Flying the Fw 190 A-3 is challenging

[Stig]

The VVS lost most than 3x the aircraft on operations than the Luftwaffe did throughout the conflict, despite the VVS getting better machines in the latter stages and increasing numerical supremacy. The 109 was the mainstay of the Jagdwaffe on the Eastern Front throughout the conflict. The 109 was the main destroyer of the VVS, not the 190.  

[Dr_Molenbeek]

The 109 was the main destroyer of the VVS, not the 190.  

 

Maybe because Fw 190 fighter variants were in low number compared to 109s ? A peak of ~195 planes, in mid-43... Have you thought about that..?

[Dr_Molenbeek]

Interesting, the post of Doc.

 

Especially this part:

 

"in the memoirs of some Soviet front-line pilots contains further indications that the Yak-9D vertical maneuverability was worse than in FW190356. This is confirmed by the results of mock battles between the Yak-9D and captured FW190A-4, held in August 1943 at the Air Force Institute. After these fights pilots "Yakovlev" recommended "to lead the fight on bends" 357; therefore, in the vertical maneuverability Yak-9D obviously lost. And this despite the fact that the "Fokker" to compete with him was, as already noted, defective and flight data yielded typical FW190A-4! Finally, NG Golodnikov - meet, fighting in the 2nd Guards Fighter Aviation Regiment Northern Fleet Air Force, with FW190 from the 14th (Fighter-Bomber) detachment of the 5th Fighter Squadron (February 1944 - 4th Detachment 5 th Attack Squadron) - directly states that "Fockers" "on the vertical were very strong" (although worse than Bf109G) 358!"

 

It changes from late war Soviet pilots who only have fought Fw 190F/G JaBo and said how slow and heavy, easy target was the Fw 190, isn't it ? 

[Wulf]

Maybe because Fw 190 fighter variants were in low number compared to 109s ? A peak of ~195 planes, in mid-43... Have you thought about that..?

 

Yes, Hairy is right.  The 190 was in great demand in the East but demand completely outstripped supply.  It has to be remembered that the number of fighter aircraft available to the Germans for operations in the East was tiny, particularly from '43 when units were being progressively redeployed to the West for the defense of the Reich.

 

According to Mike Spick, by June '44, the Jagdwaffe had a mere '395' single-engine fighters in the East, deployed along a front of more than 1500 miles.  He notes that against these the Soviets deployed about 13000 aircraft, about half of which were fighters.  This changed slightly in Feb '45 when a last ditch attempt was made to slow the Russian advance but, too little too late, as they say.

[JV69badatflyski]

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.

 

 

 

yes there is:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_Dive.pdf

and the translation:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-0022-dive.html and all the needed data...in a lovely graph.

Check you trim in the dive and anticipate the recovery, don't sink the plane and you'll loose less speed...it should be this way IRL

 

and if you test the wurger, do me a favor, set full fuel and tell me what distance does it need to takeoff and reach 20meters. thanks

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

20m?

[Crump]

"Not to let the Speed Drop and avoid prolonged turning dogfights (which means anything more than a 180° turn.)" "Turning times are better than 8-190 and worse than those of 8-109" "Aileron Effectiveness is better than that of 8-109 (and therefore only slightly worse than 8-190)"    Letting the Speed Drop is part of Dogfighting. In combination with the "8-190 accelerates less well [than La-5FN]" I think it's pretty clear that they discourage Manouverfighting to the highest degree.    Our Fw190A-3 is less powerful than the A-8 in that test, Our La-5 is worse to a similar degree to the La-5FN, so the comparison is not 100% off. And since the La-5 was the worst manouvering russian Aircraft and the best climbing, the advice against Yaks and LaGGs would be the same.  Climb Fast and Shallow, avoid Manouvering with the enemy, Hit, Head-On and Run. 

 

 

Where does it mean more than a 180 degree turn?  

 

It just means a "prolonged" turn fight.  Run the math, the FW-190 is ahead of the La-5 in a turn.  It is slightly behind the La-5FN.

 

The best roll rate time of the La-5FN is in the report.  It is 90 degrees a second which about 70 degrees per second behind the FW-190.

 

I think you are reading more into the report than is really there, Klauss.

Letting the speed drop is not part of dogfighting...it is part of dying in any airplane.  All airplanes have working speeds.  The faster working speeds of the FW-190 are an advantage.

 

I do not read anywhere where they are discouraging a maneuvering dogfight at all.  They are telling the pilots they can outmaneuver and outdive the La-5FN so feel free to engage...just do not stay too long in a prolonged turn fight.  

 

What the Luftwaffe combat trials tell me is that the FW-190 holds the level speed, agility, dive, and sustained climb above 3000 meters over the La-5FN series....not the lower performing La-5 in your game.

 

 

 

Our Fw190A-3 is less powerful than the A-8 in that test,

 

The FW-190A3 and FW-190A8 have almost the same power to weight ratio.   Same power to weight ratio as the Spitfire Mk IX Merlin 66 +18, btw.  In fact, the FW-190 has a pretty good power to weight ratio and is on the upper end of the scale beating out such notables as the Yak 3.  Why would you think an aircraft appropriately powered would feel sluggish and heavy?

 

An F-15 is 45,000lbs...you think it feels sluggish when it maneuvers?

Edited September 19, 2016 by Crump

[JtD]

and if you test the wurger, do me a favor, set full fuel and tell me what distance does it need to takeoff and reach 20meters. thanks

Too long right now, it tested this in a previous version and it was OK. With take off flaps and MGFF I'm getting to about 650meters, nearly 100m more than what it should be according to official figures. You can't get her off the ground at the speeds the manual gives.

Edited September 19, 2016 by JtD

[Lusekofte]

The VVS lost most than 3x the aircraft on operations than the Luftwaffe did throughout the conflict, despite the VVS getting better machines in the latter stages and increasing numerical supremacy. The 109 was the mainstay of the Jagdwaffe on the Eastern Front throughout the conflict. The 109 was the main destroyer of the VVS, not the 190.  

True, even the fact that the 190 was better in bad airbase conditions and many other things it was needed in the defense of the reich, most serving in eastern front served as ground attack ac. To get balance in this history we need to have 4 times more Russian planes than Germans . 

 

Personally if people do not understand the theory of combat flight simulator , I think the use of force like Historical reduced number of German planes and pilots. But what I seen in MP , it is still a matter of pilot luck, fuckups, and skills that matter . 

 

There is no simulator today that manage to simulate reality , and this is  very true when it comes to CFS

Edited September 19, 2016 by 216th_LuseKofte

[von_Tom]

Last night in a warm up DF server using AI I watched the AI 190s stall and spin in a lot.

 

Something seems off to me.  Not a lot, but enough to make things very very difficult for anything other than gentle manoeuvres.  Maybe bums on seats and tactlie feedback would have helped but even so.

 

von Tom

[unreasonable]

Last night in a warm up DF server using AI I watched the AI 190s stall and spin in a lot.

 

Something seems off to me.  Not a lot, but enough to make things very very difficult for anything other than gentle manoeuvres.  Maybe bums on seats and tactlie feedback would have helped but even so.

 

von Tom

 

The developers have changed the critical AoA, told us, but not told the AI, would be my guess. Having AI stall and spin occasionally is a good thing, IMHO, RL pilots did do it too. But if it is very (too?) frequent, the question is whether the AI is generic fighter AI that cannot handle a very low critical AoA or is fine tuned for each plane. Do P-40 AI spin out frequently too? They have an even lower critical AoA.

[=EXPEND=13SchwarzeHand]

 

 

Do P-40 AI spin out frequently too? They have an even lower critical AoA.

 

Yes, P-40s spin out at the sight of an enemy. As you said, I also think it´s a generic AI pilot issue.

 

 

 

The FW-190A3 and FW-190A8 have almost the same power to weight ratio. Same power to weight ratio as the Spitfire Mk IX Merlin 66 +18, btw. In fact, the FW-190 has a pretty good power to weight ratio and is on the upper end of the scale beating out such notables as the Yak 3.

 

For the same reason I simply cannot see why people always bring forth the argument of the FW 190 being a heavy - and as a result cumbersome plane. AFAIK it had better power to weight ratio than the 109. I do lack experience in flying both, however I do not get that impression from the feel of the game.

[unreasonable]

Yes, P-40s spin out at the sight of an enemy. As you said, I also think it´s a generic AI pilot issue.

 

 

In that case it needs to be raised over in the AI thread - SP is not much fun if some AI planes, wingmen or enemy, cannot perform basic manoeuvres. I suppose either every AI has to have the limits of the lowest critical AoA, or they know what they are flying and adjust accordingly. The latter much better from a player POV obviously.

[303_Kwiatek]

I think P-40 also got something wrong with wing polar. From game data it has only 14 deg cAoA and low cl max. Russian test irl showed that P40 E turn time at 1km is 19 sec which is better then 109 F4. In BOS P40 turn time is much worse then 109. Im no wonder that AI in P40 or A3 stall and spin freqently. I think both planes got similar issue with wing polar in BOS. Other hand we got Lagg3 which was known from nasty stall characteristic and bad spin behaviour. In the begining of BOS it had but after some update Lagg3 became more easy to handle and lost bad spin characteristic. I didnt saw any complains about these that Lagg3 is much esier to handle and the same less realistic?

Edited September 19, 2016 by 303_Kwiatek

[Stig]

Maybe because Fw 190 fighter variants were in low number compared to 109s ? A peak of ~195 planes, in mid-43... Have you thought about that..?

 

Of cause, that was partly the point, The 190 did very well on the Eastern Front, but it was not there as long and in the same numbers as the 109, and therefore didn't have the opportunity to destroy  as many enemy aircraft. So why would the Russians blame the 190 for their woes? 

[PatrickAWlson]

Of cause, that was partly the point, The 190 did very well on the Eastern Front, but it was not there as long and in the same numbers as the 109, and therefore didn't have the opportunity to destroy  as many enemy aircraft. So why would the Russians blame the 190 for their woes? 

 

The 190 was in Russia starting in '42.  Some of the top scoring pilots in the east flew the 190 including Nowotny, Kittel, and Rudorffer (all 200+ victory aces).  For whatever reason the Germans fielded the 190 more in the west and the 109 more in the east, but the 190 still had a over two years to make an impression.

[Stig]

Like I wrote, the 190 did very well in the East. I could hazard a guess as to why, especially from '43 onwards, that the 190 served mainly in the West: the heavier firepower of the Wurger was likely considered more effective against USAAF heavy bombers compared to the 109. 

[PatrickAWlson]

Like I wrote, the 190 did very well in the East. I could hazard a guess as to why, especially from '43 onwards, that the 190 served mainly in the West: the heavier firepower of the Wurger was likely considered more effective against USAAF heavy bombers compared to the 109. 

Apologies - I misread your post as suggesting that the 190 was not on the eastern front for very long.

Edited September 19, 2016 by PatrickAWlson

[Stig]

All good. 

[Turban]

yes there is:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_Dive.pdf

and the translation:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-0022-dive.html and all the needed data...in a lovely graph.

Check you trim in the dive and anticipate the recovery, don't sink the plane and you'll loose less speed...it should be this way IRL

 

and if you test the wurger, do me a favor, set full fuel and tell me what distance does it need to takeoff and reach 20meters. thanks

 

Would you happen to have that sort of data for other planes like the Lagg or Yak ? That'd be quite interesting

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

31:55

[IVJG4-Knight]

Took a brake of 2-3 months from flying .And now i really like the glass color in fw190.Before i remember it being whitish ,milky .Now it's not so tiring for my eyes to look through it trying to find contacts.

That is more important to me than flight performance.About the fm haven't flown too many hours recently to make an opinion ,but i stall more because of my old pc is stuttering than anything else,it's not so bad.

Edited September 21, 2016 by IVJG4-Knight

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Sorry boys, Han said they checked all of the new documentation and there will be no review of any current FM's. It's in the questions for developers.

[FTC_Etherlight]

Well, if they think this is the final and best possible representation of the aircraft, that's certainly their prerogative, but I sincerely hope they never get the idea of creating a collectors FW again. For their sake and ours. ^^

Edited September 23, 2016 by JG4_Ether

[MasterBaiter]

"It's only emotions" lmao

[150GCT_Veltro]

At least we have got an answer.......

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

Sorry boys, Han said they checked all of the new documentation and there will be no review of any current FM's. It's in the questions for developers.

 

 

With one caveat it seems.

 

Quote from Han~Nope, for now we have no any strongly fact and document supported claims. If they will arise - we will do

 

Due to the many wildly differing sources out there not to mention the personal experiences and thoughts of those that flew the 190 in testing and combat conditions it won't be any easy task to "produce" the 190 that some folks seem to want.

[ACG_pezman]

Took a brake of 2-3 months from flying .And now i really like the glass color in fw190.Before i remember it being whitish ,milky .Now it's not so tiring for my eyes to look through it trying to find contacts.

That is more important to me than flight performance.About the fm haven't flown too many hours recently to make an opinion ,but i stall more because of my old pc is stuttering than anything else,it's not so bad.

 

For those of you who experience this, I had the same issue, but then I tried this:

* Open Windows "Start Menu" and type "regedit"

* Open regedit

* Go to: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Multimedia\SystemProfile

* There will be an entry for network performance throttling, default value is 10; set it to FFFFFFFF hex (willl look like 0xFFFFFFFF to the right of the entry)

* Reboot

 

Explanation:  When windows has a lot of sounds to process it will throttle the CPU in order to facilitate getting the sounds out as fast as possible.  This means critical processing power is diverted from other tasks to process sounds.  As we all know, BOS/M(K?) has issues with sounds rendering because of many issues.  So disabling the throttling of your CPU prevents that power from going to processing sounds.  It has made my game much quicker and eliminated my stutters.

 

I hope this helps those who are suffering this problem because it can be a game killer.  Especially when you are about to engage, that seems to be when it really starts.  Maybe it's engine noises loading or other sounds, but it usually starts to stutter then.

[Hutz]

Well, if they think this is the final and best possible representation of the aircraft, that's certainly their prerogative, but I sincerely hope they never get the idea of creating a collectors FW again. For their sake and ours. ^^

 Have to agree with you here...

 

Well , positive side for me is i save 85 euros for BoM and probably another 50 for BoK...

was hopeful the unrealistic "super"- stall (always over left wing btw....never managed to stall over right) would go along with the wrong 3d-Model of the Cockpit (that BAR!)  ... and the bad spotting distances have been discussed in length here already... plus numerous other issues there are...but under this circumstances im not buying anything from 1c/777 again..

Back to other sims....anyone interested in my BoS?

Edited September 23, 2016 by Zopzodeman

[216th_Jordan]

 Have to agree with you here...

 

Well , positive side for me is i save 85 euros for BoM and probably another 50 for BoK...

was hopeful the unrealistic "super"- stall (always over left wing btw....never managed to stall over right) would go along with the wrong 3d-Model of the Cockpit (that BAR!)  ... and the bad spotting distances have been discussed in length here already...

Back to other sims....anyone interested in my BoS?

 

Well, I flew it some hours today, no superstall here. It stalls, it stalls harshly beyond critical AoA. It stalls frightnigly sometimes, but thats what comes close to what I read from pilots and testpilots accounts. Also I was able to recover from 9 out of 10 stalls I made. I'm not the super FM knowitall guy but this thing is definately flyable and for its sheer weight and wingdesign even believable for me.

On top of that the FW is a very hard plane to model FM wise as it was a problem to model in many sims, and none of those even had a dynamic flight model. The bar btw. is a result of the inability to model refraction in this engine right now. Well, if thats a problem for you, I can understand that.

 

However, good choice of you to pass this on to someone who might appreciate it and does not have the money

[KoN_]

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

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

I am sure many LW  pilots feel the same way ,

 

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

Edited September 23, 2016 by II./JG77_Con

[Hutz]

Well, I flew it some hours today, no superstall here. It stalls, it stalls harshly beyond critical AoA. It stalls frightnigly sometimes, but thats what comes close to what I read from pilots and testpilots accounts. Also I was able to recover from 9 out of 10 stalls I made. I'm not the super FM knowitall guy but this thing is definately flyable and for its sheer weight and wingdesign even believable for me.

On top of that the FW is a very hard plane to model FM wise as it was a problem to model in many sims, and none of those even had a dynamic flight model. The bar btw. is a result of the inability to model refraction in this engine right now. Well, if thats a problem for you, I can understand that.

 

However, good choice of you to pass this on to someone who might appreciate it and does not have the money

Well i never asked for modeling refraction...as seen in the approbiate post over the front window issue of the 190 there is no lower bar visible from pilots view....so why have it in the model? just remove that and its ok....but even that was ruled out...its obvious for me  the devs arent interested in a happy customer base and hate the 190 because its just sitting to deep in their minds it was a bad plane...

im not talking about normal stall behaviour of the 190 , im talking about the behaviour when hard turning and it stalls it violently takes its nose up and is at the next moment flat spinning to earth...

but im not continuing this discussion...

i have seen enough proof that 1c/777 is not interested in a healthy customer base (telling people who complain about to much reflections on skins to go an program their own sim? ...yeah way to go to have happy customers....i have seen enough evidence that this company is not friendly to its cutomers...)

[Nocke]

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

As I understand modelling and the way it's done in this sim, there is most probably not a single parameter "climb rate" to adjust to your wishes. Climb rate is just an outcome of a complex calculation influenced by a lot of parametets.You will have to change other model parameters to modify it, easily then resulting in other side effects people then can start complaining about

[MadisonV44]

Sorry boys, Han said they checked all of the new documentation and there will be no review of any current FM's. It's in the questions for developers.

 

So dev's don't expect me to do any opposition with this plane.

Personal choice, no debate. End of it. Good luck with your data ...

 

I will fly the 109 and when i'll get really bored ... tchao bye ! 

[PatrickAWlson]

And eight pages later, the FW 190 A3 is still challenging - and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

 Have to agree with you here...

 

Well , positive side for me is i save 85 euros for BoM and probably another 50 for BoK...

was hopeful the unrealistic "super"- stall (always over left wing btw....never managed to stall over right) would go along with the wrong 3d-Model of the Cockpit (that BAR!)  ... and the bad spotting distances have been discussed in length here already... plus numerous other issues there are...but under this circumstances im not buying anything from 1c/777 again..

Back to other sims....anyone interested in my BoS?

Oh the Ignorance. 

But I'll take your BoS for a Friend, wanna PM?

Edited September 23, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Klaus__Mann

[ACG_pezman]

So dev's don't expect me to do any opposition with this plane.

Personal choice, no debate. End of it. Good luck with your data ...

 

I will fly the 109 and when i'll get really bored ... tchao bye !

That's too bad Madison, because I doubt that the devs are trying to screw anyone. Every sim that has been made has had a 190 that people say is awful. However, looking at it critically, maybe the pattern is that this is how the 190 performed? If not one sim has ever modeled this aircraft the way a lot of people want it, why is it so hard to come to the conclusion that maybe our expectations are out of line?

 

I don't mind that people are going to stop playing or boycott or whatever. What bothers me is this implied bias on the part of the devs.

 

Besides, when the new theater comes out there will be so many planes of different origins that people will move from axis to allies. Then the 190's performance wont bother as many people. I like to fly it, but I deal with the same obstacles that everyone here does. Hell, I saw Turban dive in on a LaGG and really stick with it through turns, climbs, rolls, etc... finally on the last hard turn the LaGG pulled, 'ol Turban spun out at about 300m and pancaked into the ground. He didn't complain. Pretty sure he knew he was in a territory that the 190 shouldn't be in, but the moves he pulled with it made it look like a damn stable aircraft. And if you can keep positive control of it (big IF) then it is very lethal, just like the aircraft everyone claims it should be. Makes me wonder, is everyone that is complaining making sure to keep their turns coordinated?

[6./ZG26_Custard]

As mentioned in the question to developers section no flight model changes seem likely to take place with the current aircraft unless clear cut evidence is produced to counter the data that they have. Considering there are many sources of the said data and numerous different accounts of the 190 that are available you have to ask yourself who's got the right data.Just having an opinion that the 190 is all wrong just won't cut it. Try adjusting the curves because it genuinely seems to help.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

That's too bad Madison, because I doubt that the devs are trying to screw anyone. Every sim that has been made has had a 190 that people say is awful. However, looking at it critically, maybe the pattern is that this is how the 190 performed? If not one sim has ever modeled this aircraft the way a lot of people want it, why is it so hard to come to the conclusion that maybe our expectations are out of line?

 

I don't mind that people are going to stop playing or boycott or whatever. What bothers me is this implied bias on the part of the devs.

 

Besides, when the new theater comes out there will be so many planes of different origins that people will move from axis to allies. Then the 190's performance wont bother as many people. I like to fly it, but I deal with the same obstacles that everyone here does. Hell, I saw Turban dive in on a LaGG and really stick with it through turns, climbs, rolls, etc... finally on the last hard turn the LaGG pulled, 'ol Turban spun out at about 300m and pancaked into the ground. He didn't complain. Pretty sure he knew he was in a territory that the 190 shouldn't be in, but the moves he pulled with it made it look like a damn stable aircraft. And if you can keep positive control of it (big IF) then it is very lethal, just like the aircraft everyone claims it should be. Makes me wonder, is everyone that is complaining making sure to keep their turns coordinated?

[sarcasm]

No, they are all in a conspiracy to make the look like a normal airplane, not the Piece of Physics Defying Unicorn Rainbow Pooping Magic Broomstick it REALLY was

[/sarcasm]

 

Ingame the stalls are reasonably predicatble, if you stall it's your own fault. If you feel it snapping away, just slightly less elevator input puts it back on track. It's stable at low speeds, and spins are quickly recovered with Neutral Elevator, Positive Aileron and Negative Rudder. 

 

I don't really know what people expect from an Aircraft with some of the Highest Rates of Roll and awesome energy retention and very little drag at high speeds etc. yet they think it should behave like a Yak-1 in a stall. 

Surprise, a Fast Rolling Aircraft will also behave rather snappily when stalled. It's just common sense. I'm surprised by how stable it is in many manouvers. 

 

 

 

 

 

A Satirical Interpretation of the Average 190 Pilot

 

 

 

 

Edited September 23, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Klaus__Mann

[Aap]

Every sim that has been made has had a 190 that people say is awful.

Really? I would say that I have never seen so much complaining about Fw-190 in any other sim.

 

However, looking at it critically, maybe the pattern is that this is how the 190 performed? ... why is it so hard to come to the conclusion that maybe our expectations are out of line?

I guess it is just surprising that such a crap plane was praised by German pilots and so respected by Allied pilots. If a plane is constantly mentioned as one of the best fighters of WWII, it creates expectations of it being kind of good.