PDA

View Full Version : The Me-109 And the Fw-190



texhill88
07-29-2006, 02:23 PM
How do the me-109 and the fw-190 compare and which is better tell me what you think answer either <span class="ev_code_RED">A,B,C.</span>

A= me-109 is better
B= fw-190 is better
C= dont know

texhill88
07-29-2006, 02:23 PM
How do the me-109 and the fw-190 compare and which is better tell me what you think answer either <span class="ev_code_RED">A,B,C.</span>

A= me-109 is better
B= fw-190 is better
C= dont know

danjama
07-29-2006, 02:36 PM
raaaid wannabe http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

FW190 if you must know

hamrtime
07-29-2006, 02:47 PM
I've had 'issues' with tthe 190, it seems to go into a spin too easly somtimes.

Viper2005_
07-29-2006, 02:58 PM
Fw-190 all day for me. The Bf-109 is great at fighting the enemy. The Fw-190 isn't. It just kills the enemy. You pays your money and you takes your choice.

Von_Rat
07-30-2006, 01:35 AM
in this game the best pilots fly the fw190.



ill give you one guess what noobs fly.

DEY_RAVEN_UK
07-30-2006, 01:54 AM
When they sort out the ridiculous heavy elevator compression then maybe the 109 but untill then the 190.....
The 109 is the only plane i know where you have to reduce speed to enter a fight http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


regards raven

HellToupee
07-30-2006, 02:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DEY_RAVEN_UK:
When they sort out the ridiculous heavy elevator compression then maybe the 109 but untill then the 190.....
The 109 is the only plane i know where you have to reduce speed to enter a fight http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


regards raven </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

that was an actual disadvantage of the 109, cement controls http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

leitmotiv
07-30-2006, 02:24 AM
Give me a P-47M (wish we had one) in a 450mph dive and a quivering 109 or 190 in the sight. Hail Columbia!

La7_brook
07-30-2006, 02:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DEY_RAVEN_UK:
When they sort out the ridiculous heavy elevator compression then maybe the 109 but untill then the 190.....
The 109 is the only plane i know where you have to reduce speed to enter a fight http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


regards raven </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

that was an actual disadvantage of the 109, cement controls http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE> think i read sum were it was a round 600km mark ,but we it heavy after 450km , so what have here is at what speed it starts too lock up

WOLFMondo
07-30-2006, 03:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
in this game the best pilots fly the fw190.



ill give you one guess what noobs fly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Lucius_Esox
07-30-2006, 03:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
in this game the best pilots fly the fw190.



ill give you one guess what noobs fly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Keep saying it enough and it gets believed..

I will amend that if I may. The players who want to APPEAR the best fly the 190,,, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

F6_Ace
07-30-2006, 03:59 AM
von_rat is clearly wise http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I'd amend his statement to better pilots choosing 'rides that require more discipline' i.e. FW190, P47, P38 etc

At the end of that list would be the La5FN, La7 and Spitfire.

general_kalle
07-30-2006, 04:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
raaaid wannabe http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

FW190 if you must know </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

agree raaaid wannabe...(its ok) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

tigertalon
07-30-2006, 04:35 AM
Plain and simple:

For dueling 1v1: 109 by far.

For everything else: 190 by far.

Lucius_Esox
07-30-2006, 05:11 AM
Lol,,,, Were off http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

To best a "good" 109/190 pilot in a certain never mentioned aircraft... requires discipline!

Tis true http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

JFC_Rautaristi
07-30-2006, 05:30 AM
I like them both.

The way i think, the FW-190 is "better" on the western front, while the BF-109 is "better" on the eastern. Just my preference.

Nothing can beat a flight of 109s working together with a flight of 190s.

F6_Ace
07-30-2006, 05:31 AM
^ Very true.

Also, you need the discipline to wait for his engine to overheat while^ yours does not http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Von_Rat
07-30-2006, 05:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lucius_Esox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
in this game the best pilots fly the fw190.



ill give you one guess what noobs fly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Keep saying it enough and it gets believed..

I will amend that if I may. The players who want to APPEAR the best fly the 190,,, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

if they can score well in a fw theres no APPEAR about it.

funny you never hear the term fwnoob.

cant say that about a certain other plane.

danjama
07-30-2006, 05:45 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

CMHQ_Rikimaru
07-30-2006, 06:05 AM
While BF109G+ and FW190D is equall, FW190A is far far away behind themhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Anyway, my favourite is Anton, even if its weakest of them allhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

tomtheyak
07-30-2006, 06:47 AM
WOW!

The Blue pilots have got so bored of calling red spit pilots noobs that they've started on each other!

U guys got to get out more.

JG53Frankyboy
07-30-2006, 06:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JFC_Rautaristi:
I like them both.

The way i think, the FW-190 is "better" on the western front, while the BF-109 is "better" on the eastern. Just my preference.

Nothing can beat a flight of 109s working together with a flight of 190s. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

why should be a BMW driven Fw190 be better at the western front ?
at the wetsern front altitude perfromance was more important than at the eastern front. and the BMW801 struggeld heavily in this........
sure, to attack heavy bomber formations the Fw190 is better because of its more roughitness.

and the Bf109 had lot of proplems with its narrow undercarriage on the estern front typical fields...

the best plane became the Fw190D - it had all , fortunatly it came to late.

JtD
07-30-2006, 07:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:

why should be a BMW driven Fw190 be better at the western front ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cause it's faster, dives better and carries 4 times the firepower.

JG53Frankyboy
07-30-2006, 07:13 AM
oh yes, to dive was the most suicidal manouver for a Fw190 pilot in a fight against US fighters.

HuninMunin
07-30-2006, 07:19 AM
US fighters were only a small part of the western conflict.
And if it comes to RAF, I'd rather don't dogfight a spitfire in my 109, whereas against a well flown 190, will pawn everything until the arrival of MkIX. And even then the Spit could "only" keep up, not gain on the FW.

danjama
07-30-2006, 07:24 AM
FW190 is porked in this game

In real life it owned

WOLFMondo
07-30-2006, 08:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tomtheyak:
WOW!

The Blue pilots have got so bored of calling red spit pilots noobs that they've started on each other!

U guys got to get out more. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its always the case. 190 drivers think BF109 drivers are n00bs, 109 drivers just don't think, which is the problem http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:

at the wetsern front altitude perfromance was more important than at the eastern front.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was it? I seem to recall the US bomber offensive taking place in 1944, which itself was not a massive part of the overall western fronts total sorties. The luftwaffe were fighting the RAF and later the 9th AF at low and medium altitude since 1939, most daylight medium bomber raids and most of the sorties by the tactical airforces were at 12,000ft or below.

Spinnetti
07-30-2006, 09:08 AM
This is kinda funny to read responses now.. Used to be NOBODY flew the 190A's, now they are a favorite?

I'm not sure why exactly, but I've pretty much only flown the 190A5/A6 since IL2 first came out, though I like the KI84 for the cannon.

It feels "funny" to fly anything else now.

CUJO_1970
07-30-2006, 09:22 AM
FW190 forever.

The FW190A-8 is the most pitifully and inexcusably undermoddelled fighter in this sim.

Brain32
07-30-2006, 09:42 AM
FW190 all the way, 109 is good up to G2, later models are for mazochists only http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JtD
07-30-2006, 09:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
oh yes, to dive was the most suicidal manouver for a Fw190 pilot in a fight against US fighters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can imagine a lot more suicidal maneuvers.

Also, US fighters were a minority. And not all of them outdived the FW 190.

Cippacometa
07-30-2006, 11:11 AM
B

TheBandit_76
07-30-2006, 11:59 AM
The most skilled pilots in this game fly P47s and P51s.

PERIOD.

http://www.1941hag.org/images_airshow/p47.jpg

WWMaxGunz
07-30-2006, 12:05 PM
If you're having beef roast then red whine is better,
but with fish ya stick with the white whine.

Prop_Strike
07-31-2006, 02:10 AM
I agree that you have to be a good pilot to be sucessful in an FW190A - but some guys go on and on about the Spit being a Noob plane, and the FW such a Man's plane needing discipline and huge testicles and skill to fly etc...

I had never, ever flown an FW190D in online combat before, and a few days ago got 5 kills in six missions against Spits, Tempests etc.
If I got in a bad situation, I just hit the gas and extended....

Being able to fly in, kill everything and run away when you need to tells me that the Dora is pretty much a Noob plane too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

BBB_Hyperion
07-31-2006, 02:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Prop_Strike:
I had never, ever flown an FW190D in online combat before, and a few days ago got 5 kills in six missions against Spits, Tempests etc.
If I got in a bad situation, I just hit the gas and extended....
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try A5/6 Model vs la5fn then come back .)

Prop_Strike
07-31-2006, 02:38 AM
Read my first sentence.....

BBB_Hyperion
07-31-2006, 02:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Prop_Strike:
Read my first sentence..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did read it.

Seriously try it online .)

Try La7 vs D9 might have the same effect.

JG52Karaya-X
07-31-2006, 03:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
FW190 all the way, 109 is good up to G2, later models are for mazochists only http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For me it's exactly the opposite:

The Bf109 is just great (with the exception of the G6early/late), it is very fast, is second to none in terms of RoC and also turns pretty well and is thus a very dynamic fighter - even the late MW50 equipped 109s can outurn most if not all US fighters (exceptions being the late P39s and the P63).

The FW190 (Anton) on the other hand is being outturned by almost every other fighter (except the P38 and P47), has a very poor RoC and a bad acceleration at slow speeds. The only Antons that deserve the designation of a fighter IMHO are the 5/6 and 9. The 4, 5(1,65ata) and 8 just blow...

In the Anton I find that the ONLY tactic is to make high speed slashing attacks with a lot of surplus speed and altitude - as the FW does not hold the energy too well you're forced to disengage again after 2 or 3 passes at best. In the Bf109 you can stay longer in the fight as it builds up energy much faster - you can get to altitude again very fast and then pick your target of choice.

Of course the Dora rocks again http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Xiolablu3
07-31-2006, 03:27 AM
Not sure how you can say that the Fw190A4 blows in 1942, its the best fighter for the year by far. 190A5 1.65 ATA is as fast as a 190A8 on the deck (590kph sea level), in 1943 that is FAST. FW190A holds energy very well as long as you dont turn too tight for the plane. Try a gentle dive and climb and you will feel like you zoom climb for ever. Also try slowing down fast when you come to land, its hard.


Spitfire/Zero/La5FN are good for new pilots

FW190/Me109 for Middle/Fair pilots

ONly true aces can be successful in the P51/P47.

In real life the P51/P47 usually had numbers advantage.

Not so in this game, they have to fight one on one often.

WOLFMondo
07-31-2006, 03:47 AM
The A4 we have does blow in 1942 though, the 109F's are much nicer to fly. Olegs said himself that the old A5 is more akin to the true A4 specs anyway and the A4 we have has is derated, and the A5 is pretty nice to fly although I prefer the A6. In a 1942/3 situation the Antons are the mutts nuts with the A6 being probably the ultimate midwar fighter plane on any side.

JG52Karaya-X
07-31-2006, 04:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Not sure how you can say that the Fw190A4 blows in 1942, its the best fighter for the year by far. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well IMHO the Bf109G2 has all the aces in its hand. Its topspeed is 26km/h higher (666km/h vs 640km/h for our A4 with wrong boost), it climbs and turns FAR better. Well okay the A4 has the better firepower and dives/rolls better. The Bf109 is just so much more dynamic! Depending on what kind of enemy you are facing you can either boom and zoom or outturn him.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">190A5 1.65 ATA is as fast as a 190A8 on the deck (590kph sea level), in 1943 that is FAST. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes ON THE DECK... which is not where you should be with a FW! And btw just like with the F8 the 1,65ata A5s boost becomes ineffective above 1000m so what we are dealing with here is a clear JaBo version, not a fighter version! The normal A5 is the one to go with and I do like it a lot!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also try slowing down fast when you come to land, its hard. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No its not: Idle power, set prop pitch to 0% and you'll loose speed very very quickly!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Spitfire/Zero/La5FN are good for new pilots

FW190/Me109 for Middle/Fair pilots

ONLY true aces can be successful in the P51/P47. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I kind of agree on the P47, but not on the P51. If you can fly and fight in the Bf109/FW190 you can fight effectively in the Mustang as well. The P51 to me is very stable and forgiving in the slow speed stall department - of course you have to watch out for the high speed snap stall but if you got into one than you were too ham-fisted in the first place. The 4x/6x .50CALs are very nice as well - you won't obliterate an enemy in one pass but it sure is possible to severly cripple him (engine/wing/guns damage or even a PK) and take him out of the fight and that IMO is just all that matters.

Xiolablu3
07-31-2006, 04:09 AM
MAybe we have had different experiences, but in the 1942 matchups I have played

190A4/109F4 vs Spitfire VC/Vb 1942
190A4/109F4 vs Lagg3/Yak1B/I16
190A4/109F4 vs Hurric IIc/P40

I cant think of any more, but in these the FW190A4 dominates with some good pilots.

Can you give me a 1942 red plane which can compete in Speed/firepower/Roll with the FW190A4? Its same as Dora in 1944 in that it can dictate the fight.

The 190 pilot has to make a mistake before any of the red plane can even get a shot in.

Maybe the performance should be closer to the 190A5, but in my experiences, FW190A4 usually dominates already in 1942 scenarios.

As for the A5 1.656 ATA 590Kph on the deck, in my experience speed is most important when you are running, your life depends on it. The best defensive tactic for the FW190 is flip on its back, dive for the deck and run (hostorical tactics). In this instance the 590kph on the deck is a life saver, esp versus Spitfire V LF 1943 and La5F.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
07-31-2006, 04:30 AM
and this is what i mostly saw in 1942:
FW190A4/BF10F4 vs Spitfire VB LF/ Hurricane II
FW190A4/BF109G2 vs La5/La5F/Lagg S35

On the east u dont stand a chance in a dogfight against russian planes.

Xiolablu3
07-31-2006, 04:33 AM
Why would you EVER dogfight in a FW190, no matter what you were up against?

Dogfighting relies on turning circle, and the FW190 has one of the worst in the game. DONT dogfight. If you are in a favourable position then attack a few times in the vertical, If you feel you are losing the advantage then you dive and run, using your speed to get away and then come back with height AND/OR teammates. YOu can usually dictate whether the fight happens at all becasue you are the fastest plane on the map.

Funny I have never been up against a La5 on a map with a FW190A4. Not sure why. Is the La5 a very late 1942 plane?

EDIT: I have just been googling and it appears that the La5 first appeared during the battle of Stalingrad, which I think was winter 1942?

Maybe there werent many La5's at the front in 1942?

JG52Karaya-X
07-31-2006, 04:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Is the La5 a very late 1942 plane? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes a very very late '42 plane - the first samples entered service right around the time of the battle for Stalingrad in very limited numbers. It didnt really see common service until mid-43.

JG53Frankyboy
07-31-2006, 04:44 AM
the La5 appeared in august 1942 around Stalingrad

the Fw190A-3 appeared in september 1942 at the eastern front.

Yak1B appeared in september 1942 - in the given performance

JG52Karaya-X
07-31-2006, 04:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Can you give me a 1942 red plane which can compete in Speed/firepower/Roll with the FW190A4? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I can - the Yak1B and 9!

They are basically equal in speed from sea-level up to 4000m and only then do they drop back. Furthermore they have a distinctive climb advantage and of course fly circles around the FW190.

But then again they are also late '42 planes or actually more like early '43 planes.

Xiolablu3
07-31-2006, 04:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Can you give me a 1942 red plane which can compete in Speed/firepower/Roll with the FW190A4? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I can - the Yak1B!

It is basically equal in speed from sea-level up to 4000m and only then does it drop back. Furthermore it has a distinctive climb advantage and of course flies circles around the FW190. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Karaya, have you ever played on the Ukded2 server? I was on a map with exactly that planeset the other day, it may have been stalingrad in fact. Blue have to destroy ships and red have a big concetration of AAA and artillery to kill. I felt untouchable in the FW190A4. I scored quite a lot of kills on the map.

I then played the same map from the red side a couple of days later in a Yak1b and I died over and over.

I know this is not a scientific test, but I just felt that the FW190A4 was far superior.

Just my opinon of course. Maybe it just suits my style better, or maybe I was having a bad day in the Yak1B. Any plane with 'compressibility (by that I mean wont pull out properly when you are going fast) really curtails me when flying, and the Yak1B and Yak9 suffer like the late 109's with this. The FW190 will pull up at almost any speeds.

Ratsack
07-31-2006, 04:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
FW190 all the way, 109 is good up to G2, later models are for mazochists only http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For me it's exactly the opposite:

The Bf109 is just great (with the exception of the G6early/late), it is very fast, is second to none in terms of RoC and also turns pretty well and is thus a very dynamic fighter - even the late MW50 equipped 109s can outurn most if not all US fighters (exceptions being the late P39s and the P63).

The FW190 (Anton) on the other hand is being outturned by almost every other fighter (except the P38 and P47)... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Got news for ya: the P-38 out turns the Anton, too. Pretty comfortably. It's probably got the edge on the Dora in this department, too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
has a very poor RoC and a bad acceleration at slow speeds... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm with you there, but you might be overstating it with 'very poor'. You can do good things with high-speed climb in the Anton with judicious use of cooling gills, throttle, prop speed and angle of attack...provided you have room to do it. That said, what I'm talking about is not a move you'd pull in a close-in knife fight.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
The only Antons that deserve the designation of a fighter IMHO are the 5/6 and 9. The 4, 5(1,65ata) and 8 just blow... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that the 5 & 6 are cool. However, I recently flew the A-8 for the first time in ages and I was pleasantly surprised by its speed. It still bleeds E like you've cut an artery, but it's fast. In my view, the A-9 is like a heavy version of what the A-8 should be, but that's a different story.

The A-4, on the other hand, is a tragedy, but it does handle nicely. To me, it's the Anton that handles best: if only it had its proper boost... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
In the Anton I find that the ONLY tactic is to make high speed slashing attacks with a lot of surplus speed and altitude - as the FW does not hold the energy too well you're forced to disengage again after 2 or 3 passes at best. In the Bf109 you can stay longer in the fight as it builds up energy much faster - you can get to altitude again very fast and then pick your target of choice.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, the Anton most definitely does not enjoy its historical acceleration, and this really limits your options in the close-in fight.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
Of course the Dora rocks again http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup, the Dora is like the Spit IX: it's a nube kite. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[Runs for the hills]

cheers,
Ratsack

Brain32
07-31-2006, 04:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> ONly true aces can be successful in the P51/P47. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Define sucessful, I mean what's actually so bad about them apart from the fact they can't rely on making extreme structural damage on their opponents. While I'm not so much into P51, but P47 is one of my favourites, it has good guns, not great but good, it performs excellent on high altitudes, exceptional dive and zoom characteristics, great all-around visibility from the cockpit, it can really take a lot of punishment, satisfactory control response at high speeds, it's very versatile just like and even more than the FW190 in regards to JABO/Fighter duties.
P51 is nice but a bit too unstable...
If you ask me it takes a mega-skilled ace to use P38 as a fighter http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
@Karaya it may be due to my approach to fighting which is staying at high speeds all the time, thus compression at 450kmh in 109's makes my life very misreable, that also may be the reason I'm so hopless with the p38 too...

Xiolablu3
07-31-2006, 04:54 AM
I was only teasing Vonrat, cos he was calling Spit pilots noobs http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Brain32
07-31-2006, 04:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I was only teasing Vonrat, cos he was calling Spit pilots noobs http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
He and I can't help it, it's a common strategy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif, tease the Spitpilots on chatbar while you are sneaking on them or on ground targets, not to mention that then they really get pissed and really start flying like n00bs http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
While they are typing we are kickin' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Xiolablu3
07-31-2006, 04:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I was only teasing Vonrat, cos he was calling Spit pilots noobs http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
He and I can't help it, it's a common strategy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif, tease the Spitpilots on chatbar while you are sneaking on them or on ground targets, not to mention that then they really get pissed and really start flying like n00bs http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>#

Hey you, the majority of times I see you fly you are in a SPit, does this mean you are a noob? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Brain32
07-31-2006, 05:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Hey you, the majority of times I see you fly you are in a SPit, does this mean you are a noob? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, ofcourse http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

JG52Karaya-X
07-31-2006, 05:08 AM
The reason I don't like the A8 is that many online wars (no names here) put you in said plane facing La7s and Yak3s...

I was flying a mission not too long ago with 2 squad mates in A8s and we had to intercept a flight of Russian A20Gs escorted by La7s. Well, we didnt really have much chance against them - after a min the number 4 A8 was down, I could get a good burst at one of the La7s and shot its tail off but the remaining finished off my squad mates. I succeeded in peeling away and climbed back to altitude and then got a 2nd (Human) La7 that was rtb'ing

Needless to say that it just can't compare to some of the "über" late war Russian birds

WWMaxGunz
07-31-2006, 05:10 AM
Didn't Butch2K come on here more than once and show that the A-4 was derated until IIRC
spring of 1943? Something about burning the exhaust stacks?

Perhaps one of the reasons he has quit showing up is why bother?

Brain32
07-31-2006, 05:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Didn't Butch2K come on here more than once and show that the A-4 was derated until IIRC
spring of 1943? Something about burning the exhaust stacks? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, yes, and Spitfire is made of wood...

WWMaxGunz
07-31-2006, 05:46 AM
Butch showed the documents of the derating and found orders for re-rating.
And you show? Oh, you don't think so.

East Front A-4's also documents show were derated and this A-4 is those, for East Front
as was IL2 when that FW was modelled. But boo-hoo it coulda-shoulda there was able....

Be honest.

Oleg should have put in A-2 and A-1's just as complete as they were... to balance late
models A-6 and the dash-nines. Even when those first FW's came out they were ahead of
the average but I am sure still not the god-mode planes some just have to have.

If it's bleeding speed badly, you are stalling the wings.
It's not the plane, it's the pilot good or bad.

Ratsack
07-31-2006, 06:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Didn't Butch2K come on here more than once and show that the A-4 was derated until IIRC
spring of 1943?... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where do you get that? There are well-known contemporary charts of Rechlin tests of A-3s running at 1.42 in 1942. Talk to the guys over at CWOS about it.

Have a look at the second image in here:

http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=F...file=viewtopic&t=571 (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=571)

It is a blown-up image of the two graphs in the lower leff-hand corner of the document above. As you can see, the speed / altitude graph shows the A-3 clocking 680 km/h when running at Steig und Kampfleistung. That's 1.42 ATA at 2,700 RPM for the BMW 801 D-2 motor.

You can find a facsimile of this document in Dietmar Hermann, Ulrich Leverenz, Eberhard Weber, Focke-Wulf Fw 190A, (Schiffer, 2004), p. 185. This is a translation of the title originally published in German by Verlag.

cheers,
Ratsack

cheers,
Ratsack

WWMaxGunz
07-31-2006, 06:52 AM
Yes, they TESTED the planes at full ATA from the very start. It does not burn the stacks
up to run a TEST. What Butch showed were the OPERATIONAL ORDERS. You know the difference?
Operational is what was used.

Fabers' plane was placarded against running full ATA. Must have been a joke the guys were
pulling on him, jah? That fits with operational orders of the time.

There was a P-51 said to have dived to mach .86 or was it .89 at Wright Field in a test.
What was the critical mach for combat? Mach .78 I think. The test plane was damaged btw.
That is tests, you have to get all the info and not just supportive bits. On Ring's pages
of the Faber plane tests I never see page one where it states what the Brits had to do to
allow the Faber plane to run at 1.42 but that info was posted here long ago. Why was it
not on the Pro-docs site? Oleg did post the info first time this was argued.

Xiolablu3
07-31-2006, 06:56 AM
Daft comment, deleted

Ratsack
07-31-2006, 07:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Yes, they TESTED the planes at full ATA from the very start. It does not burn the stacks
up to run a TEST. What Butch showed were the OPERATIONAL ORDERS. You know the difference?.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I know the difference. Don't patronize me.

The document is a Rechlin document from late 1942, showing what the customer thought of the performance of the machines they were buying from Focke-Wulf Flugzeugbau. It is not a test of an experimental type, nor is it a test under exraordinary or otherwise non-standard conditions. That is merely your imputation.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Operational is what was used. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The restrictions were lifted by early-mid 1942. You need to do more research.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Fabers' plane was placarded against running full ATA. Must have been a joke the guys were
pulling on him, jah? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

See my comment above about patronizing. An ja is spelled without an 'h', while we're patronizing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
That fits with operational orders of the time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it does not. It fits the version of events you seem to want to defend.

[/QUOTE]
... you have to get all the info and not just supportive bits. [/QUOTE]

cf patronizing.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
On Ring's pages of the Faber plane tests I never see page one where it states what the Brits had to do to allow the Faber plane to run at 1.42 but that info was posted here long ago. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, and as was also posted here long ago, the Brits never used the correct (C3) fuel in flight tests of that plane. Ever. As was also posted here and elsewhere long ago, the Germans changed the formulation of their C3 fuel in mid 1942, and this solved the remaining issues with the BMW 801 D-2s running at SuNot. Note the date on that document.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Why was it not on the Pro-docs site? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no idea what site you are talking about.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Oleg did post the info first time this was argued. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. And he's still wrong.

cheers,
Ratsack

JG52Karaya-X
07-31-2006, 07:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
The FW190 (Anton) on the other hand is being outturned by almost every other fighter (except the P38 and P47)... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Got news for ya: the P-38 out turns the Anton, too. Pretty comfortably. It's probably got the edge on the Dora in this department, too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you sure about that? I recently had one of those uncomfortable low level knife fights with a P38L and had no trouble outturning him! I had just disengaged from a larger furball that was raging at about 3000m when I noticed that a P38 was less than a km behind me - when I hit the deck I had a good 700km/h on the speedbar but the Lightning kept closing. Now I tried to make use of my superior high speed handling and pulled up and to the left - the P38L did the same but of course overshot due to compression. Now I couldnt get him in my sight immediately so a slow turn fight began and after about 20sec I was right behind him and shot his tail off.

Now please note that the high-speed handling did not play a significant role in the turn fight itself!

Maybe its the P38L_Late that turn better than the FW!?

BBB_Hyperion
07-31-2006, 07:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Oleg_Maddox VIP

Posted Tue January 31 2006 03:54

quote:
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Oleg is it possible to introduce the 1.42 ATA Fw 190 A4 and also a 1.68 ATA rating for the Fw 190 A6 ?



A4 1,42 ata will have the same performance as normal A5.
Ist it is more easy to use A5 on servers instead of A4 when neccessary?

A5 and A6 with 1,65 ATA - there is problem in modeling and restiction. there was at the beginning of use such pressure the rule to do not use it over some altitude (Like 190F8), but more close to the end of the war was removed this limitation (however the engine had smaller resource before repair or replacement and was overheating too more than 2 time faster).

So... we need to make a program that will use such restictions... and in total to add 4 planes (and 5 together with A4 1.42)

I don't think that we can do additional programming for it. And I think we aleady ahve no time to put even only A4 1.42 in 4.03.

Lets wait and see if we will be able to do something from this after 4.03.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For the A4 issue http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

cawimmer430
07-31-2006, 07:50 AM
I can't stand the FW-190. The controls in the sim are so sensitive, it's so annoying.

I prefer the BF-109 all the way, particularly the G-6 A/S with an MK-108 cannon. Plus, I've been flying the 109 a lot, for years, and know it much better than the FW-190.

And at high speed dogfights, at around 500 km/h plus, the controls are hard, but it helps if you throttle down to 0% power and you can actually maneuver yourself a bit - just make sure you don't black out. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Ratsack
07-31-2006, 08:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
The FW190 (Anton) on the other hand is being outturned by almost every other fighter (except the P38 and P47)... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Got news for ya: the P-38 out turns the Anton, too. Pretty comfortably. It's probably got the edge on the Dora in this department, too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you sure about that? I recently had one of those uncomfortable low level knife fights with a P38L and had no trouble outturning him! I had just disengaged from a larger furball that was raging at about 3000m when I noticed that a P38 was less than a km behind me - when I hit the deck I had a good 700km/h on the speedbar but the Lightning kept closing. Now I tried to make use of my superior high speed handling and pulled up and to the left - the P38L did the same but of course overshot due to compression. Now I couldnt get him in my sight immediately so a slow turn fight began and after about 20sec I was right behind him and shot his tail off.

Now please note that the high-speed handling did not play a significant role in the turn fight itself!

Maybe its the P38L_Late that turn better than the FW!? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's funny, I've had nearly the exact same experience from the other side, with my P-38 out turning the Fw190, including Doras.

On the other side of the coin, I've never had that much trouble getting the P-38 lined up in the sight of my Fw190, either. However, I don't attempt to turn with them, so much as roll.

Perhaps there's not that much in it, after all.

cheers,
Ratsack

HayateAce
07-31-2006, 08:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
Are you sure about that? I recently had one of those uncomfortable low level knife fights with a P38L and had no trouble outturning him! I had just disengaged from a larger furball that was raging at about 3000m when I noticed that a P38 was less than a km behind me - when I hit the deck I had a good 700km/h on the speedbar but the Lightning kept closing. Now I tried to make use of my superior high speed handling and pulled up and to the left - the P38L did the same but of course overshot due to compression. Now I couldnt get him in my sight immediately so a slow turn fight began and after about 20sec I was right behind him and shot his tail off.

Now please note that the high-speed handling did not play a significant role in the turn fight itself!

Maybe its the P38L_Late that turn better than the FW!? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No.

You just have not met the right P38 flier yet. In that scenario you describe, you'd have been picking chunks of ButcheredBird out of your smoking hole. A P38 jock worth his salt will pummel folks riding around in FauxWolf RunNinetys.

Horrido.

http://www.alaska.faa.gov/fai/images/Aircraft/P38-b.jpg

Ratsack
07-31-2006, 08:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Oleg_Maddox VIP

Posted Tue January 31 2006 03:54

quote:
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Oleg is it possible to introduce the 1.42 ATA Fw 190 A4 and also a 1.68 ATA rating for the Fw 190 A6 ?



A4 1,42 ata will have the same performance as normal A5.
Ist it is more easy to use A5 on servers instead of A4 when neccessary?

A5 and A6 with 1,65 ATA - there is problem in modeling and restiction. there was at the beginning of use such pressure the rule to do not use it over some altitude (Like 190F8), but more close to the end of the war was removed this limitation (however the engine had smaller resource before repair or replacement and was overheating too more than 2 time faster).

So... we need to make a program that will use such restictions... and in total to add 4 planes (and 5 together with A4 1.42)

I don't think that we can do additional programming for it. And I think we aleady ahve no time to put even only A4 1.42 in 4.03.

Lets wait and see if we will be able to do something from this after 4.03.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For the A4 issue http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for that, Hyperion. It's interesting for a couple of reasons. Firstly, because it shows that even Oleg acknowledges the 1.42 ATA A-4. We can put that canard to bed right now.

The second reason is that here:

'A5 and A6 with 1,65 ATA - there is problem in modeling and restiction. there was at the beginning of use such pressure the rule to do not use it over some altitude (Like 190F8), but more close to the end of the war was removed this limitation (however the engine had smaller resource before repair or replacement and was overheating too more than 2 time faster).'

Oleg is talking about the C3 Einspritzung für Jabo power boost system, because this is the one that had the altitude restriction. There was no altitude restriction on the erh¶rte notleistung für J¤ger (EH) system that was introduced in 1944, so presumably that's what he's talking about with his comment about the restriction being removed 'close to the end of the war'. Note that the C3 system is for fighter-bombers, not fighters. This reinforces the frequently-made point that quite a few of the Fw190As in the sim are modelled on bombers and not fighters.

Regarding the restrictions being lifted 'close to the end of the war', the EH system - with no altitude restriction - was introduced on the A-8 in early 1944. This is the system that gives the 1.64 and 1.58 ATA boots in high and low gears respectively. It might have been retrofitted to some A-6s, but I don't know if this is documented anywhere. On balance of probability I don't consider it a likely conversion.

On a side note, the A-5 and A-6 in the game should not have EH. They should have the same performance as a 1.42 ATA A-4 (which they allegedly have now in the game), but without recourse to any boost system.


cheers,
Ratsack

HayateAce
07-31-2006, 08:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
FW190 is porked in this game

In real life it owned </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, it pwned so much it lost both of its major air conflicts on the Eastern AND Western fronts.

Pwned indeed.

cawimmer430
07-31-2006, 08:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
FW190 is porked in this game

In real life it owned </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, it pwned so much it lost both of its major air conflicts on the Eastern AND Western fronts.

Pwned indeed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think he meant to say that the Focke Wulf flew much better in reality than how it is modelled in the sim.

Ratsack
07-31-2006, 08:43 AM
Don't feed the troll.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

cheers,
Ratsack

cawimmer430
07-31-2006, 08:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
Don't feed the troll.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Verstanden. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

HellToupee
07-31-2006, 09:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by cawimmer430:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
FW190 is porked in this game

In real life it owned </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, it pwned so much it lost both of its major air conflicts on the Eastern AND Western fronts.

Pwned indeed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think he meant to say that the Focke Wulf flew much better in reality than how it is modelled in the sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

or he meant to say fw pilots flew it much better in reality than they do in the sim :P

faustnik
07-31-2006, 09:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Yes, they TESTED the planes at full ATA from the very start. It does not burn the stacks
up to run a TEST. What Butch showed were the OPERATIONAL ORDERS. You know the difference?
Operational is what was used.

Fabers' plane was placarded against running full ATA. Must have been a joke the guys were
pulling on him, jah? That fits with operational orders of the time.

There was a P-51 said to have dived to mach .86 or was it .89 at Wright Field in a test.
What was the critical mach for combat? Mach .78 I think. The test plane was damaged btw.
That is tests, you have to get all the info and not just supportive bits. On Ring's pages
of the Faber plane tests I never see page one where it states what the Brits had to do to
allow the Faber plane to run at 1.42 but that info was posted here long ago. Why was it
not on the Pro-docs site? Oleg did post the info first time this was argued. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Neal,

Here is a long discussion on the subject of power settings for the BMW801s by Phillipe Willaume who works at the Smithsonian and Crumpp of the White One Fw190 restoration group.

http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=F...ile=viewtopic&t=7952 (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=7952)


As for the de-rating, all motors are "de-rated" when new and must observe a break in period before using full power. That is a fact for any engine, whether it is in a Focke Wulf, motorcycle, or your lawnmower. All BMW801's were de-rated for the first 10 hours of use. In service aircraft, the most common reason for de-rating is to use stockpiles of inferior fuel grades. You can see this in the numerous Technical Orders issued by the RAF and the USAAF regarding fuel types and boost limits.

When C3 was first used it did not have the expected knock limited performance. Based on the Beanstandungen's not all BMW801D2's were "de-rated" after the initial 10 hours. It appears that motors were individually de-rated as some motors exhibited knock limited performance below the rated boost. Once the alkane ratio was adjusted in C3 in June 1942 raising the knock limited performance of the fuel, this additional "de-rated" time disappears. I have found no "blanket order" de-rating the 801 series. Only comparisons of maintenance times for "normal" and "de-rated" engines being operated side by side in the Geschwaders prior to June 1942.

faustnik
07-31-2006, 10:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
----------------
190A5 1.65 ATA is as fast as a 190A8 on the deck (590kph sea level), in 1943 that is FAST.
----------------

Yes ON THE DECK... which is not where you should be with a FW! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the deck is exactly where the Fw190A5 1.65ATA should be. It is a low level fast jabo with a boost system designed to be used under 1000 meters.

JG52Karaya-X
07-31-2006, 10:01 AM
Good lord, HayateFarce is hijacking a thread again http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

JG52Karaya-X
07-31-2006, 10:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
Are you sure about that? I recently had one of those uncomfortable low level knife fights with a P38L and had no trouble outturning him! I had just disengaged from a larger furball that was raging at about 3000m when I noticed that a P38 was less than a km behind me - when I hit the deck I had a good 700km/h on the speedbar but the Lightning kept closing. Now I tried to make use of my superior high speed handling and pulled up and to the left - the P38L did the same but of course overshot due to compression. Now I couldnt get him in my sight immediately so a slow turn fight began and after about 20sec I was right behind him and shot his tail off.

Now please note that the high-speed handling did not play a significant role in the turn fight itself!

Maybe its the P38L_Late that turn better than the FW!? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's funny, I've had nearly the exact same experience from the other side, with my P-38 out turning the Fw190, including Doras.

On the other side of the coin, I've never had that much trouble getting the P-38 lined up in the sight of my Fw190, either. However, I don't attempt to turn with them, so much as roll.

Perhaps there's not that much in it, after all.

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, I guess there are too many variables to take into account to make a definite conclusion. Anyway IL2Compare in its newest version (for 4.05m) says the A8 outturns every P38 with the L_late being only slightly worse but then again it is said that IL2Cs turn data is off in certain areas.

faustnik
07-31-2006, 10:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
You just have not met the right P38 flier yet. In that scenario you describe, you'd have been picking chunks of ButcheredBird out of your smoking hole. A P38 jock worth his salt will pummel folks riding around in FauxWolf RunNinetys.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhoh, I agree with clownboy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif , the P-38L is great in low speed turnfights.

JG52Karaya-X
07-31-2006, 10:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
----------------
190A5 1.65 ATA is as fast as a 190A8 on the deck (590kph sea level), in 1943 that is FAST.
----------------

Yes ON THE DECK... which is not where you should be with a FW! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the deck is exactly where the Fw190A5 1.65ATA should be. It is a low level fast jabo with a boost system designed to be used under 1000 meters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I meant the FW in general and also wrote that our boosted A5 is a JaBo plane!

faustnik
07-31-2006, 10:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:


I meant the FW in general and also wrote that our boosted A5 is a JaBo plane! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ohhh, OK, nevermind. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JtD
07-31-2006, 01:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:

Well IMHO the Bf109G2 has all the aces in its hand. Its topspeed is 26km/h higher (666km/h vs 640km/h for our A4 with wrong boost), it climbs and turns FAR better. Well okay the A4 has the better firepower and dives/rolls better. The Bf109 is just so much more dynamic! Depending on what kind of enemy you are facing you can either boom and zoom or outturn him. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The A-4 does 670 kph@6300 meters. That's faster than the 109 G-2's top speed. It's considerably faster than the G-2 at the same alt. A speed advantage is held at all altitudes below 7000 meters, the largest margin of about 25 kph being held at altitudes below 2000 meters.

The dive performance and the high speed handling of the A-4 are far better than the G-2.

The G-2 is comparably poor at B'n'Z, for it's poor high speed handling and it's weaker firepower. The A-4 can sustain a lot more damage than the 109.

The G-2 is very nice in a 1vs1 or in any situation where you can manage your advantage and have everything under control. But when thing's get messy or a large number of opponents is around, I'd rather be in the 190.

WWMaxGunz
07-31-2006, 01:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
----------------
190A5 1.65 ATA is as fast as a 190A8 on the deck (590kph sea level), in 1943 that is FAST.
----------------

Yes ON THE DECK... which is not where you should be with a FW! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the deck is exactly where the Fw190A5 1.65ATA should be. It is a low level fast jabo with a boost system designed to be used under 1000 meters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then for this sim Oleg gives the more useable model?

As to the A-4 1.42 ATA I do remember you posting to me that the issue had changed but I forgot
just about the whys and figured 'post what I knew last and see the replies'. It's not like I
went and damaged anything is it? And the reply is back about Rechlin tests only which hey
Butch did post orders showing derating and he is not a side-taker, just has a superb collection
of documents. There was a problem, must have been the fuel and I must have got the timing on
the solution wrong if it is mid-42... reminds me of the problems and solving dates of 100/150
Brit made gas which can be argued with a 4 month margin and when test use actually ended as
well as who and where it was used.

I don't know why it is so hard for the A-4 to get some amount of power boost except for the
extra ha to be just right or someone will have fits over 10-15kph or 30 seconds in climb to
the moon or such. For sure there was time and A-4's that did run derated should be good
enough? No way! Better to have them all at maximum!

To me the big mistake was having planes by year alone instead of year and month. The plane
set would not have to be wider if the 'invisible' changes were treated the same way as loadout
with addition of inability to choose from months beyond the mission maybe to include location.
I am sure that DCG can handle that even as things are if we had the options and it was clear
on the month-year of those options.

But there is no gain, only loss at the constant dragging up of A-4 ATA as B&M whines. I get
so sick of it. It's not like there isn't some peeve about every plane popular here. Compare
my wound to yours, it is worse, oh whaaaaaaaaaaa! Cheese please! Whiners, Get a Life! Go to
another server and/or play the uber whatever instead of complaining about what may never change.


How to beat a 190 with almost anything.
1) find a 190 pilot who pulls his stick too much frequently.
2) suck him in and shoot him down, chances are he will never learn.
Works also for P-51's and many others.
So many players don't know what stall is and confuse it wil spin.

faustnik
07-31-2006, 01:41 PM
Neal,

I was just bringing up that thread because it might have interest for some readers here. There sure is a lot of confusion on the Fw190A3 boost issue, probably because the early BMW801Ds were rated on an individual basis. The Fw190A4 wasn't produced until June '42 so, there doesn't seem to much indicating that they did not run fully rated on C3 fuel. Some A4s did use older BMW801C engines which would be limited to 2400rpm and have less power. Others than ran on lesser quality fuels would be limited to 2400rpm (de-rated). It's an interesting subject and we are still looking for more answers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

As for PF, Oleg says to use the A5 for the fully rated A4. He doesn't think there is enough difference between the two to warrant a new model. Case closed.

VW-IceFire
07-31-2006, 04:17 PM
FW190 definately the better of the two. But I also understand completely why the two complement each other so well. Its always nice to enter a fight with some FW190 and Bf109s mixed in together.

HuninMunin
07-31-2006, 04:19 PM
@ Faustnik I just wish servers would think the way you do http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

faustnik
07-31-2006, 04:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
@ Faustnik I just wish servers would think the way you do http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean using the A5 as the fully rated A4? To be honest, I think servers often have to balance things out, and using the current A4 model as a Spring '42 Fw190 A3 (in de-rated configuration) against the Spit Vb, makes for a great fight. The A5/6s work well against LF Vbs, if it is a low level mission, or IXs if you have an experienced 190 crew.

Against Soviet, since the Fw190 wasn't used much late '42, the A5 model makes more sense in DF stuff. For jabo missions, the A4s might be used.

HuninMunin
07-31-2006, 04:38 PM
Well thats what I don't like about DF-Servers.
Balancing in a simulation?! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

faustnik
07-31-2006, 04:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Well thats what I don't like about DF-Servers.
Balancing in a simulation?! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right, but, it is kind of a nescessary evil for the situation. Best thing is to pick a time frame when the historical planeset is well balanced.

HuninMunin
07-31-2006, 04:47 PM
Well, bad call if you pick the Channel in 1942 for a balanced time period http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Xiolablu3
07-31-2006, 07:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HuninMunin:
Well thats what I don't like about DF-Servers.
Balancing in a simulation?! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


OK so you forget about balancing in a mini war map. (each side has 1 and a half hours to destroy the others ground targets/bases, first one to do it wins.)

Red Team has I16/Yak1/Lagg3/IL2
Blue Team has 109G2/FW190A4/Me110/Heinkel

Lets just say goodwill prevails at first and the teams start equal. As players leave the server, new oines join and the majority pick the plane which they will do best in. Therefore surely 99% will pick either the 109G2 or the FW190A4.

Therefore as well as having worse planes, red start to have less players. Red are starting to get battered being outnumbered and having worse planes/equipment. SO more red players leave. Meaning red even more outnumbered.

This continues until its 13 blue vs 2 red and the blue team start to leave ebcasue its no fun searching for the last 2 red players.

Empty server.


Of course you need balance in a online miniwar map. People are playing for fun, no because they think they are real fighter pilots. Being constantly battered by someone in a superior plane with superioir numbers is no fun at all.

The best maps are closely developed and tweaked so as to create a good equal fight in which the best teamwork will win the map
by destryoing the others targets.

There are ways for red to have worse planes and still get an eequal map, such as red have less targets, red have less distance to their targets. Blue targets have far more AAA defending. And so on.

But totally unbalanced , unthoughtout maps will quickly lead to an empty server. I know of a fanatastic Channel 1842 map on a current server. Yes SPits V's get their arses kicked by the FW190A4, but they also have a heavy bomber in the B25 to kill the targets and win the map. Therefore rather than dogfighting the FW190A4's directly, they just need to cover the A20's abd B25's to win. It an amazing map which works well. I think its made by JTD.

http://www.battle-fields.com/commscentre/forumdisplay.php?f=66

JG52Karaya-X
08-01-2006, 03:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
The A-4 does 670 kph@6300 meters. That's faster than the 109 G-2's top speed. It's considerably faster than the G-2 at the same alt. A speed advantage is held at all altitudes below 7000 meters, the largest margin of about 25 kph being held at altitudes below 2000 meters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are we taking about real life or ingame performance because in IL2 the A4s top speed is 640km/h at ~6000m vs 666km/h for the G2 at 7000m! Furthermore the A4 ingame really only has a small speed advantage from sea-level to 2000m of ~10km/h after that it is slower or equally fast at best.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The G-2 is comparably poor at B'n'Z, for it's poor high speed handling and it's weaker firepower. The A-4 can sustain a lot more damage than the 109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure the 109 has the worse high speed handling but saying that it is poor at BnZ is just not true - you cannot just derive a fighters BnZ capability by its high speed handling. There is so much more to it such as the zoom climb, sustained climb, energy retention and acceleration.

Ratsack
08-01-2006, 05:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
----------------
190A5 1.65 ATA is as fast as a 190A8 on the deck (590kph sea level), in 1943 that is FAST.
----------------

Yes ON THE DECK... which is not where you should be with a FW! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the deck is exactly where the Fw190A5 1.65ATA should be. It is a low level fast jabo with a boost system designed to be used under 1000 meters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Then for this sim Oleg gives the more useable model? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't really understand what you mean here. Are you saying that the Fw190A-5 with 1.65 ATA boost is more useable? If I've got that rigth, then more useable than what?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
... And the reply is back about Rechlin tests... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That€s a bit disingenuous, Max. Your first post on this matter was about your recollection of Butch2k€s research, and it ended with the implication that Butch2k has given up on this forum because of€¦what, exactly?

€˜Perhaps one of the reasons he has quit showing up is why bother?€

People pointing out errors, perhaps? I certainly don€t know, but I€d prefer to let Butch2k speak for himself, if he€s given up on this forum. I actually raised the Rechlin test in response to the first (polite) part of your first post.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
...only which hey Butch did post orders showing derating and he is not a side-taker, just has a superb collection of documents. There was a problem, must have been the fuel and I must have got the timing on the solution wrong if it is mid-42... reminds me of the problems and solving dates of 100/150 Brit made gas which can be argued with a 4 month margin and when test use actually ended as well as who and where it was used. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That€s all true. However, in response to that and to the rest of your post, it would be a lot easier to have a reasoned discussion if you didn€t begin with the reflexive imputation that anybody critiquing this sim is either a cry-baby (€˜€¦boo-hoo it coulda-shoulda €¦€), a whiner (€˜€¦Compare my wound to yours, it is worse, oh whaaaaaaaaaaa!€), or congenitally feeble-minded (€˜€¦You know the difference? Operational is what was used€¦€ or €˜€¦Must have been a joke the guys were pulling on him, jah?€¦€).

Lighten up a bit, man. I actually enjoy this game, but that doesn't mean I don't think it could be better, too.

Cheers,
Ratsack

JtD
08-01-2006, 08:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
Are we taking about real life or ingame performance because in IL2 the A4s top speed is 640km/h at ~6000m... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We are talking in game where the A-4 goes 670@6300 meters and 560 on the deck. Sometimes it is useful to fly the plane instead of looking at IL-2 compare stats. :P Anyways, the G-2 and the A-4 are pretty close - the A-4 has the advantage at low alt while the G-2 has the edge at high alt.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Sure the 109 has the worse high speed handling but saying that it is poor at BnZ is just not true... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's why I did not say that, I said it compares poorly - to the 190A-4. It's good, but not nearly as good as the FW.

p1ngu666
08-01-2006, 08:51 AM
ppl forget the vb spits (not LF ones) have speed of 9lbs, and climb of 16lbs.

its slower in a straight line than a spitfire Mk1.

i think only the 109e4 B and maybe one other lw fighter, are slower than the vb.

picking a timeframe works both ways ofcourse http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

say, spit IX, and 25lber subbing for XIV, and tempest, vs 109g6 and g6late, and 190A8 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

could chuck in p51, p47 and p38 too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JG52Karaya-X
08-01-2006, 08:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
Are we taking about real life or ingame performance because in IL2 the A4s top speed is 640km/h at ~6000m... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We are talking in game where the A-4 goes 670@6300 meters and 560 on the deck. Sometimes it is useful to fly the plane instead of looking at IL-2 compare stats. :P Anyways, the G-2 and the A-4 are pretty close - the A-4 has the advantage at low alt while the G-2 has the edge at high alt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did and in my last test I achieved a speed between 645 and 650km/h at 6000m +- 3 or 4kmh as you cant get the plane totally level and this corresponds PERFECTLY with IL2Compare v.3.0.2

Are you sure you're not confusing the A4 and A5?

BTW testing conditions were: Crimea map, noon, no overheating (rad closed), cockpit off

JtD
08-01-2006, 09:02 AM
I am pretty sure you were flying with handbrake applied aka auto pitch.

A-5 does 675-680 or so at 6300 meters. I am not confusing anything. I know my tools pretty well.

JG52Karaya-X
08-01-2006, 09:39 AM
Yes I did use automatic prop pitch which was also used in real life tests und thus MUST also be used in any somewhat scientific test regarding the ingame performance of the FWs. Otherwise you're comparing apples and oranges I'm afraid.

JG52Karaya-X
08-01-2006, 09:40 AM
and btw I (and also IL2C) get the same speeds for the A5 with WEP and automatic prop pitch

JtD
08-01-2006, 10:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
Yes I did use automatic prop pitch which was also used in real life tests und thus MUST also be used in any somewhat scientific test regarding the ingame performance of the FWs. Otherwise you're comparing apples and oranges I'm afraid. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny, that is exactly what I am doing. I am comparing the 190 with the 109 - as in game. If that's not apples and oranges...However, I don't see a reason to test the A-4 with handbrake applied. Only noobs fly the 190 on auto.

JG53Frankyboy
08-01-2006, 10:11 AM
wo er recht hat , hat er recht !

the Fw190A/F should be speedtestet with manual prop - because everyone is flying them so in combat here in game - at least online.

weird, but game reality http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

faustnik
08-01-2006, 10:19 AM
The auto/manual prop pitch is a big problem with the Fw190A series. We have to work around what JtD describes as "the brake" by using manual pitch but, that just isn't realistic. The pilot could control rpm with the thumb lever, but, didn't have to. Going to manual in the sim not only means more work, but, it messes up the programmed overheat times.

The work-around works, but, hopefully we will have a better system down the road in whatever BoB addon contains the Fw190.

JG52Karaya-X
08-01-2006, 10:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
Yes I did use automatic prop pitch which was also used in real life tests und thus MUST also be used in any somewhat scientific test regarding the ingame performance of the FWs. Otherwise you're comparing apples and oranges I'm afraid. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny, that is exactly what I am doing. I am comparing the 190 with the 109 - as in game. If that's not apples and oranges... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read it again - I'm talking about flight-testing the FW and comparing its performance with real life values. We are long past the 109 vs 190 stuff!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">However, I don't see a reason to test the A-4 with handbrake applied. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The reason why you should test with your so called "handbrake" on is because it was done that way in real life - if you dont well then you can throw all your results out of the window as there is no ground for comparison then, easy as that!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Only noobs fly the 190 on auto. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Jetzt mach mal halblang - wenn man im Spiel mehr oder weniger gezwungen wird mit manuellem zu fliegen, wobei das in der Realit¤t wohl ¤ußerst selten der Fall war, dann ist das ein Spielfehler und hat nichts damit zu tun ob man ein Noob ist oder nicht.

Außerdem flieg ich immer mit manuellem http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

WWMaxGunz
08-01-2006, 10:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Neal,

I was just bringing up that thread because it might have interest for some readers here. There sure is a lot of confusion on the Fw190A3 boost issue, probably because the early BMW801Ds were rated on an individual basis. The Fw190A4 wasn't produced until June '42 so, there doesn't seem to much indicating that they did not run fully rated on C3 fuel. Some A4s did use older BMW801C engines which would be limited to 2400rpm and have less power. Others than ran on lesser quality fuels would be limited to 2400rpm (de-rated). It's an interesting subject and we are still looking for more answers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

As for PF, Oleg says to use the A5 for the fully rated A4. He doesn't think there is enough difference between the two to warrant a new model. Case closed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is there enough difference? IMO the tears are over any FW not being all that any were.

I accept that the A-4 is an East Front model. And I have seen documentaries where the
problems of aircraft fuel was discussed. Even seen video of Germans filtering aircraft
fuel through chamois before taking it to the planes. The avgas had to make a long trip
just to get out to the front. Water vapor and dirt in the fuel (the chamois will soak
out some water) was stated as a problem on the East Front as it moved out. So were the
shortages. There is one season you could call dust, one you could call ice, and two you
could call mud with short times of regular in between. Throw in partisans and whatever
else sabotage occurred and it might account for reported problems and shortages.

Did the tanks and trucks run on B-4 fuel? How much would be explained if that was the
major supply?

East Front, not Home Front. Perhaps more players should drop the Western planes and go
back to East Front action?

JtD
08-01-2006, 11:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:

Read it again - I'm talking about flight-testing the FW and comparing its performance with real life values. We are long past the 109 vs 190 stuff! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, we weren't. Up to your post we were just comparing in game performance of the G-2 vs. the A-4. Just tried to put my statement back to where it belongs.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The reason why you should test with your so called "handbrake" on is because it was done that way in real life </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Show me one test with 1.42ata @ 2400 rpm, please.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Jetzt mach mal halblang... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Almost all experienced FW drivers will use manual pitch. That simply means that you won't be able to catch them in the G-2. So if you use data where the Bf is 10 kph faster, but you get outrun by any FW you encounter, what would be the point of insisting on auto data?

JG52Karaya-X
08-01-2006, 12:25 PM
Hmm, well at least we agree on disagreeing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Xiolablu3
08-01-2006, 03:51 PM
I didnt realise that you got such a speed boost using manual prop pitch on the FW190

I will have to start using it, I never used it in my life.

I looked forward to flying with you last night Karaya, but I left the server for 5 minutes to help a guy set up teamspeak, but couldnt get back on for half an hour as it was full http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif When I did you had gone. Hope to catch you again sometime.

fordfan25
08-01-2006, 07:05 PM
FW190 for me. D9 is uber great. its what the 47 should be
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Xiolablu3
08-01-2006, 07:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
FW190 for me. D9 is uber great. its what the 47 should be
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


If the P47 should be the 190D9, then what should the D9 be? The Spitfire? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

WOLFMondo
08-02-2006, 01:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
FW190 for me. D9 is uber great. its what the 47 should be
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The P47D is fricken uber! Nothing scares the **** out a Dora pilot more than sitting at 7k then realising a Jug is up at 9K cause theres absolutely nothing you can do about it. At that height it doesn't overheat and its way faster than the Dora.

Ratsack
08-02-2006, 01:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
FW190 for me. D9 is uber great. its what the 47 should be
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The P47D is fricken uber! Nothing scares the **** out a Dora pilot more than sitting at 7k then realising a Jug is up at 9K cause theres absolutely nothing you can do about it. At that height it doesn't overheat and its way faster than the Dora. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anybody sitting at 7k deserves to die. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif If some bastage doesn't bounce you from above, a swine you can't see will get you from below because he can see you. Luverly contrails.

cheers,
Ratsack

JG52Karaya-X
08-02-2006, 02:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I looked forward to flying with you last night Karaya, but I left the server for 5 minutes to help a guy set up teamspeak, but couldnt get back on for half an hour as it was full http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif When I did you had gone. Hope to catch you again sometime. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I didnt fly yesterday - I came back from the flying pretty late and was exhausted so I took a shower, ate some and just checked who's on...

JG52Karaya-X
08-02-2006, 02:11 AM
Gonna be online today though http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif (20:00 CET)

WOLFMondo
08-02-2006, 02:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
FW190 for me. D9 is uber great. its what the 47 should be
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The P47D is fricken uber! Nothing scares the **** out a Dora pilot more than sitting at 7k then realising a Jug is up at 9K cause theres absolutely nothing you can do about it. At that height it doesn't overheat and its way faster than the Dora. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anybody sitting at 7k deserves to die. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif If some bastage doesn't bounce you from above, a swine you can't see will get you from below because he can see you. Luverly contrails.

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To get to 9k you need to go past 7 firsthttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ratsack
08-02-2006, 03:48 AM
'Nine K is the number, and nine shall be the number of the count.

Thou shalt not count 10 k,
nor shalt thou count 7 k,
except by way of counting to eight K,
to be followed by nine.

Amen.'

Ratsack

Viper2005_
08-02-2006, 05:10 AM
As I see it, whilst the use of manual pitch itself is unrealistic, if you want to test the Fw-190 in game, you should use realistic rpm and boost. The only way to do that is with manual pitch.

And P-47s at any altitude above 7 km are scary scary beasts. They have the potential to force the blue team down to low altitude, which in turn means that the rest of the Allied planeset can move in at medium altitude and attack with an altitude advantage...

If used correctly, the P-47 is air superiority in a jug. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

HellToupee
08-02-2006, 03:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
As I see it, whilst the use of manual pitch itself is unrealistic, if you want to test the Fw-190 in game, you should use realistic rpm and boost. The only way to do that is with manual pitch.

And P-47s at any altitude above 7 km are scary scary beasts. They have the potential to force the blue team down to low altitude, which in turn means that the rest of the Allied planeset can move in at medium altitude and attack with an altitude advantage...

If used correctly, the P-47 is air superiority in a jug. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

u dont have to force fly at 5k on any df server ur practially above every single person at 4k most of the time :P

F6_Ace
08-02-2006, 04:07 PM
7k? Most people in DF don't get above 700m, never mind 7000 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

VW-IceFire
08-02-2006, 05:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F6_Ace:
7k? Most people in DF don't get above 700m, never mind 7000 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thats why its always fun to drop bombs on them from 3000m while they are still on the runway because 3000m is totally outside of their sphere of understanding http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

HellToupee
08-02-2006, 05:51 PM
landing 3 1000lbs on someone from 5k with a b25 while they sit on the tarmak alerted by the aa finger over the refly button expecting a strafing attack http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

karost
08-03-2006, 06:10 AM
never waste my time catch p-47 at 7k, just watch
him not sneak Bnz on me, driving down to shoot
spirt at 3K with 2xMK108 in FW109A9 and runnig
like he11... is more fun http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I fly BF109 for over three years just fly FW109A only one year.

... like to thanks WarCloud Server and red friends teach me to fly
FW190A@. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

S!