Flying the Fw 190 A-3 is challenging

[Holtzauge]

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. 

 

Gee, I don't feel like God or immune when I'm in the current rendition of the 190. For me it's more like:

 

Run rabbit – run rabbit – Run! Run! Run!

Don't give the Yak his fun! Fun! Fun!

He'll get by

Without his Luftie pie

So run rabbit – run rabbit – Run! Run! Run!

 

All Luftie's together now, lets take it again!

[MadisonV44]

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.

 

Well said mate 

 

[Haza]

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

Not a historical statement.  

 

 

Obviously this guy didn't get the memo about not flying in the virtual skies until the FM is sorted.

 

Looking forward to the FW190 A-5 in BOK!

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Gee, I don't feel like God or immune when I'm in the current rendition of the 190. For me it's more like:

 

Run rabbit – run rabbit – Run! Run! Run!

Don't give the Yak his fun! Fun! Fun!

He'll get by

Without his Luftie pie

So run rabbit – run rabbit – Run! Run! Run!

 

All Luftie's together now, lets take it again!

[Holtzauge]

 

Hey! That new hairdo looks great Klaus! 

Edited September 17, 2016 by Holtzauge

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

The only way out now is either, the last 20 Posts get deleted or the Topic locked. 

Let's hope this thread can be saved. 

Edited September 17, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Klaus__Mann

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Oh look, 190s getting killed in droves:

[Holtzauge]

The only way out now is either, the last 20 Posts get deleted or the Topic locked. 

Let's hope this thread can be saved. 

Seriously? Did we lose our sense of humour somewhere? But if you truly got offended then I apologize Klaus.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Well, this started as an advice thread, and became a Whiner Thread (like EVERY SINGLE 190 THREAD EVER). 

Maybe we can return this one to the OP. 

I tried to be productive at first, I provided Historical Data indicative of good Tactics, but then the lower parts of my nature took over. It's a natural reaction apparently. 

Edited September 17, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Klaus__Mann

[unreasonable]

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. 

 

This is simply not true, you ought to know better. For much of the war, the best pilots were all assigned to bombers. Forgive me if I cannot be bothered to trawl through all my Prien books for the relevant references.

 

What is more, at times of crisis, pilots were forwarded to operational units with minimum (upto and including zero) hours on the type they were expected to fly.

 

Late in  the war, for sure, the best pilots were no longer assigned to bombers: no wonder, since the LW was hardly capable of fielding a worthwhile bomber force.

[MadisonV44]

The only way out now is either, the last 20 Posts get deleted or the Topic locked. 

Let's hope this thread can be saved. 

 

Klaus, seems you obviously do every you can to avoid debate and appeal (several times) for topics closing just because people don't share your Zerstörer and Bombengeschwaderway way of flying. 

 

Also hope your claiming to close won't be heard and that we will be able to carry on the debate. 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Klaus, seems you obviously do every you can to avoid debate and appeal (several times) for topics closing just because people don't share your Zerstörer and Bombengeschwaderway way of flying. 

 

Also hope your claiming to close won't be heard and that we will be able to carry on the debate. 

I don't want topics to get closed. 

I don't want people to die of Cancer. 

Yet they do and you can see it coming. 

Edited September 17, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Klaus__Mann

[Wulf]

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. 

 

 

Hahahaha ... you should've been on the stage m8.  Just hilarious.

 

Oh yeah, really looking forward to your 190 dogfighting videos, so post as soon as you can LOL!  I'm guessing they're quite short?

[Turban]

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.

 

They stalled once or twice and that was enough to start claiming that the plane is porked? I get it.

 

Sounds like a good, serious way to deal with FM problems 

 I'm guessing they're quite short?

 

They are supposed to be.

Edited September 17, 2016 by Turban

[Wulf]

They stalled once or twice and that was enough to start claiming that the plane is porked? I get it.

 

Sounds like a good, serious way to deal with FM problems 

 

They are supposed to be.

 

 

Yeah, but we typically call that a 'bounce', not a dogfight.  Don't worry buddy, you'll learn. 

[Turban]

Yeah, but we typically call that a 'bounce', not a dogfight.  Don't worry buddy, you'll learn. 

 

I didn't mention bouncing, where would you get the idea that's what I'm talking about?

[6./ZG26_Custard]

There is a perception from a large number of people that balletic prolonged air duels were the mainstay of WWII. This would appear to be the exception rather than the rule if you read the numerous historical source materials that are available.

The “Knights of the Sky” jousting would be far better applied to the aerial conflict in WWI.

 

 

Most of the pilots who got shot down in WWII didn’t even see it coming and all you have to do is view the hours and hours of Gun cam footage available to see this was the case in most instances.

The real world can only be modelled to a degree when it comes to simulators and as it has been said before, it is difficult to simulate how much easier and physically less demanding it was to fly the 190 as opposed to say the 109. This would give you a significant edge in real life but has yet to be modelled realistically.

Maybe one day we will get some sort of fatigue system incorporated into the simulator but who knows?

From personal experience I have found the 190 to have very sensitive controls and I found reducing the curves helps a lot. I am able to yank the control stick about in a 109 and it doesn’t fall out of the sky that often but if you over cook the controls on the 190 it makes you pay. I have found that if you fly the 190 using gentle control inputs, it can indeed be quite a responsive plane and it has of course got the advantage of being very fast. That said, there are numerous real world reports of the wicked stall characteristics that caught out pilots in their droves.

With regards to flight model, there are numerous real world sources available and they differ, in some cases dramatically. I really don’t want to get drawn into an argument about who has got the best source material and who is right. There were some in WWII who test flew the 190 and were adamant that it wasn’t necessarily a fantastic turn fighter and of course on the other hand, you had other sources singing the praises of the uber plane.

I don’t think it matters how many times people wish to make posts about how the 190 is just “wrong”. You will never get a 100% perfectly modelled aircraft in a simulator because you cannot model in certain real world variables that could’ve made a big difference. Let’s be honest, at the end of the day, it is not just about the source material, it is also about a matter of individual perspective.

[BazzaLB]

I found this excerpt from Captain Eric Brown's "Wings On My Sleeve" book interesting.

 

I flew my first captured German machine that first month, a Focke-Wulf 190. I am rather short in stature, so they cut out a special cushion for me to sit on in this machine. It was of green leather with a piece cut out in the front to allow for the backward movement of the stick and it was made for me by the son of Samuel Cody in Beta Shed, where his famous pioneer father had worked on his early experimental machines. I found the Fw 190 a very fast and manoeuvrable machine for that time, with a performance equal, if not superior to that of the current Spitfire 9, her very high rate of roll making her a formidable aerobatic aircraft. But she was difficult to land, and had some very nasty stalling characteristics.

 

Seems he noted nasty stalling too. No idea which 190 he is referring to as it doesn't get that specific. Go figure. Edited September 17, 2016 by BazzaLB

[unreasonable]

Oh look, 190s getting killed in droves:

 

Now I know where the crappy fake gun sounds introduced in the last patch came from.

[beepee]

 

 

Yeah, but we typically call that a 'bounce', not a dogfight. Don't worry buddy, you'll learn.

 

Pity that tape over your mouth is not on your fingers bro.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Hahahaha ... you should've been on the stage m8.  Just hilarious.

 

Oh yeah, really looking forward to your 190 dogfighting videos, so post as soon as you can LOL!  I'm guessing they're quite short?

They would be very short and hardly entertaining. I don't manouverfight when I want to live. 

Edited September 17, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Klaus__Mann

[SpaydCBR]

Am I the only person laughing hysterically at this GIF?

[=CFC=Conky]

Am I the only person laughing hysterically at this GIF?

 

 

 

Nope! 

[Willy__]

I guess people are misunderstanding... You definately can be very sucessful in the current 190. But that doenst mean the plane isnt porked, you're just going around and avoiding the wrong things that happen with it. Essentialy our ingame 190 is very limited on what it can do compared to its RL counterpart...

Edited September 17, 2016 by JAGER_Staiger

[ACG_pezman]

I guess people are misunderstanding... You definately can be very sucessful in the current 190. But that doenst mean the plane isnt porked, you're just going around and avoiding the wrong things that happen with it. Essentialy our ingame 190 is very limited on what it can do compared to its RL counterpart...

Is it really? I mean, it can stall easily but that only happens when you push the aircraft out of its comfort zone. And even then it is possible to be successful with it. It's been said a thousand times here, keep your speed up and she is as stable as anything in the sky. Don't keep your speed up and you will die. Either from Cannons or stalls, you will die. Curves are a great way to dull your crazy hand movements and prevent a lot of unnecessary stalls.

 

Yesterday I was flying the 190 in Berloga and had a damn good time in it. I was bounced at about 2km by a decent energy La-5 and Yak-1. Did I die? No. Because I used its high speed handling to destroy them while staying very stable. I took them into a dive that was just shallow enough to ensure that I could get as much speed for my altitude as possible. Once I passed 550+kph I began to scissor. The enemies had no chance. At those speeds every aircraft suffers from reduced positive response on their control surfaces except the 190. In a couple of very rapid, very violent, yet because of my speed, very stable turns, both aircraft were forced to over shoot.

 

That to me sounds like the 190, but what people here say it should do sounds like an epic 109. I just really think that a lot of people read a lot of sensationalized pilot remarks when they were kids about the 190 and it just can't add up to their expectations. Reading this thread sounds like everyone wants an über plane that is better in all aspects, all energy states, and all situations than their opponent. It seems people don't want to take the time to find, stalk, setup, and attack an enemy aircraft, they just expect their uber plane to save them and pull them through everything. Ya know, probably the same way those guys in the gun cams were thinking. I'm sure they were bitching in the afterlife about the porked 190fm that got them killed.

[JG13_opcode]

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.

I've literally never been shot down by a 190 unless I wasn't paying attention or reading the map or something. Against the Yak up to about 4500m, there's nothing the 190 pilot can do but run away. I always smile when I see a 190 at co-E because I think "easy kill coming up".

keep your speed up and she is as stable as anything in the sky

That hasn't been my experience. It's not as wobbly as the laughable G-2 (which is its own topic) but it's easy to cartwheel the 190 at 500+ km/h in level flight if you pull even a little too hard, even with curves. I fly it every chance I get, and up high (5500+) if you really really really extend you can hold your own even 1v2 but it takes like half a tank of fuel to maneuver into an advantageous position.

 

Still, the speed is not what most people have issue with.

I was bounced at about 2km by a decent energy La-5 and Yak-1. Did I die? No. Because I used its high speed handling to destroy them while staying very stable. I took them into a dive that was just shallow enough to ensure that I could get as much speed for my altitude as possible. Once I passed 550+kph I began to scissor. The enemies had no chance. At those speeds every aircraft suffers from reduced positive response on their control surfaces except the 190. In a couple of very rapid, very violent, yet because of my speed, very stable turns, both aircraft were forced to over shoot.

Got a video? I'd be interested in seeing it. Also the aftermath where you found yourself low and with 2 VVS aircraft nearby. Because unless they just ran away or unless you're a much much better pilot than I, you'd be a quick kill for a Yak/La pair working together.

Edited September 17, 2016 by JG13_opcode

[Wulf]

I found this excerpt from Captain Eric Brown's "Wings On My Sleeve" book interesting.

 

Seems he noted nasty stalling too. No idea which 190 he is referring to as it doesn't get that specific. Go figure.

 

 

Here you go 'Bazza'.  This is what Eric had to say about the 190 in Wings of the Luftwaffe.  It's been posted here before but clearly some of you new guys haven't had the opportunity to read it.  

 

 

"My first opportunity to fly the Focke-Wulf did not arise until 4 February 1944, the actual aircraft being the previously-mentioned Fw 190A-4/U8 PE882. This fighter had seen a lot of flying from the RAE and was destined, 10 weeks later, to be transferred to N° 1426 Flight at Collyweston with which it was to fly until 13 October 1944, when, after a fire in the air it was to crash on the road between Kettering and Stamford, demolishing there three walls before coming to rest in the garden of a house. On this cold February morning at Farnborough, however, the sad demise of this particular Focke-Wulf was still some way into the future, and despite the substantial number of hours that it had flown since reaching British hands, it gave every impression of youthfulness.

 

The BMW 802D engine was started by an inertia starter energized by a 24-volt external support or by the aircraft's own battery. The big radial was primed internally, both fuel tanks and pumps selected ON and the cooling gills (sic?) set to one-third aperture. We had found that the BMW almost invariably fired first time and emitted a smooth purr as it ran, such being the case on this particular morning, and once i had familiarized myself with the self-centering tailwheel – a feature that had been criticized by some AFDU pilots – I found taxying the essence of simplicity as the fighter could be swung freely from side to side on its broad-track undercarriage. Furthermore, the brakes were very good, although the view with the tail down left much to be desired.

 

I soon felt completely at home in the cockpit. After lining up for take-off, I moved the stick to an aft position in order to lock the tailwheel, applied 10 degrees of flap, set the elevator trimmer to neutral and the propeller pitch to AUTO and gently opened up the engine. I encountered some tendency to swing to port but easily held this on the rudder, and using 2,700 rpm and 23.5 lb (1.6 atas) boost, found the run to be much the same as that of the Spitfire Mk IX. Unstick speed was 112 mph (180 km/h) and after retracting the undercarriage by depressing the appropriate button, I reduced boost to 21.3 lb (1.45 atas) and at 143 mph (230 km/h) activated the pushbutton which raised the flaps. I then set up a climbing speed of 161 mph (260 km/h) using 2,500 rpm and this gave a climb rate of 3,150 ft/min (16m/sec).

 

A remarkable aspect of this fighter was the lack of retrimming required for the various stages of the flight. There was no aileron trimmer in the cockpit, but if the external adjustable trim tab had been inadvertently moved as a result, for example of a member of the groundcrew pushing against it, an out-of-trim force of considerable proportions could result at high speed. Decidedly the most impressive feature of the German fighter was its beautifully light ailerons and its extremely high rate of roll. Incredible aileron turns were possible that would have torn the wings from a Bf 109 and badly strained the arm muscles of any Spitfire pilot trying to follow. The aileron maintained their lightness from the stall up to 400 mph (644km/h), although they heavied up above that speed.

 

The elevators proved to be heavy at all speed and particularly so above 350 mph (563 km/h) when they became heavy enough to impose a tactical restriction on the fighter as regards pull-out from low-level dives. This heaviness was accentuated because of the nose-down pitch which occurred at high speeds when trimmed for low speeds. The critical speed at which this change in trim occurred was at around 220 mph (354 km/h) and could easily be gauged in turns. 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, but above the previously-mentioned critical figure, the changeover called for some backward pressure to hold the Focke-Wulf in the turn.

 

At low speeds rudder control proved positive and effective, and I found it satisfactory at high speeds, seldom needing to be used for any normal manoeuvre. It was when one took the three controls together rather than in isolation that one appreciated the fact that the Fw190's magic as a fighter lay in its superb control harmony. A good dogfighter and a good gun platform called for just the characteristics that this German fighter possessed in all important matters of stability and control. At the normal cruise of 330 mph (530 km/h) at 8000 ft (2400 m), the stability was very good directionally, unstable laterally, and neutral longitudinally.

 

Some penalty is, of course, always invoked by such handling attributes as those possessed by the Fw 190, and in the case of this fighter the penalty was to be found in the fact that it was not at all easy to fly on instruments. Of course, Kurt Tank's aircraft was originally conceived solely as a clear-weather day fighter. It is significant that all-weather versions were fitted with the Patin PKS 12 autopilot. I checked out the maximum level speed of my Fw190A-4/U8- which incidentally, had had its external stores carriers removed by this time- and clocked 394 mph (634 km/h) at 18,500 ft (5640 m), and I ascertained that the service ceiling was around 35,000 ft (10 670 m), so it matched the Spitfire Mk IX almost mile per hour and foot per foot of ceiling. 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 that the AFDU had sought with Armin Faber's Focke-Wulf was its harsh stalling characteristics which limited its manoeuvre margins.

The AFDU comparisons between the Focke-Wulf and the Spitfire Mk IX - with the former's BMW 801 at 2,700 rpm and 20.8 lb (1.42 atas) boost and the latter's Merlin 61 at 3000 rpm and 15lb (1.00 ata)- has revealed that the German fighter was 7-8mph (11-13km/h) faster than its British counterpart at 2,000 ft (610 m) but that the speeds of the two fighters were virtually the same at 5,000 ft (1525 m). Above this altitude, the Spitfire began to display a marginal superiority, being about 8mph (13km/h) faster at 8,000 ft (2440 m) and 5 mph (8km/h) faster at 15,000 ft (4570 m). The pendulum then swung once more in favour of the Focke-Wulf which proved itself some 3 mph (5km/h) faster at 18,000 ft (5485m), the two fighters level pegging once more at 21,000 ft (6400 m) and the Spitfire then taking the lead until at 25,000 ft (7620 m) it showed a 5-7 mph (8-11 km/h) superiority.

 

In climbing little difference was found between the Fw 190 and the Spitfire MkIX up to 23,000 ft (7010 m), above which altitude the German fighter began to fall off and the difference between the two aircraft widened rapidly. From high-speed cruise, a pull-up into a climb gave the Fw190 an initial advantage owing to its superior acceleration and the superiority of the German fighter was even more noticeable when both aircraft were pulled up into a zoom climb from a dive. In the dive the Fw190 could leave the Spitfire Mk IX without difficulty and there was no gainsaying that in so far as manoeuvrablity was concerned, the German fighter was markedly superior in all save the tight turn – the Spitfire could not follow in aileron turns and reversals at high speed and the worst height for its pilots to engage the Fw 190 in combat were between 18,000 and 22,000 ft (5485 and 6705m), and at altitudes below 3,000 ft (915m).

The stalling speed of the Fw 190A-4 in clean configuration was 127 mph (204 km/h) and the stall came suddenly 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.

The stall in landing was quite different, there being intense pre-stall buffeting before the starboard wing dropped comparatively gently at 102 mph (164 km/h).

For landing on this and the numerous subsequent occasions that I was to fly an Fw 190, I extend the undercarriage at 186 mph (300km/h), lowering the flaps 10 deg at 168 mph (270km/h), although the pilot's notes recommend reducing speed below 155 mph (250 km/h) and the applying 10 deg of flap before lowering the undercarriage. My reason for departing from the recommended drill was that the electrical load for lowering the undercarriage was higher than that required for the flaps and German batteries were in rather short supply at Farnborough - that in the Fw190A-4/U8 was most definitely weary- so I considered it prudent to get the wheels down before taxing the remaining strength of the battery further!

 

The turn onto the final approach was made at 155mph (250km/h), and full flap was applied at 149 mph (240km/h), speed then being eased off to cross the boundary at 124 mph (200 km/h). The view on the approach was decidedly poor because the attitude with power on was rather flat and unlike most fighters of the period, it was not permissible to open the cockpit canopy, presumably owing the risk of engine exhaust fumes entering the cockpit. The actual touch-down was a little tricky as the prefect three-point attitude was difficult to attain and anything less than perfect resulted in a reaction from the very non-resilient undercarriage and a decidedly bouncy arrival. If a three-pointer could be achieved, the landing run was short and the brakes could be applied harshly without fear of nosing over.

I was to fly the Fw 190 many times and in several varieties -among the last of the radial-engined members of Kurt Tank's fighter family that I flew was an Fw 190 F-8 (AM111) on 28 July 1945- and each time I was to experience that sense of exhilaration that came from flying an aircraft that one instinctively knew to be a top-notcher, yet at the same time demanded handling skill if its high qualities were to be exploited. Just as the Spitfire Mk IX was probably the most outstanding British fighter to give service in WW II, its Teutonic counterpart is undoubtedly deserving of the same recognition for Germany. Both were supreme in their time and class; both were durable and technically superb, and if each had not been there to counter the other, then the balance of air power could have been dramatically altered at a crucial period in the fortunes of both combatants.”

 

Extract from Wings of the Luftwaffe by Eric Brown, McDonald and Jane's, 1977, p.80 to p.87

[Turban]

Here you go 'Bazza'.  This is what Eric had to say about the 190 in Wings of the Luftwaffe.  It's been posted here before but clearly some of you new guys haven't had the opportunity to read it.  

 

The stalling speed of the Fw 190A-4 in clean configuration was 127 mph (204 km/h) and the stall came suddenly 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.

The stall in landing was quite different, there being intense pre-stall buffeting before the starboard wing dropped comparatively gently at 102 mph (164 km/h).

 

Extract from Wings of the Luftwaffe by Eric Brown, McDonald and Jane's, 1977, p.80 to p.87

 

 

Good stuff. I guess we can stop talking about the stall then. But since this has actually been quoted many times, and always completely ignored, I guess it won't matter this time either.

Edited September 17, 2016 by Turban

[Turban]

 a pull-up into a climb gave the Fw190 an initial advantage owing to its superior acceleration and the superiority of the German fighter was even more noticeable when both aircraft were pulled up into a zoom climb from a dive. In the dive the Fw190 could leave the Spitfire Mk IX without difficulty 

 

Extract from Wings of the Luftwaffe by Eric Brown, McDonald and Jane's, 1977, p.80 to p.87

 

This is the part that interests me the most. This part I think would be worth testing.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

Seeing as folk are quoting Eric Brown lets quote away.

 

“The AFDU trials confirmed what the RAF already knew - that the Fw 190 was a truly outstanding combat aircraft. They also produced vitally important information which went some way towards restoring the situation in so far as the RAF was concerned and in eradicating something of the awe in which the Focke-Wulf had come to be held by Allied pilots. 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' ”

 

Extract from Wings of the Luftwaffe by Eric Brown page 85-87

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

This is the part that interests me the most. This part I think would be worth testing.

Just Proves that the Spit is [Edited] at accelerating. Even the Mk.IX.

 

109>190>Spitfire. 

Edited September 18, 2016 by Bearcat
Profanity

[Wulf]

Good stuff. I guess we can stop talking about the stall then. But since this has actually been quoted many times, and always completely ignored, I guess it won't matter this time either.

 

 

No one is denying that the 190 had rather unpleasant stall characteristics.  And as a consequence the aircraft 'as modeled in the sim' has always been a bit of a handful right on the margins.  We expect and accept that.  But as modeled now the stall is so extreme that almost any abrupt maneuvering will throw it off balance.

 

Notice how Eric Brown at no stage says the 190 was so twitchy and stall prone that it was a complete dog in combat.   Well unfortunately that's what we currently have.

 

Any aircraft can be effective when used to initiate an attack with the advantage of altitude, so bounce people all you like it proves nothing.  What I want to see is the current 190 used effectively in a co-alt/co-energy fight.  So, lets see your online video clips.

[Turban]

Just Proves that the Spit is Shit at accelerating. Even the Mk.IX.

 

109>190>Spitfire. 

Would a Lagg 3 have better acceleration than a Spit Mk IX ? I'd be curious to do the test Lagg Vs FW.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

No one is denying that the 190 had rather unpleasant stall characteristics.  And as a consequence the aircraft 'as modeled in the sim' has always been a bit of a handful right on the margins.  We expect and accept that.  But as modeled now the stall is so extreme that almost any abrupt maneuvering will throw it off balance.

 

Notice how Eric Brown at no stage says the 190 was so twitchy and stall prone that it was a complete dog in combat.   Well unfortunately that's what we currently have.

 

Any aircraft can be effective when used to initiate an attack with the advantage of altitude, so bounce people all you like it proves nothing.  What I want to see is the current 190 used effectively in a co-alt/co-energy fight.  So, lets see your online video clips.

 

"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,[...]."

Edited September 17, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Klaus__Mann

[Gambit21]

I've read "I fought you from the skies" by Willi Heilmann several times - he was an FW 190 pilot with the 'Green Hearts'

It's a great read, and he talks about taking on all sorts of allied aircraft in his "Focke"

 

His description of flying the 190 bears little resemblance to what you guys are describing right now in the sim.

I haven't flow it since last year so I can't comment from experience right now.

[Turban]

Just did a quick test. It's just a quick test, so no scientific value, yet it's interesting.

 

QMB ; Lagg 3 vs FW 190.

Start at 6km (5915m actually). Full throttle, rads cloased for the Lagg. 

Vertical dive till 4000 m starting at 330 km/h. Then level. Then pull vertical.

 

At 4000m, both planes reach pretty much the same speed. (640). Then you pull to level. Then vertical. Again it's pretty close, with the Lagg 3 actually having an edge by the look of it, climbing higher before reaching 330 km/h again.

 

Too bad there is no actual data on aircrafts dive performance..

 

Edit : It seems the FW pulls more Gs and loses more speed when exiting the dive. Yet both planes go from exiting the dive to being level in 1000m.

 

Anyway, it's pretty close.

Edited September 17, 2016 by Turban

[303_Kwiatek]

Some here forgot that before last fm update A3 also got nasty stall characteristic and wasnt easy to fly but good pilot could at least do some more defend manouvers and prevent stall little more. Now nasty stall characteristic became exlarged in that way that most evanse manouvers are near impossible without pernament stall and acceleration is very poor. I dunno if some new fm defenders had flown fw190 before last fm changes because they think that before these plane was easy to handle which is just bs. It never wasnt in BOS

Edited September 17, 2016 by 303_Kwiatek

[Dr_Molem]

Too bad there is no actual data on aircrafts dive performance.

 

Why not an I-15 that outdives an P-47.

 

Oh, too bad we don't have real life comparisons, so we are not in position to say if it's credible or not. 

 

.....

 

I mean, seriously ?

Edited September 17, 2016 by Dr_Molem

[Turban]

Why not an I-15 that outdives an P-47.

 

Oh, too bad we don't have real life comparisons, so we are not in position to say if it's credible or not. 

 

.....

 

I mean, seriously ?

 

Do you have references that indicate what would be the aircraft's performances in a figure like this?

 

They are close. How do you say that's wrong ?

 

When you read somewhere a FW outdives a Spit.. First how does a Lagg compares to a Spit. And what kind of dive was it? 

 

It looks close, it feels close, in the game,  doesn't necessarly mean it's wrong.

Edited September 17, 2016 by Turban

[DD_Arthur]

Agree with this;

 

No one is denying that the 190 had rather unpleasant stall characteristics.  And as a consequence the aircraft 'as modeled in the sim' has always been a bit of a handful right on the margins.  We expect and accept that.  But as modeled now the stall is so extreme that almost any abrupt maneuvering will throw it off balance.

 

Notice how Eric Brown at no stage says the 190 was so twitchy and stall prone that it was a complete dog in combat.   Well unfortunately that's what we currently have.

 

Any aircraft can be effective when used to initiate an attack with the advantage of altitude, so bounce people all you like it proves nothing.  What I want to see is the current 190 used effectively in a co-alt/co-energy fight.  So, lets see your online video clips.

 

and this too;

 

Some here forgot that before last fm update A3 also got nasty stall characteristic and wasnt easy to fly but good pilot could at least do some more defend manouvers and prevent stall little more. Now nasty stall characteristic became exlarged in that way that most evanse manouvers are near impossible without pernament stall and acceleration is very poor. I dunno if some new fm defenders had flown fw190 before last fm changes because they think that before these plane was easy to handle which is just bs. It never wasnt in BOS

 

I like to fly all the planes in this game.  I do not limit myself to one side.  Unfortunately, at the present time the FW190 is simply not worth the effort.  I'm putting that time into the I-16 instead

Edited September 17, 2016 by DD_Arthur