeil airfield in East Prussia, where the new fighters were delivered direct from a nearby factory. The Geschwader kept a rear party based at the field, who were responsible for conducting the conversion training."

 

Propaganda of course.

 

Hannig again, flying his Fw 190A-6 in June 1944:

 

"As we broke through above them we became aware of condensation trails lancing down towards us. In bunches of four, these could only be the bombers' top cover fighter escorts. Within seconds I had four, then eight, and finally twelve Mustangs sitting on my tail. But while I was flying close above the stream they were unable to open fire on me for fear of hitting their own bombers. This dubious sanctuary did not last long. The high combined closing speed which had protected us during our frontal assault on the bombers now worked against me and I soon found myself hurtling past the last squadron in the formation and out into clear sky beyond. 

I immediately began to yo-yo; turning steeply, diving and climbing, climbing and diving. My pursuers didn't seem to know what to make of my Russian front aerobatics. They clung on grimly behind me, but couldn't hold me in their sights long enough to get in an effective burst. I spied a welcome bank of cumulus ahead of me and slightly below. After three more complete circles I was directly above one of the larger clouds. I yanked the stick to the left back into my belly and trod hard on the full right rudder. My machine spun down into the cloud. 

In my temporary haven I let go of the controls. The trusty Forke at once righted itself and I shot out from the bottom of the cloud into sunlight again. Where were the Mustangs? I looked up and saw them circling the cloud-top above me. I put my nose down and got out of there fast."

 

Wait what ? Russian front aerobatics ?? I thought this plane was a pure BnZer, incapable to dogfight (because dogfight means "slow speed turnfight" in some minds *cough* Custard *cough* Klaus *cough*)...

 

So many examples, even posted on the forum, like the dogfight between Mayer in his Fw 190A-3 against this Bf 109G pilots, which ended with no winner. But NOPE !! Brown said "BnZ" so it has to be.

 

What to take out :

 

-P51 could follow. (P51, not very good at turning fights)

-The FW ran away... (I was under the impression no FW had ever run from a fight ever...

 

In the end people trying to disprove the current FW FM always end up contradicting themselves...

[Dr_Molenbeek]

In the end people trying to disprove the current FW FM always end up contradicting themselves...

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/21732-whats-your-opinion-new-fw-fm/page-21?do=findComment&comment=376281

 

And this guy is also contradicting himself ?