PDA

View Full Version : IMO: fw-190



chunkydora
07-03-2008, 09:01 PM
After trying for weeks to do anything in this wonder plane besides down newbies and b-17s in QMs and running like h**l from every other plane that can out maneuver me (ie, every other plane) I've decided I agree with the soviets:

"The FW-190 burns just as well as any plane, and it's easier to hit."

This is not because I am a n00b, I ain't, don't let the number of posts fool you. I can fly fine.

I patiently await a rain of large caliber insults. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

WTE_Galway
07-03-2008, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by chunkydora:
After trying for weeks to do anything in this wonder plane besides down newbies and b-17s in QMs and running like h**l from every other plane that can out maneuver me (ie, every other plane) I've decided I agree with the soviets:

"The FW-190 burns just as well as any plane, and it's easier to hit."

This is not because I am a n00b, I ain't, don't let the number of posts fool you. I can fly fine.

I patiently await a rain of large caliber insults. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Yeah but in the A series that big chunky semi bullet-proof engine does make it a bit easier to park behind bombers and pump them full of 20mm goodness at convergence though.

chunkydora
07-03-2008, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by chunkydora:
After trying for weeks to do anything in this wonder plane besides down newbies and b-17s in QMs and running like h**l from every other plane that can out maneuver me (ie, every other plane) I've decided I agree with the soviets:

"The FW-190 burns just as well as any plane, and it's easier to hit."

This is not because I am a n00b, I ain't, don't let the number of posts fool you. I can fly fine.

I patiently await a rain of large caliber insults. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Yeah but in the A series that big chunky semi bullet-proof engine does make it a bit easier to park behind bombers and pump them full of 20mm goodness at convergence though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True. Even at 600m you can easily down bombers.

steiner562
07-03-2008, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by chunkydora:
don't let the number of posts fool you.

Dont worry it dosent fool anyone.

DKoor
07-04-2008, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by steiner562:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by chunkydora:
don't let the number of posts fool you.

Dont worry it dosent fool anyone. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>+1


And BTW chunkydora... you may have some interest to watch this track, features me and Brain32 killing 7 allied aircraft on WarClouds in one sortie in FW-190D's (I regard that plane as uber noob plane BTW http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif );
http://www.esnips.com/doc/7ae9b33a-f7df-4a2b-b644-edd81...naFW190D-3xEA-WC-405 (http://www.esnips.com/doc/7ae9b33a-f7df-4a2b-b644-edd81903dfbf/KunaFW190D-3xEA-WC-405)

...while you're at it, be sure to check a nice JG27*CRASH track, he shot down four allied aircraft;
http://www.esnips.com/doc/eb104508-04ed-4d3e-bafe-76d9e...ASHFW190A-4EA-WC-408 (http://www.esnips.com/doc/eb104508-04ed-4d3e-bafe-76d9e69da142/CRASHFW190A-4EA-WC-408)

...and just to be noted - these tracks (FW killing multiple E/A in one sortie) aren't hard to find at all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .
And on WarClouds you mostly aren't up against newbies...
So pardon me for not understanding WTH are you talking about http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

tragentsmith
07-04-2008, 01:23 AM
Come on DKoor... I fly the 110 all the time on Warclouds and I have a lot of tracks where I down 4 or 5 enemy aircrafts per sortie. It's not the plane, it's the pilot. And the team play.

chunkydora
07-04-2008, 01:40 AM
Originally posted by tragentsmith:
Come on DKoor... I fly the 110 all the time on Warclouds and I have a lot of tracks where I down 4 or 5 enemy aircrafts per sortie. It's not the plane, it's the pilot. And the time play.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gifbasically

The more evenly matched the plane, the more it's about the pilot. I am not saying that it isn't a good (even "uber") plane, but only in the right hands. In my hands, it's a horrible plane. In your hands DKoor it's a great plane. But don't take an insult to your favorite plane personally. IL-2 is a very realistic game, and in a way you can 'feel' the plane. The 190 and I vibrate on different wavelengths. That's all I'm saying.

DKoor
07-04-2008, 03:08 AM
Originally posted by tragentsmith:
Come on DKoor... I fly the 110 all the time on Warclouds and I have a lot of tracks where I down 4 or 5 enemy aircrafts per sortie. It's not the plane, it's the pilot. And the team play. I bet you wont find so many tracks of P-51D killing 4 or more per sortie, no matter the pilot or the plane... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Sure thing, there are some pilots who achieved 6 or more kills in P-51D @ WC (these are more exceptions to the rule http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ), but everyone and their mothers knows that FW is the ultimate killing machine in IL2.

That has nothing to do with the pilot, but rather the fact that you have 4x20mm and that kills everything by just looking at it.

So yes, I see that I obviously disagree with you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

TinyTim
07-04-2008, 03:24 AM
There is a sea of difference in Fw190 chances of succsess in 1v1 (starting with same E level, or even with a bogey on its tail) or on closed pit, externals off, populated server where you can indeed bag multiple unwary bogies per sortie.

So, DKoor and Chunky, you are both actually right, just probably not discussing the same thing.

WOLFMondo
07-04-2008, 06:04 AM
chunkydora, the 190 is a different sort of aircraft and needs a different train of thought when flying. Using its vastly superior roll and timing your manouvers just right so you can bring that ****nal to bare. Working in a pair is also something that the 190 excels in. In a pair you only actually need fear a higher P47 (5000m+) or pair of.


Originally posted by DKoor:

And BTW chunkydora... you may have some interest to watch this track, features me and Brain32 killing 7 allied aircraft on WarClouds in one sortie in FW-190D's (I regard that plane as uber noob plane BTW http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif );

Its not a n00b plane, its just really damn good and has everything a fighter pilot could wish for (View+firepower+speed+harmonized controls). The real plane was really well designed and the IL2 version is very well modelled to that design.

Erkki_M
07-04-2008, 07:00 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
I bet you wont find so many tracks of P-51D killing 4 or more per sortie, no matter the pilot or the plane... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I got 6, 5 Fockes and a 109G6late on Spits vs 109s all alone, in a P51B... Only one of them was a "silent" kill (he made it back to home with some holes in the airframe). I also have 5 kills of it on a track, I stopped the track on final approach but you can see the to-be-come 6th diving to me. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Anyone? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

****

About the FW190... Chunkydora, try flying it with a mate or two in voice comms. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Xiolablu3
07-04-2008, 07:14 AM
I suggest you start flying biplanes if you want to be sure of 'outmanouvering' the other aircraft rather than outrunning it.

chunkydora
07-04-2008, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by chunkydora:

This is not because I am a n00b, I ain't, don't let the number of posts fool you. I can fly fine.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif


So what you are saying is that all this gazillion n00b questions you bobmbarded the forum with in the last few weeks, (that many people went out of their way to help you with), were just for your amusement?
So you just wanted to get atention pretending you are a n00b? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

If yes, then you do suck! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

?

I've only owned 46 for a couple months.

Before that I was still with the original IL-2 that I've been playing for a long time.

My memory isn't that good, but if I remember right I asked for tips with some new aircraft I encountered, with help finding a good new stick, and some others. Please bring the gazillion noob questions to my attention, I can't remember them. I appreciate all the help people gave with me with whatever questions I asked. I asked them all in complete sincerity.

Sorry if I have come across incorrectly.

chunkydora
07-04-2008, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I suggest you start flying biplanes if you want to be sure of 'outmanouvering' the other aircraft rather than outrunning it.

I don't want to outmaneuver them.

I want to maneuver.

Bewolf
07-04-2008, 01:04 PM
Well, nobody forces you to survive. So have all the fun maneuvering you want http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Xiolablu3
07-04-2008, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by chunkydora:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I suggest you start flying biplanes if you want to be sure of 'outmanouvering' the other aircraft rather than outrunning it.

I don't want to outmaneuver them.

I want to maneuver. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the British report on the FW190, they came to the conclusion that 'The FW190 is more manouverable than the Spitfire V, except in turning circles, where it is easily outturned by the Spitfire.'

Turning circles is only one part of being manouverable.

The RAF found the FW190 incredibly manouverable.

anarchy52
07-04-2008, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:

In the British report on the FW190, they came to the conclusion that 'The FW190 is more manouverable than the Spitfire V, except in turning circles, where it is easily outturned by the Spitfire.'

Turning circles is only one part of being manouverable.

The RAF found the FW190 incredibly manouverable.
If Brits had been flying Oleg's fw-190, their conclusions would be quite different. In the game, fw-190, the only way to go is "drive by shooting" and hunting in large packs, anything else borders suicide. It's laughable how even the P-47, the 7 ton monstroc
sity feels so light and nimble compared to focke. Tempest, which had turning performance similar to fw can run circles around the fw.

There is literally no manuever focke can do to outfly it's opponent unless it has large e advantage. Roll rate is too high at low speeds (not the part of the envelope you'd wan't to be in fw), and too low at high speed (where it counts).

Engine is weak and anemic, even at low alt acceleration is attrocious, pulling a loop almost shuts down the engine (just watch those RPMs drop).

It turns worse then real life FW tested by soviets (crashlanded, very crudely repaired and fitted with a Stuka prop)
I could go for 2 pages writing about how focke has been misrepresented in the game.

3 good points are:
fast at low alt, level speed is rather good, however, it 's acceleration is poor, so you better have some separation, or you'll get caught by planes which have lower max speed-

Good guns, no argument there

Better then late Bf-109s which are next to useless over 400 km/h (the myth of inpossibly stiff controls) and have very low amount of ammo for it's nose howitzer.

Basically, "Oleg" had the idea of FW-190 being huge, heavy gunship, only good for shooting down bombers and Bf-109, only good for setting climb records on short distances. So they made it like that. It doesn't mean they flew like that.

P.S. when I say FW-190, I mean Anton. Dora is what FW-190 should be (notice that it is also easily outturned by Spits, Ponies and just about anything with the red star that managed to get off the ground)

RegRag1977
07-04-2008, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
Well, nobody forces you to survive. So have all the fun maneuvering you want http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
Yeah, at least we Würger pilots have good humour but no surprise here: we have all the time in the world to invent new jokes on comms while we are running away, full throttle towards friendly flak, you know... at the exact moment just after the first failed pass http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

gkll
07-04-2008, 03:42 PM
Have you looked at the powerloading and wingloading for the FW, ie RL numbers? It is not particularly powerful for its weight, and it has the highest wingloading of any WW2 fighter except perhaps the Lightning. While these two parameters do not by any means tell the whole picture of performance, they prob explain ~80% of the observed performance.

Tempest has equivalent powerloading to A model 190s and considerably lower wingloading, it should run rings around the A model 190s in the turn.

Considering the British report it has been suggested that the manuevering envelope where it showed all of these advantages may have been well 'over the top' for a spit V. Say 400k and up, at these speeds the 190 will outclimb and outaccelerate the spit. However I can't recall if this was ever substantiated.

Guess I just get a little tired of beefs without data or even a basic grasp of RL parameters and how they relate to RL performance. My grasp is only 'basic', however just a few simple RL numbers suggest to me Oleg is not so far off.

Our ingame tactics are not at all like RL. Our combat is with good SAwareness, sound tactics (BFM and ACM), no fear, and plenty plenty practise. With these conditions do not expect a plane with raw numbers as in wingloading powerloading as in FW to be other than HnR....

My 2c

chunkydora
07-04-2008, 03:50 PM
Thanks guys for the info

A PS to what jaws said: my numerous and frequent posting have not been in any way to draw attention to my self. I see how they may have been annoying to people, and how I may have taken more liberty with my posting than is acceptable. If that is at all the case, I apologize most sincerely.

WOLFMondo
07-04-2008, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:

If Brits had been flying Oleg's fw-190, their conclusions would be quite different. In the game, fw-190, the only way to go is "drive by shooting" and hunting in large packs, anything else borders suicide.

I don't agree at all. Yes, its the best drive by shooter with the exception of the 4 cannon armed British planes and 262 but go onto Warclouds and watch guys dogfight spits at there own game in A6's, A8's and A9's and win. If you can use its roll rate, its ability to change direction of flight in an instant its a killer.

na85
07-04-2008, 04:42 PM
Got any tracks of such dogfights? They'd really help my game. <3 FW190

na85
07-04-2008, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by chunkydora:
After trying for weeks to do anything in this wonder plane besides down newbies and b-17s in QMs and running like h**l from every other plane that can out maneuver me (ie, every other plane) I've decided I agree with the soviets:

"The FW-190 burns just as well as any plane, and it's easier to hit."

This is not because I am a n00b, I ain't, don't let the number of posts fool you. I can fly fine.

I patiently await a rain of large caliber insults. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Have you tried using the flat scissors? At speed the FW190 can out-roll most of its opponents.

Brain32
07-04-2008, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by gkll:
Have you looked at the powerloading and wingloading for the FW, ie RL numbers? It is not particularly powerful for its weight, and it has the highest wingloading of any WW2 fighter except perhaps the Lightning. While these two parameters do not by any means tell the whole picture of performance, they prob explain ~80% of the observed performance.

Incorrect, P47,P51,P38 all have same or worse wingloading as FW190A series and worse powerloading than FW190A series at lower alts and by that I mean usually below 6-7000m. Yet all of them can turn with it happily, the P51D on top of all has "laminar wings" great for high speed(less drag) bad for turning.



Originally posted by gkll:
Tempest has equivalent powerloading to A model 190s and considerably lower wingloading, it should run rings around the A model 190s in the turn.
Again wrong, Tempest does have better wingloading, but FW190a has better powerloading, also Tempests wings do not have classic airfoil, they are pretty much the same as with P51. In tactical trials made during the war with captured FW's, RAE guys said there's little to no difference between the three types(P51,Tempest,FW190A).



Originally posted by gkll:
Guess I just get a little tired of beefs without data or even a basic grasp of RL parameters and how they relate to RL performance. My grasp is only 'basic', however just a few simple RL numbers suggest to me Oleg is not so far off.
Your grasp is not basic, just plain wrong...

Anyway about the FW190A, the only thing good about it is firepower although neutered by the laughable gunsight view it's still powerfull enough that if you fly it in a way virtually any plane* would achieve good results, FW190A will get you excellent results, ofcourse only if oposition is not flying in a way any plane would achieve good results lol

Will sound strange but it's a plane you have to hate will all your strenght to actually love it, it's acceleration is horrible, it can't manouver with anything save heavy bombers let alone outmanouver something, it's climb is below average and speed merely average for late war, thank God we have the Dora, otherwise it would be a complete slaughter especially since late 109's are super-pathetic.

I love it though...A9 especially

idonno
07-04-2008, 06:16 PM
Wing Loadings

Spitfire Mk Vb ____________ 24.56 lb/sq ft

Bf 109F-4 _______________ 36.7 lbs/sq ft

Tempest Mk. V ___________ 37.75 lb/sq ft

P-51D ___________________ 43.4 lb/sq ft

P-47D ___________________ 44.1 lb/sq ft

Fw 190 A-8 ______________ 49.4 lb/sq ft


These are the best numbers I could find briefly searching the Internet and comparing a few different sources. If anybody has more accurate information I'd be glad to see it, and I'll edit this post.

KrashanTopolova
07-04-2008, 06:29 PM
idonno
If you can, would you please get wing loading for CW Spitfire?

Interesting to note that only 2 aircraft in your list have rounded wings. Notable is that the Spit is almost half the wing loading figure as the other elliptical winged aircraft (P-47)

Clipped Winged Spits were designed to improve low altitude handling. As such they could give a better clue to the relationship between wing loading and turn rate.

Brain32
07-04-2008, 06:53 PM
Very strange numbers, looks to me like combat weight used for US fighters and apsolute max take off mass used for A8, but will have to check with the imperial/metric conversion, plane manuals etc. Wouldn't be the first time I'm wrong lol

R_Target
07-04-2008, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Very strange numbers, looks to me like combat weight used for US fighters and apsolute max take off mass used for A8, but will have to check with the imperial/metric conversion, plane manuals etc. Wouldn't be the first time I'm wrong lol

I don't think you're wrong. The wing loading for P-51 and P-47 above correspond roughly with full internal fuel and ammo load, or 10,230lbs and 13,230lbs respectively.

idonno
07-04-2008, 09:51 PM
Yeah the 47's weight came from this flight test;

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47-26167.html

It states "... includes full internal fuel, 15 gallons of water and ballast for 300 rounds of ammunition per gun."

alert_1
07-05-2008, 01:52 AM
My question is: why is Fw190D so much better then Fw190A8 even in low to mid alt? Both have similarly powerful engines (1780-2100ps),roughly the same weight (4200-4400kg) and almost the same airframe (same wing and wingloading). So WHY?

LovroSL
07-05-2008, 02:09 AM
new engine perhaps?

GH_Klingstroem
07-05-2008, 03:37 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tragentsmith:
Come on DKoor... I fly the 110 all the time on Warclouds and I have a lot of tracks where I down 4 or 5 enemy aircrafts per sortie. It's not the plane, it's the pilot. And the team play. I bet you wont find so many tracks of P-51D killing 4 or more per sortie, no matter the pilot or the plane... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Sure thing, there are some pilots who achieved 6 or more kills in P-51D @ WC (these are more exceptions to the rule http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ), but everyone and their mothers knows that FW is the ultimate killing machine in IL2.

That has nothing to do with the pilot, but rather the fact that you have 4x20mm and that kills everything by just looking at it.

So yes, I see that I obviously disagree with you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ooooh dont be so sure DKoor! I have plenty of tracks ofmyself on Warclouds downing 4-7 planes per sortie in the P51... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I agree with you tho! The fw190 with its 4 20mm is THE ultimate killing machine, no arguement about that!Its a vewry rewarding planes to fly once u know the BnZ tactics and know when to disengage.. Oh Btw when u do disengage, be sure u are not being followed by a p51... They will always catch u eventually... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Xiolablu3
07-05-2008, 03:43 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hF9lYAbC6D8&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vO9NKJNjiw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wN9Kgq7kopg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMKHXQ22yAc&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nm5v11KkuPY&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfNPG5kepxY&feature=related

Jaws2002
07-05-2008, 08:24 AM
Originally posted by chunkydora:
Thanks guys for the info

A PS to what jaws said: my numerous and frequent posting have not been in any way to draw attention to my self. I see how they may have been annoying to people, and how I may have taken more liberty with my posting than is acceptable. If that is at all the case, I apologize most sincerely.

Sorry Chunkydora. I jumped on you a bit too harsh.
I thought you are one of those guys that have 2000-3000 posts that join the forum with a diffrent name and pretend to be new players. We had few of those.

Please don't be afraid to ask questions. There are a lot of people here that know a lot and you'll get a good answer for most of your questions.

KrashanTopolova
07-06-2008, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by idonno:
Wing Loadings

Spitfire Mk Vb ____________ 24.56 lb/sq ft

Bf 109F-4 _______________ 36.7 lbs/sq ft

Tempest Mk. V ___________ 37.75 lb/sq ft

P-51D ___________________ 43.4 lb/sq ft

P-47D ___________________ 44.1 lb/sq ft

Fw 190 A-8 ______________ 49.4 lb/sq ft


These are the best numbers I could find briefly searching the Internet and comparing a few different sources. If anybody has more accurate information I'd be glad to see it, and I'll edit this post.
___________________________________________
Correct me if I'm wrong but By these numbers the Spitfire should be superior to all the other aircraft in sustained turning performance because it has the lowest wing loading.

The BF-109 may be not as good but it may have better instantaneous turning performance (which is not sustained as well as the Spit). This instantaneous turning performance and roll rate (if it did indeed have it better than the Spit) may be the reason why the slats on the Bf-109 often jammed in a turn.

I'm only going on the observation that high wing loading led to lesser sustained turning performance.

The characteristic noticed most in the turning of the Spit is its steep tendency to drop a wing. Increasing the elevator pitch in order to compensate the loss of height tends to stall out the Spitfire very quickly.

If the above is correct the BF109 would have no choice but to slow down to turn with goos sustained turners such as the Hurricanes. That was the case in RL. I have not tested in game.

na85
07-07-2008, 01:54 AM
The angles fight favors the plane with lower wing loading.

Bewolf
07-07-2008, 03:49 AM
Originally posted by alert_1:
My question is: why is Fw190D so much better then Fw190A8 even in low to mid alt? Both have similarly powerful engines (1780-2100ps),roughly the same weight (4200-4400kg) and almost the same airframe (same wing and wingloading). So WHY?

It probably all boils down to the the 190A's inability to accelerate below 350 kph. This is extremly imporant for both energy tactics and dog fights alike. This may also be the reason for the less then stallar turn performance, because unlike other planes the 190 can't compensate wing loading with any excess power like it was in real life.

I think many folks underestimate the importance of this acceleration. Aside the bar issue this is my biggest gripe with this bird. It neuters it's ability to stay and fight.

That said, no bird comes close to the 190 when it comes to high speed maneuvers and duels. What it does not have in speed it has in firepower. Nothing beats 4 x MG151/20 in this arrangement in fighter combat.

Kurfurst__
07-07-2008, 05:50 AM
Originally posted by alert_1:
My question is: why is Fw190D so much better then Fw190A8 even in low to mid alt? Both have similarly powerful engines (1780-2100ps),roughly the same weight (4200-4400kg) and almost the same airframe (same wing and wingloading). So WHY?

Usually people believe the boost of performance in the D-9 comes from a more powerful engine; it is generally incorrect however, the Jumo 213 and the BMW 801 have roughly similiar outputs, but the Jumo engined version of the FW 190 has less drag thanks to the slim inline engine. Hence the improved performance accross the board compared to the 'Anton'.

KrashanTopolova
07-07-2008, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by na85:
The angles fight favors the plane with lower wing loading.

I'm confused with the chart given by idunno. The FW is listed as having the heaviest loaded wing. Yet as was pointed out by na85 the FW in game has a fantastic roll-rate; its wings appear designed for this. We know the FW could not out-turn even the obsolete P-40.

a heavily loaded wing takes away from performance characteristics such as climb rate and turn performance. Yet it is/was obvious that the FW was an exceptional performer until Spits caught up with it (going on the numbers in the chart the Spit V should easily outclimb the FW190). Wing loading is a broad indicator of lift-to mass ratio - the more area of wing compared to the aircraft's mass the more lift can be generated by the wing. The FW190's wings are small compared to its mass and this gives better stability and roll because there is less area for drag and turbulence to operate on the wing giving the FW an advantage in climbing and diving. That is in fact how they operated - like eagles pecking at their victim as the Luftwaffe (Adolph Galland) pictured it.

So my bafflement in the numbers persists.

Is the A-8 listed in the chart the twin boom FW? If so then my bafflement over the wing loading chart might be explained a little and then other factors such as thrust would be a better explanation of the FW190's performance over the early Spitfires (and probably most other Allied fighter of the time).

Jaws2002
07-07-2008, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Usually people believe the boost of performance in the D-9 comes from a more powerful engine; it is generally incorrect however, the Jumo 213 and the BMW 801 have roughly similiar outputs, but the Jumo engined version of the FW 190 has less drag thanks to the slim inline engine. Hence the improved performance accross the board compared to the 'Anton'.

The extra drag still doesn't explain the huge difference in acceleration at low speed (particularly take off). The difference in drag doesn't mean that much at take off.

I think is just bad modeling.

KrashanTopolova
07-07-2008, 08:52 PM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:

The extra drag still doesn't explain the huge difference in acceleration at low speed (particularly take off). The difference in drag doesn't mean that much at take off.

I think is just bad modeling.


Is there a difference in acceleration or is it momentum?
Cut the throttle on a Zero or Spitfire and it accelerates in the opposite direction very quickly (basically: slows down). This is because they are a light fusealage on a large wing area (low wing loading).
Do the same for an aircraft with a heavier wing loading (ratio of fuselage weight to small wing area) and the deceleration is less because of the more sustained momentum.

the Hurricane is modelled similarly (and correctly I think). Try taxying it with any modicum of elegance.

If one chooses to fly the FW190 they could take advantage of this momentum characteristic whether in B&Z or T$B or S&6 (slip and six) or any other tactic one might devise.

Jaws2002
07-07-2008, 10:46 PM
Originally posted by KrashanTopolova:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:

The extra drag still doesn't explain the huge difference in acceleration at low speed (particularly take off). The difference in drag doesn't mean that much at take off.

I think is just bad modeling.


Is there a difference in acceleration or is it momentum?
Cut the throttle on a Zero or Spitfire and it accelerates in the opposite direction very quickly (basically: slows down). This is because they are a light fusealage on a large wing area (low wing loading).
Do the same for an aircraft with a heavier wing loading (ratio of fuselage weight to small wing area) and the deceleration is less because of the more sustained momentum.

the Hurricane is modelled similarly (and correctly I think). Try taxying it with any modicum of elegance.

If one chooses to fly the FW190 they could take advantage of this momentum characteristic whether in B&Z or T$B or S&6 (slip and six) or any other tactic one might devise. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I'm talking about acceleration not momentum.
I understand what you mean, but when we talk about the diference in acceleration between D9 and A8 for example, this is irelevant. They are very close in weight, power and virtually the same airframe and wings.
How do you explain that A8 needs a lot more runway to take off then the D9?

VW-IceFire
07-08-2008, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KrashanTopolova:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:

The extra drag still doesn't explain the huge difference in acceleration at low speed (particularly take off). The difference in drag doesn't mean that much at take off.

I think is just bad modeling.


Is there a difference in acceleration or is it momentum?
Cut the throttle on a Zero or Spitfire and it accelerates in the opposite direction very quickly (basically: slows down). This is because they are a light fusealage on a large wing area (low wing loading).
Do the same for an aircraft with a heavier wing loading (ratio of fuselage weight to small wing area) and the deceleration is less because of the more sustained momentum.

the Hurricane is modelled similarly (and correctly I think). Try taxying it with any modicum of elegance.

If one chooses to fly the FW190 they could take advantage of this momentum characteristic whether in B&Z or T$B or S&6 (slip and six) or any other tactic one might devise. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I'm talking about acceleration not momentum.
I understand what you mean, but when we talk about the diference in acceleration between D9 and A8 for example, this is irelevant. They are very close in weight, power and virtually the same airframe and wings.
How do you explain that A8 needs a lot more runway to take off then the D9? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The only explanation I can think of is, at least in game, how the engine management is modeled. The BMW radial seems to take its sweet time getting revved to a optimal setting whereas the Jumo seems to almost always be right where it should be. It just feels like the Jumo is biting the air while the BMW is trying to grab a hold of it. Or I guess it could be propeller related as well...the A-9 is a bit different than the A-8 in feel (its subtle) with a different propeller.

KrashanTopolova
07-08-2008, 06:56 PM
Perhaps the difference lies in boost and flight control surfaces. the Jumo in the Dora had a water-methanol injection which boosted the power to 2240hp for short periods. Its engine was also housed in an annular cowling making the Dora streamlined in comparison to earlier Fw190s.
Those flight attributes added to the tapered fuselage flight attribute ought to add up to less drag and better flight performance.

PanzerAce
07-08-2008, 10:26 PM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KrashanTopolova:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:

The extra drag still doesn't explain the huge difference in acceleration at low speed (particularly take off). The difference in drag doesn't mean that much at take off.

I think is just bad modeling.


Is there a difference in acceleration or is it momentum?
Cut the throttle on a Zero or Spitfire and it accelerates in the opposite direction very quickly (basically: slows down). This is because they are a light fusealage on a large wing area (low wing loading).
Do the same for an aircraft with a heavier wing loading (ratio of fuselage weight to small wing area) and the deceleration is less because of the more sustained momentum.

the Hurricane is modelled similarly (and correctly I think). Try taxying it with any modicum of elegance.

If one chooses to fly the FW190 they could take advantage of this momentum characteristic whether in B&Z or T$B or S&6 (slip and six) or any other tactic one might devise. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I'm talking about acceleration not momentum.
I understand what you mean, but when we talk about the diference in acceleration between D9 and A8 for example, this is irelevant. They are very close in weight, power and virtually the same airframe and wings.
How do you explain that A8 needs a lot more runway to take off then the D9? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It actually has alot to do with the length of the plane vs. the frontal area. I don't remember the exact reason, but it is the same reason that battleships and other large ships are made as long as possible for a given width, it just makes it faster for a given power *shrugs*

Wildnoob
07-10-2008, 06:36 PM
http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/1687/merda95rp8.jpg

here's a typical scene I see with this aircraft.

on this image I was diving from 1000 meters in a furball.

just on this sortie I down 4 enemy aircraft without suffering a scratch.

my tactic is simple : fly above, spot furballs, dive on then, fire, run away and repeat the procedure.

the possibility of being spoted is very small.

Kettenhunde
07-12-2008, 04:35 AM
How do you explain that A8 needs a lot more runway to take off then the D9?


According to the Kennblatt's, the FW-190A8 needs slightly less runway to lift off and slight more room to clear a 20 meter obstacle than the FW-190D9.

The differences are insignificant.

FW-190A8:

Take off roll - 350 Meters
Distance to clear obstacle - 650 Meters

FW-190D9:

Take off roll - 410 Meters
Distance to clear obstacle - 625 Meters

All the best,

Crumpp

DKoor
07-12-2008, 04:55 AM
Also Bf-109G6AS vs Bf-109K4... very similar crafts with exception of K4 looking more cool (I admit this doesn't count) and having nicer airframe (this does count http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ), but night & day difference in handling in game.

I always go with those folk sayings...

When it smells like cr@p, looks like a cr@p you don't have to taste it to figure it's - a cr@p.

Sorry for being a bit vulgar, but it "pictures" things really nice.