Flying the Fw 190 A-3 is challenging

[Wulf]

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. 

 

 

Is this supposed to be taken seriously?  I mean, are you really so unknowing about  the 190 or is this just an attempt to aggravate people?

 

The fuselage on the A-5 was lengthened to improve the bomb carrying capacity of the aircraft.  It wasn't an instability 'fix' for goodness sake.  And the D9 was lengthened still further but in that case it was to correct an issue with the CG caused by the installation of the longer 'inline' Jumo engine. 

 

 

 

Edited September 26, 2016 by Wulf

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Is this supposed to be taken seriously?  I mean, are you really so unknowing about  the 190 or is this just an attempt to aggravate people?

 

The fuselage on the A-5 was lengthened to improve the bomb carrying capacity of the aircraft.  It wasn't an instability 'fix' for goodness sake.  And the D9 was lengthened still further but in that case it was to correct an issue with the CG caused by the installation of the longer 'inline' Jumo engine. 

Ok, I think you fail to see the connect. Why would you bother setting the engine further forward if not to fix instability issues? There was more than enough space to mount heavier bombs and wing armament. 

The ONLY REASON the engine was set futher forwards was to FIX INSTABILITY ISSUES. Otherwise there wouldn't have been a need to do so. 

 

The Longer Tail must also have had a beneficial effect on stability, by basically taking the tail further away from the wing which would shadow it aerodynamically in a stall. 

 

From the well balanced 190A-1 all the additions in weight, like the Second Back Armor Plate and MG151s in the wings, they were mounted behind the Cg, which shifted the CG so far back that it put sharp restrictions on the amount of external armament. 

This is why they shifted the engine forwards. 

Because when mounting bombs, the Cg is shifted backwards as well. 

Edited September 26, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Klaus__Mann

[Aap]

 

 

Those 195 fighter 190s apparently failed to impress. Wonder why?

 

It actually is quite an interesting question, why the Soviets were not impressed, considering the amount of losses they had, when Fw190's were used for fighter duties. As soon as JG51 and JG54 started to get Fw190's, they immediately increased their air kill rate. We are not talking only about exceptional aces like Rudorffer (using Fw190 on Nov 6, 1943, shot down 5 Yak-9's nad 8 Yak-7's in a span of 17 mins) or Nowotny (using Fw190 in Sept 1, 1943, shot down a Yak-9 and 4 Yak-1's in a span of 14 minutes, then landed and went up for another mission, where he shot down 5 LaGG-3's in a span of 9 minutes), but also pilots that were not aces before.

 

For example in the opening days of Battle of Kursk, where the main priority of Fw190's was to achieve air superiority (5th to 8th of July), Fw190's shot down 390 soviet planes, while losing just 12 in air-to-air combat. After achieving full air superiority, Fw190's were given Jabo missions. 

For the entire July JG51 shot down 800 soviets, while losing 77 Fw190's and JG54 shot down 450 soviets, while losing 34 Fw190's. It is difficult to understand, why the Soviets were not impressed with it.

[Asgar]

It actually is quite an interesting question, why the Soviets were not impressed, considering the amount of losses they had, when Fw190's were used for fighter duties. As soon as JG51 and JG54 started to get Fw190's, they immediately increased their air kill rate. We are not talking only about exceptional aces like Rudorffer (using Fw190 on Nov 6, 1943, shot down 5 Yak-9's nad 8 Yak-7's in a span of 17 mins) or Nowotny (using Fw190 in Sept 1, 1943, shot down a Yak-9 and 4 Yak-1's in a span of 14 minutes, then landed and went up for another mission, where he shot down 5 LaGG-3's in a span of 9 minutes), but also pilots that were not aces before.

 

For example in the opening days of Battle of Kursk, where the main priority of Fw190's was to achieve air superiority (5th to 8th of July), Fw190's shot down 390 soviet planes, while losing just 12 in air-to-air combat. After achieving full air superiority, Fw190's were given Jabo missions.

For the entire July JG51 shot down 800 soviets, while losing 77 Fw190's and JG54 shot down 450 soviets, while losing 34 Fw190's. It is difficult to understand, why the Soviets were not impressed with it.

Maybe because nobody was alife to tell the tale xD

[Lusekofte]

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

 

After Kuban those numbers even out, German Pilots was not all good trained by then,  Both in western front and Eastern front quality decreased in a vast speed and Russian aces became more numerous. Overall the Kill death ratio became negative by mid 44 and to the en of war. Counting ETO in total.

 

The only plane Russian did get impressed by was the FW 189, and the KG 13 witch Russians adapted, it was not the plane itself that made Russians not interested in the FW 190 , it was the fact that they already had a cheaper option with competitive performance. And jet age was of interest

Edited September 26, 2016 by 216th_LuseKofte

[unreasonable]

It actually is quite an interesting question, why the Soviets were not impressed, considering the amount of losses they had, when Fw190's were used for fighter duties. th it.

 

Maybe because nobody was alife to tell the tale xD

 

Funny I was just about to say the same, in a more long-winded way as usual. 

 

Survivor bias is a very real phenomenon - perhaps it could apply here.

 

The only way to test whether 190 or 109 was more effective on the E. Front without relying on qualitative assessments would be to look at the record of two units over a given time scale carrying out broadly similar operations against broadly similar opposition. I do not have enough data to try that analysis unfortunately.

[Stig]

It actually is quite an interesting question, why the Soviets were not impressed, considering the amount of losses they had, when Fw190's were used for fighter duties. As soon as JG51 and JG54 started to get Fw190's, they immediately increased their air kill rate. We are not talking only about exceptional aces like Rudorffer (using Fw190 on Nov 6, 1943, shot down 5 Yak-9's nad 8 Yak-7's in a span of 17 mins) or Nowotny (using Fw190 in Sept 1, 1943, shot down a Yak-9 and 4 Yak-1's in a span of 14 minutes, then landed and went up for another mission, where he shot down 5 LaGG-3's in a span of 9 minutes), but also pilots that were not aces before.

 

For example in the opening days of Battle of Kursk, where the main priority of Fw190's was to achieve air superiority (5th to 8th of July), Fw190's shot down 390 soviet planes, while losing just 12 in air-to-air combat. After achieving full air superiority, Fw190's were given Jabo missions. 

For the entire July JG51 shot down 800 soviets, while losing 77 Fw190's and JG54 shot down 450 soviets, while losing 34 Fw190's. It is difficult to understand, why the Soviets were not impressed with it.

 

Are those the claims or the actual Russian losses? I ask because often in when looking WWII air combat those are two different sets of numbers.

[Aap]

Are those the claims or the actual Russian losses? I ask because often in when looking WWII air combat those are two different sets of numbers.

 

 

These are claims. I agree that claims and actual happenings do not necessarily match, but as far as I know, German claim/confirmation policy was quite strict. In the beginning of Operation Barbarossa, where the German kill claims were so high that even their high command could not quite believe it, they set a strict standard for confirmations to avoid over-claiming and regularly sent observers / controllers to ensure that over-claiming does not happen. For example Erich Hartmann describes that in one of his interviews.

Still, there could be some over-claiming, but even if let's say - there was a 20% over-claiming - the numbers are still impressive. Also, I don't know why would there be more over-claiming with Fw190's compared to Bf109's.

Edited September 26, 2016 by II./JG77_Kemp

[Dr_Molem]

The Longer Tail must also have had a beneficial effect on stability, by basically taking the tail further away from the wing which would shadow it aerodynamically in a stall. 

 

But Dora was not known to be more stable than Antons...

 

An example:

 

[Stig]

These are claims. I agree that claims and actual happenings do not necessarily match, but as far as I know, German claim/confirmation policy was quite strict. In the beginning of Operation Barbarossa, where the German kill claims were so high that even their high command could not quite believe it, they set a strict standard for confirmations to avoid over-claiming and regularly sent observers / controllers to ensure that over-claiming does not happen. For example Erich Hartmann describes that in one of his interviews.

Still, there could be some over-claiming, but even if let's say - there was a 20% over-claiming - the numbers are still impressive. Also, I don't know why would there be more over-claiming with Fw190's compared to Bf109's.

 

Over-claiming is more likely to be 200% than 20%, despite the strict claim/ confirmation policy. This is not confined to the 190; the same would apply to the 109, Nor is this confined to Luftwaffe, over-claiming was universal to varying degrees.

[Aap]

 

 

Over-claiming is more likely to be 200% than 20%, despite the strict claim/ confirmation policy.

 

I doubt the claim of 200% over-claiming. If a pilot and his wingman see a plane fall to the ground, it is shot down. It is not like a "smoking plane went into the cloud, let''s claim it as shot down".  I am sure that some over-claiming did happen, but a claim and confirmation was not just wishful thinking, but what was actually witnessed.

 

 

 

This is not confined to the 190; the same would apply to the 109.

 

That takes as back to the original question, why the soviets were not impressed by Fw190's, while respecting Bf109's. The same JG51 and JG54 pilots that had not made many claims while flying Bf109's started to make more claims while flying Fw190's. I think that indicates that they actually started to shoot down more planes.

[Wulf]

Ok, I think you fail to see the connect. Why would you bother setting the engine further forward if not to fix instability issues? There was more than enough space to mount heavier bombs and wing armament. 

The ONLY REASON the engine was set futher forwards was to FIX INSTABILITY ISSUES. Otherwise there wouldn't have been a need to do so. 

 

The Longer Tail must also have had a beneficial effect on stability, by basically taking the tail further away from the wing which would shadow it aerodynamically in a stall. 

 

From the well balanced 190A-1 all the additions in weight, like the Second Back Armor Plate and MG151s in the wings, they were mounted behind the Cg, which shifted the CG so far back that it put sharp restrictions on the amount of external armament. 

This is why they shifted the engine forwards. 

Because when mounting bombs, the Cg is shifted backwards as well. 

 

 

No Klaus no!  I know exactly what you're saying and you're wrong.

 

The reality is that the Luftwaffe found that by the simple expedient of moving the CG forward by about 16cm it was be possible to significantly increase the bomb carrying capacity of the aircraft.  To suggest that this was done to correct an inherent instability issue is ridiculous.  The aircraft wasn't even designed for the purpose of carrying ordinance for Christ's sake.

 

Now listen to me Klaus: 'It's not your fault' okay.  It really isn't.  So stop now.

 

Edited September 27, 2016 by Wulf

[Stig]

I doubt the claim of 200% over-claiming. If a pilot and his wingman see a plane fall to the ground, it is shot down. It is not like a "smoking plane went into the cloud, let''s claim it as shot down".  I am sure that some over-claiming did happen, but a claim and confirmation was not just wishful thinking, but what was actually witnessed.

 

 

 

 

That takes as back to the original question, why the soviets were not impressed by Fw190's, while respecting Bf109's. The same JG51 and JG54 pilots that had not made many claims while flying Bf109's started to make more claims while flying Fw190's. I think that indicates that they actually started to shoot down more planes.

 

200% over-claiming isn't considered extravagant when it comes to WWII air combat, in fact it's generally considered as reasonably accurate!

[Feathered_IV]

Over-claims of 400% aren't unheard of either. Both in Europe and the Pacific.

[JG13_opcode]

Ok, I think you fail to see the connect. Why would you bother setting the engine further forward if not to fix instability issues? There was more than enough space to mount heavier bombs and wing armament.

The ONLY REASON the engine was set futher forwards was to FIX INSTABILITY ISSUES. Otherwise there wouldn't have been a need to do so.

 

The Longer Tail must also have had a beneficial effect on stability, by basically taking the tail further away from the wing which would shadow it aerodynamically in a stall.

 

From the well balanced 190A-1 all the additions in weight, like the Second Back Armor Plate and MG151s in the wings, they were mounted behind the Cg, which shifted the CG so far back that it put sharp restrictions on the amount of external armament.

This is why they shifted the engine forwards.

Because when mounting bombs, the Cg is shifted backwards as well.

Hi Klaus, the stability documents that I have seen for the A-3 do not support your hypothesis.

 

Contrary to your aggressive allcaps the 190 A-3 was longitudinally stable.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

This maybe of interest to some, point H is worth a look.

 

 

H.  Maneuverability and Aerobatics

 

       The outstanding maneuverability feature of this airplane is in it's extremely high rate of roll. the radius of turn, however is poor and it is only slightly improved by using the maneuvering flap position of 15 degrees. If pulled fast, the airplane tends to stall abruptly with little warning. Elevator control forces are very heavy in a tight turn, requiring constant use of the elevator trim control.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/eb-104.html

 

Report after report says the same thing about the turn radius and that abrupt stall with little warning.

[Dr_Molem]

Report after report says the same thing about the turn radius and that abrupt stall with little warning.

 

Was turn radius too good and stall characteristics too forgiving, before the last FM update ?

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

Was turn radius too good and stall characteristics too forgiving, before the last FM update ?

 

Purely from personal experience, in game you have always had to watch for a stall. Is it significantly worse after the update, personally no.  I have found that you have to be very gentle with the control stick. It does give a warning beforehand but I have found adjusting the curves does help a fair bit.

[MiloMorai]

After Kuban those numbers even out, German Pilots was not all good trained by then,  Both in western front and Eastern front quality decreased in a vast speed and Russian aces became more numerous. Overall the Kill death ratio became negative by mid 44 and to the en of war. Counting ETO in total.

 

 

From Sept-Dec 43 was ~1:1, Jan-May 44 almost 1:2 and from June-Oct 44 almost 1:3 loss for fighters on the eastern Front. In the West the ratio was even worse.

http://don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htm

 

For Luftwaffe claims, http://don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/claims/tonywood.htm

[LittleJP]

Before the update, you could have a slightly higher AoA before it stalls out. Now, it comes at a far shallower AoA limiting your split-S and horizontal scissors, even at speeds at 400 km/h +, though behaviour at 650 km/h+ remains relatively unchanged, though that might be that elevator authority isn't enough to reach critical AoA even with the new stalling behaviour.

 

Would love to be able to revert to previous FM to compare if dive speed/acceleration changed, since all claims in that direction are pretty anecdotal, would love to see if there are historical tests on that front to compare it to.

Edited September 26, 2016 by LittleJP

[303_Kwiatek]

FW 190 D9 in DCS got about 17 deg critical angle of attack

[Danziger]

Ok I might have to say these guys are onto something. I fired up a quick QMB this afternoon with the 190 vs some Il-2 and MiGs. when I started I got a phone call so I just turned on the autopilot. He took a couple of shots at an Il-2 and when he started looping over to go after a MiG he decided all of a sudden that he would rather dive from 6000m straight into the ground and die than to fly the 190. 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Haha

[Urra]

Ok I might have to say these guys are onto something. I fired up a quick QMB this afternoon with the 190 vs some Il-2 and MiGs. when I started I got a phone call so I just turned on the autopilot. He took a couple of shots at an Il-2 and when he started looping over to go after a MiG he decided all of a sudden that he would rather dive from 6000m straight into the ground and die than to fly the 190.

Sounds like the kind of guy that would drill into his iPhone 7 to get the free hidden phone jack.

[unreasonable]

You know how your computer sometimes seems to slow down a bit because it is "doing something" you have not told it to do? 

 

- that is the AIs getting together and complaining to one another about how challenging the 190 is to fly.

Edited September 27, 2016 by unreasonable

[BraveSirRobin]

While the AI flying the P-40 laugh at all the complaining.

 

All kidding aside, I have trouble believing that the 190 was as unstable as it is in this game.

[Wulf]

While the AI flying the P-40 laugh at all the complaining.

 

All kidding aside, I have trouble believing that the 190 was as unstable as it is in this game.

 

 

Yeah, quite amazing.  As it turns out, Focke-Wulf actually developed an aircraft with flight characteristic, so poor, as to require the pilot to fly the thing, 'as if walking on egg shells'.  And the crazy thing is, no one on the original development team even noticed; not even the test pilots. 

 

And for reasons that remain 'clouded', when they handed the thing over to the boys at Rechlin, no one noticed there either.  The usual checks and balances that should have prevented this from happening just didn't kick-in for some reason.  But then, maybe everyone was so focused on the initial over heating problems, that they just forgot to test the other stuff.  Who really knows.  Just another 'war mystery'  I guess.

[BraveSirRobin]

Stop crying.  You still have the 109.

[MiloMorai]

The early Fw190As dominated the Spitfire Vs in the West. If the Fw190 is as bad as claimed, imagine what the Kuban Spitfire will be like. This will be the litmus test, be sure.

[LLv24_Zami]

All kidding aside, I have trouble believing that the 190 was as unstable as it is in this game.

My thoughts exactly.

[Wulf]

The early Fw190As dominated the Spitfire Vs in the West. If the Fw190 is as bad as claimed, imagine what the Kuban Spitfire will be like. This will be the litmus test, be sure.

 

 

Yup, they're going to have to make it a real dog.

[IVJG4-Knight]

Stop crying.  You still have the 109.

 

The fw is ok if you keep high energy.

I was thinking that the current FM is very hard and maybe okish but if the A5 will be more difficult to fly than it's ridiculous. 

[Wulf]

Stop crying.  You still have the 109.

 

 

Sure, and if this was about which side has the best plane that might just take the edge off a little but as it happens, the utility or otherwise of the Bf 109 has nothing to do with it.

 

I purchased the sim so I could fly a well simulated 190.  For reasons I can only guess at, that doesn't look likely to happen anytime soon. 

[Stig]

The early Fw190As dominated the Spitfire Vs in the West. If the Fw190 is as bad as claimed, imagine what the Kuban Spitfire will be like. This will be the litmus test, be sure.

 

As did the 109F's 

[Trinkof]

As someone already re written what was written since 2014 ? :

 

Real stick were longer, pilots of 190 all describe an impressive easyness of control and the very light command forces ...

 

My thought are the instability problem we have in BOS (I admit it is really unstable since last patch... As it was 2 years ago) are related to the inhability to any game developer to simulate the control forces on a stick with standard lenght joystick .... And they will never be able to do it I fear.

 

Before questioning FM or developer good will when comparing real aircraft with sim aircraft, basic scientific reasoning always tell to check out for the differences in condition of experiment :

 

Lenght of stick - lack of FFB...

 

Due to the impressive lightnessn of control of the 190 , I guess in game with standard stick we reach the famous accelerated stall much faster without force warning on stick.

 

Beside flying qualities, 190 was known for his tireless flying compared to other aircraft as well as visibility and resistance, all factors deeply praised by 190 pilots. Remember that IRL a bird easy to fly, safe to land and resistant, will always be favored by the guy sitting in the pit, before performance.

 

The 2 first factors cannot be rendered in game (visibility will be when we all have VR or 3D options which for the report I have solve almost any visibility problems related to frames) 3rd factor cannot be compared to in game behaviour as most of the server are full of careless kamikaze..

 

Last favtor to take into account : how the real opposition of the 190 can be compared with BOS red online community.... This is were the real non sense come. Most of the airkills in ww2 were made on unaware victim... Most of the 1942 43 soviet pilots had poor training ... Most of them did not learned from their death unlike online pilot

 

No part of the online environement (especially LOL and Berlo server) can be compared to IRL combat account.

 

And sadly I think our 190 problems rely here rather than on a porked FM. FM might not be stricly exact (no FM will ever be...) but before making claim on FM , please take care of what you compare and in what experimental conditions.

[Livai]

The early Fw190As dominated the Spitfire Vs in the West. If the Fw190 is as bad as claimed, imagine what the Kuban Spitfire will be like. This will be the litmus test, be sure.

 

Dominated in which way? What was their combat style to be better than the Spitfire?

 

I can imagine that the Kuban Spitfire will be like this

"It was concluded that the Fw 190 pilot trying to “mix it” with a Spitfire in the classic fashion of steep turning was doomed, for at any speed -even below the German fighter's stalling speed- it would be out-turned by its British opponent . Of course the Luftwaffe was aware of this fact and a somewhat odd style of dogfighting evolved in which the Fw 190 pilots endeavoured to keep on the vertical plane by zooms and dives, while their Spitfire-mounted antagonists tried everything in the book to draw them on to the horizontal. If the German pilot lost his head and failed to resist the temptation to try a horizontal pursuit curve on a Spitfire, as likely as not, before he could recover the speed lost in a steep turn he would find another Spitfire turning inside him! On the other hand, the German pilot who kept zooming up and down was usually the recipient of only difficult deflection shots of more than 30 deg. The Fw 190 had tremendous initial acceleration in a dive but it was extremely vulnerable during a pull-out, recovery having to be quite progressive with care not to kill the speed by 'sinking' ”

Here were apparently two aircraft that were so evenly matched that the skill of the pilot became a vital factor in combat supremacy. Skill in aerial combat does, however, mean flying an aircraft to its limits, and when the performance of the enemy is equal to one's own, then the handling characteristics become vital in seeking an advantage. The Focke-Wulf had one big advantage over the Spitfire Mk IX in that it possessed an appreciably higher rate of roll, but the Achilles Heel  was its harsh stalling characteristics which limited its manoeuvre margins.

 

That's the problem Fw-190 pilots need to change their combat style compared to a 109 to be better. The Fw-190 is supreme if you keep the speed high enough below that you can expect his loved harsh stalling characteristics which limit his manoeuvre margins. However you can use the harsh stalling characteristics to your advantage.  Stall turn, for example is a good combat style.

[Hutz]

That's the problem Fw-190 pilots need to change their combat style compared to a 109 to be better. The Fw-190 is supreme if you keep the speed high enough below that you can expect his loved harsh stalling characteristics which limit his manoeuvre margins. However you can use the harsh stalling characteristics to your advantage.  Stall turn, for example is a good combat style.

 

Thats pure and utter bullshit ... On one side you state the speed should be kept up , on the other side you assert that a stall turn is a good idea ? if you stall turn you loose all speed in the current fm...it may be a a last ditch manouvre , but given that the 190 doesnt stall as it should be (enters flatspin , never see that mentioned in any report , also the "flick"-stall (of one wing) and it rolling to the other side is not there (only flicks to left and then immediately violently takes its nose UP and if not countered enters a flatspin, it never does flick to the right side , surely it would be in the report if it only would flick to the left side?) also its reported it exits the stall by just centering the controls (try that ingame and have fun with you pancaking in the ground...). Just centering controls in a stall is the most desireable feature a plane could have , its like a good trainer-aircraft behaviour.

and it has been mentioned in numerous reports and pilot memories that the stall is gentle , only the "flick"-roll behaviour was sudden and without much warning... i think many posting here cant keep stall and spin and flickroll apart....

 

The stall behaviour of the 190 in this "sim" is 180 degrees opposite of what it should be...it stalls more like a P39 should with its CG too far back and not countered...

Edited September 27, 2016 by Zop

[Wulf]

 

Dominated in which way? What was their combat style to be better than the Spitfire?

 

I can imagine that the Kuban Spitfire will be like this

"It was concluded that the Fw 190 pilot trying to “mix it” with a Spitfire in the classic fashion of steep turning was doomed, for at any speed -even below the German fighter's stalling speed- it would be out-turned by its British opponent . Of course the Luftwaffe was aware of this fact and a somewhat odd style of dogfighting evolved in which the Fw 190 pilots endeavoured to keep on the vertical plane by zooms and dives, while their Spitfire-mounted antagonists tried everything in the book to draw them on to the horizontal. If the German pilot lost his head and failed to resist the temptation to try a horizontal pursuit curve on a Spitfire, as likely as not, before he could recover the speed lost in a steep turn he would find another Spitfire turning inside him! On the other hand, the German pilot who kept zooming up and down was usually the recipient of only difficult deflection shots of more than 30 deg. The Fw 190 had tremendous initial acceleration in a dive but it was extremely vulnerable during a pull-out, recovery having to be quite progressive with care not to kill the speed by 'sinking' ”

Here were apparently two aircraft that were so evenly matched that the skill of the pilot became a vital factor in combat supremacy. Skill in aerial combat does, however, mean flying an aircraft to its limits, and when the performance of the enemy is equal to one's own, then the handling characteristics become vital in seeking an advantage. The Focke-Wulf had one big advantage over the Spitfire Mk IX in that it possessed an appreciably higher rate of roll, but the Achilles Heel  was its harsh stalling characteristics which limited its manoeuvre margins.

 

That's the problem Fw-190 pilots need to change their combat style compared to a 109 to be better. The Fw-190 is supreme if you keep the speed high enough below that you can expect his loved harsh stalling characteristics which limit his manoeuvre margins. However you can use the harsh stalling characteristics to your advantage.  Stall turn, for example is a good combat style.

 

 

Okay there are a couple of things you need to understand.

 

1)  RAF Fighter Command had been fighting 'F' series 109's since the closing stages of the BoB.   Now that being the case, (and it is the case), can you find me any connection at all between those engagements (F series 109s and Spitfire Vs) and the subsequent decision to fast-track the introduction of the Spitfire IX?   Just to be helpful I'll give you the answer in advance, and that is no.   There is no connection, at all, between the two.  The RAF were quite comfortable countering the F series 109 with their Mk V Spitfires.  So for your information and others, the Spitfire IX was rushed through development to counter the FW 190, not the F series 109.

 

Now, that may not fit with your 'narrative' but unfortunately it's just a fact.  It may be an inconvenient fact but facts be facts, as they say.

 

2) We have been flying versions of the 190 on line for years.  So thanks for the advice about how we should fly the thing but as matters stand we already have a fairly good idea. And for your information, the problem with the 190 isn't tactical.  We were quite happy with the general flying characteristics of the 190 before the last patch.  The aircraft wasn't perfect but it was okay.  Now it isn't .

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

Dominated in which way? What was their combat style to be better than the Spitfire?

 

It's appears that it's main advantages of the 190 over the Spitfire were that it could out climb and out dive them and out roll them. If you have an enemy aircraft that can do this you are of course in trouble.

 

My understanding is that a FW 190 could not out turn any spitfire. After reading many reports on the 190 from various sources in the main they all seem to agree that: 

 

"The outstanding maneuverability feature of this airplane is in it's extremely high rate of roll.the radius of turn, however is poor and it is only slightly improved by using the manoeuvrings flap position of 15 degrees. If pulled fast, the airplane tends to stall abruptly with little warning."

"and virtually without warning, the port wing dropping so violently that the aircraft almost inverted itself. In fact, if the German fighter was pulled into a g stall in a right turn, it would flick out into the opposite bank and an incipient spin was the inevitable outcome if the pilot did not have its wits about him."
"At lower speeds, the German fighter had a tendency to tighten up the turn and I found it necessary to apply slight forward pressure on the stick."

 

​​WWII air combat relied to a large degree on those old chestnuts of "Speed, altitude and surprise." and of course pilot skill. Not the jousting,balletic aerial duels of WWI that many seem to think transferred over to WWII.

[Turban]

Thats pure and utter bullshit ... On one side you state the speed should be kept up , on the other side you assert that a stall turn is a good idea ? if you stall turn you loose all speed in the current fm...it may be a a last ditch manouvre , but given that the 190 doesnt stall as it should be (enters flatspin , never see that mentioned in any report , also the "flick"-stall (of one wing) and it rolling to the other side is not there (only flicks to left and then immediately violently takes its nose UP and if not countered enters a flatspin, it never does flick to the right side , surely it would be in the report if it only would flick to the left side?) also its reported it exits the stall by just centering the controls (try that ingame and have fun with you pancaking in the ground...). Just centering controls in a stall is the most desireable feature a plane could have , its like a good trainer-aircraft behaviour.

and it has been mentioned in numerous reports and pilot memories that the stall is gentle , only the "flick"-roll behaviour was sudden and without much warning... i think many posting here cant keep stall and spin and flickroll apart....

 

The stall behaviour of the 190 in this "sim" is 180 degrees opposite of what it should be...it stalls more like a P39 should with its CG too far back and not countered...

 

 

1) I'm pretty sure he meant "Stall turn, for example is not a good combat style" Just a typo, no need to jump on him like that.

 

2) People see the FW's stalling characteristics in different ways. People have opinions. Personally I don't think there is anything wrong with the stall. It always makes sense and it's not much of a problem. Until someone proves it wrong (hasn't happened yet), I'll keep looking at other more interesting things. Some things are odd with the FW, and to me, the stall isn't one of them. 

Edited September 27, 2016 by Turban