PDA

View Full Version : Fw 190 A4 climb angle



mynameisroland
01-16-2006, 06:41 AM
"Climb:The climb of the FW 190 is superior to that of the Spitfire VB at all heights.

The best speeds for climbing are approximately the same, but the angle of the FW 190 is considerably steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing conditions the climb of the FW 190 is about 450 ft/min better up to 25,000'. With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed and then pulling up into a climb, the superior climb of the FW 190 is even more marked. When both aircraft are pulled up into a climb from a dive, the FW 190 draws away very rapidly and the pilot of the Spitfire has no hope of catching it. "

Here is the famous quote taken from the RAF test document of their capured Fw 190 A3. What always strikes me when I read this and compare it to IL2 is how the Fw 190 A4 doesnt climb best at the same airspeed as the Spitfire VB. The test also states that the Fw 190 climbs at a steeper angle than the Spitfire VB. this issue has been mentioned in the past and people have ignored it or stated it must be related to zoom climb. Yet I dont see how it can be mistaken for zoom climb as it clearly states later in the same paragraph that in a zoom climb the effect is even more marked.

Basically the Fw 190 A series do not climb steeply at any speed unless you are carrying lots of initial energy. Certainly if you try to climb steeply in a Fw 190 A4 then try a Spitfire VB the Spitfire will hold the climb for longer. All the tactics concerning IL2 Fw piloting state that shallow climbs are the only way to outpace contemporary fighters. Yet I have never read a test report from WW2 that mentioned Fw 190's best climbing angle to be shallow. Even the test report comparing it with the Hellcat and Corsair state that the Fw 190 could outclimb them at will.

The Fw 190 seems to bleed so much energy when pulled in to a slight climb angle that shallow climb is the only viable altrnative. I think that the dev team made climbing in the Fw 190 far too prohibative and again it makes me convinced that the IL2 Fw 190 A series performs differently when viewed from a Russian perspective compared to Western history and opinion of the type.

robban75
01-16-2006, 06:47 AM
It doesn't work the same in-game because our Fw 190A-4 is limited to 1.32 ata, whereas the captured 190 ran at 1.42. And also, the Spitfire MkVb in-game is boosted to 12lbs, and the Spit in the comparison had 9lbs boost.

But true, the Fw 190A in-game doesn't have the dive acceleration and zoom performance it should have.

mynameisroland
01-16-2006, 06:55 AM
I wasnt refering to dive or zoom performance, however you are correct Robban those attributes are lacking too (how can dive and E retention be well modelled for the P38 but not the Fw 190?). It is sustained climb that has always bothered me when flying the Fw 190 Antons, despite possessing a superior climbrate than many other aircraft it is almost unusable because you cannot climb at a sufficiently steep angle to cause the enemy aircraft to bleed energy keeping up with you. It is very difficult to climb away from any aircraft.

The best climbing speeds of the Spitfire VB and Fw 190 A3 were approximately the same but the Fw 190 climbed at a steeper angle. Not in this computer game.

robban75
01-16-2006, 07:03 AM
I did some climbtest when PF came out, and compared the A-4 to the Corsair and Hellcat. And the rsults matched the RL report quite well. IIRC, the Fw 190 was able to outclimb them both if the speed was above 350km/h. Same with the Spitfire Vb.

On the dive and zoom issue, I believe it should be closer to that of the D-9. The D-9 was of course better, but the Anton really is a brick in comparison.

hugohugo37
01-16-2006, 07:03 AM
What does ata mean? Thanks.

mynameisroland
01-16-2006, 07:07 AM
ATA is the boost rating/setting for German Piston engines as in 25lb boost Merlin for British equivalent.


Robban there is still a discrepancy between climbing <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">angle</span> and climbrate. I can highspeed climb very quickly at 400km/h yet if I introduce any sort of increased AoA the speed falls off dramatically. The Spitfire and Fw 190 A3 in the test were found to climb best at similar airspeeds. It was <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">angle</span> of climb that made the Fw 190 superior in climb rate. Here in IL2 the opposite is true. The Fw 190 climbs better at a much <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">shallower</span> angle than the Spitfire VB or any Spitfire mark.

AustinPowers_
01-16-2006, 07:17 AM
Originally posted by robban75:
It doesn't work the same in-game because our Fw 190A-4 is limited to 1.32 ata, whereas the captured 190 ran at 1.42. And also, the Spitfire MkVb in-game is boosted to 12lbs, and the Spit in the comparison had 9lbs boost.

But true, the Fw 190A in-game doesn't have the dive acceleration and zoom performance it should have.

Object viewer and the boost guage both say +16 boost for the Spitfire F mkVb.
If it is modelled to +16 boost performance, it is no surprise it can climb with an FW-190A4 running at 1.32 ATA

robban75
01-16-2006, 07:18 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Robban there is still a discrepancy between climbing <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">angle</span> and climbrate. I can highspeed climb very quickly at 400km/h yet if I introduce any sort of increased AoA the speed falls off dramatically. The Spitfire and Fw 190 A3 in the test were found to climb best at similar airspeeds. It was <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">angle</span> of climb that made the difference. Here in IL2 the opposite is true. The Fw 190 climbs better at a much <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">shallower</span> angle than the Spitfire VB.

Perhaps the A-5 would be a better comparison as it can run at 1.42 ata. Maybe even with 50% fuel as the A-4 was lighter?

tigertalon
01-16-2006, 07:21 AM
Agree with Roland 100%.

Using manual 100% prop pitch in Fw considerably boosts your climb, however you will stil not be able to get away from spitV in a climb at 250-270 kph (as one should).
Hm, maybe I missed something, but a question arises to me:

WHY do we have 1.32 ata instead 1.42 in a BMW801D2? And WHY do we have a 12lb spitV instead 9lb??


Maybe a bit of OT, but anyway: Fw190A3 pilots were known to deploy 15 degree flaps and TURN FIGHT spitfires MkV, as BMW801 supplied power in abudance and it could easily compensate for greater drag.

AustinPowers_
01-16-2006, 07:22 AM
Perhaps even use the tropicalized Spitfire... that would bring its speed atleast closer to a +9lbs Spit.

mynameisroland
01-16-2006, 07:22 AM
Good point with the A5 running at 1.42 and using 50% fuel to lighten it. Problem again is where ever Fw 190 A5 is present on a historical server the Spitfire IX and La5FN are also present and again you have some new problems to consider like E retention of the above mentioned Allied fighters and the mediocre dive performance of the Fw 190 A series http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I am more inclined to believe that even with the BMW D being given 1.42 ATA in the Fw 190 A4 it is the E modelling of the Fw 190 A's FM that is causing it to bleed enormous amounts of E when pulled in to a climb from level flight. Sustained steep climbing is out of the question. Unlike for example in the La5 , the Bf 109 or the Spitfire. Climbing in the early Fw 190 A2/3/4 was not discouraged it was a very good performer for its day second maybe only to the Bf 109F. In the Fw 190 A4 we should have a very clean fighter with little drag and a very powerful engine. This is not reflected in its handling in IL2.

Lazy312
01-16-2006, 07:36 AM
Climb rate of FW 190 A-5 (according to pilot's manual) is 0-6km in 8.45 min (climb&combat power). Other sources claim about the same climb rate.

Spitfire Vb could climb to 20 000 feet in 6.4 min. And that was not Merlin 50 engine we have.

So according to specs - Spitfire V can outclimb any FW 190 A..

danjama
01-16-2006, 07:43 AM
Roland, im with you all the way on this man. Climb(especially sustained) has been nerfed on all FW190A's for a long time. This puts us FW flyers @ a huge disadvantage while in or near a combat zone. This aint how it was in RL so im backing you man.

FW for teh win!

(It is irrelevant that the A4 has incorrect ATA/boost, because all Anton's have nerfed climb characteristics, even the A5 with A4 performance)

Do not confuse my statements with the Dora.

robban75
01-16-2006, 07:48 AM
Originally posted by Lazy312:
Climb rate of FW 190 A-5 (according to pilot's manual) is 0-6km in 8.45 min (climb&combat power). Other sources claim about the same climb rate.

Spitfire Vb could climb to 20 000 feet in 6.4 min. And that was not Merlin 50 engine we have.

So according to specs - Spitfire V can outclimb any FW 190 A..

And what would be the A-5 climbtime with emergency power?

robban75
01-16-2006, 07:52 AM
Originally posted by danjama:
(It is irrelevant that the A4 has incorrect ATA/boost, because all Anton's have nerfed climb characteristics, even the A5 with A4 performance)

Do not confuse my statements with the Dora.

The A-5/6 seems to have a good climbrate. I don't know how correct it is though.

M/sec

Fuel - 100%

Alt --- A-5

1000 - 18.2
2000 - 17.2
3000 - 15.9
4000 - 14.1
5000 - 15.4
6000 - 14.9
7000 - 11.5

Lazy312
01-16-2006, 07:56 AM
And what would be the A-5 climbtime with emergency power?

I guess significantly better. However it was forbidden to use emergency power for more than 3 minutes so you can hardly use this for prolonged time - sustained climbing. BTW spitfire V used 2850 rpm for climb which is also lower than full or emergency power..

AustinPowers_
01-16-2006, 07:56 AM
+16 boost SpitfireVb/Vc should out climb FW-190A4 @ 1.32 ATA 2400RPM at all altitudes.

FW-190A4 @ 1.42ATA 2700RPM should outclimb +16 boost spit below 5,000ft and above 15,000FT.

Kocur_
01-16-2006, 08:01 AM
The more I learn, the more I see that Antons are among the most harmed planes in this game, if not topping that sad list. And thus the more I feel like flying them! Luckily they have 20mms, and not 6 x .50...

AustinPowers_
01-16-2006, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by robban75:


The A-5/6 seems to have a good climbrate. I don't know how correct it is though.

M/sec

Fuel - 100%

Alt --- A-5

1000 - 18.2
2000 - 17.2
3000 - 15.9
4000 - 14.1
5000 - 15.4
6000 - 14.9
7000 - 11.5

Those numbers fit well with the captured FW-190A4 at 1.42 ATA, slightly lower at some points, but very accurate.

Lazy312
01-16-2006, 08:08 AM
1.42ata was not used for sustained climb during trials..

AustinPowers_
01-16-2006, 08:13 AM
Which focke wulf are you referring to?
I am referring to FW-190 EB104 tested by the americans.

mynameisroland
01-16-2006, 08:59 AM
I dont think that the Spitfire VB at 9lb boost could outclimb the Fw 190 A4. In the test it stated the Fw 190 climbed better up until 25000ft that would suggest that the RAF climbed up to this height and beyond at boost levels required to outpace the Spitfire.

The topic still remains valid you cannot climb steeply in a Fw 190 A series. The Dora posseses a decent climb. Why doesnt the Fw 190 A9 or A8 climb in a similar manner ? Both have similar thrust to wieght ratios. The Fw 190 A4 , the lightest of the bunch we have to choose from should also be among the top climbers.

AustinPowers_
01-16-2006, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I dont think that the Spitfire VB at 9lb boost could outclimb the Fw 190 A4. In the test it stated the Fw 190 climbed better up until 25000ft that would suggest that the RAF climbed up to this height and beyond at boost levels required to outpace the Spitfire.
.

Agreed.. if we had a Spitfire Vb +9 boost, and an FW-190A4 1.42 ATA in game, it wouldn't either.

Lazy312
01-16-2006, 09:12 AM
Austin, I am referring to any fockewulf of the same period. 1.42ata was limited for a very short time and it was not possible to climb to 6km so quickly (in three minutes). Therefore they had to use climb&combat power for testing climb rate and therefore they had to use climb&combat power for sustained climb in action too..

I don't say FW 190 A couldn't climb well for a short time but I never saw any evidence (numbers) it was a good sustained climber.

VW-IceFire
01-16-2006, 09:14 AM
The reason we have a later boosted Spitfire Vb is because we have a Russian VVS issued Spitfire Vb as part of lend lease. But it was not done properly as the Vb is slower than it should be at that boost level. It climbs at a higher boost level but has a top speed of the lower boost level.

Totally confounding.

The A-4 we have seems to be the lower rated one...probably because its meant to be the Eastern Front "jabo" version and not the fighter version.

Again, somewhat confounding although this does make at least some sense.

The trouble is that we're looking at this from a West Front perspective (JG2 and JG26 facing the RAF over the Channel) and the planes we have are modeled for the Eastern front perspective with different boost ratings, performance figures, and the like. I'm not saying that "Russian tests" have placed the aircraft at different performance levels...but there is some mention in various places that aircraft ran at different settings in the Eastern Front.

The Spitfire, I don't know, but the Luftwaffe was very confident with their fighters against the Russians. So running at a bit of a lower boost was "OK". Not sure if thats 100% accurate but lets go with this theory for a moment. They put the hotrodded FW190's on the West Front because thats where the dreaded Spitfire was and where the RAF was - and the Luftwaffe generally considered the RAF their best opponents and the Russians their worst (except for the Guards units which apparently were considered at the RAF's level).

Its all in the perception.

Am I right or making things up?

LStarosta
01-16-2006, 09:18 AM
I believe that could be plausible.

AustinPowers_
01-16-2006, 09:21 AM
Agree on that point.
Persumably the graph I have isn't from 1 constant climb at 1.42 ATA, but a collection of climb rates.

I know that in testing the SpitfireVc with Merlin 45 at +16boost, the climb tests were done at +9 boost due to the 3 minute limit on +16 boost.
But a climb rate graph for +16 boosts was still produced IIRC.

3.JG51_BigBear
01-16-2006, 09:32 AM
I still have never seen anything that resembles an official type Luftwaffe document that says that Focke Wulfs on the Russian front were to be flown at a lower ata. All FWs were tuned for lower performance for something like 10-12 hours of flight when they were brand new for break-in but after that they were operated normally. It didn't take much work for ground crews to make the switch, I think it was a baffel or something that needed to be adjusted, and I can't imagine any pilot in his right mind not wanting his aircraft to be capable of maximum power even if he had little intention of ever using it.

mynameisroland
01-16-2006, 09:35 AM
I agree with you totally Icefire, there is a disparity between the Russian accounts of the Fw 190 and the RAF and USAAF/ USN acounts. I think that for all of the Fw 190 A series there is a problem with sustained climb and any manuvers involving climb in general. Its dive acceleration is poor and it flies in an underpowered manner compared to certain other fighters that have a lower power to weight ratio and out climb/ out accelerate it.

That is not to say it cannot be competitive most other types in this game, you know my flying style and how I employ energy tactics when flying the Fw 190 to good effect. There is still something not quite right, and I mean something BIG seems to be missing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

It is the steep climbing angle comment that needs to be clarified. It is not possible to hold a steep climb in any Fw 190 Anton when you pull your aircraft in to one from level flight.

Unknown-Pilot
01-16-2006, 09:44 AM
Somebody posted a theory somewhere around here about the 190s that suggests that they are modeled with extremely little parasitic drag, but also far too little power.

This allows the tendency to hold speed while trying to land, and decent dive accleration, but poor climb, level acceleration, and zoom climb.

The more I think about it while flying it (one of my favorites), the more I think it's true. However, the theory needs to be modified slightly.

I think that in addition to that, it's given far too great an induced drag penalty, which leads to the brakes being put on the instant you change pitch, even slightly.

On the one hand this too could be a result of too little power (or too great a weight, or both), however, while playing around with the La7 the other night, I noticed that that thing does not bleed speed at all during violent pitching maneuvers.

It's not surprising of course, VVS planes have never had reasonable e-bleed, but it makes me wonder if something is wrong there with the 190 as well. It seems to be the last piece of the puzzle - take too little power (and possibly too much weight as well), too little parasitic drag, and add too much induced drag, and you have the 190As in PF.

Boost isn't the issue, neither is RPM. Even switching to manual 100% and getting full RPM doesn't do it. Remember that those guages don't read what the engine is actually doing because there is no engine. Nor would they be able to say anything about prop efficiency, even if they were reading an actual engine.

Kocur_
01-16-2006, 09:46 AM
Lets face it: the only reason to derate A4 is... the same that I-185 and MiG-3U (a year too early) are included for.

Kocur_
01-16-2006, 09:50 AM
Fw-190 had small wetted area, which resulted in high wingloading and relatively low drag. Its been quoted before, but its a good one, so: http://www.anycities.com/user/j22/j22/aero.htm

mynameisroland
01-16-2006, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
Somebody posted a theory somewhere around here about the 190s that suggests that they are modeled with extremely little parasitic drag, but also far too little power.

This allows the tendency to hold speed while trying to land, and decent dive accleration, but poor climb, level acceleration, and zoom climb.

The more I think about it while flying it (one of my favorites), the more I think it's true. However, the theory needs to be modified slightly.

I think that in addition to that, it's given far too great an induced drag penalty, which leads to the brakes being put on the instant you change pitch, even slightly.

On the one hand this too could be a result of too little power (or too great a weight, or both), however, while playing around with the La7 the other night, I noticed that that thing does not bleed speed at all during violent pitching maneuvers.

It's not surprising of course, VVS planes have never had reasonable e-bleed, but it makes me wonder if something is wrong there with the 190 as well. It seems to be the last piece of the puzzle - take too little power (and possibly too much weight as well), too little parasitic drag, and add too much induced drag, and you have the 190As in PF.

Boost isn't the issue, neither is RPM. Even switching to manual 100% and getting full RPM doesn't do it. Remember that those guages don't read what the engine is actually doing because there is no engine. Nor would they be able to say anything about prop efficiency, even if they were reading an actual engine.


This is an excellent point, I have read this somewhere too and it makes a lot of sense.

Try landing the Fw 190 full flaps 0% throttle and it will not bleed its speed. You need to drop its wing to make it slow down. Whenever I come in for a landing I have to chop throttle and drop flaps and pull a sharp turn on the edge of stall to lose enough speed. Yet when I pull the nose up slightly when travelling at 600km/h it is like a parachute airbreak has been deployed.

This will not be investigated or even considered by 1C and Oleg just like the Mg151 MG affair. It had to be blatantly pointed out repeatedly with historical evidence , tracks and photos showing actual blatant proof of Mg151 MG shells being used in fighters for it to be finally implemented.

Game balance gone too far I think ...

AustinPowers_
01-16-2006, 11:14 AM
Why must it always be game balance?

Oleg is capable of making mistakes and being wrong, you know.

mynameisroland
01-16-2006, 11:54 AM
He certainly is , he is also capable of denying that he has made a mistake even when it is blatantly obvious he has. In some instances like the Lagg3 he will not chnage an obvious flaw regardless of how wrong it is.

faustnik
01-16-2006, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by Lazy312:
Austin, I am referring to any fockewulf of the same period. 1.42ata was limited for a very short time and it was not possible to climb to 6km so quickly (in three minutes). Therefore they had to use climb&combat power for testing climb rate and therefore they had to use climb&combat power for sustained climb in action too..

I don't say FW 190 A couldn't climb well for a short time but I never saw any evidence (numbers) it was a good sustained climber.

No, the Fw190 was a very good zoom climber, and that's the way it was used. Slow sustained climbs were not used much in combat from what gather. In both RAF and USAAF tests however, the Fw190 was found to be a very good climber, which confuses the issue. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Lazy, I have some test charts that I can PM to you on CWOS.

danjama
01-16-2006, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The topic still remains valid you cannot climb steeply in a Fw 190 A series. The Dora posseses a decent climb. Why doesnt the Fw 190 A9 or A8 climb in a similar manner ? Both have similar thrust to wieght ratios. The Fw 190 A4 , the lightest of the bunch we have to choose from should also be among the top climbers.

Alot of good stuff being said, but it doesnt change this ^^^^

The 190A is a piece of **** for climbing! Why!!!

faustnik
01-16-2006, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by AustinPowers_:
Which focke wulf are you referring to?
I am referring to FW-190 EB104 tested by the americans.

Since you mentioned EB104, I'll just post this. <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">This is still WIP, I'd appreciate it if it is not copied or used in other discussions.</span>

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/EB-104CLIMBWITHSPITs.gif

Unknown-Pilot
01-16-2006, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by danjama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The topic still remains valid you cannot climb steeply in a Fw 190 A series. The Dora posseses a decent climb. Why doesnt the Fw 190 A9 or A8 climb in a similar manner ? Both have similar thrust to wieght ratios. The Fw 190 A4 , the lightest of the bunch we have to choose from should also be among the top climbers.

Alot of good stuff being said, but it doesnt change this ^^^^

The 190A is a piece of **** for climbing! Why!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you mean from a technical, or philosophical standpoint?

If the former, I think the reason is what I stated above.

If the latter, well, it's the dreaded "b" word that all the worshippers and red-whiners lash out against when they see it, so it's not advisable to use around these parts, no matter how obvious it is to objective people. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

p1ngu666
01-16-2006, 12:38 PM
quick test

spitfire vb, 1941
to get 9lbs boost, 66% throttle with WEP on

86% with wep off

100% pitch

robban can do some tests http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

mynameisroland
01-16-2006, 12:49 PM
Faust in this book

Luftwaffe Fighter Aces: The Jagdflieger and Their Combat Techniques (Greenhill Military Paperback S.)

There is a table of climb rates for the Fw 190 A3 ( I think ) Spitfire IX and Spitfire VB and it quotes the initial climb rate of the Fw 190 to be 4100ft/min which would match with your chart and the RAF findings. The later Fw 190 A8 was given 3300ft/min and the Dora 9 was credited with 3850ft/min iirc correctly.

The Fw 190 A4 was a rocket for a 1942 fighter in all aspects.

Unknown-Pilot
01-16-2006, 01:10 PM
Were the added armer and heavier MGs really worth it?

It seems that the A4 was the pinnacle of the As if it was that much lighter and climbed better than the Dora.

What was the point of all that weight addition? The HMGs seemed about useless, it would have been better off to have the MGs stripped, cowl smoothed, and more ammo given to the cannon. This would have made it a touch slicker, and still probably lighter as well (even with the added cannon ammo).

There seemed to be no difficulty in shooting down D9s, so armor either wasn't considered that important, or it wasn't that useful.

Plus, in addition to the better climb, being lighter would have kept the induced drag down and provided better handling.

IDK....just seems to me like they'd be better off using the A4 in '44 rather than the A8 (bomber hunting aside... can't argue with twin Mk108s lol).

mynameisroland
01-16-2006, 01:27 PM
The Fw 190 A4/3 roc dropped off above sea level like in Fausts Chart but yes the Fw 190 A4 performed better than the A8. Given that it used the same engine and would benefit from the same boost increases that the later aircraft performed with so you have a lighter aircraft, that is cleaner so it should perform better. Imo the best performing Fw 190 version was the Fw 190 A6, lighter wing, four Mg151's and clean lines.

If we had a Fw 190 A6 operating at 1.68 ATA with outer guns deleted we would have a monster.

Its a similar situation with the Bf 109 the F series was better than the G6 and topped 400mph. Heavy bombers and ground attack demands compromised the Fw 190 and Bf 109 late models. The last Fw 190 models , the Doras were again air to air fighter combat specialists and consequently were amongst the best fighters.

robban75
01-16-2006, 01:30 PM
I read somewhere that some Dora pilots had the MG131's removed in order to save weight and increase performance. Too bad we don't have this option in the game. Sure we can take away the outer MG's on the Anton's but instead we get the darned bombrack instead. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Btw, a D-9 using MW50 and 2100PS had a 4430ft/min climbrate.

Kocur_
01-16-2006, 03:49 PM
Well, I dont really get development path of Antons either. As much as more power was appreciable, DECREACE of performance from A5/6 to A8 is rather unique... IMHO they should have stop increace of airframe weight at A6 level, continue to improve power, and create two lines of fighters: light with two 20mms only and heavy with one more pair of 20mms or even 30mms. What I totally dont get is putting MG131 in Antons or any (h)mgs really. While it made sense in case of Bf-109 being limited to one cannon only, IMHO was mistake in Antons. Like it was said above: pair of MG151/20 with even more ammo would do for "light line".

Fw-190A6 late would be niiice. And VERY late with 801TS even nicer http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
But that wont happen of course. Lets enjoy soon coming La-7R...

Lazy312
01-16-2006, 03:54 PM
There's a difference between initial climb rate and sustained climb rate..

p1ngu666
01-16-2006, 04:31 PM
they didnt just pile on weight cos they thought, hey, lets make it like a p47 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

any added weight would because its needed, to increase the operational use of whatever. often weight increase would snowball, as u would haveto make the structure stronger, further increasing weight...

best example of a minalmist design is the mossie, vs say b17
both carried 4000lbs, for long range stuff.

getting rid of 8crew, all the 50cals (oh the heathendom!) ment they could use 2 engines. plus way less drag ment it was faster than the luftwaffe http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif. and the raf, ussaf, usn, IJN,IJA, and russians.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

tigertalon
01-16-2006, 04:53 PM
From the book Combat Legend Focke Wulf Fw 190 by Peter Caygill (Airlife, ISBN 1-84037-366-0, page 57):

"The rate of climb up to 18,000 ft under maximum continuous climbing conditions at 1.35 ata boost, 2,450 rpm, 165 mph is between 3,000 to 3,250 ft/min. The initial rate of climb when pulling up rom level flight at fast cruising speed is high and the angle steep and from a dive is phenomenal. It is considered that the de-rated version of the Fw 190 is unlikely to be met above 25,000 ft as the power of the engine starts falling off at 22,000 ft and by 25,000 ft has fallen off considerably. It is not possible to give the rate of climb at this altitude."

Robban, here's another test for you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif (too lazy myself, and I know you will do it best): sustained climb at 165 mph (which was, apparently, optimal climbing speed) to 18,000 ft.

Daiichidoku
01-16-2006, 06:17 PM
the light machine guns in the 190 were felt very useful indeed, as they were used to determine just when to use the cannon, instead of waste cannon ammo, not to mention slowing the ship considerably, by firing the full battery at once, everytime

IRL the 190 could electrically switch which guns could be used....yet another "overlooked" accuracy by Oleg, B(e) S(ure) (TM Kocur)

even in the "old" and "obsolete" janes, one could do this in the 190

Kettenhunde
01-16-2006, 07:16 PM
It doesn't work the same in-game because our Fw 190A-4 is limited to 1.32 ata,

1.32ata @ 2400U/min is Steig u Kampfleistung for the FW-190A3. That is the rating used for climb by both the Luftwaffe and the RAE in the tactical trials of WNr. 313.

The best climb speed of the FW-190A3 listed in the Flugzeug-Handbuch is 280-290kph.

All the best,

Crumpp

Unknown-Pilot
01-17-2006, 07:47 AM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
the light machine guns in the 190 were felt very useful indeed, as they were used to determine just when to use the cannon, instead of waste cannon ammo

If so, then there seems to be a massive disconnect between the game and RL - in that, if you take a shot with the MGs and wait for visual indication of a hit on another fighter, you will never be able to use that as a means to get a cannon hit. In the first place, because the enemy would be long gone and a new gun solution will be required. But also in the second place because the MGs will alert the intended prey and he will evade.

Using MGs as a guide for cannon would really only work against large, slow moving targets incapable of evasion, like bombers. And in that case, you don't need the MGs for sighting, and also don't want to wait that long because your rate of closeure means that by the time you see hits being registered, you're well within their range as well.

OldMan____
01-17-2006, 11:30 AM
You are thinking on shooting down spitfires.. he and the FW190 pilots were more worried about shooting down B17.

mynameisroland
01-17-2006, 11:44 AM
The speed of 280/290kmh/h is around 174mph to 180mph. That doesnt seem too fast but maybe we need to put it in to context. Nevertheless load up IL2 take your Fw 190 A4 derated version and try and climb steeply at any speed let alon 280km/h it simply will not hold an angle. To get a good rate of climb you need around 350 or 400km/h

I dont expect it to climb at the same angle as a Spitfire IX or a Bf 109 K4 but it should climb steeper than it currently does. It will not allow any steep climbing attitude no matter what you do to it, radiator closed 110% throtle 100% prop pitch. These do improve matters but it still is pathetic.

Climbing steeply is an essential ingredient to energy climbing when you want to get above your opponent. Sure I can extend and climb away at a shallow angle but while climbing at this shallow angle the target I have just attacked can climb steeply and offset my attempts to reposition myself above him.

Not all attacks should have to be made with 2000m height advantage. If the Fw 190 could climb at the same rate but at a steeper angle it would make a huge difference.

OldMan____
01-17-2006, 11:52 AM
On this climb conditions, power (power to weight) is 100% of equation. Since FW have apathetic acceleration in this game, is not strange to have such ad climbing.

mynameisroland
01-17-2006, 12:01 PM
If we look back at Unknowpilots post where he mentions the Fw 190 having a seemingly very wierd FM where it has little power but it is very fast due to clean lines. Any positive elevator movement and you loose lots of speed however.

It feels like all of the Fw 190 Antons are running with little or no thrust, the Dora 9 performs totally differently pull it in to a climb and it holds its attitude and it zomm climbs brilliantly. In reality it was excellent but it was notably superior to the Anton above 20,000ft it wasnt hugely better under 20,000ft. The A4 using later BMW 801D's with increased ATA from 1.42 to 1.68 would persumably be competitive if not superior below 20,000ft. Lighter aircraft all up weight with lots of power.

The Antons seem to be anemic.

horseback
01-17-2006, 12:07 PM
It has long been known that the FW 190A in this game and in its predecessor, Il-2 Sturmovik, is a pale shadow of the real thing. Between the forward view, the excessive E-bleed, and the much poorer handling relative to the late model 109s, there is a great deal about the 190's representation in this sim that needs repair.

As with the Mustang, it looks to me as though these faults are more a matter of personal prejudice than misunderstanding the data. Oleg would need to be cured of his personal animus against these historically great aircraft, or at least publicly forced to admit that they weren't that bad...

It is possible that an unholy alliance of FW fans and Mustang honks is in order; we pool our money and resources together, kidnap Oleg, and force him to fly restored examples of each aircraft after long lectures on the aircraft's histories, flying characteristics, and extended exposure to sunlight, fresh air, and decent quality fruits & vegetables.

Yeah, that's it...we'll put on a Focke and Pony show!

cheers

horseback

(please forgive me...)

mynameisroland
01-17-2006, 12:21 PM
I hear you Horseback, the Mustang and P47 have long suffered with this flaw so no matter what boost levels we ever manage to get implementing them in combat will be next to useless as the E bleed model is outrageous.

One thing the Mustang does have , strangely, is good zoom climb. How can the P51 be so formidable in this department when a Fw 190 A5 and P47 get outzoomed by a La5FN. It seems that tweaks are made here and there but the divide between E and Angle fighters is blurred to the point of mud. There is little point of flying e fighters in this game. Angles fighters flown with the same altitude and attitude are even more dominant and incur few if any penalties that they should experience when flown in this role.

Low wingloading low aircraft weight seem to have excellent E retention in zoomclimbs and excellent dive acceleration.

faustnik
01-17-2006, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by horseback:


It is possible that an unholy alliance of FW fans and Mustang honks is in order

We already have an unholy alliance with the P-47 fans. Will this be a problem?

Kocur_
01-17-2006, 12:23 PM
Naah! NOTHING to forgive! Its simply true, that all planes designed for speed and vertical fight are harmed in this game. Belive its accidental if you must, but we are talking here about game made in country where they kept testing fighters for minimal turning times in like 1943 and on! Like Red Baron was still around... The only soviet plane built for similar idea as P-51 or Fw-190, i.e. be-fast-and-lets-forget-turning was I-185. And what they did with this high wingloading, potential boom'n'zoomer? DROPPED it at once! Of course "I-185" in this game is a fake, since real one had wingloading in 220-240 kg/m2 section.

OldMan____
01-17-2006, 12:24 PM
naaa I prefer to see FW deprived of its wings tahn to make such an unholy alliance with such unholy enemy

Max.Power
01-17-2006, 12:32 PM
I don't know if this has been said before in this thread, but as I was reading the first few pages, something struck me..

Maybe with the introduction of some later war spitfires running at their proper manifold pressure, it would eliminate the need for these riced-up spitfires to compete with late war aircraft. They could then return to their nominal boost pressure, and historically more accurate match ups could resume for scenarios of these years (1942/43?).

Unless Oleg has an abrupt change of heart on the subject, I suppose you'll have to wait for BoB for the opportunity to even IMAGINE a FW running at its appropriate relative performace. Since it is a western front scenario, there's no excuse for this sort of derating.

And I also find the premise that the germans mandated their pilots to fly at a disadvantage with non-optimally configured equipment a little dubious. I mean, issuing war doctrine that demands that your soldiers fight at a disadvantage is a little silly... and it's not like we're talking about russians, here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JuHa-
01-17-2006, 01:08 PM
Unknown-Pilot:


I think that in addition to that, it's given far too great an induced drag penalty, which leads to the brakes being put on the instant you change pitch, even slightly.

I think I mentioned AoA in my rant earlier, by which I essentially ment the effect you said now above.
I'm thinking that if the thrust is really low, then the increased induced drag due to higher AoA can not be met
with engine power (thrust). Maybe the bleed rate is about correct, but as the thrust is really low - it
affects as if the induced drag is high! But: maybe the induced drag penalty is also really too high, it's
next to impossible to say as the things interfere each other.

I don't know where the CLmax et all are derived - maybe from the minimum turn radius (the 2003 thread about
IL2 aero modelling had this as one of the sources for co-efficients). If so, then ... it's possible that the turn
radius used to derive lift co-efficients is from non-german sources. Why that's so important?
If the aerilons weren't trimmed properly, the Fw190 entered premature stall in tight turns... a known
weakness countered with careful servicing by mechanics who knew this and were trained for this. Not an evil
conspirancy, but just a coincidence.

One more thing: the straight line acceleration of Fw190As is excelent. A4s outaccelerates SpitVs - but if you turn even
slightly... This combined with poor ground acceleration of Fw190As is where I started to think about it.

p1ngu666
01-17-2006, 03:14 PM
maxpower, its a simple equation

will X product/mod produce benifits, and do the disadvantages outweigh the advantages..

will the service personal, be better off with it, or without it. thats why the late war german tech was raced into service when it wasnt really all that ready. same with the IX but that was rather more reliable http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

again, no one has done tests with the spit vb, at 9bls boost

86% WITH WEP OFF, 66% WITH WEAP ON thatll give u 9lbs boost. i suspect that, 190 will climb better AND steeper.

i figure that alot of u guys are forgetting something. you all go on about the vertical, but IX's climb better as the speeds decrease, so if u slow down, a IX WILL start to catch u in a climb, its not rocket science http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

190 is better in the vertical, but not low to medium speeds (or theres not much difference)

some of you seem to think your 190 was VASTLY better than anything else, or atleast p1ssed on the IX from a very great height indeed, and u only have the advantages u think u should have when u have a ton of energy advantage

190s do *VERY* well indeed against IX's in all my experience, not just my flying personaly, but what i see in coops, and df servers.

190s do require abit more paitence to fly, maybe thats what some of u are lacking.

id go as far to say the 190s do better here, than irl, certainly from my reading

and yes max, id certainly like a realistic IX, we have the performance pretty much, now just sort out the handling http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

faustnik
01-17-2006, 03:31 PM
id go as far to say the 190s do better here, than irl, certainly from my reading

and yes max, id certainly like a realistic IX, we have the performance pretty much, now just sort out the handling

Fw190s did fine historically against the Spit IX. Check loss statistics not just RAF pilot accounts of "I shot down x number of planes".

Compare the the planes flown at realistic settings by comparable pilots, not arcade server results with one team on TS and the other not.

Anyone having a problem flying the Spit IX against an Fw190A6 needs a serious adjustment in control settings or tactics.

As you say P1ng, anyone using patience with good SA when flying the Fw190 will do very well. Anyone using similar tactics flying a Spitfire should de very well too.

p1ngu666
01-17-2006, 03:48 PM
i have faustnik, alot of the stuff i read has who was actully shot down, by who (to the best of whoever investigated abilities). probably average out at 1 to 1 or so.

IX was a deadly plane. biggest problem with it currently is the handling, hopefully thatll get patched to something similer to the 109, ie no alarms, no surprises http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

im not sure we can really do much with the controls, spits are just wobbly in this patch http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Aymar_Mauri
01-17-2006, 03:58 PM
Hi, everyone. I'm a newcomer to the forums but not to WW2 combat simulators (playing them for more than 15 years).

I would like to comment a little and ask you some questions concerning this topic in particular.

In regard to to the evident bias in-game (a supposed historically accurate game) that causes Russian fighters to be way better than according to historical data (specially early models) and "strangles" some non-russian fighters flight performance (specially the FW190's -> anemic power, very low power/weight ratio, excessive E-bleed, excessive induced drag, excessivelly high stall speeds) and to the apparent inability or unwillingness by the responsibles to correct the aircraft's behaviour in a future patch, would there be any way to alter the game's flight model through modding? And if not, wouldn't it be imperative to pressure the responsibles to allow for a moddable flight model in their future game BoB?

What is your oppinion on this matter?

faustnik
01-17-2006, 04:01 PM
That's the thing, the Spits are not unstable. Some people have wobbles, others don't. Spits are smooth as silk on my machine, I've posted several tracks at CWOS demonstrating this, you can find them there. Don't know what to say, it's controller combinations, not FM. The Fw190 yaws when firing too, just Fw190s tend to fire at higher speeds, less low speed silliness.

The "poor Spitfire" stuff cracks me up. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif Both the Fw190 and the Spitfire are great in the sim.

JG5_UnKle
01-17-2006, 04:03 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

JuHa-
01-17-2006, 04:06 PM
Pingu,

Do you use elevator trim while flying with Spitfire? If you don't try - Spit will go so
smoothly that you won't believe. As the other planes as well, to a limit.

robban75
01-17-2006, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
Hi, everyone. I'm a newcomer to the forums but not to WW2 combat simulators (playing them for more than 15 years).

I would like to comment a little and ask you some questions concerning this topic in particular.

In regard to to the evident bias in-game (a supposed historically accurate game) that causes Russian fighters to be way better than according to historical data (specially early models) and "strangles" some non-russian fighters flight performance (specially the FW190's -> anemic power, very low power/weight ratio, excessive E-bleed, excessive induced drag, excessivelly high stall speeds) and to the apparent inability or unwillingness by the responsibles to correct the aircraft's behaviour in a future patch, would there be any way to alter the game's flight model through modding? And if not, wouldn't it be imperative to pressure the responsibles to allow for a moddable flight model in their future game BoB?

What is your oppinion on this matter?

Welcome! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I'd like to comment on Russian fighters being better than historical data. Patch 4.02 didn't just bring wobbly aircraft. The ever overmodelled La-7 has been getting tune up! Or should I say tune-down!

I have done speed comparisons as well as climb comparisons, and it is a shadow of its former self. I don't have the climbrates avaliable right now, but I can say it has been reduced,, alot.

Here's a speed comparison. The La-7 actually appears,, undermodelled! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Alt ---- K-4 - P51 - La7 - D-9 - D-9'45

0m --- 590 - 608 - 612 - 614 - 621
1000 - 602 - 618 - 627 - 631 - 632
2000 - 624 - 646 - 643 - 643 - 628
3000 - 650 - 677 - 630 - 650 - 655
4000 - 673 - 691 - 632 - 684 - 684
5000 - 704 - 679 - 660 - 720 - 706

KrashanTopolova
01-17-2006, 04:09 PM
the design trend of Fokke Wulf fighter was of streamlined fuselage and of wings with even more stretched aspect ratio; till the last example looked something like a cross between a daschund and a U2. this thing didn't see much service but would probably have been an awesome fighter. However, I personally doubt just from its plan form alone that it or any of its predecessors could effectively outclimb a powerful elliptical wing fighter that was using flaps to aid climb rate.

Lazy312
01-17-2006, 04:11 PM
Kocur, La-5FN was used for fighting in vertical. I can post many pilots accounts on that. In "Taktika istrebitelnoj aviacii" from 1943 turnfights are discouraged and vertical maneuvering is a preferred way of fighting for La-5 (which BTW was no king of stallfights). VVS also tested "climb in a combat turn" (they tested immelmann too) parameter, which basically means how well a plane can maneuver in vertical. Testing the best turn time not only tells you who wins a turn fight but it also tells you how much SPEED a plane loses when you do most of the basic maneuvers.. and you have to do some now and then in the combat. BTW do you think Russians damaged their yaks' wings when turning? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
01-17-2006, 04:14 PM
i trim elivator and rudder, aliron too if its avalible.

some ppl have wobble, others dont, if u have wobble it only really effects some planes, 109 and 190 dont get effected much.

p51,spit,corsairs, yaks are the worst, and yes i have put on all the fixes ive come across, tweeked my stick too, but if 190 and 109 are fine, its someting in the game or game related problem http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

spit should fly beutifully, like a beuatiful lady. mines like a drunken lady http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

jugent
01-17-2006, 04:14 PM
Thre independent test, australian, russian and english stated that below 5K there where no difference in climb between the spit V spit IX and Fw-190 A4?
Above 5K the spit IX was better.
The FW accelerated so much better that the spit-pilots where told to fly on almoust topspeed to avoid the disadvantage.
The Fw was better in all dimensions than the horizontal, the curving. It was easy to get inside a Fw flying a spit.

LEXX_Luthor
01-17-2006, 04:47 PM
Aymar::
Hi, everyone. I'm a newcomer to the forums but not to WW2 combat simulators (playing them for more than 15 years).
:
:
In regard to to the evident bias in-game (a supposed historically accurate game) that causes Russian fighters to be way better than according to historical data (specially early models) and "strangles" some non-russian fighters flight performance (specially the FW190's -> anemic power, very low power/weight ratio, excessive E-bleed, excessive induced drag, excessivelly high stall speeds) and to the apparent inability or unwillingness by the responsibles to correct the aircraft's behaviour in a future patch, would there be any way to alter the game's flight model through modding? And if not, wouldn't it be imperative to pressure the responsibles to allow for a moddable flight model in their future game BoB?
Wellcome http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Yes, in StrikeFighters you can use the knowledge gained from 15 years of playing games to uprate Fw-190 with afterburner (-190F), add radar (-190PF), and missiles (-190PFU).

WARNING:: StrikeFighters does have La-11, and its a Mod ... JG53 Squad members beware. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

faustnik
01-17-2006, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:


p51,spit,corsairs, yaks are the worst, and yes i have put on all the fixes ive come across, tweeked my stick too, but if 190 and 109 are fine, its someting in the game or game related problem http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

The problem is with perception not the software. Many claim that the Fw190 is unstable, like balancing on the head of a pin, but, it flys great for me. On the Spit flies perfectly through maneuvers I couldn't hope to copy in an Fw190. The Red players wanted the elevator authority of the Bf109 reduced, now the Bf109 is harder to stall, be careful what you wish for.


So, your perception is that LW planes handle so much better, many claim Allied planes handle so much better, it's all point of view.


IL-2 Online DF Rule #1:

The plane that shoots you down is always overmodeled.

IL-2 Online DF Rule #2:

If you fly red, Oleg is biased for blue. If you fly blue, Oleg is biased for red.

IL-2 Online DF Rule #3:

The other guy's plane is always easier to fly.

Learn these rules and will understand any forum flame war or HL chat bar tirade.

AustinPowers_
01-17-2006, 05:22 PM
Just did a few tests... FW-190A4, vs Spit MKVb +9 boost...

170MPH all the way to 20,000FT.

Initial take off roll acceleration is markedly suprior for the spitfire. It explodes of the runway compared to the docile A4.

Once in the air the Focke Wulf can quickly catch and match the spitfire.

Initial climb is superior for the Focke wulf, and for around 5 thousand feet the angle of climb is a few degrees steeper.

The Focke Wulf is easily quicker to 20,000FT, but it looses climb rate quite quickly over 15,000FT and at 19K the power takes a nose dive (excuse the pun).

Above 20,000FT the Spitfire is superior in climb.

faustnik
01-17-2006, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by AustinPowers_:
Just did a few tests... FW-190A4, vs Spit MKVb +9 boost...

170MPH all the way to 20,000FT.

Initial take off roll acceleration is markedly suprior for the spitfire. It explodes of the runway compared to the docile A4.

Once in the air the Focke Wulf can quickly catch and match the spitfire.

Initial climb is superior for the Focke wulf, and for around 5 thousand feet the angle of climb is a few degrees steeper.

The Focke Wulf is easily quicker to 20,000FT, but it looses climb rate quite quickly over 15,000FT and at 19K the power takes a nose dive (excuse the pun).

Above 20,000FT the Spitfire takes over.

Sounds good to me, except the accleration part, but, hey, that's easy to overcome, just keep speed up. Haven't we said something like that before?

Aymar_Mauri
01-17-2006, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by robban75:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
Hi, everyone. I'm a newcomer to the forums but not to WW2 combat simulators (playing them for more than 15 years).

I would like to comment a little and ask you some questions concerning this topic in particular.

In regard to to the evident bias in-game (a supposed historically accurate game) that causes Russian fighters to be way better than according to historical data (specially early models) and "strangles" some non-russian fighters flight performance (specially the FW190's -> anemic power, very low power/weight ratio, excessive E-bleed, excessive induced drag, excessivelly high stall speeds) and to the apparent inability or unwillingness by the responsibles to correct the aircraft's behaviour in a future patch, would there be any way to alter the game's flight model through modding? And if not, wouldn't it be imperative to pressure the responsibles to allow for a moddable flight model in their future game BoB?

What is your oppinion on this matter?

Welcome! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I'd like to comment on Russian fighters being better than historical data. Patch 4.02 didn't just bring wobbly aircraft. The ever overmodelled La-7 has been getting tune up! Or should I say tune-down!

I have done speed comparisons as well as climb comparisons, and it is a shadow of its former self. I don't have the climbrates avaliable right now, but I can say it has been reduced,, alot.

Here's a speed comparison. The La-7 actually appears,, undermodelled! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Alt ---- K-4 - P51 - La7 - D-9 - D-9'45

0m --- 590 - 608 - 612 - 614 - 621
1000 - 602 - 618 - 627 - 631 - 632
2000 - 624 - 646 - 643 - 643 - 628
3000 - 650 - 677 - 630 - 650 - 655
4000 - 673 - 691 - 632 - 684 - 684
5000 - 704 - 679 - 660 - 720 - 706 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, that is good to know. But some of the others in that list are not up to specification too -> K4 - 729; P51D - 703. What about climbrate? Any particulary interesting point in your findings?

Is that related to the lower spec LaGGs, MiG-3 or La-5s? Contrary to other fighters, they always seemed to me a bit over the top in regard to historical data...

p1ngu666
01-17-2006, 05:27 PM
i havent seen many claim the 190 is unstable faus, more unstable than 109 but.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

its the slats, not elivator authority that means the 109 can do wacky things imo

AustinPowers_
01-17-2006, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:


Sounds good to me, except the accleration part, but, hey, that's easy to overcome, just keep speed up. Haven't we said something like that before?

I was quite impressed at the thought of a 1.42 ATA FW-190A4 vs. Spitfire Vb at +9 boost http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif Even in Oleg's sim, there would be little contest.

Initial acceleration is a strange one on the runway.. but once in the air the angle of attack is reduced and the FW seems to surge fowards.
Another point I think is the loss in climb rate relative to the Spitfire at 20K.

IIRC the raf found the FW was better to 25K.

Aymar_Mauri
01-17-2006, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Aymar:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hi, everyone. I'm a newcomer to the forums but not to WW2 combat simulators (playing them for more than 15 years).
:
:
In regard to to the evident bias in-game (a supposed historically accurate game) that causes Russian fighters to be way better than according to historical data (specially early models) and "strangles" some non-russian fighters flight performance (specially the FW190's -> anemic power, very low power/weight ratio, excessive E-bleed, excessive induced drag, excessivelly high stall speeds) and to the apparent inability or unwillingness by the responsibles to correct the aircraft's behaviour in a future patch, would there be any way to alter the game's flight model through modding? And if not, wouldn't it be imperative to pressure the responsibles to allow for a moddable flight model in their future game BoB?
Wellcome http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Yes, in StrikeFighters you can use the knowledge gained from 15 years of playing games to uprate Fw-190 with afterburner (-190F), add radar (-190PF), and missiles (-190PFU).

WARNING:: StrikeFighters does have La-11, and its a Mod ... JG53 Squad members beware. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks for the welcome everyone. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Well, I wasn't really planning on making such interesting (read over the top) but extensive modifications. Just to correct the planes to historical data and reports. All in all, a FW190A4 should dominate a simple LaGG-3 in any flight characteristic except turning ability.

Aymar_Mauri
01-17-2006, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:

IL-2 Online DF Rule #1:

The plane that shoots you down is always overmodeled.

IL-2 Online DF Rule #2:

If you fly red, Oleg is biased for blue. If you fly blue, Oleg is biased for red.

IL-2 Online DF Rule #3:

The other guy's plane is always easier to fly.

Learn these rules and will understand any forum flame war or HL chat bar tirade. I just had to comment on this... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

faustnik
01-17-2006, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
i havent seen many claim the 190 is unstable faus, more unstable than 109 but.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

its the slats, not elivator authority that means the 109 can do wacky things imo

Maybe it's just the circle you hang with, I hear it all the time. Like I said, all perception. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

faustnik
01-17-2006, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by AustinPowers_:

Another point I think is the loss in climb rate relative to the Spitfire at 20K.

IIRC the raf found the FW was better to 25K.

What power settings did you use?

Unknown-Pilot
01-17-2006, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by robban75:
Welcome! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I'd like to comment on Russian fighters being better than historical data. Patch 4.02 didn't just bring wobbly aircraft. The ever overmodelled La-7 has been getting tune up! Or should I say tune-down!

I have done speed comparisons as well as climb comparisons, and it is a shadow of its former self. I don't have the climbrates avaliable right now, but I can say it has been reduced,, alot.

Here's a speed comparison. The La-7 actually appears,, undermodelled! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Alt ---- K-4 - P51 - La7 - D-9 - D-9'45

0m --- 590 - 608 - 612 - 614 - 621
1000 - 602 - 618 - 627 - 631 - 632
2000 - 624 - 646 - 643 - 643 - 628
3000 - 650 - 677 - 630 - 650 - 655
4000 - 673 - 691 - 632 - 684 - 684
5000 - 704 - 679 - 660 - 720 - 706

This happened once before in IL2 with the Laughin' (La5FN). And history (of the game) has shown this to apparently have been an oversight as it was returned to it's former UFO status in the very next patch.

p1ngu666
01-17-2006, 06:04 PM
the ones i posted twice
66% @ wep, and 86% at non wep
gets u 9lbs boost

109 can transition between movements very quickly, something our spit cant do it just tip stalls

its not about raw turn performance, the spit bests a g6late at everything, but in transitional stuff 109s are superb, because its very hard to stall cos of the slats.

lack of elivator authority is perhaps a part of that, but not much, as if the elivator was very stiff, u could jerk ur stick, and not much would happen..

KrashanTopolova
01-17-2006, 06:06 PM
FW 190A-8 'Panzerbock'
initial climb rate 2 363 ft/min (720m)
max speed: 408mph (654km/h)

Supermarine Spitfire MkV (merlin engine)
initial climb rate: 4 740 ft/min (1445m)
Max Speed: 369 mph (594 km/h)

love that elliptical wing

Unknown-Pilot
01-17-2006, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
its the slats, not elivator authority that means the 109 can do wacky things imo

"imo". Precisely. Anybody who fights for accurate modeling of those planes is accused of being biased and wanting overmodeled stuff because of the real bias of the victors in history (among other things).

In other words, it was better than you think/give it credit for/want to believe. (<- whichever one fits or works best for the circumstance)

Unknown-Pilot
01-17-2006, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
its very hard to stall cos of the slats.

Which is why they were put there, in addition to helping control the stall.

They also had a more gentle and controlled stall than they have had all throughout the entire series.

Unknown-Pilot
01-17-2006, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by KrashanTopolova:
FW 190A-8 'Panzerbock'
initial climb rate 2 363 ft/min (720m)
max speed: 408mph (654km/h)

Supermarine Spitfire MkV (merlin engine)
initial climb rate: 4 740 ft/min (1445m)
Max Speed: 369 mph (594 km/h)

love that elliptical wing

Love that convenient choice of planes to compare too...

faustnik
01-17-2006, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by KrashanTopolova:
FW 190A-8 'Panzerbock'
initial climb rate 2 363 ft/min (720m)
max speed: 408mph (654km/h)

Supermarine Spitfire MkV (merlin engine)
initial climb rate: 4 740 ft/min (1445m)
Max Speed: 369 mph (594 km/h)

love that elliptical wing

Please post power settings along with data, your post is very misleading.

p1ngu666
01-17-2006, 08:22 PM
the panzerblock is a antibomber, or heavy jabo plane

the vb there is probably a LF one

krashan, is indeed the antikurfurst http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

and unknow pilot, i know why slats where put planes too

heck, ive even seen the very first plane with leading edge slats in the flesh http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

there so effective ingame, that ud never make a plane without them

there *too* effective ingame.

KrashanTopolova
01-17-2006, 11:48 PM
I don't have power settings but presumably initial climb rate is under full power.

the FW-190 is a superb fighter and the RAF felt it was far superior to the comparatively sluggish Spitfire V.
Some idiot landed by mistake in Britain and it was then that the RAF found that the FW-190 was even better than the RAF thought from combat experience against it.
Climb rate of the FW-190 series would have been affected by the heavy internal armament of the type.
However, faster climb rate for the Spitfire could probably be inferred from the faster roll rate of the FW-190 (those tinny thin wingy things).

Oleg: Watch out when you're driving the Bf-109; those slot thingys often opened in tight turns and caught the ailerons thus throwing the pilot off his aim . It also had extremely poor lateral control at high speeds.

faustnik
01-18-2006, 12:36 AM
Originally posted by KrashanTopolova:
I don't have power settings but presumably initial climb rate is under full power.

Your assumption is wrong. Full power initial climb rates for the Fw190A series averaged between 3400 and 4000fpm. The figures you are using are 30 minute power ratings for an heavily armored bomber interceptor compared to the 5 minute emergency power ratings for the Spitfire LF Vb.


Maybe your just clowning?

AustinPowers_
01-18-2006, 01:13 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AustinPowers_:

Another point I think is the loss in climb rate relative to the Spitfire at 20K.

IIRC the raf found the FW was better to 25K.

What power settings did you use? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Full power, automatic pitch.
The Spitfire maintained +9boost or as close to it as possible.

faustnik
01-18-2006, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by AustinPowers_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AustinPowers_:

Another point I think is the loss in climb rate relative to the Spitfire at 20K.

IIRC the raf found the FW was better to 25K.

What power settings did you use? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Full power, automatic pitch.
The Spitfire maintained +9boost or as close to it as possible. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Check the Spit EB-104 and Spitfire climb chart I have at CWOS. Even the Spit V +9 had the advantage at various altitudes. The Spit Vc +16 (no tropical filter wasn't much different.

Nice test. Our PF Fw190 might start a little sluggish but, she finishes strong. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Lazy312
01-18-2006, 02:12 AM
IMHO there are two common ways of testing climb rate:

1. Sustained climb rate, prolonged climb, less than full power (the plane has to climb for minutes and also cooling is less efficient at low speeds).

2. Initial climb rate, takeoff or emergency power, climbing from the deck only for a while, also the initial speed can be higher. Of course initial climb rate is higher than sustained one. I don't know how exactly initial climb rate was tested but I guess there were differences in different armies.

These two rates cannot be mixed otherwise we would get a totally wrong picture when comparing aircraft. If anybody will correct my statements and provide more details, I would be glad.

LEXX_Luthor
01-18-2006, 02:46 AM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Aymar:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hi, everyone. I'm a newcomer to the forums but not to WW2 combat simulators (playing them for more than 15 years).
:
:
In regard to to the evident bias in-game (a supposed historically accurate game) that causes Russian fighters to be way better than according to historical data (specially early models) and "strangles" some non-russian fighters flight performance (specially the FW190's -> anemic power, very low power/weight ratio, excessive E-bleed, excessive induced drag, excessivelly high stall speeds) and to the apparent inability or unwillingness by the responsibles to correct the aircraft's behaviour in a future patch, would there be any way to alter the game's flight model through modding? And if not, wouldn't it be imperative to pressure the responsibles to allow for a moddable flight model in their future game BoB?
Wellcome http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Yes, in StrikeFighters you can use the knowledge gained from 15 years of playing games to uprate Fw-190 with afterburner (-190F), add radar (-190PF), and missiles (-190PFU).

WARNING:: StrikeFighters does have La-11, and its a Mod ... JG53 Squad members beware. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks for the welcome everyone. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Well, I wasn't really planning on making such interesting (read over the top) but extensive modifications. Just to correct the planes to historical data and reports. All in all, a FW190A4 should dominate a simple LaGG-3 in any flight characteristic except turning ability. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
First, what we have now is "beta" flight modelling for BoB And Beyond. Everything can change, and is changing (except Dots and LODs!!).

And, we get diaper bags full of sloppy Angry Gamers making their first post crying for extensive modifications to the sim to match their advertised 10 or 15 years of (real life) computer gaming experience. Its even funny when they contradict Faustnik's posts that Fw-190A4 is a top performing plane in this sim. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

hehe, czech this out, and the sim is not even Made In Russia ...

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif "Biased" FM mod fixing? ~> http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb....topic;f=145;t=002213 (http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=145;t=002213)

I guess this kinda exposes the fraudulent little gaming slops at this webboard who wet their "experienced" dogfight diapers over a Made In Russia sim, and -- it is becoming apparent -- they (like me) don't know what a World War 2 fighter is (never mind bombers and the pilots involved). The more they bragg they know, the less they behave like they Know. Come to think, I've never seen Oleg post how much he "knows" about WW2 aircraft, and that tells me everything about the man and everything about the arcade "expert" dogfight shooter community. Granted, Oleg does have major MAJOR issues in game design and software content. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But thankfully, aircraft flight modelling is not among his most pressing issues.

mynameisroland
01-18-2006, 04:04 AM
Originally posted by KrashanTopolova:
FW 190A-8 'Panzerbock'
initial climb rate 2 363 ft/min (720m)
max speed: 408mph (654km/h)

Supermarine Spitfire MkV (merlin engine)
initial climb rate: 4 740 ft/min (1445m)
Max Speed: 369 mph (594 km/h)

love that elliptical wing

Really helpful, you pick the best climbing Spitfire the VB L.F 1943 version and pitch it against the poorest climbing, by a country mile, Fw 190 version the A8 Sturmbock. And then pick the best altitude roc for the Spitfire VB - it only had that roc at sea level above 10,000 to 15000 ft it was asthmatic.

You cant hope to get away with posts like this when the other guys in the argument know more about both the Spitfire and the Fw 190 than you do. Try and read up on both aircraft for a couple of years before you come back and repost.

mynameisroland
01-18-2006, 04:24 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
maxpower, its a simple equation

will X product/mod produce benifits, and do the disadvantages outweigh the advantages..

will the service personal, be better off with it, or without it. thats why the late war german tech was raced into service when it wasnt really all that ready. same with the IX but that was rather more reliable http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

again, no one has done tests with the spit vb, at 9bls boost

86% WITH WEP OFF, 66% WITH WEAP ON thatll give u 9lbs boost. i suspect that, 190 will climb better AND steeper.

i figure that alot of u guys are forgetting something. you all go on about the vertical, but IX's climb better as the speeds decrease, so if u slow down, a IX WILL start to catch u in a climb, its not rocket science http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

190 is better in the vertical, but not low to medium speeds (or theres not much difference)

some of you seem to think your 190 was VASTLY better than anything else, or atleast p1ssed on the IX from a very great height indeed, and u only have the advantages u think u should have when u have a ton of energy advantage

190s do *VERY* well indeed against IX's in all my experience, not just my flying personaly, but what i see in coops, and df servers.

190s do require abit more paitence to fly, maybe thats what some of u are lacking.

id go as far to say the 190s do better here, than irl, certainly from my reading

and yes max, id certainly like a realistic IX, we have the performance pretty much, now just sort out the handling http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Pingu you know I like the Spitfire but I cant help but feel that your posts detract to and draw attention from the main point I am trying to make. The Fw 190A4 is excellent in this game no doubt, however it still doesnt perfom to the boost settings or handling characteristics documented in most accounts I have read.

As for the Fw 190 being better in this game than in reality that makes me want to laugh! In what aspects does the Fw 190 A4 or any other Anton for that matter outperform its real life WW2 counterpart? All the Fw 190 does well at in this game is flat out speed and diving from altitude making one pass kills.

It doesnt handle freely enough at speed as it did do.

It doesnt zoom climb like it was reputed to - see Robbans Tests.

It doesnt accelerate like it should do - It accelerated much more quickly than even the Spitfire IX.

Its dive perfomance is severly lacking.

Its climb is way below par.

It has its gunsight view partially obscured - famously.

It also has a debatable pilot kill bug and massive performance loss from slight wing damage.

Now the Spitfire is probably my joint favourite aircraft. I fly it even more than the Fw 190 and I do very well in it. I am among the highest scorers and also survivers ( K/D ratio ) on the server I fly on. The Spitfire is also an excellent fighter in IL2 this needs to emphasised. It handles superbly and I use the CW winged version mainly which has inferior stall and stability characteristics when compared to the normal winged varaint yet I dont see any reason to complain.

However you have also made one of the best contributions to the topic by mentioning test the Spiftire at 9lb boost. The Fw 190 A4 would only be running at 1.32 ATA though wouldnt it? As we dont have 1.42 boost available so perhaps we should use the Fw 190 A5 for the roc tests?

I still think that holding a steep climb angle in the Fw 190 Anton series is impossible and I dont believe that was the case in reality. The Dora manages much better with a similar power loading to the Fw 190 A5. I think the FM characteristics for the Fw 190 A series makes any climbing manuver prohibative. In WW2 I am positive that every Fw 190 engagement had to be commenced with a great E advantage. Especially against the Spitfire Vb. When you have an aircraft that out accelerates the Spitfire easily and also has a better topspeed/dive and zoom climb you could start the engagement co altitude and still hold all the cards. Currently you cannot fight co altitude without running away and building 2 to 3 km seperation. turing and climbing is so prohibative that you have no other option in the Fw 190 A.

mynameisroland
01-18-2006, 08:56 AM
To recreate the disparity between the SpitfireVb and Spitfire IX Merlin 61 vs the Fw 190 A3 running at 1.42 the circumstances we would need to fly the Spitfire Vb at pingus throttle settings, to have a 1942 Spitfire IX 61 introduced in IL2 instead of the IX 66 we currently have and to use the Fw 190 A5 to achieve the boost settings the A4 is missing.

Jeesh! what a lot of hassle to recreate a scenario that was a daily occurence during 41/42 on the Channel Front... You'd think we were asking for something that didnt exist http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

LEXX_Luthor
01-18-2006, 09:21 AM
Most likely, Oleg has better things to do than model a limited Channel dogfight scenario. I am going to have to use Yak-25 as Yak-120M, and Yak-28P as Yak-27, as only the basic -25 and -28P are available, and these from 3rd Parties who have better things to do than mod protoype interceptors and weapon test beds. Then, I'll have to mod up my own basic R-8s. But, I'm not complaining since I could spend 3000$ on 3dsmax and spend a few years learning 3d modeling. I can afford the Hack job, and I have the skills for it.

mynameisroland
01-18-2006, 09:33 AM
Limited http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The Fw 190 A4 was introduced in service units in June 1942 by which time 1.42 ATA was used on all BMW 801Ds. Even before June 42 the BMW 801 was ran at 1.42 ATA by most aircraft it was only derated below this figure occasionally if particular engines were running rough or if they were brand new or on delivery flights. The A4 was the first really common place Fw 190 so its reasonable to ask that an aircraft that fought against all of the Allies across Europe North Africa and Eastern Europe throughout 1942 43 and later be modelled with some modicum of accuracy.

The Fw 190 A4 we have in IL2 is some random Oleg creation which bears no resemblence to the Fw 190 A4 encountered by its main enemies the RAF and USAAF and it also bears little resemblence to the Fw 190 A3 which also was capable of higher speeds than the Fw 190 A4 we have in game.

It would be beneficial to add a European model as well as a 'derated' model because IL2 is no longer soley an Eastern front game it hasnt been for a long time.

Question - Why give us the Yak7 mod while refusing for years to touch the Fw 190 A4?

Aymar_Mauri
01-18-2006, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Aymar:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hi, everyone. I'm a newcomer to the forums but not to WW2 combat simulators (playing them for more than 15 years).
:
:
In regard to to the evident bias in-game (a supposed historically accurate game) that causes Russian fighters to be way better than according to historical data (specially early models) and "strangles" some non-russian fighters flight performance (specially the FW190's -> anemic power, very low power/weight ratio, excessive E-bleed, excessive induced drag, excessivelly high stall speeds) and to the apparent inability or unwillingness by the responsibles to correct the aircraft's behaviour in a future patch, would there be any way to alter the game's flight model through modding? And if not, wouldn't it be imperative to pressure the responsibles to allow for a moddable flight model in their future game BoB?
Wellcome http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Yes, in StrikeFighters you can use the knowledge gained from 15 years of playing games to uprate Fw-190 with afterburner (-190F), add radar (-190PF), and missiles (-190PFU).

WARNING:: StrikeFighters does have La-11, and its a Mod ... JG53 Squad members beware. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks for the welcome everyone. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Well, I wasn't really planning on making such interesting (read over the top) but extensive modifications. Just to correct the planes to historical data and reports. All in all, a FW190A4 should dominate a simple LaGG-3 in any flight characteristic except turning ability. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
First, what we have now is "beta" flight modelling for BoB And Beyond. Everything can change, and is changing (except Dots and LODs!!). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, a patch for a released game is never considered a Beta for a future game, specially when the FM engine is different. So I fail to see your point...


Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
And, we get diaper bags full of sloppy Angry Gamers making their first post crying for extensive modifications to the sim to match their advertised 10 or 15 years of (real life) computer gaming experience. Its even funny when they contradict Faustnik's posts that Fw-190A4 is a top performing plane in this sim. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Well, I really don't see your point. And I don't really understand the childish sarcastic tone.

Faustnik has his own oppinion, I have mine. Or was he a WW2 FW190 pilot? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Besides, my experience is not just regarding 15 years of flight sims. I have been reading WW2 airplane data since I was 12 and kept reading and researching on it throughout my life. I'm 33 now and some of the in-game FW190's flight characteristics are not well modelled. One just needs to look at it to realize it... ...not that you can actually...


Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:hehe, czech this out, and the sim is not even Made In Russia ...

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif "Biased" FM mod fixing? ~> http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb....topic;f=145;t=002213 (http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=145;t=002213)

I guess this kinda exposes the fraudulent little gaming slops at this webboard who wet their "experienced" dogfight diapers over a Made In Russia sim, and -- it is becoming apparent -- they (like me) don't know what a World War 2 fighter is (never mind bombers and the pilots involved). The more they bragg they know, the less they behave like they Know. Come to think, I've never seen Oleg post how much he "knows" about WW2 aircraft, and that tells me everything about the man and everything about the arcade "expert" dogfight shooter community. Granted, Oleg does have major MAJOR issues in game design and software content. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But thankfully, aircraft flight modelling is not among his most pressing issues. Interesting babble here. Let's try to translate into proper language:


Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:fraudulent little gaming slops Call yourself whatever you like... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:who wet their "experienced" dogfight diapers over a Made In Russia sim, and -- it is becoming apparent -- they (like me) don't know what a World War 2 fighter is (never mind bombers and the pilots involved). This is so full of babble and bias that is hardly understandable, but I'll try to reply.

The fact that it was a Russia-made CS was a great appeal to me mainly because I was sure that we would see a more impartial perspective. Reading the first few impressions about the game I was sure that it would be much more historically thourough and accurate than any sim up to then and wouldn't catter to any side or any gameplay balance. Pure implementation of historical data would be the deciding factor in airplane performance and flight impression. Regretably it was not so. Although regarding accuracy I still think this is still the benchmark for WW2 combat sims, it saddens me to see that the FM are not accurate for a few planes and that there is a marked difference in regard to preferences.

It also sadens me that people on this forum think that because one is posting for the very first time here he is a 5 year old that was just bought an illustrated Spitfire book by his father. You should understand that most people with a RL only post when they have absolute need to comment on something important and don't have the time or inclination to spam the forums like you do.


Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:The more they bragg they know, the less they behave like they Know. Well, one can see that from your post regarding yourself. Since I did not brag anything, just stated a fact, I fail to see what this comment has to do with me.


Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:Come to think, I've never seen Oleg post how much he "knows" about WW2 aircraft, and that tells me everything about the man and everything about the arcade "expert" dogfight shooter community. Granted, Oleg does have major MAJOR issues in game design and software content. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But thankfully, aircraft flight modelling is not among his most pressing issues. Too bad. That is just the most important factor in a truthfull historical combat simulator. And that is what Oleg and his team have all along claimed the IL2 series would be. But it seems that your arcade perspective does not realize it...

LEXX_Luthor
01-18-2006, 10:43 AM
Yes, A4 in Africa and The Meds of course!! I forgot about that.

m::
Fw 190 A4 we have in IL2 is some random Oleg creation which bears no resemblence to the Fw 190 A4 encountered by its main enemies the RAF and USAAF
This bears no resemblence to faustnik's postings that Fw-190A4 in the sim is among the top performers. We don't understand.

m::
Question - Why give us the Yak7 mod while refusing for years to touch the Fw 190 A4?
Maybe Oleg makes endless Yaks as an experiment (-9B internal bomb bay), or makes them for the Russian simmers and/or aviation community. A Made In Microsoft combat flight sim might focus more on Western Front dogfighting for those who can get into that. Czech it out. The Publisher offers no touching up of Fw-190s though.

LEXX_Luthor
01-18-2006, 10:49 AM
Aymar::
It also sadens me that people on this forum think that because one is posting for the very first time here he is a 5 year old
he/she

In our first post here we exhibit the behavior of an angry computer gamer throwing his/her first temper tantrum on a gaming webboard. Lets cover this again...

Aymar::
Hi, everyone. I'm a newcomer to the forums but not to WW2 combat simulators (playing them for more than 15 years).

I would like to comment a little and ask you some questions concerning this topic in particular.

In regard to to the evident bias in-game (a supposed historically accurate game) that causes Russian fighters to be way better than according to historical data (specially early models) and "strangles" some non-russian fighters flight performance (specially the FW190's -> anemic power, very low power/weight ratio, excessive E-bleed, excessive induced drag, excessivelly high stall speeds) and to the apparent inability or unwillingness by the responsibles to correct the aircraft's behaviour in a future patch, would there be any way to alter the game's flight model through modding? And if not, wouldn't it be imperative to pressure the responsibles to allow for a moddable flight model in their future game BoB?

What is your oppinion on this matter?
And, we got an oppinion. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

faustnik
01-18-2006, 10:55 AM
Faustnik has his own oppinion, I have mine. Or was he a WW2 FW190 pilot?

I am a qualified expert. My resume is posted here:

http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=F...ile=viewtopic&t=7967 (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=7967)

mynameisroland
01-18-2006, 10:56 AM
Hey no offense guys but id rather this thread was flame free Im not really interested in personal differences between posters.

Aymar_Mauri
01-18-2006, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Aymar:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It also sadens me that people on this forum think that because one is posting for the very first time here he is a 5 year old
he/she

In our first post here we exhibit the behavior of an angry computer gamer throwing his/her first temper tantrum on a gaming webboard. Lets cover this again...

Aymar::
Hi, everyone. I'm a newcomer to the forums but not to WW2 combat simulators (playing them for more than 15 years).

I would like to comment a little and ask you some questions concerning this topic in particular.

In regard to to the evident bias in-game (a supposed historically accurate game) that causes Russian fighters to be way better than according to historical data (specially early models) and "strangles" some non-russian fighters flight performance (specially the FW190's -> anemic power, very low power/weight ratio, excessive E-bleed, excessive induced drag, excessivelly high stall speeds) and to the apparent inability or unwillingness by the responsibles to correct the aircraft's behaviour in a future patch, would there be any way to alter the game's flight model through modding? And if not, wouldn't it be imperative to pressure the responsibles to allow for a moddable flight model in their future game BoB?

What is your oppinion on this matter?
And, we got an oppinion. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So, you consider this a rude aproach? It seems to me you don't read what you post...

LEXX_Luthor
01-18-2006, 11:12 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

m::
Hey no offense guys but id rather this thread was flame free
Faustnik I can listen to alot. You have to police your own threads, or sometimes others will do it for you. Keep your threads intelligent conversation -- it takes extra work -- to maintain credibility so others will listen to what you post. If people see a Chimp Chart(tm) posted, and the next post a slop gamer whining slogan, people will ignore the Chimp Charts(tm). That happened to me during the Fw gunsight view threads, I just laughed at what I thought was all the Fw Fans silliness until I Saw the Refraction and how it works -- refraction was not popular among Fw Fans compared to the wild popularity of the child seat, nose dive attitude, and other Fw gunsight ideas that didn't pan out -- a comedic episode).

btw...Fw gunsight is the *one* thing that totally escaped our new Fw Fan (and me above) and that all agree that Oleg won't fix (along with Dots and LODs!!).

Aymar_Mauri
01-18-2006, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Faustnik has his own oppinion, I have mine. Or was he a WW2 FW190 pilot?

I am a qualified expert. My resume is posted here:

http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=F...ile=viewtopic&t=7967 (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=7967) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Hehehe. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I rest my case...

Aymar_Mauri
01-18-2006, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Hey no offense guys but id rather this thread was flame free Im not really interested in personal differences between posters. Neither am I. But I wasn't the responsible for starting a flame war.

Aymar_Mauri
01-18-2006, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
btw...Fw gunsight is the *one* thing that totally escaped our new Fw Fan (and me above) and that all agree that Oleg won't fix (along with Dots and LODs!!). In relation to the FW190 FM that is a minor issue. That is why I did not refer it too. But you are just trying to get something to pick...

LEXX_Luthor
01-18-2006, 11:20 AM
True, Refraction has nothing to do with FM, or DM (okay, armour glass maybe).

AustinPowers_
01-18-2006, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
refraction was not popular among Fw Fans compared to the wild popularity of the child seat, nose dive attitude, and other Fw gunsight ideas that didn't pan out


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

I think Lexx only comes to these forums to amuse himself

Still, his intended victims rarely get his jokes, so he goes buy unnoticed and unmolested.
This thread is the exception to the rule

LEXX_Luthor
01-18-2006, 11:31 AM
In some ways, the shooter boards can be alot of fun. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

But, I became a solid convert to the movement after I Saw the Refraction.

mynameisroland
01-18-2006, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Hey no offense guys but id rather this thread was flame free Im not really interested in personal differences between posters. Neither am I. But I wasn't the responsible for starting a flame war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you want to continue take it to PM's if you want to talk about Fw 190 A4's climb please post.

Aymar_Mauri
01-18-2006, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Hey no offense guys but id rather this thread was flame free Im not really interested in personal differences between posters. Neither am I. But I wasn't the responsible for starting a flame war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you want to continue take it to PM's if you want to talk about Fw 190 A4's climb please post. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, sustained it's anemic, specially from low speeds. Only if you have a lot of momentum do you get by. Even with a short duration steepe angle climb. That is my impression on matters.

IMHO, the abismal problem with the FW190 is the enormous loss of speed when doing even slight turns. That is very different from WW2 reports.

mynameisroland
01-18-2006, 02:46 PM
I agree it loses speed through turns and infact all other manuvers. This may seem obvious but it bleeds a heck of a lot of speed doing anything.

This is why I dont believe only adding extra boost performance for the BMW 801 and boosting it to 1.42 ATA levels would actually increase the performance except for level speed. The basic problem remains. You cant climb with the Fw 190 at anything but low shallow climbs. This cannot be correct as it differs from all western accounts of the type.

p1ngu666
01-18-2006, 03:55 PM
touching up of Fw-190s

about half the ppl in this thread would touchup a 190 given the chance http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

cfs is better than the PF for those who want to fix things, as they can do it themselves...

dive like a tallboy, and climb like a v2 if they wanted http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Unknown-Pilot
01-18-2006, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I agree it loses speed through turns and infact all other manuvers. This may seem obvious but it bleeds a heck of a lot of speed doing anything.

This is why I dont believe only adding extra boost performance for the BMW 801 and boosting it to 1.42 ATA levels would actually increase the performance except for level speed. The basic problem remains. You cant climb with the Fw 190 at anything but low shallow climbs. This cannot be correct as it differs from all western accounts of the type.

Extra power *should* result in extra thrust - unless the prop model is screwed up too. But assuming it's not, that extra thrust would, by definition, help climb rate, and climb angle, as well as acceleration and top speed.

That might require more parasitic (1G) drag in order to keep the top speed reasonable, but it would cure the acceleration (level and dive) problems, as well as the climb, and even zoom somewhat. The only question at that point is if the Cdi is too high or not.

The thing is though, even though we can go to 100% pitch and see more boost and rpm in the guages, that doesn't mean it's actually reaching the thrust that should be attained from such displayed levels.

LEXX_Luthor
01-18-2006, 04:27 PM
Get with the TAGERT and make E-bleed tracks with that data recording trick he uses, he may be willing to do some grafix. But, you have to do tracks for different aircraft. I wonder if the high speed gee forces you can pull in Fw is causing some people's experience. Gee forces won't explain climb angle though, and I don't know how well FB models best climb speed.

KrashanTopolova
01-18-2006, 05:45 PM
power to weight ratios:

FW190A-4: 1 660 hp (approx.);
empty weight 3 200kg (approx.)
service ceiling: 37 400 ft

Spitfire Mk 1A: 1 030 hp
empty weight: 2 049 kg
service ceiling: 31 500 ft

Spitfire Mk IX: 1 710 hp
empty weight: 2 556 kg
service ceiling: 43 000 ft

faustnik
01-18-2006, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by KrashanTopolova:
power to weight ratios:

FW190A-4: 1 660 hp (approx.);
empty weight 3 200kg (approx.)
service ceiling: 37 400 ft

Spitfire Mk 1A: 1 030 hp
empty weight: 2 049 kg
service ceiling: 31 500 ft

Spitfire Mk IX: 1 710 hp
empty weight: 2 556 kg
service ceiling: 43 000 ft

Peak power for the A4 is 1770ps not including exhaust thrust. You need a better source of data.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/BMW801graph.jpg

Aymar_Mauri
01-18-2006, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I agree it loses speed through turns and infact all other manuvers. This may seem obvious but it bleeds a heck of a lot of speed doing anything.

This is why I dont believe only adding extra boost performance for the BMW 801 and boosting it to 1.42 ATA levels would actually increase the performance except for level speed.
Aceleration and shallow climb would benefit a little, but I agree it's not just that in need of fixing.


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The basic problem remains. You cant climb with the Fw 190 at anything but low shallow climbs. This cannot be correct as it differs from all western accounts of the type.
Preciselly. All western accounts I've read (American, British) refer just that. In 1942 it was a superior plane to the Spitfire in anything but turn radius. This means speed, aceleration at all altitudes and at any angle, roll rate, climb ability, diving ability, firepower, etc...

In regard to German reports, it was easier to ride than the Bf109, had no handling vices like the Bf109, and it was superior in anything to the Bf109 except climb and dive rate and turning ability (but only slightly in this last one). Eventhough not as good as the Bf109 in turns it was considered a very agile fighter.

What we see in-game is anemic aceleration, enourmous speed bleed with anything but a very shallow AoA, mediocre climbing and totally useless monouverability. In real life, for similar experience levels, without height advantage, a 4xFW190 vs 4xLaGG-3 confrontation would finish with a score of 4-0 kills. In-game it's more like 2-3 or 2-4 at the most. This is in contradiction with historical reports and data.

After all, it was known has the "butcher bird" not the "butchered bird"... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

KrashanTopolova
01-18-2006, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KrashanTopolova:
power to weight ratios:

FW190A-4: 1 660 hp (approx.);
empty weight 3 200kg (approx.)
service ceiling: 37 400 ft

Spitfire Mk 1A: 1 030 hp
empty weight: 2 049 kg
service ceiling: 31 500 ft

Spitfire Mk IX: 1 710 hp
empty weight: 2 556 kg
service ceiling: 43 000 ft

Peak power for the A4 is 1770ps not including exhaust thrust. You need a better source of data.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/BMW801graph.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your data on FW190 will do Faustnik. What the data suggests is that in level flight the Spit Mk1 was capable of carrying about 0.5kg for every unit of hp
The FW 190A-4 capable of carrying about 0.55kg/unit of hp
And the Spit Mk IX capable of carrying about 0.67kg/unit of hp
However, lift is not only a function of power to weight ratio it includes factors such planform of wing; wing aspect ratio etc
My contention is that the Spits with their elliptical wings would be competitive with the FW in climb rate and probably exceed it. The fall off in climb with attitude increase that some have complined of is probably adequately modelled in the game. In other words a more shallow attitude might well be required for max rate of climb for the FW. The drag induced by high attitude on an aircraft with a more forward centre of gravity such as the FW would probably bleed speed much more quickly than the Spits with their long nose requiring a more aft center of gravity (not to mention increased torque effects from same).

Thus it might come down to such things as how much fuel and ordinance the FW gamers who have complained carried in their flight.

LEXX_Luthor
01-19-2006, 01:20 AM
Krashan::
In other words a more shallow attitude might well be required for max rate of climb for the FW.
I think Oleg posted that as well. Whether that results in a higher or lower climb angle I don't know. Get with TAGERT and do some track data recordings.

Aymar::
In real life, for similar experience levels, without height advantage, a 4xFW190 vs 4xLaGG-3 confrontation would finish with a score of 4-0 kills. In-game it's more like 2-3 or 2-4 at the most. This is in contradiction with historical reports and data.
The historical data does not show LaGG pilots having "similar skill levels" as Fw-190 pilots.

You claim a contradiction with historical reports because you posted a contradiction. Many simmers at this board know of Luftwaffe pilots' early war advantages in training, combat tactics, and tactical leadership which was helped by quality radio equipment.

"Luftwaffe pilots 10 times better" ~Oleg_Maddox http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Lazy312
01-19-2006, 01:21 AM
"Butcherbird" (Wurger) was the name FW 190 got from the start, it was not based on combat experience. Butcherbird IRL:
http://www.rotrekl.cz/images/Priroda/Tuhyk.jpg

Reading all the theories here I still don't understand how can a plane with VERY HIGH WINGLOADING be a top climber or a good turner..

LEXX_Luthor
01-19-2006, 01:55 AM
Good catch lazy!!


"Butcherbird" (Wurger) was the name FW 190 got from the start, it was not based on combat experience.
:thumps: do'h http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


*idea*

Aymar, if you play Offline (you requested FM modding ability), you may make use of the AI skill level. Cranking down the skill levels for one side helps alot, as does ramping them up for the other side. I use the feature liberally to get what "I think" should be "correct results" in some Offline scenarios for either differing periods of the war or "what if" scenarios. It works! AI programming is the most difficult part of combat flight sim design, and the skill level settings can help alot here in mission creation.

If you simulate Online Dogfight, you can ask the Online LaGG pilots to turn off comms, disable TrekkieIR if they use it, fix their zoom views to 45 or 60 degrees (simulates lack of situational awareness), use keyboard for elevator and aileron control, and several other methods that can generate historical combat results in the 1941 and 1942 Eastern Front dogfight servers (I guess this is applicable mainly to -109s unless the later uprated LaGGs are used with the -190s). Anyways, what versions of 4xLaGGs are you having difficulty with, and what versions of 4xFw190?

robban75
01-19-2006, 03:19 AM
Originally posted by KrashanTopolova:
the Spit Mk1 was capable of carrying about 0.5kg for every unit of hp
The FW 190A-4 capable of carrying about 0.55kg/unit of hp
And the Spit Mk IX capable of carrying about 0.67kg/unit of hp
However, lift is not only a function of power to weight ratio it includes factors such planform of wing; wing aspect ratio etc
My contention is that the Spits with their elliptical wings would be competitive with the FW in climb rate and probably exceed it. The fall off in climb with attitude increase that some have complined of is probably adequately modelled in the game. In other words a more shallow attitude might well be required for max rate of climb for the FW. The drag induced by high attitude on an aircraft with a more forward centre of gravity such as the FW would probably bleed speed much more quickly than the Spits with their long nose requiring a more aft center of gravity (not to mention increased torque effects from same).

Thus it might come down to such things as how much fuel and ordinance the FW gamers who have complained carried in their flight.

I'm no expert in aerodynamics, but I've read that the wing of the Fw 190 was pretty much as effective as that of the Spitfire. I tend to think that many focus too much on max climbrate when in a dogfight. To achieve the planes best avaliable climbrate, one generally has to point the nose steeply upwards, which means that you're travelling at a dangerously low speed which makes you a sitting duck. The high wingloading of the Fw 190 doesn't offer great sustained turn rates or sustained climb rates(depending on version), but it offers speed. And the 190 had an excellent zoomclimb and dive acceleration. And so, the Fw 190 just has to maintain a higher speed in the dogfight and make climbs at shallower angles. Speed is life. This is what makes the Mustang a more lethal enemy to Fw 190 than the Spitfire. It could do what the Fw 190 could do, and most of the times it could do it better. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Lazy312
01-19-2006, 03:28 AM
I tend to think that many focus too much on max climbrate when in a dogfight. To achieve the planes best avaliable climbrate, one generally has to point the nose steeply upwards, which means that you're travelling at a dangerously low speed which makes you a sitting duck. The high wingloading of the Fw 190 doesn't offer great sustained turn rates or sustained climb rates(depending on version), but it offers speed. And the 190 had an excellent zoomclimb and dive acceleration. And so, the Fw 190 just has to maintain a higher speed in the dogfight and make climbs at shallower angles. Speed is life. This is what makes the Mustang a more lethal enemy to Fw 190 than the Spitfire. It could do what the Fw 190 could do, and most of the times it could do it better. Happy
I absolutely agree.

Aymar_Mauri
01-19-2006, 05:24 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:

Aymar:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In real life, for similar experience levels, without height advantage, a 4xFW190 vs 4xLaGG-3 confrontation would finish with a score of 4-0 kills. In-game it's more like 2-3 or 2-4 at the most. This is in contradiction with historical reports and data.
The historical data does not show LaGG pilots having "similar skill levels" as Fw-190 pilots. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
In regard to the game it does not matter since in 1942 the FW190A4 was superior to the LaGG-3 in all flight characteristics except in climb rate (had this one wrong) and turn ability:

Speed: 653Km/h (FW190A4) vs 560Km/h (LaGG-3)
Climb rate: 720m/min (FW190A4) vs 900 m/min (LaGG-3)
Power: 1700Hp (FW190A4) vs 1240Hp (LaGG-3)
Empty weight: 2899Kg (FW190A4) vs 2620Kg(LaGG-3)
Max take-off weight: 3970Kg vs 3300Kg (LaGG-3)

This means that the FW190A4 could break off combat at will and reengage on it's own terms. In game it bleeds far too much speed in any manouver to keep it's energy. It's also anemic in regard to it's weight.


Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
You claim a contradiction with historical reports because you posted a contradiction. Many simmers at this board know of Luftwaffe pilots' early war advantages in training, combat tactics, and tactical leadership which was helped by quality radio equipment.

"Luftwaffe pilots 10 times better" ~Oleg_Maddox http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
I know that too. It is no contraition at all. If it was so historically why hasn't Oleg & team modelled that in game? Poorly trained Russian pilots against well trained Germans. Instead we have both levels of skill for both sides. And a broken FM that kills high wing loaded aircraft's flight characteristics. And that would aliviate the trouble artificially, since the problem is with the plane's FM that would be like solving hair loss problems by cutting off the head...

robban75
01-19-2006, 05:45 AM
Hi Aymar_Mauri, I'm curious on the climbrates. 720m/min, that would be 12m/sec. The A-4 should at least be capable of 17m/sec. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Aymar_Mauri
01-19-2006, 05:54 AM
Originally posted by Lazy312:
"Butcherbird" (Wurger) was the name FW 190 got from the start, it was not based on combat experience. Butcherbird IRL:
http://www.rotrekl.cz/images/Priroda/Tuhyk.jpg
Well, but you know as well as I that it lived up to it's namesake... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Originally posted by Lazy312:
Reading all the theories here I still don't understand how can a plane with VERY HIGH WINGLOADING be a top climber or a good turner..
Well, high wing loading does not invalidate thoose characteristics. It hampers them, but can be compensated through higher power to weight ratio (for climb rate) and different flap and wing design (for turn ability).

But what is at stake here is not if the FW190 was a better turner than the Spit or LAs. It was not. But the difference wasn't this ridiculosly high. It wouldn't bleed this amount of energy in any situation. It wasn't a dead duck after a medium or tight turn like it is in-game. If it was, it would have been redesigned or cancelled in 1939/40. IMHO, the game engine calculates the data erroneously providing an excessive avantage for low wingload aircraft or else the in-game FW190 data is wrong. It wasn't like this in real life. The difference wasn't this great.

What is necessary to have an historical accurate FW190 is to decrease significantly the E-bleed for higher AoA manouvers and increase the power/weight ratio slightly. That would allow the FW190 to be much more like it was in real life...

On another note, I read, here at the forums, that historically the I-185 had a higher wingload than the Fw190 and in the game it has a lower wingload. If that is true how can it be explained?

Aymar_Mauri
01-19-2006, 06:00 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:

Aymar, if you play Offline (you requested FM modding ability), you may make use of the AI skill level. Cranking down the skill levels for one side helps alot, as does ramping them up for the other side. I use the feature liberally to get what "I think" should be "correct results" in some Offline scenarios for either differing periods of the war or "what if" scenarios. It works! AI programming is the most difficult part of combat flight sim design, and the skill level settings can help alot here in mission creation.
Well, I have no problems beating the **** out of the enemy AI, but my squadron gets their *** handed to them regulary when using the FW190. Not when using the Bf109. So, the AI is not the issue here.


Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
If you simulate Online Dogfight, you can ask the Online LaGG pilots to turn off comms, disable TrekkieIR if they use it, fix their zoom views to 45 or 60 degrees (simulates lack of situational awareness), use keyboard for elevator and aileron control, and several other methods that can generate historical combat results in the 1941 and 1942 Eastern Front dogfight servers (I guess this is applicable mainly to -109s unless the later uprated LaGGs are used with the -190s). Anyways, what versions of 4xLaGGs are you having difficulty with, and what versions of 4xFw190?
I don't play online. And in the early A4 version the effects are more pronounced.

noace
01-19-2006, 06:06 AM
If flown correct the fw is a really dangerous opponent in the game. If flown wrong it is also dangereous, but for the pilot itself. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But in the fw you really feel the weight. (Same btw. applies to the p47) If somebody flies first the me and later the focke there will be no arguing about which one turns better. But exactly this was still in question after testpilot Heinrich Beauvais and fighterpilot Gordon Gollob made comparison flights and fights. AFAIK the one piloting the me always won mock dogfights but still they were not sure about absolut turning abilities.

But of course, "feel" is hard to translate to real data.

noace

Aymar_Mauri
01-19-2006, 06:18 AM
Originally posted by robban75:
Hi Aymar_Mauri, I'm curious on the climbrates. 720m/min, that would be 12m/sec. The A-4 should at least be capable of 17m/sec. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif Yes, they variate in my references. Another one says 15m/sec for the A4. This would mean 900m/min which would put him on top of the LaGG-3 in all flight characteristics except turn radius.

Lazy312
01-19-2006, 06:21 AM
Well, high wing loading does not invalidate thoose characteristics. It hampers them, but can be compensated through higher power to weight ratio (for climb rate) and different flap and wing design (for turn ability).
Yes. However best climbing aircraft are those who don't have to compensate. Bf 109 is an example - it has as good power/weight ratio as FW 190 but it has significantly lower wingloading. Result is - it climbs better.

Aymar_Mauri
01-19-2006, 06:23 AM
Originally posted by Lazy312:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Well, high wing loading does not invalidate thoose characteristics. It hampers them, but can be compensated through higher power to weight ratio (for climb rate) and different flap and wing design (for turn ability).
Yes. However best climbing aircraft are those who don't have to compensate. Bf 109 is an example - it has as good power/weight ratio as FW 190 but it has significantly lower wingloading. Result is - it climbs better. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
True.

Aymar_Mauri
01-19-2006, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by robban75:
Hi Aymar_Mauri, I'm curious on the climbrates. 720m/min, that would be 12m/sec. The A-4 should at least be capable of 17m/sec. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
I've re-checked the climb rate from the first reference. It is 720m/min (12m/s) for the A0, not the A4. It was in the line above and I mistaked it for the A4 number that is in the line below. The correct A4 climb rate in this reference is 870m/min (14,5m/s). So this book is concurrent with the other book (900m/min = 15m/s).

Unknown-Pilot
01-19-2006, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by KrashanTopolova:
Your data on FW190 will do Faustnik. What the data suggests is that in level flight the Spit Mk1 was capable of carrying about 0.5kg for every unit of hp
The FW 190A-4 capable of carrying about 0.55kg/unit of hp
And the Spit Mk IX capable of carrying about 0.67kg/unit of hp
However, lift is not only a function of power to weight ratio it includes factors such planform of wing; wing aspect ratio etc
My contention is that the Spits with their elliptical wings would be competitive with the FW in climb rate and probably exceed it. The fall off in climb with attitude increase that some have complined of is probably adequately modelled in the game. In other words a more shallow attitude might well be required for max rate of climb for the FW. The drag induced by high attitude on an aircraft with a more forward centre of gravity such as the FW would probably bleed speed much more quickly than the Spits with their long nose requiring a more aft center of gravity (not to mention increased torque effects from same).

Thus it might come down to such things as how much fuel and ordinance the FW gamers who have complained carried in their flight.

The advantage of an elliptical wing is that it provides the best lift to induced drag ratio.

Induced drag only increases when Angle of Attack increases (resulting in a higher coefficient of lift).

The thing is, you seem to be equating a nose high attitude to a high angle of attack. They aren't the same things.

You could be going straight up and have an AoA of 0, or even in the negatives. Likewise, you could be at 0 AoA even when climbing at a 45* angle to the horizon.

Also, remember that high wing loading means less overall drag and more speed too. The differences between the 2 are not going to be that drastic, especially once you factor in power as well.

Kettenhunde
01-19-2006, 08:44 AM
The advantage of an elliptical wing is that it provides the best lift to induced drag ratio.

True. However the wingtwist in the Spitfire to eliminate extremely harsh stall conditions essentially ruined any large benefits of the elliptical wing.

All designers even in the 1930's were well aware not only of the benefits of elliptical lift distribution but how to manipulate the wing to achieve it. The Focke Wulf for example had wing twist added to achieve elliptical lift distribution at the tip, the most important portion of the wing for induced drag production.

Induced drag production is not an area were the Spitfire has a lead worthy of mention.

David Lednicer wrote an excellent article covering this subject while working as an engineer for Analytical Methods, Inc.

http://www.am-inc.com/index.shtml

http://www.am-inc.com/software.shtml

The application of any of the forumlas for determining wing efficiency also backs up this conclusion. For example, Woods formula, yields .88 for the Spitfire, and .87 for the FW-190 in level flight at 450fps, IIRC. When you factor in the power of induced drag, such a small difference would be unnoticable in the air.

I just reread your post Unknown-pilot, you cover this in the end!

All the best,

Crumpp

Kocur_
01-19-2006, 08:52 AM
Speed: 653Km/h (FW190A4) vs 560Km/h (LaGG-3)
Climb rate: 720m/min (FW190A4) vs 900 m/min (LaGG-3)
Power: 1700Hp (FW190A4) vs 1240Hp (LaGG-3)
Empty weight: 2899Kg (FW190A4) vs 2620Kg(LaGG-3)
Max take-off weight: 3970Kg vs 3300Kg (LaGG-3)

That LaGG-3 data is NOT SO accurate. From the beginning till 28/35 series, the engine was M-105P/PA at 1050PS. Last of 28 series got M-105PF1 at 1180PS and that engine lasted till end of production of 66 series, produced since 1943/44 winter till mid 1944. No serial LaGG-3 had M-105PF2 at 1240PS.
Cant give any data on climb rate, but have some on climb times to 5km:
4 - 8seris: 8,5m,
28 series: 7,9 - 7,1m,
66 series: 5,6m.


Weight:
"2620kg (LaGG-3)" is valid for 66 series produced, to repeat, mostly in 1944. OTOH 3346kg is t/o weight of the worst, 4series. Other t/o weights
7 series: 3280kg
23 series:3100kg
28 series: 3055kg
66 series: 3023kg

Aymar_Mauri
01-19-2006, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Speed: 653Km/h (FW190A4) vs 560Km/h (LaGG-3)
Climb rate: 720m/min (FW190A4) vs 900 m/min (LaGG-3)
Power: 1700Hp (FW190A4) vs 1240Hp (LaGG-3)
Empty weight: 2899Kg (FW190A4) vs 2620Kg(LaGG-3)
Max take-off weight: 3970Kg vs 3300Kg (LaGG-3)

That LaGG-3 data is NOT SO accurate. From the beginning till 28/35 series, the engine was M-105P/PA at 1050PS. Last of 28 series got M-105PF1 at 1180PS and that engine lasted till end of production of 66 series, produced since 1943/44 winter till mid 1944. No serial LaGG-3 had M-105PF2 at 1240PS.
Cant give any data on climb rate, but have some on climb times to 5km:
4 - 8seris: 8,5m,
28 series: 7,9 - 7,1m,
66 series: 5,6m.


Weight:
"2620kg (LaGG-3)" is valid for 66 series produced, to repeat, mostly in 1944. OTOH 3346kg is t/o weight of the worst, 4series. Other t/o weights
7 series: 3280kg
23 series:3100kg
28 series: 3055kg
66 series: 3023kg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, what you are saying is that the power and weight on the LaGG-3 were even more restrictive, and therefore aparent, regarding the FW190 than the ones I posted. So, you are confirming even more the overmodelling of soviet fighters. If we take in to consideration that the FW190 is undermodeled we see that there is a big issue in the game when comparing both planes.

Kocur_
01-19-2006, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:

Well, what you are saying is that the power and weight on the LaGG-3 were even more restrictive, and therefore aparent, regarding the FW190 than the ones I posted. So, you are confirming even more the overmodelling of soviet fighters. If we take in to consideration that the FW190 is undermodeled we see that there is a big issue in the game when comparing both planes.

You bet I am http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Aymar_Mauri
01-19-2006, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
From the beginning till 28/35 series, the engine was M-105P/PA at 1050PS. Last of 28 series got M-105PF1 at 1180PS and that engine lasted till end of production of 66 series, produced since 1943/44 winter till mid 1944. No serial LaGG-3 had M-105PF2 at 1240PS.
Cant give any data on climb rate, but have some on climb times to 5km:
4 - 8series: 8,5m,
28 series: 7,9 - 7,1m,
66 series: 5,6m.
So, for the whole LaGG-3 series this gives us the climb rates of:

4 - 8series (1942): 588m/min = 9,8m/s
28 series (1943): 632m/min = 10,6m/s to 704m/min = 11,7m/s
66 series (1944): 893m/min = 14,9m/s

From my references (average values were calculated) the FW190 had:

A0 (1560Hp/3500Kg) (1940)- 750m/min = 12,5m/s
A1 (1560Hp/3775Kg) (1941)- 816m/min = 13,6m/s
A2 (1560Hp/3850Kg) (1941)- 816m/min = 13,6m/s
A3 (1700Hp/3995Kg) (1941)- 900m/min = 15m/s
A4 (1700Hp [2100HP emergency power with MW50]/????Kg) (1942)- 900m/min = 15m/s
A5 (1700Hp [2100HP emergency power with MW50]/????Kg) (1943)- 900m/min = 15m/s
A6 (1700Hp [2100HP emergency power with MW50]/4107Kg) (1943)- 870m/min = 14,5m/s
A7 (1700Hp [2100HP emergency power with MW50]/4215Kg) (1943)- 835m/min = 13,9m/s
A8 (1700Hp [2100HP emergency power with MW50 and/or GM-1]/4350Kg) (1944)- 780m/min = 13m/s

So we should have for comparable years:

FW190A4 [1942] vs LaGG-3 4/8series [1942]
Speed: 653Km/h vs 560Km/h
Climb rate: 900m/min vs 588m/min
Power: 1700Hp vs 1050Hp
Take-off weight: ????Kg vs 3280Kg

FW190A6 [1943] vs LaGG-3 28 late series [1943]
Speed: 660Km/h vs ???Km/h
Climb rate: 870m/min vs 704m/min
Power: 1700Hp [2100HP emergency power with MW50] vs 1180Hp
Max take-off weight: 4107Kg vs 3055Kg

FW190A8 [1944] vs LaGG-3 66 series [1944]
Speed: 640Km/h vs ???Km/h
Climb rate: 780m/min vs 893m/min
Power: 1700Hp [2100HP emergency power with MW50 and/or GM-1] vs 1180Hp
Max take-off weight: 4350Kg vs 3023Kg

This means that, in 1942, the FW190A4 dominated the LaGG-3 4/8series much more than is shown in the game. In 1943, the difference between the FW190A6 and LaGG-3 28 late series was smaller but still significant. Only with the FW190A8 and the LaGG-3 66 series should the match be closer. Not like in the game...

JG5_UnKle
01-19-2006, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kocur_:
From the beginning till 28/35 series, the engine was M-105P/PA at 1050PS. Last of 28 series got M-105PF1 at 1180PS and that engine lasted till end of production of 66 series, produced since 1943/44 winter till mid 1944. No serial LaGG-3 had M-105PF2 at 1240PS.
Cant give any data on climb rate, but have some on climb times to 5km:
4 - 8series: 8,5m,
28 series: 7,9 - 7,1m,
66 series: 5,6m.
So, for the whole LaGG-3 series this gives us the climb rates of:

4 - 8series (1942): 588m/min = 9,8m/s
28 series (1943): 632m/min = 10,6m/s to 704m/min = 11,7m/s
66 series (1944): 893m/min = 14,9m/s

From my references (average values were calculated) the FW190 had:

A0 (1560Hp/3500Kg) (1940)- 750m/min = 12,5m/s
A1 (1560Hp/3775Kg) (1941)- 816m/min = 13,6m/s
A2 (1560Hp/3850Kg) (1941)- 816m/min = 13,6m/s
A3 (1700Hp/3995Kg) (1941)- 900m/min = 15m/s
A4 (1700Hp [2100HP emergency power with MW50]/????Kg) (1942)- 900m/min = 15m/s
A5 (1700Hp [2100HP emergency power with MW50]/????Kg) (1943)- 900m/min = 15m/s
A6 (1700Hp [2100HP emergency power with MW50]/4107Kg) (1943)- 870m/min = 14,5m/s
A7 (1700Hp [2100HP emergency power with MW50]/4215Kg) (1943)- 835m/min = 13,9m/s
A8 (1700Hp [2100HP emergency power with MW50 and/or GM-1]/4350Kg) (1944)- 780m/min = 13m/s

So we should have for comparable years:

FW190A4 [1942] vs LaGG-3 4/8series [1942]
Speed: 653Km/h vs 560Km/h
Climb rate: 900m/min vs 588m/min
Power: 1700Hp vs 1050Hp
Take-off weight: ????Kg vs 3280Kg

FW190A6 [1943] vs LaGG-3 28 late series [1943]
Speed: 660Km/h vs ???Km/h
Climb rate: 870m/min vs 704m/min
Power: 1700Hp [2100HP emergency power with MW50] vs 1180Hp
Max take-off weight: 4107Kg vs 3055Kg

FW190A8 [1944] vs LaGG-3 66 series [1944]
Speed: 640Km/h vs ???Km/h
Climb rate: 780m/min vs 893m/min
Power: 1700Hp [2100HP emergency power with MW50 and/or GM-1] vs 1180Hp
Max take-off weight: 4350Kg vs 3023Kg

This means that, in 1942, the FW190A4 dominated the LaGG-3 4/8series much more than is shown in the game. In 1943, the difference between the FW190A6 and LaGG-3 28 late series was smaller but still significant. Only with the FW190A8 and the LaGG-3 66 series should the match be closer. Not like in the game... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good post http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Aymar_Mauri
01-19-2006, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
Good post http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
Thanks.

On topic:
You might start to flame me for this but one of the ways to help sort out the climb speed for the FW190 in-game, would be to slightly decrease the values for it's weight and slightly increase the values for the wing area. This would give it a better sustained climb and aditionally would decrease the E-bleed on manouvers making them a little less prohibitive.

Lazy312
01-19-2006, 04:15 PM
FW 190 was introduced only at the end of 1942 on Eastern front. I really don't think most laggs at that time were 4/8 series. Same for your following next fw-lagg pairs. For example production of series 66 started in spring 43, series 29 in June 42, series 35 in august 42..

mynameisroland
01-19-2006, 04:41 PM
Some really interesting points being made. I like the year by year comparisons with the Fw 190 and the Lagg3. The Lagg3 in IL2 bears no resemblence to the Lagg3 in the real world.

Maybe the missing performance of the Fw 190 was sucked up by the FM and DM of the Lagg3 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Aymar_Mauri, I havent seen any confirmation of the Use of MW50 on the Fw 190 A series except in some special units testing High altitude operation. It certainly wasnt common place, the Fw 190 did use other boost mechanisms which didnt rely on MW50. The Fw 190 A4 was perhaps the best performing of the A series in general, it benefited from increased ATA clearance as did the later models and they all essentially had the same BMW 801D engine which was attached as part of a 'power egg' unit.

I like the solution of perhaps increasing wing area of the FM for the Fw 190 perhaps this could be done to other heavy fighters such as P47 in order to get around the current game engines representations. I dont see that ever being considered unfortunately.

mynameisroland
01-19-2006, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by Lazy312:
FW 190 was introduced only at the end of 1942 on Eastern front. I really don't think most laggs at that time were 4/8 series. Same for your following next fw-lagg pairs. For example production of series 66 started in spring 43, series 29 in June 42, series 35 in august 42..


Thats true, but in a broader sense the Fw 190 A2 was fighting from Autumn 1941 and A3 from Dec41/Jan42. It puts in to perspective how advanced a design the Fw 190 was when it first appeared if you consider the Lagg3 is a contemporary.

jimDG
01-19-2006, 04:57 PM
I agree. It has lower power, lower drag, and normal weight. Nothing else can explain its abysmal acceleration.
And I still get 10/1 K/D ratio in it, where as my normal K/D ratio is 1.1/1 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If reality was better - then who would ever fly anything else on an "equal numbers on both sides" map? Other a/c are being slaughtered already.

On the other hand, higher drag and higher power might actually solve things, that means lower E-retention - at 800 km/h you are getting little power from the prop, so the drag determines how long you re gonna keep going that fast.. So, no more maintaining 650-600 km/h for over a minute after a high speed dive, no easy catching of distant targets (and zoom).

LEXX_Luthor
01-19-2006, 05:21 PM
Aymar::
Well, I have no problems beating the **** out of the enemy AI, but my squadron gets their *** handed to them regulary when using the FW190. Not when using the Bf109. So, the AI is not the issue here.
Oleg's AI has traditionally been favourable to very slow speed turning combat, and Fw will suffer from this more than Bf. However, the AI is getting better about extending away in recent Patches, much better, but may still have more to go, much more.

You play Offline only? Same here.

Nobody here has offered any LaGG performance testing in-game (or I missed it). Get with TAGERT and make some data track recordings to compare with Fw. I think energy bleed tests are possible using TAGERT's method. Also, you need to compare with P-40 (various models I guess) to see what's going on here, if anything.

KrashanTopolova
01-19-2006, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KrashanTopolova:
Your data on FW190 will do Faustnik. What the data suggests is that in level flight the Spit Mk1 was capable of carrying about 0.5kg for every unit of hp
The FW 190A-4 capable of carrying about 0.55kg/unit of hp
And the Spit Mk IX capable of carrying about 0.67kg/unit of hp
However, lift is not only a function of power to weight ratio it includes factors such planform of wing; wing aspect ratio etc
My contention is that the Spits with their elliptical wings would be competitive with the FW in climb rate and probably exceed it. The fall off in climb with attitude increase that some have complined of is probably adequately modelled in the game. In other words a more shallow attitude might well be required for max rate of climb for the FW. The drag induced by high attitude on an aircraft with a more forward centre of gravity such as the FW would probably bleed speed much more quickly than the Spits with their long nose requiring a more aft center of gravity (not to mention increased torque effects from same).

Thus it might come down to such things as how much fuel and ordinance the FW gamers who have complained carried in their flight.

The advantage of an elliptical wing is that it provides the best lift to induced drag ratio.

Induced drag only increases when Angle of Attack increases (resulting in a higher coefficient of lift).

The thing is, you seem to be equating a nose high attitude to a high angle of attack. They aren't the same things.

You could be going straight up and have an AoA of 0, or even in the negatives. Likewise, you could be at 0 AoA even when climbing at a 45* angle to the horizon.

Also, remember that high wing loading means less overall drag and more speed too. The differences between the 2 are not going to be that drastic, especially once you factor in power as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This was my point; the Spits seem to have been competitive. The FW (early) did not seem to have much competitive advantage in climb rate regardless of its superiority in other aspects of flight. In this sense the FM is reasonable. It's not an argument about angle of attack or the resulting vector to stall point from induced drag over the wing. It is an argument of lift ability at the centre of gravity of the aircraft. It is the fact that the FW190A-4 potentially took slightly more weight (actually mass) than the MkI Spit up to 37 000 ft before nearing stall. The MkI Spit took slightly less weight up to 32 000 ft before stalling. The Spit IX, which was the first to compete with the FW was able to lift more weight per unit of hp to 43 000 ft. That is the performance difference between wing planform and power to weight ratio and in the end, as you say, there was probably not much advantage in either aircraft until the pilot reached the margins of the aircraft's performance.
This might be born out by the evolution of the FW along sleek lines the Spit had; whereby the FW became sleek in fusalage and long-nosed as did the Spitfire evolution. The Spit became so elongated that it had to introduce a 5th blade to the prop just to counter the inefficiences of the 4 blade prop under the resulting torque (hence the end point of the evolution of the prop fighter aircraft and jets took over). In other words, both design teams were looking for similar marginal performance characteristics that made them choose a similar design path.
The FW debut was a nasty surprise to the British and made them face the fact that they were outdone in aeronautical design and technical innovation. It was probably the FW that spurred innovation in the Spit design; a mini arms race, but one feels that the German science was mostly ahead and that their best aircraft came too late.

Aymar_Mauri
01-19-2006, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by Lazy312:
FW 190 was introduced only at the end of 1942 on Eastern front. I really don't think most laggs at that time were 4/8 series. Same for your following next fw-lagg pairs. For example production of series 66 started in spring 43, series 29 in June 42, series 35 in august 42..
Well, you are refering production start for the LaGG-3 series. I'm doing the same for the FW190. I wrote three dates incorrectly. Two are later, another one is earlier than before. Production started for each series:

A0 - March 1941
A1 - June 1941
A2 - August 1941
A3 - January 1942
A4 - June 1942
A5 - November 1942
A6 - June 1943
A7 - December 1943
A8 - February 1944

So the comparation is valid...

Aymar_Mauri
01-19-2006, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Some really interesting points being made. I like the year by year comparisons with the Fw 190 and the Lagg3. The Lagg3 in IL2 bears no resemblence to the Lagg3 in the real world.
Thanks. That is preciselly the point I'm trying to make regarding the game and real life.


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Maybe the missing performance of the Fw 190 was sucked up by the FM and DM of the Lagg3 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Yeah. Russian voodoo... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I havent seen any confirmation of the Use of MW50 on the Fw 190 A series except in some special units testing High altitude operation. It certainly wasnt common place, the Fw 190 did use other boost mechanisms which didnt rely on MW50.
Well, all my references mention MW50. It might be another type of system (not for power at high altitude). It might just be a cooling mechanism to allow max power for extended periods. I'm just posting what most of my references say.


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The Fw 190 A4 was perhaps the best performing of the A series in general, it benefited from increased ATA clearance as did the later models and they all essentially had the same BMW 801D engine which was attached as part of a 'power egg' unit.
Yes. And what is strange is that it's preciselly the A4 the derated version in-game. Preciselly the one that should be the most dominant in aerial combat...


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I like the solution of perhaps increasing wing area of the FM for the Fw 190 perhaps this could be done to other heavy fighters such as P47 in order to get around the current game engines representations.
Yes. I think it really could solve the main problems with the high wing-loaded aircraft. The best thing about it is that would benefit two trouble factors and not just one - climb rate and E-bleed in turns.


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I dont see that ever being considered unfortunately.
Yes. I know. But one is allowed to dream a bit...

Aymar_Mauri
01-19-2006, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Aymar:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Well, I have no problems beating the **** out of the enemy AI, but my squadron gets their *** handed to them regulary when using the FW190. Not when using the Bf109. So, the AI is not the issue here.
Oleg's AI has traditionally been favourable to very slow speed turning combat, and Fw will suffer from this more than Bf. However, the AI is getting better about extending away in recent Patches, much better, but may still have more to go, much more. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I see. Well, let's hope it keeps getting better for the sake of both gameplay as well as historical accuracy. But the FM for the FW190 and surely other high wing-loaded planes (I haven't really tested them like the 190) is surelly far too restrictive. Might be a question of reducing the aerodynamic difference between aircraft on the physics engine. Maybe the degradation chart is too steep for the aerodynamic effects.


Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
You play Offline only? Same here.
Yeah. I really cannot allow myself the time to play online. Besides, it's too addictive. I used to play other games online but it reflected very greviously on my work.


Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Nobody here has offered any LaGG performance testing in-game (or I missed it). Get with TAGERT and make some data track recordings to compare with Fw. I think energy bleed tests are possible using TAGERT's method. Also, you need to compare with P-40 (various models I guess) to see what's going on here, if anything.
TAGERT? Sorry for the ignorance, but who is he? What about the P40? Any clue to why should I use it to compare to the others?

Aymar_Mauri
01-19-2006, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by KrashanTopolova:

This was my point; the Spits seem to have been competitive. The FW (early) did not seem to have much competitive advantage in climb rate regardless of its superiority in other aspects of flight. In this sense the FM is reasonable. It's not an argument about angle of attack or the resulting vector to stall point from induced drag over the wing. It is an argument of lift ability at the centre of gravity of the aircraft. It is the fact that the FW190A-4 potentially took slightly more weight (actually mass) than the MkI Spit up to 37 000 ft before nearing stall. The MkI Spit took slightly less weight up to 32 000 ft before stalling. The Spit IX, which was the first to compete with the FW was able to lift more weight per unit of hp to 43 000 ft. That is the performance difference between wing planform and power to weight ratio and in the end, as you say, there was probably not much advantage in either aircraft until the pilot reached the margins of the aircraft's performance.
This might be born out by the evolution of the FW along sleek lines the Spit had; whereby the FW became sleek in fuselage and long-nosed as did the Spitfire evolution. The Spit became so elongated that it had to introduce a 5th blade to the prop just to counter the inefficiences of the 4 blade prop under the resulting torque (hence the end point of the evolution of the prop fighter aircraft and jets took over). In other words, both design teams were looking for similar marginal performance characteristics that made them choose a similar design path.
Interesting perspective. I had not thought of that interpretation before.


Originally posted by KrashanTopolova:
The FW debut was a nasty surprise to the British and made them face the fact that they were outdone in aeronautical design and technical innovation. It was probably the FW that spurred innovation in the Spit design; a mini arms race, but one feels that the German science was mostly ahead and that their best aircraft came too late.
Yes. I agree with both points. Specialy the latter one. Fortunately, the unhealthy competition among german aircraft companies for the favours of the III Reich and the deluded visions of Hitler and a lot of his councellors ******ed the process of putting in to production the most important new types, like Galland advised repeatedly. And we must only see the prototypes to agree that, in this matter, the germans were a couple of years ahead of the competition. Specially regarding jets.

LEXX_Luthor
01-19-2006, 06:17 PM
Aymar::
TAGERT? Sorry for the ignorance, but who is he? What about the P40? Any clue to why should I use it to compare to the others?
TAGERT has a data recording method using track files and makes graphs out of them. Start a thread. He's come up with some popping stuff. You need some in-game LaGG data to chew on here. I'd love to see investigations of pre-war planes (CR.42 vs I-153) and see how they compare and compare *their* comparisons to the later war planes -- this would reveal much about the sim. P40 should be similar to Fw/LaGG and so P40 data is useful in investigating the flight models beyond just a popular (in Fw circles) comparison of LaGG and Fw which limits understanding of what is going on inside the simulation.

LEXX_Luthor
01-19-2006, 06:27 PM
...but maybe not, if I recall correctly (haha), P40 handily out-turned Bf-109s, so P40 may not be as relevant to Fw/LaGG comparisons. I have somewhat moved beyond FB/PF and I don't test anything anymore, and each Patch has changed or can change flight models (which is what all are hoping for their planes!!)

p1ngu666
01-19-2006, 07:41 PM
fw190 can turn with a spit pretty well, actully http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
just done some testing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

if above 300kph, the spit isnt safe, basicaly
spit is a lil better from aroun 350-330, below 300 its alot better

spit has better e retention in turns too, fw190 has better e retention in dives, straight lines

tried a4 vs spitvb, a6 vs VIII and IXe CW

btw, i do mean KPH, and not MPH

im mph terms, spit isnt safe untill sub 200mph or so

Unknown-Pilot
01-19-2006, 08:20 PM
With your control issues, that doesn't really mean much though. Not attacking you, just sayin'....

DIRTY-MAC
01-19-2006, 08:26 PM
wasn‚¬īt the FW190 porked!

p1ngu666
01-19-2006, 08:59 PM
i wasnt flying the fw190 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

besides, the fw190 isnt too bad for me

Kocur_
01-19-2006, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by KrashanTopolova:
This might be born out by the evolution of the FW along sleek lines the Spit had; whereby the FW became sleek in fusalage and long-nosed as did the Spitfire evolution. The Spit became so elongated that it had to introduce a 5th blade to the prop just to counter the inefficiences of the 4 blade prop under the resulting torque (hence the end point of the evolution of the prop fighter aircraft and jets took over). In other words, both design teams were looking for similar marginal performance characteristics that made them choose a similar design path.

Spitfire and Fw-190 were very different fighters. First is member of first generation of low wing miniplanes (with Bf-109, Hurricane, P-36). It was still intended to do everything well, so it was supposed to be fast - got a very good engine, and was supposed to turn well - so got this large area wings. OTOH Fw-190 is second generation of low wing monoplane fighters (along with P-47, P-51, Tornado) and since the day 1 it was built for speed and accelereration only. Its combination of very powerful engine and little wings. The smaller wings, the worse turning but in return you get little wetted area, which means less drag - and that serves speed and acceleration. Just like North American guys, Tank forseen that days of turning fights are long gone, and future is slashing, one pass attacks - and produced fighter optimised for that. Spitfires remained with their large wings, yet in result of having more and more powerful engines kept up with speed, but purely technically speaking - if Fw190 had the same engines - would be a lot faster and with better acceleration.


Five blade prop was result of searchng of a way to utilise efficiently high power of late engines. When everything pitch could offer was utilised and prop diameter couldnt be increaced, and the most importantly: increacing rpm of prop meant blade tips were going supersonic with very bad results for efficiency - the only wasy was inceracing number of blades. Other countries went another way: designing better optimised prop blades.


Analise those graphs: http://www.anycities.com/user/j22/j22/aero.htm

Lazy312
01-20-2006, 01:01 AM
"Well, you are refering production start for the LaGG-3 series. I'm doing the same for the FW190. I wrote three dates incorrectly. Two are later, another one is earlier than before. Production started for each series:

A0 - March 1941
A1 - June 1941
A2 - August 1941
A3 - January 1942
A4 - June 1942
A5 - November 1942
A6 - June 1943
A7 - December 1943
A8 - February 1944

So the comparation is valid..."

No it is not. A8 was compared with 66.series and this is nearly a year difference, 66.series went into production even sooner than A6.

Aymar_Mauri
01-20-2006, 05:10 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
Sorry for the ignorance, but who is he? What about the P40? Any clue to why should I use it to compare to the others?
TAGERT has a data recording method using track files and makes graphs out of them. Start a thread. He's come up with some popping stuff. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok. I'll contact him as soon as I have time to.


Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
You need some in-game LaGG data to chew on here. I'd love to see investigations of pre-war planes (CR.42 vs I-153) and see how they compare and compare *their* comparisons to the later war planes -- this would reveal much about the sim.
I agree that it can reveal a lot of things about the sim. I'll see what I can do and post the results for some varied planes.


Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
P40 should be similar to Fw/LaGG and so P40 data is useful in investigating the flight models beyond just a popular (in Fw circles) comparison of LaGG and Fw which limits understanding of what is going on inside the simulation.

...but maybe not, if I recall correctly (haha), P40 handily out-turned Bf-109s, so P40 may not be as relevant to Fw/LaGG comparisons. I have somewhat moved beyond FB/PF and I don't test anything anymore, and each Patch has changed or can change flight models (which is what all are hoping for their planes!!)
Well, too bad the game is tunned for online balance between teams and not for historical accuracy.

Aymar_Mauri
01-20-2006, 05:29 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
fw190 can turn with a spit pretty well, actully http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
just done some testing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

if above 300kph, the spit isnt safe, basicaly
spit is a lil better from aroun 350-330, below 300 its alot better

spit has better e retention in turns too, fw190 has better e retention in dives, straight lines

tried a4 vs spitvb, a6 vs VIII and IXe CW

btw, i do mean KPH, and not MPH

im mph terms, spit isnt safe untill sub 200mph or so
The E-bleed is too excessive. My results tell me they are almost balanced yes, but that is innacurate and it just confirms even more what I say. Historically, the FW190A2 dominated the Spit VB in any stat except turn radius (this one because of radius and not that ridiculously high E-bleed on almost all manouvers) and the A4 was much better. What you see in-game is a balance between the FW190A4 and the SpitVB that should never happen. In late 1941, Spit pilots felt they were fighting a superior plane in every way except turn radius. They felt their machines were surpassed. This is not what happens in-game and, even worse, it happens with a more modern version: the A4 and not the A2.

Besides, the point here is moot. Using the LaGG-3 (with it's UFO settings) or a SpitVB that can hold it's own against the A4, just underlines even more the marked innacuracy of the FW190's representation in game.

p1ngu666
01-20-2006, 06:15 AM
i wouldnt say the spitvb is better than the a4, the opposite is very true..

Brain32
01-20-2006, 06:31 AM
I don't know about early Focke's but A8,A9,D9 and the infamous Ta152 can NOT turn with the Spit unless they have a death wish, I used SpitMk9eHF, none of above planes can't stand a chance in turning with the Spit, even 109G6as is not good enough, only 109G2 is comparable but it looses way too much E, so you only have to climb slightly while you're turning and he is dead...

jimDG
01-20-2006, 07:13 AM
Originally posted by Brain32:
I don't know about early Focke's but A8,A9,D9 and the infamous Ta152 can NOT turn with the Spit unless they have a death wish, I used SpitMk9eHF, none of above planes can't stand a chance in turning with the Spit, even 109G6as is not good enough, only 109G2 is comparable but it looses way too much E, so you only have to climb slightly while you're turning and he is dead...

not true. I once turned with a Ta152 (I was in the spit9, 25% fuel) for literally minutes in the exact same circle at the exact same speed (250km/h) - full back stick. Try it out with a buddy, you'll see.
What bring the ta152 down is the roll rate.

noace
01-20-2006, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
i wouldnt say the spitvb is better than the a4, the opposite is very true..

I would be very interested to know how to fight spits in fw190a when starting at equal energie terms. Many moves that the FW can do better are defensive by nature:

1. Faster. Ok, so you can run away. This works quite well but is not really a killing move.

2. Better Dive. Ok, you can dive away when in trouble. Just be careful that he does not get you at the beginning as your advantage is more in the terminal dive speed and not in the accel.

3. Better Roll. Great again for defensive moves. This is especially helpful for flat scissors. If the spit driver is stupid enough you may even gain the offensive. If he just makes an energie saving maneuver you are double porked as you just have given up a good amount of your energie.

4. Better high speed turn. But you loose so much speed that your are soon in his favoured speed range. And turning at high speed may black you out rather fast.

5. Better climb at high speed. But it takes ages until you have a decisive advantage. Besides that he can still climb faster at slower speed but will loose sight of you and vice versa at some stage. Again just a defensive advantage.

6. Better armament. True, but the weapons have to point at him to make this a factor. Of course if you hit ...

At the moment I only engage Spits with a decisive energie advantage, if not I run away. How to get this advantage when starting at co energie is still a mystery to me.

Unknown-Pilot
01-20-2006, 07:40 AM
Ta-152 does (and should) turn better than a 190. It should also have better drag characteristics. Both for the same reason - those longer wings. More area, plus better aspect ratio.

The D9 doesn't turn all that well. That is to say, it's no in the weeds TnB'er. The A9 is worse, and has much worse acceleration and lower top speed. The A8.....fuhgeddaboutit. That one is just a mess. No acceleration except in a dive, and turns like it's a Gee Bee carrying 1000kg of external stores and a full tank that opens up airbrakes the instant ant elevator deflection is detected.

The Vb *will* outturn the A4. The only way to beat a Spitfire with an A4 is to use speed. And preferably have the Spitfire be the '41 model, not the LF '42 model.

pingu, I know what you keep saying, but it is rather evident by now that you are not playing the same game as the rest of us. Your control issues invalidate pretty much everything.

AustinPowers_
01-20-2006, 07:45 AM
The A4 can beat the LF MK V.
A4 vs. F MKv b seems more like the first days of those channel fights tho

Unknown-Pilot
01-20-2006, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by noace:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
i wouldnt say the spitvb is better than the a4, the opposite is very true..

I would be very interested to know how to fight spits in fw190a when starting at equal energie terms. Many moves that the FW can do better are defensive by nature:

1. Faster. Ok, so you can run away. This works quite well but is not really a killing move.

2. Better Dive. Ok, you can dive away when in trouble. Just be careful that he does not get you at the beginning as your advantage is more in the terminal dive speed and not in the accel.

3. Better Roll. Great again for defensive moves. This is especially helpful for flat scissors. If the spit driver is stupid enough you may even gain the offensive. If he just makes an energie saving maneuver you are double porked as you just have given up a good amount of your energie.

4. Better high speed turn. But you loose so much speed that your are soon in his favoured speed range. And turning at high speed may black you out rather fast.

5. Better climb at high speed. But it takes ages until you have a decisive advantage. Besides that he can still climb faster at slower speed but will loose sight of you and vice versa at some stage. Again just a defensive advantage.

6. Better armament. True, but the weapons have to point at him to make this a factor. Of course if you hit ...

At the moment I only engage Spits with a decisive energie advantage, if not I run away. How to get this advantage when starting at co energie is still a mystery to me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You don't fight them with co-E.

Don't confuse co-E with co-Alt, they aren't the same thing. You *must* be faster. Your speed is the absolute only thing you've got to work with in this matchup.

If you are faster, you can use yo-yos and zooms to gain alt and increase your E advantage and work for position at the same time. If you are not - leave.

That's half the point of an E-fighter. You're faster than the other guy so you "dictate the fight" by only engaging on your terms. If for some reason you're caught slow and low, dive as much as you can and get the he11 out of Dodge. Once out of sight, work on gaining alt and then if you're up for it go back and look for him, or - just land and remember to keep more speed on the next hop. Don't be afraid to avoid unfavorable fights. And a Spitfire at co, or superior E, is a seriously unfavorable fight. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

noace
01-20-2006, 07:59 AM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by noace:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
i wouldnt say the spitvb is better than the a4, the opposite is very true..

I would be very interested to know how to fight spits in fw190a when starting at equal energie terms. Many moves that the FW can do better are defensive by nature:

1. Faster. Ok, so you can run away. This works quite well but is not really a killing move.

2. Better Dive. Ok, you can dive away when in trouble. Just be careful that he does not get you at the beginning as your advantage is more in the terminal dive speed and not in the accel.

3. Better Roll. Great again for defensive moves. This is especially helpful for flat scissors. If the spit driver is stupid enough you may even gain the offensive. If he just makes an energie saving maneuver you are double porked as you just have given up a good amount of your energie.

4. Better high speed turn. But you loose so much speed that your are soon in his favoured speed range. And turning at high speed may black you out rather fast.

5. Better climb at high speed. But it takes ages until you have a decisive advantage. Besides that he can still climb faster at slower speed but will loose sight of you and vice versa at some stage. Again just a defensive advantage.

6. Better armament. True, but the weapons have to point at him to make this a factor. Of course if you hit ...

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You don't fight them with co-E.

Don't confuse co-E with co-Alt, they aren't the same thing. You *must* be faster. Your speed is the absolute only thing you've got to work with in this matchup.

If you are faster, you can use yo-yos and zooms to gain alt and increase your E advantage and work for position at the same time. If you are not - leave.

That's half the point of an E-fighter. You're faster than the other guy so you "dictate the fight" by only engaging on your terms. If for some reason you're caught slow and low, dive as much as you can and get the he11 out of Dodge. Once out of sight, work on gaining alt and then if you're up for it go back and look for him, or - just land and remember to keep more speed on the next hop. Don't be afraid to avoid unfavorable fights. And a Spitfire at co, or superior E, is a seriously unfavorable fight. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont confuse them, be sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Therefore I wrote Enegie and not alt or speed. Sitting in an E-fighter you try to trick your bogey into giving up his energie for some positional advantage. Then you perform the Energie counter by normally going up. Sounds simple but how do you force a spit to give up his energie? He does not burn much speed during turning. At least his positional advantage is so big that you cannot take it away - only running away saves you.


And your advise is exactly what I wrote at the end:

"At the moment I only engage Spits with a decisive energie advantage, if not I run away."

Kocur_
01-20-2006, 08:23 AM
Umm, and why exactly are we discussing turn fight between Spit and Fw190? It is obvious, that Spit is in the game and should be, as was IRL, better at this. OTOH ANY Fw190 should be more dynamic speed-, and accelerationwise than SpitV BY FAR.
My personnal probs with Fw190 modelling are two (apart from grotesque vision "modelling"):
1. medicore acceleration at medium low and medium speeds and
2. FAR too great E loss at ANY manouver.

Ad. 1.
Fw190A was a little plane with big engine. It was specifcally designed to be dynamic - there was little more about it for Gods sake!
Ad. 2.
Planes with low wingloading are less draggy than high wingloaded ones only in manouvers, where planes reach high AoA. Low wingloaded plane needs smaller AoA to produce the same amount of g. Hell, thats why such planes are more manouverable! Problem with Fw190, and other 'high wingloaders' in the game is they lose inproportional amount of E at ANY manouver! As if relation of E loss favouring low wingloaders was both exaggerated and even worse: permanently ON, instead of being noticeable at high g, lower speed, tight turning ONLY! At least thats what my very limited aerodynamical knowledge tells me. We need UglyKid http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Lazy312
01-20-2006, 08:25 AM
Spitfire Vb (we have 42 model with Merlin 50, not 41 model BTW) is completely outclassed by FW 190 A4.

Those who deny that should take into account that you cannot easily win a fight even against biplanes if you meet them co-E. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WW2 fights were not won by 1vs1 duelling..

jimDG
01-20-2006, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by noace:


I dont confuse them, be sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Therefore I wrote Enegie and not alt or speed. Sitting in an E-fighter you try to trick your bogey into giving up his energie for some positional advantage. Then you perform the Energie counter by normally going up. Sounds simple but how do you force a spit to give up his energie? He does not burn much speed during turning. At least his positional advantage is so big that you cannot take it away - only running away saves you.


And your advise is exactly what I wrote at the end:

"At the moment I only engage Spits with a decisive energie advantage, if not I run away."

dive to Vt and if the Spit is foolish enough to follow he will have to throttle back - thus ending with lower E after the zoom. If not - hes not behind you or arround you anymore
he's either
A) in a vertical circle where fw190 goes one way and Spit the other - and in head-on passes the fighter with the better guns has an advantage.
b) Doing something else further away that will not prevent you from placing your guns along his flight path. With 4x20mm one has effective fire at any angle.
c)... the point is - you can point your guns at a target after a manuever he can't follow - because if hes not following then he's not (close) behind you

noace
01-20-2006, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by jimDG:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by noace:


I dont confuse them, be sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Therefore I wrote Enegie and not alt or speed. Sitting in an E-fighter you try to trick your bogey into giving up his energie for some positional advantage. Then you perform the Energie counter by normally going up. Sounds simple but how do you force a spit to give up his energie? He does not burn much speed during turning. At least his positional advantage is so big that you cannot take it away - only running away saves you.


And your advise is exactly what I wrote at the end:

"At the moment I only engage Spits with a decisive energie advantage, if not I run away."

dive to Vt and if the Spit is foolish enough to follow he will have to throttle back - thus ending with lower E after the zoom. If not - you either end up far away and co-alt, or in a vertical circle where fw190 goes one way and Spit the other - and in head-on passes the fighter with the better guns has an advantage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you start with a defensive move to come back to a headon with co E. Do not forget that you have to turn around before you can meet him head on after diving away. A spit can easily prevent the head-on and you are again on the defense. Circle closed.

jimDG
01-20-2006, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by noace:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jimDG:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by noace:


I dont confuse them, be sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Therefore I wrote Enegie and not alt or speed. Sitting in an E-fighter you try to trick your bogey into giving up his energie for some positional advantage. Then you perform the Energie counter by normally going up. Sounds simple but how do you force a spit to give up his energie? He does not burn much speed during turning. At least his positional advantage is so big that you cannot take it away - only running away saves you.


And your advise is exactly what I wrote at the end:

"At the moment I only engage Spits with a decisive energie advantage, if not I run away."

dive to Vt and if the Spit is foolish enough to follow he will have to throttle back - thus ending with lower E after the zoom. If not - you either end up far away and co-alt, or in a vertical circle where fw190 goes one way and Spit the other - and in head-on passes the fighter with the better guns has an advantage. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you start with a defensive move to come back to a headon with co E. Do not forget that you have to turn around before you can meet him head on after diving away. A spit can easily prevent the head-on and you are again on the defense. Circle closed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ive been editing while you've been replying, sry.
Well, in such a situation one can only hope to trick the opponent about what is going to follow. A dive is usually assumed to be an effort to run away - most people will follow for a while. If they keep speed and alt above, in the same direction, then most people would point their noses at the zooming FW, rather than start climbing/zooming themselves.

In essence - the Fw190 can always trade E for separation (or the opponent loses E to keep the distance). This aspect of the fight is determined by the Fw. If it can be exploited to point guns in the right direction - that depends on the opponent making the mistake of trying to reduce the separation.

Unknown-Pilot
01-20-2006, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by noace:
I dont confuse them, be sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Therefore I wrote Enegie and not alt or speed. Sitting in an E-fighter you try to trick your bogey into giving up his energie for some positional advantage. Then you perform the Energie counter by normally going up. Sounds simple but how do you force a spit to give up his energie? He does not burn much speed during turning. At least his positional advantage is so big that you cannot take it away - only running away saves you.


And your advise is exactly what I wrote at the end:

"At the moment I only engage Spits with a decisive energie advantage, if not I run away."

The Spitfire will lose a lot of energy if he's rough with the stick.

As was said, even against a bi-plane, if you are truly co-E, you're gonna have a rough time of it - at best (see - Finnland. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ).

Too many variables. If it's a 1v1 with a H2H merge, duck under him while caning it in a moderate dive and create separation. If you build about 2Km, you can immelman, only rather than leveling out at the top, dive, hard. Regain that speed (and more), and once again, duck under him (and his guns). At this point, if all went well, you should be at 450 to 500kph (preferably closer to 500 - the higher the better), and just as soon as he's over your canopy, you can pull it into a very oblique high yo-yo. The reason is, if he's a turn fighter, he will see you pass under, lose sight of you, and proceed to wrench his plane hard around. The slighty high yo-yo is about the fastest way to get a 190 around 180* while maintaining as much speed as possible, and at this point, you are holding the cards.

However(!), it's a risky situation. If he's really good, he could climb rather than chase you after the initial merge. And he could climb, zoom, or gently turn after the second merge, holding his E and being cautious.

In such a situation it is revealed that another element was missing. Not only should the initial encounter always be made with superior E (IOW - never let them meet you at co-E), but you should have wingmen. A Many v Many fight changes everything and swings the advantage heavily in favor of the E-fighters.

Again - don't hesitate to avoid a fight in which you are disadvantaged.

One of the reasons the RAF was so afraid of the 190 is that they fought groups v groups. Not 1v1 duels.

Aymar_Mauri
01-20-2006, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by noace:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
i wouldnt say the spitvb is better than the a4, the opposite is very true..

I would be very interested to know how to fight spits in fw190a when starting at equal energie terms. Many moves that the FW can do better are defensive by nature:

1. Faster. Ok, so you can run away. This works quite well but is not really a killing move.

2. Better Dive. Ok, you can dive away when in trouble. Just be careful that he does not get you at the beginning as your advantage is more in the terminal dive speed and not in the accel.

3. Better Roll. Great again for defensive moves. This is especially helpful for flat scissors. If the spit driver is stupid enough you may even gain the offensive. If he just makes an energie saving maneuver you are double porked as you just have given up a good amount of your energie.

4. Better high speed turn. But you loose so much speed that your are soon in his favoured speed range. And turning at high speed may black you out rather fast.

5. Better climb at high speed. But it takes ages until you have a decisive advantage. Besides that he can still climb faster at slower speed but will loose sight of you and vice versa at some stage. Again just a defensive advantage.

6. Better armament. True, but the weapons have to point at him to make this a factor. Of course if you hit ...

At the moment I only engage Spits with a decisive energie advantage, if not I run away. How to get this advantage when starting at co energie is still a mystery to me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Very well put. It's ridiculous to have to make this kind of justifications when the in-game A4 (a superior fighter to the A2) vs SpitVB is way worse than the A2 vs SpitVB was in real life.

Aymar_Mauri
01-20-2006, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
Ta-152 does (and should) turn better than a 190. It should also have better drag characteristics. Both for the same reason - those longer wings. More area, plus better aspect ratio.
Yes, larger wing area + just a bit more weight > lower wing-loading > better turns. Specially at altitude.


Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
The D9 doesn't turn all that well. That is to say, it's no in the weeds TnB'er. The A9 is worse, and has much worse acceleration and lower top speed.
Yes, the D9's survivability is due to the speed it can produce. Although in real life the wing area was larger than in the 190 and it's wing-loading slightly smaller.


Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
The A8.....fuhgeddaboutit. That one is just a mess. No acceleration except in a dive, and turns like it's a Gee Bee carrying 1000kg of external stores and a full tank that opens up airbrakes the instant ant elevator deflection is detected.
Hehehehe. Good description. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
The Vb *will* outturn the A4. The only way to beat a Spitfire with an A4 is to use speed. And preferably have the Spitfire be the '41 model, not the LF '42 model.
Yeap.


Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
pingu, I know what you keep saying, but it is rather evident by now that you are not playing the same game as the rest of us. Your control issues invalidate pretty much everything.
I agree. Smoth operation for me on Spits. Even the VB is able to keep up with the A4, when it should't even keep up with the A2...

p1ngu666
01-20-2006, 10:35 AM
1v1 favours the better climbing plane, thats why k4's where used in tornaments....

fw190, p47, planes like that are TEAM planes. ww2 combat was group combat

oh and u can turnfight with spits fairly safely until 360ias in a 190.

oh and vs a spit u can head on after extending if on your own, or simply go home.

about half the 190s i shoot down get paniky when im on there 6, and start moving the plane around alot, even my wobbly old spitfire then closes up, i then take a inordinatly long time to kill him.

not my fault he didnt shall dive at full power to get seporation is it?

oh and at low level the 190 climbs very well well, similer to a spit, maybe better, plus is much faster, and has better guns.

btw the spitfire vb ingame has the climb of a 16lbs one, but only the speed of 9lbs one, its really slow.

in a 9lbs boost climb the 190 is much better.

AustinPowers_
01-20-2006, 10:40 AM
Focke Wulf can turn with Spit for short periods at some speeds

But its dangerous to to for any extended turn, if at all, especialy against the MK IX LF.

As soon the focke rolls out of the turn and goes to climb he's probably burnt enough energy for the IX to latch onto his 6... only place the Focke WUlf has to go is down.

But that's the nature of most planes in this game.. point climb and squirt ability.. just more noticeable in the planes with fast climb rates.

The big question will always be how much energy should planes retain... complicated question which even oleg cant answer 100% accuratly.

Aymar_Mauri
01-20-2006, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
Umm, and why exactly are we discussing turn fight between Spit and Fw190? It is obvious, that Spit is in the game and should be, as was IRL, better at this. OTOH ANY Fw190 should be more dynamic speed-, and accelerationwise than SpitV BY FAR.
Agree. We are disgressing.


Originally posted by Kocur_:
My personnal probs with Fw190 modelling are two (apart from grotesque vision "modelling"):
1. medicore acceleration at medium low and medium speeds and
2. FAR too great E loss at ANY manouver.
Those are my two main problems with it too.


Originally posted by Kocur_:
Ad. 1.
Fw190A was a little plane with big engine. It was specifcally designed to be dynamic - there was little more about it for Gods sake!
Very true. Sort of an engine with small wings and a couple of control surfaces.


Originally posted by Kocur_:
Ad. 2.
Planes with low wingloading are less draggy than high wingloaded ones only in manouvers, where planes reach high AoA. Low wingloaded plane needs smaller AoA to produce the same amount of g. Hell, thats why such planes are more manouverable! Problem with Fw190, and other 'high wingloaders' in the game is they lose inproportional amount of E at ANY manouver! As if relation of E loss favouring low wingloaders was both exaggerated and even worse: permanently ON, instead of being noticeable at high g, lower speed, tight turning ONLY! At least thats what my very limited aerodynamical knowledge tells me.
I agree entirelly. It's not as if it only loses E on demanding manouvers (as it should), it looses E with the slightest touch of the stick. That, coupled with anemic aceleration, makes it a very vulnerable machine if you make even a slight error and this is totaly in contrast with historical fact. The linear progretion from [lower wing-loading > low E loss] to [higher wing-loading > high E loss] is way too steep. The difference should be much less noticeable and I agree with you in that it should only work for really tight manouvering (high AoA). Currently we can see that something is seriously wrong with the aerodynamic modelling.

Ideally, either the physics (aerodynamic) engine is corrected (not likely) or higher-wing loading planes must get a wing area boost. In the case of the FW190 the problem is even more grevious, since it needs a dramatic boost of aceleration. This can be made by decreasing the weight, increasing the wing area and increasing power.

Unknown-Pilot
01-20-2006, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
oh and u can turnfight with spits fairly safely until 360ias in a 190.

Had this happen to you?

The VIII and IX are scary opponents. Each was able to make quick work of a Yak3, something which took a hell of a lot longer and a lot more effort to do in a D9.

Those planes (Spitfires) turn AMAZINGLY well. They black out the pilot at less than 200mph. That's seriously slow. The Hellcat can't do that until about 250mph. And the Hellcat was an excellent turner with wing loading and stall speeds better than an La7.

However, what I found was that the Spitfire had poor acceleration, and, in my hands, pretty bad e-bleed. If I were to put some time into it, I could probably learn to feel my way around that e-bleed and make it that much more formidable.

I feel I have developed a fairly light touch from continued use of the 190 and P-47 over the years. Yet apparently, it's still to heavy for the Spitfire. And from what I've read (and heard from the actual pilots on Spitfire Ace), the controls were so light and had so much authority, that this is actually pretty spot on.

It's easy to pull too much AoA, and it's easy to blow your speed, and not so easy to get it back, so - if you have control issues (:::looks toward certain participants of this thread...::: http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif ), these problems will be very exacerbated and lead to a wholly false impression of the plane, and it's characteristics.



oh and vs a spit u can head on after extending if on your own, or simply go home.

2 Hispanos are at least as good as 4 LW 20mms in Oleg-world. Plus 4 MGs on top of that. H2H is never a good idea, in any plane. Especially against a Spitfire.



btw the spitfire vb ingame has the climb of a 16lbs one, but only the speed of 9lbs one, its really slow.

in a 9lbs boost climb the 190 is much better.

In a sim that isn't (supposed to be) table based, the only way to have a case like this, is to increase lift. Since you aren't climbing on the prop, it's not thrust, and if it were thrust, then acceleration and speed would both be higher. So that points to them having too much lift. And probably to appease....

p1ngu666
01-20-2006, 11:22 AM
climb, and acceloration are related to excess thrust http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

the spitfire has better acceloration at low speeds, where it climbs better.

ive made short work of yak3's in 190s

and yes ive turned fighted spits and done pretty well. below 300kph the spit really is a whole lot better, above it its actully surprisingly close. and u dont need long to atleast cripple a plane in a 190.

on no cockpit servers, its very easy to down spits, yaks cos u can pull lead, aim decently and oh look, there missing a wing.

if u get in trouble just extend and head for friendlys, cos they cant catch u.

sure head to head isnt the best idea, but then again nor is going 1 to 1. but considering how anyone with wobbles (and there are quiet alot about) will be unlikely to get a hit on u, and the 303's make your view shake alot, its a reasonable risk.

Unknown-Pilot
01-20-2006, 11:30 AM
Do you still assert that the Spitfire is undermodeled?

You talk a lot about your experience with them, but you've also shown us the problems the game has for you, and that in turn means all your experience with them doesn't mean much because it doesn't reflect what the rest of us have and see.

So what is the point? Or is it just to prevent the 190 from being given it's proper thrust and e-retention?

I'm seriously asking, because I can't see what else it could be. This is a thread about the 190 afterall...

Kocur_
01-20-2006, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
The D9 doesn't turn all that well. That is to say, it's no in the weeds TnB'er. The A9 is worse, and has much worse acceleration and lower top speed.
Yes, the D9's survivability is due to the speed it can produce. Although in real life the wing area was larger than in the 190 and it's wing-loading slightly smaller.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope. Apart from engine installation and aft fuselage extension D9 airframe was identical to Antons. The only difference in wings was lack of outer pair of cannon installations (electrics, heating ). Some D9s were even produced as A8s conversions.

p1ngu666
01-20-2006, 11:46 AM
in some areas it is http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

i havent tested highspeed e retention yet, but shallow dives to get past 400kph and extending works rather well for me.

problem with medium speed ebleed, and low speed is that the short forward and aft length of the wing means it can rotate more easily, thus more drag. theres a reason the japanease turny planes had deep wings http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

shallower wings are better in some respects, main weakness is aoa stuff. b24's wherent as good as b17s up high, partly because of the wing, and partly because of stability issues.

Unknown-Pilot
01-20-2006, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
problem with medium speed ebleed, and low speed is that the short forward and aft length of the wing means it can rotate more easily, thus more drag. theres a reason the japanease turny planes had deep wings http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Which explains why gliders fly so slowly and have such high aspect ratio wings, right?

I've seen this before and it's not entirely true. Yes, there *is* a reason why Japanese turn fighters have a large chord - because to get the same total area with a small chord would require massive span which would be too weak, or too heavy (if made strong enough).

Low aspect ratio (large, or deep, chord) is high drag. High aspect ratio (Ta-152/gliders) is low drag. (which is precisely why gliders have that design)

p1ngu666
01-20-2006, 12:04 PM
well, gliders tend tobe rather light, due to having no engine, and provided u dont wanna do turns very tightly.

straightline performance of high aspect ratio is great, but turn performance isnt

Unknown-Pilot
01-20-2006, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
well, gliders tend tobe rather light, due to having no engine, and provided u dont wanna do turns very tightly.

straightline performance of high aspect ratio is great, but turn performance isnt

No.... lift is lift.

What I mean by that is, assuming all else being equal (which we must if we are to single out A.R.), then 2 wings with the same surface area and different ARs will make the same lift at the same angle.

For instance, let's come up with some example wings -

Wing 1 -

Chord - 5ft
Span - 20ft
Area - 100 sq ft
A.R. - 4

Camber - 0%
Thickness - 12.5%

Wing 2 -

Chord - 2.5ft
Span - 40ft
Area - 100 sq ft
A.R. - 16

Camber - 0%
Thickness - 12.5%

Ok, as you see, they are the same airfoil shape, and the same wing area. The only thing different is the Aspect Ratio.

If we put them at SL on a 58F day, and make them each go 100mph, NASA tells us that we will see the following lift at 5* AoA -
Wing 1

Total lift - 1,562lbs

Cl - .611

Wing 2

Total lift - 1,562lbs

Cl - .611

Note that the lift and coefficient of lift are the same dispite the 1 wing having twice the chord.

If we double the AoA to 10*, we see -
Wing 1

Total lift - 3,313lbs

Cl - 1.218

Wing 2

Total lift - 3,313lbs

Cl - 1.218

Again, same Cls and same total lift. This means they will turn the same. The higher AR *may* offer more elevator authority, but I've never seen anything that alludes to such a thing other than a general idea from this forum. Regardless of authority though, at the same AoA, the same amount of lift is produced.

So that then leads us to induced drag.

The Coefficient of Induced Drag (Cdi) of a wing is based on coefficient of lift (Cl), AR, and wing shape efficiency. According to NASA, a rectangular wing's efficiency factor is about .7, and would be the same for each one in this example.

Since Cdi is based on Cl, that means it's based on AoA and airfoil shape.

At 5* AoA
wing 1 Cdi is - 0.042461
Wing 2 Cdi is - 0.010615

Already you can see that wing 2 is going to have less total drag at that AoA. But to run the numbers,at 5* AoA,
Wing 1's Di is - 50.316285lbs
Wing 2's Di is - 12.578775lbs

Increasing to 10* will increase the drag, but not change the relative difference. But to run the numbers anyway -
Wing 1's Cdi is - 0.168736
Wing 2's Cdi is - 0.042184

And -
Wing 1's Di is - 199.95216lbs
Wing 2's Di is - 49.98804lbs

So as you can see, regardless of AoA, lower AR has higher drag than higher AR. I'm not sure where this idea that small chord somehow leads to high drag came from. The opposite is true.

p1ngu666
01-20-2006, 02:19 PM
the thinner wing is easier to "rotate" producing a skid, and the angle of attack is higher.

none of the great turny monoplanes have a long thin wing, while energy fighters, which had given up turn performance for speed, have that type of wing.

there is presumeably some reason for choosing that type of wing

Unknown-Pilot
01-20-2006, 03:01 PM
the thinner wing is easier to "rotate" producing a skid, and the angle of attack is higher.

none of the great turny monoplanes have a long thin wing, while energy fighters, which had given up turn performance for speed, have that type of wing.

Well...no... "Rotating" the wing means increasing AoA, and that raises the coefficient of lift which inturn raises the total lift and coefficient of induced drag (and thus, total induced drag). Remember, AoA is AoA. Doesn't matter what the AR of the wing is. As demonstrated above, a given aerofoil and wing area, will result in a given total lift and Cl, regardless of AR.



there is presumeably some reason for choosing that type of wing

Yes, but you're thinking about it the wrong way. Consider a piece of pipe. If it's 5" long, it will be next to impossible to bend. If that same pipe were instead, 50 feet long, it would flex (bend) much more easily.

Materials are only so rigid over so long a span. Eventually to maintain a certain rigidity, you need to either increase the thickness, change materials, or add bracing.

Going for too high an aspect ratio will result in wings that are weaker over span. If the purpose of the plane is to turn tightly, that means it will experience high Gs. This will present a real problem with wing flexing. (think about how much strain would be placed on a plane at even 3Gs, much less 5 or 6)

Not to metion other real-world concerns such as storage space, runway width, and production issues.

So since you can't go out, you have to go back. It's much easier to just add another spar for a longer chord. This will give you the wing area you want.

As for "rotating the wing", again, I've never seen anything in any aerodynamic study that has ever said anything about this. However, even *if* true, it's really just a way of saying "increased elevator authority". Which in-turn would mean lighter controls and a smaller elevator could be used, which itself would also mean less drag.

Higher AR = lower drag. Not the other way around.

Lazy312
01-20-2006, 06:26 PM
Do you still assert that the Spitfire is undermodeled?
I think it is - the top speed is about 580 kph in 4.02.

KrashanTopolova
01-20-2006, 06:32 PM
After reading so much diatribe on this topic i've come to the conclusion that there is no reasonable problem with the FM re: FW190 and Spits and any other aircraft in the game: the problem seems to be perceptions from those in the cockpit. IL-2 warned us about well-known visual delusions such as the strange angle to the horizon that a pilot sees when turning tight but perfectly level (it looks as though you're actually spiralling downwards). the same seems to be the basis for this (long and obsessive) thread.

Just because the (heavier) FW190 appears to lose airspeed and have poor acceleration does not mean it is not actually flying properly from an external view.

The FW is sluggish on the takeoff roll and that has implications for its performance in the air.

The aerodynamic fact is that an aircraft naturally loses airspeed (not necessarily ground speed) in a turn and also loses lift (which is compensated for by nose up). Perhaps then, the FW *appears* to lose speed in a turn where the pilot has not increased throttle to compensate thrust in the turn. This procedure would be valid of course to make the turn tighter but it does not follow that the FW is underperforming. Indeed a tighter turn can be made with suitable rudder under increased thrust.

Was it the failure to do piloty things like that that led to the perception the FW is not modelled properly in the game and thus led to this thread?

Just because one *perceives* that performance in the game from the cockpit view is not up to expectations doesn't mean that this is true. A quick look at the scene from an external view should show that the aircraft and any following it in a turn generally follow reasonable flight characteristics.

(BTW the RAF relied on speedier aircraft such as the Mosquito to handle the FW because even the Typhoons had trouble handling it).

Performance of an aircraft is not the deciding factor when aircraft are not seriously disadvantaged by any other type of aircraft; it is the performance in the cockpit that it all comes down to.

This was demonstrated throughout the war. If you're in a slower aircraft you can compensate in any number of ways. By corollary, this means that if you're in a faster aircraft you can still be brought down by a slower aircraft (by being made to overshoot etc and by example that witnessed by Australian airmen of the Russian bi-plane that brought down a bf-109 over a Murmansk airfield by pulling up into a loop).

So in the end this thread reaches a moot point.

The way to find out if the FM is not performing adequately is to determine at what revs and boost the max rate of climb is obtained for the FW190 then get online and have a partner in a Spitfire MkV setup behind you (under and straight behind and no more than 5000 ft since it was up to this altitude that most dogfights occurred in WWII) then from the same airspeed pull up into initial climb rate until max rate of climb is reached. You then should see how both aircraft perform to expectations.

make a track from a third aircraft view flying echelon...let us all see the climb attitude of the FW compared to the Spit.

Aymar_Mauri
01-20-2006, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by Kocur_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
The D9 doesn't turn all that well. That is to say, it's no in the weeds TnB'er. The A9 is worse, and has much worse acceleration and lower top speed.
Yes, the D9's survivability is due to the speed it can produce. Although in real life the wing area was larger than in the 190 and it's wing-loading slightly smaller. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nope. Apart from engine installation and aft fuselage extension D9 airframe was identical to Antons. The only difference in wings was lack of outer pair of cannon installations (electrics, heating ). Some D9s were even produced as A8s conversions. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry. You're mistaken. Maybe the prototypes or some rushed production had series A wings, but the final plans included a slightly different wing with a very modest area increase. I have it quoted in books.

horseback
01-20-2006, 11:05 PM
I'd love to see what books you've read, Aymar_Mauri, because all the books I've read over the last forty plus years that mention the Dora state that the Dora's wings and aft airframe were the same as the Anton's, less the fuselage plug and the tailplane/rudder extension. Many Doras were built form recovered Anton airframes.

Does one of those books your read mention Spitfires made of wood by any chance?

cheers

horseback

luftluuver
01-21-2006, 02:12 AM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
Sorry. You're mistaken. Maybe the prototypes or some rushed production had series A wings, but the final plans included a slightly different wing with a very modest area increase. I have it quoted in books.

Sure, go ahead and give us the numbers for the Ta512C which had a slight increase in wingspan.

Btw, a Fw factory drawing shows a wingspan of 10.5m. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WOLFMondo
01-21-2006, 03:01 AM
This debate and that other Spitfire one is ******ed.

The British built over 20,000 Spitfires because it was a good design. It was adaptable to any need that was required, it was easy to fly, the engine was sound, the guns were good, the controls light and pilots loved it. Display pilots still love it.

The British could have asked to license build P51's or P38's or any other allied aircraft. but didn't. There was a reason the Air ministry and the RAF stuck with the Spitfire, because it was a great fighter plane capable of almost any task it could be put into or the design could be adapted to fit it with relative ease. It simply wasn't worth re tooling for another aircraft.

God forbid that there might ever be some objectivity in this forum instead of this red vs blue patriotic chest thumping BS thats going on.


Originally posted by KrashanTopolova:

(BTW the RAF relied on speedier aircraft such as the Mosquito to handle the FW because even the Typhoons had trouble handling it).


The Typhoon had no problems catching FW190's. Even in 1945 its speed was still considered excellent at low and medium altitudes. It might have been very poor at rolling but throughout its career it was always capable of very high speeds. Its not that much slower than the Tempest V and the Typhoon appeared in 1941! It just has poorer manoverability and far worse acceleration and zoom climb.


Originally posted by Lazy312:
Spitfire Vb (we have 42 model with Merlin 50, not 41 model BTW) is completely outclassed by FW 190 A4.

Those who deny that should take into account that you cannot easily win a fight even against biplanes if you meet them co-E. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WW2 fights were not won by 1vs1 duelling..

Exactly, because the A4 does everything better where it counts in a 2 on 2 or more situation. You can engage, disengage, drag and bag at will. The Spitfire VB has a much tougher time doing these things. Just like it was when the FW190's appeared.


Originally posted by horseback:
I'd love to see what books you've read, Aymar_Mauri, because all the books I've read over the last forty plus years that mention the Dora state that the Dora's wings and aft airframe were the same as the Anton's, less the fuselage plug and the tailplane/rudder extension. Many Doras were built form recovered Anton airframes.

Does one of those books your read mention Spitfires made of wood by any chance?

cheers

horseback

Horseback, I've read similar things, that it had an A8 wing, I've also read that the Dora had its own purpose built wing and the A8 wing was for the prototype and initial production models.

BTW there is a company in the UK that builds full size replica Spitfires out of wood and puts an Allison in them.

Kocur_
01-21-2006, 04:13 AM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
Sorry. You're mistaken. Maybe the prototypes or some rushed production had series A wings, but the final plans included a slightly different wing with a very modest area increase. I have it quoted in books.

I share horseback's interest and would love to see titles and authors of those books, please.

Aymar_Mauri
01-21-2006, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
I'd love to see what books you've read, Aymar_Mauri, because all the books I've read over the last forty plus years that mention the Dora state that the Dora's wings and aft airframe were the same as the Anton's, less the fuselage plug and the tailplane/rudder extension. Many Doras were built form recovered Anton airframes.

Does one of those books your read mention Spitfires made of wood by any chance?

cheers

horseback

Originally posted by luftluuver:
Sure, go ahead and give us the numbers for the Ta512C which had a slight increase in wingspan.

Btw, a Fw factory drawing shows a wingspan of 10.5m
You are both correct. I was mistaken. It was not the D9 that had a slightly different wing. It was the redesigned Ta152C. That is what is in my book - 11m wingspan. I mixed them up. Sorry.

On the other hand, in game the D9 seems to hold it's own in tighter bends better than the A series. Maybe just my perception because of increased power, aceleration and speed?

p1ngu666
01-21-2006, 09:10 AM
its probably better than a8 a9, a6/5 seem similer.

dora has the outer 20mm removed too, and less frontal area by 10%

AustinPowers_
01-21-2006, 09:14 AM
Dora is the win!

horseback
01-21-2006, 12:18 PM
The D-9 should be a bit better turning than the later Antons. The first units taking it into combat came to feel that it was more maneuverable as well.

The reasons may not have been just the power loading; the longer fuselage may have given it a better balance and weight distribution than the original BMW powered designs.

cheers

horseback

faustnik
01-21-2006, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
This debate and that other Spitfire one is ******ed.

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


The British built over 20,000 Spitfires because it was a good design. It was adaptable to any need that was required, it was easy to fly, the engine was sound, the guns were good, the controls light and pilots loved it. Display pilots still love it.

You are quite the master of understatement Mondo. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif The Spitfire is the standard of WW2 fighter quality that all others are measured against. An outstanding fighter by any account that remained at the forefront from 1940 through 1945.

Unknown-Pilot
01-21-2006, 11:11 PM
The debate is "pointless" only because it's plainly evident that the 190 is porked and really needs to be fixed. As in any debate there are always 2 sides.... what's the other side on about?

As for the Spit - great plane, yes, but, like the Camel, not as great as it's reputation suggests. It's rep comes from the Brits. And we need to remember 2 things in that case - 1, they were on the winning side (winners get to write history remember), and 2, it was English. And to them, *nothing* else is, or ever can be, equal. *Exactly* like with the Camel (never mind that the SPAD 13 was far superior and was leading the way to the future of air combat, or that the trio of late Fokkers outclassed the Camel in multiple ways - didn't matter).

p1ngu666
01-21-2006, 11:43 PM
quite, history proves that spitfires where utterly utterly useless. the allies only won by numbers, they simply put so many planes in the air that the germans couldnt avoid them and crashed into them. or failing debris from those lw fliers victims above would crash into those below.

winners write history, but lw always blame goering and hitler.

and yes nothing else can equal the spit, its greater than the sum of its parts. its not its performance that makes it special, its like a living breathing creature. thats what makes things special.

its like having a teddy bear, its just a bunch of fur and stuffing, and itll be made in the thousands, but when your a kid *your* teddy is special.

and yes the camel wasnt best at everything, but it was decent, and most importantly, biggles flew it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

on the 190, one of my mates who flies only fw190 (doras espiecaly) says its the best its ever been, but it still requires some skill to fly it.

that maybe the problem. provided you dont fly like a ******, i cant see why u cant do very well indeed.

unknown, u dont seem to like us british much, and probably want to blow up lots and lots of british things. historicaly that role was taken by the blehiem, and we have that ingame.

Unknown-Pilot
01-22-2006, 12:02 AM
Pingu - once again you try to pull support away from the idea of correcting the 190. It's not correct now, and you have to know it. You just don't seem to care. You always come in with "it's the best it's been". I'm not going to disagree with that point, only point out that it's totally irrelevant to the conversation.

"Best" is a comparitive term. Something can be "best" and still be bad. Likewise, as in this case, it can be the "best yet" and still be wrong - and it is.


The Camel was not only not best at everything, it wasn't good at much. Poor relative climb rate, poor top speed, low cieling, and horrid balance with vicious tendencies that often killed novices. The SE5a was a better plane, but the Brits liked to turn fight, and after 1917, god only knows why. They specifically disliked the SPAD. Funny how it didn't slow down the French or American aces though. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But thanks to history, and the nature of the English (specifically), both the Camel and the Spitfire have gone from being extremely good planes for their time into a scaled down version of God. But when people mention this, it's taken as an affront. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif



unknown, u dont seem to like us british much, and probably want to blow up lots and lots of british things. historicaly that role was taken by the blehiem, and we have that ingame.

No.... the commies are the essence of evil and far and away my favorite thing to blow up. Especially when using a Jug or Hellcat. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

The only thing I personally don't like about the Spitfire (or the Hurri) is that damnable ring handle.

Anyway - I don't dislike British things at all. English on the other hand may be a different story, depending on which mood I'm in. I happen to rather like their northern neighbors which they (the English) have oppressed, and even nearly wiped out, over the centuries.

Now, if there were a Celtic plane selection, if Ireland, Scotland or Wales had developed planes of their own..... well, maybe I might get a twisted pleasure out of gunning down Spits. lol

But no, not as it stands. Actually, I'm a plane wh0re. I have a twisted fascination with the Yak3 and La7, and rather like the Polikarpovs. Franks are really cool, as are Zeros and Tonies. Other than the ring handle, I liked the Hurri from day one. I like more planes in this game than I dislike, and I enjoy all styles of flying. I just happen to prefer energy, and US and LW fighters overall. (with Blue planes being my favorite - NOT LW, "blue" planes, you know.... USN. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

Actually, if I were a turn fighter at heart, I'd probably be in the Spit all the time. And the only reason I don't often use it now is because I know it would spoil me. lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

robban75
01-22-2006, 02:17 AM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
on the 190, one of my mates who flies only fw190 (doras espiecaly) says its the best its ever been, but it still requires some skill to fly it.


I can agree with that. The only thing that is annoying is that it wobbles. But still, it's never been better in this game. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

The Antons on the otherhand seems to lack in dive/zoom and E performance. But that's just a feeling.

Aymar_Mauri
01-22-2006, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
Pingu - once again you try to pull support away from the idea of correcting the 190. It's not correct now, and you have to know it. You just don't seem to care. You always come in with "it's the best it's been". I'm not going to disagree with that point, only point out that it's totally irrelevant to the conversation.

"Best" is a comparitive term. Something can be "best" and still be bad. Likewise, as in this case, it can be the "best yet" and still be wrong - and it is.


The Camel was not only not best at everything, it wasn't good at much. Poor relative climb rate, poor top speed, low cieling, and horrid balance with vicious tendencies that often killed novices. The SE5a was a better plane, but the Brits liked to turn fight, and after 1917, god only knows why. They specifically disliked the SPAD. Funny how it didn't slow down the French or American aces though. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But thanks to history, and the nature of the English (specifically), both the Camel and the Spitfire have gone from being extremely good planes for their time into a scaled down version of God. But when people mention this, it's taken as an affront. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
Ver true words. I couldn't agree more.



Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
Anyway - I don't dislike British things at all. English on the other hand may be a different story, depending on which mood I'm in. I happen to rather like their northern neighbors which they (the English) have oppressed, and even nearly wiped out, over the centuries.
Hehehe. Indeed.


Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
But no, not as it stands. Actually, I'm a plane wh0re. I have a twisted fascination with the Yak3 and La7, and rather like the Polikarpovs. Franks are really cool, as are Zeros and Tonies. Other than the ring handle, I liked the Hurri from day one. I like more planes in this game than I dislike, and I enjoy all styles of flying. I just happen to prefer energy, and US and LW fighters overall. (with Blue planes being my favorite - NOT LW, "blue" planes, you know.... USN. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

Actually, if I were a turn fighter at heart, I'd probably be in the Spit all the time. And the only reason I don't often use it now is because I know it would spoil me. lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Me too. I like 99% of the planes in FB/AEP/PF and 80% of their FM.

AustinPowers_
01-22-2006, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
Anyway - I don't dislike British things at all. English on the other hand may be a different story, depending on which mood I'm in.


Don't worry dude, we love you, be sure!

darkhorizon11
01-22-2006, 11:39 AM
I sifted through the post, but no one listed the Vy speed or best rate of climb airspeed for the A4 or the Spitfire, anyone care to indulge?

Unknown-Pilot
01-23-2006, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by AustinPowers_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
Anyway - I don't dislike British things at all. English on the other hand may be a different story, depending on which mood I'm in.


Don't worry dude, we love you, be sure! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gurab amhlaidh duit. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.irishpage.com/graf/aircorps.jpg

luftluuver
01-23-2006, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
I sifted through the post, but no one listed the Vy speed or best rate of climb airspeed for the A4 or the Spitfire, anyone care to indulge?
Best climbing speed for best roc is 280-290kph for the Fw.

If you want data for the Spits visit the Spitperformace site.

faustnik
01-23-2006, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
I sifted through the post, but no one listed the Vy speed or best rate of climb airspeed for the A4 or the Spitfire, anyone care to indulge?
Best climbing speed for best roc is 280-290kph for the Fw.

If you want data for the Spits visit the Spitperformace site. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was posted at the top of this page:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/4861097993/p/12

Aymar_Mauri
02-10-2006, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Aymar_Mauri, I havent seen any confirmation of the Use of MW50 on the Fw 190 A series except in some special units testing High altitude operation. It certainly wasnt common place, the Fw 190 did use other boost mechanisms which didnt rely on MW50. The Fw 190 A4 was perhaps the best performing of the A series in general, it benefited from increased ATA clearance as did the later models and they all essentially had the same BMW 801D engine which was attached as part of a 'power egg' unit.
Here is some data of the in-battle deployement of not "experimental high altitude" versions starting with the A4:

http://img463.imageshack.us/img463/2857/postaboutfw190mwandgm11mu.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Jaws2002
02-10-2006, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
Here is some data of the in-battle deployement of not "experimental high altitude" versions starting with the A4:

http://img463.imageshack.us/img463/2857/postaboutfw190mwandgm11mu.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Urban legends. There were many tests but 190-A4 in dservice had no MW50. As for A5/6/8 the Erh√¬∂hte Noleistung gave better performance then MW-50 so no need for metanol boost.

Aymar_Mauri
02-11-2006, 07:32 AM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
Here is some data of the in-battle deployement of not "experimental high altitude" versions starting with the A4:
Urban legends. There were many tests but 190-A4 in dservice had no MW50. As for A5/6/8 the Erh√¬∂hte Noleistung gave better performance then MW-50 so no need for metanol boost. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Funny. Most of my books, all from different authors, say much the same as in this text I posted. Who should I trust more: reputed authors or a guy posting his oppinion in the forum? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BTW, Erh√¬∂hte Noleistung is a refrigeration mechanism, not a power boost device. Read more...

CUJO_1970
02-11-2006, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
Funny. Most of my books, all from different authors, say much the same as in this text I posted. Who should I trust more: reputed authors or a guy posting his oppinion in the forum? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BTW, Erh√¬∂hte Noleistung is a refrigeration mechanism, not a power boost device. Read more...


It's not his opinion, it is the truth. Much of what is written in history books are just mistakes that get retold over and over.

Sorry.

MW-50 was tested for the A-4 though.

C-3 fuel injection into the supercharger was a better solution since it required no additional tank or plumbing, although it did raise fuel consumption drastically.

CUJO_1970
02-11-2006, 07:43 AM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:
BTW, Erh√¬∂hte Noleistung is a refrigeration mechanism, not a power boost device. Read more...


LOL!

Kocur_
02-11-2006, 07:45 AM
Originally posted by Aymar_Mauri:

BTW, Erh√¬∂hte Noleistung is a refrigeration mechanism, not a power boost device. Read more...

Less arrogance would serve you well too. Have a nice read, from someone commonly regarded as great, if not greatest Fw-190 expert:
http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=F...ile=viewtopic&t=2021 (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=2021)