Is the FW-190 Still Viable as a Fighter Post 5.001?

[KevPBur]

6 hours ago, percydanvers said:

I’ve also noticed the AI seems to just plain kick ass with the Fw-190. I’m not sure quite why this is, but the pattern is definitely observable. I’m currently doing a career with I./JG 26 and after a few weeks most of the pilots have double digit scores and there has been like one guy shot down the whole time. 

 

It’s an interesting reversal from DCS where the AI is less than useless with the 190 and deadly with a 109. 

 

Being on the receiving end they are demon at head on and zoom passes and those big guns don't usually need a second pass to atleast knock the receiving ai out of the flight and fleeing across the chanel with their tail between their legs.

They have also worked out how to work as a team so whilst you are trying to get one others are zooming you. Basically, proper tactics in the plane.

I'm even now runnng the mod that reduces the range at which the ai fire based on experience (rather than increase which is the game default) but it is just so difficult to avoid the attacks coming from all directions and have a hope of getting anything yourself.

[Youtch]

2 hours ago, KevPBur said:

I'm even now runnng the mod that reduces the range at which the ai fire based on experience (rather than increase which is the game default)

I love this mod as well, make the game much more realistic adjusting distance plane fire from depending if they are novice or ace. This shall be part of the game baseline.

[CAFulcrum]

I wonder if 190s tend to be flown by lone wolf types more often, and now that the 50s are effective those tactics have stopped working for FW pilots, whereas allied pilots that had to be alert to start with (or bf109 pilots) and have more of a tendency to group up and rely on wingmen for spotting and drag-and-bag type tactics.

[percydanvers]

5 hours ago, Youtch said:

I love this mod as well, make the game much more realistic adjusting distance plane fire from depending if they are novice or ace. This shall be part of the game baseline.

does it make the ai 109s any better? I always cringe to see them dump all 60 rounds of 30mm from far away.

[Hook_Echo]

@percydanvers  Ace AI pilots will merc you if you don't check your six. When they fire you die. They get real close and there won't be any misses to warn you. As you go down through the skill level they try to shoot from farther distances so you will see some tracers that miss and give you warning. Rookie pilots will blast through all 60 rds from a long distance as you described.

 

 

[Youtch]

59 minutes ago, percydanvers said:

does it make the ai 109s any better? I always cringe to see them dump all 60 rounds of 30mm from far away.

Yes, he made AI better for all fighter planes, in the sense that they will now shoot you according to their skill level. Novice from afar with low success rate and ace close enough to leave you no second chance. It makes combat vs AI more stressful and challenging if you choose Veteran ot Aces.

Edited September 27, 2022 by Youtch

[Jaws2002]

20 hours ago, percydanvers said:

I’ve also noticed the AI seems to just plain kick ass with the Fw-190. I’m not sure quite why this is, but the pattern is definitely observable. I’m currently doing a career with I./JG 26 and after a few weeks most of the pilots have double digit scores and there has been like one guy shot down the whole time. 

 

It’s an interesting reversal from DCS where the AI is less than useless with the 190 and deadly with a 109. 

The FW-190 A8 in DCS is a very weird model. It's basically the engine from A5 burdened with the A8 weight. 

I have high regards for the DCS flight models in general, but their FW-190's are complete garbage. The A8 is definitely the worst modelled plane in DCS. Ugly cockpit, made after some collection of rusted parts they found in some ditch, paired with a messed up engine and crap flight model. 

 

I wish the 190 was made by some third party team, that actually gave a crap, instead of DCS team. They just butchered the butcher bird.

Edited September 27, 2022 by Jaws2002

[percydanvers]

11 minutes ago, Jaws2002 said:

The FW-190 A8 in DCS is a very weird model. It's basically the engine from A5 burdened with the A8 weight. 

I have high regards for the DCS flight models in general, but their FW-190's are complete garbage. The A8 is definitely the worst modelled plane in DCS. Ugly cockpit, made after some collection of rusted parts they found in some ditch, paired with a messed up engine and crap flight model. 

 

I wish the 190 was made by some third party team, that actually gave a crap, instead of DCS team. They just butchered the butcher bird.

I agree entirely. What they have doesn’t do the Anton justice. No C-3, no jabo variants, but you can also just shut the radiators and run at max power indefinitely. Whatever that thing in DCS is it is not a fw 190 A-8

 

I do kind of like their D-9 for my own flying fun, though the AI is equally worthless with that. Of course you can’t set much store by DCS AI. 

Edited September 27, 2022 by percydanvers

[newbravado]

Don't worry, the Allied side will lose any advantage with the release of the 109g10.

[percydanvers]

15 hours ago, newbravado said:

Don't worry, the Allied side will lose any advantage with the release of the 109g10.

 

How different is the G-10 from a K-4?

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

1 hour ago, percydanvers said:

 

How different is the G-10 from a K-4?

Slightly lighter, slightly slower. 

 

Why does everyone completely ignore the Fact that the Obsolescence of the german Prop Fighters is completely Offset by a Jet Fighter that was produced in the same Numbers as the Dora and the K-4?

Me-262 and Ar-234 are the Superior Aircraft that Germany has. 

Edited October 6, 2022 by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

[percydanvers]

2 hours ago, 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann said:

Slightly lighter, slightly slower. 

 

Why does everyone completely ignore the Fact that the Obsolescence of the german Prop Fighters is completely Offset by a Jet Fighter that was produced in the same Numbers as the Dora and the K-4?

Me-262 and Ar-234 are the Superior Aircraft that Germany has. 

 

I don't ignore it. I personally just don't enjoy flying it that much.

[Fritz_X]

5 hours ago, percydanvers said:

 

How different is the G-10 from a K-4?

 

The G-10 can be considered as the best of the late war G-series types:

 

As Klaus already said, the G-10 was lighter than the Kurfürst and therefore more manouverable. It was also slower than the K-4, but faster than the G-14 we already got with Bodenplatte. Compared to the K-4 it had no retractable tail wheel, but featured the same aerodynamically streamlined motor bonnet.

 

Also important: Unlike the K-4 it saw service with both 20mm and 30mm motor cannons.

Edited October 6, 2022 by Fritz_X

[percydanvers]

15 minutes ago, Fritz_X said:

 

The G-10 can be considered as the best of the late war G-series types:

 

As Klaus already said, the G-10 was lighter than the Kurfürst and therefore more manouverable. It was also slower than the K-4, but faster than the G-14 we already got with Bodenplatte. Compared to the K-4 it had no retractable tail wheel, but featured the same aerodynamically streamlined motor bonnet.

 

Also important: Unlike the K-4 it saw service with both 20mm and 30mm motor cannons.

 

That honestly sounds perfect. I kind of like a bit of maneuverability and a 20mm to deal with fighters.

[the_emperor]

13 minutes ago, Fritz_X said:

Compared to the K-4 it had no retractable tail wheel, but featured the same aerodynamically streamlined motor bonnet.

Actually the 1945 manual says that G10 airframes are prepared for the retractable tailwheel and shall get it, with the next overhaul (though dont know how much that was done). It als features the additional front landing gear cover. The manuell describes the G10 airframe  being similar  to the K4 only difference is the 20mm cannon.

 

[CUJO_1970]

The FW190 suffers from the fact that most aircraft in the sim have a similar roll rate (or better) and exact same ability to do fast direction changes, when this was clearly not the case in real life...thus it's primary advantages in agility are negated - in some cases completely. There is also no advantage in the sim for having direct fuel injection, nor is there any real advantage for having automatic engine controls.

 

The FW190A-8 also suffers from not having the ability to delete outer cannons to increase speed/agility, or have option for blown canopy as was the case in real life.

 

 

 

 

 

There is also no option for the more robust BMW801/TU power plant that was installed in the A8, not to mention the complete omission in this series of the 801/TS/TH powered FW190A-9:

 

 

 

 

In addition - all F-series FW190 had the ability to remove all wing and bomb racks completely - not an option in Great Battles. F-series 190 with C3 injection and 1.58ata should also have ability to be flown in clean configuration. This was done often on eastern front for Stuka escort and because of shortage on EF of 190 fighters.

 

Unfortunately - the decision was also made not to include the FW190A-9 or F-9 in Great Battles although these aircraft were operating over the maps we have in good numbers from late summer/early fall 1944...thus the best Anton it was decided to leave it out of the series altogether. The A-9 would have a radial engine 190 with performance similar to Dora-9 at lower altitudes and a higher critical altitude over the FW190A-8. It could also out-climb the A-8 we have in the sim.

 

Allied pilots who flew captured 109A9/F9 loved flying it ("it was an aircraft everybody wanted to fly" - Bob Strobell) and praised it's agility and maneuverability.

 

 

 

 

It's a glaring omission in the series, especially when the A8 has to go up against allied aircraft in the with every late war option included. The developers response to this situation was to add a FW190A-6 that began production in 1943 and which by Normandy time-frame had already been largely replaced or sent to training squadrons.

 

 

 

 

[CountZero]

I am surprised and appalled that enigma did ask them why 190A8 dont have option to remove guns and blown canopy, the whole interview i was waiting for that question.

[percydanvers]

23 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

The FW190 suffers from the fact that most aircraft in the sim have a similar roll rate (or better) and exact same ability to do fast direction changes, when this was clearly not the case in real life...thus it's primary advantages in agility are negated - in some cases completely. There is also no advantage in the sim for having direct fuel injection, nor is there any real advantage for having automatic engine controls.

 

The FW190A-8 also suffers from not having the ability to delete outer cannons to increase speed/agility, or have option for blown canopy as was the case in real life.

 

 

 

 

 

There is also no option for the more robust BMW801/TU power plant that was installed in the A8, not to mention the complete omission in this series of the 801/TS/TH powered FW190A-9:

 

 

 

 

In addition - all F-series FW190 had the ability to remove all wing and bomb racks completely - not an option in Great Battles. F-series 190 with C3 injection and 1.58ata should also have ability to be flown in clean configuration. This was done often on eastern front for Stuka escort and because of shortage on EF of 190 fighters.

 

Unfortunately - the decision was also made not to include the FW190A-9 or F-9 in Great Battles although these aircraft were operating over the maps we have in good numbers from late summer/early fall 1944...thus the best Anton it was decided to leave it out of the series altogether. The A-9 would have a radial engine 190 with performance similar to Dora-9 at lower altitudes and a higher critical altitude over the FW190A-8. It could also out-climb the A-8 we have in the sim.

 

Allied pilots who flew captured 109A9/F9 loved flying it ("it was an aircraft everybody wanted to fly" - Bob Strobell) and praised it's agility and maneuverability.

 

 

 

 

It's a glaring omission in the series, especially when the A8 has to go up against allied aircraft in the with every late war option included. The developers response to this situation was to add a FW190A-6 that began production in 1943 and which by Normandy time-frame had already been largely replaced or sent to training squadrons.

 

 

 

 

 

Wow, now I'm really sad we don't have an A-9/clean F

[ACG_Cass]

32 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

fact that most aircraft in the sim have a similar roll rate (or better) and exact same ability to do fast direction changes, when this was clearly not the case in real life...thus it's primary advantages in agility are negated -

What testing has shown this? The only aircraft that gets anywhere near the 190 roll rate is the clipped wing spit. Maybe at very high speed some of the aircraft can begin to catch up but I don't see it being out rolled.

 

The roll rate is it's best defense tactic if you have altitude to play with. Ive used it plenty of times to escape all manor of aircraft. The 190 simply isn't able to 1v1 (like most engagements are in MP) allied aircraft on equal terms, it is outclassed in climb, speed and turn sometimes significantly losing some guns and a bubble canopy isn't going to change that.

 

As soon as you move to 2v2 or 3v3, then the 190 comes into its own. Its absolutely viable then.

 

 

 

 

[CUJO_1970]

11 hours ago, ACG_Cass said:

What testing has shown this? The only aircraft that gets anywhere near the 190 roll rate is the clipped wing spit.

 

Sorry, but this is completely incorrect - and yes I've taken the time to do the actual testing. There are several aircraft that out perform the clip wing Spit IX by the way.

 

Here are a portion of aircraft, along with their average roll rates at 300mph as tested on Kuban Autumn, 3000m with 70% fuel load:

 

162 deg/sec - La5FN

116 deg/sec - FW190A

110 deg/sec - LaGG-3

95 deg/sec  - P-51

92 deg/sec - Mosquito

80 deg/sec - Spit IX Clipped Wing

 

So, saying the clipped wing spit is the only aircraft that gets anywhere near the FW190 is not even close to being true.

 

The La5 roll rates are 'interesting' and the LaGG-3 out rolls the FW190 very slightly beginning at 200mph and stays basically the same rolling velocity as the 190 to at least 300 mph...I didn't test that one above 300mph.

 

As for the Mosquito - it is hideously over performing in roll rate based on this chart, it's not even close to being accurate.

 

 

As for the FW190, yes - it suffers from too low peak roll rate along with incorrect roll rate at high speeds.

 

The NACA chart is not based on the best rolling performance the FW190 was capable of either:

 

 

So, yes in fact - the primary performance and agility advantages that the FW190 had in real life is really not well represented in the sim.

 

I do agree the FW190 perform better exponentially in a team environment as opposed to 1V1 - but the real FW190A-8 IRL remained very much an air superiority fighter. The lack of options it had in real life and the ignoring of the FW190A-9/F9 options do nothing but put it at an even greater disadvantage. 

 

 

Edited October 8, 2022 by CUJO_1970

[Denum]

Oh my.

 

I've waited a while to finally say this here. Interestingly it occurs after a DM adjustment.

 

 

"Germany suffers"

[Dr_Molem]

18 hours ago, ACG_Cass said:

What testing has shown this? The only aircraft that gets anywhere near the 190 roll rate is the clipped wing spit. Maybe at very high speed some of the aircraft can begin to catch up but I don't see it being out rolled.

 

The roll rate is it's best defense tactic if you have altitude to play with. Ive used it plenty of times to escape all manor of aircraft. The 190 simply isn't able to 1v1 (like most engagements are in MP) allied aircraft on equal terms, it is outclassed in climb, speed and turn sometimes significantly losing some guns and a bubble canopy isn't going to change that.

 

As soon as you move to 2v2 or 3v3, then the 190 comes into its own. Its absolutely viable then.

 

 

 

 

 

I agree, someone who think that only the clipped wings Spitfires can roll with 190 in-game is not going to feel any difference when losing 175 kg in the A-8. 

[EAF19_Marsh]

Don't know about the Russian aircraft, but the RAF graphs available suggest that only clipped Spits should be able to roll close to the 190s, though Mustang comes closer at higher speed as does Tempest.

 

Mosquito, really....?

[Jaws2002]

I think the roll problem comes from excessive roll inertia in the case of the 190. I didn't test it in a long time, but I remember when we talked about this aspect with the developers, many years ago, during early A3 talks, the Inertia was the problem. The 190 needed too long to reach it's peak roll rate, and this was markedly obvious when compared to  LA-5. I remember I sent some info, from Dietmar Hermann's book, but the part about the instant reaction to aileron input was not taken into consideration.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

13 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

 

 

 

Is there a chart for 50lb stick force? The NACA one is made with that and looks like most planes in game are made with those values in mind.

[CUJO_1970]

3 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

Is there a chart for 50lb stick force? The NACA one is made with that and looks like most planes in game are made with those values in mind.

 

No they did not test at 50lb stick force, this was RAAF test and their Mosquitos as tested was forbidden to fly aerobatics:

 

 

They also found issues with the carbs cutting out during maneuvers and certain instruments in the aircraft could be damaged in maneuvering.

 

 

[oc2209]

Speaking of questionable Fw flight behavior, I'd just like to point out the ostensible absurdity of an A-3 being able to follow a P-51B through various maneuvers with greater ease than the 190D.

 

190D:

 

Spoiler

 

 

A-3 in the vertical:

 

Spoiler

 

 

A-3 in vertical and horizontal:

 

Spoiler

 

 

Mind you, this is with the 190D (and A-3) carrying a 50% fuel load.

 

I know others have said the D's hideous stalling characteristics are a result of the center of gravity being disrupted by the full boost tank; and that after 5 or so minutes of running boost, the plane starts to behave sensibly.

 

I don't understand why this should be an issue, however, if your fuel tank isn't full or near full. If both the fuel and the boost tanks are full, yes. But that's not the case here.