PDA

View Full Version : La5 vs Fw 190 A4



mynameisroland
02-28-2006, 12:28 PM
From your observations how do you view this match up? The Fw 190 seems to have the advantage above 5000m but from 0m up to 3000m the La5 seems to hold all of the advantages. Was the La5 better than the Fw 190 A4 up to around 16,000 ft in WW2 ? I have read a lot about both planes but opinions on each differ so much due to various conflicting histories and performance figures.

One of the reasons I ask is that, in some books, they trace the development of the La 5FN to the inability of the La5 to catch the Fw 190 A4. These accounts are similar to the British response to the Fw 190 with their introduction of the the Spitfire IX to counter it.

Likewise I have read about the La7's development which again was the Russians trying to leapfrog the Germans and specifically be able to run down Fw 190 Jabos.

In both scenarios, the La5 and the La5 FN in IL2, have no trouble running down contemporary Fw 190s. Are there any La5 fans who can explain the development and the Performance of the La5 series more clearly in relation to their comparitive performance with the Fw 190 ? I know that IL2 intentionally gave all fighters their best performance data - specifically late war German and all VVS aircraft. So maybe the performance gap in reality was due to poor quality maintainence and prodcution of La5's - again I have seen reports which state some captured La5's had beautifully smooth wing surfaces, but against that I have read countless historians deride Soviet quality control.

If you meausure speed in IL2 LA5 hits 555kmh at sea level Fw 190 A4 is very close at 554kmh. Fw 190 A6 hits 570 km/h against La5FN's 590km/h.

What gives ?

mynameisroland
02-28-2006, 12:28 PM
From your observations how do you view this match up? The Fw 190 seems to have the advantage above 5000m but from 0m up to 3000m the La5 seems to hold all of the advantages. Was the La5 better than the Fw 190 A4 up to around 16,000 ft in WW2 ? I have read a lot about both planes but opinions on each differ so much due to various conflicting histories and performance figures.

One of the reasons I ask is that, in some books, they trace the development of the La 5FN to the inability of the La5 to catch the Fw 190 A4. These accounts are similar to the British response to the Fw 190 with their introduction of the the Spitfire IX to counter it.

Likewise I have read about the La7's development which again was the Russians trying to leapfrog the Germans and specifically be able to run down Fw 190 Jabos.

In both scenarios, the La5 and the La5 FN in IL2, have no trouble running down contemporary Fw 190s. Are there any La5 fans who can explain the development and the Performance of the La5 series more clearly in relation to their comparitive performance with the Fw 190 ? I know that IL2 intentionally gave all fighters their best performance data - specifically late war German and all VVS aircraft. So maybe the performance gap in reality was due to poor quality maintainence and prodcution of La5's - again I have seen reports which state some captured La5's had beautifully smooth wing surfaces, but against that I have read countless historians deride Soviet quality control.

If you meausure speed in IL2 LA5 hits 555kmh at sea level Fw 190 A4 is very close at 554kmh. Fw 190 A6 hits 570 km/h against La5FN's 590km/h.

What gives ?

TX-Zen
02-28-2006, 12:36 PM
There you go comparing FB to real life again.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

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

TX-Zen
02-28-2006, 12:37 PM
That is an interesting question and I'd like to hear some comments also.

<S>

F19_Ob
02-28-2006, 01:10 PM
The performance gap, if any, in reality I think must have been small and mainly lay in the experience of Luftwaffe pilots, and above all developed teamtactics.
However thousands of La5's and huge numbers of FN's participated in the battles close and around Kursk and eastern front from 1943 and onwards. So it is just logical that luftwaffe was pushed back. By this time the level of the russian pilots was high aswell.


The La5 earliest variant is a bit slow in the accelleration compared to the later ones and therfore also a bit worse in turning and climbing and can sometimes, if energy low, be overtaken by 109's in a climbing turnfight close to stall.
Fw190 can only win in a bounce because it cant run from a speeded up La5 and not turn with it.
The later La5F and FN have better accelleration and topspeed to make it hard for 109's to do anything alone and are forced to teamtactics and benefits from choosing 30mm cannon before 20mm.
Fw190's are reduced to bounces.

With enough altitude The fw190 however should be faster in dive and have higher breakupspeed.
A trick can use in high speed is to start turning in one direction and then quickly altering to opposite direction. This may cause the La5 to miss because it cant alter direction as fast in very high speeds, wich also can be used to create separation enough for friendlies to intervene in time.

Also note that most battles at eastern front took part under 3000m and often below 1000m.
That rules out any benefits that any axis fighter may have had at higher altitude.

faustnik
02-28-2006, 01:25 PM
Speed of the encounter would be a big factor. The Fw190 had better maneuverability at high speeds and the La5 wa better at low speeds.

In PF the La5's are very fragile and don't roll as fast as the Fw190s. So, a pack of Fw190s doing scissors maneuvers at high speeds can do a number on the La5's. Also, in previous patches, I can remember running down La's and La5Fs in my A4. ??

F19_Ob
02-28-2006, 01:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
patches, I can remember running down La's and La5Fs in my A4. ?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They probably weren't accellerated up to topspeed yet, and that takes a while in the La5 1942 variant, or perhaps u did have advantage of a shallow dive, although ever so small?
If u won in any sort of dogfight they must have been inexperienced or had damage.

In comparison:

In a La5FN online I once shot down two 109's and one fw190 trying to get me in a dogfight.
The fw190 came into the fight a bit later and tried to BnZ while the others turnfighted.
When I had taken out the 109's I had to run down the fw190 but got him too.
The 109's had 30mm cannons and tried to use correct tactics, where one drags and the other bags, but I was lucky to hit well quickly, and had time to evade the others, although not by much.
The only skills I atribute my succes to is my deflectionshooting at long distances and my knowledge of the competing fighters performances.
Other than that it was pretty much the plane doing the job.


well, my opinion.

JtD
02-28-2006, 02:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
From your observations how do you view this match up? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

my opinion (http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fwa4vsla5.trk)

anarchy52
02-28-2006, 02:26 PM
Not another AI pwning track, is it?

Xiolablu3
02-28-2006, 03:07 PM
I like both planes. Each has an advantage. If you can get the La in your guns for just one second, he is toast, whereas the La5 guns are weak vs the FW190A in my opinion.

The La5 is a better turner than the 190 tho (obviously) and if you have a La5 on your 6 and you are in a 190A then all you can really do is run to your teamates for help.

You must NOT get into an unfavourable position down low and slow in a 190A vs La5 alone, as you have very little chance of getting him off you if hes a good pilot.

If you have the height you can always dive as he cannot dive over 650kph without breaking up, which is a big advantage in defense for the 190A.

In a 190A stay high and fast so that you have a get out clause of diving fast to escape. If you are in a La5 then try and get him to turn and slow the FW190 down, DONT get in his gunsight even for second or you are toast.


If it was a defensive battle then I would rather be in a La5.

If you have a while until you engage or your team is winning the battle I would rather be in the FW190A. If we were being beaten back and there were enemy planes over the airfield I would take a Me109 instead anyway.

Xiolablu3
02-28-2006, 03:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Ob:

If u won in any sort of dogfight they must have been inexperienced or had damage.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dont dogfight in a 190A, its totally agaisnt what it was designed for. In fact avoid turnfighting in any plane which can not turn better than your opponent. For example, a 109F can easily beat a Spitfire mkV as long as you dont turn too much with it and disengage if he starts to get the upper hand.

Speed and firepower, slashing tactics is what the FW190A was designed for.

Boemher, maybe we can get some documents on what the correct speeds for the 190 and La5's should be? I do not know which should be faster. I know that the FW190 is Olegs favourite plane tho, so if you can get the correct docs I am sure he would like to have it accurate. It could be that he used Eastern front Jabo versions for the data because that is what the Russians saw the FW190 as, a Jabo plane. In fact they considered the Me109 much more dangerous didnt they?

HuninMunin
02-28-2006, 03:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Ob:

If u won in any sort of dogfight they must have been inexperienced or had damage.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dont dogfight in a 190A, its totally agaisnt what it was designed for. In fact avoid turnfighting in any plane which can not turn better than your opponent. For example, a 109F can easily beat a Spitfire mkV as long as you dont turn too much with it and disengage if he starts to get the upper hand.

Speed and firepower, slashing tactics is what the FW190A was designed for.

Boemher, maybe we can get some documents on what the correct speeds for the 190 and La5's should be? I do not know which should be faster. I know that the FW190 is Olegs favourite plane tho, so if you can get the correct docs I am sure he would like to have it accurate. It could be that he used Eastern front Jabo versions for the data because that is what the Russians saw the FW190 as, a Jabo plane. In fact they considered the Me109 much more dangerous didnt they? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have read of English pilots that would hardly agree that the 190 was build for slashing tactics.

Xiolablu3
02-28-2006, 03:36 PM
Then please elaborate.

There was no way that the FW190A could outturn a Spitfire, so are you suggesting that they got involved in prolonged dogfights with them? That was the only defense the Spitfire MkV had against the 190A's in 1941, turning.

Please post the quotes you are reffering to from the British pilots.

I have read that with the FW190A, Kurt Tank saw the future of air combat which was high speed encounters and high firepower with little turning. He designed the excellent FW190A exactly for this purpose.

HuninMunin
02-28-2006, 04:00 PM
I will try find the exact quotes as soon as I get home.

You implied with your post, that 190s were planes only suitable for hit and run tactics.
That is not true.

190s were very agile at higher speeds and very agile in the vertical.
They were perfect energy-fighters.

And there is a huge difference between energy tactics and Hit'n'Run tactics.

The FockeWulf 190 series had enormous acceleration, both in dive and level, great climing abilitys, great energy retention and a completely superior man/machine interface unmatched by any other plane of its time.

Combine this with a great rollrate and tremendous firepower and you have a plane suitable to beat any other plane, especialy those build for turnfighting.

But using energy tactics does not, I repeat again, NOT mean playing hit and run.

Why is the 190 such a porked fighter in FAP?

Because it has crappy acceleration. It has crappy E-retention. Its cockpit is, of all the planes, less suited for high deflection shooting and therefore less suited for energy fighting.
Wich is impossible to a certain degree with the current FM, anyway.

And in my opinion it is to restrictet in horizontal turns.
It was always stated by 190 pilots, that the Spitfire had a much smaller turnradius, but that the Fw had a good turn SPEED.
Meaning that it had a larger radius but would complete the turn faster.
However there is no objective data to back this up.

Xiolablu3
02-28-2006, 04:36 PM
All your opinion, which means very little. I agree the FW190 has its faults in the game, but all planes do.

By slashing tactics I MEANT energy fighting, so we agree on that.

If you use the FW190A in its correct timeperiod it can be untouchable in this sim, the only plane which is. I know aces who will not fly it any more because its simply no challenge to them.

I disagree that its porked, its one of the best planes in the game if flown correctly. I do agree it has faults, but this is a game, its not perfect.

Unknown-Pilot
02-28-2006, 04:44 PM
Hunin, some of us are interested in that material if you can post it.

Others will simply write you off because your name and sig denote an affinity for German things.

Predictably, it was already done. Don't let it get ya down though. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

HuninMunin
02-28-2006, 05:04 PM
Why does my name implie that i have an affiniti for german things?

Hunin and Munin are characters of legend.

And my sig referes to an incident in the old FB days, when a few guys from the german forums (including me) made a joke here about having a patch before it was officialy released.
We succeded for half a day or so.

"Oberst" means Colonel (back then we had a ranking system by post count)
"der Deutschen" means of the German (hence we are Germans)
"GoF" stands for Gods own Forum (it is our codeword for the american forum)
And Trolling Korps for the joke.

And by any means: I do not think that the 190 was a superb plane because it was designed and constructed in my home country.
It just was.

As far as thouse quoutes, I will try to share them, as I stated above.
Even if I dont think its worth the efford.
You may just google for early Spit/190 pilot accounts, Im shure you will find what I mean.

redfeathers1948
02-28-2006, 05:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also note that most battles at eastern front took part under 3000m and often below 1000m.
That rules out any benefits that any axis fighter may have had at higher altitude. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suspect that this is so cause there wasnt the need for hight altitude bomber escort...yes or is there a specific reason for this phenomenon

HuninMunin
02-28-2006, 05:35 PM
launi?dierk?schreckl?
Helft mir mal.

Unknown-Pilot
02-28-2006, 05:46 PM
Hunin, anyone with anything remotely German in their name or sig are seen as Luftwaffe fan bois and anything they say is written off, out of hand, like the person who posted immediately after your first one in this thread. I was just giving you a heads up. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

(Note, there are exceptions to this, like the red-whiners who take axis names just to stir the pot, but they're obvious enough. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

F6_Ace
02-28-2006, 05:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
I will try find the exact quotes as soon as I get home.

You implied with your post, that 190s were planes only suitable for hit and run tactics.
That is not true.

190s were very agile at higher speeds and very agile in the vertical.
They were perfect energy-fighters.

And there is a huge difference between energy tactics and Hit'n'Run tactics.

The FockeWulf 190 series had enormous acceleration, both in dive and level, great climing abilitys, great energy retention and a completely superior man/machine interface unmatched by any other plane of its time.

Combine this with a great rollrate and tremendous firepower and you have a plane suitable to beat any other plane, especialy those build for turnfighting.

But using energy tactics does not, I repeat again, NOT mean playing hit and run.

Why is the 190 such a porked fighter in FAP?

Because it has crappy acceleration. It has crappy E-retention. Its cockpit is, of all the planes, less suited for high deflection shooting and therefore less suited for energy fighting.
Wich is impossible to a certain degree with the current FM, anyway.

And in my opinion it is to restrictet in horizontal turns.
It was always stated by 190 pilots, that the Spitfire had a much smaller turnradius, but that the Fw had a good turn SPEED.
Meaning that it had a larger radius but would complete the turn faster.
However there is no objective data to back this up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I totally agree 190 pilot only has the option of staying fast as he cannot fight as in the pilot accounts.

All aces now progressed to flying the Spitfire! Be sure

HuninMunin
02-28-2006, 05:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F6_Ace:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
I will try find the exact quotes as soon as I get home.

You implied with your post, that 190s were planes only suitable for hit and run tactics.
That is not true.

190s were very agile at higher speeds and very agile in the vertical.
They were perfect energy-fighters.

And there is a huge difference between energy tactics and Hit'n'Run tactics.

The FockeWulf 190 series had enormous acceleration, both in dive and level, great climing abilitys, great energy retention and a completely superior man/machine interface unmatched by any other plane of its time.

Combine this with a great rollrate and tremendous firepower and you have a plane suitable to beat any other plane, especialy those build for turnfighting.

But using energy tactics does not, I repeat again, NOT mean playing hit and run.

Why is the 190 such a porked fighter in FAP?

Because it has crappy acceleration. It has crappy E-retention. Its cockpit is, of all the planes, less suited for high deflection shooting and therefore less suited for energy fighting.
Wich is impossible to a certain degree with the current FM, anyway.

And in my opinion it is to restrictet in horizontal turns.
It was always stated by 190 pilots, that the Spitfire had a much smaller turnradius, but that the Fw had a good turn SPEED.
Meaning that it had a larger radius but would complete the turn faster.
However there is no objective data to back this up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I totally agree 190 pilot only has the option of staying fast as he cannot fight as in the pilot accounts.

All aces now progressed to flying the Spitfire! Be sure </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Jaws2002
02-28-2006, 06:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Ob:

If u won in any sort of dogfight they must have been inexperienced or had damage.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dont dogfight in a 190A, its totally agaisnt what it was designed for. In fact avoid turnfighting in any plane which can not turn better than your opponent. For example, a 109F can easily beat a Spitfire mkV as long as you dont turn too much with it and disengage if he starts to get the upper hand.

Speed and firepower, slashing tactics is what the FW190A was designed for.

Boemher, maybe we can get some documents on what the correct speeds for the 190 and La5's should be? I do not know which should be faster. I know that the FW190 is Olegs favourite plane tho, so if you can get the correct docs I am sure he would like to have it accurate. It could be that he used Eastern front Jabo versions for the data because that is what the Russians saw the FW190 as, a Jabo plane. In fact they considered the Me109 much more dangerous didnt they? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



You is wrong. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

From Luther's Soviet fighter tactics in 1942 (http://luthier.stormloader.com/)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"Yak-7 will easily outturn a FW-190 in a right turn; both planes have equal turn rate in a left turn. Yak-1 and La-5 outmaneuver FW-190 even better.

FW-190A has the following advantages compared to the Me-109G6: under 4,000 meters it is about 20-30 km/h faster in horizontal flight. It is easier to control and has better overall pilot visibility. It also has superior firepower.

Germans will position their fighters at different altitudes, especially when expecting to encounter our fighters. FW-190 will fly at 1,500-2,500 meters and Me-109G at 3,500-4,000 meters. They interact in the following manner:



FW-190 will attempt to close with our fighters hoping to get behind them and attack suddenly. If that maneuver is unsuccessful they will even attack head-on relying on their superb firepower. This will also break up our battle formations to allow Me-109Gs to attack our fighters as well. Me-109G will usually perform boom-n-zoom attacks using superior airspeed after their dive.



FW-190 will commit to the fight even if our battle formation is not broken, preferring left turning fights. There has been cases of such turning fights lasting quite a long time, with multiple planes from both sides involved in each engagement.



FW-190 will dive, sometimes inverted, when threatened by our fighters getting on his six. There has never been occasions of FW-190 attempting to climb away in such situations.



FW-190s will most often fight in separate pairs. Leader will roll and dive to attract our fighters when they get close. Wingman usually climbs away and watches our planes. If our fighters dive after the leader wingman will boom-n-zoom our fighters and attempt to form up with his leader." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Is true that the Russians didn't appreciate much the FW-190 as a fighter, but that doesn't mean it wasn't.

On the east front there were a lot of jabo FW's.
That's why you get this attitude from many russian fighters.

The fighter versions of the Foke wulf were able to turn (to the left) and fight with many fighters they met in combat.
The A4 should have speed advantage over the La-5 at low altitude. Not the derated one we have in the game,but a full 1.42 ATA fighter. What we have in the game is not representative for the FW-190 A4. Is just exception, at most. There are historians that don't agree with this derated hypothesis. Many think that the restriction to lower boost pressure was just to "brake in" new engines. Running at 1.3 ATA for ten hrs and then open them up to full boost.

At the performance the full 1.42 ATA the FW-19 A4 should be able to fight early LA-5's at least on equal terms.

Now in the game it makes more sense to bounce the la5 in A4 but that doesn't mean you can't "dogfight" ( I don't mean horizontal turnfight). All you need to do is to point at him for a second. The fw's may not turn like the LA-5 but is very maneuverable if you have some speed. You can roll inside his turn and light him up as he's passing by. I shot a lot of good turners like that with the FW-190.

3.JG51_BigBear
02-28-2006, 06:42 PM
I've recently done a lot of reading about the La-5 series and I really think that its well represented in game if the plane was produced to Western quality standards. The La-5 should be more than a match for the Focke Wulf and 109 in a close in dog fight and with the introduction of the F and FN models, the Las had a really good chance of catching FW and Bfs even with imperfect production methods and improper operation. In real life, many pilots flew the La with the cockpit open, the rear gear lowered and the main gear not retracted flush to the wing (maintenance problem).

The FN model we have in game is also not the 43 version. Its performance characteristics are much closer to what I've been able to find on the 44 version of the La5FN. The 43 had massive overheating problems and pilots were very restricted in their use of the plane's boosting system. The 44 version had a number of improvements and it remained in production alongside the La7 because so many of the wings for the La5 series had already been produced.

The La5 can turn and accelarate quickly which makes regular boom and zoom tactics difficult. The armament of the La5 is also very accurate which makes deflection shooting at a high speed target very easy. Hit and run seems to work well against the La 5 and, as already mentioned, the Focke Wulf can always dive away from the La if it has enough alt.

tigertalon
02-28-2006, 07:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
So, a pack of Fw190s doing scissors maneuvers at high speeds can do a number on the La5's. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My toughts exactly. FwA4 is only going to end up in trouble if low (below 3k) and 1v1 co-alt. 2v2 - draw, more_v_more - Fws have advantage.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also, in previous patches, I can remember running down La's and La5Fs in my A4. ?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hm... I can remember being runned down by 5FN in any anton (apart from A9).

Unknown-Pilot
02-28-2006, 07:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
I've recently done a lot of reading about the La-5 series and I really think that its well represented in game if the plane was produced to Western quality standards. The La-5 should be more than a match for the Focke Wulf and 109 in a close in dog fight and with the introduction of the F and FN models, the Las had a really good chance of catching FW and Bfs even with imperfect production methods and improper operation. In real life, many pilots flew the La with the cockpit open, the rear gear lowered and the main gear not retracted flush to the wing (maintenance problem).

The FN model we have in game is also not the 43 version. Its performance characteristics are much closer to what I've been able to find on the 44 version of the La5FN. The 43 had massive overheating problems and pilots were very restricted in their use of the plane's boosting system. The 44 version had a number of improvements and it remained in production alongside the La7 because so many of the wings for the La5 series had already been produced.

The La5 can turn and accelarate quickly which makes regular boom and zoom tactics difficult. The armament of the La5 is also very accurate which makes deflection shooting at a high speed target very easy. Hit and run seems to work well against the La 5 and, as already mentioned, the Focke Wulf can always dive away from the La if it has enough alt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, quite true. Because afterall, we know that the Germans had no clue how to build performance fighters of any sort. Hell, it's amazing they even managed to get anything off the ground.

3.JG51_BigBear
02-28-2006, 09:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 3.JG51_BigBear:
I've recently done a lot of reading about the La-5 series and I really think that its well represented in game if the plane was produced to Western quality standards. The La-5 should be more than a match for the Focke Wulf and 109 in a close in dog fight and with the introduction of the F and FN models, the Las had a really good chance of catching FW and Bfs even with imperfect production methods and improper operation. In real life, many pilots flew the La with the cockpit open, the rear gear lowered and the main gear not retracted flush to the wing (maintenance problem).

The FN model we have in game is also not the 43 version. Its performance characteristics are much closer to what I've been able to find on the 44 version of the La5FN. The 43 had massive overheating problems and pilots were very restricted in their use of the plane's boosting system. The 44 version had a number of improvements and it remained in production alongside the La7 because so many of the wings for the La5 series had already been produced.

The La5 can turn and accelarate quickly which makes regular boom and zoom tactics difficult. The armament of the La5 is also very accurate which makes deflection shooting at a high speed target very easy. Hit and run seems to work well against the La 5 and, as already mentioned, the Focke Wulf can always dive away from the La if it has enough alt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, quite true. Because afterall, we know that the Germans had no clue how to build performance fighters of any sort. Hell, it's amazing they even managed to get anything off the ground. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why the sarcasm?

The La was a quality fighter. The design was solid. In real life the La was a point defense fighter which is ideal for a game like Il2 where most flights are short range and a small ammo load will do. In real life the German fighters could serve a number of roles, fly longer ranges, and carry far more weaponry. Their ability to operate at higher altitude, greater reliability and higher production standards made them better fighters overall in my opinion, the FW 190 is my favorite fighter.

Stafroty
02-28-2006, 11:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Ob:
The performance gap, if any, in reality I think must have been small and mainly lay in the experience of Luftwaffe pilots, and above all developed teamtactics.
However thousands of La5's and huge numbers of FN's participated in the battles close and around Kursk and eastern front from 1943 and onwards. So it is just logical that luftwaffe was pushed back. By this time the level of the russian pilots was high aswell.


The La5 earliest variant is a bit slow in the accelleration compared to the later ones and therfore also a bit worse in turning and climbing and can sometimes, if energy low, be overtaken by 109's in a climbing turnfight close to stall.
Fw190 can only win in a bounce because it cant run from a speeded up La5 and not turn with it.
The later La5F and FN have better accelleration and topspeed to make it hard for 109's to do anything alone and are forced to teamtactics and benefits from choosing 30mm cannon before 20mm.
Fw190's are reduced to bounces.

With enough altitude The fw190 however should be faster in dive and have higher breakupspeed.
A trick can use in high speed is to start turning in one direction and then quickly altering to opposite direction. This may cause the La5 to miss because it cant alter direction as fast in very high speeds, wich also can be used to create separation enough for friendlies to intervene in time.

Also note that most battles at eastern front took part under 3000m and often below 1000m.
That rules out any benefits that any axis fighter may have had at higher altitude. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

After russians took on use the Ladder tactics, things changed, as LW didnt always have the highest cover, or even if they had, Russians had more planes there.

Lazy312
03-01-2006, 01:35 AM
La-5 is the only russian plane of the same period (say first half of 1943) that is comparable to FW 190 A-4. Yaks, laggs, migs, P40, hurricanes and others are all dead meat facing FW.

I saw no data that suggested FW 190 climbed, turned or accelerated better than La - opposite is true, at least at low altitudes.

Fighters are primarly not built for duelling or even group dogfighting. Germans particularly avoided both things - it was common to make one high speed attack, disengage and maybe attack later again. For bouncing enemy fighters, attacking enemy bombers or jabo FW 190 is the best plane in the game.

Last time I checked FW 190 A4 had a nice bonus of cca 15kph of top speed when using manual prop pitch.

Not only Russians had problems maintaining their planes - in the Eastern front environment any air force would have serious problems. For example there were problems with snow and mud and you can find many photos of FW 190 with missing parts of gear covers.. not to mention problems with logistics etc.

carguy_
03-01-2006, 03:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lazy312:
La-5 is the only russian plane of the same period (say first half of 1943) that is comparable to FW 190 A-4. Yaks, laggs, migs, P40, hurricanes and others are all dead meat facing FW. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Same alt,pilot and speed.

Against Yak - run away by diving.

Against LaGG - run away by diving.

Against Mig - comparable horizontal and vertical performance.FW190 outclasses it @high speed.

Against P40 - FW190 is only faster.P40 owns it.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Fighters are primarly not built for duelling or even group dogfighting. Germans particularly avoided both things - it was common to make one high speed attack, disengage and maybe attack later again. For bouncing enemy fighters, attacking enemy bombers or jabo FW 190 is the best plane in the game.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What you`re saying is a myth.The only thing Germans did was to start all fights with altitude advantage.From then on typical DF took place where German team tactics counted the most.That applies for both 109 and 190.Attack&disengage were developed from late `43 when LW was critically outclassed below 4500m.

It seems people treat the FW190 the same as P51 as in thinking those were just mediocre machines that used speed and firepower.The mindset that FW190 or P51 couldn`t do anything else than hit&run is not true.Those planes had enourmus energy retention which gave their pilots comfort of staying in the fight because the advantage gained from the start by LW/USAAF was preserved in the whole lenght of the engagement.

The mindset applies only to the underpowered and heavier Focke Wulfs which were used for low alt raids and Sturmovik busting.The general 190 load was field-modded by the ground crews and accepted by OKL as a light,modified and very agile fighter.

Stafroty
03-01-2006, 03:39 AM
for most, staying in the fight means that you have to turn and burn heavily http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif hehe

mynameisroland
03-01-2006, 03:52 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

Dont dogfight in a 190A, its totally agaisnt what it was designed for. In fact avoid turnfighting in any plane which can not turn better than your opponent. For example, a 109F can easily beat a Spitfire mkV as long as you dont turn too much with it and disengage if he starts to get the upper hand.

Speed and firepower, slashing tactics is what the FW190A was designed for.

Boemher, maybe we can get some documents on what the correct speeds for the 190 and La5's should be? I do not know which should be faster. I know that the FW190 is Olegs favourite plane tho, so if you can get the correct docs I am sure he would like to have it accurate. QUOTE]

Xiola, the Fw 190 did dogfight, it fought in the vertical plane, it cannot do this effectively in IL2 because there islittle to no advantage in flying a good energy fighter. IL2 seems to only factor top speed and wing loading when it comes to its FM. The Fw 190 should zoom climb and out dive any Spitfire and any La 5 yet it doesnt even outpace a Spitfire VIII, they can keep with a Fw 190 A right up until they reach break up speed. The Fw 190 A could out dive a Spitfire XIV in WW2. The Fw 190 wasnt a ground attack plane and it also wasnt a bomber destroyer. It in its origional form was a fighter.

Surely you are taking the p1ss with your second comment ?

mynameisroland
03-01-2006, 04:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Then please elaborate.

There was no way that the FW190A could outturn a Spitfire, so are you suggesting that they got involved in prolonged dogfights with them? That was the only defense the Spitfire MkV had against the 190A's in 1941, turning.

Please post the quotes you are reffering to from the British pilots.

I have read that with the FW190A, Kurt Tank saw the future of air combat which was high speed encounters and high firepower with little turning. He designed the excellent FW190A exactly for this purpose. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dogfights invole a hell of a lot more than horizontal turning. Rate of roll is arguably more important, acceleration is important, dive capability and zoom climb all can dictate a fight. To counter a tighter turning plane all you meed to do is a high or a low yo yo. Aircraft like the Fw 190 and P47 excelled at this sort of fight converting their greater momentum in to height and then when diving down again converting their height in to speed. In this game when you try similar tactics you are much better off in a La5FN or Spitfire IX because they dive and zoom climb equally well.

The Raf considered the Fw 190 much more dangerous thant the Bf 109 because it was a better Energy fighter, it could outmanuver the Spitfire in combat ( except in one area - horizontal turn ) and it could easily break off an engagement.

mynameisroland
03-01-2006, 04:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
All your opinion, which means very little. I agree the FW190 has its faults in the game, but all planes do.

By slashing tactics I MEANT energy fighting, so we agree on that.

If you use the FW190A in its correct timeperiod it can be untouchable in this sim, the only plane which is. I know aces who will not fly it any more because its simply no challenge to them.

I disagree that its porked, its one of the best planes in the game if flown correctly. I do agree it has faults, but this is a game, its not perfect. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No mate you mean hit and run when you say slashing attacks. Energy fighting is dogfighting, it is about using a fighter that has an acceleration and E retention advantage against a fighter that has a manuverability advantage. There was a great mock dogfight report with a Spitfire and a P47 the P47 used a shallow dive then its zoom climb ability and rate of roll to get right on the Spitfires 6.

mynameisroland
03-01-2006, 04:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lazy312:
La-5 is the only russian plane of the same period (say first half of 1943) that is comparable to FW 190 A-4. Yaks, laggs, migs, P40, hurricanes and others are all dead meat facing FW.

I saw no data that suggested FW 190 climbed, turned or accelerated better than La - opposite is true, at least at low altitudes.

Fighters are primarly not built for duelling or even group dogfighting. Germans particularly avoided both things - it was common to make one high speed attack, disengage and maybe attack later again. For bouncing enemy fighters, attacking enemy bombers or jabo FW 190 is the best plane in the game.

Last time I checked FW 190 A4 had a nice bonus of cca 15kph of top speed when using manual prop pitch.

Not only Russians had problems maintaining their planes - in the Eastern front environment any air force would have serious problems. For example there were problems with snow and mud and you can find many photos of FW 190 with missing parts of gear covers.. not to mention problems with logistics etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont think the Fw 190 A4 should out turn or outclimb the La 5, it should out zoom climb out dive ( I dont mean dive until the other guy breaks up tactic I mean out accelerate )out turn at high speeds and out accelerate at high end speeds. The Fw 190 has no real benefits from its heavier construction. In reality a heavy fighter possessed greater inertia which could be readily traded for height via a zoom climb. You cannot zoom climb properly in this game, you cannot rely on acceleration as its acceleration is inferior and you cannot dive unless you want to commit to a 800km/h plus dive and lose all of your height because the La 5 will keep you in his sights in all but the most vertical of dives.

alert_1
03-01-2006, 04:27 AM
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=96545

Sintubin
03-01-2006, 04:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
All your opinion, which means very little. I agree the FW190 has its faults in the game, but all planes do.

By slashing tactics I MEANT energy fighting, so we agree on that.

If you use the FW190A in its correct timeperiod it can be untouchable in this sim, the only plane which is. I know aces who will not fly it any more because its simply no challenge to them.

I disagree that its porked, its one of the best planes in the game if flown correctly. I do agree it has faults, but this is a game, its not perfect. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Yeah yeah we heard that before ITS THE BEST yadyadayda

But ITS NOT )) in real live FW190 was GOOD

in il-2 ITS PORKED

And dont tel how to fly the fly

Like you say its wrong BECUASE you dont FLY FW190

HOWS THAT

mynameisroland
03-01-2006, 04:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
From your observations how do you view this match up? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

my opinion (http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fwa4vsla5.trk) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

cannot see your track JtD im at University, but I can outfight AI La5 FN's all day long. I can also sit on our server all day long and shoot down a dozen. That doesnt mean that their relative performance margin is correct.

Do you think the Fw 190 maintains its energy in an accurate way in comparison to its contemporaries ? Do you think you can engage a La 5 with anything other than a 1000m height advantage and have a 50 / 50 chance of winning ?

JG4_Helofly
03-01-2006, 04:30 AM
The thing we doesn't have in il2 is a correct energy model. After 1000 posts about that everyone should know it.
The fw 190 was a great dogfighter because it had better manoeuvrablility than the ennemy and it retained the energy better and was able to produce more and more quick energy.

You must imagine that if you have more energy you have more to burn in dogfights. The great acceleration was able to raise the energy level very quick.

In il2 you can forget all these things.
Let's hope that the "additional modules of calculation" in tbob will model a correct energy model. If not, it was wasted time to create tbob. After so many years I think we can expect a great evolution in FM, DM, ...
This is my opinion

Sintubin
03-01-2006, 04:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
I will try find the exact quotes as soon as I get home.

You implied with your post, that 190s were planes only suitable for hit and run tactics.
That is not true.

190s were very agile at higher speeds and very agile in the vertical.
They were perfect energy-fighters.

And there is a huge difference between energy tactics and Hit'n'Run tactics.

The FockeWulf 190 series had enormous acceleration, both in dive and level, great climing abilitys, great energy retention and a completely superior man/machine interface unmatched by any other plane of its time.

Combine this with a great rollrate and tremendous firepower and you have a plane suitable to beat any other plane, especialy those build for turnfighting.

But using energy tactics does not, I repeat again, NOT mean playing hit and run.

Why is the 190 such a porked fighter in FAP?

Because it has crappy acceleration. It has crappy E-retention. Its cockpit is, of all the planes, less suited for high deflection shooting and therefore less suited for energy fighting.
Wich is impossible to a certain degree with the current FM, anyway.

And in my opinion it is to restrictet in horizontal turns.
It was always stated by 190 pilots, that the Spitfire had a much smaller turnradius, but that the Fw had a good turn SPEED.
Meaning that it had a larger radius but would complete the turn faster.
However there is no objective data to back this up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good post mate

mynameisroland
03-01-2006, 04:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Ob:

If u won in any sort of dogfight they must have been inexperienced or had damage.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dont dogfight in a 190A, its totally agaisnt what it was designed for. In fact avoid turnfighting in any plane which can not turn better than your opponent. For example, a 109F can easily beat a Spitfire mkV as long as you dont turn too much with it and disengage if he starts to get the upper hand.

Speed and firepower, slashing tactics is what the FW190A was designed for.

Boemher, maybe we can get some documents on what the correct speeds for the 190 and La5's should be? I do not know which should be faster. I know that the FW190 is Olegs favourite plane tho, so if you can get the correct docs I am sure he would like to have it accurate. It could be that he used Eastern front Jabo versions for the data because that is what the Russians saw the FW190 as, a Jabo plane. In fact they considered the Me109 much more dangerous didnt they? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



You is wrong. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

From Luther's Soviet fighter tactics in 1942 (http://luthier.stormloader.com/)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"Yak-7 will easily outturn a FW-190 in a right turn; both planes have equal turn rate in a left turn. Yak-1 and La-5 outmaneuver FW-190 even better.

FW-190A has the following advantages compared to the Me-109G6: under 4,000 meters it is about 20-30 km/h faster in horizontal flight. It is easier to control and has better overall pilot visibility. It also has superior firepower.

Germans will position their fighters at different altitudes, especially when expecting to encounter our fighters. FW-190 will fly at 1,500-2,500 meters and Me-109G at 3,500-4,000 meters. They interact in the following manner:



FW-190 will attempt to close with our fighters hoping to get behind them and attack suddenly. If that maneuver is unsuccessful they will even attack head-on relying on their superb firepower. This will also break up our battle formations to allow Me-109Gs to attack our fighters as well. Me-109G will usually perform boom-n-zoom attacks using superior airspeed after their dive.



FW-190 will commit to the fight even if our battle formation is not broken, preferring left turning fights. There has been cases of such turning fights lasting quite a long time, with multiple planes from both sides involved in each engagement.



FW-190 will dive, sometimes inverted, when threatened by our fighters getting on his six. There has never been occasions of FW-190 attempting to climb away in such situations.



FW-190s will most often fight in separate pairs. Leader will roll and dive to attract our fighters when they get close. Wingman usually climbs away and watches our planes. If our fighters dive after the leader wingman will boom-n-zoom our fighters and attempt to form up with his leader." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Is true that the Russians didn't appreciate much the FW-190 as a fighter, but that doesn't mean it wasn't.

On the east front there were a lot of jabo FW's.
That's why you get this attitude from many russian fighters.

The fighter versions of the Foke wulf were able to turn (to the left) and fight with many fighters they met in combat.
The A4 should have speed advantage over the La-5 at low altitude. Not the derated one we have in the game,but a full 1.42 ATA fighter. What we have in the game is not representative for the FW-190 A4. Is just exception, at most. There are historians that don't agree with this derated hypothesis. Many think that the restriction to lower boost pressure was just to "brake in" new engines. Running at 1.3 ATA for ten hrs and then open them up to full boost.

At the performance the full 1.42 ATA the FW-19 A4 should be able to fight early LA-5's at least on equal terms.

Now in the game it makes more sense to bounce the la5 in A4 but that doesn't mean you can't "dogfight" ( I don't mean horizontal turnfight). All you need to do is to point at him for a second. The fw's may not turn like the LA-5 but is very maneuverable if you have some speed. You can roll inside his turn and light him up as he's passing by. I shot a lot of good turners like that with the FW-190. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

regarding that link, if the Fw 190 was a poor performing fighter it makes the mind boggle that the Russian generally encountered it flying below the Bf 109's. There can be two reasons for this one is that the Fw 190's were Jabos and were being escorted by high flying Messers or the Germans were too lazy to climb above 3000m in their Fw 190s. What do you think makes more sense?

mynameisroland
03-01-2006, 04:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
The thing we doesn't have in il2 is a correct energy model. After 1000 posts about that everyone should know it.
The fw 190 was a great dogfighter because it had better manoeuvrablility than the ennemy and it retained the energy better and was able to produce more and more quick energy.

You must imagine that if you have more energy you have more to burn in dogfights. The great acceleration was able to raise the energy level very quick.

In il2 you can forget all these things.
Let's hope that the "additional modules of calculation" in tbob will model a correct energy model. If not, it was wasted time to create tbob. After so many years I think we can expect a great evolution in FM, DM, ...
This is my opinion </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is important to keep questioning the current FM and also the data he has for various aircraft some of which have ben shown to be inaccurate. I would hate BoB to use the same FM and same performance data but with better AI and graphics. If we keep nagging maybe someone on the Dev team would take note.

Viper2005_
03-01-2006, 05:53 AM
I don't think that energy is the problem.

It's very easy to test the game's energy model.

Take a jet out over the sea at a few km altitude in wonder woman view. Cut the power and slow down until you're close to the stall. Note the starting TAS.

Then push over into a dive and note the TAS as you descend through various altitudes.

It's a simple matter to calculate the relationship between TAS and altitude:

potential energy = m*g*h

kinetic energy = *m*v²

If we work in terms of specific energy then the m terms cancel;

g*h = v²

Therefore

v = ˆ(2*g*h)

This will give an answer in m/s.

There are 3600 seconds in an hour, and 1000 m in a km, therefore there are 3.6 km/h in one m/s.

Therefore

km/h = 3.6*ˆ(2*g*h)

So from a standing start:

100 m = 160 km/h
200 m = 225 km/h
300 m = 276 km/h
400 m = 318 km/h
500 m = 356 km/h
600 m = 390 km/h
700 m = 421 km/h
800 m = 451 km/h
900 m = 478 km/h
1000 m = 504 km/h
1100 m = 528 km/h
1200 m = 552 km/h
1300 m = 574 km/h
1400 m = 596 km/h
1500 m = 617 km/h
1600 m = 637 km/h
1700 m = 657 km/h
1800 m = 676 km/h
1900 m = 695 km/h
2000 m = 713 km/h
2100 m = 730 km/h
2200 m = 747 km/h
2300 m = 764 km/h
2400 m = 781 km/h
2500 m = 797 km/h
2600 m = 813 km/h
2700 m = 828 km/h
2800 m = 843 km/h
2900 m = 858 km/h
3000 m = 873 km/h
3100 m = 887 km/h
3200 m = 902 km/h
3300 m = 916 km/h
3400 m = 929 km/h
3500 m = 943 km/h
3600 m = 956 km/h
3700 m = 969 km/h
3800 m = 982 km/h
3900 m = 995 km/h
4000 m = 1008 km/h

This of course assumes zero drag. If you start from 318 km/h TAS then you can knock 400 m off the heights through which would would expect to descend to reach a given speed.

You can also run this test backwards; If you enter a power - off vertical climb at 713 km/h you can expect to gain 2 km altitude less drag losses by the time your speed falls to zero.

The higher you go, the less significant drag becomes and the more accurate your results will be.

Experience shows that IL2 models energy very well.

The "problem" in my view is more likely to be related to thrust and drag than to energy.

Consider the Fw-190 for example.

It's got a high wing loading and a high power loading. As such it could never expect to win a low speed turn fight with a Spitfire, which has a better power:weight ratio and a lower wing loading.

It must therefore rely on having more specific excess power than the Spitfire at high speed; it must be cleaner than the Spitfire.

At high speed it would expect to be more efficient, due to its high wing loading, allowing it to gain energy and/or angles on the Spitfire.

There are several issues here. The first is that the Fw-190 buffets as it approaches the stall in game. It did not do this IRL in the clean configuration. This is a double edged sword; it would make it harder for a new pilot to push the limits of the enevelope, but it would also mean that an expert would lose less energy when pulling hard.

Interestingly, various T&B fighters seem not to buffet as much, even quite close to the stall. This makes gun tracking easy at high "g" and tends to reduce the energy bleed associated with pulling hard at low speed.

One of the reasons for the popularity of the Spitfire was that it gave plenty of stall warning via buffet; this would have impeded guns tracking, and would also have increased energy bleed.

Fixing these issues would effectively reduce the Fw-190's energy bleed, making it easier to stay fast relative to the opposition.

The second issue is that because this is a game, the big problems with T&B fighting (pilot fatigue due to "g", neck injuries due to trying to turn your head whilst pulling "g") don't apply, making it quite easy to take a Spitfire, pull the stick to the back stop and turn tightly for as long as fuel allows.

Of course this is balanced to a degree by the fact that the ability of B&Z pilots to make massive altitude changes in unpressurised aircraft IRL is limited by the risk of ear damange. Really rapid altitude changes through more than a few thousand feet can be pretty painful, which is why one should never fly when suffering from a head cold.

I think that redout type symptoms should be experienced in game if excessively rapid altitude changes are made in order to depict the pain inflicted upon the pilot by such action.

These changes would result in air combat more closely related to that seen in gun camera footage than the current model, which often seems to resemble an aerobatics competition at present.

F6_Ace
03-01-2006, 06:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
From your observations how do you view this match up? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

my opinion (http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fwa4vsla5.trk) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Do you think you can engage a La 5 with anything other than a 1000m height advantage and have a 50 / 50 chance of winning ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My answer would be no. You have to run away unless you know the pilot and you know they are poor

You miss the point. You have to understand the attitude of a lot of players of this game

They think if you can jump into a plane and get kills that there cannot be anything wrong with it. They have no real interest in whether it is correct or not against real life or if a pilot flying a plane can use same tactics as real life

It is just a game to them. You have a different way of thinking to them

mynameisroland
03-01-2006, 06:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
I don't think that energy is the problem.

It's very easy to test the game's energy model.

Take a jet out over the sea at a few km altitude in wonder woman view. Cut the power and slow down until you're close to the stall. Note the starting TAS.

Then push over into a dive and note the TAS as you descend through various altitudes.

It's a simple matter to calculate the relationship between TAS and altitude:

potential energy = m*g*h

kinetic energy = *m*v²

If we work in terms of specific energy then the m terms cancel;

g*h = v²

Therefore

v = ˆ(2*g*h)

This will give an answer in m/s.

There are 3600 seconds in an hour, and 1000 m in a km, therefore there are 3.6 km/h in one m/s.

Therefore

km/h = 3.6*ˆ(2*g*h)

So from a standing start:

100 m = 160 km/h
200 m = 225 km/h
300 m = 276 km/h
400 m = 318 km/h
500 m = 356 km/h
600 m = 390 km/h
700 m = 421 km/h
800 m = 451 km/h
900 m = 478 km/h
1000 m = 504 km/h
1100 m = 528 km/h
1200 m = 552 km/h
1300 m = 574 km/h
1400 m = 596 km/h
1500 m = 617 km/h
1600 m = 637 km/h
1700 m = 657 km/h
1800 m = 676 km/h
1900 m = 695 km/h
2000 m = 713 km/h
2100 m = 730 km/h
2200 m = 747 km/h
2300 m = 764 km/h
2400 m = 781 km/h
2500 m = 797 km/h
2600 m = 813 km/h
2700 m = 828 km/h
2800 m = 843 km/h
2900 m = 858 km/h
3000 m = 873 km/h
3100 m = 887 km/h
3200 m = 902 km/h
3300 m = 916 km/h
3400 m = 929 km/h
3500 m = 943 km/h
3600 m = 956 km/h
3700 m = 969 km/h
3800 m = 982 km/h
3900 m = 995 km/h
4000 m = 1008 km/h

This of course assumes zero drag. If you start from 318 km/h TAS then you can knock 400 m off the heights through which would would expect to descend to reach a given speed.

You can also run this test backwards; If you enter a power - off vertical climb at 713 km/h you can expect to gain 2 km altitude less drag losses by the time your speed falls to zero.

The higher you go, the less significant drag becomes and the more accurate your results will be.

Experience shows that IL2 models energy very well.

The "problem" in my view is more likely to be related to thrust and drag than to energy.

Consider the Fw-190 for example.

It's got a high wing loading and a high power loading. As such it could never expect to win a low speed turn fight with a Spitfire, which has a better power:weight ratio and a lower wing loading.

It must therefore rely on having more specific excess power than the Spitfire at high speed; it must be cleaner than the Spitfire.

At high speed it would expect to be more efficient, due to its high wing loading, allowing it to gain energy and/or angles on the Spitfire.

There are several issues here. The first is that the Fw-190 buffets as it approaches the stall in game. It did not do this IRL in the clean configuration. This is a double edged sword; it would make it harder for a new pilot to push the limits of the enevelope, but it would also mean that an expert would lose less energy when pulling hard.

Interestingly, various T&B fighters seem not to buffet as much, even quite close to the stall. This makes gun tracking easy at high "g" and tends to reduce the energy bleed associated with pulling hard at low speed.

One of the reasons for the popularity of the Spitfire was that it gave plenty of stall warning via buffet; this would have impeded guns tracking, and would also have increased energy bleed.

Fixing these issues would effectively reduce the Fw-190's energy bleed, making it easier to stay fast relative to the opposition.

The second issue is that because this is a game, the big problems with T&B fighting (pilot fatigue due to "g", neck injuries due to trying to turn your head whilst pulling "g") don't apply, making it quite easy to take a Spitfire, pull the stick to the back stop and turn tightly for as long as fuel allows.

Of course this is balanced to a degree by the fact that the ability of B&Z pilots to make massive altitude changes in unpressurised aircraft IRL is limited by the risk of ear damange. Really rapid altitude changes through more than a few thousand feet can be pretty painful, which is why one should never fly when suffering from a head cold.

I think that redout type symptoms should be experienced in game if excessively rapid altitude changes are made in order to depict the pain inflicted upon the pilot by such action.

These changes would result in air combat more closely related to that seen in gun camera footage than the current model, which often seems to resemble an aerobatics competition at present. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bump excellent post

If you compare the capabilities of the Corsair II and the Fw 190 in the vertical plane it seems that the Corsair II is noticably superior. Both should have similar power to weight ratios perhaps the Fw 190 A4 shades it in that department.

Jetbuff
03-01-2006, 07:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
The "problem" in my view is more likely to be related to thrust and drag than to energy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not only that, I'd venture that the problem is an inter-related one. i.e. a fudge in one necessitates a counter-fudge in the other. Wish I had the time to finish those thrust tests but I'm far too busy completing the next Clash of Titans campaign map.

Lazy312
03-01-2006, 07:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Same alt,pilot and speed.

Against Yak - run away by diving.

Against LaGG - run away by diving.

Against Mig - comparable horizontal and vertical performance.FW190 outclasses it @high speed.

Against P40 - FW190 is only faster.P40 owns it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
again, I'm not talking about duelling. if you wan't to duel, take Gladiator, Chaika or Zero and stay away from FW.. otherwise you are right, FW is "only" faster..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">To counter a tighter turning plane all you meed to do is a high or a low yo yo. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's not that simple. Yoyo will allow you to transform your E advantage into one or two snapshots but after that your excess E will be gone and better turning aircraft will prevail (if you don't extend of course) because it maintains E better during maneuvering . You can find this fact in Shaw's book for example..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Fw 190 has no real benefits from its heavier construction. In reality a heavy fighter possessed greater inertia which could be readily traded for height via a zoom climb. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't agree. More weight is a BAD thing for any fighter aircraft. Otherwise all pilots would just take additional weights with them before start. Additional weight helps zoom climb but this advantage is really small when compared to worse acceleration, climb and maneuverability which are also caused by this weight.

jimDG
03-01-2006, 07:31 AM
FW190a is dead meat whenever it tries to fight without a serious energy advantage (like 2000m + above oponent). Unless its a p47 or a p38

Unknown-Pilot
03-01-2006, 07:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 3.JG51_BigBear:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 3.JG51_BigBear:
I've recently done a lot of reading about the La-5 series and I really think that its well represented in game if the plane was produced to Western quality standards. The La-5 should be more than a match for the Focke Wulf and 109 in a close in dog fight and with the introduction of the F and FN models, the Las had a really good chance of catching FW and Bfs even with imperfect production methods and improper operation. In real life, many pilots flew the La with the cockpit open, the rear gear lowered and the main gear not retracted flush to the wing (maintenance problem).

The FN model we have in game is also not the 43 version. Its performance characteristics are much closer to what I've been able to find on the 44 version of the La5FN. The 43 had massive overheating problems and pilots were very restricted in their use of the plane's boosting system. The 44 version had a number of improvements and it remained in production alongside the La7 because so many of the wings for the La5 series had already been produced.

The La5 can turn and accelarate quickly which makes regular boom and zoom tactics difficult. The armament of the La5 is also very accurate which makes deflection shooting at a high speed target very easy. Hit and run seems to work well against the La 5 and, as already mentioned, the Focke Wulf can always dive away from the La if it has enough alt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, quite true. Because afterall, we know that the Germans had no clue how to build performance fighters of any sort. Hell, it's amazing they even managed to get anything off the ground. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why the sarcasm?

The La was a quality fighter. The design was solid. In real life the La was a point defense fighter which is ideal for a game like Il2 where most flights are short range and a small ammo load will do. In real life the German fighters could serve a number of roles, fly longer ranges, and carry far more weaponry. Their ability to operate at higher altitude, greater reliability and higher production standards made them better fighters overall in my opinion, the FW 190 is my favorite fighter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why? lol

All we have heard about on these forums for the past 5 years is how crappy the German planes were and how they only stood a chance in '42, but beyond that were hopeless.

From that, one can only conclude that clearly only the allies knew anything about aerodynamics and fighter design.

On top of that, you come in here saying that the German planes were so poor that a poorly constructed La5, with a drunk pilot, his canopy open, gear partly down, one leg hanging out the cockpit, and towing the day's wash to dry it out was still a match for the Luftwaffe's best.

Just more commie propaganda - or perhaps more accurately, just another victim of it.

mynameisroland
03-01-2006, 08:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">To counter a tighter turning plane all you meed to do is a high or a low yo yo. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's not that simple. Yoyo will allow you to transform your E advantage into one or two snapshots but after that your excess E will be gone and better turning aircraft will prevail (if you don't extend of course) because it maintains E better during maneuvering . You can find this fact in Shaw's book for example..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Fw 190 has no real benefits from its heavier construction. In reality a heavy fighter possessed greater inertia which could be readily traded for height via a zoom climb. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't agree. More weight is a BAD thing for any fighter aircraft. Otherwise all pilots would just take additional weights with them before start. Additional weight helps zoom climb but this advantage is really small when compared to worse acceleration, climb and maneuverability which are also caused by this weight.[/QUOTE]

The Fw 190 had good acceleration ... show me any report other than the Russian test report that states otherwise.

Having greater weight but also more aerodynamic lines can be used as an advantage. I did not say weight = good, the Fw 190 is a better energy fighter than the Spitfire or the La5 period. Weight is a factor in this, air combat occurs in 3 dimensions. The most important factors are gravity, acelleration and deceleration, not horizontal turn.

CaptainGelo
03-01-2006, 08:39 AM
omg, i cant PWN everything in my favorite plane!!!!!! call the WUAMbulance!!! and CAREPOLICE!!! and STFU truck!!!!!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

Manuel29
03-01-2006, 08:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
Just more commie propaganda - or perhaps more accurately, just another victim of it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe this is commie propaganda http://www.silverdalen.se/stamps/bild/soviet_union/so45_lavochkinla7.jpg

But I don't understand why commie couldn't produce good fighters... in the '80 they made Su27, Mig29...

I really respect you Unknown, but after that you wrote I think you are a victim of the "other" propaganda. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BTW I drive a Volkwagen...

Lazy312
03-01-2006, 09:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the Fw 190 is a better energy fighter than the Spitfire or the La5 period. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually I see no reason for this. Both planes are about as fast (I mean top speed) (at lower altitudes), both have about the same engine power and both have about the same wing area. However FW is about 650 kg heavier (takeoff weight). That means it will climb worse and accelerate (in level) worse. It has better guns and is better in a dive but that's it. La-5 is clearly better energy fighter of the two.

mynameisroland
03-01-2006, 09:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by oleg86:
omg, i cant PWN everything in my favorite plane!!!!!! call the WUAMbulance!!! and CAREPOLICE!!! and STFU truck!!!!!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why dont you take another year long holiday mate, your posts are about as interesting as watching paint dry. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1241.gif

What I think of your input http://www.ephemeroi.com/stuff/2003/front/031020-goldenturd.jpg

mynameisroland
03-01-2006, 09:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lazy312:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the Fw 190 is a better energy fighter than the Spitfire or the La5 period. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually I see no reason for this. Both planes are about as fast (I mean top speed) (at lower altitudes), both have about the same engine power and both have about the same wing area. However FW is about 650 kg heavier (takeoff weight). That means it will climb worse and accelerate (in level) worse. It has better guns and is better in a dive but that's it. La-5 is clearly better energy fighter of the two. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heres a question for you maybe you can infer the answer from your own post.

Same HP, Same speeds Fw 190 is heavier.
Why does the Fw 190 attain the same speed ? Because it is aerodynamically cleaner. A heavier cleaner fighter with the same Horse Power dives, accelerates and zomm climbs better. I cant make it any simpler than that for you.

You are the type of guy who cannot understand why a Mustang D at 1690 HP is a better Energy fighter than a Spitfire IX at 1690 HP.

Unknown-Pilot
03-01-2006, 09:48 AM
Manuel, in the 80's is a different world than in the '40s. So such a reference is null and void. (so I won't even bother getting into the deficiencies of those)

This is what I mean -

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lazy312:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the Fw 190 is a better energy fighter than the Spitfire or the La5 period. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually I see no reason for this. Both planes are about as fast (I mean top speed) (at lower altitudes), both have about the same engine power and both have about the same wing area. However FW is about 650 kg heavier (takeoff weight). That means it will climb worse and accelerate (in level) worse. It has better guns and is better in a dive but that's it. La-5 is clearly better energy fighter of the two. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So basically, what is being said is that, the Germans had no clue about how to produce a good fighter. They sacrificed turn by going for higher wing loading, but then screwed themselves by throwing too much weight into them. Clearly the way to go was the other way, make a turn fighter and *then* use it as an energy fighter. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

The bulk of this forum drank the commie Kool Aid way back in the early days and has never recoverd.

As shown, they still think that turn fighters make better energy fighters, and that the Germans best planes were second rate (if they were lucky).

They blow off any success the German's had in the air as nothing more than happenstance, or begrudgingly admitted poor tactical doctrine on the part of the soviets (early on).

They think that no sacrifice needs to be made at all when it comes to aircraft design, and that the Germans chose to shoot themselves in the foot voluntarily by doing so.

Apparently with enough vodka and fear, any idiot could whip up a plane from wood, paper, and anything else he could find nearby, that would out perform 190s and 109s, because they were just that bad. Whereas, despite producing the best planes of the previous war, and producing more Nobel Prize winners than anyone else, and the ability to produce designs in comfort, with metals and precise industrialized equipment, the Germans just couldn't figure it out.

That is the only explaination for both, the attitude of the IL2 series, and of the bulk of forumers who fell for it hook line and sinker.


Let's look at something in the above quote for a moment - the 190 was known to out accelerate the Spitfire in level acceleration, and had the power to outclimb it in a high speed climb. Spitfire pilots were advised to always fly fast so as to maximize their chances, because if they were ever caught at cruise speed, they were done for. Tests showed that the 190 had it all over the Spitfire except in maximum, slow speed, horizontal turns. The reports repeatedly lament the advantage the 190 had in acceleration specifically. But this is ignored and/or disbeleived. It's like talking to a creationist about evolution.

Likewise, the La5 series has always had unrealistic E-retention, despite having a worse wing aspect ratio, and less power, it has been faster, and had better e-retention and zoom, as well as better dive performance. Look closely at it, it's not inherently cleaner than the 190, in fact, possibly the opposite and the 190 was known for it's quality fittment and low drag. Add to that the worse AR which dramatically increases induced drag (IRL), *and* lower power, all on top of less inertia (not to mention that low wingloaded planes are at a handicap in dives and top speed anyway), and you should not end up with what we have.

But people don't see it as a problem. Rather, they see it as truth. Not much left for explanation but propaganda.

As for me, I don't think RAF reports (among others) are "the other sides propaganda". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

mynameisroland
03-01-2006, 09:54 AM
Just to expand and clarify on what you said UnknownPilot, the RAF tested the Fw 190 A3 against the Spitfire Vb and also against the Spitfire IX Merlin 61 version. They found the Fw 190 A3 still out zoomed, out accelerated and out dove the Spitfire IX and all but matched it in climb performance up to 20,000/25,000 feet. Level speed was close at various heights below 25,000ft but '...When pulling in to a climb from level flight the Fw 190 pulled away from the Spitfire'.

HuninMunin
03-01-2006, 09:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
Manuel, in the 80's is a different world than in the '40s. So such a reference is null and void. (so I won't even bother getting into the deficiencies of those)

This is what I mean -

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lazy312:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the Fw 190 is a better energy fighter than the Spitfire or the La5 period. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually I see no reason for this. Both planes are about as fast (I mean top speed) (at lower altitudes), both have about the same engine power and both have about the same wing area. However FW is about 650 kg heavier (takeoff weight). That means it will climb worse and accelerate (in level) worse. It has better guns and is better in a dive but that's it. La-5 is clearly better energy fighter of the two. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So basically, what is being said is that, the Germans had no clue about how to produce a good fighter. They sacrificed turn by going for higher wing loading, but then screwed themselves by throwing too much weight into them. Clearly the way to go was the other way, make a turn fighter and *then* use it as an energy fighter. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

The bulk of this forum drank the commie Kool Aid way back in the early days and has never recoverd.

As shown, they still think that turn fighters make better energy fighters, and that the Germans best planes were second rate (if they were lucky).

They blow off any success the German's had in the air as nothing more than happenstance, or begrudgingly admitted poor tactical doctrine on the part of the soviets (early on).

They think that no sacrifice needs to be made at all when it comes to aircraft design, and that the Germans chose to shoot themselves in the foot voluntarily by doing so.

Apparently with enough vodka and fear, any idiot could whip up a plane from wood, paper, and anything else he could find nearby, that would out perform 190s and 109s, because they were just that bad. Whereas, despite producing the best planes of the previous war, and producing more Nobel Prize winners than anyone else, and the ability to produce designs in comfort, with metals and precise industrialized equipment, the Germans just couldn't figure it out.

That is the only explaination for both, the attitude of the IL2 series, and of the bulk of forumers who fell for it hook line and sinker.


Let's look at something in the above quote for a moment - the 190 was known to out accelerate the Spitfire in level acceleration, and had the power to outclimb it in a high speed climb. Spitfire pilots were advised to always fly fast so as to maximize their chances, because if they were ever caught at cruise speed, they were done for. Tests showed that the 190 had it all over the Spitfire except in maximum, slow speed, horizontal turns. The reports repeatedly lament the advantage the 190 had in acceleration specifically. But this is ignored and/or disbeleived. It's like talking to a creationist about evolution.

Likewise, the La5 series has always had unrealistic E-retention, despite having a worse wing aspect ratio, and less power, it has been faster, and had better e-retention and zoom, as well as better dive performance. Look closely at it, it's not inherently cleaner than the 190, in fact, possibly the opposite and the 190 was known for it's quality fittment and low drag. Add to that the worse AR which dramatically increases induced drag (IRL), *and* lower power, all on top of less inertia (not to mention that low wingloaded planes are at a handicap in dives and top speed anyway), and you should not end up with what we have.

But people don't see it as a problem. Rather, they see it as truth. Not much left for explanation but propaganda.

As for me, I don't think RAF reports (among others) are "the other sides propaganda". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Lazy312
03-01-2006, 10:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Same HP, Same speeds Fw 190 is heavier.
Why does the Fw 190 attain the same speed ? Because it is aerodynamically cleaner. A heavier cleaner fighter with the same Horse Power dives, accelerates and zomm climbs better. I cant make it any simpler than that for you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If top speeds and powers (at low altitudes) are nearly identical - then drags at top speeds are nearly identical too. Same HP, same drag, less weight -&gt; La-5 will gain speed faster.

BTW yes you are right I drink lots of vodka every day and of course I am propaganda victim (that's why I said nearly all russian fighters are no match for FW).. That is a really good point which makes things clear.. congratulations! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

faustnik
03-01-2006, 10:19 AM
Take it easy guys. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

You aren't that far apart in your opinions. No need to get personal.

CaptainGelo
03-01-2006, 10:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 oleg86:
omg, i cant PWN everything in my favorite plane!!!!!! call the WUAMbulance!!! and CAREPOLICE!!! and STFU truck!!!!!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why dont you take another year long holiday mate, your posts are about as interesting as watching paint dry. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1241.gif

What I think of your input http://www.ephemeroi.com/stuff/2003/front/031020-goldenturd.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

wow, yes I'm sure you know better then oleg and team how planes must be, I mean you'v done tons of reaserches and stuff and have valide proves to your posts...

as ppl say in eve, want a tech II tissue`?

JtD
03-01-2006, 10:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
From your observations how do you view this match up? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

my opinion (http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fwa4vsla5.trk) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To make tihs clear: The track is just used to illustrate my opinion. I could have very well said:

"2nd to none for the FW."

but I thought a nice track would be more entertaining.

I have no clue if the energy retention is correct. I can tell you that a A-4 at 540 kph has about 45 MJ. The engine needs to run for about 35 seconds for the same E output. I a sustained 360? level turn the FW will lose about 30 MJ. The La at 540 has about 35 MJ, same engine power and will lose 25 MJ in a sustained 360? turn. This is what school physics will tell you, but how this translates into zoomclimbs and not sustained turnrate is a different story.

Fact is in game when pulled up from zero at 600 kph at idle, the Focke will go 50 mters higher. This means the FW translates 88% of it's energy into altitude, while the La translates 85%. Losses to drag in relation are 25% higher in the La or in total 5%.

I think my chances in a FW are always better than 50/50, unless I don't see the bandit before he opens fire from my six. I need no alt advantage (see my track), it just makes things more comfortable.

bazzaah2
03-01-2006, 10:40 AM
just get code when I click on your link - what do I need to do to see the track?

I must admit I have no idea whether things are correct or incorrect, but as a quick'n'dirty 'test' I found it easy to deal with a few veteran AI Spit MkVbs. La5s were harder work but easy over 4000m but a bit of a scare at about 2000m. Same with La5Fs.

A very limited test, perhaps not even a test as such, but the results I got would be about what I would expect.

I must admit I really like the A4 and if we could expect a bit more speed and power at some point then where do I sign?

JtD
03-01-2006, 10:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bazzaah2:
just get code when I click on your link - what do I need to do to see the track? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right click and save. Hope it works, it's just a trk - track, ntrk would be too large for this matter. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

mynameisroland
03-01-2006, 10:56 AM
I'll look at it and then try and post one of my own later - ps how do you ost tracks &gt;?

JtD you are one of the best Fw 190 pilots I have flown with / against. It is pointless for you to say you have little trouble against the La 5 series it is the pilot. Against the La 5 you know I rarely have trouble either, my aim isnt to transform this game in to a Fw 190 Uber sim it is just to try and make as much sense of the IL2 version of the Fw 190 as possible and why it differs to the information I have read while researching it.

Regardless of how good either of us are in the Fw 190. If we met each other at 0m up to 4000m you in a Fw 190 A5 me in an La5 FN or vice versa the guy in the La5 FN would win.

Manuel29
03-01-2006, 10:58 AM
I think the FB's Antons are really wrong, I'm always been by your side in this "battle", like Roland. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

And I think too that RL Spit were different from the ones we got in the game; the same for the La series.

But I would you to notice that you speak of "propaganda" as all was said about soviet airplanes is false.

Really I don't think post-war West and East (somebody thinks "Good and Evil") had so different "propaganda" systems.

I would to know why you say "with safety" <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As for me, I don't think RAF reports (among others) are "the other sides propaganda". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Don't you read people in this forum saying "P51 is porked because she was the best WW2's plane"? Why do they think this way? Is it not a propaganda's effect? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

Our world is plenty of disinformation (the way the democracy rules), and there are few things I really trust. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

Friends like before http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I said "I drive a german car" so that nobody thinks I'm agaist german tecnologies, but totally the opposite: german tecnology rocks!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

Bye!!!

PS: sorry for my english http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

JtD
03-01-2006, 11:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I'll look at it and then try and post one of my own later - ps how do you ost tracks &gt;? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I got myself a piece of webspace at Lycos Germany for that sole purpose, well, screenies mostly. I did this ages back and it still works, dunno if they still accept new subscriptions.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Regardless of how good either of us are in the Fw 190. If we met each other at 0m up to 4000m you in a Fw 190 A5 me in an La5 FN or vice versa the guy in the La5 FN would win. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In a 1 vs 1 the FN certainly has a very pronounced advantage. No tactical errors on both sides, the FN should always come out on top. BUT: Your topic says A-4 vs. the just 5 - and in that case the differences are considerably smaller, mistakes are easier made. I wouldn't want to put all my money on the La.

Manuel29
03-01-2006, 11:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
From your observations how do you view this match up? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

my opinion (http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/fwa4vsla5.trk) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good pilots don't make headons against Antons.

You should try against human pilots, because this track means nothing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bye

mynameisroland
03-01-2006, 11:27 AM
Would Photo bucket let me host a trk. ?

La 5 vs A4 is very problematic match up for the A4. The La5 has considerable manuver and acceleration advantages which scissor rolling and snap stalling evasion wont even out. You can run behind a Fw 190 and as soon as he tries to shake you either throttle down and stay behind him or climb away in a steepd climbing turn.

Manuel29
03-01-2006, 11:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Would Photo bucket let me host a trk. ?

La 5 vs A4 is very problematic match up for the A4. The La5 has considerable manuver and acceleration advantages which scissor rolling and snap stalling evasion wont even out. You can run behind a Fw 190 and as soon as he tries to shake you either throttle down and stay behind him or climb away in a steepd climbing turn. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've just made La5 vs Ace A4 (super aim, super evasive manouvres that humans can't do): after I safely passed the headon (I did an evasive action) after "one" single turn I was behind him. The first time it moved I took him down. Very boring.

Unknown-Pilot
03-01-2006, 11:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manuel29:
I've just made La5 vs Ace A4 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The AI can not use high wing loaded planes. All it really knows how to do is turn. No matter what level you choose, sticking the AI into a high wing-loaded plane is nothing but basic target practice. Regardless of what you're in yourself.

Manuel29
03-01-2006, 11:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 Manuel29:
I've just made La5 vs Ace A4 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The AI can not use high wing loaded planes. All it really knows how to do is turn. No matter what level you choose, sticking the AI into a high wing-loaded plane is nothing but basic target practice. Regardless of what you're in yourself. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Viper2005_
03-01-2006, 12:03 PM
If I were in the A4 and expected to face the La5 I'd climb as quickly as possible with my head on a swivel. I'd then cruise around at 6 km waiting to pounce.

Another good tactic is to stalk them from low 6; it doesn't matter how good their aeroplane is, nor does it matter how talented they are at BFM if I've shot them in the back from point blank range. The Fw-190's excellent guns and respectable speed make it ideal for this kind of approach to combat. Track in this thread:

http://www.war-clouds.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=467

Remember that the objective is to kill the other guy, not to fight him. If at any time it looks as though you're heading into a fight rather than an execution, just extend on out of there.

I try to leave the fighting to the heros, and just concentrate on the killing. But then I fly the Fw-190 and I've never been that good at BFM anyway. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JtD
03-01-2006, 12:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Would Photo bucket let me host a trk. ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know. Just try. In the worst case, name it bmp. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">La 5 vs A4 is very problematic match up for the A4. The La5 has considerable manuver and acceleration advantages which scissor rolling and snap stalling evasion wont even out. You can run behind a Fw 190 and as soon as he tries to shake you either throttle down and stay behind him or climb away in a steepd climbing turn. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The A-4 is faster. And it has a built in Mr. Barrel Roll (http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/A4vsLa5.ntrk)

All in all, it is not lost.

JtD
03-01-2006, 12:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manuel29:
I've just made La5 vs Ace A4 (super aim, super evasive manouvres that humans can't do): after I safely passed the headon (I did an evasive action) after "one" single turn I was behind him. The first time it moved I took him down. Very boring. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try vs. 4 veterans. And try real co alt.

Viper2005_
03-01-2006, 02:52 PM
The AI is pretty dumb. I just killed 4 veteran La5s with my Fw-190A4...

I turned away and climbed. They quit chasing me at about 5 km; I chopped the first pair up. Then I rinsed and repeated, though the second time their blood was up and I had to go to about 8 km...

I've got a track, but it's over 6 Mb.

mynameisroland
03-02-2006, 04:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Ob:

If u won in any sort of dogfight they must have been inexperienced or had damage.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dont dogfight in a 190A, its totally agaisnt what it was designed for. In fact avoid turnfighting in any plane which can not turn better than your opponent. For example, a 109F can easily beat a Spitfire mkV as long as you dont turn too much with it and disengage if he starts to get the upper hand.

Speed and firepower, slashing tactics is what the FW190A was designed for.

Boemher, maybe we can get some documents on what the correct speeds for the 190 and La5's should be? I do not know which should be faster. I know that the FW190 is Olegs favourite plane tho, so if you can get the correct docs I am sure he would like to have it accurate. It could be that he used Eastern front Jabo versions for the data because that is what the Russians saw the FW190 as, a Jabo plane. In fact they considered the Me109 much more dangerous didnt they? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



You is wrong. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

From Luther's Soviet fighter tactics in 1942 (http://luthier.stormloader.com/)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"Yak-7 will easily outturn a FW-190 in a right turn; both planes have equal turn rate in a left turn. Yak-1 and La-5 outmaneuver FW-190 even better.

FW-190A has the following advantages compared to the Me-109G6: under 4,000 meters it is about 20-30 km/h faster in horizontal flight. It is easier to control and has better overall pilot visibility. It also has superior firepower.

Germans will position their fighters at different altitudes, especially when expecting to encounter our fighters. FW-190 will fly at 1,500-2,500 meters and Me-109G at 3,500-4,000 meters. They interact in the following manner:



FW-190 will attempt to close with our fighters hoping to get behind them and attack suddenly. If that maneuver is unsuccessful they will even attack head-on relying on their superb firepower. This will also break up our battle formations to allow Me-109Gs to attack our fighters as well. Me-109G will usually perform boom-n-zoom attacks using superior airspeed after their dive.



FW-190 will commit to the fight even if our battle formation is not broken, preferring left turning fights. There has been cases of such turning fights lasting quite a long time, with multiple planes from both sides involved in each engagement.



FW-190 will dive, sometimes inverted, when threatened by our fighters getting on his six. There has never been occasions of FW-190 attempting to climb away in such situations.



FW-190s will most often fight in separate pairs. Leader will roll and dive to attract our fighters when they get close. Wingman usually climbs away and watches our planes. If our fighters dive after the leader wingman will boom-n-zoom our fighters and attempt to form up with his leader." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Is true that the Russians didn't appreciate much the FW-190 as a fighter, but that doesn't mean it wasn't.

On the east front there were a lot of jabo FW's.
That's why you get this attitude from many russian fighters.

The fighter versions of the Foke wulf were able to turn (to the left) and fight with many fighters they met in combat.
The A4 should have speed advantage over the La-5 at low altitude. Not the derated one we have in the game,but a full 1.42 ATA fighter. What we have in the game is not representative for the FW-190 A4. Is just exception, at most. There are historians that don't agree with this derated hypothesis. Many think that the restriction to lower boost pressure was just to "brake in" new engines. Running at 1.3 ATA for ten hrs and then open them up to full boost.

At the performance the full 1.42 ATA the FW-19 A4 should be able to fight early LA-5's at least on equal terms.

Now in the game it makes more sense to bounce the la5 in A4 but that doesn't mean you can't "dogfight" ( I don't mean horizontal turnfight). All you need to do is to point at him for a second. The fw's may not turn like the LA-5 but is very maneuverable if you have some speed. You can roll inside his turn and light him up as he's passing by. I shot a lot of good turners like that with the FW-190. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi -=FA=-Jaws good flying with you last nite on UKD2

Blutarski2004
03-02-2006, 06:25 AM
US Intelligence Bulletin translation of original Russian tactical assessment document:


http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt/russian-combat-fw190.html


Quote

RUSSIAN COMBAT EXPERIENCES WITH THE FW-190

----------------------------------------------------------------

In all probability the Germans have used their FW-190s on the Russian front to a much lesser extent than elsewhere, and the standards of air combat on that front very likely differ from those over Western Europe and in the Mediterranean.

The following translation of an article which appeared in the "Red Fleet" compares some of the tactics used by the German and Russian fighter planes (FW-190 and La-5). It should be pointed out that these observations apply particularly to the Russian front and are not necessarily in line with experiences in other European theaters. This translation is published without evaluation or comment, purely for its informational value in presenting Russian opinion concerning the FW-190, as printed in the "Red Fleet."


The FW-190 first appeared on the Soviet-German front at the end of 1942. This is the first high-speed German fighter with an air-cooled engine. In comparison with the Me-109 and its modernized versions, the Me-109F and the Me-109G, the FW-190 is of a higher quality.

The speed of the FW-190 is slightly higher than that of the Messerschmitt; it also has more powerful armament and is more maneuverable in horizontal flight. The FW-190 has a large supply of ammunition, with 15 seconds of cannon fire, and 50 seconds of constant machine-gun fire. For this reason the gunners are not economical with their ammunition, and often open up the so-called "frightening fire". The pilots have good visibility laterally, forward, upward and rearward. A fairly good horizontal maneuver permits the FW-190 to turn at low speed without falling into a tail spin. An armored ring on the front part of the engine provides the pilot with reliable protection; for this reason, the FW-190's quite often make frontal attacks. In this way they differ from the Me-109s.

One shortcoming of the FW-190 is its weight. The lightest model of this plane weighs 3,500 kgs. (7,700 lbs), while the average weight is from 3,800 (8,360 lbs) to 3,900 kgs. (8,580 lbs). Since the FW-190 is so heavy and does not have a high-altitude engine, pilots do not like to fight in vertical maneuvers. Another weak point in the FW-190 is the poor visibility downward, both forward and rearward. The FW-190 is seriously handicapped in still another way; there is no armor around the gas tanks, which are situated under the pilot's seat and behind it. From below, the pilot is not protected in any way; from behind, the only protection is the ordinary seat-back with 15-mm of armor. Even bullets from our large caliber machine guns penetrate this armor, to say nothing of cannon.

The main problem confronting our fliers is that of forcing the Germans to fight from positions advantageous to us.

The FW-190's eagerly make frontal attacks. Their methods of conducting fire in such cases is quite stereotyped. To begin with the Germans open fire with long-range ammunition from the horizontal cannons at a distance of 1,000 meters (3,200 feet). At 500 or 400 meters (1,000 or 1,300 feet) the FW-190 opens fire from all guns. Since the planes approach each other at an extremely great speed during frontal attacks one should never, under any circumstances, turn from the given course. Fire should be opened at a distance of 700 or 800 meters, (2,300 or 2,600 feet). Practice has shown that in frontal attacks both planes are so damaged that, in the majority of cases, they are compelled to drop out of the battle. Therefore, frontal attacks with FW-190's may be made only when the battle happens to be over our territory. Frontal engagements over enemy territory, or even more so in the enemy rear, should be avoided.

If a frontal attack of an FW-190 should fail the pilot usually attempts to change the attacks into a turning engagement. Being very stable and having a large range of speeds, the FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed. Our Lavochkin-5 may freely take up the challenge, if the pilot uses the elevator tabs correctly. By using your foot to hold the plane from falling into a tail spin you can turn the La-5 at an exceedingly low speed, thus keeping the FW from getting on your tail.

When fighting the La-5, the FW risks a vertical maneuver only at high speed. For example, let us assume that the first frontal attack of an FW failed. The plane then goes on ahead and prepares for a second frontal attack. If it fails a second time, the pilot turns sharply to the side and goes into a steep dive. On coming out of the dive, he picks up speed in horizontal flight and engages the opposing plane in a vertical maneuver.

Vertical-maneuver fighting with the FW-190 is usually of short duration since our planes have a better rate of climb than the German planes, and because the Germans are unable to withstand tense battles of any length.

The winner in present air battles must have an advantage in altitude. This is especially true with regard to the FW-190. "Once a comrade of mine and I engaged two FW-190's at a height of 3,500 meters (10,850 ft). After three energetic attacks we succeeded in chasing the two FW-190's down to 1,500 meters (4,650 ft). All the while we kept our advantage in height. As usual the German tried, out of an inverted turn, to get away and below, but I got one in my sight and shot it down. After that we immediately went up to 3,700 meters (11,470 ft) and met another group of FW-190's as they were attacking one of our Pe-2 bombers. We made use of our advantage in height and by vertical attacks succeeded in chasing the Germans away and also shot one down."

When following a diving FW you should never dive below the other enemy planes. When two planes dive the one following the leader should come out of the dive in such a way as to be at an advantage over the leading plane in height and speed. In this way the tail of the leading plane will be protected; at the same time, the second plane will also be able to open up direct fire against the enemy.

In fighting the FW-190 our La-5 should force the Germans to fight by using the vertical maneuver. This may be achieved by constantly making vertical attacks. The first climb of the FW is usually good, the second worse, and the third altogether poor. This may be explained by the fact that the FW's great weight does not permit it to gather speed quickly in the vertical maneuver. After two or three persistent attacks by our fighters the FWs completely lose their advantage in height and in speed, and inevitably find themselves below. And because of this, they are sure to drop out of the battle into a straight dive (sometimes up to 90 degrees) with the idea of gaining height on the side, and then of coming in again from the side of the sun with an advantage in speed and height. At times it happens that the FW, after diving, does not gain altitude, but attempts to drop out of the battle altogether in low flight. However, the FW-190 is never able to come out of a dive below 300 or 250 meters (930 ft or 795 ft). Coming out of a dive, made from 1,500 meters (4,650 ft) and at an angle of 40 to 45 degrees, the FW-190 falls an extra 200 meters (620 ft).

A shortcoming of the FW-190 is its poor climbing ability. When climbing in order to get an altitude advantage over the enemy, there is a moment when the FW-190 "hangs" in the air. It is then convenient to fire. Therefore, when following a FW-190 in a dive, you should bring your plane out of the dive slightly before the FW comes out of it, in order to catch up with him on the vertical plane. In other words, when the FW comes out of the dive you should bring your plane out in such a way as to have an advantage over the enemy in height. If this can be achieved, the FW-190 becomes a fine target when it "hangs". Direct fire should be opened up at a short distance, 50 to 100 meters (150 to 300 ft). It should also be remembered that the weakest spots of the FW-190 are below and behind--the gasoline tanks and the pilot's legs, which are not protected.

Throughout the whole engagement with a FW-190, it is necessary to maintain the highest speed possible. The Lavochkin-5 will then have, when necessary, a good vertical maneuver, and consequently, the possibility of getting away from an enemy attack or on the contrary, of attacking. It should further be kept in mind that the La-5 and the FW-190 in outward appearance resemble each other very much; therefore, careful observation is of great importance. We may emphasize once more: never let an enemy plane gain an altitude advantage over you and you will win the fight.

Unquote

mynameisroland
03-02-2006, 06:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
US Intelligence Bulletin translation of original Russian tactical assessment document:


http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt/russian-combat-fw190.html


Quote

RUSSIAN COMBAT EXPERIENCES WITH THE FW-190

----------------------------------------------------------------

In all probability the Germans have used their FW-190s on the Russian front to a much lesser extent than elsewhere, and the standards of air combat on that front very likely differ from those over Western Europe and in the Mediterranean.

The following translation of an article which appeared in the "Red Fleet" compares some of the tactics used by the German and Russian fighter planes (FW-190 and La-5). It should be pointed out that these observations apply particularly to the Russian front and are not necessarily in line with experiences in other European theaters. This translation is published without evaluation or comment, purely for its informational value in presenting Russian opinion concerning the FW-190, as printed in the "Red Fleet."


The FW-190 first appeared on the Soviet-German front at the end of 1942. This is the first high-speed German fighter with an air-cooled engine. In comparison with the Me-109 and its modernized versions, the Me-109F and the Me-109G, the FW-190 is of a higher quality.

The speed of the FW-190 is slightly higher than that of the Messerschmitt; it also has more powerful armament and is more maneuverable in horizontal flight. The FW-190 has a large supply of ammunition, with 15 seconds of cannon fire, and 50 seconds of constant machine-gun fire. For this reason the gunners are not economical with their ammunition, and often open up the so-called "frightening fire". The pilots have good visibility laterally, forward, upward and rearward. A fairly good horizontal maneuver permits the FW-190 to turn at low speed without falling into a tail spin. An armored ring on the front part of the engine provides the pilot with reliable protection; for this reason, the FW-190's quite often make frontal attacks. In this way they differ from the Me-109s.

One shortcoming of the FW-190 is its weight. The lightest model of this plane weighs 3,500 kgs. (7,700 lbs), while the average weight is from 3,800 (8,360 lbs) to 3,900 kgs. (8,580 lbs). Since the FW-190 is so heavy and does not have a high-altitude engine, pilots do not like to fight in vertical maneuvers. Another weak point in the FW-190 is the poor visibility downward, both forward and rearward. The FW-190 is seriously handicapped in still another way; there is no armor around the gas tanks, which are situated under the pilot's seat and behind it. From below, the pilot is not protected in any way; from behind, the only protection is the ordinary seat-back with 15-mm of armor. Even bullets from our large caliber machine guns penetrate this armor, to say nothing of cannon.

The main problem confronting our fliers is that of forcing the Germans to fight from positions advantageous to us.

The FW-190's eagerly make frontal attacks. Their methods of conducting fire in such cases is quite stereotyped. To begin with the Germans open fire with long-range ammunition from the horizontal cannons at a distance of 1,000 meters (3,200 feet). At 500 or 400 meters (1,000 or 1,300 feet) the FW-190 opens fire from all guns. Since the planes approach each other at an extremely great speed during frontal attacks one should never, under any circumstances, turn from the given course. Fire should be opened at a distance of 700 or 800 meters, (2,300 or 2,600 feet). Practice has shown that in frontal attacks both planes are so damaged that, in the majority of cases, they are compelled to drop out of the battle. Therefore, frontal attacks with FW-190's may be made only when the battle happens to be over our territory. Frontal engagements over enemy territory, or even more so in the enemy rear, should be avoided.

If a frontal attack of an FW-190 should fail the pilot usually attempts to change the attacks into a turning engagement. Being very stable and having a large range of speeds, the FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed. Our Lavochkin-5 may freely take up the challenge, if the pilot uses the elevator tabs correctly. By using your foot to hold the plane from falling into a tail spin you can turn the La-5 at an exceedingly low speed, thus keeping the FW from getting on your tail.

When fighting the La-5, the FW risks a vertical maneuver only at high speed. For example, let us assume that the first frontal attack of an FW failed. The plane then goes on ahead and prepares for a second frontal attack. If it fails a second time, the pilot turns sharply to the side and goes into a steep dive. On coming out of the dive, he picks up speed in horizontal flight and engages the opposing plane in a vertical maneuver.

Vertical-maneuver fighting with the FW-190 is usually of short duration since our planes have a better rate of climb than the German planes, and because the Germans are unable to withstand tense battles of any length.

The winner in present air battles must have an advantage in altitude. This is especially true with regard to the FW-190. "Once a comrade of mine and I engaged two FW-190's at a height of 3,500 meters (10,850 ft). After three energetic attacks we succeeded in chasing the two FW-190's down to 1,500 meters (4,650 ft). All the while we kept our advantage in height. As usual the German tried, out of an inverted turn, to get away and below, but I got one in my sight and shot it down. After that we immediately went up to 3,700 meters (11,470 ft) and met another group of FW-190's as they were attacking one of our Pe-2 bombers. We made use of our advantage in height and by vertical attacks succeeded in chasing the Germans away and also shot one down."

When following a diving FW you should never dive below the other enemy planes. When two planes dive the one following the leader should come out of the dive in such a way as to be at an advantage over the leading plane in height and speed. In this way the tail of the leading plane will be protected; at the same time, the second plane will also be able to open up direct fire against the enemy.

In fighting the FW-190 our La-5 should force the Germans to fight by using the vertical maneuver. This may be achieved by constantly making vertical attacks. The first climb of the FW is usually good, the second worse, and the third altogether poor. This may be explained by the fact that the FW's great weight does not permit it to gather speed quickly in the vertical maneuver. After two or three persistent attacks by our fighters the FWs completely lose their advantage in height and in speed, and inevitably find themselves below. And because of this, they are sure to drop out of the battle into a straight dive (sometimes up to 90 degrees) with the idea of gaining height on the side, and then of coming in again from the side of the sun with an advantage in speed and height. At times it happens that the FW, after diving, does not gain altitude, but attempts to drop out of the battle altogether in low flight. However, the FW-190 is never able to come out of a dive below 300 or 250 meters (930 ft or 795 ft). Coming out of a dive, made from 1,500 meters (4,650 ft) and at an angle of 40 to 45 degrees, the FW-190 falls an extra 200 meters (620 ft).

A shortcoming of the FW-190 is its poor climbing ability. When climbing in order to get an altitude advantage over the enemy, there is a moment when the FW-190 "hangs" in the air. It is then convenient to fire. Therefore, when following a FW-190 in a dive, you should bring your plane out of the dive slightly before the FW comes out of it, in order to catch up with him on the vertical plane. In other words, when the FW comes out of the dive you should bring your plane out in such a way as to have an advantage over the enemy in height. If this can be achieved, the FW-190 becomes a fine target when it "hangs". Direct fire should be opened up at a short distance, 50 to 100 meters (150 to 300 ft). It should also be remembered that the weakest spots of the FW-190 are below and behind--the gasoline tanks and the pilot's legs, which are not protected.

Throughout the whole engagement with a FW-190, it is necessary to maintain the highest speed possible. The Lavochkin-5 will then have, when necessary, a good vertical maneuver, and consequently, the possibility of getting away from an enemy attack or on the contrary, of attacking. It should further be kept in mind that the La-5 and the FW-190 in outward appearance resemble each other very much; therefore, careful observation is of great importance. We may emphasize once more: never let an enemy plane gain an altitude advantage over you and you will win the fight.

Unquote </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[DISCLAIMER: The following text is taken from the U.S. War Department publication Tactical and Technical Trends. As with all wartime intelligence information, data may be incomplete or inaccurate. No attempt has been made to update or correct the text. Any views or opinions expressed do not necessarily represent those of the website.]

mynameisroland
03-02-2006, 07:00 AM
What always interests me is how various airforces approached different tactical and technical enemies. Then you can see how these doctrines are interpreted by todays gamers and amateur historians. When you look at USN or USAAF reports on combat and on tactical trials against lets say the IJN and IJA Airforces, the US were equipped with heavy fighters that were marginally faster, had lesser climb rates and had inferior manuverability.

Now, on these forums it is easy to post here and explain why a Hellcat could outfight a Ki61 or a Zero. However, if you try and apply the same laws of gravity and aerial combat (with aircraft of very similar margins of comparable performance) Ie the Fw 190 vs a Yak 1 or a La5 lets say - you immediately lose all credability.

Germans pilots shot down these planes in droves, like the US pilots did to the Japanese. Was this purely down to superior tactics and pilots ? Or was it a combination of superior weaponry and the above factors ?

JG4_Helofly
03-02-2006, 07:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
US Intelligence Bulletin translation of original Russian tactical assessment document:


http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt/russian-combat-fw190.html


Quote

RUSSIAN COMBAT EXPERIENCES WITH THE FW-190

----------------------------------------------------------------

In all probability the Germans have used their FW-190s on the Russian front to a much lesser extent than elsewhere, and the standards of air combat on that front very likely differ from those over Western Europe and in the Mediterranean.

The following translation of an article which appeared in the "Red Fleet" compares some of the tactics used by the German and Russian fighter planes (FW-190 and La-5). It should be pointed out that these observations apply particularly to the Russian front and are not necessarily in line with experiences in other European theaters. This translation is published without evaluation or comment, purely for its informational value in presenting Russian opinion concerning the FW-190, as printed in the "Red Fleet."


The FW-190 first appeared on the Soviet-German front at the end of 1942. This is the first high-speed German fighter with an air-cooled engine. In comparison with the Me-109 and its modernized versions, the Me-109F and the Me-109G, the FW-190 is of a higher quality.

The speed of the FW-190 is slightly higher than that of the Messerschmitt; it also has more powerful armament and is more maneuverable in horizontal flight. The FW-190 has a large supply of ammunition, with 15 seconds of cannon fire, and 50 seconds of constant machine-gun fire. For this reason the gunners are not economical with their ammunition, and often open up the so-called "frightening fire". The pilots have good visibility laterally, forward, upward and rearward. A fairly good horizontal maneuver permits the FW-190 to turn at low speed without falling into a tail spin. An armored ring on the front part of the engine provides the pilot with reliable protection; for this reason, the FW-190's quite often make frontal attacks. In this way they differ from the Me-109s.

One shortcoming of the FW-190 is its weight. The lightest model of this plane weighs 3,500 kgs. (7,700 lbs), while the average weight is from 3,800 (8,360 lbs) to 3,900 kgs. (8,580 lbs). Since the FW-190 is so heavy and does not have a high-altitude engine, pilots do not like to fight in vertical maneuvers. Another weak point in the FW-190 is the poor visibility downward, both forward and rearward. The FW-190 is seriously handicapped in still another way; there is no armor around the gas tanks, which are situated under the pilot's seat and behind it. From below, the pilot is not protected in any way; from behind, the only protection is the ordinary seat-back with 15-mm of armor. Even bullets from our large caliber machine guns penetrate this armor, to say nothing of cannon.

The main problem confronting our fliers is that of forcing the Germans to fight from positions advantageous to us.

The FW-190's eagerly make frontal attacks. Their methods of conducting fire in such cases is quite stereotyped. To begin with the Germans open fire with long-range ammunition from the horizontal cannons at a distance of 1,000 meters (3,200 feet). At 500 or 400 meters (1,000 or 1,300 feet) the FW-190 opens fire from all guns. Since the planes approach each other at an extremely great speed during frontal attacks one should never, under any circumstances, turn from the given course. Fire should be opened at a distance of 700 or 800 meters, (2,300 or 2,600 feet). Practice has shown that in frontal attacks both planes are so damaged that, in the majority of cases, they are compelled to drop out of the battle. Therefore, frontal attacks with FW-190's may be made only when the battle happens to be over our territory. Frontal engagements over enemy territory, or even more so in the enemy rear, should be avoided.

If a frontal attack of an FW-190 should fail the pilot usually attempts to change the attacks into a turning engagement. Being very stable and having a large range of speeds, the FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed. Our Lavochkin-5 may freely take up the challenge, if the pilot uses the elevator tabs correctly. By using your foot to hold the plane from falling into a tail spin you can turn the La-5 at an exceedingly low speed, thus keeping the FW from getting on your tail.

When fighting the La-5, the FW risks a vertical maneuver only at high speed. For example, let us assume that the first frontal attack of an FW failed. The plane then goes on ahead and prepares for a second frontal attack. If it fails a second time, the pilot turns sharply to the side and goes into a steep dive. On coming out of the dive, he picks up speed in horizontal flight and engages the opposing plane in a vertical maneuver.

Vertical-maneuver fighting with the FW-190 is usually of short duration since our planes have a better rate of climb than the German planes, and because the Germans are unable to withstand tense battles of any length.

The winner in present air battles must have an advantage in altitude. This is especially true with regard to the FW-190. "Once a comrade of mine and I engaged two FW-190's at a height of 3,500 meters (10,850 ft). After three energetic attacks we succeeded in chasing the two FW-190's down to 1,500 meters (4,650 ft). All the while we kept our advantage in height. As usual the German tried, out of an inverted turn, to get away and below, but I got one in my sight and shot it down. After that we immediately went up to 3,700 meters (11,470 ft) and met another group of FW-190's as they were attacking one of our Pe-2 bombers. We made use of our advantage in height and by vertical attacks succeeded in chasing the Germans away and also shot one down."

When following a diving FW you should never dive below the other enemy planes. When two planes dive the one following the leader should come out of the dive in such a way as to be at an advantage over the leading plane in height and speed. In this way the tail of the leading plane will be protected; at the same time, the second plane will also be able to open up direct fire against the enemy.

In fighting the FW-190 our La-5 should force the Germans to fight by using the vertical maneuver. This may be achieved by constantly making vertical attacks. The first climb of the FW is usually good, the second worse, and the third altogether poor. This may be explained by the fact that the FW's great weight does not permit it to gather speed quickly in the vertical maneuver. After two or three persistent attacks by our fighters the FWs completely lose their advantage in height and in speed, and inevitably find themselves below. And because of this, they are sure to drop out of the battle into a straight dive (sometimes up to 90 degrees) with the idea of gaining height on the side, and then of coming in again from the side of the sun with an advantage in speed and height. At times it happens that the FW, after diving, does not gain altitude, but attempts to drop out of the battle altogether in low flight. However, the FW-190 is never able to come out of a dive below 300 or 250 meters (930 ft or 795 ft). Coming out of a dive, made from 1,500 meters (4,650 ft) and at an angle of 40 to 45 degrees, the FW-190 falls an extra 200 meters (620 ft).

A shortcoming of the FW-190 is its poor climbing ability. When climbing in order to get an altitude advantage over the enemy, there is a moment when the FW-190 "hangs" in the air. It is then convenient to fire. Therefore, when following a FW-190 in a dive, you should bring your plane out of the dive slightly before the FW comes out of it, in order to catch up with him on the vertical plane. In other words, when the FW comes out of the dive you should bring your plane out in such a way as to have an advantage over the enemy in height. If this can be achieved, the FW-190 becomes a fine target when it "hangs". Direct fire should be opened up at a short distance, 50 to 100 meters (150 to 300 ft). It should also be remembered that the weakest spots of the FW-190 are below and behind--the gasoline tanks and the pilot's legs, which are not protected.

Throughout the whole engagement with a FW-190, it is necessary to maintain the highest speed possible. The Lavochkin-5 will then have, when necessary, a good vertical maneuver, and consequently, the possibility of getting away from an enemy attack or on the contrary, of attacking. It should further be kept in mind that the La-5 and the FW-190 in outward appearance resemble each other very much; therefore, careful observation is of great importance. We may emphasize once more: never let an enemy plane gain an altitude advantage over you and you will win the fight.

Unquote </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This could also be a report from il2 FB http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

TX-Zen
03-02-2006, 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 JG4_Helofly:
This could also be a report from il2 FB http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except for the low speed horizontal turning engagement, in FB thats simply suicide in a 190.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Interesting read, it clearly shows a different kind of 190 than was used on the western front and even appears to show a different kind of La5 too (stay at high speed, don't get slow with a slow 190).

I love seeing points like this but I don't take them as the gospel, they are however very useful for comparing to other accounts to get an idea of the big picture.

Thanks for posting Blutarski, I personally enjoy reading things like this.

&lt;S&gt;

Unknown-Pilot
03-02-2006, 09:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
What always interests me is how various airforces approached different tactical and technical enemies. Then you can see how these doctrines are interpreted by todays gamers and amateur historians. When you look at USN or USAAF reports on combat and on tactical trials against lets say the IJN and IJA Airforces, the US were equipped with heavy fighters that were marginally faster, had lesser climb rates and had inferior manuverability.

Now, on these forums it is easy to post here and explain why a Hellcat could outfight a Ki61 or a Zero. However, if you try and apply the same laws of gravity and aerial combat (with aircraft of very similar margins of comparable performance) Ie the Fw 190 vs a Yak 1 or a La5 lets say - you immediately lose all credability. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course. Because people are programmed to hate anything WW2 and German. That's why people who like WW2 LW stuff, or other German equipment are often called nazis around here. That's why the true evil of the commies is forgotten and ignored. And that's why you see what you mentioned. Clearly as the Germans were "the bad guys" they couldn't possibly do what we did, let alone the way we did it.

Get's back to what I said earlier in this thread (which seems to have upset a few people lol).

F6_Ace
03-02-2006, 10:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Vertical-maneuver fighting with the FW-190 is usually of short duration since our planes have a better rate of climb than the German planes, and because the Germans are unable to withstand tense battles of any length.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pilot fatigue? Or were Germans sissies?

Blutarski2004
03-02-2006, 10:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TX-Zen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
This could also be a report from il2 FB http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except for the low speed horizontal turning engagement, in FB thats simply suicide in a 190.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Interesting read, it clearly shows a different kind of 190 than was used on the western front and even appears to show a different kind of La5 too (stay at high speed, don't get slow with a slow 190).

I love seeing points like this but I don't take them as the gospel, they are however very useful for comparing to other accounts to get an idea of the big picture.

Thanks for posting Blutarski, I personally enjoy reading things like this.

&lt;S&gt; </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... My pleasure Tex. Raw performance data is great, as far as it goes. But it is unwise to assume that the story ends there. That's why I too like to see analyses from the "user" side. Mission and the tactical situation play a much larger role in determining the overall combat effectiveness relationship between different fighters than we credit. For example, a fighter operating with LR air search radar and ground control intercept support will almost always hold the advantage of height and position when entering combat. Or if side A's fighters are obligated to escort ground attack bombers at low altitudes while side B's fighters are free to cruise at higher altitudes. Or simply fighting an FW190 at 15,000 feet as opposed to 25,000 feet. There are big influences here.

BTW, the Lone Sentry site is worth checking out if you have not already done so. Although the lion's share of materiel is oriented to the ground war, it contains a huge amount of interesting WW2 stuff - all free.

JG4_Helofly
03-02-2006, 10:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TX-Zen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
This could also be a report from il2 FB http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except for the low speed horizontal turning engagement, in FB thats simply suicide in a 190.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Interesting read, it clearly shows a different kind of 190 than was used on the western front and even appears to show a different kind of La5 too (stay at high speed, don't get slow with a slow 190).

I love seeing points like this but I don't take them as the gospel, they are however very useful for comparing to other accounts to get an idea of the big picture.

Thanks for posting Blutarski, I personally enjoy reading things like this.

&lt;S&gt; </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but one thing remains strange: Why can some planes better turn in one direction than in the other? Russian report say that the russian planes can only outturn the fw 190 in one direction. Why not in the other? Should a plane not be able to turn the same in both directions?

F6_Ace
03-02-2006, 10:18 AM
Think about engine rotation.

TX-Zen
03-02-2006, 10:21 AM
Torque.

I've read that about a number of planes, it seems that turn in one direction better than another is extremely common.

A classic example of torque is quoted in Shaw's Fighter Tactics book where 4 P38's were bounced by 30+ Antons. The P38's had counter rotating props to cancel the torque and so immediately began a tight spiral climb to the left IIRC, knowing the the 190's radial pulled to the left and needed rudder to counteract.

As airspeed fell off in the steep climb the 190 pilots needed more and more rudder to overcome the torque of their radials and one by one the torque overcame the diminishing effectiveness of the rudder...reportedly every single anton flipped over to the left and stalled out, allowing the P38's to escape.

I don't think we have this in game now, but a long time ago (at least for a brief while it seemed) we did, though not as pronounced as what Blutarski's post stated. It was noticeable though.

Lazy312
03-02-2006, 10:25 AM
to unknownpilot:

Actually I saw nobody here talking about nazis. There were only posts concerning brainwashed commies.

Comparing Hellcat and Zero is simple - Hellcat is considerably faster and therefore it is much better fighter than Zero. FW is about as fast (at Eastern front altitudes) as La, therefore it doesn't outclass La - it is better in some respects and worse in others. Those are simple facts and it is pity to see this discussion went from talking about planes to talking about politics.

If you like it this way, enjoy it..

Unknown-Pilot
03-02-2006, 10:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TX-Zen:
Torque.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.evergreen.edu/library/govdocs/canadagov/toque--mapleleafsm.jpg ?

oh, wait, "torque"..... like, nevermind, eh?

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

TX-Zen
03-02-2006, 10:32 AM
It is modelled now, but seems only an issue on takeoff or during a stall. The rest of the influence is too subtle for me to get a handle on I guess.

Unknown-Pilot
03-02-2006, 10:39 AM
Get a grip Lazy. So sorry the commie propaganda comment stung you so bad. The truth hurts, as they say.

Since you need it spelled out for you - since IL2 out of the box, people with an affinity for German equipment/names/language/sigs who wish to see accurate representation of their preferred crafts have been thought of as, and often outright accused of being, nazis.

You're attempt at spin was pitiful. Almost as pitiful as your attempt to appear "above" such things, while diving right down into them. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

OldMan____
03-02-2006, 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 Unknown-Pilot:
Get a grip Lazy. So sorry the commie propaganda comment stung you so bad. The truth hurts, as they say.

Since you need it spelled out for you - since IL2 out of the box, people with an affinity for German equipment/names/language/sigs who wish to see accurate representation of their preferred crafts have been thought of as, and often outright accused of being, nazis.

You're attempt at spin was pitiful. Almost as pitiful as your attempt to appear "above" such things, while diving right down into them. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dont make this a political discussion. When you attack comunists same way you say others attack germsna you are not being better.

You must keep in your mind that not all people consider Comunist evil ( alot of people consider the capitalist to be the evil), you are free to beleive whatever you want as long as you do not demonstrate it in a way that hurts or offend others.

You want germans to be respected, you must do the same to EVERY human being.

Unknown-Pilot
03-02-2006, 11:52 AM
Nothing was said about Germans being respected. Lazy didn't understand, so he had it explained to him. He got upset at the earlier comments so he must have felt the shoe fit and decided to wear it (y'know, "the truth hurts").

commies are pure evil, and nothing but. But it doesn't matter, since hey, they "won the war" so they're ok! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

As for the rest, the monster doesn't see the monster in the mirror, so I have no doubt that many don't realize commies are evil. That actually is the reason for so much love sent that way here, and in the world in general. And that almost requires one not to stay silent about it.

And this is all getting away from the original commentary and intent of the thread anyway. The first "political" statement made was on this page. Lazy is getting what he really wanted afterall.

faustnik
03-02-2006, 11:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lazy312:
FW is about as fast (at Eastern front altitudes) as La, therefore it doesn't outclass La - it is better in some respects and worse in others. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pretty hard to disagree with that.

Viper2005_
03-02-2006, 12:09 PM
Torque has been given a bad name; it's generally a bit player. The villains of the piece as regards turn performance are usually gyroscopic precession (which is responsible for "swing" when the tail is raised on takeoff) spiral propwash, and P-factor.

If you want to do some sums about torque, consider a BMW-801C putting out ~ 1600 bhp at 2700 rpm. It drives its airscrew through a reduction gearbox, with a ratio 0.542:1

Its airscrew therefore turns at 1463 rpm.

This produces a torque of about 7800 Nm (or 5750 lb-ft if you prefer).

The Fw-190 has a wingspan of 10.5 m.

To keep things simple, let's pretend that the torque force is resisted by a point force at the wing tips. The total force required is 742 N.

Therefore one wing must produce 371 N more lift than the average, and one wing must produce 371 N less than the average.

371 N is about 37 kgf, or 83.5 lb.

This is pretty insignificant when you consider that the aeroplane has a mass of perhaps 3700 kg in fighting trim; it increases the wing loading of the "critical" wing by 2% increasing the stall speed by just under 1%.

TX-Zen
03-02-2006, 12:25 PM
Viper,

Nice post. In my defense of using the word torque, I just want to say that EcoDragon made me do it.

faustnik
03-02-2006, 12:41 PM
Yeah, thanks Viper! You explaination really helps. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Sintubin
03-02-2006, 02:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
US Intelligence Bulletin translation of original Russian tactical assessment document:


http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt/russian-combat-fw190.html


Quote

RUSSIAN COMBAT EXPERIENCES WITH THE FW-190

----------------------------------------------------------------

In all probability the Germans have used their FW-190s on the Russian front to a much lesser extent than elsewhere, and the standards of air combat on that front very likely differ from those over Western Europe and in the Mediterranean.

The following translation of an article which appeared in the "Red Fleet" compares some of the tactics used by the German and Russian fighter planes (FW-190 and La-5). It should be pointed out that these observations apply particularly to the Russian front and are not necessarily in line with experiences in other European theaters. This translation is published without evaluation or comment, purely for its informational value in presenting Russian opinion concerning the FW-190, as printed in the "Red Fleet."


The FW-190 first appeared on the Soviet-German front at the end of 1942. This is the first high-speed German fighter with an air-cooled engine. In comparison with the Me-109 and its modernized versions, the Me-109F and the Me-109G, the FW-190 is of a higher quality.

The speed of the FW-190 is slightly higher than that of the Messerschmitt; it also has more powerful armament and is more maneuverable in horizontal flight. The FW-190 has a large supply of ammunition, with 15 seconds of cannon fire, and 50 seconds of constant machine-gun fire. For this reason the gunners are not economical with their ammunition, and often open up the so-called "frightening fire". The pilots have good visibility laterally, forward, upward and rearward. A fairly good horizontal maneuver permits the FW-190 to turn at low speed without falling into a tail spin. An armored ring on the front part of the engine provides the pilot with reliable protection; for this reason, the FW-190's quite often make frontal attacks. In this way they differ from the Me-109s.

One shortcoming of the FW-190 is its weight. The lightest model of this plane weighs 3,500 kgs. (7,700 lbs), while the average weight is from 3,800 (8,360 lbs) to 3,900 kgs. (8,580 lbs). Since the FW-190 is so heavy and does not have a high-altitude engine, pilots do not like to fight in vertical maneuvers. Another weak point in the FW-190 is the poor visibility downward, both forward and rearward. The FW-190 is seriously handicapped in still another way; there is no armor around the gas tanks, which are situated under the pilot's seat and behind it. From below, the pilot is not protected in any way; from behind, the only protection is the ordinary seat-back with 15-mm of armor. Even bullets from our large caliber machine guns penetrate this armor, to say nothing of cannon.

The main problem confronting our fliers is that of forcing the Germans to fight from positions advantageous to us.

The FW-190's eagerly make frontal attacks. Their methods of conducting fire in such cases is quite stereotyped. To begin with the Germans open fire with long-range ammunition from the horizontal cannons at a distance of 1,000 meters (3,200 feet). At 500 or 400 meters (1,000 or 1,300 feet) the FW-190 opens fire from all guns. Since the planes approach each other at an extremely great speed during frontal attacks one should never, under any circumstances, turn from the given course. Fire should be opened at a distance of 700 or 800 meters, (2,300 or 2,600 feet). Practice has shown that in frontal attacks both planes are so damaged that, in the majority of cases, they are compelled to drop out of the battle. Therefore, frontal attacks with FW-190's may be made only when the battle happens to be over our territory. Frontal engagements over enemy territory, or even more so in the enemy rear, should be avoided.

If a frontal attack of an FW-190 should fail the pilot usually attempts to change the attacks into a turning engagement. Being very stable and having a large range of speeds, the FW-190 will inevitably offer turning battle at a minimum speed. Our Lavochkin-5 may freely take up the challenge, if the pilot uses the elevator tabs correctly. By using your foot to hold the plane from falling into a tail spin you can turn the La-5 at an exceedingly low speed, thus keeping the FW from getting on your tail.

When fighting the La-5, the FW risks a vertical maneuver only at high speed. For example, let us assume that the first frontal attack of an FW failed. The plane then goes on ahead and prepares for a second frontal attack. If it fails a second time, the pilot turns sharply to the side and goes into a steep dive. On coming out of the dive, he picks up speed in horizontal flight and engages the opposing plane in a vertical maneuver.

Vertical-maneuver fighting with the FW-190 is usually of short duration since our planes have a better rate of climb than the German planes, and because the Germans are unable to withstand tense battles of any length.

The winner in present air battles must have an advantage in altitude. This is especially true with regard to the FW-190. "Once a comrade of mine and I engaged two FW-190's at a height of 3,500 meters (10,850 ft). After three energetic attacks we succeeded in chasing the two FW-190's down to 1,500 meters (4,650 ft). All the while we kept our advantage in height. As usual the German tried, out of an inverted turn, to get away and below, but I got one in my sight and shot it down. After that we immediately went up to 3,700 meters (11,470 ft) and met another group of FW-190's as they were attacking one of our Pe-2 bombers. We made use of our advantage in height and by vertical attacks succeeded in chasing the Germans away and also shot one down."

When following a diving FW you should never dive below the other enemy planes. When two planes dive the one following the leader should come out of the dive in such a way as to be at an advantage over the leading plane in height and speed. In this way the tail of the leading plane will be protected; at the same time, the second plane will also be able to open up direct fire against the enemy.

In fighting the FW-190 our La-5 should force the Germans to fight by using the vertical maneuver. This may be achieved by constantly making vertical attacks. The first climb of the FW is usually good, the second worse, and the third altogether poor. This may be explained by the fact that the FW's great weight does not permit it to gather speed quickly in the vertical maneuver. After two or three persistent attacks by our fighters the FWs completely lose their advantage in height and in speed, and inevitably find themselves below. And because of this, they are sure to drop out of the battle into a straight dive (sometimes up to 90 degrees) with the idea of gaining height on the side, and then of coming in again from the side of the sun with an advantage in speed and height. At times it happens that the FW, after diving, does not gain altitude, but attempts to drop out of the battle altogether in low flight. However, the FW-190 is never able to come out of a dive below 300 or 250 meters (930 ft or 795 ft). Coming out of a dive, made from 1,500 meters (4,650 ft) and at an angle of 40 to 45 degrees, the FW-190 falls an extra 200 meters (620 ft).

A shortcoming of the FW-190 is its poor climbing ability. When climbing in order to get an altitude advantage over the enemy, there is a moment when the FW-190 "hangs" in the air. It is then convenient to fire. Therefore, when following a FW-190 in a dive, you should bring your plane out of the dive slightly before the FW comes out of it, in order to catch up with him on the vertical plane. In other words, when the FW comes out of the dive you should bring your plane out in such a way as to have an advantage over the enemy in height. If this can be achieved, the FW-190 becomes a fine target when it "hangs". Direct fire should be opened up at a short distance, 50 to 100 meters (150 to 300 ft). It should also be remembered that the weakest spots of the FW-190 are below and behind--the gasoline tanks and the pilot's legs, which are not protected.

Throughout the whole engagement with a FW-190, it is necessary to maintain the highest speed possible. The Lavochkin-5 will then have, when necessary, a good vertical maneuver, and consequently, the possibility of getting away from an enemy attack or on the contrary, of attacking. It should further be kept in mind that the La-5 and the FW-190 in outward appearance resemble each other very much; therefore, careful observation is of great importance. We may emphasize once more: never let an enemy plane gain an altitude advantage over you and you will win the fight.

Unquote </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Haha lol http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

No propaganda huch

You represent manny of the UBI.COM forum members

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Nice read tho thx

Sintubin
03-02-2006, 02:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Torque has been given a bad name; it's generally a bit player. The villains of the piece as regards turn performance are usually gyroscopic precession (which is responsible for "swing" when the tail is raised on takeoff) spiral propwash, and P-factor.

If you want to do some sums about torque, consider a BMW-801C putting out ~ 1600 bhp at 2700 rpm. It drives its airscrew through a reduction gearbox, with a ratio 0.542:1

Its airscrew therefore turns at 1463 rpm.

This produces a torque of about 7800 Nm (or 5750 lb-ft if you prefer).

The Fw-190 has a wingspan of 10.5 m.

To keep things simple, let's pretend that the torque force is resisted by a point force at the wing tips. The total force required is 742 N.

Therefore one wing must produce 371 N more lift than the average, and one wing must produce 371 N less than the average.

371 N is about 37 kgf, or 83.5 lb.

This is pretty insignificant when you consider that the aeroplane has a mass of perhaps 3700 kg in fighting trim; it increases the wing loading of the "critical" wing by 2% increasing the stall speed by just under 1%. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

tigertalon
03-02-2006, 03:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Torque has been given a bad name; it's generally a bit player. The villains of the piece as regards turn performance are usually gyroscopic precession (which is responsible for "swing" when the tail is raised on takeoff) spiral propwash, and P-factor.

If you want to do some sums about torque, consider a BMW-801C putting out ~ 1600 bhp at 2700 rpm. It drives its airscrew through a reduction gearbox, with a ratio 0.542:1

Its airscrew therefore turns at 1463 rpm.

This produces a torque of about 7800 Nm (or 5750 lb-ft if you prefer).

The Fw-190 has a wingspan of 10.5 m.

To keep things simple, let's pretend that the torque force is resisted by a point force at the wing tips. The total force required is 742 N.

Therefore one wing must produce 371 N more lift than the average, and one wing must produce 371 N less than the average.

371 N is about 37 kgf, or 83.5 lb.

This is pretty insignificant when you consider that the aeroplane has a mass of perhaps 3700 kg in fighting trim; it increases the wing loading of the "critical" wing by 2% increasing the stall speed by just under 1%. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hell Viper, if you are not a high school physics professor you missed the profession! Nice explanation!

Like mentioned already in other thread(s), plane designers solved torque problem in different ways: some had asymetrical wings (one a bit longer - like Mc202 or 205 - to produce more lift) or engine mounted not exactly straight forward (Bloch fighter family) etc...

ImpStarDuece
03-02-2006, 04:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
commies are pure evil, and nothing but. But it doesn't matter, since hey, they "won the war" so they're ok! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats a completely asinine satement.

Having several Russian family friends who were former members of the Communist Party (and one who still is), I can honestly assure you that none of them are 'pure evil'.

Go peddle your meaningless blanket statements eleswhere.

Xiolablu3
03-02-2006, 04:26 PM
Dont let him bother you mate. It was obvious to me ages ago that he was a total uneducated biased fool who knows nothing about the subjets he rants on about.

Dont let him wind you up. I know its hard but just ignore his posts if you can, you would be here all day if you tried to put him right on the things he posts. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Let this one die the death he deserves.

Xiolablu3
03-02-2006, 04:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
Hunin, anyone with anything remotely German in their name or sig are seen as Luftwaffe fan bois and anything they say is written off, out of hand, like the person who posted immediately after your first one in this thread. I was just giving you a heads up. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

(Note, there are exceptions to this, like the red-whiners who take axis names just to stir the pot, but they're obvious enough. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know absolutely nothing about me then, you short sighted fool.

M2morris
03-02-2006, 04:46 PM
Well it seems to me that the answere to this is simply stated in that the prop torque transposition factor combined with the simetrical balance of the pitch form transtonical continuity of the airfoil produced at the center of gravity concludes that any non-drag generating component does induce a bilateral coefficient for a truely coordinated turn in or out of top power generation for maximization of power resulting in peek performance and increased ability to maintain energy managemant with increased horse power gained by suplimental combustion and bovine defication.

Viper2005_
03-02-2006, 05:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M2morris:
...bovine defication. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hoisted by his own petard! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Unknown-Pilot
03-02-2006, 05:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
Hunin, anyone with anything remotely German in their name or sig are seen as Luftwaffe fan bois and anything they say is written off, out of hand, like the person who posted immediately after your first one in this thread. I was just giving you a heads up. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

(Note, there are exceptions to this, like the red-whiners who take axis names just to stir the pot, but they're obvious enough. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know absolutely nothing about me then, you short sighted fool. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

The proof was right above my post. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Man, the truth just burns your a$$ doesn't it. You'll carry a grudge against me forever. I love it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

AustinPowers_
03-02-2006, 05:54 PM
Mods ^^^ Thankyou.

M2morris
03-02-2006, 08:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M2morris:
...bovine defication. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hoisted by his own petard! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, thankyou viper, that is what I call my personal form of: T.R.B. (Total Rediculous Bull--it)Can I get a golf-clap?

F6_Ace
03-03-2006, 06:15 AM
Another thread sunk with political torpedo amidships

Viper2005_
03-03-2006, 10:29 AM
I admire the attempt to divert the attention of the thread from politics so yes, you can get a clap:

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

CMHQ_Rikimaru
03-03-2006, 01:16 PM
About this text "Russian expericences...", I think this is the way anton behaves in IL2, without one advantage - low speed turning. I think that most of this text is true, and that Russians just encountered Jabo FW190. Why FW190 could turn good in low speed? Its very simple, because kommandogerat was set for more power on low speeds(to carry bombs), so it would have better acceleration on low speeds and thus more power, which they could use to turn, and thats the reason why these FW190 couldnt zoom climb good, because these werent set to high speed acceleration(Jager!). That FW190 could climb good on low speeds, but wouldnt really good climb on high speeds, and its what Russians have mentioned about.