PDA

View Full Version : Western and Russian WW2 FW190 opinions



mynameisroland
12-08-2004, 09:08 AM
I have read reports based on captured Fw190's written by US, RAF and VVS airforces what immediately becomes apparent is that the VVS rate the FW190A as inferior to the ME109G series and rates that their pilots had a better chance against a FW!90 than a Me109.

The RAF and USAAF on the other hand rated the FW190 highly - the oft cited tests af the FW190 A3 that landed in England by mistake show just how highly it was regarded. What is important in this test is that the A3 they were testing for their trials speed was measured at 390 mph which sold the A3 short by nearly 30mph extra. The did however have documentation taken from the pilot that stated it was a derated version and that when they ran its engine it sounded rough.

What do you current VVS pilots think of this verdict and for those historians out there why do you think that there was such a contrast in the opinions of Eastern and Western Allies?

mynameisroland
12-08-2004, 09:08 AM
I have read reports based on captured Fw190's written by US, RAF and VVS airforces what immediately becomes apparent is that the VVS rate the FW190A as inferior to the ME109G series and rates that their pilots had a better chance against a FW!90 than a Me109.

The RAF and USAAF on the other hand rated the FW190 highly - the oft cited tests af the FW190 A3 that landed in England by mistake show just how highly it was regarded. What is important in this test is that the A3 they were testing for their trials speed was measured at 390 mph which sold the A3 short by nearly 30mph extra. The did however have documentation taken from the pilot that stated it was a derated version and that when they ran its engine it sounded rough.

What do you current VVS pilots think of this verdict and for those historians out there why do you think that there was such a contrast in the opinions of Eastern and Western Allies?

MEGILE
12-08-2004, 09:10 AM
Different fighting styles and philosophies between the East and West.
Advantages to Russia may have been disadvantages to the RAF and USAF.

Zen--
12-08-2004, 09:19 AM
I've heard a couple of anecdotes for the Russian opinion, the first being that the A5 they captured had been in a service for over a year in jabo configuration (possibly a worn out plane in need of overhaul, but definately fitted with bombracks) and the second being that of the 1100 or so 190's on the Eastern front, only 90 were in flying as fighters...the rest were in the Jabo role because the 109 couldn't fill it. I have heard that 190's had standing orders not to engage fighters if attacked, instead to run away because air to ground operations were more important than air to air and the 190's in the bomber role were more valuable in that regard. Considering the immense size of the Russian army and the fact that the VVS was numerically much larger than the Luftwaffe, and adding in that they didn't have enough of any kind of fighter to go around, it would make sense that they kept the 109's with what they could do in air to air and the 190's as air to ground.

On the Western front, 190's were used extensively in air to air combat against fighters, the Abbeyville boys probably being the most notable.



Both perspectives make sense to me and both are believable even though they are talking about the same aircraft. War is about how equipment gets used obviously and if a fighter bomber is never or only rarely in a fighter role...how could it's opponent ever really appreciate it's air to air capabilities?

NorrisMcWhirter
12-08-2004, 09:45 AM
Hi,

From what I've read, I go along with the 190 pilots being told to avoid combat. Perhaps the reason for the lack of respect is more due to VVS "perception" in that 190s were always known to run off so they assumed they weren't good enough to fight them whereas the 109s would and were successful in that role?

Cheers,
Norris

CTO88
12-08-2004, 10:09 AM
it seems that WEP wasn't used for dogfights like in FB. WEP was more the emergency power to evade from a dogfight. according to russians wep of 190 could be only used 1 min, manual says 3min (like 109). if germans fighters used wep they released some dark smoke (often enemies means that they were burning and claimed kill). some russians aces stated that they had seen such smoke from german fighters that want to evade.

so it's not like in FB where fighters fight mostly with wep. if you compare now figures at normal combat power you'll see that 190 is not as good as 109.
take i.e. 190a5 and 109g2 and g6 all @ combat power and SL.
climb: 15m/s - 19-21m/s - 17-19m/s.
speed: 530km/h - 525km/h - 510km/h.
also turnig ability especially tightest turn was in favour for 109, not to speak for russian fighters.
the bad figures from 190 resulted from its heavy weight. at western front us-fighters were also very heavy, so 190 perfomances were quite okay, especially for p47. in western front also 109 were more ordered to fight fighters and 190 to attack bombers.

note: WEP for la-7/5 was developed for hunting evading fw190 figher-bombers with Sondernotleistung means Specialemergencypower. This was also called Ausreißhilfe Evading Help by german fighter-bombers pilots. like german wep la-7 wep was not designed for use in close combat.

mynameisroland
12-08-2004, 10:29 AM
Thanks for decent informative responses http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


To say that there were differing fighting styles is correct but if you consider that the FW190 performed better in a medium to low level role - better suited to the Eastern Front than a medium to high role more often found on the Western front then you see where the contradiction in the reports lie.

I know that the vast majority of FW's were used as Jabos but you also have the examples of Nowotony and other aces who racked up hundreds of kills in the FW190 against the VVS. The top scoring Jabo pilot got 120 kills in around 260 missions if I recall correctly without the book to hand.

To me it makes more sense that the FW190 be used extensively as a fighter agains the VVS due to its performance traits and the operational requirements.

Has no one else read that the A3 the RAF tested was reported as maxing out at 390mph and that they still thought it was great. They would have had a stroke had they tested an A3 that could hit 416mph

mynameisroland
12-08-2004, 10:36 AM
CTO88

The figures match up - but why then was the FW regarded as superior to the 109?

Its performance is meant to be greater I realise this is quoted with emergency power though. Are there stats for these aircraft with 100% power figures documented anywhere?

The FW190\'s climb was inferior to the 109 - it had always been but its handling, dive , roll response and elevator authority were so much better that it was regarded as a great improvement. Also its armament was superior as was its load carrying capacity.

I have read a book that compares the FW with the Typhoon - how both were 2nd generation monoplanes fighters their design and introduction to service. It outlined how successful the FW190 was in compariosn and how it subsequently influenced the engine layout and instalation in the centaurus powered Fury.

Had the FW190 have been a British aircraft I think it would have been greatly appreciated when it was introduced in 1941 - Britain was still trying to replace squadron after squadron of Hurris.

Zen--
12-08-2004, 10:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mynameisroland:


To me it makes more sense that the FW190 be used extensively as a fighter agains the VVS due to its performance traits and the operational requirements.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats the point I was making really, even if the 190 was dramatically better than the 109 for air to air, the most important mission is ground attack and the 109's simply couldn't handle that role, leaving no choice but to use the 190 instead. I'm sure the Luftwaffe would have prefered to use all their 190's for air to air, but there weren't enough Ju87's, BF110's and other types to go around, so the 190 had to be used in air to ground instead, making that it's most important operational requirement.

mynameisroland
12-08-2004, 11:06 AM
I understand your reasoning and also why the LW viewed ground attack with greater importance. I was meaning that it is strange the FW was not used more extensively on the Eastern front at the expense of the Western front. The 109 had a performance advantage at HL when compared to the FW190

Col.Kurtz
12-08-2004, 11:07 AM
In my option the BF109 was much superior to FW190a,of course around 43-44 the FW190 was very good compared to the 109G6.

But the 109 allways turned,climbed and acellerated better.It also had much superior lowspeed handling that made it very good in highalt operations.Dive was maybe even better then of the FW190A.
Qote from RAF Test:

SpitfireXIVvMesserschmitt Bf109G
Dive: During the initial part of the dive, the 109 draws away slightly, but when a speed of 380 mph [611 km/hr] is reached the Spitfire XIV begins to gain on the 109.
(the 109G was a G6 with underwing Cannons!)

SPITFIRE XIV VERSUS FW 190A
Dive: After the initial part of the dive, during which the FW 190 gains slightly, the Spitfire XIV has a slight advantage.

OldMan____
12-08-2004, 11:36 AM
During 1941 FW were far superior to Bf109. During 42 I think FW was still superior. But at 44 FW190 became a anti bomber only plane. While 109 kept all anti-fighter role.

faustnik
12-08-2004, 11:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Col.Kurtz:
In my option the BF109 was much superior to FW190a <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is very different from the opinion of the RAF when they first faced the Fw190. RAF Sir Cheif Marshall W.S. Douglas, considered the Fw190 "the best all-around fighter in the world" in July 1942.

Maybe you are basing your opinion on the modeling of the a/c in PF???

OldMan____
12-08-2004, 11:46 AM
<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 Col.Kurtz:
In my option the BF109 was much superior to FW190a <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is very different from the opinion of the RAF when they first faced the Fw190. RAF Sir Cheif Marshall W.S. Douglas, considered the Fw190 "the best all-around fighter in the world" in July 1942.

Maybe you are basing your opinion on the modeling of the a/c in PF??? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

even on PF the 190 is superior to the 109... it is only harder tro fly. It have far better maneuverability at high speeds, is faster, have more weapons, more resilent, looks better, greater range. Just a little bit too nervous.

faustnik
12-08-2004, 11:53 AM
In PF both the Fw190 and the Bf109 are excellent. The late Bf109s are really good in PF3.02b.

****************

I can't think of an American opinion in any reference that didn't place the Fw190 as a greater threat than the Bf109.

robban75
12-08-2004, 12:09 PM
Sometimes performance tables doesn't tell the whole story.

The Fw 190 probably wasn't the best close in stall fighter. This wasn't some mistake made by its designer Kurt Tank. Turning doesn't win battles, probably not nearly enough as it does in this game. Instead the 190 was built to be fast, and the light and well harmonized controls were of great benefit if manoeuvers were to be conducted at high speeds. An inclined seating position allowing better G resistence also helped. The Fw 190 had a high wingloading compared to most planes. Most discussion on this forum usually makes this into something negative, and yes if the plane was to end up in a stall fight it could be. But the Fw 190 is to be fast, and a high wingloading that would offer less lift at stall speeds would also create less lift at high speeds, read less drag. At high speeds there was enough lift anyways to pull 7 G's or more, so whereas turns at slow speeds couldn't match those of a Spitfire it was certainly enough at high speeds where the Wurger was built to operate. This is one of the reason why most U.S fighter pilots had more respect for the 190 than the 109. The 190 was fast and yet very manouverable. U.S pilots reporting that whenever there were dogfights with Focke Wulf's, speeds were so high that buffeting occured.

Col.Kurtz
12-08-2004, 12:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> That is very different from the opinion of the RAF when they first faced the Fw190. RAF Sir Cheif Marshall W.S. Douglas, considered the Fw190 "the best all-around fighter in the world" in July 1942.

Maybe you are basing your opinion on the modeling of the a/c in PF??? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No in PF i allways fly FW190 till Bf109 with MW50 is avaible.

In 42 FW190 was very good against the Spitfire,but that does not mean it was the better fighter compared to the Bf109.
As latter the Spitfires became faster and better in dives and zoomclimbs the FW190 wasnt that much better http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
It is still fact that 109 had much superior climb,turn and highalt performance.
From 42 there are some documents that show the 109F4 with 670km/h Speed at alt.And the G2 then is much better than FW190,it is just a little bit slower.
In a German Comparsion from G.Gollob in Decembre 41 between F4 and FW190A2 only thing that is better on FW190 is dive,Handling at highspeeds above 700km/h, rollrate,weapons and better Engine against enemyfire.

I dont want to say Fw190 was bad but the general option that it was superior to the 109 there i cant agree.

faustnik
12-08-2004, 12:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Col.Kurtz:

In 42 FW190 was very good against the Spitfire,but that does not mean it was the better fighter compared to the Bf109.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, then the Fw190 was just more effective against the LW primary oponents in 1942???

Agaisnt American fighters and late war RAF, most combat is going to occur at higher speeds. The Fw190 would have a decided edge over the Bf109 in that type of fight.

The only area where the Bf109 would be the better choice would be high altitude.

OldMan____
12-08-2004, 12:22 PM
Welll I cannot see advantages for 109.. but high altitude performance.


Even climb is misjudged... Try making a long high speed climb (keep your speed above 420-430 kph climbing as much as you can while keeping that speed). FW190 is unbeatable at that kind of climb.. that is exactly the type of climb I use in game.. and the one more usefull in combat.

Bremspropeller
12-08-2004, 12:23 PM
How effective the 190 actually was at the eastern front, when used as fighter is reflected by the achievements of pilots like Rudorffer, Nowotny, Kittel and many others.

Even the JaBo pilots knew that they could hold their own in a dogfight (at high speeds of course).
Spending beleif in a warstory of such a Schlachtflieger (forgot the name but some of you might remember), even the JaBo-versions could outaccelerate a 109 - not bad for a "sitting duck" (as what the 190F/G was labeled by russian propaganda).


@ Kurtz: Well, your opilnion is not reflected by the effect the Fw190 caused when it appeared in autumn '41. While the 109 could just achieve a kill ratio of about 1:1, the 190 made a 2:1 out of it. The Spit pilots (as well as their fellow collegues among the LW units) considered the 190 much of an improvement compared to the Friedrich.
In my eyes, this result says enough.
BTW: the A-2 still had the BMW801C-2 engine with about 100PS less than the 801D-2 which was introduced with the A-3 (and became standard untill the late A-8 a/c).

Col.Kurtz
12-08-2004, 12:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Agaisnt American fighters and late war RAF, most combat is going to occur at higher speeds. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes and at Highalt with relativ low IAS speeds http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> even the JaBo-versions could outaccelerate a 109 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sry i dont belive that,how should that be possible when the 109 had the MUCH better climb and nearly same speed (drag from ECT on belly and wing)
There is no logic behind this Story..

And Killratio isnt evidence for Power.
It is often the case that new Planes had very good Combat results,because of new tactics and performance strongpoints the Enemy cant calculate.
And as i said the FW190 is maybe the better counterpart to the Spitfire in that time as the 109.
I also dont say the 109 was the better plane but in Fighter vs Fighter combat it strong points weigh more then these of the FW190.
Also the performance of the FW190 in datasheets is most without ETC,and that thing had great effect. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

BBB_Hyperion
12-08-2004, 01:04 PM
The 190 was much better fitted for the jabo role as the 109.

The Radial Engine can take several hits even runs with 3 or 4 cylinders completely out.

The 109 with liquid cooled engine was not likely to sustain this damage.

The approach is different turning doesnt win battles !

Or would someone say the 262 turns well ?

The 109 is among the best fighter planes even when it had bigger drawbracks the constant rudder pressure that you dont sideslip. Small operational Range limited its use. The small undercarriage giving trouble at field landing conditions caused much accidents.The higher control forces etc.But thats about it its a fighter only airframe. Firepower very limited vs bombers except with gunpods until mk108.

The 190 however could be fitted for several roles it might not be best at all but that doesnt matter it could do it. JaboRei , Bomberinterception in the west with special armor or other things only to mention. The 190 was designed as beginner plane and most liked it cause of the relative easy handling(Lower time for pilots to get used to it). The Ground crew liked it for its easy maintenace. The control forces were far lower than that of the bf at high speed which is a important factor for B&Z tactics and Energie fighting. Rollrate was also higher which allowed to change direction quicker.

The Ju87 beeing outdated cause of its slow speed but still used cause of the pinpoint accuracy had to be replaced over time by the 190s in Jabo.

At lower alts the fw was also faster as the 109 up to late g or k series.
A comparison A2 and F4 gives 10 km/h advantage for lower alt but higher alt drawbacks of 10/20 km/h. So within compat conditions about equal.

Biggest drawback on the 190 is the climbrate. From A2 F4 comparison
1000 to 5000 m A2 4:50 Min
1000 to 5000 m F4 4:00 Min
So compareable at lower alts and increasing with the later models to 16/17 m/s on A Series (without A9) at climb and combat power !

5000 to 10000 m A2 18:30 Min
5000 to 10000 m F4 12:30 Min
In other words not useable at higher alts cause of the poor performance with this early model aircooled engine at higher alts. Later this improved a little but not that much.

So pure fighter configuration for A Series made only sense for a small group of tasks (eastern front) in all others bombracks and such would be on the plane or even later f series extra armor & low alt boost added. Still the Plane was faster at lower alt than most russian planes . (Il2 doesnt model production quality which wasnt best on russian side until very late in the war La5fn La7 etc)(Late war german planes were also of reduced quality).

So the reputation of the 190 on russian side is that bad cause of the high use as Jabo Plane and therefore lower alt operations which russian late war plane shine in. The Russian tests i saw show very reduced performance for 190s there are several reasons for it it might be a fw with no boost system running or it was tested without boost cause it was derated or maybe it was a jabo version fitted with lot of extra draggers.

The idea of planes that cant turn seemed not well understood as most russian planes are focused on that. The turning favor ended with the jets.

In the west the reputation of the fw comes from the channel dogfights where the fighter variant was used mainly and that was on par with british planes and the raf tests.

With the normandy landing 190s in jabo role were used and its reputation did go down a little .)

robban75
12-08-2004, 01:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Col.Kurtz:
how should that be possible when the 109 had the MUCH better climb and nearly same speed (drag from ECT on belly and wing)
There is no logic behind this Story.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Better acceleration at what speeds? And climbing at what speeds? The 190 had a great climbrate at around 400km/h. I'm guessing a benefit of its high wingloading offering a lower drag compared to the 109.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Also the performance of the FW190 in datasheets is most without ETC,and that thing had great effect. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The ETC rack took 8-12km/h from the topspeed depending on altitude, it's not all that much.

Korolov
12-08-2004, 01:16 PM
Something to keep in mind when discussing the Fw-190 vs Bf-109 is that very rarely were fights done 1vs1. A team of 190s is far more dangerous than a team of 109s - the result outweighs the sum of their parts. A climb rate of 20m/s doesn't do you any good when you've got 4 or 5 bandits on you and above you, all ready to pounce; the 109 would be dead meat in such a situation. It can't dive away because of compression, and it can't stick around to slug it out because a few hits and it's game over. A 190 could just 'hit the boosters' and leave these guys in the dust.

Picture this: You're flying along in your 109, and you see another 109 with a bandit on his tail. Let's assume this is a Yak-1B - like hell a 109 is going to be able to outturn that. You dive down, and try to make a shot - but oh no, your controls are too stiff! You zoom right over and the friendly 109's wing gets shot off by a well placed 20mm shot.

Now, make that a 190. You can make the shot because you have four times as many guns as the 109, and light controls so you can pound that Yak till there's nothing left. The other 190 will also be able to take multiple hits because it's not made out of paper mache.

Individual capabilities are only a small factor in the kind of fight the 190 is designed for. I can't count how many 109s have been clobbered in a multiples vs multiples engagement because they simply weren't designed for that.

Bremspropeller
12-08-2004, 01:28 PM
@ Kurtz: The 109 climbs better due to it's wings which provide more lift than those of the 190. This does not count in acceleration.

@ others: In the book "Feindberührung" (about Julius Meimberg, JG2, JG53, western front and africa, flown 109 and 190; availiable in german only) is a little story of Meimberg (flying the 109G-1) and Egon Mayer (flying a 190A-4 or A-5...no specific type noted in the book) havin a "circus"-fight against each other.
Mayer's 190 outaccelerates Meimberg's 109 right from the take-off (which is modelled vice versa in FB). The 109 then outclimbs the 190 which is still able to hold it's own.


I've read several books and ALL sources reported the 190 to be the faster accelerating plane - in both level-flight and dive.
I guess, the LW "Oberkommando" (supreme command) would have re-equipped the frontline squadrons if the 109 really were the better fighter at low and medium altitudes.

The 109 had only three advantages over the 190:

climb
max. altitude
turning circle at low speeds

Col.Kurtz
12-08-2004, 02:11 PM
Cool wing on the 109.Let it turn with Spitfires and makes it climbing like a monkey. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Powerload and SL speed:
FW190A5
WEP: 2,42kg/PS
30min: 2,78kg/PS
560km/h (548km/h) WEP
530km/H (518km/H) 30min
(with ETC)

Bf109G6
WEP: 2,16kg/PS
30min: 2,36kg/PS
530km/h WEP
510km/h 30min

Later 109 versions would be much more stronger.

@Robban75
On a Fw190A8 datasheet speedloss is 12km/h@SL 16km/h@ FTH
Its also with 60kg heavy only to use a fuel tank.

Bremspropeller
12-08-2004, 03:06 PM
The powerload is not the only value for comparison since there are a lot of other important things to consider (efficiency of the propeller, exhaust-thrust, thrust of the prop-blades, and last but not least: drag of the whole airframe).

From your figures we can see that the 190 (even with the bombrack) is still faster than the 109 @ SL. So why don't you think that the BB could outaccelerate the 109 ?

k5054
12-08-2004, 03:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

Mood of the topic. posted Wed December 08 2004 11:21

quote:

In 42 FW190 was very good against the Spitfire,but that does not mean it was the better fighter compared to the Bf109.



OK, then the Fw190 was just more effective against the LW primary oponents in 1942??? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wel, wasit? When I researched the perofrmance of the RAF FC, mostly Spit V based, in 1941, vs mostly 109 and in 1942 vs 190, I found the 190 superiority to be a myth. The RAF lost at 6:1 in 1941 and 4:1 in 1942. It's my conjecture that the RAF claims were higher against 109s. They thought they were doing better, possibly because they claimed a lot of smoking 109s diving away, and could not track them to the crash. False claims, whereas with the 190 they didn't even think they were scoring. Anyhow, the RAF certainly did no better against the 109 than the 190, but though they did. Whether this reflects the relative quality of the two aircraft is another thing, the real reason for the one-sided loss rate was bad tactics, training and strategic situation on the part of the RAF.

Incidentally, why would anyone think a 109 can't take on a Yak-1 in the turn, but can handle a Spitfire. Yak-1 doesn't have a magic wing does it? It has a higher loading than a contemporary Spit, why should it turn better?

OldMan____
12-08-2004, 03:54 PM
Wing load equals NOTHING. ZERo, KAPUT, NADA, FINITO.

Wing geometry is the relevant stuff. Just remember that.

And for the above statement that later 109 would be much better.. do not forget Dora 9 and Ta 152 ;P They ARE FW190.

Kurfurst__
12-08-2004, 04:02 PM
Actually this mythizising of the FW 190 comes from RAF and a few British authors like Spick and Price. They tell the British perspective, which was rather distored. Very little German air force was stationed in France during 41-42, just parts of two JGs, mostly equipped with FW 190s..


Then of course, the different tactics employed by the Bf 109s and FW 190. The 109s, of course, would boom and zoom, a strict vertical fight, attack when in advantage, wait or disengage when in disadvantage. Turn fights were mostly avoided, the plane had excellent performance in the vertical to easily do that. A highly effective tactics, but not very memorable. These surprise attacks often left no witness to tell the experience, they did not even know what hit them.

Then came the FW 190. not nearly as good as the 109 in the vertical, but HIGHLY manouverable in the roll axis, making it a dangerous dogfighter. So suddenly, the Germans choosed to stay in dogfight, as the Brits saw that... they were flying those strange new UFO`s of which they know almost nothing.. 109s didn`t stay for dogfights, but these NEW ONES, they do... why is that? of course because the new ones are better turners! Or so was the wrong perception. Johnson even believed the FW 190A could turnfight and stay on the tail with the MK V Spitfire... obviously not true, but happened in combat for once, and this and similiar stories spread out. So started the boogeyman status of the FW 190 with the RAF.. it`s the unknown that creates the greatest fear.

Jaws2002
12-08-2004, 05:12 PM
I still think that the Fw was a better turner then the 109. It wasn't better at 200km/h, but you wouldn't want to get that slow in a multiple craft engagement.
At combat speed the FW would turn better then the 109. This is not only British impression. check Luther's Soviet fighter tactics.

OldMan____
12-08-2004, 05:27 PM
109 better than 190 at vertical ? In what?

In vertical main axis is Roll... we dont wanna even to start this comparisson.

Diving was also superior for 190... Better response at very high sppeds (necessary to aim at BnZ).

109 was much better as a short range interceptor.. since it can climb very fast and at any height and was capable of entering a fight slow then build upt its advantage, while the 190 was a plane that could use better any existing advantage.

109 was filled with high tech devices , slats, special compressor system, split flaps and lots of cutting edge stuff. 190 just used a clever and well born project, only high tech stuff was de governor system.


FW would POSSIBLY have eliminated completely the 109 if it didn´t have its SERIUS problems at altitude.

Hunde_3.JG51
12-08-2004, 11:27 PM
First off I agree with Korolov.

Second, the Eastern opinion of the FW-190 was much different because almost all of the "F" and "G" fighter/bomber variants operated there. In the West it was usually pure fighter variants until more heavily armored versions appeared. Didn't read the whole thread, sorry if this was mentioned.

As for 109 vs. 190, there are a few things that are undeniable:

-FW-190 was tougher, could withstand more battle damage
-FW-190 had better range
-FW-190 had better roll
-FW-190 had better firepower, better bomber interceptor
-FW-190 had better all-around visibility
-FW-190 had better high speed handling/light controls at all speeds
-FW-190 was more versatile, could carry heavier ordinance loadout and still fight. Better fighter/bomber
-FW-190 was more reliable, this became evident on Eastern front.
-FW-190 was more pilot friendly, easier to land and less workload for pilot.
-FW-190 was faster at medium/low altitudes.

Bf-109:

-Bf-109 performed better at high altitude.
-Bf-109 was better turner at lower speeds, and was better in vertical maneuvers.
-Bf-109 had much better climb.

As far as dive I have seen very positive material on both, the difference is how well the FW-190 handled when at very high speeds vs. the Bf-109. Still, in actual combat it seemed you just needed the ability to pull out which could be done in 109 with more effort.

Overall I will take the FW-190 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif.

Still, keep in mind they are strong in different areas. Its just that the FW-190 was stronger in more areas, areas more important in real-war situation than in simulated online dogfighting where reliability, range, reduced workload for pilot, versatility, etc. don't mean as much. Just my opinion, though I still think the 109 was great aircraft and keep in mind the FW-190 was a later design. Actually, they compliment eachother quite well which is why I said that 190 guys should look for 109 guys in my tactics post.

Rock on http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif.

CTO88
12-09-2004, 01:10 AM
pure ace claims like kittel and novotny are not useful in this discussion. then i could say hartmann, barkhorn and rall proove that 109 was the better plane. btw many german aces indeed prefer 109 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

of course turning wins dogfight. nearly all german aces were turning pilots like rall and marsaille and so on. even in vietnam 50% of all airkills were made in turning combat with cannon! like in israel-arab wars mig17 killed 1500km/h faster f4 phantoms in turn fight, most arab and vietnamese aces fly mig17. today at the age of "50km guided missles" fighters were made with well turning abilities. even hartmann stated that his most used way to evade from attacker was to turn in the right way.

in 1944 germans built only 1630 fw190 fighters but in 1943 ~ 7000 fw190 fighters. more so in 1944 190 as a fighter was mostly used against bombers. so it seems germans itself see no great reason to use 190 as a dogfighter.

k5054
12-09-2004, 01:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> even in vietnam 50% of all airkills were made in turning combat with cannon! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Source?

jurinko
12-09-2004, 02:22 AM
strange enough, when Soviet delegation in UK in 1942 got an opportunity to fly Spitfirre Mk.V, they rated them highly and were very eager to get them to Russian front (they got them in 1943). If they regarded Mk.V so high and Mk.V in real combat was inferior to Fw 190, how come that they regarded Fw 190 to be inferior to their own Russian made planes..?

When the Soviet test pilot tested lend-leased P-47, he stated it is big, powerfull machine but not a fighter.. "wonderfull plane if you fly it straight. For air combat, however, it is not enough."
I think they tried to turn every captured or lend-leased plane and if it did not turn like Yak, they disregarded it.
In Pokryshkin memoirs it is visible that most of Soviet pilots kept on dogfighting in turns and in most cases they were just slow targets for Luftwaffe striking from above. Pokryshkin took this tactics from enemy and his guys were very succesfull applying similar tactics, but still they were minority in VVS.

Tipo_Man
12-09-2004, 03:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jurinko:
I think they tried to turn every captured or lend-leased plane and if it did not turn like Yak, they disregarded it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are quite right. I don't know why russians stick to turning so much! In fact they chose to produce Yakovlev's fighters only because of their tight turn radius... much better design's were neglected only because of their higher wing loading and thus somewhat inferior climb.
I've found a number of documents from 1941 or even 1942 claiming that I-153 or I-16 are much better fighters than Bf-109 because they "always could outturn a Messer". I remember Pokrishkin once tried to argue with some high-rank officer about that and in result was accused of being "not fully confident in the superiority of Soviet weapons over German ones"...
Brits realised that "turning does not win the fight" during the BoB in 1940 but it took the russians the whole war to get used to that...

But still I think Bf-109 was much more suitable for the eastern front and that's why russians considered FW-190 inferior.
Simply the main advantages of FW-190 like high speed handling and dive could not be exploited in low-level turning fights
There are number of accounts of Fw-190 crashing while trying to turnfight Yak-3's.

jurinko
12-09-2004, 04:26 AM
well the FW was better for eastern front - more rugged, better undercarriage, better to deal with IL-2s, versatile also for ground attack. The truth is, on the biggest ground front the Eastern was, Germans never had more than 160 FW 190s operational. On 3000km long front..

To start 1-to-1 fight co-energy, 109 was better but in real combat situations the FW 190 ruled and rulezz.

mynameisroland
12-09-2004, 08:03 AM
Thanks for all of the posts , some of them like the Russian opinion of the Spit V are very interesting.

I have always like the FW190 , 2 years ago when i first played the sim I tried to fly it but i ended up detesting it. I couldnt understand how such a much vaunted plane was practically useless, it couldnt climb , turn , it accelerated like a brick ect. So i got used to the 109 which seemed to be a much better performer.

Then after a year and a half i realised that the 109 had severe limitations. Its engine durability meant that in combat its climb performance soon ran out and that meant that you were trapped being unable to run away due to low top speed or dive away due to stiff controls. It also frustrated thatyou needed a good deflection shot to damage any enemy because of the poor performace of the mg151 moddeled in the game- low rate of fire low velocity and seemingly poor damage infliction of the rounds. So you ended up needing 2-3 seconds on target to shoot something down. Also to attack with a speed or altitude advantage became problematic as your control became so stiff that you couldnt respond quickly enough to your targets evasive manuvers.

Little simple things like that show up the 109's limitations. In a slow turn or climb fight it is very dangerous but after that you are inhibited when you try to fight fast.

The Russians in my opinion did not understand or chooses to understand the tactics that the German fighter pilots were using and that turning was not the be all and end all of fighting. The RAF and USAAF realised this - Which is important becasue they too possesed fighters that were manuverable in a turn fight but they acknowleged that it was better to fight with speed on the vertical plane if poss.

With regards to performance figures. The A3 orA4 were much faster at 20,000ft than the 109 G2 0r G6. It could outclimb the Spit V - match the IX and it could roll better than any of its contemporaries so it could reverse direction in a turn and shake of its pursuers.

It was mentioned that the 109 had a good loss to kill ratio against the RAF this is true , but the introduction of the FW only improved the kill to loss ratio of the LW. The RAF had to curtail the extent of its Circuses and Rhubarbs because of it.

Bremspropeller
12-09-2004, 08:10 AM
You got me wrong CTO.
By mentioning theleading Fw190-aces I wanted to make clear that the BB also was pretty effective when used as pure fighter at the eastern front.

BTW: those aces who preferred the 109 had something in common: they all had absolved a high amount of flying-time in the 109 and consequently got used to their plane. It's no surprise to me that they preferred the plane they were used to.

mynameisroland
12-09-2004, 08:40 AM
Here is a pilots account - Hauptmann Heinz Lange

his 1st kill had come in 1939 an RAF Blenheim over Germany in his 109 E

Here is his 1st impression of the FW190 in 1942

"I first flew the FW190 on 8Nov 1942 at Vyazma in the Soviet Union. I was absolutely thrilled. I flew every version of it employed on the Eastern front. Because of its smaller fuselage, visibility was somewhat better out of the 109. I believe the FW190 was more manuverable than the 109 - although the latter could make a tighter horizontal turn, if you mastered the 190 you could pull a lot of g's and do just about as well. In terms of control force and feel the 109 was heavier on the stick. In the Fw190 aerobatics were a pleasure!.
Structurally , it was distinctly superior to the Messerschmit, especially in dives. The radial engine of the FW190A was also more resistant to enemy fire."

He goes on to comment about the fire power stating that the 109 's cannon was more accurate but its configuration was less powerful than the 190's load out. And also that the 109's cannon was more prone to jamming and that he had lost at least 6 kills in this scenario where he wouldnt have done had he been in a 190.

Focke Wulf 190 Aces of the Russian Front
John Weal

Daiichidoku
12-09-2004, 10:05 AM
There was a poster advertisment circulating in in the USA and England at the time, for what product or company I cannot recall, but the story goes like this;

The poster said, in a play on the saying "who afraid of the big bad wolf?", .."who afraid the the new folke-wolfe?"

Any pilots or aircrew who would pass it would kiss thier hand then place it to the poster, saying "I am" so as not to jinx themselves

This story was from a B 17 pilot

berg417448
12-09-2004, 10:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> even in vietnam 50% of all airkills were made in turning combat with cannon! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Source? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here is a source which lists kills by weapon type (USAF only) for Vietnam. If this list is accurate then the rate isn't even close to 50%

http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/aerial_victory_credits/avc_sea_vietnam.html

BlitzPig_DDT
12-09-2004, 11:33 AM
The emphasis on roll is funny. People say turning doesn't win fights, but really, rolling doesn't win fights either. And in fact, as at least one person mentioned, turning does win fights, second in importace only to climb and speed.

The 190, especially in FB, rolls seriously fast. And...? If you have externals on, you can hit F6 and frustrate them by rolling just ahead of them and staying out of their guns, but it won't last long. Eventually, he'll spray and get some good hits, or get smart, break off, and build an E advantage.

From the other side, you may roll 3 times as fast as he does, but when he sees you and breaks, you can't follow, no matter how fast you can roll.

And yes, the idea is to then go back up. But you see that at best, barring mistakes, you have a stalemate. Though, with the way this game works, you continue to lose so much on each attempt that in virtually no time flat, you are now at a disadvantage and have to run like hell for home and help (and pray you have some).

Having said all that, BnZ is the more effective technique, but, you have to be able to turn well enough to follow the target, and should also have at least one wingman as well. Plus, good turn is defensive as well (obviously).

An energy fighter that can't climb is worthless against adversaries that will climb specifically to nullify that strength, and can do it better. Even if the enemy can't dive as well as you or roll as well as you, or have as much firepower or high speed controlability, or toughness as you, it is irrelevent if he is above you and a better turner and better climber.

All debates like this are either sparked by, or invariably lead to, comparisons to the game. In the game, as mentioned, we don't have issues like ease of flight, ease of maintenance, manufacturing defects, or even, most importantly, real life tactics. On top of all that, we don't usually have much in the way of teaming either. So it really does all come down to 1v1 at some point or other. And the 190 just doesn't cut it. Sad for me to say because I do really like that plane.

It could compete in IL2. But, ever since FB, it just lost it's advantages. (yes, it got better, but so did everything else, only more so, leaving the 190 at a deficit - I was a dedicated 190 flier in IL2, and tried to carry over to FB but was forced back to the 109)

In PF, the 190 does not have the proper view (never has, doesn't even have the correct Revi), is exceedingly difficult to shoot with (virtually all over multi-cannon aircraft are easier to shoot with - Ki-84, F4U-1C, hispano Hurri, etc. Even the 109 is easier to shoot with), and now in PF it can't turn AT ALL. It's turn rate has been way undermodeled, and it's roll rate seems to be overmodeled. Not to mention the fact that the entire game engine is specifically designed to favor turn fighters.

Without team work, and lots of effort and time (spent flying away from the fight to try to have some alt advantage) to have any kind of results. So basically, at least in a DF server, the 190 is useless (even more sad because as I said, it didn't used to be that way near the end of IL2).

The F4F is a better all around fighter than the 190. Even the 190s that climb a little better. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

If we got better dive modeling and shifted the advantage away from turn fighters within the engine itself, and fixed the 190 turn ability, you'd see the 190 start to live up to it's Western rep. Somewhat at least.

One SERIOUS problem is that every DF server, and ever COOP is wholly a-historic (which shows how ridiculous the anti-cool-plane people are lol) because no soviet or japanese flier will use proper tacitcs. In that sense, flying against the AI is actually more realistic. If those people flew as their historic counterparts did, you'd see a big shift in the game. Of course, we also have MUCH more stick time than any of those pilots did too, and we can push the planes closer to the limit as well, furhter removing it from historical re-creation.

Basically all this means that planes reps will not be reflected in game.

OldMan____
12-09-2004, 12:16 PM
This your comment about rolling shows that you need to learn a lot yet. Roll equals to fast change of direction. If roll was not inportant.. why the hell Bf109 received that extra dents on ailerons (forgot the name) and why P38 received boosted ailerons? Because they are a HELL OF IMPORTANT. I prefer a plane with hard elevator than one with hard ailerons.

OldMan____
12-09-2004, 12:21 PM
BTW.. turning does not win fights http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I have a 3+:1 kill ratio on full real servers.. FW190 only... no need of "turning" to do that. Most of victims are Spitfires and P51

BlitzPig_DDT
12-09-2004, 12:54 PM
Heh, your comments show a lot about you too old man. lol

Let's see, first off, wing loading does mean something. It means a lot actually. Nobody has ever said it was "everything", but for being so unimportant, test reports sure mention it an awful lot. In fact, looking around, you're really the only one that carries this anti-wing loading torch. Quite telling, that.

Secondly, you have no place lecturing me with your "I'm more ace than you" pompus attitude. Rolling only sets up the direction change. The actual change comes from pitch. Otherwise you'd be going in a straight line rolling like a bullet. One would think that would be obvious.

If you can't turn, and can't climb, you're toast. Unless...... you have help, and altitude. But only when you have those things. A diving P-11 could kill your Anton, Dora, or 152 should they be low and slow enough. Likewise, a Yak can merely side step your mega-speed slashing attempt. Then, you can run and hope he gets bored enough to leave you alone and go after someone else. 1v1, forget about it.

faustnik
12-09-2004, 01:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:


Without team work, and lots of effort and time (spent flying away from the fight to try to have some alt advantage) to have any kind of results.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup, teamwork, DDT's right on there. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

OldMan____
12-09-2004, 01:22 PM
That is because I am the only one around here besides Oleg that has implemented a Physics Engine for flight simulations, reading Fluid Dynamics and Wing Section theory books.

TheGozr
12-09-2004, 01:43 PM
Fw's mostly like the D9's as well i certainly don't like to fight them in a yak9 when i know that they are in altitude advantage. For me they are the worse ennemy. They are the MOST annoying plane and pilots to me.
Good pilots are very annoying and hard to get becuase they are good.

To any Fw's pilots i salute them but don't get low i'll be waiting for you.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Korolov
12-09-2004, 02:02 PM
I disagree with almost everything DDT has said, but that's not wholly unusual. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

You aren't going to win 1vs1 in this plane, EVER (well, maybe barring the A-4), without a advantage of some form. The same goes true for numerous other planes as well. As I said earlier, it's designed to work as a team to accomplish its' goals. In a 1vs1 match, good roll rate, light controls, high diving speed, etc. aren't going to be worth as much as turning ability, climb rate and acceleration. To DDT, 1vs1 might matter a lot; to me, 1vs1 is a good way to get your ideas muddled up on how air combat works. It all depends on your point of view.

The idea of the 190 is basically to make your slow climb rate work for you. Spending perhaps 10 or 15 minutes climbing up to a altitude that you can easily dive or attack from. If you don't have the patience to do that, you're flying the wrong plane. From there, you might be at about 5000m in roughly 6 or 7 minutes, if you maintain a climb rate of about 15m/s (pretty easy to attain with the 190.) Naturally, you should have a wingman with you, or an entire flight if possible.

From this point, it's almost a entire offensive operation. Half of the flight can dive down to take shots at targets, and the other half can provide cover when required. If the attacking 190 brings anyone foolish enough to follow him on the zoom, the covering 190 can come down and nail that sucker when he's not looking. And that's all it's really about. They aren't REQUIRED to commit to a fight, but just generally be a thorn in the enemy's side. Eventually that La-5 is going to make a slip-up and get clobbered by a Wurger zooming out of the blue. And eventually, those guys are going to be wondering 'is there a Wurger up there, just dying to blast me to bits while I'm chasing a 109?'

Of course, DDT will probably call me a "commie loving fanboy" for talking about this ( http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif ) but that's MY point of view on the 190. If you don't have the patience to fly it correctly, why fly it at all?

P.S. - Remember DDT, one time you told me "Why fly the D-22? The D-10 rolls better!" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

OldMan____
12-09-2004, 02:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
I disagree with almost everything DDT has said, but that's not wholly unusual. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

You aren't going to win 1vs1 in this plane, EVER (well, maybe barring the A-4), without a advantage of some form. The same goes true for numerous other planes as well. As I said earlier, it's designed to work as a team to accomplish its' goals. In a 1vs1 match, good roll rate, light controls, high diving speed, etc. aren't going to be worth as much as turning ability, climb rate and acceleration. To DDT, 1vs1 might matter a lot; to me, 1vs1 is a good way to get your ideas muddled up on how air combat works. It all depends on your point of view.

The idea of the 190 is basically to make your slow climb rate work for you. Spending perhaps 10 or 15 minutes climbing up to a altitude that you can easily dive or attack from. If you don't have the patience to do that, you're flying the wrong plane. From there, you might be at about 5000m in roughly 6 or 7 minutes, if you maintain a climb rate of about 15m/s (pretty easy to attain with the 190.) Naturally, you should have a wingman with you, or an entire flight if possible.

From this point, it's almost a entire offensive operation. Half of the flight can dive down to take shots at targets, and the other half can provide cover when required. If the attacking 190 brings anyone foolish enough to follow him on the zoom, the covering 190 can come down and nail that sucker when he's not looking. And that's all it's really about. They aren't REQUIRED to commit to a fight, but just generally be a thorn in the enemy's side. Eventually that La-5 is going to make a slip-up and get clobbered by a Wurger zooming out of the blue. And eventually, those guys are going to be wondering 'is there a Wurger up there, just dying to blast me to bits while I'm chasing a 109?'

Of course, DDT will probably call me a "commie loving fanboy" for talking about this ( http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif ) but that's MY point of view on the 190. If you don't have the patience to fly it correctly, why fly it at all?

P.S. - Remember DDT, one time you told me "Why fly the D-22? The D-10 rolls better!" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

precise and exact... FW190 is a plane for real war tatics. Not fancy playing.

BlitzPig_DDT
12-09-2004, 04:00 PM
"fancy playing" is what this game is all about. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif Otherwise you wouldn't have VVS flying high, yet you do. Nor would you have unorganized chaos loosely grouped into red vs blue, but you do.

Koro, yes, I did say that. However, it is important to note when that was said. The -22 and -27 of that time were slugs in roll, the -10 was livable. It was no 190 by a long shot, but it didn't have to be.

Having a really crappy roll rate can be very bad. I assumed that was a given. I was getting at the idea that having a head snapping roll rate isn't "all that", there are other, more important things.

Re: 1v1 vs team tactics - 1v1 is important because it is inevitable. There may be 60someodd BlitzPigs, but maybe 7 are "regular" fliers, with a few other occasionals. And even then, there are often times when few, if any, others are around. Unless you choose to never fly online without your squadmates, you're going to be in a non-voice coms situation with strangers by yourself in a server (or even COOP). Coordination is difficult and limited, and often refused by the other players.

Remember - I like the 190. I merely stated why it's disadvantaged compared to the 109 in this game. I wasn't talking about IRL in a war situation.

Ankanor
12-09-2004, 04:21 PM
Ok, my 2 eurocent on the matter:

1st
the russians did not use an operational FW190 A-4. Their bird was damaged over the Ladoga lake during a combat with Yak-7s. The FW190 got hit in the gun sinchroniser, shot its prop and crashlanded on the ice. This alone for me settles the question. But there's more. The russians state 110 kg of armor. Most certainly, this was a Jabo modification.

Next, to understand why did the Russians consider the FW190 "inferior" in fight, one have to look into the very nature of the front. The fighting on the Eastern fron took place at low altitudes. the air operations were closely connected to the ground opperations. the most produced aircraft of ALL time is the IL-2 Sturmovik. The Sturmoviks are, yes, "low and slow". But they are armored. And to kill one, you have to spend some time on it. When fighting at low altitudes, climb is a factor. And to finish, take into consideration the stubborn doctrines of the VVS. There is one account in Pokrishkin's autobiography when he discovered a weak spot in the design of The MiG-3 fighter. A speedy dive would damage a part of the cooling and the whole aircarft would be useless. When he reported, he was accused of "crazy flying". Also, for the most part, Russian pilots till the middle of the war were undertrained. And I guess everyone here will admit that E-fighting is faar more difficult than turning. Why did the russians praise the spitfire and condemn the P-47? the spitfire had luxuries that the average russian pilot wouldn't dream about, particularly better instruments and radio. Also, doulbled firepower in comparison with the Yak and even better turn. The P-47, well, you need altitude for this bird. Completely opposite to what the Eastern front needs.
so till now we have the prerequisittes of the russians: turn well at low speed, altitude performance not needed, dive not so essential. climb should be good, but again at low speed. That are all things that make the wurger a second-class fighter in the eyes of the VVS.

Why the British said the "FW-190 is the best fighter in the world"? In the west, the FW pilots had the initiative. And since their primary prey were not ground pounders(no barracudas) but fighters flying at 4000 m in squadron strength, this was an environment that allowed the true qualities of the FW190 shine: Teamwork, Excellent high speed handling, dive that the SpitV could not follow. For the FW pilot this was the place where he could drive his Wurger to the limit and hold the upper hand, hence the confidence that the british pilots reported.

And I think I know why did Rall compare the Me109 to a rappier and the FW190 to a sword(sabre). the sword is heavier, and it delivers smashing blows, but does not allow great moves. It's a brutal weapon. the rappier on the other hand is great for fencing, has a pinpoint accuracy, but it takes a great fencer to use it. It is an ellegant weapon.
That Rall was quite a mind...

LEXX_Luthor
12-09-2004, 04:37 PM
Interesting point there. The Soviets cancelled MiG~3 because they didn't need it as much as IL~2 and Bread (something like that), but then the strategically crippled Luftwaffe never posed a serious high altitude threat in the East that required MiG~3 and its much larger successors to handle. Sad, for MiG Fans.

PS:: Soviets didn't like Spitfire much at the front and confined it mostly to rear area defence. Like MiG, P~47 may have been "too good" a high altitude fighter, given no threat posed by the Luftwaffe way up there.

Korolov
12-09-2004, 05:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
"fancy playing" is what this game is all about. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif Otherwise you wouldn't have VVS flying high, yet you do. Nor would you have unorganized chaos loosely grouped into red vs blue, but you do.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't remember if you tried the russian fighters up high or not, but the Lavochkin fighters seem paticularly sluggish at altitudes beyond 3000m. I don't even think I've brought a Yak beyond 4000m. Their performance drops off so much at higher altitudes, there's just no need to risk going up there in a plane that performs so badly at altitude.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Koro, yes, I did say that. However, it is important to note when that was said. The -22 and -27 of that time were slugs in roll, the -10 was livable. It was no 190 by a long shot, but it didn't have to be.

Having a really crappy roll rate can be very bad. I assumed that was a given. I was getting at the idea that having a head snapping roll rate isn't "all that", there are other, more important things.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The question is, how do we define crappy roll rate from excellent roll rate? At 250kmh, the Zeke rolls like a dream - but you wouldn't say the Zeke has great roll rate, would you?

Think of it this way: I can drag a Yak up around 500kmh, then perform a rolling scissor maneuver. The Yak's controls will be running pretty tight at that point, and if he wants to stay with me, he's going to have to ditch his speed - which is easier said than done in the Yak. If performed quickly enough, the tables could very well be reversed on the Yak.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Re: 1v1 vs team tactics - 1v1 is important because it is inevitable. There may be 60someodd BlitzPigs, but maybe 7 are "regular" fliers, with a few other occasionals. And even then, there are often times when few, if any, others are around. Unless you choose to never fly online without your squadmates, you're going to be in a non-voice coms situation with strangers by yourself in a server (or even COOP). Coordination is difficult and limited, and often refused by the other players.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've rarely seen fights degenerate into 1vs1. More like it starts as 4vs4, then degenerates into 3vs4, then 2vs4, 1vs3, etc. So, you might eventually end up with 1vs1, it's not out of possibility, but the chances of a multi plane melee turning into a 1vs1 fight are pretty rare in my experiences.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Remember - I like the 190. I merely stated why it's disadvantaged compared to the 109 in this game. I wasn't talking about IRL in a war situation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the original poster was referring to both IRL and the game.

BlitzPig_DDT
12-09-2004, 06:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
I can't remember if you tried the russian fighters up high or not, but the Lavochkin fighters seem paticularly sluggish at altitudes beyond 3000m. I don't even think I've brought a Yak beyond 4000m. Their performance drops off so much at higher altitudes, there's just no need to risk going up there in a plane that performs so badly at altitude. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not for some time. Perhaps there is some bleed through of memory. But I do recall instances of encountering Yaks up high in patches gone by where they were every bit as lethal in every regard, as they were down low. If that has changed, great.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I've rarely seen fights degenerate into 1vs1. More like it starts as 4vs4, then degenerates into 3vs4, then 2vs4, 1vs3, etc. So, you might eventually end up with 1vs1, it's not out of possibility, but the chances of a multi plane melee turning into a 1vs1 fight are pretty rare in my experiences. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps it's terminology. "Effective" 1v1. Basically a free fer all. People aren't looking our for you beyond how it can help their score. So if you get in trouble, you're on your own. The end result is that it's a 1v1 for all practical intents and purposes with 1 minor difference, there are targets of opportunity. It's not the same thing as a coordinated multi vs multi.

Hope that came out like I meant it. lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Korolov
12-09-2004, 06:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
Not for some time. Perhaps there is some bleed through of memory. But I do recall instances of encountering Yaks up high in patches gone by where they were every bit as lethal in every regard, as they were down low. If that has changed, great.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From about 5000m onward, it's difficult for most mid-late ware VVS fighter to perform as effeciently. This seems to really ring true when they get going really fast.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Perhaps it's terminology. "Effective" 1v1. Basically a free fer all. People aren't looking our for you beyond how it can help their score. So if you get in trouble, you're on your own. The end result is that it's a 1v1 for all practical intents and purposes with 1 minor difference, there are targets of opportunity. It's not the same thing as a coordinated multi vs multi.

Hope that came out like I meant it. lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All that's really required is for each pilot to keep a eye on the other and maintain a idea of the current situation. Of course, having good coordination makes a big difference (like what I meant above - one or two pilots to watch the others and aid if required.)

sikira_SG
12-10-2004, 05:32 AM
Blitzpig wrote:
------------------------------------------------
"If you can't turn, and can't climb, you're toast"
------------------------------------------------

I do not agree on that sentence.
Turning and climbing are properties that are
not to be neglected on a specific figthers performance ability.

But after thinking,I still must come to the conclusion that the ability I appriciate most
in a fighter always will be the top speed.
That will provide you the possibility to leave the fight when it suits you and not the other way around. Now,if you combine a high speed with excellent highspeed manuverbility and a lot
of fire power you will have a great base for a
effective fighter.

Fw190 has thoose attributes,and is the reason it was a great fighter and has a good historical reputation.It was designed as a highspeed fighter and should be used as such.
If you use it for deck turning it will suck due to the design,and it is not a 1 vs 1 plane if you dont have a lot of advantages on your pray.

Fw190 IMHO is a great fighter and design,and it does offcourse have it's shortcommings,but used
under right conditions it is a "BUTCHRBIRD" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

So to make a long story short. Turning,climbing ect is all sweet abilities,but I will place my buck on the speed so I can live to fight another day S!

JV44Sikira

BlitzPig_DDT
12-10-2004, 07:20 AM
So, let's say you have a plane that can't turn to save it's life, and has crappy climb, but a high top speed.

Ok, well, why can't it turn? Not enough lift for the weight. Why can't it climb? Not enough lift for the weight will contribute to why it can't climb, but so will poor power loading. It's usually a combination of these things.

So here you are, tooling along looking for action when suddenly you are bounced. Then what? The enemy can out turn and out climb you. They can also out accelerate you because of better power loading, plus they are above you.

You're done.

Now, if you could out turn him, you could side step his slash attempt and quite possibly even get a snap shot off as he blows by. If you can out climb him, you can try to bleed off his energy then stall him out.

You're not likely to be bounced at 5Km. You are likely to be bounced at 1Km or even 500m when you are landing, or taking off, or limping home, or in a few other circumstances as well.

Likewise, you could put 400 Mk103s on the plane, but if you can't turn enough to follow the target that hears you coming (lovely feature of IL2 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif ), it's irrelevant. Not to mention that pulling 1.5Gs means the target can't be seen now thanks to the lack of refraction, that bar, and the wrong revi. But that's another matter entirely.

So yeah, it is contextual. And in certain conditions, even in the game, the 190 could be better. But again, in the vast majority of servers out there, you are on your own. Your "team mates" are a combination of enemy distraction, cannonfodder, and potential kill stealers. And in that case you're better off with a plane that is better in a 1v1 situation.

YMMV

sikira_SG
12-10-2004, 08:13 AM
S! Blitz.

You are not wrong or anything like that IMHO,its just that I view on things a bit different.

First off,IMHO I'm quite certin that the Fw190
series of planes are among the absolute best
highspeed slashing planes in game.
It obviously does have limitation in performance
in games,due to IMHO game limitations.
Limitations for me is that some or most aircraft
bleend to good against the ground and thereby making them more or less invisable,alowing them to get really close to you without detection,and that is bad.

This hamparing SA capability does IMHO affect performance of the FW190 ingame as you are more or less forced to dive down to find contacts that usually are cutting the lawn http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
Loosing alt = less E + greater possibility to get bounced. So there definitly are shortcommings to being effectiv in that case.

Loose the sight=loose the fight

Now to my last letter that I made and the sort of statement I wanted to reflect.

Take a Zero,it climbs great,turns hysterical,decent armament ect but slow as a snail and durability as a coca cola can or worse.Now you have climb and turn but would you seriously prefere the Zero over a Fw190 a-4,a-6
in a co-alt co-e 1 vs 1.

Now I know the zero is a extreme example but the FW is by far a superior fighter.The only thing I belive is a problem for a FW is faster planes or planes with much higher E state then
you.

S!

Brotrob
12-10-2004, 08:18 AM
Hello,

the reason everyone underestimates the importance of the roll-rate (or sees no importance at all) in this game is, that its grossly overmodelled for every plane. Most fighters take the advantage of it, but the 190 now has such a high rate of roll that it even hampers flying. The advantage the 190 had in real life is now gone.
I know its hard to explain, but perhaps there are some oldschool-flightsimmers among you guys and remember Red Baron. Just remember, when you changed from the Eindecker to the Albatros, what was the change which affected your flying the most ? Right, the rollrate.
Or for those who are smiling now, just look at an old gun-cam video. If you are accustomed to IL2, you wonder why the pilot in the fighter attacked just rolls so slow.

Best would be everyone sets his max sensitivity on roll-axis to 60% or so http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Best Greetings

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
12-10-2004, 08:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
The powerload is not the only value for comparison since there are a lot of other important things to consider (efficiency of the propeller, exhaust-thrust, thrust of the prop-blades, and last but not least: drag of the whole airframe).

From your figures we can see that the 190 (even with the bombrack) is still faster than the 109 @ SL. So why don't you think that the BB could outaccelerate the 109 ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i remember a 109 pilot, tasked to escort a Jabo190 wing challanging one of the 190s for a run home after job was done.
As both firewalled the throttle the 190 begun to walk away from the 109...
After this the 109 pilot was wondering why the 109 was tasked to escort the 190s...

VW-IceFire
12-10-2004, 08:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BlitzPig_DDT:
So, let's say you have a plane that can't turn to save it's life, and has crappy climb, but a high top speed.

Ok, well, why can't it turn? Not enough lift for the weight. Why can't it climb? Not enough lift for the weight will contribute to why it can't climb, but so will poor power loading. It's usually a combination of these things.

So here you are, tooling along looking for action when suddenly you are bounced. Then what? The enemy can out turn and out climb you. They can also out accelerate you because of better power loading, plus they are above you.

You're done.

Now, if you could out turn him, you could side step his slash attempt and quite possibly even get a snap shot off as he blows by. If you can out climb him, you can try to bleed off his energy then stall him out.

You're not likely to be bounced at 5Km. You are likely to be bounced at 1Km or even 500m when you are landing, or taking off, or limping home, or in a few other circumstances as well.

Likewise, you could put 400 Mk103s on the plane, but if you can't turn enough to follow the target that hears you coming (lovely feature of IL2 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif ), it's irrelevant. Not to mention that pulling 1.5Gs means the target can't be seen now thanks to the lack of refraction, that bar, and the wrong revi. But that's another matter entirely.

So yeah, it is contextual. And in certain conditions, even in the game, the 190 could be better. But again, in the vast majority of servers out there, you are on your own. Your "team mates" are a combination of enemy distraction, cannonfodder, and potential kill stealers. And in that case you're better off with a plane that is better in a 1v1 situation.

YMMV <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yep...you've flown the FW190 in an online server for sure. I've been having the same trouble...especially as of late. There's many planes now that are faster, turn better, and climb better than the FW190. You have few options but to run for home when engaged...you cant boom them because they just out turn you, you can't zoom them because they will just kick in their engine and catch you, and you sure as heck can't out turn them so what do you do?

I've lost my touch on the FW190 recently. Not sure what they have changed but all of the things that made it difficult to fly before seem to be worse.

I'm just really struggling with the fact that I can fight for advantage, get into a position to boom any target I choose, and yet everyone knows I'm coming so they just evade and I have no recourse...like I would flying a Mustang or a Spitfire to plant myself on their tail for a good deflection shot.

Hopefully, my talents for BNZ come back!