PDA

View Full Version : Spit VB vs Fw190A3



Pages : [1] 2

Maggi_4
12-15-2005, 02:49 PM
Hello

Im glad that the Fw190 is getting patch after patch, but its still not the same.

Here is a quote from Alfred Price's book:

On 23 June 1942 Leutnant Arnim Faber of
III./JG 2 became disorientated during a dogfight
with Spitfires over southwest England, and
landed in error at the RAF airfield at Pembrey,
south Wales. After undergoing trials at the Royal
Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough, the
captured fighter went to the Air Fighting
Development Unit (AFDU) at Duxford for tactical
trials against each of the British and US fighter
types that was likely to meet the German aircraft
in combat. An abridged version of the resultant
report, issued in August 1942 and reproduced
below, shows how the German fighter compared
with its contemporaries. It should be remembered
that the words were not those of Focke-Wulf
salesmen trying to boost their company's product,
but came from those forced to give grudging
admiration to a product of their foe

Fw 190 vs Spitfire Mk VB
The Fw 190 was compared with an
operational Spitfire Mk VB for speed and allround
manoeuvrability at heights up to 25,000 ft.
The Fw 190 is superior in speed at all heights,
and the approximate differences are as follows:
-
At 2,000 ft (610 m) the Fw 190 is 25-30 mph
(40-48 km/h) faster than the Spitfire Mk VB
At 3,000 ft (915 m) the Fw 190 is 30-35 mph
(48-56 km/h) faster than the Spitfire Mk VB
At 5,000 ft (1525 m) the Fw 190 is 25 mph
(40 km/h) faster than the Spitfire Mk VB
At 9,000 ft (2744 m) the Fw 190 is 25-30 mph
(40-48 km/h) faster than the Spitfire Mk VB
At 15,000 ft (4573 m) the Fw 190 is 20 mph
(32 km/h) faster than the Spitfire Mk VB
At 18,000 ft (5488 m) the Fw 190 is 20 mph
(32 km/h) faster than the Spitfire Mk VB
At 21,000 ft (6400 m) the Fw 190 is 20-25 mph
(32-40 km/h) faster than the Spitfire Mk VB

Climb: The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to
that of the Spitfire Mk VB at all heights. The best
speeds for climbing are approximately the same,
but the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably
steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing
conditions the climb of the Fw 190 is about
450 ft/min better up to 25,000 feet (7620 m).
With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed
and then pulling up into a climb, the superior
climb of the Fw 190 is even more marked.
Dive: Comparative dives have shown that the
Fw 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease,
particularly during the initial stages.

Manoeuvrability: The manoeuvrability of the
Fw 190 is better than that of the Spitfire VB
except in turning circles, when the Spitfire can
guite easily out-turn it. The Fw 190 has better
acceleration under all conditions of flight and
this must obviously be useful during combat.
When the Fw 190 was in a turn and was
attacked by the Spitfire, the superior rate of roll
enabled it to flick into a diving turn in the
opposite direction. The pilot of the Spitfirefound great difficulty in following this
manoeuvre and even when prepared for it was
seldom able to allow the correct deflection. It
was found that if the Spitfire was cruising at
low speed and was 'bounced' by the Fw 190, it
was easily caught even if the Fw 190 was
sighted when well out of range.

pls notice that this is 'just' an A3. A4 could put out 2100 HP with MW50 injection at takeoff.

S!

Maggi_4
12-15-2005, 02:49 PM
Hello

Im glad that the Fw190 is getting patch after patch, but its still not the same.

Here is a quote from Alfred Price's book:

On 23 June 1942 Leutnant Arnim Faber of
III./JG 2 became disorientated during a dogfight
with Spitfires over southwest England, and
landed in error at the RAF airfield at Pembrey,
south Wales. After undergoing trials at the Royal
Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough, the
captured fighter went to the Air Fighting
Development Unit (AFDU) at Duxford for tactical
trials against each of the British and US fighter
types that was likely to meet the German aircraft
in combat. An abridged version of the resultant
report, issued in August 1942 and reproduced
below, shows how the German fighter compared
with its contemporaries. It should be remembered
that the words were not those of Focke-Wulf
salesmen trying to boost their company's product,
but came from those forced to give grudging
admiration to a product of their foe

Fw 190 vs Spitfire Mk VB
The Fw 190 was compared with an
operational Spitfire Mk VB for speed and allround
manoeuvrability at heights up to 25,000 ft.
The Fw 190 is superior in speed at all heights,
and the approximate differences are as follows:
-
At 2,000 ft (610 m) the Fw 190 is 25-30 mph
(40-48 km/h) faster than the Spitfire Mk VB
At 3,000 ft (915 m) the Fw 190 is 30-35 mph
(48-56 km/h) faster than the Spitfire Mk VB
At 5,000 ft (1525 m) the Fw 190 is 25 mph
(40 km/h) faster than the Spitfire Mk VB
At 9,000 ft (2744 m) the Fw 190 is 25-30 mph
(40-48 km/h) faster than the Spitfire Mk VB
At 15,000 ft (4573 m) the Fw 190 is 20 mph
(32 km/h) faster than the Spitfire Mk VB
At 18,000 ft (5488 m) the Fw 190 is 20 mph
(32 km/h) faster than the Spitfire Mk VB
At 21,000 ft (6400 m) the Fw 190 is 20-25 mph
(32-40 km/h) faster than the Spitfire Mk VB

Climb: The climb of the Fw 190 is superior to
that of the Spitfire Mk VB at all heights. The best
speeds for climbing are approximately the same,
but the angle of the Fw 190 is considerably
steeper. Under maximum continuous climbing
conditions the climb of the Fw 190 is about
450 ft/min better up to 25,000 feet (7620 m).
With both aircraft flying at high cruising speed
and then pulling up into a climb, the superior
climb of the Fw 190 is even more marked.
Dive: Comparative dives have shown that the
Fw 190 can leave the Spitfire with ease,
particularly during the initial stages.

Manoeuvrability: The manoeuvrability of the
Fw 190 is better than that of the Spitfire VB
except in turning circles, when the Spitfire can
guite easily out-turn it. The Fw 190 has better
acceleration under all conditions of flight and
this must obviously be useful during combat.
When the Fw 190 was in a turn and was
attacked by the Spitfire, the superior rate of roll
enabled it to flick into a diving turn in the
opposite direction. The pilot of the Spitfirefound great difficulty in following this
manoeuvre and even when prepared for it was
seldom able to allow the correct deflection. It
was found that if the Spitfire was cruising at
low speed and was 'bounced' by the Fw 190, it
was easily caught even if the Fw 190 was
sighted when well out of range.

pls notice that this is 'just' an A3. A4 could put out 2100 HP with MW50 injection at takeoff.

S!

WWMaxGunz
12-15-2005, 02:55 PM
Try getting the whole report esp including page 1 the Ring never posted, it has the text
of mods made to the 190 before the flights.

Try also finding out about the particular Spit VB used... they are not all nearly the
same, sorry to say.

Always the same favored accounts, always the same parts missing.......

faustnik
12-15-2005, 02:59 PM
You can read some posts about it here:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/6331099683

hop2002
12-15-2005, 03:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Try getting the whole report esp including page 1 the Ring never posted, it has the text
of mods made to the 190 before the flights.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you have the details of the mods? I know Faber's 190 was derated, but not exactly how it was derated, and what was done to increase the power back to 1.42 ata.

It might shed some light on the later RAE test figures, which showed better climb performance in high gear than low, despite being at the same (claimed) rpm and boost. The RAE report notes it's odd, and that further investigation will be made, but the results of that aren't in the report I have.

VW-IceFire
12-15-2005, 04:05 PM
Tells us nothing. We've been over this report time and again with the same arguments and the same final realization by anyone listening.

The FW190 in the game does a very close representation of Spitfire VS 190 tactics. On UK-Dedicated we run a Channel War 1942 map and the Spitfires get eaten alive by FW190A-4 pilots using the same tactics that JG2 and JG26 favored during this period (the BNZ method).

JG53Frankyboy
12-15-2005, 04:29 PM
also in the VOW2 channel 1942 campaign:
the Spitfire MkVb were eaten alive by the Fw190A4 ................

Maggi_4
12-16-2005, 12:54 AM
No matter how many times are we over this argument. It stil feels to me there is no chance to climb out the Spit V with an A4. Not even mentioning accelatrion. 1 more thing: Spit is much more manuverbale even at high speeds too.
Don't get me wrong pls, I don't want to get kills easy, I just don't like when a Spit V climbs after me from BZ and shots me easily. It would be no problem to get shot from P51 ( if that would be normal too )

faustnik
12-16-2005, 02:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Maggi_4:
I just don't like when a Spit V climbs after me from BZ and shots me easily. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The way to prevent that is to not pull up so sharply on your passes. Pull out gently and climb back to altitude at a more shallow angle. Practice that, and I bet you are tearing up those Spit Vbs in no time. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

269GA-Veltro
12-16-2005, 03:31 AM
We hope to have a credible FW 190 in the next patch.....
Ok, also other aircrafts have some problems...we know it (F6F for ex.), but we have only Bf 109 and FW 190 for the blue side....and this FW is quite "strange": energy retention, acceleration....for ex, but first of all the poor energy retention.

Ratsack
12-16-2005, 03:43 AM
From the other thread:
...
Very sensible post, Faust.

I'm not really sure which version of the A4 we're meant to have in the game. It does seem a little slow. My test (Crimea, 1200 hours, 100% fuel) showed its top speeds to be:

6000 m - 460 km/h
6500 m - 440 km/h

Converted to imperial units and corrected for altitude at 2% per 1000 ft, these come to:

19,685' - 398 mph
21,325' - 390 mph

I had thought the Fw190A4 should have a top speed of about 410 mph up around the 20-21,000' mark. This is in 4.02, and the method I used was to run with the cowl flaps closed and the prop on auto until the plane stopped accelerating. I then switched the prop to manual at 100 % kept going until overheat.

I mucked around a little bit with the manual pitch settings to see if I could squeeze a bit more out of, but without success. There is of course a + / - of 5 km/h on all indicated figures, so there€s some error here, but the A4 seems to be about 10-20 km/h slower than it should be.

By way of comparison, I got 416 mph (480km/h indicated) out of the A6 at 19,685€.

I€m working my way through some tests of key fighters at 500 m intervals, and I haven€t got to the Fw190A4 yet (I€ve only done a couple of data points, just for interest). I don€t know what it all means yet, but I€m happy to post results if anybody is interested.

Ratsack

p1ngu666
12-16-2005, 09:19 AM
some patience and some team tatics, and fw190 will tear anythign up. is best plane in the game

veltro, if u want come fly with me and some friends who fly 190 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

faustnik
12-16-2005, 10:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:

I'm not really sure which version of the A4 we're meant to have in the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As far as I can tell, it is a derated A4 jabo, even though I can find no reason for an A4 to be limited to 2400rpm. Oleg has evidence however of this, so they must have used that limitation in some units in the Ostfront. A4 fighters in the West would have been running at 2700rpm emergency power.

We do know that al least some Fw190A3s were run under a derated 2400rpm limit over the Channel. So, our SpitVb/Fw190A matchup is still good.

You can get you rpms close to 2700 with manual pitch. Performance is not up to LW tests for the A3/4/5 at 2700 rpm but, it is closer. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

faustnik
12-16-2005, 10:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
some patience and some team tatics, and fw190 will tear anythign up. is best plane in the game

veltro, if u want come fly with me and some friends who fly 190 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That statement inticates that you have not fought good P-51, P-47 or P-38 pilots at altitude. At realistic heights, the Fw190 is sucking wind and the USAAF fighters are breathing easy. If you are talking only low atitude DF quake servers, I agree with you 100%.

WOLFMondo
12-16-2005, 11:27 AM
Realistic heights? like from 0 feet to 30,000+ feet?

Only the daylight bomber offensive on German cities and industrial targets was solely at high altitude. Ramrods etc and allot of precision raids target airfields and transport in France and the low countries happened around 12,000ft where the 190's are right at home. All those 2nd TAF and 8th AF raids and sorties were lower than that.

One of the big problems the RAF had really until the Tempest V was an aircraft that could overhaul the 190's at low altitude where they were so much of a pain.

faustnik
12-16-2005, 11:30 AM
The USAAF fighter typically encountered the LW at heights over 25,000 feet in daylight raids. The USAAF planes were setup to perform their best at that altitude. Right?

WWMaxGunz
12-16-2005, 11:36 AM
Butch2K had posted dates the 190A3's and A4's were derated. There were such months.

What I remember seeing way back was a posting with quotes from that page 1 that there
was a restrictor plate on the intake manifold that was removed by the Brits which
allowed that plane to run full 1.42ATA.

The Spit VB was either the first or second production one made and had seen a lot of use
prior to the test. There had been improvements made to the VB's from that model to the
ones produced by the test and later as well.

From accounts of one of the pilots flying the test, the climb compares were done at high
speed around 250 mph where the Spit V climb rate is far inferior to the 190. You want to
outclimb the Spit, stay fast and hope he follows. It's been pointed out time and again.

All Spit VB's are not the same. All FW 190A4's are not the same. None of the planes we
have in the sim are the same as the ones at Duxford so what use is quoting Duxford?

Is it time for another Teutonic Holy FW Crusade already?

Maggi_4
12-16-2005, 11:43 AM
Faustnik thx for the tipps, but I usually climb away with that shallow angle http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
But if a good Spit pilot is on your ***, he ll know how to shoot you. Of course there is no problem to slaughter down those who are not, or just mediumly experienced in this game, but like I said, if you meet someone good, he ll shoot you from 3-400m with his bloody Hispanos.

BTW, I think with good teamplay you can kick most of the plane's ***, no matter what have you and your team got. ( pls dont imagine things like Me262 vs I16, ok? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )

Like I said before, lately A4s could have MW50 injection, and put out 2100HP at takeoff. (for not long time of course) These planes were faster with about 30km/h from 0m to 5700m.

I just wonder why Spit accelatre better than Fw190 if it shouldn't. But its obvius you are not even faster in diving. 190 is much more heavier than Spit of course, not even mentioning it's short wings. The most suprising was the highspeed manuverability of the Spit to me. It's hundred ways better than our Würger.

Scen
12-16-2005, 11:56 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 p1ngu666:
some patience and some team tatics, and fw190 will tear anythign up. is best plane in the game

veltro, if u want come fly with me and some friends who fly 190 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That statement inticates that you have not fought good P-51, P-47 or P-38 pilots at altitude. At realistic heights, the Fw190 is sucking wind and the USAAF fighters are breathing easy. If you are talking only low atitude DF quake servers, I agree with you 100%. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

uhh... As it should be. USAAF was always about high Alt.

faustnik
12-16-2005, 12:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:

Is it time for another Teutonic Holy FW Crusade already? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

That was a little uncalled for. Questions were asked about the A4 boost. You want me to report what I found or just go with the status quo?

faustnik
12-16-2005, 12:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Scen:


uhh... As it should be. USAAF was always about high Alt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly my point.

Vrabac
12-16-2005, 01:18 PM
It's obvious that 190 in the report was overmodelled. Take a look at the first sentence. "dogfight with Spitfires". How can there be a dogfight with Spitfires, when we all know that 190 can only do hit and run? And our source is the computer game that sure as hell is more reliable than some testing Brits did, who can trust a real war test done to evaluate and compare the 2 planes? No one sane. Let us not forget the tests British did with 190's ability to take damage. They came to obviously wrong conclusion that it's very tough. All they did is they took a real 190 and shot at it with various weapons. Idiots. We have a game here, and in the game we all can see how it really is. They could have just started a quickmission with friendly planes and shoot them. Oh well, I'm sure they are banging their heads on the wall.

So they say 190A3 is more manouverable than Spit. We know it isn't, knowledge given to us by the game. So it's also wrong. We all know that 190 can only drag and bag against Spit and that it requires the Spit to have no wingman, no situational awareness and no clue that the 190 that is flying straight in front of him is probably luring him into someone else's ginsight. This is all historically accurate. It is historical that Spit pilots were chasing after straight flying 190 that they have no chance of catching for long enough so that another 190 can kill them. After all, why would anyone suspect that a target that is doing no evasive manouvers has a watchful partner? Totally unexpected. He must be flying straight because he can't see the Spit. The fact that the Spit in question already got killed in same situation for several times doesn't mean he should learn anything from it.

In RL, just like in the game, Spits were also always in altitude advantage because previous patches didn't teach them to take alt, while LW pilots had to. It's like that in reality.

And at last, we all know that SpitV did very well against 190A3.

Now seriously, 190 is in my oppinion made like this on purpose (he pulled up, that means I must let go because I can't pull up, altough I'm supposed to be a fighter plane http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif and let us not forget that in reality, it was 109 that as doing B&Z hit and run, while 190 pilots were more confident and fought for longer. And kicked *** in the process. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) because it already has a correctly big speed advantage over SpitV, and making it better at climbing or manouvering would pretty much make SpitV vs A4 totally uninteresting. Also we must remember that sitting in front of acomputer and sitting in a plane experiencing many uncomfortable forces that appear while manouvering isn't the same. This is a game, and game does require some sort of a balance. Oleg can say this is the best flight sim ever, but it's still a game, and games tend to have something called playability. As I said, A4 is IMO already superior to SpitV in speed so much that if it would also be stronger in vertical manouvering, climb or what not, it wouldn't be a fight but a slaughter.

hop2002
12-16-2005, 01:42 PM
Do you really want a 190 modelled after the British tests of Faber's A3? Because they did speed tests as well, and the results were nothing like the 190s in the game...

hop2002
12-16-2005, 01:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What I remember seeing way back was a posting with quotes from that page 1 that there
was a restrictor plate on the intake manifold that was removed by the Brits which
allowed that plane to run full 1.42ATA. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks. I was wondering if they adjusted any of the controls, which might have made a difference to the kommandogerat.

The RAE climb results for the A3 don't really make much sense at the power settings they claimed, but would make sense if the higher altitude climbs were flown at higher rpm. Of course, it could just be down to inaccurate measuremnt, the report notes they only had a single data point in full supercharger gear, because the engine began playing up later in the test.

Maggi_4
12-16-2005, 02:14 PM
Vrabac: "This is a game, and game does require some sort of a balance. Oleg can say this is the best flight sim ever, but it's still a game, and games tend to have something called playability"
Yes, balance. Thast why the British put the Spitfire IX in service. That would bring back balance, and from there Allied planes are superiour. (except D9 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

JG4_Helofly
12-16-2005, 02:22 PM
Balancing is not needed I think. In real life you had balancing. e.g first 109 was as good as the spit than the fw 190 came in and germans were better but not for to long because the spit IX LF was as good as the fw 190, than spit XIV/ fw 190 d9... . It worked this way in real life.

Grey_Mouser67
12-16-2005, 04:09 PM
The Fw Antons are one of my favorite rides...I probably fly them more than anything and my killing power is greatest with those planes.

I fly mostly on UK Dedicated and we run historical planesets as near as we are able so we get a lot of A-4 vs. Spit MkV, La5, Yak1b/9, P-39N, P-40's and I find the Fw to be an absolute killer.

Icefire mentioned the Channel 42 map...I get outrageous results on that map with the Fw-190A-4...they are completely superior to the spit mk V in everything except turning circle.

You can mix it up in the vertical with the Fw, but never in the horizontal...stick to that rule and remember...if you don't enter the fight with an advantage, don't expect to gain one you'll do ok.

For some reason, maybe experience and memories from my noob years, I feel like people expect to enter an engagement even or at a disadvantage and turn it to their advantage and come out on top.

Against even teams, relative pilot skill, and against planes with some advantages and disadvantages I assure you that whoever wins the tactical advantage is most likely to come out on top. The Fw's biggest advantage over the Spit is that when it doesn't have the advantage, it can leave almost at will. Do that when it is appropriate and you'll see your scores rise.

Don't think for a minute that in real life the Fw was impervious to Spitfires...it wasn't. The British were suprised at the success the Fw had and there was a bit of a mystique about it because it enjoyed initial success. There were plenty of Fw pilots that bit the dust at the hands of Spits when they didn't start with an advantage, were bounced or tried to turn fight.

Think advantage, think vertical. If you still don't believe, then come to UK Dedicated and look up Boemher, Bokatar, Levola, Icefire, Brimigus, Wild or myself and fly with us in a Fw.

Vrabac
12-16-2005, 05:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You can mix it up in the vertical with the Fw, but never in the horizontal...stick to that rule </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We are obviously not playing the same game. And even more certainly, not on same servers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Try going with 190 vertical against a Russian or some other experienced red that has Spit, Jak, LaGG, La5/7, in other words any onther plane, and you will get your results drastically reduced. Oh, and try it with cockpit on. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

I already said it once few months ago: dog server results don't show plane's quality, but combination of 1000 factors. The more "cockpit off/icons on" features on the server, the less important the statistics on it.

HellToupee
12-17-2005, 01:47 AM
Manoverbility generally refers to all round control roll lightness of controls etc, the spitfire vb in real life and in game rolls slowly at high speed, where 190 can change direction easily, the spitfire however had effective elevator at all speeds and easily outturned the 190, this would mean dont try and loop or turn with the spits. Most pilots who lose verticle fights only see it from their point of view, try it from the spits point of view you see so many mistakes 190 pilots make and blame it on the plane.

Maggi_4
12-17-2005, 08:52 AM
Of course I tried Spit before I posted this. Its very strange while Im climbing engine power and that vacuum cleaner noise (by Somi) don't seem to reduce like in A4.
From Spits view I climb better, I climb with 220-230 km/h, than regain speed even faster, so now I can BZ on 190s, and if something goes wrong than I ll turn. That's all.

p1ngu666
12-17-2005, 09:57 AM
190 very manoverable in that it can change direction quicker than any plane ingame.

even derated a4 is better than any 42 ingame. and its not like our vb is actully that quick, it was some 20-40kph too slow (depending on height)

VW-IceFire
12-17-2005, 11:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Maggi_4:
Of course I tried Spit before I posted this. Its very strange while Im climbing engine power and that vacuum cleaner noise (by Somi) don't seem to reduce like in A4.
From Spits view I climb better, I climb with 220-230 km/h, than regain speed even faster, so now I can BZ on 190s, and if something goes wrong than I ll turn. That's all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
While climbing at 230kph is fine in a Spitfire, never ever, EVER, do that in a FW190. You want to climb at 300kph or 350kph IAS. At those speeds the A-4 has a better climb rate.

The British mention the FW190 being "more manueverable than the Spitfire except in turning radius" and I would say that is also correct in the game.

The FW190 has very good elevator control, extreme roll rate, and at speed good turn. If you're flying faster than you are more manueverable than the Spitfire.

Unfortunately a great deal of people expect to be able to do whatever they want and screw it up. Do you yank back on the stick after completing a BNZ? Do you follow a Spitfire into a turn while doing a BNZ? Do you start your attack at a lesser altitude with equal or less energy than the Spitfire?

Remember that the FW190 bleeds speed very quickly while the Spitfire does not. This is a difference in wingloading, powerloading, and wing design. A Spitfire pilot can afford to bleed speed and make mistakes...the FW190 pilot must be better at managing energy. Again, lots of pilots online are terrible at doing this.

We've been bashing heads for a long time and the fact is that some people get it and others want to dogfight on the horizontal in tight turns because thats what happens in the movies.

Good FW190 pilots against good Spitfire pilots will, in my estimation, ammount to a very tough fight that will ultimately favour the FW190 pilots. Good FW190 pilots against average online dogfighting crowd flying Spitfire Vb's and you will see a slaughter. Conversely, average online dogfighter crowd flying FW190A-4's are going to burn all of their energy up and the Spits are going to get on their tails and blast them.

A good A-4 pilot is untouchable against aircraft of the same year....but quite frankly lots of people don't get it. Some will never get it. For those of you, the 109 is the plane for you...or maybe a Yak-3P.

faustnik
12-17-2005, 04:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><span class="ev_code_YELLOW">We've been bashing heads for a long time and the fact is that some people get it and others want to dogfight on the horizontal in tight turns because thats what happens in the movies</span>. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


This is really true and results in a lot of complaints for a lot of planes including the late USAAF, Fw190s and even Spitfires. DF servers are not the best measure of a/c performance. If you can't out-turn a Yak or Bf109 in your Fw190 or P-51 in a low level air-quake server, it does not mean that Oleg has not modeled the planes correctly.

As usual, IceFire is right!

Maggi_4
12-17-2005, 04:42 PM
I never tried to turn down a Spit at the same level, I usually do agressive or less agressive High-Yoyos, and shoot across. Don't look me as a noob pls, Im not here for tactics and 'I cant pull enough my Fw190 whining'. Im here to say I can' acceltre down and I can't out climb it as I should. (like it was it in real)
some of you said that was 'modded' A3. Yes, it was, with MW50 boost. A4 is the same as A3, just with MW50 boost and a FuG16 radio replaced the older FuG7.

S!

faustnik
12-17-2005, 05:00 PM
Maggi,

I don't think operational Fw190A4s ever used MW50. There is evidence that some late A8 or A9s used it but, in general the C3 EN cooling system was superior and was used from A5 on through the A9.

p1ngu666
12-17-2005, 05:07 PM
could be a radial thing, sakie engine in zero, with mw50 really wasnt worthwhile either

Jetbuff
12-17-2005, 05:09 PM
Just because you use the vertical doesn't mean you're doing it right. e.g. a hi yo-yo without closure is worthless.

PS: the only thing I find "missing" from the 190 at the moment is the fabled zoom climb. I avoid it like the plague because 9 times out of 10 it will get you killed.

Vrabac
12-17-2005, 05:47 PM
This is so typical.

Someone comes and claims that 190 doesn't have correct advantage over something else, typically a Spit. And he quotes certain source, and says it's not like that in the game.

After that 100 000 wise guys come and start saying what do they do on UK dedicated or 334 or whatever.

Guys, I can assure you that Maggi knows very well how to handle 190, and quite possibly much better than all of you "I-fly-on-UK-dedicated-and-fight-in-vertical" together.

It is obvious to whoever wants to look that 190's flight model feels like a pregnant B17 when it is delivering, game-wise. It feels heavy and altogether as a totally different thing than 90% of other planes in the game. In comparison to planes like Yak3 or SpitIX or even 109 I get the feeling that either something is very wrong with it, or with all the others. Yak3 or La7 or Spit or 109 go wherever you throw the stick. They feel as X wings. Yes, even 109. On the other hand 190 is extremly hard to keep from just crashing in te ground in the fight, and it's only matched in this by IAR80/81. Those two planes seem to be the only ones that are actually tough to fly. I'm lately getting inclined to think that those planes are the ones that have been modelled most accurately, while everything else is gameish. This is totally unsupported by any evidence, chart or table, but I can't believe that fighting and manouvering in 109 or Yak or Spit would be so easy, and in 190 or IAR so difficult. Because if it really was like that, than 190 would never pass prototype evaluation.

However, 190 made those that prefer it on average notably better at estimating energy situation, appreciating altitude advantage, knowing how to correctly B&Z etc, and in effect 190 is statistically a very dangerous plane. This is exactly because it has very few if any advantages over most enemies, excluding the 1942 Spits that I already explained. I was in more than one fight when we just slaughtered the opposition without loss, but it wasn't because of 190's great uber mega roll rate that enables it to change directions and similar things, but simply because no Spit or whatever it was could remain on another 190's tail for longer than 2 secs without getting shot to pieces, not to mention that most of the kills I make in 190 is on enemies that are 3k below me. With 3k alt advantage I really should suck a lot not to kill, or at the very least not to stay alive myself.

So guys, please stop teaching people like Maggi what fancy stuff you do on Warclouds, and stick to the topic. The man claims 190 hasn't got correct advantages over Spit. It's the topic. What you do isn't.

p1ngu666
12-17-2005, 07:15 PM
190 flies great, u just haveto fly it abit faster than other planes, a spit or a yak feels heavy and horrible if u fly it below its best speed, infact there rather wobbly even without input at slow speed.

190 has speed, firepower, high speed handling, roll rate good all round view, hardly important things ofcourse. turnrate ftw.

WWMaxGunz
12-17-2005, 07:17 PM
190's stayed and fought but not at speeds under 200mph. Just forget that.
Same with Mustang and every other later war fast design. At least that's how it works
when you factor in what the charts show and has long before the IL2 series was made.

You don't fly em right, yer gonna suck. You pull just a bit too much elevator and dip
into stall on a turn and yer gonna bleed speed. Cripes, the way to tell you are pulling
too much backstick IS by how your speed goes down. B!tch about the bleed and what's
that really saying? Three words made famous by Oleg years ago.

IF the account does not specify speed and alt at the very least then use some sense
about aircraft behaviour, it's not a universal fact as there are conditions that apply.

WWMaxGunz
12-17-2005, 07:25 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 WWMaxGunz:

Is it time for another Teutonic Holy FW Crusade already? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

That was a little uncalled for. Questions were asked about the A4 boost. You want me to report what I found or just go with the status quo? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wasn't a reply to you. That's just how the timing on the posts went.

I wrote about the derating as a definite time period as close as anyone is going to get
because of the sim 190A4 being one of those as we were informed way back.

But in time the tide of ignore what you don't like, post campaign on what you do kind
of behaviour starts. And they all have their own flavors. That's how I see things
shaping up and not just this thread.

WWMaxGunz
12-17-2005, 07:35 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 Scen:


uhh... As it should be. USAAF was always about high Alt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly my point. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not everything they did was from 25,000+ ft. Many bombings were done lower for better aim.
Joe Worsley wrote me that over Japan they rarely went over 20,000 ft. He was there in B-29's
for about as long as there were B-29's in the Pacific. And... same USAAF.
Perhaps the difference in Germany was the accuracy range of the big flak. The Japanese
fighters made it up to them.

Skalgrim
12-17-2005, 09:03 PM
Are you stupit, 190 has 4 time more kills spits as inverse 190

too later has that not great chance, for the brits was 190 almsot undefeatable

but sure too because germans pilots was much better


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Try getting the whole report esp including page 1 the Ring never posted, it has the text
of mods made to the 190 before the flights.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you have the details of the mods? I know Faber's 190 was derated, but not exactly how it was derated, and what was done to increase the power back to 1.42 ata.

It might shed some light on the later RAE test figures, which showed better climb performance in high gear than low, despite being at the same (claimed) rpm and boost. The RAE report notes it's odd, and that further investigation will be made, but the results of that aren't in the report I have. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

VW-IceFire
12-17-2005, 10:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vrabac:
This is so typical.

Someone comes and claims that 190 doesn't have correct advantage over something else, typically a Spit. And he quotes certain source, and says it's not like that in the game.

After that 100 000 wise guys come and start saying what do they do on UK dedicated or 334 or whatever.

Guys, I can assure you that Maggi knows very well how to handle 190, and quite possibly much better than all of you "I-fly-on-UK-dedicated-and-fight-in-vertical" together.

It is obvious to whoever wants to look that 190's flight model feels like a pregnant B17 when it is delivering, game-wise. It feels heavy and altogether as a totally different thing than 90% of other planes in the game. In comparison to planes like Yak3 or SpitIX or even 109 I get the feeling that either something is very wrong with it, or with all the others. Yak3 or La7 or Spit or 109 go wherever you throw the stick. They feel as X wings. Yes, even 109. On the other hand 190 is extremly hard to keep from just crashing in te ground in the fight, and it's only matched in this by IAR80/81. Those two planes seem to be the only ones that are actually tough to fly. I'm lately getting inclined to think that those planes are the ones that have been modelled most accurately, while everything else is gameish. This is totally unsupported by any evidence, chart or table, but I can't believe that fighting and manouvering in 109 or Yak or Spit would be so easy, and in 190 or IAR so difficult. Because if it really was like that, than 190 would never pass prototype evaluation.

However, 190 made those that prefer it on average notably better at estimating energy situation, appreciating altitude advantage, knowing how to correctly B&Z etc, and in effect 190 is statistically a very dangerous plane. This is exactly because it has very few if any advantages over most enemies, excluding the 1942 Spits that I already explained. I was in more than one fight when we just slaughtered the opposition without loss, but it wasn't because of 190's great uber mega roll rate that enables it to change directions and similar things, but simply because no Spit or whatever it was could remain on another 190's tail for longer than 2 secs without getting shot to pieces, not to mention that most of the kills I make in 190 is on enemies that are 3k below me. With 3k alt advantage I really should suck a lot not to kill, or at the very least not to stay alive myself.

So guys, please stop teaching people like Maggi what fancy stuff you do on Warclouds, and stick to the topic. The man claims 190 hasn't got correct advantages over Spit. It's the topic. What you do isn't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
...the funny thing is that we're getting results and using the same sort of tactics I've read JG2 and JG26 having used...

So lets translate. Correct advantages over the Spitfire...using the tactics displayed by the Luftwaffe during this period of time, you can successfully, in the virtual cockpit, show a great deal of success in a similar fashion. So in this, vague, and generalized topic that it is...I'm pointing out that correctly using the FW190 like it was actually used yields results consistent with those of the actual units that flew them.

Interesting.

No FM model is perfect but it seems like it IS infact displaying the correct advantages and the only evidence to the contrary is the usual RAF report on the A-3 that they captured. And from that report...its always the same data thats pulled...the written report. Interestingly enough, it can be interpreted in so many ways that it does not really let us talk about the FW190 in terms of a flight model or acceleration or top speed or roll rate or anything of the sort because thats not the part that gets mentioned.

The written report just as easily supports the view that I have of a FW190 in combat, one that I've researched to some extent, and one that I employ virtually and it works! The FW190 IS more manueverable than the Spitfire...but not in the way that some assume it is.

I'm sure Maggi has the right intentions but we've been over this a thousand times as you mentioned. And I was once on the other side of the argument not understanding what was quite at work...and then I read and did some more research and I started using that and learning from the FW190 veterans (like TX-Zen who knew how to make a FW190D-9 dance like no other) and it works. It really does.

Jetbuff
12-18-2005, 04:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vrabac:
So guys, please stop teaching people like Maggi what fancy stuff you do on Warclouds, and stick to the topic. The man claims 190 hasn't got correct advantages over Spit. It's the topic. What you do isn't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm not sure about everyone else but I am answering him.

a) 190A4 out-maneuvering spit: is true in game too. If you look up "maneuverability" in a flight testing context you will find that it relates not to turning ability (in any direction) but to a plane's ability to "change its direction quickly, easily and precisely". I think this was better in 4.01 when slow speed meant little ability to change direction (slow rolls and any abrupt change of direction could cause a stall). In 4.02, the 190 retains its edge but everything has moved up the scale a bit so it's not as big an advantage as before. Which is more accurate? I don't know. Regardless, the 190 is more maneuverable than the spit.

b) 190A4 outclimbing the spit: hard to judge because no specific climb speed was quoted. Again, this seemed more marked in 4.01 but I can't say for sure. If the speed is above 300kph IAS for this climb comparison then we have a correct 190 in-game.

c) 190A4 tremendous zoom climb: this is the only point with which I agree and has been a sore spot with me since day one. It simply is not true so, unless we are misinterpreting the test notes, something is off.


Regardless of how it's modelled though, there are ways of making your point without making an *** of yourself. That includes not coming in with an "I know better than all of you" attitude, not insulting anyone and using factual and repeatable data to support your argument. (or alternatively, using the proper caveats when you are relying on anecdotal evidence)

VW-IceFire
12-18-2005, 08:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jetbuff:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vrabac:
So guys, please stop teaching people like Maggi what fancy stuff you do on Warclouds, and stick to the topic. The man claims 190 hasn't got correct advantages over Spit. It's the topic. What you do isn't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm not sure about everyone else but I am answering him.

a) 190A4 out-maneuvering spit: is true in game too. If you look up "maneuverability" in a flight testing context you will find that it relates not to turning ability (in any direction) but to a plane's ability to "change its direction quickly, easily and precisely". I think this was better in 4.01 when slow speed meant little ability to change direction (slow rolls and any abrupt change of direction could cause a stall). In 4.02, the 190 retains its edge but everything has moved up the scale a bit so it's not as big an advantage as before. Which is more accurate? I don't know. Regardless, the 190 is more maneuverable than the spit.

b) 190A4 outclimbing the spit: hard to judge because no specific climb speed was quoted. Again, this seemed more marked in 4.01 but I can't say for sure. If the speed is above 300kph IAS for this climb comparison then we have a correct 190 in-game.

c) 190A4 tremendous zoom climb: this is the only point with which I agree and has been a sore spot with me since day one. It simply is not true so, unless we are misinterpreting the test notes, something is off.


Regardless of how it's modelled though, there are ways of making your point without making an *** of yourself. That includes not coming in with an "I know better than all of you" attitude, not insulting anyone and using factual and repeatable data to support your argument. (or alternatively, using the proper caveats when you are relying on anecdotal evidence) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have to agree completely with everything that you've said here! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Particularly C. Zoom climbs in this game are lacking...but for all planes really. The Mustang, FW190, and P-47 are noteable in that the zoom doesn't seem to be quite what it should be. Part of that is technique so you can maximize your zoom but I'm sure you're already doing that (I'm doing my best at it) and it still a little underwhelming.

Grey_Mouser67
12-18-2005, 09:31 AM
Agreed! I kill Spits with historical tactics and dominate them just the same too.

Vrabac, you need to get a life. It is soooo easy to tell the egoists in the forums...folks that have to show how right they are and how wrong the rest of the world is....the topic was discussed and people used their own experiences and tactics to discuss the topic and the best you could come up with is some lame comments about server settings and how nobody is talking about the topic except you??? Give me a break and go find your bridge and crawl back under it.

Vrabac
12-18-2005, 09:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The FW190 IS more manueverable than the Spitfire...but not in the way that some assume it is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is not. It only is above 400kmh, but if you start manouvering you will get below the optimal speed in an instant. Only situation where you can sustain the edge is if you start with good alt and make manouvers while going down, and maintainging high speed in that way. But that's a very particular situation and it certainly doesn't make 190 more manouverable. Not only that, but if Spit isn't especially brain dead he would probably let you go and wait for you to settle and end up with huge energy advantage, right above you soon to be dead head.

Jetbuff, 190 can get away from the 1942 Spit in a shallow climb only. This isn't because of better climb, but because of the fact that 190 indeed has a big speed advantage in horizontal, and shallow climb isn't that much different. You wont end up above him, but you will simply incease the distance. We tested this in 4.01. This is very much different from what RL testing said: You should actually be able to climb STEEPER than Spit. Try climbing steeply agaisnt Spit, please.

Zoom climbing will kill you.

In short, 190 has a really good speed advantage over 1942 opponents and excellent guns. While you have altitude advantage, you can do well since you also posses good high speed handling which you can use to counter targets evasion attempts (something 109 clearly can't do). And that's it. You can not use the high speed handling to outmanouver the target that has equal energy since you will slow down sooner than you can finish a manouver. So to make things simpler, you need to start with alt advantage if you have intentions of getting out alive. Now pls tell me which plane doesn't do good with altitude advantage? You can do it with whatever you want. Only thing that makes 190 better than 109 in that situation is the high speed handling, and it again is used only to get a gun solution, not to get away or to turn the odds on the attacker.

P.S.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Vrabac, you need to get a life. It is soooo easy to tell the egoists in the forums... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the best you can come up with? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I never said only I stick to the topic, but that many cockpit-off forum aces don't. As for historical tactics, I'm sure they had the icons-on switch somewhere in the cockpit... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

p1ngu666
12-18-2005, 10:55 AM
yaks dont do that well, controls lock up very easily, plus light armament. im sorry but i cant see what your whineing about. 190 changes direction very quickly, yes it bleeds speed fast but its got tiny wings, and there not deep(front to back depth), so u get high AOA easily, so u bleed speed easily.

190 turns better than it has ever done now. nearly everyone who flies it says its the best plane in the game currently.

i also think your underestimating the spit, which was, contry to popular forum oppoin, not that bad. plus our spitfire has more power than the one used in the test

Maraz_5SA
12-18-2005, 11:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
also in the VOW2 channel 1942 campaign:
the Spitfire MkVb were eaten alive by the Fw190A4 ................ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This happened one patch ago, Franky... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Channel 1942 was played in early September with 4.01...

Maraz

Maggi_4
12-18-2005, 03:00 PM
Vrabac is absolutley right. As I told before, Im not here for any tactics. No matter how can 190 manouver with high speed, if Spit os on your *** you are dead. No 'steeper' climbing ll help you, casue its not in the game (as it should be). Not even diving away, than climb back, or just accelatre away. None of this tactics can be used, casue its not the game. I would understand your doubt if these test were made by the Germans, but you can't keep in mind the fact that these test were made by the British.

Pingu: Yes, Yaks have light armament, but 4-8 Shvak hits and your Cavalary Horse began to a sick old pony who want to die fast and quiet..but this is a different story. As you may see, I started this post like this: 'Fw190 is getting patch after patch'. And it's really the best now if we compare to the prev. versions.

Grey Wolf, pls try out the planes we are discoussing about in online wars too. Or on servers which are different than air quakes. If you are the ace of UK Dedicated that doesn't mean you know everthyng. Even if you are the ace of all online wars and DF servers that doesn't mean there aren't any people who would kick your @ss.

S!

VW-IceFire
12-18-2005, 04:37 PM
Its obvious Maggi and Vrabac aren't going to be listening to any of us at all.

I give up...

OldMan____
12-18-2005, 04:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vrabac:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The FW190 IS more manueverable than the Spitfire...but not in the way that some assume it is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is not. It only is above 400kmh, but if you start manouvering you will get below the optimal speed in an instant. Only situation where you can sustain the edge is if you start with good alt and make manouvers while going down, and maintainging high speed in that way. But that's a very particular situation and it certainly doesn't make 190 more manouverable. Not only that, but if Spit isn't especially brain dead he would probably let you go and wait for you to settle and end up with huge energy advantage, right above you soon to be dead head.

Jetbuff, 190 can get away from the 1942 Spit in a shallow climb only. This isn't because of better climb, but because of the fact that 190 indeed has a big speed advantage in horizontal, and shallow climb isn't that much different. You wont end up above him, but you will simply incease the distance. We tested this in 4.01. This is very much different from what RL testing said: You should actually be able to climb STEEPER than Spit. Try climbing steeply agaisnt Spit, please.

Zoom climbing will kill you.

In short, 190 has a really good speed advantage over 1942 opponents and excellent guns. While you have altitude advantage, you can do well since you also posses good high speed handling which you can use to counter targets evasion attempts (something 109 clearly can't do). And that's it. You can not use the high speed handling to outmanouver the target that has equal energy since you will slow down sooner than you can finish a manouver. So to make things simpler, you need to start with alt advantage if you have intentions of getting out alive. Now pls tell me which plane doesn't do good with altitude advantage? You can do it with whatever you want. Only thing that makes 190 better than 109 in that situation is the high speed handling, and it again is used only to get a gun solution, not to get away or to turn the odds on the attacker.

P.S.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Vrabac, you need to get a life. It is soooo easy to tell the egoists in the forums... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the best you can come up with? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I never said only I stick to the topic, but that many cockpit-off forum aces don't. As for historical tactics, I'm sure they had the icons-on switch somewhere in the cockpit... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You don ´t need to be more maneuverable for more than a few seconds.. how much time do you need to press the trigger? Just to make it clear.. 0.25 seconds in a FW gunsight is enough to make you life nasty.... 4 times...

tigertalon
12-18-2005, 05:01 PM
@Maggi, Vrabac:

Hm, you are saying that in WW2 there were only duels? Er... no IIRC. There were MASSES of fighters fighting eachother. Fw190 in this game is one of the worst fighters for dueling, but absolutely the best in 8v8 or 16v16 situation (which was, IMO, WAY more often in WW2, don't you think?).

In multi_v_multi engagement, Fw190 own spits purely because of great speed and devastating armament. If a spit glues to Fws tail, another Fw will blow it to pieces before spit gets enough lead on his Fw to down it...

I can recall what a great fight I had: 2 Yak3s v 2 Fw190A6 (!!!) on the deck. 1v1, Fw would be eaten alive. 2v2, it was VERY close call, that lasted for some 10 minutes, when finally Yaks won... It scares me to think 4v4 or, God forbid, 16v16 in such a situation...

@ IceFire:

While generally I agree with your points Ice, IMO, they do, however, got a point to some extent also... You are not claiming that Jg2 and Jg26 were always having alt advantage when they met Brits, do you?

One of the typical maneovers to shake a spit from A3s tail was half roll to left(right), then full roll to right(left), so flying inverted again, and pulling stick back, thus diving. This way Fw pilots combined two overhelming advantages they had over spits: roll rate and dive acceleration. Before spit finished rolling, Fw was already far away and accelerating... This simply does not work in PF... Roll rate is more or less accurately modelled, while dive acceleration is not. Actually, acceleration in general is messed up... acceleraton of Fw is one of worst, altough it should be among the best...

Another note: optimal climbing speed of Fw190 in PF is simply too high. IRL it was close to spitfries, just angle of climb was steeper (this is confirmed in british tests). This is connected with lift at slow speeds, which, IMO, make Fw a bit too clumsy there (at speeds 250~350kph). This is just IMO however.

VW-IceFire
12-18-2005, 06:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
@ IceFire:

While generally I agree with your points Ice, IMO, they do, however, got a point to some extent also... You are not claiming that Jg2 and Jg26 were always having alt advantage when they met Brits, do you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No...I'm quite certain they were bounced by Spitfires many times. The trick is that either the entire JG would just roll, dive, and fly home...or they would stay and fight. And by that I mean with team tactics. A group of Spitfires and a group of FW190s...the two teams can sufficiently work together to the point where any given FW190 pilot will have some sort of alt advantage sufficient to pounce on a Spitfire that may be trailing another 190.

While its rare to get such a scenario on the average dogfight server in this game...you can, with a good team working with you, have a low alt "turn fight" with Spitfires, Yaks, and LaGG's in a A-4 and win handily with few losses and many enemy fighters shot down.

I'm not saying the FW190 is perfectly modeled because its not. Neither is the Spitfire Vb (the speed of a 1941 model and the climb of a 1942 model - it needs to have an identity check one or the other). But its fairly decently done compared to most of what we've got. And there are LOTS of bad tactics being employed...I know you've seen them and I know, having fought against you and with you, that you have most of those bad habits worked out.

We're not going to get 100% 1942 accurate Channel warfare but I think we're fairly close.

Now if we want to talk specifics like acceleration (with numbers), turn and roll (with numbers), and so on then I'm quite pleased to. But we don't seem to be...we're just talking anecdotes so far and there's a solution to every anecdote http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWMaxGunz
12-18-2005, 10:24 PM
Well if you don't know enough to change direction in vertical or partly vertical rolls
or at the top of a climb where you are slower you lose less in drag. Reconvert to speed
aimed leading the target and zoom on down, see if you're holding speed in the attacks
and quit pulling so much stick if you can't. IE, how you fly it or not is not because
of the sim.

WWMaxGunz
12-18-2005, 10:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

I'm not saying the FW190 is perfectly modeled because its not. Neither is the Spitfire Vb (the speed of a 1941 model and the climb of a 1942 model - it needs to have an identity check one or the other). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Posted by Oleg long ago, the game SpitVB is a 1942 model and IIRC mid-42 maybe august.

Speed of 1941 SpitVB is how much slower?

IMOO, the gunsight view of the 190's is the biggest handicap to its use anyway.
But, it will not be changed... I think due to limits in the IL2/FB engine and PC hardware.

hop2002
12-18-2005, 11:05 PM
IIRC, the Spitfire Vb in game is slower than even the 1941 version below critical altitudes, substantially slower than even the Spitfire I on 100 octane fuel.

When I tested many versions ago, the speed was slower than a Spitfire V at 9 lbs boost.

Wep in 1941 was actually 12 lbs, rising to 16 lbs some time in 1942. (climb was at 16 lbs boost when I tested)

It was about 30 mph slower than it should have been for a 1941 Spitfire, and more than 40 mph too slow to be a 1942 Spitfire, iirc.

All that was a long time ago, though, and the speed might be totally different now. If anyone knows the current speed at sea level, it would be easy to work out whether it's still running too slow.

Jetbuff
12-18-2005, 11:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vrabac:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The FW190 IS more manueverable than the Spitfire...but not in the way that some assume it is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is not. It only is above 400kmh, but if you start manouvering you will get below the optimal speed in an instant. Only situation where you can sustain the edge is if you start with good alt and make manouvers while going down, and maintainging high speed in that way. But that's a very particular situation and it certainly doesn't make 190 more manouverable. Not only that, but if Spit isn't especially brain dead he would probably let you go and wait for you to settle and end up with huge energy advantage, right above you soon to be dead head. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
See my explanation of "maneuverability" above - it has nothing to do with turning, in any direction, just the ability to change direction. e.g. roll, change from a dive to climb, etc...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Jetbuff, 190 can get away from the 1942 Spit in a shallow climb only. This isn't because of better climb, but because of the fact that 190 indeed has a big speed advantage in horizontal, and shallow climb isn't that much different. You wont end up above him, but you will simply incease the distance. We tested this in 4.01. This is very much different from what RL testing said: You should actually be able to climb STEEPER than Spit. Try climbing steeply agaisnt Spit, please.

Zoom climbing will kill you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed, I never said the 190 could outclimb the spit at low speeds - but then again neither did the report. Climb speed is in fact conspicuously absent. And as to the zoom climb, I said it too, that is the one thing that still sort of nags at me for both the P-47 and the 190. The funny part is that aerodynamically speaking, their poor zoom climbs are understandable, (why should a heavier aircraft zoom higher than a ligher plane?) yet everyone seems to quote them as being excellent in the zoom climb. Which leads me to wonder: was it related to their higher top speeds? I honestly don't know.

Let's look at that test report once more:

1. 190 is faster than spit: check!
2. 190 is more maneuverable than spit: check!
3. 190 out-rolls spit: check!
4. 190 is worse at turning: triple-check!
5. 190 climbs better than spit: depending on speed of climb, check!
6. 190 has tremendous zoom climb: umm... err... I must be doing something terribly wrong with my 190, otherwise this is a true FM issue.

4.5 out of 6, not too shabby for a $40 game, eh?

anarchy52
12-19-2005, 02:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
From accounts of one of the pilots flying the test, the climb compares were done at high
speed around 250 mph where the Spit V climb rate is far inferior to the 190.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really, test states that best climbing speed of both aircraft is similar, but FW-190 can climb at signifficantly steeper angle. FW-190 was a formidable and agile fighter, do not confuse reality with game.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
12-19-2005, 04:41 AM
I think we should focus on acceleration, because its related to the engine power, so better acceleration, better climb, higher speed can be keeped well. The fact is, that in this game Focke Wulf HATE speed below 300km/h. Mine tactic flying the Focke Wulf 190 is to always keep speed above 280-300km/h. Why? Because my acceleration is good, climbing is ok, roll is great, turning is ok, so i avoid especially zoom climb, and others climb above 45 deegrees.. But my question is, is it true that focke wulf was good only at speeds above 300km/h? Why acceleration below 300km/h is so sucky? I dont think that engine running on 200km/h has less power than running on 400km/h.
If its true, than i guess our focke wulf is ok here, ingame. But i guess this is what focke wulf 190 ingame lacks - power and acceleration on speeds below 300km/h.

Maggi_4
12-19-2005, 07:43 AM
Hello again

I see you got the whole thing wronghttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
About the topic I mean. Of course we can shoot down Spits. It's no problem to shoot down Spits. It's up to pilot skills of course. If you meet someone good in a Spit (how flew on OKL before for example http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif)and he were good flying blue, he ll certainly start energy fighting. Than you ll suck. I don't know have you ever seen a Spit like this.

Icefire: we are listening, just I feel you haven't got anything against these facts (test) made by the British. So its obviusly something is not correct with the Fw's performance, of course we can equalize it with pilot skillhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Jetbuff:
"5. 190 climbs better than spit: depending on speed of climb, check!" Check? Really? If the pilot is enough dumm to follow the Fw in a 330km/h climb than it's better. But otherwise no! Its not better, so your check is not correct. And you forgot our accelatrion point which could be an even more advantage during combat.

S!

Ratsack
12-19-2005, 08:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Maggi_4:
Hello again

I see you got the whole thing wronghttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
About the topic I mean. Of course we can shoot down Spits. It's no problem to shoot down Spits. It's up to pilot skills of course. If you meet someone good in a Spit (how flew on OKL before for example http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif)and he were good flying blue, he ll certainly start energy fighting. Than you ll suck. I don't know have you ever seen a Spit like this.

Icefire: we are listening, just I feel you haven't got anything against these facts (test) made by the British. So its obviusly something is not correct with the Fw's performance, of course we can equalize it with pilot skillhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Jetbuff:
"5. 190 climbs better than spit: depending on speed of climb, check!" Check? Really? If the pilot is enough dumm to follow the Fw in a 330km/h climb than it's better. But otherwise no! Its not better, so your check is not correct. And you forgot our accelatrion point which could be an even more advantage during combat.

S! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the discussion is going to focus on acceleration, then aren't numbers better than impressions?

Faustnik, hasn't somebody over at the FW190 consortium done some acceleration tests on the FW190 and some other key tpyes?

Ratsack

jurinko
12-19-2005, 08:31 AM
New fighters are usually tested in 1vs1 mock dogfights with other types or captured aircraft. As Fw 190 is performing in FB now, it should not be cleared for the frontline service by Luftwaffe.

Sure, it can bounce unaware enemy from above and in experienced hands it does well - but this can be done by any plane which does not disassemble to spare parts above 600kph as some wooden **** does.

And to the climbing speed - in the famous report it is stated that the best climbing speed for both planes (A-3 and MkVB) is around 265kph, while the climb angle of Fw 190 is "considerably steeper", or climbs better of some 450ft/min (~2m/s) up to 7km.

Newbie is lost in Fw 190 while going to fight, while in the contrary the plane was novice friendly. In no report it is stated that every touch of the elevator produced a grrrrrr effect and instant speed loss. Usual maneuver for shaking the enemy from it six - tight turn, opposite roll and diving tight turn - can not be applied succesfully: first, the difference in roll between planes is not too pronounced, second, the possible momentarily advantage by the roll is negated by harsh elevator response, stall even at high speed and speed loss.

p1ngu666
12-19-2005, 08:55 AM
no plane is good below 300kph, of the main contendors anyways. (a clipped wing IX actully wobbles, all by itself below 300kph)

fw190 is newbie friendly, just tell the guy not to turn too much and fly it flat out all the time. he just needs to hold his nerve if someone gets on his 6. split second is enuff to destroy nearly everything too.

now compaire to say a yak. yak slower, gunsight isnt that great either, climb difference isnt that great, central guns, and weaker too (1 vs 4 cannon, and two 7~mm's or a 50cal)

lol jurinko, 190 really is best plane in the game currently, i get best K/D ratio in 190 i think, and im sure as heck not the only one. 1v1 tests where see what advantages and disadvantages a aircraft have.

if u think your 190 is poor, i suggest u go try out a ki61,100, and other japanease planes too

Buzzsaw-
12-19-2005, 09:45 AM
Salute

Since those who are complaining are insistent that the Spit Vb is so superior, then I would suggest an online duel to determine a winner, and to shut up the complaints once and for all.

First match, a 1 on 1. Both planes start at 3,000 meters.

Second match, 4 on 4. Again, all planes start at 3,000 meters.

I'd be happy to volunteer to fly the 190A4 for the 1 on 1, if Faustnik and his boys will fly the 190 for the 4 on 4.

So who is going to fly the Spits???

faustnik
12-19-2005, 09:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:

I'd be happy to volunteer to fly the 190A4 for the 1 on 1, if Faustnik and his boys will fly the 190 for the 4 on 4.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We're in Buzzsaw. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

jurinko
12-19-2005, 10:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:

lol jurinko, 190 really is best plane in the game currently, i get best K/D ratio in 190 i think, and im sure as heck not the only one. 1v1 tests where see what advantages and disadvantages a aircraft have.

if u think your 190 is poor, i suggest u go try out a ki61,100, and other japanease planes too </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

p1ngu666, be sure I can fly and win in Fw 190, though I avoid 1vs1 except really inferior planes. However, it doesn´t mean its FM feels correct compared to other planes including 109.

some online track (http://www.letka13.sk/~jurinko/HL_Fw190A4=WT_8kills.ntrk)

Btw, Ki61 is my favourite ride http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

CMHQ_Rikimaru
12-19-2005, 10:51 AM
Still no one answered for my question :S

faustnik
12-19-2005, 11:19 AM
I have to say this thread should not be too one sided. I agree with Buzzsaw, IceFire and others that the Fw190A4 is superior to the Spit Vb in PF. The "poor Spitfire" and "Fw190 is a newb plane" campaign that has cropped up however, is just laughable. If you can't hold your own in a Spit IX agaisnt the Fw190A4-6, then I don't know what to tell you.

After Buzzsaw and I fly the Fw190A4s against the Spit Vbs, we'll fly the Spix IX against the Fw190A4/5/6 and show that the "poor Spitfire" line is as big a joke as the "poor Fw190".

Jetbuff
12-19-2005, 12:00 PM
Which Spit Buzzsaw? '41 or '42, clipped wing or regular?

Your implication that the Spit Vb is somehow completely outclassed is totally irrelevant, not to mention misleading. The '42 clipped wing version for example has less than a 20kph deficit at most altitudes and is on par to superior in most other aspects.

KG26_Oranje
12-19-2005, 12:03 PM
S! all

Maggi_4

u forgot to note that the FW190v1 to FW_190A3 had cooling trobbels.

The FW190A4 was the first model wiht a proper cooling systeem.

S! I/KG26_Oranje

stathem
12-19-2005, 12:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jetbuff:
Which Spit Buzzsaw? '41 or '42, clipped wing or regular?

Your implication that the Spit Vb is somehow completely outclassed is totally irrelevant, not to mention misleading. The '42 clipped wing version for example has less than a 20kph deficit at most altitudes and is on par to superior in most other aspects. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apart from, somewhat crucially, according to Tagert's roll rate testing, the CW Spit is proportionally considerably more undermodelled than any virtually any other plane.

I'm sure you've all seen the graphs, both Tagerts and real.

p1ngu666
12-19-2005, 12:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jetbuff:
Which Spit Buzzsaw? '41 or '42, clipped wing or regular?

Your implication that the Spit Vb is somehow completely outclassed is totally irrelevant, not to mention misleading. The '42 clipped wing version for example has less than a 20kph deficit at most altitudes and is on par to superior in most other aspects. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the LF Vb ?
yes, sub 3500metres is actully not that much slower, top speed is at about 2000metres. but above 3500 the fw is faster, by *lots* peaking at 100kph or so.

the Vb CW is way slower till 3000metres or so, then spit isnt that far behind to 5,500metres. then its all fw190 again till really high up (9000metres)
still faster up that high, and at all altitudes actully

what do u think of the k61/100 fm jurinko?

faustnik
12-19-2005, 12:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KG26_Oranje:

The FW190A4 was the first model wiht a proper cooling systeem.

S! I/KG26_Oranje </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What changes to the cooling system are you referring to Oranje?

jurinko
12-19-2005, 02:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
what do u think of the k61/100 fm jurinko? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ki-61 is nice Pacific Emil with sharp nose, inferior to US types but fun to fly. MG armament in early models sux.
Ki-100 - never flew it online but obviously better than 61.

KG26_Oranje
12-19-2005, 02:34 PM
Hi Faustnik.

Sorry mate i cant tell.
Jane`s info (Jane`s Fighter Aircraft of WW2)on the FW190v1 to Dora is just general info and specs.
Its not going to deep in tech stuff.
Buht the FW190v1 start wiht cooling problems from the beginning.
The factory manige it to reduce it a biht.
Till the FW190A4 , that model got a brand new redisignd cooling system.

So i ges u cant compare a A3 model to a A4 model.
Performance looks the same or close, buht how is it on endurance if u go to high engine performance?.

Hope u understaind it , my englishe is poor.
S! I/KG26_Oranje.

Ratsack
12-19-2005, 02:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KG26_Oranje:
Hi Faustnik.

Sorry mate i cant tell.
Jane`s info (Jane`s Fighter Aircraft of WW2)on the FW190v1 to Dora is just general info and specs.
Its not going to deep in tech stuff.
Buht the FW190v1 start wiht cooling problems from the beginning.
The factory manige it to reduce it a biht.
Till the FW190A4 , that model got a brand new redisignd cooling system.

So i ges u cant compare a A3 model to a A4 model.
Performance looks the same or close, buht how is it on endurance if u go to high engine performance?.

Hope u understaind it , my englishe is poor.
S! I/KG26_Oranje. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Adam Skupeiwski, Fw 190 A/F/G/S: part 1, (Books International, Hampshire, 1996), p. 8, says that the cooling problems were dealt with in the A-2 model. Some online sources say the cooling slots were introduced on the A-3 model and retrofitted to the A-2, while still others say they were first introduced on the A-2 as a modification, and fitted to the A-3 as standard.

The ancient Squadron Signal profile on the Fw190A, Focke-Wulf In Action, says the problems were sorted out in time for the A-3 in Feb 1942.

Crump may have something a little more substantial.

Ratsack

VW-IceFire
12-19-2005, 02:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Maggi_4:
Icefire: we are listening, just I feel you haven't got anything against these facts (test) made by the British. So its obviusly something is not correct with the Fw's performance, of course we can equalize it with pilot skillhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You're not listening to any of us...not just me.

Faustnik above all I respect for his knowledge of FW190 performance. Every heard of the Focke Wulf Consortium...if not, join us on CWOS:

http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=F...s&file=viewforum&f=8 (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&amp;file=viewforum&amp;f=8)

All the sorts of information you might be interested to read. Far...FAR in advance of some bits of text selectively pulled from the infamous RAF report on the FW190A-3.

faustnik
12-19-2005, 02:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
The ancient Squadron Signal profile on the Fw190A, Focke-Wulf In Action, says the problems were sorted out in time for the A-3 in Feb 1942.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only things I can think they would be referring to is the rerouting of exhaust developed by the Jg26 mechanics to fix their A1s or the cooling vents on all BMW801D models. Also, like you said, the A3 was the first production model with the 801D standard but, some A2s had 801Ds. ???

I have heard of, but, not seen, documentation of the 801s getting a new chrome plating on the exhaust system in mid-42.

As always with the Fw190, information is never clear or easy.

VW-IceFire
12-19-2005, 03:26 PM
Seems other games exhibit the exact same properties:

http://agw.bombs-away.net/printthread.php?t=40158

They even have the same arguments with the same incredulity at first exhibited.

You want some added fuel to the fire. Some things popped up wandering about the internet. As they always do there's something new I haven't read yet but it still reinforces what I was saying before.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The first major production variant was the A-3; it was powered by the 1,700hp BMW 801D-2, and the 20mm MG FF cannon that had been in the wing root was replaced by the much faster firing MG 151/20mm cannon, which was moved outboard of the propeller arc. The pilot had more armor protection, and the cockpit canopy could be jettisoned while in flight with the aid of explosive bolts. The A-3 was a multipurpose aircraft and was produced in fighter, fighter/bomber, reconnaissance, torpedo/bomber and groundattack variants. It entered service in March 1942, by which time more than 250 Fw 190s were being produced monthly. From October 1942 to March 1943, 72 A-3s were handed over to Turkey.

As the Fw 190 consolidated its superiority over its RAF contemporaries, the morale of Spitfire V squadron pilots was inevitably affected. The British Air Ministry's concern about the situation soon bordered on desperation, and it planned a commando raid on a Luftwaffe fighter base in France to hijack a Fw 190. Then fortune favored the Allies when, at 2035 hours on June 23, 1942, a Luftwaffe pilot-after a brief encounter with Spitfires over the English Channel-became disoriented and landed his Fw 190A-3 at RAF Pembrey in South Wales and not on what he assumed was a German airfield on the Cherbourg peninsula. Owing to the RAF Air Traffic Control's smart thinking, the pilot was left undisturbed to taxi in and stop his engine before a controller leapt onto the Fw's wing and held a flare pistol to his head. Unbelievably, an intact example of the enemy's latest fighter was in RAF hands.

The A-3 was transported to the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough, where both the airframe and the engine were dismantled and thoroughly analyzed before being reassembled for 10 days of flight-testing, starting on July 3. The flight tests confirmed that the Fw 190 was a truly outstanding combat aircraft with a very high rate of roll and impressive acceleration in the dive. Its Achilles' heel was in its violent accelerated stall that could lead to a spin if it tried to out-turn the Spitfire. The tests also revealed that, above 25,000 feet, the newer Spitfire IX could outperform the Fw 190. This information was, of course, rapidly transmitted to all Allied operational fighter units; it was evident that the Fw 190 pilots preferred to fight by climbing and diving while the Allied fighters were well advised to stick to level turning combat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200010/ai_n8925541

Interestingly enough...the Russians didn't regard the FW190's climb as anything special. Although this does not say as to which type of FW190 it is...it can be implied that its a Anton model and that this is a summary of all types encountered.

An article, translated and kept by the U.S. War Department (alegedly):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A shortcoming of the FW-190 is its poor climbing ability. When climbing in order to get an altitude advantage over the enemy, there is a moment when the FW-190 "hangs" in the air. It is then convenient to fire. Therefore, when following a FW-190 in a dive, you should bring your plane out of the dive slightly before the FW comes out of it, in order to catch up with him on the vertical plane. In other words, when the FW comes out of the dive you should bring your plane out in such a way as to have an advantage over the enemy in height. If this can be achieved, the FW-190 becomes a fine target when it "hangs". Direct fire should be opened up at a short distance, 50 to 100 meters (150 to 300 ft). It should also be remembered that the weakest spots of the FW-190 are below and behind--the gasoline tanks and the pilot's legs, which are not protected. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt/russian-combat-fw190.html

This is in stark contrast to the sort of stuff that the RAF report was saying.

Now an issue that I don't think was ever resolved. Our FW190A-4 is a Eastern Front version...as I'm told there are a couple of types of A-3/A-4's about. The A-4 we've got is not running at the same boost that the RAF tested theirs at (as far as I know). Additionally, the FW190A-4 that the RAF was testing was put upto 1.42 ATA and the engine ran rough and it was later determined that the spark plugs they used were impacting on the engine and tests could not continue.

One of the reasons why this infamous FW190 was never tested against an early model Typhoon was because the Typhoon hadn't arrived yet and the FW190A-3 they were testing had been removed from flight status by the time they did get a Typhoon.

The report also, or what I've ever been able to find about it, never states what Spitfire Vb they used and what settings it was operating at.

Maggi - does your book answer any of that or are we going by the few lines posted? Those are posted all over the internet and many are posted on this forum (from years gone bye). The same arguments and the same conclusions are made time and again...

..and in this game we have from the A-4 vs Spitfire Vb 1942 the following:

FW190 is faster? Yes.
FW190 climbs better? Yes, with reservation that you need to do it at the FW190s best climb speed (300kph or better)
FW190 zoom climbs better? Marginally so, the game never did this well for any plane. If we want to discuss zoom climb abilities then we need to stop talking Spitfires and start talking FW190, P-47, Hellcat, and Corsair.
Manuverability? Absolutely, the FW190 is far better. Except in a turn where it is not.
Climb: Yes its a better climber than the Spitfire but only at speed. This shows up in the Russian experiences (I believe the early Yaks and Spitfires were somewhat close in this regard at least to a certain alt).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Really? If the pilot is enough dumm to follow the Fw in a 330km/h climb than it's better. But otherwise no! Its not better, so your check is not correct. And you forgot our accelatrion point which could be an even more advantage during combat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Aside from the Faber report, the Spitfires generally do better than the FW190 at lower speeds and the FW190 does better at higher speeds. Oleg did post a good discussion about this from his aeronautical background (doing caluclations regarding the two) and he said that if you fly at 300kph or faster then the FW190 will outclimb the Spitfires.

I think in this regard the Faber report contradicts virtually all others. Faustnik, maybe you can clear that bit up, but this report aside, nowhere else does it say that the FW190 is a good climb aircraft...except at speed.

And thats when pilot accounts come into play. The FW190s climb away at high speeds and do not start slow. It really does come down to pilot tactics...and thats where I'm driving home the message and thats where I'm being told is invalid which I don't even understand. The plane doesn't fly itself...

WWMaxGunz
12-19-2005, 03:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Maggi_4:
Hello again

I see you got the whole thing wronghttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
About the topic I mean. Of course we can shoot down Spits. It's no problem to shoot down Spits. It's up to pilot skills of course. If you meet someone good in a Spit (how flew on OKL before for example http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif)and he were good flying blue, he ll certainly start energy fighting. Than you ll suck. I don't know have you ever seen a Spit like this.

Icefire: we are listening, just I feel you haven't got anything against these facts (test) made by the British. So its obviusly something is not correct with the Fw's performance, of course we can equalize it with pilot skillhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Jetbuff:
"5. 190 climbs better than spit: depending on speed of climb, check!" Check? Really? If the pilot is enough dumm to follow the Fw in a 330km/h climb than it's better. But otherwise no! Its not better, so your check is not correct. And you forgot our accelatrion point which could be an even more advantage during combat.

S! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From a first person account written by the Spit pilot of that test, the combat climb
part was run at 400 kph, 240 mph, set by the pilot in the FW who flew in the same speed
as the Germans being met in the channel. Not any 330 kph which for highspeed WWII
fighters is about as slow as you ever want to get. Big clue, kph is not mph, 300 kph
is not fast except for early war and obsoletes. FW did not go as fast as 400 kph in
combat, 400 kph was FW down near slow end.

You guys come up with this act like you know something because you read a report. A
report that doesn't say as much as it does say. You fill in the blanks with your own
ideas that have little to do with reality shown in many other places. You sure don't
know a lot because it shows in the assumptions of your posts.

Duxford comparisons... early worn SpitVB vs new captured FW 190A3 modified to run 1.42 ATA.
IL2/FB has later SpitVB and FW 190A4 derated to 1.3-something ATA. Cannot simulate the
Duxford trials using the planes in the sim. Even if you can, you have to run at the
speeds and alts of the test, etc, etc, which aren't given so p!$$ing yourself pointing
at in-game results because apples are not oranges is just so much whining.

Time for that airware cardgame. The one with the special trumps, it says my plane can
outturn yours because "they stayed and fought" means I win this hand right? Should be
popular with the don't-care-of-how:it-says-better crowd.

robban75
12-19-2005, 04:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Interestingly enough...the Russians didn't regard the FW190's climb as anything special. Although this does not say as to which type of FW190 it is...it can be implied that its a Anton model and that this is a summary of all types encountered.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I read somewhere that the Fw 190 tested by the russians was an example that had made a forced belly landing, and the smashed up prop was replaced by one from a Stuka.

But don't quote me on that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

WWMaxGunz
12-19-2005, 04:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
I think we should focus on acceleration, because its related to the engine power, so better acceleration, better climb, higher speed can be keeped well. The fact is, that in this game Focke Wulf HATE speed below 300km/h. Mine tactic flying the Focke Wulf 190 is to always keep speed above 280-300km/h. Why? Because my acceleration is good, climbing is ok, roll is great, turning is ok, so i avoid especially zoom climb, and others climb above 45 deegrees.. But my question is, is it true that focke wulf was good only at speeds above 300km/h? Why acceleration below 300km/h is so sucky? I dont think that engine running on 200km/h has less power than running on 400km/h.
If its true, than i guess our focke wulf is ok here, ingame. But i guess this is what focke wulf 190 ingame lacks - power and acceleration on speeds below 300km/h. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just these kind of things but you are smart to ask instead of insist and tantrum.

It depends more on the prop how acceleration, thrust really, works at any speed.
Props are optimized for best thrust in certain regions. Fast planes get props made for
best thrust at high speeds. There is a wide region of good thrust and best is not at
the highest speed since the plane will go faster than best thrust speed but there will
be less at low speeds just due to the efficiency of the design.

Oleg already shot down one post about comparing a charted FW vs the game by pointing
out that the FW in game uses a different prop than the one in the chart. And that was
a chart with enough documentation to say what plane was used to know what prop was on.
When people come up with 'fluff' reports and accounts, don't expect Oleg to bother ---
he usually don't.

300 kph is not fighting speed except for slow planes and turn fighters. FW is not that.
What an insult for people to group FW with those or fly one in that manner. Hartmann
wouldn't fight in a 109 at those speeds.

faustnik
12-19-2005, 04:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Faustnik, maybe you can clear that bit up, but this report aside, nowhere else does it say that the FW190 is a good climb aircraft...except at speed.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The USAAF tested a Fw190G with the ETC racks removed. It reached climb rates of 4000fpm at low level at 2700rpm@1.42ata.

Most LW charts show rates of between 16ms (1.42ata) and 20ms (1.65ata) for the various Antons at sea level, maitaining a good climb rate to 6,500 meters then falling off rapidly.

Ratsack
12-19-2005, 04:51 PM
G'day Icefire,

Most of that first paragraph you've quoted seems be a mish-mash of stuff referring to earlier variants. The canopy issue was discovered and dealt with on the pre-production version (A-0), while the Mauser MG151/20E (where the 'E' designates 'electrically primed' so it can be synchronised with the prop) gun was introduced on the A-2.

I was not aware there were any changes to the armour protection either, but I don't have any source that says there wasn't. As Faustnik said, the information on the Fw190 is a real mess, which is surprising for a machine with a production run of 20,000 examples.

For the rest, I'm not actually arguing with your point. I would, however, add this to it. For what it's worth, I think that a lot of the complaints about the Fw190 €" and other planes - stem from the limitations of the simulator. There is no sense of doing hard work, no sensation of exhaustion that comes with pulling high Gs, or living on oxygen at high altitude. Without 6DoF and cockpits modelled for it, there's no head movement that gives the virtual pilot the full advantage of the superb canopy design of the FW (those struts where thick, after all). Finally, the sim is simply not complex enough to model the many little quirks of these old planes that made them all different and, in some cases, bloody scary to fly.

This means we have the macro stuff, like the Spitfire's turn, and the 190's accelerated stall. But we don't have the micro stuff, like uneven slat deployment, or the sickening feeling of a bad sideslip. The lack of this stuff means that the only inputs to the seat-of-the-pants experience are the macro issues like accelerated stall. In my opinion, this is what gives us a sim where even the late-model Bf109s seem to most people to be easier to fly than the Focke-Wulf.

In other words, the sim may be accurate at the macro level, but the way that the player experiences it is not €˜historically accurate€. It€s a subjective impression, but it stems from the cumulative effect of lots of little objective deficiencies in the simulator.

For my part, I don€t find the Fw a dog in this sim, although it took me a while to learn to fly it. If the job is fighting fast, hard-turning reds, I€d rather be flying a Fw190 than a Bf109 in this game. It has better elevator response at the speeds at which I fight, and it rolls better, so that all translates into manoeuvrability as far as I€m concerned. Combine that with excellent firepower, and it beats the 109, hands down. It€s just that this is not how most players see it.

Ratsack

VW-IceFire
12-19-2005, 04:55 PM
Ratsack: I can definately appreciate what you're saying there and I completely agree.

There are just things we cannot do. Without some sort of paradigm change in the ways that people can experience entertainment.

We're very nearly a passive observer to actions unfolding on a flat screen that we're trying to control with pieces of plastic. It makes a few differences http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Buzzsaw-
12-19-2005, 07:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jetbuff:
Which Spit Buzzsaw? '41 or '42, clipped wing or regular?

Your implication that the Spit Vb is somehow completely outclassed is totally irrelevant, not to mention misleading. The '42 clipped wing version for example has less than a 20kph deficit at most altitudes and is on par to superior in most other aspects. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said or implied that the Spit V was hopelessly outclassed. In fact, my point in proposing the match was to prove that what some others have said, ie. that the 190 is the one which is completely outclassed, is completely false.

If flown properly, the 190 is a superior plane to the Spit V. It does not completely dominate them, but it should generally prevail if flown correctly, especially in the multi-aircraft fights. Although I am not a 190 specialist, (fly against Faustnik if you want to get some lessons http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) I happen to have confidence that I can deal with a Spit V, and either win, or draw versus one. I feel that in an even alt fight, a properly flown 190 should never be in danger of being shot down.

Ratsack
12-19-2005, 08:37 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 Ratsack:
The ancient Squadron Signal profile on the Fw190A, Focke-Wulf In Action, says the problems were sorted out in time for the A-3 in Feb 1942.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only things I can think they would be referring to is the rerouting of exhaust developed by the Jg26 mechanics to fix their A1s or the cooling vents on all BMW801D models. Also, like you said, the A3 was the first production model with the 801D standard but, some A2s had 801Ds. ???

I have heard of, but, not seen, documentation of the 801s getting a new chrome plating on the exhaust system in mid-42.

As always with the Fw190, information is never clear or easy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're right about the confusion on Fw information. I'm still looking for good, hard-copy secondary sources (my German is not up to the primary ones http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) on this plane. Something with a decent bibliography as opposed to the well-I-reckon school of history that seems ot inform most works on the Wuerger. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

On the overheating issue, I understood that the cooling vents were the fix, and that they were standard from the A-3. The question in my mind - because of conflicting accounts - is whether these slots originated as a mod to the A-2s and then became standard from the A-3, or whether they originated on the A-3 and were retrofitted to the A-2s (given there were a couple of hundred of the latter built).

In any event, all of the sources I have read say or imply that the overheating problem with the rear row of cylinders was sorted out in production by Feb-Mar 1942. None of the Fw190s in the game should be crippled with overheating.

Ratsack

Jetbuff
12-20-2005, 01:46 AM
@stathem, since you've seen Tagert's charts then you also know that ALL planes seem to have too high a roll-rate at low speeds. In other words, the Fw's superior roll-rate is not as big a factor as it was irl. When was the last time a 190 rolled into a banked evasive and you couldn't follow due to too slow a roll rate?

@Pingu, the 190 is still faster, but the margin is not as wide as some would have us believe. Besides, it is comparable to the historical performance matchup of the two planes and you can't win every fight on speed alone. The 190A-4/SpitVb (particulary the '42 models) is one of those rare pure E vs angles matchups. Both planes have great advantages and it comes down to pilot expertise and starting E.

@Buzzsaw, the original post was about how well the in-game matchup compared to the historical one. I just ignore those who are blind enough to suggest the 190 cannot fight a spitfire on even terms in IL-2. However, there are questions raised, like was the superior climb of the 190 only achieved at 300kph IAS+ and where is the 190's fabled zoom climb? The in-game matchup is pretty balanced but some believe the 190 may have held a few more cards in the real world and they may not be completely mistaken.

stathem
12-20-2005, 02:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jetbuff:
@stathem, since you've seen Tagert's charts then you also know that ALL planes seem to have too high a roll-rate at low speeds. In other words, the Fw's superior roll-rate is not as big a factor as it was irl. When was the last time a 190 rolled into a banked evasive and you couldn't follow due to too slow a roll rate?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All the time, Clipped wing or no. In fact, I never try to follow a rolling evading FW190. That makes good sense, I pull up and retain my E and wait for him to come back up.

What I was talking about was relativity. The CW should out-roll the FW below 220 mph, good fighting speed for a Spitfire. It doesn't, and in fact by about 220 mph it is some 80 degrees per second behind the FW. This is a Spitfire specifically designed to counter the FW in roll performance.

And as for, it out-rolls the FW above 400mph - that is far to close to Vne for the Spit to be concentrating on anything other than escaping with your ailerons intact, and the draggy Spit loses it's speed exceedingly rapidly at that speed, meaning that advantage cannot be maintained.

Ratsack
12-20-2005, 03:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jetbuff:
@stathem, since you've seen Tagert's charts then you also know that ALL planes seem to have too high a roll-rate at low speeds. In other words, the Fw's superior roll-rate is not as big a factor as it was irl. When was the last time a 190 rolled into a banked evasive and you couldn't follow due to too slow a roll rate?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All the time, Clipped wing or no. In fact, I never try to follow a rolling evading FW190. That makes good sense, I pull up and retain my E and wait for him to come back up.

What I was talking about was relativity. The CW should out-roll the FW below 220 mph, good fighting speed for a Spitfire. It doesn't, and in fact by about 220 mph it is some 80 degrees per second behind the FW. This is a Spitfire specifically designed to counter the FW in roll performance.

.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're right, it doesn't and it should at low speeds. If I recall Tagert's graphs, the two types that were most disadvantaged by the shifted roll curves were the Spitfire and the Fw190.

That said, the clipped wing wasn't designed specifically for the Fw190. It wasn't 'designed' at all. It started life as an illegal field modification that the Air Ministry officially condemned until well after it was widely adopted. It was a bit like the US 8th AF and their use of locally-made papier-mâché drop tanks that €" according to Wright Field €" were not airworthy.

There€s bureaucracy, then there€s military bureaucracy€¦

Ratsack

stathem
12-20-2005, 04:05 AM
Ok, sorry, wrong wording

Should read 'specifically developed'

Ratsack
12-20-2005, 04:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jetbuff:
@stathem, since you've seen Tagert's charts then you also know that ALL planes seem to have too high a roll-rate at low speeds. In other words, the Fw's superior roll-rate is not as big a factor as it was irl. When was the last time a 190 rolled into a banked evasive and you couldn't follow due to too slow a roll rate?

@Pingu, the 190 is still faster, but the margin is not as wide as some would have us believe. Besides, it is comparable to the historical performance matchup of the two planes and you can't win every fight on speed alone. The 190A-4/SpitVb (particulary the '42 models) is one of those rare pure E vs angles matchups. Both planes have great advantages and it comes down to pilot expertise and starting E.

@Buzzsaw, the original post was about how well the in-game matchup compared to the historical one. I just ignore those who are blind enough to suggest the 190 cannot fight a spitfire on even terms in IL-2. However, there are questions raised, like was the superior climb of the 190 only achieved at 300kph IAS+ and where is the 190's fabled zoom climb? The in-game matchup is pretty balanced but some believe the 190 may have held a few more cards in the real world and they may not be completely mistaken. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I€m inclined to agree with you about the zoom climb. The only mitigating factor is that it€s a weakness that seems to be common to all types that should enjoy this advantage (P47, P51, Fw190, etc). However, my impression is that this has improved very slightly from 3.X to 4.01, and then again from 4.01 to 4.02. I know some people have said exactly the opposite, but in the absence of any tests€¦

€¦I may just add that to my to-do list.

Ratsack

jurinko
12-20-2005, 05:55 AM
Strange that Spitfire pilots were advised to stick to turnfight only. They could easily beat Fws by first evading their attack by tight 180?turn and then pointing the nose upwards and waiting till the FockeWulf stops, and open fire from &gt;500m. Few .303 aimed at the fuselage would do its job, as no Fw can fly on emty gas tank.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

CMHQ_Rikimaru
12-20-2005, 07:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
It depends more on the prop how acceleration, thrust really, works at any speed.
Props are optimized for best thrust in certain regions. Fast planes get props made for
best thrust at high speeds. There is a wide region of good thrust and best is not at
the highest speed since the plane will go faster than best thrust speed but there will
be less at low speeds just due to the efficiency of the design.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okey I understand. I readed post of some guy on this forum with the tests of the acceleration, and it seems the best acceleration is 350-450km/h, do u agree with that?

Im not meaning that im fighting all the time with 300km/h, but i mean that i dont let my focke wulf fall below that speed. So this mean that most times i use speed 300-500km/h for my manouvers. This is because i saw, that under 300km/h RPM are low, and focke wulf isnt accelerating properly, its not turning well also. Do u have better coneception of fighting style? Im not focke wulf ace, im not a total newbie, I just try to learn it, and understand how can i defeat my enemy(like spitfeuers) with advantages i havehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Edit: Should i suggest on true or indicated airspeed?

Buzzsaw-
12-20-2005, 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 Jetbuff:
@Buzzsaw... where is the 190's fabled zoom climb? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The zoom climb of ALL aircraft is suspect in the game. The P-51 should have the best zoom climb of any aircraft coming out of a high speed dive, but it clearly doesn't. The P-47 and 190 should be close behind. They aren't. It is not a case of only the 190 being undermodelled. All of the heavier aircraft do not seem to have their inertia modelled, neither does CdO seem to be modelled for Zoom and dive effects.

Even with this lack, the 190 is still a better aircraft than the Spit V, my offer to engage in an online matchup to prove that fact stands.

p1ngu666
12-20-2005, 09:05 AM
under 300kph hardly any plane is happy....

Riki indicated is better http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

NextBarbaPapa
12-20-2005, 09:12 AM
Agree completely,

kicking dead horse however...

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/2821092163/p/1

Jetbuff
12-20-2005, 09:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Even with this lack, the 190 is still a better aircraft than the Spit V, my offer to engage in an online matchup to prove that fact stands. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
One more time... no one is arguing that fact. At least I hope not. The question is, are we looking for balance or historical accuracy? I don't give a hoot whether or not the FB 190 is capable of holding its own against the SpitVb. All I'm concerned about is whether or not their in-game representations are historically accurate. Balance is the responsibility of the mission designers, not Oleg.

Maggi_4
12-22-2005, 11:16 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Pls say that A4 can climb steeper in this game than Spit Vbhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Pls say that A4 can accelatre out the Spit Vb in this game, and similar to IXc serieshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Im glad at least everyone confirmed that 190 should dive away from Spit (which is not in the game), including dive climb too.

P.S.: Spit IX CW's roll rate is http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gifundermodelled

Ratsack
12-22-2005, 03:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Maggi_4:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

...
Pls say that A4 can accelatre out the Spit Vb in this game, and similar to IXc serieshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Im glad at least everyone confirmed that 190 should dive away from Spit (which is not in the game), including dive climb too.

... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Erm, the A4 does dive away from the Spit. No doubt.

Acceleration, if I were you, I'd run some tests.

Ratsack

Kettenhunde
12-22-2005, 04:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What I was talking about was relativity. The CW should out-roll the FW below 220 mph, good fighting speed for a Spitfire. It doesn't, and in fact by about 220 mph it is some 80 degrees per second behind the FW. This is a Spitfire specifically designed to counter the FW in roll performance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your information is based on the RAE conclusions from RAE1231, a report on Focke Wulf roll rate. The RAE made a fundamental error due to their lack of intricate knowledge of the Focke Wulf design. They tested an aircraft with ailerons out of adjustment. The difference in aileron feel is even noted by the RAE test pilot who had experience in two other captured FW-190's.

This is verifiable by cross referencing RAE measured stick forces of the aircraft in RAE 1231 with the stick force calibration charts in the Focke Wulfs aileron adjustment regulations.

Therefore when they fielded the clipped wing spitfires they got back reports from the field as such:

http://img132.imagevenue.com/loc18/th_20a1b_pilotopinions.jpg (http://img132.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc18&image=20a1b_pilotopinions.jpg)

All the best,

Crumpp

Ratsack
12-22-2005, 05:25 PM
Thanks for that, Crump.

The Wingco's comments about the clipped & cropped Vb below 6,500' are an eye opener. If I read it correctly, he said the clipped spit could 'cope' with the FW190 for speed in dive or climb below 6,500'.

I knew the cropped Spit Vs were much better at low alt and that their rate of climb below 5,000' was phenomenal, but I am still surprised to see an experienced officer saying the clipped LF V could 'cope' with the FW190.

Amazing.

Thanks again for posting an interesting snippet.

Ratsack

carguy_
12-24-2005, 04:06 AM
This thread clearly illustrates that allied nationalists do not want planes accurately modelled,no.They will protect their Spitfire legend no matter what.Even if Vb were outclassed in acceleration,climb,top speed and high speed roll(not in the game) they do not want to aknowledge it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

Ratsack
12-24-2005, 04:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
This thread clearly illustrates that allied nationalists do not want planes accurately modelled,no.They will protect their Spitfire legend no matter what.Even if Vb were outclassed in acceleration,climb,top speed and high speed roll(not in the game) they do not want to aknowledge it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read the thread.

...now read it again.

Now get a life.

Ratsack

WWMaxGunz
12-24-2005, 06:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
From accounts of one of the pilots flying the test, the climb compares were done at high
speed around 250 mph where the Spit V climb rate is far inferior to the 190.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really, test states that best climbing speed of both aircraft is similar, but FW-190 can climb at signifficantly steeper angle. FW-190 was a formidable and agile fighter, do not confuse reality with game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are mixing conditions as some kind of truth. Best climb speed of both may be similar
but at that speed the Spit climbs at better sustained rate. At higher speed, 240+ mph the
FW does climb better, at a steeper angle. Big deal, the two datum are not the same or
even close if you chart climb vs speed. 240+ mph, 400 kph, the Spit is spending too much
power just keeping up on the horizontal. FW *can* climb steeper don't mean *always* or
even *at the best climb speed*. It means -only- what it says and that is not transport-
able. Without conditions specified it is nearly useless and I don't see those specified.

Go find Rechlin charts on FW190A4 climb and compare to SpitVB. Make it simple, go get
the best official data each you can drag up but official documents not fanboy websites.
I really don't expect you to, it won't back up what you draw from those conclusions.
How do I know? Because this has all been gone over and the man with the charts stated
so. His name is Oleg. He don't post here often probably due to being ignored by half
the members when he does.

The pilot who flew the Spit in that test had a buddy who flew the FW. He wrote that he
was supposed to fly the FW but the other guy was the better choice. He stated that the
reason he felt so was in the climb comparison, the FW pilot kept the speed high just the
way that the LW pilots were doing when fighting the Spits at the time.

Just because you see two 'facts' in the same report doesn't mean you can add them up
like numbers. If the conditions don't match then it's apples and oranges regardless
of how your common sense tells you that fruit is fruit. One apple and one orange does
not equal two of any one of those or even a pineapple.

WWMaxGunz
12-24-2005, 07:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
It depends more on the prop how acceleration, thrust really, works at any speed.
Props are optimized for best thrust in certain regions. Fast planes get props made for
best thrust at high speeds. There is a wide region of good thrust and best is not at
the highest speed since the plane will go faster than best thrust speed but there will
be less at low speeds just due to the efficiency of the design.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okey I understand. I readed post of some guy on this forum with the tests of the acceleration, and it seems the best acceleration is 350-450km/h, do u agree with that?

Im not meaning that im fighting all the time with 300km/h, but i mean that i dont let my focke wulf fall below that speed. So this mean that most times i use speed 300-500km/h for my manouvers. This is because i saw, that under 300km/h RPM are low, and focke wulf isnt accelerating properly, its not turning well also. Do u have better coneception of fighting style? Im not focke wulf ace, im not a total newbie, I just try to learn it, and understand how can i defeat my enemy(like spitfeuers) with advantages i havehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Edit: Should i suggest on true or indicated airspeed? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IAS tells me how well I can maneuver if I know my plane well. I learn in solo flight.

300 kph is around 190 mph. For the fast planes this is good for hard climbs, maybe faster
though. Example in old Janes game is instructor has you climb the Mustang at 200 mph.
Combat speeds, you don't want to get much slower than best sustainable flat turn speed
mistakenly called by many the Corner Speed. Still, this speed was mid-200's mph before
even 1945 for the main US fighters. If you are down to 200 mph and another is going
240+ mph (400 kph) then you may become meat on the table if he is enemy and close.

I wouldn't let that FW get below 350 kph if I was you and 350 is the low for best accel.
FW is classic energy fighter and best used as one. Bullethead has an Air Warrior site
that covers this style very, very well. It's not specific to AW at all. It all comes
from history and you can learn the same from other sources like Shaw's Fighter Combat.

http://people.delphiforums.com/jtweller/training/train.htm

Hardest part to make work in IL2 series is the SA and the deflection shots. That may be
why so many fly flat circles trying to fight.

WWMaxGunz
12-24-2005, 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 carguy_:
This thread clearly illustrates that allied nationalists do not want planes accurately modelled,no.They will protect their Spitfire legend no matter what.Even if Vb were outclassed in acceleration,climb,top speed and high speed roll(not in the game) they do not want to aknowledge it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

At all speeds and alts the Spit VB's were so outclassed?

You joke? Or maybe you don't care much for accurate models?
make it like the STORY Mommy!

Kettenhunde
12-24-2005, 08:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Best climb speed of both may be similar
but at that speed the Spit climbs at better sustained rate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The best climb speed of the FW-190 is listed in the Flugzeug Handbuch as 280-290kph.
http://img111.imagevenue.com/loc267/th_ed1f2_190bestclimbspeed2.jpg (http://img111.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc267&image=ed1f2_190bestclimbspeed2.jpg)

More on the effect of clipping the Spitfires wings:

Aircraft tested:

http://img44.imagevenue.com/loc225/th_1fff4_Effect_of_clipping_Spitfire_Wings.jpg (http://img44.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc225&image=1fff4_Effect_of_clipping_Spitfire_Wings.jpg)

Reports conclusions:

http://img103.imagevenue.com/loc193/th_6e2bb_clipped_wing_conclusions.jpg (http://img103.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc193&image=6e2bb_clipped_wing_conclusions.jpg)

All the best,

Crumpp

p1ngu666
12-24-2005, 11:40 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 carguy_:
This thread clearly illustrates that allied nationalists do not want planes accurately modelled,no.They will protect their Spitfire legend no matter what.Even if Vb were outclassed in acceleration,climb,top speed and high speed roll(not in the game) they do not want to aknowledge it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

At all speeds and alts the Spit VB's were so outclassed?

You joke? Or maybe you don't care much for accurate models?
make it like the STORY Mommy! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif love the mommy thing.

anarchy52
12-24-2005, 01:37 PM
This forum is full of ironheads. Ironhead will never admit he is wrong no matter what evidence is submitted or arguments presented.

They can always dismiss the official wartime reports...say pilot had a sore thumb, or hangover, or there was a large insect in radiator or this or that.

They can even spin the hard facts like A had better powerloading, wingloading...blah blah, but B outperforms it by a large margin, how come? Because some pilot said he outturned A in B.

It's impossible to change the opinion of an ironhead (latin Ferrous Cranus). See for yourself:
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm

WWMaxGunz
12-25-2005, 12:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Best climb speed of both may be similar
but at that speed the Spit climbs at better sustained rate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The best climb speed of the FW-190 is listed in the Flugzeug Handbuch as 280-290kph.
http://img111.imagevenue.com/loc267/th_ed1f2_190bestclimbspeed2.jpg (http://img111.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc267&image=ed1f2_190bestclimbspeed2.jpg)

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice first step, I'm sure you have the rest.

Step 2: climb rates of various 42 FW's at best climb speed shown above.
Step 3: climb rates of various Spit VB's at the 280-290 kph.

Then just for the heck of it, climb of both at 400 kph.

jurinko
12-25-2005, 01:08 AM
CLearly some ppl try to persuade that Fw was not so much better than MkVB as for example the Faber report says. Then how to explain the 5:1 kill rate of JG2 and JG26 in 1942 against the numerical superior British forces? If the planes were almost equal, it means the British pilots were noobs compared to Germans or used prehistorical tactics. What do you think?

One of our (czechoslovak) FG in UK was equipped with MkVB up to 1943-44, though they were not the first line FG. Our pilots were pretty demoralized by the fact their planes were totally inferior to their Channel counterparts.

Brain32
12-25-2005, 04:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> CLearly some ppl try to persuade that Fw was not so much better than MkVB as for example the Faber report says. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL, you think it's only FWa4 vs SpitMkVb? The only reason I'm still looking foward to Tempest is because I believe that biggest Tempest authority(Icefire) won't allow some ironhead to claim biased SF stuff about it...

Ratsack
12-25-2005, 05:12 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jurinko:
CLearly some ppl try to persuade that Fw was not so much better than MkVB as for example the Faber report says. Then how to explain the 5:1 kill rate of JG2 and JG26 in 1942 against the numerical superior British forces? If the planes were almost equal, it means the British pilots were noobs compared to Germans or used prehistorical tactics. What do you think?
...QUOTE]

Part of the reason for the kill:loss ratio was the operational situation. The Germans, being outnumbered, would not willingly give combat in circumstances that did not favour them. The Jagdwaffe could deny combat by virtue of their faster aircraft, provided they were not bounced (which happened from time to time).

The RAF would attempt to force the German fighters up by sending over some bombers with very heavy escort. The main purpose of these exercises was actually to provoke a response so the escort could get at the German fighters. However, the Jagdwaffe would frequently put in only a fleeting appearance. Usually they would climb to a superior altitude and wait up-sun (if possible) for the RAF formation to present an opportunity. The best opportunity was often when the enormous gaggle of escorting Spitfires was turning to head back, and some of them could be counted on to get out of position or in each other€s way.

The Germans would dive through, make their attacks on the vulnerable aircraft, and get out. If the Brits were in a particularly bad position €" or if the Germans were bounced - the Jagdwaffe might stay and €˜mix it up€ for a while, but for the most part they pursued their tactics of patient manoeuvring for the slash and run.

These tactics preserved their force and denied the RAF the opportunity to exploit their numerical advantage to best effect. They also allowed the Germans to build a good kill:loss ratio against the Brits. The downside was that the willingness of the Germans to deny combat if the odds or situation didn€t suit them meant that the RAF went where it wanted within range of the Spitfire.

It should also be noted that this very sensible Jagdwaffe approach was applied in North Africa and in the Soviet Union. As the numbers of Axis opponents increased, these tactics recommended themselves more and more, and gave rise to the common perception that the Jagdwaffe was not fighting the same war every body else was engaged in, but instead waging a private war of personal scores and decorations.

For example, in North Africa individual pilots amassed stunning totals, but the RAF enjoyed air superiority, and the DAK had to endure seemingly endless pummeling from the €˜Stubborn Eighteens€ (tight, €˜stubborn€ formations of 18 B25s). The star aces of the Jagdwaffe might make amazing attacks to pick off the escorts of P40s and Hurricanes, but it was all very little use to the poor old Landser when the B25s laid down their carpet from 5,000€.

Kill:loss ratios are not the whole story by a long shot.

Ratsack

Ratsack
12-25-2005, 05:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Best climb speed of both may be similar
but at that speed the Spit climbs at better sustained rate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


...

Aircraft tested:

http://img44.imagevenue.com/loc225/th_1fff4_Effect_of_clipping_Spitfire_Wings.jpg (http://img44.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc225&image=1fff4_Effect_of_clipping_Spitfire_Wings.jpg)

...
All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would be interesting to see the comparative numbers for the two MkVb Spits in that report, Crump. The reason being that one (AA 937) has the DeHavilland constant speed prop with metal blades, while the other (AB 166) has the Rotol constant speed job with Jablo wood composite blades. The DeHavilland contraption was heavier and gave some trouble, particularly in warmer climates.

Ratsack

SUPERAEREO
12-25-2005, 09:56 AM
It is also true that in 1941-42 while a high proportion of pilots in JG2 and JG26 were seasoned veterans, the RAF Squadrons were undergoing a reorganisation and expansion process in which many experienced old hands found themselves leading OTU's of pilots who had never seen combat before, and their places in the front line Squadrons were filled by freshly graduated officers.


S!

Browning50cal
12-25-2005, 10:23 AM
Wow,
It blows my mind that a thread about theory can get so nuts! I can shoot down any Spit with any 190. I can shoot down any 190 with any Spit. I can shoot down any Japanese aircraft with any US aircraft. Zeros are extremely slow, otherwise the reverse would be true. Quit complaining and just fly!!

(I'm on watch, I have an excuse)

p1ngu666
12-25-2005, 10:50 AM
zeros are actully slower than they should be http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

ElAurens
12-25-2005, 01:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
zeros are actully slower than they should be http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree 100%

anarchy52
12-25-2005, 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 p1ngu666:
zeros are actully slower than they should be http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was chasing a P-38 with engine on fire in A6M3 on the deck.
Couldn't get past 430km/h, boost on, mix 120%, rads & cockpit closed. Imagine if Spit or FW was 40km/h slower then it should be...

WWMaxGunz
12-25-2005, 02:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jurinko:
CLearly some ppl try to persuade that Fw was not so much better than MkVB as for example the Faber report says. Then how to explain the 5:1 kill rate of JG2 and JG26 in 1942 against the numerical superior British forces? If the planes were almost equal, it means the British pilots were noobs compared to Germans or used prehistorical tactics. What do you think?

One of our (czechoslovak) FG in UK was equipped with MkVB up to 1943-44, though they were not the first line FG. Our pilots were pretty demoralized by the fact their planes were totally inferior to their Channel counterparts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Flying and fighting at proper speeds and tactics and the FW's will outmaneuver the Spits on
overall. Proper tactics do not include lone wolves. Proper speeds are not 320 kph or less
except maybe at the top of a high part in a maneuver.

Use FW wrong and it is a dog. Nothing unique there. Fly it like you're jousting in armor.
No hard turns at speed. Climb or dive and roll onto the target. Burn E for angle limited
if you have to but closure rate should keep the nme from having time to get far off your
path anyway. Don't even turn 45 deg to get onto an opportunity at high speed. Pass and
work to position yourself above and behind/to the side. Use the wingmate to drive him off
your tail if he tries.

At higher speed, the FW's do have the advantage. Not so at low speed. What is hard about that?

Unknown-Pilot
12-25-2005, 06:14 PM
The most valid point made here is that the test in question used a lower boost Spitfire than we have and a higher RPM 190 than we have.

Aside from that, the counter-arguments have all been nothing but chest pounding.

So you can beat any given plane with any given plane..... and...? How, exactly, does that show that the planes are properly modeled?

It doesn't, which makes one wonder why it's brought up. It does have the feel of Oleg-worship that is so typical around these parts - and almost always by the red guys (which can not be a coincidence).

Now, maybe the thread starter IS using it improperly. Maybe he's not. Either way, why not focus on the testable aspects instead of writing it off because you (all) are such great pilots and all that.

That goes for the thread starter too. By and large the masses here worship Oleg and the red planes. They will attempt to slap down ANY suggestion that there is something wrong with LW planes. Has been this way since day 1 (well, ok, IL2 patch 1.04 for me, but I imagine it was that way before that, and IIRC, that was the first patch anyway).

Coming in with something vague will never accomplish anything. Do the research, both in game and out, and come in with numbers, and only numbers. No pilot accounts (which these guys only accept when it shows allied planes coming out on top), and no test reports that don't provide absolutely full detail about everything imaginable. Don't say "it sucks, look at this report/story/etc". Instead state your case, starting with your out of game research data, and then your ingame findings. AND - be sure to have tracks ready of all your tests so you can tell those arrogant "got track" S.O.B's to sod off. Basically, cover every possible angle before you post here, and stick to the raw numbers only.

WWMaxGunz
12-25-2005, 11:56 PM
Them what makes the claims has the burden of proof. Yeah, let's see the numbers.

This counter don't accept the arguments given. The matter has been gone over before.

On the basis of mix-n-match report conclusions I'm reading the FW should what?
Out climb the Spit VB and since the complaint is about the sim not matching the
expectations of some members I just have to assume the FW and Spit are the ones
in the sim. And all on the strength of the posts making what they will of parts
of one report. Nothing regarding speed or even historic LW tactics but rather
how some people play the game and what they reap.

Let's see official climb rates vs speed for the planes in the sim.
OTOH keep pushing the same words around without qualifications and see they don't
fly outside the wanna-haves.

jugent
12-26-2005, 04:45 AM
Many reports tells us about the poor acceleration of the spit, but the acceleration is far from poor, its brilliant, perhaps the best in this game.

I have been shoot down many times by spits, that breaked hard with flaps, props and throttle, and accelerated up my six and shoot me down.

If you take a Fw and I choose a spitIX and we start at 3.5k at best climb speed for the FW, with me 500 m behind you, you can try to stay alive by climbing only.

Why dont confess, this game doesnt give favour to german planes at least not 109, 262 and 190 family and the He-111 is a dog.

The P-39 P-63 is redicilous overmodelled.
It was stripped from all armour, but is harder to bring down than a 190.
the P-39 havnt got a supercharger but is still good at 5k

ImpStarDuece
12-26-2005, 05:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jugent:
Many reports tells us about the poor acceleration of the spit, but the acceleration is far from poor, its brilliant, perhaps the best in this game.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Were the reports for a +9 lbs, +12lbs, +16lbs or +18lbs boost rated Spitfire? It makes quite a difference to acceleration when you have an extra 400 hp on the same airframe/engine combination.

{QUOTE]I have been shoot down many times by spits, that breaked hard with flaps, props and throttle, and accelerated up my six and shoot me down.[/QUOTE]

I suggest that you start looking at your own flying first before you go blaming the flight models. The physics of the game simply don't allow that.

[/QUOTE] If you take a Fw and I choose a spitIX and we start at 3.5k at best climb speed for the FW, with me 500 m behind you, you can try to stay alive by climbing only. [/QUOTE]

Well, it depends what model 190 you use. The Mk. IX we have in the game is a 1943 IXB with a Merlin 66 engine, with a +18lbs boost rating, and different reduction gear rations than the 1942 Mk IX. Given that it has another 160 hp on the same airframe, I'd say that acceleration and climb were better. The wartime testing tends to agree with me (or I tend to agree with it, or something). RAF Boscombe Downe tests put the peak climb rate of a LF IX (or IXB in WW2 parlance) at 4,700-4900 feet/minute, some 1,000 feet a minute better than a 1942 Mk IX.

Given a 190A4 or A5 I'd say that a 1943 Spitfire would actually be somewhat better in terms of climb. The A8 and A9 are noticably somewhat better.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Why dont confess, this game doesnt give favour to german planes at least not 109, 262 and 190 family and the He-111 is a dog. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you actually name any one specific thing that is modelled incorrectly in these aircrat, that is a general modelling flaw in the entire sim?

[/QUOTE]The P-39 P-63 is redicilous overmodelled.
It was stripped from all armour, but is harder to bring down than a 190.
the P-39 havnt got a supercharger but is still good at 5k[/QUOTE]

Actually, the Allison V-1710 does have a supercharger, its just a single stage one. It doesn't have a turbosupercharger, which is different. Given that the Allison V-1710-XX had a critical altitude of around 4,200 meters, its probably fairly reasonable that the P-39 does well at 5000 meters and below. Take it to 6000 and watch it REALLY struggle though.

The P-63 modeled in the game is the P-63C, which was the fastest and most powerful production built Kingcobra, with an 1800 hp engine. It should be very fast and actually quite well armoured. There were several different sub-variants of the C model, all with different armour configurations, and about 1500 of them were supplied via Lend Lease.

I actually find the P-39 one of the easiest aircraft to "flame up" in the game. It did have most of the engine 'plumbing' in the rear of the fuselage, so light hits can make the engine smake and look worse than they actually are.

Xiolablu3
12-26-2005, 06:53 AM
I have read extensively about WW2 aircraft and how the FW190A is modelled in game is everything I would have expected it to be.

It was a twitchy aircraft, not docile like the 109 or Spitfire, it had a poor turning circle, but was very fast and had an incredible roll rate (around the same as a clipped wing spitfire)

Many people tend to think manouvrablility is all about turning circle, and are therefore disappointed when the Spitfire can turn inside the the 'so called fantastic FW190'.

The FW190A has many many advantages over the Spitfire Mk5, and just like all the experienced pilots have already said, you need to fly it like WW2 pilots REALLY flew, not like an Airquake server where you can hit refly.

That means hi-energy fighting, where the FW190A shines in the game and shone in real life.

ElAurens
12-26-2005, 06:56 AM
I must agree with ImpStarDuece aboout the P39.

I regularly set them alight with the mighty twin 7.7mm guns on the Ki43 Ia.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Xiolablu3
12-26-2005, 07:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jugent:
Many reports tells us about the poor acceleration of the spit, but the acceleration is far from poor, its brilliant, perhaps the best in this game.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

AGAIN, I ask you WHERE do you get this information that the Spitfire was a poor accelerator? I cannot find anything, and in the other thread in General Discuission you have offered nothing on the subject in 2 days.

Please tell me WHERE you got this information! What reports?

hop2002
12-26-2005, 08:22 AM
Acceleration is directly related to climb rate and top speed. At low speeds, the better climbing plane will also accelerate better, at higher speeds the faster aircraft will accelerate better.

Of course, if the better climbing aircraft is also faster at a particular altitude, it will accelerate better at all speeds at that altitude.

In terms of low speed acceleration, the early Spitfires should be good. The later Spitfires should be excellent, because they were amongst the best climbing planes of the war. The Spitfire LF IX in game climbed better than nearly every other piston engined fighter, so it's going to have very good low speed acceleration.

Compared to the Spitfire IX tested by the AFDU, the Spitfire IX in game gains an extra 1,000 ft/min climb rate, and about 15 mph at low level, which means it accelerates much, much better.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I was chasing a P-38 with engine on fire in A6M3 on the deck.
Couldn't get past 430km/h, boost on, mix 120%, rads & cockpit closed. Imagine if Spit or FW was 40km/h slower then it should be... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Last time I checked, the Spitfire V was about 40 mph slower than it should be at lower altitudes. (that was a long time ago, though, and it might have changed by now)

Aaron_GT
12-26-2005, 09:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I regularly set them alight with the mighty twin 7.7mm guns on the Ki43 Ia. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As someone who flies them I can attest that the most common way to be shot down when flying them is a flaming engine. Luckily the rear view is relatively good so you have some chance of spotting someone on your 6. If you get into a 2:1 situation in a P39 and let your speed get too slow you become very vulnerable to being hit from behind and being flamed. Less so with the P63 as it has better acceleration. Back in the original IL2 you could do some funky manoevers in the P39 to save yourself in some situations, but you also ran a much higher risk of spins. The P63 is quite a monster, although the frame rate losses/stutters that sometimes affect you with the 37mm cannon are a pain.

Aaron_GT
12-26-2005, 09:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Last time I checked, the Spitfire V was about 40 mph slower than it should be at lower altitudes. (that was a long time ago, though, and it might have changed by now) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I haven't checked the speeds, but buffet when doing a BnZ from altitude seems to set in quite early and get quite severe. With a forcefeedback stick you are almost risking dislocating your wrist sometimes!

Unknown-Pilot
12-26-2005, 09:40 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 have read extensively about WW2 aircraft and how the FW190A is modelled in game is everything I would have expected it to be.

It was a twitchy aircraft, not docile like the 109 or Spitfire, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read extensively? Read what extensively? The 190 was not "twitchy". It required very little trim input even over a fairly wide speed band. It was very easy to fly. That's not just the lack of fiddly bits thanks to the kommandogeraet - the 109 was largely automated as well. A "twitchy" plane is not easy to fly, and not n00b friendly, which the 190 was.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Many people tend to think manouvrablility is all about turning circle, and are therefore disappointed when the Spitfire can turn inside the the 'so called fantastic FW190'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And most of *you* think "maneuverability" is roll rate and nothing more.

It actually could turn well. It wasn't as good as a Spitfire, but it wasn't the dog you would love to see it be.

One rather important example, especially since you're such an advocate of useing it the way it was used, rolling one way, starting a turn, then rolling hte opposite way and diving sharply away does not work. It stalls you out and threatens a real bad spin. (&lt;- have to admit that was a couple patches ago and I haven't tried it in 4.02. But listening to you guys, there has never been anything wrong with the 190)



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The FW190A has many many advantages over the Spitfire Mk5, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think anybody here actually suggested otherwise. The thread starter had some specific complaints (that he failed to back up with proper numbers, research and tests). He didn't say that it had no advantages at all. Once again, you guys are spinning the issue.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That means hi-energy fighting, where the FW190A shines in the game and shone in real life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just looking at that comment in isolation, I would point out that that same statement has been made since IL2 1.04 by the red guys. And, it was true.....to a point. While you could do well with a high energy style, the trouble was you had to have about 3Km of altitude advantage to be able to do anything. Having to have a cartoonish altitude/energy advantage to be able to fight does NOT indicate that things are "ok" merely because it can be done.

So I'm once again left wondering what it is you're (not just you in specific) are trying to prove (about yourselves) or prevent.

Xiolablu3
12-26-2005, 09:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I have read extensively about WW2 aircraft and how the FW190A is modelled in game is everything I would have expected it to be.

It was a twitchy aircraft, not docile like the 109 or Spitfire, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read extensively? Read what extensively? The 190 was not "twitchy". It required very little trim input even over a fairly wide speed band. It was very easy to fly. That's not just the lack of fiddly bits thanks to the kommandogeraet - the 109 was largely automated as well. A "twitchy" plane is not easy to fly, and not n00b friendly, which the 190 was.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Many people tend to think manouvrablility is all about turning circle, and are therefore disappointed when the Spitfire can turn inside the the 'so called fantastic FW190'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And most of *you* think "maneuverability" is roll rate and nothing more.

It actually could turn well. It wasn't as good as a Spitfire, but it wasn't the dog you would love to see it be.

One rather important example, especially since you're such an advocate of useing it the way it was used, rolling one way, starting a turn, then rolling hte opposite way and diving sharply away does not work. It stalls you out and threatens a real bad spin. (&lt;- have to admit that was a couple patches ago and I haven't tried it in 4.02. But listening to you guys, there has never been anything wrong with the 190)



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The FW190A has many many advantages over the Spitfire Mk5, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think anybody here actually suggested otherwise. The thread starter had some specific complaints (that he failed to back up with proper numbers, research and tests). He didn't say that it had no advantages at all. Once again, you guys are spinning the issue.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That means hi-energy fighting, where the FW190A shines in the game and shone in real life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just looking at that comment in isolation, I would point out that that same statement has been made since IL2 1.04 by the red guys. And, it was true.....to a point. While you could do well with a high energy style, the trouble was you had to have about 3Km of altitude advantage to be able to do anything. Having to have a cartoonish altitude/energy advantage to be able to fight does NOT indicate that things are "ok" merely because it can be done.

So I'm once again left wondering what it is you're (not just you in specific) are trying to prove (about yourselves) or prevent. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


All of this ASSUMES I fly red, I love to fly blue and fly the FW190A. I am NOT against the plane, I love it.

I fly both sides equally and love all WW2 birds.

I have got quotes to back up my claim that the 190 was a twitchy plane, ie very sensitive, this is what makes it so 'manouvrable'. You would only have to move the stick to the right too much and you would be upside down thanks to its terrific roll rate. I cannot find them now but it goes something like this -

'Many times when dogfighting 190s the pilot would be too heavy on the controls and flick the plane around beyond its ability, they would end up crashing into the ground or into trees. I never saw a 109 lose control like this. It was a much more docile plane.'

That is not word for word but its the general jist off a WW2 pilot account. I will post it when I find it.

Every account I have read of the FW190A says the Spitfire can easily turn inside the FW190A. Which it can in this game.

I do good in a 190 and so do many of my fellow pilots, you dont need to have '3000m of height to do anything'. Just be careful not to get into a turnfight.

Are you flying 190As on the 'dogfight' servers vs La7 and Yak3p? If so the 190A will never show its potential on those. I dont know you, or whre you fly but it seems that you are disatisfied with its performance.

The FW190A6 has the highest KD ratio on the historically correct UKded1 maps, a K/D of 4:1. That makes it the best plane on the server. No other plane comes close.

I have no reason to put 'spin' on anything, I genuinley think the FW190A is modelled very well and conforms to reports I have have read.

Unknown-Pilot
12-26-2005, 10:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
All of this ASSUMES I fly red, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or assume Oleg can do no wrong....



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I have got quotes to back up my claim that the 190 was a twitchy plane, ie very sensitive, this is what makes it so 'manouvrable'. You would only have to move the stick to the right too much and you would be upside down thanks to its terrific roll rate. I cannot find them now but it goes something like this -

'Many times when dogfighting 190s the pilot would be too heavy on the controls and flick the plane around beyond its ability, they would end up crashing into the ground or into trees. I never saw a 109 lose control like this. It was a much more docile plane.'

That is not word for word but its the general jist off a WW2 pilot account. I will post it when I find it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And as we know, pilot accounts, especially single pilot accounts, are the most authoritative source on these aircraft. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Pilot accounts are almost meaningless and should never be used. Numbers and logic are what matter.

And logic doesn't support your assertion in the face of the nature, and development history (or for that matter, Tank's own pilot reports) of the plane.

The 109 was slow in response, tht doesn't mean it's docile (although it was, that isn't the point). And rolling too fast isn't "twitchy" either, it's just a super fast roll rate that can quite concievably get you in trouble.

'Twitchy' is so instable about all axes that constant trim and stick (and rudder) input is needed just to keep the plane going straight. It is a plane that threatens to do *nasty* things if you let go of the controls, and requires you to constantly focus on keeping it inline. That would ba an apt description of a Camel or Dr.I, but not a 190.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Every account I have read of the FW190A says the Spitfire can easily turn inside the FW190A. Which it can in this game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Re-read the comment I made. Do not read into it. Do not color or spin it. Read the words and understand the meaning of the statement.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I do good in a 190 and so do many of my fellow pilots, you dont need to have '3000m of height to do anything'. Just be careful not to get into a turnfight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

More spin. And probably more lack of understanding of comments *actually* posted. As well as more stupid tarzan chest pounding. 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">Are you flying 190As on the 'dogfight' servers vs La7 and Yak3p? If so the 190A will never show its potential on those. I dont know you, or whre you fly but it seems that you are disatisfied with its performance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stop pulling things out of your a$$ and read for understanding. There is no innuendo, and no hidden meaning. The comments made have NO connection to this **** you are coming up with.

AGAIN, re-read the last post. Maybe several times. You seem to be having trouble getting it.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The FW190A6 has the highest KD ratio on the historically correct UKded1 maps, a K/D of 4:1. That makes it the best plane on the server. No other plane comes close. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Totally irrelevant to the discussion as it does not indicate that all aspects are properly modeled. In fact, it's utterly meaningless because it doesn't indicate a **** thing about any of the planes, only about the pilots involved and the conditions of the server.

If you feel so strongly that it is correct, do the opposite of what the thread starter should have done (but didn't). Research it, test it, track it, and present the evidence. Otherwise you're just flapping your a$$ and obscuring potential issues.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I have no reason to put 'spin' on anything, I genuinley think the FW190A is modelled very well and conforms to reports I have have read. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is a reason for everything, and you are spinning things. You may not realize it, or understand why, but it's still happening, and there is still a reason for it.

p1ngu666
12-26-2005, 11:13 AM
erm 190 flies very nice now, turn relative to opponents is better than before (think others have gotten worse...) isnt too bad to just fly, its easy infact.

i find spits more twictchy, espcialy the mark 8 up high...

jurinko
12-26-2005, 11:29 AM
In 4.01 the Focke-Wulf was better. U followed the enemy in turn, waited and at the proper moment pulled the stick, put him under your nose and pushed the trigger. Now, in the very last moment you stall out.

It should be different from let´s say Spitfire due its higher wingloading, but the difference in FM is too much pronounced and bonuses like acceleration, superior zoomclimb and real dive acceleration are poor or non-existing. P-47 is affected in the same way.

Can you imagine, Luftwaffe gets its second main fighter type, makes a test dogfight with 109 and found it can not actually dogfight - can not turn, climb and maneuver for shooting solution except running away from co-alt merge.

The Faber´s account was, Fw 190s followed Brits through the Channel and 4 Spitfires from Czechoslovak FS scrambled to intercept it. Two crashed in hasty take-off, one return due to problems "and the remaining one was quickly finished off in 1-to-1 fight." Here, Fw 190 without surprise and 2km alt advantage can try one head-on and run away. Acceptable tactics which forces you think twice and thus get good score, but not consistent with historical records and pilot memoirs about how the plane flew in reality.

carguy_
12-26-2005, 11:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
erm 190 flies very nice now, turn relative to opponents is better than before (think others have gotten worse...) isnt too bad to just fly, its easy infact. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very nice indeed...according to you ofcourse.Actually the high speed turn in FW190 is nowhere near real figures,even those from British tests.And it`s not easy.Ask yourself actually how many n00bs prefer it over the 109?The FW190 is prefered only by those why are bored with good all around fighters and want to try something more challenging.It doesn`t reflect the FW190,but completely collides with opinions of newly assigned LW pilots back then.

Aaah,I know, if the FW190 is not easier/better than corresponding 109,let`s just make the 109 perform worse than 190,no matter real life figures. 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">i find spits more twictchy, espcialy the mark 8 up high.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice,I find the FW190 far more twitchy at speeds above 400kph but only at minor stick inputs.When it comes to 70-100 stick deflection at those speeds,FW190 is more stable(no matter cuz we got the bar blocking correct calculation of deflection).

carguy_
12-26-2005, 11:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jurinko: Here, Fw 190 without surprise and 2km alt advantage can try one head-on and run away. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually,at co-alt and co-speed in a headon you try to hit the Spit and either dive away and run or the Spit,as always,makes a 180 turn and easily catches up.

p1ngu666
12-26-2005, 11:47 AM
4.01 was dodgy because the 190 DIDNT tip stall, and was very soft. it was actully rather edgy, but could be used to its advantage to reverse turns in a fraction of a second, and other things too..

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666//dream190.jpg

fw190 was made partly because it was going tobe ready in 6months or whenever they cut funding for future planes, and because it a engine that wasnt used by the 109. and because it was actully pretty good.

its pretty good ingame, too

Jetbuff
12-26-2005, 12:45 PM
While I have reservations about the zoom/dive characteristics of the 190, (and less so it's climb rate) I'd just like to point out a huge oversight when considering pilot accounts: the pilot. No, not just his skill, but his endurance and willingness to risk his real life. Fly the 190 in a DiD tournament and you will finally see the butcher bird in all its glory. In that scenario, (team environment, mission-oriented, E is king and your life matters) not only is it deadly, it is also quite noob-friendly.

Bremspropeller
12-26-2005, 01:20 PM
Granted proper tactics are used http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

p1ngu666
12-26-2005, 01:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jurinko: Here, Fw 190 without surprise and 2km alt advantage can try one head-on and run away. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually,at co-alt and co-speed in a headon you try to hit the Spit and either dive away and run or the Spit,as always,makes a 180 turn and easily catches up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

either your the worst pilot at flying flat out, in a straight line, or your playing old patches, or u have no patience.

back in the day, its true 190 was hard to fly, now just add 30kph or so compaired to most planes, then its fine.

now on the n00b friendly front, i czeched out the 334th stats server.

109 types have about 300sorties for each type..

190s similer, A6, has erm 1025 sorties as im writing this.

K/D ratio of 2.48

kills, 15 a20 to 1 fw190
9 to 1 over p51c
15 to 2 over g6
7 to 1 over k4
7 to 1 over spit HF
a PITAFUL 21 to 3 (erm thats 7 to 1 too) over IX CW
13 to 2 over b25 (b25 is better than spit...)

on the killed by, p51D 1 to 1 (there rare now)
even the uber i185 slides in with a .9 k/d

p47 9 to 14

geez, that fw190, it dont do well, does it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

shame it seems tobe reseted recently, cant see how well i did in fw190, think i got 5-6 kill sorties sometimes, mates have done similer.

quick look at those uber uber spitfires, k/d seems around 1, or less and those dreadfully undermodeled 190a6, well that struggles vainly against them uber spits, guess uber hax pilot skills mean they manage to get a k/d of 2.5 or so over the average IX/VIII from my quick look.

btw, before the stats where reset ive seen 6 190s all on the same side, about half on comms i guess (me and two mates), there wasnt any enemy about, unless u count burning smoke stacks.

feel free to look up my stats, p1ngu666, hardly ever fly there unless for turret gun practise, or dragged in by a couple of mates.

Unknown-Pilot
12-26-2005, 01:50 PM
What the hell are you people arguing about?

Server stats are totally irrelevant. They demonstrate even less than the incomplete reports that you SO love to rip apart. Gotta love double standards.

Repeat - the thread starter didn't do his job. HE thinks that there is a problem. He went about making his case the wrong way.

YOU think there is no problem. 1 - why argue. 2 - if your that compelled, prove it. And use the same means you would expect of the other side. Stop trying to show how great a virtual pilot you are (we don't give a rats a$$. Need a bleedin' tarzan smilie for this place), and stop posting irrelevant drivel about this server's stats or that campaign's stats. Those stats have little to no context. They are useless and simply reveal a double standard in your nature.

So basically -
If you think it's wrong, prove it.

If you think it's right (and really want to argue), prove it.

p1ngu666
12-26-2005, 02:06 PM
unknow, yep its true, but they are saying its not n00b friendly, and isnt that successful etc..

334th, is one of the places ull find inexperienced pilots, or best chance of.

btw, the uber rides
i185-82, k/d of 1.77
la73x20 1.02
yak3p 1.39

Xiolablu3
12-26-2005, 02:21 PM
You obviously know more about me than I do.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

WHo are you to tell me I am putting spin on things when you dont even know me?

You are not the type of person I would get on with and so I will end this here, (thank god)

Basically, according to you, nothing has any meaning, server stats, pilot accounts, documents, none of it matters?? If you have flown a FW190A in combat vs SPitfires then I do apologise. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

You really do sound like a tit, get your head out of your a$$.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
All of this ASSUMES I fly red, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or assume Oleg can do no wrong....



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I have got quotes to back up my claim that the 190 was a twitchy plane, ie very sensitive, this is what makes it so 'manouvrable'. You would only have to move the stick to the right too much and you would be upside down thanks to its terrific roll rate. I cannot find them now but it goes something like this -

'Many times when dogfighting 190s the pilot would be too heavy on the controls and flick the plane around beyond its ability, they would end up crashing into the ground or into trees. I never saw a 109 lose control like this. It was a much more docile plane.'

That is not word for word but its the general jist off a WW2 pilot account. I will post it when I find it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And as we know, pilot accounts, especially single pilot accounts, are the most authoritative source on these aircraft. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Pilot accounts are almost meaningless and should never be used. Numbers and logic are what matter.

And logic doesn't support your assertion in the face of the nature, and development history (or for that matter, Tank's own pilot reports) of the plane.

The 109 was slow in response, tht doesn't mean it's docile (although it was, that isn't the point). And rolling too fast isn't "twitchy" either, it's just a super fast roll rate that can quite concievably get you in trouble.

'Twitchy' is so instable about all axes that constant trim and stick (and rudder) input is needed just to keep the plane going straight. It is a plane that threatens to do *nasty* things if you let go of the controls, and requires you to constantly focus on keeping it inline. That would ba an apt description of a Camel or Dr.I, but not a 190.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Every account I have read of the FW190A says the Spitfire can easily turn inside the FW190A. Which it can in this game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Re-read the comment I made. Do not read into it. Do not color or spin it. Read the words and understand the meaning of the statement.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I do good in a 190 and so do many of my fellow pilots, you dont need to have '3000m of height to do anything'. Just be careful not to get into a turnfight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

More spin. And probably more lack of understanding of comments *actually* posted. As well as more stupid tarzan chest pounding. 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">Are you flying 190As on the 'dogfight' servers vs La7 and Yak3p? If so the 190A will never show its potential on those. I dont know you, or whre you fly but it seems that you are disatisfied with its performance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stop pulling things out of your a$$ and read for understanding. There is no innuendo, and no hidden meaning. The comments made have NO connection to this **** you are coming up with.

AGAIN, re-read the last post. Maybe several times. You seem to be having trouble getting it.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The FW190A6 has the highest KD ratio on the historically correct UKded1 maps, a K/D of 4:1. That makes it the best plane on the server. No other plane comes close. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Totally irrelevant to the discussion as it does not indicate that all aspects are properly modeled. In fact, it's utterly meaningless because it doesn't indicate a **** thing about any of the planes, only about the pilots involved and the conditions of the server.

If you feel so strongly that it is correct, do the opposite of what the thread starter should have done (but didn't). Research it, test it, track it, and present the evidence. Otherwise you're just flapping your a$$ and obscuring potential issues.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I have no reason to put 'spin' on anything, I genuinley think the FW190A is modelled very well and conforms to reports I have have read. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is a reason for everything, and you are spinning things. You may not realize it, or understand why, but it's still happening, and there is still a reason for it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Xiolablu3
12-26-2005, 02:31 PM
You are the only one arguing, everyone else was having a discussion until you started blowing s**t out of your mouth and trying to be the big 'know it all'

Talk about what you want guys, this c*cknose needs to grow a brain and personality.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
What the hell are you people arguing about?

Server stats are totally irrelevant. They demonstrate even less than the incomplete reports that you SO love to rip apart. Gotta love double standards.

Repeat - the thread starter didn't do his job. HE thinks that there is a problem. He went about making his case the wrong way.

YOU think there is no problem. 1 - why argue. 2 - if your that compelled, prove it. And use the same means you would expect of the other side. Stop trying to show how great a virtual pilot you are (we don't give a rats a$$. Need a bleedin' tarzan smilie for this place), and stop posting irrelevant drivel about this server's stats or that campaign's stats. Those stats have little to no context. They are useless and simply reveal a double standard in your nature.

So basically -
If you think it's wrong, prove it.

If you think it's right (and really want to argue), prove it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unknown-Pilot
12-26-2005, 02:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
You obviously know more about me than I do.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

WHo are you to tell me I am putting spin on things when you dont even know me?

You are not the type of person I would get on with and so I will end this here, (thank god)

Basically, according to you, nothing has any meaning, server stats, pilot accounts, documents, none of it matters?? If you have flown a FW190A in combat vs SPitfires then I do apologise. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

You really do sound like a tit, get your head out of your a$$. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Says the person who has no concept of how the human mind (psychology) works. lol

Gotta love people who think they know everything about themselves and the reasons behind every little nuance and action they have and take. lol

Second to that are the people who can't read what is in front of them. A prime example would be saying that I have said reports don't matter. lol

Combine the 2 and you just have a winning package. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Unknown-Pilot
12-26-2005, 02:41 PM
pingu, that's just it, those stats say nothing about it being n00b friendly.

You seem to be implying that the La7 and Yak3 are less n00b friendly than the 190, which I surely hope you aren't actually trying to do. But that's what comes across when you present these context-less stats like that.

I think everyone knows that any plane can be successful if used in a certain way. It's never been anyone's contention (in this thread) that that wasn't true.

So stating over and over that "proper" use results in success, and waving emtpy, orphaned, stats from online servers around to back that up is just wasting bandwidth.

The only reason that's a problem is because, well, it's annoying lol, but mostly because it screams "ulterior motive".

If you're that certain it's "right", and feel that compelled to sit here and argue about it (which also implies an ulterior motive in it's own right), then challenge the thread starter for a specific problem he has with it, then demonstrate to him via research and testing that he's wrong. Keep it dry and purely numbers based - but make sure those numbers have a grounding in proper context. (&lt;- which includes scans and track files)

Xiolablu3
12-26-2005, 03:01 PM
You just cannot see it , can you.

You talk about this special 'well known manouvre' that you cannot do in FB/PF which the FW190A was 'famous' for, where did you get the information about that manouvre? Pilot accounts?

But pilot accounts are totally unreliable, are they not?
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


You do not know me yet you assume all these things about me.

You are the one putting spin on things and even trying to 'lead' the conversation your way.

All I did was offer my knowledge on the FW190A and compare it to the in game model and how it performs. Yet for this you find a reason to attack me. Well I wont just sit there and take it from you, C*cknose.


I would rather trust Olegs FW190 model than yours. Nuff said.

Xiolablu3
12-26-2005, 03:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
And as we know, pilot accounts, especially single pilot accounts, are the most authoritative source on these aircraft. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Pilot accounts are almost meaningless and should never be used. Numbers and logic are what matter.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quote from Unkown-Pilot - 'Second to that are the people who can't read what is in front of them. A prime example would be saying that I have said reports don't matter. lol'


Oh , you d*ckhead... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif Who do you think makes these reports? People on the ground?

HellToupee
12-26-2005, 03:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jurinko: Here, Fw 190 without surprise and 2km alt advantage can try one head-on and run away. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually,at co-alt and co-speed in a headon you try to hit the Spit and either dive away and run or the Spit,as always,makes a 180 turn and easily catches up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Inever caught a guy after a 180 who actually knows how to fly his plane.

Unknown-Pilot
12-26-2005, 03:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
You are not the type of person I would get on with and so I will end this here, (thank god) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gotta love men of their word. lol

Slow down, re-read it until you get it, and use a dictionary if you need to. Someday you'll be able to understand what people are actually saying.

Once you do you'll find a lot less stress in the world. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ElAurens
12-26-2005, 03:59 PM
I'll be honest, I don't much care for the Spit or the 190, but I will fly them both if necessary.

Both are effective tools online, in the proper hands. Like any of the virtual aircraft we have.

I do agree with Unknown Pilot about stats. They prove nothing. And IMHO they are one of the worst things to happen to the online community. Why? Becauses people will do very strange things to keep their stats good. Things like quit the game as soon as they loose a wing, then immediatly rejoin. (Had this happen to me this morning on Spits vs. 109s). It's pure BS.

Now, as far as this thread goes, we have to seperate the real aircraft from the virtual ones, as they are in no way comparable, I don't care how good this sim is. And we don't have a 190A3 anyway.

You guys are nuts.

carguy_
12-26-2005, 04:20 PM
Yes guys,I encourage you,keep telling me how dubious my flying skills are.It actually urges me to fly even more...that is IF this whole thing ever had a connection to the point which stands BTW.

The FW190 is not

-n00b friendly
-preferred over the Bf/Me109
-up to A3 specs(given that currently tested is theoretically more advanced Anton 4 sic!)


I don`t see the point when you guys talk bout how the plane flies when controlled properly.It is not relevant as to how the plane performs to its real life specs.The A4 doesn`t even correspond to what the A3 was.

It does not matter if the plane has 5:1 K/D ratio.All it matters if it

-outaccelerates the SpitVb
-outrolls it
-outclimbs it


It does not matter if the plane had 10:1 K/D if it was properly modelled.The whole question is not if FW190A is superb but is the FW190 modelled up to real life specs.
As if you guys were affraid that n00bs would get succesful in it or experten would blast anything out of the sky.I find it BS.

Not only the FW190 is hurt because the game has flawed physics - we have the Thunderbolt,the Corsair (and probably Tempest) which are hurt the same.
So if we can`t make the FM treat real havy planes as in RL maybe we can work on correcting their acceleration,roll rate,climbrate,etc.

This is possible to make but majority of you denies flaws are there baceuse what?Because the FW190 is already a great plane?LOL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Ratsack
12-26-2005, 06:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
...All it matters if it

-outaccelerates the SpitVb
-outrolls it
-outclimbs it


... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Done these tests, have you? I'd be interested to read your methods and peruse the results.

Ratsack

Brain32
12-26-2005, 06:16 PM
Why is there always such a fuss whenever we talk about something related to German planes?
The only ridiculous thing about FW190 is the return of the leak bug.
Also I don't think Antons are so bad but I think the problem is in the Spit, everything is cool, but their E-retention is..erhm..optimistic. Not that they are a problem to me as I often look at them from my Dora while running 700Km/h+ but in an Anton things can get rather...erhm... confusing.

Jetbuff
12-26-2005, 06:58 PM
Carguy, I too would love to see every last plane accurately modelled, regardless of k/d ratios or what not. I was once quoted that even an IL-2 can be a lethal machine with enough E, so being successful with certain tactics is not indicative of much.

That said, when you use a pilot account or, as is the case here, an often ambiguous test report, as the basis for your argument you invite that sort of "loose" counterargumentation. I've always wondered, why is there no hooplah over the 190's performance numbers - why don't we get pages and pages of test reports on it? Can it be that everything is actually quite kosher? Or is there really no information available? In both cases, I see no way around trusting that it was modelled with the best intentions. (how can you match it to the real thing if you're not sure how the real thing flew?)

For the record, I too believe its climb rate/zoom climb is a bit too low based on the report presented here. However, that report is not specific enough for my liking. Anyone got any better data?

Ratsack
12-26-2005, 07:53 PM
I believe that Crump / Kettenhund does have more extensive data. I wouldn€t expect him to bother posting it here though, especially after the schoolboy debating display he was greeted with last time he posted on the BMW801. The usual suspects came in with their straw-man arguments then spammed the thread for the next fifteen pages. Very juvenile.

Regarding the performance of the FW190A4, I agree with you about the zoom, Jetbuff, as I said earlier. Regarding the assertions from Carguy and others about acceleration and dive, I€d like to see it demonstrated in the game that the Spit can out-roll, out-accelerate, out-dive, etc. before we go taking it as a given. It may well not be the case.

To put it as simply as I can, if people are going to argue that the FM of some plane is not modeled correctly, the first step is to establish as a FACT how that plane€s FM actually IS modeled. For example, if somebody says the top speed is wrong, then let€s have some demonstration of how the top speed is actually modeled in the game, then we talk about what may or may not be wrong with it. Without some basic tests of in-game performance, all the complaints are just waffle.

Ratsack

p1ngu666
12-26-2005, 08:05 PM
the climbrate in the report is pretty dodgy, as it climbs better in the 2nd stage, at higher altitude. only plane that i know does that or should anyways, is me163...

WWMaxGunz
12-27-2005, 04:53 AM
I've seen Brit Spit data but not Rechlin FW charts.
But I know who has and he posted the FW outclimbs only with higher speed.
And since HE is the one being asked/demanded of making changes, I guess that 'prove it
isn't wrong" counters don't have much behind em.

I've seen things that were wrong explained as bugs in ways even more wrong and no fix.
Want a chance of change? Get 1st source data. Oleg is professional. And respect is
not worship except maybe to those with little or no respect.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
12-27-2005, 10:54 AM
No one is giving the numbers, so maybe I will.

http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=F...ile=viewtopic&t=7261 (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&amp;file=viewtopic&amp;t=7261)

If we study these results we can say that FW190A4 doesnt dive better than SpitVB until reaching max speed. The conclusion is that Spit is diving equal to FW190A4 beacuse gravity doesnt really affect focke wulf how it should, and that only acceleration of the engine is counted.

http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=F...ile=viewtopic&t=7396 (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&amp;file=viewtopic&amp;t=7396)

In next test we can see that FW190A5 is outaccelerated by SpitVIIICW.
So my conclusion is, that in this game if u dive, there is no matter what weight/aerodynamics u have, but what acceleration u have.

The last question is: why FW190A4 dived better(in this test) than Spit VB after reaching max speed? Because plane isnt accelerating only because of engine, but gravity begin to workhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I dont know what is happening in this game, but something is wrong with gravity. Thats also why Focke Wulf sux in zoom climb, because gravity doesnt really affect it, but only acceleration.

Brain32
12-27-2005, 01:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I dont know what is happening in this game, but something is wrong with gravity. Thats also why Focke Wulf sux in zoom climb, because gravity doesnt really affect it, but only acceleration. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well this would explain some things, because I noticed that although flying like always I get caught with my pants down by a Spit, of course I blaimed it on the Spit modelling http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif because FW's seemed like acting like they should, and I just couldn't explain how can they catch me...

ImpStarDuece
12-27-2005, 01:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
No one is giving the numbers, so maybe I will.

http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=F...ile=viewtopic&t=7261 (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&amp;file=viewtopic&amp;t=7261)

If we study these results we can say that FW190A4 doesnt dive better than SpitVB until reaching max speed. The conclusion is that Spit is diving equal to FW190A4 beacuse gravity doesnt really affect focke wulf how it should, and that only acceleration of the engine is counted.

http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=F...ile=viewtopic&t=7396 (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&amp;file=viewtopic&amp;t=7396)

In next test we can see that FW190A5 is outaccelerated by SpitVIIICW.
So my conclusion is, that in this game if u dive, there is no matter what weight/aerodynamics u have, but what acceleration u have.

The last question is: why FW190A4 dived better(in this test) than Spit VB after reaching max speed? Because plane isnt accelerating only because of engine, but gravity begin to workhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I dont know what is happening in this game, but something is wrong with gravity. Thats also why Focke Wulf sux in zoom climb, because gravity doesnt really affect it, but only acceleration. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You also have to take those results Robban posted into context. The P-47D and Mustang III can't really dive away from a Spitfire VIII either. S, its not just a FW 190 vs Spitfire issues, but a more general modelling flaw. And guess what? This has been known for years

Also, your comparing the wrong Spitfires. If you want to do the closes direct comparison between the Fw 190 and the Spitfire then you should be using the 1941 Spitfire Vb and the 1942 Fw 190A4. Comparing it to a 1942 or 1943 LF V or LF IX or LF VIII is going to distort the results, because these planes are faster, accelerate better and climb better than the Spitfires tested.

The change to LF Spitfires was a significant difference:

"I was now set to renew my acquaintance with the formidable Focke-Wulf, but this time I was better equipped. The Biggin Hill squadrons were using the Spitfire Mk IXB (Merlin 66), a mark of Spitfire markedly superior in performance below 27,000 feet.

Unlike the Spitfire IXA, with which all other Spitfire wings in the Group were equipped, the IXB's supercharger came in at lower altitude and attained its best performance at 22,000 feet, or roughly the same alitude as the Fw 190. At this height it was apporximately 20 mph faster, was better in the climb and was vastly more manouverable."

Wg Cdr Alan Deere, commander of the Biggin Hill Spitfire wing

ImpStarDuece
12-27-2005, 01:47 PM
Stolen from CWOS (apologies to FatCat_99, if he's watching http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif )

Acceleration of FW 190 A4

Prop pitch AUTO

350-400kmh___10s
400-450kmh___14s
450-500kmh___27s
500-530kmh___51s

Total: 1.42min.

Prop pitch 100%

350-400kmh___9s
400-450kmh___12s
450-500kmh___21s
500-530kmh___27s

Total: 1.09min.

Acceleration of FW 190 A6

Prop pitch AUTO

350-400kmh___9s
400-450kmh___11s
450-500kmh___20s
500-550kmh___49s

Total: 1.29min.

Prop pitch 100%

350-400kmh___9s
400-450kmh___11s
450-500kmh___16s
500-550kmh___37s

Total: 1.13min.

Spitfire LF MkVb 1942

Prop pitch 100%

350-400kmh___9s
400-450kmh___14s
450-500kmh___35s
500-515kmh___44s

Total: 1.42min.
SL top speed is 517kmh

Spitfire Mk IXc

Prop pitch 100%

350-400kmh___8s
400-450kmh___12s
450-500kmh___23s
500-530kmh___43s

Total: 1.26min.
SL top speed is 535kmh

Speed retention test


FW190 A4

Prop pitch AUTO

Speed_________Time
700____________0
650___________10
600___________19
560___________31

Total_________1.00 min

Prop pitch 60%

Speed_________Time
700____________0
650___________12
600___________20
560___________37

Total_________1.09 min

Prop pitch 100%

Speed_________Time
700____________0
650___________12
600___________21
560___________49

Total_________1.22 min


Spitfire LF MkVb 1942

Prop pitch 100%

Speed_________Time
700____________0
650____________7
600___________12
560___________16

Total_________0.35 min

Interesting, isn't it?

CMHQ_Rikimaru
12-27-2005, 02:30 PM
These speed retension tests, yes they only prove my theory, that gravity in this game start working after reaching max speedhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Ofcourse it works all the time but something is changing, while reaching top speed. I dont know how Oleg made this game, but for 100% sure, P47 would outdive Focke Wulf 190 A4http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Ofcourse, that was my wrong that i compared bad spitfires, but focke wulf should outaccelerate spitfire, and especially outdive him.
Could I ask you from what version of game are these tests?
These tests only show that focke wulf superiority(acceleration, dive, and propably zoom climb) is working only after reaching top speed, and there is really something wrong FM, and its a BIG bug.

p1ngu666
12-27-2005, 07:59 PM
erm, 190 is out acceloratin spit, in the above tests, granted not at 350-400, and theres not much in the 400-450 range, but the 190 equals or bests the spit from there forward, plus the engry retention from high speed is nearly 3x as good (a area where the spit should be pretty good...)

ImpStarDuece
12-27-2005, 09:30 PM
Spitfire Vb 1941 accleration test

250-300kmh 7 seconds
300-350kmh 9 seconds
350-400kmh 13 seconds
400-450kmh 33 seconds
450-465kmh 42 seconds

Total: 1:44min


FW-190 A4 accleration tests (by Fatcat_99)
Prop pitch AUTO

350-400kmh___10s
400-450kmh___14s
450-500kmh___27s
500-530kmh___51s

Total: 1.42min.

Prop pitch 100%

350-400kmh___9s
400-450kmh___12s
450-500kmh___21s
500-530kmh___27s

Total: 1.09min.

Side by side comparison

Speed------Spitfire V-----FW 190 (AUTO)
350-400---- 13 sec -------- 10 sec
400-450---- 33 sec -------- 14 sec
450-500(465)42 sec -------- 21 sec.

So, in comparing the Fw 190 A4 to the Spitfire Vb, the Fw 190 CLEARLY accelerates better. It is 3 sec quicker from 350 to 400 kmh, and 19 sec quicker from 400-450 kmh.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
12-28-2005, 02:58 AM
Still gravity isnt working as it should http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

CMHQ_Rikimaru
12-28-2005, 03:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
erm, 190 is out acceloratin spit, in the above tests, granted not at 350-400, and theres not much in the 400-450 range, but the 190 equals or bests the spit from there forward, plus the engry retention from high speed is nearly 3x as good (a area where the spit should be pretty good...) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

U try to defend spitfire for the all costshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif These energy retension show only that gravity start working as it should after reaching top speed. But why dont u look at diving, huh? P47 out dived by most planes? Focke wulf also? And there is still nothin wrong, huh? Spitfire was good in energy retension in manouvers, this mean, when u make manouvers, and not when u get emergency speed. Why in this game split s isnt working for planes like focke wulf or P47? Because these are mostly outdived by another planes, and this make me sick.

jurinko
12-28-2005, 10:51 AM
The truth is, when you pull the elevator in Fw 190, you start loosing all speed/acceleration advantages since Spitfire can do all elevator maneuvers with negligible E bleed.

Kettenhunde
12-28-2005, 01:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The truth is, when you pull the elevator in Fw 190, you start loosing all speed/acceleration advantages since Spitfire can do all elevator maneuvers with negligible E bleed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Which should not be the case. The Focke Wulf has a smaller flat plate area and the difference in wing efficiency is negliable. If you calculate using woods 1966 formula for example, the difference is about .01.

This is very evident when you examine the semispan fraction.

All the best,

Crumpp

p1ngu666
12-28-2005, 02:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
erm, 190 is out acceloratin spit, in the above tests, granted not at 350-400, and theres not much in the 400-450 range, but the 190 equals or bests the spit from there forward, plus the engry retention from high speed is nearly 3x as good (a area where the spit should be pretty good...) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

U try to defend spitfire for the all costshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif These energy retension show only that gravity start working as it should after reaching top speed. But why dont u look at diving, huh? P47 out dived by most planes? Focke wulf also? And there is still nothin wrong, huh? Spitfire was good in energy retension in manouvers, this mean, when u make manouvers, and not when u get emergency speed. Why in this game split s isnt working for planes like focke wulf or P47? Because these are mostly outdived by another planes, and this make me sick. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

nah its intial and medium dive arent great, but the thin wings produce much less drag at very high speeds, where as for example a p47, with its big wing and blunt nose, produces more drag, so at some point even its heavy carcass and big engine wont be able to heave itself any faster.

meanwhile a slimmer, smaller, thing winged aircraft like the spit could reach a higher dive speed IF u dive for long enuff. spitfires did some of the highest mach dives of the war.

and if u start doing hard turns in a 190 then u bleed speed as it skids in turns, the AOA of the wing gets high quickly, and u get lots of drag. look at the japanease monoplanes like ki43,zero, they have deeper wings, compaired to 190.

190 is a comprimised design like any other, its just gone for speed more than most, so there is a trade off..

sure the gravity isnt modeled that well, and other things but the fw190 still has considerable advantages

Unknown-Pilot
12-28-2005, 04:01 PM
Since when is specialization a compromise?

In this game, anything that isn't geared for turning is overly handicapped. And from that perspective, it may be compromised, but that wasn't so in reality.

Nice to see some numbers finally though. It's still not apparent if that was one of the things the thread starter was getting at or not, but it does seem to agree with those who said it was ok. Just too bad it took 9 pages to get there. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But Jurinko and Rikimaru are right, the E-bleed is excessive in anything other than a level flight coast down.

But I don't see this as a 190 problem. It's an energy fighter problem. That didn't truly come to light until the inclusion of non-soviet-liked USAF aircraft.

And it has gotten better too. In IL2 it was almost as if the 109 wasn't even flying in an atmosphere because any use of the elevator, no matter how slight, didn't result in a direction change, but just in an AoA change. I know that's how it works, but I mean it was behaving like a space craft in that regard - pitching but not changing direction of flight at all. As if it were flying at 40,000' even when it was only at 500m. The 190 was just as bad.

It's not that bad now, thank god, but this game is still heavily biased toward turn fighters (no matter their nationality).

Until that changes, we will always see dive and e-retention problems for (what are as a result) "compromised" planes.

CMHQ_Rikimaru
12-28-2005, 04:01 PM
p1ngu666 - Correct me if im wrong, but u are saying that P47 and focke wulf sux in diving, and spit rullez, huh?http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

About energy retension in manouvers - yepp its true that focke wulf bleeds energy quickly, because of these small wings it gains high AoA, and get a lot of drag like p1ngu666 said. But focke wulf should dive better, it also should have much better zoom climb, because its heavy, and its a rule of gravity. Take two balls, with the same dimensions, but one should be heavier. Now take them by one hand and give them the same energy(just throw them with the one hand), and u will see which of these balls will cimb betterhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Edit1: Unknown-Pilot - FW190 is, or was energy fighterhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif It wasnt plane only for B&Z, it was air superiority plane, that mean that it had to fight mostly against enemys fighters, often in dogfight, just noone said that dogfight is only turn&burn:P You can fight against I16 in dogfight, but u have to stick Energy Fight rules, not T&B onehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Unknown-Pilot
12-28-2005, 05:22 PM
What exactly are you responding to Rikimaru? You're talking to me, and seem to be disagreeing with, or trying to correct me, but not saying anything that I disagree with (mostly). It's like telling me water is wet.

And BTW - the plane with better acceleration will dive better at the start of a dive than a plane with worse acceleration, if both planes are starting the dive below their top speed. That means the 190 WILL dive away from the Spit at the start of a dive. But the Spit did, as Pingu said, have a high fractional mach number, which means the longer the dive, the more chance the Spit has to catch the 190. Just as 190s would start out extending from P-47s at the top of a dive, but be eventually reeled in.

I don't mean to speak for him, but that seems to be what he was saying (which is also true).

Brain32
12-28-2005, 05:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> fw190 still has considerable advantages </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And those "considerable advantages" would be?

Jetbuff
12-28-2005, 05:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The truth is, when you pull the elevator in Fw 190, you start loosing all speed/acceleration advantages since Spitfire can do all elevator maneuvers with negligible E bleed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Which should not be the case. The Focke Wulf has a smaller flat plate area and the difference in wing efficiency is negliable. If you calculate using woods 1966 formula for example, the difference is about .01.

This is very evident when you examine the semispan fraction.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Welcome back sir. Although mostly Greek to me I find your comment interesting. I've always wondered why the 190 bled so much E in the turn inspite of a miserable turn rate? i.e., I can see how the 190 would bleed a tonne of E if it tried to generate the same G as a spitfire (higher speed and AoA required = increased parasitic and induced drag) but why it would still do so when turning much worse is beyond me. My tentative explanation is that we still have a 190 that is heavier than it should be influenced by the purportedly up-armoured Jabo versions encountered on the Eastern Front.

p1ngu666
12-28-2005, 05:45 PM
no, im saying that spit isnt that great at diving, UNTIL your going really fast, then it rocks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

a) the fw wasnt specialised, it was a multirole aircraft. but it is a compremise, the high wingloading ment its worse at slow speed stuff, like landing and takeoff, and i wouldnt say the game is biased towards turning aircraft anymore either, i mean geez, just look how well japanease aircraft do. and yaks, and spits are only a shadow of what they where a few patches ago. the 190 is now the most potent plane in the game, and the next most potent is widely expected tobe the tempest.

incidently, funny u should mention the i16, as the fw190 is just a updated contination of it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

VW-IceFire
12-28-2005, 05:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
No one is giving the numbers, so maybe I will.

http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=F...ile=viewtopic&t=7261 (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&amp;file=viewtopic&amp;t=7261)

If we study these results we can say that FW190A4 doesnt dive better than SpitVB until reaching max speed. The conclusion is that Spit is diving equal to FW190A4 beacuse gravity doesnt really affect focke wulf how it should, and that only acceleration of the engine is counted.

http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=F...ile=viewtopic&t=7396 (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&amp;file=viewtopic&amp;t=7396)

In next test we can see that FW190A5 is outaccelerated by SpitVIIICW.
So my conclusion is, that in this game if u dive, there is no matter what weight/aerodynamics u have, but what acceleration u have.

The last question is: why FW190A4 dived better(in this test) than Spit VB after reaching max speed? Because plane isnt accelerating only because of engine, but gravity begin to workhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I dont know what is happening in this game, but something is wrong with gravity. Thats also why Focke Wulf sux in zoom climb, because gravity doesnt really affect it, but only acceleration. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You also have to take those results Robban posted into context. The P-47D and Mustang III can't really dive away from a Spitfire VIII either. S, its not just a FW 190 vs Spitfire issues, but a more general modelling flaw. And guess what? This has been known for years

Also, your comparing the wrong Spitfires. If you want to do the closes direct comparison between the Fw 190 and the Spitfire then you should be using the 1941 Spitfire Vb and the 1942 Fw 190A4. Comparing it to a 1942 or 1943 LF V or LF IX or LF VIII is going to distort the results, because these planes are faster, accelerate better and climb better than the Spitfires tested.

The change to LF Spitfires was a significant difference:

"I was now set to renew my acquaintance with the formidable Focke-Wulf, but this time I was better equipped. The Biggin Hill squadrons were using the Spitfire Mk IXB (Merlin 66), a mark of Spitfire markedly superior in performance below 27,000 feet.

Unlike the Spitfire IXA, with which all other Spitfire wings in the Group were equipped, the IXB's supercharger came in at lower altitude and attained its best performance at 22,000 feet, or roughly the same alitude as the Fw 190. At this height it was apporximately 20 mph faster, was better in the climb and was vastly more manouverable."

Wg Cdr Alan Deere, commander of the Biggin Hill Spitfire wing </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Just a bit of a note.

The LF.Vb was a sort of stopgap measure. The Spit Vb's used a single stage supercharger...they cropped the impeller and made some other changes making the LF versions fast at low altitudes but absolutely robbing them of their higher altitude climb and speed performance.

The LF.IX is a bit of a different story...the Merlin 66 and the Merlin 61 are nearly the same but the critical altitude for the supercharger to switch stages (its a two stage supercharger) was modified in the Merlin 66 so that the Spitfire LF.IX would ultimately have a top speed better than that of the FW190A (presumably this applies strictly to the A-3) across all altitudes. The Merlin 66 doesn't rob the aircraft of its high altitude performance although it does mean that it reaches its critical alt a bit lower (a few thousand feet at most).

For sake of comparison, the LF.IX was tested and found to be only slightly slower in a dive than a FW190A and infact that a Spitfire pilot, if he wanted to, could probably hang on and catch the FW190 at the bottom.

Also to clear confusion:

IX-B (Merlin 66) is often refered to in pilots memoirs. This is the unofficial designation as the Merlin 66 Spitfire IX's arrived before officialdom did. So IX-B and Spitfire LF.IX are the same. Not to be confused with Spitfire Vb and Spitfire IXc (the lower case letter refering to armament/wing type).

Phew! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
12-28-2005, 05:58 PM
<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"> fw190 still has considerable advantages </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And those "considerable advantages" would be? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

over a spit? speed, highspeed climb, firepower, acceloration, roll rate, less wobble (subjective)

the biggest problems the fw190 pilot faces is he cant see well over the front (all other views are decent however) and he cant turn well with a spit, or have the same max sustained climb. sure the 190 may not be right in every feature,but neither is any other plane, but unlike every other plane, the 190s are now the best plane, for each year.

stop crying that the most potent plane in the game is undermodeled and useless, and start crying about the he111, because that is really dodgy

Brain32
12-28-2005, 06:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> For sake of comparison, the LF.IX was tested and found to be only slightly slower in a dive than a FW190A and infact that a Spitfire pilot, if he wanted to, could probably hang on and catch the FW190 at the bottom. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is OK, but all this time one thing is really buging me, hoe can that same IX catch me in Dora44 in a dive? I got killed twice today and both times in a dive by a non clipped wing SpitIX, happens every evening, my dive is my last resort, and I can't even coun't on that anymore. I don't have problems fighting with Spit at all, but what to do when you simply wan't to disengage?To make things simpler my question is: Could best Spitfire we have available in a game catch 1944 Dora in a dive in RL?
Big EDIT http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> over a spit? speed, highspeed climb, firepower, acceloration, roll rate, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Speed - true, saved my a*s many times
High speed climb - OK when you are attacking, certain death when Spit is on your 6
Firepower - I fly 1944Dora so here the Spit has the advantage
Acceloration - yes, but dive acceleration is bugging me...
Roll rate - OK, very cool for evading
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> the biggest problems the fw190 pilot faces is he cant see well over the front </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Only the gunsight bar is the problem...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> the 190s are now the best plane, for each year. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Disagree 55% they are good but most certanly not the best...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> stop crying that the most potent plane in the game is undermodeled and useless </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I never said that, I actually think FW is great, it' just feels strange to me that I'm more afraid that Spit will catch me in a dive than ie. P47 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> and start crying about the he111, because that is really dodgy </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Need an escort? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Unknown-Pilot
12-28-2005, 06:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
a) the fw wasnt specialised, it was a multirole aircraft. but it is a compremise, the high wingloading ment its worse at slow speed stuff, like landing and takeoff, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was specialized in terms of speed. The Zero was specialized in terms of turning.

I'm just coming off of a WWI debate on turn vs speed and that's the way I was seeing specialization. Not in terms of mission.

However, from that perspective, I would say the Spitfire is the compromized plane, because it's limited in it's use. (Ironic twist lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">and i wouldnt say the game is biased towards turning aircraft anymore either, i mean geez, just look how well japanease aircraft do. and yaks, and spits are only a shadow of what they where a few patches ago. the 190 is now the most potent plane in the game, and the next most potent is widely expected tobe the tempest. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, I don't follow the reference of the Japanese planes.

They are t'n'b based, and also do phenomenally well. Especially the ones that can do it and be fast, like the Ki-61 and 84. Ditto the Yak3 and La5FN/7.

However, it is still biased toward turn fighting -
- Pilots do not fatigue over time, so you can ride the edge of a blackout forever, rest for a bit, and take just as long and just as many Gs to black out again
- Airframes do not get stressed from over G *over a period of time*. So pilots can rag their machine out and not care, because next hop they always get a new one.
- E-modeling is still poor and backwards. Heavy planes, even planes that can turn on a dime (ok a nickel) like the Hellcat (IRL, not this game) are pulling drag chutes the instant you touch the stick. You can't get proper zoom from the E-fighters because any stick deflection robs significant speed. But not so with turners, so they zoom just as well (if not better).
- Another one about fatigue, aside from decreasing G resistance, it should also slow down control response. It saps strength and reaction times. Decreasing the v-pilots strength would be a reasonable estimation of this, but it doesn't happen.

And then there is the very nature of online itself, and when offline the fact that the AI doesn't suffer from black/red outs at all....


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">incidently, funny u should mention the i16, as the fw190 is just a updated contination of it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um...ok.... in that case the I-16 is just a combination of the Fokker D.VIII and Junkers C.1 then. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ratsack
12-28-2005, 07:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
a) the fw wasnt specialised, it was a multirole aircraft. but it is a compremise, the high wingloading ment its worse at slow speed stuff, like landing and takeoff, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



However, from that perspective, I would say the Spitfire is the compromized plane, because it's limited in it's use. (Ironic twist lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Limited in its use? I don't understand that statement.

The Spitfire could be used as a very effective interceptor, at high or low altitudes, by virtue of its superb climb, good top speed, and excellent firepower.

For fighter vs fighter combat, the Spitfire was excellent, having the rare combination of good speed, turn, climb and fire power, as well as being easy to fly.

It could be used as an effective fighter bomber, with its load of 1 x 500 lb bomb on fuselage and 2 x 250 bl bombs under the wings, and its very good low altitude performance. It wasn't as stable a gun platform as the Typhoon, but it was quite adequate.

It was unneccessarily limited in its role as an escort because of its small internal fuel capacity. However, by late 1944, Spitfire Mk IXs and MkXVIs (essentially the same plane, except the MkXVI was powered by the Packard Merlin 266) had an extra fuel tank mounted in the fuselage just behind the cockpit.

It performed extremely well as a high-altitude figher (MkVII and lightened MkVs and MkIXs), and was involved in the highest-altitude combat of the war. It was also converted as an excellent PR plane, for use at high or low altitudes. It is one of these aircraft that holds the absolute speed record for a propellor driven aircraft, hitting mach 0.94 in an accidental dive from high altitude.

I don't see this as an aircraft with 'limited' combat roles.

Ratsack

Unknown-Pilot
12-28-2005, 07:30 PM
A zillion versions don't remove a limitation, rather, they highlight it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

In any version, the P-47 was phenomenal up high, decent to good down low (so long as speed was kept), had great firepower, and simply massive ordnance capacity. The Corsair, with slightly less firepower and high alt performance, had a better turn rate, and higher ordnance capacity. Both had huge ranges.

Both were also good for CAS due to toughness. Something the 190 also shared.

The Mustang could also be used for CAS, but that doesn't mean it was suited to it. You can strap a bomb on almost anything. But the Spitfire was still an air superiority fighter - and the Mustang was a high alt, long range escort - whereas the Jug and F4U were much more multirole.

However, IF we take your argument that it wasn't limited, that would make it multi-role by definition, and thereby nullify Pingu's point about the 190 being "compromised" to be multi-role. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Ratsack
12-29-2005, 12:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
A zillion versions don't remove a limitation, rather, they highlight it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This statement is illogical. The plethora of Spitfire versions is merely a reflection of its longevity, being in production in 1938, and still in production at the end of the war. It is the only Allied fighter with such a record. The LF Mk IX / Mk XVI, the most numerous variant, could perform in most of the roles I described in my last post. Its versatility, like that of the FW190, merely reflects the soundness of the basic design.

That said, in relation the design function of these aircraft, the facts of the matter are as follows:

1. The Spitfire was designed as an interceptor.

2. The FW190A/D was designed as an air superiority fighter, from first to last.

3. While the FW190A/D was used in a wide variety of roles, including jabo and interceptor, its design function remained air superiority right up to and including the A-9 and D-9. However, with certain field conversions, the FW190A-6/-7/-8 could be modified as a specialized interceptor. The specialized jabo versions are the G and F.

4. The P47 was designed as an interceptor, although it was never used as such.

5. North American designed the P51 for the British Purchasing Commission. Its performance as a long-range escort was a lucky accident of the availability of the right airframe and the two-speed, two-stage Merlin.



I am uninterested in whatever point you are debating with Pingu. I merely refute your preposterous assertion that the Spitfire somehow had limited use.

Ratsack

CMHQ_Rikimaru
12-29-2005, 04:15 AM
Ofcourse Spitfire was great plane, but we shouldnt forget but focke wulf 190 was also a great one. If the only advantages would be great firepower and roll it wouldnt be produced. It was also great one in dive and zoom climb, which are VERY important advantanges, that we dont have in this game. American planes that were also superb in that i mean dive(P47) and zoom climb(P51). The only one good american plane here is MKIII, because it have great power of its engine, and it can dogfight very well. In rl P51 would dogfight any plane, including a7. I readed somewhere that some P51 was attacked by two russian planes("a5 or "a7 or yak3) and he shot them downhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Try the same in this game hehe.
This game is really biased toward turnfighters. Why? Because nobody in rl liked, and didnt turn so much like we do in game, the main reason are g-forces.
The second reason that is completly not implemented in this game are rising forces on the stick. BF109 was terrible on high speed because u just had to be really strong to pull stick, and what when the g forces come? agg was the same, but on the all speed. And there is also advantage of FW190 or P51 - it stick was always light, it reacted great and maneuvering was easy. If we all would have joysticks with FF, then this feature would be really important.

VW-IceFire
12-29-2005, 07:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
a) the fw wasnt specialised, it was a multirole aircraft. but it is a compremise, the high wingloading ment its worse at slow speed stuff, like landing and takeoff, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was specialized in terms of speed. The Zero was specialized in terms of turning.

I'm just coming off of a WWI debate on turn vs speed and that's the way I was seeing specialization. Not in terms of mission.

However, from that perspective, I would say the Spitfire is the compromized plane, because it's limited in it's use. (Ironic twist lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">and i wouldnt say the game is biased towards turning aircraft anymore either, i mean geez, just look how well japanease aircraft do. and yaks, and spits are only a shadow of what they where a few patches ago. the 190 is now the most potent plane in the game, and the next most potent is widely expected tobe the tempest. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, I don't follow the reference of the Japanese planes.

They are t'n'b based, and also do phenomenally well. Especially the ones that can do it and be fast, like the Ki-61 and 84. Ditto the Yak3 and La5FN/7.

However, it is still biased toward turn fighting -
- Pilots do not fatigue over time, so you can ride the edge of a blackout forever, rest for a bit, and take just as long and just as many Gs to black out again
- Airframes do not get stressed from over G *over a period of time*. So pilots can rag their machine out and not care, because next hop they always get a new one.
- E-modeling is still poor and backwards. Heavy planes, even planes that can turn on a dime (ok a nickel) like the Hellcat (IRL, not this game) are pulling drag chutes the instant you touch the stick. You can't get proper zoom from the E-fighters because any stick deflection robs significant speed. But not so with turners, so they zoom just as well (if not better).
- Another one about fatigue, aside from decreasing G resistance, it should also slow down control response. It saps strength and reaction times. Decreasing the v-pilots strength would be a reasonable estimation of this, but it doesn't happen.

And then there is the very nature of online itself, and when offline the fact that the AI doesn't suffer from black/red outs at all....


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">incidently, funny u should mention the i16, as the fw190 is just a updated contination of it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um...ok.... in that case the I-16 is just a combination of the Fokker D.VIII and Junkers C.1 then. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ahh right...well the thing is that I was talking about the real life versions based on the various RAF tests with the Mark IX and Mark VIII and then correlating with what I've read in various pilot memoirs (Spitfires dove out of combat to head for home as well - this wasn't exclusively a FW190 tactic). But I believe the answer is no, a FW190D-9 1944 should not have been caught by a Spitfire...and thats a problem with the game. A 109 can follow a P-47 into a dive as well. Heck we've got Zero's that do fairly well (at least till breakup speed) chasing F6F's into a dive.

Dive modeling I don't think is quite right. Its never been right. I also think that many things that prohibited following a disengaging aircraft aren't really present (fear, fatigue, fuel considerations, engine considerations, etc.).

So I think you're perfectly justified to question it. But I think we have to put that into perspective (the P-47 and F6F examples stand beside the FW190 example).

p1ngu666
12-29-2005, 09:34 AM
when i last tested, zeros broke up at there maxium permissible dive speeds, while other aircraft can sail through there dive limits and beyond.

i would say its a tad wrong to say the japanease aircraft do really well ingame.

the zero was specialised in being a very high performance (not in PF...) very long range fighter.

the ki61 isnt fast, unless u compair it to something that doesnt move.

190 traded turn and lift for higher performance, as had many before it and after (star fighter) the starfighter landing was aprently a controled crash, very very high landing speed, which isnt really desireable..

the gee bee racers where aprently very scary and dangerous to fly because of high wing loading and big engine.

p1ngu666
12-29-2005, 09:51 AM
btw, the fast ki61?

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666//ki61fantastic1.jpg

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666//ki61fantastic2.jpg

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666//ki61fantastic3.jpg

Unknown-Pilot
12-29-2005, 10:28 AM
I never said the 61 was fast. I said it could be fast. IOW, it can dive quite well and keep it's speed up afterward if used well.

And performance isn't just speed. So the fact that Zero's aren't fast doesn't mean they aren't "high performance".

And it's not wrong to say the Japanese planes do really well. The Ki-84 is a killing machine. El loves the 61 and 100 (and is successful with them). And I keep seeing people talk about how effective the Ki-43 is (as in, quite).

But I'm sure you have some sort of context-less server stats somewhere that you can whip out that show how they are getting slaughtered. Hell, you could probably find a way to get stats showing the A-20 as the premier dogfighter.

WWMaxGunz
12-29-2005, 10:29 AM
Some things:

Diving acceleration. In accounts of diving away, unless stated otherwise consider the starting
speed is combat speed which for FW's is not 300kph by history. How much sooner does the high
speed drag to weight catch up with the Spit when the dives start at 400-450? Till then, roll
FW, barrel roll to evade.

Decelleration: Different props and prop systems may explain a lot. Weights of planes also
count.

Dives and acceleration are very subject to CEM.
All flight by how coordinated you stay.

Unknown-Pilot
12-29-2005, 10:37 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 Unknown-Pilot:
A zillion versions don't remove a limitation, rather, they highlight it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This statement is illogical. The plethora of Spitfire versions is merely a reflection of its longevity, being in production in 1938, and still in production at the end of the war. It is the only Allied fighter with such a record. The LF Mk IX / Mk XVI, the most numerous variant, could perform in most of the roles I described in my last post. Its versatility, like that of the FW190, merely reflects the soundness of the basic design.

That said, in relation the design function of these aircraft, the facts of the matter are as follows:

1. The Spitfire was designed as an interceptor.

2. The FW190A/D was designed as an air superiority fighter, from first to last.

3. While the FW190A/D was used in a wide variety of roles, including jabo and interceptor, its design function remained air superiority right up to and including the A-9 and D-9. However, with certain field conversions, the FW190A-6/-7/-8 could be modified as a specialized interceptor. The specialized jabo versions are the G and F.

4. The P47 was designed as an interceptor, although it was never used as such.

5. North American designed the P51 for the British Purchasing Commission. Its performance as a long-range escort was a lucky accident of the availability of the right airframe and the two-speed, two-stage Merlin.



I am uninterested in whatever point you are debating with Pingu. I merely refute your preposterous assertion that the Spitfire somehow had limited use.

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh boy. Someone got their plane insulted. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

There was a high altitude version, a low altitude version, and a version made for higher roll rate.

It was actually obvious that the comment I made had nothing to do with it's longevity, and everything to do with it's multitudinous specific versions for specific tasks. I doubt that you missed that important tidbit either.

Furthermore, the P-47 was not designed as an *interceptor*, it was an air superiority platform with a focus on high altitude performance.

And of course - if the Brits had such an infinitely useable platform, they wouldn't have need for Corsairs, Hellcats, and Mustangs, since they already had the wonder plane that could do it all, right? lol

Also, you can't jump into a conversation to chew on one point and attempt to take it out of context. Things only have meaning in context. You try to speak like you're out of highschool, so please try to debate accordingly, if you're going to at all.

Unknown-Pilot
12-29-2005, 10:39 AM
Icefire - I think you quoted the wrong guy. I wasn't the one who mentioned the D9, and I also mentioned many posts back that e-modeling (including dive and zoom) is off across the board, and as such, I don't see it as (just) a 190-issue.

p1ngu666
12-29-2005, 11:01 AM
p47 was designed as a longish range interceptor, cos america is big. p38 too

p1ngu666
12-29-2005, 11:02 AM
hmm nope, it was a lightweight interceptor, soz forgot that ironic bit of plane history http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

ElAurens
12-29-2005, 11:06 AM
First off, about Japanese aircraft in game. (Note I said in game).

As Unknown Pilot said, I have a fair bit of experience in Japanese aircraft. these are my observations about the A6M series. It is a wonderful weapon, but very fragile and modeled too slow in top speed, especially at sealevel. If you are in an F6F and are geting caught in dives (or anywhere) you did 2 things wrong.

1. You started from too low an altitude.

2. You did not extend far enough before re-engaging.

I've seen this play out over and over again.

H3ll guys, an F4F-3 can outrun an A6M2-21 at sea level, it happens all the time. Totally a-historic, but that's the way it is.

As for the more modern Japanese Army types, they can be used successfully in late war scenarios if 2 things happen.

1. You have enough altitude to work with.

2. The Allied flyers are as dumb as a box of rocks. Thankfully they usually are and will try to turn with you, and when they do you own them.

A good P38 pilot in the Pacific is totally immune in this sim. Thankfully you can count the good ones on the fingers of one hand.

Brain32
12-29-2005, 12:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> But I believe the answer is no, a FW190D-9 1944 should not have been caught by a Spitfire...and thats a problem with the game. A 109 can follow a P-47 into a dive as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is all what I needed to know, and I did mention the same problem with P47. The fact is I'm crying because those two are my favourite rides(Tempest will be third), and I can't use them in their full potential, it's not the end of the world, but I don't have to like it. I'm afraid that if things remain like that Tempest will suck, or to make it good they will tune him for turning a make a complete joke of it...

Kettenhunde
12-29-2005, 12:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the biggest problems the fw190 pilot faces is he cant see well over the front (all other views are decent however) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True for taxi and take off. Not so in the air. The Focke Wulf flew with a 2 degree nose down attitude when trimmed for level flight. The wing was twisted on the FW-190 to improve induced drag production. The wing on the Spitfire was also twisted to avoid the harsh stalling characteristics of an elliptical airfoil. The design trade-off was an increase in induced drag production for the Spitfire.

Conclusion #95 - "Sighting View":
http://img12.imagevenue.com/loc190/th_c22e9_Conclusions.jpg (http://img12.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc190&image=c22e9_Conclusions.jpg)

The rather restrictive armoured glass of the Spitfire is not modeled very well in games. It would cut down on the customer's.

I encourage anyone to research the post war trials conducted by the RAE and the USAAF on the Dora variants. Even without boost and only using "Stieg u Kampfleistung" the Dora repeatedly bested the Tempest when flown by an experienced Luftwaffe pilot. The Tempest was outturned and outclimbed at 3000 meters.

All the best,

Crumpp

MEGILE
12-29-2005, 12:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:

The rather restrictive armoured glass of the Spitfire is not modeled very well in games. It would cut down on the customer's.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What an awfully silly comment.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The Tempest was outturned and outclimbed at 3000 meters.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like wise the Spitfire IX could outturn and outclimb the Dora at 3,000 meters... but I wouldn't go as far to say the Spitfire IX was a better fighter, I'm sure you would agree.
The Speed, and dive advantages lying firmly with the Dora, and further more with the Tempest.

Kettenhunde
12-29-2005, 01:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">further more with the Tempest. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Do the legwork and get the report. The Dora equalled the Tempest in speed only when using Sondernotleistung. Long chases were considered fruitless in either aircraft.

The Dora had a much more efficient prop and lower drag than the Tempest. It gained the thrust benefits when compared to the Tempest.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What an awfully silly comment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How many Spitfires and how many FW-190's have you sat in?

Are you offering your gaming experience?

Well the RAE sat in both and printed their conclusions which I have generously posted.

For that matter so haven't I been in both aircraft and if you come to the museum, I will put you in an FW-190 cockpit.

http://img134.imagevenue.com/loc139/th_46dfb_SpitBW.jpg (http://img134.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc139&image=46dfb_SpitBW.jpg)

http://img130.imagevenue.com/loc8/th_f05dc_bar.jpg (http://img130.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc8&image=f05dc_bar.jpg)

Sighting view is about half a ring better in the FW-190. This means the FW-190 can take larger deflection angle shots at higher speeds than the British Fighter.

All the best,

Crumpp

p1ngu666
12-29-2005, 02:30 PM
shame the shots show the spitfire with camera far back, and u cant see the nose.

ingame with the closer view there is alot of ironwork

and the fw190 u see the nose, and the canopy is probably open so the closer bars are effectivly smaller. i think the fw190 canopy, and the 109's couldnt be opened inflight?

Kettenhunde
12-29-2005, 03:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">shame the shots show the spitfire with camera far back, and u cant see the nose. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Actually the Spitfire shot is much closer than the FW190. The width of the armoured glass is about the same on both aircraft at the bottom.

The RAE conclusions are correct and immediately noticable when you sit in the cockpits of both aircraft.

All the best,

Crumpp

Ratsack
12-29-2005, 04:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
<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 Unknown-Pilot:
A zillion versions don't remove a limitation, rather, they highlight it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This statement is illogical. The plethora of Spitfire versions is merely a reflection of its longevity, being in production in 1938, and still in production at the end of the war. It is the only Allied fighter with such a record. The LF Mk IX / Mk XVI, the most numerous variant, could perform in most of the roles I described in my last post. Its versatility, like that of the FW190, merely reflects the soundness of the basic design.

That said, in relation the design function of these aircraft, the facts of the matter are as follows:

1. The Spitfire was designed as an interceptor.

2. The FW190A/D was designed as an air superiority fighter, from first to last.

3. While the FW190A/D was used in a wide variety of roles, including jabo and interceptor, its design function remained air superiority right up to and including the A-9 and D-9. However, with certain field conversions, the FW190A-6/-7/-8 could be modified as a specialized interceptor. The specialized jabo versions are the G and F.

4. The P47 was designed as an interceptor, although it was never used as such.

5. North American designed the P51 for the British Purchasing Commission. Its performance as a long-range escort was a lucky accident of the availability of the right airframe and the two-speed, two-stage Merlin.



I am uninterested in whatever point you are debating with Pingu. I merely refute your preposterous assertion that the Spitfire somehow had limited use.

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh boy. Someone got their plane insulted. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

There was a high altitude version, a low altitude version, and a version made for higher roll rate.

It was actually obvious that the comment I made had nothing to do with it's longevity, and everything to do with it's multitudinous specific versions for specific tasks. I doubt that you missed that important tidbit either.

Furthermore, the P-47 was not designed as an *interceptor*, it was an air superiority platform with a focus on high altitude performance.

And of course - if the Brits had such an infinitely useable platform, they wouldn't have need for Corsairs, Hellcats, and Mustangs, since they already had the wonder plane that could do it all, right? lol

Also, you can't jump into a conversation to chew on one point and attempt to take it out of context. Things only have meaning in context. You try to speak like you're out of highschool, so please try to debate accordingly, if you're going to at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Firstly, no, the Spit is not 'my plane'. Because I correct your egregious error, you simply assumed that. Wrong again.

Secondly, the Brits 'needed' the other planes for numbers. When the Purchasing Commission first approached North American to build fighters, they actually asked them to build P40s under license. NA came up with the Mustang as a counter offer. All the Brits wanted was numbers. When, in 1940, they made their production plans for the rest of the war, they would've accepted planes from anywhere, provided they were capable and could be delivered in numbers. The USA's aero industry filled both bills and was not within reach of the Lufwaffe. There's that context thing somebody mentioned.

Thirdly, three versions does not constitute 'a zillion'. While we're at it, the clipped wing version was never 'designed'. It was an illegal field modification that the Air Ministry condemned until well after it was in wide-spread use. The only true low-altitude versions were the LF MkV and the MkXII, and these were both expedient stop gaps aimed specifically at the FW190. They're hardly representative of the Spitfire. Read Icefire's post on the LF MkV.

Regarding the P47, it was designed as an interceptor. Fact. That's not open to interpretation or debate, its simply what Kartveli and his team set out to do. You are wrong. Have a look at:
Roger A. Freeman, Thunderbolt: a documentary history of the Republic P-47, (Arms & Armour, London, 1978).

Regarding the rest of your answer, if you're going to debate anything, your facts must be correct, and yours are not. Context is irrelevant to the correctness or otherwise of your facts. An argument built on rubbish is still rubbish, regardless of context. If you don't want to be picked up on errors:

1. get your facts straight; and
2. change your attitude.

I'm sure that you'll be handled less roughly if you do. At the moment you're merely sounding off, without fear and without research.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ratsack

Unknown-Pilot
12-29-2005, 05:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
Regarding the rest of your answer, if you're going to debate anything, your facts must be correct, and yours are not. Context is irrelevant to the correctness or otherwise of your facts. An argument built on rubbish is still rubbish, regardless of context. If you don't want to be picked up on errors:

1. get your facts straight; and
2. change your attitude.

I'm sure that you'll be handled less roughly if you do. At the moment you're merely sounding off, without fear and without research.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Only an idiot jumps into a conversation and tries to take something totally out of context.

For that matter, only an idiot would think that context is unnecessary.

And of course, you did both those things. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

To say nothing of the rest of your ignorance. So it's evident that debate won't be needed with you at this point.

If you want to 'push' back though, feel free. I will certainly use you for some entertainment if you'd like. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Ratsack
12-30-2005, 01:44 AM
It's obvious from your entries in this thread that you have nothing to add to this discussion except your attitude. Your first post was vaccuous and combative, and you've added nothing but errors and insults since. If you post cr@p that is demontrably cr@p, have it pointed out to you that you're talking utter cr@p, but refuse to be corrected, you're just a troll. Simple.

Reply when you have something to add to the discussion.

Goodbye, little troll.


Ratsack

WOLFMondo
12-30-2005, 05:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">further more with the Tempest. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Do the legwork and get the report. The Dora equalled the Tempest in speed only when using Sondernotleistung. Long chases were considered fruitless in either aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats probably more due to a long chase leading back to the person being followed lines and intense flak. At least from what I've read about Dora vs Tempest combat.

Not sure how much draggier the Tempest was, apart from the radiator it was exceptionally clean and using 11lbs boost produced 200HP more than the Dora at absolute maximum power yet the weight difference is marginal.

robban75
12-30-2005, 05:28 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"> But I believe the answer is no, a FW190D-9 1944 should not have been caught by a Spitfire...and thats a problem with the game. A 109 can follow a P-47 into a dive as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is all what I needed to know, and I did mention the same problem with P47. The fact is I'm crying because those two are my favourite rides(Tempest will be third), and I can't use them in their full potential, it's not the end of the world, but I don't have to like it. I'm afraid that if things remain like that Tempest will suck, or to make it good they will tune him for turning a make a complete joke of it... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Go here for dive acceleration comparisons. http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/7321095783/p/2

And no, the Spitfire cannot catch a Fw 190D-9 '44 in a dive in the game. At least not when starting with the same amount of E. However the Fw 190A-4/5 wil have have some difficulties outpacing the Spit(VIII). At speeds over 700km/h the early Antons will begin to outdive the VIII.
On the Bf 109 vs P-47D. The P-47 cannot catch the K-4 in-game at all. The K-4 also outdives the Fw 190D-9 up to 800km/h. The P-47 really needs to be looked at. It seems to have too much drag at the higher divespeeds.

Unknown-Pilot
12-30-2005, 08:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
It's obvious from your entries in this thread that you have nothing to add to this discussion except your attitude. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For people who act like idiots. But it's not like I'm the one who makes you act that way. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Your first post was vaccuous and combative, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

I'm afraid "idiot" doesn't do it justice really. Asking for numbers and facts from both sites is 'vaccuous and combative'... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

In that case, tell ya what, I've got some beach property in Denver I'd be willing to sell ya. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">and you've added nothing but errors and insults since. If you post cr@p that is demontrably cr@p, have it pointed out to you that you're talking utter cr@p, but refuse to be corrected, you're just a troll. Simple.

Reply when you have something to add to the discussion.

Goodbye, little troll.


Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Someone butts into a conversation and like a moron tries to take something entirely out of context merely for the sake of starting **** and they call someone ELSE a troll? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif


You're too much. lol But I needed a bit of a laugh. Thanks. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I'm sure you'll be back to give me more soon too. lol

Ratsack
12-30-2005, 09:37 AM
Oh, poor little troll, your feelings have been hurt. Ask mummy for a nice cup of hot milk before bedtime.

€¦and speaking of jumping into conversations in the middle, let€s look at your history in this thread. You first raised your trolly little head on page 7, with an inflammatory post about Oleg worship and some conspiracy among €˜red players€ in this place. Good start.

You then went on to tell everyone to post tracks or tests with numbers, just numbers.

Waiting.

Waiting.

Waiting...

Yes, still waiting, five pages later for you to contribute a single source or test result of your own. Not a single positive contribution to date. You're such a valuable person to have around in these discussions: your erudition is a light to us all (ask your mum to look up 'sarcasm' for you in the big book, little boy).

You€re clearly just a troll.

On the other hand, I posted the ninth reply in this thread, and started with some test results. Since then I have referred to or quoted from several printed sources on the subject in hand. Others have contributed more, such as Icefire, Crump and Faustnik - none of whom can be accused of being part of some Red cabal. You, however, have contributed...?

...yes, nothing.

You have only argued and repeated stuff that€s been posted already in this thread or elsewhere. Your orginality, troll, is really rather p1ss poor. And then you complain when your cr@p is corrected. Poor boy. My heart bleeds.

Yes, you really are just a very noisy, smelly little troll.

Run along, small boy. Feel free to come back when you know what you€re talking about.

Ratsack

PS - Happy new year, you flatulent little transport system for an elementary canal http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Unknown-Pilot
12-30-2005, 10:31 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Oh somebody got their feelings hurt alright, and it was the person who tried to take something totally out of context and claimed context didn't matter, only to get called on such stupidity.

That's why they keep responding AFTER claiming they are "done". lol

See you in a few. We both know you can't resist. That's what people like you do. Start something, either intentionally, or by swallowing your foot, then proceed to blame the other party for it.

I won't bother to explain it all to you, you either wouldn't understand it, or would ignore it, so it would be a waste of time.

But I do look forward to your next bit of comedy. I'm lovin' it. lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

What new and inventive ways will you come up with to call me a troll for your lack of intelligence? I wait with anticipation. lol

Then again, if you try to "prove me wrong" by not posting or responding, then we all win that way too. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Brain32
12-30-2005, 10:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> And no, the Spitfire cannot catch a Fw 190D-9 '44 in a dive in the game. At least not when starting with the same amount of E. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is one thing I wanted to ask you, I saw all your posts with testing, but in them I didn't notice dive tests for Spitfire MkIXC and especially MkIXE because I consider them as "suspects" so if you could do the tests for them or point me to the place they are if I missed them...I'll be http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> On the Bf 109 vs P-47D. The P-47 cannot catch the K-4 in-game at all. The K-4 also outdives the Fw 190D-9 up to 800km/h. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes this is quite strange and to my knowledge shouldn't be like that, P47's big advantage is diving if you take that away from it... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Jetbuff
12-30-2005, 12:32 PM
Ratsack and Unknown_pilot, get a room already! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Better yet, take your little spat to PM. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

robban75
12-30-2005, 12:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
This is one thing I wanted to ask you, I saw all your posts with testing, but in them I didn't notice dive tests for Spitfire MkIXC and especially MkIXE because I consider them as "suspects" so if you could do the tests for them or point me to the place they are if I missed them...I'll be http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll test them when I get home, which will be sometime next week. I haven't done any testings on the IXc because it has always had the same performance of the VIII in-game. We'll see if anything has changed with the last patch! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

WWMaxGunz
12-30-2005, 01:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by robban75:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
This is one thing I wanted to ask you, I saw all your posts with testing, but in them I didn't notice dive tests for Spitfire MkIXC and especially MkIXE because I consider them as "suspects" so if you could do the tests for them or point me to the place they are if I missed them...I'll be http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll test them when I get home, which will be sometime next week. I haven't done any testings on the IXc because it has always had the same performance of the VIII in-game. We'll see if anything has changed with the last patch! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Robban, can you do tests starting from combat speed appx 400 kph?
Also can you include time in seconds at each data point? It might make clearer how close or
far apart the planes would be.

robban75
12-30-2005, 01:36 PM
Sure Max! I'll get on it when I get home. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Ratsack
12-30-2005, 04:52 PM
Robban,

Just to add to Max's request.

Could you please provide speed readings for given time intervals. That is, like every 5 s or 10 s. This would enable us to directly graph velocity as a function of time, where the slope of the line gives you the acceleration. Grapically it would be very useful, and it would save us the trouble of doing the inverse functions Stathem did in the other thread.

cheers,
Ratsack

Ratsack
12-30-2005, 04:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Oh somebody got their feelings hurt alright, and it was the person who tried to take something totally out of context and claimed context didn't matter, only to get called on such stupidity.

That's why they keep responding AFTER claiming they are "done". lol

See you in a few. We both know you can't resist. That's what people like you do. Start something, either intentionally, or by swallowing your foot, then proceed to blame the other party for it.

I won't bother to explain it all to you, you either wouldn't understand it, or would ignore it, so it would be a waste of time.

But I do look forward to your next bit of comedy. I'm lovin' it. lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

What new and inventive ways will you come up with to call me a troll for your lack of intelligence? I wait with anticipation. lol

Then again, if you try to "prove me wrong" by not posting or responding, then we all win that way too. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Never claimed I was done mauling you, troll. You just keep proving my point.

Ratsack

Unknown-Pilot
12-30-2005, 05:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
Never claimed I was done mauling you, troll. You just keep proving my point.

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course you're not done making trouble, that's what you types do. (along with accusing the other party of doing what you are actually doing to try to discplace blame) Which is exactly how I knew you would be back for more. and will be yet again. You can't bear to let this drop - even the temptation of proving me wrong isn't enough to get you to drop it. You're too obvious. lol

BTW - "goodbye" is said when one is leaving. Perhaps a dictionary might help you in the future then? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

But, you disappointed me. Here I thought you had a bit of creativity as you seemed to demonstrate it earlier. But you were so much more boring this time. Running out of steam maybe? Or just vocabulary? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Either way it's still funny as hell, but, at least put some thought into your drivel next time. Bring it back up to the level you started out at, at a minimum. lol

See you in a little while. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ratsack
12-30-2005, 05:11 PM
<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 Unknown-Pilot:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Oh somebody got their feelings hurt alright, and it was the person who tried to take something totally out of context and claimed context didn't matter, only to get called on such stupidity.

That's why they keep responding AFTER claiming they are "done". lol

See you in a few. We both know you can't resist. That's what people like you do. Start something, either intentionally, or by swallowing your foot, then proceed to blame the other party for it.

I won't bother to explain it all to you, you either wouldn't understand it, or would ignore it, so it would be a waste of time.

But I do look forward to your next bit of comedy. I'm lovin' it. lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

What new and inventive ways will you come up with to call me a troll for your lack of intelligence? I wait with anticipation. lol

Then again, if you try to "prove me wrong" by not posting or responding, then we all win that way too. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Never claimed I was done mauling you, troll. You just keep proving my point.

Your cr@p, errors and nonsense are cr@p, errors and nonsense, irrespective of context. You've been royally skewered and you know it. That's why you're still here bleatng.

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unknown-Pilot
12-30-2005, 05:25 PM
<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 Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unknown-Pilot:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Oh somebody got their feelings hurt alright, and it was the person who tried to take something totally out of context and claimed context didn't matter, only to get called on such stupidity.

That's why they keep responding AFTER claiming they are "done". lol

See you in a few. We both know you can't resist. That's what people like you do. Start something, either intentionally, or by swallowing your foot, then proceed to blame the other party for it.

I won't bother to explain it all to you, you either wouldn't understand it, or would ignore it, so it would be a waste of time.

But I do look forward to your next bit of comedy. I'm lovin' it. lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

What new and inventive ways will you come up with to call me a troll for your lack of intelligence? I wait with anticipation. lol

Then again, if you try to "prove me wrong" by not posting or responding, then we all win that way too. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Never claimed I was done mauling you, troll. You just keep proving my point.

Your cr@p, errors and nonsense are cr@p, errors and nonsense, irrespective of context. You've been royally skewered and you know it. That's why you're still here bleatng.

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

****, that was quick. lol And a screwed up post to boot too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I realize I'm giving you what you want, what you need. But this is too **** fun seeing you continue this sad attempt. lol And still claiming context is irrelevant. rofl

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



He continues to respond, and he proves I'm right about him. He stops to try to prove me wrong, and we all win.

God I love the situations like that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Ratsack
01-01-2006, 05:10 AM
Adding to the work Robban€s already done, following are the graphs of some comparative dive tests with the Spitfire and FW190A.


Background

Rather than duplicate the tests already done, I have started these trials at low altitude. I€ve done this for two reasons, the first of which is to look at dive performance as it might affect combat under the typical sort of conditions you find on a reasonable DF server like Warclouds, where most of the blood letting goes on below 3,000 m.

The second reason is to avoid testing the planes to destruction. Most of these birds will break up if you dive them as hard as you can, even from 3,000 m. While the break-up speed is something you€d want in the manual (or on a prominent plate in the cockpit), a break-up-speed manoeuvre is not a winning proposition in combat. For this reason the dives are not as steep as some people have done them, but they are as steep as moves I have used to escape pursuers online.

The graphs are hosted as jpegs on Tinypicture. Links included below in the discussion.


Test Conditions

QMB, Crimea, 1200 hours, 100% fuel, default load, auto prop, auto radiator, starting from each aircraft€s maximum speed at 3,000 m.


Dive Method

In no-cockpit view, having reached max speed without overheat, I pushed the stick forward and, in not more than 1 second, attained diving attitude. I set the dive angle by placing the artificial horizon on the second major marker below the horizon. This angle was maintained at full throttle until pull out just above sea level or, in the case of the Spitfire LF MkVb, the plane broke up. The Spitfire LF MkVb lost its starboard wing tip and aileron at 486 mph TAS at 782€.


Recording of results

The results were recorded from the speed bar in cockpit view. This is to avoid the issue with the TAS indicator in no-cockpit view showing bad data (this was a bug identified published in other threads on this board). Starting the clock at the moment of the beginning of the push over into the dive, the indicated airspeed and altitude were recorded at 5-second intervals.


Calculations

Because most of the speed and altitude data on the Allied planes are in Imperial units, I converted the metric results to Imperial units for these two parameters. Then, for each datum, I corrected the indicated airspeed for altitude at a rate of 2 % per 1,000 feet above sea level, to give approximate true airspeeds for all data recorded.

I calculated average accelerations as the slope of the speed curve over each five-second interval (i.e., a = (v-u)/t). From this, I calculated the distance travelled by each plane over each five-second interval, and thus the separation between various two-plane match ups. All of these calculations are in SI, because I can€t stomach physics in medieval units.

Regarding the separation graph, the plane that is leading is listed first in the name of each curve in the legend. So, where the legend says FW190A6 & Spit IX, it means the the corresponding curve is showing the distance the Focke-Wulf is leading the Spit by. Where the legend says Spit IXc & FW190A4, it means it's showing the distance by which the Spit is leading the Wuerger, and so on. Clear?


Discussion of results

Looking at the 1941-42 aircraft (http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=ji2tqo), the most obvious point is that the FW190A4 is clearly faster at all points. Secondly, you can see that the line for the FW190A4 is equally steep or steeper than the lines for the Spits. This means it accelerates better than either of the Spit Vbs (remembering that the acceleration is the slope of the velocity curve, or dv/dt). Finally, by virtue of its superior acceleration and speed, the FW190A4 increased is speed advantage from 10-15 mph at 10,000€ to 30-50 mph at the bottom of the dive. If you have a look at the separation graph (http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=ji2utg), you can see that the FW190A4 is nearly half a km ahead of the Spit Vb, and about half that distance ahead of the Spit LF Vb.

Staying with the FW190A4, if you look at the five-way dive speed graph (http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=ji2u6t), you can see that the FW190A4€s speed curve is lower than but parallel to the curve of the Spitfire Mk IXc until about 450-60 mph. At that point, the Spitfire Mk IXc€s speed curve begins to flatten, meaning its rate of acceleration is dropping. At about 470-80 mph, the FW190A4 catches the Spitfire MkIXc. This means that there is very little difference in acceleration between the two aircraft at these low altitudes until about 450-60 mph, at which point the FW190A4 begins to catch the Spitfire MkIXc. However, it should also be noted that the Spitfire MkIXc enjoys a small speed advantage of about 5 mph, which it retains until about 450 mph. All of this is reinforced by a glance at the separation graph (http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=ji2utg), which shows the Spit MkIXc in front all the way, but with no separation greater than 75 m at 25 seconds, and the FW190A4 actually beginning to haul in the Spitfire IXc after that.

Moving onto the FW190A6 and Spitfire MkIXc (http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=ji2ulz), it€s immediately obvious from the speed graph that the FW190A6 enjoys a small speed advantage at all points on the curve. It is also clear that the acceleration of both planes is pretty similar for the first few seconds, after which the Focke-Wulf accelerates better. By sea level, the FW190A6 enjoys a speed advantage of 20 mph. (In fact, the advantage is more like 35 mph. In the next three seconds after the end of the 30 second speed graph, the FW190A6 hit 533 mph right on the water, while the Spit IX began to lag at 498 mph.) The separation graph (http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=ji2utg), shows the FW190A6 to be slowly pulling away from the Spit IXc until around the 20 second mark, at which point it really starts to leave the Spit behind.


Conclusions

The first thing to understand about these tests is that they do not start from equivalent energy states. This is a deliberate effort to simulate the conditions of combat. The FW190A4 is faster than the Spit Vb under most conditions, so it€s appropriate that the dive tests should reflect the FW190€s advantage in this respect. It€s what you€ll get online. The same goes for the other planes, and this is why the dives start from max speed for each plane at 3,000 m, whatever that speed was.

The second is that the outcomes are heavily dependent on pilot inputs. For example, in one run, I accidentally took nearly 2 seconds to nose over to dive angle in the FW190A6. The result was that the FW190A6 had poor initial acceleration, and as a consequence the Spitfire MkIXc matched the Focke-Wulf€s speed until nearly 480 mph. Naturally, I scrapped that track and did it again, but it demonstrates that the results are very sensitive to perturbations in the inputs.

So, with those caveats in mind, under the low altitude conditions specified above, I think it€s clear that:

1. The FW190A4 does dive faster than either Spitfire Vb; and
2. The FW190A4 accelerates better in the dive than either Spitfire Vb; but
3. The Spitfire LF Vb is definitely superior to the F Vb below 10,000€; and finally
4. While the Focke-Wulf holds the diving advantage, it is not sufficiently large to translate into a tactical advantage under all circumstances. The second lost in a poorly-executed move or a poor reaction could easily mean more than this dive advantage.


5. The FW190A6 is a little faster and accelerates a little better than the Spitfire MkIXc. Its diving advantage over the Spitfire MkIXc is similar to that of the FW190A4 over the Spitfire LF MkVb. All the caveats above apply.

6. The FW190A4 is initially out-dived by the Spitfire MkIXc; and
7.While acceleration is similar, the Spitfire IXc is slightly faster at these altitudes; however
8. The FW190A4 begins to overhaul the Spitfire MkIXc at speeds above about 450 mph; and
9. A Focke-Wulf 190A4 with an energy advantage would be very dangerous to the Spitfire MkIXc, but he shouldn€t hang around to try conclusions after the first attack; and
10. the advantage enjoyed by the Spitfire MkIXc is not big enough by itself to get you out of gun range if I€ve saddled up on your six in my FW190A4 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Finally, the separation graph shows that even the planes with the best diving performances do not have a sufficient advantage to escape a slower enemy who has a gun solution. For example, even the FW190A6 is well within 150 m of the Spitfire LF MkVb for the first 10 seconds of its dive. That€s well inside the gun envelope. If caught defensive, it is not enough to simply dive, but we knew that already.



Anyway, that€s my take on the low altitude situation. The question that this lot raises in my mind is: what do these curves look like if we start up around 20,000 feet? Up there, the Focke-Wulfs would be starting near their maximum speed of around 400 mph. At a guess, I€d say the Focke-Wulfs would have an even bigger advantage up there, but we won€t know until it€s actually tested.

Ratsack

WWMaxGunz
01-01-2006, 12:20 PM
S! Ratsack! Good post that one!

It should make your testing life easier to do this:

* Fly the test without gathering data but save it as a track file.
* If you save a full track (offline only) then you can play it back with arcade on, good for
guns and DM data... them arrows give hits, shell explosions and location on target.
Otherwise ntrk files have their own advantages besides you can make many short ones instead
of one longer one.
* Set your ini up for PF to enable devicelink.
* Run a devicelink utility such as UDPSpeed and configure it to log the data you want in the
time intervals you want. Yes there is some not big learning curve. It's easier if you just
take the examples and mod them to your needs. Even easier, default gets most of what you
want anyway.
* Run PF, go to playback and run your tracks. Hit the devicelink program hot key when you
want to start logging data and hot key it off to stop. Wash, rinse, repeat till all your
tracks are logged generally by the second.
* Basic ability with a spreadsheet is a plus to faster data merging and compares.

I ran dives before and found that I could ignore the nosing-down time by lining up dives
after they started but not long after where speeds and alts were still close. In data it
is not hard at all. Then I could see each plane second to second the speed and alt, etc.
The course was fly along to waypoint and then dive to aim directly at a concrete airfield,
the same part every time... the paths close enough for alt to tell me how far along they
were for a quick look. I even did that for tracks from some others here.

I tell ya, devicelink data collection is worth any work you need to get and set it up!

Ratsack
01-01-2006, 04:58 PM
Ta Max,

I was recording the data from recorded tracks. Doing it in real time sounds like hard work to me. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Regarding the rest, yeah, device link sounds good. I may look at it next time.

cheers,
Ratsack

HellToupee
01-01-2006, 09:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">further more with the Tempest. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Do the legwork and get the report. The Dora equalled the Tempest in speed only when using Sondernotleistung. Long chases were considered fruitless in either aircraft.

The Dora had a much more efficient prop and lower drag than the Tempest. It gained the thrust benefits when compared to the Tempest.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What an awfully silly comment. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How many Spitfires and how many FW-190's have you sat in?

Are you offering your gaming experience?

Well the RAE sat in both and printed their conclusions which I have generously posted.

For that matter so haven't I been in both aircraft and if you come to the museum, I will put you in an FW-190 cockpit.

http://img134.imagevenue.com/loc139/th_46dfb_SpitBW.jpg (http://img134.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc139&image=46dfb_SpitBW.jpg)

http://img130.imagevenue.com/loc8/th_f05dc_bar.jpg (http://img130.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc8&image=f05dc_bar.jpg)

Sighting view is about half a ring better in the FW-190. This means the FW-190 can take larger deflection angle shots at higher speeds than the British Fighter.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That shot shows the 190s nose where as the spitfire shot is taken close and in a lower position, pilots could see the nose in the spitfire, pilots remarks the ring of the sight in normal sitting position was just above the nose.

WWMaxGunz
01-01-2006, 10:58 PM
For me, UDPSpeed set up once, used about 50 times so far. Rafts of data for small effort.

Ratsack
01-01-2006, 11:46 PM
Sounds good. I'll have a look at it.

Adding to my post above, I think there's a misconception about diving performance - both for the German and the American fighters - that it will provide instant immunity to attack. This is just wrong.

If we think about it, a good pilot will try to get close before shooting: say, 150 -200 m. If the attacker is at 150 m, it will take time for the diver to escape from the gun envelope. This is especially true if the attacker is willing to take longer shots.

To escape to beyond 3-400 m in less than five seconds would require phenomenal acceleration. We can work it out if we want. In fact, Aaron GT started a thread on this subject back in July and he was hinting at this at the time (before the usual ideologues showed up and sank the discussion).

It's my view that people reading pilots' accounts or the tests often interpret what they read without regard for or reference to the physics, and consequently draw conclusions that are not just at odds with reality, but at odds with what is actually possible.

In the case of the FW190A4 vs the Spit Vb or LFVb, the FW190A4 rules. It is faster. Fact. It dives faster. Fact. It accelerates better. Fact. It rolls better. Fact.

What is it exactly people are complaining about, other than that Oleg seems to have given us a de-rated A4? Where is the evidence that the Spit can dive with the FW? It can't, pure and simple. In fact, the LFVb broke up before it got anywhere near 500 mph TAS, where the A4 comfortably hit about 535 mph near sea level!

It is my suspicion that the people saying the FW190A4 cannot out-dive the Spit are people who've been on the receiving end of attacks from close range, and who have then tried to dive away, only to discover they're still inside the weapons envelope of their slower attacker. Worse still, they stayed there for about 15 seconds, if they lived that long.

I don't see this as a fault in modeling.



cheers,
Ratsack

PS - If I have trouble getting or setting up UDPSpeed, I'll be knocking at your door for help.

PPS - As those who've been on the receiving end of my cr@ppy shooting would know, my preferred on-line ride is the Focke-Wulf 190A6.

WWMaxGunz
01-02-2006, 11:55 AM
Words like "much faster" are no good without the numbers.
I've seen one ADFU report where IIRC it was an acceleration test that had the words "much
faster" and the time to get a certain lead. The average speed of "much faster" over the
10 seconds noted turns out to be like 10 mph. The faster plane was probably doing 20 mph
faster at the end of that time -- "much faster". Against the speed of bullets and shells,
you want distance before flying straight.

Take some non-quantified words, add imagination and watch the expectations grow!

p1ngu666
01-02-2006, 07:23 PM
indeed max, the fastest F1 car is "much" faster than a minardi, but % wise, the difference isnt that big. the minardi is still very very fast in real terms.

WWMaxGunz
01-02-2006, 10:53 PM
That's where it comes down to it maybe. One person speaks in terms of watching one thing
directly relative to another, like one plane passing another in the sky where you don't
see how fast the slower one is, just how fast it is passed in scale to the size of the
planes and seconds time -- and someone else reads "much faster" with the TAS of the slow
plane for scale instead. Much faster than 400 kph must be like 450-500 kph right? If you
roll your own standards, it "works" and you can turn one event into another.

That's not to say it's always the case someone got something wrong but when the support
for an arguement or claim is based on unquantified word description(s) then there's no
way to attach numbers or distances to it, no way to back the arguement or claim very well.
If one was noted to be in front then it is in front, now say how far? Does escape mean
what? Safety in how many seconds, how much distance?

I read AVG pilot accounts and they write to me pretty clear but still numbers only where
they want to use them. H, they can just remember, they know and we never really will.
So I read about P-40 being able to dive away from Zero (later action and some disputed
fights, there were a few Zeroes over China but did they ever fight the AVG, etc) and I
kept reading accounts to get more details.
The biggest WHY was that at 250 mph and up, the 'Zero' was hard to roll. From Saburo
Sakai the controls became extremely heavy above 275 and impossible to roll at 350 mph.
And then I also see that you never let yourself get slow but immediately rolled and dived.
What does that tell me? The Zero sometimes would follow in the dive at least to start
(if he don't then the P-40 can dive, zoom and hit him from below) while the P-40 would
be using its faster roll to stay out of the line of fire as it pulled away. As in diving
alone was not enough. P-40 dive vs Zero dive, contemporary models, P-40 came out way
ahead and yet it is roll rate that completes the ability to escape, the ability to evade.
What I can't say is how long it took to get past guns range... I don't see that written.

Does the FW-190A4 have a bigger dive margin on any 1942 Spit VB more than P-40 to Zero?
I doubt it.

Maggi_4
01-03-2006, 10:30 AM
MaxGunz: Does the FW-190A4 have a bigger dive margin on any 1942 Spit VB more than P-40 to Zero?
I doubt it.

Nohttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
It's also an FM bug which should be correctedhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Last time an AI MiG-3 UD closed upon me in my A4 in a 45 degrees diving from speed energy...I started to dive at about 2000m

Ratsack
01-03-2006, 05:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Maggi_4:

Last time an AI MiG-3 UD closed upon me in my A4 in a 45 degrees diving from speed energy...I started to dive at about 2000m </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

G'day Maggi_4,

I don't understand what you're getting at here. Can you elaborate?

Ratsack

p1ngu666
01-03-2006, 06:30 PM
AI have dodgy FM, and no dive limits

WWMaxGunz
01-03-2006, 08:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Maggi_4:
MaxGunz: Does the FW-190A4 have a bigger dive margin on any 1942 Spit VB more than P-40 to Zero?
I doubt it.

Nohttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
It's also an FM bug which should be correctedhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Last time an AI MiG-3 UD closed upon me in my A4 in a 45 degrees diving from speed energy...I started to dive at about 2000m </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IRL I don't believe that the FW190A4 had more dive margin over any 1942 SpitVB (we have one
incorrectly labelled as 1941 -- should be mid-1942 according to Oleg so forget pushing for
1941 SpitVB specs) than P-40's had over contemporary models of Zero. They REALLY had to
do more than just dive away if the enemy was close behind.

So there's the P-40 better able to escape a Zero in a dive than that FW from that SpitVB
and the P-40 still needed faster roll to evade all the way down. Standard tactic to dive
in a spiral to avoid getting shot up by pursuit, BT-F-ing-W. You do that or just straight
dive?

MiG-3UD was a very fast plane as well. You should do more reading perhaps.

If you don't work CEM, esp prop pitch right then your plane will dive slower.
If you don't keep the flight coordinated then your plane will dive slower.
If you don't keep your plane trimmed then your plane will dive slower.

Personally from what I've read from you, Maggi, you are not any expert pilot anyway so why
should I believe your results are the best the sim models can do?

I've read the conclusions from the ADFU trials and really, you've got no point.
Just because it don't match your interpretation or you can't make it do so isn't any proof
of some big problem. So far it only proves that SOME people think there is a big problem
and as of yet NONE of those can attach anything like solid data to show it. We've even
had not once but twice the "all planes dive the same" campaign by people with even more
than you've shown, but they all claim to the sacredness of their vision of that ADFU report.

A P-47 and an FW dive from 10,000 to 3,000 ft starting at appx 400 kph and side by side.
It took the P-47 all 7,000 ft down to catch the FW in a 65 degree dive. The P-47 was noted as
going "much faster" when it caught up to the FW and had a better angle of pullout... all of
which happened at the BOTTOM of the dive, aka the pullout. 7,000 ft down at 65 degree dive
is a good bit over 7,000 ft of flight path and hey there's too many "the sim don't dive right"
fans who write as if the P-47 should just blow away from the FW in less than half that easy.
At least until they're faced with that report and then they hedge like mad.

There's some other details given by the folks at the ADFU but do you care for those? Power
settings, like that? Hint: they favor the heavier plane and it still didn't magically pull
away in 1000m or less drop.

Ratsack
01-03-2006, 08:59 PM
Yep. You is right. Be sure.

Ratsack

WWMaxGunz
01-04-2006, 01:01 PM
The trouble is I don't have the data to "be sure" exactly how the dives should go.
Love to see it though, all I can get are clues like the AVG FAQ and what.

From Oleg I got that in the case of the P-47 vs FW 10,000 to 3,000 ft dive, the
speed difference was in the 20 to 30 kph range, appx 15 mph difference. Watch one
car pass another with that speed difference and see if it ain't going "much faster".

The people making claims about dive accelerations should be more different are very
good at not making definite claims like so-many-meters-in-so-many-seconds as well.
Nothing they read tells them any of that. It falls to interpretations of descriptive
terms which is what we see time and again tied with the word "wrong"... which I read
as imagination at work, the kind that makes Hollywood and TV scripts.
It's been pointed out already that to dive past guns range quickly has to take more
than gravity plus thrust when both planes are contemporary or anywhere near that so
I ~can~ "be sure" we won't see many definite claims that that should happen, just
indefinite claims that amount to the same helping of enhanced potting soil.

EDIT to ADD: Since the FM can only be so close overall, there's always something to
pick at and worry away on. How far is it off is the hard question.

Kwiatos
01-05-2006, 03:51 AM
I wonder how truly fast was Fw190 A3/A4 expacially at sea level? I checked many books and monographs but dint find nothing interesting. Only i find these:

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

Fw190 with BMW 801D and 3850 kg combat weight reach:
sea level - ab 560 km/h
ab 6 km - ab 670 km/h

In game A-4 with 1.42 Ata reach only 540 km/h at sea level.

Other question is when and which Fw 190 series have incrased boost from 1.42 to 1.65?


So how fast should be Fw190 A3 and A4?

WWMaxGunz
01-05-2006, 05:34 AM
When was the in-game 190A-4 changed from de-rated to full 1.42 capability?
It =was= 1.35, wasn't it?

EDIT: and doing some quick math, 560/540 = 1.037037... is saying 560 is 540 + under 4% of 540.
So I guess it was changed or something, like the speed is a bit high. This sim being NOT ON
RAILS, that's pretty close right there. "But, but 20 kph is critical!" I might feel different
if that was the only factor for the planes, but it's not. Personally I'm more concerned with
climbs and stalls and the ability to do things at 90+% power I can't really say I should be
able to do. Trouble is, I keep finding things that say maybe I should. Well, there's always
the DM's with not all planes to the same level of detail, right?

CMHQ_Rikimaru
01-05-2006, 07:50 AM
WWMaxGunz - u are interested about stalls? So i can guess that u fight in FW190 with stall style hheheheheh.
As soon as FW190 and P47 cannot outdive and cannot better zoom climb(P51 also) than maaaaaaaaaaaaany many planes, this game will be biased to turn fighters. Dive and zoom climb are one of the most critical abilities for energy fighters, but here not.

Edit1: 20kph is very much, especially when La5FN have 585kph max speed:&gt;

Edit2Here in game we have FW190 A4 with engine blocked to 1.32 ata and 2400RPM. In rl emergency setting was 1.42 ata and 2700RPM. Official wersion was 1.48 ata with wep, but water-methanol injection in A4 was rare.

faustnik
01-05-2006, 10:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
When was the in-game 190A-4 changed from de-rated to full 1.42 capability?
It =was= 1.35, wasn't it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The ATA guage reads 1.42, but, the rpm is at 2400rpm. There was no power setting 1.42ata@2400rpm it was 1.42ata@2700rpm. Oleg is aware of the problem but, because it is just a graphical guage issue, it is very low on the priority fix list. Maximum power and speeds in PF for the Fw190A4 are consistant with 1.32ata@2400rpm historical tests.

faustnik
01-05-2006, 10:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
water-methanol injection in A4 was rare. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, "rare" as in "non-existant" in operational use, at least as far as I have been able to find.

p1ngu666
01-05-2006, 11:06 AM
as rare as a 109z? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

had rare steak last night, which was nice http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

read about food production later, that wasnt http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

faustnik
01-05-2006, 11:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
as rare as a 109z? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, not that rare. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kwiatos
01-05-2006, 02:50 PM
But still dont know how fast should be serial A3 and A4 ( and at which power setting)?

Ratsack
01-05-2006, 03:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CMHQ_Rikimaru:
...
As soon as FW190 and P47 cannot outdive and cannot better zoom climb(P51 also) than maaaaaaaaaaaaany many planes, this game will be biased to turn fighters. Dive and zoom climb are one of the most critical abilities for energy fighters, but here not.


... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The FW190A does outdive the Spitfire. Read my long post above, and have a look at the graphs.

cheers,
Ratsack

CMHQ_Rikimaru
01-05-2006, 03:28 PM
Yes I know, but u should practice reading, read tripple my posts before u post.

Jetbuff
01-05-2006, 05:56 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 WWMaxGunz:
When was the in-game 190A-4 changed from de-rated to full 1.42 capability?
It =was= 1.35, wasn't it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The ATA guage reads 1.42, but, the rpm is at 2400rpm. There was no power setting 1.42ata@2400rpm it was 1.42ata@2700rpm. Oleg is aware of the problem but, because it is just a graphical guage issue, it is very low on the priority fix list. Maximum power and speeds in PF for the Fw190A4 are consistant with 1.32ata@2400rpm historical tests. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And why do we have a derated version again? I hope it's not because the Russian front version was derated - this is no longer a Russian front sim only.

WWMaxGunz
01-05-2006, 07:47 PM
That's what we got. Butch2K posted the dates start and end of the derating which was not
just a month or two. We have 190A-4's from that period... errr, period.

No Riki, I don't fly any e-fighters close to stall except to find out where the stall is.
Speed is life. I want to turn, then I point the nose up or down and roll onto my vector.
Gravity makes an assist then as well. Or if I am not chased I might rise to lose best
speed and turn across the top of that still at 300+ kph. Some speed is lost but it is a
percent of the less speed and depends on how much I use roll and how much I use pitch.
Then I convert height back to speed and cover the loss with thrust. Fighting becomes how
I match my swoops to the other plane and patience not to blow it going for opportunities
just a bit outside my cone of clean angles. If I get greedy or impatient then I lose.
When I fly against planes with speed advantages over me, I try and pull that one into
going for the stupid turns for shots. The phrase "Energy for Angles" sums it up nice.
But then, I learned that long ago on other sims and at other forums.

What you expect for dive differences? How long to get how far ahead in what?
Put some numbers on it. Oh wait, where do you find such information anyway?
Not in the Cliffs Notes conclusions at the ends of ADFU reports.

Kwiatos
01-06-2006, 04:19 AM
Faustnik is any chance that we will have normal Fw 190 A-4 with 1.42 Ata and 2700 RPM in future patch? For me the simple way is change our derated A-4 to A-3 (1.35 ata and 2400rpm like in Faber test)) and make normal A-4 with 1.42ata with 2700 rpm.