Which Wulf?

[=X51=VC_]

With BoK fairly imminent I'm considering my options for expanding my plane set. But I have to say, as someone who's mainly interested in single engine planes and online MP, I'm not that excited by the selection. The collector planes that go with it interest me much more in terms of variety, but then there's the Fw190A-5.

 

I want a Focke Wulf in my line-up eventually, I could just get the A-3 but I want to know how different these planes actually feel. Is the A-5 a straight upgrade or more of a sidegrade? Is the A-3 available and competitive in Kuban scenarios?

[Jade_Monkey]

They don't seem that different to me but the A5 has more interesting kits, especially the ground attack one with extra armor and additional boost.

[ACG_KaiLae]

As stated if you get the A5 you also get the F3.

[Finkeren]

The A5 is worth getting for the U17 outfit with extra armor and boost up to 1.65ATA. It can also close its cowl flaps for a slight increase in top speed.

 

The A3 is arguably a marginally better fighter, it just feels a bit lighter, but it has fewer options for ground attack.

[ShamrockOneFive]

I don't feel a huge amount of difference between the A-3 and the A-5 though the A-5 seems to feel a little "heavier" in its handling. That's not a mark against it either as both are responsive, very crisp in their handling, and quite fast and powerful. As Jade said, the A-5 comes with some interesting options that the A-3 doesn't.

 

There's the bomber killer loadout with 6 MG151/20s (2 cannons in two pods, one under each wing), the U17 fighter-bomber modification with a bunch of differences: Added armor, C3 fuel boost for increase in power at low altitudes, and the ability to sling 8 SC50 bombs in an underwing holder.

 

The Luftwaffe side doesn't have many "new" types in Kuban but they all come with interesting modifications and differences compared to the earlier versions of the same aircraft. The A-5 is among them.

[TP_Silk]

It is heartening that there are now so many good reviews of the FW-190 on the forums. When I first started it was a bit of a pariah, but all the work done to FMs, etc seems to have finally made it into something that folks love.

[354thFG_Leifr]

I love the 190 A-5.

[=X51=VC_]

Hmm, leaning heavily towards the A-3 now based on the above. If the extra boost comes with extra weight I'd rather have the better fighter. Not that fussed about ground attack. Good opinions though, keep them coming!

[Dakpilot]

They are  great  you need them both to cover timeframes online

 

BoK has an interesting set of single engine fighters + some great twin engined stuff, don't restrict yourself 

 

Get BoK while it is still pre-order discount and pick up the A3 later in a sale if you are short of money

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[PatrickAWlson]

I like the A5 better.  If it's a little less nimble I also think it's a little less twitchy and more forgiving.  Plus the kits.

[rolikiraly]

It is heartening that there are now so many good reviews of the FW-190 on the forums. When I first started it was a bit of a pariah, but all the work done to FMs, etc seems to have finally made it into something that folks love.

 

People do seem to love them now, i was really surprised to see so many of them in MP. Sometimes, on later maps (based on my very limited experience), there are maybe more 190s flying around than 109s. 

I'm not sure if it's really that good or there are just too many noobs (like me) who think its speed will save their asses  .

 

Regarding the OP, i don't have the a-5, but on later kuban missions (WoL) there seem to be cases when all a-3s are gone, and still plenty of a-5s are available during the mission. Again, very limited experience here, others will hopefully comment on this more precisely.

Also, not my favourite, but might be something you are looking for:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2FKievcLxk

Edited February 13, 2018 by rolikiraly

[CrazyDuck]

 

 

The A3 is arguably a marginally better fighter, it just feels a bit lighter, but it has fewer options for ground attack.

 

This. 

 

 

 

 

There's the bomber killer loadout with 6 MG151/20s (2 cannons in two pods, one under each wing),

 

 

Don't. Just don't. :D

[Yogiflight]

 

 

If the extra boost comes with extra weight I'd rather have the better fighter.

Plus the extra boost is only available below 1000m, as it was just for the ground attackers to get an additional chance to escape, if attacked by enemy fighters.

[Finkeren]

Yeah the U17 is only for ground attack (it has reduced ammo count for the MG151s as well) but it makes it much much better when attacking targets defended by AAA.

[ACG_pezman]

Hmm, leaning heavily towards the A-3 now based on the above. If the extra boost comes with extra weight I'd rather have the better fighter. Not that fussed about ground attack. Good opinions though, keep them coming!

Don’t underestimate that boost. An La-5F will eat an A3, but can only chase an A5 with boost. Even without the boost the A5 is faster than an A3, so the La-5F would take more time to catch an A5 which might make the difference between life and death.

[Mac_Messer]

Gaming-wise the A5 is a sidegrade as it`s more versatile. Pure performance/maeuverability wise the A3 is better.

The A5 is worth getting for the U17 outfit with extra armor and boost up to 1.65ATA. It can also close its cowl flaps for a slight increase in top speed.

The A3 is arguably a marginally better fighter, it just feels a bit lighter, but it has fewer options for ground attack.

I wouldn`t call it marginal. The official BoX aircraft specs state 11.9 m/s climb for the A5, 12.7 for the A3; max performance turn @3000m 35.5s for A5, 28s for A3.

[=X51=VC_]

Even without the boost the A5 is faster than an A3

 

How much faster?

[Finkeren]

How much faster?

Depends a great deal on how much you can close the cowl flaps, which again depends on temperature and altitude.

 

On summer maps it’s about the same level top speed on the deck. On winter map I’ve got as much as 25km/h more out of the A5.

[=X51=VC_]

Depends a great deal on how much you can close the cowl flaps, which again depends on temperature and altitude.

 

On summer maps it’s about the same level top speed on the deck. On winter map I’ve got as much as 25km/h more out of the A5.

 

Thanks! Seems situational at best.

 

Last question, how is the lock-up at speed? Can you still roll fast enough to pull lead and hit a dodging Yak while you're doing 650km/h?

[Finkeren]

Thanks! Seems situational at best.

 

Last question, how is the lock-up at speed? Can you still roll fast enough to pull lead and hit a dodging Yak while you're doing 650km/h?

If the Yak is doing around 600 himself, yes. If he’s doing 300, no.

 

In general you should avoid situations where you have to pull lead on a better turning fighter. Instead exploit that you’re faster and cut him off and deliver your shot there.

Always think 20sec ahead when flying the 190, then it’s the strongest fighter in the sim.

[Finkeren]

Also: I guess I didn’t really answer the question: The Fw 190 has the best control authority at high speeds of any plane in the sim by far. It only seriously starts to stiffen up around 700km/h and even there it remains perfectly controllable right up to the point where it starts to come apart around 850-900km/h.

 

The Fw 190 is at its best when it’s going fast.

[=X51=VC_]

That is what I meant, roll fast enough to cut him off. Sounds good!

[Finkeren]

The roll rate of the 190 of course is legendary, but we shouldn’t forget how incredibly effective its elevators are. The high wing loading prevents it from pulling as high AoA as a Yak or Spit, but once speed increases you really start to appreciate those elevators and around 600km/h you can turn inside pretty much any plane in the sim (provided they are going equally fast of course)

 

The 190 has so much elevator authority to spare, that you can actually lose one of your elevators and hardly notice at speeds below 450.

[ShamrockOneFive]

At speeds the FW190 is definitely at home. While other fighters are stiffening up the FW190 still has full or nearly full authority. That and the roll rate help make you feel really confident about being able to position yourself for whatever battles are coming up next. The FW190 is not a turn fighter but since they fixed up the FM... I feel that its one of the most agile aircraft in the game. But you have to think bigger and 20 seconds ahead like Finkeren says.

Don't. Just don't. :D

 

I don't consider it a serious loadout but it is hilarious and I will fly it in single player for fun!

Hmm, leaning heavily towards the A-3 now based on the above. If the extra boost comes with extra weight I'd rather have the better fighter. Not that fussed about ground attack. Good opinions though, keep them coming!

 

Just get both!

 

I guess the question is if you're interested in the rest of the Battle of Kuban content. There's some good stuff in there... the map especially.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

It's all "feels" but I have slightly more confidence in the A5. I fly both but recommend the A5 for this reason alone. Remember, you can't fly either of them like a 109. You will only make that mistake once or twice.........

[Panthera]

It's abit annoying we're not getting the historical 1.58/1.65ata clearance for the regular A-5 fighter, esp. considering the VVS getting the La-5FN.

[ShamrockOneFive]

It's abit annoying we're not getting the historical 1.58/1.65ata clearance for the regular A-5 fighter, esp. considering the VVS getting the La-5FN.

 

What date did that 1.65 ATA come online for fighters?

 

The La-5FN isn't a monolithic single model. We're getting a Series 2 which is very firmly within the Kuban battle time period.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Maybe we could get it afterwards because they would make it for the A-8.

 

It's mid 1944. A bit earlier than widespread use of MW50 on 109's.

 

Speaking of 190s, if somewhere in the long future after Pacific we get an Italy campaign expansion, it would be cool to have the A-6 as one of the included planes.

Edited February 14, 2018 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[Finkeren]

The 1.65ATA with C3 injection in low blower gear was cleared for use in fighter bombers in July 1943, which is why it is tied to the U17 configuration in the sim. In reality it wasn’t necesarilly only used on Fw 190F3s with the increased armor protection, but since it was apparently only used on fighter-bombers in 1943, the devs have made this compromise to avoid its use on pure fighters.

 

In August the Fw 190A4 was cleared to be retrofitted with the C3-system.

 

However, use of the 1.65 boost without C3 and at higher altitudes was only cleared for use on the A8 in summer 1944.

 

There is an open debate as to whether or not dedicated Fw 190 fighters were ever fitted with C3 system before 1944 and we have no numbers to show how common the system was even in fighter-bombers.

 

Personally, I think linkning the C3 and extra boost to the U17 is a pretty good compromise, but a counter argument can certainly be made.

Edited February 14, 2018 by Finkeren

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I suspect the F model should be slightly reduced in FM while the FN should be margianllly better than what we currently have with the F - particularly the roll rates. Engines, speeds and climb rates, however, should improve throughout most of the envelope in the FN? (Yes, that is a question.) Gonna be harder, I suspect, to go defensive or run in my Fw pretty soon.

Edited February 14, 2018 by II/JG17_HerrMurf

[Finkeren]

The La-5FN will be better performing overall. Putting another 150hp into a slightly cleaned-up airframe will do that to a fighter.

 

How much remains to be seen. I seriously doubt it will truly dethrone the Fw 190 as the King of low level combat. Low flying 109s are on for a nasty surprise though.

[ACG_pezman]

[...]

 

Speaking of 190s, if somewhere in the long future after Pacific we get an Italy campaign expansion, it would be cool to have the A-6 as one of the included planes.

(emphasis is mine)

 

That is going to be a long future there, because we are already two or three months (new record for this team) behind schedule with no definitive date for Kuban's release... just a season ( before winter ends hopefully).  I doubt we will ever see the pacific in this sim, at least not as a money making expansion, because I don't think the team thinks there is enough of a market for the Pacific campaign to be economical.  At least that is what I see as the reason for dropping it and switching to a late war scenario.

[Finkeren]

I doubt we will ever see the pacific in this sim, at least not as a money making expansion, because I don't think the team thinks there is enough of a market for the Pacific campaign to be economical. At least that is what I see as the reason for dropping it and switching to a late war scenario.

I think you are absolutely wrong there. Both with regard to the market and the intention of the devs to make a PTO title. They have talked far too much about the Pacific for them not to have any intention of doing it.

[ACG_pezman]

I think you are absolutely wrong there. Both with regard to the market and the intention of the devs to make a PTO title. They have talked far too much about the Pacific for them not to have any intention of doing it.

Jason has talked about it, I don’t recall hearin the devs talk about it.

[Finkeren]

Jason has talked about it, I don’t recall hearin the devs talk about it.

I’ve heard BlackSix mention it at least, and I’m pretty sure others have too.

 

Besides, the team itself will normally be deeply mired in the current development projects, so that’s what they’ll talk about. It’s Jason’s job to look ahead to the future.

[ACG_pezman]

I’ve heard BlackSix mention it at least, and I’m pretty sure others have too.

 

Besides, the team itself will normally be deeply mired in the current development projects, so that’s what they’ll talk about. It’s Jason’s job to look ahead to the future.

Well, if it comes out the that would be nice, but I don’t see that happening. When we were informed of the change of plans it didn’t inspire much confidence in me about the pacific. With BoBP, Tank Crew, and the Flying Circus, I see at least six years of development before we would even consider the pacific, and the game is already five years old. When the team did reference the Pacific, there was a lot of “if”, “when”, “maybe”, “one day”, “future”, etc... all these non-committal buzz-words

 

If my experience with the wife holds true, then things aren’t looking good.

[Field-Ops]

Jason obviously sees this current rendition of IL-2 as having a long lifespan. They wouldnt have made it into the Great Battles Series otherwise. From what was last officially said about the pacific Jason is still having information translated and gathered in preparation of the project on the side. He stated that was his bottleneck and what would take much longer than normal for a scheduled development cycle compared to their previous installments. 

 

 

As for the Fw-190s pick up the A3 first. It may even give you the desire for more Fw190 variants. 

[ACG_pezman]

Jason obviously sees this current rendition of IL-2 as having a long lifespan. They wouldnt have made it into the Great Battles Series otherwise. From what was last officially said about the pacific Jason is still having information translated and gathered in preparation of the project on the side. He stated that was his bottleneck and what would take much longer than normal for a scheduled development cycle compared to their previous installments.

 

 

As for the Fw-190s pick up the A3 first. It may even give you the desire for more Fw190 variants.

I agree. But let’s remeber that Jason doesn’t own the company, otherwise he’d have lead it a different direction long ago. He had to get 1C to invest in his dream to buy the name IL-2 Sturmovik. The Kickstarter wasn’t a kickstarter, 1C gave them the money already, the Kickstarter was to gauge interest in the game.

 

Anyway, Jason has to make equitable and economical choices for his backers, 1C, or they will make them. The company is Russian, and if memory serves right, they had the stipulation that the first few installments had to be eastern front, then Jason could move the title in the direction he saw fit... but that didn’t happen and it’s not because they can’t translate documents. Businesses are businesses and all anyone said for years here in these forums was “give us late war and USAAC/RAF aircraft and people will flock like crazy and spend money!” Well seems to me the people with the money agree and changed course accordingly.

 

I believe there is more interest in this community for N. Africa, Italy, 1940 France, and other theaters than there is for the pacific, and I gathered that from reading these forums. Just go where the money is, or where you think it will be.

[Finkeren]

If my experience with the wife holds true, then things aren’t looking good.

Luckily this team seems more devoted to this project than most wives are to their marriage

[Finkeren]

I believe there is more interest in this community for N. Africa, Italy, 1940 France, and other theaters than there is for the pacific, and I gathered that from reading these forums. Just go where the money is, or where you think it will be.

I think you are wrong about this. I think there is great excitement for a PTO title.

 

Personally I’m not a great Pacific fan and would rather see a 1939-40 Sitzkrieg/Battle of France title (or a 1944 Eastern Front one) but I think I’m in the minority. Apart from mid-late war Western Europe (which I’m personally not too excited about either) I think the PTO has the largest fan-base of any theatre in the flight sim community.

Anyway: Back to the Fw 190.