FW 190 D9

[royrayter]

Since we are going to have the FW190-D9 in BoBo,i wonder how it will preform compering to the other planes.

Some say it was the best piston fighter of the luftwaffa.

Since it going to be avialable only in the premium addition i would love to hear the opinion of the knowledgeable people in this forum.

Edited May 13, 2018 by royrayter

[6./ZG26_Custard]

Here is some info that you may find useful?

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190d9test.html

[Willy__]

[edited]

 

17. Spreading false or harmful information about the product is prohibited and will be deleted by forum administration. Claiming ignorance of the subject to justify harmful or obviously untrue info will not be tolerated.
 

2. This forum is provided by 1C-777 Ltd. as a courtesy and its usage is a privilege and 1C-777 Ltd. reserves the right to ban any member temporarily or permanently for any reason at any time. Any penalties listed below for violations of the rules are guidelines only and forum administration may take additional action if they feel it is warranted. Use of the forum is not connected to usage of the game and access to this forum is not guaranteed to users as a consequence of purchasing the game.

 

19. Systematic message spam on the forum, unfounded negative comments about the game, derogatory comparison of the game with other products without pointing out specific flaws, constant distraction of forum administration and developers by repetitive complaints about false problems are prohibited.  

 

Last warning Willy (Steiger)

 

 

Edited May 14, 2018 by SYN_Haashashin
Dev Bias accusation...

[ShamrockOneFive]

The FW190D-9 is my favourite Focke Wulf. Something about the long nose and lengthened fuselage just screams fast to me while the type still has some of the ruggedness of the earlier versions. It's more an emotional interest than one of performance but the D-9 shouldn't be counted out.

 

I see the FW190D-9 as mostly an equal with the late series Allied fighters. Close in speed to the Tempest, P-47, and P-51, it has varying advantages and disadvantages at various altitudes. It still retains most of the sharp handling of the earlier FW190s although I hear that the roll rate declined slightly and the pitch authority may have suffered a bit too. The D-9 has only two MG151/20s and two MG131s but its speed, climb and dive should make up for it. Those were the trade-offs I was always willing to make in the original IL-2 series once the D-9 became available.

 

Should be an exciting plane to fly. It's also an absolutely solid competitor.

[7.GShAP/Silas]

8 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

I see the FW190D-9 as mostly an equal with the late series Allied fighters. Close in speed to the Tempest, P-47, and P-51, it has varying advantages and disadvantages at various altitudes. It still retains most of the sharp handling of the earlier FW190s although I hear that the roll rate declined slightly and the pitch authority may have suffered a bit too. The D-9 has only two MG151/20s and two MG131s but its speed, climb and dive should make up for it. Those were the trade-offs I was always willing to make in the original IL-2 series once the D-9 became available.

 

Should be an exciting plane to fly. It's also an absolutely solid competitor.

 

Wasn't it faster than western fighters?  I always heard it was a speed demon(it certainly looks like one) .

Edited May 13, 2018 by 7.GShAP/Silas

[ShamrockOneFive]

1 minute ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

 

Wasn't it faster than western fighters?  I always heard it was a speed demon(it certainly looks like one) .

 

It's complicated. It's not always faster and not always slower than some of the other western fighters. From what I remember, back with IL-2: 1946 the way that FW190D-9 was modeled and the way the Tempest V was modeled (and these two were MY specialist fighters) there were altitudes where the Tempest was faster and altitudes where the D-9 was faster and usually there was a soft middle with the Tempest where around 2500 meters the D-9 was faster and if I could drag him lower or higher I was faster in a Tempest. Conversely, when flying the D-9 I tried to bring my opponents to that middle altitude.

 

Definitely faster than the Spitfire IX (unless its a +25lb which should even things up).

 

Again, if memory is right, its faster than P-47s at low altitude and not quite as good as the P-47 or P-51 up high.

[[CPT]Crunch]

Well, if you like flying Luftwaffe planes, than its a no brainer, get it.  It is one of the best, and not just Luftwaffe. 

[JtD]

Even if I have to repeat myself, the Jumo213 which powered the Fw190D-9 came in three important configurations:

1750PS emergency power at sea level & 1600PS combat power (early standard)

1900PS increased emergency & 1750PS combat power (increased boost, worked into serial production and field modded into serving aircraft pretty much right after introduction of Fw190D, pretty much complete by the end of 1944)

2100PS special emergency & 1750PS combat power (MW50 injection, fitted into Fw190D late 1944 and 1945)

 

We don't know which version(s) the developers will include. The by far most numerous in the Bodenplatte scenario would be the 1900PS version.

 

The 1750PS don't give the D-9 special performance, it will be about on par with the A-8, in some ways superior, in some ways inferior. For instance a little bit better at higher altitude, a little bit worse at low altitude.

The 1900PS might overall give it a slight edge over the A-8, mostly owing to the higher combat power. Comparing increased WEP, there's still little to chose between A-8 and D-9 down low.

The 2100PS will give it a significant overall advantage over the A-8, at most altitudes, and both at WEP and combat power.

 

Comparing the 1900Ps to the various Allied types would be quite a task, but generally the P-51 is faster and the Spitfire better climbing and turning (both at 18lb boost). Overall, these three could be considered fairly close in performance. While the P-38 and P-47 probably will be outrun, outclimbed and outturned at low altitude, I also wouldn't consider them inferior to the D-9, the advantages are probably marginal. The Tempest, as I expect it, will come with superior speed and climb, pretty much at all altitudes, and will therefore give the D-9 a very hard time.

 

The D-9 is still a aircraft that is considerably different from other types we have. Not just another Bf109 or Fw190A. So if you are interested in playing with something new and technically interesting, get it. It will be competitive enough to have fun with in game. If you just want to have the best dogfighter for an online server, stay with the late 109.

[PikAss]

Performance? When a Bf 109G and Fw 190A have a child together and they call it Fw190D9.

[Haza]

Gents,

 

Well whatever Bodenplatte brings, I for one am looking forward to being able to at least understand the writing/words in either sides cockpits, even if some aircraft will be written in "Merican" English.  Frankly gents, I'm over the VVS aircraft, also!

 

 

Edited May 14, 2018 by Haza

[Custard]

Imagine being so deluded that you think game developers are conspiring to artificially weaken your favourite planes and increase the performance of their own nationalities aircraft. What a bizzare expression of patriotism that would be, to think that people unironically believe in dev b*as is pretty bloody hilarious. Do they picture Jason at his desk ordering P-51 buffs or something? 

 

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

No more bizarre than people assuming that their favorite aircraft was better in some respects than certain data supports; and we certainly see plenty of that in sim community.

[Haza]

Just now, Custard said:

Imagine being so deluded that you think game developers are conspiring to artificially weaken your favourite planes and increase the performance of their own nationalities aircraft. What a bizzare expression of patriotism that would be, to think that people unironically believe in dev b*as is pretty bloody hilarious. Do they picture Jason at his desk ordering P-51 buffs or something? 

 

 

Whether you think people are deluded or not is neither here nor there! However, if people are not happy, then eventually they will get fed-up and move on and only a few will remain as per other games, therefore perhaps Bodenplatte will allow things to be re-set, so to speak, as I for one am looking forward to the move west!  However, I'm sure that eventually the same issues will appear even in Bodenplatte, but perhaps by then Pacific will be round the corner and so the cycle will start again.

 

Regards

[Wolfram-Harms]

As for historical data, we often see different ones for the same aircraft from German and British sources.

Did the German testers exaggerate? Did the Brits make the German planes down? (...and vice versa...)

No, neither, nor...

The German test pilots tested a brand new aircraft in top condition.

The British testers could only fly a plane that was captured and therefor available; an aircraft that had already been in service.

Then they may have tested it under different weather conditions also.
All this will most likely result in differing charts about the same type,

 

I guess that you could have tested 7 Focke-Wulf 190 A-3, or 7 Spitfire Mk.V - and each plane would have a different chart of performance.
So IMHO - whatever we are given as war time pilots - we can only try and make the best of it.

 

 

Edited May 14, 2018 by Wolfram-Harms

[EAF19_Marsh]

7 hours ago, JtD said:

The 1750PS don't give the D-9 special performance, it will be about on par with the A-8, in some ways superior, in some ways inferior. For instance a little bit better at higher altitude, a little bit worse at low altitude.

The 1900PS might overall give it a slight edge over the A-8, mostly owing to the higher combat power. Comparing increased WEP, there's still little to chose between A-8 and D-9 down low.

The 2100PS will give it a significant overall advantage over the A-8, at most altitudes, and both at WEP and combat power.

 

JtD, I always thought that the Jumo gave better power at higher altitude (excuse the vague term), as it was an effort to correct the lower rated altitude of the 801 with regard to operations in the West?

[royrayter]

Thanks for all the replies!

Can't wait to  Bodenplatte.

Will surely get the Dora,its just too beautiful.

Edited May 14, 2018 by royrayter

[-TBC-AeroAce]

D9 is my ultimate 190, it is a sexy beast. I don't care if it is a pig I will fly it a lot but let's be honest it will be good.

[JtD]

2 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

JtD, I always thought that the Jumo gave better power at higher altitude (excuse the vague term), as it was an effort to correct the lower rated altitude of the 801 with regard to operations in the West?

 

Yes, that's true, but it wasn't as large as one would expect. In the early (1700PS) version, this was possibly the only advantage it had over the BMW801D, which at the time already came with increased emergency power.

Comparing just combat rating between the two, the Jumo213A produced about 150PS extra in second charger gear, basically being more powerful at all altitudes above 1000m. However, the BMW801D could compensate for that by using the increased emergency power (cleared for 10 minutes), which the Jumo213A was not cleared for to that extent. At high altitude, this rating produced as much as or even slightly more power than the combat rating did on the Jumo, and significantly more at lower altitudes (300PS advantage at sea level). At early emergency settings, the Jumo would regain a small high altitude advantage in that comparison, but still be inferior below 5km.

With the increased emergency power (1900PS), the story at high altitude remained unchanged, but below 5km the Jumo considerably closed the gap, achieving near parity.

 

Another two things that helped the D-9 at altitude were the external air intake on the D-9, allowing for high ram utilization (increasing full throttle altitude as speed goes up) than the A models with their internal intakes did, and the somewhat lower weight, owing to the lighter armament.

 

All in all it summed up to a noticeable improvement, but it's not as much as say a SpitfireV compared to a SpitfireIX, where the Merlin was given a second supercharger stage. That's a completely different dimension.

[MiloMorai]

10 hours ago, JtD said:

The 1750PS don't give the D-9 special performance, it will be about on par with the A-8, in some ways superior, in some ways inferior. For instance a little bit better at higher altitude, a little bit worse at low altitude.

The 1900PS might overall give it a slight edge over the A-8, mostly owing to the higher combat power. Comparing increased WEP, there's still little to chose between A-8 and D-9 down low.

The 2100PS will give it a significant overall advantage over the A-8, at most altitudes, and both at WEP and combat power.

 

JtD, do you know the manifold boost pressure was for those power outputs?

[s9723]

10 hours ago, JtD said:

We don't know which version(s) the developers will include. The by far most numerous in the Bodenplatte scenario would be the 1900PS version.

 

I wonder if engine gap seal will be added as a choosable modification. This improvement can result in 13-15kph gain in level speed, but it is not introduced into serial production.

Edited May 14, 2018 by s9723

[-TBC-AeroAce]

10 minutes ago, s9723 said:

 

I wonder if engine gap seal will be added as a choosable modification. This improvement can result in 13-15kph gain in level speed, but it is not introduced into serial production.

 

We do not get experiment kit. I'm sure it is just production stuff.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

1 minute ago, AeroAce said:

 

We do not get experiment kit. I'm sure it is just production stuff.

 

How ‘bout them Mc 202 20mm’s!

[JtD]

31 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

 

JtD, do you know the manifold boost pressure was for those power outputs?

Well, yes. You can see them if you follow the link Custard gave in post #2. You need to know, however, that the Jumo213 did not have an automated boost control system like other German engines had. It had a constant air flow control system (below full throttle altitudes). The engine was to be operated according to rpm figures, to which the engine automation selected a fixed air flow and the according fuel flow. Boost was regulated to keep the air flow constant. So as you go up, boost increases up to full throttle altitude, because of the charger being less than 100% efficient. Then we go into the charger gap, where air flow could not be kept constant, and then the second gear kicks in, which results in significantly increased compressed air temperatures, and necessitates significantly higher boost in second charger gear. This way, power output over altitude is more constant than with automated boost controls systems, and the system is a lot simpler.

 

Low blower figures were for 1750PS about 1.55ata, for 1900PS 1.7ata and for 2100PS 1.8ata. Roughly & varying. about 0.1-0.15 higher in second gear.

 

15 minutes ago, s9723 said:

 

I wonder if engine gap seal will be added as a choosable modification. This improvement can result in 13-15kph gain in level speed.

That would be an elegant solution. The engine gap seal apparently was not standard at the front line, but this way we could have it - or not - depending on the preferences of the player.

Edited May 14, 2018 by JtD

[MiloMorai]

Thank you Jtd.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

34 minutes ago, Space_Ghost said:

 

How ‘bout them Mc 202 20mm’s!

 

Was under the impression that they were a field mod ir kit not a one off test kinda thing but happy to be proved wrong.  

 

One thing we defo don't want IMO is a load of one off experimental stuff as it could get silly very quickly.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

7 minutes ago, AeroAce said:

 

Was under the impression that they were a field mod ir kit not a one off test kinda thing but happy to be proved wrong.  

 

One thing we defo don't want IMO is a load of one off experimental stuff as it could get silly very quickly.

 

"Likely standing for Esperimento Cannoni, it was another link between Veltro and Folgore. One aircraft (Serie III, s/n MM 91974) was fitted with a pair of gondola-mounted 20 mm cannon with 200 rounds each (it flew on 12 May 1943); later it was turned into a C.205V. Another four examples were so equipped, but, despite the good results in the trials (aimed to boost the Folgore's firepower), there was no further production, because the cannons penalized the aircraft's performance."

 

5 total MC 202's with 20 mm - all testbeds - never in serial production.

 

Over 1000 serial produced MC 202's only 5 of which were tested with 20 mm's.

Edited May 14, 2018 by Space_Ghost

[-TBC-AeroAce]

Cool that is kinda crazy. What else do we have so far that is similar? 

[SYN_Haashashin]

Since topic is going nowhere good, I am locking it. Wait until the planes are release to speak about their FM in the right section for it.

 

Haash