quote:

Originally posted by anarchy52:

If Brits had been flying Oleg's fw-190, their conclusions would be quite different. In the game, fw-190, the only way to go is "drive by shooting" and hunting in large packs, anything else borders suicide.

I don't agree at all. Yes, its the best drive by shooter with the exception of the 4 cannon armed British planes and 262 but go onto Warclouds and watch guys dogfight spits at there own game in A6's, A8's and A9's and win. If you can use its roll rate, its ability to change direction of flight in an instant its a killer.

Got any tracks of such dogfights? They'd really help my game. <3 FW190

quote:

Originally posted by chunkydora:
After trying for weeks to do anything in this wonder plane besides down newbies and b-17s in QMs and running like h**l from every other plane that can out maneuver me (ie, every other plane) I've decided I agree with the soviets:

"The FW-190 burns just as well as any plane, and it's easier to hit."

This is not because I am a n00b, I ain't, don't let the number of posts fool you. I can fly fine.

I patiently await a rain of large caliber insults.

Have you tried using the flat scissors? At speed the FW190 can out-roll most of its opponents.

quote:

Originally posted by gkll:
Have you looked at the powerloading and wingloading for the FW, ie RL numbers? It is not particularly powerful for its weight, and it has the highest wingloading of any WW2 fighter except perhaps the Lightning. While these two parameters do not by any means tell the whole picture of performance, they prob explain ~80% of the observed performance.

Incorrect, P47,P51,P38 all have same or worse wingloading as FW190A series and worse powerloading than FW190A series at lower alts and by that I mean usually below 6-7000m. Yet all of them can turn with it happily, the P51D on top of all has "laminar wings" great for high speed(less drag) bad for turning.

quote:

Originally posted by gkll:
Tempest has equivalent powerloading to A model 190s and considerably lower wingloading, it should run rings around the A model 190s in the turn.

Again wrong, Tempest does have better wingloading, but FW190a has better powerloading, also Tempests wings do not have classic airfoil, they are pretty much the same as with P51. In tactical trials made during the war with captured FW's, RAE guys said there's little to no difference between the three types(P51,Tempest,FW190A).

quote:

Originally posted by gkll:
Guess I just get a little tired of beefs without data or even a basic grasp of RL parameters and how they relate to RL performance. My grasp is only 'basic', however just a few simple RL numbers suggest to me Oleg is not so far off.

Your grasp is not basic, just plain wrong...

Anyway about the FW190A, the only thing good about it is firepower although neutered by the laughable gunsight view it's still powerfull enough that if you fly it in a way virtually any plane* would achieve good results, FW190A will get you excellent results, ofcourse only if oposition is not flying in a way any plane would achieve good results lol

Will sound strange but it's a plane you have to hate will all your strenght to actually love it, it's acceleration is horrible, it can't manouver with anything save heavy bombers let alone outmanouver something, it's climb is below average and speed merely average for late war, thank God we have the Dora, otherwise it would be a complete slaughter especially since late 109's are super-pathetic.

I love it though...A9 especially

Wing Loadings

Spitfire Mk Vb ____________ 24.56 lb/sq ft

Bf 109F-4 _______________ 36.7 lbs/sq ft

Tempest Mk. V ___________ 37.75 lb/sq ft

P-51D ___________________ 43.4 lb/sq ft

P-47D ___________________ 44.1 lb/sq ft

Fw 190 A-8 ______________ 49.4 lb/sq ft


These are the best numbers I could find briefly searching the Internet and comparing a few different sources. If anybody has more accurate information I'd be glad to see it, and I'll edit this post.

idonno
If you can, would you please get wing loading for CW Spitfire?

Interesting to note that only 2 aircraft in your list have rounded wings. Notable is that the Spit is almost half the wing loading figure as the other elliptical winged aircraft (P-47)

Clipped Winged Spits were designed to improve low altitude handling. As such they could give a better clue to the relationship between wing loading and turn rate.

Very strange numbers, looks to me like combat weight used for US fighters and apsolute max take off mass used for A8, but will have to check with the imperial/metric conversion, plane manuals etc. Wouldn't be the first time I'm wrong lol

quote:

Originally posted by Brain32:
Very strange numbers, looks to me like combat weight used for US fighters and apsolute max take off mass used for A8, but will have to check with the imperial/metric conversion, plane manuals etc. Wouldn't be the first time I'm wrong lol

I don't think you're wrong. The wing loading for P-51 and P-47 above correspond roughly with full internal fuel and ammo load, or 10,230lbs and 13,230lbs respectively.

Yeah the 47's weight came from this flight test;

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47-26167.html

It states "... includes full internal fuel, 15 gallons of water and ballast for 300 rounds of ammunition per gun."

This message has been edited. Last edited by: idonno,

My question is: why is Fw190D so much better then Fw190A8 even in low to mid alt? Both have similarly powerful engines (1780-2100ps),roughly the same weight (4200-4400kg) and almost the same airframe (same wing and wingloading). So WHY?

new engine perhaps?

quote:

Originally posted by DKoor:

quote:

Originally posted by tragentsmith:
Come on DKoor... I fly the 110 all the time on Warclouds and I have a lot of tracks where I down 4 or 5 enemy aircrafts per sortie. It's not the plane, it's the pilot. And the team play.

I bet you wont find so many tracks of P-51D killing 4 or more per sortie, no matter the pilot or the plane...
Sure thing, there are some pilots who achieved 6 or more kills in P-51D @ WC (these are more exceptions to the rule ), but everyone and their mothers knows that FW is the ultimate killing machine in IL2.

That has nothing to do with the pilot, but rather the fact that you have 4x20mm and that kills everything by just looking at it.

So yes, I see that I obviously disagree with you.

Ooooh dont be so sure DKoor! I have plenty of tracks ofmyself on Warclouds downing 4-7 planes per sortie in the P51...

I agree with you tho! The fw190 with its 4 20mm is THE ultimate killing machine, no arguement about that!Its a vewry rewarding planes to fly once u know the BnZ tactics and know when to disengage.. Oh Btw when u do disengage, be sure u are not being followed by a p51... They will always catch u eventually...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF9lYAbC6D8&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vO9NKJNjiw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wN9Kgq7kopg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMKHXQ22yAc&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nm5v11KkuPY&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfNPG5kepxY&feature=related

quote:

Originally posted by chunkydora:
Thanks guys for the info

A PS to what jaws said: my numerous and frequent posting have not been in any way to draw attention to my self. I see how they may have been annoying to people, and how I may have taken more liberty with my posting than is acceptable. If that is at all the case, I apologize most sincerely.

Sorry Chunkydora. I jumped on you a bit too harsh.
I thought you are one of those guys that have 2000-3000 posts that join the forum with a diffrent name and pretend to be new players. We had few of those.

Please don't be afraid to ask questions. There are a lot of people here that know a lot and you'll get a good answer for most of your questions.

quote:

Originally posted by idonno:
Wing Loadings

Spitfire Mk Vb ____________ 24.56 lb/sq ft

Bf 109F-4 _______________ 36.7 lbs/sq ft

Tempest Mk. V ___________ 37.75 lb/sq ft

P-51D ___________________ 43.4 lb/sq ft

P-47D ___________________ 44.1 lb/sq ft

Fw 190 A-8 ______________ 49.4 lb/sq ft


These are the best numbers I could find briefly searching the Internet and comparing a few different sources. If anybody has more accurate information I'd be glad to see it, and I'll edit this post.

___________________________________________
Correct me if I'm wrong but By these numbers the Spitfire should be superior to all the other aircraft in sustained turning performance because it has the lowest wing loading.

The BF-109 may be not as good but it may have better instantaneous turning performance (which is not sustained as well as the Spit). This instantaneous turning performance and roll rate (if it did indeed have it better than the Spit) may be the reason why the slats on the Bf-109 often jammed in a turn.

I'm only going on the observation that high wing loading led to lesser sustained turning performance.

The characteristic noticed most in the turning of the Spit is its steep tendency to drop a wing. Increasing the elevator pitch in order to compensate the loss of height tends to stall out the Spitfire very quickly.

If the above is correct the BF109 would have no choice but to slow down to turn with goos sustained turners such as the Hurricanes. That was the case in RL. I have not tested in game.

The angles fight favors the plane with lower wing loading.

quote:

Originally posted by alert_1:
My question is: why is Fw190D so much better then Fw190A8 even in low to mid alt? Both have similarly powerful engines (1780-2100ps),roughly the same weight (4200-4400kg) and almost the same airframe (same wing and wingloading). So WHY?

It probably all boils down to the the 190A's inability to accelerate below 350 kph. This is extremly imporant for both energy tactics and dog fights alike. This may also be the reason for the less then stallar turn performance, because unlike other planes the 190 can't compensate wing loading with any excess power like it was in real life.

I think many folks underestimate the importance of this acceleration. Aside the bar issue this is my biggest gripe with this bird. It neuters it's ability to stay and fight.

That said, no bird comes close to the 190 when it comes to high speed maneuvers and duels. What it does not have in speed it has in firepower. Nothing beats 4 x MG151/20 in this arrangement in fighter combat.

quote:

Originally posted by alert_1:
My question is: why is Fw190D so much better then Fw190A8 even in low to mid alt? Both have similarly powerful engines (1780-2100ps),roughly the same weight (4200-4400kg) and almost the same airframe (same wing and wingloading). So WHY?

Usually people believe the boost of performance in the D-9 comes from a more powerful engine; it is generally incorrect however, the Jumo 213 and the BMW 801 have roughly similiar outputs, but the Jumo engined version of the FW 190 has less drag thanks to the slim inline engine. Hence the improved performance accross the board compared to the 'Anton'.

quote:

Originally posted by na85:
The angles fight favors the plane with lower wing loading.

I'm confused with the chart given by idunno. The FW is listed as having the heaviest loaded wing. Yet as was pointed out by na85 the FW in game has a fantastic roll-rate; its wings appear designed for this. We know the FW could not out-turn even the obsolete P-40.

a heavily loaded wing takes away from performance characteristics such as climb rate and turn performance. Yet it is/was obvious that the FW was an exceptional performer until Spits caught up with it (going on the numbers in the chart the Spit V should easily outclimb the FW190). Wing loading is a broad indicator of lift-to mass ratio - the more area of wing compared to the aircraft's mass the more lift can be generated by the wing. The FW190's wings are small compared to its mass and this gives better stability and roll because there is less area for drag and turbulence to operate on the wing giving the FW an advantage in climbing and diving. That is in fact how they operated - like eagles pecking at their victim as the Luftwaffe (Adolph Galland) pictured it.

So my bafflement in the numbers persists.

Is the A-8 listed in the chart the twin boom FW? If so then my bafflement over the wing loading chart might be explained a little and then other factors such as thrust would be a better explanation of the FW190's performance over the early Spitfires (and probably most other Allied fighter of the time).

quote:

Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Usually people believe the boost of performance in the D-9 comes from a more powerful engine; it is generally incorrect however, the Jumo 213 and the BMW 801 have roughly similiar outputs, but the Jumo engined version of the FW 190 has less drag thanks to the slim inline engine. Hence the improved performance accross the board compared to the 'Anton'.

The extra drag still doesn't explain the huge difference in acceleration at low speed (particularly take off). The difference in drag doesn't mean that much at take off.

I think is just bad modeling.