Jump to content

Planes You Want to Like but Don't


Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, oc2209 said:

The article details 3 accounts of novices landing, and ground looping, in the company of veteran instructors. The advice I gathered is pretty similar to what Jaegermeister said above. Don't use brakes until late in the run. Keep input duration minimal, including rudder.

 

At least when I enter a loop now, it's gentler, not as violent as it was.

 

 

Think that's good advice, I've heard very similar things from warbird pilots, the aft C-of-G on the '109 allows you to apply harsh differential braking (which you rely upon) to keep in check any bumping and drifting which the aircraft does on the field... apparently its quite easy to three point though in contrast to the Spitfire; which wants to keep gliding on and is reluctant to lose energy.

 

The Spitfire (not quite as applicable for clipped wing) needs to be brought in very slow before reaching the fence as strong or early braking was often rewarded with a nose over on the real thing (fwd C-of-G), although generally once its on the ground it should run fairly straight. It definitely has less effective brakes and has to roll most of the landing run with only a little braking at the end to bring things to a close. In short you can't rely on the brakes in the Spitfire; but then again it should have more directional authority to start with.

 

Generally the '109 was a much more ground loop prone aircraft in real life, but I agree in-game it feels like both aircraft loop and bucket around too much when the tail is planted on the ground which is very strange. You'd have had some decent control at very low / low speeds and especially with the aft C-of-G of the '109 which won't depart easily unless you use a fair bit of power and differential braking during taxiing. If you keep the tail stuck to the ground for as long as possible during the takeoff run, and slowly release back pressure once you're comfortably chugging along; you can usually reduce that risk window between weaning off the differential braking and kicking the rudder till it becomes effective.

 

I'd have thought it would be only after the tail lifts and the power / supercharger accelerates up that a ground loop would be most likely to occur; it seems far less likely to happen when the tail wheel is still on the ground - because that's whats keeping things in check until the rudder becomes effective.

Edited by Aurora_Stealth
Link to post
Share on other sites

The P47 is probably this biggest disappointment for me. I can't seem to do well at all in Bf109s ither for some reason.

 

Two planes that DID surprise me however was the P38 and the Tempest. Both are strong, good climbing and maneuverable powerhouses.

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

Think that's good advice, I've heard very similar things from warbird pilots, the aft C-of-G on the '109 allows you to apply harsh differential braking (which you rely upon) to keep in check any bumping and drifting which the aircraft does on the field... apparently its quite easy to three point though in contrast to the Spitfire; which wants to keep gliding on and is reluctant to lose energy.

 

An interesting anecdote from Norbert Hannig's book describes how another pilot would give the 109 a bit of throttle after landing, so its tail would lift up and he'd 'drive it like a car' across the field, presumably because he was impatient with the typical snaking taxiing of the 109. The center of gravity probably allowed it to do so without too much danger of tipping over.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/1/2021 at 12:59 PM, BlitzPig_EL said:

 

I have the same issue with the Spit.  I love flying it, but I can't hit the broad side of a barn with it.  Yet I am fairly deadly in the Tempest, P51, or even the Mc202.

Hah, I'm deadly in the Spit and Tempest, but not the p51 because of the weak .50s and poor low speed turning ability. I also don't like its climb rate.

 

And despite having about 50 kills on the spit online since January, I still can't land the damn thing either with any regularity. I have lost so many ailerons and flaps LOL.

Edited by =AW=drewm3i-VR
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, =AW=drewm3i-VR said:

Hah, I'm deadly in the Spit and Tempest, but not the p51 because of the weak .50s and poor low speed turning ability. I also don't like its climb rate.

 

If you drop flaps to the 20 deg position it turns very well, especially on 75"hg, you just have to be wary of them getting jammed if you pick up speed again. Ideally you don't want to be in a position where you have to turn, but if necessary the option is there

 

iirc this is historical, too. Someone posted a big list of AARs a while back of Mustang pilots talking about using flaps to out-turn other airplanes

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will have to agree with the folks that went with the P-47. I my opinion, you want the ability to through and fighter around, which is why I like the 109.

 

The P-47 was initially designed as a high altitude fighter but was repurposed to a fighter-bomber when it became obvious it wasn't going to be successful in its intended role. However, it was very successful in it's new mud moving role without a doubt. That said, a few USAAF pilots were very successful in the P-47 and became high scores too, Gabby Gabreski comes to mind.

 

image.thumb.png.19cae9309470248fac460b6c19649240.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, =621=Samikatz said:

 

If you drop flaps to the 20 deg position it turns very well, especially on 75"hg, you just have to be wary of them getting jammed if you pick up speed again. Ideally you don't want to be in a position where you have to turn, but if necessary the option is there

 

iirc this is historical, too. Someone posted a big list of AARs a while back of Mustang pilots talking about using flaps to out-turn other airplanes

 

Yeah, anything with multiple flap settings is just begging to have the first setting used as combat flaps (even if it's not intended as such). As long as you don't use them over 200 MPH, there shouldn't be a problem. I routinely use the P-38's flaps in sustained turns, as well as the P-47's.

 

As for the P-51's qualities in general, I don't love it or hate it, but I can see why it was popular and effective in real life. It seems very much to be a jack of all trades, master of one (that being speed). It turns alright; dives alright; climbs alright. The guns are okay. Roll rate is adequate. Nothing really stupendous, except where it counts--speed.

 

On a personal note, if the P-51 had nose-mounted guns, I would learn to love it regardless of its other strengths (or weaknesses). The gunsight and forward view are really excellent, and would be great for deflection shooting in turns (with nose guns).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JG7_X-Man said:

I will have to agree with the folks that went with the P-47. I my opinion, you want the ability to through and fighter around, which is why I like the 109.

 

The P-47 was initially designed as a high altitude fighter but was repurposed to a fighter-bomber when it became obvious it wasn't going to be successful in its intended role. However, it was very successful in it's new mud moving role without a doubt. That said, a few USAAF pilots were very successful in the P-47 and became high scores too, Gabby Gabreski comes to mind.

 

image.thumb.png.19cae9309470248fac460b6c19649240.png

 

To be fair, the P-47 was a very successful and deadly high altitude fighter...in fact it was hard to beat a Jug up there and was quite in it's element.

The problem was simply range - it couldn't stay with the B-17's all the way into Germany and back.

 

Up at 20K you'd better hope you're not facing a Jug, and down at 10K you'd better hope a flight of them isn't diving into your formation with 8 fifty caliber guns on each wing.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

I will have to agree with the folks that went with the P-47. I my opinion, you want the ability to through and fighter around, which is why I like the 109.

 

The P-47 was initially designed as a high altitude fighter but was repurposed to a fighter-bomber when it became obvious it wasn't going to be successful in its intended role. However, it was very successful in it's new mud moving role without a doubt. That said, a few USAAF pilots were very successful in the P-47 and became high scores too, Gabby Gabreski comes to mind.

 

image.thumb.png.19cae9309470248fac460b6c19649240.png

The P-47 was a very successful high altitude fighter, it just lacked range until later in the war, but by that time the P-51 was already doing the job and was much more fuel friendly. P-47Ns in the pacific flew escorts until the end of the war due to their great range (around 2000+ miles with external tanks).

The problem with the P-47 was its range, never its combat capability.

 

The problem with it in-game is that:

1. No real high altitude mission so the P-47 can't take advantage of its power and speed.

 

2. The high altitude performance is off (power at higher altitudes is incorrect and its stall characteristics are just off imo (especially at high altitude) The P-47 stalls worse than a P-51 imo, P-51 is far easier to fly (at least it feels far more stable).

 

3. .50 effectiveness leave alot to be desired, I think this is mostly due to the way the damage model is in-game and not so much the fault of the .50s. I think in order for .50s to be effective there needs to be more detailed internal hitboxes instead of just RNG, important internal system need to have their own hitboxes. This would also help with other AP projectiles like 20mm as well.

 

4. HE causing extensive aerodynamic penalties that make it nearly impossible to keep the aircraft in the air (effects more than just the P-47) I'd expect 30mm to cause massive damage but when 13mm HE causes huge damage as well there is a problem imo. HE on the whole is overperforming imo, or at least the lift/aerodynamic penalty is too great for certain levels of damage.

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, oc2209 said:

 

An interesting anecdote from Norbert Hannig's book describes how another pilot would give the 109 a bit of throttle after landing, so its tail would lift up and he'd 'drive it like a car' across the field, presumably because he was impatient with the typical snaking taxiing of the 109. The center of gravity probably allowed it to do so without too much danger of tipping over.


How is that book? I've really wanted to read it since it's the only first hand account I've been able to find (other than Hrabak's short interview in German Aces Speak) about Jg 54's time in Russia. I'd be really interested in Hanning's view of the respective qualities of the 109 and 190. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Legioneod said:

3. .50 effectiveness leave alot to be desired, I think this is mostly due to the way the damage model is in-game and not so much the fault of the .50s. I think in order for .50s to be effective there needs to be more detailed internal hitboxes instead of just RNG, important internal system need to have their own hitboxes. This would also help with other AP projectiles like 20mm as well.

55i0wf.jpg.c79ce475cf50c57f167d4b7bece893b4.jpg

Also has APIT for .50 cals 🤯

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, percydanvers said:


How is that book? I've really wanted to read it since it's the only first hand account I've been able to find (other than Hrabak's short interview in German Aces Speak) about Jg 54's time in Russia. I'd be really interested in Hanning's view of the respective qualities of the 109 and 190. 

 

I have my BON bar!!! Squeeeeeee!!!

 

*ahem*

 

Excuse me. So, about Hannig's book. Overall, I liked it and would recommend it to anyone seriously interested in the period. However, if you're looking for detailed technical or tactical descriptions of certain planes, that's not its strong suit.

 

One thing that's clear, by inference at least, is that he quite loved the 190. He doesn't speak reverentially of the 109; he doesn't insult it either, but it's plain what his preference would be if forced to choose. Most of his sorties described are in 190s; the only time he mentioned flying 109s was in the Jabo role, and he speaks of that with a bit of annoyance. Again, not the 109 part necessarily, but the ground attack part was annoying.

 

He covers his training in pretty good detail; and this is worthwhile because it's a glimpse into training right before the standards drop, but after the best pre-war training. His training seemed pretty solid, aside from a few gaps (he makes instrument-rated pilots out to be quite rare). There was one very good (to me) anecdote of how worthless a replacement pilot was (who'd been trained later than Hannig). Hannig had given him explicit instructions on how to react if they were bounced; the instructions were simple, pretty much 'you dive, I'll climb', or something to that effect. Instead, the guy froze while being fired on. Did absolutely nothing. Luckily 190s can take a beating, so he survived anyway.

 

Unfortunately, Hannig converted to the 262 far too close to war's end for that to get much description.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, oc2209 said:

 

I have my BON bar!!! Squeeeeeee!!!

 

*ahem*

 

Excuse me. So, about Hannig's book. Overall, I liked it and would recommend it to anyone seriously interested in the period. However, if you're looking for detailed technical or tactical descriptions of certain planes, that's not its strong suit.

 

One thing that's clear, by inference at least, is that he quite loved the 190. He doesn't speak reverentially of the 109; he doesn't insult it either, but it's plain what his preference would be if forced to choose. Most of his sorties described are in 190s; the only time he mentioned flying 109s was in the Jabo role, and he speaks of that with a bit of annoyance. Again, not the 109 part necessarily, but the ground attack part was annoying.

 

He covers his training in pretty good detail; and this is worthwhile because it's a glimpse into training right before the standards drop, but after the best pre-war training. His training seemed pretty solid, aside from a few gaps (he makes instrument-rated pilots out to be quite rare). There was one very good (to me) anecdote of how worthless a replacement pilot was (who'd been trained later than Hannig). Hannig had given him explicit instructions on how to react if they were bounced; the instructions were simple, pretty much 'you dive, I'll climb', or something to that effect. Instead, the guy froze while being fired on. Did absolutely nothing. Luckily 190s can take a beating, so he survived anyway.

 

Unfortunately, Hannig converted to the 262 far too close to war's end for that to get much description.


Thank you! (and yes the BON bar is pretty exciting)

I might have to get that. I've read LOADS of Luftwaffe memoirs at this point, but so far all of them have been 109 pilots. Everything I've read about the service record of the 190 has been on the purely technical side, so it'd be interesting to just have the personal aspect of flying that plane. Honestly, after reading the Osprey book about Jg 54 I'd read just about anything written about that wing. What a story!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/10/2021 at 1:15 PM, Dragon1-1 said:

P-40 and P-47 for me, because they just feel sluggish. Maybe the P-47 Razorback is better, but I don't have BON.

 

The Razorback does have some extra speed, at all altitudes. Roughly 10-20 MPH, nothing to sneeze at. It also turns a little smoother, less shaking. It's a few hundred pounds lighter than the bubbletop. The official turn speed gain is only a half-second less than the bubble (at sea level), but I feel the difference quite plainly. At 50% fuel, 150 octane, no extra ammo, I was able to turn inside a 190A-6 pretty comfortably. Granted, it's just AI, but still. Sadly, a 109K with gun pods is still impossible for me to follow (again, at sea level).

8 minutes ago, percydanvers said:

I might have to get that. I've read LOADS of Luftwaffe memoirs at this point, but so far all of them have been 109 pilots. Everything I've read about the service record of the 190 has been on the purely technical side, so it'd be interesting to just have the personal aspect of flying that plane. Honestly, after reading the Osprey book about Jg 54 I'd read just about anything written about that wing. What a story!

 

Any particular 109 account that stands out to you as a must-read? So far the only 109 memoir I've read is Hartmann's.

 

The way Hannig speaks of the 190, it's nigh-on untouchable if flown properly. Of course, everything seems easy when you're as good a pilot as he evidently was; but he was capable of using it in quite a few aerobatic moves. I definitely do not get the most out of it in this sim (because I'm not an aerobatic pilot by any means).

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

 

The Razorback does have some extra speed, at all altitudes. Roughly 10-20 MPH, nothing to sneeze at. It also turns a little smoother, less shaking. It's a few hundred pounds lighter than the bubbletop. The official turn speed gain is only a half-second less than the bubble (at sea level), but I feel the difference quite plainly. At 50% fuel, 150 octane, no extra ammo, I was able to turn inside a 190A-6 pretty comfortably. Granted, it's just AI, but still. Sadly, a 109K with gun pods is still impossible for me to follow (again, at sea level).

 

Any particular 109 account that stands out to you as a must-read? So far the only 109 memoir I've read is Hartmann's.

 

The way Hannig speaks of the 190, it's nigh-on untouchable if flown properly. Of course, everything seems easy when you're as good a pilot as he evidently was; but he was capable of using it in quite a few aerobatic moves. I definitely do not get the most out of it in this sim (because I'm not an aerobatic pilot by any means).


I think my favorite is probably Luftwaffe Eagle by Walter Schuck. It describes a lot of action in a front that's not often talked about (the Arctic), and Schuck gets into some pretty wild dogfights with the 109. Perhaps most interestingly was the occasion when he snuck into the landing pattern of a soviet airfield at dusk when his markings couldn't be seen, shooting a number of the planes and making such a mess on the runway that the rest had to bail out because the runway was unusable and they were out of fuel. He also got to fly the 262 as part of JG 7, which is always interesting. 

Messerschmitts over Sicily by Johannes Steinhoff is another good one. It centers on sort of the transitional moment when what is left of the North African jagdwaffe is transitioning from its duels with RAF fighters to confronting the brutal reality of trying to intercept round-the-clock bomber offensives of the USAAF. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

Any particular 109 account that stands out to you as a must-read? So far the only 109 memoir I've read is Hartmann's.

 

Check out Spitfire on my Tail by Ulrich Steinhilper. Lots of details on pre-war flight training, then his experiences in the Battle of Britain until he was shot down and captured during it. After reading this book I immediately bought his two follow-up books about his experiences as a POW in Canada.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, percydanvers said:


I think my favorite is probably Luftwaffe Eagle by Walter Schuck.

Messerschmitts over Sicily by Johannes Steinhoff is another good one.

 

The latter was already on my radar, but I hadn't heard much of the former. I'll definitely check them out at some point. I have something of a WWII aviation backlog at the moment. Currently on a few Japanese-centered Ospreys.

 

4 hours ago, Charlo-VR said:

 

Check out Spitfire on my Tail by Ulrich Steinhilper.

 

Sounds good as well. I've heard of him through an excerpt in a 109 book of mine.

 

Thanks to both of you for the suggestions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Going back to the Spitfire landing difficulties on page 2:

 

Having just purchased the Spit V, I must say it's much easier to land without looping than the IX. The looping danger is there, but it's easier to cope with. Are we to assume the heavier engine/longer nose is the chief culprit in causing the IX's landing issues?

 

This makes me afraid to think of how the XIV will handle on the ground.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/12/2021 at 9:13 PM, =621=Samikatz said:

 

If you drop flaps to the 20 deg position it turns very well, especially on 75"hg, you just have to be wary of them getting jammed if you pick up speed again. Ideally you don't want to be in a position where you have to turn, but if necessary the option is there

 

iirc this is historical, too. Someone posted a big list of AARs a while back of Mustang pilots talking about using flaps to out-turn other airplanes

Dropping the flaps kills the speed which is death in a dogfight. Maybe 1 on 1 offline, but online you want to keep it fast and level.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Up 'til now this has been a quite informative post ... at least some posters got me interested again in my less-favorite planes, thanks.

I get more and more impressed with the successful models IL2 came up with regarding the quirks of all the planes so far.

 

Time for a spreadsheet with ++ and -- for all the planes' usefulness? And un-biassed please?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Asking for unbiased evaluations on a flight sim forum?

 

Heresy.

 

Burn the witch.

Exactly, objectively the spitfire is the best plane in the game at dogfighting 😆. Okay maybe the tempest actually.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, =AW=drewm3i-VR said:

Dropping the flaps kills the speed which is death in a dogfight. Maybe 1 on 1 offline, but online you want to keep it fast and level.

That depends, actually. Scissors, in particular, are won by getting slow. Flaps are particularly handy in such situations. Sure, it'll get you in trouble if there's another aircraft waiting to pounce, but I'd take that over imminent death by the current opponent. It's quite handy if you're forced to turn in an aircraft that doesn't actually turn that well. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

That depends, actually. Scissors, in particular, are won by getting slow. Flaps are particularly handy in such situations. Sure, it'll get you in trouble if there's another aircraft waiting to pounce, but I'd take that over imminent death by the current opponent. It's quite handy if you're forced to turn in an aircraft that doesn't actually turn that well. 

I solve that problem by only flying turn fighters like the Hurricane, Spit, and Tempest 😁

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

That depends, actually. Scissors, in particular, are won by getting slow. Flaps are particularly handy in such situations. Sure, it'll get you in trouble if there's another aircraft waiting to pounce, but I'd take that over imminent death by the current opponent. It's quite handy if you're forced to turn in an aircraft that doesn't actually turn that well. 

 

This exact scenario happened to me in my first online dogfight. I was in a Spit IX, pursuing 2 Fw-190A-somethings (I couldn't precisely identify), who were pursuing a P-38. I tried shooting them off the P-38's tail from extreme range, to no avail (this is why I hate wing mounted guns; if you set convergence high, you're screwed up close, and vice versa). Once I got close, the 190 leader tried to shake me off with scissors and general bobbing and weaving. I was able to stick to him and not overshoot. I was trying to line up my one wing to get a center (fuselage) shot on him, but before I could, his wingman got me. The friendly P-38's fate is unknown to me, but he was definitely damaged if still alive, and in no position to help me by then.

 

If I'd had nose guns, I would've been able to snipe more successfully, or, once I was up close, nail my target before his wingman got me. Wasting time to line up the right shot is what ultimately ruined my attack. You might ask why I was flying a Spit at all; well, its handling is great. But in that situation, its guns screwed me immensely. I admit my aiming was far from perfect in that fight; I can occasionally be good with wing guns, but my muscle memory is more attuned to nose guns by volume of experience.

Edited by oc2209
Link to post
Share on other sites

For me it's really the P-39. I love the plane, and the local aviation museum that I volunteer at is actually restoring a pair. At combat or emergency power it flies well and is lots of fun, but the engine timers really kill it for me. It flies and climbs like an absolute brick in continuous power, and pretty much every time I decide to take it out I end up getting bounced by something coming in with a ton of energy when I am in flying brick mode and it's over before it starts. If you ever do get to a combat area and actually get up to speed though that plane is very satisfying. Unfortunately due to the timers it almost never gets used by me, which actually makes me sad about it. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

i have been trying for about the past week to find the best Russian fighter for me, which can beat the 109s, they all seem about the same, but i think the little LAGG 5 is very nice, smooth turns etc, the 7 is great but i wanted to find one i could use in both Kuban and Stalingrad, for me i love the 109, its always a turn war with the AI, and it just keeps more speed and the nose up a lot better, but i got to say on a diff note i love the A-20, just sounds like it should, couple of large block V8 muscle cars :).....but i must watch some tuts on bombing instead of flying around sightseeing !!

like a lot of you i love the look of the 190, but whatever model i use it just fly's like a fly in syrup as soon as i turn to fight :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/1/2021 at 3:30 PM, percydanvers said:


It's funny - I've spoken to a few 190 enthusiasts whose love of the plane began with Aces over Europe. That sim was a bit before my time though. 

Really I'm jealous though. I see people do amazingly with the 190 and I read all kinds of things about how great it was, but it just turns into a defenseless useless flying brick in my hands. I've logged an... embarrassing amount of time across different sims trying to learn to love that plane. Even as much as it frustrates the hell out of me, I still think it's cool, so I keep coming back for more torture. I think my problem is that you need to be fast to win with the 190, and that's hard to do when everything you do costs so much energy. It's not even like I'm trying to turn fight in it: I'll laboriously set up a bounce on a target, the target turns, I zoom climb up to reset the attack like you're supposed to, but I've still lost loads of energy doing this that takes forever to get back. Before I know it I'm just slow and getting shot down by things I can't outrun or outmaneuver. 

The 109 on the other hand... well it's not perfect of course, but I feel like most of its flaws have a reliable workaround if you get used to them. The high speed maneuverability is awful, but it can be compensated for when you get used to it. You don't have much ammunition, but you have the most pinpoint accurate weapons configuration of any plane. Combined with the maneuverability I find I can put most of my shots exactly where I want them, and I often end up doing a lot more damage with 65 30mm cannon rounds than 500 20mms in a Fw. Hell, I even find I drop bombs more accurately with a 109, and I have no idea why that is. 

 

100% agree about the P-51. I'm never all that successful with it but I usually have a fun time flying it.

Uhhh  ive been flying the 190 A5 for almost 6 weeks non stop, some days 3-4 hours a day, 4-6 days a week its a crapload of air time. And i guess ive been using it as a combination turn fighter with bombers. 

U2LVS   

 

so slow, so low, it NEEDS a really good ground attack  load out. say 20mm gun pod, or a 500kg

Link to post
Share on other sites

SE5a.

Despite having the later high compression Viper version of the Hispano Suiza engine, it loses revs and energy at just the thought of a turn or climb.  The wings are among the weakest in the sim before damage and suffer horribly after damage with the post-4.006 DM changes.  

 

It dives well and is fastest plane in game so we suspect a sub-optimal prop is hampering its performance. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/21/2021 at 11:44 PM, pocketshaver said:

Uhhh  ive been flying the 190 A5 for almost 6 weeks non stop, some days 3-4 hours a day, 4-6 days a week its a crapload of air time. And i guess ive been using it as a combination turn fighter with bombers. 

U2LVS   

 

so slow, so low, it NEEDS a really good ground attack  load out. say 20mm gun pod, or a 500kg


I have been renewing my efforts to like the 190s, and I'm starting to "get it" a little more. As long as I stay above 400/500 kph (depending on early/late war) everything seems to go really well. The roll rate is pretty fun to play with on the occasions when you can't get away. Doesn't always work, but it it is fun.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, percydanvers said:


I have been renewing my efforts to like the 190s, and I'm starting to "get it" a little more. As long as I stay above 400/500 kph (depending on early/late war) everything seems to go really well. The roll rate is pretty fun to play with on the occasions when you can't get away. Doesn't always work, but it it is fun.

I have a tendency to work it like a sail plane.  Hardly use rudder at all. just tilt the joystick side to side.    Part of the success ive been having is that i have a suicidal streak similar to Udet.  

     Roll to one side, preferably LEFT,  and pull back hard on the stick.   it was really screwing the AI pilots at short range

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, percydanvers said:


I have been renewing my efforts to like the 190s, and I'm starting to "get it" a little more. As long as I stay above 400/500 kph (depending on early/late war) everything seems to go really well. The roll rate is pretty fun to play with on the occasions when you can't get away. Doesn't always work, but it it is fun.

I haven't played online for a long time but when I did the Fw190A was one of my weapon of choice.  You have already figured out the most important thing in the 190, stay fast.  Unlike most plans from a similar era (1942 - 1943) the roll rate does not start to become stuck in treacle over 400kph.

 

These apply to Fw190 vs contemporary fighters ~1942 - 1943

  • Stay fast (400kph or higher but 450KPH+ is optimal)
  • Only turn for 1/4 turn at most to get lead but do it smoothly
  • Use that roll rate to rapidly switch direction (scissors), it may not seem like it but it is a massive advantage.
  • All input should be smooth during attack.  The aim is to conserve enegery.
  • If you are being chased and have a level speed advantage, extend until out of danger.
  • Understand your and your opponents optimal altitudes.  From memory 3000m is not a good altitude for a 190A.
  • Lose the outer MGFF cannons, even with 2x 20 mm cannons a good burst is more than enough to ruin the day for any fighter or medium bomber.
  • Ignore the urge to slow down and hang on a prey until it explodes.  KEEP FAST.
  • Take a short burst and move on, more often than not it will be enough to send them running with substantial damage.
  • If you ignored all of the above and find yourself low and slow, use that roll rate to keep changing direction.
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ICDP said:

I haven't played online for a long time but when I did the Fw190A was one of my weapon of choice.  You have already figured out the most important thing in the 190, stay fast.  Unlike most plans from a similar era (1942 - 1943) the roll rate does not start to become stuck in treacle over 400kph.

 

These apply to Fw190 vs contemporary fighters ~1942 - 1943

  • Stay fast (400kph or higher but 450KPH+ is optimal)
  • Only turn for 1/4 turn at most to get lead but do it smoothly
  • Use that roll rate to rapidly switch direction (scissors), it may not seem like it but it is a massive advantage.
  • All input should be smooth during attack.  The aim is to conserve enegery.
  • If you are being chased and have a level speed advantage, extend until out of danger.
  • Understand your and your opponents optimal altitudes.  From memory 3000m is not a good altitude for a 190A.
  • Lose the outer MGFF cannons, even with 2x 20 mm cannons a good burst is more than enough to ruin the day for any fighter or medium bomber.
  • Ignore the urge to slow down and hang on a prey until it explodes.  KEEP FAST.
  • Take a short burst and move on, more often than not it will be enough to send them running with substantial damage.
  • If you ignored all of the above and find yourself low and slow, use that roll rate to keep changing direction.


Excellent rules to live by in the 190. I probably need to print this out and tape it to my desk when I try to fly it in all honesty. Absolutely agree about the outer cannons. I have having to take them with the A8, which is why I rarely fly that one. It seems like anything that can be killed by four 20mm can be killed just about as easily by two of them. I guess it would make sense if you were trying to destroy a B-17 or something, but that's not exactly a situation we get into.

The altitude thing is tricky. I definitely notice the 190's poor performance at higher altitudes, but it seems like you need to be roughly 1000-2000 m above a target to bounce it really effectively. I guess that's one thing I like about the D-9. 3000m is still an awful altitude for it with the supercharger gap, but it can kind of fly reasonably well either higher or lower which gives you some flexibility in choosing your starting attack altitude. 

 

13 hours ago, pocketshaver said:

I have a tendency to work it like a sail plane.  Hardly use rudder at all. just tilt the joystick side to side.    Part of the success ive been having is that i have a suicidal streak similar to Udet.  

     Roll to one side, preferably LEFT,  and pull back hard on the stick.   it was really screwing the AI pilots at short range


I always used to be bad at rolling maneuvers, but as I get better at them I am starting to see how powerful they can be. There's nothing more satisfying than maneuver killing a mustang or a tempest that tries to roll with you at low altitude only to fly straight into the ground. Even when it's just AI it's incredibly fun. 

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


Excellent rules to live by in the 190. I probably need to print this out and tape it to my desk when I try to fly it in all honesty. Absolutely agree about the outer cannons. I have having to take them with the A8, which is why I rarely fly that one. It seems like anything that can be killed by four 20mm can be killed just about as easily by two of them. I guess it would make sense if you were trying to destroy a B-17 or something, but that's not exactly a situation we get into.

The altitude thing is tricky. I definitely notice the 190's poor performance at higher altitudes, but it seems like you need to be roughly 1000-2000 m above a target to bounce it really effectively. I guess that's one thing I like about the D-9. 3000m is still an awful altitude for it with the supercharger gap, but it can kind of fly reasonably well either higher or lower which gives you some flexibility in choosing your starting attack altitude. 

 


I always used to be bad at rolling maneuvers, but as I get better at them I am starting to see how powerful they can be. There's nothing more satisfying than maneuver killing a mustang or a tempest that tries to roll with you at low altitude only to fly straight into the ground. Even when it's just AI it's incredibly fun. 

 

 

If you want practice, just hunt B25s and keep turning with them until they hit 300m height. its fun. and i have a tendency to do that often as the system doesnt always tell me it calls that plane dead, and i like to shoot till it blows

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...