Flying the Fw 190 A-3 is challenging

[303_Kwiatek]

Hmm Spitfire was good in turn fight better then yak1 or lagg3 from 1942 so what these change regarding fw190 combat ability? Could you read with understanding? Or you stuck with opinion that fw190 was primary jabo plane and cant turn at all? You read Johny Johnson RAF ace about dogfight with Fw190 over Dieppe?  [Edited]

Edited September 25, 2016 by Bearcat

[Wulf]

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

 

 

Yeah sure, that would be an interesting argument 'if' the 'A' series 190s  actually were  high altitude fighters.  They weren't.  The BMW motor used in the aircraft didn't have the necessary supercharging to develop sufficient power over 6k to be competitive.  The DB motor in the Bf 109 was always much better at high altitude.

 

So, the 190 A series always was a medium/low altitude fighter.

 

In fact, it is argued by the more competent aviation historians that the 190 should have been the primary Luftwaffe fighter in the East, rather than the 109, because it was better suited to the tactical requirements on that front (low altitude combat).  But unfortunately for the Germans, demand for the 190 always far exceeded supply.  And where 190s were available they mainly had to be employed in a strike role because they were the best option the Luftwaffe had when trying to fill the void left when the Ju 87 became untenable.

Edited September 24, 2016 by Wulf

[Dr_Molenbeek]

What better for a clueless pilot to take a sentence from a well known and respected test pilot (RIP Brown), without thinking of an eventual context, to excuse its uselessness and his gladly lack of experience in aerial combat ?

 

I hope that some will feel targeted.

Edited September 24, 2016 by Ze_Hairy

[Turban]

 Turban armchair virtual pilot said that Fw190 cant turn these way without stall?

 

You can keep that to yourself. And I'm being polite.

[Lusekofte]

Give us back our A3 `we had before patch and adjust only the climb rate as requested and promised ` then we Axis pilots will be happy with 190  . 

Looking at the new BOK plane set , i don`t hold much hope for the A5 . 

I am sure many LW  pilots feel the same way ,

 

Maybe its time for the dev team or at least some one to step forward and give us some info or ideas ,  what is going to happen with this 190 issue we have today . 

 

Ironic because you people cried for that patch before it came calling the FW 190 a disaster. This has become a satire , ridiculous . 

These endless complaint has led me to fly this beast many times now, can we switch? You got the LA 5 and we the FW 190 ? Please? 

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Ironic because you people cried for that patch before it came calling the FW 190 a disaster.

 

Oh really ? I don't remember having seen anyone crying for an "fineness ratio" update based on unreliable data (proven on FM section). Do you ?

 

Seems like lying is seen positively when it goes in the way of FM defenders mafia.

[=EXPEND=Tripwire]

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.

This guy hits the nail on the head. What recent (since the last 190fm change) reports were submitted in the format requested by the devs ?

 

Post them up? Perhaps the community can push appropriately once it sees a valid report ignored or rejected.

[Wulf]

Ironic because you people cried for that patch before it came calling the FW 190 a disaster. This has become a satire , ridiculous . 

These endless complaint has led me to fly this beast many times now, can we switch? You got the LA 5 and we the FW 190 ? Please? 

 

 

In what way is it ironic?  Are we experiencing some sort of language difficulty?

 

We wanted the climb rate and roll rate reviewed and adjusted to conform with reality.  We were otherwise generally satisfied with the handling qualities of the aircraft, and we repeatedly said as much.

 

The official response was to completely pork the plane.  

 

17. Spreading false or harmful information about the product is prohibited and will be deleted by forum administration. Claiming ignorance of the subject to justify harmful or obviously untrue info will not be tolerated.

Edited September 25, 2016 by SYN_Haashashin

[216th_Jordan]

Oh really ? I don't remember having seen anyone crying for an "fineness ratio" update based on unreliable data (proven on FM section)

Can you post a link to that proving post please?

 

Apart from that this thread has gone way off course. initially it was about how to fly this thing, not what or what not people think is wrong about its computed model, used by a computer to simulate some sort of real life flying characteristic that is mostly known from anecdotes.

[Turban]

 

The official response was to completely pork the plane.  

 

Another hyperbole....

[JV69badatflyski]

Oh really ? I don't remember having seen anyone crying for an "fineness ratio" update based on unreliable data (proven on FM section). Do you ?

 

Seems like lying is seen positively when it goes in the way of FM defenders mafia.

 hmm , le poilu, laisse tomber hemfieu, sont des trekpaarden, veulent pas voir ni surtout comprendre. flauwekullen. ça sert à rien.tu te fais du mal pour rien, fais comme moi: si la mayo n'est pas bonne, j'achète pas les frites ...le prochain exploitant en vendra de la meilleure  

 

Can you post a link to that proving post please?

 

Apart from that this thread has gone way off course. initially it was about how to fly this thing, not what or what not people think is wrong about its computed model, used by a computer to simulate some sort of real life flying characteristic that is mostly known from anecdotes.

Just let me ask one question: what part of a FW190 is flying at 68km/h? And then if you allow: what if the engeneers that made the test (that was done to calculate drag polars for the racks) correct the result because they screwed the AOA of the static plane in the tunnel? So what is so serious about a source that is at it's base simply porked? and what if you take the pollars for higher speed?There is a full explanation in the FM section about the 23xxx profile,worth to check it.... and otherwise:

Autocad + this.

Have fun

 

 

Another hyperbole....

nope, just a reality ,not like the shadow of the fire in the cave.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

If somebody can give me a good 3D model of a 190 and is weight and inertia numbers I can run a full CFD + flight dynamics study on it! But will only give fuel to the fire if u ask me. The mass and inertia numbers are actually what stopped me from simulating it myself as I could with some time make a 3D model and with out such data u cant really know he beast!   

 

I need mass distribution btw not just a weight! 

 

And for all of u that just talk about power to weight! It is more complicated U also need to look at power or the thrust that the power can create (prop efficiency) to weight and DRAG!!!!!!!!

 

Give me an engineering surface model of any plane and good weight dist numbers and I can accurately get some numbers from CFD!

 

I actually wonder if the devs use CFD? Why not ? Seems crazy to me !! CFD is so good now! It is obviously the best tool for aviation design so why cant we use it for looking back!

Edited September 25, 2016 by AeroAce

[sinned]

Oh man. I was generously given a fw190 and flew it at times.

There were some stalls which I could anticipate after flying for a while, but some of posts here is so toxic.

 

Reading more of this will develop a cancer for me.

[DD_Arthur]

 

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."

 

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."

 

 

 

 

Excellent Hairy!   Never read this before but this goes to the heart of the matter in my opinion;  no one is denying the FW190 was capable of a sharp and relatively vicious stall.  All the test reports we have seen mention this flight characteristic.

 

 Also, its evident that experienced pilots could make use of this characteristic in a combat situation.

 

It is simply the onset of this stall characteristic in the game at this moment that is the problem as far as I can see.

 

@Hairy; good info speaks for itself.  All the personal attacks.......    

[F/JG300_Gruber]

 

Just let me ask one question: what part of a FW190 is flying at 68km/h? And then if you allow: what if the engeneers that made the test (that was done to calculate drag polars for the racks) correct the result because they screwed the AOA of the static plane in the tunnel? So what is so serious about a source that is at it's base simply porked? and what if you take the pollars for higher speed?There is a full explanation in the FM section about the 23xxx profile,worth to check it.... and otherwise:

Autocad + this.

Have fun

 

 

Do some people here, who like these kind of calculation, know about some other cases like this ?

 

I mean is there other available data about the same wing profile testing but for different speeds in the wind tunnel ?

Gathering a few examples of it and outlining the discrepancies between them, especially if one of them is measured below the aircraft stall speed, could form a good base for a detailed report.

And if the differences are significant, point out what correction have be made on the polar to the current FM, if they took that super slow wind tunnel test too litteraly in their 'fineness adjustment'

[Livai]

About the data what all talking here about. Was a Fw-190 with 2x MG151 + 2x MGFF Cannons used? I have not the feeling removing the 2x MGFF makes much changes in Performance what is feel able?

[Bert_Foster]

How about the devs define exactly what they mean by the term "Fineness" .... seems there is a lot of confusion in multiple threads about this term !

[SYN_Haashashin]

I had enought. Couple of things:

 

- This is not a FM discussion topic.

- Next time I see a personal insult/remark it wont be tolerated. I dont care whom started it, Im finishing it.

- Keep the rules in mind while posting.

[MadisonV44]

Just a suggestion Haashashin : would it be possible to relocate into the FM sections the posts that turn into FM debate/exchange instead of closing them ? 

 

I'm not speaking of this one in particular, but there are often great contributions that disappear in the depths of the forum when closing them.

As a result a lot of people write again on subject that have been already addressed in the huge amount of 190 topics already closed / down in the list of topics.

 

+100 with you regarding personal attacks.

[Asgar]

If somebody can give me a good 3D model of a 190 and is weight and inertia numbers I can run a full CFD + flight dynamics study on it! But will only give fuel to the fire if u ask me. The mass and inertia numbers are actually what stopped me from simulating it myself as I could with some time make a 3D model and with out such data u cant really know he beast!

 

I need mass distribution btw not just a weight!

 

And for all of u that just talk about power to weight! It is more complicated U also need to look at power or the thrust that the power can create (prop efficiency) to weight and DRAG!!!!!!!!

 

Give me an engineering surface model of any plane and good weight dist numbers and I can accurately get some numbers from CFD!

 

I actually wonder if the devs use CFD? Why not ? Seems crazy to me !! CFD is so good now! It is obviously the best tool for aviation design so why cant we use it for looking back!

I hope you get the data you need. Would be awesome to have some CFD analysis!

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

I need mass distribution btw not just a weight!

 

I really don´t know how detailed the weight distribution needs to be, but could you not do a weight distribution estimation just based on:

 

weight of the airplane = 3148 kg

weight of the engine BMW 801 D = 1200 kg

 

 

 

approx 2000 kg left

 

and distribute the rest weighted by surface area, with some estimation for a counterweight in the tail and the undercarriage taken into account?

Edited September 25, 2016 by II/JG17_SchwarzeDreizehn

[SvAF/F16_Goblin]

Is that image from FW 190 volume 1 by Smith and Creek?

Have got all in the mail last week, will start reading them soon

[URUAker]

Hairy, Kwiatek, Wulf, Manu, please post the reports you sent by PM to Han and also the response you got. 

[KoN_]

In what way is it ironic?  Are we experiencing some sort of language difficulty?

 

We wanted the climb rate and roll rate reviewed and adjusted to conform with reality.  We were otherwise generally satisfied with the handling qualities of the aircraft, and we repeatedly said as much.

 

The official response was to completely pork the plane.  

 

17. Spreading false or harmful information about the product is prohibited and will be deleted by forum administration. Claiming ignorance of the subject to justify harmful or obviously untrue info will not be tolerated.

Thank you . 

I love how words are twisted and insults thrown around on here . Sure this is the internet for you . keyboard warriors. 

Edited September 25, 2016 by II./JG77_Con

[Lusekofte]

Oh really ? I don't remember having seen anyone crying for an "fineness ratio" update based on unreliable data (proven on FM section). Do you ?

 

Seems like lying is seen positively when it goes in the way of FM defenders mafia.

 

 

I actually never defended the FM but your paranoia being might belive I have . You sir make a dramatic entrance about taking things out of context and at the same time point fingers toward other doing the same. I have said nothing about how correct the FM is, I just dispute the way some describe its flight characteristics in this game. Because I honestly do not have those problems. So I disagree in some degree about its performance. nothing else. Mafia my ass, you patronizing knowitall

[mottom1]

Hi Everybody,

 

Found this in "FOCKE-WULF Fw190 Volume One 1938-1943", page 118:

 

...

"Repeated replacement of elevators and ailerons result in extremely bad handling qualities so that the aircraft are no longer operational. In a tight turn at 300km/h IAS the aircraft will suddenly roll in the opposite direction and enter a spin. Ailerons manufactured by the licensees show great variation. ...."

...

 

This is one of the results of a meeting between the responsible at JG26 and the RLM at 22 and 27 May, 1942. JG26 was the first wing to receive the FW190. 

 

What I find especially interesting is the part that "In a tight turn at 300km/h IAS the aircraft will suddenly roll in the opposite direction ...". This seems to indicate that this is not a normal behaviour of the plane.

 

I will have to ask my mechanic to better align the controls before my next flight .

 

greetings

 

thomas

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

There is no Fw190 in Clod yet. Only comparable is DCS and old il2. I think DCS is more fair modeled even if it is D9 version still it behave like Fw 190 it has good acceleration slighty slowier roll but better climb rate then A version. Regarding stall characteristic it has also nasty stall but at least you are able to dogfight with it - good instenous turn good roll and zoom ability give it its historical adventages. You couldnt outurn P51 but you could fight with it and outmanevuer it if you use adventages which i mention. Also view from cocpit is much better then in BOS. DCS Fw190 comparing stricte flight characteristic and dogfight ability as a fighter plane and BOS one is way different story. And wing polar both planes got the same. For me DCS plane is much more beliveable then BOS one. Its clearly for me that since begining A3 in BOS show not good reputation in developers minds about these plane and we will see it in next projects also. Im dissaponitment that i buy A3 in BOS and looking developers tendency i will not buy another crap imitation of these series aircraft.

The longer tail and further forward CG would most likely have made the D-9 the more stable Aircraft. 

The D-9 is to the A-3, what the MiG-3 is to the I-16. at least in flight Characteristics. 

There is a reason the engine was set further forward on the A-5 and later models, because on the A-3 it was already quite far back. 

I think people will like the A-5s handling a lot more. 

[MiloMorai]

Wasn't that reason to help cool the engine and lower the temperature in the cockpit? Or was that just a bonus?

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Wasn't that reason to help cool the engine and lower the temperature in the cockpit? Or was that just a bonus?

As far as I know just a beneficial consequence. 

[Danziger]

Germany lost the air war because the 190 FM was porked. Add on top of that all the pilots whining that they refuse to fly it until it got fixed and I can definitely see why they lost. They had to be furious when they found out that those ignorant dirt farming commies built inferior wooden crates that could actually be a nuisance to their perfectly engineered super plane. 

[E69_geramos109]

Fw190 should be a great turner at high speeds but if you pull a litle the stick at 400 km/h you can not turn or you will spin.

I love how was in il2 46. A real difficult plane to fly but with a great potencial for an expert pilot.

Not posible to make this kind of manouvers on BOS. You can not make a simple split S pulling some Gs.

Best thing you can do with the foke is to put a bomb and make ground attacks...

[3./JG15_Kampf]

these tactics were developed for the old il2 46. Some we can use here in il2 bos, but most can not be used because vvs planes dive well and fw 190 seems little speed in a dive.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Germany lost the air war because the 190 FM was porked. Add on top of that all the pilots whining that they refuse to fly it until it got fixed and I can definitely see why they lost. They had to be furious when they found out that those ignorant dirt farming commies built inferior wooden crates that could actually be a nuisance to their perfectly engineered super plane. 

 

No, the Germans lost the war because they didn't have unlimited resources and manpower unlike the Soviets.

It was still enough for a Kill/Death ratio of 5:1 in aerial combat, and a positive K/D in every chapter of the war until the very end. Even when they were outnumbered 20:1

[JG13_opcode]

Germany lost the air war because the 190 FM was porked. Add on top of that all the pilots whining that they refuse to fly it until it got fixed and I can definitely see why they lost. They had to be furious when they found out that those ignorant dirt farming commies built inferior wooden crates that could actually be a nuisance to their perfectly engineered super plane. 

Germany lost the war due to incompetent leadership and the classic military blunder of overreaching, extending past their supply lines.  They were a mostly-landlocked power fighting against the largest army in the world (Soviet), the largest navy in the world (Royal Navy), and what became the largest air force in the world (USAF).  They had few allies they could depend on and were short on valuable resources like petroleum.  From a strategic standpoint that's hilariously bad.  You can't win a war that way.

 

Much of Germany's equipment was top-notch and on par or better than much of the early Allied kit.  They'd been re-industrializing since the 20's and most of the Allies were stuck in outmoded ways of thinking, with matching equipment (particularly tanks and aircraft).

 

The Soviet aircraft weren't so hot early but the Yak and La were both excellent designs whose teething problems got sorted out.  I'd say the Yak-9U is probably the best air superiority fighter of the war.  That doesn't mean everything German was inferior.  To assume so is very naive and silly.

Edited September 26, 2016 by JG13_opcode

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

I'd say the Yak-9U is probably the best air superiority fighter of the war

 

I'd say the Me262 was. 

[707shap_Srbin]

I'd say the Me262 was. 

With all landing/take off issues? No way

 

I would follow G.Rall's words: Best WWII fighters are P-51 on high altitude and Yak-9 on low altitude.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

I'd say the Me262 was. 

 

Well the Me-262 was a bit more suited for interception than air superiority because of the MK 108s, if they had been MG 151s or MK 103s then surely, you gotta also take into account the engine problems. On the internet you can find a certain claim from Galland which after flying both aircraft concluded that having the Me-262 with the Gloster Meteor's engines would have made the best fighter in the world. It is really an interesting quote, don't know if it's true though (would like to have some confirmation on it).

 

I would follow G.Rall's words: Best WWII fighters are P-51 on high altitude and Yak-9 on low altitude.

 

What about Griffon Spits? Those were quite beastly as well.

[JG13_opcode]

My understanding is that the Spitfire's wing stiffness problems weren't resolved in production variants (the Mk 18) until the war was basically over.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Anecdotal yes, but Josef "Pips" Priller flew 307 combat missions to claim 101 victories. All his victories were recorded over the Western Front, and consisted of 11 USAAF heavy bombers, 68 Spitfires (the highest Luftwaffe ace's tally for this type), 11 Hurricanes, five medium bombers and five USAAF fighters. Early war during France and BoB he flew Bf109 but after that the Fw190A. One of 5 pilots getting over 100 kills in the Western Front and on top of that a Fw190A pilot. Damn it was a bad plane. /extreme sarcasm.

[Stig]

Anecdotal as you say, but Pips was an exceptional pilot. There were probably thousands of other pilots that didn't do at all well in the Fw 190, 

 

None of this tells us anything about whether the 190 is modelled correctly or not in BoS,