Flying the Fw 190 A-3 is challenging

[Hutz]

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. 

You know that the flickroll behaviour is proven to be initiated by one wing stalling before the other (one wing in the turn is stalling before other wing, meaning right turn inducing a left flickroll and left turn is inducing a right flickroll) because of wing flex? so how is that ingame stall making sense if it only does it to the left roll and also VIOLENTLY pitching up?

Eric Brown mentioned it would flick to the opposite side "flicking on the opposite side almost on its back" (and by inverting the plane meaning rolling to its back,not pitching,meaning if rolled 90 degree to right turn it would roll left more then 180 degree and vice versa) , which means both directions possible , surely a seasoned testpilot like him would have not forgotten to mention that it only does it to left? or do you think he would forget to mention it would enter a flatspin? He only talks about stall...no flatspin mentioned

Edited September 27, 2016 by Zop

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

If I were any good at making Videos I would try and make some introductory ones about the 190, just to disspell all these Myths about what you people think it cannot do ingame. I find it wonderfully stable and predictable and have found my way with it. 

[II./JG77_Manu*]

If I were any good at making Videos I would try and make some introductory ones about the 190, just to disspell all these Myths about what you people think it cannot do ingame. I find it wonderfully stable and predictable and have found my way with it. 

 

You can find "your way" with every plane in Crimson Skies as well. Doesn't say anything about how right or wrong the FM is.

 

I do have no problems utilizing it in game to good effect. In the latest campaigns (online) i got bucketload of kills with very few losses. Doesn't make the aircraft right or wrong.

I won't say if it is right or wrong in this thread, because it's not allowed. What i am allowed is to say, that i have much more fun with every other 190 i fly/flew (DCS, 1946 with HSFX). I wasn't better in killing stuff in 1946 with the 190, it was just way more fun to fly it. The rest of this discussion belongs in the FM section

[Hutz]

Spitfire V at +16lbs will hardly be a dog. Expect a climb rate around 19 m/s and a top speed of about 600 km/h at altitude. For comparison : Yak-1 we have in the game has a Max RoC of 17 m/s and top speed of 585 km/h at 4km. The Spit will also have quite a bit tighter turn as well. Yak-1s only advantage will be top speed at low to medium ish altitudes. So yea. The spitfire will obviously be slower than the FW-190, but dont expect it to be an easy kill. With an experienced pilot in the cockpit it can be a very hard plane to bring down.

 

This reminds me of early days of BoS. All the wannabe hartmanns expected a seal clubbing fest. We all know how that ended. The countless FM whining threads are testament to that.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/w3134.html

 

Figure for SPit Vb (thats the one coming i remember?)

 

Rate of Climb 3250 ft/min = 16,5 m/s

Topspeed 375 mph = 603 km/h (at roughly 6,5 km,irrelevant in current 0-5000 fights)

Speed at 10000 ft = 331 mph = 532 km/h (pretty slow?)

Weight roughly 3 tons , 1200 -1475 HP (different sources)

Also , has the overspeed of the Yak1 at high alts been fixed? (not stating its the only one...)

Edited September 27, 2016 by Zop

[PatrickAWlson]

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: 

 

 

Nobody is arguing that the 190 should be able to hang with anything in a sustained turn.  The debate is really over the stall.  It was there in the real plane, again, no argument.  The question is how bad was it?   

 

There is a difference between sustained and instantaneous. This is really, really important.  A properly flown FW-190 entered combat in a good energy state and was kept there.  Under these conditions the 190 could easily maneuver for for a killing shot.  Flown well, it out turn almost anything long enough to kill it.  "Long enough" is not very long at all, maybe a couple of seconds, but that is all a decent pilot needs.

 

The argument being presented here is that the stall is so vicious that it prevents the 190 from being flown as it was historically.  The other side of the argument is that the 190's stall really was that vicious and that it could not maneuver worth diddly.  Grab some popcorn and enjoy the show.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Not attacking you...just trying to understand your point: what specifically made the other 190 versions more fun for you?

 

I was too busy toiling away at life during the 1946 era so I never flew online back then.

 

Mostly 2 things:

 

First is the dive performance. In 1946 (always talking about the latest HSFX patch, not the vanilla version) you could use the common real life tactic, 190s used to use in WW2.

Diving away, you'd always gain distance to the enemy (unless it's a P47), and using your superior energy retention to get away in a shallow climb. A tactic which was widely used by 190 drivers in WW2, and you could perfectly replicate in 1946. In BoS it's not working, you don't accelerate faster then any other aircraft in a dive, and the energy retention seems also not a tad better then the other planes. 

 

Second thing is rolling scissors. Why i'd always try to avoid manouver fights in 1946, if i was drawn into one, because being attacked by an enemy aircraft with way more energy, it was well possible to outscissor the unaware opponent, who tried to follow your rolling scissors. There should barely be any aircraft to match the 190 in rolling scissors (well, I16 probably). Of course there are other tactics that can be utilized against a 190 doing rolling scissors. But just following it with ease, like it's possible in BoS with all the Russian fighters doesn't reflect what i read in pilot accounts. When you combine rolling and turning in BoS, you have to be very (too) gentile to not stall the aircraft.

 

I invented my own tactics, and can use them to good effect in BoS. I get along well with the 190 regarding performance, unlike some other posters apparently.

However, when i flew 1946 i had the constant feeling, that i was really flying the aircraft, i read so much about, so many situations when something in game happened, replicated perfectly a pilot story i read.

In BoS i barely have this feeling. It rather feels like i am flying a fantasy plane, and the way i /we(= our squadron) fly this bird to full effect, only partly matches how you'd used it in reality.

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

What is going!? This debate is too polite. Something is missing.

Edited September 27, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Gielow

[Livai]

This part of the video about the Fw-190 from 7:03 to 7:27 is really perfect to see that + to understand about what they are talking about and what the plane does at this moment = The best Fw-190 experience ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyjSsIHQGwo

[Willy__]

 

 

Mostly 2 things:   First is the dive performance. In 1946 (always talking about the latest HSFX patch, not the vanilla version) you could use the common real life tactic, 190s used to use in WW2. Diving away, you'd always gain distance to the enemy (unless it's a P47), and using your superior energy retention to get away in a shallow climb. A tactic which was widely used by 190 drivers in WW2, and you could perfectly replicate in 1946. In BoS it's not working, you don't accelerate faster then any other aircraft in a dive, and the energy retention seems also not a tad better then the other planes.    Second thing is rolling scissors. Why i'd always try to avoid manouver fights in 1946, if i was drawn into one, because being attacked by an enemy aircraft with way more energy, it was well possible to outscissor the unaware opponent, who tried to follow your rolling scissors. There should barely be any aircraft to match the 190 in rolling scissors (well, I16 probably). Of course there are other tactics that can be utilized against a 190 doing rolling scissors. But just following it with ease, like it's possible in BoS with all the Russian fighters doesn't reflect what i read in pilot accounts. When you combine rolling and turning in BoS, you have to be very (too) gentile to not stall the aircraft.   I invented my own tactics, and can use them to good effect in BoS. I get along well with the 190 regarding performance, unlike some other posters apparently. However, when i flew 1946 i had the constant feeling, that i was really flying the aircraft, i read so much about, so many situations when something in game happened, replicated perfectly a pilot story i read. In BoS i barely have this feeling. It rather feels like i am flying a fantasy plane, and the way i /we(= our squadron) fly this bird to full effect, only partly matches how you'd used it in reality.

 

Apart from the stall which is a bit too much on the severe side, Manu described perfectly the problems with our ingame 190. 

[Turban]

Mostly 2 things:

 

First is the dive performance. In 1946 (always talking about the latest HSFX patch, not the vanilla version) you could use the common real life tactic, 190s used to use in WW2.

Diving away, you'd always gain distance to the enemy (unless it's a P47), and using your superior energy retention to get away in a shallow climb. A tactic which was widely used by 190 drivers in WW2, and you could perfectly replicate in 1946. In BoS it's not working, you don't accelerate faster then any other aircraft in a dive, and the energy retention seems also not a tad better then the other planes. 

 

Second thing is rolling scissors. Why i'd always try to avoid manouver fights in 1946, if i was drawn into one, because being attacked by an enemy aircraft with way more energy, it was well possible to outscissor the unaware opponent, who tried to follow your rolling scissors. There should barely be any aircraft to match the 190 in rolling scissors (well, I16 probably). Of course there are other tactics that can be utilized against a 190 doing rolling scissors. But just following it with ease, like it's possible in BoS with all the Russian fighters doesn't reflect what i read in pilot accounts. When you combine rolling and turning in BoS, you have to be very (too) gentile to not stall the aircraft.

 

I invented my own tactics, and can use them to good effect in BoS. I get along well with the 190 regarding performance, unlike some other posters apparently.

However, when i flew 1946 i had the constant feeling, that i was really flying the aircraft, i read so much about, so many situations when something in game happened, replicated perfectly a pilot story i read.

In BoS i barely have this feeling. It rather feels like i am flying a fantasy plane, and the way i /we(= our squadron) fly this bird to full effect, only partly matches how you'd used it in reality.

 

That's where the debate should have been focused since day 1.

 

The stall is irrelevant to me .

 

Lagg 3 following in dives on the other hand is a daily occurence. I've mentionned test I've done before, Lagg 3 has better (afaik) initial dive acceleration and speed conservation which is odd. Not to mention the roll and lack of stall.

 

But that's a whole different story. I suggest anyone having data on such things to share them in the FM subategory where this belongs

This part of the video about the Fw-190 from 7:03 to 7:27 is really perfect to see that + to understand about what they are talking about and what the plane does at this moment = The best Fw-190 experience ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyjSsIHQGwo

 

 

[Edited]

Edited October 3, 2016 by Bearcat

[Vade]

That's where the debate should have been focused since day 1.

 

The stall is irrelevant to me .

 

Lagg 3 following in dives on the other hand is a daily occurence. I've mentionned test I've done before, Lagg 3 has better (afaik) initial dive acceleration and speed conservation which is odd. Not to mention the roll and lack of stall.

 

But that's a whole different story. I suggest anyone having data on such things to share them in the FM subategory where this belongs

 

 

THIS?

 

PILOT ERROR = 100 %

 

Love listenning to the pilot blaming the plane   

 

EDIT: Please appreciate how it flicks to the right (people claimed it wouldn't happen) . 

Hate to get dragged into this, but anyways: I was shot up and deploying my gear caused the plane to tumble over. No Control input involved whatsoever. Doesn't say anything about the Flight model, as the damage may cause anything and everything, but it proves, again, how you will blame and attack everyone around you just because it suits you. Thats why we can't have nice things...

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

Nobody is arguing that the 190 should be able to hang with anything in a sustained turn.

Some people have been arguing just that

 

 

 

The argument being presented here is that the stall is so vicious that it prevents the 190 from being flown as it was historically.

 

Historical its has been reported as having had a vicous stall characteristic considering a fair number of test reports.

 

 

 

Grab some popcorn and enjoy the show.

 

 

Popcorn burgers and Big Glup at hand

[3./JG15_Kampf]

Also I agree with Manu and Turban. the stal always existed no one denies that. Now the problem of diving speed, roll and Instant curve greatly impairs the performance of fw190. In scissors maneuvers, soon exceed the AoA. And slowly pull the joystick, vvs the aircraft following the fw 190 with great ease, even at high speeds

Edited September 27, 2016 by JAGER_Kampf

[Turban]

Hate to get dragged into this, but anyways: I was shot up and deploying my gear caused the plane to tumble over. No Control input involved whatsoever. Doesn't say anything about the Flight model, as the damage may cause anything and everything, but it proves, again, how you will blame and attack everyone around you just because it suits you. Thats why we can't have nice things...

 

I didn't attack anyone. You take it personnaly and attack me.

 

2 facts :  (Please consider them   )

 

-Rudder indicator all the way to the left.  Deliberate or not, that's a good ingredient for a stall/spin.

 

-Rudder pedals to the right. After stall they go back to neutral  (clearly visible from 7:07 on) I'm unaware of a condition that would move the pedals for the pilot ? 

 

 

I only stated the obvious.  If I'm wrong, you can explain. (like the rudder pedals moving on their own), but don't tell me I accuse people "just because it suits me". I speak facts.

 

It is weird that I'm being attacked for stating the obvious, but someone who takes the video as proof that the plane "is wrong" gets no remark............. ( )

 

BtW, it looks to me like an attempt to slow down that didn't work out well. 

 

But hey, what do I know right ? 

Edited September 27, 2016 by Turban

[BraveSirRobin]

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.

 

Maybe the BoK 190 will be closer to what you are hoping for. In any case, a lot of the 190 drama is really over the top.

[Hutz]

I didn't attack anyone. You take it personnaly and attack me.

 

2 facts :  (Please consider them   )

 

-Rudder indicator all the way to the left.  Deliberate or not, that's a good ingredient for a stall/spin.

 

-Rudder pedals to the right. After stall they go back to neutral  (clearly visible from 7:07 on) I'm unaware of a condition that would move the pedals for the pilot ? 

 

 

I only stated the obvious.  If I'm wrong, you can explain. (like the rudder pedals moving on their own), but don't tell me I accuse people "just because it suits me". I speak facts.

 

It is weird that I'm being attacked for stating the obvious, but someone who takes the video as proof that the plane "is wrong" gets no remark............. ( )

 

BtW, it looks to me like an attempt to slow down that didn't work out well. 

 

But hey, what do I know right ? 

You obviously have no clue what youre talking about...thats not an rudder indicator but a SIDESLIP indicator....and i think i know that Vade is a decent pilot and i trust him more then i trust you always trying to defend wrong things in the fm and attack and discredit other.

Also hes applying left rudder to counter for the nose veering to to right.....so dont mangle facts to your liking...

 

 

and please show me the right flick in a video executed...my version of the bos 190 ALWAYS flicks to left..

EDIT:what probably happened is the gear deplyoed unevenly creating more drag to one side...but that shouldnt veer the aircraft this hard over and force a spin....

Edited September 27, 2016 by Zop

[Vade]

I didn't attack anyone. You take it personnaly and attack me.

 

2 facts :  (Please consider them   )

 

-Rudder indicator all the way to the left.  Deliberate or not, that's a good ingredient for a stall/spin.

 

-Rudder pedals to the right. After stall they go back to neutral  (clearly visible from 7:07 on) I'm unaware of a condition that would move the pedals for the pilot ? 

 

 

I only stated the obvious.  If I'm wrong, you can explain. (like the rudder pedals moving on their own), but don't tell me I accuse people "just because it suits me". I speak facts.

 

It is weird that I'm being attacked for stating the obvious, but someone who takes the video as proof that the plane "is wrong" gets no remark............. ( )

 

BtW, it looks to me like an attempt to slow down that didn't work out well. 

 

But hey, what do I know right ? 

Bank indicator to the right due to plane dropping to that side. Pedals neutral (not right) and then left to counter the spin dropping to the right. (to little to late). You couldn't know what the pilot was doing, but why assume anything wrongly, just to prove your point (if there is one here). 

[JG13_opcode]

If I were any good at making Videos I would try and make some introductory ones about the 190, just to disspell all these Myths about what you people think it cannot do ingame. I find it wonderfully stable and predictable and have found my way with it. 

 

Upload some tracks.  If you PM me, you can zip them up and email them to me or I will set up an FTP where you can upload them.

 

Or you can just upload them to somewhere like pomf.se which does free file hosting.

Edited September 27, 2016 by JG13_opcode

[Turban]

Bank indicator to the right due to plane dropping to that side. Pedals neutral (not right) and then left to counter the spin dropping to the right. (to little to late). You couldn't know what the pilot was doing, but why assume anything wrongly, just to prove your point (if there is one here). 

 

It's in the video. What else can I say.

AGAIN : 2 FACTS

 

-Pedal to the right before the stall:

 

-Sideslip indicator (not talking about bank indicator here!!!) to the left

 

These are the facts. 

 

 

You obviously have no clue what youre talking about...thats not an rudder indicator but a SIDESLIP indicator....and i think i know that Vade is a decent pilot and i trust him more then i trust you always trying to defend wrong things in the fm and attack and discredit other.

Also hes applying left rudder to counter for the nose veering to to right.....so dont mangle facts to your liking...

 

 

Sideslip indicator if you want. It doesn't change the fact.

 

As you say you judge things on the opinion you have on people rather than the facts. What else can I say.

 

It's in the video.

Edited September 27, 2016 by Turban

[Hutz]

It's in the video. What else can I say.

Get some goggles....

also no reply to me asking for a video on the right flick? please...stop posting if you dont have anything relevant to say and THINK before posting assumptions

 

EDIT: and if its you showing up in a thread about a 190 its going to get the thread locked , because you just posting to provocate others

Edited September 27, 2016 by Zop

[JG13_opcode]

EDIT: Please appreciate how it flicks to the right (people claimed it wouldn't happen) . 

Actually what I claimed was that when I tested it, it wouldn't flick to the right with power on.  He's got engine damage and is at low power.  Edit: actually idle.

 

I of course expect no less from you than blatant misrepresentations, Donald.

Edited September 27, 2016 by JG13_opcode

[Turban]

It's all clearly visible in the video starting at 7:04.

If people deny what is clearly visible in a video, then I don't know how we can possibly have a reasonable discussion.

[Turban]

Actually what I claimed was that when I tested it, it wouldn't flick to the right with power on.  He's got engine damage and is at low power.  Edit: actually idle.

 

I of course expect no less from you than blatant misrepresentations, Donald.

 

It will flick to the right with power on, what will change compared to the left are the characteristics of the spin that can follow. You know an engine has an influence on spins ?

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I'm doing my own Comparison of High Speed Dive Performance of the Aircraft at 700kph right now, still have to get to the 190. Will post it in the FMs section.

[JG13_opcode]

It will flick to the right with power on, what will change compared to the left are the characteristics of the spin that can follow.

 

Post a video, then. When I tried it a few weeks ago I couldn't get it to do that with power on. Even with full rudder deflection. It was admittedly a quick test, so I would be happy if you demonstrated that I am wrong.

 

You know an engine has an influence on spins ?

No. I had no idea. As an aerospace engineer I am, as you know, exceedingly stupid. Edited September 27, 2016 by JG13_opcode

[PatrickAWlson]

Some people have been arguing just that

 

 

 

 

Historical its has been reported as having had a vicous stall characteristic considering a fair number of test reports.

 

 

 

 

 

Popcorn burgers and Big Glup at hand

 

I don't see people making the point about sustained turn rate but maybe I missed something.  If they are, they're wrong.  Instantaneous turn rate is a much different argument.

 

The "vicious" stall reports that I have seen have mostly been allied testers.  German pilots seem to say yeah, it's there, but it's not a big deal and can really be useful.  It seems to me that it is a matter of experience with the plane,  When you only fly the thing a few times the stall can seem abrupt.  Once you get to know the plane in real life it seems not to have been a significant issue.  

 

The real question is not whether the stall was there but rather how well is it modeled in the game.  I think that it is a fact that the stall renders both the real and the game version of the FW unusable within certain parameters.  The argument being advanced is that the curtailment in game is much more extensive than the real life version.  

 

FW has been my favorite WWII plane for decades and I am not an aero engineer, so I am both somewhat biased and mostly uneducated.  Having said that, I still have an opinion and like many net denizens I don't let silly things like bias and ignorance stand in the way of expressing it

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

Having said that, I still have an opinion and like many net denizens I don't let silly things like bias and ignorance stand in the way of expressing it

 

Opinions and sensible debate are never a bad thing

[Gambit21]

What is the supposed instantaneous/corner speed of the 190? It should be good for a quick, high speed turn along the lift vector before having to extend - as Patrick was eluding to. If you can't to this - something is likely wrong.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

It's mostly the fringe elements, from both sides of the issue, who get all b*tthurt, yelly and personal.

 

As I stated in my overly long post a few pages ago. There is a bit of wiggle room in the stall characteristics from ALL of the available sources and implementations. We ALL want the AC to perform correctly and there is a narrow definition of it contained in both the technical data and pilot reports but the band is not razor thin.

 

The previous in-game stall was plenty sudden. Moving the stall characteristics closer, or back, to the previous iteration does not challenge the technical documentation but makes the AC closer to the anecdotal information. Doing so would make the aircraft historical in nature according to the majority of published accounts. It would seem a win/win for everyone involved and genuinely seems to be the opinion of the more centrist characters on these pages. It would significantly diminish the complaints and give the outliers much less to hammer their keyboards over.

Edited September 27, 2016 by II/JG17_HerrMurf

[Asgar]

It's mostly the fringe elements, from both sides of the issue, who get all b*tthurt, yelly and personal.

 

As I stated in my overly long post a few pages ago. There is a bit of wiggle room in the stall characteristics from ALL of the available sources and implementations. We ALL want the AC to perform correctly and there is a narrow definition of it contained in both the technical data and pilot reports but the band is not razor thin.

 

The previous stall was plenty sudden. Moving the stall characteristics closer, or back, to the previous iteration does not challenge the technical documentation but makes the AC closer to the anecdotal information. Doing so would make the aircraft historical in nature according to the majority of published accounts. It would seem a win/win for everyone involved and genuinely seems to be the opinion of the more centrist characters on these pages. It would significantly diminish the complaints and give the outliers much less to hammer their keyboards over.

I agree 124,7%

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

OK, YAK OP, FW190 Porked etc. 

 

This is evidence for whatever. 

 

Seriously though, Yak seems somewhat optimistic. Basically the Yak-1 is as good at 700kph as a 190 at combat power. 

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/25487-ingame-dive-comparison-700kph-more-interesting-you-think/

[unreasonable]

OK, YAK OP, FW190 Porked etc. 

 

This is evidence for whatever. 

 

Seriously though, Yak seems somewhat optimistic. Basically the Yak-1 is as good at 700kph as a 190 at combat power. 

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/25487-ingame-dive-comparison-700kph-more-interesting-you-think/

 

Hairy did a similar game test a while ago, and came to the same conclusion (at least I think so, unless I have misunderstood your tests). The Yak is slowed down by air resistance once over maximum level speed measurably less than the 190, despite being much lighter. More aerodynamically sleek I assume. 

[Stig]

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.

 

 

 

That may be how history is related, but how does it compare to what actually occurred http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/25118-flying-fw-190-3-challenging/page-10?do=findComment&comment=393372 ?

[Wulf]

It's mostly the fringe elements, from both sides of the issue, who get all b*tthurt, yelly and personal.

 

As I stated in my overly long post a few pages ago. There is a bit of wiggle room in the stall characteristics from ALL of the available sources and implementations. We ALL want the AC to perform correctly and there is a narrow definition of it contained in both the technical data and pilot reports but the band is not razor thin.

 

The previous in-game stall was plenty sudden. Moving the stall characteristics closer, or back, to the previous iteration does not challenge the technical documentation but makes the AC closer to the anecdotal information. Doing so would make the aircraft historical in nature according to the majority of published accounts. It would seem a win/win for everyone involved and genuinely seems to be the opinion of the more centrist characters on these pages. It would significantly diminish the complaints and give the outliers much less to hammer their keyboards over.

 

 

That sounds all very reasonable Merf but from what I can see we still appear to have a few problems:

 

1) appeals to reason have already been tried;

2) according to one of your own recent posts, Han has ruled out further FM changes; and 

3) FM changes are supposed to be based on hard data, not 'feelings'.

[JtD]

Can anyone reproduce the snap roll? Go into a steep, right hand turn, ball centred, pull until you stall, snap roll to the left ending up inverted, not just in a left bank, without going into a spin?

Edited September 28, 2016 by JtD

[Livai]

Can anyone reproduce the snap roll? Go into a steep, right hand turn, ball centred, pull until you stall, snap roll to the left ending up inverted, not just in a left bank, without going into a spin?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QooPjDsu4Bg

 

That sounds all very reasonable Merf but from what I can see we still appear to have a few problems:

 

1) appeals to reason have already been tried;

2) according to one of your own recent posts, Han has ruled out further FM changes; and 

3) FM changes are supposed to be based on hard data, not 'feelings'.

Problems? Where? Data, who needs data to prove things? I just see a official video above the best way to prove the opposite. Who takes the opportunity to settle the score?

[Matt]

That video was made with the old FM.

[JtD]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QooPjDsu4Bg

This video is irrelevant because

- it is flown with an empty Fw190

- only 30% fuel

- with the old FM

- it does not contain the manoeuvre.

Did you even watch it?

[Livai]

 

 

Did you even watch it?

 

No, I watched for a official video that do some aerobatics...................

[Asgar]

From what I understand the problem right now is:

 

The described stall behaviour (snapping and inverting) is not represented in game, instead it's unpredictable and often leads to a flat spin which isn't really useful in a dogfight

 

The common tactic of diving away in a steep decent to use the planes superior dive performance and then climb away in a shallow dive to use it's superior energy retention doesn't work either....so basically flying the Fw 190 A-3 in BOS like a real FW A-3 will kill you 99% of the time, is that about right?

Edited September 28, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Asgar