Is the FW-190 D9 any good for career/ single player?

[parkerc341]

I love the looks of the FW-190 d9, but im not really sure if i should buy it or not.

[Eisenfaustus]

if you have BoBP then yes it's very fun in career.

 

III./JG54 flies it from phase II onward - many others join later.

 

Like most German squadrons the way from airfield to the mission is very long though.

 

What I do: Fly as squadron leader, select air start and manually move the waypoint 2 closer to the action

[oc2209]

The 190D is superior in turning capability to most of the 190A family. Personally, I feel (regardless of what plane stats might say) the A-3 is still more maneuverable overall, but the D is definitely an improvement over the later A series.

 

Beyond that, the D is faster than any A, at all altitudes.

 

Oh, it also has a better climb rate than the A series. And it dives better.

 

So if you like anything in the A series, you will almost certainly like the D.

[percydanvers]

It's a plane I honestly struggle to enjoy flying. It's basically a late war superprop that's not as good at being a superprop as the allied counterparts. Mustangs, Tempests, Gryphon Spits all do the same stuff it does just better. The D-9 bets everything on being faster than the opposition, but at best it's only marginally faster and a lot less maneuverable. I personally feel that the 109 is just better, even if it's kind of primitive by comparison - more flexibility to it.

 

The campaign's alright, but a bit repetitive. You will fly intercepts of fighter bombers and bombers over 2nd British Army's salient for every single mission. Your wingmen will get wiped out in most missions, but I guess that's historically accurate. The AQMB has helped a lot with this. I can finally scratch the itch to use the D-9 as a fighter bomber when the mood takes me so I don't as much mind flying endless intercept missions in career mode. 

 

As a purchase I do recommend it. It's a really historically interesting plane that should belong in everyone's collection.

[oc2209]

1 hour ago, percydanvers said:

It's a plane I honestly struggle to enjoy flying. It's basically a late war superprop that's not as good at being a superprop as the allied counterparts. Mustangs, Tempests, Gryphon Spits all do the same stuff it does just better. The D-9 bets everything on being faster than the opposition, but at best it's only marginally faster and a lot less maneuverable.

 

I think you're underselling the D a little here. It's still got the Fw roll rate, which makes that maneuverability aspect superior to most Allied planes. It can turn with or better than most AI-piloted Western Allied planes.

 

Just now I was screwing around with QMBs, and I was surprised to find I could pretty easily keep up with, and turn inside, a P-51B at a starting altitude of 3,000m. I gave the P-51 all the advantages I could: 50% fuel load, 81 inch 150 octane, and the improved engine.

 

Fighting a Tempest AI is more equal. It couldn't hit me 1v1, but it was significantly harder to catch than the P-51, at least in a turn.

 

What it boils down to is that, per the OP's title question, yes, the 190D is plenty good for single player and career.

 

I also prefer the 109 in most instances, but that's not really the OP's question.

[ShamrockOneFive]

When given the choice between Bf109K-4 or Fw190D-9, I'd choose the D-9 every time. I prefer the Focke Wulf's generally over the 109s and here it's no different. The D-9 is extremely fast and retains significant maneuvering capabilities at higher speeds. That's something that the K-4 lacks as it feels a bit heavy at times once the speed really increases.

 

So, fast, high roll rate, and good firepower and good maneuvering potential at speed. What it isn't is a dogfighter.

[parkerc341]

Thanks for all the advice! I purchased it, and oh boy, is it a dream high up! As long as I dont run into any tempests, I can dominate, even at low altitude, so long as I boom and zoom. This things fast too, and beautiful. I love it.

[percydanvers]

46 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

 

I think you're underselling the D a little here. It's still got the Fw roll rate, which makes that maneuverability aspect superior to most Allied planes. It can turn with or better than most AI-piloted Western Allied planes.

 

Just now I was screwing around with QMBs, and I was surprised to find I could pretty easily keep up with, and turn inside, a P-51B at a starting altitude of 3,000m. I gave the P-51 all the advantages I could: 50% fuel load, 81 inch 150 octane, and the improved engine.

 

Fighting a Tempest AI is more equal. It couldn't hit me 1v1, but it was significantly harder to catch than the P-51, at least in a turn.

 

What it boils down to is that, per the OP's title question, yes, the 190D is plenty good for single player and career.

 

I also prefer the 109 in most instances, but that's not really the OP's question.

 

Oh no it really is an excellent plane. I don't mean to undersell it. I just personally tend to do horribly with FWs

[oc2209]

12 minutes ago, parkerc341 said:

Thanks for all the advice! I purchased it, and oh boy, is it a dream high up! As long as I dont run into any tempests, I can dominate, even at low altitude, so long as I boom and zoom. This things fast too, and beautiful. I love it.

 

Glad to hear it! Hope you have (even more) fun with it.

 

4 minutes ago, percydanvers said:

Oh no it really is an excellent plane. I don't mean to undersell it. I just personally tend to do horribly with FWs

 

The Focke-Wulf snap stall is something I'll never really adjust to, so I know what you mean.

 

I'm reading the latest Osprey dogfight series (on the D), and one pilot explicitly mentions that, with the A models, he had to reduce speed in turns (presumably to avoid the harsh stall), whereas in the D he could maintain a tight turn at higher speeds. The sim makes the D pretty vulnerable to stalling suddenly at turn speeds over ~180 MPH; perhaps too much so, I'unno.

 

There's so many conflicting reports on the D in particular. Some people rave about it (Axis and Allied pilots), while some Allied testing makes it out to be thoroughly mediocre in many respects; specifically a need to constantly adjust the stabilizer in turns. An American report specifically mentions the harsh stall with little warning for the D; it goes on to say that the overall drawbacks make the A series preferable. 

 

Yet, the notoriously hard-to-please Eric Brown liked the D.

 

I wonder if all these conflicts are in part a result of the inconsistent German manufacturing quality late in the war. Maybe some testers got markedly inferior examples compared to the people who liked it.

[Bremspropeller]

5 hours ago, parkerc341 said:

I love the looks of the FW-190 d9, but im not really sure if i should buy it or not.

 

In single player, you can do very well in it.

Just don't try to outturn the other guys. Go vertical and stay fast.

 

I think the effect of the full MW50 tank is a bot hasrsh (it likes to snap-roll until you have used up the MW50 by a bit).

Edited February 28, 2022 by Bremspropeller

[percydanvers]

1 hour ago, oc2209 said:

I'm reading the latest Osprey dogfight series (on the D), and one pilot explicitly mentions that, with the A models, he had to reduce speed in turns (presumably to avoid the harsh stall), whereas in the D he could maintain a tight turn at higher speeds. The sim makes the D pretty vulnerable to stalling suddenly at turn speeds over ~180 MPH; perhaps too much so, I'unno.

 

There's so many conflicting reports on the D in particular. Some people rave about it (Axis and Allied pilots), while some Allied testing makes it out to be thoroughly mediocre in many respects; specifically a need to constantly adjust the stabilizer in turns. An American report specifically mentions the harsh stall with little warning for the D; it goes on to say that the overall drawbacks make the A series preferable. 

 

Yet, the notoriously hard-to-please Eric Brown liked the D.

 

I wonder if all these conflicts are in part a result of the inconsistent German manufacturing quality late in the war. Maybe some testers got markedly inferior examples compared to the people who liked it.

 

I've been reading that book myself and enjoying the hell out of it. That's why I've been trying (unsuccessfully) to get good with the Dora lately. I think part of it is just the hype surrounding it in things one reads, but the book has been kind of reassuring to me in the sense that many pilots IRL found it hard to get to grips with. 

 

As I always heard the story, Eric Brown flew the D-13, which was better still than the D-9, but I don't know for sure.

 

I think you're right about the variance in production quality though. The USAAF with its pristine factories far from the warzone had many pilots complaining that so and so had a better P-47 than theirs and so on. I can't imagine how inconsistent the build quality would be when you're making planes in underground tunnels out of spare parts. 

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

Congrats on purchasing it, its a fantastic plane. Dora is so sexy.

 

I'd love the D13, with the improved supercharger and three cannons.

[JG7_X-Man]

8 hours ago, Eisenfaustus said:

if you have BoBP then yes it's very fun in career.

 

III./JG54 flies it from phase II onward - many others join later.

 

Like most German squadrons the way from airfield to the mission is very long though.

 

What I do: Fly as squadron leader, select air start and manually move the waypoint 2 closer to the action

 

Can't wait from drop tanks! Taking off from say Furstenau flying to Köln and back (usual late war mission for I./JG26) there is always a slight fuel anxiety during the return flight.

[oc2209]

3 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

I think the effect of the full MW50 tank is a bot hasrsh (it likes to snap-roll until you have used up the MW50 by a bit).

 

I was just noticing today that after about 7+ minutes of boost, the snapping frequency dropped.

 

1 hour ago, percydanvers said:

I've been reading that book myself and enjoying the hell out of it. That's why I've been trying (unsuccessfully) to get good with the Dora lately. I think part of it is just the hype surrounding it in things one reads, but the book has been kind of reassuring to me in the sense that many pilots IRL found it hard to get to grips with. 

 

As I always heard the story, Eric Brown flew the D-13, which was better still than the D-9, but I don't know for sure.

 

I think you're right about the variance in production quality though. The USAAF with its pristine factories far from the warzone had many pilots complaining that so and so had a better P-47 than theirs and so on. I can't imagine how inconsistent the build quality would be when you're making planes in underground tunnels out of spare parts. 

 

Well, the Germans would've been hyped about it (sort of, after initial reservations) because the regular Fw-190 was suffering from the same problems as the 109 by 1944: constant bloat. The 190-A series in 1941-42 was stellar; still pretty good in '43; but by '44, especially later in the year, it was rapidly becoming 'meh.'

 

The D series took the 190 back to its roots by omitting the outboard cannons and bringing the plane's performance level on par with 1944 standards. And then the Ta-152 even surpassed those standards a little, more or less hitting the ceiling of WWII-era prop performance.

 

Mathematically speaking, the D probably gave pilots a survival edge over the late G and K 109, because it would've combined the inherent ruggedness of the 190 design with better speed. And that roll rate. According to the Americans testing it, only the P-80 and boosted P-38J ailerons could match/exceed the 190's roll.

 

I don't really use the roll intelligently for offensive purposes, but it's damn handy for defense.

 

As for Brown, it's mentioned in my Haynes 190 book that he put the D-9 in his top twenty best planes list. So, that doesn't mean he didn't also fly the -13, but the -9 evidently made his list regardless.

[[CPT]Crunch]

If you eliminate the A-8's outboards and Mg's by making it a G-8 with the two 250 Kg bombs with the smallest racks at lower altitudes it gets pretty close to the D's performance after you dump the load and boost it.

 

Just remember going up against top allied fighters at high altitude, especially from 6000 meters on up, your Dora can pretty much match speeds and turns fairly well enough to compete, and climbs a bit better, but it'll utterly flop trying to combine climb and turn, Mustangs and Lightnings will beat the pants off you every time in a spiral or turning climb, and outright leave you gasping above 7500.  The higher you get the worse that will get, same for the 109's, you don't want get sucked into any maneuvering vertical fight up there.  Other than that your golden and good to go.

[Yogiflight]

7 hours ago, percydanvers said:

I can't imagine how inconsistent the build quality would be when you're making planes in underground tunnels out of spare parts. 

This was not the point. The point was, the late war aircrafts were mainly built by slave labor, who of course were not really interested in building an aircraft of good quality.

[Youtch]

7 hours ago, I./JG52_Woutwocampe said:

I'd love the D13, with the improved supercharger and three cannons.

Maybe for next title in the serie, if it goes to battle of Berlin. I would to see that plane as well.

[Asgar]

Just now, Youtch said:

Maybe for next title in the serie, if it goes to battle of Berlin. I would to see that plane as well.

Just make it a collector. It’s high altitude optimized, not really fitting to a BoB low altitude scenario

[PatrickAWlson]

@percydanvers I spend most of my time in As and, honestly, struggle with them a bit.    However, I like them too much too give up.  My struggles are almost always caused by the meat in the seat.  I tend to get too fixated on a target and I start turning too much.  Then I bleed speed and the 190 is not such a great plane in that flight envelope.

 

Make passes, don't stay glued to the tail.  The 190,A or D, is pretty fast, has heavy armament, lots of ammo, great roll, and is relatively light on the controls at high speed.  That is a great combination.  Come in fast, use the change of direction and good high speed handling to lineup a shot.  Then use those guns and ammo to put lead in the path of the target.  Commit to that pass and only that pass.  Follow through retaining speed.  Extend, assess, repeat if possible.  OODA loop processing was dreamed up with the 190 in mind.

 

Defensively, nothing scissors like a 190.  Since I stupidly bleed speed too often I gel lots of practice scissoring.  Do not try to evade with horizontal turns.  Almost everybody else outside of a P47 does that better than the 190.

 

 

[oc2209]

6 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 Come in fast, use the change of direction and good high speed handling to lineup a shot.  Then use those guns and ammo to put lead in the path of the target.

 

Yeah, this is what I end up doing most often, just through trial and error (lots of the latter), finding it's pretty much the only thing that works. It's helpful if the AI is particularly dumb and makes a lot of mistakes. If the AI just turns endlessly in the same direction (which we normally make fun of it for), you don't have a lot of options. But if you can get it to change directions multiple times, you can cut inside it briefly each time. 

 

This is a good example I just recorded yesterday:

 

Spoiler

 

 

It gives me 4 firing opportunities in less than a minute. Which is unusually high. Of course I severely botch the first shot it gives me, then I get kind of close with the second one, then I begin to stall/flick (despite starting out with only a 40% fuel load) as he enters his split-S, and I'm still too unstable to track him through the S, only recovering enough to fire accurately for the fourth and final time.

 

When everything goes right, you can do it in one pass:

 

Spoiler

 

 

But that's a low probability event for a multitude of reasons. My gunnery must be perfectly on point, I have to begin the turn into him at just the right time, the AI has to make a lazy turn instead of a hard one, etc.

[Jaws2002]

22 hours ago, parkerc341 said:

Thanks for all the advice! I purchased it, and oh boy, is it a dream high up! As long as I dont run into any tempests, I can dominate, even at low altitude, so long as I boom and zoom. This things fast too, and beautiful. I love it.

Congrats. Just a friendly advice for the future. If you think of buying new content, specially if you get it when it's in sale, you end up cheaper per plane, if you just buy the Premium release, instead of the standard. If you buy the standard first, and then buy the premium plane as stand alone, they are more expensive.  

22 hours ago, oc2209 said:

There's so many conflicting reports on the D in particular. Some people rave about it (Axis and Allied pilots), while some Allied testing makes it out to be thoroughly mediocre in many respects; specifically a need to constantly adjust the stabilizer in turns. An American report specifically mentions the harsh stall with little warning for the D; it goes on to say that the overall drawbacks make the A series preferable. 

 

Yet, the notoriously hard-to-please Eric Brown liked the D.

 

I wonder if all these conflicts are in part a result of the inconsistent German manufacturing quality late in the war. Maybe some testers got markedly inferior examples compared to the people who liked it.

 

Tests, on captured planes, in many instances maintained by unqualified personnel, are not always going to provide a clear and true picture about the aircraft. 

Remember the famous "bad air conditioning of the mig15", that's been shown as reality in the western press for decades, only to be put to rest after the 90's. Remember teh upside down installed carburetor, in the US captured Zero fighter? Remember the Russian tests of the D9, without boost and the conclusion they got? 

History is full of examples of planes that didn't obtained their rated performance, when tested and operated by unqualified personnel.  

[percydanvers]

2 hours ago, oc2209 said:

 

Yeah, this is what I end up doing most often, just through trial and error (lots of the latter), finding it's pretty much the only thing that works. It's helpful if the AI is particularly dumb and makes a lot of mistakes. If the AI just turns endlessly in the same direction (which we normally make fun of it for), you don't have a lot of options. But if you can get it to change directions multiple times, you can cut inside it briefly each time. 

 

This is a good example I just recorded yesterday:

 

  Hide contents

 

 

It gives me 4 firing opportunities in less than a minute. Which is unusually high. Of course I severely botch the first shot it gives me, then I get kind of close with the second one, then I begin to stall/flick (despite starting out with only a 40% fuel load) as he enters his split-S, and I'm still too unstable to track him through the S, only recovering enough to fire accurately for the fourth and final time.

 

When everything goes right, you can do it in one pass:

 

  Hide contents

 

 

But that's a low probability event for a multitude of reasons. My gunnery must be perfectly on point, I have to begin the turn into him at just the right time, the AI has to make a lazy turn instead of a hard one, etc.

 

I think this is where I struggle. Usually I can stay fast or change directions, but I haven't gotten the hang of doing both. These are great clips though and I will study them! May I ask what convergence you're using in these?

Edited March 1, 2022 by percydanvers

[oc2209]

4 hours ago, percydanvers said:

I think this is where I struggle. Usually I can stay fast or change directions, but I haven't gotten the hang of doing both. These are great clips though and I will study them! May I ask what convergence you're using in these?

 

200m. It's what I use on every plane I fly. Partly out of laziness, and partly because I haven't found a situation yet where it's a disadvantage.

 

Also, something to remember when facing the AI: often, a lot of what you do will determine what the AI does. To 'force' it into doing something to your advantage, you might have to fly differently than you're used to.

 

I find even comparing my own performances, there can be very different AI behaviors if I don't turn hard enough at a certain point in a merge, for instance.

 

That's why sometimes defeating it looks like child's play, while other times it can simply get away from you and prevent you from getting many good firing opportunities.

[oc2209]

Here @percydanvers, you or someone else might appreciate these 190D vs Spitfire XIV recordings. It was a 7.5 minute engagement, which would be a huge file to upload, so I trimmed it into 2 parts, beginning and end, and cut the middle.

 

The Spitfire has 50% fuel load, the E wing, and 150 octane. I wanted it to have maximum technical advantage. I gave myself 40% fuel and nothing else special (I disdain bubble canopies).

 

Part 1:

Spoiler

 

 

Some things to note about part 1. First, it begins very similarly to the Tempest combat. But then you'll see the point where the Spitfire gains a massive amount of altitude that I can't cope with. At the same time in the Tempest recording, I was able to get a shot at him. Then, instead of doing the split-S, the Spitfire does the powered dive to get away from me.

 

The embarrassing part is where I enter a climbing turn (I had the speed to burn) to gain an advantage on the turning Spitfire, but then I lose visual contact. This is where my lack of VR or head tracking is detrimental. Typically I will visualize where the enemy will be in the sky after certain maneuvers, and act accordingly. In this case, I gained a lot more altitude over him than I assumed I would. That's why I didn't think to look down, but instead figured he fell out of the turn while I'd lost sight of him.

 

Had I completed the maneuver successfully (using my altitude advantage to keep the turn tight while descending on the Spitfire in his turn), I believe I could've gotten my guns on him.

 

Here's part 2:

Spoiler

 

 

This pretty much boils down to me getting the advantage by looping across his turn rather than following it with my own turn. On each successive attempt, I'm cutting up into his turn diagonally, rather than actually turning tighter than him. And as @Bremspropeller noted, I'd also burned off some of my boost tank by this point, making all of my maneuvers less likely to incur the dreaded snap stall.

 

I did have to fire completely blind under my nose, however. Both the first time I hit him, and the time I finished him off.

Edited March 2, 2022 by oc2209

[Bremspropeller]

22 hours ago, Asgar said:

Just make it a collector. It’s high altitude optimized, not really fitting to a BoB low altitude scenario

 

It's not - at least not more so than a P-51B is high altitude optimized over the A.

The D-13's Jumo 213F just has a two-stage three speed supercharger, instead of the one-stage two speed SC of the D-9's Jumo 213A.

It also had MW50. And it had a broader prop, giving it additional thrust per HP.

 

 

 

 

[parkerc341]

17 hours ago, Jaws2002 said:

If you think of buying new content, specially if you get it when it's in sale, you end up cheaper per plane, if you just buy the Premium release, instead of the standard.

yeah i bought the premium of the Battle of Moscow, I just didnt get premium for others cause im a little crunched on money

[Asgar]

8 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

It's not - at least not more so than a P-51B is high altitude optimized over the A.

The D-13's Jumo 213F just has a two-stage three speed supercharger, instead of the one-stage two speed SC of the D-9's Jumo 213A.

It also had MW50. And it had a broader prop, giving it additional thrust per HP.

 

 

 

 

Well, maybe not the best wording, from all I read the D-9 is faster than the D-13 below 6000m, while the D-13 is faster above 6000m. I would assume the bigger two-stage charger is the reason for both of that, you need more power to drive it, so you lose speed in the first gear where you don't get extra performance out of it, but you have a higher FTH so more speed up high. For me that is effectively, optimised for high altitude when compared to the D-9. 
Our D-9 also has MW50, since it's portraying the late '44/'45 production model, so no real difference there, right? Broader props are also usually quite nice to have high up  

Edited March 2, 2022 by Asgar

[Bremspropeller]

46 minutes ago, Asgar said:

Well, maybe not the best wording, from all I read the D-9 is faster than the D-13 below 6000m, while the D-13 is faster above 6000m. I would assume the bigger two-stage charger is the reason for both of that, you need more power to drive it, so you lose speed in the first gear where you don't get extra performance out of it, but you have a higher FTH so more speed up high. For me that is effectively, optimised for high altitude when compared to the D-9. 
Our D-9 also has MW50, since it's portraying the late '44/'45 production model, so no real difference there, right? Broader props are also usually quite nice to have high up  

 

Got a source for that? According to this table, the difference is rather negligible - not saying your reasoning is wrong, though....

 

 

 

 

Broader props help in acceleration and climb as well. The Jumo 213F has a higher non-boosted power-output.

See "Schraubenschub" (propeller thrust) - about 50-75kg more for the D-12 vs the D-9:

 

 

 

Keep in mind the D-13 had several different configurations, including the eventual Jumo 213EB with the better cooler design, an intercooler and more HP:

 

 

The D-13s with the Jumo 213F1 aren't what the eventual configurations would have been, as the EB was going to be ramped into production as soon as available.

The higher power-output, intercooler and better (lower drag) cooler design were going to add another ~40kph to the D-13's ~740km/h at optimal altitude.

[Asgar]

26 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

Got a source for that? According to this table, the difference is rather negligible - not saying your reasoning is wrong, though....

 

 

 

 

Broader props help in acceleration and climb as well. The Jumo 213F has a higher non-boosted power-output.

See "Schraubenschub" (propeller thrust) - about 50-75kg more for the D-12 vs the D-9:

 

 

 

Keep in mind the D-13 had several different configurations, including the eventual Jumo 213EB with the better cooler design, an intercooler and more HP:

 

 

The D-13s with the Jumo 213F1 aren't what the eventual configurations would have been, as the EB was going to be ramped into production as soon as available.

The higher power-output, intercooler and better (lower drag) cooler design were going to add another ~40kph to the D-13's ~740km/h at optimal altitude.

Nice data... i mean technically, it's slower at low altitude... so I'm not wrong ? 

 

Edited March 2, 2022 by Asgar

[oc2209]

Was feeling cocky after practicing in the D lately, so I thought I'd fire up a new career for fun. Haven't played a 190D career for a while.

 

First sortie, less than 5 minutes after enemy contact:

 

Spoiler

 

 

It's on hard difficulty, but still... my shame is unbearable.

 

Even worse is that it was a rocket-laden Typhoon that nailed me.

[percydanvers]

On 3/1/2022 at 10:16 PM, oc2209 said:

Here @percydanvers, you or someone else might appreciate these 190D vs Spitfire XIV recordings. It was a 7.5 minute engagement, which would be a huge file to upload, so I trimmed it into 2 parts, beginning and end, and cut the middle.

 

The Spitfire has 50% fuel load, the E wing, and 150 octane. I wanted it to have maximum technical advantage. I gave myself 40% fuel and nothing else special (I disdain bubble canopies).

 

Part 1:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

Some things to note about part 1. First, it begins very similarly to the Tempest combat. But then you'll see the point where the Spitfire gains a massive amount of altitude that I can't cope with. At the same time in the Tempest recording, I was able to get a shot at him. Then, instead of doing the split-S, the Spitfire does the powered dive to get away from me.

 

The embarrassing part is where I enter a climbing turn (I had the speed to burn) to gain an advantage on the turning Spitfire, but then I lose visual contact. This is where my lack of VR or head tracking is detrimental. Typically I will visualize where the enemy will be in the sky after certain maneuvers, and act accordingly. In this case, I gained a lot more altitude over him than I assumed I would. That's why I didn't think to look down, but instead figured he fell out of the turn while I'd lost sight of him.

 

Had I completed the maneuver successfully (using my altitude advantage to keep the turn tight while descending on the Spitfire in his turn), I believe I could've gotten my guns on him.

 

Here's part 2:

  Hide contents

 

 

This pretty much boils down to me getting the advantage by looping across his turn rather than following it with my own turn. On each successive attempt, I'm cutting up into his turn diagonally, rather than actually turning tighter than him. And as @Bremspropeller noted, I'd also burned off some of my boost tank by this point, making all of my maneuvers less likely to incur the dreaded snap stall.

 

I did have to fire completely blind under my nose, however. Both the first time I hit him, and the time I finished him off.

I've been studying these! They've improved my performance with the dora a lot I've got to say. Excellent flying!

 

21 hours ago, oc2209 said:

Was feeling cocky after practicing in the D lately, so I thought I'd fire up a new career for fun. Haven't played a 190D career for a while.

 

First sortie, less than 5 minutes after enemy contact:

 

  Hide contents

 

 

It's on hard difficulty, but still... my shame is unbearable.

 

Even worse is that it was a rocket-laden Typhoon that nailed me.

 

Wish I could say this has never happened to me lol. Those typhoons can be surprising sometimes. Even if they can't maneuver with those rockets as they are it's a hell of a lot of firepower to get in front of by mistake. It doesn't take a very long burst to ruin your day. 

[oc2209]

48 minutes ago, percydanvers said:

I've been studying these! They've improved my performance with the dora a lot I've got to say. Excellent flying!

 

 

Wish I could say this has never happened to me lol. Those typhoons can be surprising sometimes. Even if they can't maneuver with those rockets as they are it's a hell of a lot of firepower to get in front of by mistake. It doesn't take a very long burst to ruin your day. 

 

Glad the videos are helping!

 

As for the Typhoon, yeah, it's a far cry from the usual P-47 spam for ground attack intercepts before. I have little fear of a P-47 at those altitudes, but I'll never underestimate a loaded Typhoon again.

 

The creepy thing was how the AI came out of the sun during the attack. It clearly can't plan it, but damn. Even if I'd gotten a sixth sense to look up, I wouldn't have seen him. I'd instead have needed to spot him well before I committed to my turn, and I also would've needed to perceive his approach on me as a threat, and not just one of the many Tempests/Typhoons milling around.

Edited March 3, 2022 by oc2209