Flying the Fw 190 A-3 is challenging

[MiloMorai]

[Brano]

Funny that Günther Rall compared the 190 to a sabre, and the 109 to a floret.  Exactly the opposite of what you said.

Sabre is a cavalry weapon. used by rider to perform slashing blow combined with the speed of the horse. Floret is for fencing/dueling.

[ACG_pezman]

 

Thanks for the graphic illustration.

 

Huh? Where did you read this? Close that book and never open it again.

 

Oh man, all these years I have never even concerned myself with the high speed handling ability of the 190 because I read (a long time ago, obviously wrongly) that it had great high speed handling due to the fact that it had a system similar to what was installed on the later P-38's.  Kind of like power steering.  Now I find that it had no such system.  How can it possibly resist all the force of speed and air pressure on the control surfaces at high speed if they are muscle powered?  I thought that was the biggest reason for such systems, that and it saved the pilots strength. 

 

So now I have to wonder, what gave this aircraft such great maneuverability?  Does this maneuverability infer that the aircraft was inherently unstable to preform this quickly? 

 

No flaming, just curious, since my whole conception of how the 190 operated has just been changed.

[WWChunk]

Sabre is a cavalry weapon. used by rider to perform slashing blow combined with the speed of the horse. Floret is for fencing/dueling.

 

Yes, and like Rall, I use the 190 like a sabre, and the 109 like a floret.  What Klaus suggested, and which I quoted, was in fact, the opposite of that...190 like a scalpel, and 109 like a butcher knife.

 

Regardless, this has little to do with the actual conversation.

[JtD]

So now I have to wonder, what gave this aircraft such great maneuverability?  Does this maneuverability infer that the aircraft was inherently unstable to preform this quickly?

Attention to detail and careful design of the controls. For instance, the use of rods instead of cables, more attention to friction reducing measures, good balancing both in terms of weight and aerodynamic forces, careful adjustment of gaps at the controls, higher number of ribs in the controls frames and stiffer fabrics...it adds up.

At any rate, you can find aircraft that had lower control forces than the Fw190, for instance both the Spitfire and the P-39 we're getting were extremely light on the elevator. If people are having problems with the Fw190 now, and if the game is going to model the relative differences realistically, we won't be able to control these two. So extremely low control forces weren't the Fw190's secret.

What the Fw190 excelled at was control balance. It needed very little trim, showed little to no aileron induced yaw, and throughout the speed range the relative forces of the controls were very well matched, while the absolute forces gave the pilot excellent feedback about the state his aircraft was in.

 

Aircraft stability is not directly related to manoeuvrability - you can always achieve good manoeuvrability with properly designed controls, even on a very stable aircraft. It's more related to controllability, where low stability means bad controllability. While the Fw190 in some loading conditions (full fuel tank, heavy bomb under the belly in pre A-5 models, full rear extra tank in A-8) displayed pretty much neutral stability longitudinally, it generally (as a fighter) was stable and easy to control.

Edited September 13, 2016 by JtD

[303_Kwiatek]

Attention to detail and careful design of the controls. For instance, the use of rods instead of cables, more attention to friction reducing measures, good balancing both in terms of weight and aerodynamic forces, careful adjustment of gaps at the controls, higher number of ribs in the controls frames and stiffer fabrics...it adds up.

At any rate, you can find aircraft that had lower control forces than the Fw190, for instance both the Spitfire and the P-39 we're getting were extremely light on the elevator. If people are having problems with the Fw190 now, and if the game is going to model the relative differences realistically, we won't be able to control these two. So extremely low control forces weren't the Fw190's secret.

What the Fw190 excelled at was control balance. It needed very little trim, showed little to no aileron induced yaw, and throughout the speed range the relative forces of the controls were very well matched, while the absolute forces gave the pilot excellent feedback about the state his aircraft was in.

 

Aircraft stability is not directly related to manoeuvrability - you can always achieve good manoeuvrability with properly designed controls, even on a very stable aircraft. It's more related to controllability, where low stability means bad controllability. While the Fw190 in some loading conditions (full fuel tank, heavy bomb under the belly in pre A-5 models, full rear extra tank in A-8) displayed pretty much neutral stability longitudinally, it generally (as a fighter) was stable and easy to control.

 

 

Definitly Kurt Tank knew what he was doing

Edited September 13, 2016 by 303_Kwiatek

[ACG_pezman]

I have to say that it is amazing what they accomplished in the FW190. I just wish people were happier with it. It seems since its introduction into this game it hasn't been up to par. However fighting against it makes it seem like the legend it is. I understand the stall is harsh, I think so too, but I also think that maybe it's a result from my jerky hand or imperfect curves rather than a flaw in the design.

 

This sim is too good to let ourselves turn to vitriol and anger.

 

I apologize for my rants, it's tough being a VVS guy in this game

 

If the 190 is truly porked that bad I hope it gets fixed, I just don't want to experience the frustration of fighting an even better 190. Besides, we can and should be civil, we don't need WWIII tearing our small community apart.

[303_Kwiatek]

At any rate, you can find aircraft that had lower control forces than the Fw190, for instance both the Spitfire and the P-39 we're getting were extremely light on the elevator. If people are having problems with the Fw190 now, and if the game is going to model the relative differences realistically, we won't be able to control these two.

 

The same conclusion made DCS flight model designer about incoming Spitfire and elevator response .  Fw 190 D-9 in DCS ( even if it was little different plane then A series) is quite stable plane but it is feel that its quite heavy wing loading so you cant sustained turn with 109 K-4 or P-51 with their turn rate casue you got stall or spin but other hand is quite stable and pleasure to fly.  The same situation should be with A-3 against Spitfire or Yak-1.  Heavy wing load shouldn't allow A-3 to sustained turn with these planes beacuse it stall trying to follow short curves but other hand plane should be pleasent to fly with balanced control and should make manouvers without constantly risk of stall. Not mention about acceleration expecially in dive which was known atrribute of Fw 190 and which now BOS A-3 is lacking

Edited September 13, 2016 by 303_Kwiatek

[Turban]

The same situation should be with A-3 against Spitfire or Yak-1.  Heavy wing load shouldn't allow A-3 to sustained turn with these planes beacuse it stall trying to follow short curves but other hand plane should be pleasent to fly with balanced control and should make manouvers without constantly risk of stall. Not mention about acceleration expecially in dive which was known atrribute of Fw 190 and which now BOS A-3 is lacking

 

Again. It is what we have in game. 

[Dr_Molem]

Again. It is what we have in game. 

 

DCS D-9 has a smaller stall speed than our BOS A-3, while being 400 kg heavier.

 

Definitely what we have ingame.

[Matt]

DCS D-9 has a smaller stall speed than our BOS A-3, while being 400 kg heavier.

What stall speed does the D-9 have in DCS? Just curious.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

What stall speed does the D-9 have in DCS? Just curious.

No clue,  but clean it'S 183 for us, 167 with Flaps. 

The guys on DCS are 

 

According to this:https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=149411

Edited September 13, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[unreasonable]

Well, chapter 2 of flying the 190 is challenging?? go ahead. But I dont think I have to remember that any FM discussion cant take place here and this topic is moving to that kind of convertation. 

 

Also I totally agree with what Bearcat said above.

 

My comment was obviously (or so I thought) meant as a   - ie are you not going a bit overboard here? Not a suggestion that I was going to write a counter rant. Will try to be more literal next time....

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

This is a DCS review from Steam, by some user there: http://store.steampowered.com/app/250990/?l=dutch

 

"- The flight model itself it not so good. I understand that the aircraft is still in beta process, but its lacking a lot. Engine model is strange and the sound is not what it should be if you compare it with the few wochenschau movies of the aircraft and the video on youtube of an original FW190D aircraft. The stall behavior of the aircraft can be called strange. It stalls very easy compared to the P51, even at high speeds which does not match the many publications of pilot stories e.g. Green Hearts First in Combat with the Dora 9."

 

This is an old Review, don't know about FM changes, but it seems that the 190 tends to get the high speed Stall in many Games. 

Edited September 15, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[Tyberan]

I love the FW190 but was very disappointed in the model portrayed in IL2. It does feel like a brick to fly in most cases and it does not live up to the accounts of the pilots nor those that fought against them. However reading some of the comparison flights with other allied planes I can see that the A3 was very lacking in a lot of regards. 

 

However after reading a lot of the posts on this forum about it in game and some of the tactics Klaus_mann described it can be very devastating. I'm not very good at dog-fighting in the game and I usually prefer ground attack and the occasional bus driving of a bomber. My play time on the sim is mainly SP as my ping for the online is pretty bad (somewhere around 350-400). 

 

Anyway even against AI i'm pretty terrible but I set up a 4 vs 4 against Fw190 vs Yak1. In the melee I managed to shoot down 3 Yaks and the last one I only damaged and he RTB. My AI team mates on the other hand all got shot down and I think 1 went into a flat spin.  Anyway I spent very little time in turning fights and used the straight level climbs as Klaus mentioned and the FW190 can easily climb away from the yak, I did this until I had the height advantage until I could bounce them again or go head on. With the fire power even glancing blows with my terrible aim was enough to severely cripple the yaks. In saying that it takes much more situational awareness in the FW190 in order to setup the fight to your favour compared to the 109.

 

I now have a much better appreciation of the sim version of the plane. However in saying that I can see why everyone gets upset about it, to me as well the stall is so sudden and violent that you can be caught off guard. I think this has a lot to do with the how the game presents the unset of stall. There is very little to no sound ques, the buffeting comes on quite quickly that by the time you realise you've stalled. I think better in game ques would be helpful in warding off getting into one. my 2 cents anyway for all that its worth. 

[Turban]

Maybe having a force feedback joystick helps. I fly with the MS FFB 2 and I very rarely get it that stall, and it's always due to my actions.

 

Might try the T 1600 see if I get it more.

[MadisonV44]

I love the FW190 but was very disappointed in the model portrayed in IL2. It does feel like a brick to fly in most cases and it does not live up to the accounts of the pilots nor those that fought against them. However reading some of the comparison flights with other allied planes I can see that the A3 was very lacking in a lot of regards. 

 

However after reading a lot of the posts on this forum about it in game and some of the tactics Klaus_mann described it can be very devastating. I'm not very good at dog-fighting in the game and I usually prefer ground attack and the occasional bus driving of a bomber. My play time on the sim is mainly SP as my ping for the online is pretty bad (somewhere around 350-400). 

 

Anyway even against AI i'm pretty terrible but I set up a 4 vs 4 against Fw190 vs Yak1. In the melee I managed to shoot down 3 Yaks and the last one I only damaged and he RTB. My AI team mates on the other hand all got shot down and I think 1 went into a flat spin.  Anyway I spent very little time in turning fights and used the straight level climbs as Klaus mentioned and the FW190 can easily climb away from the yak, I did this until I had the height advantage until I could bounce them again or go head on. With the fire power even glancing blows with my terrible aim was enough to severely cripple the yaks. In saying that it takes much more situational awareness in the FW190 in order to setup the fight to your favour compared to the 109.

 

I now have a much better appreciation of the sim version of the plane. However in saying that I can see why everyone gets upset about it, to me as well the stall is so sudden and violent that you can be caught off guard. I think this has a lot to do with the how the game presents the unset of stall. There is very little to no sound ques, the buffeting comes on quite quickly that by the time you realise you've stalled. I think better in game ques would be helpful in warding off getting into one. my 2 cents anyway for all that its worth. 

 

Agree, on most of BOS planes stall is predictable and you can adapt the way of controling your plane. 

On some pattern yes of course you can predict it but sometimes  ... mystery 

With the FW it is violent and often unpredictable.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Agree, on most of BOS planes stall is predictable and you can adapt the way of controling your plane. 

On some pattern yes of course you can predict it but sometimes  ... mystery 

With the FW it is violent and often unpredictable.

I think the A-5 with further forward CG will be easier to handle. 

[PFR_Bearkiller72]

So, here it is again. The same old discussion all over again. Fw-190 good/bad, Bf-109 better/worse.

It's like those fruitless pub debates, why this car is better than that car.

 

In historical context, the Fw-190 was an advantage from day 1. More speed, more range, more firepower, lower pilot's workload. Rall said so, Galland said so.

Proven fact is, that the 109 climbed better, in comparison to the 190A models and turned better.

 

So, why this debate all over again?

 

If you like white knuckled turning fights, choose the 109 and learn to master it.

If you like the boom'n'zoom approach, take the 190 and learn to master it.

 

I truly can't wait for the P-51 Mustang to be modeled in game and read that same old fruitless debate again...

 

[JG13_opcode]

 

 

I truly can't wait for the P-51 Mustang to be modeled in game and read that same old fruitless debate again...

 

 

In the old IL-2, P-51 vs 109G/K was some of the best online gaming I've ever had, ever.  Arguments on the ubizoo were some of the best online comedic reading I've ever had, ever.

[StG2_Manfred]

What I have encountered works best against Yak and LaGG is a sort of Wave Climb, WEP at 350 in the climb, the Yak overheats, has to open up. At that point you flatten out again a bit, accelerate to 400-450 and ease back on the throttle again, pull to 400 again. Just vary between speed and climb, because that really fucks with the Yaks engine temperature and slows him down. 

You shouldn't be afraid to use WEP for the first extension, after that you can Head-On in a Figure of 8 without additional power. 

And I used these and was only let down by my relatively Shit Gunnery. The russians also seem to either completly avoid you or wanting to Crash and Die. 

 

The 190 flies exactly the way you would expect it to. Heavy, Underpowered but Fast. It's extremely responsive and chats with you constantly about where the Limits are. 

I've seen many seasoned Pilots do beginners Errors, I've watched their Videos etc. and seen many of them fail trying to do Stuff that works in 109s, but kills you in the 190. 

I've shot down 190s in I-16s, 6./ZG26_Emil can tell you a story about a 190 we chased for almost 20 Minutes, in which, had he decided correctly, could have killed both of us, but he wasted speed, tried to manouver and escape in a number of ways, and in the end we outwitted him and shot him down while he was trying to land. 

People do a lot of stupid Stuff like trying to Loop OVER the enemy and the wonder why I kill them in an I-16.

The Roll around and Scissor a lot, wasting their speed while I follow them in a straight line and just energy my way around them. 

 

And then there were times when the 190s flew correctly, and those were the times I was powerless, no matter the plane I was in. Those were the times when we were their playthings. Those were the times when they would drag n bag up to 3 of our fighters in one Pass. 

 

Every Time I get killed in the 190 it's when I'm alone and in a Bad Situation to begin with, with an enemy that has all the advantages and knows how to use them. 

 

Everything I experience in it is exactly as it was reported from both sides.

 

Could you record a video and show us the correct use of the 190. I'm looking forward to see all your knowledge put into practise! A video of you is more worth than thousand words of you.

[Jsun-El]

Does anyone here use manual prop pitch with the fw190? If so what settings do you use? Do you feel it's beneficial and provides performance gains over automatic?

[Gambit21]

If you go back to the FW 190 FM debates in the FM section you will see that what is mostly wanted is to tone down the stall. Not make the A3 faster, climb better, turn better, or retain energy better - just tone down the stall.

 

One thing that consistently comes up with the FW is how pilot friendly a plane it was. Its pilots and adversaries describe it as maneuverable. It never developed a reputation as a newbie killing flying brick.

 

Nobody argues that the FWs reputation for maneuverability comes from sustained maneuvers. Instead it came from rapid energy restoration and very light controls. Good pilots did not make sustained maneuvers. They made sharp maneuvers from a high energy state, used the FWs ability to regain energy to best advantage, then made another one - rinse wash repeat. The maneuvers were made to gain an advantage or, failing that, gain separation. It has never been stated that the FW should be flown in a straight line and woe to the pilot foolish enough to actually attempt a maneuver in combat.

No dog in the fight - but I've read enough pilot accounts to know those are true words.

[BazzaLB]

The AI hate this plane too. Its a death trap for them. I set up quick missions of 4 FW vs 4 Yak. I fly with the FW squad. I always (without exception) end up all alone in my squad. The AI have a tendancy to stall out of the sky when doing tight turn fighting in some places as it is.... I guess the AI also should be reading the forums. :D

 

I have my FFB turned on and it helps a lot to avoid stalls and it is fun to have to change tact and break off in a turn fight to try and gain altitude for another attempt.... But when the rest of your squad is KIA and you be ome the sole focus of the enemy... The challenge becomes too great for an average pilot like me.

 

I guess simplifying the FM for AI controlled planes might help with this AI inability to fly some planes properly.

 

EDIT: So, as is typical after claiming something on the forum.... Very next Quick mission resulted in all 4 AI Yak destroyed with the loss of only 1 FW. Hehe. Was a fun skirmish. Would still like the stall tweaked though

Edited September 17, 2016 by BazzaLB

[Riderocket]

Why does everyone say the 190 is bad?? The 109 feels like the controls are so unresponsive compared to the 190. If you want to fly it well here's a tip! Adjust the "adjustable stabiliser" to 0, (not 0% in game... 0 on the gauge) just play around with that stabiliser, I find it effects the plane dramaticly!

 

ok, after trying out the game recently (i hadn't played in a while) i can say that they've changed the 190 and it seems quite retarded now.

[JtD]

Does anyone here use manual prop pitch with the fw190? If so what settings do you use? Do you feel it's beneficial and provides performance gains over automatic?

It doesn't really make sense to use manual prop pitch, the automatic settings are optimized for a good balance of maximum performance, efficiency and engine durability. Also, going manual increases the pilot workload a lot, and that alone makes it prohibitive. I don't use manual, even though I can think of situations where manual might improve performance a little bit.

[F/JG300_Gruber]

It doesn't really make sense to use manual prop pitch, the automatic settings are optimized for a good balance of maximum performance, efficiency and engine durability. Also, going manual increases the pilot workload a lot, and that alone makes it prohibitive. I don't use manual, even though I can think of situations where manual might improve performance a little bit.

 

Using it all the time doesn't make sense, but in a few situations when you have to chop the throttle briefly (defensive manoeuvers), you can benefit from the manual pitch when you slam the throttle back up. The kommandogerät is very slow on response in these situations and you loose a lot of potential acceleration (which is already quite meh on the fw)

[MadisonV44]

ok, after trying out the game recently (i hadn't played in a while) i can say that they've changed the 190 and it seems quite retarded now.

 

Thank you for being honest sharing your "reverse" feedback with us.

This is a recurrent problem we have with the Wulf. 

 

The people who are happy with the plane are not flying her regularly. They write posts after a quick try offline vs 2 blind IA and come back as the king of the hill saying "IMHO there's  no problem with the FW" . The situation would not be the same if we had an objective vision on that bird. The anti FW consensus to leave the bird in the current modeling is half from those people and half from people obsessed  with numbers even its not matching what they read in stories.

 

As a result BOS sky will remain almost empty of FW flying. Great loss in diversity and richness for the gameplay  ...

[Turban]

 

 

The people who are happy with the plane are not flying her regularly. They write posts after a quick try offline vs 2 blind IA and come back as the king of the hill saying "IMHO there's  no problem with the FW" . The situation would not be the same if we had an objective vision on that bird. The anti FW consensus to leave the bird in the current modeling is half from those people and half from people obsessed  with numbers even its not matching what they read in stories.

 

As a result BOS sky will remain almost empty of FW flying. Great loss in diversity and richness for the gameplay  ...

 

What?

 

That's a completely false statement.

 

Plenty of people fly the FW online. The FW is my daily driver and I say there is nothing wrong with it. What will you say to that?

 

Your claim is only meant to try and discredit people who disagree with you, but your statement is actually the opposite of the truth, most people claiming the FW is wrong don't have much flight experience to show, and can't seem to fly anything properly anyway.

 

Spreading wrong information is bad.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

When I fly a german fighter, I normally take the 190, because you're virtually immune when cruising at 3k. It's just beautifully fast, and you are basically the God of low altitude Dogfights. 

[MadisonV44]

.... bla bla bla ... 

 

Spreading wrong information is bad.

 

Does it also apply to you then ? Or maybe you have a pass to deliver the only consistent version. 

 

I was starting from a fact : a guy claiming all is ok, testing and revising courageously its point of view.   

When I fly a german fighter, I normally take the 190, because you're virtually immune when cruising at 3k. It's just beautifully fast, and you are basically the God of low altitude Dogfights. 

 

Online M8  ? 

It used to be efficient with previous version I agree, no more since the new patches IMO

[Haza]

Thank you for being honest sharing your "reverse" feedback with us.

This is a recurrent problem we have with the Wulf. 

 

The people who are happy with the plane are not flying her regularly. They write posts after a quick try offline vs 2 blind IA and come back as the king of the hill saying "IMHO there's  no problem with the FW" . The situation would not be the same if we had an objective vision on that bird. The anti FW consensus to leave the bird in the current modeling is half from those people and half from people obsessed  with numbers even its not matching what they read in stories.

 

As a result BOS sky will remain almost empty of FW flying. Great loss in diversity and richness for the gameplay  ...

 

Wow, I didn't realise historically that the BOS skies were filled with many FW-190 A-3s?

Anybody know how involved the FW190 A-3 was during this campaign?

Edited September 17, 2016 by Haza

[F/JG300_Gruber]

When I fly a german fighter, I normally take the 190, because you're virtually immune when cruising at 3k. It's just beautifully fast, and you are basically the God of low altitude Dogfights. 

 

Until an La5 cruising at 3.5k engages you, and that flying alone, your only option is to run back to base to hide behind the flak.

[MadisonV44]

Sorry Haza you missed my point :  speaking about the virtual sky since a lot of people stopped flying the FW 

Not a historical statement.  

Edited September 17, 2016 by MadisonV44

[Turban]

Does it also apply to you then ? Or maybe you have a pass to deliver the only consistent version. 

 

 

 Check your version of the facts, then check mine. Guess which one is wrong. Yes. Yours.

 

Most people who complain about the FW don't have much experience that's the fact. Hey, some don't even have the game.

 

Hilarious.

[MadisonV44]

My version or your version ... Turban seriously, are you kidding? This is not the debate or this is a sterile and personal debate (and I know how far you can go this way lol) 

 

Just check around the community flying around you, the squad you fly or used to fly with, your friends and fly mates ...  or maybe you fly alone ? 

Personally when I come with a feedback it's never based on my sole opinion (which could be wrong by the way).  

 

 

 

Most people who complain about the FW don't have much experience that's the fact.

So we all understood you are experienced.

Congrats 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

[Dr_Molem]

most people claiming the FW is wrong don't have much flight experience to show, and can't seem to fly anything properly anyway

 

You're right, most people who claim the FW is wrong don't have much flight experience with the current FW, because they don't have to fly it for 100 hours to understand how wrong is is, as opposed to some.

[wtornado]

The FW-190 was like the Hawker Typhoon it started out as a fighter and ended up becoming a

Jabo ground slug punisher.

 

The British like the Germans needed a ground attack plane and they both chose these planes

because they were pratically made for it.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

You're right, most people who claim the FW is wrong don't have much flight experience with the current FW, because they don't have to fly it for 100 hours to understand how wrong is is, as opposed to some.

German Pilots back then only got their full Liceneses after 100-150 hours Minimum, normally more, and only the VERY BEST became part of the Jagdschulen, and when BEGINNING their careers in the JGs they had around 200 hours under their belts. 

The vast majority became part of Ground Attack, Reconaissance and Transport. 

 

Maybe, just maybe you are not part of that minority of skilled Pilots and should consider your Talent as a Factor. We'd happily welcome you in a more useful role in the Zerstörer and Bombengeschwader.