Dora or K4 - against Mustang D ?

[RyanR]

15 hours ago, oc2209 said:

In real life, pilots gain combat experience after they train. They don't develop bad habits that they have to untrain like many of us have to do. Untraining is more difficult than training up a clean slate with a receptive mind. My mind is closed at this point in my virtual career. Old dogs and new tricks don't mix. 

 

Speaking of: 20-something years ago, I had a (pre-USB!) joystick with a funky/roll pitch axis that I was simming with. I learned to compensate for it by pulling right of center. When I had a chance to fly in an AT-6 the pilot pointed out that I was pulling right on the stick as we went through aerobatics.... it was that damned joystick!!!.

 

I disagree about getting old. My ego is still there, but greatly diminished, so my brain can see a bit more clearly. I'm old and just want to have fun. Nothing to prove to myself anymore. The flight models here seem very "rich" compared to those from 10-20 years ago. I was really surprised how well the D9 does here compared to how it was modeled in older sims. Granted, it wants to drop a wing more readily than in the past, but it does seem to have more "wiggle room" in the pitch axis before you blow all your energy. The Spitfire XIV is a fearsome opponent no matter what the plane.

 

-Ryan

[NO.20_Krispy_Duck]

I usually fly allied in MP, but I'll fly German once in awhile. I prefer the K4 over the D9. I actually like the G14 a little better than the K4, but the K4 provides some impressive performance abilities as well. My feeling is that by the time you reach the 1944 battles, at least in MP, the MW injection makes a big difference. It's there if you need it, and it can be the difference between life and death if things get tough. For pure handling abilities, it's tough to beat the 109F series, but by 1944, you want the MW injection available on the G6 Late, G14, and K4. I don't consider these later 109s to truly be of the same design as the early 109s of the 1930s. The planes underwent enough revisions that it's a successor design. I look at the Spitfires the same way - one family of planes, but not necessarily all the same design. You see the same with the Nieuports, Spads, Albatros aircraft of the first war. But I do think that by 1945,  you're reaching the limits of what the 109 family can provide in terms of performance.

Edited March 8, 2021 by NO.20_Krispy_Duck

[BlitzPig_EL]

I am trying to learn the 190.  I am mostly an Allied flyer, but, know thine enemy, as they say.

 

I find it to be very good in the attack role.  Properly set up it carries a good bomb load, and I can be very effective with it.  However, if I am flying Axis in the pure fighter role, I do better in the 109 or MC202, because for me, those aircraft offer a more multidimensional approach, whereas with the 190 your options are far more limited.

Edited March 8, 2021 by BlitzPig_EL

[Rjel]

4 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I am trying to learn the 190.  I am mostly an Allied flyer, but, know thine enemy, as they say.

 

I find it to be very good in the attack role.  Properly set up it carries a good bomb load, and I can be very effective with it.  However, if I am flying Axis in the pure fighter role, I do better in the 109 or MC202, because for me, those aircraft offer a more multidimensional approach, whereas with the 190 your options are far more limited.

I practiced an aerobatic routine for months in the Mc.202 a couple of years ago until I could preform the "routine" pretty effectively (at least based on my abilities). One night after flying the same routine several times in the 202, I switched to the Fw190A3. So much more power in the 190. I could feel the excess power in the climbs, felt the fear of busting my a$$ coming out of the loops racing down towards the runway even with power back. I think it's been the only time I actually could feel the difference when changing from one plane to another.

[RyanR]

8 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I am trying to learn the 190.  I am mostly an Allied flyer, but, know thine enemy, as they say.

 

I find it to be very good in the attack role.  Properly set up it carries a good bomb load, and I can be very effective with it.  However, if I am flying Axis in the pure fighter role, I do better in the 109 or MC202, because for me, those aircraft offer a more multidimensional approach, whereas with the 190 your options are far more limited.

 

Ultimately, everyone is always "learning the 190", as it is all about energy management and vertical maneuvering... and knowing when to bail out of the fray.

 

Where the 109 is more forgiving at lower speeds, the 190 is much more forgiving at higher speeds. The 190's excel at high speed maneuvering, but you can't ride a high speed turn out too long. If you bleed your speed out before you have your guns on a bad guy, the game is over. You need to anticipate whether or not you can convert lag pursuit to lead pursuit and be willing to set up another attack if it won't work. The 190's high speed agility is fantastic for setting up a snap shot, and its fearsome armament means that a snapshot is all you need to cripple a fighter. Even the A-5's 2x20mm is pretty impressive for the Kuban era.

 

The Stalingrad career is wonderful for learning the 190, as the A-3 is a leg up on the VVS offerings in a few manners, but the Yak-1 can bite you enough to give consequence for mistakes. Curiously, the Yak-1 also starts to show off the 109's deficiency in the roll axis. Just flat scissors will through off your aim.

 

-Ryan

[oc2209]

Blowing the dust off this thread to test again. 'Cuz I'm that bored.

 

Results of two attempts, 4 in my flight, 8 in the enemy flight, all ace AI:

 

109K-4 with the special engine:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I got the first 3 kills on the left side of the map legitimately. The latter 3 on the right side were cheap kills on ammo-less P-51s that were coming in to land. The AI had 150 octane fuel, extra ammo, and 50% fuel loads. I had 84 13mm rounds left, and 51 30mm shots remaining.

 

Here's the 190D attempt:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Got heavily wounded by an unseen attacker pretty early in the fight; bellied in. Probably because I was stupidly circling rather than trying to get altitude. These results are more a testament to my flying style than any shortcomings inherent to the 190D. In my opinion, at least.

[oc2209]

The 190A-6 is actually pretty competitive against P-51s. I just tried it out as above, 4 versus 8 P-51s.

 

I don't know if it's just delusion on my part, but the A-6 (with all 4 20mm) feels more stable in turns. Normally, when flying the 190, I pull too hard at least once a sortie, and it starts to flick. And I normally fly 190s with only 2 20mm. Maybe it's something to do with weight distribution, I don't know.

[Jade_Monkey]

18 hours ago, oc2209 said:

The 190A-6 is actually pretty competitive against P-51s. I just tried it out as above, 4 versus 8 P-51s.

 

I don't know if it's just delusion on my part, but the A-6 (with all 4 20mm) feels more stable in turns. Normally, when flying the 190, I pull too hard at least once a sortie, and it starts to flick. And I normally fly 190s with only 2 20mm. Maybe it's something to do with weight distribution, I don't know.

I agree. Completely anecdotal but QM vs A6 they are really competent. I haven't thoroughly tested the difference with A5 and A8 but the A6 stands out in my mind as the better opponent. 

[percydanvers]

 

21 hours ago, oc2209 said:

The 190A-6 is actually pretty competitive against P-51s. I just tried it out as above, 4 versus 8 P-51s.

 

I don't know if it's just delusion on my part, but the A-6 (with all 4 20mm) feels more stable in turns. Normally, when flying the 190, I pull too hard at least once a sortie, and it starts to flick. And I normally fly 190s with only 2 20mm. Maybe it's something to do with weight distribution, I don't know.

Something I'm curious about is why the A-3 is as competitive as it is in late-war scenarios. I've been digging into the "plane stats" on both Combat Box and Finnish Virtual Pilots, and I'm amazed to see the A-3 routinely beating every other Anton (and often the dora) in most aspects of combat performance. It is my own personal favorite 190, but I've never been able to put my finger on quite why I like it so much more than the others.

As to the original OP question I'd go for the K4 myself. My experience is that you'll get more out of a D9 against an unskilled opponent, but if a P-51 driver knows what he's about you really need to have more tricks up your sleeve than being the best BnZ plane. All the FW190 firepower really doesn't help you against a fighter. Although, in SP maybe the 190 is better because it's easy to use the high speed dive performance to get bot planes to fly straight into the ground.

Edited April 14, 2021 by percydanvers

[oc2209]

43 minutes ago, percydanvers said:

Something I'm curious about is why the A-3 is as competitive as it is in late-war scenarios. I've been digging into the "plane stats" on both Combat Box and Finnish Virtual Pilots, and I'm amazed to see the A-3 routinely beating every other Anton (and often the dora) in most aspects of combat performance. It is my own personal favorite 190, but I've never been able to put my finger on quite why I like it so much more than the others.

 

When the 190 first came out, it was unmatched in the West until the Spit IX caught up to it (without really surpassing it). Even the P-51 isn't dominant against it at mid-low altitudes. Likewise, in the East, the Russians didn't exceed its abilities until the Yak-3 and La-7.

 

What's interesting is that the basic 190 design wasn't really improved much as the war went on. It was kind of perfect as-is (after all the early engine problems had been sorted out, of course). That's why the A-3 can easily outperform the heavier later models, because the later ones don't add much to the equation besides extra firepower. No speed or agility gains to speak of. This is the total opposite of the Yak and Lavochkins which flat-out gained speed and agility as the war progressed, while the 109 and Spitfire gained speed for a loss in relative agility.

 

What it all amounts to, is that a 1941 plane was designed so well that it could remain competitive (without extensive modification or a more powerful engine) even 4 years later. Pretty exceptional.