PDA

View Full Version : High speed turns in the FW



XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 01:52 AM
It's quite possible that everything I'm about to say is total garbage, as my knowledge of the technological principles involved is nil, and I have only an "armchair historian"'s acquaintance with the facts. However ...

It seems to me that the post-patch FW190's turning performance at extreme high speed is anomalous to say the least. Can it really be that, in contrast to all the other fighters featured in the game, the FW190 experienced no diminution of its maximum turn rate *at all*, as its speed increased? (By turn rate I mean degrees per second.) Indeed, the maximum degrees-per-second seems *increase* the faster you get, up to about 600kph, after which it remains equally good at higher speeds.

Contrast this with the featherlight Yak-3, whose turn rate, while still outstanding in the 300-400kph range, rapidly becomes sluggish once its speed rises above 500kph.
I'd honestly be very interested to know what it is about the designs of the two planes that accounts for the FW190 being able to nearly 'turn on a dime' at 650kph, when the Yak is beginning to feel 'set in concrete' (assuming the plane hasn't disintegrated yet).

I realise that the high-speed agility of the FW190 was well known as one of its strong points, but surely, whatever physical principle it is that accounts for the increasing sluggishness of the other planes at high speed, it should also apply to the FW190, to some extent.

I find it hard to believe that its agility at 800kph is faithfully represented.

I'm particularly baffled by the sheer magnitude of the change, pre-patch vs post-patch. I've no doubt that, at all times, Oleg's team have preferred hard evidence to the wishes of the screaming masses. This being so, they must have all of a sudden come upon some evidence that radically altered their opinions of the FW. What exactly could have compelled them to make so drastic a change? And how could they have been so wrong, before?


The other puzzling thing about the FW190 is its climb rate, which has been significantly (though perhaps I wouldn't quite say 'drastically') increased. On my first and only attempt so far, I was able to take off and climb to 5000m in the FW190 A4 in 5 minutes 45 seconds. I'm guessing that, with practice, an ideal ascent would bring it to 5000m in about 5:30, which is surely quite a big contrast to the "6.8 minutes" (i.e. 6:48) stated in the game. Again, I'm left wondering what could have caused the team to change their minds in such a big way.



Although these things continue to puzzle me, I think that the patch has nonetheless been a great success, overall, and have no trouble believing that the FM's (even those of the FW's) are more realistic now than before.

Well done, guys.

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 01:52 AM
It's quite possible that everything I'm about to say is total garbage, as my knowledge of the technological principles involved is nil, and I have only an "armchair historian"'s acquaintance with the facts. However ...

It seems to me that the post-patch FW190's turning performance at extreme high speed is anomalous to say the least. Can it really be that, in contrast to all the other fighters featured in the game, the FW190 experienced no diminution of its maximum turn rate *at all*, as its speed increased? (By turn rate I mean degrees per second.) Indeed, the maximum degrees-per-second seems *increase* the faster you get, up to about 600kph, after which it remains equally good at higher speeds.

Contrast this with the featherlight Yak-3, whose turn rate, while still outstanding in the 300-400kph range, rapidly becomes sluggish once its speed rises above 500kph.
I'd honestly be very interested to know what it is about the designs of the two planes that accounts for the FW190 being able to nearly 'turn on a dime' at 650kph, when the Yak is beginning to feel 'set in concrete' (assuming the plane hasn't disintegrated yet).

I realise that the high-speed agility of the FW190 was well known as one of its strong points, but surely, whatever physical principle it is that accounts for the increasing sluggishness of the other planes at high speed, it should also apply to the FW190, to some extent.

I find it hard to believe that its agility at 800kph is faithfully represented.

I'm particularly baffled by the sheer magnitude of the change, pre-patch vs post-patch. I've no doubt that, at all times, Oleg's team have preferred hard evidence to the wishes of the screaming masses. This being so, they must have all of a sudden come upon some evidence that radically altered their opinions of the FW. What exactly could have compelled them to make so drastic a change? And how could they have been so wrong, before?


The other puzzling thing about the FW190 is its climb rate, which has been significantly (though perhaps I wouldn't quite say 'drastically') increased. On my first and only attempt so far, I was able to take off and climb to 5000m in the FW190 A4 in 5 minutes 45 seconds. I'm guessing that, with practice, an ideal ascent would bring it to 5000m in about 5:30, which is surely quite a big contrast to the "6.8 minutes" (i.e. 6:48) stated in the game. Again, I'm left wondering what could have caused the team to change their minds in such a big way.



Although these things continue to puzzle me, I think that the patch has nonetheless been a great success, overall, and have no trouble believing that the FM's (even those of the FW's) are more realistic now than before.

Well done, guys.

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 02:02 AM
Those things are strange. But I won't give it much thought, simply because it is clear that many aspects of the patch, like the original release of IL-2, are unfinished.

My understanding of the beta patch is that it gives us something to play while the FM and DM tunes are completed, and bugs are fixed.

So it is probable that they were still in the process of coding the FW-190 high speed performance, and they just substituted an ultra-simplified model for the time being. The only difference being that instead of being ultra-heavy (like in FB 1.0), the controls are ultra-light.

So I think debating the current FMs (FW lightness, P-47 roll, etc) is kind of pointless when 1.1b is essentially a stopgap until the complete patch is done. It would have been nice if they could have solved the major issues in 1.1b, but apparently that wasn't possible for reasons unbeknownst to us.

But I can grasp the irony of the situation in which a beta patch intended to stop patch whinging, causes even more.

In other words, two weeks. The P-47 will roll right, the dead shall not have double heads, the FW shall be of terrestrial nature, and all of the gauges will work, be sure.

http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb06894.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb57471.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb11726.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb75733.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb80477.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb64472.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb59442.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb80347.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb73057.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb48642.gif



Message Edited on 08/16/0307:14PM by StG77_Fennec

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 04:56 AM
Yea, it kinda sucks. The dora is my favorite plane by far.

Now it feels like an unfair advantage post patch.

Feels like a "noob" plane now. I didn't have any issues with overall FM on dora before patch other than the pathetic elevator that allowed 262's to outturn it at low speed. Now it has a decent elevator, but feels a little too "snappy" at high speed and climbs way too fast.

To me, this almost feels like a see-saw ride on FM's. The changes are just drastic as can be. Dora only needed slight boost in climb and elevator effectiveness and we got a rocketship that turns like a bat at high speed.

Hopefully all the planes will match historical data when we get out of "beta".

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 07:53 AM
I disagree, the 190's biggest advantage should be its high speed handling. The 190 SHOULD have the best high-speed handling in the game, and it certainly doesn't do "bat-turns." You can pull a fairly tight turn at high speed but you will find you have drained all of your speed if you do so. The 190 had some kind of gear-box or linkage or something like that that changed the flight controls responsiveness according to speed. Compared to many other planes like the 109 and Spitifre its controls were extremely light at speed. It's low speed handling is still poor, as it should be. Most people agree that the 190 just needs a little less roll-rate and it will be fine. All this 190 whining is getting on my nerves, as the result will likely be another BS flight model for the 190. Everyone will go back to not flying the 190, won't that be great? Lower the 190's roll-rate, particularly at speed, and leave the rest of the Focke-Wulf alone please.

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

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.



Message Edited on 08/17/0306:56AM by kyrule2

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 07:54 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zjbop


As far as I am able to determine so far in my research on the subject of turn performance any plane will reach it's maximum turn rate at the highest possible G load at the slowest possible speed.

Any plane in the game then should maximize turn rate at the slowest speed that black out is possible.

Any plane in the game should then find a steady decrease in turn rate as speeds decrease or increase from that useable corner speed.

For instance if the FW (or any plane) is first capable of blacking out the pilot at 350kph then at 350kph that plane is turning the fastest rate possible. At speeds slower than 350kph the plane is no longer able to pull enough G force to black out the pilot and therefore not able to pull enough G force to turn at the fastest rate. At speeds above 350kph the plane may or may not be able to pull higher G and may or may not be able to turn a faster turn rate however the pilot is not capable of pulling higher G force and therefore the plane cannot turn faster rates, in fact the plane should therefore turn slower turn rates since G force is held constant by the pilots G limit but velocity is increasing. The only way to turn a faster rate is to either increase G force or decrease velocity or both.
Again, turn rate is maximized at the highest G force, at the slowest speed.

A plane that is lighter will be able to pull the same lift measured in G force at slower speeds than the heavier plane (all else being equal) and therefore the lighter plane can turn a faster rate, but only because the lighter plane can pull that same G force at a slower speed.
The heavier plane can generate enough G force to black out the pilot but only at a higher speed and therefore at a lower turn rate.

It stands to reason that as speed increases with G force held constant that turn rate will decrease since there are only 360 degrees in one turn; if the faster plane is turning a faster turn rate then it will complete more than one turn in the same amount of time. How can it do that without creating more G force?



If the game simulates higher turn rates past the useable corner velocity then something is wrong.

Turn rate should be maximized when the plane is just going fast enough to black out the pilot.

Turn rates should decrease as speeds increase or decrease from corner velocity.





JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 08:31 AM
It is clear that the elevator response in the FW-190 is much better than it was in past versions of IL-2 and especially FB 1.0. My understanding is that an average pilot could easily exert over 6G at 500km/h IAS (the FW would stall at this point). So, in IL-2, and FB-1.0, the elevator was far too heavy.

But I don't think you could say the current extreme lightness is correct. No amount of gears or pulleys could make it completely free from control heaviness.

For example.


&lt;embed src="http://members.shaw.ca/fennec/whee.avi">
http://members.shaw.ca/fennec/whee.avi

In the video you see me doing a dive. At the lowest point I am going 850km/h IAS, about at VMax.

Then near the ground, I do a 90 degree tailstand in what seems to be 2 seconds. A 90 degree turn, against gravity, at 850km/h, in 2 seconds.

Perhaps someone could calculate the exact figure, but thats well over 10G at near mach speed.

So I would think the elevator responsiveness (as well as roll rate) would be tweaked in the next patch. I just hope they don't make it unrealistically heavy again.





http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb06894.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb57471.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb11726.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb75733.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb80477.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb64472.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb59442.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb80347.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb73057.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb48642.gif

Message Edited on 08/17/0301:31AM by StG77_Fennec

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 09:18 AM
"At the lowest point I am going 850km/h IAS, about at VMax."


Is it possible? It seems to me that the 190A breaks itself at about 850km/h TAS!

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 09:30 AM
"All this 190 whining is getting on my nerves, as the result will likely be another BS flight model for the 190.


I don't think so. For the past two years, the 190A in Il-2 suffered from a wrong energy model causing high energy loss in vertical manoevers in which the 190 was good in real life.

Now that the 190A is really usable as an energy fighter, a few red players have problems with it and it's quite a normal thing. They have to fight against 190 pilots who during two years learnt the hard way how to manage energy, there was no other choice, not for winning but simply to survive online. Add the fact that now some red aircrafts are still good but have to be flown no more only with muscle but with skill too, and you can easily understand why some people feel a little bit nervous.

During the past two years, I was answered so many times "learn to fly" and "use the right tactics" when I asked questions about the 190 FM. After all, it was perhaps very wise advises /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 10:04 AM
No matter how you cut it, the FW190 as it is now is a bit odd, there are plenty of LW players who also think so.

Hopefully it will be corrected in the final release of the 1.1.

And it's not only the roll rate that is off kyrule2, that movie from Fennec gives a perfect example of another well overmodelled aspect of the new FW190 FM.

<center> http://www.322squadron.com/banners/Giobanner.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 10:54 AM
Agree. Fact is that the 190s were very undermodelled in high speed handling in V1.0, but now it`s the exact opposite... they have practically no limits even at double the speeds. The difference between 190 and other plane`s elevator control is VERY pronounced at high speeds. And altough the 190 had good H-S handling, there were planes that had better (ie. see US test vs. P-47) above 250mph. But THIS kind of high speed handling IMHO would be far off for any WW2 plane.

IMHO in beta8 and in current v1.1b open beta patch we simply have a 190 that had it`s "high speed limitation factor" completely removed, ie. it isnt effected at all.

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 11:21 AM
the answer is simply this...
All the German Planes are over Modeled /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
it's true.

<CENTER>http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p809.jpg
<CENTER>><FONT COLOR="blue">Please visit the 310thVF/BS Online at our NEW web site @:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="orange"> http://members.tripod.com/tophatssquadron/
<CENTER>A proud member Squadron of IL-2 vUSAAF
<CENTER>310th VF/BS Public forum:
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW"> http://invisionfree.com/forums/310th_VFBG/
<CENTER><CENTER><FONT COLOR="YELLOW">
Proud Sponsor of IL-2 Hangar Forums
<CENTER> Visit the Hangar at:
http://srm.racesimcentral.com/il2.shtml

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 11:50 AM
"All the German Planes are over Modeled"


Why not, it's possible. Have you perhaps more precise facts like charts, test reports, official docs?

Cheers,


P.S. But don't think I don't trust your personal feelings about this question!

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 12:59 PM
kyrule2 wrote:
- I disagree, the 190's biggest advantage should be
- its high speed handling. The 190 SHOULD have the
- best high-speed handling in the game, and it
- certainly doesn't do "bat-turns." You can pull a
- fairly tight turn at high speed but you will find
- you have drained all of your speed if you do so. The
- 190 had some kind of gear-box or linkage or
- something like that that changed the flight controls
- responsiveness according to speed. Compared to many
- other planes like the 109 and Spitifre its controls
- were extremely light at speed. It's low speed
- handling is still poor, as it should be. Most people
- agree that the 190 just needs a little less
- roll-rate and it will be fine. All this 190 whining
- is getting on my nerves, as the result will likely
- be another BS flight model for the 190. Everyone
- will go back to not flying the 190, won't that be
- great? Lower the 190's roll-rate, particularly at
- speed, and leave the rest of the Focke-Wulf alone
- please.
-
- <center>
- http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg
-
- "Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.
-
-
-
-
-
- Message Edited on 08/17/03 06:56AM by kyrule2

I agree totaly hope all these anti fw posts dont influence oleg to tone anything down except roll .....

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 01:08 PM
johno__UK wrote:
- I agree totaly hope all these anti fw posts dont
- influence oleg to tone anything down except roll

Have you even payed attention to the other info in this thread?

Not only the roll rate is overmodelled.

Just look at the movie Fennec made, that is completely unrealistic behaviour and gives the FW190 an unrealistic and unfair advantage in dogfights.

<center> http://www.322squadron.com/banners/Giobanner.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 02:08 PM
I guess I'm just upset at all this FW whining and what may happen if too much of it gets in Oleg's ear. When something gets corrected in FB, sometimes it goes too far. The FW-190 was one of the best fighters in WWII and should be modelled as such. It seems like forever that I have waited for an improved, more accurate Focke-Wulf. Still, If people agree that the lightness of controls is completely unrealistic, then a change is fine with me. I just hope whatever change is implemented is thoroughly tested and properly done. If people say that the 190 behaves unrealistically, then go ahead and modify it. I have lived with the 190 for so long it doesn't really matter what happens, I'll keep flying it (btw I only fly the 190A unless I have no choice, then I take the Dora). Unlike the point *****s out there, I fly what I like.

So go ahead, do what you must. The Wolf will still hunt. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

http://www.digitaleasel.com/images/ardennesoffensive_l.jpg


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

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 02:19 PM
But I do want to say one more thing. I think the option to remove the outer wing cannons on the A-4 and A-5 should not add a bomb-rack, making performance even worse. Pilots removed the outer cannons for "considerations of weight and speed" beginning with the 190A-2, before a bomb-rack was even added to the 190. Right now this option is silly and useless, why would anyone want to remove their outer cannons and have their plane perform even worse? While we are fixing things, why not fix this?

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

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

Message Edited on 08/17/0301:20PM by kyrule2

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 02:28 PM
russia have lose 5000 plane 45,
because they was the best

but is right 190 has to good highspeed handling how p47


p47 could too at 1000km/h easy waylay, seem too not correct

but i like the whinners from bad la-5fn pilots


Message Edited on 08/17/0304:38PM by Skalgrim

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 02:49 PM
Skalgrim wrote:
- russia have lose 5000 plane 45,
- because they was the best

Yawn, getting old.

That's the only thing you can come up with?

Real life cannot be compared into this game because we cannot install poor training and poor maintenance into this game.

Get over yourself and make up something new instead of repeating always the same.

<center> http://www.322squadron.com/banners/Giobanner.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 02:50 PM
Oberleutenant Oskar-Walter Romm had this to say:
"As an air-superiority and interceptor fighter the Fw190D9 handled better than the Fw190A; It was faster and had a superior rate of climb.During dog-fights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft,usual when fighting the Russians ,I found that I could pull the Fw190D9 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 Yak3 and Yak9 fighter standing.

From "The last year of the Luftwaffe",Alfred Price.



Message Edited on 08/17/0308:52AM by WalterMitty

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 02:54 PM
seem you little stupid ,45 was russia pilots better trained much better

and oleg has that too say

43 was russia pilots same good as germans has oleg say

go away in you dreamland


Cappadocian_317 wrote:
-
- Skalgrim wrote:
-- russia have lose 5000 plane 45,
-- because they was the best
-
- Yawn, getting old.
-
- That's the only thing you can come up with?
-
- Real life cannot be compared into this game because
- we cannot install poor training and poor maintenance
- into this game.
-
- Get over yourself and make up something new instead
- of repeating always the same.
-
- <center> <img
- src="http://www.322squadron.com/banners/Giobanner.
- jpg"> </center>


Message Edited on 08/17/0307:46PM by Skalgrim

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 02:59 PM
Skalgrim wrote:
- seem you little stupid ,45 was russia pilots better
- trained
-
- oleg has that too say
-
- go away clever dog

Lol, great response.

Lame, boring, asshat response, as usual from the great Skalgrim.

Like I said before, don't compare this game to real life and don't even try to compare yourself to the real aces that flew during that time because when push comes to shove your only a grain of sand in the desert compared to the real thing.

<center> http://www.322squadron.com/banners/Giobanner.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 03:03 PM
when is so boring why speak you with me,funny people

for me you seem stupid, but perhaps not supid but unknown

sorry!

you think russia was same strong begin as end

and that not true


it right that russia have only fight against g6 a4/a5 until november/dezember 44

november 44 was few g14 use jg52 (hartmann squadron)

as hartmann meet p51d has he fly g6 over rumainia

a9,dora was west fighter and they have better performance la-5fn /7

galland has say 43 us pilots could fly but nothing hit,

we need better training

Cappadocian_317 wrote:
-
- Skalgrim wrote:
-- seem you little stupid ,45 was russia pilots better
-- trained
--
-- oleg has that too say
--
-- go away clever dog
-
- Lol, great response.
-
- Lame, boring, asshat response, as usual from the
- great Skalgrim.
-
- Like I said before, don't compare this game to real
- life and don't even try to compare yourself to the
- real aces that flew during that time because when
- push comes to shove your only a grain of sand in the
- desert compared to the real thing.
-
- <center> <img
- src="http://www.322squadron.com/banners/Giobanner.
- jpg"> </center>

Message Edited on 08/17/0306:38PM by Skalgrim

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 03:20 PM
Copperhead310th wrote:
- the answer is simply this...
- All the German Planes are over Modeled /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
- it's true.

It's not. Try the 109G-14 for example. It's slower than the G-6. There are plenty of other examples. The Ju-87 for one looses speed in shallow turns like a big brick thrown up vertically. I do a dive with almost 600 IAS and after my pull out i've got 250 left /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif . It can't turn at all, and even at 300 IAS it's really hanging in the air with high AoA. Stall speed around 180km/h seems also very much too high to me.
Or those russian planes. They ain't overmodelled, right?? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif - La-7 initial climb for example is ~30m/s... La-5FN close to that, La-5F 28m/s and La-5 as well... LaGG-3 climbs from 50 - 1000m 26m/s in average. P-39 climbs 4000ft/min... it's hell a lot more than the 2300 it should do. Or Yak-9D. It's ~21-22m/s in the 1st 1000m - all in all it's like the G-6 in climb. BS. Yak-3 and Yak-9U should be the only Yaks that can climb with or outclimb G-6. And strangely it doesn't overheat like the P-40, although they have the same engine - and the 40 seems to have the better cooling if I look at it's intakes.
On the other hand the P-40 is a damn slow brick. It's just ~250mph on the deck, well thats totally undermodelled. It was ~300 in 1.0, but even that was too slow. P-47 roll rate is another thing... feels like it rolls 10?/sec max @500km/h. Il-2 is a real paper plane in FB. A really short salvo of any caliber destroys it's controls or breaks it's tail. P-40 can't stand any shooting. It just explodes most times, like the B-239. And right, the FW... Roll rate was right in 1.0 and Il-2, now it's really uber. Hardly decreases with speed. Rudder - the same, although I think all other planes well lack some rudder at speed. Elevator - it should give a nice high speed control, but this is too much. Especially above 550-600km/h it should decrease, but it hardly does.
But climb of FW is almost OK. They should climb like that. The only thing I noticed is that between ~3500 and 5000 they really get some kind of climb boost. Here's the A-5's average climb times for example:

500 1500 2500 3500 4500 5500 6500 7500 8500 9500
20,8 19,6 17,5 16,7 18,5 17,2 14,9 11,1 8,9 6,8

Notice that up to 3500m it's decreasing, but then at 4500 and 5500 it's higher again... very strange. I think that let's her climb to 5000 that quick. At lest below 3000 it's fine. I really disliked the just 15-16m/s in 1.0 which was just bad.

The whole thing shows, that there's still some work to do. Every side has it's übers and unters.


<hr>

<p align=center style="width:100%; filter:glow[color=#33CCFF, strength=2)">

<img src=http://mitglied.lycos.de/eldur190d9/bilder/willey110.jpg border=0 alt="Hier geht's zur I/JG78"> (http://www.jg78.de)

</p><font color=59626B>

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 04:09 PM
This whole thread is a compledly whinning.

Should get the price, Whinnin Thread of the Month.

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 04:41 PM
This is funny stuff!

The FW190 has been improved greatly.

The elevator should be a bit heavier at very high speeds without efecting the turn or E too much but in it's current state it is a VAST improvement.

I can handle the 109s wings being cliped a bit (I usually fly 109s exclusivly) as long as it is historicly correct and Russian ufos beinng clipped also.

The difference between the 109s and the 190s now feel historicly correct.

This plane was one of the finest of the war (fact).
Finally it feels that way.





"Do unto others before they do unto you"

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 04:55 PM
interesting is too 190 count by brits ans american as one of best birds ww2


and 109 could too good survive

lipfert was first, that say he couldn not outclimb yak

it was yak3

but he has fly G6

but he has 5 yak3 defeat,not like hartmann lipfert was doghfighter

seem g6 could stand against russia birds

Message Edited on 08/17/0308:01PM by Skalgrim

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 05:57 PM
What does most books ive read say.
High wingloading (caused by the wing construction low drag low lift and its weight. in short ment for high speed and high speed fighting) Modelled near right in FB 1.0

Evil violent wing drop at speeds below 300 if pressed (u would catogorise the wing shape in rectangular and eliptically. on the first mentioned you will have no or very little warning for a stall and it will most likely be a complete stall throug) Modelled near right in FB 1.0

It has a glide caracteristic of a brick when the engine was gone.(most instuctors advised not highly experienced pilots to bail out and not try to ditch it)

High speed stall and G stall (the FW had a high controll output and could overide the lift of the wing (Max aoa) at almost any speed, it didnt suffer much from volumising of controll surfaces. The BF109 became sluggish and heavy at high speed like many WW2 Birds did when using fabric coverd controllsurfaces many russian planes did too) Modelled wrong for the high speed part in FB 1.0

Never fight on the horisontal plane, if forced to do so make sure u have enough alt to roll out and disengage (Due to the high wingloading you would loose in a continous turn-fight to almost any fighter, simply not capable of turning sharp at low speeds. High speed turnrate was good but u would loose too much speed quickly if fighting an expirienced turnfighter so it was advised not to) Got that good in FB 1.0....http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Climb rate wasent too good 750-850 meters a min in continuos climb, Not linier. (again the lack of lift and the weight plays the part here. But when chased u were advised to do a steep climb if u had the upper hand in speed if not u could outrun most planes including the F6F, F4U and many more in a low rate of climb run, sub 10 meters/s most likely 450-550 meters a min.) Modelled quite well in FB 1.0

The rollrate was equall to non exept for the clipped wing spitfire at low speed. near max speed you would feel a rollrate drop like in all planes. (British and amarican test pilots said that the drop was no problem for the FW, it would still keep the advantage at high speed because the drop was more felt in other planes. the amaricans learned fast to stay out of high speed sisurres, roling sisurres and spiral dives.) Not modelled well in FB 1.0

I have read a lot of post in forums about the FW190 most are well ment but so wrong i would hate to see the fw as a new manouver king there are no way you can outmanuover a yak, la5fn, or a Lagg3 late. these planes are in reallife much easier to look good in http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif if you want to win you have to use your plane for something that its ment for like trying not to get involved in turnfighting if in a FW190 or outclimb someone

I have only 3 things on FW190 that are on my favorite wishlist.
1 The A4 uses the same BMW 801-D2 as the A5 (why have they modelled to diff. engines? im not takin the late ones used on A8 in to acount)

2 The FW190 is close to beeing too fragile.. Dont get me wrong, im not talking about the plane falling apart from a few hits, but try this test. Take an FW190A4 and someone in a yak7 give the FW190 a few 12.7 hits.. just enough to see the smallest hole in the fuselage or wing or tail thats 1 or 2 visible hits.Now the bad thing is u loose approx. 60-120 kph in speed and your acceleration and climb rate suffers too, that is = 100% death for the FW all other planes in game can still perform desent with this degree of damage, the FW190 needs it speed and power to survive.

3 Why are the Mashine guns and Wing-root cannons still forcelinked? in real life you could arm, disarm and fire any pair of guns/cannons. They even wrote that in the planesdatabase in the game.... that i really hate. I know this has been debated forth and back many times so if anyone can tell me the name of a book that states that the Mgs and wingroot canons were linked please tell me!!

Compare this to the FW190A4-9 we got now, I loved this bird in FB 1.0 but i must say i hate it now.. Just my point on this

Feel free to burn and flame http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
VH

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 06:05 PM
kyrule2 wrote:
- But I do want to say one more thing. I think the
- option to remove the outer wing cannons on the A-4
- and A-5 should not add a bomb-rack, making
- performance even worse. Pilots removed the outer
- cannons for "considerations of weight and speed"
- beginning with the 190A-2, before a bomb-rack was
- even added to the 190.

Hmm, the removed outer guns were STANDART from the A-2 version on. The MG/FF (and later MG151/20) were just a Rüstsatz (though a very common Rüstsatz /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ). It was pilot's choice to add them or not.
The first version to have the bomb-rack was the A-3.

http://franz.lampl.bei.t-online.de/toryusig.jpg (http://www.virtual-jabog32.de)

http://franz.lampl.bei.t-online.de/toryusig2.jpg (http://www.jg68.de.vu)

When once you have tasted flight,
you will always walk the earth
with your eyes turned skyward;
to where you have been
and to where you always want to return.

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 06:10 PM
HELLO Cyaneyed .

I posted this exact same observation yesterday between the yak3 and fw (and i fly the fw ) and asked not to get flamed but got flamed anyway . :-(

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 06:15 PM
removed outer cannos make 190 10km/f faster,read object data a9 in fb


a8 erh¶hten ladedruck 2050ps 585km/h sealevel

a5 with erh¶hten ladedruck 2050ps without outercannons fly 605km/h sealevel

10km/h faster without bombreack and 10km/h faster without outer cannons


and better vertical maneuver,
turn and accelerate

not weak advantage at doghfight

p39q has too with removed outerguns better performance

but not p39n-1 this plane has american performance

russia have first 44 p39q begin removed outerguns and armor

Message Edited on 08/17/0308:34PM by Skalgrim

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 10:06 PM
Skalgrim wrote:
- removed outer cannos make 190 10km/f faster,read
- object data a9 in fb
-
-
- a8 erh¶hten ladedruck 2050ps 585km/h sealevel
-
- a5 with erh¶hten ladedruck 2050ps without
- outercannons fly 605km/h sealevel
-
- 10km/h faster without bombreack and 10km/h faster
- without outer cannons
-
-
- and better vertical maneuver,
- turn and accelerate
-
- not weak advantage at doghfight
-
- p39q has too with removed outerguns better
- performance


Exactly. So like I said, if we are fixing things this should be changed as well.

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

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 10:34 PM
Oh, and while we are at it fix/or prove the La-5 standard doing 550 (or so)km/h at sea level. All the sources/data I have seen said that it was only slightly faster than the Lagg-3 at sea-level and could reach 535km/h for a short time with boost. The La-5 standard should be doing about 515km/h and about 535km/h with boost. Is the La-5 standard supposed to be almost just as fast as the La-5F at sea-level? The La-5F and La-5FN were both improvements and were faster, it just seems that the La-5 standard is too fast fast at sea-level according to what I have read.

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

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.