PDA

View Full Version : For those suggesting the Spit V is superior to the 190A: A Reality Check



Buzzsaw-
02-07-2005, 07:57 PM
Salute

I keep seeing these posts from people complaining about how they can't win a FW190A vs Spit V duel.

So I thought I'd bring a little reality to the issue.

I am primarily a flyer of Allied aircraft. But every once in a while, I fly Axis. JG77, one of the respected Squads in the community, hosts a server, (FORGOTTEN SERVER) on Hyperlobby on Thursday nights. They are kind enough to invite me to fly with them.

A couple weeks ago, they had a 1942 setup on the MT map.

Aircraft were:

Axis:

109G2
190A4
Ju-87D
He-111H-6

Allied

Spit Vb
Hurricane IIC
A-20
SBD

Because the Allied side outnumbered the Germans by a considerable amount, I ended up flying with JG-77, with the opponents being RAF74, and 4th Fighter Group.

Still, the odds were 18-10 in favour of the Allied side when I joined.

I got on JG77's Tm Speak server, and had the opportunity to work with thtm.

JG77 are a good bunch of guys, very relaxed, their language on Tm Speak is pretty blue... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But when it comes to flying the 190A, they are a dedicated bunch. They fly it all the time, and they work together.

In this particular set to, JG77 flew only 190's in the Fighter role, with a few pilots in He-111's. The Allied side were flying 80% Spit V's, with a few in A-20's and SBD's.

Well, to make a long story short, our side, in the 190's, basically tore the Allied side a new set of A**holes.

In fact, JG77 Faustnik, wrote to me after the event, asking my opinion as to whether it was 'unfair' to fly the 190's versus the Spit V. He was concerned that the German side had too much of an advantage.

He gave me a link to the server report, showing the kills.

(Note: Tolwyn and Cardinal are JG77 pilots, and I think Surly is too. The kills are in the first column with the blue and red numbers.)

Here:

http://www.geocities.com/maxenthor/1-20-2005-2.htm

You can see that the JG77 pilots totally dominate the kill column. And as said, they were all flying 190's, while considerably outnumbered.

I also flew a 190, and found that I could literally toy with the Spits, tag teaming them with the other 190 pilots, using 'bait and chase' tactics, as well as the 190's superior climb.

I post this table to my own embarrassment, I didn't get a single kill... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

That was not that I didn't have a lot of opportunities. I just don't fly the 190 that much and my shooting was off. But I didn't die a single time. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Anyway, the point obviously, is that the 190A's are deadly aircraft in the right hands.

In fact, Faustnik tells me, that even in matchups with 190A8's versus Spit IX's, his guys in the Butcherbird's kick butt.

So those who keep insisting that the 190 is no match for the Spit V, please take the opportunity to fly a Spitfire when the JG77 boys have a 1942 server setup.

You may be in for a nasty surprise... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Buzzsaw-
02-07-2005, 07:57 PM
Salute

I keep seeing these posts from people complaining about how they can't win a FW190A vs Spit V duel.

So I thought I'd bring a little reality to the issue.

I am primarily a flyer of Allied aircraft. But every once in a while, I fly Axis. JG77, one of the respected Squads in the community, hosts a server, (FORGOTTEN SERVER) on Hyperlobby on Thursday nights. They are kind enough to invite me to fly with them.

A couple weeks ago, they had a 1942 setup on the MT map.

Aircraft were:

Axis:

109G2
190A4
Ju-87D
He-111H-6

Allied

Spit Vb
Hurricane IIC
A-20
SBD

Because the Allied side outnumbered the Germans by a considerable amount, I ended up flying with JG-77, with the opponents being RAF74, and 4th Fighter Group.

Still, the odds were 18-10 in favour of the Allied side when I joined.

I got on JG77's Tm Speak server, and had the opportunity to work with thtm.

JG77 are a good bunch of guys, very relaxed, their language on Tm Speak is pretty blue... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But when it comes to flying the 190A, they are a dedicated bunch. They fly it all the time, and they work together.

In this particular set to, JG77 flew only 190's in the Fighter role, with a few pilots in He-111's. The Allied side were flying 80% Spit V's, with a few in A-20's and SBD's.

Well, to make a long story short, our side, in the 190's, basically tore the Allied side a new set of A**holes.

In fact, JG77 Faustnik, wrote to me after the event, asking my opinion as to whether it was 'unfair' to fly the 190's versus the Spit V. He was concerned that the German side had too much of an advantage.

He gave me a link to the server report, showing the kills.

(Note: Tolwyn and Cardinal are JG77 pilots, and I think Surly is too. The kills are in the first column with the blue and red numbers.)

Here:

http://www.geocities.com/maxenthor/1-20-2005-2.htm

You can see that the JG77 pilots totally dominate the kill column. And as said, they were all flying 190's, while considerably outnumbered.

I also flew a 190, and found that I could literally toy with the Spits, tag teaming them with the other 190 pilots, using 'bait and chase' tactics, as well as the 190's superior climb.

I post this table to my own embarrassment, I didn't get a single kill... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

That was not that I didn't have a lot of opportunities. I just don't fly the 190 that much and my shooting was off. But I didn't die a single time. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Anyway, the point obviously, is that the 190A's are deadly aircraft in the right hands.

In fact, Faustnik tells me, that even in matchups with 190A8's versus Spit IX's, his guys in the Butcherbird's kick butt.

So those who keep insisting that the 190 is no match for the Spit V, please take the opportunity to fly a Spitfire when the JG77 boys have a 1942 server setup.

You may be in for a nasty surprise... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Badsight.
02-07-2005, 09:45 PM
anyone who thinks defeating Spitfires in a FW-190 is easy needs a reality check

ONLY thru discipline & the help of a wingman does the FW-190 stand a chance

the Spitfire Mk5 has every advantage except for top speed (& arguably , firepower)

its far far far eaiser to fly & fight in a Spit

FACT

VW-IceFire
02-07-2005, 10:23 PM
Actually the FW190 has most of the advantage:
- Speed
- Firepower
- Ammo duration
- Durability (although the fuel tank bug is a problem)
- Roll rate
- High speed climb


The Spitfire has
- Turn rate
- Energy retention

Sure its easier to fly the Spitfire Mark V than the FW190A but the FW190A is superior in virtually every way. Trust me ...when flying the FW190A and provided that I have advantage, I feel in control of the situation. If I'm flying a Spitfire and I have advantage I feel like I'm stepping onto a shaky limb...if the bad guy is stupid then I may be able to land my limited 6 seconds of 20mm fire on target. If not then either I'm dry of cannons or desperately climbing back to altitude.

109G-2 and 190A are superior to the Mark V. The Mark V is only superior to the 109E and sometimes the 109F.

At very low altitude, the Mark LF V in some cases can redress the balance (better climb and speed) but the other two are still faster. The Mark IX is a totally different story. Definately teamwork for the FW190s is key...the IX is faster and better climbing as well as better turning and with greater duration of fire on the 20mm.

There's your facts http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I agree with Buzzsaw in every way.

lbhskier37
02-07-2005, 11:23 PM
Yeah, I always love servers with 190A vs. Spit V. I can see how the brits had a bit of trouble with them. When there are Spit 9s in the server though, I get a little scared... unless I get a D9. To me the easiest kills in a 190A come against Spits and Russian planes, I have much more trouble against American planes. I think thats mostly because the strengths of the Russian and British planes are so far the opposite of the FW and if you control the fight they can't touch you.

DarthBane_
02-08-2005, 12:55 AM
Sory but story dont stand, real FW pilots had about 10000 less flight hours in FW190 than internet flyers and they were superiour to spits. Simply the plane was better, had good visibility, German 20mm guns worked fine (not like in game). What we have in game is plane which would in RL take around 1000 lives to master. You have 1 life in RL. And this is a game. Sim? Naaah. Not accurate. Some planes are to easy, others too hard without reason.

jurinko
02-08-2005, 02:32 AM
I see that Buzz achieved amazing 1.1% hit percentage http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif well, Mausers ain´t so easy as Hispanos or Shvaks.
Basically, 190 vs MkV match is similar to P-40 vs Zeke. Superior pilots enter the fight only in favourable conditions, make local air superiority as they fly in packs and can deny the fight if in disadvantage thanks to superior speed.
However, the Fw 190 according to real reports I have read, had not only speed advantage, although the hit-and-run tactics makes pilot´s life longer for sure.
I miss less E bleed in maneuvers, the superior zoom climb in which Fw 190 should pull ahead from MkV easily, more effective wing-root 20mm guns, real forward view which allows some reasonable deflection shooting and no constant need to mess with pitch/radiator to get some power+, as the Kommandogeraet works like a sabotaged one. THEN it should be really unfair, but just like in reality.

Lazy312
02-08-2005, 03:29 AM
Spit V stands no chance against FW 109 A-4. Speed is the most important thing and Spit V is quite slow. Moreover it cannot use alt advantage effectively as it gains much less speed in a dive than 190.

It is not true that team coordination is required for successful flying in 190. 190 is a perfect plane for a lone hunter.

No need to play with pitch or radiators especially when facing Spit V. AFAIK planes performance is tuned for automatic modes where available. If you use manual regimes you gain more power, sometimes significiantly more. I don't understand why some people are asking for this exploit to become automated.

A4 has a superior zoom climb. But no plane is able to outclimb enemy on its six if they have equal speed. If you both slow down during a climb, the distance between two aircrafts gets SMALLER every time even if your plane climbs better.

anarchy52
02-08-2005, 03:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Actually the FW190 has most of the advantage:
- Speed
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is the ONLY real advantage in game. anough for a good team.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
- Firepower
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'd rather have 2 hispanos then 4 popcorn guns. mk108 is whole different ballgame. Silly really...4 20mm cannons were overkill really, 30mm cannon was totally unnecessary for fighter vs fighter engagement. Firepower argument is valid only in case of mk108 loadout.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
- Ammo duration
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Extreme inefficiency of the 20mm cannon and difficult gunnery due to bad forward visibility somewhat negates this advantage. FW-190 in game has the option of quick snapshots at merge or blind wild guess deflection shots with long bursts hoping the opponent will cross the path of the shells. Only situation where you have the opportunity to fire a solid burst is drag & bag or bounce.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
- Durability (although the fuel tank bug is a problem)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What durability?
ANY hit in the wing will reduce the performance signifficantly. 2-3 cannon hits by shvak or god forbid hispano will break the wing like a dry twig. It is amazing how a single hit in the wing makes it dip it's wing and lose 40km/h topspeed.

Fuselage hits will not break it apart like 109 but will slow it down signifficantly. Even a few scattered .50 hits. Slow 190 is dead 190. Easy kill.
Fuel tank leak: a bit over 50% fuel left, fuel tank leak message = 90 secs left. That's about 2-3 liters per second, 150 l/minute. It's a freaking firehose!!!
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
- Roll rate
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not so pronounced as in reality since most planes in FB The GAME have ridiculous roll rates. Take La-5 or Yak for example. Roll rate chart (presented by Youss I think) shows La-5 having very poor roll rate, but in game...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
- High speed climb
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
True, but doesn't allow you to go on offense since you can not pull away anough to reverse. But Spit might get tired of futile chase and turn away or get target fixated in zoom view trying to hit you from 700m.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The Spitfire has
- Turn rate
- Energy retention
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
and
- Firepower
- Durability
- Vertical manuverability

Spit can easily win in vertical and horizontal. At least 90% spits get killed by being dragged & bagged by target's wingman. Zoom climb is not an option for Focke if you don't have at least 250km/h more speed then your target.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Definately teamwork for the FW190s is key...the IX is faster and better climbing as well as better turning and with greater duration of fire on the 20mm.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Teamwork is the key to FW-190.
but I disagree on spit IX:
It is not faster. It climbs much better but if you do a high speed shallow climb you can drag spit IX. Although I wouldn't recommend it - the higher you go IX gains more performance advantage.

KGr.HH-Sunburst
02-08-2005, 04:08 AM
good post anarchy 100% agreed

a team of FW190s at high speed working together
are infact Butchers but a single FW190 vs a spitV at Co-alt or Co-E is not a match for an equal pilot flying the spit all the FW190 can do is extend and extend but cannot stay and fight, the spit will outE outClimb and outTurn the FW190 ,leaving the 190 no other choice then to run
and the rollrate on teh 190 is no advantage because all planes in the game roll like hell
the only time it can be usefull is when ur going very fast and trying to dive like mad from a spitty

its obvious the FW190 is a real team plane and not a lone wolf dogfighter

carguy_
02-08-2005, 04:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Actually the FW190 has most of the advantage:
- Speed <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
- Firepower <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Questionable.I`d like a set of Hispano any day over cannons which are less effective than .50cal.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
- Ammo duration <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doesn`t matter for a good pilot[in the game,not in RL].

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
- Durability (although the fuel tank bug is a problem) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe back in 2.04 days.Wing surface suffers greatly to 12mm fire.No such thing as armor vehind the pilot.The fuselage leaks where there is no fuel stationed.Fuselage leaks all of the fuel in 3-5mins. .303 blows off controls almost always.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
- Roll rate
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good for defensive manuvers only while flying FW190.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
- High speed climb
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

An advantage created only by superior energy state.Spitfire catches on if FW190 makes more than one attack pass.Overall FW190 climb is poor.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The Spitfire has
- Turn rate <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not high speed turnrate but substained turn rate.You won`t be able to turn turn into a FW190 diving on you.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
- Energy retention
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Accomplished by engine performance nearly at MKXIV level.


If the plane can`t fight at coalt with it`s enemy it is not superior.

Whatever,I want a track.

Lazy312
02-08-2005, 04:26 AM
There is no need to insist on killing one particular Spitfire. If he's aware of you and evades the right way, just leave him behind and find another target..

You will probably not win a "duel" against I-153 while flying FW-190 too. But please don't tell me that FW 190 isn't superior to I-153. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG53Harti
02-08-2005, 04:27 AM
@Buzz:
Would you like making a DF 1vs1 ?
i will take the Spit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

anarchy52
02-08-2005, 04:30 AM
duel = 1 vs 1 = not the way to go if you're flying 190 vs Spit.

Of course I do not count bounces and going with E advantage vs inexperienced player

EFG_beber
02-08-2005, 04:58 AM
In dog 1vs1 with no altitude advantage spit is better but in coop fw190 is better.
The fw-190 had a better speed and could disengage the combat, not the spit.

WOLFMondo
02-08-2005, 05:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by carguy_:


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
- Energy retention
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Accomplished by engine performance nearly at MKXIV level.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So why is the IX so much slower at all heights than the XIV is rated at then? :P

Mysha76
02-08-2005, 06:15 AM
In his famous book about tested german planes, test pilot of RAF E.Brown is talking about FW-A3 advantage over SpitV in normal dogfight. In normal dogfight - not only in Hit and Run tactic. And this superiority was connected to E-retention of FW and acceleration in vertical maneuvers. Go and try it in game. Turn in vertical maneuvers and you are lost.

WWMaxGunz
02-08-2005, 06:30 AM
People said 190 vs Spit VB is not like history.
So online when flown like history... it dominates.
So, change the story now. Must be 1 vs 1 history.

Roll rate has more meaning than escape especially for 190!
How you **supposed** to change direction best?
Move vertical, roll and pull into it.

People who can't do that have whined and IMO (yours =will=
differ) gotten the overall bleed changed, look at the result.

Too many people seem to think only good to bad, compare the
planes 1 dimension and fly them all pretty much the same.
Then it becomes "why isn't my plane better?". Problem is
in the plane, yes. It is behind the stick, in the seat.

Tunturisusi
02-08-2005, 06:34 AM
Couldn't find Spit V vs. Ger.fgtr. comparison but Spit IX has been compared at the time...
----------------------------------------------
Air Ministry, A.I.2.(g), Whitehall
20 March 1943
Spitfire IX v. German Fighters:

Conclusions
..................Me 109 G fighters are slightly faster than the Fw 190 A at 20,000 to 22,000 ft. The difference of speed increases with altitude and is about 25 m.p.h. at 30,000 ft. in favour of the Me 109 G.

..................The rate of climb of the Me 109 G, without additional guns, is slightly better than that of the Fw 109 A. The same remark applies to the service ceiling.

..................The Spitfire IX at 28,000 to 30,000 ft. is superior in speed to the Me 109 G and the Fw 190 A.

..................Its rate of climb at 20,000 ft. with the 0.42 reduction gear is inferior to the Fw 190 A and the Me109 G, even when operating at +18 lb. per sq. inch boost.

..................When fitted with the 0.477 reduction gear and at +15 lb. per sq. inch boost the Spitfire is equal in rate of climb to the Me 109 G-2; when operating at +18 lb. per sq. inch boost it is superior to all German fighters at present in service.

..................The ceiling of the Spitfire IX is considerably higher than that of the Me 109 G or the Fw 190 A at present in service.
----------------------------------------------

There's a lots of data about other versions too:
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spittest.html

/Tunturisusi

jurinko
02-08-2005, 08:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lazy312:
A4 has a superior zoom climb. But no plane is able to outclimb enemy on its six if they have equal speed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to British tests with Fw 190 A-3, "the Fw 190 was better climber, and when put into the climb from high level speed, it pulled off easily from Mk.V" - it means that from equal initial speed, the Fw could outrun Mk.V in vertical and end up higher that Spit VB. You are correct, in FB this is not possible.
To get such effect - only if Fw 190 has 300+kph speed advantage and still Spit can pull the nose up even from 280kph and hold it long enough to do the job.

One epizode when Faber landed in June 1942 in Pembrey - he was located by radar and 4 Mk.V took off to intercept him. Two Spits crashed in hasty take-off and one had troubles with the engine, so only one went into the fight and according to the report "Fw finished off the single Spitfire easily". In FB, so called superior Fw 190 first should have to run back to Abbeville, gaining some 3km separation, then turn and try the single head-on. At this time, Fw should lost the speed because of the 180?turn and Spit should be above him with superior speed.

Fw 190 is not able to "stay and fight" as British pilots described. Fw 190 is not "a superb plane, every inch a fighter" like E. Brown wrote. Remember the fight described by British ace Johnson over Dieppe - Fw 190 chasing him both in horizontal and vertical until the ship AA made him to break off.

Chromatorg
02-08-2005, 09:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DarthBane_:
Sory but story dont stand, real FW pilots had about 10000 less flight hours in FW190 than internet flyers and they were superiour to spits. Simply the plane was better, had good visibility, German 20mm guns worked fine (not like in game). What we have in game is plane which would in RL take around 1000 lives to master. You have 1 life in RL. And this is a game. Sim? Naaah. Not accurate. Some planes are to easy, others too hard without reason. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I alway liked that argument!

Sorry but story dont stand, real SPIT pilots had about 10000 less flight hours in SPIT than internet flyers and they were able to hold they own against FW - so average internet SPIT player should SLAUGHTER FW players.
Like it that way?

SeaNorris
02-08-2005, 09:34 AM
In FB offline then the FW-190 is not better then the VB.

In the P-40M 8 vs 8 Fw-190D-9 on QMB a shot two down the end results?

Russians Germans

3x P-40M no 1,8,4 1x Fw-190D-9 badly damaged
one damaged

If you want proof then i will send you my replay

This was while playing Pacfic Fighters V304m.

ZG77_Nagual
02-08-2005, 10:25 AM
I agree with the premise of the thread - the 190 is an outstanding plane and has been since it first showed up in the simm. I used to fly it exclusively and was able to win against very good pilots in all sorts of a/c - included all the yaks allways without a wingman. Spits are great too - and have some real advantages - but they are not as challenging to fly as the 190.

faustnik
02-08-2005, 10:30 AM
I'm not sure that I understand the 1 on 1 arguement. The Fw190A4 will win that fight the majority of the time too. Unless the fight is joined at low speed, the A4 can ouclimb the Vb and easily disengage and extend if in trouble.

Any 190 can reduce a 1 on 1 fight with a Spit to a headon contest. The 190 holds the advantage in the headon. Not much fun, but, effective.

Buzzsaw-
02-08-2005, 10:44 AM
Salute

Jurinko:

You make a remark about my hit percentage and try to suggest this is the fault of the MG151/20.

Well, first of all, only 1/2 the cannon are 151/20 on 190A4, the rest are MGFF which are very inaccurate. They had very low velocity.

Second, the other players flying FW190's had the best hit percentage of all pilots in the server. Look for yourself.

#1 hit percentage was JG77 Rev in 190 at 16.9%.

Next 5 best percentages were all 190 pilots.

Best Spitfire hit percentage was #7 place at 5.3%.

So the combination of MGFF and 151/20 was better than Hispano.

Finally, if my hit percentage is low, then that is from my lack of practice not because of the guns. I have been busy with work and designing a Malta campaign, so I have been flying very little, once a week, for an hour or two. Last week I didn't fly at all.

To those who insist on 1-1 comparison:

The war was a fight between Squadrons of aircraft, not one on one. One on one ended in 1916 for the Germans with the Dicta Boelcke.

When the British said they couldn't fight the 190's, they were talking about a Squadron of Spitfires meeting a Staffel of 190's.

Even so, 1 on 1 190 is better.

To Harti:

Anytime you want to have a duel, you in 1941 Spit Vb, and me in 190A4, you let me know.

Perhaps we can set it up on Forgotten Server. Both planes start at 1000 meters altitude, in headon pass. We will record the combat and have witnesses.

After I beat you, which may take some time, perhaps you can fly against an expert from JG77. I think they will take much less time to kill you... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

jurinko
02-08-2005, 11:44 AM
Hi Buzz

no offense http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif, just to point out the gunnery in Fw 190 is not easy. 1 vs 1 - Fw 190 can run away what Spit ca not do. But I would choose Spit in that case.

faustnik
02-08-2005, 11:54 AM
The hit percentage for the 190 is low because you have to take a lot of blind snap shots at the fast turning Spits. The high angle deflection has a low hit percentage but, a high kill percentage, so, it's worth taking. It is a great feeling to snap the nose though a Spit at 90 degrees, fire all guns, and then see falling debris and you roll over in the climb. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

quiet_man
02-08-2005, 12:49 PM
is it a problem for people here if I say that the 190 in game is excelent but still something is not right?

I flew the 190A4 mostly in the past, some patches since then. After reading the latest discussion I tried the 190A4 and the 109G2 with gunpods against the La5 AI veteran.

my comments (without judge if something is a bug or a limitation of PC/sim engine):

VIEW:
generaly good, but not forward down. No discussion about this but also no change expected (until BoB?)

HANDLING:
The 190A4 has greatly improved since the early days of IL2&FB. When flown fast it feels like a fighter (not like in the past were is was worse than any bomber).
I think the problem is that it is to easy to turn in other planes, because off:
1. All other planes are to stable, I think the 190 was unique by the way that it needed no rudder trim and few trim on other axis. The electrical trim at the Mustang was called an improvedment as is "reduced" the working load in combat.
2. no disorientation
3. excelent accurate steering even when the virtual pilot is totally exhausted pulling like crazy at the stick
I would like it if Oleg decides to extend the virtual pilot to model negative effects when it is operating at "physical" limits. Just a bit more like already is done with blackouts and stick forces.

PERFORMANCE
Good, not a light plane but fast for 42. Is the turbo bug still in there?
CEM is a point to discuss, the "Kommandogerat" was a thing enemy pilots where demanding, in IL2 it takes away performance?

Dive and zoom climb are ok, imho never a strength of the IL2 engine, hopefully improved in BoB.

GUNS
in my short trial 4*20mm were clearly weaker as the 2*20mm 109 Gunpods

SUMMARY
With better view and the guns issue review I would say a close to perfect 190

just the other planes are a bit to good
and modelling only blackout for virtual pilots but no other negative turning effects is a disadvantage for the 190.

quiet_man

robban75
02-08-2005, 01:54 PM
Some performance comparisons.

Climbs made at 370-390km/h.

Type -- Vb -- IXc -- A-4 -- D-9

1000 - 1:49 - :54 - 1:05 - :53
2000 - 3:10 - 1:50 - 2:15 - 1:50
3000 - 4:28 - 2:39 - 3:32 - 2:44
4000 - 5:30 - 3:28 - 4:48 - 3:36
5000 - 6:38 - 4:21 - 5:57 - 4:27

JG5_UnKle
02-08-2005, 03:03 PM
Nice test Robban http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

However, can the A4 now beat the Vb in a sustained climb? That is the question!

The smart spit pilot will just climb at a lower speed - he will then have the higher climbrate will he not? The spit can perform amazing low speed high aoa climbs and lose little climbrate so overall the spit can outclimb the A4.

But of course, flown tactically at higher speeds the A4 can use the speed/climb advantage to extend - no argument there. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

quiet_man
02-08-2005, 03:35 PM
what I forgot about the A4 is the big improvement of view while firing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

also I tried it agains AI SpitVb and it works quite well, the guns are not such a big issue like against the La5, still no comparison against the 109 gunpods

the envelope you have to fly it for being succefull is there but imho it is a good thing smaller than it was in reality

I think it is not a single major issue with the 190, it is the summary of many small things working against it.

even in the 1.x IL2 versions there was a way to fly the 190 succefull but there it was far from realism and realy hard work

quiet_man

VW-IceFire
02-08-2005, 04:55 PM
*sigh*

Obviously a whole bunch of you have never flown both sides of the engagement. Flying a Spitfire V, even in a group, against a group of FW190s that are co-ordinated is like walking into a pre-arranged ambush.

Regardless of the hours being flown, real Luftwaffe pilots were trained in team tactics and would operate in team tactics. Its much harder to get a bunch of guys sitting in their living rooms, using text chat (who seemingly type at impossibly slow 10WPM type rates), to get co-ordinated a not go showing off - which frankly describes most of us including myself (except the typing speed - easily 80wpm).

Once again, I am a guy who loves flying both the Spitfire and the FW190. The only people who I feel can make a really solid observation on how the two compare up in all aspects are the guys who fly both competentely and with many hours of experience.

The Spitfire is a pure joy to fly, no matter what mark, but the Mark V is too slow and doesn't climb fast enough, nor does it have enough firepower to compete against the FW190A-4. Any of the guys responding with similar stories are the guys who I have seen or know to love their aircraft and know quite well how to fly them even if they screw up and get caught from time to time.

The comment that the superior speed climb of the FW190A-4 doesn't let you turn around and engage the Spitfire is missing the absolute key point: TEAMWORK. Your wingman pounces on the Spitfire the moment he looks at your six. The superior speed, dive, high speed control, roll rate, and firepower (frankly some 20 odd seconds of 20mm is far superior to 6 seconds) translate into a superb fighting machine.

Yes the FW190s DM is a little wacky so I try never to get hit...if someone finds me in a position to shoot at me...then I screwed up (I DO screw up alot http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif). So I deal with it...FW190A-4 is still superior in a big way and this is coming from people who fly the darned virtual things on a regular basis.

Enofinu
02-08-2005, 05:27 PM
lets talk about those opponents who flew with spits.. how they had some 5% hit percentage only?? noobies? they didnt play well or what?

faustnik
02-08-2005, 05:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Enofinu:
lets talk about those opponents who flew with spits.. how they had some 5% hit percentage only?? noobies? they didnt play well or what? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Our oponents where long time IL-2 pilots (equal time to most 7Jg77 pilots) with a lot of experience in the Spit. They were in no way n00bs. Their hit percentage was low because they were forced to take long shots at 190s that were moving a lot faster than they were.

Why is it so hard to admit the FACT that the Fw190a4 is superior to the Spit Vb in PF? I just don't understand it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

We didn't engage the Spitfires until we had superior speed, it was a good size map. Once engaging we made only short maneuvers so as to maintain that speed advantage at all times. Due to our high speed we could disengage at will in a dive, climb or level acceleration.

Most of the fights were close to even numbers. The reds were never in a huge group and there were other things to do on the map other than intercept jabos.

Can any yahoo jump in a PF Fw190 and do the same thing? No. It takes experience and teamwork to get the most out of the 190. With the proper teamwork and experience, the Fw190 can dominate.

p1ngu666
02-08-2005, 06:27 PM
hit % means not much tbh
, if u cared about that, u wouldnt fire to scare someone off a team mates 6

ive flown both a fair bit, 190 is better if u can use your brain. it excells as a team plane tho.

so, who's for XIV vs a6 and g6 ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Buzzsaw-
02-08-2005, 07:26 PM
Salute

By the way, the 190A4 will turn with a Spit V at high speeds.

Any Spit V pilot who makes the mistake of diving away from a 190 attack, so that his plane builds speed, will find that the 190 will stick to it like a leech in turns.

At really high speeds, the 190 will outturn a Spit. This is also the case with a Hurricane, even more so in fact.

A Spit which follows a 190 in a high speed dive is asking for trouble. First of all, the 190 can dive to much higher speeds without breaking up. Second, the 190 can drop combat flaps at high speed, and outturn the Spit. Third, the superior rollrate of the 190 allows it to scissor the Spit.

Someone mentioned the La-5FN versus the 190. That is a completely different case. The La-5FN is almost perfectly built to kill 190's. It is as fast or faster, climbs better, turns better, and has good enough guns to kill the Focke-Wulf. The only disadvantage the La-5FN has is its high speed maneuverability. It turns into a dog at high speeds. And breaks up quite a bit sooner. Also it loses quite a bit of performance up high. When flying against La-5FN's, the 190 driver has to be very careful to maintain at least 3000 meters altitude, (4000-5000 is better) otherwise he can find himself in a hole he cannot get out of.

Yaks are the same as Spitfires, with the exception of the Yak-9U, they are too slow to deal with 190's. And their armament is too weak to do much damage.

Badsight.
02-08-2005, 10:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lazy312:
Spit V stands no chance against FW 109 A-4. . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
at running away , this is true

at combat , the Spitfire is way Way WAY eaiser to fly & fight in

apart from top speed , the Spitfire holds all the advantage in a DF

if the FW-190 A4 is oh so supeerior , then go 1v1 with me , unless you are dedicated & disciplined , the FW will go down every time

Badsight.
02-08-2005, 10:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jurinko:
According to British tests with Fw 190 A-3, "the Fw 190 was better climber, and when put into the climb from high level speed, it pulled off easily from Mk.V" - it means that from equal initial speed, the Fw could outrun Mk.V in vertical and end up higher that Spit VB. You are correct, in FB this is not possible.
To get such effect - only if Fw 190 has 300+kph speed advantage and still Spit can pull the nose up even from 280kph and hold it long enough to do the job. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Faber test was done wrong

you have the results better than they actually were

no 1.42 ATA FW-190s at that time during WW2

RAF got it wrong & showed FW-190 better than it really was

Badsight.
02-08-2005, 10:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lazy312:
There is no need to insist on killing one particular Spitfire. If he's aware of you and evades the right way, just leave him behind and find another target. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
your avoiding the point of the thread

anyone , in any plane, can bounce & hit & kill

doesnt prove anything

Aztek_Eagle
02-09-2005, 01:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Badsight.:
anyone who thinks defeating Spitfires in a FW-190 is easy needs a reality check

_ONLY_ thru discipline & the help of a wingman does the FW-190 stand a chance

the Spitfire Mk5 has every advantage except for top speed (& arguably , firepower)

its far far far eaiser to fly & fight in a Spit

FACT <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

SPITS are easy victim... at least they dont find u in a moment where they have total advantage over u, you can just get away from em easyly.... they are slow, is like the yaks of the west

NS38th_Aristaus
02-09-2005, 05:35 AM
~S~ All
From what Iv'e read the FW190 was not meant to be a fighter, but a bomber intercepter. It could not outturn most Allied fighters and stalled easy. Its only advantage being speed, and weapons, but not much use when being outturned
http://www.flightjournal.com/fj/store/viewissue.asp?issueid=gerf

Hetzer_II
02-09-2005, 06:09 AM
From what i´ve read the FW190 was: every inch a fighter...

Greets

BenQ-the-Hawk
02-09-2005, 06:22 AM
@Aristaus: Never heard that the FW190 was one of the best fighters in WW 2? Many sources say so and not only against Bombers! The 109 was used against Bombers as well! Of course the 190 with at least 2 20mm guns is quite effective!

WOLFMondo
02-09-2005, 06:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NS38th_Aristaus:
~S~ All
From what Iv'e read the FW190 was not meant to be a fighter, but a bomber intercepter. It could not outturn most Allied fighters and stalled easy. Its only advantage being speed, and weapons, but not much use when being outturned
http://www.flightjournal.com/fj/store/viewissue.asp?issueid=gerf <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You read wrong in that case :P.

Lazy312
02-09-2005, 06:41 AM
1 vs 1 dogfights were quite rare in WWII. I really don't know why some FW 190 "experts" here still insist on this "tactics" when evaluating planes performance. If you do, then Zero is the best fighter of the war. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

In every test I have read (including Brown's one), the conclusion was FW stands NO CHANCE against spitfire in turning fight as it bleeds more speed during maneuvers, its stall speed is higher and it has a really violent stall.

I fly FW190 A4 as a lone hunter sometimes and I was never shot down by spitfire V. On the other side I managed to kill many spitfires V.

I fly Spitfires V too (as my squad is mostly RAF oriented). I kill FW 190 quite often, but only when their pilots make serious mistakes. Against good FW 190 pilots I have no chance.

When a coordinated group of FW 190 flies together, they are deadly. When they exploit their speed advantage they are next to invulnerable by spitfires V. Coordinated groups of fockewulfs can even mix it with spitfires V and win - I saw that several times.

FW 190 IS every inch a fighter. But I have never read it is every inch a turnfighter..

p1ngu666
02-09-2005, 07:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lazy312:
1 vs 1 dogfights were quite rare in WWII. I really don't know why some FW 190 "experts" here still insist on this "tactics" when evaluating planes performance. If you do, then Zero is the best fighter of the war. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

In every test I have read (including Brown's one), the conclusion was FW stands NO CHANCE against spitfire in turning fight as it bleeds more speed during maneuvers, its stall speed is higher and it has a really violent stall.

I fly FW190 A4 as a lone hunter sometimes and I was never shot down by spitfire V. On the other side I managed to kill many spitfires V.

I fly Spitfires V too (as my squad is mostly RAF oriented). I kill FW 190 quite often, but only when their pilots make serious mistakes. Against good FW 190 pilots I have no chance.

When a coordinated group of FW 190 flies together, they are deadly. When they exploit their speed advantage they are next to invulnerable by spitfires V. Coordinated groups of fockewulfs can even mix it with spitfires V and win - I saw that several times.

FW 190 IS every inch a fighter. But I have never read it is every inch a turnfighter.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

u can beat 190, even dora, in a ki43 one on one http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
i managed to give zen a little scare in my ki43 AND evade a spitfire too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif at the same time http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

jurinko
02-09-2005, 02:04 PM
according to the british comparision tests, Fw 190 A-3 was equal to early Spitfire Mk.IX and in one-to-one combat, the outcome should depend on which plane had initial advantage and pilot skill should be decisive.

Anyone here who will fight Mk.IX with A-4 here on equal terms? Can´t turn, can´t climb, can´t put its guns on the enemy. Oh yes I forgot, it can roll.

Buzzsaw-
02-09-2005, 02:20 PM
Salute Jurinko

Early Spitfire IX had climbrate of 3800 ft/min, very similar to climbrate of 190A4. (A4 was aircraft tested against Spit IX, not A3) That is low compared to 4400 fpm for the Spitfire IXLF in game.

Early Spit IX had top speed at sea level of approx. 310 mph instead of top speed of 335 mph of Spit IXLF in game. Early Spit IX was slower than 190A4, but Spit IXLF is as fast.

So you can see that the later Spitfires are much better. Trying to compare the early to the late is not accurate.

Suggest you go back and re-read the RAF tests at Mike Williams site:

http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spittest.html

Snoop_Baron
02-09-2005, 09:05 PM
Give me 5k seperation, 2k alt, 300kph starting speed, head on with a SpitV in a FW190A4 and I bet I'll kill you. The SpitV is simply to slow. It won't win an E-fight with a Spit 1 on 1 unless they start to close together.

I have no clue about historical accuracies, I'm no expert but in game the FWA4 is supperior to the Spit using the right tactics. Which can be learned by anyone in one day not in years.

s!
Snoop

VW-IceFire
02-09-2005, 09:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jurinko:
according to the british comparision tests, Fw 190 A-3 was equal to early Spitfire Mk.IX and in one-to-one combat, the outcome should depend on which plane had initial advantage and pilot skill should be decisive.

Anyone here who will fight Mk.IX with A-4 here on equal terms? Can´t turn, can´t climb, can´t put its guns on the enemy. Oh yes I forgot, it can roll. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You're compairing a 1942 FW190A-4 with a 1942 Spitfire F.IX (Merlin 61). We've got a later 1943 Spitfire LF.IX (Merlin 66) which has a speed (and climb I believe) advantage over the FW190 and was purposely modified and designed to be this way. The whole reason for the LF.IX (Merlin 66) variant was that they found the F.IX to be good but not superior in speed at all altitudes...the LF.IX WAS superior in speed at all altitudes. Because speed is one of the biggest issues in FW190 vs Spitfire V fights, the IX becomes a significantly more dangerous opponent.

Does the British report specifically state that in one-to-one combat the two are similar? Regardless of anything, the FW190A has a higher stall, bleeds far more energy, and is slower than the IX. The tables really turn here. I can still beat a IX in a FW190A...and frankly a A-4 or an A-5 is just as good in fighter combat if not better than the later and heavier A-8 or A-9...depends on what features are more important. In a FW190 vs Spitfire IX fight...if I were the FW190, I wouldn't want to enter the fight on even terms....I want to be on the attack from the start and then never seeing him again. If I miss, I want to climb and start the attack again. The difference of speed is not so much that you can't use a shallow dive to catch a retreating IX and with alt advantage the FW190 is still dangerous. Even an A-4...really only difference is the positioning prior to combat.

Snoop_Baron
02-09-2005, 09:14 PM
Firefox keeps crashing when I try to edit my original message for errors. So I'm reposting with corrections:

Give me 5k seperation, 2k alt, 300kph starting speeds, head on with against SpitV in a FW190A4 and I bet I'll kill you. The SpitV is simply to slow. It won't win an E-fight with a Spit 1 on 1 unless they start to close together.

I have no clue about historical accuracies, I'm no expert but in game the FW190A4 is supperior to the SpitV using the right tactics. Which can be learned in little time. As an example, my friend that I've been training and is totaly new to combat sims only took three online sessions and some offline practice to learn the basics of E-fighting a SpitV in a FW190A4.

s!
Snoop

s!
Snoop[/QUOTE]

faustnik
02-10-2005, 12:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snoop_Baron:
I'm no expert but in game the FWA4 is supperior to the Spit using the right tactics. Which can be learned by anyone in one day not in years.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's that easy huh? Darn, all that practice for nuthin'. All I had to do was take one lesson from the Baron and 'dem Spitfires be dropin' like flies.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

jurinko
02-10-2005, 01:11 AM
Buzz you are correct, so let´s limit the 1943 Mk.IX to fly without the boost (to simulate weaker Merlin model) - or to use Fw 190 A-5 and ´43 Mk.IX instead. If the opponent is not substantially slower, the advantages of Fw in 1 to 1 are gone.
Fw 190 was said to be good plane also for novice pilots, but in FB, novice pilot is lost in 190.

OldMan____
02-10-2005, 03:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jurinko:
according to the british comparision tests, Fw 190 A-3 was equal to early Spitfire Mk.IX and in one-to-one combat, the outcome should depend on which plane had initial advantage and pilot skill should be decisive.

Anyone here who will fight Mk.IX with A-4 here on equal terms? Can´t turn, can´t climb, can´t put its guns on the enemy. Oh yes I forgot, it can roll. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You're compairing a 1942 FW190A-4 with a 1942 Spitfire F.IX (Merlin 61). We've got a later 1943 Spitfire LF.IX (Merlin 66) which has a speed (and climb I believe) advantage over the FW190 and was purposely modified and designed to be this way. The whole reason for the LF.IX (Merlin 66) variant was that they found the F.IX to be good but not superior in speed at all altitudes...the LF.IX WAS superior in speed at all altitudes. Because speed is one of the biggest issues in FW190 vs Spitfire V fights, the IX becomes a significantly more dangerous opponent.

Does the British report specifically state that in one-to-one combat the two are similar? Regardless of anything, the FW190A has a higher stall, bleeds far more energy, and is slower than the IX. The tables really turn here. I can still beat a IX in a FW190A...and frankly a A-4 or an A-5 is just as good in fighter combat if not better than the later and heavier A-8 or A-9...depends on what features are more important. In a FW190 vs Spitfire IX fight...if I were the FW190, I wouldn't want to enter the fight on even terms....I want to be on the attack from the start and then never seeing him again. If I miss, I want to climb and start the attack again. The difference of speed is not so much that you can't use a shallow dive to catch a retreating IX and with alt advantage the FW190 is still dangerous. Even an A-4...really only difference is the positioning prior to combat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

agree 100%


Now I would like to touch the subject of very different behavior of all FW versions, like in A8 and A9 you stated.

Fisrt question; Why the A5 handles worse (not much.. but worse) than A4 if both weight the same empty weight?

Second question: Why FW190A8 and A9 looses so much handling when they get the extra 300 kg on armor and stuff while Bf109 G10 and K4 looses so much less handling whit simmilar weight increase? (think this case the bf109 is the wrong one.. but also find quite hard to get why SO MUCH handling diference on A4-&gt;A8). A4 is quite a very maneuverable fighter .. and it is FASTER than A8 during fight since it looses much less E in turns.


Third question: Will the Spitfire MKXIV be modelled like tha FW series of Bf series on this subject? It is quite heavier than a Spit5 and even Spit9, so If he handles exactly like the early spit I wil be pissed, since looks like only FW190 gets lot worse with weight increase.


Just pay attention Spit 14 weight minus Spit 5 weight is &gt; FWA8 weight - FWA4 weight.
For me THAt is the single point I don't like on FW series in game (or don't like in every other plane.. depends who is correct)

JG5_UnKle
02-10-2005, 04:17 AM
And while we are at it - why is the A-8 able to climb with the A-9? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

p1ngu666
02-10-2005, 07:26 AM
a9 has high alt prop, is only a lil better at alt tho :\

erm on 109 i agree, guess could be someone at the office flies 109 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

dunno about the XIV, but 190 maybe affected more cos of already high wing loadin...
a89 are abit http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif on the turning and stuff

JtD
02-10-2005, 08:02 AM
I think 2 Spits are worth 1 FW and 100 Spits are worth about 10 FW.

Haven't yet figured out how they want to shoot the FW if it just goes straight and level.

OldMan____
02-10-2005, 08:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
a9 has high alt prop, is only a lil better at alt tho :\

erm on 109 i agree, guess could be someone at the office flies 109 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

dunno about the XIV, but 190 maybe affected more cos of already high wing loadin...
a89 are abit http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif on the turning and stuff <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Think this does not matter wich one has higher wing loading originaly. If both get lets suppose 20% worse wing loading... both should suffer from same X percent reduction on stall speed.

And my problem is not with turning.. is really handling. You can pull A4 elevator quite hard while rolling and will go OK. With A8 and A9 you cannot pull half the elevator that you pulled in A4 without stall... My measurements got me that in a crude comparisson.. the A8 and A9 needs 100 kph more than an A4 to make the same turn in a stable way! So the turn I do at 330 kph with A4.. I will need to be at 430 with A8 to be able to pull such hard.

OldMan____
02-10-2005, 08:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hetzer_II:
From what i´ve read the FW190 was: every inch a fighter...

Greets <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can't be! Since Germans used International System it would be "every centimeter a fighter..."

jurinko
02-10-2005, 08:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
I think 2 Spits are worth 1 FW and 100 Spits are worth about 10 FW.

Haven't yet figured out how they want to shoot the FW if it just goes straight and level. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why should any country bother to produce planes which can go only straight and level? The plane has to fly and shoot down opponents, that´s the fighter´s job.

JG5_UnKle
02-10-2005, 10:34 AM
Climbtest by Robban

Fw 190A-8

Auto and manual

1000 - :57 - :51
2000 - 2:02 - 1:46
3000 - 3:07 - 2:45
4000 - 4:10 - 3:41
5000 - 5:07 - 4:32

Fw 190A-9

Auto and manual

1000 - 1:01 - :53
2000 - 2:02 - 1:48
3000 - 3:13 - 2:48
4000 - 4:20 - 3:46
5000 - 5:19 - 4:41

Doesn't really make sense now does it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

robban75
02-10-2005, 12:39 PM
Just remember that those climbs were done at 370-390km/h. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

JtD
02-10-2005, 02:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jurinko:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
I think 2 Spits are worth 1 FW and 100 Spits are worth about 10 FW.

Haven't yet figured out how they want to shoot the FW if it just goes straight and level. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why should any country bother to produce planes which can go only straight and level? The plane has to fly and shoot down opponents, that´s the fighter´s job. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What does my quote have to do with the utter bull**** you are writing?

p1ngu666
02-10-2005, 03:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
a9 has high alt prop, is only a lil better at alt tho :\

erm on 109 i agree, guess could be someone at the office flies 109 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

dunno about the XIV, but 190 maybe affected more cos of already high wing loadin...
a89 are abit http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif on the turning and stuff <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Think this does not matter wich one has higher wing loading originaly. If both get lets suppose 20% worse wing loading... both should suffer from same X percent reduction on stall speed.

And my problem is not with turning.. is really handling. You can pull A4 elevator quite hard while rolling and will go OK. With A8 and A9 you cannot pull half the elevator that you pulled in A4 without stall... My measurements got me that in a crude comparisson.. the A8 and A9 needs 100 kph more than an A4 to make the same turn in a stable way! So the turn I do at 330 kph with A4.. I will need to be at 430 with A8 to be able to pull such hard. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i agree with u on the a4-a8 thing, really bad http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

wingloading stuff can depend on the wing shape etc, but yeah, in principle http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

VW-IceFire
02-10-2005, 04:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jurinko:
according to the british comparision tests, Fw 190 A-3 was equal to early Spitfire Mk.IX and in one-to-one combat, the outcome should depend on which plane had initial advantage and pilot skill should be decisive.

Anyone here who will fight Mk.IX with A-4 here on equal terms? Can´t turn, can´t climb, can´t put its guns on the enemy. Oh yes I forgot, it can roll. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You're compairing a 1942 FW190A-4 with a 1942 Spitfire F.IX (Merlin 61). We've got a later 1943 Spitfire LF.IX (Merlin 66) which has a speed (and climb I believe) advantage over the FW190 and was purposely modified and designed to be this way. The whole reason for the LF.IX (Merlin 66) variant was that they found the F.IX to be good but not superior in speed at all altitudes...the LF.IX WAS superior in speed at all altitudes. Because speed is one of the biggest issues in FW190 vs Spitfire V fights, the IX becomes a significantly more dangerous opponent.

Does the British report specifically state that in one-to-one combat the two are similar? Regardless of anything, the FW190A has a higher stall, bleeds far more energy, and is slower than the IX. The tables really turn here. I can still beat a IX in a FW190A...and frankly a A-4 or an A-5 is just as good in fighter combat if not better than the later and heavier A-8 or A-9...depends on what features are more important. In a FW190 vs Spitfire IX fight...if I were the FW190, I wouldn't want to enter the fight on even terms....I want to be on the attack from the start and then never seeing him again. If I miss, I want to climb and start the attack again. The difference of speed is not so much that you can't use a shallow dive to catch a retreating IX and with alt advantage the FW190 is still dangerous. Even an A-4...really only difference is the positioning prior to combat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

agree 100%


Now I would like to touch the subject of very different behavior of all FW versions, like in A8 and A9 you stated.

Fisrt question; Why the A5 handles worse (not much.. but worse) than A4 if both weight the same empty weight?

Second question: Why FW190A8 and A9 looses so much handling when they get the extra 300 kg on armor and stuff while Bf109 G10 and K4 looses so much less handling whit simmilar weight increase? (think this case the bf109 is the wrong one.. but also find quite hard to get why SO MUCH handling diference on A4-&gt;A8). A4 is quite a very maneuverable fighter .. and it is FASTER than A8 during fight since it looses much less E in turns.


Third question: Will the Spitfire MKXIV be modelled like tha FW series of Bf series on this subject? It is quite heavier than a Spit5 and even Spit9, so If he handles exactly like the early spit I wil be pissed, since looks like only FW190 gets lot worse with weight increase.


Just pay attention Spit 14 weight minus Spit 5 weight is &gt; FWA8 weight - FWA4 weight.
For me THAt is the single point I don't like on FW series in game (or don't like in every other plane.. depends who is correct) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes it will be interesting to see how Oleg handles the Spitfire XIV. But with the FW190 I think there is more at work than strictly powerloading. I'm not strictly qualified to touch on this subject but there is more than just wing and powerloading that comes into play here. The physical design of the wing (NACA Airfoil as I think its called) is also a factor. A site I once looked at which compaired a Swedish made fighter with a FW190 and a Spitfire showed how the Spitfire and the Swedish plane used a different wing design than the FW190. The result was higher drag on the Spitfire wing and lower drag on the FW190 wing...I think the Swedish perspective was to find a mid-way point. The FW190 of course achieves quite a bit of speed despite the size of the radial engine through some very sophistocated aerodynamics but you do have to trade something. Again, I'm not qualified and am not remembering anything except the conclusions: the Spitfire turns better because of a combination of factors ranging from the size of the wings, the wingloading, the powerloading, and the physical design of the airfoil.

So I think this has alot to do why the Spitfire XIV will probably turn, in a short turn, similar to the Mark V. This is replicated in the comparative test reports. However, what I hope that Oleg will represent is that weight dragging the plane down in a turn fight....I doubt the XIV will be a good turn fighter...heck the VIII and IX aren't really the greatest turn fighters either. But a short 90 or 180 degree hard turn is easier to achieve and hold than with a FW190 and you loose less speed doing it which translates to all sorts of advantages. However, for the XIV to achieve performance similar (and better in some ways) to say a Mustang and a FW190D-9, it has to have ALOT more engine power (the huge Griffon engine) which in itself is the cause of some issues regarding torque.

It really seems like aircraft design, especially during this period, is a series of tradeoffs. You want speed and acceleration on a small but well protected airframe with a lower HP engine than the competition? You trade your turn for better aerodynamics. You want a better turning plane? You sacrifice size (the plane is larger - i.e. the Spitfire being a bit larger than FW190) in some way, and you're forced into using a bigger and more powerful engine which in itself is the cause of some issues. Plus a bigger wing and more drag.

Tradeoffs.

So to answer directly? I suspect the Spitfire XIV will still posses quite a bit of Spitfire like turn ability...and the guys who are getting shot down by it will probably cry fowl and we'll have a thousand topics on why the plane is uber. But, on the other hand, the guys flying it will probably notice the difference between it and earlier versions and know not to get caught in a horizontal turn fight...especially if its the unrealistic but dogfight server possibility of Spitfire IX vs XIV.

(I'll be willing to bet that the Mark V and XIV in a turn fight will see the Mark V win).

WWMaxGunz
02-10-2005, 04:18 PM
Wingloading stuff? Can depend on wing shape?

Oh yes, Oleg can see how serious these discussions get!

I just hope it doesn't slow him on reading/thinking on some others...

Atomic_Marten
02-10-2005, 04:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Axis:

109G2
190A4
Ju-87D
He-111H-6

Allied

Spit Vb
Hurricane IIC
A-20
SBD <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Neat lineups.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Can i just comment that statistic does not mean anything.

Hypothetical: If you put a very experienced player in a inferior plane and rookie one in superior what would statistic tell us then? Maybe that Me109G2 is better than LA7? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Buzzsaw-:
So those who keep insisting that the 190 is no match for the Spit V, please take the opportunity to fly a Spitfire when the JG77 boys have a 1942 server setup.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK is there *ANY* Spitfire squad that has been repedeatly opposing them on the server? If yes, what was the score? FW190 squad versus Spit squad..

Bull_dog_
02-10-2005, 06:09 PM
How about lets settle this arguement once and for all...

We need two servers...one for cockpit on and one for cockpit off and we'll pit the Spit Mk V 1941 vs. Fw190A-4 and set up some statistics page and let the results speak for themselves.

Let it run maybe a week or two and see what we get.

By the way...I'll be in the Fw blasting the snot out of Spits...

VW-IceFire
02-10-2005, 06:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Wingloading stuff? Can depend on wing shape?

Oh yes, Oleg can see how serious these discussions get!

I just hope it doesn't slow him on reading/thinking on some others... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Airfoil shape (duh for wingloading http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif). Again, I'm synthesizing what I understood and took from an article that I read. I wish I could dig it up...it was online.

Snoop_Baron
02-10-2005, 06:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snoop_Baron:
I'm no expert but in game the FWA4 is supperior to the Spit using the right tactics. Which can be learned by anyone in one day not in years.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's that easy huh? Darn, all that practice for nuthin'. All I had to do was take one lesson from the Baron and 'dem Spitfires be dropin' like flies.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, my first post was a bit exagerated but I did post a follow up a few minutes later, maybe you missed it. I was just responding to the earlier post it would require "1000 years" or something like that to get good enough to beat the SpitV.

Here is a concrete example from my second post and from my own experience: "As an example, my friend that I've been training and is totaly new to combat sims only took three online sessions and some offline practice to learn the basics of E-fighting a SpitV in a FW190A4."

How long it will take will vary from person to person. And ofcourse it helps when you have a more experienced player in the same room as you on the same LAN working with you to teach you. But I just wanted to share that in my experience it's not the most difficult plane to beat in a FW190A4. And who said all that practice was for nothing, my point is that with the right practice you can beat the SpitV but that is what it takes just practice you don't have to be a god in the FW190A4 to beat a SpitV.

s!
Snoop

Snoop_Baron
02-10-2005, 06:39 PM
Doesn't this thread really belong in the General Discussion forum?

s!
Snoop

faustnik
02-10-2005, 10:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snoop_Baron:
my point is that with the right practice you can beat the SpitV but that is what it takes just practice you don't have to be a god in the FW190A4 to beat a SpitV.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds good to me Snoop! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

OldMan____
02-11-2005, 05:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Yes it will be interesting to see how Oleg handles the Spitfire XIV. But with the FW190 I think there is more at work than strictly powerloading. I'm not strictly qualified to touch on this subject but there is more than just wing and powerloading that comes into play here. The physical design of the wing (NACA Airfoil as I think its called) is also a factor. A site I once looked at which compaired a Swedish made fighter with a FW190 and a Spitfire showed how the Spitfire and the Swedish plane used a different wing design than the FW190. The result was higher drag on the Spitfire wing and lower drag on the FW190 wing...I think the Swedish perspective was to find a mid-way point. The FW190 of course achieves quite a bit of speed despite the size of the radial engine through some very sophistocated aerodynamics but you do have to trade something. Again, I'm not qualified and am not remembering anything except the conclusions: the Spitfire turns better because of a combination of factors ranging from the size of the wings, the wingloading, the powerloading, and the physical design of the airfoil.

So I think this has alot to do why the Spitfire XIV will probably turn, in a short turn, similar to the Mark V. This is replicated in the comparative test reports. However, what I hope that Oleg will represent is that weight dragging the plane down in a turn fight....I doubt the XIV will be a good turn fighter...heck the VIII and IX aren't really the greatest turn fighters either. But a short 90 or 180 degree hard turn is easier to achieve and hold than with a FW190 and you loose less speed doing it which translates to all sorts of advantages. However, for the XIV to achieve performance similar (and better in some ways) to say a Mustang and a FW190D-9, it has to have ALOT more engine power (the huge Griffon engine) which in itself is the cause of some issues regarding torque.

It really seems like aircraft design, especially during this period, is a series of tradeoffs. You want speed and acceleration on a small but well protected airframe with a lower HP engine than the competition? You trade your turn for better aerodynamics. You want a better turning plane? You sacrifice size (the plane is larger - i.e. the Spitfire being a bit larger than FW190) in some way, and you're forced into using a bigger and more powerful engine which in itself is the cause of some issues. Plus a bigger wing and more drag.

Tradeoffs.

So to answer directly? I suspect the Spitfire XIV will still posses quite a bit of Spitfire like turn ability...and the guys who are getting shot down by it will probably cry fowl and we'll have a thousand topics on why the plane is uber. But, on the other hand, the guys flying it will probably notice the difference between it and earlier versions and know not to get caught in a horizontal turn fight...especially if its the unrealistic but dogfight server possibility of Spitfire IX vs XIV.

(I'll be willing to bet that the Mark V and XIV in a turn fight will see the Mark V win). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know wing shape is very important Ice, I studied a bit on it whil trying to develop my physics simmualtion of flihgt. But I quited sicnce could not get enought real world wing data.

The point is that wing shape mostly change how lift and Angle of attack affect flight in different speeds. FW wings will not tolerate high AOA specially at low speeds, but will produce large lift/drag ratio at high speeds. But that is true for both A4 and A8..so only difference on them is weight and mass distribution. The lift in an A4 is equal to the lift in an A8. A heavier planes will have a bigger counter force to lift.. simple.

Same with spit. Same lift on Mark IX and mark XIV (almost same in fact). But a very different weight. So the plane should change its stall speed. Maybe less than in FW, but same lift ..more weight has simple implications (well..not THAt simple).


Of course an Spit XIV should not get as unfriendly as FWA8. But something must change on its handling. You have same lift and control forces/torque acting upon a bigger mass and bigger inertia tensors.

That means that it should need a higher speed to make same turns without loosing altitude or changing AoA.

Just to clarify. Turn circles times say nothing about this, since engine power is major factor in this type os test.

Something I never understood is why a FW A8 EMPTY will still handle worse than a FW-A4 with 100% fuel and ammo (in this case the A4 would be weighting more than A8). If it is correct I would just like to know why, since I like physics simmulation also, but am not a speciallist on Fluid Dynamics.


I know later FW wings have small bulges due to Mk108 cannons capability, but they are not that big to change lift so much.

WWMaxGunz
02-11-2005, 05:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Wingloading stuff? Can depend on wing shape?

Oh yes, Oleg can see how serious these discussions get!

I just hope it doesn't slow him on reading/thinking on some others... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Airfoil shape (duh for wingloading http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif). Again, I'm synthesizing what I understood and took from an article that I read. I wish I could dig it up...it was online. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is wingloading and seperate there is wing shape and then airfoil shape.
Elliptical wings are more efficient about induced drag it seems for example but in the
face of a guy who can say just why and knows even to the particular curve of the wing,
my feeling is he quits reading posts at many places as a waste of time.

Other times he gives feedback and correction although I feel that sometimes he does
place too much faith in some models... hey the details may all be correct but the more
detailed and deterministic the model, the more that every missing detail makes difference
from reality. The firing order of wing MG's from one side to the other yawing a P-47
for example... PC speed and missing detail, the guns fired all at once with asynchronous
action, results in this model cannot be true no matter what parts are right.

And sometimes, many times, code does not do what it is thought it will. People see things
and ask maybe usually about something else, the guns when answer more is DM or their eyes.
They say look here when here is not why it is so, a trueism for programmers from way back
even with simple accounting code. Programmer looks there, runs tests and everything there
is okay but final result is not and only when tracked back from the wrong is the error
found, taking a lot of hard work.
When other priorities are around, the error better be worth it. But we have people who
will b!tch over any little thing and demand fix like the end of the world is coming.

I like the feedback and correction though. I really do. Not always easy to understand
but sometimes a door is opened to see so much beyond.

OldMan____
02-11-2005, 05:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Wingloading stuff? Can depend on wing shape?

Oh yes, Oleg can see how serious these discussions get!

I just hope it doesn't slow him on reading/thinking on some others... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Airfoil shape (duh for wingloading http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif). Again, I'm synthesizing what I understood and took from an article that I read. I wish I could dig it up...it was online. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is wingloading and seperate there is wing shape and then airfoil shape.
Elliptical wings are more efficient about induced drag it seems for example but in the
face of a guy who can say just why and knows even to the particular curve of the wing,
my feeling is he quits reading posts at many places as a waste of time.

Other times he gives feedback and correction although I feel that sometimes he does
place too much faith in some models... hey the details may all be correct but the more
detailed and deterministic the model, the more that every missing detail makes difference
from reality. The firing order of wing MG's from one side to the other yawing a P-47
for example... PC speed and missing detail, the guns fired all at once with asynchronous
action, results in this model cannot be true no matter what parts are right.

And sometimes, many times, code does not do what it is thought it will. People see things
and ask maybe usually about something else, the guns when answer more is DM or their eyes.
They say look here when here is not why it is so, a trueism for programmers from way back
even with simple accounting code. Programmer looks there, runs tests and everything there
is okay but final result is not and only when tracked back from the wrong is the error
found, taking a lot of hard work.
When other priorities are around, the error better be worth it. But we have people who
will b!tch over any little thing and demand fix like the end of the world is coming.

I like the feedback and correction though. I really do. Not always easy to understand
but sometimes a door is opened to see so much beyond. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well If you pay attention you will se I complained on nothing. I just asked if the Spit XiV will be affected as the FW with the huge weight increase. I don't like the worse handling on FWa8.. but that does not mean I say it is wrong...


If it is wrong and needs correction, is another issue. I and think no one here is fully qualified to give an OK or WRONG stamp on this issues.



I would simply want to increase my knowledge... on the game.. and on the real world.

tigertalon
02-11-2005, 07:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
Can i just comment that statistic does not mean anything.

Hypothetical: If you put a very experienced player in a inferior plane and rookie one in superior what would statistic tell us then? Maybe that Me109G2 is better than LA7? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So this means that A6Ms and Ki43s were not inferior to F4Us, F6Fs, P38s in 44 and 45? Because statistics says so... Can it be blaimed only to inexperienced Japanese pilots? Well in this case I'm willing to put my chances in F4U against you in A6M.

IMO, statistics tells a lot, but not everything.
(I am a matematician http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Airplane matters a lot, when you have two VERY experienced pilots fighting. If you put a noob (50 hours of sim experience) vs ubernoob (2 hours of sim experience), noob will win no matter what they are flying. It all depends on a pilot.

But if you put a simmer, who flies Yak3 for a few hours every single day from the day Il2 was released against similarly skilled pilot in Bf109E4, 109 WILL go down (at least in 19 out of 20 cases). It doesn't depend on a pilot anymore, it depends almost solely on a plane. Only thing Bf109E4 pilot can do is wait for catastrophical mistake of Yak3 pilot...

WWMaxGunz
02-11-2005, 12:58 PM
My post was a reply to I think IceFire who used the term "Wingloading stuff", which
for me was where the discussion stalled and spun for a moment. So I laughed and wrote
back "what will Oleg think" kind of thing, and he replied and I replied and you take
offense I am sorry you were also discussing wing shape as well! Posts come in order,
sometimes I am typing when another appears, it happens.

Wing shape is important and someone here sometimes can say, but he rarely does since
so much of the time he is working on BoB and maybe some on PF. But he can say, be sure.

Neal

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Wingloading stuff? Can depend on wing shape?

Oh yes, Oleg can see how serious these discussions get!

I just hope it doesn't slow him on reading/thinking on some others... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Airfoil shape (duh for wingloading http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif). Again, I'm synthesizing what I understood and took from an article that I read. I wish I could dig it up...it was online. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is wingloading and seperate there is wing shape and then airfoil shape.
Elliptical wings are more efficient about induced drag it seems for example but in the
face of a guy who can say just why and knows even to the particular curve of the wing,
my feeling is he quits reading posts at many places as a waste of time.

Other times he gives feedback and correction although I feel that sometimes he does
place too much faith in some models... hey the details may all be correct but the more
detailed and deterministic the model, the more that every missing detail makes difference
from reality. The firing order of wing MG's from one side to the other yawing a P-47
for example... PC speed and missing detail, the guns fired all at once with asynchronous
action, results in this model cannot be true no matter what parts are right.

And sometimes, many times, code does not do what it is thought it will. People see things
and ask maybe usually about something else, the guns when answer more is DM or their eyes.
They say look here when here is not why it is so, a trueism for programmers from way back
even with simple accounting code. Programmer looks there, runs tests and everything there
is okay but final result is not and only when tracked back from the wrong is the error
found, taking a lot of hard work.
When other priorities are around, the error better be worth it. But we have people who
will b!tch over any little thing and demand fix like the end of the world is coming.

I like the feedback and correction though. I really do. Not always easy to understand
but sometimes a door is opened to see so much beyond. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well If you pay attention you will se I complained on nothing. I just asked if the Spit XiV will be affected as the FW with the huge weight increase. I don't like the worse handling on FWa8.. but that does not mean I say it is wrong...


If it is wrong and needs correction, is another issue. I and think no one here is fully qualified to give an OK or WRONG stamp on this issues.



I would simply want to increase my knowledge... on the game.. and on the real world. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Atomic_Marten
02-11-2005, 01:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
Can i just comment that statistic does not mean anything.

Hypothetical: If you put a very experienced player in a inferior plane and rookie one in superior what would statistic tell us then? Maybe that Me109G2 is better than LA7? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So this means that A6Ms and Ki43s were not inferior to F4Us, F6Fs, P38s in 44 and 45? Because statistics says so... Can it be blaimed only to inexperienced Japanese pilots? Well in this case I'm willing to put my chances in F4U against you in A6M.

IMO, statistics tells a lot, but not everything.
(I am a matematician http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Airplane matters a lot, when you have two VERY experienced pilots fighting. If you put a noob (50 hours of sim experience) vs ubernoob (2 hours of sim experience), noob will win no matter what they are flying. It all depends on a pilot.

But if you put a simmer, who flies Yak3 for a few hours every single day from the day Il2 was released against similarly skilled pilot in Bf109E4, 109 WILL go down (at least in 19 out of 20 cases). It doesn't depend on a pilot anymore, it depends almost solely on a plane. Only thing Bf109E4 pilot can do is wait for catastrophical mistake of Yak3 pilot... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How can I argue that one? You are right in everything you wrote.. but then again in my initial post my points weren't much different than yours.

But take note at the statistics; we do not know who flied what. We simply have bunch of usernames and scores.

I have one simple request for anyone that is willing and have possibilities to create SpitV v FW190A4 server pit off.

And then organise a tournament FW190 v Spit squad(s) that will run several weeks. So that way we will be assured that the guys who are flying these birds aren't newbies with 50 hrs of flying.

Statistics provided that way will give us the most accurate results that can be obtained by simply reviewing the scores.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
Can i just comment that statistic does not mean anything. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I admit that sounds extremely stupid if leaved out of context http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.(I should have written 'everything' instead 'anything'http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

VW-IceFire
02-11-2005, 01:43 PM
OldMan, good point...I have no idea why the A4 and A8 behave so differently. Its probably a case where the physics engine just doesn't do it in a meaningful way.

I'm sure it'll be the same as a fully loaded Mark VIII and a empty XIV still seeing the XIV with very different handling qualities. As to how much, anything is our guesses http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Gunner_361st
02-11-2005, 03:26 PM
Knowledge is power. What did Sun Tzu say... "Know thy enemy and know thyself; in a hundred battles you will not be in peril" ? Something like that.

I fly all aircraft in this sim, for both sides. In a BF-109 Friedrich and even moreso in a Fw-190 Anton, the Spitfire V is not a problem; if you know the right tactics. The only time I've ever had a problem is when a few smart Spitfire pilots get altitude, work together, and make high-speed passes.

€œAn indicated airspeed never less than 250 mph in combat is good life insurance.€ - Top U.S. Ace - Major Richard Bong (40 Kills) 49th Fighter Group, flying the P-38 Lightning

For you Metric users, thats 400 km/h.

As long as you keep your eyes open and your speed up, you won't have a problem against the Spitfire V. Shooting him down may be hard if he has good situational awareness, but that can be said of any fighter.

The Spitfire IX is a serious step up though. The room for error is significantly less when your opponent's aircraft gets better and better.

Whether any of these tactics reflects reality is not something I'm going to debate, because, unlike many people, I don't pretend to know things I don't. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

OldMan____
02-13-2005, 03:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
OldMan, good point...I have no idea why the A4 and A8 behave so differently. Its probably a case where the physics engine just doesn't do it in a meaningful way.

I'm sure it'll be the same as a fully loaded Mark VIII and a empty XIV still seeing the XIV with very different handling qualities. As to how much, anything is our guesses http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I tried a few things on my physics engine. And the only thing that came close to reproduec the extra stall behavior in planes of same weight and same aerodynamics was a combiantion of both a backwards Center of Gravity ... and a more outer limits oriented Inertia Tensor matrix (mass distributed more away from center).

Again I am considering same aerodynamics and using a generic wing profile in my simmulatiosn.. have not enought data to make a FW one.