Thoughts on the FW-190s in comparison to BF-109s

[thebusdriver]

I'm curious what you mean by this. I'm not questioning it, I genuinely was hoping you can elaborate as I'd like to better understand this aircraft. I've been enjoying the 109 but haven't had much success in the 190. 

The 190 is very fast - in a straight line.  It dives extremely well, so it gains a lot of speed in a dive, and it's very controllable in a dive (ie, it's easy to turn or roll - compare this to a 109, which gets sluggish in dives).  The 190 can even regain a lot of energy from a dive by climbing out of one at a 20-30 degree angle.

 

What the 190 doesn't do well is retain energy (speed) in turns or accelerate.  So turning after your dive, even pulling out of the dive, causes you to bleed energy.  Also, while doing your zoom climb (the climb after the dive), your heavy airframe works against you - an La-5 or 109 are naturally better climbers, so even though they don't gain as much speed in dives, they still come out better in the zoom climb afterwards due to their superior power:weight ratio and lower wing loading (wing loading is the weight of the aircraft divided by the surface area of the wings.  The higher your wing loading, the more energy you lose in turns).

 

So let's look at two scenarios:

 

1.  109F-4 vs La-5.

2.  190 vs La-5.

 

In scenario 1, the 109F-4 out-climbs, out-accelerates, and out-turns the La-5.  The La-5 can outrun it on the deck and low altitudes.  The 109 approaches the La-5 with altitude, dives down, and forces the La-5 to get evasive.  The La-5 eventually gets beaten down to the deck and the 109 uses its superior energy generation and retention (because it turns better) to maintain an energy advantage.  Even if the La-5 manages to avoid getting hit at all, eventually it ends up on the deck and is forced to run.  It can't reasonably fight against an opponent that turns better, has more energy, and climbs better.  It is faster on the deck, but because the 109 still has an energy and altitude advantage, the 109 can catch up to it and force it to be evasive.  Unless the La-5 is very lucky, or very skilled (and the 109 makes mistakes), this is a kill for the 109.

 

In scenario 2, the 190 is somewhat faster than the La-5, dives better, and rolls better.  The La-5 climbs faster and turns better.  So the 190 dives down on the La-5, and say the La-5 evades.  The 190 pulls up into a zoom climb to regain energy.  During this zoom climb, it gains less altitude (relative to its dive speed) than the 109 would.  More importantly, the 109 could begin to maneuver for another attack pass (with a high, sweeping turn, or even a loop) without losing much energy.  The 190 is going to lose a lot more energy in its turn around or loop over.  The La-5, meanwhile, being a better climber than the 190, has started to cut into the 190's energy advantage.  So where the 109 was capable of building more of an energy advantage after its attack, the 190 is actually going to lose some of it.  After a few passes, unless you damage the La-5 or its pilot panics and makes needlessly aggressive evasive maneuvers (which use up a lot of energy), you will now be in an equal energy scenario.  Unable to turn with the La-5, and with worse acceleration and climb, the 190 has only one option - to run.

Edited November 22, 2017 by thebusdriver

[PatrickAWlson]

Simply put yes. Good pilots will prove to be more difficult targets but you can still carry the day.

 

von Luck

Then I guess it's modeled pretty well .  Since the new FM changes I really like it.  I don't spin and die in half a heartbeat like I used to.  The plane seems controllable, stable, and tough.  It doesn't turn too badly, especially when you introduce a vertical component  (yoyo is much better than flat turn) and roll is outstanding.  

[thebusdriver]

 You're basing your understanding of reality- i.e. what you think happened in 1941-42, on what you observe in the game.  Yes, you can do all of the things you describe, in the game, but in 1942 Fighter Command actually got chased out of France by the 190.  They were forced to suspend fighter sweeps for a time because they were losing so many guys.

 

I haven't seen anything in the game that would justify such behaviour.  If you engage A-3s on even terms in a Spit 5 (i.e. from or above their altitude) the Spit 5 will likely win the engagement.  Do we think Fighter Command, who had been fighting the Luftwaffe since 1939, couldn't work that one out?

 

And for the record, guys like Eric Brown, who flew the 190  as a test pilot, actually describe it as  ... "a dog fighter".

 

Are you sure your read my entire post?

 

In my second point I make it very clear that a small number of 190s can dominate a larger number of Spit5s.

[von-Luck]

The 190 is very fast - in a straight line.  It dives extremely well, so it gains a lot of speed in a dive, and it's very controllable in a dive (ie, it's easy to turn or roll - compare this to a 109, which gets sluggish in dives).  The 190 can even regain a lot of energy from a dive by climbing out of one at a 20-30 degree angle.

 

What the 190 doesn't do well is retain energy (speed) in turns or accelerate.  So turning after your dive, even pulling out of the dive, causes you to bleed energy.  Also, while doing your zoom climb (the climb after the dive), your heavy airframe works against you - an La-5 or 109 are naturally better climbers, so even though they gain as much speed in dives, they still come out better in the zoom climb afterwards due to their superior power:weight ratio and lower wing loading (wing loading is the weight of the aircraft divided by the surface area of the wings.  The higher your wing loading, the more energy you lose in turns).

 

So let's look at two scenarios:

 

1.  109F-4 vs La-5.

2.  190 vs La-5.

 

In scenario 1, the 109F-4 out-climbs, out-accelerates, and out-turns the La-5.  The La-5 can outrun it on the deck and low altitudes.  The 109 approaches the La-5 with altitude, dives down, and forces the La-5 to get evasive.  The La-5 eventually gets beaten down to the deck and the 109 uses its superior energy generation and retention (because it turns better) to maintain an energy advantage.  Even if the La-5 manages to avoid getting hit at all, eventually it ends up on the deck and is forced to run.  It can't reasonably fight against an opponent that turns better, has more energy, and climbs better.  It is faster on the deck, but because the 109 still has an energy and altitude advantage, the 109 can catch up to it and force it to be evasive.  Unless the La-5 is very lucky, or very skilled (and the 109 makes mistakes), this is a kill for the 109.

 

In scenario 2, the 190 is somewhat faster than the La-5, dives better, and rolls better.  The La-5 climbs faster and turns better.  So the 190 dives down on the La-5, and say the La-5 evades.  The 190 pulls up into a zoom climb to regain energy.  During this zoom climb, it gains less altitude (relative to its dive speed) than the 109 would.  More importantly, the 109 could begin to maneuver for another attack pass (with a high, sweeping turn, or even a loop) without losing much energy.  The 190 is going to lose a lot more energy in its turn around or loop over.  The La-5, meanwhile, being a better climber than the 190, has started to cut into the 190's energy advantage.  So where the 109 was capable of building more of an energy advantage after its attack, the 190 is actually going to lose some of it.

This. Precisely what I was trying to put to words.

[thebusdriver]

Wulf, if I'm not mistaken, TheBusDriver is like an F-15 pilot or something. 

 

I don't know what you're seeing in the game, but TheBusDriver's analysis of the 190 certainly matches in every way what me and a lot of other players see.  His advice on how to best use the 190 is spot on.

Maybe that's the other busdriver.  I'm "thebusdriver"

 

I've never flown a real aircraft in my life (well, I took over the yoke of a training Cessna for like 5 minutes once).  I have, however, played flight simulators since Air Warrior on GEnie.  Also, while I understand tactics very well, I have poor gunnery and have trouble tracking black dots on screens, so I tend to fare poorly in 100% realism battles.  I wish flight sim designers would recognize that spotting aircraft in real life is easier than on a screen - the sun glints off surfaces, objects are relatively bigger, etc.  But that's just me.

[thebusdriver]

Can you energy fight in a 190 online - i.e. keep the speed up  and make passes?

Absolutely.

 

You just have to be much more patient and aware than you would be in a 109.  You may need to take longer, more shallow zoom climbs, you'll have to be more gentle with maneuvers, but unless you're fighting an aircraft that can outrun as well as outclimb you (like a La-5FN, La-7, P-51, Yak-3, Tempest, or later model of a P-38), the 190A can use its superior speed to extend, climb ,and come back.  You can even engage in a short series of aggressive turns if you absolutely have to, just be aware that this will leave you in a low-energy state and unless you killed/crippled your opponent, or you have altitude to dive away, you're going to be easy pickings.

 

But if you really want to dogfight in a 190, bring a wingman.  Two 190s can murder multiple slower aircraft.  One of you dives in to attack, the other keeps altitude.  If the attacker is followed, the wingman clears his tail.  Then the initial attacker gains altitude.  The two of you work together to keep the enemy fighters below you.  In severe mismatches - like against LaGGs or Spit5s - you don't even have to particularly worry if a couple of them gain altitude above you (unless they're very close and above you), because they're so much slower and less maneuverable in dives.  I'd argue that two 190s working together are better able to clear the air than two 109s, though this does depend on opposition (again, if the enemy are in P-51s or La-5FNs, you'd be better off in a 109).

[Wulf]

Wulf, if I'm not mistaken, TheBusDriver is like an F-15 pilot or something. 

 

I don't know what you're seeing in the game, but TheBusDriver's analysis of the 190 certainly matches in every way what me and a lot of other players see.  His advice on how to best use the 190 is spot on.

 

 

I'm simply reporting what the AFDU found when they flew an A-3 against a Spit 5 in combat trials.  Their report is available for anyone to read.

[Wulf]

Are you sure your read my entire post?

 

In my second point I make it very clear that a small number of 190s can dominate a larger number of Spit5s.

 

 

Yup, read the whole thing - twice.

 

Some of it I agree with and some of it I don't.  For example, I don't think two A-3s can dominate a larger group of Mk 5s.  That doesn't work because it's only going to take a minute or so before one or two of the Spits develops altitude parity with the A-3s, at which point they're in very serious trouble.  And even if they dive away at that point they'll still potentially be in gun range for the next 2-3 minutes.

, 

If Fighter Command had been facing the same A-3 we have in the game, back in 1942, they could have easily neutralized it by employing top cover over their main force.  And of course they did employ top cover over their main force but they still got chased out of France.  So go figure.

[r153]

 

 

I'm simply reporting what the AFDU found when they flew an A-3 against a Spit 5 in combat trials.  Their report is available for anyone to rea

 

Only thing with that is , everyone knows you can't just jump in a 190 and fly it like a spit 

[thebusdriver]

 

 

That doesn't work because it's only going to take a minute or so before one or two of the Spits develops altitude parity with the A-3s, at which point they're in very serious trouble.

I've honestly never had problems with that.  The Spits still can't catch you at the same altitude, and once they dive to develop the speed necessary, their roll rate goes to shit.  Just go evasive, build some distance, gain some altitude, and come back to whomp them.  Their only option is to fly above 6km.

 

I'm pretty sure Fighter Command was facing a fairly similar A-3.  German pilot accounts spoke of baiting Spitfires to come down low to play.  If the Spits didn't want to, they couldn't do much about the bombers hitting their shipping.  I do think that the 190 should turn retain a bit more energy than it does right now in the game (IMO flight sims do a poor job evaluating the effects of an airfoil - so 190s bleed more energy than they should, and P-51s tend to be able to pull higher AoA than they should because the turbulence sensitivity of a laminar flow wing was more pronounced) - but I don't think there's anything to suggest that 190s could engage in turn fights with Spits.

[von-Luck]

snip

Wulf - try giving this video a gander. It may shed some light on the finer details of flight and specifically turning.

 

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=857s&v=etkqsaYP-nk%5B

 

Edit:

I really suck at embedding links apparently.

von Luck

Edited November 22, 2017 by von-Luck

[Wulf]

Wulf - try giving this video a gander. It may shed some light on the finer details of flight and specifically turning.

 

 

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=857s&v=etkqsaYP-nk%5B

von Luck

 

 

Is that an attempted insult? 

[von-Luck]

Is that an attempted insult?

 

You don't seem to grasp the fundamentals of what is being discussed here and seem to think the plane should behave differently without offering any reason as to why. So No this is not an insult it is merely an offered olive branch and an attempt to show you in a factual way WHY the plane performs as it does. The video in 30 minutes very effectively explains the fundamentals of what happens in flight, how turning works, how wing loading affects turning, and how power to weight factors in. Armed with this knowledge you should be able to come to some reasonable conclusions about why say the 190 isn't a great dogfighter.

 

von Luck

Edited November 22, 2017 by von-Luck

[Wulf]

I've honestly never had problems with that.  The Spits still can't catch you at the same altitude, and once they dive to develop the speed necessary, their roll rate goes to shit.  Just go evasive, build some distance, gain some altitude, and come back to whomp them.  Their only option is to fly above 6km.

 

I'm pretty sure Fighter Command was facing a fairly similar A-3.  German pilot accounts spoke of baiting Spitfires to come down low to play.  If the Spits didn't want to, they couldn't do much about the bombers hitting their shipping.  I do think that the 190 should turn retain a bit more energy than it does right now in the game (IMO flight sims do a poor job evaluating the effects of an airfoil - so 190s bleed more energy than they should, and P-51s tend to be able to pull higher AoA than they should because the turbulence sensitivity of a laminar flow wing was more pronounced) - but I don't think there's anything to suggest that 190s could engage in turn fights with Spits.

 

 

 

 

Hmmm ... it's most unfortunate you weren't around in '42 because you could have easily corrected the obvious errors in judgement made by the test pilots in the AFDU  (who, as it turns out , actually flew a 190 and a Mk 5).   But hey, what would they know.

You don't seem to grasp the fundamentals of what is being discussed here and seem to think the plane should behave differently without offering any reason as to why. So No this is not an insult it is merely an offered olive branch and an attempt to show you in a factual way WHY the plane performs as it does.

 

von Luck

 

 

Why would you be discussing "turning" in a conversation about the fidelity or otherwise of a model of a 190 A-3?  

[Max_Damage]

 

 

Even the early Spit Mk. IX beats the Mk. Vs by about 60 kph. It has over 100hp more powerful engine, as well as a better two-stage supercharger. It also has a better power-to-weight ratio. It was a very significant upgrade on engine power.

 

 

 

Spit IX does something  like 530 kph at deck, quite similar to what we have in out spit V. using time limited engine power. 60 kph advantage over mk5 im not sure. Maybe at altitude? However jabo intercepts happened at deck

Edited November 22, 2017 by Max_Damage

[von-Luck]

Hmmm ... it's most unfortunate you weren't around in '42 because you could have easily corrected the obvious errors in judgement made by the test pilots in the AFDU (who, as it turns out , actually flew a 190 and a Mk 5). But hey, what would they know.

 

Why would you be discussing "turning" in a conversation about the fidelity or otherwise of a model of a 190 A-3?

 

You Sir have been discussing for these many posts how somebody claimed the 190 was a fantastic dogfighter and how spitfires are practically the same performance wise. I am merely disputing that claim by stating the strengths and weaknesses of the planes in question and by factually stating WHY they are good in some ways and not in others. As for spitfire MkV's vs FW's the 190 holds all of the cards in that fight. Unless caught low and slow the 190 can reset the engagement and avoid guns. Good day sir.

 

von Luck

Edited November 22, 2017 by von-Luck

[1_Robert_]

Wulf - try giving this video a gander. It may shed some light on the finer details of flight and specifically turning.

 

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=857s&v=etkqsaYP-nk%5B

 

Edit:

I really suck at embedding links apparently.

von Luck

 

 

I know I'm on the right site when things get heated discussing flight 

[thebusdriver]

Hmmm ... it's most unfortunate you weren't around in '42 because you could have easily corrected the obvious errors in judgement made by the test pilots in the AFDU  (who, as it turns out , actually flew a 190 and a Mk 5).   But hey, what would they know.

You seem to be extremely hung up on pilot accounts of that era, when you have no specific idea of what they might mean when they say "dogfighter" or "turning".  One thing that often gets overlooked is how utterly exhausting a turnfight would be.  Sustained high Gs vs occasional bursts of high G (like from BnZ) could change someone's mind about what makes a good "dogfighter".

 

 

What Brown thinks makes a good dogfighter isn't necessarily what you think, and what I think can be different from that.  Similarly in regards to turning - when a pilot says a kite turns well, does he mean it has good instantaneous turn?  Sustained turn?  Energy retention?  Does he mean the stick forces are light (like in a 190)?  Is he referring to a specific speed?

 

So rather than get obsessed with subjective accounts (that are HIGHLY prone to error - witness the common myth that P-47 pilots had about "bouncing" .50 cals off the ground into the bellies of "Tigers" and killing them), we focus on the physics - wing loading, drag, power, and NACA foil.  And every single sim since the original Air Warrior has the 190 being poor in sustained turns.  So unless you have something other than your specific interpretation of someone else's subjective experience, I doubt you're going to be changing minds.

[von-Luck]

So I'm going to admit to a little foot in mouth here. I think I have missed some of the context to Wulf's argument from a prior post that I needed to re-read. Unless I'm mistaken Wulf has been more of less stating how favourably the SpitV compared to the FWA3 and that the historic context of this was a different sounding account to what you see reflected in game. The SpitV should have been seen as more favorable to the 190 A3 because there isn't as big of a speed delta.

 

That said I feel that the FW can leverage its speed better than the Spit. Where the Spit will run into max dive speed and heavy controls the FW will not suffer from such things. Largely that means the FW can dictate the fight which I'm sure allied pilots hated. I would agree with the WWII statement that the FW is a better fighter mainly on the grounds that it would be difficult to actually engage in the context of how and where they fought and it would be difficult to escape from FW's if you were trying to break contact. For a similar situation consider German pilots late in the war trying to escape from Allied air domminance.

 

Apologies Wulf,

von Luck

[Wulf]

You seem to be extremely hung up on pilot accounts of that era, when you have no specific idea of what they might mean when they say "dogfighter" or "turning".  One thing that often gets overlooked is how utterly exhausting a turnfight would be.  Sustained high Gs vs occasional bursts of high G (like from BnZ) could change someone's mind about what makes a good "dogfighter".

 

 

What Brown thinks makes a good dogfighter isn't necessarily what you think, and what I think can be different from that.  Similarly in regards to turning - when a pilot says a kite turns well, does he mean it has good instantaneous turn?  Sustained turn?  Energy retention?  Does he mean the stick forces are light (like in a 190)?  Is he referring to a specific speed?

 

So rather than get obsessed with subjective accounts (that are HIGHLY prone to error - witness the common myth that P-47 pilots had about "bouncing" .50 cals off the ground into the bellies of "Tigers" and killing them), we focus on the physics - wing loading, drag, power, and NACA foil.  And every single sim since the original Air Warrior has the 190 being poor in sustained turns.  So unless you have something other than your specific interpretation of someone else's subjective experience, I doubt you're going to be changing minds.

 

 

I must be even more obtuse than I imagined but anyway I'll attempt to clarify.

 

1) I haven't at any point suggested the 190 or any other aircraft currently under discussion has a turning issue.  Von Luck raised the turning issue; why exactly I still have no idea,  

 

2) When someone like Eric Brown describes the 190 as a 'dog fighter' I tend to listen because he (God rest his soul) had more experience with both Allied and Axis aircraft than anyone else in the history of aviation.  To argue that EB was wrong or didn't really know what a dog fighter was or some other such thing strikes me as the height of arrogance.  

 

3)The AFDU report on the A-3 and the Mk 5 didn't come about as a result of a bunch of fighter jocks sitting round talking BS about their combat experiences.  It was a full-blown trial by AFDU test pilots.  When it comes to aircraft testing, it really doesn't get anymore serious than that.

 

4) the .50 cals bouncing up off a road into the soft underbelly of a Tiger was never an actual 'thing' in real life, at least as far as I'm aware.  It was a virtual world fantasy thing in some sim or other which is the very point I'm making.  Because something happens in  a sim, doesn't mean it actually happened that way in real life.

So I'm going to admit to a little foot in mouth here. I think I have missed some of the context to Wulf's argument from a prior post that I needed to re-read. Unless I'm mistaken Wulf has been more of less stating how favourably the SpitV compared to the FWA3 and that the historic context of this was a different sounding account to what you see reflected in game. The SpitV should have been seen as more favorable to the 190 A3 because there isn't as big of a speed delta.

 

That said I feel that the FW can leverage its speed better than the Spit. Where the Spit will run into max dive speed and heavy controls the FW will not suffer from such things. Largely that means the FW can dictate the fight which I'm sure allied pilots hated. I would agree with the WWII statement that the FW is a better fighter mainly on the grounds that it would be difficult to actually engage in the context of how and where they fought and it would be difficult to escape from FW's if you were trying to break contact. For a similar situation consider German pilots late in the war trying to escape from Allied air domminance.

 

Apologies Wulf,

von Luck

 

 

No need to apologize but thanks all the same.

Edited November 23, 2017 by Wulf

[von-Luck]

In my defence I got hung up on turning over the Eric Brown statement about the 190 being a "dogfighter". I felt I needed to clarify the 190 needs to be piloted in such a way as to avoid turning most of the time.

 

Anyways

 

I think aspects of the AFDU tests must have been overlooked because under nominal conditions the planes may have similar flight characteristics but these change over the range of speeds. This can have a dramatic effect on the complete aircraft characteristics. Also post war reports on aircraft capabilities often come after planes establish a kind of renown. Often pilots who were fighting knew less about the capabilities of their opponents than we do today and would be affected by moral and other events happening at the time of their conflict that could influence their perception of their opponents.

 

von Luck

Edited November 23, 2017 by von-Luck

[r153]

find a good account of this period :

 

JG26 War diary volume one 1939-42  June 23 1942 page 254

 

Captured A3  vs SpitVb AFDU report German fighter was superior in all flight parameters except turning radius , it's states all statics 25 -30 mph faster and one-minute boost as 418 mph at 21000 feet etc .

Quick violent split-S that would leave a pursuing Spitfire hundreds of yards behind etc 

 

you get the picture 

Edited November 23, 2017 by r153

[BraveSirRobin]

I haven't seen anything in the game that would justify such behaviour.  If you engage A-3s on even terms in a Spit 5 (i.e. from or above their altitude) the Spit 5 will likely win the engagement. 

 

I have.  I was recently with 2 other people who engaged a flight of 3 Spitfires.  It was a slaughter.  The Spits had no chance.  They can't catch 190s and they can't run away.  

 

Yes, I understand that it's a small sample size, but I've been in plenty of other fights in the 190 and I can see exactly why it was so feared.

[3./JG15_Kampf]

We can not forget that the game does not simulate a characteristic that helped much the Fw190 .....fatigue of the pilot.

Another badly simulated thing is the black out. In il2 1946 I used to do a double split S and saw several riders get in black out and go to the ground.

Why does the Fw190 have the seat tilted 15 degrees?

How much would a red-flying pilot handle all those curves?....fatigue.

Think about it

Edited November 23, 2017 by 3./JG15_Kampf

[thebusdriver]

2) When someone like Eric Brown describes the 190 as a 'dog fighter' I tend to listen because he (God rest his soul) had more experience with both Allied and Axis aircraft than anyone else in the history of aviation.  To argue that EB was wrong or didn't really know what a dog fighter was or some other such thing strikes me as the height of arrogance.  

 

Sure, but like I said - "dogfighter" is a subjective statement.  What does he mean by it?  We can't know.  He doesn't define it, and there is no common, agreed-upon definition either.

 

I think what we can agree on is that Brown is not talking about a 1v1 scenario - those were very atypical scenarios during the war.  So he must mean a group battle.  Suddenly the equation changes.  Turning is increasingly less important as fights get bigger.  You don't want to be jerking around in a furball while having 190s, P-51s, or Tempests diving through it and picking off targets.  In that scenario, a 190 could be a good dogfighter.  Probably not so much in a 1v1.

 

 

 

4) the .50 cals bouncing up off a road into the soft underbelly of a Tiger was never an actual 'thing' in real life, at least as far as I'm aware.  It was a virtual world fantasy thing in some sim or other which is the very point I'm making.  Because something happens in  a sim, doesn't mean it actually happened that way in real life.

 

 

It was definitely a real thing.  There was a video (now taken down) of a P-47 pilot talking about it.  Here's the old thread from the ubi forums - https://forums.ubi.com/archive/index.php/t-644954.html - you can see several people commenting, referring to the fact that he was a real pilot.

 

edit: found another copy of the video - 

Edited November 23, 2017 by thebusdriver

[r153]

It was definitely a real thing.  There was a video (now taken down) of a P-47 pilot talking about it.  Here's the old thread from the ubi forums - https://forums.ubi.com/archive/index.php/t-644954.html - you can see several people commenting, referring to the fact that he was a real pilot.

 

 

 

"fake news" Yeah to the Allies , every German tank was a tiger "that was not a tiger"   that has been pointed out a number of times  , hell Allies should have just put 50 cal on there tanks then  

Edited November 23, 2017 by r153

[Wulf]

Sure, but like I said - "dogfighter" is a subjective statement.  What does he mean by it?  We can't know.  He doesn't define it, and there is no common, agreed-upon definition either.

 

I think what we can agree on is that Brown is not talking about a 1v1 scenario - those were very atypical scenarios during the war.  So he must mean a group battle.  Suddenly the equation changes.  Turning is increasingly less important as fights get bigger.  You don't want to be jerking around in a furball while having 190s, P-51s, or Tempests diving through it and picking off targets.  In that scenario, a 190 could be a good dogfighter.  Probably not so much in a 1v1.

 

 

 

 

 

It was definitely a real thing.  There was a video (now taken down) of a P-47 pilot talking about it.  Here's the old thread from the ubi forums - https://forums.ubi.com/archive/index.php/t-644954.html - you can see several people commenting, referring to the fact that he was a real pilot.

 

edit: found another copy of the video - 

 

 

 

Well, actually, as it happens, Eric Brown does define what he means:

 

 

"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."

 

 

And no, killing Tigers with .50 cals, that was never a 'real thing' despite what pilots thought they saw - or in many cases in the late war period, what they were told.  Shooting at a tank as opposed to actually destroying or incapacitating that tank, are two entirely different things.

 

As I recall, post action Allied analysis of  what was believed to be tank kills by cannon armed tactical aircraft found that in most instances the target vehicles had simply run out of fuel and thereafter been destroyed or abandoned by their crews.   So yeah, you can interdict the fuel supplies and render the tank useless that way, but a main battle tank is a main battle tank and for the most part you aren't going to take one down with a heavy cal MG. 

Edited November 23, 2017 by Wulf

[Wulf]

I have.  I was recently with 2 other people who engaged a flight of 3 Spitfires.  It was a slaughter.  The Spits had no chance.  They can't catch 190s and they can't run away.  

 

Yes, I understand that it's a small sample size, but I've been in plenty of other fights in the 190 and I can see exactly why it was so feared.

 

 

I'm not suggesting for a second that 190s can't kill Spits in the game.  They do all the time.  What I am suggesting is that without an initial tactical advantage (speed/alt) it becomes quite difficult.  In my own experience with the game, a Spit 5 with a 1 Km  alt advantage over a 190 is just as dangerous as a similarly advantaged 190.

 

So yeah, I stand by my initial statement.  I haven't seen anything in the game that would justify the Fighter Command decision to suspend fighter sweeps over France due the the 190 menace.

[thebusdriver]

I'm not suggesting for a second that 190s can't kill Spits in the game.  They do all the time.  What I am suggesting is that without an initial tactical advantage (speed/alt) it becomes quite difficult.  In my own experience with the game, a Spit 5 with a 1 Km  alt advantage over a 190 is just as dangerous as a similarly advantaged 190.

 

So yeah, I stand by my initial statement.  I haven't seen anything in the game that would justify the Fighter Command decision to suspend fighter sweeps over France due the the 190 menace.

I completely disagree.  Unless the 190 is slow and on the deck to begin with.  Spitfire roll rates at high speeds are cripplingly bad.  You can easily gain separation with a quick scissors, walk away, get into a shallow climb once you gain distance, and when he breaks (or decides to go into a steeper climb) you climb steeper yourself and come back to whomp him.  I don't fear Spit Mk IX LF models (low fighter with the Merlin 66), unless they're running 25lbs of boost.  Spit5s are just meat.

 

Not fun to fight 1v1, but in a 190, nothing is fun to fight against 1v1.

[L3Pl4K]

How does the 109F4 compare to the 190s in a dive?

Ingame the 109 is equal, in real world the 190 is able to gain separation.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Also our Spit mk V has the later engine regulations which allows it to use +16 boost.

With the Merlin 46 engine at 6000 meters, +12 boost and 3000 rpm (5 minutes) I could manage around 442 km/h IAS (which would be 589 km/h TAS) and with +9 boost and 2850 rpm (30 mins) it could do 419 km/h IAS (556 km/h TAS), this is more representative of a late 1941 Mk Vb.

I don't have the 190 A-3, someone could make the speed test at 6000 meters, Moscow autumn map, to compare both at 1.3 and 1.42 ata. It should be much faster.

 

[BraveSirRobin]

I'm not suggesting for a second that 190s can't kill Spits in the game. They do all the time. What I am suggesting is that without an initial tactical advantage (speed/alt) it becomes quite difficult. In my own experience with the game, a Spit 5 with a 1 Km alt advantage over a 190 is just as dangerous as a similarly advantaged 190.

 

So yeah, I stand by my initial statement. I haven't seen anything in the game that would justify the Fighter Command decision to suspend fighter sweeps over France due the the 190 menace.

You fly alone, right? Try using team tactics like they did in the real world. A group of 190s should slaughter a group of Spits. I see it happen repeatedly.

[Dakpilot]

Until a couple of full squadrons of FW-190's are flown against similar squadron strength period correct Spitfires, all on comms and using correct doctrine and mission intent, (with equivalent of real world training) the idea that the game does not represent properly "Spitfires being chased out of France" is just ludicrous.

 

The P-47 vs Tiger incident is entirely true. But has been misquoted and like all good stories exaggerated over time.

A flight of P-47 spent a fair amount of time suppressing 3 isolated Tiger tanks with no AA support, after knocking one out with bombs (flipping it on its side in a ditch) they then expend all 50 cal ammo on the remaining. "helpless" Tigers aiming for the engine grates and attempting to "bounce shells off the road" into the weaker belly armour in the HOPE of some lucky damage, the pilot mentions that 8 50 cals put out a prestigious amount of firepower.

The mission was a success with the Tigers effectively suppressed and the pinned down friendlies able to complete the assault on a small village in the ardennes area. Pilot was Robert F Dorr of 386th FS

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Wulf]

Until a couple of full squadrons of FW-190's are flown against similar squadron strength period correct Spitfires, all on comms and using correct doctrine and mission intent, (with equivalent of real world training) the idea that the game does not represent properly "Spitfires being chased out of France" is just ludicrous.

 

The P-47 vs Tiger incident is entirely true. But has been misquoted and like all good stories exaggerated over time.

A flight of P-47 spent a fair amount of time suppressing 3 isolated Tiger tanks with no AA support, after knocking one out with bombs (flipping it on its side in a ditch) they then expend all 50 cal ammo on the remaining. "helpless" Tigers aiming for the engine grates and attempting to "bounce shells off the road" into the weaker belly armour in the HOPE of some lucky damage, the pilot mentions that 8 50 cals put out a prestigious amount of firepower.

The mission was a success with the Tigers effectively suppressed and the pinned down friendlies able to complete the assault on a small village in the ardennes area. Pilot was Robert F Dorr of 386th FS

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

 

 

Okay so long story short; they didn't knock out the Tigers with .50 cals.  So actually, not "entirely true".

[Dakpilot]

Okay so long story short; they didn't knock out the Tigers with .50 cals.  So actually, not "entirely true".

The incident was entirely true, the myth that grew around it not.

The two remaining Tigers I believe were disabled/did not play a part in defending the village.

 

However anyone who believed the myth of destroying Tigers with 50 cals should be avoided when on forums

 

but I can concede that more than 10,000 M2 rounds fired at two Tigers unopposed does have a small possibility of some damage

 

Anyway as with most 'legends/myths' they are based on isolated incidents/outliers

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[CUJO_1970]

Wulf, didn't we just kill a couple Yaks (or Spitfires) together just last week? Is that you on DED_Normal server because their is a pilot named Wulf there that flies the 190?

 

We were not on comms together but we were fighting together in FW 190s and those guys had no chance.

[CUJO_1970]

FW 190 is simply not the "classic" style dogfighter. In many cases, it simply doesn't have to be due to it's speed or because it's flying in pairs as a team.

 

I'll be perfectly honest, after being dog-cussed in chat so many times online by irate allied pilots because of using BnZ tactics, I've been dogfighting more with Allied pilots simply as a courtesy to them. I win more than I lose, and it's got me even flying the 109G-2 from time to time.

 

Fight at highs speeds in 190, over 480kph and use fast direction changes. Know when to bug out when you are losing energy and re-position. Re-positioning (or extending) is the point where some allied flyers become irate with you and begin cussing you out in chat .

[Barnacles]

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/tempestafdu.html this page includes combat trials against a 109 g and a 190a. Intrestingly the turning circle of the tempest is stated as pretty much the same as a 190 but slightly better than a 109g. Doesn't mean much without specifics I know.

[bzc3lk]

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/tempestafdu.html this page includes combat trials against a 109 g and a 190a. Intrestingly the turning circle of the tempest is stated as pretty much the same as a 190 but slightly better than a 109g. Doesn't mean much without specifics I know.

2. In order to give a clear picture of the Tempest V it has been compared fully with its nearest stable companion, the Typhoon IB. In addition, tactical comparisons have been made with the Mustang III and Spitfire XIV. Combat trials have been carried out against the Me.109G, FW.190 (BMW)801D and suggestions made for combat with the new FW.190 (DB.603).            

 

What Fw190 flew with Daimler Benz 603?

 

Edited November 23, 2017 by bzc3lk

[Barnacles]

2. In order to give a clear picture of the Tempest V it has been compared fully with its nearest stable companion, the Typhoon IB. In addition, tactical comparisons have been made with the Mustang III and Spitfire XIV. Combat trials have been carried out against the Me.109G, FW.190 (BMW)801D and suggestions made for combat with the new FW.190 (DB.603).            

 

What Fw190 flew with Daimler Benz 603?

 

Are they talking about the Ta152 or assuming the D9 had the DB603? The report is early 1944. Maybe the luftwaffe had tried fitting a DB603 in a 190 and the RAF had intelligence about it?