PDA

View Full Version : FW-190 forward view...



Gooner01
09-16-2004, 07:02 PM
A recent thread started by Zekeman asked what real pilots thought of IL-2. This very interesting topic quickly led to the review of IL-2 by Capt. Eric Brown, RN, the well-known WWII test pilot. Several posters asked what he thought of the forward view from the FW190 cockpit. I didn't notice that there was an answer to that query (or else I missed it among the many posts in that thread). But I have an answer...I have many back issues (hundreds!) of the excellent British aviation journal "Air Enthusiast/Air International" from the 70's and 80's. Captain Brown was a frequent contributor, especially writing in the magazine's "Viewed from the Cockpit" feature, in which an historical article concerning a particular a/c's history was accompanied by an article by a pilot who had flown it. Capt Brown wrote many of these, and I was able to find his remarks concerning the FW190. This is from the Feb. 1976 issue of Air International (Vol 10, No. 2)

(Capt Brown writes)
"...I was pleasantly surprised to find, after clambering into the somewhat narrow cockpit,that the forward view was still rather better than was offered by the Bf 109, the Spitfire, or the Mustang."

It was an -A4 that Capt Brown was flying, the a/c having landed in error at RAF West Malling on 17 April 1943.

So that's what Capt Brown thought of the FW190's forward view...not being myself a pilot, nor ever having sat in an FW190, it's still hard for me to agree on the basis of my IL2 experience...I can't see squat out of that bird!

PS: when Capt Brown did NOT write the "Viewed from the Cockpit" piece, the most frequent other author was a MR H A "Tony" Taylor...I wonder if he's any relation to our own community's TaylorTony, who contributes so many interesting posts to this forum, and who has mentioned that he works in the aviation field...?

Gooner01
09-16-2004, 07:02 PM
A recent thread started by Zekeman asked what real pilots thought of IL-2. This very interesting topic quickly led to the review of IL-2 by Capt. Eric Brown, RN, the well-known WWII test pilot. Several posters asked what he thought of the forward view from the FW190 cockpit. I didn't notice that there was an answer to that query (or else I missed it among the many posts in that thread). But I have an answer...I have many back issues (hundreds!) of the excellent British aviation journal "Air Enthusiast/Air International" from the 70's and 80's. Captain Brown was a frequent contributor, especially writing in the magazine's "Viewed from the Cockpit" feature, in which an historical article concerning a particular a/c's history was accompanied by an article by a pilot who had flown it. Capt Brown wrote many of these, and I was able to find his remarks concerning the FW190. This is from the Feb. 1976 issue of Air International (Vol 10, No. 2)

(Capt Brown writes)
"...I was pleasantly surprised to find, after clambering into the somewhat narrow cockpit,that the forward view was still rather better than was offered by the Bf 109, the Spitfire, or the Mustang."

It was an -A4 that Capt Brown was flying, the a/c having landed in error at RAF West Malling on 17 April 1943.

So that's what Capt Brown thought of the FW190's forward view...not being myself a pilot, nor ever having sat in an FW190, it's still hard for me to agree on the basis of my IL2 experience...I can't see squat out of that bird!

PS: when Capt Brown did NOT write the "Viewed from the Cockpit" piece, the most frequent other author was a MR H A "Tony" Taylor...I wonder if he's any relation to our own community's TaylorTony, who contributes so many interesting posts to this forum, and who has mentioned that he works in the aviation field...?

Bearcat99
09-16-2004, 07:05 PM
Hmmmmm Ya know... this thread looks like a whine from the title but it's actually quite good... and interesting http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Thats probably why it is being avoided so far. I wonder if he ever flew in a P-47 D10.... or any P-47 before the bubble top. Id be curious to know. Do you have anything on that?

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
Sturmovik Essentials (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=51910959)
IMMERSION BABY!!

Gooner01
09-16-2004, 07:42 PM
Bearcat - yeah, I probably should have thought of a better title...definitely not meant to be a whine...I could not find any articles by Eric Brown about the P-47...there might be one, but I haven't found it yet. For the record, the a/c I have his columns for, besides the 190 are the following:Ju-52, Ju-87, Ju-88, Bf-109, Bf-110,
He-219, He-177, He-162, ME-163b, ME-262, Do-217, Do-335, FW-189, FW-200,and AR-234b. All German. Brown must have been the mag's Luftwaffe expert...

S! Gooner

Chuck_Older
09-16-2004, 07:49 PM
I have talked to folks about isotropic refraction and yeah, there might be something to it, and definitely, I have seen pics of Fw190s with the armored glass in place and the view isn't horrid although you're still looking down a tunnel, and the gunsight is both larger and up higher...

but honestly, the FW190s performance is what's wrong in FB. If it's performance was tweaked to be more correct, the forward view would be seen as annoying, and not crippling. I like the 190 and it's fun chopping up things with it, but even a hack like me can hit waht he aims at with a little practice.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/clarkchampion.jpg
Flower of Scotland, when will we see your like again?

ImpStarDuece
09-16-2004, 07:53 PM
I have several books on the 190 an ALL of them mention the excellent vision that the cockpit of the Butcher Bird afforded.

However, the biggest compliments and comments always seem to be for the 'search view' ie the wiew to the left and right of the pilot for seeing the rest of the world around him.

AS i cannot access my resources any more http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/cry.gif
does anyone have the Signal walkaround of the 190 and 'The FW 190 in Combat'? Both have very good descriptions of pilot impressions of the view from the 190s cockpit, both foward and to the side.

ImpStarDuece,

Flying Bullet Magnet... Catching Lead Since 2002

"There's no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks!"

"...war is nothing but the continuation of policy with other means."
- Carl von Clauswitz (1827)

Chuck_Older
09-16-2004, 07:55 PM
Wait, though

You have to take "excellent view" in context with '30s and '40s aircraft, not what you yourself consider what an "excellent view" should be.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/clarkchampion.jpg
Flower of Scotland, when will we see your like again?

ImpStarDuece
09-16-2004, 08:02 PM
Good point Chuck,

However most of the sources i have read were direct comparisons with existing WW2 fighters. LW pilots comparing between the 110, 109 and 190 and British pilots coparing between the Spit, Hurricane, Typhoon and the 190.

Funnily enought i can't recall many comparisions done between US aircraft and the 190, at least in terms of visibility from the cockpit.

Does anyone have some good links referring to the 190s view from the cockpit? Surely all those 190 foward bar threads have to have generated something useful.

ImpStarDuece,

Flying Bullet Magnet... Catching Lead Since 2002

"There's no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks!"

"...war is nothing but the continuation of policy with other means."
- Carl von Clauswitz (1827)

Gooner01
09-16-2004, 08:25 PM
I have the Signal "FW-190 in Action" (#170) and it says "...transparent, rearward-sliding canopy which blended into the contours of the fuselage spine and provided excellent all round vision". The earlier Signal "FW 190 in Action" (#19) does comment that "One serious drawback of the FW-190 design was the lack of forward vision during taxying and takeoff". I only have the "Walk Around" for the 190D, and it offers no comment on the visibility from the cockpit, despite several excellent photos of same...

Gooner

Skarp-Hedin
09-16-2004, 10:17 PM
I agree. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

well since the IL2FB devs will not fix the problem I can only hope pacific fighters will let you mod the head height. I did this in LOMAC and it helps in the gunzo fights http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

but all in all il2fb is showing it's age. pacific fighters here I come http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

~[AeA]-Skarp
http://tmfiles.net/aea1/index.php

VW-IceFire
09-16-2004, 10:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
I have talked to folks about isotropic refraction and yeah, there might be something to it, and definitely, I have seen pics of Fw190s with the armored glass in place and the view isn't horrid although you're still looking down a tunnel, and the gunsight is both larger and up higher...

but honestly, the FW190s performance is what's wrong in FB. If it's performance was tweaked to be more correct, the forward view would be seen as annoying, and not crippling. I like the 190 and it's fun chopping up things with it, but even a hack like me can hit waht he aims at with a little practice.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/clarkchampion.jpg
Flower of Scotland, when will we see your like again?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ironically its my best fighter at the moment. I score more kills with the FW190 than I do with the Spitfire these days. I'm starting to understand why FW pilots felt that they had superior manuverability...they really did. In some instances.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RAF No 92 Squadron
"Either fight or die"

Franzen
09-16-2004, 11:41 PM
The 190A4 is the way to go for me. I get a lot of kills and can run away if I need to.

I have to go to Germany this year for work. I was planning on visiting Flugwerk in Gammelsdorf, near where I'll be staying. My intention is to sit in the 190 cockpit and see for myself.

So far I've read many threads that argue the cockpit view in FB is wrong. It sounds like they are right and I personally believe they ARE right, but that's believing. Now, what if I sit in the cockpit and then know the game is wrong? It's obvious that Oleg has no intention of changing this.

I'm not sure I should sit in the cockpit now. As children we have doubts about Santa Claus but when we are told the truth we are quite disappointed.

Fritz Franzen

Zen--
09-17-2004, 12:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gooner01:
The earlier Signal "FW 190 in Action" (#19) does comment that "One serious drawback of the FW-190 design was the lack of forward vision during taxying and takeoff".
Gooner<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes but that is also true of most WW2 tail draggers...poor vis forward on the ground is par for the course. Why they felt the need to mention that makes no sense to me...look at the P47 or the Spitfire, both have poor forward vis also, just as an example.



@Chuck Older...I don't think performance is the main issue with 190, its all the little things that run against the grain of the sim that reduce the 190's effectiveness...this is a TnB sim by design and no energy fighter or true BnZ fighter really shines as well as they might.

The lack of distinct advantage in zoom climb or dive for the heavier fighters is one thing and affects more than just the 190...another is the 3D proportions of the 190 cockpit when flattened onto a 2D monitor, which distorts the canopy bars and makes them larger in game than they were on the actual fighter. Total forward looking visible area on the 190 is considerably less than in other fighters, in large part because of the monolithic canopy framing which is really not that big at all on the real plane.


Because the 190 is not suited for TnB, everything relies on snap shots during BnZ for effectiveness because you can't turn with the enemy well enough to be a threat. The 190 we have is notorious for being a poor deflection shooter because of the forward view, but those are really the bulk of the shots you can take when flying the plane properly and according to doctrine, and yet the sight itself hinders that very shot dramatically.

Add in our gnomish virtual pilot who sits on the floor of the 190 without even a phone book to boost him and you have a generally bad forward view indeed.

Muzzle flash properties have always been too bright for most planes in the game...guess where your MG's are? Right down the nose, blinding in all their glory. And with no way to remove them from firing on the Anton's, you lose half your 20's if you decide not to shoot them because two of your 4 20mm's are linked to these cowl mounted MG's. (contrast to real FW which had fuses the pilot could use to select the method of trigger combinations he liked, at least so I've heard). (side note: real 190 pilots used their cowl mounted MG's because, gasp, they were actually usefull!)

Kommandergarat...a wonderful invention to simplify various controls in the 190 and something that in real life reduced a pilots workload allowing him to concentrate more fully on the battle. The device effectively automated a great part of the flight controls and was extremely innovative for its time. In game this device robs you of approximately 200-300 rpm depending on which 190 you fly, so to get to your listed performance specs you need to take the time to learn how to coax the 190 on manual controls and then fiddle with them often during sim combat...pretty much the opposite of real life.

Meanwhile our beloved fixed prop aircraft (basically all non LW types) have virtually nothing to fiddle with and enjoy all the benefits of maximum listed performance of their aircraft and are able to fly in a hands off manner, minus the occaisonal changing of the mixure control as they cross 4-5K. Thankfully our 190 pilot does not have to be bothered with that, our mixture control is automated!

Another small detail is overheating and this has remained fairly constant through the game. D9's overheat within about 4 minutes at maximum power assuming the radiator is wide open and the engine will be destroyed within another 7 or so unless power is reduced below 100% to cool the engine. In a protracted battle, for example in a climbing engagement at high altitude, this means that the stellar performance of the D9 can only be realistically used for 5-8 minutes unless you want to slowly cook your engine. Since the D9's climb rate is not fantastically greater than most other planes (infact less than many 109's), whatever advantage it does have is largly nullified by the constant need to reduce power to cool the engine...during a long fight. Some people like to point out that the overheat goes away as soon as you go below 100% power...it DOES yes indeed, but it is very proportional to how long the engine has been overheating, it does not instantly reset itself as some suggest. Run it hot for a long time, it will take a while to cool off.

When you are flying against planes with great climbrates like spits or La's for example, maximum performance is essential because thats all you have...speed and climbrate. It really doesn't matter if you can fly all day at 99% without overheating...if he can fly a long time at 110% and get all his performance, he's going to catch you while your D9 flies along at 99% with a nice cool engine.

For variants like the Ta152, a drop from 110% +MW50 to unboosted 99% power means a drop in climb rate of 23m/s to 17m/s or even less...so the difference in unboosted vs boosted performance is significant, infact essential to the performance of the plane, yet the enemy can count on 11 minutes to engine failure unless you play the energy yo-yo game of throttling up to gain seperation, then cooling down while he catches up. Try this at very high altitude when you can, it's quite entertaining.

The Antons are an interesting bunch also because while they tend to take a long while to overheat (quite possibly too long even), they simply don't have the climbing performance of the Dora to begin with, so in effect they are the equivalent of the Dora running at a lower power for a longer duration. To help understand what thats like in a tight engagement, reread the above examples of the D9 at lower power or the Ta152 when unboosted. The Anton is pretty much limited to ground attack or pure BnZ unfortunately.

Another serious issue is the new CDM for the 190...at first a blessing compared to the old hit box one we used to have, it has in 2.04 become a not so funny joke in the 190 community. Your instrument panel is shot out with alarming frequency, bad fuel leaks will dump 100% fuel in less than 5 minutes (no exaggeration), holes appear in the wing that dramatically rob you of speed, and controls are destroyed much too often...all this by what feels to be light or glancing hits from enemy fire, especially MG fire.

Either the DM has issues or the feedback given to the pilot when attacked is grossly distorted because it is a common occurance to feel the shudder of a couple bullets, see a couple of tracers and be sitting in a cockpit where you have no ailerons and your fuel is vanishing darn near instantly. It needs some serious work imho.

The wonderful Ta152 gunsight bug is alive and well and combined with the fuel leak problem of all the 190's means that the plane is virtually unable to survive a light peppering from MG fire. It is nearly useless as an energy fighter because it can't take any damage and has sluggish acceleration, poor low speed handling and simply atrocious stalling characteristics. It is the only plane I know that can enter a flat spin resulting in a crash simply by pulling a SUSTAINED turn at moderately high G. I say this honestly and sincerely...I fly the plane everyday.

(I see that you are skeptical Chuck, and don't think the plane can be this bad. I see that you are an experienced flier and think perhaps I am exaggerating...but that you are really to shy to ask for....gasp...TRACKS?

Don't worry, I have plenty of em! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )



In the end, the main issue is to me is not so much that the 190 is missing performance, its that there are numerous little things (and not so little) that add up to make it a difficult and time consuming plane to fly. Pilots are often chided for not BnZing with the plane or not using it properly and pilots are usually blamed for flying it wrong if they complain about it. Everybody always has the pefect reason why the 190 wasn't used correctly, as though they know best because they fly TnB planes all day. Others will chuckle when they see 190's in the midst of furball on the deck surrounded by angry TnB hornets and think to themselves "Well there's your problem, you aren't flying it right".

But why is the 190 down there in the first place...Is he new? Does he not understand how to BnZ? Is he just plain dumb?

Maybe that very 190 pilot we all chuckle about was only very recently in a tight high altitude fight with someone and had to leave because he overheated during sustained max power manuevering. Perhaps he took a couple of bursts of MG fire here and there and was forced to dive and run because its was his only chance to make it out of there. Sometimes pilots make mistakes in the 190, its not a perfect plane by anymeans and we are all human. But I think more often than most of us realize, the 190 is in a bad spot because he simply didn't have enough options to get out of trouble and so ended up either making mistakes in desperation or was victim of an accumulation of errors that forced him further and further down until the energy ran out. The 190 is not a plane that flies well in a low energy state...it needs lots of speed, altitude and room to manuever.



Any pilot is welcome to disagree, but I stand fast on my opinion that the 190 is MUCH MUCH harder to fly and survive in than any spit, yak, La or Ki ever will be and is much harder to fly than even other BnZ types like the mustang or even P47. (Before you crucify me, keep in mind I fly them all...alot and like to compare them against each other)



Lastly, note that I fly the 190 and the Ta152 nearly everyday and have for years now from the original A5 in IL2 all the way to the Ta152 now...this is my personal opinion from years of flying it and playing this game. It's just not well suited for this game, never has been and probably never will be. I think thats just the nature of the sim itself.

Don't get me wrong, you can succeed in it but the level of practice needed is considerably higher than TnB types or even other BnZ fighters and no matter what, across the long run, it never scores as consistently as other types do.

And thats why I feel its not so much performance in particular that is wrong with the 190, but a horde of smaller things instead.



&lt;S&gt;

-Zen-

[This message was edited by Zen-- on Thu September 16 2004 at 11:49 PM.]

Zen--
09-17-2004, 12:44 AM
Did I spell Kommadergarat right?

-Zen-

HansKnappstick
09-17-2004, 01:07 AM
It is Kommandoger√¬§t.

BaldieJr
09-17-2004, 01:18 AM
Please PT me when the Cliff Notes of this thread are finished.

http://www.acphosting.com/BandR.jpg

JG54_Arnie
09-17-2004, 01:25 AM
Hear hear!!! Great post Zen!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

---------------------------
EasternHotshots online for your entertainment, come visit us at Hyperlobby! If you like the Eastern Front that is. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

We fly with limited planesets for 1941, 1942, 1943 and 1944, the year changing every 1 hour and 45 minutes.
Questions, recommendations or compaints: PT me.
Want to join through ip? : 130.89.227.135

CHDT
09-17-2004, 02:16 AM
Zen, a very good post. Perfect resume of the situation.

JtD
09-17-2004, 02:56 AM
Hi Zen,

I agree with most of the things you said. Good post. However, I disagree with this bit

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Any pilot is welcome to disagree, but I stand fast on my opinion that the 190 is MUCH MUCH harder to fly and survive in than any spit, yak, La or Ki ever will be and is much harder to fly than even other BnZ types like the mustang or even P47. (Before you crucify me, keep in mind I fly them all...alot and like to compare them against each other)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

and since you asked for it, heres my reply. I don't really think the 190 is any harder to fly than a lot of other planes. It's just different. You need more brain and less heart in this plane than in other designs. Don't TnB and the FW is one of the easiest planes to survive in. Whenever I pick a Russian ride apart from La-7 I can be quite certain I won't make it back to base in one piece. It's impossible to fight in these birds as long as they are fast, and if you go slow, you might win a fight but will lose the battle. The only other plane that gives me equally good chances of survival is the P-51, but it lacks the punch of the 190.

The following point all contribute to it's survivability and you will have a hard time finding other planes doing equally well or better in all points:
- very high speed at med and low altitude
- exceptional speed in shallow dives
- exceptional diving limit
- excellent high speed handling
- very tough

Imho if you go slow (sustained turn or climb), you're dead. Ask yourself how often you have been shot down while going 500+kph, be it fighters, gunners or AAA. And at these speeds, no other plane matches the Wuergers performance.

F19_Ob
09-17-2004, 03:12 AM
Hi gooner01

I like the cockpits in FB, but there is one thing that I think is forgotten in the discussions about Views.

I used to teach art and a portion of that was to explain how to look at objects and how perspective works.
The problem with the bars in FW190 is not their thickness but the fact that we have two eyes and the fb camera only is one eyed and very close to the cockpit bars. The human two eyness field of view works very efficiently at close ranges.
The one eyed camera in FB is not a problem when u have enough distance to an object, but if its to close it will get distorted and become bigger(thicker)than it really is.
The quickest way to explain is if u test yourself by holding up a finger 20cm from your face and look with one eye at the time and look at the background. The result is that u can see past the finger and actually see behind. Now if u hold up the finger as far away from u as u can and do same test u see that it doesnt have the same great difference than when it was closer.
This is partly why the view becomes such a blocker if it is close to the view source (distortion too), and the soulution could be to enable same shift+F1 zoom as in the me262 where u move the object further away from the view source = problems solved. If the view also is zoomed out u get more sky around to track in.

I have sometimes wondered why they didnt make the shift+F1zoom the same in all ac.

a few thoughts http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

DarthBane_
09-17-2004, 03:55 AM
Zen, that was the best review about huge problems this game has. It realy takes the nerv to point otherwise.

Franzen
09-17-2004, 04:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG54_Arnie:
Hear hear!!! Great post Zen!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

---------------------------
EasternHotshots online for your entertainment, come visit us at Hyperlobby! If you like the Eastern Front that is. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

We fly with limited planesets for 1941, 1942, 1943 and 1944, the year changing every 1 hour and 45 minutes.
Questions, recommendations or compaints: PT me.
Want to join through ip? : 130.89.227.135<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Arnie, I just checked out your server. It looks cool but no one there at this hour I guess. Can you tell me more about your squadron? Do you have a website? I'm with JG/54 in China but the language is a bit of a problem.

Fritz Franzen

Friendly_flyer
09-17-2004, 04:44 AM
Some of the problems with the way view works in FB is the lack of head movement. In a fairly narrow cockpit, like in the FW-190, a small movement of your upper body would bring your eyes right up to the side glass, giving you a very good forward/downward view. In a broad cockpit, like on the I-185, you would have to wiggle all over the place to get the same look at the scenery. Ironically, in a fixed view situation, like in FB, the reverse is true, the view from the I-185 is excellent, and the view from the FW-190 cockpit is bad.

This is not a question about the modelling of the FW-cockpit. It is a question about certain limitations of the sim. Until Oleg find a way to model head movement effectively, he's essentially forced to make a choice between realistic cockpits and realistic field of view. Hopefully, this situation can be remedied in the future.

As for myself, I fly the I-185 offline and am perfectly happy about it.

Fly friendly!

Petter B√¬łckman
Norway

Ankanor
09-17-2004, 05:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JtD:
Hi Zen,

I agree with most of the things you said. Good post. However, I disagree with this bit

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Any pilot is welcome to disagree, but I stand fast on my opinion that the 190 is MUCH MUCH harder to fly and survive in than any spit, yak, La or Ki ever will be and is much harder to fly than even other BnZ types like the mustang or even P47. (Before you crucify me, keep in mind I fly them all...alot and like to compare them against each other)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

and since you asked for it, heres my reply. I don't really think the 190 is any harder to fly than a lot of other planes. It's just different. You need more brain and less heart in this plane than in other designs. Don't TnB and the FW is one of the easiest planes to survive in. Whenever I pick a Russian ride apart from La-7 I can be quite certain I won't make it back to base in one piece. It's impossible to fight in these birds as long as they are fast, and if you go slow, you might win a fight but will lose the battle. The only other plane that gives me equally good chances of survival is the P-51, but it lacks the punch of the 190.

The following point all contribute to it's survivability and you will have a hard time finding other planes doing equally well or better in all points:
- very high speed at med and low altitude
- exceptional speed in shallow dives
- exceptional diving limit
- excellent high speed handling
- very tough

Imho if you go slow (sustained turn or climb), you're dead. Ask yourself how often you have been shot down while going 500+kph, be it fighters, gunners or AAA. And at these speeds, no other plane matches the Wuergers performance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, I will start with the "very tough"

Certainly, FW190 is very tough. but durability means nothing once you are hit and lose stability and speed. And that is what happens when you are hit in the Wurger. Yeah that guy on your six will need some time killing you. BUT, he will kill you. Period.

Excellent High speed handling. True. But once You are hit, you have neither Excellent high speed, nor handling. And please, don't come out with the "avoid being hit" There are too few bullet dodgers living.

Exceptional diving limit. True. It works only when you need to run away screaming. You lose any opportunity(spelling?) to enter the fight again. And you can use that advantage only if you have 2 things present:
1. enough altitude to spend
2. A rookie Red pilot who has lived in a cave and doesn't know he may break up if he follows

Exceptional speed in shallow dives. Define "shallow". Define the duration of the dive. Really exceptional compared to the speed of a Yak1 starting 1500m below. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/mockface.gif

Very high speed at medium and low altitudes. If you fly at low altitude, you are begging to be shot down. And high speed means nothing if you cannot keep it. You don't want to cook your engine, do you?

Ever wondered why every advice on flying the Wurger starts with "... get at least 1000m above him"
Ever thought why there are almost none advices on "how to fly a Yak/LA5/LA7/Spitfire?"

I will stop here

O, how I want to hold you,
To feel your breath
And hear your laughter in my ears.
To look into your eyes
And see myself in there.
Caress you with my lips.
To hold your hands in mine
And find the hidden smile in your dimple
That makes you irresistible
And stops the breathing in my chest.
To be with you when you are weeping,
To wipe away the tears and take away the sorrow.
To watch you while you are sleeping
Like there is no tomorrow.

And with a tender kiss to wake you up.

Essen,23.02.2004 20:53

JtD
09-17-2004, 06:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Certainly, FW190 is very tough. but durability means nothing once you are hit and lose stability and speed. And that is what happens when you are hit in the Wurger. Yeah that guy on your six will need some time killing you. BUT, he will kill you. Period.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The loss of stability and speed might be worse as in other planes, but it's neither a unique FW feature nor does it mean certain doom. I got away a couple of times after beeing shot up to some extend.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Excellent High speed handling. True. But once You are hit, you have neither Excellent high speed, nor handling. And please, don't come out with the "avoid being hit" There are too few bullet dodgers living.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I must be one of them. Also, even in a shot up FW you can pull harder at high speeds than in any La. But only if you can.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Exceptional diving limit. True. It works only when you need to run away screaming. You lose any opportunity(spelling?) to enter the fight again. And you can use that advantage only if you have 2 things present:
1. enough altitude to spend
2. A rookie Red pilot who has lived in a cave and doesn't know he may break up if he follows<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can use it for a lot more things. Good for diving down on the unsuspecting victim. Also good if you want to drag down planes that have a worse relative performance at low level, like Spitfires. Also good for making opponents misjudge your E as you come in at same alt but twice the speed. Also good for...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Exceptional speed in shallow dives. Define "shallow". Define the duration of the dive. Really exceptional compared to the speed of a Yak1 starting 1500m below.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like 5‚?. Makes you go 20km distance with 2km alt. Very useful when beeing caught by a La-5FN at 2km alt in an A-5 or A-6. La has better level speed down low, but won't close if you dive a little. The better a plane's climb, the worse it's dive. Simple FB physics. Since FW 190A has a ****ty climb, it's good in a shallow dive.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Very high speed at medium and low altitudes. If you fly at low altitude, you are begging to be shot down. And high speed means nothing if you cannot keep it. You don't want to cook your engine, do you?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you fly at high altitude, you'll never destroy that enemy tank. And you'll never protect the friendly tank. You'll lose ground and will lose the war.
I can keep high speeds. 100% rad closed gives you good enough cruising speed. Faster than many other contemporaries will ever go.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Ever wondered why every advice on flying the Wurger starts with "... get at least 1000m above him"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because it has an exceptional dive limit, excellent high speed handling and enough firepower to use the best tactics around like no other plane: B'n'Z.
My advice is "get at least above the clouds" so not every advice starts with "1000m above him". ;-)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Ever thought why there are almost none advices on "how to fly a Yak/LA5/LA7/Spitfire?"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To model poor Soviet pilot training.

Anyway, what's the point you are trying to make? Any plane that's better in every mentioned aspect? The FW 190 is hard to survive in?

NorrisMcWhirter
09-17-2004, 06:35 AM
Hi,

Good posts Zen and JtD.

I fly the 190 because I like to shoot things down/have a challenge/keep my virtual pilot alive as though he were me and that pit; IMO, this plane gives you a much greater opportunity in getting back to base intact than nearly any other plane (with the exception of the P47, maybe).

I also have to sympathise with Ankanor with respect to relatively few hits to the wings causing a speed reduction and crippled handling. I do fly other planes and, apart from the 109, I don't recall the effects of damage being of a similar magnitude. It generally won't stop you getting away (but puts a damper on carrying on the fight) unless you've got into a real mess/don't have enough altitude/your bandit is very persistent.

Cheers,
Norris

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

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

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

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

'Bugs? What bugs?'
'AAA steals online kills, crash landing if good landing but out of fuel, muzzle flashes, kill given for planes that have landed OK, AI steals offline kills, gauges not working, Spitfire never overheats, FW190 view, P63 damage model, weird collision modelling...'
'Yeah, but look on the bright side - at least the 0.50s are fixed!'
Moral: $$$ + whining = anything is possible

BlackStar2000
09-17-2004, 06:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Franzen:
The 190A4 is the way to go for me. I get a lot of kills and can run away if I need to.

I have to go to Germany this year for work. I was planning on visiting Flugwerk in Gammelsdorf, near where I'll be staying. My intention is to sit in the 190 cockpit and see for myself.

So far I've read many threads that argue the cockpit view in FB is wrong. It sounds like they are right and I personally believe they ARE right, but that's believing. Now, what if I sit in the cockpit and then know the game is wrong? It's obvious that Oleg has no intention of changing this.

I'm not sure I should sit in the cockpit now. As children we have doubts about Santa Claus but when we are told the truth we are quite disappointed.

Fritz Franzen<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

PLz plz plz plz film it

BBB_Hyperion
09-17-2004, 08:01 AM
Great Post Zen thats excatly the situation
(res ipsa loquitur).

High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion

BBB_Hyperion
09-17-2004, 08:22 AM
Sitting in Cockpit does only allow to check for the bar. We need to wait for inflight video that will be done when flugwerk continues the testflights. Not sure how the russian engine influences the fligth attitude . On real 190 it was nose down.

High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion

carguy_
09-17-2004, 09:29 AM
LOL Zen,what are ya smokin` bud? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Comparing the challenged Wulf with Jug and the Stang?These can hold on their own vs LW fighters! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

Self-proclaimed dedicated Willywhiner since July 2002

ASH at S-MART
09-17-2004, 09:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Please PT me when the Cliff Notes of this thread are finished.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>They will go something like this..

Oleg is RIGHT in that the 3D blue print measurements are RIGHT with regards to the size of the bar at the bottom of the forward view..

The USER is RIGHT in that what the pilot would actually see is WRONG with regards to the size of the bar at the bottom of the forward view.

In summary both are right and both are wrong.. Because neither side will take the time to address the FACT that the 3D art does NOT simulate nor take into account the effect light refraction would have on the size of the bar at the bottom of the forward view.

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

robban75
09-17-2004, 10:01 AM
Zen, outstanding post! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif Wonderful to have you back! S~

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

gates123
09-17-2004, 10:08 AM
I absolutly love the Antons, especially the A-6. With the right tactics, throttle and flap use you can turn with spits and LA's. My survivability goes through the roof online compared to a 109. I have absolutly nothing bad to say about the Antons. They are killer weapons and keep me alive. I find them very durable compared to a 109 against 50 cal. as long as you keep evading and avoid convergence ranges. I will run home if two spits get the advantage on me but who wouldn't. Once you understand the gun lead they are very accurate. I think the 2x30mm is overkill and does hamper preformance for sustained tnb but on the other hand the weapons of the A-6 are more then enough to rip P-47 wings off and have plenty left over for 3 more. Great Plane!

http://www.fightingcolors.com/custompagestuff/b17visibility72.jpg
Did anyone see that or was it just me?