PDA

View Full Version : FW-190 cannon removal question.



XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 03:24 AM
This was probably discussed before but I would really like it if removing my cannons on the A-4 and A-5 actually helped your plane instead of adding a ETC-501 bomb-rack and hindering its performance. Why on earth would anyone choose the outer wing cannon removal option on the A-4 and A-5 if all it does is slow you down? Removing the wing cannons for extra speed was not uncommon, especially early on. Sorry if this was discussed before but I'm just hoping/curious.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 03:24 AM
This was probably discussed before but I would really like it if removing my cannons on the A-4 and A-5 actually helped your plane instead of adding a ETC-501 bomb-rack and hindering its performance. Why on earth would anyone choose the outer wing cannon removal option on the A-4 and A-5 if all it does is slow you down? Removing the wing cannons for extra speed was not uncommon, especially early on. Sorry if this was discussed before but I'm just hoping/curious.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 05:00 AM
I've tried it, found no improvement in performance-


http://members.cox.net/miataman1/wurger.bmp

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 05:01 AM
I know, that is the problem. Not only does it not improve performance, it hurts it significantly due to the addition of the bomb rack. It makes no sense.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 06:17 AM
I would just stick with the guns in place. You need all you can get because the Germans used rubber ammo....


Also, after hearing my beloved 109K-4 [and all others i'm sure] will be slow. And after a Hurricane vs. FW-190A-4 dogfight loss [6 times in a row]

I may now proudly say "Ich bin Ein Luft/Wugerwhiner!"

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 06:53 AM
No shame to lose in a Würger.

Since every kid is flying the girls-only-hurricane or the La(me)-7...

but honestly. I think it's next to futile to lament on the FW190... It's undermodelled. That's for sure. regardless of the view-topic (which a lot of morons use to post spam) it's clear that the plane is not competitive. The d-9 to some extent is, but onyl if oyu know when to run away. In normal dogfights you only succeed if the enemy desn't take you for a threat, which, as we all know, is quite common.

I wonder if the testers ever flew the 190 against all other planes and if they never came across the fact that a lot of german pilots had hundred or more kills that either the russians were real crap pilots (which would be similar to the historical situation regarding their tank-crews. excellent equipment but ZERO-experience and ZERO-tactical leadership..) which i doubt. Anyways, I really respect the guys trying the FW-190 over and over again. It's a beautiful plane. In FB it's good for hunting Bombers (don't mess with an IL2 it will outturn you... LOL) but for most ppl it is known as "easy target" or "flying wreck"...

I love FB but the A and F series are all crap and useless...

It's really strange that all historical accounts say it was a great plane which had it's drawbacks, of course but here in the game it's a flying Barn...

But I'm awaiting the typical replies of all these "la(me)-7" and "hurri"-aces which say "you just need to learn to fly"...

sure boys...

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 08:01 AM
I think you guys may change your opinion after the patch, the 190 is much improved. Anyway, I've been playing FB since it came out and I do pretty well online and offline and this thread isn't meant as any kind of debate or anything.

I'm just wondering why the option to remove the cannons is even there if it only hurts you. I would really like to see the removal of the outer-wing cannons benefit your plane, and this was commonly done as battle conditions dictated.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 08:09 AM
then please be so kind and give us something to drool...

As UBI/maddox is really reluctant in giving detailed news I'd like to hear something specific.

PLEASE !!!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 09:37 AM
Gotcha, I have the test08 and the 190's high speed handling is very good. Elelvator response is good, stalls are lessened, dive builds speed faster, zoom climb is much better, climb is better in general, roll is still incredible. It is MUCH better now but still far from being a "noob" plane, even though I don't believe in that concept. 190 jocks like myself will love the patch unless something drastic changes from 08 to 09.

La-7 is king in my opinion but I won't fly Russian. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 09:57 AM
The A model isnt crap int hids game if u know how to fly it.


http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/giantrobot/megatron.jpg
Which Colossal Death Robot Are You? (http://rumandmonkey.com/widgets/tests/giantrobot/)



Message Edited on 08/11/03 08:59AM by Wingtipss

Message Edited on 08/11/0309:01AM by Wingtipss

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 10:05 AM
Wingtipss, offline I think the 190 is the best plane in the game IMHO.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 10:41 AM
thank s for your infos kyrule2.

But again, can't you smartboys stop speaking in riddles like "you can't fly it" and maybe give some hint how to fly it...

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 10:50 AM
How to fly it?

Easy, trim nose down a little, that will keep speed around 500 km/h and lessen stall tendency. Forget loops, rolls, anything fancy, you dont need that. Run past a target, use the incredible firepower, run away again. Turn around without wasting energy and repeat.

If you have a bandit on your six, dont try anything fancy either...hit the gas, and call for a wingman. Even if no one helps you there's hardly a russian plane that can follow the A4 or A5 until 1944.

The 109 is a Rapier. You can do lots of (aerobatic) tricks with it, like you can with a Rapier, but it does little damage. The 190 by comparison is a bi-handed broadsword. No tricks, just lots of brutal power.

Of course, let your speed drop below 300 km/h frequently, and you'll die. Try to turn with a russian, and you'll die as well.

But use it for the slashing attacks it was meant for, and you'll understand why it was such a fine plane.

Another minor addition to the story: The 190 SUCKS in 1 vs 1 Duels. While it is easy to evade an enemy, it is hard to reverse a fight in the 190. It is a teamwork plane that preys on unwary opponents - just as in real life.

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 11:04 AM
Nowi wrote:

Another minor addition to the story: The 190 SUCKS
- in 1 vs 1 Duels. While it is easy to evade an enemy,
- it is hard to reverse a fight in the 190. It is a
- teamwork plane that preys on unwary opponents - just
- as in real life.

If you search my posts you will find that I have written this about 100 times so I couldn't agree more. I would love to find a squad to fly the 190 with, barring the La-5/7 I think it is/will be the best plane in the game when flown in teams.

The rest of your advice is spot on as well. After the patch I think vertical maneuvers on significantly slower planes (Ex. 190A-5 vs. Yak-1B/9T) will be possible as well. Level out, run away, let your top speed get way above his and go vertical. The zoom will take you higher and let you drop down on your opponent. This isn't possible in FB 1.0 however. And hit & run tactics might not be the most glorious way to down your enemy, but it sure as hell is effective when working with competent and unselfish wingmen.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 11:12 AM
Oh, and nobody has answered my original question either. There is no reason to remove your wing cannons as it is now right? Unless you want a slower, less maneuverable plane. Any info would be appreciated.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 11:20 AM
You see thx for the hints. I see that I already do most of the mentioned stuff but here's my observations to it.

I know that the plane is great for teamwork, but so is everyone, so I don't take this into account.

- If you have a bandit on your six, dont try anything
- fancy either...hit the gas, and call for a wingman.
- Even if no one helps you there's hardly a russian
- plane that can follow the A4 or A5 until 1944.

Which is exactly the situation you face online. Most wannabe-aces fly the LA-7 or YAK-9U.

NOw there's no porblem to outrun a Yak in a 109 ( i do it frequently) but the FW190 a and F variants CRAWL. they're not fast.
Besides they turn(ed..in case kyrule2 s "preview" will work... *hop) like bricks in midair.
I tried it often. I try it over and over again and even though I start 2.000 metres above target and it didn't see me, the time i do my 600km/h approach i made a circle the size of a boeing 747 landing approach.

Now how can it be, that a plane so greatly feared by the allies is so sucking slow and bad turning. I don't want it to turn like a LA or yak. Let the turners be as they are but right now it's ridiculous.

I've read quite a lot of articles like
Spitfire vs. FW190 and it clearly stated that the Spitfire outturned the FW horizontally. In order to evade the turn death trap FW pilots used to either flee into to the vertical or use the high roll rate. This means, if Bandit is on your SIX you break left, turn 90? and then suddenly break right turning 90? or more. The roll rate was described as so fast that most Fighters couldn't turn back in time to see it running.

Now try this feat here.
First there's the "Don't bleed energy in turns"-La which not even stays on your tail but will accelarate better.
I don't know if that was true I am still about the lay my hands on technical data from LA-7. But back to the FW190.

In combat like 109 vs FW the FW will suck.
I outturn, outclimb and outspeed it. Of course I've got weaker armanaent but hey a 30mm cannon is still a 30mm cannon and it is still more use to have a cannon which you can actually bring to bear more often than 2 30mm and 2 20mm and 2 (useless) 13mms which you can use only if
a) your team watches your back (help boys, the enemy has noticed me..)
b) you actually manage to bumb him (which if you witness the online situation is impossible as everybody is going for F6 all t he time...)

Now b) is a factor of the game and not to be discussed but a) is a factor which you can't control. Nobody builds fighters for fleeing the enemy. Fine for hunting bombers. Yepp. As long as they're unescorted.

The only FW190 somewaht usable is the D variant....


IJG54_Nowi wrote:
- How to fly it?
-
- Easy, trim nose down a little, that will keep speed
- around 500 km/h and lessen stall tendency. Forget
- loops, rolls, anything fancy, you dont need that.
- Run past a target, use the incredible firepower, run
- away again. Turn around without wasting energy and
- repeat.
-
- If you have a bandit on your six, dont try anything
- fancy either...hit the gas, and call for a wingman.
- Even if no one helps you there's hardly a russian
- plane that can follow the A4 or A5 until 1944.
-
- The 109 is a Rapier. You can do lots of (aerobatic)
- tricks with it, like you can with a Rapier, but it
- does little damage. The 190 by comparison is a
- bi-handed broadsword. No tricks, just lots of brutal
- power.
-
- Of course, let your speed drop below 300 km/h
- frequently, and you'll die. Try to turn with a
- russian, and you'll die as well.
-
- But use it for the slashing attacks it was meant
- for, and you'll understand why it was such a fine
- plane.
-
- Another minor addition to the story: The 190 SUCKS
- in 1 vs 1 Duels. While it is easy to evade an enemy,
- it is hard to reverse a fight in the 190. It is a
- teamwork plane that preys on unwary opponents - just
- as in real life.
-
-

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 12:21 PM
This one has been pointed out long ago before FB days.I dunno why Oleg ignored it.

"degustibus non disputandum"

<center>http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

<center>"Weder Tod noch Teufel!"</font>[/B]</center> (http://www.jzg23.de>[B]<font)

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 12:23 PM
Shouldn't the A5 roll better/faster without the outer guns?



<center>

http://www.webforum.nu/member/Fornixx/190.JPG</p>
<center>

I'm not scared of dying, I just don't want to</p>

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 12:48 PM
It should do everything better except of course shoot.


Gotcha.... yo man, the FM is changing to be corrected. No point in complaining.

There is a time-honored way to find out what works for any plane in any sim. It takes time and humility but it works. Go find someone who can beat you while using the plane you want to study. Fight them and fly with them every chance you get. Watch them and chat with them, less chat than watch but sometimes you gotta ask (never demand or accuse). See how they fly and see what is possible that you didn't know was. Fly like that and use the tricks or techniques you learn and keep on pushing that plane for more no matter how well you ever get. It doesn't matter what sim you play, as long as it's online then that works guaranteed.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 01:36 PM
kyrule2 wrote:
- And hit & run tactics might not be
- the most glorious way to down your enemy, but it
- sure as hell is effective when working with
- competent and unselfish wingmen.

Hehe, spot on. I suppose in real life no one minded "not being glorious"...the 109 is a plane you can do a full airshow with, sweety knuckle fights etc...but for simple doing the job nothing beats a 190. And you are going to live longer that way.

JS_HH--Gotcha-- wrote:
- Which is exactly the situation you face online. Most
- wannabe-aces fly the LA-7 or YAK-9U.
-
- NOw there's no porblem to outrun a Yak in a 109 ( i
- do it frequently) but the FW190 a and F variants
- CRAWL. they're not fast.
- Besides they turn(ed..in case kyrule2 s "preview"
- will work... *hop) like bricks in midair.
- I tried it often. I try it over and over again and
- even though I start 2.000 metres above target and it
- didn't see me, the time i do my 600km/h approach i
- made a circle the size of a boeing 747 landing
- approach.


Well, there's a number of problems with that statement...

A) When they fly a La-7 or Yak-9U you should be in a D9. A4 and A5 Variants are mid-war planes, and the A8 is a bomber buster more than anything else. Of course a late war russian fighter will kill you in those. But a D9 or perhabs an A9 should be a different matter.

B) They dont crawl anymore after the patch. So this seems to be corrected.

C) Turning circle is still pretty bad. It has to be, at speeds over 500 kmh - seems logical to me. It doesn't matter, really. You just take your time turning, no one can catch you.

Other than that, I have to say flying online dogfights against La-7 Ubertweebs really is not the way to use a 190. Like I wrote above, you can run away with it, but you can hardly reverse a fight in it - so flying 1 vs 1 is useless. Very little real-war fights were that kind of 1 vs 1 anyway.

And back to the original question...I suppose Oleg's material says that they only removed the wing guns when they used it in a bomber role, aka with the rack. If you have material that indicates frequent removal of the guns in the fighter role, let him see it.

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 02:09 PM
Another defensive maneuver to use in the 190 is perform a quick split-s manuever and dive away. The 190's roll rate makes this an easy and effective manuever to perform. Of course, I typically do not use this manuever when I'm already at low altitudes, because the 190 is not the plane you want to be in down on the deck.

I/JG54^Lukas
He 162A-2 Cockpit Modeler

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 02:12 PM
i knew photos from JG51 & JG54 190s without outer guns.

http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A5-44.jpg


would be nice if this would be a armament choice in the future, but only when the FM changes than /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

in general it would have been the better solution if oleg had made 3 different 190 families :

-pure fighters , with possible bombrack ore droptank /R1 ore Fw190A
-Schl¤chter , the close support jabos /U3 , /U17 ore Fw190F
-JaboRei , longe range attack planes /U1 , /U8 ore
Fw190G

also for Coopmissions it would be better. the pilots would be "forced" to fly the Fw in the role the missiondesigner was thinking about /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.jagdgeschwader53.flugzeugwerk.net/diverses/franky.gif

ZG77_Nagual
08-11-2003, 04:11 PM
I've only tried beta 08 - in it there is no more uber hurri/i-16/chaika. The 190s rule the air at high speeds.
My first onlight flight in the a9 bagged two la7s, a hurri, a p-39 and I-16 and a p40 - and damaged a k4, p39 and p47 to where they had to disengage - that is ONE FLIGHT - I ran out of ammo 3v1 but managed to drag that last 39 over the flak till he went down - then landed damaged. I suggest suspending flight model complaints until after the patch is released tomorrow.


http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 04:23 PM
ZG77_Nagual wrote:
- I've only tried beta 08 - in it there is no more
- uber hurri/i-16/chaika. The 190s rule the air at
- high speeds.
- My first onlight flight in the a9 bagged two la7s, a
- hurri, a p-39 and I-16 and a p40 - and damaged a k4,
- p39 and p47 to where they had to disengage - that is
- ONE FLIGHT - I ran out of ammo 3v1 but managed to
- drag that last 39 over the flak till he went down -
- then landed damaged. I suggest suspending flight
- model complaints until after the patch is released
- tomorrow.
-
-


That sounds yummy /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Can't wait!

<center>

http://www.webforum.nu/member/Fornixx/190.JPG</p>
<center>

I'm not scared of dying, I just don't want to</p>

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 04:39 PM
From the book FW190 Aces of the Russian Front
by John Weal

The first two pictures are FW190s without outter wing guns.

I have not yet found a reference written concerning their removal.



IJG54_Nowi wrote:

"But use it for the slashing attacks it was meant
for, and you'll understand why it was such a fine
plane.

Another minor addition to the story: The 190 SUCKS
in 1 vs 1 Duels. While it is easy to evade an enemy,
it is hard to reverse a fight in the 190. It is a
teamwork plane that preys on unwary opponents - just
as in real life."


The above statement is made with such confidence specifically the quote "just as in real life"

Nowi, PLEASE show where any written evidence suggests proof of the conclusion that the FW190 SUCKS in 1 vs 1 Duels in real life.

From the book sited above:

page 13

"I believe the Focke-Wulf was more manoeuvrable than the Messerschmitt - although the latter could make a tighter horizontal turn, if you mastered the Fw 190 you could pull a lot of Gs and do just about as well."

Hauptmann Heinz Lange



Flight sims are not "Real Life".

What is true in the game may not be true in real life, so if you make such a statement please back it up.

Dog fighting in real life is not limited to turning in circles. Many references in history indictate that dog fighting combines the horizontal fight with vertical fight.

Some planes have been know to accel in the vertical fight.

Use of this advantage in a dog fight was common in history and the planes having this advantage over the tighter turning planes were able to dominate with energy tactics.

page 10

"For the Russian Front, therefore, the Fw 190 was to prove the ideal machine, combining ruggedness with manoeuvrability and stability. In short a superb dogfighter - in all but the tightest of horizontal turns - and an excellent gun platform. The contemporary Bf 109 could only match the Fw 109A-3's formidable armament of two 7.9mm machine guns and quartet of 20mm cannon by bolting on two performance-sapping underwing gondolas.
The tactic evolved in the west of fighting the Fw 190 in the 'vertical plane' - in other words, a quick diving pass and rapid zoom recovery - rather than of mixing it on the horizontal, was also suited to the east where the enemy seldom sought the advantage of height and tended to pay scant regard to his rear."

Stop

Think about it.

Don't simply reply that the above describes slashing attacks and therefore proves that the FW 190 was not a good 1 vs 1 plane.

Prove it.

I have much more evidence suggesting that in fact the FW 190 was a "superb dog-fighter" when energy tactics were employed.

This is not the case in the game and as far as I know the only place proof can be found that reinforces the statement that the 190 was not a good 1 vs 1 plane is the game itself.

So please show references.

The "rapid Zoom recovery" suggest a reversal.

Historical acconts suggest the 190 was a capable 1 vs 1 dogfighter.

The game suggests:
"While it is easy to evade an enemy,
it is hard to reverse a fight in the 190."



I'll try to find reference concerning the removal of the outer wing guns.

It would however be less of a subject of concern if the FW 190 were modeled as history suggest it was in the real world as a capable dog fighter.





JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 05:31 PM
Thx Josf ! Great post !

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 05:32 PM
the removing of the guns is useless as it was since the first IL2.


about the 190 at all, the germans counted it as a better 1vs1 dogfigther than the 109

it was an ultra modern design for this times:
1. automatic engine management
2. limited need for trim
3. heavy armor/armament
4. elevated cockpit for better view
5. high g seat
6. plane/controlls optimized for high speed

the biggest advantages for the 190 was the ease and savety to fly. Even for many late ware planes a full speed dive was a dangerous thing with the addition of engine management

a 190 pilot could throw the throutle forward put the nose down and then watch the enemy, no problems with overrewing engine, no structural failures, no rudder locks and no shaking. The engine worked automatic and the plane was stable and fully controllable at any speed up to 900kph and more.

there are a few errors on the 190 in FB, but if you wan't to know why the 190 is what it is in FB you need to look what other planes are missing.



quiet_man

second foundation member of the EURO_Snoopy fan club!

I'm quiet_man, but if I post I post quiet much /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

ZG77_Nagual
08-11-2003, 06:22 PM
You guys really need to wait for the patch - I'm telling ya. In 08 the 190 is very capable at high speeds - VERY - it outclasses all other aircraft in the simm at higher speeds. The dora is the best turner of the 190s - but they are all good fast and will outturn vvs planes at high speeds. VVs aircraft also shed body parts in a dive well before the 190s even start to get uncomfortable.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 06:28 PM
- there are a few errors on the 190 in FB, but if you
- wan't to know why the 190 is what it is in FB you
- need to look what other planes are missing.

This will turn into a debate here. Agreed, that maybe some things are missing for other planes too, but have you heard any complaints of that mass and volume as for the FW190 ?

Isn't it odd that although there'Re known issues like the "unrealistic" forward visibility of the La(mer)-7 they wont be corrected.
I agree that all ppl have their favorite planes and of course would like to see them depicted in a glorious way.

I would be happy if the planes would be flyable. right now we have the following situation.
From the most flown allied planes
two are overmodelled.
The hurri with its kids-fm.
The La with it's unrealistic "enhanced" visibility.

So here we go and see two of three most flown planes enhanced and you say there're planes the other planes are missing stuff ?

I think the so called wurgerwhiners would be happy with aving the basics. Right now it occurs to me, taht no tester ever flew this plane in dogfights very often.

A blind man can see the obvious..


Now I can say that. I don't think it to be a bad decision to buy FB (hey they got my money already) but as always things could be better. RIght now I can say that I never ever feared a 190 in the game. It sucks. Plain and honest. As soon as somebody takes notice of you in a FW190 you're either running for your life or die. It simply sucks in every aspect of DF.
I hope they'll patch it as kyuru2 said. It would be great to see another bird in the saky. right nbow the game is dominated by yaks and LAs.. Boring....and unrealistic but as always history is dictated by winners...
quiet_man wrote:
-
- the removing of the guns is useless as it was since
- the first IL2.
-
-
- about the 190 at all, the germans counted it as a
- better 1vs1 dogfigther than the 109
-
- it was an ultra modern design for this times:
- 1. automatic engine management
- 2. limited need for trim
- 3. heavy armor/armament
- 4. elevated cockpit for better view
- 5. high g seat
- 6. plane/controlls optimized for high speed
-
- the biggest advantages for the 190 was the ease and
- savety to fly. Even for many late ware planes a full
- speed dive was a dangerous thing with the addition
- of engine management
-
- a 190 pilot could throw the throutle forward put the
- nose down and then watch the enemy, no problems with
- overrewing engine, no structural failures, no rudder
- locks and no shaking. The engine worked automatic
- and the plane was stable and fully controllable at
- any speed up to 900kph and more.
-
- there are a few errors on the 190 in FB, but if you
- wan't to know why the 190 is what it is in FB you
- need to look what other planes are missing.
-
-
-
-
- quiet_man
-
- second foundation member of the EURO_Snoopy fan
- club!
-
- I'm quiet_man, but if I post I post quiet much /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 08:03 PM
Guys, like I said, the 190 WILL be much better, I guarantee it. The only plane that can hang with a 190 in my test08 games is the La-5/7. When facing these planes use team tactics or run/disengage.

And as for my original question it is a shame this has been ignored since IL-2. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif A quote from FW-190 "in action" series:

"....the MGFF cannons were frequently removed to reduce weight and increase speed with pilots relying on the faster firing, more accurate 151's."

This is in reference to the A-2, before the 190 started being considered for ground attack duty so the removal of the cannons was strictly to make the plane faster for airial combat. Another quote regarding the A-3:

"Radio equipment and armament was the same as that found on the A-2, including the frequent removal of the outer wing cannons for considerations of weight and speed."

From what I understand this occurred throughout the war. It was not designated as a "field conversion" kit, but rather it was pilot preference.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 10:05 PM
kyrule2 wrote:
- Guys, like I said, the 190 WILL be much better, I
- guarantee it. The only plane that can hang with a
- 190 in my test08 games is the La-5/7. When facing
- these planes use team tactics or run/disengage.
-
- And as for my original question it is a shame this
- has been ignored since IL-2. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif A quote from FW-190 "in action"
- series:
-
- "....the MGFF cannons were frequently removed to
- reduce weight and increase speed with pilots relying
- on the faster firing, more accurate 151's."
-
- This is in reference to the A-2, before the 190
- started being considered for ground attack duty so
- the removal of the cannons was strictly to make the
- plane faster for airial combat.

WAIT A SEC! I thought the A-2 had MG-FF's inboard, MG-17's on the cowl, and some late ones had MG-17's in the outboard wing spots.

Wonder why there's no A-2 in IL-2?

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 10:11 PM
VOL_Jon, Here are the armaments:

A-1: 2 Mg17's in cowl, 2 Mg17's inboard, 2MGFF outboard.

A-2 through A-5: 2 Mg17's in cowl, 2 151' inboard, 2 MGFF outboard.

A-6: 2 Mg17's in cowl, 4 151's in wings.

A-7 through A-9: 2 13mm 131's in cowl, 4 151's in wings.

I would love to have an A-1 or A-2 for 1941 planeset, it would be pretty damn good in '41.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 11:32 PM
JG14_Josf wrote:

- The above statement is made with such confidence
- specifically the quote "just as in real life"
-
- Nowi, PLEASE show where any written evidence
- suggests proof of the conclusion that the FW190
- SUCKS in 1 vs 1 Duels in real life.
- JG14_Josf

Stop whining, Josf, because that is what you are doing.

In real life there were hardly any 1 vs 1 Duels, were there?

In real life people did not take off from airfields perhabs 5 km apart, climb like mad and then engange each other knowing that someone was there somewhere, all that without the help of a wingman.

If you want to claim that 190's did so well in Dogfights, then the burden of proof is squarely on YOUR shoulders. Bring us quotes of two, or better three instances where a 190 made a 1 vs 1 duel against enemy planes without the help of wingmen and reversed a fight after being chased by the enemy.

You are talking about a complete artifical situation that hardly ever happened in the real war. Dont make me laugh.

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 11:36 PM
From all i´ve read about the FW-190 and Bf-109, the FW-190 was aparently the better overall fighter aircraft of the two. A recommended read on the subject is Wings of the Luftwaffe: Flying German Aircraft of the Second World War ISBN:1853104132 by RAF Test Pilot Eric "Winkle" Brown.

Eric Brown flew and evaluated more than 55 types of german aircraft during and after the war, and probably as much allied AC. His views are of coarse subjective on the matter and are more or less a snapshot as everything when it comes to evaluating AC performance, as it´s unlikely have the exact same testing conditions and repeat the exact same flight data in full production aircraft as they had been verified earlier by test pilots. War time production aircraft are especially a bad case considering manufacturing tolerances, material availability, eventual "coloring" of performance data by the manufacturer etc.

Translated from the german edition of the book:

....i was pleasantly surprised after i climbed into the FW-190´s (A-4/U8) rather cramped cockpit, the field of view was significantly better than out of the Bf-109, Spitfire or Mustang. The half leaned back seating position was ideal for high G loads and quite comfortable, the controls were smooth running in the pilots hands. I was excited about the "Kommandoger¤t", which took the workload off the pilot by automatically adjusting propeller pitch, mixture, manifold pressure and revolutions.

After i lined up for take-off, i pulled back on the stick to lock the tailwheel, extended flaps to 10?, elevator trim compensation to neutral, airscrew on Auto and slowly pushed the throttle. With 2700 rpm and a manifold pressure of 1.6 ata, starting procedures were quite similar to the Spitfire MK IX. Take-off speed was 180 Km/h. After the gear had been retracted at the push of a button, manifold pressure was taken back to 1.45 ata, and at 230 Km/h flaps were rectracted. After that i accelerated to 260 Km/h and climbed with 16 m/sek at 2500 rpm. It´s worth mentioning that the FW-190 didn´t require trimming for the different flight attitudes.

The most impressive characteristic of this aircraft were the smooth running ailerons which resulted in a very high rate of roll. A pilot could do unbelievable roll maneuvers, which would have probably dismounted the wings off of a Bf-109, or would have required the whole arm musculature of a Spitfire pilot to follow such a maneuver.

The ailerons kept their smooth operation within a velocity envelope from near stall speed (>=204 Km/h) up to 645 Km/h. The elevators were more rough running than the ailerons, especially at airspeeds in excess of 565 Km/h. If exceeding this mark, elevators became this hard to operate, that there was an restriction to the FW-190 in it´s role as a Fighter aircraft when recovering from a high speed dive at low altitudes.

At high airspeed the FW-190 could be flown normally in steep turning maneuvers by increasing the pressure on the stick, effectivess of the rudder at high speed was satisfactory. If using all control inputs simultaniously, the actual "wonder" of the FW-190 became apparent, the harmony and coordination of controls. (The coordination and harmony of controls of the Bf-109 G6 he tested he described as being rather poor for a fighter aircraft; there were also problems resulting from the uneven deployment of the leading edge ****s. His assertion is that with beginning of mid-1944 allied Fighter developments generally outclassed the Bf-109 design).

I tested maximal horizontal speed of our FW-190 A-4/U8 (ETC-501 rack removed) at 634 Km/h in 5640m, the service ceiling being at 10670m. Both numbers that were almost identical to the Spitfire MK IX. Test trials at AFDU between the FW-190 A-4/U8 (BMW801 @ 2700 rpm @ 1.42 ata) and the Spitfire MK IX (Rolls Royce Merlin 61 @ 3100 rpm @ 1.00 ata) showed that the FW-190 was about 11-13 Km/h faster than the Spitfire at 6000m. At 1525m altitude both aircraft achieved almost the same airspeed, above this altitude, the Spitfire was slightly superior. At 2450m the Spitfire had an advantage of 13 Km/h, at 4570m 8 Km/h. At 5900m the FW-190 was 5 Km/h faster, and at 6400m the Spitfire again had a slight advantage.

Considering climbing performance both aircraft climbed practically side by side to 7000m, above, the FW-190 couldn´t keep up with the Spitfire and fell back more and more. If pulling up vertical from horizontal flight, the FW-190 had an advantage due to it´s better acceleration characteristics. In a dive the FW-190 could outrun the Spitfire without effort, and it´s not denyable that the FW-190 was more maneuverable in comparison, except for the steeply flown horizontal turn. The Spitfire could never follow an extend of the FW-190. The altitudes where Spitfire pilots better didn´t engage FW-190´s were between 5900m and 6700m, and below 915m.

I had many opportunitys to fly 190´s, in all it´s different versions. The last type i flew out of the "Kurt Tank Fighter collection" was the FW-190 F-8 on 28.07.1945 (AM 111). Everytime i could fly a FW-190 it was a great pleasure for me, because you knew that you were sitting in an aircraft that was belonging to the creme of the crop of fighter aircraft. The Spitfire was the prominent fighter aircraft on the british side, on the german side it was undoubtly the FW-190. Both were, during their time and class, superior to all others, both of stable and durable construction and build to the highest technical standards.

============================
When it comes to testing new aircraft or determining maximum performance, pilots like to talk about "pushing the envelope." They're talking about a two dimensional model: the bottom is zero altitude, the ground; the left is zero speed; the top is max altitude; and the right, maximum velocity, of course. So, the pilots are pushing that upper-right-hand corner of the envelope. What everybody tries not to dwell on is that that's where the postage gets canceled, too.

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 11:46 PM
Oak Groove, I've seen that report quoted now a dozen times, and it still remains to be defined what "the overall better fighter aircraft" means in real war terms.

What Josf trys to do is so artificial that it borders on unbelivable - you can not make a case for what an aircraft could or couldn't do in real life without taking the tactics and teamwork of the pilots into the equatation. That's also something Mr. Browns test report to not tell about.

Add to that that the majority (what, 80, 85%) of air kills in the war happened to pilots who never knew what hit them - and the so called "1 vs 1" performance of a given real life warbird becomes entirely moot.


The only recent instance I read about a duel 1 vs 1 was Galland being chased by a P-38 - if anyone has that same material for a 190 pilot, feel free to post it. Otherwise I see no base for the claim that the 190, different than here in game, could reverse the fight on a pursuing enemy easily.

XyZspineZyX
08-11-2003, 11:55 PM
What the Brown report does say is that trimming was not really required for the Fw, unlike the FB Fw. Brown did not mention the stall/spin/flick which the FB Fw is notorious for. Only one flight circumstance would cause the 'flick' and the a/c always went left(to port).

http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/crandall-stormclouds2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 12:06 AM
Copy of a report from Col. Carson which talks about the high speed "snap stall" as I call it...

http://oldsite.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=002669

************************************************** ********
Performance Evaluation

The Fw-190's handling qualities were generally excellent. The most impressive feature was the aileron control at high speeds. Stick force per "g" was about 9 pounds upto 300 mph rising to 12 pounds at 400 mph as compared to over 20 pounds for the Me-109.

High speed stalls under "g" load were a little vicious and could be a fatal handicap in combat. If the airplane was pulled in tight and stalled at high speed at 2 "gs" or more with the power on, turning right or left, the left wing would drop violently without warning and the airplane would flick onto its back from a left turn. I scored against a 190 under such circumstances. The message was clear, don't stall it. Our own Bell Aircobra P-39 would do the same thing.

************************************************** ********


And his quote about fighting characteristics

************************************************** ********
A superb airplane, every inch a fighter. It could do a half roll at cruising speed in one second. Taking this in conjunction with the airplane's high top speed and rate of climb one expected its pilots to exploit its high speed qualities to the fullest without staying in there to "mix it up" in a low speed, flaps down full throttle, gut wrenching dog fight.

They did. The 190 pilots had a good airplane and some good advice. Nearly all of my encounters with the 190 were at high speeds. On at least two occasions when I met them, in my Mustang started porposing, which means I was into compressibility, probably around 550 mph. I don't know what my air speed indicator was reading, I wasn't watching it.
************************************************** ********

So no indication here about any "dogfighting" either, just about high speed and dive-zoom attacks.

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 12:13 AM
Actually high speed stall without warning and flick over to the opposite side, as a result of an attempt at a too hard turn at high speed and resulting spin characteristics are mentioned in the report.

============================
When it comes to testing new aircraft or determining maximum performance, pilots like to talk about "pushing the envelope." They're talking about a two dimensional model: the bottom is zero altitude, the ground; the left is zero speed; the top is max altitude; and the right, maximum velocity, of course. So, the pilots are pushing that upper-right-hand corner of the envelope. What everybody tries not to dwell on is that that's where the postage gets canceled, too.

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 12:15 AM
"....i was pleasantly surprised after i climbed into
- the FW-190´s (A-4/U8) rather cramped cockpit, the
- field of view was significantly better than out of
- the Bf-109, Spitfire or Mustang."

LOL. Someone should start a thread about this. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 12:56 AM
Sorry if I'm getting a bit off topic here, but since when was the La-7 such a good plane? I get the impression from some of you who call it things like "Lame-7" that it's some kind of guaranteed success plane especially suited for newbs. In IL-2 the La-5FN was something like that, but no way is the La-7 close to being as good a T&B fighter. It's fast and has nice guns, but I'd like to see somebody in a La-7 out perform me in any way when I've planted my bum in, say, a G6/AS. When engaging someone online I get different vibes depending on what plane he is flying... if it's a Yak I go "ouch, better do some climbing then", or a another G6/AS I think "ooh, let's see what this guy's got up his sleeve", but if it's any type of La I just think "nice, free points".

Yes, err, I'm not sure what my point is with all that, but there you go /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 02:21 AM
IJG54_Nowi wrote:
- How to fly it?
-
- Easy, trim nose down a little, that will keep speed
- around 500 km/h and lessen stall tendency. Forget
- loops, rolls, anything fancy, you dont need that.
- Run past a target, use the incredible firepower, run
- away again. Turn around without wasting energy and
- repeat.
-
- If you have a bandit on your six, dont try anything
- fancy either...hit the gas, and call for a wingman.
- Even if no one helps you there's hardly a russian
- plane that can follow the A4 or A5 until 1944.
-
- The 109 is a Rapier. You can do lots of (aerobatic)
- tricks with it, like you can with a Rapier, but it
- does little damage. The 190 by comparison is a
- bi-handed broadsword. No tricks, just lots of brutal
- power.
-
- Of course, let your speed drop below 300 km/h
- frequently, and you'll die. Try to turn with a
- russian, and you'll die as well.
-
- But use it for the slashing attacks it was meant
- for, and you'll understand why it was such a fine
- plane.
-
- Another minor addition to the story: The 190 SUCKS
- in 1 vs 1 Duels. While it is easy to evade an enemy,
- it is hard to reverse a fight in the 190. It is a
- teamwork plane that preys on unwary opponents - just
- as in real life.
-
-
Very well said!


...and once you have tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward,
for there you have been and there you long to return.
~leonardo de vinci

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 02:48 AM
I wonder if there is any way this thread could get more off topic?

I just wanted to know if there was an explanation for the useless cannon removal option for the 190A-4 and A-5.

I'm not ragging on anyone its just that I posted this in ORR to try and get an answer or explanation from anyone who might know.



<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 08:38 AM
I told you already...the current "Rüsts¤tze" (Armament Options) for german planes are based on what Oleg found to be used on the eastern front in his documents. Obviously they did not account for field-modding the two outer guns away without adding the bomb rack.

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 08:55 AM
kyrule2 wrote:
- VOL_Jon, Here are the armaments:
-
- A-1: 2 Mg17's in cowl, 2 Mg17's inboard, 2MGFF
- outboard.
-
- A-2 through A-5: 2 Mg17's in cowl, 2 151' inboard, 2
- MGFF outboard.
-
- A-6: 2 Mg17's in cowl, 4 151's in wings.
-
- A-7 through A-9: 2 13mm 131's in cowl, 4 151's in
- wings.
-
- I would love to have an A-1 or A-2 for 1941
- planeset, it would be pretty damn good in '41.


wowee! The book i have "German Warplanes of World War II"
only lists the A-2 as haveing MG-17's on the cowl and MG-FF inbord, with later versions haveing MG-17 outbord!!! It also says the A-1 had only 4 (!) MG-17's !!!!

Hell, I really gota find books that deal with the individual aircraft, not 12-20

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 09:47 AM
Perhabs I'm mistaken, but I belive the MGFF where mechanical primed, and thus hard to synchronize with the prob RPM. They are not synched on the 109 Emil, for example.

The MG-151/20 came in two version, electrical primed and mechanical primed, each requiring it's own ammunition. The electrical version was used on the 190 because they were easy to synchronize with the prob - and they used the same guns outboard later on, to avoid confusion with the ammunition needed.

Suppose the reasons the MGFF were used so long might be a large production run in early war years, so they used up what they had in stock before fitting only MG-151's.

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 12:26 PM
I am reluctant to push this thread further off topic however the claim that the Fw190 was not a good 1 vs 1 dogfight is in need of a reality check.


http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zbjjo

When a plane is compared to another plane and the determination is made that the one is not a good 1 vs 1 dog fighter against the other then what exists is a condition termed by Robert Shaw as double inferior.

Fighter Combat
by Robert Shaw

page 183

Double-Superior and Double-Inferior Conditions

"The pilot of the inferior fighter in this scenario has real problems He may not be able to avoid engagement, and he may not be able to escape once he is engaged. These problems may be alleviated, however, by a very thorough aircraft preflight inspection, followed by a decision to spend the day in the bar. If this luxury is not available, high-speed hit-and-run tactics or multiple-aircraft engagements may offer some relief; otherwise the pilot of the inferior fighter must be very good and very lucky."



The FW 190 was anything but double inferior according to some historical record, such as the 190A-3 vs SpitV match-up.

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zbikb



When a plane holds certain performance advantages over another plane it is then capable of utilizing these advantages when employed properly in a dog fight.

When a plane holds no performance advantage it cannot.

If anyone thinks that the FW190 was not a good 1 vs 1 dogfighter they are dismissing much historical record to the contrary and they are (if they admit it or not) catagorizing the 190 as double inferior, and this is done out of hand, across the board, without even considering which planes the FW190 is being compared against.


If someone states that the Fw190 was in fact a good dog fighter, on these boards, he had better have some evidence to back it up, because waiting in the dark are rabid, insulting, game enthusiasts who for some reason find their own sense of judgement to be personally attacked and they often lash out with insults and other garbage. (I count myself as one of those game enthusiasts)

So don't take my word concerning the realtive combat effectiveness of the Fw190

http://www.airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/golodnikov/part1.htm

"The type-28 and -29 were arguably equal to the Bf-109F, perhaps a little bit behind. The remaining I-16 types, of course, were not even close. The F model appeared in the north in large numbers in November 1942. Before that time we saw primarily the E model. The I-16 type-28 and -29 fell behind the F model in maximum speed and vertical maneuver, but surpassed the F model in horizontal maneuver and armament. The F model was very capable in vertical maneuver. If he even thought you were going to catch him, the pilot gave it more throttle and broke away.

The FW-190 appeared at approximately the same time as the Bf-109F, sometime in October 1942. It was a powerful fighter. The 190 surpassed the I-16 in every respect, perhaps, except horizontal maneuver. But by this time our Yaks and lend-lease P-40s and P-39s were arriving in large numbers."



http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zbjot

From Luftwaffe Fighter Aces
by Mike Spick
page 121

"Instead of telegraphing their intentions by forming up at high altitude in full view of the German radar, the British now took to crossing the Channel at low level, then climbing flat out just before they reached the coast. At the same time, increasing use was made of low-level penetrations by light bombers, which called for a different approach to the fighter escort mission. For the Jagdflieger, the leisurely wait at cockpit readiness, followed by a calculated climb to altitude, was now eliminated: the Spitfires, rocketing skywards at full throttle, were often already above.
With the advent of the FW 190A, this was not as crtical as it once had been. The aircraft was a superb dogfighter, and its pilots used it as such. The previous summer, faced with slashing attacks by the 109s, the constant complaint of the RAF pilots was that 'Jerry' didn't stay and fight, totally ignoring the fact that in the 109 this was tactically correct. Now they were repaid in spades: in his new FW 190A, 'Jerry' stayed and fought as never before."



Wings of the Luftwaffe
By Cpt Eric Brown.

(This plane in question may actually be the same 190A-3 wrk# 5313 that was refered to in Unsolicited Testimonials in the book Focke Wulf Fw190 in Combat by Alfred Price)

"The RAF took advantage of its windfall of 23 June 1942...
..on 13 July, this invaluable prize was delivered to the Air Fighting Development Unit at Duxford, where it was put through intensive performance trials and flown competitively against several Allied fighter types...
...It was concluded that the Fw 190 pilot trying to "Mix it" with a Spitfire in the classic fashion of steep turning was doomed, for at any speed - even below the German fighter's stalling speed - it would be out-turned by its British opponent. Of course, the Luftwaffe was aware of this fact and a somewhat odd style of dogfighting evolved in which the Fw 190 pilots endeavorured to keep on the vertical plane by zooms and dives, while their Spitfire-mounted antagonists tried everything in the book to draw them on to the Horizontal. If the German pilot lost his head and failed to resist the temptation to try a horizontal pursuit curve on a Spitfire, as likely as not, before he could recover the speed lost in a steep turn he would find another Spitfire turning inside him! On the other hand, the German pilot who kept zooming up and down was usually the recipient of only difficult deflection shots of more than 30 deg. The Fw 190 had tremendous initial acceleration in a dive but it was extremely vulnerable during a pull-out, recovery having to be quite progressive with care not to kill the speed by "sinking""



http://home1.gte.net/res0l0yx/sustained%20turn%20technique.htm

Fighter Combat by Robert Shaw:

ONE-VERSUS-ONE MANEUVERING, DISSIMILAR AIRCRAFT

Low versus High Wing loading with Similar T/W

page 179

"Because of the T/W equivalence, the climbing extension/pitch-back tactics described earlier generally are not viable. This method is based on exploiting a climb-rate superiority, which does not exist in this scenario. In order for the high-wing-loaded fighter pilot to gain an energy advantage where one does not exist initially, he must either increase energy faster than the opponent (Which may be done by exploiting superior diving acceleration and high-speed energy addition rate in a diving extension), or induce the bogey to bleed energy at a faster rate (which may be accomplished by sustained-turn techniques). The latter method allows evaluation of the bogey's turn performance based on its known sustained capabilities relative to those of the high-wing-loaded aircraft.

For instance, assume that at optimum speed the high-wing-loaded fighter can sustain a 10 degree/sec turn rate, so that a 360 degree turn would require about 36 seconds to complete. If the bogey can sustain 11 degrees/sec at its optimum speed (a 10 percent advantage, which would be considered significant), it could gain about 30 degrees in one nose-to-tail turn without losing a single knot of airspeed relative to the opponent. Grabbing greater angles advantages than this with each turn, however, requires the bogey to pay dearly with energy. Armed with this knowledge, the pilot of the high-wing-loaded energy fighter can assess his opponent's energy management by observing the bogey's angular gains. The energy fighter pilot should set up a nose-to-tail turn at maximum sustained-turn-rate speed (or vertical-maneuvering speed, if that is higher), either level or slightly nose-high. the bogey's nose position is closely monitored, and climb angle is adjusted to allow the bogey about a 90 degree angular advantage at the completion of one turn. If the bogy appears to be making angles too fast, the energy fighter pilot makes the transition to a nose-low turn, maintaining speed, to slow the opponent's angular gains. When, on the other hand, a bogey appears to be gaining little angular advantage in the turn, the climb angle can be steepened, reducing G to maintain speed, to allow the opponent to gain angles more rapidly.

If the bogey is pulling lead approaching the second pass (i.e., at the end of the first turn), the energy fighter pilot may be required to perform a quick out of plane guns-defense maneuver before beginning a vertical pull-up to trade his energy advantage for altitude separation at the overshoot. When an opponent uses lag pursuit approaching the pass, preserving nose-tail separation to minimize his overshoot, the spiral zoom will probably be necessary to deny the bogey a shot during the pull-up."



http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zcfha

by Hermann Buchner

page 84

"The Russians consisted of a group of around nine Yaks, diving out of the clouds from an altitude of about 1000 metres and flying as a group toward the FW 190s parked on the runway. To my luck, most of the Yaks shot at the machines on the left side. They made only a single attack then disappeared as they had come. As it later turned out, one remained and made a second attack on my FW 190. With a great deal of effort, I had managed to leave the ground and just managed to clear the hangar with difficulty, my undercarriage still down, when the Yak shot at me. I was lucky in that the Russian was far too fast and was himself suprised at his opportunity. He missed me entirely, shooting away past me with his machine. I had been warned and was now aware of what the Russians would do in this situation. With the undercarriage and flaps in. The 190 was making up ground, the weapons ready, my 250 kg bombs jettisoned in preparation to take up the aerial battle. Unfortunately, I didn't have much time, the Yak 9 was already behind me and shooting, but the pilot must have been a beginner, for again his aim wasn't very good.
At this stage, I still did not know whether he was alone or whether there were still other Yaks in the area. Meanwhile., I had reached sufficient speed to do battle. I could observer my opponent, now the chances were even and it boiled down to flying ability. I was given an advantage;ground control informed me on the radio that this was the only Yak around, at least in this area. Subsequently, I succeeded in getting behind him, but my shots were also not successful, I was a bit nervous.
The furious turning battle was played out about 300-400 metres over the airfield. In addition,my colleagues on the ground were on the radio playing along. I told them to shut their mouths and turn off the radio. A savage battle now began, the pilot was better than I had reckoned him to be at the beginning. Each of us tried to get behind the other and get into a good position. While turning, each of us managed to fire, but neither of us made any successful hits. We had been circling now for over five minutes when he made the decisive error by trying to leave the turning circle and leave the area, heading off to the right. He set his machine on the horizontal and, at this moment, I sat about 50-80 metres behind himn and had him full in my sights. I pressed the trigger on the cannon and somthing flared up in his cockpit, the Yak tipped over on its right wing and fell to the ground. My friends were shouting into the radio, "You've shot him down! you can land, there are no more Russians over the airfield." I could hardly believe that the battle had so quickly been decided, the flight lasted 15 minutes and the filght with the Yak about 9-10 minutes."



Focke-Wulf Fw 190 Aces of the Russian Front
by John Weal

page 10

"If,however, the pilots of I./JG 51 found themselves embroiled in a twist-and-turn dogfight, they were strongly warned of the Fw 190's one basic, and potentially lethal, flaw. In clean configuration the stall was sudden and vicious. Let the speed fall below 127 mph and, virtually without warning, the port wing would drop so violently that the Fw 190 all but turned on its back. Pull into a G-stall in a tight turn and it 'would flick over into opposite bank and you had an incipient spin on your hands'. But a virtue could be made even of this vice, Krafft's pilots were told. It was a manoeuver no pursuer could emulate. 'Be prepered to control the spin, and it is one sure way of shaking Ivan off your tail. Just don't try it at low level, the initial movement eats up too much vertical airspace!'





JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 12:30 PM
IJG54_Nowi wrote:
- Perhabs I'm mistaken, but I belive the MGFF where
- mechanical primed, and thus hard to synchronize with
- the prob RPM. They are not synched on the 109 Emil,
- for example.

It was probably mechanically primed, because it was a drum-fed weapon; whereas the MG 151 was belt-fed.


I/JG54^Lukas
He 162A-2 Cockpit Modeler

XyZspineZyX
08-12-2003, 02:05 PM
Boring, Josf...

you brought tons of "what ifs", where the only article suggesting that 190's "mixed it up" with spits comes from Mike Spick, who has not the best name as an aviation historian.

You only found a single report about a 190 pilot shaking off an enemy Yak from his six - why, if that was so common, didn't you find more of these accounts?

Because it played no role in "normal war conditions" that's why. It simple was not the usual method of engagement in the 190s.

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 05:16 AM
Kyrule, perhaps you could get some help from someone in the German forum who might be aware of pilot accounts of removing the outer cannon. Also any kind of JG54 unit history might have something that would suggest this was a common practice.

i suppose that the only reasons to remove the guns would be a. to carry something else. like bombs
or
b. To improve manueverability & or speed.

Maybe the 190 didnt need to loose the extra pounds , or maybe it was just pilot attitude.

kyrule2 wrote:
- I wonder if there is any way this thread could get
- more off topic?
-
- I just wanted to know if there was an explanation
- for the useless cannon removal option for the 190A-4
- and A-5.
-
- I'm not ragging on anyone its just that I posted
- this in ORR to try and get an answer or explanation
- from anyone who might know.



"Anytime you have an opportunity to make things better and you don't, then you are wasting your time on this earth." -Roberto Clemente

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 07:05 AM
i asked for the removal of the outer guns way over a year ago and nothing changed.

and i doubt it ever will... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif (well, except the fm twice a year /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif )




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



http://homepage.ntlworld.com/paul.bryant3/ETSigGermany.gif




under 30k?

XyZspineZyX
08-13-2003, 07:22 AM
Saburo, from what I have read it was to improve speed. Like I said, this was done starting with the A-2 and A-3, before they started putting bombracks on. This was simply a performance option, at least it would appear so to me.

NuFoerki, you can remove outer-guns, you just get the stupid bombrack, negating any benefit and actually hurting your planes performance significantly. There really is NO reason to remove the outer cannons on the A-4 & A-5 in FB. It just doesn't make any sense.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.