PDA

View Full Version : What's so great about the FW-190?



Warbird-
09-17-2005, 11:27 PM
I play this game for more than one year. I'm just an average pilot, far from being an expert on the technical aspects of each plane, although I have tested all planes in the game.

But I noticed since the beginning that the Focke-Wolf 190 is kind of a "cult" plane to a lot of people. I even have seen, more than once, people saying that, for example, the Me Bf-109 is a toy plane while the FW-190 is "the" plane.

I would like to understand this, because to me the Bf-109 is a faster plane with better weapons (there's nothing more powerful than its U6 cannons). Besides that, the FW is one of the most difficult planes to handle in the game. Even the Spitfire and the Yak-3P seems to be more effective than the FW.

Opinions?

Warbird-
09-17-2005, 11:27 PM
I play this game for more than one year. I'm just an average pilot, far from being an expert on the technical aspects of each plane, although I have tested all planes in the game.

But I noticed since the beginning that the Focke-Wolf 190 is kind of a "cult" plane to a lot of people. I even have seen, more than once, people saying that, for example, the Me Bf-109 is a toy plane while the FW-190 is "the" plane.

I would like to understand this, because to me the Bf-109 is a faster plane with better weapons (there's nothing more powerful than its U6 cannons). Besides that, the FW is one of the most difficult planes to handle in the game. Even the Spitfire and the Yak-3P seems to be more effective than the FW.

Opinions?

Kuna15
09-17-2005, 11:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What's so great about the FW-190? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Big guns (destroying target in in one pass).
Dive speed (+stability).
Roll rate.
Toughness (ability to sustain more battle damage).

In that order.

In all that aspects FW-190 is better than Bf-109, and you will find it when playing the game. These characteristics allows FW-190 user to employ pure BnZ tactic, and that means complete safety in combat.
That is clean tactic; no mixing with enemy fighters; you just dive with high speed on target fill it with 2 and 3cm holes and get out (pull up). He wont (most likely) know what even happened.

With Bf-109 that tactic is not possible due to heavy elevator (elevator stiffness) on high speed. That is why Bf-109s have considerably lower kill to death ratio on historical servers in comparison to FW-190s.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But I noticed since the beginning that the Focke-Wolf 190 is kind of a "cult" plane to a lot of people. I even have seen, more than once, people saying that, for example, the Me Bf-109 is a toy plane while the FW-190 is "the" plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like I said when one can amass 30:1+ kill/death ratio with it so there is nothing weird in FW-190 popularity on historical servers.
Simply because of combat style that FW-190 allows to its pilot.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I would like to understand this, because to me the Bf-109 is a faster plane with better weapons (there's nothing more powerful than its U6 cannons). Besides that, the FW is one of the most difficult planes to handle in the game. Even the Spitfire and the Yak-3P seems to be more effective than the FW. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

U6 loadout on Kurfurst? You will notice the performance drop down, that isn't fighter vs fighter weapon.
FW-190 is not one of the most difficult planes to handle. It is very easy plane to control, just like you can turn with Lavochkin good (horizontal combat) that way you can fight vertically good with FW-190.
For example you could say "LA-7 is tough plane to fly because my wings fell off on 700kph+, I cannot follow Wűrger in dive"; while that is true that is not correct combat type for that plane.
If you employ good dive and hit tactic, FW-190 handles like on rails.

Also I can say that FW-190 performs exceptionally in group (the larger the better) when there is leader-wingman element tactic employed. Just like any other plane does.

spitzfiya
09-18-2005, 03:32 AM
The FW feels heavy, sometimes difficult to get off the ground, can't turn worth sh1t, I always feel on the edge of a stall in a turn... it just seems uneasy in the air. Hell...Spitfires and can catch me in a dive and a climb, I was very suprised when a Spit dived after me while i was goin 700+ he was accelerating and proceeded to shoot me down in a vertical dive...happened twice so far http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Well from what i have read the FW was the supreme Dogfighter, and could outclimb and outdive everything. I would NEVER dare to use this aircraft in everyday dogfighting (Furballs + Turn and Burn) thats just fricken suicide...

I'm guessing the FW was primarily a Fighter Bomber, and a Bomber interceptor, so therefore it was not designed specifically for Dogfighting...Dogfighting is where the BF-109 shines.

Well other then that the FW looks a hell of alot cooler then most aircraft. It gets mega beauty points.

Kocur_
09-18-2005, 03:53 AM
There is huge difference in Fw-190 effectiveness between full- or almost-full real servers, and fun, dogfight serevers. In latter its rare to make surprise one pass attack, almost no fighting above, say 2000m, everyone in furball, so either you want it or not - you got to enter it....or die by boredom, waiting at 5000m for opportunity.
Btw: La-7 dives in 4.01 safely until 790kmh, and to my surprise - so do Yak-3, and Yak3P (speed bar reading, Crimea map, diving from 5000m).

JG52Karaya-X
09-18-2005, 04:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by spitzfiya:
Well from what i have read the FW was the supreme Dogfighter, and could outclimb and outdive everything. I would NEVER dare to use this aircraft in everyday dogfighting (Furballs + Turn and Burn) thats just fricken suicide... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well the FW certainly is a delight to fly at high speeds and dives very fast but it's climbrate was never excellent and it surely is NOT a dogfighter (ingame and IRL). It's all about getting to alt then circle like a vulture over a "hot" area and dive down on an unaware enemy... staying in a sustained dogfight is not recommended. I'd rather extend after 1 or 2 passes and reasses the situation to decide wether to go in again or wait for a better moment. The FW190 seems to be best used as a team-fighter (with wingman)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm guessing the FW was primarily a Fighter Bomber, and a Bomber interceptor, so therefore it was not designed specifically for Dogfighting...Dogfighting is where the BF-109 shines. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes the 190 was a good fighter bomber and excellent bomber destroyer but it was also an outstanding fighter. Problem is most people here and in HL think that fighter vs fighter combat is all plain close-range dogfighting.. That was not the case in real life. Most engagements were about spotting your enemy first to drop on him with superior speed and altitude and catching him unaware. It's a matter of survivability - in a turn-fight you are so concentrated on one enemy that you hardly have the time to look around. In this state you are an easy prey for any other enemy fighter that turns up in the vicinity. In Boom and Zoom manoeuvers you have more than enough time to watch your surrounding for other planes plus you give the enemy no or only a small chance to fight back thus you're more likely to survive

Having said that, the Bf109 is not such a bad plane either because it's equally well suited for hit and run tactics. Furthermore IMO it is even better suited for you can pick up energy faster than in a 190 by just using your superior rate of climb and keep hammering the enemy with gunnery-passes while in a 190 you mostly likely have to brake off after 2-3 passes by leveling and running away or by diving to safety

Don_ULFonso
09-18-2005, 04:50 AM
What Karaya said:

Don't T&B (since it can't turn for the sake of it and will burn E quicker than anything else) but B&Z (and be patient).

Keep your speed high - always (and stay high)!

Use your superior roll rate to turn.

Get close before even thinking of opening fire, then get even closer (300m, better 200m - those cannon have a hell of ballistic drop, but if you hit they've got a hell of a punch - the FW wasn't called the "butcher bird" for nothing).

Badsight.
09-18-2005, 05:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What's so great about the FW-190? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
it looks fast , mean & aggressive

it requires real skill to fight effectivly

its dripping with guns

it has a Radial - we all know in-lines are for ***s -

& dont forget it looks awesome , what else do you need for cult status!

73GIAP_Milan
09-18-2005, 05:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What's so great about the FW-190? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
it looks fast , mean & aggressive

it requires real skill to fight effectivly

its dripping with guns

it has a Radial - we all know in-lines are for ***s -

& dont forget it looks awesome , what else do you need for cult status! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
You forgot that it has good view from the cockpit, even forward if you get used to the bar.

It has quite a few automated systems like the proppitch.

A quite good range aswell..

High rollrate.

Lots of ammo..

It is quite tough - badsight mentioned the engine but also the rest of the plane can take more damage then average..

Drawbacks: not a beginners plane, not a TnB plane, you got to get used to the forward view, you got to use a bit different tactics to fly it effectively (team tactics preferably - fly with 1 or 2 wingmen)

Btw: I am a P-39 Driver who also jumps into the Fw190 now and then http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Chuck_Older
09-18-2005, 05:48 AM
I was having a great time in a LW campaign flying 109G2s last week. Then they transferred me to Fw 190s, and I was useless.

It's because I don't have a clue about how to fly it, not that the plane isn't any good http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Texas LongHorn
09-18-2005, 07:16 AM
I still remember the quote from Yeager (and my uncle Syd) after flying captured examples of the 190... It's fast... and NOTHING rolls like a 190. As mentioned previously, it had fully automatic fuel controls for the engine and even auto prop pitch for altitude. The sophistication of the German fighter made even men like Yeager as -51 vets just shake their head. It was quite simply the greatest prop fighter ever built. East to fly, no. Once you get the hang of it, you'll never go back &lt;ggg.&gt; All the best, LongHorn

VW-IceFire
09-18-2005, 07:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Warbird-:
I play this game for more than one year. I'm just an average pilot, far from being an expert on the technical aspects of each plane, although I have tested all planes in the game.

But I noticed since the beginning that the Focke-Wolf 190 is kind of a "cult" plane to a lot of people. I even have seen, more than once, people saying that, for example, the Me Bf-109 is a toy plane while the FW-190 is "the" plane.

I would like to understand this, because to me the Bf-109 is a faster plane with better weapons (there's nothing more powerful than its U6 cannons). Besides that, the FW is one of the most difficult planes to handle in the game. Even the Spitfire and the Yak-3P seems to be more effective than the FW.

Opinions? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The Bf109 is generally slower than the contemporary FW190 (except the K-4/D-9) and less well armed than the contemporary FW190.

The FW190 has a number of significant advantages and some disadvantages. The disadvantages are so that most novice, inexperienced, and uininterested pilots will never get or understand the FW190 until they work at it.

The 190 is designed for speed and firepower. Its designed to hit hard and get out. Flying them in combat is usually best achieved by flying as a team and using slash attacks with superior engery/altitude advantage. When operating in this way, the FW190 is nearly unbeatable as a fighter. Turning and flying slowly is bad for this plane as a Spitfire or Yak can then get in close and blast you out of the sky.

One of the biggest advantages the FW190 offers over the competition is superior roll rate. Although the 109 rolls well at most speeds, the FW190 is second to none with the best roll rate meaning that it can quickly switch its position for a quick dive away or initiate a rolling scissors move that few fighter pilots will be able to match in other planes.

The planes that are closest to the FW190 in performance and offer the best challenge or worst nightmare are the P-47, the P-51, and the Spitfire IX. The Spitfire LF.IX was designed (with clipped and non clipped) to operate against the FW190A's. Its top speed is better at all altitudes (and the LF designation infact demarks a modified Merlin 61 with revised gear ratios to match FW190 performance at all alts) and the Spitfire has the advantage of superior turn and climb.

In a 1 vs 1, the FW190 is generally not a good plane except when attacking with surprise. However, as a team plane, the FW190 is a deadly and dangerous aircraft.

As far as firepower goes, nothing really quite matches the ability of 4 20mm cannons standard on all A models (in game anyways) or the options of 6 20mm cannons or the addition of two MK108 or MK103 cannons.

tigertalon
09-18-2005, 07:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Warbird-:
What's so great about the FW-190?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Real men fly Antons. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Spinnetti
09-18-2005, 07:57 AM
[/QUOTE]
it looks fast , mean & aggressive

it requires real skill to fight effectivly

its dripping with guns

it has a Radial - we all know in-lines are for ***s -

& dont forget it looks awesome , what else do you need for cult status![/QUOTE]

LOL.... Couldn't have said it better myself http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WOLFMondo
09-18-2005, 08:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Warbird-:
I would like to understand this, because to me the Bf-109 is a faster plane with better weapons (there's nothing more powerful than its U6 cannons).
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The FW's are faster and much better armed, even the Dora but they don't do very high altitude well which is there major downside.

There not yank and back turn and burn planes like the 109's and Spitfires. There hit and run boom and zoom planes. Unlike many other planes and much like the P47 you really have to learn to fly them, learn the tactics and the defensive manouvers.

There fast, tough, very agile, have a greater endurance than the 109's and *cough*take allot more skill to fly*cough*.

LEBillfish
09-18-2005, 08:56 AM
It does turn well (if you learn how).....Past that I'll keep my response simple...

It really was r/l and here all the history books tout it to be. An amazing "make do" aircraft that set a standard.

Codex1971
09-18-2005, 09:28 AM
The FW is THE masters plane...to fly it successfully you need patients and skill. Forget all you have learned from flying other planes as you'll need to start learning all over again when flying the FW. This bird is in a class of its own, it will reward a skilled pilot and punish the novice...I have been flying it just over a year online and I'm still an average pilot in it.

Go the JV44 website and download the FW-190A9 flight manual by "Manyscalps"

http://www.jagdverband44.com/Home.html

Navigate through the following
Barracks ---&gt; Tactics ---&gt; FW-190A9 flight manual.

Also visit http://www.airwarfare.com/guides.htm

and find the FW tactics section about 2/3 the way down the page.

Employ what you learn from these and other sources you find and you'll soon see why it's a cult plane.

CruiseTorpedo
09-18-2005, 10:27 AM
The 190 is also prefered in online wars often due to it's better range as 109s run out of fuel very fast after you account for 20 - 30 minutes of flying to the target then waiting for opposition to intercept. The 190s toughness wasnt much of a consideration (few pings in the wing would cut it's top speed severely in previous versions of IL2) until the most recent IL2 version which took away most of the fuel leaks and especially fires. Once 4.02 comes if the fires and leaks are back the fockewulf flyers wont be stating much about their toughness any longer.

WOLFMondo
09-18-2005, 11:41 AM
Historicaly it was a tough plane and as a frequent flyer its a consideration for ground attack, that plane will get you home with serious damage as it did IRL. The current DM is a little too tough though, the only way to down them now is though PK's or multiple control breakages.

HayateAce
09-18-2005, 12:52 PM
Hmm, lots of very bold statements here. Not trying to rain on ur party, just watch out for these broadstroke comments.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

"Outdives everything" Um, P47

"Nothing rolls like it" Um, Corsair

"Greatest propellor fighter ever" Um, F8F Bearcat


Some general comments:

"The Fw190 and Corsair were about equal in the rate of roll."

"Both the Corsair and Hellcat were far superior to the Fw190 in turning circles and characteristics."

"No maneuver could be done in the Fw190 which could not be followed by both the Corsair and Hellcat. It was found that the Fw190 requires much greater radius in which to loop than the other two airplanes, and tends to stall sharply when trying to follow the Corsair and Hellcat."

"Forward vision from the Fw190 is blanket off to some extent, due to the fact that the cockpit is only 6 inches above the cowling contour. Forward vision from the Hellcat and Corsair is considered to be better. In the Fw190 the pilot sits rather low with respect to the wing."

"The Fw190 has a no-warning stall which tends to reduce its efficiency in combat against airplanes which can force it to fly near the stalling speed."

Great fighter, not the end-all be-all.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/page3.jpg

Here is the rest of the report. (http://mywebpages.comcast.net/markw4/index1.html)

I suspect that once the faulty damage model is put right, these types of posts will only increase.

tigertalon
09-18-2005, 01:42 PM
HayateAce, Fw used in this test was a captured Fw190A5U4 fighter bomber (and even THIS version is capable of outclimbing F4U-1D at high speeds, let alone F6F).

Now, please, compare F6F and F4U-1D to a Fw190A6, A8 or, God forbid, D9. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Von_Rat
09-18-2005, 01:44 PM
after flying fws for a long time, ive gone back to me109.

bnz or e fighting with 109 gives the best of both worlds. i can usually either out manevuer or outrun what i can't out manuvuer.

maybe thats why most real life experten preferred it, other than fact most of em started in it, and so preferred plane they were familar with.

tnb ing on deck will kill you fast no matter what plane your in.

oh did i mention the fws forward view suc's. hard to beleive sombody would design a fighter plane with a forward view not much better than the spirit of st. louis.

maybe trackir 6dof will help fix that in bob.

tigertalon
09-18-2005, 02:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
hard to beleive sombody would design a fighter plane with a forward view not much better than the spirit of st. louis. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

WOLFMondo
09-18-2005, 04:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
HayateAce, Fw used in this test was a captured Fw190A5U4 fighter bomber (and even THIS version is capable of outclimbing F4U-1D at high speeds, let alone F6F).

Now, please, compare F6F and F4U-1D to a Fw190A6, A8 or, God forbid, D9. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

Professor_06
09-18-2005, 05:22 PM
http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/Spitfire14v109.htm

http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/VBv190.htm

Kuna15
09-18-2005, 05:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Professor_06:
http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/Spitfire14v109.htm

http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/VBv190.htm </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">SpitfireXIVvMesserschmitt Bf109G.
Conclusion: The Spitfire XIV is superior in every respect. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">SpitfireIXv FW190A.
The general impression of the pilots involved in the trials is that the Spitfire Mark IX compares well with the FW 190. Providing the Spitfire IX has the initiative, it undoubtedly stands a good chance of shooting down the FW 190. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In climb Spitfire is slightly better, while in dive FW-190 is better especially in initial stages of dive.

Codex1971
09-18-2005, 05:55 PM
The FW takes damage the same way it did before 4.01m...its just that you don't see the visual cues such as fire or smoke, Oleg has stated this recently...the visuals will return in the next patch.

I have had countles times where my engine has died or all three controls knocked out in a single deflection pass from P-51's, 47's, 38's and Spits...and those dam B-25 gunners...LOL. There is nothing uber about the DM of the FW...what most forget is that the FW can take alot of punishment if fired on from dead six...this is where most people, I think, get the idea that the FW's DM is uber...well it isn't.

Ankanor
09-18-2005, 07:58 PM
What Do I like about my Wurger? It's fast, and has to stay fast. It hits hard. it's really maenuverable at high speeds. the high speed stall ahs saved me a couple of times. I love it when you break off the dive and the enemy either shreds his wings off trying to follow or becomes a part of the scenery. Recently I tried flying the Me109. It felt like flying on 1/2 game speed.

Badsight.
09-18-2005, 11:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
Not trying to rain on ur party. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>even if you were , your making a laughable attempt at it . hard to believe that people hold on to that test , so bogus

a used crash-landed Jabo A5 w/o boost was faster & out-climbed the USN,s finest , surprising that anyone with at least some idear of how to read these old plane tests would bother to keep bringing this particular one up

L33T-Zoolander
09-19-2005, 01:27 AM
Their pilots.

Good Hunting
Zoo

HayateAce
09-19-2005, 02:07 AM
Strange, I have no problem that both the Hellcat and Corsair were better than the 190.

Go figure.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

BBB_Hyperion
09-19-2005, 02:21 AM
Strange , I have no problem to get behind that this presented test is not valid for 190 performance in fighter role.

This document contains a 190 special jabo version , wrong fuel used in test, indicating wrong aileron maintenance etc etc and has been discussed to death didnt saw much contributions of yourself to the analysis in the discussion of the documents you reposted.

Go figure what the intention of this post was ?.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Don_ULFonso
09-19-2005, 02:41 AM
Oh well, it IS true: the FW's roll rate WAS second to none - in the ETO. Even if the Corsair should have been close, that was a PTO plane!

If you start on THAT level, then what'll be next? Compare KIs to FWs?

Call me a "traditionalist" if you like, but I for one prefer to fly HISTORICAL matches: planes of the same era that flew in the same theater. Thus comparing an FW with a Corsair may be of THEORETICAL interest (supposed you've got correct data http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ), but that's all: they NEVER met http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif .

As for the FW, it WAS a killer - in the RIGHT HANDS. Since it was rather HARD to fly, most German pilots - including veteran aces - stuck to the 109 they knew and which was not THAT hard to handle.

No one ever said the FW was the "BEST" plane of WWII - but it undoubtedly was the best ARMED one (produced in large numbers). It wasn't called the "butcher bird" for nothing. At some time it was the FASTEST plane in the ETO - at some time it wasn't. It always was the LEAST maneuvrable plane in the ETO - but it wasn't meant to T&B anyway. It was meant for slashing attacks, for Jabo raids and returning home afterwards, and to intercept bombers. If you fly a German plane and turn with a Spit you've missed some essential info anyway http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif ...

Ankanor
09-19-2005, 02:53 AM
Actually They Did. IIRC Norway based JG-5 fought against the FAA Corsairs. I think it happened during the Tirpitz raids.

Don_ULFonso
09-19-2005, 02:56 AM
If that were true it probably was the exception that proved the rule http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ...

FritzGryphon
09-19-2005, 03:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the LEAST maneuvrable plane in the ETO </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lets not go overboard. The P-47 and IL-2 3M was slightly worse http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Don_ULFonso
09-19-2005, 03:18 AM
That was no plane but a flying engine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ...

Redwulf__1
09-19-2005, 03:19 AM
First of all.... The FW 190 Series is a dangerous plane. But only if you handle it right. JV 44 The Redwulf- Squadron flies the Fockes only, we are displaying the airfield protection Squadron of Gallands JV 44. These guys have flown the D 9 and one rare D 11. Unfortunately the Focke Series are not well displayed in the game, basic flight characteristics are well. But if you follow some things you need to know about the FW you will have a great success in the game.

1. The Focke is not a Turner. If you turn with others you will burn
2. Use the roll rate as prior move in
a ) evasive moves like scissors
b) as attack move like in a vector roll
3. FW´s are not only Teamplanes
4. In Team you need a good communication
5. As Solo, keep your speed up, always use altitude advantage and do not turn with your opponent.
6.Use BnZ Tactics only. One quick pass, short distance and he never will notice what had hit him.


If you follow these basic steps, nobody will catch you, nobody will harm you. If you do it right per ammunition loadout you will be able to shoot 5 planes before you need to return to base.

If somebody likes, please join one of our Servers, we fly full real , open cockpit as well. Then you will see what I mean.

JV 44 The Redwulf Squadron (http://www.Redwulf.de)

WOLFMondo
09-19-2005, 05:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
Strange, I have no problem that both the Hellcat and Corsair were better than the 190.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Strange, no one is paying attention.

BigKahuna_GS
09-19-2005, 05:35 AM
S!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Badsight-even if you were , your making a laughable attempt at it . hard to believe that people hold on to that test , so bogus a used crash-landed Jabo A5 w/o boost was faster & out-climbed the USN,s finest , surprising that anyone with at least some idear of how to read these old plane tests would bother to keep bringing this particular one up </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Actually the 190 was in very good condition and was set up in the fighter mode with according weights and in the "clean condition".

The Corsair was much faster than the 190, especially on the deck. Also the Corsair did not have the new and improved propeller that would have increased both speed and climb rate.

Robert Johnson who did mock dogfights against Corsairs with his P47 and of course real combat against 190s, thought the Corsair was faster and more manueverable. Johnson did see some similarites between the Corsair and 190 in roll rate and altitude performance.

Whatever improvements the 190 was reciving in terms of speed and power the Corsair was recieving also.

Both the Bearcat & F4U-4 Corsair were flying in late 1944' with the F4U-4 seeing combat first in the late spring of 1945.

So if you want to compare the 1945 190D9 to the 1945 F4U-4 Corsair--IMHO the F4U-4 would be superior to the 190D9 in about every performance perameter.



__________________________________________________ _______________________
Ankanor
Dolphin Dancer - Proud member of Monsters Inc
Posted Mon September 19 2005 01:53
Actually They Did. IIRC Norway based JG-5 fought against the FAA Corsairs. I think it happened during the Tirpitz raids.
__________________________________________________ ________________________


Rgr that.

Corsairs & Hellcats took part in that strike mission. So an engagement between these aircraft and Luft a/c would be historical.



__

WOLFMondo
09-19-2005, 05:49 AM
Kahuna, the point is missed with you.

Its an old broke A5 with no boost vs factory fresh new Corsair and Hellcat.

Hardly either accurate or even useful to USN flyers at the time since they wouldn't be facing an old broke A5 but A6's at the very least or A9's or D's if they ever had the chance to fight them.

In late Spring the war in the ETO was over so its a moot point. By that time the Dora have been in combat for over 1 year.

Might be best if people knew what an A5 is first before talking about them in comparison fights. Its like comparing a Mustang I against a Dora 9 and then saying the whole Mustang family is rubbish based on those results. Cause thats what you and Hayatetroll are doing.

BigKahuna_GS
09-19-2005, 06:03 AM
S!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Mondo--Its an old broke A5 with no boost vs factory fresh new Corsair and Hellcat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Read the report Mondo. It says the 190 was in very good condition, it was stripped and repainted and representative of a 190 in fighter mode. Sorry they didnt have a newer model 190 to test against--guess they had to go with what they had.

I still find Robert Johnson's comments relavent though as a comparison of more modern models of both planes-Corsair vs 190.

There is in IL2/AEP/PF a 1944 Dora and a 1945 Dora. Even with the war coming to a close in the ETO the 190D9 was still being improved upon with subsquent variations/models.

And by the way who said the 190 was rubbish ?
I think it was an excellent fighter design.


__

WOLFMondo
09-19-2005, 06:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:

Read the report Mondo. It says the 190 was in very good condition, it was stripped and repainted and representative of a 190 in fighter mode. Sorry they didnt have a newer model 190 to test against--guess they had to go with what they had.

I still find Robert Johnson's comments relavent though as a comparison of more modern models of both planes-Corsair vs 190.

There is in IL2/AEP/PF a 1944 Dora and a 1945 Dora. Even with the war coming to a close in the ETO the 190D9 was still being improved upon with subsquent variations/models.

And by the way who said the 190 was rubbish ?
I think it was an excellent fighter design.


__ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No boost, big HP difference. Old 1942 A5 vs new 1944 Corsair and Hellcat. Really for comparitive purposes the the report should be ignored despite the old 190 performs pretty well in certain categories. And it should certainly not be used as a comparison of all 190's against the Corsair or hellcat which hayateace is trying to do.

Robert Johnson is one of many pilots to say many things about the 190 yet never flew one.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kocur_
09-19-2005, 06:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There is in IL2/AEP/PF a 1944 Dora and a 1945 Dora. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Problem is the "D9 1945" is supposed to be different to "D9 1944" by having MW-50. Thing is the very second D9 produced had MW-50. I'd say "1945" would be Ta-152 (both H1 and C1/3) or D11/12/13/15.

Don_ULFonso
09-19-2005, 07:08 AM
Interesting discussion http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ...

In this spirit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif , here's some further info where they compared two men's results over a middle distance. One reached the end sooner than the other. The fact that he was 20yo while his opponent was twice that age is of no importance, mind, because the older guy was "washed and clothed and representative of a runner in competitive state. Sorry they didnt have a younger guy to test against - guess they had to go with what they had." http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Dang, I'm beginning to see why this place here is AKA "the zoo" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif ...

WOLFMondo
09-19-2005, 08:15 AM
And which animal do you represent? A trout? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Ankanor
09-19-2005, 08:22 AM
I'll be an elk http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Just six more to go!!!

and while we're at it, how about the test flights of a Me109G-6 with underwing cannons compared to the very best the allies have to offer?

the average flyboy(I hope i'm not one) would just read till he reaches "FW190... worse..." and then will invade the forums screaming "fix my Hellcat/Mustang/Corsair/Hangglider, it should punk them Nazi @sses(aces), but it don't!" on the top of his lungs.

You do nobody any good. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Buzzsaw-
09-19-2005, 08:36 AM
Salute

The problem is not with the game 190's performance.

The problem is that aircraft such as the La-7, late 109's and to a certain extent the Spitfires, are all overmodelled in their ability to turn and maneuver as compared to the historical aircraft. The 109K4 can execute a 360 degree turn in 17 seconds, when it should take 22. A Spitfire 9 can execute a turn in 15 seconds, when it should take 17-18. etc. etc.

So they all seem much better when compared to the 190 which is modelled pretty close to its historical abilities. They also look much better compared to the P-51's and P-47's, which are if anything undermodelled in their ability to maneuver.

The main problem is too low stall speed for all the overmodelled aircraft, along with too high climbrate and acceleration.

WOLFMondo
09-19-2005, 08:49 AM
Any P51, P47 or FW190 pilot trying to win a turning battle hasn't got a clue how to fly anywayshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

All 3 roll nicely and all 3 turn poorly which is historically correct.

Ankanor, that G6 does poorly in many things in that test cause of those gun pods. Its hardly fair to even compare a G6 without gunpods vs a Tempest V, Spitfire XIV or Mustang III, 3 of the best prop planes in there best versions ever built

tigertalon
09-19-2005, 09:16 AM
If this is zoo, then I must be a tiger! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ankanor:
Actually They Did. IIRC Norway based JG-5 fought against the FAA Corsairs. I think it happened during the Tirpitz raids. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I think it was F6F and not a sair that went against germans, but I dunno whether they were Fws or Bfs. IIRC there was a single furball, Americans lost one fighter and germans 3 (based on american report).

Redwulf__1
09-19-2005, 11:08 AM
S!

Let me quote 2 german Pilots of WW2. I have a good connection to them and have spoken with them about their flights.

First Günther Rall, No. 3 scorer of LW who served with JG 300. JG 300 was a unit that has flown allied, captured planes.

Quote:" I have flown them all, Spitfire, Hurricane, P 51 D, P 38, Doras of all kind. I must say the P 51 D was a fine plane. Excellent speed, good to handle, The Jug was a slaughter but both planes were even with the D 9. An expierenced Dora Pilot was absolutely a match and could outturn both planes. It depends at the pilot, not the plane. G-Forces were enourmous, for a few seconds you flew "blind", there are a lot of factors that played a role.
The A 4 was in the battle of Britain a superior plane against the early Hurricanes and Spits. This plane could outturn them all. But later.....Quote end. We all know what happened.

Second Hans Ekkehard Bob, 60 kills, 23 kills in BoB.

I liked the ME 109. I have flown the Focke A 4 and A 5, but never liked it. It was my intension to go to the units that have ME 109. In the battle of britain we had to fight hard, the Fockes had a easier "Job" against Spit and Hurricane.

I think to compare Hellcat and Corsair with a D 9 or D 11 or whatever late Dora is wrong and misplaced here. I dont know how they would handle here in Europe, because different environment.

I have such a list and lists about D9 Testflights in Rechlin and all D 11 and D 13 variants against know allied planes, but Iam not allowed to display them here. I got a lot from and expert you guys should know. His name is Bryan Bury. He and his mates make a very good overview with sheets from Smitonian Institute of Technology. ( therefore we cant display the sheets. )

To bring it to a point. FW´s what ever model was a dangerous plane in its special timepattern.

I have guncam videos ( 22MB) of A 6 and A 8 turning with P 51 and P 47. Both planes have a chance and could follow their opponents. Wingtip contrails are a sign of heavy G-Foprces. Even these planes could follow the allied plaes and got shot down from them.

Fact is: Oleg Maddox ignores arguments and facts we have send to him. His datas about the german planes are based on russian Testflights with captured, damaged planes. The A 8 Model bases on a A 8 shot down near Orel from JG 54, rebuilt by russians with a 2 blade wooden Prop and wrong fuel octan. If you try to point him or his FM builders to these facts you earn something like " German Pilots cheated in their number of kills" or " I dont believe german advertisements".

I wont flame Oleg here, hes a fine person, but for some reason his efforts are more lets say it that way.......to even a game.

I dont care it anymore, I did what I believe I had to do. FW´s in the game are still dangerous, but sorry to say that again, out of specs.

I know such discussions since CFS 1, nationalism, patriotism or to be pathetic are wrong in such discussions.

Iam looking forward to follow the discussion and hopefully it will be a "fair" one.

Visit my Squadron here.... (http://Redwulf.de)

BigKahuna_GS
09-19-2005, 11:09 AM
S!

__________________________________________________ ________________________
Mondo--No boost, big HP difference. Old 1942 A5 vs new 1944 Corsair and Hellcat. Really for comparitive purposes the the report should be ignored despite the old 190 performs pretty well in certain categories. And it should certainly not be used as a comparison of all 190's against the Corsair or hellcat which hayateace is trying to do.

Robert Johnson is one of many pilots to say many things about the 190 yet never flew one.
__________________________________________________ ________________________



I understand your point Mondo older vs newer aircraft. Heres what I get out of it--a simple observation. The older 190s such as this 190A5 had less wingloading and generally speaking could turn better and loop better than late model 190s.

In all the subsequent late models of 190 the wingloading increased and manueverability decreased. The focus of the late model 190s was increased speed, horsepower and energy at the price of even higher wingloading.

http://www.geocities.com/slakergmb/1098f6f0.gif
What impresses me about the F4U-4 Corsair is that it had it all, a very high top end speed, high sea level speed, very good roll rate, very good climb rate, good manueverability, great bomb load, good combat range, rugged airframe/engine. Not bad for a carrier bird about 384mph TAS sea level/464mph TAS 20K. The F4U-5 was even faster.

As for Robert Johnson's opinon of the 190 performance, he may not of flown one but he sure did fly combat against them where his life was on the line if he misjudged their capabilities. Considering how many 190s Johnson engaged and shot down, I think he fully understood the 190s performance parameters.

__



__________________________________________________ _______________________
Don_ULFonso Posted Mon September 19 2005 06:08
Interesting discussion ...

In this spirit , here's some further info where they compared two men's results over a middle distance. One reached the end sooner than the other. The fact that he was 20yo while his opponent was twice that age is of no importance, mind, because the older guy was "washed and clothed and representative of a runner in competitive state. Sorry they didnt have a younger guy to test against - guess they had to go with what they had."

Dang, I'm beginning to see why this place here is AKA "the zoo" ...
__________________________________________________ _________________________



I understand the analogy you are trying to depict here. Let me tell you this, I worked with a guy about 15yrs older than me that was an ultra-marathon runner. So while you and I go out and jog 3-5 miles to stay in shape, this guy goes out and runs 50-75-100 mile races in the Rocky Mountains at 10,000ft-15,000ft. So in this case this "Old Guy" could kick any young guys butt.

http://www.leadvilletrail100.com/

The Corsair had one of the longest production runs of any WW2 aircraft and had to compete against newer "young guy" designs all the time. The shoot down of a Mig 15 by a Corsair was a case of the old guy whooping the young guy.


__

Redwulf__1
09-19-2005, 11:18 AM
Hmmm, why we discussion this? The question was why the FW 190 is so good in the game

geetarman
09-19-2005, 11:23 AM
I usually fly a Mustang, but yesterday took up an A4 and 109G2 on an OL server. They both flew on rails. Rudder input was needed (right mainly) up until about 210-220mph, then the ball slid nicely into the center. Both planes stayed that way over that speed regardless of pitch, power or AoA!

Dove on an enemy and pulled up sharply into a chandelle then wingover. During both the dive and zoom climb, the ball stayed centered! In a Mustang, during those two manuevers, I would have had to constantly fiddle with the rudder trim just to keep the plane pointing straight, nuch less aim with it.

That's why it's so good in this game. At combat speed it rides on rails (as does the 109G) and hits very hard with all those cannons. You feel almost invulnerable. I could actually see the enemy planes below me (the typical Spits, 51's, yaks, LAs, etc.) twitching a bit while the pilots fought to keep their planes in fighting trim. Meanwhile, the 190/109 just sailed on by.

BigKahuna_GS
09-19-2005, 11:53 AM
S!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Redwulf__1 Posted Mon September 19 2005 10:18
Hmmm, why we discussion this? The question was why the FW 190 is so good in the game </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Because a US Navy flight test was posted here between the Hellcat/Corsair vs 190. Also these US Navy aircraft were flown by the Brits in european waters and had engagements against Luftwaffe a/c.

I also had the pleasure of meeting Gunther Rall on a couple of occasions, the last one being at the Virgina Bader fine art gallery. This was a book signing and not really a question and answer period but someone eventually asked him which plane he thought was better the P51 or 109.

Rall said the 109 was definetly competative to the end of the war but overall the P51 was the better aircraft.

__
__________________________________________________ _____________________
geetarman Posted Mon September 19 2005 10:23
I usually fly a Mustang, but yesterday took up an A4 and 109G2 on an OL server. They both flew on rails. Rudder input was needed (right mainly) up until about 210-220mph, then the ball slid nicely into the center. Both planes stayed that way over that speed regardless of pitch, power or AoA!

Dove on an enemy and pulled up sharply into a chandelle then wingover. During both the dive and zoom climb, the ball stayed centered! In a Mustang, during those two manuevers, I would have had to constantly fiddle with the rudder trim just to keep the plane pointing straight, nuch less aim with it.

That's why it's so good in this game. At combat speed it rides on rails (as does the 109G) and hits very hard with all those cannons. You feel almost invulnerable. I could actually see the enemy planes below me (the typical Spits, 51's, yaks, LAs, etc.) twitching a bit while the pilots fought to keep their planes in fighting
__________________________________________________ _______________________



Agree, even though the 109 had no rudder trim (IRL) it still seems to have little or no torque effect. The 109/190 are much more stable gun platforms and combined with powerful cannons are kill machines.

The P51 and P47 were known to be stable gun platforms but fly like they are balancing on the head of a pin and yaw heavily when firing guns.

__

WOLFMondo
09-19-2005, 12:46 PM
Kahuna, we are not discussing the Corsair here. I know you love the plane, I like it too but this is a 190 thread! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

All due respect to Robert Johnson but I wonder what would have happened he was faced with an FW ace like Priller and if his judgement of the FW would have changed based on the performance of a true ace rather than a wet behind the ears barely trained Hitler youth.

BSS_Goat
09-19-2005, 01:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
I also had the pleasure of meeting Gunther Rall on a couple of occasions.....
Rall said the 109 was definetly competative to the end of the war but overall the P51 was the better aircraft.
__ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

and what does that NOOB know??

MLudner
09-19-2005, 02:46 PM
The Bf-109 was a race horse.
The FW-190 was a work horse.
So declared Kurt Tank (Not a verbatim quote, incidentally), the designer of the 190.
It is interesting to note that most of the great German fighter pilots preferred the 109 to the 190 (Note: I said most, that does not mean all).
I prefer the 109. However, the 190 was viewed as a better beginner's plane because it was much easier to land and tougher.

Someone linked to a website up there with comparisons on it. The first one I saw was pretty much merdosvs (Latin for "Full of [expletive deleted]). That's the problem with the internet as a source of information. It's something like a minefield. Some of the comparisons were exaggerated, some were pretty much Merda Tavrica (Latin for Barbara Streisand) which led to a completely merdosvs conclusion. I mean, make no mistake; the Spitfire was an excellent fighter standing amongst the best of all prop fighters, but there are people in this world - like the guy that created that site - who are fanatical devotees of the design and think that if you get in a Spit anything that gets in your way will become a lawn dart 2 seconds later. In their lexicon the best synonym for Spitfire is "god".
Reality: No one aircraft is better than everyother at everything. The pilot is more important than the machine; always has been and always will be.
You put someone like Erich Hartmann in a Bf-109A and put up a lesser pilot flying a Spit XIV ... the Spit is the fool's bet.

tigertalon
09-19-2005, 03:21 PM
I think we are forgetting something here: planes were not equally succsessful at different styles of fighting.

For 1v1 dueling, Bf109 (and many other contemporary fighters) should always be better than contemporary Fw190 (with exception of D9/late BFs). Simply because guns are no good if you can't point them to the target, and a smart flown spit with equal initial E will not allow you to point the guns on him. It was like this IRL, I mean whenever a spitIX (in case of mark V Fw outclimbed it) with equal or higher E glued to their 6, Fws were known to dive and run like hell - it was their only option.

*Fw pilots also developed a special tactical maneouvre for shaking spits, combining great roll and dive: pilot firstly rolled left for 180 degrees (now flying inverted), spit tried to follow the roll, but was slower. Then Fw sharply rolled back to right for a full 360 degree circle (so, flying inverted again), the spit tried to follow this roll, but because of way slower roll the spit was now approx. level. In the mean time Fw pilot pulled the stick back and dived, while spit still had to execute a half-roll and then dive, in the meantime Fw was already far away*

For lonewulfing, Fw is one of the best around, hands down.

Same for teamplay - no better horse than Fw. If pilots know how to use it's superior speed and firepower, if they drag&bag for/from eachother (instead of selfishly going for individual kills), a pack of Fws is almost unbeatable by a pack of similar number of ANY fighter type in the same period.

So, IMO, most of this Fw190 confusion arises from the very different capabilities of this plane in dueling role and in teamplay/lonewulfing role.

HayateAce
09-19-2005, 05:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:

All due respect to Robert Johnson but I wonder what would have happened he was faced with an FW ace like Priller and if his judgement of the FW would have changed based on the performance of a true ace rather than a wet behind the ears barely trained Hitler youth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is quite an assumption and insult. Have a list of the 190 fliegers Johnson shot down?

hitler youth....

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Codex1971
09-19-2005, 06:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:
Reality: No one aircraft is better than everyother at everything. The pilot is more important than the machine; always has been and always will be.
You put someone like Erich Hartmann in a Bf-109A and put up a lesser pilot flying a Spit XIV ... the Spit is the fool's bet. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Skill will always win over specs! Full points to you MLudner!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Badsight.
09-19-2005, 11:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
Considering how many 190s Johnson engaged and shot down, I think he fully understood the 190s performance parameters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>& this is where you are so wrong

these pilots accounts are nice reads . . . . . . . & thats it

theres no way RSJ knew the condition & skill level & anything about what the guys he was facing were having to deal with inside of his cockpit

leave the Pilot accounts on the shelf for bed-time

WOLFMondo
09-20-2005, 12:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:

All due respect to Robert Johnson but I wonder what would have happened he was faced with an FW ace like Priller and if his judgement of the FW would have changed based on the performance of a true ace rather than a wet behind the ears barely trained Hitler youth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is quite an assumption and insult. Have a list of the 190 fliegers Johnson shot down?

hitler youth....

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No insult, just pointing out what Badsight does a little better at. Theres no way to judge a planes peformance when the key factor is the pilots skill.

I wonder what Johnsons opinion would have been if he met a 100+ ace in a 190?

Badsight.
09-20-2005, 01:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I wonder what Johnsons opinion would have been if he met a 100+ ace in a 190? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
well Hans Hannig was a 22y/o 90+ ace , him AND his wingman were over England flying FW-190s (A8?) when they were jumped by a Lone Spitfire Mk9 pilot by the name of Jack Charles , a canadian & apparent excellent deflection shot . he killed these 2 within minutes of each other to score the 1000th kill for his squadron during WW2

WOLFMondo
09-20-2005, 01:54 AM
I can pick up the ball and run with that.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif We shouldn't judge the A8's performance in this encounter. Neither should we judge he Spit IX's.

Kuna15
09-20-2005, 06:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I wonder what Johnsons opinion would have been if he met a 100+ ace in a 190? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
well Hans Hannig was a 22y/o 90+ ace , him AND his wingman were over England flying FW-190s (A8?) when they were jumped by a Lone Spitfire Mk9 pilot by the name of Jack Charles , a canadian & apparent excellent deflection shot . he killed these 2 within minutes of each other to score the 1000th kill for his squadron during WW2 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/eek.gif

MLudner
09-20-2005, 05:19 PM
Yep. Sometimes luck can be a killer too. Hannig just was not looking the right way at the right time, and that can be as deadly a mistake as any ... in the air or on the ground. The reality is that most of the pilots shot down in combat never saw the guy that hit them. Frankly, the primary reason Hartmann survived and scored so many victories was that he was attentive and always alert to what was going on around him; a keen situational awareness. He described it as getting a feeling in the seat of his pants when someone was sneaking in on him. Right behind that was his skill in flying a 109 that allowed him in one case to evade eight very angry P-51 pilots over the Ploesti Oil Fields until they ran him out of fuel and he was forced to bail. Not one them hit him, though.
Bob Johnson only survived to become an ace because he flew the mighty Jug. Had he been a Mustang pilot Egon Meyer would have killed him that day he blundered across his path. It was just that even with 4 20's and 2 MG's Meyer just could not get that Jug to fall out of the sky.
My personal favorite USAAF pilot is Gabreski. I have a great interview with him in Jane's WWII Fighters in my computer (Along with interviews of such fighter jock greats as Gunther Rall and Walter Krupinski). Unfortunately, Gabby has recently passed on ):

faustnik
09-20-2005, 05:43 PM
As far as the Fw190 being the greatest in IRL, I don't think so. The Fw190As were great fighters below 20,000 feet but, above that, their performance really dropped off. When P-51s and P-47 were peaking at altitude well above 20K, it put the Fw190s at a severe disadvantage. This is well represented in PF.

The Dora was equal to best the Allies had below, 25K feet, but again, above that altitude its performance fell off compared to the P-47s and late mark Spitfires. There is no question however, that it was dominant from 1942 to 1943.

In PF most of our fights are low level so, the Fw190 when flown by a veteran schwarm can really tear things up. The superior firepower of the Wurger and its ability to change direction so quickly make it deadly. A good match for the Fw190A5/6 is the Spit IX. Hopefully we will see a +25 Spit IX for late war servers to match up with the A9s and Doras. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

faustnik
09-20-2005, 05:51 PM
Oh, the original question, "what's so great about the Fw190":

- It's one of those planes in IL-2 that is difficult to learn but, once you get the feel for it, you can do really well with it.

- It represented a turning point in fighter aviation away from turn rate towards speed and firepower.

- The Fw190 has a very interesting history and development which is still in part undiscovered.

- Big radial, big guns, man's plane. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

HayateAce
09-20-2005, 11:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:

- Big radial, big guns, man's plane. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes it is:

http://blogsimages.skynet.be/images/000/534/021_253ab06af2cec5e56bd7dc8f7383d89b.JPG

WOLFMondo
09-21-2005, 12:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:

The Dora was equal to best the Allies had below, 25K feet, but again, above that altitude its performance fell off compared to the P-47s and late mark Spitfires. There is no question however, that it was dominant from 1942 to 1943.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most Spitfire Mk's were good at high altitude, the British had very good supercharger technology and the Spitfires wing had allot of grip on thin air.

faustnik
09-21-2005, 12:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:

- Big radial, big guns, man's plane. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes it is:

http://blogsimages.skynet.be/images/000/534/021_253ab06af2cec5e56bd7dc8f7383d89b.JPG </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Definately! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

faustnik
09-21-2005, 01:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:


Most Spitfire Mk's were good at high altitude, the British had very good supercharger technology and the Spitfires wing had allot of grip on thin air. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

MkVs started falling off above 20K feet too. You can question some things about the Fw190s abilities, but, it's ability to match, or 1942 actually dominate, the Spitfire was historical fact.

The quest to get high altitude performance for the Fw190 was sure a slow process. As you said, the US and UK got their better supercharger technology into production quickly. Tank matched them with the Ta152 but, way too little way to late.

tigertalon
09-21-2005, 03:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:

- Big radial, big guns, man's plane. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes it is:

http://blogsimages.skynet.be/images/000/534/021_253ab06af2cec5e56bd7dc8f7383d89b.JPG </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He men't big guns, not lots of small pesky peashoters. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WOLFMondo
09-21-2005, 03:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:


Most Spitfire Mk's were good at high altitude, the British had very good supercharger technology and the Spitfires wing had allot of grip on thin air. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

MkVs started falling off above 20K feet too. You can question some things about the Fw190s abilities, but, it's ability to match, or 1942 actually dominate, the Spitfire was historical fact.

The quest to get high altitude performance for the Fw190 was sure a slow process. As you said, the US and UK got their better supercharger technology into production quickly. Tank matched them with the Ta152 but, way too little way to late. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I always wonder why German designs didn't develop high altitude supercharger technology more. The 109E was pretty good at high altitudes, as where some of the G variants but I guess much of there design was influenced by the Russian side of the war and ground support. Short stubby wings don't help much either at those heights.

I agree in 1942 and even 1943 the FW190 was the dominant fighter over the skies of western Europe and remained a good match for any allied fighter until the end. I hope in BoB we get the Typhoon pretty quickly for 42/43 scenario's when it was used as a fighter against the low level FW190 hit and run raid. The tiffys 2 years as a fighter is often overlooked.

Badsight.
09-21-2005, 04:03 AM
well AFAIK Emils were faster down low & slower up real high than the mk1&2 Spitfires

the damlier benz motor was an efficient design , all alts were what it was meant to be used , not just tuned for low alt work as most of the Russian motors were

you think that the russian aviation industry had an influence on german motor design leading up to WW2 WOLFMondo ?

WOLFMondo
09-21-2005, 05:06 AM
No, I think it might have influenced it after 1941 and the need for higher performance engines lower down than higher up, both German and Soviet military philosophy was pretty similar in this sense, aircraft are there to support the ground units etc.

ImpStarDuece
09-21-2005, 06:01 AM
Spitfire Full throttle heights in FS gear (2nd stage supercharger)

Mk I (Merlin III)- 18,600 feet
Mk II (Merlin XII)- 14,700 feet
Mk V (Merlin 45)- 19,500
Mk V (Merlin 46)- 22,500 feet
Mk V LF (Merlin 50M)- 5,900 feet
Mk IX (Merlin 61)- 21,000 feet
Mk IX/VII (Merlin 66) - 16,000 feet
Mk IX (Merlin 70)- 24,550 feet
Mk XII (Griffon II/III)- 17,800 feet
Mk XIV (Griffon 65)- 26,000 feet

The Emil initailly outperformed the Spitfire at altitudes above 20,000 feet. The RAF tested two captured Me-109s at height and found that the problem for Spitfires was their old, wooden, two pitch propellers. The Emil was fitted with a 3 bladed constant speed propeller that showed a marked superiority to the Spitfires prop. This was fixed after June 1940 by two measuers. Firstly, two thirds of all Spitfire I production was converted to de Havilland metal, 3 blade, constant speed props. Secondly, de Haviland immediately began producing conversion kits for use at fighter stations by aircraft engineers and maintence units. By August 15th some 1,051 Spitfires and Hurricanes had been converted to constant speed units, averaging just over 20 conversions a day.

The constant speed props added 7,000 feet to the flight ceiling, improved manoevrability at height and improved performance at take-off and landing.

The Spitfire II, which was produced with a CSP and a Merlin XII, was some 6-7 miles per hour faster then the Spitfire I below about 17,000 feet but lost between 4-8 miles per hour above 20,000 feet. The Spitfire II exhibited much better climb and take off characteristics than the Spitfire I, reaching 20,000 feet about a minute quicker than a CSP fitted MK I and about 2 1/2 minutes quicker than a wooden, fixed pitch fitted Mk I.

p1ngu666
09-21-2005, 07:20 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

speed, firepower, roll rate, weapon loadout, nice view (apart from forward ingame)

its where designers went for speed over rate of climb imo

HayateAce
09-21-2005, 08:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:

He men't big guns, not lots of small pesky peashoters. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know it.

Maybe with 4.02 Oleg will give us some real fifties. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

WOLFMondo
09-21-2005, 09:23 AM
We already got real .50's.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

p1ngu666
09-21-2005, 09:24 AM
oh, anyone know why they didnt fit bigger and or a extra supercharger to the 190A?

luftluuver
09-21-2005, 09:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Redwulf__1:
First Günther Rall, No. 3 scorer of LW who served with JG 300. JG 300 was a unit that has flown allied, captured planes.

Quote:" I have flown them all, Spitfire, Hurricane, P 51 D, P 38, Doras of all kind. I must say the P 51 D was a fine plane. Excellent speed, good to handle, The Jug was a slaughter but both planes were even with the D 9. An expierenced Dora Pilot was absolutely a match and could outturn both planes. It depends at the pilot, not the plane. G-Forces were enourmous, for a few seconds you flew "blind", there are a lot of factors that played a role.
The A 4 was in the battle of Britain a superior plane against the early Hurricanes and Spits. This plane could outturn them all. But later.....Quote end. We all know what happened.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Redwulf, what BoB was this that the A-4 flew in? The BoB of 1940 was well over before the 190 appeared. The A-1's first combats were in Sept 1941. The A-4 not appearing til early 1942.

faustnik
09-21-2005, 09:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
oh, anyone know why they didnt fit bigger and or a extra supercharger to the 190A? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They did eventually P1ng. The BMW801TH and F were improved supercharger adaptations. The Germans were just slow in getting them into production. They started putting trying to put them into A9s at the end of 1944, by which time production conditions were a big mess.

faustnik
09-21-2005, 09:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:

Redwulf, what BoB was this that the A-4 flew in? The BoB of 1940 was well over before the 190 appeared. The A-1's first combats were in Sept 1941. The A-4 not appearing til early 1942. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Luftlover,

As far as I can tell, the A4 didn't start coming off the lines until June or July in 1942.

What is considered the "BoB" time period anyway?

p1ngu666
09-21-2005, 10:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
oh, anyone know why they didnt fit bigger and or a extra supercharger to the 190A? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They did eventually P1ng. The BMW801TH and F were improved supercharger adaptations. The Germans were just slow in getting them into production. They started putting trying to put them into A9s at the end of 1944, by which time production conditions were a big mess. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ah right http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

luftluuver
09-21-2005, 10:07 AM
Faust,

for the English it is the summer and early fall of 1940. For the Germans, they usually have it from summer of 1940 going into early 1941.

That is what one source said but should have checked further. A-4 not showing up til the early 2cd half of 1942. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

faustnik
09-21-2005, 10:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Faust,

for the English it is the summer and early fall of 1940. For the Germans, they usually have it from summer of 1940 going into early 1941.

That is what one source said but should have checked further. A-4 not showing up til the early 2cd half of 1942. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the BoB dates. No Fw190 in BoB. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

A4 production really had me confused. A lot of books label pictures as Fw190A4s in Spring 1942 or even specific months like March 1942. Because of that, I thought that the A4 fell right into the "derating" period in Spring '42. After looking into it more, the A4 didn't start coming of the lines until Summer '42 when fuel mixture adjustments and exhaust plating changes had allowed full rating of the BMW801D. So, our version in PF would be a derated Ostfront jabo?

WOLFMondo
09-21-2005, 10:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:

What is considered the "BoB" time period anyway? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I always thought it was May till October '40 as that was the time period there was a threat of invasion. After October there was no threat of invasion so the Battle of Britian was over.

There was no threat of invasion after this period or at any point in 1941 or thereafter.

tigertalon
09-21-2005, 10:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Redwulf, what BoB was this that the A-4 flew in? The BoB of 1940 was well over before the 190 appeared. The A-1's first combats were in Sept 1941. The A-4 not appearing til early 1942. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is all a question of WHAT do WE consider to be BOB.

Germans considered BOB to last some 3 years, from summer '40 till the end of Fw190 tip&run attacks. "Sea lion" was not cancelled, it was postponed.

IMO it has to do with German propaganda, unwilling to admit defeat, so extending the battle (altough no real chances of threatening with invasion again - being too busy in Soviet Union).

Redwulf__1
09-21-2005, 06:40 PM
My fault guys, sorry.

Its the point of view.

In your historical understanding only those planes were used in the "Battle of Britain, means Operation Sea Lion:
Bomber: Junkers Ju 87, Dornier Do 17, Heinkel He 111, Junkers Ju 88
Fighter: Messerschmitt Bf 109, Messerschmitt Bf 110

In my talks with both Luftwaffe Pilots they used the term Luftschlacht um England, not operation Seel¶we.

The first Fockes that have meet english fighters over the Channel were Focke Wulf , A 1 flown by IV./JG 26 in early May 1941. At this time JG 26 was stationed in Le Bourget.

So it was my fault, sorry for the confusion

p1ngu666
09-21-2005, 09:03 PM
ive no idea what the post bob fighting was or should be called actully http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

amusing at duxford the expert (simon something i think) said that if the luftwaffe hadnt stopped attacking britain, or atleast greatly curtailed the attacks, it would have bled itself to death http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

faustnik
09-21-2005, 09:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
ive no idea what the post bob fighting was or should be called actully http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

amusing at duxford the expert (simon something i think) said that if the luftwaffe hadnt stopped attacking britain, or atleast greatly curtailed the attacks, it would have bled itself to death http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, loss rates of the Bf109s going across the Channel were really high.

Anyway, the RAF turned it around in '42 and started bleeding planes and pilots in cross-Channel raids.

TX-Gunslinger
09-22-2005, 01:40 AM
When I first started flying online, I mainly flew a Bf-109 F4, G2 and G6. These were the aircraft that brought me to this sim. If I flew red, occasionally, it was in a P-39 or P-47. In those days, I did'nt like the 190 because to me at the time (almost three years ago), it felt like a wombat on crack. I could'nt turn, see out the front and if I pushed it, the snap stall drove me crazy. Hardly any one in servers at the time was flying 190's in those pre-AEP days.

Then, I noticed after reading the boards for a while that folks like Faustnik, Zen, Hunde, Hyperion and Robban had an incredible passion for the FW-190 series and they freely shared their tips, techniques and approaches. I noticed that these 190 experten were also excellent communicators, rarely ever engaging in "troll" and "flame" posts. They seemed to be well read about WWII air combat and reasonably balanced in their expectations of relative performance of ALL aircraft in the sim. The "Butcherbird Brotherhood" in IL2 has always seemed a "cut above" many of the other factions (although I must admit dissapointment in some of the more recent, crowd. Every group has a few bad seeds it seems).

I started to apply the things that I read, achieved a level of confidence in the aircraft (Anton's then) and developed a passion for the 190 myself. It was a difficult aircraft for me to master, and I'm still not done. Perhaps that was one of the key draws for me personally, to attempt to master a difficult aircraft.

I've probably got 2000 + hours in 190's now and it still excites me to fly them. I came to this thread late and many folks have covered the majority of performance and astetic issues so there's no need for me to elaborate on those. I'd add to whats been said that:

1) I've yet to find a more functional cockpit, even on the newer planes. With a single sweeping glance across a 190 cockpit, you can obtain more useful information, faster than any other in the game. The layout of the gauges could simply not be improved upon. There are more beautiful cockpits now (Me-110, Ki-61, I-185, J-8A comes to mind), but they are'nt as functional to me. Little things, like landing gear lights appearing on the left, where I can glance before landing or after take-off and see instantly what my gear status is, without cluttering the front panel to the "left to right" flow of critical engine and flight information without having to look up or down still impresses me.

2) While visibility out the front is not great, the side view is incredible. For Air to Air combat, I think I like this better. While the P-38, for example has an incredible view looking forward, it has a poor view to the side of the aircraft which limits the overall view much more.

3) In this aircraft the pilot can have more vertical control of the airspace than most other planes in the sim. At diving speeds which in which 109's, P-38's and Russian fighters "mush out" the Focke-Wulf is just beginning to warm up.

4) Although I believe it's a little off in 4.01, the rate of roll at speed is probably my favorite characteristic. "Think Roll not Turn" is the FW-190's key manuever characteristic. The only Western Aircraft which should even come close is the Clipped Wing spit, and it's shy by 15-20 degrees per second (ref NACA) a certain critical air speeds.

5) There is nothing I've found more exilarating than a takeoff, or very low altitude maximum speed run in a 45 Dora, with my speakers turned up. While many folks swear by the 44 Dora, I believe the acceleration is superior in the MW-50 bird and I've had much more luck with it.

6) In acceleration and responsiveness, I haven't found another plane which matches the Dora. It's just a cool "hot-rod" which now has the punch it always deserved. Guess what? You can turn in it! Just don't get stupid with it. If you examine it's turn performance carefully, you might be surprised.

7) Before 3.04 my favorite later war Anton was the A9, now it's the A8. My favorite scenario before 4.01 was 42 with an A4. It's still a favorite but the A4 has lost some of it's guts.

Anyway, that's whats great about the FW-190's, for me. They really are'nt for everybody. So it really does'nt matter if they impress you or not, I'm sure you'll find some aircraft you can be passionate for. That's the way things are.

Besides, it leaves more 190's on the server for me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Some folks drive Chevy's and love them, and some drive BMW's and love them.....

S~

Gun

*edited for spelling. Man, I wish internet forums had embedded spell checkers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

luftluuver
09-22-2005, 03:32 AM
A question for you 190 experten. On what model did the 190 get the adjustable cooling flaps?

WOLFMondo
09-22-2005, 03:59 AM
Good post Gunslinger.

p1ngu666
09-22-2005, 07:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
ive no idea what the post bob fighting was or should be called actully http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

amusing at duxford the expert (simon something i think) said that if the luftwaffe hadnt stopped attacking britain, or atleast greatly curtailed the attacks, it would have bled itself to death http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, loss rates of the Bf109s going across the Channel were really high.

Anyway, the RAF turned it around in '42 and started bleeding planes and pilots in cross-Channel raids. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

indeed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

p1ngu666
09-22-2005, 07:48 AM
the luftwaffe where still able to chuck away planes and pilots, in there bombing offensive.

amusing one was 30 fw190s bomb somewhere, then 3 set down at nearest airfield... in england http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
3 190s landed at a raf airfield, one crashed nearby, few others where shot down aswell.

sgilewicz
09-22-2005, 09:07 AM
Quote:" I have flown them all, Spitfire, Hurricane, P 51 D, P 38, Doras of all kind. I must say the P 51 D was a fine plane. Excellent speed, good to handle, The Jug was a slaughter but both planes were even with the D 9.

Maybe it's my "American" English but does anyone else find that quote confusing. It sounds like he found the Jug to be an easy opponent, "slaughter". But then he states that it was even with the D9. Like I said, I don't get what he was saying but I am getting on in years http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

faustnik
09-22-2005, 09:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
A question for you 190 experten. On what model did the 190 get the adjustable cooling flaps? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They were introduced during A4 production and standardized starting with the A5.

faustnik
09-22-2005, 09:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The "Butcherbird Brotherhood" in IL2 has always seemed a "cut above" many of the other factions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice post Gunslinger. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

One difference between the Fw190 group and other a/c gangs is that the Fw190 group has gotten a lot of support in general from forum members that don't fly the Fw190.

luftluuver
09-22-2005, 09:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
They were introduced during A4 production and standardized starting with the A5. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was my understanding but in this thread, "109 article (from http://www.virtualpilots.fi)", a person named Crumpp says they were not. http://www.hitechcreations.com/frindex.html Pg2 of the 'Aircraft and Vehicles' forum.

faustnik
09-22-2005, 10:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
They were introduced during A4 production and standardized starting with the A5. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was my understanding but in this thread, "109 article (from http://www.virtualpilots.fi)", a person named Crumpp says they were not. http://www.hitechcreations.com/frindex.html Pg2 of the 'Aircraft and Vehicles' forum. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, Crumpp certainly knows more about the subject than I do, so, we should go with his opinion.

Redwulf__1
09-22-2005, 11:44 AM
@sgilewicz

Sorry for my bad englsih ( Iam german ), Iam used to play with Squad mates from the US, so I adopted some slang in it. I try it again. What Günter Rallsaid to me is that the JUG and the P 51 were a even opponent to the D9. He didnt say slaughter to the JUG, he meant it was a very dangerous plane because its speed and guns.

Sorry again

BTW good to see ya Gunslinger, nice post and welcome in th Focke Community. I remember you flying some other aircraft in CFS 1

sgilewicz
09-22-2005, 12:49 PM
Redwulf: Thankyou most kindly for your reply. Although I am American I am reminded of the quote (I believe it was the playwrite Shaw) that Britain and America are one people separated by a common language! Or something to that effect! I'm often unsure of the intent of a poster even if their a native English speaker (especially those Aussie and Brit football posts http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif). Thanks again for an "official" translation.

MLudner
09-22-2005, 05:57 PM
Hey, Rotwulf_eins:
This is completely off topic and subject and everything else going on anywhere on this site ... but I have a German question and you might be just the one to ask.
I am a writer and I just published a story. There is a German in it and he asks a girl if she speaks German (in German, spechen sie Deutsch?)
She replies:
Etwas wenig; nicht viel (or wiel, I'm not sure about the correct spelling at the moment as I spelled it phonetically in the book), nicht genug fur ein gesprach.
Does that make any sense to you? I was using a dictionary...

If you need any help with English, just ask.

SnapdLikeAMutha
09-22-2005, 06:41 PM
'viel'

German 'v' sounds like english 'f'
German 'w' sounds like english 'v'

more or less http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

'weil' = because

tigertalon
09-22-2005, 07:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SnapdLikeAMutha:
'viel'

German 'v' sounds like english 'f'
German 'w' sounds like english 'v'

more or less http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

'weil' = because </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So it could also be Vocke Wulv 190, lol

MLudner
09-23-2005, 02:37 PM
A German would say it: Fockuh-Vulf, which is how I pronounce it, personally. Pronouciation wise I have little trouble with German, but I do not know the language well enough to use common colloquialisms and expressions. Actually, I am hoping that sentence sounds to a German like an American using German words and is not quite the way an actual German would put it. The character was only 13.
In the story it is written like this: "Etvas venig; nisht viel, nisht genug fur ein gesprach." It should mean "Some little; not much, not enough for a conversation."
BTW, not wEIl; wIEl (viel? That is how it would sound, probably, so likely it is wiel.)
Thank you, though.

TX-Gunslinger
09-23-2005, 03:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Redwulf__1:
@sgilewicz

Sorry for my bad englsih ( Iam german ), Iam used to play with Squad mates from the US, so I adopted some slang in it. I try it again. What Günter Rallsaid to me is that the JUG and the P 51 were a even opponent to the D9. He didnt say slaughter to the JUG, he meant it was a very dangerous plane because its speed and guns.

Sorry again

BTW good to see ya Gunslinger, nice post and welcome in th Focke Community. I remember you flying some other aircraft in CFS 1 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Hi Wulf

Well, there must be two Gunslinger's (no surprise). I did'nt fly CFS1 or 2. I used to be TexasGunslinger when I first started, then came to my current handle when I joined TX a while back.

Thanks

S~

Gun

dizeee
09-23-2005, 04:05 PM
the rl fw190 had many new features, which have have never been done before in a fighter plane. it was also called "der elektrische j¤ger", which kinda means the electrical fighter.
it had many automated systems, which drasticly helped the pilot to fly hs plane within ideal parameters. stuff like this, or the much better seat position, are just not important in the game.

tigertalon
09-23-2005, 07:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dizeee:
it had many automated systems, which drasticly helped the pilot to fly hs plane within ideal parameters. stuff like this, or the much better seat position, are just not important in the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I would say those things are important, but very limited. For example, when flying Yak9U (superb fighter IMO), you have to be careful to shift supercharger at certain altitudes, you have to adjust mixture etc... german fighters have it all automated. In the heat of the battle you should be able to concentrate fully on surviving and destroying enemy. All other procedures, that can be aoutomated, should be.

luftluuver
09-23-2005, 08:06 PM
When I shift gears in my car I don't even think about doing so. In fact, it is so automatic I almost wrecked my brother's auto tranny Vette (car and motor), as the hand just naturally reaches for the lever, when I shifted down. Did not help when I stepped on the clutch pedal, err mean brake pedal.

It was no big deal for real pilots to make adjustments to trim, motor, prop or sc.

p1ngu666
09-23-2005, 09:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dizeee:
it had many automated systems, which drasticly helped the pilot to fly hs plane within ideal parameters. stuff like this, or the much better seat position, are just not important in the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I would say those things are important, but very limited. For example, when flying Yak9U (superb fighter IMO), you have to be careful to shift supercharger at certain altitudes, you have to adjust mixture etc... german fighters have it all automated. In the heat of the battle you should be able to concentrate fully on surviving and destroying enemy. All other procedures, that can be aoutomated, should be. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i wub the yak9u aswell http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif
got a nice model of of mig3 at duxford aswell, looks like the sleak sexy mig of pictures, but not il2..

plastic instead of metal, but so much nicer and more detail..

Redwulf__1
09-25-2005, 01:54 PM
@MLudner

Nice post....but if my comments are out off topic here, how should I classify your comments here?

The danger in your Message is........I could understand it wrong. And now Iam not using a translator.

Maybe we can handle it in the game, anytime, anyplace...and in a http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif F O C K E

MLudner
09-25-2005, 08:21 PM
Nein, nein, mein freunde! Nicht dein bemerkungen; die frage ich fragte sie war von gesprachsthema.

Ist das gut Deutsche:
Steiner:
"Sprechen sie Deutsch?"
Tiff:
"Etwas wenig; nicht viel, nicht genug fur ein gesprach."

Note: I just looked it up again: it was viel, not wiel.

BigKahuna_GS
09-25-2005, 10:38 PM
S!

__________________________________________________ ____________________________________________
WOLFMondo Posted Mon September 19 2005 11:46
All due respect to Robert Johnson but I wonder what would have happened he was faced with an FW ace like Priller and if his judgement of the FW would have changed based on the performance of a true ace rather than a wet behind the ears barely trained Hitler youth.

Badsight- this is where you are so wrong these pilots accounts are nice reads . . . . . . . & thats it theres no way RSJ knew the condition & skill level & anything about what the guys he was facing were having to deal with inside of his cockpit
leave the Pilot accounts on the shelf for bed-time
__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________



These statements show that you know little about the history of the US 8th Air Force, the 56th Fighter Group, Hub Zemke & Robert Johnson.

The 56th Fighter Group arrived in England in the spring of 1943. The 56th FG fought the Luftwaffe during the time frames when the Luftwaffe was at the peak of there strength 43'-to early 44'. The 56th was fighting Luftwaffe experten during this time frame--not hilter youth.

The main opponet during 43'-44' was the "abbeyville boys", Goring's crack yellow nose experten. Because of continuing losses by the Luftwaffe, most german fighter groups were pulled back just beyond the border of germany. This did 2 things, it stopped for awhile attacks on german airbases in france because of relocation (consisdered to close to england) and it placed the german fighter force just beyond the range of P47 fighter groups until drop tanks were available.

Hub Zemke was a USAAF liasion with the VVS in russia, during which time he was briefed on captured Luftwaffe aircraft performance tests. Again while in England, the Brits briefed the 56th FG on captured Luftwaffe aircraft tests by the RAF. Air to air RAF pilot combat reports along with LW tactics & strategies were studied and presented to 56th FG pilots.

Hard data performance numbers of Luftwaffe aircraft from flight tests by both the VVS & Brits were given to the 56th FG to compare to the P47's flight performance.

One aircraft having a clean bounce on another aircraft and shooting it down reveals nothing about combat performance. Fighting from a defensive position or in a protracted fight can reveal aircraft strengths & weaknesses.

Contrary to your statements, aces from ALL WW2 air forces have said they could judge pilot ability relatively quickly by how their opponet flew their plane and from what range they fired their weapons.

Robert Johnson shot down german aircraft at a faster rate (per sortie) than any Luftwaffe experten including Hartman. If Johnson had kept this pace and flown as many sorties and the entire duration of the war like Eric Hartman, Johnson would of shot down 425 german aircraft (projected by Brit aircraft historians).

Statements made by Robert Johnson on 109/FW190 performance has been supported by many german aces including Gunther Rall & 190D9 pilots.


http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-GuntherRallEnglish.html


http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/kuvat/WW2History-guntherrall_1.jpg

Now the big difference, talking about the airplanes we confronted. The Americans came in P-47 or P-38 or -P51. Their engines flew 7 hours with internal tank fuel, not external tank. We, and all continental aircraft, including the Spitfires, all the French planes, flew 1 hour 20. We had an external tank, but you had to drop the tank because it reduced mobility. This was a tremendous handicap against the Americans.



It was 800 4-engine bombers, B-17, B-24. This is a parade of 2 hours. They had cover of 1200 fighters from the Hartz mountains down to Stutgard. Always in 4, 4 or other formations. So it without chance. Anyway, I was chased by P-47. I knew exactly that in a dive P-47 is much faster than 109. And the P-47 has a much higher structural strength. They can go up to 1400 kilometers per hour. The 109, if you go to 1000, pull it up, you risk that the wings come off. So I went down from that, bang, bang, bang. I was chased by what we call line abreast, 4 p-47s. And all that shooting here and all of a sudden bang. The left hand was on the throttle and came off and the thumb was off. Finally, I managed. This was a very traumatic thing, certainly. I pull up, when I was down, to the stalling point. The couldn't follow me because these P-47 wanted to fly back to England. And I want to get rid of my airplane. I don't care for the airplane, I want to get out of this. I managed that. This was very difficult because I was hanging outside. I couldn't operate with this hand, nothing. Finally it worked and I pulled the parachute way down and I came down safely and was hanging on a tree.


What was important was the German Air Force had a formation of captured aircraft restored. They came for training to my fighter leader school. Certainly, I only flew the P-51, P-47, P-38 as a target for my students. So I learned these planes and I learned the advantages and disadvantages compared with the Focke-Wulf 190 and the 109. And I still consider that altogether with all these factors that the P-51 was most likely one of the best fighter planes. This was maneuverable. When I got in, the first thing, I got in the cockpit and I saw electric starting system. I remember wank, wank in Russia (refers to the manual starter by mechanics). Her (P-51) press button, prrrd, then we go (electrical starter, easy engine starter). Fantastic. Beautiful sight (visibility). We never had this sight to the back.. Very stable undercarriage. Very good weapons set. So I think this was a very good airplane. I flew it a few times, then I flew the P-47, then I discovered the speed difference, down, perfect. P-38. And I flew the Spitfire. The Spitfire was a fantastic airplane, but with a limited endurance like all the continental aircraft. So this was a good lecture for me. After that I became a wing commander of the Wing 300 (JG300). This was at the end of the war in February 1945. It was chaos. I don't talk about that anymore.


Q: Mr. Rall, Can you give us the impression you had with the Focke Wulf, the 190, and especially the long nose, the Dora.

A: Ja. The 190, I had one ride in the 190 - long nose. The 190 was a very stable aircraft. It had a very good weapons arrangement, you know they had two guns on top of the engine and two guns at the root of the wing. And a very stable undercarriage. It had a much better cockpit, a more comfortable cockpit. And it had a rotating engine. No problems with the cooling system with this type. Focke Wulf was a good airplane and the long nose was even better, for high altitude. But I cannot give you too more, I flew it once, when I was in fighter leader school. By the way, the long nose came too late, anyway.


Q: Mr. Rall, what was the best tactic against the P-47?

A: Against the P-47? Shoot him down! &lt;Laughter from both Mr. Rall and audience, applause&gt;

P-47 was not a big problem. The problem was if you were chased by the P-47, he was fast in a dive, had a higher structural strength. You couldn't stand that you know? And they came closer in a dive, because she was faster. But P-47 was a big ship, you know? No doubt. But in a position where you chase him, there was no equivalent condition.


But in a position where you chase him, there was no equivalent condition.



__

TAGERT.
09-25-2005, 11:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
HayateAce, Fw used in this test was a captured Fw190A5U4 fighter bomber (and even THIS version is capable of outclimbing F4U-1D at high speeds, let alone F6F).

Now, please, compare F6F and F4U-1D to a Fw190A6, A8 or, God forbid, D9. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>And God forbid you compare the A6, A8, or A9 to the F4u-4. Not unless you want the 190 to look bad! &lt;G&gt;

WOLFMondo
09-26-2005, 12:59 AM
Kahuna, how could people not know the history of the 8th AF? Every post you make is some massive pilot story or account. Usually pointing out how good a pilot is, not the planehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.#

Still not sure what your trying to say? A BF109 pilot says there was no big problem with a P47. This thread is about the 190, not the P47.

faustnik
09-26-2005, 01:14 AM
I think this thread is about why people enjoy flying the Fw190 in PF, not "it was the best fighter ever" type of silliness.

The Fw190, P-47 and F4U were all successful attempts to shoehorn as big a radial as possible into a fighter. Each had its slight advantage at different altitudes or speeds, they were all very close in performance and all very effective.

The Fw190 has taken a long time to have its full potential modeled in PF, a long time. Lets hope the P-47 and F4U get their bugs worked out too. Then we'll have an effective big radial for every theater! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Bremspropeller
09-26-2005, 07:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
oh, anyone know why they didnt fit bigger and or a extra supercharger to the 190A? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Fw was develloping one pretty early - already in 1941. The plane was supposed to be called "Fw 190B". But the RLM didn't want to spend any efforts to a "high altitude 190" since it was felt that it's performance was enough to beat the RAF Spitfires at that time.
I guess you also know the "K¤nguruh" - the 190C.

Two years later this decision turned out to be a mistake.


@ TigerTalon:

The "F" is pronounced just like the one in "fly".
"Wulf" sounds just like "wolf" in english.

So it's like "Fokeh Wolf". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

"F" and "V" are pretty much pronunced the same way in german. Sometimes our "w" is your "v" and vice versa http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Pretty confusing, eh ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Airmail109
09-26-2005, 07:43 AM
Most Dogfights on servers are below 3000M....on average around 1000m.....for this reason I choose not to fly the FW190....If find at this height the MKIII Mustang is far better....I use zoom and boom tactics from around 2000-3000m where the Mustang MKIII is at its best! Faster than the FW190...some pilots ive seen go to 5000m and try and boom n zoom from there.....but you should try diving on an enemy at 1000m from 5000m...your doing 800kph before you even get into range! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif The MKIII accelerates faster...and is faster lower down...the 4 .50s calls arnt as effective as the Fw190s 20mms but I find them perfectly adequate. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

p1ngu666
09-26-2005, 09:03 AM
ah http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

pearcie_no1
09-26-2005, 05:40 PM
From what I've researched and experienced with the Focke-Wulf 190 it was developed as a high altitude fighter-bomber, designed to still have a decent manueverability up in the thin air where all the other aircraft lost theirs.
Apart from that I can't say much about it. I haven't flown it for ages, because I only have PF now. Some joker cracked my IL2 Cd's at a LAN party... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

o0kami
09-26-2005, 08:33 PM
The greatest thing i found about the 190 is that you can almost do any type of missions with them. Take the A5 for example... you can take the U17 kit for anti Amour or ground attack, got the rockets for the Bomber interception, drop tanks for Long range flights... It basicly like 1 plane and you can do all the task

TX-Gunslinger
09-26-2005, 09:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
Most Dogfights on servers are below 3000M....on average around 1000m.....for this reason I choose not to fly the FW190....If find at this height the MKIII Mustang is far better....I use zoom and boom tactics from around 2000-3000m where the Mustang MKIII is at its best! Faster than the FW190...some pilots ive seen go to 5000m and try and boom n zoom from there.....but you should try diving on an enemy at 1000m from 5000m...your doing 800kph before you even get into range! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif The MKIII accelerates faster...and is faster lower down...the 4 .50s calls arnt as effective as the Fw190s 20mms but I find them perfectly adequate. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ummm... let's see, I just got through "racing" a teammate the other night in a Mustang MkIII versus a FW-190D9 45, and he lost. We were both on 25 percent fuel on the New Guinea map. We were on the deck but over mountains. Now he did'nt lose by much. It was real, real close.

We both started from takeoff and transited about 2.5 grids squares (25 km). Now, facts be known, my radiator was closed, prop-pitch in Auto and MW-50 was on.

The most interesting thing to me was that when we got to the point on the map we were aiming for, I pulled my D9 up 90 degrees and then he pulled up right behind me at the same angle. Guess who ran out of "E" first in the ensuing Immelman? Me in my 45-D9. He kept going up for quite a ways. We concluded that the Mustang MKIII must have better 'E' rentention and better zoom climb.

In any event, you will not significantly outrun a 45 D9 on the deck in your MKIII. They are about the same. If you are regularly outruning D9's then you are flying against damaged aircraft or novices.

I don't agree with you with respect to acceleration. I don't think any Mustang, even the MKIII accelerates with a D9-45 anywhere in the speed regime and particularly from 350kmh to max. I might be wrong, but this is the way it feels to me with both planes.

As far as diving, it's close but the D9 goes a little further. I can pull a Mustang out of a high speed dive at 830kmh (that's my personal best so far below 3000 meters without damage). But my D9 will recover from 880 Kmh. Above 3000 meters I can recover from 940 kmh. Try that in your Mustang.

Overall visibility is much better from the D9 and I believe it has an armament edge over the Mustang.

D9 has better roll rate, and the turning rates are so close for all practical points, they are almost equal (D9 is sligthly better faster, Mustang is slightly better slower).

Also, please remember I'm referring to the D9-45 which is'nt available on many servers. Many people assume that the 44 D9 is the hot Dora. At 6000 meters thats true, but not by much. The 45 out-accelerates the 44. Since IL2 compare does'nt show acceleration, most don't know this.

One big thing that the Mustang has going for it is deceleration. When a Mustang pilots wants to slow down (think overshoot) he can do it much faster than a D9. If I want to pull that trick I have to go pull back the throttle, go into a slip, hit flaps, then gear and I still can't match him if he pulls the same trick.

La-7, D9-45, Mustang MkIII are the fastest planes on the deck in the sim.

I'm comfortable in both these aircraft (the D9 obviously more so). They both can be approached in a similar manner: They reward pilots who understand 'E' fighting.

I'll close by saying the the MKIII and D9-45 are so close that it's the pilot, not the plane (But I must admit, I love the D9 more http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

S~

Gun


PS... If your testing is any different, I'd be glad to know...

TX-Gunslinger
09-26-2005, 10:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by pearcie_no1:
From what I've researched and experienced with the Focke-Wulf 190 it was developed as a high altitude fighter-bomber, designed to still have a decent manueverability up in the thin air where all the other aircraft lost theirs.
Apart from that I can't say much about it. I haven't flown it for ages, because I only have PF now. Some joker cracked my IL2 Cd's at a LAN party... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Those 190's your talking about were the Dora's which had service ceilings to 39,000 feet. The Antons performance started to degrade significantly above about 20,000 feet, just like in game. Unfortunatley, in game, FW-190-A9 will outperform an FW-190-D9 (any type) above about 9Km. I can get an A9 to over 11,400 meters. I can't get the D9 much above 10,500.

Check out Hardballs Aircraft Viewer one of these days and compare the listed ceilings. It's quite surprising.

On the other hand, we know that the current game engine does'nt do well at high altitude.

My condolences for your CD.

Airmail109
09-27-2005, 06:08 AM
Gunslinger I have always found the MKIII to be far more capable with small inputs.....I try not to bleed E with it....but its E retention is very useful when energy fighing....very very useful. Yes your right....they are very close LOL....I personally prefer the MKIII...to me it just fells right. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Also I have meories as a Tnbing n00b of being repeatedly attacked by 190 jockeys....for this reason It gives me great pleasure to see them smashing into the ground! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif So I choose to fly the MKIII. I dont know what it is with the 190 but it just feels like a loose cannon....the 51 I find to be a more stable gun platform (again just my opinion)....I also have a habbit of taking high deflection shots and that stupid "190 bar" annoys me!

They are close though and I respect the 190 pilots....I just think my planes better! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Also because of its very low drag coeficient, the MKIII picks up speed very very quickly in shallow dives....invaluable to me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

geetarman
09-27-2005, 07:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
Gunslinger I have always found the MKIII to be far more capable with small inputs.....I try not to bleed E with it....but its E retention is very useful when energy fighing....very very useful. Yes your right....they are very close LOL....I personally prefer the MKIII...to me it just fells right. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Also I have meories as a Tnbing n00b of being repeatedly attacked by 190 jockeys....for this reason It gives me great pleasure to see them smashing into the ground! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif So I choose to fly the MKIII. I dont know what it is with the 190 but it just feels like a loose cannon....the 51 I find to be a more stable gun platform (again just my opinion)....I also have a habbit of taking high deflection shots and that stupid "190 bar" annoys me!

They are close though and I respect the 190 pilots....I just think my planes better! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Also because of its very low drag coeficient, the MKIII picks up speed very very quickly in shallow dives....invaluable to me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A standard garden-variety P-51D gives you most of the same performance as the MKIII, with more guns. I am constantly switching back and forth between the two online. Frustrated! I like the six fifties, but in the MKIII you feel more confident that you can handle most of what's thrown at you.

Airmail109
09-27-2005, 09:58 AM
The MKIII Mustang has a 25lb boost....its faster below 3000m than the standard mustangs. WHich to me out weighs the bubble canopy and 6 .50s of the standard version. I find the 4 .50s have enough hitting power, and my SA is usually good enough to know that there arnt any bandits behind me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Now what would be perfect, would be the MKIV....the D model with 25lbs of boost. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

mynameisroland
09-27-2005, 01:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Warbird-:
I play this game for more than one year. I'm just an average pilot, far from being an expert on the technical aspects of each plane, although I have tested all planes in the game.

But I noticed since the beginning that the Focke-Wolf 190 is kind of a "cult" plane to a lot of people. I even have seen, more than once, people saying that, for example, the Me Bf-109 is a toy plane while the FW-190 is "the" plane.

I would like to understand this, because to me the Bf-109 is a faster plane with better weapons (there's nothing more powerful than its U6 cannons). Besides that, the FW is one of the most difficult planes to handle in the game. Even the Spitfire and the Yak-3P seems to be more effective than the FW.

Opinions? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The Bf109 is generally slower than the contemporary FW190 (except the K-4/D-9) and less well armed than the contemporary FW190.

The FW190 has a number of significant advantages and some disadvantages. The disadvantages are so that most novice, inexperienced, and uininterested pilots will never get or understand the FW190 until they work at it.

The 190 is designed for speed and firepower. Its designed to hit hard and get out. Flying them in combat is usually best achieved by flying as a team and using slash attacks with superior engery/altitude advantage. When operating in this way, the FW190 is nearly unbeatable as a fighter. Turning and flying slowly is bad for this plane as a Spitfire or Yak can then get in close and blast you out of the sky.

One of the biggest advantages the FW190 offers over the competition is superior roll rate. Although the 109 rolls well at most speeds, the FW190 is second to none with the best roll rate meaning that it can quickly switch its position for a quick dive away or initiate a rolling scissors move that few fighter pilots will be able to match in other planes.

The planes that are closest to the FW190 in performance and offer the best challenge or worst nightmare are the P-47, the P-51, and the Spitfire IX. The Spitfire LF.IX was designed (with clipped and non clipped) to operate against the FW190A's. Its top speed is better at all altitudes (and the LF designation infact demarks a modified Merlin 61 with revised gear ratios to match FW190 performance at all alts) and the Spitfire has the advantage of superior turn and climb.

In a 1 vs 1, the FW190 is generally not a good plane except when attacking with surprise. However, as a team plane, the FW190 is a deadly and dangerous aircraft.

As far as firepower goes, nothing really quite matches the ability of 4 20mm cannons standard on all A models (in game anyways) or the options of 6 20mm cannons or the addition of two MK108 or MK103 cannons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good post IceFire

I do dispute your claim that Mk9 was faster than Fw 190 at all altitudes. It wasn't as clear cut as that and it also is dependant on the test data collected by RAF using their knackered captured Fw 190 - they only registered 390 mph max speed when we all know with the benefit of hindsight Fw 190 was over 410mph for early models. Id say Spitfire IX holds advantage over 25000ft and below that Fw 190 is faster.

BigKahuna_GS
10-01-2005, 09:01 PM
S!

__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________
WOLFMondo Posted Sun September 25 2005 23:59 Sun September 25 2005 23:59
Kahuna, how could people not know the history of the 8th AF? Every post you make is some massive pilot story or account. Usually pointing out how good a pilot is, not the plane .# Still not sure what your trying to say? A BF109 pilot says there was no big problem with a P47. This thread is about the 190, not the P47.
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________



Wolf try reading BEFORE making comments. First you pop off about Johnson and "how" he would do against real Fock-Wolf aces--which Johnson and the entire 56th FG faced since mid 1943. German fighter losses were so high that they were pulled back across the border into Germany and out of P47 range until drop tanks were available.

How could people not know about the history of the 8th AF ? Clearly your comments show you don't. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Try reading "Thunderbolt" by Robert Johnson, "Beware the Thunderbolt" with Hub Zemke and the story of the 56th FG, and Freeman "History of the 8th AF"


Also if you had paid attention to Rall's statements you find that he was Commander of the German Fighter School. Rall was well versed with flying the 190 against captured allied planes and he knew the capabilities of both allied and german fighters.

Gunther Rall--"What was important was the German Air Force had a formation of captured aircraft restored. They came for training to my fighter leader school. Certainly, I only flew the P-51, P-47, P-38 as a target for my students. So I learned these planes and I learned the advantages and disadvantages compared with the Focke-Wulf 190 and the 109. And I still consider that altogether with all these factors that the P-51 was most likely one of the best fighter planes. This was maneuverable."


__