PDA

View Full Version : What is up with the FW190?



Jumoschwanz
02-16-2004, 06:04 PM
If you read all the history books. The FW190 was supposed to be AT LEAST the equal of the 109 in all areas under 20,000 feet altitude(6000meters?). Everyone that has flown FW190s and 109s in Il2 and FB knows the Focke Wulf has never come close. It has always either had poor acceleration and/or handling compared to the 109 in this line of sims. A real wallowing pig as far as I have been concerned.
What is behind this big and glaring discrepancy in performance between this line of sims and the history books where the 190 is concerned? Is it lack of time to do the programming? Politics?, or something else.

The 190 has been in the sim since il2 originally came out and it has always been a pig. Predominantly used for zoom and boom and ground attack. IT has had many flight model revisions but there is apparently some code writing difficulty or limitation this layman is unaware of.

I write about the axis planes because that is what I like and have experience in, in this sim.

So that is number two on my wish list for up and coming patches, get the 190 lined up with the history books.

Thanks, Jumoschwanz

Jumoschwanz
02-16-2004, 06:04 PM
If you read all the history books. The FW190 was supposed to be AT LEAST the equal of the 109 in all areas under 20,000 feet altitude(6000meters?). Everyone that has flown FW190s and 109s in Il2 and FB knows the Focke Wulf has never come close. It has always either had poor acceleration and/or handling compared to the 109 in this line of sims. A real wallowing pig as far as I have been concerned.
What is behind this big and glaring discrepancy in performance between this line of sims and the history books where the 190 is concerned? Is it lack of time to do the programming? Politics?, or something else.

The 190 has been in the sim since il2 originally came out and it has always been a pig. Predominantly used for zoom and boom and ground attack. IT has had many flight model revisions but there is apparently some code writing difficulty or limitation this layman is unaware of.

I write about the axis planes because that is what I like and have experience in, in this sim.

So that is number two on my wish list for up and coming patches, get the 190 lined up with the history books.

Thanks, Jumoschwanz

Zen--
02-16-2004, 06:11 PM
My two cents is that is pretty darn accurate now. I have no real complaints other than relatively minor issues here and there.

The 'pig' is 100% better than it was in IL2 and we have more versions of it.

-Zen-
Formerly TX-Zen

p1ngu666
02-16-2004, 06:13 PM
yeah, out turning those yaks
and btw u CAN do that
just fly really bloody fast

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg

SKULLS_LZ
02-16-2004, 06:13 PM
From my reading it seems the vast majority of the top Experten flew primarily the Me-109, so I have to presume that it did offer some advantages. Rear visibility was certainly not one of them. I'm under the impression that the 109 had an edge in agility, but that's just an impression. Personally I find the 190 requires a gentle touch on the stick and the A5 absolutely dominates in any 1942 mission in FB owing to its speed, durability, firepower and visibility.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.jwilliamsmusic.it/belushi.jpg
Yeah I vulched ya. Now put a cork in it and pick another base before I bust a c@p in your sorry @ss.

lbhskier37
02-16-2004, 06:14 PM
As of right now, the FW I believe is superior to the 109 if you are using planes from equivalent years. The only problem with the FW is its undermodeled climbrate, compounded by the fact that every other plane in the game has overmodeled climbrate. This is what makes it feel like a dog. If it had climbrate overmodeled to the same degree of every other plane it would be great. Or if all planes were brought down to their real levels.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig2.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

F19_Olli72
02-16-2004, 06:18 PM
And to boot, it will be even better when it gets complex dm in the AEP http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

VW-IceFire
02-16-2004, 06:22 PM
Do we have confirmation of a complex DM? If so...thats good!

Slightly messed up damage model aside...the FW190 is my prefered ride between it and the Bf 109. In particular the D9 is my favorite but the A-5 and the A-9 are both great rides as well.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
The New IL2 Database is Coming Soon!

F19_Olli72
02-16-2004, 06:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Do we have confirmation of a complex DM? If so...thats good!

Slightly messed up damage model aside...the FW190 is my prefered ride between it and the Bf 109. In particular the D9 is my favorite but the A-5 and the A-9 are both great rides as well.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
The New IL2 Database is Coming Soon!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dude, this is straight from the man himself (Mr Oleg Maddox) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

"You ask alwasy to get more and more realistic. We are going by this way, listen users, etc... The we get someting that all is bad... Ususally for Germans.... It is really strange. But then nobody of these say that FW is the most strong plane in the game... Why? Intersting.... They like it Becasue it it is their side plane...
(FWs got complex DM in AEP finally. So you will see all the construction elements modelled, like in most other aircraft.)"

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=659101961&p=3

Jumoschwanz
02-16-2004, 06:49 PM
Let's look at the book JG 26, written by Donald Caldwell. Hub Zemke read the book and called it a "masterpiece". And Adolf Galland was nice enough to write a forward for it.

IN this book it is stated that most of the experienced western Jagdflieger preferred the 190. And also that the 190 was superior to the 109 in most combat parameters.
All I am qualified to do is pass on information in history books, and compare this with first hand knowledge of Forgotten Battles. I don't "think" or "feel" anything about WWII.

It is very clear though, from experience and the number of 109s vs number of 190s flown online that history has been reversed in this sim, and the 109 is superior and favored by Forgotten Battles pilots.

If I "keep my speed up" I can shoot down a yak3 with a brewster buffalo. But I will not argue that it is superior to the yak will I?

Thanks,

Jumoschwanz

It is always nice to know poeples "feelings" on something they have no first hand knowledge of, but this does not do us any good.

Korolov
02-16-2004, 06:55 PM
I think the issue here is that this game is modeled upon a east front sim, with east front programming.

The Russians didn't think much of the Fw-190 - they feared the 109s more than they did the Fw-190 (most notably the 109G-2).

There are a few possible explanations of this:

- Non-fighter variant Fw-190s; i.e., Fw-190Gs, Fw-190Fs, extra armored Fw-190s, etc.

- Situational disadvantage - Fw-190 about 1000-2000m lower than opposing fighters, and inability to turn with russian types.

- Flying below the peak altitude for the Fw-190. Make note that the russians DID respect the Fw-190Ds because of their performance, especially at altitude.

As a result of all this, the Fw-190 was considered more of a bomber than a fighter, and maybe (emphasis on the maybe) is the result of unintentional bias. It could also get a bad reputation by Bf-109 pilots trying to use a Fw-190 like a 109, which of course doesn't work.

The largest problem with the Fw-190 so far is the lack of CDM for it, and with that getting fixed in AEP, should turn it into a better fighter than most think of it.

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/newsig1.jpg

VW-IceFire
02-16-2004, 07:02 PM
That is good news! Thats one of my two remaining gripes with the game...everything else is perfect http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
The New IL2 Database is Coming Soon!

Fillmore
02-16-2004, 07:20 PM
"The FW190 was supposed to be AT LEAST the equal of the 109 in all areas under 20,000 feet altitude(6000meters?). Everyone that has flown FW190s and 109s in Il2 and FB knows the Focke Wulf has never come close."

-no not all areas. Not sustained climb, not turn rate, not turn radius, not acceleration. Keep in mind that you can make it seem otherwise by picking which ones to compare. In particular a whole lot of the FW190's reputation in the west is based on the performance of the 190A3 vs the 109F4 or Spit Vb, but for most of the war the 190A did not have the climb, turn, or acceleration of the 109s.

Absolutely not everyone who plays Il2 feels as you do. I, for one, consider all 190s to be superior in the game to contemporary 109s. There is more to life than climb, turn, and acceleration.

The 190's superiority becomes obvious in an online war setting. You want to intercept enemy ground attack planes, you want to attack enemy targets covered by flak, you want to escort your own attack aircraft to distant targets, you want 190s, not 109s.

johann63
02-16-2004, 08:20 PM
to me Olegs opinion posted in here, and other places seems to be just that, an opinion. We all have our bias.

Sure some guys want the 190 to be better because its their prefered ride but some just fly many different planes and when they get in the 190 they scratch their heads and say "huuu, is this correct, is this all there is?"
Thats what I do. Just doesnt add up to the history books in my "opinion" either. Should it be the best? No, could it be vastly improved, I think its a legimate question.

BlitzPig_johann

Red_Baroness
02-16-2004, 08:32 PM
Ah, the blessed FockeWulf. My preferred plane of destruction and completely undermodelled, as to the specs I have at hand. What we forget is that Galland was a 109 pilot, but he mentioned in an interview that the 190 was a better plane. A perfect match to the early Spits, where it would out-turn, out-climb and out-maneuver the British planes. Of course, this is BoB stuff; and it would be a true horror if that was not included in the expansion pack.

Now, the majority of the piloten preferring the 109 really had more to do with "all my heroes flew 109s" rather than a preference, per se. The 109 had horrible torque, and even in the hands of an experten, could prove fatal if taxiied on a concrete runway - either taking off or otherwise.

The 190 was more forgiving. A real "tank" of a plane, it could take a beating quite well, but because of the engine's power, it balanced itself out well. Take a look at a 190 one of these days. All stubby engine in the front.

The Dora was by far one of the more refined and deadly Fockes to come out of the Flugzugwerke plants in the late 40's. There is a tale of an unarmed Dora on her maiden flight being sighted by two marauding p51s and before the 'stangs could get a bead on the juicy long-nose, the pilot simply pushed the throttle to the max and left the p51s wondering where the hell he got to. The Dora had superior speed and was originally designed as a bomber intercept, in direct answer to the 8th USAAF's daylight bombing raids.

And it is well known that Russian planes were not as agile as they are in the game, specifically the LA-7. I quote from "Complete book of WWII Combat Aircraft" regarding the La-5 (which can be also applied to the La-7)

By the time of the battle of Stalingrad, the La-5 was being used on the whole front. Nevertheless, the aircraft still had to be perfected. Its performance could not be compared with that of its principal German Rival, the ME Bf109G.

While the LA series of a/c were maneuverable, their airframe of partial wood and metal would render them aerodynamically fragile. I don't see this happening in IL2FB.

As for flying the Focke in IL2fb, it does require a slightly different sort of handling; combat flaps down to prevent nose drop when turning. I prefer the A8/R3 package, for the power and the gun strength. But the climb rate could be fixed a bit, and the turning radius of the ENTIRE 190 series needs to be improved.

Galland basically said regarding the 190 "The faults of the 109 did not come into play with the 190, and the younger, less experienced pilots would have more of a success with the FockeWulfs than the more demanding 109"

That being said, if more 109K4s and 190D-9s were built during the war, there would have been no contest as to who would have won the air war. The Luftwaffe would have reigned supreme, at least until the gas ran out. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Take care

Red

----,---'--&gt;@
Karena von Richthofen
"Velvet glove, iron fist"
Deustches Eisen

Maple_Tiger
02-16-2004, 09:20 PM
Its nice to see that its finaly getting a complex damage model.

Over all i think its actualy a better plane then the BF109, P-47 and P-51. Only other plane i think that will give it a good match would be the KI-84.

1st Lut. 361stMapleTiger.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid78/pd6c878f0006c224805da6c9645408b41/fb291d3e.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
02-16-2004, 09:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Red_Baroness:
A perfect match to the early Spits, where it would out-turn, out-climb and out-maneuver the British planes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE

real world DF maneuverability isnt just sustained turn , but no FW190 would ever out turn the Spitfire

it had slightly better roll rate which gave it an INITIAL gain on the Spit which was throwen right out the window if the FW pilot continued turning

Jumoschwanz
02-17-2004, 12:27 AM
I just never thought the 190 got a fair shake.



Thanks,

JUmo

Stalker58
02-17-2004, 01:44 AM
IMO, there no problem with Fw190, it's not undermodelled, but the problem is that almost all "other" planes are less or more overmodelled!

Altitude, speed, manoeuvre and.... CRASH!

jurinko
02-17-2004, 02:17 AM
when 109F and early Fw 190 were compared by LW, 109 had better turn, better acceleration, better sustained climb. Fw had better roll, higher speed, better armor, more guns and was better in a dive. Not speaking about kommandogeraet, wide undercarriage and general toughness of the airframe.

For dogfight 1 vs 1, 109 is better. However, for real war, 190 is better. For FR servers, I allways take Fw if possible. Faster, better diver and better high-speed handling.

The only problem is that forward view http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

What concerns turning fights, have you ever experienced 10s blackout? Everybody here can fly on the edge of blackout, in loops etc., what is just impossible for average pilot. Thus, in real fight, an experienced 109/190 pilot was able to outturn inexperienced Spit/Yak/Lavochkin pilot. This is not possible to simulate in FB. Maybe, if the amount of G pulled recently should accumulate and cause instant blackout even in slight turn..

----------------------
Letka13./Liptow @ HL

blabla0001
02-17-2004, 02:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Red_Baroness:
A perfect match to the early Spits, where it would out-turn, out-climb and out-maneuver the British planes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LMAO, the only way a FW190 could out turn a Spitfire was at high speed.
Al medium and low speed the FW190 didn't have a remote chance of out turning a Spitfire.

As for the climb rate, depends on the type.

With the MKIX:

"Climb: During comparative climbs at various heights up to 23,000 feet [7012 metres], with both aircraft flying under maximum continuous climbing conditions, little difference was found between the two aircraft although on the whole the Spitfire was slightly better.

Above 22,000 feet [6707 m] the climb of the FW 190 is falling off rapidly, whereas the climb of the Spitfire IX is increasing."

NorrisMcWhirter
02-17-2004, 06:22 AM
Hi,

My preferred ride is now the A9. You don't worry too much about the turn fighting capability when you have destroyed your target on the first high speed pass.

It's fast, has high dive speed & the firepower is exceptional.

Of course, it is perhaps a little unfair to compare late model 190s vs other non-LW fighters in terms of turn etc as they were more geared up for downing bombers.

Cheers,
Norris


================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam : http://cabinessence.cream.org/

More irreverence:
http://www.tvgohome.com/

robban75
02-17-2004, 06:30 AM
It's been said before and I'll say it again. I think it's important to realise that the Fw 190 isn't undermodelled all that much. the Fw 190D-9 for example is VERY well modelled. Its acceleration is off, but that's about it. The Fw 190A-9 needs another 1200ft/min in initial climbrate, and so does the Fw 190A-5. The VVS machines on the other hand are overmodelled in climb above 2000m. The La-7 is 1.5 minute too fast to 5000m. It even outclimbs the D-9 from 5000m to 8000m. Bare in mind that these are not the only planes that climb too fast. Climb test are easy to do, if you're curious.
Also, fighters like the Bf 109, P-39, P-40, La-7, and all Yak's can easily match the rolling performance of the 190 at dogfight speeds. There's no fact AFAIK that can back that up.

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

kyrule2
02-17-2004, 06:37 AM
Just to echo what many have said here, it is not so much that the 190 is undermodelled, it is that other planes are overmodelled. Most planes climb too fast while the 190 climbs close to accurate or too slow, especially the A-9. Also, many planes roll too fast including the 190 at high speed. The 190 was supposed to be clearly superior in roll to most, if not all, planes but in FB most planes roll so well it is not even an advantage. Lack of energy bleed for certain planes is also a problem. I hate to say it but in general it is the VVS birds that are overmodelled. At least the complex DM is on the way.

http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

3./JG51_Hunde
http://www.jg51.com/

jurinko
02-17-2004, 06:47 AM
Climb rate of Fw 190 A-3 was cca 2m/s better than Spitfire Mk VB.. Mk IX was roughly the same, but in higher alts was much better than Fw 190

----------------------
Letka.13/Liptow @ HL

Red_Baroness
02-17-2004, 07:15 AM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Badsight, you slay me...

EARLY spitfires the FW could outturn. I suppose most of you are selective readers then, eh? Read only what you want to see and then disregard the rest of the post? Typical. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Now, as the spit was remodelled and changed and improved, the Focke became obsolete against 'em. But by then, the Focke had changed roles in the war, and had become a light bomber/interceptor, due to the upper brass of the 'waffe and old mustache himself wanting everything to divebomb, regardless of whether or not the plane was designed FOR it.

When it comes to Russian planes, the Yak is a superior plane by far; all my research shows that, so I am not in disagreement there.

The Focke, I will reiterate again, could use some slight modifications in turn radius and some additional lift. But as an a/c designer meself for CFS3, I understand how hard and how frustrating that can be. Perhaps we ALL need to understand the frustration that comes with making planes as well.

When I worked with my team to create the Dr-1 for CFS3, just working on the FM alone made me tear out my hair. Never mind the DM or sound or the actual 3d structure.

The Focke D9 needs a bit more touching up in terms of climb rate as well, or perhaps the other planes need to be brought down to actual historical levels.

But from what I've heard on this subject, a long time ago in the history of the IL2 gaming platform, the Luftwaffe planes were superior and the other planes were not. So Oleg "fixed" (and I use that term rather loosely.. ahem) the other FMs and turned down the 'waffe planes a bit, and the bi**hin started anew, on a different front.

As for the forward view, what's wrong with it? I never had any problem with it at all - but then again, I am used to the big fat spandau-garnished nose of a DR-1 blocking my forward view most of the time anyway. That's why while in the 'pit I use my views almost fanatically.

And Oleg does have the forward view historically accurate. If any of you had flown real planes, there would not be a discussion about forward views. Think for a minute. You have a giant engine infront of you, with a prop. You ain't going to have the view you would from a car, oh no. Because of the design of ANY plane, which includes all that we play with here, except perhaps the Heinkel and it's "greenhouse effect" 'pit - you will have a significant reduction in forward view.

If the Focke was designed for B&Z tactics, when you're pointed downward in a dive on your enemy, you will have all the view you need.

But again, fix the climb rate on those babies and perhaps a minor adjustment to the turn radius. And kill the damned wingtip stalls or at least turn them down in ALL the planes. Unless you're flying in a thunderstorm, there won't be that amount of turbulence. Again, ask a real pilot. I have several Korean war and a few late WWII Corsair pilots in my town, and they got interviewed relentlessly when working on planes for CFS3 and getting the facts right for other designers. Plus I'm married to a pilot, so I get the brunt of the complainin' when I hear him turn on the game and fly.

Some allied planes need a tweak too, some for the better; so that shows I'm not biased soloey for the 'waffe planes, even though that's what I fly most of the time due to personal preference.

As for the A9 - never tried her really, kinda stuck to the A8 - I go by the mantra of "learn your plane thoroughly" and despite the fact that in a turning fight, the KI84 has me down pat, if I gain height and pounce, one blast from my wing-mounted mk108 cannon and the thing is sushi.

~S!~

Red

----,---'--&gt;@
Karena von Richthofen
"Velvet glove, iron fist"
Deustches Eisen

blabla0001
02-17-2004, 07:40 AM
"EARLY spitfires the FW could outturn. I suppose most of you are selective readers then, eh? Read only what you want to see and then disregard the rest of the post? Typical."

Does the MKVb fall in the early Spitfire department?

If so then how can the FW190 out turn a Vb when the turn rate of the Vb and the IX are identical?

MandMs
02-17-2004, 07:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Red_Baroness:

As for the forward view, what's wrong with it? I never had any problem with it at all - but then again, I am used to the big fat spandau-garnished nose of a DR-1 blocking my forward view most of the time anyway. That's why while in the 'pit I use my views almost fanatically.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes the guages are in the right places,http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif but the line of sight(gunsight) is a few cm TOO low. This is in other a/c as well but the Fw is terribly handicapped because of the high angle slope of its windscreen. The Fw in FB does not fly in its normal slightly nose down attitude either.

ZG77_Nagual
02-17-2004, 08:10 AM
Funny you should mention it - I was just flying a dora last night - vs mustang, la7, p39q10 and Yak3. No damage on my end.

Alas, I must respectfully disagree with the Baronness on the following issue:
The early 190s could change direction more quickly than the spits - not flat outturn them except at higher speeds. Their overall agility gave rise to a new tactical doctrine - which is part of the surprise for those early spit pilots. Personally I've been flying the 190s since il2 - the a5 and dora are my favs but I can make do in the a8 or a9 - in '42 the a4 is awesome. Agility is not defined as simply being able to turn better. The 190s have extraordinary control harmony - great roll and rudder and good e retention if you don't slam em around too much. The dora is like a flying equation - it forces a more strategic fight but if you get with it's groove, you're golden. They all fly very well at high speeds - and pretty much rule the simm in that realm. Deflection shots can be difficult, but with practice - and done from realistic ranges (ie- CLOSE) are no big deal. The 190s are all very good at 'snap shots' where you kick the rudder or pull elevator to bring guns to bear for a split second. You can also use the rapid roll combinded with excellent rudder response to line up your shots - not pulling a full vertical bank relative to the target can give you a bit more gunsight view too - just do a combination bank and rudder.

Curious above - is the doras accel consider too slow or too fast? I find it generally gets away nicely on those occasions when I'm sloppy enough to need it.

[This message was edited by ZG77_Nagual on Tue February 17 2004 at 07:25 AM.]

Ankanor
02-17-2004, 08:42 AM
baroness. nobody says that the FV must be equal to a car. But on the other hand, there are 3 other allied aircraft with radial engines, that do not block the view in the slightest. I do not want to open the much discussed topic of the low ReVi.

And by the way no German fighter was outturning the Spitfire. Any versions.
Yes, the comparisons showed that the FW was better than the Spit in all categories, except turn rate. and climb.

http://server4.uploadit.org/files2/101203-delphinche.jpg
Some things are worth fighting for.

JG26Red
02-17-2004, 09:16 AM
1 of 2 things need to happen...

1. FW190 gets happily overmodelled like all the russian planes... heck even the P47 and P51 are still properly modelled like the 190, but are at a disadvantage since so many russ planes are uberuped..

2. Bring them overmodelled UFOs back to reality...

until then FW190s will need alt and speed advantage to have a chance... or else its just run and scissors and stuff and hope some clears your tail...

DONB3397
02-17-2004, 09:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jumoschwanz:
Let's look at the book JG 26, written by Donald Caldwell...it is stated that most of the experienced western Jagdflieger preferred the 190. And also that the 190 was superior to the 109 in most combat parameters.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not only did the Jagdfliger think the 190 was superior, but by the middle of 1941, RAF command agreed.

Most folks here remember that Galland admired the early Spits and mockingly asked for a squadron when fighting the BoB. But a year later, according to Caldwell, Sholto Douglas wrote to the British Air Ministry: "We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW 190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

That was summer, 1941. The Mk IX, with the new Merlin 61, was already in combat.

What about this sim? In FB, are 190s undermodeled relative to the 109s (we won't know about the Spits for a while)?

IMO, they aren't. Sim flight models tend to be subjective, so they don't always match the charts. But the FM's for different variants in each series have clear differences. So the 109 Es, Gs and Ks all handle differently, as do the 190 As, Ds and F. For me, most of the 190s are more responsive to joystick/throttle input, are more forgiving, and take more punishment. I like flying them.

But then I like flying everything in this sim...so that probably isn't saying much.

Winning isn't everything;
It's the only thing!
http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/bc/3fe77b7e_1812a/bc/Images/Sig---1.jpg?BCiIbMAB3LrWLZQo

Red_Baroness
02-17-2004, 09:36 AM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gifMy dear Zerstorer piloten kamarade has it on the nose, perhaps more eloquently than I could have posed it. Speed is most definitely an issue with the FockeWulf - you don't have it, you ain't gonna fly right. Altitude also has a bit of an additional factor, as I noticed while flying the other day at around, oh, lemme think here, 3000 meters or something like that. All of a sudden, my "flying pig" was as agile as the most finely-tuned equine mount I have ever had the joy to ride. But my point is still being thrashed around and it needs further clarification.

I would like to share a quote from the Feb 2003 Flight Journal Magazine regarding the Focke: "Having mastered the techniques of takeoff and landing, I thoroughly enjoyed the eight months of the assignment. The high cruising speed, well in the excess of 300 mph, compared very favorably with the Spitfire and was similar to the Merlin-engine Mustang, the Thunderbolt, Typhoon and the Tempest. The cockpit was roomy and well laid out, and the teardrop canopy gave excellent visibility. In my estimation, the FW 190 A-3 is classed with the Spitfire VIII or IX and the Mustang III. It was one of the best fighters of WW II. - Len Thorne, AFDU pilot, describing his test mission of the captured Fw 190 A-3 with the "RAFwaffe" in England"

My point is that the FM needs to be adjusted as it is not accurate to the actual specs of the FW series in terms of power, climb rate and handling. While the Focke can't flat turn like a DR-1 using solely the rudder (erm, last I checked, no plane BUT the Dr1 could do that...ahem) it does have a touch more superiority (notice I said "touch" - meaning a lot of that depends on the skill of the monkey in the 'pit and not the plane itself, but still...)in banked turns and evasive maneuvers, the A-3 and A5 the most of all. Of course, there ain't no A3 here in IL2 FB, and that's a damned oversight, lemme tell ya. The A3s were used in the BoB; they need to be in the expansion pack. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Again, a nice nod to my fellow ZG77 piloten for that clarification. It really wasn't a disagreement as much as it was sort of a more detailed explanation.

Take care,

Red aka ZG26_Hauer

----,---'--&gt;@
Karena von Richthofen
"Velvet glove, iron fist"
Deustches Eisen

robban75
02-17-2004, 09:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Curious above - is the doras accel consider too slow or too fast? I find it generally gets away nicely on those occasions when I'm sloppy enough to need it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The D-9 accelerates no faster than a Fw 190A-5 in-game. The equation doesn't add up. The D-9 has 2100hp vs 1750hp for the A-5, aswell as larger more efficient propeller blades. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

TexasGunslinger
02-17-2004, 10:01 AM
I am glad that I don't have Olegs job no matter what he pays himself. He is arbitrating disputes on an International level, across the bounds of history, folklore and nationalism. Many of the 'Facts' that get cited in these perpetual whining threads (which actually are very good reading most of the time) are written by pilots AFTER THE FACT, and sometimes 30-50 years AFTER the war. A man may be brave and skilled beyond belief and a national hero, but that does'nt make his memory perfect. IMHO IL2 FB relative plane modeling is sooo close right now to what things should be ON AN INDIVIDUAL AIRPLANE BASIS. I believe there are very minor tweeks that should be made to the relative performance of most German/Russian fighters, and a major tweek to one. First to get to the point about current FW190 models in FB:

FW-190D series aerodynamics and FM = A+ spot on don't change a thing
FW-190A series aerodynamics and FM = B+ to A- relative acceleration and climb rate is a bit slow compared to current LA/YAK models. LA and YAK should be better, but not quite as good as they are now

FW-190 DM = C. Overdocumented, but really hope this gets addressed before BOB.

MG-151/20 damage modeling = D. This excellent weapon is IMHO the worst thing in the game. Yes the Russian 20mm are flatter in trajectory and a bit more potent, but this should be not as much difference as their is now. So much has already been written on this subject I'll shut up now.

The German fighter most undermodeled is IMHO certainly the BF-109F4. You should be able to climb into an F4 and turn noticibly better than a G2. The G2 should only climb better. The vast majority of Luftwaffe F4 drivers (at least those that lived long enough to record an opinion) felt screwed upon the arrival of the G2. It did'nt handle as well as the F series. That does'nt mean the G2 should be porked, just that you should be able to turn better. So much better that when flying a G2 after an F4 you should notice the difference. Now to be fair, maybe the G2 needs to be cranked down a wee bit in turn rate.

The Yak 3, La-5FN, and La-7 SHOULD be superior in turn rate and overal manuverability to all BF109/FW190 series, with the Yak 3 having also edge in climb and speed. Quote "According to Experten Hartmann and Barkhorn, the Yaks were the most troublesome and dangerous of Soviet fighters, not only because of their high speed, but also because of superior manuverabilty." Messerschmitt Aces, Walter A. Musciano. Later in the same paragraph you'll find the following 'Of course not all Jagdwaffe pilots were not Experten, and Russian units flying the Yak-3 took their toll of the Luftwaffe. July 14, 1944 was an outstanding day for Yak pilots. In one engagement, eight Yak-3 fighters attacked a 60 plane formation of Junkers Ju-88 bombers and Messerschmitt escort, scoring three Junkers and four Messerschmitts without loss to themselves. On that same day another flight of 18 Yaks engaged 30 Messerschmitts and shot down half of them with only one loss to themselves. These stunning victories so upset Luftwaffe Chief Gen. Albert Kesselring that he instructed all of his pilots to avoid confrontation with the Yak-3 because the dwindling Jagdwaffe could not affor the losses.'

So far this falls in line with my online experiences with Yaks. I hate Yaks and I'm sure I've never killed one online. There is nothing else, except an LA signifcantly above me, that scares me. Two Yaks, avoid like the plague, Three or more turn around and go home. As long as you don't stay on the deck with an LA you're ok. The Yak, however can come up and get you.

With that said, I belive the current Yak to be a little overmodeled in climb rate. A LITTLE.
I also believe that the LA-7 to be a little overmodeled too. (climb rate, It should turn like it does)

Now with all that said, there is one particular aircraft in this sim that IMHO is entirely overmodelled, more so than any other and I rarely ever see anyone comment on it (maybe it's just me). That aircraft would be all versions of the (Now Brits and Canadians pls forgive me) Hurricane. I can overlook this because it is the only real UK/Commonwealth aircraft accessible in the game, but when you guys finally get your Spits (and yes I would love to have one of the later clipped wing versions) I hope they adjust the flight model of the Hurricane. The Hurricane should turn well, take damage well but not climb nearly as well as it does. It also does'nt bleed energy near fast enough ........

I think the biggest challenge in balancing flight models in this game is a marketing one. How do you increase the sales of this product (to the Western market) while keeping the flight models relatively accurate? We find ourselves smack dab in the middle of public perception based on folklore. The FW-190/BF-109/LA/YAK/P51/P47/whatever comparative arguments seem as parallel as nationalist differences in which Automoblie is better. Replace FW and ME with BMW and Mercedes, P51/P47 with Chevrolet and Ford and Spitfire/Hurricane with Jaguar/LOTUS and you have the same 'man in the street' arguments. Notice I left out Russian autos? Just like the LA/Yak hardly any westerner knows anything about Russian autos, firsthand. As a player/customer I welcome more sales. The boost in new players during last fall (when P-51/B-17G were added) was great. You can go online now and find full rooms in many places and the Forums are the most active I've ever seen (even if a lot of posts are on similar subjects, it is a combat sim after all).

Wow, I just re-read this thing...let's see I should be able to p@ss off just about everyone with this....(not my intention at all)

S!

JG26Red
02-17-2004, 10:33 AM
flying a A9 default load i pumped about 3 secs worth of ammon right into the back of a Yak 3, he smoked, but turned around and somehow go behind me.. lol.. i was WTF? , i ended up getting away but damn...

lbhskier37
02-17-2004, 10:43 AM
Red, Im getting back into the FW after a long being stuck in the 109 for a long time, now Im way rusty. My only real problem is gunnery, what are you using right now for convergence?

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/pics/Killasig2.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

clint-ruin
02-17-2004, 10:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>robban75:

The VVS machines on the other hand are overmodelled in climb above 2000m. The La-7 is 1.5 minute too fast to 5000m. It even outclimbs the D-9 from 5000m to 8000m. Bare in mind that these are not the only planes that climb too fast. Climb test are easy to do, if you're curious.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not to divert the thread - just a yes or no would be fine - but was this ever tested properly? Last I saw of it, people were comparing La-7 WEP climbs with 100% power climb tests and saying something was up.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

robban75
02-17-2004, 11:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
Not to divert the thread - just a yes or no would be fine - but was this ever tested properly? Last I saw of it, people were comparing La-7 WEP climbs with 100% power climb tests and saying something was up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not really sure what came out of that, but IIRC it was established that in order for the La-7 to reach 5000m in 5.3 minutes, it had to use WEP. In the book I have, maximum speeds are with WEP, so I suppose climbtimes are with WEP aswell. But I could be wrong. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

blabla0001
02-17-2004, 11:27 AM
"The A3s were used in the BoB; they need to be in the expansion pack."

I never heard of FW190's being used during the Battle of Britain.

I just visted the Battle of Britain Homepage to check it again and not one FW190 model was listed as a participant of the Battle of Britain.

JG26Red
02-17-2004, 11:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lbhskier37:
Red, Im getting back into the FW after a long being stuck in the 109 for a long time, now Im way rusty. My only real problem is gunnery, what are you using right now for convergence?

http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896
Official "uber190n00b"
"Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be." Adolf Galland

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

250

LilHorse
02-17-2004, 11:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The A3s were used in the BoB; they need to be in the expansion pack. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the second time you've said something like this in this thread. There were no FW-190s in the Battle Of Britain. They started combat service in the early part of 1941. The prototype first flew in 1939 and first production deliveries were LATE 1940.

blabla0001
02-17-2004, 12:14 PM
So far Red_Baroness is posting a lot of inaccurate info, makes me wonder if she actually knows anything about what she is saying.

GINNER_SK
02-17-2004, 12:40 PM
this is very good forum. discusion about fw should continue, because fw is not real in fb. but this game is great and only one trying to be real.thatsway has a resposibility for historical acuracy. once- sure -will be fw nearly to reality. but we must not give up. they should transparently show how, on which facts they did fw fm. and pilots they can fly fw also now should say - yes this is close rea lity. then that will stop this forums for ever. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

blabla0001
02-17-2004, 12:43 PM
Many FW drivers say they are close to real as they are now and need a few minor adjustments.

It's the newbies that complain the loadest.

JG26Red
02-17-2004, 12:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cappadocian_317:
Many FW drivers say they are close to real as they are now and need a few minor adjustments.

It's the newbies that complain the loadest.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i guess. if its close to real, then some others need a bit of downgrading, or at least uber the FW as much as others are... i still live with it thou either way

Red_Baroness
02-17-2004, 12:47 PM
Ahem. From the book I use as part of my research: (oddly enough, I'm one of the few that seems to be pulling a book out and reading instead of pulling information out of my (_|_). http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )

Considered by many as the best German fighter of World War II, the Focke Wulf Fw 190 was created to flank the already excellent Messerschmitt Bf 109, although it eventually proved to be superior to even its direct rival. Powerful, agile and versatile, more than 20,000 of this small and compact combat plane were constructed, 13,367 of which were interceptors while the rest were fighter-bombers, from the summer of 1941 up to the end of the war, sharing with the Bf 109 the honor and the burden of constituting the Luftwaffe's front line. From many points of view, the careers of the two aircraft were very similar; like the Messerschmitt fighter, the one developed by Focke Wulf was continuously updated and improved in the course of production, exploiting to the full the excellent qualities of the airframe and making the aircraft constantly competitive. The project was launched in the autumn of 1937, when the German Air Ministry proposed that Focke develop a fighter-interceptor to be produced alongside the Messerschmitt Bf 109. The design team, headed by Kurt Tank, prepared two alternative proposals which differed basically in the type of engine adopted; the first foresaw the use of an in-line Daimler Benz DB 601, while the second was to be fitted with a BMW 139 18-cylinder radial engine, then in the final stages of development. In Germany at that time, designers tended to favor the adoption of liquid-cooled in-line engines for fighters, not only for their great aerodynamic advantages, but above all due to the availability of excellent power plants that had been widely tested and that would probably be developed further in the future. Nevertheless, Kurt Tank managed to convince the ministerial authorities of the effectiveness of the choice of a radial engine for his project. Three principal factors acted in his favor; the fact that the Daimler Benz DB 601 was likely to become less available in the future, as there was already great demand for those produced; the great and promising potential of the new BMW engine; and last but not least, the fact that the radial engine was less vulnerable than the liquid-cooled one, which needed radiators and piping that were easily damaged in combat. The construction of three initial prototpyes was authorized, and the first of these took to the air on June 1, 1939. Despite problems in overheating, the aircraft proved to have excellent flying characteristics and an impressive performance, especially as far as speed was concerned. However, a long time was necessary for the development of the aircraft. It was not until the fifth prototype that the Fw 190 assumed its definitive configuration, following substantial modifications to the fuselage and wings and, above all, the installation of a different engine. In fact, development of the BMW 139 had been abandoned in favor of a 14-cylinder model designated 801. The successful combination of a large radial engine and a slender fuselage, particularly advanced from an aerodynamic point of view, constituted the most striking aspect of the new fighter. Otherwise, the Focke Wulf Fw 190 was an all-metal, low-wing monoplane with retractable landing gear, characterized by an almost entirely transparent cockpit that provided the pilot with a remarkable field of vision. The armament initially consisted of four machine guns, two of which were installed in the upper part of the fuselage. After flight testing, 40 preseries aircraft were ordered, followed by 100 aircraft of the initial variant, the Fw 190 A-1, which went into service in July 1941. In September, the first confrontation with the RAF's Spitfire Mk Vs took place, and the German fighter proved to be generally superior to the British one, apart from its armament. This was strengthened, together with the engine, in the subsequent A2 and A3 series, and updating continued throughout the numerous subseries that followed. Some of the best known were the A4 of 1942, and the A5, the A6, the A7 and the A8 of 1943. In these variants, the aircraft was also adapted to the role of fighter-bomber, although this use was explicitly planned for the subsequent versions.

Aircraft: FockeWulf Fw 190 A-1
Nation: Germany
Manufacturer: FockeWulf Flugzeugbau GmbH
Type: Fighter
Year: 1941 (so yes, BoB it would have seen, but tail end.)
Engine: BMW 801C-1, 14 cylinder radial, air-cooled, 1,600 hp (subsequent variants had an improvment in engine and thusly Hp.)
Wingspan: 34 ft 5.5 in (10.50 M)
Length: 29 ft (8.84 m)
Weight: 8,770 lb (3.973 kg) loaded
Max speed: 389 mph (626 km/h) at 18,045 ft (5,500 m)
Ceiling: 34,775 feet (10,600 m)
Range 497 miles (800 km)
Armament: 4 machine guns
Crew: 1

So therefore, the Focke DID see BoB action, but more than likely at the tail end of the engagement and not in significant enough amounts/numbers to warrant mention.

Here is information on the Long-nose Dora, again from the same book.

In the long evolution of the FW 190 while the final Ta152 (the last project of Kurt Tank in 1937) was being developed, the D variant of 1944 represented a transitional phrase. Despite this, from many points of view, the Long-nose Dora (the Fw 190 D beacme known by this nickname in the Luftwaffe, due to the lengthening of the front section caused by the installation of the large Junkers Jumo 213A V-12 engine in place of the usual BMW 801 radial) was the most successful version of the entire family. This was mainly due to the engine itself, which was capable of generating no less than 2,240 hp in case of emergency and guaranteed the fighter an excellent performance. The Fw 190 D-12/R21 (one of the numerous subseries developed in the course of production, amounting to a total of almost 700 a/c) proved to be the fastest of all the Fw 190s, reaching speeds of about 453 mph (730 kmh) at altitude.

Kurt Tank first used an in-line Junkers Jumo engine at the beginning of 1942, when he transformed six Fw 190 A airframes into prototypes. The second phase of evaluations by the Luftwaffe began toward the end of 1943, when some A-7 series aircraft were modified in a similar way to Fw 190 D-0s. Through gradual improvements, the definitive structure was eventually finished and the first Fw 190 D-9 took to the air in May, 1944. Apart from the installation of the in-line engine with a characteristic circular radiator, the most obvious feature of the aircraft was the remarkable lengthening of its fuselage. This together with larger vertical tail planes, made it an aircraft that was noticeably different from its predecessors.

The FW 190 Ds were initially regarded with suspicion by the Luftwaffe pilots. Eventually, once the crews were familiar with it and the fighter was able to express its potential, this attitude radically changed. The Dora maintained a remarkable performance, especially in its speed in ascent. It was clearly superior to the aircraft that had radial engines. Its maneuverability and turning radius were also superior. It began its service in Sept 1944 {...}
However, the aircraft's great effectiveness was not very useful during the final, desperate months of the war, when the Luftwaffe was hampered by a lack of skilled pilots and a shortage of fuel.

-Angelucci, Matricardi and Pinto, Complete book of World War Two Combat Aircraft White Star publishers, 2000 reprint of a 1988 original

~S!~

Red

----,---'--&gt;@
Karena von Richthofen
"Velvet glove, iron fist"
Deustches Eisen

blabla0001
02-17-2004, 12:53 PM
So just because it says 1941 it was in the Battle of Britain?

Please instead of just a number show real reference that the FW190's saw actual combat during the Battle of Britain and IN the Battle of Britain and not somewhere else.

As far as I can see it you are pulling info out of your (_|_)
The only difference is that it comes out of a book first, then it goes through your (_|_) and lands here on the forum.

blabla0001
02-17-2004, 12:56 PM
Oh I see the answer already.

"In September, the first confrontation with the RAF's Spitfire Mk Vs took place, and the German fighter proved to be generally superior to the British one, apart from its armament"

The Spitfire V was put into action after the Battle of Britain.

MandMs
02-17-2004, 12:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DONB3397:

That was summer, 1941. The Mk IX, with the new Merlin 61, was already in combat.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, the first Spitfire, the F MkIX did not enter RAF operational service til July 1942.

[This message was edited by MandMs on Tue February 17 2004 at 12:17 PM.]

blabla0001
02-17-2004, 01:01 PM
"The Dora maintained a remarkable performance, especially in its speed in ascent. It was clearly superior to the aircraft that had radial engines. Its maneuverability and turning radius were also superior."

To what other radial engine aircraft was it compared?

No reference, no charts, not tests, just a line from a book.

really overwhelming evidence....

JG26Red
02-17-2004, 01:05 PM
wow, the 190 was in BOB? that news to me!!

if the 190 was in BOB the RAF would have been crushed..??? didnt 190 have twice the range as the 109? hmmmmm ohwell, luckily for us it wasnt in BOB

robban75
02-17-2004, 01:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>To what other radial engine aircraft was it compared?

No reference, no charts, not tests, just a line from a book.

really overwhelming evidence....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it was compared to radial engine powered Fw 190's, not "other" radial engined fighters.

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

Maj_Death
02-17-2004, 01:19 PM
Few people playing FB have flown the Fw-190's more than I have and even fewer have flown them in as many flight sims as I have. My personal oppinion is that the Fw-190's are near spot on at this point. The top speed at altitudes below 7000m is consistant with both Oleg's data and mainstream data. I do however have a few complaints. First and foremost is the crappy damage model. It should have been upgraded in the initial release of FB but I guess it being upgraded in AEP is better than never. A lesser although still annoying problem is the lack of weapon loadouts for the A8, A9, D9 and F8. This problem applies to many other planes as well. My final complaint is the temperature gauge, it would be nice if it actually worked. Flight model wise I am satisfied. It has it's historically accurate exceptional agility at high speed with its historically accurate high energy bleed when using its high agility. Its climbrate is substandard in FB but that is mostly due to other planes being vastly overmodeled in that realm. Most planes in FB are 10%-30% overmodeled in climbrate.

There is one issue that is still open to debate on whether it is realistic or not and that is the crossbar below the gunsight. This is something that I have argued was unrealistic but I'm now not so sure. There are pictures that show the crossbar blocking the bottom third of the gunsight and others where the crossbar isn't even visable. The only logical conclusion is that the bar was present on some Fw-190's but not all. And so it is realistic to have the bar but would also be realistic to not have it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The F7F Tigercat in Aces Over the Pacific is overmodeled.

horseback
02-17-2004, 01:22 PM
Baroness,

Not even the most generous German historian would classify September 1941 as part of the the Battle of Britain; British historians generally put the end of the Battle around October of 1940, and the Germans like to include the Night Blitz period that followed the daylight campaign and enventually petered out the following spring as units moved east first to straighten out the Balkan mess and then to invade the Soviet Union.

As for the FW's maneauverability, its sustained turn was found to be its only disadvantage to the operational Marks of the Spitfire (II and V in late '41); the suggested counter to a bounce by FWs was a sharp climbing turn to the right, and then run like hell. The Brits were fortunate enough to obtain an A-3 when a JG2 aircraft piloted by one Armin Faber landed at an RAF field by mistake late one afternoon in 1942.

Results of testing this aircraft brought new emphasis on development & production of the stop-gap Spitfire Mk IX, which arrived in limited numbers that summer and conferred something like parity (at least for those squadrons equipped with Mk IXs) to Fighter Command.

Posting as I am from work during lunch, I don't have my bookshelf in sight, but over the last 40+ years, I've read most of the English language books on WWII aircraft, including Green, Caldwell, Bergstrom, Shores, the Monogram CloseUps, a ton of pilot memoirs and a few thousand magazine articles. Should I post a bibliography when I get home?

Cheers

horseback

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

MandMs
02-17-2004, 01:27 PM
Maj_Death, not to start another Fw gunsight thread but the lower frame for the armour glass was not a factor in impeding the forward vision of the pilot. If the Il-2/FB Fw had been modelled correctly using the outside of the armour glass as the reference plain (other a/c as well) one would have the correct gunsight view.

ZG77_Nagual
02-17-2004, 01:34 PM
I agree with Maj_Death - I think the 190 is spot-on - or very nearly so - other than the nasty changes to performance when a wing gets nicked. This has been my primary plane since il2. Recently I was almost won over to the complainers field but I started working on it again after several months in the p39 and I just don't see the problem. The a5 and a4 are very agile and fast planes - remember the superiority of these to the early spits was agility - not turn - and the germans employed different tactics than their predecessors in 109s. The In game dora is fantastic in the right hands and all my per-flight kill records are in the a9.

VW-IceFire
02-17-2004, 01:51 PM
The roll rates of a good number of planes may be overmodeled slightly but I tried a La-7 for the first time in many months last night. It comes nowhere near being close to rolling with FW190. It rolls decently fast at low speeds...but any decent FW190 pilot at any speed can easily out roll and escape a La-7 under the right circumstances.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig1.jpg
The New IL2 Database is Coming Soon!

robban75
02-17-2004, 02:05 PM
I get 3 full rolls in 6.4 seconds for the La-7 at dogfight speed.(around 450km/h) For the Fw 190 get 3 rolls in 5.4 seconds. The La5FN in real life took 4 seconds to do a full roll at 400km/h, or 90deg/sec. Was the La-7 really capable of rolling 175deg/sec? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/Dora-9-3.JPG

When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!

ZG77_Nagual
02-17-2004, 02:05 PM
Late 190s love to be fast - esp the dora - in fact they all do - but I was playing with a yak 3 and a p39 last night and was really pleasantly surprised what the dora could do turn-wise.

JG26Red
02-17-2004, 02:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Nagual:
Late 190s love to be fast - esp the dora - in fact they all do - but I was playing with a yak 3 and a p39 last night and was really pleasantly surprised what the dora could do turn-wise.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

what? black out? lol... i always wonder how these guys can make moves and i do the same and i black out while they manevor behind me and kill me... mainliy yak3s and la7s.. sometimes p51s...

IIJG2Roth
02-17-2004, 02:21 PM
Now it's my turn...lol. I have the same book that RedBaroness has...It's a great book! It has all the spec's climb rates speed etc. Red Baroness info is all correct from all the information that I have collected over the years. I believe that it is a great honor to see woman interested in Aviation History and loves airplanes. She (RedBaroness) has privatly corrected herself to me about the BoB Dates, however SHE IS CORRECT ON THE REST OF THE INFO. Too many people it seems like's to focus on what is wrong...and not what is right. To me personally it dosn't matter if it saw service at the BoB...she recognizes her error..so give her a break. Now, I too believe most of the planes are under modeled. Here is my list.
P-51* Undermodeled
P-47* Undermodeled...but I do quetion climb rate.
Bf-109F's* Undermodeled
Bf-109k's* Undermodeled
FW-190's* Undermodeled
FW-190D9's* Undermodeled
F2A* Way Overmodeled
LA's* Way Overmodeled
P-39's* Way Overmodeled
Hurricane* Overmodeled
H-111* Perfect
I-153* Way Overmodeled
Yak's* Perfect
Bf-109e's* Perfect
Stuka's* Perfect
Me-262's* Near perfect...They didn't catch fire so easily on startup, however they were known to overheat...( My Grandfather was one of the Scientist's who studied the first captured Me-262 at G.E. in Schenectady NY.)
A6M2's* Near Perfect...I do question the engine-roll effects.
Ki's * Not sure...darn close...leave it alone for now.
I am a pilot...I have many hours logged and have met many pilot's from WWII and Korea. I knew of one who flew the " Jug" in 1944 and he stated that "If the P-47 in Il2fb actually flew like this...Germany would have lost the airwar in 1942-1943." And If The P-51 actually flew like this...Germany would be running the White House." He also mentioned that they all tried desperately to destroy the Luftwaffe on the ground due to his words...Germany had a lot of aircraft we couldn't mess with late 1944-1945, if they had gotten in the air.
The Bf-109k was a perfect match to the P-51D. Many pilots have mentioned that If Germany had more experianced pilots and Bf-109k's and Dora's....not to mention the 262's..we would have lost the Airwar. All Vet's who served in WWII over in Europe couldn't believe there eye's in what they were seeing in technology. Most of the technology advancements from Germany we see in the United States Military today. So S~ to RedBaroness...and others who aren't bias. And if people don't like German Iron due to pollitical reasons...well name one country that didn't have a bad stain in it's history...I know America had several...and I can speak, I'm in The United States Army! And Not all German People were Evil in WWII. Rommel is a good example....and my wifes Cousin who flew for the Luftwaffe who had nothing personal against Jew's. Hitlers High Command killed alot of good Germans who didn't agree with his pollicies. And Stallin was even worse!

II/JG2_Roth...aka LuftwaffeOberst- CFS1, CFS2, CFS3.

Red_Baroness
02-17-2004, 02:39 PM
Ah, no need to drag out the library of doom, unless you think it could be used, Horseback http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif. I had mentioned privately to the "other Red" and to Roth that I might have misjudged the appearance of the Focke in the BoB. Sorry. But yeh, that would have been nice. Alternate history short, happens sometimes. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

But I still stick to the request that the FM of ALL planes be brought to actual specs as close as possible so there will be not a need for this contest of wills and mouths again. I would also like to see wingtip stalls reduced for all planes as well. Note I said all planes, those who would like to detract what I say as "Luftwhining".

If my uncle were alive today and not afraid of computers, as the older set tends to be (he lost his life in the Eastern Front in his Zerstorer Haifisch after downing 5 tasty Russkis.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif )I think the old man would be screaming at the inaccuracies of the FMs for ALL the planes, more so the ones he knew, either flying them OR shooting them down.

Once my choice of Focke (I've flown nothing but since the start of my Simpilot career with CFS2 - with the exception of the RB II kick I had for a while - and that Dr1 is a totally different plane! Ditto for the Albie V...)gets up to her designated maximum alt for perfect handling, like I said earlier, the "flying pig" becomes more agile than my horse on the ground, but it still needs improvement.

And, I always thought the BoB ended with the bombing campaigns - oh well, the Germans always were a bit better in the record keeping department than most. *ducks thrown crumpets* HEY!

~S~

RedB

----,---'--&gt;@
Karena von Richthofen
"Velvet glove, iron fist"
Deustches Eisen

ZG77_Nagual
02-17-2004, 02:42 PM
Well, I got a friend who did his doctorate on Rommel and would beg to disagree - not that I do.

I do know oleg modeled the 190s to factory specs. (so the problem is probably overmodelling of other planes - though I find them all beatable in general in the 190s) And we do not have an f2f in this simm - what we have is a very different bird - a well known and attested fact. It is modeled on Finnish data and finnish pilot accounts. Not much room for argument since they are they only ones who flew it in combat. The f2f was quite a bit heavier http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Currently I find the dora and K a definit match for anything I run into - in fact the K is on my 'do not fly' list - along with the la7 and yak3 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I won't call myself an historian - but the 190 is still may fav in this simm.

MandMs
02-17-2004, 02:47 PM
When the Spits finally show up, comparisons to the Fw190s can be made.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Time will tell if the FW is modelled correctly. Well that still depends on how well the Spits are modelled.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

blabla0001
02-17-2004, 02:58 PM
"however SHE IS CORRECT ON THE REST OF THE INFO"

She didn't show any info really, all she did was post some text from a book that only make claims without reference as backup.

The FW190 was a good plane but it did NOT outperform other Allied aircraft in every way, just like ALL aircraft that flew in WWII it had it's weaknesses.

LilHorse
02-17-2004, 03:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Red_Baroness:
Ah, no need to drag out the library of doom, unless you think it could be used, Horseback http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif. I had mentioned privately to the "other Red" and to Roth that I might have misjudged the appearance of the Focke in the BoB. Sorry. But yeh, that would have been nice. Alternate history short, happens sometimes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, so remember that the next time you accuse somebody of pulling info. out of their a$$. The dates for the BoB are known to even the more casual fans of WWII aviation. If you didn't know that why wouldn't you think ppl might question your other info?

MandMs
02-17-2004, 03:20 PM
All know what the main fighter a/c in BoB were without looking them up in any books or searching the web.

GINNER_SK
02-17-2004, 05:47 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cappadocian_317:
Many FW drivers say they are close to real as they are now and need a few minor adjustments.

It's the newbies that complain the loadest
--------------------------
forget it. newbees and kids doesnt care. they take another plane. only history carying people care about this. only!!

crazyivan1970
02-17-2004, 05:52 PM
Read my sig http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

DangerForward
02-17-2004, 06:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Red_Baroness:
Once my choice of Focke (I've flown nothing but since the start of my Simpilot career with CFS2 - with the exception of the RB II kick I had for a while - and that Dr1 is a totally different plane! Ditto for the Albie V...)gets up to her designated maximum alt for perfect handling, like I said earlier, the "flying pig" becomes more agile than my horse on the ground, but it still needs improvement.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With all respect I don't think you can say much with regards to the 190 if it's all you fly. Once you spend a good deal of time in the various Allied planes you'll see they have their faults too. For me I find that I still can get much more 'work' done with the 190 than any other plane. I'm much better with it than the ME109, much as I enjoy the 109. It takes a lot of patience and planning to do well with the 190, but I find I can make more mistakes in it too. The ME109 really makes you pay for messing up.

As far as the Matricardi book, it's one of the first I always go to when I start researching a WWII plane, but it's really just a start. Two columns of text can't really tell the story of a plane. For detailed info on the 190 family I gotta turn to Nowarra, Price, Spick, and others...

DangerFoward

Jumoschwanz
02-17-2004, 08:08 PM
So in summary it seems like the performance and handling is ok to a lot of sim pilots. When I take off in a 190, the first thing i notice is it accelerates really poorly. Is this how a plane with it's power to weight ratio should accelerate? And to me, a 109 addict, it seems to lose e badly in turns and climbs.

Then this is how I hold the wings on my 190: I have a length of clothesline from each wing coming into the cockpit, I knot them together and hold this in my butt-cheeks. This is a problem for me because when I hear one .50caliber slug hit the skin of the airframe I lose concentration and composure "down there", the cord releases and my wings come off.
Yes, a complex damage model will be great. As it stands now, I have flown around in 109s with the latest patch, and had them shot to pieces and the wings stay on and they stay up.

The 190 in FB takes more skill to fly than the 109, it is harder for me to learn. Maybe that is why most online pilots prefer the 109? Those that do well online in the 190, Korolov and Nagual and Rall, and all the other known Hyperlobby 190 greats, get round of applause for keeping it from vanishing from the virtual sky.

I just read all this history about how revered the 190 was back in it's day, and I did not see this reverence in the past few years flying the il2 series of sims.I knew why I did not like flying the 190 over the 109 and wondered to what degree this observation existed outside my self.

So thanks for your input on my recent posts. My apologies to VFC CrazyIvan; I hate having an ego, it is nothing but trouble for me, I do the best I can with it and a lot of times that is not good enough. (I still think the g2 can turn with the f4 though, thick skull here?).

S!

Jumoschwanz

Red_Baroness
02-17-2004, 08:21 PM
Books. Useless paper thingies with information in them. Hmm. The only reason I said that ppl pull info out of their behinds is due to there being no bibliography to their claims.

I got more information from Aviation Weekly and Flight Journal, and more information on ALL planes will be forthcoming once my paperwork is set and I can take out books from the Army base where Roth and I work. There's a nice one in there about the Spits and I want to read that.

I also fly the 109 from time to time and the Stuka, but I always return to my love the 190. Of course, if Oleg did a WWI sim...*hint hint* we could leave this subject alone. But then again, he'd probably undermodel the D VII and DR1 and I'd be on his six like a ticked off Richthofen boy. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Anywho, this is starting to be a split sort of discussion, with slavering testosterone monkeys on one end with egos to stroke and no respect for women and actual interested and sincerely intelligent folks on the other. To the testosterone monkeys - see you online with the II/JG2 squad. We'll be sure to send you a NICE welcome. Beware of Roth in that K4. He eats La-7s mit sauerkraut for breakfast! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

The other Red

----,---'--&gt;@
Karena von Richthofen
"Velvet glove, iron fist"
Deustches Eisen

Jumoschwanz
02-17-2004, 11:11 PM
Am I a testosterone monkey? I think that would make a good Hyperlobby name! Can I use it? (xxx has just been blown out of the sky by Testoterone Monkey!).

Jumoschwanz

blabla0001
02-18-2004, 12:44 PM
"no respect for women"

You don't show respect either and so far you have not presented any facts other then a few quote's from some book that are pretty vague on the subject.

And if you expect other people to give you respect just because your a woman you should wake up and smell the coffee.

Women wanted to be treated as equals, so they fought for it and they got it.
I have respect for them, and just like them you have to earn it first.

In case you haven't noticed, we are currently in the 21th century , not the 18th.

PS: Besides, we don't even know if you really are a woman to begin with.
Isn't the internet just great since you can be what you want over there? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

[This message was edited by Cappadocian_317 on Wed February 18 2004 at 12:05 PM.]

LilHorse
02-18-2004, 01:02 PM
Actually, Cap, we're in the 21st century now. Unless, that is, there's been some sort of change in plans.

But, Barroness, if you wish to shoot me down then you'll likely have to fly VVS since I fly LW about 98% of the time.

blabla0001
02-18-2004, 01:05 PM
Your right LilHorse, I always mix that stuff up.

Hah, I could still edit it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif