Fw-190D-9 Current Flight model.

[SOLIDKREATE]

So, I did a bit of reading tonight on the Fw-190D-9. I, like many, many others felt this aircraft's performance was a little skewed. I just took on up and from 5000m I dove straight down until the needle went well passed 700kph. I'd venture to say 800~900kph. Well above the speed this aircraft would shake and buffet from what I just read. I also did a hard bank at 400mph (converted) out of a dive and very little black out occurred, just a little grey and it went away really fast. Do that in a Tempest and it's instant sleepy time and death. P-51D, you'll stall and flat spin with no warning and go to sleep.

 

Judge for yourselves. I think there's some work to be done. Especially on the roll rate compared to the P-51D and P-38J. I'm just delivering data from an actual source. 

 

*Notifications are off for me in this post. No insults will be read. Enjoy your day.

 

 

 

 

[HandyNasty]

You give 1 document as source and base all your conclusions based on that sole reference. The truth is that this is not really solid evidence for the points you raise. For example, in this case:  the Dora was flown in 1946 by the brits or americans (report from 20 May 1946), hence my question : where was the Dora originally taken from? In what state? What amount of repairs, if any, were effectuated to the tested Dora for these tests? In the document it states ""f. Trim and stability :  [...] an apparent defect in rigging in this particular airplane"  . Also : "The hydraulic system for operating the coolant flap operated poorly and was very difficult to operate"  . Also : "Failure of the gear to retract and flaps to extend was a common occurrence"  . 

 

These sentences make me suspect that the tested Dora was in a sub-optimal shape. I could argue that, for example, the buffeting from 375mph onwards was due to the condition of this particular Dora, and wouldn't have been present in a 'best-case Dora'. I could extend this argument further and claim that all info in this report should be taken with a grain of salt. 

 

To know with more certainty, we'd need more sources, preferably by different testers, on Dora's whose conditions are known fully. And ideally, results should come with numbers (e.g. roll rate of X degrees per sec at Velocity V) and not in vague phrases like "at 375mph onwards, elevator forces in turns become quite heavy". How on earth can the developers use the information "elevator quite heavy" ? Even the sentence "But it cannot match the rate of roll of the P-38J*", which uses the strong word "cannot" is useless, since it doesn't give numbers.

 

 

So to conclude, I'll respond to your sentence "Judge for yourselves. I think there's some work to be done. Especially on the roll rate compared to the P-51D and P-38J. I'm just delivering data from an actual source. "

- I judged. It didn't pass my standards. 

- I think there is work to be done : yes I have the same opinion, but not due to your post * 

- I'm delivering data from an actual source : My 3 paragraphs here above are an explanation of why this is not the case. 

 

* See post here : 

 

[Honza]

1 hour ago, =FSB=HandyNasty said:

You give 1 document as source and base all your conclusions based on that sole reference. The truth is that this is not really solid evidence for the points you raise. For example, in this case:  the Dora was flown in 1946 by the brits or americans (report from 20 May 1946), hence my question : where was the Dora originally taken from? In what state? What amount of repairs, if any, were effectuated to the tested Dora for these tests? In the document it states ""f. Trim and stability :  [...] an apparent defect in rigging in this particular airplane"  . Also : "The hydraulic system for operating the coolant flap operated poorly and was very difficult to operate"  . Also : "Failure of the gear to retract and flaps to extend was a common occurrence"  . 

 

These sentences make me suspect that the tested Dora was in a sub-optimal shape. I could argue that, for example, the buffeting from 375mph onwards was due to the condition of this particular Dora, and wouldn't have been present in a 'best-case Dora'. I could extend this argument further and claim that all info in this report should be taken with a grain of salt. 

 

To know with more certainty, we'd need more sources, preferably by different testers, on Dora's whose conditions are known fully. And ideally, results should come with numbers (e.g. roll rate of X degrees per sec at Velocity V) and not in vague phrases like "at 375mph onwards, elevator forces in turns become quite heavy". How on earth can the developers use the information "elevator quite heavy" ? Even the sentence "But it cannot match the rate of roll of the P-38J*", which uses the strong word "cannot" is useless, since it doesn't give numbers.

 

 

So to conclude, I'll respond to your sentence "Judge for yourselves. I think there's some work to be done. Especially on the roll rate compared to the P-51D and P-38J. I'm just delivering data from an actual source. "

- I judged. It didn't pass my standards. 

- I think there is work to be done : yes I have the same opinion, but not due to your post * 

- I'm delivering data from an actual source : My 3 paragraphs here above are an explanation of why this is not the case. 

 

* See post here : 

 

Yet he still delivered more than you. I would love to see actual official german tests on dora, numbers, trials, etc. Wait, there is almost none as basically all was lost and few remaining can be marked as unreliable like you did with this one. Yet we have them ingame acting like planes built with US quality... at the end of war while being built by forced labour that did everything possible to somehow sabotage the bloody things. Not to mention it was extremely possible, that this dora was in WW2 state which they found it in = poor, like all other german stuff they built in 45, yet we have UFO planes based on few hardly believable numbers and not real planes that were built. As total majority of docs for them and planes themselves did not survived and known truth is, that quality of german stuff produced in 45 was terrible and many planes had wooden-fabric control areas that diminished their maneuverbility at higher speeds. Nothing of that is present ingame, even though its simulator and it should simulate the state of planes at their respective dates = poor russian planes at early dates and poor state of planes of germans at the end of war. Here, we have atleast report of test pilots that flew the bloody thing and they had to repair it and check it if they wanted the pilots to survive the flight. 

Edited November 3, 2020 by =DMD=Honza

[Creep]

5 minutes ago, =DMD=Honza said:

...its simulator and it should simulate the state of planes at their respective dates...

it sounds like you are saying that this game should simulate failures due to build quality. it's a simulator, but do you want guns to jam more on german planes than american planes? doesn't sound like it would be much fun were that the case.

[Honza]

20 minutes ago, QB.Creep said:

it sounds like you are saying that this game should simulate failures due to build quality. it's a simulator, but do you want guns to jam more on german planes than american planes? doesn't sound like it would be much fun were that the case.

For example, P38J would have jammed 20mm pretty often if shot at high Gs (not that often as mk108 as US hispano was quite reliable at the time of J25 version), 30mm in german planes same thing. And i want these things. I dont want to see high G snapshots from cannon planes as its not realistic and game is not simulating massive drawback of mk108 that jammed at high Gs. And this allows planes using cannons shoot under certain circumstances in which they were not able to in real life. Jamming should be in game and simulated as best as possible. The ones shooting at high Gs from cannons should be punnished by realism where the cannons jammed. Partially due to terrible state of ammo quality and belt links up to bad quality of guns themselves. Not like they need 30mm anyways with current state of all HE rounds. I do want to have high % chance to spawn into D9 / K4 with wooden-fabric controls, i want selectable MW-50 as it was not available to all planes at all dates. I want random malfunctions in turns, etc. and i want it in all planes not only german ones but german ones should represent their true state in 2WW not that fancy unrealistic stuff we do have. Atlest gun jamming, MW50 and control surfaces if nothing more to really simulate stuff that mostly fought. 
 

Spoiler

https://books.google.cz/books?id=nvHGDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA134&lpg=PA134&dq=MK108+jamming&source=bl&ots=yNg2qHP_ZV&sig=ACfU3U3ycmHvQ_YJopFgSNmfws9l3SXgCA&hl=cs&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjbmt6Q5ebsAhUM3hoKHVzRBAY4ChDoATADegQIARAC#v=onepage&q=MK108 jamming&f=false

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=n7xvCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT147&lpg=PT147&dq=It+was+not+that+the+MK+108+was+a+bad+weapon+as+far+as+cannon+go.+On+the+contrary,+it+was+one+of+the+most+advanced+weapons+of+it's+type+to+be+placed+into+production,+but+it+jammed+frequently&source=bl&ots=r4YrlpVDFI&sig=ACfU3U146s7YuMYtXAAl3Tz6V_QgCrISFw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjO1YGXzLDgAhUKVRUIHQaEDskQ6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=It was not that the MK 108 was a bad weapon as far as cannon go. On the contrary%2C it was one of the most advanced weapons of it's type to be placed into production%2C but it jammed frequently&f=false

https://books.google.cz/books?id=SN7vCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT10&lpg=PT10&dq=MK108+jamming&source=bl&ots=t-5G7JwyFv&sig=ACfU3U1rk9o6QMANBjQIFOePWXsbcbsa8Q&hl=cs&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjbmt6Q5ebsAhUM3hoKHVzRBAY4ChDoATAEegQICBAC#v=onepage&q=MK108 jamming&f=false

 

Edited November 3, 2020 by =DMD=Honza

[GOA_Karaya_VR]

 

[Honza]

@GOA_Karaya_CRI*VR* And we can find countless of videos with USAAF pilots describing P51s as fastest and most maneuverable planes they've ever seen.  He said its better dogfighter than 109.... right.... better dogfighter than plane with much better low speed characteristics, better TWR and turning characteristics. I can post P51 pilot claiming that 51 was best of best dogfighter and claim that he is right and it was unsoppable turning/speed machine...this video -  "i can outmaneuver all my opponents".  is absolutely same thing.

 

Edited November 3, 2020 by =DMD=Honza

[357th_KW]

With regard to the dive speed limits, there’s definitely two different schools of modeling in game.  Some aircraft are quite strictly held to their manual limits while others can wildly exceed theirs.  

 

[Creep]

29 minutes ago, =DMD=Honza said:

For example, P38J would have jammed 20mm pretty often if shot at high Gs (not that often as mk108 as US hispano was quite reliable at the time of J25 version), 30mm in german planes same thing. And i want these things. I dont want to see high G snapshots from cannon planes as its not realistic and game is not simulating massive drawback of mk108 that jammed at high Gs. And this allows planes using cannons shoot under certain circumstances in which they were not able to in real life. Jamming should be in game and simulated as best as possible. The ones shooting at high Gs from cannons should be punnished by realism where the cannons jammed. Partially due to terrible state of ammo quality and belt links up to bad quality of guns themselves. Not like they need 30mm anyways with current state of all HE rounds. I do want to have high % chance to spawn into D9 / K4 with wooden-fabric controls, i want selectable MW-50 as it was not available to all planes at all dates. I want random malfunctions in turns, etc. and i want it in all planes not only german ones but german ones should represent their true state in 2WW not that fancy unrealistic stuff we do have. Atlest gun jamming, MW50 and control surfaces if nothing more to really simulate stuff that mostly fought. 
 

  Reveal hidden contents

https://books.google.cz/books?id=nvHGDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA134&lpg=PA134&dq=MK108+jamming&source=bl&ots=yNg2qHP_ZV&sig=ACfU3U3ycmHvQ_YJopFgSNmfws9l3SXgCA&hl=cs&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjbmt6Q5ebsAhUM3hoKHVzRBAY4ChDoATADegQIARAC#v=onepage&q=MK108 jamming&f=false

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=n7xvCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT147&lpg=PT147&dq=It+was+not+that+the+MK+108+was+a+bad+weapon+as+far+as+cannon+go.+On+the+contrary,+it+was+one+of+the+most+advanced+weapons+of+it's+type+to+be+placed+into+production,+but+it+jammed+frequently&source=bl&ots=r4YrlpVDFI&sig=ACfU3U146s7YuMYtXAAl3Tz6V_QgCrISFw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjO1YGXzLDgAhUKVRUIHQaEDskQ6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=It was not that the MK 108 was a bad weapon as far as cannon go. On the contrary%2C it was one of the most advanced weapons of it's type to be placed into production%2C but it jammed frequently&f=false

https://books.google.cz/books?id=SN7vCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT10&lpg=PT10&dq=MK108+jamming&source=bl&ots=t-5G7JwyFv&sig=ACfU3U1rk9o6QMANBjQIFOePWXsbcbsa8Q&hl=cs&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjbmt6Q5ebsAhUM3hoKHVzRBAY4ChDoATAEegQICBAC#v=onepage&q=MK108 jamming&f=false

 

i understand your preference and i respect it, however i think you are in the minority when it comes to this level of realism. i do not believe it is desirable for most players - they will see it solely as a frustration. to me it is akin to saying that german pilots should black out at a lower G tolerance because they were less experienced, malnourished, or exhausted from flying non-stop sorties.

 

just look at the anthropomorphic controls from clod - they were a waste of dev resources because the vast majority of players hated it and turned off the feature.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

5 hours ago, VA_SOLIDKREATE said:

I also did a hard bank at 400mph (converted) out of a dive and very little black out occurred, just a little grey and it went away really fast. Do that in a Tempest and it's instant sleepy time and death. P-51D, you'll stall and flat spin with no warning and go to sleep.

 

Did you watch the G indicator on the HUD to apply equal acceleration?  The pilot physiology model is the same unless equipped with anti-g suit. The Tempest turns very well at high speed thanks to its high elevator authority, so it's likely that you simply performed a sharper turn. The P-51 is known to bite under certain conditions.

 

5 hours ago, VA_SOLIDKREATE said:

I think there's some work to be done. Especially on the roll rate compared to the P-51D and P-38J. I'm just delivering data from an actual source. 

 

The comparison to the P-80 and P-38 isn't very useful because it doesn't specify any conditions. At high speeds, the P-38 in Great Battles indeed rolls faster than the D-9. I'm not convinced that there is a contradiction.

[Bremspropeller]

This is what Bill Marshall's dad (Maj. Bert Marshall, last CO of the 355th FG in theater, Ace) thought about the whole Dora vs P-51D thing.

 

Four 355th ace pilots flew a Dora against each other's Mustangs after the war:

 

 

 

 

I'd say they're modelled just fine. The only issue I have is the hot torque on the Dora, which probaly is a tad overdone.

[JG1_Wittmann]

@=DMD=Honza      I think  the difference between  the 2 commenting on 109's capabilities should be obvious.   Anderson never flew the 109.    Krupinski flew the 109 and the D9 in combat   so out of the 2, his is the only direct  expert opinion.   The fact that he shot down 197  AC  vs  Andersons  16  might also factor in .

 

The question I have  about the D9's flight model,   is why does the engine billow  smoke  at a throttle setting  way below combat power ,  marking it and  making it much easier to spot from afar.  I think this reason is a big factor on why it's not more often.

[Bremspropeller]

6 minutes ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

The question I have  about the D9's flight model,   is why does the engine billow  smoke  at a throttle setting  way below combat power ,  marking it and  making it much easier to spot from afar.  I think this reason is a big factor on why it's not more often.

 

The engine automatically switches from a lean mixture below 2700RPM to a rich mixture above 2700RPM.

Hence the dark exhaust smoke.

 

Add 10 to the throttle position figure to get in-game throttle-percent:

 

 

 

 

You need to realize that using 87 octane orange-juice and MW50 boost, the aircraft attained pretty similar performance numbers to a P-51 running on 150 octane gas with a lower drag airframe.

Edited November 3, 2020 by Bremspropeller

[GOA_Karaya_VR]

2 hours ago, =DMD=Honza said:

@GOA_Karaya_CRI*VR* And we can find countless of videos with USAAF pilots describing P51s as fastest and most maneuverable planes they've ever seen.  He said its better dogfighter than 109.... right.... better dogfighter than plane with much better low speed characteristics, better TWR and turning characteristics. I can post P51 pilot claiming that 51 was best of best dogfighter and claim that he is right and it was unsoppable turning/speed machine...this video -  "i can outmaneuver all my opponents".  is absolutely same thing.

 

 

From a pilot view who had 197 victories and fought in both (Bf 109/Fw190 and even 262 ) some truth must have in his words when he speaks about the Fw190 D9.

[357th_KW]

How many victories did he score while flying the D9?  None as best I can tell.  And his claims against the western allied fighters were 16 or 17, all while flying 109’s.  To claim that one guys observations and opinions are valid while the others aren’t would be ridiculous.

[JG1_Wittmann]

Was the mixture  a static # ,  or was it set up to adjust  automatically on a sliding basis ?     Why would  you  have an AC billow  black like that when  it's  probably one of the best engineered engines  in the war.   If you billow black,  you are burning too rich  and not  producing full power,  why would you hamper your own performance  on a plane that needs little management ?  This is gasoline,   not diesel.  too rich,  less power

[Bremspropeller]

1 minute ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

Was the mixture  a static # ,  or was it set up to adjust  automatically on a sliding basis ?     Why would  you  have an AC billow  black like that when  it's  probably one of the best engineered engines  in the war.   If you billow black,  you are burning too rich  and not  producing full power,  why would you hamper your own performance  on a plane that needs little management ?  This is gasoline,   not diesel.  too rich,  less power

 

Because Black is Beautiful

 

[JG1_Wittmann]

I didn't say Anderson's  opinion wasn't valid.  It is valid, but the lack of experience of flying compared to  Krupinski  has got to be considered a factor, as well as the fact that he did not fly either AC.   I'm not replying that the D9 or P51 was the Better AC,   I am replying that when someone of Krupinski's caliber and experience, that has flown both AC  109  and D9,   if he says the D9 was a much better Dogfighter,  then who has the experience in both types that  disagrees with this

@Bremspropeller ,   You just reinforced my point  somewhat.  Jets, burning JP5  at high power  will smoke alot more on acceleration.    Just hit a stoplight with a moron that thinks he's cool doing a cold-roll.   The problem is,  JP5   is  just like diesel,    not gasoline.

[Bremspropeller]

They're not burning JP 5 - that's Navy gas. IIRC it's JP 4 and nowadays JP 8. Both of which is close to Jet A and Jet A1. You're right that jet fuel is closer to diesel.

The reason for the black exhaust is water-injection, which leads to incomplete combustion (soot), but better cooling and better mass-flow. If you tweak the fuel-injectors for hotter (leaner) mixtures, the soot will go away, but it will burn through your hot-section quicker.

 

The rich mixture on the Jumo was probably for cooling, as leaner (read stochiometric) mixtures tend to burn hotter/ hottest.

There are some engine dudes on here, who'll probaly come up with a good explanation.

 

Maybe @ZachariasX ?

 

[Gambit21]

4 hours ago, =DMD=Honza said:

@GOA_Karaya_CRI*VR* And we can find countless of videos with USAAF pilots describing P51s as fastest and most maneuverable planes they've ever seen.  He said its better dogfighter than 109.... right.... better dogfighter than plane with much better low speed characteristics, better TWR and turning characteristics. I can post P51 pilot claiming that 51 was best of best dogfighter and claim that he is right and it was unsoppable turning/speed machine...this video -  "i can outmaneuver all my opponents".  is absolutely same thing.

 

 

Anderson is a good guy (I’ve spoken with him) but he is like most WWII pilots in that he suffers from survivor’s bias. Most 190 pilots that found out the Mustang could best them died, just as most Mustang pilots that found out a 109 or 190 could best their Mustang died.

 

By all rights Anderson should have died in his “straight up fight” hanging there like a kite, but he got lucky that no other German was around to punish him for this tactical error. He lived to tell the story of what was in truth, a move that made him a juicy target. Same thing happened all over the place on both sides. 

[ZachariasX]

12 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

The rich mixture on the Jumo was probably for cooling, as leaner (read stochiometric) mixtures tend to burn hotter/ hottest.

There are some engine dudes on here, who'll probaly come up with a good explanation.

 

Maybe @ZachariasX ?

Yes, in high performance engines, you go from a "rich" mixture to a "rich-rich" mixture to use the fuel as a temperature sink. That means both the efficiency of your burn goes south as well as you are throwing out all that extra fuel just for cooling and this produces a lot of smoke. Your engine loses twice the mileage. This is permissible as any sane person is not asking mileage when he's shoving the throttle beyond a structurably tolerable level.

 

The German engines are especially prone to smoke, as they run on lesser fuel (at the same octane rating), meaning you have to maintain a richer mixture to obtain specified power goals )at higher power settings). Making the engines bigger (in displacement and strenght) helps to offset this effect a bit.

 

Regarding turbojets, those smoke trails are just what you get from insufficent government regulations. As long as it is legal to produce a lot of dirt, you care more for easy solutions that produce your power specifications. Even if they stink. But in all cases, that smoke is lost mileage, fuel that could have been burned productively. In short, it is a sign of a coarsely designed engine.

 

[Bremspropeller]

3 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Regarding turbojets, those smoke trails are just what you get from insufficent government regulations. As long as it is legal to produce a lot of dirt, you care more for easy solutions that produce your power specifications. Even if they stink. But in all cases, that smoke is lost mileage, fuel that could have been burned productively. In short, it is a sign of a coarsely designed engine.

 

In earlier times, there was no technology to run the hot section hotter (more efficiently).

Today, the high pressure turbine of a modern jet engine operates a temperatures close to or in excess of the static melting temperature of the alloy used and a lot of the efficiency-gains are coming through just increasing the temperature in the turbine.

Keep in mind that the HPT is running at double-digit-thousand RPM, so a bit of residual strength is required, so a turbine blade will not exit the engine at virtually infinite kinetic energy*.

Modern cooling technology allows this by blowing a film of compressor bleed-air through holes in the single-crystal blades, to shield the blades from the hot exhaust-gas.

 

It helps that turbine blades don't need to be absolutely up to specs considering shape, so you can run them at aerodynamically deteriorated conditions (as long as there aren't any dangerous cracks) for quite some time. In the compressor, by contrast, a small nick in the wrong place might take away all your surge-margin at once...

 

/Jet engine trivia.

___

* That's the containment consideration of those beasts: You just can't.

[ZachariasX]

15 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

In earlier times, there was no technology to run the hot section hotter (more efficiently).

Sure, power in jet engines is all about managing heat.

 

But you can put out some incentives. Incentives work.

[Blackhawk_FR]

As we are talking about the Dora and as some people know what they are talking about ( @ZachariasX ? ), here is a question I have since a long time:

What's the technical reason of the slow responsiveness of the engine when we apply full throttle (ATA and RPMs increase slowly, compare to most of other aircrafts of the game).

Thanks.

[ZachariasX]

17 minutes ago, JG300_Faucon said:

What's the technical reason of the slow responsiveness of the engine when we apply full throttle

If you asked me, I have no idea and I am equally surprised.

 

I would guess it is due to how the game simulates the Kommandogerät. It can either be a limitation on how fast it can regulate prop pitch, or that prop pitch is preceding power application such that the engine struggles to rev up.

 

At least in the Spitfire, pitch and power respond not much unlike you have in your Extra. Non-aspirated and supercharged engines react fast on throttle inputs, the Merlin is no different.

 

Maybe AnP can enlighten us why he thinks it takes so long.

[CUJO_1970]

This aircraft I believe had the wrong wings attached, and/or was poorly rigged when it was rebuilt stateside after shipping. “poor handling” was never a hallmark of any FW-190 series aircraft, outside of accelerated stall. 

Does OP understand difference in IAS and TAS? All aircraft of the era had heavier than normal controls in the 380-400 mph range.

 

Finally, I’ve never once read about slow throttle response with this aircraft. It was direct fuel injected and proper functioning KG has no problem with rapid throttle changes - quite the opposite most allied pilots were quite impressed with the rapid throttle response on German aircraft.

 

It amazes me how many people think since it’s a German aircraft it should be some crappy handling dog. Eric Brown considered the D-9 to be one of the three best fighters of WW2, and most German pilots considered it to handle as good or better than the A-series 190.

[Blackhawk_FR]

16 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

Finally, I’ve never once read about slow throttle response with this aircraft. It was direct fuel injected and proper functioning KG has no problem with rapid throttle changes - quite the opposite most allied pilots were quite impressed with the rapid throttle response on German aircraft.

 

Do you have any data/sources about this? 
I would like to open a discussion about it. 

[JV69badatflyski]

16 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

This aircraft I believe had the wrong wings attached, and/or was poorly rigged when it was rebuilt stateside after shipping. “poor handling” was never a hallmark of any FW-190 series aircraft, outside of accelerated stall. 

Does OP understand difference in IAS and TAS? All aircraft of the era had heavier than normal controls in the 380-400 mph range.

 

Finally, I’ve never once read about slow throttle response with this aircraft. It was direct fuel injected and proper functioning KG has no problem with rapid throttle changes - quite the opposite most allied pilots were quite impressed with the rapid throttle response on German aircraft.

 

It amazes me how many people think since it’s a German aircraft it should be some crappy handling dog. Eric Brown considered the D-9 to be one of the three best fighters of WW2, and most German pilots considered it to handle as good or better than the A-series 190.

Yep, the D9 tested (now in the NASM) had the D13 wings! So, yes, it's certainly a factor in the bad review and if we add that ailerons must be set using specific measurements and methods...
That's why the Tamiya D-9 1/48 has wrong wings as tamiya scanned the D-9 present at Nasm...with the wrong wings 

the exchange of wings was done somewhere at the start of the 2000's , the D-13 at flying heritage received it's wings back from the nasm and gave it's own wrong D9 wings to them.

As for the heavy controls, please check the dive test WWIIaircraftperformance.
 

[JtD]

WRT to the responsiveness of the Jumo213, the prop needed about 8 seconds to go from operating rpm to fully feathered, when the engine was dead and an auxiliary hydraulic pump with a much lower capacity was used. In game, we have about the same figure, but in normal operation. Unfortunately I don't know the exact capacity of the auxiliary pump, so I can't estimate how much faster the ptich adjustment should be with the main pump doing the hydraulics.

[[CPT]Crunch]

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/49143-jpg.390764/

Russians seemed to think the A-8 was a more capable fighter post evaluation.

[JG13_opcode]

On 11/5/2020 at 8:30 AM, CUJO_1970 said:

Finally, I’ve never once read about slow throttle response with this aircraft. It was direct fuel injected and proper functioning KG has no problem with rapid throttle changes - quite the opposite most allied pilots were quite impressed with the rapid throttle response on German aircraft.

 

The 190D doesn't have the Kommandogerat.  Only the models with BMW 800-series engines do.

Edited November 6, 2020 by JG13_opcode

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, JG13_opcode said:

 

The 190D doesn't have the Kommandogerat.  Only the models with BMW 800-series engines do.

„Bediengerät“. Does the same. Semantics.

[JV69badatflyski]

1 hour ago, JG13_opcode said:

 

The 190D doesn't have the Kommandogerat.  Only the models with BMW 800-series engines do.

22 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

„Bediengerät“. Does the same. Semantics.

 

Indeed Zacharias-X! just semantics, let's grab a virtual glass of brew barley mixed with water... 
For more info, let's look "on the other side", Very good explanation of the Jumo to be found there:
https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/english/dcs-world-war-ii/dcs-fw-190-d-9-dora/112837-jumo-213a-for-dora/page2


 

[357th_KW]

6 hours ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/49143-jpg.390764/

Russians seemed to think the A-8 was a more capable fighter post evaluation.

 

It's worth noting that they didn't have a functioning MW50 system, and so their test aircraft would have been way down on power from what we have (1750 vs 2100 I believe).

[JG13_opcode]

5 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

„Bediengerät“. Does the same. Semantics.

 

I'm willing to be corrected but I don't think the engine controller on the Jumo was nearly as sophisticated as the KG.

[ZachariasX]

3 hours ago, JG13_opcode said:

I'm willing to be corrected but I don't think the engine controller on the Jumo was nearly as sophisticated as the KG.

 

I don‘t know about the specific mechanics of either of them, but both devices do exactly the same, as you regulate inline enines in a same way as radials. And you have absolutely the same inputs. So I really don‘t see what the mechanics in the Dora does less or how this regulator could be simpler.

 

As of now, I just think that the prop pitch governor acts as a limiter in revving up the engine in the D9 represented in our game. I would be surprised if the running engine really had such a long time in adjusting prop pitch. For a bomber, such a regulator is maybe ok, but for a fighter for it sure is a lemon.

[Blackhawk_FR]

I don't know which datas DCS use and where they found it, but for sure it doesn't have this slow response. 

[JG13_opcode]

12 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

 

I don‘t know about the specific mechanics of either of them, but both devices do exactly the same, as you regulate inline enines in a same way as radials. And you have absolutely the same inputs. So I really don‘t see what the mechanics in the Dora does less or how this regulator could be simpler.

 

As of now, I just think that the prop pitch governor acts as a limiter in revving up the engine in the D9 represented in our game. I would be surprised if the running engine really had such a long time in adjusting prop pitch. For a bomber, such a regulator is maybe ok, but for a fighter for it sure is a lemon.

 

The Dora's regulator is constant mass flow into the manifold, whereas the KG regulates constant boost pressure.  The operating principles are the same but I'm pretty sure the specifics of how they do it is different.  All I'm saying is that "The KG has no problem with rapid throttle changes" is a worthless statement because the Jumo doesn't have the KG.

[ZachariasX]

2 hours ago, JG13_opcode said:

All I'm saying is that "The KG has no problem with rapid throttle changes" is a worthless statement because the Jumo doesn't have the KG.

If the „Bediengerät“ (as opposed to any other then common way of regulating an eninge) needed its time to come up with a setting upon input, I‘m sure this would have been noted. Especially since power up time is a really debilitating feature of our in-game D9. Thus, I don‘t see much point in plain semantics.

[JG13_opcode]

4 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

If the „Bediengerät“ (as opposed to any other then common way of regulating an eninge) needed its time to come up with a setting upon input, I‘m sure this would have been noted.

 

This is specious logic.