Help Me Not Regret the FW-190 [ANSWERED]

[Brimstone]

Hello,

 

I have been flying for a while now and have DCS World, ROF, IL2BOS, even the old 2006 IL2.

 

My annoyance comes from the fact that after purchasing the FW-190 (I wanted to try something other than the 109s which I've gotten alright at), it seems nearly impossible to do anything in it. Any touch of the rudder sends it into a spin, and it stalls making turns at 370km/h that the F-4 can make at 290km/h (I've checked).

And not using the rudder results in even more stalls and horrible turns. I can't make this thing turn like everything else can.

I do know that I am not pushing the rudder too far, since my favorite plane in ROF is the Dr.1 and I imagine most of you here know that that thing can really use a rudder.

 

Does anyone have any tips or advice or anything to help me overcome the FW? I am persistent, and want to get as good at it as I am in the F-4 at least (I'm not a good pilot in general.)

 

Thanks

VF

Edited December 12, 2016 by VinylFlyer

[ShamrockOneFive]

Your going to want to read this Dev Update to understand the state of the FW190 right now: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/168-developer-diary/?p=412855

 

In short, there are some issues with a semi-recent flight model update and that is accounting for some of the difficulty you're experiencing. In March the FW190A-5 for Battle of Kuban will be arriving and along with the A-5 model will be a fairly extensive flight model update for the FW190A-3 as well.

 

That doesn't mean that you can't do well in the FW190A-3 and anything you learn now will be helpful later as well. You'll need to be really aware of your controls and have a sensitive touch on all 3 axis. Plan out your maneuvers and your attacks on enemy fighters in greater detail than you would in a Bf109. Fly according to your own attack path and anticipate the enemy and where they will be before, during and after your attack. These are all helpful types of strategies to use with the FW190 no matter what. Its not a turn fighter and it doesn't like a high alpha situation. Its even more sensitive now than it will be but its still an aircraft with a lot of power, a fair bit of weight and some fairly small wings designed for speed over turn.

 

One way to get to know the FW190 is to fly it in fighter-bomber configuration. Fly those kinds of missions at first and get to know the 190 as a fighter second. That worked for me anyways... Not everyone is going to work that way but it certainly helped me button things down a bit.

[Gambit21]

I'm doing fine with it - just keep the speed up and go easy with the inputs. Takes some adjustment but it wasn't long before I was just flying the plane and not thinking about it. Going Jabo with it is good advice.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

My newest analogy is it is like driving a racing sidecar vs a bunch of super bikes. It can be super fun but all of your turns have to be set up well in advance, it's better if you bring a friend and if you're too aggressive in a turn it''ll flip ya.

[JG13_opcode]

[Edited] .................................. they're fixing it in an upcoming patch.

Edited December 15, 2016 by Bearcat

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Don't really need to rehash that. Anyone who flew it, outside of a couple obvious trolls, knew it was somewhere between slightly off and very off.

 

It is being revamped. To the OP, there are several posts regarding how to fly the current iteration to good effect. You can visit them or wait for the update and a probably much improved ship.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Tootin my own horn a bit but this thread was pretty good through the first three or four pages before it fell apart like all 190 threads do.

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/21891-how-do-you-fly-190not-fm-discussion/

Edited December 8, 2016 by II/JG17_HerrMurf

[Lusekofte]

[Edited].......  but they're fixing it in an upcoming patch.

 

Well you where, acted like the investments had made your kids go without food for month and rendered it totally useless. And anyone disagreeing was:

 

[Edited]

 

The FW 190 is the best fighter bomber in this game.  

Edited December 15, 2016 by Bearcat

[Finkeren]

The Fw 190 is off, no denying that.

 

That said it is far from useless. It is quite fast (especially on the deck where it really count against the Soviet fighters), it handles very nicely inside its flight envelope, it is rather sturdy and is very heavily armed.

 

Don't ever expect it to be much of a turn-fighter though, not after the FM revision either.

[ElPerk]

Use it as a heavy-duty Jabo. It will kill bombers, it will destroy trains and emplacements with cannons, it's fast and it's sturdy. In some MP servers it can even carry 250 and 500kg bombs - that makes it a really great strike plane that can damage or outright destroy smaller targets. 

At the moment it's not very good a dogfighter (in other sims and earlier in BoS too the 190 is surprisingly agile due to roll rate, it is like riding an anaconda on acid), but it's very well armed, can take a beating and has good visibility. Keep your speed up and you are quite dangerous.

 

[Legioneod]

I've never had much problem with the 190, she is twitchy but it's manageable.

 

I'd recommend that you don't fly it like a 109 (not saying you are) I use the 190 for BnZ and quick attacks, I try not to get into a turn fight with it. Also, try and stay around mid alt and not too low to the ground because if you get into a situation that you can't handle just dive away.

[No601_Swallow]

I've never had much problem with the 190, she is twitchy but it's manageable.

 

I'd recommend that you don't fly it like a 109 (not saying you are) I use the 190 for BnZ and quick attacks, I try not to get into a turn fight with it. Also, try and stay around mid alt and not too low to the ground because if you get into a situation that you can't handle just dive away.

 

Personally, I agree with that. I'd aso add that it's easy to fly - a real pleasure. Most of the grunt work of watching dials and monitoring temps just don't apply (usually). It's great fun, and when I get into that cockpit, it always makes me delude myself that I'm a bit of a badass.

[ElPerk]

And seriously if you're regretting the 190A-3 you have one of the meanest-looking and most beautiful planes with super-aggressive lines and with a huge radial strapped on front and also more cannons and BUTTONS so you shouldn't be regretting even if the plane was not airworthy at all

[Guest deleted@50488]

There are only two fighters I still have to "master" in il2 ( flying, not combating with because that's a different story... )

 

One is the P-40, the other is the G2... I have been successfully using the Fw190A3, and although I look forward for the FM update, I believe that practice, and actually setting my joystick axis back to linear ( in pitch, using 20 % for rudder ) has helped making me learn how to even be able to dogfight for a couple of turns before losing all of my energy...

 

I actually pick the 190 most of the time when I play Axis. It's probably my Axis equivalent of the LagG3 which is still my preferred VVS fighter in IL2 :-)

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

Don't ever expect it to be much of a turn-fighter though, not after the FM revision either.

Should become awesome in high speed fights with it's quick changes of direction and direct control responsiveness, which should result in the fastest turning capabilities while at high speed, from the current flight setup. Indeed there it was really only second to the P38-L in the entire war. 

However if you were refering to the low-speed turn-n-burn style, that's indeed not the best playing field for the 190. 

[RAY-EU]

Next year I hope they will fix the Fw190 A3 and live the Fw 190 A5 in battle of Kuban ... Thanks developers for the future right fix .....

 

For me like they resell like the Fw190 A4 for 20€ but we need the Fw190 A3 (A4) Now ! My IL2 next year wish ! .

 

Thanks Developers ! Now , For the future Update ! Very Good ! ( We hope !)

 

Ah ! And the Bf 109 g2 would need a development fix , please if could be realice in the bf109 g4 !? & This is my IL2 Christmas wish .

 

(Germany planes are Underperformed) and others overperformed . Many forums comments about FM , DM ...

 

Thanks for good futere fix .

[JG13_opcode]

Well you where, acted like the investments had made your kids go without food for month and rendered it totally useless.

I personally did not but yes, some did try to claim it was totally useless. Usually the same crowd that talks about yak copters and how Soviet aircraft have infinite energy

And seriously if you're regretting the 190A-3 you have one of the meanest-looking and most beautiful planes with super-aggressive lines and with a huge radial strapped on front and also more cannons and BUTTONS so you shouldn't be regretting even if the plane was not airworthy at all

This.

 

It's pretty sexy.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

Another 190 thread.........

 

[Asgar]

[Edited]

 

NO....   

Edited December 15, 2016 by Bearcat

[Irgendjemand]

OP: Just wait until March (FM revision). Just wasted nerves.
Wanna have fun fly every other plane but this one.

In march i hope however the FW will not only be my favorite WWII fighter in RL but also in this game.

Edited December 8, 2016 by Irgendjemand

[6./ZG26_McKvack]

Certain forum members tried very hard to make it seem as though the 190 was modeled correctly, and that anyone who disagreed was just a crybaby, but they're fixing it in an upcoming patch.

 

It was because most of these people were ignorant and just a bunch of [Edited] to other members and to the devs as well and most did not have any constructive feedback other than "Fw-190 is UP and needs to be buffed" like we are playing WT. Devs even said numerous times that if someone has some good information, pm them and they will look into it. Finally someone got some good info and they listened. All the useless whine on the forum comparing a Fw-190 to an F-16 were called crybabies 

Edited December 15, 2016 by Bearcat
Language

[[CPT]Pike*HarryM]

Make sure also to adjust your curves, really helps not stall out with minimal stick movement.

 

Bismarck's video...

[Lusekofte]

Personally I have never said it is correct , I just said I like it very much because I have only used it as Jabo. I think it got a lot to do with my joystick and yoke. I had a 737 yoke before and it worked 1 to 1, now I have this

Also work 1 to 1

In other words I have to move the stick as much as the stick moves in game. I think this is one of the reasons I was the only one in my old squad getting it off ground when it was released. I found it easily controlled. I haven't had any issues what so ever flying it. A desktop joystick I can imagine is more prone to exaggerate movements. I have of course noticed much the same described after testing it, but to me for mu usage non of it has been a issue. The developers have said they are going to change it FM and we should be hopeful it will be fixed. The 190 discussion is way too polarised , it is really a great asset to axis side in my point of view. Far better than IL 2 witch I normally fly when it comes to surviveability. It can after a ground attack shoot down enemy bombers with ease. Just do not turnfight with it.  Because  if you fly slow and turning I will be dangerous in my IL 2

[Brimstone]

Your going to want to read this Dev Update to understand the state of the FW190 right now: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/168-developer-diary/?p=412855

 

In short, there are some issues with a semi-recent flight model update and that is accounting for some of the difficulty you're experiencing. In March the FW190A-5 for Battle of Kuban will be arriving and along with the A-5 model will be a fairly extensive flight model update for the FW190A-3 as well.

 

That doesn't mean that you can't do well in the FW190A-3 and anything you learn now will be helpful later as well. You'll need to be really aware of your controls and have a sensitive touch on all 3 axis. Plan out your maneuvers and your attacks on enemy fighters in greater detail than you would in a Bf109. Fly according to your own attack path and anticipate the enemy and where they will be before, during and after your attack. These are all helpful types of strategies to use with the FW190 no matter what. Its not a turn fighter and it doesn't like a high alpha situation. Its even more sensitive now than it will be but its still an aircraft with a lot of power, a fair bit of weight and some fairly small wings designed for speed over turn.

 

One way to get to know the FW190 is to fly it in fighter-bomber configuration. Fly those kinds of missions at first and get to know the 190 as a fighter second. That worked for me anyways... Not everyone is going to work that way but it certainly helped me button things down a bit.

 

I'll check that out, thank you for the most helpful post.

 

Tootin my own horn a bit but this thread was pretty good through the first three or four pages before it fell apart like all 190 threads do.

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/21891-how-do-you-fly-190not-fm-discussion/

 

I'll check that out :D

 

Use it as a heavy-duty Jabo. It will kill bombers, it will destroy trains and emplacements with cannons, it's fast and it's sturdy. In some MP servers it can even carry 250 and 500kg bombs - that makes it a really great strike plane that can damage or outright destroy smaller targets. 

At the moment it's not very good a dogfighter (in other sims and earlier in BoS too the 190 is surprisingly agile due to roll rate, it is like riding an anaconda on acid), but it's very well armed, can take a beating and has good visibility. Keep your speed up and you are quite dangerous.

 

 

 

Yes I've found it's speed and firepower the most favorable aspects of it.

 

I've never had much problem with the 190, she is twitchy but it's manageable.

 

I'd recommend that you don't fly it like a 109 (not saying you are) I use the 190 for BnZ and quick attacks, I try not to get into a turn fight with it. Also, try and stay around mid alt and not too low to the ground because if you get into a situation that you can't handle just dive away.

 

"I'd recommend that you don't fly it like a 109 (not saying you are)" Oh I almost definitely am haha, and I spent most of my recent time on the deck too. I'll work on BnZ

 

And seriously if you're regretting the 190A-3 you have one of the meanest-looking and most beautiful planes with super-aggressive lines and with a huge radial strapped on front and also more cannons and BUTTONS so you shouldn't be regretting even if the plane was not airworthy at all

 

YES I'm not the only one who thought that!

 

Should become awesome in high speed fights with it's quick changes of direction and direct control responsiveness, which should result in the fastest turning capabilities while at high speed, from the current flight setup. Indeed there it was really only second to the P38-L in the entire war. 

However if you were refering to the low-speed turn-n-burn style, that's indeed not the best playing field for the 190. 

 

Noted, thanks.

 

Another 190 thread.........

 

-snip-

 

Sorry...

 

Make sure also to adjust your curves, really helps not stall out with minimal stick movement.

 

Bismarck's video...

-snip-

 

I'll check this out too.

 

Thank you everyone!

Edited December 8, 2016 by VinylFlyer

[Sgt_Joch]

whoa!

 

so I have been spending time getting to know the 190. I have to say that even in its current form, it is an impressive AC, easy to fly, easy to turn and position for an attack (as long as you keep your speed up and are smooth) and as long as you fly high/fast, impossible for Soviet ACs to touch. It is certainly easier to turn than the il-2 1946 190 that would stall without warning.

 

Now on the proposed change to increase the Cl max. from 1.17 to 1.3-1.4, what exactly will that do? I am no expert, but from what I read I presume it will give the AC a slightly better turn rate and instantaneous climb rate? However, l am guessing it will still be out-turned by Soviet fighters?

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

However, l am guessing it will still be out-turned by Soviet fighters?

Yes for sustained turning (Mig should be pretty equal).

No for sharp high-speed turns. 

[Crump]

Certain forum members tried very hard to make it seem as though the 190 was modeled correctly, and that anyone who disagreed was just a crybaby, but they're fixing it in an upcoming patch.

 

+1 

[Edited]

 

 

Wow....

 

I think you do not know the entire story or realize the "politics" of your games developers.

Edited December 15, 2016 by Bearcat

[Monostripezebra]

If you are regretting getting the 190, you can always fly P40!

 

that makes you love the 190 again ;=P

[Brimstone]

If you are regretting getting the 190, you can always fly P40!

 

that makes you love the 190 again ;=P

I actually don't have any of BoM. I've been wishing I had the spare cash to snag the P-40 ever since it first came out, even though I'd also love to get the whole BoM package. I've flown it in the IL-2 1946, and it was decent. I am a fan of the American machine guns, but German auto-cannons are always my favorite.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Ok, my little [Edited] of Comparative Testing. 5tuka and I made a little Low Alt Drag Race 190 v. Yak-1b s.127. Now this was without Ammo on a Racing Server in Winter. 

 

With Yak at Full Power and 190 at 1.3 ata there was no difference in acceleration. Only at 1.4ata could the 190 outrun the Yak. 

 

In a climb at 1.3 ata and 400kph the Fw190 could not outclimb the Yak, in fact the Yak caught up and overtook the 190 once above 2500m in 2nd Gear. 

 

We were quite surprised. 

 

Surely you must understand why the term "Nigglet" is highly offensive. Give it some thought.

Edited December 16, 2016 by Bearcat

[Sgt_Joch]

Ok, my little [Edited] of Comparative Testing. 5tuka and I made a little Low Alt Drag Race 190 v. Yak-1b s.127. Now this was without Ammo on a Racing Server in Winter. 

 

With Yak at Full Power and 190 at 1.3 ata there was no difference in acceleration. Only at 1.4ata could the 190 outrun the Yak. 

 

In a climb at 1.3 ata and 400kph the Fw190 could not outclimb the Yak, in fact the Yak caught up and overtook the 190 once above 2500m in 2nd Gear. 

 

We were quite surprised. 

 

not sure why you are surprised.

 

according to German sources, climb time for the FW 190 A3 from 0-5 km is around 6 minutes, 20 secs. Higher than 2.5km, climb rate drops to 12.5 m/s.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a3-climb-speed-26-11-42.jpg

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a3-sheet-26-11-42.jpg

 

according to Russian flight tests, climb time for the 1943 Yak-1 from 0-5 km is 5.4-5.6 minutes.

 

http://ram-home.com/ram-old/yak-1improv.html

Edited December 16, 2016 by Bearcat

[II./JG77_Manu*]

not sure why you are surprised.

 

according to German sources, climb time for the FW 190 A3 from 0-5 km is around 6 minutes, 20 secs. Higher than 2.5km, climb rate drops to 12.5 m/s.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a3-climb-speed-26-11-42.jpg

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a3-sheet-26-11-42.jpg

 

according to Russian flight tests, climb time for the 1943 Yak-1 from 0-5 km is 5.4-5.6 minutes.

 

http://ram-home.com/ram-old/yak-1improv.html

 

Climb time of the 190 A3 to 5000m was between 5.5-6.0 minutes, depending on the source you look at. No idea where you got the 6:20 from

Edited December 16, 2016 by II./JG77_Manu*

[Sgt_Joch]

my mistake, I should have taken the time to re-calculate, instead of relying on my memory, it is actually 6 minutes, 10-15 seconds to 5 km.This is from FW's own flight tests and performance data:

 

 

see here also:

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a3-datasheet-29-11-42.jpg

 

all tests can be found here:

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a3.html

 

I don't know why this issue keeps coming up, it has been discussed ad infinitum

 

[II./JG77_Manu*]

my mistake, I should have taken the time to re-calculate, instead of relying on my memory, it is actually 6 minutes, 10-15 seconds to 5 km.This is from FW's own flight tests and performance data:

 

 

see here also:

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a3-datasheet-29-11-42.jpg

 

all tests can be found here:

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a3.html

 

I don't know why this issue keeps coming up, it has been discussed ad infinitum

 

The calculations are wrong. xx,y m/s is just a calculated approximation from real life altitude/time tests. 

 

When you want factual evidence, you should check how long they really needed to reach a certain altitude in real life tests.

Like this one for example http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw-190-a3-glctt-30july42.pdf

[Sgt_Joch]

The calculations are wrong. xx,y m/s is just a calculated approximation from real life altitude/time tests. 

 

no, those are taken from the actual flight tests I linked above. I will link them again:

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a3-sheet-26-11-42.jpg

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a3-climb-speed-26-11-42.jpg

 

which was summarised by FW in this data sheet which matches exactly the above flight test:

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a3-datasheet-29-11-42.jpg

 

which also exactly matches with what the RAF lists as the FW factory performance figures:

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a-chart-7oct43.jpg

 

 

When you want factual evidence, you should check how long they really needed to reach a certain altitude in real life tests.

Like this one for example http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw-190-a3-glctt-30july42.pdf

 

well no, that is not a flight test report. That is a report by the RM, i.e. Goering's HQ, of the preliminary flight estimates of what the A-3 could achieve. Without that actual flight tests, it is useless in modeling the AC.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

no, those are taken from the actual flight tests I linked above. I will link them again:

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a3-sheet-26-11-42.jpg

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a3-climb-speed-26-11-42.jpg

 

which was summarised by FW in this data sheet which matches exactly the above flight test:

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a3-datasheet-29-11-42.jpg

 

which also exactly matches with what the RAF lists as the FW factory performance figures:

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a-chart-7oct43.jpg

 

 

 

well no, that is not a flight test report. That is a report by the RM, i.e. Goering's HQ, of the preliminary flight estimates of what the A-3 could achieve. Without that actual flight tests, it is useless in modeling the AC.

 

First link doesn't tell anything about 5000m.

 

Second link shows exactly 6min.

 

Third link i can't read anything, way to small.

 

RAF sheet was a broken 190 that was flown with 1.34 ata, and doesn't tell anything about absolute times or altitudes either, only rates again.

 

So the only source(=chart) you linked really telling anything about climb time to 5000 is the one graph showing 6.0m to 5000m.

 

Edit: Just found your 3rd link in bigger, readable. There you can clearly see - even if not a lot - that the line at 5000m is left of 6min (meaning less then 6min time)

 

Alongside my source it is exactly what i told in the first place

->

 

Climb time of the 190 A3 to 5000m was between 5.5-6.0 minutes, depending on the source you look at.

Edited December 16, 2016 by II./JG77_Manu*

[Sgt_Joch]

First link doesn't tell anything about 5000m.

 

Second link shows exactly 6min.

 

Third link i can't read anything, way to small.

 

 

So the only source(=chart) you linked really telling anything about climb time to 5000 is the one graph showing 6.0m to 5000m.

 

Edit: Just found your 3rd link in bigger, readable. There you can clearly see - even if not a lot - that the line at 5000m is left of 6min (meaning less then 6min time)

 

well I can't help it if you can't do basic math calculations.

 

look at the chart and results, it is not difficult to calculate the climb rate for all altitudes: i.e. 16-17 m/s up to 1.25 km, average 14.25 m/s from 1.25 km to 2.5 km, 12.5 m/s over 2.5 km = around 6 mins to reach 5 km.

 

from the result for 4 km, i.e 4.8 mins, it is easy to calculate the time to 5 km since we know the climb rate is 12.5 m/s.= around 6 mins to reach 5 km.

 

 

RAF sheet was a broken 190 that was flown with 1.34 ata, and doesn't tell anything about absolute times or altitudes either, only rates again.

 

totally agree, but  the broken down 190 is clearly shown on the left as a solid line in comparison with the FW factory figures (broken lines) which match up with the FW factory figures and the test of the FW 190 Aa-3.

 

The RAF figures are shown in feet/min. but when you convert into m/s, it matches up perfectly.

 

 

 

Alongside my source it is exactly what i told in the first place

->

 Did you even bother to read your link? like the title?

 

why do you think every result is an exact number? i.e. exactly 2 mins to reach 2 km, exactly 3 mins to reach 3 km, exactly 6 mins to reach 5 km? They are not test results, they are estimates. We have no idea where those numbers came from.

Edited December 16, 2016 by Sgt_Joch