PDA

View Full Version : A new source of propaganda



jugent
08-10-2005, 01:22 AM
Check this proganda written by a fan of luftwaffe.

http://www.shockwaveproductions.com/store/fw190/tactical_trials.htm

I must quote this

" The aircraft is very pleasant for aerobatics even at high speed."

jugent
08-10-2005, 01:22 AM
Check this proganda written by a fan of luftwaffe.

http://www.shockwaveproductions.com/store/fw190/tactical_trials.htm

I must quote this

" The aircraft is very pleasant for aerobatics even at high speed."

Grue_
08-10-2005, 04:12 AM
Another wind-up merchant....

TooMuchCheese
08-10-2005, 04:35 AM
Here we go again....wont be long before the usual suspects come along to rubbish this official report. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif


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

Pirschjaeger
08-10-2005, 12:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jugent:
Check this proganda written by a fan of luftwaffe.

http://www.shockwaveproductions.com/store/fw190/tactical_trials.htm

I must quote this

" The aircraft is very pleasant for aerobatics even at high speed." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok Jugent, not surprised at your poor fishing style but I'll go along for a bit.

Having not flown a real 190 and having only flown the simulation, I can say I enjoy this plane for certain acrobatics. I have no idea of what it flew like in reality. But, having read your intuitive thoughts I have a few questions, since you seem to know a lot about this topic.

1) Who wrote it?

2) How do you know it's propaganda?

3) What are your reasons?

4) Share some of that deep knowledge you are hiding.

I will be surprised if you reply and even more suprised if you reply with anything enlightening. You like starting threads like this so now I would like you to take some responsibility, unless ofcourse, your some sort of "net pyro". Then I would expect no less from you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz

LStarosta
08-10-2005, 12:26 PM
I think he was kidding.

Either way, it's an interesting read.

As usual, taken with a grain of salt.

gorillasika
08-10-2005, 01:07 PM
I'm surprised if you folks haven't seen this before.

http://www.shockwaveproductions.com/store/fw190/

(Scroll down for the report)

LStarosta
08-10-2005, 01:12 PM
Oh no! A new superfighter!

What shall we do?



Enter Spit Mk9.

Pirschjaeger
08-10-2005, 01:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gorillasika:
I'm surprised if you folks haven't seen this before.

http://www.shockwaveproductions.com/store/fw190/

(Scroll down for the report) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif thanks for the details.

Now, if you had simply posted the report with no other details, that would have been propaganda. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz

carguy_
08-10-2005, 01:20 PM
Pfft a doomed attempt!Everyone knows axis planes were ****.That is why axis lost the war.

duh

Pirschjaeger
08-10-2005, 01:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
I think he was kidding.

Either way, it's an interesting read.

As usual, taken with a grain of salt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Normally I would think the starter of this sort of thread was just kidding. But just click on his name a look at the topics he's started. It's too bad the deleted ones are not available.

He will never make it to "Crash's" level. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Fritz

Atomic_Marten
08-10-2005, 01:27 PM
Is that 30$ for FW-190 add-on solely?

Just remind me to shot EVERY single patch whiner in the future. Whether he is right or wrong, does not relly matter.

GH_Klingstroem
08-10-2005, 04:02 PM
The sighting view, when sitting comfortably in the normal position, is about half a ring jof deflection) better than that from a Spitfire. The view downwards from the centre of the sight graticule of the edge of the reflector plate holder is about 5 degrees. This view is not obtained by elevating the guns (and consequently the sight) relative to the line of flight, but is entirely due to the attitude of the aircraft in flight, which is nose down. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

The good all-round view from the aircraft, particularly over the nose, makes the Fw 190 very suitable for low flying and ground strafing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

now where is this in the game?

Atomic_Marten
08-10-2005, 04:52 PM
It is there mate but we just can't see. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Xiolablu3
08-10-2005, 04:55 PM
I see in the British FW190 test it talks of a 'ammunition counter' displaying how much ammo you have left.

Do we have this in FB/PF?

If we do I have never seen it.

Atomic_Marten
08-10-2005, 04:59 PM
You mean some gauge in instrument panel which displays something like

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
MG:797
CN:75 </pre>

like
http://contractorstools.com/graphics/cst30100.jpg

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

Hoarmurath
08-10-2005, 05:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I see in the British FW190 test it talks of a 'ammunition counter' displaying how much ammo you have left.

Do we have this in FB/PF?

If we do I have never seen it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

circled in red :

http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/7084/fw1903fs.jpg

Xiolablu3
08-10-2005, 05:07 PM
Yes AM, is there one? I must admit that I havent studied the cockpit panels on theplanes much at all tho.

Also in that British FW190 trial report it states that the FW190 is excellent for ground strafing. I have always found it really hard to strafe in the FW190A, oweing to its twitchy controls at low speeds. I find strafing in the Me109 much easier than the FW190.

Has anyone else had this trouble? (this may be because I fly with the keyboard tho. Perhaps strafing in the FW190 would be a lot easier if I had a joystick, still strafing in the Me109 with keyboard is not too hard)

Xiolablu3
08-10-2005, 05:08 PM
Thanks H, sorry , you wrote that post as I was replying to AM's post http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

effte
08-11-2005, 03:32 AM
Propaganda?

If that is propaganda, it means one of the following two alternatives.

1) Shockwave are guilty of fraud, publishing what appears to be the header of an official document followed by what appears to be the content of the rest of the document but which is, in fact, made up information.

2) The source of the official document, supposedly the RAF tactical evaluation unit during or soon after the second world war, published this document as propaganda. By the looks of it, they set out to make the Fw190 out to be a good aircraft.

I have a hard time imagining any motives for either Shockwave being fraudulent or the RAF tactical evaluation people publishing pro-Fw190 propaganda.

Please clarify?

FritzGryphon
08-11-2005, 04:35 AM
The 'aerobatic' comment doesn't mean it turns like a zero, just that it can do aerobatics (none of which require a good turning plane). The high stalling speed is indicated in the document.

Pirschjaeger
08-11-2005, 04:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Atomic_Marten:
Is that 30$ for FW-190 add-on solely?

Just remind me to shot EVERY single patch whiner in the future. Whether he is right or wrong, does not relly matter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kill'em all and let Oleg sort'em out. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Fritz

Pirschjaeger
08-11-2005, 05:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by effte:
Propaganda?

If that is propaganda, it means one of the following two alternatives.

1) Shockwave are guilty of fraud, publishing what appears to be the header of an official document followed by what appears to be the content of the rest of the document but which is, in fact, made up information.

2) The source of the official document, supposedly the RAF tactical evaluation unit during or soon after the second world war, published this document as propaganda. By the looks of it, they set out to make the Fw190 out to be a good aircraft.

I have a hard time imagining any motives for either Shockwave being fraudulent or the RAF tactical evaluation people publishing pro-Fw190 propaganda.

Please clarify? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, the report is very favorable to the FW190. Maybe Jugent was trying to tell us the 190 is actually much better and that Oleg undermodelled it? I can't tell. It's hard to say, he rarely posts after the first post in most of his threads.

Jugent, you crack me up! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Fritz

Pirschjaeger
08-11-2005, 05:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
The 'aerobatic' comment doesn't mean it turns like a zero, just that it can do aerobatics (none of which require a good turning plane). The high stalling speed is indicated in the document. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 190 is perfect for performing a stall/hammerhead. Try that in a 109. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz

Atomic_Marten
08-11-2005, 05:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Yes AM, is there one? I must admit that I havent studied the cockpit panels on theplanes much at all tho.

Also in that British FW190 trial report it states that the FW190 is excellent for ground strafing. I have always found it really hard to strafe in the FW190A, oweing to its twitchy controls at low speeds. I find strafing in the Me109 much easier than the FW190.

Has anyone else had this trouble? (this may be because I fly with the keyboard tho. Perhaps strafing in the FW190 would be a lot easier if I had a joystick, still strafing in the Me109 with keyboard is not too hard) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since I am awared that both Bf-109 and FW-190 have ammo counters just they aren't numeric ones, I have presumed that you are saying that British one have numeric displayed ammo counter installed in that FW-190 add-on. I have presumed wrong.
Historically they were equipped with these like on Hoarmurath's pic.
Also interesting thing is that K4 has only MG counters.

effte
08-11-2005, 07:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:

Yes, the report is very favorable to the FW190. Maybe Jugent was trying to tell us the 190 is actually much better and that Oleg undermodelled it? I can't tell. It's hard to say, he rarely posts after the first post in most of his threads.

Jugent, you crack me up! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh no! I am a victim of sarcasm, irony or other horrible weapons of subtile argumentation! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Good one. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

TAGERT.
08-11-2005, 08:27 AM
At least this sim makers knows how to account for light refraction

http://www.shockwaveproductions.com/store/fw190/screenshots/26.jpg

Jaws2002
08-11-2005, 10:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TAGERT.:
At least this sim makers knows how to account for light refraction

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
Let's just hope we'll have it in those BOB addons.

One thing that I want to quote from that document (mentioned in the US Navy tests too):

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">"The fact that the Fw 190 does not require re-trimming under all conditions of flight is a particularly good point."</span>

I hope some people would read it before screaming that FW's are flying like on rails.

Hm, I'll make that my sig. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

x6BL_Brando
08-11-2005, 11:13 AM
Quoting from The Spitfire Story by Alfred Price - and relating to the comparative trials between the FW190 (inadvertently landed at Pembrey in South Wales and captured intact) and the MkIX Spitfire...

"The general impression gained by the pilots in the trials is that the Spitfire IX compares favourably with the FW 190 and that provided the Spitfire has the initiative, it has undoubtedly a good chance of shooting it down."

"Both aircraft 'bounced' one another in order to ascertain the best evasive tactics to adopt. The Spitfire IX could not be caught when 'bounced' if it was cruising at high speed and saw the FW 190 when well out of range. When the Sptfire IX was cruising at low speed its inferiority in acceleration gave the FW190 a reasonable chance of catching up and(my italics) the same applied if the position is reversed and the FW 190 was 'bounced by the Spitfire IX, except that the overtaking took a little longer."

Even more:

" Dive
The FW190 is faster than the Spitfire IX in a dive, particularly during the initial stage. This superiority is not as marked as with a Spitfire VB.
Manouevrability
The FW 190 is more manouevrable than the Spitfire IX except in turning circles, when it is out-turned without difficulty....."

And so on. This is reproduced from the report made by the Air Fighting Developement Unit at Duxford, in July 1942. (There's a lot more, but one-handed typing is too boring to warrant doing the lot.)

What's clear is that propaganda doesn't enter into this specialised report. In fact we can be sure that it was classified at its release - and was just a non-partisan evaluation of an aeroplane's capabilities, compared to its nearest rival.

Gonna go rest my digit now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

B.