PDA

View Full Version : A few FW190A questions



Fish6891
11-20-2004, 08:03 PM
When I choose to fly Antons I usually take either the A6 A8 or A9. My question is, what is the difference between them? What I can assume from flying them is that the A6 is much more nimble at low speeds than the A8 or A9 but that the A8/9 are both faster and climb better than the A6. I'm not sure if the A6/8/9 differ much in high speed manueverability. They all have similar roll rates http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. I'm having trouble finding differences between the A8 and A9 tho. I think the A9 is marginally faster and has a marginally better climbrate at most speeds.

Are all of my assumptions correct, if not please point out whats wrong. Also what are the A4 and A5 like, just lighter, more nimble but slower with less powerful engines(climbrate)?

Manual prop pitch, is it important on Antons? I know what prop pitch does for Doras thanks to Zen and know that on a Dora its probably best to go auto prop. I'm not sure about Antons tho, and if it IS important I'll need a little explanation on how its used, and how much it helps me.

Finally I have a few grounpounding questions. I have NO IDEA what Rocket Delay and Bomb Delay are for. How do those work?

Thanks in Advance,
Fish

(O btw, this is totally off topic, but when it comes to scoring online, its 100 points per aircraft and points can be deducted from those 100 depending on how well you RTB right?)

Fish6891
11-20-2004, 08:03 PM
When I choose to fly Antons I usually take either the A6 A8 or A9. My question is, what is the difference between them? What I can assume from flying them is that the A6 is much more nimble at low speeds than the A8 or A9 but that the A8/9 are both faster and climb better than the A6. I'm not sure if the A6/8/9 differ much in high speed manueverability. They all have similar roll rates http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. I'm having trouble finding differences between the A8 and A9 tho. I think the A9 is marginally faster and has a marginally better climbrate at most speeds.

Are all of my assumptions correct, if not please point out whats wrong. Also what are the A4 and A5 like, just lighter, more nimble but slower with less powerful engines(climbrate)?

Manual prop pitch, is it important on Antons? I know what prop pitch does for Doras thanks to Zen and know that on a Dora its probably best to go auto prop. I'm not sure about Antons tho, and if it IS important I'll need a little explanation on how its used, and how much it helps me.

Finally I have a few grounpounding questions. I have NO IDEA what Rocket Delay and Bomb Delay are for. How do those work?

Thanks in Advance,
Fish

(O btw, this is totally off topic, but when it comes to scoring online, its 100 points per aircraft and points can be deducted from those 100 depending on how well you RTB right?)

Stiglr
11-20-2004, 08:35 PM
A5/A6: The last of the first family of Antons with the "standard" 4 x 20mm/2 MG17 armament package.

A8: Sturmbock bomber killer/ground assault version. Much heavier, with added armor for the pilot and the engine. Also some options for heavier armament (30mm cannon).

The Focke Wulf was almost fully electric, and more advanced in this regard than the 109s, so I don't think you have any manual engine to worry about.

Dora: almost a different plane, really. Inline engine (other FWs have radials), longer nose, lighter armament, but quite a bit faster.

LStarosta
11-20-2004, 08:43 PM
The F8 was the ground assault variant, not the A8, Stiglr. While the Antons could be fitted with bombs (and did perform fighter bombing duties, such as intruder attacks into the British Isles 1942-43 IIRC), the F8 was the variant with armor specifically added for the fighter bomber role. Antons most memorably performed with 109's as a team to take out bomber formations. The Antons would perform full frontal attacks on bomber formations with their superior firepower while the 109's kept the escorts busy. Later in the war when the Luftwaffe could not afford to send in both types to deploy such strategies, 109's armed with 30mm cannons performed both duties.

Also, the in-wing 30mm cannons were MK108's; quite useless against armored vehicles due to the round's extremely thin shell which gave it poor armor piercing capabilities. This is historically speaking, of course. I found that I can take out Wirbelwinds and their contemporaries as well as many tanks using the MK108 cannon, which, from what I read, was not necessarily the case in WWII.

MK103 gunpods were not favored for ground attack because they were quite fragile in their underwing position and were prone to jamming caused by AAA and small arms fire. MK103 rounds, however, did have better armor piercing capabilities.

BTW Fish, where's your "Woe is me" spiel?! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

VW-IceFire
11-20-2004, 10:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fish6891:
When I choose to fly Antons I usually take either the A6 A8 or A9. My question is, what is the difference between them? What I can assume from flying them is that the A6 is much more nimble at low speeds than the A8 or A9 but that the A8/9 are both faster and climb better than the A6. I'm not sure if the A6/8/9 differ much in high speed manueverability. They all have similar roll rates http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. I'm having trouble finding differences between the A8 and A9 tho. I think the A9 is marginally faster and has a marginally better climbrate at most speeds.

Are all of my assumptions correct, if not please point out whats wrong. Also what are the A4 and A5 like, just lighter, more nimble but slower with less powerful engines(climbrate)?

Manual prop pitch, is it important on Antons? I know what prop pitch does for Doras thanks to Zen and know that on a Dora its probably best to go auto prop. I'm not sure about Antons tho, and if it IS important I'll need a little explanation on how its used, and how much it helps me.

Finally I have a few grounpounding questions. I have NO IDEA what Rocket Delay and Bomb Delay are for. How do those work?

Thanks in Advance,
Fish

(O btw, this is totally off topic, but when it comes to scoring online, its 100 points per aircraft and points can be deducted from those 100 depending on how well you RTB right?) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah pretty much your assumptions are correct.

A-4 is the most agile of the bunch but with no fuel boost like the rest.

A-5 is an A-4 with a longer forward engine comparment (not by much), has the engine boost, a bit heavier, but otherwise the same.

A-6 is an A-5 with a lighter wing, and 4x20mm are all MG151/20 instead of 2xMG151/20 and 2xMG-FF like the previous versions. Advantage is that you now have all 4 cannons with the same trajectory.

A-8 is heavier, better armor, more anti-bomber options.

A-9 has a more powerful engine (slightly), a high altitude propeller blade, and I find it to be the fastest in a dash.

Thats the generic sort of game look at the Antons. I prefer the A-6 or A-9. A-5 when I don't have the luxury.

TX-Gunslinger
11-20-2004, 11:13 PM
Hello Fish,

Yes they do differ very much, between the A6 and A8/A9.

A8/A9 have high speed wings, i.e. they are constructed differently so that, they allow the aircraft to turn tighter at higher speeds than previous Focke Wulf's.

Look at the turn performance at 450 kmh plus for A9 vs A6 vs Yak 3P.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=9661024732&p=3

What these tell you is that the A6 cannot ever, at any speed out-turn a YAK 3P.

Your general observations are correct, but you'll get more out of your comparisons when they are made against threat A/C, as in the Yak example I presented.

Additionally, the A8/A9 (These A/C are very, very similar in performance with the exception of weapon loadouts) has a faster top speed than the A6.

What that means to you, is you can't run down an P-47 or P-51 UNLESS you have altitude/E advantage. IL2 Compare will tell you all this.

I will not fly an A6 against allied late war aircraft, becuase it's at a low altitude level speed disadvantage against P-51 and P-47's. In fact it's a late 43 plane, and is great during that period. Also it fields the weaker MG 17 machine guns versus the harder hitting MG 131 in the nose (reason for the cowl bumps, like 109G series).

The one thing I love about the A6, other than it "feels" nimble, is the rearward view toward the top of the cockpit. The A8/9 have a metal strip which joins the canopy sections (just one more bar to obstruct vision) while the A6 has that clear plastic piece to which the antenna is mounted.

Detailed prop-pitch information is available on the first page of the link I put in at the top of this post, and more amplifying info can be found here:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=5031081042

In summary, the only FW in which I don't extensively find it necessary to manipulate prop pitch is the D9, which I'm flying with increasing regularity. If you are using my prop-pitch settings from the link at the top, then try this test:

1) Set up a QMB scenario with 4 friendly P-47's (or whatever you feel like shooting at) at 1500 meters, put yourself in an A9 with Default (4-151/20mm) NOT Mk-108 armament. Of course, if you like the Mk-108 maybe you should try this test with those on and see if you get the desired end result.

2) After you climb to an altitude of, oh say 5000 meters, throttle back some to let your engine cool while you close over the top of the targets.

3) Bounce (noting your starting altitude) the P-47's from a dive angle of at least 60 degrees (if closed cockpit, roll left and right to watch them as you close, until they are right under your nose). In your bounce, dive to come up behind and under the targets.

4) After you've started your pull up and made your shot (you only get one, don't break your climb to turn or anything, if you've done it right you'll make your final adjustments after the pull up with rudder), CLOSE RADIATOR and set prop pitch to 90-100% while climbing at about 75-80 degrees.

5) At the top of your climb, set prop-pitch to AUTO and OPEN RADIATOR and note your altitude. If you've done it correctly you should be back to 4700 - 5000 meters or a tad more.

6) Now try to get back up to your original altitude with AUTO. You won't.

7) This is good drill for high speed shooting and basic bounce techniques. If you perform it right, you'll be able to conduct 4 bounces in succession, with critical hits on each target with 4 bounces, AND lose no or very little altitude in the process.

One caveat, I have'nt tried this since the patch, but I don't think there will be any difference in the result. Perhaps you could enlighten me if there is.

Anyway, hope I've helped answer your questions. My comments of course, represent my prefereces and the reasons behind them. They are in no way intended to diminish other pilots selection of A/C and reason's behind them. This is what works for me.

Zen--
11-20-2004, 11:45 PM
The A7 was actually the Sturmbock version with added armor etc, the A8 was the most widely produced variant of the Antons IIRC.

A6 has 4x MG151/20 in the wings instead of 2x MG151/20 inboard and 2 MG/FF outboard cannons as well as other small differences.

An oversimplified description of the differences between the Antons is that the early models tend to have better turning/dogfight performance because they are lighter and still able to mix it up somewhat, while the later models get increasingly heavier and add more firepower because of the need for bomber interception as well as continued ground attack/close support missions. The Anton was designed first as a fighter and was expanded to many other roles due to the versatility and ingenuity of it's design, a characteristic that the P47 also took advantage of with it's own amazing flexibility.

The F and G series 190's are dedicated ground attack versions of the A5 and later Antons in part because while the 109 could continue to perform air to air roles alongside the 190, the 109 could not do ground attack and the 190 had to shoulder the load for those missions. Basically in game the F8 has the outer wing cannons removed, an improved cockpit design and a larger fuel tank as well as a larger overall bomb load. It also has a more varied ordinance loadout than the other Antons, except the A6 which appears identical. The F8 should be faster than the A6 at SL though and should have a better climbrate when loaded, but not by much.

Again due to pressing requirements of high altitude fighting, the Dora used an inline Jumo engine because of superior performance over the radials of the Antons, which had a significant drop in performance above 6k / 20,000ft. I think ingame the Dora has an exaggerated difference in handling/ E retention than the Antons, the A9 and D9 should probably handle more closely than they do now. The Dora supposedly had a somewhat superior turn radius, but climb rates for both were almost the same. Ultimately the Dora was a better high altitude fighter than the Anton, but still not in the same category of the Ta152.

The primary difference between the A8 and the A9 in game is related to general handling and E retention. The A8 has worse handling in many ways than the A9 and it tends to sink during pullups and turns, causing excessive E bleed. The probability of the snap stall appears to be much higher in the A8 and in general you will find it to be the least common Anton flown online. Basically everything the A8 can do, the A9 can do better even if not by a large margin. The more historically common fighter was the A8.



For in game related stuff, manual prop pitch DOES make a difference in performance in the Antons and the risk of over-rev is strangely non existant. In manual mode it operates like every other CSP in the game, 100% gives you generally the best performance and it is safe to leave it there for climbing and steep dives. (CSP is constant speed prop...pretty much every other aircraft in the game besides the 109 and 190) As usual for the 190 series, better results can be obtained in the 80-85% range for level acceleration, but for a much better picture, follow this link and look for TX-Gunslingers most excellent charts:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=9661024732

He basically breaks it down and does a heck of a job clarifying an often murkey subject on manual prop pitch, as well as some really outstanding gunnery techniques. Can't really do a better job than his work, so thats all I have on manual pitch for the Anton.

Bomb delay and rocket delay are different things but deal mostly with either how long a bomb will explode after impact or the maximum flight time of a fired rocket. I set my rocket delay to a time longer than its visible time of flight because I used them for air to ground and when they hit a target they explode normally...but the delay can be highly effective for rockets fired in air to air mode to create an air explosion without a direct hit...good for firing rockets into steady formations of aircraft. Since I generally don't use rockets against aircraft, I don't typically use a short delay. For me, maximum time of flight is most important, though realistically I don't fire rockets from very far away either...just like guns I like to get in super close for the best chance to hit. I guess I'm just an up close and personal kind of guy, or maybe I just like to try and do it right the first time.

Bomb delay is critical for dropping bombs at low altitude and is very useful for hitting targets when using a more level flight path instead of a steep dive angle. The delay means the ground pounder doesn't have to worry about blowing himself on release because the bombs hit the target so rapidly after dropping. 1.5 seconds is sufficient at 300km/h+ when using SC500 or 1000lb bombs and 3.5 seconds is sufficient at 360km/h+ when using 2xSC2000 bombs. A Ju87D5 with SC1800 will probably want to use 4 or 4.5 second delay due to it's inherently low speed at less than 300km/h and typically low altitude. Any type of delay will cause a bomb dropped on a ship to miss, therefore only a 0 delay seems to be useful against them. Airburst weapons like AB250/AB500, PTABS etc are affected poorly by bomb delay in my experience, the bomblets often fail to explode over the target area because of the delay, so in my experience again 0 is probably best.

Incidently dropping SC2000's at 360km/h will cause an explosion approximately 500 meters behind an HE111 and is rather easy to catch attacking fighters in this zone with a little practice. (try it sometime)



Fish, I see that you are new to the 190 and that you ask a lot of questions, I'd like to say keep on asking them. It's good to see new members and even though some questions are old hat to some of us, we all remember a time when we didn't know either, so don't feel like anything you ask is dumb, ask it anyway. Many people in the community know alot about 190's and we are all proud to share whatever we know because they are such great planes. It's nice to see someone new discovering many of the same things we have also discovered, thats what makes the 190 brotherhood something more than a bunch of guys flying the same plane.

&lt;S&gt;

Zen--
11-20-2004, 11:46 PM
lol, speaking of Gunslinger, he posted while I was writing mine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

MaxMhz
11-21-2004, 12:03 AM
I must remember... next time when trolling say 190 and FW too (or 109 and BF lol) :P - wow those are long posts hahaha

stupid
fly it learn it
:P

Fish6891
11-21-2004, 02:58 AM
Thanks a lot for the help all of u, this really helps elucidate things, and thanks for the kind words Zen http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. It is nice to know that people are out there who are willing to help. What makes it all the more admirable is that all of you do not hesitate to help someone as cursed as I; cursed with my greatest woe(Starosta http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif), existance as a Fish.

As for you MaxMhz, yes I could have probably gone ahead and experimented with these things on my own, however, I believe that experimentation is well augmented when juxtaposed with good advice from those more experienced.

You may think thats silly, and it probably is to you, not having a mind a fishy as mine, but I am naturally not as able as you when it comes down to learning new things, I'm a FISH, take THAT into consideration BEFORE you judge me! I'll go about learnin' this stuff in my own fishy ways http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif.

Regards,
Fish

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
11-21-2004, 07:46 AM
in Game:

A6 & A8 reach the same speed at SL (580kph)
A6 is more nimble.
A8 carries two MG131(13mm) instead of two MG17(7,62mm) of the A6 and has more 20mm Ammo.
A8 has less range in this game (but should be the same)
A8 is better in Climb and Zoom-climb.
A6 can turn tighter but they are pretty close, low speed handling of the A6 is far better.
As for the loadout, in Reality the A6 was the first anton wich was able to carry MK108 for Bomber-Intercept missions. in the game A6/A5 are the same (performance and guns; except the two MG151/20[former MGFF/M])

A9?
just sux.

TX-Gunslinger
11-21-2004, 11:04 AM
Glad we were able to help, Fish.

MODS: Is there anyway you could combine this post with these other FW-190 threads (see links) and/or make it a stickie? I think it would be helpful to have all this stuff in one place. I'm not asking for the FW to be treated specially, other A/C where pilots have put fort similar efforts could be stickied too. We've put quite a bit of effort into this and I think the Forum and 1/C should reap the benefits. Actually, I almost wish there was another section of the forums called "Training" or "Aircraft Employment" or something like that. Not a big deal, just a passing thought. Thanks for your consideration.

Fish6891
11-21-2004, 01:06 PM
I agree with TX, I've got a number of topics saved in my favorites and together they are quite formidable. Heres a link thats not been included in this topic just in case you mods decide to do this, it answers stuff about manual PP w/Dora--- http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=5851063342 ---(and btw, who are the forum tyrants anyways?)

O, O, and one thing I forgot to ask about when I started this topic, ACCELERATION, how does their acceleration compare. I believe that of all FWs the Dora has the grandest ability to accelerate, followed closely by the Ta152. Then for the Antons I would assume that A9 and A8 have similar acceleration with A9 perhaps having a slight advantage. A6 I guess doesn't accelerate as well as A8/A9. Am I right on all this?

robban75
11-21-2004, 02:03 PM
Hey Gunslinger, I was wondering about the high speed wing of the A-8/A-9. I was under the impression that all variants had the same wing. Although from the A-6 and onwards the 190's had a new lightened wing. But AFAIK the difference was only under the skin. The shape and size of the wing remained the same. Am I missing something here? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

jugent
11-21-2004, 04:08 PM
Does theese figures take from open sources about the FW as the thin wing etc match the correct behaviour in the game?

I refear to the armoured windshield in the Me109, it was supposed to protect the pilot in real life, but in this game it only limits the view. I get Pilot Killed as of with a Me with the windshield armoured glass as in one without it.

TX-Gunslinger
11-21-2004, 07:10 PM
Hello Robban, great to see you!

You are absolutely historically correct as near as I can tell. The A-6 got the new wing, which was, by my limited set of resource documents, "strengthened".

Quote from Peter Caygill's book (which is not my favorite but very close to where I'm sitting right now):

"FW-190A6
By now the all-up weight fo the FW-190 had begun to rise alarmingly, due mainly to increased weaponry and additional armour (in the case of the A-5/U3 this amounted to 893 lb). This was addressed with the A-6, which featured a revised wing of increased strength as tested on the A-5/U10."

No further mention of signficant wing changes occur in the FW line until the TA152H shows up.

The historical record does not correlate with the sim dynamics expressed in IL2Compare, and which I can personally support in online encounters. If you refer to the diagrams that I posted in my links for above, i.e. turn time at 1000m of 190 A9 vs Yak 3P and 190 A6 vs Yak 3P (even with comabt flaps) performance, you'll see the high speed turn-time drop off wrt the A6.

In any event, I personally believe that the in-game A6 should be given the same turning curve as the A8/A9, as "the" changed FW wing was first deployed in the A6. Of course, you know Robban what that would do to late 43 and early 44 servers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

I have experienced this, the hard way. I remember taking an A6 out when they first showed up. Oh I thought I was in FW heaven. I could see out the back, I "felt" light and agile, I had all my 151/20mm (back in the "Blind German" days, machine guns did'nt matter much). I was flying level at about 450-500 or so kmh and got jumped by a P51 that I saw coming and hit combat flaps and broke left. HE STAYED WITH ME AND KILLED ME in the first 90 degrees of the turn. I threw the A6 away and never picked it up again. Well almost. I picked it up one night, months later in WC 44+ and tried to chase Zen down when he was flying a P47 at co altitude. He left me like so much dirt in the air. These two experiences are what have led me to not use the A6 unless it's a period server.

There are a lot of people who think the A6 turns better than the A9, and they are, I am sad to say, mistaken. An A/C can "feel" light and nimble, but that does'nt necessarily translate to hard performance.

Am I making sense?

TX-Gunslinger
11-22-2004, 01:38 AM
Well Robban, after re-reading your post, I think I see more clearly what you were stating/asking. Pardon me, I'm thick sometimes. Here is what I know at this point:

1. Differences between variants in the sim as evidenced by IL2 Compare and confirmed by experience. I have very recently gotten DeviceLink up and probably could do some testing to verify the Il2 Compare data, but don't want to commit to such an ordeal, as my experience proves the IL2 Compare data well enough for me. If I did'nt feel that these two correlated, then I'd test further.

2. www.verctorsite.net/avfw190.html (http://www.vectorsite.net/avfw190.html) says about the A6 "so a new, bigger, lighter wing was designed" Don't understand the bigger part, but if it was bigger then the performance characteristics would be expected to change.

3. "revised wing of increased strength" from Cayhill

If I put all that together (and I would be the first to admit, it's all hypothesis) I get a different wing for A6+

Now if I add all the things that I personally don't know, like:

- Oleg's access to Classified Soviet flight data on captured Luftwaffe A/C (this was said by Oleg in an interview a while back), which he can't release (I can accept this BTW).

I can only come up with the conclusion that the wing changed in the A6 and the flight modelers:

a) Made a simple mistake
b) Didn't include it because it would "unbalance the sim" for that period
c) Found some example wings in old Soviet junkpiles that they measured
d) For some reason don't realize that the wings are aerodynamically the same and therefore should'nt change the FM.

In any event, these issues become unanswerable for me at my level.....I just know the high speed turn is different. I won't vouch for the historical authenticity of any of it. What I'm trying to say is that I don't have access to any special kind of data. I promised myself that I would try very hard this year to not try to reconcile the historical record/s with the F/M, so I could fully enjoy the game/sim.

The turn rate differences in the Dora make absolute sense to me, because of the center of gravity changes, the narrower aerodynamics of the nose and the propeller/engine changes.

In any event, this is the way it is and I wanted to give you all the information I had. To go into this any further would probably get me banned to the ORR and I'm not a big enough guy to take on that crowd.

S! and Horrido

Fish6891
11-22-2004, 02:02 AM
Hey TX, I've recently put your Prop Pitch advice to the test on my FW190A9...all I can say is 'WOW' What a difference! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

New question tho, does using the Mk108 wing cannons on the A9 affect its flight performance any? I mean I figure it won't since there are no pods, its internal to the wing, but then again I AM a fish, I may just be being stupid.

OldMan____
11-22-2004, 02:46 AM
The only thing against manualprop In the increased overheating. In the A4 that lacks power, manual pith is necessary, in A9 I usually do not even use emergency power

OldMan____
11-22-2004, 03:16 AM
I would just like to know when we will have our A4 and A5 with outer guns removed and NO bomb rack performance drop.

Ankanor
11-22-2004, 04:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
I would just like to know when we will have our A4 and A5 with outer guns removed and NO bomb rack performance drop. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Never. Be sure http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

TX - Gunslinger, I am off to put the manual pitch in action.

Fish, My experience showed the MK108 do affect performance. for the bad. In the goundpounding, I found that the standard armament is good enough for Soft targets. I remember a particular flight on the WC44+ server, I attacked a truck column, using the MK103 at first, they were great, but I had too close convergence and I missed the third and 4th targets. So got shooting only from the inboard 20mm and machineguns, it was enough, the shortest burst put the target on fire. for dogfight,Personally I think the 4*20mm and the machine guns are just fine for any adversary, perhaps only the Jug will survive a well aimed short burst. That is it, well aimed. I expect a word from the experts, but in general, if you have crappy shooting abilities, the MK108 can make it up for that, because a 1 sec burst is about 20 30mm rounds, and with the horrible dispersing of the MK108, you cover a large area. But that is denying your problem and not doing anythng to solve it.

I'm just saying... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

OldMan____
11-22-2004, 04:39 AM
well muzlle flashed are corrected, and may told we would never get that. Never give up. I am still to see a good explanation why loadout is like it it. Why the hell would german pilots want their guns removed just to loose firepower AND performance?

Vipez-
11-22-2004, 05:49 AM
This again brings back me the FW190 issues (not talking about the great "bar" now..), but A-8 and A-9 with no possibility to leave the outer mG151/20s / HMGs without the bomb rack for increased agility..

And A-7, A-8, and A-9 Sturmbock versions should be different planes, with the MK108 wing cannons and increased armor.. I feel like the A-8 we have in the game is a R-7 Sturmj├┬Ąger version without the additional armor protection, and with the crappier agility from Sturmj├┬Ąger version comparing to standard A-8s.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif A-8 was not that crappy you know, considering over 8000 were produced.. I mean is it just me, or the A-6 feels so much better

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
11-22-2004, 06:15 AM
i am not happy with the A8 and A9 right now, both feel! like an A6 with 500kg-CenterBomb http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

OldMan____
11-22-2004, 06:18 AM
Tha a8 and A9 it seems were equiped by default with bomb racks, but not the A4 and A5

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
11-22-2004, 06:57 AM
i realy hope oleg will make it possible to remove the outer MG151 AND the Bombrack for both, (gained Speed would be some 20kph http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)

VK_Dim
11-22-2004, 07:52 AM
Can somebody record a few online tracks for me so i can see how to properly fly FW190 series.
I'm havin really hard times flyin that plane.
thx

Bremspropeller
11-22-2004, 03:02 PM
Well, actually the A-6 was not capable of carrying the MK108 cannon. The first subversion of the Anton to carry those jackhammers was the A-7.

AND: Oleg would better make the option to ADD those outer guns as they were standardly removed (by the factory) from the A-2 (introducing the inner MG151/20) and following (must planes were re-equipped with the guns in the factory since the greater firepower was much appreciated - especially against the heavies...the option of outer guns was marked by an undesignated R├╝stsatz)

TX-Gunslinger
11-24-2004, 02:16 AM
Fish - Thank you sir for the feedback. I must however give credit to Knighton "ManyScalps" Warbeck for developing those settings (I just summarized and slightly modified his work) and JV44 for having the foresight to make them available to the public, through their website.

Please repost your MK108 question and all future questions along these lines in the "FW-190" tactics thread, which the moderators of this forum have helped us all keep together, and which we hope will ultimately contain as much "FW-190 corporate knowledge" as we can assemble. Would'nt it have been better, when you first happended upon the IL2 series, if you could have found all you were looking for in one or two places? Think about how far many pages your questions are distibuted on? If you could help us out here, I'm sure myself and the other FW-190 guys would be happy to follow suite. It's harder to track all these things down individually.

Ankanor - I hope they work as well for you, as they have me.

VK_Dim - Please PM me with your request, or contact me at www.txsquadron.com (http://www.txsquadron.com).
Thank you all for your support, and comments.

EURO_Snoopy
11-24-2004, 04:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TX-Gunslinger:
Glad we were able to help, Fish.

MODS: Is there anyway you could combine this post with these other FW-190 threads (see links) and/or make it a stickie? I think it would be helpful to have all this stuff in one place. I'm not asking for the FW to be treated specially, other A/C where pilots have put fort similar efforts could be stickied too. We've put quite a bit of effort into this and I think the Forum and 1/C should reap the benefits. Actually, I almost wish there was another section of the forums called "Training" or "Aircraft Employment" or something like that. Not a big deal, just a passing thought. Thanks for your consideration. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm currently working on some webpages containing contents of this thread and Focke Wulf tactics. The wip can be viewed here:
FW Comparative Tactics (http://www.airwarfare.com/tactics/tactics_fwqa.htm)
FW Tactics (http://www.airwarfare.com/tactics/tactics_fwtactics2.htm)
FW Variants (http://www.airwarfare.com/tactics/tactics_fwvariants.htm)
FW Basics (http://www.airwarfare.com/tactics/tactics_fwbasics.htm)
FW Gunnery (http://www.airwarfare.com/tactics/tactics_fwgunnery.htm)
Please let me know what you think and whether or not you want your contributions included or edited etc.

Rather than making several threads sticky I propose a thread containing links to the most useful Tactics related threads, perhaps titled Fighter Tactics Beginner to Advanced?

VK_Dim
11-24-2004, 05:24 AM
Guys, you are all doing excellent job!
I can't believe that you have so much knowledge about tis plane and that you are willing to share so much of it for free.
You could easily write a book or somethin.
Keep up the good work!
Cheers

Hunde_3.JG51
11-24-2004, 05:29 AM
Very nice Euro_Snoopy, thanks for putting this together.

I don't think I need anything edited, and feel free to use anything, any time.

Its kinda cool to have the FW-190 guys come together and compile something like this, I'm glad I could contribute and I hope many find it, along with all of the excellent content, very helpful.

Thanks again.

Zen--
11-24-2004, 06:09 AM
Wow that looks really nice Snoop. Nice to see this coming together like it is. Please let me know if there is anything that you need from me, I will send you some feedback also after I take a deeper look at it.

Off to a great start I must say.

&lt;S&gt;

Bremspropeller
11-24-2004, 06:12 AM
I'd like to thank Euro_Snoopy a lot for his work !

I'm happy about the Focke-Wulf community which has arisen out of some requests for a correct FM back in those IL-2 days. Now, the 190 is one of the most flown planes - yet only flown to it's edges by few pople.
Maybe this site could make the Fw190 community rule the virtual skies of FB+AEP+PF http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Count me in for the "Butcher Bird Community" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Perhaps we could arrange some practice rides for rather less experienced pilots...

*totally lost in a daydream...*

EURO_Snoopy
11-24-2004, 06:26 AM
I'm pleased you like it so far.
I must confess I've always used the 109 until now and will be using the excellent information in these threads when I have time to start flying regularly again,,,,, in the 190

Copperhead310th
11-24-2004, 10:13 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif yeah well just remember. the Thunderbolt is faster. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

run Dora run (http://www.virtualwarcinema.com/Movies/P-47vsDora_Short.wmv)

NorrisMcWhirter
11-24-2004, 10:15 AM
...and a nice big fat target to hit.

Cheers,
Norris

WalterNowi
11-24-2004, 03:17 PM
Thank you EURO_Snoopy. Your effort is much appreciated.

S!
Nowi

BBB_Hyperion
11-24-2004, 07:06 PM
BTW as additional info Sturmbock variant consisted of a R├╝stsatz we dont have ingame.

Its additional armor Plating r7 combined with r2 which can be mk108 or mg151/20 earlier its called r8

http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/a8armor.jpg

Here some drawings and pictures how it looks.
http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/a8armor2.jpg
http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/a8armor3.jpg
http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/a8armor4.jpg

Everything else well said .)

Fish6891
11-25-2004, 01:48 AM
Wow Snoop thats great! Its awesome that we could get all this info put together in such a fashion, thanks! I'll be sure to get any questions and their answers into the "Focke-Wulf Tactics thread in order to provide easier access, that way theres no scavenging for info.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif yeah well just remember. the Thunderbolt is faster. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.virtualwarcinema.com/Movies/P-47vsDora_Short.wmv <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dunno copperhead but I think something was fishy about that Dora, fully open rads er poor management of manual prop pitch er sumtin, I've tested myself and P-47 ain't faster. Zen did some awesome testing and charted all of his results, I'll be posting that on the Focke-Wulf tactics thread.

Regards,
Fish

OldMan____
11-25-2004, 03:18 AM
How do you guys feel the nervousness of FW190A in current pach? For me it seems to be more nervous that ever (going against the tendency that was shown of getting less nervous during patches ).

In 2.04 it was far smoother to fly, in 3.0 it was so smooth as a dream. Know it looks like 2.0 FW again. I even had to use again my old relaxed joystick input settings that were no longer needed in 2.04.

What do you think about this guys? How did this affected your tatics?

Also why no other planes has this nervous flying and E bleeding? I never understood that. It is not wing loading alone, since there are planes with similar wing loading that do not behave like that.

And how do you handle with this? Did you developed any tatics to counter this?

I developed a much wider and "spreaded" way of flying.. and use combat flaps to get out of dives (loose much less speed than using hard elevator input).