Jump to content

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, ICDP said:

wing design (internal spar removed if I recall) and they also strenghted the wing in the process.

 

Seems to be the removal of one rib and the relocation of another rib to gain internal volume inside the outer gun-bay.

But that's from a scematic drawing and not from hard-fact documentation in writing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ICDP said:

You want a bigger variety and state the devs need to diversify, yet contradict yourself by saying your are OK with the AR234, Sptfire XIX and Typhoon.  Yet we already have two versions of the Spitfire and a Tempest, so why didn't the devs just leave those out?  Or is that OK because you personally find those planes interesting (but not more 190s or 109s it seems)?

Are you pretending to be stupid now only to belittle my reservations and to force your agenda?

It should be pretty clear, that there is quite a difference between comparing the G6-late to the G6 or the A5 to the A6 on one side, as opposed to the Typhoon Mk2 to the Tempest Mk5 (completely different aircraft) or the Griffon Spit to the Mk9 (again completely redesigned aircraft with completely different engine type). Know if you tell me that you don't see the difference then sorry, you have no idea about these aircraft in the slightest

Edited by II./JG77_Manu*
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

Seems to be the removal of one rib and the relocation of another rib to gain internal volume inside the outer gun-bay.

But that's from a scematic drawing and not from hard-fact documentation in writing.

 

Apolgies, I said spar but meant rib.  Thanks for the correction.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:


About the weights you listed, that's comparing a Fw 190 A-3 without outer cannons, a Fw 190 A-6 without them as well, and the Fw 190 A-5 with outer cannons and maybe even a bomb pylon and drop tank, because that's way too high.

These are the weights listed in game with comparable configurations:

only two wing guns:

A-3:  3855 Kg,  A-5: 3926 Kg;  A-6: 3990 Kg.

with all four wing cannons:

A-3: 4000 Kg,  A-5: 4057 Kg,  A-6: 4140 Kg.

Also the G-3 modification doesn't add extra armor, it adds the pylons and removes the outer 20mm and cowling machine guns and their ammo, ending in a net weight reduction (and quite considerable at that)

unknown.png

A Fw 190 G-3 without bombs ends up weighting 3989 Kg.

S!,

The numbers I used were from the pic I scanned and uploaded to a previous post on this thread. There is no mention of in that pic of 2 cannon vs 4, armor subtracted or added...only the loaded weights.

9 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

Until there are actual photos, reports, and/or aircraft serial numbers attesting to that, I don't believe such a variant ever existed.

 

I provided a written source, which can be taken at face value or be disputed. I would like to believe authors rather than believing, at that very moment, they decided to falsify the load out about an obscure German fighter type. I would like to believe that the authors had some sort of data to go by when writing that section of the book.

 

That source you cite was published in 1976, which wasn't exactly a great time for accurate, detailed information on Luftwaffe aircraft. After all, sources from that time also claimed that Fw 190s fought at Stalingrad.

 

I don't understand how the year something was published makes the information more right or wrong. Over time it's natural for information to be added or corrected. I don't have any sources stating that fw190s fought at Stalingrad.

 

From the sources that I've posted, it still leads me to believe that the developers are slightly off in terms of modeling the A-6. In the end, I'll agree to disagree.

 

HB

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, JV44HeinzBar said:

S!,

The numbers I used were from the pic I scanned and uploaded to a previous post on this thread. There is no mention of in that pic of 2 cannon vs 4, armor subtracted or added...only the loaded weights.


Yes, but that information seems incorrect, for example look at the German chart Karaya posted in the previous page, or here in this manual for the A-5 & A-6 where the weights with different configurations are listed:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw-190_A-5_A-6_Aircraft_Hand_book.pdf

Sometimes books get stuff wrong, it's always best to try too look for primary sources.
 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

Having proper bombers at high alt would actually make aircraft like the P47 and the Dora useful in their (high alt) fighter rolls. It would also give heavy fighters, such as the Ju88-C, Me-410, 190 Sturmjäger an actual purpose (no idea why they are even in game, they will be rarely used in the current meta). It would also give the Mosquito some purpose as a heavy fighter, night fighter or nightbomber recon/marker aircraft, instead of just being a defenceless low alt fighter-bomber not even carrying a decent bombload it will be. 

 

Truly you can't be serious with arguments like this:

  • You have an entire air force that flew in this area that flew P-47s and P-38s in the tactical fighter-bomber role.
  • The Ju 88 C-6, as has been said repeatedly, isn't just a plane for the Western Front
  • Sturmjaeger 190s are there, because they were deployed to Normandy and the fall 1944 tactical battles
  • Me 410s were heavily involved in night intruder raids in the spring of 1944
  • Mosquitos most certainly will carry a good bombload.

The more I read your posts in this topic, you don't like the planeset because it doesn't suit your pet likes and because "MP gamers will be sad."

7 hours ago, JG4_Widukind said:

In addition, the aircraft FW190 A6 flies as sluggishly as a stone :), even with expanded armament (we say stone about the 109 G6 because it reacts just as sluggishly) It was done better with the FW190 A5. I would like us to have a better game, through quality and not through quantity, and I would also like to contribute to it. I am for the game and not against it.

 

You know the answer to this: if you have source documents saying something is wrong, make a report in appropriate forum section. Just saying a plane flies like a stone isn't going to change anything.

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

@LukeFF For multiplayer the Normandy planeset is decent actually, because it complements BoBP stuff and allows for earlier scenarios like late 1943 / early 1944.


Though I gotta say I'm not a super fan of the Ju 88C choice, I wish it gets the option for BMW engines to make it an R version, would also be correct for the Normandy scenario IIRC.

And I also wouldn't rule out the playerbase easily, server stats show unique monthly players in the several thousands, and I would bet that while SP players are higher overall (total accounts), MP players are more active in a given timeframe.

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:


Yes, but that information seems incorrect, for example look at the German chart Karaya posted in the previous page, or here in this manual for the A-5 & A-6 where the weights with different configurations are listed:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw-190_A-5_A-6_Aircraft_Hand_book.pdf

Sometimes books get stuff wrong, it's always best to try too look for primary sources.
 

S!,

I have this book. I forgot about it. For some reason, I saw the spine on my shelf and I thought it was my fw190d parts book....doh!

 

It does have different numbers from the picture I posted. If my German is correct, the A6 (4186kg) still weighs less than the A5(4424kg) when loaded with 4 x 20mm. Also, it looks like the A6 is 86kg heavier when the outer 20mm are removed from the A-5.

 

HB

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JV44HeinzBar said:

S!,

I have this book. I forgot about it. For some reason, I saw the spine on my shelf and I thought it was my fw190d parts book....doh!

 

It does have different numbers from the picture I posted. If my German is correct, the A6 (4186kg) still weighs less than the A5(4424kg) when loaded with 4 x 20mm. Also, it looks like the A6 is 86kg heavier when the outer 20mm are removed from the A-5.

 

HB


For the A-5, 4424 Kg is with external 300 liters drop tank. Standard fighter with four 20mm cannons is listed at 4106 Kg
 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:


For the A-5, 4424 Kg is with external 300 liters drop tank. Standard fighter with four 20mm cannons is listed at 4106 Kg
 

Four 20mm? Or four MG 151/20E? I would switch 2 MGFF by 2MG 151/20 + 100Kg at any time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:


For the A-5, 4424 Kg is with external 300 liters drop tank. Standard fighter with four 20mm cannons is listed at 4106 Kg
 

This. And it is explicitely mentioned, that the A5 loses 135kg of weight, when removing the MG/FFs, as they were a Rüstsatz.

 

There is one mistake in the list of the A6.

II: Fighter sortie with 2 MG17, 2 MG 151 in the wing root and extended range (the second pair of MG 151 in the outer wing is missing, but the ammo weight is listed in the tabella, so they were obviously onboard)

3 minutes ago, Mandoble said:

Four 20mm? Or four MG 151/20E? I would switch 2 MGFF by 2MG 151/20 + 100Kg at any time.

The A5 four 20mm, 2 MG 151/20 and 2 MG/FF. The wings of the A5 were not capable to carry the MG 151/20 in the outer wing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Yogiflight said:

The A5 four 20mm, 2 MG 151/20 and 2 MG/FF. The wings of the A5 were not capable to carry the MG 151/20 in the outer wing.

That is the point, so A6 >>>> A5.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not a fan substitution. If we are getting a Summer 1944 map, we should get the correct aircraft - that would be Fw 190A-7 (yes it was being phased out but they were in stock at the time and who cares if it's almost an A-8).

 

So since we have the Fw 190A-6, looking at kill/claim logs, we should have a late '43 Summer/Autumn maps with P-47Cs and B-17s that is not coming. It looks like you chaps that wanted the A-6 even though it's almost an A-5 and 99% phased out on D-DAY in aren't too happy either! 

 

Great! Now none of us are happy!  :drink2:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Luke We don't have a problem here with the 109 G6 but with the Fw190 A6, the 109 G6 was an example. The Fw190 A6 flies really badly by that I mean heavy and tired of reacting. v The A6 can only be compared with an FW190 A5. The 2 are almost the same except for the wings and a few other small changes, I'm talking about the fighter version with minimal armament.

I have already posted a lot of wrongly programmed things, for example here:

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/12262-armament-and-equipment/page/3/

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/63359-bombs-destruction/

 

Sometimes I wonder if anyone is even looking at the various sub-forums. There is also a huge problem with the ground targets since the DM patch, but unfortunately it is being dismissed. Actually I gave it up to post a long time ago, but the Focke is my favourite , and yes, I also have the books of the 190 or in parts also the plans. The devs should take their time and communicate with people (maybe via InBox, because of the trolls)

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JG4_Widukind said:

The Fw190 A6 flies really badly by that I mean heavy and tired of reacting. v The A6 can only be compared with an FW190 A5. The 2 are almost the same except for the wings and a few other small changes, I'm talking about the fighter version with minimal armament.

 

If you're convinced that something is wrong, you need to be more specific. It's difficult to meaningfully respond to vague feelings.

 

5 minutes ago, JG4_Widukind said:

Sometimes I wonder if anyone is even looking at the various sub-forums. There is also a huge problem with the ground targets since the DM patch, but unfortunately it is being dismissed.

 

You know they do spend time on the forum. However, there is no guarantee that every complaint will be read, understood, agreed with, and acted on.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

Yes, but that information seems incorrect, for example look at the German chart Karaya posted in the previous page, or here in this manual for the A-5 & A-6 where the weights with different configurations are listed:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw-190_A-5_A-6_Aircraft_Hand_book.pdf

I don't know anything about German, but in number '3' of this manual, the speeds for the Fw190 A5 (4100kg that is the weight with the external MGFF cannons) are listed at 560km / h
So without the external cannons fw190 should be faster than 560km / h?
That's right ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JG4_Widukind said:

Sometimes I wonder if anyone is even looking at the various sub-forums.

 

The developers listened to the G-Force argument. They have not caved on the .50 cal issue so I think they are reading and where there is indisputable empirical evidence, they revaluate. When it comes to the A-6, Every Anton built after the A-4 was a stop gap for the A-9 because they had the single task of stopping the Dicke Autos! (Oh, and carry bombs when they weren't doing the former).

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, 3./JG15_Kampf said:

I don't know anything about German, but in number '3' of this manual, the speeds for the Fw190 A5 (4100kg that is the weight with the external MGFF cannons) are listed at 560km / h
So without the external cannons fw190 should be faster than 560km / h?
That's right ?


Yes, at least in game I can get up to 569 km/h without cannons

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The two Focke versions A5 and A6 belong together. There is a manual for this, for example. Here you can see the weights of the two types with built-in weapons and without. I looked at both versions and calculated out the wing cannons. (Please check yourself) In the game, the values shown are correct with the original dates.

A5 without wing armament = 3957kg

A6 without wing armament = 4037kg

Result: the A6 is 80kg heavier

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw-190_A-5_A-6_Aircraft_Hand_book.pdf

 

Now the weight should not affect the machine in the final speed. The changes to the wing of the A6 cause 2-5Km / h. What I have to answer is the agility! And this is clearly noticeable in comparison flights. So who has data on turning speed or rate of climb --- bring it on.

 

And of course not to forget the stupid bombs -Dropping order of the A6 😞

Edited by JG4_Widukind
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/23/2021 at 2:09 PM, II./JG77_Manu* said:

 

Agreed, we had this before, but never more then 1 or 2 copycat-aircraft, now we have 4 and that is just too much for me.

 

And obviously, my claim is related to the chronological order of the module releases. I basically agree on all your statements, especially the versatility of the G6-late. But if you already own the G4, G6 and G14, it still does not really feel worthy as a customer. I don't wanna bash this module too much, I just feel that there could have been a lot better / more interesting expansions, which is always subjective to a certain extent. 

For example, I would have no problem at all to spend more then 100 bucks for a pacific or Mediterranean scenario with 10 new/unique aircraft, but I have problems paying 80 (or even 50) bucks for this Normandy expansion.

I`m a LW flier mostly, though I take BoN for Me410 and Mosquito. LW planes are nice addition to that, so the package feels more worthy to pay for more than just 2 planes.

 

I would also pay gladly for standalone C47/Li2 , B25 flyables. And the 109G-10, gotta get it.

On 2/23/2021 at 3:59 PM, CountZero said:

 

Do-217 was missed chance for BoN as it played some part , later its hard to add them. For He-162 you cant have them in game as you wont be able to make SP missions for them as even with late east front Berlin wont be on map because of game limitations, and they were based west of Berlin as far i know, same for Ta-152Hs, and they cant just force them in DLC like with Ar-234 for BoN, that atleast have bases it operated from in BoBp map. It would be better to go with 6v4  or 7v3 then force 5v5 all the time by ading airplanes that should not be in game just for balance.

I really wish we don`t go into late `45 LW planes. Waste of work that could be done to earlier ops. I imagine those planes we get in the very last "1946"scenario. Online though, it is a fun time but a really quick and not sustainable one.

On 2/23/2021 at 7:45 PM, NightFighter said:

As someone who loves night fighters (username gives a clue), I am someone who flies the Bf110 as a fighter ... in multiplayer ... alone. The rear gunner and his "1st target, engaging" callout have saved my ass so many times I would like to put a rear gunner in every single plane in the sim. If the Mossie's navigator is given the same ability to call out fighters, he will be worth his weight in gold, IMO. 

 

That is a great idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

I am not a fan substitution. If we are getting a Summer 1944 map, we should get the correct aircraft - that would be Fw 190A-7 (yes it was being phased out but they were in stock at the time and who cares if it's almost an A-8).

 

So since we have the Fw 190A-6, looking at kill/claim logs, we should have a late '43 Summer/Autumn maps with P-47Cs and B-17s that is not coming. It looks like you chaps that wanted the A-6 even though it's almost an A-5 and 99% phased out on D-DAY in aren't too happy either! 

 

Great! Now none of us are happy!  :drink2:

 

Mostly phased out in fighter units, yes but the A-6 was still very much a presence in ground attack units all the way to the war's end. It's not all about making pretty contrails in the sky at 25000 feet. 🙂

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2021 at 7:49 PM, JG4_Widukind said:

The Fw190 A6 flies really badly by that I mean heavy and tired of reacting. v The A6 can only be compared with an FW190 A5. The 2 are almost the same except for the wings and a few other small changes, I'm talking about the fighter version with minimal armament.

 

What? I've been flying Fw190A's for the last week and the A-5 and A-6 fly indistinguishably from each other. The A-6 by the numbers is even better than the A-5 and that combined with the four MG151/20's makes it my new favourite Anton. It's the best of all combinations.

 

It feels only as heavy as the A-5. The extra 80 kg is not really a factor. The A-8 feels very different by comparison.

Edited by ShamrockOneFive
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

What? I've been flying Fw190A's for the last week and the A-5 and A-6 fly indistinguishably from each other. The A-6 by the numbers is even better than the A-5 and that combined with the four MG151/20's makes it my new favourite Anton. It's the best of all combinations.

 

It feels only as heavy as the A-5. The extra 80 kg is not really a factor. The A-8 feels very different by comparison.

 

I'm having more success, even in late war maps, with the A-6 than I ever had in an A-5. She feels lighter on the controls and just a hair faster than the A-5 while extending from a dive. I've been better at rolling scissors for sure. Really enjoying it along with the 109 G-6 late as long as there is MW50 in the tank. I feel confident in both, even in late war maps against anything but Tempests.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

What? I've been flying Fw190A's for the last week and the A-5 and A-6 fly indistinguishably from each other. The A-6 by the numbers is even better than the A-5 and that combined with the four MG151/20's makes it my new favourite Anton. It's the best of all combinations.

 

It feels only as heavy as the A-5. The extra 80 kg is not really a factor. The A-8 feels very different by comparison.

Just step away from the A-8. Shes a good girl, rolls good, dives good, take a good deal of wing damage from those russian rear gunners. Lovely mk 108s on her. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The negativity about the A6 is all based on personal expectations, and not on the reality of it's specification.

 

Not every new iteration of an aircraft was a quantum leap from the previous model, in fact most were not, however, some people expect every newer model to have the same leap in performance that say the Spit XIV will bring over the IXe.  I also suspect that a lot of the angst over the A6 is based on the pending introduction of the Mk. XIV Spitfire by online Luftwaffe pilots, unwilling to accept that at this time of the real war, the balance of power has shifted, irrevocably, to the Allied aircraft.

Edited by BlitzPig_EL
  • Like 5
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I also suspect that a lot of the angst over the A6 is based on the pending introduction of the Mk. XIV Spitfire by online Luftwaffe pilots, unwilling to accept that at this time of the real war, the balance of power has shifted, irrevocably, to the Allied aircraft.

 

Dude, the only guys on this forum hyping up the XIV is online Allied pilots. Its sooo scary booohoo. Yeah, we got it, we are shaking in our jackboots all the time by a mere though of it. Happy now?

 

That being said, questionable choices were made with the 'new' LW aircraft, but that's has been done to death, and probably won't change anyway. At least there is a 410 modelled. Far more interesting to me than all the rest of the planes, which I personally don't give a fig about. Neither about Normandy map itself to be honest. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

That being said, questionable choices were made with the 'new' LW aircraft, but that's has been done to death, and probably won't change anyway

 

Which ones?

No flyable V-1?

  • Haha 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

At least there is a 410 modelled. Far more interesting to me than all the rest of the planes, which I personally don't give a fig about. Neither about Normandy map itself to be honest. 

Next to the 410 the map is what interests me most about this module. 
 

I‘m pretty sure pwcg will start at some point allow you to start from 41‘ onward. Maybe even doing a skirmish of Britain with approximates...

 

I‘m so going to fly a JG26 campaign. And when the time comes I‘ll be happy to exchange an a5 for an a6 - although I wouldn’t have missed much if I transitioned directly from an a5 to an a8 a little later...

 

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, it’s always the next great allied plane that’s finally going to bring those awful online LW fliers to their knees. First it was the P-47, then it was the P-51 and then it was 150 grade aviation fuel and then it was the Tempest...and now it’s the XIV 😀

 

Anyhoo...the A6 is superb - for a 1943 aircraft it is the best for that year and it is competitive through to the end of the war, especially as an attack aircraft. I’m very pleased with it, more than I thought I would be.

 

I would kill for an A9/F9 though - that’s the plane I want more than any other.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

LOL, it’s always the next great allied plane that’s finally going to bring those awful online LW fliers to their knees. First it was the P-47, then it was the P-51 and then it was 150 grade aviation fuel and then it was the Tempest...and now it’s the XIV 😀

 

Anyhoo...the A6 is superb - for a 1943 aircraft it is the best for that year and it is competitive through to the end of the war, especially as an attack aircraft. I’m very pleased with it, more than I thought I would be.

 

I would kill for an A9/F9 though - that’s the plane I want more than any other.

 

I would kill for a Fall of the Reich module with all of the "near SWOTL" prop aircraft. La7, A-26 Invader, IL10, Ta 152 C and H, Sea Fury, 190 A9/F9, Beaufighter, P-61, He-219, P-51H, etc, etc, etc

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Eisenfaustus said:

Next to the 410 the map is what interests me most about this module. 
 

I‘m pretty sure pwcg will start at some point allow you to start from 41‘ onward. Maybe even doing a skirmish of Britain with approximates...

 

I‘m so going to fly a JG26 campaign. And when the time comes I‘ll be happy to exchange an a5 for an a6 - although I wouldn’t have missed much if I transitioned directly from an a5 to an a8 a little later...

 

:)

 

Going to push the Normandy map back as far as the plane set allows.  Really awesome map choice.  1941 seems doable.  Spitfire Mk V, Hurricane Mk.II, Me109 F2 and F4, Me110E, Ju88 and He111, and  use the A20 as a substitute for the British mediums.  By 1943 the plane set is much more accurate.  One issue is that PWCG depends a lot on the existence of front lines.  I am going to have to come up with new ways to create realistic missions.  Going to have to focus much more on nuisance raids and obviously much less focus on tactical support until the actual invasion.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...