PDA

View Full Version : FW 190 durability



Ankanor
01-14-2004, 11:19 AM
I have heard a lot about that when there is complex DM of the Wuerger, it will be less durable. OK, that is what I read in a booklet about the FW recently, concerning its evaluation by the russians. It goes like that:

"on the 13 of January, 1943, at the Leningrad front, over tha lake of Ladoga, a pair of FW190-A4 from JG54 engaged a turning fight against 2 Yak-7. One FW190 was shot down during the first turns, the other got damaged in the sinchronizer and shot its prop and bellylanded on the Ice of the lake. It was swiftly recovered and brought to Moscow. Here is a part of the conclusions of the russian testers:
"In comparison to the Me109 the new fighter is signifficantly heavier, has extremely powerful armament and great mass of the useful cargo. At the Eastern front has appeared its 4th modification... ...Having signifficant advantage over Me109 in armamnet power FW190 is heavier and due to the worse powerratiois inferior in speed, climbing and maneuverability-horisontal and vertical. It has greater take off and landing run, and greater speed of gliding, thus complicating takeoff and landing. it has worse stability and controlling. In other words in the basic qualities that give control of the dogfight, FW190A-4 is inferior to Me109G. The reason why FW190 is constantly growing in numbers in the Luftwaffe Fighterarm units is that on the whole it is more suitable for fighting the Sutmovicks that enter on the front in higher and higher numbers, destroying more and more vehicles and living force of the enemy.
Using FW190 for ground attack purposes, the enemy is trying to compensate for the lack of Luftwaffe of an aircraft of the kind of IL-2. In order to increase its battle durability, the constructors have installed armor on the weakest places. The armor of FW190A-4 is 110 kg. But its battle use found signifficant weakness of the belly and on A-5 the armor was increased(signifficantly). A characteristic feature is that unlike the IL-2, the armor of FW190 is not part of the powerbody of the craft, it is "dead mass"""""

Armor was 110 kg and was increased signifficantly??!!!
putting aside the constant "it's bad, our Sturmovik is a great plane, the Luftwaffe is stupid, do nor fear the FW190, its dead meat" propaganda, more than 110 kg of armor and you say it has to be less durable than in the moment. Just to remind you that ARE NOT the Sturmbocks mods. they had even omre armor

I await your responce

P.S. the source is "Aircraft building in the USSR(1917-1945) Book 2, TzAGI, 1994"

http://server4.uploadit.org/files2/101203-delphinche.jpg
Some things are worth fighting for.
And most of them wear miniskirts...

Ankanor
01-14-2004, 11:19 AM
I have heard a lot about that when there is complex DM of the Wuerger, it will be less durable. OK, that is what I read in a booklet about the FW recently, concerning its evaluation by the russians. It goes like that:

"on the 13 of January, 1943, at the Leningrad front, over tha lake of Ladoga, a pair of FW190-A4 from JG54 engaged a turning fight against 2 Yak-7. One FW190 was shot down during the first turns, the other got damaged in the sinchronizer and shot its prop and bellylanded on the Ice of the lake. It was swiftly recovered and brought to Moscow. Here is a part of the conclusions of the russian testers:
"In comparison to the Me109 the new fighter is signifficantly heavier, has extremely powerful armament and great mass of the useful cargo. At the Eastern front has appeared its 4th modification... ...Having signifficant advantage over Me109 in armamnet power FW190 is heavier and due to the worse powerratiois inferior in speed, climbing and maneuverability-horisontal and vertical. It has greater take off and landing run, and greater speed of gliding, thus complicating takeoff and landing. it has worse stability and controlling. In other words in the basic qualities that give control of the dogfight, FW190A-4 is inferior to Me109G. The reason why FW190 is constantly growing in numbers in the Luftwaffe Fighterarm units is that on the whole it is more suitable for fighting the Sutmovicks that enter on the front in higher and higher numbers, destroying more and more vehicles and living force of the enemy.
Using FW190 for ground attack purposes, the enemy is trying to compensate for the lack of Luftwaffe of an aircraft of the kind of IL-2. In order to increase its battle durability, the constructors have installed armor on the weakest places. The armor of FW190A-4 is 110 kg. But its battle use found signifficant weakness of the belly and on A-5 the armor was increased(signifficantly). A characteristic feature is that unlike the IL-2, the armor of FW190 is not part of the powerbody of the craft, it is "dead mass"""""

Armor was 110 kg and was increased signifficantly??!!!
putting aside the constant "it's bad, our Sturmovik is a great plane, the Luftwaffe is stupid, do nor fear the FW190, its dead meat" propaganda, more than 110 kg of armor and you say it has to be less durable than in the moment. Just to remind you that ARE NOT the Sturmbocks mods. they had even omre armor

I await your responce

P.S. the source is "Aircraft building in the USSR(1917-1945) Book 2, TzAGI, 1994"

http://server4.uploadit.org/files2/101203-delphinche.jpg
Some things are worth fighting for.
And most of them wear miniskirts...

robban75
01-14-2004, 11:35 AM
The Fw 190 was a VERY durable aircraft in RL. And as stated previously, the 190 desperatly needs a more complex DM. As a 190 driver I tend to feel that the 190 is as fragile as wet toilett paper, some may disagree. But when flying online the 190 falls apart from the smallest hits. Especially from russian and japanese guns. I've had surprised people commenting this online, by the ones that shot me down that is.

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

carguy_
01-14-2004, 12:01 PM
Just that FW190 had a 50mm front glass armor speaks to me.

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

Korolov
01-14-2004, 12:11 PM
I doubt the Sturmovik pilots would like everyone thinking that the Fw-190 was inferior.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/klv_ubisig1a.jpg

faustnik
01-14-2004, 12:12 PM
The Fw190 DM is probably the only problem I have with 1.21. It sucks for us 190 pilots to lose a wing to one .50 round or get a long range pk from a .30 round. It also sucks for allied pilots who pour rounds into a 190 fusalage with no result.

I hope it gets fixed.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

Ankanor
01-14-2004, 12:14 PM
yes, dude, I know it's fragile and I hate it. I do not want a flying tank. just want my durable Wuerger. my post was for tha Luft haters who under sucked-from-their-fingers assumption tend to believe that the almighty Browning .50 was the big brother of the Avenger rotating cannon of the A-10. that's what really p!ssess me off. And then goes that P-47 was more durable. Size matters! Compare the sizes of the two. Also, can somebody please post the armor of the P-47. I am not familiar but I seriously doubt it will be 110kg. BTW, it has to be some 250kg to have the same ratio of armor/mass

http://server4.uploadit.org/files2/101203-delphinche.jpg
Some things are worth fighting for.
And most of them wear miniskirts...

faustnik
01-14-2004, 12:43 PM
There is a good chance that what the Soviets had in their hands was an F model. More armor than the A's.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

JG26Red
01-14-2004, 12:57 PM
did they make a F model in jan 43?

faustnik
01-14-2004, 02:59 PM
That's a good question Red. I don't have the right reference book here at work. I'll look when I get home.

It's hard to understand this Soviet evaluation when the RAF determined that the Fw190A3 was superior in maneuverablity to the Spit MkV and MkIX in every aspect except turning circle. The RAF's captured A3 was "pleasant to fly , all controls being extremely light and positive."

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

robban75
01-14-2004, 03:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It's hard to understand this Soviet evaluation when the RAF determined that the Fw190A3 was superior in maneuverablity to the Spit MkV and MkIX in every aspect except turning circle. The RAF's captured A3 was "pleasant to fly , all controls being extremely light and positive."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the russians tested the Fw 190D-9 and their opinion was that it had only "fair" performance. Kind strange conclusion don't you think? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

JG26Red
01-14-2004, 04:14 PM
Do you really expect the russians to give positive remarks about a NAZI weapon in WW2? please... in 1943\1944 when tigers, panthers and Stug IIIs had commaders killing 10-20 T34s and KVs the russians still didnt give good remarks and compared them tanks to later model JSII and JSIIIS saying they where inferior, not once mentioning why the for mentioned german tanks where killing 34s and kvs left and right lol... thats why i always take a soviet(communist) reports of another countries weapon with a grain of salt...

pinche_bolillo
01-14-2004, 05:57 PM
I do not know what the 190 was like in previous patches cause I am pretty new to the game. the 190 we currently have is almost impossible to shoot down unless you have the mk 108s or some other type of 30mm. I have sprayed 190s with 20mm and 50 cal to no avail. I believe it is a two fold problem. lots of 190 guys know that with the 190s high rate of roll, all one has to do is use max roll speed and use a little elevator and it causes the 190 lag out very badly. (1.5 meg comcast cable here) I guess the internet connections just simply cannot render these flicking maneouvers. I see a lot of 190 guys doing this, so you couple the lag with the 190 being a pretty tuff plane and its nearly impossible to bring down.

most of the 190s armor is for pilot protection. and as for the 50 cal doing damage to the 190, I have seen plenty of american clips of 190s getting raked with 50 cal fire. there seems to be a common theme in the film. the out board wing cannon's ammo seems to be very vunerable to mg fire. you see some random 50 cal hits on the wing and as soon as it moves to the out board cannon there is an explosion and the wing sheers off at the out board wing cannon station. since the 190 didnt carry fuel in the wing what else could it be but the 190s own cannon ammo going off?

BS87
01-14-2004, 06:37 PM
Pinche i dont know what you are talking about, the 190s are certantly not impossible to shoot down. I've lost *tons* of wings and tails to .50 cal fire and even more to 20mm. I have no experianced this lag you seem to have with the rolling manuver, maybe its the server, or your connection. Just because your ISP says you get 1.5mb down doesnt exactly mean that is what you're getting. I have no trouble shooting down 190s, when my shots actually land (and thats my fault).

KGr.HH-Sunburst
01-14-2004, 07:13 PM
the 190's in this patch r made of paper IMO
im a 109 and a 190 wannabe pilot most of the time and i got hit by 1/2 .50 calls in the wing and there goes my plane,no my wing didnt come off but the plane became unflyable cus it was unstable with only 1 tiny hole in the wing and that pi$$es me of cus with other planes that wont happen except 109's but not that bad

last night i was flying in a La7 online and i killed 4 A9's on a row with just a single short burst anywhere on the plane and the FW falls apart like the third reich itself so my respect to all FW190 drivers i dont fly them anymore cus they r one of the toughest planes to fly and they fall apart too easy

just my 0.2 penny's

http://www.warhawks.tk/
http://www.digital-d.nl/fotos/sunburstsig.jpg

BP_Zip
01-14-2004, 08:07 PM
I just got off a dogfight server, and have to agree with other's evaluations that the 190 is too fragile now.

I suffered two pk's in a row, from very short bursts.

Another short burst snapped the aft end of the fuselage off.

Wings were parting company from brief bursts, too.

It doesn't help that I'm not much of a dogfighter, but I do notice a very much more fragile FW190 now than in previous versions of the game.

Zip

kyrule2
01-14-2004, 09:06 PM
The 190 needs a complex DM badly. It's wings can be snapped off with 2 .50cal rounds from 600m. The rear fuesalage/tail unit junction is also very fragile. The Forward fuesalage seems impervious to damage. The belly is very vulnerable but I have no problems with this, most planes were vulnerable there.

What bothers me the most is the wing thing and the fact that I can get hit with 2 .50cal rounds and my plane turns into a flying bus. It seems to lose about 30% of its speed and the wing dips so bad that it is hard to fly, even if you were not hit in the wing to begin with!

The bottom line is the FW-190 needs a complex DM desperately. I don't want it tougher or weaker, just more accurate and consistent.

As a note, the P-47 seems to be like the 190 of old, it is insanely tough now. The damage I have seen it take online and offline is just sick. It should be one of/if not the toughest fighter and the 190 should be close behind. As it is now the P-47 is a flying tank and the 190 is more fragile overall than almost every other fighter in the game (see JTD's results on this, and I blame the simplified DM). This is completely wrong according to historical accounts and specifications of armor and construction. Having said that I can accept the problems of the P-47 as it seems to have an undermodelled FM in certain areas, so it balances out. I hope these are fixed and the Thunderbolt is a little more competitive and a little less tough in the future.

The DM's in FB are the best to date but there are some flaws/limitations. I just hope they are much better in BoB, in fact I'm sure they will be so I can't wait.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

FW190fan
01-14-2004, 09:28 PM
I have yet to read any positive Soviet report on a FW190. Nothing. It's all negative and so are their flight test reports.

It doesn't make any sense.

Some FW190 pilots scored BIGTIME on the eastern front.

The Nowotny Schwarm of 4 FW190s had in excess of 500 kills between them. That was probably the best group of four fighters ever put together in a single flight.

No wonder the Soviets didn't like them.

http://people.aero.und.edu/~choma/lrg0645.jpg

kyrule2
01-14-2004, 09:50 PM
FW-190fan, it does kind of make sense when you consider:

-The Soviets would never give a positive review of German hardware, especially something newer and innovative.

-The vast majority of the "F" and "G" fighter/bomber variants of the FW-190 (which accounted for a large percentage of FW-190 production) were used on the Eastern front so they were likely encountering many of these versions which had decreased performance even without an ordinance load. The 190 basically took over for the Stuka but there is no way for the Soviets to really distinguish between fighter and fighter/bomber variants in the heat of battle. I recently saw two tests between a P-47 and the FW-190, and in one test the conclusion was that the 190 was superior. In the second test the 190 was inferior in many catagories and it didn't make sense to me (knowing what I know of the 190). Then I read more carefully and noticed that it had MG-17's meaning that it was an older vaiant (test was in 1944), and that the 190 had only two 20mm cannons installed meaning that it was very likely that this was a fighter/bomber variant (I believe it was captured in Italy/Africa where fighter/bomber variants of the 190 operated frequently)). In the West the 190 was highly regarded because the planes encountered were mostly "A" models (fighter variants), until the Sturm appeared. I'm sure all of the different versions were not known at the time so I can understand the view of the Soviets at the time to some degree, though I'm sure it was biased (as most nations are when evaluating enemy equipment). They often encounted fighter/bombers with significantly decreased performance which undoubtedly influenced their view of the plane overall.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors" by Nicolas Trudgian

Bearcat99
01-14-2004, 09:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
The Fw190 DM is probably the only problem I have with 1.21. It sucks for us 190 pilots to lose a wing to one .50 round or get a long range pk from a .30 round. It also sucks for allied pilots who pour rounds into a 190 fusalage with no result.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The latter would be me....http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://www.mudmovers.com/)

pinche_bolillo
01-14-2004, 11:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BS87:
Pinche i dont know what you are talking about, the 190s are certantly not impossible to shoot down. I've lost *tons* of wings and tails to .50 cal fire and even more to 20mm. I have no experianced this lag you seem to have with the rolling manuver, maybe its the server, or your connection. Just because your ISP says you get 1.5mb down doesnt exactly mean that is what you're getting. I have no trouble shooting down 190s, when my shots actually land (and thats my fault).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

when the person flying a 190 makes a constant rate turn or they are just flying straight, ie no violent maneouvers, then they do not lag for me and I have no problem shooting them down, provided I can hit a wing, however when the 190 I am on knows I am there (most experienced) 190 drivers instantly start the flick, spin, yaw, roll, anything which causes a lot of information to be transmitted cause the plane is flicking about on all its axis, this always causes the plane to flick here and there, lag that is what I see on my end. due to the time I am usually online I am going to assume that most guys are far away from me or they are on dial up, because my connection to the host is usually 25-75ms and when I look at the other players connections they are usually 175-350 ms with some being higher yet.

pinche_bolillo
01-14-2004, 11:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BS87:
Pinche i dont know what you are talking about, the 190s are certantly not impossible to shoot down. I've lost *tons* of wings and tails to .50 cal fire and even more to 20mm. I have no experianced this lag you seem to have with the rolling manuver, maybe its the server, or your connection. Just because your ISP says you get 1.5mb down doesnt exactly mean that is what you're getting. I have no trouble shooting down 190s, when my shots actually land (and thats my fault).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

when the person flying a 190 makes a constant rate turn or they are just flying straight, ie no violent maneouvers, then they do not lag for me and I have no problem shooting them down, provided I can hit a wing, however when the 190 I am on knows I am there (most experienced) 190 drivers instantly start the flick, spin, yaw, roll, anything which causes a lot of information to be transmitted cause the plane is flicking about on all its axis, this always causes the plane to flick here and there, lag that is what I see on my end. due to the time I am usually online I am going to assume that most guys are far away from me or they are on dial up, because my connection to the host is usually 25-75ms and when I look at the other players connections they are usually 175-350 ms with some being higher yet. only a/c capable of high rates of roll do this for me, but for some reason the 190 seems to be the worst one :O

Korolov
01-14-2004, 11:31 PM
Fw-190s either eat up loads of ammmo or they don't. Like I've said before, in a Fw-190, you're either alive or you're dead.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

GR142_Astro
01-14-2004, 11:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pinche_bolillo:
I do not know what the 190 was like in previous patches cause I am pretty new to the game. the 190 we currently have is almost impossible to shoot down unless you have the mk 108s or some other type of 30mm. I have sprayed 190s with 20mm and 50 cal to no avail. I believe it is a two fold problem. lots of 190 guys know that with the 190s high rate of roll, all one has to do is use max roll speed and use a little elevator and it causes the 190 lag out very badly. (1.5 meg comcast cable here) I guess the internet connections just simply cannot render these flicking maneouvers. I see a lot of 190 guys doing this, so you couple the lag with the 190 being a pretty tuff plane and its nearly impossible to bring down.

most of the 190s armor is for pilot protection. and as for the 50 cal doing damage to the 190, I have seen plenty of american clips of 190s getting raked with 50 cal fire. there seems to be a common theme in the film. the out board wing cannon's ammo seems to be very vunerable to mg fire. you see some random 50 cal hits on the wing and as soon as it moves to the out board cannon there is an explosion and the wing sheers off at the out board wing cannon station. since the 190 didnt carry fuel in the wing what else could it be but the 190s own cannon ammo going off?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pinche, this is one of the best descriptions of the 190's problems I have seen. The lack of a complex DM rears its head again in regards to your comment about hitting the cannon ammo in the wings. Here's hoping they give the 190 the proper send-off before completely abandoning this sim.

It's great to see a civil discussion about this. Seems both "blue" and "red" guys agree. Nobody wants a flying tank or a balsa glider. Just make this important aircraft realistic, that's all.

faustnik
01-15-2004, 12:22 AM
The Fw190F2 was produced from late 1942. The F series incorporated armored lower fuselage panels, cowling front additional armor plating around fuel tanks. Even before the F2, the A4/U3 (sometimes labeled F1?) was a A4 with the F-series modifications.

This info was from "Focke-Wulf Fw190, Production Line to Front Line".

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

Gryphonne
01-15-2004, 01:51 AM
Doesn't the lack of complex modelling, in your opinions, for the FW make the game EXTREMELY unrepresentative, i mean, it is a simulation (or at least it should be).

The lack of a complex DM is surely starting to annoy me. I want to see cannon jammed, cilinder shot (although she could keep on flying), controls wasted kind of damage.

Instead of the wing torn off, explosion or engine inoperable we have now.

Oh yeah, and more armor.

And on a final note, that ridiculous loss of any controls when there is but one scrtach on the wing should be taken care of. Or either implented in ALL planes. I have seen a/c with man sized holes in the game fly like butterflies with warp cores while the FW becomes dead meat.

Gryphonne
01-15-2004, 02:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>most of the 190s armor is for pilot protection. and as for the 50 cal doing damage to the 190, I have seen plenty of american clips of 190s getting raked with 50 cal fire. there seems to be a common theme in the film. the out board wing cannon's ammo seems to be very vunerable to mg fire. you see some random 50 cal hits on the wing and as soon as it moves to the out board cannon there is an explosion and the wing sheers off at the out board wing cannon station. since the 190 didnt carry fuel in the wing what else could it be but the 190s own cannon ammo going off?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then this should be modelled in every plane with wing based munition and not just the FW.

pinche_bolillo
01-15-2004, 04:07 AM
no problem there, but the only plane I have ever seen blow up from random mg hits in the wing was an fw 190 (while watching ww 2 gun cam footage that is), that is a/c that did not carry fuel in the wings.

I never use to engage fw 190s till I started flying something with a mk 108, the reason was because the 190 was so hard to bring down. same goes for IL-2s and 47s, I always let them go by before I started using a mk 108.

one good film that shows american footage is called "gun camera" it shows a lot of 190s and they really fell easily to the 50 cal in that video, I couldnt believe the way some of them blew up after a burst. after playing this game for a few weeks I was shocked at how much harder it looked in this game vs real film. :O

p/s since no 50 cal carried sufficiant he content to cause such an explosion and sheer off the wing of a 190, what else could it be but the 190's own cannon ammo going off? did the 190 carry oxygen in the wing?

Ankanor
01-15-2004, 04:15 AM
About the FW190 having no great flight characteristics(as seen by the russians),tell me something:
A plane that has shot its prop, then crush landing on the ice!!! I am sure that the russians made everything possible to bring the aircraft in normal state, but nevertheless...

http://server4.uploadit.org/files2/101203-delphinche.jpg
Some things are worth fighting for.
And most of them wear miniskirts...

NegativeGee
01-15-2004, 05:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
most of the 190s armor is for pilot protection. and as for the 50 cal doing damage to the 190, I have seen plenty of american clips of 190s getting raked with 50 cal fire. there seems to be a common theme in the film. the out board wing cannon's ammo seems to be very vunerable to mg fire. you see some random 50 cal hits on the wing and as soon as it moves to the out board cannon there is an explosion and the wing sheers off at the out board wing cannon station. since the 190 didnt carry fuel in the wing what else could it be but the 190s own cannon ammo going off?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats an interesting point..... the ammo boxes on the "standard" 190's were basically unarmoured. The only FW I recall having armour for the outboard cannons was the /R8 Sturmbock types where the MK 108 ammo protected by 30mm (?) of armour plate.

This is not whats modelled in FB (are any ammo explosions modelled?) but the FW does seem to have had a vunerability in this area.

Onthe subject of Russian evaluations off the FW's, they did not meet up to several key criteria of what the VVS wanted in a fighter, so its hardly surprising the reports were less than glowing. If you read the article posted by AKD on the interview with former VVS fighter pilot, there are some good points to get started with.

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

StellarRat
01-15-2004, 01:41 PM
The damage may be too simplistic but the amount of damage it took to shot one down before the last patch was ridiculous. You could unload your entire magazine of .50s into them and they'd still be flying. At least now they go down from time to time. It still takes a lot of .50 hits though. About a many as a P-47 from what I can tell. Occasionally, a lucky burst will blow a wing off or something, but that seems realistic to me.

HellToupee
01-15-2004, 02:32 PM
what i hate most is the handling with dammage, after a few scratches of the wing even when graphically it shows nothing your plane becomes pretty much impossible to fly, cant turn without it rolling the other way or stalling.

http://lamppost.mine.nu/ahclan/files/sigs/spitwhiners1.jpg